| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
nah...its just that we all sort of ran out of things to talk about. I think most of the regular posters in these threads have probably said their wishlist multiple times already, and there hasn't been much in the way of new ideas for a long time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We will have more things to talk about once they announce what the final hardcover of year will be. If it is a new bestiary will have something fun to talk about, if it isn't a bestiary will have something fun to complain about;)
All I can say now is watch my new and finished Pinterest page for all the creatures from myth and legends that I really hope will be in pathfinder Bestiaries some day.
I'm reaching the bottom of the barrel in terms of ideas. I've exhausted almost all of my usual sources for mythical creatures. I could post my own interpretations of them like you do, but I'd kind of prefer to see Paizo interpret them. I could go on to pop culture monsters, but there's only a few things I would really say I'm an expert on. I could list 300 kaiju that in a perfect world I might like to see cloned (as normal sized monsters, not kaiju), but that seems kind of pointless. Same with copyrighted D&D monsters. We all know what the status is on them. We may see creatures that share the same general niche, but not the shameless clones I honestly want.
What was that real-myth-non-harry-potter-lethifold monster you once promised to show me? Really curious because, never found it anywhere...
Also this are even more monsters that I want in Pathfinder one day
Well I hope they announce what the final hardcover of the year is soon. They usually announce it sometime between now and April.
La Malogra from Hispanic New Mexican folklore. An evil spirit that took the form of a fleece or an animal skin.
I have a crazy/possibly silly idea. How about the Cameleopardel as a vicious/predatory giraffe creature? Like they had in Sandstorm for third edition D&D? That's certainly something we don't have.
I kinda think the Serpopard serves better for that role :-p
In sandstorm D&D the cameleopardel was actually a kind magical creature that helped creatures in the desert that were dying on dehydration or something silly like that :p
I did always love that picture in sandstorm of the Camelopardel!!
Page 61 of the B4 wish list, a monster giraffe is a thing that is actually being talked about;) While were on the subject has anyone wished for flying pigs yet because if not I am right now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't Arkan Sonney usually a hedgehog? What about Chrysaor? Who needs normal flying pigs when you could have demonic winged boars?
I'd like both the Serpopard (which while having a long neck, I don't see as being particularly giraffe like, more like a mammalian Tanystropheus, which is even weirder) and the Cameleopardel. I want it to be dangerous though. And it looks really nasty in the picture. Surprised that it's supposed to be gentle.
Well they could always make a template for animals that turn them into magical beast with a list of abilities you add to them like wings, human intelligence and speech, fire breath, DR, shape changing, invisibility, size growth/shrinking, various immunities, etc. Or bring back the winged creature template.
Isn't Arkan Sonney usually a hedgehog? What about Chrysaor? Who needs normal flying pigs when you could have demonic winged boars?
I'd like both the Serpopard (which while having a long neck, I don't see as being particularly giraffe like, more like a mammalian Tanystropheus, which is even weirder) and the Cameleopardel. I want it to be dangerous though. And it looks really nasty in the picture. Surprised that it's supposed to be gentle.
Lately I see Chrysaor more like a demonic boarman with wings and a gold-theme as its name means something with gold. (so probably dressed in golden armor and golden rings around his tusks.
His blood would be the best feature as it creates swarms of scorpions when it hits the soil, and when the chrysaor would die its heart mutates into a giant scorpion monster and burst free from the corpse to attack the killer. Chrysaor would also strike me as greedy bastards that hate pretty creatures and are pretty jealous on them.
Arkan Sonney is both actually, in some myths its the hedgehog, in others the little pig.
I'm never been a fan of the Camelopardel in the myths (only the D&D version when I was younger, but then I loved everything D&D threw at me) but i'm biased because i'm never have strong feelings for kind-hearted creatures. The Serpopard idea is cool though, never thought about them that way.
Just found out that D&D's Eye Killers are from mythology. I want them.
Just found out that D&D's Eye Killers are from mythology. I want them.
source?
They are from South American mythology if i'm not mistaken.
Seen that a long time ago, but never cared for Eye Killers in the first place so forgot about them.
But he's legit.
Here is a new source, but I got it from another source:
nah I didn't think he was wrong, I was just not familiar with the monster, and was curious where he found the reference
It's a monster from 1st edition D&D. Bat/snake hybrid creature with a death gaze. And the link Sincubus gave for the mythical version is exactly where I saw it.
