Pathfinder Bestiary 2

Paizo has been pretty upfront about reshuffling the shipping order for subscribers, so folks will get some stuff early and some stuff late in the shipping cycle.

This month being later isn't awesome, but just as long as I don't get next month's really early and instead can be on the forefront of July, I won't complain a lick... :)

Got my PDF this morning. Scrolled through it. Nice art and some interesting conversions of old monsters.

Well, what do you know? Got the shipment notification now! Super happy :D

I got my notice yesterday, but I've been so busy training my daughter as my apprentice at work I probably won't get to look at anything before my shipment arrives.

Just got my physical copy, and I'm reminded once again, these books are gorgeous.

I just realized Draugr, probably my favorite PF1 low-level undead monster is in the book! That's incredible! :D

A question for those who have the book (or have better eyes than mine), did Draugr Captain make it, in some shape or form? I don't think I saw in the preview video or the table of contents...

I just realized Draugr, probably my favorite PF1 low-level undead monster is in the book! That's incredible! :D

A question for those who have the book (or have better eyes than mine), did Draugr Captain make it, in some shape or form? I don't think I saw in the preview video or the table of contents...

Its mentioned in lore text itself.

I just realized Draugr, probably my favorite PF1 low-level undead monster is in the book! That's incredible! :D

A question for those who have the book (or have better eyes than mine), did Draugr Captain make it, in some shape or form? I don't think I saw in the preview video or the table of contents...

They mention how you can make Draugr Captains in the last paragraph of the lore text. So there's a mechanical representation for them!

Thanks, CorvusMask and Ezekieru! I was hoping that there is a mechanical way to create them, so I'm *very* happy! :)

Just last week I signed up for the Pathfinder Rulebook subscription, starting with the Gamemastery Guide. When I go to my account and look at my active subscriptions, it shows the Advanced Players Guide as the next product to ship as part of that subscription. Does this mean I have to order Bestiary 2 separately? I'd email or post in the customer service thread but it appears there's still nearly three weeks out in getting those answered, and I was hoping to include Bestiary 2 in my upcoming shipment if I'm able.

Just last week I signed up for the Pathfinder Rulebook subscription, starting with the Gamemastery Guide. When I go to my account and look at my active subscriptions, it shows the Advanced Players Guide as the next product to ship as part of that subscription. Does this mean I have to order Bestiary 2 separately? I'd email or post in the customer service thread but it appears there's still nearly three weeks out in getting those answered, and I was hoping to include Bestiary 2 in my upcoming shipment if I'm able.

Yeah, when you started the subscription you had a button to indicate which product you want to start with. Is phone service unavailable at the moment? Thats how I adjusted my subs a couple months back.

I noticed that all the Kingmaker monsters that didn't make a hardcover Bestiary in Pathfinder Classic made it in, very nice!

theloniusdrunk wrote:

Just last week I signed up for the Pathfinder Rulebook subscription, starting with the Gamemastery Guide. When I go to my account and look at my active subscriptions, it shows the Advanced Players Guide as the next product to ship as part of that subscription. Does this mean I have to order Bestiary 2 separately? I'd email or post in the customer service thread but it appears there's still nearly three weeks out in getting those answered, and I was hoping to include Bestiary 2 in my upcoming shipment if I'm able.

Yeah, when you started the subscription you had a button to indicate which product you want to start with. Is phone service unavailable at the moment? Thats how I adjusted my subs a couple months back.

Yeah, their customer service phone lines have been closed down for a while now, I think.

Can someone kindly help me understand the significance/origin of monsters in this book?

I only spotted a handful I recognize from old D&D lore (gray ooze, bodak, blindheim). Then, there's an equally small handful I recognize from Paizo's 3.5 era - e.g., tatzelwyrm from Falcon's Hollow, sandpoint devil, akata from Erik Mona's Second Darkness module. Love those.

But where does the rest come from? 1e adventure paths? 1e bestiaries?

Could you be a wee bit more specific, because nobody is going to go through 350 monsters?

Could you be a wee bit more specific, because nobody is going to go through 350 monsters?

I wish I could. I'm just drawing blanks on 95% of the monster names in the book. No need to make a complete inventory, just a general impressions from folks who recognize where these monsters came from would be helpful. Or maybe they're original to 2e? That'd be helpful to.

So, um, in typical Paizo fashion, most monsters are either D&D staples, mythology, cryptozoology or popculture and some Paizo original creations.

