Pathfinder Monster Core

Same issue. I can't download these files and only these files because they are empty. Tested other downloads and they are unaffected. :( 2pm CST

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

Same issue. I can't download these files and only these files because they are empty. Tested other downloads and they are unaffected. :( 2pm CST

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

THANKS!

it eventually worked for me too!

Still get a blank document ie no pdf (for single file or seperate chapter files). I cleared my browser amd rebooted. Still no luck. Very very frustrated

tommyomega 16 minutes ago | FLAG | LIST | REPLY

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

Try this. It worked for me :)

Timothy Ferdinand wrote:

Still get a blank document ie no pdf (for single file or seperate chapter files). I cleared my browser amd rebooted. Still no luck. Very very frustrated

tommyomega 16 minutes ago | FLAG | LIST | REPLY

+
Same issue. I can't download these files and only these files because they are empty. Tested other downloads and they are unaffected. :( 2pm CST

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

Try this. It worked for me :)

Idle curiosity, can I have a rough estimate on how many times you had to do it "over and over" I am currently up to 40 here. was it in the hundreds or thousands?

Not quite an errata note, but something you might want to correct. The unicorn entry (p. 333) states that they are "sometimes associated with good-aligned deities". You might change that to "holy".

I just got the notice that my Monster Core file was updated. Does anyone know which image got changed?

From my quick review, it looks like the artwork for the Redcap on page 290 was replaced.

For those who've been able to download the pdf, how is the image quality of the art in this one?

Dave Blewer wrote:

Timothy Ferdinand wrote:

Still get a blank document ie no pdf (for single file or seperate chapter files). I cleared my browser amd rebooted. Still no luck. Very very frustrated

tommyomega 16 minutes ago | FLAG | LIST | REPLY

+
Same issue. I can't download these files and only these files because they are empty. Tested other downloads and they are unaffected. :( 2pm CST

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

Try this. It worked for me :)

Idle curiosity, can I have a rough estimate on how many times you had to do it "over and over" I am currently up to 40 here. was it in the hundreds or thousands?

for me it was a bit over a hundred tries with one browser and first try with another, not sure if that correlates somehow

Yeah, attempting to download the PDF is still giving me a zipped 1kb file and an error that the pdf is unreadable when I try to open it. Yes, I cleared the cookies. A plus work on the website, guys.

Dave Blewer wrote:

Timothy Ferdinand wrote:

Still get a blank document ie no pdf (for single file or seperate chapter files). I cleared my browser amd rebooted. Still no luck. Very very frustrated

tommyomega 16 minutes ago | FLAG | LIST | REPLY

+
Same issue. I can't download these files and only these files because they are empty. Tested other downloads and they are unaffected. :( 2pm CST

*Update - Finally got it to go through by clicking problem link over and over until it worked!

Try this. It worked for me :)

Idle curiosity, can I have a rough estimate on how many times you had to do it "over and over" I am currently up to 40 here. was it in the hundreds or thousands?

Good lord! I must have been really lucky. It was probably 10 or so, less than 20

If you're having troubles downloading the Monster Core PDF, please try the following:

1.) Click the "Problems downloading?" hyperlink. If that doesn't work...

2.) Purge your cache and cookies, as detailed in steps 2 and 3 in the Support Portal.

-Jim

For those who are playing at home, I now have the file and according to check mark page I made up it took 284 attempts (yes that included calling to cookie monster in to eat my cookies)

For those who've been able to download the pdf, how is the image quality of the art in this one?

Much better than "Rage of Elements", if that's what you're worried about. Images are pretty crystal clear, no sign of obvious pixelation.

If you're having troubles downloading the Monster Core PDF, please try the following:

1.) Click the "Problems downloading?" hyperlink. If that doesn't work...

2.) Purge your cache and cookies, as detailed in steps 2 and 3 in the Support Portal.

-Jim

Option 1 worked for me! Thanks!

