In City of the Spider Queen there is an giant octopus with the arachnoid creature template. :)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.
Lords of Madness had the Neogi adventure, "Wreck of the Mindspider" w/ a Giant Octopus. I think I swapped it out for a Chuul, though.
And SKR's excellent Dungeon magazine adventure, "Lost Temple of Demogorgon", had an Octopus (Fiendish??) as well. Which I think I used at the time.
More on topic, I'm happy w/ the PF versions of classic (3.5 and earlier) monsters. I'm not always that happy w/ the new PF monsters in the back of the APs. Some are great, some not so great. But I would think they should at least be used to a degree in that particular AP; if not that particular issue. Not that I'm expecting the Heralds to be used understand...
| 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.
If the characters never encounter them, then no, they don't know that Golarion has those creatures in them.
A lot of the encounters are new and exciting, sure. But other ones are there to play off of familiarities and to reinforce that the PCs are playing in a fantasy world named Golarion.
Iconic encounters like goblins, trolls, skeletons aren't really there to try to blow your mind-- they're there for the same feeling you get when you see a cameo. You recognize them, but on "screen", the PCs don't, and it's fun to see how each group or situation treats the cameo.
On top of that, it helps reinforce the world. Wake of the Watcher, like you said-- the ghouls, the assassin, the octopus are all there to tell you that you're still playing in Golarion, especially when you fight creatures from other dimensions in that same book. And when I mean creatures, I don't mean two of one guy-- I mean multiple different creatures from multiple different dimensions! So what if you fight an assassin? It's there for you to say "Yesterday, I was scuffling with an assassin in a barn... and now I am gelled into a wall having eggs laid in my stomach by a shii-yodak."
On top of THAT, there's contrast. If every encounter is different, well, they never feel that special, do they? If every fight is epic, none of them are-- you don't have a moment to compare this new "epic" fight to anything that wasn't epic, so it really begins to make floating over a live volcano having a rock battle with the grand wizard of the league of incredible evil the bog standard. You need to fight golbins, ghouls, assassins, trolls and snakes so that the unknowable ones and shaffag-thuls feel more epic and more special.
Also, in a group where the party members never went full combat mode on goblins and trolls and instead spent their hours fighting Whipsadangles and Fozzawhatsits, after a while, in my opinion, this group would experience two things:
1. "Flickawargles? Wow, sounds like Fozzawhatsits to me"
2. "Ah, Fozzawhatsits again? Ugh. Can't you think of anything new?"
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing this game since 1982, I've seen enough goblins and ghouls, thanks.
Others haven't.
Look, it is easy for me as DM to swap in a "classic" monster when I want one. I know all about them. What I don't know or have tome to look for in the reams of monsters Paizo publishes is cool new stuff.
What, you've been playing this game since 1982 (26 years before its release, which is no mean feat), and you don't know to swap in a non-classic monster? That sounds like a very horrible learning disability.
Anyway, a lot of people haven't played this game, or any other, for very long, so they don't know how to swap in a classic monster.
Or they like classic monsters. After all, classic monsters are classic for a reason. And they want to see classic monsters in the APs.
Considering that this has been happening since the very first AP (which contained goblins) and continues on until the latest issues (#49, which is the latest AP installment, also has goblins. And skeletons. And dire rats.), I think a lot of people are very happy with this arrangement.
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.
No. They stay. They belong there. They're an integral part of the world, and the AP volumes take place in that very world. Ergo they need to be in those "scripted encounters".
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.
That's beyond crazy. And not good crazy.
I'm an expert about crazy, so I know this.
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?
Really. I don't know if you noticed, but this is Pathfinder.
Come on guys, use the stuff you print.
They printed the rogues, clerics, ghouls, octopuses, chuuls, spectres, yellow moulds and shambling mounds. So they use them.
I should never see another ghoul or specter in a Paizo adventure.
There is a simple solution for this: Never get another Paizo adventure. In fact, stop playing the game altogether. Because what you ask for will not happen.
