Bestiary 3 wish list


Product Discussion

551 to 600 of 732 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

More constructs and humanoids (aliens).

Why do you want a reptilian race, how would anyone roleplay that thing, no different than requesting elder things as a playable race.

Sovereign Court

Nodnarb wrote:


Windcaler wrote:


9. Modrons!
I agree on the Modrons, but since (as far as I am aware) Modrons aren't Open Content, so Paizo would probably have to change the name and some stats to make it different enough as to avoid legal whatsit..

They'd have to do more than change the name and some stats. Geometric biomechanical beings of logic without sanity arranged in specific form-based castes charged with maintaining a mechanistic plane - which is kind of the essence of Modronity - is really kinda mostly unique to TSR/Wizards/Hasbro IP. It'd be a looooooooooong row to hoe for Paizo, when they've already got Axiomites.


Yeah, I agree we do need more positive energy plane ceatures, plane touched races for Law and chaos, and also small dragons(sizes tiny to medium).

One day I would love to see the four holy beast stated up as CR15+ creatures

1)Genbu-black turtle with dragod headed tail
2)Byako-white tiger
3)Suzako-pheonix like bird
4)Seiryuu-blue dragon


Windcaler wrote:
Kongamato

Wyvern-esque African dragon? I think it was in an AP, but I agree.

Quote:
Taniwha

Creature from Māori legend that behaved somewhat like a naga and/or a Chinese dragon, could be called a dragon if you stretch the definition a lot, and would probably be dragon type? Sure.

I just hope that even if they do make it a dragon, it's at least a unique variation.

Quote:
Mngwa

Large sneaky cat; possible open-source Coeurl-expy/displacer beast replacement (although I've concluded that dweomercats would be just as effective)? I approve.

Quote:
Kappa

Confirmed, IIRC.

Quote:
1. We need some more smaller dragons. Drakes were nice but smaller dragons like felldrakes and the Ninki Nanka would be a nice addition

Faerie dragons are making it in (IIRC), but they're (usually) friendly.

Quote:
2. Ravids and many other positive energy plane creatures

Ravids are OGL; I'm guessing any others would have to be new.

Quote:
3. More Agathions. Specifically equinals, Ursidals (Bear agathion), and Pachydermals (elephant/rhino/mastadon type Agathion)

Not sure if any of those are OGL, but I approve.

Quote:

4. Psychic dragons based around nature

5. Gem dragons (I know they couldnt do psychic and gem dragons so Ill settle for them being magic)
6. More Linnorms
7. More dinosaurs. Specifically Pachycephalosaurus, Ichthyosaurus, Mosasaurus, Dimetrodon, Igaunadon
8. More golems. Specifically Grave dirt, tombstone, Bone, Dragon Skin, and most importantly Paper

Definitely (although some of the dinosaurs could be adapted from what we've already got).

Quote:
9. Modrons!

Fairly sure those are product identity.

Quote:
10. Lawful and chaotic aligned Planetouched

Hopefully more like Travis Stout's take in Dragon #297 than MMII's chaonds and zenythri. (As far as I'm concerned, anyway. Although I did kind of like the implication that zenythri were descended from mercanes.)

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:

One day I would love to see the four holy beast stated up as CR15+ creatures

1)Genbu-black turtle with dragod headed tail
2)Byako-white tiger
3)Suzako-pheonix like bird
4)Seiryuu-blue dragon

I whole-heartedly agree to that one!


Nodnarb wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

One day I would love to see the four holy beast stated up as CR15+ creatures

1)Genbu-black turtle with dragod headed tail
2)Byako-white tiger
3)Suzako-pheonix like bird
4)Seiryuu-blue dragon

I whole-heartedly agree to that one!

I also to this one!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arevashti wrote:
Windcaler wrote:
9. Modrons!
Fairly sure those are product identity.

Absolutely.

On the other hand, starting with the general idea . . .

The Hedronels are divided in three groups; the Imperial, Vertex, and Face. The five Imperial Hedronels were the five individuals known as Tetranus, Hexanius, Octanvia, Dodecaine, and Icosatain. The Vertex Hedronals are of 13 races, and the Face Hedronals are another 13.

Originally, each of the thirteen Vertex Hedronel races was paired with one of the Face Hedronel races, much as Hexanius and Octanvia were paired, or Dodecaine and Icosatain were. But Tetranus, progenitor of all the Hedronels, grew jealous of his progeny and bitter with time. He sought out secrets to allow him to create a companion for himself, and went to the Malestrom to find them.

