Humans, humans, humaaans!!!
And the Gargantua! I've been waiting for it since 3rd edition came out.
Kaiju/Gargantua are certainly monsters.
But are humans? Are dwarves and elves? Duergar and drow are, sure... but do people really want pages of human soldiers and elven scouts in their monster book? Wouldn't they rather have stats for these guys in another product?
Excellent point!!! If any monsters are to be cut from the Pathfinder monster book for space and budget reasons than PC races should be #1 on the list. Even over Yrthaks (which I persoanlly liked).
Drow, Duergar and Snrifliblin get in the book though.
On the other hand, a "Classic Monsters Revisited" treatment of the core races sounds like a pretty interesting book to me.
Yesssssss
Hooray!No, we're going to have to cut some monsters. I prefer to think of them as sacrifices.
The tojanida is quivering in its shell, I can tell you.
They will have their vengeance, Beldan!!!
I think I can agree with removing PC races from the book.
On the other hand, a "Classic Monsters Revisited" treatment of the core races sounds like a pretty interesting book to me.
Makes mo' bettah sense.
There should also be brownies and leprechauns.
Sam
Finally some respek.
I don't mind if teh WE is not "free"
Myself and I'm sure others in the community would be more than willing to help with the simple conversions needed for whatever doesn't make the cut.
I'm In!
Is there going to be an effort to make the monsters slightly more consistent with regards to Challenge Ratings?
I would rather have a shorter, more balanced book than a longer book thrown together and filled with quick straight across conversions. I know ecology type stuff is out but perhaps a small section on tactics?
Oh, is this to be part of a subscription or is it going to be a separate purchase like the core book?
I'd pay as well. I'm just saying free due to traditional WE's being free. Also, Paizo did make a free WE for the PRPG Beta which has 65 pages.
Good point. I was just trying to make clear that I would even pay for the usually "free" stuff. I luv Paizo that much (hehehe)
I luv Paizo more than you!
Don't get me started... ;P
I think I can agree with removing PC races from the book.
On the other hand, a "Classic Monsters Revisited" treatment of the core races sounds like a pretty interesting book to me.
Hey I called it!!! Someone get me a job at Paizo!
LinkOk just wanted to pat myself on the back. Sorry. :)
|
Kaiju/Gargantua are certainly monsters.But are humans? Are dwarves and elves? Duergar and drow are, sure... but do people really want pages of human soldiers and elven scouts in their monster book? Wouldn't they rather have stats for these guys in another product?
Maybe you're right, considering the situation, to have only (arguably) "real" monsters in the book. And have a different supplement for NPCs.
In such case, it wouldn't make sense to include RACES (not monsters) in this book. And the drow, duergar, svirnefblin are all races, you'd have to put in some levels in an NPC class in them, thus more suited for the NPC book.
However, I can see from here a big crowd against excluding the drow (for the twinkie reasons you know) from the book, and I wouldn't like to see a book for races AND another one for NPCs....or a book dedicated to only one race such as the fearful Races of... series.
I trust Paizo will make the right decision, though, you always do (or get close enough anyway).
:)
|
I'll just make a post listing those in MM I find stupid or somewhat impractical.
Achaierai
Arrowhawk
Athach
Bodak (If nothing else, redo this to make it NOT look like a Grey alien)
Cloaker
Delver
Devourer
Digester
Eagle, Giant (all giant creatures, like Giant Owl, could be under one entry)
Ethereal Filcher
Ethereal Marauder
Girallon (four-armed ape? Come on..)
Grey Render (read its description and look at its reproduction cycle. This creature is doomed to extinction.)
Grick (what is this monster?)
Lamia & Lammasu (more centaur spin-offs..)
Phantom Fungus (it's stupid)
Rast
Ravid
Spider Eater
Thoqqua
Tojanida (You know, this is the first time I acknowledged the picture .. oh GOD that's HORRIBLE. The designers should be put to death! ;)
Vargouille (this one was featured in the horrible D&D monsters website! Indeed, it's stupid)
Xill
Yeth Hound (we have Hell Hound, away with ye!)
Yrthak (we have velociraptor, away with ye!)
Okay, so what would make the monster book better? I would, for one, like to see more golems of lower CR. Also, concentrating on mundane monsters would be quite nice.
|
|
Just casting my vote without regard to previous posts:
Dragons, Linnorms, and Sea Serpents are a must.
Mammoths are needed - if you've got a Realm of Mammoth Lords, you need mammoth stats. Keep dinosaurs for our lost worlds.
Anything published to date in an AP should really get into a Monster Manual, even if it's a Monster Manual II.
Red and Green Planet natives - sentient (with PC modifiers) and non-.
