ooo... I hope so.
I would guess the pictures would be similar to the Bestiary in the back of pathfinders
Yeah that would be great. Though I'd prefer the guy who did the bestiary art in Pathfinder #6 not be used.
Its almost to much going on. Its just not my cup of tea.
|
Im referring to the Choker, Chuul, Destrachan, Girallon, Grey Render, Grick, Howler, Krenshar, Magmin, Mohrg, Shocker Lizard, Tendriculos and the Thoqqua.
Choker, Magmin and Thoqqua are old school monsters. They all appeared in prior D&D products, and have quite a backstory.
EDIT: Actually the Howler is an old monster as well.
We're going to try to keep CRs unchanged. By which I mean, a CR 2 monster will remain a good challenge for 2nd level, while CR 20 will be a good challenge for 20th level play. In some cases (rakshasa, for example, or ogre mage) this'll mean that we'll need to change some mechanics. In others, we'll be making some changes to correct what we think are errors in the current design (derro will become humanoids, and ropers will become aberrations, for example). And in other cases, we might adjust other powers; the aboleth's Enslave power, for example, could easily become a dominate monster Spell-like Ability.
But the goal is for the monsters themselves to be relatively unchanged. The mechanics might be different, but an aboleth will still do everything an aboleth normally does, and you won't be seeing goblins getting weird new abilities.
For the most part. We've only just now started work on the monster design, so who knows what might transpire in the weeks to come?
James,
Do you guys plan to rework the rust monster's rust attack so that it deals damage to an item (especially given the changes to mending and make whole)?
Im referring to the Choker, Chuul, Destrachan, Girallon, Grey Render, Grick, Howler, Krenshar, Magmin, Mohrg, Shocker Lizard, Tendriculos and the Thoqqua.
Choker, Magmin and Thoqqua are old school monsters. They all appeared in prior D&D products, and have quite a backstory.
EDIT: Actually the Howler is an old monster as well.
I will definately support the Mohrg and Tendriculos. The Mohrg is a great undead to throw at PCs and the Tendriculos is a surprisingly tough plant monster, especially against players not familar with the beast.
I'd prefer the guy who did the bestiary art in Pathfinder #6 not be used.
Its almost to much going on. Its just not my cup of tea.
Who was that? Is that all s/he's done for Paizo? I kind of liked it...had kind of a Fiend Folio feel to it, but updated and more realistic. If I'm remembering correctly, the only thing I didn't much care for was some of them had a darker illustration in the foreground overlaying lighter illustrations in background, almost as a kind of wash or something. Maybe that is where "too much" was going on for you?
|
|
I will definately support the Mohrg and Tendriculos. The Mohrg is a great undead to throw at PCs and the Tendriculos is a surprisingly tough plant monster, especially against players not familar with the beast.
I was long time skeptical of the Tendriculos. Until one day ...
My RotRL game, Graul house. The party cleans up the place, except the basement. One particularly greedy player insists to check it right away, but the team says no and prefers to rest first. At night, the guy sneaks into the basement.
He never returned. The party killed the Tendriculos next day (who has since devoured the poor PC) and never found out the PCs fate.
Priceless.
|
I'd prefer the guy who did the bestiary art in Pathfinder #6 not be used.
Its almost to much going on. Its just not my cup of tea.
Agreed.
Who was that? Is that all s/he's done for Paizo? I kind of liked it...had kind of a Fiend Folio feel to it, but updated and more realistic. If I'm remembering correctly, the only thing I didn't much care for was some of them had a darker illustration in the foreground overlaying lighter illustrations in background, almost as a kind of wash or something. Maybe that is where "too much" was going on for you?
To me, it looked like everything had bits of rotting flesh falling off of it. It worked ok for some things (like the kuchrima, the vulture-lamia), but to go from WAR's cover pic of rune giants to the pic in the bestiary was a HUGE change, and not a good one, IMO.
|
|
That would be Kev Crossley. His art can be very good when he is drawing tentacly, rotting, horrid stuff (see "Book of Fiends") or very bad when he draws something else. His tendency to cover everything in small worms and extra mouths is rather distracting.
