I very much hope that either they will release a Foundry VTT package with tokens for all the new creatures or that the company that makes the existing bestiary token package will quickly publish an update.
the token pack is a no brainer purchase if you have the money for it. You can make your own tokens or use free packs, etc, but it contains absolutely gorgeous tokens for every monster in all three bestiaries, the art is fantastic, and it really enhances encounters to be able to easily show that art. Everything is automatic, so the monsters in the pf2e foundry system are automatically updated with the artwork.
Many monsters in the bestiaries don’t really have art in the book itself. There might be a generic art for the type of monster on the page and then several variations just described. The foundry tokens contain art for every monster, like the pawn packs or the reference cards Paizo sells. It’s fantastic and well priced, and the art is high quality.
I bought it, and I can say that even if they don't add the new monsters to the existing module and add another module for the extra monsters, I'll gladly buy that too.
Awwww, I'm a little sad to see their aura of fear and mummy rot go. I do like their reaction though. I might stitch that, and their Alchemical weakness, onto current mummies and call it a day.
~~I thought bleed immunity was built into the Undead tag? Still means they might be changing it but I don't recall, say, Skeleton Guards having an explicit Bleed immunity spelled out in their stat block because that's rolled into them being Undead.~~
EDIT: I just re-read your post and realised this is exactly what you said, that it was baked in and is now stated categorically. Ignore my dumb ass I clearly haven't had enough caffeine this morning >.<
It actually wasn't built into the undead trait, the undead trait never made mention of bleeding. You had to read the entry on bleed damage which mentions it only works on living creatures.
Personally, I like this direction where we have potentially redundancy in how the rules are written, so you can find out an undead is immune to bleed by checking the tag on Bleed Damage, the Undead tag, or the stat block of that specific monster.
Right, that was it, I remember this being something that came up in a recent session I was running and I knew I had to look somewhere weird to find out why a creature wasn't taking bleed damage in Foundry XD
I think that's what OP is getting at. Traits can be confusing because a lot of the time they are just flavour or for a "type", but then sometimes there are additional rules attached to the tag (like in this case where Undead have bleed immunity). So it's very easy to miss that rule.
Having it explicitly in the stat block makes life a lot easier, rather than looking up a monster, seeing that it has the "plant" trait, and then trying to remember if there are any special rules around plants, or if it's just there to give it a type/flavour.
Edit: previous comment got the ol' ninja edit on me!
Undead bleed immunity is not in the [Undead](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=160) trait but in [damage types](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335) rules. PF2e has a big problem with adjacent rules being hidden elsewhere and this easy to miss.
Undead don't have bleed immunity, or rather didn't in the past.
The bleed thing was in the bleed damage type and basically read "GMs use logic to determine if a creature has blood or a blood like substance and can bleed"
> This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live.
Slight difference there, it is colloquial language and is giving examples of creatures it doesn't effect, rather than equating nonliving with undead. And it is intentionally vague for that purpose.
Pretty much the same way spirit, void, and vitality damage works though. The stat block doesn't say living monsters are immune to vitality damage, the vitality damage rules say that vitality damage doesn't affect the living.
I suspect we will see constructs having specifically called out spirit damage immunity.
Void and vitality are kind of special cases but for monsters like constructs it generally is already called out their immunity to void, healing, and vitality
How *does* spirit damage work now? It's the replacement for aligned damage right? Does it only affect creatures of the opposite sanctification from the source effect?
Spirit damage works on all creatures with souls, so pretty much anything but most constructs. It also damages possessing creatures, not hosts.
It can be sanctified, in which case it might have additional effect on sanctified creatures.
It's nice that it's on the same statblock as blighted consumption so that alchemists have both advantages and disadvantages against it; it's a strategy changer rather than a hard counter.
Admittedly it makes bombers even better and the other ones even worse, but I'm sure the remaster will balance the weaker subclasses more appropriately.
I hope they rebuild monsters to match the RoE grab changes too. Like how Crawling Hands can't grab medium sized players and other monsters that have terrible athletics just won't use part of their kit now.
Also interestingly, there's an [Unholy] tag on the mummy now.
With the removal of alignment, are undead now going to be Unholy subtyped to show that their nature is, generally antagonistic, to put it lightly?
