Wow, that's a gorgeous cover! :)
+1
Nice cover, now that is an awesome undead(ghost?) dragon.
Awesome cover :D
I gues it was wishful thinking that it was another type of undead dragon.
Awesome, two undead dragons for the price of one(book).
Out of curiosity, will this book explain the difference between the spectre and the wraith, and what leads to someone rising as one or the other sort of undead?
It's Paizo's version of the Death Knight. The write up is in the Bestiary section of one of the Council of Thieves books...I think it's part 3.Carrion Crown is the Adventure Path that starts in February, after Serpent's Skull ends. It's set in Ustalav. Where the horror lives.Book sounds awesome! More undead is always a good thing in my mind.
But...Carrion Crown? This I had not heard.
Good news! Hammer Horror, here comes Paizo!
But what is the 'graveknight', and does it even have a writeup as yet?
Ah cool. I've always liked Death Knights, and was sad to see them missing.
Anyone have a list (or know?) all the monsters that are TSR/WotC Original copyrighted creations (or at least copyrighted... Mind Flayers look too much like something out of Lovecraft for me to 100% like that they belong exclusively to /WotC)
|
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creature
IS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creatureIS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
ha that's cool (the death knight/grave knight being same creator).
Though, around 2070 or so (not sure the exact year Mind Flayers were created, but 95 years after that) WotC will lose Mind Flayers... unless Disney wins their lawsuit (and maybe even then, not sure if mind flayers are the same as Mickey Mouse, they aren't the very icon and most recognized identity of WotC)
I just always see Mind Flayers and think Lovecraft created them.
|
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creatureIS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
ha that's cool (the death knight/grave knight being same creator).
Though, around 2070 or so (not sure the exact year Mind Flayers were created, but 95 years after that) WotC will lose Mind Flayers... unless Disney wins their lawsuit (and maybe even then, not sure if mind flayers are the same as Mickey Mouse, they aren't the very icon and most recognized identity of WotC)
I just always see Mind Flayers and think Lovecraft created them.
Believe me, graveknight is the best version of death knight to date! I think mr. Drader (insane though he may be! ;)) really gets how templates should be designed and how the abilities can be made to scale with HD. I'll go even so far as to say it's the best published template I've seen (in 3E or PF), and the mechanics really capture the feel of this classic monster!
|
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creatureIS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
I think the original Death Knight was designed by Charles Stross.
From Wikipedia:
Charles Stross created the Death Knight for the 1981 AD&D supplement Fiend Folio. In a review in White Dwarf magazine, Jamie Thompson referred to the Death Knight as one of the more interesting additions in the book, "a kind of evil paladin".
|
|
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creatureIS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
I think the original Death Knight was designed by Charles Stross.
From Wikipedia:
Charles Stross created the Death Knight for the 1981 AD&D supplement Fiend Folio. In a review in White Dwarf magazine, Jamie Thompson referred to the Death Knight as one of the more interesting additions in the book, "a kind of evil paladin".
Notice I wrote "WotC Deathknight" instead of "TSR Deathknight" or "D&D Deathknight".
I'm a lawyer. Double-check anything I write.
The irony is that WotC Deathknight and Paizo Graveknight were designed by the very same person, Darrin Drader.
As for "what is copyrighted" by WotC, the formula is:
Anything published by WotC that is NOT:
- in d20 srd
- in Tome of Horrors I by Necromancer Games
- isn't a mythical/historical/cryptozoological creatureIS closed content. Few corner cases and exceptions, of course.
I think the original Death Knight was designed by Charles Stross.
From Wikipedia:
Charles Stross created the Death Knight for the 1981 AD&D supplement Fiend Folio. In a review in White Dwarf magazine, Jamie Thompson referred to the Death Knight as one of the more interesting additions in the book, "a kind of evil paladin".
Notice I wrote "WotC Deathknight" instead of "TSR Deathknight" or "D&D Deathknight".
I'm a lawyer. Double-check anything I write.
Yeah cause the original was just a monster with set stats, whereas WotC's 3.x version was a template so you could make your own paladin or other class turned death knight.
I'm getting this with Wake of the Watcher this month. I can't wait to mentally devour its contents. And I have a request if it can be done: If there are enough of them in the OGL can we get an Aberrations Revisited book?
Let's see we have:
Aboleth (I don't recall if they were covered in any other book)
Choker
Chuul
Cloaker
Ettercap
Froghemoth
Gibbering Mouther
Intellect Devourer
Nagas
Neothelid
Otyugh
Roper
And that's just me flipping through the first Bestiary and picking aberrations that I don't recalling appearing in any other Revisited product.