Examples of these categories include: bodak (D&D classic), kelpie (mythology), chupacabra (cryptozoology), not-cenobites ... I mean, velstracs (popculture), d'ziriaks (Paizo Original).

Tatzlwyrm is lock and stock mythology, Sandpoint Devil is a reskinned Jersey Devil, so cryptozoology. Carnivorous Blob is ... the flesh-eating ooze monster from a myriad horror movies/books, starting with, well, The Blob.

Googling around most of the names should give you their origins. If you are truly lost, ask away.

It is a shift, though. The first Bestiary is loaded with so many staples and "expected" monsters, while Bestiary 2 really has a grand amount of bizarre names and faces that folks just getting into Pathfinder here (or old school D&D I assume) have no frame of reference for.

I love it but boy, do I recognize about one in eight while paging through...

Gorbacz, thanks for the explanations of tatzelwyrm and sandpoint devil (two I recognized). Tatzelwyrm hails from my region's folklore. Sandpoint devil's lore was new to me, that's great.
Again, I'm fine with those, I recognize these as Paizo creatures from back in the day. Just not sure about the overwhelming rest...

It is a shift, though. The first Bestiary is loaded with so many staples and "expected" monsters, while Bestiary 2 really has a grand amount of bizarre names and faces that folks just getting into Pathfinder here (or old school D&D I assume) have no frame of reference for.

I love it but boy, do I recognize about one in eight while paging through...

Yes, that's my impression too, to be honest. It's chock full with inside references that people who skipped PF 1e won't recognize. I'm pretty shaky with 1e, not having played it extensively and skipping nearly all of its adventure paths. Sure, I think Ydersius was a villain from Serpent Skull, and swamp giants appeared somewhere in Giant Slayer (right?), and then Age of Worms had worm that walks. But unless you played those very specific Paizo modules, you wouldn't know. If you did, and wanted to convert the modules to 2e, this bestiary is for you. If not, maybe not so much?

There's still a good chunk of monsters in the book that trade off an established frame of reference, like the myhos monsters (spiders of leng, hounds of tindalos). I guess these too were utilized in 1e adventure paths?

None of the dragon, elementals, or giant variants struck a chord. Don't get me wrong, they look interesting mechanically, and definitely engage me as GM wanting to play interesting combat encounters. I just wish the book would also compel me to write adventures and stories around the creatures, which would require a more established lore frame of reference.

I'm reminded here a bit of 4th edition D&D monster manuals, where the monster lore to less familiar creatures was written up in separate books (like the books on planes). Guess it's the same here, and that the books are not for learning lore but running monsters you already know?

Gorbacz, thanks for the explanations of tatzelwyrm and sandpoint devil (two I recognized). Tatzelwyrm hails from my region's folklore. Sandpoint devil's lore was new to me, that's great.

Again, I'm fine with those, I recognize these as Paizo creatures from back in the day. Just not sure about the overwhelming rest...

Sporkedup wrote:

It is a shift, though. The first Bestiary is loaded with so many staples and "expected" monsters, while Bestiary 2 really has a grand amount of bizarre names and faces that folks just getting into Pathfinder here (or old school D&D I assume) have no frame of reference for.

I love it but boy, do I recognize about one in eight while paging through...

Yes, that's my impression too, to be honest. It's chock full with inside references that people who skipped PF 1e won't recognize. I'm pretty shaky with 1e, not having played it extensively and skipping nearly all of its adventure paths. Sure, I think Ydersius was a villain from Serpent Skull, and swamp giants appeared somewhere in Giant Slayer (right?), and then Age of Worms had worm that walks. But unless you played those very specific Paizo modules, you wouldn't know. If you did, and wanted to convert the modules to 2e, this bestiary is for you. If not, maybe not so much?

There's still a good chunk of monsters in the book that trade off an established frame of reference, like the myhos monsters (spiders of leng, hounds of tindalos). I guess these too were utilized in 1e adventure paths?

None of the dragon, elementals, or giant variants struck a chord. Don't get me wrong, they look interesting mechanically, and definitely engage me as GM wanting to play interesting combat encounters. I just wish the book would also compel me to write adventures and stories around the creatures, which would require a more established lore frame of reference.

