Did you know...

This is what happens when you let Colin McComb write your sourcebooks ... silly Paizo.

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

While I can't help you for stats, I'm pretty sure that's going to be a "redemption" of the piercer, the stalactite monster from old editions of D&D. :D

Sakai wrote:

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

While I can't help you for stats, I'm pretty sure that's going to be a "redemption" of the piercer, the stalactite monster from old editions of D&D. :D

Thanks for the answer, although I remember "piercer" as kind of a trap, a monster that drops on the group, hence the name. This one here seems to have no intention of dropping :)

This is my favourite explanation of flumphs ever.

Heh. This picture is not upside down.

Flumphs are the best.
I bet they're related to the Gweenies and can't see through pasta.

RE: the flumph entry...

Video proof of the interpretive dance or I'm calling bull-puckey!

I'm more in love with this product with every tidbit that I hear. Lava Children reproducing by consuming elementals? Tell me more...

Very nice. I'm looking forward to this.

Video proof of the interpretive dance or I'm calling bull-puckey!

I've got no video proof, but I can assure you Sutter choreographed and performed an interpretive dance explaining flumph migration in front of an audience in the hotel bar at PaizoCon.

Awesome.

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

This is a lurker above. Its stats, along with those for several other beasties, will be in Misfit Monsters Redeemed.

Gavgoyle wrote:

Video proof of the interpretive dance or I'm calling bull-puckey!

I've got no video proof, but I can assure you Sutter choreographed and performed an interpretive dance explaining flumph migration in front of an audience in the hotel bar at PaizoCon.

Is this story in any way related to a certain guitar and the fact that SKR couldn't walk straight for 3 days after Paizocon ?

Because I think that we've *puts on glasses* found our flumph *YEEEEEAAAHHHH* !

Heh. This picture is not upside down.

I'm glad someone laughed!

Mothman wrote:

Heh. This picture is not upside down.

I'm glad someone laughed!

Is that how it was submitted (the labeling that is)to the webmaster? Not sure if it's you or Gary who formats the posts :\

Edit: inserted the parenthetical statement.

[Wayne's World voice]I did not know that.[/Wayne's World voice]

Gavgoyle wrote:

Video proof of the interpretive dance or I'm calling bull-puckey!

I've got no video proof, but I can assure you Sutter choreographed and performed an interpretive dance explaining flumph migration in front of an audience in the hotel bar at PaizoCon.

I don't have a video but I have some pictures somewhere. I'll see about digging them up.

That'd rock, Sara. Thanks.

Just based on the really awesome illustration, I'd say that Misfit Monsters Redeemed will indeed redeem all of those critters!

I think we should all beware!

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

Just based on the really awesome illustration, I'd say that Misfit Monsters Redeemed will indeed redeem all of those critters!

I think we should all beware!

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

I am going out on a limb here, but are you using the -

"Beware" as in the EP by the Misfits?

Maybe just a cool coincidence.

I don't know, but if you walk among us into Earth AD you will witness the legacy of brutality. At least that's what my 20 eyes show me.

I don't know, but if you walk among us into Earth AD you will witness the legacy of brutality. At least that's what my 20 eyes show me.

Holy Moly!

Well, these reject fiends will make for a very violent world come this Halloween.

I think this an excellent project and a testament to the strength of Paizo's creative staff and contributors.

The_Minstrel_Wyrm wrote:

Just based on the really awesome illustration, I'd say that Misfit Monsters Redeemed will indeed redeem all of those critters!

I think we should all beware!

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

I am going out on a limb here, but are you using the -

"Beware" as in the EP by the Misfits?

Maybe just a cool coincidence.

Oh, hey there Auxmaulous... it is indeed a cool coincidence.

:) Dean (TMW)

....That the Duck-billed Platypus is sadly not appearing in this book.

....That the Duck-billed Platypus is sadly not appearing in this book.

Assuming you mean the thought eater... since he's pretty tied in with psionics, he's not one we really wanted to touch yet. At least, not until we've figured out how we're handling psioncis in the game.

We've already grandfathered a couple of psionic monsters into the game without bringing in psionics (the intellect devourer and the neothleid), and I'd rather not do many more until we know what being psionic actually means for a Pathfinder creature.

Any chance of that happening anytime soon? Because (totally off-topic) the way you've described Vudra so far, it feels like that is a part of the world that need some psionic rules, and I want me some Vudra.

Sakai wrote:

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

This is a lurker above. Its stats, along with those for several other beasties, will be in Misfit Monsters Redeemed.

Didn't they used to look like a cross between a manta ray and a mattress?

Any chance of that happening anytime soon? Because (totally off-topic) the way you've described Vudra so far, it feels like that is a part of the world that need some psionic rules, and I want me some Vudra.

Nope. We've got 2010 and 2011 pretty much all planned out. And a pretty good idea of 2012, which at this point does not include psionics.

F. Wesley Schneider wrote:

Sakai wrote:

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

This is a lurker above. Its stats, along with those for several other beasties, will be in Misfit Monsters Redeemed.

