Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Most changes are good, but I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores.

It seems like the whole universe is trying to convince me that Simulationism is not cool, not that I'll ever bend though...

----

On monsters, I wish an Asian-esque body-form Dragon to join Monster Core from the very start.

You can't get rid of 3d6 ability scores in harnmaster, because that system has no classes; everything is a skill and skills are based on ability scores.

Well, "can't" is probably too strong, but it seems unlikely either Kelestia or Columbia would ever go that way.

Having just bought the current PF 2E core will I still be able to purchase the Bestiaries, Gamematstery guide and Advanced Players guide and other earlier books that came out for PF 2E core?

Or will I need to purchase them all over again?

I would think they will remain available in hardcopy at least until current stocks run out, and in pdf in perpetuity.

Note that of the twelve books in the current 2nd edition rules line, only five are directly impacted by this remastering: the Core Rulebook, Advanced Players Guide, Game Mastery Guide, Bestiary One, and (some of, if I remember correctly) Bestiary 2. The other seven books (Bestiary 3, Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, Book of the Dead, Dark Archive, Treasure Vault, and Rage of Elements) and probably Bestiary 2 as well, remain for the moment outside the Remastering effort.

When does all of the other published content lines move to the new rule set? Society? APs? Cards? All that stuff will need to get updated. Is Rage of Elements the last core book? Is Stolen Fate the last AP?

There isn't a "new rule set". The changes are no different than any other 'errata+tweaks". Nothing else is being updated because it doesn't need to be.

Just like the 4th printing of the CRB incorporated both errata and a change in the Character Creation rules, this is going to incorporate both errata and a change in Alignment rules.

You can use your CRB (1st printing) characters, your CRB (2nd printing) characters, your CRB (3rd printing) characters, your CRB (4th printing) characters, and your Player Core characters in the same game at the same table.

Just like you can use characters made with the 'no-Ancestry-flaws' rules and the characters made with the 'required-Ancestry-flaws' rules simultaneously in a game.

If you haven't replaced your CRB every single time a new printing was sold, then you're not going to need to replace your CRB now.

From another thread, quoting Paizo staff videos:

In one of the streams yesterday, they said that they specifically decided *not* to put Remastered on the cover because they want to underline that it is the same game and not an edition change. Still just Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores.

You may not be aware, but the PF2 Beginner Box character sheets have never listefd Ability Scores.

Since the beginning, they've only shown the Bonus value, not the underlying Ability Score.

Most changes are good, but I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores.

It seems like the whole universe is trying to convince me that Simulationism is not cool, not that I'll ever bend though...

----

On monsters, I wish an Asian-esque body-form Dragon to join Monster Core from the very start.

I don't know why an 18 is more simulationist than +4.

I like using systems to provide some simulationist stuff for my groups, but the numerical expression isn't necessarily what makes for simulationism.

18 is just as abstract as +4.

It's already being discussed into another topic but the currently real problem in the abandon of Ability Scores currently is to track the Ability boosts when you have 18 or more into a stat.

Not really that hard. You just put a dot next to your Modifier when you pump a boost after you hit +4. Then if you boost it again, remove the dot and boost the mod to +5.

I'm sure the designers have a solution probably more elegant than this in mind already.

Not really that hard. You just put a dot next to your Modifier when you pump a boost after you hit +4. Then if you boost it again, remove the dot and boost the mod to +5.

I'm sure the designers have a solution probably more elegant than this in mind already.

Yeah, though I'm not sure they'd even need another solution. It's not like half-steps for ability modifiers are anything new; that's functionally what odd values for ability scores became in PF2E. You can't damage someone's score directly outside of drawing The Dullard from a deck of many things, and no feats in the game reference an ability score with an odd value to my knowledge, so those odd numbers are only serving the purpose of letting the player know another boost will raise their modifier.

I do kinda wonder if this means these books won't have optional rolling sat rule though.

Like granted, rolling stats is mechanically extremely dangerous in 2e, but its still fun to be an option xD

Rolling Stats with a Mod only:

All scores start at -2, roll 1d6 to get a stat from -1 to +4.
(Roll 2d3 if you want something with a bit more of a curve)

Alternatively (Slightly higher powered):

Roll 2d6, and subtract the low dice from the high dice. Should give modifiers between 0 and 5.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

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 . . . .

