Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Champions and sorcerers aren't disappearing, as far as I know, they're just going to have some of their flavor tweaked. They're mostly based around anathemas rather than alignments already, and the alignment thing never made a ton of sense, anyways. Like, why couldn't a Chaotic Good character be motivated by redemption? Why couldn't a Lawful Good character be motivated by toppling tyrants and liberating the oppressed?

It sounds like champions are getting more character options, not fewer.

Also, are sorcerers disappearing? That's news to me!

Sorcerers are not disappearing. They're being moved to Pathfinder Player Core 2. My guess is that they were moved to the second book so that Paizo staff have more time to better define dragons and the abilities draconic sorcerers would gain from them?

Not thrilled with Alignment, and Champions, Sorcerors and several other classes dissappearing. Ill admit I am old school, and loved the champion/ holy warrior idea. Ill reserve judgement till I see what they end up with.

Alignment is being replaced.

Several classes are moving from the Core Rulebook to the Player 2 Core book. They aren't going away.

Alignment damage isn't going away either. It is being tweaked to better work with the Anathema system. So the champion/holy warrior idea still works just fine.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I think they should rename "magic missile" to "force missile", personally. "Dart" feels sort of overused in spell names to me.

Anyways, all these changes sound pretty solid. The ones I don't love are also the ones tackling the toughest hurdles. The ability scores thing feels messy, but there's no clean way to get rid of that old shibboleth. Splitting stuff into two books has problems, but so did having one gigantic book. My big hot take is that PF2 just isn't really meant for pen-and-paper, so physical books are never gonna be a great introduction, but being able to give new players a somewhat smaller book is a good start.

Leshies being a core ancestry makes me happy. So do wizards getting all simple weapons and rogues getting all martial weapons. I personally like alignment and will keep using it for my PCs, but I think everyone getting Anathemas/Edicts is just a lot more fun and provokes better questions in new players than "where are you on this reductive chart"?

I thought I liked "chromatic dragons bad, metallic dragons good", but honestly? I think I prefer all NPC dragons being more likely to be bad than good, and all PC dragons being whatever alignment the player likes. This change will make both circumstances much easier to ensure, so I'm in favor of it!

PC dragons aren’t official, that’s battlezoo

And imo having equal amounts good and evil dragons is necessary.

Big giant friendly dragon who wants to hug the party like a brass boi is just as important as villainous red dragon who needs to be slain

^

My guess is that they were moved to the second book so that Paizo staff have more time to better define dragons and the abilities draconic sorcerers would gain from them?

That seems reasonable to me.

And in the time between now and when Player 2 Core is released, you can continue using the version from the CRB. Even after Player Core and Gamemaster Core are released.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

But you said you wanted ALL npc dragons to be evil,

She did not say that, stop misquoting people.

Yes. Yes she did.

Look above.

I might have misinterpreted it but she did say that, I just didn’t understand it was for her campaigns and not for PF2e as a whole

Not thrilled with Alignment, and Champions, Sorcerors and several other classes dissappearing. Ill admit I am old school, and loved the champion/ holy warrior idea. Ill reserve judgement till I see what they end up with.

The classes are not disappearing. If they are currently in PF2, they will still be in PF2 after the new Core books are published.

If you currently have a champion character, you can still play it. If you don't currently have a champion character, you can still create one.

Ooh, I just looked it up and saw that. Thanks, HMM and friends!

Personally, my guess is that barbarians got moved because the Core is already full of martial melee-themed classes, and sorcerers got moved because they were always an APG class disguised as a Core class the difference between "sorcerer" and "wizard" isn't super intuitive for new players sorcerers are just overcompensating bards I can't possibly imagine. Probably something to do with the dragon stuff you mentioned.

But yeah, they aren't gone. They're just being moved. Like how alchemists became a core class in PF2.

dfinan wrote:

Not thrilled with Alignment, and Champions, Sorcerors and several other classes dissappearing. Ill admit I am old school, and loved the champion/ holy warrior idea. Ill reserve judgement till I see what they end up with.

Alignment is being replaced.

