Stupid question - in the 3.5 MM it was easy to tell between attack and full attack. With the Bestiary I'm mystified. When is it a full attack, when it is merely an attack (as a standard action), and when is it simply a several available attack options. Example: the Vrock reads this in its stat block (Bestiary p. 69):
Melee 2 claws +13(2d6+5), bite +13 (1d8+5), 2 talons +13 (1d6+5)
Are these options for its standard attack, or is this its full attack?
In MM 3.5 (p 48),this would have been its full attack.
Can anyone shed light on this question?
Thanks
That is it's full attack.
If it is taking a standard attack, it is pretty easy too. All you need to do is choose one attack and make it.
So if the monster was taking a standard action attack it could do one of the following:
1 claw +13(2d6+5) or
bite +13 (1d8+5) of
1 talon +13 (1d6+5)
|
That is it's full attack.If it is taking a standard attack, it is pretty easy too. All you need to do is choose one attack and make it.
So if the monster was taking a standard action attack it could do one of the following:
1 claw +13(2d6+5) or
bite +13 (1d8+5) of
1 talon +13 (1d6+5)
I agree. It's not difficult to work out if you've read the Core Rulebook. I thought the way the attacks set out in the Bestiary were an improvement on 3.5. Anything exceptional is pointed out either in the stat descriptor or in the special attacks section at the back of the book. Just MHO.
|
|
Stupid question - in the 3.5 MM it was easy to tell between attack and full attack. With the Bestiary I'm mystified. When is it a full attack, when it is merely an attack (as a standard action), and when is it simply a several available attack options. Example: the Vrock reads this in its stat block (Bestiary p. 69):
Melee 2 claws +13(2d6+5), bite +13 (1d8+5), 2 talons +13 (1d6+5)
Are these options for its standard attack, or is this its full attack?
In MM 3.5 (p 48),this would have been its full attack.
Can anyone shed light on this question?
Thanks
I don't think you needed to make the snarky comment stupid question, just be glad that others explained it to you succinctly above. Be nice, it doesn't hurt and it pays dividends. People here have been very helpful when I've had questions about stuff.
|
|
Your welcome. I forgot to mention this one, but I'm sure you get the idea.Especially like these ;) I didn't even know these tomes existed. Thanks Aaron.Thanks Paizo for you're hard work here and if you ever bring out a tome on detailed monster background, count me in.
Thanks again. One question. Are these books Golarion specific or could they be fit easily into any on going campaign?
Thanks again. One question. Are these books Golarion specific or could they be fit easily into any on going campaign?
The only one I have is Classic Monsters Revisited, but I assume that the other ones are much like it in this respect. Each <monster name> chapter has a section called "<monster name>s in Golarion," implying that the rest of the <monster name> chapter is NOT Golarion-specific...
...but somehow, Classic Monsters Revisited, I got the vibe that even the supposedly setting-agnostic majority of the book has a Golarion flavor. You could, of course, make your Faerun bugbears act like Golarion bugbears with this book, but somehow, I just felt like the authors had Golarion on their minds while they were writing the material.
I could swear that I saw, not too long ago, a post written by James Jacobs that said pretty much what I said. But unfortunately, I can't find it.
|
They are Golarion support material, but most things are so closely tied to the setting that you couldn't easily import them into another setting.
Er...I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. In the case of the Revisited books, there's actually a ton of stuff in the monster writeups that can be used in any setting. Sure, there are Golarion elements in there but for the most part, it's just good monster writing and a great resource for ideas on how to add story to the monsters.
|
Thanks again. One question. Are these books Golarion specific or could they be fit easily into any on going campaign?They are Golarion support material, but most things are so closely tied to the setting that you couldn't easily import them into another setting.
Ack! I mean to say that most things are NOT so closely tied to the setting that you couldn't easily import them into another setting.
|
|
Ack! I mean to say that most things are NOT so closely tied to the setting that you couldn't easily import them into another setting.Thanks again. One question. Are these books Golarion specific or could they be fit easily into any on going campaign?They are Golarion support material, but most things are so closely tied to the setting that you couldn't easily import them into another setting.
