Since they have made many volumes of the bestiary for PF1, for PF2 I kinda expected them to make the first volume have monsters A–F, the second to have G–K etc etc. Like an encyclopedia. Since they already know all the monsters (from making them for PF1) I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They have monsters that need to come in priority that are in the end of le alphabet
Plus they add new monster in the bestiaries of PF2 so it's not really feasible
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They could've been like "Angels & Aardvarks adventure path"
It's the kind of thing that would make for a cool reprint of the bestiaries. Wouldn't work well for the first run. Only problem is I don't think it'd sell too well.
Problem is with how weighted certain letters are in the Bestiary. Like D will always have more than any letter due to Demons, Daemons, Devils, and Dragons.
Since they have made many volumes of the bestiary for PF1, for PF2 I kinda expected them to make the first volume have monsters A–F, the second to have G–K etc etc. Like an encyclopedia. Since they already know all the monsters (from making them for PF1) I mean.
A model like that would require someone running their own setting to have to wait for all of the bestiary’s to be published before running the game. Your own suggestion is that Bestiary 2 would be G-K, the real B2 comes out in April - so to do it your way GM’s would have spent the first 8 months of the life of this product without access to Goblins, Gnolls or Kobolds and would have to wait years before having access to official Zombies.
More than anything the Bestiary has to be a functional game aid, and an alphabetical release is not particularly functional. It also requires that you have to purchase all the Bestiaries - PF1 and the other guys’ MM are front loaded with the most useful content so that you could, in theory, run the game for years off of only the one book.
It's the kind of thing that would make for a cool reprint of the bestiaries. Wouldn't work well for the first run. Only problem is I don't think it'd sell too well.
But that's why I think the 2e would've been the perfect time to do it♥
Now there are zombies gnolls goblins etc so the next one can be all A-F
I get that you'd want the first bestiary to be awesome but then the later bestiaries are kinda scraping the bottom of the proverbial is what I'm thinking.
Like "Bestiary 4, Lovecraft edition". OK great but what if I'm not running a Lovecraft campaign? But "Bestiary 4: G-K" that sounds great, I have have goblins, kings, harpies etc.
But... why? Like, if it's ease of use, it's 2020 and most everything for that is handled digitally at a majority of tables. And it creates (as many have pointed out) more problems than it solves.
Like "Bestiary 4, Lovecraft edition". OK great but what if I'm not running a Lovecraft campaign? But "Bestiary 4: G-K" that sounds great, I have have goblins, kings, harpies etc.
In the current model if you’re not running a campaign that the creatures in B4 are suitable for, then you don’t have to buy B4. You can purchase the one you know you’ll use often, and decide on the others later.
If everything is spread out alphabetically, you have less opportunity to opt out because each Bestiary will be likely to contain at least a few creatures you’ll need.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remember way back in 2nd ED when we got the Monster manual binder and could just add in the expansions as we got them, put them in any "order" you wanted or take out a few monsters for an encounter.... Of course then you got the holes ripped on frequently used pages or the rings of the binder got messed up after frank stepped on it.....
Good times ... lol
Remember way back in 2nd ED when we got the Monster manual binder and could just add in the expansions as we got them, put them in any "order" you wanted or take out a few monsters for an encounter.... Of course then you got the holes ripped on frequently used pages or the rings of the binder got messed up after frank stepped on it.....
Yes, I still have that problem because I run an AD&D2e campaign rn and it sucks, the pages fall out. That's exactly what I wanted to avoid with a more thought through Bestiary release.
Maybe if the alphabet isn't the best, it could be geographical region or it could be monster level. Idk the order of the PF1e bestiaries (and the WotC MM/VGM/MoFo trio) just bug me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, I still have that problem because I run an AD&D2e campaign rn and it sucks, the pages fall out. That's exactly what I wanted to avoid with a more thought through Bestiary release.
