Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

IMO the name Players Core 2 is just bad for many different reasons. But still have time to Paizo thing into a better name.

We can use this as a temporary name just like the Remastered is just the project name (not the term used into books).

Over the past four months, Paizo saw hundreds of people come in and ask "What books should I get?" and generally getting answers in the ballpark of, "Definitely the Core Rule Book, and maybe the Advanced Player's Guide. If you're running, a Bestiary and maybe the Gamemaster's Guide." And there's probably some variation on the answers.

Now, the answer can be, "You'll want some or all of the Core books, the ones that say 'Core' in the title. Player Core 1 has the rules. Not enough options? Add Player Core 2. Running the game? Gamemaster Core and Monster Core." It's nice, neat, and clear what is considered the core of the game. It also lets the other stuff be more clearly designated as add-on material.

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.

People did when it was WotC releasing PHB2 (both times). And it lead to bad feeling and lost potential future sales.

ETA:

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.

That would certainly be an improvement, but I agree with bugleyman that removing the word "core" entirely is safer. I was thinking Player Companion as a possibility.

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?

My understanding is that they dd, yes, in statistically significant quantities. That is the whole reason the current name worries me!

krazmuze wrote:

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?

I'm actually rather curious why you think it doesn't have mmo style balance. Mind discussing in PMs or a thread somewhere?

I'm not anti 4e. I actually think it makes a great minis wargame and like playing it as such, it just doesn't have any of the things I want in an rpg. Still, it absolutely makes me feel like I'm playing wow on paper, along with some aspects that I see only in mmos except for dragon age 3 which I also feel like was a one player mmo.

I'm confident that the new "core" books will have a paragraph or two on their back covers clarifying what is in them and what other books (if any) are recommended. Furthermore, online booksellers like Paizo and Amazon will also have that same text (or more).

Previous Paizo rulebooks have this. My 5e hardcover Player's Handbook has it. Every ebook and most other things I've bought from Amazon have it.

I think part of the goal of the remaster is to clearly delineate the "Core Rules" (which is a phrase people use and understand in this context). Each book is just going to be a specific corner of the core rules, and which corner is indicated by the other word in the title. There's more "player options" and ΅monsters" than will fit in a single book.

So like "Player Core 2" is not especially flavorful, but it's efficient and descriptive.

On a related note, I feel so bad for 4e fans. Their game is always getting used as a punching bag, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it!

Deleted a bunch more off topic posts that were also POINTEDLY harassing. Keep the conversation civil, and on topic.

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

Da Extra Ability Boosts

(More often referred to as the four free boosts, sometimes given an appropriate name like discipline to fit the alphabetic scheme)

Oh I thought it was dogs :(

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned they originally planned a "D" step called "Destiny" which would be the four free ability boosts.

For my own purposes of memorizing the steps, I always think of a "D" step called "Details", for doing the boosts and filling out the rest of the character sheet. Then into "E"/"Equipment".

D = Don't Forget Your 4 Boosts

At least that's the most common error I see when reviewing characters from newcomers.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

Details, baby, details.

WatersLethe wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

Details, baby, details.

Oh hey! I didn't realize the unofficial D became official!

IMO the name Players Core 2 is just bad for many different reasons. But still have time to Paizo thing into a better name.

We can use this as a temporary name just like the Remastered is just the project name (not the term used into books).

I myself favor "Pathfinder Player Fundamentals Part 1," because I view the rulebook as a foundation, i.e., fundamental, rather than as a center, i.e., core. And I refer to the Bestiary as "Bestiary 1," to clearly distinguish it from the later-numbered bestiaries, so I would rather have the number actually in the title.

Me saying that is not edition warring

I don't know what you feel in your heart of hearts, all I can go by is what you post. So if you post edition warrior talking points, I am not going to waste energy worrying about why you are doing it. And "Essentials is a separate edition from 4e" is absolutely an edition warrior talking point - it is important to them because it allows them to pretend that that 4e was the shortest lived WotC edition, rather than being the longest until 5e overtook it.

On a related note, I feel so bad for 4e fans. Their game is always getting used as a punching bag, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it!

So, so, so much!

Guys (and girls), remember that this isn't a thread about Dungeons & Dragons various editions, so take this off-topic bickering elsewhere.

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

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

Will subsequent APs and books have a Pathfinder Remastered logo?

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

Assuming the work is not finished, is there a possibility for adding a accessibility feature?, I'm referring to the use of Metric system along the Imperial one, something like every time a distance or a weight is called in the rules it could be displayed in both units like 10f(22m). If it's not to much to ask.

I'm referring to the use of Metric system along the Imperial one, something like every time a distance or a weight is called in the rules it could be displayed in both units like 10f(22m). If it's not to much to ask.

There generally aren't weights in the game and adding meters would add a LOT of ink to the game and most likely some reformatting [every range, every range increment, maps {squares and other distances} and miscellaneous rules]. I'm a BIG NO for this, if for no other reason, I have to go back and edit them out when I copy/past things into a list or character sheet.

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

I'm sad that I will never get Neutral Champions now.

