Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

I also think 'Player Core Expansion' is a strong title and much better than 'Player Core 2'.

I dislike 'Monster Core', because it's a little simplistic, sounds like a music genre and is already the title of a series of fantasy erotica by one "Dante King" (google it).

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Also this could be a real problem for Paizo.

When are we getting Cottage Core?

Correcting the derail before it goes further. Please keep to the topic, other ideas can be spun off into their own thread.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I'm not buying pf2 ever, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd name a second phb as Advanced Player Guide. Of course, in my opinion, nothing should be in the second phb to make it "core."

That's not going to happen because there already is an Advanced Player's Guide for 2E.

Expanded Players guide. Then you can have CPH, APG, and EPG.

Just not any kind of core 2, as that makes it sound like a required book in order to play at the most basic level, and that's a bad thing in my opinion.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

The combat-as-sport is also taken to extreme level and the mechanics are often dissociative. Play Neverwinter for a while

I played a s#*&ton of Neverwinter back when it first came out, it plays nothing like 4e.

Strange how our experiences can be so divergent on the issue. What made them seem so different to you?

Correcting the derail before it goes further. Please keep to the topic, other ideas can be spun off into their own thread.

I'm not sure what this was about, but my first assumption was the 4E talk. Now I'm not sure. I'm, assuming it wasn't about my cottagecore joke?

Because it wasn't a joke. I want Cottage Core. I'll derail a thousand threads before I let this cottagecore die!

Cori Marie wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

I'm not buying pf2 ever, so take this with a grain of salt, but I'd name a second phb as Advanced Player Guide. Of course, in my opinion, nothing should be in the second phb to make it "core."

That's not going to happen because there already is an Advanced Player's Guide for 2E.

Expanded Players guide. Then you can have CPH, APG, and EPG.

Just not any kind of core 2, as that makes it sound like a required book in order to play at the most basic level, and that's a bad thing in my opinion.

Isn't it? It sounds like the bulk of magic and alchemical equipment will be in PC2, as well as all archetypes. Considering the popularity of the Free Archetype variant, that certainly sounds required to me.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. But whether or not it has the most basic rules (which, won't that mostly be in the GM Core anyways?), it definitely sounds like there will be a lot of foundational material in the Player Core 2.

Red Metal wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

The combat-as-sport is also taken to extreme level and the mechanics are often dissociative. Play Neverwinter for a while

I played a s+*!ton of Neverwinter back when it first came out, it plays nothing like 4e.

Strange how our experiences can be so divergent on the issue. What made them seem so different to you?

I feel like it'd be easier to list the things that made them feel similar than it would to list the things that made them feel different, one being an action game and the other being turn-based is already such a huge difference that comparing them feels like comparing apples to oranges. I suppose the big one that distinguishes post-WoW MMOs from tabletop RPGs is resource management. All versions of D&D, including 4e, has some element of managing resources over the course of an adventuring day. 4e spreads that out to all classes, instead of constraining it to just casters, while also adding an element of per-encounter resource management with encounter powers. Modern MMOs I've played, including Neverwinter, are pretty much entirely focused on in-combat resource management, with the only continuity between battles being consumables that are bought en masse, or some resource gauge that builds up during fights. D&D wears on your resources as you have more fights during a day; MMOs are designed assuming that you go into each fight with everything available to you. In 4e, once you use a daily power, it's gone until you have a rest, and each daily stands on its own; in Neverwinter, your "daily" powers are attached to a gauge that fills up as you fight, and all your dailies consume the gauge, effectively locking each other out.

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd like it if you could pick multiple Edicts/Anathemas, and are encouraged to write your own. It'd be a shame if they really do just introduce nine new "tenants" that are alignment in all but name.

Yeah, I also like the idea of creating your own Edicts and Anathema as part of the character.

I do think there are going to be some premade ones that will have mechanical impact. But I think we could go even farther than just the two alignment axis directions.

I like the idea of three pairs. Holy/Unholy and Order/Chaos being two of the pairs so that we don't break things from alignment. Then something else to go with it. I'm not sure exactly what though. My first thought is something like Social/Independent, but Independent player characters don't really work well - the party comes together if the PCs want to be part of the team.

