| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now that the Advanced Race Guide has been released, and Ultimate Equipment is on its way, is there any chance that Paizo would create a book for monster customization? Feats, spells, prestige classes, variant abilities, equipment, and so on, all created specifically for monsters.
The "Revisited" series of products touch upon this type of content, but only enough to wet the appetite. I crave more! In fact, I still use Savage Species for its monster feats and other monster options, despite that being a relatively small part of that book.
I'd love to see a Paizo take on this in the not-so-distant future, and as the thread title suggest, I tentatively offer the title "Ultimate Monsters" for such a book :)
This is a splendid idea. A new Libris Mortis type book would also be welcome.
Seconded.
And I add two suggestions:
1) Monster and Archetype builder (like in Advanced Race Guide, but maybe more focused on creating special abilities).
2) Random monster generator tables based on the above.
How about a book that goes into details about monster types, giving for each new feats, spells, new special abilities and items related to them ?
They could explain the general idea of the type in question, what to expect from players, ecology and new archetypes. Here's a few examples:
- For the Dragon type, an archetype that replaces a dragon's spellcasting by something else, like a truckload of new abilities.
- For the Outsider type, something that explains blessing (angels), possession (demons), contract (devils) and binding (elemental).
- For the Undead type, new spells, like the Summon Undead spells from Libris Mortis.
- For the Construct type, new enhancements made for golems.
I also would like to see this. You would have my 50 bucks.
This would be great. Instead of just Bestiary 4, this book could have breakdowns on various "monster races" such as:
Kasatha
Ogres
Trox
Wyvarans
Gnolls
This would include a few pages of background fluff, feats, spells specific to said race, and racial equipment. This also would involve new tables on how to create things like "weres" like lycanthropes and possible kaiju or dire beasts.
Concur with everything above, a monster building guide for GMs, with a plethora of templates suitable for everything from dragons to plant monsters.
I thought this thread was about Godzilla vs Mechagodzilla :-(
I'm sorry to disappoint, but the book could certainly include feats that could transform an ordinary Dinosaur into Godzilla :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes!
I've been lamenting the lack of an equivalent to Libris Mortis, Lords of Madness and Savage Species since day 1.
The players have their toys ... let's have some toys for the GM :)
Or have a section on archetypes for summoners and alchemists that are pretty monstrous.
I love this idea.
It would be great if each Universal Monster Rule ability had a point value, and then you could switch them out to customize monsters.
I also like the idea of monstrous prestige classes.
It would also be neat to create new summoning feats that alter summon monster spells, possibly by applying templates to them, like Skeletal Summoning. Imagine Zombie Summoning, Aberrant Summoning, Elemental Summoning, Golem Summoning, Oozy Summoning, Fiery Summoning, Petrified Summoning, Serpentine Summoning, Shocking Summoning, Vampiric Summoning, Vitrolic Summoning, etc. etc.
I would like to see ways to 'dumb down' dragons. No spell casting or spell-like abilities, just a breath weapon and more of a predator aspect.
I want this product! :)
Why not just use Linnorms? Some of them have SLA's, but they don't cast spells.
ULTIMATE BLOAT.
Why to spoil trade secrets? :P
This would be great. Instead of just Bestiary 4, this book could have breakdowns on various "monster races" such as:
Kasatha
Ogres
Trox
Wyvarans
GnollsThis would include a few pages of background fluff, feats, spells specific to said race, and racial equipment. This also would involve new tables on how to create things like "weres" like lycanthropes and possible kaiju or dire beasts.
Speak for yourself please, rather have both this + bestiary 4.
|
ULTIMATE BLOAT.
I'd consider something like this to be far less bloat than yet another book dedicated to options for players. Hell, I'd trade in both Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic for an Ultimate Monsters book any day.
I'd want it to have a sizable template section for more advanced templates (akin to those in the Advanced Bestiary or the Book of Templates Deluxe Edition 3.5).
This is a splendid idea. A new Libris Mortis type book would also be welcome.
I'd like to see something along these lines. Not just more types of undead, but ways of creating and customising the existing types.
When I started playing 3.5, there were dozens of books out. It was overwhelming to try and get all the ones I wanted. With Pathfinder, I've been able to keep up with all major releases. So I selfishly say to the publishers: Bloat it up! I'll buy the stuff I like and ignore the stuff I don't.
If this was marketed as a GM resource, I wouldn't see it as an example of Bloat. After all, GM's can choose to use the book or not, without too much in the way of negative ramifications. And most of the options SHOULDN'T be available to players, so they shouldn't have to worry about juggling yet another book with feats, etc.
