Bestiary 6 Wish List


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 1,486 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, a lot of the actual Giants are Large already... having their humanoid spawn be roughly the same heft is a mite odd.


A "chimeric" template for animals and magical beast.

A "tauric" template for humanoids and monstrous humanoids.

A template that makes creature two-dimensional.

A monster that was created from the imagination. Like an imaginary friend or something thought up from reading a book. The creature could be incorporeal and/or invisible to all but it's creator.


Dragon78 wrote:
We would have to wait for a Distant Worlds type hardcover book to stat up there ships. Since these creatures function as ships they would have to follow rules for vehicles.

That's exactly what I had in mind. ^_^

I also think a half-giant 0HD race would be pretty cool.


A 0HD large race of tall, thin smart (but weak) people from a lower gravity world would be interesting. Maybe with some kind of occult bonus.....


Mechagamera wrote:
A 0HD large race of tall, thin smart (but weak) people from a lower gravity world would be interesting. Maybe with some kind of occult bonus.....

This has my approval. Bonus points if they're related to the Grays somehow.

Also, is it wrong that I want B6 to include the Pinata?


Dragon78 wrote:
I would prefer the giant blooded race to be medium size so I could play it in a normal campaign.

Huh... how is playing a Large character "not normal"?


Dragon78 wrote:

A "chimeric" template for animals and magical beast.

A "tauric" template for humanoids and monstrous humanoids.

A template that makes creature two-dimensional.

A monster that was created from the imagination. Like an imaginary friend or something thought up from reading a book. The creature could be incorporeal and/or invisible to all but it's creator.

+1

+1

Not sure...

Kinda like the Tulpa in B5?


JiCi wrote:
Huh... how is playing a Large character "not normal"?

Probably the fact that you cannot enter most dungeons.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And Huge mounts are so spendy...


Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Huh... how is playing a Large character "not normal"?
Probably the fact that you cannot enter most dungeons.

That's relative though... You can be dungeon-crawling as much as hunting in the wilderness. It all depends on the campaign.


JiCi wrote:
That's relative though... You can be dungeon-crawling as much as hunting in the wilderness. It all depends on the campaign.

When you cannot play a single AP, the race probably will not be considered "normal".

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
When you cannot play a single AP, the race probably will not be considered "normal".

Giantslayer? :]

Indeed, I think Large creatures could be used in EVERY adventure path/nearly all dungeons... so long as they are at the lower end of the size range.


CBDunkerson wrote:


Giantslayer? :]

Indeed, I think Large creatures could be used in EVERY adventure path/nearly all dungeons... so long as they are at the lower end of the size range.

There is no "lower end of the size range". If you're large size you need to use the squeezing rules to get through a medium space where "Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."

There is a reason why people play small cavaliers so that they can actually use their mounts in dungeons.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Milo v3 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Giantslayer? :]

Indeed, I think Large creatures could be used in EVERY adventure path/nearly all dungeons... so long as they are at the lower end of the size range.

There is no "lower end of the size range". If you're large size you need to use the squeezing rules to get through a medium space where "Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."

There is a reason why people play small cavaliers so that they can actually use their mounts in dungeons.

I'd assumed you were referring to Large creatures being too tall to walk upright in dungeons. Those 10' or less should be able to do so in most cases.

Squeezing through doorways and narrow corridors could be a hassle, but hardly prevents them from moving through the dungeon and fighting.

In any case... Giantslayer.


Except for imaginary creatures should be more imaginative and varied in form unlike the Tulpa.


Dragon78 wrote:
Except for imaginary creatures should be more imaginative and varied in form unlike the Tulpa.

Tulpa is a Template.

Take critter A, apply Template B, then apply the Tulpa Template...

^ it's a start, better than nothing.


Dragon78 wrote:
Except for imaginary creatures should be more imaginative and varied in form unlike the Tulpa.

The tulpa entry actually specifically states that it's for imaginary versions of existing creatures, and that for strangely formed imaginary creatures you should use it with the Enfettered Eidolon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:


- Ugh... because they need to make one... a dragon-like humanoid PC race. Come on, it's long overdue...
That already exists. Also, see these guys.
Like these? Sorry, couldn't find male versions.
Ok... how about something that 1) is not related to draconic cousins and 2) that is not a dumb/cannon fodder race? I'd like to mention that the wyvarans are related to wyverns and kobolds. We're not talking about true dragon descendants here.

Rude.

Do we have nilbogs? Like, actual official nilbogs? We need more stupid old edition monsters!


