Updated tonight with a section for Demons! From minions to nemeses, there are demons to menace characters at every level of experience.
EDIT: Added some nemesis versions of griffons, landsharks, and owlbears, also added several types of mummy to vex your tomb-robbing players. Also did a little stat block tuning on some older entries.
EDIT: Added the Lich!
Edited by DireachMan, what you're doing is absolutely fantastic! Keep up the good work, it is highly appreciated.
The Creature Catalogue is updated again, mostly bug fixes and refined mechanics, especially for the dreadgazer. I cleaned up the syntax for the eyestalk attacks, and slightly altered the mechanics for petrification (also for the basilisk).
I'd like to get opinions on using Resilience, Discipline, and Coordination as ad hoc saving throws against certain effects. On the one hand, I like to use the regular magic mechanics for creatures as much as possible, but on the other, I feel like using these "resist" skills promotes skill diversity, and adds a greater element of risk when dealing with certain creatures (as well as for traps). Also, with a creature like the behold- errrr, dreadgazer, and certain other creatures with unusual spell-like effects, the regular magic rules don't work so well.
The link doesn't seem to work for this anymore. Could you please repost?
I'll fix it when I get home from work today. :)
I was able to view and download. Thanks Direach!
The link worked when I tried it, but just to be sure I copied a new link from the folder and put that in the OP.
Wow this an amazing undertaking. Really impressed by what people are making for this game.
Still hoping someday some makes that massive achetype list.
Just found this. Brilliant!
On 5/30/2018 at 1:34 AM, Direach said:The Creature Catalogue is updated again, mostly bug fixes and refined mechanics, especially for the dreadgazer. I cleaned up the syntax for the eyestalk attacks, and slightly altered the mechanics for petrification (also for the basilisk).
I'd like to get opinions on using Resilience, Discipline, and Coordination as ad hoc saving throws against certain effects. On the one hand, I like to use the regular magic mechanics for creatures as much as possible, but on the other, I feel like using these "resist" skills promotes skill diversity, and adds a greater element of risk when dealing with certain creatures (as well as for traps). Also, with a creature like the behold- errrr, dreadgazer, and certain other creatures with unusual spell-like effects, the regular magic rules don't work so well.
I like your resist thing. Its like the fear mechanic and gets the player more engaged. With that said the standard resist are either discipline if its mental of resilience if its physical i get your coordination thing if the player tries to dodge i would leave a note with that the check should be flexible based on player narrative
i do feel like the check should be opposed vs. just a set difficulty but maybe that would be to much.
In other notes that dreadgazer should maybe get a few less wounds and strain and a bit less soak
By the way great work. I used a lot of your creatures as a template they work really well.
8 hours ago, Archellus said:I like your resist thing. Its like the fear mechanic and gets the player more engaged. With that said the standard resist are either discipline if its mental of resilience if its physical i get your coordination thing if the player tries to dodge i would leave a note with that the check should be flexible based on player narrative
In other notes that dreadgazer should maybe get a few less wounds and strain and a bit less soak
By the way great work. I used a lot of your creatures as a template they work really well.
Thank you, I'm glad you've gotten some use out of it! I haven't updated in a while, but I'll be restarting my campaign again soon (we had to take a break for a few weeks), and that usually means new monsters (minotaurs are definitely in the immediate future).
Yes, Coordination is mainly used defensively as a "get out of the way" roll, rather than resisting an effect. I found in play that a fixed difficulty tends to be faster to resolve, and doesn't stack the deck against the player as much as an opposed roll (you can still upgrade the difficulty if the threat has the Adversary talent).
My current version of the dreadgazer has 30 Wounds and 25 strain, so I must have tuned it a bit without updating it in the folder. Same Soak, though. By the time a party of characters has @ 300xp, they can kill a Terrinoth Giant in about 2.5 rounds with minimal magic gear, so solo monsters need to have
some
measure of resistance to player power! Of course, I encourage anyone using the Creature Catalogue to tailor the monsters to best suit their own campaigns, that's what they're there for. I reskin them constantly to make "new" adversaries, and the players don't know any better.
