| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
by the other hand, the legendary monsters would be nice
maybe Odin, Fenrir, Ragnarok, Grindel, Fafner, Alberich (Dwarf)
gorgimera, the 3 parkas (lakeshys, atropo and... i forgot the name)maybe a sheakspeare creatures too, more literaturian creatures!!!
I love mythological monsters, but I think turning real-world deities into monsters that the PCs can kill is going too far. My campaign uses Odin as a deity.
Also, how could you turn the end of the world into a monster? Sure, there are monsters that can cause the end of the world, but whomever named the Tarraquse way back in the days of old did so because the tarrasque is actually a monster from a French myth. Even though the thing can cause the end of the world with its statline, they didn't call it Ragnarok for a reason.
I can't recall any Shakespearean creatures; most of his stories are about people if I'm correct, not monsters. Its funny, because it seems like half the community rages about Lovecraft monsters when they're based in 1920s literature themselves. They're as old if not older than the Formians, which everyone begs for. Funny how things work sometimes; I think some people are just sick of people like me who squee with glee over Lovecraft's works getting added to the game.
That said, James Jacobs recently mentioned that they didn't have permission to make the Pathfinder #46 (Wake of the Watchers) monsters Open Content when the Adventure Path was written, so I wonder if that will prevent them from putting those monsters in Bestiary 4 and beyond. I'd love to hear more about the topic; I thought all of Lovecraft's written works were in the Public Domain now except for the name "Call of Cthulhu," which is clearly tradmearked to the RPG of the same name. I wonder if Adam can chime in and shed some light.
I think Dragon78's prediction of more SciFi monsters is pretty spot-on. Distant Worlds was a smash hit and Numeria is one of the most frequently requested story topics. There's no way that its going to be ignored for long. That said, Bestiary 3 added all of the monsters it did not to support an AP, but to support the Dragon Empires setting. You could even say that Jade Regent itself was written to support the Dragon Empires; get people over there so players could see how cool the area was, making it a sort of intro to this new campaign setting. If I remember right, one of the Reign of Winter APs takes the players to a new continent as well, but since its only for one volume, we're not going to see a Gazetteer or a Primer or anything like that. (As far as we know, anyway.)
Trying to get back on track, I'm sick of evil outsiders in general. While I don't think that Good needs to be able to mash up with Evil one for one, there aren't many Lawful or Chaotic outsiders and the Agathions feel heavily underdeveloped, if only because their lore says that there are hundreds of different types of Agathions and we only have about six of them. A Good version of the Book of the Damned that focused on Agathions would be a pretty awesome place to add more, but I don't know how feasible that is. I'd like it if they started leaving the big outsider races to their own special books so more space for newer creatures could be freed up.
One thing I'd really like to see is monsters that better challenge Gunslingers. Specifically, we don't see many creatures with good Touch ACs. I'd like that a lot.
id like to see a bear companion with stats that dont suck...and a jackalope
by the other hand, the legendary monsters would be nice
maybe Odin, Fenrir, Ragnarok, Grindel, Fafner, Alberich (Dwarf)
gorgimera, the 3 parkas (lakeshys, atropo and... i forgot the name)maybe a sheakspeare creatures too, more literaturian creatures!!!
I love mythological monsters, but I think turning real-world deities into monsters that the PCs can kill is going too far. My campaign uses Odin as a deity.
Also, how could you turn the end of the world into a monster? Sure, there are monsters that can cause the end of the world, but whomever named the Tarraquse way back in the days of old did so because the tarrasque is actually a monster from a French myth. Even though the thing can cause the end of the world with its statline, they didn't call it Ragnarok for a reason.
I can't recall any Shakespearean creatures; most of his stories are about people if I'm correct, not monsters. Its funny, because it seems like half the community rages about Lovecraft monsters when they're based in 1920s literature themselves. They're as old if not older than the Formians, which everyone begs for. Funny how things work sometimes; I think some people are just sick of people like me who squee with glee over Lovecraft's works getting added to the game.
