Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL)

With kaiju, we can possible make some sacred beasts that act as local deities.

Razz wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Still not early enough to say MUCH more, but you can expect the number of templates in this book to roughly equal the number in the first two Bestiaries—AKA, there'll be a few, but not a lot. Templates are neat, but they're kinda like prestige classes—they got overdone in 3.5, but also I think that a Bestiary's a better place for new monsters, rather than new monster recipes (aka Templates or advanced rules for existing monsters).

A big book of templates, a la Green Ronin's excellent "Advanced Bestiary," though, would be cool.

Sounds like you're also saying it'd be also cool to just do one big book of Prestige Classes so us PrC-Lovers can stop whining, right? ;)

I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorperate a bunch of world content.

I would love to see a Campaign Setting book full of Prestige Classes. What a great way to expand Golarion content outside of the Regional books (which are excellent too btw).

I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.

A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.

James Jacobs wrote:

I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.

A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.

Again, that's what the PF Campaign line is for. Not the PF Roleplaying Game line, which is more world-neutral. They should do 2 books of PrC, one for the PF Campaign line and the other for the PF RPG line.

will there be any new dinos? if so, i'm hoping for a therezinosaur.

I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorperate a bunch of world content.

James

I would love this. Let's do it...

Slipstream wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.

A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.

Again, that's what the PF Campaign line is for. Not the PF Roleplaying Game line, which is more world-neutral. They should do 2 books of PrC, one for the PF Campaign line and the other for the PF RPG line.

I agree that Pathfinder needs more settings-neutral Prestige Classes. If they're going to make a Book of Prestige Classes, however, I think it should only be the one. Perhaps looking something like this, in the spirit of compromise.

Chapter 1: Introduction to Prestige Class / Philosophy Behind Prestige
Chapter 2: New Prestige Classes (Setting Neutral)
Chapter 3: Feats (I'd like to see more feats that promote Multiclassing; a book on Prestige Classes NEEDS to be able to support Multiclassing. Stuff along Wild Shape Focus (name?) would be cool.)
Chapter 4: The Prestiged of Golarion (some reprinted from older material, some new).
Chapter 5: Designing Your Own Prestige Classes (includes advice on how to build Prestige Classes and how to incorporate them into your world. Uses Chapter 4's content as examples).

I am against a book of prestige classes!

I wouldn't like the prc bloat of old to return to the game.
I am totally ok with the fact that there are a lot of other options to choose from and that there are only some prc which add _flavour_ to the game.

I couldn't care less for a rules element which isn't central to the game any more according to the makers of the very game. If any new prc, then please keep it setting specific. That's imho the niche prc fill very nicely.

Kr,
G.

As fascinating as all this talk about a product on prestige classes is, I don't suppose we could return to the topic of this thread, please? I'm not meaning to be a party-pooper or anything... Besides, it will make a great topic for a new thread, and will probably be noticed more readily by the good folks at Paizo (and thus increase the likelihood of such a product being considered for development...). ;)

And, no, I'm not going to start such a thread for all those interested in a book on prestige classes because I prefer fewer prestige classes that are also setting-specific, thank you. (This is just my preference. Others will feel differently...)

WRT the Pathfinder Bestiary 3: I'm looking forward to all the new (and not so new, if you a collector of the Adventure Paths) monsters, as well as updates/reprints of the monsters from the Bonus Bestiary! (Where I'm currently living, the Bonus Bestiary is not - and never was - available in print form...)

Can't wait for next year! (The Bestiary 3 has an expected release date sometime in November: again, where I'm currently living, Pathfinder books become available only after 6 weeks to 3 months AFTER they're officially released, so... <grumble grumble>)

Thank you.
(^v^)=b

--C.

As fascinating as all this talk about a product on prestige classes is, I don't suppose we could return to the topic of this thread, please? I'm not meaning to be a party-pooper or anything... Besides, it will make a great topic for a new thread, and will probably be noticed more readily by the good folks at Paizo (and thus increase the likelihood of such a product being considered for development...). ;)

Actually, there was such a thread, in which it was revealed how truly Evil prestige classes are, how much better archetypes are, and how much better the universe is now that Paizo no longer really wants to make prestige classes.

Or at least that's what it felt like :)

In any case, I'm all for supporting prestige classes, even if it will cause the World As We Know It to End Horribly. After all, I've had a lot of fun in games with a lot of access to prestige classes, and just because they can be foolish and overbalanced does not mean they have to be.

This is not a prestige classes thread, it's a Bestiary thread.

I would like new specific half-Celestial (i.e. half-Movanic Deva), half-Fiend (i.e. half-succubus) templates, and half-X outsider templates, with some customizing available.

