J-Spee Lovecraft's page

The number crunching is a precursor to play, I crunch out characters that do exactly what I want and it facilitates my roleplaying in game. I don't understand how these are separate.

Maybe it isn't different for some people. And maybe I didn't word it as well as I should've. I'm not against analysing character options. It's just that the way some people discuss their character building just seems so joyless and mechanical. But maybe for them, it isn't.

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

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.

Part of it is the game itself telling people "every plus matters" is one of the cornerstones of the game. As such, the range from suck to viable is much smaller then the old pathfinder. Add to that the new crit ranges and a few points difference might mean more crit fails for players or more crit successes from foes.

I'm all for picking a companion you like but IMO what it brings to the table as far as mechanics is as much a deciding factor on "like" as other factors, as the mechanics make them all play differently and help enable different tactics. Dromaeosaur with is move and support ability make an awesome flank buddy, A cat can set up a ranged rogue for sneak attacks, horse is a Mount, snake stops reactions from foes so a ranged ranger can fire in melee...

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.

On the flip side your pony automatically turns into a horse when it becomes a Mature Animal Companion. (large pony?)

We really should be able to have a HUGE dire horse.

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

That's like saying 'I don't understand why people just don't pick a car that looks nice and instead worry about things like 'can I drive a stick shift' or 'does that electric car have enough range to get me to work''.

The game is built on math so, IMO, it's be "crazy" to ignore the math: it's freeform storymaking if the math doeesn't matter.

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.

I'm definitely not saying that you shouldn't make sensible choices with your stats. You obviously don't want to make a character that sucks at their role. But there are so many players who minmax. Being that persnickety just sucks the fun out of the game for me.

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

Does anybody play this game just to have fun? Like, do you ever make a character just because you like the concept? I'm just curious. A lot of folks seem to just want to power build. I'm not judging. To each his own. I just didn't know if anybody actually made a character they liked without being completely concerned with the math.

Literally no one does that ever and--quite frankly--I am a little embarrassed for you for even asking that.

Okay, well, I'll let myself out.

I think it would be really crazy if someone picked a companion just because they liked the animal instead of being concerned with the math, but that's just me.

Yeah its not large until you choose to make it Savage at level 8 or 10.

Okay. Cool. That makes me feel a lot better.

It becomes large with Mature Animal Companion.

Maybe I misread, but it looked like it went from Small to Medium.

We still can't have a Large bear as an animal companion. WHY???

Arachnofiend wrote:

Increasing the item bonus on mutagens by 1 if imbibed by a Mutagenist will fix a lot of that spec's issues. The biggest issue with the Mutagenist is that he's the worst non-spellcaster to give your combat mutagens to.

he's actually worse than a lot of spellcasters in martial combat as well.

afterall they do have the same weapon proficiencies and at least some spellcasters have "combat feats/abilities/powers" to rely upon for some extra oumph.

Not sure what went wrong with Alchemist development really that made them so terrible as they are atm.

They have caster martial proficiencies, but martial ability dc scaling (i.e. worse than casters), and (apart from bomber) the class feats feel more like patching design holes than actually adding features like they do in the rest of the classes (instead of new features/abilities they get stuff like "your stuff now uses class DC", and "your quick alchemy lasts long enough to use your core feature of dual/triple alchemy", and etc)

Plus, it's like they have an identity crisis.

Someone should have stepped up and clarified what the vision was:
a non-caster with debuffs (hence he would actually need Master proficiencies)?
a Caster with plenty but very low impact "spells" (hence he would actually require Legendary Class DC)?

atm he has the worst of the 2 worlds. Caster martial prowess with Martial Ability prowess.

Ya hit the nail on the head.

Mid to Late mutagenist looks a l ot of fun.

early one looks rough..

but honestly thats true for both churi and muti alchemists, and to a lesser extent, bomber. CHuri has a hard time IMO until lv 13. Muti has some dead effects.
bomber gets extra bombs and the splash restriction, which is t he best off at low l evel. but the perpetual has weird interactions with later stuff (but thats true of the other lines too).

I probably wouldn't start a muta from lv 1 .

I rather expect a few Alchemist eratta ideas probably around Oct or so, shortly after the next playtest opens.

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!

I'm sure someone has mentioned it by now, but how do corrupted animal companions work?

Last dino question: does the giga only have a bite attack or does it have some other natural attacks (claws, tail, etc.)?

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

Does the amargasaurus just have your basic sauropod tailslap attack routine?

Also, does giganotosaurus get artwork and what size is it?

** spoiler omitted **

** spoiler omitted **

Ahhh. So, THAT'S what the spines are for. Does it get art? Also, how awesome are the entomothropes?

I was kind of hoping the Giganotosaurus' description didn't mention what its length or height was. I understand that they were meant to fill in the gaps of CRs and size categories for prehistoric animals, like James said, but I feel like mentioning its size and weight ruins the opportunity to at least allow people who look at the creature to assume that it could be a much bigger fantasy version of the actual animal.

Mentioning that it's 60 feet long at 35,000 pounds seems like it's only going to confuse people, especially when there are creatures, such as Colossi, that are 60 feet high and 75+ tons at gargantuan. Even other animals of similar sizes, such as the dire shark and crocodile are gargantuan at a much lower CR.

