The intellect devourer (in the bestiary already) pretty much does everything you're asking for, I think. They make GREAT monsters for the "alien monsters that eat brains and enslave folks" monster niche.
I was thinking of something a little more permanent. But you are right, they are similar ideas. A intellect devourer is just a poor replacement for a illithid in my opinion.
There's just something sexy about a skinny humanoid creature that has a head like cthulhu's.
As they say where I'm from(Texas); there's room in that stable for more then just one horse. (They don't really say that, I just made that up. Folksie wisdom works for politicians.)
When little Jimmy J opened the Monster Manual and saw DAT's freaky b&w illustration of the Intellect Devourer, if he had only known how important that monster would have been to his sanity many years later...
Creative Director
|
When little Jimmy J opened the Monster Manual and saw DAT's freaky b&w illustration of the Intellect Devourer, if he had only known how important that monster would have been to his sanity many years later...
He probably had a good idea. It's always been one of my favorite monsters.
Only my over-powering humility forced me to write that in the subjunctive. Damn you, humility!
When little Jimmy J opened the Monster Manual and saw DAT's freaky b&w illustration of the Intellect Devourer, if he had only known how important that monster would have been to his sanity many years later...He probably had a good idea. It's always been one of my favorite monsters.
How about a intellect devourer cousin? A more intelligent sinister evolutionary off shoot of them that takes hosts permanently, and tends to forging evil aberrant civilizations. At this point though this is seems more world specific to me,.. Hrmm? I'll have to think about this problem, if nothing more then for my own campaign. If anyone else is interested I could share the template I designed, that is if I can track it down.
Check out "Into the Darklands." It presents an entire city of intellect devourers and how they work to steal bodies; they essentially treat stolen bodies in the same way decadent nobles might treat their clothing and the latest fashions and styles. Pretty creepy stuff.
Don't have the book, but it's a solid idea. I could get several adventures out of that concept. I love mixing Lovecraft's themes into my fantasy games. Somewhere between Conan the Barbarian, and Hellboy, both of which had similar mythos behind the brute main character.
1) Easier rules for modifying monsters with character levels, templates, extra hd, etc. Table or something with all the other numbers hashed out... This seems like really great content for a Bestiary II, and would be a wonderfully helpful timesaving tool for gm's.
2) What happens when two dragons of different colors mate? They can mate with pretty much anything else, so why not some mixed dragon breeds? Seems pretty interesting to me, and I've been wanting to see that since AD&D 2nd ed.
3) Aren't the gem dragons OGL? I'd like to see some of those as well.
4) COOL NEW MONSTERS. I like getting the OGL stuff pathfinderized, but frankly, I own MM I-IV, and many critters are not changed enough to be worth another purchase (friend of mine picked up the bestiary, and I use his for running games, but am waiting on more new content in Bestiary II before I buy such a product). I'd like some new stuff, and to see some replacements for non-OGL material (illithids, beholders, etc).
5) More templates for Half-Breeds of various types... what happens when a manticore mates with something weird, like a sphinx?
Check out "Into the Darklands." It presents an entire city of intellect devourers and how they work to steal bodies; they essentially treat stolen bodies in the same way decadent nobles might treat their clothing and the latest fashions and styles. Pretty creepy stuff.
Hmm. That's neat. I might be getting a new pdf for christmas...
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
There's just something sexy about a skinny humanoid creature that has a head like cthulhu's.
And somehow you can't do either of these:
1) Use 3.5 Illithid straight out of the 3.5 MM?
2) Use the Intellect Devourer stats with the skinny humanoid appearance instead of the brain on legs appearance.
|
My wish list for a Bestiary 2 ?
More template, like corrupted animals/humanoids, evolved undead etc..
More horrific creature, like parasitic entities, blood elemental, gore golem,etc..
Some Lovecraftian Nightmarish stuff.(And a template associated).
The grave knight will be great, for people not interested in AP or Pathfinder Companions.
And, of Course, the Great quality of Paizo produc.
Ah, must have missed that. Thanks.
|
And somehow you can't do either of these:
1) Use 3.5 Illithid straight out of the 3.5 MM?
That's what I started thinking as soon as I read that portion of the thread. I sold off the majority of my D&D books when I switched to Pathfinder, but I'm keeping Monster Manuals (as well as spell collections, Expanded Psionics Handbook, and Epic Level Handbook, at least until Pathfinder releases versions of the latter two.)
Pathfinder was made off of 3.5 exactly so that you could continue to use your existing materials. Illithids probably could be fully converted within a 20 minute time span. No need to act like it's impossible to use them.
3) Aren't the gem dragons OGL? I'd like to see some of those as well.
