Optimum CR spread in Monster Books.

[Gez]

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?

Well, no. Why?

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

Yeah, for example.

The size should depends uniquely of the number of creatures.

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.

Run-down:
CR: Number of creatures
Fractional: 8
1: 12
2: 9
3: 6
4: 7
5: 5
6: 13
7: 6
8: 2
9: 7
10: 2
11: 4
12: 3
15: 1
20: 1
25: 1
49: 1
60: 1
66: 1

CR Boost: Number of template
+1: 9
+2: 5
+3: 1
+4: 1

 

[Gez]

Somehow, I'm picturing a hackmaster-like encyclopedia of monsters.
Volume 1: CR 1/2 and less
Volume 2: CR 1
Volume 3: CR 2
...

 

[Impeesa]

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*

Well, to rip off someone else's quote, "If it isn't 100 feet tall, 1000 years old, and moving mountains with its mind, it's not Krusty." [credit to Bob Fitch, originally referring to partner-in-crime Chris Metzen].

--Impeesa--

 

[Pants]

Have a look at the monsters by type at the start of the Fiend Folio.

However, how many have the Extraplanar subtype?

I think the current spread of the MM3.5 is a good spread, with maybe a bit more focus on higher CR/Epic stuff.

 

[Nightfall]

Well, to rip off someone else's quote, "If it isn't 100 feet tall, 1000 years old, and moving mountains with its mind, it's not Krusty." [credit to Bob Fitch, originally referring to partner-in-crime Chris Metzen].

--Impeesa--

LOL! Yeah well that's Krusty for you. But we all love the old mug.

 

[Clint]

Nice subject, Upper_Krust.

I like lower CR creatures because you can always advance them through hit-die advancement, add templates to them, or give them class levels to make them tougher. A game can use a weaker base creature across the playing board, but a strong base monster can only be used in really high-level games.

So I like the way that it is now, I guess.

-Clint

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Nightfall mate!

Some how I'm not surprised by this.

10 Submissions. I would have prefered sending more but these are pretty tight.

What about yourself?

True but toss out five or six of those puppies, you got some SERIOUS trouble for mid level and even on occasion, high level parties.

While a plausible short term excuse, that sort of trick is eventually found wanting.

I can see that Krusty mate

I can fully understand why they changed the Crown Naga, but I still for the life of me can't fathom why they changed the Moon Daemon!? I mean why go from something original to something derivitive!?

Mm good point. I will say SINGLEY he's correct. But toss out say like four, fight or six of the daemons, demons and even a Dark Womb combined with a Deepspawn, fun previals.

Certainly multiple Low-Level monsters can shore up the gaps in Mid-level campaigns. But that is still only a temporary solution and one which still does not solve the deficit in High-level monsters.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hello again mate!

Double post (that's what I get for posting with a 2-year-old sitting on my lap).

Monsternomicon (by my count, which involved quickly flipping through the book as there is no index by CR)

Fractional: (8) 8%
CR 1-9: (69) 75% (although there are several CR 9)
CR 10-18: (11) 12%
CR 19+: (5) 5% (includes 3 dragons with CR 49, 60, and 66)

Appreciate the help dude!

CR 66 you say, interesting. Is it as powerful as a Great wyrm Prismatic Dragon I wonder?

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi CRGreathouse mate!

Do you really think I have? You listed four categories (fractional, low, medium, high), and I listed one more (low, mid-low, mid-high, high, epic). The only essential differences between our lists: I split high into 'high' and 'epic', and I combined your fractional and lower-end low.

I think that CR 1/3 and CR 2 should be in the same category, as the same kinds of groups use both in similar amounts, in my experience.

To be fair I just didn't want to get bogged down in debating the finer points of what is pretty much an arbitrary and subjective assessment anyway.

But I don't want to spoil such fun for the rest of you!

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Wicht mate!

I could be wrong, but I thought that the general low CR trend was deliberate. The reasoning was that each monster listed in the MM1 was the weakest example of its kind. Yet almost every monster had the ability to be ratcheted up (as a few have mentioned already). Granted this is not as easy as just using the monster verbatim from the rule book, but when it comes to higher level play I find that the higher the PC level, the more work the adventure design is anyway.

Wouldn't that mean you would appreciate a few more High-level Monsters in your books then?