Bestiary Talk (Rules Focus)

[Brinebeast]

What changes are people looking for in a Bestiary? What rule changes do you want or what things should go away?

My want:

Creature Type for creatures from the Shadow Plane. I have long thought that creatures from the Shadow Plane need their own creature type similar to how creatures from the First World have their own creature type (Fey). Creatures from the Shadow Plane should be heavily influenced by Negative Energy similar to how Fey are heavily influenced by Positive Energy. However, creatures from the Shadow Plane should not be Undead, they should bridge the gap between living creatures and undead creatures.

[ChibiNyan]

Would like if they kept the monster ability scores and they still affected the relevant checks even if have other building rules. 5E did this part right, but SF did not.

[Brinebeast]

I have been giving this some more thought and Creature Types as a whole might need a little more unchaining from the old 3.5 rules. My suggested changes to Creature Types:

Aberration
Aetherite (Things originating from the Astral and Ethereal Transitive Planes and the Positive/Negative Energy Planes, and Similar Occult Planes)
Animal (w/ Subtype: Vermin)
Beast (Same as Magical Beast but just call them Beasts)
Construct
Dragon
Elemental (Things originating from the Elemental Planes)
Fey (Things originating from the First World Plane)
Florae (Same as Plant but now a distinct word that is different from plant so we can have Plants and plants and not be confused)
Humaniod (w/ Subtype: Giant)
Monster (Same as Monstrous Humanoid but just calling them Monsters)
Ooze
Outsider (Things originating from the 9 Outer Planes)
Umbra (Things originating from the Shadow Plane)
Undead

This leaves us with 15 over arching creature types and breaks up the Outsider Creature Type in a way that I feel more accurately represents things not from the Material Plane but also not from the Outer Planes.

[Milo v3]

Every type of plane doesn't need it's own Type IMO. Outsider + Subtypes was enough.

[Fuzzypaws]

Honestly I'd like Origin and Type combinations like 4E. So you can have a Fey Beast or an Undead Dragon without a lot of cludging.

I'd like monsters to be built on the same system as characters, not a completely different system like in Starfinder. THAT SAID, please totally provide a system for quickly throwing together monsters on the fly with a different system for when the DM is backed into a corner, or just wants to stat out a dungeon quickly. BUT, the base monsters as presented in the Bestiary should be built on the same rules as PCs.

[Knight Magenta]

Seperate mind-effect immunity from undead, plants and oozes and put it in the mindless trait. There is no reason you can't scare a non-mindless plant or undead.

[Fuzzypaws]

Knight Magenta wrote:

Seperate mind-effect immunity from undead, plants and oozes and put it in the mindless trait. There is no reason you can't scare a non-mindless plant or undead.

This, very much this. A lot of the immunity baggage carried over from 3.x needs to just die in a fire.

Similarly, undead and constructs shouldn't be immune to critical hits. Even without functioning organs in most cases, they still have structural weakpoints like joints. I can see making it so you need to beat their AC by 15 for a critical instead of beating it by 10 for everyone else, but don't make them outright immune. The ONLY things that should be outright immune to criticals are amorphous entities like oozes and swarms.

[Mudfoot]

I don't need monsters built on exactly the same rules as PCs, as they're potentially very different. But they need to have enough correlation that you can see what would happen if you gave an ogre a different weapon, or whether a tentamort could break down a door.

[Knight Magenta]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

Seperate mind-effect immunity from undead, plants and oozes and put it in the mindless trait. There is no reason you can't scare a non-mindless plant or undead.

This, very much this. A lot of the immunity baggage carried over from 3.x needs to just die in a fire.

Similarly, undead and constructs shouldn't be immune to critical hits. Even without functioning organs in most cases, they still have structural weakpoints like joints. I can see making it so you need to beat their AC by 15 for a critical instead of beating it by 10 for everyone else, but don't make them outright immune. The ONLY things that should be outright immune to criticals are amorphous entities like oozes and swarms.

they already did this. only Oozes, incorporeal creatures and elementals are immune to crits

[Ellias Aubec]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

Seperate mind-effect immunity from undead, plants and oozes and put it in the mindless trait. There is no reason you can't scare a non-mindless plant or undead.

This, very much this. A lot of the immunity baggage carried over from 3.x needs to just die in a fire.

Similarly, undead and constructs shouldn't be immune to critical hits. Even without functioning organs in most cases, they still have structural weakpoints like joints. I can see making it so you need to beat their AC by 15 for a critical instead of beating it by 10 for everyone else, but don't make them outright immune. The ONLY things that should be outright immune to criticals are amorphous entities like oozes and swarms.

Uh, undead and constructs are not immune to crits etc (well at least in PF1, so I doubt that would change in PF2). Just elementals, oozes and proteans.

[MMCJawa]

I would prefer they be built by the same rules as PC's are. It makes it more straightforward to use them in roles that are not just straight combat.

