Paizo Pathfinder Bestiary: The Great Monster Debate!

[Susan Draconis]

I know this only loosely fits the thread and only if you squint but it is a thread on monsters and books...

What are your rules going to be for were-creatures? Say hypothetically I had a NG cleric of a LG god, say Iomedae. And say hypothetically this NG cleric got bit by a were-creature, say a wererat. Are you going to keep the WotC rules that demand I screw over this poor cleric who just happened to roll badly on her save by making her suddenly CE? Or will we be able to work something out such that this poor cleric doesn't suddenly lose her motivation, backstory, faith, will to live, etc?

[Steven Purcell]

Susan Draconis wrote:

I know this only loosely fits the thread and only if you squint but it is a thread on monsters and books...

What are your rules going to be for were-creatures? Say hypothetically I had a NG cleric of a LG god, say Iomedae. And say hypothetically this NG cleric got bit by a were-creature, say a wererat. Are you going to keep the WotC rules that demand I screw over this poor cleric who just happened to roll badly on her save by making her suddenly CE? Or will we be able to work something out such that this poor cleric doesn't suddenly lose her motivation, backstory, faith, will to live, etc?

Let me second this; were creatures should be able to be of any alignment so that you could have a LG werewolf paladin or some other combination that by the WotC lycanthrope alignment rules would be possible; that is no fixed alignment for particular types of lycanthropes.

[Duncan & Dragons]

Steven Purcell wrote:

Let me second this; were creatures should be able to be of any alignment so that you could have a LG werewolf paladin or some other combination that by the WotC lycanthrope alignment rules would be possible; that is no fixed alignment for particular types of lycanthropes.

Why cannot we have a different alignments for the 'human' and a different alignment when affected by the moon? What happened to the good old days when werewolves did not know they were the ones eating people at night? It is supposed to be a curse, not a life-style.

EDIT: Does the top of page 13 inflict lycanthropy on the poster?

[James Jacobs]

Susan Draconis wrote:

I know this only loosely fits the thread and only if you squint but it is a thread on monsters and books...

What are your rules going to be for were-creatures? Say hypothetically I had a NG cleric of a LG god, say Iomedae. And say hypothetically this NG cleric got bit by a were-creature, say a wererat. Are you going to keep the WotC rules that demand I screw over this poor cleric who just happened to roll badly on her save by making her suddenly CE? Or will we be able to work something out such that this poor cleric doesn't suddenly lose her motivation, backstory, faith, will to live, etc?

We're still quite a ways away from figuring out what to do about this, but I'm pretty sure lycanthropes will remain a template, so you can apply any of the variants to any character.

That said... werewolves aren't good guys. At least, they're not in most of the popular classic werewolf stories; they certainly haven't been good guys in D&D. Same with wererats. The alignments of the various lycanthropes will thus be VERY unlikely to change. That doesn't mean you can't have a lawful good werewolf, of course; but it does mean that a lawful good werewolf will be the exception to the rule. The concept of lycanthropy is that it's a curse, not a benefit, after all.

Most werewolves in the Pathfinder RPG will be savage, chaotic evil murderers, is what I'm saying.

[Montalve]

James Jacobs wrote:

We're still quite a ways away from figuring out what to do about this, but I'm pretty sure lycanthropes will remain a template, so you can apply any of the variants to any character.

That said... werewolves aren't good guys. At least, they're not in most of the popular classic werewolf stories; they certainly haven't been good guys in D&D. Same with wererats. The alignments of the various lycanthropes will thus be VERY unlikely to change. That doesn't mean you can't have a lawful good werewolf, of course; but it does mean that a lawful good werewolf will be the exception to the rule. The concept of lycanthropy is that it's a curse, not a benefit, after all.

Most werewolves in the Pathfinder RPG will be savage, chaotic evil murderers, is what I'm saying.

most movies take on this is that a good person can become a lycantrope, but its a curse, so for a few days he is uncontrollable murderous bastard

i would like to see this implemented instead of changing a good hearted cleric into a murderous bastard just becasue he good an unlucky roll

i remember more than one movie where good persons chained themselves in the nights of full moos as to not hur anyone during the time of the curse

natrual werebeast on the other hand...

