Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

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.

The idea of a day laborer having a +2 is a big departure from what a +2 meant previously. A +2 is something that only 16% of people would achieve, so it's not just anybody that moves boxes all day, it the strongest guy at the docks.

The heritage of ability scores had math too, and the statistical average of 4d6 drop lowest would have the highest stat be a 13, which is still a +1.

Now paizo focuses hard on making PCs superheroes and through all their games have drifted further and further from being able to properly handle normal people.

Still, a 0 is not the average for all entities, it's the average for real world humans, skewed a bit from paizo's focus on superheroes at the expense of normal people.

Now, paizo obviously has no interest in the ability to properly represent normal people in their rules, which is fine as they've never shown any desire to focus on any themes dependent on players being normal people. That said, being able to see what normal people are like compared to PCs actually works as a tool to enhance that superhero feeling. Therefore, maintaining the ability to represent normal people has value.

Pretty sure that Paizo's stated goal is to make the remaster easier for new players, not harder, and PF1 encumbrance rules with their mind-numbing yet irrelevant minutiae of counting how many sandwiches I can carry before that one takes my character over to the next tier of encumbrance isn't in the cards.

Pretty sure that Paizo's stated goal is to make the remaster easier for new players, not harder, and PF1 encumbrance rules with their mind-numbing yet irrelevant minutiae of counting how many sandwiches I can carry before that one takes my character over to the next tier of encumbrance isn't in the cards.

First, easier does not always require simpler.

Second, I wasn't saying to outright include older encumbrance, only that it would be beneficial for that. Older encumbrance is useful for survival or merchant campaigns where tracking resources and logistics are a significant part of play, and thus useful to retain easy compatibility.

Quote:

A +2 is something that only 16% of people would achieve,

According to no one.

My apologies, 13 is normal person highest, 3d6. 15 is elite person, 4d6 drop lowest.

Quote:

and through all their games have drifted further and further from being able to properly handle normal people.

It can't drift if it didn't exist to begin with

Nope. Remember that Pathfinder started with dnd and then made tweaks, then more tweaks with starfinder, then big tweaks with pf2.

The dnd it all started with absolutely started with normal people (delving dungeons was basically a horror experience at the time, not a heroic one). Pathfinder 1 came out with the very clear shift to focus on power fantasy. Even the level 1 characters were more like level 2 characters of 3.x. PF2 basically can't do normal people without significant tweaking.

3.x was a simulationist system, with the ability score arrays literally coming from the math for rolling 3d6 for standard normal people array and 4d6 drop 1 for the elite top 10% of people array. Then characters coukd grow ftom normal person range to demigod/superhero range. This absolutely is ability to represent normal people.

PF1 didn't care about normal person like characters, and many of the tweaks made increased the feeling of playing heroic characters.

PF2 far more so.

Quote:

That said, being able to see what normal people are like compared to PCs actually works as a tool to enhance that superhero feeling.

GMs and Storytellers can do this just fine. It's called scenery.

Actually this depends on the audience and gm type. People can be roughly classed into two groups. One group cares far more about the "feeling" of things and often find too much interaction between numbers and narrative to be detracting. They can easily enjoy narrative that is paradoxical or even self contradictory.

The other group however, generally understands the narrative through logic, and therefore find that paradoxical or self contradictory situations break immersion.

The former group is pretty easy to satisfy with simple scenery as you put it. The latter group however, is harder to satisfy as consistency and logically reasonableness are much more important (and aided greatly by basing narrative on numbers).

Thus, your comment is only correct for some people, and incorrect for others.

A good GM needs to understand their audience and act accordingly. A system is tools to accomplish that.

Yeah, D&D and its offshoots, and that's rather consistent across editions including PF, are fantasy superhero game where you're a relatively mundane adventurer for 5 minutes and a teleporting Conan with magic flying boots and +50 in Diplomacy for most of the career. How that's expressed mechanically differs, but it's a fundamental difference between it and, say, Zweihander or Blades in the Dark.

Nope. Remember that Pathfinder started with dnd and then made tweaks, then more tweaks with starfinder, then big tweaks with pf2.

The dnd it all started with absolutely started with normal people (delving dungeons was basically a horror experience at the time, not a heroic one). Pathfinder 1 came out with the very clear shift to focus on power fantasy. Even the level 1 characters were more like level 2 characters of 3.x. PF2 basically can't do normal people without significant tweaking.

3.x was a simulationist system, with the ability score arrays literally coming from the math for rolling 3d6 for standard normal people array and 4d6 drop 1 for the elite top 10% of people array. Then characters coukd grow ftom normal person range to demigod/superhero range. This absolutely is ability to represent normal people.

