Recent Posts
I think Mona mentioned a monster book for release after the Pathfinder core book comes out in a recent interview. Even if he hadn't there's ample evidence this'll be necessary.
The MM will be going out of print. No question. It also has critters that aren't in Golarion in it.
The core book is going to be huge as is, and it'll replace both the PHB and DMG. Not really any room for monsters.
WotC may have put a lot of critters in the SRD, but their images are still WotC IP. That's one reason Golarion dragons look different than WotC dragons. They had to.
Golarion art of the critters will also help brand Pathfinder as it's own game, and not just re-printing 3.5.
I think most of our MM needs will come through the Pathfinder Adventure Path. I think the stated objectives are to have new monsters in each adventure. But most of us will also want a re-printing of Glorion Monsters in some sort of compendium. Also, since Pathfinder RPG is reverse compatible, we can use our old MM's.
But I would eventually like to see something about 'Forward Compatibility' to 4th Edition. Maybe just a forum discussion as to how to use the 4th Edition Monsters in PRPG. Maybe a side bar in the PRPG. I think some of the work WotC is putting into the 4th Edition MM will be worth using.
WotC has smart designers also. We just like Paizo a little more.
Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
I would only request that you don't recycle what's already been presented in Pathfinder and GameMastery. I subscribe to both, and even if you "improved" on them, I doubt I'd be willing to shell out money on 'em. On the other hand, if Paizo put its head together and came up with a monster manual containing a whole new assembly of critters, numbering 100 or so, I'm sold.
I would only request that you don't recycle what's already been presented in Pathfinder and GameMastery. I subscribe to both, and even if you "improved" on them, I doubt I'd be willing to shell out money on 'em. On the other hand, if Paizo put its head together and came up with a monster manual containing a whole new assembly of critters, numbering 100 or so, I'm sold.Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
I think some of the monsters from Pathfinder and GameMastery Modules should be included: for example, Goblins. I would also like to see some of the more creative monsters, especially CR 1 to CR 9, included in a hard cover Pathfinder Magnificent Monster Manual! (Kind of sounds like a new spell, huh?)
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
If/when you do, please can I ask that Dire Animals lose those freakish spikes that stick out of every surface of their bodies?
They just strain my disbelief. What are they attached to? How do they not interfere with the muscle groups? How do they not stab themselves?
Why can't they just look like 'bigger animals'? How come a fey can ride round on a sleek 'Giant' Owl, or 'Giant' Eagle, but a goblin has to ride a 'Dire' Wolf, and have a shaft of bone sticking up his ringpiece?
I know the argument that the Dire animals are 'prehistoric', but that doesn't justify the look, either scientifically or aesthetically. The sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, ie, they are prehistoric 'Dire Fish', but they don't have any of this extraneous nonsense, nor do the crocodiles, who are similarly close to their primal roots.
If I were a cynical man, I'd put forward the theory that the only reason they look that way is to force the more gullible, obsessive fans to get their 'offical' miniatures only from WOTC, rather than raiding a toy store, like all us right-thinking Scrooges.
Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
If/when you do, please can I ask that Dire Animals lose those freakish spikes that stick out of every surface of their bodies?
They just strain my disbelief. What are they attached to? How do they not interfere with the muscle groups? How do they not stab themselves?
Why can't they just look like 'bigger animals'? How come a fey can ride round on a sleek 'Giant' Owl, or 'Giant' Eagle, but a goblin has to ride a 'Dire' Wolf, and have a shaft of bone sticking up his ringpiece?
I know the argument that the Dire animals are 'prehistoric', but that doesn't justify the look, either scientifically or aesthetically. The sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, ie, they are prehistoric 'Dire Fish', but they don't have any of this extraneous nonsense, nor do the crocodiles, who are similarly close to their primal roots.
If I were a cynical man, I'd put forward the theory that the only reason they look that way is to force the more gullible, obsessive fans to get their 'offical' miniatures only from WOTC, rather than raiding a toy store, like all us right-thinking Scrooges.
Hell yes please kill the useless an well dumb spikes.
As cool as it might be, I have 9 full length "Monster Manuals" already. And while I realize they'll all be out of print, I want Paizo to take it's time with a monster manual... the reason is simple, quality.
I want the Monster Manual to be the best it can be. I don't want to see a 1:1 translation of the Monster Manual or even an updating of the Monster Manual. I want a collection of great monsters from all d20 sources, not just the official MM.
Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
If/when you do, please can I ask that Dire Animals lose those freakish spikes that stick out of every surface of their bodies?
