And where can we find out what is the closed content?
Short of the long: Look at the Monster Manual and look at the SRD and compare. Whatever is in the Monster Manual but not in the SRD is closed content.
And where can we find out what is the closed content?
Here is a list of the open monsters, as far as I know.
http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/monsters.htm
Edit:Ninja'd!!
Everything in the SRD is open, everything else is usually closed.
But I'm unsure about 3rd party creatures. Usually everything done by 3rd peraty is open, but they maintain copyright. I know, it doesn't make sense, I don't understand it and I probably got it wrong.
But maybe someone can explain. ^^
|
Everything in the SRD is open, everything else is usually closed.
But I'm unsure about 3rd party creatures. Usually everything done by 3rd peraty is open, but they maintain copyright. I know, it doesn't make sense, I don't understand it and I probably got it wrong.
But maybe someone can explain. ^^
As I understand it, Open Content can be used as long as it is attributed correctly. i.e. you could use a reefclaw in your own adventure as long as you attributed it as property of Paizo and originally published in Pathfinder 7 and included that in your own Open Content statement. For examples, look at the ones in the back of Paizo's modules where they reference the Advanced Monster Manual of Tome of Horrors.
Forgive me if this has been answered. Will the monsters in the Bestiary have a feat every other Hit Die like PCs or will you be perpetuating the 3.0ish method of different feat progressions (please don't)?
I'm pretty sure they will have that. I think that's the point of having a new monster book for pathfinder.
This may have been covered before but I was at the Manhattan Comicon and Wizards previewed the 4 ed MM 2; it has a robust Demogorgon on the cover.
Creative Director
|
This may have been covered before but I was at the Manhattan Comicon and Wizards previewed the 4 ed MM 2; it has a robust Demogorgon on the cover.** spoiler omitted **
Although, for the first time I can remember, Demogorgon's wearing pants. Savage Tide must have made him self-conscious or something.
Although, for the first time I can remember, Demogorgon's wearing pants. Savage Tide must have made him self-conscious or something.
This may have been covered before but I was at the Manhattan Comicon and Wizards previewed the 4 ed MM 2; it has a robust Demogorgon on the cover.** spoiler omitted **
Being castrated by an elven wizard tends to do that you see... can't draw line of sight and effect through pants you know.
Although, for the first time I can remember, Demogorgon's wearing pants. Savage Tide must have made him self-conscious or something.
Bermuda shorts are simply all *the* rage in the lower planes now !
Next season, we are pushing for yeti fur coats lined with dwarf beards and halflings' foot hair.
Wanders out of his thread with a bottle of Black Seal rum in one hand and a bottle of Barritt's in the other.
Did someone ask for a Dark & Stormy?
Wanders out of his thread with a bottle of Black Seal rum in one hand and a bottle of Barritt's in the other.
Did someone ask for a Dark & Stormy?
That's just liquid yummy all over.
[b]ON STATISTICS:[b/]
I'd like to see the monsters built with NPC statistics where appropriate, especially the humanoids.
Most will recieve the basic stats but-
If there are variants, specifically leader-type or known to be superior variants, they should have the heroic stats. No increase to CR, their just built to be a little tougher and stronger, because their supposed to be bosses, memorable, etc.
e.g, Ogre
Str 13 Dex 11 Con 12 Int 9 Wis 10 Cha 8
With Stat Adjustments
->
Str 23 Dex 9 Con 16 Int 5 Wis 10 Cha 4
4th Hit Dice
->
Str 23 Dex 9 Con 16 Int 6 Wis 10 Cha 4
^This would make the PF Ogre a little bit stronger and tougher, but uglier than the MM one. Comparing pictures, it even looks right! :D
Ogre Mage
Str 12 Dex 15 Con 13 Int 10 Wis 8 Cha 15
With Stat Adjustments*
->
Str 22 Dex 15 Con 19 Int 14 Wis 12 Cha 21
4th Hit Dice
->
Str 22 Dex 15 Con 19 Int 14 Wis 13 Cha 21
^This makes him slightly stronger, fairly more dextrous, slightly tougher, slightly less wise, and considerably more charismatic.
