No Frequency for Monsters?! (just noticed!)

[Crothian]

for populating dungeons, wilderness areas, and, when applicable, urban areas.

I've found that dispite not having this info I am still able to actually do this. I must be Superman!!

 

[EricNoah]

There are times when such a guideline might be handy, but it really is pretty setting specific.

 

[MerricB]

thankfully, there are new players out there who aren't already jaded--its just something that creeps in an destroys the wonder of the game--as to Craft: Dungeoneering, isn't that just the silliest idea ever for a skill to learn? Unless one is running some sort of jokey comic book style game, maybe akin to Order of the Stick

Given there is no Craft: Dungeoneering skill, I wonder what you're talking about.

 

[taliesin15]

oh yeah, it's Knowledge: Dungeoneering...whatever, seems silly to me

and, like I intimated in my original post, DMs of course can design as they want, however, I still have a concern over whether no sense of how common a creature is might skew the game

 

[danzig138]

however, I still have a concern over whether no sense of how common a creature is might skew the game

What game? My game? Your game? Psion's game? How is the lack of frequency skewing a game? So what if Crothian has more giants than what you think should be there? I'm sorry, but I'm just really not seeing the problem here. I never used tyhe frequency values, and thinking about it now, I wonder how many beginning DMs may have skipped an encounter they thought would be cool because they weren't able to get the right percentage and hadn't yet grokked the idea that they could put whatever monsters wherever they wanted?

Nope. I don't miss frequency. Or Morale. New players probably won't miss them either, and if old players do miss them, they can always use the old values. I don't use the system anymore, but I still have all my 2E Monstrous Compendiums and some 1E books. I doubt I'm the only person who has held on to those books.

 

[painandgreed]

Ya, it bugs me. I've looked for it several times while trying to make up encounter charts and such. Since its not there, I just have to make them up myself and it would have been much easier to alter something that was already written out than make up a whole new monster attribute from scratch for everything. At least the put in an Evnironment listing which is more useful. Like all, of 3.x, the designers were all two steps forward, one step back.

 

[Crothian]

oh yeah, it's Knowledge: Dungeoneering...whatever, seems silly to me

Why? Shouldn't someone who goes in dungeons and studies them learn something and be able to gain info others don't?

and, like I intimated in my original post, DMs of course can design as they want, however, I still have a concern over whether no sense of how common a creature is might skew the game

THe default world is greyhawk, and the frequancy of monsters in Greyhawk doesn't help me if I'm running anything else. I find it simple enough to decide frequancy for myself the rare times I need to. Although with all the extra questioniable stuff they have for creatures these days I am suprised it is not back in the game.

 

[Kurashu]

How would that skew the game?

Fiends might be listed as rare and halflings as common. However, take a little jaunt to the Abyssal plane and you'll harldy run into a fiend but little halflings are abdundant?

It just gives freedom to the DM to make creatures as rare and common as he wants. If I really wanted to, I could make a tribe of Tarrasques. As a DM, I assert myself over the books.

 

[painandgreed]

Why? Shouldn't someone who goes in dungeons and studies them learn something and be able to gain info others don't?

Shouldn't it be Knowledge (Underdark), Knowledge (Underground Nature), or Knowledge (Caverns)? Seems that Knowledge (Dungeoneering) that includes spelunking as well as nautral things makes it more of a Profession skill than a knowledge. Spelunking probably shoud be covered under Survival just as most things related to adventuring in the widerness are instead of Knowledge (Nature). It would help, but that's what the synergy bonus is for. While I can see the existance of something like Knowledge(Subterranean Nature), it seems like it is presented and most people use it as Profession (Adventurer).

It just gives freedom to the DM to make creatures as rare and common as he wants. If I really wanted to, I could make a tribe of Tarrasques. As a DM, I assert myself over the books.

Well, a tribe of tarrasques would be altering the Organization of the monster which is listed in the book under a separate listing as "solitary". It would have nothing to do with the rarity. Rarity would involve how likely one is to run across that solitary or tribe of tarrasques. Obvisouly, you ability to asserty yourself over your books is not hapmered by the Organization listing, so it seems that the DM would also not be hampered by a Rarity listing. It would, however, exist as a resource for those that wanted it.

 

[Wik]

I used to love the monster frequencies - I used them to construct my encounter tables regularly. Actually, I still use those 2e random encounter tables (roll 2d12) over the d100 method of 3e. But, as for frequency.... No, I don't use that rule anymore.

One of the things I hated about frequencies back in 2e days (and something that no one really mentions) was that there was an abundance of "very rare" and "rare" critters out there, but the only "common" critters were goblins, orcs, cows, squirrels, dogs, peasants.... hell, even knights were "uncommon" or "rare". So, using the in-game frequencies, my tables would often be centred around "giant rat... peasant.... goblin raiding party.... deer.... cattle...."

I remember numerous times poring over my books, trying to fill in some monsters in my common category....they were surprisingly rare in the monster books, while the rare monsters were surprisingly common.