They remind me of the Anaye twins from Native American mythology, the Binaye-Ahani.
In one of the first D&D monster manuals, the Eye Killer was mostly one of the monsters I never even read the entry from, based on the name I didn't like and the silly appearance... :-p
If this creatures are in, I hope they are very different from the D&D-ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D Eye Killers are fine with me. They're actually rather accurate to the mythos (as much as anything else in 1st edition D&D), they're unique, and they're significantly less silly than anything in Misfit Monsters Redeemed. And you should never, EVER, judge a monster based on the name. I cannot tell you how many awesome creatures you'll miss out on if you do that. D&D has a tendency to make mundane names for great monsters, and the mythical creatures we've been talking about take names from all different world cultures, some of which sound kind of ridiculous to English speakers. In the end, names are just words used to label the creatures so that we can have something to call them. They don't really effect the creature itself that much.
I just wish they would bother having the correct pronunciation for creature's names from myth and made up words for monster names in general.
D&D Eye Killers are fine with me. They're actually rather accurate to the mythos (as much as anything else in 1st edition D&D), they're unique, and they're significantly less silly than anything in Misfit Monsters Redeemed. And you should never, EVER, judge a monster based on the name. I cannot tell you how many awesome creatures you'll miss out on if you do that. D&D has a tendency to make mundane names for great monsters, and the mythical creatures we've been talking about take names from all different world cultures, some of which sound kind of ridiculous to English speakers. In the end, names are just words used to label the creatures so that we can have something to call them. They don't really effect the creature itself that much.
While i'm not that hard on names in general, there are few exeptions.
Grootslang (which when being dutch, is not only a silly word, but also a dirty word) Also this creature always looks silly to me, elephant/snake mix just doesn't work for me personally, don't like the pathfinder version and never seen a cool picture of a grootslang online.
Eye Killer, Spearfinger would be another, BUT she also is known as Utlunta, which I prefer over Spearfinger.
In the case of Hinqumemen however I prefer the name easy name Engulfer.
Strangely I have no problems with the name Hidebehind... dunno why that is.
Impossible long names, in the case of Kurage (the fiery jellyfish) i'll just name them Kurage, in the case of the Spanish dragonfly-horses I just call them Del Diablu. Also cut the Yehwe and AWD parts from Goggie and Zogbanu.
Its strange that real dutch mytho monsters have better names (Buckrider & Osschaart) than the Grootslang from African mythology.
Grootslang never bothered me. Kind of a silly word, but I actually love the monster.
I do try to use the word from the base culture's language for the creature whenever possible, so it is Utlunta to me, and likewise Hinqumemen. That's more out of "correctness" than any real problem with the translated names, however.
Difficult names don't bother me, though sometimes I do shorten them a bit. The indestructible bear demon Ganiagwaihegowa is a favorite of mine.
Fearsome Critter names don't bother me either.
I go the opposite way with the Dragonfly monsters, I call them Caballucos. Del Diablu is too obvious in meaning for me.
I do the same with Yehwe Zogbanu, just cause I liked the Z-name. Awd Goggie always sounded more arcane or fantastical to me than "Goggie." Still only three syllables.
I also like to do my best to include creatures from as many cultures as possible, and while some words sound silly or difficult to us, they probably don't to the culture it comes from.
Yara Ma Yha Hoo. Nuff said.
I don't mind the English based D&D monster names either. If I can have a Cactus Cat, I can have a Lodestone Marauder.
Soo probably no Bestiary 5 this year... all those innersea/NPC books get in the way probably...
Inner Sea monster codex is in the campaign setting line, and comes out this summer. I doubt it would have any influence at all on if we get a Bestiary 5
Although this product probably rules out a hardcover bestiary this year...
Boo Hoo..
Not happy with that. We already have Night Hags, so occult bestiary is probably full of old monsters with new abilities, or templates.
Seeya in 2016...
The lack of Mythology monsters is disturbing lately, really hope the later Giant Slayer parts have more of them in store, was not impressed with first part...
Actually the description of the bestiary sort of implied that there would both be new versions as well as completely new monsters.