Riding animals - horses and ponies, obviously. Are there special dwarven Mountain Ponies? Stats please. Do Golarion's halflings ride dogs? Then their stats please. Do Golarion's gnomes ride goats, or deer, or what? Stats, please. Goblin Dogs need to be in the main MM if there are going to be Goblins.
An expanded familiar list would be awesome - even if it's just an extra line on every normal animal telling us when it can be chosen as a familiar. Ditto animal companions.
Would it be too crazy to put animated object stats with the animate object spell?
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!
Woo Hoo!!!I don't think modrons are open, in any event.
Le-sigh. I take off my hat in remembrance of you, Modrons... seeing as Wizards of the Coast likely won't be bringing you back either.
I'm gonna miss you little, baroque-looking, clock-work dudes.
I suppose this just goes to illustrate the differences in personal tastes from person to person, though.
Anything that comes across like a jumble together of Jules Verne, The Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth is automatically endearing in my book. I thought Modrons were neat in first edition, but I absolutely fell in love with them during Planescape.
Ah well... thanks again, for bringing them back for another round before closing time in Dragon Mag.
Is there going to be an effort to make the monsters slightly more consistent with regards to Challenge Ratings?
I would rather have a shorter, more balanced book than a longer book thrown together and filled with quick straight across conversions. I know ecology type stuff is out but perhaps a small section on tactics?
I just wanted to say that (obviously) we're paying attention to this thread, especially comments like this.
|
CloakerEagle, Giant (all giant creatures, like Giant Owl, could be under one entry)
Grick (what is this monster?)
Spider Eater
Vargouille (this one was featured in the horrible D&D monsters website! Indeed, it's stupid)
Cloakers are cool.
I agree totally about "giant Creature" being one entry.
HOW DARE YOU MALIGN THE GRICK!!! Gricks are awesome and a good first monster with DR for parties to encounter.
I like the spider eaters.
Vargouilles are an oddball creature but when they fit they are really cool. Most times they just get shoehorned into an adventure that they don't fit into though which lowers their appeal.
IMO
Yeah, why do all dire animals have some pineal tumor leading to bizarre bone growth?
The concept of the 3e dire animals wasn't just that they were bigger versions of existing Earth animals; they were "dungeon animals," creatures that evolved from their base animal and changed more than just their size in order to survive against larger and freakier D&D creatures. This doesn't really affect their stats, just their look in the core books ... and it doesn't mean we're stuck with that look for Pathfinder.
A couple humble suggestions...
As mentioned by someone earlier, fay-types are scattered and not really well connected. I think it would be great to put all of them together under a single heading, ala Demons or Dragons.
Example: Fey <heading> followed by common characteristics and powers of the fey subraces, along with a short fluff on the Seelie and Unseelie courts, their conflict, etc.
Then run through the individual critters: dryad, nymph, saytr, quickling(!), etc...
For the PC races, I think splitting them off to a "Revisited" book would be good, but I think the point is to include usable stat blocks for the time-crunched DM, with an array of levels from 1/2 to 15 or so. WoTC did a lot of this in their MM3-5... love it or hate it.
That takes up a significant amount of space, so having it in the PF monster tome = not likely (to do it justice). I'd prefer revisited option, or even a message board contest to design and compile usable stat block writeups for all the PC races, and then maybe some non-PC humanoids (orcs, gobbos, drow, etc).
|
I just wanted to say that (obviously) we're paying attention to this thread, especially comments like this.Is there going to be an effort to make the monsters slightly more consistent with regards to Challenge Ratings?
I would rather have a shorter, more balanced book than a longer book thrown together and filled with quick straight across conversions. I know ecology type stuff is out but perhaps a small section on tactics?
To maintain some level of backwards compatibility, especially for published adventures, the effort should be to tweak the monster to fit the CR.
Yeah, why do all dire animals have some pineal tumor leading to bizarre bone growth?
You seem to have a bone to pick with them.
@Heathy - yeah, make dire animals dire, not spiny.
@Deussu - you've got to have girallons, to populate the red planet along with thri-kreen. And you've got a few mythological beasts in there that need keeping.
@Jal Dorak - Am I having a memory malfunction? My daughter has my 1st ed books right now -- what is it about the hydra that needs recovery?
This sounds awesome, especially if you are incorporating the 3.5 MM and Tome of Horrors into a single book. Yeah, a ton will have to be cut (especially because I'm sure you'll want to sneak a few new ones in there), but I can live with that.
I'd say it should include the real core-core monsters that have always been central to the game (none of this "We're going to hold off on frost giants so you'll have to buy more books" nonsense).
