|
I was very disappointed with the beastiary. It was the first pathfinder product that did not replace one of my 3.5 books. My disappointment was multifold, but can he summed up by simply stating that I have really high expectations for my RPG products and I am willing to pay for the quality. If you make a beastiary, make a huge book crammed with every monster you can think of and then some. Most of us have all the old books, we have see the milking of players from the TSR days to the wizards days and we really don't need these new books anymore. Please don't treat us like cattle and downsize in order to create 5 editions when one will do.
On the flip side... I absolutely love how pathfinder handled supplements, neat additions that are not critical but fit directly into other products. Brilliant!
So why can't we meet in the middle? Make some monster sized tomes crammed full of yummy crunch goodness so we can officially retire our old books, and then supplement them with extraneous fluff yumminess for those of us who are looking for that little something extra.
Praise be to the beast Gods...
And the bestiary needed to cover the same bases as the Monster Manual for many reasons. Adventure paths need to reference it, the monsters needed to be updated officially, and new players need to be able to but an in-print core rule book.
So for many reasons, including actual physical printing reasons, the bestiary is perfect as it is. Not only that, its a very solid core monster book that codifies basic monster rules for easy reference. It's the foundation of everything to come, and it does that job with great aplomb. I think you might want the Bestiary to be something it was never supposed to be, hopefully you'll be happier with Bestiary 2, but it won't be any bigger either.
I don't mean to speak for anyone, but I believe he might be referring to the fact that there aren't examples stat blocks for small, large, huge, etc. sized zombies as there were in the 3.5 MM.
Well, it can take some getting used to, especially if an adventure refers you back to the Zombie entry in the book and there is no corresponding zombie, thus meaning you have to take some time to build what is likely to be a quickly demolished mook.
I know why they did it, I'm just hoping to collect a few more zombie/skeleton stat blocks along the way so I'm not slowing down my game any by having to build animated mooks from scratch.
That having been said, I love the variant zombies and skeletons. Great addition to the game.
|
Well, it can take some getting used to, especially if an adventure refers you back to the Zombie entry in the book and there is no corresponding zombie, thus meaning you have to take some time to build what is likely to be a quickly demolished mook.
I know why they did it, I'm just hoping to collect a few more zombie/skeleton stat blocks along the way so I'm not slowing down my game any by having to build animated mooks from scratch.
That having been said, I love the variant zombies and skeletons. Great addition to the game.
Yeah, that was really all I was saying. Last night my DM had a 3.5 adventure that he is using in Pathfinder that needed a monstrous centipede and a couple different zombies and skeletons of different types. He went into the Bestiary to find some stats and was SOL. Had to revert back to the 3.5 MM. It was something we were used to just looking up and weren't expecting to have to stat up our own. Like I said though, I love the Bestiary, I am just disappointed that those things didn't get at least a couple of pages of nothing but stats to make life easy, especially on some really common critters.
Creative Director
|
Well, it can take some getting used to, especially if an adventure refers you back to the Zombie entry in the book and there is no corresponding zombie, thus meaning you have to take some time to build what is likely to be a quickly demolished mook.
I know why they did it, I'm just hoping to collect a few more zombie/skeleton stat blocks along the way so I'm not slowing down my game any by having to build animated mooks from scratch.
That having been said, I love the variant zombies and skeletons. Great addition to the game.
Well... going forward, if we use anything other than a human zombie we'll certainly be including full stats for the zombie.
|
Creative Director
|
One thing Bestiary 2 gets to do is actually have a LOT of new monsters. We've got some SRD monsters still to put in, like the hippogriff, and we've got a lot of monsters getting picked up from our other books, like the proteans and the umbral dragon and several of the giants (rune, marsh, taiga, etc.).
But we've ALSO got a LOT of new stuff. Including new proteans, new outsider races like the aeons, monsters we've mentioned in books before but never stated up (like the jyotis from The Great Beyond), and even quite a few BRAND new monsters.
As for the vermin... we'll have a lot more of them too. In particular, there'll be two new centipedes, two new scorpions, and two new spidrers, based on the tables that those monsters currently have in the Bestairy. Eventaully, I hope to have a sample vermin for all of these types for every size... and I hope to present them in ways that give them a LOT more flavor than just "Huge monstrous spider." They'll be specific vermin (like "giant tarantula" or "black scorpion") with new abilities based on the wide variety of abilities insects, arachnids, and their ilk have in real life. Like flinging poisonous hairs (some species of tarantulas do this in real life)!
|
Creative Director
|
Will there be races that could be statted up as Pc's much like the Tengu, Goblin, etc?