I'm reminded here a bit of 4th edition D&D monster manuals, where the monster lore to less familiar creatures was written up in separate books (like the books on...

hm I'm surprised none of the monsters struck a chord, they did for me, and I've never played pf1e.

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters. Like lot of monsters in this bestiary are completely new and not from 1e. Either way though I though lore given to monsters was sufficient. Like in case of primal dragons, this is actually first time ever we have gotten their flavor and lore :p They are from bestiary 2 where they had exactly since short sentence of flavor text.

On side note I think marsh giants ARE from bestiary 2?

The worm that walks is actually enough common trope to have tv tropes entrance :p That said, they made appearance in multiple APs. Its pretty much as the lore says, its essentially just non undead version of evil spell caster returning from death as something horrific, they don't really have much more lore to them(though they do have ecology article in wrath of the righteous)

ALMOST ALL the elemental are new as they replace the "small magma elemental, medium magma elemental large magma elemental, etc" framework from PFS 1e.

Gorbacz, thanks for the explanations of tatzelwyrm and sandpoint devil (two I recognized). Tatzelwyrm hails from my region's folklore. Sandpoint devil's lore was new to me, that's great.

Again, I'm fine with those, I recognize these as Paizo creatures from back in the day. Just not sure about the overwhelming rest...

Sporkedup wrote:

It is a shift, though. The first Bestiary is loaded with so many staples and "expected" monsters, while Bestiary 2 really has a grand amount of bizarre names and faces that folks just getting into Pathfinder here (or old school D&D I assume) have no frame of reference for.

I love it but boy, do I recognize about one in eight while paging through...

Yes, that's my impression too, to be honest. It's chock full with inside references that people who skipped PF 1e won't recognize. I'm pretty shaky with 1e, not having played it extensively and skipping nearly all of its adventure paths. Sure, I think Ydersius was a villain from Serpent Skull, and swamp giants appeared somewhere in Giant Slayer (right?), and then Age of Worms had worm that walks. But unless you played those very specific Paizo modules, you wouldn't know. If you did, and wanted to convert the modules to 2e, this bestiary is for you. If not, maybe not so much?

There's still a good chunk of monsters in the book that trade off an established frame of reference, like the myhos monsters (spiders of leng, hounds of tindalos). I guess these too were utilized in 1e adventure paths?

None of the dragon, elementals, or giant variants struck a chord. Don't get me wrong, they look interesting mechanically, and definitely engage me as GM wanting to play interesting combat encounters. I just wish the book would also compel me to write adventures and stories around the creatures, which would require a more established lore frame of reference.

I'm reminded here a bit of 4th edition D&D monster manuals, where the monster lore to less familiar creatures was written up in separate books (like the books on...

Pathfinder bestiaries have always been "statblock + as much lore as you can fit on the same page, which often is not a lot". For extensive lore on individual monsters, there's all the campaign setting books focused on monster families and AP bestiary chapters which usually are more relaxed with space with lore.

Bestiaries always were about getting the stats and the art out, first and foremost. Frankly, lore is something you can easily expand or come up with, stats? Not so much.

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere.

Indeed. If this is someone's point of view now, just wait until we hit Bestiary 6 some years down the road.

I don't think it's a feeling of a need to recognize all the creatures. I think for me part of it is Paizo's naming techniques also are unique (which is great). But that means you look at some of these creatures, think "I don't recognize this monster, either by appearance or description, and I have no idea how to even say the name." It's just an added layer of density. I only hit a few like that in the first Bestiary, but there are a pretty large number in the second Bestiary that just look dense and completely strange.

I think it's honestly a great thing. But it definitely is taking some work to get to know these odd monsters.

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters.

You're missing a premise here. It's totally fine to introduce new creatures with little traction in monster manuals. The issue is not if you do it, but how.

One way is 2nd edition AD&D. Monstrous Compendiums have fewer creatures per book, but a fuller write-up for each creature. Smaller font, smaller stat block, and often smaller art.

Another way is 2nd edition Pathfinder. Large stat block, large art, little lore. Like D&D 4th, this makes for a great table reference. Also like D&D 4th, this follows the business model of asking customers to buy multiple books to get all the related content on one creature. A bit like splitting Inner World Guide, previously a 320-page book, into three books of 128 pages each.

Both approaches have strengths, and I'm ok with both when I know which one it is. Hence my question.

I'll also say that I'm a LOT more ok with the second approach when I already own the books that contain the related lore. I'm less enthusiastic buying a book that asks me to go and buy another one.

