...from both the voters and the judges.
Seriously, people, just because something could be statted up as a template (a) doesn't mean it has to be, and (b) doesn't necessarily ruin it if it is.
I'm seeing this all over the place this year. Is there a memetic monster spreading through the forums? ^.^
...from both the voters and the judges.
Seriously, people, just because something could be statted up as a template (a) doesn't mean it has to be, and (b) doesn't necessarily ruin it if it is.
I'm seeing this all over the place this year. Is there a memetic monster spreading through the forums? ^.^
Ahh... if someone had only submitted the dreaded incorporeal Meme monsters....
Not to mention template monster concepts are explicitly allowed by the Round 2 rules.
Whether the monster can be represented by a template or a straightforward stat block is completely irrelevant to this round.
Templates are specifically allowed by the rules. There is a cautionary note about them, but they are legal.
It even looks like Paizo is even putting out a book dedicated to stuff "that could be a Template":
Pathfinder Chronicles: Classic Horrors Revisited (PFRPG) Print Edition
Things from Beyond the GraveBorn of myth, legend, and even modern film and literature, monsters such as the mummy, vampire, werewolf, and zombie are the stuff of nightmares—and frequent foes of heroic adventurers! Along with flesh golems, gargoyles, ghosts, ghouls, hags, and the mysterious derro, these ten monsters are staples of horror fiction and the bane of countless would-be heroes.
Just about everything listed there COULD be a Template, perhaps barring gargoyles and MAYBE hags.
If the idea is cool and the implementation is good, that's all that matters for me.
...I don't really see Paizo deciding in their future AP's "This is really just a Template, rather than printing the whole stats, let's just do the Template and let the DM combine it with a base creature themself". Which reminds me there also seems a prejudice towards assuming a "Bestiary" monster, when in fact Monsters written up precisely FOR and integrated in an AP setting are just as viable, and often better choices than dropping a generic Bestiary monster in an AP setting.
...from both the voters and the judges.
Seriously, people, just because something could be statted up as a template (a) doesn't mean it has to be, and (b) doesn't necessarily ruin it if it is.
I'm seeing this all over the place this year. Is there a memetic monster spreading through the forums? ^.^
Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself.
My only pro credit as a game designer thus far was a monster article in Dragon magazine; all four (three after editing) of the critters were perversions of a different kind of creature, and none of them were templates.
Templates are specifically allowed by the rules. There is a cautionary note about them, but they are legal.
Yeah, and then everybody objects to the monster description because it "obviously has to be" a template, and that will make it "too complicated."
Which has so far not been true on either count.
Which is why I'm annoyed.
I think that there are several monsters that can go either way as far as template or monster. And I think that it is a fair description of several of the monsters.
I could create a monster called Fiendish Animal, and describe it as having poisonous claws and ability to deal more damage to those who are good. I could do it as either a single creature (that all animals turn into when becoming a Fiendish Animal) or a template.
The template can it's own issues including having a tendency to get complex quickly.
But, if I do it as a single monster, then I have issues like the fact that my monster works oddly by turning all potential creatures into this one. Despite it saying that this is a creature created when an animal is imbued with evil power, then that means that if a horse was transformed, it would gain claws and the same speed as every other Fiendish Animal.
It is late here so I not sure if I am being particular with my point, but I think that just that describing your monster as a transformed version of several types of monsters, it becomes somewhat odd when they all become the same monster with the same abilities. Then it can get complicated if one goes the other way by making it a template.
So neither choice for me really looks that great for some concepts that I have seen.
I see what you're saying, but I think there are times when one approach is clearly better than the other, as well as times when both choices make equal sense.
"This doesn't make sense to me as a single creature because..." is a much better criticism than "This is a template."
I could be remembering wrong (I haven't looked at the monsters since Sunday), but IIRC all my comments of "this seems like a template" were more a simple statement of my impression of the creature rather than a criticism of the monster's design.
Yea, that sounds right. But there were also a lot of posters saying "This is a template, not a monster".
I'll say it again here: vampires are "just a template" too. So are zombies. And ghosts. All three are iconic monsters in the game and in society.
I could be remembering wrong (I haven't looked at the monsters since Sunday), but IIRC all my comments of "this seems like a template" were more a simple statement of my impression of the creature rather than a criticism of the monster's design.
People seem to be confusing the advice not to add a template to an existing monster with the idea that a new template is a bad monster.
People seem to be confusing the advice not to add a template to an existing monster with the idea that a new template is a bad monster.
Personally, I don't think a new template is a bad monster. But I do know James Jacobs tends to prefer new monsters over new templates.