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I just got the notice that my Monster Core file was updated. Does anyone know which image got changed?

From my quick review, it looks like the artwork for the Redcap on page 290 was replaced.

Dang good eye. I ran a visual diff tool on them, that's the only page with significant enough changes for the computer to notice.

I like the new version's redcap art better!

Felddy wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I just got the notice that my Monster Core file was updated. Does anyone know which image got changed?

From my quick review, it looks like the artwork for the Redcap on page 290 was replaced.

Dang good eye. I ran a visual diff tool on them, that's the only page with significant enough changes for the computer to notice.

I like the new version's redcap art better!

They went back to the original PF2 art cause the new one was accidentally plagiarizing another game's.

azrazalea wrote:

Felddy wrote:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I just got the notice that my Monster Core file was updated. Does anyone know which image got changed?

From my quick review, it looks like the artwork for the Redcap on page 290 was replaced.

Dang good eye. I ran a visual diff tool on them, that's the only page with significant enough changes for the computer to notice.

I like the new version's redcap art better!

They went back to the original PF2 art cause the new one was accidentally plagiarizing another game's.

Oh wow, that's frustrating! (For the editors, I mean--the redcap art switching to using a pike was one of the changes showcased in the Monsters Resurrected blog, so it turning out to be a last minute change is a headache for them I'm sure)

I now want to know context of it, what art was accidentally which art? :O

But yeah in general I'm curious of why lot of monsters have 1e art, even ones that already had 2e art. I mean, its good 1e art, but I didn't expect it

Umm, so help. I do have the chapter by chapter version, but I actually managed to somehow break single file version button by clicking it too much yesterday and its still broken for me :'D

I now want to know context of it, what art was accidentally which art? :O

But yeah in general I'm curious of why lot of monsters have 1e art, even ones that already had 2e art. I mean, its good 1e art, but I didn't expect it

The new Redcap art in Monster Core was eerily close to the Redcap art found in D&D 5E's Monster Manual. Same shape, same eyes, clothes. There's even an emblem on the Redcap's cap that was copied. A few people pointed it out, so thankfully it's been caught and changed for the .PDF.

That's gotta be a HUGE headache for the physical releases, though.

ah so case of artist either googling or being accidentally given wrong art as example of what redcaps look like in pathfinder

I don't have a link to the pdf. I am a subscriber and my monster core is backordered? Is that supposed to happen? Can I get my pdf while I'm waiting?

Email customer service.

Hi Paizo,

I think you're sort of on the right track, but there's a number of things I'd do differently:

Given that WotC lost the OGL battle and withdrew their threats (which they could re-instate at any time), if I were you, I would have let PF2e OGL continue in development for at least 2 to 5 years while, you, Paizo, worked on what I would call PF3e ORC.

While Paizo would be taking a risk (seems low) that WotC would cause more trouble, Paizo would have had more time to rework the core ruleset to create a truly unique RPG experience based on a fantasy setting, I think, capable of rivaling "the world's oldest RPG". I think you can do it. Just throw away the existing rules and re-imagine the whole thing. Of course, there's lots of common elements from legends and mythology to build such a game -- develop an RPG starting with this original source material and you've got plenty of your own.

Instead, though, I'm concerned that there is too much similarity with "the world's oldest RPG" core ruleset and now that this similarity is no longer acknowledged or licensed that, I feel, there's risk that PF2e ORC will be successfully challenged in court -- where upon I'd have to set aside all my PF2e ORC material (largely because of the cannibalism I describe below as a new PF edition is developed or possibly people leaving the Paizo ecosystem).

Your ecosystem seems to cannibalize itself. When PF2e OGL came out, the community for PF1e became much smaller. I think they moved on to PF2e OGL. Now, tools like the PF2e game system for Foundry VTT have been changed to support PF2e ORC (P2e OGL support has been dropped). I think it's possible that PF2e OGL will fall by the wayside -- but I'm not sure.

