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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
I love the design change for scamps and homunculi. Previously there was a lot of stuff that just looked like (DnD) goblins in different colours, now they have much more of their own aesthetic.
Leshies, Mephits and Homunculus became cuter. The Barghest moved to Baskerville. Purple worm got mirrored and a palette swap. Sea Hag is a famine version of Ursula now. Ghouls are vampires now. Golems turned into "creatures formerly known as Golems". 8:55 That was already the cases, it was just made clear and moved to the adjustment itself: "applying elite adjustments to a level -1 creature gives you one closer to 1st level, and applying weak adjustments to a 1st-level creature gives you one whose level is closer to -1"
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.
Just wanna say Ronald, I'm beginning to sow the seeds of my 5e group moving to pathfinder (i'm even going to run some fun one shots and maybe even a mini strahd conversion to really hook them) and your videos are just invaluable.
Just a musing... if it's not covered in this book (and I think it won't be as I imagine more written to stand on it's own rather than explain crossing over from standard 2e) I think it'd be great for Paizo to put out some guidance on how to deal with some of the more significant shifts in monsters from per-revised published content to revised. Of those you covered, ghouls stand out the most with their shift from ravenous flesh eaters that you wouldn't expect to parlay with to a more sophisticated intelligent creature. And the removal of paralysis! What's in my mind is that there will be numerous published ghoul encounters that will play quite differently or may no longer work. The original design may have been as a straight combat encounter, designed with the paralysis effect is a core element of the difficulty. Do existing encounters still work with the new ghoul or do they break down? Do the lack of paralysis still challenge the party appropriately? It'll be interesting to see how it works in practice for ghouls and other creatures where there's been a significant shift. I suppose the a simple solution where the revised version doesn't seem to work is that the pre-revised material is still there and works. Going back to ghouls, a party with experience of revised ghouls encountering traditional ghouls can be explained with "Oh, these are degenerate ghouls that'd been driven mad!", etc.
Old published adventures should probably just use the old statblocks unless you're willing to go through the process of homebrewing the entire encounter anyway with new remastered monsters
The OG Ghouls exist as Ghouls, Feral at my table. After a Ghoul loses the last portions of their conscience, they gain the Paralysis ability. When a Ghoul consumes the flesh of innocents, especially the living, there is a chance of going Feral. At first this may last a day, yet lasts exponentially longer when repeated. Player Ghouls must be careful of whom they partake.
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!
As someone who loves loves loves kobolds to their little bones, I do like the kobolds' change as a "yes-and" to their lore from D&D. I kinda wanna see what they have planned for their ancestry splat in PC2 with this in mind, if we're going to see different heritages based on this or if we're going to see new flavor for preexisting heritages.
It's strange to see them phase out golems(even though in 2e they are a hot mess) when Paizo's own logo is a golem and their slogan is "The golem's got it!"
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
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.
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.
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 very much in love with the new artwork. Many of paizo 's monster that were more on humanoid side, felt like a human and monster slapped together in a very bland and boring way, like the former design of the naga or the archons, the new direction feels much more otherworldly and fantastical. Big W for me, can't wait to get the book.
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.
I'm not gonna lie, I vastly prefer the older art in almost any given case that was demonstrated. The naga and the basilisk are at least ok and the hag is the only one I prefer over the older.
The good thing is that you can still use either. I like the mephit change, since the old one gave a false apperance with its devilish/gremlin look, even though they are like the critters of the elemental plane. So making them look more like bugs is nice.
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.
where are the mephits? Can't find anything about a name change and I can't find them in the pdf. edit: On that note, what other monsters are people having a hard time finding?
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.
For new DMs is tthere a mapping table to the name changes from 5e? 3:41 very Kami/anime view. 13:01 love the archon changes. Biblical angels are metal 🤘
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.
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)."
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
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.
I’m running Sky Kings Tomb AP. Seems like Pazio started to or give us a sneak peek at the new ghoul habits in the second book. There’s a group of ghouls that care more about what they eat, than how much they eat.
One thing I noticed in the Resistances and Immunities of the Clay Effigy is that they do not list critical hits or precision damage, but they do list things like bleed damage and mental effects. I find this important, since all of those were things they got for being a construct with object immunities. Are they removing many/all of the critical hit and precision immunities from monsters? If so, that is fantastic. Especially if they are removing the precision damage immunities. I just recently finished running abomination vaults, and it was absurd the number of fights that prevented my Swashbuckler player from being to pull off their high damage Finishers because of that immunity.
As a Christian who studies the Bible, I don't think the bow has anything to do with being more close to the source material. I can't think of a reason from the Bible why it would. Maybe the change had more to due with balance, abilities, or flavor.
