My first thought was headless horseman :)
Draugr - superhumanly strong, enlarging norse undead... love it :)
Seeing monsters with pseudo-Icelandic names really warms my heart.
I can't wait to get this book, although my opinions on the monsters so far have been mixed (mostly positive, though).
Yes, Dullahan is CR7 Undead, not a fey analogue of Grim Reaper.
Strange decision, but a valid one nonetheless.
Regards,
Ruemere
This is just continuing the tradition set forth by 3e- taking fairy creatures and making them other typed monsters for example:
Banshee, Black Annis, Boggard, Drow, Duergar, Dwarf, Elf, Goblin, Gnome, Hobgoblin, Imp, Jenny Greenteeth, Kobold, Mermaid, Ogres, Sylph, Troll, Wight- All these creatures are considered to be fey but none are fey type in any version I've seen.
I'm not too upset, as the fey type doesn't fit many monsters- a troll with a d6 hit die and a wizard's base attack bonus isn't a great idea to me.
Seeing monsters with pseudo-Icelandic names really warms my heart.Semi-ironic.
We'll take whatever warmth we can get :)
mineminemine!!!
Miiiine now... yes?
Yes, Dullahan is CR7 Undead, not a fey analogue of Grim Reaper.
Strange decision, but a valid one nonetheless.
Regards,
RuemereThis is just continuing the tradition set forth by 3e- taking fairy creatures and making them other typed monsters for example:
Banshee, Black Annis, Boggard, Drow, Duergar, Dwarf, Elf, Goblin, Gnome, Hobgoblin, Imp, Jenny Greenteeth, Kobold, Mermaid, Ogres, Sylph, Troll, Wight- All these creatures are considered to be fey but none are fey type in any version I've seen.
I'm not too upset, as the fey type doesn't fit many monsters- a troll with a d6 hit die and a wizard's base attack bonus isn't a great idea to me.
This is exactly the deal. Pathfinder, like 3.5, includes creature types that mean certain things and that often have general implications on a creature's flavor, but that don't always align in ways that satisfy both the need to create balanced opponents and the definitions of folklorists. This is a part of the design process I take pretty seriously. Many of us came to the game via mythology and folktales. Additionally, as there's strength in drawing monsters from traditional stories - with all their existing resonance and cache - I feel that we owe it to the creatures' cultures of origin not to disrespect them.
That said, there is certain terminology the game uses that have implications beyond the rules. The fey creature type is a perfect example of this. Although creature types exist as a shorthand for a suite of Hit Dice, attack bonuses, abilities, etc, shared between a group of monsters, they also imply a general description or theme. Most of these themes are pretty broad - monstrous humanoids should be humanoids with monstrous traits, undead should be dead things that still walk around, dragons should have (or be related to) big scaly bruisers with wings and breath weapons. The fey creature type, however, comes not just with a pretty specific definition according to the rules (usually human-shaped with supernatural abilities tied to nature or a specific place), but is also the home creature type for several creatures from well-known European mythologies. But just because many fey are drawn from myths of sprightly forest spirits should not imply that any one culture's pantheon of spirits and monsters always falls into a specific rules grotto simply because of its country of origin. As ancient storytellers largely weren't in the business of classifying their monsters into specific categories like we do in the Pathfinder RPG, you see a lot of general terms uniting whole hosts of very different magical creatures - "demon" referring to any pernicious force, "yokai" encompassing varied goblins, ghosts, monsters, animate items, etc; "fairy" meaning this specter here, that winged pixie there, and that giant there.
So, as you see throughout our Bestiary products and as Minstrel innumerated, we tend to break mythological creatures away from their general terminology, providing them with statistics and powers that suit not just the game, but also allow them to be used to retell the stories they've existed to tell for centuries. This way you can use channel energy to drive back a banshee or wight, or you can be an expert hunter of giants who's just as deadly fighting similar creatures like ogres and trolls. It'd be lame if there were a certain group of spirits that you couldn't effectively combat as a cleric just because they came from a specific mythology. A lot of this cross over actually gets handled in flavor text, letting the rules do what they need to for the game while the monster's details help guide those rules toward the creature's thematic place. And hopefully the folklorists of the world will understand that while we might share the terminology of ancient storytellers in using words like "dragon" or "fey" as creature types, we use these as touchstones for rules concepts to aid in the creation of evocative stories and exciting adventures, not as a method of scholarly classification.
