Regardless of what we do with that whole thing, it'd also be cool to create an interactive list of monsters on paizo.com that combines name, page number, climate/terrain, CR, type, and all that in one big spreadsheet that can be sorted easy. Of course, that's also something that any fan with a spreadsheet program and some free time can create anyway, so chances are good that there'll be SOMETHING out there to satisfy that need even if we can't get those tables into the book... but I'm gonna be trying real hard to get them in the book anyway.

The PathfinderWiki already has this set up for new monsters introduced in the Bestiary sections of Pathfinder and other Pathfinder Chronicles campaign setting sourcebooks.

Regardless of what we do with that whole thing, it'd also be cool to create an interactive list of monsters on paizo.com that combines name, page number, climate/terrain, CR, type, and all that in one big spreadsheet that can be sorted easy. Of course, that's also something that any fan with a spreadsheet program and some free time can create anyway, so chances are good that there'll be SOMETHING out there to satisfy that need even if we can't get those tables into the book... but I'm gonna be trying real hard to get them in the book anyway.

I had something similar that on my site that spat out encounter tables with these criteria. Easy to do again (when I find the time, of course).

I don't know if this has been answered, but will you be putting monsters from the modules and APs in the Bestiary II? Or a Golarion-specific Bestiary? I hate digging around 17 different places to find monsters...

I don't know if this has been answered, but will you be putting monsters from the modules and APs in the Bestiary II? Or a Golarion-specific Bestiary? I hate digging around 17 different places to find monsters...

There probably won't be a Golarion-specific Bestiary. I do suspect that a LOT of the monsters from the APs and modules will graduate to Bestiary II (or III, or IV, etc.). A few of them are probably going to graduate into the first Bestiary, in fact.

Anyway, when they do, they'll probably have about a page less of info; the AP will still be the place to go to get lots of cool flavor and stuff for new monsters, basically, while the Bestiaries will focus on stats and about half a page or 1/4 a page of flavor.

All in theory, of course. We haven't started laying out the first Bestiary yet so we're not 100% sure where we're going there yet...

The fluff not being there is cool, I was more thinking about when you had to reference a stat block quickly and get the basics. I don't mind digging through the APs and modules if I'm prepping the night before, it's at the table things get hairy, I don't own a laptop *oh noes!*, and we play at the FLGS these days, so what fits in the backpack is the ballgame, pretty much.

SO, good news to me, thanks :)

The fluff not being there is cool, I was more thinking about when you had to reference a stat block quickly and get the basics. I don't mind digging through the APs and modules if I'm prepping the night before, it's at the table things get hairy, I don't own a laptop *oh noes!*, and we play at the FLGS these days, so what fits in the backpack is the ballgame, pretty much.

SO, good news to me, thanks :)

If the creatures from Pathfinder AP are in the bestiary, they must have the fluff, or people who do not have the original will feel cheated. Pathfinder RPG is not just for the collectors of the AP, but shoudl be complete in itself. Imagine the nerdrage otherwise.

houstonderek wrote:

The fluff not being there is cool, I was more thinking about when you had to reference a stat block quickly and get the basics. I don't mind digging through the APs and modules if I'm prepping the night before, it's at the table things get hairy, I don't own a laptop *oh noes!*, and we play at the FLGS these days, so what fits in the backpack is the ballgame, pretty much.

SO, good news to me, thanks :)

If the creatures from Pathfinder AP are in the bestiary, they must have the fluff, or people who do not have the original will feel cheated. Pathfinder RPG is not just for the collectors of the AP, but shoudl be complete in itself. Imagine the nerdrage otherwise.

The only problem is quite a bit of the fluff is Golarion related. The Bestiary is going to be a "setting neutral" book, so the fluff needs to be more generic.

Just curious, and sorry if this has been addressed before, but.. being that this is a largely a PFRPG version of the OGL SRD monsters, has the discrepancies for the monsters been fixed (stats not accounted for or incorrect, etc.)?

Just curious, and sorry if this has been addressed before, but.. being that this is a largely a PFRPG version of the OGL SRD monsters, has the discrepancies for the monsters been fixed (stats not accounted for or incorrect, etc.)?

The ones that are actual errors (such as monsters with +0 BAB getting weapon finesse, etc.) will be fixed. Some that aren't technically errors will be changed as well. Is there an "error" in particular you're concerned about?

