I think it would be wonderful if the Bestiaries in 2.0 balanced out the creatures across the full range of alignments. It's nice to have people to beat up, but putting as much emphasis on the creatures which may / may not be enemies, or even be allies, would help. For example, if you did a 'haunted wood' there's scads of adversaries you could put in from the Bestiaries, but if you did a 'faerie wood' or a 'blessed wood', the variety suddenly drops like a stone. The number of creatures you can put in without doing reskins is a lot less.
And on the flip side, if someone's running an Evil Campaign, there's a lot less non-evil opponents to use. So there's that, too. I do feel it would be beneficial to provide creatures across the alignments, without focus on 'evil' or 'hostile' - sure, that can be a part of it, but it doesn't need to be the majority.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The vast majority of parties are mostly good and neutral, so it makes sense for the majority of creatures presented to be neutral and evil. However, I do wish there were more good aligned creatures presented. Perhaps with short blurbs of advice of how to present them as antagonists, so more GMs would be more inclined to use such creatures more often even in a non-evil campaign. Likewise, the occasional blurb of advice of how a neutral or evil creature can be presented as an ally even in a good campaign would also probably be helpful to a lot of people. Even experienced GMs sometimes get stuck in a rut.
PF1 had a lot of good or neutral aligned creatures. I never counted up the categories, but there seem to be plenty. I'm running Ironfang Invasion, and it's bestiaries, random encounter tables, and narrative events are full of fey you can party with and what not.
I would bet the first round of content (ie, playtest bestiary) skews towards things to fight, if only because you are more likely to need full stats for them. But I'm sure we will see other alignments represented.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alignment is not the entirety of a creature's or party's motivation. Simply because a creature is labelled "evil" doesn't mean the party will necessarily have this reason to fight it; and a good-aligned party might still find themselves required to fight a good-aligned creature.
So I'd like to see an expanded focus on motivations. What does this creature typically care about? What makes them good or evil? How are they likely to react to an adventuring party, and how can their motivations make the encounter stand out?
For example:
During brooding season, female Rocs are fiercely defensive of their nests, and will first scream warning then attack any that get too close to it. They will not travel far from their eggs, so they will not be drawn away even by a fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would dig it if creature tactics became a little more spelled out in the bestiary. Also the results of knowledge checks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i agree with morgan, that would be two very useful entries
and they could if they already add knowledge check results go for infividual check dcs - I mean, it doesnt make much sense to let the check be higher because for example a dragon is older and more powerful
or another example: I would guess that in universe knowledge about an aboleth is harder to get by then a lillend, or the knowledge about a shoggoth rarer then about a high tier devil, which still should be rarer then a high tier dragon
I know different knowledges cover these creatures but i never understood why people generally seem to know more about a cockatrice then a dire boar (and that is generally what the dc tells us)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i agree with morgan, that would be two very useful entries
and they could if they already add knowledge check results go for infividual check dcs - I mean, it doesnt make much sense to let the check be higher because for example a dragon is older and more powerful
or another example: I would guess that in universe knowledge about an aboleth is harder to get by then a lillend, or the knowledge about a shoggoth rarer then about a high tier devil, which still should be rarer then a high tier dragonI know different knowledges cover these creatures but i never understood why people generally seem to know more about a cockatrice then a dire boar (and that is generally what the dc tells us)
CR-based DCs also have the RAW oddity with "tiered" monsters that you could run into a young green dragon, roll 25 on your Knowledge (Arcana) check and go "That's a young green dragon. They breathe corrosive gas, and are immune to acid, sleep, and paralysis. They can also cause the local flora to twist and grab you." But if you meet an ancient green dragon and roll the same check, you'd go "What IS that thing? I don't have the faintest idea!"
That said, the PF1 rules does cover different rarity of creatures as well - it sets a DC of 5+CR for common creatures, and 15+CR for particularly obscure ones. It's not in the table of Knowledge DCs, but in the explanatory text.
Yeah, that's an oddity with the ancient dragons to be sure. I tend to tier the knowledge checks by common sense. A DC 15 might get you that green dragons breathe acid, for example, regardless of the age of the dragon you're looking at. But the more advanced its abilities get, the higher you need to roll. So a DC 20 might get you the fear aura, and a 25 might get you that they cast spells. 30 might get you some specific spells common to that dragon.
