Did you pick up on anything when you read through the Bonus Bestiary? Here's what I noticed--
They (slightly) changed the format for Poisons and Diseases. Probably just for stat blocks, but it was different.
Treasure is by money value--I'm intrigued as to how this is going to work.
No Advancement section? Does this mean some unified mechanic, just by class, or no advancement at all?
CMD's calculation is confirmed as 10+STR+DEX+BAB+Size; plus AC bonuses except armor, natural armor, shield, and size.
Anyone else?
Undead use a d8 for hit dice. I'm rather confused by this change, honestly....
Undead use a d8 for hit dice. I'm rather confused by this change, honestly....
Missed that one. I would guess it's probably because they get their charisma mod as bonus hp...but I would have gone to d10 at worst. *shrug*
They get their CHA to HP, but they also are no longer immune to crits, so they need more HP to be as dangerous as they used to be, honestly... I would love for James or someone to comment on this decision (please?).
|
They get their CHA to HP, but they also are no longer immune to crits, so they need more HP to be as dangerous as they used to be, honestly... I would love for James or someone to comment on this decision (please?).
Well I'm not James but if I am not mistaken the d8 applies to classles undead. Undead with class lvl's get the hd from the class Instead. (Of course I could be wrong.)
I was afraid of the d8 for undead, as I think it was batted around briefly during some discussion somewhere in the playtest. I personally think its a mistake, though probably not one that will affect low level play much.
Dragons get a d12 plus constitution, and tend to have a hefty con at that. While channel energy may have been nerfed to give undead a better time of it, as was pointed out, they can be hit with criticals now, and on top of that, undead that don't have high charismas will actually be taking a hit to their effectiveness.
We'll see how it works, but I have to admit my gut feeling is that this is a mistake for a type of monster that should be, by their nature, hard to put down.
While I don't disagree with the logic of the CMB defense, and I'm sure I'll get used to it, at a glance it does look a bit complicated and isn't really easy to summarize ("Its 10 plus what you would get for touch AC, plus strengh and BAB, but without size adjustment to AC")
I can see eyes glazing over with that, though you shouldn't have to recalculate it too much too often.
They get their CHA to HP, but they also are no longer immune to crits, so they need more HP to be as dangerous as they used to be, honestly... I would love for James or someone to comment on this decision (please?).Well I'm not James but if I am not mistaken the d8 applies to classles undead. Undead with class lvl's get the hd from the class Instead. (Of course I could be wrong.)
Although I know nothing for sure, I bet d8 means average BAB advancement. Dragons are special, like Barbarians. I wouldn't have minded if Undead were special, too, and got a d10 even though they have BAB like a cleric.
I bet that has something to do with it, but at the same time, I'm not sure that monster hit dice should be tied to the same mechanic as class hit dice regarding BAB, though I must admit I do like parity for the sake of having easily remembered rules.
I really like the Bestiary the only worry I have is the NO ADVANCEMENT this would be a killer downfall for me
I really like the Bestiary the only worry I have is the NO ADVANCEMENT this would be a killer downfall for me
I have a feeling that its not so much that there will be no advancement, but that it will be more standardized, i.e. if you want to you can add X number of hit dice if you want to and it does X or Y for a given monster. I could be wrong, but my feeling is if anything there just isn't a set HD range for how much you can advance a monster.
But I could be off base, its just conjecture.
I haven't seen the book yet, but if they are doing d8 for classless undead, they might be setting it up so that skeletons and zombies are more like the cannon fodder of horror movies. I mean, what's more fun? 4-5 d12 skeletons fighting a party or 10-12 d8 skeletons?
Well, if that's the case, its another niggling thing gnawing on at my comfort level because it will probably shift CRs for them and mean that established encounters in 3.5 books, including in Pathfinder material, won't quite match up right.
Creative Director
|
The basic idea is that for slow BAB you have a d6 HD, for medium you have d8 HD, for fast BAB you have a d10 HD. Barbarians and dragons are special cases, and thus get a d12 HD.