If the forums rely on a topic so rife with toxicity and angst that it can't be touched on without the moderators needing to go in and clean up the mess, then it could be argued they were already dead. Hopefully people's excitement about the remaster will provide new topics full of less grar to occupy the forums.

The stuff in small blue-gray print was supposed to be a joke. (I probably should have enclosed it in <s> . . . </s> tags.)

But I still say that removal of alignment is major surgery.

The attachment I have to the 2-D alignment system (regardless of whether it has 9 squares or 25 or some other number) is that for all its faults, teh 2-D alignment system represents an IMPROVEMENT over what I often see in our world, which barely qualifies as 1-D, being essentially "if you're not with us, you're against us" (and that's just slightly paraphrasing from a direct quote of a very high level source from this century).

But I am willing to see what the replacement for the alignment system is going to be (some other posts in this thread give reasonable hints that it will be a worthy replacement).

I have very mixed feelings about alignment being removed completely.
Even the variant rules are out, and that seems drastic to me without knowing what the replacement is or at least what it could be.

If it were up to me I'd just leave the alignment traits as is for outsiders and certain undead, grey them out on all other creatures so they can still be a functional option, rewrite the basic alignment rules text as needed, and make alignment optional for PCs along with the corresponding variant rules.

I mean, really.
It's not like there aren't plenty of non-OGL games that use the classic alignment rules with little to no modifications.

Ability scores are a matter of notation, so whatever to that.
Confine them to the optional rules for rolling your stats and call it day.

As a rule of thumb, the best way to keep the most people happy is to make a rule optional rather than removing it entirely.

Like granted, rolling stats is mechanically extremely dangerous in 2e, but its still fun to be an option xD

random A random free random B random free, pick a Class and Dump relevant stats and you usually get a +3 or +4 prime. Or go crazy and random ABCD just save a backup for when that rando dies.

So, Gorgon should be gone or renamed?

No more Rust Monster?

What about the Tarrasque?

Lucas Yew wrote:

Most changes are good, but I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores.

It seems like the whole universe is trying to convince me that Simulationism is not cool, not that I'll ever bend though...

----

On monsters, I wish an Asian-esque body-form Dragon to join Monster Core from the very start.

I don't know why an 18 is more simulationist than +4.

I like using systems to provide some simulationist stuff for my groups, but the numerical expression isn't necessarily what makes for simulationism.

18 is just as abstract as +4.

Carrying capacity, it changes for each +1 Strength.

Spellcasting: Ability score needed being 10 + Spell level, so, 15 would allow level 5 spells without changing the modifier.

etc...

So, Gorgon should be gone or renamed?

No more Rust Monster?

What about the Tarrasque?

Tarrasque is based on a French monster, though its incarnation in D&D is pretty unique. The "Armageddon Engine" Tarrasque becoming the herald of the god of destruction might be sufficiently distinct from 5e's style.

I'm kind of expecting rust monsters to go, but gorgons feel like a bit more of a grey area? And a grey area might be enough reason to drop them...

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Lucas Yew wrote:

Most changes are good, but I truly mourn the death of Ability Scores.

It seems like the whole universe is trying to convince me that Simulationism is not cool, not that I'll ever bend though...

----

On monsters, I wish an Asian-esque body-form Dragon to join Monster Core from the very start.

I don't know why an 18 is more simulationist than +4.

I like using systems to provide some simulationist stuff for my groups, but the numerical expression isn't necessarily what makes for simulationism.

18 is just as abstract as +4.

Carrying capacity, it changes for each +1 Strength.

Spellcasting: Ability score needed being 10 + Spell level, so, 15 would allow level 5 spells without changing the modifier.

etc...

Those were true in 1st edition but not in 2e anymore. Carrying Capacity is based on Str mod and there is no minimum spellcasting ability requirement except for multi-class purposes.