If there are enough of them in the OGL can we get an Aberrations Revisited book?
Let's see we have:
Aboleth (I don't recall if they were covered in any other book)
Choker
Chuul
Cloaker
Ettercap
Froghemoth
Gibbering Mouther
Intellect Devourer
Nagas
Neothelid
Otyugh
RoperAnd that's just me flipping through the first Bestiary and picking aberrations that I don't recalling appearing in any other Revisited product.
Cloaker, Otyugh, and Roper are in Dungeon Denizens Revisited.
I'd like to see some stuff written about the neothelid that hints at their even stranger progenitors. You know they're basically mind flayer tadpoles that were never placed in hosts in WotC source materials, so they're unlikely to get a reproductive write-up that contradicts that in Pathfinder materials, I'd think, much like how Paizo has said they won't stat-up Demogorgon. But then again, maybe neothelids aren't as iconic as Demogorgon and someone would write a reproductive ecology for them that has no direct ties to mind flayers.
Neothelid artwork in the Pathfinder Bestiary blows the previous WotC neothelid illustration away, so maybe it'd be nice to see neothelids step out of the shadow of their closed-content forebears and thrive on their own.
Oh how I wish I could call dibs on writing 6 pages about intellect devourers :)
Wait, what?
Oh crud, I thought this was a real thing - and it'd have been perfect timing for my campaign too. Soon, soon, I'll be using the Kingmaker mass combat rules (with the message board additions) to simulate an underdark uprising.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder neothelids have no relationship whatsoever to mind flayers. You are right to guess that if we ever do learn about their reproduction, we're not going to find out that they are mutant tadpoles of some "squid-faced psionic humanoids."
For one example of how they're unique, PF neothelids produce vast swarms of seugathi servants (check Bestiary II). Also, it's strongly hinted in Into the Darklands that neothelids are related to Lovecraftian abominations who left them behind after vacating Golarion.
One quirk that may never be explained in PF, however, is how the neothelid got its prefix. "Neo" means new, after all, so that makes them the "new thelids." What are the "old thelids"? Oh wait...
Neothelids and Intellect Devourers both made appearances in into the darklands.
As to Neothelids. Maybe they're called that because they know Kung Fu? ;-)
So everyone of these creatures are stated in this book possibly with class levels(except the ravener) like in the classic horrors revisted book right?
I think you should release this in Oct instead... but only October 2010. SO best get to writing. :)An October release of this book would not provide support for the Carrion Crown adventure path, alas.
If this is a (unofficial) support product for Carrion Crown, would it not have made more sense to release it before the first AP book instead of the same day as the fourth one?
Chief Technical Officer
|
If this is a (unofficial) support product for Carrion Crown, would it not have made more sense to release it before the first AP book instead of the same day as the fourth one?I think you should release this in Oct instead... but only October 2010. SO best get to writing. :)An October release of this book would not provide support for the Carrion Crown adventure path, alas.
It was originally due out in April...
If this is a (unofficial) support product for Carrion Crown, would it not have made more sense to release it before the first AP book instead of the same day as the fourth one?I think you should release this in Oct instead... but only October 2010. SO best get to writing. :)An October release of this book would not provide support for the Carrion Crown adventure path, alas.
Since most of the creatures in the book have a CR above 10 it seems like the perfect time to release it.
I'd like to see some stuff written about the neothelid that hints at their even stranger progenitors. You know they're basically mind flayer tadpoles that were never placed in hosts in WotC source materialsPathfinder neothelids have no relationship whatsoever to mind flayers. You are right to guess that if we ever do learn about their reproduction, we're not going to find out that they are mutant tadpoles of some "squid-faced psionic humanoids."
For one example of how they're unique, PF neothelids produce vast swarms of seugathi servants (check Bestiary II). Also, it's strongly hinted in Into the Darklands that neothelids are related to Lovecraftian abominations who left them behind after vacating Golarion.
. . .
See, to me, mind flayers ARE "Lovecraftian abominations who left them behind." They're not actually from Lovecraft, but they're a Lovecraft-styled rip-off.
I'm aware that Pathfinder neothelids have no official relationship whatsoever to mind flayers, mainly because mind flayers are closed content/product identity/non-OGL. However, the suggestion that they were "left by Lovecraftian abominations" is, to me, a nod to the fact that they're the spawn of mind flayers without calling out mind flayers by name.
I actually like PF neothelids quite a bit. The illustration looks awesome. I was not aware of the seugathi but I like them. Since they die when a certain condition is met, you can have the party come upon a dead one, or see one die, and have no idea what killed it.
