Over 400 of fantasy's fiercest foes burst from the pages of this enormous 360-page compendium of the most popular and commonly encountered creatures in the world of Pathfinder! From familiar enemies like orcs, dragons, and vampires to new horrors like the nightmarish nilith and the three-headed mukradi, to suitable servants for summoners of every alignment, this must-have companion to the Pathfinder Core Rulebook is crawling with creatures to challenge characters of any level.
The Pathfinder Bestiary includes:
More than 400 monsters!
Gorgeous full-color illustrations on nearly every page!
Detailed monster lists sorted by level, type, and rarity to help you find the right monster for any situation!
Universal monster rules to simplify special attacks, defenses, and qualities like grab, swallow whole, and regeneration.
Guidelines for providing appropriate monstrous treasures for any occasion.
Detailed lore sidebars offering additional information about Pathfinder's most popular monstrous friends and foes!
The first bestiary for Pathfinder 2 clocks in at 362 pages, 1 page front cover, 1 page inside of front cover, 3 pages of editorial/ToC, 2/3 of a page SRD, 3 pages of advertisement, 1 page back cover, leaving us with 352 1/3 pages of content, so let’s take a look!
This review was requested by my patreon supporters.
First of all, regarding organization, it should be noted that the bestiary includes lists of creatures by level, and a list of creatures by type – the inclusion of these is helpful when navigating the book. Creatures traits, ranging from rarity to sizes, are included, and the book contains 3 rituals, which all deal with outsiders – abyssal and infernal pact do pretty much what you’d expect them to, and angelic messenger lets you transport to a celestial plane or the material plane, acting as a messenger. Nice here: The system’s degrees of success and failure now present the chances for narratives hardcoded in here – the angel stranded, the pact gone horribly wrong; these tried and true and oft-employed plot-devices now have a representation within the framework of the rules.
Considering that this bestiary is the first one for PF2, it warrants a couple of additional observations regarding its quality as such; the first bestiary for any given iteration of a fantasy game inheriting the general tropes of Dungeons and Dragons is usually neither something that I usually enjoy reviewing, or that warrants particular mentioning. In many ways, there is simply not that much to discuss, as the bestiary is required for a precise use of the system anyhow. And indeed, this bestiary is the first of these “first bestiaries” in quite a few editions that I actually read in detail, and not simply referenced when its use was required; partially due to my reviewer status, and partially because Pathfinder’s second edition represents a pretty significant change of the dynamics of these books in a few ways.
So, the first thing to bear in mind, is that the first bestiary needs to present a sort of lowest common denominator (and that is not meant in a disparaging manner) for fantasy gaming with the respective game; after all, the monsters in these books make up what you’d consider to be the standard, the pool that all supplements will continue to draw from. You may not be able to assume that everyone has bestiary #4, but chances are that if you’re playing a certain game, you’ll at least have the first one, right? In a way, bestiary #1 for a given system thus has a lot of “mandatory” creatures to be included. You’ll need orcs, ogres, dragons, some of the most iconic demons and devils – you get the idea. And then, still, plenty of people will have their nerdrage, because their favorite critter’s not, or no longer, included.
Heck, I know, for that’s exactly how I felt when I read the 3.0 Monster Manual back in the day. Speaking of which – you can picture my abject boredom and disappointment when I realized that I could have just left the 3.5 version of that book on the shelf and not miss much; in many ways, from a monster-perspective, Pathfinder 1, for me as a person, started becoming distinct and actually relevant when Bestiary 2+ hit shelves, when the creatures started to differentiate in both themes and focus from what we had seen before. This held particularly true after Bestiary 2, but I digress. PF 1’s first bestiary, to me, did not exactly elicit any serious excitement; I got because I was dipping my toes in PF 1, and not because I had a serious desire to get it per se; it felt like another iteration of a book I already owned twice, and while it is to this date my favorite of the three, it also continued a focus that I couldn’t help but bemoan.
I might be an odd one out in that regard, but know why I pored over my 2nd edition monster books, time and again? Why I actually read those in detail, something that, apart from the context of reviewing, I never had the desire to do for PF 1, at least not in the beginning? (That did change later, when builds became more distinct and differentiated.) The thing I was missing? It’s simple. Lore. Granted, we don’t need the same lines explaining how undead have no place in the natural order of things ten times over. More often than not, the information on habitat, ecology, etc. actually proved to be inspiring to me and made up a lot of what I considered to be exciting about reading a monster book. In direct contrast, monster manuals based on d20-systems system-immanently got rid of those components in order to fit in more statblocks – after all, the increase in rules complexity also resulted in an increased amount of space devoted to the respective statistics of the creature. Compare to that how 13th Age’s statblocks got rid of essentially all non-combat utility in favor of lore for another extreme example on the lore-to-rules ratio – in that case, competitive scenarios beyond combat were somewhat scaled down.
