Bestiary 4 Wish List


Product Discussion

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,239 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>

Epic Meepo wrote:

Redcaps are in Bestiary 2.

Malks, as far as I (and Google) can tell, were invented by Jim Butcher.

He could be asked to allow them...

Spoiler:
I have yet to read the book in which Harry plays RPG.

Liberty's Edge

Even though the Howler Wasps aren't open content, I still'd like to see a monster using that general concept of MONKEY BEES. Hell, just call 'em MONKEY BEES, as that's pretty much how everyone refers to them already, maybe even make 'em related to the Thirae.


Behemoth

Roc

Leviathan

Any of the wicked awesome biblical monsters, apocryphal or otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

Nation Prophetic wrote:

Behemoth

Roc

Leviathan

They've already got 'em. The Behemoths in Bestiary Three are very blatantly based on them.

Though I would love Devils based on the 7-Headed Beast, the Locusts and those weird smoke-spewing lion-horses from Revelation.


Malk is shorthand for Grimalkin...which is something from folklore/old lit, so probably available to stat up.


Lol some people make wishes and wish for creatures that are already in Bestiary 1... if you don't have bestiary 1/2 and 3 why would you wish for bestiary 4 at all? :p

And Grimalkin would be awesome, can be the same creature as Cait Sith/Cat Sidhe.

Howler Wasps seriously? They were among the big winners in one of the worst-creatures-of-D&D-of-all-time competition.

I don't think they will every do them or anything like them as they don't even wanna create creaturs like Beholder and Mind Flayer, so for Howler Wasps there is no excuse.

Anyway I would like some more wasp creatures, magical wasps would be fun, but not half monkey's.

Contributor

judas 147 wrote:

youre right about those mistakes from wotc, but actually in the other bestiaries (1, 2, 3) are a lot of Dragons and Dinossaurs!!

those was mistakes at all from wotc... there was a paper dragon (no, it isn´t but i swear this wíll come in mm6)!!

pfrgp are doing well with the bestiaries at the momment... even the inner sea bestiary is great job, the demon, devil and daemon books are some kind of lame (maybe those can be made in one book and i dont know if i will buy them yet).

I suppose those books would come off as lame if you bought them for additional monsters. The problem is that they were not designed to be Bestiaries. In terms of psychology and ideas for running a game in Hell / the Abyss / Abbadon, those books are absolutely priceless, however.


I was going to say Spriggans, but noticed that the stats I would have in mind for them ate 95% identical to Kodama. Make a medium size advanced Kodama, and it's 99% identical.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

Also, spriggans are in Bestiary 2.


But those are entirely different creatures just with that name. Those are evil gnomes.


I think one of the problems of Pathfinder is the Bestiary. There is too many unknown weird creatures, and the names are not that good. They don't really stick out in the mind's eye like the other more traditional monsters.


The D&D Monster Manuals are the same. The first one is 80% classics and 20% things nobody ever remembers or encounters in adventures. All the other five ones have only three or four really good monsters with the rest being completely forgetable.

What I am really missing is some kind of Deep One. You can't have games without the fish people.


well...I don't see them using the same name for more than one creature

As for the bestiary, it's what brought me back to DnD and purchasing Pathfinder products. I love the attention to detail when they stat up mythological creatures and folklore. It's hard to get more traditional than stuff from real world legend or literature.


There aren't really that many monsters that made the jump from being a weird idea to becomming staples of the game.

Drow, Beholder, Mind Flayer, Gnoll, Yuan-ti, and Githyanki come to mind, but the rest are either Tolkien-Standards or the canonical fiends from Planescape.
More recently, I might give the Quori from Eberrom some credit, but that's it.

I don't feel as if Pathfinder managed to create anything new that really managed to stand out from the crowd. Which isn't their fault. Hitting gold like that seems to happen completely by chance and nothing that can planned. D&D had 30 years and thousands of new creations, with less than a dozen being real breakthroughs.

But I think an important part is backing the creature up with really good fluff. Beholders and Gnolls not so much, but Mind Flayers, Drow, Yuan-ti, Githyanki, Tanar'ri, Batezu, and Quori have a lot of high quality fluff behind them. It's not their stat blocks that became fan favorites, but the solid mythology behind them. If you want to do something groundbraking with monsters, you won't achieve that with just a page in a Bestiary. You have to integrate them into a larger world, even if it's a completely generic one and the beasty is intended to be adaptable to any other worlds.


