1.- Zombie Cactus from D&D 4E... it was a riddiculous monster but it was pretty fun to ambush your players with living cacti using zombie thralls.
2.- MORE Kami
3.- MORE golems and Aeons
4.- More info on spawns of Rovagug for an epic final campaign battle.
5.- Golems from previous editions (Doll, Origami, etc)
6.- Noppera-Bou, a faceless Yokai who hauns peopledoing crary, uncanny stuff and then mocking them by turning into their loved ones.
7.- More lovecraftian horrors.
8.- Weird looking stuff
9.- Cute looking stuff :)
BUT somehow I doubt there will be Bestiary 4...
Zombie Cactus is copyrighted by D&D so not possible, If you like such thrall taking plants you might like the Yellow Musk Creeper.
I agree on the cactus part, of all plants cacti are the most fun to monsterize.
You are the first to ask for more Aeons, more golems are always welcome of course as you can create them from everything.
I'm sure there will be a bestiary 4, because Wesley asked us to come up with 5 new dragons a while back, those are signs they are working on bestiary 4.
Question: How many lovecraftian monsters are there still to paizonize? Because i've seen so many already in the AP's and the Bestiaries, so which ones still need som paizo love?
Hmmm well, shame on the Zombie Cactus, loved that thing :(
Well yeah, I just liked some of the old 3E and 2E golems. I liked how Aeons were portrayed on Bestiary. Well, allways been a fan of bizarre monsters (Wold in a Sheep's Cloth F.E.)
Well about the Lovecraft lore, maybe something "bigger" and "badder", I don't know if the Mi-Go are already on the roster, or some entity such as Hastur or Nyarlathotep.
Well, time to think of a Dragon I guess.
First of all people change opinions and in the case of Cipactli you described a version I didn't really liked (I didn't know or looked up the creature back then), you said something about a tarrasque-like creature, a gigantic version, I would not like a bigger than huge Cipactli, that got me confused.....y'know, I remember actually mentioning the Cipactli and I also remember Sincubus shooting down that idea. And here he is making the same suggestion.
And the cat's in the cradle with the silver spoon...
The Cipactli is a massive sized creature in Aztec mythology. I'd personally feel disappointed if they didn't hold true to the original source.
High CR monsters that aren't undead, dragons, or outsiders.
I'd like more Aeons...I just lump them under my request for more neutral outsiders.
The Cipactli is a massive sized creature in Aztec mythology. I'd personally feel disappointed if they didn't hold true to the original source.First of all people change opinions and in the case of Cipactli you described a version I didn't really liked (I didn't know or looked up the creature back then), you said something about a tarrasque-like creature, a gigantic version, I would not like a bigger than huge Cipactli, that got me confused.....y'know, I remember actually mentioning the Cipactli and I also remember Sincubus shooting down that idea. And here he is making the same suggestion.
And the cat's in the cradle with the silver spoon...
Well I don't because I don't realy like impossible-big creatures.
I hope they couatlize the Cipactli to more acceptable size, just like they did with Couatl, as Quetzalcouatl would be impossible.
IN the real myth they created the earth from Cipactli's body, if its that big than it would be insane! Large or huge would be good, just do the creature like they did with the couatl create a smaller cousin of it. I hope its just as large as a Couatl actually and that it has some connection to the Couatl as wel, maybe being mortal enemies or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would also like more Aeons and to be honest I like them better then the Psychopomps.
High CR monsters that are Fey, Monstrous Humaniods, Elementals, Oozes, Plants, and non-giant Humaniods.
I want more fey like Nuckelavee, non-little human-like creatures but more monstrous fey ala Kelpie & Nuckelavee.
I wished Wendigo, Barghest and Mothman were fey as wel...
Buggane, Rarog, Kikimora, Bloody Bones, Shellycoat and Jack in Irons would make good monstrous (and in some cases BIG) fey.
I'm pretty sure that we can say that we have a good chunk of Demons, Devils and Celestials, so here's my list, with the current numbers of creatures if applicable:
- More Azatas (5) (ok, fine, it's the only Celestial type that's lacking members right now)
- More Aeons (5)
- More Asuras (5)
- More Demodands (3)
- More Divs (7)
- More Inevitables (5)
- More Kamis (5, 9 if you count those added in APs)
- More Proteans (4)
- More Rakshasas (6)
- Ice and Lighting humanoids, similar to Ifrits and Undines
- 5 lost chromatic dragons (Grey, Brown, Yellow, Orange and Purple)
- 5 lost metallic dragons (Adamantine, Mithral, Iron, Steel and Lead)
- More Behemoths (3) (fire, ice, storm)
- More Sphinxs (3)
Aside from the dragons and humanoids, 2 or 3 creatures per type would be adequate, to avoid flooding.
