Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104402Paizo's taxonomy doesn't have a monstrosity type, but it does have a beast type (separate from the animal type, dear God) that includes centaurs, chimeras, and winter wolves.

Well I think that goes back to 3e. In 3e natural animals are Animals and monstrous animals are Beasts.

Quote from: S'mon;1104458Well I think that goes back to 3e. In 3e natural animals are Animals and monstrous animals are Beasts.

That is not the case here. The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason), bulette, and griffon are animals.

According to the online SRD, the definition of beast is "A creature similar to an animal but with an Intelligence modifier of -3 or higher is usually a beast. Unlike an animal, a beast might be able to speak and reason."

IMO the distinction between animal and beast is arbitrary and unnecessary.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104468That is not the case here. The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason), bulette, and griffon are animals.

According to the online SRD, the definition of beast is "A creature similar to an animal but with an Intelligence modifier of -3 or higher is usually a beast. Unlike an animal, a beast might be able to speak and reason."

IMO the distinction between animal and beast is arbitrary and unnecessary.

3.5 basically agreed.  

Originally Animals were things that existed in the Real World, like, basically in their current form today.  More powerful animals that no longer exist were Beasts (like Dinousaurs) as well as non-overtly magical creatures that never existed (like Owlbears).  If it was intelligent or had spells/magical abilities, instead of beasts they were Magical Beasts (like Unicorns).

It basically meant that a Druid had a chance to use some spells on a Dire Bear, but not a Tyrannosaur.  

In 3.5 Dinosaurs and Rocs became Animals; Owlbears became Magical Beasts.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;11044903.5 basically agreed.  

Originally Animals were things that existed in the Real World, like, basically in their current form today.  More powerful animals that no longer exist were Beasts (like Dinousaurs) as well as non-overtly magical creatures that never existed (like Owlbears).  If it was intelligent or had spells/magical abilities, instead of beasts they were Magical Beasts (like Unicorns).

It basically meant that a Druid had a chance to use some spells on a Dire Bear, but not a Tyrannosaur.  

In 3.5 Dinosaurs and Rocs became Animals; Owlbears became Magical Beasts.

I thought we were talking about Pathfinder? And 5e?

In any case, I still think all those distinctions are bunk. Just call them all beasts. Don't make needless (and inconsistent) distinctions for intelligence or magical.

If your taxonomy (which is by game rules the laws of physics) places centaurs and chimeras and winter wolves in the same category, then your taxonomy is bad.

Pathfinder Core is down to #26 in Fantasy Gaming Products (#3090 in All Books). It had always been in the top 20 before, and is now out of the top 25.

The Beastiary for PF2 is #12,859 in All Books. For a reference point that's right near Starfinder RPG: Alien Archive 3 at #13,676, and below all WOTC D&D products (all the adventures, etc.).

D&D 5e Descent into Avernus, WOTC's newest D&D adventure book in pre-release, is at #57 in All Books. The Essentials kit is #15 in all books. PHB is #74.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104468The ankheg (named akhrav for some reason)

Probably because Ankheg is either not an Open License monster or so that Paizo can produce Akhrav miniatures without having to worry if the Open License covers miniatures or not.

I find it annoying when I realise I have had a mini for a D&D critter for years and never noticed because it's a Paizo mini and they renamed the damn monster! Eg I only just realised my 'Death Demon' mini is actually a Nabassu!

Quote from: S'mon;1104569I find it annoying when I realise I have had a mini for a D&D critter for years and never noticed because it's a Paizo mini and they renamed the damn monster! Eg I only just realised my 'Death Demon' mini is actually a Nabassu!

I think the additions of English names for the demons and whatever is an improvement. I could never remember those weird gibberish names.

I know I was hard on Paizo, but to be honest in some of the basics their taxonomy system is better than 5e. For example, PF2 doesn't force monsters to only have one type/trait: a monster has as many as fits its concept. The trait bloat is definitely a problem but that's always been the case even in standard D&D.

There are still tons of problems that others have expounded upon at length, but there are genuine improvements scattered here and there. Like discarding the remnants of 3e's often bizarre terminology in favor of something more sensible, like renaming "outsiders" to "immortals."

Other rules leave me shaking my head, like elementals not needing to breathe. This means that air and fire elementals can survive just fine in vacuum, underwater, smothered by sand, etc. Here's an idea: maybe it would make more sense for an element trait to confer immunity to damage from that element including environmental damage like asphyxiation or temperature extremes. That way the air, fire, and earth elementals can still drown in water, but not their native element.

I really shouldn't have to rule zero things that seem like they should be common sense.

FantasyCraft is still pretty much better designed than either PF2 or 5e. It is much easier to build and re-scale monsters in the FC rules. And FC lets you play literal dragons (not dragon humanoids, but horse-sized dragons with wings and four legs) right out of the box.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1104620FantasyCraft is still pretty much better designed than either PF2 or 5e. It is much easier to build and re-scale monsters in the FC rules. And FC lets you play literal dragons (not dragon humanoids, but horse-sized dragons with wings and four legs) right out of the box.

FantasyCraft is kick-ass. I love the way the classes and races are built and how well the melee classes scale, plus the huge variety of traits and doodads available to pick from that are actually balanced as well as interesting. Plus the really interesting treasure + holdings system. Easily my favorite D20 variant.

Edit: Oh, and the fantastic art!

Some people keep saying, "once PF 2E has as many options as PF 1E does"; but the way the sales numbers look now, I don't see 6 Bestiaries happening.  I don't think the sales numbers for 2E will support the same massive amount of hardback releases.

Quote from: Razor 007;1104805Some people keep saying, "once PF 2E has as many options as PF 1E does"; but the way the sales numbers look now, I don't see 6 Bestiaries happening.  I don't think the sales numbers for 2E will support the same massive amount of hardback releases.

Some people also say "Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

Which just proves that people say a lot of stuff.

Quote from: Shasarak;1104811Some people also say "Strength should always matter in RPGs, and Males are stronger on average."

Which just proves that people say a lot of stuff.

Yes.

Regarding the bestiaries...

I noticed that the first bestiary rules include new "type traits" for astral and ethereal creatures (analogous to D&D4e's origins mechanic), but not for creatures from the energy planes, shadow plane, or the other obscure planes. Are those monsters going to be assigned existing type traits or will new type traits be introduced as they appear?