Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

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.

Another option that this made me think of: If we have the level restrictions on when we can boost above +4 and still require that it takes 2 boosts to do it - then what that does is changes the levels at which we only get 3 effective boosts. Instead of being at level 5 and 15 because the 4th boost is a half boost, then we have them at level 10 and 20 because we have to put two boosts into one ability in order to move it.

It is still a change to the fundamental math and is not likely to be what we end up with. But it is an option. Maybe for a houserule for people who are fundamentally opposed to remembering anything for 5 levels.

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.

IME, players tend to forget boring things such as extra bookkeeping, especially if those come late in their PCs career.

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.

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.

Making characters potentially better at tertiary activities isn't necessarily a bad thing though. Might ultimately be healthier for the game given that the difficulty in doing so is a specific complaint that comes up fairly frequently.

Removed more off topic posts.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

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.

IME, players tend to forget boring things such as extra bookkeeping, especially if those come late in their PCs career.

Ability scores themselves are nothing but extra bookkeeping.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

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.

Perhaps, but that assumes players will only ever play one game in one style. But if you introduce someone to play rpgs, there is benefit to playing multiple different kinds of rpgs in multiple styles. However, learning a very simplified version, will generally lead to new players avoiding learning new systems that are less simplified because it'll be harder to learn if they learned the simplified first.

So, if you want to encourage playing more than just one system, less simplified is better to learn first. In fact, if I was bringing in new players, I'd start with 3.5 or pf1 first, then expand to pf2/5e, among others.

It feels like forcing new players to learn the most complicated version of a rules set first is more likely to lead to fewer TTRPG players in total, rather than encourage players to enjoy more and different games. Frankly, if an unsimplified rules set causes players to bounce off a game because they learned the simplified version, that's a problem for that particular rule system to solve, not whichever system the ttrpg players entered the hobby in. There's a wealth of games simpler than Pathfinder for them to play, nobody is morally obligated to force themselves to learn GURPS or any other heavy mechanic load system.

And certainly Pathfinder2e is not obligated to keep a mechanically useless stub set of numbers just on the off chance that players may later go back to play a system that is over 20 years old.

And if they do decide to go back to a previous edition, I don't think that understanding how ability scores work is going to be the most challenging new thing that they have to learn.

Just because it is tradition doesn't mean it is valuable.

And a mechanically more complicated game is not the cause of being a more fun game.

Perhaps, but that assumes players will only ever play one game in one style. But if you introduce someone to play rpgs, there is benefit to playing multiple different kinds of rpgs in multiple styles. However, learning a very simplified version, will generally lead to new players avoiding learning new systems that are less simplified because it'll be harder to learn if they learned the simplified first.

Now, I have seen this type of idea in other circumstances where it makes more sense. When I was in college for programming classes, the college professors did things similar to that. For example, our web engineering teacher did not let us use Jquery when we were learning JavaScript. We had to do AJAX requests and other such things manually rather than using the then-new trendy framework that makes it easier. The reasoning was because the new trendy framework may not last for long and will eventually get replaced. But the concepts of how to do the programming manually would let us both understand how Jquery works as well as understanding anything (like Angular) that eventually replaces it.

While that is great in concept for programming, it doesn't really apply here. A game system doesn't have the fundamental core like programming languages and frameworks sometimes do. Jquery and Angular are both based in JavaScript. Pathfinder2e and D&D 3.5 are really not related much at all.

For one, these RPG systems are different enough in their core that it isn't like learning one will make it easier or harder to learn another.

The other point is that newer gaming systems are not likely to be more complicated than older gaming systems. Why should they be? What actual benefit does more complication add? More depth and options, certainly. But complication just for the sake of being complicated - I don't see the point.

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

Also points to sign.

If we want to continue discussing the merits of learning a more complicated older RPG system first before trying out Pathfinder2e, we should do it on a different thread.

Wiling yo give it a chance though out of all the changes not a fan of the changes to Alignment. Too often it’s “ what my character would do” is a catch phrase for players acting like a free for all with their actions at the table.

I no prefer ability scores they make it easier to visual what a player would do. 3 Str and 18 Str got me at least stands at more than -2 or + 4 , then again that may change eith time.

The other changes I will comment more when and if I purchase the Remastered Edition.

