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.
The Dire Lion mini didn't do the spikes sticking out everywhere look (neither did dire tiger come to think of it) and the dire bat had only a bit of that. And speaking of dire animals, when doing the description work, one little request: make the weight descriptions reasonable-3500 lbs for a dire lion? This only works if it is built like a massively oversize tribble-1000 to 1200 lbs would be a reasonable weight. Dire tiger, bear, bat, wolf, weasel and maybe badger and wolverine as well. There was a giant prehistoric ape called gigantopithecus about the same size as the dire ape of the MM, but 800 lbs is the upper weight limit for gigantopithecus, rather than the lower, but it is at least reasonably close. Dire shark is fine since bulking up does not present anywhere the obstacles for an aquatic creature that it would for a land creature.
|
You are aware that that's a "Velociraptor" right?Incidentally, for some reason I've always been glad they never switched out names on these things, being as velociraptors were the ones the size of medium-small dogs and the deininychuses were bigger and pack hunters.
Then again, it's pretty clear the 3E deinonychuses are the movie raptors because they're Large and all. As far as I remember, the real deinonychus was about the size of a wolf, plus tail.
The movie "velociraptors" were real-world deinonychus. They used the velociraptor's name for them, because it sounded cooler. The velociraptor is a smaller cousin of the deinonychus; maybe like a housecat to a tiger.
Something else I would like to see addressed is creature size. Why must creatures become bigger simply because they have become more powerful. My PC does not become size large once he has 10 hit die and then size Huge when he has 17 hit die that would be silly. So why do other creatures grow in size just because they have more hit die.
Just to clarify I am not talking about creatures that would actually grow like dragons, vermin, or oozes, I am talking about creatures like animals, magical beasts, and some outsiders and undead.
|
|
The Dire Lion mini didn't do the spikes sticking out everywhere look (neither did dire tiger come to think of it) and the dire bat had only a bit of that. And speaking of dire animals, when doing the description work, one little request: make the weight descriptions reasonable-3500 lbs for a dire lion? This only works if it is built like a massively oversize tribble-1000 to 1200 lbs would be a reasonable weight.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.
Dire tribbles must be in the new book! What???
|
The movie "velociraptors" were real-world deinonychus. They used the velociraptor's name for them, because it sounded cooler. The velociraptor is a smaller cousin of the deinonychus; maybe like a housecat to a tiger.You are aware that that's a "Velociraptor" right?Incidentally, for some reason I've always been glad they never switched out names on these things, being as velociraptors were the ones the size of medium-small dogs and the deininychuses were bigger and pack hunters.
Then again, it's pretty clear the 3E deinonychuses are the movie raptors because they're Large and all. As far as I remember, the real deinonychus was about the size of a wolf, plus tail.
The movie Jurassic Park raptor were the real world utahraptors: first discovered while the movie was in production. Deinonychus was 10 ft long (including the tail, which was about half of its length) and stood maybe 3 1/2, 4 ft tall at the head. Utahraptor meanwhile 20 ft long including the tail, 6-7 ft to the top of its head.
|
|
Wikipedia:
"During the movie's production, the effects supervisors acknowledged that the Velociraptor featured in the movie were sized identically to the larger Deinonychus. However, during the filming paleontologists came across a larger dromaeosaurid species named Utahraptor and the larger raptors remained, even though Utahraptor was substantially larger (21 feet long) than most of the movie's raptors. It should be noted, also, that at the start of the film a Velociraptor skeleton is uncovered in Montana - no examples of the dinosaur have been uncovered in the USA (although both Deinonychus and Utahraptor are American dinosaurs). The fossil skeleton is similarly inaccurately large. It is possible that the velociraptors in the movie are re-classified Deinonychus, though in the book they are said to be Velociraptor mongoliensis"
Another thing that needs some attention is the Elemental / Outsider issue. If a creature comes from an elemental plane it should be an elemental if it comes from and outer plane it should be an outsider. So if Salamanders, Tritons, Mephits, Azers, and Arrowhawks all come form elemental planes then they should be elementals.
Now I understand that determination of outer plane or elemental plane may depend on ecology, for example if Azers are specificly tied to some deity and originate from his/her realm then they will likely be outsiders. However if they are a race that developed on the elemental plane of fire then they should be elementals.
