Araxiss's page

Sparksfanboy wrote:

When can we expect Paizo to put a beholder or mindflayer in one of the bestiarys?

Never, it belongs to WoTC, and therefore can never be in anything that isn't WoTC stuff.

However... we do have intellect devourers

Which makes me wonder why the Final Fantasy games were able to get away with using mindflayers in several games. Granted they can NEVER call them illithid. But it appears they are able to get around the legal issues with no problem. I suppose Paizo could do the same if they wished but do not wish to take the risk and also needlessly piss off WOTC/Hasbro.

The Final Fantasy Mindflayer

But on a related note the Tome of Horrors Complete has the Gorbel and the Eye of The Deep. They are both beholder variants. The eye of the deep especially, the gorbel I'm not so sure of.

If we chain him down in the Paizo basement he can't leave. Right, guys? Guys?

I was kinda of going with evil amazon orcs...Stealing Our Men...as well according to myth amazons were not exactly good guys um...I mean gals.

Why does "death by snu-snu" pop to mind with this scenario?

Half Dwarves on the other hand. . . totally fair game. . .

Bingo.

I actually didn't realize that you are supposed to tip barbers, since I either had my parents cut my hair when I was younger or I would just buzz it myself. So I rectified that.

I see I need to start tipping my barber then. Tho I only get my hair cut once a year.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned Black-Eyed Kids yet or not, but if not then they really should be mentioned. They are the only monster I have seen on the show Monsters and Mysteries in America that has actually managed to make my skin crawl.

If done right they could be very interesting creatures.

I can't imagine throwing them on the scrapheap any more than I can imagine throwing benjamins on the scrapheap.

Well, back in 3.0/3.5 Forgotten Realms the souls of faithless were absorbed into a wall, IIRC. That's basically throwing them away. Dunno if that changed in 4th.

Half templates for all the core races. Half-kobold, half-elf? No problem. Dwelf? Yup. The-quarterling? Got that too.

Where's our half-human template?

There are already Half-Elves and Half Orcs, they aren't used in bestiaries as they are the main playable races.

He means templates that can be applied to any creature. Like take a gnome or goblin or kobold and then apply the half-elf template to it. :P

40.LIOPLUERODON!!!

A magical liopluerodon! It's gonna guide our way to candy mountain!

You have to take a feat when a feat slot opens. You can't save feat slots for later. You can later RETRAIN a feat later if you are not happy with it.

India needs some love.

Araxiss, can you be more clear on what your asking.

Just grab the 3.0 book Monster Conpendium: Monsters of Faerun and turn to the templates section. It lists other abilities that liches could potentially have. It lists other types of liches like the Alhoon(off limits to Pathfinder), the Banelich(off limits to Pathfinder), the good aligned Archlich, the elven baelnorn, the base good aligned lich. I think a 3pp even published a psi-lich in the 3.5 days.

Just looking for some other variants of liches and ways to customize them. Surely they can make their own version of a good aligned lich for Pathfinder? One thing I've seen people calling for is more good undead. But I would just like to see more ways to customize liches to help make each lich a little different from his undead kin. New/replacement powers and so one. Maybe a sort of "living lich" as well? Voldemort with his horcruxes from the Harry Potter books seem, to me, to be a sort of "living lich". Maybe a vampiric lich? I dunno. Let your imagination run wild. :)

Even the book The Complete Guide to Liches from Goodman Games had some variant lich types that were interesting to look at.

Sample of Complete Guide to Liches from Drivethrustuff

Hope that helps explain what I'm asking for/trying to describe.

So I say again: Where the liches at? :P

it sure ain't gonna unite D&Ders under one edition.

I don't think we'll ever see One Edition to Rule Them All.

Pan wrote:

Araxiss wrote:

Pan wrote:

Over in 4E

I know. :P

Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?

He is freelance you can always hire him for your table.

Indeed, many freelancers write for both 4E and PF.

I think you are confused. We're talking about he unaligned paladin in 4th Ed. Not a real person. :P

Araxiss wrote:

Pan wrote:

Over in 4E

I know. :P

Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?

He is freelance you can always hire him for your table.

Does he work weekends and mow lawns? I need someone to mow the lawn in the summer.

Well since we have variant vampire templates some alternate types of liches would be interesting.

All I can say is: Where the liches at?

Jaelithe wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Jaelithe wrote:

Terokai wrote:

Paladins should be of any and every alignment.

No, no, a thousand times no.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

Then make that 1,001 times no.

Add another yes for each no then.

Add two Maybes for each yes and three Whats for each no.

Over in 4E

I know. :P

Maybe we can get him a work visa for Pathfinder?

Falling is just an illusion. Roll to disbelieve it and you'll be fine.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

137ben wrote:

you're a decade late.

Man, you're like at least 20 minutes late with that.

