PF2-What-Do-We-Know? **Discussion**


Second Edition


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Since a bunch of interesting topics arent being discussed in the original thread, thought I'd start up a discussion thread for the update thread.

Picking up where that one left off, it looks like they did swap out the Tarrasque, who wont be in the starting books, and have a different spiked dino creature as its highest CR creature


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

My first thought was that they were doing a Tiamat-style phase out. It could still come in a following bestiary though.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, I think the replacement is a much better fit. The Tarrasque has been kind of a gimmick monster for years.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
My first thought was that they were doing a Tiamat-style phase out. It could still come in a following bestiary though.

One can only pray. I'm a big, big fan of Paizo aggressively moving away from heavily D&D-associated ideas/characters/monsters/whatever. Not only do I just generally prefer Paizo's lore work, but it's also just better to have more diverse stories being told and developed out there in the world.

Plus, this is 100% correct—when has anyone told a real story with the Tarrasque?

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Honestly, I think the replacement is a much better fit. The Tarrasque has been kind of a gimmick monster for years.


Joe M. wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
My first thought was that they were doing a Tiamat-style phase out. It could still come in a following bestiary though.

One can only pray. I'm a big, big fan of Paizo aggressively moving away from heavily D&D-associated ideas/characters/monsters/whatever. Not only do I just generally prefer Paizo's lore work, but it's also just better to have more diverse stories being told and developed out there in the world.

Plus, this is 100% correct—when has anyone told a real story with the Tarrasque?

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Honestly, I think the replacement is a much better fit. The Tarrasque has been kind of a gimmick monster for years.

Tarrasque is a bit annoying. Being not that smart is not a good thing for a creature with such a high CR basically players can find a way to not fight it too easily.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, to be fair, someone wrote a really awesome campaign setting based on a city that sprang up around the restrained Tarrasque after it was defeated. They had a bustling industry harvesting its flesh, and different noble houses based around securing each of the main restraints.

Actually facing it as an enemy? Eh. There are better Kaiju type monsters.


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

I think people are probably reading too much into the Tarrasque not being in the first Bestiary. In canon, the Tarrasque is the herald of one of the core 20 deities, and a monster that has gotten a lot of love from Paizo (unlike Tiamat for instance)

If it's missing, it's probably because:

They wanted to shake things up in the first bestiary, and not just repeat the contents of Bestiary 1

They want to flesh out either heralds or Rovagug spawn in a separate book, either with other heralds or with other spawn.

They want to give some time to see how PF2 plays before they go ahead and make a monster that is that notorious for high level play, so they make sure they don't forget about some key weakness


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Considering the Tarasque comes from French folklore originally, I'd say they probably aren't leaving it out completely. This is not an Inevitable kind of matter, where they would need to step away from it to differentiate themselves from D&D.

Because of that, I'm leaning more toward them keeping it for a more focused book. And I'm really hoping for something about the heralds of all the deities. That would be quite interesting. Also, they might indeed have simply wanted to try something new for the second edition bestiary, so it would be a little more different from the first edition, or they might have something planned for Treerazer.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I wouldn't be surprised if a Treerazer AP wasn't coming very early in the PF2E AP cycle, since none of the 1E Ap's dealt with him, and it would be a good way to highlight elves and emphasize the CG nature of them, something which Paizo has sort of been inconsistent at.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The way I interpreted it on the livestream was that the Tarrasque is no longer the highest CR Monster on the book, that honor going to Treerazer, not that the Tarrasque will necesarily be missing from the book.

Liberty's Edge

Biztak wrote:
The way I interpreted it on the livestream was that the Tarrasque is no longer the highest CR Monster on the book, that honor going to Treerazer, not that the Tarrasque will necesarily be missing from the book.

