Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

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.

Player Core 1 and GM Core have already been sent to the printers, and will be available to purchase in November. It's far too late to playtest anything at this point for those two books. And for the most part (aside from a few big errors), Monster Core's content shouldn't need to be playtested either.

MAYBE the design time will be up to listening to feedback for Player Core 2, but given the sheer amount of posts they've seen from here, Reddit, Twitter and Discord, I'm sure they're at least aware of a vast majority of the issues the community has with the system. Whether they fix those issues to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen.

Now, they ARE having a 2 hour Q&A specifically about the new Core books on the first day of PaizoCon, right after the opening keynote. We're supposed to hear a LOT more detail about the changes there. So I suggest everyone who are asking questions right now, to be sure to be there and ask those same questions at PaizoCon next month.

So, I mean, this is sort of what I'm trying to point out. Its 'frustrating' to waste good brain power on ways to improve the system if truly we aren't active participants or agents in the process. I mean, I don't care about any of the OGL to ORC changes, but there are a laundry list of things people want changed and if we don't manage expectations its likely going to leave a bad taste in people's mouths.

Example: If GM Core is already decided on then that means the changes to the alchemist are largely set in stone. The class has so much of its power budget placed into alchemical items, so that means the opportunity to weaken bombs to make room to improve the base chassis is likely gone. That is really frustrating if they think the power budget balance is fine because it prevents them from enabling a STR/DEX KAS selection or unarmed/bomb proficiency going to master, or letting runes on thrower's bandolier from applying (i.e., establishing what the base bomb damage is that it would improve or not improve). Time will tell whether 'this' pass will fix them or not, but it needs more fundamental math adjustment to the base chassis then just a minor tweak here or there.

I hear you on PaizoCon, but if we wait a month, what other opportunities do we lose out on to influence as a community?

My first thought after seeing the headline and reading half the first paragraph: “Ehrmagherd. It’s the 3.5 thing all over again. Cash grab. Post OGL-furore pivot. Cash grab. Ploop.”

After being called away to help pour pumpkin soup into tupperware and coming back to read the rest of the blog: ”Hmm, making it a Core document for 3pps is a good move, removing the OGL creatures is probably overdue, but dang, two player manuals (and possibly more) is very 4e. I wonder if Wayne Reynolds is on board.”

Now, after twenty minutes of research reading on various threads:

* Removal of alignment: about time.

* No monk or babrbarian in PC1? Not a fan.

* No champion until PC2? Not surprised. Given the state…of..the world…it may be a bit tricky.
* Leshy as core race in PC1? Ehrmagherd. And I like vege…folk.

* Witch getting a rework? Overdue, clearly. Hope the alchemist…gets…whatever it needs.

* New dragonological theme? Ok, sounds good,

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

* Wayne Reynolds! I hope he makes sure to add even more straps, buckles, ropes, catches, brooches, buttons, ties, laces, filigree, binding, pouches, hilts, buckles, pockets, straps, belts, buttons, girdles, sashes, scarves, buckles, straps, buttons and belts to….that guy on the cover of the GMC. And more peacock feathers. And straps. And buckles.

But really….

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

What spells are you referencing here? I did a search of Archives of Nethys as well as Pathfinder 2 Easy Library for "dart" and none of the results were a spell. There are plenty of hazards with dart in the name, but no spells.

Red Griffyn wrote:

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.

Player Core 1 and GM Core have already been sent to the printers, and will be available to purchase in November. It's far too late to playtest anything at this point for those two books. And for the most part (aside from a few big errors), Monster Core's content shouldn't need to be playtested either.

MAYBE the design time will be up to listening to feedback for Player Core 2, but given the sheer amount of posts they've seen from here, Reddit, Twitter and Discord, I'm sure they're at least aware of a vast majority of the issues the community has with the system. Whether they fix those issues to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen.

Now, they ARE having a 2 hour Q&A specifically about the new Core books on the first day of PaizoCon, right after the opening keynote. We're supposed to hear a LOT more detail about the changes there. So I suggest everyone who are asking questions right now, to be sure to be there and ask those same questions at PaizoCon next month.

Are you sure that the first 2 core books is already sent to print? Even the colored cover wasn't ready yet.

It’s time for a new alias!!! And here’s my biggest hope:

That Pathfinder Rema2te5ed completely strips out all the Golariona that will needlessly impede such a Core document to be used by people wanting to go ORC. All that hapless marginalia will only get in the way!