At any rate, I am sure more mythology related monsters will be appearing in future books.
"This must-have softcover guide presents more than 40 new or variant monsters with occult themes, from psychic liches and night hags to creatures from strange realms and the dark places beyond the stars."
A softcover... That hardly rules out any HARDcover, just sayin'...
That's like saying that since the Inner Seas Monster Codex is happening, we won't see a Monster Codex 2. It doesn't rule out hardcover books if campaign setting or core expansion softcovers are made.
At any rate, they can just pick monsters from APs and group them all into a hardcover. There you have your Bestiary 5.
Please no, I would hate that , so cheap...
Bestiary 5 should be a mix again.
But because Cthulu already is in Bestiary 4, I guess bestiary 5 will be made with relaxing thoughts and come to us (if the world still exists) in 2017.
Please no, I would hate that , so cheap...
Bestiary 5 should be a mix again.
But because Cthulu already is in Bestiary 4, I guess bestiary 5 will be made with relaxing thoughts and come to us (if the world still exists) in 2017.
Well, apparently, you guys are so desperate to get a Bestiary 5.
Occult Bestiary isn't "replacing" B5, especially with just around 50 monsters, when a Bestiary contains 300+.
If Paizo really wants to calm you guys down, they could technically make a Bestiary 5 with reprinted AP monsters. There's enough to fill 4 books like this anyway. Since these are just reprints, it would be faster and cheaper to make. Take the first 300 monsters you find in APs and voilà, you're done with B5. Take another 300 monsters and voilà, B6 is ready after 2 months. Sure, it's nothing original, but hey, it's an easier product to make than having to create from scratch 250 monsters and hope that they are balanced.
Seriously, people here see every new book as replacements for a Bestiary 5. The guys at Paizo might be building it, but 1 monster at the time, in addition on working on APs, modules, companions and other core books.
Paizo doesn't release books to calm people down, they release them to make money.
The future existence of Bestiary 5 is going to be dependent upon how successful Bestiary 4 was.
And I don't think anyone just wants an AP compilation. As someone who actually has quite a few AP volumes and setting books, I probably wouldn't bother getting a hardcover book that didn't also have new monsters. I like the current format, which includes existing monsters and new ones. I don't want a bestiary to...just have a bestiary. I want it to be a cool book.
Then why do people flip out when a new book that isn't B5 comes out?
What's the problem at getting other books instead of B5?
It seems to me that everytime something new is announced, it is considered a "replacement" of another yet-to-be-revealed product... when it's definitely not the case.
I want a cool-looking 5th Bestiary as much as the next player... but come on, I'm not flipping out when I see something else announced.
BTW, an AP Monster Compendium... is logically possible and totally feasible by all standards. It wouldn't be as acclaimed, but considering the sheer number of it, they could just shear 10 AP bestiaries off their list and package them in a single compendium. That can be done with modules and companions as well.
Especially the older ones...
Because hardcover bestiaries are AWESOME!!! It is an instant purchase for me, as for NPC Codex that was a no sale, and the Monster Codex was interesting but I will be picky depending on what is in the next one.
Then why do people flip out when a new book that isn't B5 comes out?
What's the problem at getting other books instead of B5?
It seems to me that everytime something new is announced, it is considered a "replacement" of another yet-to-be-revealed product... when it's definitely not the case.
I want a cool-looking 5th Bestiary as much as the next player... but come on, I'm not flipping out when I see something else announced.
BTW, an AP Monster Compendium... is logically possible and totally feasible by all standards. It wouldn't be as acclaimed, but considering the sheer number of it, they could just shear 10 AP bestiaries off their list and package them in a single compendium. That can be done with modules and companions as well.
Especially the older ones...
Well I for one don't flip out...I actually would prefer a NPC codex 2, covering the APG, UC, and UM classes and alternate classes to a Bestiary
Really the freaking out...is generally like...one or two people.
|
I'd prefer a new bestiary (with all new monsters) to practically any other book Paizo would publish. Definitely prefer it to another NPC / Monster codex...I can add class levels to existing NPCs / monsters myself. I want more monsters. And I'd also definitely prefer it to another splatbook that adds a bunch of overpowered caster options and a few unremarkable feat chains for martial characters.
