With LA gone, does that mean ECL has bit the dust too?
With LA gone, does that mean ECL has bit the dust too?
Well, ECL was Racial HD + Class Level + LA.
Character level is Racial HD + Class Level. That seems to cover it, so I'd imagine so (plus they kinda said so up-thread.)
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.
Good call, imo. I'd rather buy a straight-up book of monsters and *then* if players decide they want to use a monster as a PC, they can buy the bloody book on their own. Of course, I'll no doubt eventually buy the "Pathfinder Book of Monstrous Might" for rules on playing monsters as PCs anyway, just to have it in the library at some point.
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?You think that's weird? Check out the first Tome of Horrors. Even though slaads are closed content, WotC gave permission for Necromancer Games to publish Slaad Lords as OGC. So OGC products can use Slaad Lords, but not slaads.
Actually... when the first Tome of Horrors came out, the world was still in 3.0 mode. Slaadi and the others (mind flayers, beholders, etc.) didn't become closed content until the SRD was finalized with the release of 3.5, so at the time, it was legal to do slaadi stuff in d20 products.
One of the things I noticed is there is no mention of immune to criticals for the construct, plant or undead traits. So I am going to assume immune to criticals is now a special defense instead of a general one.
Doug
There's a little fact that I had missed. I would ask you to explain how something that used to be OGC could be closed later, but it's late afternoon, and I'm afraid you'd bend my brain into funny balloon shapes.
I noticed the Caryatid Columns cannot become shield guardians, "unlike true golems." Seems that shield guardians have become an option for all golems.
|
Creative Director
|
There's a little fact that I had missed. I would ask you to explain how something that used to be OGC could be closed later, but it's late afternoon, and I'm afraid you'd bend my brain into funny balloon shapes.
It's kind of complicated... but the basic reason is this: For many years after they were implemented, the OGL and SRD were not officially locked down and complete. There was a gentleman's agreement in effect, IIRC, that said "We're still working on finishing the OGL and SRD up, and when it's done, we'll let you know and you guys agree to go along with it." Basically, when it first came out, the OGL and SRD were in "beta."
About the time that 3.5 came out, Wizards finally removed that wording and made the OGL and the SRD official; this was the same point they took the 11 or so IP monsters out of the SRD. In fact... it might have been that the SRD itself wasn't actually online for many years and that folks operating under the "gentleman's agreement" version simply used the Monster Manual...
More or less. It's been a few years and I probably got some of the history wrong...
As a complement to the previous list of new monsters added from the TOH or other sources, here's a list of the non-psionic, non-epic monsters from the SRD that are noticeably absent from the BB list:
Aranea
Arrowhawk
Athach
Avoral
Azer
Belker
Blink Dog
Chaos Beast
Delver
Destrachan
Ethereal Filcher
Ethereal Marauder
Formian
Fungus, Shrieker
Gray Render
Grick
Grimlock
Howler
Inevitables (all)
Krenshar
Leonal
Locathah
Magmin
Merfolk
Nightshade (all)
Owl, Giant
Phase Spider
Phasm
Pseudodragon
Rast
Ravid
Razorboar
Scorpionfolk
Shield Guardian
Spider Eater
Swarm (?)
Tendriculous
Thoqqua
Titan
Triton
Winterwolf
Yrthak
Some of these will be missed, but for the most part, I can see why these didn't make the cut, should that be the case.
Also, Kytons aren't Devils anymore? Seems the ranks of the generic fiends are growing.
-C. Robert Brown
Here's a list of the non-psionic, non-epic monsters from the SRD that are noticeably absent from the BB list:
(All notes are just comments, not complaints):
Avoral - Guardinal type is closed, so this makes sense to wait on.Belker - Used in 2+ modules/APs [edit: I just remembered one of these was a random encounter, though from the AP list.]
Blink Dog - I guess with Displacer Beast closed, it doesn't have its classic foe.
Destrachan - thank goodness
Fungus, Shrieker - ack!
Gray Render - Used in AP
Grick - Used in AP
Howler - vs. Yeth Yound, vs. the Shadow Mastiff
Inevitables (all) - aww
Krenshar - aww
Leonal - Guardinal type is closed, so this makes sense to wait on.
Nightshade (all) - awwwwwwww
Phase Spider - ack!
Pseudodragon - ack! ack! - probably is there, Faerie dragon references it.
Shield Guardian - now a template or something.
Swarm (?) - I can't imagine Paizo not having swarms (have you seen every 1st level module?)
