|
On sidenote, huh interesting, tikbalang went complete change from CE explicitly malicious trickster to CN "not malicious but not particularly empathetic" trickster. I wonder if that is to make them more accurate to culture they are from?
(also yeah herexen are pretty obviously renamed huecuva, they are reaaaaally similar)
Weird they changed the name, but yay!
Remember that we got playable race stats for the Cecaelia and the adaro in PF1. Adlets are certainly not so far afield.
|
|
Weird they changed the name, but yay!On sidenote, huh interesting, tikbalang went complete change from CE explicitly malicious trickster to CN "not malicious but not particularly empathetic" trickster. I wonder if that is to make them more accurate to culture they are from?
(also yeah herexen are pretty obviously renamed huecuva, they are reaaaaally similar)
As far as I can tell, this is probably why they changed the name: Because Huecuva is name used for that type of undead in D&D and doesn't really have anything to do with origin of the word itself(which seems to be from quick googling from south american evil spirit named Huecuvus?). So its about same as changing Ettercap to Web Lurker and such
And Adaro and Cecaelia were CR 3 and 5 respectively, which aren't too far fetched to be like "Ah your level 1 cecalia is bit weaker right now than average member of species".
But again, while I am pointing this out, it doesn't make playeable Adlet impossible, since PC and NPC rules are quite different in 2e. But it would be first time we would have ancestry based on high level creature. I'm not particularly opposed to idea anyway, though obviously level 1 playable adlet wouldn't have all the cool storm and wind abilities they normally have
|
|
Weird they changed the name, but yay!On sidenote, huh interesting, tikbalang went complete change from CE explicitly malicious trickster to CN "not malicious but not particularly empathetic" trickster. I wonder if that is to make them more accurate to culture they are from?
(also yeah herexen are pretty obviously renamed huecuva, they are reaaaaally similar)
As far as I can tell, this is probably why they changed the name: Because Huecuva is name used for that type of undead in D&D and doesn't really have anything to do with origin of the word itself(which seems to be from quick googling from south american evil spirit named Huecuvus?). So its about same as changing Ettercap to Web Lurker and such
Ah fair enough
|
One disappointment I have is that there are still holes in the summoning spells not filled in by the 3 bestiaries.
For example, there is nothing that can be summoned by Animate Dead 9 that cannot be summoned by animate dead 8. There are no common level 12 or 13 undead.
Current Gaps
Animate Dead 9
Summon Construct 7
Summon Elemental 9
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One disappointment I have is that there are still holes in the summoning spells not filled in by the 3 bestiaries.
For example, there is nothing that can be summoned by Animate Dead 9 that cannot be summoned by animate dead 8. There are no common level 12 or 13 undead.
Current Gaps
Animate Dead 9
Summon Construct 7
Summon Elemental 9
Meanwhile I find it genuinely impressive that with summon animals, summon celestials, summon fiends, summon dragons, summon entity, summon plant and fungi, summon fey and summon giant included that those three spells are only heighten spell gaps left x'D
(Fun trivia: Out of those only fiends and entity(aberrations) have something for every level from 0-15 and, perhaps unsurprisingly, no list at this point has monster for every level from -1 to 15. Not particularly surprised by latter one since some of them start with level 1 or 5 instead of -1 and I don't think there is particularly need for level -1 fiends or giants/dragons/elementals/celestials/aberrations either. Heck would be kinda weird to have level -1 to 2 giants since they could lose to farmers quite easily.
I do find it impressive though how many lists are almost complete with -1 to 15 range with animals, plants/fungi and fey missing one each. (14 for animals and plants/fungi and 11 for fey. Though again not big deal in this context, since not sure why you would use level 10 spell to summon level 14 creature instead of 15 unless 14 just happens to have ability that would be useful)
Still bit disappointing to hear that three core bestiaries still leave summon heighten spell gaps, but its not big deal in that since they are for so high levels it won't bother most players and I believe eventually those gaps will be filled as well, so won't affect my review or opinion of the book. Just interesting to know and something to look forward to being filled later on.
One disappointment I have is that there are still holes in the summoning spells not filled in by the 3 bestiaries.
For example, there is nothing that can be summoned by Animate Dead 9 that cannot be summoned by animate dead 8. There are no common level 12 or 13 undead.
