Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

I believe they’ve said some deities only want followers who commit to being Holy or Unholy, depending on their own desires. One imagines Asmodeus only has Unholy folks on his team.

a Supernatural trait for mystical abilities that aren't explicitly magical (such as Barbarian Rage)

I, um, don't think rage is supposed to be inherently magical though. Some versions are (animal, draconic, spirit) but those do have magical traits associated with them. Plain, ordinary rage is just... rage. You get angry enough to hit things harder. That's it.

With all the ancestry name changes over the last couple of years (ratfolk to ysoki, lizardfolk to iruxi and now gnoll to kholo), what is their status in the ORC?

Are they able to be freely used in any unrelated material if the ORC is appropriately referenced? Or are they considered Paizo IP (like Red Mantis Assassins)?

Hopefully it's the former. I'd love to have all my gnolls now be kholo with no IP issues. If it's the latter then other publishers need to find a new third name for all of these ancestries (yes, it's a hyena-headed anthropomorphic humanoid, called, um, a Hyenu, haha, yes, that will do)

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

If you'll forgive me for using this as a jumping off point:

At a bird's eye view level, sure, but can we still say that when it comes to the details? A lot of the core devils (barbazu/bearded devils, erinyes, pit fiends, etc.) are OGL and will have to be pulled out and replaced. Eight of the nine archdevils that rule the layers of Hell use the same names, public domain though they may be (mostly?), as the ones used in 1e DnD, and in the same order. Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

I like Paizo's setting work and I know that WotC forced their hand on making these changes with the OGL debacle, but even if they commit to keeping the structure of the cosmology the same and that there will still be a tyrannical Hell dimension inhabited by devils when all is said and done, I admit I'm more than a little worried about how much of the current version will survive the pruning process.

But then that's the Chelaxian Diabolist player in me, perhaps...

I really don't think that "Erinyes" are OGL, considering that Hesiod called them Ἐρινύες. And the Nine Layers of Hell thing comes from Dante, not Renton.

OK let's start speculating!

One thing I noticed looking at the Player Core page is that other than the Bard, there are no spontaneous caster classes.

The classes that are there are: bard, cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, rogue, witch, and wizard!

While Player Core 2 got: alchemist, barbarian, champion, investigator, monk, oracle, sorcerer, and swashbuckler.

It makes me wonder now that. Maybe, just maybe, isn't the designers also considering reworking the prepared and spontaneous spellcasters? Like, for example, ending Vancian Spellcasting? This would justify a little why the spontaneous spellcasters are thrown to the 2nd book (to be better worked on, as it should be with the Champion if the vancian spellcasting really will be gone once this would make the casters mechanics more closer and will require some more work to make then more unique).

Ps.: Now that Paizo is reviewing everything, I would be very happy if they made some alternative rules for Spell Points.

As Quidest said, if they haven't announced that they are doing something that big, its probably not happening. at most, I would think that if there was some minor change, it would be to prepared casting, as the witch is in core 1. But the bard is still in core 1, and they are almost certainty staying spontaneous casters.

Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

Hell having 9 layers is a bit older than D&D. I don't think Hasbro could claim copyright on Dante. Perhaps some of the names? Perhaps not.

Yeah. Hell having nine layers is nothing new; Dante saw to that.

I don't think we'll have to worry overly much about the Archdevils, either. From what little I know of D&D's hellish head honchos, they work and think differently from the ones in Pathfinder's setting, even where their names are the same. There are a few that PF just hasn't touched as well.

Veltharis wrote:

Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

Hell having 9 layers is a bit older than D&D. I don't think Hasbro could claim copyright on Dante. Perhaps some of the names? Perhaps not.

Huh... You know, for some reason, I would have sworn Dante's Inferno had seven layers, but no, that's nine all right.

Touche on that specific point. There's still a fair number of DnD-isms tangled up in there.

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Veltharis wrote:

Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

Hell having 9 layers is a bit older than D&D. I don't think Hasbro could claim copyright on Dante. Perhaps some of the names? Perhaps not.