This would help to define the pure elementals as unique races and allow them to have a little more culture than what they recieved in 3.X
|
|
After reading through this thread I flipped through the monster manual and made a note of the Monsters I have never used even once in my 12 years as a DM.
Achaierai - This thing has never appealed to me at all.
Allip - I use a wraith or ghost instead.
Athach - This seems redundant as other monsters do what it does better.
Belker - I like the concept, but hate the illustration.
Blink Dog - Intelligent and Lawful Good, not a big villain.
Couatl - I don't really understand where I'm supposed to use it.
Delver - This thing should just disappear.
Devil - Hellcat - I love devils... love them! But this thing just doesn't fit in.
Digester - Why is this here?
Dragonne - Never appealed to me...
Ethereal Filcher - We don't spend much time on the ethereal plane.
Ethereal Marauder - We don't spend much time on the ethereal plane.
Guardinal (all) - Very boring, good aligned monster...
Howler - Never found a use for them...
Krenshar - Never found a use for them...
Lammasu - How is this different from a sphinx?
Magmin - The illustration is just too ridiculous.
Sea Cat - Never found a use for them.
Tarrasque - My campaigns have never quite gotten to that point, but I would be sad to see it go.
Thoqqua - Never found a use for them...
Tojanida - This should just disappear...
Triton - How is this different from Merfolk?
Xill - We don't spend much time on the ethereal plane.
Yeth Hound - CR 3 and in Hades... I'd rather use a daemon.
Yrthak - This should just disappear...
I just have to say that illustrations are very important when it comes to injecting any kind of life into a monster.
I still can't quite understand the Tojanida.. really.
Count me in on the druid-dragons, Faerie dragons, and lycanthrope templates.
And really. The Helliphino.
Seriously.
The Yeth hound illo always unnerved me, but for some reason I can't help but picture them always saying "Yethyethyethyeth..." kinda like pokemon.
The ogre magi could probably stand to get cut and replaced by one of two things: An ogre with sorcerer levels, or an actual oni. At the VERY LEAST, the ogre magi needs to be rebalanced, though; that's for sure.
You could treat them like the nilbog. The result of a rare but still recognized mutation.
|
Just want to throw in my vote for Oni over Ogre Mage. The Ogre Mage has always bothered me because outside of the 3E art, it didn't seem to have any relation to Ogres.
I've always assumed the 2E Ogre Mage looked like an Oni-type creature, but I could be completely wrong, as I base this entirely on Baldur's Gate, and how Ogre Mages in that game look like Oni.
Either way, may as well have the real name of the creature there.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Okay, so I actually took the time to look at old MM1 to add my opinions to this. For the most part, I realize that I'm a completist when it comes to the List. yet I accpet some things either need to go or be reworked. Here are my thoughts:
Achaierai -- Better artwork please
Athach -- Just a bigger ogre, with a fondness for gems
Bodak -- Looks to much like a doppleganger's real form
Delver -- C-ya!
Destrachan-- Give us a Medium version.
Dragonne -- Just needs a name change
Eagle, Giant -- Lose 'em. I don't care if The Hobbit has them
Girallon -- Lame
Griffon -- Change spelling to Gryphon
Lammasu -- A sphinx by any other name...
Magmin -- Just needs a cool pic
Manticore -- needs a classic pic
Ogre Mage -- Cause making an Ogre w/ Sorcerer would work, too.
Owl, Giant -- Remove cause Obviously they needed a nocturnal Eagle, Giant
Phantom Fungus -- needs a cool pic
Phasm -- ditch this one, too
Psuedo-dragon -- Either it's a dragon or it isn't. Rename it!
Sea Cat -- Just rename it
Spider Eater -- Dumb. Period.
Tojanida -- Drop this too.
Triton -- Mermaids fill this role.
Yrthak -- Feel the pic doesn't do it justice. Also change the name.
Note: Mostly done by artwork
Something else that just occured to me is that with paizo's take on ogres they would make a better monsterous humanoid creature type and the ogre mage/oni would be better as a giant creatrue type.
As for the ogre mage / oni name debate. Name changes are fine with me just so long as there is a reference to the older name. For example "The Oni are often called Ogre Mages by the common folk." Connecting the two names would help fans of the Ogre Mage make the transition from the old name to the new and allow those who just can not give up the name ogre mage justification for its continued use.