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner, and Thaumaturge don't need to be remastered and will continue to be playable as-is, with no wait. Maybe angel and demon eidolons will get a small errata to address their alignment damage, or maybe that will be covered under some guidance.

It's not an edition change where you can't play something unless it's reprinted.

Ezekieru wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

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.

Player Core 1 and GM Core have already been sent to the printers, and will be available to purchase in November. It's far too late to playtest anything at this point for those two books. And for the most part (aside from a few big errors), Monster Core's content shouldn't need to be playtested either.

MAYBE the design time will be up to listening to feedback for Player Core 2, but given the sheer amount of posts they've seen from here, Reddit, Twitter and Discord, I'm sure they're at least aware of a vast majority of the issues the community has with the system. Whether they fix those issues to everyone's satisfaction remains to be seen.

Now, they ARE having a 2 hour Q&A specifically about the new Core books on the first day of PaizoCon, right after the opening keynote. We're supposed to hear a LOT more detail about the changes there. So I suggest everyone who are asking questions right now, to be sure to be there and ask those same questions at PaizoCon next month.

Are you sure that...

I think Erik said in the RfC stream there's a chance they'll have a proof available at GenCon.

It’s time for a new alias!!! And here’s my biggest hope:

That Pathfinder Rema2te5ed completely strips out all the Golariona that will needlessly impede such a Core document to be used by people wanting to go ORC. All that hapless marginalia will only get in the way!

While I don't know anything about, say, Golarion context in the ancestries, the GM Core is the book that will have a section dedicated to the setting rather than putting it in the main book for players.

I, for one, am stoked about this whole thing.

Paizo has proved themselves to be a very cagey opponent (for lack of a better word) in this whole thing.
So what, they change magic missile to magic dart. It still plays the same. It's the same game it was, with some tweaks and improvements. And, more importantly, completely divorced from the OGL. Yes, the OGL had its purpose for a while. But they don't need it anymore.
And, for the people who still like alignment, or a creature they had in the old bestiary, that stuff is still 100% valid. So no one loses here.
This is what happens when you have a company run by & for gamers, rather than by businessmen.

Oh, I was responding to this post, assuming that that was a change they were making. I now see that they were just speaking hypothetically. :)

I really hope alignment is still going to be functional within the system in some regard as I can't see Outerplanes/Planescape adventures working without it. Not to mention I love the quirks of picking up a sword that has bad vibes and one player knows for a fact that it's evil while another thinks it's just +5 jealousy-invoking sword.

Splitting the books between players and GM is a bit annoying because I'd rather every player have the tools on hand to run the game instead of having the excuse of "Woah woah I can't run the game I don't have the game runner book!!"

Please please please revise the PF2e character sheet too. The current sheet is fully and without a doubt not too crash hot at the table and 4 A4 sheets is a bit much to juggle.

but there are a laundry list of things people want changed and if we don't manage expectations its likely going to leave a bad taste in people's mouths

I'm not sure where these expectations would come from...??? I didn't have the impression there would be any public polling/playtesting for these releases (though I might have missed it). Paizo has been collecting feedback over the last four years and have indicated they'll be tweaking/adjusting where/if needed.

It’s time for a new alias!!! And here’s my biggest hope:

That Pathfinder Rema2te5ed completely strips out all the Golariona that will needlessly impede such a Core document to be used by people wanting to go ORC. All that hapless marginalia will only get in the way!

So many things have a Golarion based group as a prerequisite and so many class things are tied into Golarion lore that it isn’t exactly friendly for 3pp worlds that aren’t Golarion. So here’s to hoping they will change that

Like I hope the bladed gauntlet becomes an item no longer tied to Knights of the Lastwall

Let my rogue have a retractable wrist blade like AC!

I got an idea in which removal/replacement of alignment actually gets worked into the story in a near-future AP(*) as another step in the breaking of prophecy (of the Age of Lost Omens), in which the ties binding the Outer Planes have now been disrupted, with the redemption of certain Outsiders a few APs ago having been a (then-not-yet-recognized) harbinger of this. From an in-world point of view, this ends up being both a curse and a blessing: On the one hand, with certain strictures broken, con artists are now harder to catch, and villains who think they're doing good are now harder to unravel. On the other hand, true redemption has become easier, and the entrapment of unwitting souls to Evil has been made harder. The latter has made the Evil Outer Planes VERY ANGRY, with the Devils in particular seeing this as a major threat to their ability to ensnare souls, and the forces of Hell will stop at nothing to re-secure the power of their Infernal Contracts . . . .