We will have quite a few more 0-HD races like tengus, goblins, and the like.
In fact... I just checked the outline. Looks like we'll have about 6–8 0-HD races in Bestiary 2. And 2 in the reprinted Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
In fact... I just checked the outline. Looks like we'll have about 6–8 0-HD races in Bestiary 2.
Paizo always seems to astound me with their amazing powers. Negative 2 of such races? I wanna see what happens when I rip out some 0-HD creature pages from my old Monster Manuals and stick them in the Bestiary 2.
I wonder if the cancellation will be anything like matter and antimatter... hmm, maybe I should wear some insulating underwear before I try this.
Most of us have all the old books, we have see the milking of players from the TSR days to the wizards days and we really don't need these new books anymore. Please don't treat us like cattle and downsize in order to create 5 editions when one will do.
I actually found that there were a lot of little changes in the monsters that made them more interesting and playable. These weren't immediately obvious to me, but emerged over use. Give the Bestiary I another chance, it is a good book and it is more than a reprint.
|
|
While I agree affordability is an important factor, especially for new players, most of my new players do not have to buy the beastiary to get started (I really do understand your point. I remember sitting in a store for an hour and a half when I was kid staring at the first Monster Manual while my mom was shopping. I know it sounds lame but it really was a magical moment and a major hook that pulled me into the game =).
I also agree that their were number of small tweeks made to the stats and concepts. Regardless, the subtractions outweighed the tweeks and caused it to fail for me.
Here is a little run down...
+ Stat tweeks, compatability to pathfinder, illustrations, over all look and feel.
- It did not contain, at the very minimum, the equal ammount of creatures that were in the MM1, the squeeze to fit things on the page caused the text to suffer badly, the groupings were odd (familiars grouped but not animals), illustrations took up too much space, no variations (I think a simple how to chart could replace the older stat blocks) and, in general, it felt incomplete and small in spite of its size.
I really respect pathfinder and paizo because they run an excellent business and are, as I see it, the last hope to a game I enjoy. I just want to make sure that the game I have handed my kids continues on by producing products that ensures their continued viability, not short term profit.
I certainly appreciate your opinion, and I think its important to express it as you have, but I really couldn't disagree more. The book does not, at all, look to me like it was pushed out for a profit. Yes, there was a time crunch, but there always is for any product. Eventually you do have to publish and move out of the realm of the theoretical perfect form of the book.
I don't know how the text really suffered. There was more information on nearly every monster compared to 3.5. I don't know if familiars are the best grouping or not, but overall, the groupings made much more sense than some of the decisions in 3.5, from my point of view.
I loved the illustrations, and again, I'm not sure that was much difference in the art to page ration from 3.5. There were only a very few that I was't a big fan of (the Dire Bear really missed that perception check to avoid surprise . . . and the giant rocks dropped on his shoulders).
I'm not trying to change your mind, just kind of registering that, from my point of view, I'm a very happy customer when it comes to the final product. I'd actually rate the Bestiary a bit higher than the Core rulebook, but that's not a slight to the Core rulebook at all.
What about all those cool creatures in the back of the Adventure Paths? :)
Can we get some of them folded into a future Bestiary?
|
|
In spite of my fickle and contrary nature I will definitely purchase the beastiary 2. There is no need to convince me, it is just that I, like I mentioned, am a contrary. It is my obligation (compulsion?) to offer a different point of view =). By doing so, I hope to keep the beast Gods on their toes so they will always strive to birth bigger and better beasties.
I am glad to hear that with 2 I will be able to retire my 3.5 MM. I have worked really hard at converting my game to only pathfinder products and it was my only throwback =)...
I was wondering of there was ever any talk about a 'players version' of the beastiary. Something similar to the game guides but dedicated to giving the players simple knowledge check info about creatures. This way they could have info about creatures without spoiling the fight (definitely falls under the newbie fluff category).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
We've got a lot of monsters getting picked up from our other books, like the umbral dragon.
YAY!!!
Will there be rules like in the AP for Half-Umbral Dragons? Also, will there be an addendeum (either in Bestiary II or the APG) for additional Draconic Sorcerer Bloodlines?
I've been very keen to play an Umbral Draconic Sorcerer and have very seriously considered creating the rules myself, but I'm a sucker for "Official" Rules.
|
Creative Director
|
We've got a lot of monsters getting picked up from our other books, like the umbral dragon.YAY!!!
Will there be rules like in the AP for Half-Umbral Dragons? Also, will there be an addendeum (either in Bestiary II or the APG) for additional Draconic Sorcerer Bloodlines?