I saw that happen with The Dark Eye RPG (in Germany published by the exact same company as Pathfinder) and it sank that product line really fast. There too, a publisher took a traditional RPG and split content of formerly self-contained 300-page books into multiple 128-page hardcover purchases. The deeper you get into an edition of such a RPG, the more you split the customer base into those who want their 13th purchase to amplify and justify the prior 12 purchases (aka buyer's remorse) and entry-level or casual buyers who are bewildered by intra-product dependency (the classic case being ASL).

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters.

You're missing a premise here. It's totally fine to introduce new creatures with little traction in monster manuals. The issue is not if you do it, but how.

One way is 2nd edition AD&D. Monstrous Compendiums have fewer creatures per book, but a fuller write-up for each creature. Smaller font, smaller stat block, and often smaller art.

Ah. I think I'm getting what is the misunderstanding here.

See, I got confused by you saying "Oh, seems like Paizo doesn't prefer monster lore in bestiaries", but in my view monsters in this book have much more lore than they did in 1e. Some of them have more lore in this book than they EVER had in 1e.

Like back when Paizo did "Monsters Revisited" series of campaign setting books, some of monsters(such as most giants including marsh giant) got expanded in them, but they stopped doing them I guess because they didn't sell well or something. But like Linnorms for example never got full ecology article about them in general(I think sea linnorm was only linnorm to get full writing due to it being introduced in AP bestiary and AP bestiaries always had two pages for new creatures when they weren't introducing multiple different types of them)

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters.

You're missing a premise here. It's totally fine to introduce new creatures with little traction in monster manuals. The issue is not if you do it, but how.

One way is 2nd edition AD&D. Monstrous Compendiums have fewer creatures per book, but a fuller write-up for each creature. Smaller font, smaller stat block, and often smaller art.

Another way is 2nd edition Pathfinder. Large stat block, large art, little lore. Like D&D 4th, this makes for a great table reference. Also like D&D 4th, this follows the business model of asking customers to buy multiple books to get all the related content on one creature. A bit like splitting Inner World Guide, previously a 320-page book, into three books of 128 pages each.

Both approaches have strengths, and I'm ok with both when I know which one it is. Hence my question.

I'll also say that I'm a LOT more ok with the second approach when I already own the books that contain the related lore. I'm less enthusiastic buying a book that asks me to go and buy another one.

I saw that happen with The Dark Eye RPG (in Germany published by the exact same company as Pathfinder) and it sank that product line really fast. There too, a publisher took a traditional RPG and split content of formerly self-contained 300-page books into multiple 128-page hardcover purchases. The deeper you get into an edition of such a RPG, the more you split the customer base into those who want their 13th purchase to amplify and justify the prior 12 purchases (aka buyer's remorse) and entry-level or casual buyers who are bewildered by intra-product dependency (the classic case being ASL).

What you are missing is all the people who don't care for the monster lore, they just want stats. Given how many people use Pathfinder to run their homebrew setting or other published settings, you have to balance what's attractive for them (statblock + few sentences) with people who want to read 4 pages on how that monster figures into Golarion.

CorvusMask wrote:

I'm more surprised by notion that you HAVE to recognize the monsters from somewhere. Because by that logic, you aren't allowed to create new monsters.

You're missing a premise here. It's totally fine to introduce new creatures with little traction in monster manuals. The issue is not if you do it, but how.

One way is 2nd edition AD&D. Monstrous Compendiums have fewer creatures per book, but a fuller write-up for each creature. Smaller font, smaller stat block, and often smaller art.

Another way is 2nd edition Pathfinder. Large stat block, large art, little lore. Like D&D 4th, this makes for a great table reference. Also like D&D 4th, this follows the business model of asking customers to buy multiple books to get all the related content on one creature. A bit like splitting Inner World Guide, previously a 320-page book, into three books of 128 pages each.

Both approaches have strengths, and I'm ok with both when I know which one it is. Hence my question.

I'll also say that I'm a LOT more ok with the second approach when I already own the books that contain the related lore. I'm less enthusiastic buying a book that asks me to go and buy another one.

