| 34 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uh, no. I'm just fine with skeletons and goblins in my low-level adventures rather than xyxivorts and snoovitzes, thanks.
We now have 2 bestiaries in print and another on the way and tons of creatures in each AP volume. Dear Paizo, use them, extensively. If a Paizo module or AP volume comes across an editors or developers desk and it contains a single monster that exists in the 3.5 SRD it should be immediately replaced with something new from a bestiary or previous AP volume.
Just paging through "Wake of the Watcher" I do see some new monsters, but I also see: a rogue/assassin, many many clerics, ghouls, an octopus, chuuls, spectres, yellow mold, and shambling mounds. Really? with thousands of new monsters in print this volume has an octopus, ghouls, specters, and yellow mold? An octopus?? Come on guys, use the stuff you print. I should never see another ghoul or specter in a Paizo adventure.
lol
you noticed some of that going on as well?
Uh, no. I'm just fine with skeletons and goblins in my low-level adventures rather than xyxivorts and snoovitzes, thanks.
oh, come one! Don't be hatin on my snoovitzes!
|
A LOT of the SRD monsters are some of the classics. NPCs fill a different role than most monsters. And dude? And octopus is a real-life animal.
Besides, what you're asking for is going way WAY beyond the impossible. Take out all the chulls? Yeah, that wouldn't really have too big of an impact. But taking out all the goblins? Suddenly Golarion doesn't feel much like Golarion any more. And it gets worse as you take away more things like kobolds, ogres, orcs, etc.
Hell, my wish for the monsters of the 3.5 SRD is that Paizo finishes them off within a bestiary or two...why ignore a ready-made source? I see no reason NOT to convert every monster in the SRD to Pathfinder eventually.
stuff
Tolkien must really bore you.
stuffTolkien must really bore you.
And how!
/blasphemy
I've been playing this game since 1982, I've seen enough goblins and ghouls, thanks.
I can appreciate that; too much of the same thing can be boring. But it doesn't make much sense to get rid of vampires, say, (which have some association for many people) and instead substitute chazzwazzers into any story that would have used vampires (where chazzwozzers are a blank slate); you lose out on the vampire-y flavour in exchange for something that nobody's ever heard of.
Let me ask you: Are you a fan of the kruthik from 3E D&D?
I've been playing this game since 1982, I've seen enough goblins and ghouls, thanks.
I've been playing since 2010, I've yet to see a Ghoul. I've knigted a Goblin before though, that was fun.
a rogue/assassin, many many clerics, ghouls, an octopus, chuuls, spectres, yellow mold, and shambling mounds
You know what stands out to me as 3.5? Chuuls, Yellow Mold and Shambling Mounds.
Those are AD&D things, which I think have nothing to do with classic monsters, and should be avoided by Paizo.Clerics, Ghouls, Assassins and Octopi are the ones I'm fine with, because they're not AD&D; they're classic legend.
I personally don't care for "random arbitrary monster X" monsters. Giants, dragons, ghouls, trolls and so on are staples, and they should remain staples. I feel nothing from facing off against a "Xandthard" or whatever because they're just ... so arbitrary and made-up. If I want random creatures, I'll just turn on my kid's shows. She loves "In The Night Garden", with it's "Pinky Ponk" and "Tomliboos" and "Upsy Daisy".
Not really. Don't know much about it. Sorry.
Let me ask you: Are you a fan of the kruthik from 3E D&D?
You have concisely summed up how I feel about most new (e.g. non-SRD) monsters:
"Not really [a fan]. Don't know much about it. Sorry."
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: And you see a grudlink.
Players: WTF is a grudlink?
GM: It's a small humainoid that loves fire, hates writing, horses, and dogs. It has a huge mouth a very wide head.
Players: Why the hell are you calling goblins "grudlinks"?
GM: Some twit convinced Paizo that monsters that have been iconic since before Gygax was even born should be eliminated from the game.
With all the made up monster names in this thread so far, I'm starting to think a Willy Wonka game is being made by Paizo...
With all the made up monster names in this thread so far, I'm starting to think a Willy Wonka game is being made by Paizo...Some purloined notes from the Future of Paizo seminar said something about a new game being sort of 'Call of Cthulhu meets Candyland.'
I would definitely play that, even just out of morbid curiosity.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM: Some twit convinced Paizo that monsters that have been iconic since before Gygax was even born should be eliminated from the game.