[JRM]

Steven Purcell wrote:

Susan Draconis wrote:

I know this only loosely fits the thread and only if you squint but it is a thread on monsters and books...

What are your rules going to be for were-creatures? Say hypothetically I had a NG cleric of a LG god, say Iomedae. And say hypothetically this NG cleric got bit by a were-creature, say a wererat. Are you going to keep the WotC rules that demand I screw over this poor cleric who just happened to roll badly on her save by making her suddenly CE? Or will we be able to work something out such that this poor cleric doesn't suddenly lose her motivation, backstory, faith, will to live, etc?

Let me second this; were creatures should be able to be of any alignment so that you could have a LG werewolf paladin or some other combination that by the WotC lycanthrope alignment rules would be possible; that is no fixed alignment for particular types of lycanthropes.

I like the notion of lycanthropy victims having a dual nature: Lawful Good healer by day, Chaotic Evil beast by moonlight. "Even the man who's pure of heart and says his prayers at night / May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright" and all that.

Maybe after enough moons as a were their lycanthropic nature starts to overwhelm their human one, and they become CE all the time but it feels wrong for it to be a sudden process.

[Thraxus]

There is an ancient issue of dragon that had a nice chart for handling alignment shifts for lycanthropes back in 1e. It was reprinted in either Best of Dragon Volume 1 or 2. Characters slow shifted alignement to something in between their original alignment and the alignment of the werecreature.

For example, a NE Drow infected by a werebear would eventually become LN or N as a drow. It would be LG as a werebear on the nights of the full moon.

In the case of a LG cleric and a werewolf, the character would become N in daily life and CE when the wolf was loose on the nights of the full moon.

[Disciple of Sakura]

Something that's been bugging me about outsiders is their summon ability. Let's look at the succubus - A Succubus is CR 6, and has a 30% chance to summon a Vrock - CR 9. If a succubus succeeds in summoning a vrock, the PCs could very well be looking at a TPK. A succubus isn't exactly a threat on her own to your average 6th level party, but the vrock would seriously mess them up. Using the CR system, you could theoretically use a succubus against an APL 4 group to provide a challenging encounter, and if the summon effect succeeds, you're almost certainly guaranteeing that the campaign has just ended in a TPK...

Outsider summon abilities need to be reliable things that won't suddenly swing an encounter into unpredictable territory. They need to be in line with the CR of the monster. If a succubus will be able to summon a Vrock, it should do so with certain caveats consistently, and the Vrock should be factored into the succubus's challenge rating. The same goes for all the rest of these summon abilities. I'd rather not have to completely ignore an ability of a monster because it has a 30% chance to make the fight ludicrously difficult but otherwise is completely inconsequential.

[James Jacobs]

Disciple of Sakura wrote:

Something that's been bugging me about outsiders is their summon ability. Let's look at the succubus - A Succubus is CR 6, and has a 30% chance to summon a Vrock .

That's not so bad if you set her side by side with a 3.0 succubus, who had a chance of summoning a balor...

But yeah. The demonic summoning thing probably could stand to be balanced even more.

[Charles Evans 25]

Update, two posts from *another thread*:

Erik Mona wrote:

I'm very pleased to announce the new hardcover monster book for the Pathfinder RPG:

THE PATHFINDER BESTIARY!

The greatest monsters of fantasy gaming come alive in the very first hardcover release for Paizo’s new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game! Backward-compatible with the 3.5 fantasy rules but packed with new solutions and options that place it firmly on the cutting edge, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is the culmination of the largest open playtest in tabletop RPG history.

This lavishly illustrated, full-color tome contains new takes on more than 250 of the best-loved, most popular monsters of fantasy ready for instant use in your Pathfinder or 3.5 campaign! From the comedic-but-deadly goblin to the world-killing Tarrasque, The Pathfinder Bestiary contains a wide range of foes suitable for battles with characters of all experience levels.