His Vargoullie pic in recent blog shows some improvement in this regard. But yeah, WAR is WAR. Wayne could draw a flumph and make it look awesome.
|
His Vargoullie pic in recent blog shows some improvement in this regard. But yeah, WAR is WAR. Wayne could draw a flumph and make it look awesome.
fixed linky
His Vargoullie pic in recent blog shows some improvement in this regard. But yeah, WAR is WAR. Wayne could draw a flumph and make it look awesome.
What an incredibly evocative picture. Some talent, huh?
Creative Director
|
The majority of the pictures will be like the bestiary in Pathfinder; one monster per illo. In a few cases, there might be two monsters (some of the less complex monsters being more than one to a page), but perhaps not. We'll certainly not be grouping monsters like demons and devils together in one picture.
And as for the tendriculous, it's not a bad monster, I guess, aside from the fact that it should never have been created at the power level it is. It's basically a clone of the shambling mound. Same CR, same sort of tactics in combat (grab you and envelop you). Except the tendriculous is larger and therefore often more difficult to use in an encounter. It should have been built at CR 10 or higher.
|
The majority of the pictures will be like the bestiary in Pathfinder; one monster per illo. In a few cases, there might be two monsters (some of the less complex monsters being more than one to a page), but perhaps not. We'll certainly not be grouping monsters like demons and devils together in one picture.
And as for the tendriculous, it's not a bad monster, I guess, aside from the fact that it should never have been created at the power level it is. It's basically a clone of the shambling mound. Same CR, same sort of tactics in combat (grab you and envelop you). Except the tendriculous is larger and therefore often more difficult to use in an encounter. It should have been built at CR 10 or higher.
Will groups like demons, devils, and dinosaurs be grouped together like the SRD, or will they be split up and put alphabetically? My vote would be alphabetically; makes it easier to find.
And as for the tendriculous, it's not a bad monster, I guess, aside from the fact that it should never have been created at the power level it is. It's basically a clone of the shambling mound. Same CR, same sort of tactics in combat (grab you and envelop you). Except the tendriculous is larger and therefore often more difficult to use in an encounter. It should have been built at CR 10 or higher.
I agree that it would make a better CR 10 monster. The thing reminds me of a plant version of the 1e Trapper.
|
|
One thing I'd like to know is will the beastiary have listings for monsters alluded to in the pathfinder APs?
In RotR 4 in the dragons article it mentions other non-standard dragons (sin, virtue, abominations, etc). Reason I as is they intrigued me. I have an idea for a side adventure for my party (before they dive into RotR4) and I'd like to use a rot dragon (type of abomination), but there isn't any info on it that I could find other then the original blurb that got me thinking about it. I mean I could just use the tried and true black dragon, but I was wanting to make it different.
|
|
One thing I'd like to know is will the beastiary have listings for monsters alluded to in the pathfinder APs?
In RotR 4 in the dragons article it mentions other non-standard dragons (sin, virtue, abominations, etc). Reason I as is they intrigued me. I have an idea for a side adventure for my party (before they dive into RotR4) and I'd like to use a rot dragon (type of abomination), but there isn't any info on it that I could find other then the original blurb that got me thinking about it. I mean I could just use the tried and true black dragon, but I was wanting to make it different.
I think that the first one is pretty much just stuff from the SRD - as they want to make previously published games easier to convert. as it is they can't fit all of those in the first book.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing I'd like to know is will the beastiary have listings for monsters alluded to in the pathfinder APs?
In RotR 4 in the dragons article it mentions other non-standard dragons (sin, virtue, abominations, etc). Reason I as is they intrigued me. I have an idea for a side adventure for my party (before they dive into RotR4) and I'd like to use a rot dragon (type of abomination), but there isn't any info on it that I could find other then the original blurb that got me thinking about it. I mean I could just use the tried and true black dragon, but I was wanting to make it different.
Yeah; the first Pathfinder Bestiary is going to have a very similar listing of monsters to the 3.5 Monster Manual. There'll be some changes and additions and omissions, but the vast majority of the new stuff from the APs won't be there; those are great monsters for the second or third or onward Bestiaries.