Tendriculous - no more lawn maws! - Used in AP
Titan - hmm
Winterwolf - ack!
ack = "is it D&D without it?"
aww = "special to me"
For those that actually don't make it in the first book, I'll hope to see them in the second :)
The rest I don't care *that* much about.
To join the speculation (and may it flourish!):
I always suspect aquatic creatures won't make it, because of the difficulties associated with underwater adventuring.
Giant Owl and Chaos Beast would be losses to me, as would the Destrachan. Although, I guess I'd live if Chaos Beast was replaced with a large Gibbering Mouther.
The Pseudodragon will definitely make it, not just b/c of the Faerie Dragon, but because of Korvosa (yay!). It would be nice if they came up with a better name for it. "The X, or Pseudodragon as it was erroneously called by the ancient Wizard-Sages of ... "
My guess would be the Blink Dog is going to be a victim of the Blink Dog Nation...
No loss to me: Inevitables, Phasm, Scorpionfolk.
As a complement to the previous list of new monsters added from the TOH or other sources, here's a list of the non-psionic, non-epic monsters from the SRD that are noticeably absent from the BB list:
** spoiler omitted **
Some of these will be missed, but for the most part, I can see why these didn't make the cut, should that be the case.
Also, Kytons aren't Devils anymore? Seems the ranks of the generic fiends are growing.
-C. Robert Brown
Holy Misinformation, Robert Ranting!!!
Pseudodragon and Phase Spider are indeed on the list. Please check your fire...
Checks.
Good catch, Raoul.
|
Creative Director
|
Avoral - Guardinal type is closed, so this makes sense to wait on.
Belker - Used in 2+ modules/APs [edit: I just remembered one of these was a random encounter, though from the AP list.]
Blink Dog - I guess with Displacer Beast closed, it doesn't have its classic foe.
Destrachan - thank goodness
Fungus, Shrieker - ack!
Gray Render - Used in AP
Grick - Used in AP
Howler - vs. Yeth Yound, vs. the Shadow one in the BB
Inevitables (all) - aww
Krenshar - aww
Leonal - Guardinal type is closed, so this makes sense to wait on.
Nightshade (all) - awwwwwwww
Phase Spider - ack!
Pseudodragon - ack! ack! - probably is there, Faerie dragon references it.
Shield Guardian - now a template or something.
Swarm (?) - I can't imagine Paizo not having swarms (have you seen every 1st level module?)
Tendriculous - no more lawn maws! - Used in AP
Titan - hmm
Winterwolf - ack!
To take this list as an example... I can guarantee that six of the above ARE still in the bestiary or the Core Rulebook.
The list of monsters on the inside front cover of the Bestiary is by no means complete. I don't know the exact number of stat blocks we have in the Bestiary, but it's close to 350. There's plenty of monsters in the Bestiary, as a result, that aren't on the inside front cover (since we were limited by how many monster names we could put on that inside front cover by physics and the realities of layout and design). I can also say with certainty that at least one monster who appears on the inside front cover list is NOT going to appear in the Bestiary.
And all that said, the monsters that don't make it into the Bestiary (including those in this Bonus Bestiary) are very very likely to make it in to the next Bestiary we do. Because what kind of RPG is it that only has one monster book? :-)
EDIT: Also, it's worth pointing out that the game's compatible with 3.5. A monster that's not in the Bestiary but IS in, say, the 3.5 SRD can still be used in the Pathifnder RPG. In fact, we'll be updating monsters like this relatively often as our adventures demand it.
|
Creative Director
|
A few more notes:
Just because a monster is used in a Pathfinder product before the RPG releases doesn't guarantee a spot for that monster in the first Bestiary.
The format for monsters in the Bestiary is slightly different than what you see in the Bonus Bestiary, but the one monster per page (or sometimes 2 per page, as in the Ant Lion/Lacewing entry) is spot on.
And narrowing down the list of which monsters to include and which ones to set aside for a later book was pretty much one of the hardest things I've had to help do here at Paizo.
The list of monsters on the inside front cover of the Bestiary is by no means complete.
Just a part of the fun of wild speculation with a veneer of reason!
EDIT: PS, I'd miss the Winter Wolf.
Eventually? James, what do you mean eventually? Isn't the Pathfinder Savage Species on the schedule yet? :)
Holy Misinformation, Robert Ranting!!! Pseudodragon and Phase Spider are indeed on the list. Please check your fire...