For the sake of your customers, it probably would have been better to avoid confusing the customer base as much as possible to have a healthy ecosystem. It was harmful to have PF1e lose so many community members so fast -- not really to the players but to the GMs who invested a lot in that material. To have the same thing happen to PF2e OGL might also be harmful, especially after having only a short, 4 year run. Yes, people can access some material online for free, but as a GM it's too hard to do that -- so I purchase a lot of material.

I like in general what your doing but I think you've got the creative energy and inertia to create something from scratch that's entirely different but capable of competing with the "world's oldest RPG" -- and free of any potential legal challenges while protecting your customer base.

However, I do understand what you did. The momentum gained from all the WotC threats enabled ORC to be created collaboratively with 3rd parties. Without a PF2e ORC on the way, I'm not sure that could have been done.

ORC is a complete gift to the RPG community. Thank you for doing that.

I feel like the longer they waited, the more content they'd have been stuck declaring obsolete in a few years. I personally favor the timeline in which the Godsrain Prophecies and the War of Immortals and Howl of the Wild don't get declared obsolete.

I also think it's worth remembering that Paizo has their own lawyers looking at all this, and PF2 had already done a lot to distance itself from the OGL before this started. You actually can't easily claim copyright on game mechanics, it's a whole thing. I think it's okay to assume that Paizo is making these decisions intelligently.

It does kinda annoy me how remastered is basically 2e with errata, but some tables kinda cautiously just blanket ban everything but rage of elements from it

I think tables tend to be a little overly cautious in general about banning official content, barring flavor reasons. Like, the non-PF2R content isn't getting changed because it's overpowered, it's mostly because it's underpowered. Paizo has a very high standard of quality and is very careful nowadays about introducing new mechanics.

If you're having troubles downloading the Monster Core PDF, please try the following:

1.) Click the "Problems downloading?" hyperlink. If that doesn't work...

2.) Purge your cache and cookies, as detailed in steps 2 and 3 in the Support Portal.

-Jim

I've lost your email address, so I'm trying to contact you this way ...

For the rest of you, I apologize for repeating my message -- I think this is important.

I think you're sort of on the right track with the Pathfinder editions, but there's a number of things I'd do differently:

Given that WotC lost the OGL battle and withdrew their threats (which they could re-instate at any time), if I were you, I would have let PF2e OGL continue in development for at least 2 to 5 years while, you, Paizo, worked on what I would call PF3e ORC.

While Paizo would be taking a risk (seems low) that WotC would cause more trouble, Paizo would have had more time to rework the core ruleset to create a truly unique RPG experience based on a fantasy setting, I think, capable of rivaling "the world's oldest RPG". I think you can do it. Just throw away the existing rules and re-imagine the whole thing. Of course, there's lots of common elements from legends and mythology to build such a game -- develop an RPG starting with this original source material and you've got plenty of your own.

Instead, though, I'm concerned that there is too much similarity with "the world's oldest RPG" core ruleset and now that this similarity is no longer acknowledged or licensed that, I feel, there's risk that PF2e ORC will be successfully challenged in court -- where upon I'd have to set aside all my PF2e ORC material (largely because of the cannibalism I describe below as a new PF edition is developed or possibly people leaving the Paizo ecosystem).

Your ecosystem seems to cannibalize itself. When PF2e OGL came out, the community for PF1e became much smaller. I think they moved on to PF2e OGL. Now, tools like the PF2e game system for Foundry VTT have been changed to support PF2e ORC (P2e OGL support has been dropped). I think it's possible that PF2e OGL will fall by the wayside -- but I'm not sure.

For the sake of your customers, it probably would have been better to avoid confusing the customer base as much as possible to have a healthy ecosystem. It was harmful to have PF1e lose so many community members so fast -- not really to the players but to the GMs who invested a lot in that material. To have the same thing happen to PF2e OGL might also be harmful, especially after having only a short, 4 year run. Yes, people can access some material online for free, but as a GM it's too hard to do that -- so I purchase a lot of material.