Tetranus returned to his descendants from the Maelstrom . . . but he did so twice. Each of the beings claiming to be Tetranus declared the other an impostor, usurper, and inversion, born of the Malestrom, and demanded the other Hedronels assist him in destroying the other. Each successfully rallied half the Hedronels to him, pitting the Dodecaine, Icosatain, and the Vertex Hedronals against Hexanius, Octanvia, and the Face Hedronals.

In the ensuing war, both claimants to the name Tetranus were destroyed, as were many other Hedronels. With both claimants dead further war was rendered moot, but hard feelings remained. The two factions separated, moving to different parts of Axis, each sure the other murdered the father of their race.

Outsiders to the dispute have had many conflicting theories as to which which Tetranus was the true one; some even suggest both were Maelstrom-birthed impostors. But the rigid Hedronels have never wavered from their respective belief that their Tetranus was the true one, and contact between the factions are hostile and oft turn violent.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

fallenknight663 wrote:


More Oni, especially of the Tengu and Goblinoid variety.

If I may plug myself for a moment, you might be interested in this. I, too, have wanted more oni, so I made my own.

Closer to on topic, things I'd be interested in seeing:

Demodands (which have been confirmed, so yay)
More hags (James Jacobs mentioned back when Bestiary 1 was released that not all hags were monstrous humanoids. I want more of those, please!)
Weird fey
More kytons and divs
More unusual giant vermin, continuing along the lines of Bestiary 2
Monsters from Native American sources

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

My only request is that Bestiary 3 not be a stealth Oriental Bestiary.

Having a few in there, sure, I get it - there's a lot of support.

Having it be for all intents and purposes Paizo's Oriental Bestiary ...please don't do that. Put such things where they belong: in the Adventure Paths and any associated setting books.


Numerian wrote:


Why do you want a reptilian race, how would anyone roleplay that thing?

However the setting encouraged. Depending on the fluff background they could be anywhere from tribally savage, to a once prominent nation/empire that is either warry of their previous overstretch/desire to being their now modest nation high above the others.

It's all setting and GM dependent of course, so YMMV.

Something I'd like to see in Bestiary 3:

An expanded Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally list. I know that GMs are allowed to add/subtract as they feel are necessary, but Bestiary 2, and soon Bestiary 3 will add a whole slew of critters that folks would love to call using those spells, and would like guidelines on appropriate creatures to cast at each level iteration.

It'll also help folks who are alignments other than xG or xE have a collection of more appropriate RP critters to summon.

Also, adding Dragons to the list would be kinda cool....


New specific half-Celestial (i.e. half-Movanic Deva), half-Fiend (i.e. half-succubus) templates, and half-X outsider templates, with some customizing available.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Azure_Zero wrote:
New specific half-Celestial (i.e. half-Movanic Deva), half-Fiend (i.e. half-succubus) templates, and half-X outsider templates, with some customizing available.

+1

I ran into this just recently, and decided to modify the template on the fly. In this particular case, my conclusion was that having leonal agathions be the basis for a half-celestial creature shouldn't result in a fly speed (since leonals don't fly), so I instead doubled the ground speed (since their base ground speed is double normal).


I would like some Youkai. (These are not Oni)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like some Youkai. (These are not Oni)

Actually, the term youkai in Japan is a VERY broad term that covers all "native" (or naturalised) supernatural entities including ghosts and oni (but not really kami, which is strange, as there are many, many kami that would be youkai if it was not for their being worshipped... Sorry, clumsy sentence...).

Of course, Oni as defined by Pathfinder has a specific meaning, and thus may not be the same as what ever Pathfinder defines as "youkai". And not all things that ARE youkai will be defined as such in Pathfinder. Most youkai will probably just be "oriental fey" (e.g. yuki-onna, perhaps?), while some might just be a type of (monsterous) humanoid (e.g. tengu) or undead (e.g. ghosts).

It's also quite possible that kitsune (the new race to be), which IS a youkai, will not be labelled as a youkai as it is at present in Golarion, although it might be alluded to having been a youkai in the past (much like gnomes are NOT techinally fey [they're a player race] at the present in Golarion, but were in the past [I could be wrong about that... Need to check...]).

