A slightly adjacent thought about bestiaries...the Art? I realize they've got a lot on their plates right now, but I wonder how much Paizo has considered reimagining the looks of some beasts.
Some are obviously iconic now -- they are not going to change the goblin, for example. Nor should they (probably).
But, what about some others? I've always been a bit tepid about the Hobgoblin, for example.
I just think it is an interesting question -- obviously a new edition allows the team to rethink things, visual representation included, but just like there may be some mechanical traditions they do not want to delve far from...there is likely some art they really want to stay close too (Maybe even the bulk?).
---Guess, I'm just thinking out loud.
I'd buy a bigger Bestiary, but I'd worry about the spine.
After 8 years of frequent use, my Core Rulebook is... "Well loved". I've used so much duct tape on that spine that there really isn't a spine any more. Just layer upon layer of tape. None of my other books, even Bestiary 1 which I've had for just as long and used just as lovingly, are anywhere near the condition that the large book is in.
I really did like Alien Archive's setup, with its loads of lore, and stuff like items and starships mixed among the entries. Something in that style, but with the length of PF1s Bestiaries, would probably be my ideal choice.
I think expectation of across the board, in depth ecology or lore is in conflict with that of larger number of creatures. Although I think different creatures can be allowed differing treatment, with extra lore perhaps fitting in entries which feature multiple statblocks and/or other auxiliar information (Race stats, unique equipment, etc). Many of these might be "humanoid" (ish) and tend to have broader relevence in functioning of setting. That Paizo is going with Golarion specific rather than setting neutral really seems like huge opportunity with Bestiaries in particular, now this entire line can play a part in detailing the setting.
I’m a huge fan of lore/flavour material for monsters. I’d never get enough, really.
However, I would prefer it to not go in a bestiary (since a two page entry instead of a one page entry means half as many monsters).
Especially given all the “<such and such> monsters revisited!” titles which exist for 3.5 and PF1. I’d rather that subcategory of campaign setting sourcebooks be revived in PF2 rather than substantially cut the number of stat blocks.
I just pulled out Classic Monsters Revisited and Mystery Monsters Revisited and the amount of actual crunch is pretty low. The bulk of the book is usable no matter whether you’re playing 3.5, PF1, 5E or anything else - I can’t imagine them not being worthwhile purchases for PF2 DMs.
I dearly love flavour and hope to see more of it in PF2 than I did in PF1. Nonetheless, I think distinguishing product lines predominantly on the basis of crunch/flavour focus (with obvious overlap from time to time) has certain efficiency advantages, as well as minimising the charge of buying lore material I already bought.
I really hope part of this process will include reviewing the philosophy behind all the various subscriptions. Maybe no change needs to be made, but there very well could be good reason for tweaking the big picture stuff as well as the details.
I think that Revited series can be even more valuable given Paizo's shift to Golarion assumption, away from setting-agnostic. So instantly we can include mini-almanac on Gnolls in Golarion and their specific history, for example. A product about Nagaji would probably be indistinguishable from a product on Nagajor, for example. The (broader) Bestiary line (incl Revisted) can be pulling double duty for fleshing out Golarion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A slightly adjacent thought about bestiaries...the Art? I realize they've got a lot on their plates right now, but I wonder how much Paizo has considered reimagining the looks of some beasts.
Some are obviously iconic now -- they are not going to change the goblin, for example. Nor should they (probably).
But, what about some others? I've always been a bit tepid about the Hobgoblin, for example.
I just think it is an interesting question -- obviously a new edition allows the team to rethink things, visual representation included, but just like there may be some mechanical traditions they do not want to delve far from...there is likely some art they really want to stay close too (Maybe even the bulk?).
---Guess, I'm just thinking out loud.
I for one would absolutely love for a lot of the monsters to be somewhat reimagined in their art. Separate them a bit from the past, make them more distinctively "Paizo" and less generic, but still keep the core of what they are.
The humanoids, magical beasts and outsiders especially need this. I mean, a dire wolf is a dire wolf, but there's no need for a hobgoblin to be the same generic ugly humanoid it's always been, and various demons could be better distinguished from their WotC counterparts as well.