10 hours ago, Direach said:My current version of the dreadgazer has 30 Wounds and 25 strain, so I must have tuned it a bit without updating it in the folder. Same Soak, though. By the time a party of characters has @ 300xp, they can kill a Terrinoth Giant in about 2.5 rounds with minimal magic gear, so solo monsters need to have some measure of resistance to player power! Of course, I encourage anyone using the Creature Catalogue to tailor the monsters to best suit their own campaigns, that's what they're there for. I reskin them constantly to make "new" adversaries, and the players don't know any better.
have you thought about using characteristic in the 5+ range ?
or add more Adversary +N ...
Edited by TerefangGenerally I don't create enemies with more that a single score of 5 or greater, and I rarely use a score of 6 (most often in Brawn). There are quite a few creatures with Brawn 5 in the catalogue, though.
So far I have tended to not go higher than Adversary 2, as that combined with my generous use of "evil" Story Points means the players are often seeing three red dice. I would save Adversary 3 or 4 for a truly dire, Darth Vader-type recurring enemy, or an extremely challenging "end boss" encounter.
14 hours ago, Direach said:Generally I don't create enemies with more that a single score of 5 or greater, and I rarely use a score of 6 (most often in Brawn). There are quite a few creatures with Brawn 5 in the catalogue, though.
So far I have tended to not go higher than Adversary 2, as that combined with my generous use of "evil" Story Points means the players are often seeing three red dice. I would save Adversary 3 or 4 for a truly dire, Darth Vader-type recurring enemy, or an extremely challenging "end boss" encounter.
hmm .. let me give an example
in your CC you have the "Barbakul" daemon. (Attributes = 3,3,2,3,2,1)
IMHO it looks a lot like the "Hamatula" devil for its talents/description BUT looks a lot like the "Barbazu" devil for attribute scores yet has no Adversary Ability. (both referenced in 3.5SRD and PFSRD)
the "Barbazu" is a 6HD monster and IMHO would qualify for "Adversary 1"
the "Hamatula" is a 12HD monster and IMHO would qualify for at least for "Adversary 1" if not for "Adversary 2"
if you intended the "Hamatula":
do you see what i mean ?
18 minutes ago, Terefang said:hmm .. let me give an example
Your example is not particularly relevent. The descriptive similarity between Barbakul (Catalogue) and a Hamatula (Pathfinder) ends at the spines. The Hamatula is a 7ft. tall humanoid possessing powerful magic, and described as collectors of wealth and guards of the hellish treasury... meanwhile the Barbakul is described as being a dog-like quadruped scout, as well as being less "physically formidable" than other demons. There is no reason why both creatures couldn't exist in the same ynfernal legion.
Furthermore... Isofar as I can tell, the creature catalogue not a pathfinder conversion. Even if it were, the statistics of any given pathfinder creature are completely arbitrary (and based on the expected abilities of pathfinder PCs). So converting them 'exactly' is a complete waste of time, as they'll be just as arbitrary, badly balanced, and far less creative.
If you were so inclined, one could fairly easily 'upgrade' a Barbakul's profile to create a genesys appropo Hamatula by giving it some stat-boosts, Advesary 1, and 3 ranks in a Magic Skill that allows Attack and Conjure spells.
1 hour ago, Cantriped said:Your example is not particularly relevent.
depends if the "Barbakul" in the CC is analogous to a "Barbazu" or a "Hamatula"
1 hour ago, Cantriped said:meanwhile the Barbakul is described as being a dog-like quadruped scout, as well as being less "physically formidable" than other demons.
which would make a "Barbakul" analogous to a "Barbazu", but some of the talents would suggest a "Hamatula" (eg. Impaling instead of Cleaving)
1 hour ago, Cantriped said:So converting them 'exactly' is a complete waste of time, as they'll be just as arbitrary, badly balanced, and far less creative.
i agree with you that a 1-to-1 conversion from d20/PF to Genesys is not possible without being creative,
but one has to start the process somewhere and the attributes are a good staring point at least.
i have had good results with my spreadsheet conversion from d20/PF to Warhammer 3rd Ed,
so IMHO my conversion process or
@sevick
's adaption gets one to the point where most of
the repetitive calculations have been taken care of and the creative part of the conversion starts.
