Bestiary 3 and the Monster Manual


Product Discussion

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Frog God Games

pdboddy wrote:
I'd like to see more dragons. :)

Always more dragons! Always!

The Exchange Kobold Press

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm just happy that the marrashi are remembered. I thought they were cool when I first wrote them up for the Al-Qadim MC in 2nd Edition, and someone must have agreed because they made the jump to 3rd Edition.

I'll be interested to see whether Paizo has a hellish, flying archer in Bestiary 3. It's a niche, but a ton of fun in encounters.


Sincubus wrote:
Arrowhawk

--- Arrowhawk is pretty cool, I could get behind that.

Sincubus wrote:
Abyssal Greater Basilisk - I think one Basilisk is enough, rather see Dracolisk and Boalisk.

--- Dracolisk is in the first Bestiary. It's the sample creature for the half-dragon template and is called out as a Dracolisk specifically.

Sincubus wrote:
Digester - Yes and No, I want to see a Dilophosaur-like Digester, the real digester never did it for me.

---Digester is kind of lame, agreed. I'd rather just see dinosaurs than a variant digester though.

Sincubus wrote:
Dire Weasel - PLease no.

--- I love the dire weasel, espeically the fiendish dire weasel, but I think Pathfinder is trying to stay away from made-up dire animals. They did put the dire badger in Bestiary 2 because it's "iconic" though.

Sincubus wrote:
Aquatic Elf - Don't like 100 kinds of elves, Tritons do for me personally.

--- I think that's easily just giving aquatic subtype and amphibious special quality given to a regular elf. Much prefer how Pathfinder elves are just superficially different rather than having a half-dozen mechanically different sub-races.

Sincubus wrote:

o Ethereal Filcher - Nope.

o Ethereal Marauder - Maybe.

--- Nope. Monsters that steal are fine, but those monsters are too silly to take seriously.

Sincubus wrote:
Formian - YES!! Formians are a true must, many cool scenarios can revolve around them.

--- I don't think Formians are that great personally. They are OGL though, so they could appear, and maybe Paizo would do something awesome with them.

Sincubus wrote:
Grimlock - Already there, I think Morlock is pretty much the same.

--- Yep.

Sincubus wrote:
Magmin - Uhhhh Lava Child with better name?

--- Lava Child is in Misfit Monsters Redeemed. I think it's in Bestiary 3. They're a fair bit different from magmin though, with their immunity to metal and lack of a fiery aura.

Sincubus wrote:
Owl, Giant - No, i'm more for a special owl monster, not just a giant owl.

--- Giant Owl would have served better as a simple variant to Giant Eagle in Bestiary 1. Compare them in the Monster Manual 3.5e and you'll see they've got the same hitdice and ability scores. Eagles have a +4 bonus to Spot while Owls have a +4 bonus to Spot, +8 bonus to Listen, so both of those equate to a bonus to Perception in Pathfinder. Giant owls also have a +8 bonus to Move Silently while flying. Eagle has slightly faster fly speed (80 ft vs. owl's 70 ft), as well as the evasion quality, while Giant Owl has Superior Low-light Vision (Giant Eagle has Low-light Vision). Giant Eagle has Alertness and Flyby Attack while Giant Owl has Alertness and Wingover. So, while I like Giant Owl, it would be best served by being a template/variant applied to Giant Eagle, much how Vampire Spawn in Pathfinder are a template applied to wights.

Sincubus wrote:
Razor Boar - Yes please! Best boar ever!

--- From Monster Manual 2, right? I think that was one of the two OGL creatures at the back. Monsters with Vorpal are scary.

Sincubus wrote:
Scorpionfolk - A must!

---Indifferent.

Sincubus wrote:
Androsphinx, Criosphinx, Hieracosphinx

--- I like that there are different kinds of sphinxes. So far all we have is a female sphinx. Male sphinx would be nice to have.

Sincubus wrote:
Half-Orcs and all other half-things - PLease NO! Wastes a valuable stop in my opinion!

--- I like the half-things if we're also talking about dhampirs, oreads, ifrits, sylphs, and undines. Those are appropriate for a bestiary, but stuff that was already published in the Core Rulebook such as half-orcs, half-elves, elves, dwarfs, gnomes, and halflings aren't. They're already covered in the Core Rulebook so they don't need duplicated in the Bestiaries.

Sincubus wrote:
Elder Black Pudding - Why not, and this time make it kinda unique and worth of its black colour by giving it undead-based abilities. I think its a bit boring all oozes and slimes are kinda the same with different level and colours...