Sorry, mistakes happen when you're juggling multiple windows (the SRD, the Bestiary, and the messageboards here)
Eventually? James, what do you mean eventually? Isn't the Pathfinder Savage Species on the schedule yet? :)
Personally I'd like to see that combined with Epic, or perhaps as part of the same series. Using LA races with Epic was one of the quickest ways to a headache I've ever had with 3e. I'd enjoy seeing Epic rules that actually took monster races into account, so if anything rules for Monster PCs first, Epic second.
Can anyone confirm or deny that experience now uses a flat system per monster instead of the CR/EL rules? I think if we're now just using straight up experience mere mortals might have a chance of figuring out how much XP a group gets.
|
Can anyone confirm or deny that experience now uses a flat system per monster instead of the CR/EL rules? I think if we're now just using straight up experience mere mortals might have a chance of figuring out how much XP a group gets.
I'm about 99% sure that's the case. The PF Beta described such a system, and the XP listed in the Bonus Bestiary fits perfectly with the Beta system.
Yeah, the Tojanida not making my list of "Notable" missing monsters was purely intentional on my part. >:]
Here's a list of the non-psionic, non-epic monsters from the SRD that are noticeably absent from the BB list:(All notes are just comments, not complaints):
Avoral - Guardinal type is closed, so this makes sense to wait on.
Actually the guardinals have been given the new creature subtypes agathion, just as eladrin (and the lillend) have become azata in PRPG.
Can anyone confirm or deny that experience now uses a flat system per monster instead of the CR/EL rules? I think if we're now just using straight up experience mere mortals might have a chance of figuring out how much XP a group gets.
What was so hard about it before? You figured out the Average Party level, you figured out the Encounter Level, and you cross-referenced a chart. Then you divided that XP by the participants in the encounter. You'd need the chart, and maybe a calculator if you're not good with the maths, but it wasn't like it was terribly complicated.
My concern is that you'll see 20th level characters slaying low CR opponents for the easy XP. With the old system, it at least took the time to recognize that certain ELs just weren't challenges anymore. Does the PFRPG do that?
The changes to the undead are nice and I really don't care about the fact its gonna be a monster book "only". I mean better do something right or don't do it at all. No point in having unusable level adjustments.
I am just wondering, will a lich sorcerer have a higher cr than a lich wizard? (all other things being equal)
Can anyone confirm or deny that experience now uses a flat system per monster instead of the CR/EL rules? I think if we're now just using straight up experience mere mortals might have a chance of figuring out how much XP a group gets.What was so hard about it before? You figured out the Average Party level, you figured out the Encounter Level, and you cross-referenced a chart. Then you divided that XP by the participants in the encounter. You'd need the chart, and maybe a calculator if you're not good with the maths, but it wasn't like it was terribly complicated.
My concern is that you'll see 20th level characters slaying low CR opponents for the easy XP. With the old system, it at least took the time to recognize that certain ELs just weren't challenges anymore. Does the PFRPG do that?
I forget the cut off, but in the Beta, if you were X levels beyond the CR of what you were fighting, you didn't get XP from it.
|
|
It's kind of complicated... but the basic reason is this: For many years after they were implemented, the OGL and SRD were not officially locked down and complete. There was a gentleman's agreement in effect, IIRC, that said "We're still working on finishing the OGL and SRD up, and when it's done, we'll let you know and you guys agree to go along with it." Basically, when it first came out, the OGL and SRD were in "beta."About the time that 3.5 came out, Wizards finally removed that wording and made the OGL and the SRD official; this was the same point they took the 11 or so IP monsters out of the SRD. In fact... it might have been that the SRD itself wasn't actually online for many years and that folks operating under the "gentleman's agreement" version simply used the Monster Manual...
More or less. It's been a few years and I probably got some of the history wrong...
Would it be possible to utilize Slaad Lords? I just checked and they are included also in the ToH Revised, but I'm somewhat unclear on how the OGC works in ToH, since all the "TSR derived" monsters are listed as being copyright by WotC and used by permission.
I forget the cut off, but in the Beta, if you were X levels beyond the CR of what you were fighting, you didn't get XP from it.Can anyone confirm or deny that experience now uses a flat system per monster instead of the CR/EL rules? I think if we're now just using straight up experience mere mortals might have a chance of figuring out how much XP a group gets.What was so hard about it before? You figured out the Average Party level, you figured out the Encounter Level, and you cross-referenced a chart. Then you divided that XP by the participants in the encounter. You'd need the chart, and maybe a calculator if you're not good with the maths, but it wasn't like it was terribly complicated.
