Can we please have bigger bestiaries in PF2?


Prerelease Discussion

251 to 300 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Rysky wrote:

Those are some good ones, I also really like the Slag Giant.

I do too, though much of what I like it for is "fits well for kinds of Fire Giants more like previous editions."

Quote:


But then you had the River Giant...

You don't find River Giants particularly interesting? I rather like them, particularly thinking about how one might fit them with merrows, ocean giants, and/or river-themed fey.


Golems I hope Return in 2nd Edition: Flesh, Ice, Iron, Stone, Wood, Adamantine, Alchemical, Glass, Mithral, Bone + Fossil, Cannon, Blood, Coral, Wax, Crystal, Lead, Gold, Obsidian,

Golems I don't really care for: Clay, Carrion, Clockwork, Brass, Junk, Quintessence, Viridium

Drakes I hope Return in 2nd Edition: Sea, Rift, Lava, Mist, Shadow, Jungle

Drakes I don't really care for: Flame, Forest, Frost, Desert, River, Spire, Ether

Giants I hope return in 2nd Edition: Cloud, Fire, Frost, Stone, Marsh, Rune, Taiga, Wood, Cave, Desert, Jungle, Ocean, Eclipse, Moon, Sun, Mountain, Plague

Giant's I don't really care for: Hill, Storm, Ash, Cliff, River, Slag, Shadow, Tomb

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
the nerve-eater of Zur-en-Aarh wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Those are some good ones, I also really like the Slag Giant.

I do too, though much of what I like it for is "fits well for kinds of Fire Giants more like previous editions."

Quote:


But then you had the River Giant...
You don't find River Giants particularly interesting? I rather like them, particularly thinking about how one might fit them with merrows, ocean giants, and/or river-themed fey.

I think there's enough difference between the two to justify keeping them separate :3

As for River Giants, that's a consideration, but it's mostly the fact that they're just tall green humans and... that's it.

Liberty's Edge

Erik Mona wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
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


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
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.

Okay. Hacklopedia of Beasts by Kenzer Co.

I dont play the game or know the system but that thing is book of beauty and the way the monster stat blocks are layed out is MINT. Something like that would be great.

Even though I dont plan on moving to 2e I'd buy it. Hell, I dont own any OTHER Hackmaster books but the Hacklopedia of Beasts? NICE.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:
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.

We will definitely work something out in that regard.

We've gotta finish it first, of course! And I still don't even know how big it is! :)

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadow Kosh wrote:

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.

This is a good idea.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

10 people marked this as a favorite.
eldrwyrm wrote:


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 pretty sure I agree with this.

I'm VERY sympathetic to the folks who want a really decent-sized chunk of the "core plus" Pathfinder monsters, classes, ancestries, etc. right out of the gate, and all of my current thinking is focused on trying to deliver a credible version of that relatively quickly. That's part of the reasoning behind the idea of a potential "bigger" first monster book.

Buuuut, that book's going to end up costing $60 or $70, and I don't think people have the endurance for that price level year after year after year, even if it does mean getting the whole of PF1's conceptual content out sooner rather than later.

And we're gonna do a bunch of new stuff, too. I'm not interested in waiting until we've re-done everything in PF1 before treading new ground. I always want to be doing that.

So. The first monster book is very likely going to be bigger than the later ones.

Thanks for your feedback on this. Keep it coming!

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Awahoon wrote:
I for one love Lore and fluff, but I really dislike two page monsters, especially now we have to go the entire round again before we see new monsters.

I wanted to jump in immediately even before reading the rest of this post to state clearly that THERE WILL BE NEW MONSTERS IN THE FIRST MONSTER BOOK.

And ALL the monster books.

We want to convert as much PF1 content as we can, but we're not just starting at the beginning and re-doing everything we have done before.

There will ALWAYS be new monsters!

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:

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. :(

I'm going to have to be cryptic for the moment, but I've been thinking about you and your heavy book concerns, and I honestly think I've come up with a non-digital solution that allows you to read a bunch of cool lore AND run games without having to heft around the Book of the Damned. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Awahoon wrote:
I for one love Lore and fluff, but I really dislike two page monsters, especially now we have to go the entire round again before we see new monsters.