Didn't they used to look like a cross between a manta ray and a mattress?

When they're flying through the air, yes. When they're clinging to the ceiling, lying in wait, they fold up nice!

Snorter wrote:

F. Wesley Schneider wrote:

Sakai wrote:

Can anyone tell the name of the monster on the illustration, and where to find the stats ? Thanks

This is a lurker above. Its stats, along with those for several other beasties, will be in Misfit Monsters Redeemed.

Didn't they used to look like a cross between a manta ray and a mattress?

When they're flying through the air, yes. When they're clinging to the ceiling, lying in wait, they fold up nice!

The futon of monsters!

Nice work guys, I can't wait for this one. I just hope that the store in Idaho carries it.

Nope. We've got 2010 and 2011 pretty much all planned out. And a pretty good idea of 2012, which at this point does not include psionics.

Slightly off topic.. But any word on if Epic is looking like 2012?

James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. We've got 2010 and 2011 pretty much all planned out. And a pretty good idea of 2012, which at this point does not include psionics.

Slightly off topic.. But any word on if Epic is looking like 2012?

No word. And there wont' be much word at all as for what we're planning for 2012 for about a year, in fact. (We just announced the first 2011 hardcover a month ago at Paizocon, for example...).

Ughbash wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. We've got 2010 and 2011 pretty much all planned out. And a pretty good idea of 2012, which at this point does not include psionics.

Slightly off topic.. But any word on if Epic is looking like 2012?

No word. And there wont' be much word at all as for what we're planning for 2012 for about a year, in fact. (We just announced the first 2011 hardcover a month ago at Paizocon, for example...).

But if you were a betting man would it be good or bad odds (expecting no answer to that).

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

....That the Duck-billed Platypus is sadly not appearing in this book.

Assuming you mean the thought eater... since he's pretty tied in with psionics, he's not one we really wanted to touch yet. At least, not until we've figured out how we're handling psioncis in the game.

We've already grandfathered a couple of psionic monsters into the game without bringing in psionics (the intellect devourer and the neothleid), and I'd rather not do many more until we know what being psionic actually means for a Pathfinder creature.

Sorry it was a poor attempt at joke about your anti duckbilled stance. Nothing to do with psionics. Its also because the platypus rocks but that's just me.

James Jacobs wrote:

Ughbash wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Nope. We've got 2010 and 2011 pretty much all planned out. And a pretty good idea of 2012, which at this point does not include psionics.

Slightly off topic.. But any word on if Epic is looking like 2012?

No word. And there wont' be much word at all as for what we're planning for 2012 for about a year, in fact. (We just announced the first 2011 hardcover a month ago at Paizocon, for example...).

But if you were a betting man would it be good or bad odds (expecting no answer to that).

I am, unfortunately, not a betting man.

I do know that I really REALLY want to do an epic rules expansion to Pathfinder, and that if I have my way, we'll get those rules into print sooner than later. I don't make all the choices, though, and there are various other compelling reasons to schedule things the way we do. All, as it turns out, also great reasons why we don't promise books will be out that far in advance.

All I can say is that I'm VERY interested in doing a book that brings Pathfinder up to, say, level 36 or level 40. Which would probably NOT be called "Epic rules," by the way, but something else. (But would likely take elements from the current Epic level rules in the 3.5 SRD as a starting point.)

James Jacobs wrote:

The 8th Dwarf wrote:

....That the Duck-billed Platypus is sadly not appearing in this book.

Assuming you mean the thought eater... since he's pretty tied in with psionics, he's not one we really wanted to touch yet. At least, not until we've figured out how we're handling psioncis in the game.

We've already grandfathered a couple of psionic monsters into the game without bringing in psionics (the intellect devourer and the neothleid), and I'd rather not do many more until we know what being psionic actually means for a Pathfinder creature.

Sorry it was a poor attempt at joke about your anti duckbilled stance. Nothing to do with psionics. Its also because the platypus rocks but that's just me.

Oh! Right.

Since I didn't remember... that's a pretty good indicator of how devoted I am to my supposed "anti duckbill" stance, by the way...

This just in, all monsters in Bestiary III will be duckbilled.

Sorry it was a poor attempt at joke about your anti duckbilled stance. Nothing to do with psionics. Its also because the platypus rocks but that's just me.

If you love them that much, why not make an eidolon of one?

Or a familiar? (+3 to Disguise checks..."WTF is that thing?")

All I can say is that I'm VERY interested in doing a book that brings Pathfinder up to, say, level 36 or level 40. Which would probably NOT be called "Epic rules," by the way, but something else. (But would likely take elements from the current Epic level rules in the 3.5 SRD as a starting point.)

How much experience do you have with the BECMI rules?

James Jacobs wrote:

All I can say is that I'm VERY interested in doing a book that brings Pathfinder up to, say, level 36 or level 40. Which would probably NOT be called "Epic rules," by the way, but something else. (But would likely take elements from the current Epic level rules in the 3.5 SRD as a starting point.)