Maybe if the alphabet isn't the best, it could be geographical region or it could be monster level. Idk the order of the PF1e bestiaries (and the WotC MM/VGM/MoFo trio) just bug me.
I do challenge the notion that “organized the way you would like” and “more thought through” are the same thing
Alphabetized, curated by region, curated by level, all of these leave the game in a state where the players must wait for it to be a complete product line before proceeding with running the game. That process for PF1 from B1-B6 took 8 years.
Holistic releases of the kind you’re suggesting just aren’t very feasible with a game the size of D&D or PF
You could always take all the current monsters copy them all out and put them in any organisation you wanted then print them out in a book or binder in any style you wish.......:-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not a good idea -- why limit their creativity? As they release more bestiaries their Adventure Paths will increasingly list creatures named Xxehan and Ztlgrp lol.
Remember way back in 2nd ED when we got the Monster manual binder and could just add in the expansions as we got them, put them in any "order" you wanted or take out a few monsters for an encounter.... Of course then you got the holes ripped on frequently used pages or the rings of the binder got messed up after frank stepped on it.....
Good times ... lol
that is actually a good idea - i just 'print' the sites i need as new pdfs, maybe add them together to a new one and have my encounters set (from bestiary site)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do challenge the notion that “organized the way you would like” and “more thought through” are the same thing
Just organized any way. Which implies thought-through.
They have the benefit of hindsight (just like the hackmaster example) of knowing what they did for PF1e.
The "greatest hit" volume has already been released — it's PF2e's Bestiary.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But think about it from Paizo's point of view.
"We've got our Lovecraftian Bestiary!"
- People who don't want Lovecraft aren't buying it.
- Creators are stretching themselves to fill a full book of Lovecraft (and -maybe it's just me- but not every idea is stellar when you're forcing yourself into those constraints)
- People are asking for certain types for their games: plant, fey, etc. and there's only so much you can provide in that realm before you just go... aberration, aberration, aberration.
- It takes time to make a book that scale, and now we've got Pathfinder: the mostly occult game until the next release. And then you've got Pathfinder: the mostly underwater game. That's not the overarching design intent for Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But think about it from Paizo's point of view.
"We've got our Lovecraftian Bestiary!"
- People who don't want Lovecraft aren't buying it.
- Creators are stretching themselves to fill a full book of Lovecraft (and -maybe it's just me- but not every idea is stellar when you're forcing yourself into those constraints)
- People are asking for certain types for their games: plant, fey, etc. and there's only so much you can provide in that realm before you just go... aberration, aberration, aberration.
- It takes time to make a book that scale, and now we've got Pathfinder: the mostly occult game until the next release. And then you've got Pathfinder: the mostly underwater game. That's not the overarching design intent for Pathfinder.
I agree on this
bestiaries sortet after differnt notions (be it alphabetical, theme or something else) would work...not so well (at least for a new system)
A bestiary needs some variaty
lets say for example we go with 'monsters a-f' like in the initial post (which probably are already too many letter since that would include demons, daemnons, devils and dragons under d and angels, agathions, azata and aeons under a)
Well I am certain that everyone who like the planes to play a bigger part in their game delights - but then proteans and psychopomps are missing
and what about the people who want skeletons, vampires, zombies?
or harpies, gnolls, goblins - okay, they got bugbears but hob- and regular goblins are probably more important for mosk campaigns
besides the point that the letters d and s both will need their complete own books
and for themes, well that would be nice for later reprint (maybe) but the problem is the same and in some aspects even worse, people will ask themselves 'why did they create about x first and not y? z would also have been okay, but why x?'
And I don't think the pf2e bestiary is a 'greatest hits' bestiary
especially considering that there are many new creatures inbetween, as well as it contains some niche monsters as web lurkers, simurgh or the nilith
Paizo (presumely) just tried the bestiary to fill it's usual role:
Giving thats for important and reoccuring monsters (which is especially for a first bestiary important) and giving new monsters and ideas to make the game more interesting
while I can understand the notion to have a somewhat sortet bestiary (in one way or another) I am kind of glad that paizo did not decide to go that route (at least for now)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just organized any way. Which implies thought-through.