Also PLEASE: give us FIERCE looking FEATHERED dinosaurs!
Contributor
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we must have an unliftable tome, I'd at least like to see two-page entries with lots of lore. Quality over quantity is my preference. (Since I'd have to use a PDF, hopefully the Search function would work better than it does in the seemingly broken Horror Adventures PDF.)
As for the Revisited book line, the sales on that line were apparently disappointing enough that I wouldn't expect further entries any time soon.
If you do make more space for ecology stuff just give it some creatures that really need it like humanoids, true dragons, creatures with any kind of society/culture to speak of. Most creatures don't need it all.
|
If you do make more space for ecology stuff just give it some creatures that really need it like humanoids, true dragons, creatures with any kind of society/culture to speak of. Most creatures don't need it all.
Hmm, I think every non real life creature needs ecology article <_< Though I do agree that creatures without society don't really need society sub article that is part of current monster ecology format.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm. I’m guessing bestiaries are no longer going to be a place for player ancestries? It’d certainly be cool to have a bunch more on launch.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you do make more space for ecology stuff just give it some creatures that really need it like humanoids, true dragons, creatures with any kind of society/culture to speak of. Most creatures don't need it all.
Every creature has some kind of ecology. Not every creature has a society, but for those you can expand upon how they interact with other creatures in their environment.
I would happily spend the extra for a bigger initial bestiary and as much as I'd love extra details on each monster I think number of foes is probably more improtant than detail at this stage.
Although it may be possible to balance extra detail on the main opponents (humanoids, dragons, demons etc.) and still have sufficeint numbers of creatures.
That said I'd probably buy a bestiary that just covered the main creatures but in full detail (I'm thinking about some of the campaign books that give detailed treatment of certain monsters).
In summary, yes i'll buy it. If you can have detail on the main types of monsters plus large numbers of creatures then that would be preferred.
In summary of the summary, it may be easier if you just take my money now.
As an aside, I don't necessarily think it needs new artwork for each monster, in many cases the current artwork is good enough.
Not every creature needs an ecology article in a bestiary.
Animals/Vermin- We already know about them and if you don't you can just look it up.
Constructs- Most are mindless, they do not eat, are mostly used as guards or as weapons. Sure there are exceptions.
Undead- I don't need to be reminded how much they hate the living. Besides if you want ecology just look at the original creature and twist their ecology.
Oozes- Mostly mindless and all most of them do is eat. Some exceptions but not many.
Humanoids/Fey/Monstrous Humanoids- most of them do deserve more info.
Magical Beast- some deserve more info but most don't.
True dragons need it but not so much more most other dragons.
Aberrations- this varies but to give them an ecology might make them less alien and mysterious.
Outsiders- This category is so big to begin with I would be fine with no ecology articles just to save room.
Plants- most of them don't need it.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every creature needs an ecology article in a bestiary.
Animals/Vermin- We already know about them and if you don't you can just look it up.
Constructs- Most are mindless, they do not eat, are mostly used as guards or as weapons. Sure there are exceptions.
Undead- I don't need to be reminded how much they hate the living. Besides if you want ecology just look at the original creature and twist their ecology.
Oozes- Mostly mindless and all most of them do is eat. Some exceptions but not many.
Humanoids/Fey/Monstrous Humanoids- most of them do deserve more info.
Magical Beast- some deserve more info but most don't.
True dragons need it but not so much more most other dragons.
Aberrations- this varies but to give them an ecology might make them less alien and mysterious.
Outsiders- This category is so big to begin with I would be fine with no ecology articles just to save room.
Plants- most of them don't need it.
Animal/Vermin - for most of the direct copies from earth, yes.
Construct - Uh, id' like to know why (and how) they're generally made, rather than this is a guard, this is a better guard, this is a betterer guard.
Undead - Um, no, Undead usually have very interesting reasons for why they exist and why that living creature became that specific undead.
Ooze - depends on the ooze.
Humanoids/Fey/Monstrous Humanoids - agreed.
