| Sentack |
One problem I have with the current batch of monsters available is that I tend to find the CL ranking very subjective at best. Orcs somehow getting listed as 1/3 CR alongside the Fire Beetle, is head scratching. Yet when you compare them, they seem to be built on a completely different scale. One that doesn't even make sense.
Has anyone taken the current rules on monster building and compared them to the older monsters found in the bestiary? My issue comes from the fact that a large number of the monsters are just broken in one way or another. From monsters with insane CMB's that are impossible to escape from, to others with broken damage for the level and other bizarre build concepts.
I think my concern is that while I enjoy fun and interesting monsters, I prefer things to be a little more consistent in the rating. While designing monsters this way might make for a more 'boring' stat block design, with less quirks and more predictability, I might prefer it over some of the problems I've seen with DM's having to do more or less pray or do some guess work in encounter design.
So has anyone started such a thing?