Pathfinder 1E Bestiary 4 or do we really need another monster book?

[Matthias]

To answer the original question: YES!

Let's try an experiment: Let's replace the word "monster" with some other words and see if a similar sentiment makes any sense.

We already have plenty enough monsters. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough non-player characters. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough spells. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough magic items. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough campaign settings. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough adventure modules. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

We already have plenty enough fantasy fiction. Why would anyone want more than what's already out there?

 

[Nightfall]

Actually I think it's more likely we'll see a Bestiary from Pazio every two years instead of one a year. Mostly because a) it allows them time to work on other stuff and b) They can always do more stuff in hardcover that isn't classes, monsters or feats.

 

[Shemeska]

IMHO the real question is are these monster compatible with the Pathfinder Core book characters? Have player power levels remain consistent over the years even when making efficient use of supplements or has power creep gotten so bad that Today's CR8 was 2010's CR12 as it happened in 3.5's later monster manuals?

And considering that Paizo GIVES their material away for free in the PRD, I won't begrudge them a new bestiary every year. Game material in HTML $0, Electronic Art (PDF) $10, Fancy Hardcover $40.

A chunk of the monsters are taken from the bestiary section in APs written since the last hardcover came out, and since the APs assume a certain balance for characters using the core books, I think you're generally safe. Obviously some monsters might have math that makes them beasts compared to what your players might have, but that's the case with any monster's creation assumptions versus the random element of what a given group of PCs will have.

And to comment on the niche comment above, subsequent PF Bestiaries also take those AP created monsters and compile them in one source. So you'll have some groups of monsters following a specific theme rather than being completely random which I think removes some of the niche of a niche of a random niche that we saw (or I at least perceived) in 3.5's MMIV and MMV.

 

[brvheart]

I am sure Paizo will sell plenty of them from the sentiment here, but for me personally I have enough for now. As for the rest, I generally take NPC's from the settings I have or make them myself, think we have enough spells, and after buying four campaign settings over the last year and two more on the way for next year I am set for awhile. I also have quite a few that are on the shelf I can go back to. Ditto on magic items and I don't read much fantasy fiction these days. Most of my reading is non-fiction of late. Read 25 books on Custer and the Indian Wars last year. Could probably make a game out of that!
While I am glad to see new stuff and the hobby survive, it just seems to me that it gets to a saturation point after awhile. Is pathfinder played out? No, I agree with Morrus it has a few maybe five or more years left, but it is starting to have problems where the core is done. Now what?

 

[Nightfall]

Is pathfinder played out? No, I agree with Morrus it has a few maybe five or more years left, but it is starting to have problems where the core is done. Now what?

Now we conquer reality!

 

[MerricB]

IMHO the real question is are these monster compatible with the Pathfinder Core book characters? Have player power levels remain consistent over the years even when making efficient use of supplements or has power creep gotten so bad that Today's CR8 was 2010's CR12 as it happened in 3.5's later monster manuals?

I've got a sneaking suspicion that there's a couple of factors in play for the relative power levels.

The first is that the original release of 3E didn't really understand the power levels of PCs at higher levels, so the higher level CRs were out-of-whack, which needed to be corrected in later monster manuals.

The second is that Monster Manual 3 was a complete outlier when it came to power levels. I was recently comparing monsters in it to both earlier and later MMs, and it was at a significantly different power level than what came before and later. So, it distorts the comparison massively.

Power creep is always a factor, however. I, by no means, assume Pathfinder is immune to it.

The trick is that PF actually have guidelines as to how tough a monster should be at various CRs, something that 3E notably lacked and explains a lot of the mistakes made in MM3. That CRs are often greatly misleading (especially when applied to NPCs) is another matter.

Cheers!

 

[Nightfall]

The second is that Monster Manual 3 was a complete outlier when it came to power levels.

Yeah MM 3 was pretty heavy power creep/out of whack CRs.

 

[frankthedm]

MM4 and MM5 CRs seemed more of an issue than MM3's.

 

[delericho]

Yep, the CRs in MM 4, MM 5, and the Eberron Core Rulebook all show significant power-creep relative to MM 1. We got a major shock the first time I used one of those monsters against a core-only bunch of PCs.

A big part of the issue is that the core of 3.5e was written on the assumption that PCs wouldn't be optimised, that they would mostly be single-class, and that they would find items using the DMG's random treasure tables, rather than buying them (or making them in any numbers). Obviously, those assumptions were very quickly shown to be faulty!

Another part of the problem was that big bits of 3e just aren't as robust as they seem. Basically, anything higher than about 10th level, anything to do with item creation (and, by extension, purchase), anything to do with monster-as-PC (or shapeshifting), and the multiclass system are all problematic. I get the impression that while the game as a whole was massively playtested, that effort was massively concentrated on some areas, with others only getting a minimum of attention.

 

[delericho]

As for the OP's question: No, we don't really need another monster book. We only ever needed one, and that wasn't even Pathfinder - given the AD&D 1st Edition PHB, DMG, and MM it's entirely possible to play forever and you'll probably never exhaust every mechanical possibility (and, of course, will never exhaust every story possibility).

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't publish it. Some people may want it because it compiles lots of monsters from APs (either because they have the APs but want the monsters in a single place, or because they skipped the APs but want the monsters). Some people will want the additional Mythic monsters. Some people may have skipped B2 and B3 due to taste, but want more monsters than are in B1. Some people may just want more monsters.

Paizo clearly think there's sufficient demand to produce the book. Sales will show whether they're right or not - and then we'll either see Bestiary 5 next year, or we won't. And for us, the question is: do I want more monsters? If so, get the book. If not, don't bother. Either way, I'm sure Paizo will survive.