| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nonetheless, I think there might be ways to mitigate that. Perhaps producing a Tome as above but also a sixty-four page "essential bestiary" or something?
Ideally, the two would be disjoint sets of monsters, but perhaps the paperback could be excerpts of common, low-CR monsters from the Tome.
That would actually provide a cheaper way for newcomers to try out PF2 (CRB+Essential Bestiary) but also be cheaper for those who are going to go all in (since CRB+Tome will be less than CRB+B1+B2).
Product scheduling for a "Tome" has me wondering.
Will "Tome" buyers want to wait the amount of time it would take to produce the larger volume? Or are they expecting it to take no longer than PF2 Bestiary 1? (Which seems to me to be unrealistic).
I like the idea of a smaller "Classic Bestiary" that is the gateway for newcomers, and the 'good enough' placeholder while the Tome is assembled.
I'm personally happy to wait if that's necessary. However, I was kind of expecting that the development of CRB+Bestiary was going to take the place of the hardcovers next year and that expanding a bestiary to a tome wouldn't add as much work as a whole new hardcover of a completely new genre.
(Clueless of course, but it seemed to me it would be easier to utilise freelancers and that the fewer 'wordy chapters' would make it easier to produce content. I guess the development stage would be worse though).
I would think updating existing monsters would probably be a lot less work than a player splat.
Maybe you guys could make first bestiary be extra huge pricey one and ones afterwards are cheaper and regular sized?
I'd honestly love that and be more than okay with it, that way I wouldn't need to wait years for most of monsters from old bestiaries to be adapted
I like this idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just want to chime in here as well. I would definitely support even a $100 book for more detailed monsters, descriptions, loot/item harvest and all kinds of other world placement/use ideas. However I also agree that a giant hardcover can be unwieldy and uncomfortable to use regularly.
I think a nice compromise is something larger than most current bestiaries similar in size to Ultimate Equipment for example. It’s a small difference but hopefully added page count helps to reduce cutting too much content. At which point I’d again like to see multiple bestiaries with the first being the most prominent and commonly used staple monsters (iconic rpg monsters?) from the previous edition (even if not originally in PF1 Bestiary 1)
I really am down for way more monster info from a lore/story perspective as stats to me are not so much what makes a monster unique.
I’m very much happy with reskinning a monster and reusing stats, it’s the descriptions that make the monster in my opinion!
I’m very much happy with reskinning a monster and reusing stats, it’s the descriptions that make the monster in my opinion!
The whole point of a new bestiary is to provide us with the new stats for PF2 foes. If they don't do that, then it's just a repackaging of PF1 beasts. And they've already said they aren't going to repackage anything from PF1
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm also down for a bigger pricier first bestiary. It would also save on re-paying for the appendix monster creation rules and references one extra time, while now I have 6 bestiaries for PF1 and there's about 35 pages in each one which is mostly a re-print of the same rules in each other one (sure, the later books expand on this, but for the most part the 35 pages from B1 is in each subsequent book.)
Alternatively, you can do what you did with the flip map route, and make Bigger Bestiary simply the exact same page count and content, but print it on larger paper that's maybe 10" x 16" :)
I like larger bestiaries: but I'd not use the physical version, instead preferring PDFs.
I like the idea of having more monsters in game sooner.
I like the idea of having more monsters "Core".
I'm OK with paying a bit extra, provided the cost is in line with the proportion of extra content.
I’m very much happy with reskinning a monster and reusing stats, it’s the descriptions that make the monster in my opinion!The whole point of a new bestiary is to provide us with the new stats for PF2 foes. If they don't do that, then it's just a repackaging of PF1 beasts. And they've already said they aren't going to repackage anything from PF1
Ah yes I agree and should clarify that certainly didn’t mean that they should just reuse the stats or that they weren’t important for PF2, rather I meant that when it comes to bestiaries, eventually the stats themselves are less interesting when you have a decent selection for different level ranges and it’s the descriptions that tend to lend flavour to the story at hand.