At the same time, I have hope that we can finally get Champions of Abadar that are not Holy(Good)/Unholy(Evil), or Champions of Gorum that are not Unholy (Evil).

Aaron Shanks wrote:

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

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

Will subsequent APs and books have a Pathfinder Remastered logo?

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

Assuming the work is not finished, is there a possibility for adding a accessibility feature?, I'm referring to the use of Metric system along the Imperial one, something like every time a distance or a weight is called in the rules it could be displayed in both units like 10f(22m). If it's not to much to ask.

Which might be great but I also vote they get the conversions right.

Most people can count 1, 2, 3

I thought it went 1, 2, many, lots... Are we all sure about this "3?"

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

How about "Player Core, Part 2"?

On a related note, I feel so bad for 4e fans. Their game is always getting used as a punching bag, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it!

I actually really, really liked 4E mechanically. The monster stat blocks were a dream from the DM's point-of-view.

But I'll be damned if WotC didn't do everything they could to sabotage that game...

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

On a related note, I feel so bad for 4e fans. Their game is always getting used as a punching bag, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it!

I actually really, really liked 4E mechanically. The monster stat blocks were a dream from the DM's point-of-view.

But I'll be damned if WotC didn't do everything they could to sabotage that game...

1000% this.

I'm not buying pf2 ever, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd name a second phb as Advanced Player Guide. Of course, in my opinion, nothing should be in the second phb to make it "core."

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

On a related note, I feel so bad for 4e fans. Their game is always getting used as a punching bag, even in discussions that have nothing to do with it!

I actually really, really liked 4E mechanically. The monster stat blocks were a dream from the DM's point-of-view.

But I'll be damned if WotC didn't do everything they could to sabotage that game...

I feel like it was mostly an issue of trying so hard to get the computer gaming crowd that they simply didn't even look at the ttrpg crowd. As I said before, I think it's a great minis wargame, but it basically has nothing to support any kind of gameplay that isn't found in computer gaming.

Of course there are some who claim otherwise but I think those folks are the ones who feel constrained to treat guidelines like laws (golden handcuff syndrome) and thus were happy to be "free" to handle non-combat without all the mechanics, but that's not 4e supporting non- combat play, it's just leaving it up the gm to handle. And to be fair, if a gm is somehow uncomfortable with guidelines (Ive met more than a few but I don't understand the problem) then the lack of mechanics is a benefit.

The combat-as-sport is also taken to extreme level and the mechanics are often dissociative. Play Neverwinter for a while and see just how little difference there was between the 4e mechanics at the table vs the mmo and yet Neverwinter feels very much like refined Wow with a coat of paint.

Of course, I use a system for the casually simulationist guidelines. Without that I have no use for a system, for a roleplaying game anyway, hence my aversion to pf2 and 5e.

I'm not buying pf2 ever, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd name a second phb as Advanced Player Guide. Of course, in my opinion, nothing should be in the second phb to make it "core."

That's not going to happen because there already is an Advanced Player's Guide for 2E.

If you look at the current CRB and APG as "book 1" and "book 2", then as far as classes go they took one class (witch) out of book 2 and put it in book 1, and 5 classes (alchemist, barbarian, champion, monk, sorcerer) out of book 2 and put them in book 1. Of course, there's probably a lot of other things that got moved around, too.

I'm confident that the new "core" books will have a paragraph or two on their back covers clarifying what is in them and what other books (if any) are recommended. Furthermore, online booksellers like Paizo and Amazon will also have that same text (or more).

Previous Paizo rulebooks have this. My 5e hardcover Player's Handbook has it. Every ebook and most other things I've bought from Amazon have it.

I would not count on that for Amazon. Take a look at their current product listings for 1st Edition Pathfinder Pocket editions vs 2nd edition pocket editions. I had to warn 2 people from my public table off of accidentally buying the 1st ed pocket books in their attempts to find print books this last month.

My only real issue with PC1 vs PC2 is that PC2 will (according to the current product page) be smaller, not have all the core rules needed to play, yet be the same price as PC1. However, I understand that there is a kind of set price based on overall size and page count ranges for hardcovers these days (at least if you want properly bound ones that will not fall apart).

Still, I think it would be nice if PC2 had all the rules of PC1 as well, then a player could simply by the one that had their favorite class and be ready to play. But I get why that could make them unwieldy.

Player Core Expansion 1 (to go with Player Core 1) could make more clear sense, honestly.

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

It sounded as if it is largely or even entirely optional. For example, if your character feels strongly about the whole good/evil debate, you would pick the "tenets of holiness" or something, making you "holy". If your character was just a farmer somewhere that only wants to protect their home and doesn't much care about Above or Below, there probably will be other options.

I'd also like it if there was a third category called something like "suggestions" that has no mechanical tie-ins. Things that aren't strongly anathema or edict, but rather something people of your general persuasion are likely to do. Probably too space intensive to justify, but I always like RP advice, because I'm frankly terrible at anything that isn't "the good guy" and "the Foundling Gambit".