Undead do now get their Charisma bonus to HP rolls, and undead will generally have pretty good Charisma scores as a result. As a general rule, an average undead creature is about as tough as an average non undead creature. Many undead will have some form of damage reduction or other defense to model the fact that they're harder to kill than living things, though...
The basic idea is that for slow BAB you have a d6 HD, for medium you have d8 HD, for fast BAB you have a d10 HD. Barbarians and dragons are special cases, and thus get a d12 HD.
Undead do now get their Charisma bonus to HP rolls, and undead will generally have pretty good Charisma scores as a result.
My initial feeling isn't great on this, but at the same time, yeah, ghosts, vampires, liches and the like do tend to have high charisma scores. I'm also interested to see if any undead end up with toughness as an automatic bonus feat, or at least having it swapped for another feat they may have had, which will shift things a bit.
|
Creative Director
|
My initial feeling isn't great on this, but at the same time, yeah, ghosts, vampires, liches and the like do tend to have high charisma scores. I'm also interested to see if any undead end up with toughness as an automatic bonus feat, or at least having it swapped for another feat they may have had, which will shift things a bit.
Well... the way undead ended up working in 3.5 was pretty lame. You had to give high CR undead such ridiculously high HD so that their HP would be where they needed to be that all undead became not only effectively immune to turn undead, but also had ridiculous Will saves, stupid-high save DCs for special attacks, and several other unfortunate problems.
It works a lot better and more balanced in PFRPG by giving them d8 HD, Cha bonus to HP, and as necessary damage reduction and other special defensive abilities.
Well... the way undead ended up working in 3.5 was pretty lame. You had to give high CR undead such ridiculously high HD so that their HP would be where they needed to be that all undead became not only effectively immune to turn undead, but also had ridiculous Will saves, stupid-high save DCs for special attacks, and several other unfortunate problems.It works a lot better and more balanced in PFRPG by giving them d8 HD, Cha bonus to HP, and as necessary damage reduction and other special defensive abilities.
Trust me, I realized that the first time I tried to make a descent Death Knight encounter. I'm interested to see how this goes, I'm just kind of throwing my initial thoughts out there.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Hey James,
What is the design thinking behind the monster feats. I'm very intrigued by the new feats in the book, they seem much more powerful than a PC feat, but given that they aren't really meant for PCs, that doesn't seem to be a problem. It appears that you guys have added in feats as an additional way to customize monsters. Are there a large number of monster feats in the full bestiary, and do they generally function as the feats in the bestiary (e.g., granting a new ability or making the monster's existing ability better)? Are there more monster specific feats? Are there any creature type specific feats (e.g., aberration feats)?
All in all, this seems like an extremely cool way to use feats for monsters. The abilities these feats grant seem to be as powerful as a good magic item, and seem like they would go a long way towards advancing monsters or making sure they are CR appropriate without loading them down with treasure.
Plus, they have awesome flavor.
In short: I like.
|
Creative Director
|
Hey James,
What is the design thinking behind the monster feats. I'm very intrigued by the new feats in the book, they seem much more powerful than a PC feat, but given that they aren't really meant for PCs, that doesn't seem to be a problem. It appears that you guys have added in feats as an additional way to customize monsters. Are there a large number of monster feats in the full bestiary, and do they generally function as the feats in the bestiary (e.g., granting a new ability or making the monster's existing ability better)? Are there more monster specific feats? Are there any creature type specific feats (e.g., aberration feats)?
All in all, this seems like an extremely cool way to use feats for monsters. The abilities these feats grant seem to be as powerful as a good magic item, and seem like they would go a long way towards advancing monsters or making sure they are CR appropriate without loading them down with treasure.
Plus, they have awesome flavor.
In short: I like.
If you're talking about the universal monster rules... those aren't feats. We're just consolidating all the often-repeated monster attacks and defenses in a central area to make things have a lot less repetitive rules text and to make stat blocks more compact.
Actual feats are more or less as they are in the main book; there's maybe a dozen or so additional monster feats in the Bestiary (just as there was in the 3.5 Monster Manual; things like Improved Natural Attack and the like).
