Log in

Talk:Creature index (1E)

From PathfinderWiki
← $1

Adding alignments

I am currently in the process of adding alignments to the existing monster index table. To do so requires that I update the most current version so that no information is lost, and that means that making changes to this page while I'm simultaneously adding alignments to each and every monster really jams things up. Thus, I am locking this page until such time as I (or whoever wants to help me) have updated the table structure. You may find my ongoing efforts in my sandbox and are welcome to help out if you desire. — yoda8myhead 07:45, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

This task is now complete thanks to assistance from Brandingopportunity. The article is now unprotected and can be edited by all users. — yoda8myhead 22:41, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Table-wide changes

Should we make any sweeping changes to the table? I think that alignment might be a good thing to add, as well as possibly removing subtype, as sorting by subtype seems inefficient. -- Yoda8myhead 17:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that subtype is not a super-useful category to sort by, although I am generally of the opinion of the more information, the better. If it's an issue of space, however, I would pick alignment over subtype.
On a different point, what exactly are the criteria for being included in this list? Is it only for creatures originally created for Pathfinder with full stat blocks? What about the Pathfinder versions of creatures from "Classic Monsters Revisted"? Some of these (like the bugbear) have full stats, while the koblak does not. What about templates used in the Pathfinder world that are originally from other non-Paizo sources (such as the "Cave Creatures" in "Into the Darklands", but originally from "Advanced Bestiary")? --brandingopportunity 14:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
These are excellent questions you raise, and ones which I don't have the answer to. Until now it's just been for creatures with full stat-blocks, but I see no reason that it can't include more. I do know, however, that a lot of people on the Paizo boards were looking for an index of monsters in the Bestiaries and this page might serve their needs less if it's filled with a lot of monsters that they have to stat up themselves or find in a different book. The question, I guess, is whether this is a Golarion bestiary (in which case everything in the PRPG Bestiary will also belong, or just an index of new, statted monsters. -- Yoda8myhead 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
There's no way to pull from these tables is there? in other words, Theres' no way to do a sub-table that reads from this one and says If{Source=PFB!MM; Else include} (if the source is listed as pathfinder bestiary or monster manual, do not include, else include) so that we take all non-SRD monsters to build it automatically is there? Also this would be an issue for any Tome of Horror or otherwise non-mm creature that is included in the Bestiary, do we include it because its new or not include it because it's from the bestiary? Sorry, still haven't done too much wikimedia coding research. -- Cpt kirstov 16:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I know this is not possible. When searching for creatures, regardless of source, the Category pages won't differentiate. While tables are nice, they require constant maintenance to remain up-to-date, while category pages will update themselves automatically. I think there is a need for the index we currently have, but think it will increase our workload to maintain it if we allow the scope to widen too much and might stop being effective for its original purpose, which was to index new monsters in various Pathfinder AP sources. -- Yoda8myhead 16:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Information

When information is missing from an entry, usually due to an editor not having the source material, we should have a system in place to denote these. Ideally, one would have the source material for whatever edit one is making, since we can't verify the validity of anything without first checking it out ourselves, but I understand that in a table like this, it is bound to happen occasionally. Anyone have suggestions? Canifis has already suggested including a question mark in place of the missing information. -- yoda8myhead 14:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