What are the "old thelids"? Oh wait...
You really, really do not want to come across any paleothelids. Seriously.
It was originally due out in April...
*frowns but returns to normal swiftly* That makes more sense to be in line with each other. I prefer a solid product with a pushed release date over one that might be forced out the door anyway. I have always been a fan of ecology articles/books and find the presentation style of this line to be very solid.
Since most of the creatures in the book have a CR above 10 it seems like the perfect time to release it.
Not counting CR from lower or higher variations in the book, it is more of a progression of CRs from the 3-8 (first 3 AP books) and 11-22 (remaining AP books) ranges. The theme (just undead), compared to previous books, lends itself to carry over into some monsters not covered but which are similar in corporeality or lack thereof. At least I hope that is the way some of the entries are covered, such as spectral undead. Add in the entries from Classic Horrors Revisited and the two books cover most of what the AP uses or could be expected to be found roaming around Ustalav. As for the timing, it is fine where it ended up being released in relation to what entries each book has so far.
Allip 3
Shadow 3
Wight 3
Wraith 5
Spectre 7
Bodak 8
Mohrg 8
-----------
Devourer 11
Graveknight 11
Lich 12
Banshee 13
Nightshades 14-20
Ravener 22
It was originally due out in April...*frowns but returns to normal swiftly* That makes more sense to be in line with each other. I prefer a solid product with a pushed release date over one that might be forced out the door anyway. I have always been a fan of ecology articles/books and find the presentation style of this line to be very solid.
Since most of the creatures in the book have a CR above 10 it seems like the perfect time to release it.Not counting CR from lower or higher variations in the book, it is more of a progression of CRs from the 3-8 (first 3 AP books) and 11-22 (remaining AP books) ranges. The theme (just undead), compared to previous books, lends itself to carry over into some monsters not covered but which are similar in corporeality or lack thereof. At least I hope that is the way some of the entries are covered, such as spectral undead. Add in the entries from Classic Horrors Revisited and the two books cover most of what the AP uses or could be expected to be found roaming around Ustalav. As for the timing, it is fine where it ended up being released in relation to what entries each book has so far.
Allip 3
Shadow 3
Wight 3
Wraith 5
Spectre 7
Bodak 8
Mohrg 8
-----------
Devourer 11
Graveknight 11
Lich 12
Banshee 13
Nightshades 14-20
Ravener 22
There is only one sample creature in the book with a CR under 10 (more than likely because the higher level stat blocks are harder to make then lower level ones.
Most important footnote on page 3:
"* This creature is detailed in the Bonus Bestiary and the upcoming Pathfinder Bestiary 3."
Yay, more monsters.
There is only one sample creature in the book with a CR under 10 (more than likely because the higher level stat blocks are harder to make then lower level ones.
My main thing with the previous posts was more related to the flavor text aspects of the book and using that info to add to the atmosphere of the AP when using any CR version. It is nice that the CR level is varied from other sources though. I would assume variant entries are based off the original CR of the monsters? For example, Lava Child and Tojanida from Misfit Monsters Redeemed had both lower/higher CR entries. It would seem to be odd with variants using something that is not the base CR version.
There is only one sample creature in the book with a CR under 10 (more than likely because the higher level stat blocks are harder to make then lower level ones.My main thing with the previous posts was more related to the flavor text aspects of the book and using that info to add to the atmosphere of the AP when using any CR version. It is nice that the CR level is varied from other sources though. I would assume variant entries are based off the original CR of the monsters? For example, Lava Child and Tojanida from Misfit Monsters Redeemed had both lower/higher CR entries. It would seem to be odd with variants using something that is not the base CR version.
The stat blocks in Undead Revisited, aren't just a reprint of the monsters stats, they are all some advanced version of that creature. So for example the Bodak is a Male Bodak Antipaladin 8, and the Devourer is a Male devourer oracle 14. And I missed one below CR 10, the wight and the allip (one of the spectral dead) are both below that mark.
|
|
There is only one sample creature in the book with a CR under 10 (more than likely because the higher level stat blocks are harder to make then lower level ones.My main thing with the previous posts was more related to the flavor text aspects of the book and using that info to add to the atmosphere of the AP when using any CR version. It is nice that the CR level is varied from other sources though. I would assume variant entries are based off the original CR of the monsters? For example, Lava Child and Tojanida from Misfit Monsters Redeemed had both lower/higher CR entries. It would seem to be odd with variants using something that is not the base CR version.
Note that the base variants for every monster in Undead Revisited were already printed in PF Bestiaries (ok, Graveknight was printed in CoT), so there is no need to present "base" stats as they are already out there, open content and all.
