1. Proteans
2. Daemons
3. Scaeduinar
4. Asura
5. Azata
6. Axiomites
7. Jyoti
8. Umbral Dragons
9. Demodands
10. Formians (both types)
So yeah, lots of extraplanar critters. >:D
7. MorlockThat one's already in the Bestiary, dude. Pick again.
11. Double Morlocks! Morlocks like the morlocks that are already out there, but they live deeper, are way creepier, and have sharper teeth. And have two heads. And red-er eyes. And even worse hygiene. WoooooOOOOOooooo. Scary scary.
1. Proteans, etc
*WHISTLE* 10 Yard Penalty for Listing Monsters You Wrote! :P
1. Proteans
2. Daemons
3. Scaeduinar
4. Asura
5. Azata
6. Axiomites
7. Jyoti
8. Umbral Dragons
9. Demodands
10. Formians (both types)So yeah, lots of extraplanar critters. >:D
This!
Especially the Scaeduinar and Jyoti!
Double Morlocks! Morlocks like the morlocks that are already out there, but they live deeper, are way creepier, and have sharper teeth. And have two heads. And red-er eyes. And even worse hygiene. WoooooOOOOOooooo. Scary scary.
Those sound more like Xtreme Morlocks. They should also have some bony spikes sticking out of their body.
|
1. Soulbound Dolls
2. Axiomites
3. All unconverted Devils (Bdellavritra, Phistophilus)
4. All unconverted Gremlins (Jinkin, Pugwumpi, Vexgit)
5. All Proteans (Imantesh, Nanuet, Keketar)
6. All unconverted Daemons (Leukodaemon, Melladaemon, Astradaemon)
7. Brass Golem
8. Shining Child (of Thassilon)
9. All Divs (Dou, Ghawwas, Pairaka, Sepid, Shir, Ahriman*)
10. The unconverted Asura (Beatific One)
As the list probably suggests, my favorite monsters to see are outsiders, followed by constructs, then fey. I’d love to see pretty much all of most of those categories converted, but those are my favorites that haven’t been brought over yet out of the bunch.
I support the mention of the Graveknight on so many lists. It managed to avoid mine simply because it’s already statted for the PFRPG, whereas the ones I’m mentioning aren’t.
I know that Soulbound Dolls were featured in What Lies in Dust (and I was glad to see both them and haunts there), but I’d still like to see a full converted entry on them.
* I’ll also note that I’d like to see all of the epic monsters converted, but only after Pathfinder gets epic rules (which hopefully comes soon).
Those sound more like Xtreme Morlocks. They should also have some bony spikes sticking out of their body.
See, Mairkurion knows all about 'em.
The Pugwumpi is a classic. I also really liked the Akatas. I don't own the Bestiary (yet) but if there are no Githyanki or Githyari, I'd love to see them.
In fact, I'd actually like to see the Bestiary II be a Golarion Bestiary.
(Just bring the missing monsters into Golarion with some Ecology text)
1) Rune Giants
2) Lamia Matriarch
3) Pugwumpi
1. Proteans, etc*WHISTLE* 10 Yard Penalty for Listing Monsters You Wrote! :P
Hey Captain Morlock, I didn't create all of those. :P
I want to see a dire Shamwow that cloaks its victims and squeezes out its blood.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
1) Derhii
2) Proteans
3) any of the Mythos creatures you've done so far (Denizens of Leng, Hounds of Tindalos, etc...)Like a few others here I too would absolutely love to see updated STATS for a Couerl although I too understand the dramas involved in that happening.
SO I hear we can go all the way to Ten now! Cool. :D
1) Derhii
2) Proteans
3) any of the Mythos creatures you've done so far (Denizens of Leng, Hounds of Tindalos, etc...)
4) Grave Knight
5) Umbral Dragon (and what I would really like to see is an addendum to the Sorcerer's Draconic Bloodline for Umbral Dragons - I've been contemplating doing my own, but I like having "Official" versions or things)
6) Asuras
7) Daemons
8) Div
9) Strix
10) Any of the new Genie variants (Ghuls, Black Jinn, Half-Jann, Suli-Jann, Zhyen/Jocta)
What I'd REALLY like is a bestiary for all the AP monsters, and a separate one for new monsters. That way AP subscribers aren't shelling out $40 for a bestiary with like 10 new monsters and 40 recycled ones in it, which would really suck a lot (read: no sale).
Creative Director
|
What I'd REALLY like is a bestiary for all the AP monsters, and a separate one for new monsters. That way AP subscribers aren't shelling out $40 for a bestiary with like 10 new monsters and 40 recycled ones in it, which would really suck a lot (read: no sale).
Not all AP monsters are destined to make the transition to Bestiary. Also, the Bestiary line will mostly limit itself to one-page entries, while the Pathfinder APs will ALWAYS have 2 page entries. And as a general rule, we'll be resisting the urge to put monsters from a Pathfinder AP bestiary into hardcover form in the same year (or maybe even the same year –1) that they originally saw print.