What I'd like to see addressed in PF2 is a sidebar of what's typical, as in how do these stats translate into strength levels (etc) that we understand (especially since Bulk converts so awkwardly into weight).
This isn't just a strength issue because we get low-Int creatures with godlike Wisdom. How does that play out in dialogue or problem-solving.

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings. Heck, calling something a penalty vs. a cost has shown a notable effect on our feeling about loss. (This BTW is why I abhor "feat tax" unless it's an actually useless (gateway) feat.)

Thing is both 10/11 & +0 are kinda supposed to be "normal" (so much so the much different Hero System RPGs start there too), but it's hardly baseline when normal citizens deviate so much nowadays. Most any PF2 manual laborer gets a 16 Strength, when that used to represent about 5% of the general population, w/ 18 being rare (except for heroes and their enemies of course.) Enemies at the higher end of human used to be noteworthy (yes, in there'd be an actual notation to give them a bonus).

Might as well give my two cents on this whole thing.

Alignment is long overdue for it's departure, and I'm tired of trying to make it more nuanced. If I want a system of aligning my character with something, I'll just use a better system than a grid of 9 alignments (Like the MTG color pie for example).

Ability scores: I'm privy to clearing up this, since it's obnoxious in a system that doesn't actively affect them.

Removal of OGL monsters: I will miss some, I'll probably forget others.

Dragons: Nice to see a new take on dragons, but I will miss the classic chromatic/metallic dynamic.

Perhaps, but that assumes players will only ever play one game in one style. But if you introduce someone to play rpgs, there is benefit to playing multiple different kinds of rpgs in multiple styles.

What constitutes a "style" unto itself. Is playing a D20 game where you use the ability modifiers generated from Ability scores a completely different "style" to playing one where you generate an Ability modifier?

I would say no.

I'd also argue that Ability scores are an element of character creation and not by and large game play.

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings.

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum it is trivial to change the presentation balance so min ability is +0 and you never have any negative feelings because you have a -1. The balance is the same because you change the math on both sides of the screen, of course the GM has to deal with negative feelings of negative numbers but because they already have negative feelings of they are supposed to lose the fight...I think they can handle that.

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum

Alternative Method: Rolling Ability Scores Allows PC's to have stats from 1 to 18.

krazmuze wrote:

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum

Alternative Method: Rolling Ability Scores Allows PC's to have stats from 1 to 18.

Different alternative method. Rolling Ability Bonuses to allow PC's to have bonuses from +1 to +18.

graystone wrote:

krazmuze wrote:

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum

Alternative Method: Rolling Ability Scores Allows PC's to have stats from 1 to 18.

Different alternative method. Rolling Ability Bonuses to allow PC's to have bonuses from +1 to +18.

Just gotta go get out my 18-sided die...

Just gotta go get out my 18-sided die...

Use 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4 - 2.

Ability Bonus: 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4 - 2 ⇒ (4) + (1) + (2) - 2 = 5

krazmuze wrote:

Since PCs can only take an 8 minimum

Alternative Method: Rolling Ability Scores Allows PC's to have stats from 1 to 18.

Don't you mean 3 to 18?

Use 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4 - 2

Paizo provides 18-sided dice

Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 17
Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 1
Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 13
Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 7
Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 12
Ability Bonus: 1d18 ⇒ 8

Paizo provides 18-sided dice

As does several other places on the internet. But some people just enjoy rolling actual dice that can be easily found.

"Eoran" wrote:

Use 1d10 + 1d6 + 1d4 - 2

Paizo provides 18-sided dice

[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18
[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18
[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18
[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18
[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18
[dice=Ability Bonus]1d18

Let's go back to AD&D/3.0 dice rolling scheme:

GM: Roll 4d6 dices and discard the worse for each stat

Player: GM! I rolled 3,4,3 even discarding my worse dice!

kkkkkk

Let's go back to AD&D/3.0 dice rolling scheme:

Quote:

GM: Roll 4d6 dices and discard the worse for each stat

Player: GM! I rolled 3,4,3 even discarding my worse dice!

kkkkkk

Ps.: I saw this in practice! For both extremely bad and extremely good rolls.

Using a variant of that where 1's are re-rolled immediately, I have still managed a couple of times to roll as low as 8.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Perhaps, but that assumes players will only ever play one game in one style. But if you introduce someone to play rpgs, there is benefit to playing multiple different kinds of rpgs in multiple styles.