You don't even need to go to Dragon magazine to get a non-LG paladin: there is a CE paladin in the APG.

And, in my opinion, the APG Anti-Paladin is better than the Anti-Paladin in Dragon 312. Or more interesting, rather.

Pathfinder should have Unaligned as an alignment to go with the other nine alignments. Where are our unaligned paladins? :P

I'd really like to see some variant liches or information on expanding the base lich template along the same vein as what the 3.0 Monster Conpendium: Monsters of Faerun did.

I'm still not clear on the difference between a paladin and an LG cleric, from the perspective of someone who lives in the game world. Clerics call on divine power to smite the enemies of the religion, as do paladins. Clerics summon divine creatures to help them fight, as do paladins. Livewise healing and so on. They're both clergy, they both get basically the same skills, etc.

How can anyone who can't see their character sheets tell the difference between the two?

Clerics are not as militant as paladins. Paladins would be the ones who form the majority of the militant arm of a faith. Yes they both fight evil, but a paladin is more prone to do so with force. A cleric not so much.

Dragon Issues 310 & 312 from August and October of 2003 presents 3.5 info for paladins of other alignments and gave each one a different name. Basically they use all the same information for the Paladin adjusted for the alignment they are supposed to represent.

Dragon 310:

Sentinel NG
Avenger CG
Enforcer LN
Incarnate N

Dragon 312:

Anarch CN
Despot LE
Corrupter NE
Anti-Paladin CE

A mini-ceberus, one the size of a toy dog, and looks a bit cuter.

Trying to get Cerberus as a familiar? :P

IIRC there is a druid archetype that lets your animal companion benefit from teamwork feats your character has without the companion actually having the feat itself. Or maybe it was a witch archetype...... Fairly sure it was a druid archetype tho.

Maedar do not exist in pathfinder because there are no male medusas. They can mate with any race that can bread with humans but the offspring will always be another medusa.

Similar to how hagspawn(male offspring of hags) do not exist in Pathfinder. Tho I think hagspawn are Forgotten Realms specific and may not be open for Pathfinder use.

- The male version of the medusa (name escapes me)

Maedar

It is not unique because there is one per world/campaign setting. At least that was my understanding of the terrasque. Forget where I read that.

I had an idea that was spawned by two songs. How about a devil or demon that goes around challenging bards to musical duels or challenging them to perform for it or it will kill them and take their souls or if they win it gives them a valuable musical instrument. The two songs that inspired this idea are The Devil Went Down to Georgia by The Charlie Daniels Band and Tribute by Tenacious D. The creature would always have some sort of valuable or magical musical instrument with it similar to the one the bard it confronts carries. If the bard doesn't carry a musical instrument then of would challenge the bard to perform for it.

It has the Nom Nom Nom feat

Now I want the Paizo staff to make a monster feat by this name.

Isn't there a stipulation somewhere that says a player, with DM permission, can learn spells outside of the sorc/wiz spell list if they do appropriate research? Or am I remembering incorrectly?

Yar. The actual companion itself is easily converted. It's the two abilities I mention that I wonder if they will work just fine as is or if they need to be converted. The Sticky Sap one in particular feels like it should say something about CMB and CMD in there.

Decided to go with the aforementioned Treesinger for my thought build tho taking this companion instead of one of the three listed.

I really don't know how this goes 400 posts.

Because people always try to get something for nothing regardless of common sense. Racial Heritage possibly needs some text added to it to smack down issues like this. Such as a human taking Racial Heritage for Half-Elf and Half-Orc does not suddenly give him the Elf Blood or Orc Blood racial abilities. It only allows that human to count as a half-elf or half-orc respectively. People are trying to get something for nothing from Tail Terror, which may also need some text added to it's prerequisites to specify that you must have a tail. What happens to the kobold who lost his tail in battle and it suddenly tries to take tail terror? It does not suddenly regrow a tail by taking Tail Terror, just as a human, half-orc, or half-elf with Racial Heritage (Kobold) does not suddenly grow a tail by taking Tail Terror.

MMCJawa wrote:

Okay...here is the compiled Bestiary 5 wishlist:

Wow! Thanks for your work in collating all of this chaos!

**MMCJawa earns 5 messageboard points!**

I demand that you give MMCJawa a banana sticker as well.

So.... No suggestions for converting the special abilities? I'm starting to think this was the wrong community to ask for help.

They replaced cookie monster with veggie monster?

He still eats cookies. Tho not as often. He successfully completed rehab.

Meanwhile, to the topic at hand. I'd like to see more Great Old Ones.

LizardMage wrote:

Never underestimate people's love for Kobolds

People love those pests?

What? You haven't started your own goblin and kobold breeding program? Getting the kobolds and goblins to mate with each other is a bit tricky tho.

Well if you stat up the holiday fiend Krampus then you must also have stats for the Grinch;)

I agree!