I know this seems a small thing but for a lot of people something as simple as a name change can be a big deal.
Just wanted to chip in with what I thought....
1) Please include some good and neutral creatures with the bad ones. I've always felt this was WotC's biggest failing with regard to the content monster books - oh look it's evil and wants to kill, oh look it's evil and wants to feed, oh look..... Not every fight goes like this.
2) Please keep as many of the dinosaurs in the first book as space allows.
2a) Unless you promise me that there is going to be a dinosaur/pre-historic beasts only book. (Then we can start talking about the wedding.)
3) 1 monster per 1 page is perfect.
4) Different levels and and CRs for the same monster is a waste of space to me. I can do this on my own, pretty easily thanks to the d20 system, and I'd rather see a different cool monster make the cut instead of another humanoid with class levels
5) Please focus on monsters, the playable race stats are another waste of space to my group and many of them have too high an adjustment or are not balanced well enough to work as characters. We want to kill gnolls and drow, not play as them!
6) I'd really prefer it, from a buyer's perspective, if the first book was 'generic' and future monster books were 'themed'. E.g. the planar monsters book, the darklands monster book, the Akiton monsters book, the pre-historic monsters book etc. It doesn't matter if the themes are Pathfinder/Golarion specific or not, as long as they're identifiable. This stops me from buying a book with a percentage of monsters I'm not likely to use.
Many thanks to the Paizo team, for everything their doing! Woo!
Peace,
tfad
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
If Paizo does do a book themed for the more Asian-inspired parts of Golarion, the Oni could join the dokkaebi and feel right at home.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, I don't mind the idea of subgroupings, as long as there's an alphabetical index.
For Dinos, I'd like to see a page stolen from Eberron and them have both their Real World names, and their Golarion names. Like T-rex being called "I've got this great big head and these little tiny arms" ;-)
|
|
Hmm, I don't mind the idea of subgroupings, as long as there's an alphabetical index.
For Dinos, I'd like to see a page stolen from Eberron and them have both their Real World names, and their Golarion names. Like T-rex being called "I've got this great big head and these little tiny arms" ;-)
Please dear god Paizo, do NOT give dinosaurs Eberronesque names, a Deinonychus should not be called a "scytheclaw"...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Hmm, I don't mind the idea of subgroupings, as long as there's an alphabetical index.
For Dinos, I'd like to see a page stolen from Eberron and them have both their Real World names, and their Golarion names. Like T-rex being called "I've got this great big head and these little tiny arms" ;-)
Please dear god Paizo, do NOT give dinosaurs Eberronesque names, a Deinonychus should not be called a "scytheclaw"...
Just cuurious, why not? I mean a cow is a cow is a cow, but it breaks the forth wall, to me, to have the party attacked by a utahraptor for example. Let alone the latin.
Interesting thoughts on the new pathfinder Monster Manual equivalent. I've only been involved with D&D since 3E and though I have a few creatures I do dislike I not really qualified to comment on which would help add to that old-school, old-edition feel (did think the frogemoth was cool when it appeared in the AOW adventure path).
I do however have some thoughts on what new pathfinder beasties should go into there new MM. The thread got me thinking about what I really wanted in a MM critter. I think a good core monster has to be well balanced, easy to use and either inspiring or very useful as it is common (animals, giant bugs etc). When I read a good monster entry I want to use it right away or can see how and where it fits into the game world. I believed these would be the most fitting additions.
Beatific One (Pathfinder 9) I always thought Indian Mythology is a bit under represented and they’re ecology makes them cool villains.
Boggard (Pathfinder 2) I feel the boggard are useful since pathfinder has gone with a “noble savage” direction for its lizardmen its nice to have purely evil swamp dweller.
Cold Rider (E1 Carnival of Tears) Just so creepy looking it is a genuinely scary fey creature.
Daemon, Leukodaemon (Pathfinder 8) Love what pathfinder are doing with NE fiends and feel they deserve a place in PF monster manual.
Danse Macabre (Pathfinder 11) Maybe a bit too specific a monster but such a cool concept.
Deathweb (Pathfinder 4) Giant undead spider with a low CR that oozes creepy flavour.
Demon, Shemhazian (Pathfinder 5) Add it in with the rest of the demons to give that section a little bit of Golarion flavour.