The only thing I would change about spriggins is there creature type to fey.

Bestiaries are the reason I got into D&D and one of the reasons I stay interested in pathfinder. I love monsters and love that the good people of Paizo use monsters from real world myth, sci-fi, horror, classic literature, movies, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure there is a completely novel creature that has become super popular, however they have definitely given original slants to several classic creatures which make them far more interesting than the old WOTC versions. Goblins, Ogres, Tengu, Derro, and Kytons all pop out as being unique and interesting.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bestiary 4 or otherwise, I'd love to see some more protean subtypes (and I've got ideas for them that I'd happily work up).

Also, the ethereal (and too a lesser extent shadow), and the positive and negative energy planes need more critters. And as always, I'd be game. :)

Dark Archive

Odraude wrote:
I'd probably have them more elemental, like fire giants, and have them able to create earthquakes and fissures. Mix earth bending with these guys and they could be mad fun.

Based off of the 'Stone Giant Elder' concept in the Bestiary, I always wanted there to be Frost Giant and Fire Giant elders, as well.

Frost Giant Elders
Frost giants do not live nearly as long as their stone giant kin, and rare is the frost giant who lives to see his second century. Of those who do, some small fraction develop a supernatural affinity for the ice and cold that is their birthright. Called elders, these frost giants have Charisma scores of at least 15, and three spell like abilities (CL 12th). Once per day, they can use sleet storm, quench and cone of cold. The save DC is Charisma-based. Such elders occasionally also have three to six class levels in sorcerer (elemental - water), oracle or witch (winter patron). Frost giant elders add +1 to their CR.

Fire Giant Elders
Like frost and stone giants, fire giants too can have elders, selected seemingly at random from those cunning and fortunate brutes who have survived past their third century. These fire giants have Charisma scores of at least 15, and three spell like abilities (CL 13th). Once per day, they can use heat metal, pyroclastic storm (fire-substituted ice storm) and pyrotechnics. The save DC is Charisma-based. Such elders occasionally also have three to six class levels in sorcerer (elemental - fire), or, more commonly, oracle (flame). Fire giant elders add +1 to their CR.

Then, building off of the Stone Magic feat from Giants Revisited;

Frost Magic
You have unlocked the secrets of the fimbul winter, beyond the ken of even other frost giant elders.
Prerequisites: Charisma 17, frost giant elder (age 200 years or older)
Benefit: In addition to the normal spell-like abilities of a frost giant elder, you can use chill metal, quench, ice storm, sleet storm and wall of ice once per day each as spell-like abilities (CL 12th, the save DC is Charisma-based).

Fire Magic
Your heart burns with the fury of the volcano, granting you powerful insights that lesser fire giant elders have not mastered.
Prerequisites: Charisma 17, fire giant elder (age 300 years or older)
Benefit: In addition to the normal spell-like abilities of a fire giant elder, you can use fire shield (hot flames only), flame strike, heat metal, wall of fire and call forth a pyroclastic storm (fire-substituted ice storm) once per day each as spell-like abilities (CL 13th, the save DC is Charisma-based).

Rather than create new types of Giants, just gussying up the 'standard' frost, fire, etc. giants could go a long way.

Marsh and Hill Giants are ripe for mutating and / or 'aberrant-ing' up, with their implications of cross-breeding / in-breeding / etc. Ettins, Athach, Ogres and Cyclopes could all be seen as freakish 'sports' cropping up to Hill Giant parents, and Marsh Giants with Gillman, Skum, Sahuagin or Merfolk-like modifications (or just the odd tentacle, here or there, a present from Uncle Dagon...), and a sort of 'Innsmouth look' aesthetic, could make them a lot more funky.

Todd Stewart wrote:
Bestiary 4 or otherwise, I'd love to see some more protean subtypes (and I've got ideas for them that I'd happily work up).

Heck, yeah! I came up with a few, the Sekmeret, Shusuteth and Valaket, but you are the master of cool proteans!

Quote:
Also, the ethereal (and too a lesser extent shadow), and the positive and negative energy planes need more critters. And as always, I'd be game. :)

The ethereal, astral and shadow planes often feel like afterthoughts, and the positive and negative planes veritable wastelands, by comparison. Especially with the removal of the (IMO, overrated) Gith races, the astral is even more deserted than it used to be...