Other recommendations for less popular monsters that could use some awesome Pathfinderizing include the destrachan. (They look like simple sonic lizard things, but what gets overlooked is that they are intelligent. Give them a vicious torture-based culture and vile society, and they could realize their potential.) Plus on the other end of the spectrum, lillendi have had a big part in many of my campaigns (but I am a Planescape goob).
Which also reminds me of a good point - don't just go for evil monsters to fight. Yes, the majority of monsters PCs will ever encounter are sword and fireball fodder, but the most memorable encounters we've had were the rarer ones either with good monsters, or social interactions with typically evil monsters. So every monster shouldn't just be a combat waiting to happen, but a fully realized living creature.
Please get rid of the redundant monsters that were found in the MM. For example did we really need a Female Sphinx monster, A Good Male Sphinx Monster, an Evil Male Sphinx Monster, and a Neutral Male Sphinx monster. Also get rid of advanced monsters as seperate monsters. For example the Hound Archon and the Hound Archon Hero or the Lamussa (sp) and the Golden Protector. An entry for a Sphinx, Hound Archon and Lamussa is all that is needed and would allow room for other monsters.
Also, please rethink the celestial situation. Archons, Angles, Eladrin, and Guardinals = two Lawful Good, one Neutral Good, One Chaotic Good. This doesn't quite add up. Keep Archons LG, make Angels NG, and Keep Eladrin CG. Make Guardinals a little more feral and move the to True Neutral. Keep Archons based on objects (Sword, Trumpet, Hammer, Throne, Lanter) or ideals (Justice). Also, get a little crazy with your Eladrin. Eladrin are the CG counter parts of Demons so like Demons they should have a wide variety of appearances, why do they all look like elves! Also, you can finally give True Neutral an outsider group with Gaurdinals. Take away the good aspect and Gaurdinals make great iconic gaurdians or protectors of the animals they take after.
Just some suggestions, sorry for the rant.
Le-sigh. I take off my hat in remembrance of you, Modrons... seeing as Wizards of the Coast likely won't be bringing you back either.
I'm gonna miss you little, baroque-looking, clock-work dudes.
I suppose this just goes to illustrate the differences in personal tastes from person to person, though.
Anything that comes across like a jumble together of Jules Verne, The Dark Crystal, and Labyrinth is automatically endearing in my book. I thought Modrons were neat in first edition, but I absolutely fell in love with them during Planescape.
Ah well... thanks again, for bringing them back for another round before closing time in Dragon Mag.
I love them, too (obviously considering I wrote that article). They are a heck of a lot of fun - both as NPCs and PCs. :)
If I ever won the lottery, one of the first things I'd do is try to buy all rights to the little guys. First Orcus screws them over, and then their left forgotten for third and most likely fourth edition and on (I know I'd gag if I saw 4e modrons appear as either Lawful Good or even unaligned!)
Right now a few people are complaining about the lack of a tojanida and yrthak. What do you think the complaining would be like if the book cost $70?Basically, the monster book will contain a nice, solid mix of open creatures from the Monster Manual and Tome of Horrors to create a new core creature list. This will look a lot like the current "core" but with a few of the third edition newbies swapped out for monsters with a nicer first edition vintage.
I took a bit of a shot with my comment about "no one core book," and I also have to admit, I was basing my opinion a bit on discussions from a few months back, where it kind of sounded like there might be some wiggle room with just SRD monsters and "extra" space from the no OGL monsters in the MM.
I also have to admit that I would actually be glad if some of the Tome of Horrors monsters made it in that are really classic monsters, but I was a bit confused about if this was going to be the case, given Clark's comments on wanting to do a Pathfinder Tome of Horrors, which would be kind of redundant if you guys use Tome of Horror monsters.
At any rate, I see the direction you guys are kind of heading here (i.e. with the monster write ups being a full page, like the Pathfinder Bestiary ones), and I apologize for kind of jumping the gun a bit and acting on some older suppositions.
|
|
Also, please rethink the celestial situation. Archons, Angles, Eladrin, and Guardinals = two Lawful Good, one Neutral Good, One Chaotic Good. This doesn't quite add up. Keep Archons LG, make Angels NG, and Keep Eladrin CG. Make Guardinals a little more feral and move the to True Neutral. Keep Archons based on objects (Sword, Trumpet, Hammer, Throne, Lanter) or ideals (Justice). Also, get a little crazy with your Eladrin. Eladrin are the CG counter parts of Demons so like Demons they should have a wide variety of appearances, why do they all look like elves! Also, you can finally give True Neutral an outsider group with Gaurdinals. Take away the good aspect and Gaurdinals make great iconic gaurdians or protectors of the animals they take after.
