Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
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
Whoa whoa whoa whoa.
While we've said we're not interested in a product schedule that simply regurgitates all of the P1 books in P2, we absolutely ARE going to have a monster book with orcs and dragons and stuff in there.
YES, there will be new stuff, but the rules lawyer in me feels like he needs to chime in and say "we actually didn't say that, exactly."
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could we put all the hags in 1 Bestiary...under Hags?
I don't know if we'll end up fitting ALL of the hags in the first monster book, but we'll for sure alphabetize them properly when we do.
This is one of our proudest editorial bugaboos with the current edition as far as monster organization is concerned, so it's a dead lock that we'll be addressing it in PF2.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Could we put all the hags in 1 Bestiary...under Hags?
Boom.
I should really read through the whole thread before I start replying. ;)
|
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
I'd lay odds that the vast majority of monsters in the first bestiary are PF2 conversions of existing PF1 monsters. They're not going to force everyone to do their own conversions of classic monsters.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
WOOT! Let's address Awahoon's concerns, one at a time (because I feel like it):
My biggest fears for the first bestiary:
1: Copy of the D&D monster manual, like the first Bestiary of Pathfinder.
The first monster book has got to be a basic reference, so there will be a lot of key monsters in the book for sure, no matter how long it ends up being. That said, I refuse to publish the same exact book, so we'll be adding a lot of stuff that isn't in the B1 book, moving a few weird choices to later books, etc. So it won't be exactly the same. This is honestly part of why I'm curious about a bigger book. With more pages, there can be even more "new" stuff.
2: Subtypes in the book, like Goblin Archer, Goblin bomber, Goblin Wolf Rider, Goblin whatever.
This one is currently an open question. Especially if the book is a bit bigger, I can see including more than one stat block for REALLY common characters, but I understand that some people hate this kind of thing.
Speaking as a gamer and not as a publisher, I'm of two minds. I figure one reason people buy books is to have the publisher doing some of the work for them, so two pages with five different orc stat blocks that keeps me from having to crunch five different stat blocks? Sign me up.
THAT SAID, monster creation is much easier to do "on the fly" in the new edition, so we're still working through the best choice on this front. Book length will probably play into this decision, ultimately.
3: That it appears like Bestiary 6, which was a very bad Bestiary in my opinion.
Huh. Sorry to hear that. Could you be more specific about what from that book you'd prefer not to see in the new version?
|
|
He said in Bestiary 7 Wishlist thread that he wishes rakshasa would be one creature again and that aeons and qlippoths would disappear from game completely <_<
Just saying, I strongly disagree with them and bestiary 6 is one of my favourite bestiaries. I hope creatures from all six bestiaries will make appearance(though I'd be fine if all outsider groups feature at least one member in the bestiary, I don't want to wait years for aeons, qlippoths, sahkils, asuras, rakshasas, kytons and other great ones)
While we've said we're not interested in a product schedule that simply regurgitates all of the P1 books in P2, we absolutely ARE going to have a monster book with orcs and dragons and stuff in there.
I said, "The whole point of a new bestiary is to provide us with the new stats for PF2 foes. "
Are you saying traditional beasts aren't getting new stats? Which makes absolutely no sense, so I don't really believe that's what you mean.
If you don't give them new stats, there doesn't seem to be any reason to rewrite their description or create new art.
I'm befuddled by your "whoa, whoa, whoa".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think he thought you meant “they won’t be making a PF2 version of orcs, goblins, dragons”.
You two are reading “repackage” very differently, I suspect.
Ill just be happy if PF2 launches with a bestiary. That was my biggest complaint about Starfinder, by the time I actually had access to some creature stats, a lot of the initial enthusiasm had faded away and I struggled to get players interested
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While we've said we're not interested in a product schedule that simply regurgitates all of the P1 books in P2, we absolutely ARE going to have a monster book with orcs and dragons and stuff in there.I said, "The whole point of a new bestiary is to provide us with the new stats for PF2 foes. "
Are you saying traditional beasts aren't getting new stats? Which makes absolutely no sense, so I don't really believe that's what you mean.
If you don't give them new stats, there doesn't seem to be any reason to rewrite their description or create new art.