Okay so even assuming That this book won't contain anything post-AP36 (saw a quote mentionned). They could just pool and reprint 36 AP, various source book monsters and what 15 Pathfinder modules worth of stuff and that comes to what? 100, 120+ beasties? In my eyes that's worth the pricetag alone, updated statblocks and art from loads of books I don't have? Gotta call that a winner.
Guessing they'll scour the old 3.5 ogl tomes of yore for more funky monsters to reimagine. Which again is worth the price tag.
But even factoring reprints and reinventions, I'm guessing we'll get all sorts of crazily awesome new monsters from all over the place. Maybe see more monsters alluded to in the lore or variants described in the Ecologies of beasties.

The only problems I got with the bestiary entries is the shortened fluff. But I suppose that's what the AP and Revisited books are for eh? Speaking of which. When James Jacobs and his crew take a break from this years awesome, I wonder which ten they'll revisit next? Outsiders? Fey? Giants?

Currently running Serpent's skull. Is it official? Are we getting no love from African, Indonesian, Aboriginal, South American and various island culture myths? This makes me sad. At least until Bestiary IV

Currently running Serpent's skull. Is it official? Are we getting no love from African, Indonesian, Aboriginal, South American and various island culture myths? This makes me sad. At least until Bestiary IV

I would not jump to that conclusion.

Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?

post your wishes in the
Bestiary 3 wish list

Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?

Kami will have LOTS of stat blocks by the end of the year.

Soullos wrote:

Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?

Kami will have LOTS of stat blocks by the end of the year.

*metal gear solid exclamation mark appears overhead* I'm liking this very much. :D

What's a kami?

I know there have been a few people asking this, but will there be any new dinosaurs in this bestiary? If so, my wishes are a Balaur, Therizinosaurus, and Stygimoloch. For the "international" theme, I would suggest elaphrosaurus (africa), microraptor swarm (china), giganotosaurus (argentina), masaikasaurus (madagascar), and of course spinosaurus (Egypt)

What's a kami?

A kami is a spirit, usually considered divine. It can mean anything from a nature spirit to a god. To whit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

...and MUCH, MUCH MORE!

okay, you got me.

post your wishes in the

Bestiary 3 wish list

Pretty sure they said Bestiary 3 monsters are already chosen and have very little chance of changing. You need to change that to "Bestiary 4 Wish List"

Azure_Zero wrote:

post your wishes in the

Bestiary 3 wish list

Pretty sure they said Bestiary 3 monsters are already chosen and have very little chance of changing. You need to change that to "Bestiary 4 Wish List"

Then make the Bestiary 4 wish list, and have people post in it.

(edited)
:-?

A new book to add, to may order list, yay (semi-sarcasm),
I want the new books, but they are going to be burning a hole in my wallet.

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I refuse to buy this if it has anything ressembling Cthulu or his minions in it.

I dislike lovecraft's work

nothing wrong with horror mind you....

As stated, Bestiary 1 and 2 both had Mythos monsters. Bestiary 1 had the shoggoth and the ghoul (yep, hate to break it to you, the ghoul is pure Lovecraft). Bestiary 2 upped the stakes with denizens of Leng, gug, hounds of Tindalos, Leng spiders, serpentfolk, and shantaks. Did you refuse to purchase those?

There are a few monsters in both bestiaries that I don't really care for. But it would be stupid to ignore the other 300+ monsters that are totally awesome just because I think one or two are dumb.

The ghoul is by no means a Lovecraftian invention. In fact, it's origins as a monster can be found in Arabian folklore.

Kthulhu wrote:

Steelfiredragon wrote:

I refuse to buy this if it has anything ressembling Cthulu or his minions in it.

I dislike lovecraft's work

nothing wrong with horror mind you....

As stated, Bestiary 1 and 2 both had Mythos monsters. Bestiary 1 had the shoggoth and the ghoul (yep, hate to break it to you, the ghoul is pure Lovecraft). Bestiary 2 upped the stakes with denizens of Leng, gug, hounds of Tindalos, Leng spiders, serpentfolk, and shantaks. Did you refuse to purchase those?

There are a few monsters in both bestiaries that I don't really care for. But it would be stupid to ignore the other 300+ monsters that are totally awesome just because I think one or two are dumb.

The ghoul is by no means a Lovecraftian invention. In fact, it's origins as a monster can be found in Arabian folklore.

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

Heck, Night of the Living Dead-style zombies owe a great deal to Lovecraft. I suspect most people who haven't read a lot of his work think it's all Cthulhu and Necronomicon and thus underestimate its impact on modern fantasy.

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

James Jacobs wrote:

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

While the look of the ghast in D&D is certainly different than how they look in Lovecraft... what I'm talking about is the actual word itself, and the usage of that word as something related to but tougher than ghouls. THAT is, as far as I can tell, almost all Lovecraft.

I'd certainly be interested to see evidence of the word "ghast" used before Lovecraft as anything other than an archaic form of the word "ghastly." But as far as I can tell, using the word as a noun for the name of a race of anything (let alone ghoul-related things) comes from Lovecraft.