- 5 lost chromatic dragons (Grey, Brown, Yellow, Orange and Purple)
- 5 lost metallic dragons (Adamantine, Mithral, Iron, Steel and Lead)
LOST? LOST??? Those overused dragons from the first bestiary are sooo less interesting than those you just named, but I think Lead should be replaced by Mercury. And aren't Iron and Steel a bit too a-like?
Adamantine a Lost Dragon is a bit strange, its the most powerful of all dragons if created. :p
There are 4 sphinxes you forgot the Gynosphinx I guess.
- 5 lost chromatic dragons (Grey, Brown, Yellow, Orange and Purple)
- 5 lost metallic dragons (Adamantine, Mithral, Iron, Steel and Lead)LOST? LOST??? Those overused dragons from the first bestiary are sooo less interesting than those you just named, but I think Lead should be replaced by Mercury. And aren't Iron and Steel a bit too a-like?
Adamantine a Lost Dragon is a bit strange, its the most powerful of all dragons if created. :p
I said "lost" because D&D was always about 5 evil and 5 good dragons, so adding more would be considered "breaking the mold", and by "lost", I also meant "dragons that were thought extinct", "rarer" or even "rumored in legends".
Mercury could work, and no, Iron and Steel are different. A Dragon magazine issue and I believe Dragons of Faerun had a Steel Dragon, while the 4e has an Iron Dragon, which also featured in another Dragon magazine issue with 4 other ferrous dragons.
There are 4 sphinxes you forgot the Gynosphinx I guess.
Whoops eh eh... my bad :p
Most of those Dragons would be WOTC copyright...I think they only put the 5 chromatics and metallics on the SRD.
From past developer comments, it sounds like they want to keep to 5 dragons to a type rule, and also are not interested in adding more to those categories.
Angels(6)(YES!)
Azatas(6)(YES!)
Agathions(7)(YES!)
Archons(7)(yes)
That is not a lot of celestials.
Demons(24+)No
Devils(18+)No
Daemons(20+)No
Divs(6)(maybe)
Demodands(3)No(see bellow)
Oni(11)(yes)
Azura(5)(yes)
Qlippoths(8)(yes)
Rakshasa(6)(yes)
Kytons(5)(maybe)
Proteans(4)(YES!)
Inevitables(5)(YES!)
Wow poor law and chaos.
Aeons(5)(YES!)
Kami(9)(YES!)
I would also like to see more types of Sphinxes and Behemoths
It was already said that there will only be three types of Demodands.
Ice and Lighting planetouched races would be interesting.
If were going to have more metalic dragons how about ones based on the 7 sky metals.
I would mind seeing any of those dragons even if they are not related to the original chromatics and metalics.
|
Question: How many lovecraftian monsters are there still to paizonize? Because i've seen so many already in the AP's and the Bestiaries, so which ones still need som paizo love?
Well, if you mean monsters directly from H. P. Lovecraft himself, there are still quite a few that haven't been translated to Pathfinder, either as races or gods. If you expand that to monsters used by Lovecraft AND his legacy of friends and fans still writing stories, novels,and games; it's practically endless. The Malleus Monstrorum, essentially the Bestiary for Call of Cthulhu, has approximately 400 creatures in in, and there's been rather minimal overlap between it and the full extent of Paizo's monstrous offerings. And the Malleus Monstrorum is far from being all-inclusive in regards to Mythos creatures.
My understanding was that, outside of stuff developed by HP Lovecraft, some of the Call of Cthulhu monsters actually are either not in public domain, or Chaosium has special rights to their use. Other monsters have have been developed much more for Chaosium products than they were by Lovecraft, so Chaosium owns the "rights" to those depictions.
This came up in a recent question to James Jacob; They had to seek special permission to "stat up" the Gnoph-keh, Dimensional Shambler, and Dark Young from the Carrion Crown AP. Thats why these guys were not made OGL, like most of Pathfinder's monsters are
I imagine that, going forward, that might limit what they can add from Mythos to future bestiaries (excluding mythic monsters)
Off the top of my head, Cats of Aucturn (Saturn) might be the only thing left? any other monsters?
