| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might as well start it now.
I wish for more Lycanthropes love.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even more for lizardfolk, gnolls and sahuagin, troglodytes, drow and all the other ones I like from Monster Codex.
Seriously though - Vegepygmies.
I hope this book will come out in like 10 years or so, but when it comes I hope to see all the underused races/monsters in it.
I hope this book will come out in like 10 years or so, but when it comes I hope to see all the underused races/monsters in it.
That book would be two feet thick.
I would like the following 20 creatures.
1)Nixie
2)Pixie
3)Centaur
4)Medusa
5)Catfolk
6)Minotaur
7)Sphinx
8)Merfolk
9)Lamia
10)Grippli
11)Werewolf
12)Nagaji
13)Fetchlings
14)Mummies
15)Hags
16)Harpies
17)Locathah
18)Cloud Giant
19)Svirfneblin
20)Storm Giant
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's 20: Centaur, cyclops, derro, dryad, ettin, genie, hill giant, stone giant, ghost, harpy, lamia, lich, lycanthrope, medusa, minotaur, nymph, pixie, rakshasa, satyr, skum
OK, here is what I'd like to see as I want a sequel too as I love what they did with this first book. As far as I am concerned, this doing better than WotC did in 3E when they would use monsters with class levels as filler for some of the monster manuals. This is a book where monsters that could get class levels are given class levels and they tell you up front so that if you are using a monster on the list you have some plug and play pieces and as a GM I can't tell you how convenient that is.
Catfolk
Tengu
Kitsune
Vanara
Derro
Dark Creepers
Dark Stalkers
Hill Giants
Stone Giants
Swamp Giants
Sea Hags
Green Hags
Annis Hags
Liches
Wights
Mummies
Merfolk
Harpies
Skum
Morlocks
Centaurs and harpies were my top two. They're the two I think should have been in the MC1, honestly (specifically in place of Duergar and Ratfolk, which just weren't as iconic as the other monsters in the book).
Catfolk is a guilty pleasure. They're not that iconic, but I'd love to see more support for them, as well as more coverage on the 'anime-style' (i.e. Bestiary 3) vs. furry-style (i.e. ARG) catfolk, and how each fits in to the world.
After that... Some fey, basic hags, sphinxes, and maybe golems are the only things I crave particularly hard. Dragons would be cool too, but you'd have to pick and choose which ones to cover. Do you go with one chapter to cover true dragons in general? Do you take five chapters to cover the five chromatics? Maybe only some of the chromatics (in which case Red, White, and Blue, which seem to be the dragons that paizo uses most commonly would likely be the choice.)
I'd disagree with ratfolk needing to be left out of MC1. Reason is that they play a pretty big role in Iron Gods, so I've been using that chapter quite a bit in running that. Iconic or not, there's a synergy with the current AP that works.
The problem with a lot of these suggestions though is that what the MC1 did so well is make these individual bestiary entries into races with real societies and cultures. But a lot of the suggestions on this thread (like dragons or golems) are creatures that are fundamentally loners.
Not criticizing a desire for more info about those sorts, just pointing out that they wouldn't necessarily fit as well as you might think into the model set up by MC1.
I kind of agree here. A Monster Codex 2 risks scraping the barrel regarding monsters that are going to see a lot of use.
Monsters that I could see needing to be in MC 2 would probably include the following:
Ghosts, Stone and Hill Giants, cyclops, lichs, wights, catfolk, centaurs, Tieflings, Tengu seem obvious choices, but not sure what else I would pick.
At this point, I would rather have a NPC Codex 2, since we still need to cover the APG and beyond classes.
Yeah, the point about exploring the social structures (or at least highlight monsters with some kind of social structure) seems like an important consideration to be in a Monster Codex. Particularly unique, weird, or interesting social structures. The hags have their coveys, the cyclops lurking in the ruins of their long-forgotten empires, etc. You can even get a lot of interesting mileage out the mummy because lots of 'em are often entombed together, allowing for complex hierarchies of tomb guardians, etc.
