...and the modern opinion that one is chocolate, the other peanut butter, and the forced mixture of the two not always being desirable...
I'm afraid you lost me there.
Why people are against a bestiary 5 at all? If you don't want it, just don't buy it. Simple as that.
NO Dinosaurs? That is blasphemy.
I'd never want to say no to more bestiaries but if the option is Bestiary 5 or Monster codex 2 I'm going with the latter. Though I'd prefer either of those over another NPC Codex.
Candiru.
|
It's not so much that fans don't want more dragons, dinosaurs and giants. So much so that the their not very unqiue. We have Ocean, River and I think a giant that lives near lakes. Beyond the various environments what makes them unique. Same thing Dragons give me more but make the unique. Not more for the sake of giving more of the same with little variation. Dinosaurs the problem is similar but also one of them not showing up in many fantasy campaigns imo. Unless one is running a Lost world style of campaign. giants and dragons almost always make a experience in most campaigns. With four bestiaries and 3pp support I need more than it being published by Paizo to spend 40-45$ on a bestiary. Even with the free srd it's more material for me to look through and learn for little gain. At the very least I would release a new bestiary every three four or even five years. I love monsters like the next guy yet with four bestiaries there is enough creatures to run a lifetime full of campaigns imo.
Out of the two I rather get a Bestiary over a Monster Codex. I felt the second was not worth the price and the only hardcover from Paizo that I have not bought to date.
I think a bestiary every 2 years is perfect. Make switches with the codexes.
I hate the human codex though, and wouldn't mind never see that replace the bestiary again. The monster codex had its charms.
So 2015 = bestiary 5
2016 = monster codex 2
2017 = bestiary 6
2018 = monster codex 3
Somewhere in januari between those switches = npc codex for all I care.
I'd be game for another NPC Codex, but I'd prefer one that was more like Paizo's other NPC book, that fleshed out the guards, militaries, gangs, and other organizations of the world with typical roles and NPCs. The implementation of the previous NPC Codex, where we had a wizard at every level to have a wizard at every level, kind of made finding an NPC with the themes you wanted very hit or miss.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so glad that you are a rare case of persons in this.
And that is never going to happen anyway, Paizo's staff love them mythology.
I hope the 5th book is so crowded with them, that you don't even want to buy it. >:-D
What are you, 6 years old?
I love mythology too, but I'm not so blind as to not see that those endless lists are 99% composed by uninteresting garbage.
"Oh, look, the Sbrlxfts, a cannibal giant with four arms and three eyes! We absolutely need that, it's something totally new! Wow, the Drugtflk-Hlhhrrrtkk, a beast with horns and a serpent tail, how come this marvel wasn't added in previous bestiaries?"
Please.
There are far more interesting things than the countless unelaborate mixes of human and animal traits conceived by all possible primitive folklore that manifested on this planet. Especially if they have to be added exactly for the mere reason that they come from folklore, despite being actually worthless.
|
(or Formics, if you've read the innumerable sequels, which are great)Did you like the Matrix sequels and Godfather 3 too?
The first ones were always the best, the others were good (besides Revolutions, in my opinion).
I hope they don't make movies of the Ender's Game sequels, they killed some important stuff in the first one. Either way, Speaker For The Dead was described as "Talking heads and acts of unspeakable violence." And not in a bad way.
I'm so glad that you are a rare case of persons in this.
And that is never going to happen anyway, Paizo's staff love them mythology.
I hope the 5th book is so crowded with them, that you don't even want to buy it. >:-D
What are you, 6 years old?
I love mythology too, but I'm not so blind as to not see that those endless lists are 99% composed by uninteresting garbage.
"Oh, look, the Sbrlxfts, a cannibal giant with four arms and three eyes! We absolutely need that, it's something totally new! Wow, the Drugtflk-Hlhhrrrtkk, a beast with horns and a serpent tail, how come this marvel wasn't added in previous bestiaries?"
Please.
There are far more interesting things than the countless unelaborate mixes of human and animal traits conceived by all possible primitive folklore that manifested on this planet. Especially if they have to be added exactly for the mere reason that they come from folklore, despite being actually worthless.
How old are you 3?
Really, what you say doesn't make sense.
Yes there are 10.000 species of boring ghosts, bland giants and sea serpents in mythology.
But none of those I wish for. I always leave the bland-creatures out of my lists or make something unique of them in the case of the ONLY bland creature I used in my proposals known as Laestrygon (a greek giant)
But why exactly are a Karkadann, Shadhavar, Batibat, Gancanagh, Mahaha, Yehme Zogbanu, Raiju, Rarog, Gaasyendietha, Djieien, Pyrausta, Haietlik, Ikuchi and so many others bland, boring and already in other creatures?
Sorry but I can't find an evil or brute unicorn anywhere, or a mad frost demon, or a fat tree lady that haunts your dreams.
