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.
Well, the reason under the sun I can think of is that the Elemental creature type and the Outsider one represent different things beyond plane of origin.
A fire elemental is literally made of fire. It has no meat, no flesh, it's a large blaze that happens to be sentient. An Efreet is made of spiritual flesh and blood, and for better or worse, she has organs on the inside that she uses for things. She can take a lover (providing there's some fire resistance involved,) and have planetouched children, (as soon as there's an OGL alternative to Gensai,) and gets inconvenienced if her kidneys are shived with a sneak attack. You try to breed with or shiv a fire elemental, you're just going to get burned.
... grant you, I don't have my Pathfinder book in front of me, so I can't be sure elementals still have sneak attack immunity, but I think they do.
|
I can't be sure elementals still have sneak attack immunity, but I think they do.
Well, mechanically that's a good argument for leaving the Type divisions as they are. Logically, however, that says to me that "elementals" should have immunity to sneak attacks as a "racial" bonus and not a Type bonus; as the rules currently stand, Elemental as a Type makes about as much sense as Giant as a Type - created solely to give a limited number of creatures a very specific bonus. Elemental should either remove the immunity to flanking and granting that as a racial bonus to "elementals" proper, and be expanded such that Efreets and Mephits logically count as Elementals; or removed altogether, since Elemental covers a lot of the same ground as Outsider anyway.
Thematically, elementals should be a creature made up of basic elements, devoid of organs and similar things. Its an animating force tied to the element it espouses. Efreet shouldn't, by the current definition, be elementals, and some of the "expanded" elementals, like shadow elementals, time elementals, etc. make perfect sense as they tend to be creatures made up of their defining matter, not ones that are dependant on an actual true working (if fantastic) physiology.
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.
I think a lot of dinosaurs can be built by advancing HD.
My pick of "Dinosaurs” for Pathfinder monster book are:
Pack Hunters
Deinonychus – Advanced versions can be used to represent larger dromaeosaurids, like Achillobator and Utahraptor.
Large Hunters
Tyrannosaurus – Advanced versions can be used to represent larger carnosaurs, like giganotosaurus or tyrannotitan. Spinosaurus, allosaurus, and ceratosaurus probably need their own write-ups in a later book due to differences in size, hunting methods, and the like.
Grazers
Triceratops – This would cover most of the big ceratopsians. Small ones, like centrosaurus, could be covered in a later book.
Diplodocus – This is a good “small” sauropod to start with and advanced versions can represent Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus). Titanosaurs may need their own write-ups later.
Sea Serpents
Plesiosaurus – The classic sea serpeant. Advanced versions can represent the larger plesiosaurs, like elasmosaurus. Ichthyosaurs and Mosasaurs deserve their own write-ups later.
Well, mechanically that's a good argument for leaving the Type divisions as they are. Logically, however, that says to me that "elementals" should have immunity to sneak attacks as a "racial" bonus and not a Type bonus; as the rules currently stand, Elemental as a Type makes about as much sense as Giant as a Type - created solely to give a limited number of creatures a very specific bonus. Elemental should either remove the immunity to flanking and granting that as a racial bonus to "elementals" proper, and be expanded such that Efreets and Mephits logically count as Elementals; or removed altogether, since Elemental covers a lot of the same ground as Outsider anyway.
The problem is... it's not just The big four-set of Elementals who would deserve such things as sneak attack immunity.
Any creature that's just a big mass of elemental energy gets it. Elemental Weirds, for example. (some of which are OGL as per Tome of Horrors 2, I think.)
As for covering the same ground...
Elemental d8 HD ×¾ (as cleric) Ref (Air, Fire), or Fort (Earth, Water) 2 + Int mod per HD
Outsider d8 HD (as fighter) Fort, Ref, Will 8 + Int mod per HD
The outsider type is clearly a lot more powerful than the elemental type... so making Efreet into Elementals would be diminishing them severely... which I don't support, considering how... impressive I want genies to come across.
Of course, one might point this out as a weakness of creature types in general. It's hard to make a creature that doesn't match up to the stereotype its creature type establishes. Redcaps (from Pathfinder,) and bachanae (from Tome of Horrors 2) for example, have D6 hit dice and wizard base attack bonuses, despite being merderous brutes and bloodcrazed berserkers, respectively.