Or I might have just misunderstood your post?
When does it become a downloadable pdf?
Seeing as I couldn't get my hands on one of these lovely things, how is the description for the monsters in this freebie hand out?
Does it show a good amount of information pertaining to the creatures like habitat and the like?
Yes. There's generally a good two to three paragraphs of flavor text--behavior, environment, etc.
So Undead have better BAB progressions than they used to. That's probably a very good thing.
Still makes me wonder what zombies and such, with their at least classically low CHA. Perhaps it will mean a shift in CR, or will it just take some adjusting. I'll wait and see it in play.
I was saddened to see that creatures like the Nixie didn't have a Level Adjustment entry. Will there be rules in the final book for determining LA, or will it just be a case of "you can't play monsters anymore?"
Final observation - there's something weird going on with Leadership and Animal Companions. We'll have to wait until the final ruleset (hopefully not the DM's book that comes out in Feb and mentions Cohort rules and what-not). Check out the Dragonne entry to see what I mean.
To satisfy the itch of those folks who couldn't get a copy yesterday, and have to wait for the PDF tomorrow, here's a brief run-down of the goodness within :)
Inside front cover, four columns in small print of an incomplete listing of those monsters to be found in the upcoming Bestiary.
A two page spread on using the Bestiary which includes information on the CMB, CMD, Disease and Poison, and a sampling of the Universal Monster Rules.
Each creature has one page to itself. The picture takes approximately one quarter of the page, with the stat block being nearly a column in length (average). There are two sentences describing the critter, as is done in the Bestiary sections of the APs. As has been mentioned the XP value is spelled out next to the CR, and the Treasure is given as a Gold Piece Value where applicable. The remainder of the page is given to expanded description/information about the beastie in question.
Some of the interesting extras on the monsters:
Giant Ant Lion also gives us the Mature Ant Lion (Giant Lacewing) and the Ant Lion Sand Trap.
Axe Beak gives us information on how to train one and info on one as a Companion.
Caryatid Column gives us construction information.
Faerie Dragon has information on them as a familiar.
Dragonne provides information on them as Mounts and as Companions.
Huecuva tells us how to create one.
Nixies gives us a little Mythology section on how to make the nastier Neck of English and German myth.
Shadow Mastiff tells us how to summon one.
***
I'll be downloading the free PDF on Monday to add to my collection!
|
Director of Game Design
|
Of all the monsters in the final book, undead have gotten the biggest makeover. The problems mentioned by James were pretty terrible at higher CRs making undead mostly unusable. I won't get into too many specifics, but undead on the whole gained hp, increased in BAB and generally became a bit cooler (the sample lich has over 100 hp for a creature of the same CR as the old sample Lich).
And the advancement rules are a whole lot easier. The old line on monsters was mostly arbitrary anyway.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Final observation - there's something weird going on with Leadership and Animal Companions. We'll have to wait until the final ruleset (hopefully not the DM's book that comes out in Feb and mentions Cohort rules and what-not). Check out the Dragonne entry to see what I mean.
I'm not sure what you are seeing as weird in the Companion. That looks like the alternate rules that Jason posted about Companions during the playtest. You can get creatures at the point you gain the ability for a companion, and as it reaches certain levels, it gains more abilities.
Using the dragonne, your druid could have on at first level when they gain their companion, but at 10th, the dragonne gains those additional abilities. I have taken it to mean you start with a "young" version of the companion, and at the stated level it is "grown up" :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
If you're talking about the universal monster rules... those aren't feats. We're just consolidating all the often-repeated monster attacks and defenses in a central area to make things have a lot less repetitive rules text and to make stat blocks more compact.
Actual feats are more or less as they are in the main book; there's maybe a dozen or so additional monster feats in the Bestiary (just as there was in the 3.5 Monster Manual; things like Improved Natural Attack and the like).
Or I might have just misunderstood your post?
I think I misunderstood my post - for some reason I was thinking this thread was about the Dungeon Denizens Revisited, which seems to have a handful of those monster-related feats. I really like those, and was hoping we might be seeing more in the full Bestiary.
