Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

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'?

I like the alignment system because I'm used to it. It was in OD&D, where I started and it's like an old friend now.

But it's not integral to the game. Jerk players are going to be jerk players no matter the rules. I run a half-dozen other systems (Traveller, The One Ring, Call of Cthulhu, etc.) in addition to Pathfinder and none of them use alignment. Yet somehow the player-characters manage to act like heroes most of the time.

Honestly the best use of alignment was to identify the problem players up front (the ones that chose Chaotic Neutral, naturally).

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.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

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.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

There were two streams today; Erik Mona had additional info with Roll For Combat.

graystone wrote:

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 streams and asked if I missed it and if so around which portion so I can go back and watch that bit again.

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

Why would I assume anything else? Was I wrong in assuming you are a fairly perceptive person and as you are interested in that question and you'd recall when it was mentioned? IMO, it would have been rude to assume you did watch it and are still asking the question. But fine, I'll restate it as "Maybe [re-]watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?"

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

I think it was the second stream during the Q&A with Mona.

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.

Except tales of the valiant is confirmed to have floating ability scores, meaning your ancestry won’t affect the scores you get. So if your looking for locked ancestry ability scores, you aren’t getting it there either

Viviolay wrote:

graystone wrote:

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 streams and asked if I missed it and if so around which portion so I can go back and watch that bit again.

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

Why would I assume anything else? Was I wrong in assuming you are a fairly perceptive person and as you are interested in that question and you'd recall when it was mentioned? IMO, it would have been rude to assume you did watch it and are still asking the question. But fine, I'll restate it as "Maybe [re-]watch the streams and/or just take the word of people that have?"

Your response comes off as hostile and dismissive to me in that it assumed the worst (that I’m just asking a question/expressing concern over something without being willing to do research myself). It also directly ignored the fact I stated multiple times included in your quoted post of that I saw it.

Viviolay wrote:

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.

There have been several other people on this thread that have stated things to that effect. I am speaking to them as well.

Viviolay wrote:

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.

It does mean different things, that is true.

The main mechanics of the game are not changing much.

Alignment by that name is being removed. That much has been stated outright.

As for the stream and the changes to the lore and cosmology, the best I can remember is towards the end where they were summarizing (and I am paraphrasing here): They are wanting to keep the stories the same. Golarion isn't changing, the planes aren't changing. It is just being repackaged into different mechanics.

Thank you at least trying and also acknowledging there was only something towards the end. I know the portion you are speaking about - it was something alog the lines of keeping the players ability to tell their stories the same- The lore stuff was glazed over in the stream I watched. That’s why I’m frustrated people keep saying it was addressed when it really wasn’t- at least not in that one.

Speaking of ability scores/modifiers, I hope that a 3 boost 1 flaw option for ancestries is added as a fix to the previous removal of Voluntary Flaws.

Thank you at least trying and also acknowledging there was only something towards the end. I know the portion you are speaking about - it was something alog the lines of keeping the players ability to tell their stories the same- The lore stuff was glazed over in the stream I watched. That’s why I’m frustrated people keep saying it was addressed when it really wasn’t- at least not in that one.

I’m not outright upset about change- I just want more specifics because I care about those details and am frustrated there aren’t any so far beyond “not much”

Yes, the details of exactly what alignment is being replaced with has not been specified very much.

And in this case you are also getting a lot of pushback from people such as myself that is not really directed at this particular point you are asking about. It is more directed at the people posting that the sky is falling and that they are going to abandon the game because everything is changing and they will have to buy new books and ...

Chill. The core rulebooks are not changing that much.

I stated multiple times included in your quoted post of that I saw it.

If you watched Paizo Twitch stream with Jason Bulmahn and Logan Bonner, you will remember that they said several times that there would be a two-hour presentation during Paizo Con with more details.

Today's announcements and Twitch presentations are only the introduction. There will be information that won't be available until the actual release date. There will be information that won't be available until Paizo Con.

There's a lot more information that Paizo has already said they aren't yet revealing, which they repeated several times during both presentations.

You'll get your specific answers. But the specifics will arrive based on Paizo's timetable, not your frustrations.

It's all in the blog post above:

How can I learn more about the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster books?

To learn more about the Remaster books, check out our live stream chat about the announcement happening later today on Twitch. Beyond that, we’ll be making a handful of additional announcements in the coming days and weeks to showcase more about this exciting project, culminating in your first full look at the project during PaizoCon (May 26th–29th)!

