CR variance [Archive] - Wizards Community

CR variance [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Tony111
01-27-06, 01:46 PM Assuming that the 3.5MM has balanced CRs, has anyone else noticed that the FF seems to have weaker creatures at the same CR, the MM2 seems to have weaker creatures for the same CR, while the MM3 has more powerful monsters at the same CR.

Lethality (in decreasing order)
MM3
Core MM
FF
MM2

Therefore the CR 12s, for example, in the MM3 would be a lot nastier than the CR1 12s in the MM2.

This is my observation. Has anyone else observed this also?

-Tony
Spike_Fightwicky
01-27-06, 01:54 PM I've noticed the MM II has some huge fluctuations.

For example: The pheonix (IMO) is WAY underpowered. 150 HP at CR 24???? Yuck... Hellfire Wyrm a CR 26? Compare him to the Epic level handbook CR 26s (or eve CR 27s) and it's like a piddly baby. Meanwhile, the nimblewright is a VERY challenging CR 7 (I think it's 7) and the Sylph is quite deadly at CR 5. There's very little balanced monsters in there...

MM 3 has some interesting monsters. I didn't find them over the top lethal in their own right, but many of them can be played quite strategically to TPK (like the little bug that makes everyone rage uncontrollably).

FF had some interesting monsters, but nothing overly brutal. I found the golems to be awesome in concept, but weak for their CR.
dok
01-27-06, 02:29 PM The MM2 has CRs wrong in both directions. Spike pointed out some of the underpowered monsters (I'd add the Famine Spirit to that list) and some of the overpowered monsters (I'd add the Immoth and Elemental Wierds to that list)

MM2 was also the first monster suppliment written for 3E rules after the Monster Manual, so there wasn't as much experience and practice behind the CRs. MM2 was also written under the 3.0 policy of being a stand-alone book; the monsters with CRs above 20 couldn't use or reference the Epic Rules, and psionic creatures couldn't use or reference rules from the Psionics Handbook.

Fiend Folio is another odd book. It was released at the very end of 3.0 and the very start of 3.5; as a result, several of the changed elements (like Energy Resistances, for example) lie somewhere inbetween 3.0 standards and 3.5 standards. Fiend Folio did a very good job of making monsters that could have class levels added (Ethergaunts, Varrignons) and I'd say had few overpowered monsters.

Given that multiple people contribute to a single monster manual, I don't think any generalization about the CRs versus the actual challenge will work; at best you can generalize about the level of game knowledge present at the time of publishing. (which is what I've done) I'm not as familliar with MM3, but I suspect that the creatures in it reflect the trend towards powergaming, and more powerful Prestige Classes being present in every party over 5th level. If I had to guess, I'd say that monsters across the board, but especially over CR 5 and more so for monsters over CR 10, are stronger and more min-maxed, because the designers saw players using stronger and more min-maxed PCs.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Tony111 01-27-06, 01:46 PM	Assuming that the 3.5MM has balanced CRs, has anyone else noticed that the FF seems to have weaker creatures at the same CR, the MM2 seems to have weaker creatures for the same CR, while the MM3 has more powerful monsters at the same CR. Lethality (in decreasing order) MM3 Core MM FF MM2 Therefore the CR 12s, for example, in the MM3 would be a lot nastier than the CR1 12s in the MM2. This is my observation. Has anyone else observed this also? -Tony
Spike_Fightwicky 01-27-06, 01:54 PM	I've noticed the MM II has some huge fluctuations. For example: The pheonix (IMO) is WAY underpowered. 150 HP at CR 24???? Yuck... Hellfire Wyrm a CR 26? Compare him to the Epic level handbook CR 26s (or eve CR 27s) and it's like a piddly baby. Meanwhile, the nimblewright is a VERY challenging CR 7 (I think it's 7) and the Sylph is quite deadly at CR 5. There's very little balanced monsters in there... MM 3 has some interesting monsters. I didn't find them over the top lethal in their own right, but many of them can be played quite strategically to TPK (like the little bug that makes everyone rage uncontrollably). FF had some interesting monsters, but nothing overly brutal. I found the golems to be awesome in concept, but weak for their CR.
dok 01-27-06, 02:29 PM	The MM2 has CRs wrong in both directions. Spike pointed out some of the underpowered monsters (I'd add the Famine Spirit to that list) and some of the overpowered monsters (I'd add the Immoth and Elemental Wierds to that list) MM2 was also the first monster suppliment written for 3E rules after the Monster Manual, so there wasn't as much experience and practice behind the CRs. MM2 was also written under the 3.0 policy of being a stand-alone book; the monsters with CRs above 20 couldn't use or reference the Epic Rules, and psionic creatures couldn't use or reference rules from the Psionics Handbook. Fiend Folio is another odd book. It was released at the very end of 3.0 and the very start of 3.5; as a result, several of the changed elements (like Energy Resistances, for example) lie somewhere inbetween 3.0 standards and 3.5 standards. Fiend Folio did a very good job of making monsters that could have class levels added (Ethergaunts, Varrignons) and I'd say had few overpowered monsters. Given that multiple people contribute to a single monster manual, I don't think any generalization about the CRs versus the actual challenge will work; at best you can generalize about the level of game knowledge present at the time of publishing. (which is what I've done) I'm not as familliar with MM3, but I suspect that the creatures in it reflect the trend towards powergaming, and more powerful Prestige Classes being present in every party over 5th level. If I had to guess, I'd say that monsters across the board, but especially over CR 5 and more so for monsters over CR 10, are stronger and more min-maxed, because the designers saw players using stronger and more min-maxed PCs.