Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

breithauptclan wrote:

Sanityfaerie wrote:

though that does lead me to wonder about what happens when you're applying bonuses to statmods of +4 and above. Do they become +4.5?

That was my understanding from the livestream. The wording was something along the lines of, 'You still have to spend two boosts to get an ability modifier higher than +4.'

I guess maybe you just track the boost by itself and when it has two it goes up?

Jason said that there was some mechanic for it, but didn't go into details. Just assured everyone that it isn't actually changing the final results of ability bonuses.

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

Alignment is an essential part of Pathfinder, which isn't so easily ignored. This game also is also a much bigger focus on alignment than others, which makes it more interesting. If people don't want to go to the trouble of understanding it, that's on them, but it actually ADDS to the game.

I'm sure that's why the people who make Pathfinder are removing it :p

Are you familiar with the setting?

This is my 6,000th post on these forums, most of them on the lore boards. I'd like to call myself a fan of the setting.

Are you? :>

Indeed. Then you'd know how at the moment it is a huge part of the setting. Removing it means there would be a lot of changes, which don't sound fun with nothing to replace it. You sound very offended, though I did not mean to evoke such a reaction. Let's not get off on the wrong foot.

The devs have spoken today, here and on the stream, about how the setting is not changing. A Devil is still a Devil if I smite it with "Holy" damage instead of "Good-aligned." The Firebrands don't stop being chaotic little rebels even if them being proper-C Chaotic doesn't matter so much mechanically anymore.

I don't think the alarmism is helpful, nor is claiming that the people making the game don't know what they're doing.

Rogues getting Martial Weapons.
Wizards getting Simple Weapons.
Wyvaran (sp?) down the road.

(Per Erik Mona on Roll for Combat)

PF2.5!

Cyrad wrote:

I cannot say I’m pleased with the removal of alignment. I understand many have misgivings about it but that’s a massive change to the lore of the Great Beyond. I’m having flashbacks of 4th Edition.

We don't plan to change the structure of the Great Beyond, so if the alignment aspect underpinning the organization and various interrelationships between the planes is important to you, don't expect any major changes to the lore that will frustrate you.

It's not just planar politics but also the concepts of philosophy, morality, ethics, and virtue as tangible forces that drive the multiverse and form the quintessence of the planes and the extraplanar creatures that reside there. Plus, it's super cool to say you're channeling "good" through your sword or getting hit with "chaos energy." It also removes hooks for gameplay and takes away something from the game.

However, I'd be totally OK if alignment was replaced with an analogous system that uses an expansive selection of specific aspects/ideals instead of a restrictive, finite list of dispositions. Maybe even use domains or something of the likes of Stormlight Archive? It would be really cool, open a huge range of options and concepts, and would work well with the trait system.

I just don't want a mechanic that's adding value to the game/lore taken away and replaced with nothing.

PF2.5!

It sounds a lot more like 2.1

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

Alignment is an essential part of Pathfinder, which isn't so easily ignored. This game also is also a much bigger focus on alignment than others, which makes it more interesting. If people don't want to go to the trouble of understanding it, that's on them, but it actually ADDS to the game.

I'm sure that's why the people who make Pathfinder are removing it :p

Are you familiar with the setting?

This is my 6,000th post on these forums, most of them on the lore boards. I'd like to call myself a fan of the setting.

Are you? :>

Indeed. Then you'd know how at the moment it is a huge part of the setting. Removing it means there would be a lot of changes, which don't sound fun with nothing to replace it. You sound very offended, though I did not mean to evoke such a reaction. Let's not get off on the wrong foot.

The devs have spoken today, here and on the stream, about how the setting is not changing. A Devil is still a Devil if I smite it with "Holy" damage instead of "Good-aligned." The Firebrands don't stop being chaotic little rebels even if them being proper-C Chaotic doesn't matter so much mechanically anymore.

I don't think the alarmism is helpful, nor is claiming that the people making the game don't know what they're doing.

