Favourite Monster in Monster Core?

[Ritunn]

Now that Monster Core has been out for a bit, I'm wondering what monsters, new or remastered, people love from the book? Personally, I love the cuckoo hag. A hag inspired by the Other Mother from Coraline with its own little twist is really inspiring for a lot of characters and certainly makes me think of several quests I'd love to run for players.

[Perpdepog]

The cuckoo hag is very cool. I really like all the hags; their new designs and more overtly eldritch-ness make them much more interesting to me than generic evil old woman.

I'm not sure I can pick a specific monster. I've mostly been enjoying the alterations to monster families, things like hags being spookier and more distinct, and especially the archons becoming akin to goodly qlippoth. I really like how they've redone the archons; they feel less like grumpier angels now.

[Nintendogeek01]

I find I'm partial to the Fortune Dragon taking the concept of dragons hoarding treasure to a logical conclusion.

[Rory Collins]

Perpdepog wrote:

The cuckoo hag is very cool. I really like all the hags; their new designs and more overtly eldritch-ness make them much more interesting to me than generic evil old woman.

I'm not sure I can pick a specific monster. I've mostly been enjoying the alterations to monster families, things like hags being spookier and more distinct, and especially the archons becoming akin to goodly qlippoth. I really like how they've redone the archons; they feel less like grumpier angels now.

The Cuckoo Hag for me for sure. I love Coraline and have a Coraline style adventure I had written and this makes it easier instead of homebrewing stats.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

I don't have the book, but from the previews it's probably the Be Not Afraid archons, and archons having their own family identity in general. That said, really all of the monster updates have been exciting to me so far, right down to the ghoul changing from a fever disease to a whisper-borne curse (really, it only makes even more sense now every ghoul you might see in the Whispering Way...)

[Perpdepog]

I'm also really, really enjoying how fewer creatures in this book are bad for the sake of being bad, even relatively niche creatures, like the pukwudgie. The pukwudgie are now fey who have a hyper-developed sense of propriety and politeness, and can take grave offense at even the smallest perceived slight. (They're prickly, get it? GET IT?)
That's way more fun than when they were porcupine people who created zombies and were just mean, just 'cause.

[Ravingdork]

I really like the pusk, and the new look for the dero. The xoarians are absolutely terrifying and I look forward to using them. All the dragons are *chef's kiss*.

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm also really, really enjoying how fewer creatures in this book are bad for the sake of being bad.

Well I'm not. Less evil monsters makes the job of the GM harder, and much of the new nuance is often lost on the players anyways.

I do agree that it makes monsters more interesting to read about though; I just don't think it makes as much of a positive impact in practice as people seem to think.

[Calliope5431]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

I don't have the book, but from the previews it's probably the Be Not Afraid archons, and archons having their own family identity in general. That said, really all of the monster updates have been exciting to me so far, right down to the ghoul changing from a fever disease to a whisper-borne curse (really, it only makes even more sense now every ghoul you might see in the Whispering Way...)

The "ancient good" angle they went with for archons was gorgeous. Because there should totally be a good equivalent of qlippoth and asuras, which predate modern Heaven. Eldritch "burn you to ashes if you look at them" celestial beings have always appealed to me.

Ravingdork wrote:

Well I'm not. Less evil monsters makes the job of the GM harder, and much of the new nuance is often lost on the players anyways.

I hear that. I admit I'm the type of person who looks at all the celestial statblocks Pathfinder publishes (hurray for actually having those!) and goes "okay, so these are cool - how can we get the PCs into a fistfight with them?"

But I also hand out unholy runes on the regular just to see what happens. I account for them at half value so that if people want to just donate them to the local church of Iomedae for destruction (it has bounties on evil relics like that) they don't fall behind on WBL.

[Perpdepog]

Ravingdork wrote:

I really like the pusk, and the new look for the dero. The xoarians are absolutely terrifying and I look forward to using them. All the dragons are *chef's kiss*.

On a different note, the words pusk and ort are so gross and I love them. They really conote how you're supposed to feel.

Ravingdork wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm also really, really enjoying how fewer creatures in this book are bad for the sake of being bad.

Well I'm not. Less evil monsters makes the job of the GM harder, and much of the new nuance is often lost on the players anyways.

I do agree that it makes monsters more interesting to read about though; I just don't think it makes as much of a positive impact in practice as people seem to think.

I mean, if you want a monster to be evil for the sake of being evil, you don't need to do anything for that; just plonk them down on the table, say "this thing wants to kill you, get it," and let the encounter play out. Giving monsters motivations and psychologies for why they may become antagonists is harder and takes more work, so I don't really accept your premise that giving more monsters motivations is somehow less positive or helpful for the GM.