In PF1 both are CR 25, making them being the same level in PF2 pretty likely. They could theoretically drop the Tarrasque's level, but honestly I think it's more likely to maintain it's level in a different book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think "the Tarrasque is the herald of Rovagug" makes it less important to stat the thing up any time soon. I mean, sure Rovagug is evil but we're not lining up the PCs to fight the Heralds of Lamashtu, Asmodeus, Norgorber, Urgathoa et al.

So whatever book we stat up the Yethazmari, Basileus, the Stabbing Beast, Mother's Maw, etc. we should do the Tarrasque in.

If anything the CR15 ones are kind of more useful to have stats for since PCs are going to fight a lot more CR15 (or level 15, or whatever) monsters than CR25 monsters. I mean, if the party murks Gravedragger at some point, at worst they have annoyed the God of Accidental Death (and no one guards against that sort of thing better than player characters)- there need be no further repercussions.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd be in favor of a version of the tarrasque done right, without the silly weaknesses it's always unintentionally had, and I don't mind if it takes them some extra time to get there.

More to the point, I'd like the tarrasque to come accompanied with enough lore and interesting hooks to give a compelling reason to actually use the thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:

I'd be in favor of a version of the tarrasque done right, without the silly weaknesses it's always unintentionally had, and I don't mind if it takes them some extra time to get there.

More to the point, I'd like the tarrasque to come accompanied with enough lore and interesting hooks to give a compelling reason to actually use the thing.

I always loved it as being a powerful, non-aligned, entity of enigmatic origins.

Giving it the backstory of "Rovagug's herald" might be cool for Golarion. Personally, I'd like the Tarrasque to go back to being agnostic of any origins at all.

If it's not in the first print of the Bestiary, I will be sorely disappointed, because unlike other people here that do not seem to have a fondness for the creature that I do, it to me is an essential part of the game.

It's been in my games (even if only tangentially or by mention) since 3.0 when it was introduced.

Was totally unaware of it's new attachment to Rovagug, and personally find that... for lack of a better way to describe it, antithetical. It falls in the same vein as "midi-chlorians" defining your Force abilities.

To each their own, but if it's not in the Bestiary, I will be disappointed.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The tarrasque being Rovagug's herald is not new, for reference; it's been true for Pathfinder since the beginning.

I suppose that is "new" compared to 3.0, though. :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:

I'd be in favor of a version of the tarrasque done right, without the silly weaknesses it's always unintentionally had, and I don't mind if it takes them some extra time to get there.

More to the point, I'd like the tarrasque to come accompanied with enough lore and interesting hooks to give a compelling reason to actually use the thing.

I always loved it as being a powerful, non-aligned, entity of enigmatic origins.

Giving it the backstory of "Rovagug's herald" might be cool for Golarion. Personally, I'd like the Tarrasque to go back to being agnostic of any origins at all.

If it's not in the first print of the Bestiary, I will be sorely disappointed, because unlike other people here that do not seem to have a fondness for the creature that I do, it to me is an essential part of the game.

It's been in my games (even if only tangentially or by mention) since 3.0 when it was introduced.

Was totally unaware of it's new attachment to Rovagug, and personally find that... for lack of a better way to describe it, antithetical. It falls in the same vein as "midi-chlorians" defining your Force abilities.

To each their own, but if it's not in the Bestiary, I will be disappointed.

Tarrasque shows up in AD&D 1st! But wasn't in the basic Monster Manual. This "tradition" is kinda made-up.


MaxAstro wrote:

The tarrasque being Rovagug's herald is not new, for reference; it's been true for Pathfinder since the beginning.

I suppose that is "new" compared to 3.0, though. :)

My argument would be that Pathfinder and Golarion were very much separate in first edition even though they are fully integrated now.

And the original entry for the Tarrasque in the Bestiary makes absolutely no mention of Rovagug and states as much as far as origins and nature with regards to the ambiguity.

Golarion yes, Pathfinder not so much.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

PF2 is not going to be setting agnostic like PF1 was. So if you want to use Rovagug's herald in a setting without Rovagug, you just have to remove the Golarion hooks.