They just strain my disbelief. What are they attached to? How do they not interfere with the muscle groups? How do they not stab themselves?
Why can't they just look like 'bigger animals'? How come a fey can ride round on a sleek 'Giant' Owl, or 'Giant' Eagle, but a goblin has to ride a 'Dire' Wolf, and have a shaft of bone sticking up his ringpiece?
I know the argument that the Dire animals are 'prehistoric', but that doesn't justify the look, either scientifically or aesthetically. The sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, ie, they are prehistoric 'Dire Fish', but they don't have any of this extraneous nonsense, nor do the crocodiles, who are similarly close to their primal roots.
If I were a cynical man, I'd put forward the theory that the only reason they look that way is to force the more gullible, obsessive fans to get their 'offical' miniatures only from WOTC, rather than raiding a toy store, like all us right-thinking Scrooges.
I've got a better request, turn "dire" into a dang template applied to any animal instead of presenting the 18 friggen animals we've decided to dire this week.
"Dire" template - would give DMs a much bigger resource of monsters.
Also, could I beg someone to return the Hydra back into the indestructible foe it was in mythology?
It just feels odd that a bunch of 4th level fighters can just stab a hydra to death with spears. The 3.5 Hydra is not intimidating anymore.
...wrote stuff about dire animals...
A template is tempting, but still, I'd like to see dire animals statted up fully, to make it easier for druids to do their thing. I don't want druid players to have to sit down with the template and rebuild dire lions and dire sharks every time they need them.
BUT. I almost kinda want to ditch the "dire animal" category, except for dire wolves. I'd rather replace the "dire animals" with real-world prehistoric versions. The dire wolf IS a real-world prehistoric animal, for example. But the dire tiger isn't; in MY world, that slot would be taken up by the smilodon. The dire bear by the cave bear. The dire rat by a plain old giant rat. The dire shark by a megalodon. ETC.
That kicks sand in the backwards compatibility scene, though. Maybe instead we'd still list them as dire animals but give their real-world prehistoric analog name in parenthesis?
But yeah... just making an animal big and giving it bony spikes is the lazy solution for dire animals.
"Dire" template - would give DMs a much bigger resource of monsters.
Enthusiastically agree with this. It's struck me as odd that WotC didn't do this initially with dire animals (and it's struck me as even odder than no-one else has thought of this}
Also, could I beg someone to return the Hydra back into the indestructible foe it was in mythology?It just feels odd that a bunch of 4th level fighters can just stab a hydra to death with spears. The 3.5 Hydra is not intimidating anymore.
Also agree. The hydra needs to be 'scaryfied'.
As cool as it might be, I have 9 full length "Monster Manuals" already. And while I realize they'll all be out of print, I want Paizo to take it's time with a monster manual... the reason is simple, quality.
I want the Monster Manual to be the best it can be. I don't want to see a 1:1 translation of the Monster Manual or even an updating of the Monster Manual. I want a collection of great monsters from all d20 sources, not just the official MM.
I suspect we'll pretty much HAVE to do a monster book pretty soon after the Pathfinder RPG releases, actually, since by then, the 3.5 hardcovers will have been out of print for a year. And it WILL be quality. It WILL be the best it can be. If only because I won't let a sub-par core Pathfinder RPG monster book out the door.
Adding in monsters from d20 sources is certainly possible. But keep in mind we can't afford to produce a 600 page monster book all at once...
Adding in monsters from d20 sources is certainly possible. But keep in mind we can't afford to produce a 600 page monster book all at once...
Lol.. 600 page monster manual oh my.
No no no, I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling out the monsters from the Monster Manual that people don't use, don't see a lot of use, no one likes, and replacing them with more desirable third party options.
I have Monster Manual 1-5, Creature Collection 1 & 2, Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors 1 & 2.. wait that's 10 lol.. Monsters of Faerun.. 11.. oye!
Anyway.... all I'm saying is there's room to improve "the Monster Manual" and I believe it's by trading out some monsters.
I wonder if Pathfinder can use the name, "Monster Manual" anywhere in its title. Copyrighted? How about, "Magnificent Little Beasties?" Heh. Don't answer.Nope; copyrighted. We'll have to go with a different name.
Sounds like an opportunity for a naming contest....
The Treatise of Terrors (too much alliteration?)
The Pathfinder's Field Guide to Beasts and Brutes (too long?)
I have Monster Manual 1-5, Creature Collection 1 & 2, Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors 1 & 2.. wait that's 10 lol.. Monsters of Faerun.. 11.. oye!
