Kuo-Toa substitute in the Bestiary?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

In my current game, we are having a lot of fun fighting Kuo-Toa. They are not open content, so couldn't be in the Bestiary.

For an OGL game I had thought of using Fiendish Locathah as a substitute, but per the contents page in the Bonus Bestiary there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Those of you who have the book (ordered mine from my FLGS, goodness knows when it will arrive), are there any creatures in the Bestiary that could make a good Kuo-Toa substitute?

I thought maybe Boggards, but they are already acting as Bullywug substitutes in my campaign.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Why not just use kuo-toa? I won't tell if you won't.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Skum should work.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
Why not just use kuo-toa? I won't tell if you won't.

Do you work in IT? :)

I'd like it all to be OGC, as I have a pipe dream of publishing it one day.

As it happens, I've now found James has answered my question in another thread.

James Jacobs wrote:

Carrion Crawler: use giant rot grub from Pathfinder #25

Displacer Beast: use kamadan from Tome of Horrors
Githyanki: use denizen of Leng from Pathfinder #6
Mind Flayer: use intellect devourer from SRD/Bestiary/Into the Darklands
Slaadi: use proteans from Pathfinder #22/The Great Beyond
Kuo-Toa: use skum
Yuan-ti: use serpent folk from Into the Darklands

Not keen on Skum as per the SRD, as mechanically they are very bland, but I haven't seen the Pathfinder version yet.

EDIT - and thanks Jam412 for the same suggestion.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Oh, you actually want to publish it. Mmkay.

Locathah are still OGC but simply omitted from the bestiary, and could probably be used as-is once you did the necessary fiddling (like doing their CMB/CMD and stuff). Alternately, you could use templated sahuagin. I'm willing to bet that Paizo decided that the bestiary didn't need three different kinds of fishmen.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

No problem. :-)

Have you checked out Into the Darklands? I don't think that it adds much mechanically, but the fluff is really cool. I never cared at all about Skum until I read their part in that book.


just a note though...while the kuo toa aren't open content, that only applies to their 3.5 statistics and write ups. as legitimate mythological creatures outside of the realms of D&D there is nothing wrong with rebuilding them from the ground up.

Batts

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Erm, Kuo-Toa are NOT mythological creatures. They were created by Gary Gygax, and inspired by Lovecraftian Deep Ones. So, no-go in any legal sense.


I'm surprised nobody mentioned Sahuagin...

(Edit : Oops, Man in Black did...)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

In Golarion, and in the Bestiary, the skum are pretty much set up to be the "kuo-toa replacement." They're inspired in large part by the same literary sources (Lovecraft's deep ones) and have a presence in the Darklands. Their racial abilities are pretty bland, but that's because they're intended to be a race you stack character classes on to fancy up.


amethal wrote:
there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Not true of Fiendish creatures, see pg.294-295

Dark Archive

vagrant-poet wrote:
amethal wrote:
there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.
Not true of Fiendish creatures, see pg.294-295

That's great - like I said, I don't have the book yet. Maybe Fiendish Skum is what I'm looking for.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
In Golarion, and in the Bestiary, the skum are pretty much set up to be the "kuo-toa replacement." They're inspired in large part by the same literary sources (Lovecraft's deep ones) and have a presence in the Darklands. Their racial abilities are pretty bland, but that's because they're intended to be a race you stack character classes on to fancy up.

Thanks James, as usual you guys at Paizo are way ahead of me.


James, when are we going to see you write the PFRPG equivalent of "Lord of the Scarlet Tide"? If you can do w/ Skum what you did back then w/ Kuo-Toa.../daydream (yes, I know you're too busy to write many adventures as EIC of PF).


amethal wrote:

In my current game, we are having a lot of fun fighting Kuo-Toa. They are not open content, so couldn't be in the Bestiary.

For an OGL game I had thought of using Fiendish Locathah as a substitute, but per the contents page in the Bonus Bestiary there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Those of you who have the book (ordered mine from my FLGS, goodness knows when it will arrive), are there any creatures in the Bestiary that could make a good Kuo-Toa substitute?

I thought maybe Boggards, but they are already acting as Bullywug substitutes in my campaign.

Hmmm... what was it about the kuo-toas that you missed? Was it their fluff or something in the crunch?

Just curious...

Dark Archive

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
amethal wrote:

In my current game, we are having a lot of fun fighting Kuo-Toa. They are not open content, so couldn't be in the Bestiary.

For an OGL game I had thought of using Fiendish Locathah as a substitute, but per the contents page in the Bonus Bestiary there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.