But, consolidating the oft-repeated monster attacks strikes me as a good thing. So, I like that too.
But I love the feats in Dungeon Denizens Revisited and wouldn't mind seeing more like those.
Still makes me wonder what zombies and such, with their at least classically low CHA. Perhaps it will mean a shift in CR, or will it just take some adjusting. I'll wait and see it in play.
As far as I've seen the aim is to keep CRs as they were and to make the monster conform better to those CRs, by adding or subtracting from therir power.
I was saddened to see that creatures like the Nixie didn't have a Level Adjustment entry. Will there be rules in the final book for determining LA, or will it just be a case of "you can't play monsters anymore?"
Jason pretty much confirmed at PaizoCon that LA is gone. I guess a replacement mechanism will be revealed in the Bestiary.
I was saddened to see that creatures like the Nixie didn't have a Level Adjustment entry. Will there be rules in the final book for determining LA, or will it just be a case of "you can't play monsters anymore?"Jason pretty much confirmed at PaizoCon that LA is gone. I guess a replacement mechanism will be revealed in the Bestiary.
At the end of the Nixie they give an alternate that follows the older English/German myths and makes for a meaner Nixie. It has two additional powers and a higher CR. Not an LA, but still :)
Things like monster advancement and the like will be detailed in the actual Bestiary book. There are more options for monster advancement in PFRPG than there were in 3.5, and those options are less restrictive as a general rule than they were in 3.5.
Great to read I had a feeling you guys use alot of advanced monsters in the APs so I figured you guys would figure out a better way to do it.
Inside front cover, four columns in small print of an incomplete listing of those monsters to be found in the upcoming Bestiary.
New monsters in the Pathfinder Bestiary that weren't core in 3.5 include:
Basidrond
Boggard
Cave Fisher
Crab
Cyclops
Dark Creeper and Stalker
Demons, Nabasu and Shadow Demon
Eel
Giant Flytrap
Frog
Froghemoth (!)
Genies, Marid and Shaitan (this was anticipated)
Goblin Dog
Golems, Wood and Ice
Herd Animal
Intellect Devourer
Iron Cobra
Leech
Linnorm (!)
Mite (also anticipated)
Morlock
Neothelid
Ogre Mages are officially Oni
Phoenix
Raptor (as separate from dinosaur, so presumably hawks and eagles)
Sea Serpent
Shoggoth (!!)
Giant Slug
Svirfneblin
Tengu
Vampiric Mist (!!!)
Vegepygmies (hopefully more interesting than the ToH ones)
Yellow Musk Creeper
Yeti
I'm not sure what you are seeing as weird in the Companion. That looks like the alternate rules that Jason posted about Companions during the playtest. You can get creatures at the point you gain the ability for a companion, and as it reaches certain levels, it gains more abilities.
Using the dragonne, your druid could have on at first level when they gain their companion, but at 10th, the dragonne gains those additional abilities. I have taken it to mean you start with a "young" version of the companion, and at the stated level it is "grown up" :)
That's not what I'm getting from it.
A character with the Leadership feat can take a dragonne as a mount using the animal companion rules. Such characters must have an effective druid level of 10th. A character with a dragonne mount counts as 4 levels lower when determining the abilities and statistics of the dragonne (meaning that the character's effective druid level is 6th for determining abilities when the dragonne is first acquired). Taking a dragonne in this way counts as the character's cohort.
Reading that makes it seem that Leadership, at least, works differently. After all, how does a character get an effective druid level? Or can only druids take Leadership to gain a Dragonne, but they have to wait until 11th level (since you don't get a feat at 10th)? It vexes me.
|
Creative Director
|
Two quick notes...
1) The monster list on the inside front cover is like 99% accurate, but there's been a LITTLE bit of adjustment in the months since we created that list and what monsters are ACTUALLY in the bestiary book.