1 hour ago, Cantriped said:If you were so inclined, one could fairly easily 'upgrade' a Barbakul's profile to create a genesys appropo Hamatula
it has been a total misunderstanding on my side which actual devil was ment.
given that i assume "d20/PF" for context or frame-of-reference in hope that i am being understood,
since assuming "Rolemaster" as frame-of-reference with "Demon Class IV", or "Natural Undead Class III" does not get me far.
have i lost context or am i still in the Genesys-universe ?
yet the example shows that for some types of monsters there is enough room for "improved/supreme" versions.
what i do understand that a 300xp party killing a "stock" Silhouette 3 "Giant" in 2.5 rounds is a burden for a GM.
but that again it was only marked as rival and not "300xp rival", which is one of the areas IMHO Genesys fails miserably
(the way that d20/PF does comparison by "challenge rating")
Edited by Terefang
While some of the other creatures are definitely more conversion than adaptation, none of the demons were meant to be direct conversions from any existing creature (from whichever RPG). They were certainly inspired by D&D demons and devils, and borrow some of those traits which I thought were interesting. My own GM/creator concept of "demons" is that of a general type of extraplanar evil beings that enjoy sowing chaos and have a loose power-based hierarchy , rather than the very specific Chaotic and Lawful Evil concepts of the D&D demons and devils.
I also envision these demons working in groups where possible, and several of their abilities are meant to potentially enhance or complement the abilities of other demons, leading to some very nasty combinations (depending on which demons are in play). I think that's what I intended... I haven't looked at them in a while!
26 minutes ago, Terefang said:depends if the "Barbakul" in the CC is analogous to a "Barbazu" or a "Hamatula"
...
which woul d make a "Barbakul" analogous to a "Barbazu", but some of the talents would suggest a "Hamatula" (eg. Impaling instead of Cleaving)
Not so much no... the Barbazu (or Bearded Demon), is also humanoid and described as wielding a glaive. Neither is a dog-like quadruped. Also, unlike the Hamatula (or Barbed Devil), they didn't originally possess spines... though the Pathfinder illustration does depict them as being covered in horns or spines, and in many other illustrations are at least a little spikey (if not to the degree the Barbed Devil is).
37 minutes ago, Terefang said:a total misunderstanding on my side which actual devil was ment.
It strikes me as being most similar to "Spike Fiends" (aka Quill Rats and Thorn Beasts) from the Diablo franchise.
13 minutes ago, Cantriped said:Not so much no... the Barbazu (or Bearded Demon), is also humanoid and described as wielding a glaive. Neither is a dog-like quadruped. Also, unlike the Hamatula (or Barbed Devil), they didn't originally possess spines... though the Pathfinder illustration does depict them as being covered in horns or spines, and in many other illustrations are at least a little spikey (if not to the degree the Barbed Devil is).
For what it's worth, I did envision the Barbakul as a more-or-less humanoid demon, with long spines on its back and very long claws, rather than canine in appearance; I meant "watchdog" more figuratively than literally.
But they can look like whatever you want, I left that open to interpretation. I did picture them running on all fours, but they typically fight upright.
43 minutes ago, Direach said:I did picture them running on all fours, but they typically fight upright.
Well, Intent is very important. If you intended them to be more ursine than canine I can go with that too. I did take the term 'watchdog' rather literally; as it was the only term in the description that indicated its form. The term "sentries" has much the same connotation, but implies humaniform.
Considering it caused some confusion; it might be worth expanding the description to include that the Barbakul are "vaguely humanoid creatures with long claws, vicious maws, and hides bristling with deadly barbs. When hunting, they lope after their prey on all fours." (or something like that)
Edited by CantripedStill awesome! Working on some entities too - one question- how would you adapt 'riding elephant' to 'woolly mammoth' - I'm thinking it would be bigger and more powerful although probably not bigger enough for a higher silhouette (not got the book in front of me to check atm), Wikipedia says it's similar to elephant size so me thinking bigger may be down to computer games over-egging mammoths! Or maybe earlier mammoths were bigger so some games go for the bigger version.
Although the creatures are similar I think the woolly mammoth could have its own entry as there are differences- each may have advantages/disadvantages over the other so thinking how they'd function if attacked or used for work (the wooly's tusks may be good for felling trees or dealing with other obstructions, even as a natural siege (ramming) unit). And maybe the woolly's harder to tame as a mount but a tougher support against enemies for those that can.