I saw that happen with The Dark Eye RPG (in Germany published by the exact same company as Pathfinder) and it sank that product line really fast. There too, a publisher took a traditional RPG and split content of formerly self-contained 300-page books into multiple 128-page hardcover purchases. The deeper you get into an edition of such a RPG, the more you split the customer base into those who want their 13th purchase to amplify and justify the prior 12 purchases (aka buyer's remorse) and entry-level or casual buyers who are bewildered by intra-product dependency (the classic case being ASL).

Well, that's how Paizo has been writing their books since... Since the very first bestiary. You seem to be new to Pathfinder, but their bestiaries favor stats over lore, and old pathfinders like myself are actually surprised by the huge amount of lore in the book. We even get those juice lore sidebars!

Side note, happy to see some Dominion of the Black entries in this one! I'm only vaguely familiar with them, though they seem to be a fascinating and high-potential enemy group. Hoping that we see at least an adventure shortly that deals with them, even though I expect a full AP is probably a bit much.

What you are missing is all the people who don't care for the monster lore, they just want stats.

And that's fine. I said out of the gate that this book is self-contained IF all you expect from it is to help you run mechanically interesting encounters. I was just wondering if that's the target audience for the book, or if there's more going on and I'm missing some obvious lore references.

many people use Pathfinder to run their homebrew setting

And those GMs don't want or need any monster lore? If so, that's a questionable assumption. When I run homebrew, I don't need to learn that goblins venerate Lamashtu. I'd still want to learn that goblins love explosives and riding wargs. Those things help me build interesting encounters and funny adventure scenes.

Side note, happy to see some Dominion of the Black entries in this one! I'm only vaguely familiar with them, though they seem to be a fascinating and high-potential enemy group. Hoping that we see at least an adventure shortly that deals with them, even though I expect a full AP is probably a bit much.

Well JJ did say that Doomsday Dawn didn't count as "Dominion of the Black" AP and I agree ;D It was way more about Aucturn Enigma than Dominion!

Gorbacz wrote:

many people use Pathfinder to run their homebrew setting

And those GMs don't want or need any monster lore? If so, that's a questionable assumption. When I run homebrew, I don't need to learn that goblins venerate Lamashtu. I'd still want to learn that goblins love explosives and riding wargs. Those things help me build interesting encounters and funny adventure scenes.

There were some GMs who were really against the idea of bestiaries stopping being setting neutral and including Lost Omens lore :p

But yeah, I agree that knowing more lore about creatures is good. Paizo model is pretty much introducing monsters in bestiaries and then expanding on them in other books if possible.(they used to do those monster specific campaign setting books they haven't done in ages..) Lot of Adventure Path articles are about expanding lore of creatures(particularly in AP that features them.) So you do actually miss lot of lore if you ignore all APs in general.

Sporkedup wrote:

Side note, happy to see some Dominion of the Black entries in this one! I'm only vaguely familiar with them, though they seem to be a fascinating and high-potential enemy group. Hoping that we see at least an adventure shortly that deals with them, even though I expect a full AP is probably a bit much.

Well JJ did say that Doomsday Dawn didn't count as "Dominion of the Black" AP and I agree ;D It was way more about Aucturn Enigma than Dominion!

Fair. I wasn't involved in the playtest though I was aware of the Dominion of the Black connection. Did they get a lot of play in PF1?

I just know they and Serpentfolk separately are ways of including mindflayer stories without having access to mindflayers. I think Serpentfolk are probably easier to write for but highly weird, brain-obsessive alien forces are intriguing the hell out of me this morning.

CorvusMask wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

Side note, happy to see some Dominion of the Black entries in this one! I'm only vaguely familiar with them, though they seem to be a fascinating and high-potential enemy group. Hoping that we see at least an adventure shortly that deals with them, even though I expect a full AP is probably a bit much.

Well JJ did say that Doomsday Dawn didn't count as "Dominion of the Black" AP and I agree ;D It was way more about Aucturn Enigma than Dominion!

Fair. I wasn't involved in the playtest though I was aware of the Dominion of the Black connection. Did they get a lot of play in PF1?

I just know they and Serpentfolk separately are ways of including mindflayer stories without having access to mindflayers. I think Serpentfolk are probably easier to write for but highly weird, brain-obsessive alien forces are intriguing the hell out of me this morning.