How much experience do you have with the BECMI rules?

I don't have any vested interest here, since we'd moved to AD&D by that point, but the concept of having the PCs ascend to deityhood does seem to have been foreshadowed somewhat, in the Test of the Starstone, hmmm?

Quite a bit of experience with the BECMI rules. Which is why I'm kind of leaning toward making level 36 be the limit before whatever comes next. ;-)

Quite a bit of experience with the BECMI rules. Which is why I'm kind of leaning toward making level 36 be the limit before whatever comes next. ;-)

Why 36? That seems like a strange number to pick (as opposed to 40, or even 30 or 35).

James Jacobs wrote:

Quite a bit of experience with the BECMI rules. Which is why I'm kind of leaning toward making level 36 be the limit before whatever comes next. ;-)

Why 36? That seems like a strange number to pick (as opposed to 40, or even 30 or 35).

Obviously because 36 can be divided by much more numbers 2,3,4,6,9 see!

No? Sorry ...

James Jacobs wrote:

Quite a bit of experience with the BECMI rules. Which is why I'm kind of leaning toward making level 36 be the limit before whatever comes next. ;-)

Why 36? That seems like a strange number to pick (as opposed to 40, or even 30 or 35).

Because in the original D&D game (Which had 5 boxed rule sets going from Basic to Expert to Companion to Master to Immortals; hence why they're called BECMI D&D), level 36 was the top level a mortal could achieve.

Basic D&D went from level 1 to 3.
Expert D&D went from level 3 to 14.
Companion D&D went from level 14 to about 25.
Master D&D went from about 25 to 36.
Immortals D&D started a brand new track beyond level 36, where folks were deities.

Thus, capping at level 36 has a fun little throwback.

Furthermore, capping at level 36, but providing rules for foes of up to CR 40, allows us to support parties of 36th level characters with big foes. Kind of like how the current game has monsters up to CR 25, even though the PC level cap is at 20. By putting the final end cap at CR 40, but the PC level cap at 36, it feels a bit more elegant to me than putting the PC end cap at 40 but then going on to support CR 44 monsters.

...

Oi. I can't believe I didn't realize BECMI was a reference to the boxed sets. I still wouldn't've picked up on the level 36 throwback, but worse, I've always thought BECMI was a reference to Big Eyes Small Mouth or some such variant thereof.*

And I've thought this for years.

And years.

And years.

I'm going to stop posting now...

*Don't ask me what the hell the C, M, or I would stand for.

I laughed for a straight minute at the flumph comment. A little less when I noticed the title of the picture. Looking forward to this.

Sebastian wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Quite a bit of experience with the BECMI rules. Which is why I'm kind of leaning toward making level 36 be the limit before whatever comes next. ;-)

Why 36? That seems like a strange number to pick (as opposed to 40, or even 30 or 35).

[snip]

Thus, capping at level 36 has a fun little throwback.

Furthermore, capping at level 36, but providing rules for foes of up to CR 40, allows us to support parties of 36th level characters with big foes. Kind of like how the current game has monsters up to CR 25, even though the PC level cap is at 20. By putting the final end cap at CR 40, but the PC level cap at 36, it feels a bit more elegant to me than putting the PC end cap at 40 but then going on to support CR 44 monsters.

This is such a good idea. I have been completely against playing anything above 20th level until I read this.

I am, unfortunately, not a betting man.

I do know that I really REALLY want to do an epic rules expansion to Pathfinder, and that if I have my way, we'll get those rules into print sooner than later. I don't make all the choices, though, and there are various other compelling reasons to schedule things the way we do. All, as it turns out, also great reasons why we don't promise books will be out that far in advance.

All I can say is that I'm VERY interested in doing a book that brings Pathfinder up to, say, level 36 or level 40. Which would probably NOT be called "Epic rules," by the way, but something else. (But would likely take elements from the current Epic level rules in the 3.5 SRD as a starting point.)

Actually more then I thought I would get out of you. I really like the idea of the level 36 cap on the "epic" rules. I am sure I will enjoy using whatever rules for epic you guys come up with.

*ahem*

Basic D&D went from level 1 to 3.
Expert D&D went from level 3 to 14.
Companion D&D went from level 14 to about 25.
Master D&D went from about 25 to 36.

Basic: 1-3

I just loved the way they chose the levels based on what looked nice as a range.

Immortals D&D started a brand new track beyond level 36, where folks were deities.

Thus, capping at level 36 has a fun little throwback.

I remember the Immortals set - it was... interesting. Power points FTW!

Furthermore, capping at level 36, but providing rules for foes of up to CR 40, allows us to support parties of 36th level characters with big foes. Kind of like how the current game has monsters up to CR 25, even though the PC level cap is at 20. By putting the final end cap at CR 40, but the PC level cap at 36, it feels a bit more elegant to me than putting the PC end cap at 40 but then going on to support CR 44 monsters.

This makes a metric ton of sense.