Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 4 (OGL)

Finding 'ways to die' left unexplored for daemons is fun.

Death by magical mishap (bad roll on the 1e 'potion miscibility' table or putting magical spaces into other magical spaces or just rolling really dramatically in an area of wild / primal magic, all three could create *very* different sorts of daemons, one alchemical, one space-warping, one all, "wild magic, woo!")?

Death by radiation poisoning (more common than you'd think, in Numeria)?

Death by body horror / infestation / transformation (congratulations, you are now a pool of green slime or your meat just became the 'nest' of a group of vegepygmies)?

Death by lawful execution (richly deserved, or totally unwarranted)?

Death by being eated by a carnivore (Tom Rex!)?

Death by sexual misadventure (ahem)?

we should all be so lucky.

A daemon of 'people who get splortched in the non-Euclidean geometries of collapsing extradimensional spaces' might be niche, but sounds awesome! Ditto, a daemon of 'people whose bodies serve as gestation chambers for Xill larvae.'

Figures the last one would get all the attention. :)

I personally favour Daemons, because I like the flavour and the fact that they're ruled by the Four Horsemen.

This, and that they feel like they have more purpose than being 'extraplanar mercenaries' (aka, yugoloths of 3e).

Daemon of death by avoidable accidents. Specifically falling pianos.

Tinkergoth wrote:

I personally favour Daemons, because I like the flavour and the fact that they're ruled by the Four Horsemen.

This, and that they feel like they have more purpose than being 'extraplanar mercenaries' (aka, yugoloths of 3e).

Very true actually. Having them as the manifestations of various deaths was a nice touch. I never actually saw much of the yugoloths from 3E, we tended to stick to humanoid enemies in those games. Once I saw the Four Horsemen I immediately started writing a campaign with foiling their plans as the end game (not killing them. Until I see official stats, I'm treating them like Gods and leaving them out of the reach of the players). Basic idea is that (if you're one of my players, don't even think of reading this)

The D&D Yugoloths (their background story) was really not interesting indeed, i'm glad paizo changed their entire background into something worthwhile! And i'm actually pretty happy the Mezzoloth is Copyrighted :-p Derghodaemon is much better insectoid daemon.

Daemon of cartoonish deaths such as an anvil falling on there head, slipping on a banana peal, falling off a cliff after chasing something, or the dreaded rabbit season/duck season gag.

Now, I'm biased: I find daemons more interesting, and demons to be the least interesting of those three. And I don't expect the three main fiend subtypes to have exactly the same number of monsters in them. But there is a slant towards chaos.

I'm guessing this is a result of more Paizo staff preferring to write about demons. Which is fine.

While I do enjoy all types of outsiders (evil or not; I figure they all contribute flavour to a game, which is fantastic), I believe it makes perfect sense that the Abyss, being infinite, would spawn the most monsters. I would actually support Paizo in coming up with truly bizarre demons (not that we don't already have some of 'em—the Qlippoth are an especially nice take on that angle). I'd also like to see demonic versions of other outsiders (going a bit further than the useful, but necessarily limited, fiendish template).

I just love the idea of demons being easy—but very dangerous—to summon (and thus tempting for wizards and such), with the Abyss being a sentient plane trying to expand its influence and all (I like to imagine it actually ends up "swallowing" other planes, adding their corrupted, ravaged planar remains to its dark, chaotic, cosmic mass once they're completely overrun by demons).
It makes the multiverse feel like a fragile place somehow, that image of an infinitely deep gaping maw hanging just below it (to picture it that way). I like the idea of the Abyss being a primordial cancer on the multiverse.

But anyhow, yeah, it's all good! "An infinite horde of demons makes good sense" is what I'm saying basically, so all the better if the staff at Paizo enjoys writing about them! ;)

But anyhow, yeah, it's all good! "An infinite horde of demons makes good sense" is what I'm saying basically, so all the better if the staff at Paizo enjoys writing about them! ;)

Reminds me of the old Dragon magazine article where you rolled up Demons, powers, appearance, etc. It had that infinite varieties of evil thing going. And it was fun and inspirational. Not that my players called it that...

