Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL)

4.90/5 (based on 14 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover $39.99

Add PDF $9.99

Non-Mint Unavailable

Facebook Twitter Email

Test your courage against the most infamous foes of myth and legend! Bestiary 3 presents hundreds of monsters for use in the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. Within this book you’ll find demiliches and demodands, grave knights and goblin snakes, norns and nephilim, imperial dragons and unfettered eidolons, and so much more! Yet not every creature needs to be an enemy, as winged garudas, crafty tanukis, and leonine lammasus all wait to join your party and answer the call of glory.

The Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 is the third indispensable volume of monsters for use with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game and serves as a companion to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Pathfinder RPG Bestiary. This imaginative tabletop game builds upon more than 10 years of system development and an Open Playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time bestselling set of fantasy rules into the new millennium.

The Pathfinder RPG Bestiary 3 includes:

  • More than 300 different monsters
  • Classic terrors from myth and literature, from the frumious bandersnatch and the righteous valkyrie to the cunning dybbuk and elusive kappa
  • Hordes of new creatures you can construct, grow, or summon to aid your party in its adventures
  • New player-friendly races to let you adventure as canny ratfolk, genie-blooded sulis, and more
  • New familiars, animal companions, and other allies
  • Challenges for any adventure and every level of play
  • Some of the strangest and most beloved creatures from fantasy roleplaying history and the Pathfinder campaign setting
  • Hosts of new templates and variants
  • Appendices to aid in monster navigation, including lists by Challenge Rating, monster type, and habitat
  • Expanded universal monster rules to simplify special attacks, defenses, and qualities
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-378-1

Errata
Last Updated - 11/10/2014

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Unavailable

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1120


See Also:

1 to 5 of 14 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.90/5 (based on 14 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Another great addition to the Bestiary products

5/5

Reading through Bestiary 1 and 2, I was hoping that there will be even more eastern themed monsters. This Bestiary delivers just what I wanted! A must buy! Also, Flumph!!!


Best of the Bestiary

5/5

Bestiary 3 review is up on my blog.

This is probably my favorite of the Bestiaries so far, the content covers many iconic monsters from editions past, and stuff from the Adventure Paths. With great Asian flair for the Tian Xia world guide that is coming up, as well as many incredible monsters that have never graced the pages of a monster guide but are very welcome.


A great addition!

5/5

Although I'm generally opposed to the concept of core book "sequels," the content in 'Bestiary 3' is top notch. Whereas it took me some time to realize the usefulness of the monsters presented in 'Bestiary 2' (extraplanar/dimensional encounters rarely play a role in my campaigns), I immediately recognized many of the creatures in 'Bestiary 3' as either "iconic" or interesting variations on an established monster class.

As is to be expected, this book is well laid out and the illustrations are (mostly) top notch - Paizo rarely disappoints here! The Pathfinder Campaign Setting is still missing a few iconic monsters (mostly due to WotC's draconic licensing practices), but this volume (and the two which preceded it) gives GMs a huge variety of creatures to populate their encounters.

If I could make any suggestions for future 'Bestiary' volumes, the first would be to expand upon the lore provided - I realize it would likely halve the number of creatures included per book, but a two page spread (even for "simple" creatures like oozes) might help a GM find a place for a given creature within his campaign setting. Also, better illustrating a creature's size (perhaps even graphically) would be useful - general size classifications only go so far, and being able to see a silhouette of a given entry next to a human-sized creature would give both GMs and players a clear understanding of exactly how big a monster is (this was employed beautifully in an old FASA publication for Shadowrun: 'Paranormal Animals of North America' by Nigel Findley). Again, these are just suggestions on ways to improve an otherwise outstanding collection of Bestiaries. Keep up the good work!


Dodging the law of sequels

5/5

An excellent monster book, strong mythological presence (from various cultures). Probably even better than Bestiary 2. And it has the flumph! (this is a good thing, well its worth a page) If you're looking for a monster book for some critters outside of the real core you would well to pick this up.


Well done!

5/5

Apparently, bestiaries are the strongest point of Paizo, since, as opposed to the "Ultimate" line, their quality is not decreased from the core books. I would dare to say it is actually improved.

