|
Fact all of the Pathfinder hardback books are of the highest print standard with some of the freshest and best fantasy artwork currently available.
The Bestiaries are no exception to this. Why would I call them 'trophy wives'. Well, because they are fantastic looking, great in bed (or if you prefer to read on a couch, there too), but ultimately shallow and unsatisfying. These books are not what I would call a bestiary, more of the manual - but that word is taken. These bestiaries are more like the manual to get with your car or toaster. Nothing in them is there to spark imagination. Many complained about the 4e Monster Manual having a shallow treatise on critters, but after reading the description of the various Dragons (iconic creatures) in Paizo's offering I'm left wondering what people who haven't lived through 1e --> PF really get out of the books other than a list of walking/flying/swimming CR's.
The 2e Monsterous Manual is a good example of a good balance between cruch and fluff. But the approach taken by Black Industries in their 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary almost bring tears to the eye it is such a thing of beauty. As a DM I stumble over player's section of this book with adventures and ideas firing every neuron I own (that's right ALL five of them). For those who haven't had the life changing experience of viewing the 2e WFRP Bestiary, it's divided rough in half. The first half has what commoners and learned experts know of the creature in question. No stats such glorious prose. Second half has functional descriptions and the cruncy-bits. It is art, oh and has nice artwork also.
Now back to Paizo's Bestiaries. Stats = YEP, Art = Oh, Yes!, Imagination sparking content = Zero.
Would any others, well other than I, REALLY appreciate a Gazetteer & Gazetteer 2 that has nothing but 'stuff' about the creatures from the Bestiaries - slant it to Golarion by all means. The Adventure Paths from Paizo show that they have an awesome eye/ear/nose for a story and imagination. They CAN make every creature an adventure waiting to happen, rather than being nothing more than part of a CR-budget for encounters.
A DM, ahem, GM, that wants to be inspired,
Stefan.
Have you taken a look at the <X> Revisited books in the Campaign Setting? They focus on 10-ish monsters and provide a chapter of fluff and variants on each. That might be what you're looking for.
EDIT for links: Undead Revisited
Classic Horrors Revisited
Dungeon Denizens Revisited
Dragons Revisited
Classic Monsters Revisited
|
|
Have you taken a look at the <X> Revisited books in the Campaign Setting? They focus on 10-ish monsters and provide a chapter of fluff and variants on each. That might be what you're looking for.
Yes I have. That's more what I'm talking about, still 2e WFRP Bestiary is the Gold Standard. The problem with the revisited books, is it's unlikely they will 'revisit' say Giant Rats. In my mind (and a small lonely place it is too) the Bestiaries provide the skeleton, but we are missing the flesh, and Paizo is excellent at such things.
Still my humble musings, and if no one else agrees, at least that makes me unique :)
S.
|
So bestiaries aren't whfrp bestiary. Big deal. They have awesome stat blocks, impressive art and quite a bit of fluff (mostly, planetar, i am looking at your single sentence description that leaves a lot to be desired). If you are expecting a full page of fluff for every monster, then you should also expect 700 page bestiaries and an according price.
Summary: Not gonna happen.
I am quite content with the ammount of fluff given, i you want more, get the revisited books, and wait for more revisited books.
I know I was inspired by the Beastiary 2. I had a thread here about working some of the creatures in it into a science fiction campaign, and many of the creatures struck my fancy as ones to include:
the Aeons would make a great "Sixth Rank" race, which have inscrutable and ineffable plans for the galaxies, which humans can barely comprehend, if at all. "Beyond passion, beyond mercy, beyond reason, the faceless caretakers of reality toil without end, silently struggling to preserve the tenous balance upon which all existence depends."
And then there are the Cetaceal Agathions. Of course, I was looking for a "mermaid-like" race that could plausibly travel the stars, and I can easily imagine these chicks doing so. So all I really needed was the artwork, and could have added whatever fluff I wanted. In my case, I had them pegged as a "Fourth Rank" race about to evolve into the "Fifth Rank", and the Aeons are testing them to determine if they deserve the right, or if they should be destroyed.
"Cetaceals are great water-dwelling agathions who swim the planar seas and commune with the creatures of the deeps. Rarely seen by landwalkers, they defend the waters against aquatic evils such as aboleths. Their spirits usually were those of great mortal leaders of aquatic or coastal tribes, or good folk who died underwater serving some great cause, reborn in a celestial form that is part humanoid, part orca."
There's lots of stuff I can use there.