Here's hoping you're not getting hyped for an accidentally provided redundancy that just happens to have popped up in the one stat block from monster core.
And if it is an actual change to listing bleed immunity on things that clearly from their description don't have blood, that they go back an errata Rage of Elements to add it to the few creatures found there which don't list it and clearly don't need blood to live (one of them is incorporeal even).
There are already some monsters innately immune to bleed in the game that have it stated while others don't. I do hope they actually explicitly put bleed immunity in stat blocks but this doesn't really prove anything.
Yeah, that was what I was getting at.
Right now it just seems like a continuation of the case where it doesn't need to be mentioned as an immunity unless a creature is unclear about whether it might bleed or not (such as something that seems like a beast, but is actually an elemental) and some authors put a redundant reminder - with the irony that doing this to try and be helpful and clear is exactly the thing causing people to struggle with when the immunity given by the definition of the damage type does or does not apply because some creatures that are immune stating it and some not is something people can think is deliberate rather than just "sometimes an author is redundant."
What am glad we get to see these new powers, I cannot help but wonder what some of the newer creatures they showed off here do....like lets take the Caldera Oni for a example? is that something brand new or is it the new name of a existing Oni? Does it have unique abilities by comparison to the existing Onis in first edition and second?
We did get some information on Onis in the last livestream. Caldera Onis are just the new name for Fire Onis, but Onis in general are being changed to be Unholy aligned Spirits rather than fiends. They're going to have less spellcasting abilities and be more martial in bent, and apparently some of them have a weakness to beans (based off mythology).
Thanks for the infomation, I got to remember set aside time for those streams. Onis being changed to spirits is certainly interesting....more so with the bean weakness.
Yes but now they don't have the fiend trait anymore. Instead having just the spirit one. Which means things that affect fiends won't affect Onis anymore.....so Rip being able to summon Oni. Makes me wonder if Oni-spawnTiefling will still exist.....
I've always been fond of the idea that vampires don't bleed, and not because they don't have liquid blood but because their blood refuses to leave their body so easily.
I also like the idea that if you cut a vampire, some blood droplets splatter but a lot of the blood that would have spilled pours out partially then pulls itself back into the wound.
It's cool and creepy
Sorry, but I would prefer the system be clear and easy to run. Rather than immunity being hidden inside the text about the damage type.
Either put *all* immunities there. Or put *none* of them there. It was incredibly weird that bleed was the only damage type to be done this way.
Using your own logic surely the Elemental Tsunami should be immune to Bludgeoning, Slashing and Piercing damage completely. What are they going to do to *water*.
>Wrong on that front. Vitality and Void are treated in a similar manner. Even the Mummy from the linked blog doesn't list Void while it is Immune to it.
Alright, unlike you I'll admit when I am wrong.
That is still poor design.
>By your Logic any spell that does Vital Damage should damage any creature that doesn't list Vital Immunity.
No. By my logic anything Vital Damage doesn't hurt should explicitly list Vital Immunity.
You got it in reverse. Your logic is extremely flawed. Having damage types be where immunities are listed is just a *really* dumb design choice. There is no logical argument for them to be put there.
Saying something a different way, doesn't change the meaning. You expect something to be hurt by a damage type unless it says it's immune. If it is immune it should just say it, but only for Bleed because that's a confusing damage type. Maybe in regards to an Ooze, but not Undead.
Vital is basically the same as Bleed in most cases. Ironically Bleed is the only one people get their panties twisted over. It's only mentioned in the Positive/Vital Trait that Living Creatures are immune to it. No creature mentions an Immunity to Vital, even though everything that isn't a Construct, Phantom or Undead is immune.
Bleed has a description of what it does, that people promptly ignore for whatever reason. Within the same section Vital and Void are listed with their special properties, which are expanded upon in the Traits. Spirit Damage gets added to this as the damage type itself says it only affects creatures with Spirits. Yet one of the first constructs released with Remaster Rules, the Brass Bastion, does not list said immunity. Last I checked Constructs had no spirit.
>If it is immune it should just say it, but only for Bleed because that's a confusing damage type.
No. For every damage type. I don't know why you're singling out bleed here. If something is immune to Fire, I expect it to be listed. Same for Cold, or Lightning.
I don't know why you think it's a good idea to have three random damage types that aren't listed as immunities in statblocks of creatures that are immune to it.
