Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 2 (OGL)

I love the book, but here are a couple of questions about the crawling hand:

1) Shouldn't its size be Tiny instead of Diminutive?
2) Is the damage for its slam attack truly supposed to be '1d1+1'? Or is this a typo? I would get 1d2+1 or 1d4+1, but now it's awfully low, even for a 1/2 CR monster.

Otherwise it's a really nice monster, but when I compare it to the "original" (3.5 crawling claw) these changes seem weird to me (unless they're errors?).

Diminutive is smaller than Tiny. Size Tiny effectively covers things that are just under the size of a gnome up to just over the size of a house cat. As nothing more than a severed hand, it's smaller than a house cat (Tiny) but larger than a fly (Fine), which puts it squarely into the Diminutive category.

The use of "1d1" as a damage range is weird, but correct. It's important to indicate damage die values for the purposes of size increases. There's no difference between listing damage as "1" or
"1d1," in any event. As for whether this is too low for a CR 1/2 creature... there's more going on with this monster than it's damage. A monster doesn't have to precisely match what table 1–1 in the Bestiary predicts... in fact, most monsters SHOULDN'T precisely match that table. If they did, we'd only have to ever publish 20 monster stat blocks and that'd be dull.

So, while the crawling hand's damage might be lower than the expected damage range for a CR 1/2 monster, it's +5 attack roll with that attack is significantly higher. One is low to account for the other being high.

Diminutive effectively covers things that are just under the size of a gnome up to just over the size of a house cat.

That sounds more like a description of Tiny?

James Jacobs wrote:

Diminutive effectively covers things that are just under the size of a gnome up to just over the size of a house cat.

That sounds more like a description of Tiny?

I'm sure James just forgot to have a developer or editor go over his post before he published it :P

Asgetrion wrote:

I love the book, but here are a couple of questions about the crawling hand:

1) Shouldn't its size be Tiny instead of Diminutive?
2) Is the damage for its slam attack truly supposed to be '1d1+1'? Or is this a typo? I would get 1d2+1 or 1d4+1, but now it's awfully low, even for a 1/2 CR monster.

Otherwise it's a really nice monster, but when I compare it to the "original" (3.5 crawling claw) these changes seem weird to me (unless they're errors?).

Diminutive is smaller than Tiny. Diminutive effectively covers things that are just under the size of a gnome up to just over the size of a house cat. As nothing more than a severed hand, it's smaller than a house cat (Tiny) but larger than a fly (Fine), which puts it squarely into the Diminutive category.

The use of "1d1" as a damage range is weird, but correct. It's important to indicate damage die values for the purposes of size increases. There's no difference between listing damage as "1" or
"1d1," in any event. As for whether this is too low for a CR 1/2 creature... there's more going on with this monster than it's damage. A monster doesn't have to precisely match what table 1–1 in the Bestiary predicts... in fact, most monsters SHOULDN'T precisely match that table. If they did, we'd only have to ever publish 20 monster stat blocks and that'd be dull.

So, while the crawling hand's damage might be lower than the expected damage range for a CR 1/2 monster, it's +5 attack roll with that attack is significantly higher. One is low to account for the other being high.

Yeah, I can get that, although I'm still of the mind that 1d1 is too low... ;) 'Strangle' and 'Mark Quarry' are cool abilities, though.

Hmmm... I guess I have to abandon my idea of using a crawling hand swarm in my game. I had planned to have a small bedroom (a canopy bed, to be precise) infested with crawling hands... perhaps 50-300 all in all, which would still work as a swarm of Tiny creatures. However, 1500 hands (i.e. the minimum amount for a swarm of non-flying Diminutive creatures) could not hide in the room, and my intention was to surprise the PCs (who will most likely start searching the bed for any treasure) with individual hands that quickly scurry up to form the swarm. The idea was that one of the PCs would see a spider-like thing starting to descend a bedpost, and another would see movement under the bed, the third one would actually grab one of the hands under some pillows, etc. However, I think I'll go with the 3E version of crawling claw swarm, because it suits my purpose better.

Asgetrion wrote:

Liz Courts wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

Can someone tell me if the Graveknight made it into the Bestiary 2???

It did not.

It should definitely be in Bestiary 3, because the Graveknight is the best version of this classic monster!

Graveknight won't be in the Inner Sea World Guide.

If and when we do a Bestiary 3, it's probably going to be in there though. In fact, chances of us doing something with graveknights even earlier than that? 100%.