Magical Beasts - they all deserve more info, i really like the ones we got in Alien Archive.
Dragons - they actually need it the most, since they're regularly regulated to a sentence or two.
Aberrations - I don't see how, going more in depth about they they do the things they do would be a boon for the GM, even if it doesn't actually explain it.
Outsiders - ??? That's exactly why we need ecology articles, the same as Undead and Dragons, THE WHY.
Plants - the non hostile grass doesn't but the CR 5 tree trying to eat me? I'd kinda want to know what the f&@$ is going on there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The actual monster book for Second Edition (no matter how large) will presumably come out with the Core Rulebook in August 2019.
Now here's hoping that Pathfinder Compatible publishers can get their hands on the monster book (as well as the rules) early so we can make adventures using these monsters. I'm already talking to authors about adventure writing. Having the monster book early would help do that.
|
|
In regards to Animals and Vermin, I have a suggestion that is almost sure to be ignored....
Golarion is not Earth. It's creatures that are to be classified as animals or vermin do NOT have to be exact copy-paste jobs form actually existing Earth animals/vermin. Give us some Golarion animals and vermin that aren't just Earth creatures on a different planet.
I'll buy the pdf only anyway. I can afford a $70 book, but I don't like the bulk, whether it's 300 or 600 pages. Plus, these days I can't live without a Search function. Sorry!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
For a 600 page monster book, yes I would pay that kind of money- once. For the first book out of the gate, to get the campaigns up and running, I would pay that kind of money. For later releases, I would not be interested in dropping that kind of money, or going that deep on new monsters. I think the current books are a good size for bestiaries after the first Monster Book of Monsters.
I'm late to the game on this post because I had skipped it the first time around. However, they were talking about this on the Know Direction podcast, and I wanted to put my $.02 in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 skimmed everyone else's posts and didn't see an answer quite like my view, so I felt compelled to actually weigh in. I know my answer may not represent anyone else's experience, so bear in mind I am only speaking for me.
I would love the book to be huge. Make it 1000 pages. Make it 1500 pages. The inconvenience of the size isn't an issue if I only buy a *digital* copy. (So, you know, don't actually make them that big because they'd fall apart for anyone who bought a physical copy.)
For me, the price is not a meaningful issue if it's matched by perceived value. (I.e, in line with your other hardcover Pathfinder RPG books in quality and price per quantity.)
I was a Pathfinder core subscriber from launch (1st printing core rule book) up through at least Ultimate Intrigue. I slowly used the physical books less and less and the PDFs more and more. I'm not sure where the turning point was, but it was probably around ten books or so. I was only bringing four or five books to run games, and it just got to be too much work when someone had a feat or archetype or something from one that I didn't bring. Some of the physical books I basically read through once, when I first got them, and then never opened again.
I haven't actually used a physical book during a game of Pathfinder in several years.
I found that the PRD (or unofficial versions that offered browsing by category, so you could look through all of the Animal Companions or Rogue Talents available without caring which book it came from) became more critical to find those small things. The books (as PDFs), with their amazing layouts and beautiful art, remain my preferred way of actually reading through new content; including major rules, class features, and *especially* monster entries, though. The Bestiary books are great, but it's a hassle to remember which (of the 5 I own) a monster is in. I often find myself tabbing through three different bestiaries when trying to look through potential monsters for an encounter, or an interesting NPC race, or something.
Some of the other major benefits are that the PDFs can easily be downloaded again when you guys update them with errata (so lovely, thanks), which further reduces the likelihood I want to pull out my physical copies (less of an issue with bestiaries than, say, a 1st printing core rulebook).
I recognize that the design and work of a larger Bestiary would still go up, even if the printing costs did not exist. I'd happily pay more than the standard $10 for a PDF of a double-size Bestiary.
And if I'm being *really* honest with myself, I'll probably get the physical copies of the core rules and even a $70 Bestiary, because those two books would cover so very very much, and it would be a couple years before the system grew to the point that those two physical books started being too much of a hassle to bring. Most likely I'll even subscribe again, because also getting the PDFs for free with updated with each printing is just a fantastic deal, and it is why I subscribed back in 2009 and kept it for almost 7 years. There's a good chance those are the last two physical books I buy of PF2, though.
