ADDITIONS/ERRATA: -The old Bestiary on Elite + Weak adjustment said to treat them differently at low levels in the section's introductory text, but not in the rule itself. Now it's in the rule. -As someone commented, removing the word "golem" might be similar to Paizo's choice to remove the word "phylactery": respect to culture. Golem is "an animated, anthropomorphic being in Jewish folklore." My complaint is more about the lack of any grouping of these creatures though! EDIT: No one is harmed by being mindful of different cultures. Some overreacting is going on. We are made better learning more than we knew before. -14:05 Holy and unholy apparently are not stand-alone damage types, but are traits to other damage types. (It's been a while since I did my video on that, but sounds right!) -Apparently the freaky-deaky looking archons are based on the TOP tier of Biblical angels. There are less strange-looking ones in the Bible! -The 1st archon is the new "Horned Archon," not "Hound Archon." The Horned Archon is an archer with a stag head, but a SINGLE stag head! -I got the ghoul curse wrong. It operates a bit differently, and is verry interesting. Stages 2 and 3 debuff you until consume raw meat. Stage 4 has the same effect, except when you HAVE eaten raw meat in the last 24 hours the effect is worse UNTIL you eat raw meat. Stage 5: if you HAVE eaten raw meat in the last 24 hours, you die and rise as a ghoul. So it tempts you to eat raw meat, but at Stage 3 you don't want to give in to the cravings or else you might die! -Undead apparently indicate in their statblocks that they're immune to bleed damage: this is true for all the undead EXCEPT the vampire. However, this contradicts the Player Core which says that bleed damage "has no effect on nonliving creatures." I'm inclined to go with what Monster Core statblocks say, however, since it's more recent and a better way to handle this anyway. -Archives of Nethys apparently said it would be 4-6 weeks after their recent Remaster (so mid or late April?) before we see Monster Core added to AoN. LINKS: Paizo blog post of Monster Core design goals: paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6sihj There are 2 posts on the PF2E subreddit with useful list monsters and changes in this book: www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1bidogt/whats_new_in_monster_core/ www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1brhwn3/all_creatures_new_and_gone_from_bestiary_1_in/
@@monkeibusiness the problem is that the ogl use of golems was in no way respectful of the culture, and in the case of the flesh golem, blatantly disrespectful.
@@natanoj16i think the prague golem is pretty close, no? The jewish museum in Berlin even has an article talking about the use of Golems in gaming and mentions dnd specifically.
I think wrt to vampires and bleed that somewhere in the SRD it's stated that specific rules/effects supercede general (unspecific? I don't recall the wording) rules.
The last stage of the ghoul's curse actually kills you if you *have* eaten raw meat in the last 24 hours, so you have to resist the temptation to eat raw meat to avoid the risk of dying and becoming a ghoul. Also, Paizo did include a renamed intellect devourer, though it's hard to find if you don't know it's there. It's Xoarian, in the Dominion of the Black section.
Ah, good catch about the ghoul! It's actually really interesting. Adding to my pinned comment. I would say the Xoarian is in the "similar but fills the same role" category. The Reddit post I link makes some of those connections
But you know what would be even crazier? A HummingLion. So in place of owlbears, there would be birdbeasts. But for some reason, the process that creates them goes out of control if you try to merge an owl with a bear (but strangely works just fine when you try to merge a bear with an owl...)
I found the old ones cuter tbh. The new ones are cute, too, but a bit more idk generic, I guess? Although the fungus one with the skirt made me want to play a leshy.
I think the art changes are a mixed back, some better some worse. For the leshies I think the old ones were way more unique and interesting looking, tho the new ones might work better as tokens on vtts, due to less details. The mephits/scamps look a lot more interesting and unique now I think. The barghest looks less interesting. The basilisk is a little less interesting aswell. The naga I am not sure about. It's less unique, but looks less goofy. The homunculus looks better. The sea hag has a more interesting design, but I think has less of the gritty horror feeling.
