I guess this is stupid but it never made sense to me why they didn't have a fox stats block in the animals section of the 3.5 MM.
Actually the Ravids (and Rasts, for that matter) ARE Open Content: see Ravid or Rast, and I would like to see both of these monsters updated for at least one of the Bestiaries if there isn't sufficient spaces for them in the first.
I'm obviously not as funny as I think I am. Or my material's too obscure. Or.... well...
BAAAHHHH!
---
Seriously, though, I like the Ravid, and hope it makes a comeback. There was a really cool Dungeon adventure surrounding one getting loose in a magic shop. Can't quite remember the issue or adventure title, but it was great. Critter looks an awful lot like a dragon to me, though. I keep wanting to present it as a hatchling energy dragon somehow, with life-based powers it doesn't have control over yet.
|
I guess this is stupid but it never made sense to me why they didn't have a fox stats block in the animals section of the 3.5 MM.I just use elephant, but I subtract 100 h.p., 3 points of a.c., and I subtract 20 h.p. from the damage rolled.
And I make them no longer afraid of mice.
I tried doing that, but my players complained that even at 2d8-5 the fox's trample damage was overpowered for its size.
|
|
I can't see there being a problem having death knights, so long as they are different from the WotC ones. Its a pretty generic name, after all.It's a generic name... but it's not a generic monster, really. Especially with how important they've become to Dragonlance. If we were to make a "new" death knight it'd either confuse things by making too many of the same-named things or it'd look like we were treading on WotC's IP anyway. The idea of a powerful undead knight is a good one though, and some day we might do up a creature like a graveknight or something like that. It'd have a different name than "Death Knight" and different flavor and different stats than the WotC one.
Thanks for the reply. I actually don't much like the WotC Deathknight anyway; too much reliance on special effects and not enough "Foolish mortal! You dare to challenge me? I was killing your kind when your ancestors were still using sticks and stones for weapons."
So long as you keep Graveknight as a template, then anything else you do will be an improvement.
I guess this is stupid but it never made sense to me why they didn't have a fox stats block in the animals section of the 3.5 MM.I just use elephant, but I subtract 100 h.p., 3 points of a.c., and I subtract 20 h.p. from the damage rolled.
And I make them no longer afraid of mice.
Oh I see what you did thar.
Can we cut the Ravid?*sniff* I like the Ravid. And I might also be the only person who like's the Rast.
Actually, I like the Rast. I'd like to see more elemental versions, like a frost, acid or whatnot version of the little devil. I had done a little write-up for my own campaign world where the little critters exist at the edges of the given elemental planes, attempting to break down one plane's material and turn into matter for another plane. For example, the fire rast (the default one in the MM) can be found at the edges of the plane of water, air and earth (and the prime material) consuming material or creatures, converting them into elemental fire and mystically transporting it to the plane of fire. The same would be occurring with other elemental rasts, trying to convert planar bits to their associated plane. Might make for an interesting mephits vs. rast hordes adventure - with elementals caught in the middle, assuming the mephits to be the "leaders" of the rast horde.
The Ravid though, I just haven't been able to find a decent thing to do anything with - though the Ravid-in-a-magic-shop adventure sounds interesting.
What about the old energons - Xag-Yi and Xeg-Yi (?spelling?) are those usable or are they copyrighted?
For the Bestiary, I hope for the Hook Horror! Ok, Probably not available, how about the Linnorms?
Now for a NPC book or entry I advise Jesters, because they're the closest thing to clowns in the game, mind you they are uber-creepy and need to be slain on sheer principle alone. Just be mindful of thise pies! They throw them with deadly accuracy, and the seltzer, or the squirting flower...
But I digress, as every royal court and street corner has known the fool/jester, it wouldn't be proper without one.
(dodges a swarm of pies)
Blasted clowns!The hook horror won't be in the book. It's not open content.
Linnorms are mythical and therefore CAN be in the book... but they'll be different than those in WotC's 3rd edition Monster Manual II (those versions aren't open content).
Thank you soooooooo much. I love the linorms and have always hated the way they wrecked them in 3rd ed.
What about some other mythical creatures like Firbolgs and the Red Cap?
I can think of a couple I'd like to see. No idea if they're legal or not, but the Grippli (small tree frog race) were cool, if seldom seen.
They were amphibian, which was unique.
Also, the Cayma from Red Steel was really cool. I played a cayma sorcerer from 1st to 21st level. Tiny characters that don't need level adjustments can be a hoot.
It got swallowed a lot, but once it had d-door, it was better. It was surprisingly effective at high levels, and was MVP of many sessions.
Even with the high charisma, it was never taken seriously, giving it a resentful rage that expressed itself quite destructively!
Here's a description:http://pandius.com/cayma3e.html
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
What about the Cerebus? I'd like to see this guardian of the lands of the death statted up as a monster. BUT I'd like to see it as a non-unique monster allowing for them to be used in groups. I think hunting PCs with packs of cerebus would be awesomeness.
The death dog from the original Fiend Folio was a 2 headed dog monster, which could fit that role. I don't have the ToH handy at work, but I think it might be in there. Cerebus could be a unique high level creature still.