That would be Kev Crossley. His art can be very good when he is drawing tentacly, rotting, horrid stuff (see "Book of Fiends") or very bad when he draws something else. His tendency to cover everything in small worms and extra mouths is rather distracting.
His Vargoullie pic in recent blog shows some improvement in this regard. But yeah, WAR is WAR. Wayne could draw a flumph and make it look awesome.
Thanks! Yeah, the vargouille...I should've made the connection.
@ Rob - Yeah, there's a big difference between their portrayals of the rune giants. But I thought his portrayal of the harridan was pretty dramatic and thought his style worked with some of the freakier cthulhic types.|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
It's unlikely that the yrthak will be in Pathfinder Bestiary 1. Unlike the rakshasa and the ogre mage, the yrthak has neither the 30 some years of history of being a part of the game, nor the hundreds of years as being a part of real-world mythology. It's a brand new creature that has only been around for a fraction of the time as most of the other monsters in the game, and those monsters that have been around for a long time basically have seniority; they're the ones we're trying to get into the game first, and that means yrthaks will probably not show up until the Pathfinder Bestiary 2. Or 3. Or something down the line.
When/if we DO get around to bringing the yrthak into the PF RPG, though, I doubt we'll be doing much to change it. It's actually a pretty well-done monster already (I actually think it's one of the better monsters that was introduced into the game with 3rd edition)—but the fact that it has no ties to anything but itself and isn't a monster that folk recognize from history or tradition is the reason you don't see them show up in adventures as often as dragons or medusas or bulettes or manticores or wyverns, I suspect.
Ok. I still miss the battlecray of "No Monster Left Behind" but am slowly accepting things for what they are.
However...does anyone else feel the same way as I do about certain 3rd edition monsters who are not from mythology and were just made up..yet now feel as much a part of D&D as other made up monsters like the Bulette, Xorn, Mimic or Ankheg?
Im referring to the Choker, Chuul, Destrachan, Girallon, Grey Render, Grick, Howler, Krenshar, Magmin, Mohrg, Shocker Lizard, Tendriculos and the Thoqqua.
The magmin (formerly magman/magmen plural) and thoqqua are 1st Ed monsters (A4 Dungeons of the Slavelords/MM2 and the Fiend Folio, respectively) and the howler a 2nd Ed Planescape monster.
I think I've been playing D&D too long... :)
ooo... I hope so.
I would guess the pictures would be similar to the Bestiary in the back of pathfindersYeah that would be great. Though I'd prefer the guy who did the bestiary art in Pathfinder #6 not be used.
Its almost to much going on. Its just not my cup of tea.
For me, the bestiary art from pathfinder #6 was my favorite art so far in any Pathfinder product. Kind of like a modern ultra-detailed Errol Otus.
I think I've been playing D&D too long...
I'm still trying to work out what you could possibly mean here. BTW, have I mentioned the aspis lately...yeah, aspis.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I think I've been playing D&D too long...I'm still trying to work out what you could possibly mean here. BTW, have I mentioned the aspis lately...yeah, aspis.
I statted them out as a playable PC race back in the late 80s. Of course, I also had stats for wemics, centaurs, tabaxi, and (groan) vegepygmies.
Yeah.... good times...
Er, cut. Dunno why this posted here, and not the other thread...
Im referring to the Choker, Chuul, Destrachan, Girallon, Grey Render, Grick, Howler, Krenshar, Magmin, Mohrg, Shocker Lizard, Tendriculos and the Thoqqua.
A lot of people don't give the choker the veteran cred it deserves. It's from the Mystara setting, way back in the day. I have the Monstrous Compendium updating Mystara monsters to 2nd Ed rules, and there it is, in all its throttling glory.
Sounds like it'd be a cool Spider-Man villain, actually.
"And the Choker chokes!"
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, or if it's even possible given space constraints, but it would be cool to see some monsters who can be used to help create certain magic items. For example, in 2nd edition, a lock of nymph's hair could be used to create a cloak of charisma, and her tears could be distilled into a love potion.