Short answer: You're both incorrect and correct.
As a blanket term saying that "Oni are not the same thing as youkai", you're incorrect.
As applied specifically to Pathfinder lore, you COULD be correct (and I say "could" because Pathfinder has yet to mention anything as being a youkai, but it's quite plausible in future products...).

And apologies for being so pedantic. And this wasn't meant as an attack on you or what you posted.

Also: I don't swear by Wikipedia (should anyone feel the need to paste a link to it and go "Aha! But according to..."). It's a good site to use as a starting point, but one really shouldn't believe everything that is written in it.
And, at times, actually living in the actual culture or country can really show-up what's said on the site.

But I really do approve of your crusade to have youkai of all types included in Pathfinder! (^_^)=b

-- C.


gbonehead wrote:

My only request is that Bestiary 3 not be a stealth Oriental Bestiary.

Having a few in there, sure, I get it - there's a lot of support.

Having it be for all intents and purposes Paizo's Oriental Bestiary ...please don't do that. Put such things where they belong: in the Adventure Paths and any associated setting books.

How many are too many? I ask because D&D and PF have monsters from a lot of traditions. Why the oriental monsters are not a good source?


I can't stand cultural monster snobs.

It doesn't make sense that they dislike asian monsters when so many creatures that are used in "medevil" style d@d are not from those cultures and/or time periods. They won't use Kitsune, Yukionna, oni, or kirin because they don't "fit in" but they will use chimera, minotaur, medusa, and couatl because they do "fit in".

All monsters deserve a chance to be in the beastairy as long as they are well done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Greek Mytholodgy ins Western RPGaming probably fits a little better than Japanese/what have you.

I have no issue with any of this, just saying.

At the same time, incorporating eastern mytholodgy and monsters in a setting does change the feel, and can feel forced if not done properly.


Psiphyre wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like some Youkai. (These are not Oni)

Actually, the term youkai in Japan is a VERY broad term that covers all "native" (or naturalised) supernatural entities including ghosts and oni (but not really kami, which is strange, as there are many, many kami that would be youkai if it was not for their being worshipped... Sorry, clumsy sentence...).

Of course, Oni as defined by Pathfinder has a specific meaning, and thus may not be the same as what ever Pathfinder defines as "youkai". And not all things that ARE youkai will be defined as such in Pathfinder. Most youkai will probably just be "oriental fey" (e.g. yuki-onna, perhaps?), while some might just be a type of (monsterous) humanoid (e.g. tengu) or undead (e.g. ghosts).

It's also quite possible that kitsune (the new race to be), which IS a youkai, will not be labelled as a youkai as it is at present in Golarion, although it might be alluded to having been a youkai in the past (much like gnomes are NOT techinally fey [they're a player race] at the present in Golarion, but were in the past [I could be wrong about that... Need to check...]).

Short answer: You're both incorrect and correct.
As a blanket term saying that "Oni are not the same thing as youkai", you're incorrect.
As applied specifically to Pathfinder lore, you COULD be correct (and I say "could" because Pathfinder has yet to mention anything as being a youkai, but it's quite plausible in future products...).

But I really do approve of your crusade to have youkai of all types included in Pathfinder

I guess I learned something new about words

I would like to see more than just Oni (Demon). I want ones like Yuki-onna (Snow Woman), Amanojaku(A unique demon born of a Raging God and a Heavenly Nymph, I think), even Nurarihyon (leader of the Night Parade, and dam good thief).


Jeranimus Rex wrote:

Greek Mytholodgy ins Western RPGaming probably fits a little better than Japanese/what have you.

I have no issue with any of this, just saying.

At the same time, incorporating eastern mytholodgy and monsters in a setting does change the feel, and can feel forced if not done properly.

Eh.

Yuki no Onna --> snow spirit/snow fey. The same for Samurai in my current setting, standard western Order of the Basilisk cavaliers.

It takes no more tan1 minute/monster,

And in kitchen sink setting is an advantage don't change because you have proper monster for the proper zone, instead of ninjas fighting manticores. Unless you apply an oriental refluff in the other sense, of course ;)

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Kaiyanwang wrote:
gbonehead wrote:

My only request is that Bestiary 3 not be a stealth Oriental Bestiary.

Having a few in there, sure, I get it - there's a lot of support.

Having it be for all intents and purposes Paizo's Oriental Bestiary ...please don't do that. Put such things where they belong: in the Adventure Paths and any associated setting books.

