Wait, does Paizo own the license to smurfs or something?Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to. :)
Wait, YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SMURF AVATAR?!
Dang it, Paizo, this is definitely favoritism! :p
Minor correction, no dragons will be removed from the world.
Removed, no. More of a "phasing out" of the classic dragons. They might as well all have suddenly gone steril. There aren't going to be any new ones.
Classic dragons should probably be given the Rare trait now as we clearly aren't going to be seeing any more get published again by Paizo. ;P
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor correction, no dragons will be removed from the world.Removed, no. More of a "phasing out" of the classic dragons. They might as well all have suddenly gone steril. There aren't going to be any new ones.
Classic dragons should probably be given the Rare trait now as we clearly aren't going to be seeing any more get published again by Paizo. ;P
No, Luis Loza said that chromatic/metallic dragons will still be around in the game. They just need more time to "remaster" them, so they won't be in the first Monster Core book. And since they've all but confirmed future Monster Core 2 or 3 books in the future, we can reasonably believe the remastered versions of those dragons will show up then.
For now, we'll be getting new dragons, and the stories to be told in the future will shift their focus over to these new dragons. And I'm all for it.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor correction, no dragons will be removed from the world.Removed, no. More of a "phasing out" of the classic dragons. They might as well all have suddenly gone steril. There aren't going to be any new ones.
Classic dragons should probably be given the Rare trait now as we clearly aren't going to be seeing any more get published again by Paizo. ;P
That's what I thought too, but from some posts, I gathered that Paizo too loves the classic dragons and will try to find a way to bring them back without risking legal troubles. But it will take time and is not the current priority.
Edit : ninjaed :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't ask questions you don't want the answers to. :)Wait, YOU HAVE YOUR OWN SMURF AVATAR?!
Dang it, Paizo, this is definitely favoritism! :p
Yes. Yes it is... and she deserves it.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's less an act of favoritism and more a sadistic ten-year old prank by a postmonster gone mad with power. Besides, it won't truly capture my likeness until Gargamel Teter creates a Smurfettebold.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Minor correction, no dragons will be removed from the world.Removed, no. More of a "phasing out" of the classic dragons. They might as well all have suddenly gone steril. There aren't going to be any new ones.
Classic dragons should probably be given the Rare trait now as we clearly aren't going to be seeing any more get published again by Paizo. ;P
Both James Jacobs and Luis Loza have said that's not the case, but okay buddy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In terms of the classic dragons, the specific ones that play a role in the Golarion setting (Mengkare, Choral the Conqueror, etc.) probably are fine. But it's safer for Paizo going forward in case they need a "dragon antagonist" for whatever reason to use a Diabolical Dragon, and Umbral Dragon, an Underworld Dragon, etc. instead of Red, Blue, Black, etc.
But that might be a good idea anyway since "Hell Dragon" is a lot more evocative than "Red Dragon".
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
The four basic kinds of dragons are tied to the four magical traditions, and the Primal dragons are definitely going to have more of a "material plane" feel.
|
|
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.The four basic kinds of dragons are tied to the four magical traditions, and the Primal dragons are definitely going to have more of a "material plane" feel.
Good point.
So should the Arcane dragons too ;-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's a joke about mimics changing shapes and forms.I inferred that as his intent. If it wasn't then it's intentionally funny
>_>
<_<
...of course that was my intention.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's really not a new edition. They're just deemphasizing some iconic monsters that are unfortunately deeply tied to WotC's brand. Otherwise, these changes are mostly just errata. I'm pretty bearish on new changes, and I don't think any of those we've heard about are especially drastic!
Creative Director
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.
Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do wonder, could giants be hit by this in a similar way as the dragons? Like of course, the concept of a fire giant or storm giant on their own isn't gonna be defensible by WotC, but using the same lineup of giants as D&D, as well as the specific abilities for each of them does sound like it might be a bit risky. Although I'd also wouldn't object to some new Paizo original giants taking the spotlight.
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.
Ah! So the chromatics and metallics are actually getting remastered as well? That's a meaningful spot of news.
Another thought... I imagine we'll be able to have more interesting draconic content in general, once the work of fully severing is done and there's not the impetus to be so careful with them. Not sure ho much that's going to change the actual quantity of draconic content (Golarion has lots of things to tell stories about) but it'll at least enable it.
I do wonder, could giants be hit by this in a similar way as the dragons? Like of course, the concept of a fire giant or storm giant on their own isn't gonna be defensible by WotC, but using the same lineup of giants as D&D, as well as the specific abilities for each of them does sound like it might be a bit risky. Although I'd also wouldn't object to some new Paizo original giants taking the spotlight.
Hill Giants are straight out of fairy tales. Fire and frost giants are straight out of norse myth. Storm/Cloud/Stone giants? Less sure on those.
I think they've strayed from the exact abilities by now anyway, haven't they? Also, given the sheer number of additional Paizo giants on the list, I think you'd be hard-pressed to claim "same lineup".