Thanks Kthulhu for the clarification and to everyone else above who commented.
Creative Director
|
All of our "Revisited" books present monsters (and in one case so far, treasures) that are classics of the genre or mythology, but since they're "revisited" we put our own spin on them.
That means that, while all of the contents of these books are designed to fit perfectly into Golarion (since the books themselves are part of the Golarion line of products), they should also work quite well with ANY campaign setting that uses the monster in question. We try to limit the specific mention of proper nouns (locations, deities, NPCs, etc.) that relate directly to Golarion in the "... on Golarion" parts of the book, though, but that shouldn't imply that the rest of the book is not Golarion-friendly. It should imply that the rest of the book is ALL-campaign friendly.
|
|
All of our "Revisited" books present monsters (and in one case so far, treasures) that are classics of the genre or mythology, but since they're "revisited" we put our own spin on them.
That means that, while all of the contents of these books are designed to fit perfectly into Golarion (since the books themselves are part of the Golarion line of products), they should also work quite well with ANY campaign setting that uses the monster in question. We try to limit the specific mention of proper nouns (locations, deities, NPCs, etc.) that relate directly to Golarion in the "... on Golarion" parts of the book, though, but that shouldn't imply that the rest of the book is not Golarion-friendly. It should imply that the rest of the book is ALL-campaign friendly.
Thanks James. I don't mind converting things to fit, and I love the fact that you gave these creatures a strong world view, that more than makes up for any Golarion conversion work. I'd love to see some monsters from the alien dimension HPL inspired works revisited. But I did note the Randolph Carter hints in the Pathfinder "The Great Beyond" source book about Dream dimensions. Kudos for that!
A pity.
This is the first pathfinder book that actually dissappointed me.
The artwork is marvelous as always, no flaws there. We've seen most of these monsters in other paizo books already but that doesn't mean they can't be used again. In fact I smiled as I saw monsters I could identify with certain afventures in the pages of this book.
However, the stat blocks for each monster are more often than not, cheap. In the effort to make every monster entry exactly one or two columns (A full page or half a page) long, there has been a lot of skipping and missing out of important information. In general this book is a good guideline on how to make your monsters, but if you're looking for ready to use monsters, you will likely find it lacking. Advanced versions of monsters like the dread wraith and mummy have been cut out, with guidelines on how to create them left around. You need to devote time to build a dragon of the color and age category you require him, and in general this book makes poor material for a new DM. I myself often refer to classic SRD monsters because I just can't be assed to spend the 5' required to attach a template to a monster and roll its hp to get my dread wraith.
A shame, but hey. After the glorious core book, can one really complain? I'm just miffed that, in my oppinion, this book isn't up to the usual pathfinder tier.
[/qq]
PS: Oh yeah, there are also mistakes in the stat blocks, or I've failed in calculating some of them. I think the balor had fudged attack bonuses but I'm not sure. I'll do an inspection when I get home and see if I can get back to you with specifics or with a humiliating 'I was wrong' apology post :P
Stupid question - in the 3.5 MM it was easy to tell between attack and full attack. With the Bestiary I'm mystified. When is it a full attack, when it is merely an attack (as a standard action), and when is it simply a several available attack options. Example: the Vrock reads this in its stat block (Bestiary p. 69):
Melee 2 claws +13(2d6+5), bite +13 (1d8+5), 2 talons +13 (1d6+5)
Are these options for its standard attack, or is this its full attack?
In MM 3.5 (p 48),this would have been its full attack.
Can anyone shed light on this question?
Thanks
That is its full attack. A standard attack is always only one attack, so for a standard attack, the Vrock would choose exactly one of those attacks.
|
A pity.
This is the first pathfinder book that actually dissappointed me.