How many are too many? I ask because D&D and PF have monsters from a lot of traditions. Why the oriental monsters are not a good source?

Never said they weren't a good source. I said I didn't want it to be Bestiary 3 in name only - and in practice be the Oriental Bestiary.

How many is too many? Darned if I know. But if every third monster is an onizuka or a yu-kaziki or unionga or hatiaika fu, I'm sure it'll be too many. We have a whole oriental Adventure Path coming down the pipe, and each issue will have an oriental bestiary, I'm sure. So I don't think we need another five score oriental monsters in the Bestiary 3.

Shadow Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
How many are too many? I ask because D&D and PF have monsters from a lot of traditions. Why the oriental monsters are not a good source?

Thing is, it depends as much on the sources of the other monsters as it does for percentage of Oriental monsters. If the book is 25% oriental monsters, but the remaining 75% is drawn more or less equally from dozens of other sources, then it will feel like the Oriental Bestiary, with other token monsters. If, on the other hand, it's 25% oriental monsters, 25% from Norse mythology, 25% from Egyptian mythology, and 25% either original or from other sources, it does NOT give the impression of being the Oriental Bestiary with other token monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gbonehead wrote:
How many is too many? Darned if I know. But if every third monster is an onizuka or a yu-kaziki or unionga or hatiaika fu, I'm sure it'll be too many. We have a whole oriental Adventure Path coming down the pipe, and each issue will have an oriental bestiary, I'm sure. So I don't think we need another five score oriental monsters in the Bestiary 3.

I think that after you dropped "haitaka fu" and other dismissive terms, I do not see what we could discuss together.

Kthulhu wrote:


Thing is, it depends as much on the sources of the other monsters as it does for percentage of Oriental monsters. If the book is 25% oriental monsters, but the remaining 75% is drawn more or less equally from dozens of other sources, then it will feel like the Oriental Bestiary, with other token monsters. If, on the other hand, it's 25% oriental monsters, 25% from Norse mythology, 25% from Egyptian mythology, and 25% either original or from other sources, it does NOT give the impression of being the Oriental Bestiary with other token monsters.

What if there are a lot famous oriental monsters, with inspiring features (that is, good for inspiring a statblock, an encounter, and a story for RP)? Should they be cropped?

Moreover, just because of japan media, a lot of oriental monsters could just be more known. Would be SO unreasonable put a little bit more of them in B3?

What about filling the book with norse monsters. Would it be the same? Moreover: 75% of NOT oriental monsters makes a Bestiary oriental?

Is B1 too greek because of hydras and pegasus? I ask.

Dark Archive

Kaiyanwang wrote:
gbonehead wrote:

My only request is that Bestiary 3 not be a stealth Oriental Bestiary.

Having a few in there, sure, I get it - there's a lot of support.

Having it be for all intents and purposes Paizo's Oriental Bestiary ...please don't do that. Put such things where they belong: in the Adventure Paths and any associated setting books.

How many are too many? I ask because D&D and PF have monsters from a lot of traditions.Why the oriental monsters are not a good source?

Because they are limited in use and are too stupid/bizarre/crappy?

It is a matter of taste, but if there are too many Asian themed creatures then yeah - I think that Paizo should release them in a separate book vs. using the B3 as stealth support for the JR AP. If that's the case I won't buy the book, I'm sure for many it will be a great reason to buy it.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
What if there are a lot famous oriental monsters, with inspiring features (that is, good for inspiring a statblock, an encounter, and a story for RP)?

Such as?

Shadow Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Moreover: 75% of NOT oriental monsters makes a Bestiary oriental?

Let's assume that B3 has 300 monsters. If 75 of those monsters have an oriental theme, but no more than three or four of the other monsters share any kind of a common theme, then yes, I damn well WOULD consider it an Oriental Bestiary.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Is B1 too greek because of hydras and pegasus? I ask.

No, but the total number of greek monsters is no more than (and is quite a bit less than some) other themes within that book. If anything, B1 is the demon/devil bestiary.

Dark Archive

Asia is the largest continent. Monsters from asian folklore filling up 1/4 of the 'international' bestiary sounds about right. Although 1/3 would probably be fine, too.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Kaiyanwang wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
How many is too many? Darned if I know. But if every third monster is an onizuka or a yu-kaziki or unionga or hatiaika fu, I'm sure it'll be too many. We have a whole oriental Adventure Path coming down the pipe, and each issue will have an oriental bestiary, I'm sure. So I don't think we need another five score oriental monsters in the Bestiary 3.