If you only want lovecraft, I have news for you, they are depleted. All non-copyright creatures are already there.
So please share your wishes in the bestiary 5 thread of what you want to see? probably only good and neutral outsiders, and some dark aberrations (have some for ya from mythology, from the case you find 99% horrible, think about Amhuluk and Akaname)...? What a boring book that will be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm so glad that you are a rare case of persons in this.
And that is never going to happen anyway, Paizo's staff love them mythology.
I hope the 5th book is so crowded with them, that you don't even want to buy it. >:-D
What are you, 6 years old?
I love mythology too, but I'm not so blind as to not see that those endless lists are 99% composed by uninteresting garbage.
"Oh, look, the Sbrlxfts, a cannibal giant with four arms and three eyes! We absolutely need that, it's something totally new! Wow, the Drugtflk-Hlhhrrrtkk, a beast with horns and a serpent tail, how come this marvel wasn't added in previous bestiaries?"
Please.
There are far more interesting things than the countless unelaborate mixes of human and animal traits conceived by all possible primitive folklore that manifested on this planet. Especially if they have to be added exactly for the mere reason that they come from folklore, despite being actually worthless.
I don't think anyone expects every single monster from folklore in these lists to make it. The devs have stated in the past that they like adapting monsters from folklore, because in many ways they are time-tested from being real legends, and often have odd cultural quirks which can make them. It's not like those lists just came out of the blue.
There is also the issue that almost all monsters pulled from myth have come from European and to a lesser extent Asian myth. Some of us post these lists because we would like to see greater cultural diversity in monsters. I am a huge fan of Arcadia and can't wait to see it developed, but if it is going to be Golarion's version of the New World, I would rather it be populated with monsters from that region, not goblins with the serial numbers filed off.
At any rate, it's obvious these lists are not hurting anyone, and indeed many monsters from Bestiaries 3 and 4 have been in this list. And given that practically the majority of all monsters in the game are derived from myth, literature, and film, it seems to be a winning formula
"Oh, look, the Sbrlxfts, a cannibal giant with four arms and three eyes! We absolutely need that, it's something totally new! Wow, the Drugtflk-Hlhhrrrtkk, a beast with horns and a serpent tail, how come this marvel wasn't added in previous bestiaries?"
Please.
I have one for you too.
Oh look, it has more than 8 tentacles, more or less than two eyes, a mouth on a strange location, a name that has at least two X's or Y's in it and more than 20 letters maximum or with a - between them!
Must come from Lovecraft. :-p (i'm in love with the Nightgaunt, so don't call me a lovecraft hater, just think that is the same as calling most underused myth creatures pathetic)
And if you are such a sucker for mythology creatures like you said, then why do you hate 99% of those creatures on the lists? If you only care for Hydra's, Harpies, Medusa's and such overused crappy creatures taken from D&D-style, then you may not call yourself a myth-fan.
Or did you mean mythos? As you seem to be a fan of dark aberration creatures.
There is also the issue that almost all monsters pulled from myth have come from European and to a lesser extent Asian myth.
Well, Inuit myths become more and more popular, so do myths from the Philippines, and then there are the Wendigo, Pukwudgie, Thunderbird and Baykok from Native American myths.
I agree that bestiary 5, can use a lot more native american beasts in it, as they are with Japanese and Celtic myths my favorites. Greek myths are nice and all, but spare for a few (like antaeus and CO) they are pretty overused and they bore me + many of the most used ones have counter-versions in Philippino myths, and those versions have extra fluff to them that make my heart beat faster, they are much better.
Elemental [Primal], Air (CR 16/MR 6) (An Air elemental of primal mythic power regarded with awe and fear by other elementals) ect.
I really hope more original elementals end up in the bestiary 5. Not just a element + name.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see us getting a bestiary every year. Well at least until we get 5-7 Bestiaries. I wouldn't mind a bestiary that is nothing but reprints so we could get caught up on the APs and other products.Last time I asked for that, I got smacked down big time, like "NO, WE DON'T WANT AP MONSTERS IN BESTIARIES! GET OUT OF HERE!"
Give me a separate book called "Adventure Path Bestiary" with 300 monsters from the APs. Look, the APs have a lot of unique monsters that could be used anywhere else. However, not everyone is willing to buy each and every AP booklet to get the monsters.
Yes, some monsters have been reprinted in Bestiaries, but only a fraction.
As I think back about it, I don't really want B5 to have loads of AP monsters as well, BUT I'd like to get a separate spin-off-like book that regroups ALL the monsters from APs.
One thing I wish they would do is add a footnote that the monster also appeared in the AP volume. That way you have the stat block handy in the Bestiary, and if you want to look up the additonal information (ecology, etc) available in the AP volume, you have a handy reference for which one it's in.