But insofar as they are there those Golarion hooks, we should pretty much treat all the heralds (at least the important ones) the same.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

But insofar as they are there those Golarion hooks, we should pretty much treat all the heralds (at least the important ones) the same.

I agree that would make logical sense, just a bit offput by the Lore appropriation over a creature that was setting agnostic for something as niche as heralds of deities.

It's not that much different than saying the Jabberwock now belongs to X Lore receptical so therefore it doesn't deserve a stat block.

It's not a huge deal and I get the mentality it just doesn't personally jive with my tables/worlds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean, in Golarion lore, the Jabberwock does belong to the Eldest: it's one of the Tane- a living superweapon left over from some long ago war on the first world. It's just that the Eldest most likely lost track of or don't care about their leftover minions, so if the Jabberwock wanders onto the prime material plane and eats a bunch of people and is slain by some plucky heroes, they can just make a new one; it has no great significance.

So if you wanted to leave the Jabberwock (and the Bandersnatch, and the Jubjub Bird, etc.) to some book where you wanted to do a deep dive into the fae in, then that would probably work fine.

But the Jabberwock was in the playtest bestiary (which includes the aforementioned Golarion hooks in its blurb), so it'll probably be in the first bestiary.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in Golarion lore, the Jabberwock does belong to the Eldest: it's one of the Tane- a living superweapon left over from some long ago war on the first world. It's just that the Eldest most likely lost track of or don't care about their leftover minions, so if the Jabberwock wanders onto the prime material plane and eats a bunch of people and is slain by some plucky heroes, they can just make a new one; it has no great significance.

So if you wanted to leave the Jabberwock (and the Bandersnatch, and the Jubjub Bird, etc.) to some book where you wanted to do a deep dive into the fae in, then that would probably work fine.

But the Jabberwock was in the playtest bestiary (which includes the aforementioned Golarion hooks in its blurb), so it'll probably be in the first bestiary.

And the inclusion of the Jabberwock is cool.

The exclusion of the Tarrasque is not for me.

While to some here it might just be the Herald of Rovagug, to me it's the Tarrasque.

If you want to give something Golarion hooks that's great but excluding something that to me is an iconic monster in the game on that premise is where I get off the boat. The Lore should make me want to include it as part of the entry because it strengthens the creature, not exclude it on the premise of "but it belongs to this Deity now so we can't". Just as Golarion defines all it's creatures, but I expect the Tarrasque to still exist in the first run.

Which is another reason I'm not a fan of the Rovagug thing. For one, Rovagug is evil, and to me the Tarrasque was never evil. Giving it Evil origins kind of goes against how I've used the Tarrasque for years (even if the Lore for the creature in Golarion doesn't state it as explicitly evil, just connected to it).

I think I've spoken my peace on it at this point but I'd hate to see it dispatched so easily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Midnightoker wrote:


Which is another reason I'm not a fan of the Rovagug thing. For one, Rovagug is evil, and to me the Tarrasque was never evil. Giving it Evil origins kind of goes against how I've used the Tarrasque for years (even if the Lore for the creature in Golarion doesn't state it as explicitly evil, just connected to it).

I think I've spoken my peace on it at this point but I'd hate to see it dispatched so easily.

Well, you missed the boat on that by about 10 years. The Final Wish named it a Spawn in July of 2009, several months before Pathfinder was even launched as a system. And while the bestiary listed it as neutral, Inner Sea Gods listed it as CE in 2014.

Frankly, the distinction over whether the mindless beast of destruction incarnate is chaotic evil or is just True Neutral by the old "too dumb to care about morality" clause seems to be nearly meaningless semantics unless you are trying to Smite Evil. The Final Wish even kind of makes this point.