Would that include non-English uses of the word? ;)

The Crypt Keeper wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

While the look of the ghast in D&D is certainly different than how they look in Lovecraft... what I'm talking about is the actual word itself, and the usage of that word as something related to but tougher than ghouls. THAT is, as far as I can tell, almost all Lovecraft.

I'd certainly be interested to see evidence of the word "ghast" used before Lovecraft as anything other than an archaic form of the word "ghastly." But as far as I can tell, using the word as a noun for the name of a race of anything (let alone ghoul-related things) comes from Lovecraft.

A quick etymology search for "ghastly" brings up the following;

So it would seem HPL gets noun credit. But all this is just from a quick Googling.

Eric Hinkle wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Orannis wrote:

Second: Russian and Norwegian folklore!? Awesome! Kikimora and Vodyanoy, then? I'm having trouble thinking of a Norwegian critter you guys haven't done yet...

There are actually quite a lot of them.

Any chance of seeing the Räven, the Norwegian Foxwoman? I remember a band called Hedningarma made a song about one that was both very well done and downright spooky.

You mean this one?

(And on a nit-picking note, Räven just means "the Fox" [tagging "-en, -n, -et, or -t" at the end is our version of "the"], so no need for the the) ;)

Dude, that is an awesome song! I just bought it. Tip - listen to it with headphones on.

About 15 years ahead of you on that one. ;)

(That whole album is pretty great, actually.)

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

Azure_Zero wrote:

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Gorbacz wrote:

Azure_Zero wrote:

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

I much prefer these names to some "Stonesworn" or "Windborn" or whatever else have you.

Also, the other fey of Bestiary 2 are all so close to their roots that I don't mind these few names used for something different.

Lazaro wrote:

Quandary wrote:

Is there also a film/anime explanation for why the humurous/menacing turtle dudes have holes in the top of their heads?

Explanation

yep. Kappa WORKS that way. I tend to play spirits more related to folklore.

My players are SCARED by fey.

As they should be. If your players aren't afraid of fey spirits, then you are doing it wrong, and need to read up on the real stuff, not disney Tinker bell fairies. XD

This is why I love Pathfinder for the introduction of Kelpies, Mites, and Gremlins.

I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Keeping the races in question more mythical actually has a couple of options.

Or you could just have the myth and folklore behind them be wild fireside tales and exaggeration. If they are rare and usually live out in the wilds it wouldn't be impossible that the common woodsman tells an outlandish story about the undine he spied bathing in a mountain stream.
I find this sort of middle ground between folklore as fact and the human tendency to tell a "bigger" story works pretty well for game.

I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.

The size category relating to social class would certainly make sense. As fey were said to have dwindled in size as they lost power according to certain traditions.

I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.

Well, yeah. Of course Fairies are a mixed bag, and should never be seen as fully good or fully evil. I'm just saying I like players characters to view them from a very superstitious standpoint. Similar to the feel of the Swashbuckling Adventures portrayal of the Sidhe, where terms like "Seelie" and "Unselie" do not necessarily automatically mean they are good or evil, as both have been known to harm and help mortals. People are weary when it comes to a force that is outside of their comprehension, especially if it is of a magical nature, and has resulted in harm in the past. Given that Fairies by nature are very easily offended, and resort to pranks which could be cruel or deadly, the first reaction to a typical farmer is to stay clear of them. A druid or a witch or bard or even a wizard may have a greater understanding of them however and know which ones are of a benevolent nature or not. The typical rogue or fighter who may be familiar with stories told of these creatures may be under the impression that all fey spirit away children and leave changelings in their place, and that it is necessary to hang a holy symbol over the crib of a newborn to ward the child from being replaced by a changeling. And from those stories alone, they have grown to fear all fey.

Well I hoping for a Ratkin or Suarian race as pcs because I want to play as in Legal Place my Master Splinter Ratkin rip off as Ninja.

Sorry, with the ultimate combat coming out, you can now make ninja turtles...... Turtle Power.

Like I said I'm sorry.

No need to say you're sorry.

Are there going to be new native outsider types available as player characters similar to the Aasimar and Tiefling, but aligned towards Chaos and Law?

Gorbacz wrote:

Azure_Zero wrote:

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Are there going to be new native outsider types available as player characters similar to the Aasimar and Tiefling, but aligned towards Chaos and Law?

Maybe some day, but it's not a high priority on our list.

Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Well, if one day you want to create something more similar to the original, there are synonims :P

As an example, Oreads were called Orestiads too.. so in case you want to create a creature of the fey type..

What's a kami?

In a nut shell, the Asian equivalent to a cross between an angel from Judo-Christian mythology and a demigod from ancient religions from places like Greece or Babylon...only unlike angels they're not always benevolent and unlike demigods they don't always work for the same higher level deity.

Azure_Zero wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

Azure_Zero wrote:

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Thanks James for explaining for why that happened (not being sarcastic)