Monster Core Speculation: Who's In, Who's Out?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 423 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Hasbro net worth 8.6 Billion

Blizzard net worth 63.4 Billion

So...

Eh...net worth is for speculators. Annual revenues say what kind and how many lawyers you can afford. IMO, compared to it's miniscule annual revenues, Blizzard appears to be grossly overvalued. But this is true for many media companies. Quite possibly a financial correction is coming that will simply erase all of that net worth like a pair of fingers snapping away 50% of the universe (if you take my meaning).

YMMV


8 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

Any monster based on mythology is safe.

Any monster created by WotC is out.

Corollary: If the mythology-based monster's adaptation was created by WotC, it's probably out. This is the really important part, and the part people are struggling with a lot.

This is why "[material] golem", immune to all magic with certain exceptions, is probably out. It's why "unique, caramel-shelled unkillable four-legged beige Godzilla double-r capital-the The Tarrasque" is largely on its way out, too.

Yes, folklore exists about fairies that were sometimes called "drow". Yes, depictions of green-, blue- or metallic-colored dragons were published before D&D. Yes, "balors" exist in mythology. Yes, stories about creatures sometimes called "genies" are in the public domain. Yes, the word "beholder" is a non-copyrightable word in the English language. The important question is, are these names being used the exact same way WotC used them?

This is why simply renaming, say, the drow to "dark spooky spider-elves" is not likely to pass the smell test. The name really isn't the problem.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What KC said above. If the Paizo thing feels too similar to the equivalent WotC thing, then it's out.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wonder what will be the new face of the Armageddon Engine post OGL removal?

Will it still be most normal looking of rovagug spawn or will it enter the category of "horrible insectile flesh horrors"?

(funniest plot twist would be if it was mythology accurate Tarrasque)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
I wonder what will be the new face of the Armageddon Engine post OGL removal?

At a guess, the next Spawn of Rovagug we see won't be that one. It's probably safe to leave Tarrasque in the cavern it's trapped in for the foreseeable future.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think James Jacobs has indicated that Tarrasque will go unreplaced as everyone's favorite Armageddon Engine, but probably won't be used much in the future.

Liberty's Edge

Kobold Catgirl wrote:
I think James Jacobs has indicated that Tarrasque will go unreplaced as everyone's favorite Armageddon Engine, but probably won't be used much in the future.

Yes. Retirement for both the creature and its title.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly thought that Kaiju generally were more interesting than the tarrasque... So, I suppose I won't miss it any more than I'm going to miss alignment. Other things like the Otyugh on the other hand...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I've always been partial to Gelatinous Tubes over cubes anyway.
There's really no reason an amorphous thing should have 90 degree angles anyway. If you wanted a "caustic automated dungeon cleaning ooze" you'd really want it to be low-slung like a Roomba, so it's not dissolving the frescoes and torch sconces too.

It should also be able to stick to walls, and possibly ceilings, so it can clean those as necessary. Clear when hungry and "hunting," but looking more like a haze or cloud when it's recently fed on dungeon detritus.

And thus, the Janitor Jelly was born.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gelanitorious Ooze


If the qlippoth are shoved out because of OGL entanglement, I really hope paizo just pull a kyton/velstrac and simply change the name of the whole monster type while keeping the actual creatures around.

We still need a 2e version of the Iatavos, and a cythnigot specific familiar would be really cool too.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scarablob wrote:

If the qlippoth are shoved out because of OGL entanglement, I really hope paizo just pull a kyton/velstrac and simply change the name of the whole monster type while keeping the actual creatures around.

We still need a 2e version of the Iatavos, and a cythnigot specific familiar would be really cool too.

In fairness, qlippoth as a species came from Book of Fiends (plus are very similar to the obyriths that James put together for the old Demonomicon articles), which are both very OGL.

Kytons might be OGL, but Pathfinder basically invented an entire species around them well after 4th edition came out. I can see why there's an issue with one but not the other.