The book contains monsters inspired by several cultures, and is a delightful little travel in folklore other than a very good RPG supplement.

Creatures qualities and special attacks are effective and diverse (with few exceptions), from a wisely added double bite attack, to more complex and GM-inspiring out and in- combat powers.

Animals and vermins are well made, and the preistoric ones are more diverse than the usual "more dinosaurs" (but fear not, dinosaurs fan will not be disappointed).

Fey are very good, even if I wished some more high CR ones (but, hellooo, Norn!). Few aberrations, H.P. Lovercraft inspired, definitively removed my mind flayer nostalgia. Great love for the nagas too.

Plants are scary. Undeads are SCARIER, and you will love the new dreadful templates added.

Monstrous humanoids and magical beasts come in different shapes and exotic powers.

Oozes are finally interesting! Even an ooze-hater like me found entries able to intrigue me.

Constructs are excellent. We find some clerical domain based ones, golems able to do more than just bash the enemy, and a brand new category incredibly cool.

Dragons come with several minor ones, the oriental sovereign (mixed feelings) and new, awesome linnorms.

Outsiders are the true gem of this bestiary, expecially fiends. New fiend families are introduced to us, expanding previous single monsters (Kyton, Oni, Rakshasa) in whole families and introducing Asuras, Divs ad Demodands. Paladins have hands full! I needed them so much for my setting, expecially Divs wich seems tailor-made for a specific roles for my infernal legions.

Completely different Outsiders are the guardians Kami. If you do not want to use oriental material, change their background in druidic or whatever spirit guardians is very easy.

My only big remarks are about the powers of the Hekatonkheires titan, quite "meh" for a CR 24 monster in my humble opinion.

Moreover, some monster type is strange. Why the yuki-no-ona is undead? That is a good chance lost for a middle-CR fey.

Said this, good job! Keep this pace, and I will buy up to bestiary 20 :)


1 to 5 of 14 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
201 to 250 of 1,123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

With kaiju, we can possible make some sacred beasts that act as local deities.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Razz wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

Still not early enough to say MUCH more, but you can expect the number of templates in this book to roughly equal the number in the first two Bestiaries—AKA, there'll be a few, but not a lot. Templates are neat, but they're kinda like prestige classes—they got overdone in 3.5, but also I think that a Bestiary's a better place for new monsters, rather than new monster recipes (aka Templates or advanced rules for existing monsters).

A big book of templates, a la Green Ronin's excellent "Advanced Bestiary," though, would be cool.

Sounds like you're also saying it'd be also cool to just do one big book of Prestige Classes so us PrC-Lovers can stop whining, right? ;)
I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorperate a bunch of world content.

I would love to see a Campaign Setting book full of Prestige Classes. What a great way to expand Golarion content outside of the Regional books (which are excellent too btw).

Silver Crusade

James Jacobs wrote:
I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.

A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.


Slipstream wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.
A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.

Again, that's what the PF Campaign line is for. Not the PF Roleplaying Game line, which is more world-neutral. They should do 2 books of PrC, one for the PF Campaign line and the other for the PF RPG line.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

will there be any new dinos? if so, i'm hoping for a therezinosaur.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorperate a bunch of world content.

James

I would love this. Let's do it...


Razz wrote:
Slipstream wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
I think a big prestige class book could be cool! Although I think it'd be a stronger book if it were a Campaign Setting book and not a generic rulebook so we could incorporate a bunch of world content.
A prestige class book is still a prestige class book! I'd pick it up :) I don't think incorporating a Golarion-centric class into another setting would be that hard. It's all about shifting the flavor and description to accommodate the world you are playing in.
Again, that's what the PF Campaign line is for. Not the PF Roleplaying Game line, which is more world-neutral. They should do 2 books of PrC, one for the PF Campaign line and the other for the PF RPG line.

I agree that Pathfinder needs more settings-neutral Prestige Classes. If they're going to make a Book of Prestige Classes, however, I think it should only be the one. Perhaps looking something like this, in the spirit of compromise.

