For attack lines, the use of a comma and the use of the word "and" are equal. Had we been more diligent, there would have been NO commas in those attack lines, but as it stands it's merely an unnecessary extra word.
There's no difference between "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10, slam +16 (2d6+10)" and "Melee gore +16 (2d8+10 and slam +16 (2d6+10)." In both cases, the monster can make both attacks as a full round action.
Only if the word "or" appears does the monster have to choose which set of attacks it wants to use.
Thank You.
|
This is a big thread!Wait...that sounded a little dirty...
I just picked up my Bestiary about an hour ago and I have to say great job Paizo! If you guys know how to do one thing wicked good its AP's, but a very close second is how you guys do monsters!Thanks for all the hard work! I look forward to future installements in the series. In particular I hope to see a fully Golarionized version of the Tome of Horrors.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ok, question.
I like that the cockatrice, gorgon, and basalisk all have 'outs' for their petrification. Just curious why not the medusae. Is it because she's an intelligent foe?
It's becasue the medusa is high enough CR that it's "fair" to play with petrification. The basilisk and the cockatrice are lower level, and thus their petrification powers are less "permanent" since it's not good to hit lower level PCs with effects they can't really handle.
Thank you James, I figured it was something like that. Still with the medusa being CR 7 and stone to flesh being 11th level... I think I'm going to have my 'medusa masterminds' use this.
Stheno’s kiss
Transmutation
Effective level: 6th
Skill checks: Spellcraft DC 23, 2 successes; Disguise DC 23 4 successes.
Components V, S, M, B
Casting time: 60 minutes
Range: Touch
Target: one petrified creature
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw Yes (Harmless)
This incantation, known primarily by medusa, can turn a creature petrified by a medusa’s gaze attack back to flesh. The target is anointed with the blood of the medusa who petrified the target and a mixture of unguents and cosmetics to give the target a more flesh like appearance. The target is then restored to flesh and must make a DC 15 fortitude save to survive the experience. The caster is fatigued, the target is exhausted.
Failure: Each failure increases the DC of the fortitude save by +1, and inflicts 1d4 points of dexterity damage to the caster. If the caster is reduced to zero dexterity, she is turned to stone as well.
Material Components: The blood of the medusa who petrified the creature, and cosmetics and unguents worth 500 GP.
Backlash: The caster is fatigued, the target, if he survives, is exhausted.
(Math: Ad Hoc modifiers: Requires 2 skills, one not on the wizard list (-2) Medium to touch (-4) Ad Hoc target/Ad hoc duration (+0) Expensive Material Component (-1) Backlash: Target is exhausted Ad hoc (-1) Caster is fatigued (-1))
Creative Director
|
Ok, question.
I like that the cockatrice, gorgon, and basalisk all have 'outs' for their petrification. Just curious why not the medusae. Is it because she's an intelligent foe?
It's becasue the medusa is high enough CR that it's "fair" to play with petrification. The basilisk and the cockatrice are lower level, and thus their petrification powers are less "permanent" since it's not good to hit lower level PCs with effects they can't really handle.
Thank you James, I figured it was something like that. Still with the medusa being CR 7 and stone to flesh being 11th level... I think I'm going to have my 'medusa masterminds' use this.
** spoiler omitted **...
Stone to flesh is out of reach at that level... but break enchantment is not. Although it would appear that break enchantment doesn't specifically work against petrification anymore... so, hmmm.
Watch out for those medusae!
There's also stone salve, which only costs 2,000 gp, and given that a 7th-level PC's wealth is 23,500gp, that's quite affordable.
|
|
There's also stone salve, which only costs 2,000 gp, and given that a 7th-level PC's wealth is 23,500gp, that's quite affordable.
Nah, that's for those sissy Taldorian campaigns... Chelaxians don't use "MagicMarts" or let the PCs shop for stuff -- you kill things, and steal their stuff (i.e. whatever stuff the GM graciously lets you get).
|
So I've come to this thread late, but I'd like to know. What are the big differences in this book from the 3.5 MM? (Ignore stuff about CMD/CMB.) Given that the PC classes have been boosted, have the monsters, too?