(Which does rather suck, as like you I am a huge Mythos fan)
I'm just happy with Hound of Tindalos, Ratling, Flying Polyp, Dhole, Moon-Beast, Shoggoth, Leng Spider, Denizen of Leng, Colour out of Space, Zoog, Nightgaunt and Gug. All the creatures from lovecraft I really needed are there so i'm happy :)
Copyright can't harm me in this case.
I would have loved the Deep Ones, but I think the Ceratoidi (the deep sea fish people from Bestiary 3) are pretty much a good replacer.
BTW is the Totenmaske also from Lovecraft mythos?
The more I think of the Ichneumon the more I want it in bestiary 4!
I really like high CR level monsters who are very small, like the Tupilaq, Redcap and Aurumvorax, but a small mammal which is around CR 14 would be even better, the Dragon Slaying Ichneumon would be perfect for that.
The Ichneumon should look very different from the real myth because in the real myth it looks 100% like a real Mongoose, while MMCJawa would like that because he wants all creatures to be 100% matches with the real myths I really want it to look very different. Maybe being part dragon itself with dragon scales mixed with hairs, or all dragon scales or some other monstrous features with makes this creature very different from the normal Mongoose.
They should be real terrors for dragons, while they would almost never win from ancient dragons and such big beasts, smaller dragons and especially very young dragons have no real chance against them, they are sought after by dragon slaying humanoids as pets/familiars/slave beasts as they can sniff out dragon eggs and dragons nests, they should be 100% immune to fire and poison.
When mud covers their scales/fur they become invisible for some strange unexplained reasons, probably something the creator of the first Ichneumon thought would come in handy when he/she created it to get vengeance against a dragon who killed his/her lover/family/friends/allies.
Most of those Dragons would be WOTC copyright...I think they only put the 5 chromatics and metallics on the SRD.
From past developer comments, it sounds like they want to keep to 5 dragons to a type rule, and also are not interested in adding more to those categories.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call "dragons named after colors or metals" copywritten?
The name wouldn't be a problem, they would just need to make the dragons different from WotC's versions, and even those versions have been different. For instance, the Yellow Dragon went from a desert dragon in 2e to a coastal dragon in 3e.
Most of those Dragons would be WOTC copyright...I think they only put the 5 chromatics and metallics on the SRD.
From past developer comments, it sounds like they want to keep to 5 dragons to a type rule, and also are not interested in adding more to those categories.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call "dragons named after colors or metals" copywritten?
The name wouldn't be a problem, they would just need to make the dragons different from WotC's versions, and even those versions have been different. For instance, the Yellow Dragon went from a desert dragon in 2e to a coastal dragon in 3e.
And in PF it could go to being a "hot spring sulfur" dragon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo would be walking on rather delicate ground if they did a Yellow Dragon.
For one, yeah, they would probably have to use another name. While the name "Yellow Dragon" is not super descriptive, in the context of a DnD game it does do something.
Secondly, Paizo dislikes creating new versions of non-OGL monsters that don't already have a basis in pulp or folklore. Kind of why we don't have a Beholder or Mind Flayer with the serial numbers filed off.
At any rate, the developers have said we won't get any new metallic or chromatic dragons, as they are interested in creating more original dragons as well as keeping dragon types to blocks of 5
I agree, you can't copyright stuff like Yellow Dragon, Orange Dragon, Purple Dragon and so on, you just have to give them different roles and abilities and not 100% copy the sand, deep and fang dragons from D&D.
Also the same can be said about Mercury Dragon and such monsters, if D&D dares to take copyright for those creatures they should feel on their forehead because that would be stupid.
The more I think of the Ichneumon the more I want it in bestiary 4!
I really like high CR level monsters who are very small, like the Tupilaq, Redcap and Aurumvorax, but a small mammal which is around CR 14 would be even better, the Dragon Slaying Ichneumon would be perfect for that.The Ichneumon should look very different from the real myth because in the real myth it looks 100% like a real Mongoose, while MMCJawa would like that because he wants all creatures to be 100% matches with the real myths I really want it to look very different. Maybe being part dragon itself with dragon scales mixed with hairs, or all dragon scales or some other monstrous features with makes this creature very different from the normal Mongoose.