Those of you who have the book (ordered mine from my FLGS, goodness knows when it will arrive), are there any creatures in the Bestiary that could make a good Kuo-Toa substitute?

I thought maybe Boggards, but they are already acting as Bullywug substitutes in my campaign.

Hmmm... what was it about the kuo-toas that you missed? Was it their fluff or something in the crunch?

Just curious...

The crunch - the electrical resistance (my character's only damage dealing power is his lightning bolt breath, so its nice to have to work around that sometimes), the "sticky" stuff, and their almost supernatural eyesight.

And we haven't even suffered the "three clerics acting in concert" thing yet. Our character are going to have a shock :)

As others have mentioned, Paizo's Skum fluff is awesome. No worries on that score.


amethal wrote:

The crunch - the electrical resistance (my character's only damage dealing power is his lightning bolt breath, so its nice to have to work around that sometimes), the "sticky" stuff, and their almost supernatural eyesight.

And we haven't even suffered the "three clerics acting in concert" thing yet. Our character are going to have a shock :)

As others have mentioned, Paizo's Skum fluff is awesome. No worries on that score.

I haven't seen PF's version of skum (wasn't a fan under 3.x) yet, still waiting on my copy of the Bestiary to ship.

Dark Archive

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
I haven't seen PF's version of skum (wasn't a fan under 3.x) yet, still waiting on my copy of the Bestiary to ship.

Me neither, but it appears there won't be any change from 3.5 except Skum are now specifically designed to be boring, to make it easier to add class levels.

(And seriously, Skum are ok now? If aboleth had the special ability to turn dwarves into elves, would that be ok?)

Still hoping "fiendish" will work, but for all I know all it does is give you horns and a reddish tint to your skin.

EDIT - I am not at all bitter, even if this post reads that way. I do know it is no big deal!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Wow.

I don't see "specifically designed to be boring" as any part of my design goals or design philosophy for ANY of the monsters in the Bestiary. In the case of the skum, as in the case of MOST of the monsters in the Bestiary, we tried to stay pretty close to their incarnations in 3.5. Skum are no more or less "boring" than most of the other humanoid races... it's in the flavor text that we tried to make them interesting.

And all this said... there's no reason why anyone can't just keep using kuo-toa in their home games if they like them; we can't officially stat them up and aren't looking to see Pathfinder versions of their stats posted on this website, but their stats DO still work perfectly fine with the game.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
And all this said... there's no reason why anyone can't just keep using kuo-toa in their home games if they like them.

So say we all. ;-)


Surely Sahaugin made the cut?! Or are they called something different as well?


Their teeth are as sharp as ever!


Just curious - what's preventing Paizo from simply publishing their own version of Deep Ones, instead of substituting one that's already there?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Brian E. Harris wrote:
Just curious - what's preventing Paizo from simply publishing their own version of Deep Ones, instead of substituting one that's already there?

Nothing at all. But since the game's already got several monsters that work well as deep ones, it makes no sense to throw yet ANOTHER fish man into the mix.

Skum are a great fit; they already have a little bit of the "human transformed into fish monster" vibe to them already, and Lovecraft's deep ones don't really have any unusual special attacks in the first place, so it works out very well.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Daniel Moyer wrote:
Surely Sahaugin made the cut?! Or are they called something different as well?

Sahuagin are indeed in the book.


Just a thought - how about some sort of Deep Ones template?

It could include everything you miss about the Kuo-Toa, or come with new abilities. Off the top of my head, I could see resistance to poison, and/or acid. Darkvision 120' and spell resistance =HD+6. Perhaps a bonus to Charisma as well. Oh yeah, and weapon proficiency net adds a nice flavor.

Folks who know far more about Lovecraft then I could probably come up with much better, but I think it would be cool to have a template that could be applied to skum, humans, or whatever.

ALL hail BLIBDOOLPOOLP!

Edit: Wait a minute - Sunday afternoon... shouldn't you have the day off James? Do you folks keep an odd schedule, or just work all the time?


Fergie wrote:
Edit: Wait a minute - Sunday afternoon... shouldn't you have the day off James? Do you folks keep an odd schedule, or just work all the time?

I think I high-level conjurer has bound his soul to the workplace (or the servers). Probably that SKR fellow. :) Poor James.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Fergie wrote:
Edit: Wait a minute - Sunday afternoon... shouldn't you have the day off James? Do you folks keep an odd schedule, or just work all the time?