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.
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
Thanks for raising it! Vampires do NOT have bleed immunity unlike the other undead. This is a useful clarification and I'm going to make a post about it lol EDIT: Bleed damage in Player Core still says it doesn't affect "nonliving creatures" so the jury is out. But I'd argue for relying solely on what it says in the statblocks now that they've made this step
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG That is great, and makes sense for vampires, losing blood would be bad for them. I will also be using the statblocks, especially as they will be coded into Foundry. I think this will also help clear up the confusion about undead PCs as well.
@@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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
3:57 Somehow, this "cute" mushroom is way creepier to me than the first one I could almost imagine a fantasy world where I could have a conversation with that spider-faced weirdo. The new one is too uncanny to trust, I think?
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.
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.
Don't get why they had to remove the Balor. Just do what WoTC originally did and rename it to something else; It's not like you can copyright Winged Red demons with Swords and a whips.
I adore the new designs for the leshies, especially the leaf leshy. And I'm very glad they redesigned the mephits, they looked so weird and creepy in the legacy version. And they're so cute too! I'm a sucker for cute monster designs. Overall, I do enjoy the new designs shown in this video more (although, while I agree the chromatic and metallic dragons felt samey, I did really like their designs in the legacy version. I enjoyed them more overall than the dragon designs in D&D 5e), especially the archons!
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
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!
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/
With "golem", I dont really get the problem. Isnt it cool that you can discover: Oh, this originates from that folklore and mythos?
@@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.
@@monkeibusiness because Golem isnt in any way like what they used in dnd
@@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
It would be fun if they replaced the owlbear with a birdbear that can have birds from different species of bird
A hummingbugbear would be terrific
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 100% prefer the scary cute leshies over these really cute ones. If people like the new ones more power to them, but it's really not for me.
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.
This post made me nauseas.
Pathfinder 2e Service Pack 1
the new homunculus looks like it was made by an 8-year old out of clay, and I say that as a compliment! it fits the vibe!
Around 14:05 holy and unholy are not damage types. They never stand alone. They are traits added to other damage types
Thanks, I'll add a clarification (it's been a while)
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGany time. Great video ❤
@@TheRulesLawyerRPGi personally feel like there isnt really a reason for damage types anymore due to the trait system :P
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 mean. They have been an important part of Gebs Austocracy for a long time
@@Olimar92that part I agree with...
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 hound archon did not appear in Monster Core. That was the Horned Archon on the right, which appeared as a deer-man before.
Ugh, thanks for the correction. Adding!
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.
Came here to say the same thing. I personally started calling them Autodynes instead unless they actually fit the bill of golem.
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.
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.
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
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.
@@tinear4 Ghoul is already a playable archetype from Book of the Dead
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.
@@Magicwillnz
Now sexy zombies on the other hand
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?
@@vellusviridi If, among the first 8, one is semi-aquatic, I would expect it to be the horned, but horned doesn't sound likely for it.
@@sapphirII horned is not semi-aquatic. It's based on the green dragon.
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.
Specifically as a protector figure if I recall correctly, so going to destroy the symbol of protection of an oppressed minority is *not good at all*.
Far too sensitive really. Nonsense reason. It’s not like it was a negative depiction
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.
But then why keep angels and demons?
@@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
oh boy and again book needs day 1 patch
well that's the effect of ridiculously short time for writing those books
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.
Ah, will update
I love the design change for scamps and homunculi. Previously there was a lot of stuff that just looked like (DnD) goblins in different colours, now they have much more of their own aesthetic.
Awesome! I was looking forward to this video
Keep up your own good work, you rock.
Leshies, Mephits and Homunculus became cuter.
The Barghest moved to Baskerville.
Purple worm got mirrored and a palette swap.
Sea Hag is a famine version of Ursula now.
Ghouls are vampires now.
Golems turned into "creatures formerly known as Golems".
8:55 That was already the cases, it was just made clear and moved to the adjustment itself:
"applying elite adjustments to a level -1 creature gives you one closer to 1st level, and applying weak adjustments to a 1st-level creature gives you one whose level is closer to -1"
"The Construct Formerly Known as Golem" - includes a trademarked symbol.
I love Rules Lawyer Videos! This was great. Will be getting the book next week.
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
@@gm9460sounds about right, can’t wait to get goblins removed for offending exactly zero English/Scottish people
As a Christian, nephilim refers to giants that existed long ago. They were a mix between humans and demons.
I did love your overview of MC. There are so many interesting monsters in here.
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.
Yup. It's the cherubim and the thrones that look the weirdest. The rest look like people with a variable amount of wings and carrying different stuff.