Let's look at the [b]Draconal Agathions[\b]. "Draconals are mighty agathion lords, few in number and greatly removed from mortal affairs. They watch over powerful magic and are direct agents of the gods and the needs of the good planes. Patient and ageless, they plan for the long term, which often frustrates mortal creatures who seek to gain their assistance with a threat in the here and now."
So it sounds like PCs will have to go out of the way to find one, but I can easily see how one might fit into an adventure.
I guess I don't need a lot of text to inspire me. Just a paragraph is an intriguing idea is all I need. I remember reading about the Paladin in the original Greyhawk supplement, in which the class was described in about three paragraphs of text, much of it crunch like their ability to use holy swords. My mind started filling with ideas for how Paladins could be used in a fantasy story.
|
|
"Draconals are mighty agathion lords, few in number and greatly removed from mortal affairs. They watch over powerful magic and are direct agents of the gods and the needs of the good planes. Patient and ageless, they plan for the long term, which often frustrates mortal creatures who seek to gain their assistance with a threat in the here and now."
So where and when would one become involved? This doesn't really spark the use of one, in fact, it dissuades the GM from using one, them being all "removed from mortal affairs" and apparently as boring as the chapters with Treebeard in from LotR.
I guess I'm looking for that 'emotional' connection - I know sounds all touchy-feely, but again not to harp on but, you read the section in the WH Bestiary on Unicorns (both players and GMs) and then the PF Bestiary. One fills you with a sense of majesty, the other a stat block so you can best 'challenge' your players. It need not be like this, to save the previous posters 700 page door stop, either (A) reduce creatures per book or (B) as I suggested a Gazetteer type book.
Imagine reading of the two times in Galorian's history where mortals encounter a Draconal! That would start me thinking about the THIRD time...
Each to their own, each of us has our own ideals on these things and none are wrong,
S.
|
|
So where and when would one become involved? This doesn't really spark the use of one, in fact, it dissuades the GM from using one, them being all "removed from mortal affairs" and apparently as boring as the chapters with Treebeard in from LotR.
Obviously, your vision of LOTR and mine differ greatly. I found the chapters with Treebeard quite engaging and fun. Especially since Tolkien made the Ents to embody nature, which he reveared, and made the actual victim of the novel.
When and where would one become involved? Whenever the hell the GM wants it to. As a GM i do not need all the necessary stuff spoon fed to me. 3.5 has coddled me with premade stat blocks far too long. I like that the new bestiaries actualy make the GM work, because not all o the creatures are represented. You have to MAKE them. And also, i love the open-ended fluff. It lets me do what i want with the creatures, but gives me something of a bacground so i do not wander in the dark.
I do not want a fluff description o a creature to be so comprehensive, that it makes it very hard to input changes...
"Draconals are mighty agathion lords, few in number and greatly removed from mortal affairs. They watch over powerful magic and are direct agents of the gods and the needs of the good planes. Patient and ageless, they plan for the long term, which often frustrates mortal creatures who seek to gain their assistance with a threat in the here and now."So where and when would one become involved? This doesn't really spark the use of one, in fact, it dissuades the GM from using one, them being all "removed from mortal affairs" and apparently as boring as the chapters with Treebeard in from LotR.
I guess I'm looking for that 'emotional' connection - I know sounds all touchy-feely, but again not to harp on but, you read the section in the WH Bestiary on Unicorns (both players and GMs) and then the PF Bestiary. One fills you with a sense of majesty, the other a stat block so you can best 'challenge' your players. It need not be like this, to save the previous posters 700 page door stop, either (A) reduce creatures per book or (B) as I suggested a Gazetteer type book.
Imagine reading of the two times in Galorian's history where mortals encounter a Draconal! That would start me thinking about the THIRD time...
Each to their own, each of us has our own ideals on these things and none are wrong,
S.
What you're requesting would definitely be in a Campaign Setting book like the Revisited line. The RPG line is philosophically setting-neutral. They won't describe monster X in Golarion because they don't assume Golarion as a setting. From what I understand of other settings, a monster's role and ecology in, say, Greyhawk might be decidedly different than its place in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Dark Sun.
I think your best bet is to petition the Paizo powers that be for further installments in the Revisited line of books, perhaps with specific examples of which kinds of monsters you'd like to see detailed. I believe they've been quite popular, so your entreaties are unlikely to fall on deaf ears.
|
|
I think your best bet is to petition the Paizo powers that be for further installments in the Revisited line of books, perhaps with specific examples of which kinds of monsters you'd like to see detailed.