I would really love to see more Mythological demons and devils in there instead of made up demons.

I really wanna see the stone demon that spawns smaller stone demonlings named Asag.

And the Inuit frost demon Mahaha.

Finding 'ways to die' left unexplored for daemons is fun.

Death by body horror / infestation / transformation (congratulations, you are now a pool of green slime or your meat just became the 'nest' of a group of vegepygmies)?

Now that sounds like it could make for one truly sick daemon.

I would really love to see more Mythological demons and devils in there instead of made up demons.

I really wanna see the stone demon that spawns smaller stone demonlings named Asag.

And the Inuit frost demon Mahaha.

Asaq I'm not familiar with. Mahaha would make a good Demon given it's chaotic behavior or a Daemon (death by freezing to death).

Yes that would be a good one, Asag could be the daemon of death by being stoned to dead. :-p

Very true actually. Having them as the manifestations of various deaths was a nice touch. I never actually saw much of the yugoloths from 3E, we tended to stick to humanoid enemies in those games.

Well, to be fair, there were about 6 kinds of yugoloths in 3e, so I don't blame you - I think the only one I ever encountered as a player was a nycaloth during "Savage Tide" (and you could have thought of it as just being another demon, really).

Speaking of which, can a nycanoloth become a nycaodaemon (it looks like they were in 1e onward) be published in Pathfinder?

@Gancanagh; mezzo's seemed to be pretty much like a bearded devil in format, to me. Derghodaemons are a bit more terrifying and alien! :D

I sometimes used Mezzoloth as Ettercap Lords or upgraded/advanced ettercaps, they looked like vermin lords to me, but now I met Derghodaemon in Pathfinder, Vermin Lord gained another meaning. ;-)

I hope the product info will update sometime this week.

Fey Monster

I've found this so called Fey Monster on deviantart, I know most art I see there from books, but this is new to me.

Maybe the Cu Sith? Maybe bestiary 4 leak? :-p

Definitely Cu Sith...although who knows what it's for.

It can also be the Cooshee or Elven Dog, but I think D&D just ripped the Cooshee from the Cu Sith.

I hope it s for bestiary 4, but he art is kinda old already...

The art portrays the barrow hound, a fey creature featured in the module Fangwood Keep.

Oh so it is from Fangwood Keep, still nice artwork.

Barrow Hound? It must still be based on the Green Cu Sith, how many hounds are green?

Finding 'ways to die' left unexplored for daemons is fun.

Death by magical mishap (bad roll on the 1e 'potion miscibility' table or putting magical spaces into other magical spaces or just rolling really dramatically in an area of wild / primal magic, all three could create *very* different sorts of daemons, one alchemical, one space-warping, one all, "wild magic, woo!")?

Death by radiation poisoning (more common than you'd think, in Numeria)?

Death by body horror / infestation / transformation (congratulations, you are now a pool of green slime or your meat just became the 'nest' of a group of vegepygmies)?

Death by lawful execution (richly deserved, or totally unwarranted)?

Death by being eated by a carnivore (Tom Rex!)?

Death by sexual misadventure (ahem)?

True death after spending time as an undead. You were Neutral Evil even before you contracted ghoul fever? We've got something special for you in Abaddon.

All this talk of daemons makes me hope there are more deviant souls transformed into Div in this book.

Regardless of the reasons why, I am upset that new and more interesting creatures like Aeons and Inevitables are being ignored and never thought up by Paizo again. Would it have really hurt to put in just one or two new ones of each? Instead, we get a unicorn rabbit? Really!? To completely ignore them simply makes me wonder why the concepts were even bothered to be included in the game if all Paizo is going to do is spam the "usuals". Whatever. Maybe you guys will reconsider when Bestiary 5 is released.

