Tome of Monsters (PFRPG)


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Now available for pre-order!

Dark Archive

hunter1828 wrote:
Now available for pre-order!

Spiffy cover. :)


Dark_Mistress wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Now available for pre-order!
Spiffy cover. :)

You can get a tiny sneak peek at the cover on our website. :D

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

hunter1828 wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Now available for pre-order!
Spiffy cover. :)
You can get a tiny sneak peek at the cover on our website. :D

..which will be added here momentarily!

Dark Archive

Vic Wertz wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Now available for pre-order!
Spiffy cover. :)
You can get a tiny sneak peek at the cover on our website. :D
..which will be added here momentarily!

*kicks a rock* sure go ahead and ruin my fun of being a smart ass and add a real image.


Vic Wertz wrote:
..which will be added here momentarily!

Thanks Vic!


Wondering what might be in Tome of Monsters? Check out the final creature list on our Facebook page!

NOTE - You do NOT have to have a Facebook account to view our page or notes. You can even subscribe to our notes via RSS if you like!


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Will there be a print/PDF bundle?


Zaister wrote:
Will there be a print/PDF bundle?

Yup! We will always make our products available as print/PDF bundles at the print cost!


hunter1828 wrote:

Wondering what might be in Tome of Monsters? Check out the final creature list on our Facebook page!

NOTE - You do NOT have to have a Facebook account to view our page or notes. You can even subscribe to our notes via RSS if you like!

Is it me, or are windigo/wendigos very popular monster making fodder..


hunter1828 wrote:

Wondering what might be in Tome of Monsters? Check out the final creature list on our Facebook page!

NOTE - You do NOT have to have a Facebook account to view our page or notes. You can even subscribe to our notes via RSS if you like!

Archangel template?

Intelligent ape?
Greater succubus?
Aether elemental?
New familiars?
Neanderthal?

I'm looking forward to this one!


Blackerose wrote:
Is it me, or are windigo/wendigos very popular monster making fodder..

They do seem to be. Everyone has their own take on it. :D


Draco Caeruleus wrote:

Archangel template?

Intelligent ape?
Greater succubus?
Aether elemental?
New familiars?
Neanderthal?

I'm looking forward to this one!

Glad to hear it! :D

Dark Archive

So is it out yet?


Dark_Mistress wrote:
So is it out yet?

It is available for pre-order. It will be released in March 2011.


Looks interesting. Are any of the creatures 0-HD?


Necromancer wrote:
Looks interesting. Are any of the creatures 0-HD?

By "0-HD" do you mean 1/2 HD? If so then, yes, there are a few creatures that are only 1/2 HD.


Any updates? Thanks


LordNull wrote:
Any updates? Thanks

We experienced some delays this spring, but print copies should be shipped to retailers by the end of this month. (PDF will be up here as soon as we have it ready).


hunter1828 wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Looks interesting. Are any of the creatures 0-HD?
By "0-HD" do you mean 1/2 HD? If so then, yes, there are a few creatures that are only 1/2 HD.

He means creatures that don't have racial hit die, but rather class levels. I'm pretty sure that we do.


Lyingbastard wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Necromancer wrote:
Looks interesting. Are any of the creatures 0-HD?
By "0-HD" do you mean 1/2 HD? If so then, yes, there are a few creatures that are only 1/2 HD.
He means creatures that don't have racial hit die, but rather class levels. I'm pretty sure that we do.

If that's the case, then yes: the goatmen, machlyes, neanderthals and otso are all creatures with no racial HD, and can be used as playable races.


PDF now available!

Dark Archive

Odd no cover image is showing up.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
Odd no cover image is showing up.

I'm not sure what's going on with that.

Contributor

hunter1828 wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Odd no cover image is showing up.
I'm not sure what's going on with that.

Yeah, neither do I...I'm looking into it though!


Liz Courts wrote:
hunter1828 wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Odd no cover image is showing up.
I'm not sure what's going on with that.
Yeah, neither do I...I'm looking into it though!

