Name 20 creatures for Monster Codex II


Product Discussion

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

GO!
- Centaurs
- Cyclops
- Dark ones (creepers, stalkers, slayers, callers, dancers)
- Derros
- Hill giants
- Stone giants
- Harpies
- Merfolks
- Locathahs
- Tritons
- Catfolks
- Shaes
- Tanukis
- Changelings
- Gathlains
- Shobhads
- Trox
- Wayangs
- Wyrwoods
- Wyvarans

In short, what creatures should be expanded upon in a 2nd Codex?


1)Catfolk
2)Nixie
3)Centaur
4)Cyclops
5)Pixie
6)Cloud Giants
7)Redcap
8)Merfolk
9)Harpies
10)Locathah
11)Derro
12)Medusa
13)Minotaur
14)Mummy
15)Ghost
16)Quickling
17)Yeti
18)Lamia
19)Sphinx
20)Hags


Stone Giants
Skinwalkers
Tieflings
Lycanthropes
Centaurs
Cyclopes
Medusas
Hags
Trox
Wyverans
Fetchlings
Dark Folk
Skum
Minotaurs
Geniekin
Graveknights
Wights
Rakshasa
Driders
Tengu

Dark Archive

Otyugh

Allip


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Aboleth/Skum
Cyclops
Dark Ones
Derro
Doppelgangers
Ettins
Flumphs
Gargoyles
Graveknights
Hags
Intellect Devourers
Lycanthropes
Mi-Go
Morlocks
Mummies
Nagas
Nephilim
Rune/Taiga Giants
Soulbound dolls/mannequins/shells
Sphinx


Doppelgangers

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

1. Dark Folk
2. Graveknights
3. Derro
4. Mummies
5. Cyclops
6. Soulbound Constructs
7. Hags
8. Kyton Evangelists
9. Aboleth
10. Urdefhan
11. Shaitan
12. Syrinx
13. Titans
14. Stone Giants
15. Nephilim
16. Azer
17. D'ziriak
18. Xill
19. Krakens
20. Denizens of Leng


1: Bestiary 5.

:-p


All the darkest Aberrations, which are also one of the creature types with no Campaign or Companion books about them, despite being one of the most interesting.

Dark Archive

Udaeus


hmmm…..

Aasimar
Catfolk
Centaur
Cyclops
Dark One (creeper, stalker, slayer, etc.)
Ettin
Giant, Cloud
Giant, Hill
Giant, Storm
Hags
Ifrit
Merfolk
Minotaur
Mongrelman
Oread
Svirfneblin
Sylph
Tengu
Tiefling
Undine

Dark Archive

1)doppelgangers
2)efreeti
3)hag annis
4)yukiona
5)wraith
6)mummy
7)derrow
8)mi-go
9)elder thing
10)shoggoth
11)Valkyrie
12)kappa
13)dark naga
14)kraken
15)swan maiden
16)dryad
17)nymph
18)merfolk
19)tiefling
20)centaur


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I thought about Shuggoth too, but I found that to be very challenging to do a chapter of NPCs for because of their relatively low intelligence and oozy shapes. (Unless one introduced something like a more intelligent shuggoth/shuggoth lord sort of thing. Which would probably be doable.) Incorporeal creatures (at least beyond ghosts) also strikes me as somewhat hard to do because they can't normally use (non-ghost-touch) gear. Of course, some creative use of templates could probably increase the options one could do with any creature.


Y'know what? To spark some interests, here's the reason why I pick each monster:

- Centaurs
It's a classic tribal race, but it keeps getting ignored. If we're dealing with a rather unfriendly AND xenophobic race (centaurs hate humanoids), I'd say we need some expansion. Also, racial traits would work if they decide to split the centaur race into several equine-based subraces, like a zebra-based savannah centaur.
Monster ideas: A custom advanced version, like the lizardfolk and gnoll, or a variant, such as a zebra centaur... or even a nightmare centaur hybrid >:)

- Cyclops
Considering that we have the standard and the great varieties, I'd say that it could improved upon. Also, cyclops are low-level giants, which are perfect to scale into multiple NPCs.
Monster ideas: Hmmm... how about a two-headed cyclop, like a crossbreed between cyclops and ettins?

