|
In the Bestiary II maybe? No? Please?
I would love one of these that I could apply to any number of my favorite animals and magical beasts. I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to reverse engineer how paizo does the math for its dire creatures but that is on a level of crunch that I would rather pay someone else to do.
In the Bestiary II maybe? No? Please?
I would love one of these that I could apply to any number of my favorite animals and magical beasts. I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to reverse engineer how paizo does the math for its dire creatures but that is on a level of crunch that I would rather pay someone else to do.
I think in a lot of cases you could come up with this from either the advanced or giant template. Of course, once official "dire" stats then come out, you can have a giant dire creature of whatever type.
On one hand, I think an overall dire template might be too over reaching to do justice to some creatures that actually had a "sort of" dire version.
On the other hand, not every creature should bump up a size category just for being dire.
In the Bestiary II maybe? No? Please?
I would love one of these that I could apply to any number of my favorite animals and magical beasts. I am sure it wouldn't be too hard to reverse engineer how paizo does the math for its dire creatures but that is on a level of crunch that I would rather pay someone else to do.
I think in a lot of cases you could come up with this from either the advanced or giant template. Of course, once official "dire" stats then come out, you can have a giant dire creature of whatever type.
On one hand, I think an overall dire template might be too over reaching to do justice to some creatures that actually had a "sort of" dire version.
On the other hand, not every creature should bump up a size category just for being dire.
Throwing advanced and giant templates on an animal make it unquestionably Dire.
Creative Director
|
No dire template in Bestiary 2. And for a specific reason: I don't like the concept.
"Dire" animals as "tougher" animals is actually an element of 3rd edition I really would have liked to leave behind with Pathfinder, but in the interests of backwards compatibility, we kept it in.
My preference is to instead have the "tougher" version of an animal simply be its prehistoric or primeval ancestor. In the case of the wolf, this works out fine because a prehistoric wolf is in fact called a dire wolf. But a prehistoric tiger should be called a smilodon, and so on; in the Bestiary, I wasn't able to make the change to dump the "dire" element entirely, but I did manage to get the real-world names in there more often than not. (In the case of a few dire animals, we didn't bother because there really wasn't a great choice for the prehistoric version.)
Furthermore, some animals don't really NEED "tougher" versions. A "dire rhino" sounds kind of silly, as does a "dire elephant." But a woolly rhino or a mastodon? NOW you're talking! And certainly, things like "dire monkeys" or "dire camels" are unnecessary.
Anyway, by going this route and building the prehistoric (or "dire") versions of animals, we can do some things that templates can't really do: we can custom build these tougher animals with unique and flavorful abilities that don't need to be made generic, which is what would have to happen if we instituted a dire template.
And certainly, things like "dire monkeys" or "dire camels" are unnecessary.
Hmph!
My preference is to instead have the "tougher" version of an animal simply be its prehistoric or primeval ancestor. In the case of the wolf, this works out fine because a prehistoric wolf is in fact called a dire wolf. But a prehistoric tiger should be called a smilodon, and so on; in the Bestiary, I wasn't able to make the change to dump the "dire" element entirely, but I did manage to get the real-world names in there more often than not. (In the case of a few dire animals, we didn't bother because there really wasn't a great choice for the prehistoric version.)
Out of curiousity, what of animals whose ancient ancestors were actually less vicious or dangerous than current? Like some sharks or crocs? (Maybe shark is a bad example, though...)
And, what of animals who are normally docile herbivores, but magic/divine intervention (or just having it be in a fantasy realm) have twisted to a carnivorous attack beast? For example..."A century ago, mages wanted to create a more dangerous version or the war-horse, shifting and shaping common horses to give them fangs and claws. Now, entire herds of these beasts have slipped control of their masters and threaten the nomadic tribes of the East."
Lastly, what about animals like the skunk, who would just be really awesome as a monster concept, but would need to be bigger and more potent to be effective as a challenge? (Ok, I just added this example because I still wish skunks were in the core Bestiary/MM...so sue me.)
