Dren Everblack's page

I don't like meta gaming unless it is necessary. There are aspects of the rules that require it and I have no problem with that but there are some aspects that don't require it but some players feel the need to do it anyway to give their character an advantage and I don't like that. We play role playing games, not number crunching games.

I agree with you about metagaming, and that we are playing a role playing game. But I do think that number crunching is also a fun aspect of the game - in moderation. I fear that some of the players in my group only really enjoy the number crunching parts - but that is for another thread.

So my question is - what is the worst that the Druid can do if you allow them to pour through the monster books in search of that perfect animal?

Dren Everblack wrote:

Is the Wild Shape ability really so OP? What is so bad about looking through the books to find the animal with the abilities you are seeking? Or is it just a metagaming issue? Is this based only on the need for things to make sense, or to limit the Druid's ability?

Well the druids RAW ability hasn't even been established so you can't limit what hasn't been established.

Flipping through the bestiaries looking for animals to turn into is meta gaming, pure and simple.

Having the Wizard gain 1 spell per level instead of 2 would be limiting the ability because this ability isn't open to GM's decision unless you invoke rule 0.

Wild Shape has been left open for DM interpretation.

OK I get it, you are not technically limiting the ability. But what I was trying to ask is what your motivation is for interpreting the ability the way you do. Is it that you feel the ability would be too powerful, or is it only that you do not like metagaming?

Is the Wild Shape ability really so OP? What is so bad about looking through the books to find the animal with the abilities you are seeking? Or is it just a metagaming issue? Is this based only on the need for things to make sense, or to limit the Druid's ability?

And here I thought I was going to witness the first Provolone Olympics. There would be a Parmesion Polevaulting competition, ofcourse all of the contestants would fall to pieces upon clearing the hurdle. There should also be the 500 meter Chedder run and a Freestyle swimming event in a pool of Alfredo. The final events would include a Gouda Golf Tournament and a Free style fencing event. It wouldn't matter what cheese ented the final event, it would be comming out as Swiss.

mmmmm Alfredo.

I looked at the title and poster and thought 'when is it not?'. ;)

I think I would like to GM for RD. It would definitely keep me on my toes.

Is anyone aware of any Pathfinder products that contain Aspis (they are Ant men that were in the 1st edition adventure A1 Slave Pits of the Undercity, and in the 2nd edition product Slavers)? Regards ~KGM

I am trying to briefly revive this thread to ask the following?

Which monster(s) from the current Pathfinder products (B1, B2, and B3) and the Tome of Horrors do you feel would come the closest to filling the same role as the Aspis in A1?

This is not meant to pick on you specifically - I just thought the wording of your sentiment was conducive to a good explanation of the erroneous black-and-white thinking that is the cause of much of the division between even the more "moderate" versions of the "roleplay versus rollplay" camps.

*I speak from...

Well Jiggy, if I were your GM I would have "frowned inside" when you came to me with your "mechanics first" idea. But I would have been proven wrong when you turned that character into something much more than a tripping machine. Sounds like you are a pleasure to GM for.

However in my gaming group, the player who does this kind of thing the most rarely surprises me with the depth of his roleplaying skill, or his effective use of mechanics.

To quote him - "I don't like to leave any plusses on the table". And what this has turned out to mean for him, is that he will take a mechanically good idea, and push it as fas as it can possibly be pushed, until the good idea has become an abomination.

I am sorry if this has colored my judgment of the "mechanics first" philosophy.

In your situation I would most likely buy the UC and UM.

However since you mentioned 3rd party - the Tome of Horrors is very nice. It may not suit you because it costs more than the UC and the UM together. And there is some overlap with the Bestiaries.

Still for me it was an easy choice because I do like PDF's, so I will make do with that until I can afford the hard copy.

Cheese is relative. In this case I would say no. Since enlarge person is a full round action I would also count it as a negative. That is one round you could be doing something else and it is a full round to have your spell disrupted and with only a low caster level it won't be all that hard.

You are right cheese is relative. Still if I were GM it would bother me. I would not stop the player from doing it, but inside I would be frowning.

I'd be thinking - Really? A level of druid to get a free enlarge person?

I'd be thinking - A large race, really? Was that originally your concept, or did it change so you could trip better?

I think you should come up with a concept first, then optimize within that concept. Too often I see the concept change to suit the optimzation.

Base line: I want my fighter to disarm. I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail.

Optimizer: I want to make a character that disarms I'll snag combat expertise, improved disarm, and use a flail, and pick up a level of druid with the growth domain for a free enlarge person, heirloom weapon flail, and select a large race with a strength bonus.