Yes, Dullahan is CR7 Undead, not a fey analogue of Grim Reaper.
Strange decision, but a valid one nonetheless.
Regards,
RuemereThis is just continuing the tradition set forth by 3e- taking fairy creatures and making them other typed monsters for example:
Banshee, Black Annis, Boggard, Drow, Duergar, Dwarf, Elf, Goblin, Gnome, Hobgoblin, Imp, Jenny Greenteeth, Kobold, Mermaid, Ogres, Sylph, Troll, Wight- All these creatures are considered to be fey but none are fey type in any version I've seen.
I'm not too upset, as the fey type doesn't fit many monsters- a troll with a d6 hit die and a wizard's base attack bonus isn't a great idea to me.
This is exactly the deal. Pathfinder, like 3.5, have creature types that mean certain things and often have general implications on a creature's flavor, but that don't always align in ways that satisfy both the need to create balanced opponents and the expectations of folklorists. This is a part of the design process I personally take very seriously. Many of us came to the game via mythology and folktales. Additionally, as there's strength in drawing monsters from existing stories - with all their existing resonance and cache - I feel that we owe it to the creatures' cultures of origin not to disrespect them.
That said, there is certain terminology the game uses that have implications beyond the rules. The fey creature type is a perfect example of this. Although creature types exist as a shorthand for a suite of Hit Dice, attack bonuses, abilities, etc, shared between a group of monsters, they also imply a general theme. Most of these themes are pretty broad - monstrous humanoids should be humanoids with monstrous traits, undead should be dead things that still walk around, dragons should have (or be related to) big scaly bruisers with wings and breath weapons. The Fey creature type, however, comes not just with a pretty specific definition...
Vindication from F. Wesley Schneider, that just made my day. The fact that he co-authored one of my two favorite 3.5 splats (complete scoundrel) makes it better.
*Ramble ramble*
Vindication...
Ha! Well, it's true. Monsters are a lot of peoples favorite part of not just RPGs, but movies, fiction, and myths, so passions can run deep. What it comes down to is that we're making a game here, and as long as you can use the stuff we put out to tell the stories you want, fantastic! And if some nuance of a game rule doesn't align perfectly with your beliefs or scholarship, hopefully that won't impact you having fun with your buds around the game table.
Not to compete with Paizo's version . . .
but if anyone is looking for a CR 6 Fey version of the dullahan (and thier dark mare) look no further than my Ennie-honorable mention Fey Folio (sold here on Paizo).
All fey. All badass. I promise.
/end shameless self promotion
*Ramble ramble*Vindication...Ha! Well, it's true. Monsters are a lot of peoples favorite part of not just RPGs, but movies, fiction, and myths, so passions can run deep. What it comes down to is that we're making a game here, and as long as you can use the stuff we put out to tell the stories you want, fantastic! And if some nuance of a game rule doesn't align perfectly with your beliefs or scholarship, hopefully that won't impact you having fun with your buds around the game table.
I've seen people get hung up about this before, and it's pointless- types are only as important as gameplay lets them be. If a monster replicates the abilities of the inspiration, it's all good. I'm actually suprised more people don't "Shemp" more often (ie: use a stand in) I had a DM that would custom build each monster, giving himself far to much work, and making figuring out CR's difficult. He could easily just tweak existing monsters. He's learning though.
Very happy to see the draugur getting an official write-up for my favorite roleplaying game.
Especially since my most recent story (save last month's web fiction here) was a story involving a draug along with a lot of other Norse mythology.
Looking forward to reading the Pathfinder take on the draugur.
Seeing monsters with pseudo-Icelandic names really warms my heart.What about the Scheving, aka the Sporty Elf?
Elf subrace with a racial bonus to acrobatics checks, naturally.
Drooling profuesly !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Norse themed monsters in the book eh? I'm sure many other European flavored ones, too, along with outside of Europe.
My question is this: Will Bestiary 3 be a helpful supplement to the Tan Xia book coming out so that Bestiary 3 will have a healthy chunk of Oriental-themed monsters?
