Building Monsters

Monday, May 14, 2018

We've talked in depth about many of the systematic changes and PC options in the blogs so far, but what about monsters? From animated objects to zombies, from the lowliest kobold to the mighty jabberwock, the Pathfinder Playtest Bestiary includes over 250 different monsters and other adversaries built specifically for the playtest. But what makes these monsters tick? We've worked to bring you many of your favorite Pathfinder monsters with their familiar feel and niche in the world, but with updated mechanics to make your encounters even more memorable!

Signature Abilities

One of the monster innovations I—a computer science student at the time—appreciated most in Pathfinder First Edition was the idea of the Universal Monster Rule. It follows one of the most important principles of programming: modularity, which is to say, don't reinvent the wheel. One side effect of Universal Monster Rules having been a new concept in Pathfinder First Edition, however, is that many less fantastic creatures, especially animals, had a similar suite of Universal Monster Rules. For example, owlbears are iconic and memorable creatures, but as far as their statistics, if you look at the CR 4 owlbear and the CR 4 tiger side by side, the owlbear doesn't really have anything different to use during the encounter that the tiger doesn't.

Illustration by Wayne Reynolds

In the playtest version, those two monsters have some significantly different abilities. The tiger still has grab, allowing it to grapple a creature it hits with its jaws or claw attack, and the pounce action, allowing it to Stride and then Strike. Based on its real-world fighting style, it now also has wrestle, allowing it to claw a creature it's grabbed and knock it prone, and sneak attack, granting it extra damage against flat-footed creatures (typically ambushed via Stealth or those prone from its wrestle). Meanwhile, the owlbear also still has grab, but once it has you grabbed, it can gnaw on you, hoping to disembowel you so it can devour your guts and later regurgitate them to feed its young—and potentially making you sick from the disgusting sight. It can also unleash a blood-curdling screech as it advances into the fight to frighten you.

In general, giving interesting new abilities to real-world animals like the tiger allowed us to do some fun research into the animals' habits and design from there. Animals that hunt in packs sometimes have abilities to deal extra damage in groups, ambush predators use sneak attack and various sneaky tactics, and so on.

Dynamic Defenses

In Pathfinder First Edition, damage reduction (DR) and energy resistance both reduce damage by a set amount, the rarer vulnerability multiplies damage by 1.5, and immunity flat-out prevents certain abilities from functioning. Taken as a whole, monster defenses generally penalize you for using the wrong thing; you can deal your normal damage only by correctly bypassing DR, resistance, and immunities, and monsters rarely have a vulnerability. But in stories, we often imagine fey as being burned by cold iron or werewolves being poisoned by silver, and the reality of DR is that they just take the same damage from those as they do from cold, electricity, or fire. To fit those stories and to vary things up, we've combined DR and energy resistance into resistance, which reduces damage by a set amount, and we've changed vulnerability into a more common element called weakness, which increases damage by a set amount.

Two great examples of how this can dramatically change the feel of monsters are skeletons and zombies. A level 0 skeleton has 14 AC, 6 HP, and since it's made of bone, resistance 5 to slashing and piercing damage. A level 0 zombie, on the other hand, has 11 AC, 20 HP, and weakness 5 to slashing damage. The zombie takes 5 extra damage every time it's hit by a slashing weapon—that's an extremely high weakness! This means the fights feel very different, even though the creatures both take about the same number of swings to bring down. You can test this out for yourself in Pathfinder First Edition right now: consider giving zombies some extra HP and changing their DR into a weakness instead and see how the feel of the fight shifts!

Sweet Suites

Some monsters in Pathfinder First Edition have a large suite of abilities (typically from long lists of spell-like abilities), which vary between key iconic abilities, story abilities that influence what the monster can do in the narrative, and other abilities that are niche, redundant, or sometimes much weaker than their other attacks. For instance, it's pretty unlikely a nalfeshnee's call lightning is a good idea for a CR 14 monster to use in combat, and it doesn't have much of a noncombat application, either. In Pathfinder Second Edition, we tried to keep a monster's iconic abilities and story abilities while removing redundant or niche abilities, and then adding something new that fits the monster's ecology. For instance, barbed devils don't have the equivalent of order's wrath or unholy blight, but they have a special power called Warden of Erebus that lets them create extremely versatile glyphs of warding, cementing their role as, well, wardens of Erebus. For all such monsters, the goal is to make the monster's suite of abilities much easier to use and more memorable without oversimplifying the monsters, following our overall goal of adding as much depth to the game as possible while minimizing the cost in complexity.

