Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

Gisher wrote:

°C = (5/9)(°F – 32) = (5/9)(°F) – (160/9)

So if you graph Celsius as a function of Fahrenheit, you get a line with a slope of 5/9 and a y-intercept of 160/9.

But 0 °C = 32 °F and 0 °F = 160/9 °C so they are slightly more complicated linear conversions.

Aside from reminding me that I suck at trigonometry, what?

read needlessly complicated and/or this is the "new math" I heard about.

There's no trigonometry here. It is two simple arithmetic operations. Multiply by a scaler and add/subtract a static value. The most difficult part is remembering the static values.

Souls At War wrote:

Gisher wrote:

°C = (5/9)(°F – 32) = (5/9)(°F) – (160/9)

So if you graph Celsius as a function of Fahrenheit, you get a line with a slope of 5/9 and a y-intercept of 160/9.

But 0 °C = 32 °F and 0 °F = 160/9 °C so they are slightly more complicated linear conversions.

Aside from reminding me that I suck at trigonometry, what?

read needlessly complicated and/or this is the "new math" I heard about.

There's no trigonometry here. It is two simple arithmetic operations. Multiply by a scaler and add/subtract a static value. The most difficult part is remembering the static values.

What does any of this have to do with the topic?

Remaster will officially change the name to Mathfinder.

I mean "double it and add 30" is a good rough approximation of C in F that works for "temperatures that it's likely to be outside." It's usually within a degree or three unless it's especially warm or cold.

I mean "double it and add 30" is a good rough approximation of C in F that works for "temperatures that it's likely to be outside." It's usually within a degree or three unless it's especially warm or cold.

Having to know random specific temps are rare in my experience so that works. Or you can just put it in your browser, phone, ect and get the number without a formula. Just type in [temp]c to f and Fahrenheit comes up. I randomly typed in '50c to f' and it pops up 122f without issue. So it's a real option for those that do not want to 'math it' at all.

Remaster will officially change the name to Mathfinder.

No! I need that name for my system!

:D Just kidding, my system's final name is ART: Advanced Roleplay Toolkit. But Mathfinder sounds so cool.

WatersLethe wrote:

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Golly, I'm excited to see what they do with Edicts & Anathemas. I'd love it if it's a required step in character creation--heck, if you wanted to, you could add it to the end of the process and finally get to ABCDE.

I guess "Equipment" has always been the unofficial E, hasn't it?

Wait, what's D?

I think Jason Bulmahn mentioned they originally planned a "D" step called "Destiny" which would be the four free ability boosts.

For my own purposes of memorizing the steps, I always think of a "D" step called "Details", for doing the boosts and filling out the rest of the character sheet. Then into "E"/"Equipment".

That might have been me back in the earliest days of the playtest. The A, B, & C were ingrained in their topics, and obviously the last portion had to become D-whatever. Destiny struck me as something which set adventurers apart, and as a rule of thumb this also translated well when considering NPC stats.

Misery? That accurately describes this never-ending metric imperial discussion.

Metric seems to be an inevitability. Perhaps not with a Remaster. But eventually.

I doesn't have to be inevitability. I would be content if they just remembered the outside world existed. Especially when they do sell the game in the outside world too. Meaning including at least both systems. Even if it's a bit clunky.

Fahrenheit isn't an abomination. if we want to compromise and use a unit that makes everyone unhappy we could use the abomination that is Rankine;)

I really think "it is NINETY EIGHT degrees outside" gets the point across that it is "really too hot" than "it's 36C". Likewise I feel like "it's ten below out" makes it seem colder than it is because 14F isn't really that bad if you dress for it.

...okay, now we're arguing between imperial and metric. Can we just accept that both measurement sets have their strengths and weaknesses and move on?

I really think "it is NINETY EIGHT degrees outside" gets the point across that it is "really too hot" than "it's 36C".

LOL Say it in Kelvin, as that'd be 310 Kelvin. That sounds HOT! ;)

I really think "it is NINETY EIGHT degrees outside" gets the point across that it is "really too hot" than "it's 36C". Likewise I feel like "it's ten below out" makes it seem colder than it is because 14F isn't really that bad if you dress for it.

I don't.

Fahrenheit isn't an abomination. if we want to compromise and use a unit that makes everyone unhappy we could use the abomination that is Rankine;)

Rankine, Kelvin, Potato, potahto...

Gisher wrote:

°C = (5/9)(°F – 32) = (5/9)(°F) – (160/9)

So if you graph Celsius as a function of Fahrenheit, you get a line with a slope of 5/9 and a y-intercept of 160/9.

But 0 °C = 32 °F and 0 °F = 160/9 °C so they are slightly more complicated linear conversions.