Sort of like a few have mentioned the character that goblins have and the tone set in a story. The stat block is ultimately a weak creature with mid/low ability scores and it’s the description that makes them so much more interesting. I’ve just found many monsters leave a lot to be desired in many bestiaries (not even Paizo specific). Good call out though, definitely interested to see some previews of the new monster layouts or abilities. They new stats may have far more interesting flavour or abilities that render my argument moot haha
With a bigger bestiary we could reintroduce every outsider group with 2-5 of each one.
Could fit another group of 5 true dragons with my vote being for Imperial or Primal.
Could actually start with a lot more fey. Though lets face it B1 only had 5 so that wouldn't be hard.
Could fit a lot creatures in a bigger book depending how the monster stats/art/info are organized.
Could also have many Asian(and other non-European) monsters to start with as well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could we put all the hags in 1 Bestiary...under Hags?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I ask is we don't have PF 1st ed CRB-sized bestiaries. Almost everyone I know has gone through at least one physical CRB due to the binding struggling to hold all the pages together (the book was just too big). I'd hate for that to happen in the next edition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll support a bigger Bestiary. My biggest hurdle to move to Path 2.0 is that Golarion will be the same, but suddenly 80% of it won't be accessible because Classes, Monsters, and Organizations that existed prior to the edition change will be gone until they are reintroduced.
I'm already subscribed for $50-70 to Paizo every month, a little extra won't chase me away.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rather than just more monsters in a bigger book, what I'd really like to see in 2E Pathfinder Bestiaries is more information and context around the monsters. Like, for instance, how the bestiary sections in the Adventure Path volumes are structured, with good descriptive text on society, ecology, reason for existing, etc. I also very much liked the "extra" stuff in the Starfinder Alien archive -- equipment and magic items used, items that could be crafted out of the remains of a critter, etc. Anything that would make the monster entries more than just a picture and a statblock and a bare scrap of description would be a positive thing.
I’d certainly pay more for a larger bestiary, perhaps not a $100 but $60 or even $70 for an initial larger one if fine by me. Subsequent ones can be smaller.
I really like the idea of a bit more contextual information, ecology etc but I really, really like the idea of crafting options from remains, spell enhancing effects from remains, and things like this.
I also like, but may be alone in this, a small table of information available by DC fo skill checks.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Figured I'd toss my vote in for larger, more expensive ($60-70) Bestiaries, with a preference for ones with more fluff material than a paragraph or three. Yeah, I know, that eats up some precious space, but as I said on Facebook earlier:
"The chances of me using a monster in a game- or remembering more than it's a CR X Whatever with SR 22 and DR 15/breakfast- increase dramatically when I understand it as a thing with an ecology, and historical lore attached to it, and a favorite kind of fruit snack. Then, as a player, after successfully identifying it as whatever it is, I can also bore my fellow-players with encyclopedic prattling of that info. For their erudition and world-building benefit, of course."
If something has to go, I can probably take losing extra flavor content, but that's a far less-preferable option, and I think also a loss in regards to getting more Golarion-specific lore into the books from the jump. Also having a book that's fun to flip through just for the enjoyment of it, as opposed to "I need a new critter for the game next week" would be lovely.
Depending on how PF2 monster stat blocks look as opposed to PF1, we might even be able to squeeze in the extra flavor text without losing monsters- if a stat block uses up less page space, that's a possible gain in non-crunch info for the same total page count. I dunno, I haven't seen the material obviously. But if monsters are a more streamlined process I'd assume their stat blocks would see similar streamlining.
Also, consider this an extra vote on Monster skill check DCs getting a more specific look-at- even if a monster is simply listed as one of the applicable categories somewhere. Maybe those have changed or maybe that's not a thing anymore, but something like a notation or tag with "Common," "Uncommon," "Rare," etc. so we'd know where to go.
I'd also be all for more specific intel like a table:
DC X -10 (Critical Failure)- Chibbichobs? Those are a myth, like the Flying Red Crystalhue Man or sasquatches.
