Monster Core reveals


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

17 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm not promising an AMA because I want to read the book organically, but I'm going to post fun things as I come across them. The first thing that struck me was how little seems to have changed, including art. Then I reached archons. BIBLICALLY ACCURATE ANGLES CONFIRMED. Archons are like what qlippoth used to be to demons-- the original denizens of heaven before the gods showed up with their angelic entourages. Unlike the qlipooth, the archons found common ground with their new neighbors and allied with them for justice. But where angels tend to resemble human forms (fitting, since they are mostly formed from human souls) archons are weird and alien. They never have the right number of heads or eyes. I love them.

Higher level aeons have a weakness to spirit damage.

Angels and archons only seem to deal spirit damage if they wield a weapon with a holy rune. They don't need to deal multiple damage types now because it will effect all PCs equally and the holy trait suffices to trigger weakness.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH BANDERSNATCH


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Barghasts got a cool makeover. They don't seem to be goblin linked anymore and look more like... some kind of sleek fusion of a doberman with the muzzle of a rottweiler. Very cool looking.

I am surprised to see Will-o'-Wisps made it back in with like zero changes. Sorry kineticists!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Interestingly, qlippoth are unholy but do not have a holy weakness as you'd expect. They just resistance to mental and physical damage (except cold iron.) I think the vibe is that qlippoth (and their transformed victims) are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong and not focused on the war against all that is holy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

All the listed proteans have fast healing (NOT regeneration) and no weaknesses.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Meanwhile, phoenixes do not have the holy trait but are weak to unholy. Huh.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Nymphs look way more alien now, though still beautiful.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Leshies got even cuter.

Imps are a now a species of fiend with variants across lots of planes, but especially Hell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Homunculus got cuter too. Kind of looks like the Dwarf in the Bottle from FMA:B.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The new hags collectively look like they just came off a Gorillaz album.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there.

IIRC phantoms existed in the premaster bestiaries as well.

I super love that change to archons; having goodly entities that predate the gods is neat worldbuilding and suggests that this cosmic struggle has been going on, kinda, way longer than even the gods might assume.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Asking because it is coming up in my next session (an adaptation of the Carrion Crown AP). Is there a replacement of some kind for the Flesh Golem? If yes, does it have a cool new differences or is it just the new way of doing the resistances (in the way of the Brass Bastion) and the rest of its abilities have stayed as is?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Prisoner301 wrote:
Asking because it is coming up in my next session (an adaptation of the Carrion Crown AP). Is there a replacement of some kind for the Flesh Golem? If yes, does it have a cool new differences or is it just the new way of doing the resistances (in the way of the Brass Bastion) and the rest of its abilities have stayed as is?

I think all of the bestiary 1 golems are in here using their old art but new names and the new resistance mechanics. I didn't look that hard at the flesh golem but if looked pretty identical, including the berserk ability.

Liberty's Edge

14 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The sidebar on Kobolds and how their eggs pull power from nearby powerful beings, not just dragons, opens up some interesting possibilities for the Ancestry and Heritages in PC2

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
Prisoner301 wrote:
Asking because it is coming up in my next session (an adaptation of the Carrion Crown AP). Is there a replacement of some kind for the Flesh Golem? If yes, does it have a cool new differences or is it just the new way of doing the resistances (in the way of the Brass Bastion) and the rest of its abilities have stayed as is?
I think all of the bestiary 1 golems are in here using their old art but new names and the new resistance mechanics. I didn't look that hard at the flesh golem but if looked pretty identical, including the berserk ability.

Yeah, all of the golems are there under new names:

Charnel Creation = Flesh Golem
Clay Effigy = Clay Golem
Iron Warden = Iron Golem
Stone Bulwark = Stone Golem

the changes to golem antimagic is significant.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Fossil golem also made it in there, along with the alchemical golem.

Clay, stone, and I think at least one other all have their resistance bypassed by cold, water, and earth, which is more options than I expected. But the alchemical golem was just susceptible to sonic.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Captain Morgan wrote:
I am surprised to see Will-o'-Wisps made it back in with like zero changes. Sorry kineticists!

My reaction to this big reveal.


Are there any interesting tweaks or new things for gargoyles? Or, did they remove the 'obsessive compulsive' language for gargoyle behavior and collections?