---There are some oozes in the Tome of Horrors that are tied to undead. I wouldn't mind seeing some of them appear in a Pathfinder Bestiary. There's no reason to change something like a black pudding when something like the vampiric ooze (undead ooze with both ooze and undead traits, harmed/destroyed by sunlight, does energy drain, and creates zombies) could be added.


I wonder if there are aquatic elves in Golarion? They are referenced in Bestiary (for instance, in the entry for Sahuagin), but I don't no of any references to them in Golarion-specific material.


The monster manuals were always my favorite aspect of DND. I GM quite often so they are not only invaluable tools, but a great way to throw the party off. It takes time and effort to create NPCs with class levels and keeping track of everything a 10+ lvl character can do, feats, spells etc. gets kinda hectic. Monster stat blocks solve this problem and come on! MONSTERS!

So Yeah, thank you Paizo for all the great content and keep up the good work. I'll buy every Beastiary you release because I'm a monster fan first and PC fan second.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

lordzack wrote:
I wonder if there are aquatic elves in Golarion? They are referenced in Bestiary (for instance, in the entry for Sahuagin), but I don't no of any references to them in Golarion-specific material.

There are. We talk about them (and include an illustration of one of them) in Elves of Golarion. Oh, and in the Inner Sea World Guide section on elves.

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:
lordzack wrote:
I wonder if there are aquatic elves in Golarion? They are referenced in Bestiary (for instance, in the entry for Sahuagin), but I don't no of any references to them in Golarion-specific material.
There are. We talk about them (and include an illustration of one of them) in Elves of Golarion. Oh, and in the Inner Sea World Guide section on elves.

There's a version of them in Throaty Mermaid as well.


You guys are no fun. My players still talk about the time they got attacked by fifty mules...

...not really.

I find what Paizo has been doing with their monsters so refreshing and impressive, my wish list would be all new content. I still have all those old books for 3.5, so...

Sovereign Court

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

I'm just happy that the marrashi are remembered. I thought they were cool when I first wrote them up for the Al-Qadim MC in 2nd Edition, and someone must have agreed because they made the jump to 3rd Edition.

I'll be interested to see whether Paizo has a hellish, flying archer in Bestiary 3. It's a niche, but a ton of fun in encounters.

I used them a lot in 2nd edition during a great war in my homebrew game. I loved Tony DiTerlizzi's artwork for them.

My players hated them and went out of their way to kill them.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wolfgang Baur wrote:

I'm just happy that the marrashi are remembered. I thought they were cool when I first wrote them up for the Al-Qadim MC in 2nd Edition, and someone must have agreed because they made the jump to 3rd Edition.

I'll be interested to see whether Paizo has a hellish, flying archer in Bestiary 3. It's a niche, but a ton of fun in encounters.

They were Al-Qadim, so I used them a lot. This is why I can't wait for Casmaron.

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:


3) The deepspawn is certainly an interesting monster, but monsters that spawn other monsters are tough to pull off, since they need to be able to spawn monsters that would still be relevant to the encounter (aka: a high CR monster shouldn't spawn super low CR creatures), but not to such an extent that the encounter can get super out-of-control fast. I actually prefer monster-spawning encounters to be hand-crafted and unique...

Special undead, born from mothers dying in childbirth when ghouls are spawn from cannibals. Can spawn short-lived monsters with a fear aura and a grab ability ; in the sense that they last x number of rounds or until destroyed, and leave nothing behind as they consumate into the void but make life harder for adventurers just by existing.

Couldn't a times/day plus a rounds limitation to the spawn's life expectancy be a good balancing rule for such creature ? This way, strictly impossible to fill a dungeon.

Contributor

Wolfgang Baur wrote:

I'm just happy that the marrashi are remembered. I thought they were cool when I first wrote them up for the Al-Qadim MC in 2nd Edition, and someone must have agreed because they made the jump to 3rd Edition.

I'll be interested to see whether Paizo has a hellish, flying archer in Bestiary 3. It's a niche, but a ton of fun in encounters.

Never hold the marrashi up to the leukodaemon, Wolf.