That said, James Jacobs recently mentioned that they didn't have permission to make the Pathfinder #46 (Wake of the Watchers) monsters Open Content when the Adventure Path was written, so I wonder if that will prevent them from putting those monsters in Bestiary 4 and beyond. I'd love to hear more about the topic; I thought all of Lovecraft's written works were in the Public Domain now except for the name "Call of Cthulhu," which is clearly tradmearked to the RPG of the same name. I wonder if Adam can chime in and shed some light.
I think Dragon78's prediction of more SciFi monsters is pretty spot-on. Distant Worlds was a smash hit and Numeria is one of the most frequently requested story topics. There's no way that its going to be...
for the shakespear are not monster, only evil humans who act like one!!
for the lovecraft: i love the way that paizo has made them...
odin and ragnarok: only said as an idea
actually, the Divine Comedy creatures who lurks in every hell will be nice!! (the prophet walking with the head turning back)
From Shakespeare there's caliban
Throw in some robot hate and instead of the rare +2 replies to this thread i'll find 20+ replies. Lol
Still kind of confused on whether a creature is mythic or not even affects you? My understanding is that you are buying the books mostly for the artwork/writing and to scavenge the ideas for your own game. In which case I am not sure why Antaeus being mythic or not even matters.
Since I really adore the AP's I really would like to see encounters with Antaeus and Fenrir (examples) but if they are mythic they probably never show up in Ap's, that's a shame + I don't like them being 20+ CR, Fenrir and Argus higher CR than Balor? No way.
If the bestiary 4 will feature + 15 robots, more than 20 pages spent on only 6 mythic beings and very few real mythologic/folkloric creatures such as Cherufe, Buggane and Kamaitachi i'm probably just like Dragon78 and I will pass this one out.
I like bestiary's beautiful and much linked to the previous series, if they are alien to the previous bestiaries I won't want them in the collection, and since i'm such a big sucker for the previous 3 bestiaries It would really be a shame to see this line-up go to waste.
Anyway I just read the Vouivre part again in Pathfinder 30, and I really would like to see it re-made.
I would like to see a wingless version next to a winged version, maybe some versions with non-human (but orc, ogre, goblin, elf, dwarf) features as wel.
Gorgimera
Lol, why people still haven't forgotten this early D&D error/glitch is a mystery to me.
Well Nitro-13, the closest things we will get to the Jackolope will be the Skvader and Wolpertinger from AP#61.
Wreck it Ralph has show us that a glitch can be a good thing. Speaking of Wreck it Ralph having a monster that becomes or takes on the properties/abilities of what and who it eats would be interesting.
A monster who's spilled blood becomes giant vermin like scorpions or who's severed body parts become monsters or continues to attack like Trolls did in 2nd edition.
I would like to see Zodiac themed monsters myself or monsters that use the signs of zodiac in interesting ways.
Non-Oozes with an ability similar to Split but is for magical beast or Aberrations.
Some toy based monsters like a toy soldier swarm, evil puppet who controlls the body(not mind) of it's victum, evil jack in the box with breath weapon or gaze attack, etc.
Question to the want-moar-robots-people: What kind of robots do you want?
All robots I can make up are just known animals, vermin and monsters, humanoids that are made robot. What kind of unique robots do you know off? Btw the clockwork golem is the perfect robot afterall, it can become almost anything, much like a transformer.
And i'm happy that I finally realized ROBOT is a sub-catogory, so there will be never that much in one bestiary. Just like demons, aeons and Azata.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question to the want-moar-robots-people: What kind of robots do you want?
All robots I can make up are just known animals, vermin and monsters, humanoids that are made robot. What kind of unique robots do you know off? Btw the clockwork golem is the perfect robot afterall, it can become almost anything, much like a transformer.