Centaur, Harpies, Tieflings, Aasimar, Merfolk, Dryad.
1) Derro
2) Hag
3) Centaur
4) Harpy
5) Cyclops
6) Brain Collectors/Dominion of the Black
7) Skum/Aboleth
8) Hill Giant
9) Minotaur
10) Lamia
11) Medusa
12) Tengu
13) Yeti
14) Darkfolk
15) Dire Corby
16) Wight
17) Mi-go
18) Gug
19) Seugathi/Neothelid
20) Werewolf
1) Derro
2) Hag
3) Centaur
4) Harpy
5) Cyclops
6) Brain Collectors/Dominion of the Black
7) Skum/Aboleth
8) Hill Giant
9) Minotaur
10) Lamia
11) Medusa
12) Tengu
13) Yeti
14) Darkfolk
15) Dire Corby
16) Wight
17) Mi-go
18) Gug
19) Seugathi/Neothelid
20) Werewolf
Oooh, Mi-Go entry in a hypothetical Monster Codex 2, written by James Jacobs himself, would be INCREDIBLE!
Dominion of the Black is likely too Golarion-specific to get a Monster Codex entry, but the brain harvesters might be able to pull it off, assuming they have anything resembling a society.
Aboleth is also a pretty stellar choice, but I have a felling that it would require shedding a lot of light on an area of Golarion that the developers have been intentionally mysterious with.
I like the idea for Darkfolk, but considering there are a bunch of different creature races for darkfolk, I'm not sure what that would look like in a Monster Codex.
@Alexander Agunas I hear you on the Dark Folk but if it was me doing it, I'd concentrate on the classic duo that have been with us for quite some time in the Dark Creepers and Dark Stalkers. If we actually get this as a series, as a GM I can dream can't I?, we can get to the other members of the family so to speak but if we get max 2 dark folk, I vote for those I mentioned. But that's just my opinion.
These 20 entries deserve further development:
- Centaurs
- Cyclops
- Dark ones (creepers, stalkers, slayers, callers, dancers)
- Derros
- Hill giants
- Stone giants
- Harpies
- Merfolks
- Locathahs
- Tritons
- Catfolks
- Shaes
- Tanukis
- Changelings
- Gathlains
- Shobhads
- Trox
- Wayangs
- Wyrwoods
- Wyvarans
MONKEY GOBLINS
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one has asked me, and likely some of these would be vetoed, but if I was in charge of making a 20-monster list, I'd go with:
1) Aboleth
2) Catfolk
3) Centaur
4) Cyclops
5) Ettin
6) Giant, Hill
7) Hags
8) Harpies
9) Lamia
10) Lich
11) Medusa
12) Merfolk
13) Minotaur
14) Mummies
15) Pixie
16) Rakshasa
17) Sphinx
18) Tengu
19) Tieflings
20) Werewolf
Owen that list looks great save for a critical lack of derro.
Dragons! I picked the subtype in race builder and can't find much to do with it.
Dragons! I picked the subtype in race builder and can't find much to do with it.
This would require something akin to "Blood of Dragons", where Paizo gets to introduce a new race based on actual dragons and give them abilities and features to mimic the "dreaded" half-dragon template, simlar to how the aasimar, tiefling and newcoming skinwalkers got featured based on the half-celestial, half-fiend and lycanthrope templates respectively.
5) Ettin
Okay, I'm down with this, PROVIDED that one of the included bad guys is a duel-wielding rogue (thug)/gunslinger (pistolero) that two identical heads, except one is scarred and evil and one is handsome and good. His heads would get into frequent arguments, and they'd have to decide who'd win by flipping a coin.
Here's a "monster" I'd like to see: Artificial Intelligences
Yes, I said it, I don't regret it and I'm not turning back on my choice.
1) This part really bugs me:
Special Abilities: Use this section to cover any unusual abilities the AI possesses.