Munchkin: I disarm the monk. How many hit points of damage does he loose for loosing his arm?

The key difference is that while the optimizer is firmly within the rules, the munchkin lives in the dark, murky corners of sophistry, contradictions, interpretations, and deliberate misunderstandings.

I like your examples. But in your opinion - is the optimizer example "cheese"?

From what I have seen from the posts here - the problem is not in defining the munchkin. It seems to be clearly defined as someone who goes “too far” to maximize the effectiveness of their character. The debate arises out of trying to define what is “too far”.

I love it - it's like a Bond girl name. Or maybe something from Austin Powers.

It does slow down combat. The players do spend a lot of time considering their movements on the grid, and then the GM does it as well. It is a challange to determine area of affect, hard and soft cover, etc.

It adds a level of detail to combat that does slow things down.

But I think it is worth the sacrifice. I don't miss our pre-miniature, pre-grid days. Too often I find that players (and GM's) are focused on speeding things up.

If I only get to run one combat during a game session, that's is OK if it was a good, challenging fight.

So, when the Intellect Devourer inhabits the body, that body is restored to the full hit points it could have possessed while still alive? I think that was the original question.

Yes, that is what I was saying. All of the HP's it had in life.

I think that is the intended use of the intellect devourer's power - to be everything the person was in life, minus anything that came from it's now devoured intellect.

In the Body thief it says:Damage done to a host body does not harm the intellect devourer, and if the host body is slain, the intellect devourer emerges and is dazed for 1 round.

So how many HP does a dead body have?

I ran an encounter with an intellect devourer recently. I played it as the "body" being the equivalent of whatever is was in life - minus specific knowledge, spells and spell like ability.

So in my case it was a morlock barbarian with all of the powers, abilities, and HP's it had in life.

So is it bad form to have a monster chew (nom nom nom) on a PC when he is down unconscious with -hp?

What do you think?
thanks

- A less intelligent monster that tends to eat it victims right away.

- An intelligent monster that knows it is going to die and wants to take one of the PCs out with it.

- An intelligent monster that threatened to kill the PC unless the others stopped attacking, and they didn't stop attacking.

- That particular PC did a lot of damage to the monster and it is enraged at that PC.

Talking about high levels, I owned the world of Greyhawk campaign setting many years ago (2nd ed D&D I think) and I remember seeing some city that was controlled by 1000 level 30th wizards. Imagine as a GM trying to manage one of those wizards in a campaign, let alone a thousand of them.

This reminds me of a question I have been wanting to ask without starting a new thread.

Has anyone built Elminster with the current Pathfinder rules?

Part of me is looking forward to statting him up for my FR campaign, but then again part of me would love to find that someone has already done it - and they are happy to share it with me. :-)

Over the years most of our campaigns have not made it to epic levels. They usually end because of GM burn out. But we go into these campaigns thinking, hoping they will go at least to level 20.

We just ended a campaign (3.5) at level 20 with a climactic ending - but I still wanted more. We finally hit 20th and I wanted to feel the power for a while.

And in my campaign they are 10th - 11th now, yet I am still a little impatient to see them hit really high levels. There are some nasty over-the-top NPC's, adventures, and heck even monsters straight out of the Bestiary that I can't wait to use.

And when they do hit level 20 - Spelljammer baby!! That's right I am gonna convert Spelljammer to Pathfinder, and I am doing a combination Stargate meets Babylon 5 type thing where the neogi are like the shadows... well you get the idea.

It absolutely does get bogged down. It's nigh-unplayable anywhere north of 15.

The problem with this poll, and activities like it, is that every supporter of Epic Rules comes out to support Epic Rules, because they want Epic rules.Whereas, people who don't want epic rules already have what they want (non-epic rules), so they don't care, and don't vote, etc.

The worst part is, people generally fail to understand that it's the very resources that develop the game they play that would be pulled to support the game that they don't play, therefore hurting the game they play. So, when a thread gets started about epic rules, it reads like "Sure!" "Count me in!" "Where do I sign up?", because it's only the people who want those rules responding. But, regardless of what any poll or survey of Pathfinder players suggests, the majority of players don't play or want to play above 15th level.

Seriously, this isn't an opinion. It's a fact.

I think there is a difference between a desire for epic rules and a desire to play epic levels. I don't particularly care if there are epic rules or not. If they did exist, I might use them, and then again I might not. But I still intend to take my campaign into epic levels.