We don't know for sure yet, but it feels from what was said that we're trading mandatory engagement in the alignment system for a more active holy/unholy dynamic that you buy into (using feats?) to be stronger against the opposing tag at the cost of being more vulnerable to it as well.

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

Alignment is an essential part of Pathfinder, which isn't so easily ignored. This game also is also a much bigger focus on alignment than others, which makes it more interesting. If people don't want to go to the trouble of understanding it, that's on them, but it actually ADDS to the game.

I'm sure that's why the people who make Pathfinder are removing it :p

Are you familiar with the setting?

This is my 6,000th post on these forums, most of them on the lore boards. I'd like to call myself a fan of the setting.

Are you? :>

Indeed. Then you'd know how at the moment it is a huge part of the setting. Removing it means there would be a lot of changes, which don't sound fun with nothing to replace it. You sound very offended, though I did not mean to evoke such a reaction. Let's not get off on the wrong foot.

The devs have spoken today, here and on the stream, about how the setting is not changing. A Devil is still a Devil if I smite it with "Holy" damage instead of "Good-aligned." The Firebrands don't stop being chaotic little rebels even if them being proper-C Chaotic doesn't matter so much mechanically anymore.

I don't think the alarmism is helpful, nor is claiming that the people making the game don't know what they're doing.

Its kinda similar mindset to people who where convinced 2e will never be a thing, like I think people are kinda prone to thinking in terms of "sliding slope" so like if they fear that by making one big change, they make lot of tiny changes until it isn't recognizable anymore.

I don't really agree with that, my own main worry is "but but I wanted that LN/CN champion am I now never getting it?" and overall confusion of how are things in setting that explicitly were tied to alignment are linked

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Mica Merryvale wrote:

Alignment is an essential part of Pathfinder, which isn't so easily ignored. This game also is also a much bigger focus on alignment than others, which makes it more interesting. If people don't want to go to the trouble of understanding it, that's on them, but it actually ADDS to the game.

I'm sure that's why the people who make Pathfinder are removing it :p

Are you familiar with the setting?

This is my 6,000th post on these forums, most of them on the lore boards. I'd like to call myself a fan of the setting.

Are you? :>

Indeed. Then you'd know how at the moment it is a huge part of the setting. Removing it means there would be a lot of changes, which don't sound fun with nothing to replace it. You sound very offended, though I did not mean to evoke such a reaction. Let's not get off on the wrong foot.

The devs have spoken today, here and on the stream, about how the setting is not changing. A Devil is still a Devil if I smite it with "Holy" damage instead of "Good-aligned." The Firebrands don't stop being chaotic little rebels even if them being proper-C Chaotic doesn't matter so much mechanically anymore.

I don't think the alarmism is helpful, nor is claiming that the people making the game don't know what they're doing.

Calm down, I never said that. Do not equate voicing concerns with alarmism. That being said, my initial post was regarding how alignment was represented in the lore. My curiosity comes from the idea that removing alignment - which is currently directly tied to the lore - is a 'minor change' and how they're going to pull it off. I am glad that, as you say, the setting is not changing. Given your standing in the community I have reason to trust you, so I will respect your word on the matter.

keftiu wrote:

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

Boo Hiss.

(I liked "Ability Scores" looking the same as when you rolled them.)

Rolling for stats was already a rarely-used variant rule for 2e. Now ability scores will live on in that variant rule with it

Erik Mona wrote:

Cyrad wrote:

I cannot say I’m pleased with the removal of alignment. I understand many have misgivings about it but that’s a massive change to the lore of the Great Beyond. I’m having flashbacks of 4th Edition.

We don't plan to change the structure of the Great Beyond, so if the alignment aspect underpinning the organization and various interrelationships between the planes is important to you, don't expect any major changes to the lore that will frustrate you.