Classic monsters are and will probably always be an important part of this game. Just like the game is about elf wizards, dwarf fighters, halfling rogues and human clerics rather than weird dragon thing warlocks, prevalent tieflings or giant runecasters, the monsters you will most commonly encounter are goblins, orcs, kobolds, demons, devils, dragons, minotaurs and their like. And that includes the modules and adventure paths, since common means appearing often.
You sound like you don't want to play Pathfinder any more. You want some new, totally different and edgy thing where everything is new.
Maybe Arcana Evolved? I never really got into it exactly because it was about different things than the classics. Player characters are fairies, giants, dragonmen and weirder things, the races classes that have been in D&D/PF for decades are almost all absent.
The fact is that this game will remain classic. The "same old" monsters that have been in the game for so long are still in.
Despite what you want, Golarion is not a world where the exotic is common. The common is common. The exotic is exotic. Chances of whole adventures without classics are slim to none.
I would like to see fewer new monsters. Every new monster in a published adventure is space that could be used for something else. Every new magic item, spell, etc, is space that could be used for the adventure.
Instead of more new monsters, I want to see more ways to use the old monsters. Instead of simply giving me goblins, give me half-dragon goblins sorcerers. Instead of giving me a goblin, give me a goblin with personality.
I also would like to see more mundane creatures used. An entire adventure with only animals and core race NPCs would be refreshing.
I've been gaming for more than 30 years. I like classics. My players like classics. Knowing something about the world they live in makes the world feel alive. If every encounter is new, there isn't anything to make the world feel alive. It ends up feeling randomized.
|
I can kinda see where the original poster is coming from. If we have all these awesome new monsters unique to Golarion, why aren’t we using them? Why aren’t we scripting out new niches for these creatures rather than writing up more generic aquatic races and generic brutish humanoid races?
I was playing in a recent Adventure Path where a friendly NPC PULLED HIS SKIN OFF AND STARTED HACKING AT ME WITH TWO SCIMITARS! It was awesome and unexpected and horrifying, probably the same level of horror the Lord of the Rings adventurers felt when a tidal wave of goblins poured through the ruined Dwarven tombs. New is surprising and refreshing and great.
We can use classic monsters, but if we do, we should use them in ways that are new, surprising, and great.
We can use classic monsters, but if we do, we should use them in ways that are new, surprising, and great.
You mean like this? :)
The Paizo website is a midden heap for all the misfits of the realm. I've seen you looking at the Adventure Paths and his boys. Those are your new brothers, cibet44, how do you like them? Sullen peasants, debtors, poachers, rapers, thieves, and bastards like you all wind up on the Pathfinder Boards, watching for grumkins and snarks and all the other monsters your wet nurse warned you about....
I don't want to pay $20 for an AP volume and have 60% of the scripted encounters be "Specters(4"). I can do that myself.
Then save yourself $20, and do so. If its that easy, it should be no problem?
Oh, right.... the rest of the AP material, the plot, the personas, the setting....
Fact is, if the shoe fits, be happy you have the shoe, don't complain it isn't a boot. The vast majority of the encounters you are describing are there because they are the correct encounter to place relative to the setting, plot, adventure level, and available material.
Setting: "Another goblin? Bleh, this is stupid." No, this is Sandpoint, and its full of them.
Plot: "The endboss is a tiefling too? Lame!" The plot is about the devil tainted son of the theive's guildmaster, in case you forgot.
Adventure level: "A specter? Booring?" Yeah, well, a banshee would flat out kill your character at this level, and that would be more booring, don't you think?
Available Material: "Why just another dragon, why not something interesting like a Jabberwock or something?" Because this adventure was written prior to Bestiary 2, and Paizo doesn't have time machines hooked up to their printers to do MAGICAL CHRONOSPACE REVISIONS.
You are a PFS member and have a relatively long post history, so I will refrain from making any assumptions about what you have played and how much material you own. But your complaint has very little substance or proof to it, being entirely opinion, and the manner in which you phrase it does nothing to help your chances of being taken seriously.
I've got a FEVER
and the only cure
is more GOBLIN!
I don't clerics get that spell on their list.
Creative Director
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
For the most part, we leave the bulk of adventure monster selection to the author, and we usually try NOT to change those selections. At other times, though, we do assign monsters. In either case, there's a constant—one person's dragon is the next person's lava child. AKA: there are lots of different monsters, and we like to spread the love.
