Ok, I'm posting this here because every single book has this issue.
Why aren't hags listed under the letter H in monster books?
Green Hag? Letter G
Night Hag? letter N
Sea Hag? letter S
Annis Hag? letter A
Blood Hag? letter B
Winter Hag? letter W
Storm Hag? letter S
and that's only for the standard Bestiaries...
How come hags aren't listed as a subcategory of creatures, such as "Hag, Green", "Hag, Annis" or "Hag, Sea"? Is it because they don't have common traits and abilities? Is it because the Night Hag is an outsider instead of a monstrous humanoid?
The WotC books, at least 3E, listed hags as a category. What happened here? It's like if giants were alphabetically listed by genre than species, like having both stone and storm giants under S and both fire and frost giants under F.
Hags don't share a subtype, so they don't get grouped. Giants do, they're all humanoid (giant).
That's the reason? I know that giants got regrouped because the Giant type got obsolete like the Elemental, Beast and Shapechanger types, but I don't see a logical reason not to regroup hags. Do they absoluetly need to have a common trait? Being able to form a coven is one thing. Also, like I said, hags were regrouped into a subcategory back in the 3.5 Monster Manual 1. Finally, dinosaurs and megafauna get regrouped, but they don't possess a a specific subtype.
BTW, would players and GMs alike actually riot about this? So they don't have a subtype, but 1) they share the name, 2) they share the coven ability and 3) they share the related race, the changeling, which can get abilities from different hags.
The "Having similar traits" rule has been bent for a while now. For instance, the Archdevil Barbatos... isn't even a Devil, not even with the Devil subtype.
|
Hags don't share a subtype, so they don't get grouped. Giants do, they're all humanoid (giant).That's the reason? I know that giants got regrouped because the Giant type got obsolete like the Elemental, Beast and Shapechanger types, but I don't see a logical reason not to regroup hags. Do they absoluetly need to have a common trait? Being able to form a coven is one thing. Also, like I said, hags were regrouped into a subcategory back in the 3.5 Monster Manual 1. Finally, dinosaurs and megafauna get regrouped, but they don't possess a a specific subtype.
BTW, would players and GMs alike actually riot about this? So they don't have a subtype, but 1) they share the name, 2) they share the coven ability and 3) they share the related race, the changeling, which can get abilities from different hags.
The "Having similar traits" rule has been bent for a while now. For instance, the Archdevil Barbatos... isn't even a Devil, not even with the Devil subtype.
You could argue that you prefer them grouped ... but that's arguing about a ship that has sailed. If Paizo would start grouping hags in new bestiaries and reprints of old ones, it would take years before all Bestiaries in their own inventory would match the new order, let alone all those copies in the wild.
Unless, of course, your advice is to torch all copies in Paizo's warehouse, recall the ones out there at Amazon and LGS and start from grounds up. Not gonna happen.
And still Night Hags would be special snowflakes, so there you go.
Hags don't share a subtype, so they don't get grouped. Giants do, they're all humanoid (giant).That's the reason? I know that giants got regrouped because the Giant type got obsolete like the Elemental, Beast and Shapechanger types, but I don't see a logical reason not to regroup hags. Do they absoluetly need to have a common trait? Being able to form a coven is one thing. Also, like I said, hags were regrouped into a subcategory back in the 3.5 Monster Manual 1. Finally, dinosaurs and megafauna get regrouped, but they don't possess a a specific subtype.
BTW, would players and GMs alike actually riot about this? So they don't have a subtype, but 1) they share the name, 2) they share the coven ability and 3) they share the related race, the changeling, which can get abilities from different hags.
The "Having similar traits" rule has been bent for a while now. For instance, the Archdevil Barbatos... isn't even a Devil, not even with the Devil subtype.
You could argue that you prefer them grouped ... but that's arguing about a ship that has sailed. If Paizo would start grouping hags in new bestiaries and reprints of old ones, it would take years before all Bestiaries in their own inventory would match the new order, let alone all those copies in the wild.
Unless, of course, your advice is to torch all copies in Paizo's warehouse, recall the ones out there at Amazon and LGS and start from grounds up. Not gonna happen.
They could update the digital versions. Dude, they've offering updated/corrected/errata'd PDFs for free. Basically, if you purchased the PDF version, you can re-download it and the latest corrections. Pretty sure those corrections are added to physical copies if a reprint is required. Oh and as far I know, no hag has ever taken 2 pages of stats, so...
And still Night Hags would be special snowflakes, so there you go.
I never understood why it wasn't a monstrous humanoid with the extraplanar subtype... I still can go back to my argument of the "Having similar traits" rule break. The Cave Troll in Ironfang Invasion is a Small Humanoid... with the Giant subtype... Don't ask me how that even works...
|
|
They could update the digital versions. Dude, they've offering updated/corrected/errata'd PDFs for free. Basically, if you purchased the PDF version, you can re-download it and the latest corrections. Pretty sure those corrections are added to physical copies if a reprint is required. Oh and as far I know, no hag has ever taken 2 pages of stats, so...
Paizo has a policy that PDFs match the current physical editions. So, erratas/changes of any sort happen when reprints happen. Again, you can argue that things should be done differently, but I doubt Paizo will change that policy because hags.
I did say a while ago hags should have had a subtype but that boat sailed long ago. It would have been nice especially for choosing hags for covens and just making sure a creature was a hag to begin with.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also don't hold your breath about an errata about this, new printing or not. Changing this means changing the page number a lot of these creatures fall on, which will wreak havoc on any other publication that asks you to reference that page for details on that featured creature. The same thing happened when a few wondrous items in Ultimate Equipment were categorized in the wrong body slot section. When the errata was released, instead of moving them to a new section they had to rename the item to fall in line with that body slot.
You could use d20pfsrd.com
It groups Hags together. Hags, scroll down to H
Silly, I only expect erratas for things I like as they are;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is also a policy that all information on a page needs to always be found on that page, even if the information is changed. So if a spell is on page 536, it will always be on page 536.