Fixed it back for you. :PI think using popular but inaccurate names is a valid approach for Dinosaurs in a Monster Manual. If I wanted to insist upon taxonomic accuracy, I'd rather use family/sub-order/order names instead. (E.g. Sauropod instead of Apatosaur).
Or we could just go with Diplodocus, a creature which is pretty representative of the average sauropod and doesn't have the whole popular-name versus real-dang-name arguement with which to deal. Sure, it's a less well known creature, but as long as you have a picture, you can show it and move on with your lives.
Honestly, it's probably why I've yet to see 3.5 stats for an apatosaurus/brontosaurus, but good ol' Diplo's been in both a Dungeon and a Dragon magazine.
Creative Director
|
Apologies for the brief threadjack, but if Jason Bulmahn or James Jacobs are out there, how do monsters with 'the spell casting abilities of an 'x'-level cleric/sorcerer/wizard' work with regard to Beta?
I mentioned this in the chat last night, but thought I'd restate it here for clarity...
When a monster like a naga or a nymph has spellcasting ability, they simply gain the spells per day. They don't gain any of the other abilities that class would normally grant. A nymph doesn't gain wild shape to go along with her druid spells, and a naga wouldn't gain sorcerer bloodline abilities to go along with its spellcasting ability. If the naga were to then take levels in sorcerer, it WOULD gain bloodline ability. It's bloodline abilities would equal its sorcerer level, but its spellcasting abilities would equal its sorcerer levels PLUS its intrinsic naga powers.
|
Creative Director
|
All ten dragons will be in the book. That's not open to negotiation. Likewise, certain other must-haves will be in the book (all giants, everything from Classic Monsters, etc.)
The only monsters that are really under scrutiny for chopping are, really, the newer ones added in to the game during 3rd edition (such as the tojinada and the delver), and monsters that may have been around for a long time but haven't been used much at all (say, the grig or the locathah).
And remember... there'll be more than one monster book. Whatever just misses the cut in the first one is pretty likely to be in the second one. (I just want to make sure that what gets into the first one are the "core" monsters whose exclusion would look like an error, really...)
Personally, though... I have to admit to admiring roleplaying game books that manage to be a bit educational on the sly, which is why I hope they don't rename deinonychus to velociraptor.
I too like the Ogre Mage becoming Oni and would like to see more Oni in general.
Monsters i would love to see in the main book:
Shadow Dragons(sadly, i think their closed)
Moon Dogs
Lung Dragons(if others think they should be done better, i'll agree)
Cloud Dragons
Mist Dragons
Faerie Dragons(with more spellcasting goodness than the Draco gives them)
more Fey
more Good Celestials.
I like the ogre mage as an ogre and not an oni. I agree, more oni would be awesome, but I've always liked that even the dumb-as-rocks ogre branch of the Type: Giant family tree has something akin the the storm and cloud giants.
That said, I'd like to see some fan-based submissions a-la an RPG Superstar-style contest. Pathfinder feels like a community project, so it only seems fitting that that continue.
|
Shadow Dragons(sadly, i think their closed)
Cloud Dragons
Mist Dragons
Man, I like Shadow Dragons and Cloud Dragons better than *any* of the metallics. But yeah, backwards compatibility and all that. Just because I don't use metallics (or gemstone dragons), doesn't mean they shouldn't have them for those that do.
I'd love see a later product with more primal / elemental-themed dragons. No 'blue' or 'red' dragons, but dragons of Storm and Flame, that can be of any alignment, and have abilities and temperaments appropriate to their elemental natures (the storm dragon being much less likely to be lawful, for instance, being a herald of destruction, riding the storm-winds into civilized lands, bringing the tempest in it's wake). More legendary creatures, Tarrasque-like.
|
Could you please adjust the dinosaur entries to make them a little more generic? There's so many kinds of dinosaurs with similar body types and roles that you could just do a set of tables. Something like:
Type: Hadrosaur, Tyrannosaur, Ceratopsian, Pterasaur, Raptor, Sauropod
Size: Tiny to Colossal within range appropriate to that dinosaur type
Each type would have the same general set of abilities and HD and damage would scale.