The bestiary for Pathfinder’s second edition is, in one way, a step away from that tendency, while still embracing it. Some creatures have multiple paragraphs of lore, while others have a single sentence, and said lore if often Golarion-specific. The layout presents the creatures in a one-column style, with a margin providing information pertaining to the creature – say, mephitis, to name one, have the information that other mephit types exist; angels have a brief note on angelic divinities and locations; it’s not much, granted, but it reintroduces some immediately gameable components that usually were relegated to lore sections back into the meat of the book. Why not more? I get it. Personally, I love getting my detailed discussions of creatures, but there also are plenty of people that want to maximize the amount of rules-relevant material, particularly in such a book. I am pretty positive that nobody is going to explain about the sheer amount of creatures included in this tome. That being said, while this space is *often* used to accommodate the lavish artworks in this tome, it also sometimes results in lost real estate, and I was somewhat puzzled to realize that the Lore skill’s use of Recall Knowledge regarding creatures was not included. Listing sample DCs and subcategories for the creatures in question would have made sense, and filled in some space; in a way, I get why – this’d have made the book look more busy than it already does. But at the same time, the skill-engine of PF2 has this use specifically hard-coded into its bones, so the lack of this aspect did strike me as odd.
Then again, there is more than the excellent artwork to comment upon in a positive manner, and that would, at least to me, be simply how elegant PF2’s statblocks are. While statblocks, including high-level statblocks, can be pretty compact, the new format allows you to add a ton of complex abilities and flavor into the monster statblocks, if you so desire. For rank and file critters, this means we get more statblocks; for more unique creatures, this means you can get complex and captivating critters with lots of special abilities.
Many people, and I confess to being among those, were afraid that PF2 would attempt to beat 5e at its own game, and that has not happened; in many ways, the two systems have gone diametrically-opposed paths, in spite of some superficial similarities, and nowhere is this more readily apparent than in the creature design and statblocks. D&D 5e presents creature stats in a very novice-friendly manner; the statblocks spell out everything in detail – when a creature has the swallow whole feature, we have a whole paragraph explaining how it works for that creature. Spellcasting behaves similarly, paying for the reduction in spell statblock complexity by relegating components of the spell’s rules to the main spell text. The creatures in Pathfinder’s second edition go a different route: Instead of spelling out everything (at the cost of how easily you can parse statblocks quickly), they establish a series of abilities that come up time and again, and then present the crucial components in a tight manner. In Pathfinder’s second edition, you have to know what swallow whole does – but when you do, you can see the glyph for one action, maximum size, the damage, and a “rupture” value that represents the damage you need to do to get out; Engulf and many other abilities work in a similar manner. So yeah, Pathfinder instead frontloads a couple of things you need to know, but makes parsing/quickly running statblocks you haven’t prepared faster.
An example, perhaps, to illustrate the difference – let’s take a look at the good ole’ Purple Worm:
“Swallow Whole (one action glyph) Huge, 3d6+9 bludgeoning, Rupture 24.”
Vs.
“[Bite attack’s damage etc….] If the target is a Large or smaller creature, it must succeed on a DC 18 Dexterity saving throw or be swallowed by the worm. A swallowed creature is blinded and restrained, it has total cover against attacks and other effects outside the worm, and it takes 21 (6d6) acid damage at the start of each of the worm’s turns. If the worm takes 30 or more damage on a single turn from a creature inside it, the worm must succeed on a DC 21 Constitution saving throw at the end of that turn or regurgitate all swallowed creatures, which fall prone in a space within 10 feet of the worm.[…]”
Which of these is better? I honestly can’t say. Both of them have distinct advantages; 5e makes it easier for novices to have all rules spelled out at one place, while Pathfinder’s second edition requires that you know how “swallow whole” works – once you do, however, you become MUCH more efficient at running the creature; you don’t have to look for the mechanically-relevant components in a paragraph of text. I’ve talked to quite a few people, and the opinions are divided pretty much in the middle. Some prefer the detail, because they don’t want to learn the “universal” monster rules; some prefer the streamlining of these, particularly since the creatures in Pathfinder 2 have taken an important lesson from the first edition to heart – there is a much higher propensity towards having unique abilities (which are, obviously, properly spelled out), which renders them feeling less mechanical. Now, as a person, I can parse PF2’s statblocks more efficiently than those of 5e, plus I prefer this style. As a reviewer, I consider both to be two distinct and valid solutions to the same issue. So yeah, as far as I’m concerned, the PF2 statblock can be considered to be a success – statblocks are divided in utility, defense and offense – easy to read and parse.