Derhii (J3 Crucible of Chaos). This is my favourite monster from the modules so far.
Devil Fish (Pathfinder 7) Cool low level aquatic monster.
Faceless Stalker (Pathfinder 2) As primitive low level shape shaping monsters they’re just to cool of a concept not to be in the PF MM.
Giant Gecko (Pathfinder 1) A nice basic animal type monster.
Gug (Pathfinder 11) Would be a nice mid level Underdark/Darklands style monster.
Half Ogres (Pathfinder 3) They’d make another good low level villainous race.
Hounds of Tindalos (Pathfinder 4) Great fit for the creepy aberration niche.
Lamia Matriarch (Pathfinder 2) Combine with the standard Lamia to give the race some more depth.
Marsh Giant (Pathfinder 5) More a personal choice, I know there are tons of giants already but these were such an interesting idea for swamp monsters
Mobogo (Pathfinder 12) Include this with the Boggard entry to give them more depth.
Monsterous Cockroach (Pathfinder 13) Giant vermin are always good for low levels.
Mosquito Swarm (W2 River into Darkness) More vermin based fun.
Nosferatu (Pathfinder 8) It would work well as an alternative vampire that will be included with the regular vampire.
Osirion Mummy (J1 Entombed with the Pharaohs) A cool template to include and could replace the mummy lord.
Rajput Ambari (Pathfinder 9) I just liked this monster and want to see more of it.
Redcap (Pathfinder 4) another characterful evil fey that would work great in the MM.
Revenant (Pathfinder 2) I think the element of tragic back-story make these are more interesting ethereal undead.
Son of Perdition (D3 The Demon Within) A fallen angel corrupter demon that can possess peoples bodies. This just scream adventure seed and as such deserves to be in the MM.
Umbral Dragon (Pathfinder 11) who doesn’t like new dragons?
Wendigo (Pathfinder 6) a CR 17 wilderness monster seems like a great thing to include for high level wilderness encounters.
Love the idea of more feral neutral guardinals that would be so cool, especially as I often get some of the good outsiders muddled up and this would definitely make sure you didn’t confuse an hound archon and a Guardinal as it would be a mistake you wouldn’t want to make twice.
Also was thinking about what Drakli said about the MM deininychuses being a bit too big. I loved dinosaurs as a kid and if memory serves the kind of raptor the MM has stated up is a Utahraptor but if they called it that it would then raise the question of why was it named after Utah.
Sorry for the long post
The Achaierai is not so impressive a threat if most of its retinue are stabbing their master and each other, babbling insanely or jumping of its back and running away.
Hmm. That's a good point. It could have been embarrassing to run in with this without having an explanation for why they don't go nuts.
Now, if I ever run it, I can give the gnolls gas masks, anti-poison spells, or just say that the spores are heavier than air and sink so the mounted gnolls are above the range of effect. Or I could have gnoll-summoned fiends riding the beast (Dretch spearmen! Woo!,) and say they're immune to the effect.
Thanks for catching that!
And I know Achaierai are technically Lawful evil, but they aren't devils, so I don't see anything wrong with an individual one having a mercenary attitude and staying out of the chaos/law politics as long as it gets paid. (Or saying they're Neutral or Chaotic Evil in my world anyway.)
|
|
Just cuurious, why not? I mean a cow is a cow is a cow, but it breaks the forth wall, to me, to have the party attacked by a utahraptor for example. Let alone the latin.** spoiler omitted **
Because a cow is still a cow, and a tyrannosaur is still a tyrannosaur. Neither of them break the fourth wall more than the other. I mean, when Paizo has taken the time to name the civilization on Golarion that invented Roman numerals, why does it break immersion to use the real names of dinosaurs?
Names are just something you learn anyway, why do you need a descriptive name like "Scytheclaw" for the Deinonychus, when you have no problem learning the name Elephant and not "Nosemouth Behemoth"...
Just cuurious, why not? I mean a cow is a cow is a cow, but it breaks the forth wall, to me, to have the party attacked by a utahraptor for example. Let alone the latin.
Because names are what we tag things with so we recognize them. Much like the characters will eat stew, meatpies, or dim sum and not Sniflark, gruuu, or fleay. When we hear the name of the thing a mental image comes to mind and we don't have to describe the thing.