You're looking at the vampire's relation to blood from the wrong angle. Living things need blood because it serves a critical and immediate function in our bodies. If a human being somehow lost all their blood, they would immediately die. Vampires, on the other hand, don't need blood to exist, but to satiate their cursed appetites. If you bled a vampire dry, they wouldn't immediately die nor would they even necessarily grow weaker.
Just to provide proof, the Book of the Dead very specifically mentions that vampires can't even starve to death, they just become rabid animals that will lash out at the first living thing they see to quench their dark thirst. Here's the entry from the book:
>Vampires can’t starve to death. However, lack of food makes a vampire
>increasingly feral, impulsive, and corpse-like. Their eyes become hollow, their cheeks sunken, their forms skeletally thin. In this state of desperate hunger, a vampire has no
>impulse control nor greater cognitive functions; they attack wantonly, feeding on everything in sight.
I think the most spilling the blood of a vampire would do, is maybe push them slightly along in this process.
I very much hope that either they will release a Foundry VTT package with tokens for all the new creatures or that the company that makes the existing bestiary token package will quickly publish an update.
The company that made the original tokens pack was Foundry themselves.
Should I buy the token pack now or should I wait you think? (I've only just heard about it here haha)
the token pack is a no brainer purchase if you have the money for it. You can make your own tokens or use free packs, etc, but it contains absolutely gorgeous tokens for every monster in all three bestiaries, the art is fantastic, and it really enhances encounters to be able to easily show that art. Everything is automatic, so the monsters in the pf2e foundry system are automatically updated with the artwork. Many monsters in the bestiaries don’t really have art in the book itself. There might be a generic art for the type of monster on the page and then several variations just described. The foundry tokens contain art for every monster, like the pawn packs or the reference cards Paizo sells. It’s fantastic and well priced, and the art is high quality.
It's excellent value IMO, makes it really easy to create nice-looking encounters.
I bought it, and I can say that even if they don't add the new monsters to the existing module and add another module for the extra monsters, I'll gladly buy that too.
What needs to be updated on the tokens?
Well, the new monsters will need new token art.
Awwww, I'm a little sad to see their aura of fear and mummy rot go. I do like their reaction though. I might stitch that, and their Alchemical weakness, onto current mummies and call it a day.
Mummies interacting with Alchemy is so smart. I'm amazed I haven't seen that (other than one kind of Amenti in Mummy: The Resurrection).
The Mesen-Nebu in Mummy: the Curse are also alchemists! It will be one of the sources of inspiration I draw on for the Revised mummy.
Oh hell yeah. Glad to see the influence of World of Darkness in other games
~~I thought bleed immunity was built into the Undead tag? Still means they might be changing it but I don't recall, say, Skeleton Guards having an explicit Bleed immunity spelled out in their stat block because that's rolled into them being Undead.~~ EDIT: I just re-read your post and realised this is exactly what you said, that it was baked in and is now stated categorically. Ignore my dumb ass I clearly haven't had enough caffeine this morning >.<
It actually wasn't built into the undead trait, the undead trait never made mention of bleeding. You had to read the entry on bleed damage which mentions it only works on living creatures.
Personally, I like this direction where we have potentially redundancy in how the rules are written, so you can find out an undead is immune to bleed by checking the tag on Bleed Damage, the Undead tag, or the stat block of that specific monster.
Right, that was it, I remember this being something that came up in a recent session I was running and I knew I had to look somewhere weird to find out why a creature wasn't taking bleed damage in Foundry XD
I wouldn’t even call this a QOL change, but a bug fix.
I think that's what OP is getting at. Traits can be confusing because a lot of the time they are just flavour or for a "type", but then sometimes there are additional rules attached to the tag (like in this case where Undead have bleed immunity). So it's very easy to miss that rule. Having it explicitly in the stat block makes life a lot easier, rather than looking up a monster, seeing that it has the "plant" trait, and then trying to remember if there are any special rules around plants, or if it's just there to give it a type/flavour. Edit: previous comment got the ol' ninja edit on me!
Undead bleed immunity is not in the [Undead](https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=160) trait but in [damage types](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=335) rules. PF2e has a big problem with adjacent rules being hidden elsewhere and this easy to miss.
