Monster Core Errata

[Perpdepog]

Now that Monster Core is out in both physical print and PDF formats, it seems like the right time to start posting issues we may have found to help with its eventual second printing/next errata wave. Here are a couple of issues I've noticed so far.
(Note that I am using the PDF for my page numbers. It's possible these numbers are different in the physical printing.)

p. 28: the aesra has weakness to evil 10, when it should have weakness to unholy 10.
p. 240: the norn's "Follower of Fate" section lists Web as a spell that devotees can cast even though Web hasn't yet appeared in the Remaster.

Those are all I recall seeing so far because I didn't take notes when I should have. Anyone else have any errata candidates to share? Also, please take any discussions of creature abilities to the Rules Forum if possible so we can keep this thread easily skimmable for the devs.

[Perpdepog]

p. 254: the caldera oni is referred to as a fire oni in its description.

Also, not sure if this is errata-worthy, but the snow oni, p. 253, has the Unholy trait when no other oni seem to any longer.

[Ectar]

p. 68 Crawling Hand, a tiny creature, has no range listed for its melee attack. Every other tiny creature has a listed range of 0ft, and it doesn't feel like the Crawling Hand should be an exception.

p. 238 Greater Nightmare, a huge creature, has no range listed on any of its melee attacks. Should probably be at least 10ft for its jaws. The large version also has no range listed, but as a large quadruped, that makes more sense than it does for a huge one. Notably, this has existed since the first bestiary so it might be intentional, but I'm still mentioning it.

[Perpdepog]

p. 21: the army ant swarm is missing the immunities to grappled, prone, and restrained that other swarms have. I know that those immunities are stated in the Swarm trait's entry, but the other swarms I've seen have them listed explicitly.
p. 327: the tooth fairy swarm is likewise missing those immunities in its statblock.

[Lucas Yew]

Dragons: The following dragons seem to be smaller than the norm of Young/Large - Adult/Huge - Ancient/Gargantuan:

- Adult Conspirator Dragon (Large)
- Ancient Conspirator Dragon (Huge)
- Ancient Mirage Dragon (Huge)
- Adult Omen Dragon (Large)
- Ancient Omen Dragon (Huge)

Is this intentional?

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

As I recall some dragons used to be different sizes at different stages, so it may be intended. Especially for the occult dragons and I'm not really surprised by Mirage being there too.

[Perpdepog]

The dragons who are coded as being sneakier do seem to be overall lower in level than the direct, smash face dragons.

[Dexter Coffee]

p.77 Brimorak, Size listed as Medium but has always been Small. Not sure if intentional.

Flavor still reads "These goat-headed demons have glowing red eyes and flaming hooves but measure only about 4 feet in height....."

[James Jacobs]

Dexter Coffee wrote:

p.77 Brimorak, Size listed as Medium but has always been Small. Not sure if intentional.

Flavor still reads "These goat-headed demons have glowing red eyes and flaming hooves but measure only about 4 feet in height....."

This is an intentional change.

We don't officially categorize what the height break point is for creature sizes in 2nd edition... but going off of 1st edition's numbers, 4 feet is right at the cusp of the transition from Small to Medium, so it's fine as is as well. (Note also that dwarves are Medium for another example of a shorter Medium creature.)

[StarlingSweeter]

pg. 122 and pg. 123 The adult Mirage Dragon's captivating display is 1 action but when it ages to ancient it becomes 2 actions.

[3Doubloons]

Demonic and Diabolic Pacts heighten half as fast as the pre-remaster Abyssal/Infernal Pact rituals (capping out at summoning a level 11 creature compared to level 20 before). Since the changes otherwise seem to only be to make the phrasing clearer, the nerf seems unintended

[Aenigma]

James Jacobs wrote:

We don't officially categorize what the height break point is for creature sizes in 2nd edition...

According to this webpage, in Pathfinder First Edition the typical height and length of each creature size are concretely defined. I have always thought that Paizo has categorized the creature sizes in Second Edition just like it did in First Edition. But turns out there is no such concrete numbers in Second Edition and Remaster?

By the way, I tried to find the description about the typical height and length of each creature size that can be found in the above link from the First Edition Core Rulebook but I couldn't. Do you know on which page that particular content is located?

[Iron_Matt17]

Aenigma wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

We don't officially categorize what the height break point is for creature sizes in 2nd edition...