Huh... You know, for some reason, I would have sworn Dante's Inferno had seven layers, but no, that's nine all right.

Touche on that specific point. There's still a fair number of DnD-isms tangled up in there.

His Paradiso has seven, so in terms of numerical significance you've still got a correct digit--which of course matches with Celestia and Heaven.

(Actually, stupidly funny as it would be, but "These are the layers of Hell, not Baator. Totally different place." -- Okay, okay I know expression matters as much if not more than exact naming in certain places of copyright XD)

Cyouni wrote:

I feel like this is kinda reopening the door to "good" or "neutral" Asmodeus or Lamashtu worshippers though. They specifically moved away from that for a reason.

I think the way around this is to make "receiving divine power from a God" require accepting both a set of edicts and anathema specific to that God and a more general set of edicts and anathema shared by a bunch of simiilar Gods.

I definitely think this is possible, which would be interesting to see how it resolves certain things like that.

It's also going to be interesting to see how things like Divine Wrath are handled. I definitely think it'd be weird if those AoE aligned blasts changed to hitting everyone, for instance.

Veltharis wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Veltharis wrote:

Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

Hell having 9 layers is a bit older than D&D. I don't think Hasbro could claim copyright on Dante. Perhaps some of the names? Perhaps not.

Huh... You know, for some reason, I would have sworn Dante's Inferno had seven layers, but no, that's nine all right.

Touche on that specific point. There's still a fair number of DnD-isms tangled up in there.

His Paradiso has seven, so in terms of numerical significance you've still got a correct digit--which of course matches with Celestia and Heaven.

(Actually, stupidly funny as it would be, but "These are the layers of Hell, not Baator. Totally different place." -- Okay, okay I know expression matters as much if not more than exact naming in certain places of copyright XD)

Purgatorio also has seven layers - for some reason I though all three did. *shrugs*

Actually scratch that... Doesn't Paradiso have nine?

I've read through this and caught up on the ORC license. This basically sounds like a rewrite for the benefit of the ORC license and a tweak to stuff as an added bonus...and to keep WOTC from messing with the game.

Just please don't jumble up and mess up a good rule system like WOTC has done with D&D. They just can't leave it alone and break it more than improve it.

Wait a sec

Does this mean its too late to do my dire corby bestiary pathfinder infinite idea I worked on but kinda lost steam to finish because I got anxious over editing it? :'D

You are free to publish that on Infinite under the OGL, as long as you correctly cite the original OGL source of the dire corby. And even if the terms for publishing on Infinite ever expressly forbade the use of the OGL, existing product wouldn't be affected. So publish away!

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Veltharis wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Veltharis wrote:

Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward, along with more than a few of the names of those nine layers.

Hell having 9 layers is a bit older than D&D. I don't think Hasbro could claim copyright on Dante. Perhaps some of the names? Perhaps not.

Huh... You know, for some reason, I would have sworn Dante's Inferno had seven layers, but no, that's nine all right.

Touche on that specific point. There's still a fair number of DnD-isms tangled up in there.

His Paradiso has seven, so in terms of numerical significance you've still got a correct digit--which of course matches with Celestia and Heaven.

(Actually, stupidly funny as it would be, but "These are the layers of Hell, not Baator. Totally different place." -- Okay, okay I know expression matters as much if not more than exact naming in certain places of copyright XD)

Purgatorio also has seven layers - for some reason I though all three did. *shrugs*

Actually scratch that... Doesn't Paradiso have nine?

Whoa hold up! Whaddya know? It is so.

I gotta go outside and look at some grass, I've been looking at this screen too long...

I really really hope this isn't just Paizo getting cocky/greedy and attempting to double-dip after angry dnd FANS MOVED OVER TO pf2E and bought out 8 months of books in a month.

I really really hope this isn't just Paizo getting cocky/greedy and attempting to double-dip after angry dnd FANS MOVED OVER TO pf2E and bought out 8 months of books in a month.