Lava Child and Toejameada made their Pathfinder debut in MMR, so printing their base stats was rather obvious.
Sorry, but on this one you're wrong. Two quotes from Into the Darklands.
I stand corrected.
There is no suggestion at all regarding mind flayers. Also, while I certainly can't speak for Paizo, I do think I know them well enough to know that they respect other companies' IP. They won't even do dracoliches (despite the fact that they could) because those guys are so closely tied to Forgotten Realms. But I'm done with this topic.
My interpretation was based on the neothelid entry in the Bestiary, which I read as vague enough to include mind flayers as a progenitor species. It doesn't call them out, but it was vague enough that they would fit the category.
The neothelids themselves were spawned by even more horrific entities, ageless horrors from strange dimensions beyond the edge of known reality--the neothelids see themselves as the chosen agents of these malevolent forces, working to ready the world for their return.
I'd say that was vague enough to include mind flayers. However, as you've indicated, Darklands is more specific.
As for dracoliches, the lich template can now be applied to dragons. They won't work the exact same way as the dracolich template, but if Paizo made a dracolich template, it wouldn't work the exact same way either, just as graveknights are not identical to deathknights mechanically, but are the same functionally. In this case, applying the lich template to a dragon works just as well and doesn't introduce what essentially boils down to a redundant template.
I checked to see if the second dragon in Undead Revisited was a dragon lich, but it wasn't. However, I did look at all the sample creatures and I have to say I like that in some cases the sample creature is a whole new monster based on the creature type. Notably the Wight Lord (his spawn are Advanced Wights) and the Nightskitter (a spider Nightshade variant).
The stat blocks in Undead Revisited, aren't just a reprint of the monsters stats, they are all some advanced version of that creature. So for example the Bodak is a Male Bodak Antipaladin 8, and the Devourer is a Male devourer oracle 14. And I missed one below CR 10, the wight and the allip (one of the spectral dead) are both below that mark.
I understand the stat blocked entries are new higher level examples but this reply did not answer my last question which I will reword below this next quote.
Note that the base variants for every monster in Undead Revisited were already printed in PF Bestiaries (ok, Graveknight was printed in CoT), so there is no need to present "base" stats as they are already out there, open content and all.
Lava Child and Toejameada made their Pathfinder debut in MMR, so printing their base stats was rather obvious.
This is sort of closer to the question asked but it still doesn't answer it the way I really am looking for it to be. I understand the book includes higher stat blocked entries for each monster. The question is about the Variants Section options though and how those options are presented. I only used those 2 monsters as examples since they both included higher and lower CR options in their respective Variants Sections. So I guess I will rephrase the question in hope of getting a proper answer.
In the Variants Section, options are based off of:
A. the original printed monster stat block found elsewhere (Bestiary).
B. the new higher CR stat block entries presented in this book.
I really can not think of an easier way to ask how the Variant Section is presented than I have in these 2 posts.
I really enjoyed the new angle taken for the devourer. It also leads to many interesting implications.
Apparently, there's someplace "beyond" the planes of the Great Beyond - a place that I suppose is the equivalent of the Dark Tapestry for the outer planes. Though there's almost no info on it, this realm has to be pretty nasty, as it spawned both the devourer species and the god of torture Zon-Kuthon.
:D
I was deliberately coy about the "beyond" bit in the Devourer writeup, specifically if it was or was not linked in any way to anything previously mentioned like the Dark Tapestry on the Material plane. I had far too much fun with that section.
Well, the introductory speaker for the section knows the truth, but he's being just as coy as I was. Though in his case it's maliciously coy.
I really like the advanced examples in the book. The CR 21 shadow is going to scare my players when they encounter it. Most of the critters are in the CR 12+ range, with 3 that are CR 19+.
The variants are presented as little templates and would be added to the base stats of a creature from one of the bestiaries.
I also want to second (or third) the call for an Aberrations Revisited. Or maybe make it Darklands Denizens Revisited. I've loved the series since the beginning, and they keep getting better and better.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Though in his case it's maliciously coy.
And you're what exactly... benevolently coy?
Seriously I'm enjoying the book, it drives three things home.
1) Undead are scary abberations, not sparkly cool goths.
2) Some things that are 'undead' are more 'things that should not be' (Devourers, Nightshades)
3) For the more 'normal' undead, it's that they were people once.
Though in his case it's maliciously coy.And you're what exactly... benevolently coy?
Absolutely. :D
2) Some things that are 'undead' are more 'things that should not be' (Devourers, Nightshades)
Yeah guess which sections I worked on ;)