It's not just planar politics but also the concepts of philosophy, morality, ethics, and virtue as tangible forces that drive the multiverse and form the quintessence of the planes and the extraplanar creatures that reside there. Plus, it's super cool to say you're channeling "good" through your sword or getting hit with "chaos energy." It also removes hooks for gameplay and takes away something from the game.

However, I'd be totally OK if alignment was replaced with an analogous system that uses an expansive selection of specific aspects/ideals instead of a restrictive, finite list of dispositions. Maybe even use domains or something of the likes of Stormlight Archive? It would be really cool, open a huge range of options and concepts, and would work well with the trait system.

I just don't want a mechanic that's adding value to the game/lore taken away and replaced with nothing.

Pretty much this. I don't like their wording of "no alignment" instead of focusing on "what system DOES replace alignment then?"

YuriP wrote:

PF2.5!

It sounds a lot more like 2.1

Yay, more quibbling about 3.75 or whatever version number we want to use!

Rogues getting Martial Weapons.

Wizards getting Simple Weapons.
Wyvaran (sp?) down the road.

(Per Erik Mona on Roll for Combat)

Wyvarans!!!!! That’s huge!

My Ancestry wishlist is getting alarmingly short these days… once the Minotaurs, Wyrwoods, and Sekmin get out, I won’t know what to beg for anymore :p

Jacob Jett wrote:

It would be a nice-to-have if the new GM book discussed alternate/additional dice. Several companies have d5s, d7s, and d16s on the market (along with d30s and d60s). Intermixing the first two in particular might open the design space for weapons and healing/harmful (read as blasting) damage.

EDIT: At this point I'm wishlisting. :)

Its bad enough that we have the abomination that is the d10. In my day, if you wanted a 1-10 number you rolled a d20 and it only had one digit! And if you wanted 1-20, you had to roll a "control" d6.

(I am not actually this old, but the d10 is an abomination against math.)

I am that old. A lot of the early d20 had only single-digit numbers on them, two each from 0 to 9. We used two colors of grease pencils to fill in the digits (which were stamped without color), so that one color would be 1 to 10 and the other color would be 11 to 20.

But d10s are not abominations. The pentagonal trapezohedron is a perfectly legitimate convex polygon with identical, transitive faces. It does not qualify as a Catalan solid, because the bipyramids and trapezohedrons as infinite sets would outnumber the rest of the Catalan solids.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Erik Mona wrote:

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.

Puts away his d13s and d∞

... fine...

The math teacher has to point out that the d-infinity is also a D1, and therefore, better used as a dog toy. (It's a ball)

I have worked in cryptology with random numbers that were out of a set of 2^64 possibilities, but a full d∞ runs into the Axiom of Choice.

We could divide the surface of an infinitely smooth spherical die into ten equal areas, for 0.0 to 0.9. Each of those ten areas are divided into 10 equal areasl for example, the 0.2 area could be divided into 0.20, 0.21, 0.22, ..., 0.29. Then each of those 100 areas could be subdivided into 10 areas, to make 1000 areas. We would be able to read a random number from 0 to 0.99999... by examining the roll with a super-infinite-microscope. Except that we could not make such a die in the real world because atoms are not smooth enough, and we could make the die in an abstract world only by using the Axiom of Choice.

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Rogues getting Martial Weapons.

Wizards getting Simple Weapons.
Wyvaran (sp?) down the road.

(Per Erik Mona on Roll for Combat)

Wyvarans!!!!! That’s huge!

My Ancestry wishlist is getting alarmingly short these days… once the Minotaurs, Wyrwoods, and Sekmin get out, I won’t know what to beg for anymore :p

Wyvarans being confirmed is nice.

Now we just need.... New stuff that hasn't been introduced in setting yet?

If it helps, it felt to me watching the stream that a major concern was making sure that the story of the game didn't change, even when some of the mechanics do. In particular, removing alignment mechanics meant they wanted to look for ways to tell the story of 'smiting and unholy monster with holy powers' using similar tools that didn't just code every character with an acronym that dictated their behaviour and their vulnerabilities.