I think that after you dropped "haitaka fu" and other dismissive terms, I do not see what we could discuss together.

Dismissive? Nah. I'm trying to give you an idea of what all of this sounds like to me. You clearly are greatly learned about such things, and more power to you. However, to me, they're all just random strings of letters - they might as well be abaaaba, fuuduufu, geebeege and siisississ.

An entire book of that is worthless to me. It's worth a lot to someone who adores Eastern culture, and I get that. And I'm all for it being created so that they can get what they want; it's a popular topic and it deserves coverage, and it makes Pathfinder stronger as a whole to have material such as that in the expanded universe.

All I'm saying is that such material is not a general Bestiary. It's a reskinned Oriental Bestiary, and if they're going to make an Oriental Bestiary, they should call it an Oriental Bestiary, don't make a stealth Oriental Bestiary and call it Bestiary 3.


Call me crazy but I think if a book looks like, feels like, and sounds like a book of monsters it is still a bestiary. Despite where the monsters originate from. I dont think it should be called the oriental bestiary or any other name, just bestiary 3 will do.

Think about this, if you were playing in my game and I told you there was a brain sucking river monster that summons lightning storms terrorizinga village what would you do? My thought is you would roll with it. Now before you read on think about this, does that kind of creature sound cool and fit for a mideval themed fantasy game?

Fact is, the creature I just described is an african monster called the Mamlambo. Now honestly answer, did it bother you before you knew the monsters origin?


This thread is a lot of fun. So..

Auxmaulous wrote:


Such as?

Tengu, Tanuki, Kitsune, Kappa, Oni. Look, some of them were in the game from day 1.

Kthulhu wrote:


No, but the total number of greek monsters is no more than (and is quite a bit less than some) other themes within that book. If anything, B1 is the demon/devil bestiary.

B1 – the christian bestiary! :D

gbonehead wrote:


Dismissive? Nah. I'm trying to give you an idea of what all of this sounds like to me. You clearly are greatly learned about such things, and more power to you. However, to me, they're all just random strings of letters - they might as well be abaaaba, fuuduufu, geebeege and siisississ.

Man, not to be alarming, but if you classify sounds pronounced by strangers like this, it could sound racist or something similar.

Quote:


An entire book of that is worthless to me. It's worth a lot to someone who adores Eastern culture, and I get that. And I'm all for it being created so that they can get what they want; it's a popular topic and it deserves coverage, and it makes Pathfinder stronger as a whole to have material such as that in the expanded universe.

Again, I don't get why ASIAN is wrong, when greek or viking is not. Because of the "strange sounds", as above?

Quote:


All I'm saying is that such material is not a general Bestiary. It's a reskinned Oriental Bestiary, and if they're going to make an Oriental Bestiary, they should call it an Oriental Bestiary, don't make a stealth Oriental Bestiary and call it Bestiary 3.

Then I want devils in a christian bestiary. Devas in an indian bestiary. Djinn in an arabian bestiary..

Or, wait, I could get the usual cultural kitchen sink D&D and PF got from day 1.

:D all of this is even more fun than the Samurai/Ninjas threads. Unbelievable.

(yes, now I am the one dismissive).


Windcaler wrote:

First some creatures Ive heard about in my travels that would make good additions to bestiary 3

Ropen
Mamlambo
Ninki Nanka
Kikiyoan
Salawa
Kalanoro
Fangalobolo
Namibian Night stalker

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck are those things? I used to consider myself farely well up on cryptids, but I never even heard of these guys before.

Windcaler wrote:


As for other ideas

3. More Agathions. Specifically equinals, Ursidals (Bear agathion), and Pachydermals (elephant/rhino/mastadon type Agathion)

Yes on more agathions!... But I must have seen too much of My Little Ponies: FiM lately, because I'm wondering what a equinal version of Pinkie Pie would look like...


Something that I don't think has been thus far mentioned -- how about a monster based on American Indian horrors such as either the Flying Head or the Rolling Head? You know, a giant human head that flies or rolls around eating people and/or turning them into more monsters?

Dark Archive

Kaiyanwang wrote:

This thread is a lot of fun. So..