I'd love a PDF-only subscription option.
[Edit: I just scrolled up and saw gwynfrid's very succinct vote for PDF only for bulk/search reasons. There are dozens of us!]
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.
Give me a Big Book of Monsters book from the get go and save the waiting would be my vote. I'm guessing that way the monsters in said Big Book of Monsters would end up SRD content a lot quicker that way...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, the first bestiary would be the big book and then any bestiaries after that would be "normal" size.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The unliftable tome seems to be what everyone wants. I just hope the PRD goes up quickly so I have something I can physically use. With that in mind, I guess I'd rather skip the flavor. A book full of flavor is no good if I can't read it. :(
Moving on.
If we must have twice as many monsters as the original Bestiary, I'd like to see an emphasis on monsters that would be necessary to run existing 1e Adventure Paths in 2e. I'm talking serpentfolk for Serpent's Skull, alghollthu for Ruins of Azlant, clockworks and Lovecraftian entities for Shattered Star and Strange Aeons, oni for Jade Regent, esoteric devils and dragons for Hell's Rebels, and so on. Not every single monster, of course, but some of the most important ones. There should still be plenty of room for a little bit of everything else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see an emphasis on monsters that would be necessary to run existing 1e Adventure Paths in 2e. I'm talking serpentfolk for Serpent's Skull, alghollthu for Ruins of Azlant, clockworks and Lovecraftian entities for Shattered Star and Strange Aeons, oni for Jade Regent, esoteric devils and dragons for Hell's Rebels, and so on. Not every single monster, of course, but some of the most important ones.
This, a hundred times this.
If I can easily re-use PF1 materials that are already in print, it will make the conversion to PF2 so much smoother.
And, since most of what's in my head about creating my own encounters is the beasts that I already know from years of playing DnD/Pathfinder, being able to look up these in-my-head creatures sooner rather than later is important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we must have twice as many monsters as the original Bestiary, I'd like to see an emphasis on monsters that would be necessary to run existing 1e Adventure Paths in 2e. I'm talking serpentfolk for Serpent's Skull, alghollthu for Ruins of Azlant, clockworks and Lovecraftian entities for Shattered Star and Strange Aeons, oni for Jade Regent, esoteric devils and dragons for Hell's Rebels, and so on. Not every single monster, of course, but some of the most important ones. There should still be plenty of room for a little bit of everything else.
This seems like a very good goal. It would certainly help adoption of PF2 if people can much more easily convert all their APs just by referring to the launch bestiary for every single enemy that isn't a unique NPC. :)
|
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.
Well, Bestiary 1, 2, 5, and 6 are $45, while Bestiary 4 and 5 are $40. (prices rounded up to nearest dollar). That's $260.00. If you produced 4 Bestiaries instead of 6, at $60, that would be $240.00. Some might balk at the cost of a single book being $60, and maybe enough balk at that vs. the cost of a current Bestiary. I don't know what the market will allow.
But I think its worth consideration if you can make the content worth my while and the promise that the same number of monsters from 6 PF1 Bestiaries will ultimately be less number of volumes and cheaper overall for PF2.
|
|
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.
YES! Cause at $70.00 per book, if you make 3 such books, that's only $210 vs. the $260.00 that the 6 PF1 Bestiaries cost collectively.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unliftable tome seems to be what everyone wants. I just hope the PRD goes up quickly so I have something I can physically use. With that in mind, I guess I'd rather skip the flavor. A book full of flavor is no good if I can't read it. :(
Moving on.
If we must have twice as many monsters as the original Bestiary, I'd like to see an emphasis on monsters that would be necessary to run existing 1e Adventure Paths in 2e. I'm talking serpentfolk for Serpent's Skull, alghollthu for Ruins of Azlant, clockworks and Lovecraftian entities for Shattered Star and Strange Aeons, oni for Jade Regent, esoteric devils and dragons for Hell's Rebels, and so on. Not every single monster, of course, but some of the most important ones. There should still be plenty of room for a little bit of everything else.