Pathfinder seems to make very little use of the astral and ethereal planes, actually. Flavorwise, having to use the shadow plane as your 'transitive plane' or cross fey trods skipping through the First World or even attempting dangerous crossings through a plane of dreams & nightmares, or a 'land behind the mirror,' seems much more evocative and 'rich' from a storytelling perspective than the somewhat bland and flavorless astral / ethereal planes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes I would like to see (more) creatures from the...
Astral Plane
Ethereal Plane
Positive Energy Plane
Negative Energy Plane
Plane of Dreams
Plane of Time
The First World
The Plane of Shadows(non-undead)

Dragons based on on the Astral, Ethereal, Positive Energy, Dream, and Time Planes would be interesting.

Shadow Lodge

Yora wrote:
What I am really missing is some kind of Deep One. You can't have games without the fish people.

Skum are the Pathfinder equivalent of the Deep Ones.


That should indeed work quite perfectly. It's just the quite different fluff that threw me off. Silly D&D with its two versions of Deep Ones.


Are Superslayer and Yora a couple or something?

Really you come here making fun of Pathfinders monsters while they have like 90% of D&D's monsters (only better except in the case of the Duergar, Quickling and Howler) and 100% cool mythologic creatures.

That you people only know about Orcs, Dragons and such overused creatures isn't pathfinders mistake.

Just look at Alraune, Baykok, Mokele-Mbembe, Gore Weavers, Nightgaunts, Leukodaemon, Meladaemon how on earth can you say that they have bad bestiaries.

I for one stopped buying D&D products as they really started to suck badly, all types of drakes, dragonspawn and 10.000 humans and hill giant types in their monster manuals yuck never go back that road.

I'm happy pathfinder gives the less known mythological creatures some room to shine instead of only the overused ones.

Quote:

ut I think an important part is backing the creature up with really good fluff. Beholders and Gnolls not so much, but Mind Flayers, Drow, Yuan-ti, Githyanki, Tanar'ri, Batezu, and Quori have a lot of high quality fluff behind them. It's not their stat blocks that became fan favorites, but the solid mythology behind them. If you want to do something groundbraking with monsters, you won't achieve that with just a page in a Bestiary. You have to integrate them into a larger world, even if it's a completely generic one and the beasty is intended to be adaptable to any other worlds.

Lol, you never read through the Adventure Paths do you? Some monsters may appear boring in the bestiaries, but if you see/read about them in the AP's they take your heart.


SuperSlayer wrote:
I think one of the problems of Pathfinder is the Bestiary. There is too many unknown weird creatures, and the names are not that good. They don't really stick out in the mind's eye like the other more traditional monsters.

Lol soccer-comment extreme

I know your type of creaturs, you only want spiderman because the villians are forgetable, you only want Wolverine and Scorpion + Sub-Zero the others are waste of time.

You only want Orcs and Dragons because all creatures are a waste of space

Btw all known and overused creaturs in pathfinder CHECK.
Many unknown monsters that are given a chance in pathfinder: CHECK.

If you could create a bestairy it would probably have 10 creatures in it, all overused ones.

Liberty's Edge

Yora wrote:
But I think an important part is backing the creature up with really good fluff. Beholders and Gnolls not so much, but Mind Flayers, Drow, Yuan-ti, Githyanki, Tanar'ri, Batezu, and Quori have a lot of high quality fluff behind them.

What are you talking about, Beholders have really awesome fluff. Read Lords of Madness; I, Tyrant and the material on them in Spelljammer. They are awesomely xenophobic nutcases with death lasers.


The ones that really suck are the Githyanki and Githzerai.

I'm glad they are copyrighted, good riddance.

Paizo Employee Developer

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Sincubus, again, you don't have to poop on things other people like just to highlight the things you like, especially not in this thread. There's enough room for everyone, and ultimately it will be us who make the decisions of what monsters go into what products. We listen to everyone and aggressive voices don't endear us nearly as much as pleasant ones.

Liberty's Edge

Yora wrote:

The D&D Monster Manuals are the same. The first one is 80% classics and 20% things nobody ever remembers or encounters in adventures. All the other five ones have only three or four really good monsters with the rest being completely forgetable.

What I am really missing is some kind of Deep One. You can't have games without the fish people.