Definitely a GM resource, though I do think that updates to the summon spells to account for monsters released in bestiary 2, 3, and potentially 4 would be nice hat tip to players, and well within the potential theme/scope of the book.
It should most definitely be a GM resource. That's what I want; if it was in any way marketed towards PCs (beyond minor sections) it would miss the entire point, which would be customization of monsters to create more interesting encounters.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And most of the options SHOULDN'T be available to players, so they shouldn't have to worry about juggling yet another book with feats, etc.
See, there's a little problem here...
One of the greatest strengths of 3.5e is that both players, NPCs and monsters are all built from the same set of Lego bricks. Stats, feats, skills, mechanics - you name it, you got it. Remember where 4E took a nose dive? Yup, in that it has a Human Ranger PC who is an entirely different animal from a Human Ranger NPC. They are like Superman and Bizzaro, really. Whereas in 3.5 both are, erm, Human Rangers, and the only difference is their WBL. It's so elegant it makes me want to have Monte's baby medusas.
Ghouls can paralyze? PCs can too. Stuff can fly? PCs can too. Stuff can vomit acid? PCs can too, and so on and so on. And it's all Lego bricks, so you can mix and match, having monstrous PCs or monsters with class levels, PrCs and feats from Complete Wazoo and it all more or less works. You don't get absurd situation where said 4E PC Human Ranger does Doomshadow Deathbolt but his NPC buddy does Shadowbane Superarrow and neither of them may as much as beg the GM to have the other one's cool stuff because 4E is, erm, just like that. Mike Mearls, I don't want your baby oysters.
Now whatever makes a dent in the above is bad. Improved Natural Attack is bad, because it has to be barred away from Monks (in all fairness, Pathfinder upped the amount of PC races that can get natural attacks in some form, so it's not that bad). Monster-only stuff is bad. Pathfinder animal companions, while arguably a good move from 3.5 (where, allow me to remind you, animcomps/mounts/familiars were a sad joke made slightly less funny by the fact that Druids were kings of universe anyway, Wizards were sultans of galaxies despite that and Paladins were utterly useless rubbish and nobody really bothered), are guilty as well, because suddenly you have Timmy the Ordinary Crab and Tommy the Laser Beams Shooting Turbo Crab, the difference coming from the fact that Timmy is an unloved bastard child of a random encounters table and Tommy sleeps with a gnome druid. Like really.
In interest of preserving one of the biggest achievements of 3.5 (no, really, there aren't many RPGs out there where PC-side creatures and DM-side creatures come from the same Lego set AND it makes sense mechanically) let's try not to drive a gap between PCs and Monsters.
Shy of very unique magic items there are a ton of things monsters can do that no PC will ever achieve. I read a post the other day about a guy building a character who was a chef that could eat his foes, but guess what swallow whole is a purely monster ability that a PC just can't get. You want a trolls regeneration, good luck, you can get something close but it's clearly an inferior ability when put next to the troll.
So while I agree that for most things you are using the same set of legos, pcs, npcs, and monsters all have some unique legos of their own.
The real request here isn't for a new set of legos, its for a series of blueprints that help demonstrate which legos can attach to which other legos and for an easy CR calculation of your new creation.
|
|
Ring of regeneration not only doesn't have the fire/acid problem, it also means that suddenly all you have to worry about is not dying during combat.
Swallow hole -> Eidolon evolution, Synthesist or any other funky ability to grab a hold of your Eidy's abilities, OM NOM NOM what did you say about the ability being monster purely?
Of course you will find a few really "monster only" abilities, but 3.5 designers have very hard tried to keep those to a minimum.
|
|
One of the greatest strengths of 3.5e is that both players, NPCs and monsters are all built from the same set of Lego bricks. Stats, feats, skills, mechanics - you name it, you got it.
Like PC WBL vs NPC WBL ?
:P
Yeah, because they're both money. Same Lego bricks, different quantity.
What it allows? To write a Character and say "use this items if you're using him as a PC and those items if he's an NPC". There, presto, elegance pure. Now try that with 4E and let me know how it worked out for you.
you can die while wearing a ring of regeneration, unlike the universal monster ability it doesn't specifically say you can't die from hit point loss, so yeah inferior.
I'll grant you however that you have found the only way to acquire swallow whole, hope your DM allows a synthesist, or even a summoner in general.
