Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

MMCJawa's page

2,643 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


1 to 50 of 2,643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

probably already said in this thread, but I wonder if this is happening so they can set up Thor "retiring" after the current movie actors contract is up? They seem to be setting up Bucky in the movie universe to take the mantle of Captain America when Chris Evans leaves the role. So maybe have Sif take over for Thor?

The Evil Queen wrote:

Lol, I did this a million times in the past, changing stuff up, from Sirrush and it's merge ability to Echeneis being a magnetic Remora and Ichneumon being a giant wasp that hunts dragons.

But why Black Tamanous is so important to you all that I can't change it? OF all monsters i've changed this is my favorite, mostly because I don't like the true description, and because its a cool excuse to have another mythic ooze, and because it has ZERO pictures on google, giving the mind some free space to create your own.

Because its native american?

I also changed up Haeitlik and Uktena a few pages back, didn't hear anything about those.

Probably because none of us had thought hard about those. Incidentally some of your adaptations I like...and some I don't. I just try not to write rebuttals for everything I disagree with.

I do generally disagree with your tendency to make everything exxtreme evilz or a tendency to just take a monsters name and discard everything else

This is forming a tangent that would be better served by really by forming it's own thread.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

yeah but there is no reason to take it that way.

Give it the ability to shapeshift into human form, and describe it as a tar covered monstrous humanoid. Maybe like a bigfoot dipped in Tar. Bam

James Jacobs wrote:

I like them both, frankly. They're both really compelling and interesting ways to explore the unknown. And for what it's worth...
** spoiler omitted **

Thing with "At the Mountains of Madness" is that it is very much NOT a subtle story. It's DEEPLY rooted in the physical. It's my...

So a question regarding True Detective:


Do you have an opinion on the theory that Detective Hart's wife and family were in the Hastur Cult? That his daughter was sexually abused as part of the rituals, and that his wife slept with his partner basically to just break up the "team", preventing the investigation to go further? Hart of course never caught on because he never really payed much attention to his family.

James Jacobs wrote:
eldergod0515 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Tels wrote:
What about your favorite easter egg hidden in Paizo products?
Sandpoint's rivers.
Q: James, what is the "Sandpoint's rivers" easter egg?

There are 2 waterways in Sandpoint. One's named Boggy Creek, a nod to one of my favorite Bigfoot movies/legends. The other one is the Turandarrok River, which is a portmanteau of the two main characters from one of my favorite comic book series (Turok and Andar from Turok: Son of Stone).

There's several other easter eggs in Sandpoint, in fact, most of which are Point Arena (my hometow) easter eggs. Including:

The name "Schooner Gulch."
The presence of a theater in a small town.
Junk Beach.
The sign with the mirror welcoming folks to Sandpoint but asking visitors to see themself as Sandpoint sees them.

Hah! Have you been over to Schooner Gulch to look around? Some of the seal fossils I have studied are from there. I think some good marine mammal fossil have come from Point Arena and environs.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Kaw Kaw is described as being a grotesque ogre like creature that can ooze under doors and such to get at its victims. So it at least has some sort of ooze-like properties

My take on Batibat was the creature actually oozing out of the wood that was collected. There are other takes possible I suppose, but I wanted to distinguish it from the various dryad like creatures in myth.

I do think Paizo does a good job with mythological creatures, I just honestly think that as is there is enough with the Black Tanamous to make an awesome creative creature from myth. I don't mind them changing around more obscure creatures that have a sentence of description in most sources.

At any rate, honestly, taking a folkloric monster's name and inventing a creature around it is not going to help something get into a Bestiary any better than just saying "I would really like a tar-like ooze that infects people" I suspect describing things in super detail in either case is doesn't really help.

The Evil Queen wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
The Pathfinder Kelpie and Rusalka actually are not that far off from mythology. The Leshy is, but then the Leshy also has a couple of different name variants, so we could still get something like the folklore version (complete with squirrel gambling!)

Kelpies are not humanoid, they are horses.

Rusalka... They can't do stuff with their hair and they are undead, not fey.

I can name a lot more, but I don't have the time.


Kelpies are shapeshifters...a horse is just the form they often use to hunt with. in some folklore their natural form is that of a monstrous humanoid.

