Example: Lust Demon (Succubus)
Are these renames, with the old name as a playtest holdover? Do these monsters now have two names? I wasn't really understanding what was going on. My example is particularly vexing because it uses both names in the little flavor blurb.
And on another note, thanks for actually writing out the rarity of monsters. (If only it was applied to the spells and feats in the main rulebook too.)
|
(This) is their actual name while first part I guess is their description or what someone who doesn't know their actual name would call them.
I do kind of worry that if all fiends now follow that format that eventually they will get repetitive. But on otherhand, I guess it would prevent there being Drowning themed Devil, Daemon, Demon, Sahkil, Kyton, etc at same time because it would be easier for devs to quick check whether fiend fitting the theme already exists.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a hunch that they are phasing out a lot of the old names invented by original D&D and AD&D that are Wizards IP in favor of their own flavor and IP. Ioun stones, for example, have already been renamed to aeon stones in Starfinder, and the Pathfinder Playtest adopted that.
When you check out the list of summonable monsters in the Playtest rulebook, for example, it says "toad demon", not Hezrou. The Bestiary still lists the old name, so that even without an illustration we can know what monster a toad demon actually is.
Note that they have already been using these alternate names in novels, audio books, the card game and other stuff not covered by the OGL (which means they couldn't use those Wizards IP terms there). I believe the new RPG edition will now follow suit, so there is a consistent nomenclature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally would prefer the proper names, with the common names in the parenthetical. It's not a big gripe, but enough that I would post on the forums and let it be known that it irks me.
I noticed several of these on a quick spin through the Bestiary. Demona, dark creepers - those id not bother me, but the Ankheg kind of threw me.
As I mentioned under the switch from gp to sp: If it is a design intent (as the blogs seem to indicate) is to carry on in the Golarion through which we've been adventuring for the last decade, and to actually tie the rules more closely to the setting (I believe James Jacobs talks about this a bit in his "ask anything' thread), then changing names we've been using seems jarring and unnecessary.
Creative Director
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The name changes are indeed us refocusing these classic monsters to more closely align with the flavor work we've done to expand upon them. We want to focus more on the lore and backgrounds we've done in developing things like the caligni (which is going to get a big dose in the upcoming final 1st edition module, Cradle of Night) and the xulgaths and others.
For the demons and devils, it was as much to pick a standard method of naming convention; this convention already exists for devils going way back, after all.
And yes, it also allows us to mention these creatures in non-game products that don't use the OGL. We fully intend to continue to embrace the open game license going forward, of course, but when, for example, we put an "ankheg" in a novel, we can't call it an ankheg—we have to call it something else. This just gives those name variations context up front is all.
And like everything in the playtest, it's something we're also looking for feedback on, so please continue to tell us what you think of this choice! The method of applying this is certainly something we talked about and fiddled with up until the very last minute, and it's still very much open to further adjustment as we get more feedback and do our own thinking and noodling on the topic.
I like it more with Dark Folk>Caligni than Hezrou>Toad Demon. If these are the names that are gonna appear in the novels and stuff, I'd rather they were more immersive not less. Still, not a huge problem honestly, but if I'm reading a book and a cleric and a demonologist are discussing them, it's gonna be a little jarring if they say "The Shadow/Envy Demon has transformed in to a Shadow/Envy Demon MkII!" as opposed to actual names.
I like this change. It helps me identify what minis to use for encounters, and the ankhrav (ankheg) is a perfect example. I already knew what an ankheg is, but hadn't come across the name ankhrav before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
Since this is going into a new edition, could we perhaps get a new racial name for lizardfolk and serpentfolk?
And Merfolk? (I think Ratfolk & Catfolk have racial names already, but if not, then them, too.)
Please & thank you.
--C.
Yeah. I'm cool with new names. I just wasn't sure what was going on in the book with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Merfolk? (I think Ratfolk & Catfolk have racial names already, but if not, then them, too.)
Please & thank you.
--C.
I don't know about the others, but I think the Ratfolk name (Ysoki) is just used for the ones from Akiton (although I think it's the common name in Starfinder). Unless they have another proper name on Golarion that I've missed, which is entirely possible. But actually I think Ratfolk kind of works for them. They tend to just kind of go with the local cultures and don't seem to have a major cultural memory of themselves. So people call them Ratfolk, they just kind of shrug and go "That works, we're folk who resemble rats." and then just get on with their business.
As for the other names in the book. Some are a bit jarring, but that's coming from a point of view as an existing player. Some of the demon names I'm up in the air on. Toad Demon and Lust Demon don't really sound great to me, but Toad Demon is a lot easier for me to remember than the proper name (I can never keep track of most demon names). Succubus on the other hand is an really common name from the real world so seeing Lust Demon there is a bit odd, but I guess it continues the trend. And I never even thought of the fact that the OGL only covered using them in the tabletop RPG and the problem with names in spinoff products.
|
Creative Director
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi James,
Since this is going into a new edition, could we perhaps get a new racial name for lizardfolk and serpentfolk?
Yes. We didn't wanna rush things and come up with a last minute name for them (and a few others) but the plan is to give all the "-folk" races a name they identify as, rather than giving them something ignorant humans call them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. We didn't wanna rush things and come up with a last minute name for them (and a few others) but the plan is to give all the "-folk" races a name they identify as, rather than giving them something ignorant humans call them.Hi James,
Since this is going into a new edition, could we perhaps get a new racial name for lizardfolk and serpentfolk?