Personally, I don't think a new template is a bad monster. But I do know James Jacobs tends to prefer new monsters over new templates.
I tend to think that what makes people say templates is actually a theme monster. For example, those animated idols in the recent adventure path bestiary are not a templates, but they do share a theme.
Personally, I feel like submitting a template in this round is not following the spirit of the round, which is to create a completely new monster that can be used to help support the theme of a module. In the end, a template effectively adds a subtype, a quirk, and a couple abilities to another creature. Really, there was only one "template" submitted this round, but it was damn good and stood on it's own. I think it was mentioned, as well, that it was borderline template, and only that because of basically one line. There isn't this huge cry against templates(though they are a hotbutton issue), it's just not a monster, thus why it has it's own name - template. The template entry was called out for the same reason the item-monster and trap/hazards got called out - they aren't really monsters. Even though it's in the rules, it's not what was expected.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My "Lantern Thralls" were one of the entries called out as "obvious templates." Which surprised me. I'd like to discuss that, but first I'd like to ask two questions.
1) Without game stats in front of you, what do you see as the distinction between templated monsters (say, a zombie or a half-celestial) versus a non-template critter (such as a wight or an aasimar)?
2) What experience have you had with templates, that's generated a negative reaction to them? As a GM, do you design stat blocks for templated monsters yourself? (I'm presuming that if you run from pre-written modules, you don't see a difference between a two-headed fire-breathing beetle that's a template, and one that's not, because the stats are already sitting right there for you.)
1) ...what do you see as the distinction between templated monsters (say, a zombie or a half-celestial) versus a non-template critter (such as a wight or an aasimar)?
I think the biggest difference is that a template gets layered over an existing creature and generally allows some portion of its previously existing special abilities to continue operating in addition to whatever special abilities the template may add. Could you build a non-templated creature from scratch that had all those same abilities with an equal CR? Sure. But a template can be mixed-and-matched with multiple creature types (typcically), so it's kind of like the "multiclass" or "prestige class" of monster making...which isn't necessarily a bad thing...but isn't always a good thing either. You just glom one on and you're good to go...and it's supposed to provide "variety" for your base creature.
Non-template creatures, on the other hand, stand on their own. They're lovingly crafted by putting together just the right mix of abilities to pair with an appopriate CR. They generally have a single ecology and habitat/society that all of them share. And that differs from templates which have the flexibility of taking on the base creature's background or enforcing a whole new one as a result of the template's addition. Also, part of a base creature's CR is calculated by totalling up its special abilities and how much they contribute to the overall challenge it presents. But base creatures all vary in how much their special abilities or stats or some other component contributes to their CR. A template makes a broad brush stroke that doesn't take these things into consideration when it states that all creatures of a certain type can have it. So, there's a lot more game balance concerns with templates than following the general monster-making guidelines. Or, put more simply, you can usually trust the CR of a non-template creature that follows the full monster-making guidelines moreso than the CR of a templated creature that glommed on some additional mix of abilities.
And let's also be honest...there's a major glut of templates out there to choose from these days. Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary is nothing but a HUGE collection of templates that hit almost every note imaginable. I happen to like it. But, taken collectively, you have to acknowledge that there's a bit too many templates and not nearly as much original monster-making these days. Designers who grab for the template risk looking lazy in some ways, because it doesn't require anything more than figuring out a set of adjustments that can be made to a base creature...a bit of flavor on how the template gets added to certain creatures...and that's about it.
Full blown monster-making, however, without a template crutch to boost an existing one, is usually a much bigger deal from a creativity standpoint. You have to craft a new monster from whole cloth, not just some new window-dressing for several different ones. Or so goes the thinking, I believe, of those who champion new monsters over templates. As I stated earlier, however, I like them both. A well-done template really adds a LOT to the game. Just as much, I would wager, as a newly-developed monster...if not MORE...because of its versatility and potential application to multiple creature types. But you have to build them the right way. Otherwise, they come off poorly-developed or not quite "thought through" enough.
2) What experience have you had with templates, that's generated a negative reaction to them?
Overuse of them. Some designers and GMs glom on multiple templates to create a creature that's practically so unrecognizable (and nonsensical) that it would have been better just to build a totally new monster with the same sum of abilities and a more plausible backstory.
In addition, I've seen a number of poorly-designed templates (much like prestige classes) that simply give the base creature far too many power-ups in relation to the CR bump required to add it. With the large influx of templates, a situation like that doesn't make the use of templates any more appetizing.
As a GM, do you design stat blocks for templated monsters yourself?