Tarrasque is based on a French monster

Actually, It'd be kind of cool to get a Tarrasque based off that one: a lion-like head, a body protected by turtle-like carapace(s), six feet with bear-like claws, and a scaly tail like a serpent's tail that was long and ringed and looked considerably like that of the scorpion, and issued poison breath. "A huge dragon, half animal, half fish... fatter than a bull, longer than a horse, it had the face and head of a lion, teeth sharp as swords, the mane of a horse, a back that was hatchet-sharp with bristly scales keen as augers, six feet with bear-like claws, the tail of a serpent, and a double shield/carapace, like a tortoise's, on each side."

I'm kind of expecting rust monsters to go, but gorgons feel like a bit more of a grey area?

I expect both to be out: the metal-bull gorgon is pretty unique to d&d.

Will we get updatede battlecards for at least beastiary 1... and what about cards for spells and possible items? Basically what does this mean for accessories?

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Tarrasque is based on a French monster

Actually, It'd be kind of cool to get a Tarrasque based off that one: a lion-like head, a body protected by turtle-like carapace(s), six feet with bear-like claws, and a scaly tail like a serpent's tail that was long and ringed and looked considerably like that of the scorpion, and issued poison breath. "A huge dragon, half animal, half fish... fatter than a bull, longer than a horse, it had the face and head of a lion, teeth sharp as swords, the mane of a horse, a back that was hatchet-sharp with bristly scales keen as augers, six feet with bear-like claws, the tail of a serpent, and a double shield/carapace, like a tortoise's, on each side."

Oh that would be something indeed. People here familiar with Overly Sarcastic Productions may recall when Red did a pretty decent sketch of the beast for a Miscellaneous Myths video.

in addition to having to do the build built only with AoN (which is not so intuitive to do a build of 0, especially if your queries are made from a reduced screen like a cell phone)

Well, it's kind of hidden, but there's not much difference with the books when using this and including a class article for the class you are creating:

So, Gorgon should be gone or renamed?

No more Rust Monster?

What about the Tarrasque?

Gorgons originally are the names of medusa like creatures in greek culture. Once that medusas already do this role the D&D designers take the name to create another with petrify powers.

I have mixed feelings about Rust Monsters as player kkkk. But it's a D&D creature that will probably abandoned.

Tarrasque is in a complex situation IMO. As already pointed it's french folk lore creature. But Tarrasque as world destroyer/disaster creature is a D&D invention. I don't know if the Paizo want to make this concept anymore due it be a bit risky. Probably the Tarrasque will stay sleeping forever in Golarion.

This is not 2.5 or 2.1. This is Pathfinder Essentials.

I realise 4e comparisons will not be reassuring to a lot of folks around here, 4e Essentials was a revised and redistributed version of the core books, with new versions of certain classes that could be used right alongside their predecessors, some new and revised monsters, and incorporated errata. It was fully forwards and backwards compatible with all the other 4e content released before and after it. In short, it was 4e.

A PF2 version of that is exactly what Paizo are aiming for with the Remix.

Out of curiousity, will the Foundry VTT Bestiary be updated? I'd honestly rather get a new pack (preferrably at a large discount for those who own the old pack), so we don't lose anything...

Also, any monsters not reprinted aren't gone. I don't think there's always an issue with APs referencing an OGL Bestiary monster when they want to, so long as those stats stay in an OGL book and Archives of Nethys.

I could be wrong there, of course, but I wouldn't worry a ton.

Sure they was "compatible" and I remember Mearls saying you can play the same adventure at the same table.

No scare-quotes needed. They were compatible, completely, because they were the same game.

Good call on taking anything Mearls says with a pinch of salt, but I am telling you that you could use Essentials and other 4e books together, seamlessly and without issues. Because I did. For years.

I expect both to be out: the metal-bull gorgon is pretty unique to d&d.

I am about 80% sure that the metal-bull gorgon came from Topsell (a 17th century clergyman who wrote bestiaries).

Metal bull gorgon is in heroes of might and magic as well, but then again so is Coeurl and mind flayer in Final fantasy :'D Some things got past D&D owners suing them

It sounds like there will be quite a bit more changes than it seems… but maybe not?

Will you be releasing a conversion guide or change log so that those of us who are just getting in to PF2E can get a low down of what has changed in this update without re-reading the whole Core Rulebook?

What about those of us who purchased VTT content? Do we need to purchase it all over again to get these updates? Fantasy Grounds and Foundry both have paid content… it would be a shame to need to purchase either again just to get the updates.