DC X- Chibbichobs live in deciduous forests and primarily feed on fruits, nuts, and halfling toes. They are resistant to non-silvered weaponry.
DC X +5- Chibbichobs show resistance to some magical effects, and are notoriously immune to acid attacks. Their favorite color is purple, and they like pina coladas.
DC 22 (Critical Success)- Chibbichobs are especially vulnerable to bludgeoning damage, as their diet of fruit, nuts and Halfling toes leaves their bones sorely lacking in calcium.
That said, if a space-eating idea has to go, I can see that being on the chopping block. In which case I might have to do it myself- the sorta side project I could get into with some joy.
As I purchase two of the rulebooks as they're released, I'm leery of a pricer book.
I'm okay with getting more value for the money; I'd like a 400-440 page book that adds the lore that some are asking for as well as getting the best Golarion beasties added in, not necessarily the best fantasy rpg beasties.
I think there’s several monsters from the AP lines that could be added to make solid entries to this growing menagerie.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could we put all the hags in 1 Bestiary...under Hags?
I think during one of the interviews, Erik Mona mentioned being somewhat peeved that hags didn't end up as their own sub-category. So I'd bet dollars to donuts we'll see a hag entry akin to those of giants or demons or other groupings of similar critters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have always found it weird that hags were not under "hag" in Bestiaries or had a "hag" subtype.
|
I would definitely enjoy a larger bestiary book to start with, and would be willing to pay $60-70 for it. I also would love more monster lore to be included with creatures. I do think there is a risk of making too large a book, which could lead to binding issues or problems carrying books around. I would certainly not complain if it contained more player races (kobolds, kitsune, tengu, GRIPPLI, dhampir, the elemental races, and I guess tieflings & aasmir), unless you want to make my day and release an updated racial book as one of the first/second year hardcovers.
I think the suggested idea of an "Essential Beasties" book that is smaller and cheaper for newbies could work well. Maybe it has just the stats and no fluff so it can fit 20 different creatures of various CR levels?
|
|
I have always found it weird that hags were not under "hag" in Bestiaries or had a "hag" subtype.
I blame the night hags- hags in name, appearance, and schtick, but outsiders as opposed to being monstrous humanoids. I think it sorta went against the common wisdom grain to give a subtype to creatures that didn't share the same type (despite some outliers making that more palatable- barghests could and likely should get a goblinoid tag). That feels like less of a thing to hold onto, since the outliers become less outlier-y with stuff like oni. That, and the term "tag" as opposed to "subtype" indicates a shift away from creature type as the absolute most important delineating factor.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I have always felt hags should be fey.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd also very much like this, but this also adds pages if you don't want it to come at the cost of more options and stat blocks.
Sometimes it is worth it, and 5e has shown me with volos guide that there is a lot of inspirational value in monster fluff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes it is worth it, and 5e has shown me with volos guide that there is a lot of inspirational value in monster fluff.
I'd also very much like this, but this also adds pages if you don't want it to come at the cost of more options and stat blocks.
I think that's a core, but under-acknowledged, role of a good bestiary... It's not just giving a us a stat block so we CAN use a monster. It's inspiring us TO use a monster. Cool artwork, interesting tactical roles and abilities, and fluff text to get our imaginations moving.
Personally, I don't need quantity over quality. And I'm pretty excited by the prospect of being able to pay more to have both!
I wouldn't mind having the first bestiary being larger, if only to have more room to update the Staples. More room for new ones, too.
Also since BA based on creature type looks like it will be gone then we could add other creatures to the fey type and maybe not effect their combat ability. I could see Centaurs as fey, maybe even trolls as well.
Creature types I would like to keep.
Animal
Construct
Dragon
Elemental
Fey
Humanoid
Magical Beast
Ooze
Outsider
Plant
Undead
Vermin could be a subtype of animals.
Monstrous Humanoid could be a subtype of humanoid.