Regardless of the reasons why, I am upset that new and more interesting creatures like Aeons and Inevitables are being ignored and never thought up by Paizo again. Would it have really hurt to put in just one or two new ones of each? Instead, we get a unicorn rabbit? Really!? To completely ignore them simply makes me wonder why the concepts were even bothered to be included in the game if all Paizo is going to do is spam the "usuals". Whatever. Maybe you guys will reconsider when Bestiary 5 is released.

Hehe, those Unicorn Rabbits are from real myths, Aeons and Inevitables are not.

And I find Unicorn Rabbits more interesting than those strange creatures, and we get the much more myth-based Psychopomps in return.

I agree Markolius Craggmorn, though I do like the Al-Miraj, it wouldn't hurt to make one or two new ones of those guys. Also drop bears are mythical/made up and you don't see them clamoring for that one to be in a book.

I would have supported him if he talked about Proteans or Kytons, but i'm better off without Aeons and Inevitables.

But I never heard anything about Inevitables being left out? Where did you hear that?

I gave up on Drop Bears, they seem to be the anti-mascot creature of JJ, so better forget about that one... Too bad as many cool things can be done with it...

But still they said that Almiraj had a small chance only, but look who's in bestairy 4!

I would like more Proteans as well, I also wouldn't mind some more types/groups of CN and LN outsiders as well.

I am surprised that we got the Al-miraj at all. I wonder what other surprises we will be getting.

I hope Ravid is the second surprise.

I'm in for more CN creatures, never liked LN critters.

Who's happy this only got pushed back a week, unlike November's stuff which is delayed by a whole month? I'm happy this only got pushed back a week, unlike November's stuff which is delayed by a whole month.

Damn, I hate it that the non-PDF people get it first, all those spoilers are gonna kill me and my experience of reading the bestiary 4 for the first time.

But i'm sure my curiousity wins from me... I hate it that the PDF comes a full week later... And I don't want the full book cuz I had a lot of trouble with the mail...

The joys of having a subscription :D

You can subscribe to lines and cancel them anytime...

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:

Regardless of the reasons why, I am upset that new and more interesting creatures like Aeons and Inevitables are being ignored and never thought up by Paizo again. Would it have really hurt to put in just one or two new ones of each? Instead, we get a unicorn rabbit? Really!? To completely ignore them simply makes me wonder why the concepts were even bothered to be included in the game if all Paizo is going to do is spam the "usuals". Whatever. Maybe you guys will reconsider when Bestiary 5 is released.

Hehe, those Unicorn Rabbits are from real myths, Aeons and Inevitables are not.

And I find Unicorn Rabbits more interesting than those strange creatures, and we get the much more myth-based Psychopomps in return.

Being from real-world mythic just makes me less inclined to purchase it.

The last person who tried to use a real-world mythical monster for their RPG superstar entry was quickly eliminated, as it lacked anything that a GM couldn't do easily.

As for psychopomps specifically...they are nice, but they got a bunch of Golarion-specific fluff thrown on that can't be used outside of Golarion. And the non-Golarion fluff of the psychopomps is something I could just as easily find from a library search. And none of the crunch is particularly complex, and so the crunch could be approximated really easily from the fluff (which, IMO, is one of the best ways to design monsters: write the fluff, and approximate it with crunch. It just means that unless you have particularly original mechanics, copying fluff from a real-world mythology is something that can be done without professional developers).

A good chunk of the 3rd bestiary was also from mythology...did you have problems with that volume?

Having actually statted real world folklore monsters, I can tell you it's not easier than making your own original monster. Certainly, it may not be as creative (and even that is stretching it), but definitely not easier.

And in truth, any GM can stat their own made up monsters. It's not that hard. I've done it. So why even have a Bestiary in the first place?

I personally like that they do both real-world monsters and original creatures. I personally love seeing creatures from folklore in Bestiaries and such, because I love using them in my games and breathing life into them, even if they may not be as accurate as the original (which is impossible given how folklore changes from location to location).

