Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Also god, I'm so frustrated (despite understanding it is likely due to pagecount) by splitting the GM and PH - We don't need more excuses for 5e converts to not read the GM rules and just decide "we need to homebrew!"

I'm not convinced that it will actually do that. It looks like a renaming of the existing Core Rulebook and Gamemastery Guide.

But it is possible. I'm waiting to see what is actually announced fully before crying that the sky is falling though.

Removing alignment is foolish also splitting the core book into a players and GM one is also not a good idea I prefer how Paizo does it of just buying one book for both.

...B-but I like alignment :(

Fear not. I'm pretty sure that alignment will survive on as alt rules. IMO, they're probably just doing a swap with their existing alt rules for alignment so that alt are primary and alignment is alt. It should be a trivial lift for you to keep using alignment.

Was wondering when the ORC was going live - great to see it sooner than later!

A most interesting turn of events. Looking forward to some list of erratas in the near future, but I'll be definitely picking all those books up.

Will this make an early access at Gencon?

No, but the books will have been sent to the printer several weeks before and it's not inconceivable that we may have some printer samples to display at Gen Con. Would certainly be very cool.

Ravien999 wrote:

Also god, I'm so frustrated (despite understanding it is likely due to pagecount) by splitting the GM and PH - We don't need more excuses for 5e converts to not read the GM rules and just decide "we need to homebrew!"

I'm not convinced that it will actually do that. It looks like a renaming of the existing Core Rulebook and Gamemastery Guide.

But it is possible. I'm waiting to see what is actually announced fully before crying that the sky is falling though.

If you're houseruling, chances are you have the GMG. Although I've personally only skimmed its contents. Still reading the setting books that preceded it... Getting an idea of how to describe/articulate important things in my home campaign setting seems more important than fussing with the GMG atm.

Several companies have d5s, d7s, and d16s on the market (along with d30s and d60s).

DCC uses that. Sadly, it's very "OSR" in styling, so I don't play it. But it's designed around the full gamut of dice sizes. Prices have come down a lot on the weird sizes, but they're still up there. I think it's still fair to focus on the standard "poly 7" set.

So I really doubt Paizo would pick up that kind of thing in just an "errata and licensing" update.

Good luck, Paizo! Glad you won't have the Wizards of Damocles hanging over your head anymore. It'll also be nice that the rules will be getting a good once-over for improvements in hindsight.

YES!!!

Yay for iteration — why build monoliths that crumble after a decade!? This is what PF needs to stay relevant, vibrant, engaging.

I love everything about this!

So... When can we get the books?

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

Looking forward to the updates. I'll be picking up another set, even though I have a complete set of hardcovers to date. Hopefully we get some more love for existing classes in the form of new class feats and character choices within the existing classes.

I think splitting the player core and gamemastery core in particular is a good idea. While it is convenient having everything in one purchase, a new player being handed that chonk of a corebook can easily be overwhelmed.

So... When can we get the books?

From this very blog post:

The first two books, Pathfinder Player Core and Pathfinder GM Core, release this November, with Pathfinder Monster Core (March 2024) and Pathfinder Player Core 2 (July 2024) completing the remastered presentation of Pathfinder’s core rules.

A decimal edition "remaster", I didn't expect something THAT big .O_o;;

Now I go back to wait for the wordings of ORC to be released...

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

Cover not Final, I assume

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

From a minor sentence in the posting, it looks like they may have moved the class definitions for the APG classes into the core book.

Losing alignment is big because it conveys a ton of info to a GM in just 1-2 characters.

I mean, we can usually guess at it by reading all the description, but sometimes you just want to know if a mook is a bad guy, not his whole life story.

Any changes to champions to go with the alignment removal?

EDIT: maybe necromancy (the undead raising part) is finally freed from the chains of the evil alignment?

Are things like divine lance which deals alignment damage also going away then?

We can hope that it goes away and gets replaced with something better which (a) allows divine sorcerers to be blasters too and (b) doesn't unduly nerf clerics of neutral gods.

Ansr wrote:

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

Cover not Final, I assume

None of those covers are final; Stay tuned!