I wish. One of the things that had me peeved about WotC and D&D was the lack of attention then gave to gem dragons. The "neutral" dragons received almost no love, and were almost forgotten if the psionic community didn't speak as loud as they did to include them. Even still, it was an afterthought as a 3.0 Psionics Handbook web enhancement. They surprisingly made it to the Monster Manual 2, but no revision afterwards. They had their 2nd chance with the XPH, but nope. Still left them out. Not even an update, as they were still stuck on limbo on the pages of Monster Manual 2.
Though, I don't think WotC has any rights to "gem dragons" as much they really can't copyright something as generalized as "white dragon" or "gold dragon", which many non-D&D authors have already used in fantasy novels and other games.
Now, I think the gem dragons may have been Dark Sun originals. Not sure. If so, Dark Sun may have copyright to them, and DS is still owned by WotC. But, again, can something as generalized as "crystal dragon" even be copyrighted?
I am sure Paizo can do their own "neutral-type, psionic gem dragons". A different artistic look (like the way they did with the other 10 dragons in the Bestiary) and they're set to go.
Can Paizo do gem dragons? If so, that's my number one wish for Bestiary 3, then. And keep them psionic, it was what made them unique outside of their primary alignment being neutral.
More construc and interesting fey
Now, I think the gem dragons may have been Dark Sun originals. Not sure. If so, Dark Sun may have copyright to them, and DS is still owned by WotC. But, again, can something as generalized as "crystal dragon" even be copyrighted?
The Gem Dragons first appeared in Dragon #37 in an article by Arthur Collins. They've been around for a loooong time.
If they weren't specifically OGLed at some point, the specifics of those Gem Dragons still reside with WotC. Paizo could probably do different Gem Dragons, but they've expressed an interest in steering away from doing dopplegangers of WotC-owned creatures. In any case, it wouldn't make much sense for Paizo to do any primarily psionic creature until a Pathfinder psionics supplement sees daylight.
Despite my lack of interest in psionics, the Gem Dragons remain some of my favorites. Thankfully, the Psionics Handbook web enhancement featuring the Gem Dragons is still available for those that don't have access to 3.5e MMII.
Now, I think the gem dragons may have been Dark Sun originals. Not sure. If so, Dark Sun may have copyright to them, and DS is still owned by WotC. But, again, can something as generalized as "crystal dragon" even be copyrighted?The Gem Dragons first appeared in Dragon #37 in an article by Arthur Collins. They've been around for a loooong time.
If they weren't specifically OGLed at some point, the specifics of those Gem Dragons still reside with WotC. Paizo could probably do different Gem Dragons, but they've expressed an interest in steering away from doing dopplegangers of WotC-owned creatures. In any case, it wouldn't make much sense for Paizo to do any primarily psionic creature until a Pathfinder psionics supplement sees daylight.
Despite my lack of interest in psionics, the Gem Dragons remain some of my favorites. Thankfully, the Psionics Handbook web enhancement featuring the Gem Dragons is still available for those that don't have access to 3.5e MMII.
Ok, thanks. I had a feeling they weren't Dark Sun. The psionic nature threw my memory off somewhat there since Dark Sun was the only campaign setting that gave psionics a real home.
True. They can just keep them magical gem dragons, introduce them as psionic later. Or just do what's been done with the couatl, give them psionics as a (Sp) and then offer a sidebar for them when a Pathfinder Psionics is released. Or maybe make them more elemental in nature (which, I have a feeling, Paizo might do for a "neutral" dragon type is do elemental ones if they don't want to do gems).
|
|
As I understand and recall it, the MM2 material was not OGL or official or something, so by their own rules, even they could not update or print a new version. It kind of seemed dumb, as that was likely the most wished for revision of 3E, followed by the Epic Level Handbook. Or it was something to that effect. I asked them and they told me legally they could not print a 3.5 MM2, including any of it's monsters, because it was not a core book. I doubt that anyone else could either without either completely modifying it beyond recognition or sticking 3.0, but that isn't fact.
3) Aren't the gem dragons OGL? I'd like to see some of those as well.
I'd like to see them brought back as well, with an option for spells or spell-like abilities as a replacement to psionics.
- I love templates as well, so count me in as another vote for more templates.
- I also love the idea of tapping real world legends and lore, especially some of the more well known ones as a basis, Loch Ness Monster, Brownies, Leprechauns, Chupcabra, Vampire Bats, Headless Horseman, etc)
- Are the Ki-Rin and Zaratan OGL? Always loved them.
- More Lycanthropes
- More Naturally occurring animals, namely Cervidaes(deer, antelopes, Caribou, Moose), Ligers, Whales, Komodo Dragon, and Bobcats.
- Neutral Intelligent Outsiders similar to Teiflings/Devils/Demons, Aasimars/Angels/Azata. One of my favorite homebrew monsters is a CN Outsider who is a trickster at heart and loves to gamble on the results of any encounter.
- An ash-based undead. My thought here is what would a monster be like if the victims of Pompeii were risen.
- An ash-based undead. My thought here is what would a monster be like if the victims of Pompeii were risen.I really dig this idea!
