Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

emky wrote:

DCC uses that.

And what, pray tell, is DCC?

Dungeon Crawl Classics, an "old-school feel" type system that plays more like AD&D 1e with some house-rules.

{. . .} The new rulebooks are compatible with existing Pathfinder Second Edition products, incorporating comprehensive errata and rules updates as well as some of the best additions from later books into new, easy-to-access volumes with streamlined presentations inspired by years of player feedback.

{. . .}

This is a promising development.

{. . .}

The new rulebooks are compatible with existing Pathfinder Second Edition products, incorporating comprehensive errata and rules updates as well as some of the best additions from later books into new, easy-to-access volumes with streamlined presentations inspired by years of player feedback.

As is that . . . On the other hand:

This transition will result in a few minor modifications to the Pathfinder Second Edition system, notably the removal of alignment and a small number of nostalgic creatures, spells, and magic items exclusive to the OGL. These elements remain a part of the corpus of Pathfinder Second Edition rules for those who still want them, and are fully compatible with the new remastered rules, but will not appear in future Pathfinder releases.

{. . .}

For better or worse, removal of alignment is some major surgery. And this seems like a bad time to do it, since it will be cutting down on alignment flame threads just when the forums seem to be running short on threads . . . .

All this talk of not liking change reminds me of bridge players. Who, in their 70s and 80s are complaining that the rules change "way too frequently" when the Laws (The "core rulebook" if you will) are updated (with few significant changes) roughly every ten years. The bridge players' lament then, is that "the rules aren't the same as they were when I learned the game 60 years ago!" :-)

Ed Reppert wrote:

emky wrote:

DCC uses that.

And what, pray tell, is DCC?

Dungeon Crawl Classics, an "old-school feel" type system that plays more like AD&D 1e with some house-rules.

Ah. About all I can say about that is that now you've reminded me, I *have* heard of it. :-)

Rhapsodic College Dropout wrote:

My players didn't take the news too well haha! After begging my group to switch to PF2e for years, they finally did when the OGL debacle hit and now they feel like they've been bait and switched after buying a book that is being phased out and pdfs that won't be updated after already purchasing them.

Welp, time to do a full court press on switching them to Savage Worlds.

Nah. Go Harnmaster, but wait until later this year when the new editions of the GameMaster's Guide and Player's Guide are out. :-)

Wait, are you saying there are new Harnmaster books coming out?

I am so freaking excited about this!

Is monk finally got to get legendary in unarmed attack?

What will happen to the splat books, ie firebrands etc, are they going to be revised or the current ones good for ever?

Great news! I think this is mostly beneficial for the company and the players, especially the ORC license aspect. The further away the game is from WoTC and DnD, the better. Can't wait to get the new "Cores"

Viviolay wrote:

I'm not really concerned about existing books mechanically. Idk why its assumed I'm worried about it being a cash grab - I understand it's not and isn't what I'm asking about.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

Viviolay wrote:

I'm curious lore-wise what alignment removal means and was hoping for more specific answers watching the stream besides "not much is changing" because "not much" means different things to different people.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

But jerk players will have more of an "in" to be jerks with no alignment. It's going to help their argument.

breithauptclan wrote:

Viviolay wrote:

I'm not really concerned about existing books mechanically. Idk why its assumed I'm worried about it being a cash grab - I understand it's not and isn't what I'm asking about.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

Viviolay wrote:

I'm curious lore-wise what alignment removal means and was hoping for more specific answers watching the stream besides "not much is changing" because "not much" means different things to different people.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

But jerk players will have more of an "in" to be jerks with no alignment. It's going to help their argument.

Jerk players are gonna jerk no matter what you do. Build the game around those that play it in good faith.

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

Tom

Same here. Ive been gaming since 1978 and I like the idea of constraining behaviors for players based on the concept of good vrs evil. it works. They are going to update the Bestiary but will the other two books also be valid?

I have gamed with individuals who presumed that (L)awful Good was 'Best Good' and that only their interpretation of (L)awful Good was valid.

At one point, when I was also playing a Lawful Good character who was a living character who'd seen some stuff I was accused of 'playing it wrong' and that really stuck in my head after seeing years of abuse of the alignment.

The largely apocryphal tales of Chaotic Neutral characters 'ruining' games (from my perspective) were overblown compared to the amount of damage that came from (L)awful Good 'rp police' in my own play experience.