If like there to be a custom pair for players to make their own. Cause X, and Opposed to Cause X. So we could expand it as much as we want. Where the Cause could be emancipation, or magic, or environmental , or whatever. Just as long as it is significant enough to have a Patron divinity both for and against it

breithauptclan wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

I'd like it if you could pick multiple Edicts/Anathemas, and are encouraged to write your own. It'd be a shame if they really do just introduce nine new "tenants" that are alignment in all but name.

Yeah, I also like the idea of creating your own Edicts and Anathema as part of the character.

I do think there are going to be some premade ones that will have mechanical impact. But I think we could go even farther than just the two alignment axis directions.

I like the idea of three pairs. Holy/Unholy and Order/Chaos being two of the pairs so that we don't break things from alignment. Then something else to go with it. I'm not sure exactly what though. My first thought is something like Social/Independent, but Independent player characters don't really work well - the party comes together if the PCs want to be part of the team.

If like there to be a custom pair for players to make their own. Cause X, and Opposed to Cause X. So we could expand it as much as we want. Where the Cause could be emancipation, or magic, or environmental , or whatever. Just as long as it is significant enough to have a Patron divinity both for and against it

These seem like interesting ideas, but they have no relation to alignment at all and should not replace alignment regardless of whether alignment is handled mechanically or ignored.

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

Red Metal wrote:

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

The combat-as-sport is also taken to extreme level and the mechanics are often dissociative. Play Neverwinter for a while

I played a s!#&ton of Neverwinter back when it first came out, it plays nothing like 4e.

Strange how our experiences can be so divergent on the issue. What made them seem so different to you?

I feel like it'd be easier to list the things that made them feel similar than it would to list the things that made them feel different, one being an action game and the other being turn-based is already such a huge difference that comparing them feels like comparing apples to oranges. I suppose the big one that distinguishes post-WoW MMOs from tabletop RPGs is resource management. All versions of D&D, including 4e, has some element of managing resources over the course of an adventuring day. 4e spreads that out to all classes, instead of constraining it to just casters, while also adding an element of per-encounter resource management with encounter powers. Modern MMOs I've played, including Neverwinter, are pretty much entirely focused on in-combat resource management, with the only continuity between battles being consumables that are bought en masse, or some resource gauge that builds up during fights. D&D wears on your resources as you have more fights during a day; MMOs are designed assuming that you go into each fight with everything available to you. In 4e, once you use a daily power, it's gone until you have a rest, and each daily stands on its own; in Neverwinter, your "daily" powers are attached to a gauge that fills up as you fight, and all your dailies consume the gauge, effectively locking each other out.

Interesting. These are aspects that I least pay attention to in comparison though.

It's like how ddo uses the spellpoints variant rule. Now I used spellpoints at the table too, but using spellpoints never felt like a departure from the fundamental structure of 3.x neither at the table nor in ddo. Likewise, switching dailies to some recharge thing didn't really feel like a real departure from the fundamental structure of 4e.

It always just felt like a natural adjustment to the new medium, much like how movies have to change things no matter how faithful they are to their source material, a scene that works for a book will fail on screen, so adjustments need to be made, and in a good adaptation these alterations don't change the fundamentals of the story and the feel, while a poor adaptation is almost defined by the departure from the core of the work they are based on.

idk, I don't really feel like the two changes (spell slots to spell points vs. daily powers to gauge) are comparable. A lot of the things you can do with spell slots can still be done with spell points, but that applies less to changing a dailies to a gauge. With spell slots, spell points, and daily powers, I can whip out a whole bunch of them right at the start of a fight to make that one fight much easier, but I can't really do that with an ability that requires time to charge up. It has an entirely different structure around using it compared to the alternatives.

It would be awfully silly if they put a bunch of alchemical items into PC1 when the alchemist class is in PC2.

idk, I don't really feel like the two changes (spell slots to spell points vs. daily powers to gauge) are comparable. A lot of the things you can do with spell slots can still be done with spell points, but that applies less to changing a dailies to a gauge. With spell slots, spell points, and daily powers, I can whip out a whole bunch of them right at the start of a fight to make that one fight much easier, but I can't really do that with an ability that requires time to charge up. It has an entirely different structure around using it compared to the alternatives.