Solidly agree.
I’m on the fence about “switching”. If I don’t have access to a decent number of converted monsters when I run an AP then I definitely won’t.
|
|
| 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.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 be willing to pay $70 a book for a 600 page book that had a similar number of monsters from the original Bestiary that included all this extra information. Perhaps even a few less monsters.
It goes without saying, that the more information you can give, the easier it will be to find places to use these monsters. If you tell us what countries or regions in Golarion they might be found (especially PC races), knowledge check chart that tells what information could be gained at what DC breakpoints, etc. And give me an easy to reference chart at the back of the book similar for terrain, as in (In Galt you could find xyz monsters). Some of this might not be feasible or take up too much space.
But frankly, give me a reason to buy a new Bestiary instead of just making the easy conversion from the original Bestiaries. Even if it costs almost twice a much, if I'm getting twice as much usable content that doesn't already exist, its worth it.
|
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.
A bit late but eager to raise my voice on that matter:
Yes, I'd love to buy such an big bestiary. One of the most disturbing aspects of PF 2 to me is the perspective of how long it will take to catch up with PF 1 content in any significant way. Yes, PF 2 is supposed to be downwards compatible to PF 1 in some way, but at this time before Beta test start no one can really say to which extent. Other than with PF 1 you don't have a 90% compatibility to existing OGL 3.5 material. PF 2 is different enough that a GM will start ruleswise from scratch.
I don't have a survey on that, but my take is that most rule books are sold to GMs and bestiaries definitely belong to that category. So GMs are anyway "used" to spending money on books. ;-)
My personal take: The more monsters, the more GM options. I'd really love a larger sized book.
From an economical point of view: What about a king size version and an additional alternative thin version with considerably less monsters included, e.g. like in Alien Archive. The small version would be sufficient for a start and for GMs on a budget, but it would be clear right from start that a "real GM" will buy the CRB and the "real bestiary". ;-)
Cheers,
Günther
P.S. Another alternative route could be to approach 3PP companies like Froggod Games. Maybe they'd be inclined to publish an updated ToH Complete for PF 2. The biggest disadvantage: The time gap between the launch of PF 2 by you and the time any 3PP needs to get accustomed to the new rule set, design/ adapt monsters to the new rules (in a thorough way, not just quick conversions of stat blocks), layout, print, delivery and publication.
|
|
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.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 be willing to pay $70 a book for a 600 page book that had a similar number of monsters from the original Bestiary that included all this extra information. Perhaps even a few less monsters.
It goes without saying, that the more information you can give, the easier it will be to find places to use these monsters. If you tell us what countries or regions in Golarion they might be found (especially PC races), knowledge check chart that tells what information could be gained at what DC breakpoints, etc. And give me an easy to reference chart at the back of the book similar for terrain, as in (In Galt you could find xyz monsters). Some of this might not be feasible or take up too much space.
But frankly, give me a reason to buy a new Bestiary instead of just making the easy conversion from the original Bestiaries. Even if it costs almost twice a much, if I'm getting twice as much usable content that doesn't already exist, its worth it.
I totally agree with the appeal of such a deluxe treatment of monster entries.
On the other hand I sincerely hope that conversion doesn't consist of a quick stat block conversion. The new rule mechanics seem to differ from PF 1 in a sufficient way to make a real re-design of monster entries an effort for Paizo. Likewise Golarion specific additional content needs some time to research from existing sources resp. to be created.I am pretty sure that Paizo has a firm grasp on their schedule to second edition. I am just curious how much time is available for triple size bestiary.
Again: I'd be in for such a big bestiary! :-)
|
|
Another thing I'd like to see with the Bestiary...
If you are going to put Giants or Dragons in Bestiary 1 for PF2, then put all the ones you've made to date. If there are 15 different Giants to date (not sure just how many there are), and you plan to put Giants in there, put them all in there. Same with True Dragons.
It might be interesting to leave the Outsiders out and do a different Bestiary 6 months later with all the Outsiders in it.