Aside from reminding me that I suck at trigonometry, what?

read needlessly complicated and/or this is the "new math" I heard about.

These formulas are the ones I learned in, oh about third grade. That would be about 65 years ago. long before anyone came up with "new math".

0ºF=Really Cold..................100ºF=Really Hot
0ºC=Cold............................100ºC=Dead
0ºK=Dead...........................100ºK=Dead

:-)

Just occurred to me that at last, Paizo has the perfect opportunity to fix their greatest crime: make Ancestral Paragon Lv 1 again, so that humans can take a heritage or ancestry feat to take a general feat to take an ancestry feat to take a general feat to take a skill feat, as is their Aroden-given right!
(Making more gained proficiencies scale with class stuff would be cool too :b )

I would be willing to call the Remaster project "Pathfinder 2.5" only as long as we acknowledge that we are currently running "Pathfinder 2.4" since we are on the 4th printing right now.

Except the remaster is specifically more than just errata (see: alignment), but also less than a new edition. I don't think it is terribly helpful to treat it as either.

Remaster will officially change the name to Mathfinder.

Dude, everyone knows that 1st edition was Mathfinder. ;-)

I really think "it is NINETY EIGHT degrees outside" gets the point across that it is "really too hot" than "it's 36C". Likewise I feel like "it's ten below out" makes it seem colder than it is because 14F isn't really that bad if you dress for it.

Literally only because you're used to it. Celsius is (somewhat) less arbitrary, at least.

But yeah...dead horse.

It's not literally--can y'all please stop taking potshots and just drop it without a parting remark?

breithauptclan wrote:

I would be willing to call the Remaster project "Pathfinder 2.5" only as long as we acknowledge that we are currently running "Pathfinder 2.4" since we are on the 4th printing right now.

Except the remaster is specifically more than just errata (see: alignment), but also less than a new edition. I don't think it is terribly helpful to treat it as either.

It's also been described both as an "errata+" and not enough changes to warrant a shift, when comparing something like 3.0 into 3.5. They have repeatedly stated the vast majority of the system and rules are not changing. They'd just need to address a bigger chunk of errata, some class reworks ala Pathfinder Unchained, and ripping the OGL/SRD creatures and other terminology out from the books.

So at worst, this is maybe a 2.1. But I wouldn't even been trying to establish the numbering of this situation until the books are actually out.

The people says that 3.5 was a bigger change but it wasn't. It wasn't so different that was currently proposed by Remaster:

In all fairness, erratas did have kind of a different place back then, when online content was used very minimally. Back then, an "errata" could feel pretty drastic, since you primarily played with your physical books and even minor changes would come up a lot. Nowadays, I wouldn't be surprised if most people preferred to use the PDFs, AONPRD and VTTs available. Erratas weren't really possibly back then the way they were now, so calling 3.5 an edition change made a lot of sense.

Paizo has decided what it’s called. I don’t think we get to override them.

Also, “errata” is plural. The singular is erratum.

Aside: I love the word erratum. It sounds like a drumbeat.

♫ Erratum, erratum, tickety-thickety thumb! ♫

Actually, the plural of errata is erratapodes. Common mistake.

Erratapodes are a terrifying new swarm monster that will be appearing in Monster Core. They can erase your character's most powerful abilities.

breithauptclan wrote:

I would be willing to call the Remaster project "Pathfinder 2.5" only as long as we acknowledge that we are currently running "Pathfinder 2.4" since we are on the 4th printing right now.

Except the remaster is specifically more than just errata (see: alignment), but also less than a new edition. I don't think it is terribly helpful to treat it as either.

The thing is that the alignment replacement isn't mechanically any bigger than some of the other errata changes.

Sure it feels like it because it seems like it is a major change to how players think about and conceptualize their characters.

But mechanically it isn't going to change all that much. Alignment is baked into the system enough that every character had to have one written down. But it isn't all that much of a core component of the character mechanically. The only things that require a character to have an alignment are a few spells, a few items, aligned damage, and a couple of class's class features.

After the replacement of alignment, we are still going to have characters who have a moral code, an attitude towards government, and an approach towards organization. It just won't be distilled into a two character code.

Some other things that are in the errata documents that I feel are at least as big of a mechanical impact on all characters as the replacement of alignment:

None of those are even close to creating a 'new edition'. Neither is the removal and replacement of alignment.

It's not literally--can y'all please stop taking potshots and just drop it without a parting remark?

A potshot was certainly not my intent, and I apologize.

It's also been described both as an "errata+" and not enough changes to warrant a shift, when comparing something like 3.0 into 3.5. They have repeatedly stated the vast majority of the system and rules are not changing. They'd just need to address a bigger chunk of errata, some class reworks ala Pathfinder Unchained, and ripping the OGL/SRD creatures and other terminology out from the books.