Making elemental it's own type again would lessen the outsider bloat. Though technically outsider could be a subtype.
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.
Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?
I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.
So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.
Rather than just more monsters in a bigger book, what I'd really like to see in 2E Pathfinder Bestiaries is more information and context around the monsters. Like, for instance, how the bestiary sections in the Adventure Path volumes are structured, with good descriptive text on society, ecology, reason for existing, etc. I also very much liked the "extra" stuff in the Starfinder Alien archive -- equipment and magic items used, items that could be crafted out of the remains of a critter, etc. Anything that would make the monster entries more than just a picture and a statblock and a bare scrap of description would be a positive thing. Even if it meant fewer critters. We already have tons in 1E that can be converted.I'd also very much like this, but this also adds pages if you don't want it to come at the cost of more options and stat blocks.
You have to worry about a number of things that I don't.
For me personally, the more material there is at the start and the more in-depth it is, the better. This goes directly counter to an actual useful market strategy, for as you probably well know no matter what you publish at what cost I'll end up buying it - kind of goes with that Superscriber tag up there.
But even despite that I do have some opinions.
* I've always been disappointed that the more powerful the monster, the less information and context there is because most monsters are made to fit on one page, thus squeezing the context into a small blurb after the giant stat block. I am not an any way complaining about the giant stat block, I'm just pointing out that the Adventure Path format that is often a dual page is superior.
* Guaranteed there's going to be a trade-off between size/price/etc. Might I suggest releasing not one but two bestiaries in the first pass? Have the Pathfinder 2E Bestiary contain all the classic monsters: dragons, orcs, skeletons, zombies, trolls, demons, devils, etc. but none of the esoteric ones. This would be the Core Bestiary, containing a small fraction of the 350+ monsters from the 1E Bestiary, plus the typical appendices, at a reasonable price point.
* But ... also release the Bestiary 2, which lays the groundwork for all subsequent bestiaries: multiple pages per creature, better context/information, etc. This is fancier, larger, and at a larger price point. Think of this as the equivalent of the Tome of Horrors Complete.
If the content were to be ordered as if it were one book but then split out into two, I conjecture you'd see good sales of the Core Bestiary and moderate sales of the Bestiary 2 that would pick up. But I suspect your Market Fu is far better than mine.
Anyway, my play groups are both very interested, so it looks like I'll be picking up like 16 copies of the playtest book, but I thought I'd chime in on the Bestiary thing.
And please, please, please release an equivalent of Savage Species for 2E.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern is the monster fluff being too tied to Golarion. Let's be honest, most people use homebrew settings or old D&D settings or movie/book-based settings, not Golarion. So sure, give the monsters fluff and such... just don't tie them to the nations, gods and planets of the Golarion universe.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monster flavor being tied to Golarion would be great considering that flavor is the easiest thing to change :P I mean, because of 1e bestiaries being generic, I have no clue whether astomoi exist on Golarion or if they are alien species to Golarion. That sort of annoyance won't happen when the generic flavor is setting flavor, either way homebrew gms will change the generic flavor to something less generic, so might as well have the golarion flavor.
What I would like to see in the Bestiary is a "Lore" section that provides knowledge DCs and their results.
Similar to what was found in Monster Manual IV and Monster Manual V from 3.5e.
This is a really fun idea.
My main concern is the monster fluff being too tied to Golarion. Let's be honest, most people use homebrew settings or old D&D settings or movie/book-based settings, not Golarion. So sure, give the monsters fluff and such... just don't tie them to the nations, gods and planets of the Golarion universe.
You don't really know this... this is conjecture. I would like the monsters tied into the setting personally.
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.
Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?
I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.
So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.
I'd be delighted to have the first bestiary be like this! My answer is YES! (Except I'll take the PDF only, so I'll pay less.)
Personally I don't need much more lore, though that's welcome if there's room for it. Something I'd like is inclusion of stat blocks for a few basic "elite" or "special" versions of some monsters (mainly typical leader types for humanoids and variants such as desert ankhegs or greater sea serpents).