CyberKiller wrote:

What will happen with the current/legacy books on the shop? Will I be able to buy the old PDFs in the future?

From the blog post above

Blog Post wrote:

Paizo will not reprint once their current print runs expire.

And that's why I'm asking about PDFs, the printed books are obvious, but what about digital? I'd hate to buy everything in panic here and now, in case they vanish/get delisted, but so far this looks to be the case.

Viviolay wrote:

I stated multiple times included in your quoted post of that I saw it.

If you watched Paizo Twitch stream with Jason Bulmahn and Logan Bonner, you will remember that they said several times that there would be a two-hour presentation during Paizo Con with more details.

Today's announcements and Twitch presentations are only the introduction. There will be information that won't be available until the actual release date. There will be information that won't be available until Paizo Con.

There's a lot more information that Paizo has already said they aren't yet revealing, which they repeated several times during both presentations.

You'll get your specific answers. But the specifics will arrive based on Paizo's timetable, not your frustrations.

Yes, I do recall that. Which is why I stated in an earlier post 'people asked this question re:X multiple times, and the answers were paizocon.'

Viviolay wrote:

Thank you at least trying and also acknowledging there was only something towards the end. I know the portion you are speaking about - it was something alog the lines of keeping the players ability to tell their stories the same- The lore stuff was glazed over in the stream I watched. That’s why I’m frustrated people keep saying it was addressed when it really wasn’t- at least not in that one.

I’m not outright upset about change- I just want more specifics because I care about those details and am frustrated there aren’t any so far beyond “not much”

Yes, the details of exactly what alignment is being replaced with has not been specified very much.

And in this case you are also getting a lot of pushback from people such as myself that is not really directed at this particular point you are asking about. It is more directed at the people posting that the sky is falling and that they are going to abandon the game because everything is changing and they will have to buy new books and ...

Chill. The core rulebooks are not changing that much.

I can understand that for sure. I can see why it'd be easy for actual unaddressed concerns to be mixed in with something that's been actually answered re: the books.

I just ask maybe people parse through more carefully which are which. It sucks I'm basically being told something was addressed multiple times in the thread that really wasn't because people assume everyone is losing their head I guess.

Thanks for at least acknowledging my point/frustrations and taking the time to differentiate it from the other concerns people are raising - I appreciate it.

And that's why I'm asking about PDFs, the printed books are obvious, but what about digital? I'd hate to buy everything in panic here and now, in case they vanish/get delisted, but so far this looks to be the case.

I guess it depends on what you are panicking over.

If you want books that still have alignment in them, you probably only need the CRB and maybe the Gamemastery Guide.

At worst you would only need to panic buy the CRB, APG, Gamemastery Guide, and Bestiary 1. Those are the only ones being discontinued.

Though... alignment isn't that complicated. I'm not sure why you would need to have the entire book to keep that in mind for a houserule.

And the rest of the changes are on the level of normal errata. So no need to panic over those any more than when the 4th printing of the CRB came out a few months ago and invalidated the 3rd printing.

And that's why I'm asking about PDFs, the printed books are obvious, but what about digital? I'd hate to buy everything in panic here and now, in case they vanish/get delisted, but so far this looks to be the case.

At this moment, I can still purchase PDFs of Pathfinder First Edition rulebooks in the Paizo store.

There have been several sales and Humble Bundle fundraisers that included many of those PDFs at quite a discount.

Based on their current sales offerings, I don't think you're going to need to purchase all the PDFs here and now.

And that's why I'm asking about PDFs, the printed books are obvious, but what about digital? I'd hate to buy everything in panic here and now, in case they vanish/get delisted, but so far this looks to be the case.

Also, I just checked and it looks like you can still buy the pdf Pathfinder 1 Core Rulebook. And it has been out of print for several years now.

So no guarantee, but it is certainly a good indication of precedent.

Alignment is what make this game different from DND. I'm not sure what people's problems with alignments are; alignments only show the "tendency" of how a character/creature would behave and NOT 100% to the alignment description 100% all the time. It's a great tool to have and some nice "elements", other than the standard fire, cold...etc.

So, are we going to just going to get bunch of "lawful good" demons with remasters?

Hopefully this doesn't sound mean, but the fact is that there are plenty of other games, ones even better than Pathfinder, don't have alignments that you can play. If you like Paizo's setting or plot, just adapt it for that system, and not trying to change Pathfinder.

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.

Will this mean a lot of holdover mechanics will be dropped, like Wizards not being trained in all simple weapons, or Rogues not being trained in all Martial weapons, or combining armors into just two categories of Light and Heavy (which the numbers kind of favor anyway)?

