My contribution: A few new Critters from various northern European countries: Most of these were new to me, although I have included a few slightly more well known critters:
Baiste-na-scoghaigh = Shape-shifting lumbering monoceros like beast from the Isle of Skye; propagates race by taking the form of a man and mating with female humans; may kill and mimic different men
Brunmigi = Norwegian; Noxious troll that inhabits springs; smells horrible and pollutes water
Disir = Norse; female warrior ghost-like spirits that symbolized fertility, fate, and death, and protected individual clans
Finngalkn = Norse; dragonic humanoid with human like head with large teeth, large heavy tail, and clawed limbs. Often associated with water
Fjorulalli = Icelandic "beach walker"; seal like monster who would interbreed with sheep and create offspring with deformed back legs.
Florutroll = Faeros islands Beach Troll; inhabited coastlines and abducted children; lanky, noisy creature covered in sea weed and pebbles
Gloson = Danish; spectral pig with red-glowing eyes, breathing flames; Large razor-like back, sharp enough to cut a person in half if it runs between a person's legs
Grave-sow = Danish; Undead hog who is a warning of calamity
Gryla = Faeros Islands Troll woman associated with christmas; resembles an old hag with 15 tails and a large unruly band of children; comes down from the mountains to steal unruly children and eat them
Haltija = Finnish; guardian spirits of various phenomena; different tribes of haltija guarded forests, water, women, death, fire, mountains, wood, and iron
Hrosshvalur/Raudkembingur = Icelandic; red-maned whale horse; causes huge waves by slapping tail
Kielkropf = Germanic/Northern European changeling, left in place for an infant. Couldn’t speak or properly walk, and noted to have a large head and wisened appearance. Left by dwarfs, devils, and other creatures in place of human children
Lior-trold =Norwegian; lake troll; inhabits alpine lakes; can appear as a horse, load of hay, or immense serpent. Also can take the form of different people. Most active in winter when breaks through the ice to prey on nearby people
Lundfolk = Grove-folk; Swedish; invisible spirits that guard groves sacred to the old gods; punish those who damage the groves; Inhabit trees like dryads; inhabited trees more lush than surrounding trees.
Mylingar = Swedish; ghosts of lost, murdered children; if seen, cause sickness; constantly cry for parents; can shapeshift into the resemblance of other people.
Nakki/Neck/Nok = Finnish/Northern European; monstrous water spirit; shapeshift, natural form that of a ugly fishman, but can shapeshift into a beautiful women, silvery fish, horse or hound to attract prey; can enchant and mesmerize prey with voice; eats human flesh. Can cause disease
Ofuguggi = Icelandic; venomous trout with backward pointing fins
Qvsernknurre = Finnish, Giant Brownie- like creature which inhabits mills; can extend it’s jaws to swallow anything; if paid in beer will increase the amount of flour produced; can be mischevious; weakness to fire and boiling water.
Raginal = Danish; farmyard spirit/troll that dwelt beneath the earth. Was polite, but disliked people/animals living above him, which he killed. Enormous strength; would be helpful if not bothered.
Saeneyti = icelandic sea cattle, which would breed with and steal away cattle
Selamodir = Icelandic; "Seal Mother"; giant seal that protects smaller seals from harm
Skeljaskaimsli = Icelandic shell monster; rusty brown, multi-limbed creature with a tapir like trunk and pangolin scales
Skoffin = Icelandic; a white cat-like creature with a death gaze that inhabits graveyards
Skovtroll = Swedish Wood-troll
Spokvatten = Swedish; mermaid like being composed of snow-white mist; bad luck to see
Strand-Varsel = Danish; ghosts of the unconsecrated dead who wash ashore and seek proper burial. Will possess people and make them head inland, to release them from their curse; great strength, and will kill those who defy them
Thorbagge = Norse name for scarab beetle, sacred to Thor; if found upside and righted, it expediated 7 sins from the helper
Thursir/Thusser/Thurser = Norway; man-like trolls with civilization; inhabit mountains and hills; pale blue in color; nocturnal; keep slaves.