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:

houstonderek wrote:

The fluff not being there is cool, I was more thinking about when you had to reference a stat block quickly and get the basics. I don't mind digging through the APs and modules if I'm prepping the night before, it's at the table things get hairy, I don't own a laptop *oh noes!*, and we play at the FLGS these days, so what fits in the backpack is the ballgame, pretty much.

SO, good news to me, thanks :)

If the creatures from Pathfinder AP are in the bestiary, they must have the fluff, or people who do not have the original will feel cheated. Pathfinder RPG is not just for the collectors of the AP, but shoudl be complete in itself. Imagine the nerdrage otherwise.

The only problem is quite a bit of the fluff is Golarion related. The Bestiary is going to be a "setting neutral" book, so the fluff needs to be more generic.

Correct; the Bestiary products are not where we want to overload monsters with flavor; that's the Pathfinder AP's job. Any monsters that are picked up from the APs or modules for inclusion in Bestiaries will almost always be reworked to be one-page monsters with some flavor... but not as much as in their original incarnations. This is to keep the monsters "world neutral" as much as it is to fit more monsters into each Bestiary.

Jason Beardsley wrote:

Just curious, and sorry if this has been addressed before, but.. being that this is a largely a PFRPG version of the OGL SRD monsters, has the discrepancies for the monsters been fixed (stats not accounted for or incorrect, etc.)?

The ones that are actual errors (such as monsters with +0 BAB getting weapon finesse, etc.) will be fixed. Some that aren't technically errors will be changed as well. Is there an "error" in particular you're concerned about?

Like salamanders not getting 8 skill points per HD, for instance.

Jason Beardsley wrote:

Just curious, and sorry if this has been addressed before, but.. being that this is a largely a PFRPG version of the OGL SRD monsters, has the discrepancies for the monsters been fixed (stats not accounted for or incorrect, etc.)?

The ones that are actual errors (such as monsters with +0 BAB getting weapon finesse, etc.) will be fixed. Some that aren't technically errors will be changed as well. Is there an "error" in particular you're concerned about?

Miscalculated skills, missing skill points.. i'm sure there are others, i just cant think of them at the moment

As far as cutting a 2 page monster description down to 1 page, I'm all for that. That's what 3PP products like Mongoose's slayers guides are for. If you want to read 64 pages on gnolls, 3rd party products are ideal for this.

James Jacobs wrote:

Jason Beardsley wrote:

Just curious, and sorry if this has been addressed before, but.. being that this is a largely a PFRPG version of the OGL SRD monsters, has the discrepancies for the monsters been fixed (stats not accounted for or incorrect, etc.)?

The ones that are actual errors (such as monsters with +0 BAB getting weapon finesse, etc.) will be fixed. Some that aren't technically errors will be changed as well. Is there an "error" in particular you're concerned about?

Miscalculated skills, missing skill points.. i'm sure there are others, i just cant think of them at the moment

Well... We'll be rebuilding every monster in the book from the ground up, so chances of carrying over those kind of errors are minimal.

Well... We'll be rebuilding every monster in the book from the ground up, so chances of carrying over those kind of errors are minimal.*

.

James Jacobs wrote:

Well... We'll be rebuilding every monster in the book from the ground up, so chances of carrying over those kind of errors are minimal.*

.

.
.
.
.
*This is not a guarantee. Your mileage may vary. Offer void where prohibited.

There WILL be errors in the book. There are errors in pretty much every book... especially first editions, and especially in RPG books (which have brutal schedules). But we'll be doing our best to make sure those errors are as minimal as possible.

At least you won't make mistakes in Use Rope due to skill synergy ;)

This book will have to be the most art intensive work to date. Good Luck!

I'm not sure if anyone has asked yet (and if I already have then...oops), but is there going to be anything on Shades? I've always liked the idea of this particular monster, and enjoyed when they updated it for 3.5, so I was hoping that PF would show the shade some love.

I'm not sure if anyone has asked yet (and if I already have then...oops), but is there going to be anything on Shades? I've always liked the idea of this particular monster, and enjoyed when they updated it for 3.5, so I was hoping that PF would show the shade some love.