Rusalka are said to form from the souls of drowned women, but there standard description and how they act also puts them with Fey. the difference between an undead spirit and a fairy in folklore is pretty hazy...most if not all fairies have been connected with the dead at some point, either as beings dwelling in the underworld, or spirits that form from the souls of pagans, sinners, or unbaptized children. I don't actually recollect much off the top of my head about their hair in folklore, nor does wikipedia mention it, so it can't have been that important to the legend

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Souhiro wrote:


I come here from a far, far away time and a far, far away land to say you... THAT I HATE YOU!!!

It's about Velociraptors and Deinonychus: We are at XXI Century, and Everybody knows that Raptors and Deinyes had feathers, wings AND THEY WERE FLIGHT CAPABLE.

I demand that the members of the staff, personally, recover every copy of the bestiary, apologize, and deliver every subscriber a new one with this errata corrected, showing that Raptors has a flight speed. It would be nice if they also add to the package a sweet picture of a Velociraptor and a Deinonychus in a playground, using their videoconsoles (In XXII Century, everybody knows that young velociraptors had nintendos back in the early cretaceous)

huh? Velociraptor and Deinonychus have feathers in the bestiaries. Granted Deinonychus looks ridiculous and resembles a Jim Henson character, but Velociraptor actually was pretty well done.

Which makes me sad that Pathfinder has more realistic Velociraptors than Jurassic Park 4 :(

Speaking as a professional paleontologist:

Neither genus could fly or glide, nor have I ever heard arguments that they could. They MAY have evolved from flighted ancestors, but that is controversial. Microraptor and such may have had some sort of gliding ability however.

PS...if Pathfinder ever needs a paleo consultant for a Dinosaurs revisited, let me know.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Check out the blog post for the new Shaman iconic, if you haven't noticed it already...

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Basically Leshys (don't think I used the correct plural) were masters of the forest, and also incorrigible gamblers. So some stories describe Leshies gambling with other Leshys, using things like their squirrel populations, etc as currency.

This was used to explain things like animal movements and Leshy was simply paying off his debt to another one, hence the animals "moving" out of his territory and into another one.

GreyWolfLord wrote:

I've tried, but I simply can't get over the "meh" feeling over D&D Next. Honestly, this is the first edition of D&D I really just can't get into. I can't see what it actually offers me that I want.

Other editions have gotten me excited. OD&D...well, that was my first intro via some friends...and it just had that magical thing that came with it that caught my imagination.

I think some of that is hindsight. It's easy to look back on a system that has been out or is no longer published, and identify all the great things about it. It's really hard to do that with 5E when all you have are the free basic rules and the starter set, and there really even hasn't been time to fully delve into the game.'s all about comparing complete products with unfinished ones.

Right now I am not excited...I like 3E, and some of the 5E changes seem a bit weird or problematic.

But I am very curious, and will wait until more material is released to make a judgement. Already I feel like some of the marketing and content decisions I didn't like about 4E have been addressed. For instance, the Players handbook includes a wide variety of classes, and it doesn't feel like they are trying to milk content over multiple hardcovers that really should be kept in core. I am also looking forward to the monster sounds like they are trying to go with a more flavorful approach to monsters, and I disliked the 4E monster books because I felt every monster was reduced to just a block of stats, without really enough flavorful information to make me want to use them. Also, the Gencon announcements SHOULD provide a better picture of what sort of long term plan they have for the system, and what the current business plan is for publishing.

Auxmaulous wrote:

I feel for you Logan. At the end of the day I can write a 20 page homerules doc and my group will play a modified 5e - so I kind of have an out. For someone who mostly plays in other peoples games you are stuck with whatever the DMs run out there - which will mostly be default.

I tried to convince the Frogs to write a 5e true old skool conversion book but I don't think they are getting into the rules arena besides what they've already done for Swords and Wizardry.

An in-print 70's/80's book would go a long way to making many old skool players happy - we get a new system in print and we get serious considerations on different tiers of power vs. a default that is higher than what we want.

Didn't they recently reissue the 1E rulebooks? or was that just 3E?