Ironically though, dragons are a corner case despite their fame and ubiquity. Which is why specific rules would be nice.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's an oddity with the ancient dragons to be sure. I tend to tier the knowledge checks by common sense. A DC 15 might get you that green dragons breathe acid, for example, regardless of the age of the dragon you're looking at. But the more advanced its abilities get, the higher you need to roll. So a DC 20 might get you the fear aura, and a 25 might get you that they cast spells. 30 might get you some specific spells common to that dragon.
Ironically though, dragons are a corner case despite their fame and ubiquity. Which is why specific rules would be nice.
The other way that can be represented is by an overload of information. The DC isn't representing getting any information, it's for getting reliable information.
So, yeah, the most famous dragon in all the realms is talked about in every tavern and at every street corner. But whether it breathes acid or has forced the region around its lair into eternal night or secretly runs the kingdom or kills people with a glance depends on who's telling the story.
If anything, that fame just makes it harder to find the handful of people with enough personal experience to know what the creature is capable of. But makes describing failed checks a lot more fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that's an oddity with the ancient dragons to be sure. I tend to tier the knowledge checks by common sense. A DC 15 might get you that green dragons breathe acid, for example, regardless of the age of the dragon you're looking at. But the more advanced its abilities get, the higher you need to roll. So a DC 20 might get you the fear aura, and a 25 might get you that they cast spells. 30 might get you some specific spells common to that dragon.
Ironically though, dragons are a corner case despite their fame and ubiquity. Which is why specific rules would be nice.
The other way that can be represented is by an overload of information. The DC isn't representing getting any information, it's for getting reliable information.
So, yeah, the most famous dragon in all the realms is talked about in every tavern and at every street corner. But whether it breathes acid or has forced the region around its lair into eternal night or secretly runs the kingdom or kills people with a glance depends on who's telling the story.
If anything, that fame just makes it harder to find the handful of people with enough personal experience to know what the creature is capable of. But makes describing failed checks a lot more fun.
We did get a glimpse at a feat that lets you get information on a failed check, but some it will be inaccurate. Which is a neat mechanic, but honestly seems like it could be part of the base tiers of success model.
Getting back to my position about alignment and evil races, I really would like good descriptions of the cultures and subcultures a species of creatures is usually part of. Possibly more than one monolithic culture for all of them, because it's kinda unrealistic. That way we actually get into more of the hows and whys of their behaviors, their religious tendencies, their relationship with neighboring countries and societies, their place on Golarion.
I'm not interested in long flavor pieces waxing poetic about an evil species' nefariousness, trying to convince me of how the world would be so much better without them. Just give us the facts, unembellished, and let us decide for ourselves. And maybe give us some good demons and evil angels once in a while.
|
Getting back to my position about alignment and evil races, I really would like good descriptions of the cultures and subcultures a species of creatures is usually part of. Possibly more than one monolithic culture for all of them, because it's kinda unrealistic. That way we actually get into more of the hows and whys of their behaviors, their religious tendencies, their relationship with neighboring countries and societies, their place on Golarion.
We've actually gotten these in various books. The actual Advanced Race Guide is setting neutral and thus can't do this very well, and I feel like Inner Sea Races drops the ball a bit in a less justifiable fashion, but most other books actually incline in this direction, IME.
I'm not interested in long flavor pieces waxing poetic about an evil species' nefariousness, trying to convince me of how the world would be so much better without them. Just give us the facts, unembellished, and let us decide for ourselves.
As I say above, I think the majority of PF1 books actually go this route. The exceptions are simply unfortunately prominent. I'd certainly agree that this should be the way things are done in the future, however.
And maybe give us some good demons and evil angels once in a while.
We have had both of these show up. They're rare, but definitely around here and there.
We've actually gotten these in various books. The actual Advanced Race Guide is setting neutral and thus can't do this very well, and I feel like Inner Sea Races drops the ball a bit in a less justifiable fashion, but most other books actually incline in this direction, IME.
Yeah but in the Playtest Monster Manual? I'd like that, and they said they're gonna "lean into Golarion" more this time around. Although sure, if space is at a premium I'll wait for the setting pdfs.
As I say above, I think the majority of PF1 books actually go this route. The exceptions are simply unfortunately prominent. I'd certainly agree that this should be the way things are done in the future, however.
Exactly. And not just in PF - a lot of games insist on how profoundly evil a race or another is filling pages upon pages with their thoughtful considerations. Very boooring.
We have had both of these show up. They're rare, but definitely around here and there.