[Bluescale]

For creature types, I would actually reduce the number of types. I don't really see a need for both humanoid and monstrous humanoid, for instance (why exactly are gnolls and mermaids humanoids, while hags and minotaurs are monstrous humanoids?).

[Brinebeast]

Couple of small changes:

Give Outsiders that belong to group a name separate from the group name. For example the standard Kyton and Rakshasah having the same name as the group. This can cause unnecessary confusion.

Also, if a creature needs to have both an official name and a common name because of copyright issues when used outside of the OGL include both in the creatures stat block. For example Glabrezu (Treachery Demon)

[JoelF847]

Make vermin a sub-type, remove monstrous humanoids as a type

[Talek & Luna]

Fuzzypaws wrote:

Knight Magenta wrote:

Seperate mind-effect immunity from undead, plants and oozes and put it in the mindless trait. There is no reason you can't scare a non-mindless plant or undead.

This, very much this. A lot of the immunity baggage carried over from 3.x needs to just die in a fire.

Similarly, undead and constructs shouldn't be immune to critical hits. Even without functioning organs in most cases, they still have structural weakpoints like joints. I can see making it so you need to beat their AC by 15 for a critical instead of beating it by 10 for everyone else, but don't make them outright immune. The ONLY things that should be outright immune to criticals are amorphous entities like oozes and swarms.

I disagree. An incorporeal undead should not be victim of sneak attack. Most undead should not as they are not driven by anatomical functions so a precise strike to the eye means very little to a zombie or a wraith IMHO. Maybe not full immunity for all undead but they should definitely have resistance to sneak attack damage if not full outright immunity. Likewise bleed and a lot of other sneak attack conditional effects should have no effect on undead because well...they don't bleed

[Dragon78]

Corporeal undead and constructs should still be effected by crits/precision damage.

Elementals, oozes, and incorporeal creatures should still be immune to crits/precision damage.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Dragon78 wrote:

Corporeal undead and constructs should still be effected by crits/precision damage.

I think it depends on whether you see corporeal undead as "a body that still works mechanically like a body but is being run by an undead spirit" or "a body evenly and entirely suffused with negative energy", as the first model would suggest crits and precision damage should work and the second that they shouldn't. I favour the latter model myself; I think zombies, for example, are a lot more effectively creepy and distinct from any other humanoid monster, if you can hamstring them, or any of the other sorts of thing crits and precision damage simulate, and it doesn't affect them the ways it would a living being.

As for constructs, it depends on the specific construct, as I can see different constructs working in either of the ways described above, much like the distinction between golems and animated objects.

[raidou]

Looking back at how I use monsters from the Bestiary over the years, I wanted to share some thoughts on how I could get improved utility out of future bestiaries:

1.) Summoning rules for an outsider should be in its bestiary entry. A designer creating a new outsider should be expected to consider how it fits into the Summon Monster ecosystem, if at all, and it should be spelled out in the bestiary entry itself.

2.) Similarly, there should be some way for monster abilities to be tagged as “pc-appropriate” for consideration when making use of wild shape or polymorph effects. When new bestiaries or sourcebooks introduce new monster abilities, it would be really rewarding to be able to make use of some number of these to expand a shapeshifter’s repertoire. (in a controlled manner)

3.) Reconsider using a creature’s intelligence as a means to determine their skills / feats / proficiencies. As a GM, it’s unnecessarily difficult to advance certain creature types - such as vermin, oozes, constructs - to improve their challenge when a whole subset of design features is cut off from that creature.

4.) Some of the best monster customization tool-sets are the Simple Class Templates from the Monster Codex. These are supposed to be time-savers, but honestly I find they have the potential to create more satisfying representations of classed-monsters at mid to higher levels. The Class Grafts from PF Unchained fills a similar role, though I haven’t had enough experience using this to judge it. I really want to see a solid model for representing classed monsters that does a better job at higher-level play than adding low levels of the desired class atop the monster’s existing stats.

5.) Reconsider whether/how monster-specific feats are used as part of the bestiary. It’s always felt odd that this small selection of feats got reprinted across each bestiary released, with no new monster-specific feats added until Horror Adventures.

6.) I generally travel to run games, and I do like to have some amount of printed content available in case my internet connection is poor at my destination. From the bestiary PDF, I print out single pages of the monsters I need to use for that session and put them all in a binder. I would love to see a low-ink print option for the bestiary that removes things like page decoration, page number, logos, etc. and just leaves the monster image and stats.

7.) Avoid design symmetry for symmetry’s sake. While there might be Celestial, Fiendish, Axiomatic, and Chaotic stuff in the universe, they don’t all need to do roughly the same thing and have similar, diametrically opposed characteristics. Consider how these templates and types fit into the overall ecosystem, then design abilities that make them feel more legitimate.