Tomtar/Nisse = Scandinavian household/stable spirits; bearded dwarf; sometimes described as cyclopean or a shapeshifter; can cast illusions/become invisible; short temper; poisonous bite; would do farmwork for porridge
Uellerken = Germanic; Dwarf-like creatures, take the form of toads and reptiles by day, but humanoids by moonlight. Attracted to human women and converted to Christianity
Urdarkottur = Icelandic ghoul cat
Vittra = Swedish nature spirits; dwell underground and are usually invisible, but easily offended; raise cattle; will viciously drive off any intruders; open area beings but may be found in woods; field elves; sometimes steal cattle
Suggestion / Request: Would Paizo be willing to Design a new Class as something akin to the 3.5 Warlock?
I like world building, moreso than writing. So I am always researching stuff, playing around with maps and cosmology, etc.
Unfortunately my big problem is that I get neurotic about attention to detail, and go way way overboard on background material which isn't going to be relevant for about 90% of the stories I want to write. At various points for instance, I have had 100 page documents listing cultural details of every possible fantasy race. All that detail inevitably leads to grid lock. And because of my science background I have trouble just saying "Magic!", I instead need to think of the evolutionary relationships between races, or figure out why culture x resembles some real world culture, or why if a certain technology or magic exists, why don't we get this problem/cultural influence developing.
It doesn't help that my views on world building tend to evolve with my reading interests, which means I am having to constantly re-invent stuff, either to avoid things which I find cliche now, or because some idea is too good to pass up.
Yes but the GM also has a problem.
Ultimately this is a a game. No one has some sort of god-granted right to play whatever they want in whatever game they want. IF the GM and all the other players don't like RD's playing style, They shouldn't have to be the one who do all the compromising here. People (at least should) play the game for fun. If one person stops making the game fun for everyone else, it's that person's responsibility to either adjust to the group, find some sort of compromise every one likes, or find a new group that fits him better.
Am I The Only One? wrote:
Yeah I kind of get this impression as well. It's not badfunwrong to hyperoptimize, but I get the feeling that it just doesn't gell with the group he is playing with. I would suggest either having the group randomly choose characters to break any patterns, discuss with the group options, or try to pursue a group with similar views.
As for other people saying that RD's should just tell his group to just "suck it up", If a player took that attitude to the GM and group, they wouldn't be invited back.
Mythology and folklore tends to be focused around creatures that can either hurt someone, conflict with some cultural taboo, or have some sort of religious significance.
That is why you get lots of creatures based off of dogs/wolves, serpents, etc. Or monsters tied into seduction or improper burial. People just didn't care about fungus other than to make sure not to eat the wrong types. It's only when science started paying more attention to fungus (and their awesome biology) and people stopped worrying about getting eaten by animals do fungus-based monsters show up in pop culture.
FYI...Woodwose are pretty clearly wild man types creatures well described in folklore and cryptozoology. I would say their is pretty low change Paizo would do something drastically different like make them fungus people.
I think sexual orientation/gender identity is treated the same way as equality as sexes. It's meant to be set up a game setting that is equally assessable to everyone. They treat the modern baseline as default and don't try to bring real world history into it. To a lesser degree, so is how they treat race...yes there is a bit of racial persecution in some corners (Sargava), and tensions elsewhere (Shoanti versus recent settlers), but it's not a defining attribute to a race, and doesn't seem to heavily play into the backstory of the iconics (I don't think?).
The thing I keep in mind is that Golarion is a game setting, which is different from a novel setting. Golarion is constructed to provide a fun backdrop to adventures that cater to as wide an audience as possible. That means some aspects get glossed over (The Kitchen Sink nature of the setting, etc).
A fantasy novel written by one person needs to spend more time carefully structuring a setting, and can also deal with issues of sexism, sexual orientation, and racism as part of the narrative.
I love Game of Thrones and think the book does a great job of being a realistic treatment of how a medieval society would actually work regarding treatment of the different sexes, etc. But I would hate to be have to play a female character in an RPG set up within that setting.
I basically want a "Mexican Wrestler" archetype for the brawler
Warpriest archetypes to better fit the flavor of different kinds of dieties would be nice. Maybe a "monk" like warpriest of Iori, or a Warpriest more focused on fighting undead for Pharasma.
Would Miley Cyrus be an abberation?
Also: Yes we need some more Orcs...I am kind of surprised we haven't had more variants. I'd like to see some Orcs that more closely align with the Uruk Hai and other "advanced" breeds.
