Recent Posts
Is the info contained here the same as what will be in the Bestiary?
Not really. This book is a 3.5 book, so the stats won't be in the Pathfinder RPG format. Furthermore, we're limiting ourselves in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary to a one-monster-to-a-page format for the vast majority of monsters. The MOST any monster will get will be 2 pages, and I'm pretty sure those honors are reserved for a very rare few critters.
Dungeon Denizens Revisited gives each of its ten monsters six pages of text, art, crunch, and flavor—there's a LOT more in here than what'll be in the Bestiary itself. It'll be compatible, but just not as detailed as what we're able to do in six pages per creature.
Just skimmed the PDF very quickly and I only have one word to say:
This book is freaking awesome!!
I know some, myself included, were a little leary about these monsters, but fear not!! If you never wanted to use a roper or cloaker in a dungeon, you will now. It's that good.
The artwork alone renews my interest in these creatures. And that has been the case for the whole Pathfinder line. Cheers to the artists!!
Has anyone else experienced this, or is it just me??
Just skimmed the PDF very quickly and I only have one word to say:
This book is freaking awesome!!
I know some, myself included, were a little leary about these monsters, but fear not!! If you never wanted to use a roper or cloaker in a dungeon, you will now. It's that good.
The artwork alone renews my interest in these creatures. And that has been the case for the whole Pathfinder line. Cheers to the artists!!
Has anyone else experienced this, or is it just me??
Just finished reading the forward and skimming the book for the pics ... no, you are not alone :) Wow ... and the fact that we get to see who did what is really cool! I think I'm more afraid of Ropers just knowing that Nick Logue is the writer LOL~
Just finished reading the forward and skimming the book for the pics ... no, you are not alone :) Wow ... and the fact that we get to see who did what is really cool! I think I'm more afraid of Ropers just knowing that Nick Logue is the writer LOL~Just skimmed the PDF very quickly and I only have one word to say:
This book is freaking awesome!!
I know some, myself included, were a little leary about these monsters, but fear not!! If you never wanted to use a roper or cloaker in a dungeon, you will now. It's that good.
The artwork alone renews my interest in these creatures. And that has been the case for the whole Pathfinder line. Cheers to the artists!!
Has anyone else experienced this, or is it just me??
Is there a place to see a preview of this? I'd really like to see some of the artwork.
Check here for the PathfinderWiki's gallery of released artwork from this book.
I mean sure, if somone can make this critter intresting, It's paizo... but it's a bear with wings that can't fly. it's not even stronger than a real bear. Owelbears are ridiculus monsters.
I've never understood the why some people think owlbears are stupid. Seriously, an owl is a predatory, not a goofy bird. A bird of prey large enough to treat a human like a mouse is nothing to sneeze at, (ever seen Secret of Nimh?) and then, you add bear into the mix. Nasty. The idea is sound.
That said, you've got a point. The stats for owlbears in 3/3.5 are kind of underwhelming. They're roughly level with the brown bear, slightly better in some ways and a bit worse in others, with the fact that they're magical beasts being the biggest distinction. By stats alone, there's little reason for owlbears, as there's little owlish about them. I hope the Pathfinder Bestiary builds some distinctive abilities into them... ultra-keen senses, a better bite than the bear (look at the size of that beak!,) a doom screech maybe, etc... to give evil wizards a reason to breed them instead of charming brown bears.
OWLBEARS??? that alone makes me want this book, but it also has rust monsters! this is on my must have list for next season.
I noticed Clinton Boomer among the credits...I hope they gave him the Owlbear assignment.
"When an owl, loves a bear, very much, and they make a commitment, they do what we in arcane circles call THE NASTY. Few months later, couple of spells, hey you got yourself an Owlbear. And dammit they are delicious!"
OWLBEARS??? that alone makes me want this book, but it also has rust monsters! this is on my must have list for next season.I noticed Clinton Boomer among the credits...I hope they gave him the Owlbear assignment.
"When an owl, loves a bear, very much, and they make a commitment, they do what we in arcane circles call THE NASTY. Few months later, couple of spells, hey you got yourself an Owlbear. And dammit they are delicious!"
Okay, that is just funny as all hell. Thank you, FDW!
ok dumb question here. I am not sure if it's a 3.5 product or a 3.75/pathfinder specific type book.
I read and re-read the description and maybe I missed it.
I am still getting the book I would just like to know if I have to convert it back to 3.5 or is it table ready outta the box. Any help in finding the answer is greatly appreciated.
I absolutely loved reading this book. Are the similar releases in the series as much fun to read as this volume?
I'd say yes. Classic Monsters really take new looks on the 'classic' humanoids (trolls and ogres being humanoids with the giant subtype in 3.x) and hobgoblins get a good face lift. (I had players freaking with Hobgoblins barking orders and firing as a unit. "Archers! Spellcaster at 3 o'Clock! Supressive fire!")
Classic Undead does the same treatment. While there's some controversy on the mindless undead (seems to contradict the fluff of Nex for example) the other monsters really have, um, bite.
Classic Undead does the same treatment. While there's some controversy on the mindless undead (seems to contradict the fluff of Nex for example) the other monsters really have, um, bite.Classic Undead? I'll have to snag that one. Thanks!
I think he means Classic Horrors Revisited.
I think he means Classic Horrors Revisited.Classic Undead does the same treatment. While there's some controversy on the mindless undead (seems to contradict the fluff of Nex for example) the other monsters really have, um, bite.Classic Undead? I'll have to snag that one. Thanks!
Yes I did, mea culpa.
Undead Revisited
Yeah, but I knew he didn't mean that one, because it's not out yet. (Or, for that matter, written.) ;-)
Undead RevisitedYeah, but I knew he didn't mean that one, because it's not out yet. (Or, for that matter, written.) ;-)
It just went on MY wishlist though.
To alleviate confusion, here are the multiple books in this line (so far):
Classic Monsters Revisited (goblins, ogres, trolls, lizardfolk, gnolls, etc)
Dragons Revisited (major metallic and chromatic dragon types)
Dungeon Denizens Revisited (bulette, gelatinous cube, mimic, otyugh, owlbear, and more!)
Classic Horrors Revisited (werewolves, vampires, hags, mummies, flesh golems, gargoyles, ghosts, ghouls, zombies and skeletons, and derro)
Classic Treasures Revisited (bag of holding, sphere of annihilation, helm of brilliance, etc.)
Misfit Monsters Redeemed (wolf in sheep's clothing, flumph, snail flail, etc)
Undead Revisited (graveknight, undead dragon, bodak, devourer, etc)
As a sidenote, I wish there were a [u] tag on this forum. I would have bolded the titles and underlined parts for emphasis.
The latest review is a bit.ly link, as you all should know that can mean hidden .exe/trojan files, I would advise removing that link.
Here's the full url.
Using Opera I don't worry too much about loopholes in Firefox or Explorer as exefiles won't run without my permission.
Of course using caution is good online/elsewhere.
The latest review is a bit.ly link, as you all should know that can mean hidden .exe/trojan files, I would advise removing that link.Here's the full url.
Using Opera I don't worry too much about loopholes in Firefox or Explorer as exefiles won't run without my permission.
Of course using caution is good online/elsewhere.
I'm a fox user as well, but not everyone is as savvy. Just struck me as odd. Glad it's fine then.