I agree 100% at Paizo is perhaps the most customer focused RPG company I have every had the pleasure of dealing with. Without the reference of actually reading the 2e WFRP Bestiary it's difficult to articulate, no common reference. Setting neutral would still work, by dropping locations in the prose.
Honestly if we didn't need external muses why would we ever buy a Adventure Path or a fiction novel or go see a fantasy movie for that matter? Yet all of these have been sources that translated into either a one-off or in the best case a two year long campaign.
Not to mention that the 'revisited' books would hardly be required if you have the Bestiaries. I guess even some factions in Paizo are sympathetic to my cause.
May be Hama is correct and I have no personal imagination?
S.
|
Fact all of the Pathfinder hardback books are of the highest print standard with some of the freshest and best fantasy artwork currently available.
The Bestiaries are no exception to this. Why would I call them 'trophy wives'. Well, because they are fantastic looking, great in bed (or if you prefer to read on a couch, there too), but ultimately shallow and unsatisfying. These books are not what I would call a bestiary, more of the manual - but that word is taken. These bestiaries are more like the manual to get with your car or toaster. Nothing in them is there to spark imagination. Many complained about the 4e Monster Manual having a shallow treatise on critters, but after reading the description of the various Dragons (iconic creatures) in Paizo's offering I'm left wondering what people who haven't lived through 1e --> PF really get out of the books other than a list of walking/flying/swimming CR's.
The 2e Monsterous Manual is a good example of a good balance between cruch and fluff. But the approach taken by Black Industries in their 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary almost bring tears to the eye it is such a thing of beauty. As a DM I stumble over player's section of this book with adventures and ideas firing every neuron I own (that's right ALL five of them). For those who haven't had the life changing experience of viewing the 2e WFRP Bestiary, it's divided rough in half. The first half has what commoners and learned experts know of the creature in question. No stats such glorious prose. Second half has functional descriptions and the cruncy-bits. It is art, oh and has nice artwork also.
Now back to Paizo's Bestiaries. Stats = YEP, Art = Oh, Yes!, Imagination sparking content = Zero.
Would any others, well other than I, REALLY appreciate a Gazetteer & Gazetteer 2 that has nothing but 'stuff' about the creatures from the Bestiaries - slant it to Golarion by all means. The Adventure Paths from Paizo show that they have an awesome eye/ear/nose for a story and imagination. They...
I totally disagree with you. I really think that Paizo did a beasiary justice, yes some entries could have had a lil more fluff BUT what book is perfect?? The art for most of the monsters is flawless and the entries have enough to put a spark into the imagination of many players both gm/dm and players alike.
And honestly if someone has been playing role playing games since 1ed shouldnt they have an idea what the main monsters are about?? I mean ESPECIALLY DRAGONS!!!!
Just saying
|
|
Obviously, your vision of LOTR and mine differ greatly. I found the chapters with Treebeard quite engaging and fun. Especially since Tolkien made the Ents to embody nature, which he reveared, and made the actual victim of the novel.
Tolkien beautifully wrote the Ent chapters by giving the reader the distinct impression that nothing happened quickly. Ents were like a growing forest, in my copy of LotR, this translated to a very boring to actually read. He accomplished what he set out to do I offer. In my opinion on reflection, as the books as a whole, wonderful stuff. Perhaps only beaten by Tom Bombadil in it's ability to make your brain wish to escape your skull...
I also agree about Tolkien liking nature. The Shire and the latter Scourging of the Shire was of course a personal view of the industrialization of where he grew up.
S.
|
|
Obviously, your vision of LOTR and mine differ greatly. I found the chapters with Treebeard quite engaging and fun. Especially since Tolkien made the Ents to embody nature, which he reveared, and made the actual victim of the novel.Tolkien beautifully wrote the Ent chapters by giving the reader the distinct impression that nothing happened quickly. Ents were like a growing forest, in my copy of LotR, this translated to a very boring to actually read. He accomplished what he set out to do I offer. In my opinion on reflection, as the books as a whole, wonderful stuff. Perhaps only beaten by Tom Bombadil in it's ability to make your brain wish to escape your skull...
I also agree about Tolkien liking nature. The Shire and the latter Scourging of the Shire was of course a personal view of the industrialization of where he grew up.
S.
Well, what can i say...i for one appreciate a differing pace of storytelling in a novel. Not every chapter has to be a mind-gripping rollercoaster. Some can be more peaceful and slow. Pacing is important to a novel.