On the bright side, I don't think many people actually care all that much about Storm/Cloud/Stone giants.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They've actually mentioned that before, but there's a lot of speculation flying around amid the Paizo staff posts/podcasts/blog updates. I don't mind it--it's fun to speculate--but I wish we'd all be a little more careful about directly complaining about speculated flaws.
Anyways, I think we should get rid of chromatic and metallic dragons entirely and just call dinosaurs dragons from now on.
|
Creative Director
|
| 18 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah! So the chromatics and metallics are actually getting remastered as well? That's a meaningful spot of news.
That's always been the plan, but don't expect those to be a part of the remastered books coming out later this year and early the next. Their stats remain 100% compatible and usable in the meantime in the 2nd edition Bestiary. If we end up wanting to use one of them in an ORC adventure before we have an "official remaster" we'll probably just present a bespoke stat block with that dragon referenced by its name, not as "red dragon" or the like. We'll see, but that's stuff to worry about later, not now.
I do wonder, could giants be hit by this in a similar way as the dragons? Like of course, the concept of a fire giant or storm giant on their own isn't gonna be defensible by WotC, but using the same lineup of giants as D&D, as well as the specific abilities for each of them does sound like it might be a bit risky. Although I'd also wouldn't object to some new Paizo original giants taking the spotlight.
Obviously hoping not, but also thinking there'll be few issues because PF2 added new aspects, like the Frost Giant's breath. Meanwhile the generic ones like Hill Giants well, they're generic, hardly an artistic creation.
Heck, maybe the Remaster will emphasize/create other thematic aspects.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.
Thank you James, and all of Paizo, for the passion and efforts you put into this. It really benefits us all.
It is an extremely bold business move, on par with launching Pathfinder to begin with.
I hope and wish it at least as big a success.
It is an industry-defining moment I believe.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I liked having the chromatic dragons for dragons deeply linked to the Material plane. Diabolical dragon definitely doesn't match this.Nor is it intended to. As mentioned above, the "classic" dragons (the metallic and chromatic) are still in the world. We just need more time to remaster them into non-OGL versions to make them even more Golarion/Pathfinder, and in the meantime are taking the opportunity to introduce more new dragons to the game that we've created and want to be our "dragon ambassadors" to the world going forward.
As a fan of Blues and their personalities (I think I have at least one of every Paizo/Wizkids mini) I am happy to read this.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, one thing that would be nice if we could decouple personalities and breath weapons from dragon color.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who mostly runs dragons as ancient, mythical monsters, whether they're evil or not, it doesn't bother me. If someone prefers to run them as, well, people, playable and so on, the colors-to-personalities thing probably feels weird.
Decoupling color from breath weapons seems like, at that point, you don't have much meaning to having different types of dragons at all. That's not a good fit for Golarion, in my opinion.
I mean, one thing that would be nice if we could decouple personalities and breath weapons from dragon color.Why ? (Honest question and for both items)
Personally I've always felt like it makes them too predictable, which is the opposite of how I like my dragons to be
I do wonder, could giants be hit by this in a similar way as the dragons? Like of course, the concept of a fire giant or storm giant on their own isn't gonna be defensible by WotC, but using the same lineup of giants as D&D, as well as the specific abilities for each of them does sound like it might be a bit risky. Although I'd also wouldn't object to some new Paizo original giants taking the spotlight.
I for one would not mind seeing Rock Throwing getting replaced with more interesting abilities.
I do wonder, could giants be hit by this in a similar way as the dragons? Like of course, the concept of a fire giant or storm giant on their own isn't gonna be defensible by WotC, but using the same lineup of giants as D&D, as well as the specific abilities for each of them does sound like it might be a bit risky. Although I'd also wouldn't object to some new Paizo original giants taking the spotlight.I for one would not mind seeing Rock Throwing getting replaced with more interesting abilities.
Rubble Tossing? Pitch Boulders? Bowlder Fling? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, one thing that would be nice if we could decouple personalities and breath weapons from dragon color.Why ? (Honest question and for both items)
I mean, the color of a fantasy thing is already pretty arbitrary and shouldn't necessarily tell us that much about the creature in question other than "that's what color it is."
Like sure, it makes sense that a dragon who lives in an arctic environment would be white for blending in purposes, but that particular creature shouldn't necessarily be smaller or more cowardly than a dragon of a different color. Heck, "breathing fire" would be much more useful in an arctic setting than "breathing cold" since everything around is already expecting cold.
I would prefer dragons be individuals that if you need to define them, it should be more about "what they're about" than "what color are they".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I'm a fan of true dragons being split across species at all. Species feels weirdly mundane for something like a dragon. I'd rather each dragon be fully unique, its own miniature god-monster PCs have to face with its own special powers. One dragon breathes a cone of ice, and that may be the only dragon in the world that breathes a cone of ice. Another dragon can cast druid spells, and that may be the only dragon in the world that can etc, etc.
So, in that sense, I totally agree with you. That said, I don't think that's gonna be what Golarion goes for.