You are so adorable Ronald. You are the only one I know who says "quick overview" for a 25 minute video, but it's still true. 🙂This was great, thank you for sharing the details and your thoughts.
The ghoul is really stepping on the toes of vampires. I do like the idea of intelligent ghouls but I've always thought of them more as scavengers. Ghouls as ambush predators, tricksters, sort of sewer-dwelling opportunists makes the most sense to me.
I agree that your idea makes more sense for a monster, but I think Paizo is setting up Ghouls as a playable heritage. For that you would need a level of flexibility and intelligence.
Ghouls have at least one community in Golarion that was set up by the Pathfinder Society. You actually visit it in the latest season but its creation is linked to an earlier PFS adventure.
@@tinear4 Playable ghouls is fine, but this is exchanging flexibility for character. Ghouls should be their own thing. There is no need for sexy ghouls.
Golems were probably renamed because they are holy protector spirits in Jewish mythology. Generally, if you're fighting a golem, you're probably doing something bad. I do think they should have kept a common name between them though. Effigy would have worked.
Yeah that was a problem early D&D had when they "borrowed" names such as the kobold. It makes sense to use the name of a pre-existing mythological creature when its look and function is the same in the game, but it only creates confusion say when, everywhere else kobolds are half-dog man people and in D&D for some reason they're short half-lizard people. Golems can obviously be used in D&D as holy protectors, but it's a bit like calling something a sphinx and it's actually this weird tentacle monster if golem just means "moving construct thing that usually attacks you on sight".
@@aneldritchdreamgames5925When not dealing with D&D and Pathfinder, I usually go with Construct for the concept. (But agree with @LieseFury that Effigy would have worked well.)
White Wolf called such constructs "Prometheans" or "The Created" and, specifically, the clay constructs such as the Golem from Jewish folklore "Tammuz" or "The Named". Famously pointed at for being "not woke" World of Darkness (which just means these idiots never read or understood the system) was woke enough to know that calling the entire category "Golems" was causing problems both mechanically, imaginatively, and culturally by the second edition in 2016, but Pathfinder tries to do it nearly a decade later and these same idiots are losing their minds. I swear, if you want to see deeply uninformed losers spout the most unhinged hateful opinions, one only has to look at the comment section of a high fantasy game.
Fantasy in general has incorporated the term golem as magically created or powered constructs, usually very rough but there are more refined versions out there as well. The same thing has happened to the term chimera. We know where the term comes from, but it has a usage outside of its origin.
so they made the pathfinder ghouls resemble the starfinder ghouls, weird change, i enjoyed the sadistic intelligent undead cannibal. we already have vampires for the posh undead archetype.
The Ghouls are just Vampires that feed on flesh now. They lost their Ghoul Paralysis and are just like Vampires in attitude. Why are they even different Creatures?
I actually REALLY like this change because, old Ghouls are literally just Zombies... I've always thought of ghouls as being very intelligent compared to zombies. In fact the new ghoul is more accurate to actual real life ghouls. What I'm talking about are the rich assholes that go on television to spread the good word about how poor people just need to shut up so their rich family can keep getting richer. THAT'S a ghoul to me. So this new ghoul looking like a posh rich person?? PERFECT. This is like, literally how I've always imagined ghouls. Now vampires and ghouls can team up even better. You could probably have a family of rich ghouls at the top of a pore village, slowly eating it alive, the same way a rich person does. It's perfect! You could say "they should be a vampire!" But Vampires are way too sophisticated than that. Ghouls are more... Conservative i feel. Vampires fill a different niche in my mind.