And as a writer (for now unpublished), i can tell you that differing paces in a book are good, because they are used to separate distinct pov-s or stories, or characters.So slow pacing isn't necessarily a bad thing. Quite the contrary.
|
|
And honestly if someone has been playing role playing games since 1ed shouldnt they have an idea what the main monsters are about?? I mean ESPECIALLY DRAGONS!!!!
And if you haven't?
Another thread started by someone else is, on reflection, most illuminating. They think that PF is written for people who have already played D&D. This in a way makes sense, as I guess at one level that is exactly what PF was designed to do, that is, continue the life-cycle of 3e D&D. You REALLY want to know what a Blue Dragon motivations are compared to say a Green Dragon - pull out the 1e/2e/3e Draconomicon or Dragonlance books etc. Pazio doesn't need to restate the obvious!
I think I just had an Epiphany - PF was written for those who had already played, doh. Still I would like to think that 10 year olds are spending their weeks night and weekends reading and re-reading monster entries (not the stat blocks) as many here did, and again Epiphany aside I just don't see a 10 year old me doing that with the Bestiaries in their current format.
S.
|
|
And as a writer (for now unpublished)
As a writer you should know that Tolkien almost did everything that publishers would never had allowed an author to do in his writing, and still publish their works at the time. There have a been a few copy-cats in the resent years. Given your comments I need not refer you to Unwin for the exact quote as I'm sure you are aware of this.
Oh, and luck with the writing - I write lots but for science, so it's hardly seat of pants stuff.
S.
I usally just read fantasy novels for ideas. I like the bestiary as is, enought info to give a bit of insite and good stat blocks for immediate on-sight gaming use. Plenty of other better sources for ideas and its not like I'm going to read the creature fluff during game.
Gonna try really hard to stay out of the Tolkienesque section of this thread...it's not easy, but I'm trying...
Otherwise I completely agree with Stefan Hill. The reason I started with Pathfinder at all was the amount of imagination and work that went into the issues of Dungeon I had that Paizo did. When they announced their new line of books, I was sorry to see Dungeon go, but I knew whatever Paizo did would be of the highest quality.
There's been ups and downs sense, mostly ups, and the downs really haven't been that bad (with one or two exceptions). But the Bestiary was a huge let down to me. I'm not even going to elude that I think statting up monsters is easy. I would be an idiot if I did. But I will say it takes very little imagination. So when I got my copy of the Bestiary and really went through it, I felt like I wasn't holding a piece of art so much as a series of math equations with really well done diagrams. It honestly felt strange putting it on the shelf with the rest of the Paizo books. Like putting your check book on the shelf with your favorite novels.
I understand the rule books need to be setting neutral from a self imposed business model, but this doesn't make me feel any better about it. Golarion is where I play the vast majority of the time. I would have loved to have gotten a bestiary that was half as big (regarding the number of monsters) but twice as well done (regarding the imagination behind the monsters).
Frankly there are a ton of monsters in the Bestiary (and in every version of every monster manual I've ever seen) that really just don't belong in my opinion. I would much rather see something that had more of a core group of monsters that are most commonly used, and have ecologies and cultures described, as well as some notes on variants. Not so much sample encounters (though that would be nice), but something talking about the kind of places this monster is likely to be encountered, would be a hell of a lot more helpful than page after page of niche monsters that maybe, and I mean maybe I'll use once.
I'm starting to ramble here, so I'm just going to stop...that and I just saw a mouse scampering through my house...
|
|
Paizo made a particular effort to cram as many monsters in the Bestiary as it could, since that's what most people will actually use. Each monster entry gets a single page. They even had to scrimp here and there; the various sizes of virmin and staple monsters like ghasts don't even get statblocks, instead getting build rules.
There's a vast wealth of fluff for those monsters in previous editions, and Paizo puts their specific monster fluff elsewhere, like the Revisited books.
|
|
I don't think the Bestiaries need all of the things Stefan is suggesting, primarily because I use them as reference when running adventures, and too much superfluous frills only means it takes longer to flip through the book and find the monster I'm looking for.
I like the one page/one monster layout, as it means if you open the book to a random page, you have a decent sense of how far forward or back you have to flip to find what you're looking for. And the information you actually need in a combat is easy to find on the page, not surrounded by stuff that's not entirely relevant in Round 4.
That's what the Monsters Revisited books are for.
