Monsters that are underpowered for their CR? Homebrew more accurate? What?

[kevin video]

So this has been bugging me for a while now, even more so with the inconsistency that I see between WotC and 3PP, and Monster Manual III. Does no one seem to understand their own creations? I see templates without LA. I see templates with LA that are incredibly low CR but ridiculously high LA. I see monsters with LA and monsters without LA, despite them being low HD creatures of intelligence. Then you've got templates and creatures alike that a ridiculously high CR that couldn't hold their own against a single PC in a one-on-one battle let along four, and then you've got creatures with a stupid low CR that could wipe the floor with 10 PCs of that level. How can there be that much inconsistency?

How is it WotC and most 3PP can't seem to get things right, yet regular people who homebrew and don't publish things from the ground up on their own are making more accurate creatures and templates? Is there a book somewhere that only we can read and publishers just straight up ignore? Now I know that there are definitely exceptions to the rules. Sometimes both sides of the coin are accurate or bonkers wrong. I still don't have a clue as to how weaker the Pathfinder tarrasque is a CR 25 yet the original 3.5 version is CR 20, and yet there are handbooks that tell you that both are probably CR 15 at best.

So, my main question is this: a) What determines the proper CR of a monster or template? b) Ignoring Savage Species, how does one figure out the proper LA for a template that can be put onto a PC?

Lastly, is there some kind of book for homebrewers that I'm not aware of that help determine all this?

[snakeman830]

Strangely, I think that the Tarrasque is indeed a CR 20, but for a different reason.  In a wild area with no civilization around for miles, then yeah, CR15 at best.  If it's actually rampaging through a city, then it gets a bit more difficult, assuming the PC's want to limit the damage caused.

It's not a threat to level 20 characters, but stopping it quickly can be rather difficult.

[bhu]

It's time and resources.  People paid for their work are paid to shit out content by a specific deadline, may or may not be familiar enough with the current state of the product, and may or may not care.  They're an underpaid functionary grinding out more stuff and receiving little to no recognition for it, and don't care about the game beyond it being a source of income. 

Homebrewers by contrast receive plenty of recognition if they do well, love the game enough to do it for free (and take the time and effort to keep current), and are under no deadline pressure.  They can playtest and revise as much as they damn well please as well.  In short not only do they have the time to do it right, they actually care about doing it right.  Because if they don't the scorn of the forum-mates will quickly alter their minds.   

[oslecamo]

So this has been bugging me for a while now, even more so with the inconsistency that I see between WotC and 3PP, and Monster Manual III. Does no one seem to understand their own creations? I see templates without LA. I see templates with LA that are incredibly low CR but ridiculously high LA. I see monsters with LA and monsters without LA, despite them being low HD creatures of intelligence. Then you've got templates and creatures alike that a ridiculously high CR that couldn't hold their own against a single PC in a one-on-one battle let along four, and then you've got creatures with a stupid low CR that could wipe the floor with 10 PCs of that level. How can there be that much inconsistency?

Actually, monster books got quite better over the years. The basic MM is pretty hit or miss, MM II is horrendous, but MM III, IV and V have much better consistency.

So, my main question is this: a) What determines the proper CR of a monster or template? b) Ignoring Savage Species, how does one figure out the proper LA for a template that can be put onto a PC?

a) The biggest problem with CR is that a monster can be engaged in a series of different ways. A troll is quite fearsome in closed quarters, but if you catch him in the open and with terrain advantage, he goes down like as smuk because he's slow and doesn't have ranged options. A succubbus isn't that dangerous in direct combat, but has crazy potential for intrigue, manipulation and social problems. As snakeman830 pointed out, one thing is finishing off a tarrasque in the open plains, another is stopping him from razing down a city full of mundane people while minimizing casualities.

I guess the only real solution would be splitting Challenge Rating into different kinds. "Dungeon CR" for trolls and the ilk, "Social CR" for stuff like the succubbus, "Skirmisher CR" for high mobility monsters, and "Disaster CR" for monsters that can cause a lot of collateral damage before they go down like the Tarrasque.

b)Again, it depends widely on the situation. Some abilities are pretty cool for NPCs, but quite dangerous if put in the hand of a PC that has party support and whatnot. Most monsters are exected to live some 5 rounds, PCs are expected to last a lot longer.

Lastly, is there some kind of book for homebrewers that I'm not aware of that help determine all this?

DMG. Part of the DM's job is knowing what makes a proper challenge and what doesn't, which strongly depends on the party and situation.

Because really, challenging a wizard that likes to throw around fireballs whitout metamagic is a completely different story than challenging the incantrix shadowcraft mage loaded with metamagic rods.