There is also the issue that almost all monsters pulled from myth have come from European and to a lesser extent Asian myth.
I would love to see more monsters and creatures that are pulled from cultures from outside of Europe, China, Japan, and Egypt. There are tons of very interesting and unique ones out there in world mythology - more than enough to fill a bestiary.
When it comes to dinosaurs, I would prefer to see a book that just focuses on prehistoric creatures (including pre- and post-dinosaur animals). That way they could be done right, rather than being on vaguely addressed and mixed in with the fantasy ones.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
DO NOT WANT:
Monsters that are, essentially, other monsters with templates and/or class levels, but which are statted out as if they were "unique" monsters anyway, with no reference to any class or template. Most of the "dark folk" variants would fit under this heading.
In other words, if you want a goblin rogue, just stat it as a goblin with rogue levels, not as a "Darkstealth Goblinkin" that has the exact same abilities as a goblin rogue except with math that doesn't work.
I think the Monster Codex was made to counter that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly -- so examples should stay there, not pepper the other Bestiaries. The Dark Dancer in the Bestiary 4, for example, is in essence a dark folk bard. But although they have 2nd level bard abilies, kind of, and 2 HD, they also end up with sneak attack, but no spells (is there a bard archetype for that?). In any event, they are a prime candidate for a Monster Codex entry, except that someone got lazy and decided to use exception-based design instead of existing rules.
Basically, if all the abilities of the "new" monster are nothing more than existing class features, then just use the class mechanics, and compile all those in a Monster Codex II. Don't kind of sloppily use one class' mechanics as a basis but then call it an "original" Bestiary monster.
Exactly -- so examples should stay there, not pepper the other Bestiaries. The Dark Dancer in the Bestiary 4, for example, is in essence a dark folk bard. But although they have 2nd level bard abilies, kind of, and 2 HD, they also end up with sneak attack, but no spells (is there a bard archetype for that?). In any event, they are a prime candidate for a Monster Codex entry, except that someone got lazy and decided to use exception-based design instead of existing rules.
Basically, if all the abilities of the "new" monster are nothing more than existing class features, then just use the class mechanics, and compile all those in a Monster Codex II. Don't kind of sloppily use one class' mechanics as a basis but then call it an "original" Bestiary monster.
I agree with you, but not with the dark folk. Those aren't the same monsters, they are a race but have very different roles and abilities.
Smurfs.
I'm pretty sure that's just a racial slur against deep gnomes, who were in the first bestiary. Let's hope Paizo isn't desperate enough to start repackaging old monsters as new.
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but still...
I really hope the newest bestiary includes a Babadook.
Babadook is probably copyrights attached. Bugaboo = pretty much the babadook.
I agree with you, but not with the dark folk. Those aren't the same monsters, they are a race but have very different roles and abilities.
That's all flavor text, though. The mechanics should still work, independently of that.
Well i'm kinda happy with my dark jester artwork, wouldn't have mind it being a non darkfolk type of fae like Amadan, but this worked too.
So, if I parse your reply correctly, you contributed the art for the Dark Dancer (which I haven't seen), but don't really care what stats it represents?
It isn't in Pathfinder (yet, the Amadan that is), that's why i'm happy with the Darkdancer as it resembles a dark jester-type creature.
Don't wanna see terrain base Giants. Planar, Astral, Etheral, Star, Void, Giants would be awesome!
Demons, Kytons and Devils. We have enough. Give us some Axiomites instead. LN can give us interesting baddies.
I'm divided with dragons. We have a lot, but with psychic magic coming, psychic dragons could be nice a nice twist.
Kaijus and Behemotes. Too high level. Too similar. Too limited plotwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather have more Gigas types than more Giants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A negative attitude in the same post as your suggested improvements actually hurts your chances of seeing the book you want.
State your preference and move on. Nobody's going to convince anyone not to like the things they like.
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you only want lovecraft, I have news for you, they are depleted. All non-copyright creatures are already there.
Fortunately... this isn't the case. There are several more public domain creatures from Lovecraft that we haven't stated up yet. And that doesn't even touch the ones who, while they ARE still copyrighted, we might be able to do stats for anyway after securing the rights to do so (this is why Robert E. Howard's zuvembie is in Bestiary 3, for example).
Heck, there's several critters in Dream Quest alone that could be expanded upon.
One thing I wish they would do is add a footnote that the monster also appeared in the AP volume. That way you have the stat block handy in the Bestiary, and if you want to look up the additonal information (ecology, etc) available in the AP volume, you have a handy reference for which one it's in.I can see us getting a bestiary every year. Well at least until we get 5-7 Bestiaries. I wouldn't mind a bestiary that is nothing but reprints so we could get caught up on the APs and other products.Last time I asked for that, I got smacked down big time, like "NO, WE DON'T WANT AP MONSTERS IN BESTIARIES! GET OUT OF HERE!"