You are the best, Rules Lawyer, SO appreciated! 🙏 🤗
Just wanna say Ronald, I'm beginning to sow the seeds of my 5e group moving to pathfinder (i'm even going to run some fun one shots and maybe even a mini strahd conversion to really hook them) and your videos are just invaluable.
It seems like the Kholo should be more explicitly matriarchal, like actual hyenas.
There's a sentence saying that females are dominant, like in the current Gnoll description. (I didn't show the whole thing)
Just a musing... if it's not covered in this book (and I think it won't be as I imagine more written to stand on it's own rather than explain crossing over from standard 2e) I think it'd be great for Paizo to put out some guidance on how to deal with some of the more significant shifts in monsters from per-revised published content to revised.
Of those you covered, ghouls stand out the most with their shift from ravenous flesh eaters that you wouldn't expect to parlay with to a more sophisticated intelligent creature. And the removal of paralysis! What's in my mind is that there will be numerous published ghoul encounters that will play quite differently or may no longer work. The original design may have been as a straight combat encounter, designed with the paralysis effect is a core element of the difficulty. Do existing encounters still work with the new ghoul or do they break down? Do the lack of paralysis still challenge the party appropriately?
It'll be interesting to see how it works in practice for ghouls and other creatures where there's been a significant shift. I suppose the a simple solution where the revised version doesn't seem to work is that the pre-revised material is still there and works. Going back to ghouls, a party with experience of revised ghouls encountering traditional ghouls can be explained with "Oh, these are degenerate ghouls that'd been driven mad!", etc.
Old published adventures should probably just use the old statblocks unless you're willing to go through the process of homebrewing the entire encounter anyway with new remastered monsters
The OG Ghouls exist as Ghouls, Feral at my table. After a Ghoul loses the last portions of their conscience, they gain the Paralysis ability. When a Ghoul consumes the flesh of innocents, especially the living, there is a chance of going Feral. At first this may last a day, yet lasts exponentially longer when repeated.
Player Ghouls must be careful of whom they partake.
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!
As someone who loves loves loves kobolds to their little bones, I do like the kobolds' change as a "yes-and" to their lore from D&D. I kinda wanna see what they have planned for their ancestry splat in PC2 with this in mind, if we're going to see different heritages based on this or if we're going to see new flavor for preexisting heritages.
It's strange to see them phase out golems(even though in 2e they are a hot mess) when Paizo's own logo is a golem and their slogan is "The golem's got it!"
Do you know if the foundry vtt bestiary tokens module will be updated?
I wasn't considering the monster core, but I might pick it up now. This looks really cool
Have you noticed that snare crafting seems to have quietly disappeared from the remaster?
During remaster previews they said snares will be in PC2 as an Snarecrafter archetype.
@@BlueSapphyre oh nice, i missed that. so maybe now it is intended as a unique ability of that archetype rather than a general purpose ability.
I love rules, lawyers videos. They're so useful
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
I don't see the point of the golem change either, but I will adjust. Getting a hard separation from D&D is what I'm most excited about.
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.
17:22
Is the language.
Petran.
(the new 'earth elemental'?)
Or what is it specifically?
The Sea Hag got Ursula'd.
My favorite new monster is the Pipefox! Such a cute little creature.
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.
They could have renamed golem to a construct/magical construct type and called it a day
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
They didn't need to be renamed. At all.
I very much in love with the new artwork. Many of paizo 's monster that were more on humanoid side, felt like a human and monster slapped together in a very bland and boring way, like the former design of the naga or the archons, the new direction feels much more otherworldly and fantastical. Big W for me, can't wait to get the book.
Is will-o-wisp in moster core? Im interested to see what they did for their magic immunity
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.
I'm not gonna lie, I vastly prefer the older art in almost any given case that was demonstrated. The naga and the basilisk are at least ok and the hag is the only one I prefer over the older.
The sea hag made me think of Ursula. Which is very fair.
The good thing is that you can still use either. I like the mephit change, since the old one gave a false apperance with its devilish/gremlin look, even though they are like the critters of the elemental plane. So making them look more like bugs is nice.
I think those two specifically look super goofy.
It looks like they were drawn by someone who can’t draw snakes very well
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.
where are the mephits? Can't find anything about a name change and I can't find them in the pdf.
edit:
On that note, what other monsters are people having a hard time finding?
They got replaced by scamps! Like the new ones a lot more, fit the ‘basic elemental familiar’ bit a lot better imo
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.
For new DMs is tthere a mapping table to the name changes from 5e?
3:41 very Kami/anime view.
13:01 love the archon changes. Biblical angels are metal 🤘
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.
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)."
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
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.