And i'm happy that I finally realized ROBOT is a sub-catogory, so there will be never that much in one bestiary. Just like demons, aeons and Azata.
Transforming robots (Golariobots, transform and roll out!)
Walkers (everything is better with TimberWolf/MadCat)Building-sized biomechs piloted by troubled teens (no, not cliche at all)
Battle Suits (yes, that scene in District 9 was beyond awesome)
War of the Worlds alien robots.
Necromantic robotic war machines from Eox.
And that's just off the top of my head.
I love mythological monsters, but I think turning real-world deities into monsters that the PCs can kill is going too far. My campaign uses Odin as a deity.
If Odin is ever included in Pathfinder, he would probably be at a similar powerlevel to the core 20 dieties (hence not stattable in the current rules)
I can't recall any Shakespearean creatures; most of his stories are about people if I'm correct, not monsters.
Someone already mentioned Caliban, from The Tempest (which has several other creatures I think). There is also Midsummer Night's dream. I could see Puck making a good inspiration for a new type of Fey for instance.
That said, James Jacobs recently mentioned that they didn't have permission to make the Pathfinder #46 (Wake of the Watchers) monsters Open Content when the Adventure Path was written, so I wonder if that will prevent them from putting those monsters in Bestiary 4 and beyond. I'd love to hear more about the topic; I thought all of Lovecraft's written works were in the Public Domain now except for the name "Call of Cthulhu," which is clearly tradmearked to the RPG of the same name. I wonder if Adam can chime in and shed some light.
Actually what James Jacobs said was that SOME of the Pathfinder #46 monsters were not made open content, but not all of them. One possible reason why some critters might not be open game content is that they were not invented by H.P. Lovecraft, but rather by another author and incorporated into his fiction. The Tcho-Tcho People are one example of that.
Puck, that name just screams JESTER to me, I can't tell why but the name just sounds like a type of jester fey.
Isn't he wolpertinger more like the agressive brother of the jackalope? The jackalope is more like a sissy critter and the wolpertinger and al-mi'raj are the agressive meat eaters.
Puck as a jester fey would be interested.
Cyborg template(much better then that half-construct crap)
Robots that are humaniod or animal shaped would be nice.
Robots that are not like humaniods or animals would also be interesting such as floating metal spheres or that resemble robots from old scifi movies.
Jokes aside a transforming robot would be cool.
Also 2-5 robots that combine into a bigger badder more powerful one.
The invisible energy creature from the movie, Forbbiden Planet, would be awesome.
Something like Caliban from the Tempest would be cool.
Organic creatures that can combine as one...well other then Brethedans.
Contributor
|
Puck, that name just screams JESTER to me, I can't tell why but the name just sounds like a type of jester fey.
Puck is just a version of the same word as Bwch, Buggan, Bugbear, Pooka, Puka, etc.; it means a trickster fey in English and the Celtic languages. Though sometimes it is a nickname for the devil, too...
What does a contributor do?
So now we never see Puck, Buggane and Phooka because we already have the most boring of the list the bugbear?
I really wanna see a mole buggane, in much other mythologies its a mole creature and even on wiki it said nothing about no being the same as a puck or phooka.
Is this the final cut for buggane?
Anyway it wouldn't make sense if phooka/buggane and puck are not being used because the bugbear is already there because Vouivre is also just a french word for Wyvern and look they are both in pathfinder, so why this english mythology would be so steady?
Here this shows that the buggane in Manx mythology isn't just another word for bugbear and Puck, its a creature of its own, so I want a Manx buggane and not a welch buggane.
I love mythological monsters, but I think turning real-world deities into monsters that the PCs can kill is going too far. My campaign uses Odin as a deity.
If Odin is ever included in Pathfinder, he would probably be at a similar powerlevel to the core 20 dieties (hence not stattable in the current rules)
I can't recall any Shakespearean creatures; most of his stories are about people if I'm correct, not monsters.Someone already mentioned Caliban, from The Tempest (which has several other creatures I think). There is also Midsummer Night's dream. I could see Puck making a good inspiration for a new type of Fey for instance.