The book’s innovative design and presentation—each monster receives either a full page or two-page spread—makes for an easy reference book that is also fun to read and delightful to flip through and enjoy as a gallery of the industry’s strongest fantasy art. With a cover by fan-favorite Wayne Reynolds and new takes on classic monsters from the best of Paizo’s in-house and freelance designers and artists, The Pathfinder Bestiary will set a new standard for RPG monster books in a way that only Paizo can deliver.

Click on the product's title to preorder! The cover on the page is a mock-up. WAYNE REYNOLDS is currently sketching the final cover.

WOOT!

James Jacobs wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

WOOT !

WOOOOOT !

I have one question regarding and one request:

1.) Erik, do you know which monsters got cut from the 3.5 MM, apart from the copyrighted ones and the Tojanida ?

2.) I want a badass Wayne Reynolds cover on this, featuring the Cloaker, the Catoplebas and the Invisible Stalker ;)

I can guarentee you a bad-ass Wayne cover. But it won't have cloakers or a catoblepas. It'll certainly have some invisible stalkers, though.

And we have worked out a pretty solid list of the monsters that are going into the book, but we aren't going to be releasing that list anytime soon. MAYBE once the book's release date draws closer...

[Charles Evans 25]

Further updates from that Thread:

James Jacobs wrote:

hogarth wrote:

How much of the book do you think will be Open Content?

Probably all of it.

James Jacobs wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

My only concern is that number: 250 monsters. That's half of what the Monster Manual has. Are you counting differently? How any of the open content monsters will be left behind?

Think of the 250 monsters as the minimum. We still aren't sure how many we can fit on a page. Will the aboleth take up one page? Can we get two animals on one page? How many pages will the dragons eat up? How many pages will we use for back-matter and how-to-build monster rules? We don't know yet. We only know that there's at least 250 monsters.

The total number of PAGES in the book is gonna be greater than the Monster Manual, of course. But yes... there WILL be monsters from the MM left behind in this book, particularly since we want to include some from the Tome of Horrors and other sources. What ones get left behind is the choice we need to make in the coming months... but I'm pretty sure that the ones that are left behind will be included in the Pathfinder Bestiary II.

If the monster was in the original first edition Monster Manual, though, chances of being in the book are pretty high.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs:
I'm still worried that you may need something weird to make players go 'What the heck?' the first time tht they encounter it, tough, and potentially iconic to makeup for the absence of beholders. (I know that it has been mentioned in the Pathfinder chats that for Second Darkness a Mindflayer replacement has been identified, and that some of the weirder and scarier things such as rust monsters and black puddings are still available for inclusion if you so choose.)

Putting aside the obligatory plea for inclusion in the first Bestiary for Russ' Darkblight (page count for three monsters too high, I know) I suspect that the Ooze Imperium may be a little too wacky (despite its high popularity in the RPG Superstar contest) for even just the Brain Oozes to make it in either; however, seriously, what about an upgraded version of Christine Schneider's Dungeon Core being included though, so that DMs have the option for 'sentient dungeons'?

Oh, and please consider replacing Displacer Beasts with Hounds of Tindalos, even if consideration only takes just a couple of seconds... :D

[James Jacobs]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

James Jacobs:

I'm still worried that you may need something weird to make players go 'What the heck?' the first time tht they encounter it, tough, and potentially iconic to makeup for the absence of beholders. (I know that it has been mentioned in the Pathfinder chats that for Second Darkness a Mindflayer replacement has been identified, and that some of the weirder and scarier things such as rust monsters and black puddings are still available for inclusion if you so choose.)

Putting aside the obligatory plea for inclusion in the first Bestiary for Russ' Darkblight (page count for three monsters too high, I know) I suspect that the Ooze Imperium may be a little too wacky (despite its high popularity in the RPG Superstar contest) for even just the Brain Oozes to make it in either; however, seriously, what about an upgraded version of Christine Schneider's Dungeon Core being included though, so that DMs have the option for 'sentient dungeons'?