First, such a minor part of the system I don't think by itself changes the feel all that much. It's a very superficial change, and quite frankly, I've never seen anyone actually use a daily power at the table anyway. Too much of a limited resource to "waste" and so it ends up never getting used. But even in older dnd, one generally doesn't lead with the high powered options that are most limited, especially not on anything less than a boss.

Now it's been years since I played neverwinter so I might be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure you build up charge on the minor battles so you have the daily ready for the bigger battles.

Honestly I find limiting the powers to the few hotslots to be a bigger change from the ttrpg myself.

Second, so far, most of the arguments against 4e being mmo like seem very superficial to me, like the top layer is distracting from the underlying foundational structure.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. But whether or not it has the most basic rules (which, won't that mostly be in the GM Core anyways?), it definitely sounds like there will be a lot of foundational material in the Player Core 2.

Which seems wrong to me. The phb number one "core" book should be the be-all end-all of what a player needs to know to play the game. Any other books after that should merely additional player options (or non-mechanical stuff like lore books and adventures). The dmg should include the additional stuff that the gm might need to know to get started on running the game without an adventure (as I believe using an adventure as a point to learn becomes a crutch that inhibits real gming ability). Monster manual likewise should just be options with no real required mechanics,

The only other books that should have any kind of mechanics should be alternative rules, like an alternative magic system or a book of rule tweaks like dnd's unearthed arcana.

For clarity, I do not consider player options to be real mechanics. They are not required for play (you need some but you don't need any particular ones) nor are any required to be understood if not chosen.

Thus, any second players book should not be core because it should not include anything fundamental to the game, just additional options.

That's just my personal feelings on it.

Well, the CRB had multiclass archetypes to introduce the concept, while the APG introduced more of them. I imagine PC1 and PC2 will follow the same format, since PC2 won't have space taken up by things like "how proficiency works" or "what the basic uses of skills are". I don't think it'll be missing anything foundational, but you'll still want PC2 in order to have the full suite of basic options.

Well, the CRB had multiclass archetypes to introduce the concept, while the APG introduced more of them. I imagine PC1 and PC2 will follow the same format, since PC2 won't have space taken up by things like "how proficiency works" or "what the basic uses of skills are". I don't think it'll be missing anything foundational, but you'll still want PC2 in order to have the full suite of basic options.

As I said, I think it will be missing some foundational stuff. Such as the majority of level 1+ equipment. They're in a unique position to get away with that, since the CRB is already out in the wild and the fundamental numbers won't be changing. They can put an extremely sparse selection of items in the Player Core, and ask that everyone refer to the already existing item stats while PC2 is being printed.

I also don't think Player Core will have archetypes at all. By the product descriptions, it sounds like all of them, including the rules for them, will be in PC2.

Naturally, I don't know more than anyone else. But I think do think that when they say this book will be core to play, they might mean it, and this might be how and why.

DaverdGM wrote:

I'm referring to the use of Metric system along the Imperial one, something like every time a distance or a weight is called in the rules it could be displayed in both units like 10f(22m). If it's not to much to ask.

There generally aren't weights in the game and adding meters would add a LOT of ink to the game and most likely some reformatting [every range, every range increment, maps {squares and other distances} and miscellaneous rules]. I'm a BIG NO for this, if for no other reason, I have to go back and edit them out when I copy/past things into a list or character sheet.

Spanish edition of Pathfider has measurements both in Metric and Imperial because that edition serves Spanish-speaking players both in the United States and normal countries. So, it's perfectly doable.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying. But whether or not it has the most basic rules (which, won't that mostly be in the GM Core anyways?), it definitely sounds like there will be a lot of foundational material in the Player Core 2.

Which seems wrong to me. The phb number one "core" book should be the be-all end-all of what a player needs to know to play the game. Any other books after that should merely additional player options (or non-mechanical stuff like lore books and adventures). The dmg should include the additional stuff that the gm might need to know to get started on running the game without an adventure (as I believe using an adventure as a point to learn becomes a crutch that inhibits real gming ability). Monster manual likewise should just be options with no real required mechanics,

The only other books that should have any kind of mechanics should be alternative rules, like an alternative magic system or a book of rule tweaks like dnd's unearthed arcana.

