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

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Mindflayer!


Paizo Products

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

as i already know that they are WoTC IP, is there a chance that Paizo will create a lesser starspawn of Cthulhu to take their place? i think that would just be grand.

Shadow Lodge

Fnipernackle wrote:
as i already know that they are WoTC IP, is there a chance that Paizo will create a lesser starspawn of Cthulhu to take their place? i think that would just be grand.

For a lesser starspawn, see page 90 of Wake of the Watcher. Normal starspawn require liberal use of the monster advancement rules.

Wait, you thought the guy at the end of the story "Call of Cthulhu" was actually Cthulhu himself? Nope, sorry, that was just Bob Xothian. His only special quality compared to other starspawn was that he was closest to the door when he got sleepy.


Kthulhu wrote:
Fnipernackle wrote:
as i already know that they are WoTC IP, is there a chance that Paizo will create a lesser starspawn of Cthulhu to take their place? i think that would just be grand.

For a lesser starspawn, see page 90 of Wake of the Watcher. Normal starspawn require liberal use of the monster advancement rules.

Wait, you thought the guy at the end of the story "Call of Cthulhu" was actually Cthulhu himself? Nope, sorry, that was just Bob Xothian. His only special quality compared to other starspawn was that he was closest to the door when he got sleepy.

saw it. but id like to fight something similar at lower levels.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.

A "lesser starspawn" as a mind flayer replacement won't be coming from us for three primary reasons:

1) I don't like the idea of "lessening" the star spawn of Cthulhu. They're supposed to be REALLY tough; they're supposed to be end of a standard campaign boss monsters. Introducing less powerful versions weakens their perceived stance as CR 20 menaces. Folks can certainly build lesser ones for home games (particularly if you're lowering them to serve as boss monsters for, say, an E10 or whatever game), but an official nerfing won't happen.

2) Even if they WERE lessened, they'd not do the same things a mind flayer does. They'd look similar, but their attacks, ecology, society, and everything else would be dramatically different.

3) Philosophically speaking, "replacing" a non-open monster with a clone feels kinda sleazy and cheap to me. I'd rather spend my monster design time building new cool monsters than playing "catch up" with another company's monsters.


Fnipernackle wrote:
as i already know that they are WoTC IP, is there a chance that Paizo will create a lesser starspawn of Cthulhu to take their place? i think that would just be grand.

As it saddens me, we have to convert mindflayers on our own to see their glorious return when they subject those puny humanoids to absolute and unquestioned rule of their psychic overlords to be feed upon as their pathetic brains are useless for anything else than providing susteance for the highest form of sapiency in the whole univrse and beyond its borders... telepathic droning is sensed for some time more together with audible slushing sounds and empathic wave of satisfaction gained through proper meal.


I think a monster that hovers and has a big, giant eye and lots of little eyestalks that shoot rays and stuff would be cool...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
I think a monster that hovers and has a big, giant eye and lots of little eyestalks that shoot rays and stuff would be cool...

Yeah or maybe a monster that looks like an octopus. And when you throw it against the refrigerator, it crawls down all creepily.

That's at least a cr 7!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Philosophically speaking, "replacing" a non-open monster with a clone feels kinda sleazy and cheap to me.

Isn't that essentially what TSR did to begin with, when "ent" became "treant" and "hobbit" became "halfling"?

BTW, I agree with you on the principle of avoiding GENUINELY "closed content" monsters. But mind-eating tentacled horrors did not originate with D&D; there is very little to the Illithid that doesn't come from Lovecraft. The less a monster originated with a claiming source, the more justified I feel in replacing/cloning that monster.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvalonXQ wrote:
there is very little to the Illithid that doesn't come from Lovecraft. The less a monster originated with a claiming source, the more justified I feel in replacing/cloning that monster.

I'd have to disagree, there's very little similarity beyond general outline.


The cool thing about it would be that those players who have fought mindflayers in the past, or know them like the back of their hands would be in for a surprise.

Plus, star spawn have to grow from something.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I've actually been trying to develop a sort of Arkham Horror campaign myself, which is a bit hard since I rarely ever DM and I've not actually read the books. Played the games. Was chased around by a hound of tindolus and so when I saw it in the second bestiary, It sparked my desire.

Sovereign Court

I just converted the IP monsters i needed. I don't really care that they are not "official" or whatnot as long as they get the job done.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Honestly, the mindflayer belongs to Gygaxian legend. Leaving them and the beholders there should be a decision made out of respect for the father of the game we all love. Let paizo turn the other cheek. In doing so, I guarantee you will find new monsters (inspired or completely original) that are as memorable or even more.


