Monster Core Preview: Monsters Resurrected!

Will the battle cards be remastered as well?

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.
I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

OOoooh! Nice!
I love their new abilities, this is so much more interesting than mummy rot.
I spot that they have more HP and deal more damage though... xD

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.

I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

When they announced the remaster, I remember in the stream that Erik Mona said it was possible, but nothing have been announced about concrete plans.

So... Does almost guaranteed Restrained from +3..+4 monsters with Athletics exist in the end?

This sounds promising!

Chris Esser 556 wrote:

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.

I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

When they announced the remaster, I remember in the stream that Erik Mona said it was possible, but nothing have been announced about concrete plans.

I expect that there will eventually be more Monster books. Bestiary 4, 5, 6, 7, ...

What isn't certain is if Bestiary 2 and 3 will be completely updated and reprinted or just given an errata pass to make it match the Remastered terminology better.

The mummy's Choking Pain ability is really cool! Like, I love it when monster attacks double as story moments. At the end of the day, all that matters is that I can use this in my Age of Worms campaign, so it's good design.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new version of the rakshasa! Their old lore was something I really enjoyed for its own reasons, but it was definitely a weird case of telephone for how it got there. Curious if "The Rakshasa" as a harrow card still fits the theme!

Elfteiroh wrote:

Chris Esser 556 wrote:

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.

I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

When they announced the remaster, I remember in the stream that Erik Mona said it was possible, but nothing have been announced about concrete plans.

I expect that there will eventually be more Monster books. Bestiary 4, 5, 6, 7, ...

What isn't certain is if Bestiary 2 and 3 will be completely updated and reprinted or just given an errata pass to make it match the Remastered terminology better.

Nah, if we get more "generic" monster book, it will be Monster Core 2, maaaaaybe a Monster Core 3. And yeah, I thought they could get away with just errata for B2 and B3, BUT if they are bringing some monsters from these books to this one, that makes it easier to do new Monster Core books instead of a reprint, caus ethey not only need to get replacements for the OGL stuff, but also the ones moved to the first book.

The rest will most likely continue being themed books for the time being. Seems to have worked very well between Book of the Dead, Rage of Elements, and the coming Howl of the Wild (I assume it will have a bunch of creatures in it, might be closer to Dark Archive).
It could also be argued that Dark Archive had a bunch of stuff to customize NPCs and other creatures, but there wasn't any stat blocks in it outside of the adventure, so not really a monster book.

I'm so pleased about the "Match the Mythology" point! Everything being just based on pop culture stuff and not being any accurate to the actual sources has always been such a pet peeve of mine so I'm so so so excited to see this going forward!

Sounds like Sedacthy are the next niche Ancestry for me to champion...

I'm definitely looking forward to Rakshasas that are sometimes moral beings, most likely still haughty, hungry, and aggressive but generally helpful... like Vibhishana and Kumbhakarna in the Ramayana!

Well, there goes any lingering fear I might have had that aeons were just a bit too niche to include in the Monster Core. Meanwhile so excited about that Match the Mythology category, and maybe what this means for the other giants not mentioned in the blog. I hadn't given much thought to oni but now they're all I can think about. This might be particularly relevant soon for me because one of my players just came to me with an oni-descended nephilim ronin for my eventual future Season of Ghosts campaign.

Seeing that there's going to be a focus to have monsters match closer to the actual folklore they originate rather than going with the pop culture takes on them has me really excited. Pathfinder already did pretty alright with that, but there was always a few I was kind of disappointed with. The ones mentioned are already a great start, but I'm looking forward to seeing what else gets a makeover!

"Match the Mythology"
Does this mean that medusa will be correctly renamed to gorgon? That'd be nice.

Well, there goes any lingering fear I might have had that aeons were just a bit too niche to include in the Monster Core. Meanwhile so excited about that Match the Mythology category, and maybe what this means for the other giants not mentioned in the blog. I hadn't given much thought to oni but now they're all I can think about. This might be particularly relevant soon for me because one of my players just came to me with an oni-descended nephilim ronin for my eventual future Season of Ghosts campaign.

I'm also really glad aeons made it in. I'm looking forward to the new devils, too; I'm a sucker for lawfully-inclined outsiders, I guess.

I'm also looking forward to the lore revamping. The dragon turtle always stuck out to me as odd; I understood they were generally helpful, or at least helpful-ish?

I really appreciate the transparency re: design goals and book content. Looking forward to the pocket edition, which will inevitably come with me everywhere.

I hope the team took a look at some of the more insane monsters too! The grim reaper family, barbazu, balor, etc. could use a nerf. Also excited to see new golems!