[Perpdepog]

Double posting because my edits kept getting et, but also note that I said "bad for the sake of being bad," not that I'm glad that more monsters aren't bad; plenty still are. More of them are just having diverse reasons for being antagonists now.

[Calliope5431]

Perpdepog wrote:

Double posting because my edits kept getting et, but also note that I said "bad for the sake of being bad," not that I'm glad that more monsters aren't bad; plenty still are. More of them are just having diverse reasons for being antagonists now.

I do think Ravingdork has a point though. Just because someone can be bad doesn't mean it makes much sense. And the effort that the GM puts into justifying this is effort not put into other things. The Nazgul are terrifying villains even before you know their backstory. So is Smaug, and his backstory and motivation amount to "all dragons are evil and greedy".

You can have bad guy/antagonist celestials. I can count on one hand the adventures that actually do this. Ditto bad guy metallic dragons, bad guy psychopomps, and bad guy kami (yes they're called oni, I'm aware, but those are very clearly designated evil).

There's a reason pathfinder 1e put out over 300 pages for the Book of the Damned but the chronicle of the righteous and concordance of rivals are each around a quarter that length. Creating page count for things that the PCs are less likely to fight has downsides.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Before this discussion slips entirely too far afield of the original topic, I just wanted to note that the original example given in this thread of a formerly evil monster being given a more nuanced description, the pukwudgie, actually has the "prickly" description in the legacy description, where it was still tagged as NE. Just wanted that to be noted before there were too many words spent worrying over the loss of evil monsters. Perhaps someone who has the MC would like to confirm if the description is indeed very much changed, or maybe find another evil monster to found this discussion upon?

[Ectar]

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Before this discussion slips entirely too far afield of the original topic, I just wanted to note that the original example given in this thread of a formerly evil monster being given a more nuanced description, the pukwudgie, actually has the "prickly" description in the legacy description, where it was still tagged as NE. Just wanted that to be noted before there were too many words spent worrying over the loss of evil monsters. Perhaps someone who has the MC would like to confirm if the description is indeed very much changed, or maybe find another evil monster to found this discussion upon?

The following sentence was added in the Monster Core: "Violent fey like twigjacks and redcaps often gather under pukwudgie leadership, much to the puckwudgie's glee." It is appended after "...don't treat them with proper respect."

The rest is just things like replacing Material Plane with Universe and the like. Everything else is identical in content.

[Ectar]

Back to the original question:
Mitflits. Love 'em. But that's a bit of a boring answer, since they're old.

I don't overly love most of the truly new monsters in the book, but a few of the updates are nice.
Raktavarna being in the Monster Core is nice Mimic adjacent creature to partially fill that niche.
Dragonette is a neat little category to cover the space of Faerie Dragons and Pseudodragons.

And I LOVE that imps aren't devils anymore. They are spawned from any of the evilly aligned planes, directly (instead of just Hell). This does remove the Quasit, but they were basically just chaotic imps anyway. But it also means we get NE-flavoured imps from Abaddon now, which is new.

[dirkdragonslayer]

This thread started with gushing over the new Hags, so I probably shouldn't focus on it. Even if I love them very much. I like that the Iron Hag looks a little like a fighter, she's ready to throw hands.

My favorite new monster is either the Ofalth Larva or Sargassum Heap. The art for the Ofalth Larva is kinda cute in a weird way, and I like having a weaker "living mound" type of monster available to throw at my lower level players. CR10 is surprisingly high on the Ofalth, when other sewer/trash dwellers your low level party will fight is like rats, sewer oozes, and spiders. It's nice having more options. Though the new art raises a few questions; inside the Ofalth is there a spider (like that Monster Hunter creature that is a mantis with a rubble mecha suit) or are those legs just a different type of tendril? Because the normal old Ofalth looks like a beefy mass of plant matter.

Sargassum heap has lovely art, and I enjoy the idea of mirage spores. Like your players walk into a grotto or creek near the sea shore, and suddenly see their villain or their loved ones. They become fascinated, walk into the encounter, then from beneath the water they get grabbed. It's an awesome image, and I desperately want to use it. I think I'm going to have some Boggards worshipping one in their swamp, believing the mirage is their diety Gogunta. After "Gogunta" lures in and eats some Boggards, the tribe starts kidnapping people to feed her more. The party arrives and every member sees something or someone else... "Wait a minute..."

[Perpdepog]

Ectar wrote:

Back to the original question:

Mitflits. Love 'em. But that's a bit of a boring answer, since they're old.