For clarity, I do not consider player options to be real mechanics. They are not required for play (you need some but you don't need any particular ones) nor are any required to be understood if not chosen.

Thus, any second players book should not be core because it should not include anything fundamental to the game, just additional options.

That's just my personal feelings on it.

Tried to find a specific section to snip, but pretty much all of it seems relevant. I don't necessarily disagree with you on this, but I'm not sure, based on the descriptions of the various core books and theirn page counts, that is what wound up happening.

Basically, I see a lot of people making the assumption that Player Core 2 isn't actually Core to play experience, based on how they'd organize things, and I feel like that might not be a correct assumption to be making. Specifically, it sounds like most of what you need to start play will be in PC, but much of what you'd need to level your character will be in PC2, with the assumption that the current Archive will serve to tide us over during that 8 month gap.

For the alignment system, the more I think about how the move away from it is being described, the more it grows on me. However, I do hope that there’s not just a replacement of good and evil with holy and unholy so that there can be a broader understanding of the good and the evil that is not necessarily bound up with a spiritual dynamic.

I could be completely wrong, but I've been thinking of the new use of holy/unholy as more a reference to positive/negative energy than as reference to the old good/evil alignments.

DaverdGM wrote:

I'm referring to the use of Metric system along the Imperial one, something like every time a distance or a weight is called in the rules it could be displayed in both units like 22f(10m). If it's not to much to ask.

There generally aren't weights in the game and adding meters would add a LOT of ink to the game and most likely some reformatting [every range, every range increment, maps {squares and other distances} and miscellaneous rules]. I'm a BIG NO for this, if for no other reason, I have to go back and edit them out when I copy/past things into a list or character sheet.

Spanish edition of Pathfider has measurements both in Metric and Imperial because that edition serves Spanish-speaking players both in the United States and normal countries. So, it's perfectly doable.

can also be useful when different players use different measuring systems.

ChickenParm wrote:

For the alignment system, the more I think about how the move away from it is being described, the more it grows on me. However, I do hope that there’s not just a replacement of good and evil with holy and unholy so that there can be a broader understanding of the good and the evil that is not necessarily bound up with a spiritual dynamic.

I could be completely wrong, but I've been thinking of the new use of holy/unholy as more a reference to positive/negative energy than as reference to the old good/evil alignments.

I expect that holy/unholy damage works as any energy damage. No more "no effect against that target because it's neutral or isn't a fiend" with just some creatures with resistance or immunity to that damage (like fiends immune to unholy and celestial immune to holy).

Gisher wrote:

ChickenParm wrote:

For the alignment system, the more I think about how the move away from it is being described, the more it grows on me. However, I do hope that there’s not just a replacement of good and evil with holy and unholy so that there can be a broader understanding of the good and the evil that is not necessarily bound up with a spiritual dynamic.

I could be completely wrong, but I've been thinking of the new use of holy/unholy as more a reference to positive/negative energy than as reference to the old good/evil alignments.

I expect that holy/unholy damage works as any energy damage. No more "no effect against that target because it's neutral or isn't a fiend" with just some creatures with resistance or immunity to that damage (like fiends immune to unholy and celestial immune to holy).

This works, and also patches the issue that "divine lance" could be used in place of "detect evil" that a lot of parties discovered independently.

Like as a GM I never wanted people to go around firing divine lances willy nilly, and now they won't have a reason to want to.

If Divine Lance did damage to enemies with the Holy/Unholy/Anarchic/Axiomatic trait, I would accept it not working on Joe the Average, a level -1 commoner down the street who skims from the top to help get by from an expensive, overly taxed town.

If Divine Lance did damage to enemies with the Holy/Unholy/Anarchic/Axiomatic trait, I would accept it not working on Joe the Average, a level -1 commoner down the street who skims from the top to help get by from an expensive, overly taxed town.

This would be fine, if clerics also had the option of a basic blasting cantrip, which is one of the places they're thin.