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:


- Ugh... because they need to make one... a dragon-like humanoid PC race. Come on, it's long overdue...
That already exists. Also, see these guys.
Like these? Sorry, couldn't find male versions.
Ok... how about something that 1) is not related to draconic cousins and 2) that is not a dumb/cannon fodder race? I'd like to mention that the wyvarans are related to wyverns and kobolds. We're not talking about true dragon descendants here.

Rude.

Do we have nilbogs? Like, actual official nilbogs? We need more stupid old edition monsters!

Surprisingly enough, kobolds don't have mental ability score penalties, but they are a little brash, claiming that they are descendants from true dragons... and no, there isn't any feature that makes them related to dragons.

While they are crafty and expert trapmakers, I keep seeing them as annoying critters that lack any sense of order.


Milo v3 wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:


Giantslayer? :]

Indeed, I think Large creatures could be used in EVERY adventure path/nearly all dungeons... so long as they are at the lower end of the size range.

There is no "lower end of the size range". If you're large size you need to use the squeezing rules to get through a medium space where "Each move into or through a narrow space counts as if it were 2 squares, and while squeezed in a narrow space, you take a –4 penalty on attack rolls and a –4 penalty to AC."

There is a reason why people play small cavaliers so that they can actually use their mounts in dungeons.

I haven't seen every AP there is... but I doubt that all of them have narrow corridors where PCs have to line up in order to follow the path.

The best solution would be a Medium humanoid (giant), but with Oversized Weapons and something akin to Powerful Build, which would grant them all benefits and penalties of being Large, while remaining Medium. Yeah, yeah, pick the Half-Giant or Goliath and Pathfinder-ize it XD

STILL, having a giantblood humanoid with multiple bloodlines would be nice, and would make some sense in the world. A giant could reduce his or her size and pick a Medium humanoid for the child's parent, be willing or unwillingly (giants could have concubines in their slave pens). Dude, giants LOOK like humans anyway :P


JiCi wrote:
and no, there isn't any feature that makes them related to dragons.

Tell that to the fact that they do things like get dragon wings, get energy resistance based on the colour of their scales, get bonuses against sleep and paralysis (dragons are immune to sleep and paralysis effects), get breath weapons based on the colour of their scales, count their charisma as higher for the purpose of the draconic bloodline, get a bite attack that enhanced with the energy associated with a chromatic dragon colour you share your scales with, have many feats that enhance their draconic nature with dragon powers (some generic some relating specifically to the dragon you share a colour with) or change it to be metallic based rather than chromatic based.....

Kobolds might be weaker in this edition, but they are definitely still related to dragons.

I do partially wish for a race of "Noble Kobold" or something in a bestiary, as a RP 15-20 kobold variant in a bestiary though.


JiCi wrote:

The best solution would be a Medium humanoid (giant), but with Oversized Weapons and something akin to Powerful Build, which would grant them all benefits and penalties of being Large, while remaining Medium. Yeah, yeah, pick the Half-Giant or Goliath and Pathfinder-ize it XD

STILL, having a giantblood humanoid with multiple bloodlines would be nice, and would make some sense in the world. A giant could reduce his or her size and pick a Medium humanoid for the child's parent, be willing or unwillingly (giants could have concubines in their slave pens). Dude, giants LOOK like humans anyway :P

Hodor from A Song of Ice and Fire, there was a discussion between Bran and Osha about half giants, and Hodor probably being one.


Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:
and no, there isn't any feature that makes them related to dragons.

Tell that to the fact that they do things like get dragon wings, get energy resistance based on the colour of their scales, get bonuses against sleep and paralysis (dragons are immune to sleep and paralysis effects), get breath weapons based on the colour of their scales, count their charisma as higher for the purpose of the draconic bloodline, get a bite attack that enhanced with the energy associated with a chromatic dragon colour you share your scales with, have many feats that enhance their draconic nature with dragon powers (some generic some relating specifically to the dragon you share a colour with) or change it to be metallic based rather than chromatic based.....

Kobolds might be weaker in this edition, but they are definitely still related to dragons.

That was added later though, be in the ARG or in Kobolds of Golarion. Nowhere in the original Bestiary description they have any rules that make them related to dragons.

Heck, why don't they have the dragon traits? That would make sense.


Milo v3 wrote:
I do partially wish for a race of "Noble Kobold" or something in a bestiary, as a RP 15-20 kobold variant in a bestiary though.

(You totally added this later :P )

I'd like a Hobgoblin variant of Kobolds as well. Bigger, sturdier, smarter, wiser and that they value their draconic heritage to its limits.

Wyvarans aren't these variants, unfortunately...


JiCi wrote:
That was added later though, be in the ARG or in Kobolds of Golarion. Nowhere in the original Bestiary description they have any rules that make them related to dragons.

