Two PRIMEVAL THULE Previews In One Day? Check Out The Beastman!

If the table of contents wasn't enough, here's a look at Primeval Thule's Beastman - well, two pages of it. You'll notice that the stat blocks aren't in the same format as WotC's (that's the case with most third party 5E products). (thanks again to Fabrício for the scoop)

​

 

[BrockBallingdark]

Love it! Can't wait!

 

[ExploderWizard]

This looks very promising. I might have to pick this up.

 

[Barantor]

That "Monsters not found in Thule" section makes me like this even more. This isn't FR and doesn't try to be a stew-of-many-parts type setting.

Glad I backed it, might spring for the actual book too and not just the PDF.

 

[nerfherder]

Yeah, I'm generally liking the look of this (and am glad I've backed the KS for the physical book), but I am a little confused by the nomenclature in this sample.

Why is a beastman warrior worse at fighting than a hunter - I would have expected it to be the other way round?
Most adult beastment are hunters - so thewarriors are the less common, less able fighters than the more numerous hunters?

Hopefully this is just a typo.

 

[Saplatt]

Frank Frazetta would approve.

 

[Nellisir]

Yeah, I'm generally liking the look of this (and am glad I've backed the KS for the physical book), but I am a little confused by the nomenclature in this sample.

Why is a beastman warrior worse at fighting than a hunter - I would have expected it to be the other way round?
Most adult beastment are hunters - so thewarriors are the less common, less able fighters than the more numerous hunters?

Hopefully this is just a typo.

It is a little weird, reading it. It's possible they mean that most adult beastmen are (able to hunt on their own) vs (being Hunters), but if so, it's awkward and unclear. Are beastmen warriors primarily youngsters and noncombatants? That doesn't make sense either.

I like the layout.

 

[Agamon]

It's a Hunter, not a hunter. Though everyone can hunt, they're the superior hunters. Sort of like how anyone can potentially walk up behind someone and kill them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're Assassins.

 

[Rich Baker]

Sasquatch Rich here . . .
[MENTION=18305]nerfherder[/MENTION]: I suppose it's a bit of legacy from the Pathfinder and 4e versions of the setting. In Pathfinder, most humanoid stats present a [monster] with 1 level of the warrior NPC class. So I kind of think of "warrior" as "warrior 1," the weakest version of the [monster] you fight. In 4e, lots of monsters used low-level Minions for the same purpose, and often just named them "[Monster] Warrior" too. So, put it down to me just hanging on to a few habits from older versions of the game.

Love your screen name, btw.


Rich Baker

 

[ChapolimX]

Sasquatch Rich here . . .

...
I suppose it's a bit of legacy from the Pathfinder and 4e versions of the setting. In Pathfinder, most humanoid stats present a [monster] with 1 level of the warrior NPC class. So I kind of think of "warrior" as "warrior 1," the weakest version of the [monster] you fight. In 4e, lots of monsters used low-level Minions for the same purpose, and often just named them "[Monster] Warrior" too. So, put it down to me just hanging on to a few habits from older versions of the game.
...

That was a very interesting explanation. Thanks for sharing Rich. I didn't bother with these names at first, but now given this explanation, I think you guys should take the time to review those monsters names across the book and see on a case-by-case basis if it makes sense to keep the warrior name. Since in 5e, mechanics wise, the name warrior doesn't mean anything, it should only be used when it fits the setting lore.

Thats just my two cents. I trust you guys will make the right judgement call.