It's pretty much work all the time, it seems.


amethal wrote:
vagrant-poet wrote:
amethal wrote:
there are neither Fiendish creatures nor Locathah in the Pathfinder Bestiary.
Not true of Fiendish creatures, see pg.294-295
That's great - like I said, I don't have the book yet. Maybe Fiendish Skum is what I'm looking for.

If you download the free Preview of the Bestiary, it has the rules for the new "Simple Templates" at the beginning. The basic idea is that some templates need to be applied "on demand" with little or no warning (such as when your party Cleric decies to Summon a Celestial Hamster ;) ). The Celestial and Fiendish templates are among these (along with Advanced, Giant, and Young).

The Simple Templates come with two sets of instructions.. how to reasonably approximate them without slowing the game while you stat out all the changes to the original creature, and how to fully stat them out when you have more prep time (although, in the case of the Celestial and Fiendish, there is only one set of changes).

These Simple Templates do not appear in the list because no sample creatures are provided for them.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

James Jacobs wrote:
I don't see "specifically designed to be boring" as any part of my design goals or design philosophy for ANY of the monsters in the Bestiary.

Would it be fair to say that not a few monsters are designed to be relatively simple, in order to be used as-is for new players and/or as a starting place for advancement by class?

Nobody would want goblins to have seven different special abilities, for example, and skum are similar for a different flavor of game.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
A Man In Black wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I don't see "specifically designed to be boring" as any part of my design goals or design philosophy for ANY of the monsters in the Bestiary.

Would it be fair to say that not a few monsters are designed to be relatively simple, in order to be used as-is for new players and/or as a starting place for advancement by class?

Nobody would want goblins to have seven different special abilities, for example, and skum are similar for a different flavor of game.

Yes, it would be fair to say that some monsters are designed to be simple, making it not only easy for them to be used as PCs but more importantly, for it to be easier for the GM to advance them with character class levels.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when folks use "Simple" and "Boring" as synonyms.


Judging from the flavor text in the Bestiary, skum are indeed the equivalent of the Deep Ones. The part about impregnating humans, who then give birth to deformed offspring that go through "the change" when adults, sounds very "Shadow Over Innsmouth" to me.

I can see a lot of possibility in the skum if put in the hands of a creative DM who can create atmosphere (and remember who the skum serve...).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:

Judging from the flavor text in the Bestiary, skum are indeed the equivalent of the Deep Ones. The part about impregnating humans, who then give birth to deformed offspring that go through "the change" when adults, sounds very "Shadow Over Innsmouth" to me.

I can see a lot of possibility in the skum if put in the hands of a creative DM who can create atmosphere (and remember who the skum serve...).

Yup. Skum are very much the inheritors of the deep one mantle in Pathfinder. More info about this can be found in "Into the Darklands."

And side trek:

My theory about giants is that each race of giants is a "giant version" of a humanoid race or ethnicity, and that giants are generally handled best when designers keep this in mind. Observe:

Hill Giant = giant hillbilly
Stone Giant = giant Easter Island dude (this one's probably the sketchiest, and as a result I think it's no coincidence that stone giants are often thought of as the least interesting of giants... at least until Wolfgang Baur fixed them in Pathfinder #4)
Fire Giant = giant dwarf
Frost Giant = giant viking
Cloud Giant = giant Grecian
Storm Giant = Giant Roman

We've used this same design philosophy for the new giants we've introduced in Pathfinder...
Rune Giant = giant samurai
Taiga Giant = giant Native American

And to bring things all back around to Lovecraft:

Marsh Giant = giant Innsmouth folk

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:

Stone Giant = giant Easter Island dude (this one's probably the sketchiest, and as a result I think it's no coincidence that stone giants are often thought of as the least interesting of giants... at least until Wolfgang Baur fixed them in Pathfinder #4)

Sorry to continue the off-topic, I have to heartily agree here! (Though I could have sworn someone had given them that context back in 2nd Edition, but that doesn't lessen the awesomeness that is Baur's giants.)

James Jacobs wrote:
Marsh Giant = giant Innsmouth folk

Not formorians? (Or is it fomorians?)

Sovereign Court

Daniel Moyer wrote:
Surely Sahaugin made the cut?! Or are they called something different as well?

Sahaugin have been OGL since 1975. Trendsetters, all.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

cappadocius wrote:
Daniel Moyer wrote:
Surely Sahaugin made the cut?! Or are they called something different as well?
Sahaugin have been OGL since 1975. Trendsetters, all.