I can use the current pathfinder rules for epic level play, I don't actually need epic level rules to do that. It may mean more work, more prep time, and different kinds of adventures - but I am very much looking forward to it.

I voted epic. 20 is my minimim, and 30 would be my maximum. That is how far I plan to take my current campaign. I would not join a campaign as a player if I knew for certain the campaign was not going to at least 15th. But I respect and understand those who disagree.

I know it is a lot more difficult to prepare for those games, but I am still looking forward to it.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

good stuff

Mere gold can be spent on castles, followers, hookers and blow, etc.

I laughed heartily at that.

+1 on the hearty laugh. My boss almost caught me goofing off.

Dren Everblack wrote:

For those of you in the "Pro Magic Shop" camp, how do you handle that?

Networking.

The shop doesn't carry big ticket items on the shelves. At best you might see a one or two thousand gold piece item like ring of protection or gloves of dexterity.

You want the high quality stuff, you place an order with the shopkeep. Then word goes out to the heavily guarded secret warehouses, and your item is transported via secure means to the shop. Rush teleportation shipping available for a premium.

This gives me the power to permit or deny any magic item I want with a simple explanation. 'It'll have to be custom forged.' 'The caravan was attacked by efreeti on the way and has been delayed.'

Have you ever had the PC's go "Ocean's Eleven" on you and try to make a big score byt robbing the magic shop, one of the hidden warehouses, or the caravan?

I think the idea of the "magic shop" has always bothered me for one reason. To make it realistic, I would really have to spec out the entire shop and all of it's defenses. Just so I can be prepared for when a PC decides to rob them.

So that would mean for every town where the PC's might want to buy some magic, I would really have to be prepared for them to attack it, no?

And they won't all be well protected. Sometimes the shop owner just won't have what it takes to fend off an attack from the PC's right? So that means they would get a shop's worth of goodies.

For those of you in the "Pro Magic Shop" camp, how do you handle that?

Even in 1st edition, they were drawn with scales (and horns, and described as hairless), so, even with the more dog-like snouts of those days, they weren't really little dog-men.

Although I do remember them being described as 'yappy' at least once.

My favorite kobold picture, from back in the day.

I love that picture. But I was never quite sure what spell that was supposed to be.

Sure, the GM can change things around. The rules specifically allow for that (and even offers advice on the matter). However, it seems clear to me that the norm is that you should be able to go to a city and expect to buy a magic item without too much difficulty.

I agree with you that it should be possible. Perhaps not the "without too much difficulty" part.

I have one player (or had) who literally builds his character with the idea that he will buy (or craft) specific magic items - usually +6 ability score items.

I thought there was supposed to be a random element to the magic your character aquires. I think he plays like it's a video game.

Sometimes I will see it on the boards too. "Don't take that ability, just buy a wand." That seems so, so wrong. Sure you can hope to find a wand that you want, but to just assume that you will buy one?

When did that become OK?

If a GM wanted to house rule it - how many feats do you think an additional domain should be worth?

Finally, its just a fact that being the GM is a lot of work, but tools make it fun and quicker. I cannot say enough good things about Hero Lab. I've owned it since it first came out, and the software basically updates itself, is very intelligent and user friendly, and the Pathfinder RPG pack is very awesome because it has everything we're using from the Core Rule Book, Advanced Players Guide etc.

I spoke with the developers of Hero Lab back when Eric and Jason were first formulating Pathfinder RPG, and they are thrilled to be supporting the game! You get the sense that Hero Lab really understands what gamers, especially GMs, need out of a support software.

After almost 30 years of playing this game, I'm finally comfortable enough to totally create whatever I can imagine, then quickly print block stats or full NPC sheets for all the nasty besties and NPCs I wish to bring to life in my game.

It sounds like you are very comfortable with "customizing" things in Hero Lab as well. Thus far I have been afraid to try it. I figure I will start small like making a +2 or +4 item into a +3. But eventually I want to add my own custom magic items, feats and abilities. Do you do that a lot? On a scale of 1 to 10 how hard was it to master?

That's not "a given," that's the RAW.

PRD, Purchasing Magic Items wrote:

Magic items are valuable...

...

Hey there RD. I enjoy reading your posts. Anyway to address your point.

Frist - did you really have to post all of that text? :-)

Second- you saw that I said “like a trip to the mall” right? I will expand on what I meant by that by using some of the words from your wall of text.

“Of course, not every item in this book is available in every town”.
“Some cities might deviate wildly from these baselines, subject to GM discretion.”
“Campaigns with little or no magic might not have magic items for sale at all.”