Also, IMO the first bestiary should definitely include all sorts of mundane animals (and any giant varieties) and most primary outsider races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would make getting more of the existing monsters into the game sooner, but it would also mean $60 monster books, which is worth considering very carefully.Personally there is little difference in my lizard brain between a $50 book and a $60 book. But that may just be me.
I agree. Personally, mine's like:
— $5.00 to $24.99 (Reading Book; I grew up on Harry Potter)
— $25.99 to $73.99 (Gaming Book)
— $74.99 or higher (Textbook)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.
Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?
I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.
So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.
$60.00 is an easy spend. For me, $70.00 is when it starts getting close enough to textbook cost that I start to think more about the purchase. I think I would be willing to drop $70.00 on a monster book once, especially if the book advertised itself as a "special book" rather than "the Paizo standard."
If every monster book thereafter was $70.00, I would certainly consider whether or not I NEED those extra 600 pages of monsters every time a new PF2 Bestiary product came up.
EDIT: For what it's worth, I think I would be even more eager to buy a theoretical $70.00 Bestiary if the Bestiaries were set up like the SF Alien Archive—that is, with rules content on every spread. That player content in the monster book is like Peanut Butter and Jelly—unlikely pairing, but ultimately delicious beyond refute.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The barrier to entry for newcomers is the most significant con, in my opinion.How on earth are new GMs supposed to buy into PF2 if their only option is some huge, heavy, pricey book?
Love you folks, but nope. Core rules and core bestiary and GM handbook.
Not a horrible point. But. People on a minimal budget aren't necessarily the best market demographic to develop* for.
Now, before the gut-reaction to that sentence gets you whacking the Reply link... there's the element that Paizo has historically made the bits required to actually play the game free via a PRD. And third-party sites. So frankly, if a new GM is just dabbling, well, it's 2019. Maybe buy the Core rulebook, and adventure, and save some money by surfing the web for a few statblocks. If the hobby really sticks, get the group to pool resources and buy the Bestiary.
Nobody really loses when the content is available free. Paizo are the only people who can really tell what the best price-point is to sell the most books.
*I've been trying so damned hard recently to make a point of referring to designers and developers as Paizo does. So much concentration required. Ugh.
Something I'd like to add to what I wrote in my previous post... Please have stat blocks with more kinds of special abilities explained there (where applicable), instead of us needing to do page flipping too often to see what a monster can do with a given ability. (I'm not talking basics like resistances or the effects of certain speed types, and I can understand exceptions to non-basics too.)
I just think this is one of the things 5e did right with its monster manual. It's even worth saving page room by not including stat blocks for some variants of creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The barrier to entry for newcomers is the most significant con, in my opinion.How on earth are new GMs supposed to buy into PF2 if their only option is some huge, heavy, pricey book?
Love you folks, but nope. Core rules and core bestiary and GM handbook.
Not a horrible point. But. People on a minimal budget aren't necessarily the best market demographic to develop* for.
Now, before the gut-reaction to that sentence gets you whacking the Reply link... there's the element that Paizo has historically made the bits required to actually play the game free via a PRD. And third-party sites. So frankly, if a new GM is just dabbling, well, it's 2019. Maybe buy the Core rulebook, and adventure, and save some money by surfing the web for a few statblocks. If the hobby really sticks, get the group to pool resources and buy the Bestiary.
Nobody really loses when the content is available free. Paizo are the only people who can really tell what the best price-point is to sell the most books.
Fully agree that Paizo are the only ones really able to make the call.
Nonetheless (if it can work) a tome alongside a sixty four page "introductory bestiary" plus the PRD is superior to just the tome plus PRD. I think the idea is worth considering - even if it's ultimately discarded.