PFRPG monsters

I've noticed a few of the monsters from the Bonus Bestiary making their way onto here, as well as creatures from Tome of Horrors, I'm not sure if this table should include every monster that appears in any source. Just including monsters from the Adventure Path bestiaries and setting specific material is making a very extensive table, and I'm not sure this is the venue for cataloguing generic monsters. The Pathfinder Bestiary will have over 300 monsters; do those really belong here? -- yoda8myhead 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if a creature is mentioned in the CS source material, even if said mention is as simple as part of an encounter table, it has a place within the project. That said, I would agree that we have no reason to list every monster that gets published by a credible source simply because we can. Unless we constrain ourselves to including those creatures mentioned in the material that falls under this project, we might even be providing false information; there's no telling how such a creature would function in Golarion, and what differences they would possess apart from their original source. A comprehensive collection of beasties would be better suited for the Pathfinder SRD. -- Heaven's Agent 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Just my thoughts while I agree that there is no point adding in every monster in the tome of horror just because we can I think the list would benefit from the inclusion of the basic monsters from the Pathfinder Bestiary and bonus bestiary. While there is definitely an argument for not quoting things like the tomb of horror as pathfinder cannon I don't think paizo would publish something in PFRPG that was completely contradictory to the Golarion Campaign setting. While paizo probably won't fill the PF bestiary with Golarion-specific fluff, I don't think what they publish on a given creature in the bestiary will be different from how that creature functions in Golarion. I know it would be a hell of a task to do with the entire bestiary but it may be worth doing it in a way similar to the campaign setting inclusion initiative. Also what are peoples thoughts on including the monsters that have been covered by the "monster revisited" series? I know they are not new monster but the way they are handled is often pretty new. --Cheddar bearer 13:08, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
The Revisited series is a no-brainer in my opinion. Those books clearly provide fluff in the context of the setting. I think that any information that we can glean from the Golarion specific product lines is game for inclusion. On the other hand, say Paizo includes a derghodaemon (ToH pg. 80) in one of their products. Part of the description in ToH says: "The derghodaemon is one of the strongest of the daemon races, but its low intelligence has relegated it to a position of brute warrior and little more." I'd say that piece of fluff isn't admissible since it is from a non-licenced product. I suppose that is comes down to a matter of canon. --Aeakett 19:42, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that Paizo probably won't include anything in their core books that doesn't exist in Golarion, we shouldn't be the ones to make that assumption. But even if someone from Paizo says as such, I still don't think we should include every monster in this and all future Bestiaries. The table already includes over two hundred monsters just from the APs and modules. If we add in the 350+ monsters from the Bestiary, the table will have almost 600 entries. And that will increase by ten or so every month, not to mention hundreds more when further editions of the Bestiary series come out. That's simply too long to be a useful resource. And once the table stops serving its purpose, it's a waste of our time and resources to maintain it. -- yoda8myhead 20:21, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Additionally, for the same reasons we don't include articles on items or animals that are no different in Golarion than they are in our world, it isn't really within the scope of the project to detail things which are standard for the game as a whole. Since goblins are unique in Golarion, they get their own article, but a lion or tiger wouldn't. The same would apply to other monsters in the Bestiary. Until we get a reason to detail a monster, I don't think it needs its own article, and until it needs its own article, I don't think it should be on this table. -- yoda8myhead 20:30, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
Your right it would become an almost unmanageable list. If I do end up doing adding more to an article from the bonus bestiary or one for one of the monsters in the actually bestiary is there anywhere specific I should list it or just put it in the correct category? Also I was planning to do an article on Ghouls collecting and arranging all the info from into the Darklands and other Golarion specific stuff into one article. Would this be worth putting in the list? Its not a new monster so falls out of bounds of the lists specific purpose but it is pretty Golarion specific. --Cheddar bearer 17:52, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
I think that having an article on ghouls is a great idea since they have unique Golarion flavor. I don't think ghouls should be included on the table, though, as I still envision it as a table of new monsters introduced in Pathfinder setting sources and adventures. The article should still be placed in all categories that apply to it, such as CR, type, subtype, and alignment. -- yoda8myhead 18:04, September 5, 2009 (UTC)
Your right, there is no point cluttering up the list with monsters from things like the bestiary when they can all be found in one central location. The list of monster just from new sources is already pretty big and it is only going to get larger. Thanks for clearing that up.--Cheddar bearer 18:12, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Specific monsters

I noticed the addition of quite a few dragons to the index today. These are unique, named dragons of existing types, though, right? The breed of dragon (red, bronze, etc) should be linked from here, but not the specific named individual, as they would qualify as "inhabitants" who happen to be of a monstrous race. -- yoda8myhead 23:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean that I should take all unique creatures out and put them in the NPC columns? What about creatures like the Spawn of Rovagug that are all unique? --brandingopportunity 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Creatures like the Spawn would be a special case; they are unique individuals, but each is also its own species and as such should be included in this list. Some other, similar examples along these lines would be Sunlord Thalachos, the Sandpoint Devil, and Treerazer. All are individual creatures, but they are also unique and the only examples of their kind (speculatively in the case of the Sandpoint Devil). -- Heaven's Agent 05:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Type changes for Giants?

I was just wondering if people think we should change all the Type:Giant entries here and on their individual pages to bring them in line with the new PFRPG rules, or leave them as is, since they are statted that way in their publications? --brandingopportunity 14:07, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Monster articles needing major work (added A-E)

Here's a list of creatures from the Monster index which still need major work. I include it here to serve as a reference for those wishing to know who needs some attention. If you would be so kind as to strike through any that you can successfully updated.
Adhukait, Advodaza, Aluum, Arcanaton, Asakku, Aspidochelone, astradaemon, Attic whisperer, avoral, Ayngavhaul, banshee, Basileus, Black blooded, Black Echelon operative, black jinni, Blast shadow, Blodeuwedd, Bloodless vessel, Bone idol, Bonestorm, Brass golem, Buraq, Calikang, Carbuncle, Ceratioidi, Cerebric fungus, Chortov, Chupacabra, Clawbat, Coeurl, Darklands sentinel, Deathtrap ooze, Deimavigga, Ebon acolytus, Ephialtes kyton--brandingopportunity 20:49, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Updates needed

The index is current only through The Twice-Damned Prince and does not contain information on the monsters from Stolen Lands. It has creatures from the rest of Kingmaker through Blood for Blood, but needs to be updated to include War of the River Kings, Sound of a Thousand Screams and Souls for Smuggler's Shiv. Additional sourcebooks like Heart of the Jungle, City of Strangers and Curse of the Riven Sky need to be added as well. — yoda8myhead 03:35, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. Note that Curse of the Riven Sky had no new monsters as far as I could find. --brandingopportunity 07:17, August 14, 2010 (UTC)