8.) I’d love to see “Activity Cycle” added to the monster’s ecology. Understanding what time of day the creature is likely to be encountered helps me build encounters more thoughtfully. If we’re shooting for the moon, having information about a creature’s specific role within its ecosystem would also be awesome. Something like “apex predator,” or “scavenger” or “ambush predator” add a certain amount of understanding on how to set up an encounter with that creature.

9.) Any monster ability that has a DC should ensure that the DC is present wherever that ability is listed. For example, a swarm with the Distraction ability will have that universal monster ability listed under Special Attacks: Distraction. Make sure the DC is present here for fast reference.

10.) When compiling lists of creatures, please include any category/type information that can assist in locating the creature in the book. For example, in Bestiary 6, “Vermlek” is listed under CR3 creatures. But I may not know that “Vermlek” is a type of demon, and come up empty looking for what that thing is in the V section of the book. Present the information that helps me locate monsters as easily as possible.

[CyberMephit]

I think Monster Lore should not be a universal rule tied only to CR/creature type (plus arbitrary common/unique modifier). It makes no sense that a young dragon abilities are much easier to identify than ancient one - after all, the ancient one should have been the stuff of local tavern legends for centuries (see The Hobbit). At the same time, some low-CR but obscure monster (perhaps endemic to a small region or esoteric in origin) should be quite tricky to research.

Ideally, each monster would have its own rules and DCs for identification. Perhaps the default rule can be left as a fallback if no data is provided in the stat block. And the skill check could specifically target defenses/offenses/special abilities and revealing only those per roll, with a critical success revealing everything, instead of relying on GM to choose which ability to reveal and how many per roll.

[Dragon78]

Yeah, I agree, monster lore should not be based on CR.

[Dasrak]

MMCJawa wrote:

I would prefer they be built by the same rules as PC's are. It makes it more straightforward to use them in roles that are not just straight combat.

At very least, ensure that it's still straightforward to tack on PC class levels onto monsters. These are some of the most enjoyable things to build as GM's, and it would be a complete shame if we lost them.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

JoelF847 wrote:

Make vermin a sub-type

1,000% this. There is no reason for vermin to be a type.

[Dale McCoy Jr]

By far the number one thing I am looking for is for them to be the Unchained Monster Creation rules. Those rules were freaking awesome.

Would like: every subtype from PF1 listed in the book, even if said subtype does not appear in the book. This way, a GM can convert over some monster from PF1 that didn't get converted by that point.

[Jester David]

1) Less Monster/PC Symmetry. When you add HD to a monster, it shouldn't also increase their number of feats, ability score boosts, skills, etc. Monsters having feats was especially annoying. This was especially problematic with saving throws, where monsters gained HD 2-3 times faster than PCs so their save bonuses rapidly outpace DCs.

2) PCs Can Be Monsters. But there should be rules for making NPC opponents that mostly use PC rules (if you choose) and add class levels to monsters. And rules for figuring out what CR they are without something as arbitrary as level-1...

3) Fewer Universal Monster Rules. Some traits in statblocks. These really require a lot of memorization 7 flipping, so the rule load needs to be in the statblock. Streamline the crap out of these to the essentials.

4)Reference Spells. Conversely, use spells not powers. Reprinting full powers invariably ends up costing monsters their flavourful powers and out of combat abilities. Thankfully, spells are in a different book, so unlike universal monster rules you don't need 2-3 pages in the same book open for one monster.

5)No New Monsters. We have lots. The first 2-3 bestiaries should be "best- of…" lists. Let's give the classics time to shine, and move the coolest monsters from Bestiary 4, 5, and 6 into 1-3. And there doesn't need to be new golems, giants, dragons, demons, and devils in *every* book.

6)More Flavour. The stats allow me to use a monster in my game, the flavour encourages me to use a monster. I'll use a monster with lame abilities and a cool story/ hook every time over a monster with awesome abilities but not reason to exist.

7)Variation in HP/ AC/ Damage in a CR. This is something 4e did that proved problematic, and Unchained repeated. Having all monsters of a particular type & CR having the same numbers. This made it all little to easy for a player to learn one number and just know the rest. And it reduced monster numbers to basically 3 variations with a few key abilities: you really only needed 75 statblocks (CR 1/8 to 20 of the three types) and then the talents unique to that monster...

[Errant Mercenary]

I'd like skills to be able to cover more monster types or monster types to be more spread through skills.

Arcana - contructs, dragons, magical beasts
Nature - animals, fey, monstrous humanoids, plants, vermin
Religion - Undead
Local - humanoids
Planes - outsiders
Dungeneering - aberrations oozes

What I'm getting at is I want people that kill monsters for a living to be better at knowing what they are facing.

[Enlight_Bystand]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Dragon78 wrote:

Corporeal undead and constructs should still be effected by crits/precision damage.