Because for some reason they’ve been pushing for ghouls being cooler vampires for a while now. Just compare the ghoul archetype and the vampire one, one of these clearly had a lot more love and attention while the other is here just because people would complain if the undead book didn’t have playable vampires
The new dragons look sick. While its unfortunate that the remaster was motivated in part by uncertainties around the OGL, it seems like they're doing cool stuff with that inertia. The original barghest is one of my favorite monsters of all time, so this change is a bummer but its not like its lost to history. Glass half full its like I've got 2 barghests now lol
A change I'm excited about, from being closer to the lore, is banshees being fey. Knowing that it litterally translates to "fairy woman" didn't make sense for them to being undead. However, what I liked about the bronze dragon was them being semi-aquatic. It doesn't seem that there are semi-aquatic true dragons.(and that I thought many years ago that kobolds morph to the dragon they serve, it would have been interesting bronze kobolds near the edge of water)
My old homebrew world had a coastal area called the “Kobold Coast” which had a few naval based kobold nations (an excuse for a bunch of kobold pirates running around). The lore was basically the whole area was a pet project of an ancient bronze dragon, so most of the kobolds in the area were bronze.
If I were to guess, as we see more types of old dragons get redesigned (like green to horned and gold to empyreal) we'll see a primal dragon that lives in and around the water. I'm still waiting for the primal arctic dragon that silver or white dragons will become.
Thankfully i can easily imagine this starting as a great framework for releasing more dragons in more books in the future. Amphibious Primal frog/iguana dragon anyone?
It is unlikely that AoN will have the stats on/near release date as they mentioned in their Feb 25 notes that "We're estimating 4-6 weeks after the Remaster launches before we'll have Monster Core." Launch was the 13th, meaning 2-4 weeks after street date.
Ghouls being less savage/ravenous makes sense for the setting. It's already established that multiple high-ranking officials in Geb are ghouls and ghasts; there's also the citi-state of Nemret Noktoria in the Darklands, a city filled with thousands of ghouls.
I was fine with the fungus leshy being the single terrifying kind of Leshy, given that fungi aren't really plants. I don't want them to BE any meaner than your average leshy, just enjoyed that they looked a lot more sinister. (New version is fine though, of course.)
I think the cuteness factor depends on the type of plant or fungus that it’s closest to matching. PFS has had the character Rain in Cloudy Day that is an adorable mushroom looking leshy.
Maybe the reason why they changed the name of golems is the same reason they got rid of the term "phylactery"? Golems are from Jewish mythology/folklore, so they probably wanted to distance themselves from that.
Yeah I think it's a bit much, golems have engrained themselves within our culture as completely separate from their Jewish identity. Same for a phylactery, I can't even think of what that is actually from. This'd be like removing holy and unholy for its ties to Christianity, like go cry about it somewhere else man, make the games fun and easy to understand. Some people in this world are actively looking for something to be upset about, and those people do not deserve one ounce of your attention.
@@Mixxium A phylactery has a specific real-world meaning that is very much not compatible with the use of them as the spirit jar of a very powerful evil creature. "Spirit jar" is a perfectly good term for the gaming construct.
Speaking of kobolds having a trap but no crafting ability, Apparently there's issue's with monsters who have grab based attacks byt don't actually have any Athletic score to back it up
Woulda been great Or if they didn’t want to make a subtype just call them all “wardens” like the iron warden. Now these monsters that all share a fundamental gameplay design that players need to plan around have no inherent link… that’s totally a good idea lol
I understand the choice to remove the terms Phylactery and Golem, as has bene discussed, but if that is the case, why choose to rename Aasimar and Tieflings into Nephilim? Thats also a hebrew word with very specific connotations.