While the concept of a monster called a "shade" is public domain (there are shades in mythology), the concept of a shade being a human who infuses himself with shadow and becomes a tough guy is not. That concept is Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property, and therefore we won't be going down that route with them in Pathfinder.

Of course, the 3.5 version of them should be pretty compatible with PFRPG anyway.

While the concept of a monster called a "shade" is public domain (there are shades in mythology), the concept of a shade being a human who infuses himself with shadow and becomes a tough guy is not. That concept is Wizards of the Coast's intellectual property, and therefore we won't be going down that route with them in Pathfinder.

Of course, the 3.5 version of them should be pretty compatible with PFRPG anyway.

Bummer. I'd love to have seen what the Paizo folks came up with as a "revisit" for the typical D&D shade. I'm sure it would have been kick-ass.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to satisfy myself with all the other PF goodness.....

Any hints as to what PF monsters make it into the book?

The Rune giant seems like a good addition, and can work without thassilon, I find them far more compelling than storm and cloud giants.

Any hints as to what PF monsters make it into the book?

The Rune giant seems like a good addition, and can work without thassilon, I find them far more compelling than storm and cloud giants.

Very few. The goal of the Bestiary was to collect as many of the SRD monsters as possible and to augment them here and there with notable missing monster niches. There's maybe only a couple of monsters from the Adventure Paths and modules in the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary as a result.

In any event, when we DO transition an Adventure Path or Module new monster into the PF Bestiary, the Golarion content will be stripped out. If we did rune giants, for example, there'd be no mention of Thassilon, and they'd be presented in a world-neutral format so that you can use them easilly in any game setting. This also lets us fit more monsters into the book (since they take up one page instead of two as a general rule) and doesn't "poach" from the Adventure Paths or the Modules by completely reprinting material.

Hey guys, the Paizo people are limited by the SRD and their own creations for the Bestiary and any supplemental tomes that may be released. That doesn't mean that we, as home DMs cannot still convert anything we want from the nearly 40 years of RPGs that came before PfRPG.

If you want mind flayers, shades, displacer beasts, etc, in your home game, no worries, just "Pathfinderize" them. I'm sure there will be some "how to create a monster" advice somewhere in either the Bestiary or the core book, so applying that to old, non-SRD monsters shouldn't be too hard.

You just can't use those monsters for adventure submissions to Paizo, or, if I understand the fan license correctly, any "official" Pathfinder fan sites.

Just my 2 c.p.

Hey guys, the Paizo people are limited by the SRD and their own creations for the Bestiary and any supplemental tomes that may be released. That doesn't mean that we, as home DMs cannot still convert anything we want from the nearly 40 years of RPGs that came before PfRPG.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convert THAC0 (or other) to 3rd ed? I know this is out there somewhere, but I can't find it.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convert THAC0 (or other) to 3rd ed? I know this is out there somewhere, but I can't find it.

I would think it would go off type and HD not Thaco really. As HD and type determine BAB in 3.5

Edit: If you wanted to go off Thaco it's just BAB in reverse, Thaco 20=BAB1 Thaco 1= BAB+20

should be noted by that only a warrior got full BAB while priests would get +12 BAB, Rogues +9 ans wizard about +8 at 20th level

houstonderek wrote:

Hey guys, the Paizo people are limited by the SRD and their own creations for the Bestiary and any supplemental tomes that may be released. That doesn't mean that we, as home DMs cannot still convert anything we want from the nearly 40 years of RPGs that came before PfRPG.

Just out of curiosity, how do you convert THAC0 (or other) to 3rd ed? I know this is out there somewhere, but I can't find it.

Just change the "0" to a "20". Adjust the to hit number by AC accordingly. And, most 2e monsters have been converted in one place or another, either in the splats, the Tome of Horrors series, the various campaign specific works, by third parties, etc. Can't help you with Giff and Giant Space Hamsters, but most other monsters have a 3x "upgrade" somewhere.

Any class that has a +1 BAB at first level follows the same progression as fighters, rangers and paladins in 2e. I'm pretty sure the rest of the classes do as well, but I skipped 2e, so I may not be right.

Thaco to bab for my amusment

As others have said, just flip it around: THAC0 20 = BAB +0, THAC0 0 = BAB +20. It's more or less in reverse how THAC0 worked in AD&D (I can't recall if it's 100% comparable -- I have the books, though, and I can dig them out, if you want it confirmed).