That being said... I really hope to see more of them too. The abyss wouldn't be the same without ancient incarnations of inhuman evil festering in its darkest crevices.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Qlippoth are from from real world religion/myth, I don't know what specific ones are from Book of Fiends so we might lose those specific ones, but we're not gonna lose Qlippoth, the same way we're not gonna lose Demons or Devils as a whole.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Also mind James' own comments about qlippoth pre dating the obyriths. Qlippoth aren't generic obyriths, obyriths are brand name qlippoth. The entanglements are unrelated to the obyrith in my understanding


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All very true yep. I just hope that the "unfathomably ancient abyssal entities" vibes don't get lost, since those definitely don't come from Jewish mysticism (though they do function as "fiendish" influences there to the best of my knowledge).

I know chernobues are book of fiends but don't remember the rest. The iathavos isn't in there though.

And now for some blatant speculation/wishing unrelated to the OGL at all: really hoping to see more asuras. Seems like the "big scary monsters" for them and the divs (asurendra and akvan respectively) haven't gotten 2e writeups and I'm hyped to see what happens with those "lesser known" archfiends.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I mean thing about qlippoth is that they are from OGL, but not from D&D, so technically only thing required to keep using them is if they can be republished under orc I think? Its confusing .-.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
Qlippoth are from from real world religion/myth, I don't know what specific ones are from Book of Fiends so we might lose those specific ones, but we're not gonna lose Qlippoth, the same way we're not gonna lose Demons or Devils as a whole.

From Bestairy 2, the ones from Book of Fiends are the shoggti, the nyogoth, and the chernobue.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
Unicore wrote:
I've always been partial to Gelatinous Tubes over cubes anyway.
There's really no reason an amorphous thing should have 90 degree angles anyway. If you wanted a "caustic automated dungeon cleaning ooze" you'd really want it to be low-slung like a Roomba, so it's not dissolving the frescoes and torch sconces too.

It should also be able to stick to walls, and possibly ceilings, so it can clean those as necessary. Clear when hungry and "hunting," but looking more like a haze or cloud when it's recently fed on dungeon detritus.

And thus, the Janitor Jelly was born.

If I were a mad wizard designing oozes for cleaning my dungeon of the remains of ill-fated adventurers or w/e, I think you'd want more than one kind of ooze for this.

Like you want the really caustic ooze (that can dissolve bodies) to stick to the floor. So you can get rid of bones and any gear that's not magic. Since when something dies it's probably going to end up on the floor.

But in terms of the ceiling and the walls, for that you're mostly looking at nicks, bloodstains, scorch marks, etc. So you want a lighter touch (some sort of caustic mist, say) for that. I suppose you could make it so the janitor jelly emits some sort of vapor for "steam cleaning" the walls and ceiling.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Rysky wrote:
Qlippoth are from from real world religion/myth, I don't know what specific ones are from Book of Fiends so we might lose those specific ones, but we're not gonna lose Qlippoth, the same way we're not gonna lose Demons or Devils as a whole.
From Bestairy 2, the ones from Book of Fiends are the shoggti, the nyogoth, and the chernobue.

Aww man I like chernobue, but either way all of them were adapted to 2e already so yay xD


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:

Actually Blizzard is the $2 billion a year company. Hasbro is closer to $6 billion a year. So...

EDIT: I should note, annual revenues for both have down year after year for the last two years...

Hasbro 2022: net revenue $5.86b, operating income $0.408b

Activision Blizzard 2022: $7.53b, operating income $1.67b

Looks to me that even though Blizzard is in a slump atm they are both earning more and have a higher profit margin.


The Gleeful Grognard wrote:
Jacob Jett wrote:

Actually Blizzard is the $2 billion a year company. Hasbro is closer to $6 billion a year. So...

EDIT: I should note, annual revenues for both have down year after year for the last two years...

Hasbro 2022: net revenue $5.86b, operating income $0.408b

Activision Blizzard 2022: $7.53b, operating income $1.67b

Looks to me that even though Blizzard is in a slump atm they are both earning more and have a higher profit margin.