I hope the team took a look at some of the more insane monsters too! The grim reaper family, barbazu, balor, etc. could use a nerf. Also excited to see new golems!

I'm pretty sure they said they are making new demons/devils to replce the old "OGL only" ones like those. Like I expect to still see succubus, but balor and barbazu specifically are OGL originals.

The naga look pretty unsettling, I love it. They'd make for an interesting wildcard npc.

sedacthy marauders, sargassum heaps, Octopus hags, and marsh giants... This is looking like a good spread for a maritime adventure.

While I understand that there might be no further “generic Bestiaries”, I’d still prefer a dedicated monster/creature book than the piecemeal “and also has monsters” apporach as seen in books like Dark Archive. I get that for Paizo stans and fans of occultism/supernatural, the theme of DA was fantastic and the little otherwise unrelated chapters were fun. For me, DA was 50 pages for two classes and the rest filler. One shots I’ll never use. Creature mods I could find online. Specific gear I’ll likely never need. It felt like the theme was too specific for me, and thus was made to encompass gear, creatures, adventures and lore I didn’t appreciate, as well as the two new classes I completely adore.

Part of this is coming from the experience of reading the work as a book - I like the physical versions of the books, and bought DA in print. It was incredibly deflating to find that after the classes the book meandered into what felt like, again, apologies, filler. I’m sure other consumers loved it and prefer that “wrap the theme in allsorts” approach. I hate it.

I get that this is a new direction, and I fully applaud Paizo for mixing things up and driving tangential themes to broaden the scope of the “DnD” genre. I guess I just don’t like the end result. So I don’t really want to find sprinklings of thematic monsters in each themed book. I prefer a Bestiary, a wholistic book of creatures weird and wonderful. I don’t find the themed books hold together enough in that wholistic manner. I dunno, I can’t quite put my finger on it - if I were totally an Archives of Nethys peep it wouldn’t matter a jot, but I’m not - so while I absolutely rely on AoN for 98% of rules checking and gameplay, I mostly learn the rules from the paper. And in print, the themed releases feel hollow and forced.

Could you make these forum postings easy to also view on a smart phone?

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

The mummy statblock lists bleed immunity!

Will there be pawns?

Oh, I don't know if this has been confirmed already before now, but I just noticed that the mummy is officially tagged as an unholy creature. I recall there was quite a lot of questioning whether and how undead would interact with the holy/unholy traits. Here lies evidence that undead are inherently unholy creatures, which raises many fascinating questions for how far this reaches across the creature type. Right now, I have every expectation that undead will be either all or mostly unholy with rare exceptions, not unlike fiends.

Oh, I don't know if this has been confirmed already before now, but I just noticed that the mummy is officially tagged as an unholy creature. I recall there was quite a lot of questioning whether and how undead would interact with the holy/unholy traits. Here lies evidence that undead are inherently unholy creatures, which raises many fascinating questions for how far this reaches across the creature type. Right now, I have every expectation that undead will be either all or mostly unholy with rare exceptions, not unlike fiends.

I see it a bit differently. Having both Undead and Unholy on the same creature means that Undead does not necessarily imply Unholy.

Which is true to the setting actually.

I hope the Undead trait was revised to better work with undead PC options.

I'm really excited to see more creatures get new lore and abilities based on the original sources. Yet another reason Paizo is awesome with how much they want to put effort into respecting the origins more.

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

You're right. I often forget that.

I love the art for the vordine devil, smaranava nage, caldera oni and sedacthy marauder. The mummy guardian looks awesome as well.

Not a fan of the mummy guardian's abilities - while I feel they are super visual, narratively cool abilities the Blighted Consumption feels too situational, as does the Choking Pain. I'd prefer to see them also have something a bit more broadly applicable, and possibly related to them actually being a Guardian. As it is, it feels more like an old 4e "type" than a thematic or narrative niche.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Oh, I don't know if this has been confirmed already before now, but I just noticed that the mummy is officially tagged as an unholy creature. I recall there was quite a lot of questioning whether and how undead would interact with the holy/unholy traits. Here lies evidence that undead are inherently unholy creatures, which raises many fascinating questions for how far this reaches across the creature type. Right now, I have every expectation that undead will be either all or mostly unholy with rare exceptions, not unlike fiends.

I see it a bit differently. Having both Undead and Unholy on the same creature means that Undead does not necessarily imply Unholy.

That is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I can agree. It feels like it would be a strange choice not to give an unholy creature the unholy trait even it was unholy by default of its creature type. For example, I expect we will find fiends will have both the fiend and unholy traits (if we have already seen a remastered fiend, feel free to correct me).