Several classes are moving from the Core Rulebook to the Player 2 Core book. They aren't going away.

Alignment damage isn't going away either. It is being tweaked to better work with the Anathema system. So the champion/holy warrior idea still works just fine.

Alignment damage isn’t going to be based around belief and will be like DnD’s radiant damage in that anything that isn’t specifically listed as immune can take that damage

At least I think and I hope

My biggest issue with alignment damage was it caused awkward situations both mechanically and especially narratively

Kobold Catgirl still did not say that she wanted all dragons to be evil. She wanted the possibility that all dragons could be potential foes / adversaries or allies, no matter what color they are. KC is an immersive GM who wants to keep her players on their toes.

Alignment damage isn’t going to be based around belief and will be like DnD’s radiant damage in that anything that isn’t specifically listed as immune can take that damage

You really need to stop making factual statements like this when you don't have any clue about what Paizo has actually decided.

I might have misinterpreted it

You misinterpret so many things that other people say that it frequently gets you in trouble. You are getting quite a reputation around here for misquoting other people and twisting their words to suit your belief system.

You might find it useful to double check what people actually said before you write your replies.

Champions and sorcerers aren't disappearing, as far as I know, they're just going to have some of their flavor tweaked. They're mostly based around anathemas rather than alignments already, and the alignment thing never made a ton of sense, anyways. Like, why couldn't a Chaotic Good character be motivated by redemption? Why couldn't a Lawful Good character be motivated by toppling tyrants and liberating the oppressed?

It sounds like champions are getting more character options, not fewer.

Also, are sorcerers disappearing? That's news to me!

Yeah, that was my biggest issue with champions

Why can’t my redeemer be lawful good?!?!

And having champion based around alignment also meant we’d get only nine clauses tops and they had to be based around alignment and couldn’t come up with cool things like how dnd has vengeance glory or open sea paladins

But now not only is there more freedom for our characters, but also also future clauses can be about the edicts and anathema and not be about filling a checkbox in a nine slot grid, opening the doorway for some potentially unique and cool champion clauses

Kobold Catgirl still did not say that she wanted all dragons to be evil. She wanted the possibility that all dragons could be potential foes / adversaries or allies, no matter what color they are. KC is an immersive GM who wants to keep her players on their toes.

Mm-hm! Also, like, we're talking about removing alignment. I don't want any dragons to be "evil", per se. "Bad", maybe, in the sense that they're dangerous and unsafe and unpredictable and you should be careful around even the 'nicer' ones. The Big, Bad Wolf is bad, but I wouldn't call him evil. He's very unpleasant to hang out around, but really, the dude's just trying to get lunch.

"Bad" was reductive word choice on my part. The main thrust of my post wasn't meant to be, "I want some kind of rules-based evil-NPC-dragons/good-PC-dragons mechanic to be introduced."

The closest that was actually said was:

I thought I liked "chromatic dragons bad, metallic dragons good", but honestly? I think I prefer all NPC dragons being more likely to be bad than good, and all PC dragons being whatever alignment the player likes.

But even if it did say what you think it says, it is ignoring the rest of more than two entire posts of information.

Misunderstandings happen and it is unfortunate. Let's move on, yes?

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Alignment damage isn’t going to be based around belief and will be like DnD’s radiant damage in that anything that isn’t specifically listed as immune can take that damage

You really need to stop making factual statements like this when you don't have any clue about what Paizo has actually decided.

I could have sworn they talked about it during their livestreams, I’m not pulling stuff out of thin air

When I said I was happy alignment was going away because I didn’t like how alignment damage made things awkward for complex villains or how divine lance spamming was an issue, they agreed and it sounded like they were gonna make the new damage be similar to DnD’s radiant damage

They haven't said exactly how they will handle alignment damage, they just made mention that there are equivalents of Good/Evil like Holy/Unholy and that there is a system that will reconcile those damage type. But they said more info to come and to pay attention to Convention Panels.

Definitely did not see specifics from Mona/Buhlman/Bonner. Just assurances that they put a lot of time and effort into the updated materials.