I do think that it's also worth considering this from the perspective of Paizo, rather than Blizzard. Sure, Blizzard might be able to ride out a lawsuit, but Paizo is a very different company that has to make its own business decisions about the kinds of risks it wants to take on.

Just my two cents on the issue.


Calliope5431 wrote:

I do think that it's also worth considering this from the perspective of Paizo, rather than Blizzard. Sure, Blizzard might be able to ride out a lawsuit, but Paizo is a very different company that has to make its own business decisions about the kinds of risks it wants to take on.

Just my two cents on the issue.

Sure, I wasn't saying anything about that. Just that I can't see evidence to suggest that blizzard is so much smaller than hasbro.

But to weigh in on blizzard v hasbro; blizzard isn't competing with hasbro, aren't championing a competing license and have a huge fanbase crossover who hasbro would rather not turn on them. Meanwhile Paizo is small next to WotC let alone blizzard, is competing and is a major voice and contributor to a competing license to the OGL.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I really dont think it is the legal question that is guiding Paizo's current work for the remastery. I think they are being far more compassionate and respectful than the law requires, in that they are honestly trying to figure out what ideas they have developed on their own, or in response to ideas from deep folklore, and what ideas were mostly developed by someone else, and they just don't feel right claiming as their own work, even where (in the case of James Jacobs) some of that work for another company was work they literally did themselves.

It is rather remarkable and I really hope fans support this choice rather than trying to punish them for trying to follow the intention of the law instead of the consequence.


So I know the great beyond is sticking around - does anyone know anything about the energy planes? I have a soft spot for sceaduinars but wasn't sure if their home was being removed with rage of elements or the remaster.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calliope5431 wrote:
So I know the great beyond is sticking around - does anyone know anything about the energy planes? I have a soft spot for sceaduinars but wasn't sure if their home was being removed with rage of elements or the remaster.

That is a fascinating question. I would never have thought to question whether the energy planes are going to be kept in the transition. My gut instinct is that they'll have to change their names (thank goodness, "Positive Energy Plane" has never once sounded like a natural thing that a person in the universe might say). Beyond that, I feel like if they were going to shake up the cosmology that badly, we would have heard about it by now, so I expect either they're not going anywhere, or they didn't have any news ready for us in the last press release.

I've said before, simply changing the name of a thing is not actually sufficient to escape copyright, but in this case I have to wonder if 'realm of pure bursting life' and 'empty void of entropy' could possibly fall under copyright without using 'positive' and 'negative' labels for them?

In any case, I believe the sceaduinar are Paizo originals, so they'll probably stay in some kind of void at the centre of the shadow world even if a few of the details have to change. ... Actually, speaking of details there's supposed to be a giant picture of the cosmos in Rage of Elements, isn't there? Somebody go find a screen cap of a .5 second book flash and confirm if there's a black and white pair of dots on it.

Liberty's Edge

Not having positive and negative energy for damage and healing would change far more than what the Remastered books will cover.

So, I think the energies will stay. And likely the planes too if maybe renamed (Oblivion and Effervescence for example).

They host so much creativity that is full Paizo that I do not want them gone.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

At most I suspect they'd have to rename the planes, though I don't even know if they'd have to do that much. The Positive/Negative Energy Planes are a bit more unusual than Plane of [Insert Element Here], but not by much.

On the other hand, there are a bunch of cool names for those planes just lying around that Paizo could use.
Positive Energy Plane: The Furnace, Creation's Forge (My fave), Cosmic Forge, Fires of Creation
Negative Energy Plane: Nothing/The Nothing, The Void, Entropy's Heart (My fave), The Final End

"Place where stuff gets made" and "place where stuff goes to be unmade" are pretty widely applicable concepts, so I think the chance of something drastic having to happen to those places is basically zero.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'd assume that THE VOID is going to stay around so likely would positive energy plane equivalent, but can't be sure about that... Removing THE VOID would suck though because its actually quite important for lot of things unlike positive energy plane


1 person marked this as a favorite.