More Goblinoids would be good as well. I'd like to see a more intelligent magic-using variant. The type that would be most likely to take levels in wizard and form the evil mastermind of goblinoid armies. That is a niche currently left open. Extra points if it borrows inspiration from the brainy gremlin of Gremlin 2.
There are probably half a dozen threads out there on "Why Paizo isn't doing AP compilations" While manpower is an issue, it's not the most important one. No, the most important one is that producing the perception that AP will be compiled into single volumes means people are less likely to continue to buy new APs, instead waiting for the reprinted compilation. It also means that the existing stock they have becomes harder to move. Paizo's lifeblood is the AP subscription system, and collected editions are a pretty good way of nuking that.
There is also the issue that I am not sure a lot of the theorycrafters really play the game or think of the game in anything which resembles the average roleplayer. Some particularly vocal proponents of theorycrafting in this thread have basically argued in other threads that playing anything but a wizard or druid was pointless, and you are stupid to ever want to play anything else. I honestly don't think the theorycrafting of those sorts of folks is remotely helpful.
Presumably part of the reason we are getting hybrids though is to prevent bloat issues. For the most part, the hybrid classes tend to use class features that already exist, as well as preexisting spell lists. Granted some classes do vary from this...The Inspiration mechanics of the Investigator is a bit different for instance. But my feeling is that part of the goal behind the hybrid classes is, beside improving upon multiclassing, it to introduce new options with less bloat than we would get with 10 completely novel classes.
I actually like the simplicity of new classes using existing spell lists. But sometimes an existing spell list doesn't really capture the new classes flavor, which seems to be a sticking point for some classes.
There's been a fair amount of people calling for scrapping of the existing classes and even the entire concept of hybrid classes. Not all of the critics, I grant you, but some.
I know yesterday after reading through a lot of threads while procrastinating, my overall sense was one of negativity, and not constructive negativity.
I am reading an anthology of short horror by Laird Barron at the moment, and a few nights ago finished the short story "Proboscis".
Anyway, the monster in that short story (which pretty much stayed offscreen) was pretty much hinted to be some sort of cosmic assassin bug abberation. So I will add that to the wishlist.
Going with a literal interpretations:
Intelligent Assassin bug like Aberration with the ability to take human form (either via shapeshifting or glamour) as camouflage, to allow it to get close to it's prey (humans). Even in "human" form though the person seems "off". Than uses it's proboscis to drain the blood and/or brains of it's prey. Can then the raise the corpses as zombies, although zombies that perhaps act more like the pod spawn template from B4 than typical zombies
Fixing the rogue and monk would require more substanstial revision to the core rule book than a few errata. Adding new features or what have you changes the word count, which changes the page count, which then requires reorganization and relayout for the entire book. I think a similar argument was given on why the stealth playtest was not incorporated into the new rule book.
Basically, a revised monk, rogue, or fighter is probably best done when you redo the entire rulebook...i.e. an edition change.
P.S. I don't actually see Brawler replacing the Monk, it's more filling a niche the monk doesn't cover well - non mystical martial artist/unarmed fighter. Rogue is a bit hard to defend...
I don't get why people are disappointed.
This isn't a bait and switch. Since the Gencon announcement, they have clearly stated that this book would consist of hybrid classes, and have also described why they are doing hybrid classes and what a hybrid class entailed.
Is every class amazing? No. And I would say given differences in play style as well as personal preferences, that is an impossible goal. Overall though I find 8 of the classes interesting, even if a few of those need some tweaks (which hey, is what playtesting is for.
While it's good to give people their opinion, I am not sure a broad "I don't like this" is really that informative. It's probably better to list specific suggestions on things you want to see.
Generally I have found multiclassing to result in weaker characters, and Pathfinder has definitely (intentionally or not) made that the inferior option. So frankly I am glad that we are getting hybrid classes.
My guess why Paizo and some players (including me) are not super concerned with balance because we don't think optimization is the end all of gaming. A lot of players just don't obsess over whether any other option is inferior to something else that exists. And they don't map out every little feat or level they take in their character's life and shout obscenities to the gods about a perceived wasted feat. Its simply a choice of play style.