Undead Revisited will have 6 pages of graveknight later this year.

Hey, that's awesome! Nice to see Graveknight getting more attention; hopefully there will be variant abilities in the book, too? And not just for the Graveknight, but all those undead; I just love variant abilities and I've used them a *LOT* (for example, I've used almost all the walking dead abilities in CHR, and the vampire BBEG in my campaign immediately got 'Sunlight Resistance' and 'Swarm Form').

I guess Bestiary 2 has sold enough that you guys can confirm that there will (eventually) be a Bestiary 3? :)

Well my coppy of Bestiary 2 just came in to my game store on tuesday...
It got shipped to New York, then up to Toronto Canada, then back across Canada to Calgary Alberta, then directly south to Lethbridge Alberta to the game store where I go to. Wich is above and a little east of Spokane Washington/Coeur d'Alene Idaho but in Canada :) We are actually over Great Falls Montanna but since we are so close to the other big city that is more well known I thought it would be easier to get a pic in the mind :) The Inner Sea Primer came in as well :)

But they were worth the wate :)

Man im chomping at the bit to read through this book but Amazon has mine back ordered until the end of Jan. This, a new battle map, and the PFRPG Freeport book are coming for my players enjoyment and they dont know it yet. Then again im the one that is a Pathfinder addict and they just benefit from the obsession.

James Jacobs wrote:

Diminutive effectively covers things that are just under the size of a gnome up to just over the size of a house cat.

That sounds more like a description of Tiny?

Correct. I'll fix that error.

Hmmm... I guess I have to abandon my idea of using a crawling hand swarm in my game. I had planned to have a small bedroom (a canopy bed, to be precise) infested with crawling hands... perhaps 50-300 all in all, which would still work as a swarm of Tiny creatures. However, 1500 hands (i.e. the minimum amount for a swarm of non-flying Diminutive creatures) could not hide in the room, and my intention was to surprise the PCs (who will most likely start searching the bed for any treasure) with individual hands that quickly scurry up to form the swarm. The idea was that one of the PCs would see a spider-like thing starting to descend a bedpost, and another would see movement under the bed, the third one would actually grab one of the hands under some pillows, etc. However, I think I'll go with the 3E version of crawling claw swarm, because it suits my purpose better.

Since the total number of creatures that makes up a swarm has no connection at all to a swarm's actual stats, that total number is nothing more than flavor text. You can certainly have a swarm of crawling hands—in fact, the easiest way to do this is to just use the stats for a rat swarm and just describe the swarm as a mass of crawling hands instead of rats when the game is underway. You don't even really need to change the stats at all, to be honest. If you wanted, though, you could drop the rat swarm's disease ability and simply give the swarm the strangle ability, saying that anyone being distracted by the swarm's damage can't talk or cast spells with verbal components.

And of course, backwards compatibility means that the 3E stats for the crawling claw swarm work great as well.

Hey just wanted to let everyone know that we are running a best the bestiary 2 challenge here at Emerald Knights. In the challenge players make a 5th level character using the 20 point buy system, 10,500 gp, the core rulebook and advanced player's guide. they then have 30 minutes to try and defeat a cr 3, cr4, and cr 5 each in their natural habitats one after the other. So far we have had 5 contestants and 2 have managed to defeat all 3. They were a paladin and a monk. It has been really cool and we are running it through Sunday this Jan 9th.

Check out the event here.

Asgetrion wrote:

Hmmm... I guess I have to abandon my idea of using a crawling hand swarm in my game. I had planned to have a small bedroom (a canopy bed, to be precise) infested with crawling hands... perhaps 50-300 all in all, which would still work as a swarm of Tiny creatures. However, 1500 hands (i.e. the minimum amount for a swarm of non-flying Diminutive creatures) could not hide in the room, and my intention was to surprise the PCs (who will most likely start searching the bed for any treasure) with individual hands that quickly scurry up to form the swarm. The idea was that one of the PCs would see a spider-like thing starting to descend a bedpost, and another would see movement under the bed, the third one would actually grab one of the hands under some pillows, etc. However, I think I'll go with the 3E version of crawling claw swarm, because it suits my purpose better.

