Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Mystery Monsters Revisited

Announced! Image is a mockup, and will change prior to publication.

So we get a Cryptids book, yay!!!

If this goes true to form with the other "Monsters Revisited" books we'll get 10.

Chupacabra
Sasquatch
Yeti
The Sandpoint Devil
Mothman

and. . .

beginning random speculation

Mokele M'bembe (sp)
Kongamato
Hodag
Slurrk
and . . . I got nothin'. Help me out folks, those are the only remotely cryptid type critters I can even think of.

Cactaur?

Probably not a Plesiosaur. ala the Loch Ness Monster.
But A Bunyip? Definitely.

OMG YES

Sea Serpent and Water Orm HAVE to be in this

We get a cryptids book before Fey? Seriously? I mean, it makes sense to have a cryptids book with as many as have been statted up for use in Pathfinder, but still... And this before a Monsters of the Dark Tapestry/Lovecraftian Nightmares book as well?

now why couldn't I remember the Bunyip? I remembered the African cryptids, why not the Australian one.

Sounds neat.

Sounds good, but looks like it's not in the proper spot in the auto display. I don't see a preorder date, but the subscription claims it goes out next month. Given the serial number, it should be further off.

Sounds good, but looks like it's not in the proper spot in the auto display. I don't see a preorder date, but the subscription claims it goes out next month. Given the serial number, it should be further off.

Thanks for the tip. Fixed!

Cool, a book for cryptids even though I agree that I could have waited for this until after a book for fey and a one for lovecraftain besties.

Jackelopes! And the Slender Man!

Personally I have very little interest in a book of Fey, but Lovecraftian horrors for the win!

Awesome...awesome to the max.

I so want this...very very badly

I'm greatly surprised to not see James Jacobs' name on this.

I agree with the Jackalope.

Oh no they let Richard Pett write about cryptids, I'm not leaving the bunker!

I have been waiting for a fey one since the first "revisted" book came out.

The interest in the Lovecraft stuff has more to do with actually seeing stats for these creatures for the first time when Paizo used them.

So we have:
Mothman
Chubacabra
Sasquatch
Yeti
Sandpoint Devil

We should have:
Water Orm
Sea Serpent

We might get:
Mokele M'bembe
Hodag
Slurrk
Kongamato
Peluda
Bunyip
Chickcharney
Globster
Grootslang
Lusca
Chemosit
Tatzlwyrm

Aren't slurks a fictional invention? If so they wouldn't be in a cryptid book. And the Peluda is more of a legendary monster, than something people have seriously considered as a real beast.

Does Pathfinder have an analogue to the Beast of Gevaudan? Although I suppose any large wolf-like monster would work for that, like a Worg.

I am so looking forward to this! Cryptids of Golarion for the win.

And I have to agree with MMCJawa, I'd love to see Golarion's take on the Beast of Gevaudan.

We get a cryptids book before Fey? Seriously? I mean, it makes sense to have a cryptids book with as many as have been statted up for use in Pathfinder, but still... And this before a Monsters of the Dark Tapestry/Lovecraftian Nightmares book as well?

Patience. Patience. All good things come to those who wait.

:)

-Lisa

The Mongolian Deathworm
The Yowie
Orang Pendek

I don't think they have statted up Yowies or Orang Pendeks

A humanoid marsupial Yowie would be all kind of awesome

Sorry to say but this is something I'm not looking forward to. Just not my cup of tea. If it wasn't too much hassle I would cancel my subscription and restart it after this ships so I wouldn't get it.

I was very very very very very tempted to write this whole book... but I can't write them all, alas.

i for one am psyched to get this for christmas (for the last few years my wife and daughter have got me a revisited book for christmas) it sounds like a fun read. thanks

Paizo at times reminds me of Apple.

Amazing quality products that I wasn't aware I needed yet!

Gimme some James Jacob's Cryptids, please.