I'm befuddled by your "whoa, whoa, whoa".
Oh, I see. I didn't pay enough attention to the word "stats" in your original post. Sorry!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm of two minds on this. On one hand having a big book of monsters just at the start of the new edition (jointly with easier magical knights and some other things I've read) might get me to transition earlier than I thought I would. On the other hand, if monsters and NPCs don't use the same mechanics as PCs, I'll likely not buy the bestiaries (looking up statblocks online or at most getting the pdf).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
2: Subtypes in the book, like Goblin Archer, Goblin bomber, Goblin Wolf Rider, Goblin whatever.This one is currently an open question. Especially if the book is a bit bigger, I can see including more than one stat block for REALLY common characters, but I understand that some people hate this kind of thing.
Speaking as a gamer and not as a publisher, I'm of two minds. I figure one reason people buy books is to have the publisher doing some of the work for them, so two pages with five different orc stat blocks that keeps me from having to crunch five different stat blocks? Sign me up.
THAT SAID, monster creation is much easier to do "on the fly" in the new edition, so we're still working through the best choice on this front. Book length will probably play into this decision, ultimately.
I love the Codices and how they handled groupings of the same creature/organizations like this, I would not want to see it in a Bestiary though. A Bestiary should introduce monsters so that later things, like a Codex, can have fun with them ^w^
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the other hand, if monsters and NPCs don't use the same mechanics as PCs, I'll likely not buy the bestiaries (looking up statblocks online or at most getting the pdf).
For me, that's the biggest problem I've got with PF2. It's the only one that hasn't been somewhat soothed so far.
I've read some of the Starfinder monster creation documentation and while I didn't have very long to absorb it, I got an air of "here's some base stats you use, then... change them however you feel works for the monster you're creating, and oh, give them whatever abilities you want them to have." As an OCD type person, I found that massively more stressful than "just build a monster the way you'd build anything else".
With a bigger bestiary the odds of getting things I like from later bestiaries like Annis Hag, Jabberwocky, Nekomata, Nixie, Oni, etc. is much greater.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A larger Bestiary would mean the possibility for something I would have like from Pathfinder: more equal treatment of the aligned outsider types. Daemons showed up late and got left off the basic summoning spell, and the good alignments got even less.
That said, it’s a minor issue next to business concerns.
|
Well let's talk numbers, then.
How many monsters are in the PF Bestiary now?
How many MORE monsters could be added ASSUMING the PF2 Bestiary were to be published the same size as the Core -- or the size of the Ultimate Equipment?
. . . .
And also, how much more word count are we talking about for some or most entries?
If 4/5 of the entries have expanded Fluff material -- how many pages will that add to a PF2 Bestiary that has the same number of monster entries as the PF Bestiary we already have? If we add say, 25 new monsters, how big does that make the PF2 Bestiary?
If 1/4 of the entries have expanded Crunch material (some Monstrous Humanoids & Outsiders w/ Class-Levels ; most monsters with a quick Knowledge Check reference) -- now how many pages will that add to a PF2 Bestiary that has the same number of entries as the Pathfinder Bestiary we already have?
And if we add say, 25 new monsters, how big does that make the PF2 Bestiary?
Let's start talking numbers.
- - - -
I desperately want more ecology/habitat/personality/FLAVOR information for many or most of the entries. (*I* want) I also love the idea of a brief Knowledge Checks Reference -- though I believe this can be done in a one-or-two-page appendix as a framework or outline-of-guidelines or something as opposed to specific info for each entry.
So, does that right out of the gate make for 100 new pages -- with the same number of monsters as are in the PF Bestiary? Or is it more like 50? Or 200?!
And if we add 25 additional monsters to the PF2 Bestiary, now how big is the book? ....And if we add 50 additional monsters?
EDIT:
In other words, if the current PF Bestiary has 100 monsters at 300 pages -- how many pages would a PF2 Bestiary be if it also had 100 monsters but the Fluff were expanded, and even some Crunch? Would that be 400 pages instead of 300? And if that's 400 pages with the same number of monsters, how many additional monsters can we add, with the extra Fluff & Crunch, and stay at 500 pages, or 550 pages?