- Dark ones (creepers, stalkers, slayers, callers, dancers)
These are... enigmatic, considering their number, so... These seem to work best as stealth-based encounters, which is always good.
Monster ideas: Yes, I mentioned "stealth"... but a Dark "Brute/Soldier" would be nice.

- Derros
The fact that they are surprisingly insane intrigues me. They're like the "mole people", except more violent. They make excellent kidnappers too... according to their lore.
Monster ideas: There is a small part about experiments and "test subjects", so...

- Hill giants
Funny that the most basic of giantkind didn't get a chapter in the first codex. Seems pretty straightforward to make a hill giant tribe.
Monster ideas: The hill giants are often seen with dire wolves... so how about a custom breed of it?

- Stone giants
Ok, THESE giants seem to be the least menacing and open to discussion than other giants. The Codex doesn't need to be focused on evil characters, so yeah, these giants would be welcomed.
Monster ideas: Goats or bears with rocky plates, showing adaptation/evolution in the mountains.

- Harpies
The bane of men, harpies deserve some exposure, especially if a bard archetype that boosts their captivating song is added. Furthermore, like centaurs, they come in various breeds. You can have a harpy with features from a vulture, hawk or even parrot... Add roc and I'll be happy :)
Monster ideas: While they can already fly, birds of prey as guard animals would work. If not, a smarter breed of harpies (Int 12 or higher) would work.

- Merfolks
- Locathahs
- Tritons
Ok, maybe that's because Golarion hasn't revealed its underwater realms yet, but it wouldn't hurt to get some info on its citizens either. Merfolks come in all shapes, sizes and species, locathahs are obscure fishmen and tritons are outsider do-gooders. There's a lot to cover.
Monster ideas: Fishes, fishes... and more fishes.

- Catfolks
This has become quite the fan favorite, and they could go wild with various breeds of cats and roles.
Monster ideas: Hmmm... we already have a LOT of feline creatures. How about a new feline familiar?

- Shaes
Again with another enigmatic race, which spawned the fetchlings. More information could be added if a fetchling chraacter meet its parents.
Monster ideas: A shadow-based creature is pretty vague... a steed, guard or familiar would work.

- Tanukis
How can you NOT ask for this? This would fun to see. I see a LOT of monks, but still...
Monster ideas: A bigger raccoon dog... or a statue XD

- Changelings
Hags have many varieties, and so have their daughters. How does a all-female tribe work? That would need some explanation.
Monster ideas: I don't know if a male hag is possible... but if so, go for it.

- Gathlains
One of the new races in the Advanced Race Guide, a winged fey. Their ties to nature can be easily explored.
Monster ideas: Any sylvan creature would work here.

- Shobhads
A four-armed giant from another world, these can be improved upon like any giantkind. Furthermore, their alien origins could lead to new spells, equipments and the like.
Monster ideas: Alien worlds call for alien creatures.

- Trox
Another species of the new races in the Advanced Race Guide, a beetle-like creature. They have ties with the duergars and resent for the humanoid races, leading to possibly a more vengeful tribe.
Monster ideas: Beetles... that aren't like the duergars' versions.

- Wayangs
An oriental race with a... weird look and a tie to shadows. This could be explored more, as players and GMs alike can be attracted to oriental adventures.
Monster ideas: Hmmm... like for the shaes, a shadow-based creature would work... or maybe a mix between a shadow AND a wayang.

- Wyrwoods
A new race from the Advanced Race Guide, a created race of small wood puppets. While I don't see much of a society for them, the fact that they create their own members means that they can make whatever character they wish for.
Monster ideas: Hmmm... a bigger version, like Medium or even Large would be nice to see, especially it is used to help build their machines.

- Wyvarans
The last of the new races from the Advanced Race Guide, a hybrid between a kobold and a wyvern. I could see something similar to the hobgoblins, considering that the wyvarans are bigger and deadlier.
Monster ideas: While it should reserved for Bestiary entries, a vairant using a drake instead of a wyvern would be nice.