I like that classes are not all equally suited to the same tasks, or that every weapon, feat, or spell is not of exactly equal use. While there is a danger in going overly detailed in the rules and trying to mimic reality to too great an extent, there is also a danger in overly balancing classes, weapons etc. After all, we could just state all base weapons do d8 damage, and give all classes similar abilities. But then I think that every character will lose any sense of individuality it has
Curse you both...now I can't help but to notice it!
If we are going to have a wishlist thread and a "negative wishlist" thread, lets keep the negativity in the latter. I don't reading well-argued reasons why X is more appropriate for Y, but I don't think we need the "I hate that idea and don't want it" posts in this thread.
I would have to look at the troop type again from Reign of Winter, but I figured it might be hard to do a standard template. For one, I know at least one designer stated that templates tend to break down in Pathfinder after +2 CR.
Similarly, goblins, gnolls, and drow SHOULD probably game state wise have quite different troops. And that doesn't even take in account class levels, etc.
A troop template could certainly be possible, but I would wonder if it would be too complex or messy.
Also, not really certain if swarms are necessarily equivalent. Most swarms are of small creatures that individually are probably not worth statting up. Whereas Troops are taking a classed monster/race and assembling it in in a swarm style unit.
Just overall feels more appropriate for the NPC codex line than Bestiary. Especially since we don't really have much examples in rulebooks of classed monster/minion races.
I want to see more troop (and army) statblocks, but do think that the bestiary might not be the best place for it. Maybe an Ultimate Monster hardcover?
I get really annoyed that with the current system, it's really difficult to use low-level threats like goblins or orcs for high level characters, unless you throw ridiculous amounts of class levels on them. Doing the latter always leads to the question of "Why were all the goblins level 1 warriors when we started, but now they are all level 8 fighters?"
real world and DnD classifications don't really overlap well.
While the Dullahan are considered a type of fairy, fairies have also been considered to be formed from the souls of the dead, and often there is substanstial overlap between Fey and Undead in Celtic folklore.
Although I haven't read a DnD novel in like...ten years, Moonshae would actually not be a bad idea. The first book is self contained, the world of the islands is small enough that viewers don't have to learn a thousand things, and the tropes are not so grounded in DnD for a non DnD fan to have problems.
Huh...going through the Appendix N reread project on Tor, I found another possible good source for new monsters:
A. Merrit's books, including The Moon Pool, are past copyright, and were huge inspirations for DnD.
There are some good monsters in here, like the Silent Ones/Taithu (benevelent bird-angel-lizard things), The Dweller/Shining One (sort of an evil intelligence) and he Akka (Subterranean Frog people)
Oddly enough, even though we had Asgardian flying ships, gun turrets, etc, this movie seemed more "grounded" in fantasy, not science fiction, than the last movie. I think all extra scenes of life in Asgard they showed made me think of something a typically fantasy character would experience and walk through. Alan Taylor was really a good choice for director for this movie, and I hope they consider him for the 3rd Thor (although rumor has it he is attached to the Terminator reboot, so no clue how that will interfere with things).
Well, I feel if getting a bestiary every year was a surefire thing now, The developers wouldn't be so cautious on the matter, and wouldn't say things like "There might not be a bestiary 5.
At this stage in the game, Hardcover bestiaries are sharing space with NPC Codexes. That series has yet to cover a non-core class or race. So I really do think we are either going to get a NPC codex 2 or a Monster codex next fall. There is also the possibility of a template book (James Jacob would like to do one) or Ultimate Monster type book showing up in this slot.
Err...they nitpick everything to death even now though. Certainly it hasn't stopped the production of new Star Trek, or new comic book movies; or the future production of new Star Wars. I suspect the Drizzt distractors will be even less noticeable that the critics of the above. And face it....People who don't like Drizzt will probably still see the movie, if only to see DnD staples on the big screen.
I am fine with keeping complicated names for real life monsters. I tend to think it's a bit of a disservice when you simplify things to much. And if a name is too simple, like "rockman" I tend to get a cheesy vibe from it, which doesn't make me want to use it.
I would agree with the sentiment about Demons...I really am more excited about things like Kytons, Qlippoth, etc personally.
Honestly that is about it for what I am sick of. Pathfinder so far has done a pretty good job on creating novel creatures that are not simply environmental variants, etc. But I would love for a Bestiary that didn't have any of the big three Evil outsiders but instead gave us more neutral, good, and lesser known evil outsiders.