*Ogre Mage's have crazy stat adjustments. But it is a relatively high level monster so the idea stands, though they should not to be quite as ridiculous if a NPC stat system is assumed when creating them.
This should also apply to dragons and outsiders, who are supposed to be powerful, don't use much equipment and generally face the higher level PC's, and frankly they need every little boost they can get after reading the High-Level playtest.
Maybe disclude dreatches, imps, and lesser, low-level foes, but definatley any outsider over CR 10 should have the herois stats (elite array).
|
|
From the start I`ll stat that I understand that Paizo`s purpose with Pathfinder RP is to improve 3.5e system and carry on the flame of the old fashion D&D style. And also I`ll stat that is very clear for me that 4e system was designed and developed as an enhanced visual version of the game, based on the miniatures, in order to keep up with the computer games competition.
But, there are a few things that are interesting from my perspective, and must be, at least, taken in discution:
1. The 4e Sucubbus switched parties and has gone with the devils. As they explained, now the devils are some kind of mutant humanoids, while the demons are presented to be more twisted in shape (and clothing, see MM2 cover). So, the nice and smooth skin of the tailed girls was not fitting anymore into the Abyss. Wich I think is a good logic, if you want to make those two categories more distinctive. Add to that the fact that as a begginer, it was very difficult for me to understand the 3e differences between devil and demons, others than name, allignment and birth place.
Also, I thought that they will throw out the Erynies as the Succubus moved in, but I see that these fallen angels are in the MM2. Well, seems that the devils needed some archers too...
Yes, I know that in Golarion world the Erynies work with the corrupted Cheliax and that the Succubus are allready featured as demons on D3 Module, but I am curious if Paizo will make the switch like WotC? I supose not, and I see a lot of good and viable reasons for this too, but I think an official answer will make things more clear.
1,5. Will Paizo include in their world setting and bestiaries the extended familly of succubus (incubbus, lilitu, cambion, alu-demon, kelvezu), wich was so well used in Savage Tide AP? Most of them are probably closed content, but the backgroung story of the Malcanteth (closed too) experiments was very inspiring and will be a pitty to let it go so easy. I am sure James&Co. can create new cool names and twisted stories for them...
2. I was a big fan of Diablo series and I had spent days and nights with my wife cleaning that Cathedral from Diablo I. It was so fun to slay dozens of skeletons and pseudo-goblins that assaulted us in mobs at the first levels. Now I think to learn her this new kind of game...
So when I`ve seen the 4e Minions rules, they bringed back pleasant memories. As I found that this ideea was imported from another game and is not something orginal from WotC, I think that will be great if Patfinder will have it too. The minions will not change the 3.5d system, just will add a new monster variant (role) and a new option for the DMs and authors. And more fun for hack&slash lovers...
From what I understand Paizo is keeping the classic groupings for devils and demons. Succubi are the physical corruptors for the demons. Where the Eryines tempt for personal power, the Succubi tempt for physical power...they just use similar methods.
While I would personally like to see a Pathfinder versions of the Incubus, they could easily be presented as male versions of the succubus (or the same creature given their ability to change forms).
In Jewish mysticism, Na'amah was one of the "angels of prostitution" (the term angel meaning messenger here) and could easily be used to fill the role of Malcanteth. Given the similarites, Lilith could serve as her opposite number among devils (which is why there are similar creatures in both camps).
As to mooks, I actually like the idea. I have used low CR creatures (minimum for XP) as grunts backing up a "boss" type at higher levels. The players usuale mow through them. This is harder to pull off at low levels.
|
|
From what I understand Paizo is keeping the classic groupings for devils and demons. Succubi are the physical corruptors for the demons. Where the Eryines tempt for personal power, the Succubi tempt for physical power...they just use similar methods.