Since the total number of creatures that makes up a swarm has no connection at all to a swarm's actual stats, that total number is nothing more than flavor text. You can certainly have a swarm of crawling hands—in fact, the easiest way to do this is to just use the stats for a rat swarm and just describe the swarm as a mass of crawling hands instead of rats when the game is underway. You don't even really need to change the stats at all, to be honest. If you wanted, though, you could drop the rat swarm's disease ability and simply give the swarm the strangle ability, saying that anyone being distracted by the swarm's damage can't talk or cast spells with verbal components.

And of course, backwards compatibility means that the 3E stats for the crawling claw swarm work great as well.

Hey, that's a great suggestion -- thanks, James! :)

Another question: the new Belker looks really, really good, but I'm a bit confused about its 'Smoke Claws' ability. Namely, this ability seems to contradict itself in saying that when a victim swallows a part of it, the Belker can use this ability as a swift action; however, the description then goes on to say that when the victim succeeds in the fort save, the Belker is forced out and appears on an adjacent square (making it weird as a swift action; if the whole Belker is inside a victim, it's irrelevant whether it's a standard or swift action). It appears to me that originally this ability was supposed to be an "extra" (swift) action; the Belker could "infest" multiple victims and one of them would then be subject to 'Smoke Claws' on top of its normal attacks; however, apparently this was changed later on (or maybe it was the other way around?).

So, my question is: does the Belker "vanish" inside one of its victims or is it supposed an "extra" action it gets on top of full attack?

I just recently go this book. I think it's very good. I really liked the Qlippoth entries.

I have some minor complaints about the art.

I do not like the new look for the Athach.

I liked the Daemons. However, I wish there was a picture for the Lesser Ceustodaemon.

There are no pictures for the Compsognathus and Parasaurolophus dinosaurs.

I liked the old Nightwalker better than the new one. The featureless look of the old one seemed more menacing somehow.

There are no pictures for the Compsognathus and Parasaurolophus dinosaurs.

Here ya go.

Compsognathus

and

Parasaurolophus

Hope these help!

Just a question. I ordered the book in germany via Amazon. Amazon has still the lowest price. I´m just wondering why every small rpg-shop has the book in stock - but amazon doesn´t even have a release date (at least amazon.com hast listed 19. january). Is this some kind of boycott?

I won´t cancel my order on amazon, because I´m not going to pay nearly 10 dollars more in another shop...

Just a question. I ordered the book in germany via Amazon. Amazon has still the lowest price. I´m just wondering why every small rpg-shop has the book in stock - but amazon doesn´t even have a release date (at least amazon.com hast listed 19. january). Is this some kind of boycott?

I won´t cancel my order on amazon, because I´m not going to pay nearly 10 dollars more in another shop...

Amazon is taking the PF books not from Paizo, but from the US distributor Alliance, and if they make a hiccup (which, admittedly, they do quite often when it comes to PF books), the whole Amazon is held up.

Here ya go.

Compsognathus

and

Parasaurolophus

Hope these help!

Thanks. I just wanted to voice my complaint so that future bestiries will include pictures for all of the monster entries. I can understand leaving out a picture of an everyday creature like the ram, but there is no excuse for not depicting the Lesser Ceustodaemon.

Thanks. I just wanted to voice my complaint so that future bestiries will include pictures for all of the monster entries. I can understand leaving out a picture of an everyday creature like the ram, but there is no excuse for not depicting the Lesser Ceustodaemon.

It's a matter of space. The lesser ceustodaemon is a variant creature. It has only a paragraph of text to describe it. In order to fit in a picture, they would have to either remove the picture of the regular ceustodaemon (which would then just create complaints that that one wasn't pictured) or remove a big chunk of text, probably including the description of the lesser ceustodaemon, which would then make the picture completely pointless.

It's the same difficulty with the dinosaurs. There are two dinosaur entries per page, but only enough space for one picture. To put in the picture, they'd have to remove the stats and description, making the picture pointless. Alternatively, they could give a full page to each dinosaur entry, but that would require removing two other entire monsters from the book.

Swamp Druid wrote:

Thanks. I just wanted to voice my complaint so that future bestiries will include pictures for all of the monster entries. I can understand leaving out a picture of an everyday creature like the ram, but there is no excuse for not depicting the Lesser Ceustodaemon.

It's a matter of space. The lesser ceustodaemon is a variant creature. It has only a paragraph of text to describe it. In order to fit in a picture, they would have to either remove the picture of the regular ceustodaemon (which would then just create complaints that that one wasn't pictured) or remove a big chunk of text, probably including the description of the lesser ceustodaemon, which would then make the picture completely pointless.

