Vampire templates for things like nosferatu or empusas, the Greek demigoddess who would sleep with beautiful young men and then drink their blood. Or Strigoi. Greater medusas. Modrons!
The Strigoi vampires would be interesting to see.
Greater Medusas would be nice.
I would prefer Empusa to be living creatures not undead.
Asgardian giants as a template would be a nice touch
Also, rainbow dragons, plus the two remaining colors in the rainbow spectrum, and PF's version of steel, mithral, adamantine, plantinum, mercury, etc dragons. Any remaining Fiend Folio and Monster Manual II creatures not already secured by WOTC or done by Paizo or the Tome of Monster thingy. And a section devoted to evil versions of the iconics as foes...
I really like the Hive;) I hope they end up in a hardcover bestiary along with more types.
Well I would be cool with seeing more Hive variants/types in new bestiaries, but don't see the point of reprinting something that is already printed in a setting neutral RPG line book, and will probably be on the PRD soon.
Actually they could reprint them especially since the solder type is the only one that got art. Also you are assuming that everyone buys every book.
Actually they could reprint them especially since the solder type is the only one that got art. Also you are assuming that everyone buys every book.
yeah but um...it will be on the PRD?
If they wanted to do them in a Starfinder bestiary that would be fine, but I just think reprinting material from one RPG line book in another is kind of pointless. Is there any examples from elsewhere in the rules of them doing this?
I figured the Ultimate Equipment, but that was an attempt to get every item into a single volume. I don't think that would be remotely possible for monsters
More types of wysp(wood, void, positive energy, dream, and time).
A elemental creature that can spawn wysp and maybe other types of elementals.
An aether ooze would be interesting. Also an ooze made of ectoplasm would be cool as well.
I just think reprinting material from one RPG line book in another is kind of pointless. Is there any examples from elsewhere in the rules of them doing this?
The bulk of the monsters in Bestiaries 3-5 were printed (in longer form) in the APs.
The bulk of the monsters in Bestiaries 3-5 were printed (in longer form) in the APs.
AP's are from the AP-line, not the RPG-line. Personally, I also don't think pages should be spent reprinting RPG-line monsters when you could have new monsters from myth.
I would like to see additional dragons added to each sept, possibly with the goal of making each sept a total of seven to nine.
Chromatic: amber/orange, violet/purple
Metallic: electrum, mithral, platinum
I'm not sure if other septs might have 'room' for one or two more.
Then perhaps some 'skymetal dragons' which can blend with technology more readily than other species. Abysium, adamantine, djezet, horacalcum, inubrix, noqual, and siccatite.
I would like to see additional dragons added to each sept, possibly with the goal of making each sept a total of seven to nine.
Chromatic: amber/orange, violet/purple
Metallic: electrum, mithral, platinum
I'm not sure if other septs might have 'room' for one or two more.
Then perhaps some 'skymetal dragons' which can blend with technology more readily than other species. Abysium, adamantine, djezet, horacalcum, inubrix, noqual, and siccatite.
There used to be an orange, purple and yellow dragon back in the days, the sand dragon from Sandstorm became the new brown dragon (succeeding at the Faerun born dragon) and the fang dragon became the grey dragon, all with the standard chromatic dragons.
There used to have an adamantine dragon and a steel dragon, with the exact same features as the other metallic dragons.
The main problem is that all of these dragons are owned by WotC...
True dragons are always grouped in fives so they will not be adding more chromatic or metallic dragons. With that being said having dragons with colors like purple, orange, yellow, etc. is still in the realm of possibility.
I would like skymetal dragons but since there are 7 skymetals they would be better used for some non-true dragon type.
Is there some reason why true dragons are always grouped in fives, and is that a Campaign Setting limitation or an RPG Line limitation?
Tiamat was the Chromatic Draconic Goddess with 5 heads, there were 5 chromatic dragons as the rest of color-coded dragons either didn't have wings or had a different kind of breath weapon (metallic dragons have 2 breath weapons, so any metal-scaled dragon with only one wasn't classified as such), and of course, the licenses only covered 5 chromatic dragons and metallic dragons.
While it's rather easy to saturate the world with different kind of true dragons, it can get ugly and cheesy pretty quick with the chromatic and the metallic species.
The entire color spectrum could be used for chromatic dragons and pretty much any solid element from the scientific periodic table could be used for metallic dragons. Dude, a Dragon Magazine issue once presented 5 ferrous dragons, which are closely related to metals.
JiCi, do you remember what those five ferrous dragons were?
JiCi, do you remember what those five ferrous dragons were?