The big difference is that the Bestiary is much more easy to use - one monster per page format, streamlined rules for special abilities, more info on advancing and creating monsters.
All monsters have now 1 feat every 2 HD, several monster types were altered (undead get now Cha bonus to HP), dragons are even meaner than they were in 3.5, oh and the few really wonky monsters (Ogre Magi and Rakshasa for example) were brought in line with their CR (read: buffed).
There's also stone salve, which only costs 2,000 gp, and given that a 7th-level PC's wealth is 23,500gp, that's quite affordable.Hmm. I wouldn't call 10% on a consumable affordable - expensive :) But hey, cheaper than being dead!
And cheaper than raise dead.
Kinda reminds me of a discussion I had with Monte about adventures Gary Gygax wrote and adventures that Frank Mentzer wrote.
Kinda reminds me of a discussion I had with Monte about adventures Gary Gygax wrote and adventures that Frank Mentzer wrote.
Do tell!
Kinda reminds me of a discussion I had with Monte about adventures Gary Gygax wrote and adventures that Frank Mentzer wrote.Do tell!
Basically, Gygax's monsters tended to have treasure that would help you recover from the special attacks of the monsters. Mentzer's monsters tended to have treasure that would have been REALLY useful against the monster you were fighting. So if Gygax had an encounter with a medusa, the medusa might have a scroll of stone to flesh, whereas a Mentzer's medusa would have a scroll of protection from petrification or a +1 sword, +3 vs. medusas.
Hee-hee-hee!
Basically, Gygax's monsters tended to have treasure that would help you recover from the special attacks of the monsters. Mentzer's monsters tended to have treasure that would have been REALLY useful against the monster you were fighting. So if Gygax had an encounter with a medusa, the medusa might have a scroll of stone to flesh, whereas a Mentzer's medusa would have a scroll of protection from petrification or a +1 sword, +3 vs. medusas.
So Gygax's monsters gave you a hand up, while Mentzer's gave you the finger from beyond the grave.
Mentzer's gave you the finger from beyond the grave.
::Rogue abandons combat to rifle through the room as the party is getting torn apart::
"What are you doing?"
"If we wait to loot the place until after the fight, we'll never beat this thing."
|
Basically, Gygax's monsters tended to have treasure that would help you recover from the special attacks of the monsters. Mentzer's monsters tended to have treasure that would have been REALLY useful against the monster you were fighting. So if Gygax had an encounter with a medusa, the medusa might have a scroll of stone to flesh, whereas a Mentzer's medusa would have a scroll of protection from petrification or a +1 sword, +3 vs. medusas.
Both situations are fair, though.
A previous group may have brought them to combat the threat, but died of overconfidence."The goblin we roughed up, told us the medusa lived below the next set of stairs, so we'll make our way to the top there, then use our protective items..."
<Hissssss>
"GAAAAAHHHHH!!!!"
... in which case, they didn't work so well (barring Snorter's example scenario). ;)
So I've come to this thread late, but I'd like to know. What are the big differences in this book from the 3.5 MM? (Ignore stuff about CMD/CMB.) Given that the PC classes have been boosted, have the monsters, too?
The appendix has a treasure trove of really useful "stuff".
|
I finally got a good look at the bestiary today and we very, very happy with it. I know some are dissatisfied, but as a GM (never a player), I'm thrilled with the final product. This is exactly what I'm looking for in order to run a game smoothly without doing a ton of prep work. I very much appreciate the quick rundown on each monster's battle style and tendencies. Sure, it's fun to have more flavor, but isn't that what the ecologies are for? Again, thanks, Paizo, for a great product!
I would also like to add I am very pleased with the content of this MM/Bestiary. Plus, with the exception of maybe 6 pieces of art, I think this is a superior looking MM as well.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 4
|
I would also like to add I am very pleased with the content of this MM/Bestiary. Plus, with the exception of maybe 6 pieces of art, I think this is a superior looking MM as well.
Yes! It just goes to show how much better it is to reuse great art from great artist then to commission 200+ piece and hope it all works out in time. The genie section is a great example! So let us hope there's some Steve Prescott/Wayne Renyold monster covers in future.