Because they didn’t do enough research for their performative pandering and so missed some words. Just like how phylactery was used for decades without any obvious uproar. Indeed it was the Christians who has the biggest problem with this game for a long time - not Jewish people
Golem: Originally a folkloric protector of the Jewish people against antisemites. But while there *have* been other things called golems, like Superman, it's still weird how fantasy turned it into something completely different Phylactery: This one's actually insanely complicated. Gygax plausibly originally used it as a thesaurusism / Vance-ism for "amulet", but as of 3e, they are very, very, very clearly inspired by tefillin, which is not okay Nephilim: I mean... we hardly even know what they are, because they only really get the one mention in the Hebrew Bible. But similarly to all the stock demon names, it's been adopted in the media as the offspring of mortals and angels. And unlike the other two, it's nowhere near as Jewish-coded, apart from the Hebrew -im plural
Just a correction, regarding the angels, yes they look like indescribable creatures, but they are not all like that, in the hierarchy of angels, these angels are at the top, while the angels are below the hierarchy, just like the one who warned Mary about her son Jesus, have a more human form.
I have recently decided to give pathfinder a try and gathering a group to GM. I bought all the 3 new pathfinder books no knowing they were a remaster of the old 2e, glad my local store didn't carry the old ones. Ordered the newer beginner box as well to help us get our first game going. Your videos have been really helpful in wrapping my head around some rules and running a game. Thanks for all your hard work and videos!
Intelligent, refined ghouls feels very much like Kobold Press’ darakhul ghouls. Interesting changes, though I really don’t like the ‘cute turned up to 11’ vibe of some revisions.
Turning ghouls into a different type of vampire, a flesh eating one, is something I already made in my Pathfinder 1e games many years ago. It just makes sense. I went in a different direction, though. My parasitic undead are not "civilised" at all. They are horrible monsters with some form of disguise or polymorph to not immediately give themselves away. I also included wights in the bunch. Curiously, I took away the paralysis and added enhanced grappling abilities too. Probably it is a kinda logic change with this kind of concept. I did something similar to what they have done to dragons too, but my version is based on their preferred type of damage, not on the magical tradition. So I have a fiery dragon, a storm dragon, a winter dragon and so on. My dragons are all neutral, so all of them can be used as enemies or allies, depending on the situation at hand. About golems, I think they did the right thing. Many of the original creatures in the book were actually from different mythologies or fictional sources and the only true thing they had in common was being magical resistant constructs. The only true golem was a specific unique creature with well defined characteristics, not just your average construct. In my opinion, it's OK for them to be different constructs instead of a bunch of similar things differentiated mostly by the materials they were made from. As a personal taste, I like my monsters more "monstrous" and disturbing, especially outsiders, undead and fey, although I can understand that removing some unpleasantries from the descriptions and images may allow for a lower target buyer age. Overall, it seems the usual high quality product from Paizo.
Some things I like, some I don't. I kinda get splitting up and renaming the golems since they're leaning more into folklore, but I kinda wish they had just names the clay effigy "golem" instead. And I'm kinda surprised they went the vampire route with the ghouls instead of using their true origin as a type of Djinni. But I shouldn't be too surprised, Paizo has always kinda sucked at naming things.
@@zenvariety9383 Paizo employs many of the same mentally-ill, blue-haired weirdos that spend their free time on Twitter complaining about every perceived injustice they can dream up. Those same idiots use situations like the golem/phylactery name changes to virtue-signal to the world how understanding and empathetic they are. It's nauseating. Golems will always be golems. The same way that 99.999% of people still call race, race and not ancestry.
@@zenvariety9383 they used the opportunity to move away from dnd in a lot of ways, especially in ways that make monsters more mythologically accurate. The renames are one of them.
Changing the barguest to be more doglike is another change designed to be closer to the original myth. The original barguest from I believe English folklore? It was a supernatural black dog.
07:14 · Alignment When it matters, Alignment is replaced by Edics & Anathemae for organizations and traits for everything that needs it. Many know about Holy & Unholy, yet each Alignment has a quasi-equivalent trait. (Positive/Negative damage are similarly changed): ※ Alignment ※ Good :: Holy Evil :: Unholy Law :: Order Chaos :: Dissolution ※ Damage ※ Positive :: Vitality Negative :: Void
The only visual details you have to get right about the black dog myth are that it is a black dog and that it has glowing eyes, red or yellow. I suppose they are getting closer to realising this complex monster design.