Furthermore... there's a "commonality" to the monsters in Golarion. Ghouls are VERY common, as an example, and you'll see them showing up now and then as a result. If we constantly used different monsters, we would have less of a campaign setting and more of a random monster of the week; using and reusing monsters helps the world feel like a living place and not some randomly stocked freak show.
|
|
Indeed, in my Shackled City games I make sure that when they're traveling, they're meeting much the same monsters as before. Dinosaurs, hillfolk bandits, and animals. I don't have some new demon or construct from the latest manual jump out at them because that wouldn't make sense for the local area.
|
Creative Director
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In ANY case... one of the greatest powers a GM has is the ability to change things in their game as they run things. Don't like a monster we chose? There's a lot of options for you for replacements.
We pick the monsters we pick because they're the ones we like and the ones we think make the most sense for the encounter. We won't come to your house and confiscate your game materials if you change them.
Unless you take out any dinosaurs or froghemoths. Do that and it's ON!
Tolkien must really bore you.
This is unusual? Tolkien's all right viewed separately, but he's really had too much influence on fantasy as a whole. (Hence, my setting project.)
Using PF4 Fortress of the Stone Giants as a random example, that module uses the Deathweb, Hound of Tindalos, Scanderig, Shining Child, and Runeslave, all of which were brand new for that adventure (although of course the Hound is an established Lovecraft creature).
Minor nitpick: the Hounds of Tindalos are the creation of Frank Belknap Long, not Lovecraft. (They're Cthulhu Mythos, so easy enough mistake to make.)
|
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
You do realize that Paizo has been using monsters from the Tome of Horrors all the way back to Pathfinder #1 - Burnt Offerings? In fact, I doubt there's an AP volume that doesn't use at least a few monsters from the Tome of Horrors.
|
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.
Then I guess Paizo can stop publishing all those new monsters in the AP volumes and the hundreds of pages of bestiaries too, right? Since you're not interested in seeing them in the APs?
For me, like I've said many times in this thread already, the GM can handle the mundane stuff and pepper it in when appropriate, that's easy. The extraordinary is what I want Paizo to deliver. I don't want to pay $20 for an AP volume and have 60% of the scripted encounters be "Specters(4"). I can do that myself.
The problem here might not be Paizo, it might be that some GMs see an encounter with a unique paragraph of read-aloud text, 4 paragraphs of unique GM-text, all set in a unique context and a unique environment and yet all they can see is "Spectres(4)".
If an encounter is just the species of creatures involved then it is not an encounter. Your encounters with Varisian goblins in Burnt Offerings are going to be rather different to your encounters with Varisian goblins in We Be Goblins (to give an extreme example).
|
|
Well, I love my classics monsters, even though the problem is they have been used a lot, so my players are not quite surprised by them. Especially at low levels, because this is what most people tend to play.
Hell, sometimes my players even react with contempt (oooh, mere ogres).
The trick here I feel is more to introduce variants, and showcase them. Also, do not let the players know in advance what they are against. Mislead them.
A good thing to do is also to put new monsters in place of classics, but occupying a similar niche. Or, on the way to bust the identified Troll menace, spring something unexpected, so that they have to expend some of their fire-based resources to fight it.
A mix of old and new is the best thing.
The other problem now is the knowledge skills : in previous editions, you would not know that trolls are combatted by Fire, until you had done this by trial and error. Players now expect to be served the monster weaknesses on a platter. This is not necessarily bad, but you need to alter your playing style to reflect this.
And lastly : do not place the monster in a vacuum, make the environment a part of the fight. A good fight in an unexpected place is remembered more than the standard dungeon room.
|
You do realize that Paizo has been using monsters from the Tome of Horrors all the way back to Pathfinder #1 - Burnt Offerings? In fact, I doubt there's an AP volume that doesn't use at least a few monsters from the Tome of Horrors.
That's easy enough to check by looking at Section 15 of the OGL in each volume.