Iron, Chromium, Cobalt, Tungsten and Nickel, all from Dragon #356
|
Okay, so Tiamat is a lore reason for having only five chromatic dragons. But that just means a Campaign Setting reason, and different campaign settings might not even have a Tiamat in them, so it doesn't strike me as an RPG Line limitation. The RPG Line (which the Bestiaries are in) could still do more than five chromatic dragons.
And I don't recall Bahamut having five heads, so metallic dragons wouldn't necessarily have that limitation even in the Campaign Setting line.
I think 5 is just a good convenient number, and was already established with the SRD dragons. Nothing else really
I personally like the number 5 for each type of true dragon and wouldn't want to change it. I can't wait to see what the next set of true dragons will be.
The last time I really liked all 5 new dragons was in Bestiary 2, so if the 5 dragons wouldn't be in Bestiary 6 I wouldn't care at all.
Okay, so Tiamat is a lore reason for having only five chromatic dragons. But that just means a Campaign Setting reason, and different campaign settings might not even have a Tiamat in them, so it doesn't strike me as an RPG Line limitation. The RPG Line (which the Bestiaries are in) could still do more than five chromatic dragons.
And I don't recall Bahamut having five heads, so metallic dragons wouldn't necessarily have that limitation even in the Campaign Setting line.
Like the others have said, it was for lore reasons, as Tiamat had 5 heads, there were 5 chromatic dragons and 5 metallic dragons to act as "foils" to them, like having angels and archons to counter demons and devils.
On a side note, the Adamantine and Steel dragons, while good-natured, didn't care much about Bahamut. They both respected him, but just not in a religious way.
Even in Pathfinder, Apsu is a rather distant god that only a handful of dragons worship, which in a sense is understandable since dragons are so powerful that they "think" they can rival gods... although in a much lesser degree for good-natured dragons. Dahak isn't a multiheaded dragon god, but a few chromatic dragons worship him.
Finally, apparently, Tiamat IS part of Golarion's lore, I kid you not. She's supposed to be Apsu's mate and Dahak's mother and is responsible for the birth of chromatic dragons, as she corrupted metallic dragons who fell in battle, as Apsu called upon them to defeat Dahak. Gamewise, Tiamat is barely described, because none is willing to speak her name aloud, so barren that she doesn't have a portfolio, domains and/or a favored weapon. Not even Inner Seas Gods and Inner Seas Faiths described Tiamat. The only clue I've gotten was that she is still a multiheaded dragon.
Although, like Demogorgon, I feel like Tiamat's exclusion is due to WotC's licensing deals. Demogorgon is rumored to be in Golarion, but he's apparently too busy interferring with mortals. No joke, that's part of its lore. Gamewise, it's because the team at Paizo cannot come up with a new design, since a LOT of players are familiar with the demon lord's baboon-headed look... and they kinda can't use that.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tiamat and Demogorgon are both real-life names and are under public domain. However, their exact representations (five-headed dragon and twin-headed baboon) are not, so you can name-drop them, you can even say that one is a dragon deity and the other is a demon lord, but you can't use the exact lore and appearance as the WotC-owned ones. And since people are quite strongly attached to both, Paizo decided to name-drop them, thus making it easier to canon them in your game, but didn't do anything further as to not create something that would clash with fan-favourite lore.
Not to mention it's rather insulting to say "they can't come up with anything better" you do realize James Jacobs wrote the 3rd edition book of demons, and Crystal Frasier I believe did the one on devils.
It's not because "they can't come up with anything better" it's because they don't want to poke the bear that gave them their start, or got their foot in the door, or whatever don't burn your bridges cliche you want to use. :-)
Tiamat isn't under copyright, the 5-headed dragon form Tiamat is under copyright, but Tiamat is from Mythology so you can use the name. If you want a 5 headed dragon try Balaur or Herensuge.
If you want a Demogorgon model, just cut one head and call it Argopelter.
|
I'd like to see a playable race with a bonus to both Intelligence and Strength. Or Intelligence and Constitution. I think every single possible other combination exists, sometimes in great abundance (I count about 8 Dex/Int races, and something like 13 Dex/Cha races) but the only choice for either of these two is the Male Lashunta (Str/Int) - a weird psychic race that many GM's would likely ban, from a weird splat book that most people won't have, and then only the males. Not all Int characters want to be a strength-dumping wizard, and it seems rather disingenuous to have strong characters necessarily be dumb.
If there are 10 races that give a bonus to Int, and 8 of them have their second stat as Dex, then I can't help feeling that someone is pushing us towards a type.
I am game for more types of multi-headed dragons.