I wouldn't mind a Golarian name in parens after the common name but the common name needs to be there for a sight picture. If you have problems with latin names then how about Greek and Old English? Would you want them to replace the names of tiger (Greek), bear (Old English), and shark (Latin) as well?
Because a cow is still a cow, and a tyrannosaur is still a tyrannosaur. Neither of them break the fourth wall more than the other. I mean, when Paizo has taken the time to name the civilization on Golarion that invented Roman numerals, why does it break immersion to use the real names of dinosaurs?
Names are just something you learn anyway, why do you need a descriptive name like "Scytheclaw" for the Deinonychus, when you have no problem learning the name Elephant and not "Nosemouth Behemoth"...
I think there is a place for descriptive names in flavor text and campaign settings but I agree that the common name should be the main name a dinosaur is hung by. (Or should they be called BigScalies since dinosaur is Latin? :) )
This may seem a little silly but a quick fix for the Utahraptor would be to just drop the U and call it a Tahraptor. Also I agree with the idea of just calling a dinosaur by its given name with a couple of exceptions. 1. See above, if the name includes a real world location drop or add a letter so that it remains similar. 2. Some dinosaurs like some monsters have very difficult names to read would it be to much to ask to have the name spelled like it sounds.
|
|
Allip - I use a wraith or ghost instead.
Agree with this, and I would suggest including the spectre here as well. With the appropriate options/abilities, the ghost template could cover each very well.
Also, "devolve" the darkmantle back into the piercer! And I echo the call for the return of the rot grub.
Second, there are lots of cool lycanthropes, but do we really need the stats for every other werebeast under the moon? Couldn't we really get by with just werebears, wererats, and werewolves, plus a template for creating other kinds of lycanthropes as needed?We don't, I don't think. The template is also CRAZY complex. We probably only need wererat and werewolf as examples, though... And it would be cool to figure a way out to make the template not so weird.
I think Sean Reynolds created a simplified lycanthrope template.
Personally, I don't have any problem with Latin names. However, I do see something of an issue with using scientific classifications as monster names.
Note, for example, that Deinonychus isn't a "common name" for a type of dinosaur. It is a scientific genus name describing a group of dinosaur species in Linnaean taxonomy. Referring to a specific dinosaur as a "deinonychus" would be like referring to a tiger as a "pantera" because Pantera is the genus which includes the animals commonly referred to as tigers.
Since there are few non-scientific names for dinosaurs, I think dinosaurs should use the same naming scheme that the Monster Manual uses for sharks and snakes. There would be things like "Small scavengers" and "Large carnivores" and "Huge herbivores." Maybe throw in a few names from popular culture as well (things like "raptor" and "loch monster").
Ultimately what is the point of having dinosaurs in the game at all? I mean there are already tons of big green scaly things in the game. T-Rex? Dragons seriously kick Big T's arse.
The only really unique thing about Dino's is the idea that they once existed in the real world. Most of us have at some point in our lives walked into that museum with a Giant T-Rex skeleton. Lets keep these refuges from the real world with their real names and let people create their own fun names for them in their campaign worlds.
|
Another thing that needs some attention is the Elemental / Outsider issue. If a creature comes from an elemental plane it should be an elemental if it comes from and outer plane it should be an outsider. So if Salamanders, Tritons, Mephits, Azers, and Arrowhawks all come form elemental planes then they should be elementals.
Now I understand that determination of outer plane or elemental plane may depend on ecology, for example if Azers are specificly tied to some deity and originate from his/her realm then they will likely be outsiders. However if they are a race that developed on the elemental plane of fire then they should be elementals.
This would help to define the pure elementals as unique races and allow them to have a little more culture than what they recieved in 3.X
HERE HERE!
I agree 100%. These areas need a LOT of love thrown their way.
|
|
]Ultimately what is the point of having dinosaurs in the game at all? I mean there are already tons of big green scaly things in the game. T-Rex? Dragons seriously kick Big T's arse .
Perhaps it's all the old movies, but there's something raw and primordial about dinosaurs that few other creatures can offer. Look at the blog posting of one fighting the Froghemoth, that would not work as well if it were a dragon. It just doesn't evoke the same feelings.
|
|
Ultimately what is the point of having dinosaurs in the game at all? I mean there are already tons of big green scaly things in the game. T-Rex? Dragons seriously kick Big T's arse.