I was not alone in this, and a recent AP I was in had the GM remove it save for planar influences (much like is being suggested will happen here).

We Did Not Miss Alignment.

If anything, it gave our characters freedom to be living beings versus cardboard caricatures trying to hew to a narrowly defined few lines.

To be fair, its not just matter of jerk and non jerk players, some players when they play "morally gray settings" tend to go to silly edgy ends compared to "black and white settings". Its less them being jerk and more of "This is what happens when this person tries to write a morally gray character" thing you can observe in fiction writing as well

Oh might as well report good news: Yeah I was right, sleeping helped so I'm not sad anymore and have made my peace with this. Though that was obvious since PF2e is my second favorite system after Cypher system, and lack of alignment isn't really WHY its my favorite, I was just taken off guard by how sudden it was because I was expecting it to stick around until 3e, plus investment into "actually I don't think alignment is inherently bad" arguments xD

Sillier news: I actually ended up getting inspired to try writing a system hack anyway because I've always wanted to experiment with system design and want to write a xenofiction setting that is too niche to sell but is fun for me to write x'D So I'm trying to see how far I get before I'm hit by procrastination and "editing is scary". That is like 99.99% going to happen

Well, I guess APL pdf will still be enough in PFS for having APL classes. I also guess they won't give PPC2 pdf to APL pdf owners. Which is a pity as it won't be a really good reference source considering so much APL classes will be reworked at least a bit. I would solve this problem of course, but still.
Anyway, never liked alignments a lot, otherwise not much would change. And getting reworks, updates, erratas and new spells is nice :)
Ah, and having magic items in GMs book is not great at all: it wasn't good in 5e where magic items really were an addition (even if it was boring without them), but magic items are essential part of characters in PF2 now :(

To be fair, its not just matter of jerk and non jerk players, some players when they play "morally gray settings" tend to go to silly edgy ends compared to "black and white settings".

Which is why I'll put alignment directly back into the game, if they remove it with regards to character building. Because I hate those edgelords much more than I do hate the people that just don't get that the alignment system has never been meant to narrowly define every single action you take.

If it helps, think of it this way. Which is more evocative in plain English?

“A devil is a symbol of lawful evil”

-or-

“A devil is a symbol of tyranny”

I know d20 gamers are used to the former, but the latter is actually far more powerful as well as being far more specific. The setting still means the same things, it still works the same way, but now it has a chance to jettison terms it inherited from another game that barely make sense anymore and are loaded with some very uncomfortable implications.

On one hand being more evocative is usually, but not always, a good thing. However, Lawful Evil is not equal to tyranny nor is tyranny exclusive to lawful evil.

Now on to a more broad input, I have felt for a very long time that alignment is highly misunderstood and not very well described.

I find alignment an extremely useful tool, more often as a gm, but occasionally as a player too. That said, in my system I rename them. Order vs entropy and extrinsic vs intrinsic value. Much more descriptive but I'm definitely looking for more evocative but still accurate terms.

FallenDabus wrote:

If it helps, think of it this way. Which is more evocative in plain English?

“A devil is a symbol of lawful evil”

-or-

“A devil is a symbol of tyranny”

I know d20 gamers are used to the former, but the latter is actually far more powerful as well as being far more specific. The setting still means the same things, it still works the same way, but now it has a chance to jettison terms it inherited from another game that barely make sense anymore and are loaded with some very uncomfortable implications.

On one hand being more evocative is usually, but not always, a good thing. However, Lawful Evil is not equal to tyranny nor is tyranny exclusive to lawful evil.

Now on to a more broad input, I have felt for a very long time that alignment is highly misunderstood and not very well described.

I find alignment an extremely useful tool, more often as a gm, but occasionally as a player too. That said, in my system I rename them. Order vs entropy and extrinsic vs intrinsic value. Much more descriptive but I'm definitely looking for more evocative but still accurate terms.

Back when I tried out homebrewing alignment for funsies I replaced good/evil with radiant/shadow that represent collectivism/individualism :'D So good of the group or good of the individual. Selflessness vs selfishness where both can be good or bad depending how extreme they are taken to.

Overall good news.

Anything to keep WOTC from ruining this game too is necessary. I would say Good, but that brings me to...

The fact I am so glad to see alignment go away, mostly to get rid of alignment damage which has always been clunky and illogical.
Like, "hey you free spirited person this sword will hurt you because it's organized"
Free-spirit "you mean hurt me more than being hit with a sword?"