Alignment has me feeling conflicted, since I think PF does it really well and has built its lore in a way to make the different sides of the alignment spectrum both usable and debatable, something you really want in a moral system. Narakaas and that other psychopomp usher getting into debates over intent vs action is really interesting for the setting. It does what Pathfinder does best; uncertainty and mystery.

Will this mean a lot of holdover mechanics will be dropped, like Wizards not being trained in all simple weapons, or Rogues not being trained in all Martial weapons, or combining armors into just two categories of Light and Heavy (which the numbers kind of favor anyway)?

Alignment has me feeling conflicted, since I think PF does it really well and has built its lore in a way to make the different sides of the alignment spectrum both usable and debatable, something you really want in a moral system. Narakaas and that other psychopomp usher getting into debates over intent vs action is really interesting for the setting. It does what Pathfinder does best; uncertainty and mystery.

Rogues getting martial weapons and wizards getting simple weapons has been confirmed in the stream :)

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

One of the best pieces of advice I got when I start freelancing (not Paizo) was "don't try to write around problem players. Problem players will be problems no matter what you do, write for everyone who plays in good faith."

Amazing how all edition wars start to look the same, right down to the inevitable "no one is coming to your house to steal your books" straw man.

For my part, I understand why Paizo is doing this. The OGL debacle forced their hand, and since they were going to have to get under the hood anyway, it makes sense for them to address some of 2E's bigger shortcomings.

But to be fair, the timing kinda sucks...especially for the people who moved to PF2 recently because of WotC's shenanigans. Reacting with hostility and/or sarcasm to these people -- who are (imo reasonably) upset that the game that they just bought into is already changing -- is the opposite of productive.

CorvusMask wrote:

...B-but I like alignment :(

I don't like alignment personally, but I don't think its a matter of your preference versus my preference. Chances are that alignment is considered a mechanic that might be indefensible in the court if Wizards decided to sue Paizo over using their brand identity. The concept of, "a mechanic that measures your goodness" is definitely a game mechanic that probably couldn't be sued over, but using that rule and calling it alignment could be argued as D&D product identity, and it's probably easier to trash it as a result.

Yep I think this is the cause. Especially with the names, and the nine element grid.

Using just three categories for each axis and giving them the names D&D has historically used is probably on the edge of copyrightable expression.

I did like alignment when it was used as a partial descriptor, not a straightjacket. But it was always very limited, failing to separate those with dedication to their ideals from those who were more pragmatic.

I'd always added a Pragmatic vs Zealot third axis for that reason. Pragmatic chaotic good meant a kind hearted free spirit, zealous chaotic good means a committed revolutionary who is always looking for the next tyrant to overthrow. Pragmatic evil foes will commit atrocities only in persuit of a goal, zealous ones will do so because they think the atrocity brings the world closer to an ideal state.

Amazing how all edition wars start to look the same, right down to the inevitable (but imbecilic) "no one is coming to your house to steal your books" straw man.

For my part, I understand why Paizo is doing this. The OGL debacle forced their hand, and since they were going to have to get under the hood anyway, it makes sense for them to address some of 2E's bigger shortcomings.

But to be fair, the timing kinda sucks...especially for the people who moved to PF2 recently because of WotC's shenanigans. Reacting with hostility and/or sarcasm to these people -- who are (reasonably) upset that the game that they just bought into is already changing -- is the opposite of productive.

All the rules being free via SRD + affordably priced PDFs for rule content definitely eases the pains of the "2.1e" content.

Plus, Archives of Nethys has confirmed that they will be keeping all pre-Remaster content up so no content is going away digitally, either.

No strawmanning on my part.

Just reiterating that Paizo are explicitly saying PF2 original books are fully cross compatible with remastered books.

This isn't a new edition, it's a revised current edition, that is removing ties to D&D SRD and OGL elements where possible.

The shift here isn't even as significant as the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 D&D.

From what I'm seeing is people can use original PF2E characters alongside PF2R characters at the same table without issue.

One thing I'm quite curious about: With the demise of pawns (*sniff*) and a new "core" set of monsters imminent, has Paizo given any thought to some sort of pawn replacement product? Especially since I'd expect them to take this opportunity to tweak some of the monster appearances (like they did with the 2E kobold).

One thing I'm quite curious about: With the demise of pawns (*sniff*) and a new "core" set of monsters incoming, has Paizo given any thought to some sort of pawn replacement product? Especially since I'd expect them to take this opportunity to tweak some of the monster appearances (like they did with the 2E Kobold).