You're right. I should hold onto hope.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah but in the Playtest Monster Manual? I'd like that, and they said they're gonna "lean into Golarion" more this time around. Although sure, if space is at a premium I'll wait for the setting pdfs.
The playtest Bestiary will have no flavor descriptions of any sort whatsoever. It's pure mechanics, with the necessity to go look at PF1 books if you want the flavor stuff.
In the final PF2 Bestiary, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see that sort of thing, though.
Exactly. And not just in PF - a lot of games insist on how profoundly evil a race or another is filling pages upon pages with their thoughtful considerations. Very boooring.
It can be a problem if it goes on too long, yeah.
You're right. I should hold onto hope.
Definitely. :)
Good Devils and Evil angels? havent read the right books, only recently I've found out about a CN Succubus. Well and there are pharasmas special ghaele azata...
mind giving me a short summary?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good Devils and Evil angels? havent read the right books, only recently I've found out about a CN Succubus. Well and there are pharasmas special ghaele azata...
mind giving me a short summary?
Well, the CN Succubus usually gets listed as Good in these discussions, since her whole character arc is redemption and it's assumed she'll get there.
Aside from her, there's a LG former Devil in The Redemption Engine as well as a couple of clearly fallen angels. Aside from that, there's a CN Azata in Serpent's Skull, most of the Archdevils are explicitly fallen angels, Ragathiel is the child of one of them and an Angel, and broken soul creatures are right in the Bestiary. There's a lot more examples, I'm sure, but those are all off the top of my head.
For some reason, this thread brings to mind the line from 1776:
John Adams: "This is a revolution damn it! We've got to offend somebody!"Don't know why.
"A NEETION OF BARRRRBARIANS!?"
XD
I love all those fallen angels and redeemed devils you mention, Deadmanwalking - I always like this kind of characters.
It's fine if the Playtest has no monster fluff, I know them all like the back of my hand, but I'd really like for Paizo to turn the evil races into more of "usually hostile ancestries" like they're doing with the goblins. Like the link I posted in the thread about homebrew ancestries, replying to you. It's okay if orcs stay evil, and hobgoblins stay evil, I'm dumping alignment anyhow, but Paizo needs to give me a little more info about their actual cultures - and no deus ex machina like D&D's "Gruumsh made them, so they're eeevul!!11" - for my group to keep our interest in Golarion we'll need believable, if alien, motivations, and possibly some distance from the old view that "the monstrous races" are good only when they're dead.
For some reason, this thread brings to mind the line from 1776:
John Adams: "This is a revolution damn it! We've got to offend somebody!"Don't know why.
"A NEETION OF BARRRRBARIANS!?"
XD
I love all those fallen angels and redeemed devils you mention, Deadmanwalking - I always like this kind of characters.
It's fine if the Playtest has no monster fluff, I know them all like the back of my hand, but I'd really like for Paizo to turn the evil races into more of "usually hostile ancestries" like they're doing with the goblins. Like the link I posted in the thread about homebrew ancestries, replying to you. It's okay if orcs stay evil, and hobgoblins stay evil, I'm dumping alignment anyhow, but Paizo needs to give me a little more info about their actual cultures - and no deus ex machina like D&D's "Gruumsh made them, so they're eeevul!!11" - for my group to keep our interest in Golarion we'll need believable, if alien, motivations, and possibly some distance from the old view that "the monstrous races" are good only when they're dead.
I don't want to drift too far into territory already covered in the other thread, but there already a pretty decent amount of that for orcs and hobgoblins. Non-evil specimens and communities, in depth look at cultures (admittedly, usually focused on the examples of evil culture), people you can form alliances with, and even historical context that can paint the violence of these ancestries towards humans as somewhat justifiable. You just gotta dig around for it.
Due to the absurd variety of enemies in the bestiary, this won't ever be true for all typically evil creatures out there. But I think most of the non-giant humanoids have gotten at least a little of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I would dig it if creature tactics became a little more spelled out in the bestiary. Also the results of knowledge checks.
+100 to knowledge checks! The adventures that have included these are EXTREMELY useful. In fact, at times, it may not be that I, as the GM, are asking for those particular checks, but that they just come up organically as part of a the party's investigations. Either way, these are ALWAYS useful.
I do hope we see more of them. In fact, I'd like to see them as a part of the core approach to all different parts of the whole thing (adventures, bestiaries, etc, etc.). Basically, anywhere that you would likely have a PC doing a knowledge check, they should be present.
Please give some love to the harried GM ;)