And frankly, don't a lot of GMs ignore the fluff for monsters anyways? I know I often do.
Paizo made a particular effort to cram as many monsters in the Bestiary as it could, since that's what most people will actually use. Each monster entry gets a single page. They even had to scrimp here and there; the various sizes of virmin and staple monsters like ghasts don't even get statblocks, instead getting build rules.
There's a vast wealth of fluff for those monsters in previous editions, and Paizo puts their specific monster fluff elsewhere, like the Revisited books.
Information any given individual may not have access to by any legal means.
Frankly, I am with Stefan on this.
|
|
Yes, because those books cannot be found? There are dozens of 1st ed and 2nd ed books up for sale nowdays. And you really only need 3ed fluff, which is not that hard to come buy legally or illegaly. My friend has most of 3.5 books as scans in pdfs, he downloaded for free. I do not say that it is legal, or moral, but he has them.
I do not endorse downloading stuff for free, that others pay for. It is wrong and illegal.
|
|
I prefer my RPG line books rule heavy and fluff-lite. I vastly prefer Bestiary I and II to Monster Manual IV or V. I also like the revisited series and the idea of books like Inner Sea Magic that bridge RPG line books and the campaign setting, but the RPG line should be as crunchy as possible in my opinion.
I prefer my RPG line books rule heavy and fluff-lite. I vastly prefer Bestiary I and II to Monster Manual IV or V. I also like the revisited series and the idea of books like Inner Sea Magic that bridge RPG line books and the campaign setting, but the RPG line should be as crunchy as possible in my opinion.
Amen to that
Yes, because those books cannot be found? There are dozens of 1st ed and 2nd ed books up for sale nowdays. And you really only need 3ed fluff, which is not that hard to come buy legally or illegaly. My friend has most of 3.5 books as scans in pdfs, he downloaded for free. I do not say that it is legal, or moral, but he has them.
I do not endorse downloading stuff for free, that others pay for. It is wrong and illegal.
The degree of setting material for monsters in 3rd ed in core sources such as the monster manual is laughable Hama. I would have to spend very large amounts of money for very small amounts of information, which frankly isn't as interesting or as inspiring as the 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary.
Not sure it is entirely out their to say..'hey! Background, we can haz it wiz our monstorz!?!?!?'
When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about how to romance a medusa, vampire, succubus or other fine-looking monster without dying horribly.
2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary is also trying to be setting neutral? Warhammer book can (and should) have tons of fluff IMO.
Creative Director
|
It's absolutely a game-design philosophy issue. For a Bestiary, we wanted a rule book. A reference folks use to run combat encounters. I'm really proud of how much flavor information we DID get in for the monsters in the Bestiary books, actually, especially since we can't fall back on specific world information. It's certainly more flavor information than most monsters had in the 1st edition Monster Manual on average (a lot of those monsters' entries were combat rules, NOT flavor text).
But it's true—we did have to sacrifice some flavor text opportunities to make the book easy to use in play—which includes full stat blocks, art for pretty much every monster, and identical layout for each monster so that whenever you look for a monster's hit points or armor class, that information is always more or less at about the same place on every page. Had we abandoned the one-monster-per-page format, we would have certainly been able to provide more flavor text (but it would still be world-neutral) but we would have lost the book's utility as a during-play resource.
Folks looking for more flavor for running monsters really should check out both the Pathfinder Adventure Path line and the Revisited books in the Campaign Setting Line.
Pathfinder Adventure Path: Each volume has 4 to 6 or more monsters, each of which get 2 pages as opposed to 1. This generally results in an extra page of flavor text for every monster, which DOES have world-specific stuff like habitat, ecology, society, and similar information. In addition, we generally do one or two ecology style articles about monsters in here to support that Adventure Path's themed creatures. These articles are usually 6 to 10 pages long—in the past we've done articles on such things as stone giants, dragons, lycanthropes, boggards, and serpentfolk, and in the upcoming Jade Regent AP, oni and kami.
Revisited books: So far, we've done a book on humanoid monsters, on dragons, on classic dungeon threats, on undead, on horror-themed monsters, and on "misfit monsters"; each of these has 10 6-page chapters crammed with flavorful monster lore.
Adventures: And don't forget just the adventures! Even if you never run an adventure, they're filled with all sorts of helpful information about monsters.
Overall, I think we're more than serving the need for cool, imagination-sparking monster themed stuff—it's just not all in one spot.
I actually think Paizo does monsters best out of all aspects of their products, and that means a great deal.