But if the current PF Bestiary has 200 monsters at 300 pages, how many new pages are added with just new Fluff and Crunch, let alone additional monster entries?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A concern someone brought up to me on my Facebook page that I hadn't considered, since I haven't bought physical copies of the books in a while, was making sure the binding will hold up. This is a concern I don't want to harp on- there's been binding issues in the past, and it's not like Paizo's the only company to suffer from, as some of my other game books could testify to were they able to talk and were not also hard-bound folders of loose-leaf folded sheets of semi-gloss paper. I assume this is something Paizo has been talking about in-house and with their printer/printers, so I'll say no more on the topic than I'm hoping we'll all get books that'll withstand the test of time, or at least the test of opening.
Anyhoo. I'd wager if the book is as big as Bestiary 1, we'd see 75% to 90% the same monsters as in there. If it's moderately larger than Bestiary 1, and that seems likely, we can reasonably expect Pathfinder-specific critters to appear, including at least a few representatives of most outsider groupings, plus some fan favorites (which it definitely doesn't hurt to mention so they know what the fan favorites are). Obviously, the bigger the book, the more critters can be crammed in there.
Essentials that'd be showing up regardless can be assumed:
Core fantasy gaming critters like chromatic and metallic dragons, goblinoids, orcs, trolls, your essential handful of giants, hags, basic undead varieties, etc.
Some Paizo classics like rune giants, some of the new outsiders, and I dunno, a Daughter of Urgathoa or a Sandpoint Devil or something.
Paizo staffer favorites like the froghemoth and maybe a flumph.
Despite a headful of monster names and descriptions and stuff, Bestiary/Monster Manual/Tome of Horror/etc. books are my least-favorite kind of book, primarily because of the aforementioned situation where reading page after page after page of stat blocks is not my idea of a good time. Like, I need 'em to run the game unless I want to make up every monster on the fly. But I'd consider it a higher-tier purchase beyond bare necessity if it also made for a good read beyond a resource for random beastie stats to live.
An example: I've still got my old 2E Planescape books, and from time to time, despite not running a Planescape game in... ugh, like two decades, I'll occasionally still pick one up and flip through it. Not because I feel a burning need to know what the THAC0 of a bar-lgura is, or how many Hit Dice the Cat Lord has, but because I want to read the Masque of the Red Death style marut story, or laugh about the wizard who imagined the keepers in existence and got himself killed for it. Those books are still fun to read.
I don't expect Paizo to make a Bestiary full of planar cant, or add chunks of short fiction to their monster stat book- indeed, that kinda thing was very much part and parcel of Planescape's tone, and it'd be hard and/or weird to see it suddenly recreated now. But some info beyond combat statistics and a quick paragraph on its ecology makes a critter memorable and interesting.
Anyhoo. That's plenty of pennies tossed into the conversation for now.
|
|
Well let's talk numbers, then.
Agreed! I think that's a good topic of conversation as well.
How many monsters are in the PF Bestiary now?
A quick glance at the product description of the PF1 Bestiary tells me it's 328 pages and "more than 350 different monsters." Obviously that includes stuff like familiars (which get a quick one-pager since we probably know what a frog is), and variant monsters where it's a quick paragraph tells us to add such-and-such template or whatever. So we could reliably say 300-ish, or about a page per monster. Later Bestiaries ran about 320 pages and 300 monsters, which seems to hold to the idea that, after the standard print info, a table of contents, and the appendix of rules, you get about a monster a page in a PF1 Bestiary.
How many MORE monsters could be added ASSUMING the PF2 Bestiary were to be published the same size as the Core -- or the size of the Ultimate Equipment?That is the million-gold question, but I'm not sure Paizo has an answer or would be willing to divulge an answer. If they do and are, that might give us a simple metric to determine what the difference between a 400-page PF2 Bestiary and a 600-page PF1 Bestiary would be.
I'm gonna guess some form of monster creation rules will end up in the Core Rulebook; if they don't that'd be something for the Bestiary to lift, so unless or until we know more I'll run with the idea that 25-ish pages will be taken up with those, and a few-odd pages will be used up with OGL text and a table of contents. If we assume an average PF2 monster will take up the same or less space as compared to a PF1 version of the same monster (1 page per, on average; bigger entries for more important stuff, smaller entries for familiars and real-world animals), that might give us some numbers to work with. And a monster per page feels like the bare-minumum expected, which is a good metric to me.