Crossing my fingers for flat plastic pawns or STLs.

Wow, so much to unpack so far.

Quick Takes - Alignment

I'm pleased that we're moving away from the D&D alignment grid. I think we're all really more complex than the alignment grid covered. (Oddly, I did think that alignment in RIFTS was more intriguing and better thought out, even though I hated the mechanical mess that was the rest of the RIFTs system.)

I think that taking away a hard-coded alignment system will allow for more complex stories and antagonists.

Quick Takes - Dragons

Can I just say that I am thrilled that dragons will no longer be color-coded for our moral convenience? While I love having a rainbow of dragons, I have always thought that dragons deserved a deeper, richer culture, with more opportunities for every dragon to choose where it stands on the issues.

Quick Takes - Class Updates

I love my complicated Ancestor Oracle, but I would be lying if I said that oracles weren't really hard to figure out. If the upcoming changes bring some clarity to them (and more power to witches) awesome. I look forward to seeing what changes come.

Quick Takes - Magic Items

Why are magic items moving out of the core player book? So much of building your character really requires looking at the magic items. It's really a secondary leveling track.

Unless.... You're changing that?

Quick Takes - Rogue & Wizard Weapon Proficiencies

Rogues getting martial weapons and Wizards getting simple? About time! Huzzah for simplifying!

Quick Takes - Leshies and Orcs in the Core!

Woooot. Leshies are wonderfully diverse, and you need Orcs in an Orc product. Perfect.
Now I need to go off and listen to the official streams and RFC Video.

wow, this reads like a pathfinder 2.5. so why are they not calling a spade a spade and saying this is an edition change?

Alexander Augunas wrote:

CorvusMask wrote:

...B-but I like alignment :(

I don't like alignment personally, but I don't think its a matter of your preference versus my preference. Chances are that alignment is considered a mechanic that might be indefensible in the court if Wizards decided to sue Paizo over using their brand identity. The concept of, "a mechanic that measures your goodness" is definitely a game mechanic that probably couldn't be sued over, but using that rule and calling it alignment could be argued as D&D product identity, and it's probably easier to trash it as a result.

Yep I think this is the cause. Especially with the names, and the nine element grid.

Using just three categories for each axis and giving them the names D&D has historically used is probably on the edge of copyrightable expression.

I did like alignment when it was used as a partial descriptor, not a straightjacket. But it was always very limited, failing to separate those with dedication to their ideals from those who were more pragmatic.

I'd always added a Pragmatic vs Zealot third axis for that reason. Pragmatic chaotic good meant a kind hearted free spirit, zealous chaotic good means a committed revolutionary who is always looking for the next tyrant to overthrow. Pragmatic evil foes will commit atrocities only in persuit of a goal, zealous ones will do so because they think the atrocity brings the world closer to an ideal state.

We just did. But if the changes are in nethys (which they will). And by the way, some of the things are already in the advanced GM guide…been reading books like the wind. Also, since running in my own home brew, some of this I was already doing. My dragons are based on myth, not DND. Now, Paizo doing the work for me and saving me some time with generating stats…

bugleyman wrote:

One thing I'm quite curious about: With the demise of pawns (*sniff*) and a new "core" set of monsters incoming, has Paizo given any thought to some sort of pawn replacement product? Especially since I'd expect them to take this opportunity to tweak some of the monster appearances (like they did with the 2E Kobold).

Crossing my fingers for flat plastic pawns or STLs.

Having only recently discovered flat plastic minis, that would be amazing.

Or maybe they could do cardboard tokens, like D&D essentials ones. Not only would that not require bases, but the medium creatures would take half the space (which should significantly defray printing costs).

Either way, I feel there is a clear niche here that needs to be served. Fingers crossed they find a way.

We like Pathfinder Second Edition.

I would assume so since you made it.

You like Pathfinder Second Edition.

Whoa, slow down there! I accept that Second Edition is whats being played now in PFS and that everyone loves "muh balance!", but I hope & pray for the day we get Pathfinder 2.5e.

One thing I'm quite curious about: With the demise of pawns (*sniff*) and a new "core" set of monsters imminent, has Paizo given any thought to some sort of pawn replacement product?

Yes.

^ You tease, Erik. Well done.

Amazing how all edition wars start to look the same, right down to the inevitable "no one is coming to your house to steal your books" straw man.