WOW
It just occurred to me sitting here next to my gaming shelf as I am that I've got nearly as many monster books as you do... and I haven't picked up MM 2-5, nor the Fiend Folio, nor Tome of Horrors 2 (I do have 1 & 3 oddly enough).
Good grief...
Now i want to flip through them all. :)
I suspect we'll pretty much HAVE to do a monster book pretty soon after the Pathfinder RPG releases, actually, since by then, the 3.5 hardcovers will have been out of print for a year. And it WILL be quality. It WILL be the best it can be. If only because I won't let a sub-par core Pathfinder RPG monster book out the door.
Adding in monsters from d20 sources is certainly possible. But keep in mind we can't afford to produce a 600 page monster book all at once...
I would imagine that the priority would be the out of print OGL MM monsters?
Adding in monsters from d20 sources is certainly possible. But keep in mind we can't afford to produce a 600 page monster book all at once...Lol.. 600 page monster manual oh my.
No no no, I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling out the monsters from the Monster Manual that people don't use, don't see a lot of use, no one likes, and replacing them with more desirable third party options.
I have Monster Manual 1-5, Creature Collection 1 & 2, Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors 1 & 2.. wait that's 10 lol.. Monsters of Faerun.. 11.. oye!
Anyway.... all I'm saying is there's room to improve "the Monster Manual" and I believe it's by trading out some monsters.
Ask 20 DMs to tell you their 20 most favorite and 20 least favorite monsters in the Monster Manual, and you'll get a list of about 200 different monsters. Several of those monsters will be on most favorite and least favorite lists. It would be very hard to come up with a list of rejects that'll make everyone happy. Every DM I know has their own personal 'rarely-used favorite' monster that they would rail about were it dropped from the Paizo manual.
Besides that, anything in the WOTC Monster Manuals after the 1st (and even some monsters in it), as well as monsters from any other WOTC adventure/supplement are off-limits as they aren't open source. I'm not familiar with most of the others, but since they're posted under OGL, I'm guessing most of those companies chose to share.
I'd prefer to see all of the SRD monsters updated, as well as some of the favorites from the first 3 Pathfinder APs which would make it easier to convert those adventures to PRPG. Later books can reprint some of the other OGL monsters out there. Tome of Horrors PRPG Edition would be sweet.
I'd be up for a one to two page format, too. Also, I can't recall whether it was MM4 or MM5 that introduced this, but drag and drop variances of monsters. That would be nice.
Still, I would prefer not to see MM re-visited insofar as Paizo can avoid it. I look to my right and see the stacks of Monster Manuals that will continue to live even into the days of Paizo's Pathfinder RPG and would rather avoid redundancy and repeats if it can be avoided.
Besides, given the inventive minds at Paizo, I'm sure that the company can come up with a monster manual of its own inventions.
One thing though - templates. I like lots of templates to include with monsters. (I also like the templates to be in a separate section for ease of reference.)
Oh, one other thing. If there is one monster that DOES need re-visiting and streamlining, it's that dad-burned lycanthrope. The beast is so complex that it's a very time-consuming affair to incorporate into any self-made NPC.
...wrote stuff about dire animals...A template is tempting, but still, I'd like to see dire animals statted up fully, to make it easier for druids to do their thing. I don't want druid players to have to sit down with the template and rebuild dire lions and dire sharks every time they need them.
BUT. I almost kinda want to ditch the "dire animal" category, except for dire wolves. I'd rather replace the "dire animals" with real-world prehistoric versions. The dire wolf IS a real-world prehistoric animal, for example. But the dire tiger isn't; in MY world, that slot would be taken up by the smilodon. The dire bear by the cave bear. The dire rat by a plain old giant rat. The dire shark by a megalodon. ETC.
That kicks sand in the backwards compatibility scene, though. Maybe instead we'd still list them as dire animals but give their real-world prehistoric analog name in parenthesis?
But yeah... just making an animal big and giving it bony spikes is the lazy solution for dire animals.
I like the parenthesis idea, since I sometimes show my group pictures of giant rats and the like to get the idea of "dire" across. Kind of like the devil names, there is the common name and the actual name.
But on the subject of templates, could Paizo include a template but also give the stats for the common dire animals? That way druids have it easy, but if the DM wants to make a Dire Turtle they can stat one out.
How's this? Pathfinder- Monsters of Golarion.
Nah. It would imply that they're specific to Golarion. They won't be. Pathfinder - the RPG - won't be limited to Golarion (it's not 4e, after all).
