Is Polymorph responsible for the lack of high CR beasts?

[LordEntrails]

They also haven’t been inventing many new creatures. ...

...It seems like they could make Legendary beasts and include in the entry that polymorph/shapechange/wild shape based on the LB only gives you the regular beast. They could pretty easily create higher CR beasts that way without unintended consequences.
...

I think WotC has made it pretty clear that they are not just going to put together a bunch of monsters to fill in any perceived missing or lacking areas. They expect the community to do that as we are quite capable. I only expect Wizards to create new stuff that fits in with some theme or adventure they are doing.

So, if they do Dinosaur Island, then I expect to see lots of dino's. Or if they do Bird Island, then lots of birds. You get it

 

[Satyrn]

Yeah, I made mine a sea creature because everything's bigger in the surf.

But they left themselves plenty of room to work with, but chose not to fill it.
Only thing I can think of is for balance, which means the Druid and Polymorph.

I'd bet a lot of money is not because of balance issues. I mean, 5e isn't finely balanced to begin with, but more importantly than that: If it was finely balanced, the druid and Polymorph would have been carefully designed around the possibility of high CR beasts.

After all, a finely balanced 5e ruleset would have to take into account the fact 5e encourages homebrew and therefore such creatures theoretically exist.

So, I think the reason there are no high CR beasts is simply that the designers didn't have any they wanted to include. But if there had been interesting beasts that they liked, those beasts would be in the Monster Manual.

 

[5ekyu]

I'd bet a lot of money is not because of balance issues. I mean, 5e isn't finely balanced to begin with, but more importantly than that: If it was finely balanced, the druid and Polymorph would have been carefully designed around the possibility of high CR beasts.

After all, a finely balanced 5e ruleset would have to take into account the fact 5e encourages homebrew and therefore such creatures theoretically exist.

So, I think the reason there are no high CR beasts is simply that the designers didn't have any they wanted to include. But if there had been interesting beasts that they liked, those beasts would be in the Monster Manual.

i strongly disagree with the bold... a system assessment for balance (or much anything) cannot be asked to take into account homebrew or house rules - that is an impossible standard to meet.

No game system can account for me choosing to change regular dagger damage to 100 times that of a greatsword or add in an icepick that does that.

Assesment of system balance that has to include homebrew turns that assessment meaningless.

 

[plisnithus8]

Winter wolves might be the sole exception.

Winter wolves are monstrosities.
You have non-earth beasts like flying snakes or monkeys or eagles that understand language.
You even have cranium rats with psychic powers that are beasts.
You have beasts like Tressym, Rothe', and Stench Kows with at least semi-magical abilities.

 

[Jester David]

I think WotC has made it pretty clear that they are not just going to put together a bunch of monsters to fill in any perceived missing or lacking areas. They expect the community to do that as we are quite capable. I only expect Wizards to create new stuff that fits in with some theme or adventure they are doing.

So, if they do Dinosaur Island, then I expect to see lots of dino's. Or if they do Bird Island, then lots of birds. You get it

Does Tomb of Annihilation count as “dinosaur island”?

 

[Satyrn]

i strongly disagree with the bold... a system assessment for balance (or much anything) cannot be asked to take into account homebrew or house rules - that is an impossible standard to meet.

No game system can account for me choosing to change regular dagger damage to 100 times that of a greatsword or add in an icepick that does that.

Assesment of system balance that has to include homebrew turns that assessment meaningless.

That's some weird homebrew.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

I think the absence of any animals that are stronger than a frikkin' Tyrannosaurus Rex is responsible for the lack of high-CR beasts!

Seriously, the Tyrannosaurus it pretty much the optimal apex predator you can create without violating the laws of physics, and once you do that you're in the realm of Monstrosities and Abberations, not Beasts.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Even if you where to create a Giant T-Rex, it would still just be a great big sack of hp. It's pretty much impossible for a monster to be truly challenging without magical-type abilities, which beasts, pretty much by definition, tend not to have.


If you consider the Indominous Rex from Jurassic World, that still wouldn't be all that challenging for a high level party, and is it even still a beast, or has it become a monstrosity?

 

[Yunru]

I can see quite a few ways to go beyond a T-Rex.
Flying alone adds +2 effective AC (for +0.5 total CR), up to CR 10.
Some sort of chameleon skin for invisibility would be +4 attack roll modifier and +4 AC, for +2 challenge.
Adding a swallow ability would also make it more strategically challenging.

Although I can't see all of those together on the same creature.

 

[Leatherhead]

You could also add a deadly sonic attack like a Sperm Whale.