(Incidentally I found that image I was mentioning and it doesn't dig past the elemental shell, but one of the diagrams appears to demonstrate a series of elemental disks and how they interact with the Void and the [PEP]. It's just now up to finding a name as iconic and satisfying for the PEP as Void is for the NEP. So far none of the names in Planar Adventures have quite hit the spot for me like the Void did for NEP.)

PS I find it particularly unlikely that WotC can claim anything on the concept of life energy, though the +/- interaction between those energies and undead is a little closer to the edge, since while Final Fantasy also does the healing kills undead bit, it seems to have gotten that largely because it was originally based on D&D. Even so, I expect very little to need to change about vital energies and the planes that host them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Positive energy kills undead is based on the sun and holy water destroying vampires. Not much to put an IP on here.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

(Incidentally I found that image I was mentioning and it doesn't dig past the elemental shell, but one of the diagrams appears to demonstrate a series of elemental disks and how they interact with the Void and the [PEP]. It's just now up to finding a name as iconic and satisfying for the PEP as Void is for the NEP. So far none of the names in Planar Adventures have quite hit the spot for me like the Void did for NEP.)

PS I find it particularly unlikely that WotC can claim anything on the concept of life energy, though the +/- interaction between those energies and undead is a little closer to the edge, since while Final Fantasy also does the healing kills undead bit, it seems to have gotten that largely because it was originally based on D&D. Even so, I expect very little to need to change about vital energies and the planes that host them.

Obviously, the opposite of the Void should be the Sentry. After all, it has the power of a million exploding suns.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

(Incidentally I found that image I was mentioning and it doesn't dig past the elemental shell, but one of the diagrams appears to demonstrate a series of elemental disks and how they interact with the Void and the [PEP]. It's just now up to finding a name as iconic and satisfying for the PEP as Void is for the NEP. So far none of the names in Planar Adventures have quite hit the spot for me like the Void did for NEP.)

PS I find it particularly unlikely that WotC can claim anything on the concept of life energy, though the +/- interaction between those energies and undead is a little closer to the edge, since while Final Fantasy also does the healing kills undead bit, it seems to have gotten that largely because it was originally based on D&D. Even so, I expect very little to need to change about vital energies and the planes that host them.

Obviously, the opposite of the Void should be the Sentry. After all, it has the power of a million exploding suns.

...so the Positive Energy Plane should be the Negative Energy Plane as well? ;)


Evan Tarlton wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

(Incidentally I found that image I was mentioning and it doesn't dig past the elemental shell, but one of the diagrams appears to demonstrate a series of elemental disks and how they interact with the Void and the [PEP]. It's just now up to finding a name as iconic and satisfying for the PEP as Void is for the NEP. So far none of the names in Planar Adventures have quite hit the spot for me like the Void did for NEP.)

PS I find it particularly unlikely that WotC can claim anything on the concept of life energy, though the +/- interaction between those energies and undead is a little closer to the edge, since while Final Fantasy also does the healing kills undead bit, it seems to have gotten that largely because it was originally based on D&D. Even so, I expect very little to need to change about vital energies and the planes that host them.

Obviously, the opposite of the Void should be the Sentry. After all, it has the power of a million exploding suns.
...so the Positive Energy Plane should be the Negative Energy Plane as well? ;)

Stars are portals to the positive energy plane. But black holes are portals to the negative energy plane.

Dead stars make black holes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Evan Tarlton wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

(Incidentally I found that image I was mentioning and it doesn't dig past the elemental shell, but one of the diagrams appears to demonstrate a series of elemental disks and how they interact with the Void and the [PEP]. It's just now up to finding a name as iconic and satisfying for the PEP as Void is for the NEP. So far none of the names in Planar Adventures have quite hit the spot for me like the Void did for NEP.)

PS I find it particularly unlikely that WotC can claim anything on the concept of life energy, though the +/- interaction between those energies and undead is a little closer to the edge, since while Final Fantasy also does the healing kills undead bit, it seems to have gotten that largely because it was originally based on D&D. Even so, I expect very little to need to change about vital energies and the planes that host them.