I like in general what your doing but I think you've got the creative energy and inertia to create something from scratch that's entirely different but capable of competing with the "world's oldest RPG" -- and free of any potential legal challenges while protecting your customer base.

However, I do understand what you did. The momentum gained from all the WotC threats enabled ORC to be created collaboratively with 3rd parties. Without a PF2e ORC on the way, I'm not sure that could have been done.

ORC is a complete gift to the RPG community. Thank you for doing that.

You're just gonna repeat your message while ignoring replies to it right above you? Dude, that's just rude. Paizo has lawyers who probably understand the situation a lot better than anyone on the forums.

I really like the art on the inside cover.

You're just gonna repeat your message while ignoring replies to it right above you? Dude, that's just rude. Paizo has lawyers who probably understand the situation a lot better than anyone on the forums.

Which is why I repeated my message as an attempt to contact Jim Butler, President -- and why I can hope the responders here are right about the Paizo lawyers but I'd don't know. I am not a lawyer. I just don't want to get shutdown again with orphaned material.

I'm probably going to try to move ahead with PF2e ORC.

At first I was taken aback with the Monster Core because I don't have a lot of my favorite monsters -- but after a third look and having time to think about it I'd say it's a good first start.

Can't wait for Monster Core 2.

All this stuff is quite a bit expensive for Fantasy Grounds for PF2e. I'm not seeing a discount for the digital content like I could get for PF1e material (because I own the PDFs). I also have the PDFs for PF2e.

Jim Butler wrote:

If you're having troubles downloading the Monster Core PDF, please try the following:

1.) Click the "Problems downloading?" hyperlink. If that doesn't work...

2.) Purge your cache and cookies, as detailed in steps 2 and 3 in the Support Portal.

-Jim

I've lost your email address, so I'm trying to contact you this way ...

For the rest of you, I apologize for repeating my message -- I think this is important.

I think you're sort of on the right track with the Pathfinder editions, but there's a number of things I'd do differently:

Given that WotC lost the OGL battle and withdrew their threats (which they could re-instate at any time), if I were you, I would have let PF2e OGL continue in development for at least 2 to 5 years while, you, Paizo, worked on what I would call PF3e ORC.

While Paizo would be taking a risk (seems low) that WotC would cause more trouble, Paizo would have had more time to rework the core ruleset to create a truly unique RPG experience based on a fantasy setting, I think, capable of rivaling "the world's oldest RPG". I think you can do it. Just throw away the existing rules and re-imagine the whole thing. Of course, there's lots of common elements from legends and mythology to build such a game -- develop an RPG starting with this original source material and you've got plenty of your own.

Instead, though, I'm concerned that there is too much similarity with "the world's oldest RPG" core ruleset and now that this similarity is no longer acknowledged or licensed that, I feel, there's risk that PF2e ORC will be successfully challenged in court -- where upon I'd have to set aside all my PF2e ORC material (largely because of the cannibalism I describe below as a new PF edition is developed or possibly people leaving the Paizo ecosystem).

Your ecosystem seems to cannibalize itself. When PF2e OGL came out, the community for PF1e became much...

I take back some of what I said about potential PF2e OGL cannibalism in favor of PF2e ORC. The first example I thought I was beginning to see was on Foundry VTT with the PF2e game system -- but my fears have been put at ease because they are retaining the PF2e OGL material such as all the bestiaries. Fantasy Grounds Unity also allows either PF2e Legacy or PF2e (ORC) to be selected when creating a campaign.

Hey, as long as the people who dumped (serious) money into PF2e OGL get a good run -- I'm totally fine with the PF2e ORC direction (instead of putting it off until a theoretical PF3e).

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

You're just gonna repeat your message while ignoring replies to it right above you? Dude, that's just rude. Paizo has lawyers who probably understand the situation a lot better than anyone on the forums.

Which is why I repeated my message as an attempt to contact Jim Butler, President -- and why I can hope the responders here are right about the Paizo lawyers but I'd don't know. I am not a lawyer. I just don't want to get shutdown again with orphaned material.

I'm probably going to try to move ahead with PF2e ORC.

At first I was taken aback with the Monster Core because I don't have a lot of my favorite monsters -- but after a third look and having time to think about it I'd say it's a good first start.

Can't wait for Monster Core 2.

All this stuff is quite a bit expensive for Fantasy Grounds for PF2e. I'm not seeing a discount for the digital content like I could get for PF1e material (because I own the PDFs). I also have the PDFs for PF2e.

Oh, I found out why I wasn't getting PF2e discounts for Fantasy Grounds. I just had to resynchronize my Paizo account.

So. I have two "monster core" downloads. One's watermarked March 13th and depicts a "redcap" with bright red eyes, some kind of symbol on his cap, who is armed with a sickle and a "halberd". The other is watermarked March 27th and depicts a very different "redcap" whose eye color is hard to see, no symbol on his cap, armed with a scythe. I gather the later is the "remastered" one. BTW, the latter artwork is the same as in my August 1, 2019 Bestiary. Is that what it's supposed to be?

So. I have two "monster core" downloads. One's watermarked March 13th and depicts a "redcap" with bright red eyes, some kind of symbol on his cap, who is armed with a sickle and a "halberd". The other is watermarked March 27th and depicts a very different "redcap" whose eye color is hard to see, no symbol on his cap, armed with a scythe. I gather the later is the "remastered" one. BTW, the latter artwork is the same as in my August 1, 2019 Bestiary. Is that what it's supposed to be?

Basically, yeah!

So to those who liked the redcap picture with accidental plagiarism art(googling D&D recap, I see what happened), thats the art used on roll20 version :p and is likely going to be used because roll20 never seems to update token pictures

Waaait, why did Horsemen of Apocalypse get renamed to Apocalypse Riders?

Waaait, why did Horsemen of Apocalypse get renamed to Apocalypse Riders?

HorseMEN.

It also helps differentiate them from male centaurs.

"The Four Cavaliers of the Apocalypse" sounds like a good parody adventure. Say, PF1 got robbed out of an Apocalypse Rider cavalier archetype.

CorvusMask wrote:

Waaait, why did Horsemen of Apocalypse get renamed to Apocalypse Riders?

HorseMEN.

It also helps differentiate them from male centaurs.

Hey you can't say that jackal or woman can't be a horseman!

But seriously, I only accept this change from mythological name if they don't ride horses anymore :p Give one of them a dragon mount

(riders of apocalypse is cooler than apocalypse rider anyway. Latter sounds like some dude on road with cheesy american car in some sort of post apocalyptic road trip movie)

The Raven Black wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Waaait, why did Horsemen of Apocalypse get renamed to Apocalypse Riders?

HorseMEN.

It also helps differentiate them from male centaurs.

Hey you can't say that jackal or woman can't be a horseman!

But seriously, I only accept this change from mythological name if they don't ride horses anymore :p Give one of them a dragon mount

(riders of apocalypse is cooler than apocalypse rider anyway. Latter sounds like some dude on road with cheesy american car in some sort of post apocalyptic road trip movie)

How about infernal combustion engine hogs (motorcycles) so they can ride in style?

CorvusMask wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

Waaait, why did Horsemen of Apocalypse get renamed to Apocalypse Riders?

HorseMEN.

It also helps differentiate them from male centaurs.

Hey you can't say that jackal or woman can't be a horseman!

But seriously, I only accept this change from mythological name if they don't ride horses anymore :p Give one of them a dragon mount

(riders of apocalypse is cooler than apocalypse rider anyway. Latter sounds like some dude on road with cheesy american car in some sort of post apocalyptic road trip movie)

How about infernal combustion engine hogs (motorcycles) so they can ride in style?