Chapter 1: Introduction to Prestige Class / Philosophy Behind Prestige
Chapter 2: New Prestige Classes (Setting Neutral)
Chapter 3: Feats (I'd like to see more feats that promote Multiclassing; a book on Prestige Classes NEEDS to be able to support Multiclassing. Stuff along Wild Shape Focus (name?) would be cool.)
Chapter 4: The Prestiged of Golarion (some reprinted from older material, some new).
Chapter 5: Designing Your Own Prestige Classes (includes advice on how to build Prestige Classes and how to incorporate them into your world. Uses Chapter 4's content as examples).

Sovereign Court

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I am against a book of prestige classes!

I wouldn't like the prc bloat of old to return to the game.
I am totally ok with the fact that there are a lot of other options to choose from and that there are only some prc which add _flavour_ to the game.

I couldn't care less for a rules element which isn't central to the game any more according to the makers of the very game. If any new prc, then please keep it setting specific. That's imho the niche prc fill very nicely.

Kr,
G.


As fascinating as all this talk about a product on prestige classes is, I don't suppose we could return to the topic of this thread, please? I'm not meaning to be a party-pooper or anything... Besides, it will make a great topic for a new thread, and will probably be noticed more readily by the good folks at Paizo (and thus increase the likelihood of such a product being considered for development...). ;)

And, no, I'm not going to start such a thread for all those interested in a book on prestige classes because I prefer fewer prestige classes that are also setting-specific, thank you. (This is just my preference. Others will feel differently...)

WRT the Pathfinder Bestiary 3: I'm looking forward to all the new (and not so new, if you a collector of the Adventure Paths) monsters, as well as updates/reprints of the monsters from the Bonus Bestiary! (Where I'm currently living, the Bonus Bestiary is not - and never was - available in print form...)

Can't wait for next year! (The Bestiary 3 has an expected release date sometime in November: again, where I'm currently living, Pathfinder books become available only after 6 weeks to 3 months AFTER they're officially released, so... <grumble grumble>)

Thank you.
(^v^)=b

--C.

Owner - House of Books and Games LLC

Psiphyre wrote:
As fascinating as all this talk about a product on prestige classes is, I don't suppose we could return to the topic of this thread, please? I'm not meaning to be a party-pooper or anything... Besides, it will make a great topic for a new thread, and will probably be noticed more readily by the good folks at Paizo (and thus increase the likelihood of such a product being considered for development...). ;)

Actually, there was such a thread, in which it was revealed how truly Evil prestige classes are, how much better archetypes are, and how much better the universe is now that Paizo no longer really wants to make prestige classes.

Or at least that's what it felt like :)

In any case, I'm all for supporting prestige classes, even if it will cause the World As We Know It to End Horribly. After all, I've had a lot of fun in games with a lot of access to prestige classes, and just because they can be foolish and overbalanced does not mean they have to be.


This is not a prestige classes thread, it's a Bestiary thread.

I would like new specific half-Celestial (i.e. half-Movanic Deva), half-Fiend (i.e. half-succubus) templates, and half-X outsider templates, with some customizing available.


Okay so even assuming That this book won't contain anything post-AP36 (saw a quote mentionned). They could just pool and reprint 36 AP, various source book monsters and what 15 Pathfinder modules worth of stuff and that comes to what? 100, 120+ beasties? In my eyes that's worth the pricetag alone, updated statblocks and art from loads of books I don't have? Gotta call that a winner.
Guessing they'll scour the old 3.5 ogl tomes of yore for more funky monsters to reimagine. Which again is worth the price tag.
But even factoring reprints and reinventions, I'm guessing we'll get all sorts of crazily awesome new monsters from all over the place. Maybe see more monsters alluded to in the lore or variants described in the Ecologies of beasties.

The only problems I got with the bestiary entries is the shortened fluff. But I suppose that's what the AP and Revisited books are for eh? Speaking of which. When James Jacobs and his crew take a break from this years awesome, I wonder which ten they'll revisit next? Outsiders? Fey? Giants?

Currently running Serpent's skull. Is it official? Are we getting no love from African, Indonesian, Aboriginal, South American and various island culture myths? This makes me sad. At least until Bestiary IV

The Exchange Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6

Oggron wrote:

Currently running Serpent's skull. Is it official? Are we getting no love from African, Indonesian, Aboriginal, South American and various island culture myths? This makes me sad. At least until Bestiary IV

I would not jump to that conclusion.


Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?


post your wishes in the
Bestiary 3 wish list

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Soullos wrote:
Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?

Kami will have LOTS of stat blocks by the end of the year.


James Jacobs wrote:
Soullos wrote:
Any chance of Kami being included, or was that the in the Jade Regent AP (I forgot where I read that)?
Kami will have LOTS of stat blocks by the end of the year.

*metal gear solid exclamation mark appears overhead* I'm liking this very much. :D


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What's a kami?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I know there have been a few people asking this, but will there be any new dinosaurs in this bestiary? If so, my wishes are a Balaur, Therizinosaurus, and Stygimoloch. For the "international" theme, I would suggest elaphrosaurus (africa), microraptor swarm (china), giganotosaurus (argentina), masaikasaurus (madagascar), and of course spinosaurus (Egypt)


Zaister wrote:
What's a kami?

A kami is a spirit, usually considered divine. It can mean anything from a nature spirit to a god. To whit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kami

Dark Archive

...and MUCH, MUCH MORE!

okay, you got me.


Azure_Zero wrote:

post your wishes in the

Bestiary 3 wish list

Pretty sure they said Bestiary 3 monsters are already chosen and have very little chance of changing. You need to change that to "Bestiary 4 Wish List"


Razz wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:

post your wishes in the

Bestiary 3 wish list
Pretty sure they said Bestiary 3 monsters are already chosen and have very little chance of changing. You need to change that to "Bestiary 4 Wish List"

Then make the Bestiary 4 wish list, and have people post in it.

(**Note** I am not trying to sound like a jerk)


(edited)
:-?


A new book to add, to may order list, yay (semi-sarcasm),
I want the new books, but they are going to be burning a hole in my wallet.


Kthulhu wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

I refuse to buy this if it has anything ressembling Cthulu or his minions in it.

I dislike lovecraft's work

nothing wrong with horror mind you....

As stated, Bestiary 1 and 2 both had Mythos monsters. Bestiary 1 had the shoggoth and the ghoul (yep, hate to break it to you, the ghoul is pure Lovecraft). Bestiary 2 upped the stakes with denizens of Leng, gug, hounds of Tindalos, Leng spiders, serpentfolk, and shantaks. Did you refuse to purchase those?

There are a few monsters in both bestiaries that I don't really care for. But it would be stupid to ignore the other 300+ monsters that are totally awesome just because I think one or two are dumb.

The ghoul is by no means a Lovecraftian invention. In fact, it's origins as a monster can be found in Arabian folklore.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

BenL wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Steelfiredragon wrote:

I refuse to buy this if it has anything ressembling Cthulu or his minions in it.

I dislike lovecraft's work

nothing wrong with horror mind you....

As stated, Bestiary 1 and 2 both had Mythos monsters. Bestiary 1 had the shoggoth and the ghoul (yep, hate to break it to you, the ghoul is pure Lovecraft). Bestiary 2 upped the stakes with denizens of Leng, gug, hounds of Tindalos, Leng spiders, serpentfolk, and shantaks. Did you refuse to purchase those?

There are a few monsters in both bestiaries that I don't really care for. But it would be stupid to ignore the other 300+ monsters that are totally awesome just because I think one or two are dumb.

The ghoul is by no means a Lovecraftian invention. In fact, it's origins as a monster can be found in Arabian folklore.

While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

Scarab Sages

James Jacobs wrote:
While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

Heck, Night of the Living Dead-style zombies owe a great deal to Lovecraft. I suspect most people who haven't read a lot of his work think it's all Cthulhu and Necronomicon and thus underestimate its impact on modern fantasy.


James Jacobs wrote:
While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.

I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The Crypt Keeper wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.
I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

While the look of the ghast in D&D is certainly different than how they look in Lovecraft... what I'm talking about is the actual word itself, and the usage of that word as something related to but tougher than ghouls. THAT is, as far as I can tell, almost all Lovecraft.

