Quality of the 1st Pathfinder Bestiary; compared to the 3.5 MM, & 5E MM?

Razor 007 · March 24, 2019, 02:53:10 AM

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?

S'mon · March 24, 2019, 03:21:19 AM

Quote from: Razor 007;1080500I 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 · 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 · 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.

Haffrung · 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 · 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 · March 24, 2019, 09:21:55 AM

Quote from: Razor 007;1080500I 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 · April 02, 2019, 06:49:53 AM

I think the 5e monster manual is really very excellent.

Delete_me · 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 · April 02, 2019, 01:53:09 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1081860I 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.

BoxCrayonTales · 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.