However, the stat blocks for each monster are more often than not, cheap. In the effort to make every monster entry exactly one or two columns (A full page or half a page) long, there has been a lot of skipping and missing out of important information. In general this book is a good guideline on how to make your monsters, but if you're looking for ready to use monsters, you will likely find it lacking. Advanced versions of monsters like the dread wraith and mummy have been cut out, with guidelines on how to create them left around. You need to devote time to build a dragon of the color and age category you require him, and in general this book makes poor material for a new DM. I myself often refer to classic SRD monsters because I just can't be assed to spend the 5' required to attach a template to a monster and roll its hp to get my dread wraith.
The original MM had 1 statblock per dragon type and this book has 3 per each color, so ...
I'm not really convinced that lack of Dread Wraith and Mummies (which were wonky to begin with, due to 3.5's crap undead rules) are something that a new DM will have a problem with. Especially since those are higher CR monsters, and by the time you're running higher CR games statblock reconfiguration should be a maxed out skill :)
statblock reconfiguration should be a maxed out skill :)
I dissagree.
As it is, I already spend most of my free time planning the story of the campaign. If it takes me, an experienced GM 10-20 minutes to set up a simple encounter at lv 14 because I don't have ready monsters, then it will take me approximately 3-4 hours to prepare for an 8 hour session's encounters alone. That's 3-4 hours more than I have. Yes I will take time to plan a specific NPC or monster that is special or story-based or in some other way important (Like for example a dragon, so I'm not entirely miffed about the dragons thing), but I don't want to break my head over 'run off the mill' encounters.
I suppose I'll have to wait for the second bestiary.
I was wrong about the balor, I forgot to calculate size penalties :P
I've noticed other such disrepancies with some other creatures but it happens. I'm sure some of us still remember the horrible errors of monster manual 3.0
Whatever the case the purpose of my rant isn't to flame the book. It's a good book, just not what pathfinder core books and adventure paths had gotten me accustomed to. It seems rushed and lacking in content that, I for one consider important.
|
|
Whatever the case the purpose of my rant isn't to flame the book. It's a good book, just not what pathfinder core books and adventure paths had gotten me accustomed to. It seems rushed and lacking in content that, I for one consider important.
Actually this leads me to a more general question. There are a lot of monsters in 3.5 edition books that appear in the Bestiary and many that don't. Now I know there is a space issue and that is not what I'm talking about, as new PF bestiaries are on the publishing horizon. It's more to do with which monsters are specifically property of WOTC and which ones can be used under OGL. I noted that Beholders and Mind Flayers were missing for example, and yet Drow and Duergar were included.
Is there a specific list of open content monsters for OGL and ones that specifically cannot be used?
|
|
I'm pretty sure the monsters listed in the SRD are open content. Those not listed are closed content.
|
|
I'm pretty sure the monsters listed in the SRD are open content. Those not listed are closed content.
So much for Mind Flayers and Beholders then <sigh>!
|
|
The non-open monsters that WotC kept out of the SRD (and thus we can't do anything with) are:
Beholders
Carrion Crawlers
Displacer Beasts
Mind Flayers
Kuo-toa
Githyanki
Githzerai
Umber Hulks
Yuan-Ti
SlaadiAnd I always feel like I forget one whenever I type that list out.
Mind Flayers = Cthulhu Spawn. Dragon shaped medium humanoids with octopoid heads, tentacles and wings and deadly mind attacks would substitute.
Slaadi = Entropians. Creatures formed from the maelstrom stuff, ever changing and not remotely resembling toads.
Githyanki/Githzerai = Estranged Ones. Once enslaved by Cthulhu spawn and now lawful "weakly neutral" planar warriors seeking revenge and/or enlightenment by acts of prowess. One side split toward goodly law and the other to evil law. The former acting as Astral guides and the latter as astral ravagers.
Displacer Beasts = Elusive Ravagers. Another kind of beast with displacemnt abilities but resembling nothing like a displacer beats.
Carrion Crawlers = Any type of vermin that live in sewers and can paralyze with a touch attack.