Well, first off, Paizo already has an analogue to the Deep Ones in both the Skum and the Gillmen.

And secondly, I actually do think the Howler Wasps/Monkey Bees are iconic, in that they are so incredibly goofy they swing back around to awesome, and I think they could be actually threatening if, unlike in their old art, they had opposable thumbs. A chimpanzee with flight, a hive-like social structure and a stinger would be damn scary. Not to mention what sorts of beeswax jungle fortresses they might build.


Set has some good ideas, but I wonder if they wouldn't work in a template type manner better than as distinct creatures

A template hardcover could be nice

Shadow Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:

Set has some good ideas, but I wonder if they wouldn't work in a template type manner better than as distinct creatures

A template hardcover could be nice

Advanced Bestiary by Green Ronin

Book of Templates: Deluxe Edition by Silverthorne Games
All the templates from the SRD

all combined into one giant Ultimate Templates book

I would forgo the next two bestiaries (2013 and 2014) to see this.


Concerning planar monsters, my favorite would be from the Maelstrom, Axis, Nirvana, Elysium, and the transitive planes. Even if you use previous edition sources there is not a lot to choose from these places. I agree that critters that are inspired by mythology are more memorable, for example I really like how the proteans were adapted.


It's not that Bestiaries havn't created any good creatures. There are plenty of really good ones I quite like. But I don't see any with the potential to be groundbreaking.
Nothing that I expect to be known to anyone but Pathfinder GMs who used them in their own games 10 years from now.

Decent amount of silver, but no gold so far.

And as I did mention, the main reason that D&D managed to do that for about a dozen creatures is most likely that TSR and WotC tried a lot more creatures and anything that made it into popular culture were more likely random occourances and not the result of being better work than others.


Kthulhu wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Set has some good ideas, but I wonder if they wouldn't work in a template type manner better than as distinct creatures

A template hardcover could be nice

Advanced Bestiary by Green Ronin

Book of Templates: Deluxe Edition by Silverthorne Games
All the templates from the SRD

all combined into one giant Ultimate Templates book

I would forgo the next two bestiaries (2013 and 2014) to see this.

Yeah something like this, although I would prefer mostly original, with a small component of reprints from other OGL sources + APs

Although I would say my interest for this might be less than that of Bestiary 4 (but it is still really needed).


MMCJawa wrote:
well...I have good news. The Hecatoncheires are in Bestiary 3. So that is one wish you can cross off

cool :)


Yora wrote:

It's not that Bestiaries havn't created any good creatures. There are plenty of really good ones I quite like. But I don't see any with the potential to be groundbreaking.

Nothing that I expect to be known to anyone but Pathfinder GMs who used them in their own games 10 years from now.

Decent amount of silver, but no gold so far.

And as I did mention, the main reason that D&D managed to do that for about a dozen creatures is most likely that TSR and WotC tried a lot more creatures and anything that made it into popular culture were more likely random occourances and not the result of being better work than others.

How do you know that? D&D excist from the 70ties, DUH they have rememberable creatures.

Pathfinder only excist a couple of years, you can't say such things yet as it takes time. I think creatures like Keketar have much more potentional than Slaad, and creatures like Sinspawn, Cannon Golem, Gore Weaver, Rune Giant and the new Kytons will all be remembered they have the looks and background stories to do it.

And how can I be friendly when all I get is ignorance and the only time people talk to me is when I get hatefull? Something else what really irritates me is the fact that the posts that get the most Favorite-addings are the posts that are against me or the posts that try to say me I should shut up and be nice, makes me feel like the Ana Lucia from lost, the Mileena from Mortal Kombat.

Contributor

Yora wrote:

It's not that Bestiaries havn't created any good creatures. There are plenty of really good ones I quite like. But I don't see any with the potential to be groundbreaking.

Nothing that I expect to be known to anyone but Pathfinder GMs who used them in their own games 10 years from now.

Decent amount of silver, but no gold so far.

And as I did mention, the main reason that D&D managed to do that for about a dozen creatures is most likely that TSR and WotC tried a lot more creatures and anything that made it into popular culture were more likely random occurrences and not the result of being better work than others.

Personally, barring a dramatic edition shift I'll probably be using the Color Out of Space forever. In every campaign I've ever used it in, its always managed to challenge my players and force them to think of new ways to fight it. Its probably one of the most powerful incorporeal creatures in the game, which is saying something because incorporeal is hard to make cool. And cool it is, since its one of the few incorporeal creatures that isn't undead.