According to this webpage, in Pathfinder First Edition the typical height and length of each creature size are concretely defined. I have always thought that Paizo has categorized the creature sizes in Second Edition just like it did in First Edition. But turns out there is no such concrete numbers in Second Edition and Remaster?

By the way, I tried to find the description about the typical height and length of each creature size that can be found in the above link from the First Edition Core Rulebook but I couldn't. Do you know on which page that particular content is located?

<pulls out broken down 1e CRB…>

On pg 20 is a chart of the core races with their relative heights. You can also find height facts in some of the races “Physical Description” sections.
Man, it’s been a while since I perused my old 1e CRB…

Edit- There’s also a Random Height and Weight Chart on page 170…

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

As it turns out, what size category a creature belongs in has more to do with vibes than the linear distance between the top of their head to the bottom of their feet... or similar support structure

[Calliope5431]

There are several monsters with Grab/Knockdown/Push (and improved versions of the same) which do not have any sort of Athletics bonus that would allow them to actually use those abilities.

Went through with a CTRL + F for Grab, Knockdown, and Push:

Qarna archon (pg. 27) has Push but no Athletics training of any kind. This means it is rolling at only +3, at level 4. Its other skills are +10, and its attacks are at +14. It is unlikely to succeed on Pushes unless it rolls a natural 20.

Phistophilus devil (pg. 90) has Grab but no Athletics training. This means it will be attempting to Grab with a whopping +3 Str bonus (+3 Athletics), at level 10. Its normal attacks are rolling at +23, and most of its skills are around +20. It cannot succeed on most Grabs even with a natural 20.

[Powers128]

Those might have been written without consideration of the updated grab rules I'm guessing

[Calliope5431]

Powers128 wrote:

Those might have been written without consideration of the updated grab rules I'm guessing

Oh they absolutely were. Well, more accurately, they were copied over from previous monsters without consideration of the grab rules.

Speaking of which.

Mentions of the wish spell seems to have just been copy-replaced in Monster Core with the wish ritual, rather than the 10th rank spell manifestation.

This means that people killed by norns and warsworns are now impossible to resurrect by means other than a Rare 10th level ritual capable of granting godhood, and that the ability to resurrect people slain by them is functionally no longer in the hands of the party unless the GM wants it to be. It also means that phistophilus devils can likely now grant divine ascension.

I'm not sure if this is an error but it does seem notably more punitive.

[Gorgo Primus]

Animated Broom (pg.18) has its AC listed as “15 (13 when broken)”, but under its Construct Armor section it says it has AC 14 when broken.

[Gorgo Primus]

Hobgoblin General’s ‘General’s Cry’ ability still refers to the Goblin trait, which for whatever reason none of the Hobgoblins have anymore. (Pg.199)

[Calliope5431]

Nuckelavee on pg. 243 have an illegal (or at least undefined) spell rank. They have toxic cloud as a 3rd rank spell, despite the base spell being a 5th. I have no idea how that even works, since normally you cannot cast 5th rank spells as 3rds.

I assume this was because of a copy-replace of stinking cloud with toxic cloud.

[Calliope5431]

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

[Elfteiroh]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

[Calliope5431]

Elfteiroh wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

True, but recall that there's a similar issue with onis - which were all evil fiends premaster and are now sometimes unholy but usually aren't, and which I (among other people) rather doubt was intentional.

Just wanted to point it out because it might be unintended, and I have no idea either way.

[dirkdragonslayer]

Dexter Coffee wrote:

p.77 Brimorak, Size listed as Medium but has always been Small. Not sure if intentional.

Flavor still reads "These goat-headed demons have glowing red eyes and flaming hooves but measure only about 4 feet in height....."

I think it used to say they were 3 feet tall? So they at least got a foot taller.

I guess someone felt that the "basic" soldier demon being just a little guy felt odd. The art looks like a big scary beastman, and then he's actually a gnome-sized bipedal goat. I think I'm still going to run mine as small, because I think it will be interesting to see how my players react to a single kobold-sized goat being more powerful than an ogre. Really emphasizes how scary the world wound was when even the basic little guys can kill a village singlehandedly.

[Cori Marie]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

True, but recall that there's a similar issue with onis - which were all evil fiends premaster and are now sometimes unholy but usually aren't, and which I (among other people) rather doubt was intentional.

