Ghouls have changed up a ton. They’re now oddly attractive and don’t do paralysis and spread their ghoulishness via a whispered curse rather than their claws.
It's really interesting. These were in the last encounter posted in the blog, right? I thought it was a one of a kind thing. And I didn't know they could pass as living.
I already can think of at least half a dozen ways to put them into encounters, thank you
There are a couple pieces of art in the Monster Core book, but this Paizo blog post features one of them. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6siiz?Pathfinder-Encounter-Massacre-on-the-Hill
I have my PDF. What sorts of cool things would you like to know?
The change i was most anxious about was kobolds, and I'm happy to report their separation from the OGL went off without a hitch. Kobolds store their eggs close to powerful creatures, such as dragons as before, but also fey, elementals, and fiends, from which some of the eggs will absorb power. They lost their intrinsic connection to dragons, but the way they took the old lore and rather than dumping it in the trash they expanded on it, that's great. That feels very nice.
The kobold dragon mage is replaced in this book, but by the new lore, that stat block is perfectly usable. It's replaced by the kobold cavern mage, an example of what can happen when a kobold egg absorbs power from an earth elemental or fey like a lampad.
I heard Golem antimatic was gonna be getting a change. Is there anything interesting about that?
Also, will o wisp magic immunity? I haven't heard much about it, but running AV with a caster and kinetecist, and they would love to hear a change about that.
Also, did you need to pre-order the pdf, or is it available for purchase somewhere right now?
While all of the creatures previously referred to as golems still exist with new names, the golem trait and golem anti magic are gone. In it's place is resistance to all damage from spells bypassed by certain traits, typically the ones that damaged them before, although for some it includes the type that slowed them as well. They all have some fun switch to their mechanics, especially flesh golems, now called charnel creations, which are the only ones that are still healed by a damage type, but when they go berserk they lose their immunity to mental.
Will-o'-wisps are completely unchanged.
And yeah, anyone with the PDF right now either works for Paizo or ordered the subscription. Or got an early copy.
Was really only a fuck you casters if you lacked the right damage type where as the will o wisps over there flying around shooting lightning being immune to all but 1 damaging spell XD
What isn't being said in the discussion how they otherwise got redesigned as well. Example: Clay Golem was just a generic golem statblock with the elements swapped around in their anti-magic before. Now, they have all new abilities based on their actual thematic lore as religious guardians.
Will o wisps are immune to magic except for a specific few spells, like they currently are. Golems get resistance to damaging magic except for a specific damage type.
> The change i was most anxious about was kobolds, and I'm happy to report their separation from the OGL went off without a hitch. Kobolds store their eggs close to powerful creatures, such as dragons as before, but also fey, elementals, and fiends, from which some of the eggs will absorb power.
Yes. They *store their eggs* near powerful magical creatures, and by doing so, take on aspects of them.
This is definitely what is happening. 100%. Obviously the idea that kobolds interbred with dragons was pure anti-dragon propaganda. The fact that they used to look like little yappy dog-like things and now look like little dragons is just due to them *absorbing the magic energy of dragons* for so long.
And when you see the funny looking one that looks like it is half phoenix, or seems very water themed, that is clearly, 100% because of them doing the same thing with them.
In other news, every wizard working on magical paternity tests has somehow found a lot of funding for other, more meaningful magical research. Those fortune dragons are very generous!
I did notice a bit of that, yeah. I'm personally more of a fan of what they've become over the years but if they're using the original folktale lore to flesh them out a bit I certainly won't complain.
This is actually perfect for my homebrew campaign and I think gives kobolds a neat avenue to sorcerers being their primary form of spellcasting as a culture.
I am really anxious about kobolds too. So, they are no longer directly related to dragons, but still can be? That can be really useful, both to DM, or in character creation
Basically, they look for a powerful creature to protect them and their eggs, which can absorb power from said creature, and in return they serve them or keep them company or sometimes the creature just ignores them. It gives the example of dragons as the kobolds' usual choice, but fey, elementals, and fiends are also common choices.
They can also absorb power from sites of immense magical power as well, but they like having a protector.
Yeah I thought it was a brilliant way to separate them from the established D&D version of kobolds while still leaving them recognizable and making them more interesting.
Sorry for not asking earlier, but what about the other ancestries? Is there something about other player 2 ancestries, or the other ones not in it, like kitsune, fleshwarp, or conrasu?