The only really unique thing about Dino's is the idea that they once existed in the real world. Most of us have at some point in our lives walked into that museum with a Giant T-Rex skeleton. Lets keep these refuges from the real world with their real names and let people create their own fun names for them in their campaign worlds.
True, we should just remove Dinosaurs, lions tigers, snakes, rats, dogs and horses, camels, definitely all cats, bats, scoropions... since all of these have cooler bigger nastier versions in the game already. They are redundant now that you mention it. In fact, if it is not mythological, and if it is a real animal, just ditch it...
I am just curious, say you are runing a game and your PCs happen upon a lion. Do you say they are facing a lion, or a Panthera leo- it's real name? Or if they run into a crocodile do you say they have run into a croc or do you call it Crocodylus niloticus, its real name?
Now as I understand it, the idea is to ditch using the common names all together and go with their proper names. So no more tigers either, the common name. Instead we would face Panthera tigris.
I just think the scientific name has no place in an fRPG. If you want to use a T Rex use it. But I cannot for the life of me imagine any culture that would call it by its scientific name. We use the scientific name only because they were already extinct- there was no common name for the critter before scientists got a hold of it.
I just think the scientific name has no place in an fRPG. If you want to use a T Rex use it. But I cannot for the life of me imagine any culture that would call it by its scientific name. We use the scientific name only because they were already extinct- there was no common name for the critter before scientists got a hold of it.
On the other hand, I can imagine a culture looking at a living T-Rex, and if the people survived, calling it the Tyrant-Lizard, or Lizard-King. Which is pretty much what its name means.
True, we should just remove Dinosaurs, lions tigers, snakes, rats, dogs and horses, camels, definitely all cats, bats, scoropions... since all of these have cooler bigger nastier versions in the game already. They are redundant now that you mention it. In fact, if it is not mythological, and if it is a real animal, just ditch it...
I don't even begin to understand where you get there from what I said.
I am just curious, say you are runing a game and your PCs happen upon a lion. Do you say they are facing a lion, or a Panthera leo- it's real name? Or if they run into a crocodile do you say they have run into a croc or do you call it Crocodylus niloticus, its real name?
I call it by a name my players will recognize, crocodile. I won't invent some faux ethnic game name "Longnose Manytooth" to make it sound like some sort of in game creature.
Now as I understand it, the idea is to ditch using the common names all together and go with their proper names. So no more tigers either, the common name. Instead we would face Panthera tigris.
That certainly isn't my idea. I'm not sure anyone on this thread suggested it.
The idea is that if a creature exists (or existed) in 'real life' that we use a name from real life to describe them so that players can understand what we are talking about. In the case of tigers we call them tigers in real life so tiger in the game. In the case of pterodactyl we call it a pterodactyl. If there were some other commonly used name for pterodactyl I would be fine with that. I'm not fine with inventing names for stuff that exists and having to play 'guess which real life dinosaur this creature is' with my players.
I just think the scientific name has no place in an fRPG. If you want to use a T Rex use it. But I cannot for the life of me imagine any culture that would call it by its scientific name. We use the scientific name only because they were already extinct- there was no common name for the critter before scientists got a hold of it.
I'm not suggesting that whatever the culture in your game world is should use the scientific names. What I'm suggesting is that in the monster manual a DM should be able to look up pterodactyl under pterodactyl rather than try and guess what someone at Paizo thinks is a cool 'cultural name' for it. Ultimately, the purpose of words is to communicate something, using invented names is non-specific and ultimately a poor way to communicate.
You talk about what a culture might call a dinosaur but this is a null statement. One 'culture' might call a pterodactyl 'AirHorse' because they have domesticated them, halflings might call them 'Terror from above'. Which 'cultural name' is better? Leave the game flavor in the flavor text where it belongs.
|
|
One thing to do with dinosaurs is to give them 'common' names like birds have. For example, a Utahraptor could be called "great raptor" while a microraptor could be called a "crimson-plumed raptor". A combination of an overarching classification (raptor) and a more specific title (great). This follows common bird naming conventions, and naming conventions with a lot of animals too, i.e. adelie penguins as opposed to emperor penguins.