We only have 2 types of AIs... and when using the Aggregate Template, they do not cover many roles or aspects that robots can have. So, by having 6, 8 or 10 different AIs, like one Analyst, one Security and the rest being new types, that would give us more options.
2) There's absolutely no stopping Paizo from modifying the Aggregate Template to affect any kind of Construct, and not just robots. Given the existance of Intelligent Magic Items, that's not much of a farfetched idea to have "magical" AIs as opposed to technological AIs.
3) Mindless constructs turned intelligent can make great NPCs.
4) If that sounds too weird, I wouldn't mind a magic item that grants intelligence to a construct or even overwrites a construct's mindset, like a gem or runes.
(1 Hill Giant
(2 Stone Giant
(3 Storm Giant
(4 Merfolk
(5 Cyclops
(6 Aboleth
(7 Skum
(8 Centaur
(9 Harpy
(10 Green Hag
(11 Sea Hag
(12 Annis Hag
(13 Medusa
(14 Intellect Devourer
(15 Rock Troll
(16 Pixie
(17 Satyr
(18 Nymph
(19 Dryad
(20 Derro
The ones separated by slashes are ones that I'd like to see a chapter with both creatures represented.
1. minotaur
2. werewolf
3. medusa
4. dark ones
5. lich
6. succubus/incubus
7. blink dog
8. hag
9. harpy
10. nymph/dryad
11. lamia/lamia matriarch
12. worm that walks
13. adlet
14. animal lord
15. leshy
16. oni
17. hill giant/stone giant
18. xill
19. cyclops
20. satyr/faun
A new Moster Codex doesn't stop another NPC codex from ever happening.
Oh, And Lycanthropes/Therianthropes Codex.
Dark Folk, Centaur, Harpy, Lamia, Lycanthrope, Derro and Duergar.
Those are the main choices I'd personally go with for the second Monster Codex.
Duergar are already in the Monster Codex, and Centaurs are confirmed for Inner Sea Monster Codex
i hoenstly dont care as long as it has
a.aboleths
and
b. at LEAST the advanced players classes as class templates
Hmm... if you guys really want lycanthropes to be developed, you might wanna pick only one kind.
No way they can have all 8 varieties and spreaded across 8, 10 or 12 NPCs of different nature.
Werewolves seem to be the one worth developping, as it is a staple to many fantasy settings, not to mention that the whole species is based on a pack, so you can have a bunch of afflicted werewolves as lackeys, natural werewolves as minions and a mated pair of werewolves as clan leaders, as regular wolves are led by a mated pair.
Hmm... if you guys really want lycanthropes to be developed, you might wanna pick only one kind.
No way they can have all 8 varieties and spreaded across 8, 10 or 12 NPCs of different nature.
Werewolves seem to be the one worth developping, as it is a staple to many fantasy settings, not to mention that the whole species is based on a pack, so you can have a bunch of afflicted werewolves as lackeys, natural werewolves as minions and a mated pair of werewolves as clan leaders, as regular wolves are led by a mated pair.
One more thing (get used to it, I'll post as many comments as I'll have ideas):
- Dwarves
- Elves
- Gnomes
- Halflings
- Aasimars
- Tieflings
- Dhampirs
- Catfolks
- Fetchlings
- Ifrits
- Oreads
- Sylphs
- Undines
- Tengus
- Changelings
- Gillmen... huh... shouldn't it be Gillfolks?
- Merfolks
- Sulis
- Svirfneblins
- Strixs
Ok, hear me out. You might be saying "But JiCi, those are all standards PC races. Why should THEY be in a Monster Codex?". I'll answer: "Why not?" Those 20 races I've listed are among the ones with a HUGE society and the most used in games, regardless of settings. Don't you wish that Paizo stat out important figures in those?
Let's say you're visiting a dwarven underground settlement. What are the stats for the typical guards, clerics of Torag, earth druids, fighters and nobility figures?
Let's say you're visiting an elven city. What are the typical archers, scouts, mages, hunters and kings?
