Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Out of curiosity, why so ?

James Jacobs wrote:

Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Out of curiosity, why so ?

Because it's overdone and kind of cliched, and what we've done with the First World is gaining a lot of traction.

Gorbacz wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Out of curiosity, why so ?

Because it's overdone and kind of cliched, and what we've done with the First World is gaining a lot of traction.

Personally, that's good to here. I like what I've seen of the First World so far. It seems very Arthurian to me somehow. I can't wait to see what else you guys come up with.

Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Sometime the things you.. you say are..are..just so..perfect..((sob)don't look at me(sob))<:{

I was actually thinking more along the lines of redcaps and the Unseelie Court rather than Angsty the Emo Fey.

Redcaps were in Pathfinder #4, and updated to PF in Pathfinder #29, so I don't know if that would make them more likely or less to show up in Bestiary 2.

Over in the classic fairies revisited request thread , I

Would a Pathfinder Chronicles about the First World be a better way to get info about fairies? I'm just shooting for two books in one I do love the Revisited's'es...

Series.

Take control of the Frist World Keep the seelie/unseelie sillyness completely out, watch those free lances early on until you get there head on right.

David Fryer wrote:

I was actually thinking more along the lines of redcaps and the Unseelie Court rather than Angsty the Emo Fey.

Redcaps were in Pathfinder #4, and updated to PF in Pathfinder #29, so I don't know if that would make them more likely or less to show up in Bestiary 2.

Whenever you see us do an illustration of a monster we're updating from old 3.5 products, chances are VERY VERY good that we've an ulterior motive in updating that creature by getting its update and (more importantly) it's artwork done for an upcoming Bestiary.

Which monsters in PF BESTIARY 2 have the play as a PC details? Also, will the gillmen be in PF BESTIARY 2?

Kvantum wrote:

David Fryer wrote:

I was actually thinking more along the lines of redcaps and the Unseelie Court rather than Angsty the Emo Fey.

Redcaps were in Pathfinder #4, and updated to PF in Pathfinder #29, so I don't know if that would make them more likely or less to show up in Bestiary 2.

Whenever you see us do an illustration of a monster we're updating from old 3.5 products, chances are VERY VERY good that we've an ulterior motive in updating that creature by getting its update and (more importantly) it's artwork done for an upcoming Bestiary.

I figured the update and the new art made it more likely, but its being included in just last month's Pathfinder kinda threw me off.

Then again, the achaierai were just updated in Infernal Syndrome (Pathfinder #28) and they're going to be in Bestiary 2, so... *shrugs*

Which monsters in PF BESTIARY 2 have the play as a PC details? Also, will the gillmen be in PF BESTIARY 2?

Gillmen are supposed to be in the updated World Guide: Inner Sea, the Pathfinder revision and expansion of the Campaign Setting. The reasoning behind it is that they're more iconic to Golarion than just general RPG monsters.

Which monsters in PF BESTIARY 2 have the play as a PC details? Also, will the gillmen be in PF BESTIARY 2?

Very few. There's only 6 0-HD monsters in Bestiary 2, I believe.

Gillmen are not one of them; they'll be showing up in the revised Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting.

James Jacobs wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Out of curiosity, why so ?

Because it's overdone and kind of cliched, and what we've done with the First World is gaining a lot of traction.

Personally, that's good to here. I like what I've seen of the First World so far. It seems very Arthurian to me somehow. I can't wait to see what else you guys come up with.

Makes me think of some of the stories in the Mabinogion.

I prefer my Fey CN: whimsy, aloofness, reckless independence - these are all PC traits that they're not used to encountering in others and can make for great encounters,

Evil Fey are so common now in PF (I can think of a dozen off the top of my head, and only one or two neutral/friendly) that they have become the dominant trope.

If I'm playing a Paizo adventure and some fey turn up my instinct will be to cut them up: they're turning into an evil species with magic and odd personalities and I don't need Fey for that, i've got Derro and Drow and Rakshasa, and...

Will the Jabberwock maintain connections to the Tane, the Twisted, and the First World (as mentioned on page 48 of Skinsaw Murders)? Will there be some sort of sidebar detailing other Tane like the short ones with the Empyreal Lords and Archfiends?

Also- I support Mr. Stewart getting to write about more Axiomite types. I certainly like the Inevitables and am quite glad they will be appearing in this, but I also think that more Axiomites would be an interesting addition to Axis.

Something I just thought of: How about the Wolfwere and Jackalwere? Any chance of seeing those, or are they not open content?

As of right now... I'm thinking there'll be 4 more "dinosaurs": compsognathus, tylosaurus, allosaurus, and some sort of hadrosaur.

Anyone have any other nominations?

