|
How come the "advancement" suggestions were dropped from the creature format?Because they were too limiting, honestly. The GM should be the one who decides when a monster changes size and how many HD is the max for his own game. Monsters with specific advancement rules, like dragons, are still around, but the Bestiary's other rules for advancing monsters are a lot less restrictive than they were in the 3.5 version. Never fear, though. There'll be plenty of advancement stuff in the final book!
As long as the advancement rules are there I'm happy. I was going to create MAV's - monster advancement levels for the beta based on the fighter for the brawlers - 1 cr per level, feat advancement, hd. Also one generic one for each other types - casters, stealthy, etc. If you guys have a system better than what 3.5 had set up I'll give it a try.
And yeah, the advancement rules were a little weird. If you wanted a tougher monster it advanced in size, hd, hd/size - it made them have more hit points but not necessarily more of a challenge for a higher level group based upon abilities. Not sure if that makes sense.
I'm just impatient to see the goods, thanks for the response!
|
That and it kind of clashed with the mood at times.
I mean, on the one hand that one picture of those 20 foot tall succubi giving adventurers a stomping is cool, but it isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of succubi after gaining power.
Otyughs and shambling mounds on the other hand...
"Hu-ay cuvah", perhaps?
Also, the Shadow Mastiff looks AWESOME
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I really like the art for the Dragonne, Huevuca, Annis Hag, Shadow Mastiff and Allip.
Can anyone tell me which of the artists listed are responsible for these pieces?
Also, how to you pronounce Huecuva? I have probably been doing it wrong for a long time now.
Tam
He-KU-va is how I pronounce it.
|
|
The new interaction between XP and CR looks good, and so do the illustrations and the stat blocks... my only caveat is that Huecuva seems to have been revised from template to "standard" monster, which I don't like at all. They were "poor man's liches" back in AD&D, and I wouldn't want to see them returned to that status.
This makes me wonder... have templates been scrapped from PF RPG altogether? I hope not, because they added so much depth and variety to monsters, but it would be nice to get a 'yea' or 'nay' on this...
Templates are definitely in the Bestiary.
-Lisa
It's good to hear that, Lisa! :) As a big fan of the Huecuva, I'm just a bit sad that it's not a template anymore...
|
|
The new interaction between XP and CR looks good, and so do the illustrations and the stat blocks... my only caveat is that Huecuva seems to have been revised from template to "standard" monster, which I don't like at all. They were "poor man's liches" back in AD&D, and I wouldn't want to see them returned to that status.
This makes me wonder... have templates been scrapped from PF RPG altogether? I hope not, because they added so much depth and variety to monsters, but it would be nice to get a 'yea' or 'nay' on this...
The huecuva as a standard monster is the way it is in the Tome of Horrors, and also the way it was back in 1st and 2nd edition. A template version of the monster appears in the 3rd Edition Fiend Folio, which isn't open content. We certainly COULD have made a variation of that, but that's starting to get into some hazy shenanigans territory, so we went with updating the Tome of Horrors version as a low-level undead monster.
But yeah, as Lisa said, templates are indeed still in the game. We hadn't figured out how to do them in time to include one in the Bonus Bestiary is all.
I'm a bit disappointed with that, as I liked and used the 3E version more (ever since FF came out); as I said, in AD&D they were "poor man's liches" that were less useful (at low levels, you could only use one or two, and by mid-levels they had become more or less "minions"). As templates, you could use them at any level (and the classic "whole clergy of the shrine turned into Huecuvas").
Having said that, I can understand why you guys chose this route, and I'm grateful that they're still in the game (although it *is* easy to tweak the FF template into PF RPG stats, should I want to).
Most of the monsters in the Bonus Bestiary look a lot better than their 3E counterparts; for example, I might actually use Allips now. :)
I'm a bit disappointed with that, as I liked and used the 3E version more (ever since FF came out); as I said, in AD&D they were "poor man's liches" that were less useful (at low levels, you could only use one or two, and by mid-levels they had become more or less "minions"). As templates, you could use them at any level (and the classic "whole clergy of the shrine turned into Huecuvas").