Oddly enough I like the gremlins and giants in Bestiary 4. And Immortal Ichor is not only awesome but a great reference to Prince of Darkness.
I am kind of tired of Drakes, but maybe if we get them tied into the Outer Dragons they will be cooler or more novel
I don't read bestiaries really to see how they can help players, but how horribly they can murder or annoy them.
That said, I could see Outer Dragon assistance being a major sought after PC Quest. A Time Dragon can, three times in it's life, travel to any point in time with I think a normal PC party. That is a hell of a awesome ability. There are also Outer Dragons that can travel across galaxies or move at the speed of light...perfect for interplanetary campaigns.
Do you have though every square mile of your world described in detail?
I mean even if you do have concrete plans for that specific area, there must be someplace on the continent where a player can put his home village/tribe/whatever.
Obviously some ideas may be go against the setting grain (if a major backstory plotline involves genocide of a race, or if styles of god are excluded due to cosmology).
But I mean, most published campaign settings don't even have that level of detail. So when I see GM's discuss the sanctity of their setting in such terms, I always get a feeling they should be using their setting for a novel, not a game.
According to James Jacobs, animating mindless undead just means using a piece of the soul, not the whole thing, in the case of skeletons and zombies at least. So you are not preventing a soul from moving on, but rather causing discomfort to the soul.
I haven't gotten to the fungal creature template yet in my Bestiary 4 read. Does it reproduce by spores, and how much control does the fungal creature have over spore production? I could see letting a fungal creature formed from a dead compatriot live, but bringing them back to civilization could be extraordinarily dangerous, as you could quickly create a fungal epidemic.
Speaking of races, I would like a half-ghoul and "Half-Skum/Deep One"
Ghouls are one of the most populous sapient undead and have similar origins to Vampires, and there are references to half ghouls in Mythos fiction. They seem like the obvious choice for another "undead properties" race.
The "Half-skum" (would need a better name) are also from the Mythos. I expect they would in flavor be somewhat similar to Changelings.
While we are on the topic of horror, I would like an undead Slasher, modeled after Jason, Michael Myers, etc.
Give it some good immunities and allow it to be hard to kill, but make it vulnerable to whatever originally killed it (like say, Jason being drowned).
Give it the ability to teleport,
sneak attack damage,
and some sort of special ability that lets it target people who sin preferentially (Because we know the "good girl" is always the last person standing).
Die Hard and the ability to improvise weapons is a must.
I actually see the APs having a longer productivity than rule books...There are tons of themes/plotlines/nations/enemies to mine for AP's.
It strikes me that rulebooks don't have quite that variety...eventually you run into a wall where either you are forced to exploit more niche concepts (which one could argue is already happening to some degree with Mythic) or you run out of new ideas and start retreading past books (which some could also claim is happening with the Advanced Class Guide...which seems in some way to cover similar ground to the advanced players guide, at least on info we have so far)
I suspect a lot of people buy APs with little expectation of running through the whole volume, either because there groups have short attention spans, or they primarily buy them for the flavor, monsters, or to mine encounters from. Also not every AP appeals to every group...some of the present volumes will probably never be played by certain groups, so new entries will attract other buyers.
What solution then do some here propose when the company stops meeting the minumum amount of profit needed to stay in operation. Simply close their doors and lay people off. I have nothing against tradition. I respect the tradition of D&D roots. The devs should not be held hostage by those traditions. Or the fanbase. Do I want Paizo to be profitable yes. I also know that imo they should never just assume that the system as is will always sell. People forget that Paizo is also a business.
I don't think people are seriously arguing that Paizo should never change the system even in the presence of falling sales. Most are just worried that about Paizo potentially jumping the gun and alienating existing/potential customers. Just read these threads. People arguing for change are all over the map on what they hate or don't hate, or what the major problems of the system are. Any radical change to address one criticism is likely to tick off someone else. Pathfinder owes a bit of its current popularity after all from 4E refugees who weren't happy with the changes or the need to go ahead and rebuy all new books. DnD Next might force rule vamps sooner than I might want, if it is successful. But lets keep supporting the existing system while the game is doing well.
Paizo's stated business model also relies on adventure paths, not the rule system. Under that model, they should continue to do well until they run out of AP's or until most of the most interesting AP ideas are taken.