But that doesn't change the point I was driving at, the goal should be an instruction manual for the BUILDING of monsters not just a plethora of brand new monster bloat.
|
|
I couldn't disagree with you more, Gorbacz . I think the fact that 3.X layed out the same rules for absolutely everything, PC, NPC, and monster, is one of the WORST decisions that was made. You want to have Monte Cook's babies? I want the man banned from ever working in the RPG industry again. Between this issue and "trap" options / Timmy cards, I think Cook is probably one of the worst things to every happen to RPGs. Worse by far than even Lorraine Williams.
|
|
One of the greatest strengths of 3.5e is that both players, NPCs and monsters are all built from the same set of Lego bricks. Stats, feats, skills, mechanics - you name it, you got it.
Like PC WBL vs NPC WBL ?
:P
Yeah, because they're both money. Same Lego bricks, different quantity.
What it allows? To write a Character and say "use this items if you're using him as a PC and those items if he's an NPC". There, presto, elegance pure. Now try that with 4E and let me know how it worked out for you.
Both money, but one only gets half of what the other gets.
Would you be OK if the game laid a similar smackdown on PCs? Maybe NPCs should get double the point-buy that the PCs get. If you use 15-point buy PCs, NPCs get 30.
|
|
I couldn't disagree with you more, Gorbacz . I think the fact that 3.X layed out the same rules for absolutely everything, PC, NPC, and monster, is one of the WORST decisions that was made. You want to have Monte Cook's babies? I want the man banned from ever working in the RPG industry again. Between this issue and "trap" options / Timmy cards, I think Cook is probably one of the worst things to every happen to RPGs. Worse by far than even Lorraine Williams.
The best flamebait posts ... are the ones that even aren't flamebaits.
Now, 4E did away with trap options and Lego bricks and oh we all know how this story ends, do we? They hired Monte to help write a game that will actually make some money. Irony!
|
|
you can die while wearing a ring of regeneration, unlike the universal monster ability it doesn't specifically say you can't die from hit point loss, so yeah inferior.
I'll grant you however that you have found the only way to acquire swallow whole, hope your DM allows a synthesist, or even a summoner in general.
But that doesn't change the point I was driving at, the goal should be an instruction manual for the BUILDING of monsters not just a plethora of brand new monster bloat.
You have that Manual, it's called Bestiary 1 with Core Rulebook as support. Both free on-line! Yeah, madness, I know.
Anything else would a bloat boat. And long forum arguments over "is stuff from Ultimate Monsters player legal". Go check the Improved Natural Attack Monk threads, it's a primer.
And most of the options SHOULDN'T be available to players, so they shouldn't have to worry about juggling yet another book with feats, etc.In interest of preserving one of the biggest achievements of 3.5 (no, really, there aren't many RPGs out there where PC-side creatures and DM-side creatures come from the same Lego set AND it makes sense mechanically) let's try not to drive a gap between PCs and Monsters.
I 100% agree with this; if a PC does happen to qualify for something that exists within this book they should definitely be allowed to utilize that option.
My point was simply that the book should be created with the GM in mind, with the primary purpose of customizing enemy encounters. The focus should be on monster customization, and any PC applications of the content should be by chance rather than by design.
Many options found in a book like this would be difficult for players to gain access to (options enhancing or altering the grab mechanic, for instance, or other virtually monster-unique abilities), or would be poor options for PC for other reasons (like an option where a monster explodes when it dies). If a PC is able to use them, or wants to use them, that's fine, but that shouldn't be a focus in the design.
|
|
Of course, even with in the d20 system, it's pretty easy to exclude standard PCs from monster abilities. Just give the ability a prerequisite that PCs can't have. Monster type: [Anything other than Humanoid] works nicely. Most templates can't be easily gained by existing PCs either, and those that do (such as lich) tend to be the end of the campaign for that character.
I think this would be a great resource, especially if it gave tips on running solo monster encounters or other kinds of encounters.
I dunno...unless you regularly allow non-humanoid characters, a good chunk of monster abilities can't be replicated by a player character. A dragon, aboleth, ooze, and a PC shouldn't all be capable of the same thing, although there might be alternative ways for different game abilities to be available to different beings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The f%## is a Timmy Card in terms of DnD?
Hmmm I see...
|
|
More like a Storytelling experience that reaches into depths of your perception of humanity ... oh wait, wrong RPG of yore.Meh, you can play Magical Tea Party and Mother May I, but they aren't really what you could call 'games'.
Sounds like somebody needs to mash up 1E/2E with My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic..