|
It's not like the monster disappears, the 3e stats are around, it's just hasn't been updated. Besides, if it's an OLD adventure, you'd have the OLD Monster Manual. :PI have the MM. Not everyone else does. For example, the people who buy pathfinder because they can't find the original D&D books probably won't have it.
but they'll have the old modules? :)
How's this? Pathfinder- Monsters of Golarion.
How about: Pathfinder RPG Bestiary?
That way it's not connected to just Golarion.
|
I would only request that you don't recycle what's already been presented in Pathfinder and GameMastery. I subscribe to both, and even if you "improved" on them, I doubt I'd be willing to shell out money on 'em. On the other hand, if Paizo put its head together and came up with a monster manual containing a whole new assembly of critters, numbering 100 or so, I'm sold.Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
I disagree vehemently! I want all of those wonderful original Paizo monsters in one place!
|
|
Hell yes please kill the useless an well dumb spikes.Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
If/when you do, please can I ask that Dire Animals lose those freakish spikes that stick out of every surface of their bodies?
They just strain my disbelief. What are they attached to? How do they not interfere with the muscle groups? How do they not stab themselves?
Why can't they just look like 'bigger animals'? How come a fey can ride round on a sleek 'Giant' Owl, or 'Giant' Eagle, but a goblin has to ride a 'Dire' Wolf, and have a shaft of bone sticking up his ringpiece?
I know the argument that the Dire animals are 'prehistoric', but that doesn't justify the look, either scientifically or aesthetically. The sharks have remained virtually unchanged for millions of years, ie, they are prehistoric 'Dire Fish', but they don't have any of this extraneous nonsense, nor do the crocodiles, who are similarly close to their primal roots.
If I were a cynical man, I'd put forward the theory that the only reason they look that way is to force the more gullible, obsessive fans to get their 'offical' miniatures only from WOTC, rather than raiding a toy store, like all us right-thinking Scrooges.
A third vote for this. Taking the animals and "devolving" them works better. Things like smilodons, mammoths, etc. are much more believable dire animals than a spiky bear. They shouldn't just be bigger, but they also shouldn't look like animals with levels of osteomancer, either.
|
|
but they'll have the old modules? :)It's not like the monster disappears, the 3e stats are around, it's just hasn't been updated. Besides, if it's an OLD adventure, you'd have the OLD Monster Manual. :PI have the MM. Not everyone else does. For example, the people who buy pathfinder because they can't find the original D&D books probably won't have it.
Thank you for putting it so simply.
Even if they buy old Pathfinder APs, Paizo isn't stupid enough to exclude Monsters from their APs. I'm not telling them to do that either, but there are many monsters that could be cut for better ones.
Speaking of stupid things Paizo COULD do, they'd be stupid to exclude full write ups on the Tome of Horror and Advanced Bestiary monsters that they've used so far. You know why? Those books will be harder to find then a 3.5 Monster Manual.
As for Paizo making replacement monsters. I don't see how they can replace Beholders, Mind Flayers, and a few others (see the Daemon thread.)
|
|
but they'll have the old modules? :)It's not like the monster disappears, the 3e stats are around, it's just hasn't been updated. Besides, if it's an OLD adventure, you'd have the OLD Monster Manual. :PI have the MM. Not everyone else does. For example, the people who buy pathfinder because they can't find the original D&D books probably won't have it.
Thank you for putting it so simply.
Even if they buy old Pathfinder APs, Paizo isn't stupid enough to exclude Monsters from their APs. I'm not telling them to do that either, but there are many monsters that could be cut for better ones.
Speaking of stupid things Paizo COULD do, they'd be stupid to exclude full write ups on the Tome of Horror and Advanced Bestiary monsters that they've used so far. You know why? Those books will be harder to find then a 3.5 Monster Manual.
As for Paizo making replacement monsters. I don't see how they can replace Beholders, Mind Flayers, and a few others (see the Daemon thread.)
Why should they? Beholders may have a long and stories history with D&D, but as deadly as they are, they're a comic relief monster. Mind flayers will be a bit more of a loss, but they don't seem like they'd fit in Golarion. Gith rely on a cosmology that Paizo's not using, Inevitables (though they'd be okay to include, legally) would just seem strange, what with things like Hellknights in the setting, etc.
Speaking of stupid things Paizo COULD do, they'd be stupid to exclude full write ups on the Tome of Horror and Advanced Bestiary monsters that they've used so far. You know why? Those books will be harder to find then a 3.5 Monster Manual.
Might not be such a bad idea.
As for Paizo making replacement monsters. I don't see how they can replace Beholders, Mind Flayers, and a few others (see the Daemon thread.)
They can reproduce the concept (which they just can't copyright) without using the names (which they can). There will be squid-faced aberrations with mental powers (wizards can't copyright that - the whole look is a Great Cthulhu rip-off, anyway) that aren't called Illithids, for example.
Why should they?
Popularity?
Beholders may have a long and stories history with D&D, but as deadly as they are, they're a comic relief monster.
No.
Mind flayers will be a bit more of a loss, but they don't seem like they'd fit in Golarion.
Why shouldn't they? There's aboleths, denizens of Leng, and all sorts of weird things. Mind flayers would fit right in.
Gith rely on a cosmology that Paizo's not using
They could move somewhere else without a problem.
, Inevitables (though they'd be okay to include, legally) would just seem strange, what with things like Hellknights in the setting, etc.
D&D has archons even though there are paladins...
|
|
Okay, first of all, I respect that you disagree, and I'm not going to try to discredit you, but let me try to make my case another way. I think every "signiture" D&D monster that WotC wants to keep should be chucked and not duplicated. Why? Because I don't want to give them the slightest grounds to sue with. I can rationalize away Mind Flayers, Beholders, Aboleths, Githyanki, Githzerai, Inevitables, Chuul, Skum, etc. quite easily. Paizo can come up with its own brand of LN enforcers and tentacled nasties. As far as I'm concerned, the stuff that needs to be preserved is the stuff that says "fantasy". Orcs, goblinoids, ogres, trolls, dragons, griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, unicorns, fey, undead, giants, etc. Things with their roots in mythology are more important to me than things with their roots in Gary Gygax or Bruce Crdell's head, because while Beholders and Mindflayers are cool, (beholders are still ridiculous, they're just ridiculous in a cool way, and I still maintain they're at least partially a comic relief monster. Come on, a humungous floating globe that bites you and shoots you with eye rays?) they aren't classic fantasy creatures. You will not find references to beholders or anything like them in GURPS fantasy, or Palladium Fantasy or Hero Fantasy. Mind flayers look a little bit like cthulhu, but they're medium-sized instead of collosal, have only 4 tentacles (6, if it's a ulithiard) and don't have wings and, oh yeah, there's a whole society of them rather than just one. My central point in this, I guess, is that it would be much easier to come up with an entire crop of aberrations and outsiders unique to Golarion (that WotC COULDN'T sue over) than it would be to replace the classic monsters with their roots in mythology. Now that said, if they re-flavor aboleths, achaierai, etc. so they're unique and new, that's perfectly fine. I just won't be bothered if the SRD list and the Pathfinder monster book don't have 100% overlap. And keep in mind that for everything that WotC included in the SRD, all of the flavor and imagery is IP, even if the rules are not. Now, paizo can get away with having things like griffons, unicorns, pegasi, harpies and the like be almost exactly like their D&D counterparts because they're all based in ancient mythology and their general appearance is part of the public domain at this point (and has been for at least 1500 years) but they'd have to re-flavor pretty much everything that was conceived in the last 500 years, and even if they didn't, they'll want to. Pathfinder Goblins and Ogres are quite a bit different from the ones in standard D&D. (I'm sure the other monsters in classic monsters revisited are too, but my copy shipped on the 11th and STILL ISN'T HERE YET. Damn post office.) Same for Stone giants. Same for dragons. Same for... ...you get the picture. Golarion is NOT Greyhawk, Eberron, of the Forgotten realms. Things looks and feel a little different there, and that's part of what makes it so compelling.
As far as the archon/paladin point goes, I suppose you sort of have me there, but archons & paladins have a similar flavor, whereas Hellknights and Inevitables don't, really. Let me also get something out for the record: I really like the inevitables, they just don't seem very Golarion-y to me.
|
|
I think some of the monsters from Pathfinder and GameMastery Modules should be included: for example, Goblins. I would also like to see some of the more creative monsters, especially CR 1 to CR 9, included in a hard cover Pathfinder Magnificent Monster Manual! (Kind of sounds like a new spell, huh?)I would only request that you don't recycle what's already been presented in Pathfinder and GameMastery. I subscribe to both, and even if you "improved" on them, I doubt I'd be willing to shell out money on 'em. On the other hand, if Paizo put its head together and came up with a monster manual containing a whole new assembly of critters, numbering 100 or so, I'm sold.Some sort of monster book is inevitable. It'll probably be the first Pathfinder RPG release after the core book. Nothing concrete, yet, but I agree that this seems an obvious choice.
I am on ther other side of the fence, I want new monsters, yes, but having all the mosnters from Pathfinder and Gamemastery mondules in one place would be great!
I don't want to give them the slightest grounds to sue with.
Of course, they should only do it if they're sure that wizards can't sue. (And I think Chaosium should sue wizards about mind flayers for stealing Cthulhu's concept ;-))
I can rationalize away Mind Flayers, Beholders, Aboleths, Githyanki, Githzerai, Inevitables, Chuul, Skum, etc. quite easily.
Actually, Aboleth, Chuul and Skum are in the SRD, so they can use them. And I'm quite sure Aboleths have already been mentioned.
As far as I'm concerned, the stuff that needs to be preserved is the stuff that says "fantasy". Orcs, goblinoids, ogres, trolls, dragons, griffons, hippogriffs, pegasi, unicorns, fey, undead, giants, etc. Things with their roots in mythology are more important to me than things with their roots in Gary Gygax or Bruce Crdell's head
One of the things I hate about 4e is that they went out of their way to distance themselves to the stuff Gary Gygax came up with. I don't play fantasy RPG here, I play D&D. That stuff is important to me. It makes me feel like I play D&D. That's why they should not only preserve ogres or trolls (I might add that as far as I know, D&D trolls are quite different from most other trolls out there), but also aberrations with vast mental powers.
, because while Beholders and Mindflayers are cool, they aren't classic fantasy creatures.
As I said, for me, D&D is more than classic fantasy. I don't want them doing away with all the things that made D&D unique, like beholders and illithids and basilisks that don't look anything like basilisks, lamias that don't look like Lamia, and so on.
That reminds me: I think someone made a d20/OGL book with new versions of those critters that weren't in the SRD. They are a bit different, and have a different name, but you recognise them at once. wizards hasn't sued whoever made that book, so I think it's safe enough. So Paizo could include them, or even do the same.
|
That reminds me: I think someone made a d20/OGL book with new versions of those critters that weren't in the SRD. They are a bit different, and have a different name, but you recognise them at once. wizards hasn't sued whoever made that book, so I think it's safe enough. So Paizo could include them, or...
Lions Den Press, "Classics of Fantasy - The Iconic Bestiary", by Ari Marmell.
It includes almost-beholders, almost-illithids, almost-yuan-ti, and almost-umber hulks, and almost-others too. All of them Open Content.From the introduction: "Thus, The Iconic Bestiary – Classics of Fantasy is aimed at gamers and publishers alike."
|
|
As I said, for me, D&D is more than classic fantasy. I don't want them doing away with all the things that made D&D unique, like beholders and illithids and basilisks that don't look anything like basilisks, lamias that don't look like Lamia, and so on.
, because while Beholders and Mindflayers are cool, they aren't classic fantasy creatures.
But it's not your decision, or mine, or Paizo's. They can't put beholders & illithids in. Or, for that matter, anything close enough to be recognized as them. And Chuul are a 3rd edition beastie. As far as the whole Lamia thing... after RotRL, what's missing? There's standard lamias, kuchrimas, lamia matriarchs, hungerers, and harridans. I never even noticed lamias before, and Paizo made an entire class of monsters out of them. I sure as hell notice them now. I guess another way of putting it is this: we're GOING to lose some things in the transition, because the people at WotC want to keep a few of the best toys for themselves. That's fine, they do own the brand, after all. But I think Paizo will be more than able to make up for the loss of beholders, gith, and illithids (and even all the little subspecies therein)
I guess a good way of saying it is: yeah, it's a loss. But with Paizo at the helm, you won't feel it for long. Not every adventure has illithids, beholders, and gith anyway.
|
|
Not every adventure has illithids, beholders, and gith anyway.
And if you positively absolutely must have an illithid, beholder, or gith in your campaign, there are a slew of 3.5 books that you will still be able to reference.
I know one of the first set of NPCs I'll be converting is my troop of Githyanki sword hunters. (Thank you Dungeon Issue 100!) They've had a slew of cameos in my campaigns . . . nice little drop in and drop outs.
|
|
Not every adventure has illithids, beholders, and gith anyway.And if you positively absolutely must have an illithid, beholder, or gith in your campaign, there are a slew of 3.5 books that you will still be able to reference.
I know one of the first set of NPCs I'll be converting is my troop of Githyanki sword hunters. (Thank you Dungeon Issue 100!) They've had a slew of cameos in my campaigns . . . nice little drop in and drop outs.
Very true, and a few 3.0 ones, as well. There's Lords of Madness, the Planar Handbook, the Psionics Handbook, Complete Psionic, Monster Manual V, Unveiled Masters, the FR Underdark book, the FR Monster Supplement, and the free downloadable Eye King template from Green ronin's Advanced Bestiary's web enhancement page, and then there was the whole Incursion thing from Dungeon & Dragon a while back.
If you need more than that and aren't willing to convert, well, I guess you're out of luck.
|
|
I don't want to give them the slightest grounds to sue with.Of course, they should only do it if they're sure that wizards can't sue. (And I think Chaosium should sue wizards about mind flayers for stealing Cthulhu's concept ;-))
Except they can't. The cthulhu mythos is the fiction equivalent of OGL and has been for decades. H.P. Lovecraft made it that way to allow other writers to play in his sandbox. Nobody owns Cthulhu. Or Nyarlathotep, or Hastur, or any of the others.
|
|
Nobody owns Cthulhu.
That's not entirely true, there's still a lot of debate over his later works. Needless to say, there's no one you need a license from to use his stuff. I believe Europe they finally settled it this year for their own sakes that everything is open content. But that doesn't apply here in the USA and Canada. :)
|
|
Nobody owns Cthulhu.That's not entirely true, there's still a lot of debate over his later works. Needless to say, there's no one you need a license from to use his stuff. I believe Europe they finally settled it this year for their own sakes that everything is open content. But that doesn't apply here in the USA and Canada. :)
I stand corrected. Sorry, I thought this was more or less a settled issue, I guess it's only been settled on one continent.
|
|
I forget the year but there's a point where everything written from X-date is in fact open, but then there's other later stuff (like the actual Call of Cthulhu story) that's still contested.
Hell, Consortium has/had a copyright for the name "Call of Cthulhu" in regards to games.
But all of this is off topic and I'll be quiet. :)
How about: Pathfinder RPG Bestiary?
I like it - Bestiary is a little bit more "edgy" and just ties in with the vibe of Pathfinder itself.
BUT. I almost kinda want to ditch the "dire animal" category, except for dire wolves. I'd rather replace the "dire animals" with real-world prehistoric versions. The dire wolf IS a real-world prehistoric animal, for example. But the dire tiger isn't; in MY world, that slot would be taken up by the smilodon. The dire bear by the cave bear. The dire rat by a plain old giant rat. The dire shark by a megalodon. ETC.That kicks sand in the backwards compatibility scene, though. Maybe instead we'd still list them as dire animals but give their real-world prehistoric analog name in parenthesis?
Couldn't you do it the other way round - listing them by their real-world [Pathfinder names] and they listing their type as "Dire Animal" in parenthisis? Would also fit in with the idea behind the "Dire Template" mooted on this thread...
|
|
Couldn't you do it the other way round - listing them by their real-world [Pathfinder names] and they listing their type as "Dire Animal" in parenthisis? Would also fit in with the idea behind the "Dire Template" mooted on this thread...
No.. I don't want to have a hard time finding Dire Animals. Don't mind real names appearing as part of the write-up, but if I can't find the damn thing because it has a new name in the table of contents, that'll be a pain.
But it's not your decision, or mine, or Paizo's. They can't put beholders & illithids in.
But they can do Occular Tyrants and Mental Oppressors (or something similar), that revises the concept without being a carbon copy.
Lions Den Press, "Classics of Fantasy - The Iconic Bestiary", by Ari Marmell.
I somehow find that ironic!
|
|
But they can do Occular Tyrants and Mental Oppressors (or something similar), that revises the concept without being a carbon copy.
Why, it makes no sense having a carbon copy of the WotC MM when you can just use a WotC MM, this is the internet age, if they want stats for a beholder its a mouse click away and 5 minutes to update for pathfinder.
|
|
What about Pathfinder Monster Compendium Volume II wonder if Pathfinder can use the name, "Monster Manual" anywhere in its title. Copyrighted? How about, "Magnificent Little Beasties?" Heh. Don't answer.Nope; copyrighted. We'll have to go with a different name.
That would sound good and it would be consistent with the Dragon Compendium, too.
Erik & James -- please include "Core" monsters in the manual, too, or release two (or even more) monster books, because I'd also like to see those "familiar" critters being updated to PF (though I wouldn't mind if you put a "Paizo Spin" on them ;). Monsters of Golarion would be a good idea as well, I think.
In any case, I can't wait, because I know you guys will do an awesome job with this! =)
|
|
Erik & James -- please include "Core" monsters in the manual, too, or release two (or even more) monster books,
They're going to do a monster book, AFTER they're doing with Pathfinder RPG.
I just want them to take their time with the Monster book, I don't want them coming up with any asinine monster creation systems like wizards had for 3.0/3.5. Because of the system Wizards created for making monsters, apparently they couldn't make monster that had lots of hitpoints and hit hard, without giving them all kinds of saves, feats, etc. they didn't want/intended the monster to have. The system originally created balanced the monsters against eachother instead of allowing them to create monsters that served a purpose.
|
|
Erik & James -- please include "Core" monsters in the manual, too, or release two (or even more) monster books,They're going to do a monster book, AFTER they're doing with Pathfinder RPG.
I just want them to take their time with the Monster book, I don't want them coming up with any asinine monster creation systems like wizards had for 3.0/3.5. Because of the system Wizards created for making monsters, apparently they couldn't make monster that had lots of hitpoints and hit hard, without giving them all kinds of saves, feats, etc. they didn't want/intended the monster to have. The system originally created balanced the monsters against eachother instead of allowing them to create monsters that served a purpose.
Hey at least they man'd up and admitted that though. Personally I started ignoring the creature type rules and went on a monster by monster basis and found that the game got more fun without the adherance to the okay it's undead no crits no sneak attack or its a construct okay blah blah blah.
Yeah! Maybe even . . . Mithril Dragons?
|
|
But it's not your decision, or mine, or Paizo's. They can't put beholders & illithids in.But they can do Occular Tyrants and Mental Oppressors (or something similar), that revises the concept without being a carbon copy.
Not without opening themselves up to possible leagl action. If a normal person recognizes them as the same thing or as a copy of the concept, you're probably on shakier ground than Paizo wants to be on. If a normal person DOESN'T recognize them as the same concept, it's a new critter anyways.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey, I have a question over here.
June 2008: Wizards of the Coast publishes 4th Edition Monster Manual. Suspends publication of 3rd-and-a-half Edition Monster Manual.
...
August 2009: Paizo publishes Pathfinder RPG and, sometime shortly thereafter, the Pathfinder Monster Manual.
So, when a novice DM finds the a Pathfinder / GameMastery module, and buys the Pathfinder Beta rulebook from the shelves in, say, February of 2009, and when she wants to run an adventure, where is she supposed to find stats for the critters in the modules? The 3.5 MM will be long gone. The Pathfinder MM won't be available for another half-year.
What'll she use?
BUT. I almost kinda want to ditch the "dire animal" category, except for dire wolves. I'd rather replace the "dire animals" with real-world prehistoric versions. The dire wolf IS a real-world prehistoric animal, for example. But the dire tiger isn't; in MY world, that slot would be taken up by the smilodon. The dire bear by the cave bear. The dire rat by a plain old giant rat. The dire shark by a megalodon. ETC.
The 'dire wolf' also wasn't the size of a horse or nearly as scary as a D&D dire wolf. That said, I would be estatic if you did include 'correct' names for prehistoric big, angry critters, even if they aren't that accurate. Like calling a Chain Devil a Kyton, we can have two names, the categoric (dire tiger) and the specific (smilodon).
|
|
What'll she use?
Be out of luck.
What do you want them to do, delay the Pathfinder RPG's release by another year so they can work on monsters? Add another 200 pages to the Pathfinder RPG and make it a $80-100 book that NO novice will buy?
You decide what makes sense and what you think new people are willing to pay.
You know why Ptolus was $120 when it was new? Because it was over 650 pages WITHOUT the electronic material you got with it. Do you know why it's around $200 today? They printed so few of them because they didn't think people were going to pay $120. And you know what, they were right! After the first initial preorder fulfillment rush, Ptolus was getting ordered by stores at a rate of 1 copy. If that one copy was on the shelf for less then a month a store was VERY lucky.
I don't want Pathfinder RPG falling into a price point that's too high because the page count keeps going up. Color = Expensive.
I also don't want Pathfinder RPG being delayed even longer because people perceive NEW DMs/Players are going to pick this up before there's content for this.
Heck.. I don't remember if they even decided if the printed beta was going to be available anywhere other the paizo.com and gencon!
All this aside there's a simple solution..
Starting with Second Darkness, Pazio doesn't pull any more "Goblin (3), See page whatever of the Monster Manual for stats." If they don't want to waste the space printing the stats, then fine, do an OGL web enhancement with the stats of the 3.5 goblin. :)
I don't really care what monsters get into the book, but can i ask that the vast majority of these critters get an 'as player characters' entry to make NPC creation simpler.
|
|
Paizo is in unique position to reap benefits of thirty years of dnd - and not to make the same mistakes that were done in previous editions. Dragons, for instance. The whole color scheme is ridiculous and always was. It reminded of Pern dragons, and it was boring. You see one red dragon, you've seen them all. Dragons are not just beasts to kill. They can be much more than that. I liked dragons of Birthright because each one was different than the other - and there were few of them. I think that Paizo should do the same thing with PRPG. That would generate the need for a number of draconic monsters, like wyverns, drakes and pseudodragons - and those monsters can be incorporated in campaign much easier than great dragon. INHO, dragons should be monster equivalent of an artifact. To slay the dragon must be the culmination of an entire campaign, not another random encounter.
|
|
Hey, I have a question over here.
June 2008: Wizards of the Coast publishes 4th Edition Monster Manual. Suspends publication of 3rd-and-a-half Edition Monster Manual.
...
August 2009: Paizo publishes Pathfinder RPG and, sometime shortly thereafter, the Pathfinder Monster Manual.So, when a novice DM finds the a Pathfinder / GameMastery module, and buys the Pathfinder Beta rulebook from the shelves in, say, February of 2009, and when she wants to run an adventure, where is she supposed to find stats for the critters in the modules? The 3.5 MM will be long gone. The Pathfinder MM won't be available for another half-year.
What'll she use?
Well she'll probably go to her local library since we have to assume she has no internet access at home otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue, at the local library, she'll use the free interweb offered to find a 3.5 MM for a whopping $5 on e-bay or amazon, and be stuck with a 3 day waiting period for the shipment to deliver unless she wants to shell out the extra for overnight since she hasn't paid anywhere near cover price yet.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
When a novice DM finds the a Pathfinder / GameMastery module, and buys the Pathfinder Beta rulebook from the shelves in, say, February of 2009, and when she wants to run an adventure, where is she supposed to find stats for the critters in the modules?
Well she'll probably go to her local library since we have to assume she has no internet access at home otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. She'll use the free interweb to find a 3.5 MM for a whopping $5 on e-bay or amazon, and be stuck with a 3-day waiting period for the shipment to deliver unless she wants to shell out the extra for overnight since she hasn't paid anywhere near cover price yet.