Oh, and please consider replacing Displacer Beasts with Hounds of Tindalos, even if consideration only takes just a couple of seconds... :D

For the Bestiary, there won't be much room for new stuff. There's a certain core of monsters that I feel HAS to be in the book, and that's mostly the stuff from the Monster Manual. That does mean that the majority of the monsters in the Bestiary will be familiar... but that's actually the goal of the Bestiary. We do 5 or so monsters a month in Pathfinder, and that won't be changing when we release the Bestiary; Pathfinder's the place to test out crazy new stuff. Things that work well and are liked by the readers will then probably graduate into Pathfinder Bestiary II or III or IV or IX or MCV.

The first Pathfinder Bestiary will have a few new things, but again, it's not the place to debut crazy stuff. It's the baseline book for the game. It's the spiritual reprint of the Monster Manual, and putting in a lot untested new stuff is, I think, arrogant and disrespectful of the game's traditions.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

For the Bestiary, there won't be much room for new stuff. There's a certain core of monsters that I feel HAS to be in the book, and that's mostly the stuff from the Monster Manual. That does mean that the majority of the monsters in the Bestiary will be familiar... but that's actually the goal of the Bestiary. We do 5 or so monsters a month in Pathfinder, and that won't be changing when we release the Bestiary; Pathfinder's the place to test out crazy new stuff. Things that work well and are liked by the readers will then probably graduate into Pathfinder Bestiary II or III or IV or IX or MCV.

The first Pathfinder Bestiary will have a few new things, but again, it's not the place to debut crazy stuff. It's the baseline book for the game. It's the spiritual reprint of the...

Literally 'just the BASICS and only the BASICS' then?

Edit:
By 'basics', I think I mean solid staples- creatures which could be expected to show up in practically any fantasy setting?

[Epic Meepo]

James Jacobs wrote:

There's a certain core of monsters that I feel HAS to be in the book...

You're talking about dinosaurs again, aren't you? :P

EDIT: More seriously, can we get a dedicated Bestiary subforum now that the product is officially announced? It seems silly that this one thread is the only home for such wide-ranging, unrelated discussions as: what monsters to cut; what categories of dinosaur to use; and how best to handle lycanthrope alignment.

[Dread]

Montalve wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

We're still quite a ways away from figuring out what to do about this, but I'm pretty sure lycanthropes will remain a template, so you can apply any of the variants to any character.

That said... werewolves aren't good guys. At least, they're not in most of the popular classic werewolf stories; they certainly haven't been good guys in D&D. Same with wererats. The alignments of the various lycanthropes will thus be VERY unlikely to change. That doesn't mean you can't have a lawful good werewolf, of course; but it does mean that a lawful good werewolf will be the exception to the rule. The concept of lycanthropy is that it's a curse, not a benefit, after all.

Most werewolves in the Pathfinder RPG will be savage, chaotic evil murderers, is what I'm saying.

most movies take on this is that a good person can become a lycantrope, but its a curse, so for a few days he is uncontrollable murderous bastard

i would like to see this implemented instead of changing a good hearted cleric into a murderous bastard just becasue he good an unlucky roll

i remember more than one movie where good persons chained themselves in the nights of full moos as to not hur anyone during the time of the curse

natrual werebeast on the other hand...

any chance we will see Wolfweres return as well as Werewolves? I do so like Wolfweres and Jackalweres. :D

[Thraxus]

I want a Crocotta/Leucrotta and a Peryton. These monsters were in the 1e Monster Manual, but did not get a fair showing the 3.5e. These would offer something new to the book while still keeping to the spirit of the 1e monster manual.

[Callous Jack]

Thraxus wrote:

I want a Crocotta/Leucrotta and a Peryton.

I second that request. I always loved using Perytons.

[James Jacobs]

Thraxus wrote:

I want a Crocotta/Leucrotta and a Peryton. These monsters were in the 1e Monster Manual, but did not get a fair showing the 3.5e. These would offer something new to the book while still keeping to the spirit of the 1e monster manual.

You'll be getting these in Pathfinder by this time next year. Whether or not they'll show up in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, though... who knows?