Your thinking isn’t the only thinking, nor is it necessarily the best thinking. The developers thought through which monsters and creatures they felt were core to the game - the monsters most used at the table - and released them.
They have the benefit of hindsight (just like the hackmaster example) of knowing what they did for PF1e.
Hackmaster literally presented players with an alphabetized grouping of the monsters as they appeared in the D&D Monster Manual. They made only minimal changes to them. The PF2 Bestiary presents newly designed versions of the creatures that are most commonly utilized.
The sort of backhanded implication that their design process was haphazard when compared with your alphabetize them and wait 8 years to get them all out there is a.) a little insulting to the designers and b.) shows that you haven’t “thought through” this concept with the needs of a business model in mind.
Your thinking isn’t the only thinking, nor is it necessarily the best thinking.
Not married to the A–F thing. Just asking for any thinking ahead. Any rhyme or reason what monster goes in what book.
The developers thought through which monsters and creatures they felt were core to the game - the monsters most used at the table - and released them.
Which is fine for the first release as I've said many times in this thread.
But if you stick with that philosophy, you're going to get less and less "core to the game" i.e. further and further towards the bottom of the barrel with each release.
The sort of backhanded implication that their design process was haphazard when compared with your alphabetize them and wait 8 years to get them all out there is a.) a little insulting to the designers and b.) shows that you haven’t “thought through” this concept with the needs of a business model in mind.
You're saying "wait 8 years to get them all out there". I didn't set any schedule or timeframe. If it's 8 years, 2 years, 2 months, even 16 years, I didn't specify.
Whatever the time frame is, you have to wait X time to get them all out there regardless of how they are organized.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have yet to justify why this is a good idea.
You have yet to justify why this is a good idea.
I don't want Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5 etc to feel like the D-list monsters. Or if that's the organization they are going with (second-most used monsters second etc) then if they have a thought-ahead plan about that then that's fine.
I've stated many times in the thread that I get that B1 → the best of the best, the classics, the every-table-needs-these. For B2 through B9, if they're coming, I want them to have a plan for them is all I'm saying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have yet to justify why this is a good idea.I don't want Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5 etc to feel like the D-list monsters.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel like Paizo has done that in the past. It sounds like you're worrying over a problem you created. Others in this thread have pointed out why it's not a good idea, why it wouldn't be done, and ways to get around organizational problems if you have them. But this is all stemming from an idea that I feel like you're off the mark on.
That isntbtrue. With the current style regardless of what you want for your current campaign you are likely to get something usuable for it with each release. With a categorized system, whichever way you cut it, that isnt true.
What is the current style?
That is what I'm asking. And I'd be satisfied with pretty much any answers except "haphazardly here are some more monsters we thought of so we could sell a Bestiary 5"…?
If there is a "current style" that is some sort of thought-through plan then I'm satisfied. Then that is all I'm asking for.
Do it by type? Well the people waiting on Fey have no extra content till we get to the Fey book. Now there are going to be at least some Fey in each book.
So if "the style" is: "we are going to take all of our 800 monsters, sort them in piles such as Fey, Mwangi, high-level, and then ensure that for as many piles as possible people are getting something good in each book. This sells more books which is great for our bottom line $$$ and also means that the player base no matter who they are and what kinda monsters they want they get something good early and in every book.", then that would be thought-through and that would be satisfying.
Like, let's say that there are, uh, 80 fey type creatures, 12 Mwangi region creatures, 200 high-level monsters (just guessing on the numbers here) and you'd calculate on the overlap of these categories (because there are some creatures that are fey and high-level and Mwangi-region) but make sure there were around 16 fey type creatures per book, 2 Mwangi region creatures per book, 40 high-level monsters per book etc.
