Just got my PDF and skimmed through, it is indeed fantastic. It's going to make a lot of conversion work easier for me, and the artwork is wonderful. Now I wish there was a way to make Hounds of Tindalos fit in my upcoming campaign (even though there super isn't).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I 100% agree witht he use of the word "Lycanthrope". It should not be the word for all werecreatures; that's why we changed it from lycanthrope in 1st edition to werecreature in 2nd.
The only place we talk about lycanthropy in the book is in a single sidebar on page 291, and it's in the context of "Many scholars..." When you see us attribute in-world lore like this, the intent is to frame that lore in a potentially unreliable narrator. Some scholars are wrong, and those who apply the word "lycanthropy" to all werecreatures are not correct (as the sidebar notes) yet they still do so. In the same way we in this world use words like "Kleenex" for facial tissues, "band-aid" for adhesive bandages, or "D&D" for fantasy-based RPGs (couldn't resist that one! :P).
The whole point of the sidebar was to enable the use of the word "lycanthrope" in the game, if only as an often-misused term, so that readers who look back at other 1st edition products aren't potentially confused, and because the word itself is a really neat word and I didn't want it to get completely excised from the game.
As for using real-world words... look at it this way. When we publish books like this, we're translating the words to English (or Italian or Spanish or whatever) so all of us at Paizo can edit them and so all of you out there can read them. None of us can speak or read Taldane or any other made-up language from Golarion, so we don't publish in that language. If we did, words like "lycanthrope" and "tyrannosaurs" would be spelled differently and with a different alphabet and would sound different... as would words like "wizard" or "cat" or "the." :-P
Tolkien did it, so why not Paizo ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien did it, so why not Paizo ;-)I 100% agree witht he use of the word "Lycanthrope". It should not be the word for all werecreatures; that's why we changed it from lycanthrope in 1st edition to werecreature in 2nd.
The only place we talk about lycanthropy in the book is in a single sidebar on page 291, and it's in the context of "Many scholars..." When you see us attribute in-world lore like this, the intent is to frame that lore in a potentially unreliable narrator. Some scholars are wrong, and those who apply the word "lycanthropy" to all werecreatures are not correct (as the sidebar notes) yet they still do so. In the same way we in this world use words like "Kleenex" for facial tissues, "band-aid" for adhesive bandages, or "D&D" for fantasy-based RPGs (couldn't resist that one! :P).
The whole point of the sidebar was to enable the use of the word "lycanthrope" in the game, if only as an often-misused term, so that readers who look back at other 1st edition products aren't potentially confused, and because the word itself is a really neat word and I didn't want it to get completely excised from the game.
As for using real-world words... look at it this way. When we publish books like this, we're translating the words to English (or Italian or Spanish or whatever) so all of us at Paizo can edit them and so all of you out there can read them. None of us can speak or read Taldane or any other made-up language from Golarion, so we don't publish in that language. If we did, words like "lycanthrope" and "tyrannosaurs" would be spelled differently and with a different alphabet and would sound different... as would words like "wizard" or "cat" or "the." :-P
Too late! Tolkien created the languages first, and then had to find a way to use them somehow :D
Creative Director
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because A) Tolkein was a trained expert in languages, and B) Because he only had to keep himself up to date on being an expert on his languages. He didn't have to make sure hundreds of other editors, freelancers, designers, and developers were as good as or better than him at it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because A) Tolkein was a trained expert in languages, and B) Because he only had to keep himself up to date on being an expert on his languages. He didn't have to make sure hundreds of other editors, freelancers, designers, and developers were as good as or better than him at it.
Are you trying to say thst you all refused to be Terry Pratchett level geniuses... Just not acceptable my man.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tolkien did it, so why not Paizo ;-)I 100% agree witht he use of the word "Lycanthrope". It should not be the word for all werecreatures; that's why we changed it from lycanthrope in 1st edition to werecreature in 2nd.
The only place we talk about lycanthropy in the book is in a single sidebar on page 291, and it's in the context of "Many scholars..." When you see us attribute in-world lore like this, the intent is to frame that lore in a potentially unreliable narrator. Some scholars are wrong, and those who apply the word "lycanthropy" to all werecreatures are not correct (as the sidebar notes) yet they still do so. In the same way we in this world use words like "Kleenex" for facial tissues, "band-aid" for adhesive bandages, or "D&D" for fantasy-based RPGs (couldn't resist that one! :P).
The whole point of the sidebar was to enable the use of the word "lycanthrope" in the game, if only as an often-misused term, so that readers who look back at other 1st edition products aren't potentially confused, and because the word itself is a really neat word and I didn't want it to get completely excised from the game.
As for using real-world words... look at it this way. When we publish books like this, we're translating the words to English (or Italian or Spanish or whatever) so all of us at Paizo can edit them and so all of you out there can read them. None of us can speak or read Taldane or any other made-up language from Golarion, so we don't publish in that language. If we did, words like "lycanthrope" and "tyrannosaurs" would be spelled differently and with a different alphabet and would sound different... as would words like "wizard" or "cat" or "the." :-P
Spiders Tolkein, who tried to avoid his day job in favor of writing and created over 10,000 conlangs per year, was an outlier and should not have been counted. ;-)
|
I'm just starting to go through my copy of B2 (which arrived yesterday, thanks!), and I noticed that for fetchlings and grippli, the book only includes stats for scouts, whereas B1 includes multiple "classes" (roles? types? is there a word for these subcategories?) of boggards, deep gnomes, drow, duergar, caligni, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, merfolk, and ogres. Is there any reason other than page limits that B2 doesn't include any more options for fetchlings and grippli?
|
|
I'm just starting to go through my copy of B2 (which arrived yesterday, thanks!), and I noticed that for fetchlings and grippli, the book only includes stats for scouts, whereas B1 includes multiple "classes" (roles? types? is there a word for these subcategories?) of boggards, deep gnomes, drow, duergar, caligni, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, merfolk, and ogres. Is there any reason other than page limits that B2 doesn't include any more options for fetchlings and grippli?