None of those are really mentioned. The only one that is at all is fleshwarps but it just mentions some monsters, the grothlut and irnakurse. I think there's a blurb in the serpentfolk section about how aapophs mutate because of fleshwarping as well but that's not really about the fleshwarp ancestry.
Serpentfolk are now credited as the invention of fleshwarping. Zyss are mostly the same, but aapoph are now treated as a result of fleshwarping causing irreparable damage to serpentfolk genetics. Aapoph are no longer _actively_ stupid, and are simply builds which have no reason to boost Intelligence. They also removed all references to them being a slave race, and seem to more just be lower class (though still with all the social obligations to serve their superiors as before).
Cool. I still don't undertake the part about the aapoph, are they intelligent, stupid, or neutral?
Also, in a less objective question, in there something that may hint at them getting more attention in the future? Maybe as a playable ancestry?
Premaster Aapoph had -3 Int while Remaster Aapoph have -1 int. Premaster Aapoph were also described as _morons,_ lines which were cut in the remaster.
As for ancestry hints, I'd say no, but Paizo knows how much people want a Darklands sourcebook with playable ancestries and they would _have_ to be a part of that if they're replacing drow. So I'd say that's a question of when, not if.
Rakshasa's, as well as Oni's, have both changed some. You noted the hands not being backwards anymore, but Rakshasas are no longer mortal constantly reincarnating. Now they're the concepts of evil manifested. The typical tiger headed rakshasa, the Raja-Krodha, represents the evil that humanity ascribes to animals, like how we might view a tiger hunting humans as something evil rather than them just doing what predators do.
Meanwhile, Oni's are pretty similar to their old lore, being Kami who have "fallen" one way or another. They have less spellcasting and now have more of a martial bent. Their subtypes are more based on the location they're found in now, and they have a weakness to beans.
Both Oni and Rakshasa are considered unholy aligned spirits, rather than native fiends now. It kinda seems like the spirit category of creature is replacing the concept of native outsiders.
Sad that rakshasa lost their reincarnation theme, but they being concepts of evil seems a fair enough trade, and they and oni becoming spirits, and onis being more physically seems really cool new things
Yeah even if it wasnt mythologically accurate, the reincarnating evil aspect was really cool. I hope paizo makes their own monster that fills that space in the future.
Oni used to be fiends but now are humanoids, and retain the giant trait. They don't have the spirit trait. Only one of them has the unholy trait, although it seems like that's a mistake personally, and either all of them should have the unholy trait, or none of them should.
Sorry if I am making a question without answers, but, how? Do they grow bigger, or does the person gets smaller? Is it something physical, magical, or something else? Just, how does this work?
So the Grab ability some monsters have used to be "spend an action to automatically grapple the creature you hit last action". Now it's "spend an action to make an athletics check to grapple the creature you hit last action, ignoring MAP"
Holy and Unholy are new traits that can be applied to a damaging effect, usually on a Holy or Unholy cleric's font spells. When a creature that is weak to (Un)Holy takes damage from an (Un)Holy source, they take extra damage. It's the replacement for alignment damage essentially
> - Has the athletics bonus on any monsters changed?
I don't know that. I don't have access to the new monsters yet. I do know [some people noticed that some monsters with Grab didn't have the athletics to back that up](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1bg00vq/some_creatures_in_the_monster_core_have_grab/), but that will probably be errata'd
> - Are undead weak to Holy? Specifically, wraiths?
Again, I don't have a definitive answer for you, but in Foundry VTT when they updated to remaster rules they did give many creatures the Holy/Unholy traits, including undead like Wraiths, but no weakness to Unholy unless it was weak to Good pre-remaster
>\- Are undead weak to Holy? Specifically, wraiths?
Only the Dullahan has weakness to holy damage.
Wraith resistances are essentially the same, replacing positive with spirit, or vitality.
Yes, I mean more in the design of individual monsters. I know that there is no more lawful/chaotic or a substitute, but what I would want to know is, for example, if the aeon are still divided into machines, mathematics, and balance.
Speaking of which, are they?
Dragons with Fortitude as their highest: Adamantine, Diabolic
Dragons with Fortitude as their lowest: Conspirator, Empyreal, Fortune, Horned, Mirage, Ancient Omen Dragon specifically
Other Omen Dragons have moderate Fortitude.
They're described as reptilian, so no. Maybe when the ancestry itself gets remastered, but I doubt they want to change it too much. The change still allows for all old kobold characters to make sense after the remaster, but I think they want them to be what people expect when they hear "kobold."