I just really would like some consistency when it comes to a creature's size category, which is pretty much zero. It's not just animals recently, either, it's a problem in every bestiary.

I'm sorry, but the thing you're concerned about isn't relevant at all.

Does the amargasaurus just have your basic sauropod tailslap attack routine?
Also, does giganotosaurus get artwork and what size is it?

Does the titanoboa get anything to make it different from all the other big snakes? And are the megafauna more than just more rhinos and elephants?

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

What about dinos and devil monkeys? What all special abilities do they have?

** spoiler omitted **

HOLY COW. Awesome. What about megafauna?

What about dinos and devil monkeys? What all special abilities do they have?

Any news on special attacks or abilities of dinos and megafauna? What's the devil monkey like?

Here you go...

** spoiler omitted **...

What's the devil monkey like?

Also, what makes titanoboa different from all of the other snakes from previous bestiaries?

What special attacks do the new dinos get?

Please don't take "announcements" from non-Paizo staff members as announcements. Until the book's actual release date, it's best to look to posts from actual Paizo employees or the blog for information.

That includes a table of contents, which is something I suspect we won't release on its own.

Ok. Sorry. I'm just chompin' at the bit to find out about the dinos and megafauna...

Are there very many new dinos? I loved that therizinosaurus got some love last bestiary, and I love how formidable they are. Makes me feel like whoever statted them plays Ark Survival Evolved. :)

Sweet! Yeah, I've always found plant monsters to be underrated.

Cool. Any plant companions?

Mr. Jacobs, I was wondering, what new animals will there be?

Anybody know what animal companions will be in this one?

Nobody?

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.

Is there any way to make a vivisectionist/beastmorph alchemist and get bombs without having to burn a discovery? I know beastmorph gets them but vivisectionist doesn't. HALP.

Is there any way to make a vivisectionist/beastmorph alchemist and get bombs without having to burn a discovery? I know beastmorph gets them but vivisectionist doesn't. HALP.

Thanks. I think you're right. Vivisectionist probably works best. What level should I take Beastmorph stuff? 3rd?

Why does the Annunaki have a bite attack? That's kinda weird.

Same old crap? You mean Robots, Smilodon, T.Rex, Pixies, D&D Dragons, Minotaur and all other overused stuff you see in every story, movie, book, cartoon ect ect??

I don't think most of Bestiaries 2,3,4 and 5 mythology and cryptid monsters are same old crap.

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?

J-Spee Lovecraft wrote:

17. Tulpa: "A gray-skinned humanoid with oddly unremarkable features floats ponderously in the air." Unremarkable indeed.

It's a literal imaginary creature.... if you think the sustained by thought and mental form abilities are unremarkable I am sincerely amazed.

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.
2. Astomoi: Faceless, mouthless, shadow people? *fart noise*
3. Azata, Gancanagh: Probably my least favorite creature. Just a foppish elf who can't handle his smoke. It's probably from some myth or tall tale or something, but I don't care.
4. Caligni: I feel like shadow people have potential to be cool...yet, none of them are.
5. Esoteric Dragons: Sometimes, ya just want more out of your dragons, aesthetically-speaking.
6. Drakes: ^^^
7. Duppy: Just a ghost that summons ghost dogs.
8. Egregore: Despite being a monster composed of a buncha brains and a giant eye, the egregore still manages to be generally uncool.
9. Aether Elementals: *yawn*
10. Etiainen: Sad-looking mist monster is sad.
11. Ghoran: I usually love plant creatures, but ghorans are just not vegetable enough for me.
12. Moon Dog: Despite being a Christopher Lee dog, I really hate its design.
13. Scitalis: You would think a neon snake would be cool. You'd be wrong.
14. Seilenos: Just a fat satyr.
15. Shadow Collector: UGH.
16. Syricta: Snake with abs. Not as cool or sexy as one might expect.
17. Tulpa: "A gray-skinned humanoid with oddly unremarkable features floats ponderously in the air." Unremarkable indeed.
18. Turul: A giant magic bird with killer magic feathers only sounds cool in writing.
19. Wysps: Next.
20. Zygomind: Cool idea. I like it. The art just doesn't really grab me.

Oliver Veyrac wrote:

Kalindlara wrote:

I kind of wish we could get the 3.0 Kaiju template back, but it's not Open Content.

I thought that Paizo.com was the owners of dragon magazine?

A: No, they were merely producing it under license. None of their Dragon content is still theirs, to the best of my knowledge.

B: The kaiju template is from Dragon #289, which predates Paizo's production of Dragon Magazine in any case.

I still have that issue! It's a cool template.

We need Dire Smilodons! Because Smilodon isn't powerful enough! CR 15 Smilodons! Yeah!

Make it happen! :-D

Oh wait...

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.

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?

WHAT ABOUT MEGAPRIMATUSSSS???

What are Megaprimatus' stats, BTW?

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?????????????

I do find it odd that a megaprimatus is a Gargantuan creature with the strength of a Large sized dire polar bear, and nearly half the HD of a T-rex. Even assuming Kong was an advanced version (since he defeated three advanced Rexs), this seems to be slightly off.

It's four times bigger than a smilodon, but barely stronger and no tougher. A little disappointing.

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?

I don't remember if anyone said, but what benefits do all the familiars grant?

Oop. Nvm. Just read the description.