Tiamat and Demogorgon are both real-life names and are under public domain. However, their exact representations (five-headed dragon and twin-headed baboon) are not, so you can name-drop them, you can even say that one is a dragon deity and the other is a demon lord, but you can't use the exact lore and appearance as the WotC-owned ones. And since people are quite strongly attached to both, Paizo decided to name-drop them, thus making it easier to canon them in your game, but didn't do anything further as to not create something that would clash with fan-favourite lore.
You... might want to check the Ancient Orision pantheon then, because it's nothing BUT real-world Egyptian deities... but yeah, I understand your point. Tiamat is a Mesopotamian goddess, dude, Bahamut is supposed to be a fish deity from Arabic Mythology. Guess they have seen too much Final Fanatsy when they designed that character XD
Many of the demon lords and archdevils are based on religion. However, I did see a statement that Paizo does't want to "use" Demogorgon because they cannot change its appareance without some backlash. Fans have been accustomed to the D&D look for years, so they don't want to tick them off by changing the look... even if they changed the look for Asmodeus and Baphomet (the latter looking more like a demonic goat than a minotaur, despite BEING the patron for minotaurs :P )
Tiamat, in Pathfinder, is said to have created the ocean... exactly like her real-world counterpart. Then again, they went as far as describing her AS a multiheaded dragon...
Yeah... a bit confusing here... unless they keep her hidden until a big AP comes along...
The pennangalan would be cool. Southeast asian horror. A sort of vampire that walks around during the day, but at night its head rips free from it's body and it hunts, with its guts and such hanging from the head (it flys of course].
although surprisingly we are still missing the Aswang, which is a pretty obvious contender for a bestiary spot from that section of the world.
We still don't have the nekomata wich is a much more obvious choice then aswang. But obvious choices are not always picked so who knows. I would love to see these meetings were they decide what goes in and what doesn't make the cut of a hardcover bestiary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
FYI Starfinder Bestiary is confirmed for the fall. Will have a different layout and emphasis apparently than the Pathfinder RPG, with setting info built in and each creature getting a 2 page layout. Also a lot more race support including a lot more non-humanoid races.
I heard about that as well doesn't mean we will not get a B6 next year since Pathfinder and Starfinder are separate deals. Though it does make it less likely.
|
|
I want all the Lovecraft Mythos creatures that will appear in the "Strange Aeons" AP to be in Bestiary 6 (but don't know if the deal with Chaosium makes that possible).
I also want the missing Demon Lords from "Book of the Damned Vol 2 statted, as well as the Archdevils from BotD1.
I would settle for a Campaign Setting book for each of the 3.
I want all the Lovecraft Mythos creatures that will appear in the "Strange Aeons" AP to be in Bestiary 6 (but don't know if the deal with Chaosium makes that possible).
Sounds like most of the pre-existing Mythos creatures in Strange Aeons will be under license from Chaosium. So I wouldn't be too hopeful on this front.
|
|
Sounds like most of the pre-existing Mythos creatures in Strange Aeons will be under license from Chaosium. So I wouldn't be too hopeful on this front.I want all the Lovecraft Mythos creatures that will appear in the "Strange Aeons" AP to be in Bestiary 6 (but don't know if the deal with Chaosium makes that possible).
Lovecraft's monsters are public domain, only the others (Hastur and so) are Chaosium exclusives.
There was a book some years ago with all the Lovecraft monsters converted to 3.0 rules.Cthulhu D20 or so.
FYI Starfinder Bestiary is confirmed for the fall. Will have a different layout and emphasis apparently than the Pathfinder RPG, with setting info built in and each creature getting a 2 page layout. Also a lot more race support including a lot more non-humanoid races.
Next fall? So it destroys the bestiary-every-two-years routine... Nice. And just like I thought.
|
|
Next fall? So it destroys the bestiary-every-two-years routine... Nice. And just like I thought.FYI Starfinder Bestiary is confirmed for the fall. Will have a different layout and emphasis apparently than the Pathfinder RPG, with setting info built in and each creature getting a 2 page layout. Also a lot more race support including a lot more non-humanoid races.
Karma is a beach, that's what you get for your harping on sci-fi :p
Like there weren't enough Sci-Fi monsters in the bestiary already, all this new starfinder bestiary does is cut out (give them advanced technology is the same) the mythology monsters and turn them into sci-fi fests, while the new besiary 6 probably just covers trillions of sci-fi monsters again.
I hope because of starfinder the next bestiary 6 (if it is still a thing, which I doubt) will feature less robots and alien stuff.
And why the lovecraft AP isn't reserved for Starfinder instead? As those bestiaries are also crawling with sci fi monsters.