I love rakshasas. They are my new fav. I'm just looking for a new spin on an old classic.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benicio Del Espada wrote:
I think a monster that hovers and has a big, giant eye and lots of little eyestalks that shoot rays and stuff would be cool...

One version.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Dogezaemon

Course there is that..

(Be careful, any further in the comic is most certainly NSFW, but that page should be fine.)

Dark Archive

Now that I think of it, I really liked the Beholder from the D&D cartoon, that shot eye rays that just hit like force beams, or could entangle and wrap up people, IIRC.

Making it a six to eight HD critter that could shoot four to six force beams a round for 2d6 force damage, or swap out any of them for a ranged rip/entangle attack like a bola / tanglefoot bag combo, could be a funky variation on the theme.


Ævux wrote:

I've actually been trying to develop a sort of Arkham Horror campaign myself, which is a bit hard since I rarely ever DM and I've not actually read the books. Played the games. Was chased around by a hound of tindolus and so when I saw it in the second bestiary, It sparked my desire.

You may want to take a look at Chaosium's Call of Cthulu RPG for some source materials... including a good gauge of what ability scores some of the monstrous nasties from Arkham Horror not already in the Pathfinder Bestiaries might have since the basic ability score scale (3-18 human range) is the same.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another place you might want to look is in the Monsternomicon. The Cephalyx are basically Mind Flayers with a leather and medical fetish.

Shadow Lodge

Firest wrote:
Another place you might want to look is in the Monsternomicon. The Cephalyx are basically Mind Flayers with a leather and medical fetish.

Um, if the OP is gonna go to the bother of using a non-PFRPG 3.5 source, then one excellent one would be WotC's Monster Manual. :P


im not looking for one. i just thought that having a lesser spawn would be cool. if i want a lesser spawn i guess ill just make one on my own. i was hoping the idea would strike some people as interesting.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Firest wrote:
Another place you might want to look is in the Monsternomicon. The Cephalyx are basically Mind Flayers with a leather and medical fetish.

When it comes to Mindflayer-like creatures that are different enough to make them scary. I'd go with the Possessor. When people see a squid headed humanoid walking toward them, they pretty much know what they're up against. When that creature's head comes off the body and starts flying around looking for a new host... that may cause some confusion and terror.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There *might* be a super-secret pdf containing PF updated IP monsters out on the internet........or so I've heard.....you know, people say stuff like that all the time.......but there just *might* be some truth to it....

The Exchange

I obviously can't speak for other groups/gamers, but in all the groups I've been in Mind-flayers, Beholders, Red Dragons, Drow, and Orcs (some people might add Kobolds to the list) are the monsters everyone thinks of when they think D&D. They are the iconic monsters. I want that same kind of automatic monster recognition for Pathfinder, but with different monsters of course.

So far I think Goblins are pretty well cemented as the Drow replacement in Pathfinder. Again for my group at least, Goblins are the villains they love for me to use (they are so "gremlin-like" and so much more fun to use in PFRPG) and they are the monster that is most favored as a player race. (In D&D everyone wants to play a Drow) Although in my own games I have been trying to use the Duergar as my Drow monster/villain replacement quite a bit because I don't want to overuse Goblins. Especially with them popping up as PCs so often. Goblins have kind of become the less intellectual (but not dumb) Kender (curious trouble makers) of my group.

I never was big on orcs, though I've played in groups that were, so in my home games I don't really have a replacement for them. The closest thing I use would have to be maybe lizardfolk or gnolls. I use those two races as minions on occasion. Now that I think about it, I do use Kobolds as minions quite a bit so I guess in my games they are kind of the default minion/bad guys. Though I would say it is a safe bet that orcs will officially maintain their place as an iconic monster, even in PFRPG.

Since Red Dragons are an undeniable D&D image, the primary dragon type if you will, I almost exclusively use Black Dragons as the big bads for Pathfinder. This mostly came about because I got the Black Dragon w/rider mini at Gen Con years ago (the only dragon mini I had when PFRPG came out). Since then I've noticed that the black dragon seems to be the one that Paizo uses the most as well. So that works out great for me. Besides Black Dragons in Pathfinder artwork are just awesome.

I'm still playing around with my Mindflayer and Beholder replacements. Here is what I have so far. For the Mindflayer I've been using the Ogre Mage as my villain replacement. I'm pretty sure they have the same base CR, they work great as the masterminds/controllers and the Ogre Mage is just a tough customer that makes a great villain. This is especially true if you take the time to beef up their CR for higher level play. One of the truly under-rated and under used creatures in my opinion.