It bears noticing that these creatures - goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, etc - are part of human history. Go look them up on wikipedia. It isn't as if Tolkien/Gygax/etc simply invented them out of whole cloth. Denying them their place in a fantasy game borders on absurd. You'd do just as well to remove elves.
Or, simply put, if you don't want to play in a 'fantasy' game, then please do enjoy your spin-off. Tell us all about it and we'll probably steal some of the best ideas. Just don't try and shoe-horn that back into the genre.
|
|
I thought of how cool it would be to create a whole new set of player character core races to replace the humans, etc. Then I just forgot about that, and spent my valuable spare time drafting adventures, not worrying about insignificant details like core race redundancy.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say. Thank you for putting it better than I could.
The setting is done for you, why re-do work that isn't required when you could work on things as yet unfinished?
We now have 2 bestiaries in print and another on the way and tons of creatures in each AP volume. Dear Paizo, use them, extensively. If a Paizo module or AP volume comes across an editors or developers desk and it contains a single monster that exists in the 3.5 SRD it should be immediately replaced with something new from a bestiary or previous AP volume.
...
Come on guys, use the stuff you print. I should never see another ghoul or specter in a Paizo adventure.
.. Pass.
(Though opponent variation is a very good thing. Just not to the degree that the OP implies. But more "classics" from the Tome of Horrors is also good.)
At first I thought this thread was about using monsters that exist in the 3.5 SRD but not in the Bestiaries. That list would have to be fairly small.
But to complain about using iconic monsters in adventures? That seems a bit strange. New monsters get used all the time in APs. In fact, there are 6-8 new ones at the back of each AP. Sprinkle them into the adventure to add more flavor if you like.
The adventure writer should be free to use whichever monster fits the adventure best. If you are bored of ghouls or whatever, feel free to substitute them yourself if you really want to.
I never said to take them out of the world. I just said to take them out of the scripted encounters in the AP volumes. That's a big difference. We know Golarian has these creatures in it, cities full of some of them, so they are good for GM placement or wandering/ad hoc encounters. If Paizo is going to bother to script an encounter it should be remarkable and unique.
Bolded Bit: And you don't see that as being remarkable and unique
OR
Gee whiz with a global population of 50,000,000 plus goblins and roughly that many Orc's why is it I have never seen one in my life. Yet I am 15th level and Baron of a huge tract of land bordering a mountain system full of caves. From what I hear other kingdoms are overrun with the things.
I will give you a 4/10 for the effort, would support more trolling by this author.
(Though opponent variation is a very good thing. Just not to the degree that the OP implies. But more "classics" from the Tome of Horrors is also good.)
I am fairly certain we will continue to see more monsters from Tome of Horrors appear in adventures. Particularly now that they've been updated for Pathfinder for Paizo.
|
But..but..I don't have minis for grindylows or vemeraks or chardas. My poor proxies only have so much range. I mean I can tell my players that fiendish snake is really a reefclaw, but that doesn't give it pincers. And an ogre mini just can't play the part of a seugathi. I don't care how many times it's failed out of Juiliard.
I guess that means those geniuses at Paizo are just going to have to get Wizkids to make minis for all these fancy new monsters they've dreamed up with their opium-clouded minds. Okay. I've got to go break it to the ghoul minis that I need them to play a bunch of blodeuwedds tonight...whatever the hell those are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DeepCrows it is ! nothing but deep crows
I never said to take them out of the world. I just said to take them out of the scripted encounters in the AP volumes. That's a big difference. We know Golarian has these creatures in it, cities full of some of them, so they are good for GM placement or wandering/ad hoc encounters. If Paizo is going to bother to script an encounter it should be remarkable and unique.
Besides, what you're asking for is going way WAY beyond the impossible. Take out all the chulls? Yeah, that wouldn't really have too big of an impact. But taking out all the goblins? Suddenly Golarion doesn't feel much like Golarion any more. And it gets worse as you take away more things like kobolds, ogres, orcs, etc.
NO NO NO!!!
Definitely still want to see the Classics in the PAIZO adventure Paths. I don't need to see monsters for the sake of them being new. Most of those are redundant anyway.
If the classics work, use them please!
DeepCrows it is ! nothing but deep crows
Hey now! If I had stats for deep crows, I'd be running one next session. As a replacement for a terrifying dragon or something.
And I wouldn't have to describe it or anything; my whole group would be like, "Oh crap! Its a DEEP CROW!"
