Pathfinder Player Core 2

Announced for July 2024! Product image and description are NOT final and may be subject to change.

Blog: Announcing the Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project

I predict no more easy dipping into Champion for heavy armor and the champion's reaction.

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

I predict no more easy dipping into Champion for heavy armor and the champion's reaction.

I hope not! I have a character concept that's depending on that multiclass to be viable!

Unless they also are changing Oracles so they're not as pigeonholed into specific playstyles by their choice of Mystery!

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

Oh damn, I kind of liked how the different champions had different powers, although LG was much better than the rest.

Gotta say, seeing playable Gnolls in a “core” book makes me smile pretty big.

The first character I ever played was a Gnoll, all the way back in 2009… glad to be with the d20 company that actually likes our yeen buddies.

keftiu wrote:

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

Oh damn, I kind of liked how the different champions had different powers, although LG was much better than the rest.

I expect there will still be a "Paladin," "Redeemer," and "Liberator" cause with the same exact tenets. The PC just won't have "Lawful Good" written on their sheet to go with it.

It will be nice to see class options consolidated, even if the classes are split into two books.

With Player Core 2 nearly a year after the other new core books, what does that mean for options printed for those classes between now and then? Will they still be compatible?

Will they still be compatible?

The rules will be compatible,.... The core system isn't changing.

I thought the champion was pretty solid, I wonder if its revisions are just a necessity from alignment changing. Also WOOT!!! ALCHEMIST REVISIONS!!!

Jason S wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

Oh damn, I kind of liked how the different champions had different powers, although LG was much better than the rest.

I expect there will still be a "Paladin," "Redeemer," and "Liberator" cause with the same exact tenets. The PC just won't have "Lawful Good" written on their sheet to go with it.

I have a strong suspicion that their tenets and anathema will be updated to put a semi-lock on the player's disposition in the same way alignment was intended to.

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

I hope this isn't excuse to avoid doing LN/N/CN champions :'D I want to have "this can be adapted as LN/N/CN champions if you use alignments" champion tenets at least...

Anyway, I'm surprised that term gnoll isn't ogl huh

Also like if Holy/Unholy basically replace good/evil, do we still have equivalents for Law/Chaos damage?

They were mechanically less useful, but I like Law vs Chaos conflict and silliness of law/chaos damage :'D

From the stream just now: "Kholo, formerly known as Gnolls."

Ah so the mwangi expanse name is now the common name for them?

I wonder if that means we aren't getting "katapesh gnolls" and such hmm

Can we get some insights into the alchemist. The Twitch stream sounded like they were getting another attempt at being fixed after the 4th errata/TV. Can you tell us if it includes:
- Key Ability Score selection of STR or DEX
- Proficiency Fix (unarmed strikes/bombs going to master)
- Shift of power budget from alchemical items to the actual class so other non-alchemist classes can use these items?

Can we get some insights into the alchemist. The Twitch stream sounded like they were getting another attempt at being fixed after the 4th errata/TV. Can you tell us if it includes:

- Key Ability Score selection of STR or DEX
- Proficiency Fix (unarmed strikes/bombs going to master)
- Shift of power budget from alchemical items to the actual class so other non-alchemist classes can use these items?

From the stream, no, they can't tell you. The book is further out and they're still figuring out some of the things.

Red Griffyn wrote:

Can we get some insights into the alchemist. The Twitch stream sounded like they were getting another attempt at being fixed after the 4th errata/TV. Can you tell us if it includes:

- Key Ability Score selection of STR or DEX
- Proficiency Fix (unarmed strikes/bombs going to master)
- Shift of power budget from alchemical items to the actual class so other non-alchemist classes can use these items?

From the stream, no, they can't tell you. The book is further out and they're still figuring out some of the things.

Yeah, this book is a July 2024 release - don't expect mechanical specifics for a long time.

I'd love an Anarchist Champion now that we are fully divorcing from alignment.

So this book, advertised as a core rulebook and including revised class options from the Core Rulebook, will also feature eight ancestries, none of which were Common rarity before. Are they going to be Common rarity now? Is Paizo doing away with rarity-based gating for ancestries?

Or are players going to read those options at the back of the book, get excited about playing a catfolk or a hobgoblin or a kobold (just like their fellow players excited for an elf or a dwarf or a gnome), only to find that they still need to negotiate, bribe, catch-the-GM-on-a-good-day, etc., when their fellow player can just pick elf or dwarf and legitimately not expect to have to defend that choice?