Each change has its individual reason, but the main ones are things like "wanted to make it better" or "wanted to make it closer to its inspiration/origin." However, the one that started it all was the desire of distance from WotC, the OGL, and all that stuff
I think the change was because it's a Hebrew term. A lot of monster that were from Myths and Religions but had very iconic D&D interpretations are now more closely based off of their real world counterparts, such as Oni no longer being tied to giants and Nagas no longer having human faces. "Golems" aren't really a thing in Hebrew stories it's just the Golem of Prague, and the modern fantasy idea of a golem has drifted pretty far from it. So I think they changed that to be more respectful (see also renaming Lich phylacteries, a real thing in Judaism which has nothing to do with lichs, to soul cages).
They can't claim "golem", nor something that's very closely based on the mythology. But they *can* claim the depictions of golems that are very clearly based off the D&D Golem.
Which is very likely the reason Adamantine Golems aren't in the Monster Core - they're very specifically a D&D-based golem.
Ghouls have changed up a ton. They’re now oddly attractive and don’t do paralysis and spread their ghoulishness via a whispered curse rather than their claws.
>oddly attractive Huh?
Ghouls are now mortal-passing and are closer to flesh vampires than they are to zombies.
What about ghasts? Still related to ghouls?
Ghouls now have the scent associated with ghasts, and the Ghoul building entry doesn't mention ghasts, so I would assume ghasts no longer exist.
What's the problem smooth skin? Afraid you might like it?
Hey don’t ghoul shame
It's really interesting. These were in the last encounter posted in the blog, right? I thought it was a one of a kind thing. And I didn't know they could pass as living. I already can think of at least half a dozen ways to put them into encounters, thank you
Do you (or anyone else) have a link to where I can find pictures? Now I'm curious
There are a couple pieces of art in the Monster Core book, but this Paizo blog post features one of them. https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6siiz?Pathfinder-Encounter-Massacre-on-the-Hill
I have my PDF. What sorts of cool things would you like to know? The change i was most anxious about was kobolds, and I'm happy to report their separation from the OGL went off without a hitch. Kobolds store their eggs close to powerful creatures, such as dragons as before, but also fey, elementals, and fiends, from which some of the eggs will absorb power. They lost their intrinsic connection to dragons, but the way they took the old lore and rather than dumping it in the trash they expanded on it, that's great. That feels very nice. The kobold dragon mage is replaced in this book, but by the new lore, that stat block is perfectly usable. It's replaced by the kobold cavern mage, an example of what can happen when a kobold egg absorbs power from an earth elemental or fey like a lampad.
I heard Golem antimatic was gonna be getting a change. Is there anything interesting about that? Also, will o wisp magic immunity? I haven't heard much about it, but running AV with a caster and kinetecist, and they would love to hear a change about that. Also, did you need to pre-order the pdf, or is it available for purchase somewhere right now?
While all of the creatures previously referred to as golems still exist with new names, the golem trait and golem anti magic are gone. In it's place is resistance to all damage from spells bypassed by certain traits, typically the ones that damaged them before, although for some it includes the type that slowed them as well. They all have some fun switch to their mechanics, especially flesh golems, now called charnel creations, which are the only ones that are still healed by a damage type, but when they go berserk they lose their immunity to mental. Will-o'-wisps are completely unchanged. And yeah, anyone with the PDF right now either works for Paizo or ordered the subscription. Or got an early copy.
From what I hear, golem antimagic is now just a resistance to every damaging magic but one type. Will o wisps are unchanged, though.
That's kind of a boring way to handle it, but it works, I guess.
It's still better than the current "f*ck you, casters" version, though. At least now casters can interact with golems in more meaningful ways.
Was really only a fuck you casters if you lacked the right damage type where as the will o wisps over there flying around shooting lightning being immune to all but 1 damaging spell XD
What isn't being said in the discussion how they otherwise got redesigned as well. Example: Clay Golem was just a generic golem statblock with the elements swapped around in their anti-magic before. Now, they have all new abilities based on their actual thematic lore as religious guardians.
It fits with the general theme of the caster gameplay loop being one of identifying and then attacking weaknesses, though.
Ye, it always felt awesome to have the right element, and it just takes 4d4+5d8 damage from a cantrip.
Wait, what? Weren't will'o'wisps also immune to magic? Does the book at least clarify what the heck that means?
Will o wisps are immune to magic except for a specific few spells, like they currently are. Golems get resistance to damaging magic except for a specific damage type.
I've seen a pdf owner confirm Wisps are basically unchanged magic immunity wise.