Since the OGL didn't exist until 1999 or 2000 or thereabouts... I can only assume that you mean sahuagin are secret time travelers.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

James Jacobs wrote:
Marsh Giant = giant Innsmouth folk
Not formorians? (Or is it fomorians?)

Nope, for 2 reasons.

1) Fomorians are deformed underground weirdos that have very little to do with the sea or water, and their mutations are generally much more extreme than the relatively subtle ones that affect the Innsmouth folk. Using my theory above, I'd say:

Fomorians = giant mutants.

and...

2) Fomorian giants are not open content. The NAME comes from myth, but the concept of a big ugly deformed giant is not from myth. We could certainly do our own version of "giant mutants" but we'd call them something entirely different.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

cappadocius wrote:
Sahaugin have been OGL since 1975. Trendsetters, all.

I believe that is a reference to the supplement published by Dave A. using material written by Steve Marsh and typeset by Gygax. Steve Marsh believes he still owned the copyright to the Sahaugin.


James Jacobs wrote:
cappadocius wrote:
Daniel Moyer wrote:
Surely Sahaugin made the cut?! Or are they called something different as well?
Sahaugin have been OGL since 1975. Trendsetters, all.
Since the OGL didn't exist until 1999 or 2000 or thereabouts... I can only assume that you mean sahuagin are secret time travelers.

I also hear that they are sneaky.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

James Risner wrote:
cappadocius wrote:
Sahaugin have been OGL since 1975. Trendsetters, all.
I believe that is a reference to the supplement published by Dave A. using material written by Steve Marsh and typeset by Gygax. Steve Marsh believes he still owned the copyright to the Sahaugin.

Interesting.

Unfortunately for Mr. Marsh, I'm afraid that ship may have sailed long ago.


Great summation of the Giants!

"Fire Giant = giant dwarf" - That is the only one that I think is off a little. I always saw Fire Giants as giant human mercenaries. (1st Edition MM illustration) As they are almost a local legend where I live, Hessian soldiers seem like a good model for fire giants. Well equipped, armed, and trained they are fearsome warriors.

Hmmm, seems like
Ogres = giant orcs
Trolls = giant ??? (evil gnomes, plants, Jarjar binx)


Fergie wrote:

As they are almost a local legend where I live, Hessian soldiers seem like a good model for fire giants. Well equipped, armed, and trained they are fearsome warriors.

hey, I am hessian!

we are NOT fire giants,

just look at my avatar does that look anything like a fire giant......


James Jacobs wrote:
Fomorian giants are not open content. The NAME comes from myth, but the concept of a big ugly deformed giant is not from myth. We could certainly do our own version of "giant mutants" but we'd call them something entirely different.

The Fomorians of myth are closer to titans than giants (being that they were semi-divine and tied to nature).

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Thraxus wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Fomorian giants are not open content. The NAME comes from myth, but the concept of a big ugly deformed giant is not from myth. We could certainly do our own version of "giant mutants" but we'd call them something entirely different.

The Fomorians of myth are closer to titans than giants (being that they were semi-divine and tied to nature).

True... but the fomorians of D&D are not. And I'm not really interested in confusing things by making a new version of the fomorian based more heavily on myth because, while we can't use the D&D fomorian in our adventures, the players of the game absolutely can.

I'd rather come up with a totally brand new giant mutant.

Dark Archive

While not the same, I feel as if gugs sort of filled the role of fomorians. Granted there are diffrences, but I think the gugs are much cooler than fomorians anyday.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Savage_ScreenMonkey wrote:
While not the same, I feel as if gugs sort of filled the role of fomorians. Granted there are diffrences, but I think the gugs are much cooler than fomorians anyday.

Agreed.


Here, Here! Hopefully, Gugs and Seugathi and various darklands beasties make it into the Bestiary II!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

vagrant-poet wrote:
Here, Here! Hopefully, Gugs and Seugathi and various darklands beasties make it into the Bestiary II!

I got your back.

Dark Archive

From what I remember Bestiary 2 is supposed to have all the monsters that trickled into the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, plus those missing from the bestiary.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Dissinger wrote:
From what I remember Bestiary 2 is supposed to have all the monsters that trickled into the Pathfinder Adventure Paths, plus those missing from the bestiary.

It'll have a lot of them. We've used a LOT of monsters in the Adventure Paths, though, and combined with the remaining SRD monsters there are left... that's more monsters than we'd be able to fit into a 2nd Bestiary. We'll make a good stab at it though, and I'm sure they'll get into the game in Bestiary 3 or 5 or 34.. :P

1 to 50 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Kuo-Toa substitute in the Bestiary? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.