I Have Multiattack

To close off, many people have been wondering how in the world we handle creatures with many heads, like the hydra, or arms, like the marilith or hekatonkheires, in the 3-action system. Such creatures have unique abilities to use their attacks in tandem in different ways. For instance, a marilith has three options for her six blades. She can make a focused assault on one enemy, which can deal a massive amount of damage on a hit, and deals damage for a single longsword even on a failure (but not a critical failure). Alternatively, she can spin about like a whirlwind of blades, attacking up to six different creatures with her swords. Finally, she can just attack twice and use the other blades to parry, giving her a killer AC for 1 round.

That's it for monsters for today; tune in on Friday as Logan goes through an example monster in detail and shows how we made the statblock easier to reference!

Mark Seifter
Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Playtest Wayne Reynolds
601 to 650 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:

Orcs in second edition Pathfinder do not walk around on all fours. Their current "take" has longer arms and a slightly different physiology that might allow them to charge like this (hence this piece of concept art), but they stand erect and they are not otherwise particularly simian. That's not to deflect criticism or soft-pedal concern about this piece of art or even the "take" in general, but I think it's probably worthwhile to understand a bit of perspective, here.

Even so, the general gorilla take has some problematic connotations. However I appreciate that you’re taking criticisms on board.


How you gonna go ahead and insult the noble dragon-kin kobolds in the very second sentence by referring to them as 'monsters'?

Silver Crusade

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

But I'm not going to keep going on about the art.

I've said my piece, I'm glad the message has been passed on to the developers and art team, and I'm not interested in debating other gamers about how there's a context in which it's okay to double down on racism, fantasy or otherwise.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
How you gonna go ahead and insult the noble dragon-kin kobolds in the very second sentence by referring to them as 'monsters'?

And with that in mind, how are monsters that legitimately SHOULD be ancestries going to be depicted in the playtest bestiary? Thinking Orc, Kobold, etc - creature types that operate with fully functional societies cannot be property represented when the consist of a singular 'Orc (CR-1)' entry in the bestiary.


Mark Seifter wrote:
magnuskn wrote:

Overall, I am very pleased with this preview. However, two things:

1.) There will be 250 monsters in the Playtest Bestiary? Um, is the Bestiary included in the Playtest Rulebook? The Playtest Adventure? If not, why couldn't we order it together with those? Or will it be PDF-only?

2.) What's with the gorilla orcs in the blog illustration? And if orc lore will be changed to make them more animal-like, how does that affect half-orcs?

PDF only, just because otherwise the schedule would be impossible, but this allowed it to fit in editing and layout after print products went to the printer.

With that in mind, imagine how good of a game system could be designed if the silly tether to dead-tree media was abandoned...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*


Mark Seifter wrote:
Smite Makes Right wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Catharsis wrote:
Direct hit and splash against a fire-weak enemy: Does weakness apply twice?
I've been thinking about this ever since someone mentioned splash in the other thread with the frost giants. I think it's currently ambiguous in the rules, though since it's the same type of damage coming from the same attack, we should combine them to help an alchemist get through resistance (rather than be double-dinged for a fire resistant monster) and likewise weakness should only apply once.
Something like this deals [value] damage to creatures in the splash area. Increase the damage against three directly hit creature by ?
Yeah, something like that or "Add the splash damage to the direct hit damage before applying resistance, weakness, or the like."

Alternatively, describe the effect as 'everyone in the area takes x damage from the attack' (this is the splash damage), and anyone struck directly by the projectile takes an additional y damage' (this is the direct damage). By simply describing the direct hit as 'additional' damage, if makes it so they stack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*

I'm suggesting that the restriction to page counts, and non-flexible formatting has already hamstrung the design process so much, that I wish the digital (PRD/SRD) format was the primary game design space, and beautified products were secondary.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*
I'm suggesting that the restriction to page counts, and non-flexible formatting has already hamstrung the design process so much, that I wish the digital (PRD/SRD) format was the primary game design space, and beautified products were secondary.

* cautiously puts pitchfork down while eyeing crazi suspiciously* well alright...