With WotC hiring Pinkertons to retrieve MTG cards, I’m not sure we can call that a straw man anymore…

On the other hand, I would like to remind everyone complaining about having already purchased the books that this means they can play the game now rather than waiting until November or later.

I am concerned that this announcement will stifle sales of the current material, even things like the Lost Omens books that are not getting any changes. I wouldn’t want to wait six months but I suppose it might be worth it to others.

I am somewhat concerned that Paizo might be giving up a bit more than they should with respect to removing the OGL. I do hope they don’t remove things like Pegasus or the Elven Cloaks. They need to do their own game stats for such things but most of that was already done in the 2e conversion. A lot of the D&D material comes from lore that predates the game.

I guess it depends on what you are panicking over.

If you want books that still have alignment in them, you probably only need the CRB and maybe the Gamemastery Guide.

At worst you would only need to panic buy the CRB, APG, Gamemastery Guide, and Bestiary 1. Those are the only ones being discontinued.

APG is the one that worries me, I bought the last Humble Bundle and this book was missing there. So I decided to just wait for a sale here, as 20$ is steep compared to the whole bundle that I paid for. And now with this announcement I'm getting a serious FOMO strike.

I use paper books at my table, I buy digital and print them at home, because shipping cost is just outrageous (45$!). I care about having a cohesive set of books to use when I run a game. I can't stop and search through pages because a referenced thing was not at page number whatever it was said in the adventure.

So it looks like PaizoCon is the probable time period for a sale, and if not then I will have to just she'll out those 20$ for APG.

wow, this reads like a pathfinder 2.5. so why are they not calling a spade a spade and saying this is an edition change?

Because it's not? Like decidedly every current Pathfinder 2nd edition product will be compatible with the core remaster. Like the Summoner isn't going to be one of the 16 classes in one of these books, but if you have Secrets of Magic (or you just read the class on AoN) you can still play a summoner. The only changes you might need to do is to "Your Angel/Demon Eidolon is Holy/Unholy" and to convert the stat block from "Str 18, Dex 14, Con 16, Int 8, Wis 12, Cha 10" to "Str +4, Dex +2, Con +3, Int -1, Wis +1, Cha +0."

Alignment is what make this game different from DND. I'm not sure what people's problems with alignments are; alignments only show the "tendency" of how a character/creature would behave and NOT 100% to the alignment description 100% all the time. It's a great tool to have and some nice "elements", other than the standard fire, cold...etc.

So, are we going to just going to get bunch of "lawful good" demons with remasters?

Hopefully this doesn't sound mean, but the fact is that there are plenty of other games, ones even better than Pathfinder, don't have alignments that you can play. If you like Paizo's setting or plot, just adapt it for that system, and not trying to change Pathfinder.

emky wrote:

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.

Love your pfp, Apsu is my favorite deity in PF

But anyways, they not only confirmed demons are still gonna be evil, but instead of alignment we are getting “traits” that describe the creature’s actual beliefs and behaviors more accurately. A demon would probably get things like “Cruel” “Sadistic” “Malicious”.

The issue people had with alignment wasn’t with creatures having alignment, but rather the issue people had was with how heavy alignment mechanics were involved in the game. Stuff like alignment damage or the inability to play a chaotic or lawful good redeemer.

While good damage might be fine in an adventure about slaying demons, it doesn’t fit aswell when you’re dealing with enemies that aren’t extraplanar.

Alignment mechanics made things awkward for complex villains who are black and white evil, or villains who have a noble goal but trying to reach the goal using horrible methods, or a villain who thinks they are the good guy. What happens when a villain like that takes good damage? That’s weird and awkward for story telling purpsoes

Plus there’s the whole issue of alignments and player characters. People used alignment as an excuse to be disruptive, such as a player using their rogue’s chaotic neutral alignment as an excuse for stealing something from a party member and breaking it because “iT’s WhAt My ChArAcTeR WouLd Do CauSe AliGnmEnT”

Not to mention the arguements over alignment with classes like champion. A player arguing that their paladin shouldn’t be forcibly made neutral good because of one “chaotic” action, as in what the dm views as chaotic, isn’t fun for anyone.

Also, and this is especially true for those of us who like creating complex player characters such as myself, you can’t neatly fit a character into one of nine boxes. Characters can often be too complex to force into one of those nine boxes, and it’s not like alignment could be ignored because of things like alignment damage.

Not to mention the infamous divine lance spamming were people talking about players running around throwing divine lances at everyone because they will eventually find or kill someone who is “evil”.

