Optimum CR spread in Monster Books.

[Particle_Man]

I would like to see more low creatures than high.

1) You can always 'bunch up' the low creatures to pump up the CR.

2) The world makes more sense if there are more (and more types of) low creatures than high. Otherwise, how would the low creatures have survived this long?

 

[Voadam]

Hey Voadam mate!



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.

Most but not all

GF Monsters is supplement sized but generic as is E-Minions.

MMII and FF are book sized but MMII was supposed to be themed as higher CR than MMI and FF was supposed to be outsider heavy.

Denizens of Darkness is book sized but themed for horror.

Higher CR base creatures are tougher to generate for monster ideas than mid level ones. In your system, for example, a top end unadvanced elemental (elder) at 24 HD and CR 11 comes out to a barely mid-level monster.

So I think generic ones are going to have fewer high CR monsters simply because most base monster ideas will not land there.

Of course most creatures can have their CR boosted by Adding HD, levels or templates, letting them enter your High CR range, but that takes a lot more effort than pulling a critter out of the book on the spur of the moment.

Sorry, Monsternomicon is one I don't have.

 

[Voadam]

what's the percentage breakdown for the MMI?

 

[Leopold]

now are we talking U_K's CR system or the 'normal' CR system here

on another note I want a book of 14+ Badazz monsters, the bigger the better the more i want it.

 

[Dimwhit]

I like to see more monsters in the CR8-14 range. I think those are among the toughest levels to challenge PCs, or at least when PCs are the most powerful (by my experience, anyway).

I like the idea of Monster books released for different CR levels.

 

[maddman75]

I personally like the current spread. When PCs get to high levels, I'll buff things up by adding either templates, numbers or class levels. Its much easier to make a group of orcs all barbarians to challenge a 15th level party. Its much more difficult to weaken a demon to challenge a 3rd level party.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I would split monster CRs differently:

Low: 2 and under -- some groups play low-level games exclusively, where CR 2 monsters (sometimes with levels) are all that's needed, while others skip the starting levels.
Middle-low: 3 - 8 -- the 'sweet spot' for many games; the focus of Living Campaigns IMO.
Middle-high: 9 - 15 -- more common thanks to 3E, though traditionally less popular; useful as a basis for high-level worlds (FR) and big baddies for lower-powered games
High: 16 - 25 -- anything that high-end, non-epic characters could face
Epic: 26+ -- requires an additional ruleset to play

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Numion mate!

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.

I think that higher CR creatures are more interesting because they have a greater 'possibility'.

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!

Absolutely.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Particle _Man!

I would like to see more low creatures than high.

1) You can always 'bunch up' the low creatures to pump up the CR.

2) The world makes more sense if there are more (and more types of) low creatures than high. Otherwise, how would the low creatures have survived this long?

Well (addressing your second point); the CR spread of a monster book does not determine monster frequency in a world.

I mean there are 10 dragons in the Monster Manual and but a single Orc; however you would imagine there are more Orcs in most campaign worlds than Dragons.

 

[Nightfall]

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?

Admit Krusty mate. You're just slightly irate they toned down your Crown Naga. Or at least didn't put in more of your higher level CR monsters. *is kidding*