Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Interesting note back to the "cultivator" discussion: There is art on the "Celebrating Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month" blog that is labeled as being a cultivator.

Whether or not Pathfinder ever adopts that specific term as a mechanical construct, the power of entertainment and media to introduce us to new concepts and archetypes is great. I welcome new words that make me learn new things and think the Remaster project is an excellent opportunity to seed those things through. Doubly so since they are hiring people from diverse backgrounds to write about things inspired by their own cultures.

I frequently add monsters that are three or four or even 5 levels lower to dungeons and encounter spaces once PCs are up around 7+ level. Narratively, it usually makes sense for a bully to have minions they can easily push around. Mechanically, it makes infiltration encounters more fun because specialized PCs will pretty reliably out roll them but non specialists will still have a high enough chance if failure to require planning around.

In combat encounters, they will be crit easily and be very susceptible to spells, but can provide flanking, run for help, activate environmental hazards, threaten NPCs, and provide aid to each other/their bosses that can make encounters very dynamic. I think APs avoid it primarily for page count, because tactically, they need things to do other than attack and fight to the death or they get very boring, but the value of every +1 or +2 makes facing 8 creatures, only 2 of whom are substantial threats the PCs a pretty tacticall engaging encounter.

What doesn’t work game mastering in PF2 is throwing a level +5 enemy (or even a level +3 enemy) arbitrarily at a party that wants to kill them all dead and has no complex objective that would be better served by giving the players a chance to live/negotiate. Knowing whether players will enjoy facing some creatures that fighting is a losing strategy is something that takes time for GMs to figure out and varies from group to group. As is figuring out how often to use such encounters. But I have had a lot of success combining all of this together in games where players fight a rolling encounter against many lesser foes and then get sense that something very powerful is on the way. Do they run and return after learning just enough to know how to defeat it next time? Do they stay and negotiate? Have they already figured out a strong strategy for how to handle the boss and have their kryptonite ready? These can all be successful strategies and GMing PF2 encounters is an amazingly fun and easy thing to do once you get a feel for the system.

But the 3 action economy does make some player strategic es very, very dangerous against higher level enemies, so use them sparingly until you get a feel for your players, their tactics, and how to give NPC things to do other than be perfect tactical murder machines. If you want to run NPCs that way, stick to much lower level enemies and show your players how effective tactics can be.

I think part of the problem here is that some of us feel attracted to a number, so being able to say that an encounter is "party level +4" almost matters more than the actual experience.

PF1's encounter building system places less priority on monster levels being a
precisely accurate, so it's quite true that in PF1, it's a lot easier to run an encounter that is technically "party level +4" and have it be a dangerous, but survivable encounter. In PF2, you can run an encounter with a similar experience, but the number that you see on the box is going to be "party level +1", and that feels less satisfying if you want to feel like you're basically ignoring the party level and creating a world where they can run into anything.

I think that if you ignore the numbers, and focus on the experience, you'll find that PF2 is quite satisfying to design encounters for. But if it's not for you, that's fine. Both games have their strengths and weaknesses.

Also, Unicore, thank you for your post! I've never thought about the benefits of using low level NPCs in that way, but I think I will give it a shot!

I remember when the monks were called mystics.

I suppose the +7 enemy might even be a +20000, since you won't probably make a check against the enemy DC.

Talking about infiltration, stealth vs perception.

I like to give enough info to players to make themselves aware of the enemy's power, although it might always be interpreted in a different way.

"They say that dragon killed an army"

Might lead to

"We will even be more glorious!"

I think a deadly encounter ( +4 ) might be the perfect match, giving them a slight chance ( or moderate, if min maxing party) of survival, if they decide to go for it.

Or, at least, the characters should have some way to know what are the odds, more or less.

Just make monk Charisma-based and rename it to dancer. Problem solved. ;)

Also screw all the ideas for names here's the new naming scheme:
Generic Stabby Person
Really Extra Stabby Stabby Person
Sneaky Stabby Person
Nature Stabby Person
Punchy Stabby Person
Religious Stabby Person
Generic Nerd
Nature Nerd
Marching Band Nerd
Chemist Nerd
Charismatic Nerd

I have played a book and a half of Age of Ashes, all of Fall of Plaguestone, and a few battles of Extinction Curse and Agents of Edgewatch.

In my experience, a level +2 enemy is a very challenging battle that can only be won through mastery of tactics and resource management and good decision making.

A +3 enemy it doesn't matter what tactics or decisions you make. The battle is just a slog where you feel ineffective at anything you attempt. The combat deteriorates to a question of, 'can you do enough chip damage to bring the monster down before it kills the last of your party members?'

