Bestiary 2 = The Most Awesomest Book of Pure Awesome ... Ever


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee 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 wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Less old-fogey service, more mundane animals.
Boring!
Totem Druid.
What animals have we not yet statted up that the totem druid needs?

Anything that actually makes using it worth doing so.


Erik Mona wrote:
Gopher.

My friend the FLGS owner would appreciate this notion:

Armored Gopher Games

;)


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Gopher.

Ha ha. You should see the dome it looks like some cut the top off of a muffin.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Less old-fogey service, more mundane animals.
Boring!
Totem Druid.
What animals have we not yet statted up that the totem druid needs?
Anything that actually makes using it worth doing so.

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?


I'm all for more animal stats, but I'm not a fan of having too much of any one type of monster, so a sprinkling of new animals is cool. I'm still waiting for a chance to use my druid with an elk animal companion idea I'm kicking around though.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

If you could be any animal, what type of animal would you be?

Spoiler:

You are an animal!

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Justin Franklin wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Gopher.
Ha ha. You should see the dome it looks like some cut the top off of a muffin.

I've watched that video about a hundred times. The idea of the Vikes playing at TCF Field is pretty exciting, though.


James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
Less old-fogey service, more mundane animals.
Boring!
Totem Druid.
What animals have we not yet statted up that the totem druid needs?
Anything that actually makes using it worth doing so.

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?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
Gopher.
Ha ha. You should see the dome it looks like some cut the top off of a muffin.
I've watched that video about a hundred times. The idea of the Vikes playing at TCF Field is pretty exciting, though.

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.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
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.

Sovereign Court

Cartigan wrote:


Bears, Canines, Cats, and Serpents

How 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'.


cappadocius wrote:

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'.

Obviously you've never been mauled by a microbear swarm. Shudder

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

cappadocius wrote:


How many diminutive bears are there in the history of bears?

Teddy Ruxpin?

The Care Bears?
Fonzie Bear is medium sized, but we could use stats for him.
Oh! But muppet baby Fonzie Bear is probably diminutive!!! We need stats for him.

Hmmm...

P.S.

Spoiler:
Well played.


James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Quote:
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.


cappadocius wrote:
Cartigan wrote:


Bears, Canines, Cats, and Serpents

How many of those are huge or diminutive without templates?

The hell, dude? How many diminutive bears are there in the history of bears?

I don't know. How many basilisks are there in Shangri-La?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cartigan wrote:
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.

Cartigan wrote:
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.

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.

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.


I so want a Tiny bear now. I will keep it in my pocket. And call it George.

Liberty's Edge

Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
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


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Skeld wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
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

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.

Shadow Lodge

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.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Gopher.

Dire Gopher

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tom Nowicki wrote:
Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??

Now I miss the Gummi Bear cartoon.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Tom Nowicki wrote:
Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??
Now I miss the Gummi Bear cartoon.

NOSTALGIA!


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!).


James Jacobs wrote:


Since between Bestiary 1 and 2 we've got stats for... gars...

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

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


Since between Bestiary 1 and 2 we've got stats for... gars...

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

You're confusing gar (the animal family, represented in PF) with gar (fictional creature).

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Lazaro wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Tom Nowicki wrote:
Why am I suddenly hungry for gummi bears now??
Now I miss the Gummi Bear cartoon.
NOSTALGIA!

Fun fact. Gummi Bears inspired the writers to make Gargoyles.


James Jacobs wrote:


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.

Cartigan wrote:
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.

Quote:
Remember, these bestiaries are for EVERYONE.

Except for variant classes?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.


Kthulhu wrote:
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?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.


Gorbacz wrote:
New animals like the ... bearbear or ... bearpuppy.

A dropbear would be Tiny.


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.


TLO3 wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Cartigan wrote:
TLO3 wrote:
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.

Given it's Tiny size, it's not that hard to miss ... ;)

Liberty's Edge

Cartigan wrote:
TLO3 wrote:
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.

Maybe people are just tired of hearing it....


Marc Radle wrote:
Cartigan wrote:
TLO3 wrote:
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.
Maybe people are just tired of hearing your point ....

I'm sure you couldn't identify it.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Cartigan wrote:


It's like you people are trying to miss my point.

There's a fine line between missing your point and failing to care about your point.

It's a similar line that divides laughing with you and laughing at you.


Sebastian wrote:


It's a similar line that divides laughing with you and laughing at you.

I imagine there is an equally fine line between flamebaiting and snark.

Liberty's Edge

"There's such a fine line between clever and stupid ..."

- Spinal Tap

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Cartigan wrote:
Sebastian wrote:


It's a similar line that divides laughing with you and laughing at you.
I imagine there is an equally fine line between flamebaiting and snark.

Huh? I'm not getting your point.


I think that we should change to subject to tacos, since anything is better than were this conversation is going.


Marc Radle wrote:

"There's such a fine line between clever and stupid ..."

- Spinal Tap

Obviously.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

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?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Are you guys doing cocaine? You're talking about a lot of 'fine lines' is all I'm saying...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm still trying to follow the logic of "Druid totem archtypes in the APG suck imho, so the Bestiary 2 needs more animals".


Sebastian wrote:
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?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nightshades have a new baby: Nightwave. It's a shadow shark with laser beams, meaning it's awesome.

Planar dragons:

Brine (Plane of Water)
Cloud (Plane of Air)
Crystal (Plane of Earth)
Magma (Plane of Fire)
Umbral (Plane of Shadows)


Kryzbyn wrote:
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.

51 to 100 of 224 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Bestiary 2 = The Most Awesomest Book of Pure Awesome ... Ever All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.