Another success is one that is perhaps more subtle and something that mainly designers will notice, namely the fact that the statblocks adhere to a consistency between stats, sizes and e.g. spells – take e.g. a look at polymorph spells and the respective creatures. Speaking of creatures and details – one component to be renamed creatures. To explain that: IP and the like have been an issue all through d20’s lifespan, and this new edition takes a lot of critters and renames them according to Paizo IP. Let’s e.g. take the Alghollthu. These are now the catch-all terms for Bulwer-Lytton-esque antediluvian critters like Aboleths and Skum, as well as Veiled Masters; essentially the “Ruins of Azlant”-y critters (still one of my favorite APs). The categorical names makes sense to me as a whole; as for the other creatures, there are a couple of renames that are just a matter of getting used to it, and in several instances, I really like them. Take the Ankhrav. If you’re familiar with Germanic languages, “graben” means “digging”; “Grav” means grave; Ankh- is a pretty well-known prefix for a classic monster, so you can determine that that’s the new Ankheg. Arboreals are obviously tree-people, taking a step away from the ole’ Tolkien-IP. “Dire animals” have now become the proper appellations (cave bear, megalodon), with the obvious exception of dire wolves, which are a real world thing. Whether that makes sense or not for you depends, but the careful reader will also notice that the elemental creatures have been changed – we get 4 more normal elementals, and one odd man out per element. This includes xorns, invisible stalkers, salamander – those are now listed among the elementals. I confess to that throwing me in for a loop for a second.
So, one big advantage I noticed here, would be that many boss monsters have obviously been designed to focus on attacks on single targets or spread out attacks to multiple targets; the new action economy means that the boss monsters no longer require the set ups for full attacks to be efficient. GMs won’t have to engage in as much trickery as in PF 1 to make bosses, particularly stand-alone boss monsters, work. Speaking of bosses and something I LOVED seeing: The book takes an often more roleplaying-focused approach to some classics: Succubi, for example, now take damage from being rejected (cue in all those demons being insulted and becoming REALLY aggressive…), and this roleplaying angle can be combat-relevant, when e.g. including such a rejection or reference to one in the Demoralize attempt. I defy, I deny thee! Heck yeah. In many ways, this focuses more on the roleplaying, and uses it to supplement the combat; rules helping with roleplaying. That’s a good tendency, as far as I’m concerned. Mechanically, I love the succubus here; the artwork is (apart from 5e’s version), the least sexy take on the demon of lust I’ve seen in a while (srsly, I see more risqué outfits whenever I go out), so that may be a plus or minus for you. No chainmail bikinis herein; no cheesecake, no beefcake – so if you’ve been hoping for a more edgy game, if you considered the big games too sanitized, that hasn’t changed.
What *has* changed is often what kind of creatures were chosen: The highest-CR critter? It’s not a pitiful version of the Tarrasque (like in 3.0, 3.5 and PF1), but Treerazer, who goes Troll II on you – he turns you partially into a plant by just being near, and he’ll do more damage/horrid wilt you – OUCH. A really cool boss build of a unique critter, who gets an awesome build, a sentient, supportive artifact, and sidebar notes on cults. Awesome. I wish more creatures had been afforded this deluxe treatment – in particular, the take on the wendigo, another one of my favorites herein, would have deserved as much. The build is complex, genuinely frightening, and oh boy, it’ll kill you off…it’s a level 17 creature that sees heat, has the signature curse properly here, the ride the wind angle…this fellow REALLY deserved the lore angle. The amazing statblock only has one line of flavor, when it obviously would have been a perfect candidate for two-page boss-treatment. (Whoever made this one did a great job!) On a plus-side, there are quite a few options where this edition does some things I *personally* enjoy – werebeasts, for example, now have different abilities regarding their respective bloodlines. Wererats have different abilities than werewolves. Finer differentiation is nice to see.