And for my own curiosity, since this seems to be something that's flip flopped - Are gargoyles elemental stone beings, like living flying statues, or are they more fleshy beings who can turn into or imitate stone really well?


1. Does aboleth still appear? While it is an OGL monster, simply removing it would create a huge lore error since aboleth is the basic form of all alghollthus, according to page 74 of The Lost Outpost.

2. Do intellect devourer, locathah, neothelid, owlbear, sahuagin still appear?

3. Are golems completely removed? If so, I wonder what would happen to the Golemworks in Magnimar. Perhaps it would suddenly go bankrupt and its name is changed to the Clockworkworks or the Robotworks? :)

4. I heard that, while traditional dragons are completely removed, traditional giants still appear. Is it true? I have always thought that giants in Pathfinder (cloud, fire, frost, stone, storm...) are 100% created by D&D and thus unusable in the ORC.

5. Are barghests still related to goblins and have the ability to change shape into goblins? While barghests are from the real world mythology, that they belong to goblinoids is purely D&D creation, as far as I know.


Captain Morgan wrote:
Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there.

Phantoms were already a thing in the first place. Souls that have left the River of Souls and wander until they somehow return. They are mostly driven by a powerful emotion, an example is the Eidolon Phantoms.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Aenigma wrote:

1. Does aboleth still appear? While it is an OGL monster, simply removing it would create a huge lore error since aboleth is the basic form of all alghollthus, according to page 74 of The Lost Outpost.

2. Do intellect devourer, locathah, neothelid, owlbear, sahuagin still appear?

3. Are golems completely removed? If so, I wonder what would happen to the Golemworks in Magnimar. Perhaps it would suddenly go bankrupt and its name is changed to the Clockworkworks or the Robotworks? :)

4. I heard that, while traditional dragons are completely removed, traditional giants still appear. Is it true? I have always thought that giants in Pathfinder (cloud, fire, frost, stone, storm...) are 100% created by D&D and thus unusable in the ORC.

5. Are barghests still related to goblins and have the ability to change shape into goblins? While barghests are from the real world mythology, that they belong to goblinoids is purely D&D creation, as far as I know.

You're getting snack break answers, not double checking things right now.

1. Didn't spot them, didn't look that close.

2. Mostly no, but there's a whole Dominion of the Black family which covers similar flavor. I didn't spot an owl bear replacement but sahugin got one.

3. Golems are not technically a shared family of constructs anymore, but they all stikl exist as creatures with different names but very similar mechanics. You can look up my remastering golems guide for details on how they look.

4. Yes, the traditional giants are still here, which surprised me. Frost and fire might have closer ties to Norse mythology than I assumed. Not sure about the others. (Rune Giants were obviously safe though.) I did spot a new create boulder ability on stone giants though.

5. I didn't see any specific reference to golems, no. They can now transform into an humanoid ancestry.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
olimar92 wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Ooooh, a new family of spirits which aren't undead: phantoms. Cool lore there.
Phantoms were already a thing in the first place. Souls that have left the River of Souls and wander until they somehow return. They are mostly driven by a powerful emotion, an example is the Eidolon Phantoms.

Fair, I wasn't religiously comparing this book to the bestiaries.


Do undead tend to have a baseline weakness to Holy in addition to their Unholy trait, or is that reserved for uncommon concentrations of unholiness?


Anything about Agathion? Unsure if they'd make this book, as before they were Bestiary 3, but I like them a lot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Littimer wrote:
Do undead tend to have a baseline weakness to Holy in addition to their Unholy trait, or is that reserved for uncommon concentrations of unholiness?

No holy weakness on any undead I saw. Even some fiends don't have the weakness-- see Qlippoth comments above. It seems like you basically have to be at war with celestials to get the weakness.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BookBird wrote:
Anything about Agathion? Unsure if they'd make this book, as before they were Bestiary 3, but I like them a lot.

Nope. Not in this one.

Dark Archive

I'm curious about a thing. Since in the book of the dead it's stated that when undead are created one of the four essences (mind, body, life, spirit) can be twisted or absent, and since ghoul generate from a loss of spirit, do they have resistance or immunity to spiritual damage?


Are there any new lvl 23+ monsters in the book?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Pronate11 wrote:
Are there any new lvl 23+ monsters in the book?

Nope, Level 21 is Grim Reaper and Tor Linnorm, and level 25 is Treerazer


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
BookBird wrote:
Anything about Agathion? Unsure if they'd make this book, as before they were Bestiary 3, but I like them a lot.