Elephants look a bit more fragile too if you can call an elephant fragile! But compared to the mammoth the latter looks the tougher of the two.
So any thoughts on how you'd stat out and describe the mammoth?
17 hours ago, Watercolour Dragon said:Still awesome! Working on some entities too - one question- how would you adapt 'riding elephant' to 'woolly mammoth' - I'm thinking it would be bigger and more powerful although probably not bigger enough for a higher silhouette (not got the book in front of me to check atm), Wikipedia says it's similar to elephant size so me thinking bigger may be down to computer games over-egging mammoths! Or maybe earlier mammoths were bigger so some games go for the bigger version.
Although the creatures are similar I think the woolly mammoth could have its own entry as there are differences- each may have advantages/disadvantages over the other so thinking how they'd function if attacked or used for work (the wooly's tusks may be good for felling trees or dealing with other obstructions, even as a natural siege (ramming) unit). And maybe the woolly's harder to tame as a mount but a tougher support against enemies for those that can.
Elephants look a bit more fragile too if you can call an elephant fragile! But compared to the mammoth the latter looks the tougher of the two.
So any thoughts on how you'd stat out and describe the mammoth?
Hi Dragon! Personally, unless there was a pressing reason for a strong distinction between the two (both existing in the same campaign at the same time), I would just use the same template as the elephant, give it an extra rank or two of Resilience maybe, and call it "done". I'll think about it more today though, and circle back when I get home from work.
EDIT: OK, looking a bit more closely now. I still wouldn't change a lot... this is how I'd adapt a wooly mammoth:
Wooly Mammoth (Rival) – A powerful, heavily furred elephantine beast native to colder climates, mammoths are known for their massive tusks and irritable temperament.
Brawn: 5 Agility: 1 Intelligence: 1
Cunning: 2 Willpower: 2 Presence: 1
Soak: 10 Wounds: 28 M/R Defense: 0/0
Skills: Brawl 1, Survival 2, Resilience 2
Talents: None
Abilities: Silhouette 3
Sweep (a mammoth may spend 2 Advantage to hit an additional target with a successful Brawl check, if the additional target is Engaged with the first target)
Trample (if a mammoth takes a maneuver to move closer to its target before attacking with its Feet, it gains 1 Boost to its attack check and deals +2 damage)
Beast of Burden 18 (add 18 to encumbrance threshold)
Equipment: Tusks (Brawl; Damage: 10; Critical: 5; Range [Engaged], Concussive 1), Feet (Brawl; Damage: 12; Critical: 4; Range [Engaged], Knockdown)
Analysis of changes: Mammoths live in harsher climates, often more of a "lost world" type of environment with more dangerous predators, so it gets a little more Cunning, a little more Soak, a couple more Wounds, and two ranks in Survival to reflect that. We'll assume mammoths are less domesticable than elephants, so the mammoth loses the "Trained Mount" ability (which can easily be restored if a GM wants domesticated mammoths).
The Sweep and Trample abilities stay the same, as do its "equipment" (Tusks and Feet). It also gets a higher rating of "Beast of Burden". This reflects that, for game purposes, an average mammoth may be stronger and tougher than an average elephant, but not so much stronger or more able a combatant as to affect its attacks or damage significantly; the mammoth's greater tenacity keeps it in a fight longer, rather than an increase its attack potential.
Under the Hood: Both elephants and mammoths are adapted from existing creatures in Star Wars, the bantha (Stay on Target, page 83), and the "Enraged Ronto" (Suns of Fortune, page 133). These creatures have most of the traits you would expect in a large, quadrupedal beast like an elephant (banthas in the Star Wars movies are elephants in costume), and provide a good baseline for developing new, similar creatures. Whenever possible, I like to see what FFG has already done with a given creature archetype, so I have some ideas on how to adapt it to a new creature.
Edited by Direach
Thanks Direach, I think you've given me just the mammoth I want to reside in my icy wilderness. For some reason I can't picture icy realms without them. Or think of mammoths without a certain 'Everybody loves Raymond' voice in my head. I am completely uninfluenced by popular culture and a free-thinking individual
Quick question: a number of minions have abilities that boost the assist maneuver. Aren’t minion groups already assisting each other via their group stat? Or is a group using the maneuver to self-assist similar to an aim maneuver?
Edited by Dragonshadow