With respect, lastknightleft, I think this is too heavy a burden, particularly if she's too young to be allowed to conduct business on e-bay.
Lisa Stevens has insisted that the Pathfinder modules can't exist on the shelves without game rules that store owners can sell alongside the adventures. And I don't think that the base Pathfinder beta-test rules are enough. I don't think it's fair to sell an adventure to someone and then turn around and inform her that it's unplayable unless she goes on e-bay and tries to find a book that's out-of-print.
I think Paizo needs to have some simple Monster Manual in print, late 2008 or early 2009.
When a novice DM finds the a Pathfinder / GameMastery module, and buys the Pathfinder Beta rulebook from the shelves in, say, February of 2009, and when she wants to run an adventure, where is she supposed to find stats for the critters in the modules?
Well she'll probably go to her local library since we have to assume she has no internet access at home otherwise this wouldn't even be an issue. She'll use the free interweb to find a 3.5 MM for a whopping $5 on e-bay or amazon, and be stuck with a 3-day waiting period for the shipment to deliver unless she wants to shell out the extra for overnight since she hasn't paid anywhere near cover price yet.With respect, lastknightleft, I think this is too heavy a burden, particularly if she's too young to be allowed to conduct business on e-bay.
Lisa Stevens has insisted that the Pathfinder modules can't exist on the shelves without game rules that store owners can sell alongside the adventures. And I don't think that the base Pathfinder beta-test rules are enough. I don't think it's fair to sell an adventure to someone and then turn around and inform her that it's unplayable unless she goes on e-bay and tries to find a book that's out-of-print.
I think Paizo needs to have some simple Monster Manual in print, late 2008 or early 2009.
I think web enhancement has to be the way to go/
|
|
I think Paizo needs to have some simple Monster Manual in print, late 2008 or early 2009.
I think you're being unrealistic. Paizo isn't half the size of Wizards of the Coast, if Paizo has a quarter of the employees Wizards I'd be shocked. Wizards can develop four different 300 page hardcovers at once because they have the people.
Also, Paizo has better things to do then worry about the person that finds THE BETA in a store that doesn't stock the 3.5 monster manual. Bookstores aren't going to stock it, gaming store might. Gaming stores ARE going to stock the 3.5 monster manual. And all this is conditional on whether or not Paizo sells the printed Beta at store level.
Is the reimagined monsters of Pathfinder Chronicles not such a manual?
Just wondering.
Not an entire volume like the MM, certainly, but something that can be used for Golarion.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think you're being unrealistic. Paizo isn't half the size of Wizards of the Coast, if Paizo has a quarter of the employees Wizards I'd be shocked. Wizards can develop four different 300 page hardcovers at once because they have the people.
I'm not talking about a 300-page hardcover. Off the top of my head, I might be proposing, say, a softcover companion to "Second Darkness" and eight-to-ten months of those things that have been called GameMastery modules.
48 pages, including an illustration and all the relevant statistics for all the critters, and maybe with stand-up cardboard figures.
Also, Paizo has better things to do then worry about the person that finds THE BETA in a store that doesn't stock the 3.5 monster manual. Bookstores aren't going to stock it, gaming store might. Gaming stores ARE going to stock the 3.5 monster manual. And all this is conditional on whether or not Paizo sells the printed Beta at store level.
My guess is that the popular news-stand gamestores will continue to carry Pathfinder, and will be carrying 4th Edition books. My guess is that they won't be carrying the full load of 3rd Edition Wizards materials, because they have limited shelf space, and the core books are the ones that they'll sell out of stock first. I contend there needs to be some sort of simple, in-print supplement that would allow new DM's to run those adventures.
I know that if I were new to the hobby, and bought a cool adventure that was unplayable without material that had gone out-of-print, that I'd be p-o'ed.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
A Pathfinder's Guide to Monsters and Terrors
Pathfinder Bestiary: A Collection of Challenges
Pathfinder Tome of Terrors
Pathfinder Book of Beasts and Bedevilment
Pathfinder Guide to the Wicked and Wild
Pathfinder Guide to Hazards
Pathfinder RPG Collection of Creatures
Pathfinder Guide to Survival