Yeah, clerics need another attack cantrip. It would also be nice to have a nonlethal cantrip that isn't daze or torturous trauma--daze's damage is somewhat nerfed to account for the huge potential on a crit fail, making it kind of weak as a damage spell (and, due to its huge swinginess, kind of unfun to use). Meanwhile, torturous trauma is. Well. Most characters who care about taking an enemy alive aren't gonna use that spell.

Spanish edition of Pathfider has measurements both in Metric and Imperial because that edition serves Spanish-speaking players both in the United States and normal countries. So, it's perfectly doable.

I never said it couldn't be done but it's going to be different formatting for English; It's different wedging it in after formating is done than planning for it from the start. Almost every weapon/shield table has to be altered as the speed/range/thrown entries would double in size and a significant number of spells [like battle forms that have to alter speeds, sometimes multiple ones, and ranged of attacks] could see entries get bigger than their footprints currently... Personally, I'd rather see the time that would take put to better use [IMO] in other area that could use fixing and would be more universally wanted/needed.

Now if they had all the time and resources needed to make each and every change possible, I'd still be against it as it'd make extra work for me [I know from experience with games that already use dual measurments] but I can see where others would like the measurements they most commonly use in the book.

On measurements, why not use exclusively shortcut terms, similar to close and long range for spells, but for all the different places, then you can just put dual measures in the one place that describes the different distances or alternatively, you can include just imperial in most places alongside the shortcut term but a table somewhere can show the conversions. Either way, you could then include metric and imperial but also others such as how many spaces on a game board or how many quarter inches on the tape measure when measuring the minitures. Such a table could be easily printed on a gm screen or kept with a character sheet if it was needed.

Spell ranges can be close, medium, long, plus reach (10 feet).
Weapon ranges can be reach (10 feet), a chain (20 feet), a yardshot (60 feet), etc. These can also be double, so a longbow can have a range of two yardshots for 120 feet. The table can then show how far a tardshot is in metric or spaces on a grid (which should be 1.25 inch spaces).

I mean, it really doesn't matter whether a grid square length is 5' or 1.5m. The combat rules are not actually the physics of the setting, so you could refer exclusively to squares in the context of combat.

I mean, it really doesn't matter whether a grid square length is 5' or 1.5m. The combat rules are not actually the physics of the setting, so you could refer exclusively to squares in the context of combat.

That only works for games where there is no functional connection between game mechanics and milieu physics. Including the in-world measurements is more flexible, excluding them will make it so you basically can't play in any style that requires more concrete connections between mechanics and the milieu.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, it really doesn't matter whether a grid square length is 5' or 1.5m. The combat rules are not actually the physics of the setting, so you could refer exclusively to squares in the context of combat.

That only works for games where there is no functional connection between game mechanics and milieu physics. Including the in-world measurements is more flexible, excluding them will make it so you basically can't play in any style that requires more concrete connections between mechanics and the milieu.

Well the game is Pathfinder and pathfinder only requires Squares.

There's also a clean break between "encounter mode" and "exploration mode" and "downtime mode" so the former could use only squares, the the latter two can use "whatever units the people at the table prefer" (measure distances in rods, if you want, whatever.)

The fact that 5ft is 1.524 meters not 1.5 meters is only going to really matter over a larger number of squares than combat most likely involves.

I personally will not be removing Alignment from my games. Kind of upsetting that I just bought all these books in the last 2 weeks just to have new versions. Coming out but I don't think that really matters. I feel this could have been done in a better way, but I also understand this is a business. As long as to much doesn't change it should not effect to many people. For me "Alignment" is the key thing for me. This should not be taken away in my opinion you should just offer different options to play without it.

Just using Squares can get wonky if you're on maps where a Square doesn't equal 5 feet, though.

Just using Squares can get wonky if you're on maps where a Square doesn't equal 5 feet, though.

Shh, you are not supposed to say things that make sense on the Internet.

Just using Squares can get wonky if you're on maps where a Square doesn't equal 5 feet, though.

Not really as maps with larger squares are normally are divisible be 5', so is a map square is 20'x20', you just note that map squares are 4x4 encounter squares. Same for 10'x10' squares, 30'x30' ones or even 25'x25' ones.