Sincubus wrote:

How do you know that? D&D excist from the 70ties, DUH they have rememberable creatures.

Pathfinder only excist a couple of years, you can't say such things yet as it takes time. I think creatures like Keketar have much more potentional than Slaad, and creatures like Sinspawn, Cannon Golem, Gore Weaver, Rune Giant and the new Kytons will all be remembered they have the looks and background stories to do it.

And how can I be friendly when all I get is ignorance and the only time people talk to me is when I get hatefull? Something else what really irritates me is the fact that the posts that get the most Favorite-addings are the posts that are against me or the posts that try to say me I should shut up and be nice, makes me feel like the Ana Lucia from lost, the Mileena from Mortal Kombat.

Its easier to be heard when you're screaming, sure, but are you being heard for the right reasons? For every one person who favorites you, there is someone like me who rolls their eyes, thinking, "Oh great, Sin is having another episode." In the particular post that I just quoted of yours, you got super defensive when all the poster did was post an opinion that he (or she) thinks that none of Pathfinder's unique monsters has risen to the same heights as some of the iconic Dungeons and Dragons monsters. There is no "Pathfinder Owlbear," as the poster says. She mentions that it was probably random over anything else as well.

Your response, rather than having a civil discussion about why there may not be an "owlbear of Pathfinder" yet, was to get defensive, like the poster was attacking you and everything you hold dear by expressing an opinion. Because let's face it; what gets remembered as being awesome and what gets sidelined is completely up to opinion, not fact. It may be a community-wide opinion, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to feel the same way. The community consensus is generally positive to the goblin revamp Paizo did. I have friends who have taken it lukewarm and I have friends who think the shift is insulting to their existing goblinoid characters. Its all a matter of taste, and no one is asking you to be nice and love and agree with everything people in this thread say.

Daigle, myself, and countless others are asking you to be respectful which means understanding that people have opinions different from yours, that this thread isn't going to ever be an echo chamber of your own thoughts and ideas. And honestly, why would you want it to be? A single note echoed forever doesn't make music. You mention that people don't respond to you unless you get mean. Look at the responses. 99% of them are like mine; tired and annoyed. I can confirm for you right now that I stopped replying to your posts after the second instance that I took the time to reply with my thoughts on all of your monster suggestions and you got defensive, bit my hand, and spat at me that I had no idea what I was talking about. No one is asking you not to comment, not to discuss, and not to share. But when other people feel attacked by what you're saying, your posts are going to fall on deaf ears. And considering this thread is on Daigle's radar (and possibly Wes's) I wouldn't want to fall on anyone's deaf side, personally. ;-)


It's a wishlist...if people don't comment on your posts its probably because either they agree with what you wrote and have nothing further to add, they had already commented on a previous version of what you have posted, or they don't care enough about your list to comment.

On the other hand, yeah you are going to get lots of comments when you slam everyone with a slightly different opinion, especially in an insulting manner. Because people respond to things that irritate them

Shadow Lodge

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Personally, barring a dramatic edition shift I'll probably be using the Color Out of Space forever. In every campaign I've ever used it in, its always managed to challenge my players and force them to think of new ways to fight it. Its probably one of the most powerful incorporeal creatures in the game, which is saying something because incorporeal is hard to make cool. And cool it is, since its one of the few incorporeal creatures that isn't undead.

Paizo didn't create the Colour Out of Space, by the way. They adapted it from Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu, and thet stated it up from the original Lovecraft story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Cool monsters are cool monsters regardless of wether they are original or not.

Dark Archive

MMCJawa wrote:

Set has some good ideas, but I wonder if they wouldn't work in a template type manner better than as distinct creatures

A template hardcover could be nice

True that. Good templates (or monster variants) are awesome, because they aren't just useful by themselves, but they punch their way back in time and make books you already own more useful!

Does the gaming world *really* need ten more types of humanoid, or giant, or dragon, or could it benefit more from ways to make the gajillions of humanoid and giant and dragon types we already have more customizable?

Obviously, the ideal is 'yes, to both!,' with some more new humanoids and giants and dragons (it's not like we have to use the ones we don't want, after all!), but I think there's also room for making the ones that already exist more widely useful and 'hot-swappable' as well.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
Yora wrote:

It's not that Bestiaries havn't created any good creatures. There are plenty of really good ones I quite like. But I don't see any with the potential to be groundbreaking.