The thing I most appreciate is how they incorporate myth and fiction backgrounds from monsters into the ecology and setting info. It's one thing to just drop a monster like a peryton with no context (yuck), it's another thing to bring Borges and Atlantis into the picture. The more literary they get, the more money I will throw at them.
That the Bestiary is the most generic of the resources owes to its status as a rulebook, I expect. Even then, it's pretty damned awesome compared to its predecessor in 3.5.
If you want more, go for the Revisited line, definitely.
But the approach taken by Black Industries in their 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary almost bring tears to the eye it is such a thing of beauty.
Question: Are you referring to this bestiary or a different book?
Folks looking for more flavor for running monsters really should check out both the Pathfinder Adventure Path line and the Revisited books in the Campaign Setting Line.
Each one of those being twenty-ish bucks. So yeah, if I was selling drugs or myself I could afford all those books and be tickled pink. It's not a huge HUGE deal, but it is what it is. Obviously, at least of those speaking here, I'm in the minority in that I would prefer more fluff and less monsters that I'm unlikely to use.
Not everyone who plays Pathfinder RPG uses Golarion as their setting. And there are as many different interpretations of dragons as there are pages in both bestiaries combined.
And exactly the same can be said of the mechanics. Their is a vast number of approaches to the mechanical construction of any given monster, all of which are setting specific to some degree.
If your going to have bestiaries at all, you have to accept that the way some of the content is set out is not going to jelly with everyones home games.
That given, why not stop worrying about peoples home games, and giving details that settle the Monster more firmly into Golarion.
But the approach taken by Black Industries in their 2e Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay Bestiary almost bring tears to the eye it is such a thing of beauty.Question: Are you referring to this bestiary or a different book?
That is the one.
It's absolutely a game-design philosophy issue. For a Bestiary, we wanted a rule book. A reference folks use to run combat encounters. I'm really proud of how much flavor information we DID get in for the monsters in the Bestiary books, actually, especially since we can't fall back on specific world information. It's certainly more flavor information than most monsters had in the 1st edition Monster Manual on average (a lot of those monsters' entries were combat rules, NOT flavor text).
But it's true—we did have to sacrifice some flavor text opportunities to make the book easy to use in play—which includes full stat blocks, art for pretty much every monster, and identical layout for each monster so that whenever you look for a monster's hit points or armor class, that information is always more or less at about the same place on every page. Had we abandoned the one-monster-per-page format, we would have certainly been able to provide more flavor text (but it would still be world-neutral) but we would have lost the book's utility as a during-play resource.
Folks looking for more flavor for running monsters really should check out both the Pathfinder Adventure Path line and the Revisited books in the Campaign Setting Line.
Pathfinder Adventure Path: Each volume has 4 to 6 or more monsters, each of which get 2 pages as opposed to 1. This generally results in an extra page of flavor text for every monster, which DOES have world-specific stuff like habitat, ecology, society, and similar information. In addition, we generally do one or two ecology style articles about monsters in here to support that Adventure Path's themed creatures. These articles are usually 6 to 10 pages long—in the past we've done articles on such things as stone giants, dragons, lycanthropes, boggards, and serpentfolk, and in the upcoming Jade Regent AP, oni and kami.
Revisited books: So far, we've done a book on humanoid monsters, on dragons, on classic dungeon threats, on undead, on horror-themed monsters, and on "misfit monsters";...
Both the APs and 'Revisited...' are awesome, and I appreciate them more than I can say(the fun facts about goblins are one of the top five reasons why I now play Pathfinder more than any other game, after barely touching 3.0/3.5).
But I would be lying if I said that I didn't also want more in the bestiaries.
I understand why we don't get it, but my personal preference is still for few monsters in each, with greater depth.
That is the one.
Thank you.
*goes to buy it, download it and get ideas for my next monster book*
That is the one.Thank you.
*goes to buy it, download it and get ideas for my next monster book*
Be careful how much inspiration you take, GW are famously protective of their IP.
That said, taking a few pointers from the players half of the book certainly couldn't hurt.
If you do something along the same lines, I would happily buy it.
Be careful how much inspiration you take, GW are famously protective of their IP.
That said, taking a few pointers from the players half of the book certainly couldn't hurt.
If you do something along the same lines, I would happily buy it.
I'm not going to be using any monsters from there. I already know what monsters I'm doing and am already getting artwork in for it. But the quantity/quality of the fluff is what I'm going to be reading up on to figure out how to ... emulate (for lack of a better term) it.
