
Blue Wizard |

Beholders are intellectual property of Wizards of the Coast, and as such cannot be used by any third party. Your best bet is to get the number cranking and convert said beholder to PFRPG using the guidelines from the Bestiary and Conversion Guide.
For the very same reason, the following are missing:
- kuo toa
- mind flayer
- githzerai
- githyanki
- carrion crawler
- umber hulk
- displacer beast
- slaadi
Aww, bummer. Thank you though; that's exactly what I'll do. At least we still get mind flayers.

![]() |

This would fan-freakin-tastic if I hadn't ordered this like... three months ago, still don't have it, AND BOOKS-A-MILLION HAS IT NOW.
But other than what seems to be a HORRIBLE shipping system, it is a nice book.
Was it not just released last month. Or are you saying you pre-ordered it three months. IN fact I think the street date was the end of last month.
Where are you located? Overseas?
Plus if you went with the standard rate for in the US that can be 3 to 5 weeks standard delivery. That is what USPS dictates their delivery time is.
Sean

![]() |

This would fan-freakin-tastic if I hadn't ordered this like... three months ago, still don't have it, AND BOOKS-A-MILLION HAS IT NOW.
But other than what seems to be a HORRIBLE shipping system, it is a nice book.
Ahzreal, I'm really sorry you haven't got your order yet. I took a quick peek at your account to see if there was something I could do, but it looks like you may have ordered it through a third-party (amazon maybe?).
If you did order it through paizo.com, send an email to our customer service customer.service@paizo.com and we'll see what we can figure out.
If you ordered it through a third party, you may want to try contacting their customer service department to see what's up.
Thanks,
Sara Marie
Paizo Customer Service

Game Jeff |

I just got this and came across this is the book for skeletons
Feats Improved InitiativeB <-- this B is super scripted
What does the little B mean. I search the complete book and still I found nothing the B refers to. Does anyone know? is this a special version of the feat?
Thanks
Never mind I finally found this in the book
Feats: The creature’s feats are listed here. A bonus feat is
indicated with a superscript “B.”
Thanks

Blue Wizard |

So I bought the Bestiary to use in our upcoming Shackled City campaign using Pathfinder rules. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't have to drag out Monster Manual I, II, or III...but some of the monsters aren't in the Beastiary so it looks like they're in.
Is anyone else running an older campaign arc in Pathfinder and having to mix/max Bestiary and MM? I like the way the Bestiary has given XP amounts for each monster, but if I'm going to have to drag out the MMs anyway is there really much point in using both? They really don't seem to have changed things that much (though it is nice not having to figure out a given monster CMB/CMD).

![]() |

I just got this and came across this is the book for skeletons
Feats Improved InitiativeB <-- this B is super scripted
What does the little B mean. I search the complete book and still I found nothing the B refers to. Does anyone know? is this a special version of the feat?
Thanks
It means it's a bonus feat, above and beyond the number of feat usually assigned to a creature of that type.

Hank Woon Contributor |

So I bought the Bestiary to use in our upcoming Shackled City campaign using Pathfinder rules. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't have to drag out Monster Manual I, II, or III...but some of the monsters aren't in the Beastiary so it looks like they're in.
Is anyone else running an older campaign arc in Pathfinder and having to mix/max Bestiary and MM? I like the way the Bestiary has given XP amounts for each monster, but if I'm going to have to drag out the MMs anyway is there really much point in using both? They really don't seem to have changed things that much (though it is nice not having to figure out a given monster CMB/CMD).
I'm currently running a new Shackled City campaign and using the Bestiary where I can and defaulting to the MM I+II when I need to. As to whether you need to, so far I haven't come across anything that seemed breaking either way.

![]() |

Blue Wizard wrote:I'm currently running a new Shackled City campaign and using the Bestiary where I can and defaulting to the MM I+II when I need to. As to whether you need to, so far I haven't come across anything that seemed breaking either way.So I bought the Bestiary to use in our upcoming Shackled City campaign using Pathfinder rules. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't have to drag out Monster Manual I, II, or III...but some of the monsters aren't in the Beastiary so it looks like they're in.
Is anyone else running an older campaign arc in Pathfinder and having to mix/max Bestiary and MM? I like the way the Bestiary has given XP amounts for each monster, but if I'm going to have to drag out the MMs anyway is there really much point in using both? They really don't seem to have changed things that much (though it is nice not having to figure out a given monster CMB/CMD).
Shouldn't anything from MMII or another non-core book be statted out in the adventure? My understanding that it was never assumed a GM had access to anything other than the PHB, DMG, and MM for Dungeon adventures. If this is the case, you can simply print the few monsters not in the Bestiary out from d20srd.org and take just those sheets along with your Bestiary to the game.