... all the rules are online for free.

And everything that they have said about the subject indicates that existing books are forwards compatible with the new version for the most part. Yes there are some errata changes to be handled. Most notably the removal of alignment by that name.

But I have no intention of getting the new books to replace the existing books that I already have.

And the other rulebooks are compatible enough with the Remastered rules that they haven't announced any intention of Remastering things like Secrets of Magic and Guns and Gears. Just those four books announced so far.

I really really hope this isn't just Paizo getting cocky/greedy and attempting to double-dip after angry dnd FANS MOVED OVER TO pf2E and bought out 8 months of books in a month.

Erik Mona talked about this during the Roll for Combat YouTube video -- basically if they had wanted to do that it would have been far cheaper to roll out a completely new system with all the books. From a money perspective. From a Customer Satisfaction perspective it was a non-starter.

Instead, they had to juggle their annual publishing schedules for two years to squeeze in four additional books (PCore, GCore, PCore2, MCore) and make sure that the revisions will 'mesh' with the already present PF2.

He also noted that they are trying to figure out some way to provide a way for folks who have recently found PF2 (or have invested over the years) to handle the adjustments as painlessly and seamlessly as possible.

keftiu wrote:

Ability Scores are out. Modifiers only.

That would suck. It was bad enough that HeroLab OnLine has still not had the ability scores be featured instead of the ability mods with teeny tiny list of the actual scores to the side.

Why would they copy Mutants and Masterminds?

Just so you're aware:

The official Paizo Beginner Box Character Sheets for PF2 have never had Ability Scores. Since the beginning those sheets have only shown bonuses.

I really really hope this isn't just Paizo getting cocky/greedy and attempting to double-dip after angry dnd FANS MOVED OVER TO pf2E and bought out 8 months of books in a month.

They are doing it because some stuff falls under the OGL which they want to move away from. Honestly after what WoTC tried earlier this year who could blame them. Which means removing some stuff that can only be used with the OGL and replacing it, and printing the game with the ORC licence going forward. Since they have to make changes because of the OGL they might as well tweek a few things.

I just like 2 months ago back into PF, I just ordered the PF2E Players Core book like 3 days ago. So I get how you feel, but I also understand why they have to do this. I wouldn't want to tie my game to the OGL and good will of WoTC anymore either.

I think my biggest concern with the alignment change (though I am mostly happy with it) is how it will tackle alignment damage baked into classes. Im not explicitly talking about spells for cleric (as they said they will be going into the spell lists and re-writing a lot of underwhelming options) but more about the champion class.

Context: The new Holy/Unholy damage, which takes good/evil's place, I assume will only affect creatures of extremes (like angels and devils)

Each cause has a divine smite which deals persistent good damage (or evil) or in the case of evil causes has evil damage baked into their kit at lvl 1.
I would hate to have a feature baked into a class that only applies against certain types of enemies and it would represent a loss in power in the mid-levels for champion. Going from affecting all evil enemies (most of the villains in a campaign) to only aspected evil enemies like undead or devils (which may or may not be a minority depending on the campaign).

Smite Good/Evil is another concern I suppose but at least that's an opt-in option (though one that is a pretty popular fantasy I would imagine not every fan would appreciate relegated to a situational buy-in)

Basically I would hate for some bread and butter features of a fantasy to become opt-in situational options though I can always use the old alignment system if it comes to that.

If its almost entirely the same book with some stuff removed, why wouldnt you just give the PDF of the new book to people who own the existing PDF of those books, and make the physical an optional purchase instead of a sub-thing?

i'm not a paizo employee, but i'd guess it's because they might have to pay the people who create the new books or something wild like that.

[...]Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward[...]

The nine circles of Hell is from Dante's Inferno and far predates D&D. (Similarly, displacer beasts are reskinned coeurl from The Black Destroyer, George R.R. Martin invented githyanki for his novel Dying of the Light, octopus-headed mind flayers were inspired by Brian Lumley's The Burrower's Beneath, D&D's trolls are taken almost word-for-word from Poul Anderson's Three Hearts and Three Lions, owlbears and rust monsters got their artistic expressions from toys Gary got out of a gacha machine, this list goes on basically forever because fantasy is a language and D&D did not invent that language, it just speaks it.)

