
![]() |

1) When I apply the simple class templates to a monster, does it still need to have a high enough ability score to cast certain spells?
2) Does armor spell failure apply as normal? What about natural armor?
Monster Codex page 116 wrote:Even then,the inevitable weaknesses that come with old age eventually come to the notice of hobgoblins of lower standing, who take the opportunity to usurp their elders' roles. Such coups are generally not violent, but a hobgoblin removed entirely from the sphere of war generally falls ill within a few years and dies long before his body would otherwise give out.3) No mention of kalech-mar, i.e how Hobgoblins do the whole klingon promotion thing by challenging their superior to a duel. Has that been retconned?
Monster Codex page 128 wrote:The few metallic-colored kobolds are an exception to this rule. Though no more good-inclined than their fellows, these metallic kobolds are seen as special or marked by some higher power, and often go on to become great chiefs or shamans.4) That seems to contradict this feat and this trait.
As far as 3) and 4), Monster Codex is setting-neutral, while the stuff you mention is Golarion-specific.

Alexander Augunas Contributor |

4) That seems to contradict this feat and this trait.
Note that those are both from a Campaign Setting product (Kobolds of Golarion). Monster Codex is setting neutral.
So from a setting-neutral stand point, the Monster Codex is correct. From a Golarion standpoint, if you have Metallic scales and you take that feat, representing a life of study and contemplation, then the feat is correct.

Major_Blackhart |
I gotta thank Paizo so much for this book.
The PDF is amazing to go through.
My only complaint is that, me being a faithful of the green horde, I would have liked a little bit more for the Waaaagh!, but I digress. And no, it's never enough.
I absolutely love the stuff written about the various giant races, something we were sorely missing, as well as bugbears (though I would have loved to see a Koblak in the print).
My big question is this: Was there ever any artwork done for the Trogdolyte Paragons (the original Xulgath race)?
I just need to see what they looked like. The difference between degenerate serpentfolk and the advanced, on a physical scale, is quite noticeable. I can only imagine what these guys looked like.
Edit: Also, what gives, no Urdefhan guys? That race alone is so evilly iconic, as one of James Jacobs' creations. I would have loved to see them broken down a bit further, as you guys did for Drow and Duergar, both races found in the depths.
But, I get the limited space thing. Did you guys plan on doing Urdefhan and they just didn't make the final cut?

![]() |

No.
We wanted to focus on more popular, mainstream monsters with the widest possible base of people interested in using them in campaigns.
Urdefhans were never seriously considered.
My position is that we need to have a book like this prove itself with much, much more common monsters than that before we can dream of diluting the customer pool with creatures they don't recognize.
Monster Codex 4? Sure.
Some sort of Pathfinder Campaign Setting Monster Codex? Absolutely.
Not here.
Not when so many folks were skeptical of whether they would need this book, and not when we're trying something that has basically never been done before.

![]() |

Received and flipped through mine.
I'm sold. This looks like it will be *very* useful to do extensive campaigns against certain monster races, without getting bored of always the same statblock. This is perfect for someone like me who wants to milk more use out of a mainstay like, say, orcs, but doesn't have the time to do lots of statblocks themselves.
After five Monster Manuals, one Fiend Folio, four Bestiaries, Adventure Path bestiaries, and god knows what else, I think I have enough *breadth* in monsters for a while. Now I'm interested in *depth*, getting more milked out of those monsters we already have. And the Monster Codex delivers that in spades.
I would kill for WotC to have come up with the Monster Codex idea during 3.5, so I could have more variety in beholders, mind flayers and so on.
I'm definitely on board for a Monster Codex 2, and IMO, Monster Codexes can take the place of Bestiaries for a few years at least.
I wonder, after NPC Codex and Monster Codex, what else could possibly be done other than the obvious 2s of each. I would sort of kill for an Animal Companion/Familiar Codex, since I always have trouble statting those up. I wonder if there could be an Ally Codex that would be like a Monster Codex, but for player races like dwarves, elves and so on? Or would Paizo see that between NPC Codex and Advanced Race Guide that niche is mostly filled? What about a Settlement Codex, presenting like twenty 10-page gazetteers for settlements ranging from small village to big city? Emerald Spire is sort of like a Dungeon Level Codex.
Super interesting stuff. I'm really looking forward to future installments of this subset of the RPG line.