Blue Wizard |

Hank Woon wrote:Shouldn't anything from MMII or another non-core book be statted out in the adventure? My understanding that it was never assumed a GM had access to anything other than the PHB, DMG, and MM for Dungeon adventures. If this is the case, you can simply print the few monsters not in the Bestiary out from d20srd.org and take just those sheets along with your Bestiary to the game.Blue Wizard wrote:I'm currently running a new Shackled City campaign and using the Bestiary where I can and defaulting to the MM I+II when I need to. As to whether you need to, so far I haven't come across anything that seemed breaking either way.So I bought the Bestiary to use in our upcoming Shackled City campaign using Pathfinder rules. I was sort of hoping I wouldn't have to drag out Monster Manual I, II, or III...but some of the monsters aren't in the Beastiary so it looks like they're in.
Is anyone else running an older campaign arc in Pathfinder and having to mix/max Bestiary and MM? I like the way the Bestiary has given XP amounts for each monster, but if I'm going to have to drag out the MMs anyway is there really much point in using both? They really don't seem to have changed things that much (though it is nice not having to figure out a given monster CMB/CMD).
Mainly I was thinking of the differences in the way 3.5 and Pathfinder track experience. I was wondering how much (if any) effect it would have to possible have to use both systems in the same session. I've noticed that the "fast experience" pretty much meshes with the 3.5 scale, so we'll be using that. But it seems to me that in Pathfinder everything is worth a set amount without regard to level. Then you have 3.5 in which your 2nd level rogue is getting a lot more XP than your party's 4th level wizard. So it's looking like using the Pathfinder XP scheme would leave your lower level party members without much of a chance of catching up.
I guess I just like 3.5 more than the rest of my group does, but it's Pathfinder they want, so Pathfinder they'll get.
Aaron Bitman |

Someone please help me! If my question / comment has been made before, could someone please direct me to that place? I'm afraid I don't have time to scan through 1114 posts.
My question is this: Where are the animals?!?
I don't mind so much that the Bestiary doesn't list badgers, manta rays, baleen whales, etc. I can live without those.
But what about camels, donkeys, and mules?!?
With most missing monsters, I would think that they might appear in some future bestiary, or some other book like that. But real, ordinary, mundane animals?!? Would Paizo really say "Get the Bestiary II, and use mules in your campaign!" or "Get the Pathfinder 'Denizens of the Desert' sourcebook, and you can finally ride a camel!"
Surely, lots of people in Pathfinder campaigns would want to use camels, donkeys, and mules for riding or as pack animals. In fact, I only noticed this because someone brought up the possibility of using a pack mule in an adventure.
Of course, I could just use the 3.5 monster manual / SRD. But if Paizo is trying to replace the 3.5 manuals eventually, this would be a major obstacle!
Someone please tell me that I'm being stupid, or that I'm missing something obvious somewhere.

Aaron Bitman |

The combat impact of those animals is so insignificant that I really don't mind them missing.
If you're using an animal for riding or as a pack animal, then that animal's movement speed and carrying capacity are VERY significant. Potentially campaign-altering, in fact. The "young" template won't give you an accurate speed.
And has it never happened in any adventure you've played that someone was riding an animal that got attacked?!?

Joana |

There are skeletal stats for camels under Animal Companions in the core rulebook. And I once had a player running a paladin who had to ride a mule off of a Robe of Useful Items until he gained a level after his mount was killed by a bullette. That was fun. The mount was named Pelor's Pride, so he named the mule Pelor's Humility.

![]() |

Gorbacz wrote:The combat impact of those animals is so insignificant that I really don't mind them missing.If you're using an animal for riding or as a pack animal, then that animal's movement speed and carrying capacity are VERY significant. Potentially campaign-altering, in fact. The "young" template won't give you an accurate speed.
And has it never happened in any adventure you've played that someone was riding an animal that got attacked?!?
Camel = horse. The 3.5 stats for both are almost exactly the same, and they have both the same CR.
Mule/donkey = pony. Slightly better carrying capacity for mules, slightly less for donkeys.
There, fixed.

Aaron Bitman |

There are skeletal stats for camels under Animal Companions in the core rulebook.
Good point! I was hoping I had missed something like that.
Mule/donkey = pony. Slightly better carrying capacity for mules, slightly less for donkeys.
Good answer. It's not QUITE the same thing as having official stats, but it might do, in a pinch.
Thank you both.