So this saves me some hassle since I already did away with alignment damage.

Maybe it's time for a more nuanced and objective alignment system that defines Outlook and Behavior rather than some nebulous concept of law and chaos/good and evil.

Splitting the GM out of the Player's books will be great, maybe even out the size of those two a bit since the spine in my CRB is getting ready to give out.

Update for Starfinder, yes please! I want to run this for my group, but I don't want to teach yet another system. Ideally SF2e will be as close to PF2e as systemically possible. This is all that has kept me from buying up all the Starfinder books as I have with Pathfinder First and Second editions.

Only a little bummed that some classic bits will be going away, called nostalgic here, but it's a neccesary sacrifice to starve that other company of opportunities for litigation.

I wonder what exactly is on the chopping block?

I hope that the person at Paizo who, during PF2 design meetings, suggested ditching the last vestiges of D&D nostalgia (9-type alignment, ability scores as numbers first and modifiers second, rogues having just select martial weapon proficiencies etc.) - but got talked down by "we need to keep some sacred cows or else diehards won't switch over" - is going to walk into the next meeting slightly drunk, holding a 1,5 litre jug of pina colada and wearing a pink sombrero with a blue LED light flashing "TOLD YA, SUCKERS AHAHAHA"

Because that's what I would do.

I agree on some of them, but I thought they should have altered alignment instead x'D

Removing alignment without at least providing an alternative descriptor process is a bad idea.

For my two cents, not that I think this has a chance, but if this remaster make the "Proficiency without Level" rules from the Gamemastery Guide the default, then I'm 100% in on this. Pipe dream, sure, and I'm probably in a minority of people who think that is what the game really needs to do, but just getting that thought out there.

Learning about Proficiency without Level is why I even checked out PF2 in the first place. If it becomes core, great, but it's staying in my game regardless.

I think the only thing I really hate about PF2 is full-caster bards, but I'm not hopeful they'll be changing that.

But if you want to hear about real disappointment, when I first saw the name "Pathfinder Remastered Project" pop up in my YouTube, I thought it was an ongoing project to update all the old APs to the 2nd edition.

After that let down, finding out they're changing spell levels to spell ranks was kind of anti-climactic.

YuriP wrote:

It makes me wonder now that. Maybe, just maybe, isn't the designers also considering reworking the prepared and spontaneous spellcasters? Like, for example, ending Vancian Spellcasting? This would justify a little why the spontaneous spellcasters are thrown to the 2nd book (to be better worked on, as it should be with the Champion if the vancian spellcasting really will be gone once this would make the casters mechanics more closer and will require some more work to make then more unique).

Ps.: Now that Paizo is reviewing everything, I would be very happy if they made some alternative rules for Spell Points.

We know for sure that they aren't drastically altering the way casting works, like getting rid of Vancian casting. That's a bigger change than alignment, and alignment is the biggest change. The class count for the first book needed to decrease by four. Maybe Sorcerer and Barbarian got moved because they rely on dragon changes being finalized.

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

As Quidest said, if they haven't announced that they are doing something that big, its probably not happening. at most, I would think that if there was some minor change, it would be to prepared casting, as the witch is in core 1. But the bard is still in core 1, and they are almost certainty staying spontaneous casters.

Bard's in practice is a classe primary focuses in it's composition cantrips. They won't affected that much.

Yet I still thinking why Sorcerer was moved to Players Core 2.

But you have a point that if they made some change like this, they probably would announce it. Yet I will keep my minor hope that maybe they can change it and improve the spellslots number by 50% (another thing I saw players complaining here and in the reddit).

I am now so happy that my FLGS has been having difficulty getting new pocket editions of PF2 in stock. I've been waiting for them to stock so I can buy them, but now I'll just wait for these to come out!
Haven't watched the streams yet, but from the listed changes, I'm excited. I scrapped alignment in my D&D-style games ages ago, not at all sad to see that disappear.

I get why Paizo doesn't trust the OGL any more and why they started this project back in January, but I don't really understand why they still feel forced to do it after WotC caved. Pretty much all the OGL concepts Pathfinder used are in the 5.1 SRD, and that got released under a Creative Commons license that WotC doesn't control. So it seems that Paizo could rerelease their ruleset using the 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons, and still license it under ORC.

Has anyone from Paizo commented on this?

zanbato13 wrote:

Will this mean a lot of holdover mechanics will be dropped, like Wizards not being trained in all simple weapons, or Rogues not being trained in all Martial weapons, or combining armors into just two categories of Light and Heavy (which the numbers kind of favor anyway)?

Alignment has me feeling conflicted, since I think PF does it really well and has built its lore in a way to make the different sides of the alignment spectrum both usable and debatable, something you really want in a moral system. Narakaas and that other psychopomp usher getting into debates over intent vs action is really interesting for the setting. It does what Pathfinder does best; uncertainty and mystery.

Rogues getting martial weapons and wizards getting simple weapons has been confirmed in the stream :)

If I'm understanding the character creation process correctly (I've not played PF2 since the playtest and initial release) This change means I could make a half elf eldrich scoundrel rogue, with Aldori dueling sword at first level.

Basically building the version of my Warlock/Cabalaist 1e PCs.

I get why Paizo doesn't trust the OGL any more and why they started this project back in January, but I don't really understand why they still feel forced to do it after WotC caved. Pretty much all the OGL concepts Pathfinder used are in the 5.1 SRD, and that got released under a Creative Commons license that WotC doesn't control. So it seems that Paizo could rerelease their ruleset using the 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons, and still license it under ORC.

Has anyone from Paizo commented on this?

Not from Paizo, but WotC's 'cave' was more of a back away and wait. Nothing prevents this from happening again when the furor dies down.

a 'Cave' would be a OGL 1.0b that adds the irrevocable language in.

Ansr wrote:

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

There are currently 22 classes, 23 including the upcoming Kineticist. Eight of these classes will appear in "Player Core", an additional eight in "Player Core 2". What they're doing with the remaining seven classes I don't know yet.

Absolutely nothing aside from the usual errata passes. The 16 classes are just a reorganization of the Core + APG ones, as far as the current plan goes.

I get why Paizo doesn't trust the OGL any more and why they started this project back in January, but I don't really understand why they still feel forced to do it after WotC caved. Pretty much all the OGL concepts Pathfinder used are in the 5.1 SRD, and that got released under a Creative Commons license that WotC doesn't control. So it seems that Paizo could rerelease their ruleset using the 5.1 SRD under Creative Commons, and still license it under ORC.

Has anyone from Paizo commented on this?

Yes, Bulmahn made a quick statement in the stream to the effect of 'we decided the ORC license would be easier and better for us than Creative Commons', and referenced earlier places they'd gotten into that more.

kinderschlager wrote:

wow, this reads like a pathfinder 2.5. so why are they not calling a spade a spade and saying this is an edition change?

Because it's not? Like decidedly every current Pathfinder 2nd edition product will be compatible with the core remaster. Like the Summoner isn't going to be one of the 16 classes in one of these books, but if you have Secrets of Magic (or you just read the class on AoN) you can still play a summoner. The only changes you might need to do is to "Your Angel/Demon Eidolon is Holy/Unholy" and to convert the stat block from "Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10" to "Str +4, Dex +2, Con +3, Int -1, Wis +1, Cha +0."

that's....exactly in line with what D&D3 to 3.5 did. that's an edition change mate

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

- Overhauling Vancian casting seems like a bigger change than removing alignment to me. But hey, I can see an argument that it isn't because it's only half the casters.

I know that you and an appreciable number of people don't like prepared casting as it is, but I think calling it one of the biggest complaints of the community might be an overstatement.

As far as Sorcerer getting moved to Core 2, I have a guess.

Spontaneous casters could actually be more complicated or a worse experience for new players. Spell choices have longer impact if you pick poorly, signature spells need to be heightened on the fly, and so on. Bard has focus cantrips to fall back on, and fewer slots to worry about. If that's the case, then Witch might have been moved up to provide a prepared alternative for occult casting in the core book, and another caster with at-will options. Sorcerer could just be considered a bit more advanced than Witch because you need to know what you're doing up front.

I think that taking away a hard-coded alignment system will allow for more complex stories and antagonists.

Yes! Exactly! This!!!! The alignment system, especially with it being so ingrained into mechanics like with alignment damage, makes complex stories and villains hard to make.

