Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

My advice is to stick to the Archives of Nethys until the new books roll out. Most of PF2 is a lot easier to run with the site than with the books, anyways--it's arguably PF2's greatest strength and greatest flaw that it simply runs much better if you have a laptop handy. The books are good for, like, a guided introduction, but I'd definitely wait for the new books that'll probably be easier to understand.

Another option is to simply buy the PDF of the current Core Rulebook if you really, really need anything more than the Beginner Box and Archives of Nethys.

If you're more of a print person, you won't be wasting money if you decide you don't want to wait. The rules aren't changing substantially, and your new purchase will be completely useable for years.

@QuidEst and Michael Sayre: thanks for the answers. Good to know those classes Michael mentioned are fairly au fait with the Rema2te5ed ruleset. And I feel pretty confident that Michael’s assessment of the light touch on the cleanup to clarify and improve the ruleset is on the mark.

And yes, QuidEst, I get that nothing is now unusuable as is but there will still necessarily be some lags between PF2 and PF2R for some classes, no matter how small or (by and large) meaningless. My original experience with PF1 was an ardor for the CRB that essentially held all the rules. No matter how tomelike it was (and to be honest there was something attractively grimoiresque about the hefty book) it gave a sense if wholism, like you could play and run the whole game with the one book. And it seemingly reduced the division between those who run and those who play. All things that were, to my mind, wholly welcome.

{. . .} If you sit down with a Guns & Gears gunslinger, a Secrets of Magic magus, a CRB fighter, and a remastered witch, {. . .}

I've met some strange D&D players a number of times, but getting to sit down with a Gunslinger, a Magus, a Fighter, and a Witch would be my most amazing social experience yet.

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

That you have trained or better proficiency in some thing does not require you to use that thing.

With the renaming of tiefling/aasimar as nephilim and gnoll as kholo, will the same happen for other ancestry names that are currently overtly humanocentric and potentially OGL adjacent?

I’m thinking specifically of correcting catfolk to amurrun, ratfolk to ysoki, lizardfolk to iruxi, and halfling to… something else that isn’t how they relate to human height.

Would be very cool to see that as their books names rather than “how they call themselves”

thaX wrote:

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.

Mearls said that 4ee and 4e fighters can play together at the same table in an old or new adventure and it would be fine. But with the balance designs of the two classes going from MMO style balance to 3.5e balance what table would ever subject themselves to that mess. Even amongst the 4e diehards that did not leave, they dissed on those that chose to play 4ee and they certainly would not play together.

4e never, at any point, had "MMO style balance" which is an age-old edition warrior lie. Accusing it of having "3.5 mechanics" is at least novel, but equally untrue, except to the extent that they share mechanics by virtue of both being D&D.

But here is the real clincher: I was sufficiently "die hard" to keep playing 4e for years after its official end, and only stopped when they turned off DDi (having come to rely on it). And I am still enough of a die hard to correct misinformation spread about it to this day. And that thing that you said no die hard 4e fan would do: I did. Successfully an without issue. For years.

Now can we please get back to discussing the future of PF2 and leave the inaccurate swipes at 4e behind?

Speaking of D&D Essentials...is Player Core 2 going to have all the rules necessary to play the game (as Player Core 1 will)? Think Heroes of the Fallen Lands vs. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

If not, I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

Saying that it has "Player Core" in the title is misleading. The title is "Player 2 Core". Which, I'll grant, is a strange name for the book. But I doubt that it will be causing much confusion about which book to get if a player is only planning on getting one of the two of them.

Reminds me of what Stephanie Harlowe often says. 'This is part 2. If you are starting here, you should stop and go back to part 1 because 1 comes before 2.'

bugleyman wrote:

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

Saying that it has "Player Core" in the title is misleading. The title is "Player 2 Core". Which, I'll grant, is a strange name for the book. But I doubt that it will be causing much confusion about which book to get if a player is only planning on getting one of the two of them.

Reminds me of what Stephanie Harlowe often says. 'This is part 2. If you are starting here, you should stop and go back to part 1 because 1 comes before 2.'

The title is literally "Pathfinder Player Core 2".