Creative Director
|
Ultimately what is the point of having dinosaurs in the game at all? I mean there are already tons of big green scaly things in the game. T-Rex? Dragons seriously kick Big T's arse.
The same point as having bears and pixies and succubi and rust monsters and magmin and dwarfs. No one person should "hold the key" on what goes in there; in other words, the game should include a WIDE range of monsters in appearance, niche, theme, and power. That way, if Person #1 doesn't like the dinosaurs, he has other choices (big animals or behirs or dragons or whatever) to use in their place. But that doesn't meant that Person #2, who likes dinosaurs, should not get his dinosaur fix just because Person #1 isn't a dinosaur fan.
Two other reasons dinosaurs will be in the Pathfinder RPG monster book.
1) They were in the 1st edition Monster Manual, and have been a part of every edition of the game.
2) I like dinosaurs a lot, and as Editor-in-Chief of the RPG line at Paizo, sometimes I get to sneak dinosaurs into things.
In any event, we'll call the dinosaurs by their actual dinosaur names. Because you can say to anyone "The tyrannosaurus attacks" and he knows what's going on. If you say "The Scythetooth Thunderbeast attacks" he only knows that he might be playing Duelmaster or Pokemon or Eberron.
ALSO: it's worth pointing out that the 3.5 Monster Manual errata knocks the size categories for the deinonychus and the megaraptor down one. The official deinonychus is Medium sized, while the Megaraptor is Large. Personally... I don't see the need for a megaraptor when you can just advance a deinonychus and get more or less the same thing...
There's no official "Utahraptor" in the SRD, either, so that's a dead-end argument. It's also why there's no "Greek Fire" (alchemist's fire), etc.
Everyone likes something differant.
My favorites are mostly 1st edition classics from the old rulebooks and choose your own adventures. Yes, the Rustmonster. Displacerbeast, Rakasha, Gnolls, Umberhulks, Carrion Crawlers (old look), Minotaurs and such. I think the inclusion of alot of the classics would be good. I've also missed some favorites that haven't made it to 4e yet; Luecrotta, Peryton, Phanaton, Catfolk (or Tabaxi), and Blink dogs.
I think the inclusion of 'good' monsters like the Blink Dogs and Ki'Rin are important as all encounters shouldn't be predictablly evil. As well, there ARE evil adventure partys.
I'd like to see more Fey. Red Caps, Kelpie (murderous waterhorse), Spriggans, Phooka, Brownies (pc race or atleast dagerous tricksters), Marrows, Sylphs, and such.
I agree with the person who posted support for a purple dragon. Yeah, the color seems wussy to some of you, but it's a good chromatic color. And I've had an interest in them since reading a series from Richard Knaak. There's a powerful one in there.
Some other monsters are really cool, too: Steel Predator, Marrash, Lupin, Ankheg, Slimes, Oozes, and Cubes, driders, Draegloths, Nezumi, Oni, Kenku, Tengu, Tigerflys
It'll depend on what Golarion supports. Can you have Driders without Lloth? Can you have Lloth on Golarion? And what are Drow without her anyhow? There are Drow, or atleast Dark elves.
I'm sure that Paizo will eventually come out with a Pathfinder perfect Monster Manual or Creature Compendium. And it will have most of our favorites (better not leave Frost Giants out of the Giants section).-heh. Anyhow, just give them some time.
When I mentioned the Utahraptor I didn't think it would cause this much debate. I was trying to show why they had called the dinosaur a Deinonuchus rather than a Utahraptor which stat wise it was probably closer to.
Hey James, I've got two "monster manuals" that I've made with over 200 creatures apiece in them, one I self-published through RPGnow, the other I didn't get to artwork & playtesting before 4E was rolled out - and plans for a 3rd, but nothing beyond a list of creature names & ideas.
Would you be interested in either? I can send you copies of what I have, if need be, though they probably wouldn't fit in an e-mail...
|
|
I'm not suggesting that whatever the culture in your game world is should use the scientific names. What I'm suggesting is that in the monster manual a DM should be able to look up pterodactyl under pterodactyl rather than try and guess what someone at Paizo thinks is a cool 'cultural name' for it. Ultimately, the purpose of words is to communicate something, using invented names is non-specific and ultimately a poor way to communicate.