If it were up to me I'd just leave the alignment traits as is for outsiders and certain undead, grey them out on all other creatures so they can still be a functional option, rewrite the basic alignment rules text as needed, and make alignment optional for PCs along with the corresponding variant rules.

Yeah, it seems reasonable that a God of Chaos would have a 'chaos' tag and take more damage from a weapon with a 'law' tag created by the Gods of Order (as just one example). So *allowing* it in some cases where a being's background locks them in to certain behavioral types, rather than *requiring* it in all cases, seems a good way to go. But we will see what Paizo does, I guess.

Undead are still covered, I think, because 'negative' and 'positive' are different from alignment? Not sure, but I assume so.

In practice we already have medusas, basilisks and cockatrices. The very notion of a bull like monster with petrify power is currently to related to D&D and with so many options probably will be abandoned.

IANAL but giant fire-breathing bronze bulls came from the Greek myth/story of Jason and the Argonauts. Additionally IIRC giant hollow bronze bulls were actually built by some Greek and Roman rulers as an execution device. So a big animated magical bronze bull with a greek misnomer (heh) should probably be safely within the public domain. Maybe you make it fire breathing instead of petrifying, but other than that, no, the concept of a big bronze clockwork bull with magical powers as a monster is not something Hasbro should be able to claim copyright over.

Metal bull gorgon is in heroes of might and magic as well, but then again so is Coeurl and mind flayer in Final fantasy :'D Some things got past D&D owners suing them

It’s called doing it for a long time, being on the other side of the world, and Square Enix being bigger than WotC.

IANAL but giant fire-breathing bronze bulls came from the Greek myth/story of Jason and the Argonauts. Additionally IIRC giant hollow bronze bulls were actually built by some Greek and Roman rulers as an execution device. So a big animated magical bronze bull with a greek misnomer (heh) should probably be safely within the public domain. Maybe you make it fire breathing instead of petrifying, but other than that, no, the concept of a big bronze clockwork bull with magical powers as a monster is not something Hasbro should be able to claim copyright over.

Yeah you can avoid legal stuff by making a creature completely different in nearly every way.

A clockwork bull construct breathing fire and a living bull made of metal that has a petrifying breath are two completely different things. The latter is a DND/Pathfinder Gorgon, the former is not and would have no reason to have the Gorgon name.

Easl wrote:

Yeah you can avoid legal stuff by making a creature completely different in nearly every way.

A clockwork bull construct breathing fire and a living bull made of metal that has a petrifying breath are two completely different things. The latter is a DND/Pathfinder Gorgon, the former is not and would have no reason to have the Gorgon name.

From theoi.com:

Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 1. 127 ff (trans. Aldrich) (Greek mythographer C2nd A.D.) : "[Iason (Jason)] asked [King Aeetes] for the [golden] fleece. Aeetes promised to give it to him, if Iason by himself could yoke his bronze-hooved Bulls, two immense wild beasts which Hephaistos (Hephaestus) had given him, with hooves of bronze and fire shooting from their mouths. Aeetes ordered him to yoke them and sow some drakon-teeth (dragon-teeth) which he had received from Athene . . ."

Apollonius Rhodius, Argonautica 3. 221 ff (trans. Rieu) (Greek epic C3rd B.C.) :"He [Hephaistos (Hephaestus)] had also made him [Aeetes king of Kolkhis (Colchis)] Bulls with feet of bronze and bronze mouths from which the breath came out in flame, blazing and terrible. And he had forged a plough of indurated steel, all in one piece. All as a thank-offering to Helios (the Sun), who had taken him up in his chariot when he sank exhausted on the battlefield of Phlegra."

IMO that seems generic and vague enough to allow a lot of public domain variations. But whether we see it in the remastered monster core or not...I guess that's up to them.

I would guess the D&D beast was originally named a Gorgon either because Gygax got the myths confused or he just ran out of Greek monster names so plonked one down on another's description lol. If PF2E.R calls their monster "Tauroi Khalkeoi" or "Khalkeoi" or something similar instead of Gorgon, that would actually be more true to the origin than calling them 'Gorgon.' So I'd be fine with it.

… what are you going on about? No one is talking about the fire breathing bulls but you.