PF1 didn't care about normal person like characters, and many of the tweaks made increased the feeling of playing heroic characters.

PF2 far more so.

Yeah, bud, I'm certainly not talking about PF1, or 3.x, or the systems that came before it. I'm talking about how ability scores are useless in PF2e, from the context of PF2e, in the game's own design. Shifting the subject over to "how things used to be" is exactly why we have this vestigial part of the system in the first place.

Not sure where the idea of 'simulationism' is coming from. I'm guessing that people have been playing so long with the same abstraction that they have forgotten that it is just an abstraction. 16 doesn't actually mean anything until and unless it is given context and relevance. Neither does +3, TBH.

Also, each gaming system has its own abstractions. PF1 is an extension of D&D 3.5, sure. But PF2 never was - as far as mechanics go. They have different abstractions.

Not sure where the idea of 'simulationism' is coming from. I'm guessing that people have been playing so long with the same abstraction that they have forgotten that it is just an abstraction. 16 doesn't actually mean anything until and unless it is given context and relevance. Neither does +3, TBH.

Also, each gaming system has its own abstractions. PF1 is an extension of D&D 3.5, sure. But PF2 never was - as far as mechanics go. They have different abstractions.

It desperately tries to be simulationist - it gives you the rules for walking on a 5cm wide slightly slippery ledge during moderate hail and -10 C at medium running speed while jumping, after all - but it fails miserably when the skills section of the ruleset (written by guy A who didn't really communicate on this with guy B who wrote combat rules and guy C who wrote classes/feats) comes into contact with the rest of the game.

Completely something that only bothers me, but I would prefer if Monks (whatever the name) were no longer Occult/Divine. I feel they'd fit better as Arcane/Occult, and be linked to the Mental essence instead of spirit. I just feel that fits both their lore and mechanics a little better (given their elemental abilities). Arcane's deep study approach even fits Monks well, over Divine's calling on a distant power.

Like I said, its a tiny thing, one I made at my own table and do not expect to actually see, but it's a single change I would make during remastery.

IMO all 4 traditions fits well for monks.
Divine fits well for monks that gets powers from outer sphere from diferente planes or deities. (Irori followers or from oriental shintoism/buddhism inspired "deities" like Akuma)
Primal fits well for monks that gets powers from inner sphere from diferente planes or elements. (monks that sincronize their spirits with the nature and elements like monks from Avatar Last Airbender monks)
Occult fits well for monks that gets powers from it's own soul or from some supernatural source (like Shang Tsung from MK)
Arcane fits well for monks that gets powers from constant study over magic itself to imbue into itself (I lack of a good example of arcane monks).

Arcane fits well for monks that gets powers from constant study over magic itself to imbue into itself (I lack of a good example of arcane monks).

Maybe the monk-like sorcerers in the doctor strange movie?

Arcane fits well for monks that gets powers from constant study over magic itself to imbue into itself (I lack of a good example of arcane monks).

I mean, all of them really. The class description as written sounds either arcane or occult to me, as those traditions are written. I could see the philosophy references stretched to cover divine, but they don’t feel that way to me.

Arcane is as much an approach to metaphysics in general as much as it is to magic. So not just study of magic, but methodical, experimental study in general falls into the Arcane IMO,

It seems to be like Divine is just a lingering vestige of monk's ties to real-world belief systems.

Irori achieved divinity through self-perfection, so it makes sense to me that monks following the same path would at least be able to obtain the divine trait. "Body and spirit" is what divine deals with, via life and spirit essences. If Monk focuses on "mind, body, and spirit" that divine and occult are the only ones that cover two of those. Primal and Arcane both have strong ties to the surrounding material world with their material essence. Within Pathfinder's framework, it makes sense to me; we just don't really see divine treated that way much elsewhere in the system. Oracles also tap into the divine without a mediating deity, but are forced to do so in an unchecked fashion.

I mean, asceticism is the defining aspect of the word monk. It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, but taking that away as an option feels off to me.

