We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on. No sense reinventing the wheel and forcing us and you to relearn where everything goes.
CMD you say. Aha.
We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on. No sense reinventing the wheel and forcing us and you to relearn where everything goes.CMD you say. Aha.
Weird...I made a similar observation and it was deleted!
Weird...I made a similar observation and it was deleted!We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on. No sense reinventing the wheel and forcing us and you to relearn where everything goes.CMD you say. Aha.
Hmm? Do you mean this one?
Hmm? Do you mean this one?Weird...I made a similar observation and it was deleted!We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on. No sense reinventing the wheel and forcing us and you to relearn where everything goes.CMD you say. Aha.
O.K., maybe I'm just having crazy browser caching problems or something...never mind.
I had a post that did something weird in another thread as well.
But back to CMD -- wah?!
CMD is probably a prefigured 15 + CMB + other modifiers (feats, racial bonuses, etc.) for quick GM use.
For example, a creature with a CMB of +5 and the Defensive Combat Training feat might have a CMD entry of:
CMD 20 (24 vs. bullrush, grapple, trip)
CMD is probably a prefigured 15 + CMB + other modifiers (feats, racial bonuses, etc.) for quick GM use.
I wouldn't be surprised if they clarified which bonuses apply to CMB/CMD, though (e.g. anything that boosts your touch AC also boosts your CMD, for instance). Just idle speculation, though.
I met Jason at last years GenCon, and we talked a little bit about CMBs.. and monster design.
At that time (and granted that was a LONG time ago), he alluded to Monster Only feats.. and streamlining monsters so that they no longer were encumbered with skills that weren't as relevant to their actual encounter value. Which is a concept that 4E uses, why load up a monster with skills that don't have encounter value.
From the comments that James Jacobs has made, monsters won't be too radically different from 3.5, but I'd love to hear about the ways in which they are different..
One comment Jason shared at Gencon was the delimmia of entangling / grappling monsters. I can't actually quote him, but he pointed out that in 3.5 they're often either way too good at it and resistance is futile.. or they're not good enough. He wanted to tweak that a little, and we might not see that until the Bestiary.
With the Bonus Bestiary not that far away, I imagine there are some finalized ideas concerning this that were only being conceptualized last August.
I'd love to hear how it all shook it out. Perhaps this would be a good Blog Entry soon?
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
The monsters will be presented in alphabetical order, and that includes animals and vermin. Beyond that, I hope to be able to include an index of monsters, a list of monsters by CR, a list of monsters by creature type, and a list of monsters by terrain/climate. I'd also love to include some wandering monster tables; that actually might be a fun way to list the monsters by terrain/climate, actually. How much ROOM we'll have to do all this... I'm not sure yet. If we have to cut something, we'll probably cut the terrain/climate lists first, then the CR list, and so on.
I would just like to cry out in favor of having a really good index. The state of indices in RPG books is woefully inadequate (especially the later 3.5 WotC books, which mostly didn't even have them). I would *much* rather sacrifice a couple of monsters to the Bestiary II in order to get more lists of monsters. In particular, I find the CR list to be absolutely essential when trying to write my own adventures.
Well, unless it is all done and dusted by now, a few wishes ...
- Please keep the tieflings (if they are in there) as they were in the 3,5E MM. No "must-have horns and tails" as in 4E please.
- If possible, offer variants of e.g. the half-fiends, since a default glabrezu-related half-fiend will surely look different to a succubus related one, won't they?
- Keep the erinyes as they were in 3,5E (or even better the Planescape Monstrous Manual, with polymorph self (or a succubus-like change shape), plane-shift, limited numbers et al). No mixing up with the succubi please.
- Keep the mariliths as they were in the good old days too, i.e. again with polymorph self (or the like). You can hardly get better guild-leaders and evil-doers from "outer space" of their CR ranking than them,IMHO.
Speaking of the polymorphing and change-shaping, please make sure that the ability description clears up what the changed outsider retains and what s/he does not. (That is, ability stats, special abilities et al. 3,5E was not that clear on that, or "nerfed" some of the polymorphed folk quite a bit.)