I could go on and on, but if the next codex covers a BUNCH of races presented in the Advanced Race Guide, that'll be more power for DMs. Furthermore, some of the monsters were covered in the ARG, like the goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, drows, kobolds, ratfolks and duergars. Finally, I don't see why shouldn't some of the NPCs be good-aligned. If players piss off a dwarven community dedicated to Torag, the LG guards are going to go after them.
|
Ok, hear me out. You might be saying "But JiCi, those are all standards PC races. Why should THEY be in a Monster Codex?". I'll answer: "Why not?" Those 20 races I've listed are among the ones with a HUGE society and the most used in games, regardless of settings. Don't you wish that Paizo stat out important figures in those?
Yes, but they aren't commonly used as monsters.
I wouldn't mind at all seeing a book devoted to friendly races, but I'd call it something like Ally Codex (and have already suggested that in the Monster Codex thread anyway).
|
Derro and Darkfolk, definitely.
Lamia, Centaurs, Harpies, Hags, etc. could also be cool.
Cyclopes have the bonus of being a Golarion staple.
Some development of Merfolk would be interesting. There's often a fair bit of coverage for Sahuagin and / or Sea Elves, depending on the setting, but Merfolk (and Locathah) usually get short shrift.
Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings could be cool, but, in theory, they have entire books worth of development already (which would also hold for Goblins, Kobolds and Orcs, so that's not a great rationale...).
Dragons. With class levels and / or templates. Bring on the half-fiendish lich green dragon summoner!
@ Set, technically, Darkfolks, like Hags and Lycanthropes/Theriantropes, might fill a good portion of a book (Thriae and Formian are also close to this).
Ok, hear me out. You might be saying "But JiCi, those are all standards PC races. Why should THEY be in a Monster Codex?". I'll answer: "Why not?" Those 20 races I've listed are among the ones with a HUGE society and the most used in games, regardless of settings. Don't you wish that Paizo stat out important figures in those?Yes, but they aren't commonly used as monsters.
I wouldn't mind at all seeing a book devoted to friendly races, but I'd call it something like Ally Codex (and have already suggested that in the Monster Codex thread anyway).
Hmmm... "monster" is kinda of a loose term. D&D always listed the PC races as "monster" entries.
For instance, the Aasimar and Tiefling are in the first Bestiary, as a "monster" entry, alongside their actual PC stats and guidelines. Does that make them "monsters" by any means? I don't think so.
I... could see that they went with the most "monstrous-looking" humanoids for the first codex, but again, the drows, the duergars, the giants and the ogres aren't that much monstrous per se, just a variation on the human, dwarf and elf.
Ok, fine, the TITLE might need a change, like "Monster Codex 2: Walking Amongst Humans", but still, I think everyone would like to have societies explained based on the PC races. Sure, you have the "of Golarion" booklets, but goblins and kobolds still got into the codex anyway, so that shouldn't stop Paizo from developping the PC races even further.
More weapons, more archetypes, more items, more magic items are granted, but to see different NPCs with classes you MIGHT not have thought before is where the codex is at.
Personally, if we're calling it Monster Codex, then I think that the product should restrict itself to expanding upon the monsters found throughout the Bestiaries. Yes, traditionally the core races WERE in the Bestiaries, but half of Pathfinder is breaking tradition, and none of those creatures appear in the Bestiaries. Let the monster books determine what is and isn't a monster, for consistency's sake. Furthermore, the core races have GOTTEN their Monster Codex; its just spread out between several books. More has been said about the Core Races in the Advanced Race Guide than the Uncommon or Featured Races and the NPC Codex consists exclusively of core races. To say that the core races need the space for content or stat blocks is simply not true.
On the other hand, there's only two pages of information on almost all of the Uncommon races, and most of that is less than what was said about them in their original sources. (For example, Dragon Empires Primer says more about the kitsune, nagaji, samsarans, and wayangs than the Advanced Race Guide. Its only a paragraph or two more, but text is text.)
