I'd like to see all the creatures mentioned in The Great Beyond (other than Archdevils, Archdemons, Archdaemons and Archangels), such as:
Umbral Dragons, Brine Drakes and all other varieties of Dragons and creatures akin;
Jyoti and Sceaduinar;
Daemons of all kinds;
Inevitables;
Formians;
Proteans of all kinds;
Agathions
+1
Xvarts!
|
James, I truly love the templates in PF RPG, but was the intention that any template could be used on any creature, i.e. an Advanced Giant Ogre Zombie would be "officially legal" in a PF adventure? Or could Fiendish be used on, for example, undead or golems?
I was wondering about this, because some templates no longer mention any restrictions about the types/subtypes they can be applied to. If this is still the intention (e.g. no Fiendish Skeletons in PF RPG), will such instructions be included in Bestiary II?
|
|
James, I truly love the templates in PF RPG, but was the intention that any template could be used on any creature, i.e. an Advanced Giant Ogre Zombie would be "officially legal" in a PF adventure? Or could Fiendish be used on, for example, undead or golems?
I was wondering about this, because some templates no longer mention any restrictions about the types/subtypes they can be applied to. If this is still the intention (e.g. no Fiendish Skeletons in PF RPG), will such instructions be included in Bestiary II?
Please don't take away my celestial wights and half dragon gelatanous cubes!
Please don't take away my celestial wights and half dragon gelatanous cubes!James, I truly love the templates in PF RPG, but was the intention that any template could be used on any creature, i.e. an Advanced Giant Ogre Zombie would be "officially legal" in a PF adventure? Or could Fiendish be used on, for example, undead or golems?
I was wondering about this, because some templates no longer mention any restrictions about the types/subtypes they can be applied to. If this is still the intention (e.g. no Fiendish Skeletons in PF RPG), will such instructions be included in Bestiary II?
You may take away our lives, but you will never take away our half dragon gelatinous cubes!
Please don't take away my celestial wights and half dragon gelatanous cubes!
David, we expect these statted immediately following your WoW run. Pronto. :P
Creative Director
|
James, I truly love the templates in PF RPG, but was the intention that any template could be used on any creature, i.e. an Advanced Giant Ogre Zombie would be "officially legal" in a PF adventure? Or could Fiendish be used on, for example, undead or golems?
I was wondering about this, because some templates no longer mention any restrictions about the types/subtypes they can be applied to. If this is still the intention (e.g. no Fiendish Skeletons in PF RPG), will such instructions be included in Bestiary II?
One of the things I didn't like in 3.5 was the unnecessary restriction on where templates can be added. We certainly relaxed these restrictions in Pathfinder, especially for the lich and vampire (now ANYTHING once alive can become a lich or vampire, although a lich still has to be able to craft its phylactery).
But there's still SOME limitations. The half-celestial and half-fiend, for example, can only apply to a living, corporeal creature with an Intelligence of 4 or more.
As for the simple templates, theyr'e VERY MUCH intended to be able to go onto any creature. But with that flexibility comes some areas where you should be careful when you opt to use a Simple Template's rebuild option. Rebuilding an incorporeal undead, for example, actually makes it tougher, not less tough. And rebuilding an animal with the Advanced template makes them smart enough to understand language, which isn't the intent. Using the quick rules for the simple templates is generally the best way to go, honestly.
In the meantime, you can absolutely have advanced zombies or fiendish skeletons. We may or may not ever use such an option in Pathfinder, but it's certainly legal. I would only recommend that if you do something unusual with a simple template on an unusual monster that you back it up with some sort of flavor, otherwise it might look silly. The fiendish skeletons, for example, could be human skeletons animated by a powerful artifact from the Abyss.
|
Creative Director
|
I second that. I think a variety of "Lost World" creatures should be added, including perhaps, stats for Neanderthals, which never made it to D&D 3.5. And no "funky dinosaurs" please In the later monster manuals some dinosaurs were made up, some had magical abilities and so forth. I think any creature under the heading of "Dinosaur" should be an authentic creature for which there is fossil evidence for, no "fantasy Dinosaurs" please. If you have fantasy repilian creatures that can cast spells or breath fire, then that's fine, but please don't call them dinosaurs.
You're in good hands. Never fear.
One of the things I didn't like in 3.5 was the unnecessary restriction on where templates can be added. We certainly relaxed these restrictions in Pathfinder, especially for the lich and vampire (now ANYTHING once alive can become a lich or vampire, although a lich still has to be able to craft its phylactery).
One awakened dire ape lich, coming up...
(No, I'm not sure how that idea jumped out of my head from reading this post, but there it is.)
|
I would be perfectly happy if all Paizo did was update and consolidate the monsters from their earlier Pathfinder products. They have introduced over 200 new monsters and they all are very good.