I wanted to jump in immediately even before reading the rest of this post to state clearly that THERE WILL BE NEW MONSTERS IN THE FIRST MONSTER BOOK.

And ALL the monster books.

We want to convert as much PF1 content as we can, but we're not just starting at the beginning and re-doing everything we have done before.

There will ALWAYS be new monsters!

I'm glad to hear this. The 2E "Monster Manual" is what got me into D&D as a kid - I read that before I ever got anywhere near the PHB. :)

Also while you're actively reading the thread - PLEASE put sample strategies for monsters to use in the book! I don't really need them but maybe this can help convince one of my players to try running a game that currently intimidates them! I like being GM but don't want to be GM forever and always.

Re the two page ones, that fits for complex monsters or for monsters with multiple versions where you're going to give us stat blocks. Otherwise I'm going to echo what's been said elsewhere - I'd like a mix of half page, full page, 1.5 page, and 2 page monsters, whatever length is necessary to get a good mix of crunch and fluff. I do like how Alien Archive had stuff like extra equipment and so on, but it doesn't fit everywhere. Getting more monsters in is the priority. :)

Dark Archive

Yay for likely chance for first bestiary to be huge :D

I've been thinking a lot about what I want content wise in the possible big bestiary and decided to gather everything I already said plus few new things into one post(I have crappy memory, so I probably have said these multiple times somewhere x-x;):

1) Most important thing I want in 2e bestiary is for it to contain every monster category/subtype that have appeared through bestiaries 1-6, mostly because I'd really hate to have to wait multiple years until I can use qlippoths, rakshasas, kytons, robots, etc, once again!

2) I'm kind of assuming that bestiary will probably cover only 1-25 CR range monsters until Paizo decides how mythic and CR 26-30 will be handled in 2e, but I hope that means paizo avoids adapting Mythic subtype monsters until they have decided on that. I would really be disappointed for mythic subtype monsters to lose their "special-ness"

3) Gigas. Seriously, I want to have those in same bestiary instead of hunting them from different modules and Adventure Paths(there are currently only 3 statted ones and they are all from three different sources)

4) I'm hoping it has at least some of other cool AP, Module and Campaign Settling line bestiary monsters I'm afraid of them getting forgotten into obscurity if they never get adapted into Bestiary :'D Kind of like how Azi from 3.5 Legacy of Fire are forgotten despite being really cool.

5) The creatures being updated with their Golarion flavor. Like Tarrasque getting Herald and Spawn of Rovagug subtype from Inner Sea Gods along with its role as Armageddon Engine.

6) I don't really mind if 2e bestiary doesn't have quasi/demi-gods as they would either have to be released without "if you fight them in their realm" rules or they would have to be changed to work without mythic. But if it does have them, would be nice to contain one member from each group we have been taught about :D


Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

I'd happily pay $60+ for a larger first Bestiary. I also have to second the idea of prioritizing monsters from Adventure Path chapterss to supplement the core monsters in the book. More importantly, it would be really nice to have it available on release day with the core rules.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

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. :(

I'm going to have to be cryptic for the moment, but I've been thinking about you and your heavy book concerns, and I honestly think I've come up with a non-digital solution that allows you to read a bunch of cool lore AND run games without having to heft around the Book of the Damned. ;)

Thank you very much for addressing my concern. It's very reassuring. ^_^

I think, if this solution works out well, I would definitely support the plus-sized Bestiary.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fuzzypaws wrote:
I'd like a mix of half page, full page, 1.5 page, and 2 page monsters, whatever length is necessary to get a good mix of crunch and fluff. I do like how Alien Archive had stuff like extra equipment and so on, but it doesn't fit everywhere.

Agreed. Give each monster the space that it needs, whether that be a half-page or 12 pages. I'd love to see ecology, strategies, etc...but they aren't necessary for all monsters. Fit the format to the monster, don't fit the monster to the format. I know that 2E is supposed to be more Golarion-infused, but if Golarion-specific info could be set aside from the rest of the monster entry, that'd be good. Not everyone who plays Pathfinder uses Golarion. A final section for monsters that need it could be the "___ in Golarion" section. (Much like the later monster manuals for 3.5 did, with sections for Ebberon and Forgotten Realms).

