Dr. Dhrolin's Dictionary of Dinosaurs is a monster book for D&D 5e written by paleontologists Drs. Nathan Barling and Michael O'Sullivan is gettinf a Pathfinder 2e conversion.
The book features realistic dinosaurs and paleontologically accurate (as of 2023) background information, as well as artwork by paleo-artist Dr. Mark Witton.
I'm maybe a little too excited about this one. I was a dinosaur kid growing up.
Buried somewhere in the announcement post on reddit is some really interesting creature adjustments coming with the book. u/Linda_Zayas_Palmer, a former Paizo developer who consulted on the conversion, dropped this:
Roughly 4 level -1 adjustments, 20 level +0 adjustments, 75 level +1 adjustments, and 20 level +2 adjustments.
So it's going to be a massive toolkit for GMs.
At level -1, we've got things like thin dermis, which includes vulnerability to slashing damage.
At level +0, we have things that you might be looking for to change your creature's habitat but that aren't going to make significant difference to their power level. Concepts like wader, which helps with moving through shallow water, and pneumitisation, which makes your creature a bit faster at the expense of making them easier to topple over.
At level +1, there are tons of examples. Some of them are more defensive, like a bony frill that can be raised defensively. Others grant new Strikes or reactions, ranging from the realistic, like adding a horn attack, to the fantastical, like a dinosaur with web-shooting spinnerets or the ability to shoot off psychic mind rays. And others do a variety of other concepts that I'm not previewing just yet :)
At level +2, we start getting into concepts like super-tanky creatures with thick armoured plates and creatures with neurotoxic venom.
You can find the original announcement here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/1dfy8r0/british_palaeontologists_excited_by_pathfinder/
I don't know, this is starting to sound like a separate discussion with separate issues, and as a result it feels like goalpost moving.
The issue with women's fantasy armour has long been that it exists for the Male Gaze, as a trope that is propagated by men for the purpose of titilizing men. It's objectifying the female form, and doing so in a way that does not include women in the discussion at all.
The second image, instead of being a continuation of that, just feels like fashion, and complaints about it land as "no one has ever cared about aesthetics in a suit of armour" which is a totally false take and indefensible platform.