Wow, so kind of a random thought, but why do Apes only have a 15 strength? I was under the impression they were considerably stronger without being dire.
|
Creative Director
|
Wow, so kind of a random thought, but why do Apes only have a 15 strength? I was under the impression they were considerably stronger without being dire.
15 Strength IS pretty strong, when you consider that average human strength is 10. An ape's average strength being at 15 means that a really strong ape (built using the 15 point buy method) could easily be above 20 in Strength.
As to why we put the Strength at 15, it's all about balance. We didn't want to change monster CR scores from the 3.5 SRD unless we had no other choice, and for apes (and any monster with the rend ability), a high Strength score EXPLODED the damage they do in a round. The only way to maintain them as a CR 2 creature and not turn them into TPK machines was to lower their Strength.
|
|
I would also like to add I am very pleased with the content of this MM/Bestiary. Plus, with the exception of maybe 6 pieces of art, I think this is a superior looking MM as well.
I would agree. Though I would add that I actually like the MM as a book. It was one of best in the D&D 3.5 line up in my mind.
Wow, so kind of a random thought, but why do Apes only have a 15 strength? I was under the impression they were considerably stronger without being dire.15 Strength IS pretty strong, when you consider that average human strength is 10. An ape's average strength being at 15 means that a really strong ape (built using the 15 point buy method) could easily be above 20 in Strength.
As to why we put the Strength at 15, it's all about balance. We didn't want to change monster CR scores from the 3.5 SRD unless we had no other choice, and for apes (and any monster with the rend ability), a high Strength score EXPLODED the damage they do in a round. The only way to maintain them as a CR 2 creature and not turn them into TPK machines was to lower their Strength.
I don't think it would be terribly unbalanced if they had a strength of 18 or something, ah well, I suppose if it came down to it I could always make my own adjustments. I think I saw a company who sold PDF's on your sight that tried to make stats for animals as realistic as possible rather than what was listed in the 3.5 srd for the sake of balance and mechanics over realism. Can't remember them but animal statistics was always something I disliked about 3.5, just seemed like the stats were thrown together as an afterthought when there was a depth of research material at their fingertips. But they're just animals right? :P
|
Creative Director
|
I don't think it would be terribly unbalanced if they had a strength of 18 or something, ah well, I suppose if it came down to it I could always make my own adjustments. I think I saw a company who sold PDF's on your sight that tried to make stats for animals as realistic as possible rather than what was listed in the 3.5 srd for the sake of balance and mechanics over realism. Can't remember them but animal statistics was always something I disliked about 3.5, just seemed like the stats were thrown together as an afterthought when there was a depth of research material at their fingertips. But they're just animals right? :P
At CR 2, Strength 18 was actually relatively unbalanced; too good. It also made the difference between the ape and the dire ape even less; since there's only a 1 point difference between the two creatures' CR scores it made assigning their Strengths even trickier.
I just got it, and I must say I am a bit disappointed with the hitpoints of high CR monsters. While both the Balor and Pit Fiend got a nice boost, this does not account for the increased damage output PCs will dish out, not even to speak of the fact that a group of four higher level PCs easily dish out 200+ HP damage per round.
And Dragons HP got really hit with the nerfbat... the ancient Red Dragon loses 150+ HP to his 3.5 version. Is this really intentional? Dragons are already kind of weak when caught not on the wing, I'd think they'd need some buffing rather than nerfing.
I'd really have liked massive HP buffs for the "endgame" monsters, since it is kind of lame that they can be killed in 2-3 rounds. No amount of healing can deal with the damage high level PCs can dish out, in my experience, so a big boost to HP would have been necessary.
Otherwise a fine book, from my first look.
|
Creative Director
|
I just got it, and I must say I am a bit disappointed with the hitpoints of high CR monsters. While both the Balor and Pit Fiend got a nice boost, this does not account for the increased damage output PCs will dish out, not even to speak of the fact that a group of four higher level PCs easily dish out 200+ HP damage per round.