Or are you referring to something completely different

The Pathfinder Kelpie and Rusalka actually are not that far off from mythology. The Leshy is, but then the Leshy also has a couple of different name variants, so we could still get something like the folklore version (complete with squirrel gambling!)

yeah....but isn't the point to list things every fighter should have access to? and not...list things a paladin prestige class has (I think that is what champion of Irori is?)

Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, I know, I could do that but the number of things I would have to change (if I even ran a session....I don't DM much) is starting to mount to an undesirable level IMO.

I am just getting an overall vibe of "too powerful, too easy" from 5E at this point. I like gritty, low-fantasy in my D&D and 5E (at least what I have seen so far and it is still early days) is looking like 3.X/PF/4E in terms of PC power and non-lethality. Plus, as I stated earlier, I don't really run games as DM that much (I kind of suck at DM'ing), so I wouldn't have control over which elements are removed.

I was really hoping that 5E would be the system that allowed me to get back into gaming in a serious way. Finding people who want to play "old-school" rules (B/X Basic and 1E AD&D) in face-to-face settings is pretty difficult so I was hoping that 5E could allow me to game F2F (I don't like PbP gaming) using rules that I enjoyed. The more I see of 5E, the less I think that is going to happen. Maybe the DM's guide and its "dials" can save this situation (for me).

This is why I'm going to dodge the PHB - but yeah, it is starting to look like too many core components are default very high power or sets the game at very easy mode. This goes to my earlier posts concerning design philosophy. If Wotc is assuming that people want at will cantrips and full overnight healing as a default, then how are they going to lay out the rest of the game as the systems unfold?

Looking like I will be waiting on the DMG - and now at this point I don't think they will come through with what I want. Again, it's looking more like it won't be an option to run this like an older system with a system overhaul, but more likely a new system that has some trappings or "old-like" or "old-ish" but not the same. I don't think the DMG is going to provide us old-schoolers what we are looking for. At...

Ya know...when 5E was first announced and details were trickling in, I remember people getting very excited about the possibility of a modular game that would allow them to subtract and add elements to fit previous versions. Even then I figured that, as long as more powerful options exist, a good chunk (majority?) of those players are going to take the more powerful/complex version. Your last post kind of really gets at a potential problem I see with 5E. What exactly is the target market of existing players? I assumed this game would heavily draw upon the 1E/2E demographic, but opinion there seems to be mixed. And it seems to simplified to really appeal to a lot of 3.5/Pathfinder players. Would love to see some sort of poll with a much larger sample size than a couple of threads on this site.

I agree 100% about Battlestar. I honestly didn't much care for basically everything after the insurgency arc on the show, and thought the cylon reveal was just...stupid. And then the season ends with Mitochondrial Eve, angels, "She was dead the whole time", and people deciding that technology was evil and willingly going back to the stone age. I ended up selling my DVDs of the earlier seasons, and refused to watch any of the future spin off material as a result.

I'd also agree with X-files. The later seasons of X-files severely suffered from the absence of a show bible: it was clear the writers really didn't know what was going on with the conspiracy anymore than the fans, and sometime after season 5 it just collapsed under its own weight. Changing shooting locations didn't help...The atmosphere of the Pacific Northwest was great. I never felt though that the show runners knew what to do with California as a location. Finally...the show writers just ran out of ideas. The last few seasons of the Duchovny run had a ton of comedy episodes, sequels, and standard genre show cliches. Honestly seasons 8 and 9 were superior than least they tried to get back the original vibe of the show

I mention the reference I think earlier on this's a book on New World little people.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lets try this again:

Caapora = Kariri-Tupi; protector of animals and the spirit of the forest; giant, bulky monster with red skin, a large head, and long shaggy tail; shapeshifter who can take the form of any animal; can take the form of a female who seduces men; can breath fire and also take the form of shadows, noise, and light; devours people and only leaves their intestines; can cause seizures in livestock

Cactus Cat = Bobcat like cat covered in cactus like spines, which feeds on fermented cactus juice; shrieks alot

Caddaja = Caddo NA; a hideous horned ogre that is an enemy to all mankind; also portrayed as a horned serpent

Cadejo = Hispanic folklore; creatures that appear in the form of bull-like shaggy dogs with hoofs and red eyes, the size of cows; reaks of goat; may be inspired by Tayras; moves with a jerky gate, gaze can paralyze; bite can cause madness; occurs in two forms; white Cadejos are good and protect travelers and drunks; black cadejos stalk and kill travelers

Caipora/Sarapira = Brazilian folklore; peccary riding, dark-skinned Pygmy, hairy with a mane of long black hair; Forest protector with a strong sense of fair play

Candileja = Columbia; Fiery luminescent hag; an old woman who failed to teach her grandchildren and was cursed after death to roam the earth because of it.