[KissMeDarkly]

So... Jimmy J., I was wondering if variants such as those from Classic Monsters Revisited will be included into the PF Bestiary.

[James Jacobs]

KissMeDarkly wrote:

So... Jimmy J., I was wondering if variants such as those from Classic Monsters Revisited will be included into the PF Bestiary.

Probably not. I doubt there'll be room.

[Thraxus]

James Jacobs wrote:

Thraxus wrote:

I want a Crocotta/Leucrotta and a Peryton. These monsters were in the 1e Monster Manual, but did not get a fair showing the 3.5e. These would offer something new to the book while still keeping to the spirit of the 1e monster manual.

You'll be getting these in Pathfinder by this time next year. Whether or not they'll show up in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, though... who knows?

Cool. Thanks James.

[The Wraith]

Ok, since we are going to see next year the new Pathfinder Bestiary, I think we can give some suggestions and indications about errata in the old monsters SRD that were never corrected.

I myself found these only recently:

CHAIN DEVIL (KYTON)
The feats that the Kyton has are wrong. Improved Critical can be taken only with a BaB of +8, but the Kyton has taken it (at best) at 6th HD with the 3.5 rules, and at 7th HD with PFRPG rules. The fact is, the old 3.0 rules gave feats to monsters only every 4 HDs, but since at his 8th HD the kyton had +8 BaB, he could easily take Improved Critical as a regular feat. With 3.5 (and Pathfinder), no more, since at best his BaB when taking the feat would be +6 (3.5) or +7 (PFRPG).

Hope this helps.
(I personally would gave him Intimidating Prowess as a feat... scaaaary !!!)

[Charles Evans 25]

A discussion thread for the topic of monster behaviours has been posted by TreeLynx here: *link*

[Epic Meepo]

At this point, I think its worth reiterating my request for a dedicated Bestiary discussion forum. So many interesting monster discussions, so little relevance to the scheduled Beta playtest discussions. Monster discussions need a home to call their own.

[Ratpick]

As a response to the alignment clause on lycanthropes: the character can still retain his original alignment if he succeeds on the Will Save upon transforming enough times. I think this is fine, as it makes those Lycanthropes who have been capable of controlling their murderous urges extremely formidable individuals and I also tend to think that a disease like Lycanthropy, which changes the victim's body at times, would be enough to traumatically change their view of life.

[Angelic Devil]

Quick question (possibly sort of a threadjack, but what the heck)

In the back of the various Pathfinder Adventure Path Books there new monsters. What are the names of each issues monsters detailed at the back? One issue had a new type of dragon someone mentioned earlier in this thread, I think. any info here would be of interest.

[Charles Evans 25]

Angelic Devil wrote:

Quick question (possibly sort of a threadjack, but what the heck)

In the back of the various Pathfinder Adventure Path Books there new monsters. What are the names of each issues monsters detailed at the back? One issue had a new type of dragon someone mentioned earlier in this thread, I think. any info here would be of interest.

To answer your specific question, the Umbral Dragon was in the bestiary in PF #11, 'Skeletons of Scarwall'

[Charles Evans 25]

Please consider putting fire immunity back on succubi. (I think in 2nd edition they had it because it made sense with their associating with Balors.) Also, when assessing the CR of succubi please keep in mind how difficult it is to employ the 'drain' attack (and accompanying 'suggestion') in the middle of combat, when a lot of big nasty melee artistes are beating a poor hapless succubus with nasty sharp pieces of metal.
For that matter, charm powers seem always a lot less effective when targeted at PCs than when PCs use them on monsters. (Players always insist on the minimum possible effectiveness if a PC is charmed such as 'well all these guys are my PC's friends, so I'm just going to stay out of this fight' whilst expecting much more 'hey you're my friend, defend me!' when it is a PC wizard or cleric who is tossing around the charm.
Succubi are one of those beasts whose CR effectively varies wildly by situation.

[avin]

Could we have more straight abilities and less "cast spells as a 7th level sorcerer"? This is one thing I like in D&D4E: not having to look at PHB everytime...

[avin]

What's the chance of Daemons/Yugoloths go in?