Obviously, the opposite of the Void should be the Sentry. After all, it has the power of a million exploding suns.
...so the Positive Energy Plane should be the Negative Energy Plane as well? ;)

Stars are portals to the positive energy plane. But black holes are portals to the negative energy plane.

Dead stars make black holes.

Dead stars... Or Undead stars?

... Actually no kidding, calling a black hole an undead star is metal as heck.

As an aside, I forget, we're all stars linked to the PEP or was that only the suns of life bearing systems?


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Raven Black wrote:

No more Worm that walks. Sad.

I still hope we can get a humanoid swarm ancestry some day.

Pretty sure that's from Cthulhu mythos stuff, so it should be good.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a bit of a selfish wish, but is it possible to make an Owlcat monster to replace an Owlbear?


CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?

Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.


Perpdepog wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?
Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.

I don't think they existed prior to 3.x? They're not in the 1e monster manual anyway.

But I don't see them listed at the end of my copy of book of the dead in the OGL section, or in pf 1e bestiary 2 where they show up. But that's mostly just tome of horrors monsters and doesn't always include stuff that's OGL courtesy of the srd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tropkagar wrote:
It's a bit of a selfish wish, but is it possible to make an Owlcat monster to replace an Owlbear?

They just should make multiple monsters that are birds of prey + land predator


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Now I want an Ursadactyl that is flying dinobear.

Liberty's Edge

Calliope5431 wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?
Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.

I don't think they existed prior to 3.x? They're not in the 1e monster manual anyway.

But I don't see them listed at the end of my copy of book of the dead in the OGL section, or in pf 1e bestiary 2 where they show up. But that's mostly just tome of horrors monsters and doesn't always include stuff that's OGL courtesy of the srd.

They were in the Monster Manual v.3.5, so I guess OGL.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Pieces-Kai wrote:
Tropkagar wrote:
It's a bit of a selfish wish, but is it possible to make an Owlcat monster to replace an Owlbear?
They just should make multiple monsters that are birds of prey + land predator

Make them all subspecies of griffons. Cheetah+falcon for the speed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Pieces-Kai wrote:
Tropkagar wrote:
It's a bit of a selfish wish, but is it possible to make an Owlcat monster to replace an Owlbear?
They just should make multiple monsters that are birds of prey + land predator
Make them all subspecies of griffons. Cheetah+falcon for the speed.

Building on this idea:

Introduce the Keythong (essentially a wingless griffon) with various varieties, such as lion+eagle (regular), your cheetah+falcon (speed), wolf+corvid (smarts), and... bear+owl (strength)! Etc.

;p


I just really want an owlcat familiar for the witch.


The Raven Black wrote:
Calliope5431 wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
CorvusMask wrote:
Speaking of THE VOID(I really am going to sad if they don't rename plane to The Void despite that being best alternate name used for plane in both pathfinder and starfinder), Darvakka are fine right because they are already changed quite lot from nightshades?
Were Nightshades even part of the OGL to begin with? Either way I think they're fine, I'm just curious if they were ever an OGL property.

I don't think they existed prior to 3.x? They're not in the 1e monster manual anyway.

But I don't see them listed at the end of my copy of book of the dead in the OGL section, or in pf 1e bestiary 2 where they show up. But that's mostly just tome of horrors monsters and doesn't always include stuff that's OGL courtesy of the srd.

They were in the Monster Manual v.3.5, so I guess OGL.

Looks like it, at least the nightcrawler, nightwalker, and nightwing are.


I could see nightshades being reworked into more powerful shadows... and I doubt that shadows are out XD


JiCi wrote:
I could see nightshades being reworked into more powerful shadows... and I doubt that shadows are out XD

Yeah nightwalker might have a different name but no way are shadows out. They're absolutely a trope that predates RPGs, Clark Ashton Smith's "The Double Shadow" comes to mind but so do the Twilight Zone episode "The Shadow Man" and Hans Christian Andersen's "The Shadow". Ashton Smith's even has the shadow making more of its kind albeit not by killing people (that just lets the eldritch horror possess you)

201 to 250 of 423 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Monster Core Speculation: Who's In, Who's Out? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.