I enjoy the inclusion of "cute" stuff at about the same rate I enjoy explicitly humorous stuff. In the right amounts it can offer levity and better capture a spectrum of experiences, but in excess it is a distraction. I hope they manage to moderate it because my initial reaction is apprehension.
Pathfinder dragons were always a borefest compared to 3.5 ones, and they still are. Compare with what a GM could do with the Draconomicon. I absolutely love the take on the Archons tho. I would argue it winks at... different pop culture like K6BD other than the originals. I would still use the "big 3" huge angels as epic monsters tho. The new Ghoul is a disgrace - but it could be used as a sort of alternate monster in a middle ground between vampire and old ghoul. The golem show the overall 4ed-like attitude of PF2e which I despise. If an enemy has strong defense, it can make the players feel "bad" but then they have to come up with an alternate plan - which is fun. This flattens everything.
Isn’t it amazing how pathfinder was made in a direct rebellion against 4e now they’ve went and made all the same mistakes? Also yeah no idea what they were thinking with the ghouls, but at least the archons are cool. A broken clock is right twice a day and all that
@@mateokirstine9782 Overall agree. Concerning the Ghoul: to be honest, there must be some balkan creature or something somewhere which can be used to rename these as flesh vampires, and the old ghouls kept.
@@Kaiyanwang82 undoubtably, but no they want people to play ghouls and for them to be “cooler” vampires for some reason. Just comparing the ghoul archetype to the other undead archetypes in that book it’s laughable how much favoritism they got
Finally got my copy of the Monster Core. Overall, I like it, but there are a couple of things I’m iffy about. My biggest complaint is that Angels are now tied to Nirvana rather than Agathions. I preferred Angels as the Celestials who could be found in all the Celestial Realms and were more associated with goodness over the Law-Neutrality-Chaos debate that affected the other Celestials.
The mythological form of a Barghest is a ‘black dog’ or ‘demon dog’. So their revision here is closer to the source. I never got where goblins intersected with Barghest in the D+D iteration.
I am curious about giving spellcasting to dragons, (and how that affects their levels.) And also about potential for adding classes/levels to base monsters. Like maybe taking a standard kobold and giving it inventor or maybe ranger levels to help it caft it's traps.
For dragons it's pretty straightforward: you give them the spells in the sidebar and remove Draconic Frenzy and their breath-recharging ability. No need to adjust anything else. There isn't support for adding levels to monsters, but the guidelines in GM Core tell what you need (and give material) for approximating it
A couple hot takes: 1. I'm not a big fan of the cuteness; doing it for a couple monsters, especially if they're intended to be be allies as often as not, but they seem to have overdone it. 2. I realize 2nd edition just came out a few years ago and these steps are being forced on them by the whole OGL fiasco, but I wish they would have just called it 3rd edition and been done with it; unless they plaster "Remastered" over all the covers, it seems like there'd be a question of whether two books are compatible with one another, and to what degree.
All material from PathFinder 2e (P2) is usable in the PFc¹ except where named the same in each. Anything named the same replaces the P2 version. At our table, P2 material which has something similar in PFc exists with its rarity increased. ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣ PFc¹ · PathFinder Core (Remastered) editions/rules.
I'm not a fan of the goofy, whimsical garbage either and in my games I exclude everything that looks like something a child might have as a stuffed animal. The old mephits were perfectly serviceable, but the new scamps are ridiculous.
20:38 So, it does seem that the Remaster has done what you alided to in the intro. A. Separated from those OGL conflicts, and copyright issues. But also. B. Identified areas where Paizo can distinguish itself as unique, and not generic. We are seeing a number of name changes, that were unlikely a copyright infringement issue, But have been adjusted, to 'curate' a unique collection. I think to a certain degree, that is wise in terms of setting Paizo out, in front.