That's a stupid distinction. They just copied and pasted the kobold entry. It was lazy. It's not like it's a retcon to give them to give them draconic features later (their bestiary entry does actually even show a physiological link between kobolds and chromatic dragons through their scales). Kobolds are draconic. It's a fact, you can ignore it if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact they have been written as a draconic race with connections to chromatics dragons (and rarely metallic dragons).

I do think they dropped the ball with kobolds. They improved goblins while ignoring kobolds, despite the much grander potential present. They could have at least made them as powerful as late 3.5e Kobolds, but it seems that their were no kobold fans at paizo.

Again, I do hope for a "Noble Kobold" race that actually gives kobolds the stats they deserve (until then I'll just have to make do with making them reasonable myself), right now they are just..... wasted potential that makes me happy PF is compatible with RotD.


Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:
That was added later though, be in the ARG or in Kobolds of Golarion. Nowhere in the original Bestiary description they have any rules that make them related to dragons.
That's a stupid distinction. They just copied and pasted the kobold entry. It was lazy. It's not like it's a retcon for them to give them draconic features later (their entry does actually even show a physiological link between kobolds and chromatic dragons through their scales). Kobolds are draconic. It's a fact, you can ignore it if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact they have been written as a draconic race with connections to chromatics dragons (and rarely metallic dragons).

Woaw, woaw, woaw, hold it there cowboy. I'm not denying that kobolds aren't related to dragons in any shape or form. I'm just saying that they didn't make it the bonafide dragon-like race of the game.

Quote:
I do think they dropped the ball with kobolds. They improved goblins while ignoring kobolds, despite the much grander potential present. They could have at least made them as powerful as late 3.5e Kobolds, but it seems that their were no kobold fans at paizo.

I feel like they go for what they can come up with for Golarion. If kobolds aren't that relevant to the setting yet, they're not gonna be expanded upon, unlike goblinoids.

Quote:
Again, I do hope for a "Noble Kobold" race that actually gives kobolds the stats they deserve (until then I'll just have to make do with making them reasonable myself).

We're on the same page now ;)

I think it's a psychological thing: when you want to "play as a dragon", you'll likely pick a race which is tall, stronger and powerful, not small, weak and frail :P


Kobolds can get dragon like abilities with feats but that doesn't make them a dragon based playable race.

If they ever do a dragon blooded race I hope chromatic and metallic dragon traits will not be the only options for them.


Dragon78 wrote:
Kobolds can get dragon like abilities with feats but that doesn't make them a dragon based playable race.

Even if you ignore the dragon feats, there are still the draconic racial traits.

Quote:
If they ever do a dragon blooded race I hope chromatic and metallic dragon traits will not be the only options for them.

This I do agree on. I also hope for an expansion for half-dragons one day that covers the new true dragon types.


You mean alternate racial traits.


JiCi wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
JiCi wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
JiCi wrote:


- Ugh... because they need to make one... a dragon-like humanoid PC race. Come on, it's long overdue...
That already exists. Also, see these guys.
Like these? Sorry, couldn't find male versions.
Ok... how about something that 1) is not related to draconic cousins and 2) that is not a dumb/cannon fodder race? I'd like to mention that the wyvarans are related to wyverns and kobolds. We're not talking about true dragon descendants here.

Rude.

Do we have nilbogs? Like, actual official nilbogs? We need more stupid old edition monsters!

Surprisingly enough, kobolds don't have mental ability score penalties, but they are a little brash, claiming that they are descendants from true dragons... and no, there isn't any feature that makes them related to dragons.

While they are crafty and expert trapmakers, I keep seeing them as annoying critters that lack any sense of order.

I was responding "in-persona" there, but you've said two things here that just seem flat-out wrong.

1. I actually don't see how anyone could claim kobolds aren't descended from dragons. Some of them are literally born with wings, not to mention the breath weapon. You may not like them, but they're definitely meant to be dragon descendants in Pathfinder. They do have big egos about it, of course.

2. "Lack any sense of order"? Kobolds are Lawful Evil. They're even stated to be more Lawful than Evil—you're more likely to see a Lawful Good kobold than a Chaotic Evil one. Kobolds have tons of order. They don't have very much courage, but as long as they have a trap or two between them and the adventurer, they're one of the most "orderly" races in the Darklands (surpassed, obviously, by duergar).

You want to talk disorderly races? Try the actual hobgoblins, who are constantly betraying each other. You say you want a hobgoblin version of kobolds, but compared to kobolds, hobgoblins might as well be bugbears. Or even goblins! !Nilbogs ton tuB Kobolds actually like each other and have strong urges to support the collective community. They even fight to the death sometimes to protect nurseries. Alongside duergar, and maybe gnolls, kobolds are arguably the most orderly evil race in Pathfinder.

