Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

2e Unchained

You have celebrations and questions? Join Jason Bulmahn, our Director of Game Design, on Twitch today at 1 PM Pacific. Then Erik Mona, our Publisher and Chief Creative Officer will be interviewed on Roll for Combat’s YouTube channel at 2 PM Pacific: https://www.youtube.com/@RollForCombat.

Edit: These cover are not final. Stay tuned!

The r/Pathfinder2e Subreddit has many transcripts.

Watch the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project Q&A recording on Twitch.

Huzzah!

Let's hope this doesn't hit Starfinder.

"slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged"

That's some weasel wording there. Why a different mix? There shouldn't be. Either it's changed, or it's not. "largely" is also an out for "ok, so there are changes [beyond errata]!"

Also, generally not a fan of a Player and GM split on books. Paizo's always done right with the CRB being one and all, then separate bestiary only. Now if you pull out the bestiary, you have all the extra baggage that isn't monsters, for instance. The "GM" book is a system-hacking baseline, and how-to-manage-people guide, really its own thing. Et cetera.

Removing alignment is also a mistake.

Sounds exciting! A clean up of the presentation of the game is definitely a good idea, and there has been a lot of good errata that'll be nice to fold into a complete product.

Looking forward to seeing what other small changes and tweaks make it in.

This is a surprise, but I think it will be good for the game. The massive, 600+ page CRB is a great value for customers, but its size can be a barrier to entry.

"Not yet" on Starfinder feels more ominous than it probably should...

NO MORE ALIGNMENT!
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Can't wait to see these slick new books!

I am probably too hopeful that the Alchemist and Warpriest will see significant changes here. Otherwise this sounds good.

Sounds like a solid plan. I look forward to hearing more about it.

The thing I like the most about this is gathering the class stuff from the CRB and APG into one book, because right now it's quite frustrating.

NO MORE ALIGNMENT!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Huh?

No Alignment is a huge win. I can’t wait to see!

I wonder if Alignment is going to be replaced by anything, since like you're still going to have Champions that follow "the Tenets of Good" (or a different name for that) so recreational arson is most likely still clearly prohibited for Paladins.

So it just seems like some rewording, shuffling of materials for clarity and I wouldn't be shocked if they threw new errata in there for all the books. It doesn't seem like a 2e Unchained. Just a "Hey we need to get these out of the OGL and into the ORC so let's dev some improvements in"

It would not shock me if they change some terms that are grey area legally.

I am probably too hopeful that the Alchemist and Warpriest will see significant changes here. Otherwise this sounds good.

And Witch. Witch needs some serious rework-levels of errata. This would be an ideal time to do that. But if the devs haven't already done that, it is probably too late for it now.

Nice. And all of this because of WotC greed and their OGL schemes.

"Removal" of alignment seems a bit stark. I would've hoped for some alternative, possibly based on the alternate alignment rules from the GMG. Otherwise intrigued by this

I mean starfindees gonna need to be de-OGLed it just remains to see whether they get a "remaster" or just a whole new edition.

"slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged"

That's some weasel wording there. Why a different mix? There shouldn't be. Either it's changed, or it's not. "largely" is also an out for "ok, so there are changes [beyond errata]!"

SO, I know nothing about what Paizo may or may not be doing, but here's some likely considerations.

If the goal is to break free from the OGL, then there's a VERY legally gray zone regarding, "What can we use without using the OGL?" For example, the concept of, "rolling a die for an attack against a value to determine what happens" is not copyrightable because it's a game mechanic, but arguably, terms like "Armor Class" and "saving throw" might be. I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, but lawyers probably don't know either because basically every TTRPG company in America has been doing their best to avoid going to court because the ruling given could be ... interesting.

This means it's VERY Likely that we're going to see soft changes, ie terms changing that don't change the actual rules of the game. This is likely necessary to play ball in the same stadium as a company of wizards that seems okay with ruthlessly dismantling the tabletop games community.

I can't make the live streams! Some one ask about a character sheet redesign for me!!!

Hrmmm, maybe different mix will address the pain points of some vocal community members. My hope though is that they'll had some real sub-classes to monks and fighters and maybe, maybe motivate consumable item use with additional feats or class abilities that spread some temp consumable item creation around.

That said, unless the content is vastly different I probably won't repurchase these three core books and just rely on AoN for the changed content.

Ultimately, I don't think this is being done to service the D&D people and has more to do with fall out from the OGL debacle.

"Removal" of alignment seems a bit stark. I would've hoped for some alternative, possibly based on the alternate alignment rules from the GMG. Otherwise intrigued by this

Like legally there's probably an argument for this which is why they're doing it, and it'll be good to avoid alignment arguments and things like "certain spells are useless for clerics of Neutral Gods because they do alignment damage." But it's still useful to read "LE" or "NG" in an NPC's stat bloc just as a very broad description of how to play them.

Personally, I can't wait for nice updated books. It's been several years, and the system has been refined over that time. People who complain about "I gotta buy more books" can always just go to Archives of Nethys if they want, but the rest of us would like to have the shiny new tomes for our shelves and games!