So at worst, this is maybe a 2.1. But I wouldn't even been trying to establish the numbering of this situation until the books are actually out.

Call me crazy, but for the time being, I think "2.1" gets the "not a new edition, but a litter bigger than errata" idea across rather well.

The thing is that the alignment replacement isn't mechanically any bigger than some of the other errata changes.

Respectfully disagree, if for no other reason than the scope (e.g. the sheer number of rules elements it touches).

Paizo has decided what it’s called. I don’t think we get to override them.

Forgive me, but we're not talking about branding here. Obviously Paizo controls the names that get printed on the books. :-)

However, I think the very fact that the edition question keeps coming up demonstrates that a nickname which communicates the scope of the changes succinctly would be useful.

It's not literally--can y'all please stop taking potshots and just drop it without a parting remark?

Taking potshots? Wow, I bet people get drunk really fast with shots that big.

Also, once something has been marked, why remark it?

:) I'm terrible I know.

T_T

(No worries, bugleyman! It just felt like a likely "let's just drop this" that would lead to people not dropping it.)

In the end probably many people will just call as PF2 Core edition.

In the end probably many people will just call as PF2 Core edition.

Are you sure it won't be the nightcore edition? Fast paced, high pitched, and a remix?

Actually, the plural of errata is erratapodes. Common mistake.

I guess my Oxford Dictionary is wrong then. What’s your source?

The Oxford Dictionary Errata. :)

LOL!

Another thread about imperial versus metric? Lovely.

Could be worse. At least it's not a Paladin alignment thread . . . .

Bye owlbear! We will miss you!

Say hello to Pandaparrots!

bugleyman wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

I would be willing to call the Remaster project "Pathfinder 2.5" only as long as we acknowledge that we are currently running "Pathfinder 2.4" since we are on the 4th printing right now.

Except the remaster is specifically more than just errata (see: alignment), but also less than a new edition. I don't think it is terribly helpful to treat it as either.

The thing is that the alignment replacement isn't mechanically any bigger than some of the other errata changes.

Sure it feels like it because it seems like it is a major change to how players think about and conceptualize their characters.

But mechanically it isn't going to change all that much. Alignment is baked into the system enough that every character had to have one written down. But it isn't all that much of a core component of the character mechanically. The only things that require a character to have an alignment are a few spells, a few items, aligned damage, and a couple of class's class features.

After the replacement of alignment, we are still going to have characters who have a moral code, an attitude towards government, and an approach towards organization. It just won't be distilled into a two character code.

Some other things that are in the errata documents that I feel are at least as big of a mechanical impact on all characters as the replacement of alignment:

** spoiler omitted **...

To add to that, too many people expect some drastic "remade from scratch" approach to class changes. While mostly they will be minimal. Champion pretty much only gets "cosmetic" changes to Causes/Mechanics that were using old alignment so their options are more open now. Barbarians will get changes to Dragon Instinct becasue of new Tradition Dragons so it has to be included there.

I fully expect Alchemist to just finally get a better proficiency progression in their bombs etc.

We get rid of some monsters/monster names for license sake and rename of some core stuff for same reason. We are not even getting "balance pass" on spells becasue come on, who will know balance pass thounsands spells.

Aligment change is for convinience, rest is mostly for license reasons + erratas and some minor changes (like Wizard getting T in simple weapons).

I think some people will be dissapointed expecting full mechanic overhaul or drastic changes to class balance or core mechanics. It's just minor stuff to "clear up" PF2e for future.

Alignment-change is for licence reasons too.

Pathfinder remastered will feature extra CGI and inserted scene with Jabba the Hutt and Greedo shooting first.

To add to that, too many people expect some drastic "remade from scratch" approach to class changes. While mostly they will be minimal. Champion pretty much only gets "cosmetic" changes to Causes/Mechanics that were using old alignment so their options are more open now. Barbarians will get changes to Dragon Instinct becasue of new Tradition Dragons so it has to be included there.

I fully expect Alchemist to just finally get a better proficiency progression in their bombs etc.

IMO will be the opposite. Once they announced that will do a "remaster" into Alchemist, Champion, Oracle, and Witch I expect some bigger changes than this. But even with a good amount of players that uses this forum being favorable to a better proficiency to alchemist this is a thing that the Paizo designers knows about since the 1st print but these complains was never "fixed" probably because they never wanted Alchemists working in that way.

Think we can get a remaster of pf1? I much much prefer the more holistic and naturalistic balance of the 3e derivatives.

Those are certainly words.

That sounds like you don't understand something. What part was confusing?