There're just so many, & quite a few are just 'bigger' or 'smaller' versions of a specific one. I'd start with "dinosaurs" that fill out a particular niche or morph, and fairly standard, if not iconic, versions at that (that's why there are advanced and simple templates, after all). Then move on to other versions that do something a little different to the already-statted-up dino (a pachyrhinosaurus is unlikely to do piercing damage like a triceratops, eventhough they're both large ceratopsians...).

So I'd second the therizinosaur request, and add one for a pachycephalosaur. For something with a twist, how about a psittacosaurus (I'm referring to the more recent views that at least some species of this dinosaur sported "plumes" or "quills" along the top of their tails...)? Or how about a heterodontosaurus (small, speedy herbivore with viscious tusks & ability to burrow - like an aardvark and not like a mole or earthworm, that is)? And for the more aquatic adventure (and to represent the "other dinosaurs"), how about some sort of ichthyosaur or a nothosaur?

Then there's:

It's interesting to see that there'll be a hadrosaur in the upcoming Bestiary II ... You do know that the lambeosaurines aren't particularly THAT obviously duck-billed, right? And that there's a family of sauropods that would give the rest of the hadrosaurs some stiff competition for the description of being "duck-billed"...? (Granted, they don't actually have beaks, but their jaws...) ;-D

Something I just thought of: How about the Wolfwere and Jackalwere? Any chance of seeing those, or are they not open content?

The Bardi, a sort of Turkish banshee, is a jackal bi-tch that can turn into a human woman. So "jackalweres" are Folkloric, and thus Open. They'll just be a little different than D&D's Jackalweres.

Japanese folklore has Foxes and Badgers that turn into humans. Native American folklore has Coyote and Raven as simultaneously a coyote and a raven, but also as anthropomorphic spirits. The concept of animals that turn into men is broadly folkloric, so I'm sure we'll see something along those lines eventually.

Not to mention the whole truckload of real world myth which was cleverly used by White Wolf to describe werebears, wereravens, werehyenas, weredingos, werebats, werecats, weresnakes, werecoytoes, weredinosaurs, werefoxes, werespiders, weresharks and wereducks.

OK, maybe not the last ones.

Will the Jabberwock maintain connections to the Tane, the Twisted, and the First World (as mentioned on page 48 of Skinsaw Murders)? Will there be some sort of sidebar detailing other Tane like the short ones with the Empyreal Lords and Archfiends?

Absolutely; that was sort of the goal all along, in fact. The Tane are less powerful than archfiends; they're a category of monsters that live around CR 18–22 I suspect. And they're not unique monsters; they're a collection of monsters. There's probably more than one jabberwock, for example, in the world.

Also- I support Mr. Stewart getting to write about more Axiomite types. I certainly like the Inevitables and am quite glad they will be appearing in this, but I also think that more Axiomites would be an interesting addition to Axis.

At this point, we have no plans to turn the axiomites into a whole category of planar race; I actually like the fact that they're a single stat block race, since that allows us to continue developing the inevitables as the multiple stat block lawful neutral outsider race.

Something I just thought of: How about the Wolfwere and Jackalwere? Any chance of seeing those, or are they not open content?

They're open content. They're in the Tome of Horrors. We used a jackalwere in an AP already, in fact. They're most likely not gonna be in Bestiary 2, in any event. Maybe later.

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

blope wrote:

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

Have you started making a list for number 3?

Gorbacz wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

Yes. (although we're deliberately avoiding incorporating the Seelie and Unseelie into Pathfinder)

Out of curiosity, why so ?

Because it's overdone and kind of cliched

End yet we got "Dwarves of Golarion" :P

James Jacobs wrote:

blope wrote:

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

Have you started making a list for number 3?

Yes.

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

blope wrote:

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

Have you started making a list for number 3?

Yes.

Sweet! So, when can we get more hints as to what's in #2? Eh? Hmmm? What's it got in its pocketses?

James Jacobs wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

blope wrote:

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

Have you started making a list for number 3?

Yes.

Sweet! So, when can we get more hints as to what's in #2? Eh? Hmmm? What's it got in its pocketses?

We'll be dropping more hints here and there in the months to come, so keep an eye out on these boards, at the Tuesday night chat, and at paizo.com.

But I guess I can say that this one will have a lot of planar stuff in it... since one of its goals is to fill out the other outer planar races with entries for inevitables, agathions, proteans, qlippoth, daemons, and so on...

Ah yes, hints indeed...
Any likelihood we'll get to see a sample creature from Bestiary II prior to publication? Also, any plans for more free pdfs of non-OGL creatures? I really liked seeing the caryatid columns statted out for PF, but I am SO jonesing for updates on the genasi! Or at least a viable PF substitute for them.

Also, you mentioned an updated campaign setting book coming out. Any idea when? I wouldn't mind scoping out the Golarion world setting, but I just can't afford to buy up all those chronicles and adventures and whatnot to do so, and the only copies of the world setting around here are from before the core book came out. I'm currently still running Forgotten Realms games, but sometimes those books give me a headache (a serious lack of decent random encounter tables, for one thing, and maps that lack detail for another). Besides, one of my players has really been pushing for me to run a Golarion campaign (and knowing him, that kind of worries me a bit LOL).

Oh, and one last request (for now): MORE TROLLS!!!
So tired of players always knowing that fire hurts trolls. There's only so much control over metagaming; it would be SO nice to throw those rules marshalls for a loop once in a while ;-)

But I guess I can say that this one will have a lot of planar stuff in it... since one of its goals is to fill out the other outer planar races with entries for inevitables, agathions, proteans, qlippoth, daemons, and so on...

SWEET!!!

Any likelihood we'll get to see a sample creature from Bestiary II prior to publication? Also, any plans for more free pdfs of non-OGL creatures? I really liked seeing the caryatid columns statted out for PF, but I am SO jonesing for updates on the genasi! Or at least a viable PF substitute for them.

Unlikely; we aren't going to do a bonus bestiary for this one. We MIGHT do a preview on the blog here and there though as we get closer to the end of the year.

Also, you mentioned an updated campaign setting book coming out. Any idea when?

The updated PCCS will be out, hopefully, in September. It's got its own page here.

Oh, and one last request (for now): MORE TROLLS!!!

So tired of players always knowing that fire hurts trolls. There's only so much control over metagaming; it would be SO nice to throw those rules marshalls for a loop once in a while ;-)

We'll have a couple more trolls... but part of what being a troll IS is that they're hurt bad by fire. Changing that changes what being a troll is.

Fortunately, changing the word "fire" in its regeneration line to, say, "cold" or "sonic" is a SUPER easy house rule change.

We'll have a couple more trolls... but part of what being a troll IS is that they're hurt bad by fire. Changing that changes what being a troll is.

Fortunately, changing the word "fire" in its regeneration line to, say, "cold" or "sonic" is a SUPER easy house rule change.

I would love to see a stone troll.

I converted them a long time ago for my campaign setting (as well as other DAoC creatures), but it would be nice to see how Pathfinder would stat something similar.

Fortunately, changing the word "fire" in its regeneration line to, say, "cold" or "sonic" is a SUPER easy house rule change.

Oh, yes, I've done that :-D

Yeah, I know..."house rule it".

......something about too many undead (as if there is such a thing ;-P).

You, sir, are a wonderful person! I wish there were more living folks who appreciated we, the heart beat challenged.

At this point, we have no plans to turn the axiomites into a whole category of planar race; I actually like the fact that they're a single stat block race, since that allows us to continue developing the inevitables as the multiple stat block lawful neutral outsider race.

Could we get a low-CR inevitable? Perhaps something suitable as a Bestiary-style pseudo player race? It would be nice to offer the a level of support for players who want something similar* to warforged, only not a player race, and all Pathfinder-y and awesome.

*not too similar, BTW. (as if I had to remind you)

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

blope wrote:

Did you run out of room in this one already? :)

We've had all the monsters picked out for Bestiary 2 since late last year, actually. So yeah; we've technically been "out of room" for more monsters in Bestiary 2 for close to half a year.

Have you started making a list for number 3?

Yes.

good I suggest catfolk (or somethink similair since there not open content I dont think.)

Oh, and one last request (for now): MORE TROLLS!!!
So tired of players always knowing that fire hurts trolls. There's only so much control over metagaming; it would be SO nice to throw those rules marshalls for a loop once in a while ;-)

I don't call that meta-gaming. The information that you need fire to kill trolls is probably universal folk wisdom in a Pathfinder world. There are cautionary tales about it and everything.

Just like in today's world (at least in many parts of it), children are taught that you don't cross the street unless the lights are green, that you don't follow a stranger into his van just because he tells you about candy and cute little bunny rabbits (and countless other bits of potential life-savers, often dependant on where you live), children on Golarion are told about trolls.

There's the tale about Johnny Adventurer who "killed" 3 trolls and then went to sleep beside their "corpses", only to wake up tied up beside their camp fire where the trolls - miraculously returned to life! - are preparing a spit for him. Luckily for him, the trolls can't tie a decent knot, so he can free himself and, having no other weapon available, takes a swing at the trolls with a burning log - and they die, this time for real.

No self respecting adventurer would ever sleep by a troll's corpse. They smell too bad.

More linnorms?

Anything in here that we've never seen anywhere else?

Anything in here that we've never seen anywhere else?

Drop elephants (The drop bears' larger cousins)

Drop elephants (The drop bears' larger cousins)

Those pale in comparison to the power of the Drop Whale.

Just noticed this today... Hmmm... While I *am* looking forward to the book, I find the cover I see today to be too violent. I don't know what kind of dragon that is, but it is chains, screaming and being torn in shreds with bone and blood everywhere. Not my choice of art. Even a good artist can produce something "over the top". If I had a say: no explicit gore please, I prefer some things left to the imagination.

[edit] Funny thing, if it was green blood it wouldn't bother me. I guess red blood and bone is too realistic/human-like. Now I recall seeing this art before, didn't like then either. Seeing something chained up and in its death-throes actually is a turn-off.

Sorry.

Don't worry, Winterthorn: that's a mock-up.

Don't worry, Winterthorn: that's a mock-up.

That's what I'm hoping for. Thanks for the reminder. :-)

Correct; the current cover's a mock-up cover.

And just for full disclosure, the dragon illustrated is far from being in its death throes. It's gory and violent, yes, but that's because it's from an illustration of a very powerful undead dragon minion of Zon-Kuthon being returned to animation.

In any case, the final cover will depict something else entirely.

... In any case, the final cover will depict something else entirely.

Sweet!

drakkonflye wrote:

Oh, and one last request (for now): MORE TROLLS!!!
So tired of players always knowing that fire hurts trolls. There's only so much control over metagaming; it would be SO nice to throw those rules marshalls for a loop once in a while ;-)

I don't call that meta-gaming. The information that you need fire to kill trolls is probably universal folk wisdom in a Pathfinder world. There are cautionary tales about it and everything.

Just like in today's world (at least in many parts of it), children are taught that you don't cross the street unless the lights are green, that you don't follow a stranger into his van just because he tells you about candy and cute little bunny rabbits (and countless other bits of potential life-savers, often dependant on where you live), children on Golarion are told about trolls.

There's the tale about Johnny Adventurer who "killed" 3 trolls and then went to sleep beside their "corpses", only to wake up tied up beside their camp fire where the trolls - miraculously returned to life! - are preparing a spit for him. Luckily for him, the trolls can't tie a decent knot, so he can free himself and, having no other weapon available, takes a swing at the trolls with a burning log - and they die, this time for real.

Well and good, and quite eloquently written, but two things:

1) I don't run my games in Golarion, as I don't have all the support material yet (waiting for the World Guides, and then we'll see).

2) This was just an example: this particular player is a long-term gamer, so knows about just about every creature in every MM and support material out there, including Golarion (HE has the chronicles sub), so trying to surpise him is difficult.

It wouldn't be so bad if he'd keep his mouth shut, but while I got him to stop naming the creatures as soon as he hears the description (even when I change it up a bit, he knows), he still has his "ah", "oh no", "damn", "I knew it", and so on comments, which can be pretty distracting to the other players. I've had to resort to making them make those Knowledge checks to see if they actuallt DO know what they think they do, but sometimes that leads to arguments with the other players. Enh...it happens. It just encourages me to drop in more of my own creations, that's all :-D

Just noticed this today... Hmmm... While I *am* looking forward to the book, I find the cover I see today to be too violent. I don't know what kind of dragon that is, but it is chains, screaming and being torn in shreds with bone and blood everywhere. Not my choice of art. Even a good artist can produce something "over the top". If I had a say: no explicit gore please, I prefer some things left to the imagination.

[edit] Funny thing, if it was green blood it wouldn't bother me. I guess red blood and bone is too realistic/human-like. Now I recall seeing this art before, didn't like then either. Seeing something chained up and in its death-throes actually is a turn-off.

Sorry.

THAT'S gory?

Someone hasn't played the God of War series it seems. I have to say most D&D battles go that route, especially with barbarians involved.

Any chance we might see some creatures that are similar to some specific WOTC licensed setting monsters/races (i.e. shifters, warforged, etc)?

Any chance we might see some creatures that are similar to some specific WOTC licensed setting monsters/races (i.e. shifters, warforged, etc)?

Not really. Even discounting the fact that the two races mentioned above are perhaps two of my least favorite races to come out of late 3rd edition... we're not interested in providing generic versions of monsters that are obviously key to WotC products. We'd rather support Golarion, draw from mythology/cryptozoology/public domain/folklore monsters (aka "the real world's monster pool"), or make entirely new monsters.

or make entirely new monsters.

I'd suggest the Bearbear. It's the ultimate deadline monster.

James Jacobs wrote:

or make entirely new monsters.

I'd suggest the Bearbear. It's the ultimate deadline monster.

Or the vorpal bunny.

Not really. Even discounting the fact that the two races mentioned above are perhaps two of my least favorite races to come out of late 3rd edition... we're not interested in providing generic versions of monsters that are obviously key to WotC products. We'd rather support Golarion, draw from mythology/cryptozoology/public domain/folklore monsters (aka "the real world's monster pool"), or make entirely new monsters.

And thank you for that. Not a fan of those either and I'd rather see what you come up with.