Well, just add cleric levels to standard Huecuvas and you are back there.
I see an innocent-looking shrine or monastery full of huecuva clerics right before my eyes, coupled with some illusion magic and a big alignment cloaking effect, similar to the Bhut monastery in the old BD&D expert module X4 or X5, but even nastier. Throw in a few undead monks with disease-ridden (un-)natural attacks, and you will have quite a story at your hands.
Stefan
Yay! Did I mention I never tire of that pronunciation?
Wasn't that pronunciation (heck-of-a) spelled out in the 2E MM? I ask only because that's how I've always pronounced it ever since I put some in the first adventure I DMed, and I can't imagine I'd come up with that pronunciation on my own.
Anyone else spot the full BAB for secondary attack rolls and full STR bonus for damage with them? In a world where high-level PC fighters were already outclassed by melee brutes, this can potentially make things a lot worse for them... unless maybe in the final rules, all iterative attacks are at full bonus, so that the ones that used to be at -10/-15 (automatic misses) actually become useful?
But then again, if TWF loses its penalties to attack and damage, it will start to look vaguely attractive compared with THW fighting (whereas in 3.5 it was a lost cause except for flanking rogues).
|
I drove to the nearest store. Got there when it opened. They opened up the boxes. They got twice as many of one item and no Bestiaries ... I nearly cried. Twas the only thing I wanted to get from Free RPG Day ... 2 hours of driving for nothing.
I know Vic had asked me about this one day. But I just got a note from the owner of the game store saying the copies were in the back and someone didn't see them or something to that line. So I get to go down and grab a copy today. Yay.
|
|
Just an addition to the above post you could place that adventure idea on Grubber's Hermitage just off Sandpoints coastline. I have been wondering what to do with that named isle for some time now, as for the Dragons Punchbowl thats for another time.
Grubber's hermitage sounds like a great place to run "Tameraut's Fate".
I know Vic had asked me about this one day. But I just got a note from the owner of the game store saying the copies were in the back and someone didn't see them or something to that line. So I get to go down and grab a copy today. Yay.
Good for you, Andrew. A happy ending?
Kirth, in one of these threads, somebody noted that and Jason had a response that, if I remember, gave both some direction and some teasing.
EDIT: Not Much.
Correct.
Monsters with spellcasting powers don't generally get the non-spellcasting class powers as well.
That brings up some questions. Are we going to see some guidelines for applying sorcerer levels (and bloodlines) to monsters? Does a succubus sorcerer have the demon bloodline and how would it affect her? How about a naga sorcerer and the aberrant bloodline?
Kirth, in one of these threads, somebody noted that and Jason had a response that, if I remember, gave both some direction and some teasing.
Dunno how I missed that before. Thanks. Still, considering that when we talk "secondary attacks" in 3.5, we ususally mean "claws," the trickledown effects on combat with monsters will be VERY substantial.
That brings up some questions. Are we going to see some guidelines for applying sorcerer levels (and bloodlines) to monsters? Does a succubus sorcerer have the demon bloodline and how would it affect her? How about a naga sorcerer and the aberrant bloodline?Correct.
Monsters with spellcasting powers don't generally get the non-spellcasting class powers as well.
That does not seem to make sense - a succubus is already a demon, so adding a demon bloodline sounds like a moot point. OTOH, judging from the rules, it should be basically possible. In that case, I´d rather see that some of the abilites already there are strenghtened, like an enhanched save DC/increased number of uses and the like.
Stefan
That does not seem to make sense - a succubus is already a demon, so adding a demon bloodline sounds like a moot point. OTOH, judging from the rules, it should be basically possible. In that case, I´d rather see that some of the abilites already there are strenghtened, like an enhanched save DC/increased number of uses and the like.
My opinion too.
Rather than giving a demonic bloodline to a demon, or a draconic to a dragon, i would rather give them a boost in their magic, considering that demonic or draconic magic are stronger. Same for fey, divine, and so on.