And, what of animals who are normally docile herbivores, but magic/divine intervention (or just having it be in a fantasy realm) have twisted to a carnivorous attack beast? For example..."A century ago, mages wanted to create a more dangerous version or the war-horse, shifting and shaping common horses to give them fangs and claws. Now, entire herds of these beasts have slipped control of their masters and threaten the nomadic tribes of the East."
I got the impression the "mages did it" logic of monster creation is less prevalent in Pathfinder. For something like that, you can just cook it up yourself, again with combinations of the advanced, giant, and celestial/fiendish templates.
Lastly, what about animals like the skunk, who would just be really awesome as a monster concept, but would need to be bigger and more potent to be effective as a challenge? (Ok, I just added this example because I still wish skunks were in the core Bestiary/MM...so sue me.)
For a "giant skunk" type of monster, maybe take the wolverine and add some stench ability? They are fairly similiar in build (though wolverines are obviously much larger) and were long both considered mustelidae.
On a side note, is it just me, or does most animals seem to be a dire version compared to real-life animals? I mean, a wolverine IRL is surely a skilled predator, but pit her against an average human with a spear and she's got no chance. In the rules, she's considered about the same challenge as 4 trained warriors.
On a side note, is it just me, or does most animals seem to be a dire version compared to real-life animals? I mean, a wolverine IRL is surely a skilled predator, but pit her against an average human with a spear and she's got no chance. In the rules, she's considered about the same challenge as 4 trained warriors.
Yeah, that kinda thing's a running gag at our tables. Things like "any domestic cat beats any Level 1 Warrior" in 3.5 just make no sense but are reality anyway.
In the end, you just run with it.
I like giant animals. While I do throw "dire" animals at the party, some of the largest animals they met were just advanced HD animals. In my world (it being a magical imaginiative one) every so often some animals just seem to be able to live MUCH longer than they are suppose to and reach a much larger size.
The party once met a 50 HD Bear just a few hours before it finally passed away in it's sleep. One of the players actually cried at that.
I like giant animals. While I do throw "dire" animals at the party, some of the largest animals they met were just advanced HD animals. In my world (it being a magical imaginiative one) every so often some animals just seem to be able to live MUCH longer than they are suppose to and reach a much larger size.
The party once met a 50 HD Bear just a few hours before it finally passed away in it's sleep. One of the players actually cried at that.
You know, there is something kind of cool about the whole legendary animal thing . . . bears and wolves that have lived in a primeval forest for hundreds of years. Heck, even the WoW idea of singular super powerful animals that you don't see every day is kind of an interesting variation on this.
I like giant animals. While I do throw "dire" animals at the party, some of the largest animals they met were just advanced HD animals. In my world (it being a magical imaginiative one) every so often some animals just seem to be able to live MUCH longer than they are suppose to and reach a much larger size.
The party once met a 50 HD Bear just a few hours before it finally passed away in it's sleep. One of the players actually cried at that.
In my primary E6 world, many of the "gods" or spirits of the lands are like this; animals that has lived so long they've caught a divine spark and gained a cunning beyond that of normal animals. While they still have limited understanding of how humans think, they are smart, old and wise, and have semi-magical abilities. Kind of like how demigods work in some campaigns, just that these are ~CR 9 (which is much in an E6 game).
|
Creative Director
|
Out of curiousity, what of animals whose ancient ancestors were actually less vicious or dangerous than current? Like some sharks or crocs? (Maybe shark is a bad example, though...)
And, what of animals who are normally docile herbivores, but magic/divine intervention (or just having it be in a fantasy realm) have twisted to a carnivorous attack beast? For example..."A century ago, mages wanted to create a more dangerous version or the war-horse, shifting and shaping common horses to give them fangs and claws. Now, entire herds of these beasts have slipped control of their masters and threaten the nomadic tribes of the East."
Lastly, what about animals like the skunk, who would just be really awesome as a monster concept, but would need to be bigger and more potent to be effective as a challenge? (Ok, I just added this example because I still wish skunks were in the core Bestiary/MM...so sue me.)
Sharks AND crocs are bad examples. Both of those animals have MUCH larger ancestors in the fossil record, and both of those animals have their prehistoric equivalents mentioned in the Bestiary as a result (we went with sarcosuchus and megalodon, but those were hardly the only choices).