I’m running Sky Kings Tomb AP. Seems like Pazio started to or give us a sneak peek at the new ghoul habits in the second book. There’s a group of ghouls that care more about what they eat, than how much they eat.
One thing I noticed in the Resistances and Immunities of the Clay Effigy is that they do not list critical hits or precision damage, but they do list things like bleed damage and mental effects. I find this important, since all of those were things they got for being a construct with object immunities. Are they removing many/all of the critical hit and precision immunities from monsters? If so, that is fantastic. Especially if they are removing the precision damage immunities. I just recently finished running abomination vaults, and it was absurd the number of fights that prevented my Swashbuckler player from being to pull off their high damage Finishers because of that immunity.
As a Christian who studies the Bible, I don't think the bow has anything to do with being more close to the source material. I can't think of a reason from the Bible why it would.
Maybe the change had more to due with balance, abilities, or flavor.
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.
What's the date for the Small versions of all these books? I just saw 2 small version books at my FLGS.
The golem is based on a legend from the city of Prague, so kinda like a vampire it fits into the public domain
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
Do undead monsters have bleed immunity in their stat blocks like constructs?
Never mind, I should have finished the video...
Thanks for raising it! Vampires do NOT have bleed immunity unlike the other undead. This is a useful clarification and I'm going to make a post about it lol
EDIT: Bleed damage in Player Core still says it doesn't affect "nonliving creatures" so the jury is out. But I'd argue for relying solely on what it says in the statblocks now that they've made this step
@@TheRulesLawyerRPG That is great, and makes sense for vampires, losing blood would be bad for them. I will also be using the statblocks, especially as they will be coded into Foundry. I think this will also help clear up the confusion about undead PCs as well.
The new fungus leshy looks a lot creepier than the old one to me. It's face is too human.
I LOVE the Archons. "Do not be afraid." "uhhh....no? I'm crapping my pants here."
'Golem' is *not* something you can copyright. It comes from Jewish mythology.
Some of their reasons for the name changes make no sense.
@@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.
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
Can you make a video talking of the eight dragons and what their things are? I'd like to know.
Love the content about the Remastered Monster Core.
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.
I'm glad to see the Dominion of the Black and the way they reworked intellect devourer and brain collectors
My only problem is the cutiefication. A lack of cute has always been a big draw to this art rather than WotCs art, for example.
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.
It's marketing. It's why Leshy have PC art and NPC art. Cute things are more marketable.
@@al8188 Fully agreed with this take. Good one.
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
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
Wait, the clay effigy resists plant? I really would have expected that in the list of exceptions.
Regarding Alignment, what about chaotic and lawful creatures?
there's basically zero mechanical preservation of lawful/chaotic mechanics. those are just plain gone
But the description of the ghoul does say just bellow the name "...are ravenous undead who...."
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.
I think the only two changes I actually like are the archons and the dragons. Everything else I will continue using the bestiary for.
Could both? Imagine 2 types of ghouls.. keep the players on their toes
Loving all these changes
Hey, thanks Ronald!
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.
3:57
Somehow, this "cute" mushroom is way creepier to me than the first one
I could almost imagine a fantasy world where I could have a conversation with that spider-faced weirdo. The new one is too uncanny to trust, I think?
The Beginner Box has been ORCified and has a juvenile horned dragon.
Fantastic preview!
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.
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.
It's called "putting a spin on it", they're basically a goblin's version of a werewolf
oh, Intellect Devourers are still there they are just renamed as Xoarian and are in the Dominion of the Black section.
I'm loving the archon changes!
The Balor not getting a rework is so disappointing. Vrolikais are awesome, and in my opinion, better than Balors... but not as THE Final Demon
Don't get why they had to remove the Balor. Just do what WoTC originally did and rename it to something else; It's not like you can copyright Winged Red demons with Swords and a whips.
You mean the balrog, right?
Nice overview. Thanks.
I love the changes to ghouls, archons, dragons, and basically everything you mentioned! looking good! Nice preview
I adore the new designs for the leshies, especially the leaf leshy. And I'm very glad they redesigned the mephits, they looked so weird and creepy in the legacy version. And they're so cute too! I'm a sucker for cute monster designs. Overall, I do enjoy the new designs shown in this video more (although, while I agree the chromatic and metallic dragons felt samey, I did really like their designs in the legacy version. I enjoyed them more overall than the dragon designs in D&D 5e), especially the archons!
Sadly they are still not on Nethys. 😩
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
What’s this mean for the tarrasque?
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!
Are they still not done with the remaster? I'm not going to even look at any of this until they're done...
For the moment, just 1 more book left, player core 2, and that isn't until August.