So, no wonky for me, as it's super easy to get your numbers especially in a game where you are expected to figure out how many squares and where 30' bursts and 60' orthogonal cones fit.

I get what you're saying, but I feel like then you run into the old "level" problem--suddenly "square" means two different things. If it works for you, that's fine! Personally, I find feet easier to manage. They also help me with visualizing, and they ensure that I'm measuring tactical distance and character height by the same metric, which just feels better to me.

I get what you're saying, but I feel like then you run into the old "level" problem--suddenly "square" means two different things. If it works for you, that's fine! Personally, I find feet easier to manage. They also help me with visualizing, and they ensure that I'm measuring tactical distance and character height by the same metric, which just feels better to me.

IMO, it's not the same: you are using them for different things. The VAST majority of encounters would be using encounter squares [5' squares], while you'd likely only see Map squares of bigger amounts in exploration. As such, it's fundamentally different that encountering level where you might have to deal with both version at the same time on a regular basis like on a caster.

That said, I have NO issue with just feet either, so either system would work for me. If I had to pick, I'd say feet as it has a greater level of granularity but that makes it harder to have a simple transition between feet and meters if you find that important [5' = 1.5m makes things easy]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Just using Squares can get wonky if you're on maps where a Square doesn't equal 5 feet, though.

Not really as maps with larger squares are normally are divisible be 5', so is a map square is 20'x20', you just note that map squares are 4x4 encounter squares. Same for 10'x10' squares, 30'x30' ones or even 25'x25' ones.

So, no wonky for me, as it's super easy to get your numbers especially in a game where you are expected to figure out how many squares and where 30' bursts and 60' orthogonal cones fit.

I use 4' per inch grids. Multiples of 5 are not the only alternative sizes.

Earth has a historical unit of measurement that equals about 5 feet or 1.5 meters. That unit is the Roman double-step pace (Pace unit). The single-step pace was more common and is half the length, 2.5 feet or 0.75 meters, but we can pick the pace we like. Thus, Pathfinder could use paces as its distance measurement rather than 5 feet or 1.5 meters or one length of a standard square.

I think "pace" would be kind of fun! It might be confusing if we used the double-step, though, and the single would lead to much higher numbers for everything's movement.

I'd honestly prefer they would switch to "squares" so we don't have to think about "wait this giant creature is only this sized?" implications xD

Well okay, that wouldn't change ;P But for real main reason I want to that to change is that they are never going to do monte cook book thing of "include both meters and feet" and I don't understand what feets are in real life so they might as well be squares to me x'D

The average length of a cat's tail is one foot. The average height of a bantam chicken is a bit over one foot. The average height of a large fowl chicken is a bit over two feet. The average height of thirty baby chicks standing perfectly balanced upon one another's heads is ten feet. The average height of a male golden retriever is two feet. The average length of an adult bull elephant's reproductive apparatus is six feet. The average circumference of two hundred and eighteen chicken eggs, if you broke them all and perfectly flattened them out to rest side by side in a straight line, is ten feet. The average height of four hummingbirds standing perfectly balanced atop one another's heads is one foot. The average number of feet of a standard PC ancestry is two feet. The average loss from accepting hospitality during a blizzard from an eccentric fan of your novels is one feet. The average number of skill feats a 4th-level rogue will have is five feats.

I hope these standard measurement comparisons make the game easier! :)

:'D Sorry, I do think its much easier to be like "average height of door is 2 meters"

The average length of a cat's tail is one foot. The average height of a bantam chicken is a bit over one foot. The average height of a large fowl chicken is a bit over two feet. The average height of thirty baby chicks standing perfectly balanced upon one another's heads is ten feet. The average height of a male golden retriever is two feet. The average length of an adult bull elephant is six feet. The average height of four hummingbirds standing perfectly balanced atop one another's heads is one foot. The average number of feet of a standard PC ancestry is two feet. The average loss from accepting hospitality during a blizzard from an eccentric fan of your novels is one feet. The average number of skill feats a 4th-level rogue will have is five feats.

I hope these standard measurement comparisons make the game easier! :)

I give up. I have to admit defeat.

The average result of QuidEst engaging with me on the matter of units of PF2 measurement is defeet.