The DND Gorgon is based on the Catoblepas. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish by introducing fire breathing bulls and calling them Gorgons.

You can still roll your stats. Again, it is not hard to roll the 3d6 or whatever other method (4d6 and drop lowest) and calculate the modifier from that, and then just write down the modifier on the character sheet. That may still even be listed as an alternate rule in the Gamemaster Core book just like it is currently listed in the CRB.

And if it is really important for you to have that 18 instead of just having a +4, the math to double the value and add 10 is not terribly difficult. Write it in the margins of the new character sheets or something.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

I like using systems to provide some simulationist stuff for my groups, but the numerical expression isn't necessarily what makes for simulationism.

18 is just as abstract as +4.

Carrying capacity, it changes for each +1 Strength.

Spellcasting: Ability score needed being 10 + Spell level, so, 15 would allow level 5 spells without changing the modifier.

What are you talking about?

I think I kinda vaguely recognize that as PF1 mechanics.

PF2 Bulk limits: "You can carry an amount of Bulk equal to 5 plus your Strength modifier without penalty; if you carry more, you gain the encumbered condition. You can’t hold or carry more Bulk than 10 plus your Strength modifier."

And class spellcasters don't need to boost either their key ability score or their tradition skill proficiency in order to cast any spell that they have spell slots for. Archetype spellcasters sometimes have a minimum ability requirement to take the dedication, and sometimes have a minimum tradition skill rank requirement for gaining more spell slots - but none of that references the ability score directly.

… what are you going on about? No one is talking about the fire breathing bulls but you.

The DND Gorgon is based on the Catoblepas. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish by introducing fire breathing bulls and calling them Gorgons.

The Heroes of Might & Magic gorgon was mentioned, and that one breathes fire. I presume it's getting into that.

Am I missing something? With current books you only need to buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary to have everything you need to play with 6 ancestries and 12 classes. You don’t need GMG or APG unless you want GM advice and optional rules or more ancestries and classes/class options.

For the Remaster you need at least 3 books PC1, GMC and MC to have everything you need. You will also have some optional rules in GMC that you may not need, but you also miss out on what may be considered core classes (barbarian, champion, monk and sorcerer) since the year 2000 unless you buy PC2 as well.

Is this not raising the barrier to entry, in a way, for some? In other words, you may not need to buy 1 huge rule book any more, but you need to buy 3 large rule books if you want to play a ‘paladin’ (plus monster book, but you need that in either case).

Will you be releasing a conversion guide or change log so that those of us who are just getting in to PF2E can get a low down of what has changed in this update without re-reading the whole Core Rulebook?

I expect that those would be in the FAQ page along with all of the other errata. I have heard from the livestreams with the developers that there will be some separate update documents available when Rage of Elements comes out since that will have the new errata wording changes in it and will be released before the Player Core and Gamemaster Core books come out.

There is also Archives of Nethys that will be staying up to date (as well as keeping the old content such as the removed monsters).

What about those of us who purchased VTT content? Do we need to purchase it all over again to get these updates? Fantasy Grounds and Foundry both have paid content… it would be a shame to need to purchase either again just to get the updates.

For that you will have to talk to the VTT admins. What is the normal policy for errata changes? How about a new Bestiary book being released?

Am I missing something? With current books you only need to buy the Core Rulebook and Bestiary to have everything you need to play with 6 ancestries and 12 classes. You don’t need GMG or APG unless you want GM advice and optional rules or more ancestries and classes/class options.

For the Remaster you need at least 3 books PC1, GMC and MC to have everything you need. You will also have some optional rules in GMC that you may not need, but you also miss out on what may be considered core classes (barbarian, champion, monk and sorcerer) since the year 2000 unless you buy PC2 as well.

Is this not raising the barrier to entry, in a way, for some? In other words, you may not need to buy 1 huge rule book any more, but you need to buy 3 large rule books if you want to play a ‘paladin’ (plus monster book, but you need that in either case).

To be fair, Paizo always considered the Core to include CRB, APG, GMG, and Beastiaries 1-3, not a CRB and Beastiary 1. There's only one extra book with the remaster and there's a bunch of content being folded into these from other existing books. Whether that's enough to equal an entire book, we don't know, but adding one book to the Core 4 years after launch seems pretty reasonable to me.