There it is! You found it!

Dark Archive

Yeah working now.

I was going to say might have a review up this weekend. But it is a lot bigger book than I thought. Over 100 pages and a ton of monsters. So maybe next weekend.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

So when do we get to see the extra naughty version of the greater succubus picture? ;)


Dark_Mistress wrote:

Yeah working now.

I was going to say might have a review up this weekend. But it is a lot bigger book than I thought. Over 100 pages and a ton of monsters. So maybe next weekend.

Yup, it's our longest book to date! And whenever you get around to it will be great!


Alzrius wrote:
So when do we get to see the extra naughty version of the greater succubus picture? ;)

I will probably have that (and other art from the book) available for viewing sometime tomorrow. I'll post a link when I do.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Review is posted, and I'm afraid it's not a terribly positive one. Like I said in the review, I was really looking forward to this book and I think it has a lot of potential.


Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Review is posted, and I'm afraid it's not a terribly positive one. Like I said in the review, I was really looking forward to this book and I think it has a lot of potential.

Thank you for taking the time to review the book. I'd like to address some of your concerns:

As for the actual errors in the book, I do wish that the specific errors (creature or page number) were pointed out, as that helps us to create errata and correct the document so we can upload a new PDF.

As for the "file name", I assure you that the file I uploaded to Paizo (and elsewhere) is "4WF006TomeOfMonsterS.pdf" (emphasis mine). As I check the download, the download file name and type has been changed, I assume by Paizo, to "tomeOfMonsterPFRPGPDF.zip". Please do not blame us for that. I'm sure Paizo had a good reason for changing the name of the download.

As for the product listing - I distinctly remember typing "Tome of Monsters", but I suppose I could have made an error and left off the "S" by mistake. I suppose Paizo could have changed it for some reason as well. Either way, that is a simple mistake that should in no way reflect on what is actually inside the book - one way or the other.

I do find your concerns about the art interesting, but art is a very subjective thing and no two people see art the same way. Many others have said (in comments) the exact opposite about the art in this book. But again, art is subjective and we all like different things.

On your specific example of the flying stingray, while it does have slightly higher than normal HP and AC for a CR 1/2 (something we were conscious of), neither are quite CR 1 level. It also has CR 1/2 attack and damage, meaning it's going to have a really hard time hitting those armored 1st level characters. That's why the DC on its poison was bumped up to above CR 1/2 levels. The only way this thing poses a serious threat is if it gets lucky, not because it's skilled and tough. We still didn't feel it was so tough that it needed to be a full CR 1 as evidenced by how easy it was defeated in playtesting sessions.

All I can say about the burning dung of the legendary bonnacon is that I found it incredibly absurd, and felt including such would have resulted in nothing but ridicule for the creature from most folks. It's a normal animal by design, and on purpose. As for the angels - yes the Seraph and the Cherub were artistically rendered as attractive - again on purpose (though I'd hardly call the bald, legless ophan attractive). Also, we purposely chose to distance ourselves from the visual imagery of the Christian angelic beings they are based on for stylistic and design reasons.

Finally, I'm curious about the prose. You mention it twice - once in relation to discussing the file name (which I addressed above) and again at the end, but not in relation to any specifics. Was the prose (being the creature descriptions and the sidebars) really that bad throughout the book? If so, could you cite specific examples, please, as that - as with specific examples on stat block errors - helps us to produce errata and corrected versions of the PDF.

Again, thank you for taking the time to review the book.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
hunter1828 wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
So when do we get to see the extra naughty version of the greater succubus picture? ;)
I will probably have that (and other art from the book) available for viewing sometime tomorrow. I'll post a link when I do.

Cool, looking forward to it!


Alzrius wrote:


Cool, looking forward to it!

I've been delayed for a variety of reasons. It'll be Monday before I get around to it now.


Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Review is posted, and I'm afraid it's not a terribly positive one. Like I said in the review, I was really looking forward to this book and I think it has a lot of potential.