Ditch any creature that has no literary or mythological background of any sort. IF it's not intrinsically cool. Pathfinder #2's carefully researched background on Lamias really pleased me. If it's something an old TSR writer cooked up around an unusually shaped piece of garbage they were using as a miniature, please give it the axe! Terrasque stays, Catobelpas goes. (unless I'm wrong, and there's some mythological underpinning to the Catobelpas that I am unaware of). This I disagree with fervently. Monsters like the otyugh, the bulette, the roper, and the rust monster are as much a part of the game as dragons in my opinion. But that said, the vast majority of the core classic monsters DO have some basis in mythology or history or legend, so the amount of "old TSR writer" monsters is probably smaller than you think. And again, those monsters that I just mentioned above are great examples of ones that are pretty much GUARANTEED to be in the book.
hurrah! Also, I hope you keep the Howler and bring back the Flumph.
And I'd like to see an upgrade the ogre mage.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.Same goes for nagas and golems to a point. This is certainly a place we can compress the book a bit. We'll DEFINITELY be dumping the advanced monsters. Better instead to use that space to make new monsters to fit a needed CR vacancy.
Agree. So long as you keep a variety of demons, devils and undeads.
Elven Immunities vs. Ghoul paralysis; are half-elves immune as well? Spell it out in the Paizo Pathfinder Bestiary.
Sometimes it's good to be the king. Or is that queen?
-Lisa
All hail Queen Lisa, Mistress of Paizo.
*pays her tithe in cookies*
|
Can't wait to see what made the cut, and what got chopped into little bits of garbage!
I love that so many of the monsters added in Pathfinder have a mythological background. The Tatzlwyrm is great!
3.0 started making up totally weird things that didn't even make sense except on perhaps a zero-gee methane world...
Go Paizo!
I hope you do come up with something to replace the Mindflayers tho. That's an iconic creature that should have a replacement in PFRPG. Serpentfolk are replacing the Yuan-Ti...so we're good there.
Creative Director
|
I hope you do come up with something to replace the Mindflayers tho. That's an iconic creature that should have a replacement in PFRPG. Serpentfolk are replacing the Yuan-Ti...so we're good there.
We already did, pretty much. Intellect devourers do basically the same thing that mind flayers do. Their names even sort of mean the same thing, and they both eat brains, and both are slavers, and both are weird underground aberrations.
|
|
I hope you do come up with something to replace the Mindflayers tho. That's an iconic creature that should have a replacement in PFRPG. Serpentfolk are replacing the Yuan-Ti...so we're good there.
The Scarred Lands setting replaced Mind Flayers with Slarecians and Yuan-Ti with Asaatthi, both of which should be OGL (and both of which are fairly well-developed).
The Slarecians and the lingering dangers of their society (golems, undead, etc) are found in the various Creature Collections, and a Slarecian Legacy sourcebook. I prefer Mind Flayers to Slarecians, personally, but they seemed hella popular and it seemed like you couldn't swing a dead cat in that setting without bumping into some connection to them.
The Asaatthi are also in Creature Collection 1, and then further fleshed out in Vigil Watch: Asaatthi. (I like the Asaatthi, and the Freeport setting's Serpent Men, quite a bit more than Yuan-Ti anyway!)
|
|
I hope you do come up with something to replace the Mindflayers tho. That's an iconic creature that should have a replacement in PFRPG. Serpentfolk are replacing the Yuan-Ti...so we're good there.We already did, pretty much. Intellect devourers do basically the same thing that mind flayers do. Their names even sort of mean the same thing, and they both eat brains, and both are slavers, and both are weird underground aberrations.
Intellect Devourers? The little brains on legs? Nasty, but not quite so cool...well cool, but not like Mind Flayer cool...
D&D got mindflayers wrong anyway. They should have been several stories high, rise up out of the sea, etc...
I don't know if it's such a good idea to make rip-offs of all the famous D&D monsters.
Fish people and snake people are generic enough, so there's no need to stay away from them. But trying to replace Ilithids, Githyanki or Beholders seems kind of cheap to me. You don't have to simply replace them, I'd rather see something really new and unique.
You don't have to simply replace them, I'd rather see something really new and unique.
Agreed. I would rather see new and different monsters to fill those classic roles.
|
Creative Director
|
Intellect Devourers? The little brains on legs? Nasty, but not quite so cool...well cool, but not like Mind Flayer cool...I hope you do come up with something to replace the Mindflayers tho. That's an iconic creature that should have a replacement in PFRPG. Serpentfolk are replacing the Yuan-Ti...so we're good there.We already did, pretty much. Intellect devourers do basically the same thing that mind flayers do. Their names even sort of mean the same thing, and they both eat brains, and both are slavers, and both are weird underground aberrations.
Mind flayers got a serious bump in their cool factor after having several books put out about them, several adventures featuring them, and a LOT of support articles and expansions. The intellect devourer has, for much of that time, languished in the ghetto of psioncs monsters, alas, and never got the same amount of attention... but they come from the same era as mind flayers and with time, could be made just as cool, I think. In fact, that there pretty much a blank slate is pretty exciting, I think! We've already started doing some stuff with them in Golarion (Into the Darklands) and there'll be more to come next year, I suspect...
|
Creative Director
|
I don't know if it's such a good idea to make rip-offs of all the famous D&D monsters.
Fish people and snake people are generic enough, so there's no need to stay away from them. But trying to replace Ilithids, Githyanki or Beholders seems kind of cheap to me. You don't have to simply replace them, I'd rather see something really new and unique.
I couldn't agree more. Which is why we're filling the illithid role with intellect devourers (not a new creation, and certainly something unique), and probably the githyanki role with the denizens of Leng (also not a new creation, but relatively new to d20). For the slaadi, we're doing the proteans, which are entirely new. For beholders, we have no replacement plans at all.