That is my perception too, from what I see in their products. But I try to tempt James to see what he thinks about this. Although WotC new vision make the boundaries more obvious. The irony here is that 4e don`t use alignments, but made devils more lawfull and pushed the demons to an total chaotic attitude. Wich, make sense and is pretty flavourfull, but dont make obsolete the 3.5e vision...
While I would personally like to see a Pathfinder versions of the Incubus, they could easily be presented as male versions of the succubus (or the same creature given their ability to change forms).
Like that one pictured in Savage Tide episode from Dragon 353, page 33... As Incubbus is taken from real world mythology, so is not subject of any license. Just bring new awsome art and new stats and make Thraxus one happy evil DM...
In Jewish mysticism, Na'amah was one of the "angels of prostitution" (the term angel meaning messenger here) and could easily be used to fill the role of Malcanteth. Given the similarites, Lilith could serve as her opposite number among devils (which is why there are similar creatures in both camps).
Probably Eric and James had created allready these queens and will surprise us with them in the setting books dedicated for Hell and Abyss. But, for the pleasure of the discusion, I think that Na'amah suit the Erinyes better, as being both angels, and Lilith match bettr with the succubus, as being a kind of Sin Godess. See Lilitu, twisted succubus...
As to mooks, I actually like the idea. I have used low CR creatures (minimum for XP) as grunts backing up a "boss" type at higher levels. The players usuale mow through them. This is harder to pull off at low levels.
As someone explained very clear in another thread (4e likes/dislikes), the use of low lvl monsters from 3.5e dont make good substitution for the minions mechanic. Their fun is the low HP, wich make them fall quick and give you the superhero feeling. I am sure you all know better than me this feeling. But I see here three problems... First, I don`t know if the 3.5e system could sustain such a mechanic. Second, I don`t think there is time and space in the Bestiary #1 for this. And third, I am not sure that Paizo overminds are happy to implement an ideea taken allready by WotC, although there is no copyright issue, or if they like it. Anyway if they really want to do it, they could come with a kind of Bestiary of Minions, wich will put togheter all monsters suitablle for such an suplication. Or at least some kind of "minion creation rule" in the Pathfinder Rulebook...
|
|
I see also an issue with the Golarion new breed of monsters that are published in the adventures, modules and scenarios...
How you will use them on future works if they will not be yet in any Bestiary? You can refer for their stats to Module X0x or Pathfinder #X, but if the buyer don`t have that specific book?! I am sure you will not play dirty and force players to buy that adventure too, just for that monster. Wich leave you the alternatives to avoid their use (lets say Lamia Matriarch) untill they get in some manual or include their stats again.
I am not sure that puting them on Bestiary #2 is a perect solution. You fix in 2010 the problem for the 2008 and 2009 monsters, but then you`ll bring others wich would wait another yea, at least, to be colected. Maybe a kind of Christmas anual Paizo Breed Colection/Bestiary/Menagery will be more efficient to gather your new creations. Or maybe you allready have the right solution...
just hoping the 2nd bestiary won't be full of 'weird' creatures you do not want to use... ever, it might have been the dreadful artwork, a nice graphic presentation can make or break the sexiness of said creature.Art is probably the MOST important element of a monster, in fact. If a monster gets no art, it tends to get forgotten (such is the fate of the poor derro in the 3.5 Monster Manual!). If it has bad art, it tends to be mocked or laughed at, and the rules are more likely to be skipped over or ignored, even if the monster itself is actually pretty interesting.
You can invent the BEST MONSTER EVER but if it gets saddled with bad art, no one will ever know.
We'll be trying to make sure that bad art stays out of the book as a result.