None of which changes the fact that sometimes you can be totally in the right and still lose to someone with more money and lawyers than you have, thus the need for an ORC and a de-OGLification of Pathfinder, but there's some stuff that is so obviously not protectable that we're not going to just be bullied away from using it.

I really really hope this isn't just Paizo getting cocky/greedy and attempting to double-dip after angry dnd FANS MOVED OVER TO pf2E and bought out 8 months of books in a month.

This is Paizo moving away from the OGL to the ORC license. If Paizo wanted to force you to buy all new books, this would have been a new edition. It's not.

Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project LIVE Q&A with Paizo's Erik Mona .

Veltharis wrote:

[...]Heck, Hell itself being a specifically nine-layered plane is a DnD-ism that Pathfinder brought forward[...]

The nine circles of Hell is from Dante's Inferno and far predates D&D.

Yeah, mixed up my Dante... Thought Inferno had seven layers, not nine.

Shameful of me as a Diabolist player, frankly. :p

Ravien999 wrote:

If its almost entirely the same book with some stuff removed, why wouldnt you just give the PDF of the new book to people who own the existing PDF of those books, and make the physical an optional purchase instead of a sub-thing?

i'm not a paizo employee, but i'd guess it's because they might have to pay the people who create the new books or something wild like that.

Also, not everyone has pdf copies of all four of those books. And since they are mixing around what content goes in which one, it wouldn't make sense to replace only the CRB with the new Player Core book since it would mean losing several classes and most alchemical items from what you have in your digital library. Even though the mechanics and description of those classes and alchemical items haven't changed all that much.

So, one question that comes to mind is:

Will the other six non-core classes (Magus, Summoner, Inventor, Gunslinger, Psychic, and Thaumaturge) get a remastered version down the road, in a possible "Players Core 3"?

I understand that the Kineticist will be released with the remastered rules in mind in Rage of Elements.

(I apologize in advance if this has already been answered.)

If I showed up to a table, and the GM said:
"I've got some changes I've made. We'll be using an alignment variant rule that mostly limits alignment mechanics to extraplanar being weaknesses, and I've made some adjustments to Champion to work with that. Oracle, Alchemist, and Witch didn't have the best play experiences, so if you want to do one of those, I've also got some tweaks there. I run streamlined crafting and focus point recovery," and then they linked me to a Google docs list of some home rules, I wouldn't feel like my core rulebook purchase was wasted. Paizo's releasing all those rules for free (good luck to everybody contributing to Archives of Nethys!), so we can look up the important stuff.

Even just an automatic bonus progression game using proficiency without level is way more work to adjust for than it sounds like this probably is, especially since a large part of the changes are just, "Hey, we can't reprint these creatures/spells under ORC. Keep using them if you want."

Can we assume pocket editions will be along sooner or later?

Good!!! I'm very glad. It's long overdue to separate from WotC craziness. I fully support your efforts -- and I'm very excited and relieved!

Thank you, Paizo!

I'm throwing one more hat in the ring of the "monster core" name sucking

I don't want a monster manual
I want a Bestiary. A Creature Tome. An Entity Opus.

"monster core" is blah

Even Creature Core would roll better, I think :b

Similarly, if I want to run an alignment-focused game, or make it easy for the GM to do, what would I want? I'd want class mechanics that touch on it, some related spells, and most importantly, the alignments and follower alignments of at least the major deities. The four years of alignment support we got are... probably at least 80% of the alignment-focused content we would have gotten a full decade. Hundreds of deities with alignment information, the weakness numbers for three bestiaries plus a book of undead, three books with a strong focus on providing lots of spells (CRB, APG, and SoM), and a versatile heritage for each of the four sides of the alignment grid.