Here to say Investigator needs feat that bypasses immunity, especially for precision immunity.

So this book, advertised as a core rulebook and including revised class options from the Core Rulebook, will also feature eight ancestries, none of which were Common rarity before. Are they going to be Common rarity now? Is Paizo doing away with rarity-based gating for ancestries?

Or are players going to read those options at the back of the book, get excited about playing a catfolk or a hobgoblin or a kobold (just like their fellow players excited for an elf or a dwarf or a gnome), only to find that they still need to negotiate, bribe, catch-the-GM-on-a-good-day, etc., when their fellow player can just pick elf or dwarf and legitimately not expect to have to defend that choice?

It's a core book for playing, but 2 aka the Advanced Player's Guide.

I can see the Ancestries being Common and the VHs being Uncommon.

While a revision for the Oracle, Champion, and Alchemist are mentioned, will the Investigator be given any love?

It's always been kinda clunky, with subclasses that feel more like class feats than proper subclasses due to a lack of progression + no interactivity with DaS, and the lead mechanic is pretty clunky. There's also issues regarding GMing for one and how it can easily overshadow the rest of the party in an intrigue campaign.

If anything else, I hope DaS gets tweaked so it's usable multiple times and is more friendly towards melee Investigators. Maybe make it a free action at the start of a turn regardless of whether you have a lead or not, and if you have a lead, you can "manually" activate it with an action to reroll and fish for crits. It feels like an appropriate mechanic to represent the idea of studying a target to make an accurate and deadly strike.

While a revision for the Oracle, Champion, and Alchemist are mentioned, will the Investigator be given any love?

It's always been kinda clunky, with subclasses that feel more like class feats than proper subclasses due to a lack of progression + no interactivity with DaS, and the lead mechanic is pretty clunky. There's also issues regarding GMing for one and how it can easily overshadow the rest of the party in an intrigue campaign.

If anything else, I hope DaS gets tweaked so it's usable multiple times and is more friendly towards melee Investigators. Maybe make it a free action at the start of a turn regardless of whether you have a lead or not, and if you have a lead, you can "manually" activate it with an action to reroll and fish for crits. It feels like an appropriate mechanic to represent the idea of studying a target to make an accurate and deadly strike.

I believe that Erik indicated on the RfC stream yesterday that the Inquisitor would not be in either of the upcoming Player Core books...so no specific news on that front.

Golurkcanfly wrote:

While a revision for the Oracle, Champion, and Alchemist are mentioned, will the Investigator be given any love?

It's always been kinda clunky, with subclasses that feel more like class feats than proper subclasses due to a lack of progression + no interactivity with DaS, and the lead mechanic is pretty clunky. There's also issues regarding GMing for one and how it can easily overshadow the rest of the party in an intrigue campaign.

If anything else, I hope DaS gets tweaked so it's usable multiple times and is more friendly towards melee Investigators. Maybe make it a free action at the start of a turn regardless of whether you have a lead or not, and if you have a lead, you can "manually" activate it with an action to reroll and fish for crits. It feels like an appropriate mechanic to represent the idea of studying a target to make an accurate and deadly strike.

I believe that Erik indicated on the RfC stream yesterday that the Inquisitor would not be in either of the upcoming Player Core books...so no specific news on that front.

I think the previous post was talking about Investigator, not Inquisitor, and if I'm remembering correctly, I think Erik Mona mentioned that the Investigator would be getting a slight revamp.

I think the previous post was talking about Investigator, not Inquisitor, and if I'm remembering correctly, I think Erik Mona mentioned that the Investigator would be getting a slight revamp.

Thanks for the correction ;)

keftiu wrote:

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

I hope this isn't excuse to avoid doing LN/N/CN champions :'D I want to have "this can be adapted as LN/N/CN champions if you use alignments" champion tenets at least...

Anyway, I'm surprised that term gnoll isn't ogl huh

"Gnoll" is from public domain literature, so the name is fine. The sticky issue is that the idea of Gnoll = hyena people is definitely a WotC idea, as prior versions of the Gnoll were either only vaguely defined or more like monstrous dwarves.