For grins and giggles, I once ran a one-off battle that was even more unbalanced. Three players each had two level 4 characters each (3 fighters, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue). They went up against two level 9 Elven bridge guards (NPC Ranger and Magus). The two level 9 Elves TPK'd the six character party in two rounds. No joke. No hyperbole.

There are plenty of people on here who make a stand that starting with a +3 in your primary stat is a big problem. And most everyone agrees that starting with +2 or lower in your primary stat is enough to make the character not feel fun to play.

So sure, you can add some randomness to your ability score generation. But in PF2 it comes with a steep cost.

It can be fun to play such a character in a one-shot or something like that. But I wouldn't want to play through a 10-level or 20-level AP like that. Certainly not one like Age of Ashes.

I'm currently running Age of Ashes and we are just about at the end of book four. When we started I gave my players the option to use the normal stat generation method or roll 3d6 to get a base and then add boosts normally (max of 18 at level one). Six rolled, two used the standard method. Two PCs ended up with a score of 4 in an ability, and they've roleplayed these weaknesses well. We've had plenty of fun so far, with two PC deaths (one permanent, one was brought back) along the way. The one PC that died permanently used the standard method. There have been some close fights for them, and there have been some easy fights as well. It seems to balance out in my experience. I do modify encounters because of the higher PC count (max was five, it is four currently), but almost always keep the encounter severity the same as listed in the book. This is anecdotal, of course, but worth mentioning.

When we started I gave my players the option to use the normal stat generation method or roll 3d6 to get a base and then add boosts normally (max of 18 at level one).

That is not how the PF2e alternate rolling rule works, you do not add boost normally, instead it gives you less AB boosts. What was your total number of start boost. The standard ABCD method usually results in nine boosts less flaws.

If they did normal boosts with rolling they was likely OP boost count.

It's important to note that one shots are intro adventures designed to showcase the game.

As a result, the higher level danger encounters have some sort of mechanism to overcome potential lethality that a home campaign might not.

EDIT: Which brings up a Remaster concern -- will they still 'fit' after Remaster?

Removed posts were off topic or harassing, and their quotes.

I'm really looking forward to Paizo being able to do a lot more without looking over their shoulder. I imagine they'll need to still be careful to avoid writers accidentally slipping D&D-isms into their work, but we will be able to have stuff like kholo show up more naturally. It'll be cool to see what PF2 looks like five years down the road!

It's important to note that one shots are intro adventures designed to showcase the game.

As a result, the higher level danger encounters have some sort of mechanism to overcome potential lethality that a home campaign might not.

EDIT: Which brings up a Remaster concern -- will they still 'fit' after Remaster?

You seem confused on what the Remaster is, it does not change the game math balance like a new edition will, the game math balance is identical.

They are reconcepting things that are OGL terms: replacing alignment with morality traits, replacing ability scores with bonuses - which was already done in beginner box, replacing chromatic/metallic dragons with magic tradition dragons, and errating some classes that are overdue

One shots will be the same one shot difficulty, just referring to a ORC monster instead of an OGL monster

That game balance is very different from other D&D/PF1e editions, because of new math balance design that adds level and critical ranges so that bosses turn into a triple crit fest of double damage. That is what makes a +/-1 step levels in difficulty, which is absolutely not the case in other editions. Changing from 18(+4) strength or +4(18) strength to just +4 strength cannot possibly change the game math balance.

But rolling scores and starting with 3 or 15 bonuses instead of 9 bonuses, is the same as being +/-1 levels. Which means it is in fact a step change in difficulty. That does not mean your group can or cannot take it, even Paizo admits that player team work skills might amount to +/-1 levels same as being off +/-1 players so if that is the case adjust their average skill four player target balance (using solid encounter/npc rebalancing GMG tools) This is absolutely not the case in other editions where +/-1 level or characters is not even noticed especially when you only have 5% or , especially when CR math balance is just a fantasy and there is only only have 5% or .25% odds of crit vs a boss that crits 80% of the time on multiple attacks.

Another one here who has never heard of Cultivator. Of course one can use Google though it’s also kind of proving how obscure a term is if it needs to be looked up online. If someone asks what a Mobk is I can reference movie with Bruce Lee, Jackie Chen and Jet Li. Not as easy to do with Cultivator .

Three of my friends only one knew because he is an heavy manga reader. The other two obe thought is was a Druid class the other a machine that breaks the earth in a garden.

Not every monk cultivates Ki energy or seeks immortality. It is a route a player can go, but is not the default class narrative.