My concern is that you'll see 20th level characters slaying low CR opponents for the easy XP. With the old system, it at least took the time to recognize that certain ELs just weren't challenges anymore. Does the PFRPG do that?
Exactly.
Page 291, top-right:
"As the game progresses, the GM should keep a list of the CRs of all the monsters, traps, obstacles, and roleplaying encounters overcome. At the end of each session, the GM should award XP to each PC that participated in the events of the session. Each monster, trap, and obstacle awards a set amount of XP, regardless of the level of the party in relation to the challenge. Challenges that have a CR of 10 or less than the APL do not award any experience points."
Note that, speaking of APL (and not character level), it means that 6 12th-level characters (APL 13) would not take XP anymore from challenges which are CR 3 or less.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As a complement to the previous list of new monsters added from the TOH or other sources, here's a list of the non-psionic, non-epic monsters from the SRD that are noticeably absent from the BB list:
** spoiler omitted **
Some of these will be missed, but for the most part, I can see why these didn't make the cut, should that be the case.
-C. Robert Brown
Aranea - will miss
Arrowhawk - won't miss
Athach - won't miss
Avoral - guessing needs reimaged a bit
Azer - Will miss, might be under Dwarf or Plane Touched?
Belker - Won't miss
Blink Dog - Will miss, a lot!
Chaos Beast - won't miss, ability damage was a big TPK
Delver - Won't miss (was surprised to see them in Darkmoon Vale)
Destrachan - Won't Miss
Ethereal Filcher - Won't Miss
Ethereal Marauder - Will miss
Formian - Won't miss
Fungus, Shrieker - Iconic
Gray Render - Will miss
Grick - Will miss, they make good Carrion Crawler proxies
Grimlock - Me miss much, Dinobots, Transform!
Howler - Enough puppies already
Inevitables (all) - Hmm, seeing a pattern here
Krenshar - Will miss, I acutally like the buggers
Leonal - Yup definately a pattern.
Locathah - Won't miss.
Magmin - Part of the pattern
Merfolk - Will miss, thanks to Dark Tapestry.
Nightshade (all) - Won't miss, maybe too complex.
Owl, Giant - Who?
Phase Spider - Will miss, makes a good natural enemy for the Blink Dog.
Phasm - What about the OrcPhasm?
Pseudodragon - Better be in there.
Rast - Going to be reimaged as a formorian, so we have Rast-a-formarians
Ravid - never even noticed
Razorboar - OGL, but Scarred Lands
Scorpionfolk - OGL, but Scarred Lands
Shield Guardian - Might be a template
Spider Eater - well if you're getting rid if spiders
Swarm (?) - Sure they'll be in there
Tendriculous - going to miss
Thoqqua - Going to be made psionic, natural enemy of the Thoqqua-eater
Titan - yup, pattern
Triton - Shane Goosman will miss him
Winterwolf - I like these, maybe folded under 'wolf'?
Yrthak - Never used.
A lot of the 'missing' monsters look to be extraplanar types. Maybe we'll see them in a Bestiary II, planar boogaloo?
Good pattern pick-up. Another pattern would be aquatic races.
Grimlock - Me miss much, Dinobots, Transform!
Replaced by Morlocks I guess.
Good pattern pick-up. Another pattern would be aquatic races.
I noticed that the water naga lost its aquatic subtype in the Bonus Bestiary, while the nixie, however, still is aquatic.
|
Razorboar - OGL, but Scarred Lands
Scorpionfolk - OGL, but Scarred Lands
And wow, could WotC have picked two less interesting examples of critters from the Scarred Lands Creature Collections?
I would also miss the Aranea (Basic Set classic goodness!), but it's easy enough to Pathfinderize, as soon as I come up with suitable powers for an 'Arachnid' Sorcerer Bloodline... :)
Yeah, I'd miss the Aranea too, with its folkloric tone.
|
Grimlock - Me miss much, Dinobots, Transform!
Howler - Enough puppies already
Inevitables (all) - Hmm, seeing a pattern here
Owl, Giant - Who?
Phasm - What about the OrcPhasm?