As for extra stuff like equipment or the like, if it is included, I'd rather it be relegated to an appendix and referenced in the appropriate monster entries.


I'm not sure whether someone already suggested this, but I think I would prefer a normal-sized Bestiary, followed by more normal-sized bestiaries. And then, perhaps a single, huge Bestiary with all the monsters from Bestiaries 1-3 in the same book, possibly containing new setting-specific information about each monster. This would make it optional, but would cut the printing costs, since arts can be used again. Also, it would cut down development costs and time, because of its nature of partial reprint. I would definitely buy both the single normal-sized bestiaries and the bigger one, but others may decide to buy only the formers or just wait for the latter.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
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.

I'm just going to obnoxiously push for some proteans and daemons in the first PF2 Bestiary just so they don't feel ignored by comparison to some of the other outsider groups.

I like them. Just saying. :)


Daemons are not ignored, they get almost as much love as demons and devils. If you want ignored how about oni, azura, rakshasa, inevitables, and aeons.


I miss modrons.


Erik Mona wrote:

I'm going to have to be cryptic for the moment, but I've been thinking about you and your heavy book concerns, and I honestly think I've come up with a non-digital solution that allows you to read a bunch of cool lore AND run games without having to heft around the Book of the Damned. ;)

I'm glad to read this.

I think we all mostly want the first (and only the first) monster book to be the biggest.

I'm also understanding concerns that the book's spine will break if it has too many pages.

Maybe we need lesser pages (400 to 450?) and more core books? (Core Book alpha, Core Book beta, Monster Book alpha, Monster Book beta?)

I won't pretend I could even guess the correct solution.

(Oh, and I think we enjoy 'cryptic'.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
Shadow Kosh wrote:

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.

This is a good idea.

I actually like seeing stats for real world animals and vermin. BUT...I don't think I need flavor or even illustrations really. I think that stuff could definitely be condensed down to allow more room for fantasy monster information that I can't really just wikipedia.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
scary harpy wrote:
I'm also understanding concerns that the book's spine will break if it has too many pages.

In my experience, there are two factors at play. The most important is the nature of the binding. The less important is frequency of use.

I spent a year plus running Slumbering Tsar. Something like an 800 page book. It's a massive sandbox, so there's plenty of paging back and forth. You can't tell I ever used the book because it's still pristine. Why? Because it was bound well.

I don't see a monster rulebook getting as much page-flipping abuse as Tsar did. Typically you find the two or three statblocks you need, and just read them.

That said, a Core Rulebook will have an order of magnitude more abuse than any module or even monster book. What it takes to bind a nearly 500 page textbook so it can suffer what we put a CRB through is beyond me. Maybe for CRB we just accept that they'll last five to ten years (my 1st printing CRB is falling apart but... it's 1st bloody printing, man!) and start to decay. Replacing it every half-decade or so at $40 is more reasonable than replacing it every seven years at $80 so it has incredible binding.

That's my $.02


Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I would definitely be happy to have bigger Bestiaries. Also, having a short line of Bestiaries focused on specific creature types, to help us get caught up would be great as well. My top choices would be for books focused on Aberrations, Dragons, Magical Beasts, and Monstrous Humanoids


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
Daemons are not ignored, they get almost as much love as demons and devils. If you want ignored how about oni, azura, rakshasa, inevitables, and aeons.

I think this could at least be somewhat rectified with a separate "Monster Ecology" hardcover, 300 or so pages covering lore on monsters not in the 3.5 srd. If you had to ask me my least favorite aspect of the "Book of the Damned" hardcover, it would be that the non-"big three" fiendish subtypes were barely examined. A hardcover book on primarily monster fluff would go a long way in developing newer creatures like the esoteric dragons, some of which only have one sentence of ecology/description (I'm looking at you Etheric Dragon), without making the Bestiary as big as a 1980s phone book.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Brinebeast wrote:
I would definitely be happy to have bigger Bestiaries. Also, having a short line of Bestiaries focused on specific creature types, to help us get caught up would be great as well. My top choices would be for books focused on Aberrations, Dragons, Magical Beasts, and Monstrous Humanoids

While not practical from a marketing or division of labor point of view, I would love to have two bestiaries at launch, a world bestiary (for non-outsiders) and a planar bestiary (to have all the outsiders in PF1 updated and in one place; it would really help summoners).


Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Actually a good way to potentially get monster focused bestiaries would be to have books that focused on both the creature type and rules relating to the creature type. For example a bestiary that was dragon focused could have rules about dragon ancestries, hunting dragons, and a bestiary of a range of dragons. In other words combine Legacy of Dragons, Dragon Hunter's Handbook, and a bunch a dragon bestiary entries that are not found in the new Bestiary 1. Include information about riding dragons, dragon companions/familiars, and dragon organizations (cough cough Dragon Disciples cough cough).

Then we have a book that is both a GM and Player resource released in the RPG Line of books and adds a bunch of dragons to the 2E rules. Because the book isn't strictly a bestiary it could even be released in the same year as a bestiary. The book would be more rules focused with some Golarion lore, allowing a Golarion focused Dragon book to be released around the same time in the Campaign setting line of books. The Campaign setting book could then pack in a lot a lore with a few rules and an additional dragon or two.

I could see something similar for Aberrations, Constructs, Fey, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, and Undead. As much as I love Outsiders I think they might be more difficult to do in a book like this because Plane of origin has such a big impact on individual Outsiders.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If more creative monster ideas are needed, an AI that was recently turned loose on D&D has some ideas for you...


I would absolutely pay $60-70 USD for a comprehensive Bestiary/Monster Manual... but I'm worried that a book that large, that sees so much use in both games and game prep, will not be able to survive the stress. All my Core Rulebooks have bindings that begin to give and stretch or even break after the first year of use, if not sooner. So how about this...

What about a streamlined basic stat block book that includes 75% or so of the critters and templates available (or at least all of the ones used in any published Paizo adventures), and then an expanded PDF or website which allows purchasers to log-on and view a more detailed write-up? Ecologies, treasure types, tactics, suggestions for advanced or young or variant versions of that monster, etc. In this way, subscribers can get the full information available on any given monster without having to tote around 6 hardcover books and then trying to remember which book has the right information.

What do you think?


Erik Mona wrote:


There will ALWAYS be new monsters!

Can I get this on a T-shirt?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Erik's responses to this thread have made me much more excited. I am slowly warming up to the idea of PF2E. I really appreciate how Paizo employees listen and communicate!

Also, I'm a +1 for a big first book, then back to normal sizes. I can save up for a big book, but I'd rather not be doing that all the time. And while I'm all for more flavor text, I don't want it to impact the quantity of monsters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Brinebeast wrote:

Actually a good way to potentially get monster focused bestiaries would be to have books that focused on both the creature type and rules relating to the creature type. For example a bestiary that was dragon focused could have rules about dragon ancestries, hunting dragons, and a bestiary of a range of dragons. In other words combine Legacy of Dragons, Dragon Hunter's Handbook, and a bunch a dragon bestiary entries that are not found in the new Bestiary 1. Include information about riding dragons, dragon companions/familiars, and dragon organizations (cough cough Dragon Disciples cough cough).

Then we have a book that is both a GM and Player resource released in the RPG Line of books and adds a bunch of dragons to the 2E rules. Because the book isn't strictly a bestiary it could even be released in the same year as a bestiary. The book would be more rules focused with some Golarion lore, allowing a Golarion focused Dragon book to be released around the same time in the Campaign setting line of books. The Campaign setting book could then pack in a lot a lore with a few rules and an additional dragon or two.

I could see something similar for Aberrations, Constructs, Fey, Magical Beasts, Monstrous Humanoids, and Undead. As much as I love Outsiders I think they might be more difficult to do in a book like this because Plane of origin has such a big impact on individual Outsiders.