What constitutes a "style" unto itself. Is playing a D20 game where you use the ability modifiers generated from Ability scores a completely different "style" to playing one where you generate an Ability modifier?

I would say no.

I'd also argue that Ability scores are an element of character creation and not by and large game play.

First, this little bit started when I made a comment against simplification. Ability scores being just one example of it in which someone touted simplicity as a supporting reason for the change. I was countering that reasoning, not necessarily the ability scores themselves.

Second, ability scores do not need to directly impact mechanics in order to be useful. They can still function as communicative tools.

Third, "style" as I used it in this quote, is referring to the way the mechanics are used. Take the same system but bring different expectations and perspectives and you will get drastically different play experiences even when the mechanics used are identical. Things like bringing hirelings and followers in parties of dozens is not a mechanical thing, it is a game style thing. PCs being over-the-top heroes vs underdogs desperate to simply survive is another example.

First, this little bit started when I made a comment against simplification.

Yeah, I didn’t miss the context. My question did not proceed from a place where I didn’t grasp what you were saying.

[Second, ability scores do not need to directly impact mechanics in order to be useful. They can still function as communicative tools.

What do they communicate in the context of PF2e currently?

Third, "style" as I used it in this quote, is referring to the way the mechanics are used. Take the same system but bring different expectations and perspectives and you will get drastically different play experiences even when the mechanics used are identical. Things like bringing hirelings and followers in parties of dozens is not a mechanical thing, it is a game style thing. PCs being over-the-top heroes vs underdogs desperate to simply survive is another example.

Sure, but how is that distinction you just made about play styles relevant to the concept of some D20 games keeping Ability Scores and some not keeping them?

Personally, part of the fun back in the day was dealing with a character whose stats were not all, shall we say, in the upper range of 3d6. But Pathfinder has gone in a different direction, and that's fine too. OTOH, anyone who tries to get rid of 3d6 (ish) ability scores in Hârnmaster is out of his mind. :-)

What do they communicate in the context of PF2e currently?

Well, 18 is obviously higher than 16, while 4 isn't higher than 3. Thus an 18 is obviously better than a 4.

so it is big reprint of everything

will the terrible layout of core rulebook be updated in any way

will the terrible layout of core rulebook be updated in any way

The Core Rulebook will not be changed. It will be replaced by the new books.

The information in the Core Rulebook will be spread throughout these new books. Some of the CRB information will be in Player Core 1. Some of the CRB information will be in Player Core 2. Some of the CRB information will be in GM Core.

Well, 18 is obviously higher than 16, while 4 isn't higher than 3. Thus an 18 is obviously better than a 4.

I assure you 4 is indeed higher than 3

From a communicative perspective, the old numbers could be a bit obfuscating tbh. 19 is larger than 18, so one might assume that it must be better, but in Pathfinder 19 = 18 for most practical purposes.

Additionally, having a 19 on your sheet doesn't actually translate to anything on its own and instead has to be run through a formula ((X-10)/2, rounded down) before you had a piece of information you actually used anywhere else. Which is just kind of bad practice, if a number only exists to get you to a second number through a fixed formula, then why not just start with the actually useful number.

The one way in which the current system wins for visibility is that 18>19>20 is more intuitive imo than applying half a boost to a 4.

But hopefully they use remaster to adjust how boosts work to make this better.

Grankless wrote:

Well, 18 is obviously higher than 16, while 4 isn't higher than 3. Thus an 18 is obviously better than a 4.

I assure you 4 is indeed higher than 3

That's the joke. :P

For those worried about forgetting the half-step bonus, why not just write +4½ for the ability score in between between boosts? (In case it doesn't come out right on other people's screens, that thing after the 4 is supposed to be the 1/2 symbol.)

Since it’s going to be quite a wait until the final draft of Player Core 2, and one of the stated goals of this Remastering project is to move away from OGL tropes, I do hope the Monk class will be renamed to “Cultivator”, to be more in keeping with modern Xianxia film and literature.

Aesthetically, little about this class needs to change. I presume we can expect a greater variety of weaponry to become available via the Lost Omens: Tian Xia World Guide. I also understand that there will be some remastering of the Focus Point system, which I fully support. But the name “Monk” as a class is somewhat problematic.

Perhaps “Monk” could be redesigned as a new faction archetype that gels with both the Cultivator and Cleric classes?

