Can we please have bigger bestiaries in PF2?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 315 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

im thinking CRB size.

There are many “tomes” of monsters floating about by smaller publishers, so I can only presume it’s economically feasible.

I’d much prefer to have to sort through three tomes than six bestiaries.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

These tomes have B&W art.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Not anymore. There’s plenty which are full colour.

EDIT: not plenty, sorry that’s too strong. There are some. Frog God Games are moving into full colour from time to time with some of their big books. Kobold Press’s big monster book for 5E was also in colour. (So not minnows, but smaller than Paizo).

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

As someone with fairly weak arms, I prefer the current size. (I use the PRD for CRB stuff.)

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

7 people marked this as a favorite.

It would make getting more of the existing monsters into the game sooner, but it would also mean $60 monster books, which is worth considering very carefully.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe you guys could make first bestiary be extra huge pricey one and ones afterwards are cheaper and regular sized?

I'd honestly love that and be more than okay with it, that way I wouldn't need to wait years for most of monsters from old bestiaries to be adapted


5 people marked this as a favorite.

At the very least, make it bigger than the Alien Archive. That book was so lean I haven't bothered picking it up yet.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Thanks, Erik. My thinking was the price/monster would drop (and be sellable to price sensitive customers).

My clueless view was also that those who are buying the bestiaries are likely to buy all of them (so they save in the long run).

I appreciate it’s complicated. Glad you’re thinking about it anyway - I suppose that PF2 is proving a good opportunity to revisit “how we’ve always done it”.

In a similar vein - the campaign setting books are the ones that most often feel too short (as in you can just tell some great stuff has been cut). If they were routinely 96 pages, I think it would be a definite improvement.


For me, monsters are online resources.

Which of course means Paizo should ignore my opinion when making monster books; I am not one of their potential customers for those. :)

Dark Archive

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.


12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Beavois wrote:

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.

PF bestiaries were lame because they were setting-agnostic so they couldn't make any assumptions. Now that they say Golarion lore will be combined with Core Rules, you can expect monsters to have more in-depth ecology and role in the campaign setting.

It's one of the things that has me the most excited! The in-lore bestiaries in the APs, as you say, were great!

Liberty's Edge

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

Personally there is little difference in my lizard brain between a $50 book and a $60 book. But that may just be me.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

26 people marked this as a favorite.
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.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Beavois wrote:

Rather than just more monsters in a bigger book, what I'd really like to see in 2E Pathfinder Bestiaries is more information and context around the monsters. Like, for instance, how the bestiary sections in the Adventure Path volumes are structured, with good descriptive text on society, ecology, reason for existing, etc. I also very much liked the "extra" stuff in the Starfinder Alien archive -- equipment and magic items used, items that could be crafted out of the remains of a critter, etc. Anything that would make the monster entries more than just a picture and a statblock and a bare scrap of description would be a positive thing. Even if it meant fewer critters. We already have tons in

1E that can be converted.

I'd also very much like this, but this also adds pages if you don't want it to come at the cost of more options and stat blocks.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Well, see the OP but I'm happy to vote twice.

Yes. :)

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As long as there's a reasonably priced PDF, I'm game for a larger book.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game 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.

$70 for a big book o’ monsters? Yes, I would pay that.

But...

I’m fairly well-off, and that price does push the limit even for me. Are there any feasible options for shorter books with monsters by theme or type, and then a big compilation?


CorvusMask wrote:

Maybe you guys could make first bestiary be extra huge pricey one and ones afterwards are cheaper and regular sized?

I'd honestly love that and be more than okay with it, that way I wouldn't need to wait years for most of monsters from old bestiaries to be adapted

I know you guys aren't going to release extra spoilers or anything, but one thing that has been a huge problem for me since D&D 3E (persisting even now into 5E, where the guidelines are so loose that CRs are often meaningless) — so what you have said about monster design in Pathfinder 2E is of great interest.

I love being able to design my own monsters, especially if the rules for such actually produce something that meets projected challenge levels. Will you talk more about this sometime, or ever share some of the process? Everything sounded very promising so far. If it's not a total headache, I'd love to create a lot of my own foes for my games!


If I end up liking PF2E enough to get it, then yes I would be interested in bigger bestiaries.