(Although I appreciate I'm a declining segment of the market, people like me are a demographic worth developing for - I would never consider buying a game where the rules were "part printed, part online" as a trial. In that regard, the 'essential monsters' book I'm suggesting is more akin to marketting than a true sourcebook, in terms of profitability).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're still voting, I'll add that I would actually be more likely to buy a large Tome at the start of PF2e (if, at least, I have people who want to play 2E--not a sure thing). One of the reason I have not bought any physical Bestiaries for 1e was the feeling that too many of the monsters I like were scattered around the many books (and I came to PF late, so there were already 3 or 4 when I started playing). If there was one book that I could be reasonably certain had a lot of the stuff I wanted?
Yeah, I'd shell out money for that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're able to make more "out there" requests. One of the thing that bugs me about more modern games is the strict adherence to standardised formatting. In my mind, not every monster deserves a full page. I remember the AD&D Monster Manual where the statblocks, pictures and blurbs took up as much space as needed. Some entries were huge, others (like the various dinosaurs, for example) were little more than a picture and some stats.
It seems to me that the modern style is to give every monster entry the same format. That may well make things simpler from a layout/editorial/freelancer management view, but I do sometimes feel that there's a lot of padding. Perhaps there could be a full-page standard layout and a half-page layout (for those things that don't need as much wordage).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we're able to make more "out there" requests. One of the thing that bugs me about more modern games is the strict adherence to standardised formatting. In my mind, not every monster deserves a full page. I remember the AD&D Monster Manual where the statblocks, pictures and blurbs took up as much space as needed. Some entries were huge, others (like the various dinosaurs, for example) were little more than a picture and some stats.
It seems to me that the modern style is to give every monster entry the same format. That may well make things simpler from a layout/editorial/freelancer management view, but I do sometimes feel that there's a lot of padding. Perhaps there could be a full-page standard layout and a half-page layout (for those things that don't need as much wordage).
This, actually. An owlbear doesn't need a whole page, it can get by with half a page. Meanwhile, dragons done right probably need at least 2 pages just to set the ground rules and then a whole extra page per dragon color. Give each the space it calls for.
Caveat: Only as long as there are /some/ aesthetics to it. I would vastly prefer for monster entries to be in multiples of half a page. I don't want to see one monster take up 1 1/5 pages, then the next take up 2/3 of the second page, then the next start at the bottom right of the second page and roll onto the third. That's just gross.
If they want to include "more elite" versions of various monsters to show how leveling up creatures should work, these probably don't need a full statblock to themselves. A condensed 2-3 line summary of changes (HP, AC, saves, attacks, etc) would be sufficient.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(...)
2: Subtypes in the book, like Goblin Archer, Goblin bomber, Goblin Wolf Rider, Goblin whatever.
(...)
Shush! Now that's too scary, and don't give them ideas on bringing this abomination to life!
If we're able to make more "out there" requests. One of the thing that bugs me about more modern games is the strict adherence to standardised formatting. In my mind, not every monster deserves a full page. I remember the AD&D Monster Manual where the statblocks, pictures and blurbs took up as much space as needed. Some entries were huge, others (like the various dinosaurs, for example) were little more than a picture and some stats.
It seems to me that the modern style is to give every monster entry the same format. That may well make things simpler from a layout/editorial/freelancer management view, but I do sometimes feel that there's a lot of padding. Perhaps there could be a full-page standard layout and a half-page layout (for those things that don't need as much wordage).
Strong agree.
I would hope that the first bestiary contain at least the vast majority of the monsters from the first 3 bestiaries, otherwise the game is going to be too lean.I'm guessing a truly credible version of that book would be at least 600 pages.
Are you willing to pay $60-70 for such a book?
I'm genuinely interested in people's answers, because to tell you the truth I am strongly considering a base monster reference that is significantly larger than Bestiary 1's 320 pages.
So... don't be shy about your opinions, please.
I would definitely pay $70 for a larger Bestiary. Getting more content into the early days of a new edition is, in my opinion a good thing.
If the new stat blocks for monsters are indeed smaller this also means that more material for each one should be easier to add. Whether this is Golarion specific or just basic ecology, I'm good either way.