Having minor notes like that would be pretty cool. Mechanics-wise, I imagine possessing such a material could replace some of the gp cost for creating an item.
|
|
I don't know if it's been mentioned yet, or if it's even possible given space constraints, but it would be cool to see some monsters who can be used to help create certain magic items. For example, in 2nd edition, a lock of nymph's hair could be used to create a cloak of charisma, and her tears could be distilled into a love potion.
Having minor notes like that would be pretty cool. Mechanics-wise, I imagine possessing such a material could replace some of the gp cost for creating an item.
This is what I like most about the freeport monster books, every monster had value this way. Unfortunately I was told that there wasn't enough room in the bestiary in the back of the books, and they arn't sure they want to have to fit these byproducts into the economy of the world, and that would also make the munchin players into butchers of each creature they face
|
|
... and that would also make the munchin players into butchers of each creature they face
It would make Profession (butcher) and Profession (taxidermy) a lot more useful! Seriously though, it would really separate the do-gooders from the mercenaries - do we rush off to save the town or stop to butcher and dress the gorgon carcass so we can harvest and sell its heart?
For example, in 2nd edition, a lock of nymph's hair could be used to create a cloak of charisma, and her tears could be distilled into a love potion.
I have a horrible image of PCs shaving a shackled nymph for her hair and torturing her for her tears. Wearing protective eyegear, of course.
This is how you're meeting down your artwork budget, right? :D
Can we expect a classic '2nd edition look' invisible stalker, too?
That was awesome... I still get a chuckle for some reason.
While I was just sitting around and before noticing this thread, I was hoping for a nice super-trim 4e style statblock with 2e style info. Bake and 350 degrees, and dig in! The 3.x statblocks were simply painfully bloated with junk IMO, but that's as much about the core mechanics (effects, resolutions, etc...) as the actual creatures. Then after too much info in the statblock, they didn't have enough in the ecology part.
2 cents.
And as I think I say with every post about this game (and other systems), Pathfinder is shaping up to be about as close to perfect as I can imagine. Thank you!
[edit] - Changed super-trip into super-trim. I think I had a flashback.
Supergnome, have you visited the Still Excited thread?
@ Drakli - The kind of players who ruin flava for everybody else...
I'm curious, do we have any examples of a statblock or monster entry? Is it the same as current Pathfinder products, or is it modified somehow? I'm curious.
*If I missed this info somewhere, sorry to bother. I haven't been keeping a keen eye on things for some time.
|
Creative Director
|
I'm curious, do we have any examples of a statblock or monster entry? Is it the same as current Pathfinder products, or is it modified somehow? I'm curious.
*If I missed this info somewhere, sorry to bother. I haven't been keeping a keen eye on things for some time.
We haven't posted example stat blocks yet, and probably won't for a while. That said... the stats will look pretty similar to how the new monsters in Pathfinder look. The goal is to have them similar enough that someone who knows one system can look at the stats and figure it mostly out without having to read a lot of new rules, though.
We haven't posted example stat blocks yet, and probably won't for a while. That said... the stats will look pretty similar to how the new monsters in Pathfinder look. The goal is to have them similar enough that someone who knows one system can look at the stats and figure it mostly out without having to read a lot of new rules, though.I'm curious, do we have any examples of a statblock or monster entry? Is it the same as current Pathfinder products, or is it modified somehow? I'm curious.
*If I missed this info somewhere, sorry to bother. I haven't been keeping a keen eye on things for some time.
Thanks for the quick and helpful reply.
|
Just to prove a point that even in the real world, not all creatures get to be in the first monster manual.
And as a non thread bonus Map of Death
I always thought werewolves should be NE or LE. There are few animals more "lawful" than than the wolf with its pack behavior and alpha pair etc etc. Plus, the werewolf is tied to the orderly moon
Also, could we please revert Were-Rats back to LE like they were in 1 ed, instead of CE like they are in 3 ed?
Also, could we please revert Were-Rats back to LE like they were in 1 ed, instead of CE like they are in 3 ed?
Your fortune cookie words of wisdom for today:
"If you look up again something you thought you knew, you're in for a pleasant surprise!"