JiCi wrote:

Y'know what? To spark some interests, here's the reason why I pick each monster:

- Centaurs
It's a classic tribal race, but it keeps getting ignored. If we're dealing with a rather unfriendly AND xenophobic race (centaurs hate humanoids), I'd say we need some expansion. Also, racial traits would work if they decide to split the centaur race into several equine-based subraces, like a zebra-based savannah centaur.
Monster ideas: A custom advanced version, like the lizardfolk and gnoll, or a variant, such as a zebra centaur... or even a nightmare centaur hybrid >:)

- Cyclops
Considering that we have the standard and the great varieties, I'd say that it could improved upon. Also, cyclops are low-level giants, which are perfect to scale into multiple NPCs.
Monster ideas: Hmmm... how about a two-headed cyclop, like a crossbreed between cyclops and ettins?

etc.

-

Probably worth pointing out, if it hasn't already been said, that almost certainly some of these races are getting coverage in the Inner Sea Monster codex. I think Centaurs are confirmed for the book, and I would be shocked if Cyclops at the very least also weren't in the book

Although I think...Monster Codex 2 is very unlikely...I think its even more unlikely that there would be overlap with the inner sea book


MMCJawa wrote:

Probably worth pointing out, if it hasn't already been said, that almost certainly some of these races are getting coverage in the Inner Sea Monster codex. I think Centaurs are confirmed for the book, and I would be shocked if Cyclops at the very least also weren't in the book

Although I think...Monster Codex 2 is very unlikely...I think its even more unlikely that there would be overlap with the inner sea book

Oh you're right, the centaurs will be featured in that one.

Well, the Inner Sea Monster Codex will have only 10 monsters... There's still plenty of creatures to present after it.


1. Asuras
2. Rakshasa
3. Kytons
4. Darkfolk
5. Medusas
6. Liches
7. Oni
8. Angels
9. Demodand
10. Oozes and slimes

That's it for now.


I could easily go for a Giant Codex, with ogres to rune giants, so just assume they are all on there. So...

1. Giants

After that though,

2-5. Genies (all)
6. Minotaur
7. Centaur
8. Doppleganger
9. Dark Folk
10. Medusa
11. Merfolk
12. Lamia
13. Azer
14. Morlock
15. Nephilim
16. Jann (because I forgot about them)
17. Tiefling
18. Aasimar
19. Dhampir
20. Elemental-touched (Ifrit and company)


1. Dark folk associates. Not just "X with pseudo class levels and racial traits", but stuff like the owb.

2. Aberrations

3. Space stuff

4. More LN outsiders

5. More CN outsiders

6-20 Darklands stuff in general.


I'm not going to list Dragons because I don't want Dragons in a Monster Codex at all.

I want a DRAGON CODEX.

So, for Monster Codex II:

1) Aasimar*
2) Catfolk*
3) Centaurs
4) Cloud Giants
5) Cyclopes
6) Gargoyles
7) Kitsune*
8) Leprechauns
9) Lycanthropes
10) Minotaurs
11) Mummies
12) Redcaps
13) Satyrs
14) Spriggans
15) Storm Giants
16) Tanuki
17) Tengu*
18) Tiefling*
19) Vanara*
20) Vishkanya*

* playable races

LYCANTHROPES:
1) Werewolf
2) Werebear
3) Wererat
4) Wereboar
5) Weretiger

---

I also want a Villains Codex for things like Liches, etc.


1. Kitsune
2. Skeletons
3. Tieflings
4. Aasimar
5. Spinx
6. Morlocks
7. Demons
8. Liches
9. Aboleth
10. Rune Giants
11. Archons
12. Denizens of Leng
13. Spiders
14. Treants
15. Zombies
16. Salamanders
17. Chokers
18. Chaos Beasts
19. Kaiju
20. Tengu


Out of curiosity, those of you asking for demons (and other similar fiends), how do you imagine them fitting into a Monster Codex format?

The Monster Codex took one creature, and provided a bunch of different statblocks with that creature and class levels, providing a longer range of challenges than just the base creature, because those creatures can be encountered in a variety of different ways.

When you have 'demon', you have a minimum of twenty creatures, from CR 1-20. Devils are almost as close. Same goes for fey, and whatnot. What would the 'devil' entry in a Monster Codex look like to you?