Oh, and please give the raptors feathers! :)
If you're a big fan of shadow dragons, might I direct you to the bestiary in PF #11, Skeletons of Scarwall? Therein you will find the Umbral Dragon, a true dragon with various ages and everything. It IS a shadow dragon, for all intents and purposes. And it's all Paizo's to publish.
|
Creative Director
|
Could you please adjust the dinosaur entries to make them a little more generic? There's so many kinds of dinosaurs with similar body types and roles that you could just do a set of tables. Something like:
Type: Hadrosaur, Tyrannosaur, Ceratopsian, Pterasaur, Raptor, Sauropod
Size: Tiny to Colossal within range appropriate to that dinosaur type
Each type would have the same general set of abilities and HD and damage would scale.Oh, and please give the raptors feathers! :)
Absolutely. My current breakdown works like this:
Dinosaur (ceratopsian): Triceratops and Styracosaurus
Dinosaur (sauropod): Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus
Dinosaur (pterosaur): Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus
Dinosaur (aquatic): Plesiosaurus and Mosasaurus
Dinosaur (theropod): Deinonychus and Tyrannosaurus
Two stat blocks per page. Five pages in all.
Trust me... that's a pretty huge display of self-control in my book! :)
|
Creative Director
|
If you're a big fan of shadow dragons, might I direct you to the bestiary in PF #11, Skeletons of Scarwall? Therein you will find the Umbral Dragon, a true dragon with various ages and everything. It IS a shadow dragon, for all intents and purposes. And it's all Paizo's to publish.
Yeah; the umbral dragon in Pathfinder #11 is very much our official version of the shadow dragon (which is closed content to us). It's different enough from the shadow dragon so that you can use it side by side with a shadow dragon, but it's similar enough that it fills the same niche. It probably WON'T go in the first monster book... but it's a strong contender for the 2nd one!
I realize that there will be limits on the dinosaurs but if you wanted to go into more detail with them (and megafauna mammals) you could do a prehistoric monstrosities book later with more detailed info on all kinds of these creatures and others, get a few basics in place with the first monster book. Eventually (if the post comments are accurate about your appreciation for the great beasts is accurate) the thyreophorans (ankylosaurs and stegosaurs), ornithomimids (ostrich mimic dinosaurs), ornitopods, the non dinosaur aquatic reptiles (icthyosaurs, plesiosaurs, pliosaurs and mosasaurs) and maybe some of the more unusual dinosaurs-such as the therizinosaurs, spinosaurs, etc. will be covered. Prehistoric Monstrosities-not bad title for a quickly thought up title.
I would recommend separating Tyrannosaur-sized theropods with raptors. Raptors are different enough what with the scythe-claws and possible pack hunting that I think they would deserve a separate stat-block. Just my 2cp.
Well there is some evidence emerging that tyrannosaurs were also pack hunters so that might not be enough to separate them but ultimately there will probably be more discussion of this topic in the future so that we may be able to look over some of the work or ideas before it reaches final printing form. Here's hoping anyway.
|
Creative Director
|
Trust me... that's a pretty huge display of self-control in my book! :)Must...have...hadrosaurs...
But seriously, I like that system. Might I suggest adding the pachycephalosauria. Could use a nice bludgeoning charger.
No thyreophora? They are the "Tanks"!
Adding in an ankylosaurus and stegosaurus page was tempting... but again, I restrained myself. We're having the first big MONSTER THROWDOWN meeting tomorrow here at Paizo, so if the other editors seem dinosaur friendly enough I might try to add in a few more pages...
|
Creative Director
|
I would recommend separating Tyrannosaur-sized theropods with raptors. Raptors are different enough what with the scythe-claws and possible pack hunting that I think they would deserve a separate stat-block. Just my 2cp.
I agree... but I suspect that it'll be easier for me to get the rest of the folk here to accept 4 pages of dinosaurs (including one with deinonychus and tyrannosaurus) than 5 pages (including one with deinonychus and velociraptor and one with allosaurus and tyrannosaurs).
No llamas, please.
Adding in an ankylosaurus and stegosaurus page was tempting...
Only tempting...? C'mon James, we *need* those two...soon.
I would recommend separating Tyrannosaur-sized theropods with raptors. Raptors are different enough what with the scythe-claws and possible pack hunting that I think they would deserve a separate stat-block. Just my 2cp.I agree... but I suspect that it'll be easier for me to get the rest of the folk here to accept 4 pages of dinosaurs (including one with deinonychus and tyrannosaurus) than 5 pages (including one with deinonychus and velociraptor and one with allosaurus and tyrannosaurs).