There are some things that have kinda irked the OCD guy in me: Take, for example, the attacks called “jaws” – these attacks deal piercing damage, but there is no system beyond this damage type: Sometimes, these have reach, or range, sometimes they are agile (or deadly, or with another weapon property) – there is no nomenclature that differentiates jaw attacks from e.g. fang attacks. Fang attacks also cause piercing damage, and can also have weapon properties. Personally, I’d have prefer both referring to a unique type of melee attack with certain properties, instead of being essentially interchangeable. But that may just be me. This is not necessarily a downside for the vast majority of people. More relevant for most people: There are no rules for making your own critters, or for how class levels and abilities may be added to critters. I kinda hope that the engine here will end up being a bit more complex than the one for Starfinder; as much as I love SF’s engine, it also can be easy for math-savvy players to reverse-engineer.
Does anyone know if the interior art in the 2ed bestiary is all new or if some of the interior art is recycled from 1e bestiaries? Thanks.
At this point, between adventure paths, campaign settings, player's companions and core rulebooks, I must have about 300 1e PF books. Don't feel compelled to move to a simplification of rules. But if the books have new art, I am probably in for more than just the adventure paths.
Does anyone know if the interior art in the 2ed bestiary is all new or if some of the interior art is recycled from 1e bestiaries? Thanks.
At this point, between adventure paths, campaign settings, player's companions and core rulebooks, I must have about 300 1e PF books. Don't feel compelled to move to a simplification of rules. But if the books have new art, I am probably in for more than just the adventure paths.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
New Kobolds are interesting. Certainly adorable and cute, no arguing that. They do look a bit more... brutish, though? And I'm worried that will lead them to being the maniacs that Goblins once occupied. It makes sense, given that Goblins are no longer the prime enemy combatant at low CRs, but I'm a big fan of the trap-setting, sorcery-led, dragon worshipping 'bolds in PF1e and I'm just hoping that sticks around.
Though I will say the new art would certainly fit my 6 Int Kobold Paladin.
New Kobolds are interesting. Certainly adorable and cute, no arguing that. They do look a bit more... brutish, though? And I'm worried that will lead them to being the maniacs that Goblins once occupied. It makes sense, given that Goblins are no longer the prime enemy combatant at low CRs, but I'm a big fan of the trap-setting, sorcery-led, dragon worshipping 'bolds in PF1e and I'm just hoping that sticks around.
Though I will say the new art would certainly fit my 6 Int Kobold Paladin.
I doubt they're changing the culture and background. They've established too much of it for so long to retcon it now. Art changes are easier to justify. Art doesn't always match up with the descriptions anyway, and is often inconsistent. And besides, we do still have goblins for low-level psychos, while some are becoming civilized, there are still plenty of evil gobos out there to fight. And kobolds have a different low-level niche as you pointed out with their traps and planning and generally being subterranean.
The kobold look is new, as folks have noticed, but they're the same kobolds society-wise in the setting. Some worship dragons and think of themselves as dragons. Some are deep into devils. Some just wanna build traps. Some break free and find their own fates.
The kobold look is new, as folks have noticed, but they're the same kobolds society-wise in the setting. Some worship dragons and think of themselves as dragons. Some are deep into devils. Some just wanna build traps. Some break free and find their own fates.
Some just don't want to be typecast and fit into somebody's little neat boxes of what a kobold ought to be.
*prepares his inevitable Kobold Champion of Ragathiel*
One problem the old bestiary had was that monster with large statistics tend to suffer in the "description" department. A lot of dragons are a bunch of numbers, a nice pic and a sentence of description. I hope that doesn't happen too often in PF2. Looking at an old d&d 2e bestiary, monster had a lot of descriptive text, and that was quite cool.
I think the Paizonians working on monsters are painfully aware of this. I think one of their demands for PF2 would have been, please, please let me get more space to describe how great and GM-useful this monster will be.
And yes, they know very well that Dragons are the greatest culprits
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
The kobold look is new, as folks have noticed, but they're the same kobolds society-wise in the setting. Some worship dragons and think of themselves as dragons. Some are deep into devils. Some just wanna build traps. Some break free and find their own fates.
Reading this conversation made me curious, so I just checked something. The shortest bit of flavor text for a dragon in the Bestiary is 20 lines of text.
I don't want to sound conflictive, because that's totally not my intention, but I don't think you are correct.