As a side note, Paizo has been contacted about getting the title in the product listing corrected for us.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hunter1828 wrote:
Demiurge 1138 wrote:
Review is posted, and I'm afraid it's not a terribly positive one. Like I said in the review, I was really looking forward to this book and I think it has a lot of potential.

Thank you for taking the time to review the book. I'd like to address some of your concerns...

Well, I'm not going to point out all of the editing problems with the stat-blocks. That would take a lot of time and should be something a paid editor would do. I'll gladly give a few examples, though:

The first monster, the abaia, has a BAB of +13, whereas it should be +18, seeing as it's a magical beast (full BAB).

The second monster, the altamaha, deals +5 damage on its bite attack. Seeing as how it only has one natural weapon, this should be Strength-and-a-half, or +7. It also should only have a +9 to its attack roll, not +10 (-1 size, +5 BAB, +5 Str, +1 feat).

The third monster, the hound archon archangel, has a Strength score of 21, so it should deal +5 to its damage rolls. Its bite deals +6 damage and its slam deals +4. Its +2 greatsword should attack at +13/+8 (+6 BAB, +5 Str, +2 enhancement) and deal 2d6+9 damage (+7 Str-and-a-half, +2 enhancement), but attacks at +14/+9 for 2d6+8 damage.

And so on in that fashion.

As for the prose, I found word choice and sentence structure highly distracting. For instance, going back to the abaia, let us take the first paragraph:

"The abaia is a creature almost more myth than truth,
and yet the creatures do exist. No one knows exactly
how many exist or even if all the tales of them are true.
Those folks who talk most openly of encounters with
abaia are exactly the sort known to embellish a tale or
even to fabricate one entirely. From those whose word
is less subject to skepticism come tales with surprising
uniformity, painting a clear picture of the creature
and its dealings with those who live within the area it
chooses to call home."

That's a lot of words to spend on the concept: "Abaias are rare and legendary creatures. Even though lots of tales about them circulate, here's what we know for sure."

I noticed a number of run-on sentences, like, in the cerastes entry "This enormous snake, with ram-like horns above the
eyes, attacks from ambush, whether hidden under a
thin layer of sand or dirt, or in a large pile of leaves."

Word choice and sentence structure are often repetitive. Take the greater succubus, for example. An entire paragraph describing her in lush detail, consisting of seven sentences, six of which begin with the word "she".

As for the "Tome of Monster/s" thing, perhaps I was unfair to point that out as a negative. It isn't entirely under your control, and could be easily fixed in the Paizo store. That mention has been removed from the review. In addition, my comments on the angels and the bonnacon were in the nit-pick section for a reason. I didn't like the design choices, but I could understand them and didn't think of them as objectively bad. And yes, the bonnacon's fecal weapon is ridiculous and disgusting. But if you didn't want to include it, why stat up a bonnacon?


Demiurge 1138 wrote:


Well, I'm not going to point out all of the editing problems with the stat-blocks. That would take a lot of time and should be something a paid editor would do.

We have 2 editors (though only 1 works on a single book) and myself.

Demiurge 1138 wrote:


I'll gladly give a few examples, though:

The first monster, the abaia, has a BAB of +13, whereas it should be +18, seeing as it's a magical beast (full BAB).

The second monster, the altamaha, deals +5 damage on its bite attack. Seeing as how it only has one natural weapon, this should be Strength-and-a-half, or +7. It also should only have a +9 to its attack roll, not +10 (-1 size, +5 BAB, +5 Str, +1 feat).

The third monster, the hound archon archangel, has a Strength score of 21, so it should deal +5 to its damage rolls. Its bite deals +6 damage and its slam deals +4. Its +2 greatsword should attack at +13/+8 (+6 BAB, +5 Str, +2 enhancement) and deal 2d6+9 damage (+7 Str-and-a-half, +2 enhancement), but attacks at +14/+9 for 2d6+8 damage.

And so on in that fashion.

That's the sort of thing that helps, even if it is only a couple of examples. Simply stating that there are errors without some sort of example(s) doesn't help us correct those issues. Thank you. We will give all of those a 4th look now.