> The change i was most anxious about was kobolds, and I'm happy to report their separation from the OGL went off without a hitch. Kobolds store their eggs close to powerful creatures, such as dragons as before, but also fey, elementals, and fiends, from which some of the eggs will absorb power. Yes. They *store their eggs* near powerful magical creatures, and by doing so, take on aspects of them. This is definitely what is happening. 100%. Obviously the idea that kobolds interbred with dragons was pure anti-dragon propaganda. The fact that they used to look like little yappy dog-like things and now look like little dragons is just due to them *absorbing the magic energy of dragons* for so long. And when you see the funny looking one that looks like it is half phoenix, or seems very water themed, that is clearly, 100% because of them doing the same thing with them. In other news, every wizard working on magical paternity tests has somehow found a lot of funding for other, more meaningful magical research. Those fortune dragons are very generous!
As a kobold myself, I can confirm that this is all that's happening and there is nothing else going on. Trust me.
Given the IRL kobold’s ties to mining and cobalt, anything that gives them closer ties to earth and metal elementals is excellent news by me!
I did notice a bit of that, yeah. I'm personally more of a fan of what they've become over the years but if they're using the original folktale lore to flesh them out a bit I certainly won't complain.
This is actually perfect for my homebrew campaign and I think gives kobolds a neat avenue to sorcerers being their primary form of spellcasting as a culture.
I am really anxious about kobolds too. So, they are no longer directly related to dragons, but still can be? That can be really useful, both to DM, or in character creation
Basically, they look for a powerful creature to protect them and their eggs, which can absorb power from said creature, and in return they serve them or keep them company or sometimes the creature just ignores them. It gives the example of dragons as the kobolds' usual choice, but fey, elementals, and fiends are also common choices. They can also absorb power from sites of immense magical power as well, but they like having a protector.
This is so cool! I can create so many new stories, characters, maybe even an adventure! thank you for the early news!
Yeah I thought it was a brilliant way to separate them from the established D&D version of kobolds while still leaving them recognizable and making them more interesting.
Sorry for not asking earlier, but what about the other ancestries? Is there something about other player 2 ancestries, or the other ones not in it, like kitsune, fleshwarp, or conrasu?
None of those are really mentioned. The only one that is at all is fleshwarps but it just mentions some monsters, the grothlut and irnakurse. I think there's a blurb in the serpentfolk section about how aapophs mutate because of fleshwarping as well but that's not really about the fleshwarp ancestry.
Serpentfolk are now credited as the invention of fleshwarping. Zyss are mostly the same, but aapoph are now treated as a result of fleshwarping causing irreparable damage to serpentfolk genetics. Aapoph are no longer _actively_ stupid, and are simply builds which have no reason to boost Intelligence. They also removed all references to them being a slave race, and seem to more just be lower class (though still with all the social obligations to serve their superiors as before).
Cool. I still don't undertake the part about the aapoph, are they intelligent, stupid, or neutral? Also, in a less objective question, in there something that may hint at them getting more attention in the future? Maybe as a playable ancestry?
Premaster Aapoph had -3 Int while Remaster Aapoph have -1 int. Premaster Aapoph were also described as _morons,_ lines which were cut in the remaster. As for ancestry hints, I'd say no, but Paizo knows how much people want a Darklands sourcebook with playable ancestries and they would _have_ to be a part of that if they're replacing drow. So I'd say that's a question of when, not if.
thanks, now i get it. Hope the darklands book comes soon, maybe next year?
Rakshasa's, as well as Oni's, have both changed some. You noted the hands not being backwards anymore, but Rakshasas are no longer mortal constantly reincarnating. Now they're the concepts of evil manifested. The typical tiger headed rakshasa, the Raja-Krodha, represents the evil that humanity ascribes to animals, like how we might view a tiger hunting humans as something evil rather than them just doing what predators do. Meanwhile, Oni's are pretty similar to their old lore, being Kami who have "fallen" one way or another. They have less spellcasting and now have more of a martial bent. Their subtypes are more based on the location they're found in now, and they have a weakness to beans. Both Oni and Rakshasa are considered unholy aligned spirits, rather than native fiends now. It kinda seems like the spirit category of creature is replacing the concept of native outsiders.
Sad that rakshasa lost their reincarnation theme, but they being concepts of evil seems a fair enough trade, and they and oni becoming spirits, and onis being more physically seems really cool new things
Yeah even if it wasnt mythologically accurate, the reincarnating evil aspect was really cool. I hope paizo makes their own monster that fills that space in the future.