Canotila = Siouan/Lakota tree-dwelling fairies; brown and tailed; sometimes act as house gods; can become invisible at will; can fly; can be kept in medicine bags

Cape-lobo = Brazilian folklore; either a anteater/sloth/tapir humanoid, or an ape like creature with a single eye, long fangs, foul smelling; nocturnal and carnivorous, drinks blood and eats brains; smells horrible and is capable of producing a high pitched screech

Catsiburere = Macro-Arawakan; three-ft tall evil dwarves with hunchbacks and manes of red hair, clubfeet; vulture wings; human-like hands; white hair and skin; associated with comets

Cedar People = Salish NA; gaunt, pale humanoids with deep set eyes; females were three feet tall but males were taller than humans

Cemi/Zemi = South American; wooden sculpture which houses a powerful ancestral spirit

Chaacab/Baarkab = Macro-Mayan; related to the giant Bacabs which hold up the earth; red little people that wear turtle and snail shells as armor and use spider webs; carry thunder axes and are associated with water; born from a goddess who drank posol; smoke large cigars; at war with evil water spirits; ride to earth on rainbows

Chac/Cocijo/Tzahui/Chicchans = Macro-Mayan; giant, snake-like humanoids with blunt reptilian noses, catfish whiskers, curved fangs; and prominent body scales; associated with fishing; can control lightning and is their principal weapon; ride giant serpents or horses; strongly hierarchal

Chan = Chichimeca NA; may appear as small children or rich older men, but also take the form of cows, dogs, or giant snakes; have horns and tails

Chenoo/Giwakwa/Kiwakwa = Wabanaki Native American; evil man-eating stone giants, with a heart of ice; formed from humans who created a great crime; increase in size as they anger; emaciated, with enormous fangs and no lips; deadly scream; can regenerate from most wounds, and only destroying there heart or dismembering them will permanently destroy them

Cherufe = evil reptilian humanoid magma monster from chile; demanded human sacrifice, especially virgins; capable of setting things on fire

Chichinite = Hokan; powerful squat hairy beings which dwell underground and serve giants and horned serpents; walk backward to fool trackers; feared fire and ate food raw

Chimimis = Wakashan NA; Large-eyed gnome who can merge with logs; wanders into villages

Chindi = Navaho term for the evil that remains behind after a person dies

Chiniath = Wakashan NA; Size changing spirits; thin with shaggy hair and red skin; love to dance and drum

Chullachaqui = Peruvian nature spirit; Size of small child, with an aged face, small mouth and eyes, and sharp nose. Green eyes filled with black fire; Walks with a limp and hunched backs; associated with a type of tree that grows in sand forests; bonded with tree in the manner of dryads; misleads people and gets them lost. sometimes a sign of bad luck; possesses one animal foot. Can take animal form or the form of loved ones. Metal objects go right through them; can be created by good shamans; can send animals after people; vulnerable to cedar, blessings, and smoke; can’t cross bridges. Can cause disease, but smoke will cure victims

Chuzalungu = Quechuan; soul of a slave beaten to death by his master; appears as a tall, white human, with huge hat, tail, bright eyes, tousled hair, and backward feet; defends forests;

Ciguapa = Dominican Republic; attractive female but unsettling mountain spirits; backward pointing feet, blue skin, and wild long black hair; communicate with chirping, and has a gaze that can enthrall people. prone to evil, and enjoy kidnapping men and leading travelers astray

Cihuateteo = Undead women who died in childbirth; only come out at night, pale with chalk-like shriveled skin and eagle like claws; cause seizures, steal children, and seduce men

Cipactli = Always hungry Aztec primeval sea monster; part fish/croc/toad, with mouths at every joint

Cipelahq = Wabanaki NA; Monstrous owl that fed on children who disobeyed their parents

Coatlicue = snake skirted Mother of the Gods from Aztec myth; female in form, necklace made of human skulls, hearts, and hands; clawed with flacid breasts; head is made of two serpents; her blood forms snakes.