I think it depends on whether you see corporeal undead as "a body that still works mechanically like a body but is being run by an undead spirit" or "a body evenly and entirely suffused with negative energy", as the first model would suggest crits and precision damage should work and the second that they shouldn't. I favour the latter model myself; I think zombies, for example, are a lot more effectively creepy and distinct from any other humanoid monster, if you can hamstring them, or any of the other sorts of thing crits and precision damage simulate, and it doesn't affect them the ways it would a living being.

As for constructs, it depends on the specific construct, as I can see different constructs working in either of the ways described above, much like the distinction between golems and animated objects.

I take Zombies as the prime example of why undead should be critable - in almost all popular fiction, how do you stop a Zombie? With a headshot. What is that a good description of? A Critical Hit.

[Gorbacz]

My only wish is that monsters will be easy to run like they are in 5E. Pathfinder monsters are a horror, requiring you to cross-refernce the monster entry itself, universal monster rules, monster feats, other feats, spells etc. etc.

Running an exciting encounter should not require you to have 3 hardcover books open at the same time.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Jester David wrote:

1) Less Monster/PC Symmetry. When you add HD to a monster, it shouldn't also increase their number of feats, ability score boosts, skills, etc. Monsters having feats was especially annoying. This was especially problematic with saving throws, where monsters gained HD 2-3 times faster than PCs so their save bonuses rapidly outpace DCs.

I always thought of that as a feature rather than a bug.

Quote:

5)No New Monsters. We have lots. The first 2-3 bestiaries should be "best- of…" lists.

I absolutely disagree here; if we get straightforward conversion rules, I hope to see minimal reprints in PF2.0 bestiaries generally. Ten or a dozen examples of how to convert would suffice for me.

Quote:

And there doesn't need to be new golems, giants, dragons, demons, and devils in *every* book.

And here too, those are exactly the things I appreciate having more of. Though I'd definitely appreciate more flavour on the new golems and dragons in particular; maybe it's not necessary to reprint so much of the general dragon rules in every bestiary.

[Biztak]

I only want three things from this book
For it to be released the same day as the Core Rulebook.

For it to have at least as many creatures as the first Bestiary in 1e.

If options to play a Kobold are in this book I want for their stat to follow a +2,+2 -2 formula.

[Malachandra]

I'd like for them to break from having 5 new true dragons in every book, especially when they have to fall under a single category. I'd like to see "un-categorized" true dragons. I think that would make them more flavorful, and some of the later dragons felt forced, while some really cool ideas couldn't make it in there because they didn't fit into a category.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Malachandra wrote:

I'd like for them to break from having 5 new true dragons in every book, especially when they have to fall under a single category. I'd like to see "un-categorized" true dragons. I think that would make them more flavorful, and some of the later dragons felt forced, while some really cool ideas couldn't make it in there because they didn't fit into a category.

What ideas do you have in mind ?

I can't think of any true dragons thus far I have not been happy to see, though I would very much like more space for flavour text on some of the later ones (Dragons Revisited 2 is probably the product I would most squeee to see Paizo do); they do all fit together rather well with their concepts to my mind, and I only regret that so many of the 3.5-era planar dragons are not available for Pathfinder. (Half of them belong to Outer Planes we don't even have any more, which is another thing I kind of miss.)

[Malachandra]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

I'd like for them to break from having 5 new true dragons in every book, especially when they have to fall under a single category. I'd like to see "un-categorized" true dragons. I think that would make them more flavorful, and some of the later dragons felt forced, while some really cool ideas couldn't make it in there because they didn't fit into a category.

What ideas do you have in mind ?

I can't think of any true dragons thus far I have not been happy to see, though I would very much like more space for flavour text on some of the later ones (Dragons Revisited 2 is probably the product I would most squeee to see Paizo do); they do all fit together rather well with their concepts to my mind, and I only regret that so many of the 3.5-era planar dragons are not available for Pathfinder. (Half of them belong to Outer Planes we don't even have any more, which is another thing I kind of miss.)

I'm thinking of unaffiliated true dragons. I felt towards the end that the "5 dragons to a group" requirement was holding them back. Like, once they had a group in mind, they started brainstorming dragons that fit with that group. I think sometimes there were more than 5 that could have made the cut, and sometimes there were 3 obvious choices and they had to work hard to make the extra 2 fit. If they dropped the requirement, each dragon would stand on its own two feet (metaphorically) and if there were a number other than 5 which got the designers excited, and they wouldn't have to set their excitement aside to fit the pattern.

For instance, if a designer had a really cool idea for a Blood Dragon, with the right mix of flavor and special abilities to make a great monster, they could just put in the bestiary. As it stands now, they either need to fit that dragon into another group, potentially renaming it to fit the group and messing with its abilities to better match the others in the group, or they have to re-skin the concept as a [insert name here], a monster with the dragon type that's not a true dragon. Either way the designer has to temper their excitement to fit the prescribed pattern.