Also, divine lance has been the bane of mysterious characters who can’t be trusted. No point in making a check, just check a divine lance at them to see if they are evil or not. And this way of thinking, using divine lance to reveal intentions due to one’s alignment, has screwed GMs over because their manipulative mastermind BBEG is suddenly revealed very early on.

Alignment and it’s mechanics are a product of a by gone AD&D era, back when people were about war gaming with dnd and not so much about role play, complex characters, and story like we are now. While I think alignment is useful for role play purposes, stuff like alignment damage doesn’t belong in the modern TTRPG landscape due to the focus on rp and story.

I kinda like alignment since it's a fantasy game, but just for flavor purposes and hints about how a character would act.

This will point out that a specific ancestry or creature tends to be neutral rather than evil, or lawful rather than chaotic, but wouldn't prevent exceptions ( but it's already this way, as you can play any character of any alignment, unless class restrictions like champ/cleric).

I hate alignment in terms of gameplay because it can be badly exploited.

So I'd rather have damage that can only be deal with resistances ( and not to have character being immune because of alignment).

Also it's kinda annoying that the only armored tank ( legendary armor and reaction to protect allies ) can be somebody full into faith, so I hope to see big changes to champions, and also a non faithful variant that can be played.

DCC uses that.

And what, pray tell, is DCC?

Dumb question that doesn't matter just curious. If Player core 2 replaces the apg why are 4 core classes iconics on the cover instead of the 4 apg classes?

There are currently 22 classes, 23 including the upcoming Kineticist. Eight of these classes will appear in "Player Core", an additional eight in "Player Core 2". What they're doing with the remaining seven classes I don't know yet.

the one thing i hope stays optional is PwL.

Whatever that is.

Tangorin wrote:

the one thing i hope stays optional is PwL.

Whatever that is.

Proficiency without Level!

You'll never get alignment out of any game using dice. Dice will always be chaotic neutral.

Surely you mean chaotic evil. :-)

My players didn't take the news too well haha! After begging my group to switch to PF2e for years, they finally did when the OGL debacle hit and now they feel like they've been bait and switched after buying a book that is being phased out and pdfs that won't be updated after already purchasing them.

Welp, time to do a full court press on switching them to Savage Worlds.

Nah. Go Harnmaster, but wait until later this year when the new editions of the GameMaster's Guide and Player's Guide are out. :-)

So this is more of a cord cutting than a remastering of PF2. Paizo wants to remove any possibility of Hasbro drawing them into lawsuits and such to try to push the company into trouble, so they want a version of PF2 almost completely divorced from the OGL going forward.

Ok. Make it good, clean up some of the crap this go around, and keep the quality APs coming. Hopefully group won't freak out.

emky wrote:

DCC uses that.

And what, pray tell, is DCC?

My guess would be Dungeon Crawl Classics.

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

the opposite of Chaos is Order.

Well. There is one thing for certain. This announcement has generated some very strong reactions from lots of folks. People don’t like change or love it, and the forums sure don’t provide a nuanced place for civil discourse. As for me I understand why this is happening. I also understand that this is a pivot that Paizo has made due to having to distancing themselves from the OGL. This means that I will lose things from my game of choice that I have an irrational emotional attachment to, probably because of nostalgia. Alignments are from my childhood and we are constantly chasing that same feeling we had as kids, and it feels like someone is taking that away from you. People are gonna feel what they feel, and most will not stop and look at where those feelings are coming from before they start typing out a post here.

The thing is. I overall trust Paizo. When they changed from a magazine publisher to making monthly adventures I followed and liked what I saw. When they made their own game instead of just using a dead game’s rules, I followed and loved what I played. When they made an entire new game from the first. Starting it over essentially from the first game that I played for a decade, I followed cautiously and discovered a game that I might genuinely love far more than I loved the first. And now they are asking me to once again follow. And I think that they have earned my trust and loyalty by this point to at least see what they have in mind before I make up my mind about it.

Change is hard. We instinctively fight against it. But this is a living game. It needs to change or it may wither and die. And if I don’t like it I am free to go backwards and retreat to the point of the game that I did love. However I have the feeling that once again I will be pleasantly surprised at how much I like whatever is next.

Just my opinion, two cents or whatever. Play what makes you happy. This is supposed to be a game we play for fun.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

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.

He's saying Rage would be "supernatural" rather than magical. It's not magical now, but...

"That's my secret. I'm *always* angry." :-)

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

Nine plus the Empyrean -- the realm where God lives. Ten in the Purgatorio, too, depending on how you count them.