It is the most foolish and useless of errands to attempt
categorization of the Spawn of Rovagug: their vast forms
follow neither rhyme nor reason; their savage minds are
warped and screaming things raging hot and wild, incensed
by hunger and fatalistic abandon; their terrible limbs and
maws the cruel, spasming product of a destructive hate that
has burned since the first light of creation dawned across the
empty void that predated the world.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Midnightoker wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, in Golarion lore, the Jabberwock does belong to the Eldest: it's one of the Tane- a living superweapon left over from some long ago war on the first world. It's just that the Eldest most likely lost track of or don't care about their leftover minions, so if the Jabberwock wanders onto the prime material plane and eats a bunch of people and is slain by some plucky heroes, they can just make a new one; it has no great significance.

So if you wanted to leave the Jabberwock (and the Bandersnatch, and the Jubjub Bird, etc.) to some book where you wanted to do a deep dive into the fae in, then that would probably work fine.

But the Jabberwock was in the playtest bestiary (which includes the aforementioned Golarion hooks in its blurb), so it'll probably be in the first bestiary.

And the inclusion of the Jabberwock is cool.

The exclusion of the Tarrasque is not for me.

While to some here it might just be the Herald of Rovagug, to me it's the Tarrasque.

If you want to give something Golarion hooks that's great but excluding something that to me is an iconic monster in the game on that premise is where I get off the boat. The Lore should make me want to include it as part of the entry because it strengthens the creature, not exclude it on the premise of "but it belongs to this Deity now so we can't". Just as Golarion defines all it's creatures, but I expect the Tarrasque to still exist in the first run.

Which is another reason I'm not a fan of the Rovagug thing. For one, Rovagug is evil, and to me the Tarrasque was never evil. Giving it Evil origins kind of goes against how I've used the Tarrasque for years (even if the Lore for the creature in Golarion doesn't state it as explicitly evil, just connected to it).

I think I've spoken my peace on it at this point but I'd hate to see it dispatched so easily.

In Pathfinder, the Behemoths (Bestiary 3) fill the slot for Neutral (at least for those described) destructive monster sent by the deities and verging on natural phenomenon.

Note that the Tarrasque is even mentioned as being classified as part of this group by some scholars.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

On a different note, here's some very good news:

Joe M. wrote:

!!!

PF2 PRD drops on Day 1: August 1, 2019 @ 7am PST


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joe M. wrote:

On a different note, here's some very good news:

Joe M. wrote:

!!!

PF2 PRD drops on Day 1: August 1, 2019 @ 7am PST

This is surprising but awesome.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

On a different note, here's some very good news:

Joe M. wrote:

!!!

PF2 PRD drops on Day 1: August 1, 2019 @ 7am PST

This is surprising but awesome.

Yeah, I'm really happy about it. Both because it'll help to have that tool while learning the rules, and also because it will help all the folks who are "wait and see" on PF2 (an understandable and justifiable position)—being able to dig through and try it out on day 1 before committing will help the transition a lot I think.


Joe M. wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Joe M. wrote:

On a different note, here's some very good news:

Joe M. wrote:

!!!

PF2 PRD drops on Day 1: August 1, 2019 @ 7am PST

This is surprising but awesome.
Yeah, I'm really happy about it. Both because it'll help to have that tool while learning the rules, and also because it will help all the folks who are "wait and see" on PF2 (an understandable and justifiable position)—being able to dig through and try it out on day 1 before committing will help the transition a lot I think.

It also takes a little pressure off of delivery times. I was waffling on whether to pre-order through the Paizo site because I wasn't sure how close to August 1st I would get it. This means I don't have to think as hard about it and can dive in while I wait for the delivery.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it's very good - you can start seeing the rules and deciding if you actually like them and want to invest or if it's not your kind of game. Imho everyone should do something like this - there's a lot of good games around but I've lost a lot of money on stuff that promised to be awesome and failed miserably at my table.

Huzzah for Paizo!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / PF2-What-Do-We-Know? **Discussion** All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.