It's the same difficulty with the dinosaurs. There are two dinosaur entries per page, but only enough space for one picture. To put in the picture, they'd have to remove the stats and description, making the picture pointless. Alternatively, they could give a full page to each dinosaur entry, but that would require removing two other entire monsters from the book.

Well put!

It's a matter of space. The lesser ceustodaemon is a variant creature. It has only a paragraph of text to describe it. In order to fit in a picture, they would have to either remove the picture of the regular ceustodaemon (which would then just create complaints that that one wasn't pictured) or remove a big chunk of text, probably including the description of the lesser ceustodaemon, which would then make the picture completely pointless.

It's the same difficulty with the dinosaurs. There are two dinosaur entries per page, but only enough space for one picture. To put in the picture, they'd have to remove the stats and description, making the picture pointless. Alternatively, they could give a full page to each dinosaur entry, but that would require removing two other entire monsters from the book.

Just have one picture with both of the demons standing next to each other.

Just have one picture with both of the demons standing next to each other.

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Swamp Druid wrote:

Just have one picture with both of the demons standing next to each other.

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Seriously??

More precisely, if you tell an artist "draw one monster, we'll pay you $X," and then tell you, "this time we want you to draw two monsters, we'll pay you $X," the artist will say, "why should I do double the work for the same pay?"

I mean, would you do 2x the work for the same pay as 1x the work? Drawing two dinosaurs is twice as much work as drawing one dinosaur.

Also... I personally am not fond of group shots for monster books. It makes it awkward on a lot of levels to do anything with the art if you want to do something with it later, like show it to a group when they encounter the monster, or re-use the art in a later product, or (worst case scenario) if at the last minute for some reason one of the two monsters needs to be cut from the book.

Best (and less expensive, as Sean points out) to keep the illustrations one to a picture for the monster books.

In any event, the only times we'll miss out on an illustration is on the simpler monsters like animals and vermin who have only half-page entries. Since these creatures are from the real world, 99% of the time a quick internet search reveals good pictures of them. And usually, that's not even a problem. I've not heard anyone complaining about the fact that we didn't illustrate dolphins or rams or baboons, for example...

Hmmmmm, I actually loved the new look of the Athach. That was always a monster that just seemed goofy to me. Now...with just a cosmetic improvement...creepy/scary as hell!

Also like the new Nightwalker...

Which has me conflicted when it comes to miniatures. Have so many based on WoTC artwork, and now with Pathfinder, I find I like their style better oftentimes!

Guess you can never have too many miniatures/toys right? Right?

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Well, that's surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that was the case.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Well, that's surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that was the case.

Why not, it does take longer for the artist to actually draw the creatures out, put color to them and then finalize them for the book. Not to mention doing it the way that Paizo wants it done. While it is in the artists particular style, the art still undergoes editing too, just like the text in the book.

As an Artist myself I would most certainly charge double or close to double for a double NPC/Creature art block. What I am surprised about that people would be surprised that this would not be charged double for?? It is not like the artist does this for free or that he/she needs to make a living.

Marc Radle wrote:

I know it's only been a day (more or less) but is there any update on this?

I'm just trying to figure out if I should wait a couple more days and still use my BN gift card or just say the heck with it and order the book from Paizo now and use the BN card for something else.

Thanks!

No news, but even if they finalized their order today, I'm sure it'd still take at least a few days for it to reach one of their warehouses.

So, is it too soon to follow up and see if anything concrete has been resolved on this front? :)

Swamp Druid wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Well, that's surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that was the case.

Why not, it does take longer for the artist to actually draw the creatures out, put color to them and then finalize them for the book. Not to mention doing it the way that Paizo wants it done. While it is in the artists particular style, the art still undergoes editing too, just like the text in the book.

As an Artist myself I would most certainly charge double or close to double for a double NPC/Creature art block. What I am surprised about that people would be surprised that this would not be charged double for?? It is not like the artist does this for free or that he/she needs to make a living.

Thank you Deanoth. I was initially surprised as well to read that, but after second thoughts, it made sense. I think you articulated the issue wonderfully.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

That actually costs as much as two separate pictures.

Well, that's surprising. I wouldn't have guessed that was the case.

In terms of $$$: 1 piece of full color artwork = 5 pages of designing, developing and editing monsters. Art is the killer part of any monster book budget.

Vic Wertz wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

I know it's only been a day (more or less) but is there any update on this?