And some choices that sound logical in setup... don't make sense of thematic concept. Undead and constructs aren't alive, so giving them no constitution scores and bad fort saves makes sense... until you think about the qualities that fit classic examples of the type, such as unstoppable collosi (like the Terminator or... well... any Golem) and relentless undead (like Jason Voorhes or... well... any Revenant.)
|
But using this logic, there really isn't any need for Types at all besides Corporeal, Elemental and maybe Spiritual (for a ghost perhaps)and Construct. The demons devils and angels all have some kind of flesh, can be sneak attacked and are just really powerful humans from a composition point of view. There would be no need at all for an Outsider type.
However, since there are Types for Giant, Dragon, Outsider, Elemental and many many many more, the Type really doesn't have anything to do with what the being is composed of. It seems to be somewhat artifical in nature to be honest (which of course it is- it is a game afterall).
So here is the rub... DOES an efreet have flesh and kidneys at all? In arabic terms an efreet was a demon. Demons aren't supposed to be flesh and blood creatures, but spirtual beings, like an angel- spirits of evil while an angel is a spirit of good. If a fire elemental is composed of sentient flame, wouldn't a demon be sentient evil... so an efreet would be made of sentient flaming evil?
Actually I would love to see demons, daemons, devils and angels returned to spirits. Like a ghost they can manifest for a short time on our plane if they were summoned here. Otherwise they cannot interact with this plane at all. Make the three Ds and angels be evolutions of mortal souls of an appropriate alignment.
But back on track, what a creature is made of has very little if anything to do with its Type.
|
|
The whole Types catagory needs to be redefined if not eliminated. The only reason Types seem to exist is to save space on listing abilities they may have in common.
So, since space is always an issue, Types need to be redefined.
If Types will be based upon what a creature is composed of, such as elementals above, then the designers need to decide what each creature is composed of and assign a type based upon composition.
If Types, will be beased upon orgins of a creature then the Types need to be defined to reflect that, and Types like Humanoid and Giant would need to be replaced by Mortal perhaps.
If Types are not redefined then an Elemental can be anything. As far as an efreet becoming less powerful due to a shift from Outsider to Elemental, the difference can be made up in its description by adding appropriate abilities to bring it back up to power.
|
|
But back on track, what a creature is made of has very little if anything to do with its Type.
Which drives me bananas, as the description of the Outsider says that they're creatures that are made of the essence of their native plane.
Types in general make me pull my hair in a fit of taxonomic rage.
But back on track, what a creature is made of has very little if anything to do with its Type.
I'm not sure how it doesn't, really. Sure, it isn't /everything/ that seperates types, but it is a major part of the equation.
Animals, Dragons, Giants, Humanoids, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, and Vermin are creatures made of animal.
Constructs are (usually non-living) materials given artificial constructed life.
Elementals are raw living element.
Fey are embodiments of nature or related concepts made flesh.
Outsiders are (usually extra)planar spirits made flesh.
Oozes are creatures made of extremely basic pre-plant/animal life.
Plants are creatures made of plant. (Or fungus.)
Undead are once-living things returned from the dead, either corporeal or spiritual.
... Aberrations are really, the only catch-all creature-type, though lately, it's fashionable to say they're made of Far Realms tentacles.
... so traditionally, yes, one of the first questions you want to ask when creating a D&D monster is, roughly, what is it made of?
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....<SNIP>
Clearly I didn't speak clearly, and this statement looks even worse out of context. I love the dinos. I was just trying to point out that what makes dinos unique is the fact that they walked the earth and painting them as "Scythetooth Thunderbeast" takes that unique realness away in part. So... yeah, what you said :)
The whole Types catagory needs to be redefined if not eliminated. The only reason Types seem to exist is to save space on listing abilities they may have in common.
So, since space is always an issue, Types need to be redefined.
<snip>
If Types are not redefined then an Elemental can be anything. As far as an efreet becoming less powerful due to a shift from Outsider to Elemental, the difference can be made up in its description by adding appropriate abilities to bring it back up to power.
To be honest, I doubt types are going to be redefined by much, except by adding a line here and there (such as undead getting their charisma bonus to fort saves and hit points per hit dice.)
Backwards compatibility is a big thing for Pathfinder, and Creature Type is a large widget in 3.5 monsters.
As for adding abililities to bring something back in line with its former power.... that's a lot of tinkering, acid testing, grumbling when the wrong things get inflated, etc. I don't like dealing with. But, then, I'm a bit too compulsive to just eyeball it. Call it a failing of mine. n.n;
Creative Director
|
I doubt we'll be messing with the creature types much at all. We may well do a little adjusting (making derro into humanoids or fey; making ropers into aberrations) but where possible, we'll be resisting the temptation to shift around monsters to different types if possible.