2) The Bestiary is a monster book. Not a "Book of alternate races for PCs." There'll be SOME information about how to play monster PCs in both the Bestiary and in the main Core RPG, but it's not a replacement system for LA (which is, indeed, gone). The game is built on the assumption your players are playing humans and very similar creatures, after all, and while you CAN let your PCs play weird monsters, the weirder and more different they are from humans, the weirder and more different the rules will react. The situation really needs its own book to address, like D&D's "Savage Species" book. There's no way to do a simple system that works perfect for every monster, and as a result, ECL and LA caused more problems than they solved. ANYway... so if you're waiting for the Bestiary to give you solid rules on how to play monster PCs in a balanced way against "normal" PCs... you'll be disappointed. But if you just want to play monster PCs and your GM is cool with experimenting and trying weird things out with the game, the Bestiary will work quite well for you.
That's a bit of a disappointment. I tend to play humans, but I liked the general LA rules, and I take advantage of them in certain circumstances, like giving a heroic character a cohort that fits what I want to get for a character. I've also run campaigns where LA was a consideration, and some of my friends do enjoy it. Pathfinder races are more on par with the low-end LA +1 races like Aasimar and Tieflings, but there LA was one of the overall better ideas of 3rd edition, allowing people to play weird critters if they were so inclined (I keep threatening to play a displacer beast monk one of these days...).
Edit: Just to be clear, I do love Savage Species as a concept. I would look forward to a Pathfinder Savage Species product, but I'd rather not have to wait too long on something like that.
|
|
Not surprised about the LA, but you realize now many of us will be wanting a book devoted to this. For things like tieflings, ect.(what it's sunday, to tired to think of more examples) for us to be able to us as PC's.
Not that I am complaining I would like to see a Paizo version of Savage Species among many other books.
|
Creative Director
|
That's a bit of a disappointment. I tend to play humans, but I liked the general LA rules, and I take advantage of them in certain circumstances, like giving a heroic character a cohort that fits what I want to get for a character. I've also run campaigns where LA was a consideration, and some of my friends do enjoy it. Pathfinder races are more on par with the low-end LA +1 races like Aasimar and Tieflings, but there LA was one of the overall better ideas of 3rd edition, allowing people to play weird critters if they were so inclined (I keep threatening to play a displacer beast monk one of these days...).
Edit: Just to be clear, I do love Savage Species as a concept. I would look forward to a Pathfinder Savage Species product, but I'd rather not have to wait too long on something like that.
Note: I didn't say that it won't be possible to have monstrous cohorts, nor did I say there would be no rules in the Bestiary talking about how you can get a monster as a cohort.
And in the end, the game is compatible enough with 3.5 that if you're a fan of how LA works, you can keep using it in PFRPG and it should work more or less the same until we eventually do a Savage Species style book and maybe come up with something more elegant (or maybe not).
|
Creative Director
|
Not surprised about the LA, but you realize now many of us will be wanting a book devoted to this. For things like tieflings, ect.(what it's sunday, to tired to think of more examples) for us to be able to us as PC's.
Not that I am complaining I would like to see a Paizo version of Savage Species among many other books.
Well, for things like tieflings, you'll note that they're already quite close to humans in shape and role. They're a little bit more powerful, but we also made the base races a little bit more powerful so that these borderline PC races like tieflings can mesh better.
Again... there WILL be rules and guidelines for how to play things like tieflings and drow and lizardfolk and goblins and other close-to-human races. That's a relatively easy thing to accomplish. There won't be a mechanic for LA for EVERY monster, since monsters aren't designed to be PCs anyway. Again... look at the size of Savage Species. That's roughly the amount of room WotC needed to address the issue of PCs playing unusual races, and in a book that's supposed to be about giving the GM as many monsters to use as possible in a limited page count, I'm not interested in carving out a chunk of pages that big to try to make the Bestiary into something it's not supposed to be.
Just trying to manage expectations here...
|
|
Oh I got what you meant before. Cool about the more humanoid creatures getting a LA of sorts. i was merely pointing out that with no generic LA system you will have people wanting a Paizo SS. I have a guy in my game group that given a chance always loves to play something non standard.