They should be real terrors for dragons, while they would almost never win from ancient dragons and such big beasts, smaller dragons and especially very young dragons have no real chance against them, they are sought after by dragon slaying humanoids as pets/familiars/slave beasts as they can sniff out dragon eggs and dragons nests, they should be 100% immune to fire and poison.
When mud covers their scales/fur they become invisible for some strange unexplained reasons, probably something the creator of the first Ichneumon thought would come in handy when he/she created it to get vengeance against a dragon who killed his/her lover/family/friends/allies.
FYI the Scum are the deep one analogues in Pathfinder
As far as Ichneumon, I never said all should monsters should 100% reflect folklore. I do think it's stupid to take something from mythology, get rid of everything about it, and reuse the name for a completely different creature. At that point, I would rather someone just invents a new name (see your earlier Argus giant = beholder like monster).
With Ichneumon, I actually would like something that acknowledges the mongoose like creature, AS WELL AS the parasitoid wasp who acquired that name. Some sort of naked-skin weasel like monster which lays its eggs inside of dragons, only for the young to eat the dragon (or potentially person?) from the inside out would be awesome. This would preserve the flavor of both Ichneumons, while making a novel monster.
Most of those Dragons would be WOTC copyright...I think they only put the 5 chromatics and metallics on the SRD.
From past developer comments, it sounds like they want to keep to 5 dragons to a type rule, and also are not interested in adding more to those categories.
Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call "dragons named after colors or metals" copywritten?
The name wouldn't be a problem, they would just need to make the dragons different from WotC's versions, and even those versions have been different. For instance, the Yellow Dragon went from a desert dragon in 2e to a coastal dragon in 3e.
Hey, if Games Workshop can sue people for using the term "space marine", then yes, WOTC could try to sue Pathfinder for using those terms.
Paizo would be walking on rather delicate ground if they did a Yellow Dragon.
For one, yeah, they would probably have to use another name. While the name "Yellow Dragon" is not super descriptive, in the context of a DnD game it does do something.
Secondly, Paizo dislikes creating new versions of non-OGL monsters that don't already have a basis in pulp or folklore. Kind of why we don't have a Beholder or Mind Flayer with the serial numbers filed off.
At any rate, the developers have said we won't get any new metallic or chromatic dragons, as they are interested in creating more original dragons as well as keeping dragon types to blocks of 5
Why fan favorites like Beholder and MInd Flayer are not created and strange D&D creatures get their paizo version (Barlgura/Baregara, Yuan-Ti/Serpentfolk, Myconid/Myceloid, Crawling Claw/Crawling Hand, Crystal Dragon, Shadow Dragon/Umbral Dragon, Shadar Kai/Fetchling or Shae, Dracolich/Ravener and Death Knight/Grave Knight are some examples) so why not create a beholder-like thing from Hyakume or another eyecreature that can do such thing?
And why Crystal Dragon can be taken but Yellow Dragon and Grey Dragon would be copyrighted very strictly? I don't really think D&D can do anything about Paizo taking the name Yellow Dragon or Mercury Dragon in their care as those are just words, you can also create a YELLOW PIGEON and take credit for that... but that is insane, creatures like Morkoth and Umber Hulk I can understand why they take credit for it, but yellow dragon and such stuff? I don't really think so.
Yes...yes they can.
If Games Workshop can do the same thing with a generic term like "space marine", than WOTC can do the same with Yellow or Gray Dragon.
and whose legal department is bigger? Paizo? or HASBRO
At any rate, since the developers have flat out stated they are not interested in new chromatic or metallic dragons, this is all a moot point.
Not a big loss at all, I only think the Purple/Deep Dragon is the most interesting dragon of all chromatic dragons so that's a shame.
BTW, I thought Argus would make a good Beholder because Age of Mythology and some other game I forgot made Argus into a beholder-like creature and I liked that back then because I thought there were enough giants already.
Now I think differently and now I want Argus to be a monstrous giant covered in eyes, and Hyakume (a very unknown asian yokai covered in eyes) to be a beholder-like (read like not 100% clone) creature.
At any rate, since the developers have flat out stated they are not interested in new chromatic or metallic dragons, this is all a moot point.
Well, what the devs might do next or the basic monster selection process isn' common knowledge to many people. That's why I asked for 5 new dragons per category, because I thought that they could expand it further. I just didn't know that they didn't want to expand on their own will. Then again, it's a bit weird that they don't want to expand the Chromatic and Metallic categories, but keep creating new categories with new dragons. At this point, just expand the categories and no harm done.
