Is the Monster Manual 3 more difficult than the core MM?

[supermonkeyjoe]

I will preface this by saying that yes the CR system is broken, but is it broken more when regarding MM1 or 3?

O.k so I've run several monsters from the MM3 against my PCs and they have had severe difficulties against them, and comparing monsters of the same CR from the two books the ones from MM3 are definitely tougher for the CR

Looking at most monsters in the MM3 they have 20+ HD at Challenge Ratings where MM1 monsters would have 15 or so HD, some of them also seem to have ridiculous attacks like the huge storm elemental's Thunder and Lightning, 8d6 in a 60' spread and 16d6 electricity damage in a 120' line, both with a DC24 reflex save for half so 84 damage average if you get hit by both parts and then if anyone is within 10' it can shock for 8d4 as a free action 1/round, that seems like a lot for CR8, enough to kill most level 8 characters outright, or at least drop them to pretty low HP unless the party is prepared.

So the question is; are the MM3 creatures too tough for their CR, or are the MM creatures over CRed, or is it purely a case of optimisation?

[Jair Barik]

Well there are certainly some nasty beasts in MM3 but I wouldn't say they stray too far from the idea of 'CR', it is more a case of optimisation. Now the real offender is MM2 where pretty much every creature is either horrificly stronger than the CR suggests (I'm lloking at you Clockworks!) or horribly underpowered and likely to be butchered by parties who are a level below the CR, let alone equal to it.

[Keld Denar]

I like that MMIII has some monsters with more than a bianary attack mode. The things there actually have decent action economy, decent methods of combating difficult PCs that do things like Fly or use battlefield control. Nearly all of them have some sort of decent ranged option, be it a SLA, natural ranged attack (battlebriar), or other method of engaging foes at a difference. Heck, the worst problem with the Tarrasque is that it can only melee things in a relatively short melee range and that any Wizard over level 5 can escape it simply by moving upward. Thats poor design.

Yea, things in the MMIII are a little more intelligently designed, but I don't think this is a bad thing.

[supermonkeyjoe]

I see what you're saying Keld Denar, the MM3 is just better optimised, and I'm all for monsters that can hold their own. The trouble is that a well optimised CR13 beastie is a fair bit tougher than a non-optimised CR13. My problem may be that the group I play with is very much full of non-optimisers and so the Monster Manual 3 creatures that are optimised to be tougher and dish out more damage are in danger of mopping the floor with them :smallfrown:

[Jair Barik]

Really the MM3 is actually pretty good if you ask me. There are some particularly good additions to several of the creature types (plant and ooze spring to mind).

Ephemeral swarm and Dragon Eel are the main things that spring to mind for the books low points (if you have LM then the ephemeral swarm grants you a 3rd type of undead rat swarm.... The eel is just another addition to the category of big underwater predator alongside your krakens, dragon turtles, fiendish sharks and so on) but a lot of the other stuff has unique little aspects that make them fun for a DM to use and the book actually has some good alt critters as opposed to the later books where they banged some class levels on an orc and called it a new monster. The lizardmen for example give us blackscale and poisondusk lizardfolk which are small and large versions of regular lizardfolk with their own rules and abilities.

One of my favourite things about the book is that using it I ended up making a hedge maze dungeon that used creatures exclusively from the book with the sole exception of a hoard scarab swarm lurking at the bottom of a fountain amidst coins thrown in for wishes. Red cap gardners, killer flower patches, topiary golem minotaurs hidden amongst the mundane topiary statues that stealthily follow the arty coming off of their perches to stalk the dungeon (hilarious when the party return and find half the topiary's are nowhere to be seen).

[Keld Denar]

Oh, and tree goblin ninjas! Hai-ya!

[Jair Barik]

Didn't actually use those. Did have a battlebriar hiding in a compost heap though and was sorely tempted to have a hangman golem coiled up in a tool shed.

But the topiary guardians are by far the highlight of the book for me. Statues coming to life are almost cliche, garden ornaments are equal parts hilarious and unexpected.

[Lateral]

I love the MMIII mostly because it gives us Fleshrakers, the greatest low-level Wild Shape form and animal cohort ever and the theme for a character I'm building, and Living Spells, which are just winsauce.

[Greenish]

My problem may be that the group I play with is very much full of non-optimisers and so the Monster Manual 3 creatures that are optimised to be tougher and dish out more damage are in danger of mopping the floor with them :smallfrown:Use weaker monsters. Give them XP/loot as if they'd defeated something stronger, if you feel like it. Balancing monsters and PCs is very much a matter of eyeballing, and since you've noticed a consistent trend (MMIII monsters do better against your party than MMI analogues) you can anticipate it.

Poison Dusk Lizardfolk are very cool.

[Safety Sword]

Didn't actually use those. Did have a battlebriar hiding in a compost heap though and was sorely tempted to have a hangman golem coiled up in a tool shed.

But the topiary guardians are by far the highlight of the book for me. Statues coming to life are almost cliche, garden ornaments are equal parts hilarious and unexpected.

Put them next to normal statues and watch your players faces as they come to life whilst they're all guarding against the statues.

Fun times.

[Runestar]

I find the MM3 monsters are more standardised in that you can expect them to have a certain amount of hp/AC/attack etc at a certain level. So they are more robust in that there aren't many obvious weaknesses you can exploit.

You are right in that pound for pound, quite a few of them are statistically superior than the equivalents in the MM. For example, I believe the cave troll can easily 1-shot even the toughest fighter on a charge. The drowned is a cr point lower, and the giants have better defenses overall. But not by much, so even an unoptimised party shouldn't be having too much trouble against them? :smallconfused:

[faceroll]

In my experience, MM3 monsters have more AC, HP, and do more damage per CR, but MM1 monsters get nastier SLAs/spells/abilities. MM3 special abilities are more standard, if you will, while stuff like a Mimic's stick or a Choker's Quickness is more unique.

An optimized party will have an easier time vs. higher CR creatures from MM3, imo, than they will against higher CR from MM1. Getting hit with Feeblemind before 10th level is a HUGE bummer, for instance. Getting hit for 3/4 your HP instead of 1/2 HP is less so.

I might be wrong, though.

[BlueInc]

Didn't actually use those. Did have a battlebriar hiding in a compost heap though and was sorely tempted to have a hangman golem coiled up in a tool shed.

But the topiary guardians are by far the highlight of the book for me. Statues coming to life are almost cliche, garden ornaments are equal parts hilarious and unexpected.

I read MMI-IV one summer years ago and I've been looking for a place to include these in a campaign ever since. Topiaries seem like such a prissy thing for the insanely wealthy. Having one hand you your posterior on a platter? The image is priceless.