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

8 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
How you gonna go ahead and insult the noble dragon-kin kobolds in the very second sentence by referring to them as 'monsters'?

And with that in mind, how are monsters that legitimately SHOULD be ancestries going to be depicted in the playtest bestiary? Thinking Orc, Kobold, etc - creature types that operate with fully functional societies cannot be property represented when the consist of a singular 'Orc (CR-1)' entry in the bestiary.

The Playtest Bestiary will have a very rudimentary physical description of the creature, its stat block, and descriptions of its special abilities. It will not have detailed ecologies, context, and art. Compared to the Playtest Rulebook, it is presented much more as a nuts and bolts work-in-progress.

That being said, there's no guarantee that the Playtest Bestiary will have only one stat block for orcs. :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*
I'm suggesting that the restriction to page counts, and non-flexible formatting has already hamstrung the design process so much, that I wish the digital (PRD/SRD) format was the primary game design space, and beautified products were secondary.

That would make it impossible for me to continue playing, as I only have a mobile phone and only have non-work computer access one day a week (due to current financial limitations).

Also, having hard copies of the books enables me to have a "no phones or tablets" rule at my table. Part of the appeal of tabletop rpgs to me is a group of people can connect with an experience and each other and be in that experience without distractions, and having devices at the table hampers that.

Also, Hardcover books are beautiful and feel nice to read and use.

Finally, page and formatting restrictions are still a thing in a digital product - if your combat section or whatever is 150 pages long it is too long because that is too complicated and too much to read and navigate, not because it uses up too much paper.

A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tender Tendrils wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Is he^^ suggesting no more books? *Goes for his pitchfork*
I'm suggesting that the restriction to page counts, and non-flexible formatting has already hamstrung the design process so much, that I wish the digital (PRD/SRD) format was the primary game design space, and beautified products were secondary.

That would make it impossible for me to continue playing, as I only have a mobile phone and only have non-work computer access one day a week (due to current financial limitations).

Also, having hard copies of the books enables me to have a "no phones or tablets" rule at my table. Part of the appeal of tabletop rpgs to me is a group of people can connect with an experience and each other and be in that experience without distractions, and having devices at the table hampers that.

Also, Hardcover books are beautiful and feel nice to read and use.

Finally, page and formatting restrictions are still a thing in a digital product - if your combat section or whatever is 150 pages long it is too long because that is too complicated and too much to read and navigate, not because it uses up too much paper.

A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.

I agree with everything here. I like having access to digital copies out of game, but I would be very upset to lose my books as I prefer them out of game and use them exclusively in game. In my experience, having devices at the table takes away from the game, and I try to keep people from using them.

Good news is, I really, REALLY doubt that Paizo would ever get rid of physical books. It makes too much sense from a business perspective and my guess is most players like having the books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't really be mad at them. I'm sure their intentions are good, and they're just trying to lead us down the best path they can find.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Good news is, I really, REALLY doubt that Paizo would ever get rid of physical books. It makes too much sense from a business perspective and my guess is most players like having the books.

Depends on the market, I suppose. I wouldn't buy Paizo if they didn't make their products available digitally. If I had an option to just buy the AP as a digital subscription, I would, even if it was roughly the same price as the dead-tree subscription.

As it is, I have not purchased a single 5E book; having had to make do with online summaries and other people's copies. I find Wizard's stance on that particularly weird, considering how hard they push online content everywhere else, although I do understand how piracy is a thing.


AnimatedPaper wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
Good news is, I really, REALLY doubt that Paizo would ever get rid of physical books. It makes too much sense from a business perspective and my guess is most players like having the books.

Depends on the market, I suppose. I wouldn't buy Paizo if they didn't make their products available digitally. If I had an option to just buy the AP as a digital subscription, I would, even if it was roughly the same price as the dead-tree subscription.

As it is, I have not purchased a single 5E book; having had to make do with online summaries and other people's copies. I find Wizard's stance on that particularly weird, considering how hard they push online content everywhere else, although I do understand how piracy is a thing.

I can see that, but what's nice is with the Basic Rules and SRD for free, you can play 5th Ed perfectly fine with no financial investment or need for any additional content (not that there is much, after APs).


Tender Tendrils wrote:
A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.

That has been contradicted many times over the years by devs stating that they couldn't fix this or that, or word something more specifically to avoid disagreements of interpretation, because of word count or space on the page.