CorvusMask wrote:

keftiu wrote:

Curious what this version of Champion looks like with Alignment gone. I do hope what we would’ve called Neutral Champions can still sneak in somehow; a very classic LN-style “Judge” is definitely missing.

I hope this isn't excuse to avoid doing LN/N/CN champions :'D I want to have "this can be adapted as LN/N/CN champions if you use alignments" champion tenets at least...

Anyway, I'm surprised that term gnoll isn't ogl huh

"Gnoll" is from public domain literature, so the name is fine. The sticky issue is that the idea of Gnoll = hyena people is definitely a WotC idea, as prior versions of the Gnoll were either only vaguely defined or more like monstrous dwarves.

The word "Gnoll" in said referenced literature has nothing to do with hyena people though. That's 100% D&D. (And in that original reference it was spelled gnole, to boot.)

When we pick up public domain stuff, we prefer to use it in the way that the original author intended, so if we were to bring gnoles into the game, they would not be hyena people. And that would confuse a lot of gamers who have spent the last several decades being used to it meaning "hyena person." So... it's not a word that does the job we need it to do.

AJCarrington wrote:

Golurkcanfly wrote:

While a revision for the Oracle, Champion, and Alchemist are mentioned, will the Investigator be given any love?

It's always been kinda clunky, with subclasses that feel more like class feats than proper subclasses due to a lack of progression + no interactivity with DaS, and the lead mechanic is pretty clunky. There's also issues regarding GMing for one and how it can easily overshadow the rest of the party in an intrigue campaign.

If anything else, I hope DaS gets tweaked so it's usable multiple times and is more friendly towards melee Investigators. Maybe make it a free action at the start of a turn regardless of whether you have a lead or not, and if you have a lead, you can "manually" activate it with an action to reroll and fish for crits. It feels like an appropriate mechanic to represent the idea of studying a target to make an accurate and deadly strike.

I believe that Erik indicated on the RfC stream yesterday that the Inquisitor would not be in either of the upcoming Player Core books...so no specific news on that front.

I think the previous post was talking about Investigator, not Inquisitor, and if I'm remembering correctly, I think Erik Mona mentioned that the Investigator would be getting a slight revamp.

That's good.

Hopefully it makes DaS more dynamic with more ways to gain/spend "prerolls," since it's lacking in both customization (the feats that improve it are "always on," so to speak, with no opportunity cost during play) and versatility.

I predict no more easy dipping into Champion for heavy armor and the champion's reaction.

We really need a better way to add heavy armor proficiency to a character than "getting religion" anyway.

if alchemist finally gets master proficiency in bombs & MAYBE simple wepons I can play my favorite class & not always hate combat!

With the renaming of gnoll as Kholo, is it possible that we do the same for some of the other ancestry names in this book?

Catfolk, ratfolk, and lizardfolk all have their own names already in the lore of the setting, and I think it would be cool to be less humanocentric about them. Amurrun, Ysoki, and Iruxi are all awesomely Pathfinder specific, and calling them their own names is respectful if nothing else.

I really hope halflings get a Golarion-specific name too. It’s kind of weird to have an ancestry name that related solely to how their height relates to humans. They deserve better!

With the renaming of gnoll as Kholo, is it possible that we do the same for some of the other ancestry names in this book?

Catfolk, ratfolk, and lizardfolk all have their own names already in the lore of the setting, and I think it would be cool to be less humanocentric about them. Amurrun, Ysoki, and Iruxi are all awesomely Pathfinder specific, and calling them their own names is respectful if nothing else.

I really hope halflings get a Golarion-specific name too. It’s kind of weird to have an ancestry name that related solely to how their height relates to humans. They deserve better!

We could always call them hobb*is tackled by the Tolkein Estate lawyers*

With the renaming of gnoll as Kholo, is it possible that we do the same for some of the other ancestry names in this book?

Catfolk, ratfolk, and lizardfolk all have their own names already in the lore of the setting, and I think it would be cool to be less humanocentric about them. Amurrun, Ysoki, and Iruxi are all awesomely Pathfinder specific, and calling them their own names is respectful if nothing else.

I really hope halflings get a Golarion-specific name too. It’s kind of weird to have an ancestry name that related solely to how their height relates to humans. They deserve better!

The idea of using the Pathfinder names for the three commented ancestries would be so cool. In my opinion, the Pathfinder names gives a lot more lore and are more interesting than the generic alternative. Similar with the Geniekin (with all their flavors) and the new Nephilim for all the planar beings.