As for animals that have been magically twisted into attack beasts... those are no longer animals. They're magical beasts.
And as for things like a skunk, we'd probably just stat up a big skunk as a "giant skunk" rather than a "dire skunk." Partially because giant skunk sounds better to me, and partially because in 1st edition that's what big-sized skunks were called.
You know, if you guys keep talking about giant skunks, I'm going to want stats just so I can make up an evil druid with giant skunk minions harassing a town.
If you really want a "dire" template, there was one in the Tome of Horrors (revised), p.386. It works out pretty closely to just adding Giant and Advanced templates from the Pathfinder Bestiary, though.
just A little question:
will these guys ever see an entry in a bestiary:
him(as a dire whale)
http://blog.webosaurs.com/tag/leviathan-melvillei/
(I also have a possible "Translation" for its name: little Leviathan)
and this
as A dire Snake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanoboa
Wasn't there that great whiteboard for Bestiary 2: did a wizard create it? No!!!
Well, you know? I kinda like the Behemoth from Nifft, created by a wizard to be more effective at eating demons than demons are themselves. And just so?
A dire skunk could throw stinking clouds at the party.
A dire camel would have a really cool spiky hump, or an acid spit attack. ...or even better, there are those spitting cobras? Dire camels spit cobra venom!
Run! It's the blood-sucking armored camels of doom! No weirder than a bulette, I think.
This is why I think there should be more cool things you can do with the guts of monsters you kill (other than dragons and fire beetles). Dire butterfly wings should be brewed into dream tea, clothes made from dire sheep wool should give +6 on cold weather checks, and you could roof your house with dire silkworm silk.
I think the whiteboard was actually for Misfit Monsters Redeemed. Did the aboleths create it? Yes/No. No.-->OK then. Yes.-->No, they didn't.-->OK then.
Love that.
It looks like your versions of stuff there are almost all magical beasts, not dire animals. Give them the Magical Beast type and cooler names. That blood-sucking armored camel that spits cobra venom isn't a dire animal, it's a Two-toed Prowler. Bulettes aren't animals, they're magical beasts.
Oh well... I was hoping to be able to make a "Dire Cockroach".
The fun thing is, there are dire sheep in legend--the venomous sheep of Irish myth.
And those are just the sheep. Who can forget the Derby Ram?
I think dire animals are fun, but as individual creatures, not just as a dumpy template. For example, there are dire dolphins mentioned in the current chapter of "The Secret of the Rose and Glove", or at least statues thereof. I'm hoping that from the description that these dolphins are obviously heraldic dolphins, with the usual large plated scales and tusks (which regular dolphins don't have), but since there are so many monsters that you see in heraldry actually running around in the world, it begs the question of whether any animal in a fantasy world is only heraldic. If you've got both sorts of dolphins swimming around in the ocean, it stands to reason that the regular ones are regular dolphins and the heraldic ones are dire dolphins.
Or it could just be a matter of heraldic and architectural fancy, though that probably lasts until someone figures out how to bring the wacky fancies to life.
Oh well... I was hoping to be able to make a "Dire Cockroach".
Just convert over the Giant Cockroach from Forgotten Realms Underdark. That should work in a pinch.
Yeah, that kinda thing's a running gag at our tables. Things like "any domestic cat beats any Level 1 Warrior" in 3.5 just make no sense but are reality anyway.
In the end, you just run with it.
Luckily this has been solved in Pathfinder.
PRD -> Combat -> Damage:
"Minimum Damage: If penalties reduce the damage result to less than 1, a hit still deals 1 point of nonlethal damage."
PRD -> Combat -> Nonlethal Damage:
"If a creature's nonlethal damage is equal to his total maximum hit points (not his current hit points), all further nonlethal damage is treated as lethal damage."
PRD -> Monsters -> Familiar (Cat):
"Melee 2 claws +4 (1d2–4), bite +4 (1d3–4) "
As you can see, a Cat can still hit with few efforts a 1st-level Warrior, but since all his attacks deal 1 point of nonlethal damage (with the only exception of the bite, if it can score a crit - a crit Bite should deal 2d3-4, not 2d3-8, or it would not make any sense), it would have to deal twice the hp of the 1st-level Warrior to actually damaging him.