What I'd like to see addressed in PF2 is a sidebar of what's typical, as in how do these stats translate into strength levels (etc) that we understand (especially since Bulk converts so awkwardly into weight).
This isn't just a strength issue because we get low-Int creatures with godlike Wisdom. How does that play out in dialogue or problem-solving.

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings. Heck, calling something a penalty vs. a cost has shown a notable effect on our feeling about loss. (This BTW is why I abhor "feat tax" unless it's an actually useless (gateway) feat.)

Thing is both 10/11 & +0 are kinda supposed to be "normal" (so much so the much different Hero System RPGs start there too), but it's hardly baseline when normal citizens deviate so much nowadays. Most any PF2 manual laborer gets a 16 Strength, when that used to represent about 5% of the general population, w/ 18 being rare (except for heroes and their enemies of course.) Enemies at the higher end of human used to be noteworthy (yes, in there'd be an actual notation to give them a bonus).

The thing about PF2 is that players almost never interact with modifiers not tied to proficency so trying to use those numbers to describe appearance can be incredibly misleading. A level 6 anything with a +4 to athletics is going to look physically weak to PCs regardless of how the creature is described. Not being trained in something is just inherently such a bigger deal than attributes that even knowing attribute numbers is kinda meaningless for narratively processing mechanical descriptions of creatures.

Since it’s going to be quite a wait until the final draft of Player Core 2, and one of the stated goals of this Remastering project is to move away from OGL tropes, I do hope the Monk class will be renamed to “Cultivator”, to be more in keeping with modern Xianxia film and literature.

Aesthetically, little about this class needs to change. I presume we can expect a greater variety of weaponry to become available via the Lost Omens: Tian Xia World Guide. I also understand that there will be some remastering of the Focus Point system, which I fully support. But the name “Monk” as a class is somewhat problematic.

Perhaps “Monk” could be redesigned as a new faction archetype that gels with both the Cultivator and Cleric classes?

Ooh, you just missed a pretty modest hullaballoo over this very same topic like a week back. It was mixed in with a related argument about the Barbarian name, granted. It's probably one of the locked threads with 'renaming' in the title, though I'll avoid actively dragging that debate back up here if I can help it.

Castilliano wrote:

What I'd like to see addressed in PF2 is a sidebar of what's typical, as in how do these stats translate into strength levels (etc) that we understand (especially since Bulk converts so awkwardly into weight).
This isn't just a strength issue because we get low-Int creatures with godlike Wisdom. How does that play out in dialogue or problem-solving.

One of the quirks about +0 as baseline is it feels like a minimum. Duh that mathematically +0 +/-1 is the same as 10 +/-2 leading to +/-1, but studies show numbers like that get processed differently by our feelings. Heck, calling something a penalty vs. a cost has shown a notable effect on our feeling about loss. (This BTW is why I abhor "feat tax" unless it's an actually useless (gateway) feat.)

Thing is both 10/11 & +0 are kinda supposed to be "normal" (so much so the much different Hero System RPGs start there too), but it's hardly baseline when normal citizens deviate so much nowadays. Most any PF2 manual laborer gets a 16 Strength, when that used to represent about 5% of the general population, w/ 18 being rare (except for heroes and their enemies of course.) Enemies at the higher end of human used to be noteworthy (yes, in there'd be an actual notation to give them a bonus).

The thing about PF2 is that players almost never interact with modifiers not tied to proficency so trying to use those numbers to describe appearance can be incredibly misleading. A level 6 anything with a +4 to athletics is going to look physically weak to PCs regardless of how the creature is described. Not being trained in something is just inherently such a bigger deal than attributes that even knowing attribute numbers is kinda meaningless for narratively processing mechanical descriptions of creatures.

To further this point, even on the scale of strength, where the default assumption would be "More STR = Bigger Muscles", we know that for realistic athletes, there is no universal body type that indicates raw strength, and the bodies of athletes are incredibly diverse. It turns out even the simplest ability score there is no uniting feature among body types.

Now picture applying that to something as arbitrarily selected as the mental ability scores.

I don't think there really can be much of a "Person with this score looks like this/behaves like that" which doesn't devolve into pretty shallow archetypes of what these scores supposedly mean which erases the actual diversity of body types and/or personalities.