![]() |
3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |

One of my biggest pet peeves about the 3.5 Monster Manual is the way they handled animals. First of all, they lumped them all in a boring appendix with no art; we fixed that in the Bestiary by alphabetizing the animals along with everything else and giving them art.
But another gripe I had was the fact that they spent so much room on what's essentially reprinted stats. I'm talking about the horse, here, and all its incarnations. Light horse, heavy horse, light warhorse, heavy warhorse, pony, donkey, mule, camel, warpony... that's a LOT of space taken up by what is essentially just two creatures: a Medium horse and a Large horse.
Our solution was to do just that; provide stats for a Horse (the Large version) and a Pony (the Medium version), so that Small and Medium creatures would have these classic animals around for mounts or pack animals.
We probably should have been more obvious about this in the writeups for the horse and pony in the Bestiary, I guess.
Light horse = horse
Heavy horse = advanced horse
Light warhorse = horse with combat training
Heavy warhorse = advanced horse with combat training
Pony = pony
Warpony = pony with combat training
Donkey = pony
Mule = advanced pony
Camel = horse
The camel's sort of a special case, since it DOES have some different characteristics from the horse. And as a result, I'm relatively sure that camels will be showing up in the Bestairy 2. But until then, just using horse stats should work fine.
In the end, when I had to make the call on "Four pages of repeated horse stats" verses "one page of horse stats and 3 pages of actual monsters" the choice seemed easy.

DigMarx |

I just got my copy of the Bestiary yesterday, and like the Core Rulebook I'm quite pleased with the quality of the binding, art, etc. However, and I feel I must preface this by saying I'm personally ignorant of the publishing process, there are a ridiculous number of typographical errors in the first printing (of both books really). I'm sure proofreading can be a demanding job, and the typos don't really impact game-play--for me at least--but it's a shame that such silly mistakes (loose instead of lose) mar an otherwise solid product.
Please don't take this as a troll/flame/whatever as I don't intend it as such. I'd just like to add my voice to those who may be requesting that Paizo proofread their first runs more thoroughly. Heck, send me the pre-print pdfs and I'll help out! :)
Zo

Wicked K Games |

One of my biggest pet peeves about the 3.5 Monster Manual is the way they handled animals. First of all, they lumped them all in a boring appendix with no art; we fixed that in the Bestiary by alphabetizing the animals along with everything else and giving them art.
But another gripe I had was the fact that they spent so much room on what's essentially reprinted stats. I'm talking about the horse, here, and all its incarnations. Light horse, heavy horse, light warhorse, heavy warhorse, pony, donkey, mule, camel, warpony... that's a LOT of space taken up by what is essentially just two creatures: a Medium horse and a Large horse.
Our solution was to do just that; provide stats for a Horse (the Large version) and a Pony (the Medium version), so that Small and Medium creatures would have these classic animals around for mounts or pack animals.
We probably should have been more obvious about this in the write ups for the horse and pony in the Bestiary, I guess.
Light horse = horse
Heavy horse = advanced horse
Light warhorse = horse with combat training
Heavy warhorse = advanced horse with combat training
Pony = pony
Warpony = pony with combat training
Donkey = pony
Mule = advanced pony
Camel = horseThe camel's sort of a special case, since it DOES have some different characteristics from the horse. And as a result, I'm relatively sure that camels will be showing up in the Bestairy 2. But until then, just using horse stats should work fine.
In the end, when I had to make the call on "Four pages of repeated horse stats" verses "one page of horse stats and 3 pages of actual monsters" the choice seemed easy.
Just an idea, but I think something like that but ultra condensed for all the animals and some variant monsters seems super useful. Maybe put it into an appendix?
Example:
Horse = Camel, Light Horse, Heavy Horse^, Light Warhorse*, Heavy Warhorse*^
Pony = Donkey, Mule^, Pony, Warmule*^, Warpony*
* = Combat Training, ^ = Advanced Template
*Repectfully* With a few keystrokes the animlas that don't necessarily need 4 pages of stats are added into the book, people can look at the appendix and find that rarer animal varient that adds that much more flavor to their character. Add a couple more templates that make minor adjusts (adaptations to climate?), like a cold variant or such.
I loved the bloody skeleton and fast zombie. It's the templates and variants that really sold it for me, although for others YMMV. I even bought the book after already owning the .pdf (supporting a local hobby store).
This is just an idea, but I'd love to know what you think...