(*)Probably not any of announced APs, but maybe the next one after . . . although if it actually DID fit well into one of those announced, I certainly wouldn't mind.

OceanshieldwolPF 2.5 wrote:

It’s time for a new alias!!! And here’s my biggest hope:

That Pathfinder Rema2te5ed completely strips out all the Golariona that will needlessly impede such a Core document to be used by people wanting to go ORC. All that hapless marginalia will only get in the way!

So many things have a Golarion based group as a prerequisite and so many class things are tied into Golarion lore that it isn’t exactly friendly for 3pp worlds that aren’t Golarion. So here’s to hoping they will change that

Those are from the Lost Omens books, which aren't being remastered. They're remastering the books that already avoided that. So, the good news is that the feats an archetypes in here probably avoid ties to setting organizations.

I do think a "[Golarion]" trait could be cool--like, some sort of way to say, "these prerequisites are tied to our setting, and you can ignore them if you're homebrewing without balance concerns". Maybe not a trait, I dunno. Anyways, it's a very minor issue. The setting prereqs are easy for a GM to ignore.

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.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

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.

I am not a fan either. I actually did not realise that they had made reptilian in 3.0 until some time after the fact (I saw the illustrations, but did not immediately get that they were supposed to be kobolds). It made the "we're the inheritors of dragons" stuff a lot funnier.

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?

Most of us are not lawyers (and those of us who are are mostly not Paizo's lawayers). Any input we gave would be not just useless but actively dangerous.

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half?

What do you mean "nowhere to be seen"? They are already out and have been for years in most cases.

sure you could indeed decide since you was not in the room that someone else must have told them they had to.

Thanks. I read the same post(s) and listened to the same videos and came to a different conclusion: that they had been in discussions with their attorneys about removing OGL content for many years*, and the WotC cash-grab was simply a business tipping point that made the effort cost-effective. I concluded that their cost-benefit analysis had changed.

I am actually amazed how open Paizo management is about this

One of the reasons I asked if you had personal knowledge is that the crafting of the ORC license has been an open consultation with the ttrpg community. In January, Azora Law issued an open invitation to the whole community to participate in the Discord discussions to help draft the new license.

They repeated the invitation in late January.

Then, once the first draft was finished, they again invited community comment.

I thought it was entirely possible that you had been a participant in those discussion and had first-hand knowledge of Azora Law comments.

*

I do think a "[Golarion]" trait could be cool--like, some sort of way to say, "these prerequisites are tied to our setting, and you can ignore them if you're homebrewing without balance concerns". Maybe not a trait, I dunno. Anyways, it's a very minor issue. The setting prereqs are easy for a GM to ignore.

That’s an idea. Saves the awkwardness of servers with HB worlds deciding what to do with those because of they tag that says “it’s prerequisites can be ignored outside Golarion”

Not sure how I feel about the removal of alignment. My initial reaction is that I'm not happy about it, but maybe I just don't understand the benefits of doing so? I've always appreciated having left and right limits on character actions based on their alignment choice, such that we don't end up with a party full of unpredictable or inconsistent nutcases who decide things on a whim in every circumstance. In my opinion, alignment improves roleplaying.

Is it only the class alignment restrictions going away, or are they removing alignment altogether?

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

All of those classes are in the game and are largely unaffected or minimally impacted by the remaster. Guns & Gears in particular would only have something like a pair of terminology changes with no mechanical impact in each class, and a single trait removed from some of the intelligent weapons which also aren't particularly likely to affect gameplay. We're not changing the math, gameplay, or other fundamental structures of the game; we're just reorganizing things to be more welcoming to new players, dusting out some OGL cobwebs, and applying some errata we've been working on for awhile. If you sit down with a Guns & Gears gunslinger, a Secrets of Magic magus, a CRB fighter, and a remastered witch, the odds are that the only people likely to notice a change has occurred is someone who played a witch before and is pleasantly surprised that we added some cool new feat or removed some overly onerous restriction that wasn't actually pertinent to the game's balance or performance except as an unnecessary detriment.

thaX wrote:

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.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

It was as far as being published as such, but it put in 3.5 mechanics and blew out any balance measures that wasn't already broken by Psionics introduced after the initial release.