So to clarify - I mean that a player should not assume they will be able to fill the weak spots in their build by simply buying a wand of this or a rod of that. I also mean that the decision to allow the purchase of magic at all is at the GM’s discretion.

In my campaign, you CAN buy magic items – but it is not easy. It is a lot like buying black market weapons or drugs – you had better be careful where and with whom you do it. But that is OK, because I happen to like it when my PC’s have magic items. I just want them to find more of them than they purchase at magic-o-mart.

Using mainly NPCs as antagonists is the most work-intense way to do it.

If you would use more monsters of appropriate CRs, you would have much less work.

Another way is to steal ("reuse") NPCs from Modules/APs. Just reflavor them, give them a different look/name, and they will be hard to recognize even if encountered later in their original source.

Hero Lab is great. It makes creting NPCs from scratch much easier. Another great way is to start with a monster of a not-quite-high-enough CR and adding a few class levels with Hero Lab, that's even faster.

+1 to all of that.

Dren Everblack wrote:

Dire Mongoose wrote:

Playing devil's advocate here, recall that in Gygax's own campaign, the Tomb of Horrors was beaten not by a thief finding traps but rather by a fighter with a lot of disposable orc henchmen.

I am not disputing your facts, but please tell me where I can find this information?

I know I've seen a more in-depth account somewhere else, but two minutes with Google found me this which mentions Robilar and his infamous expendable orc henchmen. If you're willing to dig around on the internet I'm sure more details are out there.

Thank you. Of course Google is the first thing I did when I read your post. I will continue looking for something more descriptive.

However even this brief description does not make it sound like the fighter and his orcs actually beat the Tomb of Horrors. It says a near-invincible fighter sacrificed his orcs to reach the end - only to flee at that point.

I don't think this really makes a point for brute force tactics being the best approach to handling traps.

Playing devil's advocate here, recall that in Gygax's own campaign, the Tomb of Horrors was beaten not by a thief finding traps but rather by a fighter with a lot of disposable orc henchmen.

I am not disputing your facts, but please tell me where I can find this information?

Playing devil's advocate here, recall that in Gygax's own campaign, the Tomb of Horrors was beaten not by a thief finding traps but rather by a fighter with a lot of disposable orc henchmen.

In other words, someone dealing with traps with exactly the kind of brute force methods that people point to when they say "Eh, you don't *really* need a trapfinder."

Rather than contesting the idea that a trapfinder isn't an absolute must, the Tomb of Horrors is the canonical demonstration of why you don't. (And, hell, how many rooms would a 1E thief have survived with their terrible ability to find magical traps? No, you probably should send in the orcs.)

Really? Wow. That is certainly not how we played it.

OK I will shut up about traps now and just shed a single tear.

I could ask the module writers, I think they hang out here. :) I've been toying with the idea of adjusting traps to use more ability damage than HP damage, but that just changes it to 'pop a restoration and move on'.

The biggest problem is lack of buildup. Most traps get written as 'BAM you're hit it's over'. And ones that players can see coming take too long to resolve.

Ahh I see. We usually run homebrew campaigns with a supplement as a foundation. And modules (AP's) are used in a similar fashion.

So in my game I am running Forgotten Realms using the 3.0/3.5 material and converting everything to PF. The adventures have been either totally homebrew, or classic modules (A1 - A4, White Plume Mountain, Queen of the Demon Web Pits) painstakingly converted to challenge the Pathfinder PC's at whatever their present level happens to be.

Logical consistency. Most encounters don't happen in tombs where traps would make sense. Scythe traps on your front door would get tedious.

Plus the difficulty in making them meaningful. 'You get shot with an arrow.' 'Okay, pop a CLW, move on.' When they're just a tick off the sheet, it just doesn't make much sense.

Mostly they get used as hazards in combat, where trapfinding doesn't really come into play.

I will admit, that does sound pretty tedious. Is there some reason why the adventures and traps must lack variety?

OK not every adventure will be in a tomb, but some will be, no? And scythe traps and single arrows do sound boring, but that does not have to be the case does it?

The only reason most traps are hazards in combat is because the GM made it that way, no?

I don't agree traps add ANYTHING to the game. Either they get the party declaring "take 10" as they move, or serve as HP damage soaks. I hate when it takes 10 minutes real time before players will open doors; and seriously, some of these traps (especially those without bypass mechanisms) would be unrealistic to keep around a place people are about.