CorvusMask wrote:

...B-but I like alignment :(

I don't like alignment personally, but I don't think its a matter of your preference versus my preference. Chances are that alignment is considered a mechanic that might be indefensible in the court if Wizards decided to sue Paizo over using their brand identity. The concept of, "a mechanic that measures your goodness" is definitely a game mechanic that probably couldn't be sued over, but using that rule and calling it alignment could be argued as D&D product identity, and it's probably easier to trash it as a result.

Strange, since my recollection is that the original D&D got a lot of their alignment stuff from Elric of Melniboné and other similar book series. The first book of that series was published in 1972. Now those books were about Law vs Chaos, but still it seems that their claim would be weak.

Honestly, I was in favor of dumping alignment in the PF2 playtest. Look forward to seeing what they do with Divine Lance cantrip since that is likely to demonstrate a lot of the changes for this.

Removing alignment without at least providing an alternative descriptor process is a bad idea.

For my two cents, not that I think this has a chance, but if this remaster make the "Proficiency without Level" rules from the Gamemastery Guide the default, then I'm 100% in on this. Pipe dream, sure, and I'm probably in a minority of people who think that is what the game really needs to do, but just getting that thought out there.

Alignment going the way of the Dodo is fine, since it's largely a vestigial limb from older versions of D&D. Other game systems have shown you can have better ways of dealing with the idea of alignment. But it will change how some classes work, as well as how some spells function.

One big benefit is that content is going to be less spaced out between several books, and instead be unified in one place. As a Starfinder fan, I'm especially aware of what a hassle it is to have vital systems, class features, and more spread out over every hardcover release.

That said: They are not going to update any of the existing PDFs with rule changes or new rules going forward.

That seriously stings, seeing as having continued up-to-date rules in PDF form was one of the big reasons for buying a PDF version of the books in addition to the printed version.

Continuing to have that information on Archives of Nethys doesn't really offset that, since there are key use-cases (and just general preference) for having PDFs.

I can understand that there is significant legwork involved in terms of editing & layout, and that having old books incorporate new text would add work.

I can also understand why Paizo is doing this. Again, as a Starfinder player, it's a significant barrier to entry to new folks, to have to tell them that the Starfinder CRB is not fully feature complete , as key things (such as Starship rules) are locked behind separate books.

For PF2E the APG is pretty much mandatory, as is Bestiary 1.

But I can't help but feel nickeled & dimed from this change, especially since I (like many folks) just got a 2E CRB earlier this year.

I purchased these books in part directly from Paizo, as part of a good faith effort to support a different game system.

I can't help but feel shortchanged, as significant rule changes are not going to be made available to me, despite having paid money for PDFs of all the affected books.

At a minimum, what I would like to see is for people who own the PDF versions of the CRB, APG, Gamemastery Guide, and Bestiary 1 to be given some kind of discount on the new versions of these books.

Ideally I would like to see them being given for free, but I recognize that editing and layout takes labor, and I don't expect the people working on these books to have to do so without pay.

The unexpected announcement to structural changes to how 2E sells books makes me incredibly wary of getting the Starfinder Enhanced book that's coming out later this year.

Because I can see 6 months down the line, Paizo announces "Starfinder Remaster", where they do the exact same thing they just did here.

"for example, Pathfinder Player Core will collect all the important rules for each of its featured classes in one volume rather than spreading out key information between the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player’s Guide."

So will this be a regular remaster? As surely in future book releases, classes will receive updates that are then again spread between multiple books and you're in the same situation as we are now.

Also a shame to rename Bestiary to Monster Core. Bestiary was cool and made it sound like an old manuscript. Monster Core just sounds like you're trying to be like Dungeons and Dragons.

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

Going by the product descriptions, the core + APG classes are going to be split up evenly between the two books, instead of Core 1 having all the CRB classes and Core 2 having all the APG classes.

Can we get a change log of what is being removed and added?

Any changes to champions to go with the alignment removal?

Yes. People will not have to feel guilty about choosing their subclass of Champion by putting down an alignment on their character sheet that they don't intend to actually play.

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

These are mock-up covers, and will be replaced when the new final covers come in.

Watch this blog in the coming days for an early peek at what they will look like!

That's nice!

I see that the rules are going to remain the same, which is great, but would there any chance to see addressed "major topics" that have been discussed all over these years?

I mean, although the rules remain the same, if they are ambiguous ( given the fact there will be some sort of 2.0 ) would be pretty convenient to have them explained the most important in a "different" way.