And Dragons HP got really hit with the nerfbat... the ancient Red Dragon loses 150+ HP to his 3.5 version. Is this really intentional? Dragons are already kind of weak when caught not on the wing, I'd think they'd need some buffing rather than nerfing.
I'd really have liked massive HP buffs for the "endgame" monsters, since it is kind of lame that they can be killed in 2-3 rounds. No amount of healing can deal with the damage high level PCs can dish out, in my experience, so a big boost to HP would have been necessary.
Keep in mind that if you want a massive "endgame" monster, you shouldn't be throwing a monster whose CR = the Average Party Level at the PCs. A CR 20 monster's tough and scary, but it's still a CR 20 creature, which means that it's NOT a good choice for an "endgame" monster against a 20th level party. They WILL tear through that monster in a few rounds. That's not an error, that's the CR system working precisely as it was designed to work.
A CR 20 monster would make a good endgame boss for a 15th or maybe 16th level party. If you're looking for monsters for a 20th level party, the CR 20 monsters should be the things they fight as they're working their way to the boss. The boss itself should be something more like CR 24 or 25. If you want to use a balor boss for a 20th level group, then, you'd want to give him 5 levels of fighter or maybe 10 levels of rogue or maybe just advance his Hit Dice and Size until he's properly scary.
|
|
Also, there's the circumstances in which the party meets the bad guy to consider. In many cases, parties will have drained some of their resources fighting their way to the end game boss, who's possibly fighting in his home turf, meaning henchmen, traps, additional gear and spell boosting, and other obstacles that the heroes must overcome in the end encounter.
Given that the only Balor mini I could get my hands on is the current WOTC mini, I'm thinking the next Balor that shows up is getting the "giant" template anyway . . . ;)
Oh, I get that CR 20 monster are meant to cost an equivalent level party 20% of their resources, and therefore you'd need higher CR monsters to make credible end-game challenges.
However, my argument was meant more in the direction that damage output by high-level parties is generally very high and hitpoints of even 3-4 higher CR monsters can't seem to keep up with that. And my experiences are from 3.5 campaigns, so Pathfinder campaigns should exerbate this problem. I do wonder if this problem only turns up in my campaigns and if playtests didn't bring it up for the Pathfinder RPG.
BTW, is there a particular reasoning why Dragon hitpoints were nerfed? As I said before, if not encountered on the wing, they are not particularly scary, due to the economy of actions ( They can only do one thing at a time... use their breath weapons, full-attack or cast spells ). As they are iconic monsters, it is a bit sad to see them made even less of a threat.
|
Creative Director
|
Oh, I get that CR 20 monster are meant to cost an equivalent level party 20% of their resources, and therefore you'd need higher CR monsters to make credible end-game challenges.
However, my argument was meant more in the direction that damage output by high-level parties is generally very high and hitpoints of even 3-4 higher CR monsters can't seem to keep up with that. And my experiences are from 3.5 campaigns, so Pathfinder campaigns should exerbate this problem. I do wonder if this problem only turns up in my campaigns and if playtests didn't bring it up for the Pathfinder RPG.
BTW, is there a particular reasoning why Dragon hitpoints were nerfed? As I said before, if not encountered on the wing, they are not particularly scary, due to the economy of actions ( They can only do one thing at a time... use their breath weapons, full-attack or cast spells ). As they are iconic monsters, it is a bit sad to see them made even less of a threat.
Try out some high level games with the Pathfinder rules—I'd be very curious to see how they went for you. (And if you used any additional rules beyond the core rules...)
As for dragons, they were brought in line with what their CR scours should be. In 3.5, there was a stealth design philosophy that dragons should be "tough" for their CR, which is not really fair. By making dragons tougher than their CR should be, you're basically ruining the use the CR scale has. Much better to say: "When you use dragons, if you want your dragon fights to be tough, simply use a higher CR dragon."
As for hit points in general, they're probably the EASIEST part of the game to adjust. The hit points listed are, of course, averages. If you're finding that the monsters are still dying too quickly, try giving them maximum hit points.
Try out some high level games with the Pathfinder rules—I'd be very curious to see how they went for you. (And if you used any additional rules beyond the core rules...)