Kobolds have plenty of weak spots. I don't argue with that. But they're clearly meant in Pathfinder to be descended from dragons, and they're clearly a very lawful race. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

JiCi wrote:
That was added later though, be in the ARG or in Kobolds of Golarion. Nowhere in the original Bestiary description they have any rules that make them related to dragons.

Er, if we're regarding anything outside the "original Bestiary description" as non-canon, I don't think Bestiary 6 is gonna make much of a difference. If you deliberately ignore the books that show a clearly draconic race, you ain't gonna get a clearly draconic race.

I don't have any feelings on this subject. Everyone has their pet "weird race" they want added, like me with otyughs and aranea. I don't really care about a dragon race, but I don't have any problem with new additions.


I have a feeling they will listen to those few fans that want more fluff and a lower number of monsters in one book.

Mark my words.


Some of the entries in B5 were pretty low fluff, almost 3e MM low fluff....I hope that doesn't continue.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Kobolds have plenty of weak spots. I don't argue with that. But they're clearly meant in Pathfinder to be descended from dragons, and they're clearly a very lawful race. I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Point taken ;)

The "hobgoblin-like" version of the kobold that I'm asking is is basically a Medium kobold that acts as a soldier and regal figure. You can have a Lawful kobold society, but it needs a strictier leader ;)

Mechagamera wrote:
Some of the entries in B5 were pretty low fluff, almost 3e MM low fluff....I hope that doesn't continue.

The artworks are getting bigger, so... but at least it can be expanded in later booklets.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

We have enough Dragons ("true" Dragons, anyway), Giants, Devils, and Demons to leave them well alone for a while.

If we use the space we save on them for expanding monster entries to include more fluff, I, for one, would be a happy camper.

It won't happen, but I can dream.


Even if everyone on this board says they don't want any more demons or devils they will still make them, they just love them too much.

I want more dragons and giants.

I am fine with less fluff, as long as each creature gets a paragraph I am fine. There are so few creatures in these books that warrant two pages of fluff. Besides I would much rather have Golarion specific fluff then world neutral fluff from a hardcover bestiary.


Nightterror wrote:

I have a feeling they will listen to those few fans that want more fluff and a lower number of monsters in one book.

Mark my words.

I hope so!

'Dragon78" wrote:
Even if everyone on this board says they don't want any more demons or devils they will still make them, they just love them too much.

I'm not sure that Paizo loves them too much, but they fill the Wolverine/Batman/Famous Guy quota. You get a certain amount of them so that you can have all the more obscure creations that people want. I'm very dubious that we'd get an entire book of obscure beings with no dragons/devils/giants/demons/angels to round it out. They are popular and draw people to the books. It is hard to ignore the larger fan base even if there is a small but vocal minority that dislikes those things.


Demons are only so popular with the staff because James Jacobs loves them so much (maybe others, but he's most famous), same with Science Fiction stuff, Lovecraft and Dinosaurs, so if you have something against them, better stop because they end up in the products anyway.

I really love bestiary 3,4 and 5 and I would be MAD if Bestiary 6 turns out to be some fluff-full book with only 100 monsters, from which are 50, AP Monsters, Monsters from other products, monsters with re-used artwork, robots, AP Demons, Good natured monsters, Manusipatra, Science Fiction monsters and all others I don't care about.

That's why they create 300+ bestiaries, so that everyone has a good share of monsters they like, if they reduce it to a 100- fluff-fest they only please few people. It isn't a monthly product, it only appears once every 2 years, so only 10 new monsters I care about each 2 years is true hell. Especially since I don't care that much for fluff for dragons which is so easy to create myself that I don't even read it.

If you like the fluff so much, there are the AP bestiaries for such fluffies.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Paizo staff are all D&D fans. Which makes them all fans of demons, devils, dinosaurs, Lovecraft Mythos and robotz with lazors, because they're all part of D&D history.


Gorbacz wrote:
Paizo staff are all D&D fans. Which makes them all fans of demons, devils, dinosaurs, Lovecraft Mythos and robotz with lazors, because they're all part of D&D history.

Lovecraft is rare in D&D, Robots are rare in D&D. Dinosaurs in D&D are mostly the same old boring models, they never get further than the dinosaurs from Jurassic Park.

And I didn't say it was a bad thing, HATER, you never say that stuff to Dragon78, who has a problem with the demons and devils, not me.

I'm gonna torture a few Polish Employees of my father again, thinking they are you. Damn, stop following me around, there are more people negative about some stuff.