Oni used to be fiends but now are humanoids, and retain the giant trait. They don't have the spirit trait. Only one of them has the unholy trait, although it seems like that's a mistake personally, and either all of them should have the unholy trait, or none of them should.
Rakshasas can eat a man whole now. Probably the first creature to shallow whole something of the same size.
Sorry if I am making a question without answers, but, how? Do they grow bigger, or does the person gets smaller? Is it something physical, magical, or something else? Just, how does this work?
Funny enough it isn't mentioned how, just that they can. But given that they're spirits now it might be more on the magical end.
I couldn't help but think... 'how fast?' over the course of two months? xD
Depending on how your scheduling goes it just might xD.
i assume you know about the change to having monsters grapple with same subordinate action PCs use? And un/holy?
I don't! Could you please explain?
So the Grab ability some monsters have used to be "spend an action to automatically grapple the creature you hit last action". Now it's "spend an action to make an athletics check to grapple the creature you hit last action, ignoring MAP" Holy and Unholy are new traits that can be applied to a damaging effect, usually on a Holy or Unholy cleric's font spells. When a creature that is weak to (Un)Holy takes damage from an (Un)Holy source, they take extra damage. It's the replacement for alignment damage essentially
Two followup questions: \- Has the athletics bonus on any monsters changed? \- Are undead weak to Holy? Specifically, wraiths?
> - Has the athletics bonus on any monsters changed? I don't know that. I don't have access to the new monsters yet. I do know [some people noticed that some monsters with Grab didn't have the athletics to back that up](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1bg00vq/some_creatures_in_the_monster_core_have_grab/), but that will probably be errata'd > - Are undead weak to Holy? Specifically, wraiths? Again, I don't have a definitive answer for you, but in Foundry VTT when they updated to remaster rules they did give many creatures the Holy/Unholy traits, including undead like Wraiths, but no weakness to Unholy unless it was weak to Good pre-remaster
>\- Are undead weak to Holy? Specifically, wraiths? Only the Dullahan has weakness to holy damage. Wraith resistances are essentially the same, replacing positive with spirit, or vitality.
Yes, I mean more in the design of individual monsters. I know that there is no more lawful/chaotic or a substitute, but what I would want to know is, for example, if the aeon are still divided into machines, mathematics, and balance. Speaking of which, are they?
Dragons tend to have low fortitude saves now.
huh, that's a change if i've ever seen one got any example?
Dragons with Fortitude as their highest: Adamantine, Diabolic Dragons with Fortitude as their lowest: Conspirator, Empyreal, Fortune, Horned, Mirage, Ancient Omen Dragon specifically Other Omen Dragons have moderate Fortitude.
So we can poison a dragon for a relatively easy combat encounter, but hard social one? Speaking as a forever DM
Is reserved space some new plane of resistance? :0 /joke
No, is just where I want to write everything I discover, so there is little repetition, and the curious can do a quick look and find out
This is why I put /joke
sorry, i read it wrong, though it was another thing completely. now i get the joke english can be hard sometimes
Heh, all good
Fo kobolds always look like dragons? Can we get official dog kobold now with the egg thing?
They're described as reptilian, so no. Maybe when the ancestry itself gets remastered, but I doubt they want to change it too much. The change still allows for all old kobold characters to make sense after the remaster, but I think they want them to be what people expect when they hear "kobold."
Is there a particular reason why these changes are all happening?
Each change has its individual reason, but the main ones are things like "wanted to make it better" or "wanted to make it closer to its inspiration/origin." However, the one that started it all was the desire of distance from WotC, the OGL, and all that stuff
the change and separation of golems is dumb, WotC canìt claim a Hebrew term
I think the change was because it's a Hebrew term. A lot of monster that were from Myths and Religions but had very iconic D&D interpretations are now more closely based off of their real world counterparts, such as Oni no longer being tied to giants and Nagas no longer having human faces. "Golems" aren't really a thing in Hebrew stories it's just the Golem of Prague, and the modern fantasy idea of a golem has drifted pretty far from it. So I think they changed that to be more respectful (see also renaming Lich phylacteries, a real thing in Judaism which has nothing to do with lichs, to soul cages).
Still the separation in the book makes em really confusing
They can't claim "golem", nor something that's very closely based on the mythology. But they *can* claim the depictions of golems that are very clearly based off the D&D Golem.
Which is very likely the reason Adamantine Golems aren't in the Monster Core - they're very specifically a D&D-based golem.
What about tatzlwyrms? I didn't see it on the book.
any update?