Looking at the green dragon I find
"Green dragons dwell in the ancient forests of the world, prowling under towering canopies in search of prey. Of all the chromatic dragons, green dragons are perhaps the easiest to deal with diplomatically"
Charlie Brooks
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
I don't want to sound conflictive, because that's totally not my intention, but I don't think you are correct.
Looking at the green dragon I find
"Green dragons dwell in the ancient forests of the world, prowling under towering canopies in search of prey. Of all the chromatic dragons, green dragons are perhaps the easiest to deal with diplomatically"
I think he's talking about the final Bestiary. The Playtest Bestiary was just a quick and dirty way to get stat blocks into our grubby little hands.
I hope they continue to go with several different styles so that we won't have to endure a furrrious battle of people who are a wee lil' bit too much invested emotionally in how their cat-people are supposed to look like.
Reading this conversation made me curious, so I just checked something. The shortest bit of flavor text for a dragon in the Bestiary is 20 lines of text.
Precious 20 lines of precious flavor... Great job! I knew things were in the right hands. I'm expecting nothing but greatness from this book.
Thanks, Erik. I know you're juggling lots of balls at the moment, but the subscription details (i.e. do the PDFs still come as a free perk, how does PF Advantage work, etcetera) would be good to hear too. Because I'm sure what your to-do list needs at the moment is more requests... :)
Didn't they already settle on "catfolk look anything from catgirls to thundercats to khajit" thing in inner sea races? :P
That was us giving up and making a decision to not make a decision. ;-)
An edition change is a chance to start fresh with things like this, and catfolk will have a much more standardized look that won't be as all over the place. We'll reveal that look in time, of course.
Can't wait for Bestiary 2! (Bestiary 1 isn't really my thing with mostly D&D monsters, playable races and normal animals, so get this over with and I see ya'll in 3 years lol)
Can't wait for Bestiary 2! (Bestiary 1 isn't really my thing with mostly D&D monsters, so get this over with and I see ya'll in 3 years lol)
Not sure how you're coming to this conclusion when you haven't seen the first bestiary yet... unless you're in a tree outside our conference room looking through a window at the pages that are being proofed! :-P
Well, mostly Bestiary 1 gets the most popular monsters, Manticore, Medusa, Minotaur, Chimera, Hydra, Kobolds, playable races, horses, dogs and other such monsters out of the way, the most common of d&d demons and devils, remorhaz, rust monster, maybe wendigo if I'm lucky and there are still Native American monsters allowed in there. Also elemental giants, golems and such. And of course the D&D dragons, which I'm really a bit tired off, rather see the dragons from Bestiary 2 in the first 2nd edition bestiary 1...
I'm waiting on book 2 mostly because the more obscure mythology monsters (and obscure pathfinder monsters) will appear around there, Ahuizotl, Aklhlut, Almiraj, Alraune, Papinijuwari and much more like those, they will never make it in the first book with so much D&D competition.
I hope I'm wrong, but I can feel it in my blood, most people love such famous monsters most, so they all be in.
The mention of summoning creatures makes me very curious to see if we will get the "base stats + template" style of Starfinder, which has gone over very well at my tables.
Are the classic monsters like orcs and vampires presented any differently than the the were in the earlier bestiaries or are the pretty much the same?
The mention of summoning creatures makes me very curious to see if we will get the "base stats + template" style of Starfinder, which has gone over very well at my tables.
Are the classic monsters like orcs and vampires presented any differently than the the were in the earlier bestiaries or are the pretty much the same?
Concept wise they should probably be the same, just like the kobolds (and orcs have been said to indeed get a new look). Rules wise they will change, of course, as it's a new game.
There're lots of vampires in PF1E and I hope to see them early in 2E, as I use them a lot in my own setting.
You should get the playtest bestiary to see how the rules have changed, but those can't be taken as the same rules we are getting in the final product.
It's a little over 16 weeks until release.
I hope we'll get one sample page/creature entry preview in the near future.
Even though i already ordered this & all other Second Edition products out in august.
Hey, I’m back! Did someone miss me? No?...
Ok then T_T
My comment about the bestiary: one of the things Pathfinder has/had unique to it was the fluff: darker and edgier than D&D. This was especially prominent in monster descriptions. I really hope they don’t hold down punches in this new bestiary, I love the darker depictions of evil monsters and such. Gives an aura of fear and caution.
I just really hope they will give their own twist to the D&D monsters, and use less of those. Also the Barghest, Salamander, Chimera and all those other Mythology monsters, should be Pathfinder versions, not D&D versions.