One of the developers replied on a reddit post that Agathions and the related family of monsters would be reappearing in a future product.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ricbau6 wrote:
I'm curious about a thing. Since in the book of the dead it's stated that when undead are created one of the four essences (mind, body, life, spirit) can be twisted or absent, and since ghoul generate from a loss of spirit, do they have resistance or immunity to spiritual damage?

Nope.. no immunities to Spiritual Damage


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Littimer wrote:
Do undead tend to have a baseline weakness to Holy in addition to their Unholy trait, or is that reserved for uncommon concentrations of unholiness?
No holy weakness on any undead I saw. Even some fiends don't have the weakness-- see Qlippoth comments above. It seems like you basically have to be at war with celestials to get the weakness.

Hey, you got Exalted in my Pathfinder!

(Joking, of course, but that's surprisingly similar to how the Unconquered Sun declares beings he feels - usually correctly - are bad for Creation as a whole to be Creatures of Darkness, and so makes them vulnerable to Holy sunfire energy. It's an interesting bit of nuance.)


Ricbau6 wrote:
I'm curious about a thing. Since in the book of the dead it's stated that when undead are created one of the four essences (mind, body, life, spirit) can be twisted or absent, and since ghoul generate from a loss of spirit, do they have resistance or immunity to spiritual damage?

It's also wrong. Life is always twisted to unlife and soul adjusts to that, but there can't be undead without spirit essence, it's nonsensical. And ghouls definitely have spirit.

I'm also almost sure that's nothing like this in the Book of the dead.
Hypothetical creatures made with void energy without spirit/soul aren't undead, they are some sort of constructs, with body or otherwise. (And maybe they aren't very hypothetical)


Thanks for the insights! I take it Inevitables are no more? If so, what about Axiomites?


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
They never have the right number of heads or eyes.

AI-made images?


I was curious given the changes to the harpy reported from the beginner box bestiary.
Is harpy song also removed in the bestiary?

I found that ability very badly written and honestly would not mind it seeing completely replaced.

I also was wondering, I think I read that there was a „Stone Bulwark“, which I assume is a stone golem replacement? If so, how many of the other golems got one in this?

How is it with Undead and bleed immunity? Do all have it spelled out now like the mummy from the preview? Or are there some (maybe vampires and Ghouls?) who can be hurt by bleeding?

I am also going to look forward to seeing if anything changes in terms of precision immunity all around since many found it a bit too common.

Dark Archive

SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They never have the right number of heads or eyes.
AI-made images?

Haven't seen the art, so can't comment on it directly as of yet, but "Biblically accurate angels" generally means very inhuman and eldritch in appearance.

Like a giant wheel of eyes, wings, and fire telling you "BE NOT AFRAID".

So the new archons not having "the right number of heads or eyes" wouldn't be too surprising.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Ryuhi wrote:

I was curious given the changes to the harpy reported from the beginner box bestiary.

Is harpy song also removed in the bestiary?

I found that ability very badly written and honestly would not mind it seeing completely replaced.

I also was wondering, I think I read that there was a „Stone Bulwark“, which I assume is a stone golem replacement? If so, how many of the other golems got one in this?

How is it with Undead and bleed immunity? Do all have it spelled out now like the mummy from the preview? Or are there some (maybe vampires and Ghouls?) who can be hurt by bleeding?

I am also going to look forward to seeing if anything changes in terms of precision immunity all around since many found it a bit too common.

New harpy has no Song. Has Hungry Winds (pulls a target within 20' to adjacent to the Harpy) and adding a disease to their bite.

The undead that are immune to bleed have it spelled out in their immunities. Vampires don't have it, skeletons do. Haven't checked all undead though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Veltharis wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They never have the right number of heads or eyes.
AI-made images?

Haven't seen the art, so can't comment on it directly as of yet, but "Biblically accurate angels" generally means very inhuman and eldritch in appearance.

Like a giant wheel of eyes, wings, and fire telling you "BE NOT AFRAID".

So the new archons not having "the right number of heads or eyes" wouldn't be too surprising.

Yeah. As an example (and I'm choosing this one because it's easiest to explain) the Rekhap is a flying shield with 4 eyes (kinda evenly ditributed), 4 arms, and 6 wings.