I've been very keen to play an Umbral Draconic Sorcerer and have very seriously considered creating the rules myself, but I'm a sucker for "Official" Rules.
Not in the Bestiary; the Bestiary's about monsters. We MIGHT do something about new half dragons... but not if there's no room.
What about all those cool creatures in the back of the Adventure Paths? :)
Can we get some of them folded into a future Bestiary?
We already did so in Bestiary 1, with the boggard and the morlock and the goblin dog.
We'll be putting a LOT more of them into Bestiary 2.
Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping to hear!!!
At the risk of being persnickety, wouldn't that be REVISED, not reprinted, Campaign Setting?
Would I really have an ulterior motive like that?Looking to update Merle? ;)Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo.......PhewI don't suppose 1 of them is a feline humanoid race at all?At this point in time, no.
*snicker*
No soup for yew!
At the risk of being persnickety, wouldn't that be REVISED, not reprinted, Campaign Setting?It's both.
Will those brain collector thingees originally from Castle Amber be in the book?
|
Creative Director
|
Will those brain collector thingees originally from Castle Amber be in the book?At the risk of being persnickety, wouldn't that be REVISED, not reprinted, Campaign Setting?It's both.
They're in the SRD, so they certainly COULD be... although there's a much BETTER chance they'll be in Bestiary 2 and not the revised campaign setting book... ;-)
|
I certainly appreciate your opinion, and I think its important to express it as you have, but I really couldn't disagree more. The book does not, at all, look to me like it was pushed out for a profit. Yes, there was a time crunch, but there always is for any product. Eventually you do have to publish and move out of the realm of the theoretical perfect form of the book.
I don't know how the text really suffered. There was more information on nearly every monster compared to 3.5. I don't know if familiars are the best grouping or not, but overall, the groupings made much more sense than some of the decisions in 3.5, from my point of view.
I loved the illustrations, and again, I'm not sure that was much difference in the art to page ration from 3.5. There were only a very few that I was't a big fan of (the Dire Bear really missed that perception check to avoid surprise . . . and the giant rocks dropped on his shoulders).
I'm not trying to change your mind, just kind of registering that, from my point of view, I'm a very happy customer when it comes to the final product. I'd actually rate the Bestiary a bit higher than the Core rulebook, but that's not a slight to the Core rulebook at all.
+1! I'm so happy with the Bestiary that I no longer want to use my 3E Monster Manuals at all!
First of all, I love the new, more elegant monster mechanics; if only possible, I will only use monsters in the Bestiary until Bestiary 2 comes out (ever since the Bestiary came out, I have been able to create all encounters in my campaign without MMs). Also, the book is so well organized and easier to read.
Secondly, I find the flavour texts to be much, *MUCH* more inspiring than my 3E Monster Manual. Not just encounter ideas, but the book has inspired a few adventure plots as well.
Thirdly, it's so damn beautiful -- the most beautiful monster book I've yet seen, and I'll eat my brimstone-smelling beard if it doesn't win awards for that! The layout is elegant and brilliantly executed; everything works from illustrations (apart from Dire Bear, Doppleganger, Hill Giant and a handful of others) and colors down to the fonts that are easy to read. Sarah is easily one of the best Art Directors I've seen, and I should know at least *something* about this matter (as I used to work as a graphic designer for years).
So, I, too, am a very happy customer, and I just can't understand how anyone could think that 3E MM would be superior to the Bestiary in terms of art or text. To me that is just a completely alien thought.
|
|
At the risk of being persnickety, wouldn't that be REVISED, not reprinted, Campaign Setting?It's both.
[librarian] I would just call it a revised edition, as 'reprinted' or 'a new impression' means that there will be no alterations to the contents (other than correcting typographical errors). [/librarian]
[librarian] I would just call it a revised edition, as 'reprinted' or 'a new impression' means that there will be no alterations to the contents (other than correcting typographical errors). [/librarian]
You know what, +1 to that.
I am overjoyed that the Bestiary is called a "Bestiary" and not some alliterative play on "monster book".
I am anxious to see the resurgence of more traditional book titles in RPGs. I would absolutely love to see the words "Volume Two" used for this second Bestiary. All this "Xe" business of the last few years has left a bad taste, I very much hope that the second edition of Pathfinder is called "Pathfinder RPG, 2nd Ed." It feels more refined.
|
Yeah! Where's the rules for that most deadly of shuffling - the Aberzombie? Or do I have to wait for Bestiary II?
Turns out the CR system doesn't go low enough for an Aberzombie ;) Though I suppose a swarm of them might be powerful enough for a CR 1/6...