It's not a big problem for me, I just think it would open up new opportunities for fun dragons. And I love dragons :)

[Senjen]

I'd like to see more consistency in how environment and terrain types are presented. While there are nearly infinite sub-variations, it is not unreasonable to consider that the planet has 3 major temperature zones: artic, temperate, and tropical. I've been working on encounter tables for various regions and having listings for warm and tropical, or warm and temperate just makes it slightly more difficult.

The same can be done with terrain types. I'd vote for mountains, hills, forests, plains, desert, and underground.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Malachandra wrote:

I'm thinking of unaffiliated true dragons. I felt towards the end that the "5 dragons to a group" requirement was holding them back. Like, once they had a group in mind, they started brainstorming dragons that fit with that group. I think sometimes there were more than 5 that could have made the cut, and sometimes there were 3 obvious choices and they had to work hard to make the extra 2 fit.

I can see how that could be a problem in theory, I am just very much not seeing it with any of the existing septs.

Quote:

If they dropped the requirement, each dragon would stand on its own two feet (metaphorically) and if there were a number other than 5 which got the designers excited, and they wouldn't have to set their excitement aside to fit the pattern.

I think you're seeing a restriction where I'm seeing the kind of challenge that often IME helps creative people more than it hinders them.

Quote:

For instance, if a designer had a really cool idea for a Blood Dragon, with the right mix of flavor and special abilities to make a great monster, they could just put in the bestiary. As it stands now, they either need to fit that dragon into another group, potentially renaming it to fit the group and messing with its abilities to better match the others in the group, or they have to re-skin the concept...

Or they just think about groups of 5 with which Blood fits as a member, and come up with Humour Dragons of Blood, Phlegm, Yellow Bile, Black Bile, and Spirit (which would be Quintessence if PF wasn't already using that word in a somewhat different context.) Much like the oozes already associated with four of those humours.

Or alternatively, if it does not have a matching set, what is lost by making it not a true dragon in the first place; linnorms and peludas and (whatever the plural of gorynich is) don't seem to suffer thereby.

[Malachandra]

I guess I feel like, with the outer and esoteric groups in particular, they would be better served by condensing into a smaller group. I don't love all the members of those two groups. And I could see how the challenge of filling the group might be nice... I'd just rather they start with something exciting than they brainstorm for something exciting.

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Or they just think about groups of 5 with which Blood fits as a member, and come up with Humour Dragons of Blood, Phlegm, Yellow Bile, Black Bile, and Spirit (which would be Quintessence if PF wasn't already using that word in a somewhat different context.) Much like the oozes already associated with four of those humours.

Or alternatively, if it does not have a matching set, what is lost by making it not a true dragon in the first place; linnorms and peludas and (whatever the plural of gorynich is) don't seem to suffer thereby.

But now that cool concept has to fit into a group built around it. As for the true dragon part, without being a true dragon it loses that rules chassis that I really like. And (this is a minor quibble), being a true dragon has a presence that you lose without the title.

[Unicore]

Ancestries now require feats to be playable, for me, this means that I want playable monsters to occupy space in an ancestries book instead of a bestiary because it would take up so much space to list adequate feat options. So I would rather see tieflings, kobolds, Aasimar, and other sentient, playable creatures appear in ancestry books, possibly regionally or thematically linked, and not take up bestiary space.

Instead, I want Monsters in the bestiary, and lots of them. This should also help cram more essential stuff into the first book, because less space will need to be dedicated to different kobolds, lizardmen, orcs, etc, which could either be present as examples in the ancestry book, or come out in a villains of X suppliment, which would be more like the NPC books.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Malachandra wrote:

I guess I feel like, with the outer and esoteric groups in particular, they would be better served by condensing into a smaller group. I don't love all the members of those two groups.

I didn't love them initially either - only having a couple of lines of flavour text each does not do them any favours here - but having seen what, for example, Iron Gods did with a couple of the Outer Dragons, I am willing to believe that they could all be equally cool given their moments to shine.

Quote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Or they just think about groups of 5 with which Blood fits as a member, and come up with Humour Dragons of Blood, Phlegm, Yellow Bile, Black Bile, and Spirit (which would be Quintessence if PF wasn't already using that word in a somewhat different context.) Much like the oozes already associated with four of those humours.

Or alternatively, if it does not have a matching set, what is lost by making it not a true dragon in the first place; linnorms and peludas and (whatever the plural of gorynich is) don't seem to suffer thereby.

But now that cool concept has to fit into a group built around it.

I'm not talking about changing the ccol concept to fit a group, I am taking about a cool concept naturally inspiring a group to grow organically from it.

Quote:

As for the true dragon part, without being a true dragon it loses that rules chassis that I really like.

Fair enough. I've always found that a bit cumbersome myself.

Quote:

And (this is a minor quibble), being a true dragon has a presence that you lose without the title.

I suspect that if an AP at some point uses one of the high-end non-true-dragons like a guardian dragon or an elder wyrm as a major antagonist that could go a long way to give said beastie more presence.