I'm reasonably confident that the outer planes will remain largely unchanged, with souls that are selfish and sinful being thrown into the abyss while souls that are independent and helpful being sent to Elysium.

keftiu wrote:

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Rogues getting Martial Weapons.

Wizards getting Simple Weapons.
Wyvaran (sp?) down the road.

(Per Erik Mona on Roll for Combat)

Wyvarans!!!!! That’s huge!

My Ancestry wishlist is getting alarmingly short these days… once the Minotaurs, Wyrwoods, and Sekmin get out, I won’t know what to beg for anymore :p

Wyvarans being confirmed is nice.

Now we just need.... New stuff that hasn't been introduced in setting yet?

I think 2e Lashunta will be a very long wait, sadly.

Zaister wrote:

YuriP wrote:

PF2.5!

It sounds a lot more like 2.1

Yay, more quibbling about 3.75 or whatever version number we want to use!

Putting forward 2.ORC respectfully.

Yeah, already not into it. Removal of Alignment is a red line for me. Time to look around for something different.

Thank you for removing alignment, Paizo! Felt super outdated

Electric arc could use a little nerf, I think.

YuriP wrote:

PF2.5!

It sounds a lot more like 2.1

2.1 was the first errata to CRB. 2.2 the second, etc. So, yeah this IS 2.5.

I'm just starting to watch the replay of the stream, and I'll hold additional comments until after that, except this one:

I've played/run RPGs without alignment. I don't like them. As teenage boys playing fantasy games where there is no guideline as to how your character's morality would actually influence their actions makes it easy for a "Good" character to slaughter baby deer, just because. You, as the GM, cannot tell them it's against their character's morality, because the player will find ways to justify otherwise abhorrent actions. If Alignment becomes an "Optional" aspect, it will always be used at my table. That's my pair of coppers, do with them as you wish.

If it helps, it felt to me watching the stream that a major concern was making sure that the story of the game didn't change, even when some of the mechanics do. In particular, removing alignment mechanics meant they wanted to look for ways to tell the story of 'smiting and unholy monster with holy powers' using similar tools that didn't just code every character with an acronym that dictated their behaviour and their vulnerabilities.

I'm reasonably confident that the outer planes will remain largely unchanged, with souls that are selfish and sinful being thrown into the abyss while souls that are independent and helpful being sent to Elysium.

I do feel like that I'll feel much better after seeing the release. Though I do want to hear them talk about law and chaos too

Electric arc could use a little nerf, I think.

Nah, Electric arc should be the base. The other cantrips should be brought to its level

And for those who complain that Electric Arc is O/P, it can *easily* be defeated by creatures who can beat the save.

*stares into the middle distance*

I've played/run RPGs without alignment. I don't like them. As teenage boys playing fantasy games where there is no guideline as to how your character's morality would actually influence their actions makes it easy for a "Good" character to slaughter baby deer, just because. You, as the GM, cannot tell them it's against their character's morality, because the player will find ways to justify otherwise abhorrent actions. If Alignment becomes an "Optional" aspect, it will always be used at my table. That's my pair of coppers, do with them as you wish.

For character morality guidance, the replacement is personal Edicts and Anathema.

Well I hope there is a lot of rules clean up happening. That was always my biggest problem with the game.

I am not looking forward to the removal of alignment. It had already been moved to a place where it was essentially sidelined and optional, So I'm not seeing any need for a change. I want there to be some mechanics in this space.

Will have to wait and see.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

If it helps, it felt to me watching the stream that a major concern was making sure that the story of the game didn't change, even when some of the mechanics do. In particular, removing alignment mechanics meant they wanted to look for ways to tell the story of 'smiting and unholy monster with holy powers' using similar tools that didn't just code every character with an acronym that dictated their behaviour and their vulnerabilities.

I'm reasonably confident that the outer planes will remain largely unchanged, with souls that are selfish and sinful being thrown into the abyss while souls that are independent and helpful being sent to Elysium.