While polluting the multiverse.

To be honest, my taste preferences are toward the Riders of the Apocalypse order, too.

But seriously, I only accept this change from mythological name if they don't ride horses anymore

I know this is at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but if it makes you feel any better, they aren't called Horsemen anywhere in the original mythology either. In fact, the colour of the horses is more description than any of the riders actually get. "A white horse and the one sitting on it had a bow" "A (bright) red horse, and to the one one sitting on it was granted to take the peace from the earth"

OTOH, if this is how we learn that the nightmares designated as the four apocalypse horses (pre-existing term) can shapeshift into whatever form of mount suits the needs of their rider at the time, including dragons or skeletal birds, or outrageously suped up hogs, that would be pretty metal, too.

Sidenote, sad that Medusa didn't get renamed Gorgon x'D

There are definitely some missed opportunities, its kinda funny how some monsters didn't get changed almost at all, while there are minor adjustments to other ones

How about infernal combustion engine hogs (motorcycles) so they can ride in style?

You had me at infernal combustion engine hogs.

You lost me at (motorcycles).

:)

I noticed a few possible errata things:

The following swarms don't have immunity to Grabbed, Retrained and Prone:
Army Ant Swarm
Tooth Fairy Swam
Vescavor Swarm
They are the only swarms that "only" get this via the Swarm trait. So I guess a oversight.

Oozes have no listed immunity to prone. But I guess that might be intentional?

Vampires do not have explicit Bleed Immunity. Which I read as "they can bleed".
The thing is, Premaster bleed exlcuded all undead by the damage type: "As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live."
I am unsure if the wording changed. But if not, Vampires will need a explicit mention that they are vulnerable to bleed despite being "nonliving".

It is unclear if Will-o-Wisp would be immune to Kineticist Impulses. They are not spells, yet are explicitly stopped by things that stop spells.

I noticed a few possible errata things:

The following swarms don't have immunity to Grabbed, Retrained and Prone:
Army Ant Swarm
Tooth Fairy Swam
Vescavor Swarm
They are the only swarms that "only" get this via the Swarm trait. So I guess a oversight.

Oozes have no listed immunity to prone. But I guess that might be intentional?

Vampires do not have explicit Bleed Immunity. Which I read as "they can bleed".
The thing is, Premaster bleed exlcuded all undead by the damage type: "As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live."
I am unsure if the wording changed. But if not, Vampires will need a explicit mention that they are vulnerable to bleed despite being "nonliving".

It is unclear if Will-o-Wisp would be immune to Kineticist Impulses. They are not spells, yet are explicitly stopped by things that stop spells.

The swarms you posted about had the exact same "lack" of these immunities in the original book they were in. (In fact, there's no swarm at all that is specifically immune to these things except one that is immune to prone, the seetangeist)

I was hoping to post this in the Sketch Cover version, but that seems to have vanished from the website from what I can see...if Paizo has sold out, or there was a widespread misprint that I missed, perhaps that explains the question to follow...

Finally got around to my FLGS to pick up my Monster Core preorder -- been busy -- and have been looking through it, and noticed that the pages switch it's corner art from from the adamantine dragon to a diabolical dragon on pages 176-190. I'm assuming this is a misprint, wrong sheaf of pages got inserted or something...

If this wasn't intentional, I was hoping someone could confirm I'm not missing anything. Without a full listing in page order, I thought it might be easier to check here...I go from Goblin War Chanter on 175 to Goblin Dog on 176. Then the other transition is Iron Hag//Cuckoo Hag on 189//190, followed by the Halflings on 191.

From my looking, I don't think anything is missing, but if someone knows off hand, that would be awesome...

I have the standard edition here, and it's the same here, it's the Player Core art... That's an interesting mistake. xD
But yeah, the product page doesn't exist because it will be a Physical Gaming Store exclusive for a while.