Creative Director
|
Actually I was hoping for a revision of feats for monsters. For characters feat progression is 1/2, instead of 1/3. Giving monsters more flavor feats could have been an option. The examples in "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bonus Bestiary" does not indicate such an effort so I am a little dissappointed.
Monsters in the final game gain feats at the same rate as PCs in PFRPG. Since they gain feats at all odd numbered levels, though, this wouldn't be obvious until a creature hits 5 HD, at which point they should have 3 feats.
|
Creative Director
|
Well, unless it is all done and dusted by now, a few wishes ...
- Please keep the tieflings (if they are in there) as they were in the 3,5E MM. No "must-have horns and tails" as in 4E please.
- If possible, offer variants of e.g. the half-fiends, since a default glabrezu-related half-fiend will surely look different to a succubus related one, won't they?
Make sure to check out Pathfinder #25. There's a big article about tieflings in there, including rules for tieflings of variant heritages (a devil tiefling is different than a demon tiefling is different than a rakshasa tiefling, etc.), as well as lots of discussion about variant tiefling appearances.
That said, many tieflings will have horns and tails; that's sort of been the way things go for tieflings since long before 4th edition, and it's generally the "typical" tiefling look. And some of them will look relatively similar to the 4E look simply because the 4E look is more omnipresent at this time, and since we use a lot of artists that WotC uses. That said, our tieflings will mostly look pretty different from one another, generally.
Make sure to check out Pathfinder #25. There's a big article about tieflings in there, including rules for tieflings of variant heritages (a devil tiefling is different than a demon tiefling is different than a rakshasa tiefling, etc.), as well as lots of discussion about variant tiefling appearances.
That said, many tieflings will have horns and tails; that's sort of been the way things go for tieflings since long before 4th edition, and it's generally the "typical" tiefling look. And some of them will look relatively similar to the 4E look simply because the 4E look is more omnipresent at this time, and since we use a lot of artists that WotC uses. That said, our tieflings will mostly look pretty different from one another, generally.
(Emphasis above added by me)
NOW you do this ::laughing:: A Rakshasa tiefling is exactly what I was working on for a character in Second Darkness, but neither my DM nor I was thrilled with the base Tiefling abilites making a good fit ... so we made a bloodline from the rules in Unearthed Arcana that has been working. But I'll definitely have to take a look at these new lovely rules and talk to my DM to see what she wants to do and if she wants me to readjust the character :)
I know we've said it before, but PAIZO RULES!!
|
Creative Director
|
Cool! There's actaully 10 different fiendish heritages for tieflings in Pathfinder #25. They're not super detailed (and if memory serves, are basically not much more than changes to the ability score modifiers, but there MIGHT be a little more to them), but the 100 different variant tiefling abilities should cover what anyone needs to make weird custom tieflings.
Actually I was hoping for a revision of feats for monsters. For characters feat progression is 1/2, instead of 1/3. Giving monsters more flavor feats could have been an option. The examples in "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bonus Bestiary" does not indicate such an effort so I am a little dissappointed.
Actually the opposite is true. Take a look, for example, at the dragonne. Its feats are listed as Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Flyby Attack, Improved Inititive, and Power Attack, for a total of five feats. It hat 9 hit dice, which implies one feat plus one for each two hit dice beyond the first, just as with PCs (HD 1, 3, 5, 7, 9). In 3.5 a 9 hit dice monster would have only four feats (HD 1, 3, 6, 9).
Actually I was hoping for a revision of feats for monsters. For characters feat progression is 1/2, instead of 1/3. Giving monsters more flavor feats could have been an option. The examples in "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bonus Bestiary" does not indicate such an effort so I am a little dissappointed.Actually the opposite is true. Take a look, for example, at the dragonne. Its feats are listed as Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Flyby Attack, Improved Inititive, and Power Attack, for a total of five feats. It hat 9 hit dice, which implies one feat plus one for each two hit dice beyond the first, just as with PCs (HD 1, 3, 5, 7, 9). In 3.5 a 9 hit dice monster would have only four feats (HD 1, 3, 6, 9).