There is no reason a special race would be weaker in magic than a scion, a demon sorcerer should have better demonic abilities than a demonist. Not necessary a better sorcerer, but better racial/bloddline abilities.
Didn't someone create an Eye Tyrant before?Before the Beholder? I admit that my knowledge of D&D's history isn't that great, but I think the Beholder came first. If you meant did the Eye Tyrant exist before Monte Cook used it... you're probably right.
[Teasing Mode/On]
There are beholders in the first Dungeons & Dragons movie and in D&D 4th edition.And as we all know, none of them has anything to do with D&D.
[Teasing Mode/Off]
/runs away before the flames
Huh. Seldris says he's teasing, but I don't see where...
Nameless, I meant the latter.
|
I made the mistake of assuming because I hadn't seen it before, it didn't exist.
There is, for instance, this.
Also, how to you pronounce Huecuva? I have probably been doing it wrong for a long time now.
I've always pronounced it like it was a Spanish word: hoo-eh-coo-vah (perhaps with a slight b instead of a v).
Note that the 2e AD&D MM spelled it wrong ("heucuva") and thus its listed pronunciation was wrong.
Can anyone tell me which of the artists listed are responsible for these pieces?
Nicholas Cloister: ascomoid, caryatid column, faerie dragon, annis hag, water naga
Kev Crossley: allipConcept Art House: dragonne, nixie
Ben Wootten: axe beak, shadow mastiff
Tyler Walpole: huecuva
Svetlin Velinov: lammasu
|
|
Also, how to you pronounce Huecuva? I have probably been doing it wrong for a long time now.I've always pronounced it like it was a Spanish word: hoo-eh-coo-vah (perhaps with a slight b instead of a v).
Note that the 2e AD&D MM spelled it wrong ("heucuva") and thus its listed pronunciation was wrong.
Yeah, that's how I pronounced it as well. It's more fun that way! And I think if I started pronouncing it the "proper" way, my players would have a field day.
"Well, that was a huecuva enounter, there, Nameless!"
I don't have one anymore. How did it give the pronunciation?
Probably "hyoo-coo-va," given the wrong spelling of "heucuva."
Note that this is also the book that spelled "doppelganger" as "doppleganger." :p
That brings up some questions. Are we going to see some guidelines for applying sorcerer levels (and bloodlines) to monsters? Does a succubus sorcerer have the demon bloodline and how would it affect her? How about a naga sorcerer and the aberrant bloodline?Correct.
Monsters with spellcasting powers don't generally get the non-spellcasting class powers as well.
That does not seem to make sense - a succubus is already a demon, so adding a demon bloodline sounds like a moot point. OTOH, judging from the rules, it should be basically possible. In that case, I´d rather see that some of the abilites already there are strenghtened, like an enhanched save DC/increased number of uses and the like.
Stefan
How about a succubus with the Celestial bloodline? :-P
Probably "hyoo-coo-va," given the wrong spelling of "heucuva."
Note that this is also the book that spelled "doppelganger" as "doppleganger." :p
Ah, good thing I got rid of it. I only want mistakes in books that support my own idiosyncrasies.
How about a succubus with the Celestial bloodline? :-P
I don´t think white feathers are all that fashionable in the abyss...
|
|
I don´t think white feathers are all that fashionable in the abyss...
How about a succubus with the Celestial bloodline? :-P
But if you go for the take where fiends are fallen celestials, not only does it work, but you have a really cool NPC - can she be redeemed? Does she want to be? Is there any metaphysical significance to why her celestial nature from centuries past is starting to reassert itself?
But if you go for the take where fiends are fallen celestials, not only does it work, but you have a really cool NPC - can she be redeemed? Does she want to be? Is there any metaphysical significance to why her celestial nature from centuries past is starting to reassert itself?I don´t think white feathers are all that fashionable in the abyss...
How about a succubus with the Celestial bloodline? :-P
These boards are terrible! You can´t even post some nonsense, somebody will pick it up and develop a story seed from it that even makes sense (kind of)!