I'm just trying to figure out if I should wait a couple more days and still use my BN gift card or just say the heck with it and order the book from Paizo now and use the BN card for something else.

Thanks!

No news, but even if they finalized their order today, I'm sure it'd still take at least a few days for it to reach one of their warehouses.

So, is it too soon to follow up and see if anything concrete has been resolved on this front? :)

No news yet...

I know this question concerns the first Bestiary -- and therefore doesn't probably belong here (yet I'll ask it anyway) -- but I just realized that Owlbear does not have Rend or Ferocity, both of which I think would have been very appropriate abilities for it. Why? It *does* have Grab, but it doesn't have Constrict (or anything similar) that would benefit from Grab. Are there any particular reasons (and I'm not shaking my fist at you guys; I'm just curious ;)) for omitting Rend and Ferocity, and yet giving it Grab but not anything that would mechanically work with it?

Hey all,

Been a while since I've been on...not that any of you should know me...but, at any rate :)

I have a question regarding the new Bestiary 2. It would be great if someone in the know at Paizo is able to answer.

I was going over the book with my fine-toothed comb (as I am wont to do) when I came across the entries for the Centipede (both Whiptail and Titan) and I ask myself "Where have I seen these before?"

So I tells myself, "Look at the first Bestiary". And I did, and I found the entry on page 43 of the first Bestiary as a single line.

My question is...what was the reason to flesh out two creatures that were not worth more than one line each in one book and keep two new different creatures from being put in the new book?

I know this question concerns the first Bestiary -- and therefore doesn't probably belong here (yet I'll ask it anyway) -- but I just realized that Owlbear does not have Rend or Ferocity, both of which I think would have been very appropriate abilities for it. Why? It *does* have Grab, but it doesn't have Constrict (or anything similar) that would benefit from Grab. Are there any particular reasons (and I'm not shaking my fist at you guys; I'm just curious ;)) for omitting Rend and Ferocity, and yet giving it Grab but not anything that would mechanically work with it?

Two reasons it doesn't have those abilities:

1) Tradition. It didn't really have them before, and adding them would not honor that fine owlbear tradition.

2) It's current damage values are balanced about right for its CR, in theory. Giving it rend or constrict would make it meaner, and thus require a new look at its CR.

Were I redesigning the owlbear today, I'd strongly consider giving it something to do with its grab attack though.

I was going over the book with my fine-toothed comb (as I am wont to do) when I came across the entries for the Centipede (both Whiptail and Titan) and I ask myself "Where have I seen these before?"

So I tells myself, "Look at the first Bestiary". And I did, and I found the entry on page 43 of the first Bestiary as a single line.

My question is...what was the reason to flesh out two creatures that were not worth more than one line each in one book and keep two new different creatures from being put in the new book?

The reason to flesh them out is because in 3.5, all the different size vermin DID have their own stat blocks. We want to eventually get all the size categories back in the game.

That said... one thing that I didn't like was how bland the 3.5 vermin were. Especially when you look at how varied real-life insects and spiders and the like actually are.

So! By putting these vermin into Bestiary 2, not only do we increase the amount of vermin in that book, but we make those vermin interesting. Now we have spiders like the tarantula that can fling barbed hairs, or the super-fast stinging black scorpion, or the whiptail centipede and its super-long reach.

SO in the end, I'd say that they're worth a lot more than one line in the Bestiary, but that we didn't have the room to do a half-dozen full writeups for every spider, scorpion, crab, and centipede we COULD have done.

Very well said, James!

And let me say that I am very happy you decided to publish them that way; for example, the Giant Whiptail Centipede and the tarantula are a LOT more interesting than the giant versions in 3E MMs. As it happens, I wanteded two higher-CR versions of the giant spider for the next nession, and black widow and tarantula are *just* what I need; without Bestiary 2, I probably would have used heavily modified versions of the Phase Spider. And that is another aspect I like in Pathfinder; maybe it's the more elegant and cohesive format, or the more comprehensive and "codified" mechanics, but I feel like advancing, modifying and building monsters is much easier than it was in 3E. :)

I am just saying (or trying to articulate) I would rather be buying the Paizo Publishing GameMastery Box of Monster Tokens than I would the Hasbro Toys Wizards of the Coast Box of Monster Tokens....

Ditto. Here's another vote for creature counters in the future.