To anyone who complains about the cutefying certain monsters. Just describe the creatures however you like or use old Pathfinder Art to represent them, I don't think the designs are replacing anything It's just pointing out that certain monsters can be diverse in appearance. Also I think they might have done it to piss off Grimm dark fans slightly lol.
A noteworthy trend in the book is unholy doesn't always come with weakness to holy. It seems mostly for the unholy monsters that have the trait on their attacks. I shall henceforth call this "unholy deluxe"
I just wanna make some commemt on the Angel thing. Its kind of a misconception that "biblically accurate angels" are Angels. Angels in Christian tradition do look like humans, other creatures such as Seriphim and Cherubim are the freaky looking dudes
I appreciate why they might feel like they want to make some of these changes, but as a new player who doesn’t have any of the books yet (just the beginner box), all of this really just pushes me towards wanting the original books lol. Most of these changes I’ve seen seem pretty whack to me if I’m being honest. Does anyone feel the same or are we generally excited about these new books?
I really do have to agree, I love what they've done with everything, but I'm really not liking what they're doing with the monsters. They've UwU-ified so many of them, and removed a lot of the interesting design elements to make them look more like their mythological selves, which is only a good idea if the mythology is more interesting than what you have. I really like what they've done with the Archons and dragons, that's really it. Stuff like the Gnolls just feels like they took a chainsaw to it so that they can be "morally grey," and by doing so just made it super generic and boring.
Well, the kholo (aka the artists formerly known as gnolls) have another thing that the gnolls didn't have: coming this september, they are now CORE RACES, as defined in Player Core 2. Then again, in the Mwangi Expanse splatbook they were defined as a commercial race that had friendly relationships with the other Mwangi natives, if I remember well... They share this honor with the artists formerly known as Grippli - now the little froglings have a new name, but are no less cute. ...is it me, or the artists at Paizo received strict orders to make nonhumans more adorable? I mean, the scamps and the leshies are ready to be turned into plush dolls by next GenCon... Also, I think the new dragons look more stylish (although I was expecting the Fortune Dragon to be white, wingless and dog-like in the snout ^-^)
I'm still not super happy with the name "ORC License" because it's at the same time a play on the OGL and not very indicative of what the license represents. But clearly they've decided and we're all going along.
It seems like a very prescriptive approach to monster design, I'm not that familiar with pathfinder but these descriptions seem quite detailed. So that's interesting, I suppose for the DM's it means you have a more concrete foundation to work from. I'm familiar with other games and media using a descriptive approach to monsters, "this is what these people think they are, but no one knows for sure". This approach allows for more flexibility in how you want to run your monsters and variation on the fly.
Thanks for reviewing this. I definitely made the right choice staying with Classic PF2 The art for Archons is great and the changes to Dragons is interesting but the rest ranges from bad to terrible!
Similar to Archons, Angels, Dragons and Naga, Golems come from the religious and cultural stories of a specific group of people. The Hebrew Bible (aka Old Testament) and Talmud (the book that informs modern Jewish life) both mention golems as matter animated by magic. I am also on team keep them named Golems. If you’re going to redesign Archons to look like the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel or keep Goblins and Orcs a playable ancestries, I do not understand omitting the term Golem. Paizo has chosen to engage with, portray and riff upon monsters from every world religion (aka nothing is sacred) that have been used to negatively portray a class of people (and Paizo typically uses this opportunity to flip the script). I think Paizo’s values are still my values or akin to them and I miss the Golem header.
The name didn't bode well to me, but oooh, do I love the Elemental scamps! Primarily because I remembered the Elemental Summon almost at first lets you summon Mephits as the most potent creatures, and there's something about summoning imps that always felt demeaning to me. Summoning elemental bats feels much cooler and satisfying, and the cuteness or scary appearance can be played up depending if the summoning character is trying to be endearing or intimidating. Barghest is one of those lesser known monsters that became synonymous more with D&D than their real myths. Downplaying the goblin associations helps un-D&D it, as the IRL lore is closer to the Black Dog bad omens in Harry Potter than being demonic goblin-dogs. The previous look was a lot more rad though!
