Optimum CR spread in Monster Books.

[Upper_Krust]

Hi all!

I was talking to a DM friend of mine the other day about the next Creature Collection book from Sword & Sorcery Studios when he commented that even though he quite liked the first two books, when he looks through them, he has trouble finding any monsters to challenge his party (who are in around 11th-level or so IIRC).

This got me thinking about the percentage of monsters of a certain CR in various monster books, and what would be the optimum breakdown of what you could consider fractional; low; mid and high-level monsters in such a book. In a sense we are trying to find how to please all of the people all of the time.

While typically Low/Mid/High-level PCs are generally rated as follows:

Low: 1st-6th
Mid: 7th-12th
High: 13th+

For monsters I think the following is more appropriate:

Fractional: Obvious
Low: CR 1-9
Mid: CR 10-18
High: CR 19+

Feel free to argue with this pidgeon-holing.

Here are how four monster books breakdown into those component parts:

(Incidently for the following I ignored Dragons with multiple Age Categories)

Creature Collection 1:
Fractional: 14%
Low: 69%
Mid: 8%
High: 1%

Creature Collection 2:
Fractional: 8%
Low: 81%
Mid: 9%
High: 0.5%

Monster Manual 2:
Fractional: 4%
Low: 59%
Mid: 29%
High: 8%

Fiend Folio:
Fractional: 7%
Low: 54%
Mid: 35%
High: 4%

If anyone wants to post the breakdowns of other Monster books, feel free to do so.

From the above we can see that the Creature Collections practically ignore High-level play and have (roughly) ten times* (!) as many Fractional/Low-level monsters as they do Mid-level Monsters.

*

By contrast the Monster Manual 2 and Fiend Folio have about double as many Fractional/Low-level Monsters as they do Mid-level. They both also have at least a handful of High-level Monsters.

So what do the rest of you think is the optimum breakdown? Are the Creature Collections stacked too much towards Low-level play? Do WotCs pair have too many High-level Monsters? How do the Monster books from other companies compare?

 

[alsih2o]

i think someone should publish monster books at at cr levels instead of trying to cover the spectrum.

with passabel art and good coverage i think LOTS of people would like to buy a monster book of just cr fractional to 5, then later, cr6-12 and so on. feel free to jostle the numbers wherever you want for hi-mid-lo, but make abook of cr range mosters.

i have never used anything over cr14, but i pay for them. i know some people always start high, even epic and i think they woudl like a monster book aimed at them.

just a thought, but i think it could be done successfully.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi alsih20 mate!

i think someone should publish monster books at at cr levels instead of trying to cover the spectrum.

with passable art and good coverage i think LOTS of people would like to buy a monster book of just cr fractional to 5, then later, cr6-12 and so on. feel free to jostle the numbers wherever you want for hi-mid-lo, but make abook of cr range mosters.

i have never used anything over cr14, but i pay for them. i know some people always start high, even epic and i think they woudl like a monster book aimed at them.

just a thought, but i think it could be done successfully.

So (reading between the lines), are you saying the spread doesn't matter so long as it is clearly advertised what the spread is?

But would you not say that most people are looking for a good spread of CRs when they buy such a book?

 

[Voadam]

Hi alsih20 mate!



So (reading between the lines), are you saying the spread doesn't matter so long as it is clearly advertised what the spread is?

But would you not say that most people are looking for a good spread of CRs when they buy such a book?

I'd say most people who buy monster books have the MM as a base and want to add new material to their games, either themed or a new generic mix.

Themed books would be like Into the Green(forest), Armies of the Abyss(demons), or Denizens of Dread(horror), while generic ones would be things like Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary or Gaming Frontiers Monsters, collections with a spread of different things.

A Generic one with a specific CR spread could work fine as a different kind of theme.

 

[alsih2o]

Hi alsih20 mate!



So (reading between the lines), are you saying the spread doesn't matter so long as it is clearly advertised what the spread is?

But would you not say that most people are looking for a good spread of CRs when they buy such a book?

sorta. clearly advertised and narrow.

a book of cr fraction to cr 5. then a different book of cr6-cr12, you know for folks who usually run in a certain lvl range.

i think spread matters a lot, but narrowing the spread may eb what matters.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Voadam mate!