02 - The Skinsaw Murders03 - Hook Mountain Massacre
08 - Seven Days to the Grave
10 - A History of Ashes
13 - Shadow in the Sky
26 - The Sixfold Trial
27 - What lies in Dust
30 - The Twice Damned Prince
46 - Wake of the Watcher
It should be noted, however, that many ToH creatures are much older than 3E stuff like the chuul. I'm quite happy with the balance that exists now between old and new monsters and even though I have ToH Complete, I hope Paizo will continue to include some ToH monsters in their Bestiaries.
I think what Paizo really needs to do is create non-copywritten versions of the classic monsters they couldn't put in yet. Like Mind Flayers and Beholders.
Like....squidfolk...and eye...floating...float eye...
|
I think what Paizo really needs to do is create non-copywritten versions of the classic monsters they couldn't put in yet. Like Mind Flayers and Beholders.
Like....squidfolk...and eye...floating...float eye...
James and Erik have several times stated that they have no intentions of going around closed content in such way.
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.
The idea to include more monsters from the Bestiary 2+ sounds reasonable. Saying that an NPC isn't allowed to ride a horse and that he has to ride a giant candiru instead doesn't make much sense.
|
|
In ANY case... one of the greatest powers a GM has is the ability to change things in their game as they run things. Don't like a monster we chose? There's a lot of options for you for replacements.
We pick the monsters we pick because they're the ones we like and the ones we think make the most sense for the encounter. We won't come to your house and confiscate your game materials if you change them.
Unless you take out any dinosaurs or froghemoths. Do that and it's ON!
I'll hold them down for you. Froghemoth fans, unite!
PLEASE tell me that Pathfinder Battles will have a Froghemoth figure, please!
Though it now has another name, Pathfinder is Dungeons & Dragons. Something new once and a while is fine, but when I play D&D, I want my ghouls, wolves, orcs, goblins, trolls, wraiths, octopuses (octopi?), kobolds, etc.
And when it comes down to descriptions, everyone knows what those creatures are. You say "Goblin", and everyone now has a good idea what they are fighting. They don't know what a Doohickey, a Whatchamacallit, or a InsertRandomNameHere is.
Now I don't buy pre-made adventures, so I don't care what is actually in them. But if I did, I would want the iconic D&D monsters in them, just as I would want the NPCs to have the iconic D&D classes (fighter, wizards, rogue, cleric, druid, paladin, etc).
Then I guess Paizo can stop publishing all those new monsters in the AP volumes and the hundreds of pages of bestiaries too, right? Since you're not interested in seeing them in the APs?
These two sentences don't make sense together.
It's just that with the way Paizo is pumping out bestiaries and other new monster entries it seems like the appetite for new monsters is insatiable. It's just odd to me that the apparent demand for new monsters doesn't seem to translate into them showing up in the APs.
These two things may not correspond - pumping out monsters in an AP and popularity.
While I like new monsters on occasion, I only tolerate the number of new monsters being pumped out because in many cases they're jammed in with the AP (which is what I really want). I'm stuck getting the monsters because I want the AP...
The delicious irony of the OP's argument is that, of all the AP volumes they could have picked as an example of stale monster selection, they chose Wake of the friggin' Watcher, which has more exotic creatures in it than any adventure I can recall having read in the last several years.
Which is not far off from what I'm saying. I don't want to tolerate the new monsters I want to use them.
Well, perhaps a letter to Paizo's powers-that-be explaining how they're preventing you from using those monsters would result in some sort of policy change.
|
|
I had a GM once when I was playing Marvel as a young man. He would start the game off by opening a book and saying "Ok, let's see who we can put you up against." Each time it was a different villian. A new face. It took me months to realize there was a plot to the game.
Unique opponents = cool, as long as there is a reason. I see what the op looking for as this...
Designer 1: "Ok people, I need somthing to add to 5 that will give me a result of 8"
Designer 2: "3"
Designer 1: "No! I don't want the same old thing used. There are infinate numbers out there, find me something new and exciting to use."
Designer 2: "But three works perfectly, it fits, and we all know where it is on the number scale, it is perfect for adding to 5 to get 8"
Designer 1: "I could have chosen 3 myself. I'm paying you to find NEW numbers to use, get on it!! Maybe pi divided by 2.. + 100 * .20... I don't know, just find something maggots!"
|
|
Unique opponents = cool, as long as there is a reason. I see what the op looking for as this...