Nothing that I expect to be known to anyone but Pathfinder GMs who used them in their own games 10 years from now.

Decent amount of silver, but no gold so far.

And as I did mention, the main reason that D&D managed to do that for about a dozen creatures is most likely that TSR and WotC tried a lot more creatures and anything that made it into popular culture were more likely random occurrences and not the result of being better work than others.

Personally, barring a dramatic edition shift I'll probably be using the Color Out of Space forever. In every campaign I've ever used it in, its always managed to challenge my players and force them to think of new ways to fight it. Its probably one of the most powerful incorporeal creatures in the game, which is saying something because incorporeal is hard to make cool. And cool it is, since its one of the few incorporeal creatures that isn't undead.

Sincubus wrote:

How do you know that? D&D excist from the 70ties, DUH they have rememberable creatures.

Pathfinder only excist a couple of years, you can't say such things yet as it takes time. I think creatures like Keketar have much more potentional than Slaad, and creatures like Sinspawn, Cannon Golem, Gore Weaver, Rune Giant and the new Kytons will all be remembered they have the looks and background stories to do it.

And how can I be friendly when all I get is ignorance and the only time people talk to me is when I get hatefull? Something else what really irritates me is the fact that the posts that get the most Favorite-addings are the posts that are against me or the posts that try to say me I should shut up and be nice, makes me feel like the Ana Lucia from lost, the Mileena from Mortal Kombat.

Its easier to be heard when you're screaming, sure, but are you being heard for the right reasons? For every one person who favorites you, there is someone like me who rolls their eyes, thinking, "Oh great, Sin is having another episode." In the particular post that I just quoted of yours, you got super defensive when all the poster did was post an opinion that he (or she) thinks that none of Pathfinder's unique monsters has risen to the same heights as some of the iconic Dungeons and Dragons monsters. There is no "Pathfinder Owlbear," as the poster says. She mentions that it was probably random over anything else as well.

Your response, rather than having a civil discussion about why there may not be an "owlbear of Pathfinder" yet, was to get defensive, like the poster was attacking you and everything you hold dear by expressing an opinion. Because let's face it; what gets remembered as being awesome and what gets sidelined is completely up to opinion, not fact. It may be a community-wide opinion, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to feel the same way. The community consensus is generally positive to the goblin revamp Paizo did. I have friends who have taken it lukewarm and I have friends who think the shift is insulting to their existing goblinoid characters. Its all a matter of taste, and no one is asking you to be nice and love and agree with everything people in this thread say.

Daigle, myself, and countless others are asking you to be respectful which means understanding that people have opinions different from yours, that this thread isn't going to ever be an echo chamber of your own thoughts and ideas. And honestly, why would you want it to be? A single note echoed forever doesn't make music. You mention that people don't respond to you unless you get mean. Look at the responses. 99% of them are like mine; tired and annoyed. I can confirm for you right now that I stopped replying to your posts after the second instance that I took the time to reply with my thoughts on all of your monster suggestions and you got defensive, bit my hand, and spat at me that I had no idea what I was talking about. No one is asking you not to comment, not to discuss, and not to share. But when other people feel attacked by what you're saying, your posts are going to fall on deaf ears. And considering this thread is on Daigle's radar (and possibly Wes's) I wouldn't want to fall on anyone's deaf side, personally. ;-)

Pretty much this. Most of your posts consist of how you think someone's idea is dumb, rather than how to make their idea better. Rather than "eww mountain giants are just dumb hill giants", it'd be better if it were "hmm, how can we make mountain giants cool?'. You have this narrow view on what should and shouldn't be allowed in the Bestiary and you're kind of a hypocrite about it. You rag on others for their ideas that to you, may be similar to ideas that already exist (see mountain giants and hill giants). Yet you get mad when someone points out that your ideas are similar to ones that exist (see pookas and kelpies from a couple pages back).

There's a reason why the word "sincu-mistake" has now entered our vocabulary.


Really? Google finds only two cases of the word, both on this thread.


It's slowly catching on >.>

Besides, we're on your side! :p


I would like to see an undead that is a collection of the multiple spirits of victums who were wrongfully accused of crimes or sins against the culture's deity such as the salem witch trials, spanish inquisition, etc. This creature could be a ball of incorporeal faces, hands, etc. screaming in anguish.