Well I wouldn't say "all", but most definitely "most" plus some world specific and non-open content monsters can't really be put in a bestiary, the sandpoint devil and the deep crow for example are monsters that don't belong in a generic bestiary product (one because it is world specific, and one because it is closed content)
|
|
One of the things I didn't like in 3.5 was the unnecessary restriction on where templates can be added. We certainly relaxed these restrictions in Pathfinder, especially for the lich and vampire (now ANYTHING once alive can become a lich or vampire, although a lich still has to be able to craft its phylactery).
But there's still SOME limitations. The half-celestial and half-fiend, for example, can only apply to a living, corporeal creature with an Intelligence of 4 or more.
As for the simple templates, theyr'e VERY MUCH intended to be able to go onto any creature. But with that flexibility comes some areas where you should be careful when you opt to use a Simple Template's rebuild option. Rebuilding an incorporeal undead, for example, actually makes it tougher, not less tough. And rebuilding an animal with the Advanced template makes them smart enough to understand language, which isn't the intent. Using the quick rules for the simple templates is generally the best way to go, honestly.
In the meantime, you can absolutely have advanced zombies or fiendish skeletons. We may or may not ever use such an option in Pathfinder, but it's certainly legal. I would only recommend that if you do something unusual with a simple template on an unusual monster that you back it up with some sort of flavor, otherwise it might look silly. The fiendish skeletons, for example, could be human skeletons animated by a powerful artifact from the Abyss.
Thanks, James! :)
You know, I *have* used Advanced Bloody Skeletons, for example, and they worked really well -- and I just love how quickly you actually can adjust the numbers with the quick method (I tried it with ogres in the middle of a combat and it was a breeze). I have said it before, but let me repeat: I hope you guys are going to include more simple templates in Bestiary II (for example, "element-themed" templates would be fine, i.e. 'Fire/Ice/Caustic/Lightning Creature') because tinkering with them adds so much variation to monsters.
I'm rather partial to camels.
And hippogriffs could be handy too, though they seem like a poor man's griffon.
stats for Neanderthals, which never made it to D&D 3.5.
They did, actually. Check Frostburn (written by James Jacobs and Wolfgang Baur, at that), which was actually IMO the best of the "environments" books.
I also liked Sandstorm, but yes, Frostburn was very cool :)
Frostburn (written by James Jacobs and Wolfgang Baur, at that), which was actually IMO the best of the "environments" books.
Agreed!
Check Frostburn (written by James Jacobs and Wolfgang Baur, at that), which was actually IMO the best of the "environments" books.
I totally agree. Frostburn is easily one of my all time favorite gaming supplements.
There's SO many. Who can possibly have a favorite?
How could I choose between Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness and Book of Vile Darkness and MMII and Fiend Folio and Savage Species and ... and ...
Well, you get the point.
Though the cover of Stormwrack gets major kudos for coolness.
|
Creative Director
|
There's SO many. Who can possibly have a favorite?
How could I choose between Libris Mortis and Lords of Madness and Book of Vile Darkness and MMII and Fiend Folio and Savage Species and ... and ...
Well, you get the point.
Though the cover of Stormwrack gets major kudos for coolness.
Heh. The cover of Stormwrack always annoyed me. It looks like the sea monster version of Dilbert's boss is getting all riled up.
James, can you perhaps comment on a slight ambiguity regarding the application of templates and monster advancement? Previously, in a statblock, a creature that had the number of its racial hit dice increased was identified as being an "advanced something". A creature with a certain template was listed as "templated something", so a creature with the Advanced Creature simple template would be an "advanced something", too. Is there a provision for differentiating between these two kinds of advanced creatures?
|
Creative Director
|
As a general rule, if you see a full stat block of a creature that's indicated to be an Advanced monster, that means the creature has more HD or a size change. We'll generally NEVER do a full stat block for a monster we're just using the simple template for, since that's kinda unnecessary to do a full stat block. The simple template's all about avoiding rebuilding the stat block, actually.
I'm kinda annoyed, to be honest, that this whole differentiation got a little complicated in this way, but in the end it doesn't really matter too much. If you're rebuilding our stat blocks, after all, you're not really looking for simplicity... ;)
I also can see the Advanced Creature simple template taking the place of 3.5's elite creatures, as both are CR+1, and ability score assignment seems to work differently in the Pathfinder RPG than in 3.5.
So a more complex creature might involve the Advanced Creature simple template in addition to other improvements like other templates, or hit dice advancements, in the way a 3.5 creature might, for example, be an "elite fiendish tyrannosaurus".