The closest that was actually said was:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I thought I liked "chromatic dragons bad, metallic dragons good", but honestly? I think I prefer all NPC dragons being more likely to be bad than good, and all PC dragons being whatever alignment the player likes.

But even if it did say what you think it says, it is ignoring the rest of more than two entire posts of information.

Misunderstandings happen and it is unfortunate. Let's move on, yes?

Yeah, I wasn’t maliciously misconstruing someone’s words, I just misunderstood them is all

It really sounds like the upcoming changes are going to be as wholly cosmetic as possible, so I'd be surprised if those mechanics are flat-out removed. Have we heard of any confirmed rules change bigger than "wizards can use coat pistols"?

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Alignment damage isn’t going to be based around belief and will be like DnD’s radiant damage in that anything that isn’t specifically listed as immune can take that damage

You really need to stop making factual statements like this when you don't have any clue about what Paizo has actually decided.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

I might have misinterpreted it

You misinterpret so many things that other people say that it frequently gets you in trouble. You are getting quite a reputation around here for misquoting other people and twisting their words to suit your belief system.

You might find it useful to double check what people actually said before you write your replies.

I’m getting a reputation? Or are you only saying that?

Am I actually getting a reputation?

It really sounds like the upcoming changes are going to be as wholly cosmetic as possible, so I'd be surprised if those mechanics are flat-out removed. Have we heard of any confirmed rules change bigger than "wizards can use coat pistols"?

With some upgrades. Can't wait for Wizards to be able to pull a shank on an unsuspecting foe thinking they are about to be set on fire. Nope! POKIE POKIE!

Seriously though, looking forward to seeing some of the Player Core 2 classes that are getting a once over.

Yeah, the biggest actual change I've seen--as in, requiring you to modify something in your game directly to be compatible--is the proficiencies of rogues and wizards. That's not a nothing change, but it sure isn't a new edition.

Is this really different from how in the 2nd CRB errata they added medium armor proficiency for alchemists?

Like if you really wanted to play an alchemist without medium armor proficiency, or a rogue without martial weapon proficiency, I guess you could.

It really sounds like the upcoming changes are going to be as wholly cosmetic as possible, so I'd be surprised if those mechanics are flat-out removed. Have we heard of any confirmed rules change bigger than "wizards can use coat pistols"?

I hope alignment isn’t one of those cosmetic changes

I really hate the idea of a complex villain who thinks they are the good guy or a villain who has a noble goal but bad ways of reaching that goal taking good damage

Like, what then? They just roll over and accept they are evil?

Things like alignment damage that forces me to say “yes this character is good” or “yes this character is neutral” or “yes this character is evil” gets in the way of nuance

CaptainRelyk wrote:

Alignment damage isn’t going to be based around belief and will be like DnD’s radiant damage in that anything that isn’t specifically listed as immune can take that damage

You really need to stop making factual statements like this when you don't have any clue about what Paizo has actually decided.

CaptainRelyk wrote:

I might have misinterpreted it

You misinterpret so many things that other people say that it frequently gets you in trouble. You are getting quite a reputation around here for misquoting other people and twisting their words to suit your belief system.

You might find it useful to double check what people actually said before you write your replies.

You wanna talk about misrepresenting things?

You purposefully left out the “ At least I think and I hope” part of my quote, where I admit I wasn’t even 100% sure.

So no, I wasn’t making a factual statement

Definitely did not see specifics from Mona/Buhlman/Bonner. Just assurances that they put a lot of time and effort into the updated materials.

Yeah, I wasn’t maliciously misconstruing someone’s words, I just misunderstood them is all

Whether or not you intend to be malicious, you have repeatedly made statements about what people said that are publically refuted by those people.

Like saying that they agreed with you, but then it turns out that they didn't actually give specifics. At least twice on these boards, Paizo staff have had to correct your misstatements about what actually happened in conversations with you.

Every time you misquote or misunderstand someone, it makes you a less-reliable narrator, and it makes it difficult for people to take you seriously.