As for the name, colored dragons have been used in many medias, so getting a brand new Yellow, Orange, Purple, Grey or Brown isn't gonna hurt anyone. What can WotC do about it anyway? Copyright the name? It's a color plus "dragon", kinda unjustified. They can copyright the design if it's a clear copy of the original, but the lawyers are gonna laugh hard if they learn that it's just for the name. Beside, WotC's Grey Dragon was the Fang Dragon, the Brown Dragon was the Sand Dragon and the Purple Dragon was the Deep Dragon, they changed the names of their own creations for "no reason".
At any rate, since the developers have flat out stated they are not interested in new chromatic or metallic dragons, this is all a moot point.Well, what the devs might do next or the basic monster selection process isn' common knowledge to many people. That's why I asked for 5 new dragons per category, because I thought that they could expand it further. I just didn't know that they didn't want to expand on their own will. Then again, it's a bit weird that they don't want to expand the Chromatic and Metallic categories, but keep creating new categories with new dragons. At this point, just expand the categories and no harm done.
As for the name, colored dragons have been used in many medias, so getting a brand new Yellow, Orange, Purple, Grey or Brown isn't gonna hurt anyone. What can WotC do about it anyway? Copyright the name? It's a color plus "dragon", kinda unjustified. They can copyright the design if it's a clear copy of the original, but the lawyers are gonna laugh hard if they learn that it's just for the name. Beside, WotC's Grey Dragon was the Fang Dragon, the Brown Dragon was the Sand Dragon and the Purple Dragon was the Deep Dragon, they changed the names of their own creations for "no reason".
Unfortunately yes, they can try and contend it. Going back to Games Workshop, the term "space marine" has been around since Robert A. Heinlein's book, Starship Troopers. Since then, it's been used in everything from the Aliens franchise to Starcraft. It's a highly generic terms like Yellow Dragon, yet Games Workshop still threw their weight around at one author over a generic term. Whether or not Paizo loses the case isn't the problem. The problem would be the money being spent on legal fees. So yes, they can get called out for using those dragons.
As for Paizo making their own versions of WOTC brand monsters, like beholders and mindflayers... I remember a long time ago, reading a quote by James Jacobs about why they don't. Essentially, I believe it boiled down to the fact that rebranding monsters wouldn't be creative nor in the spirit of DnD. They'd rather be creative and do their own monsters and do well on their own terms rather than just make "legally distinct beholder." Which I can agree with. I wouldn't want them to be an RPG version of The Asylum.
Doesn't matter if they can win the lawsuit...They can simply bleed Paizo in legal fees....
Again...Hasbro versus Paizo...who do you has think more resources for such a fight?
Or you know...Paizo could just not deal with it by making Yellow and Gray and Purple Dragons....
|
Well, if Paizo is going to base any more monster off Pop culture, like how the Carnivorous Blob is based on the Blob; The Deadly Mantis is based on the creature from the film of the same name; the Akata is based on the xenomorph, ect. here are a few pop-cultural monsters I'd love to see used as inspiration:
The Starmen- From the Mother/Earthbound series, these psychic alien robots would be perfect as the basis for, say, The Dominion of the Black's scouts and minions. Hell, Giygas himself would be the perfect inspiration for a member of said dominion, backstory and all
The Deadly Spawn- I love these worm/vertebrate-like creatures from the movie of the same name, and given they can grow to gargantuan sizes when left alone enough and that they were made as a weapon of plan, I think they'd be the perfect basis for a species of aberrant monster. Though, of course, they'd need a more defining special feature than just the Blindsight they had in the film.
E.T.- The ugly little guy'd be perfect to base a race of good Aberrant creatures on, perhaps ones whose worlds have a link to the Positive Energy Plane.
The Saucermen- Ugly little bug-eyed monsters who kill you by pumping you full of alchohol, with detachable hands and a weakness to light? That'd be perfect! Same with their fellow B-movie-monster Beuhlah from It Conquered the World, whose mind control probes'd be perfect as a distinguishing feature.
The Rainbow Creature- Yes, from that ridiculous Silver age Batman comic. It'd be perfect as a member of The Tane, don't you think?
The Octorock- From Zelda. Because The Octorock does seem like the sort of monster (A chitin-covered land-octopus that spits rocks) that should've appeared in the old Fiend Folio.
I want to see more Abberations. Low, mid, and high CR. Abberations are always some of my favorite monsters.