Beholders = Sorcerans. Aberrant flying beasts with tentacles that can fire magic rays or surpress magic within a radius of their position,
Yuan-Ti = Ophidiax(Pl. Ophidia). Intelligent serpent creatures
Umber Hulks = Elemental Devourers. Different physiognomy but with similar CR and abilities
Kuo-Toa = Pisceans. Intelligent underworld fish creatures
There you are a list made just for Pathfinder and for no charge, being that everything written here becomes your property by default ;)
Seriously it took me 5 minutes to knock together. Hope it gives a little food for thought. ;0
|
Creative Director
|
While I'm not particularly filled with an urge to replace the non-SRD monsters officially, it has more or less been a natural extension of the way things worked out since a lot of those non-SRD monsters have pretty iconic niches in the game.
Here's the more or less "official" replacements, as they've developed. Note that these monsters don't really duplicate the exact CR or stats or attacks of the creatures they replace as much as they fill the same role—intellect devourers as mind-eating slavers who have underground cities replacing mind flayers, for example, or the chaotic neutral outsider Proteans replacing slaadi. This is on purpose. While we want these monster niches to be officially represented in the game, we also don't want to duplicate or imply an "overwriting" or "obsoletion" of the non-SRD monsters. Because mind flayers and githyanki and the rest should work really well and should fit right in to Pathfinder and Golarion, to be honest. There's nothing preventing GMs from using these monsters in their home games, after all. We just can't use them in our products.
Beholder: No replacement yet, really.
Carrion Crawler: Giant rot grub, from Pathifnder #25's bestiary.
Displacer Beast: Couerl, from Pathfinder #22's bestiary (or alternatively, the kamadan from Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors)
Mind Flayer: Intellect Devourers
Kuo-toa: Skum
Githyanki: Denizens of Leng (from Pathfinder #6)
Githzerai: No replacement yet, really.
Umber Hulk: Seugathi (from Into the Darklands)
Slaadi: Proteans (from Pathfinder #22 and The Great Beyond)
Yuan-Ti: Serpentfolk (from Into the Darklands)
|
|
Beholder: No replacement yet, really.
Giant xenophobic hypermagical aberration seems like it's covered by a number of OGL monsters. Not a big need for 'em, if you ask me.
Displacer Beast: Couerl, from Pathfinder #22's bestiary
Which is, ironically, the original source-inspiration for Displacer Beasts.
Mind Flayer: Intellect Devourers
Neothelids fill the important Illithid niche for me, in Golarion.
Githyanki: Denizens of Leng (from Pathfinder #6)
Githzerai: No replacement yet, really.
And, since the Githzerai are, in large part, defined by the opposition to the Githyanki, I think it's more effort than it's worth to try and derive a suitable oppositional race from Lovecraft's mythos. I mean, what're the canon options? Cats from Saturn? Dudes of Dylath-Leen? Beh. We can live without Githzerai.
|
Beholder: No replacement yet, really.
Carrion Crawler: Giant rot grub, from Pathifnder #25's bestiary.
Displacer Beast: Couerl, from Pathfinder #22's bestiary (or alternatively, the kamadan from Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors)
Mind Flayer: Intellect Devourers
Kuo-toa: Skum
Githyanki: Denizens of Leng (from Pathfinder #6)
Githzerai: No replacement yet, really.
Umber Hulk: Seugathi (from Into the Darklands)
Slaadi: Proteans (from Pathfinder #22 and The Great Beyond)
Yuan-Ti: Serpentfolk (from Into the Darklands)
Nice list. And I was already a big fan of both Intellect Devourers and Serpent Folk. I never realized that the Denizens of Leng were fill-ins for the Githyanki, but it makes perfect sence.
|
|
The irony here is that yuan-ti in many ways were a rip of Howard's Serpent men and you guys bypassed the whole deal went straight to the source and made true Serpent Men for PFRPG. I personally think it's great that if you cannot replicate (due to IP issues) certain creatures you can make beasties which fit the creature concepts - maybe better than the originals.
I would like to see the intellect devourer expanded and maybe create slave bred race as servants or hosts - maybe rider bodies they have bred for war, retrievals, etc.