I believe Selcuk was talking about presenting new monster specific feats like one could find in one of the Monsters Revisited books.
|
Creative Director
|
I believe Selcuk was talking about presenting new monster specific feats like one could find in one of the Monsters Revisited books.Actually I was hoping for a revision of feats for monsters. For characters feat progression is 1/2, instead of 1/3. Giving monsters more flavor feats could have been an option. The examples in "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bonus Bestiary" does not indicate such an effort so I am a little dissappointed.Actually the opposite is true. Take a look, for example, at the dragonne. Its feats are listed as Blind-Fight, Combat Reflexes, Flyby Attack, Improved Inititive, and Power Attack, for a total of five feats. It hat 9 hit dice, which implies one feat plus one for each two hit dice beyond the first, just as with PCs (HD 1, 3, 5, 7, 9). In 3.5 a 9 hit dice monster would have only four feats (HD 1, 3, 6, 9).
Ah. Stuff like Improved Natural Attack and Hover and Awesome Blow. Yup; those'll be in the Bestiary book.
I was going to my bookshelf to grab PF #25 and look up the article when I realized that this volume isn't even out yet ... what a sad day!
I look at the cover, and am amused... That is one messed up Encounter - a marilith, troll, and a handful of goblins. Either the PCs are messing themselves over the marilith, or laughing at the pathetic goblins.
It's a gorgeous illustration, but it's a weird assortment.
|
I look at the cover, and am amused... That is one messed up Encounter - a marilith, troll, and a handful of goblins. Either the PCs are messing themselves over the marilith, or laughing at the pathetic goblins.
It's a gorgeous illustration, but it's a weird assortment.
Don't underestimate Glerp, high priest of the demon lord Abraxas, or his troll monk bodyguard and the marilith Abraxas sent to watch his boy's back!!
|
...And some of them will look relatively similar to the 4E look simply because the 4E look is more omnipresent at this time, and since we use a lot of artists that WotC uses. That said, our tieflings will mostly look pretty different from one another, generally.
James, it seems odd to address you without first thanking you for all you have done, and all you continue to do. Paizo products are the finest quality through and through.
That said, should an opportunity to modify tiefling art specifcations for an artist arise, please do what can be done to avoid butt headed tieflings. (Less Bib Fortuna and more Glasya, please.) As my players do patronize places such as the Golden Goblin, and houses of ill repute, and would prefer that their consorts remain classically Riddleportesque.
Many thanks again,
For all you do,
-Pax-
|
|
but the 100 different variant tiefling abilities should cover what anyone needs to make weird custom tieflings.
Okay, THAT RIGHT THERE! That right there is what I've missed for tieflings since 3.x rolled around! I've been aching for something like that old Planar Heroes article from Dragon to come around for third edition for a long time!
And it should provide a good launching pad for people to adapt and make variant lists for the other planetouched races, like the aasimar!
|
Creative Director
|
I look at the cover, and am amused... That is one messed up Encounter - a marilith, troll, and a handful of goblins. Either the PCs are messing themselves over the marilith, or laughing at the pathetic goblins.
It's a gorgeous illustration, but it's a weird assortment.
It's not meant to be a picture of an encounter, of course... it's meant to be a cool cover.
|
Creative Director
|
James, it seems odd to address you without first thanking you for all you have done, and all you continue to do. Paizo products are the finest quality through and through.
That said, should an opportunity to modify tiefling art specifcations for an artist arise, please do what can be done to avoid butt headed tieflings. (Less Bib Fortuna and more Glasya, please.) As my players do patronize places such as the Golden Goblin, and houses of ill repute, and would prefer that their consorts remain classically Riddleportesque.
We'll do what we can, but sometimes art comes in very late and there's no time to fix it. I'm pretty happy with the tiefling art we've got so far across all products, and some of them DO look similar to 4th edition's tieflings, and some of them DO look similar to Warcraft's draenai. And that said, some of them look like Lavender Lil.
