Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Think we can get a remaster of pf1? I much much prefer the more holistic and naturalistic balance of the 3e derivatives.

Very Unlikely. Even if PF1 will be reprinted, remastered and make success again it will have to be completely changed in order to prevent process from WotC.

The same can be said about Starfinder. I won't be surprised if we will see a SF2 very soon.

There are at least two PF1E remasters that I have heard of. If you haven't heard of them, then that is probably why we won't be getting one from Paizo. Because it can't support the company with how little interest there is in paying for it.

Those are certainly words.

“I know words. I have the best words.”

― Donald Trump

That sounds like you don't understand something. What part was confusing?

Most likely that you're asking about updating an old product that's heavily based on a Hasbro product [and would require remaking a majority of it] in a thread about Paizo remastering its current product to get away from anything related to Hasbro products. It's quite nonsensical on its face, so the response is appropriate.

I mean, there's no reason to remaster PF1e since all PF1 products that have been and will be published by Paizo are clear under the previous OGL, largely because the "will be published" set is empty. No matter what the OGL changes to, they won't ask people to unpublish old books.

But with the OGL furor Paizo is pursuing a clean break so they need to have PF2 products going forward to be entirely without anything that might land them in court.

I'm also a little confused at what "holistic balance" and "naturalistic balance" mean, but I feel like asking is going to trigger arguments.

Someone is pining for Paladin fall, alignment and things that the creative staff doesn't want to do anymore with a PF1 remaster?

Please refrain from turning this thread into an edition comparison. Those types of discussions belong in the PF1 Rules Discussion forum.

Removed an off topic discussion that should be moved to the appropriate forum area. We have no plans to publish a P1 remaster, but community members are welcome and encouraged to do so on Pathfinder Infinite so long as their contributions are still Pathfinder compatible and dont reproduce whole-cloth large sections of our copyrighted material.

And maybe - just maybe - we can get a better name for the opposite of Chaotic than "Lawful".

Chaos, by definition, is "complete disorder". The opposite of chaos would be "order".

Well, I just re-read this entire thread. My main thought at this moment: "Well, that's four hours of my life I'll never get back."

"Waiting is. Waiting for fullness is." -- Valentine Michael Smith, the Man From Mars, in Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land

I'm also a little confused at what "holistic balance" and "naturalistic balance" mean, but I feel like asking is going to trigger arguments.

Anyone would like an explanation of this, start a thread and send me a link, then I'll explain.

There's quite a lot I'd like to say, but I want to make it quick, so I'll bullet point em.

1. If you bought the "old" versions of any books, you can look on the bright side: they're now collectors items, and still useful at that. They'll be FAR more useful than an "old" 5e book, for example.

2. People need to stop being dismissive of Archives of Nethys. Other game systems aren't giving away their rules for free. If you feel like purchasing these books isn't for you, you can still use all of their contents for free.

3. Alignment has been useful for us grognards, but let's be honest: the whippersnappers haven't been using it right for years now and it's been on its way out for a long time. If you want to still use it at your tables and in your notes, it will be trivial to do so.

4. Ability Scores actually do serve a purpose, but let's be honest: if removing them by default helps someone grok the rules better it's probably worth it to do so, and adding them back in takes a second or two.

5. Some of these quality of life changes like Wizard and Rogue proficiencies and Witch rework are incredibly exciting. Lots of things like that may not have been pushed out for years without an excuse like these books.

6. My understanding is that Paizo has avoided emphasizing dragons for the most part out of professional courtesy, since they're featured so heavily in D&D. I LOVE the fact that since WoTC believes professional courtesy is dead, Paizo is now free to explore exciting new dragon content. I'm hopeful for Paizo's new dragons to outshine WotC's.

7. Even with everything that's changing, this STILL feels like a 2.1 at most to me.

Sometimes I read WatersLethe's posts just to see if I can find one I disagree with. Haven't found one yet.

I do really wonder how "no more ability scores, just modifiers" are going to solve the "it takes two boosts to go from an 18 to a 20" issue.

Since "Writing '19' on your character sheet" is a pretty elegant solution.

I don't think "it takes two boosts" is an issue at all. Paizo wants to put a cap on the effect of ability scores on the game. They do that by requiring two boosts to get above 18 (+4). There will be some mechanism by which that cap will remain in effect. We don't know what that is. Until we do, there doesn't seem to be much point in talking about it.

The most elegant way to handle it would be to forbid modifiers of +5 until 10th level, +6 until 17th (Apex items are level 17+), and +7 until 20th.

Slap a tiny check box under every Ability Modifier box. When you try to raise it above +4, check it; when you do so a second time, uncheck it and raise it to +5. Repeat for higher modifiers.

This really isn't that complicated.

Keftiu's answer is the easiest and basically keeps the system the same as is, but adds some extra book keeping that kind of doesn't feel great.

Evan's suggestion means mechanical changes to the game, but arguably ones that might make the game better long term (and address some weirdness like certain choices changing in value based on campaign length).

I kind of like that one tbh, though I think it's less likely to happen.

The most elegant way to handle it would be to forbid modifiers of +5 until 10th level, +6 until 17th (Apex items are level 17+), and +7 until 20th.

Most of my tables have loved the gradual ability boost rule, so I don’t think I would like to see something as heavy handed as that.

I do really wonder how "no more ability scores, just modifiers" are going to solve the "it takes two boosts to go from an 18 to a 20" issue.

Since "Writing '19' on your character sheet" is a pretty elegant solution.