Yay! Even though it's in the playtest doc I'm glad Troglodyte will be ditched for Xulgath going forward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't think you even need to give a generic name to a Succubus. After all, Succubus is from real world mythology.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't think you even need to give a generic name to a Succubus. After all, Succubus is from real world mythology.
Sure, but it is only in the courtroom that you will discover whether naming a lusty energy draining winged demon in a broadly D&D related comic/novel/board game "Succubus" does or does not constitute a breach of OGL. You'll argue that they're totes real life and thus public domain, the shark from Wolfram & Hart will argue that you've used the particular interpretation of Succubi drawn from OGL which is protected and is not open content in media other than a pen and paper RPG.
I'd charge 100 bucks an hour for that, discount rate.
|
|
I mean, I don't think you even need to give a generic name to a Succubus. After all, Succubus is from real world mythology.Sure, but it is only in the courtroom that you will discover whether naming a lusty energy draining winged demon in a broadly D&D related comic/novel/board game "Succubus" does or does not constitute a breach of OGL. You'll argue that they're totes real life and thus public domain, the shark from Wolfram & Hart will argue that you've used the particular interpretation of Succubi drawn from OGL which is protected and is not open content in media other than a pen and paper RPG.
I'd charge 100 bucks an hour for that, discount rate.
Damnit Whedon -_-
|
Creative Director
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I don't think you even need to give a generic name to a Succubus. After all, Succubus is from real world mythology.
Absolutely true, and I suspect we'll continue calling them succubi in other products as they appear, but for the purposes of the bestiary and formatting and standardization, they're alphabetized like the rest. Same for the Erinyes, as a "Fury Devil."
I mean, I don't think you even need to give a generic name to a Succubus. After all, Succubus is from real world mythology.Sure, but it is only in the courtroom that you will discover whether naming a lusty energy draining winged demon in a broadly D&D related comic/novel/board game "Succubus" does or does not constitute a breach of OGL. You'll argue that they're totes real life and thus public domain, the shark from Wolfram & Hart will argue that you've used the particular interpretation of Succubi drawn from OGL which is protected and is not open content in media other than a pen and paper RPG.
I'd charge 100 bucks an hour for that, discount rate.
Uniformity is valid enough reason as other pointed out. If this argument though was true, they would have to shuck pretty much every name that appeared in the SRD. Which they don't seem to be doing for other critters whose name is at least folkloric in origin.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to say (as a minis collector) this is an appreciated change. It's not often, but every now and again I get a mini with a 'non-OGL' name that I can't quite place. This will make searching for it easy.
I guess it's a small thing, but I'm glad you're thinking about the little details as carefully as the big picture stuff.
I absolutely support this change, and I was really pleased when I noticed that dark folks and the troglodytes' got new racial names.
Are the dominion of the black creatures (like the Deh-Nolo or the Neh-Thalggu) also getting a common "race"? I have been calling them all "brain collectors" or "dominion harvesters" in my setting.
I like it more with Dark Folk>Caligni than Hezrou>Toad Demon.If "caligni" is now the general name for the race formerly known as dark folk, what are the sub-category of dark folk who were called caligni in Bestiary 5 going to be called going forward ?
Those might just be generic caligni, with Dark Creepers and Dark Salkers and such being specialized ones. Does kind of change the background info though.
Yes. We didn't wanna rush things and come up with a last minute name for them (and a few others) but the plan is to give all the "-folk" races a name they identify as, rather than giving them something ignorant humans call them.
I'm a huge fan of this way of doing things. I know there are real world reasons underlying the decisions, but anything that allows Pathfinder's world to blossom and emerge as its own thing, separate from anything else, is fantastic in my book. I can't wait to see more of the Pathfinder spin on things as more products roll out.
My favorite era of the game was the early days when it was all about: our goblins are like this. Our ogres are like this. Our kobolds are like this.
I'm all in for this change, but I gotta say, having, for example, both Vampire (Moroi) and Xulgath (Troglodyte) is strange.
I think the Moroi is there because there are other types of vampires too. Nosferatu, Vrykolakas and Aswang for example. Also Troglodyte is a pretty generic term, it just means a cave dweller. So making it the common name for a species that has it's own unique name makes sense. I bet Skum will get a similar treatment.
Where can I find this new small playtest bestiary? Or download it?
Right here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Example: Lust Demon (Succubus)
Are these renames, with the old name as a playtest holdover? Do these monsters now have two names? I wasn't really understanding what was going on. My example is particularly vexing because it uses both names in the little flavor blurb.And on another note, thanks for actually writing out the rarity of monsters. (If only it was applied to the spells and feats in the main rulebook too.)
I'm kinda running on the assumption that most laymen might encounter one of these things and tell people they encountered a "demon of lust" or "a fire demon" (assuming they survive, obviously). Not every commoner in the world happens to know that their actual name is a Succubus or Balor, but can probably describe something as a Boar Demon or Toad Demon fairly aptly.
My off-the-cuff rationalization doesn't quite work for everything though. I mean, I find it hard to believe someone would describe the shemhazian as a "Mutilation Demon" and not a "Spider-Bear" ;)