GM: Some twit convinced Paizo that monsters that have been iconic since before Gygax was even born should be eliminated from the game.It bears noticing that these creatures - goblins, kobolds, minotaurs, etc - are part of human history. Go look them up on wikipedia. It isn't as if Tolkien/Gygax/etc simply invented them out of whole cloth. Denying them their place in a fantasy game borders on absurd. You'd do just as well to remove elves.
Or, simply put, if you don't want to play in a 'fantasy' game, then please do enjoy your spin-off. Tell us all about it and we'll probably steal some of the best ideas. Just don't try and shoe-horn that back into the genre.
Simply put and I agree!
DeepCrows it is ! nothing but deep crowsHey now! If I had stats for deep crows, I'd be running one next session. As a replacement for a terrifying dragon or something.
And I wouldn't have to describe it or anything; my whole group would be like, "Oh crap! Its a DEEP CROW!"
3.5 stats are in PF #16 Endless Night, but they're not OGL.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never said to take them out of the world. I just said to take them out of the scripted encounters in the AP volumes. That's a big difference. We know Golarian has these creatures in it, cities full of some of them, so they are good for GM placement or wandering/ad hoc encounters. If Paizo is going to bother to script an encounter it should be remarkable and unique.
Besides, what you're asking for is going way WAY beyond the impossible. Take out all the chulls? Yeah, that wouldn't really have too big of an impact. But taking out all the goblins? Suddenly Golarion doesn't feel much like Golarion any more. And it gets worse as you take away more things like kobolds, ogres, orcs, etc.
So:
take out a common creature to place something unique in each encounter in a adventure/AP series? It is what you want?When you go around on the street of your city, what you expect to encounter? Humans and dogs or yetis and dodos?
If I travel a caravan route in Varisia I can expect an attack from bandits or goblins, an encounter with a new monster should not be routine, it should be something special.
(Though opponent variation is a very good thing. Just not to the degree that the OP implies. But more "classics" from the Tome of Horrors is also good.)I am fairly certain we will continue to see more monsters from Tome of Horrors appear in adventures. Particularly now that they've been updated for Pathfinder for Paizo.
I don't really want to see Third Party publisher monsters in adventure Paths. I just played through Crimson throne, and not having all of the monsters available was annoying. Now I want to look forward to AP's where I have all of the creatures available. not just a stat block in the AP but the actual monster entry whether it is from a Bestiary or an adventure Path.
I don't generally buy third party products except for adventures. When I was running 3rd edition I bought from Paizo because of Dragon and Dungeon. I am sure the Tome of Horrors is great, but I don't want the monsters there included in AP's. Where will it stop. I buy Pathfinder because I trust the developers. I found alot of 3rd party support to be no better than a homebrew I could do myself.
Not passing judgement on necromancer games. I never used their source material products, only adventures. I
DeepCrows it is ! nothing but deep crowsHey now! If I had stats for deep crows, I'd be running one next session. As a replacement for a terrifying dragon or something.
And I wouldn't have to describe it or anything; my whole group would be like, "Oh crap! Its a DEEP CROW!"
While my group was playing in a modified Savage Tide game, our party came across a Deep Crow, managed somehow to kill it, and looted its Deep Crow eggs. Our party ranger was scheming as to how he was going to make one his animal companion.
I'm indifferent to the OP's goals and all.
But I'm gonna be honest. I have never, ever seen a published adventure with an octopus before.
In City of the Spider Queen there is an giant octopus with the arachnoid creature template. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's one more important factor: GM prep time.
Every "new" monster is a new statblock and new tactics which the GM must familiarize himself with before running the encounter. With high CR statblocks, it gets ugly. You have to remember dozens of feats, special abilities and spells in order to run the combat competently and give your players a challenge. That takes time, and every GM is time-starved. I can spare maximum 2 hours prepping for an AP session, and that's very busy time. I prefer a healthly mix of new monsters which I have to learn beforehand and tired and tested classics which I can run with one hand and eye missing, such as ghouls, giants, driders or glabrezus.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I simply don't believe that making new creatures is a yardstick of imagination. Heaping on new monsters just for the sake of it would get tedious and boring once they "new" creatures become other old creatures with a new paint job and a small twist. (That would happen faster than you think).
Writing kick-ass adventures utilizing what many believe to be staples of the fantasy genre in interesting, new ways is a far superior process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a FEVER
and the only cure
is more GOBLIN!
LAWL @ people thinking they can 'force' or 'convince' Paizo of anything with forum posts.
Well, the entire Advanced Players Guide is a response to one my many forum ultimatums....