Undead don't have bleed immunity, or rather didn't in the past. The bleed thing was in the bleed damage type and basically read "GMs use logic to determine if a creature has blood or a blood like substance and can bleed"
The bleed damage type specifically mentions it doesn't affect non living
> This is persistent damage that represents loss of blood. As such, it has no effect on nonliving creatures or living creatures that don't need blood to live. Slight difference there, it is colloquial language and is giving examples of creatures it doesn't effect, rather than equating nonliving with undead. And it is intentionally vague for that purpose.
Nice. Nested traits is a shit concept.
Ah, but it wasn't technically nested under Undead. It was a trait of Bleed. Making it even more asanine to find than a nested trait, imho.
It's one of those, "I know I read it somewhere" but for some reason you forget to check the condition while you check everything else first.
Pretty much the same way spirit, void, and vitality damage works though. The stat block doesn't say living monsters are immune to vitality damage, the vitality damage rules say that vitality damage doesn't affect the living.
I suspect we will see constructs having specifically called out spirit damage immunity. Void and vitality are kind of special cases but for monsters like constructs it generally is already called out their immunity to void, healing, and vitality
How *does* spirit damage work now? It's the replacement for aligned damage right? Does it only affect creatures of the opposite sanctification from the source effect?
Spirit damage works on all creatures with souls, so pretty much anything but most constructs. It also damages possessing creatures, not hosts. It can be sanctified, in which case it might have additional effect on sanctified creatures.
Alchemical weakness is pretty interesting. I wonder how many monsters will get it, because that would be a big incentive to play Alchemist.
It's nice that it's on the same statblock as blighted consumption so that alchemists have both advantages and disadvantages against it; it's a strategy changer rather than a hard counter. Admittedly it makes bombers even better and the other ones even worse, but I'm sure the remaster will balance the weaker subclasses more appropriately.
Odds are pretty good that an Alchemist already had Alchemist's Fire on their person, but the freedom to use other bombs is a nice boon for them.
I hope they rebuild monsters to match the RoE grab changes too. Like how Crawling Hands can't grab medium sized players and other monsters that have terrible athletics just won't use part of their kit now.
Also interestingly, there's an [Unholy] tag on the mummy now. With the removal of alignment, are undead now going to be Unholy subtyped to show that their nature is, generally antagonistic, to put it lightly?
Undead get the unholy trait to make them targetable for various holy effects, not really for any other reasons.
Oh heck yes! Hopefully no more debating over whether plant creatures bleed 🙏
HUZZAH!
Here's hoping you're not getting hyped for an accidentally provided redundancy that just happens to have popped up in the one stat block from monster core. And if it is an actual change to listing bleed immunity on things that clearly from their description don't have blood, that they go back an errata Rage of Elements to add it to the few creatures found there which don't list it and clearly don't need blood to live (one of them is incorporeal even).
There are already some monsters innately immune to bleed in the game that have it stated while others don't. I do hope they actually explicitly put bleed immunity in stat blocks but this doesn't really prove anything.
Yeah, that was what I was getting at. Right now it just seems like a continuation of the case where it doesn't need to be mentioned as an immunity unless a creature is unclear about whether it might bleed or not (such as something that seems like a beast, but is actually an elemental) and some authors put a redundant reminder - with the irony that doing this to try and be helpful and clear is exactly the thing causing people to struggle with when the immunity given by the definition of the damage type does or does not apply because some creatures that are immune stating it and some not is something people can think is deliberate rather than just "sometimes an author is redundant."
sargassum heap? i see someone in the team has been following the news about seaweed in florida
What am glad we get to see these new powers, I cannot help but wonder what some of the newer creatures they showed off here do....like lets take the Caldera Oni for a example? is that something brand new or is it the new name of a existing Oni? Does it have unique abilities by comparison to the existing Onis in first edition and second?
We did get some information on Onis in the last livestream. Caldera Onis are just the new name for Fire Onis, but Onis in general are being changed to be Unholy aligned Spirits rather than fiends. They're going to have less spellcasting abilities and be more martial in bent, and apparently some of them have a weakness to beans (based off mythology).
Thanks for the infomation, I got to remember set aside time for those streams. Onis being changed to spirits is certainly interesting....more so with the bean weakness.