I wouldn't mind a 64 page campaign setting book of templates but this not the place for it.

Some more non-evil aberrations.

A mummified template would be nice.

More types of Lamia and Hags.

Energy absorbing creatures and not life energy like energy drain.

Creatures that feed on emotions particualrly positive ones.

Some CR15+ creatures of small or smaller size and not swarms.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Proteans! We need a lot more proteans than we already have. And inevitables too.

Shadow Lodge

It's sad that every 2-3 pages, this thread has to derail briefly to remind people about the most important rule of the message boards.


I would ask for a quick (and official) template for angry mobs as well as for organized battallions, with special detail paid to types of attacks they could make (ranged, melee, spells, adjustments for items they are all equiped with, etc). This would make mass pitched battles easier to adjudicate without a ton of minions.

I would also love to see an update of the Zeitgeist from 3.5 Cityscape. It was essentially a fey that represented the spirit of the city and could rise to defend it in various forms, including an angry mob, animated buildings, or even a cloud of smog.

Contributor

Dragon78 wrote:

I would like to see an undead that is a collection of the multiple spirits of victums who were wrongfully accused of crimes or sins against the culture's deity such as the salem witch trials, spanish inquisition, etc. This creature could be a ball of incorporeal faces, hands, etc. screaming in anguish.

I wouldn't mind a 64 page campaign setting book of templates but this not the place for it.

Some more non-evil aberrations.

A mummified template would be nice.

More types of Lamia and Hags.

Energy absorbing creatures and not life energy like energy drain.

Creatures that feed on emotions particualrly positive ones.

Some CR15+ creatures of small or smaller size and not swarms.

Personally, I think there is room in the Core Rulebook line for 64 Page splatbooks once a quarter or so. However, I'd also bet that its easier for them to write Golarion stuff than non-Golarion stuff.

Contributor

Kthulhu wrote:
It's sad that every 2-3 pages, this thread has to derail briefly to remind people about the most important rule of the message boards.

Remember to tithe Alex a piece of pie every month?


A few more things I've thought of:

• Gigas based on Greek giants (these serpent legged giants fought against the gods and were banished to Tartarus with their Titan parents. They would probably be mythic and because of their appearance, they might have some connection to Abraxas).
• Foot soldier/cannon fodder-type daemons (CR 18 purrodaemons are only good for campaign-ending armies).
• More LN and CN creatures for Axis and the Maelstrom. LN can't all be inevitables and axiomites, just like chaos should be more diverse than just proteans and chaos beasts.
• More agathions based on more unusual animals, extinct animals, and legendary animals (I loved the bishop fish agathion).
• Yaenits, which were mentioned all the way back in the Lamashtu article in "Sins of the Saviors," but have never been given formal stats.
• More aeons and more psychopomps (with alien appearances and masks).
• Perhaps we can get the Edavagor and the Ascensoriel from the Kobold Quarterly articles on the Archdukes?

Dark Archive

Bluescale wrote:

A few more things I've thought of:

• Gigas based on Greek giants (these serpent legged giants fought against the gods and were banished to Tartarus with their Titan parents. They would probably be mythic and because of their appearance, they might have some connection to Abraxas).

Ooh, Medusa's 'big sisters' Euryale and Stheno as nigh-mythic (or even fully mythic) adversaries, with the full array of whacky powers (shoot flames from their hands, steal power from the gods, metal scales, immortality, etc.) would be neat as well.

• Foot soldier/cannon fodder-type daemons (CR 18 purrodaemons are only good for campaign-ending armies).
• More LN and CN creatures for Axis and the Maelstrom. LN can't all be inevitables and axiomites, just like chaos should be more diverse than just proteans and chaos beasts.
• More agathions based on more unusual animals, extinct animals, and legendary animals (I loved the bishop fish agathion).
• More aeons and more psychopomps (with alien appearances and masks).

Yes, yes, yes.

More low HD outsiders in general, that aren't necessarily 'familiars,' but actual footsoldier demons and rank-and-file devils. More proteans of any sort. More types of formorian, and more types of axiomite. Definitely more types of agathions. Maybe some bug agathions, or wise serpent type agathions.

1,851 to 1,900 of 2,239 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Bestiary 4 Wish List All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.