Having just bought the current PF 2E core will I still be able to purchase the Bestiaries, Gamematstery guide and Advanced Players guide and other earlier books that came out for PF 2E core?

There is still the option of buying a pdf version of the PF1 CRB, so I expect that pdf versions of the PF2 CRB, APG, Gamemastery Guide, and Bestiary will still be available if you really want them. I can't guarantee that though.

Or will I need to purchase them all over again?

You do not need to purchase anything new. You couldn't purchase new versions of things like Treasure Vault, Secrets of Magic, or Abomination Vaults - trying to do that would just result in buying the same version a second time. Which just seems wasteful.

If you want the new versions of the Player Core, Gamemaster Core, Player 2 Core, and Monster Core books you can buy them.

Or you can continue using your existing books and just make note of the errata - just like you would if you bought the 3rd printing of the CRB before the 4th printing came out.

I played AD&D in the 80s. When I started playing again in 2012, I chose Paizo over WotC because Paizo would provide me with my favorite media -- PDFs. Paizo was also friendly to emerging technology like VTTs and always seemed like a foreward thinking company. WotC has always been the opposite. I told them in their survey during the licensing scandle that it seems like they hate their players.

I am glade to finally be able to separate completely from WotC and make Paizo wholey my RPG provider! Thank you!

Question, with updated spells could we possibly get something like DnD’s version of prestidigation

That is, a cantrip that creates “harmless sensory effects” like sparkles or creating fake rain or making my character’s eyes glow or change color, or making something smell like roses or freshly baked pie

Stuff that would be amazing for role play, and especially for bards wanting to add theatrical effects to their performances, but otherwise doesn’t have mechanical effect

I get pathfinder is very tight with its rules, but I feel there should be things that allow for pure roleplay and flavor.

Yep 4ee was Mearls wanting to fix D&D to be classic unbalance rather than carefull balanced and went back to wizards > fighter. I started with those pocket books and was confused when people kept saying wizards==fighter with same number of powers in 4e! Sure they was "compatible" and I remember Mearls saying you can play the same adventure at the same table. Which was not true as 4e MM1/2 math got changed in MM3 which 4ee used same math so you had to convert the numbers (copy/paste at print store is what I did) combined with if you had a 4e melee and a 4ee melee one of them will be happy and one will be sad. They also said the same thing about D&D Next and D&D 5e, so I do not trust them that D&D 2014&2024 will be "compatible".

I see people using two major different definitions of "compatible".

One, which I see as more reasonable, is what I call "run-time compatible". You can take an adventure or monster used for an older version and use it with the newer version without getting "errors" (using newer material with older versions is less compatible because the newer versions tend to have more bells and whistles that might not be as compatible). The same values are used, and they are not particularly different from one another. D&D 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder 1 are pretty much run-time compatible with one another. The only thing that's actually needed to use a 3.5e monster with Pathfinder 1 is, IIRC, adding CMB/CMD. Otherwise, they both have AC, attack bonuses, saves, save DCs, hit points, and so on. Some of the numbers might be calculated differently but that's not as relevant. The balance might be off, but balance is something of an illusion anyway.

Run-time compatibility focuses on monsters and adventure material, not on PCs. PCs are the stars of the show and get more detail, and the process of getting that detail matters more. So while there's little issue in using a 3.5e Thrym Hound in a Pathfinder 1e adventure, there would be more issues using an Artificer.

The other is what I'd term "fully compatible". This is a demand that everything still works just the same and you can use all the stuff for A along B in every way. The problem with this is that it is impossible until everything is literally the same, and that prevents any progress. Full compatibility rejects the ability to use a 3.0 monster with 3.5e because the 3.0 monster has one feat per 4 HD, and in 3.5e you're supposed to have one feat per 3 HD. I know of only one occasion in the history of D&D and its offshoots that has had a new version being fully compatible (or close to it), and that's the change from BECMI D&D to Rules Cyclopedia – and even then, I think there were changes to the Immortal rules between the editions (though I would question how often those rules came into play).

Will you be releasing a conversion guide or change log so that those of us who are just getting in to PF2E can get a low down of what has changed in this update without re-reading the whole Core Rulebook?