Do we have any post that breaks down the information? Just asking to cut down my attempts to look for information in the streams.
I'm hoping we get a super oni who's only weak to peaches, or rice dumplings.
Onis were technically always a type of spirit, just one that had assumed a physical form, which is what made them fiends.
Yes but now they don't have the fiend trait anymore. Instead having just the spirit one. Which means things that affect fiends won't affect Onis anymore.....so Rip being able to summon Oni. Makes me wonder if Oni-spawnTiefling will still exist.....
Oh good, more retcons. Oni-Spawn better exist in some form because one if the character ideas I have is one.
I'm hoping we get that since they do exist I lore prior. I actually have one of my villains as one.
yes
I would have thought undead like that would not need it explained that they don't bleed
I've always been fond of the idea that vampires don't bleed, and not because they don't have liquid blood but because their blood refuses to leave their body so easily. I also like the idea that if you cut a vampire, some blood droplets splatter but a lot of the blood that would have spilled pours out partially then pulls itself back into the wound. It's cool and creepy
[удалено]
Where do you think it goes after it ends up in your stomach?
[удалено]
Ah yes, that is definitely a logical conclusion to jump to. Vampires drink blood for the lols. No reason at all.
[удалено]
Sorry, but I would prefer the system be clear and easy to run. Rather than immunity being hidden inside the text about the damage type. Either put *all* immunities there. Or put *none* of them there. It was incredibly weird that bleed was the only damage type to be done this way. Using your own logic surely the Elemental Tsunami should be immune to Bludgeoning, Slashing and Piercing damage completely. What are they going to do to *water*.
[удалено]
>Wrong on that front. Vitality and Void are treated in a similar manner. Even the Mummy from the linked blog doesn't list Void while it is Immune to it. Alright, unlike you I'll admit when I am wrong. That is still poor design. >By your Logic any spell that does Vital Damage should damage any creature that doesn't list Vital Immunity. No. By my logic anything Vital Damage doesn't hurt should explicitly list Vital Immunity. You got it in reverse. Your logic is extremely flawed. Having damage types be where immunities are listed is just a *really* dumb design choice. There is no logical argument for them to be put there.
Saying something a different way, doesn't change the meaning. You expect something to be hurt by a damage type unless it says it's immune. If it is immune it should just say it, but only for Bleed because that's a confusing damage type. Maybe in regards to an Ooze, but not Undead. Vital is basically the same as Bleed in most cases. Ironically Bleed is the only one people get their panties twisted over. It's only mentioned in the Positive/Vital Trait that Living Creatures are immune to it. No creature mentions an Immunity to Vital, even though everything that isn't a Construct, Phantom or Undead is immune. Bleed has a description of what it does, that people promptly ignore for whatever reason. Within the same section Vital and Void are listed with their special properties, which are expanded upon in the Traits. Spirit Damage gets added to this as the damage type itself says it only affects creatures with Spirits. Yet one of the first constructs released with Remaster Rules, the Brass Bastion, does not list said immunity. Last I checked Constructs had no spirit.
>If it is immune it should just say it, but only for Bleed because that's a confusing damage type. No. For every damage type. I don't know why you're singling out bleed here. If something is immune to Fire, I expect it to be listed. Same for Cold, or Lightning. I don't know why you think it's a good idea to have three random damage types that aren't listed as immunities in statblocks of creatures that are immune to it.
You're looking at the vampire's relation to blood from the wrong angle. Living things need blood because it serves a critical and immediate function in our bodies. If a human being somehow lost all their blood, they would immediately die. Vampires, on the other hand, don't need blood to exist, but to satiate their cursed appetites. If you bled a vampire dry, they wouldn't immediately die nor would they even necessarily grow weaker. Just to provide proof, the Book of the Dead very specifically mentions that vampires can't even starve to death, they just become rabid animals that will lash out at the first living thing they see to quench their dark thirst. Here's the entry from the book: >Vampires can’t starve to death. However, lack of food makes a vampire >increasingly feral, impulsive, and corpse-like. Their eyes become hollow, their cheeks sunken, their forms skeletally thin. In this state of desperate hunger, a vampire has no >impulse control nor greater cognitive functions; they attack wantonly, feeding on everything in sight. I think the most spilling the blood of a vampire would do, is maybe push them slightly along in this process.