Asgetrion wrote:

I know this question concerns the first Bestiary -- and therefore doesn't probably belong here (yet I'll ask it anyway) -- but I just realized that Owlbear does not have Rend or Ferocity, both of which I think would have been very appropriate abilities for it. Why? It *does* have Grab, but it doesn't have Constrict (or anything similar) that would benefit from Grab. Are there any particular reasons (and I'm not shaking my fist at you guys; I'm just curious ;)) for omitting Rend and Ferocity, and yet giving it Grab but not anything that would mechanically work with it?

Two reasons it doesn't have those abilities:

1) Tradition. It didn't really have them before, and adding them would not honor that fine owlbear tradition.

2) It's current damage values are balanced about right for its CR, in theory. Giving it rend or constrict would make it meaner, and thus require a new look at its CR.

Were I redesigning the owlbear today, I'd strongly consider giving it something to do with its grab attack though.

I think I'll give the owlbear rend and ferocity in my games, and raise its CR to 5. It would be kind of cool to give it bear hug (constrict) as well...

James, how about the belker's Smoke Claws ability I asked above? Sorry about pressing you on this; I'd just want to know the answer before the next session. :)

My order from Barnes & Noble still hasn't shipped. Did they ever finalize that order, or should I just cancel at this point and buy direct?

James, how about the belker's Smoke Claws ability I asked above? Sorry about pressing you on this; I'd just want to know the answer before the next session. :)

Makes more sense to me to have the belker vanish into its vicitm when it uses this ability.

Asgetrion wrote:

James, how about the belker's Smoke Claws ability I asked above? Sorry about pressing you on this; I'd just want to know the answer before the next session. :)

Makes more sense to me to have the belker vanish into its vicitm when it uses this ability.

Thanks, James! Yep, it does; although it'd also be kind of cool if it could use "extra" smoke claws attack on several victims (if it were a free action, that is). I think the claw damage should be similar to how rend works, instead of weirdly arbitrary 3d4 (I kind of wonder where that is derived from anyway).

My order from Barnes & Noble still hasn't shipped. Did they ever finalize that order...?

Apparently not. But B&N is kind of weird in that they place initial orders through our sole book trade distributor, Diamond Books... but they place their reorders through another distributor, Ingram. (What makes that especially weird is that Ingram doesn't buy directly from us—they buy from Diamond Books too.)

Given that B&N missed the initial shipment from Diamond, they may have decided to order from Ingram, and because we have no direct relationship with Ingram, we wouldn't know if they did.

Mine shipped from Amazon yesterday, despite telling me they wouldn't have any in stock until January 21st. Wheeee!

I work at a BN and it appears that this title has arrived in the warehouse, albeit in limited stock.

I work at a BN and it appears that this title has arrived in the warehouse, albeit in limited stock.

Thanks for letting us know that!

and now my 2nd copy (after my subscription copy) has shipped from Amazon. Looks like they're catching up....

Ederin Elswyr wrote:

My order from Barnes & Noble still hasn't shipped. Did they ever finalize that order...?

Apparently not. But B&N is kind of weird in that they place initial orders through our sole book trade distributor, Diamond Books... but they place their reorders through another distributor, Ingram. (What makes that especially weird is that Ingram doesn't buy directly from us—they buy from Diamond Books too.)

Given that B&N missed the initial shipment from Diamond, they may have decided to order from Ingram, and because we have no direct relationship with Ingram, we wouldn't know if they did.

For the sake of accuracy and completeness, B&N *also* places reorders from a distributor called Baker & Taylor (who, like Ingram, buys from Diamond, not directly from us).

There's an error with the Quickling in the book that I noticed. They're lacking their traditional spell-like abilities.

Was this intentional? I hope not, fey are magical creatures after all, and it's SLA helped make it the nuisance it was made to be. Maybe offer as a variant if not for a core quickling. I assume giving it the SLA would make it a CR 4 fey.

Still wondering about the quickling SLA?

Joseph Wilson wrote:

I work at a BN and it appears that this title has arrived in the warehouse, albeit in limited stock.

Thanks for letting us know that!

I can also confirm that it has begun arriving on store shelves. However, Lost Cities of Golarion still seems to be MIA in any of our warehouses. Not sure if they may have missed the boat on that one as well when they didn't order Bestiary 2's, or whatever it was that had happened.

However, Lost Cities of Golarion still seems to be MIA in any of our warehouses.

Apparently B&N rarely orders our softcovers, except when they're specifically ordered by a customer. We're trying to convince them to change that.