Part of the issue is that the class narrative for many core classes is all over the place and sometimes covering similar mechanical niches that don’t necessarily have strong narrative ties. Martial Artist is definitely the most accurate phrase possible, but also really should cover fighters, and the fighting side of every martial class. Learning how to sneak attack is a martial art too, especially when it is a skill that rouges have to practice and improve, and can never actually stop practicing and improving without retraining out of the class. More so than any other “rogue” like narrative feature, the art of maximizing damage against a distracted foe is the most consistent and defining aspect of the class. Yes, you will also be good at “skills” but that is sort of like saying, “this class specializes in being proficient!” It is a broad and general term that doesn’t narratively mean a unified concept. Class names are mostly about trying to cover a broad range of character narrative concepts into categories that can be mechanically balanced against each other. Classless games have to individually balance every single player option against each other and have to account for every possible combination of everything, which can result in very restrictive character concepts, or the illusion of open-ended concepts, that in practice either spread themselves too thin to get the powerful options available with high levels, or else become too powerful because the games options are overly front loaded.

It is interesting that the word monk got tied to eastern philosophies of aesthetic practices and not western ones in D&D fantasy lore. 70s and 80s martial arts films really brought out the most fantastical imaginations of “meditate and get super human combat abilities” from eastern philosophies. But it isn’t like such ideas were/are limited to eastern spiritual practices. I think eastern philosophies connecting spirituality with capacity for violence are easier to “play with” conceptually for western audiences because the legacy of warfare and violence that developed them feels less personally historically relevant as the period of time where that was rampant in Europe, with the crusades and the dark ages. “Dedicate your entire life to becoming a fighting machine” is creepy in real life, but it is pretty much the premise of every character class in a combat heavy RPG like D&D or Pathfinder.

Let's just call them Flurriers.

Let's just call them Flurriers.

Monk => Flurrier

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Let's just call them Flurriers.

Monk => Flurrier

Wild Shape Druid => Furrier
Barbarian => Furier
Rogue => Filleter
...

Trapper Ranger => Furrier, but the other kind

Let's hope the devs take that chance to add a "Physical" trait to ancestry feats to make it clear what we can get or not with adopted ancestry and that mounted combat get some attention too because right now it's an almost neglected option. ( Let the reach work as normal and don't reduce the damage category for jousting)

I do not foresee any name-changing for Classes in Remastered. Simply because the non-Remastered rulebooks will still be referencing the Classes by their usual name.

Again, Brawler is right there.

I do not foresee any name-changing for Classes in Remastered. Simply because the non-Remastered rulebooks will still be referencing the Classes by their usual name.

Yeah. In fact, I thought I heard official confirmation that they are definitely not changing any class names. I don't remember which of the videos it was in though.

We should start a thread for coming up with alternative class names. It's kind of fun, but pretty off-topic.

Instead of talking about monk/barbarian renames we need to discuss what Paizo should rename the fighter. Not because it's problematic, but because the name sounds terrible.

The biggest problem I will have is removing alignment, I've been playing since 1977 so it is pretty ingrained in me.

Instead of talking about monk/barbarian renames we need to discuss what Paizo should rename the fighter. Not because it's problematic, but because the name sounds terrible.

Fighter => Ferrier because it carries the team

The Raven Black wrote:

I do not foresee any name-changing for Classes in Remastered. Simply because the non-Remastered rulebooks will still be referencing the Classes by their usual name.

Yeah. In fact, I thought I heard official confirmation that they are definitely not changing any class names. I don't remember which of the videos it was in though.

It was the Roll for Combat video where they interviewed Eric Mona. He said something to the effect of how it would be nice to rename the Barbarian to Berserker, but that would be beyond the scope of what the Remaster is meant to do since this is not a new edition.

The biggest problem I will have is removing alignment, I've been playing since 1977 so it is pretty ingrained in me.

LOL I've been paying since the blackmoor pamphlets and I've been waiting this long for alignment to just die already! It's way over do for an 'old yeller'.

The difference is that learning C has applications and rewards for learning it, since other languages are highly related to it and/or were influenced by it. In contrast, ability scores serve two functions in PF2e, to my knowledge.
Both of which are entirely superfluous.

Ability scores:
>Determine whether or not your character is eligible for multiclass dedications. Thing is, every multiclass archetype requires a 14 of the class's relevant key ability scores, which could be easily replaced by a +2.
>Determine whether or not you ignore a piece of armor's Check Penalties and 5 ft. of their Speed penalties. But, much like the last, all of the Strength score requirements are even numbers, thus easily replaceable by its equivalent modifier.

True, but please let me mourn for the ideology of Simulationism getting bullied everywhere...

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).

Agree strongly. Frankly I care less about the old score system being gone, but I'd like to equate "no ability" to a 0(zero), not an arbitrary -5...

Hasn't it also been scientifically proven that our brains are pretty good at understanding the relativity of situations and numbers?

It's not that a +0 represents "no ability," it represents "average," as in "compared to this stock photo of the perfectly average Golarion being you are +/-0 away from them."

The difference is that learning C has applications and rewards for learning it, since other languages are highly related to it and/or were influenced by it. In contrast, ability scores serve two functions in PF2e, to my knowledge.