One of the first things the CRB says is the game is ours and we can do what we want at our own tables. The entire rule set is a guideline for how we want to run a game.

If you are running a game and you want a weapon more nuanced that 'evil slayer' you can certainly do this without any changes to how the current alignment system works, and you can work those into the game with any new alignment system.

The games are ours, the tables are set up for fun and inclusion. The rules are not set in stone.

One of the first things the CRB says is the game is ours and we can do what we want at our own tables. The entire rule set is a guideline for how we want to run a game.

If you are running a game and you want a weapon more nuanced that 'evil slayer' you can certainly do this without any changes to how the current alignment system works, and you can work those into the game with any new alignment system.

The games are ours, the tables are set up for fun and inclusion. The rules are not set in stone.

Except to play without alignment there are too many things I need to change, it’s why, based if my own observations, people who hate alignment but GM don’t do the alt rules because it’s too much to change

Divine lance, numerous feats, detect alignment, other sources of alignment damage, etc

Personally, I think it'd be interesting to see alignment replaced with a set of edicts and anathemas that each have tags corresponding to the old alignment traits. So, like, a "break a solemn vow" anathema with the [order] trait, or a "help others to the best of my ability" edict with the [altruism] trait. Any spell that originally targeted good creatures now targets anyone who has an anathema or edict with the [altruism] trait.

This would probably necessitate you making anathemas/edicts mandatory, though, which I know some people wouldn't like. I kind of would, though. It's a good roleplaying prompt for new players. I think it'd be neat. You could have a PC who has both "good" and "evil" anathemas, reflecting that real people are complicated! I dunno. I like stuff like that.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Yeah, the biggest actual change I've seen--as in, requiring you to modify something in your game directly to be compatible--is the proficiencies of rogues and wizards. That's not a nothing change, but it sure isn't a new edition.

Is this really different from how in the 2nd CRB errata they added medium armor proficiency for alchemists?

Like if you really wanted to play an alchemist without medium armor proficiency, or a rogue without martial weapon proficiency, I guess you could.

I think I may have been unclear in my meaning here. I'm saying that while the change is not nothing (it's not, just like medium armor proficiency for alchemists isn't nothing), it's certainly not particularly drastic.

Yoshua wrote:

One of the first things the CRB says is the game is ours and we can do what we want at our own tables. The entire rule set is a guideline for how we want to run a game.

If you are running a game and you want a weapon more nuanced that 'evil slayer' you can certainly do this without any changes to how the current alignment system works, and you can work those into the game with any new alignment system.

The games are ours, the tables are set up for fun and inclusion. The rules are not set in stone.

Except to play without alignment there are too many things I need to change, it’s why, based if my own observations, people who hate alignment but GM don’t do the alt rules because it’s too much to change

Divine lance, numerous feats, detect alignment, other sources of alignment damage, etc

This assumes that they don't already have a system in place, and again, at the table we choose how we play and what is involved.

Detect Alignment: Detect Aura

Aura: The person you are casting this on has devious intentions
Aura: The person you are casting this on exudes an aura of altruism

This isn't hard.

Divine Lance: Damage based on Dieties Alignment

Ok, so they already said that Alignment is going to be replaced with Traits and if your God wouldn't take on someone who kicks kittens then that is still true.

There are going to be traits. It is safe for me to assume that there will be opposing traits. This can all be done with flavor text and 20 minutes of concentration. Mind you, Paizo has put a lot more than 20 minutes into the updated books.

Rysky wrote:

CaptainRelyk wrote:

But you said you wanted ALL npc dragons to be evil,

She did not say that, stop misquoting people.

Yes. Yes she did.

Look above.

I did.

You should have too.

I thought I liked "chromatic dragons bad, metallic dragons good", but honestly? I think I prefer all NPC dragons being more likely to be bad than good, and all PC dragons being whatever alignment the player likes.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Yeah, the biggest actual change I've seen--as in, requiring you to modify something in your game directly to be compatible--is the proficiencies of rogues and wizards. That's not a nothing change, but it sure isn't a new edition.

Is this really different from how in the 2nd CRB errata they added medium armor proficiency for alchemists?