It is worth noting with the angels in the Bible that they sometimes look freaky and sometimes look fairly if not entirely human. That said, I am pretty happy to have freaky angels in the game.
Paizo is likely needing to tread carefully around certain things. But you are correct. Maybe we will get archons and angels as seperate entities like they were in first edition pathfinder, with maybe the angels given a name change to something seraph, with the seraphs being largely human looking, while the archons are the more freaky Angel depictions.
They probably dropped the golem because of their overall dedication towards closer ties to the mythology, and Jewish-style golems would probably be unrecognizable to the original stat block.
Are you going to cover the classes that haven't been updated? I'm about to start playing a new campaign and really wanted to be a Magus, but everyone else is using the new rules and I don't know if I can with the old class. Thank you
Golem doesn't make sense anymore... They are just constructs like all other constructs. Like why isn't a homunculus also a golem in that regard? Removing the grouping allows them to build creatures that are more unique.
I love this game, but the monster immunities are vastly overused. Its almost as bad as the 60 diffrent status effects they can apply seemingly 100% of the time.
Why doesn't the Vordine (CR5 devil) do extra Spirit damage to PCs with the Holy trait? The Barbazu in Beastiary (CR5 devil) does an extra 2d6 Evil damage. I'm running Abomination Vaults and the cleric is sanctified Holy. But the Vordine doesn't do any extra damage if it attacks the cleric. I was expecting melee attacks from the Remastered fiends to do extra damage to targets against targets with the Holy trait. Strange.
The archons are so amazing…love these changes. I love the dragon changes, they’re more unique now. I want to see the Omen Dragon…. I wonder if they’ll update the Ghoul archetype since they made significant changes to the Ghoul abilities
The reason that they removed the name Golem is likely due to cultural sensitivity- Golems are tied closely to Jewish folklore. That said, the replacement names they came up with are kinda shit.
Down with pugs! Cat power! 😉 Also, I like my games being gritty medieval fantasies, therefore all the cutsies can burn in hell! Already banned leshies, I see I shall be sticking to that rule 😂 Generally I like the changes, new dragons are amazing and new ghouls make sense - PF lore speaks of secret ghoul societies hiding in plain sight amongst civilised people and it was never explained why some ghouls are feral monsters while others are educated men and women.
12:19 Hey just letting you know, the meme of biblically accurate angels isn't actually "true". There are many types of angels in the bible in many different forms. Angles frequently appear as humans. They can change their forms. "I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, with a belt of fine gold from Uphaz around his waist. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a multitude (Daniel 10:5-6)."
What were the problems with the grim reaper? Also I think the golem were changed because the original golem in the Jewish myth was a clay effigy with a duty of protection and having some flesh amalgam share the same name of a religious figure might be seen as odd
The art is a little bit disappointing. I think the sea hag is the only creature with improved art. I think the originals are better in all of the other cases.
Golem comes from Jewish Diaspora legends. "A golem is an animated, anthropomorphic being in Jewish folklore, which is entirely created from inanimate matter". Paizo's insistence on treating it like the intellectual property of WOTC is insulting. Does WOTC own Angels and Valkyries too? Jesus better watch out, I hear Paizo thinks WOTC owns him...
With the dragons, particularly the young dragons, he said you just had to add either 4 or 9 levels to make them adult or ancient. Is there an easy way to do this, I've tried leveling creatures up before, but outside the elite/weakened adjustments I find adding many levels like with thee dragons here is quite cumbersome. Am I missing something here?
The book has statblocks for these (just as in the Bestiary). I was just explaining what levels they are in this book. Adding more levels than 1 is cumbersome (tho you get used to it, I've done it before) and requires fidelity to the Monster Creation charts