Not super "I'M A BIBLICAL ANGEL", but much closer than angels in previous editions. Other Archons do a good job of approaching that line. The Horned Archon alone is a wild ride.

(Edit to correct a name)


I have a couple of questions, please, if you don’t mind:

1. Is there a replacement for the Bulette? I know the Krooth is relatively similar but I was curious about if they made a full replacement.

2. You mentioned there was a replacement for Sahuagin/Sea Devils, what are they called? And are there multiple versions (warrior, scout, baron, etc).

Thanks in advance.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Veltharis wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They never have the right number of heads or eyes.
AI-made images?

Haven't seen the art, so can't comment on it directly as of yet, but "Biblically accurate angels" generally means very inhuman and eldritch in appearance.

Like a giant wheel of eyes, wings, and fire telling you "BE NOT AFRAID".

So the new archons not having "the right number of heads or eyes" wouldn't be too surprising.

Yep. All though with a little further research, the term biblically accurate angels was never quite accurate:

"What is often called "biblically accurate angels" are actually seraphim and cherubim in the prophetic books of Isaiah and Ezekiel; which are never described as "angels" in the Bible but were separate kinds of heavenly beings. Angels have typically been portrayed as relatively human figures, though likely more similar to Mesopotamian "winged genii" in the earlier texts, and with influence from Greek and Roman iconography in the New Testament."

So archons being separate allies of angels seems legit. Still, I'm glad they snuck this piece of the zeitgeist in.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Hell's Messenger wrote:

I have a couple of questions, please, if you don’t mind:

1. Is there a replacement for the Bulette? I know the Krooth is relatively similar but I was curious about if they made a full replacement.

2. You mentioned there was a replacement for Sahuagin/Sea Devils, what are they called? And are there multiple versions (warrior, scout, baron, etc).

Thanks in advance.

I haven't seen a pure Bulette replacement.

Sahuagin are now called Sedacthy and the book has the Scout, Marauder, and Speaker listed. New art that, while I understand the change, I do not like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain Morgan wrote:
Littimer wrote:
Do undead tend to have a baseline weakness to Holy in addition to their Unholy trait, or is that reserved for uncommon concentrations of unholiness?
No holy weakness on any undead I saw. Even some fiends don't have the weakness-- see Qlippoth comments above. It seems like you basically have to be at war with celestials to get the weakness.

This makes sense. Most undead didn't have any weakness to good in Legacy, either, they were just vulnerable to any effects that procked off of being evil. So I guess most undead will take any extra, nasty effects of holy abilities and spells, but not take any extra damage.

Dark Archive

Captain Morgan wrote:
Veltharis wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
They never have the right number of heads or eyes.
AI-made images?

Haven't seen the art, so can't comment on it directly as of yet, but "Biblically accurate angels" generally means very inhuman and eldritch in appearance.

Like a giant wheel of eyes, wings, and fire telling you "BE NOT AFRAID".

So the new archons not having "the right number of heads or eyes" wouldn't be too surprising.

Yep. All though with a little further research, the term biblically accurate angels was never quite accurate:

"What is often called "biblically accurate angels" are actually seraphim and cherubim in the prophetic books of Isaiah and Ezekiel; which are never described as "angels" in the Bible but were separate kinds of heavenly beings. Angels have typically been portrayed as relatively human figures, though likely more similar to Mesopotamian "winged genii" in the earlier texts, and with influence from Greek and Roman iconography in the New Testament."

So archons being separate allies of angels seems legit. Still, I'm glad they snuck this piece of the zeitgeist in.

To be sure. In general, I think the term "biblically accurate angels" has largely become something of an umbrella term for any bizarre, eldritch heavenly entity - something of a misnomer, and perhaps a bit misleading, but an interesting aesthetic to tap into nonetheless.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
WarDriveWorley wrote:
Ryuhi wrote:

I was curious given the changes to the harpy reported from the beginner box bestiary.

Is harpy song also removed in the bestiary?

I found that ability very badly written and honestly would not mind it seeing completely replaced.

I also was wondering, I think I read that there was a „Stone Bulwark“, which I assume is a stone golem replacement? If so, how many of the other golems got one in this?

How is it with Undead and bleed immunity? Do all have it spelled out now like the mummy from the preview? Or are there some (maybe vampires and Ghouls?) who can be hurt by bleeding?