While we are reminiscing about the awesomeness of 3.5 monsters associated with Chief Jacobs, I have a monstrous query regarding the excellent high level adventure “Into the Wormcrawl Fissure” penned by the man himself. (From Dungeon #134 – available here at paizo.com)
One easter egg in the adventure concerns the lillend, Zulshyn who I believe was named after one of your characters, James – a drow barbarian IIRC. However, I’m interested in the story behind the lich, Thessalar who claims authorship of lots of iconic monsters including the owlbear, grick, rust monster and mimic.
The chuul (also claimed by Thessalar) is credited to the wizard “Ashranezr”, and I believe James once said on these boards that Jesse Decker created that monster. However, there is clearly an interesting story behind the spurned lich, Thessalar.
Just got my copy of Into the Darklands yesterday, so I'll add to the wishlist:
Jinkin
Serpentfolk
Seugathi
Urdefhan
Vemerak
|
Creative Director
|
While we are reminiscing about the awesomeness of 3.5 monsters associated with Chief Jacobs, I have a monstrous query regarding the excellent high level adventure “Into the Wormcrawl Fissure” penned by the man himself. (From Dungeon #134 – available here at paizo.com)
One easter egg in the adventure concerns the lillend, Zulshyn who I believe was named after one of your characters, James – a drow barbarian IIRC. However, I’m interested in the story behind the lich, Thessalar who claims authorship of lots of iconic monsters including the owlbear, grick, rust monster and mimic.
The chuul (also claimed by Thessalar) is credited to the wizard “Ashranezr”, and I believe James once said on these boards that Jesse Decker created that monster. However, there is clearly an interesting story behind the spurned lich, Thessalar.
My preference is that Thessalar was responsible for all those monsters, but he's kind of a jerk so I wouldn't put it past him to steal Ashranezr's work. Or vice versa. Mad wizards are not big on copyright laws, I suspect, unless they're protecting their own creations.
|
|
My preference is that Thessalar was responsible for all those monsters, but he's kind of a jerk so I wouldn't put it past him to steal Ashranezr's work. Or vice versa. Mad wizards are not big on copyright laws, I suspect, unless they're protecting their own creations.
Sounds like GRIPE (Guardians of the Rights of Individuals, Patentholders Especially) needs to get involved!
|
|
I totally agree. Frostburn is easily one of my all time favorite gaming supplements.Check Frostburn (written by James Jacobs and Wolfgang Baur, at that), which was actually IMO the best of the "environments" books.
I took the Yeti and added the Half-Illithid template from the Fend Folio. My players still hate me for that.
I'd like to see the "Mule" fron Dark Sun (half-dwarf).
I believe that that is "Mul", not "mule", which is a sterile donkey-ass hybrid :P
I believe that that is "Mul", not "mule", which is a sterile donkey-ass hybrid :P
Thanks, my 2.0 stuff is packed away in a shed... I knew that is what they were called, just couldn't reference the spelling.
EDIT: A mule is a male donkey & a female horse for clarification =P
So... I'm greatly anticipating the release of PF Bestiary II. Can't wait to see the list of creatures. BUT I do have one concern: SWARMS. I LOVE the swarms those crazy guys from Paizo have given us thus far: Carrionstorm (AP #2)... Sikari Macaque (AP #9)... Bonestorm (AP #10)... Flesh-Eating Cockroaches (AP #13).
All of these are interesting and cool. I hope some of them are included in PF Bestiary II. One thing I'd like to request is a notation if this swarm maybe summoned with summon swarm. I currently house rule that any swarm with a CR 2 or less can be summoned with summon swarm.
I discussed something similar on a (kinda) related thread back in the days of the PFBETA/Design boards: SUMMON SWARM: More Swarm Selection Request
I would also like to support the REEFCLAW with a solid: +1.
So... I'm just sitting around looking at the monsters I WANT/ PLAN on making, when I realized what I, personally, am going to need. So, I went over to DriveThruRPG.com to try and find one. After a Search and scrolling through the 530 selections...
Nothing.
Does it not exist? Surely it is somewhere amongst the myriad amount of d20 materials out there. Does any one know where I can find it? It should definitely be included as part of PF Bestiary II!
I would also add Suli-Jann and something akin to the Genasi.
+1
...Alu and Cambion Demons!
|
Creative Director
|
I think the second Beastiary should have all the monsters from the Adventures that Pathfinder has shown so far. That would kick ass.
That'd be cool... but we've used more monsters than can fit in even 2 Bestiaries, especially since there are some areas that HAVE to be covered that haven't actually had an appearance in an adventure... plus, we want to include more actual new monsters. There'll be some left out. Maybe by the time we get to Bestiary III we'll have them all covered...