Rast - Going to be reimaged as a formorian, so we have Rast-a-formarians
Thoqqua - Going to be made psionic, natural enemy of the Thoqqua-eater
ROTFL, Thanks for making my day Matthew
Anyone else spot the full BAB for secondary attack rolls and full STR bonus for damage with them? In a world where high-level PC fighters were already outclassed by melee brutes, this can potentially make things a lot worse for them... unless maybe in the final rules, all iterative attacks are at full bonus, so that the ones that used to be at -10/-15 (automatic misses) actually become useful? -- that would be out of sight, dude!
And if TWF loses its penalties to attack and damage, it will start to look vaguely attractive compared with THW fighting (whereas in 3.5 it was a lost cause except for flanking rogues).
The faerie dragons CMB and CMD seem a little bit off. While according to the introduction he gets his dexterity modifier instead of his strength modifier on CMB since he is tiny, he should still get the -2 on both values since he is tiny. The nixie gets its normal -1 for being small.
Yeah these are the only values in the book I couldn't make sense of.
CMB should be +4 (+3 BAB, +3 DEX, -2 Size), not +8.
CMD should be 13 (+3 BAB, -1 STR, +3 DEX, -2 Size), not 17.
Both are off by 4. Weird.
Anyone else spot the full BAB for secondary attack rolls and full STR bonus for damage with them? In a world where high-level PC fighters were already outclassed by melee brutes, this can potentially make things a lot worse for them... unless maybe in the final rules, all iterative attacks are at full bonus, so that the ones that used to be at -10/-15 (automatic misses) actually become useful? -- that would be out of sight, dude!
Jason said something about the kind of natural attack deciding whether it's primary or secondary. Secondary attacks still get -5. So it seems claw and bite now count as primary attacks no matter what.
|
|
The faerie dragons CMB and CMD seem a little bit off. While according to the introduction he gets his dexterity modifier instead of his strength modifier on CMB since he is tiny, he should still get the -2 on both values since he is tiny. The nixie gets its normal -1 for being small.Yeah these are the only values in the book I couldn't make sense of.
CMB should be +4 (+3 BAB, +3 DEX, -2 Size), not +8.
CMD should be 13 (+3 BAB, -1 STR, +3 DEX, -2 Size), not 17.
Both are off by 4. Weird.
Looks like in both cases the size modifier is being added rather than subtracted.
And if TWF loses its penalties to attack and damage, it will start to look vaguely attractive compared with THW fighting (whereas in 3.5 it was a lost cause except for flanking rogues).
If you take a look at Valeros's stat block, it looks like he gets his full Str bonus on his off-hand attack (1d6+7= +3 Str +2 enhancement +2 weapon training). But no luck on attacks at -10/-15 going away (except for Vital Strike).
If you take a look at Valeros's stat block, it looks like he gets his full Str bonus on his off-hand attack (1d6+7= +3 Str +2 enhancement +2 weapon training). But no luck on attacks at -10/-15 going away (except for Vital Strike).
That is because of his Double Slice feat.
Oh right.
If you take a look at Valeros's stat block, it looks like he gets his full Str bonus on his off-hand attack (1d6+7= +3 Str +2 enhancement +2 weapon training). But no luck on attacks at -10/-15 going away (except for Vital Strike).
Did Valeros have to burn a feat (Double Slice or whatever) to get it? EDIT: yeah, just checked, and he did. [[SECOND EDIT: Ninja'd by Zaister!!!]] So now he's -2 with all attacks, and another -5/-10 with iteratives, and half strength on off-hand unless he spends a feat... but the monsters are full attack, full damage with no feat expenditure (they used to be -2 with secondaries, and half strength, AFTER spending a feat on Multiattack). Because when we're talking multiple attack forms, most monsters use claws and bite.
So Valeros just went from cool-but-poorly-constructed (TWF for a non-rogue) to being hands-down inferior to level-appropriate melee monsters: Valeros is 2 feats behind to get -2 to all attacks (vs. their -0), and his second "claw" (his 1st iterative attack) is at -7 instead of -0. Yes, he gets bonus feats, but melee monsters will usually have more HD than he does, so they're picking up extra feats for that in addition to now getting "Super-Duper Improved Multiattack" for free.
Proposed quick fix: let him spend his fighter bonus feats on Sneak Attack instead of Double Slice and the like. At 14th level, 7 bonus feats = sneak attack +7d6 when flanking = he's a formidable threat with two weapons, instead of a bungling child. Even if he just swapped Double Slice and Two-Weapon Rend for Sneak Attack +2d6, he'd be way ahead of the game whenever one of his friends sets him up for a flank.