My question is this: Will Bestiary 3 be a helpful supplement to the Tan Xia book coming out so that Bestiary 3 will have a healthy chunk of Oriental-themed monsters?
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: While all of our Bestiaries have a wide range of monsters spanning every level and drawn from a combination of folklore, open sources, Golarion, and other surprise sources, we tend to have certain themes in mind as we put each together. Bestiary 1 has all your fantasy staples, Bestiary 2 has a lot of planar and high-level elements, and currently Bestiary 3 has more of a folkloric tilt, especially leaning toward non-European sources. That, of course, includes Asian sources, but also goes far beyond that.
That being said, we're only just starting to think about a third Bestiary, so if there are things you want to see in our next Bestiary, the time to tell us is NOW.
That being said, we're only just starting to think about a third Bestiary, so if there are things you want to see in our next Bestiary, the time to tell us is NOW.
We can't tell you what we want in Bestiary 3 until we know what's in Bestiary 2.
What's the cr of the draugr?
2.
We can't tell you what we want in Bestiary 3 until we know what's in Bestiary 2.
Literal. But true.
We're only just now headed into concepting this project, a process that takes several months, so there's a good bit of time to put together you list of favorite monsters. So don't worry about missing your chance.
Also, though you might not know what's in B2 this very second, there's a good chance that will change soon. Until then, though, the theme I dropped up-thread remains the subject of ongoing research. Suggesting beasties in that vein, at best, gets them on our lists, and at worse gets us to maybe spoil more of B2's content.
Stuff I want:
more stuff with a cr of 13+
some more of those kytons, because it was hinted that more exist
some creatures from other planets in the system, (and a nifty way to summon them to Golarion....)
Chaugnar faugn's cousins/nephews/baby mammas
(don't remember if he's open content, but he was in the Monte Cookbook of C'thulhu)
I grok templates....
uurrh....
hurrrrrm......
uuuh.....
More divs....throw Daigle some work....;)
yah.
Cockatrice.....
Aswang.....
more stuff along those lines is good.
heh heh....
Explosion dog!!!
Every time I walk by the dik dik pen at the zoo, there's Beavis and Butthead standing there chortling.
Bring back formians! They're neat, but mechanically wonky. Perfect for the ol' Pathfinder treatment.
More mid-to-high level fey. I suspect a few might be in Bestiary 2, but the highest level fey in the Bestiary is the nymph. Who's neat, but CR 7 ain't cutting it.
More oni, more kytons, more divs. Any Pathfinder qlippoth. And I want demodands back. They were only ever really cool as Planescape's gereleth, but I have faith in your guys to give them some more oomph.
The trend towards cryptid-themed monsters in Serpent's Skull is really neat. More like that please!
More divs....throw Daigle some work....;)
And ahuras to kick their butt when the adventurers are on strike/not around.
|
for the beastiary 3 i would like to add the following:
1) cthulu spawns! (great way to replace mindflayers)
2) more good outsiders (angles, aztazas, archons)
3) migo!
4) elder things! (from mountains of madness, creators of shogoths!)
5) more oozes! (rust ooze? poisonous ooze? elemental oozes?)
6) 3-4 monsters of each of the elemental planes
7) more Kytons and Oni!
8) a LG giant of some sorts
9) CR8+ fey
10) more giant vermin
|
Wes talks a lot about mythological creatures vs Bestiary creature types...
Well said, Wes! Without replicating all the very clear explaining that I didn't quite quote fully above, I think as gamers we have to make a decision whether to accept game statistics of mythological creatures that vary from strict interpretation or forego them all together as a strict interpretation lacks coherence, game balance, and creativity.
I for one continue to giggle with glee every time I see an old friend in new clothes. And from the immediate turn and welcome response this comment thread took, I think most of us agree. Which is good, because that means I can expect to see more of it.
Ok, enough hero worship. Keep up the good work, guys!
I had warm nostalgic 2e fuzzies when flipping through the Bestiary 2. ^_^
That evil demon avatar of yours is very fitting ...do we call you Lilith or Liz these days? ...anyway, you're an evil, evil tease! :)
That evil demon avatar of yours is very fitting ...do we call you Lilith or Liz these days? ...anyway, you're an evil, evil tease! :)
Mwah hah hah!