That said, James Jacobs recently mentioned that they didn't have permission to make the Pathfinder #46 (Wake of the Watchers) monsters Open Content when the Adventure Path was written, so I wonder if that will prevent them from putting those monsters in Bestiary 4 and beyond. I'd love to hear more about the topic; I thought all of Lovecraft's written works were in the Public Domain now except for the name "Call of Cthulhu," which is clearly tradmearked to the RPG of the same name. I wonder if Adam can chime in and shed some light.Actually what James Jacobs said was that SOME of the Pathfinder #46 monsters were not made open content, but not all of them. One possible reason why some critters might not be open game content is that they were not invented by H.P. Lovecraft, but rather by another author and incorporated into his fiction. The Tcho-Tcho People are one example of that.
the caliban was a playeable race in ravenloft players handbook 3.5 (instead the half orcs)
and there was a living nightmare arround the monster for that awesome campaign
Also, the polysh folkloric creatures and myths are very creepy at all
What does a contributor do?
So now we never see Puck, Buggane and Phooka because we already have the most boring of the list the bugbear?
I really wanna see a mole buggane, in much other mythologies its a mole creature and even on wiki it said nothing about no being the same as a puck or phooka.
Is this the final cut for buggane?
Anyway it wouldn't make sense if phooka/buggane and puck are not being used because the bugbear is already there because Vouivre is also just a french word for Wyvern and look they are both in pathfinder, so why this english mythology would be so steady?
Here this shows that the buggane in Manx mythology isn't just another word for bugbear and Puck, its a creature of its own, so I want a Manx buggane and not a welch buggane.
I don't think he was implying that their should be only one version of the creature, but rather that they have the same mythological/folkloric origin.
Go back far enough with origins, and probably there are less than 20 different monsters
Lets all take a deep breath and think about the Assassin Bug for a moment.
This lethal insects stalk and kill other insects and spiders with ease, yet pathfinder doesn't have ANYTHING Assassin bugish yet... they have like over 20 spider species and 12 scorpions but no Assassin Bug monsters, the creatures are even named after killers for gods sake! :p
Really, assassin bugs are really cool insects and they are horrid ways to die when they are as big as dogs or even horses.
Are we talking hardcover or a 64 page campaign setting book?
If hardcover...I could see there being huge issues.
For one, Producing a 300 page "Oceans Bestiary" would probably have buyers, but the lack of creatures for other environments means it would probably sell less than others. After all, if someone is running an urban or desert campaign, why would they care about a book of creatures they can't use?
Given the investment of resources (Paizo does only 3 hardcovers a year), I have trouble imagining that would be a good return on investment. Better to make one big bestiary that suites everyone then a bunch of specialized ones which will divide the market. TSR tried that with campaign settings...hilarity ensued
I like the current strategy of having a wide variety of creature types, CRs, campaign roles, and environments, since it means that almost every Bestiary has SOMETHING someone will like or use.
Are we talking hardcover or a 64 page campaign setting book?
If hardcover...I could see there being huge issues.
For one, Producing a 300 page "Oceans Bestiary" would probably have buyers, but the lack of creatures for other environments means it would probably sell less than others. After all, if someone is running an urban or desert campaign, why would they care about a book of creatures they can't use?
Given the investment of resources (Paizo does only 3 hardcovers a year), I have trouble imagining that would be a good return on investment. Better to make one big bestiary that suites everyone then a bunch of specialized ones which will divide the market. TSR tried that with campaign settings...hilarity ensued
I like the current strategy of having a wide variety of creature types, CRs, campaign roles, and environments, since it means that almost every Bestiary has SOMETHING someone will like or use.
mmm for the gothic bestiary i dont think they need to make a whole 350 pages book, but 68 would be lame...
maybe an exceptional bestiary where´s comes with more aquatic monsters, gothic, mythological creatures or alike for a total of 300´s pages book
its obvious that the bestiaries never ends to come, because all of us love monsters... so, we just asking for something we like the most!!