With all due respect, it is almost impossible to overstate how astonishingly bad this naming scheme could end up being.

breithauptclan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

Saying that it has "Player Core" in the title is misleading. The title is "Player 2 Core". Which, I'll grant, is a strange name for the book. But I doubt that it will be causing much confusion about which book to get if a player is only planning on getting one of the two of them.

Reminds me of what Stephanie Harlowe often says. 'This is part 2. If you are starting here, you should stop and go back to part 1 because 1 comes before 2.'

The title is literally "Player Core 2".

With all due respect, it is almost impossible to overstate how bad an idea this naming scheme would end up being.

Most people can count 1, 2, 3

(That said I don’t like the name either, it’s bland, but confusing? Nah)

bugleyman wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

Saying that it has "Player Core" in the title is misleading. The title is "Player 2 Core". Which, I'll grant, is a strange name for the book. But I doubt that it will be causing much confusion about which book to get if a player is only planning on getting one of the two of them.

Reminds me of what Stephanie Harlowe often says. 'This is part 2. If you are starting here, you should stop and go back to part 1 because 1 comes before 2.'

The title is literally "Player Core 2".

With all due respect, it is almost impossible to overstate how bad an idea this naming scheme would end up being.

Most people can count 1, 2, 3

(That said I don’t like the name either, it’s bland, but confusing? Nah)

Like has nothing to do with it; I'm simply trying to help them avoid a potentially painful mistake.

At the very least, if they don't want to end up the subject of a future MBA case study, they might want to run this by some people who know nothing about the game.

thaX wrote:

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

4E was dead before Essentials. Essentials was an (unsuccessful) attempt to revive a cadaver.

When essentials came out, 4E was tied for 1st in RPG sales: it was profitable, just not Hasbo profitable. If anything killed it, it was the lack of digital resource promised at launch and continues missteps in that area and Essentials did more to put people off than attract new players.

bugleyman wrote:

thaX wrote:

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

4E was dead before Essentials. Essentials was an (unsuccessful) attempt to revive a cadaver.

When essentials came out, 4E was tied for 1st in RPG sales: it was profitable, just not Hasbo profitable. If anything killed it, it was the lack of digital resource promised at launch and continues missteps in that area and Essentials did more to put people off than attract new players.

As someone who lived through it -- along with literally every edition change before it -- I assure you that D&D 4E was in deep trouble before Essentials. If it hadn't been, Essentials would never have been released.

But you are free to believe whatever you like. :)

Rysky wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

bugleyman wrote:

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

Saying that it has "Player Core" in the title is misleading. The title is "Player 2 Core". Which, I'll grant, is a strange name for the book. But I doubt that it will be causing much confusion about which book to get if a player is only planning on getting one of the two of them.

Reminds me of what Stephanie Harlowe often says. 'This is part 2. If you are starting here, you should stop and go back to part 1 because 1 comes before 2.'

The title is literally "Player Core 2".

With all due respect, it is almost impossible to overstate how bad an idea this naming scheme would end up being.

Most people can count 1, 2, 3

(That said I don’t like the name either, it’s bland, but confusing? Nah)

Like has nothing to do with it; I'm simply trying to help them avoid a potentially painful mistake.

At the very least, if they don't want to end up the subject of a future MBA case study, they might want to run this by some people who know nothing about the game.

Again, most people can count 1, 2, 3

Plenty of movies follow the same naming scheme and people are fine with it. John Wick. John Wick II. Back to the Future. Back to the Future II. They don't seem to be terribly confused about which one is what.

Again, most people can count 1, 2, 3

Just like most people know 1/3 is bigger than 1/4, right?

I say they call it "Player Core 3". This would lead to untold amounts of confusion, and would make it way harder for new players to get into the game, but it would be funny.

I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

With all due respect, it is almost impossible to overstate how bad an idea this naming scheme would end up being.

Like has nothing to do with it; I'm simply trying to help them avoid a potentially painful mistake.

At the very least, if they don't want to end up the subject of a future MBA case study, they might want to run this by some people who know nothing about the game.

You've done your best. If the Paizo Marketing Department doesn't follow your advice, they've only themselves to blame if they become an MBA case study.

It makes sense to me? Maybe I'm just not a cat person.

I honestly think we should take a step back and remember that we're arguing over a book title.