- 5 lost chromatic dragons (Grey, Brown, Yellow, Orange and Purple)
- 5 lost metallic dragons (Adamantine, Mithral, Iron, Steel and Lead)LOST? LOST??? Those overused dragons from the first bestiary are sooo less interesting than those you just named, but I think Lead should be replaced by Mercury. And aren't Iron and Steel a bit too a-like?
Adamantine a Lost Dragon is a bit strange, its the most powerful of all dragons if created. :p
*GAG, CHOKE, GASP* No... more... color... dragons *DIES*
*UNDIES* Some of those metallic ideas are pretty cool, though. And I did always like the mercury dragon.
I'll have to put these on the list for the dark future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would actually love to see dragons based on the new skymetals in Shattered Star. Would be interesting to see a djezet dragon...
hint hint Schneider ;)
My understanding was that, outside of stuff developed by HP Lovecraft, some of the Call of Cthulhu monsters actually are either not in public domain, or Chaosium has special rights to their use. Other monsters have have been developed much more for Chaosium products than they were by Lovecraft, so Chaosium owns the "rights" to those depictions.
This came up in a recent question to James Jacob; They had to seek special permission to "stat up" the Gnoph-keh, Dimensional Shambler, and Dark Young from the Carrion Crown AP. Thats why these guys were not made OGL, like most of Pathfinder's monsters are
This gets tricky. There is a ton of stuff from Lovecraft that falls into the public domain now. There's also a ton of stuff that gets attributed to Lovecraft that isn't really his. With all of his collaborations, correspondence, and the contributions of others to the Mythos, there gets to be a pretty muddy gray area.
As we have infinite respect for Chaosium and its creators, any time we've ventured into that muddy realm (or wanted to use something based on/popularized by their use), we've approached them and solicited their permission, then excluded those monsters from the OGL. This is probably being overly cautious, but when we choose to play in someone else's sandbox, it's important to us that we be good guests.
Ultimately, though, this means expending more effort to include monsters we get less use out of (we can't use creatures we don't own as miniatures or in novels for example). So there's often a question of this is cool, but does it make sense for this project. When we're talking an adventure thick with Lovecraftian elements, the answer is surely yes. If we're talking about a book of general use beasties, maybe not so much.
Since we are huge Lovecraft fans, expect more Lovecraftian monsters in future Bestiaries (APs, Campaign Settings, and hardcovers), but more often then not expect those to come more from the works central to Lovecraft's Mythos writings and his inspirations, and less the works of his peers and proteges. I'd bet there will be exceptions to this in the future, but I wouldn't expect Lloigor or Anathas soon.
BTW is the Totenmaske also from Lovecraft mythos?
Nope, it's from our brain sacs. Though the word means, essentially, "death mask."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why fan favorites like Beholder and MInd Flayer are not created and strange D&D creatures get their paizo version (Barlgura/Baregara, Yuan-Ti/Serpentfolk, Myconid/Myceloid, Crawling Claw/Crawling Hand, Crystal Dragon, Shadow Dragon/Umbral Dragon, Shadar Kai/Fetchling or Shae, Dracolich/Ravener and Death Knight/Grave Knight are some examples) so why not create a beholder-like thing from Hyakume or another eyecreature that can do such thing?
There's a few reasons for this.
One difference between the beholder and mind flayer and all the creatures you listed is complexity. I can, in two words, give a reasonable summary of every one of those creatures listed earlier. In nearly every instance I can also point to examples of these creatures (or their predecessors) predating Dungeons & Dragons. I also know that there's connections made in the list above that never even entered our minds when we were creating our monsters. As we tell stories similar to those D&D tells, it makes sense that we would be inspired by the same sources and think along similar tracks, then incorporate those ideas into our storytelling. Parallel design is a thing, and often a fascinating thing when you get to see how two different creatives pursue the same idea (try giving two different artists the same art order some time; same idea).
Additionally, the mind flayer and beholder are wholly unique creations of Dungeons & Dragons, and they're awesome. They are also wholly creations of D&D. If we wanted to create our own "Eyeball Tyrants," anything we did would be an obvious rip off--and, quality aside, that's not cool with me. Different games have different awesome things, and while I love both of those monsters, I think we and our game can stand on the merits of our own creativity without picking our neighbor's pocket.