I don't think they should mess with the current formula, this formula works perfect, why change it into something alien?
Doesn't make sense to me.
Learn from the mistakes D&D made with its 3.5 monster manuals.
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).
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 dont know if you've looked through them, but the Book of the Damned books are (imo) some of the best sourcebooks Paizo has put out. They're not very good bestiaries, so if you're looking at them from that perspective I can see the application of the label "lame".
As background/flavor material though, I think that so far they are universally outstanding.
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).
A lot of dragons and dinosaurs?
Well I can say I HATE dragons as wel, I think they are overused stuff for soccer people that never look further than the most famous people/characters/monsters in a movie/game/story... BUT, dragons are so popular it wouldn't be smart to leave them out of the products and I can live with 5 dragons in each manual, there maybe many dragons already, but dragons have many many many many fans so they continue to come forever.
Coming back to my error above, I don't really hate all dragons, just the overused rainbow dragons, and dragons in games are always taken above other monsters and I hate that too.
I don't like the rainbow dragons in bestiary 1, I really liked the dragons from bestiary 2, I like the evil Underground and Forest dragons from bestiary 3 and all special dragons like Jabberwock, Faerie Dragon, Gorynych are some of my personal favorite monsters, I really like the special dragons.
I would like to see more of these special dragons, Ladon, Zomok, Pyrausta, Kampe ect.
Dinosaurs are cool for me, I mean they can be used in many situations and they are indeed just like monsters, you talked about wanting HUMANS in Bestiaries, that is one thing I would really, really, really hate, I stopped liking D&D 4th edition monster manuals because there were humans in it, humans may have behaviors of monsters but they shouldn't be in bestiaires, just like elves and normal dwarves (not drow and duergar) should back off from bestiaries and monster manuals.
I really like the formula that keeps repeating, 5 new dragons, sometimes more azata and sometimes more demons, always some undead and fey, really cool concept.
What I didn't get from your post is that you said there were too much dinosaurs/dragons in the 3.5 monster manuals 1,2 and 3 but I can't find that much?
Monster manual 1:
DINOSAURS: Deinonychus / Elasmosaurus / Triceratops / Megaraptor / Tyrannosaurus Rex, not so much dinosaurs, I only didn't understand why they had to pick Deinonychus and Megaraptor together.
DRAGONS: Red, Blue, Green, White, Black, Copper, Silver, Gold, Brass & Bronze Dragons, the usual overused and boring rainbow dragons.
MOnster manual 2:
DINOSAURS: Cryptoclidus, Allosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Quetzalcoatlus, Seismosaurus, Spinosaurus, some more rare dinosaurus, most are very different than the first monster manual, didn't really understand the need for cryptoclidus and allosaurus tho, as we already have tyrannosaurus and elasmosaurus, these are just smaller versions.
DRAGONS: The 5 Gem Dragons, Amethyst, Topaz, Sapphire, Emerald and Crystal, I really would have liked only one gem dragon here, called Gem Dragon or Crystal Dragon, but ok, its only 5 of them...
Monster manual 3:
DINOSAURS: Bloodstriker, Battletitan, Fleshraker, Swindlespitter, these dinosaurs aren't even real, they are just made up or enhanced from Tyrannosaurus Rex, and it is very few.
DRAGONS: Ambush Drake, Dracotaur, Dragon Eel, Rage Drake & Ssvaklor, those are all random drakes and dragons, they are 100% different than most other dragons, even in forms.
I really think that you just hate dragons and dinosaurus, or big reptiles in general, because in Pathfinder there are much and MUCH more undead, demons, devils and most of all Golems than there are dragons or dinosaurs, really golems are the ones that are numbered, and maybe giants, but that is understandable because you can create golems from everything.