![]() |

Monster Codex page 128 wrote:The few metallic-colored kobolds are an exception to this rule. Though no more good-inclined than their fellows, these metallic kobolds are seen as special or marked by some higher power, and often go on to become great chiefs or shamans.4) That seems to contradict this feat and this trait.
Can you elaborate how? I don't see how there's a problem.
Redeemed Kobold is for those kobolds who are metallic-colored *and* Good. It doesn't mean that there aren't kobolds who are metallic-colored and non-Good. The quote from Monster Codex states that the ratio of alignments is similar to non-metallic kobolds, so for example if (say) 5% of kobolds were Good, then the same ratio would apply to metallic kobolds -- 95% non-Good and 5% Good -- and the latter would be eligible for the Redeemed Kobold feat.
Golden Scales gives you a slight Diplomacy penalty, but that doesn't prevent you from becoming a great chief or shaman. Furthermore, not all metallic kobolds are required to have that trait, and probably the majority indeed would not, and those would probably be the ones most likely to rise to those high positions.

![]() |

What would a Monster Codex 2 even contain if one were made? I'm having a tough time thinking of iconic monsters that would commonly have class levels. The remaining giants, then what? Skeletons and zombies?
Edit: Good list earlier in the thread
Looks like it's going to hit barrel-scraping flavor very quickly though...just MHO. I could possibly see a MC2, but a MC3 would be a tough sell for me, I think.
Dragons should probably get their own Dragon Codex...not sure if it has enough of a draw with the 3.5 Draconomicon out there already...

Psiphyre |

No.
We wanted to focus on more popular, mainstream monsters with the widest possible base of people interested in using them in campaigns.
Urdefhans were never seriously considered.
My position is that we need to have a book like this prove itself with much, much more common monsters than that before we can dream of diluting the customer pool with creatures they don't recognize.
Monster Codex 4? Sure.
Some sort of Pathfinder Campaign Setting Monster Codex? Absolutely.
Not here.
Not when so many folks were skeptical of whether they would need this book, and not when we're trying something that has basically never been done before.
Emphasis mine, i.e. bold & italics added above.
So... Would this perhaps be a hint (spoiler?!) at one of the five "still unknown" monsters to be featured in the up-&-coming Inner Sea Monster Codex, hmm??
Of course, it could all be a hypothetical example on your part (& I'm just speculating ;p ), BUT...
:D :D :D
Carry on!
--C.
PS: You don't have to confirm or deny it, if it's a lil' too early to say, BUT...
<edit> Added post script & spoiler.

![]() |

Inner Sea NPC Codex was in the Campaign Setting line, which makes sense for a GM-oriented product...the same would likely hold true for an Inner Sea Monster Codex, unless they go crazy and do it as a hardcover.
If they go with the same 12 pages per race breakdown as the plain Monster Codex, a 64 page Campaign Setting book would be a pretty good fit for five races. (12*5=60 + 4 pages of intro matter).
I'd want to see centaurs, for example, in Monster Codex 2 since they are such a setting-neutral race drawn from way back mythology. A better fit for Inner Sea Monster Codex would be something like androids, unless they're seen as mostly a player race and not an enemy race.

Alex G St-Amand |

Inner Sea NPC Codex was in the Campaign Setting line, which makes sense for a GM-oriented product...the same would likely hold true for an Inner Sea Monster Codex, unless they go crazy and do it as a hardcover.
If they go with the same 12 pages per race breakdown as the plain Monster Codex, a 64 page Campaign Setting book would be a pretty good fit for five races. (12*5=60 + 4 pages of intro matter).
I'd want to see centaurs, for example, in Monster Codex 2 since they are such a setting-neutral race drawn from way back mythology. A better fit for Inner Sea Monster Codex would be something like androids, unless they're seen as mostly a player race and not an enemy race.
Interesting, I'm starting to believe that Paizo and company (like many players) are starting to forget and/or mix up the setting neutral vs setting specific stuff.
and maybe having a bit of difficulties setting their own prefferences/bias aside.