As for eliminating monster types; the only thing I could see happening here is that we MIGHT make Giants a subtype of humanoid. Giant and Humanoid are already pretty much the exact same, but separated only by size, and Humanoid already has a tradition of having a lot of subtypes, after all. Making giants into a subtype of monstrous humanoid is tempting too.
I doubt we'll be messing with the creature types much at all. We may well do a little adjusting (making derro into humanoids or fey; making ropers into aberrations) but where possible, we'll be resisting the temptation to shift around monsters to different types if possible.
As for eliminating monster types; the only thing I could see happening here is that we MIGHT make Giants a subtype of humanoid. Giant and Humanoid are already pretty much the exact same, but separated only by size, and Humanoid already has a tradition of having a lot of subtypes, after all. Making giants into a subtype of monstrous humanoid is tempting too.
I would vote for both. Humanoid (giant) works well for the standard giants (hill, fire, etc.), as well as verbeeg and such. Monstrous Humanoid (giant) works for the stranger giant types like the gigantes, ettin, and formorians.
Edit: Though for the sake of the Ranger's favored enemy, I would stick with only one.
|
|
I doubt we'll be messing with the creature types much at all. We may well do a little adjusting (making derro into humanoids or fey; making ropers into aberrations) but where possible, we'll be resisting the temptation to shift around monsters to different types if possible.
As for eliminating monster types; the only thing I could see happening here is that we MIGHT make Giants a subtype of humanoid. Giant and Humanoid are already pretty much the exact same, but separated only by size, and Humanoid already has a tradition of having a lot of subtypes, after all. Making giants into a subtype of monstrous humanoid is tempting too.
I think Monstrous Humanoid (giant) would be better than just Humanoid, as it would change the way spells like Charm Person and Daze work. It'd be strange if 1st-level Wizards could now potentially charm giants to help them out.
Not that it's a calamitous change, but it's something to think about.
|
Creative Director
|
I think Monstrous Humanoid (giant) would be better than just Humanoid, as it would change the way spells like Charm Person and Daze work. It'd be strange if 1st-level Wizards could now potentially charm giants to help them out.
Not that it's a calamitous change, but it's something to think about.
Is it any more strange than a wizard charming a lizardfolk or a locathah or a mermaid, though?
Maybe. In any case, charm person's a weird spell anyway. Limiting it to humanoids is kinda weird since non-humanoid societies don't really have a use for it as much...
|
Include the flumph. The flumph is in OGL. I've used them in every fantasy campaign I've ran since 1981, even non-D&D.
Boot the yrthak along with the tojanida. Did anyone ever use these? More people used the flail snail.
Sam
I used a tojanida once, just to say I had used one. I placed one in a subterranean pool that was accessible to the caves above only via a narrow chute some 10 or 12 feet long that started about mid way up a cave wall and terminated in an opening about 5 feet above the water line. I knew the party was just too curious to let an odd sloping hole like that go unexplored.
In the game, the ranger volunteered to have a rope tied around his waist and he wriggled through the hole and down into the water while the rest of the party held onto the rope and braced themselves against the wall. The tojanida came at the submerged ranger from his blind side and I shifted the description back to the party's perspective as the rope suddenly went taunt and then began whipping back and forth, up and down as the beast ravaged the ranger. The party fought like mad to haul the ranger back, sportsfisherman-style, finally overpowering the thing and dragging the battered ranger (with torn armor and missing a boot) back through the hole with a sheepish look of "man that was a stupid thing to do" on his face.
My party still laughs about that event and makes jokes about using whatever character that guy happens to be playing as bait for various ploys and traps. It's a fond memory and all, but yeah, the tojanida has to go.
In the game, the ranger volunteered to have a rope tied around his waist and he wriggled through the hole and down into the water while the rest of the party held onto the rope and braced themselves against the wall....
No story that beings with a character tied to the end of a rope and lowered into something ends well. Traditionally it's the rogue who goes though.
|
That being said, there is one monster that has always seemed a little off to me. OgreMagi, this race/monster seems like a sore thumb that needs healing. Badly. Cure serious wounds even. It just doesn't fit in anyway shape or form. Especially now with the adjustment of the Ogres that have been given by the Illustrious Nick Logue and his twisted little experiment of giant concoctions. OK, so that didn't make much sense, but my point is valid lets hammer this nail down and make it "fit" better into the game and to echo earlier thoughts lets kill of dumb creatures that are unneeded and unwanted, and forget their existence, unless a logical in game, compelling reason for their being exists. Tojandas I am looking at you.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.