As both a GM and a freelance designer, my answer would be yes. I always put together the stat-blocks for a monster that uses a template. And I don't always trust the CR adjustments suggested by the template and usually eyeball the resulting mash-up so I can compare it to similar non-templated creatures at the same CR to make sure I'm not about to trigger a TPK event.
But that's just my two-cents...
--Neil
For me, I have avoided Templates since I read my first Template. I do not like the idea of increasing the complexity of monster statistics, and feel Templates do this. I do everything from scratch, and they do not help me in most cases.
In the context of this competition, I feel a Template does not generally have enough story, enough beating heart and soul, to qualify as a real creature. Most templates are generic subtype/ability changes to strong-arm an existing monster into a different setting or climate.
The Template you created deviated from this, in a way that was really f*ing cool, and showed heart. I think much credit was given for what you did create. In the end I think many would have liked to see a real creature, with it's own history and personality. The Lantern Thrall is, after all, a Mephit controlling a Human, and there are spells a-plenty to accomplish that. As I said, and I think has been said many times before and after: You can write like a motherf*er, but the template monster is insanely difficult to pull off under a microscope.
*edit* Oh great, I came in just after Spicer. You're a hard act to follow, friend!
A template monster isn't bad perse, it is just something that might fit better, if it is a template it should be pretty obvious the creator intended as such.
I myself commented on one of the monsters, golem / undead, because I saw it more fit for an undead template than an actual golem.
I myself commented on one of the monsters, golem / undead, because I saw it more fit for an undead template than an actual golem.
But it wouldn't work AT ALL as a template on undead creature.
As a template for an undead creature:
That pretty clearly says it CANNOT be a template on the undead, to me. It just doesn't work. There's no way to make it work.
It could be made to work as a template for golems, but I feel that there's no need for that. It's needless complexity. It works just fine on its own as a unique type of golem. Keep in mind it was the judges who suggested that the powers change based on the contained undead. The actual entry said the type contained was utterly irrelevant.
I just don't get the need to label something as a template when it seems clear to me that you'd have to work harder and get a less unique and usable resulting creature if you made it a template.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
All right.
Now, let's take an aasimar as an example. Aasimars are human-like native outsiders who advance with class levels. What would be the difference between advancing an aasimar to be a 4th level cleric, versus building a human cleric and then applying an "aasimar" template?
That's not a rhetorical question. I ask because some people see a difference, and I don't.
I see the distinction between "half-celestial" and an aasimar as one of versatility. Aasimar are "of a kind". But "half-celestials" could be humans, or ogres or blink dogs or gnomes, or even annis hags.
Let's say that the rules for flesh golems allowed the resulting monster to have different powers, depending on whether its creator used dragonhide, or chuul claws, or intellect devourer brains, or monkey limbs. Is that a template? It could be, but it sounds more like a creature with various options.
Now, if you could make flesh golem cattle, or pterodactyls, or hydrae, then I think it's better designed as a template, because the original creature is versatile.
(Which suggests, really, it's high time we see the "vampire" template applied to something other than humans. Anybody for vampiric undead darkmantles?)
Does this position make sense?
Creative Director
|
Here's my take. Templates are neat, but if you can do what you want with your template with a new monster, I almost ALWAYS prefer seeing a new monster.
I put templates in the same category as prestige classes: a GREAT new mechanic introduced and formalized in 3rd edition that got overexposed and done to death to the point where a simple fighter or a plain old purple worm starts to feel like the exotic one.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm fine with that, James. (And really, I agree about Prestige Classes. Oy gevault!)
It's just this: I spent the last week looking at my non-template stat block write-up of the Lantern Thrall, and then I turned to read several posts, including those of the judges, insisting that this critter must be a template.
And I look back at the stat block, and I'm confused.
So, I'm trying to get a handle on what is it about the description of some monsters that make people think they must be realized through the game mechanic of templates.
--+--+--
P.S. "Creative Director"? Is that a new title?
I'd like to discuss that, but first I'd like to ask two questions.
I'll be back tomorrow and would love to join that conversation. I have an early morning so it will have to wait a bit.
So, I'm trying to get a handle on what is it about the description of some monsters that make people think they must be realized through the game mechanic of templates.
Probably this:
"Lantern thralls have at their disposal the physical qualities of their host bodies, hearty to endure the desert and handy with tools and weapons."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Aha. Thanks, Sean. That line as in there to make it clear they were human-shaped, and that they approached tasks as humans, with equipment and weapons.
I suppose that it might be interesting to have ettin-based Lantern Thralls and mite-based "night lights" and such-all. But an encounter with Lantern Thralls is going to be busy enough for a GM, and I thought it better if they all have the same base stats. Which is why they were by definition coming from human stock.