I'd certainly be interested to see evidence of the word "ghast" used before Lovecraft as anything other than an archaic form of the word "ghastly." But as far as I can tell, using the word as a noun for the name of a race of anything (let alone ghoul-related things) comes from Lovecraft.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Would that include non-English uses of the word? ;)


James Jacobs wrote:
The Crypt Keeper wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
While the ghoul is indeed from folklore, the way they behave in RPGs owes an AWFUL lot to Lovecraft. And the ghast as a tougher version of a ghoul owes pretty much 100% to Lovecraft.
I can agree on the way Ghouls were depicted in AD&D as being HPL inspired, Ghasts were described as totally different creatures in Dream-quest of Unknown Kadath. In that story they were more animal/bestial than humans (in shape) and considerably larger than ghouls. I don't think it meshes with what has been accepted as the D&D presentation of a ghast which is just a super-ghoul.

While the look of the ghast in D&D is certainly different than how they look in Lovecraft... what I'm talking about is the actual word itself, and the usage of that word as something related to but tougher than ghouls. THAT is, as far as I can tell, almost all Lovecraft.

I'd certainly be interested to see evidence of the word "ghast" used before Lovecraft as anything other than an archaic form of the word "ghastly." But as far as I can tell, using the word as a noun for the name of a race of anything (let alone ghoul-related things) comes from Lovecraft.

A quick etymology search for "ghastly" brings up the following;

"It was formed from the Middle English verb gasten ‘terrify’, which may have been a descendant of the Old English verb gǣstan ‘torment’ (source of aghast). The spelling with gh-, based on ghost, was first used by the 16th-century poet Edmund Spenser, and in due course caught on generally." This seems to be consistent if you look at several pages. Also some sites have gastlich as an early form.
Webster's has "ghast" as being the "Rarely used base adjective of the adverb ghastly." They also have its first use in popular English literature as "before 1864".

So it would seem HPL gets noun credit. But all this is just from a quick Googling.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Kajehase wrote:
Eric Hinkle wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Orannis wrote:
Second: Russian and Norwegian folklore!? Awesome! Kikimora and Vodyanoy, then? I'm having trouble thinking of a Norwegian critter you guys haven't done yet...
There are actually quite a lot of them.
Any chance of seeing the Räven, the Norwegian Foxwoman? I remember a band called Hedningarma made a song about one that was both very well done and downright spooky.

You mean this one?

(And on a nit-picking note, Räven just means "the Fox" [tagging "-en, -n, -et, or -t" at the end is our version of "the"], so no need for the the) ;)

Dude, that is an awesome song! I just bought it. Tip - listen to it with headphones on.


Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

About 15 years ahead of you on that one. ;)

(That whole album is pretty great, actually.)


I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.


Gorbacz wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Azure_Zero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

I much prefer these names to some "Stonesworn" or "Windborn" or whatever else have you.

Also, the other fey of Bestiary 2 are all so close to their roots that I don't mind these few names used for something different.


Kaiyanwang wrote:
Lazaro wrote:
Quandary wrote:
Is there also a film/anime explanation for why the humurous/menacing turtle dudes have holes in the top of their heads?
Explanation

yep. Kappa WORKS that way. I tend to play spirits more related to folklore.

My players are SCARED by fey.

As they should be. If your players aren't afraid of fey spirits, then you are doing it wrong, and need to read up on the real stuff, not disney Tinker bell fairies. XD

This is why I love Pathfinder for the introduction of Kelpies, Mites, and Gremlins.


I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.


Gorbacz wrote:

I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Keeping the races in question more mythical actually has a couple of options.

You can consider them non-playable and give appropriate class levels/abilities to have them reflect the powers they are reputed to have in legend.

Or you could just have the myth and folklore behind them be wild fireside tales and exaggeration. If they are rare and usually live out in the wilds it wouldn't be impossible that the common woodsman tells an outlandish story about the undine he spied bathing in a mountain stream.
I find this sort of middle ground between folklore as fact and the human tendency to tell a "bigger" story works pretty well for game.

Dragon78 wrote:

I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.

The size category relating to social class would certainly make sense. As fey were said to have dwindled in size as they lost power according to certain traditions.

I personally would love to see a T size playable "Tinkerbell" faerie sooner or later.