Stefan
You can´t even post some nonsense, somebody will pick it up and develop a story seed from it that even makes sense (kind of)!
And my muse even exists online... :-/
((One of my groups' members is a convention module writer. In the last ~20 years at least 75% of his module ideas have stemed from, in whole or part, an offhand comment of mine...))
Creative Director
|
That brings up some questions. Are we going to see some guidelines for applying sorcerer levels (and bloodlines) to monsters? Does a succubus sorcerer have the demon bloodline and how would it affect her? How about a naga sorcerer and the aberrant bloodline?Correct.
Monsters with spellcasting powers don't generally get the non-spellcasting class powers as well.
There'll be some talk about applying class levels to monsters, but it won't go into huge amounts of detail. Honestly, when you apply a bloodline to a monster as the GM, you should probably adjust and alter to make it cool as you see fit... or perhaps just go with one of the less unusual bloodlines for something like a naga that's already pretty unusual itself.
That does not seem to make sense - a succubus is already a demon, so adding a demon bloodline sounds like a moot point. OTOH, judging from the rules, it should be basically possible. In that case, I´d rather see that some of the abilites already there are strenghtened, like an enhanched save DC/increased number of uses and the like.
Stefan
I think that would be the better way to do it too. Which is why I asked if some suggestions are going to be given in the rules.
Edit: Answered by James.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm just glad to see Vampiric Mist on the list... Horrible little PC slayer in 2e that I really liked.
Actually... when I said that the list wasn't 100% accurate, the vampiric mist was one of those I was looking at. As in... the vampiric mist got cut at the last minute. He'll show up somewhere else someday though... but not in the first bestiary.
Probably "hyoo-coo-va," given the wrong spelling of "heucuva."
Note that this is also the book that spelled "doppelganger" as "doppleganger." :p
Which is the english equivalent of the German syllable "pel" which is in German pronounced like the English "ple". But since both forms use an "a" instead of the right "ä" (Doppelgänger), nobody will notice. :p
--
So, where did I put this blasted key?
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm just glad to see Vampiric Mist on the list... Horrible little PC slayer in 2e that I really liked.Actually... when I said that the list wasn't 100% accurate, the vampiric mist was one of those I was looking at. As in... the vampiric mist got cut at the last minute. He'll show up somewhere else someday though... but not in the first bestiary.
That's a shame, I always like those. By the way, is the vampiric mist the same as the crimson death, or are they two different blood sucking clouds?
Which is the english equivalent of the German syllable "pel" which is in German pronounced like the English "ple". But since both forms use an "a" instead of the right "ä" (Doppelgänger), nobody will notice. :p
My point is that it was spelled PEL in previous editions of the game, then was wrongly spelled PLE in 2e AD&D, and was fixed back to PEL in 3e.
Which is the english equivalent of the German syllable "pel" which is in German pronounced like the English "ple". But since both forms use an "a" instead of the right "ä" (Doppelgänger), nobody will notice. :pMy point is that it was spelled PEL in previous editions of the game, then was wrongly spelled PLE in 2e AD&D, and was fixed back to PEL in 3e.
The terrible irony is, it's spelled PLE in the list in the Bonus Bestiary (the pdf, at any rate). I'm sure the full Bestiary gets it right though! :)
Which is the english equivalent of the German syllable "pel" which is in German pronounced like the English "ple". But since both forms use an "a" instead of the right "ä" (Doppelgänger), nobody will notice. :pMy point is that it was spelled PEL in previous editions of the game, then was wrongly spelled PLE in 2e AD&D, and was fixed back to PEL in 3e.
Ah, I see. The history and transformations of a classic D&D monster. The 2e version could have been a creature crept in for the original monster, like a ... uhm ... doppelganger ...
--
So, where did I put this blasted key?
That's a shame, I always like those. By the way, is the vampiric mist the same as the crimson death, or are they two different blood sucking clouds?
They are different indeed.
I don't have the books here with me, but the creatures and their abilities are different.