It's not impossible that mummy guardians specifically happen to be unholy creatures unlike most undead, but it seems more likely to me that undead without the trait would be more likely the exception to the norm--especially if we're still to see Clerics and Champions smiting the undead as a narrative goal, which seems likely.

Certainly I could see that some undead might not be unholy (player options except lich for example) but if mummy guardians are, I don't know what would make them an exception rather than a general rule.

--

PS, I don't know how many people might have caught it, but you can already see Paizo's dedication to putting the myth back in the monster in the art in this blog. Scythes seem really common among redcaps in fantasy gaming, but (at least according to wikipedia) the descriptions of the redcap has the creature carrying a pikestaff... and of course we still have a sickle in the other hand because why get rid of a really evocative image if you can have both?

OOoooh! Nice!

I love their new abilities, this is so much more interesting than mummy rot.
I spot that they have more HP and deal more damage though... xD

Chris Esser 556 wrote:

Looks good,I like particularly the Naga (never was a fan of the snake with just a human-head look) and the sedacthy, who looks more comfortable underwater than his sahaguin colleague.

I know I should not ask before the relase of the book but are there more monster books planned ? PF1 had 6 and PF2 Pre-Remaster had 3. I just love monster books and you can never have enough.

When they announced the remaster, I remember in the stream that Erik Mona said it was possible, but nothing have been announced about concrete plans.

I'm sure they don't have anything planned in the sense that they don't know when they would release them or what monsters would go where, but I feel like there's no reason not to release more books. There are plenty more monsters to make match with the remaster and plenty of new monsters to introduce on top of those. I imagine we won't see those books until like, next year, maybe late this year if Monster Core sells really well, but I'm pretty confident they're going to come around unless Monster Core outright underperforms.

One thing I've been curious about for a while now and figured I'd ask - for those of us who use Foundry VTT and have purchased the Betiary token pack - will that module be updated to reflect the new Monster Core monsters or will you be releasing a new module to cover the new Remastered content?

Match the mythology

Side-eyes the wendigo

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy.

AIUI Tian Xia is going to be that way. Setting stuff, a beastiary, plots, NPCs...the whole shebang.

I might have agreed with Ocean 20 years ago. Today, the response to the "it would be nice to have them all in one place" critique is "that's what online searchable databases like AoN are for."

any chances for an updated / new foundry token pack for the new bestiary?

Does Alchemical Weakness also affect persistent damage caused by, say, an alchemical bomb?

Does Alchemical Weakness also affect persistent damage caused by, say, an alchemical bomb?

Yes, why won't it be? If someone had weakness to fire it would work with persistent fire damage too.

I'm still quite curious about what precisely is being done with the demons, devils, angels and archons (and to a lesser extent the azatas) because those creature types were absolutely riddled with OGL content at the "base" level. Originally on purpose (they were these when Pathfinder didn't even have a CRB yet!) but obviously that's a lot more problematic now. It'd be nice to hear what exactly the plan is going forward (redesigns and renamings on a 1:1 basis? Full on rearranging of the hierarchy and lore? Something even more radical?)

What I'm most curious about is that if aboleth would appear in Moster Core or not, since it's an OGL monster. But simply removing it would create a huge problem in the lore, since aboleth is the basic form of all alghollthus. According to page 74 of The Lost Outpost, aboleths transform into other forms (including veiled masters and omnipaths) by undergoing a chrysalis-like metamorphosis. Thus if aboleths are completely removed from the world, perhaps there should be a huge revision in alghollthu lore?

Are sedacthy the Pathfinder Remaster equivalent of sahuagin? Sigh. While I generally prefer recent arts to older ones (kobolds, hobgoblins, and storm giants are the most obvious examples), I think the art for sedacthy is not as good as the ones for pre-Remaster sahuagin. They don't look as scary as sahuagin to me.

They also said in a recent stream that there won't be a "golem" category anymore. They are keeping a couple of them, and making new ones, but they have new names, and unique abilities without a 100% coherent shared mechanic. They stop being a "family" and become specific, more "stand alone" designs.

Really? I thought golems are immune to the OGL crisis since they are from the real world mythology. I must confess I much prefer clockworks and robots to golems in Pathfinder though, because... golems look too primitive to me, while clockworks and robots look very modern and refined.

Elfteiroh wrote:

They also said in a recent stream that there won't be a "golem" category anymore. They are keeping a couple of them, and making new ones, but they have new names, and unique abilities without a 100% coherent shared mechanic. They stop being a "family" and become specific, more "stand alone" designs.

Really? I thought golems are immune to the OGL crisis since they are from the real world mythology. I must confess I much prefer clockworks and robots to golems in Pathfinder though, because... golems look too primitive to me, while clockworks and robots look very modern and refined.

