No Frequency for Monsters?! (just noticed!)

[Thurbane]

I personally believe they are something that shouldn't have been dropped. Naturally a DM could disregard them if a creature is more or less common in his own campaign.

I guess now that we've got the CR system to hold our hands, DMs don't need to know how common creatures are any more.



(p.s. that was a joke for anyone who missed the smiley and has started writing an idignant reply defending the CR system)

 

[Felon]

OK, OK, I've only been playing the 3.0 and 3.5 systems for a few years, but I've just noticed this is one thing missing (or am I wrong?) from the Monster Descriptions that I believe was the *first* thing mentioned in the Monster descriptions in 1st edition AD&D--whether a Monster was Common, Uncommon, Rare or Very Rare...

Does this bother anyone else? It seems a bit odd to me that a new DM might look at the description and think (just to take monsters under the letter G) that Giants, Ghouls and Gargoyles are just as numerous as Goblins, Gnolls and Gnomes (actually I think Gnomes were "Rare" in the original Monster Manual)

I'm still trying to figure out what your point is. How does the Monster Manual know how common a gnoll or a troll is in my game, without any way to take into account whether or not I'm playing in Faerun, Eberron, Krynn, Barovia, or a homebrew setting?

In 3rd edition, the concepts of Challenge Rating and Encounter Level, as well as the general notion of competent adventure design, all dictate how likely players are to encounter a given monster.

 

[Thurbane]

So how about frequency in the "default" setting, along with the "default" gods etc etc.

I don't think it's a huge loss, but my personal preference would for it still to have been included. If nothing else, it was a good idea generator for DMs trying to populate homebrew worlds and their ecologies.

 

[amethal]

So how about frequency in the "default" setting, along with the "default" gods etc etc.

I don't think it's a huge loss, but my personal preference would for it still to have been included. If nothing else, it was a good idea generator for DMs trying to populate homebrew worlds and their ecologies.

I used to have hours of fun designing wandering monster tables. I think they used to use 1d8 + 1d12, which was presumably first edition.

However, I don't think DMs need to be told that orcs are more common than dragons, in Greyhawk or anywhere else. Either they already know that, or if they don't then it might make for an interesting campaign anyway.

Just reading the list of monsters in the monster manual should be enough to give you an idea.

 

[Plane Sailing]

OK, OK, I've only been playing the 3.0 and 3.5 systems for a few years, but I've just noticed this is one thing missing (or am I wrong?) from the Monster Descriptions that I believe was the *first* thing mentioned in the Monster descriptions in 1st edition AD&D--whether a Monster was Common, Uncommon, Rare or Very Rare...

It seems that a lot of people are giving you (mild) aggro over this, but I'm with you. I miss the frequency and I miss the morale level that they used to assign to all monsters.

It wasn't restrictive in any sense of the word for DMs IMO, but it gave an interesting element of guidance for new DMs or anyone who hadn't seen a monster before.

DMs can and always have used the frequency and morale that they fancy, but they can also change the HD or abilities or skill allocation or anything else in a stat block too (but I don't see anyone arguing that those shouldn't be included).

Frequency would also have an inestimable mechanical bonus too - it could be used to set the knowledge check DC for knowing something about creatures, rather than use the rather silly HD basis for figuring a knowledge check.

Cheers

 

[Henrix]

Frequency would also have an inestimable mechanical bonus too - it could be used to set the knowledge check DC for knowing something about creatures, rather than use the rather silly HD basis for figuring a knowledge check.

That is a very good point, actually.

However, I think that a frequency rating would only be relevant for lower CR monsters, and thus kind of pointless anyhow.
Any creature with a high challenge rating must be rare, or civilisations would hardly be able to exist.
At the lower end monsters could be of any challenge rating, but who wants a world where CR 12 monsters are "common"?

And how to count extraplanar beasties? Are dretches common, as there an awful lot of them, or are they less common because they're seldom seen on the material plane?

In the end I don't think frequencies add anything. Making up your own is, on the other hand, very easy.

 

[BSF]

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

Why would it? It is campaign specific after all. For example, my most recent homebrew didn't have any Orcs. At all. Which also eliminates all half-orcs.

Two campaigns back, I didn't have Elves or Orcs. Absolutely no half-races were allowed either. That campaign also had the PCs dealing with no less than 4 liches. Zombies were much rarer than ghouls, ghasts, wights, wraiths, shadows, morhgs, death knights, flayed men, frost wraiths, flaming skeletons, and a plethora of other undead.

I also make quite liberal use of chaos beasts and gibbering mouthers in some campaigns.

The point is that my campaign's 'frequency' is going to be different from yours. I assure you that as surprised as the PCs might be at individual monsters, they all made sense to be encountered in the numbers that they were in the context of that campaign.

 

[Hussar]

That is a very good point, actually.

However, I think that a frequency rating would only be relevant for lower CR monsters, and thus kind of pointless anyhow.
Any creature with a high challenge rating must be rare, or civilisations would hardly be able to exist.
At the lower end monsters could be of any challenge rating, but who wants a world where CR 12 monsters are "common"?

And how to count extraplanar beasties? Are dretches common, as there an awful lot of them, or are they less common because they're seldom seen on the material plane?

In the end I don't think frequencies add anything. Making up your own is, on the other hand, very easy.

QFT

I do admit though, I do miss the morale checks. Although, considering the flack the Knight takes, I could see all the "video gamey" cracks comming out about how monsters just randomly run away and how DM's are losing all their power in their game.

 

[Ghendar]

OK, OK, I've only been playing the 3.0 and 3.5 systems for a few years, but I've just noticed this is one thing missing (or am I wrong?) from the Monster Descriptions that I believe was the *first* thing mentioned in the Monster descriptions in 1st edition AD&D--whether a Monster was Common, Uncommon, Rare or Very Rare...

Does this bother anyone else?

Bother me? No, but I kinda miss it. Or rather the old grognard in me does. It was kind of helpful in determining just how common, or lack thereof a particular monster was.

However, as a DM I don't need this. If I want to make something rare, common instead because it fits my game world, then I'll do it.

 

[Ghendar]

QFT

I do admit though, I do miss the morale checks.

I miss those as well. I liked the random element they presented.