Current Gaps
Animate Dead 9
Summon Construct 7
Summon Elemental 9
Summon Construct 7- summons level 9 construct
Both Alchemical Golem (B1) and Clockwork Mage (B3) are level 9 but are also both uncommon.Summon Elemental 9- level 13 elemental
Adult Magma Dragon and Consonite Choir, again both level 13 but both uncommon.
Same with Animate Dead 9, all 3 uncommon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also loving all the new monsters. Anyone familiar with real life origins (if any) of the Skelm?
I believe it's a reference to recent political events. According to the lore, they wear horns, they form angry mobs, they riot in palaces, and they don't like women.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be overly negative, but this bestiary makes me miss being able to wild shape into specific monsters instead of just the ones in the spell. Some of the things in this book are so so cool and I wish players could turn into them!! At least we have summoning but it's not as exciting for me personally.
Also thank you for the pangolin!!
https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1082
Bone Ship. Cannonade ability. Is there a special MAP rule missing?
Cannonade [two-actions] The bone ship makes four bone cannon Strikes, each targeting a different creature.
|
|
Also loving all the new monsters. Anyone familiar with real life origins (if any) of the Skelm?I believe it's a reference to recent political events. According to the lore, they wear horns, they form angry mobs, they riot in palaces, and they don't like women.
Nah, they are just Finnish stereo- err basic stereotypes about angry old men who grew under toxic masculine culture and vent out their anger in worst way possible by abusing others
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(also yeah herexen are pretty obviously renamed huecuva, they are reaaaaally similar)
The herexen is indeed designed around the same theme as the huecuva, and intentionally so. But mechanically speaking, the new creature really is re-designed from the ground up rather than just being renamed. All its abilities are new, and some of the abilities vary depending on which deity they served in life.
I had been hoping for new dinos but love the new vampires!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was kind of... meh about the selection of monsters in this one. A few were good. I was especially excited to see the festrog and the eurypterids. I was hoping for perhaps a ghorazag. There's just a bunch of stuff in here I don't see myself using, like, ever.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was kind of... meh about the selection of monsters in this one. A few were good. I was especially excited to see the festrog and the eurypterids. I was hoping for perhaps a ghorazag. There's just a bunch of stuff in here I don't see myself using, like, ever.
Considering lot of stuff here is cool, I do recommend trying out new things ;D
I was hoping for perhaps a ghorazag.
If it helps, that creature is mechanically quite close to the irlgaunt. If you used the pathfinder 1 artwork and put sickened and slow on the vomit attack, I doubt most players would notice.
anyone know why the Nagaji Soldier (pg 182) doesn't speak Nagaji?
Not all ancestries need their own language.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
anyone know why the Nagaji Soldier (pg 182) doesn't speak Nagaji?Not all ancestries need their own language.
Only that Nagaji appears to have been an already-established language for them in 1e, so it's either a weird unexplained retcon, or a straight-up oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only that Nagaji appears to have been an already-established language for them in 1e, so it's either a weird unexplained retcon, or a straight-up oversight.anyone know why the Nagaji Soldier (pg 182) doesn't speak Nagaji?Not all ancestries need their own language.
Might be an oversight, but more in a 1e context where they didn't need one.
Personally, I wish racial language wasn't a thing, because it usually tends to make languages as an active part of the game impractical to use. I'd rather have a more curated number, so the GM can use them and players can feel good investing in them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Note that there is no Nagaji language listed in the languages table on page 311. So, there probably no longer is such a language, and the native language of nagaji is now Draconic.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but Nagaji have their own language. It was mentioned in the nonhuman languages section of the fists of the Ruby Phoenix Player's Guide.anyone know why the Nagaji Soldier (pg 182) doesn't speak Nagaji?Not all ancestries need their own language.
Potentially a simple miscommunication.