Part of me thinks it makes perfect sense for their to be tonnes and tonnes of types of demons, I mean they're beings of chaos. But... then (y)azata and proteans should be greater in number.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Yeah, and moreover... yes, yes, the planes are infinite and the chaotic planes are ever-changing, but how many creatures from these planes are we actually going to use once we have a solid thirty or more?

Despite my general disinterest in Proteans, I'd much sooner get another big batch of them, Inevitables, Qlippoth, Kytons, or Rakshasas than even more devils and demons.


I just want more Mythological Div. Arzshenk, Asdeev, Druj Nasu and Bushyasta among others.


Cole Deschain wrote:
Yeah, and moreover... yes, yes, the planes are infinite and the chaotic planes are ever-changing, but how many creatures from these planes are we actually going to use once we have a solid thirty or more?

Admittedly I do run outerplane campaigns so the giant amount of outsiders are rather useful. Just wished there were more than just creatures for hell and the abyss.


Who cares if they add + 2 new demons and devils in each bestiary? I don't even care for 5 new robots in each new Bestiary in the future anymore.

The only things I dread and fear is that they make the bestiary smaller with less creatures and more fluff and for the Animated Tank and stuff like that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nightterror wrote:

I have a feeling they will listen to those few fans that want more fluff and a lower number of monsters in one book.

Mark my words.

Hmmm... the only reason we would not get more monsters is if they decide to go with more high-level monsters or very complex monsters, both that require 2 pages of info.

I don't expect the upcoming books to be as diluded as 3.5 Monster Manuals 4 and 5 were...

Speaking of which, I'm surprised that after 5 Bestiaries, they didn't lose their touch. Furthermore, they have a good backup plan if they need to fill the book: reprinting AP monsters. Sure, there are many more real-world mythological creatures, demons, devils, dragons, giants, golems and undead creatures, but IF they run out of materials, reprints can help them a lot.

Can't say the same about how the Monster Manuals, they got worse and worse as time went on...


The people at D&D headquarters run really short on imagination on many levels, they re-use the same stuff over and over and over and over again.

I'm so happy the people at Paizo do research, listen to fans and search all over google to get inspiration, something that D&D hasn't done since 3rd edition, and even in those Monster Manuals inspiration lacked greatly, Monster Manual 1 was just the old stuff all over again (With some very cool surprises such as the awesome Destrachan), monster manual 2 had some great monsters, but also a lot of silly and stupid ones, monster manual 3 was the best and I don't even want to think about 4 and 5. The Fiend Folio was OKish, I had a lot of fun with that book, it was better than Monster Manual 2 at least.
Paizo's bestiaries become better and better, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Bestiaries are my favorite monster books of all time. Closely followed by the Desert bestiary from Kobold Press.


I'm wonder why they Chained Spirit from CotCT never made it into a Bestiary?


There were a lot of cool creatures in 2nd edition, wish they had the rights to more of them then just from the Tome of Horrors.

..Or the Danse Macabre, I have always wondered how they determine what AP volumes they will get monsters from.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Nightterror wrote:
The only things I dread and fear is that they make the bestiary smaller with less creatures and more fluff and for the Animated Tank and stuff like that.

I would cheerfully cough up three or four creatures to give every remaining creature another line or two about how they do their thing.

I can make stat blocks on my own, but fluff can give ideas about why I would ever bother using a given creature instead of tweaking an existing one to hit the CR I want.

See: The good ol' Umbral Dragon. Literally all we know is that it's mean (it's Chaotic Evil, mean is a given) and likes eating undead...and everything else it can catch (meaning, essentially, it's baaaaaad!BE AFRADI!). It only got a single sentence to flesh it out.

One of the triumphs of the good ol' Misfit Monsters Redeemed was in taking things that had always served an in-game mechanical purpose and giving them something to do. They gave friggin' Flumphs potential valid uses in a campaign.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragons are one of the few creatures that suffer the fluff-syndrome. Just give them their own book full of fluff, and the problem has been solved.

Very few mythological monsters suffer from fluff loss in my experience.

And if they start cutting creatures for the sake of fluff, I hope they start cutting all the stuff I dislike. Otherwise keep it the way it is.

Maybe it would be a good idea to create a BLOG POST about each of the dragons that lack fluff and each week give another dragon a story and a meaning on the website, starting with the Brine Dragon and ending with the Occult Dragon. Maybe the creators of those dragons could put on those stories/fluff on the Blog themselves, much like it is done with new iconic characters I see now and then on the blog.

301 to 350 of 1,486 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Bestiary 6 Wish List All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.