Personally, I still generally keep track of my character's alignment even in games that don't use it, so it'll probably be at least a few years before I drop the habit.

Can't say I'm particularly keen on losing alignment, imo it really added a lot of flavor to the game. Like it was clear that was is Good/Evil/Lawful/Chaotic are largely determined by the (very biased) gods and what they individually approved or disapproved of. Pharasma probably being the best example, not only is she the ultimate judge of everyone and everything, she also has very clear biases. Like how she presents herself as True Neutral (To better fulfill the unbiased judge role), yet she herself has an obvious bend towards Lawful Neutral and even keeps her domain in Axis. Then there's everything involving the undead. While undead does lean towards evil imo, Pharasma also has a clear personal grudge against all undead and Urgathoa in particular and I'd argue it clouds her judgement of undeath in-general. Though she's far from the only example. There's Videlis and Ragathiel's merciless zealotry that puts them at odds with a lot of other Good deities, Sarenrae's overlooking of slavery undermines her position as the goddess of mercy and compassion, Findelhara refuses to acknowledge the art or worship of non-elves.

And just, I dunno, it feels like everyone approaches character alignment in a different way than me? Like people see it as a hard-set category your character falls into and they can never deviate from ever. And yeah, if that's how you see alignment I can get why you think it's stupid but is it really supposed to be like that? But as my last paragraph shows, even the gods who set the rules are clearly very inconsistent with acting "as" their alignment. Isn't that proof enough that alignment isn't supposed to be a hard-wired programming for a character they cannot deviate from?

Imo alignment is more an expression of the character's typical worldviews and aspirations, and they can deviate it based on the circumstances without it necessarily affecting their alignment. Like a Good character raised in a bigoted community might unconsciously act on those bigoted notions without it suddenly...

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.

I feel y'all, I think, but I do wish to point out that a system used to describe characters (with mechanical knock-on effects!) being so frequently a matter of IMOs and 'feels like a lot of people misunderstand x...' is likely the major problem in the first place. As far as a game and stories go, conveying to an audience is important. A lot of this audience can't agree on what this central mechanic-descriptor is or how best to use it.

(And also aside from the defensive wonkiness: using Evil damage as a player kinda sucks overall, Good can be pretty feast-or-famine, and Lawful and Chaotic almost never matter mechanically nor are they popular as player options — holy and unholy damage/traits/whatever will likely get at the most broadly valuable things those did, honestly, though details elude us.)

I don't know that I'd say Lawful player options are unpopular with the game that invented Hellknights, and every table I've ever been at has been swarmed by Chaotic "heroes"...

Pocket editions YES

I'm happy at the end there was some chat about changing the war priest as well!!

Still going to use Alignment and full stats in all my games, until, unless I get the same feel and flavor of what the new stuff is about is pretty much the same??. As a GM mostly and with many groups I'll have buy all this, more than a couple times. Just hope there is some extra discount from all the platforms for those who have all this already. Small chance I bet but I hope they think long and hard about this!!

Tom

OK let's start speculating!

One thing I noticed looking at the Player Core page is that other than the Bard, there are no spontaneous caster classes.

The classes that are there are: bard, cleric, druid, fighter, ranger, rogue, witch, and wizard!

While Player Core 2 got: alchemist, barbarian, champion, investigator, monk, oracle, sorcerer, and swashbuckler.

It makes me wonder now that. Maybe, just maybe, isn't the designers also considering reworking the prepared and spontaneous spellcasters? Like, for example, ending Vancian Spellcasting? This would justify a little why the spontaneous spellcasters are thrown to the 2nd book (to be better worked on, as it should be with the Champion if the vancian spellcasting really will be gone once this would make the casters mechanics more closer and will require some more work to make then more unique).

I think it's a lot more likely that Sorcerer (and Barbarian) are pushed to the Player Core 2 because they have Dragon subclasses, and they'd want to leave those until after Monster Core, since it'll be easier to understand how the new Dragon classifications work with those sorts of subclasses.

