Recent Posts
Thanks, Sean and James! I like having the freedom to choose which attack is a standard attack.
Also, does it explain that somewhere in the book? I looked at the stat block reference for melee and didn't see anything explicit in there about that. It might be elsewhere that I haven't yet found, though. Thanks!
So when do we start bombarding Paizo with our wants for Bestiary II? :) Personally, I'm hoping for the Hippogriff, though I think with the ease that I am having reading the new stats, I should be able to Pathfinderize one for my Crimson Throne Campaign.
We've actually already got the monsters for the Bestairy 2 all picked out and folks are already working on them, so it's technically already too late to bombard us with wants for that book. If we get a huge outcry of support for a specific monster, that MIGHT convince us to make a late-in-the-game change, but that window is closing rapidly and I don't really want to open it in the first place.
Hippogriffs are in, though, and always were, even before Hippogriff Madness took over these boards. :) As for the banshee... it wasn't in the 3.5 SRD so it never had a good chance of getting into the Bestiary at all. The fact that it's name is part of a spell more or less guarentees it'll show up in Bestiary 2. You can actually apply that logic to ANY monster named or illustrated in the Pathfinder Core Rules that doesn't currently have an entry in the Bestiary.
We've actually already got the monsters for the Bestairy 2 all picked out and folks are already working on them, so it's technically already too late to bombard us with wants for that book. If we get a huge outcry of support for a specific monster, that MIGHT convince us to make a late-in-the-game change, but that window is closing rapidly and I don't really want to open it in the first place.
HOOOOOOOOOK HOOOOOOOORORS!
So when do we start bombarding Paizo with our wants for Bestiary II? :) Personally, I'm hoping for the Hippogriff, though I think with the ease that I am having reading the new stats, I should be able to Pathfinderize one for my Crimson Throne Campaign.We've actually already got the monsters for the Bestairy 2 all picked out and folks are already working on them, so it's technically already too late to bombard us with wants for that book. If we get a huge outcry of support for a specific monster, that MIGHT convince us to make a late-in-the-game change, but that window is closing rapidly and I don't really want to open it in the first place.
Hippogriffs are in, though, and always were, even before Hippogriff Madness took over these boards. :) As for the banshee... it wasn't in the 3.5 SRD so it never had a good chance of getting into the Bestiary at all. The fact that it's name is part of a spell more or less guarentees it'll show up in Bestiary 2. You can actually apply that logic to ANY monster named or illustrated in the Pathfinder Core Rules that doesn't currently have an entry in the Bestiary.
LOL! Hadn't noticed the Hippogriff Madness, but then I was hip deep in scaring my players with the Plague :) But my Sable Marine will be very happy when I tell him that we'll have new stats with the next Bestiary to play with (and since we rotate three campaigns a year, there will be time to get that in!)
Thank you James, and Erik!
Also, does it explain that somewhere in the book? I looked at the stat block reference for melee and didn't see anything explicit in there about that. It might be elsewhere that I haven't yet found, though. Thanks!
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character. Monsters work the same way as characters in this regard. So Valeros can make a full attack with two swords, or a single attack with either sword; a lion can make a full attack with claw/claw/bite, or a single attack with any one of those attacks.
Ugh. I just did it again. Thanks.Undead skinny dipping? Hmmmmm.......You know, for some reason I read that as "you've never seen me in my swimming suit"! ;)That's because you've never seen me in my birthday suit.
Yea, way hotter than zombies...
Why do you torment poor, old VG like that? Are you trying to get him in trouble. Someone may tattle on him.
Edit: Ninjaed (kind of) by the mantis.
Oooh, an admitted bigot. That's sad. Why so much hate? Is it because he's so popular?It's not tattling. My anti-vomit bigotry is showing a bit, though.No one like a tattletale.I didn't think your kind was allowed in these parts.I just threw up a little in my mouth.Tease.
I'm just racist is all. Don't even get me started on the Irish.
Dark_Mistress
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
So when do we start bombarding Paizo with our wants for Bestiary II? :) Personally, I'm hoping for the Hippogriff, though I think with the ease that I am having reading the new stats, I should be able to Pathfinderize one for my Crimson Throne Campaign.We've actually already got the monsters for the Bestairy 2 all picked out and folks are already working on them, so it's technically already too late to bombard us with wants for that book. If we get a huge outcry of support for a specific monster, that MIGHT convince us to make a late-in-the-game change, but that window is closing rapidly and I don't really want to open it in the first place.