I do feel like that I'll feel much better after seeing the release. Though I do want to hear them talk about law and chaos too

While they didn't address law vs. chaos in the stream, the bestiary does namedrop Proteans in the summary, so we know that the cosmic forces of chaos are at least still represented. We also have the wood and metal planes being order and chaos adjacent to add a bit of... I guess I'd say fresh blood? Lawful and chaotic have been a bit sparse even in PF1, so I'm happy for that.

emky wrote:

They can't just call it "Pathfinder Second Edition". This is an edition change from everything discussed in the live stream. It might retain backwards compatibility, but it is an edition change. It's not just errata and formatting changes.

This is entirely akin to what WotC is doing with their "backwards compatible certainly is not sixth edition" D&D thing. They just think that announcing an edition change is too damning to come out and say so.

If a company announced an edition change and I found out that 99% of it was the same I would sue them for false advertising

Minor changes are what "edition" means outside of the game industry. For example, the Merriam-Webster definition of "edition" gives the example, "The errors were corrected in the book's second edition." But for roleplaying games, we have gotten in the habit of using "edition" to mean major revisions of the rules.

Remastering the rulebook is more change than a new edition using the publishing world's definition of edition but less change than a new edition using gaming's definition of edition.

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

Not going to lie, like many others I am nervous about the "removal of alignment" because I liked the concept of alignment damage. I think it comes from a place of too many people misunderstanding what having particular alignments ment so their just ditching it.

Alignments are more of a typical attitude, not something that defines every action or belief. Just because you are lawful for example doesn't mean you can't do or believe in something that is considered chaotic, nor does it mean that you have to do or believe in something that is considered lawful.

The one thing I'm wondering about with the loss of alignment is how they're going to present certain deities.

Like Torag being Lawful and Good is an important bit of context to his edicts *not* demanding genocide. Arazni being Neutral and Evil but granting divine power to only one evil alignment, three neutral alignments, and one good alignment tells us a lot about Arazni. I sort of suspect what we're going to be doing is "backformating a lot of this." Like "Arazni is still NE, and allows CG, LN, N, CN, and NE clerics, but we're not going to say any of those words."

Rage of Elements will incorporate new material from Remaster Project.

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

Like Order? ;D

Not going to lie, like many others I am nervous about the "removal of alignment" because I liked the concept of alignment damage.

My understanding from the livestream is that alignment damage is still going to exist - just in a tweaked form. They mentioned 'holy' damage from a Cleric damaging an 'unholy' trait Demon.

The one thing I'm wondering about with the loss of alignment is how they're going to present certain deities.

Like Torag being Lawful and Good is an important bit of context to his edicts *not* demanding genocide. Arazni being Neutral and Evil but granting divine power to only one evil alignment, three neutral alignments, and one good alignment tells us a lot about Arazni. I sort of suspect what we're going to be doing is "backformating a lot of this." Like "Arazni is still NE, and allows CG, LN, N, CN, and NE clerics, but we're not going to say any of those words."

I think Torag is less fraught when you don't have to label what he's doing as Lawful and Good. Likewise, "Arazni grants powers to those abuse survivors who refuse to have their pride broken by suffering" is perfectly coherent without a list of Cleric alignments stapled to it.

breithauptclan wrote:

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

Like Order? ;D

*nods* At least that wouldn't cause confusion between 'opposite of Chaotic' and 'follows the laws of society'.

CorvusMask wrote:

I think I'm going through the five stages of grief in random order but not yet at acceptance. Mostly just confused about how setting is going to change without alignment because they were how soul metaphysics worked and how "outsiders" worked. I'm just glad I've skipped the anger part... Though I guess I could be angry at WotC for making this happen? But I don't really want to be angry, so I'll guess I'll still skip that step

A Devil is not any different today than it was yesterday. It's still Pathfinder, and it's still Golarion's cosmology.

If it helps, think of it this way. Which is more evocative in plain English?