Auxmaulous wrote:


Such as?
Tengu, Tanuki, Kitsune, Kappa, Oni. Look, some of them were in the game from day 1.

Birdman (FF Kenku, not day one, but early on), Tanuki/Kitsune = Boring/Crap, Kappa = Utter crap and idiotic (+3 anuses), Oni (Ogre mage, was in at day 1, bad idea) = always reskinned these to just be magical demonic ogres.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Again, I don't get why ASIAN is wrong, when greek or viking is not. Because of the "strange sounds", as above?

It isn't the strange sounds or hidden racism; it comes down to influences and the rule of cool.

some reasoning and theories as they apply to me:
Greek, Indian and Arabic sourced creatures have been a big part of the game because of their literary and cinematic influences on the game. Namely the slew of Ray Harryhausen Sinbad and Argonaut movies. The concept of animated attacking skeletons may have been part of some obscure folklore prior to but it was Harryhausen that made that monster part of monster lore - and as such influenced the early developers of the game. Same with a show as obscure as Kolchak the Night Stalker (Raksasha, Succubus, Vampires, Werewolves, Ghosts) - they all had their impact.

I can't speak to the Viking thing and I don't really see a huge amount of support in gaming material besides Linnorms and some frozen/arctic environment creatures. Although an argument could also be the proximity of fantasy Viking/Nordic lands being closer to fantasy pseudo European lands, barbarian raids on faux Roman empires, etc. All in the neighborhood so to speak.
Similar creatures, Roman influences on medieval magic, Roman ruins, etc, there are several cultural and historical tie-ins. The Far East is exactly that, far - and that plays a huge part in injecting these weirdo monsters. I can plausibly throw in a Roman type creature in my pseudo euro game, maybe some ancient occult influences, a set of ancient ruins and so on. Asian themed creatures and characters need much more explanation to be placed in an environment that is so far away and removed from their homeland.

All that plus they have zero cinematic influence of presence in western movies in the last 90 years. The 20's- 40's gave us the Universal Monsters, plus some from literary sources, the 50's - 60's gave us Sci-fi, atomic creatures, invaders, giant bugs, Sinbad, et al. The 70's ushered in occult/satanic horror, zombies, the 80's and 90's were all about unstoppable monster murderers, Action, action-horror and so on. I would say Big Trouble in Little China was probably the closest thing to an action/fantasy/monster movie that fits the bill as solid Asian themed gaming influence - again this is minimal an impact and influence compared to all the other sources which have shaped the game up until recently.

So people will pine for Griffons, Cyclopes, Hydras, Titans, creatures/scenarios inspired by Indian, Arabic, Greek, Roman cultures, etc, due to that Harryhausen influence and nostalgia. And also their real world influence on the medieval West – just as middle eastern construction was an influence on Western castle design.

The only thing from the East that had an influence (on me) as a child were 60s-70s kung-fu movies, and that influence was a bad one – as in comedic, not to be taken seriously. Kappa just reinforce that view, plus they just add to the terribad list of crappy creatures which are part of D&D lore: CIFAL, Protein Polymorph, flumph, modrons + too many others

Edit: also if their was a Nordic top heavy Bestiary or AP I would also be reluctant to buy it just based on realistic level of use. Sure they would be easier to incorperate but it would be overkill, same with a Viking only AP, I would think twice about buying into it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
the terribad list of crappy creatures which are part of D&D lore: CIFAL, Protein Polymorph, flumph, modrons + too many others

Your entire post, and in fact your existence in this plane of reality are invalidated by calling out flumphs and modrons as crappy.

You might, maybe, have gotten away with calling out one of these - fine, nobody is perfect, to err is human. But both? Inexcusable.

;-)


Auxmaulous wrote:
Edit: also if their was a Nordic top heavy Bestiary or AP I would also be reluctant to buy it just based on realistic level of use. Sure they would be easier to incorperate but it would be overkill, same with a Viking only AP, I would think twice about buying into it.

As an FYI, kingmaker had a lot of germanic and viking mythological influences going for it. Linnorms and stuff are from there.

On the issue at hand: I love me some mythologies from around the world, and the more the merrier.

However care always has to be taken, hamfisting a whole bunch of monster together with little care for their atmosphere can really break suspension of disbelief.

Though fighting a hoard of Oni who serve a Linnorm and enslave Genies might make for a quirky whirlwind adventure.