I honestly think we should take a step back and remember that we're arguing over a book title.

Ish? I don't take kindly to being snidely told what I'm saying is "utter nonsense."

But point taken.

I don't feel like mocking people's metaphors and accusing people of not reading your post is ever going to encourage friendly discussion. I don't disagree with you, though. It feels like we're going harder than we need to be here.

Personally, I find it pretty intuitive that I should buy Player Core 1 before I buy Player Core 2. I guess I might be confused and think I need both? But I certainly wouldn't buy 2 first.

Personally, I find it pretty intuitive that I should buy Player Core 1 before I buy Player Core 2.

But that isn't what I said.

I said that if someone who has never played Pathfinder before comes across a book called "player core 2," then they might reasonably expect said book to contain the core rules for a player. ESPECIALLY since that's how D&D -- the game they are most likely to have played before -- works.

That's it.

But because it's the Internet, we got...this.

Then I don't understand your argument at all. Could you please clarify? I'm probably missing something; it's late and my second Ritalin dose has long since retired for the day.

EDIT: Jesus, Rysky.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Personally, I find it pretty intuitive that I should buy Player Core 1 before I buy Player Core 2.

But that isn't what I said.

I said that if someone who has never played Pathfinder before comes across a book called "player core 2," then they might reasonably expect said book to contain the core rules for a player. ESPECIALLY since that's how D&D -- the game they are most likely to have played before -- works.

That's it.

But because it's the Internet, we got...this.

I may be confused, but I remember in D&D 3.5 that books didn't have "core" in the titles at all. You had the PHB, the DMG, etc. Sometimes there would be a book like the Player's Handbook 2, and players would understand that this book would not contain the rules they needed to play.

I feel like my first thought, as somebody who started playing in 3.5, would be "oh, shoot, I'm missing the first book in the series". I would not assume Book 2 had the information I'd need to start play immediately.

People keep bringing up the numbers because, honestly, we don't understand how somebody could fail to notice that they did not have the first book in the set and reason that they would probably need the first to understand the second. I think I understand the point you're making--"including Core in the title is going to confuse people"--but I honestly think the numbering makes it perfectly clear.

I'd prefer Player Core Expansion over numbers. Player's Handbook II was stupid back in 3.5.

I think they should call PC2 the Player's Handbook 1 instead. I don't think that's taken.

Player Core Expansion would definitely be a nicer title. It's clear that it's an expansion to Player Core 1 and that you need the Core 1 to use it.

Then, any future Player Core books (perhaps one that collects SoM, G&G, and DA classes + various setting book archetypes) could just be called Player Core Expansion XYZ.

bugleyman wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Personally, I find it pretty intuitive that I should buy Player Core 1 before I buy Player Core 2.

But that isn't what I said.

I said that if someone who has never played Pathfinder before comes across a book called "player core 2," then they might reasonably expect said book to contain the core rules for a player. ESPECIALLY since that's how D&D -- the game they are most likely to have played before -- works.

That's it.

But because it's the Internet, we got...this.

I may be confused, but I remember in D&D 3.5 that books didn't have "core" in the titles at all. You had the PHB, the DMG, etc. Sometimes there would be a book like the Player's Handbook 2, and players would understand that this book would not contain the rules they needed to play.

I feel like my first thought, as somebody who started playing in 3.5, would be "oh, shoot, I'm missing the first book in the series". I would not assume Book 2 had the information I'd need to start play immediately.

People keep bringing up the numbers because, honestly, we don't understand how somebody could fail to notice that they did not have the first book in the set and reason that they would probably need the first to understand the second. I think I understand the point you're making--"including Core in the title is going to confuse people"--but I honestly think the numbering makes it perfectly clear.

To me, "Player Core" clearly implies the book contains the core rules need to be a player. "Player Expansion" would be much more apt. And while not everyone will be confused, I think it's hard to argue that no one will be. Why move forward with a (clunky) title that is even potentially confusing?

I apologize for my remark about your analogy, I should have said simply that I didn't find it particularly apt.

Oh wow, people were really active while I was lazy posting. Sorry!

Lurker in Insomnia wrote:

Plenty of movies follow the same naming scheme and people are fine with it. John Wick. John Wick II. Back to the Future. Back to the Future II. They don't seem to be terribly confused about which one is what.