Not to mention a single text line for each dinosaur can list one or two similar creatures that the stats can stand in for. There are a lot of similar sized dinos. For example, Centrosaurus and Styracosaurus are almost identical in size, and could be represented by the same set of stats.
I have been on a sort of prehistoric megafauna kick lately (I loves them like my dinos). Some of these citters are just made for D&D.
James as commented that he would like to replace dire animals with their megafauna equivalents. After doing some research, that may not be difficult.
Dire ape = Gigantopithicus
Dire bear = Arctodus
Dire shark = Megalodon
Dire wolf = Dire wolf (and maybe Hyaenodon too)
I am not sure were to put Smilodons and scimatar cats, as the stats on the dire lion and dire tiger don't quite fit. Besides, skull studies suggest the scimatar cat could probably sprint like a cheetah.
[listMaybe a few more fey, especially some “darker” or unseelie fey[/list] [/list]
I'd love seeing some more unseelie/dark/evil fey myself.
Oh, and the foxwoman. Just because I plain like her. ;)
[listMaybe a few more fey, especially some “darker” or unseelie fey[/list] [/list]
I'd love seeing some more unseelie/dark/evil fey myself.
Oh, and the foxwoman. Just because I plain like her. ;)
Yeah, more fey would be good...and the foxwoman should be a fey, not a lycanthrope. In Asian folklore, the fox is essentially a fey creature.
Yeah, more fey would be good...and the foxwoman should be a fey, not a lycanthrope. In Asian folklore, the fox is essentially a fey creature.
Agreed. I would also like to see a less sinister version of the Bean Sidhe (instead of the undead elf version) from earlier editions.
The Lhiannan Shee would also be an interesting creature, as it was a sort of vampiric muse.
Absolutely. My current breakdown works like this:
Dinosaur (ceratopsian): Triceratops and Styracosaurus
Dinosaur (sauropod): Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus
Dinosaur (pterosaur): Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus
Dinosaur (aquatic): Plesiosaurus and Mosasaurus
Dinosaur (theropod): Deinonychus and TyrannosaurusTwo stat blocks per page. Five pages in all.
Trust me... that's a pretty huge display of self-control in my book! :)
My fondest memory of my first character was polymorphing into a t-rex. That is pretty awesome when you're seven years old.
Anyhow, I consulted my paleontologist friend (also a gamer) on this setup. I suggest you change "aquatic" to "mosasaur." There is the technical problem that pterosaurs and mosasaurs are not actually dinosaurs— but he would be satisfied with a line in their description that starts out "Not true dinosaurs..."
That way, you'll be educating 7 year olds about natural history and have awesome dinosaurs at the same time!
EDIT: Says also, that paleontologist: "yeah. kronosaurus and lipleurodon for the mosasaurs. they're among the most monster-y organisms to have ever lived" (my vote is make mosasaur the type, and get the lipleurodon in there as a sea monster. That thing is horrifying!)
[threadjack] What if it's a magical lipleurodon, and it's going to tell us the way to Candy Mountain, Charlie? [/threadjack]
|
|
Absolutely. My current breakdown works like this:Dinosaur (ceratopsian): Triceratops and Styracosaurus
Dinosaur (sauropod): Brachiosaurus and Diplodocus
Dinosaur (pterosaur): Pteranodon and Ramphorynchus
Dinosaur (aquatic): Plesiosaurus and Mosasaurus
Dinosaur (theropod): Deinonychus and Tyrannosaurus
May I suggest that you split the raptors and the other theropods into separate entries and doing a few different size entries for each subtype?
There are many distinct sizes of raptor-type creatures that could be considered a threat (turkey-sized velociraptor all the way to megaraptor) and there's different sizes of theropods too (nanotyrannus all the way to t-rex). With a little care, you could fit 3 entries per page.
Oh, and please don't forget the feathers! :)
One thing I'd like to see in a future Pathfinder MM is a size silhouette. A few companies monster manuals use this, such as Privateer Press' Monsternomicon. You have a small silhouette of a man next to a silhouette of the monster.