It's hard af for DMs to find monsters and those lugging around physical books would have to schlep a lot of unused pages but it's thought-through.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel like Paizo has done that in the past.
When making new version they have a unique opportunity to create something very planned and thought-ahead and neat and beautiful.
ways to get around organizational problems if you have them.
To use digital i.e. not even use the bestiary books? That's not really a good look for the books :/
But this is all stemming from an idea that I feel like you're off the mark on.
You may be right.
As always I find myself being alone with an idea or position that everyone else thinks is just dumb. "Of course random and haphazard monster book releasing is better, more organic, more natural, more intuitive, 2097, why can't you get that?"
IDK, I guess I'm not the sharpest tool in the proverbial. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That isntbtrue. With the current style regardless of what you want for your current campaign you are likely to get something usuable for it with each release. With a categorized system, whichever way you cut it, that isnt true.What is the current style?
That is what I'm asking. And I'd be satisfied with pretty much any answers except "haphazardly here are some more monsters we thought of so we could sell a Bestiary 5"…?
If there is a "current style" that is some sort of thought-through plan then I'm satisfied. Then that is all I'm asking for.
Do it by type? Well the people waiting on Fey have no extra content till we get to the Fey book. Now there are going to be at least some Fey in each book.So if "the style" is: "we are going to take all of our 800 monsters, sort them in piles such as Fey, Mwangi, high-level, and then ensure that for as many piles as possible people are getting something good in each book. This sells more books which is great for our bottom line $$$ and also means that the player base no matter who they are and what kinda monsters they want they get something good early and in every book.", then that would be thought-through and that would be satisfying.
Like, let's say that there are, uh, 80 fey type creatures, 12 Mwangi region creatures, 200 high-level monsters (just guessing on the numbers here) and you'd calculate on the overlap of these categories (because there are some creatures that are fey and high-level and Mwangi-region) but make sure there were around 16 fey type creatures per book, 2 Mwangi region creatures per book, 40 high-level monsters per book etc.
It's hard af for DMs to find monsters and those lugging around physical books would have to schlep a lot of unused pages but it's thought-through.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel like Paizo has done that in the past.When making new version they have a...
Judging by PF1's pattern, the lower the bestiary number, the more common, recognizable and generically useful the monster will be. The higher the number, the more unique and setting specific monsters show up, including entries from APs. There will still be basics and standbys, but generally, the later bestiaries contain more and more rare or setting specific monsters than earlier ones.
Alright, as this is your thread and every(?) poster here is still trying to point out why these are not good ideas, let's go through them.
What is the current style?
We have one whole entire Bestiary to go off of. Given PF1, there is no style. There doesn't need to be a style. If the issue you're having is that multiple bestiaries are a cash grab, well... yes. This is a company that makes products to sell to consumers?
"A book with monsters, please," is what the community wants. It's what will sell. I can assure you that if there was a huge demand for a book just about Fey, then there would be a book just about Fey.
It's hard af for DMs to find monsters and those lugging around physical books would have to schlep a lot of unused pages but it's thought-through.
You're right it is! Generally APs have stuck to one or two Bestiaries in the past. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the rule. If we broke up the Bestiaries and subdivided them, we would be carrying around a lot more books.
Alphabetically = "Well, geez, I hope we only fight things in the first half of the alphabet. I don't want to lug the second half around."
By type = "I am limited to only these monsters, who tend to have grouped weaknesses and resistances. That could be a problem unless I bring... two or three more books."
By region = "Man, I'd really like to run my homebrew game, but the Bestiaries are only Ustalav, Cheliax, and Sarkonis."
When making new version they have a unique opportunity to create something very planned and thought-ahead and neat and beautiful.
What about the current Bestiary is not thought out, neat, or beautiful? This isn't about fitting everything into little boxes, it's a game that's meant to be played.
To use digital i.e. not even use the bestiary books? That's not really a good look for the books :/
Just going to quote myself here.
ways to get around organizational problems if you have them.