Dragon78 wrote:

I would actually like a "disney tinkerbell fairies" type Fey as well as the dangerous Fey. I never liked having a group of creatures always classified as evil or good unless they are a type of Outsider. Besides having actual Faeries in D@D that have different sub-species based on there job like the four seasons, animals, plants, healing, inventing, etc. and a power difference between commoners and royalty would be cool. Maybe the royalty would be human size while the lowest class would be tiny and maybe something in the middle as well. Well at least we got pixie, nixie, grig, and brownie but I would still like to see sprite, atomie, and sea sprite.

Well, yeah. Of course Fairies are a mixed bag, and should never be seen as fully good or fully evil. I'm just saying I like players characters to view them from a very superstitious standpoint. Similar to the feel of the Swashbuckling Adventures portrayal of the Sidhe, where terms like "Seelie" and "Unselie" do not necessarily automatically mean they are good or evil, as both have been known to harm and help mortals. People are weary when it comes to a force that is outside of their comprehension, especially if it is of a magical nature, and has resulted in harm in the past. Given that Fairies by nature are very easily offended, and resort to pranks which could be cruel or deadly, the first reaction to a typical farmer is to stay clear of them. A druid or a witch or bard or even a wizard may have a greater understanding of them however and know which ones are of a benevolent nature or not. The typical rogue or fighter who may be familiar with stories told of these creatures may be under the impression that all fey spirit away children and leave changelings in their place, and that it is necessary to hang a holy symbol over the crib of a newborn to ward the child from being replaced by a changeling. And from those stories alone, they have grown to fear all fey.


Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Well I hoping for a Ratkin or Suarian race as pcs because I want to play as in Legal Place my Master Splinter Ratkin rip off as Ninja.


brent norton wrote:

Sorry, with the ultimate combat coming out, you can now make ninja turtles...... Turtle Power.

Like I said I'm sorry.

No need to say you're sorry.

+200 billion!


Are there going to be new native outsider types available as player characters similar to the Aasimar and Tiefling, but aligned towards Chaos and Law?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Azure_Zero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Wraithcannon wrote:
Are there going to be new native outsider types available as player characters similar to the Aasimar and Tiefling, but aligned towards Chaos and Law?

Maybe some day, but it's not a high priority on our list.


James Jacobs wrote:


Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Well, if one day you want to create something more similar to the original, there are synonims :P

As an example, Oreads were called Orestiads too.. so in case you want to create a creature of the fey type..


Zaister wrote:
What's a kami?

In a nut shell, the Asian equivalent to a cross between an angel from Judo-Christian mythology and a demigod from ancient religions from places like Greece or Babylon...only unlike angels they're not always benevolent and unlike demigods they don't always work for the same higher level deity.


James Jacobs wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Azure_Zero wrote:
I would like it, that when Paizo uses a monster of legend/folklore that they keep AS close to the original source as possible and not mutant them to fit a need (looking at the pseudo-genasi)

Genasi aren't legend/folklore. They are lock, stock and barrel inventions of D&D. And considering that they are are closed content, Paizo had to come up with something different than WotC original.

I am refering to the Ifret, Oread, Sylph, Undine. The Oread is a mountain nymph, Undine is a Water Nymph, Ifret is an Efreet, Sylph is a Air spirit. Where in Bestiary 2, they are humans with an elemental bloodline.

Generally, we do adhere relatively close to mythology or biology when we do stats for a real world (either mythological or actual) creature... but in the case of these four entities, we decided to abandon that BECAUSE we wanted to come up with four elemental-themed zero Hit Die races. We could have made up nonsense words, but those real-world words were already there.

And since we had a greater need for the four 0 HD races than we did for four more low-level fey in the book, and we DIDN'T want to duplicate the four entities, if we'd made up names for the four, then we would most likely NOT have ever used the names Undine, Oread, and Sylph for creatures at all. Certainly not in Bestiary 2.

I figured that since the game already has a lot of creatures in it that are inspired by but VERY different than their real world or mythological inspirations we could get away with it, frankly.

Thanks James for explaining for why that happened (not being sarcastic)

Me and one other I know are nit-pickers of lore and will let some things slide. But not complete rewrites, if we know the original lore of the creature/Monster.

201 to 250 of 1,123 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary 3 (OGL) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.