Ths Aberzombie, opposite of the Uberzombie... lol. Sorry, had to jump on that bandwagon!
Awesome to hear the Umbral Dragon will be in B2, I really need that bugger from my current game (hopefully it'll stretch to August before the Party hits level 15ish - currently 6th)! Also hope to see the Fetchling, as I could also use one now :-(
--Vrock to the System!
Yeah, the amount of text accompanying many of the critters in the Bestiary seemed small and inadequate to me, too.
But that's mainly because I'm pampered by the AP Bestiaries and Classic X Revisited. As much as I'd like every critter to have a full two-side-spread for itself, I understand that a core bestiary cannot really deliver.
While I agree affordability is an important factor, especially for new players, most of my new players do not have to buy the beastiary to get started
Still, at least one person on the table needs that book. And some people have a limited budget for roleplaying material (poor blokes).
- It did not contain, at the very minimum, the equal ammount of creatures that were in the MM1, the squeeze to fit things on the page caused the text to suffer badly, the groupings were odd (familiars grouped but not animals), illustrations took up too much space, no variations (I think a simple how to chart could replace the older stat blocks) and, in general, it felt incomplete and small in spite of its size.
Well, decision to give every major critter his own page stretched things. Some things got grouped together (though then, they had two critters to the page and didn't spill over), but it always was stuff that was quite closely related and could fit there. Demons and the like are now all on their own page, which is immensely useful!
In general, I think it was way better to lose a line of text here and there than to let critters "spill over". The pictures might be big, but I like that, too, because those pictures are almost all pure awesome and I think they help a lot.
And while some critters like vermin or walking don't get all those variations any more (which is somewhat mitigated by the new easy templates), there are some really great new variants in there that haven't been there before, like fast zombies or burning skeletons.
As for the selection: I do miss some of the monsters left out, like the neutral outsiders (proteans and agathions etc...), I don't miss some of the others that much, and I think it had some very important additions (of the "why the hell wasn't that core before" type).
I just want to make sure that the game I have handed my kids continues on by producing products that ensures their continued viability, not short term profit.
I don't detect any out-of-the-ordinary lust for profit in this book.
I have really high expectations for my RPG products and I am willing to pay for the quality. If you make a beastiary, make a huge book crammed with every monster you can think of and then some.
Since I think Paizo has a great track record, I am willing to assume that they did an appropriate amount of research into that matter and have resolved that the Bestiary is the right size as it is now.
The thing is that the bigger you make a book like this, the more expensive it gets, and the cost rises disproportionately.
There is the basic increase in cost, which is "bigger books take more effort and material, which make them more expensive". But it only starts there!
A bigger book means more pages, and that means that, in addition to extra paper, you have to up the quality of the thing to make it withstand its higher weight. The creation process in general will be more expensive for a bigger book.
And you also need more time to create it. 50% more pages means it takes something like 50% longer to create the book. Beyond the basic extra 50% in personnel cost and the like, this also means that they will have to wait longer until they get paid anything - and those people who write for it want their money every month. So extra money has to be invested before you get any profit, and the profit will come later. Stuff like that will generate extra costs.
There are probably other factors that increase the cost. And now you have a book that is there later and costs more. Which will mean that some people will not be able to afford it. That means you'll be selling less books, meaning the per-book cost will rise (because the writers still had the same work and will get paid the same, plus smaller print runs increase the per-unit cost).
While this might all be interpreted as "Paizo wants to maximise their profits", it can (and must) be interpreted as "One big book will cost us more than two small ones", so they were being nice not only to themselves, but to us, too.
This bestiary has a MSRP of $39,99, and I guess Bestiary II will be of similar size with a similar price. Had they done both in one book of over 600 pages, it would probably have cost more than $79,98! (Not to mention that the book would have been longer in the waiting)
And a book can be too big.
In my opinion the core rulebook is just too darn BIG. My binding sags and I know it will have a lifespan less than many of my other, smaller books.
We will have quite a few more 0-HD races like tengus, goblins, and the like.In fact... I just checked the outline. Looks like we'll have about 6–8 0-HD races in Bestiary 2. And 2 in the reprinted Pathfinder Campaign Setting.
This is the Bestiary II spoiler that I'm most boggled by. The rest of them I've nodded and said "that makes sense", but 8-10 new player-compatible races? I'm really quite surprised. And now trying desperately to guess what they might be. Ideas so far include:
Mongrelfolk
Aquatic elves
Metal men of Numeria (probably in the Campaign book, as they're specific to one country)
Perhaps an insectoid race?
And then I come up blank.