I can't play without some Arcanoloths and Ultroloths... and even that creature they now call "Mezzodemon"...

[Black Dow]

James Jacobs wrote:

Thraxus wrote:

I want a Crocotta/Leucrotta and a Peryton. These monsters were in the 1e Monster Manual, but did not get a fair showing the 3.5e. These would offer something new to the book while still keeping to the spirit of the 1e monster manual.

You'll be getting these in Pathfinder by this time next year. Whether or not they'll show up in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, though... who knows?

As a fan of Perytons too this is good news. If they don't end up in the Bestiary are they likely to get a stand-alone "Revisited" treatment?

BTW - Thraxus/Callous Jack [anyone?] ever came across Peryton [or equivalent] miniatures? I know Ral-Partha did some in their old school D&D line, but there uber rare and mighty expensive...

[apologies to all for the partial thread-jack]

[Thraxus]

Black Dow wrote:

BTW - Thraxus/Callous Jack [anyone?] ever came across Peryton [or equivalent] miniatures? I know Ral-Partha did some in their old school D&D line, but there uber rare and mighty expensive...

I am afraid not. Of course, some depections have them looking like winged stags, as opposed to the stag headed birds in D&D 1e.

If you go with that description, you might be able to use pegasi miniatures as a stand in.

Hey James, which appearance are you guys leaning toward for Pathfinder?

[Keneto]

cappadocius wrote:

I would love love love it if you would just make Dire a template, instead of having page after page of "Really big, ugly animals"

PLEASE FIX TYPES. ANKHEG SHOULD BE VERMIN! YETH HOUNDS ARE FEY! ATHACHS SHOULD BE GIANTS OR ETTIN SHOULD BE ABERRATIONS!

I know this is going to sound weird... but I would also template:

• Giant. Include all the classic giants, of course (hill, storm, what-have-you). But let me add a fast giant template on any creature. Then don't bother printing "Colossal Animated object" and "Gargantuan Skeleton" Yeah, we get the point on skeletons after "Huge"... I can figure out advancement if I want it any bigger.
  
• Reptile. Lizardman = waste of space. Might as well just toss it on any creature (Sound strange? What about Chimera and Cockatrice?). Reptile is a nice large class, offering "Reptileman", "Alligatorman", "Wormzards" (amphisbaenids IRL),
  and yes, every one's favourite, the Tojanida.
  
• Fey. Did any books do this? MM1 kinda tossed sprites in together. Lump some more in there. Maybe I want a Chesire Cat or a Totoro (owl-fey?) or a Yeth Hound, but I don't want to have to explain it away as an outsider.
  

Also, I wouldn't mind a manual listed alphabetically. In 2e MM, when I wanted "Lion" I checked MM under "C" for cats and there was lion listed (along with the other felines). In 3.0e MM1, I have Lion under "L" but at the back of the book under "A" for animal. Furthermore, if I flip forwards, looking for Centipede, I will be thwarted, because Centipede comes after Lion :o

[James Jacobs]

Thraxus wrote:

Black Dow wrote:

BTW - Thraxus/Callous Jack [anyone?] ever came across Peryton [or equivalent] miniatures? I know Ral-Partha did some in their old school D&D line, but there uber rare and mighty expensive...

I am afraid not. Of course, some depections have them looking like winged stags, as opposed to the stag headed birds in D&D 1e.

If you go with that description, you might be able to use pegasi miniatures as a stand in.

Hey James, which appearance are you guys leaning toward for Pathfinder?

The Pathfinder Peryton (which won't be in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, but might be in the second) is the more classic version: a fanged stag with wings and the hind quarters of a hawk and a human heart in its mouth and a human shadow being cast by its body.

[James Jacobs]

We probably won't be doing MUCH to change monster types. Ankhegs as magical beasts means they can be trained (vermin, lacking minds, cannot really be "trained"). Yeth hounds in Golarion are outsider minions of Lamashtu, so they'll stay outsiders. Athachs are weird... IF they make it into the bestiary, they'll probably be giants.