Silly question time: is the title inspired at all by a very cheesy documentary movie from the 70's titled The Mysterious Monsters that was the first introduction many people had to Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and Nessie?

I wonder which one James Jacob Wrote...

Silly question time: is the title inspired at all by a very cheesy documentary movie from the 70's titled The Mysterious Monsters that was the first introduction many people had to Bigfoot, the Abominable Snowman, and Nessie?

Nope. Not on purpose, at least.

We came upon the title after we admitted to ourselves that "Cryptids Revisited" would confuse too many folks on the distribution side of things.

I wonder which one James Jacob Wrote...

By "I can't write them all," I meant "I can't write every book we publish."

I'm not writing ANYTHING for this book, in other words.

Neither is that James Jacob guy who spells his name funny with no "s".

I think "Mystery Monsters Revealed" could be a better fitting title for this book, just as "Redeemed" fit the Misfits better :)

I think "Mystery Monsters Revealed" could be a better fitting title for this book, just as "Redeemed" fit the Misfits better :)

I kind of agree... but there's a lot to be said for using the same word ("Revisited") in as many of these books as we can.

I kind of agree... but there's a lot to be said for using the same word ("Revisited") in as many of these books as we can.

Too bad, but I understand the business strategy.

Stratagemini wrote:

I wonder which one James Jacob Wrote...

By "I can't write them all," I meant "I can't write every book we publish."

I'm not writing ANYTHING for this book, in other words.

Neither is that James Jacob guy who spells his name funny with no "s".

So then shouldn't it be named "James Jacobs presents Mystery Monsters Revisited"?

So then shouldn't it be named "James Jacobs presents Mystery Monsters Revisited"?

Ironically I was at physical therapy yesterday morning and was explaining what I freelance and discussing the hobby in general. My therapist poked fun of R.A. Salvatore for prostituting his name for other authors just like that.

(That is, "R.A. Salvatore's Book of Whatever, by Real-Author-Whose-Name-is-in-Small-Font-Right-at-the-Bottom-of-the-Cover")

:)

Food for thought.

Stratagemini wrote:

I wonder which one James Jacob Wrote...

By "I can't write them all," I meant "I can't write every book we publish."

I'm not writing ANYTHING for this book, in other words.

Neither is that James Jacob guy who spells his name funny with no "s".

But did this James Jacob guy with no S want to write this entire book?

How about you? Did you want to write this book? Because I thought you would be eager to wade into Bigfoot Country and start writing?

Justin Franklin wrote:

So then shouldn't it be named "James Jacobs presents Mystery Monsters Revisited"?

Ironically I was at physical therapy yesterday morning and was explaining what I freelance and discussing the hobby in general. My therapist poked fun of R.A. Salvatore for prostituting his name for other authors just like that.

(That is, "R.A. Salvatore's Book of Whatever, by Real-Author-Whose-Name-is-in-Small-Font-Right-at-the-Bottom-of-the-Cover")

:)

Food for thought.

On teh other hand James Patterson does it all the time with great success, and there is always VC Andrews who has been dead for years and still putting out books. ;)

On teh other hand James Patterson does it all the time with great success, and there is always VC Andrews who has been dead for years and still putting out books. ;)

Oh I wouldn't argue that it makes money.

I regretted posting that after I did, because I didn't want to imply anything about James or Paizo.

But let me put some context to it. What the physical therapist was really trying to get across was that he really liked R.A. Salvatore. He never really considered a role-playing game, but he enjoyed the author's novels. Then he bought a couple "R.A. Salvatore Presents.." books and he was disappointed. He felt tricked.

That's all. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to stop here, so we don't derail the thread.

If nothing else, maybe James had a hand in developing this book, and therefore it will have some measure his love of the topic in it.

James Jacobs wrote:

Stratagemini wrote:

I wonder which one James Jacob Wrote...

By "I can't write them all," I meant "I can't write every book we publish."

I'm not writing ANYTHING for this book, in other words.

Neither is that James Jacob guy who spells his name funny with no "s".