Erik Mona wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
How you gonna go ahead and insult the noble dragon-kin kobolds in the very second sentence by referring to them as 'monsters'?

And with that in mind, how are monsters that legitimately SHOULD be ancestries going to be depicted in the playtest bestiary? Thinking Orc, Kobold, etc - creature types that operate with fully functional societies cannot be property represented when the consist of a singular 'Orc (CR-1)' entry in the bestiary.

The Playtest Bestiary will have a very rudimentary physical description of the creature, its stat block, and descriptions of its special abilities. It will not have detailed ecologies, context, and art. Compared to the Playtest Rulebook, it is presented much more as a nuts and bolts work-in-progress.

That being said, there's no guarantee that the Playtest Bestiary will have only one stat block for orcs. :)

Having a few different stat blocks (Orc, Orc Berserker, Orc Shaman, etc) is not the same thing as having the Orc race previously - it takes a lot of potential flavor out of the entire Hold of Belkzen if now it is entirely made up of cookie cutter stamps of a few different flavors of orc. This is especially aggravated by the fact that Goblins now for some reason WILL have deep and rich societies able to be mechanically represented.

I would much rather have these races still represented by the ABC system.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.
That has been contradicted many times over the years by devs stating that they couldn't fix this or that, or word something more specifically to avoid disagreements of interpretation, because of word count or space on the page.

Sure, but I don't think the point is that there are no downsides to those limitations and restrictions; just that there are also benefits to using them, benefits that we can't dismiss out of hand.

Although I don't see how wording due to disagreements of interpretation has anything to do with space. Maybe in updates to the CRB, but that will have to be true in online resources as well, because we will need to be able to cite the CRB. So once it's written, there's only so much you can change/update.


Malachandra wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Tender Tendrils wrote:
A well designed product has limitations and restrictions and that actually helps to improve the quality.
That has been contradicted many times over the years by devs stating that they couldn't fix this or that, or word something more specifically to avoid disagreements of interpretation, because of word count or space on the page.

Sure, but I don't think the point is that there are no downsides to those limitations and restrictions; just that there are also benefits to using them, benefits that we can't dismiss out of hand.

Although I don't see how wording due to disagreements of interpretation has anything to do with space. Maybe in updates to the CRB, but that will have to be true in online resources as well, because we will need to be able to cite the CRB. So once it's written, there's only so much you can change/update.

I think you're missing my point - if the CRB wasn't a 'book' to be referenced by page number, and was instead a document (or series of documents) referenced by chapter, section, subsection, etc, than the issue of changes taking up more or less space is no longer a concern, and instead the actual content of the rules themselves can be the primary concern. I know it will never happen, as Paizo is first and foremost a publisher, and their entire process is built around pushing words onto paper - but that process does NOT necessarily lead to a rule system that is well suited to continued life and evolution.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CraziFuzzy wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

The Playtest Bestiary will have a very rudimentary physical description of the creature, its stat block, and descriptions of its special abilities. It will not have detailed ecologies, context, and art. Compared to the Playtest Rulebook, it is presented much more as a nuts and bolts work-in-progress.

That being said, there's no guarantee that the Playtest Bestiary will have only one stat block for orcs. :)

Having a few different stat blocks (Orc, Orc Berserker, Orc Shaman, etc) is not the same thing as having the Orc race previously - it takes a lot of potential flavor out of the entire Hold of Belkzen if now it is entirely made up of cookie cutter stamps of a few different flavors of orc. This is especially aggravated by the fact that Goblins now for some reason WILL have deep and rich societies able to be mechanically represented.

I would much rather have these races still represented by the ABC system.

I'm hoping that Orcs, kobolds etc will be fully represented in the final bestiary as ancestries. But i understand that may not be doable in the initial playtest bestiary. Part of the reason the playtest bestiary is a PDF instead of another book seems to be that it is only half done and it gives them time to keep throwing it together while the actual rulebook is at the printer. Another part seems to be that the bestiary might be far more subject to errata midplaytest.

But again, hoping that by the end of it we will have those humanoid races as functional ancestries. Hopefully before the end of the playtest, so we get a chance to, well, playtest the playable Orcs kobolds etc.


I just print (or write out by hand) any sections of the SRD I feel I'm likely to need.