Therefore, a big Bestiary of 600 pages would have, say, 570 monsters in it; if the average monster-per-page drops to a page and a half, we get 427-8 monsters; and if it expands to two pages per, you get 285. I personally would favor the second number, and will quite happily take the first number especially if the format leaves more room for some extra fluff text. The final number is probably too big of a swing in the flavor direction and would likely require major monsters basically getting a mini-ecology article, which would be neat but kinda unreasonable an expectation.
This is all averages and easy back-of-the-envelope numbers. Just a little something for us to work off of. Specifics, of course, would be very much appreciated. :)
I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?
For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.
For me personally, I would buy a larger bestiary if the larger size was due to either more flavor text, or more monsters. Either direction to me feels like added value, and gives me more reason to purchase than just an updated bestiary 1. Even if some monsters get pushed back to a future book and other monsters are incorporated, it's still going to be composed largely of the "basics", so either get as much of it out of the way as possible, or add a lot more detail to those creatures.
As long as Hags are getting organized by "Hag", can we also get Tane done in the same way? or maybe a Tane subtype?
I still have my copy of "Elminster's Ecologies"
I am leaning towards bigger book, more monsters instead of more flavor. When I want flavor I get campaign setting books.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heyo, I don't post much but I'm a big forum reader. And Erik I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this.
Bestiaries are probably one of my fave aspects of the game. I'm someone who sometimes buys the monster books for systems I don't even play for ideas. I bought the Tome of Horrors complete by FGG so that kinda tells you how willing I am to buy a more expensive book. That said I do think I have a wishlist that others have already mentioned.
First and foremost binding is key. These bigger books need to have excellent binding to withstand the test of time. Nobody wants to buy a book and have it fall apart after only 6 months or so. FGG has stated that they do a packetsinto sewn binding and it holds up. So I do think maybe something similar should be done should the book be on the 600 page side.
Second I agree that it needs to have at the very least most of the books from Bestiary 1&2, those are the classic monsters the ones everyone plays with the most. Waiting for these is always a pain because you'll probably end up homebrewing them anyway and you know they'll end up taking up a good large chunk of the second book if they aren't in the first book. Might as well get it over with.
Thirdly I want a good number of historically cool monsters/folklore already in there. Maybe a good 20ish Stuff like the chupacabra or la llorona. These may have less of a Medieval pathfindery feel to them but they're always fun to mess around with and give us an idea of how these would be handled in the future.
Lastly, and possibly the hardest one of them all is new monsters. I want there to be more than a few of these. Not monsters from old editions, not elemental swaps of other monsters, not something that has a different name and appearance but works fundamentally the same as something else, but truly unique monsters that have us going wow thats so neat I love that they came up with it.
I know that last one is a tall order but you guys have done it in the past and I believe in you guys.
|
|
So I just realized something: Since 2e books will be infused with setting and Tarrasque as the iconic cr 25 monster is pretty much guaranteered to be in first bestiary...
...Doesn't that mean we are going to get Inner Sea Gods version of Tarrasque the Armageddon Engine with Spawn of Rovagug & Herald subtypes? :D So does that mean we have chance of having multiple heralds and/or Spawn of Rovagug in first bestiary?
Yes I would pay more for a larger Book of Bests. That said, I do like the idea someone had (way back somewhere in the beginning of this thread) of a slimmer book for new GMs.
|
I know this will echo some of the earlier opinions, but I need to make sure the message is heard.
Alien Archive was disappointing. It was so disappointing that I cancelled my Starfinder subscription. After pulling it out of the box I immediately thought, "Where's the rest of it?"