This isn't a new edition. Paizo staff said in the videos that they weren't even going to put "remastered" on the cover of the books because they are completely compatible with all the other PF2 material.

Every time Paizo reprints the Core Rulebook, they include both errata and rules tweaks. There have been four printings of the CRB and every one of them is slightly different. For example the 4th printing totally removed the rule that certain Ancestries were required to take a particular Ability Score flaw. Yet people using the original, 1st printing CRB can still play with people using the 4th printing with no 'conversion guide'.

If Paizo staff says that as a player I can use CRB (1st printing), CRB (2nd printing), CRB (3rd printing), CRB (4th pringing), and Player Core all at the same table without any problems, then I believe them.

Sure, you will find small rules conflicts between the printings. Look at which printing your using (or check quickly on AoN) to see if something has been errata'ed since you bought your copy. I'm still using my CRB (1st printing) from four years ago, and it doesn't disrupt anything.

If there's two versions of a rule which both work, you can just discuss with the table which version to use. Like in terms of things like "do Alchemists have medium armor or not" it's pretty easy to figure out which one to go with as a GM.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Tarrasque is based on a French monster

Actually, It'd be kind of cool to get a Tarrasque based off that one: a lion-like head, a body protected by turtle-like carapace(s), six feet with bear-like claws, and a scaly tail like a serpent's tail that was long and ringed and looked considerably like that of the scorpion, and issued poison breath. "A huge dragon, half animal, half fish... fatter than a bull, longer than a horse, it had the face and head of a lion, teeth sharp as swords, the mane of a horse, a back that was hatchet-sharp with bristly scales keen as augers, six feet with bear-like claws, the tail of a serpent, and a double shield/carapace, like a tortoise's, on each side."

So, Aang learned Spirit-Bending from a Tarrasque?

I see people using two major different definitions of "compatible".

Going with your descriptions of the definitions, I would say that PF2 Remaster is going to be 'Fully Compatible'. Same as the 4th printing of the CRB is 'Fully Compatible' with the 1st printing.

There will be no math changes or level up progression changes. Existing monster stat blocks can be used without any modifications.

There are two noted significant changes. One is the removal and replacement of alignment. That is pretty equivalent to the removal and replacement of the boost, boost, boost, flaw ancestry entries. The other is the errata and changes to a few classes. That is equivalent to the errata and changes made to the Alchemist already (second printing and fourth printing both had noticeable changes to Alchemist).

It seems pretty clear that Hasbro/WotC has decided to attack competitors using the OGL rather than compete with better quality product. That was what I read into WotC's OGL move a while back, "We can't beat you with better products, so we're going to make your life miserable to compete against us."

Some business person in the Hasbro/WotC hierarchy wants to dissolve the OGL if they can, so they can take complete control of their IP in the marketplace pushing out competition.

Oh, yeah. Let's recall here that at one point WotC responded to some of the whirling criticism by stating, in effect "Oh, we're not trying to target the little companies with this. We mostly just want to utterly destroy Paizo and/or break them to the plow." They also grimly hung on to a strategy that was damaging them very badly in PR pretty much right up until Paizo made it clear that they weren't actually legally vulnerable to the attack (and announced the ORC) and then folded pretty quickly thereafter (while making promises that they are now quietly not keeping).

So... getting a few more layers of bulletproofing in on that stuff? Yeah, that seems like a real good idea.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I see people using two major different definitions of "compatible".

Going with your descriptions of the definitions, I would say that PF2 Remaster is going to be 'Fully Compatible'. Same as the 4th printing of the CRB is 'Fully Compatible' with the 1st printing.

There will be no math changes or level up progression changes. Existing monster stat blocks can be used without any modifications.

There are two noted significant changes. One is the removal and replacement of alignment. That is pretty equivalent to the removal and replacement of the boost, boost, boost, flaw ancestry entries. The other is the errata and changes to a few classes. That is equivalent to the errata and changes made to the Alchemist already (second printing and fourth printing both had noticeable changes to Alchemist).

I expect bigger changes than we already have in any reprints. But I agree with breithauptclan. None of the will change the basic rules and math. Even if the book completely rewrite a class or an ancestry for example the basic rules and compatibility still the same.