I always thought those guys were cool. ;)


Arn't those thesewinged gnolls?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

With Bestiary 3 now released I thought I would update the list of those monsters from the old 3.5 Monster Manual that have yet to make the jump to PRPG

*Note I am only including those monsters that are OGL so no Mindflayers, Beholders, etc. on the list.

o Arrowhawk
 Abyssal Greater Basilisk
o Digester
 Dire Weasel
 Aquatic Elf
o Ethereal Filcher
o Ethereal Marauder
Formian
 Worker
 Warrior
 Taskmaster
 Myrmarch
 Queen
o Phasm
o Ravid
o Razor Boar
o Sea Cat
o Locust Swarm
o Donkey
o Mule

A couple of notes:
The Donkey and Mule will likely be getting Errata in the Core Rule Book attaching them to the stat block for horse/pony in Bestiary 1. (See earlier in thread.) So they are only barely on this list.
Grimlock has been removed from the list because in PRPG Grimlock = Morlock. (See earlier in thread.)
The Delver is in Misfit Monsters Redeemed but not yet in a Bestiary. Perhaps it will make it into Bestiary 4.
The Formians are also likely to show up in Bestiary 4.
The Razor Boar is actually in Monster Manual 2 but is still included in the SRD.

As a personal aside, if we can have Giant Skunks and Giant Porcupines than how about a Giant Weasel!!!
The Digester, Ethereal Filcher, and Ravid would all make good Misfit Monster Candidates.
Everything else still has potential for finding a home in Bestiary 4.


I've always loved Dire Weasels...Ever since I saw a Kobold Paladin ride one in ye old 3.0.


Starfinder Superscriber

And I still have to say, even thought I KNOW they are not OGL or technically never made it to 3.5, I still miss modrons.


o Arrowhawk
o Digester
Formian
o Ravid
o Razor Boar

Are the only ones left from that list I really want to see, all others are not cool for me personally, I really disliked them before and i'm finished with dire animals, whats the point in them if you have MEGAFAUNA which are much better. (disagree? Megatherium will prove you otherwise)


The 3.0 new critters were a strange bunch: arrowhawk, tojanida, delver, phasm, yrthak, magmin(?), ethereal marauder, ethereal filcher, grick, chuul... I probably missed a few. Still, these were not the critters that stayed with us, were they? Sure, the grick and chuul are sort of okay. The phasm and delver in particular, I think, were victims of wonky art. The phasm, a beast that could shapechange to anything, and nobody used it for seven years? And the delver, were at least I find it difficult to judge what it looks like from the picture. The tojanida is so bizarre that it was only used as part of a tojbasarrirge.

Given how fondly I look on loser monsters, these are a prime bunch. :-)


Sissyl wrote:
magmin(?)

Those magmins would have been much more useful to me if not for that "Fiery Aura" garbage. I wanted the party to meet with a large group of magmin and give the PCs a chance to make peaceful contact with them, or fight them, as the PCs chose. But to have each PC make a saving throw every round for every magmin within 30 feet (20 feet in 3.5) or take damage?!? There's not much of a chance of peaceful contact under THOSE conditions! I don't think it was so dangerous to be near them in the original Monster Manual II (1983) version, when they were called "magmen". I wound up making up a lame excuse why the PCs didn't take the damage.


Ah, well, not a MM 3.0 creature then. Wonky monsters are nothing new to 3rd, to say the least. CIFAL, anyone? Oh right, digester and shocker lizard, I forgot them. Shocker lizards are cute, I really like them. They go Ik-Ik! The group calls them Ik-Iks now. We've even gone into cooking them, they taste like insulation fluff (whatever that tastes like).


Sissyl wrote:

The 3.0 new critters were a strange bunch: arrowhawk, tojanida, delver, phasm, yrthak, magmin(?), ethereal marauder, ethereal filcher, grick, chuul... I probably missed a few. Still, these were not the critters that stayed with us, were they? Sure, the grick and chuul are sort of okay. The phasm and delver in particular, I think, were victims of wonky art. The phasm, a beast that could shapechange to anything, and nobody used it for seven years? And the delver, were at least I find it difficult to judge what it looks like from the picture. The tojanida is so bizarre that it was only used as part of a tojbasarrirge.

Given how fondly I look on loser monsters, these are a prime bunch. :-)

Nice how you don't mention Destrachan, as most people seem to hate this extreme cool creature on their hate or weird list.

Also I agree about ART-VICTIMS... people that didn't read the side stories or powers of the Gravorg, Julajimus or Delver for example would never liked them as their artwork seem to be made by a 6 year old while some of the other artwork were perfect while the creature was rather boring (hobgoblin).