I was just saying by what you said, you should expect a lot of request for one. Or at least I expect you to. :D
Some of the most interesting things I've found in the Bonus Bestiary are the Disease and Poison rules. They are much like they were in the Beta, but seem just a little more evolved.
One interesting difference that is not touched on in the "Universal Rules" section is that Diseases are removed by spells with a check against the contraction save DC. Poisons still have a "Level" listed - it will be interesting to see what that means exactly.
Edit: I do think it's somewhat "dangerous" to ignore LA type things, much as the 3.0 MM did (rules for things similar to humanoids were included in the DMG) - that made it more difficult later on to include the new system. But *far* better to leave it out than to implement a system (whether LA or something new) without plenty of playtesting and thought.
|
Creative Director
|
Some of the most interesting things I've found in the Bonus Bestiary are the Disease and Poison rules. They are much like they were in the Beta, but seem just a little more evolved.
One interesting difference that is not touched on in the "Universal Rules" section is that Diseases are removed by spells with a check against the contraction save DC. Poisons still have a "Level" listed - it will be interesting to see what that means exactly.
Poisons having a "level" listed is a great example of an element we removed in the final game, actually! :)
Poisons having a "level" listed is a great example of an element we removed in the final game, actually! :)
Ah - good to hear! The disease mechanic sounded quite good on its own :)
Thanks for the great goblin game @ PaizoCon James! Glim the Gnome can't wait for the Jade Regent saga to be released!
|
Director of Game Design
|
Poisons having a "level" listed is a great example of an element we removed in the final game, actually! :)Ah - good to hear! The disease mechanic sounded quite good on its own :)
Thanks for the great goblin game @ PaizoCon James! Glim the Gnome can't wait for the Jade Regent saga to be released!
Although the base idea for the affliction level was sound to me (kind of like a CR for poisons, diseases, and curses), the implementation was a little too loose and it was nearly impossible to come up with concrete guidelines for its determination within the framework of existing poisons, diseases, and curses. In the end, the DC is a pretty good benchmark anyway.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
Creative Director
|
I find it wierd how the neothelid makes it into the open game content, when the illithid is closed content. How did that happen? Aren't they the failed mindflayer tadpoles, who creep off and grow to huge size?
Are they given a new origin?
My guess: the powers that be don't consider the neothelid that key to the mind flayer life cycle. Or more likely, the powers that decided to make the mind flayer closed content didn't realize that the neothelid existed as open content once they made the psionics book part of the SRD.
Whatever the case... they do indeed have an entirely different origin/background/role in Golarion—they're basically part of the invasion of the Lovecraft Mythos into the world. Fans of Brian Lumley's writing and the CoC RPG know about the cthonians... Neothelids sort of fill that role in Golarion, as the big worm monster race that lives deep underground, is super intelligent and malevolent, and has ties to even greater horrors beyond the edge of reality.
I find it wierd how the neothelid makes it into the open game content, when the illithid is closed content. How did that happen? Aren't they the failed mindflayer tadpoles, who creep off and grow to huge size?
Are they given a new origin?My guess: the powers that be don't consider the neothelid that key to the mind flayer life cycle. Or more likely, the powers that decided to make the mind flayer closed content didn't realize that the neothelid existed as open content once they made the psionics book part of the SRD.
Whatever the case... they do indeed have an entirely different origin/background/role in Golarion—they're basically part of the invasion of the Lovecraft Mythos into the world. Fans of Brian Lumley's writing and the CoC RPG know about the cthonians... Neothelids sort of fill that role in Golarion, as the big worm monster race that lives deep underground, is super intelligent and malevolent, and has ties to even greater horrors beyond the edge of reality.
Has any thought been given to the Neh-Thalggu (Brain Collector)?
|
Creative Director
|
Has any thought been given to the Neh-Thalggu (Brain Collector)?
Certainly. But it'd probably need to be toned down a lot to be a non-epic monster before it sees reprinting in a PFRPG bestiary or encounter. (Which is, after all, the power level that the monster first got designed for.)
Thought...brain...
I easily amuse myself.
I'm not surprised, just trying to jiggle stuff loose. Thanks, JJ.