I'd say most people who buy monster books have the MM as a base and want to add new material to their games, either themed or a new generic mix.

Themed books would be like Into the Green (forest), Armies of the Abyss(demons), or Denizens of Dread (horror), while generic ones would be things like Penumbra Fantasy Bestiary or Gaming Frontiers Monsters, collections with a spread of different things.

A Generic one with a specific CR spread could work fine as a different kind of theme.

Most generic compendiums are 'book' sized whereas the more specific compendiums are 'supplement' sized.

Does this mean that CR specific products should be supplement sized and by contrast that all book sized compendiums should cover a good spread of CRs?

This makes us question something like the Creature Collections whereby they are book sized but only cover a limited spread of CRs?

Does anyone out there have the Monsternomicon? I have been interested in getting that book (judging by the good reviews). I am curious how the CRs are brokedown.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi alsih2o mate!

sorta. clearly advertised and narrow.

a book of cr fraction to cr 5. then a different book of cr6-cr12, you know for folks who usually run in a certain lvl range.

i think spread matters a lot, but narrowing the spread may eb what matters.

I definately think the idea has merit. Its amazing we have never seen this before* now (although you could argue the Creature Collections are dominated by low-level monsters).

*At least not advertised.

 

[the Jester]

I think Alsih2o's idea is cool, but the books'd have to be pretty cheap for me to invest in them. If I spend $30 on a book o' monsters, I want to be able to use it in any game, high level or low.

I'd also change the spread a little. I know you have your own system for CRs and whatnot, but using the WotC system, this is how I'd break it down (in terms of classifying monsters):

Very Low- CR 1 or less
Low- CR 2-6
Medium- CR 7-14
High- CR 15-20
Epic- CR 21+

Furthermore, a number of weirdo critters don't really fit as 'monsters' per se (like symbionts and stuff like that), they're almost more like equipment.

Anyway, personally I like to see a spread about like this:

Very Low- 15%
Low- 35%
Medium- 35%
High- 14%
Epic- 1% (but a solid 1%!)

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi the Jester mate!

I think Alsih2o's idea is cool, but the books'd have to be pretty cheap for me to invest in them. If I spend $30 on a book o' monsters, I want to be able to use it in any game, high level or low.

Thats why I proffered the idea of the 'generic monster book' versus the 'specific monster supplement'.

I'd also change the spread a little. I know you have your own system for CRs and whatnot,

Nevermind that now, I get enough banter on that over in the House Rules Forum.

but using the WotC system, this is how I'd break it down (in terms of classifying monsters):

Very Low- CR 1 or less
Low- CR 2-6
Medium- CR 7-14
High- CR 15-20
Epic- CR 21+

The reason I made it the way I did was to firstly accomodate monsters up to CR 28 (from non-epic sources), which are technically not epic monsters.

Secondly, the CRs denote moderate encounters and assumes average PCs and strong DMing of the monster. I would argue the typical is more likely to see Strong PCs and average DMing of the monster.

Furthermore, a number of weirdo critters don't really fit as 'monsters' per se (like symbionts and stuff like that), they're almost more like equipment.

Anyway, personally I like to see a spread about like this:

Very Low- 15%
Low- 35%
Medium- 35%
High- 14%
Epic- 1% (but a solid 1%!)

I could live with that...maybe a touch heavier on the Epic at the expense of the Very Low, but thats just me.

 

[Numion]

I'd like to see more mid- to high-CR monsters, as those tend to be more intresting than yet _another_ 0.1-1 CR humanoid race. Well, you can boost the humanoid races with class levels and make them more intresting, but that you can also do to higher-CR monsters.

Another reason for favoring more mid+ CR creatures is that adventurers tend to encounter low-CR hordes at lower levels, but at higher levels the enemies are likely to be made up of just a few big nasties. (Like in Sunless Citadel there are large kobold and goblin tribes but in Bastion of Broken Souls the enemies are very specialized and unique.(I don't think I spoiled much with that )) This means, IMO, that more variety is needed at higher levels, and thus more different monsters are also needed. At lower levels it's ok to use lots of the same kind.

I hope you understand what I mean. More mid-high CR baddies!