Since it’s going to be quite a wait until the final draft of Player Core 2, and one of the stated goals of this Remastering project is to move away from OGL tropes, I do hope the Monk class will be renamed to “Cultivator”, to be more in keeping with modern Xianxia film and literature.

...the name “Monk” as a class is somewhat problematic.

Even more problematic is that no one knows what the heck a "cultivator" even is.

"Monk," or "martial artist," or some other more recognizable term will probably make for better sales.

I don't expect we will see much change in that regard as a result.

So, although I know many folks love rolled stats, for the most part rolled stats suck because they create an inequity between members of the same party that can never be made up. When it comes to PF2, where the math is tight and every +1 makes a deep impact as it interacts with the proficiency system, the difference between someone who had a bout of good luck in a game and someone had a bout of bad luck is too grave.

The designers were correct to steer clear of rolled stats, and even more correct when they revised ancestries to allow every ancestry to have the two free boosts option for the sake of character building.

So, although I know many folks love rolled stats, for the most part rolled stats suck because they create an inequity between members of the same party that can never be made up. When it comes to PF2, where the math is tight and every +1 makes a deep impact as it interacts with the proficiency system, the difference between someone who had a bout of good luck in a game and someone had a bout of bad luck is too grave.

The designers were correct to steer clear of rolled stats,

I agree and have made that clear in the past.

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

So, although I know many folks love rolled stats, for the most part rolled stats suck because they create an inequity between members of the same party that can never be made up. When it comes to PF2, where the math is tight and every +1 makes a deep impact as it interacts with the proficiency system, the difference between someone who had a bout of good luck in a game and someone had a bout of bad luck is too grave.

The designers were correct to steer clear of rolled stats,

I agree and have made that clear in the past.

I used to use semi-random stat generation after seeing a deep imbalance between the normal martial and the "5th lowest stat was a 15" martial (though funnily enough the 6th stat was a 3 after racial penalty, so yeah, a Dwarf). I continued to use that system even as point-buy rose in popularity because that drove players towards monotone builds with an inordinate cost for straying.

Which leads me to say I love how Paizo made a stat system that allows peak performance while also adding breadth.* Sure there have been complaints about the lack of flaws, but those were abused and if desired for RPing can be self-inflicted (at least by most GMs I'd think).
Several times I've seen "this is naturally the default" PF2 stat arrays (or even "must-have" ones) that none of my dozens of prospective PCs have. So cool. The cookie cutter has been melted down and reforged. (I don't know into what, I stumbled while running with the analogy.)

*same with skills. One can specialize for your role(s), but with a little investment can contribute in other areas too.

Even more problematic is that no one knows what the heck a "cultivator" even is.

That's an overstatement: I, for instance, knew what he meant as I read manhwa/manga/manhua/light novels/web novels.

"Monk," or "martial artist," or some other more recognizable term will probably make for better sales.

Agreed. It's more recognizable to the general public.

Even more problematic is that no one knows what the heck a "cultivator" even is.

Of course I know what a cultivator is.

Ravingdork wrote:

Even more problematic is that no one knows what the heck a "cultivator" even is.

Of course I know what a cultivator is.

That's where my mind went too, or some Druid/Ranger subclass/archetype.

I don't want to start a dogpile or a derail, but I agree that "cultivator" isn't the clearest term. Let's let it lie.

So, although I know many folks love rolled stats, for the most part rolled stats suck because they create an inequity between members of the same party that can never be made up. When it comes to PF2, where the math is tight and every +1 makes a deep impact as it interacts with the proficiency system, the difference between someone who had a bout of good luck in a game and someone had a bout of bad luck is too grave.

The designers were correct to steer clear of rolled stats, and even more correct when they revised ancestries to allow every ancestry to have the two free boosts option for the sake of character building.

On the one hand, to the abyss with mathematical building. I hate it immensely.

On the other hand, I'm a designer and thus I notice that you can maintain balance and also roll, by using point buy and rolling which stat to apply each point.

Sure, you could do that right now pretty easily--just build a character and then swap the ability scores around entirely. Or roll randomly for every boost or flaw you get.

There's a reason people don't do that a lot, though. There's fun in "3d6 roll straight down" and seeing what kind of character you get, but I think most people who like rolling like it for the fun of "what if I roll an 18 or a 3". That's never going to play well in PF2, and as much as I miss my -2 ability mods? Good riddance.