Coquena/Llastay = Quechuan; shy little man in ragged white and brown clothes with a feathered hat; spy on hunters and can loose wind and lightning from bags of silver and gold; protects wild ungulate herds and turkeys; can appear as a bird, insect, or giant guanaco.

Cucuy/Cuca = Hispanic folklore; bogeyman figure, depicted as a dragon-turtle like beast (Europe), anthropomorphic Alligator (Brazil); gets name from swollen, pumpkin-like head; eats children

El Cuero= Chili; massive stingray like predator, with stalked eyes, mosquito-like proboscis, and sharp claws. Drains the blood of victims; inhabits lakes; resembles a large expanse of leathery hide;

Cullo = Wabanaki NA; A race of giant monstrous herons; can fly to great heights to drop their enemies

Curapira/Korupira = Protective forest spirit which protects wildlife; resembles a child with red hair, green teeth, black eyes, sharp eyes; large eyebrows, yellowish skin, and backward pointing feet with goat hooves. Causes people to become lost; eats fruit; associated with fortune-telling cults; can change sex; can control jaguars and vines; communicates whistles; can run on all four limbs; wear bone armor and ride peccaries. Likes to eat brains and hearts; has hunting camps underground or dwells in hollow trees; enjoys capturing children and women; can’t swim well

I think the other big problem is the studio is really resistant to the idea of hiring someone like Reynolds, and then covering his face up the entire movie (or have it be hideously disfigured when it's not covered up).

I dunno...I think you could probably do a PG-13 Deadpool. The Wolverine-focused movies are pretty just can't include any Kill Bill style blood sprays. the most distinctive feature of the character is the humor from breaking the 3rd wall and playing with comic tropes...I think you can do that without an R.

Although Deadpool I think fits in much better with the MCU than it does with the Fox Marvel universe.

I uh...made a big list of monsters on here...I guess the internets ate them :(

(or I hit preview without also hitting submit)

Deadmanwalking wrote:

I'm still a little less than thrilled with there being a Class named Shaman since I'd expect many shamans to be Druids, Witches, Adepts, or Oracles and that can get confusing.

Plenty of precedents can be a fighter, barbarian, and rogue, without actually having levels in those specific classes

Why not just ask for a ooze with those properties? Or find a movie monster that captures those traits (As described, the creature isn't far off from the ooze in The Stuff).

Paizo still makes lots of original monsters. Makes more sense to ask for an original monster in some cases than try to shoehorn a unrelated creature into the niche.

James Jacobs wrote:
Actually, being turned into an undead against your will absolutely does impact your destination after death, in that it prevents your soul from moving on TO that destination. That's the primary reason why, in Pathfinder, undead are mostly evil.

I guess I meant to say that becoming a shadow against your will doesn't doom you to Abaddon or whatever after you are finally destroyed. Or at least I would hope not

If your group is fine with restrictions, I don't see an issue.

Optimally I would prefer to create a "core" set of races for each region, and restrict race choices to races only commonly found in those region.

So like in Numeria, you could play any of the core Avistan races (Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Human, Half-orc, Half-elf), plus races with a presence in the region (Android, Kasatha, Orc, and Ratfolk).

Set wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

For me, because Id love to be able to play a cleric that raises the fallen to to fight the good fight once more (with their permission). And to have that in PFS or whatever game where the GMdoesnt default to Golarion canon.

Its also a wonky idea (that all/most Undead are auto evil just because they are undead). Personally, in my opinion, it stifles options and creativity rather than invites it.

Even putting aside the corpse stuff, communicating with ancestral spirits, seeking their counsel, propitiating and honoring them, etc. has been a thing for millennia, and continues on in various cultures even to this day.