I'm very curious to see what exactly is happening to alignment. If we are getting some watered down "everything and everyone is a walking moral grey area" mechanics it will be extremely disappointing.

Speaking for myself, as a 30+ year D&D veteran who has played virtually non-stop at least 2x/week, with roots going all the way back to 2nd edition AD&D, and as well as someone with the discretionary income to purchase every Pathfinder product when it is released: I approve of the move away from traditional alignments.

It is funny, I’ve been working on some homebrew rules that did away with alignments in my next homebrew campaign. I’ll be looking forward to seeing how this is implemented.

I don't know that I'd say Lawful player options are unpopular with the game that invented Hellknights, and every table I've ever been at has been swarmed by Chaotic "heroes"...

Oh, I wouldn't have caught that to edit fast enough, but I more referred to mechanical player options. Lots of Chaotic characters but you don't see as many people clamoring for the Anarchic rune the way you do Holy, much fewer enemies particularly care about aligned Lawful or Chaotic damage the way Good (and to a lesser but still more notable extent Evil) do, fewer items and feats use them, fewer enemies use them, etc.

I certainly don't have as much knowledge of the lore, but as far as my impression of a broader story scale, law and chaos also don't tend to compel the same breadth or amount of interest and focus (I can only think of Hellknights and maybe Firebrands being especially popular, maybe the Bellflowers and Gray Maidens before them), and that's on top of seeming borderline mechanically vestigial at times.

Is Hell going to be called Heck now?

I'm hoping the magic items stay in the GM's book. When Pathfinder released both Player and GM in one book, that put magic items in the "core" book. And when they were in the core book, players started feeling they had a right to them. I like a low magic, high fantasy game. I love to give out fantastic treasure in monster hoards. Not to have players trying to flip thru the book, shopping. So that's my hope!

I'm excited that all this is happening. Hopefully it makes it easier for players to get in, with a smaller book. Go, Paizo!

I do hope the eventual replacement for Alignment is more interesting than "Holy and Unholy binary".

Like my favorite "it's not alignment but..." system for a game in this family of games is the 13th Age Icon system. Wherein you have ties to one or more of the 13 major NPCs that represent archetypes that have echoed throughout the ages, some of these are villainous and some heroic, and your ties can be positive, negative, or mixed. Golarion almost certainly has too much stuff in it for this exact approach to work, but there's certainly fun stuff you can do here.

I think there should still be some form of alignment but perhaps more like Nature/Demeanor that World of Darkness used to have? Also, might this just just bring in a lot of jerk players trying to live out their antisocial murder fantasies because 'well there is no alignment now'?

Problem players are a problem for their own reasons, the exact excuses involved are rarely the culprit.

Viviolay wrote:

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

So just to check because I'm now confused of what people are talking bout. From what I understood, they are basically doing erratad changed version of classes and core options, but its not like they are changing rules or skill math or monster math?

So like post remaster and pre remaster versions are still working on same rules and same math and this is more of glorified errata with more changes than normal errata?

I want to be clear: This is exactly what I understand is happening. I can forgive people for being apprehensive and alarmed because "Nothing is actually changing" was the story that One D&D started with, too, right before ripping open the OGL debacle that provoked this change. I can see why people might reflexively flinch.

That said, for all intents and purposes it appears that most of these changes are either errata that was coming in a few months anyway, or changes that are made specifically as a ripple effect of the OGL debacle previously mentioned. Alignment seems to be the biggest single change and it suits that the reason for the alignment change is partly rooted in both those reasons.

I think, at least for me, I really want to feel like it's all going to be fine. I want to not be worried and to trust paizo.

But I feel like not enough information was given to make it clear how lawful/chaos and lore would be handled. Saying "not much will change" isn't clear. Hearing other not-employed-by-paizo people saying that also doesn't help.

Clear answers to questions people kept asking over and over would be better and would go farther to allowing people to chill out.

Till then, can you blame people for being anxious?