Acolyte of Mushu |

I don't know if this has already been answered, but can someone shed some light on what creature the Troglodyte Scale-Rider is riding on page 216 is? The caption for Troglodyte Cavalry says mounted troglodytes often ride giant monitor lizard or giant chameleons, but the creature does not look remotely like either of those. Enlightenment would be appreciated.

MMCJawa |

Samy wrote:Inner Sea NPC Codex was in the Campaign Setting line, which makes sense for a GM-oriented product...the same would likely hold true for an Inner Sea Monster Codex, unless they go crazy and do it as a hardcover.
If they go with the same 12 pages per race breakdown as the plain Monster Codex, a 64 page Campaign Setting book would be a pretty good fit for five races. (12*5=60 + 4 pages of intro matter).
I'd want to see centaurs, for example, in Monster Codex 2 since they are such a setting-neutral race drawn from way back mythology. A better fit for Inner Sea Monster Codex would be something like androids, unless they're seen as mostly a player race and not an enemy race.
Interesting, I'm starting to believe that Paizo and company (like many players) are starting to forget and/or mix up the setting neutral vs setting specific stuff.
and maybe having a bit of difficulties setting their own prefferences/bias aside.
How so? The main difference between setting only versus setting neutral material is that the names of locations/gods/individuals are filed off. Reading through my copy of Monster Codex (yay christmas presents), just about all the material is Golarion friendly. The Drow are a great example...they have the same origin story as those in Golarion, but Earthfall and Rovagug are alluded to and not directly referenced.

Alex G St-Amand |

Alex G St-Amand wrote:Interesting, I'm starting to believe that Paizo and company (like many players) are starting to forget and/or mix up the setting neutral vs setting specific stuff.
and maybe having a bit of difficulties setting their own prefferences/bias aside.
How so? The main difference between setting only versus setting neutral material is that the names of locations/gods/individuals are filed off. Reading through my copy of Monster Codex (yay christmas presents), just about all the material is Golarion friendly. The Drow are a great example...they have the same origin story as those in Golarion, but Earthfall and Rovagug are alluded to and not directly referenced.
Stuff that aren't used much in 'Golarion' are put in setting books, while stuff that isn't used much outside 'Golarion' are put in setting neutral books.

MMCJawa |

So Been going through the book, and ultimately I really like it. I do have one annoying pet peeve.
While I love the flavor of Hobgoblins, I am really not a huge fan of the artwork here, and it feels like we have a "catfolk" situation going on.
I much prefer how Hobgoblins were portrayed in the ARG and some of the older material, which made them into long armed muscular goblin folk
The Monster Codex (and the Hobgoblin NPC in volume 2 of Iron Gods) have a completely new design, pointed-ear gray humanoids.
Looking through the book...there just isn't anything distinct about the new design, and in fact the hobgoblins look just like the orcs in the orc section, only gray instead of green (and also look somewhat like some of the ghoul and even drow art).
I really hope this isn't the new direction for hobgoblin art design, and I really hope future art goes back to the ARG look. As is it's not obvious that the hobgoblins have any relation whatsoever to the other goblinoids.

MMCJawa |

For what my opinion's worth, I like the non-goblin, more regal look of the hobgoblins. Sort of implies that goblins are, in fact, a mutation of hobgoblin. "Plus-size goblin" isn't exactly an interesting design for a race.
my issue more is that...their is absolutely nothing iconic about the newer depictions. They just look like color-swapped orcs, and on top of, some of the drow, vampire, and ghoul artwork looks pretty similar as well. Perhaps if the orcs looked more distinctive (prominent tusks, more porcine features, etc) this would not be a problem.
This is in contrast to say, goblins and bugbears, both of which have goblinoid characteristics, but have distinctive appearances.
The ARG artwork in contrast...left no doubt in the mind of the viewer that hobgoblins were related to goblins, but were distinct enough that a pawn or image would leave no doubt at what people were looking at.