Shadow Lodge

Kaiyanwang wrote:
Again, I don't get why ASIAN is wrong, when greek or viking is not. Because of the "strange sounds", as above?

Again, you seem to be attempting to purposefully misunderstand. I don't think I've seen a single person say they don't want Asian monsters in this bestiary period. What some of us are saying is that we don't want it to be the Asian Bestiary, with some other token monsters thrown in. I'd feel the same way if it were too heavily slanted towards Greek or Norse mythology as well. I want the bestiaries to have VARIETY. Besides, there's going to be ample opportunity for an additional ~30 asian monsters in the upcoming AP bestiaries.


more agathions
more fey
and more about the div (i think thats what their called).

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
I want the bestiaries to have VARIETY.

Absolutely. Bestiary 3 should have monsters drawn from many distinct mythologies: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hindu, Buddhist, Tamil, Balinese, Philippine, Malay, Indonesian. No more than 30 monsters, tops, from each of those mythologies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eric Hinkle wrote:
Windcaler wrote:

First some creatures Ive heard about in my travels that would make good additions to bestiary 3

Ropen
Mamlambo
Ninki Nanka
Kikiyoan
Salawa
Kalanoro
Fangalobolo
Namibian Night stalker

Pardon my ignorance, but what the heck are those things? I used to consider myself farely well up on cryptids, but I never even heard of these guys before.

Ropen: Often thought of as a flying dinosaur in Papau New Geneui (similar to a terodactyl). The Ropen is known for being a large featherless bird that has a wingspan reaching up to 15 feet. The defining characteristic is usually the glow that comes from its torso and tail and that many people claim to have seen it he night sky (interesting bit of fact here some videos Ive seen of Ropen sightings are in areas that 1. Planes cant fly in at night and 2. there are no significantly large flying birds)

Mamlambo: Its supposed to live in the Mzintlava River near Mount Ayliff in South Africa. The creature is supposed to have a fish like body ending in a horse shaped head. People think its a brain sucking river monster who can either control lightning storms or believe lightning storms call it

Ninki Nanka: Its an amphibious creature from west african folklore/legend (specifically Gambia) that has the body of a reptile and the head of a vicious horned dragon. Some locals believe that even seeing the beast will make the person die within a few days after

Kikiyoan: The Kikyoan is also from Gambia and legends/folklore say it is a huge owl (about the size of a person) that has incredibly sharp talons able to gut a man with a single swipe. Even today some tribes still perform rituals to depict the ferocity of the Kikiyoan

Salawa: The Salawa (arabic for scary wolf) is basicly a huge dog from Egypt. The Salawa is said to hide in dense sugar cane fields and attack anything and everything without provication. Defining characteristics include a bushy tail, muscular canine body, pointed ears, and huge claws for goring prey

Kalanoro: This one comes from Madagasgar. The kalanoro is a small creature (about 3 feet tall as the story goes) with a humanoid shape and covered in hair or fur. Its said that Kalanoro are incredibly strong which is unusual for a creature so small. There are two calling cards, the first being razor sharp fingernails that can extend outward. The second is the feet which are reversed (heel facing forward and toes facing backward), making it nearly impossible to track

Fangalobolo: This one is also from Madagasgar and is basicly a massive bat but has a white coloring. People say the Fagalobolo is known for scalping unsuspecting villagers and dragging people away into caves. It supposed to have huge dagger like claws able to tear people apart and grotesque face with massive fangs that can shred prey easily

Namibian Night stalker: The night stalker comes from, you guessed it, Namibia. The night stalker has a very compact body made for stealthy and quick take downs in large animals and the calling card is the long claws that are always out. The night stalker is supposed to impale prey on its claws leaving a huge puncture wound on the neck and keep prey pinned down till it bleeds to death.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Epic Meepo wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
I want the bestiaries to have VARIETY.
Absolutely. Bestiary 3 should have monsters drawn from many distinct mythologies: Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Hindu, Buddhist, Tamil, Balinese, Philippine, Malay, Indonesian. No more than 30 monsters, tops, from each of those mythologies.

This makes no sense. Asian cultures are all the same. Didn't know that ;)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Incidentally, has anyone ever statted up a forum troll? XP


No one has because a forum troll's form is unknown and far away so it's hateful typed words can do it's damage for it.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Kaiyanwang with the half-troll template wrote:
gbonehead wrote:


Dismissive? Nah. I'm trying to give you an idea of what all of this sounds like to me. You clearly are greatly learned about such things, and more power to you. However, to me, they're all just random strings of letters - they might as well be abaaaba, fuuduufu, geebeege and siisississ.
Man, not to be alarming, but if you classify sounds pronounced by strangers like this, it could sound racist or something similar.