For the Beholder I've been using the Aboleth and on occasion the Neothelids. From what I've gathered I think Aboleths and Neothelids are supposed to be the unofficial mind-flayer replacements, but when you pair them up with each other they make pretty fair replacements for beholders. They really work if you are the type that ever used the different kinds/caste of beholders in your older edition games. They can definitely give you the same kind of feel.

Those are just my alternatives to the iconic D&D creatures. I'm actually interested in knowing what everyone else uses as iconic "subs". Or what creatures you think Paizo has put in place of those creatures (intentionally or not) in terms of usage. I'm only talking about using what's official PFRPG material rather than just converting, which I have done in the past, or using 3pp.

Shadow Lodge

Capt. D wrote:
. I'm actually interested in knowing what everyone else uses as iconic "subs"

You know, they made Pathfinder backwards compatible to 3.5 for a reason. If I have a niche that is best filled by a displacer beast, a mind flayer, or a beholder, I crack open the Monster Manual and use that monster. The WotC IP Police are not going to bust down your door for using one of those in a home game. The only real circumstance to avoid them is if you are PUBLISHING an adventure.

The Exchange

Kthulhu wrote:
Capt. D wrote:
. I'm actually interested in knowing what everyone else uses as iconic "subs"
You know, they made Pathfinder backwards compatible to 3.5 for a reason. If I have a niche that is best filled by a displacer beast, a mind flayer, or a beholder, I crack open the Monster Manual and use that monster. The WotC IP Police are not going to bust down your door for using one of those in a home game. The only real circumstance to avoid them is if you are PUBLISHING an adventure.
That's completely misses the point of what I was curious about. Like I said
Capt. D wrote:
I'm only talking about using what's official PFRPG material rather than just converting, which I have done in the past, or using 3pp.

. I have used, and sometimes still do use the older stuff in my games.

My point was if you used only official PFRPG material in your game what would/do you sub for the iconic creatures. Or what do you see as the creatures that Paizo uses/intends as the subs.

The most obvious seems to be:
D&D -> the Red Dragon
PFRPG -> the Black Dragon

There may not be an official declaration that Pathfinder is associated with Black Dragons and D&D is associated with Red, but that's how it seems. D&D products generally use Red Dragon imagery as the big bad monsters. While Paizo has used various colored dragons (red on the core rules, blue on the GMG), there is a sense that Black has become the unofficial (or perhaps official for all I know) dragon of PFRPG.

I am curious and just wanted to know other PFRPG players' view points about the iconics and not snarky remarks that serve no useful purpose.

Sovereign Court

Capt. D wrote:

My point was if you used only official PFRPG material in your game what would/do you sub for the iconic creatures. Or what do you see as the creatures that Paizo uses/intends as the subs.

I wouldn't...i would convert those monsters i need to PF. I already have.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I have no idea where the "PF is black dragons" notion comes in. IIRC there was only one black dragon that ever made it on product cover, while the Red was featured at least three times (Core Book, Dragons Revisited, Gazetteer).

I'd actually say that Paizo has de-emphasized Dragons in general, because they we're getting really overdone in the 3ed era. James did state at few times that they prefer to relegate Dragons to a more mythical creature of legend status than "there's one around every corner and one drunk in the tavern" vibe of Forgotten Realms. While the first AP (Rise of the Runelords) did feature several dragons, they were noticeably downplayed in later APs.

As for replacements, Intellect Devourers fill the "evil psionic-like overlords" niche, while I'd take Decapus as the beholder stand-in.

The Exchange

Gorbacz wrote:


As for replacements, Intellect Devourers fill the "evil psionic-like overlords" niche, while I'd take Decapus as the beholder stand-in.

Since there are no official psionic rules I don't use these much, but really good choice. I picked the Ogre Mage because it has the intimidation factor that mind-flayers also possess. They just both seem more imposing.

You are correct about the dragons,and I apparently was not clear that this is all just my opinion. It is completely subjective and I was not attempting to portray it as fact. It is just an image association/perception that I have noticed, based solely on my own personal observation, on various blogs and message-boards. I've noticed a lot of people making an association between black dragons and Pathfinder. While the blacks have only appeared on two covers that I know of, I've seen people comment about their apparent more numerous interior appearances. I can not confirm this as I do not own every Pathfinder product, so I took their word for it.

I also must apologize for not making my question and the spirit with which it was asked clear. So I officially withdraw it. If a mod could delete my posts on this thread I would appreciate it.


Gorbacz wrote:

I have no idea where the "PF is black dragons" notion comes in. IIRC there was only one black dragon that ever made it on product cover, while the Red was featured at least three times (Core Book, Dragons Revisited, Gazetteer).