(I'm reminded of an old "Order of the Stick" strip, where a small band of orcs realizes that they're NPCs because they have identical stats.)
P.S. "Creative Director"? Is that a new title?
I think so. I was looking at that too, wondering if I was seeing something new or just had a bad memory :)
I suppose that it might be interesting to have ettin-based Lantern Thralls and mite-based "night lights" and such-all. But an encounter with Lantern Thralls is going to be busy enough for a GM, and I thought it better if they all have the same base stats. Which is why they were by definition coming from human stock.
... which is why you could limit the template to "any human." Oddly specific, but doable. :)
Just because a creature is described as coming from another creature, doesn't always mean it is a template. Ghoul is a great example of this. There are templates in various sources to turn any creature into a ghoul, but the base stats for a ghoul are a standalone creature.
So until we have a build statistics for your monster round (which may or may not be in a few short hours) how our potential superstars decide to stat up their creations is still up to the individual designers.
Making a template may be a risky move but if done very well it could be superstar!
Just because a creature is described as coming from another creature, doesn't always mean it is a template. Ghoul is a great example of this. There are templates in various sources to turn any creature into a ghoul, but the base stats for a ghoul are a standalone creature.
That's right!
@ Chris, I felt a lot of empathy for you during this Round and I sincerely hope you make it. I'm not sure what I can say to make you feel better, other than I struggled with this same dilemma when I was writing my entry. My instinct was to make a skintaker template, which was logical to me because since they're transformed prisoners who might have had previous experience.
However, as deinol explains, I had to push myself to think of my monsters as a base creature that one could optionally add additional class levels to, but were not required to do so. Just like the ghoul.
(Now to stop talking about me..)
I think another reason that you got unfairly pigeon-holed as a template is that there are so many flavors of mephits. I'm not sure if they actually qualify as a monster template, or 10 different creatures that just so happen share a common set of base stats and a small amount of unique powers and abilities. See what I mean? If the reader thinks of a mephit as a template, they could easily think of your entry as a template as well.
I liked the Lantern Thralls. Once again, I hope you make it. The contest will be well served if you d0.
I myself commented on one of the monsters, golem / undead, because I saw it more fit for an undead template than an actual golem.But it wouldn't work AT ALL as a template on undead creature.
As a template for an undead creature:
None of the undead's abilities matter.
None of the undead's stats matter.
None of the undead's defenses matter. That pretty clearly says it CANNOT be a template on the undead, to me. It just doesn't work. There's no way to make it work.
It could be made to work as a template for golems, but I feel that there's no need for that. It's needless complexity. It works just fine on its own as a unique type of golem. Keep in mind it was the judges who suggested that the powers change based on the contained undead. The actual entry said the type contained was utterly irrelevant.
I just don't get the need to label something as a template when it seems clear to me that you'd have to work harder and get a less unique and usable resulting creature if you made it a template.
I understand that, I did say that because of the anti-climatic nature of wrecking a golem which seems to be more powerful, to have a relatively weak undead spring up. To me it wouldn't make a golem I'd use at all, a construct maybe, I have this weird notion that golems are meant to be tough.
Here's my take. Templates are neat, but if you can do what you want with your template with a new monster, I almost ALWAYS prefer seeing a new monster.
I put templates in the same category as prestige classes: a GREAT new mechanic introduced and formalized in 3rd edition that got overexposed and done to death to the point where a simple fighter or a plain old purple worm starts to feel like the exotic one.
What I believe 3rd edition did with Prestige classes was a good thing, left the base classes alone, and if you want to do that new cool class ability stuff meat the pre-requisites for this new prestige class. However, they have SOOOO many prestige classes out there it is over-done, and for that I agree. Honestly I would have rather seen the base classes stay the course of what they were orginally designed to do and introduce a bunch of new feats. Basically all prestige classes are advanced class abilities from your base class. You could easily have done all the special abilities with feats and customize your characters with specialized feats. Paizo gave a feat every other level instead of every 3 which would allow for a now broader customization. Personally I think that giving a base rogue the class ability to cast spells kind of defeats the purpose of a rogue. Yeah I know I am not jumping on the bandwagon and stating wow the best thing ever, but honestly, thinking about standard fantasy, rogues were, thieves, melee, hiding, shadows, dark past types of characters, and not spellcasters. However they are good at figuring things out, magical traps, locks, scripts in weird languages and they gave them use magic device which allowed them (if the player wanted) to use magic items. Same thing for Sorcerer bloodlines.
My 2 copper