This is something I've always wanted addressed. Demons and devils come in all shapes and sizes but most of the good-aligned planar stuff are medium humanoids with wings and animal/elven features. I'd like more variety like maybe throwing in animals, hybrids, mythological stuff along the lines of Shedu, Qilin or the Bennu.
2nd put Sigil in the middle of this, and 3.x seems to have eliminated Concordant Opposition and just made the center Sigil.
Thats not entirely true. 3.X has the plane of Concordant Opposition, its just called the Outlands. Its still there with the gate towns and such.
3.X is not just Sigil.
Please get rid of the redundant monsters that were found in the MM. For example did we really need a Female Sphinx monster, A Good Male Sphinx Monster, an Evil Male Sphinx Monster, and a Neutral Male Sphinx monster. Also get rid of advanced monsters as seperate monsters. For example the Hound Archon and the Hound Archon Hero or the Lamussa (sp) and the Golden Protector. An entry for a Sphinx, Hound Archon and Lamussa is all that is needed and would allow room for other monsters.
The sphinx is a great idea... I've never gotten why there are 3-4 different types of sphinxes. Whacky.
I'm not so sure about the advanced monsters though, I agree that having monsters with character levels added is a waste, a DM or module writer can do that himself. If the advanced version is somehow different from the base version other than class levels then keep them.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
If you do go this route, will you co-ordinate with Jason to make sure that the PC core races descriptions in the PFRPG include any and all relevant information a PPB entry would have included? A 'classic monsters revisited' version of the core races might well be as out of reach of a DM on a tight budget as an expanded PPB which contained those details, and a DM will still need that information somewhere obvious.I think I can agree with removing PC races from the book.
On the other hand, a "Classic Monsters Revisited" treatment of the core races sounds like a pretty interesting book to me.
That seems reasonable. We will be "fluffing up" some of the descriptive bits in the RPG, particularly the class and race descriptions. Right now they are pretty bare bones.
Yeah, why do all dire animals have some pineal tumor leading to bizarre bone growth?
You know, it works for a couple of them. The Dire Bear in the MM looks pretty darn intimidating, and the studs actually look natural on the big guy. But most of them... yeah. My roommate has a Dire Wolf mini, and while it looks cool... in my mind, it suggests 'Fiendish' or "Post Apocalyptic Mutant,' not Dire.
It's the tape-rubber-spikes-to-lizards school of prehistoric movie-monster design, and it usually just comes across as cheap.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Is there going to be an effort to make the monsters slightly more consistent with regards to Challenge Ratings?
I would rather have a shorter, more balanced book than a longer book thrown together and filled with quick straight across conversions. I know ecology type stuff is out but perhaps a small section on tactics?
Oh, is this to be part of a subscription or is it going to be a separate purchase like the core book?
Yes. A LOT of attention will be paid to CR, with some fairly significant shifts. We will re-do everything, from the stats to the descriptions. The current thinking is that each monster will get, at minimum, a page. That includes space for a sweet full-color illustration.
"Ecology stuff," if I follow your meaning, will be included within the 1 or 2-page sections.
There is not currently a subscription for Pathfinder RPG rule books.
To maintain some level of backwards compatibility, especially for published adventures, the effort should be to tweak the monster to fit the CR.I just wanted to say that (obviously) we're paying attention to this thread, especially comments like this.Is there going to be an effort to make the monsters slightly more consistent with regards to Challenge Ratings?
I would rather have a shorter, more balanced book than a longer book thrown together and filled with quick straight across conversions. I know ecology type stuff is out but perhaps a small section on tactics?
I would think that when creating many of the published adventures, that the writers took into account the monsters actually abilities rather than just dropping in a creature of the CR they were looking for.
That is, I think that if the monster was adjusted it could make an encounter that was reasonably hard into an much harder or much easier challenge. I think that the CR should be adjusted, not the abilities.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Please get rid of the redundant monsters that were found in the MM. For example did we really need a Female Sphinx monster, A Good Male Sphinx Monster, an Evil Male Sphinx Monster, and a Neutral Male Sphinx monster. Also get rid of advanced monsters as seperate monsters. For example the Hound Archon and the Hound Archon Hero or the Lamussa (sp) and the Golden Protector. An entry for a Sphinx, Hound Archon and Lamussa is all that is needed and would allow room for other monsters.
I strongly agree with this.
The current thinking is that each monster will get, at minimum, a page. That includes space for a sweet full-color illustration.
Including the invisible stalker? :)
I'd disagree with the sphinxes since those have been separate monsters since 1st edition, but I agree with the templated/leveled monsters taking up space in the monster entry.