I'm not going to be using any monsters from there. I already know what monsters I'm doing and am already getting artwork in for it. But the quantity/quality of the fluff is what I'm going to be reading up on to figure out how to ... emulate (for lack of a better term) it.Be careful how much inspiration you take, GW are famously protective of their IP.
That said, taking a few pointers from the players half of the book certainly couldn't hurt.
If you do something along the same lines, I would happily buy it.
I was sure that would be the case. But yeah, I thought it worth the warning.
I hope you enjoy it. Look for the discrepancies between the monsters and what people think they know about them. The stupidity and ignorance of even many of the 'experts' is one of the charming elements of the book. Its been three years since i looked at the book, but it still sits clearly in my mind as one of the better monster resources ever.
It was not perfect, it cast its net to wide, taking in monsters that had no place in the old world, and not providing stats for more mundane creatures, or more ways to custimise those that it did provide, but it is over all a book (like all those released by B.I.) which lets you live and breath the Warhammer World.
I can understand your desire for more fluff in the Bestiaries, but I think we can rest assured that it's not going to happen. I'd love more fluff in those books myself, and can imagine how terrific that would make a Bestiary. But I also love the Revisited series and hope to see more of those produced in the future (Giants!).
I still use Mongoose's Slayer's Guides, which are tremendous for this, right up to the point where they began to make them 'brand-new monster' books instead of 'already-existing monster' books (their Giants, Demons, and Elementals books were awful in that regard).
|
The reason I haven't bought hard copies of the bestiaries is the lack of fluff and inspiration based stuff. While I can understand the reasoning behind Paizo's decision to keep to the one page to a monster format, and can't doubt it's usefulness as an at the table tool - I still prefer the 3.5/3.0 Monster Manuals for their fluff and discussion of various monster behaviors.
Every description was an adventure hook, and as a GM I think having a section which gives adventure hooks for the various monsters in the book is a worthwhile addition to the Bestiary III.
|
Creative Director
|
Each one of those being twenty-ish bucks. So yeah, if I was selling drugs or myself I could afford all those books and be tickled pink. It's not a huge HUGE deal, but it is what it is. Obviously, at least of those speaking here, I'm in the minority in that I would prefer more fluff and less monsters that I'm unlikely to use.Folks looking for more flavor for running monsters really should check out both the Pathfinder Adventure Path line and the Revisited books in the Campaign Setting Line.
Well... it turns out we kind of have to charge money for the books we produce so we can keep making books for folks.
And we're certainly not going to sacrifice art or rules for something in a rulebook line.
It's pretty much the way it is because it has to be that way.
Honestly... if money's a concern and you really just prefer monster flavor text, you should probably just be buying the revisited line and using the PRD for the rules as you need them? We only generally do 2 revisited monster books a year, so if you don't buy that year's Bestiary, you're more or less spending the same amount of money.
|
|
Stuff
Thanks for the comment James, please understand I am not unhappy with the quality of the Bestiaries as RPG books. I guess it's perhaps my fault for not buying the other products referred to, as the Bestiaries, as you mentioned, are designed along an 'in-play' design rather than a 'good read' design. And I admitted to realizing this in a post further up. I will investigate further the 'revisted' line as I am interested in your staff's take on things - on the whole Paizo rarely fails to impress*. This whole waffle of mine was prompted by me finding my 2e WFRP Bestiary and after reading it I felt that the PF Bestiary was a flawed diamond, for me. But from my bolt of blue and your admittance the PF Bestiary was never meant to be what I had in my minds-eye puts things in perspective.
Highest regards,
Stefan.
*Case in point, the fact Paizo staff are active on the forums.
|
|
That is the one.Thank you.
*goes to buy it, download it and get ideas for my next monster book*
Highly recommended. Monster count isn't that high, but you hardly notice the lack of volume due to the content. I know that I have built the book up to be some sort of paragon of Bestiaries - but in truth I do feel that it is. VERY set in the Warhammer World and it doesn't pretend to be generic in anyway. That said the monsters can be made generic setting but in doing so you would lose the very reason the book is so awesome. I have played GW games since before the Emperor was killed by Horus, Dwarves rode hoverboards, and Zoats roamed freely. So for me 'the Old World' is almost like a land just over there, if you get my meaning. Still 2e WFRP presents things after the Storm of Chaos, which I'm not the hugest fan of, still the whole players section on the Wood Elves, just beautiful stuff. Arrrrhhhh, must avoid writing adventure for WH and focus on current PF campaign...