I thought the Monster Codex had a good spread of PC-friendly races and monsterous creatures. If I had to pick what to see next, this would be my list:
Eight PC-Friendly Races: 8:20 was the ratio in the original Monster Codex and I think that it is a good one to keep for the line. It gives players just enough to be interested, but also assures that the book is primarily a GM resource.
1) Tengu (Tengu have been PC-friendly races in Pathfinder Society for almost three consecutive years now. They deserve to have more information shed upon them.)
2) Catfolk (More than any other PC race, the catfolk need this write-up. Catfolk have been inconsistently designed in all three of Pathfinder's major lines and we need a book to finally nail down what they look like and what they do. Personally, I'm a fan of Bestiary 3's design because actual cat-people is more interesting to me then humans with cat traits painted on, but I'd be down for whatever as long as it is cleared up.)
3 & 4) Aasimars & Tieflings (These guys are CLASSIC Dungeons and Dragon monsters. Many people would place them up with the drow in terms of how iconic to the game they are. Plus Aasimar would make for Monster Codex's first primarily good race.)
5, 6, 7 & 8) Kitsune, Nagaji, Samsaran, and Wayang (Since the Tengu are already in this section, it makes sense to include the other four Dragon Empires core races in the Monster Codex. For having the status of "core race" in one of Paizo's settings, almost nothing has been said about them. Naturally, I volunteer to write the kitsune section! ;-] )
Twelve Monstrous Entries: There are plenty of creatures to choose from, but these are the twelve that I'd like to see, personally.
9) Rune Giants (To me, this is the iconic Pathfinder giant. Even if they aren't social like flame or frost dragons are, I think that giving the Rune Giant its own write-up would be much appreciated.)
10) Adlets (I don't know why, but I think what little information we have on them is fascinating. They're one of a very few number of CR 10 humanoids that have reached that lofty CR through the acquisition of racial hit dice that isn't a giant. I'd love to learn more about them.)
11) Liches (I think its about time we got those divine lich and alchemical lich variants that the Paizo developers are always hinting at. Plus liches are like the quintessential enemies.)
12) Aboleths (They're the reason for everything wrong with Golarion, right? They're the quintessential mastermind monsters, and they deserve an entry in the Monster Codex. From gillmen statblocks to skum stat blocks (possibly a few "touched by aboleths" options for them, too) and the possibilities of porting the veiled master stat block from Inner Sea Bestiary to the Monster Codex, this section could get REALLY awesome REALLY fast.)
13) Dark folk (I don't envy the freelancer who has to tackle this section, because with five distinct groups, it would be a challenge to pull off well. That said, seeing as both they and gillmen are descendants of ancient Azlant, I feel like they fit well with gillmen and aboleths being in this book.)
14) Mites (The Monster Codex line could use some more love for the little guys. I mean the REALLY little guys. I think the idea that they were trapped on the Material Plane just like gnomes were, but became wicked and cruel instead of curiously obsessive creates a possibility for eerily similar connections between gnome and mite. Plus, fey! Who doesn't like fey?)
15) Dryads (Again, it would be nice to get a few more not-evil creatures into the Monster Codex, and dryads are certainly an option. It could also be neat to get some "corrupted dryad" stat blocks, like fiendish dryands, broken soul dryads, and maybe a few new ones like withered and the like. Plus, the hamadryad exists ....)
16) Harpy (I really like this idea, which someone above me mentioned. Harpies are iconic fantasy monsters, but no one ever does anything with them.)
17) Cyclops (There are SO many awesome nuggets and hints about cyclopses scattered throughout Pathfinder that I've pretty darn interested on the topic.)
18) Rakshasa (I gotta agree with Owen; Rakshasa are AWESOME. I don't need to see stat blocks for the variant types (although that would be cool), but getting some info on these iconic mythological and D&D enemies would be swell.)