I'm just worried that the promotion of Goblins to full ancestries will make the brand managers push to NOT allow Orcs and Kobolds to get the same treatment for some time - to the detriment to both world building AND player choice, all in the effort of promoting their silly 'mascot'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If only we could somehow transmit intent from mind to mind without the middleman of communication or the warping lense of individual perspective. Existence could be so much more efficient than it is.

However, this flawed being finds certain inefficiencies to be enjoyable. Life is complicated.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I'm just worried that the promotion of Goblins to full ancestries will make the brand managers push to NOT allow Orcs and Kobolds to get the same treatment for some time - to the detriment to both world building AND player choice, all in the effort of promoting their silly 'mascot'.

I’d expect the opposite, really. I think some of the less available humanoids (e.g. gnolls, lizardfolk, etc.) will be more fleshed out as non-core PC options.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
I think you're missing my point - if the CRB wasn't a 'book' to be referenced by page number, and was instead a document (or series of documents) referenced by chapter, section, subsection, etc, than the issue of changes taking up more or less space is no longer a concern

You can already do that, but page number is a faster and more efficient way to search, when it exists, because it's content-independent. I mean, it isn't a book because it's "to be referenced by page number"; referencing by page number is possible because it's a book, not the other way around.

The issue of changes taking up more or less space is related to print formatting, yeah, but unless the "original document" in which the rules are written becomes a hypertext database (such as the PRD) and drops any similarity with printed media the problem will still exist.
And, still, for the sake of clarity and usability, space and/or bloat issues are going to be present anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm still hoping against hope to end up with 12 races / ancestries to go with the 12 classes. I feel having a few more of the popular semi-monstrous races, all of which are more civilized than goblins, would give more context to goblins also being included. And I still think it'd be awesome to have both a male and female iconic of each class, showcasing very different possible builds to give players and GMs more ideas, netting two appearances of each of those 12 races as CRB iconics.

But if we don't, I won't think it's because of some weird effort to "keep the other races down." It will just be an unfortunate decision and missed opportunity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Malachandra wrote:
Although I don't see how wording due to disagreements of interpretation has anything to do with space. Maybe in updates to the CRB, but that will have to be true in online resources as well, because we will need to be able to cite the CRB. So once it's written, there's only so much you can change/update.

Multiple times the devs have cut down on how completely they explain a bit of rules because putting the full explanation would use too much space. Even a handful of words might throw the layout off enough that it would cause headaches for everyone. While all that would hold true for digital products, since PDFs have to be laid out as well, once you add in the realities of physical publishing (there's certain page count marks that increase the price, and Paizo frequently rides RIGHT up to the limit) and you can quickly have a mess.

Compare AP adventures to Pathfinder scenarios. How many times have we seen the writer of an adventure lament that they wanted to add this encounter, or expand on that stat block, but couldn't because of word count and page limit? Meanwhile, scenarios don't even HAVE a set page count. There's a target they shoot for and if it takes more, they take more pages. Since they don't print scenarios, a 27 page scenario costs basically the same to produce as a 32 page one.

I'm not saying take everyone's books away. For one, digital only simply isn't practical for cost reasons and in some cases medical reasons. But there are certain freedoms that a digital only product has that a traditionally published one does not.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Fuzzypaws wrote:

I'm still hoping against hope to end up with 12 races / ancestries to go with the 12 classes. I feel having a few more of the popular semi-monstrous races, all of which are more civilized than goblins, would give more context to goblins also being included. And I still think it'd be awesome to have both a male and female iconic of each class, showcasing very different possible builds to give players and GMs more ideas, netting two appearances of each of those 12 races as CRB iconics.

But if we don't, I won't think it's because of some weird effort to "keep the other races down." It will just be an unfortunate decision and missed opportunity.

Maybe not as part of the CRB, but that would be awesome as part of a beginners box or character folio when they make PF2 versions of those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm generally of the mindset that I'd rather they just increase the page count if needed when other tweaks like reducing the size of the art won't do. I'm willing to pay for the next extra 16 or 32 pages, and if for some reason there's a hospital trip or car repair or whatever that makes money tighter that month, I'll just make do with less coffee that month, or use the PDF in the meantime and get the physical book a month later. I prefer physical books when planning but do mostly just refer to SRD and PDF when actually running a session midgame, especially since that's what my players mostly have access to.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

My guess for the "multiple Orc entries" will be 1 entry with no class levels, a chassis we can use for advancement, and then 2 or 3 typical pre-advanced examples.