Or some sort of way that won't allow "interpretation".

For example Battleforms ( what a character can use or can't use while morphed ).
Or what already clarified by paizo staff on "How it's Played" channel.

Removing alignment without at least providing an alternative descriptor process is a bad idea.

For my two cents, not that I think this has a chance, but if this remaster make the "Proficiency without Level" rules from the Gamemastery Guide the default, then I'm 100% in on this. Pipe dream, sure, and I'm probably in a minority of people who think that is what the game really needs to do, but just getting that thought out there.

I'm with you. I've always wanted to do a good sandbox/west marches game and if I do so, I'll be using "Proficiency without level" and ABP exclusively...

NO MORE ALIGNMENT!

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Co-signed. At long last with a major hell yeah!

I suggest attending Jason's livestream this afternoon as well as our panels at PaizoCon (especially), which will go into greater detail on specific changes.

I feel like the Paizo website as a whole is a bit unorganized for new prospective players. I say this because I just bought the 2nd Edition of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook hardcover edition when it was on backorder. I finally received the book and was confused on if that is all I really needed to get things started.

As I started browsing the forums, I find out about this Second Edition Remaster Project. Nowhere on the main website page is this brought up or announced or discussed. I'm sure a lot of you guys who are advanced players know how to find every piece of information on this site but it is not laid out well for new visitors.

As a result, I feel like I may have wasted $60 on a book that will be replaced in 6 months.

Please update your site and better organize your book listings for newbies. It would be appreciated.

Just another quick comment to say I am a big fan of all of this and can't wait to grab myself a copy

As I started browsing the forums, I find out about this Second Edition Remaster Project. Nowhere on the main website page is this brought up or announced or discussed. I'm sure a lot of you guys who are advanced players know how to find every piece of information on this site but it is not laid out well for new visitors.

The Remaster is literally breaking news. It was just announced an hour ago.

Interesting! They're going to put Witch and Wizard in the same book. Will witch get an update?

Edit: Yeah Witches Loveeee

Jacob Jett wrote:

Several companies have d5s, d7s, and d16s on the market (along with d30s and d60s).

DCC uses that. Sadly, it's very "OSR" in styling, so I don't play it. But it's designed around the full gamut of dice sizes. Prices have come down a lot on the weird sizes, but they're still up there. I think it's still fair to focus on the standard "poly 7" set.

So I really doubt Paizo would pick up that kind of thing in just an "errata and licensing" update.

There's some 15 piece sets on Amazon for $11.50-$12. Since I revised the weapon list for my home game, I applied the new (to me anyway) dice (knowing I'll just gift some to my players).

Back in the day (A)D&D1 had a lot of 1-5, 1-7, etc., etc. rolls but these were all understood to be 2d3-1, 2d4-1, etc., etc. Which does make one wonder how much Gygax et al. really understood about statistics. 1d7 is a vastly different set of results than 2d4-1.

It would be nice to see Starfinder get the 2E update. I quit playing it after PF2E came out because going back to 1E mechanics just felt like putting on a straightjacket.

I'm in the same boat. Had fun with SF until I played PF2e in an extended game. Now it just feels clunky. I was SO hoping that SF would get a 2E update so hopefully this opens that door.

I can say with authority that we will not be adding any weird dice to the Pathfinder Core Rules as part of the Remaster Project.

Damn, Im sad because I feel I wont like this new remaster if it goes in the direction many are saying it should "Making ABP and Proficiency without level the default) plus removing alingment which I actually really enjoyed and felt very "Fantasy" to me.

Can we get a change log of what is being removed and added?

+1 to this if it's a shortlist.

Damn, Im sad because I feel I wont like this new remaster if it goes in the direction many are saying it should "Making ABP and Proficiency without level the default) plus removing alingment which I actually really enjoyed and felt very "Fantasy" to me.

No one's mentioned that those are facts. Just that alignment has been removed. However, I'm pretty sure alignment will be available as alt rules which won't be hard to apply.

Will this fix any of the things the community really wants including, but not limited to:

- Rogues with Martial Weapon Proficiency
- Alchemist Master in bombs/KAS of STR, DEX, or INT.
- Shield runes (e.g., durable?)
- New look at signet ring vs. spell attack roll runes
- Swap of warpriest to bounded caster magus style weapon/spell casting progression base chassis.
- Neutral Champions with no alignment?
- Making Free Archetype the base rule not the variant rule
- Making Automatic Bonus Progression the base rule not the variant rule.