Still a 'ferocious' opponent, but a lot less lethal than before (as it should be).
No dire template in Bestiary 2. And for a specific reason: I don't like the concept.
"Dire" animals as "tougher" animals is actually an element of 3rd edition I really would have liked to leave behind with Pathfinder, but in the interests of backwards compatibility, we kept it in.
My preference is to instead have the "tougher" version of an animal simply be its prehistoric or primeval ancestor. In the case of the wolf, this works out fine because a prehistoric wolf is in fact called a dire wolf. But a prehistoric tiger should be called a smilodon, and so on; in the Bestiary, I wasn't able to make the change to dump the "dire" element entirely, but I did manage to get the real-world names in there more often than not. (In the case of a few dire animals, we didn't bother because there really wasn't a great choice for the prehistoric version.)
Furthermore, some animals don't really NEED "tougher" versions. A "dire rhino" sounds kind of silly, as does a "dire elephant." But a woolly rhino or a mastodon? NOW you're talking! And certainly, things like "dire monkeys" or "dire camels" are unnecessary.
Anyway, by going this route and building the prehistoric (or "dire") versions of animals, we can do some things that templates can't really do: we can custom build these tougher animals with unique and flavorful abilities that don't need to be made generic, which is what would have to happen if we instituted a dire template.
In that case, you could use these: Zeuglodon [dire whale] (appeared in Frostburn), Glyptodon [dire armadillo] (appeared in Frostburn), Megaloceros [dire deer/moose] (appeared in Frostburn), Flexiraptor [dire hawk/eagle] (hawk appeared in MM2; eagle appeared in Races of Stone), Titanoboa [dire snake] (appeared in MM2), Tarpan [dire horse] (appeared in MM2), Hexaprotodon [dire hippopotamus] (appeared in Sandstorm), Ichthyosaur [dire porpoise] (appeared in Stormwrack) and Archelon [dire turle] (appeared in Stormwrack). All of these are prehistoric animals that somewhat fill the role of dire animals. Of course, those are only suggestions, but considering that dire animals did get a lot of attention in D&D, these creatures above can make interesting encounters... and they're not dire animals.
|
Creative Director
|
In that case, you could use these: Zeuglodon [dire whale] (appeared in Frostburn), Glyptodon [dire armadillo] (appeared in Frostburn), Megaloceros [dire deer/moose] (appeared in Frostburn), Flexiraptor [dire hawk/eagle] (hawk appeared in MM2; eagle appeared in Races of Stone), Titanoboa [dire snake] (appeared in MM2), Tarpan [dire horse] (appeared in MM2), Hexaprotodon [dire hippopotamus] (appeared in Sandstorm), Ichthyosaur [dire porpoise] (appeared in Stormwrack) and Archelon [dire turle]...
Some of those will be appearing soon. Some (like the megaloceros) have already appeared in print, even (Kingmaker #1). But yeah; that's the goal, but without calling them dire anythings.
Furthermore, some animals don't really NEED "tougher" versions. A "dire rhino" sounds kind of silly, as does a "dire elephant." But a woolly rhino or a mastodon? NOW you're talking! And certainly, things like "dire monkeys" or "dire camels" are unnecessary.
Sorry to jump in late but I think the mumakil would disagree violently about being a silly "dire elephant." :p
But the Giant and Advanced templates still work wonderfully for that.
and this
as A dire Snake
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanoboa
Just use the constrictor snake and advance it and/or apply advanced and giant templates.
The Bestiary only talks about huge snakes (which would be anacondas or the largest pythons, I guess), there's no reason not to create gargantuan or even colossal constrictors.
Ouroboros!
Furthermore, some animals don't really NEED "tougher" versions. A "dire rhino" sounds kind of silly, as does a "dire elephant." But a woolly rhino or a mastodon? NOW you're talking! And certainly, things like "dire monkeys" or "dire camels" are unnecessary.Sorry to jump in late but I think the mumakil would disagree violently about being a silly "dire elephant." :p
But the Giant and Advanced templates still work wonderfully for that.
The Oliphaunt of Jandelay scoffs at your puny mumakil. And your puny mountains.