Right leave the made up names out of it. Scientific names are just that. Made up. I mean really what the heck is a Utahasaurus anyway? I have absolutely no idea what it would even look like. Does it run, swim or fly. I assume it is HUGE or at least big enough to chomp a human in half. Does it eat meat or plants? The only thing at all I know is it apparently is found in Utah. Now looking on every game map from Golarion to Mystara, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk, I don't find Utah.
I have no problem with, myself, with there being a Heading for Dinosaur and then entries for all of the dinosaurs, but then add in a name that actually has some meaning and can be used to communicate an idea or a mental picture. I know what a Smilodon is, but by its name one would assume it is a happy go lucky smiling ancient something- probably mammalian so it has some fur. Now, Saber Toothed Tiger I can relate with... sure has a different mental image than some smiling happy mammal. Scytheclaw, no idea what the scientific name for it was supposed to be. But I can guarantee you that the scientific name did not give you the mental image of claws as deadly as scythes. But I can picture a Scytheclaw immediately in my mind's eye. I don't want a MM where I have to go to Wikipedia just to get a clue what this creature is supposed to be.
|
|
Hey James, I've got two "monster manuals" that I've made with over 200 creatures apiece in them, one I self-published through RPGnow, the other I didn't get to artwork & playtesting before 4E was rolled out - and plans for a 3rd, but nothing beyond a list of creature names & ideas.
Would you be interested in either? I can send you copies of what I have, if need be, though they probably wouldn't fit in an e-mail...
Rules of marketing #1... if you are going to say I self published a monster book on RPGNow... lets have a link. You can never have too many monsters...
Rules of marketing #1... if you are going to say I self published a monster book on RPGNow... lets have a link. You can never have too many monsters...
Well, I guess I should have linked that...
The pictures aren't up to Paizo standards, but hopefully the monsters themselves are usable.
Another thing that needs some attention is the Elemental / Outsider issue. If a creature comes from an elemental plane it should be an elemental if it comes from and outer plane it should be an outsider. So if Salamanders, Tritons, Mephits, Azers, and Arrowhawks all come form elemental planes then they should be elementals.
I'm completely on board with this. 3e made a mistake (albeit a well intentioned one perhaps) in trying to lump effectively every planar creature except for generic elementals into the outsider catagory. There's no reason under the sun that Efreet on the Elemental Plane of Fire should be lumped together with Sword Archons from Mount Celestia, Vrocks from the Abyss, and Energons from the negative and positive energy planes.
They each represent concepts so radically different from one another, it makes no sense to try to stick them in together. It's confusing to new players, and it serves little purpose but to make a few game mechanical crunchy bits act more broad spectrum than they might otherwise.
Elemental creatures native to the elemental planes should be considered elementals. Creatures native to the outer planes should be outsiders. The energy planes and transitive planes it gets difficult (largely as an artifact of trying to lump creatures together in broad piles like that in the first place). For Golarion's cosmology, I'd include any Astral creatures as outsiders, and anything in the ethereal/shadow on a case by case basis, but potentially even a unique type. Natives of positive and negative energy might warrant their own type as well (maybe energon as a type).
Of course, assume I'm speculating at random in public here, and don't take it to mean anything here is likely or not to be used in anything in the future I'm working on. Not gotten to that point yet. We'll burn that bridge when we get there I suppose. ;)
Right leave the made up names out of it. Scientific names are just that.
I suppose... but now we're back to Longtail Manyteeth instead of crocodile because at the heart of things all names are 'made up'. The difference is that some names have real world references.
Other scientific names we'd have to ditch "Human". Keep in mind this isn't a book for your characters to use in the game, it's a book for people in the real world to reference while creating things for the game.
It's also why there's no "Greek Fire" (alchemist's fire), etc.I always figured Alchemist's fire was dried Phosphorous in a hermetically sealed vial - because its self-igniting when you throw it against something. Greek Fire needed to be lit with an open flame.
More real science, Squirreloid? I admire your rigor.
But try "Calx of Phosphor" or some similiar pre-Laviossian nonsense. Alchemists. I don't like imagining that Phosphorus is a known, or even a real element in D&D. Certainly it emanates from some demiplane, and a wizard-alchemist would certainly look at you sideways if you pointed to the periodic table.
[/rant, not directed at squirrelloid in particular]