It is probably too late for PF2 unfortunately, or remastering would be the place to try to fix it, but the four traditions of magic introduced in this edition are awesome, they just don't quite fit around all the lore that was trying to be caried over from PF1/OGL. I really wish we could start over centering the 4 traditions instead of things like schools of magic that now only really exist for wizards, and thus should have been focused around arcane spells and not all the spells, or else wizards who special in schools should get access to spells from other traditions in those schools...but again, I think that ship has sailed and it would probably be too much work to try to remaster the narrative of traditions more organically over classes that don't really fit within a frame work where occultism is something different from arcane study, or where being connected to the natural world includes deep connections to the elemental planes. Like maybe if metal is now an official primal element, Druids really shouldn't be restricted from using metal things at all anymore. That feels like an olg thing that doesn't make sense in the new narrative of Golarion too.

breithauptclan wrote:

Not sure where the idea of 'simulationism' is coming from...

It desperately tries to be simulationist - it gives you the rules for...

I would strongly disagree. I'd say it is crunchy, not simulationist. Pathfinder is crunchy because it provides lots of different statistics, measures, and ways to apply the general rules for different in-game circumstances, equipment, etc. But it is not simulationist because d20 systems by their nature are way more flat distribution and swingy than what any good simulation of RL would tolerate. Moreover leveling systems are way more superheroic than any good simulation of RL would ever countenance...and PF2E takes this to an extreme by adding level to your proficiency - that's definitely NOT anything that simulates real life.

Crunchy vs. rules-lite is a big difference in TTRPGs. You (and Hitomi) are absolutely correct to point out that PF2E tries to give rules for details like encumbrance or walking on a ledge. But you are incorrect if you think they are trying very hard to simulate reality, otherwise a level 15 human bodybuilder in plate armor wouldn't be able to longjump 60' and a level 1 human wouldn't be able to hold their breath 25x longer than an average person (both abilities are available in-game with feats).

NOt terribly interested in defending my idea. It's all just a matter of preference and opinion, no one is wrong (since there is no objectively correct answer).

I mean, asceticism is the defining aspect of the word monk. It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, but taking that away as an option feels off to me.

This I did find interesting though, because for me, moving to Mind instead of Spirit did not close off asceticism as a focus for the class. Instead, it sort of sets Spirit against Matter as two different sub-foci. On the one hand you have Occult; Occult monks deny the material world around them in favor of higher truths and concepts, approaching perhaps even the divine without being subservient to them. On the other hand, Arcane monks embrace the material world. They make a study of every rock, tree, and creature, learning what wisdom they can while perfecting the ability of their mind to exert mastery over elements and their own bodies (which are of course made of matter).

YMMV, of course, but that was my line of thought when I made this change for my group.

NOt terribly interested in defending my idea. It's all just a matter of preference and opinion, no one is wrong (since there is no objectively correct answer).

Unicore wrote:

I mean, asceticism is the defining aspect of the word monk. It doesn't have to be for religious reasons, but taking that away as an option feels off to me.

This I did find interesting though, because for me, moving to Mind instead of Spirit did not close off asceticism as a focus for the class. Instead, it sort of sets Spirit against Matter as two different sub-foci. On the one hand you have Occult; Occult monks deny the material world around them in favor of higher truths and concepts, approaching perhaps even the divine without being subservient to them. On the other hand, Arcane monks embrace the material world. They make a study of every rock, tree, and creature, learning what wisdom they can while perfecting the ability of their mind to exert mastery over elements and their own bodies (which are of course made of matter).

YMMV, of course, but that was my line of thought when I made this change for my group.

I agree and didn't even mean to make you feel like you needed to defend your interpretation. Only state why it would be useful for Monks as presented in the Core Rulebook to still loosely be characters that can belong to religious orders, since there is a lot of that in the fantasy of the class, even if PF2's traditions complicate things like religious devotion based upon anything other than what falls into the divine tradition of magic. The essences and traditions are very cool, but were messy from the start of their introduction because they were something new being added to a very large existing universe. I love PF2 and enjoy playing it immensely. I do not want a start over on a new edition because it will take another 5 years to get back to where we are now...but I do recognize that a 3rd edition of Pathfinder, built on ORC from the ground up and moving away from D&Disms from conception for Golarion has a lot of great potential to be where Paizo really steps out from the shadow.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Let's just call them Flurriers.

Monk => Flurrier

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

Druids should be able to get a feat that lets them cast Wild Shape with only 1 action instead of 2. It would be called Fast Furrier Transform.

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

You mean back when alignment had only one axis, law vs. chaos?

I agree and didn't even mean to make you feel like you needed to defend your interpretation.

My apologies, I meant it in general, not directly at you, and more because there's no objectively right or wrong answer so I don't want to respond to everyone. I responded to you because it gave me an opening to continue to nerd out on the idea, not because I wanted to push back.

But I agree with you regarding traditions. I'm hopeful that even if the ship has sailed on core classes, that any future class or archetype keeps those traditions in mind and uses their mechanics to keep expanding on them.