![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

After flicking through this at my LFRS I parted with my hard earned cash.
As I sat reading the Boggard entry, my youngest son asked what it was...after explaining it's uses, without giving anything away and being given an hour to prep, my kids successfully cleared out an old ruined keep (the floor plan for which looks suspiciously like The Keep on The Borderlands)of the Bugbear/hobgoblin tribe.... sorted.
Yet another fine product that I wish I'd written myself. :D

Derek Schubert |
I also posted this question under the Product Discussion for Pathfinder Society Scenario #6-11, "The Slave Master's Mirror", which uses some stats from the Monster Codex.
Is the damage calculated wrong in this stat block?:
The stat block says that the lieutenant's +1 scorpion whip deals 1d4+9 points of damage, but I count only 1d4+7:
+5 from Strength 20,
+1 from weapon training (flails +1),
+1 from the weapon's enhancement bonus.
Weapon Specialization (whip) would give +2 points of damage, but the lieutenant doesn't have this feat. Maybe an earlier version of the lieutenant did have the feat, but the designers changed the feat without remembering to change the damage.
Wielding most one-handed weapons in two hands would grant the lieutenant another 2 points of damage (half of +5, rounded down), but the scorpion whip is a "light weapon" (Ultimate Combat, page 145), not a "one-handed weapon", and light weapons don't deal any extra damage when wielded in two hands. (Side note: a normal whip, however, is a one-handed weapon, so wielding a whip in two hands would deal more damage.) Anyway, the lieutenant's calculated AC includes a +1 shield bonus from the masterwork light steel shield, so he doesn't have a free hand to use a weapon two-handed.
Am I missing another bonus to damage or should the whip attack actually deal 1d4+7 points of damage?

Threeshades |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

So I really look forward to using it, it looks like it's going to be an invaluable help for GMing, but there is one thing that bothered me with this book.
The fluff gets incredibly repetitive, how almost every race in the book are slavers or have an inexplicable desire for humanoid flesh. Or both at the same time. That got a bit boring.
Other than that I thought it was nice to get some insight into culture and social structures of the various monster races.

OldSkul |

I'd like to see some of the core races in a monster codex type book. Like "elven guard" or "dwarf miners" and such. I know these are fairly easy to stat up but unfortunately my time is limited as I'm sure a lot of gm's is. These stats aren't always needed but would be nice to be able to look up in case of the good guys not getting along all the time.
As for mc 2 I'd like to see the grindylow get a spot. Maybe get some stats for the whale and brinebrood queen. And since we got vampires and ghouls in the first how about a broad selection of liches to throw at my pc's. Maybe some different types of wights also.

Luthorne |
I'd like to see some of the core races in a monster codex type book. Like "elven guard" or "dwarf miners" and such. I know these are fairly easy to stat up but unfortunately my time is limited as I'm sure a lot of gm's is. These stats aren't always needed but would be nice to be able to look up in case of the good guys not getting along all the time.
Isn't that what the GameMastery Guide and the NPC Codex did? As a matter of fact, I believe a dwarven miner is listed in the NPC Codex under commoner...the guard listed under warrior is human, but that shouldn't be difficult to tweak...

Sam Defoe |

So question to the people at Paizo:
What of Gnolls for Additional Resources? Gnolls seem to have been neglected on the Additional Resources page for Monster Codex. I don't mind if it simply read "Nothing from this section is legal for play" or even just a feat or something similar was legal.
However nothing is stated.

![]() |

So question to the people at Paizo:
What of Gnolls for Additional Resources? Gnolls seem to have been neglected on the Additional Resources page for Monster Codex. I don't mind if it simply read "Nothing from this section is legal for play" or even just a feat or something similar was legal.
However nothing is stated.
Sometimes Mike and I leave a particular feat, archetype, or spell off of the Additional Resources so that we can provide players access to it via a Chronicle sheet. As you might gather from the first sentence, this was the case for gnolls in Monster Codex.
And no, it would be spoiling too much to say which Chronicle sheet grants this access.

![]() |

I have a question about the simple class templates and how they work. Hoping someone can answer it. There are quite a few of us who are all wondering the same thing.

![]() |

Got a question regarding the bard and sorcerer templates. Could someone please explain "Sorcerer Spells sorcerer creatures can cast a small number of sorcerer spells using its HD as its CL and gaining two spell slots for every spell level known"? I admit that I would have much rather preferred there be an example for each template.