[Malachandra]

Unicore wrote:

Ancestries now require feats to be playable, for me, this means that I want playable monsters to occupy space in an ancestries book instead of a bestiary because it would take up so much space to list adequate feat options. So I would rather see tieflings, kobolds, Aasimar, and other sentient, playable creatures appear in ancestry books, possibly regionally or thematically linked, and not take up bestiary space.

Instead, I want Monsters in the bestiary, and lots of them. This should also help cram more essential stuff into the first book, because less space will need to be dedicated to different kobolds, lizardmen, orcs, etc, which could either be present as examples in the ancestry book, or come out in a villains of X suppliment, which would be more like the NPC books.

I didn't consider that... I wonder how many feats it will take to make an ancestry playable? Some good points to consider. I originally wanted ancestries in the bestiary, but this is something to think about

[Malachandra]

But the group you mentioned is not one I'd like to see. It's obviously a joke group, but the point is important. What if the designers just don't like any concepts similar to that one exciting dragon? Then that one cool idea gets tabled, because it doesn't fit the pattern.

I could see how the chassis is cumbersome. I like how it lets me age a dragon, and how I can use a single monster over a wide range of CRs. And I don't think a non-true dragon could really have presence of a true dragon. An encounter with a Peluda for instance will rarely have the weight of an encounter with a true dragon with a similar CR.

All minor things, just my thoughts on ways to improve.

[Deadmanwalking]

Malachandra wrote:

I didn't consider that... I wonder how many feats it will take to make an ancestry playable? Some good points to consider. I originally wanted ancestries in the bestiary, but this is something to think about

Technically? 5. That's how many PCs eventually get. But that means everyone has the same 5, so you really need more like 10 for diversity.

[Fuzzypaws]

The race version of a monster in the bestiary can be presented in a PDF Player's Companion. They can also offer these for sale as soft cover booklets that are released at the same time as the bestiary, or collect them for Races of Golarion books.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Malachandra wrote:

But the group you mentioned is not one I'd like to see. It's obviously a joke group, but the point is important.

It wasn't meant to be; there are already oozes themed on the four humours (in the RotRL anniversary edition, and IIRC also written up in AP back matter somewhere), and the humours have strong associations with personality types which are more than enough character to hang dragon types on.

Quote:

What if the designers just don't like any concepts similar to that one exciting dragon? Then that one cool idea gets tabled, because it doesn't fit the pattern.

That feels to me like underestimating the creativity of some very creative people.

Quote:

I could see how the chassis is cumbersome. I like how it lets me age a dragon, and how I can use a single monster over a wide range of CRs.

One of the things about having cut my roleplaying teeth on BECMI D&D is that I tend to default think of dragons as coming in three size categories only, and young/adult/ancient has worked for me to translate that preference into PF (plus giving ancients generally extra abilities like swallow whole, linnorm-type death curses and their frightful presence working to make younger dragons willingly follow them.)

I don't think that's an argument for removing the chassis, but the page count it takes up in Bestiaries might be.

Quote:

And I don't think a non-true dragon could really have presence of a true dragon. An encounter with a Peluda for instance will rarely have the weight of an encounter with a true dragon with a similar CR.

To my mind that depends on the adventure and on the GM - I would hope the final encounter in the revised Curse of the Crimson Throne, for example, isn't lacking in presence for involving a non-true dragon in the key role; I have not run that but it certainly did not strike me that way reading it, whereas there are true dragons in adventure paths that don't have that scale of presence at all (like the one that is just artillery support and entirely overshadowed by the actual BBEG in the climax of the revised RotRL.)

[Ampersandrew]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

To my mind that depends on the adventure and on the GM

let me ruin CotC for you:

I would hope the final encounter in the revised Curse of the Crimson Throne, for example, isn't lacking in presence for involving a non-true dragon in the key role;

Please don't do that, lots of us haven't read or played that but might at some point. Please use spoiler tags when you're spoiling an AP.

[Almarane]

raidou wrote:

6.) I generally travel to run games, and I do like to have some amount of printed content available in case my internet connection is poor at my destination. From the bestiary PDF, I print out single pages of the monsters I need to use for that session and put them all in a binder. I would love to see a low-ink print option for the bestiary that removes things like page decoration, page number, logos, etc. and just leaves the monster image and stats.

^ THIS. I too print my monsters before playing for conveniance. I always loose hours copy/pasting monsters' stat bloc in Word so my printer doesn't die every 3 monsters.

Stop using "X immunity" (like "undead immunities") in monsters' stat blocs. It's hard remembering every single racial immunity, and you loose time looking them up during play. Plus, it would allow more differences between monsters of the same group, like with outsiders.

Instead of using CR for Knowledge checks, use the monster's rarity. Knowing what an Orc or a Dretch is capable of is trivial, while recognizing a Slupspawn should be impossible, and you should be able to recognize an Elder Gold Dragon if you recognize a Young Gold Dragon or an Elder White Dragon. Maybe use the usual easy/medium/hard questions of Knowledge checks instead of scaling on the CR.