No no no, I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling out the monsters from the Monster Manual that people don't use, don't see a lot of use, no one likes, and replacing them with more desirable third party options.
3 words: Not backwards compatible.
Maybe instead we'd still list them as dire animals but give their real-world prehistoric analog name in parenthesis?
Great idea.
Robert Brambley
(Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
I loved the DiTerlizzi colour illustrations in the Planescape appendices, and also Kevin McCann's black and white illustrations for the compiled van Richten's guides- especially some of those for 'The Ancient Dead' section of the latter series.
Does anyone know if DiTerlizzi or McCann are still working on fantasy art and could be persuaded to draw for Pathfinder?
I believe DiTerlizzi is the artist doing the SpiderWick Chronicles books.
Robert
one question: how so?
When you have an Adventure Module that places monster X in an encounter, and the new monster book doesn't have that monster, the adventure cannot be easily played with the new monster book any more: You'd have to use a different monster that fits into the encounter - provided you know what kind of monster it was, and provided you find something that fits.
3 words: Not backwards compatible.
No no no, I'm thinking more along the lines of pulling out the monsters from the Monster Manual that people don't use, don't see a lot of use, no one likes, and replacing them with more desirable third party options.
It's not like the monster disappears, the 3e stats are around, it's just hasn't been updated. Besides, if it's an OLD adventure, you'd have the OLD Monster Manual. :P
Not to mention there are monsters in the Monster Manual that are not open content and won't be in the pathfinder monster manual. So there will be space for ogl monsters.
BUT. I almost kinda want to ditch the "dire animal" category, except for dire wolves. I'd rather replace the "dire animals" with real-world prehistoric versions. The dire wolf IS a real-world prehistoric animal, for example. But the dire tiger isn't; in MY world, that slot would be taken up by the smilodon. The dire bear by the cave bear. The dire rat by a plain old giant rat. The dire shark by a megalodon. ETC.
Hooray for the return of the hyaenodon and giant elk. I would also love to see stats for the Chalicotherium (anything that can be described as having the shortened face of a horse, the neck of an ox, the arms and shoulders of a massive ape, the front claws of an anteater and short rear legs to support its massive bulk deserved to be a D&D creature).
Snorter
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber; GameMastery Superscriber)
I would particularly look forward to seeing Russ' 'cycle of death' trio make it into print...
Perhaps they could insert some goodies from the Tome of Horrors?
Would this be the Cycle of death trio of goodies you were looking for?
but with a backwards compatible system you can merely update the old monster
You can't update something you don't have.
not to mention are there modules that say use x without a statblock, cause I'd be kinda pissed to see that in the first place.
Pathfinder does this all the time. I'd be pissed if they kept repeating all that stuff. You'd get a lot less adventure that way.
It's not like the monster disappears, the 3e stats are around, it's just hasn't been updated. Besides, if it's an OLD adventure, you'd have the OLD Monster Manual. :P
I have the MM. Not everyone else does. For example, the people who buy pathfinder because they can't find the original D&D books probably won't have it.
And before you mention the SRD - the whole premise (or most of it at least) of Pathfinder RPG is that the books need to be available. In print.
Not to mention there are monsters in the Monster Manual that are not open content and won't be in the pathfinder monster manual.
Those don't appear in d20/OGL adventures and stuff. (But I think they might come up with their own versions. Yuan-ti might be closed content, but humanoid/snake critters with mental powers and huge ambitions aren't)
So there will be space for ogl monsters.
I'm not saying there shouldn't.
I just say that the SRD critters should all stay. Unless you have a note signed by everyone saying that they really aren't using those monsters that allegedly no one uses, I won't believe that no one uses. :P
backwards compatable doesn't mean that they work to make sure everything put into a suplement ever is reprinted to be usable, it means that if you have x you can use it with the new system. You can do this with an old adventure mod even if it calls for monster x, you simply either update what you have or sub a new monster in. the system still works closely enough that it doesn't break, like it would if you try to run a 4ed character through shackled city. If the basic rules allow your character to run around the module without it falling apart then it is backwards compatable not that every single thing in the module has a direct translation. Think of it like this, a wii is able to play gamecube games, but they aren't remaking every gamecube game as a wii game. And I understand that there are holes in the analogy, but that's the case with any analogy, so please lets not break down the analogy to counterpoint me, just counterpoint me (sorry I've seen so many times where people wind up in a debate over the analogy and whether its relevant or not instead of going back and forth over the actual thing the analogy talked about)