The existence of vaguely-similar creatures in real-world mythology doesn't save something from the OGL crisis, I'm afraid. It would be possible to make a new golem creature that is inspired by the original mythology, but the existence of golems as anti-magic creatures made of specific materials with associated abilities is all very much part of the WotC IP that was made available by the OGL. I wouldn't be surprised if we ended up with a construct inspired by the original mythology, and the golems that paizo has made themselves might be able to be tweaked to fit past, but an Iron Golem that is vulnerable to rust and acid, immune to non-acid magic, and has a breath weapon isn't something that can come back in a post-OGL world.

The Raven Black wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Oh, I don't know if this has been confirmed already before now, but I just noticed that the mummy is officially tagged as an unholy creature. I recall there was quite a lot of questioning whether and how undead would interact with the holy/unholy traits. Here lies evidence that undead are inherently unholy creatures, which raises many fascinating questions for how far this reaches across the creature type. Right now, I have every expectation that undead will be either all or mostly unholy with rare exceptions, not unlike fiends.

I see it a bit differently. Having both Undead and Unholy on the same creature means that Undead does not necessarily imply Unholy.

That is an interesting point, but I'm not sure I can agree. It feels like it would be a strange choice not to give an unholy creature the unholy trait even it was unholy by default of its creature type. For example, I expect we will find fiends will have both the fiend and unholy traits (if we have already seen a remastered fiend, feel free to correct me).

It's not impossible that mummy guardians specifically happen to be unholy creatures unlike most undead, but it seems more likely to me that undead without the trait would be more likely the exception to the norm--especially if we're still to see Clerics and Champions smiting the undead as a narrative goal, which seems likely.

Certainly I could see that some undead might not be unholy (player options except lich for example) but if mummy guardians are, I don't know what would make them an exception rather than a general rule.

I knew I should have been clearer in my post.

I agree that most Undead are likely to be Unholy.

I just do not think having the Undead trait will automatically make a creature Unholy.

So, I think we are actually in complete agreement here.

The GM Core explicitly states "almost all undead are unholy". So it's pretty much established that unholy is the norm but exceptions exist.

Also I feel Paizo might stay away from nested traits in the future.

So that all traits stand in plain view AND they can easily divorce traits.

I'm still quite curious about what precisely is being done with the demons, devils, angels and archons (and to a lesser extent the azatas) because those creature types were absolutely riddled with OGL content at the "base" level. Originally on purpose (they were these when Pathfinder didn't even have a CRB yet!) but obviously that's a lot more problematic now. It'd be nice to hear what exactly the plan is going forward (redesigns and renamings on a 1:1 basis? Full on rearranging of the hierarchy and lore? Something even more radical?)

They did a short preview of one of the new archons on a livestream a few weeks ago. Not much info to go on, but the plan seems to be to take them in a more "biblically accurate" direction, i.e. proper angels will (presumably) still be mostly humanoid in form because they're the ones you want to serve as envoys and messengers, while archons are the "Why is the burning wheel of wings and eyes telling me to 'BE NOT AFRAID'?" type.

Definitely want to see what's happening to devils and demons, since one of my favorite 1e characters is/was a Chelaxian diabolist/demon hunter and trying to rebuild her under the 2e ruleset has proven to be a rather frustrating experience.

I'm hopeful the gargoyles will benefit from the 'match the mythology' rewrites - they're a less touchy subject than quite a lot of others, so I know they'll probably be about the same, but it'd be really cool to have them involve the folklore about gargoyles watching over towns and scaring away demons, or mocking the high and mighty.

I think the fanbase and Paizo's bottom line both prefer books with mixed player-GM usage, rather than books only a GM would ever buy. You can sell one Bestiary per Pathfinder group... but *everyone* in it might grab a book that also has new classes!

It annoys me and has actively turned players of mine away from buying certain books.

It is at its worse when they do a Dark Archive and stupidly split the GM content up and scatter it through the book.

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

I love the idea of changing directions of some monsters to be closer to their mythological counterparts, even if I do love the more pop culture versions of them. I also enjoy the transparency.

Funnily enough, the Mummy's abilities remind me of the 1999 mummy for some reason. I think it's the taking away abilities from creatures and sharing pain just for some reason strikes a familiar cord with me on it.

I also wonder how many players are buying books these days with pathbuilder around. I know some folks like analogue, but they are getting fewer and fewer; collectors were buying everything anyway and can be discounted. I guess there is exploiting PFS players, but I know more than a few players who are annoyed at paying for a full book when only 1/4 to 1/3 is player facing.

Its enough for them to be making record profits. Argue about quality, but its clearly popular.