In D&D books there are more spiders than anything else, flaming spiders, shooting spiders, spiders with harpoons, spiders that float, spiders that swim, spiders that fart fire, everything spider, that is what really made me think the D&D people had no imagination, no Assassin Bugs, no Mantis, No wasps and beetles... Really stupid.
But my problem was more with the two books AFTER Monster Manual 3, monster manual 4 and 5 had little cool monsters and just added more Gith, Mind Flayers, Bugbears, Hobgoblins, OGres and Orcs to the list, and most of all the boring dragonspawn, which were horrid and easy fill-upps.
The 4th edition monster manuals of D&D were kinda cool, but the humans in it spoiled everything, also the fact that you had Goblin Archers, Goblin Warlords, Goblin Enchanters, Goblin Runemasters, Goblin Fighters, Goblin Druids and another 50+ goblins made it really hard for me to like the books, but the pictures and artwork and some background stories (howler, catoblepas ect) made it up for that loss, monster manual 3 from this series was an abomination tho, very little cool creatures and mostly re-used monsters with new classes and weapons...
I also really, really liked the Daemon book of paizo, and the devil and demon books were Ok for me too, but that is probably because i'm such a big sucker for daemons (I hated them in D&D, but Pathfinder made them really even cooler than demons and devils, something I really wouldn't dream earlier)
They're not very good bestiaries, so if you're looking at them from that perspective I can see the application of the label "lame".
The Daemon book bestiary has very cool and many creatures actually, especially the Phasmadaemon and Seugodaemon.
The Daemon book bestiary has very cool and many creatures actually, especially the Phasmadaemon and Seugodaemon.
They're not very good bestiaries, so if you're looking at them from that perspective I can see the application of the label "lame".
Sure. But if you buy the book thinking "this is a bestiary" you're not going to get what you expect. It's an awesome sourcebook including a bestiary section - not a bestiary. (I was trying to reconcile how anyone could label it "lame" and mismatch of expectations seemed most likely, to me).
I'd rather the bestiaries not get themed because then they would find less usage overall. As it stands, anyone can grab whatever they want from a bestiary no matter the them. If you have an "only Gothic horror" hardcover, it would find less use and sell less. That's a much better idea for a smaller page count bestiary.
MegaFauna aplenty, as foes, familiars, mounts and animal companions.
Indricothere
Bear-Dog
Creodont
Gomphothere
Brontotherium
Borophaginae
Andrewsarchus
Chalicotherium
Propalaeotherium
Leptictidium
Dinocerata
Thylacoleo Carnifex
Diprotodon
Monasi
Prionosuchus
Deinotherium
Toxodon
Indricothere, isn't that the same creature as the Baluchitherium? Both the biggest land mammals ever? THe giant rhinoceros without horn? The baluchitherium is already in bestiary 3, without a picture tho.
You also forgot the best of all missing Megafauna! A giang kangaroo that actually makes for an enemy and not only as critter like the normal non-hostile kangaroo would be.
Its name is Procoptodon.
Yep, Indricotherium and Baluchitherium are both considered to belong to the genus Paraceratherium...although there is still some confusion on the taxonomy
On that note, I think the Dire Hyena is a Hyaenodont, which is a type of Creodont.
No clue what a Monasi is?
Lol, I get all kinds of monk pictures when I enter Monasi in google.
Indricotherium seems to be a smaller cousin of the Baluchitherium.
Oh trust me I know what a creodont is :P
as far as bad ass basal mammalian predators go, has Andrewsarchus been statted up? Also might be nice to see Sarkastodon and Patriofelis
and not a mammal, but we really need a Gorgonopsian.
Isn't hyaenodon a bit like Andrewsarchus? Could be wrong, there was a time I was really hooked on Megafauna in my youth and I still like them but some names get a little bit wazzy after a while.