“A devil is a symbol of lawful evil”

-or-

“A devil is a symbol of tyranny”

I know d20 gamers are used to the former, but the latter is actually far more powerful as well as being far more specific. The setting still means the same things, it still works the same way, but now it has a chance to jettison terms it inherited from another game that barely make sense anymore and are loaded with some very uncomfortable implications.

For the health of this game? This is a huge W. I know it’s hard if you are a fan of alignment, but trust me. It will work out in the end.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The one thing I'm wondering about with the loss of alignment is how they're going to present certain deities.

Like Torag being Lawful and Good is an important bit of context to his edicts *not* demanding genocide. Arazni being Neutral and Evil but granting divine power to only one evil alignment, three neutral alignments, and one good alignment tells us a lot about Arazni. I sort of suspect what we're going to be doing is "backformating a lot of this." Like "Arazni is still NE, and allows CG, LN, N, CN, and NE clerics, but we're not going to say any of those words."

I think Torag is less fraught when you don't have to label what he's doing Lawful and Good. Likewise, "Arazni grants powers to those abuse survivors who refuse to have their pride broken by suffering" is perfectly coherent without a list of Cleric alignments stapled to it.

And this is exactly what I’m talking about! That description of Arazni is far more powerful to me!

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Do you love vestigial ability scores that have almost no impact at all during gameplay except to confuse new players?
.

I love this condescending, gaslighting attitude towards people as if racial stat bonuses was just some houserule we all just agreed to make up on the spot, rather than having been part of the playtest in 2018 and widely accepted and agreed upon by everyone at the time.

Anyways, email sent and confirmed. Tales of the Valiant, here I come.

This post doesn't say anything about racial ability adjustments, but to make my stance clear: I am glad Paizo has already officially done away with those months ago, and I wish I had spoke up louder about their removal in the original PF2 playtest because bioessentialism in fantasy was always terrible.

But if you want to see what my stance was on ability scores during the playtest, my history on that has always been clear, here's me calling for the removal of ability scores in favor of modifiers in 2011

Here's me still confused why ability scores were kept in the game during the PF2 playtest in 2018.

I'm sure there's more, but I don't feel the need to dig any deeper.

Ultimately the design team kept ability scores in the game purely for legacy/nostalgia rather than any merit in the design of ability scores between 1-20.

I am glad to see this game take its own identity, and step out from the shadow of the worlds oldest fantasy RPG (currently owned by a company that will send actual Pinkertons to your house if they accidentally leak product to you).

I apologise if I seem condescending, but I'm not gaslighting anybody. My opinions have always been pretty consistent on these boards.

I know it’s hard if you are a fan of alignment, but trust me. It will work out in the end.

Yeah, if it finally inspires me to make my own TRPG system instead of just homebrew variant rules x'D

(Would I really make own TRPG just to make use of homebrew alignment system. Probably not. Am I good at using sad feelings as motivation to do silly things? Yes xD)

So, I may have missed comments about this...but if you do away with alignments all together, won't that make many ripples? Such as, that means you can't have Holy weapons, worshippers' alignments which affect Champions, Clerics, spells like Divine Lance, etc?

As for the other features, I do see that some things can be streamlined or improved due to typos or ambiguous wording. I also agree, it is overly restrictive to say certain classes can't even have just simple weapons, after all, anyone can pick up a knife, club, etc and figure out how to use them. Plus, there is confusion (when you get into the "field") if somethings are allowed or not (like not everyone is up to speed about Orc being a legal ancestry).

One thing I did not see mentioned, which is desperately needed, is some kind of easily accessed source for the additional rules, feats, backgrounds, and additional information necessary to play Society. I would like to see a concise manual, well published site, etc produced for Society play. I know when explaining things to new players we have to say "here is the majority of the information, but then there is a site that is hard to find that specifically addresses Society play."

Removed a post for being harassing and off topic, and its quotes. Please be respectful of others. Disagreement is fine. Slurs, slander, personal attacks, and off topic comments will be deleted.