The content was interesting, but there was just so little there. More importantly, I go to my bestiaries to grab ready made stat blocks of monsters that I can run at the table. When I want to, I appreciate the rules for advancing monsters, or creating my own. However, the Alien Archive had very few premade stat blocks, and was primarily stat outlines that forced the GM to actually assemble the things, adding to an already heavy pre-game prep load. If the AA had no additional content, but triple the length made up of additional stat blocks that were ready to run, I would have been happy.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone with not a lot of money to put down on books, i usually have to weigh the cost of what im getting against the info im getting. That said, i would absolutely pinch pennies in order to buy a tome of monsters. Infact, id be more likely to purchase if Tome was in the name.
Yes! a 600 page book of monsters will be awesome. I hope with solid creation rules if possible. Another thing, a basic list could include the monsters from the APs... :D
As someone who would like larger bestiaries and more info on each monster, I'd propose a mix. If we are getting CRB amount of pages, doing what has been done with the deity books where the staples get multiple page entries but that winds down as you get to lesser known creatures. Doing so in a style similar to Volo's Guide by applying a sense of having a coherent author and voice would also apply a very natural feel and be more conversational. How stats play into that might be just want the author has discovered. It also let's you weave mystery into monsters which would inherently give GMs signal to use as they need. These long form bestiaries could also contain entries for things that might not have stats like gods, not that they should be in bestiaries but they are a very "no stats but still entity" part or the setting. It could also let you re-release entries to explain more naturally how the entries and system evolves over time.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
A larger Bestiary would mean the possibility for something I would have like from Pathfinder: more equal treatment of the aligned outsider types. Daemons showed up late and got left off the basic summoning spell, and the good alignments got even less.
That said, it’s a minor issue next to business concerns.
No, actually, James Jacobs and I also feel very strongly about this.
Very strongly.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?
For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.
I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. :)
As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!).
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Heyo, I don't post much but I'm a big forum reader. And Erik I'd like to thank you for taking the time to read this.
Bestiaries are probably one of my fave aspects of the game. I'm someone who sometimes buys the monster books for systems I don't even play for ideas. I bought the Tome of Horrors complete by FGG so that kinda tells you how willing I am to buy a more expensive book. That said I do think I have a wishlist that others have already mentioned.
First and foremost binding is key. These bigger books need to have excellent binding to withstand the test of time. Nobody wants to buy a book and have it fall apart after only 6 months or so. FGG has stated that they do a packetsinto sewn binding and it holds up. So I do think maybe something similar should be done should the book be on the 600 page side.
Second I agree that it needs to have at the very least most of the books from Bestiary 1&2, those are the classic monsters the ones everyone plays with the most. Waiting for these is always a pain because you'll probably end up homebrewing them anyway and you know they'll end up taking up a good large chunk of the second book if they aren't in the first book. Might as well get it over with.
Thirdly I want a good number of historically cool monsters/folklore already in there. Maybe a good 20ish Stuff like the chupacabra or la llorona. These may have less of a Medieval pathfindery feel to them but they're always fun to mess around with and give us an idea of how these would be handled in the future.
Lastly, and possibly the hardest one of them all is new monsters. I want there to be more than a few of these. Not monsters from old editions, not elemental swaps of other monsters, not something that has a different name and appearance but works fundamentally the same as something else, but truly unique monsters that have us going wow thats so neat I love that they came up with it.
I know that last one is a tall order but you guys have done it in the past and I believe in you guys.
It may be a tall order, but a lot of this post aligns pretty closely with my current thinking.
Personally I have always felt hags should be fey.
Agreed, although I also think Gnomes should be as well. Perhaps P2E changes to Creature Type system/conventions could facilitate that for Paizo?
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.
This sounds like what a Beginner's Set would comprise. Don't see a role for it separate from that.
2: Subtypes in the book, like Goblin Archer, Goblin bomber, Goblin Wolf Rider, Goblin whatever.This one is currently an open question. Especially if the book is a bit bigger, I can see including more than one stat block for REALLY common characters, but I understand that some people hate this kind of thing.
If concerned about variety of opponents included in the page count, this seems like great way to go, if it can be efficient use of 2-page spread for example. Stuff like Dire Animals could also be presented with unified ecology, albeit mentioning their distinct niches. I saw a complaint about inclusion of basic animals, this is way to include them efficiently with their more impressive counterparts, especially if they share the same (or similar) unique abilities (not always the case, e.g. swarm vs non-swarm dire version).