Does it have to be one or the other? If I were to jump on the P2e train I would go for the larger Tome, (I adore the word for one), since it has more draw for kickstarting the new edition with a usable selection of Monsters, yet it could price out some customers. Might I suggest two versions : one large Tome (roughly two Bestiaries) and a standard two separate ones? The material/pages would essentially be the same just split, with different lead-up pages. Extending the pre-order system to the finalized version would allow Paizo to print on demand (as with the Playtest), then use those figures to work out which is most desired and allocate printing numbers according for future prints. If the prices are too similar, opt either for a promotional decrease for the smaller Bestiaries or add extra artwork/sewn bookmarks/etc. to the Tome to make it more of a deluxe version, requiring a little extra money, distinguishing them by cost/offer. Separating them in this way means no additonal text checks as the differences are largely aesthetic and the artwork it "outsourced", leaving Paizo employees to focus on their regular schedules.

EDIT : I am biased.


Too bad the new system wasn't designed to keep the old monsters and just keep making bestiaries with new ones instead of having to start over again:(


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Honestly, the issue for me isn’t price (I know, super privileged), it’s logistics. Bigger books are harder to lug around and the bindings break faster. It’s bad enough that the core rules are likely to be an enormous time, don’t do the same for the Totally Reasonable Sized Book Of Monsters. Slightly bigger than the Alien Archive is one thing, as big as the PF1 CRB is another.

Dark Archive

I'd definitely get one big expensive book instead of getting many more smaller little bit less expensive monster books that in total outweight first book's cost especially if most of monsters are conversions from old edition.

(BTW, should we make thread for wishes for first 2e Adventure Path? Because I hope its more impressive "fist" ap than Dead Suns or Council of Thieves :D Maybe thread for other old mechanics and wishing how they come back?)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What I would like to see in the Bestiary is a "Lore" section that provides knowledge DCs and their results.

Similar to what was found in Monster Manual IV and Monster Manual V from 3.5e.

Dark Archive

Mekkis wrote:

What I would like to see in the Bestiary is a "Lore" section that provides knowledge DCs and their results.

Similar to what was found in Monster Manual IV and Monster Manual V from 3.5e.

The return of Bear Lore?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
CorvusMask wrote:
Mekkis wrote:

What I would like to see in the Bestiary is a "Lore" section that provides knowledge DCs and their results.

Similar to what was found in Monster Manual IV and Monster Manual V from 3.5e.

The return of Bear Lore?

Not sure what that is. This is what I mean...

Monster Manual IV wrote:


Characters with ranks in Knowledge (The Planes) can learn more about cyclonic ravagers. When a character makes a successful skill check, the following lore is revealed, including the information from lower DCs.

DC15: This creature composed of howling winds is obviously an elemental. This result reveals all elemental traits and the air subtype.

DC25: This creature is a cyclonic ragager, an avatar of Yan-C-Bin, Prince of Evil Air Elementals. Its transparent body is made only of violent wind.

DC30: The cyclonic ravager's command of air allows it to move its opponents and allies around the battlefield.

DC35: A cyclonic ravager can tear a creature apart with blasts of wind, but creatures immune to critical hits take far less damage.

Sovereign Court

A bigger first bestiary would be cool, however you'd have to see if there would be enough people willing to buy the larger book.


3 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.

I would absolutely pay $70 for a bestiary that size. And I would freakin’ love it

If there’s one thing we can never have enough of, it’s monsters and monster options.

A 600 page bestiary would be awesome


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.

Well, how many pages is the core rulebook going to be?

Silver Crusade

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

I would buy this!

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
scary harpy wrote:
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.

Well, how many pages is the core rulebook going to be?

No larger than First Edition’s Core Rulebook was a stated goal I believe.


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.

Yes, absolutely!

Edit: And I hope the majority of all playable races in PF1e would make it in the first book. Really.


Rysky wrote:
scary harpy wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:


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.

Well, how many pages is the core rulebook going to be?
No larger than First Edition’s Core Rulebook was a stated goal I believe.

The bestiary should be the same size.

I need a big book of wicked for my hero to combat.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path 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.

Yes I would by the Monster Book of Monsters, or the Beastly Book of Beasties or whatever you call a massive tome like that.


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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but YES, I would. IF I get into PF2e, I would like monsters from at least Bestiary 1 and Bestiary 2. I can understand one can't fit everything into one book, and even both of those would be a VERY THICK book.

Heck, if I remember right, D&D sells it's core 3 for $50 a piece right now. That's $150.