So while many of the monsters in the Pathfinder AP bestiaries WILL be reprinted in hardcover Bestiaries, the Pathfinder AP remains the place to get them first and to get that extra page of material.
For an example, compare the boggard or morlock in the Bestiary to their incarnations in Pathfinder AP volumes #2 and #16.
11. Double Morlocks! Morlocks like the morlocks that are already out there, but they live deeper, are way creepier, and have sharper teeth. And have two heads. And red-er eyes. And even worse hygiene. WoooooOOOOOooooo. Scary scary.
Are you sure you don't mean...spooooky morlocks?
::makes hand gestures::
;-D
|
|
11. Double Morlocks! Morlocks like the morlocks that are already out there, but they live deeper, are way creepier, and have sharper teeth. And have two heads. And red-er eyes. And even worse hygiene. WoooooOOOOOooooo. Scary scary.Are you sure you don't mean...spooooky morlocks?
::makes hand gestures::
;-D
Yeah, Morlocks are both creepy and cool... definitely going to use them sooner or later in my campaign! Having said that, I would love to see more "degenerated" Darklands humanoids in Bestiary II... :)
So while many of the monsters in the Pathfinder AP bestiaries WILL be reprinted in hardcover Bestiaries, the Pathfinder AP remains the place to get them first and to get that extra page of material.
Ugh... that's what I was afraid of. I don't want a mix of new monsters and AP monsters in the same book; as an AP subscriber, I've already GOT all of the AP monsters (as you point out, in their expanded formats). So I'd be looking at having to pay for a book that I've already bought 3/4 (or whatever large fraction) of the content of, if you see what I mean.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I don't want a mix of new monsters and AP monsters in the same book; as an AP subscriber, I've already GOT all of the AP monsters (as you point out, in their expanded formats). So I'd be looking at having to pay for a book that I've already bought 3/4 (or whatever large fraction) of the content of, if you see what I mean.
I imagine it would be a much smaller percentage than that, especially since there are still so many OGL monsters from the SRD, 3 Tomes of Horrors, and real world myth and legend that haven't seen print in Pathfinder before. The Bestiary only had a handful of "reprint" monsters out of hundreds.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I don't want a mix of new monsters and AP monsters in the same book; as an AP subscriber, I've already GOT all of the AP monsters (as you point out, in their expanded formats). So I'd be looking at having to pay for a book that I've already bought 3/4 (or whatever large fraction) of the content of, if you see what I mean.
OK so Paizo are going to release 1 Bestiary a year under their Pathfinder RPG Line. This line is targeted to other parties as well, not just those of us who get the APs and what not. If they split it into 2, that means that less people will buy the AP only Monster one, which means that it will cost significantly more to print as the numbers will be lower. This in itself means that less people will want to buy it (why pay more for that Bestiary when I can have this one for so much less?).
Going back to my statement earlier, there are people who will be buying the RPG line that don't buy the APs and as such they will never have heard of those monsters. It makes sense from a $ perspective for Paizo to re-print them in the Bestiaries (and as James said, they would only be re-printed a year or more after their release in an AP).You're a smart guy Kirth, I thought you would have figured this out...
I wouldn't mind as much if it were 3.5 monsters getting an official Pf update.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I wouldn't mind as much if it were 3.5 monsters getting an official Pf update.
Which at this stage is most likely what it would be... I highly doubt they'll be putting stuff from Council of Thieves in (unless they are a niche/staple, such as the Graveknight). Rather thay would be re-visiting older APs and Modules for ideas.
|
Creative Director
|
Ugh... that's what I was afraid of. I don't want a mix of new monsters and AP monsters in the same book; as an AP subscriber, I've already GOT all of the AP monsters (as you point out, in their expanded formats). So I'd be looking at having to pay for a book that I've already bought 3/4 (or whatever large fraction) of the content of, if you see what I mean.
I do see what you mean. But to a large degree, a Bestiary's job isn't to introduce new monsters but to gather monsters in one convenient location. There'll be quite a few new monsters in all of our Bestiaries going forward, there will also ALWAYS be monsters picked up from adventures and APs and other books we've printed. This is the same model for presenting monster books that every edition of the game has used back to 1st edition D&D.
The 2nd Bestiary will also contain a significant number of monsters from the 3.5 SRD as well that got left out of the first Bestiary.
And that brings up a good question... what was your opinion on the first Bestiary? it's almost ENTIRELY made up of what are technically reprinted monsters... there are very few actual new monsters in that book.
|
Creative Director
|
For Bestiary 2, the monsters we'll be picking up from Pathfinder APs will primarily be from Rise of the Runelords, Curse of the Crimson Throne, and Second Darkness. All of which need updating to some degree as it stands anyway, as pointed out in a previous thread.
As a general rule, I'm resistant to the idea of reprinting stuff like this if it's been less than a year or 18 months since the first version was printed. There are exceptions, such as putting the shaitan genie into the hardcover Bestiary, but when those exceptions occur they're for obvious and compelling reasons (it made no sense to do all but one genie).