I also think 'Player Core Expansion' is a strong title and much better than 'Player Core 2'.

I dislike 'Monster Core', because it's a little simplistic, sounds like a music genre and is already the title of a series of fantasy erotica by one "Dante King" (google it).

I also think 'Player Core Expansion' is a strong title and much better than 'Player Core 2'.

I dislike 'Monster Core', because it's a little simplistic, sounds like a music genre and is already the title of a series of fantasy erotica by one "Dante King" (google it).

No. I refuse.

I'd like it if you could pick multiple Edicts/Anathemas, and are encouraged to write your own. It'd be a shame if they really do just introduce nine new "tenants" that are alignment in all but name. I like the idea of that being part of the new system, but I got really excited at the thought of it being modular. You can take a "holy" Edict and an "unholy" Edict, reflecting that you have kind of complicated values, a mix of good and bad. The book could offer a wide selection of edicts and anathemas tied to the various new alignmenty traits.

If it's just gonna be nine premade sets, that's a bummer. It's fine, it just feels like a huge missed opportunity.

Apologies if this has been said before, I tried to search for my question but couldn’t find anything.

I’m starting to get back into Pathfinder again and while I know which books will begin to use the ORC (Rage of Elements I think), I was wondering what adventure path/adventure modules will start to begin using the ORC? I wasn’t sure if it was mentioned or it’s TBD.

Thanks!

I'd like it if you could pick multiple Edicts/Anathemas, and are encouraged to write your own. It'd be a shame if they really do just introduce nine new "tenants" that are alignment in all but name.

Yeah, I also like the idea of creating your own Edicts and Anathema as part of the character.

I do think there are going to be some premade ones that will have mechanical impact. But I think we could go even farther than just the two alignment axis directions.

I like the idea of three pairs. Holy/Unholy and Order/Chaos being two of the pairs so that we don't break things from alignment. Then something else to go with it. I'm not sure exactly what though. My first thought is something like Social/Independent, but Independent player characters don't really work well - the party comes together if the PCs want to be part of the team.

The good news is, I have a feeling my idea is gonna be easy to homebrew in as a variant. Instead of a bunch of tenants, you have 5-10 Edicts and Anathemas per alignment trait to choose from, and you can mix and match however you like at GM discretion--or design your own.

I dunno. I'm really excited for the new rules. I'll stop talking about it now, though. XD

I was wondering what adventure path/adventure modules will start to begin using the ORC? I wasn’t sure if it was mentioned or it’s TBD.

I'm not aware of any official statement on it.

My best guess is that the adventures that have already been published will only have their license updated if it gets republished - which I haven't heard any plans to do.

I would also think that any AP and other adventures that are published after the ORC license is finalized will be published under that license. As far as I have heard, the ORC is in review stages, but hasn't been completed and released yet.

I dunno. I'm really excited for the new rules.

Same. Alignment has been lacking IMO for a while now. I'm excited to see something new.

I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned they originally planned a "D" step called "Destiny" which would be the four free ability boosts.

For my own purposes of memorizing the steps, I always think of a "D" step called "Details", for doing the boosts and filling out the rest of the character sheet. Then into "E"/"Equipment".

Lost opportunity to call it D is for Dump two stats. Just start at 12 and instead of boost 4 it becomes dump two!

then you have abcdef, ancestry, background, class, dump, equipment, finalize

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

How about More Core and Hard Core.

Mythraine wrote:

I'm also in the camp that Player Core 2 is a bad name. While all the core book names are a bit uninspired, I defintiely understand the naming conventions for Player Core, GM Core and Monster Core.

But if we have Player Core 2 (and we know in advance that it is coming), the front cover for the first one should be Player Core 1.

IMO, naming them so litereally is to make it obvious that you need (or at least want) them to play based on what role you are (player or GM).

But if the two player books are Player Core (withouth the 1), and Player Core 2, then I feel there is confusion, and most people would say, you only NEED Player Core (with the rules of how to play plus 8 classes). So in this case, the second book being Player Core Expansion makes more sense anyway.

If the idea is to say players will need both, then I feel it should be Player Core 1 and Player Core 2.

So put me down as one more vote for Player Core Expansion.

How about More Core and Hard Core.

Er...gross? (I mean...nothing good comes from using the second one...)

The combat-as-sport is also taken to extreme level and the mechanics are often dissociative. Play Neverwinter for a while

I played a s!@@ton of Neverwinter back when it first came out, it plays nothing like 4e.

If you look at the current CRB and APG as "book 1" and "book 2", then as far as classes go they took one class (witch) out of book 2 and put it in book 1, and 5 classes (alchemist, barbarian, champion, monk, sorcerer) out of book 2 and put them in book 1. Of course, there's probably a lot of other things that got moved around, too.

The 5 classes came out of book 1 and went to book 2, of course. Sheesh.

For the alignment system, the more I think about how the move away from it is being described, the more it grows on me. However, I do hope that there’s not just a replacement of good and evil with holy and unholy so that there can be a broader understanding of the good and the evil that is not necessarily bound up with a spiritual dynamic.