Imagine agents of edgewatch, but where you are forced to confront moral dilemmas as an officer of the law, and question wether the laws you are enforcing are right or wrong, and question

Quick Takes - Dragons

Can I just say that I am thrilled that dragons will no longer be color-coded for our moral convenience? While I love having a rainbow of dragons, I have always thought that dragons deserved a deeper, richer culture, with more opportunities for every dragon to choose where it stands on the issues.

Idk, I think certain dragon types leaning towards good or leaning towards evil is fine. Plus doing it that way makes that rare evil gold dragon a compelling villain or a rare good red dragon a compelling NPC, or even PC if you are using battlezoo by Mark

Like my “Lawful Good” Red Dragon, who seeks to redeem his kind and lead them away from evil. I put it in quotes because even if alignment is removed, I think that’s a good way to describe him as he is supposed to act the opposite to what his kind usually is

QuidEst wrote:

YuriP wrote:

It makes me wonder now that. Maybe, just maybe, isn't the designers also considering reworking the prepared and spontaneous spellcasters? Like, for example, ending Vancian Spellcasting? This would justify a little why the spontaneous spellcasters are thrown to the 2nd book (to be better worked on, as it should be with the Champion if the vancian spellcasting really will be gone once this would make the casters mechanics more closer and will require some more work to make then more unique).

Ps.: Now that Paizo is reviewing everything, I would be very happy if they made some alternative rules for Spell Points.

We know for sure that they aren't drastically altering the way casting works, like getting rid of Vancian casting. That's a bigger change than alignment, and alignment is the biggest change. The class count for the first book needed to decrease by four. Maybe Sorcerer and Barbarian got moved because they rely on dragon changes being finalized.

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

Eh, for me, Spontaneous spellcasters have more of a Vancian feel in 2E than they did in any prior edition that I'm familiar with (3.5, 5E, P1E, SF). Previously, if you knew the spell and had a slot of at least sufficient power to cast it, you cast it. Easy-peasy.

Now, you need a slot of exactly the power of the spell, no deviation at all, and you only get around that by memorizing the spell multiple times or as a signature spell. So now, we have the potential situation where a 20th level Sorcerer is falling to his death, and if he knows Feather Fall (but only as a 1st level spell) and he's out of 1st level slots (for whatever reason), then his choices are either sacrificing a Wish to replicate a Feather Fall, or go splat.

I would love for Spontaneous spellcasters to be able to get away from that.

YuriP wrote:

Getting rid of Vancian casting isn't that hard. It's basically make Flexible Spellcaster as default rules. It's a thing that affects only prepared casters not the entire spellcasting system. It's even compared to the work they will need to do with the removal of alignments.

I'm not so sure that this can't happen once they addressing many complains of the community and Vancian casting is one of the biggest.

- Overhauling Vancian casting seems like a bigger change than removing alignment to me. But hey, I can see an argument that it isn't because it's only half the casters.

- Even if it's smaller, it'd definitely be announced. Even changes to the refocus activity got mentioned.
- Even if it weren't announced, Cleric, Wizard, and Druid would all be on the list of classes receiving major changes alongside Witch, Alchemist, Oracle, and Champion.

I know that you and an appreciable number of people don't like prepared casting as it is, but I think calling it one of the biggest complaints of the community might be an overstatement.

As far as Sorcerer getting moved to Core 2, I have a guess.

Spontaneous casters could actually be more complicated or a worse experience for new players. Spell choices have longer impact if you pick poorly, signature spells need to be heightened on the fly, and so on. Bard has focus cantrips to fall back on, and fewer slots to worry about. If that's the case, then Witch might have been moved up to provide a prepared alternative for occult casting in the core book, and another caster with at-will options. Sorcerer could just be considered a bit more advanced than Witch because you need to know what you're doing up front.

If I understood the subtext correctly, the changes to spell casting is really just a rename of spell level to spell rank. Beyond that select spells may be removed, replaced, and/or renamed to move them further away from OGL content. E.g., forceful hand is pretty obviously the same spell as Bigby's Forceful Hand, so that entire spell may get replaced by a different one, with a different name, that does something similar.

Beyond that, my take on why the sorcerer (and the Barb) are in PC2 has to do with the Bestiary (or I think it's actually Monster) Core coming out between PC1 and PC2. Since both sorcerers and barbarians have have sub-classes that interact rather directly with chromatic/metallic dragons and those dragons are more or less going away in the move from OGL to ORC, it makes sense for sorcerers and barbarians to get their revision after folks can see what the new ORC dragons are like, named, and do. (Note: I'm not the first person who had this take on why sorcerers and barbs are in PC2. But I agree, this is the most sensible reason such popular classes are getting revised later.)