I always thought werewolves should be NE or LE. There are few animals more "lawful" than than the wolf with its pack behavior and alpha pair etc etc. Plus, the werewolf is tied to the orderly moon
A wolf might be "lawful", but the werewolf in the classic stories is a very CE creature/fate: One morning, you wake up, and find that something nasty tore your family and friends to pieces but left you mysteriously alive. And then you find out that's because you didn't feel like suicide in your blood orgy.
If you woke up and found that you managed to earn a wad of cash from extortionism and selling weak people into slavery, or are suddenly king, then I'd see the LE... ;-)
Understood. But I am saying maybe we should revisit this classic monster
They could have a structured pack mentality which is something they often do in the gaming world
I'm not sure we should. We can get the pack mentality with wererats (LE), and that way we don't lose the very archetypical rampaging-monster-in-our-midst.
I love classic monsters revisited, but it doesn't have to jump everything. Some things are perfectly fine. Don't fix what isn't broken.
|
CEO
|
One down how many more to go? =DI finished my first monster for the Bestiary. Man, was that fun! :)
-Lisa
I am just doing three monsters, just to get my feet wet again in the design area. Jason has given me three classic monsters that have been in the initial Monster Manuals for the first three editions. Making sure they get their due in the PFRPG has been fun and educational all at the same time. Jason has really written up some cool guidelines for making monsters that I hope sees print somewhere. As I told him, "They are brilliant! I wish I had them a long time ago."
-Lisa
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
One down how many more to go? =DI finished my first monster for the Bestiary. Man, was that fun! :)
-Lisa
I am just doing three monsters, just to get my feet wet again in the design area. Jason has given me three classic monsters that have been in the initial Monster Manuals for the first three editions.
-Lisa
I read "three classic monsters" and immediately thought Flumph! Then I continued reading and it broke my heart...
;)
I'm not sure we should. We can get the pack mentality with wererats (LE), and that way we don't lose the very archetypical rampaging-monster-in-our-midst.
I love classic monsters revisited, but it doesn't have to jump everything. Some things are perfectly fine. Don't fix what isn't broken.
but most werewolves in game are in packs, no?
|
Ah... werewolves. That brings back memories.
I'm really looking forward to the Beastiary, and am anxious to see what you have in store. I do hate the fact that we all have to wait as long as we do (especially considering some of us are currently running PF games)... but oh well...
I just finfished writing my own beastiary with some Pathfinder changes... 500+ pages of Word Document = tired hands and eyes.
but most werewolves in game are in packs, no?
Well, maybe. But technically, so are Orcs and Gnolls, both of which are chaotic.
Just because a creature is chaotic doesn't make it solitary. It may mean that association amongst them may be brutal, or disorganized, or at the very least, disinterested in being civilized. Perhaps that's why were-wolves stick to small wilderness packs instead of becoming large mercenary bands or infiltrating cities or whatnot. It's easier to coordinate 2-10 headstrong carnivores than 20-50.
If it helps, consider that lycanthropy is a curse preying on human conceptions and fears of an animal, and human conception is often wrong, particularly when you're scared of the animal because it may take your sheep or your son, Tom. Or say that the natural balance is tainted by the petty cruelty of the human half that thinks because he's become a wolf he needs become a ravening monster. Or a mix of both.
Grant you, maybe I'm not one to talk, because I'm still mildly frustrated that Pathfinder Gnolls are based on hyena (and look like spotted hyena in the Classic Monsters book,) but are still patriarchal. Ah well.
We'll all find things we find dissonant here and there, I guess. Part of being human and all. :)
|
Creative Director
|
Grant you, maybe I'm not one to talk, because I'm still mildly frustrated that Pathfinder Gnolls are based on hyena (and look like spotted hyena in the Classic Monsters book,) but are still patriarchal. Ah well.
HA! That's an interesting point. Of course... the response is that while gnolls ARE based on and look like hyenas, they're not hyenas. The differences in their society and pack structure point to that.
And then, of course, in the end they're ruled by a female goddess, so maybe they're not as patriarchal as they think they are...
And then, of course, in the end they're ruled by a female goddess, so maybe they're not as patriarchal as they think they are...
I think it's just something the guy gnoll (would guy hyenas be guyenas?) tell themselves to feel important while the priestesses of Lamashtu send them all out to their deaths in raiding and conquest. ;)