Interested to hear what you think of the book - in another thread of course, this is the Pazio section after all.
S.
|
|
Each one of those being twenty-ish bucks. So yeah, if I was selling drugs or myself I could afford all those books and be tickled pink. It's not a huge HUGE deal, but it is what it is. Obviously, at least of those speaking here, I'm in the minority in that I would prefer more fluff and less monsters that I'm unlikely to use.Folks looking for more flavor for running monsters really should check out both the Pathfinder Adventure Path line and the Revisited books in the Campaign Setting Line.
Well... it turns out we kind of have to charge money for the books we produce so we can keep making books for folks.
And we're certainly not going to sacrifice art or rules for something in a rulebook line.
It's pretty much the way it is because it has to be that way.
Honestly... if money's a concern and you really just prefer monster flavor text, you should probably just be buying the revisited line and using the PRD for the rules as you need them? We only generally do 2 revisited monster books a year, so if you don't buy that year's Bestiary, you're more or less spending the same amount of money.
Again I am at a dilemma... Its the DM's job to create the fluff. The books aren't supposed to give the total idea to the DM to present to the players. At least thats how I see it. Being able to create a world is what being a DM is all about! Whether its a module or a homebrew game its up to the DM to create the world that the players are in not the books that the DM gets the stats or info from...
"Draconals are mighty agathion lords, few in number and greatly removed from mortal affairs. They watch over powerful magic and are direct agents of the gods and the needs of the good planes. Patient and ageless, they plan for the long term, which often frustrates mortal creatures who seek to gain their assistance with a threat in the here and now."So where and when would one become involved? This doesn't really spark the use of one, in fact, it dissuades the GM from using one, them being all "removed from mortal affairs" and apparently as boring as the chapters with Treebeard in from LotR.
I guess I'm looking for that 'emotional' connection - I know sounds all touchy-feely, but again not to harp on but, you read the section in the WH Bestiary on Unicorns (both players and GMs) and then the PF Bestiary. One fills you with a sense of majesty, the other a stat block so you can best 'challenge' your players. It need not be like this, to save the previous posters 700 page door stop, either (A) reduce creatures per book or (B) as I suggested a Gazetteer type book.
Imagine reading of the two times in Galorian's history where mortals encounter a Draconal! That would start me thinking about the THIRD time...
Each to their own, each of us has our own ideals on these things and none are wrong,
S.
First, the PCs would have to find themselves in a situation where they need a Draconal's help.
Secondly, they have to find the draconal.
Thirdly, they find that the draconal does not care. But they can't give up now.
Fourthly, they find that if they can complete some quest that the Draconal does care about, they can acquire a MacGuffin that the Draconal wants, and they can then convince the Draconal to help them in return for that MacGuffin.
Or they can decide they'll try their luck dealing with a Faceless Stalker:
"Ugothols (as faceless stalkers call themselves) are one of the many tools created and then discarded by the aboleths in their long war against the surface dwellers. Scorned by their former masters when the scheme for which they were designed unraveled, the faceless stalkers fled into swamps, marshes, or any other dark, wet places they could find -- the closest they could come to the aquatic cities they once discovered home."
Unfortunately for the Ugothols, engineers working for a vast army is working to clear and drain a swamp where a tribe of them have made their home. The King wants the swamp cleared so he can use it as an invasion route to conquer a neighboring kingdom, catching them unawares, knowing that none of their fortresses are defending the kingdom from that direction. As the Ugothols lose swampland, they start raiding the workers' camps.
|
|
Fourthly, they find that if they can complete some quest that the Draconal does care about, they can acquire a MacGuffin that the Draconal wants, and they can then convince the Draconal to help them in return for that MacGuffin.
See here we have the classic Archmage* in the Inn asking the 1st levelers to clear the kobolds problem.
Either
(A) the players are more capable/powerful than the Draconal if the Draconal can't just 'do it himself**' - in which case the players don't need the help of a lowly Draconal. Or if you approach this entirely from an RP POV rather than a stat-block POV then a page of fluff would have been more use than a page of stat-block.
or
(B) the uncaring Draconal is uncharacteristically, messing with them.
I do understand what you mean, but I like a little more than the bestiary provides to understand where the creature in question fits in the greater scheme of things.
Still nice imagery on your part,
S.
*Archmage = 18th or great Magic User (cf: Wizard)
** are they Hims, Hers, or Its?