James,
could we get some Erol Otus art on the Lovecraftian stuff (Dieties and Demigods w/cthulhu mythos = rawk) and other 1 ed feel stuff (Froghemoth)???? please?|
Creative Director
|
just hoping the 2nd bestiary won't be full of 'weird' creatures you do not want to use... ever, it might have been the dreadful artwork, a nice graphic presentation can make or break the sexiness of said creature.Art is probably the MOST important element of a monster, in fact. If a monster gets no art, it tends to get forgotten (such is the fate of the poor derro in the 3.5 Monster Manual!). If it has bad art, it tends to be mocked or laughed at, and the rules are more likely to be skipped over or ignored, even if the monster itself is actually pretty interesting.
You can invent the BEST MONSTER EVER but if it gets saddled with bad art, no one will ever know.
We'll be trying to make sure that bad art stays out of the book as a result.
James,
could we get some Erol Otus art on the Lovecraftian stuff (Dieties and Demigods w/cthulhu mythos = rawk) and other 1 ed feel stuff (Froghemoth)???? please?
I'm a big fan of Erol Otus. He won't have any images in the Bestiary, though.
I'm a big fan of Erol Otus. He won't have any images in the Bestiary, though.just hoping the 2nd bestiary won't be full of 'weird' creatures you do not want to use... ever, it might have been the dreadful artwork, a nice graphic presentation can make or break the sexiness of said creature.Art is probably the MOST important element of a monster, in fact. If a monster gets no art, it tends to get forgotten (such is the fate of the poor derro in the 3.5 Monster Manual!). If it has bad art, it tends to be mocked or laughed at, and the rules are more likely to be skipped over or ignored, even if the monster itself is actually pretty interesting.
You can invent the BEST MONSTER EVER but if it gets saddled with bad art, no one will ever know.
We'll be trying to make sure that bad art stays out of the book as a result.
James,
could we get some Erol Otus art on the Lovecraftian stuff (Dieties and Demigods w/cthulhu mythos = rawk) and other 1 ed feel stuff (Froghemoth)???? please?
Any chance of getting him involved in Pathfinder stuff? Pretty please?! You mention 1ed MM as your working monster list; there's no one better for the feel of olde schoole monsters than EO. I love Tamoachan and Exp to Barrier Peaks largely because of the art.
|
Creative Director
|
Any chance of getting him involved in Pathfinder stuff? Pretty please?! You mention 1ed MM as your working monster list; there's no one better for the feel of olde schoole monsters than EO. I love Tamoachan and Exp to Barrier Peaks largely because of the art.
Unlikely... I'm not the guy who picks the artists. I've brought his name up before, but that's about all I can do. I suspect that since his art style doesn't match the art style we're using for Paizo products means we won't see him in a Paizo product any time soon, for reasons similar to why we haven't seen much "cartoony anime" art lately.
|
|
"cartoony anime" artWayne Reynolds isn't doing a lot of art for the Bestiary?A: I do not describe Wayne's art as cartoony or anime, and those who do describe it that way baffle, confuse, and sort of annoy me.
B: He's doing the cover.
C: He's not doing any of the interior art.
A: Which means there are enough people saying that for you to notice.
B: Figured as much.
C: Wouldn't matter anyway, I'm still buying the book.
As a big anime fan, I would never consider Wayne's artwork anime styled or even cartoony. Maybe a little bit comic bookish but as I don't read much American comics much anymore I couldn't say for sure. Ether way I'm tend to like Wayne's artwork, some of his pathfinder work as been amazing.
Here we go again...
Any chance of getting him involved in Pathfinder stuff? Pretty please?! You mention 1ed MM as your working monster list; there's no one better for the feel of olde schoole monsters than EO. I love Tamoachan and Exp to Barrier Peaks largely because of the art.Unlikely... I'm not the guy who picks the artists. I've brought his name up before, but that's about all I can do. I suspect that since his art style doesn't match the art style we're using for Paizo products means we won't see him in a Paizo product any time soon, for reasons similar to why we haven't seen much "cartoony anime" art lately.