The concept that once a person dies their body and soul *both* become corrupt and malicious and / or insane is both kind of bleak (a lifetime of being a paladin or pacifist healer or whatever, and you get killed by a shadow and your soul turns evil (and possibly smarter and / or more charismatic than you ever were..., but forgets all the skills you had???), and you are now doomed to go to Abaddon when the shadow that is all that is left of your soul is destroyed, since you are now an evil abomination, through no choice of your own? Grim.) and takes away a ton of potential, as well as creating a surreal sort of situation where every culture essentially hates and fears their ancestors. Grandma's love causes her to manifest to distract orc raiders from the children hiding under the bed, and, 'oh wait, it's Golarion,' so instead she kills the kids and has to be smited by a Paladin or something. A young couple seek the blessing of their ancestors on their union, and instead get level-drained to death, because every soul that has left its body is Always Evil.

My understanding is, if you were turned undead against your will (like say a shadow), that doesn't impact your destination after death. With maybe an exception for those who willingly do horrible acts to become undead, or still maintain a sound enough mind and free will to control what you do.

A lot of spirits which would fall into the "ancestral spirits" camp would probably be considered outsiders in Pathfinder. Real life doesn't really have that firm categorization of spirits into Fey, Outsiders, Undead, etc.

The Evil Queen wrote:

Black Tamanous - In Native American mythology a big cannibal with tar under his feet, which leaves tarry footprints everywhere he goes.

I would like the Black Tamanous to be an mind-controlling, body-thief like tar-ooze creature, that turns everything it corrupts into flesh eating horrors that mostly feed and attack their own species as they are probably easiest to come by.

This ooze doesn't have acid attacks on flesh and all its nourishment comes from the flesh it's host-body devours.

It never kills the creature it corrupts, it just scrambles and damages the mind forever, turning the creature extremly agressive and hungry for the flesh of similar creatures, after he finds a better host, he jumps bodies and the previous victim will still be insane with hunger, violence and whatever else. The biggest reason a Tamanous Ooze will jump bodies is that it likes bigger bodies better than smaller bodies, many Ogres and Trolls carry Black Tamanous around, as Large creatures are the maximum it can controll.

While in their combat-appeareance the tar-like ooze is dripping from the entire body of the victim, making it seem like some horrible black mud-horror, when they hunt the tar-like ooze often hides in the bodies of the victims or under their feet, leaving tarry footprints everywhere they go, this black goo will replenish when the host creature eats again, which is pretty often.

I'd rather they hew closer to folklore on this, since it's a pretty interesting angle. A creature that basically feeds on cannibals and other "human predators", and tricks people into becoming cannibals so it can consume them. That doesn't really jive that well with an ooze or body jumping at all.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ammit is in one of the last couple Mummy's Mask volumes

I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Eldest. They are James Sutter's babies, and in his question thread he says he would prefer they never be statted up.

Since I have been seeing Sharknado and Shark Week adds pretty regularly the last few weeks, I want to throw my support behind getting the Lusca in the next Bestiary. Not only is it from real life folklore, but its the bastard offspring of "Two-headed Shark" and "Sharktopus". IE the most amazing creature ever.

Yeah...I mean there are entire groups of outsiders that still haven't been covered yet...archdevils, Horsemen, etc. I would rather seem them in a Bestiary 5 than more Old Ones or Demon Lords

Dragon78 wrote:
Well from AP# 46 there are Mhar and Xhamen-Dor, which are the old ones mentioned that do not have stats. Also the people at Paizo could always create there own old ones.

Mhar and Xhamen-Dor are tied into Golarion and, from what I have heard, not likely to show up in a setting neutral bestiary.

Dimensional Shambler, Gnoph-keh, Dark Young of Shug-Nigguruth (I think that's it?)

Tsathoggua was invented in a story published in 1929, so the 1923 rule doesn't apply. Clark Ashton Smith died in 1961...had the copyright extension act not been passed in 1998, which extended the copyright rules to 70 years after the authors date. So copyright was due to expire in 2011, but now its 2031. I asked James Jacob last year about this guy, and he said Paizo couldn't do anything without permission from the Smith estate.

