There are a few general formatting differences between how monster stat blocks appear in the books, both the physical and digital formats, and how they appear on each monsters individual page. For an example, compare adult black dragon with the Black Dragon section in the Monster Manual. Here's a quick summary of how the stat block pages could be changed to better match the entries in the books:
Armor details listed in the Armor Class entry should never be capitalized, e.g., it should say "(natural armor)" instead of "(Natural Armor)".
Stat abbreviations in monster stat pages should only have the first letter capitalized, e.g., Dexterity should be abbreviated to Dex not DEX.
Damage types listed in the Damage Imunities, Damage Resistances, and Damage Vulnerabilities entries should never be capitalized.
Conditions listed in the Condition Immunities entry should never be capitalized.
Senses listed in the Senses entry should never be capitalized with the exception of the word Perception when listing a creature's passive Perception.
In the Languages entry, proper names of languages, such as Common or Elvish, should always be capitalized. However languages like telepathy and other entries such as "all" and "any two languages" shouldn't. The only odd duck I've ever found in the physical books is the language thieves' cant which shows up as "Thieve's cant" when listed as the first language in the stat block for the assassin in the MM but as "thieve's cant" when not listed as the first language in the master thief stat block in VGtM.
Also, the creature type/subtype entry for some monsters stat pages are abbreviated compared to their entries in the books, most notably for NPC (e.g., compare the acolyte page with the entry in the Monster Manual).
I don't think any of these are major issues, and perhaps they were done intentionally to make the stat blocks easier to read through. I just wanted to note the differences in case they weren't intentional and there was a desire to make the two match.
There are a few general formatting differences between how monster stat blocks appear in the books, both the physical and digital formats, and how they appear on each monsters individual page. For an example, compare adult black dragon with the Black Dragon section in the Monster Manual. Here's a quick summary of how the stat block pages could be changed to better match the entries in the books:
Armor details listed in the Armor Class entry should never be capitalized, e.g., it should say "(natural armor)" instead of "(Natural Armor)".
Stat abbreviations in monster stat pages should only have the first letter capitalized, e.g., Dexterity should be abbreviated to Dex not DEX.
Damage types listed in the Damage Imunities, Damage Resistances, and Damage Vulnerabilities entries should never be capitalized.
Conditions listed in the Condition Immunities entry should never be capitalized.
Senses listed in the Senses entry should never be capitalized with the exception of the word Perception when listing a creature's passive Perception.
In the Languages entry, proper names of languages, such as Common or Elvish, should always be capitalized. However languages like telepathy and other entries such as "all" and "any two languages" shouldn't. The only odd duck I've ever found in the physical books is the language thieves' cant which shows up as "Thieve's cant" when listed as the first language in the stat block for the assassin in the MM but as "thieve's cant" when not listed as the first language in the master thief stat block in VGtM.
Also, the creature type/subtype entry for some monsters stat pages are abbreviated compared to their entries in the books, most notably for NPC (e.g., compare the acolyte page with the entry in the Monster Manual).
I don't think any of these are major issues, and perhaps they were done intentionally to make the stat blocks easier to read through. I just wanted to note the differences in case they weren't intentional and there was a desire to make the two match.
Thanks for sharing this. The inconsistencies are a carryover from when these monster detail pages had the older format, and we have it on the list to address them.
There are a few general formatting differences between how monster stat blocks appear in the books, both the physical and digital formats, and how they appear on each monsters individual page. For an example, compare adult black dragon with the Black Dragon section in the Monster Manual. Here's a quick summary of how the stat block pages could be changed to better match the entries in the books:
Also, the creature type/subtype entry for some monsters stat pages are abbreviated compared to their entries in the books, most notably for NPC (e.g., compare the acolyte page with the entry in the Monster Manual).
I don't think any of these are major issues, and perhaps they were done intentionally to make the stat blocks easier to read through. I just wanted to note the differences in case they weren't intentional and there was a desire to make the two match.
samohtnnud should get the MVP award for Most Valued Poster, IMO.