As for dragons, they were brought in line with what their CR scours should be. In 3.5, there was a stealth design philosophy that dragons should be "tough" for their CR, which is not really fair. By making dragons tougher than their CR should be, you're basically ruining the use the CR scale has. Much better to say: "When you use dragons, if you want your dragon fights to be tough, simply use a higher CR dragon."
As for hit points in general, they're probably the EASIEST part of the game to adjust. The hit points listed are, of course, averages. If you're finding that the monsters are still dying too quickly, try giving them maximum hit points.
Oh, of course we used the "Complete" series books and Player Handbook II, not to mention that some players had pretty high attributes ( Rolling Attributes =/= balanced parties ). So, yeah, that was definitely part of it. But since the classes have been upgraded with the Pathfinder RPG and we got some pretty sweet feats with it, I think I can already say that the power level won't really drop that much. I could be wrong, of course, and probably should ask my players to make one or two trial combats.
As for the dragon thing, it seems reasonable. IIRC, the design philosophy was somewhat along the lines of "for normal monsters the party is assumed to have stumbled on them without preparation, for dragons the party is assumed to have pre-buffed itself before the encounter".
And of course the hit points are the easiest to adjust... since I already know how much damage gets put out by players, I normally give them an "adjusted" number anyway, so they put up a good fight. :D
I just wonder if the damage output / monster hitpoints relationship never came up in playtesting. Of course I don't know at which power level playtesting was done, but most classes should be able to put out 50 - 100 points of damage per round at level 16+.
|
Creative Director
|
I just wonder if the damage output / monster hitpoints relationship never came up in playtesting. Of course I don't know at which power level playtesting was done, but most classes should be...
Check out Appendix 1 of the Bestiary. It pretty much lays out all of the assumptions and guidelines and rules we followed and used to build the monsters and determine what each CR really means.
I just wonder if the damage output / monster hitpoints relationship never came up in playtesting. Of course I don't know at which power level playtesting was done, but most classes should be...Check out Appendix 1 of the Bestiary. It pretty much lays out all of the assumptions and guidelines and rules we followed and used to build the monsters and determine what each CR really means.
Which is something I really like. I converted one of my homebrewed monsters and pretty much hit the CR I was aiming for when compared to the chart (had to increase it by +1 CR after tweaking the special abilities).
|
|
Just wanted to add how user-friendly the Bestiary is, especially the grab-and-go approach to universal monster rules along-side the elemental pages spread! Fabulous! This reminds me a lot of the old 1e days, when the GM would open the FF, or MM or MM2 and grab on-the-spot and run with little prep. The art is so inspirational, and the description quality is great. This brought me even more joy in last night's game. Thanks again!
I just wonder if the damage output / monster hitpoints relationship never came up in playtesting. Of course I don't know at which power level playtesting was done, but most classes should be...Check out Appendix 1 of the Bestiary. It pretty much lays out all of the assumptions and guidelines and rules we followed and used to build the monsters and determine what each CR really means.
Thanks, I'll do that. I'll make a playtest with some friends next week, too, to determine how damage output changes from 3.5 with high stats and many splat books to PFRPG core with 15 point characters. I'll report back on my findings. :)
I just got this in the mail yesterday and am overall fairly pleased with it so far. My one compliant is the stunning lack of the beholder. I bought this specifically because my group is about (after three years this month) to finish Age of Worms. I'm slated to run Shackled City, and we want to switch over to Pathfinder for this campaign. Anyone know what fate befell the beloved beholder?
|
|
Beholders are intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, and as such cannot be used by any third party. Your best bet is to get the number cranking and convert said beholder to PFRPG using the guidelines from the Bestiary and Conversion Guide.
For the very same reason, the following are missing:
- kuo toa
- mind flayer
- githzerai
- githyanki
- carrion crawler
- umber hulk
- displacer beast
- slaadi
Also, the names "eladrin" and "guardinal" are also WotC IP. However, the actual monsters are NOT, so you get your Bralani and Avornals, except that they are called Azatas and Agathions in Pathfinder.