Of all the instances listed above only twice did we actually think, "Awww! You know what was an awesome thing from D&D that we'd love to have in our game!?" and that's the ravener and the graveknight, and I know no one is going around saying, "Yeah, we're the people who came up with undead dragons and undead knights," at our company or any other. Again, interpreting basic ideas in different directions is one of the names of the game when it comes to almost any fantasy endeavor.
Lastly there's just a matter of need. If you really, really, really want a beholder or a mindflayer, crack open your 3.5 Monster Manual and there you go. Or if that seems weird, use the Bestiary and design your own. Or if that seems too hard, pick up any of the conversions existing online--here's one of the mind flayer from these very boards. So if you want these monsters, they're all yours.
Heck, just a few sessions back a beholder tore us up in James's Necropolis game, so rest assured that this is the same thing we do. :)
So while we might have eyeball monsters and underworld masterminds in the future, it's important to me that I can say "You know what's cool about D&D, beholders and mind flayers," and "You know what's cool about Pathfinder, ___[fill in the black]___."
Paizo doesn't even have a legal department or an in-house lawyer :)
Without getting too behind the scenes, you're right, a full-time staff lawyer at Paizo would be very board. That does not mean that we do not have legal council, and defense should we need it. Paizo has a long and close relationship with our legal advisers and they are not uncommon guests at the office.
Well, what the devs might do next or the basic monster selection process isn' common knowledge to many people. That's why I asked for 5 new dragons per category, because I thought that they could expand it further.
And it's been SUPER helpful! Thanks a ton! :)
Again...Hasbro versus Paizo...who do you has think more resources for such a fight?
"Why we gotta argue. Why we gotta fight. I just wanna love you." ;)
Well, if Paizo is going to base any more monsters off Pop culture...
And we TOTALLY are.
Lots of awesome suggestions.
Awesome suggestions. :)
So since we seem to have you here in our grasps Mr. Schneider...
Two questions:
A) Skymetal Dragons. Great Idea or THE BEST IDEA EVER?
B) What is the F in your name? I have a theory it's for Fabulous.
So since we seem to have you here in our grasps Mr. Schneider...
Two questions:
A) Skymetal Dragons. Great Idea or THE BEST IDEA EVER?
Is "Greaterest?" an option? I do really like it. I don't think it'd be a great fit for a hardcover Bestiary, just because there's so much in-world lore associated with the sky metals. But if we ever did an Inner Sea Bestiary 2...
B) What is the F in your name? I have a theory it's for Fabulous.
It is. It's totally that.
Though some will tell you it's for "F. U.," which is pretty appropriate too. ;)
*rolls over laughing for a reason that Wes and few other people will get*
B) What is the F in your name? I have a theory it's for Fabulous.
Careful. :P
LOL
So since we seem to have you here in our grasps Mr. Schneider...
Two questions:
A) Skymetal Dragons. Great Idea or THE BEST IDEA EVER?
Is "Greaterest?" an option? I do really like it. I don't think it'd be a great fit for a hardcover Bestiary, just because there's so much in-world lore associated with the sky metals. But if we ever did an Inner Sea Bestiary 2...
B) What is the F in your name? I have a theory it's for Fabulous.It is. It's totally that.
Though some will tell you it's for "F. U.," which is pretty appropriate too. ;)
Fair enough. Just keep that bug in your mind when you make the Inner Sea Bestiary 2. That way I can brag to all my friends about helping! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what's cool about Pathfinder, ___[Acually pathfinder has so much more nice monsters than D&D ever will have, Alraune, Gigas Clam, Inkanyamba, Zebub, Mothman, Bogeyman, Fungal Crawler, Moonflower, Ecorche, Charybdis, Mobogo endless others]___."
D&D keeps using the same old monsters, and while I really loved their 4th Edition versions of Catoblepas, Swordwing, Duergar, Skulk, Scarecrow and Howler to death I still think they could get more creative like the guys from paizo.
Fair enough. Just keep that bug in your mind when you make the Inner Sea Bestiary 2. That way I can brag to all my friends about helping! :D
Deal!
BUT somehow I doubt there will be Bestiary 4...
*Brain Explosion*
BTW, Mr. Schneider. I know that demons have James as their champion among the staff, but are there any devil lovers in there? I'd love to see some more devils in the Bestiary 4. Same with Asura actually. I had made one called the raktavija that playtested very well and fills in the niche of shock troopers. The old version had fast healing, and while that was thematic, it was too much defense for a level 3 party to cut through quickly. Maybe next run, I'll drop the DR to 2 and add the fast healing back again.