I am also going to look forward to seeing if anything changes in terms of precision immunity all around since many found it a bit too common.

New harpy has no Song. Has Hungry Winds (pulls a target within 20' to adjacent to the Harpy) and adding a disease to their bite.

The undead that are immune to bleed have it spelled out in their immunities. Vampires don't have it, skeletons do. Haven't checked all undead though.

That is great to hear, thanks!^^

I remember the first encounter I ran against a harpy, that was in an earlier adventure when we all were still relatively new to the system and I think we solved it by going "oh, wait, bard, you could have used countersong for this, let us do that retroactively".

It also honestly fits better. SIRENS have the song part, not harpies. ^^ ;

Also glad for the bleed immunity. Spelling it out on constructs but not undead made zero sense.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A note that "is there a replacement for this unique creature" is not an easy question to definitively answer. If a creature belongs to a family, like dragons or demons, it is easy to flip to them and see what is new. A standalone creature like a bulette would instead be CTRL-F'ing through a related key word (say, "burrow" for this example) and then reading both the stat block and flavor text of every creature where that word appears, plus probably critically examining its art for similarities.

Which is to say, you can ask for it, but I certainly won't be promising to answer it.

Perpdepog wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
Littimer wrote:
Do undead tend to have a baseline weakness to Holy in addition to their Unholy trait, or is that reserved for uncommon concentrations of unholiness?
No holy weakness on any undead I saw. Even some fiends don't have the weakness-- see Qlippoth comments above. It seems like you basically have to be at war with celestials to get the weakness.
This makes sense. Most undead didn't have any weakness to good in Legacy, either, they were just vulnerable to any effects that procked off of being evil. So I guess most undead will take any extra, nasty effects of holy abilities and spells, but not take any extra damage.

For sure, that's what I was betting it would be myself. But unholy being applied to undead at all still feels weird to me so I wasn't gonna assume anything.

That said, I'm a little smug about how many of my predictions for monster core wound up being true. Makes me feel like I "get" their approach.

Radiant Oath

12 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
WarDriveWorley wrote:
The sidebar on Kobolds and how their eggs pull power from nearby powerful beings, not just dragons, opens up some interesting possibilities for the Ancestry and Heritages in PC2

So they're no longer JUST smol dragon friends who are doing their best! Now they can be smol angel friends or kami friends or elemental friends who are doing their best! :D

Liberty's Edge

Ryuhi wrote:
WarDriveWorley wrote:
Ryuhi wrote:

I was curious given the changes to the harpy reported from the beginner box bestiary.

Is harpy song also removed in the bestiary?

I found that ability very badly written and honestly would not mind it seeing completely replaced.

I also was wondering, I think I read that there was a „Stone Bulwark“, which I assume is a stone golem replacement? If so, how many of the other golems got one in this?

How is it with Undead and bleed immunity? Do all have it spelled out now like the mummy from the preview? Or are there some (maybe vampires and Ghouls?) who can be hurt by bleeding?

I am also going to look forward to seeing if anything changes in terms of precision immunity all around since many found it a bit too common.

New harpy has no Song. Has Hungry Winds (pulls a target within 20' to adjacent to the Harpy) and adding a disease to their bite.

The undead that are immune to bleed have it spelled out in their immunities. Vampires don't have it, skeletons do. Haven't checked all undead though.

That is great to hear, thanks!^^

I remember the first encounter I ran against a harpy, that was in an earlier adventure when we all were still relatively new to the system and I think we solved it by going "oh, wait, bard, you could have used countersong for this, let us do that retroactively".

It also honestly fits better. SIRENS have the song part, not harpies. ^^ ;

Also glad for the bleed immunity. Spelling it out on constructs but not undead made zero sense.

You are quite right about the harpy vs siren thing but most people do not know that the sirens in greek mythology are actually pretty similar physically to the harpies. They are bird-like and not fish-like.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Archpaladin Zousha wrote:
WarDriveWorley wrote:
The sidebar on Kobolds and how their eggs pull power from nearby powerful beings, not just dragons, opens up some interesting possibilities for the Ancestry and Heritages in PC2
So they're no longer JUST smol dragon friends who are doing their best! Now they can be smol angel friends or kami friends or elemental friends who are doing their best! :D

Eggzactly!

Some may even be smol Sphere of Annihilation friends doing their best!

1 to 50 of 205 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Monster Core reveals All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.