Pathfinder 2E PF2e Bestiary: Let's Read and Review!

[dave2008]

@Aldarc and @CapnZapp , I updated the OP to try to clarify my rankings. Does that help at all?

PS, if there is a particular review you disagree with, I will definitely listen and I don't mind changing things up. Nothing is set in stone

 

[Campbell]

There actually is a list of creatures by type. It precedes creatures by level in the appendix.

 

[dave2008]

There actually is a list of creatures by type. It precedes creatures by level in the appendix.

Thanks I missed that on my quick skim. I think I missed it because I was expecting something like the creatures be level table with page numbers. Instead it is just a paragraph for each type with the monsters crammed in. Not the most useful presentation, but it is there!

PS. I corrected the OP - thank you!

 

[CapnZapp]

Your decision to write humongous posts with scores of spoiler tags make it practically impossible to reply with quote, especially on mobile.

About the skum and other critters you seem not to understand why there are "inferior" attack modes.

The skum is provided with a trident attack. I presume monsters prefer to use the equipment they're given.

Unlike 5E disarm is a real thing in PF2, so there is also an unarmed option.

Finally, there's an important distinction hidden behind "agile" attacks. Agile reduces the multi attack penalty from -5 -10 to -4 -8.

This means that my reading of the Skum stat block is crucially different than yours:

The Skum will by default make one Trident attack followed by two claw attacks (unless, of course, it finds something better to do with its actions). An unarmed Skum will instead make one fangs attack again followed by two claw attacks. It will avoid making more than one trident or fangs attack even if it technically could make three.

This means the statement theres no need for any attack but the fangs is inaccurate.


There are a lot of rather subtle rules interactions like that. I probably am missing a couple myself, especially for monsters of higher level, with more special abilities. I really think you are making your job much more difficult by embarking on this project already now, as opposed to in a few months when you have presumably had the chance to really test the game and learn its intricacies.

 

[Morrus]

Thanks I missed that on my quick skim. I think I missed it because I was expecting something like the creatures be level table with page numbers. Instead it is just a paragraph for each type with the monsters crammed in. Not the most useful presentation, but it is there!

PS. I corrected the OP - thank you!

There's also a big table with the creatures in ascending level order, with page numbers. Pages 350-357. At the back, last thing in the book (other than the full page ads for upcoming books).

 

[CapnZapp]

@Aldarc and @CapnZapp , I updated the OP to try to clarify my rankings. Does that help at all?

Yes, a bit. A "1" rating now comes across as much less of a disappointment.

Still think a scale such as 1-4 is more informative to the reader since you can't just default to a safe non-committal average. Being forced to choose below average (1 or 2) and above average (3 or 4) you must commit yourself to an actual opinion, which is the only reason to read the thread

Compare film review sites with the letter grades, where the difference between a B and a C means the reviewer must commit to choosing between "the movie was good but had its flaws" and "the movie was bad but had bright spots"

 

[dave2008]

There's also a big table with the creatures in ascending level order, with page numbers. Pages 350-357. At the back, last thing in the book (other than the full page ads for upcoming books).

Yes, that is what I was referring to when I expected the creatures by type to look like the creatures by level (at least that is what I intended to say).

 

[dave2008]

Your decision to write humongous posts with scores of spoiler tags make it practically impossible to reply with quote, especially on mobile.

About the skum and other critters you seem not to understand why there are "inferior" attack modes.

The skum is provided with a trident attack. I presume monsters prefer to use the equipment they're given.

Unlike 5E disarm is a real thing in PF2, so there is also an unarmed option.

Finally, there's an important distinction hidden behind "agile" attacks. Agile reduces the multi attack penalty from -5 -10 to -4 -8.

This means that my reading of the Skum stat block is crucially different than yours:

The Skum will by default make one Trident attack followed by two claw attacks (unless, of course, it finds something better to do with its actions). An unarmed Skum will instead make one fangs attack again followed by two claw attacks. It will avoid making more than one trident or fangs attack even if it technically could make three.

This means the statement theres no need for any attack but the fangs is inaccurate.


There are a lot of rather subtle rules interactions like that. I probably am missing a couple myself, especially for monsters of higher level, with more special abilities. I really think you are making your job much more difficult by embarking on this project already now, as opposed to in a few months when you have presumably had the chance to really test the game and learn its intricacies.

Thanks for the clarification - that does make more sense. Like I said I like that they have it, but you are correct that I missed the interaction with the agile. I will go back through the As and see if I need to makes some adjustments before I head on to the Bs. Thank you again for the comment!

 

[dave2008]

Your decision to write humongous posts with scores of spoiler tags make it practically impossible to reply with quote, especially on mobile.

Well the other choice was a huge wall of text. That, IMO, was worse.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, a bit. A "1" rating now comes across as much less of a disappointment.

Still think a scale such as 1-4 is more informative to the reader since you can't just default to a safe non-committal average. Being forced to choose below average (1 or 2) and above average (3 or 4) you must commit yourself to an actual opinion, which is the only reason to read the thread

Compare film review sites with the letter grades, where the difference between a B and a C means the reviewer must commit to choosing between "the movie was good but had its flaws" and "the movie was bad but had bright spots"

I guess I disagree. If I am forced to commit to a false opinion I don't see how that would be more informative to the reader. There is a truth and a place for Average, IMO.

Although, the total scale is 0-6. So there is more clarity on how I feel about the total monster entry I guess.