For other creatures, like 'treants' or 'aboleth'. These creatures are often solitary, few campaigns involve an entire village or tribe of treants, for instance. What would the treant entry look like to you? I personally would want to wait for Occult Adventures to come out before providing a bunch of aboleth with class levels, but that's just me.

So tell me. How does it look?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Out of curiosity, those of you asking for demons (and other similar fiends), how do you imagine them fitting into a Monster Codex format?

The Monster Codex took one creature, and provided a bunch of different statblocks with that creature and class levels, providing a longer range of challenges than just the base creature, because those creatures can be encountered in a variety of different ways.

When you have 'demon', you have a minimum of twenty creatures, from CR 1-20. Devils are almost as close. Same goes for fey, and whatnot. What would the 'devil' entry in a Monster Codex look like to you?

For other creatures, like 'treants' or 'aboleth'. These creatures are often solitary, few campaigns involve an entire village or tribe of treants, for instance. What would the treant entry look like to you? I personally would want to wait for Occult Adventures to come out before providing a bunch of aboleth with class levels, but that's just me.

So tell me. How does it look?

Regarding aboleths, I don't see them as any more solitary than say vampires. Both are known to have numerous slaves and servants, and they can congregate together- it's usually just out of sight. Anyway, I would feature some minion stat blocks such as those of the skum.

Edit: I imagine a treant entry would center around a grove like structure- somewhat of a smaller social unit than say, most of the tribal entries. Think like the vampire families centered around a single lord as far as numbers


Aboleth are arguably the strongest candidates of the 'odd' monsters for such treatment. I could see multiple different versions, maybe putting the veiled master in as their 'affiliated monster'

But for instance, what sort of treant statblocks would you expect to see? Would you think the treant section to fill up the same page count as fire giants or drow?

Etc.

Basically, I wasn't saying "you shouldn't have X in the Monster Codex II", I was asking how you would implement it, because it doesn't seem as intuitive as say, hobgoblins and orcs.


For Aboleth, not only would I have aboleth with class levels (or new variant forms), I would probably also stat up Skum and Gillman followers

Kind of like how the vampire entry includes some associated non-vampire servitors.


GREMLINS!!!!!

(and Kytons)


Kain Darkwind wrote:

Out of curiosity, those of you asking for demons (and other similar fiends), how do you imagine them fitting into a Monster Codex format?

The Monster Codex took one creature, and provided a bunch of different statblocks with that creature and class levels, providing a longer range of challenges than just the base creature, because those creatures can be encountered in a variety of different ways.

When you have 'demon', you have a minimum of twenty creatures, from CR 1-20. Devils are almost as close. Same goes for fey, and whatnot. What would the 'devil' entry in a Monster Codex look like to you?

For other creatures, like 'treants' or 'aboleth'. These creatures are often solitary, few campaigns involve an entire village or tribe of treants, for instance. What would the treant entry look like to you? I personally would want to wait for Occult Adventures to come out before providing a bunch of aboleth with class levels, but that's just me.

So tell me. How does it look?

Variations on a theme like any of the other races in the codex. So perhaps a few babau assassin variants alongside a couple Balor slavers, glabrezu warlords or what have you. I'm not writing it so I don't have to organize it.

Treant healers, warriors, farmers, etc.

It's self evident to me but perhaps I'm thinking more of variations on a theme than "adding levels."


Nobody is writing it, so no one has to organize it. I'm trying to draw out conversation on something that strikes me as interesting, but isn't immediately apparent to me.

For instance, I suspect the choices in the first MC were made based on popularity and likelihood of being immediately useful to the game. I would bet that more games need multiple different orc statblocks than treant ones.

But, for some games, multiple treant statblocks would be a boon. And I'm curious, for those who put treant on their top 20 list, what sort of treants are you expecting to see?

Now, for demons, the issue is different...we literally have more different demon types than we have orc statblocks in the Monster Codex. You could probably do a Demon Codex. So again, I'm curious how one envisions the demon entries, when you wouldn't even be able to put a single statblock for each demon in, let alone multiple.


I don't think there would/should be Demons or other overarching Outsiders in a Monster Codex.

Per lots of Mythologies, demons/devils/angels/etc all have predetermined roles based on their classification.