As for Aeons not being from real-word mythology...

Aeons

I'd swear Inevitables were as well. I'll have to search.

I'd swear Inevitables were as well. I'll have to search.

Nah. The first inevitable was the marut from Planescape, and at the time it was a stand-alone creature (not part of a larger race). 3rd ed. came up with inevitables as a class of creature.

I suppose so. I just swear I've seen the names before in some form of Hindu mythology. Might just be misremembering things.

For the record, I really love Aeons, but I would honestly change the fluff a bit to give them less of a Mordenkainen Syndrome. It is difficult to make something neutral evocative.

Marut are from Hindu Mythology...not sure where the other inevitables are from, if not made up whole cloth?

Really I could have sworn that there was more then one of the Inevitables in 2nd edition.

I love creatures from real world myth as long as they are not turned into devils, demons, daemons, or psychopomps. Also all the cool creatures from myth that should have been fey like hags, willow wisp, kobolds, gnolls, goblins, centaurs, yuki-onna, etc.. But most of those were holdovers from past additions.

Why yuki-onna? From what I've read, they were ghosts of people that perished in the snow. Makes sense that they're undead. I could see, say, the yama-uba as a fey creature.

Fey is a very weird thing, as there are a lot of creatures that are actually fey that most people wouldn't consider fey, like trolls. It's definitely an odd one.

Yeah Trolls would have been interesting as fey.

Changing 'fey' to a subtype, instead of a Type, would allow a troll to be a fey without dropping it down to d6 HD and poor BAB. Otherwise, making any big or brutish or combat-capable creature a fey tends to push it out of that role into 'frail spellcaster.'

I'd actually support that change for any later addition. That and Monstrous Humanoid. I feel like they make better subtypes than types.

I'd actually support that change for any later addition. That and Monstrous Humanoid. I feel like they make better subtypes than types.

I think a lot of types could be trimmed down to subtypes. That's one aspect of 4th ed. that I liked.

Monstrous humanoid as you said. Ooze could be a plant subtype. Aberration and dragon could both be rolled into magical beast. Fey could be an outsider (though they'd be more dangerous due to increased hit points and BAB). Vermin/animal. But meh, I'm cool with the way things stand. I'm just of the mind that simpler is usually better.

Odraude wrote:

I'd actually support that change for any later addition. That and Monstrous Humanoid. I feel like they make better subtypes than types.

I think a lot of types could be trimmed down to subtypes. That's one aspect of 4th ed. that I liked.

Monstrous humanoid as you said. Ooze could be a plant subtype. Aberration and dragon could both be rolled into magical beast. Fey could be an outsider (though they'd be more dangerous due to increased hit points and BAB). Vermin/animal. But meh, I'm cool with the way things stand. I'm just of the mind that simpler is usually better.

Idk about ooze or aberrations and dragons, but definitely feel the same with Vermin and Animals. Feels like there is this disconnect that should exist with them.

Idk about ooze or aberrations and dragons, but definitely feel the same with Vermin and Animals. Feels like there is this disconnect that should exist with them.

Same. I've no idea what to do with aberrations or oozes, and think dragons can keep their own type, 'cause they're all iconic to the game and all, but vermin should just be a subtype of animal (and the mindless trait can go die in a fire, since bugs can learn skills, be trained, have memories, experience emotions, etc. Ditto the Con nonability. My car has a Con score. It can be poisoned. It can get unhealthy. There are 'critical' places it can be hit that can break it, and other places that aren't as 'vital.' It can certainly die. If, back in the '70's, Gary Gygax had named the 'health' attribute 'Durability' instead of 'Constitution,' it'd be the exact same thing mechanically, without any sort of 'constructs can't have Con' nonsense.).

So what do you guys think this week's Bestiary 4 preview will be?

I would also make vermin a subtype of animal. I would also make monstrous humanoid a subtype of humanoid. Well other then that I fine with the creatures types.

The two subtypes I'm really wishing for are Hag and Boogeyman.