+1
|
- An ash-based undead. My thought here is what would a monster be like if the victims of Pompeii were risen.
Undead created from the bodies of those who have died to elemental forces, and retain some sort of elemental damaging properties, are always popular. Burning undead, frozen undead, drowned undead, etc.
What I want? Gem Dragons! More Demons, More Devils! the mighy Hellfire Dragon! and moreover I would like to see Yugoloths(or Daemons XD)
|
|
I would personally like to see Bestiary II update the balance of the creatures that appeared in the first 24 Pathfinder AP "Bestiary" section to PFRPG rules. I think the only one that made it into B1 was the Shaitan (to have a complete set of 5 genies).
The ones that could most use the conversion are the undead, who seem to have undergone the most substantial changes from 3.5.
Beyond these, I would like to see the balance of the SRD creatures (particularly real-world animals) that have appeared in Pathfinder APs and modules as encounters updated.
Looks like the Juju Zombie escaped from the yard.
|
Why do you keep asking about ju ju knowing they can not be put in any Paizo book?
juju zombie appeared in Unapproachable East which has "no content in this book is open content."
Maybe I've got a one-track mind. Or, maybe I'm just an ornery cuss. But, since I can, I'm gonna keep doing it until they give in to my demands, or until Jacobs and Bulmahn show up at my house in Philly and pummel me. Don't like it? Then don't read it.
More dinosaurs!
Preferably with pictures of each, for those of us not too well versed in dinosaurology ;)
Just sub in wights. They stand in for vampire spawn now; they can pull double duty as juju zombies and earn some overtime.
|
|
I know this hasn't been talked about for about 1/2 a page...but i just found this thread so I'm going to put my two copper on the mind flayer business...
I've always used aboleths in their place. did u guys actually know that the aboleth was designed after cthulhu not the mind flayer. WotC make note of this in once of my fav books of theirs (Lords of Madness).
__________
That being said
one thing that always bothered me was to play a ranger and not pick magical beast as a favored enemy if for nothing else the sheer number of them. Things i have always felt don't see enough light of day for even a ranger to pick up is:
Fey
Animals
Vermin
Monstrous Humanoids
Plant
Ooze
as such, these monsters need support, love, and more of them (stronger ones too). And i don't just mean 2 or 3 more, i mean like dominate a book with these.
on this website <http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-filter> i use the filter so show exactly how little support some monsters have
Aberration - 19 monsters
Animal - 72 monsters (nice, but nothing over a CR 10)
Construct - 11 monsters
Dragon - 38 monsters
Fey - 6 monsters (WTF really!)
Humanoid - 32 monsters
Magical Beast - 29 monsters
Monstrous Humanoid - 14 monsters
Ooze - 5 monsters (as bad as fey!)
Outsider - 82 monsters
Plant - 9 monsters
Undead - 17 monsters
Vermin - 19 (not one above CR 6)
now, one my friends plans on running a fey inspired game based on different mythologies...6 is hardly enough to work with. I know he will be using some of the giants and calling them fey (as the real world mythologies did), but come on.
Aside from that...this isn't staring a Paizo going "where's my (blank) creatures", but that these monsters have never seen the proper light of day. I feel like not only has Paizo gone above and beyond by attempting to fix this, but doing it right.
Thanx for all of the great quality work. I can honestly say that the Pathfinder Bestiary is the greatest monster manual I've ever owned (and i own the 2nd ed AD&D monster manual)
I'd like to see some fey from folklore and mythology, as opposed to the Emo and/or S&M-type fey that people keep inventing. I HATE the shadar-kai with a passion, for example, but I love the redcaps.
I miss those 1e sprites and buckawn and quicklings and korred! And brownie familiars! Yeah!!!
|
Creative Director
|
Correct.
Not only are ju-ju zombies open content, thanks to the Tome of Horrors, the phrase "juju" is from real world African myth associated with fetishisim and witchcraft, so even if the Tome of Horrors didn't have the ju-ju zombie in it in open game format, we could probably STILL make a Juju zombie.
And I'm pretty sure we will indeed be putting the juju zombie into Bestiary 2, in any event. If only because it makes a perfect companion for the skeletal champion template as a "tougher zombie" variant.
...
Some Lawful neutral Borg-like horror.
"This is the Hive, resistance is Futile."
Actually, that would be quite cool. Weren't the Modrons kind of like this (look past the funky geometric shapes, mind you...).
|
|
Correct.
Not only are ju-ju zombies open content, thanks to the Tome of Horrors, the phrase "juju" is from real world African myth associated with fetishisim and witchcraft, so even if the Tome of Horrors didn't have the ju-ju zombie in it in open game format, we could probably STILL make a Juju zombie.
And I'm pretty sure we will indeed be putting the juju zombie into Bestiary 2, in any event. If only because it makes a perfect companion for the skeletal champion template as a "tougher zombie" variant.
Does the Dance of Joy