I'd like to see you go with the second option. I always loved the ogre mage, and was terrible disappointed by 3.x's version.
|
|
The vast swaths of templated monsters sounds like it would be ideal for a web enhancement. Its just a little busy work, and you don't spend the money on art or publishing costs.Nothing about web enhancements is easy, though. They complicate matters incredibly. It's easier to include web enhancements in books, where everyone can use them.
Besides, this could easily be done as a fan-made community project. Might do that the time comes...
|
|
2E)The entire "Ecology" section listed in the stat block seems kind of pointless to me. I don't find the Environment and Organization entires very useful, since the rest of the description can indicate environment, and a creature's organization is really up to the DM.
Actually, I've always found those handy. I'd rather see them stay.
The ogre-mage-rejuvenated-as-oni ground swell continues...
|
|
Please dear god Paizo, do NOT give dinosaurs Eberronesque names, a Deinonychus should not be called a "scytheclaw"...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" ;-)
If the entry includes both names, why not? You can then ignore the fantasy name if you wish, while those that think having a utahraptor in Golarion is silly can use the alternate name to their heart's content.
|
|
As for eliminating monster types; the only thing I could see happening here is that we MIGHT make Giants a subtype of humanoid. Giant and Humanoid are already pretty much the exact same, but separated only by size, and Humanoid already has a tradition of having a lot of subtypes, after all. Making giants into a subtype of monstrous humanoid is tempting too.
I'm of the same feeling about fey -- that should just be a subtype. Then we could have elves or gnomes that have clearer ties to be fey as Humanoid (fey). Also, most fey (dryads, satyrs, etc) are humanoid... so why not?
|
|
Is it any more strange than a wizard charming a lizardfolk or a locathah or a mermaid, though?
Maybe. In any case, charm person's a weird spell anyway. Limiting it to humanoids is kinda weird since non-humanoid societies don't really have a use for it as much...
Yeah, I can't say that changing the way charm works would bother me much at all, but it's still an element of the rules that's been around for a long time. After all, changing Charm Person to just a general Charm wouldn't be too difficult. Then you could just change Charm Monster to Greater Charm, or just remove it altogether and allow Heighten Spell to pick up the slack.
It's also always been a pet peeve of mine that Charm Person works on Humanoids but not Monstrous Humanoids, which is just strange, as sometimes the difference between them are minimal. Why is it possible to charm a lizardfolk but not a kuo-toa? They don't seem that different from each other. So in this sense a change would be welcome.
I gotta admit that having a Giant type always struck me as strange, they do feel more like a subtype. Either change would be cool, it's just that the D&D rule system has so many references that changing one little thing has a crazy domino effect.
|
|
I used a tojanida once, just to say I had used one. <snip> It's a fond memory and all, but yeah, the tojanida has to go.
Sheesh, there's one in every crowd. ;) Did you ever use a flail snail?
Just going by the description, the tojanida is actually quite average. Better than the yrthak. It's the art that sealed the tojanida's entry into the hall of shame. Do artists make these... freudian embellishments on purpose?
Sam
In the game, the ranger volunteered to have a rope tied around his waist and he wriggled through the hole and down into the water while the rest of the party held onto the rope and braced themselves against the wall....No story that beings with a character tied to the end of a rope and lowered into something ends well. Traditionally it's the rogue who goes though.
Heheh. So true - tis one of the "unwritten rules" - its always going to end in tears [or worse] - thanks for rekindling some very fond memories of numerous rogues and foolhardy souls!
I'm not entirely sure that monster types should be dispensed with. What is a troll, if it's not a giant? It's certainly not a monstrous humanoid. Likewise, I don't think a satyr is a monstrous humanoid (fey), I think it is a fey.
|
|
I'm not entirely sure that monster types should be dispensed with. What is a troll, if it's not a giant? It's certainly not a monstrous humanoid. Likewise, I don't think a satyr is a monstrous humanoid (fey), I think it is a fey.
So, what makes you feel this way? Why shouldn't a troll be a monstrous humanoid (giant) or a satyr a monstrous humanoid (fey)?
So, what makes you feel this way? Why shouldn't a troll be a monstrous humanoid (giant) or a satyr a monstrous humanoid (fey)?
To be honest, I sometimes wonder why a troll is a giant instead of a monsterous humanoid. They regenerate, have claw and bite attacks, look like they were crossbred with a wormwood treant... what more do you want?