Div would absolutely be my favorite, along with the god's heralds. I also liked the daemons and devils and demons. Treerazor!!!
|
Flotsam Ooze. (Like the one in Savage Tide AP from Dungeon mag.)Although I did indeed invent/design the flotsam ooze, I did so for WotC's Fiend Folio. As a result, it's not an open content monster, and not one we can use.
I don't have either book in front of me but would the Fell Flotsam from the River into Darkness module be a decent replacement?
Or any of the various dire (aka Xtreme!) creatures. :(
Flash - from your mouth to JJ's ears.
EDIT: What's my opinion of the Bestiary? I love it. There's one or two illustrators I'd rethink, but otherwise, I love it, and think it was a great selection. I hope Bestiary 2 will be about the same size.
Umbral dragons, witchwyrds, agathions, and maftets, maybe with Achaekek Treerazer and various herald creatures like the Menotherian and Hand of the Inheritor getting the flavour content stripped away to be more able to be put into any setting.
And that brings up a good question... what was your opinion on the first Bestiary? it's almost ENTIRELY made up of what are technically reprinted monsters... there are very few actual new monsters in that book.
True enough, although I must admit that the new ones are already getting a lot of use! I love the first Bestiary, but then again, I'd been using a 3.0 Monster Manual at the table and the 3.5 SRD when writing adventures, so it's REALLY nice to have everything updated and in hard copy that I can use at the gaming table. Most adventures don't reprint core monster stat blocks, so having them on hand is always a plus.
But for monsters I personally would use when writing an adventure, but don't have collected in a hardcover book? Well, that's what my various other sources and cross-referenced index are for; a separate hardcover book for that isn't needed, and wouldn't get much use.
You're a smart guy Kirth, I thought you would have figured this out...
(Grin) I know perfectly well why Paizo would do it -- any merchant jumps at the chance to sell the same product twice. But as a customer, I reserve the right to grumble...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
You're a smart guy Kirth, I thought you would have figured this out...(Grin) I know perfectly well why Paizo would do it -- any merchant jumps at the chance to sell the same product twice. But as a customer, I reserve the right to grumble...
Sorry I should have put a smiley on mine too. I wasn't trying to be snarky...
If monsters are going to be reprinted from the AP would it be possible to reference the orginal source in the Bestiary II (in the entry for the monster would be ideal)? That way those of us with the AP would know right where to turn for that extra page of material.
|
Director of Game Development
|
If monsters are going to be reprinted from the AP would it be possible to reference the orginal source in the Bestiary II (in the entry for the monster would be ideal)? That way those of us with the AP would know right where to turn for that extra page of material.
I'd have to say, as someone who has all the books, I still use the Pathfinder Wiki as a frequent resource. It acts a a great index to cross reference which topics are in which books, as well as an excellent resource to get facts straight about Golarion. In the monsters section for example, the PF wiki crew have every creature from APs, modules, etc listed in a wonderful table.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
In the monsters section for example, the PF wiki crew have every creature from APs, modules, etc listed in a wonderful table.
Thanks for pimping the wiki, Daigle. The monster table you're referring to can be found here for those who prefer direct linking.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
If monsters are going to be reprinted from the AP would it be possible to reference the orginal source in the Bestiary II (in the entry for the monster would be ideal)? That way those of us with the AP would know right where to turn for that extra page of material.I'd have to say, as someone who has all the books, I still use the Pathfinder Wiki as a frequent resource. It acts a a great index to cross reference which topics are in which books, as well as an excellent resource to get facts straight about Golarion. In the monsters section for example, the PF wiki crew have every creature from APs, modules, etc listed in a wonderful table.
Likewise, I found the wiki very handy when compiling encounter tables for an upcoming PF supplement and wanting to include PF-flavored creatures as well as those in the Bestiary.
EDIT: Pimp ninja'd by yoda!
|
|
And that brings up a good question... what was your opinion on the first Bestiary? it's almost ENTIRELY made up of what are technically reprinted monsters... there are very few actual new monsters in that book.
If you meant that as a generic question... I *LOVE* it -- so much that I don't want to use my 3E MMs anymore. I really like the "Paizo spin" on "old" monsters and the new approach to templates, and I just pick the most appropriate creatures from the Bestiary for each session, even "re-skinning" and modifying the stats a bit if needed. And I can't wait for Bestiary II and III... I want them NOW!
|
Bestiary II should:
a) round up the missing MM monsters. Gray Render and Hippogriff, I am looking at you two.
b) expand areas where wotc choice for "core" monsters was lacking. Fey and Plant are the biggest offenders.
c) feature critters which are very likely to appear in a regular PF game. That means all the weird Outsiders, for example. I want my Daemons and Axiomites !
d) include several classic monsters from the AP, kicking off with the most popular ones and the ones that need updating (Undead ?)