It's not meant to be a picture of an encounter, of course... it's meant to be a cool cover.I look at the cover, and am amused... That is one messed up Encounter - a marilith, troll, and a handful of goblins. Either the PCs are messing themselves over the marilith, or laughing at the pathetic goblins.
It's a gorgeous illustration, but it's a weird assortment.
However, it does sound like one of the sample encounters from the 4E Monster Manual . . .
I look at the cover, and am amused... That is one messed up Encounter - a marilith, troll, and a handful of goblins. Either the PCs are messing themselves over the marilith, or laughing at the pathetic goblins.
Really? How do you know those goblins aren't all 10th-level fighters?
Really? How do you know those goblins aren't all 10th-level fighters?
They certainly could be, but that'd be against the spirit of the Golarion Goblin, as expressed in Classic Monsters Revisited. Just sayin'. It's an awesome cover. I just find the collection of monsters vaguely amusing, assuming that it is one encounter....
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Really? How do you know those goblins aren't all 10th-level fighters?They certainly could be, but that'd be against the spirit of the Golarion Goblin, as expressed in Classic Monsters Revisited. Just sayin'. It's an awesome cover. I just find the collection of monsters vaguely amusing, assuming that it is one encounter....
The monsters don't know that, because most of them have not read the rules yet.
|
Well, unless it is all done and dusted by now, a few wishes ...
- Please keep the tieflings (if they are in there) as they were in the 3,5E MM. No "must-have horns and tails" as in 4E please.
- If possible, offer variants of e.g. the half-fiends, since a default glabrezu-related half-fiend will surely look different to a succubus related one, won't they?
Make sure to check out Pathfinder #25. There's a big article about tieflings in there, including rules for tieflings of variant heritages (a devil tiefling is different than a demon tiefling is different than a rakshasa tiefling, etc.), as well as lots of discussion about variant tiefling appearances.
That said, many tieflings will have horns and tails; that's sort of been the way things go for tieflings since long before 4th edition, and it's generally the "typical" tiefling look. And some of them will look relatively similar to the 4E look simply because the 4E look is more omnipresent at this time, and since we use a lot of artists that WotC uses. That said, our tieflings will mostly look pretty different from one another, generally.
Very cool to hear about tieflings. I hope paizo does a planer book ala GR's Races of Renown Aasamir and Tieflings. One thing I always wanted was a book that not only did each of those as different looks but powers depending by what they come from.
I mean yeah great you mention devil and demon ones look different ect, and I know the space was limited in the PF AP. But if you do one of those books and I hope you do, I do hope you break them up more. I mean a tiefling of a succubus heritage should have different abilities and look that one from a Vrock as a example.
Yeah I know that is more likely wishful thinking but sometimes you guys have given me my wishful thinking. :D
Must...have...
The monsters don't know that, because most of them have not read the rules yet.
^_^ Indeed.
|
Creative Director
|
Hey wait:
Will the Bestiary itself have bits like the Nixie had on how to re-envision certain monsters to be closer to their mythological roots? For some creatures, at least?
Because the Erinyes would be awesome to easily convert to the Furies right out of the box.
Those bits will be in the Bestiary here and there, but they generally won't be called out as such in the same way the Nixie's was. They'll be more integrated into the monster's flavor... as in the case of the Erinyes being the Furies.
|
|
Those bits will be in the Bestiary here and there, but they generally won't be called out as such in the same way the Nixie's was. They'll be more integrated into the monster's flavor... as in the case of the Erinyes being the Furies.Hey wait:
Will the Bestiary itself have bits like the Nixie had on how to re-envision certain monsters to be closer to their mythological roots? For some creatures, at least?
Because the Erinyes would be awesome to easily convert to the Furies right out of the box.
I'd love to see a monster entry that read: "Erinyes (Eumenides)..."
To buy, or not to buy...
Since I decided to switch to 4E, BUT keep Golarion as my home world, I would like to know (better yet, see) if that bestiary would be a good addon for my collection.
Is it all stats and tactics, or is it explicative text mostly? Could this bestiary be interesting for a 4E GM, or should I stick with the "Monster Revised" books?