But I think hyaenodon wasn't a type of hyena at all, it was something different, pathfinder used the name probably because of the hyena-name-look-alike thingy.
One of the first creatures I asked for in this thread was a Gorgonopsid/Inostrancevia but I think pathfinder will not add this because they already have a big toothed mammalian reptile in bestiary 3 called Dimetrodon.
Also who ever said that Nogitsune and Kitsune can take the form of a nine tailed fox in pathfinder? I read all abilities and there is no ability to take fox form, only human form from their fox-humanoid form.
So there isn't a nine-tailed fox yet in pathfinder.
A good nine-tailed fox?
The most beautiful 9-Tailed Fox EVER drawn!.
This art would have be soo cool in Bestiary 3, but maybe bestiary 4.
This artist is soooo good in drawing mythic monsters, maybe Paizo/Pathfinder should contact her for drawings?
Their are feats that let a Kitsune take fox form, as well as get extra tails (which grant powers or bonuses IIRC)
Hyaenodonts and Andrewsarchus are completely unrelated. Hyaenodonts are "probably" afrotheres and more closely related to Tenrecs and elephants than Hyaenas, while Andrewsarchus is distantly related to hoofed mammals. Andrewsarchus was huge (modern Rhino-sized), while Hyaenodonts were more within the range of modern carnivore size, and also had impressive bone-crunching capabilities as well as probably being faster.
Gorgonopsians and Dimetrodon are completely different critters, and Gorgonopsians have gotten a lot of press recently with Primeval and Walking with Monsters...so they certainly deserve mention in the Bestiary.
You have my vote for...
Prionosuchus
Monesi
Thylacoleo
Leptictidium
Propalaetherium
Borophaginae
and that killer Kangaroo
I actually wouldn't mind a kyuubi to be the nine tailed mystic fox, since the kitsune is a race. I personally would've preferred if it wasn't the race but the beast.
MAOR crocodile monsters, more magical anyway, I really like crocodiles but all we get this far are real-life and extinct crocodiles + the lame werecrocodile I never liked.
Myths & Mythology most desired crocodile monsters: THe fearsome Egyptian Ammit or Souldevourer, the Aztek horror Cipactli which has some fish features and maws on the joints of its legs, and last but not least the Welch Afanc which shares the creativity of the beaver with the bloodthirst and ambush strategies of the crocodile.
Also
Ahkiyyini - Large skeletons of the oceans that play the drums to cause tidal waves, storms and tsunami's they can also charm/enslave water elemental creatures with the magical beats of their drums.
I can see a ghostship full of Draugr being led by a Ahkiyyini captain.
Cadejo - While they seem like twin dogs the size of horses (one pure bright white and the other black as pure shadow) these are actually one creature.
The dogs hunt together for non-intelligent prey, but the evil half of the creature (The black dog) also hunts for intelligent humanoids and creatures on which its white/good side doesn't agree with, for every intelligent creature killed the white dog heals or helps another creature, they are said to be the keepers of balance between good and evil, the licks of the white dog have very powerful healing properties and can even ressurect the recently killed.
The neverending conflict between good and evil going on in the Cadejo's dual minds.
Heikegani - The D&D crabman SUCKS I know, but these Samurai Crabman could be a lot of fun, half Samurai half crabman and all bad.
Let this picture do the talking:
Cool creature which can be Heikegani
I know this isn't what Heikegani is suppose to be, they are just Samurais who commit suicide and come back as big crabs with samurai faces on their shells but this is a more creative way to put Heikegani in pathfinder, we have enough other giant crabs already.
Karkadann - We have the little pony cute little butterfly loving white unicorns of course, but the Karkadann (also known as desert unicorn and prince of the desert) are their aggressive brown/greyish cousins from the desert. While they are herbivores most creatures rather face a Behir than the wrath of a mad Karkadann.
Let these pictures do the talking further:
Ignore the cute stuff, but the appearance of this Karkadann is just right.