They also add an illusion of NEEDING any class; a party makeup should be flexible, so if nobody wants to play a rogue / urban ranger, they don't have to. I say illusion, because anyone can perception a non-magic trap, and by RAW a magic one does "ping" when detected for. So unless you house rule, a cantrip is being used to detect your trap setup.

Not an Indiana Jones fan I see. :-)

OK I agree that it would not make much sense to have death traps in your home. But there are lots of places where it makes sense to have them.

And not all traps need to do damage. Sometimes they teleport you to other areas, or summon something nasty, or even just set off an alarm. It's not about making all classes needed, it's about adding a different kind flava to the game.

And the challenge is not just in finding the trap, it is about bypassing the trap. And the absence of a bypass mechanism is to make the players think outside the box, encourage them to come up with a new kind of solution to a problem.

1) A database would be nice, but you'd end up with NPCs of widely varying quality. To some extent I can surf d20pfsrd anyhow.

2) What makes Hero Lab so awesome, exactly?

3) While building the characters is a thing, designing them is the real challenge. Will Hero Lab help me pick the best discoveries for my alchemist bomber, or the best magic item for my BBEG? Will it give me advice as to how they can synergize off each other?
Doug M.

Designing the characters will still have to come from you - Hero Lab makes building them faster. You can try out some build ideas and see how they stat out and then with a few clicks, get rid of that and try something else.

Hero Lab does the math for you, and most of the time it gets it right. :-)

Well, in many games (mine for example) traps DON'T play a big role, and thus trapfinding is unneeded.

Why is that? You don't like the idea of the trap? I think they add a "whole nuva level" of challenge to the game. Not every adventure should be a Tomb of Horrors, but I think that module is a classic for this reason.

- That you don't really need trapfinding because magical traps don't play a big role in the game, and they can be easily bypassed with magic, or even worse by having the big barbarian throw himself on them.

- That it is a given that the PC's will be able to buy magic items like a trip to the mall.

- That no plus should be left on the table when building a character.

Well first I would say that it helps if you are the type who really enjoys building encounters. I enjoy the challenge of trying to optimize my NPC's and monsters the way my PC's do with their characters.

But mainly I would say - Hero Lab to the rescue! I am not sure if TOZ was referring to that, but if you were I totally agree. The program is not perfect, but for me it made building encounters fun again. I find myself playing with it weeks before my next game.

It is almost like a drug. My computer died 2 weeks ago, and I have been positively depressed not having Hero Lab (and internet access). So much so that my wife actually pressured me into buying a new one. Next week can't come fast enough. I miss you Hero Lab.

Sorry, the situation was a bit unclear. The succubus was entangled and couldn't fly. And so she fell into the lava 50 ft. below us... As she paddled around there, she casted "Charm Monster".

I think this may have been a stretch in the use of the Charm Monster spell, because most PC's would not toss their bow to a "friend" who happened to be swimming in lava at the time. So in that respect a "dick move".

But as to the destruction of the bow, that kind of stuff happens. In fact it has to happen. Those kind of setbacks are what make your victories sweeter. However if the GM makes the fighter wait a long time for a replacement bow, that is probably another "dick move".

This weekend as a GM I had an 11th level enemy deep gnome illusionist cast a Persistent Phantasmal Killer at a 10th level monk PC. Then he cast another one at the same PC later in the fight - and the monk died.

I felt bad about it - as I always do when a PC dies. I even felt guilty when I was building the encounter. But at the time I was thinking - this is definitely something the players would do, so why not this NPC? I was also thinking that no one was going to actually die from it - especially the monk.

For the most part my players accept that death is a part of the game, in fact they require that to be the case. But this is the 2nd or 3rd time this PC has died. He is a bit reckless sometimes, but still I hate killing a PC multiple times.

At the end of the game session I re-introduced the idea of using hero points.

nosig wrote:

Is anyone running a character that specializing in summoning things, but isn't a Summoner class?

I'm thinking of doing this and would love to see some suggestions, or advice.

conjurer

That is my suggestion as well. But I am not enough of an optimizer to give you a lot of sepcific advice. However if I were going to create a PC that focuses on summoning, I think I would also prefer a wizard specializing in conjuration rather than an actual summoner.

I think augment summoning is a worthy feat. And I would recommend the pre-req of Spell Focus-conjuration anyway because there are a lot of really cool conjuration school spells that require a save.

Dren Everblack wrote:

Hi James,

I would like to get your take on fudging vs hero points and your feelings about fudging in general.

I absolutely prefer to use a hero point system...

Thank you James. That is exactly the kind of detailed response I was hoping for. You have given me much to think about with regards to using a hero point system.