[Malachandra]

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

Malachandra wrote:

But the group you mentioned is not one I'd like to see. It's obviously a joke group, but the point is important.

It wasn't meant to be; there are already oozes themed on the four humours (in the RotRL anniversary edition, and IIRC also written up in AP back matter somewhere), and the humours have strong associations with personality types which are more than enough character to hang dragon types on.

Quote:

What if the designers just don't like any concepts similar to that one exciting dragon? Then that one cool idea gets tabled, because it doesn't fit the pattern.

That feels to me like underestimating the creativity of some very creative people.

Quote:

I could see how the chassis is cumbersome. I like how it lets me age a dragon, and how I can use a single monster over a wide range of CRs.

One of the things about having cut my roleplaying teeth on BECMI D&D is that I tend to default think of dragons as coming in three size categories only, and young/adult/ancient has worked for me to translate that preference into PF (plus giving ancients generally extra abilities like swallow whole, linnorm-type death curses and their frightful presence working to make younger dragons willingly follow them.)

I don't think that's an argument for removing the chassis, but the page count it takes up in Bestiaries might be.

Quote:

And I don't think a non-true dragon could really have presence of a true dragon. An encounter with a Peluda for instance will rarely have the weight of an encounter with a true dragon with a similar CR.

To my mind that depends on the adventure and on the GM....

A Phlegm Dragon though?

I'm not saying that the designers aren't creative. I'm saying that I think their best work generally comes from a concept they're excited about, not one they are forced to make to fill a quota. In some cases quotas are good: they need to make sure they have a good CR range in the bestiary and that there is a good variety of types. But the five dragons to a group pattern seems like a relic from earlier games, and I'm not convinced it brings anything to the table. If you have any reasons it works, I'd be happy to listen though.

Certainly a GM/adventure can give a regular (not true) dragon weight and presence. Or said GM/adventure could take away the weight and presence of a true dragon. But a true dragon, by nature of mythology, the history of the game, and the chassis it uses, has an inborn quality that something like a wyvern can never have. It's easier to make a memorable encounter with a true dragon than with just about anything else. The dragon does it all on its own, because players expect it to. A linnorm takes a little more work to get the same effect. So I think opening up those requirements would be beneficial.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Ampersandrew wrote:

the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:

To my mind that depends on the adventure and on the GM ** spoiler omitted **

Please don't do that, lots of us haven't read or played that but might at some point. Please use spoiler tags when you're spoiling an AP.

Oops. My apologies, lost track of which forum I was in. Will try harder not to do so in future.

[the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh]

Malachandra wrote:

A Phlegm Dragon though?

A Phlegmatic Dragon. Temperament-wise, that would go with relaxed, peaceful and easygoing, which already makes it reasonably distinct from most of the design space dragons occupy; alchemically, phlegm is associated with the element of water, which in PF terms translates to cold damage, so we have our primary breath weapon; colourwise, I would be inclined to go with the existing PF lore on the phlegmatic ooze, so it would be brown, and also the phlegmatic ooze causes d4 rounds of confusion to those who fail a Will save when touching it, so a secondary breath weapon (like metallic dragons) doing that would fit. So that sounds to me like a dragon that lives in cold climes, probably defaults to either TN or NG in a not-very-pushed-about-doing-much sort of way, and is quite distinct from the white dragons or silver dragons it is mostly likely to be found near.

Quote:

I'm not saying that the designers aren't creative. I'm saying that I think their best work generally comes from a concept they're excited about, not one they are forced to make to fill a quota.

That is a way creative processes can work, but inspiration to clarify an existing concept from other existing things near the same space (like I did with existing references to humours and to other dragons in the above paragraph) is also a way constraints on a creative process can work. The Phlegmatic Dragon as sketched out above would be quite enough flavour for me to start working out mechanics, and if I as a complete amateur can, from a combination of general knowledge, familiarity with existing Pathfinder lore both as relevant influences and as things to avoid duplicating, and a couple of minutes on Wikipedia, can come up with a sept of dragons and a usable characterisation for one of them based on the first idea you threw out, it does not seem to me that professional designers whom I assume to be much better at this than me are going to find true dragons coming in septs particularly stifling.

Quote:

In some cases quotas are good: they need to make sure they have a good CR range in the bestiary and that there is a good variety of types. But the five dragons to a group pattern seems like a relic from earlier games, and I'm not convinced it brings anything to the table. If you have any reasons it works, I'd be happy to listen though.

Well, at a mechanistic level, one reason I like it is that, given what I said above about age categories, staggering a sept of five across three age categories gives you a fifteen-CR range, which feels about right to me; I'm not generally thinking of true dragons as appropriate CR-equivalent opposition for a first or second level adventure, so to start with a young white dragon at CR 5 and end with an ancient red dragon at CR 19 would I think be entirely reasonable.