Did you even read my post? That analogy is so bad that it killed my cat.

Ah, Internet. Never change.

I did read your post. I'll read it again.

Speaking of D&D Essentials...is Player Core 2 going to have all the rules necessary to play the game (as Player Core 1 will)? Think Heroes of the Fallen Lands vs. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms.

If not, I'd strongly suggest re-evaluating the naming scheme, because releasing a book with "player core" in the title which doesn't contain the core rules needed by a player would be extremely confusing, especially for new people

You are saying that Player Core 2 needs to repeat the same rules as the Player Core otherwise people will be extremely confused. "Heroes of the Fallen Lands vs. Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms" was probably confusing because there is no hint to infer which one is first. However, there is a very easy hint in the new books. Two comes second. Just like movies or other books that come in volumes. They don't need to repeat information between them.

Back in the 3.5 days they had a Players Handbook II. Did anyone ever buy it and became confused because they thought it was a good starting point?

To me, "Player core" clearly implies the book contains the core rules needed to be a player.

I think Player Core by itself implies that, but adding modifiers to it does not. You wouldn't think John Wick II contains all of the first movies content, after all.

Oh, I think it was someone else's analogy, not mine. I'm just nosy.

For what it's worth, it seems like we all agree that the title isn't good, even if some of us dislike it for its genericness more than a concern about clarity. It sounds like it's probably too late, but I guess we'll see.

I agree that PC2 is generic, yeah. The Bestiary titles were generic too and it would have been nice if they had a theme that could have told you something more about what was in there.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there is exactly a theme for PC2 that would lend itself to anything more fanciful like Dark Archive or Guns and Gears.

Quote:

To me, "Player core" clearly implies the book contains the core rules needed to be a player.

I think Player Core by itself implies that, but adding modifiers to it does not. You wouldn't think John Wick II contains all of the first movies content, after all.

But one can still enjoy John Wick II without having seen the first movie, while someone who picks up "Player Core 2," won't be able to make sense of much of the contents. IMO the word "core" just doesn't belong on a book which contains (only) expansion material (which apparently somehow means that I can't count to two, but I digress).

But your mileage may (and obviously does) vary.

Why are we talking down Paizo's ability to make the supplemental books make sense on their own before any are even fully developed? Are there some examples that lend credence to that idea?

Why are we talking down Paizo's ability to make the supplemental books make sense before any are even fully developed? Are there some examples that lend credence to that idea?

You see, I don't feel like that's what I'm doing. I feel like I'm doing is pointing out that that a book with "player core" in the title -- but that doesn't contain the core player rules -- has the potential to confuse new people. So maybe don't name it that? Or at the very least, put it in front of a focus group before you do?

But I absolutely should have known that implying Paizo is anything but infallible would go over like a lead balloon here; it always does. That's on me.

Rysky wrote:

Again, most people can count 1, 2, 3

Just like most people know 1/3 is bigger than 1/4, right?

Most people are idiots.

Finally got to the current end of the thread.

Proposed changes = good on the whole.

Discarding alignment completely = not a fan but the more I tried to find a workable alternative, the more stuck I was. So likely the better idea and I really hope Paizo finds a way to deliver value (again) on this.

I will miss alignment as a 2-letters descriptor for any NPC's likely behaviour though..

I think no future product after this Remaster thing will ever reference OGL-related creatures, items, spells ... just to be on the safe legal side.

The most difficult thing will be the Chromatic and Metallic dragons. Those are clearly OGL-related. But they are also present in the setting from the beginning with their associated alignments.

Most Reds in Golarion were described as CE, and ditto for all the other colors and metals.

And those cannot just change the color of their scales just because.

I really wonder how Paizo will deal with this.

Maybe calling all Reds Crimson will do the trick, but I doubt that will be Paizo's solution. We'll see.

Also, big thanks to the Paizo people who posted on this thread. I did not agree with everything, but your posts decidedly made things clearer AND it was very brave of you to post them here and now, so big thanks for that and for everything you all are doing to improve this game we love.

It makes sense to me? Maybe I'm just not a cat person.

Well done, well done. Made me smile. :)