Demiurge 1138 wrote:


As for the prose, I found word choice and sentence structure highly distracting. For instance, going back to the abaia, let us take the first paragraph:

"The abaia is a creature almost more myth than truth,
and yet the creatures do exist. No one knows exactly
how many exist or even if all the tales of them are true.
Those folks who talk most openly of encounters with
abaia are exactly the sort known to embellish a tale or
even to fabricate one entirely. From those whose word
is less subject to skepticism come tales with surprising
uniformity, painting a clear picture of the creature
and its dealings with those who live within the area it
chooses to call home."

That's a lot of words to spend on the concept: "Abaias are rare and legendary creatures. Even though lots of tales about them circulate, here's what we know for sure."

I noticed a number of run-on sentences, like, in the cerastes entry "This enormous snake, with ram-like horns above the
eyes, attacks from ambush, whether hidden under a
thin layer of sand or dirt, or in a large pile of leaves."

Word choice and sentence structure are often repetitive. Take the greater succubus, for example. An entire paragraph describing her in lush detail, consisting of seven sentences, six of which begin with the word "she".

I appreciate your concerns on the prose. There may be some minor sentence structure issues, but I think most of it can be chalked up to differences in preference. We happen to like fluff, and use it as filler on a page when we can - as with the abaia. I would rather have the longer paragraph to fill space than your shorter suggestion, with white space left to fill.

Demiurge 1138 wrote:


As for the "Tome of Monster/s" thing, perhaps I was unfair to point that out as a negative. It isn't entirely under your control, and could be easily fixed in the Paizo store. That mention has been removed from the review.

Thank you. :)

Demiurge 1138 wrote:


In addition, my comments on the angels and the bonnacon were in the nit-pick section for a reason. I didn't like the design choices, but I could understand them and didn't think of them as objectively bad. And yes, the bonnacon's fecal weapon is ridiculous and disgusting. But if you didn't want to include it, why stat up a bonnacon?

Why stat up trolls as trolls, when they don't live under bridges and try to eat talking goats? Why stat up the Shaitain as a genie instead of as a devil? Why stat up the hobgoblin as a Medium-sized goblinoid instead of a small, hirsute fey? We did the bonnacon - sans flaming feces - for reasons that are probably similar to the reasons the game includes trolls, Shaitan and hobgoblins (and more) that are different from many of the legends and stories - that's the way we wanted it. We didn't set out to include all creatures as close to the actual legends as possible - we only used the legends as a source material, just as game designers have been doing since the early 70s.

Dark Archive

I am still looking it over. My only issue so far was a few stat blocks errors I noticed like those mentioned. Just a FYI. Still hoping to have a review by next weekend.


Dark_Mistress wrote:
I am still looking it over. My only issue so far was a few stat blocks errors I noticed like those mentioned. Just a FYI. Still hoping to have a review by next weekend.

I look forward to your review, DM, as always!


I just hope it doesn't interfere with sales of DarkMistress' monster book pdfs, because then she'd also have to take vague pot shots at ours, and complain that it's zip instead of rar or something.

Dark Archive

Lyingbastard wrote:
I just hope it doesn't interfere with sales of DarkMistress' monster book pdfs, because then she'd also have to take vague pot shots at ours, and complain that it's zip instead of rar or something.

wha...?


Dark_Mistress wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:
I just hope it doesn't interfere with sales of DarkMistress' monster book pdfs, because then she'd also have to take vague pot shots at ours, and complain that it's zip instead of rar or something.
wha...?

Well, I'm just saying that if you were to publish your own monster PDFs, say "Mistress' Minions" or something, it'd be something of a conflict of interest to review a competing product, at least without a disclaimer. Otherwise it might look like you were giving competing products a poor review to boost your own.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

Lyingbastard wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:
I just hope it doesn't interfere with sales of DarkMistress' monster book pdfs, because then she'd also have to take vague pot shots at ours, and complain that it's zip instead of rar or something.
wha...?
Well, I'm just saying that if you were to publish your own monster PDFs, say "Mistress' Minions" or something, it'd be something of a conflict of interest to review a competing product, at least without a disclaimer. Otherwise it might look like you were giving competing products a poor review to boost your own.