Aaron Bitman |

I have a couple more questions about the Bestiary... and again, these may have been asked elsewhere, for all I know.
I've downloaded the errata for the core rulebook, but where can I find the errata for the Bestiary?
And on that note... what's with the Janni's land speed? It's 30 feet in chainmail, but 20 feet without?!? I'm virtually certain it was supposed to be the other way around. And I see it written the same way in the PRD.

wspatterson |

Hi,
I did some spot checking on the 23 pages of discussion and I didn't see anyone mention this. I was looking at various and sundry animals last night while preparing an adventure, and I don't see anything designated as a secondary attack on any of them. The leopard, for instance, is bite +6 (I believe that's the bonus for that attack) and 2 claws +6. Shouldn't it have a -5 to the claw attacks, since it doesn't have multi-attack? All the animals have the same attack bonus for all of their claws, bites, slams, gores or whatever is appropriate for that animal.

![]() |

Bite, Claw, Gore, Slam, Sting and Talons are all primary attacks now.
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, Pincer, Tail Slap and Anything Else are secondary attacks.
See Universal Monster Rules, section on Natural Attacks.
This change is one of the biggest changes in PF Bestiary (bite/claw/claw is now full/full/full instead of full/-5/5).

![]() |

Hi,
I did some spot checking on the 23 pages of discussion and I didn't see anyone mention this. I was looking at various and sundry animals last night while preparing an adventure, and I don't see anything designated as a secondary attack on any of them. The leopard, for instance, is bite +6 (I believe that's the bonus for that attack) and 2 claws +6. Shouldn't it have a -5 to the claw attacks, since it doesn't have multi-attack? All the animals have the same attack bonus for all of their claws, bites, slams, gores or whatever is appropriate for that animal.
They've changed how secondary attacks work. Claws and bites are always primary attacks (full BAB). Things like wing strikes, tail slaps and thel ike are secondary attacks (at -5).
This is under the Universal Monster Rules section on Natural attacks (p300-301) in the Bestiary or here on the PRD.
EDIT: Ninjaed.

wspatterson |

Bite, Claw, Gore, Slam, Sting and Talons are all primary attacks now.
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, Pincer, Tail Slap and Anything Else are secondary attacks.
See Universal Monster Rules, section on Natural Attacks.
This change is one of the biggest changes in PF Bestiary (bite/claw/claw is now full/full/full instead of full/-5/5).
Well, that's nifty.

Watcher |

How much overlap does this product have with the Classic Monsters Revisited?
To add to what Ravenmantle said, Classic Monsters has pages of background material for each creature, including their origins and role in the Golaron campaign setting.
The Bestiary, as fine as it is, provides a stat block and a few short paragraphs of description applicable to any campaign setting.
You'll get this for the background material, not the stat block.

Dextro Highland |

Is there any official errata for the Bestiary? I've been looking around and can't seem find it.
My question is about troglodytes and their lack of a stench ability. I was wondering if it was and oversight or intentional.

![]() |

I don't think a true "errata" document has been published yet. I wish it had, that was one part I thought Paizo would excel compared to WotC. I hope they do more than they have so far.
One thing they do that WotC never did, they do release new books with changes (errata) when making new printings. I bought copies of the Core rules when the second printing came out (gave away my copies of the original 1st printing.) I'm waiting for the second printing of the Bestiary to do the same. As far as I know, it hasn't been printed yet.

![]() |

I don't think a true "errata" document has been published yet. I wish it had, that was one part I thought Paizo would excel compared to WotC. I hope they do more than they have so far.
One thing they do that WotC never did, they do release new books with changes (errata) when making new printings. I bought copies of the Core rules when the second printing came out (gave away my copies of the original 1st printing.) I'm waiting for the second printing of the Bestiary to do the same. As far as I know, it hasn't been printed yet.
Certainly for the Corebook they've said that they're doing an errata when they are preparing for the next printing, so when they run low on bestiaries they'll get it out.