People working on the bestiary might have looked at the PF1 bestiary 4 entry and saw "common and Draconic" as sole languages, and didn't think to look at the lore version, while those working on the AP had read everything about them to portray them correctly.OR it was made specifically to be more setting neutral but that's not a goal for this edition... Or the freelancer thought it was still a goal, and there are so many monsters in that book that it slipped when the Paizo people looked at it. (Most probably that last one TBH...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question (and possible errata): Why is the base jaws Strike damage of a normal skunk (1d8) greater than that of a giant skunk (1d6)?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question (and possible errata): Why is the base jaws Strike damage of a normal skunk (1d8) greater than that of a giant skunk (1d6)?
it's not 1d6 its 1d6+3. Skunk has an average damage of 4.5 (max 8), giant skunk has an average of 6.5. (max 9)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but on page 57 (XIUH COUATL) of the PDF, the monster's image is above some of the text for the stage 2 poison's damage.
Could we get a fixed PDF update please?
I'm not sure if this is the right place to report this, but on page 57 (XIUH COUATL) of the PDF, the monster's image is above some of the text for the stage 2 poison's damage.
Could we get a fixed PDF update please?
I don’t expect any PDF corrections until the book sells out and needs to be re-printed.
I don’t expect any PDF corrections until the book sells out and needs to be re-printed.
OK, well in that case could we get the text here so we know what's written under there? I'll add a note to my PDF to correct it in the mean time.
thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t expect any PDF corrections until the book sells out and needs to be re-printed.OK, well in that case could we get the text here so we know what's written under there? I'll add a note to my PDF to correct it in the mean time.
thanks!
I copy-pasted the text from my pdf.
Stage 2 2d10 poison damage, enfeebled 1, and –5-foot status penalty to all Speeds (1 round);
Stage 3 3d8 poison damage, enfeebled 2, and –10-foot status penalty to all Speeds (1 round)
Of course, it's also available on Archives of Nethys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question (and possible errata): Why is the base jaws Strike damage of a normal skunk (1d8) greater than that of a giant skunk (1d6)?it's not 1d6 its 1d6+3. Skunk has an average damage of 4.5 (max 8), giant skunk has an average of 6.5. (max 9)
I'm referring to the base jaws damage, not including the Strength modifier. It makes no sense for a Tiny skunk's base 1d8 jaws Strike damage to be bigger than that of a Large version of the same creature (1d6).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures aren't built the same as PCs, there is no such thing as base damage for them. They do the damage they do, independent of stats and items. On the next page you may notice the slithering pit has a strength modifier of +7 but its melee damage is 2d8+9.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Creatures aren't built the same as PCs, there is no such thing as base damage for them. They do the damage they do, independent of stats and items. On the next page you may notice the slithering pit has a strength modifier of +7 but its melee damage is 2d8+9.
OK, I'm new to PF2, and you're right on your first point about monsters not being built the same way as PCs. But you're not entirely correct about things doing damage independent of stats. A skunk's supposed to be a Tiny thing with a Creature Rating of -1. According to the "Building Creatures" section of the Gamemastery Guide, the suggested damage ranges from 1d4 to 1d6+1 (which is the Extreme upper limit).
My (now-slightly-more) educated guess is that the skunk's damage of 1d8 is indeed a typo and should be 1d4. Going by the GMG guidelines, a skunk has an average accuracy with its strikes, meaning it should use the high damage column in the table or moderate if it has the agile trait (which a skunk's jaws attack does).
Moderate damage for a -1 Creature: 1d4.
I worded that poorly, by stats I meant ability scores, hence my comparison to the slithering pit's strength modifier.
1d8 seems acceptable to me, as it has the same average result as 1d6+1. Maybe skunks are just supposed to have extreme strike damage for their level.
Maybe skunks are just supposed to have extreme strike damage for their level.
Why would they? They're hardly considered apex predators.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have just recently read through the Pathfinder Second Edition Bestiary 3. For whatever reason (maybe I was just paying closer attention), this seemed like the best bestiary Paizo has released in years, especially in terms of the illustrations. Usually, I find two or three or four favorites in a Pathfinder or Starfinder Bestiary. However, in 2nd Edition Bestiary 3, it seemed like somewhere between a quarter and a third of the illustrations were in competition for favorite bestiary entry illustration! There were so many excellent entries. A few I especially liked were the adlet, arboreal archive, blood painter, aghash div, grimple gremlin, blood hag, toshigami kami, Lovecraft's nightgaunt and yithian as well as ordinary creatures like the seahorse. I love this bestiary.
The bestiary appears as the 307th entry in the poorly named Survey of One Hundred Bestiaries at the blog of the Poison Pie Publishing House.