I feel like it's come up several times in this thread that nothing about the overall cosmology or setting is changing. They're just going to express those through terms that don't have the stink of the OGL on them.

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl - just other community members. I'm not sure if I just missed this during the stream I watched (if so please let me know around when and I'll go back and rewatch that portion) or if people are just assuming?

I do know a lot of people (at least 7 times in the last 10 mins of the first stream) asked about the lawful/chaos terms/replacement and there was no answer.

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl - just other community members. I'm not sure if I just missed this during the stream I watched or if people are just assuming?

Well, this blog post literally says, "Your existing books are still valid." And the twitch stream people were quite clear about the things that are changing and that the rest of the rules are not so much changing even if they are sometimes changing which book they are printed in.

Some other things that I can infer from other facts:

This isn't a cash grab - the rules have always been available for free if you just want the online version of them.

The other rulebooks - such as Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, and Dark Archive, the other Bestiaries, Treasure Vault - are not scheduled for Remastering. Which means that the basic rules are still valid enough for those books that only minor errata is needed for them.

Let's hope this doesn't hit Starfinder.

"slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged"

That's some weasel wording there. Why a different mix? There shouldn't be. Either it's changed, or it's not. "largely" is also an out for "ok, so there are changes [beyond errata]!"

Also, generally not a fan of a Player and GM split on books. Paizo's always done right with the CRB being one and all, then separate bestiary only. Now if you pull out the bestiary, you have all the extra baggage that isn't monsters, for instance. The "GM" book is a system-hacking baseline, and how-to-manage-people guide, really its own thing. Et cetera.

Removing alignment is also a mistake.

Think of it like buying the next version of the version of the books, almost like if you purchased the 1st printing of the Core Rulebook, & saw the 2nd printing. It does not look like you need these new books.

Pathfinder 1e had a Gamemaster's Guide. In D&D, you do not technically NEED the Dungeon Master's Guide to play the game as most of it is world building & variant systems. The Player's Handbook & Monster Manual is more than sufficient to run a D&D game.

Also, alignment in Pathfinder 2e was probably the biggest mistake Paizo made with the system. It should never have been included as mechanically important.

Not much is changing but alignment is one of the biggest things that is is the message I've seen consistently repeated.

Then there are four classes that seem to be getting the 'unchained' treatment... Witch, alchemist, oracle, and champion.

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl

The streams LITERALLY stated it and people are repeating that... So, you are wrong about paizo ppl not mentioning it: they just didn't mention it in the blog. Maybe watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?

Viviolay wrote:

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl - just other community members. I'm not sure if I just missed this during the stream I watched or if people are just assuming?

Well, this blog post literally says, "Your existing books are still valid." And the twitch stream people were quite clear about the things that are changing and that the rest of the rules are not so much changing even if they are sometimes changing which book they are printed in.

Some other things that I can infer from other facts:

This isn't a cash grab - the rules have always been available for free if you just want the online version of them.

The other rulebooks - such as Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, and Dark Archive, the other Bestiaries, Treasure Vault - are not scheduled for Remastering. Which means that the basic rules are still valid enough for those books that only minor errata is needed for them.

I'm not really concerned about existing books mechanically. Idk why its assumed I'm worried about it being a cash grab - I understand it's not and isn't what I'm asking about.

I'm curious lore-wise what alignment removal means and was hoping for more specific answers watching the stream besides "not much is changing" because "not much" means different things to different people.
Someone could see the same change and have different perspectives on how impactful they are - as evidenced by this entire thread.

Viviolay wrote:

My frustration comes from the fact all the people saying it's not changing don't seem to be paizo ppl

The streams LITERALLY stated it and people are repeating that... So, you are wrong about paizo ppl not mentioning it: they just didn't mention it in the blog. Maybe watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?

In that same post you quoted from - I stated I did watch the stream**(the initial one with Logan and Jason) and asked if I missed it and if so around which portion so I can go back and watch that bit again. I was participating in the chat for that stream with questions.

Don't appreciate you assumed I just didn't watch.