Just wanted to point it out because it might be unintended, and I have no idea either way.

I mean, with regards to onis that was part of them being fiends. They no longer are, so yes, I think its intended that not all of them are unholy

[The Raven Black]

Cori Marie wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

True, but recall that there's a similar issue with onis - which were all evil fiends premaster and are now sometimes unholy but usually aren't, and which I (among other people) rather doubt was intentional.

Just wanted to point it out because it might be unintended, and I have no idea either way.

I mean, with regards to onis that was part of them being fiends. They no longer are, so yes, I think its intended that not all of them are unholy

Indeed. You can be the most awful creature in the whole of reality without being sanctified to Unholy.

The recruitment drive for these tarnished but officially unaligned souls must be something.

[Calliope5431]

The Raven Black wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

True, but recall that there's a similar issue with onis - which were all evil fiends premaster and are now sometimes unholy but usually aren't, and which I (among other people) rather doubt was intentional.

Just wanted to point it out because it might be unintended, and I have no idea either way.

I mean, with regards to onis that was part of them being fiends. They no longer are, so yes, I think its intended that not all of them are unholy

Indeed. You can be the most awful creature in the whole of reality without being sanctified to Unholy.

The recruitment drive for these tarnished but officially unaligned souls must be something.

Oh yes, I know. I understand completely why them not being unholy could be a deliberate choice. Again, there's a reason I said that I was uncertain one way or the other. I'd guess it's intended, but I wanted to highlight it just in case it wasn't.

I mean, please. Ghosts are unholy and don't have to be evil (or unholy) anymore. I'd honestly expect an unholy revenant before I would an unholy ghost.

[Elfteiroh]

Calliope5431 wrote:

Elfteiroh wrote:

Calliope5431 wrote:

Unclear if it's intended or not, but revenants (pg. 292) do not have the [unholy] tag like all other undead. Might be intentional, though.

Goliath spider, pg. 321. Stage 3 of goliath spider venom doesn't call out the damage type. It's obviously poison like the other two stages, but it's not mentioned.

About revenants: They were also not evil pre-remaster. The lore specifically mention that, and that is still refleted in them not being unholy now.

True, but recall that there's a similar issue with onis - which were all evil fiends premaster and are now sometimes unholy but usually aren't, and which I (among other people) rather doubt was intentional.

Just wanted to point it out because it might be unintended, and I have no idea either way.

I don't remember which one, bit they DID say in a stream that it was intentional.

Basically, "Holy/Unholy" is "signing up" on the struggles of the outer planes. Onis are purely focused on the Universe, like Kami. The latter will most probably also not be holy actually. As mentioned in the Tian Xia books, sometimes "celestial" creatures there are not necessarily holy or benevolant. Same thing for the things that combat them. The won't necessarily be unholy.

It's similar to Rakshaza. Some do interact with these conflicts, but as they are now better based in IRL mythologies, not all of them do care, and some are actuallly actively benevolant (IRL, there was at least one "very good" one).

(Undead are kinda conscripted into it because of the way they are created, using void energy in an ugly parody of vital energy... which is something very important for big powers in the outer planes... But even then there are the Phantoms (not actually undead), and some undeads that have managed to control the flux of vitriol...)

[Solarsyphon]

Something interesting is that gods in Tian Xia seem to also be subjectively holy or unholy. For example the followers of Hei Feng can only choose to be holy if they are Tengu.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

What size are imps? On Archives of Nethys they are listed as small, but in monster core they are listed as tiny.

[Perpdepog]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

What size are imps? On Archives of Nethys they are listed as small, but in monster core they are listed as tiny.

My guess is that it's an oopsie on AoN's part. They were tiny pre-master, too.

[Ectar]

The Diabolic Dragon grows from Large to Gargantuan across the three age categories that have stats.
Its attack ranges do not grow with it.

Every other dragon goes from Large to Gargantuan, while their melee attacks go from:
Bite 10ft
Claw 5ft
Tail 15 ft

up to
Bite 20ft
Claw 15ft
Tail 30ft

Except for the Diabolic Dragon, whose melee attack ranges do not change at all.
(Also except for the somewhat more diminutive dragons who do not advance to Gargantuan, but whose melee attack ranges at least still increase while going from large to huge: Conspirator, Mirage, and Omen)