19 & 20) Naga (Pick two types. I don't care which, though guardian and lunar stick out the most in my mind. They'd go well with nagaji being in the book and they're VERY iconic as far as creatures go.)
|
|
I'd also argue that the NPC Codex (and NPC Codex 2 when it shows up) serves very much the same purpose as an Ally Codex (Monster Codex for friendly races). It's organized differently, but the content is the same -- a book full of statblocks for humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and so on. I'm not sure I'd personally pay to have the NPC Codex just rearranged.
The problem case that falls between the NPC Codex (core races) and Monster Codex (enemy races) is the non-core friendly races such as planetouched. I could see there being a book of statblocks for aasimars, tieflings and so on, but it strikes me as being a bit niche. I'm not sure I'd take the chance on that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, if we're calling it Monster Codex, then I think that the product should restrict itself to expanding upon the monsters found throughout the Bestiaries. Yes, traditionally the core races WERE in the Bestiaries, but half of Pathfinder is breaking tradition, and none of those creatures appear in the Bestiaries. Let the monster books determine what is and isn't a monster, for consistency's sake. Furthermore, the core races have GOTTEN their Monster Codex; its just spread out between several books. More has been said about the Core Races in the Advanced Race Guide than the Uncommon or Featured Races and the NPC Codex consists exclusively of core races. To say that the core races need the space for content or stat blocks is simply not true.
Hmmm... point(s) taken...
1) Tengu (Tengu have been PC-friendly races in Pathfinder Society for almost three consecutive years now. They deserve to have more information shed upon them.)
2) Catfolk (More than any other PC race, the catfolk need this write-up. Catfolk have been inconsistently designed in all three of Pathfinder's major lines and we need a book to finally nail down what they look like and what they do. Personally, I'm a fan of Bestiary 3's design because actual cat-people is more interesting to me then humans with cat traits painted on, but I'd be down for whatever as long as it is cleared up.)
3 & 4) Aasimars & Tieflings (These guys are CLASSIC Dungeons and Dragon monsters. Many people would place them up with the drow in terms of how iconic to the game they are. Plus Aasimar would make for Monster Codex's first primarily good race.)
5, 6, 7 & 8) Kitsune, Nagaji, Samsaran, and Wayang (Since the Tengu are already in this section, it makes sense to include the other four Dragon Empires core races in the Monster Codex. For having the status of "core race" in one of Paizo's settings, almost nothing has been said about them. Naturally, I volunteer to write the kitsune section! ;-] )
1) Agree
2) TOTALLY AGREE! Furthermore hire back the artist who made the B3 artwork... and commission him to make a bunch of them, each time selecting a different breed of feline, while keeping the mostly human aspect. (No offense to the artist who did the ARG's catfolk arts, but that felt a little too far from the actual description.)
3) & 4) Agree... although the Ratfolks were probably the only non-evil race in the entire codex.
5), 6), 7) & 8) Agree... and bonus points if you can finally stat out a nine-tailed kitsune. Yeah, I'm the exact same guy who complained about how difficult it is to build a nine-tailed kitsune character, since it takes 8 feats to do so.
9) Rune Giants (To me, this is the iconic Pathfinder giant. Even if they aren't social like flame or frost dragons are, I think that giving the Rune Giant its own write-up would be much appreciated.)
10) Adlets (I don't know why, but I think what little information we have on them is fascinating. They're one of a very few number of CR 10 humanoids that have reached that lofty CR through the acquisition of racial hit dice that isn't a giant. I'd love to learn more about them.)
11) Liches (I think its about time we got those divine lich and alchemical lich variants that the Paizo developers are always hinting at. Plus liches are like the quintessential enemies.)
12) Aboleths (They're the reason for everything wrong with Golarion, right? They're the quintessential mastermind monsters, and they deserve an entry in the Monster Codex. From gillmen statblocks to skum stat blocks (possibly a few "touched by aboleths" options for them, too) and the possibilities of porting the veiled master stat block from Inner Sea Bestiary to the Monster Codex, this section could get REALLY awesome REALLY fast.)