Not to be That Guy, but I feel like we've been playing a different game the last 35 years.

Exactly! Same mechanics, different game. I've been saying it for years. The common conception of how to play is merely one slice of what the system offers. You can do entirely different games with the same mechanics.

That's the part that is relevant to pf2. Because it is a feature of every single actual rpg. The mechanics alone do not dictate the game. The mechanics, whether dnd 3 or pf2 are just tools, and they can be used for a wide variety of experiences.

Problem is that no one looks at the mechanics to see all the possibilities or meanings, and instead they cling to some narrow idea of what they think the game is and reject any notion of a system being capable of anything else.

I've never considered D&D, no matter the edition, to be a system for "normal people stuck in unusual circumstances"

Just because you never thought of it that way, doesn't mean it fails. Normal people in unusual circumstances is the birth of the rpg, of dnd. Go research what games were like in 1e and 2e. Extremely dangerous, horror filled dungeons that you were lucky to escape from alive. Now I'll grant, that games often shifted as levels go up. Low level play was normal people, then mid level play started getting to heroic play, and high level was demigods. So it was never just one thing, but normal people in extreme danger has been the start up to and including 3e.

The community however rejected the old styles of play almost immediately, and few ever really played 3.x as intended. Wotc then started adjusting their modules and supplements accordingly, which then reached it's peak with 4e. That's when paizo stepped in and took the 3.5 rules and tweaked them according to their view of heroics. No idea if they, like the community, never understood what 3e was intended to do, or if they just didn't care, but I'll give it to paizo that they did much better staying in line with the general community, but there was still a lot of 3e's earlier design traits that remained in pf1 which made pf1 still very suitable for a wide variety of games. PF2 has dropped a lot of that, but I still support anything that is useful to multiple games rather than just "the one true way."

Well, like I mentioned earlier... The abstraction of ability score/bonus is meaningless without some context.

In D&D3.5 when people built NPCs with ability scores by rolling 3d6, perhaps the average Strength score was 10.

In PF2, a generic Barkeep has a Strength bonus of +3 and an average bonus over all 6 stats of +1.5.

So maybe... realize that the abstraction has changed for the new edition that came out several years ago and recalibrate your mental image of what a 16 (+3) means. And what 'ordinary' is. Yes? Maybe?

Removed WAY too many off topic posts. If you wish to debate things, please make them their own threads, and do not argue in the product announcement thread.

Hello I would like an option for leshy to be medium sized.

Thank you

Hello I would like an option for leshy to be medium sized.

Thank you

Is a different medium sized plant also acceptable? If it doesn't have to be a leshy, maybe you could appeal for the ghorans to get a 2e write up? They're from Nex iirc and pretty neat as far as plant folk go

Gaulin wrote:

Hello I would like an option for leshy to be medium sized.

Thank you

Is a different medium sized plant also acceptable? If it doesn't have to be a leshy, maybe you could appeal for the ghorans to get a 2e write up? They're from Nex iirc and pretty neat as far as plant folk go

Already done. They were in Impossible Lands

Hello I would like an option for leshy to be medium sized.

Thank you

I think it's time someone explains what leshy means. I've seen the term a couple times which seemed to imply sexy girls in some way like moe or kawaii, but nothing definitive, and neither of those really seem to fit here.

I think it's time someone explains what leshy means. I've seen the term a couple times which seemed to imply sexy girls in some way like moe or kawaii, but nothing definitive, and neither of those really seem to fit here.

How about that great friend of unaware Pathfinders: Archives of Nethys!

Or else, it's time that someone read some actual Pathfinder books.

Hello I would like an option for leshy to be medium sized.

I am now imagining leshies of ALL sizes, and the sequoyah leshy stomping half the meeting house away as they come into the mission briefing.

STOMP!

STOMP!

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I think it's time someone explains what leshy means. I've seen the term a couple times which seemed to imply sexy girls in some way like moe or kawaii, but nothing definitive, and neither of those really seem to fit here.

How about that great friend of unaware Pathfinders: Archives of Nethys!

Or else, it's time that someone read some actual Pathfinder books.

Considering this is the first time I've seen it referencing an rpg much less pathfinder, so why would I expect to find it on a rules list?

I mean sure, saying it's on AoN is a bit helpful but I've never had a reason to think it would be a mechanic or technical term. I just got done saying how it's previous use was similar to moe and kawaii, not exactly things you look at an rpg ruleset to understand.

So maybe try not to make so many assumptions.