eris |
I have some questions regarding the "Horse" entry. Acc'd to Bestiary p177 a light horse gets two hoof attacks w/penalty if not combat trained and damage d4. All well and good. A heavy horse, gains a bite attack at d4 & hoof damage is increased to d6 (this is whether or not it is combat trained, I presume, and is due to increased muscle mass not increased training). The "heavy" also gains the "advanced simple" template which will increase all scores by four. Is that a typo, by the way? Should a draft horse truly have an intelligence of 6? Should it really be able to retain the vocabulary of the average undead shadow? Should its charisma really be on par with the average human?
Now, on Core p.54, under the listing for a Horse animal companion, the horse is listed as having a bite attack & 2 hooves. Does this mean that an animal companion horse is always a "heavy" horse or does this mean that animal companions are inherently special? Also, there is no mention of the "docile" quality that penalizes the horses' hoof (but not bite) attacks.
To clarify my questions and make them easier to answer, I'll number them:
1) Should a heavy horse get an Int6 & Cha11?
2) Should a horse companion of a Lv1 Druid have a bite attack in addition to it's hoof attacks?
3) Does the horse companion retain the "docile" quality until it receives the "war trained" bonus training at Lv4 or are animal companions always considered non-docile?
4) Does the docile quality only apply to hooves or does it also apply to the bite attack of a non-war-trained heavy horse?
5) Is an animal companion horse always a heavy horse?
I hope these questions aren't overly nit-picky. I'm trying to build a druid and I just want to do it right.

KnightErrantJR |

Is there any official errata for the Bestiary? I've been looking around and can't seem find it.
My question is about troglodytes and their lack of a stench ability. I was wondering if it was and oversight or intentional.
Stench is in the Troglodyte aura section, and is defined in the universal monster rules. Its still there, its just a universal rule that refers to stench now so that other "stenchy" monsters use the same mechanic.

![]() |

eris,
You'll want to pose your questions in the Rules Questions forum.

eris |
eris,
You'll want to pose your questions in the Rules Questions forum.
Thanks, Vic. Will do...

Draznar |

Is it a typo or am I unaware of a rules issue but certain monsters in the Bestiary have the feat dodge, but it seems to not be in their AC in the stat block. Two examples being "Azata, Ghaele" on pg 25 & "Demon, Nabasu" on pg 64. Can anyone clarify this for me? Thank you.

![]() |

So, I just noticed that under Sphinx, the text says:
"Although there are many different species of sphinx, the one certain scholars refer to as the “gynosphinx” (a name many sphinxes find insulting) is a wise and majestic creature that is nevertheless terrifying when angered. Less moralistic than their male counterparts (the “androsphinx”—a different creature entirely than the sphinx presented here)" ....
So, where is the androsphinx?!?!?! Might this be in the second Bestiary? I'm VERY interested to know just how different a androsphinx is from a gynosphinx.

Blazej |

So, I just noticed that under Sphinx, the text says:
"Although there are many different species of sphinx, the one certain scholars refer to as the “gynosphinx” (a name many sphinxes find insulting) is a wise and majestic creature that is nevertheless terrifying when angered. Less moralistic than their male counterparts (the “androsphinx”—a different creature entirely than the sphinx presented here)" ....
So, where is the androsphinx?!?!?! Might this be in the second Bestiary? I'm VERY interested to know just how different a androsphinx is from a gynosphinx.
The androsphinx is from the 3.5 SRD.
They were a bit tougher than the gynosphinx and instead of the spell-like abilities, they has a fear inspiring roar and were able to cast spells like a cleric. Not sure if they will show up in the Bestiary 2; might know more in the months immediately prior to the book's release when they start releasing more information about it.

![]() |

Marc Radle 81 wrote:There will indeed be more templates; both the classic kind and of the simple kind.Completely different question:
Will there be any new rules in this second volume? Additional templates for example?
Very cool! Thanks James!!!
Any chance you could give any hints as to what some of them will be? I won't tell, I promise ;)

![]() |

Been doing some detailed reading of the Pathfinder Bestiary and wanted to express something including gratitude.
I absolutely love the descriptions that have been included in this tome. The background to some of the monsters have been amazing. Unfortunately a lot of monster tomes of the past have been very rule based. In the Pathfinder Bestiary you get (space permitting) a background to how a creature came to be and sage advice about origins or creation. This really helps the GM to intelligently think through a lot of information on why a monster should be included in a campaign, and it helps as a springboard for PCs consulting sages as to a monsters origins.
Sometimes we throw in a monster because it seems cool at the time, but doesn't always make sense in the grand scheme of things. Monster background information should not be underestimated.
Thanks Paizo for you're hard work here and if you ever bring out a tome on detailed monster background, count me in.
Mark

SunKing |
Stupid question - in the 3.5 MM it was easy to tell between attack and full attack. With the Bestiary I'm mystified. When is it a full attack, when it is merely an attack (as a standard action), and when is it simply a several available attack options. Example: the Vrock reads this in its stat block (Bestiary p. 69):
Melee 2 claws +13(2d6+5), bite +13 (1d8+5), 2 talons +13 (1d6+5)
Are these options for its standard attack, or is this its full attack?
In MM 3.5 (p 48),this would have been its full attack.
Can anyone shed light on this question?
Thanks