Like if you really wanted to play an alchemist without medium armor proficiency, or a rogue without martial weapon proficiency, I guess you could.

Or play an alchemist that lugged their heavy alchemy lab around with them. Sure you can play the non-errata version if you want to! If the table want to use only original 1st print run and not 4th print run they certainly could do that. Same thing with every ancestry has same stats as human now use the original book. It is still the same edition.

Things like alignment damage that forces me to say “yes this character is good” or “yes this character is neutral” or “yes this character is evil” gets in the way of nuance

Except it didn’t, knowing someone’s alignment doesn’t reveal the plot or make the person divulge their motives

Honestly I think categorizing Dragons by what they're into (Shadow Dragons, Sky Dragons, Forest Dragons, Underworld Dragons, etc.) makes a lot more sense than "by what color they are."

krazmuze wrote:

Which is why Paizo decided with their lawyers the best thing to do is go all ORC and remaster anything they might think would be in court if OGL was pulled yet again.

Curious whether this is personal knowledge of the conversations between Paizo and their lawyers or just your best guess about why the decision was made.

Watch the RFC stream with Mona and the thread response (this thread?) by Moreland. They said a remaster just to reformat the books (even without WOTC/OGL interference) was already in the long term plan because they knew the CRB puts off new customers because it is mixed lore, gm, pc huge tome. It was WOTC that forced their hand to reshuffle their publishing schedule by proving they cannot rely on a competitors copyright legal agreement despite doing so for prior decades- so they absolutely have stated they are doing this de-OGL as well because they have to it was not on their short term plan to do so. Someone else can try to find that post if you had not read it. I am actually amazed how open Paizo management is about this so this is not me reading between the lines as you seem to be implying. Obviously I am not listening in on attorney-client communications, I can only presume that what we know has been approved by their attorney, but neither you nor I can be in that room for that discussion. But since their attorney is also the same lawyer that wrote the OGL in the first place and the ORC in the second place, and Paizo has decided to remaster to deOGL - sure you could indeed decide since you was not in the room that someone else must have told them they had to.

So, a couple of things with catching up...

4th edition essentials... Was Compatible with the old in the same way 3.5 was compatible with 3.0 or that 1st edition could be used with 2nd edition. (I played in a 2nd ed game where another player had a 1st ed Assassin in the party.)

It took the balancing aspect of the system, and broke it.

---

The dragons upcoming actually sound cool. My lament is that they are "replacing" the OG dragons (colored and Metalic) and I wonder if the Shadow and Nightmare dragons are going to be a part of this.

I still miss the Mercury dragon from 3.5, the sly little fella.

---

Kobolds already had a big change in PF2, with bigger heads and stouter bodies. Sounds like they will embrace their big brethren dragons no matter the changes.

---

My overall view about the Stat changing to Mod's only is that it is unnecessary to completely remove the original numbers. There are a lot of other systems that don't use the OGL that have this array.

Heck, I am still disappointed 3.0 didn't include the seventh stat (COM)

I'm a little antsy about changes to kobolds. What's the word on that? I have a personal aversion to any change that leans them further into the "miniature dragonborn" angle.

My main sticking point with PF2 as it stands is the proficiency general feats. They are one of the few, if only, things that are guaranteed to become useless. Like other feats, I'd like to see them have good long term use.

The other stuff they already mentioned is interesting. I'm curious to see where things go.

The use of proficiency feats right now is arguably as a "use for now, retrain later after taking a relevant archetype" tool, which isn't super intuitive. Of course, getting to the levels where it becomes an issue isn't something rookie players do often.

I feel like we aren't asking the most important question:

Q: Does the player base get to play test or provide feedback on the changes being made or are we just along for the ride?

Its great to post random lists of things they need to fix, but its hard to figure out if its all set in stone or not.

I'm lost count of the number of times people have said "this next product will fix the alchemist" and still we have something that needs re-balancing because the base chassis is flawed.

I feel like it would go a long way to let the community have some say by:
- Posting a summary of intended changes
- Acquiring community feedback on the changes
- Doing a debrief on survey results/asks/what alterations were made to the remastered content.

