See, that's great. They should all have special uses that make them viable and unique. I'm down for that. It's just annoying when people are like, "I've run the simulation over 500 times. Your favorite is trash." Like, just play the damn game. I'm not anti-data or whatever. People just sound like robots and I know that's partially due to the nature of this new edition.
I should've said "overly concerned". It's great to choose options that help make your character more viable. I'm not opposed to that. But sometimes it's exhausting when people so thoroughly dissect the game. I mean, no shade to OP, but they have charts. That just seems so joyless and mechanical to me.
Okay, well, I'll let myself out.
Ya hit the nail on the head.
Man, I really hope so. The issue with getting zero abilities at 1st level is just sad, but I also can't help but feel that mutagens themselves could be a bit better. I want my natural armor, dammit!
More than any other class, I was looking forward to making a Mutagenist. But it's plagued with too many issues and I can't help but feel that it was just sort of slapped together as an afterthought. Instead of taking care to give it the traits that everyone loved about Vivisectionist, Master Chymist, and the kooky and weird discoveries like tentacles and tumors, they just gave it abilities that do nothing (a lot has changed since the play test). Is the Mutagenist still worth it? Are the developers aware of the issues that plague the Mutagenist? Will there be errata fixing it? Do the developers even care? Please! I WANT ANSWERS, DAMMIT!
Ahhh. So, THAT'S what the spines are for. Does it get art? Also, how awesome are the entomothropes?
I'm sorry, but the thing you're concerned about isn't relevant at all.
James Jacobs wrote:
Ok. Sorry. I'm just chompin' at the bit to find out about the dinos and megafauna...
Do the Beastmorph and Visionary Researcher Alchy archetypes go well together? Like, can a Researcher's friend get feral mutagen stuff and pounce/grab/constrict/etc. from Beasty? I wasn't sure because SRD says this: "If the researcher has discoveries or other abilities that alter or increase the benefits of the mutagen, these apply to the experimental mutagen (though the drinker only gets half the numerical bonus of the mutagen)." The part about only getting the numerical bonus confused me. HALP, I R DUM.
Wait. Are you talking to me? Because if you are, I think you might be slightly confused. Or I am. Or we both are. I don't know. At least one of us is.
But the monsters are mythic content. When running a mythic campaign, you need mythic foes to throw at your players, especially high level foes. There are always going to be monsters in a bestiary that people won't use. How many are going to use cryptids, or the Japanese monsters, or the occult monsters, or the aliens? The goal though is to have a wide variety of options available to the different types of gamers and games that people run. I'm sure there are people out there that hate all the non-European monsters in the Bestiaries, but at least it means we all have options.
I'm absolutely going to use cryptids and aliens and all that stuff because I like games where the same old crap doesn't get recycled over and over.
I'm making an alchemist who's obsessed with animals and who has a career in taxidermy. Some of his goals include grafting animal parts to his body (the Monstrous Grafts, Tentacle, and Wings discoveries) and animating his taxidermy animals (the Alchemical Zombie discovery or possibly incorporating the Taxidermied template somehow). My only problem is I can't decide what archetype to choose. His obsession with animals could be represented by Beastmorph, but his sort of hacking and grafting style could be best suited to the Vivisectionist (as well as a reluctance to use bombs, as they could damage a subject's skin and ruin the taxidermy process), and yet the Reanimator could work for bringing his taxidermied creatures to life. What do you guys think would work best?
Milo v3 wrote:
For an imaginary creature it has a very unimaginative design.
This Bestiary is pretty awesome. A lot of great creatures. Almost every creature is cool and interesting in one way or another. I love all the different aliens and cryptids that made it in, all of the oozes, all of the new vermin, and all of the new animals are fantastic. The taxidermied template is my new favorite. And even though Megaprimatus could've been beefier, I love the art and its mangling ability.
Having said that, these are my least favorite monsters (in no particular order):
1. Aeons: Meh. Three-fingered, multi-limbed dudes from another dimension just aren't interesting to me. Sorry. Although one of them looks like a doughnut, so that's kinda fun I guess.
I still have that issue! It's a cool template.
We actually need Advanced, Giant, Half-Dragon, Fiendish, Nosferatu, Were-Smilodons.
And anyone, to the person who said we should drop it, this is still on topic, as it involves Megaprimatus. I know it shouldn't be that big of a deal and I know I could always change things with homebrew rules, but it just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, maybe if they gave it some sort of rage ability that boosted its Str and Con, I'd say "yeah, sure, that's fine that it only has a Strength of 29, even though it's bigger than a house." But since it doesn't (it doesn't, does it? I guess I don't really know) I just don't understand the choice on the developer's part. I mean, how the hell am I gonna pit him against my dinosaurs now?! :(
Oh well. It's ok, Mega-P. I'm weak for my size too. I still love you. After all, everything is better with apes.
I just don't understand why Paizo thinks apes are so weak. The first Bestiary suggests using the young creature template on the gorilla (which they only give a Str of 15) for chimps and orangutans. That would put them at Str 10 or 11. Even though the real world animals can be 5x's stronger than a human. And now an ape that fights dinosaurs has a Strength score that's less than an elephant's. I just don't get it.
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
I like the bestiaries. They always provide me with new things to tantalise the old neural tastebuds with story and encounter ideas. Also now we need to pit a tarrasque or some other kaiju sized thing against megaprimatus, have a bunch of poorly dubbed dragon empire inhabitents(paticularly tein shi) as actors, and we get some gnomes to make a motion camera, and we can have the players making King Kong vs Godzilla in golorian style. While also preventing the real life people and villages from being destroyed by the collosal monster brawl.
Perfect. Also, what is Megaprimatus' STR and how is the art?
Daniel Yeatman wrote:
Not to derail, but it's the same kind of logic that makes base Wolf animal companions Medium that become Large, and Bears are small that become medium. Not everyone wants to travel with Winnie the Pooh, you know! I suppose these creatures probably work fine in their niche, but it would probably be best to not try and draw direct comparisons, even when that would make sense.
That's another great example. It also doesn't make sense that every dinosaur you could have as a pet only ends up at large. Does the polar bear give new stats for using one as an animal companion, or does it say just to use the old bear stats? And WHY can you have literally every animal as either an animal companion or familiar EXCEPT the giant skunk, porcupine, and giant porcupine? WHY, PAIZO?! WHYYYYYY?????????????
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Yeah, my only beef with pathfinder is when it comes to animal/vermin stats. Some of them make zero sense. Firstly, they only give the gorilla a strength of 15. The same as a mastiff. And in Bestiary 4, the giant flea and mammoth flea have the same strength score, despite the mammoth flea being two size categories larger. I mean, what the hell, Paizo?