Essentials killed 4th edition. This new Errata and new formated books is not even close to the edition killer that Essentials was.

glass wrote:

thaX wrote:

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.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

It was as far as being published as such, but it put in 3.5 mechanics and blew out any balance measures that wasn't already broken by Psionics introduced after the initial release.

Essentials killed 4th edition. This new Errata and new formated books is not even close to the edition killer that Essentials was.

4e Psionics did nothing wrong! The PHB3 is a dear friend of mine.

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.

I am not a fan either. I actually did not realise that they had made reptilian in 3.0 until some time after the fact (I saw the illustrations, but did not immediately get that they were supposed to be kobolds). It made the "we're the inheritors of dragons" stuff a lot funnier.

I do like reptilian kobolds, and the new art is lovely (I don't actually think any game's official kobold art fits "my" idea of kobolds, but PF2's is one of the best), but I liked it when their connection to dragons was more ambiguous, without the silly "matching scales" thing. The matching scales thing isn't just too on the nose, it's kind of gaudy--especially metallic kobolds, who look just dreadful to me. The way I see them, kobolds shouldn't look like Christmas ornaments. Bring back dull-colored kobolds!

This is strictly my way of seeing them, of course. A lot of people do like colorful kobolds, I'm sure, and I myself used to really like heavily-draconic-themed kobolds even though I've soured on them a little nowadays. I'm just being silly. I do hope PF2R doesn't lean into those changes even further, though.

Actually, my hope is that PF2R flat-out removes the "scale color" choice from the base ancestry, but that's probably a vain aspiration. We're probably just gonna get more choices, further cementing in "every kobold has to be themed around a particular dragon ancestor". Bweh.

Something to consider, KC.

The metallic and chromatic are OGL-adjacent.

So they will need to remove it for 'color-coding' reasons.

This may also be why they are in PC2. More time for people to get used to a new setup for draconic influences.

This is true, but if we are reading what KC is saying, I think that would just be changing one color/thematic influence to another. I think the core issue isn't metallic or chromatic but the fact that Kobolds are so defined by dragons their physiology is affected by it.

I think I agree but for slightly different reasons, I like bright colors and think Kobolds should be like skittles or nerds, full of rainbow. Altough with options for dull ones, because I really like the idea of Kobolds have a lot of different variations within the ancestry. With maybe the opt in options for kobolds who are true exemplars of a draconic group(perhaps magic, or bio magic of some kind connecting them to a specific dragon and that causes physiological changes)

I'm greedy. I want more kobold designs, and this seems like an excuse to get them. I can always use the old designs if I like them better, but this is a chance for something I like even more.

Yeah, I think they'll make it, like... if there's X Dragons, Y Dragons and Z Dragons, they'll make you pick between X Kobold, Y Kobold and Z Kobold instead of the "scale color" thing. You're not a gold kobold, you're a "lunar kobold".

This is good, because it will mean way, way more cool kobold options for people who like their kobolds more dragony, but it's also not-good, because it will define kobolds even more strictly around the "you have to have a draconic ancestor" thing. Kobolds being descended from dragons isn't very interesting to me; it's always felt like a distraction from more compelling elements. I like leaving the whole thing thing as more of an open question. Maybe a kobold doesn't know if they're descended from dragons, or doesn't know which kind. I don't totally love feeling "forced" by the rules to define a specific draconic lineage at character creation. If I wanted to play someone themed around their lineage, I'd play a sorcerer.

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

krazmuze wrote:

sure you could indeed decide since you was not in the room that someone else must have told them they had to.

Thanks. I read the same post(s) and listened to the same videos and came to a different conclusion: that they had been in discussions with their attorneys about removing OGL content for many years*, and the WotC cash-grab was simply a business tipping point that made the effort cost-effective. I concluded that their cost-benefit analysis had changed.

Quote:

I am actually amazed how open Paizo management is about this

One of the reasons I asked if you had personal knowledge is that the crafting of the ORC license has been an open consultation with the ttrpg community. In January, Azora Law issued an open invitation to the whole community to participate in the Discord discussions to help draft the new license.

They repeated the invitation in late January.