I'd actually say that Paizo has de-emphasized Dragons in general, because they we're getting really overdone in the 3ed era. James did state at few times that they prefer to relegate Dragons to a more mythical creature of legend status than "there's one around every corner and one drunk in the tavern" vibe of Forgotten Realms. While the first AP (Rise of the Runelords) did feature several dragons, they were noticeably downplayed in later APs.

As for replacements, Intellect Devourers fill the "evil psionic-like overlords" niche, while I'd take Decapus as the beholder stand-in.

Actually, there is one Drunk in the Tavern in the Guide to Darkmoon Vale...I forget which kind and which town, but he pays homage to the big red in the hills...

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
gigglestick wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I have no idea where the "PF is black dragons" notion comes in. IIRC there was only one black dragon that ever made it on product cover, while the Red was featured at least three times (Core Book, Dragons Revisited, Gazetteer).

I'd actually say that Paizo has de-emphasized Dragons in general, because they we're getting really overdone in the 3ed era. James did state at few times that they prefer to relegate Dragons to a more mythical creature of legend status than "there's one around every corner and one drunk in the tavern" vibe of Forgotten Realms. While the first AP (Rise of the Runelords) did feature several dragons, they were noticeably downplayed in later APs.

As for replacements, Intellect Devourers fill the "evil psionic-like overlords" niche, while I'd take Decapus as the beholder stand-in.

Actually, there is one Drunk in the Tavern in the Guide to Darkmoon Vale...I forget which kind and which town, but he pays homage to the big red in the hills...

Well, both Darkmoon Vale Guide and Dragons Revisited were written by Mike McArtor, who had a very different idea about dragons than Erik and James... and since Mike left Paizo, some of his ideas were rolled back.

Example: In Dragons Revisited there is mention of a dragon running the resistance in Westcrown. However, there is no mention of him at all in Council of Thieves.


Neh-thalggu or intellect devourers seem like they could be stand-ins of a sort. Maybe.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gigglestick wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

I have no idea where the "PF is black dragons" notion comes in. IIRC there was only one black dragon that ever made it on product cover, while the Red was featured at least three times (Core Book, Dragons Revisited, Gazetteer).

I'd actually say that Paizo has de-emphasized Dragons in general, because they we're getting really overdone in the 3ed era. James did state at few times that they prefer to relegate Dragons to a more mythical creature of legend status than "there's one around every corner and one drunk in the tavern" vibe of Forgotten Realms. While the first AP (Rise of the Runelords) did feature several dragons, they were noticeably downplayed in later APs.

As for replacements, Intellect Devourers fill the "evil psionic-like overlords" niche, while I'd take Decapus as the beholder stand-in.

Actually, there is one Drunk in the Tavern in the Guide to Darkmoon Vale...I forget which kind and which town, but he pays homage to the big red in the hills...

If and when we do more stuff set in Darkmoon Vale, this is a great example of something we'd end up retconning to fit with the world Golarion has become rather than the world it might have been.

Dark Archive

A guy down the page (on the main board) in the conversion section has been converting Savage Species to PF. He has Mind Flayer broken down and his work is very good... you should check it out.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ævux wrote:

I've actually been trying to develop a sort of Arkham Horror campaign myself, which is a bit hard since I rarely ever DM and I've not actually read the books. Played the games. Was chased around by a hound of tindolus and so when I saw it in the second bestiary, It sparked my desire.

Actually did this with a group resonantly was a lot of fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After all the flip-flops of stuff-James-Jacobs-said-a-long-time-ago-would-never-ever-ever-happen...
which monster that Paizo has published do you think is the closest to a Mindflayer?
Which monster that Paizo has published do you think is the closest to a Beholder?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

"Flip-flops"?

None.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Seugathi for Mindflayer.

3 Seugathi for Beholder.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Legends Subscriber; Pathfinder Tales Subscriber

We don't need no stinking mindflayers!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You're not going to succeed as a business if you set everything in stone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
Seugathi for Mindflayer.

Thanks, that looks perfect!

Quote:

3 Seugathi for Beholder.

Are you saying that a beholder is really just three mindflayers? That's just the kind of thing a mindlflayer would want us to believe! IT'S OFFICIAL: CAPTAIN YESTERDAY IS A MINDFL-

uh, I mean, uh, hold on. Let's try that again.

IT'S OFFICIAL: CAPTAIN YESTERDAY IS A SEUGATHI!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

No, it's much simpler

What monster sucks to fight in D&D = Mindflayer.
What monster sucks to fight in Pathfinder = Seugathi.

What monster sucks more than a Mindflayer to fight in D&D = Beholder.
What monster sucks more than a Seugathi to fight in Pathfinder = 3 Seugathi.

I love James Sutter, but man, that was evil. :-)

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Mindflayer! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, 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.