Bestiary Talk (Rules Focus)


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Dragon78 wrote:

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.

I like this. And to make up for the BAB and HD, there could be a simple "combatant" (or whatever else) tag under special qualities. It would change certain qualities of the type to the combatant set of qualities. That way you don't have to worry about it in game because the stats already reflect the tag. It would just effect adding HD to a monster.

Liberty's Edge

Malachandra wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

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.

I like this. And to make up for the BAB and HD, there could be a simple "combatant" (or whatever else) tag under special qualities. It would change certain qualities of the type to the combatant set of qualities. That way you don't have to worry about it in game because the stats already reflect the tag. It would just effect adding HD to a monster.

Well, if they mostly follow either the PF2 PC model or the Starfinder NPC/Monster model (and I can't imagine them not doing some combination of those two) then HD and BAB are not really a thing any more (though different monsters/NPCs may have different HP and Attack Bonus based on CR and role).


Dragon78 wrote:


Hags should be fey and have a "hag" subtype.

I would be fine with that for everything except night hags, who are outsiders with a fairly solid place in the lore of the Outer Planes and whom I would not like to see lose that; they lost out enough already with the changes from the 3.x Great Wheel th the PF cosmology, no longer being the rulers of a plane.


Would love elementals being their own creature type again. The outsider boat is already way to full as it is.


the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:


Hags should be fey and have a "hag" subtype.
I would be fine with that for everything except night hags, who are outsiders with a fairly solid place in the lore of the Outer Planes and whom I would not like to see lose that; they lost out enough already with the changes from the 3.x Great Wheel th the PF cosmology, no longer being the rulers of a plane.

To be fair I don't think the lore of night hags has been tied to that of the other hags - I don't recall them being part of convens for instance.IfI'm wrong though then part of the beauty of the type(subtype) system shines through. Night hags become Outsider (hag), done.


Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Nightmares

I would like to see Nightmares broken into four separate species and have one breed for War, Death, Pestilence, and Famine. And maybe stop calling them Nightmares. What is currently called a Nightmare makes a good Horse of War.

Then have completely new monsters called Nightmares and Cauchemar that are associated with sleep, dreams, and witches.


I really hope that they have numerous entries for some monsters. For instance Orc ecology: Orc Chieftains, war lords, warriors, worg riders, trackers, female and young entries. I know these are things we could create ourselves but I really think D&D 5e really hit on this with their monster manuals. I know that they said that they have monster stat blocks that are not as long so this should free up room to make variant types or flesh out monster ecology of humanoid types and other creatures that may have variant types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

From a cosmology perspective it seems kind of strange that

  • Creatures from the Ethereal plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Astral plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Elemental planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Outer planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Positive Energy plane are Outsiders
  • (non-undead) creatures from the Negative Energy plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Shadow plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the First World are Fey

Either subdivide outsiders more, or fold fey into it.

Silver Crusade

The Sideromancer wrote:

From a cosmology perspective it seems kind of strange that

  • Creatures from the Ethereal plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Astral plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Elemental planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Outer planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Positive Energy plane are Outsiders
  • (non-undead) creatures from the Negative Energy plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Shadow plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the First World are Fey

Either subdivide outsiders more, or fold fey into it.

Fey occupy a completely different flavorspace, though.


ThePuppyTurtle wrote:
The Sideromancer wrote:

From a cosmology perspective it seems kind of strange that

  • Creatures from the Ethereal plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Astral plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Elemental planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Outer planes are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Positive Energy plane are Outsiders
  • (non-undead) creatures from the Negative Energy plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the Shadow plane are Outsiders
  • Creatures from the First World are Fey

Either subdivide outsiders more, or fold fey into it.

Fey occupy a completely different flavorspace, though.

To add to this point, nearly all of those Outsiders are made of the substance of their planes w/ most of the exceptions being souls infused w/ that substance or who embody the essence of their planes. These aren't creatures with a normal physiology, even if many are represented w/ genders and mirror human desires & hungers. Even those that breed with humans are seldom if ever represented as breeding with each other.

And other creature types do come from those planes as well, being labeled just Extraplanar rather than fully Outsiders.