And yeah, I get it. You have to watch out for other companies IPs, oftentimes their source material being ripped-off from other sources (LotR, Sindbad, etc)
|
|
While I'm not particularly filled with an urge to replace the non-SRD monsters officially, it has more or less been a natural extension of the way things worked out since a lot of those non-SRD monsters have pretty iconic niches in the game.
Here's the more or less "official" replacements, as they've developed. Note that these monsters don't really duplicate the exact CR or stats or attacks of the creatures they replace as much as they fill the same role—intellect devourers as mind-eating slavers who have underground cities replacing mind flayers, for example, or the chaotic neutral outsider Proteans replacing slaadi. This is on purpose. While we want these monster niches to be officially represented in the game, we also don't want to duplicate or imply an "overwriting" or "obsoletion" of the non-SRD monsters. Because mind flayers and githyanki and the rest should work really well and should fit right in to Pathfinder and Golarion, to be honest. There's nothing preventing GMs from using these monsters in their home games, after all. We just can't use them in our products.
Beholder: No replacement yet, really.
Carrion Crawler: Giant rot grub, from Pathifnder #25's bestiary.
Displacer Beast: Couerl, from Pathfinder #22's bestiary (or alternatively, the kamadan from Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors)
Mind Flayer: Intellect Devourers
Kuo-toa: Skum
Githyanki: Denizens of Leng (from Pathfinder #6)
Githzerai: No replacement yet, really.
Umber Hulk: Seugathi (from Into the Darklands)
Slaadi: Proteans (from Pathfinder #22 and The Great Beyond)
Yuan-Ti: Serpentfolk (from Into the Darklands)
Well you can't say I didn't give it a shot :) Although for the Entropians I was thinking about the creatures met by Walter Gilman in his Dreams in the Witch House by HPL. The strange iridescent bubble congeries and strange inexplicably dimensioned polyhedron creatures that try to lead him further and further into the primal Chaos of Azathoth. The Maelstrom in Pathfinder Chronicles reminds me of that place beyond existence where the stuff of madness and nightmares lurk, a place beyond existence and comprehension that even the gods shun. The same place that Halpin Chalmer's awoke the notice of the Hounds of Tindalos by Frank Belknap Long, by taking a mystical drug that enabled those foul beasts to follow him back through the spheres from where they had been hungering for eternities unaware of things beyond themselves.
To me, it conjured up a lot of ideas about the Pathfinder cosmos which is more in line with the Mythos idea than any other 3.5 Plane concept. Just some thoughts.
|
|
They certainly can... but the intellect devourer is a better fit for the mind flayer niche when it comes to CR and how they interact with humanity.Neothelids fill the important Illithid niche for me, in Golarion.
The trouble with intellect devourers is their small size. You kind of look at one and think ... Whose a little cute then. I'll just get your leash, then lets go for walkies. ;)
|
|
Beholder: No replacement yet, really.
Carrion Crawler: Giant rot grub, from Pathifnder #25's bestiary.
Displacer Beast: Couerl, from Pathfinder #22's bestiary (or alternatively, the kamadan from Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors)
Mind Flayer: Intellect Devourers
Kuo-toa: Skum
Githyanki: Denizens of Leng (from Pathfinder #6)
Githzerai: No replacement yet, really.
Umber Hulk: Seugathi (from Into the Darklands)
Slaadi: Proteans (from Pathfinder #22 and The Great Beyond)
Yuan-Ti: Serpentfolk (from Into the Darklands)
OK, I can't square the circle between the Denizens of Leng and the Githyanki and I have to disagree with one poster's point that the Giths are not important. I've found they fill a great hole in Astral/Planar encounter creatures. Admittedly I don't have the stats for the denizens of Leng that Paizo have produced as I don't have Pathfinder #6. I'm hoping a lot of new monsters like these will be eventually incorporated into future bestiaries.