Two changes I know I'd like to see happen:

Ropers should be aberrations
Derro should be humanoids

And I'll be pushing hard for all alphabetical. Centipedes under "C" and lions under "L" in other words.

[Erik Mona]

I am sort of hoping athachs are not included. I have never used them, their rules are problematic, and they're just stupid-looking.

[Gene 95]

James Jacobs wrote:

The Pathfinder Peryton (which won't be in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, but might be in the second) is the more classic version: a fanged stag with wings and the hind quarters of a hawk and a human heart in its mouth and a human shadow being cast by its body.

Thank you!

The full-stag Perytons have bugged the ever-living crap out of me for far too long. :p

EDIT: I also never even noticed that Derro weren't dwarves anymore (monstrous humanoid? What?!). What's up with that oddball little design decision?

[Thraxus]

Erik Mona wrote:

I am sort of hoping athachs are not included. I have never used them, their rules are problematic, and they're just stupid-looking.

I like the athachs and have had some fun with them, but I have to agree that they would make better giants. I never quite understood why they are aberrations.

Speaking of giants, I hope we see a cyclops eventually.

[avin]

James Jacobs wrote:

And I'll be pushing hard for all alphabetical. Centipedes under "C" and lions under "L" in other words.

That lv 20 Ultroloth will be at D of Daemon or Y from Yugoloth? :p

[JRM]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Please consider putting fire immunity back on succubi. (I think in 2nd edition they had it because it made sense with their associating with Balors.) Also, when assessing the CR of succubi please keep in mind how difficult it is to employ the 'drain' attack (and accompanying 'suggestion') in the middle of combat, when a lot of big nasty melee artistes are beating a poor hapless succubus with nasty sharp pieces of metal.

Wasn't resistance to heat & flame a default power of AD&D Demons? I don't remember anything in the Monstrous Manual saying succubi had fire immunity so they could go on hot dates. :)

Anyhows you're right that many of a succubus's powers are pretty useless in a straight-up fight. They only really come into their own with skads of Cha-dependent class levels or playing the old "hidden manipulating menace" game.

[James Jacobs]

Gene wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

The Pathfinder Peryton (which won't be in the first Pathfinder Bestiary, but might be in the second) is the more classic version: a fanged stag with wings and the hind quarters of a hawk and a human heart in its mouth and a human shadow being cast by its body.

Thank you!

The full-stag Perytons have bugged the ever-living crap out of me for far too long. :p

EDIT: I also never even noticed that Derro weren't dwarves anymore (monstrous humanoid? What?!). What's up with that oddball little design decision?

I have no idea. It annoys me, because using the rules as written... you can't have a derro lich. Lame.

[James Jacobs]

Thraxus wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

I am sort of hoping athachs are not included. I have never used them, their rules are problematic, and they're just stupid-looking.

I like the athachs and have had some fun with them, but I have to agree that they would make better giants. I never quite understood why they are aberrations.

Speaking of giants, I hope we see a cyclops eventually.

A close read of the Pathfinder Campaign Setting should reveal that cyclopses have a pretty integrated role; they, like linnorms, are very likely to be in the Pathfinder Bestiary as a result.

[James Jacobs]

avin wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

And I'll be pushing hard for all alphabetical. Centipedes under "C" and lions under "L" in other words.

That lv 20 Ultroloth will be at D of Daemon or Y from Yugoloth? :p

For the demons, daemons, devils, dragons, archons, inevitables, and other creatures with shared racial traits, they will indeed be grouped under their race name. We can't use ultroloths (or Yugoloths, for that matter), though, because they're not open content.

[James Jacobs]

JRM wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Please consider putting fire immunity back on succubi. (I think in 2nd edition they had it because it made sense with their associating with Balors.) Also, when assessing the CR of succubi please keep in mind how difficult it is to employ the 'drain' attack (and accompanying 'suggestion') in the middle of combat, when a lot of big nasty melee artistes are beating a poor hapless succubus with nasty sharp pieces of metal.