That's why i'm happy PAIZO has so few artists, most artwork is great (few exceptions) and similiar to one another, no children that paint for their fathers at least.

Contributor

DJEternalDarkness wrote:
And I still have to say, even thought I KNOW they are not OGL or technically never made it to 3.5, I still miss modrons.

Have you seen the arbiter inevitable in Bestiary 2?


The destrachan was pure forgetfulness on my part. Yes, it is a weirdo, but still one of the more useful of these critters. I get why they were created, though. Yrthak and destrachan were sonic monsters, meant to expand this niche beyond harpy. Arrowhawk and tojanida were elemental counterpoints to salamander and xorn. Chuul was because they needed a rather tough water critter. I think Ik-Iks and digesters are low CR energy damage critters. The grick and ethereal marauder were made from cool pieces of brainstorming art, if I remember correctly.

It generally goes to show what the reason for making a creature is, is my theory. Starting with a picture is okay, if the pic is awesome. Starting with a CR to fill is a recipe for boring. Certainly, boring creatures can be made non boring (the delver in Misfit monsters redeemed?), but still. Starting with an ability seems to be the best strategy.

Dammit, just remembered the allip. That is a cool critter, but the pic seems a bit out of whack. That pic is more like an undead lieutenant of the overlord or something.


I agree, starting with special abilities, stories that fit into the world or timeline they created or for a special plane (elemental, ethereal, ect) is much better. Or maybe a creature that is an arch enemy of another creature is also good to start with.

There are a lot of art-victims in the 3,5 edition of D&D, gladly they solved this in 4th edition as those books seem to only hold beautiful artwork with few exceptions. The child artists probably took off or grew up during the time between 3,5 and 4. :D

Destrachan, Chuul and Arrowhawk are the only creatures from that weirdo list I really like in art, abilities and everything, the others I never really liked or cared about.


Not commenting 4th edition art, in the interest of keeping the discussion nice and kind. Let's just say that the art in Pathfinder is several shades of awesome better than 3rd.


Most Pathfinder art is much better than their D&D 3rd or 4th edition counterparts, but there are a few exeptions for me, like the chimera, Behir, Derro and Duergar for example, but overal Pathfinder made me love creatures I really disliked in D&D books both in art and description before. (vampiric decapus art is really the best art i've ever seen in a long time for example, and I always disliked Erinyes until I saw that amazing artwork for them in the first Bestiary, now they made the Kirin into something I actually like.)

Chimera is the worst art in the first bestiary for me personally, but they made it up with the campaign books where I saw multiple artworks for a chimera that were actually pretty awesome, like a frost version of the chimera and one with realistic artwork.

Sovereign Court

Sissyl wrote:

The 3.0 new critters were a strange bunch: arrowhawk, tojanida, delver, phasm, yrthak, magmin(?), ethereal marauder, ethereal filcher, grick, chuul... I probably missed a few. Still, these were not the critters that stayed with us, were they? Sure, the grick and chuul are sort of okay. The phasm and delver in particular, I think, were victims of wonky art. The phasm, a beast that could shapechange to anything, and nobody used it for seven years? And the delver, were at least I find it difficult to judge what it looks like from the picture. The tojanida is so bizarre that it was only used as part of a tojbasarrirge.

Given how fondly I look on loser monsters, these are a prime bunch. :-)

Not all your list was new.

Delver = Fiend Folio 1e
MAgmin = the same
I'm fairly certain the phasm is the same. So it would mean more like 20? years ?


Pfffft. So, I don't know all monsters. I am a worthless person.

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Stereofm wrote:


Not all your list was new.

Delver = Fiend Folio 1e
MAgmin = the same
I'm fairly certain the phasm is the same. So it would mean more like 20? years ?

Magmin are from Module A4, In the Dungeons of the Slave Lords, and didn't make a hardcover appearance until Monster Manual 2.

Delvers weren't in the Fiend Folio either. There was a critter called the denzelian with no attacks, it had little in common with delvers other than being able to tunnel (and not much in common there, it ate rock at 1 foot per week).

Phasms weren't in the Fiend Folio, nor was anything particularly close to them.


Prolly thinking of "Lava children." They were kinda lava dudes with this big goofy smile permanently on their face.


I think it is fascinating, the way the RPG society retains its monsters to the point where we can hold a discussion like this. Emotions, fads, inspiration, laughter, collecting, shared experiences, all things that contribute to the point of playing...

51 to 81 of 81 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Bestiary 3 and the Monster Manual All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Product Discussion