But did this James Jacob guy with no S want to write this entire book?

How about you? Did you want to write this book? Because I thought you would be eager to wade into Bigfoot Country and start writing?

I would have LOVED to write the book. But since my current freelance time is already spoken for by things like the kickstarter project and convention season and a few other things... I couldn't. Just didn't have time.

Are skyfish/rods cryptid enough for you, JJ, or has their extremely thorough debunking dropped them off the list?

Justin Franklin wrote:

On teh other hand James Patterson does it all the time with great success, and there is always VC Andrews who has been dead for years and still putting out books. ;)

Oh I wouldn't argue that it makes money.

I regretted posting that after I did, because I didn't want to imply anything about James or Paizo.

But let me put some context to it. What the physical therapist was really trying to get across was that he really liked R.A. Salvatore. He never really considered a role-playing game, but he enjoyed the author's novels. Then he bought a couple "R.A. Salvatore Presents.." books and he was disappointed. He felt tricked.

That's all. Make of that what you will.

I'm going to stop here, so we don't derail the thread.

If nothing else, maybe James had a hand in developing this book, and therefore it will have some measure his love of the topic in it.

I mostly meant it as a joke idea anyway. No offense taken or given, I hope. And now back to teaming up to convince JJ to announce the Irrisen AP. ;)

Are skyfish/rods cryptid enough for you, JJ, or has their extremely thorough debunking dropped them off the list?

Typically the Revisited Line has used Monters already in the bestiaries (whether the main 3, or from Adventure Paths, Module, companions and setting books). I can't remember Skyfish or rods in any of the bestiaries.

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:

Are skyfish/rods cryptid enough for you, JJ, or has their extremely thorough debunking dropped them off the list?

Typically the Revisited Line has used Monters already in the bestiaries (whether the main 3, or from Adventure Paths, Module, companions and setting books). I can't remember Skyfish or rods in any of the bestiaries.

Well, I'd say that's a starting place for a sequel book!

Oh no they let Richard Pett write about cryptids, I'm not leaving the bunker!

Why they're nothing but a bunch of softies, don't wory Gorbacz:)

Allow me to add yet another kudos to Paizo. I just thoroughly enjoy how your company takes "real world mythos" and applies them in the Pathfinder universe! Very well done.

Well, my Christmas present is set. I run a non-Golarion campaign setting, but I'm sure I can still find room for things like the Sandpoint Devil there.

Add me to the list of folks calling for a Fey Revisited book, too.

Well, my Christmas present is set. I run a non-Golarion campaign setting, but I'm sure I can still find room for things like the Sandpoint Devil there.

Add me to the list of folks calling for a Fey Revisited book, too.

In case you didn't know (and if you do then please accept my most humble apology) the Sand Point Devil is based on "The Jersey Devil" which is a legend here on the East Coast.

Are skyfish/rods cryptid enough for you, JJ, or has their extremely thorough debunking dropped them off the list?

They're more in the category of "alien" to me rather than "cryptid." If only because their powers and abilities seem so outlandish and almost magical.

Evil Midnight Lurker wrote:

Are skyfish/rods cryptid enough for you, JJ, or has their extremely thorough debunking dropped them off the list?

Typically the Revisited Line has used Monters already in the bestiaries (whether the main 3, or from Adventure Paths, Module, companions and setting books). I can't remember Skyfish or rods in any of the bestiaries.

That's true too. One of the reasons we took so long to do this book was we had to wait until we finally got Absolutely Required Cryptid #10 in print in Bestiary 3!

Charlie Brooks wrote:

Well, my Christmas present is set. I run a non-Golarion campaign setting, but I'm sure I can still find room for things like the Sandpoint Devil there.

Add me to the list of folks calling for a Fey Revisited book, too.

In case you didn't know (and if you do then please accept my most humble apology) the Sand Point Devil is based on "The Jersey Devil" which is a legend here on the East Coast.

Charlie Brooks, I misread your post. disregard my response.