This gives a much better idea of a monsters size than just saying tiny/large/colossal.
May I suggest that you split the raptors and the other theropods into separate entries and doing a few different size entries for each subtype?
There are many distinct sizes of raptor-type creatures that could be considered a threat (turkey-sized velociraptor all the way to megaraptor) and there's different sizes of theropods too (nanotyrannus all the way to t-rex). With a little care, you could fit 3 entries per page.
Oh, and please don't forget the feathers! :)
One thing, megaraptor turned out not to be a raptor. Current theory puts it as either a carnosaur or a spinosaur.
There is a lot of debate about nanotyrannaus too. Many think it may actually be a juvenile Tyrannosaurus (which still works for the sake of your arguement). Gorgosaurus is another good example of a small Tyrannosaurid.
|
|
Thanks for the corrections. There's so many changes day to day that it's hard to keep up. Funny, considering they've been dead for millions of years. :)
Point is that there's enough variety in species (or age categories if you prefer) of dinosaur to warrant a little more detail for each. 3 stat blocks in the entry for each dino type would not be impossible for space IMO. Especially so if some of the more useless creatures are getting left on the cutting room floor (looking at you, Delver).
Did I mention feathers yet? :D
|
|
The only monsters that are really under scrutiny for chopping are, really, the newer ones added in to the game during 3rd edition (such as the tojinada and the delver), and monsters that may have been around for a long time but haven't been used much at all (say, the grig or the locathah).
Ah! No! Please do not cut the locathah!!! Locathah are AWESOME. They are the lizardmen of aquatic adventuring: not good, not evil, just alien and weird. Plus they are a match for low level PCs.
I have used locathah many, many times, as bad guys, as NPCs, and as a PC race. I know that people think of them as weak sisters to the Saughin, but they fill a unique role in D&D.
Oh, and the foxwoman. Just because I plain like her. ;)
*points!* Furry! Furry! *more accusative pointing* ;)
[Ah! No! Please do not cut the locathah!!! Locathah are AWESOME. They are the lizardmen of aquatic adventuring: not good, not evil, just alien and weird. Plus they are a match for low level PCs.
I have used locathah many, many times, as bad guys, as NPCs, and as a PC race. I know that people think of them as weak sisters to the Saughin, but they fill a unique role in D&D.
I've always wondered about the origin of the name. In my experience (which may be completely odd) this is one of those creatures that everybody made up a new spelling and pronunciation for anytime they referred to it.
I was disappointed when I couldn't find Giant Frog in the 3e Monster Manual. The encounter with the giant frog in Village of Hommlet was very memorable. I also liked the killer frogs of 1e MM, and loved the frogs in the Wormy comic by Dave Trampier. Giant Toad is no substitute (you could leave it out as far as I'm concerned). Please don't forget the frogs! Ribbit! Ribbit! Grippli or some other frogman would also be nice.
|
This is another sort of trouble area, since this first Pathfinder monster book isn't a Golarion book. It's our analogy to the Monster Manual, and just as the D&D Monster Manual had monsters for ALL the campaign settings, so must this one. We aren't going to have much Golarion flavor at all in there as a result. Sure, the goblins will look and act like the Burnt Offerings goblins, but the book's goal is to provide stats for as many monsters as possible. It's a reference book and an art book well before it is an ecology or society book, and one of the places we'll probably HAVE to keep things short and sweet is individual monster flavor. Golarion can continue to feel like no monster was just plopped in, and while every monster in the Pathfinder MM will have a place and a role in Golarion, we'll be talking about that in the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, Modules, and Chronicles products, not in the world-neutral monster book that serves as the core monster reference for the Pathfinder RPG as a whole.
Hi there,
I appreciate this approach of yours very much. Separating rules from campaign content is the best way to make other companies interested in adapting your new rule set and thereby increasing the basis of players using PFRPG.
On the other hand I don't understand your product naming conventions:
If the core PFRPG rules are to stay as separate as possible from the Golarion setting, why not give it a separate name or mark it more clearly as something separate?
I spend quite some time on these message boards and know the products. But even I cannot clearly define where the line between setting and rules run (similar as defining what the differences between Chronicle and Companion products are).
I heavily recommend to differentiate the product lines (especially rules and setting) more clearly.
Thanks for listening!
Kr,
Günther