Hippogriffs are in, though, and always were, even before Hippogriff Madness took over these boards. :) As for the banshee... it wasn't in the 3.5 SRD so it never had a good chance of getting into the Bestiary at all. The fact that it's name is part of a spell more or less guarentees it'll show up in Bestiary 2. You can actually apply that logic to ANY monster named or illustrated in the Pathfinder Core Rules that doesn't currently have an entry in the Bestiary.
Oh I get that, when i said I was surprised by it not being included. That was more cause it is such a classic monster from both DnD and folk lore, that I just expected it.
I'm not quite sure what needs explaining. The Core Rulebook says that if you're making multiple attacks, you have to use the Full Attack action. If you're just making one attack, you pick any one of the attacks available to the character. Monsters work the same way as characters in this regard. So Valeros can make a full attack with two swords, or a single attack with either sword; a lion can make a full attack with claw/claw/bite, or a single attack with any one of those attacks.
Ah, I had totally missed that in the Core Rulebook (although it stands to reason). I'll see if others in my group picked up on it or not, and set them straight if not. Thanks!
... this will sound silly but....
If my monster uses an EX or SU on its count (usually a SA),I know it can still take a move action. But, is there anything close to a 'double-attack' with like powers when a full round action is available?
I forgot to brew coffee this morning, so maybe I'm not thinking straight...
Nope. If a monster has a FRA, it can't attack and use a power, or use two powers that require an action. Unless it has something like Quicken Spell-Like ability, or some ability that triggers off of another ability. And some things are automatic, of course, like fear auras, troglodyte stench, and so on.
US Priority Mail is in Germany in about a week (sometimes 5 days, sometimes 8 days). Normal delivery travels about 2-3 weeks (a few months ago, it was 4 and more weeks).
1 thing... My Mail never sees German Postal... Goes from US Postal to US Military Postal, Though Priority is faster for Military Mail*Plane instead of Ship* , it still usually takes 2 weeks.. Got lucky with this one.
Ok, question.
I like that the cockatrice, gorgon, and basalisk all have 'outs' for their petrification. Just curious why not the medusae. Is it because she's an intelligent foe?
It's becasue the medusa is high enough CR that it's "fair" to play with petrification. The basilisk and the cockatrice are lower level, and thus their petrification powers are less "permanent" since it's not good to hit lower level PCs with effects they can't really handle.
The gorgon, on the other hand, has an area effect petrification that you can't really avoid but with good saves, so it has a little bit of a nerf to its permanence as well. You can opt to not look at a medusa to avoid her petrification but that's not an option really when you fight a gorgon.
I went back to check at Barns and Noble and they still didn't have it. When they checked the computers they said their distributor still didn't have the Bestiary!
When on earth is the Bestiary supposed to make it to super big mega distributors?
A little curious why you are getting it from the Super Big Mega Distributors?
Sean
I went back to check at Barns and Noble and they still didn't have it. When they checked the computers they said their distributor still didn't have the Bestiary!
When on earth is the Bestiary supposed to make it to super big mega distributors?
The book trade buys Paizo products from Diamond Book distribution; we shipped it to Diamond around three weeks ago, and other Diamond customers have received the Bestiary from them, so I know they got it a while ago. I suppose it's possible they've sold out, but I have my doubts.
I gotcha. I've just never heard of the Tarrasque or the drow outside of DnD anywhere, that's all.
For you
Or also see dark elves
Question: Some of the monsters that have more than one attack have the second attack listed after a "comma", whereas some have them listed after an "and".
Obviously the "and" is an extra attack when making a full attack action [full round attack], but what about the "comma" ? Is it an "either or" attack, or something else?
For example, Elephant,
Melee gore +16 (2d8+10), slam +16 (2d6+10)
Can it do both, or either?
Dark_Mistress
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
For attack lines, the use of a comma and the use of the word "and" are equal. Had we been more diligent, there would have been NO commas in those attack lines, but as it stands it's merely an unnecessary extra word.
There's no difference between "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10, slam +16 (2d6+10)" and "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10 and slam +16 (2d6+10)." In both cases, the monster can make both attacks as a full round action.
Only if the word "or" appears does the monster have to choose which set of attacks it wants to use.