As others have said, just flip it around: THAC0 20 = BAB +0, THAC0 0 = BAB +20. It's more or less in reverse how THAC0 worked in AD&D (I can't recall if it's 100% comparable -- I have the books, though, and I can dig them out, if you want it confirmed).

I have the 1e DMG in my lap right now, I'm just too lazy to look it up ;)

The chart's on page 75 if you're interested, though :)

Thaco is 1 for 1 however only the warriors matched the 3.5 one, every other class had much worse bab, although the priests was just 2 points lower then in 3.5

Wow. That is an amazing cover. It's probably one of the most iconic pieces that Wayne Reynolds has ever done. I think that I just melted my pants!

The cover has been updated!

Shuweet !

sweetness. That will look good on my shelf

I've already said it, and I say it again: it's AWESOME! =)

It's not just that Wayne has clearly went the extra mile for the Pathfinder books -- Paizo products have also consistently had so professional art direction that it's head-and-shoulders above the rest of the RPG publishers! :)

Cover = good.

I am awaiting subscription information. :)

Benoist Poiré wrote:

Kevida wrote:

So with the "Non-SRD" monsters being not included, will there be equivalent critters with different names (Illithids called another name, et cetera)?

"Re-inventing" the mindflayers the way goblins were re-invented for Pathfinder #1 would be potentially very cool, especially if it goes deeper into the Lovecraft references. What do you think?

There's no need to reinvent mind flayers. The intellect devourer is open content, and it fills pretty much the same niche as a mind flayer (dwells underground, has psionic powers, eats brains, has slaves, has been part of the game from practically the start, has a name that basically = "feeds on thought and brains").

Plus they are an awesome excuse to hand out enchanted crowbars.

Plus they are an awesome excuse to hand out enchanted crowbars.

Aw damn it. Now I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Plus they are an awesome excuse to hand out enchanted crowbars.

Aw damn it. Now I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head.

I aim to disturb in a pleasing manner.

After all....'we don't go to ravensburg anymore.'

Mikaze wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Plus they are an awesome excuse to hand out enchanted crowbars.

Aw damn it. Now I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head.

I aim to disturb in a pleasing manner.

After all....'we don't go to ravensburg anymore.'

I cleared that village out with telekinesis only. I want my damn achievement feat.

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

Zombieneighbours wrote:

Plus they are an awesome excuse to hand out enchanted crowbars.

Aw damn it. Now I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head.

I aim to disturb in a pleasing manner.

After all....'we don't go to ravensburg anymore.'

I cleared that village out with telekinesis only. I want my damn achievement feat.

Sweet... i think i might have a go at that now.

Thank You !! a thousand times thank you!!

So, will this only include the SRD creatures or will we see some original monsters as well?

So, will this only include the SRD creatures or will we see some original monsters as well?

Mostly SRD monsters, a few picked up from open d20 sources, a few picked up from Pathfinder's APs and modules, and a few new ones.

Excellent, glad I pre-ordered it. Now if my employer doesn't have any more surprises in store, we should be good.

James Jacobs, I had some questions about this product but a quick skim of your posts in this topic gave me the answers-- just wanted to say thanks for the info. I'm totally into Golarion but not into the PFRPG rules and while I'm disappointed that this book isn't chocked full of Golarion specific stuff, I'm glad to know that now and not after I asked my local store to get this for me. To the Pathfinder Chronicles section!

I can't wait for the previews to come up (or, should there be none, to have a look at the RPGDay freebie). I'm mightily curious about what stat block format Paizo has chosen for the bestiary. I seriously liked how they used (something like) the DMG II stat block format for presenting spells in the Beta rulebook, and now I'm curious to see whether they've made any improvement on monster stat presentation too.

Any chance of having this question answered sooner?

And, final question, will the page layout and font selection mirror exactly that of the PFRPG rulebook (which we saw on Twitter the other day)?

We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on. No sense reinventing the wheel and forcing us and you to relearn where everything goes.

We're pretty satisfied with our monster stat block; all that really changed for the Pathfinder RPG is stuff directly related to rules changes: references to Listen/Spot are now Perception, the section for Grapple now has CMB and CMD, and so on.

Oho! The first spoiler comes out! (CMD probably means "maneuver defense", I reckon.)