Pathfinder 1E [Pathfinder]Bestiary Preview

[Sammael]

Can't open.

You need to NOT use the default windows unzipper. Use 7zip or a similar free solution and it'll work.

As a side note, I think the icons are pointless - too tiny and busy to actually see anything. Plus, they disrupt the overall statblock layout. Hopefully, there's enough time to actually change them before print.

To be constructive:

Aberration - too cramped to be easily recognizable as a tentacle. I suggest a stylized eyestalk instead.

Animal - the pawprint is barely recognizable.

Construct - perspective on the gear is pointless. Make it flat.

Dragon - can't really suggest anything, but I don't like it.

Fey - Leave just the gossamer wings.

Humanoid - OK.

Magical Beasts - I have no idea what that's supposed to be. I suggest an unicorn head profile instead.

Monstrous humanoid - OK.

Ooze - the entire icon should be a blot instead.

Outsider - go for the more classical portal look.

Plant - A pine tree.

Undead - the skull should be more stylized, otherwise OK.

Vermin - OK.

Desert - Camel on a dune, pyramids, whatever. The current dunes are not recognizable enough.

Forest/jungle - drop the roots from the tree.

Hill - OK, I guess. Could be better.

Mountain - OK.

Plain - shouldn't this be "plains?" Otherwise OK.

Ruins - just a single ruined tower would do.

Sky - improve the cloud.

Swamp - OK.

Undeground - OK.

Urban - OK.

Water - improve the wave.

If I may make another suggestion - hire BRIAN MENZE to do the icon art. I think he currently works for Obsidian Entertainment. Check out some of his famous IWD2 icons here: http://www.planetbaldursgate.com/iwd2/media/conceptart/

 

[Primal]

Having icons for each monster is pretty cool. It will take a while for me to get used to it, but it should be a good reference tool eventually.

I was hoping for more flavor text per monster, but I guess that would be impossible without drastically reducing the number of creatures in the book.

And the layout and the art are absolutely AMAZING; in fact, this is the best looking monster book I've yet seen.

What I also loved was the variant Skeletons and Zombie, and how elegantly some abilities now work (such as 1D6 fire damage and making you vulnerable to fire). And the new CR/XP system works really well too! Bravo!

Also, the quick templates also seemed like a great idea that are easy to pull off in a spur of moment!

I'm almost tempted to run some sort of introductory session with these monsters... as a prelude, or even as a separate stand-alone "test drive" session.

 

[avin]

AWESOME job.

My two 4E MMs are absolute crap compared to it. Will probably buy one. Design doesn't looks like some cheap pulp book as 4E books.

 

[freyar]

Looks really nice, I have to say. I do hope that there are more substantial advancement rules other than quick templates, but I also like the template option for easy CR +1 boosts to monsters.

 

[Spatula]

Umm this critter is not in the preview ya know

Well, after finally getting the personalizer to work, I downloaded the new preview and... surprise, there are zero monsters in it that have significant spellcasting abilities. But from the intro section on spell-like abilities, it doesn't appear like they've fixed anything from the 3.5e statblocks (it gives an example of burning hands with the DC but not vs what, and no damage info).

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Well, after finally getting the personalizer to work, I downloaded the new preview and... surprise, there are zero monsters in it that have significant spellcasting abilities. But from the intro section on spell-like abilities, it doesn't appear like they've fixed anything from the 3.5e statblocks (it gives an example of burning hands with the DC but not vs what, and no damage info).

Man if you did not like that in 3.5 good chance you will not like pathfinder. And I am a bit confused on what problem you are seeing. I myself do not want all spells worked into the stats as you need 2 sets then. Way to much page count. Many times beast does not have the time to cast all the buff spells. And once they get disspelled your back to what the books says.

I guess for me is this has never been an issue, but YMMV

 

[Sammael]

It's infinitely more practical to include spell stats (however brief) in the monster block. I've been doing that for years with 3.5 and I'm making sure that all creatures I convert to my own 3.75 rules include them. I can understand the logic behind not including them in the Bestiary (if it ends up that way), but I won't like it.

 

[jreyst]

As an FYI- You can see all monsters from both the Bonus Bestiary and Preview Bestiary at http://www.d20pfsrd.com/Home/bestiary. Just click on the monster names under the appropriate section. You do not need to download a PDF or anything but as this is just the open content portions of the monsters it does not include pictures or flavor text.

 

[Spatula]

And I am a bit confused on what problem you are seeing.

3.0 stat blocks told you spell DCs were X + spell level for a monster with SLAs. Which wasn't very helpful if you didn't know off the top of your head what level each spell was, so you had to look the spells up.

In 3.5, they changed that to include the DC for each spell that allowed a save. This was a good thing. You still have to look up what the save does, as well as level-based effects (damage, scaling buffs, etc.), but it was a start. When I re-typed monster stats for my own use, I would include that information because it saved me from having to look up spells and figure out its details in the middle of a fight. Which is to say, like adding in the DCs, the information is a good thing that helps out DMs.

For example: burning hands (5d4 dmg, DC 16 half), protection from energy (absorb 84 dmg)

 

[jreyst]

An interesting aside... for those of us who build/maintain SRD sites, and whom are limited to only open content, art is typically not considered open content and is therefore prohibited. I have not checked with Paizo on whether or not the small icons that indicate environment etc are open or not, but I suspect they will *not* be open content. An interesting addition they provide to their content that makes things perhaps unintentionally harder for SRD maintainers. I'll have to check on this.