Okay, I am good with this. I look forward to the minor changes and reorganization. I am completely cool with dropping alignment from the game.

Will this fix any of the things the community really wants including, but not limited to:

- Rogues with Martial Weapon Proficiency
- Alchemist Master in bombs/KAS of STR, DEX, or INT.
- Shield runes (e.g., durable?)
- New look at signet ring vs. spell attack roll runes
- Swap of warpriest to bounded caster magus style weapon/spell casting progression base chassis.
- Neutral Champions with no alignment?
- Making Free Archetype the base rule not the variant rule
- Making Automatic Bonus Progression the base rule not the variant rule.

God I hope not, I still don't get why people enjoy ABP so much when it basically makes playing an alchemist more boring than it usually is.

Will this fix any of the things the community really wants including, but not limited to:

- Rogues with Martial Weapon Proficiency
- Alchemist Master in bombs/KAS of STR, DEX, or INT.
- Shield runes (e.g., durable?)
- New look at signet ring vs. spell attack roll runes
- Swap of warpriest to bounded caster magus style weapon/spell casting progression base chassis.
- Neutral Champions with no alignment?
- Making Free Archetype the base rule not the variant rule
- Making Automatic Bonus Progression the base rule not the variant rule.

I kinda dislike reading "things the community really wants".

I think tha apart from a couple of them ( rogues and neutral champions ), the rest is something I wouldn't like to have ( as for FA, I like and don't like it, so making it optional is pretty good to me ).

Ravien999 wrote:

Also god, I'm so frustrated (despite understanding it is likely due to pagecount) by splitting the GM and PH - We don't need more excuses for 5e converts to not read the GM rules and just decide "we need to homebrew!"

I'm not convinced that it will actually do that. It looks like a renaming of the existing Core Rulebook and Gamemastery Guide.

But it is possible. I'm waiting to see what is actually announced fully before crying that the sky is falling though.

I agree that it could be otherwise, but it feels very much from the description that they're renaming GMG and bolting all the CRB GM content into it, especially as the product page for PC1 and PC2 have nothing about "how to run" but only "how to play"

I can say with authority that we will not be adding any weird dice to the Pathfinder Core Rules as part of the Remaster Project.

Glad to hear that Pathfinder won't use any weird dice, just the naturally occurring platonic solids as Gygax intended, because the probability teaching kits he got included those dice. /s

Red Griffyn wrote:

Will this fix any of the things the community really wants including, but not limited to:

- Rogues with Martial Weapon Proficiency
- Alchemist Master in bombs/KAS of STR, DEX, or INT.
- Shield runes (e.g., durable?)
- New look at signet ring vs. spell attack roll runes
- Swap of warpriest to bounded caster magus style weapon/spell casting progression base chassis.
- Neutral Champions with no alignment?
- Making Free Archetype the base rule not the variant rule
- Making Automatic Bonus Progression the base rule not the variant rule.

I kinda dislike reading "things the community really wants".

I think tha apart from a couple of them ( rogues and neutral champions ), the rest is something I wouldn't like to have ( as for FA, I like and don't like it, so making it optional is pretty good to me ).

People like to think their thoughts represent the community's, the one thing i hope stays optional is PwL.

I suspected the alignment part would generate some conversation.

I'm sure Jason will go into this a little deeper in today's stream, but just because we are removing the classic nine-alignement grid does not mean we are abandoning the idea of certain creatures being "good" or "evil" in a cosmic sense.

The significant majority of Pathfinder rules regarding alignment hinge on that aspect, so expect the remastered books to cover this in a way that doesn't wreck the champion or demons, for example.

But is there something to replace it?

There is reason why I made whole homebrew alignment table of "eight alignments of Community, Beneficent, Liberty, Dogma, Anarchy, Tyranny, Ego, Destruction derived from cosmic forces Radiance, Shadow, Preservation and Entropy" for my homebrew campaign idea :'D Because I really like idea of SMT type stuff and alignments being something you choose to be which makes creatures who chose same like you better.

Idea of being ALIGNED with cosmic force and getting benefits from it is so cool :'D