Now that the book is off to the press, I wish to see the following monsters which are yet to be confirmed as of now;
- All major outsiders of the 9 alignments at,
-- the lowest level possible (the PF1 Improved Familiar candidates at CR 2)
-- the highest level possible for non-uniques (the PF1 CR 20 ones)
- Imperial Dragons (to balance out "European" ones in body form)
- Pegasi
- Phoenixes
- Unicorns (balances with pegasi)
- Level 21+ setting neutral monsters (currently only the Treerazer is confirmed)
So the same old D&D cast, hopefully, they reveal some less known Paizo-ONly monsters soon.
Treerazor is in there.
Hmmm, unique monsters in the first book? Not a fan, they take up space and should be in their own book, just like templates, good-guys and animals.
Seeing there are 400 creatures in a 300 page book, I guess we see A LOT of normal animals in this one, well, let's get them over with so they are gone for the Bestiary 2. There probably will be a lot of unique monsters, a lot of lovecraft stuff, a lot of D&D monsters, a lot of Bestiary 1 and 2 (first edition) monsters, many Rainbow dragons, many elemental golems, drakes and giants, too many demons (+lords) and devils (+lords), some Kaiju and many robots. Which are all reasons I'm doubting of skipping the first Bestiary, and wait for the probably better part 2.
I hope to see more of those type of monsters. But I'm sure I'll see them again around book 3/4... The cool stuff is always kept for last. However, in the first episode of Pathfinder, books 3, 4, and 5 were the best in my opinion, 6 was rather bad and random, mostly because the unique powerhouses I don't really care for, it had some fun ones like Ghole, Kamaitachi and lovelorn, but the bad ones outshined the good ones.
So the same old D&D cast, hopefully, they reveal some less known Paizo-ONly monsters soon.
Treerazor is in there.
Hmmm, unique monsters in the first book? Not a fan, they take up space and should be in their own book, just like templates, good-guys and animals.
Seeing there are 400 creatures in a 300 page book, I guess we see A LOT of normal animals in this one, well, let's get them over with so they are gone for the Bestiary 2. There probably will be a lot of unique monsters, a lot of lovecraft stuff, a lot of D&D monsters, a lot of Bestiary 1 and 2 (first edition) monsters, many Rainbow dragons, many elemental golems, drakes and giants, too many demons and devils, and many robots.
I hope to see more of those type of monsters. But I'm sure I'll see them again around book 3/4... The cool stuff is always kept for last. However, in the first episode of Pathfinder, books 3, 4, and 5 were the best in my opinion, 6 was rather bad and random, mostly because the unique powerhouses I don't really care for.
I'm sure you're not alone, but I myself am happy to see unique creatures getting a place in the very first Bestiary.
I surely would love if we got a book covering demon lords and archdevils and empyreal lords separately from the bestiaries, but I'm unsure if it would ever happen.
The classic monsters and the most popular ones from First Edition would surely make their appearance in B1, but I was really surprised to see Treerazer among them. I hope this foreshadows the inclusion of even more unique monsters on earlier bestiaries.
...Seeing there are 400 creatures in a 300 page book, <snip>
The Bestiary is 360 pages, according to the information released at the banquet.
Well, a 360 page book covering 400 monsters, with legenda's, information pages and other such things not counting, I'm sure this book will have a lot of 2 page animal things... Only the animals share a page, no other creatures share pages. And knowing the Dragons, Elementals, Unique creatures all take up 2 pages each, that means even more 2 page vermin/animals.
I'm happy about the vermin (hopefully they make an interesting choice though, I mean, nobody cares about a tiny scorpion with a red stinger... Just put two very different very awesome scorpions in there.)
...Seeing there are 400 creatures in a 300 page book, <snip>
The Bestiary is 360 pages, according to the information released at the banquet.
Well, a 360 page book covering 400 monsters, with legenda's, information pages and other such things not counting, I'm sure this book will have a lot of 2 page animal things... Only the animals share a page, no other creatures share pages. And knowing the Dragons, Elementals, Unique creatures all take up 2 pages each, that means even more 2 page vermin/animals.
I'm happy about the vermin (hopefully they make an interesting choice though, I mean, nobody cares about a tiny scorpion with a red stinger... Just put two very different very awesome scorpions in there.)
Not at all. We could see that some creatures are taking more than two pages to cover and other are covered in half a page. The zombies, for example, were all four covered in two pages.
Managing Developer