That would be way better then sitting in the backseat for ~12+ months as minor nuggets like "Rogues get martial proficiency" are 'revealed' to us as if anything we are talking about now is having an impact.

I'm a little antsy about changes to kobolds. What's the word on that? I have a personal aversion to any change that leans them further into the "miniature dragonborn" angle.

Considering wyvarnen are coming to fill that “Dragonborn” niche

I don’t think this is gonna be an issue

Sidenote, I'm pretty glad about mentions of "good gods still caring super much about good" because I would have been really annoyed if removal of alignment was used as excuse to have "gray morality" where good gods keep pulling of D&D shenanigans of questionable ethics xP

Wait, should they rename the Wizard class?

Souls At War wrote:

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.

I think the disconnect in those parts of the rules is a problem for some...

Sidenote, I'm pretty glad about mentions of "good gods still caring super much about good" because I would have been really annoyed if removal of alignment was used as excuse to have "gray morality" where good gods keep pulling of D&D shenanigans of questionable ethics xP

*cough* *cough* Ragathiel and Vildeis *cough*

I'm a little antsy about changes to kobolds. What's the word on that? I have a personal aversion to any change that leans them further into the "miniature dragonborn" angle.

Isn't reptilian/draconic Kobolds kind of a DnD thing?

Ragathiel is legit good guy no matter what people say :P Otherwise I guess Avengers are bad always

Vildeis is just legit edgelord "probably shouldn't be good but I can see it if you squint super hard"

Sidenote, I'm pretty glad about mentions of "good gods still caring super much about good" because I would have been really annoyed if removal of alignment was used as excuse to have "gray morality" where good gods keep pulling of D&D shenanigans of questionable ethics xP

I don't really think there was a lot of danger of that. It feels like the designers (and Creative Director) as a whole much prefer to have clear good and evil deities; the morally grey ones can still fit in the gap between those, but with the heated discussions of certain deities in the past, it's always seemed like the intent was that even the most complicated benevolent deity was still unambiguously good at the end of the day.

There have been those who wanted to worship evil gods without being evil themselves, and those who wanted the good deities to be messier, but especially with 2e deific alignments cutting off outlying neutrals I don't think it was the preference of the designers--or at least if/when we have a good deity who is willing to accept morally grey followers (such as Erastil's LN and Desna's CN) it won't be on someone like Sarenrae who is the icon of mercy and redemption.

As much as I like trying to take an evil deity's portfolio and hold it at a sharp enough angle to come up with what a non-evil worshipper might look at and think to themselves, "Yes, this is what I value" and be the thing will drag them down into the depths of depravity, I don't necessarily think alternate character interpretations of evil gods to make them misunderstood really fits with what I know of the Lost Omens setting and the writers' goals.

It's one thing to write Urgathoa as the goddess of "I just want to party all night long and live forever" and be able to see how somebody might honestly value that, it's another to say that "Actually, Urgathoa, the goddess of eating the poor is a viable deity for a grey paladin".

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'm a little antsy about changes to kobolds. What's the word on that? I have a personal aversion to any change that leans them further into the "miniature dragonborn" angle.

Isn't reptilian/draconic Kobolds kind of a DnD thing?

Kobolds were *popularized* in a major RPG by a gaming company, but they've actually been around in legends and folklore for centuries if not longer.

If you look at the earlier versions of kobolds, they were dog-headed lizard people. *shudder*.

KC: I'm not worried about 'miniature dragonborn'.

I'm worried that they'll be shoved into 'Uncommon' status for the Ancestry when they are one of the more *common* 'speedbump' ancestries characters run into when they start playing Pathfinder.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

If they wanted to really throw some more sacred hamburgers on the grill, they could do away with ability scores entirely. It works fine in the Troubleshooters, where Strength, Agility, Endurance, and Willpower are skills just like Security, Red Tape, Melee, or Vehicles. Completely gets rid of all the "cheats" both Pathfinder and D&D needs to deal with classes that are supposed to both fight and do other stuff (e.g. Finesse weapons, Devise a Stratagem). You want to fight well? Get a good Melee skill. Want to bench-press a motorcycle? Get a good Strength skill. The two are not connected.

