Advanced Bestiary vs Beast Builder

[Andre]

I like the Deluxe Book of Templates. Quite a bit of goodness therein.

Funny you should mention that. The author (Ian Johnston) is the guy who put together the list of creature abilities I referred to above. He'd intended to publish a product similar to BB, but Expeditious Retreat beat him to it. I was testing the material, which is when I created the modified creatures I listed.

 

[Crothian]

The old Monsters Handbook from Fantasy Flight games is good. The Deluxe Book of Templates is good. But there are new things coming out and I haven't seen as much buzz on these as I would like.

Deluxe Book of Templates is great, I actually like it better then Advanced Beastiary; and I really like Advanced Beastiary. Monster Handbook was great in 3.0 but with some monster types really getting revamped in 3.5 it made that book less then useful, though I still pull it down and use it every now and then. I think Beast Builder is a more complete and updated version of Monster Handbook in a way, and I can take some of the very cool ideas from Monsters Handbook and use Beast Builder to make them 3.5 ready.

 

[Garnfellow]

[Note: I've only seen the demo of Beast Builder]

One thing to consider with BB is the list of special qualities in the back. Using nothing but that list, I'll bet you can quickly modify virtually any creature in minutes. I've done the same myself using an incomplete list compiled by a friend. A few examples:

The list of special abilities is very, very nice -- but it's of somewhat limited value because BB doesn't provide quantified guidelines to help adjust Challenge Ratings based on those abilities. And without CR adjustments it's hard to quickly modify monsters using the BB ability list.

I realize that it's difficult to quantify special abilities in terms of simple CR adjustments, but that exactly why including suggested adjustments would have been so useful. FFG's Monster's Handbook offered up a simple system that works pretty well. And Bad Axe Game's more comprehensive system for creature design also could (should ?) have been used. Either system would have made the Beast Builder -- already an excellent book on new monster design -- even better.

 

[Crothian]

And Bad Axe Game's more comprehensive system for creature design also could (should ?) have been used. Either system would have made the Beast Builder -- already an excellent book on new monster design -- even better.

I think it was supposed to have been used or something like that. I recall when Beast Builder came out there was talk about ta link between that and Bad Axe Games but something ....I just don't know the full story....

edit: used...that would be a used.....my bad....I'm new.....

 

[Garnfellow]

I think it was supposed to have been sued or something like that. I recall when Beast Builder came out there was talk about ta link between that and Bad Axe Games but something ....I just don't know the full story....

That sounds nutty and sad. It would explain such a curious omission, though.

 

[BryonD]

I think "sued" is an unfortunate typo for "used".

Right????

 

[jgbrowning]

I think "sued" is an unfortunate typo for "used".

Right????

Yep. Ben at Bad Axe and I get along nicely and there was nothing concerning suing. It was just a typo for "used".

I was going to include the stuff from GT but it would have placed me in a strange printing situation where I'd be "off pages" and have to come up with another 8-16 (I think it is 16 with this printer) pages or face a printing charge for being off. Besides that however, I realized that the GT version only covers the most common SA/SQs and I was going to be adding another 550+ to the list. I don't think anything I could have done would have served more than a base guess as to CR adjustments. Knowing our readers it would have been the 5% of the book that would have generated the most questions and I would have only a "I thought it seemed right" response to most (if not all) of them— I didn't think that would cut it. Given that combination, I decided to omit the CR estimator and simply stress playtesting as the only way to get accurate CRs. Basically it would have cost me more, caused more reader issues, and still have been inaccurate because of the giant scope of BB.

joe b.

 

[BSF]

Hey Joe, since you are in the thread, why not post your own thoughts?

I acknowledge that your viewpoint is somewhat skewed.

Though I can also see where you, as the publisher, wouldn't want to even try to get into comparisons. I respect that. But what about your target audience? Where were you aiming with the book?

 

[Garnfellow]

Yep. Ben at Bad Axe and I get along nicely and there was nothing concerning suing. It was just a typo for "used".

Glad to hear it!

I decided to omit the CR estimator and simply stress playtesting as the only way to get accurate CRs. Basically it would have cost me more, caused more reader issues, and still have been inaccurate because of the giant scope of BB.

Yeah, I certainly can understand why you wouldn't want to go there. For the record, I think the BB "as is" is easily an A-/B+ book -- adding quantitative CR information would have "only" pushed the grade to A++. Still a great buy in either case.

 

[Desdichado]

Obviously it would be best to get both of these fine books. Both have reviews.
Advanced Bestiary
Beast Builder

But let's assume for a moment that you can only afford to purchase one of these ENnie nominated products. Based on reviews, it looks like Advanced Bestiary would be more applicable if you only want to change stock monsters. Beast Builder would be a better choice if you want ot construct a monster from whole cloth.

How true is this assumption? Which book would be best for which need?

Again, if you are a fan, sell me on the book.

Do you have a lot of monster books/sources already? Seems that Advanced Bestiary gets a lot of synergy, if you'll pardon the use of a corporate buzzword, from folks that already have a lot of monsters in their collections.