Dominion of the Black got few cameos(like in 3.5 module Pact Stone Pyramid was probably one that introduced their lore but they didn't make appearance and Dragon's Demand had cameo of the book with their lore in it and several characters researching them. Doom comes to Dustpawn also featured them but that was super star rpg contest module), most notably Valley of the Brain Collectors in Iron Gods(and in backstory of IG in general), but no full ap about them :D

Valley of the Brain Collectors is my favorite IG book btw though I think most people don't like it as much for some reason ;D

I'm quite happy with the monster selection, the artwork and the side bars,

Hello all,
I'm probably gonna feel dumb when I get the answer to this but I still feel the need to ask anyway.
I'm getting ready to by the Bestiary Pawns 1&2 PDF's, do I need Bestiary one and two, or only two so all the monsters are covered?
Thank you in advance and please be gentle. :)

Each Bestiary contains a unique set of monsters - there's no overlap between the two books. Each can be used without the other, but if you want everything, you need to buy both. That goes for the books and the pawn sets.

Can finally purchase the PDF YASSSS

Got my PDF this morning. Scrolled through it. Nice art and some interesting conversions of old monsters.

I hope that the PDFs from subscriptions still get sent out on time. Would like to have it my Patreon game this Sunday.

Got my PDF this morning. Scrolled through it. Nice art and some interesting conversions of old monsters.

I am still waiting on my core subscription. Even if I have to what for the hardback I hope that the PDFs from subscriptions still get sent out on time. I would like to have it my Patreon game this Sunday.

If you have a subscription, and the CRB was shipped under that subscription, you should have the pdf in your downloads area. NB: if you started your subscription with a book *after* the CRB (e.g. the Bestiary), you will not get the CRB as part of the sub; you'll have to buy both it and the pdf separately.

Each Bestiary contains a unique set of monsters - there's no overlap between the two books. Each can be used without the other, but if you want everything, you need to buy both. That goes for the books and the pawn sets.

Thank you for the reply and the info.

CorvusMask, thanks for leaving a review! In answer to your earlier question, animate dreams are beings from the Dreamlands and are thus bodiless beings of mental essence, not spiritual essence, so they wouldn't have the spirit trait.

Ah I see :O So ethereal and astral creatures aren't spirits either... My perfectionist side is bit sad I didn't realize that earlier when I was doing entries for rpg superstar xD Ah well I'm sure I made other mistakes too...

But yeah, thank you Mark for clarification :3

Spiritual essence is also sometimes known as ethereal essence, so an incorporeal from the Ethereal Plane could easily be a spirit. An incorporeal astral creature is probably also a thoughtform though.

Spiritual essence is also sometimes known as ethereal essence, so an incorporeal from the Ethereal Plane could easily be a spirit. An incorporeal astral creature is probably also a thoughtform though.

Oh, cool! :D So I got half of them right then xD

Oh yeah, I had one more art nitpick, but I don't think at this point its important enough to add to the review. Or is it? Well I let you decide

But yeah my nitpick was this: Spirit naga description talks about how horrifying their faces are, but art for spirit naga has them have attractive faces, especially compared to 1e Spirit Naga's weird face that was least human like of all naga faces

This isn't nitpick, just something I'm curious about:

How did stygira end up as fay? In 1e they were just monstrous humanoids and 2e bestiary makes no mention of them being fay, but they have fay trait

In general: I really like how this book turned out. I hope that future bestiaries continue in the same vein.

My favorite little thing was the inclusion of the mechanical blurb for being a cleric of the Norns. Very neat idea, very handy for those of us interested in Ulfen/Viking/Norse styles of campaign. (Or beyond--seer/priest/priestess of Fate/the Fates is an iconic fantasy archetype.)

And I continue to be happy with all of the lore and flavor and context (relating to Golarion or otherwise) beyond the statblocks given to almost all critters. The sidebars are great.

Mine finally arrived in the UK. Does everyone else have a sort of washed out yellow colour for the spine, front cover logos and back cover background?

While I admit that does nothing to really spoil the book it looks 'off' when sat next to the other core books on the shelf.

I suspect it is not a design choice as even the pathfinder logo, second edition tag, and colour around the title are yellow rather than parchment.

Mine finally arrived in the UK. Does everyone else have a sort of washed out yellow colour for the spine, front cover logos and back cover background?

While I admit that does nothing to really spoil the book it looks 'off' when sat next to the other core books on the shelf.

I suspect it is not a design choice as even the pathfinder logo, second edition tag, and colour around the title are yellow rather than parchment.

Probably a printer error... mine is a little bit less “red” than the other core books, but it’s hard to see.