EDIT: Likewise, Alchemist is probably in PC2 so that it can leverage magic item changes that will appear in the GMC.

something

Maybe it is just me, but to my German ears your nickname sounds really offensive. If you don't know, it basically translates to "child beater". Is that what you want?

Beyond that, my take on why the sorcerer (and the Barb) are in PC2 has to do with the Bestiary (or I think it's actually Monster) Core coming out between PC1 and PC2. Since both sorcerers and barbarians have have sub-classes that interact rather directly with chromatic/metallic dragons and those dragons are more or less going away in the move from OGL to ORC, it makes sense for sorcerers and barbarians to get their revision after folks can see what the new ORC dragons are like, named, and do. (Note: I'm not the first person who had this take on why sorcerers and barbs are in PC2. But I agree, this is the most sensible reason such popular classes are getting revised later.)

Exactly this.

I do hope they keep in mind the origin of some of those dragons. It isn’t like WotC have exclusive rights to the concept of Puff the Magic Dragon.

——

I do hope that they take advantage of the reorganization to reduce some of the duplication of text.

It would be so much better if the Wizard Feat FAMILIAR just gave access to the familiar feats and the only familiar feats requiring class specific feats were those not available to every class. Between the Wizard, Sorcerer and Witch, I think you would save at least a couple of pages of text with this one change and make it easier for a player to understand.

Scott Henry wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Viviolay wrote:

I'm not really concerned about existing books mechanically. Idk why its assumed I'm worried about it being a cash grab - I understand it's not and isn't what I'm asking about.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

Viviolay wrote:

I'm curious lore-wise what alignment removal means and was hoping for more specific answers watching the stream besides "not much is changing" because "not much" means different things to different people.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

But jerk players will have more of an "in" to be jerks with no alignment. It's going to help their argument.

Jerk players are gonna jerk no matter what you do. Build the game around those that play it in good faith.

The Philosopher taught, As an object is, so it acts :)

How long ago was this remastering planned? It seems that the OGL mess may be the justification for this but I am what I kept hearing in the Roll for Combat and the Twitch stream is that they have been working on this for months. If the OGL debacle was in Januaryish, would they be able to have all of these planned to go out in November for the first 2 books? Or was this something that was always planned? If it was always planned I think that needs to be stated.

Will subsequent APs and books have a Pathfinder Remastered logo?

Pathfinder 1e had a Gamemaster's Guide. In D&D, you do not technically NEED the Dungeon Master's Guide to play the game as most of it is world building & variant systems. The Player's Handbook & Monster Manual is more than sufficient to run a D&D game.

I mean if you play without magic items, I guess? Similarly, not super happy about moving some items to the GM Core book, that way you can't simply tell your players to reference the item in their CRBs anymore.

Yrrej86 wrote:

Pathfinder 1e had a Gamemaster's Guide. In D&D, you do not technically NEED the Dungeon Master's Guide to play the game as most of it is world building & variant systems. The Player's Handbook & Monster Manual is more than sufficient to run a D&D game.

I mean if you play without magic items, I guess? Similarly, not super happy about moving some items to the GM Core book, that way you can't simply tell your players to reference the item in their CRBs anymore.

Archives of Nethys says hello.

I hope they balance out the the saves etc that creatures in the bestiary have.
For example: At the moment the number of creatures with a High Fortitude save far outstrips the number with a low one. It would be nice to see the majority of creatures having one high save, one low save and those being distributed evenly between Fort, Reflex and Will saves (More variety of Perception scores would also be good).

Yrrej86 wrote:

Pathfinder 1e had a Gamemaster's Guide. In D&D, you do not technically NEED the Dungeon Master's Guide to play the game as most of it is world building & variant systems. The Player's Handbook & Monster Manual is more than sufficient to run a D&D game.

I mean if you play without magic items, I guess? Similarly, not super happy about moving some items to the GM Core book, that way you can't simply tell your players to reference the item in their CRBs anymore.

I thought that most alchemical items and perhaps some of the magic items were moving to Player 2 Core book. Not the Gamemaster book. So they will still be in the hands of the player's core rulebooks.

Though I might be wrong on that - going off of memory here.