2Zak wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
I think you're missing my point - if the CRB wasn't a 'book' to be referenced by page number, and was instead a document (or series of documents) referenced by chapter, section, subsection, etc, than the issue of changes taking up more or less space is no longer a concern

You can already do that, but page number is a faster and more efficient way to search, when it exists, because it's content-independent. I mean, it isn't a book because it's "to be referenced by page number"; referencing by page number is possible because it's a book, not the other way around.

The issue of changes taking up more or less space is related to print formatting, yeah, but unless the "original document" in which the rules are written becomes a hypertext database (such as the PRD) and drops any similarity with printed media the problem will still exist.
And, still, for the sake of clarity and usability, space and/or bloat issues are going to be present anyways.

That's pretty much exactly what I wanted to happen (which is why I said PRD/SRD format becomes primary).


2Zak wrote:


And, still, for the sake of clarity and usability, space and/or bloat issues are going to be present anyways.

Yeah, this occurred to me, too. While printing certainly presents some additional challenges, going digital only won't suddenly allow total freedom. Brevity is important for all good writing, whether it is a story, rule book, adventure path, or technical manual.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I agree that this would be an improvement, but I doubt Paizo wants to move away from the "some races are innately eviler than others" shtick, especially judging by this right here.

Well we have one example of a race moving away from that. Goblins. We have no examples on the other side. So I think that judgement is a bit premature.
Goblins are an outlier and should not be counted.

Golarion has at least one redeemed succubus.

If a demon can rise to become a servant of Desna, anything can.

johnlocke90 wrote:
If I want evil ones, orcs are great.

I was always partial to the orcs in JourneyQuest


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Malk_Content wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I agree that this would be an improvement, but I doubt Paizo wants to move away from the "some races are innately eviler than others" shtick, especially judging by this right here.

Well we have one example of a race moving away from that. Goblins. We have no examples on the other side. So I think that judgement is a bit premature.
Goblins are an outlier and should not be counted.

Golarion has at least one redeemed succubus.

If a demon can rise to become a servant of Desna, anything can.

Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.


Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.

I keep hoping the final AP for PF1 is Nocticula's rise to become the goddess of outcasts and artists.


Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.

I keep hoping the final AP for PF1 is Nocticula's rise to become the goddess of outcasts and artists.

I think the devs already vetoed that happening, at least in terms of PF1 APs. Cosmology is supposed to be the same in PF2 as it is in 1, at least on the outset.

It also suggests that the "canon" ending for Wrath isn't going to have any ganked demon lords on a similar note.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a PF2 AP about Noct's rise since JJ at least seemed to really like the idea.

Scarab Sages

Tarik Blackhands wrote:
Volkard Abendroth wrote:
Tarik Blackhands wrote:


Hypothetically the flip side to that is that said succubus literally had divine intervention from a major deity to do so.

On the other hand though, fallen good (and neutral) outsiders are dime a dozen without any deific interference so assuming the converse to be true is perfectly fine albeit with the caveat a bunch of demons are more likely to rip apart one of their own for edging toward weakness/good than a bunch of angels and evil.

I keep hoping the final AP for PF1 is Nocticula's rise to become the goddess of outcasts and artists.

I think the devs already vetoed that happening, at least in terms of PF1 APs. Cosmology is supposed to be the same in PF2 as it is in 1, at least on the outset.

It also suggests that the "canon" ending for Wrath isn't going to have any ganked demon lords on a similar note.

That said, I wouldn't be shocked if there's a PF2 AP about Noct's rise since JJ at least seemed to really like the idea.

That's not entirely true.

The Playtest FAQ and most of the information I've seen so far, has indicated that they are going to be updating the cannon. Nothing huge and world-changing like Time of Troubles or Spellplague or the abomination that happened between 3.5 and 4th edition.

But they are going to be updating who's ruling what nation and give us canon outcomes of some APs and such.

Paizo Employee Customer Service Representative

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and some replies to it. If you have issues with the forum moderation you can send an email to community@paizo.com.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I direct y'all's attention to this inconspicuous post.

601 to 650 of 697 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Paizo Blog: Building Monsters All Messageboards