Beholders are D&D property, so they will never happen.

Wasn't the Gorbel done up by a third party company in an OGL product? That is a beholder variant. Or is my memory faulty?

Space hamsters. With a giant variant.

Dunno if Spelljammer material is available for OGL use.

Ah; yeah; I meant the more powerful version of Dagon that appeared in Dragon. I designed both that one and the less powerful one in the Fiendish Codex; my preference is for the one in Dragon

I just mentioned Fiendish Codex because it was easier to remember off the top of my head rather than what issue number he appeared in Dragon. If I ever did try to convince my group to have a Dagon throwdown I'd pick which ever version was closest in CR/HD to the other versions of Dagon.

Has anyone ever mentioned The Krampus? :P

Dragon78 wrote:

Who said I was joking about a kaiju flumph;)

:D Fair enough!

(To be safe though, I wouldn't place any hefty bets.) ;)

I was serious about a kaiju flumph as well. I was also serious about a clockwork-Mogaru and having the stats of the Paizo golem published in a future bestiary.

I think I might even be Nyarlathotep.

It makes me want to take the four different versions of Dagon and have a Dagon throw down. Four Dagon's enter. One Dagon leaves. (maybe)

Wonder if the guys in my group would be up for trying that.

Araxiss wrote:

Doesn't Undead Revisited, in the section on the Lich towards the end, specifically say it is very rare for good liches to exist but that good liches DO exist or that it is not out of the question for them to exist? I think I'll check my copy in the morning.

No it does not. It does state however,

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:

It is not merely force of will that propels one to lichdom, nor is it the simple desire to avoid death, though these are certainly factors in the mindset of the would-be lich. Instead, those who would follow the path of the undying mind must seek out tomes of forbidden magic and lost lore. Though the initiates might not be evil when they begin, the process under which they become liches drives them slowly into the arms of corruption—the focus they must develop drives out all other concerns, including the civilized needs of friendship and love.

Then later

Undead Revisted, Liches wrote:

Though they may start out simply seeking more time in which to continue their work, with no true predilection toward evil, in the end, all liches inevitably cycle down into madness or a paranoia that mortals seek to annihilate them—the latter, of course, often being true.

Ah! Thanks for the clarification! I've not had time to go back and re-read my copy.

Doesn't Undead Revisited, in the section on the Lich towards the end, specifically say it is very rare for good liches to exist but that good liches DO exist or that it is not out of the question for them to exist? I think I'll check my copy in the morning.

So for D20 material there are at least 4 versions of Dagon at this point?

The old D20 3.0 Call of Cthulhu by WOTC (A Demigod)
The Dagon in D&D 3.5 Fiendish Codex 1: Hordes of the Abyss (An Obyrinth Demon Lord)
The Dagon in Pathfinder Bestiary 4 (A Qlippoth Demon Lord)
The Dagon in 3.5 & Pathfinder Versions of Tome of Horrors (A Demon Lord )

Are there any more? :P

edition wars

Did someone say edition wars!? *starts tossing rulebooks every which way and takes 1d10+4 damage from a carelessly tossed can of soda*

But back to seriousness....

kaiju flumph

If we got a kaiju-sized flumph I would be so happy.

Now there's a creature I'd like to see. A kaiju flumph. While we're on the subject of kaiju can we get a clockwork-Mogaru kaiju? Or just some sort of clockwork kaiju in general.

Those are a few more things I'd like to see.

And really? No one called out the kaiju yet? Come on! :-P

But the origins of the kaiju is glaringly obvious. Does it really need to be said? :P

The Kytons are starting to look like Hellraiser characters.

I approve of this trend. I'd like to see more not-a-cenobite Kytons.

More animals for the Animal Lord template. Especially information for an Ape Lord.

Well, considering that this thread is the bestiary 5 wishlist thread, and the four horsemen haven't been in a bestiary yet, it would seem like they would be appropriate for a bestiary 5 wishlist, don't ya think?

Ah. I didn't know they hadn't been statted up anywhere. Mea culpa.

"Paraelemental" and "Quasielemental" Planetouched (that which Wizards of the Coast evidently won't allow us to call "Genasi") PC races

Positive Energy
Negative Energy

I'd love to see the "genasi" versions of these, myself.

the 4 horsemen

They made the four horsemen into Daemons in Pathfinder. Like, the LEADERS of the Daemons.

Assuming there are no plans to create premium modules for the earlier seasons of Pathfinder Society (Second Edition), which I would completely understand, one product that I personally would love to see is a premium module that contains all of the repeatable scenarios from the first 4 seasons of Pathfinder Society (Second Edition). In my experience these scenarios still get run a lot and would be something I would definitely use as someone who is just starting out running PFS scenarios online.