Then, once the first draft was finished, they again invited community comment.

I thought it was entirely possible that you had been a participant in those discussion and had first-hand knowledge of Azora Law comments.

*** spoiler omitted **

Nobody in the ORC discard is privy to any Paizo lawyer private discussions about what they need to change in their products. The press release you quote was discussing the change from PF1e to PF2e where they eliminated the copy paste of the 3.5e SRD words and rewrote things, but they still used the similar game concepts. And it is obvious their lawyer said - yes red is not copyright, dragon is not copyright, evil is not copyright, but could wotc take you to court for Red Evil Dragon maybe, but there is absolutely case law that says curated lists of common things is copyright (it is why every house and mini paint company uses a different name for red even though they all use the same pigments of red). So it is obvious their lawyer said you cannot just delete the OGL page like you think, you copied the list of chromatic and metallic dragons - it is not enough that you used different words to describe them. You seem to be arguing that Paizo does not need to do this, you are not their lawyer, and Paizo is doing this so clearly they are listening to their lawyer not you.

Also listen to Mona and Moreland again, they actually said it is a dumb biz move as they risk of all the 5e expats that just spent $$$ on new books that did not even last a year, and for PF2e it would have been better to wait a few more years and just proceed with a PF3e on the usual new edition schedule and not forgo new content now for core remaster contented now. They are doing it because they have to for legal reasons not because they wanted to for biz reasons.

Anyways, changing the subject to be more relevant from the kobold stuff, I think they should add alternative heritage traits for redundant versatile heritage abilities. It sucks that heritages like aasimar are currently useless to goblins and dwarves--it makes it harder to brag about "you can play a tiefling kobold!" when I have to add the corollary of "...though it won't give you any mechanical benefit unless you plan to pick out tiefling feats, so maybe you shouldn't."

It wouldn't even require any major rules changes. We already have, "If you already have low-light vision, you gain darkvision." Why not add in a little clause--even a "suggestion for GMs" sidebar somewhere if you want to be as low-impact as possible--that goes like, "If you already have darkvision, you gain Keen Senses/a bonus skill feat/a bonus to against versus effects that would blind you"?

It seems perfect for a remaster clearly focused on making the game more inviting to newbies.

glass wrote:

thaX wrote:

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.

Not remotely true. Those other examples were separate editions, separate gameslines, albeit with strong similarities. 4e Essentials was 4e.

It was as far as being published as such, but it put in 3.5 mechanics and blew out any balance measures that wasn't already broken by Psionics introduced after the initial release.

Essentials killed 4th edition. This new Errata and new formated books is not even close to the edition killer that Essentials was.

And to me how a game is balanced is what determines if it is compatible.

Anyways, changing the subject to be more relevant from the kobold stuff, I think they should add alternative heritage traits for redundant versatile heritage abilities. It sucks that heritages like aasimar are currently useless to goblins and dwarves--it makes it harder to brag about "you can play a tiefling kobold!" when I have to add the corollary of "...though it won't give you any mechanical benefit unless you plan to pick out tiefling feats, so maybe you shouldn't."

It wouldn't even require any major rules changes. We already have, "If you already have low-light vision, you gain darkvision." Why not add in a little clause--even a "suggestion for GMs" sidebar somewhere if you want to be as low-impact as possible--that goes like, "If you already have darkvision, you gain Keen Senses/a bonus skill feat/a bonus to against versus effects that would blind you"?

It seems perfect for a remaster clearly focused on making the game more inviting to newbies.

My go-to for this has been 'if your (vers) heritage has no mechanical benefit to your ancestry, add the basic benefit of another heritage' though that's not a terribly clean or one-fits-all answer. It would be nice to make a tiefling goblin without losing out on extras. I have an oracle of flames idea who thinks he's the mortal son and heir of Asmodeus himself (CN alignment notwithstanding) and that idea would be great to pull off.

The PF2 kobolds look snake-like to me (as opposed to other editions with dragon-like heads, or dog-like if you go back far enough).

So assuming they're sticking to the PF2 kobold art, I'd like to see patterned scale kobolds. Diamondback kobolds with poison bite, rainbow boa-scaled kobold with some benefit doing grabs (since boa is constrictor). Just an idea.