I don't overly love most of the truly new monsters in the book, but a few of the updates are nice.
Raktavarna being in the Monster Core is nice Mimic adjacent creature to partially fill that niche.
Dragonette is a neat little category to cover the space of Faerie Dragons and Pseudodragons.

And I LOVE that imps aren't devils anymore. They are spawned from any of the evilly aligned planes, directly (instead of just Hell). This does remove the Quasit, but they were basically just chaotic imps anyway. But it also means we get NE-flavoured imps from Abaddon now, which is new.

I wonder if we'll be seeing other dragonettes in the future with influences from other planes or themes, somewhat akin to how kobolds are described now.

[Dubious Scholar]

Scamps are adorable and I'd like one as a pet now please.

[Squark]

My only problems with the scamps are 1) I can't find the water scamp are in the book, only online. 2) The earth scamp art is hidden in the index, so people may not get to see it the delightful little beast. 3) Rage of the Elements lacks Metal and Wood Scamp art, so we're still missing two more delightful little elementals (probably because they needed an art redesign after the Remaster began, but still).

Or to make it simpler, my problem with the scamps is that I NEED MORE OF THEM.

[Perpdepog]

I like what was done with wraiths. They got less powerful overall, I think, but they became more distinctive. They also sound more like true beings of the Void now, which I don't believe they were before. Previously that was a title only sceaduinars held, I think.

[scary harpy]

Ectar wrote:

Back to the original question:

Mitflits. Love 'em. But that's a bit of a boring answer, since they're old.

...

I love the Mitflits, too. I feel so sorry for the miserable little underdogs that I just want to help them. I wish I knew how.

[dirkdragonslayer]

Squark wrote:

My only problems with the scamps are 1) I can't find the water scamp are in the book, only online. 2) The earth scamp art is hidden in the index, so people may not get to see it the delightful little beast. 3) Rage of the Elements lacks Metal and Wood Scamp art, so we're still missing two more delightful little elementals (probably because they needed an art redesign after the Remaster began, but still).

Or to make it simpler, my problem with the scamps is that I NEED MORE OF THEM.

My guess was the water scamp that was previewed was the prototype art, and then the art director said "No, go back and make them cuter and more elemental looking," before release. So then they made the other scamps for Monster Core and Water Scamp was left on the editing table.

Because the Water Scamp art we saw looks way different from the Earth/Fire/Air ones we can see. Completely different head design and body proportions, the water scamp was kinda just blue with no elemental signifier.

[Ezekieru]

dirkdragonslayer wrote:

Squark wrote:

My only problems with the scamps are 1) I can't find the water scamp are in the book, only online. 2) The earth scamp art is hidden in the index, so people may not get to see it the delightful little beast. 3) Rage of the Elements lacks Metal and Wood Scamp art, so we're still missing two more delightful little elementals (probably because they needed an art redesign after the Remaster began, but still).

Or to make it simpler, my problem with the scamps is that I NEED MORE OF THEM.

My guess was the water scamp that was previewed was the prototype art, and then the art director said "No, go back and make them cuter and more elemental looking," before release. So then they made the other scamps for Monster Core and Water Scamp was left on the editing table.

Because the Water Scamp art we saw looks way different from the Earth/Fire/Air ones we can see. Completely different head design and body proportions, the water scamp was kinda just blue with no elemental signifier.

Actually, seems the different appearance of the Water Scamp was notated in the beginning paragraph of the creature's page:

"Water scamps are marked apart from other scamps by sleek fur that traps a layer of water next to their skin."

So I would assume the Water Scamp's art that was shown off will be the final art.

[Archpaladin Zousha]

scary harpy wrote:

Ectar wrote:

Back to the original question:

Mitflits. Love 'em. But that's a bit of a boring answer, since they're old.

...

I love the Mitflits, too. I feel so sorry for the miserable little underdogs that I just want to help them. I wish I knew how.

Take a page from Pathfinder: Kingmaker's book and have them team up with the OTHER underdogs of the Pathfinder world. Kobolds and mitflits UNITE (and maybe find love)!

[Lucas Yew]

The new Diabolic Dragons, as they encompass everything I'd expect from a Big Bad Evil Dragon trope. Even better than the unmentionables of the same scale color, as after Smaug and Glaurung I expect European dragons to be more vile chessmasters than a brutish beast.

[Calliope5431]

Lucas Yew wrote:

The new Diabolic Dragons, as they encompass everything I'd expect from a Big Bad Evil Dragon trope. Even better than the unmentionables of the same scale color, as after Smaug and Glaurung I expect European dragons to be more vile chessmasters than a brutish beast.

Diabolic dragons are great. Very classic, very fun, they even make dragonfire burn through fire resistance.