I see your point that a hero point system is a more balanced method than fudging. In my campaign, most of the time my players are way too savvy for me to fudge without them noticing. So the result has been that I have not fudged at all, and there have been a few deaths. So if I do find an opportunity to fudge for a PC, it won’t really be fair to the other players whose characters died because I did not have an opportunity to fudge for them.

However my players (all but one) have told me they prefer the suspension of disbelief that comes with not realizing when they have been saved. They don’t want to save themselves, and they don’t mind being saved by the GM if they don’t know when it is happening.

But I have been convinced... so in spite of their preference (and years of tradition) I am going to suggest a hero point system anyway, because it is simply fairer.

The Gugs (bestiary 2) have a space of 10' and a reach of 15'

On top of that they have the lunge feat that give them an extra 5' of reach for a -2 to AC.

Is the lunge bonus already included in the 15' reach or they might actualy have a reach of 20'?

By the way - Gugs seem like a hoooot encounter. I am planning to use some this weekend, and the PC's had better watch out. I am planing to put a hurtin on em!!

Hi James,

I would like to get your take on fudging vs hero points and your feelings about fudging in general.

I have searched through your responses to some other posts, and I get the feeling that you are not actually against fudging, but that you do prefer to use a hero point system when you are behind the screens. I also think that you prefer the story to take precedence over the dice, and I find that most GMs who are also writers feel that way.

Recently I was part of a thread about fudging, and I was quite bothered by the number of people who feel that a GM fudging the dice is basically cheating, lying, and an indication of a lack of moral fiber.

How do you feel about the “no fudging ever” GM? Would you play in that campaign?

How do you feel about a player who would rather have a TPK than have the DM fudge a die roll?

My players and I have agreed that I will only fudge to save a PC's life, and that is if the players cannot tell I am doing it – do you think is silly? Would they be better served by using hero points instead?

What about a GM who fudges to prevent the boss battle from ending badly – like a failed saving throw in the first round?

No, I'm not one of... those people.

You know, you can exaggerate everything.

Erm, to clarify that: what I was talking about is the stuff I mentioned in the post before that... stuff like mind control and golem creation.
(Actually, I could've written "sentient" instead of "living".)
** spoiler omitted **...

Well mind control used in an evil way, would be evil. Controlling someone to make them stop trying to kill you - not evil. Controlling someone to have them kill their own family - very evil.

But back to the undead. Actually the use of undead animals and the undead workforce society you describe - I agree, not evil. Very, very creepy, but not evil. I stand convinced.

[As you have exposed, you'd have to change numerous things, even rather huge aspects of the campaign world itself, but if some wants to make all these changes to restore consistency and likes the "animating dead is evil while enslaving living beings is not" flavor better... *shrug* He/she has my blessing, for what it's worth. ;)

I know I may regret asking this but... exactly what kind of enslavement of living beings are you referring to?

You are not talking about riding horses or owning pets - are you?

If using a corpse for your own ends was evil, wouldn't it also be evil to use parts of the corpse for your own ends? E.g., build stuff out of its skin or bones, eating its meat...?

If using parts of a corpse is not evil, is it evil if you take each bone from another corpse, put them together to form a marionette and empower that thing with animate dead or animate object?

And why is it not evil to use the corpse for your own ends while the soul is still inside it?

And why is it not evil to enslave a soul (without a corpse)?

The best solution? ...

I am certainly not smart enough to debate all of the possible uses of a corpse. But I think I know evil when I see it.

Zombie butlers and skeletal janitors seem evil to me. Maybe not paladins breaking down your door evil, but definitely on the evil side of creepy.

James Jacobs wrote:

There are more brand new monsters in Bestiary 3 (and by "brand new" I mean monsters we've never published before, even though a lot of them are from real-world legend and myth) than Bestiary 2, I believe.

Totally totally. There's a lot more that's just flat out brand new, or ideas that got rolling in previous products that get plenty of expansion in here. Behemoths and a few others come to mind, as do expansions to races that we've long hinted have more members but we've never presented before. While totally new, out-of-the-blue monsters are cool (when they're cool), creatures that already feel like they're tied into the game and our world are really the monsters I most want to see in our Bestiaries. I think that's why when we got to the approval stage of Bestiary 3 a lot of folks who were seeing the book for the first time were commenting on how many familiar, expected, and flat-out useful monsters were in the book, and how there isn't the wheel spinning or repeated ideas like you see in a lot of monster books that get up in their incarnations.

You had me at hello.