The only exceptions I can think of are the deities & other creatures which predate the planes, but since such deities spawned the planes which match their natures, they resemble the others enough. I'm also unsure where the Old Ones would fit in this model, but they're already a mix of creature types.

Meanwhile the First World Fey occupy their plane rather than are an extension of their plane. It's even plausible that they shape their plane more than their plane shapes them. Though they may not age, they'll generally eat and breed like most other creatures, despite being Extraplanar.
I admit it gets messy when one considers the Native Outsiders because what's spawning them?
And those spirit Fey which embody the essence of the natural realms in quite supernatural ways blur the lines too. But spirits have always been a mess, being Undead, Outsiders, Fey, even rarely Magical Beasts, Aberrations, or whatnot.

Okay, now I want to see what an Outsider spawned by First World essences would look like, not that I think it'd be visible.


Most of the creature types are there as a "base class" concept to provide BAB HP and save progression that matched with the typical ability set the creature would have. I'm not sure that purpose is still present if they're ditching the finished monsters in favor of a crib sheets. With a monster building guidline, that they weren't using anyway apparently, I don't see much point in the high level of distinction between creature types.

We have magical beasts and monstrous humanoids who are just animals and humanoids with better vision. We have constructs but then we have undead who are just constructs animated by a specific type of energy. Outsiders are monstrous humanoids that can't be resurrected. Fey are humanoids with low light vision. And so on, it would be more useful to define them by plane of origin and body type.

I propose:
A marker to indicate sentience:
controlled-- creatures responding only to outside stimulus
intelligent- creatures that are self motivating
mystic------ self motivating creatures with inherent magical powers

A marker for body type.
serpentine, bipedal, multipedal, morphic

A marker for creature type.
Creature--- animal, magical beast, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, outsider, fey, vermin, dragon
Construct-- Construct, Undead
Plant------ plant
Aberration- ooze, aberration

So we'd have Mystic Multipedal Creature for dragons, controlled bipedal construct for skeletons, mystic morphic aberration for gibbering mouther and so on. Then add plane of significance and call it good.

I'd much prefer actual build rules and base classes that meant something in the creature's ability set, but if they're moving away from it, I'd prefer they get far enough away from it that it no longer interfered in creature variety.

Silver Crusade

ErichAD wrote:

Most of the creature types are there as a "base class" concept to provide BAB HP and save progression that matched with the typical ability set the creature would have. I'm not sure that purpose is still present if they're ditching the finished monsters in favor of a crib sheets. With a monster building guidline, that they weren't using anyway apparently, I don't see much point in the high level of distinction between creature types.

We have magical beasts and monstrous humanoids who are just animals and humanoids with better vision. We have constructs but then we have undead who are just constructs animated by a specific type of energy. Outsiders are monstrous humanoids that can't be resurrected. Fey are humanoids with low light vision. And so on, it would be more useful to define them by plane of origin and body type.

I propose:
A marker to indicate sentience:
controlled-- creatures responding only to outside stimulus
intelligent- creatures that are self motivating
mystic------ self motivating creatures with inherent magical powers

A marker for body type.
serpentine, bipedal, multipedal, morphic

A marker for creature type.
Creature--- animal, magical beast, humanoid, monstrous humanoid, outsider, fey, vermin, dragon
Construct-- Construct, Undead
Plant------ plant
Aberration- ooze, aberration

So we'd have Mystic Multipedal Creature for dragons, controlled bipedal construct for skeletons, mystic morphic aberration for gibbering mouther and so on. Then add plane of significance and call it good.

I'd much prefer actual build rules and base classes that meant something in the creature's ability set, but if they're moving away from it, I'd prefer they get far enough away from it that it no longer interfered in creature variety.

Bane tho


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is bane something worth preserving in its current form? Having a bane weapon with 1-3 of those factors on it could work out really well I think. If it increases the boost you get based on how many type matches you have your intelligent-serpentine-creature bane weapon still does something when you aren't fighting lamia. With bane in its current form, it's a weird offshoot weapon or part of a very powerful level one Occultist's kit. In PF2 it's a rune you plug in when you know what you'll be fighting but otherwise don't bother with. I think this version is much better suited to PF2's step away from binary switches.

51 to 63 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Bestiary Talk (Rules Focus) All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion