James Jacobs Creative Director |
Yup; a glance at Appendix 8 on page 312 of the book confirms it; there's a significant amount of animals in the book. In fact, the animal type is one of the best-represented types in the book. Complaints of ooze shortages I suspect would be more legitimate, but this book hardly has a shortage of animals in it.
James Jacobs Creative Director |
James Jacobs wrote:Anything that actually makes using it worth doing so.Cartigan wrote:What animals have we not yet statted up that the totem druid needs?James Jacobs wrote:Totem Druid.Cartigan wrote:Less old-fogey service, more mundane animals.Boring!
None of the current animals do?
Since between Bestiary 1 and 2 we've got stats for lions, tigers bears, tyrannosauruses, elephants, annacondas, giant frilled lizards, wolves, dogs, cheetahs, pteranodons, badgers, wolverines, gorillas, electric eels, giant squids, horses, snapping turtles, arsinotheriums, gars, and the great white whale (to name but a few)...
...what did we miss?
If you're basically trying to say "MORE ANIMALS," well, we'll do that. We do more animals in the Pathfinder AP with relative frequency, and if/when we do Bestiary 3, there'll be more animals in there as well.
But as far as I can tell, there's plenty of animals in the game already... enough to keep an entire army of totem druids happy.
Or maybe you're just complaining for the fun of it?
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
Erik Mona Chief Creative Officer, Publisher |
Cartigan |
Cartigan wrote:James Jacobs wrote:Anything that actually makes using it worth doing so.Cartigan wrote:What animals have we not yet statted up that the totem druid needs?James Jacobs wrote:Totem Druid.Cartigan wrote:Less old-fogey service, more mundane animals.Boring!None of the current animals do?
Since between Bestiary 1 and 2 we've got stats for lions, tigers bears, tyrannosauruses, elephants, annacondas, giant frilled lizards, wolves, dogs, cheetahs, pteranodons, badgers, wolverines, gorillas, electric eels, giant squids, horses, snapping turtles, arsinotheriums, gars, and the great white whale (to name but a few)...
...what did we miss?
If you're basically trying to say "MORE ANIMALS," well, we'll do that. We do more animals in the Pathfinder AP with relative frequency, and if/when we do Bestiary 3, there'll be more animals in there as well.
But as far as I can tell, there's plenty of animals in the game already... enough to keep an entire army of totem druids happy.
Or maybe you're just complaining for the fun of it?
Well let's limit it to Bears, Canines, Cats, and Serpents because those are the only totem druids and Eagle Shamans are limited to Eagles and Rocs. How many of those are huge or diminutive without templates?
Justin Franklin |
Justin Franklin wrote:I've watched that video about a hundred times. The idea of the Vikes playing at TCF Field is pretty exciting, though.Erik Mona wrote:Gopher.Ha ha. You should see the dome it looks like some cut the top off of a muffin.
Yea should be interesting. Of course I could never figure out why the built an indoor stadium anyway. The cold is a home field advantage.
James Jacobs Creative Director |
Well let's limit it to Bears, Canines, Cats, and Serpents because those are the only totem druids and Eagle Shamans are limited to Eagles and Rocs. How many of those are huge or diminutive without templates?
Aha. Would have been better to start with this rather than trick me into coaxing it out of you.
This is a legitimate concern. Of course, if you're playing a totem druid from the ADVANCED Player's Guide, there's not much stopping you from taking a bit of extra time before a game and using Appendix 1 of the Bestiary to remake stats for differently sized bears and then submitting them to your GM for approval. Obviously, this is a fair amount of extra work for the player, but it's work a player only has to do once, since you can re-use those stats over and over.
Obviously it'd be easier for the player if we built stats for different sizes of every possible animal, but be realistic. That's not something that we could make much money selling. It's CERTAINLY not the point of a Bestiary, which is first and foremost about giving the GM monsters to use in adventures.
cappadocius |
Bears, Canines, Cats, and SerpentsHow many of those are huge or diminutive without templates?
The hell, dude? How many diminutive bears are there in the history of bears? How many huge cats? You can't b@%#% about there not being useful animals when your definition of useful is, apparently, 'non existent'.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
Cartigan |
Aha. Would have been better to start with this rather than trick me into coaxing it out of you.
This is a legitimate concern. Of course, if you're playing a totem druid from the ADVANCED Player's Guide, there's not much stopping you from taking a bit of extra time before a game and using Appendix 1 of the Bestiary to remake stats for differently sized bears and then submitting them to your GM for approval. Obviously, this is a fair amount of extra work for the player, but it's work a player only has to do once, since you can re-use those stats over and over.
I find two issues with this approach.
1) Stingy DMs, despite the obvious non-existence of any problems with this approach due to the redesign of how transmogrification works.2) Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
Obviously it'd be easier for the player if we built stats for different sizes of every possible animal, but be realistic. That's not something that we could make much money selling. It's CERTAINLY not the point of a Bestiary, which is first and foremost about giving the GM monsters to use in adventures.
But that's hardly what I am saying either. Why not just build those sized creatures? How many GMs are even going to use a fraction of the stuff in Bestiaries to begin with? Especially ones that run adventure paths. Could not GMs find a use for some diminutive snake? Some huge eagle? Etc.
James Jacobs Creative Director |
1) Stingy DMs, despite the obvious non-existence of any problems with this approach due to the redesign of how transmogrification works.
We can't fix the problem of stingy GMs. The best way to fix that problem is to find a different GM if you can't talk the GM out of being stingy.
2) Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
A PFS character who decides to play a totem druid just needs to content himself with the simple fact that he's gonna be limited in his options as to what types of creatures he can turn into. There's a HELL of a lot of limitations on the PFS as it stands—comes with the nature of that type of game. A player who doesn't understand this is simply setting himself up for disappointment, whether that's the discovery of the fact that he can't craft magic items, can't have a cohort, has limited totem druid wildshape options, or whatever.
But that's hardly what I am saying either. Why not just build those sized creatures? How many GMs are even going to use a fraction of the stuff in Bestiaries to begin with? Especially ones that run adventure paths. Could not GMs find a use for some diminutive snake? Some huge eagle? Etc.
My honest opinion? More GMs will use all of the things in Bestiary that aren't Tiny bears than would use Tiny bears.
AKA: I'm not interested in the argument that "No GM could possibly use every monster in the Bestiary, so therefore there's too many monsters in the Bestiary." Remember, these bestiaries are for EVERYONE. And everyone will use different monsters. While any one GM won't use everything, the entire gamut of GMs who use Bestairy 2 will.Furthermore: the Bestiary ALSO needs to serve us at Paizo. We publish hundreds of pages of adventure material a year, and that means we go through a LOT of monsters. We need more monsters to keep things fresh and fun and interesting in our products, and one way we do that is by going to additional monster collections beyond the core Bestiary. By publishing the Bestiary 2, we open up our options. By publishing a Bestiary of variant bears, canines, cats, and serpents, we'd be crippling our choices.
ANYway... the book you want us to make is not a Bestiary. So that's pretty much that. Sorry you were disappointed.
Skeld |
I'm 26. At this point I'm a poor college student by choice mostly. :P
One of the guys in my group is 32, has a BS & MS (and all his PhD coursework) in aerospace engineering AND a BA, MA, and is working on his PhD in Music. You're not doing too bad. ;)
-Skeld
Ravingdork |
Ravingdork wrote:I'm 26. At this point I'm a poor college student by choice mostly. :POne of the guys in my group is 32, has a BS & MS (and all his PhD coursework) in aerospace engineering AND a BA, MA, and is working on his PhD in Music. You're not doing too bad. ;)
-Skeld
I qualify for an AA in Journalism (just need to fill out the paperwork to get it) and am now working on an AS in graphic design. Most people would have at least a BA and possibly also an AS by now (or at least that's what I've been lead to believe).
In any case, I intend to get my BA in Journalism eventually, but I may well be 30 by that time.
As long as I've been in college already, I could have been a lawyer.
Kthulhu |
But that's hardly what I am saying either. Why not just build those sized creatures? How many GMs are even going to use a fraction of the stuff in Bestiaries to begin with? Especially ones that run adventure paths. Could not GMs find a use for some diminutive snake? Some huge eagle? Etc.
For every hour that they spend throwing bigger or smaller templates on regular animals, that's an hour that they aren't providing us with the awesomeness of a Nightwing, or a protean, or other similar awesomeness.
Lazaro |
Tom Nowicki wrote:Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??Now I miss the Gummi Bear cartoon.
NOSTALGIA!
Beek Gwenders of Croodle |
The new Bestiary is the best bestiary I have ever read since AD&D 1E.
No, really.
I love their new take on daemons and the new otherplanar races, and the artowrk is twice better than Bestiary 1. Looks to me like an "Advanced" Bestiary (in line with the "Advanced PG") with that meaning, it looks like the guys in Paizo have finally escaped completely the constraints of the D&D heritage and let loose their imagination.
When I read MMII or Fiend Folio I was little more than 10 years old (BTW I am Italian), and my English was so bad I could only catch some meaning of the monster descriptions, yet the monsters in there were so weird and evocative a whole stream of ideas caught fire just by opening a random page.
Now this new Bestiary is creating the same feelings in a 30-something RPG veteran. The extraplanar races in particular are something incredible.
Possibily my favorite PF manual so far (although Ultimate Combat looks promising!).
Gorbacz |
James Jacobs wrote:Didn't know you guys were Sword of Truth fans. I would have stated gars up as magical beasts myself, but I guess animals works too :P
Since between Bestiary 1 and 2 we've got stats for... gars...
You're confusing gar (the animal family, represented in PF) with gar (fictional creature).
Matthew Morris RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8 |
Dark_Mistress wrote:NOSTALGIA!Tom Nowicki wrote:Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??Now I miss the Gummi Bear cartoon.
Fun fact. Gummi Bears inspired the writers to make Gargoyles.
Cartigan |
A PFS character who decides to play a totem druid just needs to content himself with the simple fact that he's gonna be limited in his options as to what types of creatures he can turn into. There's a HELL of a lot of limitations on the PFS as it stands—comes with the nature of that type of game. A player who doesn't understand this is simply setting himself up for disappointment, whether that's the discovery of the fact that he can't craft magic items, can't have a cohort, has limited totem druid wildshape options, or whatever.
Yes, yes, lots of limitation, etc. But there is literally no reason to play a Totem Druid in a game played exactly by RAW. By 6th level, you ALREADY have access to all animals you could normally turn into with your special bonuses (and all the animals bonuses except the snake's poison) but the ENTIRETY of the rest of the tree is shafted - non-totem animals, elementals, magic animals, plants, etc. There is literally no reason at all to ever play a totem Druid compared to a normal Druid.
My honest opinion? More GMs will use all of the things in Bestiary that aren't Tiny bears than would use Tiny bears.
Yes, I imagine Froghemoths and Remorhazes get used tons.
Remember, these bestiaries are for EVERYONE.
Except for variant classes?
We publish hundreds of pages of adventure material a year, and that means we go through a LOT of monsters.
I am pretty sure I recall new monsters being created in adventure paths.
By publishing a Bestiary of variant bears, canines, cats, and serpents, we'd be crippling our choices.
Yes, it probably would. Perhaps you should think about that in the future when designing classes, class variants, and spells. I'm sure you could make EXCELLENT use of all the extra space you have by NOT making effectively useless classes, class variants, and spells.
Cartigan |
Cartigan wrote:But that's hardly what I am saying either. Why not just build those sized creatures? How many GMs are even going to use a fraction of the stuff in Bestiaries to begin with? Especially ones that run adventure paths. Could not GMs find a use for some diminutive snake? Some huge eagle? Etc.For every hour that they spend throwing bigger or smaller templates on regular animals, that's an hour that they aren't providing us with the awesomeness of a Nightwing, or a protean, or other similar awesomeness.
I did not say put big or small templates on animals. Did anyone spend 30 seconds to think they could just make NEW animals?
Cartigan |
Cartigan wrote:Gorbacz wrote:New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.A dropbear would be Tiny.Right... You need a combat stat block for a koala.
Almost all of the major animal types you'd ever want in combat have been represented. Variations should be handled with templates.
It's like you people are trying to miss my point.
Gorbacz |
TLO3 wrote:It's like you people are trying to miss my point.Cartigan wrote:Gorbacz wrote:New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.A dropbear would be Tiny.Right... You need a combat stat block for a koala.
Almost all of the major animal types you'd ever want in combat have been represented. Variations should be handled with templates.
Given it's Tiny size, it's not that hard to miss ... ;)
Marc Radle |
TLO3 wrote:It's like you people are trying to miss my point.Cartigan wrote:Gorbacz wrote:New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.A dropbear would be Tiny.Right... You need a combat stat block for a koala.
Almost all of the major animal types you'd ever want in combat have been represented. Variations should be handled with templates.
Maybe people are just tired of hearing it....
Cartigan |
Cartigan wrote:Maybe people are just tired of hearing your point ....TLO3 wrote:It's like you people are trying to miss my point.Cartigan wrote:Gorbacz wrote:New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.A dropbear would be Tiny.Right... You need a combat stat block for a koala.
Almost all of the major animal types you'd ever want in combat have been represented. Variations should be handled with templates.
I'm sure you couldn't identify it.
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
Sebastian Bella Sara Charter Superscriber |
omega9 |
omega9 wrote:I think that we should change to subject to tacos, since anything is better than were this conversation is going.How about the OT? Setting aside the tragic lack of diminutive bears and gargantuan cats, what's your favorite creature in the bestiary 2?
OT works too.
Unfortunately, I don't have the Bestiary 2 yet; though one of my friends does, and loves to remind of that fact. I heard earlier that there are planar dragons and nightshades in this book; what can you guys tell me about them, without giving too much away?
Cartigan |
I'm still trying to follow the logic of "Druid totem archtypes in the APG suck imho, so the Bestiary 2 needs more animals".
It deserves its own thread. The short version is Totem Druids significantly hamper the major Druid feature of Wild Shape in all but one case, but there do not - by RAW - exist enough or, in fact, ANY animals to make the archetype a reasonable choice for an average player.