That’s just moving the stat input and investment rather than removing it though.

Not really. Traditional ability scores create dependencies. You have Strength, which leads to competence with both melee combat and athletics. Dexterity makes you good at ranged combat, acrobatics, legerdemain, and dodging. Charisma makes you good at some types of magic, getting people to like you, getting people to fear you, and getting people to believe what you say.

One of my complaints about PF2 has been that the level-based DCs are quite unforgiving, assuming both item bonuses and high stats. You can be an Expert in a skill at level 3 (2 for a rogue), but your proficiency bonus would only be a 7 which means that without additional boosts you only have a 40% chance of success at an Expert-level task (DC 20). Some expert! Removing ability scores from the equation would allow those DCs to be brought down, making it easier to have characters with a wide variety of skills.

I'm worried that they'll be shoved into 'Uncommon' status for the Ancestry when they are one of the more *common* 'speedbump' ancestries characters run into when they start playing Pathfinder.

As it happens, I believe the kobold ancestry already has the Uncommon status. Unless they're looking at shaking up the Ancestry rarity precedents in the Great Errata Pass, it's likely they would simply continue to be Uncommon, without being shoved into any place they do not already occupy.

It should be noted that 'Uncommon' as an ancestry doesn't refer to how many exist in the world (or even your region of the world) but something more like how likely you are to run into one in a shop or tavern, or out in the streets of some town. At present kobolds are deemed an uncommon sight in a (presumably typically human) town, even if they're plenty common elsewhere in the world.

This is not to say I would mind kobolds becoming Common. I'd be quite happy to see them added to the commons, but my understanding is they don't seem to have quite the same status as goblins in terms of 'always a handful lurking around the dump at any given time'.

I'm finally back from Brussels, so I can add my 2 cents. I don't know how people can type posts like this on their phones, the little bit I did was awful XD. Tempers have certainly been running hot here and there. Alignment seems to be the actually divisive topic. That we had a big discussion about it right before is an amazing coincidence. The rest just looks god as far as I can tell.

Anyway, alignment. Though details seem to be sparse, the bottom line seems to be that alignment is being replaced by a system that does much of the same thing, really. Subtleties and choice are now more emphasized right away, rather than starting with the big 9 swimming pools and working down from there.

As I said in the other thread, I like alignment for what it does - giving weight to what you are and believe, beyond pure RP. These are stories, so that should be important. We (afaik) retain that in principle and get a more nuanced version. Sounds good to me.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

I'm worried that they'll be shoved into 'Uncommon' status for the Ancestry when they are one of the more *common* 'speedbump' ancestries characters run into when they start playing Pathfinder.

As it happens, I believe the kobold ancestry already has the Uncommon status. Unless they're looking at shaking up the Ancestry rarity precedents in the Great Errata Pass, it's likely they would simply continue to be Uncommon, without being shoved into any place they do not already occupy.

It should be noted that 'Uncommon' as an ancestry doesn't refer to how many exist in the world (or even your region of the world) but something more like how likely you are to run into one in a shop or tavern, or out in the streets of some town. At present kobolds are deemed an uncommon sight in a (presumably typically human) town, even if they're plenty common elsewhere in the world.

This is not to say I would mind kobolds becoming Common. I'd be quite happy to see them added to the commons, but my understanding is they don't seem to have quite the same status as goblins in terms of 'always a handful lurking around the dump at any given time'.

Common tag in ancestries have a triple representation. It's a merge of representation of the rarity of that ancestry in the entire world, in a region and as adventurer.

Some ancestries like Androids are rare in the world other like Kobolds and Orcs are pretty common in the world but are uncommon as adventurers.

IMO the most strange isn't the Kobolds have the uncommon tag but goblins having common in so short interval of time. Yet once that leshy and orcs now coming to Players Core this may change to common too (or not I still doubts leshys becoming common).