Ranked by treasure
Posted: Mon May 04, 2020 5:04 pm
Has there ever been an attempt to rank official monsters from "those that give more treasure" to "those that give less treasure"? Or from "those that give more treasure per XP point gained for killing it" to "those that that give more treasure per XP point gained for killing it"? (The tarrasque for instance probably ranks high in the first list, but it takes so much to kill a tarrasque that it probably ranks last in the second list)
I am tempted to do exactly that with the monsters I downloaded from way back machine's content (its lomion archive) but I would also factor those from the standard monster manual... However I think that I don't need this ranking enough to do the effort considering I have to check monsters, check letters, check the XP they give for defeating them, check the range of wealth their treasure is worth and maybe check the range of wealth their corpses are worth... And I don't know if I should really do it, considering I am still rearranging the same encyclopedia into categories (undead on one side, steeds on others, dinos on other, outer planars on other arranged by alignment, etc.) and some entries seem incomplete...
What do ya think 'bout this endeavour?
I am tempted to do exactly that with the monsters I downloaded from way back machine's content (its lomion archive) but I would also factor those from the standard monster manual... However I think that I don't need this ranking enough to do the effort considering I have to check monsters, check letters, check the XP they give for defeating them, check the range of wealth their treasure is worth and maybe check the range of wealth their corpses are worth... And I don't know if I should really do it, considering I am still rearranging the same encyclopedia into categories (undead on one side, steeds on others, dinos on other, outer planars on other arranged by alignment, etc.) and some entries seem incomplete...
What do ya think 'bout this endeavour?