Can I hope for a couple of pages as preview, or just (awesome) pictures?
- Zorg
To buy, or not to buy...
Since I decided to switch to 4E, BUT keep Golarion as my home world, I would like to know (better yet, see) if that bestiary would be a good addon for my collection.
Is it all stats and tactics, or is it explicative text mostly? Could this bestiary be interesting for a 4E GM, or should I stick with the "Monster Revised" books?
Can I hope for a couple of pages as preview, or just (awesome) pictures?
- Zorg
You check out the Bonus Bestiary yet?
|
Creative Director
|
To buy, or not to buy...
Since I decided to switch to 4E, BUT keep Golarion as my home world, I would like to know (better yet, see) if that bestiary would be a good addon for my collection.
Is it all stats and tactics, or is it explicative text mostly? Could this bestiary be interesting for a 4E GM, or should I stick with the "Monster Revised" books?
Can I hope for a couple of pages as preview, or just (awesome) pictures?
- Zorg
The majority of the monsters are on a one-page format. The Bonus Bestiary Hank mentions above is a great preview of the format (although the actual format in the book is more refined and pretty).
So, for the majority of the monsters, you'll get a page that's about 1/3 illustration, 1/3 stats, and 1/3 flavor text. The ratios are fluid; simple monsters have more flavor text, and complex ones more stats, but for the most part the Bestiary should work pretty well for a 4E GM who's looking for some more art and some more flavor text to enhance his game.
That, and there are quite a few monsters in the Bestiary that aren't in 4E yet that I'm aware of...
I feel confident that the dragons rate more than a single page each. Right? Right?
And Silver Dragons should get a FIVE page spread! Us poor Silver Dragons deserve such focus on ourselves!
~GRINS~
|
Creative Director
|
I feel confident that the dragons rate more than a single page each. Right? Right?
Ayup!
Each dragon gets 2 pages. And there's an extra 2 pages that talks about how dragons work with their complicated age category stuff.
There's full stat blocks for a young, adult, and old dragon of each type, in any case, so that should more or less cover the "out of the book" needs for handy stats.
I feel confident that the dragons rate more than a single page each. Right? Right?Ayup!
Each dragon gets 2 pages. And there's an extra 2 pages that talks about how dragons work with their complicated age category stuff.
There's full stat blocks for a young, adult, and old dragon of each type, in any case, so that should more or less cover the "out of the book" needs for handy stats.
Cool! ~looks at the Black and Red Dragons, then beats them down and takes a page from each to be applied to the Silver Dragon spread~
The majority of the monsters are on a one-page format. The Bonus Bestiary Hank mentions above is a great preview of the format (although the actual format in the book is more refined and pretty).So, for the majority of the monsters, you'll get a page that's about 1/3 illustration, 1/3 stats, and 1/3 flavor text. The ratios are fluid; simple monsters have more flavor text, and complex ones more stats, but for the most part the Bestiary should work pretty well for a 4E GM who's looking for some more art and some more flavor text to enhance his game.
That, and there are quite a few monsters in the Bestiary that aren't in 4E yet that I'm aware of...
There's a lot of monsters that are missing from 4E.
I looked at the Bonus Bestiary and it looks like I'll get myself a PDF version of the Bestiary after all.
Thanks for that preview.
- Zorg
|
CEO
|
There's a lot of monsters that are missing from 4E.
I looked at the Bonus Bestiary and it looks like I'll get myself a PDF version of the Bestiary after all.
Thanks for that preview.
- Zorg
One thing I think needs to be clarified is that the monsters in the Bonus Bestiary will NOT be in the Bestiary that we print for September. They were monsters that just missed the cut, so we put out the Bonus Bestiary as a way of getting them in print. The front page of the Bonus Bestiary is confusing, making it seem like the monsters in the Bonus Bestiary will be in the hardback when it is printed, but that is not the case. The Bonus Bestiary will be the only place to get those monsters for probably a year or so!
Just trying to clarify.
-Lisa