For example, imagine that we will have a new Champion completely rewritten no more depending from it's alignment just based in it's "oaths" with new mechanics and feats. It will still able to play any currently game because the base ruleset is the same.

These changes basically are like a revision into currently ancestries, classes, spells, feats and etc like any new class and ancestry does including keeping allowed to play with older versions and with older APs printed before (like playing AoA using a Summoner).

That's why call it as some kind of PF 2.5 is probably the most correct unofficial view. When D&D 3.5 was made you still able to play using old books and adventures, when PF1 was release (unofficially called as 3.75) you could do the same. Probably the most tables will in general abandon the old options due their own choices like happend to 3.5 and PF1 in favor of newer version because they are usually better being more interesting and/or balanced not because they are incompatible.

Some of the numbers might be calculated differently but that's not as relevant. The balance might be off, but balance is something of an illusion anyway.

In the context of D&D 4e vs 4ee balance was not an illusion it was an intentional design change from equal power between classes (and like it or not 4e was the most balanced D&D classes but not 4ee) to classic unbalanced classes by design. Go all fighters and play the same adventure you will not have the same experience it will feel like a new edition. It would be like playing classic WoW vs modern WoW, the characters and monsters and setting are mostly the same but play very different.

But this also does not apply to PF2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 errata, and upcoming remasters because those really are similar level of changes. Errata have already changed character creation and class tweaks but not extreme game balance changes.

Yes alignment goes away but the game balance and roleplay will remain the same using traits, yes scores go away but they was already vestigial (and removed already in beginner box) and only used in one place as spend two boosts to get 18 to 19. This is purely a presentation issue.

For example of a presentation change you could also subtract PC level from NPCs and PCs and have a different version of proficiency without level that is mathematically the same balance as proficiency with level. because proficiency with level is actually balanced as proficiency with level difference. But the game was not presented that way because monster relative power going doing "feels" worse than player power going up even though it plays exactly the same.

So it could be argued even presentation matters, and that is the issue here is the Orc steering clear of the Wizard means presentation change.

The biggest change is someone wanting to come from D&D is going to have to substitute monsters as classic chroma dragons will only exist in PF2 bestiary books (and online versions if still available) but not in monster core. But that already had the problem of changing to golarion or porting a D&D world so to me it is not a new problem.

breithauptclan wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I see people using two major different definitions of "compatible".

Going with your descriptions of the definitions, I would say that PF2 Remaster is going to be 'Fully Compatible'. Same as the 4th printing of the CRB is 'Fully Compatible' with the 1st printing.

There will be no math changes or level up progression changes. Existing monster stat blocks can be used without any modifications.

There are two noted significant changes. One is the removal and replacement of alignment. That is pretty equivalent to the removal and replacement of the boost, boost, boost, flaw ancestry entries. The other is the errata and changes to a few classes. That is equivalent to the errata and changes made to the Alchemist already (second printing and fourth printing both had noticeable changes to Alchemist).

I expect bigger changes than we already have in any reprints. But I agree with breithauptclan. None of the will change the basic rules and math. Even if the book completely rewrite a class or an ancestry for example the basic rules and compatibility still the same.

For example, imagine that we will have a new Champion completely rewritten no more depending from it's alignment just based in it's "oaths" with new mechanics and feats. It will still able to play any currently game because the base ruleset is the same.

These changes basically are like a revision into currently ancestries, classes, spells, feats and etc like any new class and ancestry does including keeping allowed to play with older versions and with older APs printed before (like playing AoA using a Summoner).

That's why call it as some kind of PF 2.5 is probably the most correct unofficial view. When D&D 3.5 was made you still able to play using old books and adventures, when PF1 was release (unofficially called as 3.75) you could do the same. Probably the most tables will in general abandon the old options due their own choices like happend to 3.5 and PF1 in favor of newer...

Really, I would not call it 2.5. If they keep the mechanical changes minimal and mostly focus on replacing OGL language, I would call this more 2.05 (with the current 4th printing 2.04).

Does the remaster mean the spring errata round will be delayed or skipped? It obviously won't include CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiary 1, but there's plenty of other books.

It's perfectly understandable if it is delayed or skipped, mind you. Just trying to curb expectations if needed. :)