I am taking the Munitions Crafter feat on a gunslinger I have created and now I need to choose my free formulas. It is a little unclear to me which formulas I need to make my own ammunition. Is it sufficient to just take the formula for Black Powder? Or do I some sort of formula specifically for firearm ammunition and, if so, how specific does it need to be (e.g. Arquebus rounds)?

This should be a pretty simple rule and maybe it is but for whatever reason I keep changing my interpretation. The basic question is do property runes that deal damage double if you roll a critical success on a Strike? Looking at the Strike action and the rules for doubling (and halving) damage my gut instinct was "Yes".

You attack with a weapon you’re wielding or with an unarmed attack, targeting one creature within your reach (for a melee attack) or within range (for a ranged attack). Roll the attack roll for the weapon or unarmed attack you are using, and compare the result to the target creature’s AC to determine the effect. See Attack Rolls on page 446 and Damage on page 450 for details on calculating your attack and damage rolls.

Critical Success As success, but you deal double damage.
Success You deal damage according to the weapon or unarmed attack, including any modifiers, bonuses, and penalties you have to damage.

Sometimes you’ll need to halve or double an amount of damage, such as when the outcome of your Strike is a critical hit, or when you succeed at a basic Reflex save against a spell. When this happens, you roll the damage normally, adding all the normal modifiers, bonuses, and penalties. Then you double or halve the amount as appropriate (rounding down if you halved it). The GM might allow you to roll the dice twice and double the modifiers, bonuses, and penalties instead of doubling the entire result, but this usually works best for single-target attacks or spells at low levels when you have a small number of damage dice to roll. Benefits you gain specifically from a critical hit, like the flaming weapon rune’s persistent fire damage or the extra damage die from the fatal weapon trait, aren’t doubled.

I felt this interpretation was validated when I saw Jason Bulmahn rule it this way with the Disrupting rune in one of the episodes of "Knights of Everflame" but then I noticed subtle differences in the wording that made me start questioning again.

A disrupting weapon pulses with positive energy, dealing an extra 1d6 positive damage to undead. On a critical hit, the undead is also enfeebled 1 until the end of your next turn.

The bold emphasis is mine. The Flaming rune does not use the same wording.

This weapon is empowered by flickering flame. The weapon deals an additional 1d6 fire damage on a successful Strike, plus 1d10 persistent fire damage on a critical hit.

There are similar variations with the other runes too. Frost uses the "also" language while Shock does not. Are these language differences important? Or am I overthinking things? Are the critical success effects additions to the critical success effect of the Strike? A replacement? Or does it really vary by rune?

To keep it simple, let's just talk about the Flaming rune as that is the one used in the examples in the "Doubling and Halving Damage" section. If you roll a critical success on Strike with a Flaming weapon, does it double the 1d6 fire damage to 2d6 as well as add 1d10 persistent fire damage? Or does the damage stay at 1d6 fire damage and the 1d10 persistent fire damage is the only effect applied by this rune on a critical success?

A klar counts as a light shield for the purpose of using it as a shield (for instance, it grants a +1 shield bonus to AC, has a –1 armor check penalty, and has a 5% arcane spell failure chance). For the purpose of using it as a weapon, it is a one-handed weapon that deals 1d6 slashing damage, but it is otherwise similar to using a spiked shield (for instance, the damage doesn’t stack with the bashing ability, you lose the shield bonus to AC when attacking with the klar unless you have Improved Shield Bash, and so on). As a side note, anywhere that lists klars as counting as shields with “armor spikes” is a typo that will be handled in the next errata.

I think I now understand how a klar works in all ways except for making one from special materials. There are a few different ways you could interpret it and I am not sure which one is correct.

If I treat a klar as a weapon made of mithral then it would cost 3000 gp because it weighs 6 lbs but since that is the entire weight, it would make sense that the shield part is then also mithral and therefore masterwork. This option seems pretty simple but not very flexible. Also very few materials affect both weapons and shields.

The FAQ says that in most ways to treat a klar as a spiked shield which makes sense for a lot of materials but fails for anything priced by weight because a light steel spiked shield is 6 lbs + 5 lbs for shield spikes while the whole klar is 6 lbs so it is unclear how much of the klar is spike and how much is shield.

You could instead treat the klar a double weapon and use the appropriate rules for special materials that have them (silver, cold iron). So for example, if I wanted to make a klar with a cold iron spike and a living steel shield with both parts being masterwork then the cost would be 12gp (base cost) + 6gp (+50% for cold iron) + 300gp (masterwork weapon) + 100gp (living steel shield) + 150gp (masterwork shield) = 568gp. This makes the most sense to me but is also more complicated.

On a somewhat related note, if I made one end of the double weapon out of mithral which you pay for by the pound, would I only use half the weapons weight to calculate the cost? And since mithral halves the weight, I assume it would only halve the half that is mithral making the whole weapon weigh 25% less?