...B-but I like alignment :(

Makes sense to remove the WotC covered SRD overlap. Archives of Nethys makes it so it's not a forced rebuy.

Seems cool.

So.... the big question, will spells like Searing Light just become mono-fire, do positive, or will there be a new design for simulating holy magic and such?

That said, unless the content is vastly different I probably won't repurchase these three core books and just rely on AoN for the changed content.

That is what I am getting from the posting. The pdf versions of the books aren't even being replaced. So there isn't a need to re-buy the books unless you really want to be top of the line. Just continue using the older books as normal, but be aware of the changes made in the new updates.

Which is pretty typical for reprintings already. The old hard copies of the books are still valid, but be aware of the changes in the new updates.

Lebombjames wrote:

"Removal" of alignment seems a bit stark. I would've hoped for some alternative, possibly based on the alternate alignment rules from the GMG. Otherwise intrigued by this

Like legally there's probably an argument for this which is why they're doing it, and it'll be good to avoid alignment arguments and things like "certain spells are useless for clerics of Neutral Gods because they do alignment damage." But it's still useful to read "LE" or "NG" in an NPC's stat bloc just as a very broad description of how to play them.

I somehow manage to GM every single other game on the market just fine without NPC alignment. A nine-point personality shorthand leads to more problems than it fixes.

If its almost entirely the same book with some stuff removed, why wouldnt you just give the PDF of the new book to people who own the existing PDF of those books, and make the physical an optional purchase instead of a sub-thing?

I mean starfindees gonna need to be de-OGLed it just remains to see whether they get a "remaster" or just a whole new edition.

It would be nice to see Starfinder get the 2E update. I quit playing it after PF2E came out because going back to 1E mechanics just felt like putting on a straightjacket.

New edition to kill the OGL and attract new players. Sounds good to me.

Apart from outsiders who are distilled embodiments of an alignment, the alignment system's only current use is to give out of control (bad) LG or CN players an excuse to be annoying.

I suspected the alignment part would generate some conversation.

I'm sure Jason will go into this a little deeper in today's stream, but just because we are removing the classic nine-alignment grid does not mean we are abandoning the idea of certain creatures being "good" or "evil" in a cosmic sense.

The significant majority of Pathfinder rules regarding alignment hinge on that aspect, so expect the remastered books to cover this in a way that doesn't wreck the champion or demons, for example.

Bye owlbear! We will miss you!

...B-but I like alignment :(

I don't like alignment personally, but I don't think its a matter of your preference versus my preference. Chances are that alignment is considered a mechanic that might be indefensible in the court if Wizards decided to sue Paizo over using their brand identity. The concept of, "a mechanic that measures your goodness" is definitely a game mechanic that probably couldn't be sued over, but using that rule and calling it alignment could be argued as D&D product identity, and it's probably easier to trash it as a result.

I'm happy to see how committed Paizo is to taking their rules off of the OGL and into the ORC. These upgrades have been made very quickly from a design point of view. The poor devs must be sleepwalking with all the hard work they've had to do getting these out so fast. :-)
I'm excited to see the new upgrades!

I'll be keeping Alignment in all my games regardless, but nice to see ORC results and some tweeks to the game.

Tom

Also god, I'm so frustrated (despite understanding it is likely due to pagecount) by splitting the GM and PH - We don't need more excuses for 5e converts to not read the GM rules and just decide "we need to homebrew!"

I hope things like level-based DC, exploration activities, initaitve handling, rest rules, downtime, creature ID, and how hazards work are kept in the PHB - those should absolutely be exposed to players and keeping them in a separate book is going to promote player ignorance.

Also very confused by PH and GM core having Lost Omens information. Dunno what that split would be, and I hope its not weird.

Interesting to see Society limitations with alignment disappearing.

If I had to summarize all this into one sentence, I'd probably say something like, "Looks like the fallout from the 'OGL incident' has allowed for an avalanche of errata to drop."

I'm sure I'd be over-simplifying things if I said that, but that's about where I'd put things right now.

Alright Paizo, color me very intruiged.

I for one am happy to see alignment go. I expect it will be a change to make "alignment damage" into holy/dark/axiomatic/anarchic as another energy type (you know, Final Fantasy style) and that's about it. The rest is already covered with Champion causes and deity anathema.

Well this is unexpected.

Will there still be some basic GM'ing stuff in the player core book? One of PF's big advantages over... the RPG by the Pinkertons' most famous client... was only needing two books (core and bestiary) to get started as a GM.

Not asking for me. I'm such a simp, I probably will buy all these despite owning their scattered contents.

Will this make an early access at Gencon?

A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.

No strong opinions on the book split. I think it's fine.

Glad there will hopefully be more comprehensive rules in the absence of alignment than what is in the GMG currently (which I think is fine), and interested to see a proper revision of alignment damage.

It would be a nice-to-have if the new GM book discussed alternate/additional dice. Several companies have d5s, d7s, and d16s on the market (along with d30s and d60s). Intermixing the first two in particular might open the design space for weapons and healing/harmful (read as blasting) damage.

EDIT: At this point I'm wishlisting. :)

This is cool as hell and I love this move.

Are things like divine lance which deals alignment damage also going away then?