Quote:

But a true dragon, by nature of mythology, the history of the game, and the chassis it uses, has an inborn quality that something like a wyvern can never have. It's easier to make a memorable encounter with a true dragon than with just about anything else. The dragon does it all on its own, because players expect it to. A linnorm takes a little more work to get the same effect.

On the mythology front, depending on which mythologies you grew up with, I'm not seeing anything to make linnorms and the Norse dragons they are inspired by, or indeed the Hydra as Hercules found it, inherently less awe-inspiring than the dragons the game has canonised as "true". And if you are going to take history within the game and use of a particular mechanistic chassis as benefits there, which is an argument I can entirely see, I would see dragons coming in sets of five as falling under that same heading.

[RangerWickett]

Chopping Off Hydra Heads This needs to both be a viable tactic and something that you can do with other creatures. My proposal is that you can use Disarm to get rid of held weapons (or free allies held by tentacles!), but if the target isn't holding a weapon, you can use Disarm to deal damage to an extremity. Usually this would just prevent the creature from attacking with that limb for a round or two, but monsters with tentacles and snake-y heads should be easier to chop up.

(This would only apply to extremities that are being used to make melee attacks. I don't want wizards getting their casting hands chopped off, at least not as a core option.)

Climbing on Monsters I like Shadow of the Colossus. There should be rules for getting onto and holding onto monsters, and maybe some advantage to attack vulnerable spots.

Shopping? Can I buy a griffon? An elephant? What about a trained chimera?

Big Monsters as Puzzles If you haven't played Horizon: Zero Dawn, watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oW1OJbDWo8

Fighting a dragon or a pit fiend or even a simple troll shouldn't be as simple as rolling attacks and dealing damage until it falls over. It should be posing dilemmas for the PCs, and the players should be having to shift tactics round by round.

Don't have monsters that just do attack and do HP damage. Instead have a troll, like, claw/claw so it hits and grabs a PC, and then if it starts its next turn with the PC grabbed, then it rends (or, I dunno, tears an arm of). This sets up a dramatic tension, more than simply ablating hit points.

Dragon breath should set an area on fire, or coat it with acid, forcing PCs to scatter. Pit fiends should have, I dunno, a hellish nimbus that you can attack, and if you destroy it their spell resistance and elemental immunities go away. There should be tools to snare the feet or wings of flying foes, forcing them to land (and then the monster can either keep attacking on the ground, or spend actions to break the item and fly off).

[Malachandra]

Lots of Curse of the Crimson Throne references. I've had to do some research ;) The humours are certainly an interesting idea. For an ooze. For dragons, your example continues to reinforce my opinion. I would feel silly challenging my players with a dragon associated with mucus and timidity. And if I was a designer who had a really exciting idea for a Blood Dragon, and my boss came to me and said "OK, we are going to do a group of dragons based off the humours, make me a yellow bile dragon"... I would start thinking about other ideas for a grouping of dragons.

And that's my point. Your assumption seems to be that all creative processes are equal. I understand that people are capable of creating good designs under pressure. The point I am putting forward is that creativity is at its best happens when a designer starts off with an idea that captures their mind. There are exceptions, of course, but this to me seems a good general rule. Do you disagree? Paizo designers are creative and experienced, and there worst designs are likely better than my best, but everyone has a range of quality in their work. I'd like to put them in a position to succeed, and I think maintaining a pattern for the sake of tradition is unnecessary.

The range of CRs is interesting. I'd like to point out, however, that the last three bestiaries did not fully accomplish that. And could something similar be accomplished with less entries? Even 2 dragons in a bestiary could have CRs of 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18. That's a wide range, and that's ignoring the fact that the chassis allows you to make a stat block for the CR you need fairly easily.

The point on true vs. regular dragons is one entirely of opinion. That said, the separation between the two to me is plain. Regular dragons are alpha predators. Unique and memorable encounters, always to be taken seriously. But true dragons are rulers. In their domains, nothing challenges a true dragon. They don't make encounters in a dungeon. They make the dungeon. They don't challenge a group of adventurers. They destroy the countryside, forcing adventurers to challenge them. Some of this is my personal experience. Some is the history of the game (and dragons did not always come in groups of five). But to me there is a difference between fighting a dragon and a dragon-like creature. Linnorms come closest, but they still lack the majesty of a true dragon. True dragons are set apart, so why not open that heading to our best ideas?

[Dragon78]

Lets get rid of the monstrous humanoid type since it only existed to have a humanoid with a fighter's attack bonus and HD. Then centaurs could be fey, medusa could be humanoid, minotaurs could humanoid (or even magical beast).

Hags should be fey and have a "hag" subtype. Also gremlins should have a "gremlin" subtype as well.

Also willow wisp as fey would be more interesting and could add to having different types with different alignments. Maybe their alignment is based on the type of emotion they feed on.