Thanks for the explanation. </sad>
Now, how do we get the ear of the art director??? <spock eye-brow raise>
Please allow Big T(Tarrasque) the ability to do something to flyers, and right now the Ogre Mage is a joke for its CR. It like 37 HP or something close to it. I just give my revision the ability to cast spells as a sorcerer of X levels. I said X levels because I have yet to decide what CR I want it to be.
Are you going to use the ECL/LA formula for 3.5 or will each monster be assign a blank ECL on an individual basis?
|
As a big anime fan, I would never consider Wayne's artwork anime styled or even cartoony. Maybe a little bit comic bookish but as I don't read much American comics much anymore I couldn't say for sure. Ether way I'm tend to like Wayne's artwork, some of his pathfinder work as been amazing.
I'd agree. I'm a big fan of the pathfinder art and I actually really like Waynes work. If you want cartoony go look into the 4th ed stuff. Of course Im a big fan of anyone with any artistic talent since I have the art ability of a flatulent worm.
Preorder expected by September? I haven't read one thing in this whole thread since the start that says the date was pushed from July.
I think that was in the product thread.
I was just browsing the bestiary sample pdf for the first time, and though I do like how the monster entries contain some extra fluff, I don't really see any significant mechanical differences between Pathfinder monsters and 3.5 monsters. Am I missing something or are the differences really just subtle ones? If they are subtle, what is the incentive to buy the bestiary when I already have all the 3.5 monster manuals (beyond it being a nice book)?
I want to like the Pathfinder rpg, but it just looks so similar to 3.5 that I really don't see the sense in buying a game that I basically already own. I'd like to hear what it is that other people really like about the game that they think makes it better than 3.5.
|
Creative Director
|
I was just browsing the bestiary sample pdf for the first time, and though I do like how the monster entries contain some extra fluff, I don't really see any significant mechanical differences between Pathfinder monsters and 3.5 monsters. Am I missing something or are the differences really just subtle ones? If they are subtle, what is the incentive to buy the bestiary when I already have all the 3.5 monster manuals (beyond it being a nice book)?
I want to like the Pathfinder rpg, but it just looks so similar to 3.5 that I really don't see the sense in buying a game that I basically already own. I'd like to hear what it is that other people really like about the game that they think makes it better than 3.5.
They are indeed subtle for the most part. Things like changing the skills, adding CMB and CMD values, and in some cases adjusting their actual stats. In a few cases, there's significant changes, but overall the driving goal for the Bestiary for us was to retain compatibility.
Certainly, if you already have the 3.5 books, you can keep using those to play Adventure Paths or otherwise use Paizo products in your games. That's part of the goal.
The big place where you'll probably see noticeable changes for more monsters is in the art and in the flavor text; we're striving to include a healthy amount of flavor text for all of the creatures, providing details on variants, ecology, habitat, and lots else. The mechanics themselves are sometimes not changed at all, while in others we change monster types, add or subtract powers, or otherwise adjust them to fit more proper roles for the PFRPG.
And beyond that, there WILL be a fair amount of monsters in the Bestiary that aren't in the 3.5 Monster Manual. Things like morlocks, boggards, sea serpents, linnorms, giant frilled lizards, shoggoths, giant crabs, giant slugs, yetis, and more. Some of these come from the Tome of Horrors, some from mythology, some from previous Pathfinder APs, some from literature, and some brand new critters as well.
Whether or not all that's enough to justify buying the book is up to each individual person, I guess. The book itself isn't out yet, and won't be till sometime in September. When it DOES show up, I hope you do at least check it out, though! :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
PLEASE, Jimmy J., make monster creation smooth and not clunky feeling as it is now.
Sidetrack: Also figured how to make the shrieking eels Paizo ain't putting into the Bestiary like I asked them to. Just take the electric eels and convert their electricity attacks to sonic ones! WOOT!