But if Denizens of Leng in PF are like Githyanki then they are a taking a huge departure from their original role. Are we talking about the horned, small footed (i.e. hoofed) dark sallow and malignant looking mariners in the black ships who trade with huge rubies and kidnap folks to feed the alien aberrations on the dark side of the Moon. The very servants of Nyarlathotep, whom the Cats of Ulthar rescued Randolph Carter from?
I'm wondering because some of your examples are fair enough but others don't gel for me.
|
|
Are we talking about the horned, small footed (i.e. hoofed) dark sallow and malignant looking mariners in the black ships who trade with huge rubies and kidnap folks to feed the alien aberrations on the dark side of the Moon. The very servants of Nyarlathotep, whom the Cats of Ulthar rescued Randolph Carter from?
Thems the buggers.
|
|
Are we talking about the horned, small footed (i.e. hoofed) dark sallow and malignant looking mariners in the black ships who trade with huge rubies and kidnap folks to feed the alien aberrations on the dark side of the Moon. The very servants of Nyarlathotep, whom the Cats of Ulthar rescued Randolph Carter from?
Thems the buggers.
Thought so. That doesn't cover the Githyanki niche really. Githyanki like their sundered relatives the Githzerai are fiercely independent creatures knowing what it was like to be thralls of the Mind Flayers. The Leng creatures are slaves of the foul creatures they aerve to feed them with living creatures.
Plus I am particularly partial to the Giths (invented in the UK by Games Workshop's "Fiend Factory" section of the White Dwarf magazine,
I shall miss the Giths, because if I ever want to publish OGL stuff myself I won't be able to use 'em ;(
|
Creative Director
|
What the Denizens of Leng DO cover is the niche of an extraplanar race of slavers/raiders. Like I said before, NONE of these are intended to replace the non-SRD monsters, just fill vacancies they filled.
Kind of like how if there's a bunch of great white sharks cruising the off-shore waters of a beach, but then they go away only to be replaced by big crocodiles. Different critter, same basic terror.
|
|
What the Denizens of Leng DO cover is the niche of an extraplanar race of slavers/raiders. Like I said before, NONE of these are intended to replace the non-SRD monsters, just fill vacancies they filled.
Kind of like how if there's a bunch of great white sharks cruising the off-shore waters of a beach, but then they go away only to be replaced by big crocodiles. Different critter, same basic terror.
Hey James. I understand where you're coming from here, and these issues are yours and Paizo's call. I mean I can still use 3.5 monsters in my personal gaming sessions, but they cannot be used in published material except by WOTC.
What we need to do, I guess, is get a little more creative ourselves and build from the ground up beasties that become as iconic as say the Beholder and the Mind Flayer did for TSR when Gygax released the first Monster Manual all those years ago.
I'm also very surprised that WOTC allowed the use of the Drow which have become almost legendary in the great game since their inception by Gygax in D3 Vault of the Drow and Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
I hope we'll be seeing abundant novels about adventures in Golarion by great fantasy authors like R.A. Salvatore.
But I'm a true believer that creativity has no bounds and that fluff, which myself, being English confuses me as it's meaning is different in Britain - but correct me if I'm wrong - I think it means "non rule background material". If this is what is meant then this is immensely important in breathing life into any fantasy world. This is why Tolkien is so well-loved by many. The huge mythic background behind his world makes Lord of the Rings almost seem a reality in its own right(though I know you're not too keen on LOTR yourself).
But the point I made earlier in another thread is that Paizo have made great efforts even in the limited space available in Bestiaries to give some life to creatures and a believable raison d'etre which was absent in many of the fine monsters of the Monster Manuals of WOTC.
An example I particularly liked was the reference to the Gibbering Mouther being a possible lesser offshoot of the horrific Shoggoth. I'm hoping that future bestiaries will include monsters introduced in the various Golarion modules and accessories.
Finally don't please don't stop bringing out further Pathfinder Core books (i.e. not specifically Golarion based), because I'm already champing at the bit to get my grubby hands on your Gamesmastery and Players guides, not to mention the Bestiary II which I'll have to salivate about until October at the least ;(.
But I know the bottom line is sales, so for mine and Paizo's sake let these be huge. Take care. Mark