I personally have no problem having the book open behind my screen while also keeping a tab open on my computer for access to other monsters. Other people may just use the computer. Others might be book purists. But these are all options.
You may be right.
Hey. Cool. Thanks.
As always I find myself being alone with an idea or position that everyone else thinks is just dumb. "Of course random and haphazard monster book releasing is better, more organic, more natural, more intuitive, 2097, why can't you get that?"
We're, in this very thread, pointing out why unnecessarily putting Bestiaries into these categories is a bad idea both for gameplay reasons and sale reasons. We're not telling you that your idea is dumb, we're explaining to you why it wouldn't work. You're just pushing back on the obvious reasons why.
You're right it is! Generally APs have stuck to one or two Bestiaries in the past. Unless I'm mistaken, that's the rule. If we broke up the Bestiaries and subdivided them, we would be carrying around a lot more books.
"By AP" would've been a fantastic way to do it. Like, each AP could use two bestiaries and they could behind-the-scenes map it out so that these could be combined for a variety of wonderful AP.
What about the current Bestiary is not thought out, neat, or beautiful? This isn't about fitting everything into little boxes, it's a game that's meant to be played.
As I've said a couple of times, the first book is fine and this issue is not with the first book. It's with the rest of the books.
|
Not sure how this would work as a publisher at all. If they did this way, they would most likely need to plan out all volumes from the start, years and years in advance.
Also, as a consumer, it would be very strange and frustrating to have to wait years just to get wolfs and zombies.
What happens when they are in later volumes and want to add more Angels to the game?
Not sure what problems this would even be fixing. The current model is awesome, easily expandable , and makes sense as a publisher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure what problems this would even be fixing.
I think that the OP is only thinking in terms of what would best suit their personal preference.
I can't speak for everyone, but I don't feel like Paizo has done that in the past. It sounds like you're worrying over a problem you created. Others in this thread have pointed out why it's not a good idea, why it wouldn't be done, and ways to get around organizational problems if you have them. But this is all stemming from an idea that I feel like you're off the mark on.You have yet to justify why this is a good idea.I don't want Bestiary 4, Bestiary 5 etc to feel like the D-list monsters.
I'm not familiar enough with PF1's bestiaries to say if the same applies there, but I noticed a very distinct thread in the monster manuals for 3e. As the number got higher, two things happened:
1. The monsters became increasingly weird and/or niche, because the "low-hanging fruit" was already covered in the previous volumes.
2. The monster design got better, because the designers got better at designing monsters.
I fully expect the same to happen with PF2, because that's just the nature of things.
It was partially like that with pf1 too
But while there was a lot of niche and weird monsters added, there were always some 'familiar' monsters
for example the third bestiary added a version of the sphinx and graveknights while the sixth added stats for a host of archdevils and demigods
and every bestiary expended on dragons and some kinds of outsiders, golems or giants
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Bestiary should only have letter “B” monsters in it. For obvious reasons. I’m just waiting for the Nestiary (love those nest dwellers!) and the Qestiary (who needs a “u” when going onna qest!) and the Testiary (nuthin but Starstone related bea...monsters) and the Westiary (bes...err...greatest in the West!?!) and the Mestiary (seriously gritty) and the Zestiary (juicy beas...umm...monsters in there amirite!!!).
Then we can have dedicated Festiary releases (Yulefest, Snoozefest), the doublesize Di-Gestiary, lampoonable Jestiary, unforgettable Lestiary, pixie and peskie laden Pestiary, lazy Restiary, uber-hipster Vestiary, pagan Oestiary, grognard’s dream Yestiary and the arghaic Aestiary.
Boom-badow!!! Sortid!!!
/Thread Ova!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^ Awesome!
But I think you forgot a handful or so volumes. I mean, where're all the familiars from the Hextiary?!
(>_')
I won't be satisfied until they release the whole set in a three-ring binder.