There are already PLENTY of different kinds of Demons, as is - enough that you could fill an entire list of 20 Demons.

Lycanthropes, for me, are already pushing it, and while I would like to see all Lycanthropes touched upon, I can understand if Werewolves were the only ones (or at least first) to make it into a Codex (maybe Werebears or Wererats, too).

But Werewolves make sense - they can be solitary, but they can also, understandably, be in Packs, and I can see there being Werewolf Packleaders, Werewolf Omegas, Werewolf Scouts, etc.

Mummies are also a general-enough creature type that I think they warrant further exploration: Mummy sorcerers, mummy guards, yada-yada.

Centaurs, Satyrs, and Minotarus all need Codex entries because they're extremely popular, we KNOW that there can be buttloads of variations and ways you can make entire societies of those creatures, and yet they are some of the least-utilized creatures.

Trolls were odd in the first Monster Codex, because there are a few Troll subtypes already, although over half of them are basically just literally mutations of a basic Troll.

If the first Codex is any indication of future Monster Codices, I'd imagine 40% of the book (8 out of 20 races) will be PC Races not yet touched upon - we haven't gotten things like Tengu, Kitsune, Catfolk, "Planetouched" creatures (Aasimar, Tiefling, Undine, Oreads, Ifrits, Slyphs, Sulis, or Fetchlings), Vishkanya, Merfolk, Vanaras, or Changelings. It'd be nice to see those creatures get sections in the MCII or MCIII.

---

But, yeah - that's why I say I'd fully support a "Dragon Codex":

Rather than just hacking on class levels to Dragons, I'd like to see entire Templates be placed onto Dragons that give them different roles (either solo or as part of a Brood) and maybe in some cases act more like real Dragons, instead of spellcasters who look like Dragons (similar to the Xorvintaal Dragons, aka Dragons of the Great Game, from the MMIV)

Between Metallic, Chromatic, Primal, Imperial, Jabberwock, Revenant, Gorynych, Dragon-Turtles, and Wyvarans, there're enough to fill an entire large Codex that's bigger than the Monster Codex with lots and lots of options.


Oh man, I got really confused at first and thought this was some memory game about quoting an old AD&D product or something.


Kain Darkwind wrote:

Nobody is writing it, so no one has to organize it. I'm trying to draw out conversation on something that strikes me as interesting, but isn't immediately apparent to me.

For instance, I suspect the choices in the first MC were made based on popularity and likelihood of being immediately useful to the game. I would bet that more games need multiple different orc statblocks than treant ones.

But, for some games, multiple treant statblocks would be a boon. And I'm curious, for those who put treant on their top 20 list, what sort of treants are you expecting to see?

Now, for demons, the issue is different...we literally have more different demon types than we have orc statblocks in the Monster Codex. You could probably do a Demon Codex. So again, I'm curious how one envisions the demon entries, when you wouldn't even be able to put a single statblock for each demon in, let alone multiple.

I agree with some of what you are getting at. I think a monster codex works best when the monsters in question have some sort of society that would call for different stat blocks for different roles in the society. IN addition to belonging to a type of monster that would realistically see a lot of use in a campaign

In the case of demons/other outsiders, I feel that for the most part different kind of demons fill different roles within demon society, and so its a lot easier to justify plugging different kinds of demons into an adventure, versus needing to provide class levels.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
2. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
3. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
4. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
5. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
6. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
7. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
8. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
9. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
10. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
11. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
12. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
13. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
14. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
15. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
16. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
17. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
18. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
19. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
20. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.


But Kthulhu, they can't use the same entry for the Monster Codex 2 twenty times! That would just be redundant, and one monster is way too much material for a giant hardcover! You're not thinking clearly!

President, Jon Brazer Enterprises

JiCi wrote:

- Merfolks

- Catfolks

- Changelings

- Wyrwoods

- Wyvarans

Just so you are aware, these are 5 of the 12 races we are covering in the Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Compendium. I'm putting the finishing touches on Changelings as we speak.

