This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?  (Read 1267 times)

Razor 007

  • Razor 007
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1319
I own the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary, and the 5E MM; but not the 3.5 MM.

I actually own PF Bestiaries 1, 2, 4, & 6; and the Monster Codex.  The original AD&D MM.  The 5E MM, Volo's Guide, and Tome of Beasts. (And the 4E MM1, MM2, MM3, & Dark Sun Creature Catalog).

I really dig the Monster books, and I think the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary is an excellent Bestiary.  I don't read much love for it online, and I assume that is because the 3.5 MM must have been awesome itself?
I need you to roll a perception check.....

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2019, 03:21:19 AM »
Quote from: Razor 007;1080500
I really dig the Monster books, and I think the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary is an excellent Bestiary.  I don't read much love for it online, and I assume that is because the 3.5 MM must have been awesome itself?

I think the PF one is better really; the 3.5 MM presentation is very cramped. But PF was largely just copying the 3.5 one with better layout and (IMO) better art.

JeremyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1778
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #2 on: March 24, 2019, 03:30:49 AM »
The 3.5 was bland, but functional. The PF Bestiary basically presented the same stuff better.

Probably the best monster books were the AD&D 2e ones. Some of the art was bad, but it was almost like a text book on monsters. Dry, but lots of information.

Razor 007

  • Razor 007
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1319
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #3 on: March 24, 2019, 05:10:02 AM »
It's not that I want all of that crunch; but it has great artwork, and a lot of information.

It covers some bases that the D&D 5E MM doesn't.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 05:46:44 AM by Razor 007 »
I need you to roll a perception check.....

Haffrung

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5155
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2019, 07:42:44 AM »
I'm looking forward to the Bestiary for PF2. One of the design goals of the new system is to make the monsters even more mechanically distinct. One of the weaknesses of D&D 5E is that mechanically many monsters are just HP, AC, and damage. There really isn't any difference tactically between fighting an ogre, an orog, or an owlbear.
 

Robyo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • R
  • Posts: 154
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2019, 08:42:13 AM »
A lot of changes between the beasties in 3.5 MM and PF Bestiary. The differences are often subtle, sometimes nonsensical, but they're there. PF is slightly higher-powered than 3.5. The art in Bestiary is probably better overall.

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17096
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2019, 09:21:55 AM »
Quote from: Razor 007;1080500
I own the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary, and the 5E MM; but not the 3.5 MM.

I actually own PF Bestiaries 1, 2, 4, & 6; and the Monster Codex.  The original AD&D MM.  The 5E MM, Volo's Guide, and Tome of Beasts. (And the 4E MM1, MM2, MM3, & Dark Sun Creature Catalog).

I really dig the Monster books, and I think the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary is an excellent Bestiary.  I don't read much love for it online, and I assume that is because the 3.5 MM must have been awesome itself?

It was actually the 3e MM that put me off 3e D&D. The art was just awful and while the artist is good, they seem to have misuesed them. Some monsters barely look like what they are supposed to represent and it felt like every other one was suffering from severe anorexia.

RPGPundit

  • Administrator - The Final Boss of Internet Shitlords
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48855
    • http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #7 on: April 02, 2019, 06:49:53 AM »
I think the 5e monster manual is really very excellent.
LION & DRAGON: Medieval-Authentic OSR Roleplaying is available now! You only THINK you've played 'medieval fantasy' until you play L&D.


My Blog:  http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/
The most famous uruguayan gaming blog on the planet!

NEW!
Check out my short OSR supplements series; The RPGPundit Presents!


Dark Albion: The Rose War! The OSR fantasy setting of the history that inspired Shakespeare and Martin alike.
Also available in Variant Cover form!
Also, now with the CULTS OF CHAOS cult-generation sourcebook

ARROWS OF INDRA
Arrows of Indra: The Old-School Epic Indian RPG!
NOW AVAILABLE: AoI in print form

LORDS OF OLYMPUS
The new Diceless RPG of multiversal power, adventure and intrigue, now available.

Delete_me

  • .
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • D
  • Posts: 780
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #8 on: April 02, 2019, 08:51:10 AM »
I like the 5eMM as well. Only thing I wish it had was recommended terrain for the monsters, but that's a minor quibble.

Razor 007

  • Razor 007
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1319
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #9 on: April 02, 2019, 01:53:09 PM »
Quote from: RPGPundit;1081860
I think the 5e monster manual is really very excellent.



But they steered away from Spellcasting by Dragons?  5E stripped that away from Dragons.


I do really like the 5E MM though.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2019, 01:55:35 PM by Razor 007 »
I need you to roll a perception check.....

BoxCrayonTales

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • B
  • Posts: 3313
Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?
« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2019, 06:26:28 AM »
I'm not an expert, but I noticed some oddities in The PF bestiary. Several monsters are mentioned as not needing to eat but engaging in hunting for recreation. The oddity is that this is already mentioned in their creature type and is therefore redundant in their description.

In fact, generally anytime a creature is mentioned as not needing to eat/breathe/tire/whatever, it is either redundant or pointless. Like, why does a giant whale native to the plane of fire not need to eat? I personally like giving the plane ecology like fire krill or whatever.