Give me a separate book called "Adventure Path Bestiary" with 300 monsters from the APs. Look, the APs have a lot of unique monsters that could be used anywhere else. However, not everyone is willing to buy each and every AP booklet to get the monsters.
Yes, some monsters have been reprinted in Bestiaries, but only a fraction.
As I think back about it, I don't really want B5 to have loads of AP monsters as well, BUT I'd like to get a separate spin-off-like book that regroups ALL the monsters from APs.
I'd also like to see such footnotes included
That would be useful to know what book the monster was in before it was reprinted into a hardcover book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looking at Bestiaries 2-4, I admit I'm left kind of feeling unhappy about what seems like pointless inflation or "ramping up" of HD/CR for what are otherwise very basic, low-level monsters.
For example, the swan maiden (B4) is a woman with some minor SLAs who can turn into a swan. We could easily fulfill that concept at CR 2, and then use sorcerer class levels (for example) to get a more powerful one with better magic. Instead, the "baseline" swan maiden was pegged at CR 6 and 10 HD, making it unusable until much later in the campaign, because you can't just subtract levels from the one statted.
Likewise, the adlet (B3) is, in essence, an anthropomorphic winter wolf. That concept works just fine at CR 5 and 6 HD or so, but doesn't really have enough going for it to warrant the need for CR 10 and 15 HD. (We could start with a basic CR 5 one and add the Advanced simple template and some HD to make a more powerful one, if needed, but the reverse is not true.)
In contrast, the adaro (B3) is a shark-man with poison and rage. It's a simple concept, and it's a simple monster. They have it CR 3 and 4 HD, which seems just about right for that package. Again, if we want a more powerful shark-man, we can simply add HD/templates/class levels and we're good to go.
--
So, is there like a quota on CR or something, and if there aren't enough higher CR monsters in a given Bestiary, low-CR ones are simply given bigger numbers (in terms of AC, hp, and attacks) until they seem higher?
I hate the CR's on Quickling and Pard.
They should have been much higher CR. If Kamaitachi ever show up, please don't make it another boring low CR monster.
Speed wins over power in many cases. They should have been over CR10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how well its abilities scale I'd assume you're supposed to add class levels to quicklings. A level 7 quickling rogue would be a fairly good CR10 which the obvious synergies between natural invisibility and sneak attack. The only real issue is they gave no premade example ones. Sadly all a pard really has is advancing hitdice, but even so advancing their hitdice allows them to serve as mounts for fey assuming you houserule their phasing attack to bring along riders.
Speed wins over power in many cases. They should have been over CR10.
The quickling is "a small fairy who can move really fast." Paizo has (correctly, IMHO) put it at about CR 3 -- one of these things will absolutely waste a strong orc or even a number of orcs, but ultimately isn't in the same league as beings who can teleport, fly all day, and cast area-affect death spells (which are all things that CR 10 NPCs are capable of).
CR is explicitly a measure of comparative threat in mechanical game terms, not a measure of how cool or awesome you think the flavor text is.
I just can't imagen something that moves so fast being killed or being beaten.
Kamaitachi can also fly, so should that be higher CR?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just can't imag[ine] something that moves so fast being killed or being beaten.
Again, CR is a measure only in terms of game mechanics. It has nothing to do with how you personally imagine it. The game rules model "fast" in terms of a bonus to AC, initiative, and Reflex saves (for Dex) and/or in terms of a greater number of squares moved on the critter's turn. In the case of the quickling, they decided he was so fast he'd also get a modest miss chance, evasion, and uncanny dodge, like a 4th level rogue (CR 3) has. These bonuses are all quantifiable. The rules do not model fast as "not being beaten."
If you want to talk stuff other than rules, and what you imagine in terms of flavor, that's fine, but don't mix CR into that discussion, because the two are noncompatible. That's like me saying "The Eiffel Tower is 324 meters tall," and you reply "Well, I can't imagine that it's less than 384 million. It would be cooler/awesomer/more realistic if it went all the way to the moon!" Maybe it would be, but that's not what 324 meters actually means, numerically-speaking.
Kamaitachi can also fly, so should that be higher CR?
By legend, the Kamaitachi can fly, have sickle-like claws that deal bleeding wounds, and can suck blood. In game terms, we could give them a fly speed, and the "bleed" special attack, and the "blood drain" universal monster ability. All of these are consistent with things a Penanggalen (B3) can do; the example penanggalen is CR 5, so it need not be any higher than that (although it probably shouldn't be much lower, either).
Kamaitachi also have some wind-based abilities and mirror images probably.
Kamaitachi also have some wind-based abilities and mirror images probably.
Gust of wind and mirror image are 2nd level spells, which CR 3 casters can easily have.
In fact, the sample penanggalen has 0-3rd level spells.