Scarab Sages

In no particular order:
- Mothmen
- Leshies
- Bunyips
- Wayangs
- Kitsune
- Tanuki
- Catfolk
- Changelings
- Shae
- Flumphs
- Oozes
- Naga
- Proteans
- Qlippoths
- Kaiju
- Aeons
- Kami
- Jabberwocks
- Tzitzimitls
- Animated Objects


Kthulhu wrote:

1. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

2. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
3. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
4. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
5. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
6. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
7. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
8. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
9. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
10. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
11. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
12. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
13. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
14. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
15. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
16. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
17. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
18. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
19. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
20. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

I believe that we can still manage to make great encounters with the current Bestiaries we have at the moment; I honestly don't sense an urge to release a 5th Bestiary to be honest.

Also, as I said in another topic, I believe that a Monster Codex is easier and faster to produce than a Bestiary, since they pick a monster, class it, rince and repeat. The amount of original stuff in this kind of book is minimal, so it's not as time-consuming as making new monsters and hoping that they're balanced.

Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
JiCi wrote:

- Merfolks

- Catfolks

- Changelings

- Wyrwoods

- Wyvarans

Just so you are aware, these are 5 of the 12 races we are covering in the Book of Heroic Races: Advanced Compendium. I'm putting the finishing touches on Changelings as we speak.

Huh... Interesting... let me list that for further review. Since it's a WIP, I'll wait for the final product before taking a look, if you don't mind ;)


Kthulhu wrote:

1. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

2. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
3. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
4. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
5. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
6. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
7. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
8. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
9. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
10. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
11. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
12. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
13. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
14. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
15. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
16. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
17. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
18. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
19. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
20. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

Never thought I would favorite a post from you, but this just hit the nail on so many positive ways I had to like it.

And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.


Myth Lord wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

1. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

2. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
3. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
4. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
5. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
6. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
7. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
8. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
9. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
10. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
11. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
12. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
13. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
14. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
15. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
16. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
17. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
18. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
19. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
20. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

Never thought I would favorite a post from you, but this just hit the nail on so many positive ways I had to like it.

And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.

The only thing that may hint to a Bestiary 5 coming out this year over a third Codex is that Occult Adventures is coming out.

When Mythic Adventures came out, we got the Bestiary 4, which added Mythic Monsters to the game.

Now that Occult Adventures is adding optional Psychic rules to the game, Bestiary 5 may be released to add Psychic monsters as well.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

1. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

2. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
3. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
4. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
5. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
6. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
7. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
8. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
9. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
10. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
11. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
12. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
13. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
14. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
15. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
16. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
17. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
18. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
19. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.
20. None, put out Bestiary 5 instead.

Never thought I would favorite a post from you, but this just hit the nail on so many positive ways I had to like it.

And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.

The only thing that may hint to a Bestiary 5 coming out this year over a third Codex is that Occult Adventures is coming out.

When Mythic Adventures came out, we got the Bestiary 4, which added Mythic Monsters to the game.

Now that Occult Adventures is adding optional Psychic rules to the game, Bestiary 5 may be released to add Psychic monsters as well.

On the other hand, we are getting an entire CS bestiary of occult monsters. Last time we got a bestiary in the CS line, was the year we got the NPC Codex.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Bestiary 5 may be released to add Psychic monsters as well.

Actually they announced the occult bestiary already.


Myth Lord wrote:
And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.

*facepalms*

I want a 2nd Codex as much as a 5th Bestiary, but considering how exponensial the work is for a Bestiary compared to a Codex, I wouldn't be surprised that a Codex would be likely revealed before a Bestiary.

Think about it for more than 2 seconds:
What's faster to make? A NPC or a monster?

A NPC requires basic class knowledge... that's it.

A Monster requires everything, including balance... which isn't something you get on your first try.

You're pretty much guaranteed to have a suitable and balanced encounter with a 10th NPC than a brand-new CR 10 monster.

Now, if you've done branding everyone with useless titles, I'll resuming discussing about what could be added in the 5th Bestiary and in the 2nd Monster Codex, thank you.


I'm still putting in my vote for a Dragon Codex, honestly. I want a Draconimicon for Pathfinder.


JiCi wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.

*facepalms*

I want a 2nd Codex as much as a 5th Bestiary, but considering how exponensial the work is for a Bestiary compared to a Codex, I wouldn't be surprised that a Codex would be likely revealed before a Bestiary.