Both of which are entirely superfluous.

Ability scores:
>Determine whether or not your character is eligible for multiclass dedications. Thing is, every multiclass archetype requires a 14 of the class's relevant key ability scores, which could be easily replaced by a +2.
>Determine whether or not you ignore a piece of armor's Check Penalties and 5 ft. of their Speed penalties. But, much like the last, all of the Strength score requirements are even numbers, thus easily replaceable by its equivalent modifier.

There is also the incredibly niche case of drawing The Dullard from a deck of many things, which causes you to lose 1d4 from your Int score, rather than checking the modifier. Those are all the cases I could find.

Hasn't it also been scientifically proven that our brains are pretty good at understanding the relativity of situations and numbers?

It's not that a +0 represents "no ability," it represents "average," as in "compared to this stock photo of the perfectly average Golarion being you are +/-0 away from them."

Has it?

And one of my points is that +0 no longer represents average (nor does 10/11). It'd be fine if it did, yet mechanics suggests that one's Ancestry & Background (and perhaps more) increases this while actual "normal citizen" NPCs seldom have below 0 alongside several scores above.
Of course to be backwards compatible, Paizo probably shouldn't add a DC shift to compensate, which is why I'd like a sidebar explaining what these stats actually would look like in reality (or fantasy using iconic examples). Given level being added to proficiency which then effects skills, I'm unsure there is a good approximation, i.e. Athletics overshadows Strength for many physical accomplishments.

Also screw all the ideas for names here's the new naming scheme:

Generic Stabby Person
Really Extra Stabby Stabby Person
Sneaky Stabby Person
Nature Stabby Person
Punchy Stabby Person
Religious Stabby Person
Generic Nerd
Nature Nerd
Marching Band Nerd
Chemist Nerd
Charismatic Nerd

And now I want to see a Really Extra Stabby Stabby Person option to have an Instinct that uses Nerd Rage . . . .

And one of my points is that +0 no longer represents average (nor does 10/11). It'd be fine if it did, yet mechanics suggests that one's Ancestry & Background (and perhaps more) increases this while actual "normal citizen" NPCs seldom have below 0 alongside several scores above.
Of course to be backwards compatible, Paizo probably shouldn't add a DC shift to compensate, which is why I'd like a sidebar explaining what these stats actually would look like in reality (or fantasy using iconic examples). Given level being added to proficiency which then effects skills, I'm unsure there is a good approximation, i.e. Athletics overshadows Strength for many physical accomplishments.

Your ancestries and background increase your scores because with each of them you are deviating further from "average blob of Golarion thing" into "individual". Even your average-joe citizen might have a +2 to their strength if they lifted boxes all day for a job, even if they didn't work out all day on the weekends as well.

A "normal citizen" isn't representative of an average Golarion being because they are a small group of all of the "statted" things in Golarion, typically things that are empowered and "living" in one way or another, usually via positive or negative energy. Plants, undead, golems, dragons, the tiniest to largest elementals, all of that is taken into account.

I'm using "average" here to mean a true abstraction of everything equaling out, not "pull any citizen off the street" kind of average. Which is why I agree that there should be a sidebar, because that kind of average isn't always intuitive when you forget to consider that that means EVERYTHING on Golarion, including the plants and wild animals and dragons and giants and such.

The difference is that learning C has applications and rewards for learning it, since other languages are highly related to it and/or were influenced by it.

Except that's only a part of C's advantage. It also gives a much greater understanding of what's happening at lower levels and thus how to utilize that to make the program better in some way or to shift certain priorities such as to favor speed over memory use or vice versa.

One thing I noticed in programming class is that the other students get so focused on the language itself that they don't even notice their ignorance to what lies under the language and why it matters.

And another difference between code and games is that in games, few players will ever recognize the advantage of greater depth unless they started with deeper games. Few players who start simple will ever consider reducing that simplicity because the major reasons to do so are not obvious and difficult to understand without personal experience, therefore in games, players who start start simple will near always resist increasing depth.

As opposed to programming where someone may start to delve deeper into lower level languages out of need for greater efficiency or the ability to utilize some trick that their known languages can't handle.

Thus, in games, players are generally only motivated to seek more complex systems if they started with complex systems and therefore have personal experience with the benefits. In coding , there are always external pressures that can motivate one to learn more difficult languages.

In contrast, ability scores serve two functions in PF2e, to my knowledge.

Ability scores was just one place where simplicity is taking over and the argument is against too much simplicity.

As I said before, benefits need not be purely mechanical to be worthwhile. Being more communicative and descriptive for example. Another example is the familiarity of it and the ease with which we can bring back old mechanisms, such as pf1 encumbrance and weight lifting capabilities (cause I know I don't like the new encumbrance)