A very monstrous non-horse version of the Karkadann
Tsemaus - I really want a sand/desert fish creature somewhere in the big list of pathfinder monsters and the Tsemaus is made for this job. WHile a sea creature in the normal version of its mythology roots, the pathfinder bestiaries already bloom with MANY sea based fish creatures so maybe the Tsemaus is better off in the desert.
The Tsemaus could be like a sand swimming swordfish or marlin with a very very sharp and large dorsal fin on its back which cut through almost anything as its made from adamantium, they swim through sand/earth as easy as a normal fish through water. This really solves two missing creatures in one beast, a Marlin based monster + a desert fish.
Sianach - A giant stag/elk with ENORMOUS antlers that even make the Megaloceros antlers look like little branches. The fun thing with this creature is its need to hunt down humanoids much like humanoids hunt for deer.
Sianach could be the perfect steeds for hags and such evil creatures, maybe also for evil fey. On their antlers could hang all kinds of skulls, bones, bodyparts and dark symbols.
Their eyes and hooves glow with glooming green fire.
Itzpapalotl - While some godess in Aztek mythology, with Itzpapalotl many cool things can be done.
First being a skeleton creature with the wings of a butterfly which stands for a beautiful death, or beauty after death.
But it can also be a swarm of killer/death butterflies (with skulls paterns on their wings) that is attracted to rotting flesh and spilled blood.
EDIT
PHOOKA, PHOOKA! I finally found a picture of a good Phooka Model!
An even better example!
1.- Zombie Cactus from D&D 4E... it was a riddiculous monster but it was pretty fun to ambush your players with living cacti using zombie thralls.
2.- MORE Kami
3.- MORE golems and Aeons
4.- More info on spawns of Rovagug for an epic final campaign battle.
5.- Golems from previous editions (Doll, Origami, etc)
6.- Noppera-Bou, a faceless Yokai who hauns peopledoing crary, uncanny stuff and then mocking them by turning into their loved ones.
7.- More lovecraftian horrors.
8.- Weird looking stuff
9.- Cute looking stuff :)
BUT somehow I doubt there will be Bestiary 4...
....y'know, I remember actually mentioning the Cipactli and I also remember Sincubus shooting down that idea. And here he is making the same suggestion.
And the cat's in the cradle with the silver spoon...
1.- Zombie Cactus from D&D 4E... it was a riddiculous monster but it was pretty fun to ambush your players with living cacti using zombie thralls.
2.- MORE Kami
3.- MORE golems and Aeons
4.- More info on spawns of Rovagug for an epic final campaign battle.
5.- Golems from previous editions (Doll, Origami, etc)
6.- Noppera-Bou, a faceless Yokai who hauns peopledoing crary, uncanny stuff and then mocking them by turning into their loved ones.
7.- More lovecraftian horrors.
8.- Weird looking stuff
9.- Cute looking stuff :)
BUT somehow I doubt there will be Bestiary 4...
Zombie Cactus is copyrighted by D&D so not possible, If you like such thrall taking plants you might like the Yellow Musk Creeper.
I agree on the cactus part, of all plants cacti are the most fun to monsterize.
You are the first to ask for more Aeons, more golems are always welcome of course as you can create them from everything.
I'm sure there will be a bestiary 4, because Wesley asked us to come up with 5 new dragons a while back, those are signs they are working on bestiary 4.
Question: How many lovecraftian monsters are there still to paizonize? Because i've seen so many already in the AP's and the Bestiaries, so which ones still need som paizo love?
....y'know, I remember actually mentioning the Cipactli and I also remember Sincubus shooting down that idea. And here he is making the same suggestion.
And the cat's in the cradle with the silver spoon...
First of all people change opinions and in the case of Cipactli you described a version I didn't really liked (I didn't know or looked up the creature back then), you said something about a tarrasque-like creature, a gigantic version, I would not like a bigger than huge Cipactli, that got me confused.