They COULD always really bring the math and introduce the .5 for boosts after 4 and say you always round down bonuses.

There are at least two PF1E remasters that I have heard of. If you haven't heard of them, then that is probably why we won't be getting one from Paizo. Because it can't support the company with how little interest there is in paying for it.

I know of one old one: Kirthfinder -- which actually had some pretty good ideas in it. Too bad it didn't catch on.

What's the other one?

Purple Duck Games did the Porphyra RPG.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I do really wonder how "no more ability scores, just modifiers" are going to solve the "it takes two boosts to go from an 18 to a 20" issue.

Since "Writing '19' on your character sheet" is a pretty elegant solution.

They COULD always really bring the math and introduce the .5 for boosts after 4 and say you always round down bonuses.

I suggest they go percentage. Like 18/00

Evan Tarlton wrote:

The most elegant way to handle it would be to forbid modifiers of +5 until 10th level, +6 until 17th (Apex items are level 17+), and +7 until 20th.

Most of my tables have loved the gradual ability boost rule, so I don’t think I would like to see something as heavy handed as that.

Actually, it is the exact same idea as Skill increases. And I have yet to meet someone who had a problem with those.

The most elegant way to handle it would be to forbid modifiers of +5 until 10th level, +6 until 17th (Apex items are level 17+), and +7 until 20th.

I mean, if you're suggesting that you would only need one boost to bump up to those numbers at those levels, then that increases the number of available boosts people have, meaning higher stat totals across the board and no tradeoff for specializing.

For example: I start with a +4 to Int at level 1. Normally, at level 5, I would place my half-boost to Int (for a 19, still +4) and my 3 other boosts into whatever. That effectively means that, because I want to specialize, I only have 3 real +1 boosts available to me at level 5. Then, at level 10, I get my regular 4 boosts again (as my next Int boost will bump me up to +5).
This repeats if I wish to continue on into +6, giving me a total of 14 effective +1 stat boosts since I wanted to specialize

Now, if we only have a restriction on when we can get those mods based on level and don't require two boosts, then now suddenly at level 5 I can simply choose a stat below +4 that I wouldn't have been able to before, and again at level 15 for a stat below +5. This gives me two extra +1 boosts. I'm not sure if this really is a gamebreaker, but it does fundamentally alter the way that boosts are intended to work.

"You get 14 boosts if you want a +6 or two +5s, 15 boosts if you want a +5, or 16 boosts if you stay +4" is the intended tradeoff you get for specializing vs. spreading your stats throughout the game, it seems.

I'm very much ok with having an additional 2 boosts on the board. Half-boosts have never felt good, ever, and lead to different decisions depending on how long your game runs.

I'd say get rid of them, the balance difference is minor enough to not really matter. The greatest impact will be that some people will boost their secondary stat to +5 at 10 instead of 15 (or 12 with Gradual Ability Boosts) and boost one tertiary stat by +1. This will buff (sub-)classes like warpriest, alchemist and inventor, but that seems like a bonus, if anything.

As much as I would love it too, don't get me wrong, I'm just putting that out there that it does, by definition, alter the amount of boosts that are given, and thus is probably less likely.
I don't figure that we'll get anything more than a "cosmetic" change to ability mods, as much as it'd be nice to help out inherently MAD classes.

As much as I would love it too, don't get me wrong, I'm just putting that out there that it does, by definition, alter the amount of boosts that are given, and thus is probably less likely.

I don't figure that we'll get anything more than a "cosmetic" change to ability mods, as much as it'd be nice to help out inherently MAD classes.

Yeah, I wouldn't put bets on it either. But who knows, they still have quite a few changes left unannounced and that one would be minor enough to not be included in the original announcement. Given that even shield progression is on the table, which is at least as big a deal, I wouldn't rule it out either.

4. Ability Scores actually do serve a purpose, but let's be honest: if removing them by default helps someone grok the rules better it's probably worth it to do so, and adding them back in takes a second or two.

I disagree with this, more specifically I disagree with the reasoningIn my experience, folks who learn a simplified way first have a much harder time learning the unsimplified way after. But those who learn the more difficult way first have a much easier time thereafter.

For a game, I notice this effect tends to result in players avoiding the unsimplified entirely. I theorize that is why there is such a massive lean towards easier games in total these days.

I think keftiu's approach makes the most sense, and isn't any more unintuitive than the scores were to begin with. It's also bookkeeping that doesn't come up until later levels, instead of at character creation.

As much as I would love it too, don't get me wrong, I'm just putting that out there that it does, by definition, alter the amount of boosts that are given, and thus is probably less likely.

I don't figure that we'll get anything more than a "cosmetic" change to ability mods, as much as it'd be nice to help out inherently MAD classes.

That. And also, we already have confirmation in the first announcement video that boosting above +4 will take two boosts.

WatersLethe wrote:

4. Ability Scores actually do serve a purpose, but let's be honest: if removing them by default helps someone grok the rules better it's probably worth it to do so, and adding them back in takes a second or two.

I disagree with this, more specifically I disagree with the reasoningIn my experience, folks who learn a simplified way first have a much harder time learning the unsimplified way after. But those who learn the more difficult way first have a much easier time thereafter.

For a game, I notice this effect tends to result in players avoiding the unsimplified entirely. I theorize that is why there is such a massive lean towards easier games in total these days.

The thing is - that is perfectly fine. The unsimplified ability score rules don't need to be learned by new players. Ability scores already don't have any mechanical impact in PF2 other than tracking the half boosts above +4.