Bestiary 1 only has one example of several Ancestries/Heritages, too. It only has one Tiefling, one Aasimar, one Dhampir, one Changeling, and so on.
So this isn't really a departure from the first book. Presumably it is indeed due to space issues, but it's consistent with the first book and thus lacks a need for explanation, IMO.
|
|
I'm just starting to go through my copy of B2 (which arrived yesterday, thanks!), and I noticed that for fetchlings and grippli, the book only includes stats for scouts, whereas B1 includes multiple "classes" (roles? types? is there a word for these subcategories?) of boggards, deep gnomes, drow, duergar, caligni, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, merfolk, and ogres. Is there any reason other than page limits that B2 doesn't include any more options for fetchlings and grippli?Bestiary 1 only has one example of several Ancestries/Heritages, too. It only has one Tiefling, one Aasimar, one Dhampir, one Changeling, and so on.
So this isn't really a departure from the first book. Presumably it is indeed due to space issues, but it's consistent with the first book and thus lacks a need for explanation, IMO.
I guess that's fair. I was hoping that the answer would be that, similar to the entries you mentioned (each of which will be included as playable heritages in the APG), fetchling and grippli are planned for a book coming out in the next few months.
|
|
I guess that's fair. I was hoping that the answer would be that, similar to the entries you mentioned (each of which will be included as playable heritages in the APG), fetchling and grippli are planned for a book coming out in the next few months.
Well, I mean, the Lost Omens Ancestry Guide, featuring new Ancestries, has been confirmed as upcoming. Neither of those were listed specifically (they listed only Geniekin, Androids, and Kitsune), but it's certainly possible.
Fetchlings were mentioned on the stream as being in the Ancestry Guide. Grippli were not.
That said, Grippli do have a couple entries in an adventure path, so there's stat blocks out there if you need a couple more.
Fetchlings were mentioned on the stream as being in the Ancestry Guide. Grippli were not.
That said, Grippli do have a couple entries in an adventure path, so there's stat blocks out there if you need a couple more.
Also Fleshwarps and Sprites confirmed as well! They've also mention there's more, so who knows what else is included! (Hoping for Grippli, a Large size ancestry, and a construct-type ancestry (maybe Wyrwood)).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like if Gnoll is in the new ancestry guide.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like if Gnoll is in the new ancestry guide.
Sadly, those were de-confirmed, along with Anandi.
My FLGS dropped off my copy yesterday, and just getting into it. So far, I'm pretty darned pleased. I'm running Planescape via PF2e, and tons of entries are jumping out at me.
I'm also running Saltmarsh vis D&D 5e and see a bunch of entries that jump out at me for conversion use, as well as making me want to run Saltmarsh via PF2e and see how that plays out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that's fair. I was hoping that the answer would be that, similar to the entries you mentioned (each of which will be included as playable heritages in the APG), fetchling and grippli are planned for a book coming out in the next few months.I'm just starting to go through my copy of B2 (which arrived yesterday, thanks!), and I noticed that for fetchlings and grippli, the book only includes stats for scouts, whereas B1 includes multiple "classes" (roles? types? is there a word for these subcategories?) of boggards, deep gnomes, drow, duergar, caligni, gnolls, goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, lizardfolk, merfolk, and ogres. Is there any reason other than page limits that B2 doesn't include any more options for fetchlings and grippli?Bestiary 1 only has one example of several Ancestries/Heritages, too. It only has one Tiefling, one Aasimar, one Dhampir, one Changeling, and so on.
So this isn't really a departure from the first book. Presumably it is indeed due to space issues, but it's consistent with the first book and thus lacks a need for explanation, IMO.
No one has mentioned that the GMG has guidelines on how to take the NPCs in its chapter and customize them for other ancestries. Basically, they don't need to reprint a dozen different similar roles because you can just use the ones from there by adding the bits that are unique about the ancestries.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will continue to say that Bestiary Monsters have more "awesome" than any available PC option!!! Body Strike and Whirlwind Throw from Dropillu are so amazing! Please release these as high level Barbarian feats! My players always wanted to do this in PF1 and now we have a cool example of how it looks.
I just wanted to echo how much enjoyment PF2 is contributing to gaming!
Thank you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My FLGS dropped off my copy yesterday, and just getting into it. So far, I'm pretty darned pleased. I'm running Planescape via PF2e, and tons of entries are jumping out at me.
I'm also running Saltmarsh vis D&D 5e and see a bunch of entries that jump out at me for conversion use, as well as making me want to run Saltmarsh via PF2e and see how that plays out.
Out of curiosity, how well is Planescape in PF2 going? Anything that has helped you? My girlfriend is going to be running a PF2 Planescape game after her 5e game wraps up.