Log in


From PathfinderWiki
← $1

Tome of horrors

Thanks for adding the Tome info, the hardcopy 3E edition either didn't have it, or was a different page than is referenced in the books, and I don't have the PDF version. This also begs to question, should the two have separate citation templates, as they have the same data on different pages? - Cpt kirstov 02:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I just raised this point here. Since that's the case in this instance, I think we should make a policy of redirecting citations of Tome of Horrors to The Tome of Horrors Revised. It's the 3.5 version and the one that Paizo is undoubtedly using, even if they only refer people to the non-revised version.
Now, aside from this, I noticed that the CR in ToH is CR 3. How should we handle discrepancies between Paizo references and the actual game-rule information in the source material? --yoda8myhead 03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Into the darklands (I think) has a 'Cave Solifugid' that uses the stats from the ToH... which I only found after I made the page, so adding that will be my first change tomorrow... Cpt kirstov 04:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
That still doesn't answer the question of how we should handle a creature, such as this one, which is listed in a Pathfinder book as having one CR but is then cited as appearing in a different sourcebook which provides conflicting information. If we're going to go forward with incorporation of information from ToH and other OGL sources, we should have a procedure for dealing with discrepancies. --yoda8myhead 14:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
should we just be putting a range in the CR section? "Between 1/4 and 5" seems a bit lengthy... - Cpt kirstov 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not just list both CRs and use citations to indicate which comes from where? For example "1/41 or 32" --Aeakett 18:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
We've generally tried to avoid citations in infoboxes. Anything in the infobox should be accessible in the main text, where a citation is less cumbersome and makes less clutter. CR, unfortunately, is one of the few exceptions. --yoda8myhead 18:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm just concerned if some more show up somewhere (I don't have all of the LOF PDFs downloaded yet), if it ends up 1/4, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (we already have 1/4,3,and 5) -Cpt kirstov 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I think we should either always use the source information or always use the Paizo information, even if it conflicts with the source material. I'd rather have consistency than the most accurate information possible with room for interpretation (and thus confusion). --yoda8myhead 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent canon updates

2E changes the standard number of legs from eight to six, retconning two limbs as feeding appendages and explicitly stating they are not spiders. John Compton and Tim Nightengale. (2019). "Adventure Toolbox". Against the Scarlet Triad, p. 89. Paizo Inc. ISBN 978-1-64078-194-8 -Oznogon (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Strange. Real-world solifugids are called all the alternative names mentioned, so Paizo are clearly making the connection, but our solifugids are arachnids, have eight legs, plus have the two pedipalps mentioned as 'feeding appendages', so ten appendages in total. No expert - I read this. --Fleanetha (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure whether you have the book, but the text for the 2E Bestiary entry on Archives of Nethys matches the book.
Giant solifugids are monstrous vermin with six legs and two large feeding appendages easily mistaken for an additional pair of legs. They are often called camel spiders, sun spiders, or wind scorpions, despite the fact that they are neither spiders nor scorpions.
-Oznogon (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I have the book, hence the comment above re the alt names. The 'strange' was directed at Paizo not your comment: I don't know why they have done this. --Fleanetha (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)