They would seem to have as much right to it as Hags, who I sometimes wonder if should be considered magic-using, ugly, amazon giants.
EDIT:Well, technically, I do know why. Folklorically, there's been a connection between trolls and giants for a long time, but one could also make a case for a fey connection there too. I'm just pointing out how weird the D&D troll is compared to other D&D giants.
Well, then monstrous humanoid becomes far too broad a category for one thing. For another, if you're eliminating the fey and giant types, what are pixies or dryads or such like? Likewise, where do you stop? Are devils just monstrous humanoids (lawful, evil, extra-planar)?
Well, then monstrous humanoid becomes far too broad a category for one thing. For another, if you're eliminating the fey and giant types, what are pixies or dryads or such like? Likewise, where do you stop? Are devils just monstrous humanoids (lawful, evil, extra-planar)?
I think that part of the reason for suggesting that giants become a subtype of humanoid is that the giant type and humanoid type give nearly the same benefits. Same hit die type, same base attack bonus, same number of skill points, similar saves (Humanoids say they get good reflex saves as opposed to the giant's good fortitude saves but states that is not always the case).
The biggest differences seems to be that giants are proficient with martial and natural weapons, as well as that they also automatically get low-light vision. These are relativity minor and could be added to the definition to a subtype, if necessary at all.
Also the definition of the giant type pretty much is a humanoid in the large size category or bigger.
|
|
Well, then monstrous humanoid becomes far too broad a category for one thing.
Oh?
For another, if you're eliminating the fey and giant types, what are pixies or dryads or such like?
Typically Humanoid (fey) or Monstrous Humanoid (fey) -- as appropriate. It also opens the door for more outlandish creatures with different types, like Aberrant (fey), Outsider (fey), Humanoid (fey, giant), Magical Beast (fey), etc.
Likewise, where do you stop?
Right where I said, with giants and fey. As types, there's very little meaningful difference between them and Humanoid or Monstrous Humanoid. As Subtypes, the few meaningful difference could be kept and also allow for more versatility and flexibility.
Are devils just monstrous humanoids (lawful, evil, extra-planar)?
The mechanical differences between Outsider (evil, extraplanar, lawful) and Monstrous Humanoid (evil, extraplanar, lawful) are far more meaningful than the difference between Giant and Humanoid (giant), Fey and Humanoid (fey) or even Fey and Monstrous Humanoid (fey).
Fey are mechanically quite different from all other creature types: d6 HD, poor BAB, lots of skills. No other creature type is both fragile and skillful, so you'd lose something if fey got changed to another creature type.
I'm not sure about the fey but I think giant could be fairly easily rolled into subtypes.
Humanoid (giant)Ogre
Hill, Fire, Stone, Cloud, etc, Giants
Monstrous Humanoid (giant)
Troll
Ettin
You would likely have to modify spells like charm person, if you want to maintain backwards compatibility with existing spell effects.
|
Contributor
|
I'd love to see some evil fey, like Recaps and Rusulka, or at least an "Unseelie" template (better than the existing WotC one) to make out favorite faeries evil little bugegrs. There's a bit of a lag between "combat monsters" and "tricky, situational monsters" that I'd love to see bridged.
I'm also happy to hear about the dinosaurs; a trip to a lost valley is always a fun adventure. And obviously mammoths are necessary for any setting with "Mammoth Lords". Hopefully a few more ancient mammals will make it in as well.
And please, please keep at least a few 'weird' monsters, even if they aren't cool or especially well-used. The jump from 2e to 3e saw a lot of the fun "weird" stuff get dropped (bye-bye Glassteel and Fool's Gold), and I'd hate to see some of the really flavorful monsters like Grell or Will O Wisps tossed because they weren't practical enough.
That being said, what're the odds of seeing Glassteel in the final Pathfinder RPG?
I think with Dinosaurs- the most well-known and popular will get write-ups first. I'm sure more obscure dinos and monsters would be added later. T-Rex, Raptors, Tricerotops, brontosaurus, allosaurus, pteranodon, plesiosaur are most well-known. Maybe Ankyolosaurus and Dimetrodon. But there are so many great dinosaurs. But to include them all would take up alot of pages. Dragons, alone, would probablly be 8 or 10 pages.
I'm sure the Paizo team has some ideas as to what they'll do with monsters... and we can always use the 3.5 writeups as well.
Stephen Klauk: I would purchase your bestiary if in book form. I always like to see what other gamers have. And you can NEVER have to many monsters!