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
However both forest dragons and green dragons protect forests... When I was writing a certain scenario that featured a Green Dragon, I had to work with the balance that there was a dragon who was protecting and caring its forest like a fierce eco-warrior, but was classed as evil because it didn't like people coming in and building roads, chopping down trees and bringing civilization into its forest.
Much of what the dragon was doing was absolutely heroic - so long as you were into keeping an ecosystem alive rather than representing a logging consortium.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think with that, my perspective would be that the dragon has sympathetic goals but is willing to use sinister means. It's nice, though, that we'll no longer have to worry about that sort of confusing contradiction with the new system. To a lot of people, an "evil" alignment on a character they want to root for just feels wrong.
|
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sympathetic goals but willing to use sinister means is a fantastic description. I wanted to create a nuanced 'evil' dragon, but I would love it if the morality wasn't hard coded into color. Now I suspect that demonic dragons are going to be evil... but even so, we work in a system where one of the types of celestial (the peri) is not a fallen angel but an ascended fiend. I like the idea that dragons can make different moral choices and buck the trend for their species.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sympathetic goals but willing to use sinister means is a fantastic description. I wanted to create a nuanced 'evil' dragon, but I would love it if the morality wasn't hard coded into color. Now I suspect that demonic dragons are going to be evil... but even so, we work in a system where one of the types of celestial (the peri) is not a fallen angel but an ascended fiend. I like the idea that dragons can make different moral choices and buck the trend for their species.
Given the default solutions most adventurers find, how evil really is that green dragon fending off loggers? (or even settlers, since many forest creatures aren't just sentient, but sapient.)
"Oh, you're killing people! Stop!"
"Don't you kill sapient creatures as your calling? Are you not their boogeyman? Their invader? While I merely defend those who can't, using your same principles."
"Yeah, well, reasons. And it's our story, we're the ones with the bard to tell the world how heroic we are. So there."
I imagine the charming fey trying to be diplomatic vs. the incoming army's leader then calling in his green dragon friend Hulk-style. :-)
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the owlbear does go away, I propose that Pathfinder needs a new hybrid of two awesome animals. I suggest the octopanda.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the owlbear does go away, I propose that Pathfinder needs a new hybrid of two awesome animals. I suggest the octopanda.
Batcat? Hogdog? Budgiebeaver? Cockatoocrocodiles? Octosharkipus? piranhaconda? Kamodokangaroo? Manbearpig?
A cross between tanuki and parrots? Panuki.
Lionapes might work.
How about a cuddly bearaconstrictor?
Should probably have one with a fluffy tail. Pandafox?
Regardless of if they find a way to bring back the Owlbear annd other such creatures, I hope they will look at others that are a bit whimsical and fun.
So while Bears are pretty fearsome as far as mammals go, you can get a lot scarier birds than owls.
Like a cassowaryleopard would be much scarier than an owlbear.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really? Owls are terrifying. They're nocturnal, they make unnerving sounds like hoots and shrieks, they fly almost silently, and some of them are barn owls. The owlbear honestly squandered its owl half. It's just a bear with a feathersona.
Really? Owls are terrifying. They're nocturnal, they make unnerving sounds like hoots and shrieks, they fly almost silently, and some of them are barn owls. The owlbear honestly squandered its owl half. It's just a bear with a feathersona.
LOL Sounds like bats, except you don't find owls that want your blood...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've known some owls, and I've known some parrots and the parrots are scarier.
Owls are dumb as a bag of hammers, whereas Parrots are always planning something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Minor correction, no dragons will be removed from the world.Removed, no. More of a "phasing out" of the classic dragons. They might as well all have suddenly gone steril. There aren't going to be any new ones.
Classic dragons should probably be given the Rare trait now as we clearly aren't going to be seeing any more get published again by Paizo. ;P
Y'ask me, dragons in general ought to be rare. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the owlbear does go away, I propose that Pathfinder needs a new hybrid of two awesome animals. I suggest the octopanda.Batcat? Hogdog? Budgiebeaver? Cockatoocrocodiles? Octosharkipus? piranhaconda? Kamodokangaroo? Manbearpig?
Okay Manbearpig is real! I’m totally cereal! :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're going the animal hybrid route again, it'd be nice if they had some kind of modular monster or template so that we could literally have everything in this thread as an option.
A swarm of piranhacondas...hehe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget the discomforting Crocoduck. :-P
On a more serious note, a Shrike/big predator combo would be scary.
"Wait, what did this creature do with the corpses? Are we sure it isn't demonic?!"
Grab, Stride, save vs. Impale.
Versus what?
A Woodpecker-Rex! a 20' tall lizard with a bird head sporting a huge beak and a taste for innards!
Chinchillanaconda
Capybaramoose
Orcaduck
Rabbitraptor
And of course the famous Liger
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am owlcat could be cool, but I think that's taken. How about a coyotecrow? Or a graverobbing vulturemole? Moles are pretty unsettling up close.