* Wayne Reynolds! I hope he makes sure to add even more straps, buckles, ropes, catches, brooches, buttons, ties, laces, filigree, binding, pouches, hilts, buckles, pockets, straps, belts, buttons, girdles, sashes, scarves, buckles, straps, buttons and belts to….that guy on the cover of the GMC. And more peacock feathers. And straps. And buckles.

This brightened my day.

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?

To this point I would say that Paizo’s monitoring of the message boards, ongoing discussions with various communities, and conversations with various stakeholders were probably considered in their decision. The lack of a playtest does not mean community input was not considered.

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

It's funny, but my wish was quite different from yours. I wanted them to ditch the humanoid aspect entirely and just straight up make kobolds dragons. Now that creature type no longer confers automatic abilities, it would be interesting to me if kobolds were simply very small dragons, with a distinct culture that arose around being small, clever, and cowardly-pragmatic. Simultaneously, it would reduce the need to tie kobolds to "true" dragons; they already ARE true dragons, just as much a child of Dahak as any other. Or perhaps set up a cultural divide between those that serve their larger cousins out of admiration and need for protection, and those that reject that.

Red Griffyn wrote:

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?

To this point I would say that Paizo’s monitoring of the message boards, ongoing discussions with various communities, and conversations with various stakeholders were probably considered in their decision. The lack of a playtest does not mean community input was not considered.

Also, the magnitude of changes will almost definitely be smaller than the changes between playtest and final release for every other product to date. Which means the past 4 years have been the playtest.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

It's funny, but my wish was quite different from yours. I wanted them to ditch the humanoid aspect entirely and just straight up make kobolds dragons. Now that creature type no longer confers automatic abilities, it would be interesting to me if kobolds were simply very small dragons, with a distinct culture that arose around being small, clever, and cowardly-pragmatic. Simultaneously, it would reduce the need to tie kobolds to "true" dragons; they already ARE true dragons, just as much a child of Dahak as any other. Or perhaps set up a cultural divide between those that serve their larger cousins out of admiration and need for protection, and those that reject that.

Child of Apsu too, don’t forgot the metal kobolds

But yeah, I’m actually down for this

I would love to play as a dragon that is the well known walk on all fours with wings type of dragon but not a dragon like metallics or chromatics in that they aren’t that powerful

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

It's funny, but my wish was quite different from yours. I wanted them to ditch the humanoid aspect entirely and just straight up make kobolds dragons. Now that creature type no longer confers automatic abilities, it would be interesting to me if kobolds were simply very small dragons, with a distinct culture that arose around being small, clever, and cowardly-pragmatic. Simultaneously, it would reduce the need to tie kobolds to "true" dragons; they already ARE true dragons, just as much a child of Dahak as any other. Or perhaps set up a cultural divide between those that serve their larger cousins out of admiration and need for protection, and those that reject that.

Oh, that's a very creative idea! I would weep for my beloved kobolds if they did it, though.

Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

. Society play will convert to the new rule set. Just wondering when that will be

When CRP (4th printing) removed Ancestry flaws from how you build characters, PFS adjusted at exactly the same time. When Player Core and GM Core remove alignment, PFS will adjust at exactly the same time.

But.... you will still be able to build and play characters with alignments, just like you can still build and play characters with Ancestry flaws.

I'm assuming you're referring to Voluntary Flaws, in which case you actually can't use them in Society play, unless they walked that back.

This is also why I'm hoping they've added an any 3 Boost 1 Flaw option in addition to the any 2 Boost alternative.

---

On a different note, I'm a little confused on how Nephilim would work. If "Nephilim" is specifically the versatile heritage, then wouldn't you be able to have weird mish mash of Aasimar an Tiefling abilities? It seems like it would be like having Half-Elf and Half-Orc as a single versatile heritage.

Dancing Wind wrote:

Slamy Mcbiteo wrote:

. Society play will convert to the new rule set. Just wondering when that will be

When CRP (4th printing) removed Ancestry flaws from how you build characters, PFS adjusted at exactly the same time. When Player Core and GM Core remove alignment, PFS will adjust at exactly the same time.

But.... you will still be able to build and play characters with alignments, just like you can still build and play characters with Ancestry flaws.

I'm assuming you're referring to Voluntary Flaws, in which case you actually can't use them in Society play, unless they walked that back.

This is also why I'm hoping they've added an any 3 Boost 1 Flaw option in addition to the any 2 Boost alternative.