Another thing I'd like to see with the Bestiary...
If you are going to put Giants or Dragons in Bestiary 1 for PF2, then put all the ones you've made to date. If there are 15 different Giants to date (not sure just how many there are), and you plan to put Giants in there, put them all in there. Same with True Dragons.
It might be interesting to leave the Outsiders out and do a different Bestiary 6 months later with all the Outsiders in it.
Eh...I would rather get more variety with examples of everything in each book. By all means, after the first Bestiary (assuming its a double-sized book), I would be more happy with themed bestiaries
|
|
Eh...I would rather get more variety with examples of everything in each book. By all means, after the first Bestiary (assuming its a double-sized book), I would be more happy with themed bestiariesAnother thing I'd like to see with the Bestiary...
If you are going to put Giants or Dragons in Bestiary 1 for PF2, then put all the ones you've made to date. If there are 15 different Giants to date (not sure just how many there are), and you plan to put Giants in there, put them all in there. Same with True Dragons.
It might be interesting to leave the Outsiders out and do a different Bestiary 6 months later with all the Outsiders in it.
Just doesn't make any sense to have 15 Giants and not put them all in the same book if you have the available to do so. If the book is going to be CRB sized, you can have 15 pages of Giants and not overly affect variety.
In regards to Animals and Vermin, I have a suggestion that is almost sure to be ignored....
Golarion is not Earth. It's creatures that are to be classified as animals or vermin do NOT have to be exact copy-paste jobs form actually existing Earth animals/vermin. Give us some Golarion animals and vermin that aren't just Earth creatures on a different planet.
I agree. A Jade Jaguar or Silver Mane Lion sound unique, even if they are just slightly altered version of a normal feline.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just doesn't make any sense to have 15 Giants and not put them all in the same book if you have the available to do so. If the book is going to be CRB sized, you can have 15 pages of Giants and not overly affect variety.
Makes a lot of sense to me to not put all 15 in one book, if the space can then be used to include things like Outsiders so they aren't in a different book.
For me, the first PF2 Bestiary needs to get me a long way toward a fully playable game. I'd much rather have 7 Giants and 7 Outsiders in that book than 15 Giants, and no access to Outsiders.
There's going to be a page limit, no matter how big that number is. That means that some beasts aren't going to be included. I want as big a variety as possible in that first book.
In other words, breadth of monster options, not in-depth looks at a smaller number.
I also agree strongly with Guennar in hoping for at least new strategies in the new stat blocks. Help make DMing easier and more consistent by showing strategic uses of the new material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a few strategies in each monster block would be really great. That'd be another thing that might help one of my players finally feel able to run a game so I'm not always GM 100% of the time, haha...
Good points above on making the new "Big Book of Monsters" contain the monster entries needed to run all existing APs (to the extent possible) as this will make converting PF1 APs to PF2 equivalents a much faster and easier process, while increasing the value of the current line of APs.
After seeing the math/cost on current bestiaries, how many monsters there are in PF1, possible release schedule, importance of a strong book binding, the physical vs. digital book comparisons, and other factors, I would like to add:
1) I would gladly pay $70-$100 for multiple "Big Book of Monsters*" if I know in advance how many will be produced within the first few years of PF2 launch AND that it will be cheaper then buying 4 to 8 books spread over the course of multiple years. * = A strong binding is a must!
2) I would like to hear from Paizo if they can produce different "tiers" of digital monster books at different price points. Something like a low entry digital book for new GMs with only a few basic monsters, a mid range digital book equivalent to the physical book, and a high end digital book for GMs where money is no limit and they want as many monsters as possible.
3) I would appreciate some kind of discount on purchasing a digital "Big Book of Monsters" across different VTT programs so I don't have to pay for the same content multiple times (perhaps this is something that can be created for the new edition as more and more content becomes digital). Just the thought of having to pay for these new PF2 bestiaries PDFs for Fantasy Grounds AND Hero Lab And Realms Work AND Roll20 and whatever other VTT platform I don't know about makes me have a virtual heart attack. ;)
I like Paizo unique giants more than traditional ones, to be honest.