This also has advantage of expanding range of typical combat style. I think it's obvious that melee combat is hugely predominant on GM side, despite recognized value of Ranged for example, and no surprise because that is what Bestiary is filled with... So filling out the stat-block variants is convenient way to remedy that, which IMHO would improve standard of game instead of enemy predominantly using melee. In that sense, covering basic melee/ranged version probably has priority over Casters considering Casters are rarer and more specific (i.e. you want to customize Deity anyways to fit plot), although can be useful if especially common or high-lighting stereotype (e.g. Gnoll Cleric of Lamashtu).
Going forward, I find the idea of Humanoid Bestiary intriguing (not just "Humanoid" type, but Monstrous, Native Outsiders, potentially Fey etc). These are ripe for more in-depth ecology (Golarion specific too!) and multiple stat-blocks hilighting melee, ranged, caster, etc. perhaps including Racial stats and unique Equipment/Feats.
Relatedly, will there be tables more easily conveying what specific info about creatures might be learned via a Lore check? That might hinge on changes into how Lore re: Monster Knowledge works, but seems like relevant issue for many gamers. I'd also like to learn how changes to Type system impact Lore... It always seemed to me that 'generic type abilities' should be knowable apart from specific creature's rarity, i.e. if you recognize it as certain type, you should know common abilities derived from type even if you aren't familiar with this specific obscure example (even if P2E is moving away from strict ability correlation to type, general trends of 'fire resistance' etc should be knowable).
I like the idea of trying to make first Bestiary at least encompass general gist of P1E's B1 and B2 (not necessarily everything, + a few outside those, + new ones). If Paizo decides to do bigger Bestiaries after that, or reverts to "normal" size ones is really a separate issue IMHO... Having solid first Bestiary will be huge in getting people on board new system comfortably, and enables things like suitable Summons and Companion lists without intruding on other categories. Like you said, GMs like Bestiaries to use as-is, doing own adaptations for edition is really against that concept, so getting a B1+B2 equivalent out the door at launch will be very helpful IMHO. It also seems to me like the reality is that if Paizo DOESN'T do this, but just puts out restrained B1 equivalent, then the next product will practically already be decided at that time, and there will be pressure to release it immediately outside normal Bestiary schedule. Whereas if Paizo does B1+B2 combined, then the decision for what to include in next Bestiary can be left until the normal schedule and editorial process for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?
For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.
I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. :)
As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!).
I do know there are a few questions that regularly come up in my games.
Is it edible? (this despite having a MONTH of rations on hand!)What is the pelt/hide/skin worth? (Also quite common in my games)
I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?
For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.
I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. :)
As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!).
Quick question.
Is the playtest monster book going to be it's own PDF or is it going to be part of the playetest core rule book PDF? (for the PF2e playtest of course)
I have to ask, Erik, are you planning on having the stat blocks more self-contained, with more kinds of special abilities described in them instead of in the corresponding appendix?
For me, at least, it would be a lot better this way.
I don't think we've fully committed one way or the other yet. The playtest monster book is going to be mega stat block dump without a lot of description of what, say, a skeleton looks like or eats. :)
As for special abilities and how they're formatted, while I know the design team has been hard at work on this stuff, I haven't interacted with it too much yet (I just finished going through magic items last night!).
I see, thanks for answering.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I would be more excited for this if I was actually happy about many of 2e design/rule changes. I would also be more interested if I felt that my 1e monster collection was complete but it isn't even close. It is sad that we never even got 1e stats for all the named kaiju, only one elemental lord, no fey lords, no "new" oni since B3, many creature groups left unfinished or didn't even get any love since introduction, and a lot of other things.
I know but I have no interest in that book and there was another oni in one of the APs but they didn't have any in the last 3 hardcover bestiaries, not even reprints from Jade Regent.
A larger Bestiary would mean the possibility for something I would have like from Pathfinder: more equal treatment of the aligned outsider types. Daemons showed up late and got left off the basic summoning spell, and the good alignments got even less.
That said, it’s a minor issue next to business concerns.
No, actually, James Jacobs and I also feel very strongly about this.
Very strongly.
*sniff* Y’all do care!