Very subtle, this insinuation. Did I mention anywhere in my review that I had a line of monster PDFs? How would giving poor reviews to a product boost my own sales? I honestly wanted to like this book, gave honest feedback about it, and do not appreciate you making me out to be trying to sabotage your business.

Dark Archive

Lyingbastard wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
Lyingbastard wrote:
I just hope it doesn't interfere with sales of DarkMistress' monster book pdfs, because then she'd also have to take vague pot shots at ours, and complain that it's zip instead of rar or something.
wha...?
Well, I'm just saying that if you were to publish your own monster PDFs, say "Mistress' Minions" or something, it'd be something of a conflict of interest to review a competing product, at least without a disclaimer. Otherwise it might look like you were giving competing products a poor review to boost your own.

I ... see... I didn't know I was even considering publishing my own monster books. :)

Edit: Ah seeing Dem's post above mine, makes the topic make more sense to me. Before I was totally confused about the topic.


Demiurge, you have a lot of reviews of other lines of monster books, Mythic Menagerie in particular, netting 1-3 star reviews. Most of them read "Good ideas, poor execution" in summary. Maybe that's just a coincidence.

Personally, I think it's a good idea to not review products similar to ones that I've worked on, released by competitors. It would be awkward for me to review Adventurer's Armory, the Loot 4 Less line, and other books focused on equipment, because of all the work I've done for 4WFG on equipment books. Some of it might just be a difference in opinion over how certain ideas should be implemented.

But that's just my point of view on the matter.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lyingbastard wrote:

Demiurge, you have a lot of reviews of other lines of monster books, Mythic Menagerie in particular, netting 1-3 star reviews. Most of them read "Good ideas, poor execution" in summary. Maybe that's just a coincidence.

Personally, I think it's a good idea to not review products similar to ones that I've worked on, released by competitors. It would be awkward for me to review Adventurer's Armory, the Loot 4 Less line, and other books focused on equipment, because of all the work I've done for 4WFG on equipment books. Some of it might just be a difference in opinion over how certain ideas should be implemented.

But that's just my point of view on the matter.

I review monster books because that's what I'm interested enough in to actually want to purchase. I feel that my experience working with monsters is valuable as a reviewer, because I know the ins and outs of stat-blocks. My goal is to provide constructive criticism--if the next monster products from Jon Brazer or Super Genius or 4 Winds have better number-crunching, I'll be extremely happy, and post reviews to that effect. If you didn't notice, I did give a 4-star to one of the Mythic Menagerie line and docked the 4th star from another product due to art theft, not because of the actual writing.

I understand the difference in review philosophy, but would have preferred had you started a conversation with me about it, rather than slyly alluding to my ethical shortcomings in a dialogue with another poster.


I would have preferred that another 3PP reviewing a product would have identified themselves as such, in the interest of full disclosure, but I guess some days everyone goes home disappointed.

And it looks like almost every product you review, save the Bestiary 2, mentions stat-block errors. I guess none of us know what we're doing with those?

Dark Archive

Going back and forth like this really isn't helping anyone.

Liberty's Edge

Quick side question demiurge. When you said:

" I did give a 4-star to one of the Mythic Menagerie line and docked the 4th star from another product due to art theft, not because of the actual writing."

Are you actually accusing Super Genius Games of art theft or did i read that wrong?


Marc Radle wrote:

Quick side question demiurge. When you said:

" I did give a 4-star to one of the Mythic Menagerie line and docked the 4th star from another product due to art theft, not because of the actual writing."

Are you actually accusing Super Genius Games of art theft or did i read that wrong?

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/s/superGeniusGames/pathfinderRPG/mythicMen agerie/v5748btpy8jzu

1 to 50 of 131 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Tome of Monsters (PFRPG) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.