BTW, an AP Monster Compendium... is logically possible and totally feasible by all standards. It wouldn't be as acclaimed, but considering the sheer number of it, they could just shear 10 AP bestiaries off their list and package them in a single compendium. That can be done with modules and companions as well.
Especially the older ones...
That, and could also be made in the Campaign Setting line (it has Hardcovers once in a while) instead of the 'Rule' line.
That, and could also be made in the Campaign Setting line (it has Hardcovers once in a while) instead of the 'Rule' line.BTW, an AP Monster Compendium... is logically possible and totally feasible by all standards. It wouldn't be as acclaimed, but considering the sheer number of it, they could just shear 10 AP bestiaries off their list and package them in a single compendium. That can be done with modules and companions as well.
Especially the older ones...
I don't see why it should remain exclusive to the Setting when several AP monsters already made into Bestiaries.
Then again... like people would actually COMPLAIN about this...
It's not like people cannot adapt the Inner Seas Bestiary to their own game already...
That, and could also be made in the Campaign Setting line (it has Hardcovers once in a while) instead of the 'Rule' line.BTW, an AP Monster Compendium... is logically possible and totally feasible by all standards. It wouldn't be as acclaimed, but considering the sheer number of it, they could just shear 10 AP bestiaries off their list and package them in a single compendium. That can be done with modules and companions as well.
Especially the older ones...
I don't see why it should remain exclusive to the Setting when several AP monsters already made into Bestiaries.
Then again... like people would actually COMPLAIN about this...
It's not like people cannot adapt the Inner Seas Bestiary to their own game already...
That... But the complains would be about said monsters not being in the PRD.
Yep...no PRD for Golarion specific books. at which point one wonders whats the point of then graduating them from their existing AP/module/CS volumes.
I mean I will take my monster compendiums however I can get them, and I honestly don't mind the lack of a Bestiary this fall, as I still need to pick up a few 3rd party bestiaries due to lack of pocket money, so I have other sources of new monsters ahead.
On a side note...since Occult Adventurers is deriving their source material from more Victorian sources, there is a good chance that we will still see some monsters from real world folklore, besides psychic variants of existing monsters.
3Rd party bestiaries never warm me up, not even D&D monster manual compare anything next to Paizo Bestiaries.
Yep...no PRD for Golarion specific books. at which point one wonders whats the point of then graduating them from their existing AP/module/CS volumes.
The PRD... never bothered much, because I own all the books in the site, so... They do have a very legit point to "force" people to buy the Golarion-related books; that's the point of building a library.
3Rd party bestiaries never warm me up, not even D&D monster manual compare anything next to Paizo Bestiaries.
I like the Tomes of Horrors and Alluria's bestiaries. I also agree that Paizo knocked the ball out of the park when it comes to presentation for bestiaries.
- 1 page for standard monsters, 2 pages for elite monsters, 1 page to EXPLAIN a subtype- Great artwork
- Great editing; the MM were all over the place
Paizo makes awesome bestiaries.
I love Paizo bestiaries because they are full of diversity (not counting modern or futeristic monsters), the 1 page each monster strategy, and of course there books like revisited and AP's where some monster with little flavor end up being described in full detail anyway.
I love the art beyond anything else, some D&D art maybe beautiful, but in pathfinder most artist work in the same way, looking like only one artist works for them, so perfect. In D&D they rarely use myth monsters, and when they do they deform them into something extremely different I don't recognize anymore (like turning rhinoceros myths into giraffes) and Paizo is the only one that uses the more obscure monsters, which is perfect!
Bestiary 1 didn't do a whole lot for me, but bestiary 2, 3 and 4 are among my favorite books of all times.
I love that Paizo's bestiaries have...
-1 page per monster, 2 if elite.
-several 0HD races, familars, and animal companions.
-new monsters.
-monsters from past products.
-monsters from myth, pop culture, and new ones all together.
-great artwork.
-universal monster rules for more space for unique abilities.
-section for types and subtypes.
-monster lists by type/subtype, CR, and terrain.
-a good mix of monster types, subtypes, themes, etc.
Yep...no PRD for Golarion specific books. at which point one wonders whats the point of then graduating them from their existing AP/module/CS volumes.
When they go from AP/Modules/CS to main rule line, words are changed and fluff is usually either changed or lost, or kinda both.