Yig and Ghatanothoa were both published after 1923 and with collaborators who died in the 1960s. So they might not be public domain? Beats me how that works

Not sure what is going on with the Frank Belknap Long fiction (Chaugnar Faugn)

Nug and Yeb are kind of obscure. Might not be much to work with, or James Jacob might want to pursue the Chaosium version of these Old Ones, which would require their permission (kind of like a lot of the non-reprinted monsters in the Carrion Crown series that were not in the PRD

Caveat I am not a copyright lawyer. So....?????

Copyright is pretty complicated. Generally it's 50 years after the author's death (maybe 70 now?), or before 1923. I just did a big post, but didn't realize the 1923 rule, so I will have to revise it

The other problem with a Russia-China alliance is that for most of the cold war those two nations didn't get along well, and even had the occasional border skirmish. I don't believe Russia and China have really grown closer since the collapse of the USSR, at least not as close as China has grown to the USA.

I honestly don't see a Worldwar III any time soon. We (the USA) doesn't like what is going on with the Russia and Ukraine, but I don't think we are invested enough to move beyond sanctions and strong language, especially coming off a decade of wars in the middle-east and the current problems in the region.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

IIRC, the Second Darkness did have a canonical Neutral Drow. Even in Golarion, when almost ever Drow is evil, there is the potential for exceptions to the rule, and depending on group philosophy killing on sight may very well be a bad thing to do.

Is there a particular reason you are asking this question?

I suspect the Yellow King plot thread might be one and done for this season. My guess would be next season we will get some thing else with nods to cosmic horror but not specifically the Yellow King. Lots of other material to draw inspiration from.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
I blame Hasbro for the movie Battleship.
Your not the only one. Not the worst movie ever. It could have been a hell of lot better IMO.

Hasbro's management of Battleship and Transformers movies make me absolutely terrified on what they might do with a DnD movie.

JiCi wrote:

3) If the later Bestiaries were more about new monsters than reprinted ones, then I also don't see why having a 5th Bestiary with on AP monster, only new ones would be a problem either. Budget? Huh... yeah... I don't see a big difference between having to get 90% of the artworks compared to 100%. Again, B4 had like, what, 10 monsters from AP... on 300 or so?

10? I count about 70 pieces or so, give or take, of reused artwork. Some of those are for creatures which previously didn't have stats but were illustrated (Korada, I think all the demon lords). there are some other creatures that were previously statted that have new artwork, for instance the Shobhad and many of the ARG/Tian races.

So probably something like 80 creatures or so, or somewhere between 1/3-1/4 of the book, are reprints.

70 pieces of art you don't have to specifically buy, and 80+ statblocks you don't have to build, saves a lot of work and cost

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the issue is, Scott, concepts such as "trust" or "betrayal" are inherently emotional phenomena. Any sort of rational argument against a feeling is going to be seen as dismissive towards those feelings. You can argue that WoTC was completely in their right to do what they did, and DtRPG should have put up legal disclaimers about downloading. All of that is ENTIRELY correct. But that isn't going to be how people perceive things.

I mean, PR firms exist for a reason. To make sure any company decision or change in direction maximizes profit and generates the maximum amount of goodwill towards a company. On that basis alone, you could consider that WoTC should have perhaps expected negative fallout and gone about their decision in another way. In business and marketing, the perception of a product or it's producers is far far more important many times than any sort of abstract "value" the product has.

Brand loyalty and trust also isn't just about insurance and airlines. Hobbies and entertainment attractive passionate audiences, who are even more likely to developer trust in a product maker. I have never ever heard a passionate debate between a Geico and Allstate user. I have seen way way too many passionate debates between DC and Marvel fans, or fans of different video game companies, or between fans of different authors/genres. If gamers to you seem more's just because you spend more time in gaming communities.

I think a lot of people will go over to 5E for simplicity reasons, but not for the "simplicity" reasons Werebat cites. 5E, within the core rules, simplifies a lot of things like magic and and number tracking. From what I can gather, a lot of people who really like 2E/1E find 5E closer to what they want than Pathfinder.

I really doubt people who like the complexity of Pathfinder, but dislike the number of books, are going to be all that happy transitioning over to 5E. Mainly because 5E will almost certainly start cranking out more player options, and within 2 or 3 years will have just as "bloated" rule set as Pathfinder. It would really seem to me that the most obvious solution if you don't like all the rules is to reduce the number of books at one's table.