Even if you sold the CRB and Bestiary for $60 a piece, that's still less than their core three. At $70 it's $140 and still cheaper.

Note though: I can only speak for myself. It may deter some people who are not as hardcore PF players as I or others are. Wisdom probably would say that a lower price point would be more feasible and sell to more customers. Personally, I would buy a higher cost Bestiary IF I get into PF2e, simply because I want all the monsters I can, but I am not everyone else.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer new (or "new") player races to be introduced in player focused books instead of bestiaries. Imagine how much space you would save in a bestiary if aasimar, drow, orc, tiefling, etc. were found in other books. Maybe even "normal" animals(and vermin) like beetles, deer, tigers, sharks, etc. Though giant versions of those animals as well as most dinosaurs and megafauna could still be in a bestiary.

Dark Archive

While I can't say for everyone, I would definitely buy a 600 page bestiary for $70!


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.

That’s on the upper end of my preferences, but still within my capacity, so yes. In any case, what I’m really hoping for is “not the size of the Alien Archive”.


Yes, I'd buy a 600 page bestiary for $70.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes YEs YES bigger bestiary!

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I have difficulty using larger books, and money can be a factor. So despite my desire for lots of content at launch, I think I lean against the idea. I'll probably get it either way, though.


depends on the content, I guess IF there are lots of AP relevant NEW monsters in it, that weren't part of the PF Bestiaries AND if there are rules in it how to convert them to PF, I might think about buying it.
If it's just a reprint of PF Monsters OR if no help is provided how to use new Monsters in PF, I'll certainly pass on it, no matter how big or small or cheap or expensive the book is

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm one that wants MORE monsters in the PF2 Bestiary as well, will GLADLY pay extra.
.... And I strongly want to voice my preference for MORE FLUFF/FLAVOR-- habitat, personality, racial ancestry, ecology, etc.

BUT....

As a business Paizo also has to wonder how many people, like the one who posted earlier, will just get the monsters online, especially if the book is too expensive for them after they buy a Core. How many copies WON'T get sold if the book is too expensive for them?

Also, if the first three Bestiaries are in one book, relatively speaking, how many gamers will decide to buy that one, but not the eventual second Bestiary? ....I assume Lisa and Erik will look at the 2nd Edition numbers if they can (where there was a massive hardback monster book to start, and then a series of very small softback monster books). Not that the precedent of how 2nd Ed monster books were handled should drive Paizo's decision, but it could make for good food-for-thought.

I don't know; IS it a better business thingy to make a handful of monster books so 'everyone' wants each one -- or one 'Great' monster book followed eventually by smaller ones? ....We know the PF Core Book kept selling printing after printing after printing. Maybe a great monster book would sell printing after printing after printing, too. (But only DMs need a Bestiary; everyone needs a Core.)

To Paizo: I'm with you whichever way you go, just keep up the customer service and accessibility of the desigeners on the Boards!


1 person 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.

For me, no. I don't like gigantic hardbacks - they're uncomfortable to read & a pain to transport.

When you brought out the pocket editions, I sold my hardbacks to buy them because I much prefer the format. To be honest, I would over-pay for a pocket-version of the CRB at launch but I know that won't happen & that's OK.


NO I do not want a bigger bestiary if it is going to cost more money


Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I generally like the idea of larger monster volumes, with roughly the same amount of fluff as the current PF Bestiaries. SF AA's went a bit too far in the fluff side of things for me (I think I understand the intent of trying to combine bits of equipment, races, etc into a new offering format, it just doesn't work for me). AA is still a GM book, to me, so sticking player content in there is less useful.

I love the campaign setting books that delve deeper into a particular monster, so I do like the fluff, just don't want it in the bestiary.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:
I would prefer new (or "new") player races to be introduced in player focused books instead of bestiaries. Imagine how much space you would save in a bestiary if aasimar, drow, orc, tiefling, etc. were found in other books. Maybe even "normal" animals(and vermin) like beetles, deer, tigers, sharks, etc. Though giant versions of those animals as well as most dinosaurs and megafauna could still be in a bestiary.

I would agree with you, but looking over past messageboard posts a lot of people are REALLY into the bestiaries for the player options. I wonder if sales would drop off quite a bit if the bestiary really was a purely GM only useful book.


Yeah MMCJawa, I kind of figured I would be one of few who would want that:)

1 to 50 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