Or maybe like this:
Designer 1: "Ok people, we have reams of cool new monsters that we all believe enhance the game otherwise we would not have bothered publishing them, right? So lets write some cool new stories that use them."
Designer 2: "Ok. Lets start off with kobolds and a shark for part one..."
Designer 1: "Uhh, hold up. Part one is set near a seaside town where kobolds are known to live. Lets let the GMs add the sharks and what not, they know they exist and are familiar with them. Give me something new. Here, take a look at these bestiaries we just published-"
Designer 3: "I know! Instead of kobolds how about goblins and ghouls? They live in the area too."
Designer 1: "True, I do love goblins, and ghouls are integral to our setting, but I don't think you're seeing my point. A decent GM can add a goblin or a shark or an octopus. We are the pros though. You know? The dreamers of the dream and all? We have access to all the monster books every day. Here, I brought everyone a copy of our latest bestiary lets see what we can come up with!"
So you think they should make adventures with blank encounters so DM can fill them? I thought we were paying them for complete adventures...
Yea, I'm being obtuse. What creatures should they use? Thoes that fit best regardless of whether they are from bestiary 1, 2, 3 or anywhere else, otherwise they aren't doing thier job.
If we have all these awesome new monsters unique to Golarion, why aren’t we using them?
Where are you getting monsters unique to Golarion. I think they forgot to send me some books.
Sure, there's the stuff in the APs themselves, but those monsters are usually used in the AP itself.
I was playing in a recent Adventure Path where a friendly NPC PULLED HIS SKIN OFF AND STARTED HACKING AT ME WITH TWO SCIMITARS! It was awesome and unexpected and horrifying
And the next time you'll go "Oh, yeah, that's right, he rips his skin off, how *yawn* horrible"
That's the appeal of the classic: They work again and again and again.
The Paizo website is a midden heap for all the misfits of the realm. I've seen you looking at the Adventure Paths and his boys. Those are your new brothers, cibet44, how do you like them? Sullen peasants, debtors, poachers, rapers, thieves, and bastards like you all wind up on the Pathfinder Boards, watching for grumkins and snarks and all the other monsters your wet nurse warned you about....
I'm sure I never signed or swore anything about not screwing around any more.
Unless you take out any dinosaurs or froghemoths. Do that and it's ON!
Boy, must you be pissed off about meteors.
I think we all know now why Aroden died: That Starstone came down and killed all those Azlanti and snake people and dinosaurs and froghemoths, and Double J here was probably eating furniture out of rage. At least the bugger was under water like Megatron in the first Transformer film.
But then along comes Aroden, dives down and brings the sucker back up, like in that horrible sequel.
That must have really irked you, mister Jacobs. And he was even made a god because of this. And then brought others to see this stone and touch it, and laugh at the dinosaurs and frog monsters and become a god! You must have been seething.
ADMIT IT! THE GUY MADE YOU MAD! SO WHEN HE CAME BACK DOWN, YOU WAITED FOR HIM IN A DARK ALLEY AND YOU KILLED HIM!. YOU TOTALLY KILLED HIM! YOU HATED HIM AND HE WAS SO SUCCESSFUL AND HE REMINDED YOU OF THE STONE THAT KILLED YOUR DINOSAURS AND YOU COULDN'T STAND THAT!
I WANT YOU TO TELL ME THE TRUTH!
...
I rest my case.
I prefer the classics. To many new monsters has always left me wondering "How the heck do all of these races even fit on this planet?"
Big planet.
Which is not far off from what I'm saying. I don't want to tolerate the new monsters I want to use them.Well, perhaps a letter to Paizo's powers-that-be explaining how they're preventing you from using those monsters would result in some sort of policy change.Maybe my posts are too long and not being read all the way through, sorry about that. I'll repeat the pertinent info here:
"As I said above based on what I have read of KM and CC, while the APs themselves may be great, it's not worth it for me to get any of bestiaries to run them. Based on the encounters I'm seeing I just don't see the value they bring if I run the APs as written (which I do). YMMV"
I, for one, am quite happy to not need to buy every new bestiary in order to run the latest adventure.