I would love a big Dragon-themed book (The Dragonomicon is one of the only 3.5 books I have a hard copy of). BUT...I don't think I would consider such a book a bestiary. To me, a Bestiary is very specifically a book of monster stats, with associated and relevant flavor.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As others have said, I'd definitely pay $60-$70 for a Giant Book Of Monsters...once. Hopefully that's what'll happen since it seems to be the prevailing opinion. :)

The Exchange

I've always partial to 2E AD&D's monster binder idea. But for Pathfinder I'd rather the big Beastiary be organized by TYPE of monster and then either by CR or Alpha. That way you can release softbound collections (ie breaking the first combined tome up into say 3-4 smaller references) and then sell a large binder to put them all together OR a larger 70+ book for those that want it in one place.

Just a thought.

Reminds me of the later era Rolemaster books with the 3 ring holes punched in them to add to binders. I didn't always like those rules, but I did dig the presentation.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I was basically run off these forums when Pathfinder first came out for suggesting more flavor text for monsters. :)

I'll just put in my two cents again.

Please go back to having full write ups for every monster (like the later Wizards 3.5 monster manuals or the 2E Monstrous Compendium). A monster's entry should not just be a stat block and a few sentences of text (ala the 4E monster manual). The first Bestiary was very guilty of this and was the last Pathfinder book I bought until this last week.

I would much prefer smaller stat blocks and more flavor text.

Thank you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm all for more flavor, but...
not at the expense of more entries, or quality of entries. If an stat block can be reduced, great. But if it comes down to take away cool abilities to add flavor, I would rather too little flavor then too little special abilities. I can make up flavor easily enough. Especially for a monster that might have a one paragraph backstory that lasts 3 rounds of combat.

And I don't think this is up for consideration, but I am definitely against making 2 page spread monsters except for special cases. I don't need an extra page to tell me where a wolf lives in Golarion. I'd rather have that page contain stats for a wolverine. I think the PF bestiaries did a great job of balancing this, and if the stat blocks are trimmed down for PF2E (without losing memorable abilities) as it seems they are trying to, then great. But it's not a necessity. I mostly just want as many memorable monsters as I can get. Flavor is cheap, stats are not.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
ulgulanoth wrote:
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 child of 2nd Edition AD&D here. And I loooooved my Monstrous Manual. The huge size made the book. Having the monster book be the largest of the core rulebooks has always appealed to me. (And at 380-pages, it's small compared to other monster books I now have).

I have Tome of Beasts that retails for $55 and is 430-pages rather than the 300-pages of a Bestiary. And I paid $100 for the Tome of Horrors Complete (the original printing). So there is a modern audience for larger more expensive Bestiaries.
(Actually... I paid $100+ for my Tome of Beasts cause I went with the fancy leather version. So I have more money than sense.)

And I imagine there will continue to be the softcover product like with PF2, meaning the choice isn't a $65 book or nothing. But a $65 hardcover for those who can afford that or the $30 pocket edition for people who can't raise the higher amount.
Or, y'know, the $10 PDF.

Erik Mona wrote:

I wanted to jump in immediately even before reading the rest of this post to state clearly that THERE WILL BE NEW MONSTERS IN THE FIRST MONSTER BOOK.

And ALL the monster books.

We want to convert as much PF1 content as we can, but we're not just starting at the beginning and re-doing everything we have done before.

There will ALWAYS be new monsters!

Ugh.

Just... ugh...

With 1800+ monsters for PF1, we don't really NEED new monsters. There are more PF1 monsters I have never used than monsters that have seen play at my table.

And any brand new, heretofore unseen monsters in a new Bestiary 1 are going to be coming at the expense of classic monsters.
Bestiary 1 for PF2 should be a "best of" collection of monsters from the first 3-4 Bestiaries. A "greatest hits" compilation.

Not having the Azer, Bodak, Hippogriff, or Wendigo in the first Bestiary (again) would be annoying.
And losing something semi-iconic that sees less use (like the bebilith, remorhaz, or sea serpent) for something new that no one has attachment to—such as a "stone hulk" or "tenebrous drake" or "violet horror"—is just... ugh.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Malachandra wrote:

I'm all for more flavor, but...

not at the expense of more entries, or quality of entries. If an stat block can be reduced, great. But if it comes down to take away cool abilities to add flavor, I would rather too little flavor then too little special abilities. I can make up flavor easily enough. Especially for a monster that might have a one paragraph backstory that lasts 3 rounds of combat.