One of the big things I'm wondering about is...

Since they move away from elemental dragons (metallic/Chromatic) to go for spell tradition dragons, this is going to affect the kobolds, dragon sorcerer and the barbarian sorcerer in the new remastered book since the core dragons won't be element based anymore.

This shows that the remaster probably will have a whole lot of ripple effect in the new remastered class, even those that do not get a deep rework.

One of the big things I'm wondering about is...

Since they move away from elemental dragons (metallic/Chromatic) to go for spell tradition dragons, this is going to affect the kobolds, dragon sorcerer and the barbarian sorcerer in the new remastered book since the core dragons won't be element based anymore.

This shows that the remaster probably will have a whole lot of ripple effect in the new remastered class, even those that do not get a deep rework.

I think that is why those options are coming out in the 2nd player book after the Monster book comes out.

I am wondering how the remastering will impact PFS games?

I, for one, welcome the concept of not being figuratively beaten over the head by bad actors claiming the '(L)awful Good Best Good' high ground.

This usually followed by something along the lines of 'the police are the best lawful good fite me'.

Neutral Good is clearly the most good alignment, being able to balance both collective and individual needs.

Very excited for all of this, but I would like to take the opportunity to beg the design team to take a look at Unconventional Weaponry and Additional Lore so that they don't incentivize making your characters "backwards." It should not be easier for a fighter from Goka to use a falcata than a fighter from Taldor, and it shouldn't make more sense for a legendary card sharp to not take a background offering Gambling Lore. I know these are minor things but they have been my personal bugbears since the edition first released!

This needed to be said twice.

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!

I know this wasn't intentional (and might have been in the works before OGHell spawned the ORC) but the timing could not be worse for my public table.

We have one copy of the Core Rulebook and Bestiary (mine). The other GM and I sold them on the idea of PF2e _because_ it was cheaper buy in for full rules than D&D (2 books, at $60 + $50 for $110+ tax vs D&D 3 books at $50 each for $150) with more options put into those books. Even cheaper, we noted, if you went Pocket Edition!

Yeah, they could not find any books now, but we had my set at least. Enough to go on while they waited for books to come back in stock.

We helped them make characters, we demoed the game, they liked it. We got them set up with some setting details in their characters, were planning to move forward, a couple were planning on buying Core Rulebooks.

Now, the player cost to entry has doubled, because 3 of the players classes are in a 2nd book now (Barbarian, Alchemist, Champion), that doesn't have all the core rules alone, so they have to buy 2 books at $120. Their cost doubled!

The other GM was also planning on buying books. So, his cost has gone from $110 to $240. I can afford this thanks to a good job, but the rest of this public table is poor college kids or even high school kids. They are NOT flush with cash, and neither are their families.

"Just use PDF or AoN!" I already can hear frothy fanboys saying. Yeah, I can, I work in IT, I get all this stuff. But this area is a rural area. They barely understand their phones (if they own one). 3 of them are neurodivergent and we just _cannot keep them on task and focused during game_ if a phone comes out. We _need_ dead tree for this table. And yes, Pocket is coming, but _even further out_.

Now, you say that the old books will work, but _if you can't find them right now because WotC sold you out of 8 months of your stock_ then they really won't have any option BUT to get the new ones. And half the table having to wait a full YEAR for their classes seems kinda, well, cruel.

Just my thoughts. Like, this all sounds exciting, but not sure Paizo has fully thought out the timing, budgets and logistics of people looking to convert now in the wake of WotC both screwing with the OGL and sending a PMC after a gamer...

God I hope not, I still don't get why people enjoy ABP so much when it basically makes playing an alchemist more boring than it usually is.

Because a high-level warrior should not need a sword worth more than a castle to be effective in combat. When Conan has been captured and grabs a sword off a guard, he's just as lethal with that sword as he is with any other weapon. "What is steel compared to the hand that wields it?"

How long ago was this remastering planned? It seems that the OGL mess may be the justification for this but I am what I kept hearing in the Roll for Combat and the Twitch stream is that they have been working on this for months. If the OGL debacle was in Januaryish, would they be able to have all of these planned to go out in November for the first 2 books? Or was this something that was always planned? If it was always planned I think that needs to be stated.

Will subsequent APs and books have a Pathfinder Remastered logo?

The Remaster Project was not considered until after January. It’s been a tremendous behind the scenes reshuffle.