Think about it for more than 2 seconds:
What's faster to make? A NPC or a monster?

A NPC requires basic class knowledge... that's it.

A Monster requires everything, including balance... which isn't something you get on your first try.

You're pretty much guaranteed to have a suitable and balanced encounter with a 10th NPC than a brand-new CR 10 monster.

Now, if you've done branding everyone with useless titles, I'll resuming discussing about what could be added in the 5th Bestiary and in the 2nd Monster Codex, thank you.

So because a book full of humans is easier to make I should wish for such a tome? never.


Myth Lord wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
And boo to JicI, Bestiary 5 wishtopic just whispered to me that you ain't welcome anymore in its wonderful presence.

*facepalms*

I want a 2nd Codex as much as a 5th Bestiary, but considering how exponensial the work is for a Bestiary compared to a Codex, I wouldn't be surprised that a Codex would be likely revealed before a Bestiary.

Think about it for more than 2 seconds:
What's faster to make? A NPC or a monster?

A NPC requires basic class knowledge... that's it.

A Monster requires everything, including balance... which isn't something you get on your first try.

You're pretty much guaranteed to have a suitable and balanced encounter with a 10th NPC than a brand-new CR 10 monster.

Now, if you've done branding everyone with useless titles, I'll resuming discussing about what could be added in the 5th Bestiary and in the 2nd Monster Codex, thank you.

So because a book full of humans is easier to make I should wish for such a tome? never.

Not Humans. We're not talking about an NPC Codex II (that would be nice, but the one we have is fine as-is); we're talking about a MONSTER Codex II, where intelligent monsters are given far more options and somewhat fleshed-out societies as a result.


1. Monkey Goblin
2 - 20. Don't care.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kain Darkwind wrote:

Aboleth are arguably the strongest candidates of the 'odd' monsters for such treatment. I could see multiple different versions, maybe putting the veiled master in as their 'affiliated monster'

But for instance, what sort of treant statblocks would you expect to see? Would you think the treant section to fill up the same page count as fire giants or drow?

Etc.

Basically, I wasn't saying "you shouldn't have X in the Monster Codex II", I was asking how you would implement it, because it doesn't seem as intuitive as say, hobgoblins and orcs.

Personally, I'd say that the treants would be organized in fewer numbers than the tribal humanoids. I imagine they would be organized in something akin to a druid's grove, with 4-12 normal/low-character level treants and 1-3 elder treants of various spellcasting levels (or just advanced HD with the various class simple templates from MC1), especially in druid, shaman, or sorcerer. Dryads and other similar fey could also be included in the grove, as might plant creatures similar/aligned with the treant.


Myth Lord wrote:
So because a book full of humans is easier to make I should wish for such a tome? never.

Not "wish for", but "anticipate more", like "this book is more likely to come out before that book."


JiCi wrote:
Myth Lord wrote:
So because a book full of humans is easier to make I should wish for such a tome? never.
Not "wish for", but "anticipate more", like "this book is more likely to come out before that book."

A year is a long deal, so no, I won't be happy for other people, I live my life, not that of millions of others.

If HUMAN CODEX comes out instead of Bestiary 5, i'm disappointed and won't like it.

Dark Archive

Demons
Devils
Angels
Archons
Agathions
Azatas
Daemons
Oni
Divs
Kytons
Inevitables
Kami
Salamanders
Efreet
Shaitans
Marids
Jann
Djinni
Tiefling
Fetchling


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Hill Giants
2. Adherers
3. Thawns
4. Salamanders
5. Efreeti
6. Skum
7. Wyvaran
8. Cyclops
9. Jackalweres
10. Shae
11. Myceloid
12. Nephilim
13. Denizen of Leng
14. Syrinx
15. Serpentfolk
16. Spriggans
17. Urdefhan
18. Charau-Ka
19. Derros
20. Vishkanya

I had a set of reasons for each one, but my post sessions got blown up by server problems, and it took long enough to write up the first time, alas. Suffice to say I'm coming from a "monster race, boosted with more culture, unique role to the other races in the book, and can generally be used as bad guys."

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Name 20 creatures for Monster Codex II All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.