13) Dark folk (I don't envy the freelancer who has to tackle this section, because with five distinct groups, it would be a challenge to pull off well. That said, seeing as both they and gillmen are descendants of ancient Azlant, I feel like they fit well with gillmen and aboleths being in this book.)
14) Mites (The Monster Codex line could use some more love for the little guys. I mean the REALLY little guys. I think the idea that they were trapped on the Material Plane just like gnomes were, but became wicked and cruel instead of curiously obsessive creates a possibility for eerily similar connections between gnome and mite. Plus, fey! Who doesn't like fey?)
15) Dryads (Again, it would be nice to get a few more not-evil creatures into the Monster Codex, and dryads are certainly an option. It could also be neat to get some "corrupted dryad" stat blocks, like fiendish dryands, broken soul dryads, and maybe a few new ones like withered and the like. Plus, the hamadryad exists ....)
16) Harpy (I really like this idea, which someone above me mentioned. Harpies are iconic fantasy monsters, but no one ever does anything with them.)
17) Cyclops (There are SO many awesome nuggets and hints about cyclopses scattered throughout Pathfinder that I've pretty darn interested on the topic.)
18) Rakshasa (I gotta agree with Owen; Rakshasa are AWESOME. I don't need to see stat blocks for the variant types (although that would be cool), but getting some info on these iconic mythological and D&D enemies would be swell.)
19 & 20) Naga (Pick two types. I don't care which, though guardian and lunar stick out the most in my mind. They'd go well with nagaji being in the book and they're VERY iconic as far as creatures go.)
9) Impossible... really, it cannot be done. Well, no, it CAN be done since you CAN add class levels to it, but that giant is CR 17... how do you make 8 to 10 NPCs with a CR that already high without stepping into "epic" territories? The Fire and Frost giants were 10 and 9, respectively. The other giants would work much better since they essentially weaker than the Rune Giant.
10) Agree, that came out of left fields and it could be developped upon.
11) YES! Bonus points if a Bloodrager Lich is made as well ^_^
12) Odd choice really... If Gillmen and Skums are primary slaves to Aboleths, wouldn't be better suited to stat these instead?
13) I don't see a problem, because the Sahuagin, Serpentfolks and Vampires juggled multiple variants on the original monster.
14) Sure, why not?
15) One problem: the tree dependancy. As the new monster entry for dryads, it would be wise to have the stats of an awakened/sentient oak tree, so the dryad doesn't die and can wander around while adventuring.
16) Yep, kudos if they can make a bard archetype too.
17) Same as the giants, would be nice.
18) Hmmm... are the tiger-headed ones the backbone of the species? If so, then sure, knock yourself out... but their roles according to how they serve the Maharaja would have to be explained further.
19) & 20) They don't seem to be monsters that advance in class levels, but more in racial HD. If you can find something, please develop further.
In no particular order
Man-o-taurs
Centaurs
Stone Giants
Hill Giants
Cyclopes
Harpies
Merfolk
My problem with Codex 1 is that the Frost and Fire giants have such high CRs that they are relatively useless to me. Stone and Hill are much more common, have a lower CR so they can have more templates/class levels applied, and even already have a place for use (See Rise of the Runelords).
I'd also argue that the NPC Codex (and NPC Codex 2 when it shows up) serves very much the same purpose as an Ally Codex (Monster Codex for friendly races). It's organized differently, but the content is the same -- a book full of statblocks for humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and so on. I'm not sure I'd personally pay to have the NPC Codex just rearranged.
Well, if they do NPCs by races, we miss some classes. If they do NPcs by classes, we miss some races, like the NPC Codex has right now.
I could see the rune giants handled with mythic stuff.
The artist for the B3 version of Catfolk is a woman by the name of Carolina Eade.
The artist for the B3 version of Catfolk is a woman by the name of Carolina Eade.
It's... a woman...
whoops XD wrong word there...