(octopi?)
No. Not octopus (with a long u), either.
Sometimes, fancy is incorrect. Your first instinct was right.
Which is not far off from what I'm saying. I don't want to tolerate the new monsters I want to use them.Well, perhaps a letter to Paizo's powers-that-be explaining how they're preventing you from using those monsters would result in some sort of policy change.
Good idea. I'll write the letter at once.
Not the one about the stuff you suggested, but the one about how using monsters differently would prevent me from using those APs. :P
So you think they should make adventures with blank encounters so DM can fill them?
Worked for B1. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unique opponents = cool, as long as there is a reason. I see what the op looking for as this...
Or maybe like this:
Designer 1: "Ok people, we have reams of cool new monsters that we all believe enhance the game otherwise we would not have bothered publishing them, right? So lets write some cool new stories that use them."
Designer 2: "Ok. Lets start off with kobolds and a shark for part one..."
Designer 1: "Uhh, hold up. Part one is set near a seaside town where kobolds are known to live. Lets let the GMs add the sharks and what not, they know they exist and are familiar with them. Give me something new. Here, take a look at these bestiaries we just published-"
Designer 3: "I know! Instead of kobolds how about goblins and ghouls? They live in the area too."
Designer 1: "True, I do love goblins, and ghouls are integral to our setting, but I don't think you're seeing my point. A decent GM can add a goblin or a shark or an octopus. We are the pros though. You know? The dreamers of the dream and all? We have access to all the monster books every day. Here, I brought everyone a copy of our latest bestiary lets see what we can come up with!"
...Thank you for making the argument against yourself.
When 'This creature is a level appropriate challenge which is deeply connected to the setting of the adventure' is a reason not to use them, something has gone incredibly twisted with your logic. Are you honestly suggesting that Burnt Offerings would have been improved if the Goblin tribes which are known menaces around Sandpoint had nothing to do with what was going on? That Ashes at Dawn is badly designed purely because the PCs must negotiate a court of vampires, as opposed to a court of, I don't know, Neh-Thalggus? That an AP should be able to travel the length and breadth of Belkzen without once encountering an orc, because no AP should ever include orcs?
Meanwhile, every AP has used unique creatures, some from 3PP, particularly the Tome of Horrors, some introduced in the AP Bestiary and used in the adventure. (Or they were from a 3PP, appeared in an AP, and got a conversion in the Bestiary 2, like the Dust Digger). Burnt Offerings brought us Sinspawn, the tentamort, the bunyip, Goblin Dogs. Skinsaw Murders brought us the Faceless Stalkers and Lamia Matriarchs. Hook Mountain Massacre showed us Ogrekin and the Mother of Oblivion. Fortress of the Stone Giants for all that is was crammed with giants was a smorgasbord of new monsters, like the Shining Children, Taiga Giants, and Hounds of Tindalos. Sins of the Saviors included the Shemhazian demon and a mage whose skin was made out of mithril. Spires of Xin-Shalast? Rune Giants, the Wendigo, the Decapus, Skulks, Denizens of Leng, those harpy-like lamia-kin whose name escapes me, the Crag Spiders Rune Giants ride on. And that's the adventure path which is most crammed with classic monsters, deliberately seeking to evoke classic D&D modules and tropes.
|
Creative Director
|
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.
Honestly, I'd have to agree with you. It's an interesting thing to think about... but in the end, it's just so diametrically opposed to how adventures are built that it's not much more than a curiosity in the end. I'm not trying to belittle or marginalize the OP's post... it's just that's not the way RPG adventures work is all.
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.Honestly, I'd have to agree with you. It's an interesting thing to think about... but in the end, it's just so diametrically opposed to how adventures are built that it's not much more than a curiosity in the end. I'm not trying to belittle or marginalize the OP's post... it's just that's not the way RPG adventures work is all.
RPG adventures never start with the author saying "Monster X is cool and underused, I'm going to write a module featuring those"? Colour me skeptical.
I suspect "Escape From Meenlock Prison" was inspired by the meenlock monster entry, for instance.