Is anyone else calling this Player Core 2: Electric Boogaloo?

Well I am now.

Well I am now.

We accept you! One of us! We accept you! One of us!

Gooble gobble, gooble gobble.

Have they talked at all about Ancestry Rarity changes?

Iruxi are widespread across a bunch of Garund, and Kobolds are the union mascot... I'd love to have them get promoted up to Common.

I haven’t heard anything for the remaster on the ancestry rarities, but in society play, leshies, kobolds, and orcs are now effectively common because the expenditure of ACP is no longer required to play one of those anymore.

Is this the Gen Con book?

Is this the Gen Con book?

Nope. We'll find out what the GenCon book is at... well, GenCon.

Have they talked at all about Ancestry Rarity changes?

Iruxi are widespread across a bunch of Garund, and Kobolds are the union mascot... I'd love to have them get promoted up to Common.

No, but we did learn that kobolds had to be in the second book because of dragon changes, so they were probably at least considered for PC1. Between that, freely playable status in PFS, and the union mascot thing, I'd be mildly surprised for them to stay uncommon. But I've been mildly surprised before.

Have they talked at all about Ancestry Rarity changes?

Iruxi are widespread across a bunch of Garund, and Kobolds are the union mascot... I'd love to have them get promoted up to Common.

Isn't that kind of relative though? Iruxi are common in Garund but probably not Avistan. Just like a Kitsune would be common in Tian Xia but not necessarily Avistan or Garund.

I like the idea of different regions having different sets of ancestries.

Have they talked at all about Ancestry Rarity changes?

Iruxi are widespread across a bunch of Garund, and Kobolds are the union mascot... I'd love to have them get promoted up to Common.

One thing I'd like Paizo to consider for future updates is a remaster of the rarity system.

Right now the tags represent a weird blend of two different concepts: how common are these options in the 'default' Golarion region and how restricted they should be because of power concerns.

As you point out, there aren't any clear rules on how to adjust rarity for other regions, and if there were such rules they would inevitably cause problems when they interact with the second assessment.

I know that they were trying to simplify things by using a single system to represent both criteria, but I really think that splitting this into two different tag systems would be simpler in practice.

Right now the tags represent a weird blend of two different concepts: how common are these options in the 'default' Golarion region and how restricted they should be because of power concerns.

Just trying to head off this missconception. Uncommon and Rare options aren't more powerful than common options. Everything is bound to the same Level Math. What they can be is really unpredictable in how they affect the game. Many divination spells are uncommon because of how they can easily blindside a GM who hasn't thought through all the implications to his puzzles and mysteries. Likewise Antimagic Field is Rare not because it's more powerful than other 8th level spells but because the ability to shut down all magic can radically change the dynamics of encounters and not necessarilly to the party's benefit because of all their magic items and such shutting off.

It is odd that Rarity is both "how likely is this to be encountered within a certain region of our setting" and "how potentially disruptive to the standard expectations of play" at the same time. Maybe fork the latter off into something like Eccentricity in PF3, if not the Remaster?

Gisher wrote:

Right now the tags represent a weird blend of two different concepts: how common are these options in the 'default' Golarion region and how restricted they should be because of power concerns.

Just trying to head off this missconception. Uncommon and Rare options aren't more powerful than common options. Everything is bound to the same Level Math. What they can be is really unpredictable in how they affect the game. Many divination spells are uncommon because of how they can easily blindside a GM who hasn't thought through all the implications to his puzzles and mysteries. Likewise Antimagic Field is Rare not because it's more powerful than other 8th level spells but because the ability to shut down all magic can radically change the dynamics of encounters and not necessarilly to the party's benefit because of all their magic items and such shutting off.

I agree that this was the stated intent, and in general is actually the case, but there are certainly outliers. Similar to how "advanced" weapons weren't intended to have more powerful numbers, simply more complex usage, but then we have the Daikyu which is the exact opposite of that design. I think Keftiu's suggestion of an additional tag like "Eccentric" or, heck, "Restricted" would help a lot in clearing up that misconception that uncommon/rare is necessarily more powerful. Or, in light of my previous sentence, perhaps widening the scope of "advanced" so that it applies to feats, spells, and items in general (not just weapons)?

Like they said, something to consider for PF3.