---

On a different note, I'm a little confused on how Nephilim would work. If "Nephilim" is specifically the versatile heritage, then wouldn't you be able to have weird mish mash of Aasimar an Tiefling abilities? It seems like it would be like having Half-Elf and Half-Orc as a single versatile heritage.

I'd be down with that, honestly. Let people go full anime; why not?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

It's funny, but my wish was quite different from yours. I wanted them to ditch the humanoid aspect entirely and just straight up make kobolds dragons. Now that creature type no longer confers automatic abilities, it would be interesting to me if kobolds were simply very small dragons, with a distinct culture that arose around being small, clever, and cowardly-pragmatic. Simultaneously, it would reduce the need to tie kobolds to "true" dragons; they already ARE true dragons, just as much a child of Dahak as any other. Or perhaps set up a cultural divide between those that serve their larger cousins out of admiration and need for protection, and those that reject that.

We should keep going down. Tiny and Diminutive dragons as well, all playable.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd love it if "dragonblood kobold" was strictly a heritage, with the base ancestry's mechanics entirely dragon-neutral. The heritage could let you choose a dragon you're chiefly descended from, as before, and give you some minor benefit like energy resistance. But I'm not expecting Paizo to make changes that major in a remaster.

Basically, my opinions on this are strong, but not intense. I just want people to have more fun with kobolds. I'll keep running them how I like in my games. :)

It's funny, but my wish was quite different from yours. I wanted them to ditch the humanoid aspect entirely and just straight up make kobolds dragons. Now that creature type no longer confers automatic abilities, it would be interesting to me if kobolds were simply very small dragons, with a distinct culture that arose around being small, clever, and cowardly-pragmatic. Simultaneously, it would reduce the need to tie kobolds to "true" dragons; they already ARE true dragons, just as much a child of Dahak as any other. Or perhaps set up a cultural divide between those that serve their larger cousins out of admiration and need for protection, and those that reject that.

We should keep going down. Tiny and Diminutive dragons as well, all playable.

Fairy Dragon PCs when? ((Hopefully they don't get OGL'd out of future publications!))

Fairy Dragon PCs when? ((Hopefully they don't get OGL'd out of future publications!))

These Faerie Dragons?

Nah, those are Sprites who have a little bit of faerie dragon in them.

I'm talking the 'real deal'.

:>

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

Gunslinger, Inventor, Magus, Psychic, Summoner, and Thaumaturge don't need to be remastered and will continue to be playable as-is, with no wait. Maybe angel and demon eidolons will get a small errata to address their alignment damage, or maybe that will be covered under some guidance.

It's not an edition change where you can't play something unless it's reprinted.

Gunslinger, Inventor, Summoner at least could do with a refresh. Not terrible but some problems and a few things that don't work as well as they should and could address.

OCEANSHIELDWOLPF 2.0 wrote:

* Gunslinger, inventor, magus, psychic et al nowhere to be seen for…at least a year and a half? Now that gets into “very badly planned by Paizo” territory. You already have folks grizzled by the lack of core concepts enjoyed by everfans missing classes from PF1 - (in that those concepts were core to their enjoyment), and now you are taking another two (point five) steps back? Gah, glad I’m not one of those folk. I feel for their inexorable wait.

All of those classes are in the game and are largely unaffected or minimally impacted by the remaster. Guns & Gears in particular would only have something like a pair of terminology changes with no mechanical impact in each class, and a single trait removed from some of the intelligent weapons which also aren't particularly likely to affect gameplay. We're not changing the math, gameplay, or other fundamental structures of the game; we're just reorganizing things to be more welcoming to new players, dusting out some OGL cobwebs, and applying some errata we've been working on for awhile. If you sit down with a Guns & Gears gunslinger, a Secrets of Magic magus, a CRB fighter, and a remastered witch, the odds are that the only people likely to notice a change has occurred is someone who played a witch before and is pleasantly surprised that we added some cool new feat or removed some overly onerous restriction that wasn't actually pertinent to the game's balance or performance except as an unnecessary detriment.

Which is really good to hear. Sounds like they are only updating what is important to update.

Nah, those are Sprites who have a little bit of faerie dragon in them.

I'm talking the 'real deal'.

:>

Fey dragon???

I am a new player who just bought the beginner box. I was wondering if I should buy the players guide and all that or wait for the new ones to roll out?