Wow, zero to racist in 2.2 posts. Cool beans :)


How would sound to you someone saying that english names sounds too much "[insert strange sound]" and does not want to learn them?


i'm putting in my vote for giant killer tomatoes... i believe this falls into the native american plant monster category, and it's good eating, too. :)


Kaiyanwang wrote:
How would sound to you someone saying that english names sounds too much "[insert strange sound]" and does not want to learn them?

Funny thing is English, is the mixed salad of all the other languages.

Remember Bush's "Their is no french word for entrepreneur."
Entrepreneur is a french word folks.

Shadow Lodge

Yay! Frivolous accusations of racism! 'Bout time to lock this one down, in my less-than-humble opinion.


MORE DINOSAURS! Perhaps made a bit more fantasy, such as fire based stygimoloch or a diplodocus whose tail whip deals sonic damage. Also: congo dino-cryptids like kongomato, mokele-mbembe, ngoubou, emela ntouka, etc... More lycanthropes would be cool, like the werecrocs and weresharks mentioned in The Inner Sea World Guide. Finally, monsters native to Arcadia and Sarusan.


Psiphyre wrote:

Short answer: You're both incorrect and correct.

As a blanket term saying that "Oni are not the same thing as youkai", you're incorrect.
As applied specifically to Pathfinder lore, you COULD be correct (and I say "could" because Pathfinder has yet to mention anything as being a youkai, but it's quite plausible in future products...).

I think what he was getting at was that while oni may be yōkai, not all yōkai are oni.

Dragon78 wrote:

I can't stand cultural monster snobs.

It doesn't make sense that they dislike asian monsters when so many creatures that are used in "medevil" style d@d are not from those cultures and/or time periods. They won't use Kitsune, Yukionna, oni, or kirin because they don't "fit in" but they will use chimera, minotaur, medusa, and couatl because they do "fit in".

All monsters deserve a chance to be in the beastairy as long as they are well done.

Thank you. That logic has never made much sense to me, either.

Kaiyanwang wrote:
I think that after you dropped "haitaka fu" and other dismissive terms, I do not see what we could discuss together.

What the heck is a "haitaka fu," anyway?

Quote:

What if there are a lot famous oriental monsters, with inspiring features (that is, good for inspiring a statblock, an encounter, and a story for RP)? Should they be cropped?

Moreover, just because of japan media, a lot of oriental monsters could just be more known. Would be SO unreasonable put a little bit more of them in B3?

What about filling the book with norse monsters. Would it be the same? Moreover: 75% of NOT oriental monsters makes a Bestiary oriental?

Is B1 too greek because of hydras and pegasus? I ask.

I've got my theories, but I'm going to be polite and not go into detail.

Auxmaulous wrote:
Because they are limited in use and are too stupid/bizarre/crappy?

Subjective. I'll give you "bizarre," perhaps; but they're no more innately "stupid" or "crappy" than the Tolkien-inspired material that currently swamps the fantasy market.

Eric Hinkle wrote:
Something that I don't think has been thus far mentioned -- how about a monster based on American Indian horrors such as either the Flying Head or the Rolling Head? You know, a giant human head that flies or rolls around eating people and/or turning them into more monsters?

Delgeth. Uktena. Sisiutl.


Oggron wrote:
Incidentally, has anyone ever statted up a forum troll? XP

Um,.....not exactly, but I've been doing a trip to Asgard in my game, and I made some spellcasting trolls (nothing too fancy, just gave standard trolls a higher int and wizard levels,) and......modeled their behavior after somebody......


Kthulhu wrote:
Yay! Frivolous accusations of racism! 'Bout time to lock this one down, in my less-than-humble opinion.

Reread the haitaka fu post, look at my giant, lidless eye and tell me that is not at least a little bit dismissive and racist.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Reread the haitaka fu post, look at my giant, lidless eye and tell me that is not at least a little bit dismissive and racist.

I'm not sure what was up with that post. Was he lumping actual folklore in with something ("hatiaika fu") that he'd just made up on the spot?

551 to 600 of 732 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Bestiary 3 wish list All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.