I'm the opposite.

A monster could have the coolest abilities ever. But if it has no flavour, I have no reason to put it in my game. Monsters exist in the stories because they fit the narrative and work with the plot. I build the adventures around the monsters. If they have no flavour, I have nothing to work into the plot. I have no inspiration to build the adventure.
They may only last 3 rounds of combat, but they need enough flavour to drive a couple hours of preceding adventure.

Malachandra wrote:
I don't need an extra page to tell me where a wolf lives in Golarion. I'd rather have that page contain stats for a wolverine.

Animals are very much the exception, as we can look up what their deal is on wikipedia.

But when you have something unique to the setting and it gets a small paragraph, that's not enough.
Such as the various dragons, that get a paragraph.
Or my favourite example, the CR 22 Devastator in B5 that has the sole flavour of "In an unholy act of twisted, demonic humor, devastators derive their power from the souls of good outsiders." Yeah... that's not much to base a high level boss fight around. That's weak for a level 2 mook monster.


Jester David wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

I wanted to jump in immediately even before reading the rest of this post to state clearly that THERE WILL BE NEW MONSTERS IN THE FIRST MONSTER BOOK.

And ALL the monster books.

We want to convert as much PF1 content as we can, but we're not just starting at the beginning and re-doing everything we have done before.

There will ALWAYS be new monsters!

Ugh.

Just... ugh...

With 1800+ monsters for PF1, we don't really NEED new monsters.

I strongly disagree; the more new monsters, the better. I would have been entirely happy to see a new bestiary for PF1.0 every few years indefinitely. I can kind of see an argument for there being rather a lot of plant monsters with an "incapacitate people with pollen or the like and then consume them" thing going for them, but other than that, the more the better.

Quote:


There are more PF1 monsters I have never used than monsters that have seen play at my table.

Likewise, but I see that as a feature rather than a bug; the more distinct tables and games and styles of gameplay there are monsters fitting, the better.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I am more than happy to pay $60-$70 for a 600 page Bestiary, I also wouldn't mind to have more than one example for more common monsters (orc warrior, orc berserker, orc chieftain) and lastly having such a big book I'd like to see more info and lore on some of the monsters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:
Malachandra wrote:

I'm all for more flavor, but...

not at the expense of more entries, or quality of entries. If an stat block can be reduced, great. But if it comes down to take away cool abilities to add flavor, I would rather too little flavor then too little special abilities. I can make up flavor easily enough. Especially for a monster that might have a one paragraph backstory that lasts 3 rounds of combat.

I'm the opposite.

A monster could have the coolest abilities ever. But if it has no flavour, I have no reason to put it in my game. Monsters exist in the stories because they fit the narrative and work with the plot. I build the adventures around the monsters. If they have no flavour, I have nothing to work into the plot. I have no inspiration to build the adventure.
They may only last 3 rounds of combat, but they need enough flavour to drive a couple hours of preceding adventure.

Malachandra wrote:
I don't need an extra page to tell me where a wolf lives in Golarion. I'd rather have that page contain stats for a wolverine.

Animals are very much the exception, as we can look up what their deal is on wikipedia.

But when you have something unique to the setting and it gets a small paragraph, that's not enough.
Such as the various dragons, that get a paragraph.
Or my favourite example, the CR 22 Devastator in B5 that has the sole flavour of "In an unholy act of twisted, demonic humor, devastators derive their power from the souls of good outsiders." Yeah... that's not much to base a high level boss fight around. That's weak for a level 2 mook monster.

I'm not anti-flavor, I just understand that bestiary space is a zero sum game. Whatever system they have for making stat blocks will determine how much flavor they can include. I don't think they should cut special abilities to make a rich flavor. I can make flavor easy enough. But I'm nowhere near as good at making special abilities as Paizo. When you say we need more flavor, you have to answer the question of what design space do we give up to make that happen? We already have good flavor on the majority of bestiary entries (with exceptions). So why make monsters that are less cool but more flavorful? Unless you suggest they reduce the number of entries by a significant amount by making more two page spreads? Or I suppose they could reduce the artwork?


Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.


First, I'll say I only skimmed the thread so if i'm repeating or missing something sorry.

For me, I'm rather get smaller, more 'bite sized' bestiaries more often than huge monolithic beasts rarely. This is both from a cost perspective and from a carry capacity one. I'm thinking that if they come at a steady pace, instead of 'new' monsters being in the AP's they could be dropped into the bestiary that comes out around the same time opening up that space for more cool stuff.

As to lore... I'd almost want them separated from the mechanics as much as possible: maybe a quick 'basic' entry and then a 'in golarion' one. One thing I would like to see is, if knowledge works similarly, a list of information, and DC's, you can get for the monster. There could also be a section in the start for generic info for all monsters [like saves or resistances are x DC].

Malachandra: I have to agree. My priorities/preferences would be mechanics first, then art [i like seeing the creature and being able to show other it so we're on the same page], and then flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

There are definitely some monsters that are sorely in need of more flavor, with dragons being the best example. I don't think every entry does...real world animals/dinosaurs can be looked up on wikipedia, and mindless monsters or constructs which lack don't need a whole lot either. But dragons, or unique new monsters we haven't seen before? yes please


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
First, I'll say I only skimmed the thread so if i'm repeating or missing something sorry.

This thread is really mostly discussing a recommendation for the first PF2 bestiary. As in, it's about how much content is available Day 1 for use. After that, most of us aren't asking for larger bestiaries.


Anguish wrote:
graystone wrote:
First, I'll say I only skimmed the thread so if i'm repeating or missing something sorry.
This thread is really mostly discussing a recommendation for the first PF2 bestiary. As in, it's about how much content is available Day 1 for use. After that, most of us aren't asking for larger bestiaries.

It doesn't change my thought much: I'd still vote for smaller than larger for the same reasons [cost and carry capacity].

Thanks for the heads up though. ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Would it be possible to give each bestiary an explicit theme, after the first one?
Bestiary 1 will be „bread and butter fantasy monsters“ anyway. But beyond that, I would prefer if I could take for example only the „desert bestiary“ (if I am running a desert themed adventure) along with the „core bestiary“ - and have all momsters relevant to me, rather than having to bring Bestiaries 1 through 9 and only needing a few monsters from each.

To that end, I would be happy to have a bigger core bestiary and much thinner thematic bestiaries. I also wouldn’t mind if some monsters were reprinted across different thematic bestiaries.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RumpinRufus wrote:
Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.

This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy


Malachandra wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.
This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy

This could work if the demand for the lore companion book was enough to pay for the cost of making and printing it. Needing to carry around 2 books to run a specific monster is also a significant drawback, for those who value the lore monster book.


ChaiGuy wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.
This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy
This could work if the demand for the lore companion book was enough to pay for the cost of making and printing it. Needing to carry around 2 books to run a specific monster is also a significant drawback, for those who value the lore monster book.

Well the idea isn't to put the same monster in multiple books. I'd think more straightforward monsters like "bear" would end up in the 1-page-spread book, whereas something like a barghest would be in the 2-page-spread book (and not appear as a 1-pager.)


RumpinRufus wrote:
ChaiGuy wrote:
Malachandra wrote:
RumpinRufus wrote:
Maybe two lines of books - bestiaries with 1 page/monster, and then something like "Imrijka's Tome of Monster Lore" with 2 pages/monster.
This would be awesome. With the disadvantage of having to buy two books, I think this would keep everybody happy
This could work if the demand for the lore companion book was enough to pay for the cost of making and printing it. Needing to carry around 2 books to run a specific monster is also a significant drawback, for those who value the lore monster book.
Well the idea isn't to put the same monster in multiple books. I'd think more straightforward monsters like "bear" would end up in the 1-page-spread book, whereas something like a barghest would be in the 2-page-spread book (and not appear as a 1-pager.)

I appreciate the clarification on this, thank you. I would imagine that if there where enough monsters in the straightforward monster book to run a game with it should work ok.

On a separate note, I wonder if there will be a NPC Codex or similar. Having pre made NPCs with classes was really nice.

251 to 300 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Can we please have bigger bestiaries in PF2? All Messageboards