So I guess I just completely disagree that the current rules "bloat" is a problem for the game, especially since there are still people who post that they don't feel like Pathfinder has ENOUGH options for them.

I thought we were out of non-copyrighted, non-linked to Golarion Great Old Ones? A lot of the others were actually invented by other authors, not Lovecraft.

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not generally not really that eager to return to Varisia, but a whole campaign centered on Kaer Maga would be pretty kick-ass.

Werebat wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

That and they have stated they try to keep the different books used by any given AP at around 4-5-- not the same 4-5 for every AP but within any given one limiting it to a smaller scope, so. . . yet another reason the view that "Paiso HAS to make a 2nd edition" is flawed.

Ah, thanks for the info proving my point. 4-5 is exactly what I had guessed (counting core and monster books). What happens when they have ten sourcebooks available for players and the APs are still limited to 4-5? Twenty?

Eventually it gets untenable.

Not sure what Nathanael Love means by 4-5. I have all of Wrath of the Righteous as well as Reign of Winter. They do make use of all hardcover rule books to varying extents, usually in the form of classes (alchemists, witches, etc) and monsters. And recently a lot of NPC codex.

All of that material is hardcover, and all of it is on the PFSRD for free (or available as a cheap pdf)

Outside of that, the AP's rarely use any material from softcovers, and when they do they usually reprint the relevant statblocks/rules. Usually the only soft cover books GM's are expected to have for an AP is normally only the CS book for the region (Worldwound, etc) and the relevant player companion

playing up the trickery/joke nature of clowns, you could use gremlins as low level minions.

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe we can have an Allies Codex, covering Catfolk, Centaurs, Kitsune, etc

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah...outsourcing the first big adventure to Kobold Press, along with what seems to be a relatively luke-warm reception to the starter adventures, make my strongly doubt they are going to follow Pathfinder in basing their business model around adventures.

They do have a lot of great properties, and so we might see a stronger emphasis on campaign setting material. Gencon will probably have a bunch of announcements, which should give use directions on what tactics they are trying for their business model.

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Werebat wrote:

Pathfinder was great when it came out. A real relief from the madness that 3.X had descended into. I loved how game play seemed more balanced, and many of the optimization "tricks" were toned down in the core rules and even the first supplement or two.

And then came the APG. And with it, the gunslinger, the alchemist, and the summoner.

In the time since, Pathfinder has begun to groan under the weight of its own cheese. With the new class book coming out, I'm starting to feel just like I did with 3.X when Pathfinder first came out.

And now I see 5th Edition D&D, just about ready to bite into. Simplified. Less optimization-y. A lot like Pathfinder was, once.

Hear that creaking and groaning? Right around the structural supports?

Yeah I am going to agree with other people. You could make an argument that 5E is a simpler game. But it sounds like you were find with Pathfinder, you just think the rules supplements complicate things.

Which is kind of unfair, since 5E literally hasn't had a single hardcover rule book release. Of course it has less options...we only have the basic free PDF and the starter box. Unless WOTC changes their business model from 4E/3E, they are probably pretty going to outpace Paizo on rules and character options.

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Prophet of Doom wrote:

Regarding too much complexity. Maybe Paizo needs to issue a basic game with striped down rules and options for newbies.

yeah that would be great...something to act as an intro into the game...maybe they can even produce it in a boxed set!


How excited are you about this and this?

"Temporarily" gave up on Shadowrise...which resulted in a month plus hiatus where I didn't really read anything.

Started reading Best Horror of the Year 5, edited by Ellen Datlow instead. Pretty good...I have read the last 4 volumes over the year, and it's been one of the most reliable horror anthologies.

I would think Psionics and non-transparency would work best when one magic type is more rare compared to the other.

So if Psionics is rare, and your party has no psionic characters


If Arcane magic is rare, and your party has no spellcasters

Otherwise I think it's too likely that either party members will feel hosed at times, and the GM will have a lot more work to ensure that user of magic doesn't have too much a boost over another.

1 to 50 of 2,643 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.