Wasn't resistance to heat & flame a default power of AD&D Demons? I don't remember anything in the Monstrous Manual saying succubi had fire immunity so they could go on hot dates. :)

Anyhows you're right that many of a succubus's powers are pretty useless in a straight-up fight. They only really come into their own with skads of Cha-dependent class levels or playing the old "hidden manipulating menace" game.

Succubi have trouble using their drain attack in combat, sure... but that's not when they're supposed to use it. Not everything a monster does has to be balanced for combat; some of them have abilities that work best at other times. A creature that can make you want to let it level drain you to death is pretty tough, especially against PCs who are on their lonesome.

[Charles Evans 25]

James Jacobs wrote:

JRM wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Please consider putting fire immunity back on succubi. (I think in 2nd edition they had it because it made sense with their associating with Balors.) Also, when assessing the CR of succubi please keep in mind how difficult it is to employ the 'drain' attack (and accompanying 'suggestion') in the middle of combat, when a lot of big nasty melee artistes are beating a poor hapless succubus with nasty sharp pieces of metal.

Wasn't resistance to heat & flame a default power of AD&D Demons? I don't remember anything in the Monstrous Manual saying succubi had fire immunity so they could go on hot dates. :)

Anyhows you're right that many of a succubus's powers are pretty useless in a straight-up fight. They only really come into their own with skads of Cha-dependent class levels or playing the old "hidden manipulating menace" game.

Succubi have trouble using their drain attack in combat, sure... but that's not when they're supposed to use it. Not everything a monster does has to be balanced for combat; some of them have abilities that work best at other times. A creature that can make you want to let it level drain you to death is pretty tough, especially against PCs who are on their lonesome.

Well for monsters whose threat level varies wildly depending upon the situation in which they encounter the PC, could you consider alternate CRs? I think I suggested something like this before, either on this thread or somewhere else, with 'glass cannon' monsters having CR varying by 1 or 2 depending on whether they had surprise and/or initiative or not.

I would think an (unclassed) succubus has to get what amounts to 'surprise' on a PC or group of PCs to be effective, although I'm not sure if that holds so much if you start putting Charisma spellcasting levels on her, at least higher than her regular HD.
If nothing else please think about keeping the Succubus CR down, as you have done with Rakshasas in Golarion.

[avin]

James Jacobs wrote:

We can't use ultroloths (or Yugoloths, for that matter), though, because they're not open content.

No yugoloths... no modrons... my Pathfinder Planescape will be a desolated game,,, =/

[Thraxus]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Well for monsters whose threat level varies wildly depending upon the situation in which they encounter the PC, could you consider alternate CRs? I think I suggested something like this before, either on this thread or somewhere else, with 'glass cannon' monsters having CR varying by 1 or 2 depending on whether they had surprise and/or initiative or not.

I would think an (unclassed) succubus has to get what amounts to 'surprise' on a PC or group of PCs to be effective, although I'm not sure if that holds so much if you start putting Charisma spellcasting levels on her, at least higher than her regular HD.
If nothing else please think about keeping the Succubus CR down, as you have done with Rakshasas in Golarion.

At the very least, a suggestion on how they operate would be useful for new DMs. This is the reason I really like the Tactics section of the stat blocks.

[Gorbacz]

avin wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

We can't use ultroloths (or Yugoloths, for that matter), though, because they're not open content.

No yugoloths... no modrons... my Pathfinder Planescape will be a desolated game,,, =/

Honestly, I never really bought the "yugoloths are the REAL fiends that make devils and demons look silly" vibe. I hope the PFRPG daemons will be a solid replacement - the Book of Fiends daemons were pretty cool.

Now, modrons...them I will miss. Overall, Mechanus and his inhabitants is one of the best ideas of 2ed, really. In my PFRPG games I intend to keep Mechanus as it was in WotC settings, perhaps using the Axis as some sort of capital city there. But Modrons are staying, they are too cool to leave out.

Are Giffs open content ? :)

[James Jacobs]

Giff are not open content.

And it's worth pointing out that while the word "yugoloth" isn't open, many of the daemons that were yugoloths ARE open and we can (and will) use them.