I just discovered there will be a new version of Pathfinder RPG this November. While Pathfinder Second Edition was clearly better than First Edition, it nevertheless contains several inherent flaws that I really hate. So recently I began losing interest to Pathfinder RPG. That was why I became so excited when I heard about Pathfinder 2.5. But after reading the blog post I cannot help but wonder, "Will the change really be as drastic as I hope?"
I mean, the Q&A below made me feel nervous and worried...
Q. Is this a new edition of Pathfinder?
A. No. The Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project does not change the fundamental core system design of Pathfinder. Small improvements and cosmetic changes appear throughout, but outside of a few minor changes in terminology, the changes are not anywhere substantive enough to be considered a new edition.
Q. Are my existing Pathfinder Second Edition books now obsolete?
A. No. With the exception of a few minor variations in terminology and a slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged. A pre-Remaster stat block, spell, monster, or adventure should work with the remastered rules without any problems.
Sigh. Does that mean the remastered edition cannot even be compared to D&D 3.5? The change will be largely composed of erratas and name changes, and thus I cannot anticipate a huge upgrade to the rules?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how you define huge.
Is wizards getting simple weapon proficiency and rogues getting martial weapon proficiency huge?
Is removing alignment huge?
We know those things are happening.
To be honest, I think this is a case of people getting overly excited.
There are changes, but the basic game mechanics are all remaining how they are (for the most part). This remaster is just tweaking some things.
Hearing you say you want drastic changes I'm surprised, because for the most part I think PF2 is in a good spot, as long as you're aware that it's a more challenging game and requires teamwork compared to PF1 I think overall it's a great gam. Not without some rough spots, but most of those can be easily remedied.
So yeah, it seems like you have the correct understanding. I just don't know why you think the game needs huge swathes of changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, but it sounds solidly smaller than the 3.0 to 3.5 change. I don't know what exact issues you have with the system, but if they're system-level, it sounds like that's staying mostly the same.
Still, I recommend checking back in any time a new class comes out. I was feeling down on PF2, but Thaumaturge addressed pretty much all of my issues, and there's Kineticist that I'm looking forward to.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The changes are going to be PF2.1 at the absolute most. Probably better to imagine it as a year or two's worth of errata condensed into one update.
The community is having fun dreaming about bigger changes because mid-lifespan rules changes only happen so often and it's fun to imagine what could be. I don't think anyone realistically expects anything mind boggling.
Is wizards getting simple weapon proficiency and rogues getting martial weapon proficiency huge?
We know those things are happening.
I didn't see this anywhere. Where is it listed. In the blog?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't see this anywhere. Where is it listed. In the blog?Is wizards getting simple weapon proficiency and rogues getting martial weapon proficiency huge?
We know those things are happening.
I think Erik Mona revealed it on his appearance on the Roll for Combat youtube stream, just after the Jason and Logan stream.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...
Major issues:
1. I cannot learn enough feats. I wish the PCs would be able to learn one class feat every level. I also wish that starting with two ancestry feats and gaining another at every odd level thereafter would become a default rule.
2. I cannot learn and cast enough spells. I hope the spell slots of caster classes would be doubled or perhaps tripled. For example, I wish a 20th level sorcerer will learn 8 spells for each level and 10 cantrips.
3. Focus spell system should be entirely overhauled. I have not found out satisfying house rules yet but I think removing focus point entirely and allowing PCs to cast focus spells freely, or perhaps using the D&D 3.5 recharge magic variant rule seems good enough.
4. Sustain a Spell should be removed entirely. I honestly have no idea why the developers thought forcing the casters to pay attention to the spell that has already been cast to sustain its effect would be a good idea.
5. The duration of most spells should be extended. I really miss the good old days when the spells lasted several hours.
Minor issues
1. Fine, Diminutive and Colossal size categories should return. Simply reading the size category helped me estimate the rough size of a creature a lot. But now that Paizo incorporated Colossal creatures into Gargantuan creatures, estimating the size of a creature that I'm not familiar with became quite hard and inaccurate. In First Edition, I can anticipate a purple worm would be clearly smaller than Tarrasque because their size category was different. Now they both are Gargantuan and thus it would not be quick and easy to compare the size of them. Actually, when I heard the Second Edition will be developed, I hoped there will be a new size category that is even bigger than Colossal, so that those truly big creatures (the Spawn of Rovagug, kaiju, mu spores) can have suitable size category. I honestly have no idea why Paizo removed Fine, Diminutive and Colossal.
2. Quickened casting should be less restricted. Seriously, once per day? I honestly have no idea why I should learn this feat so that I can cast two spells in a round only once per day. We could use quicken spell feat without such a restriction in First Edition!
3. Applying two or more metamagic feats to a spell should be available. I really liked to make my spell incredibly powerful via applying several metamagic feats at once in First Edition.
Perhaps there are one or two other issues that I cannot recall right now.
So, if the change in the remaster would not be so big, that means these issues will remain until Paizo develops Pathfinder Third Edition. :(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, is this not where we post pictures of our chickens?
I think we're definitely counting them early. It's kind of fun, though, and I hope some of it is helpful to Paizo designers--we're still waiting on a PF2 Unchained, after all, right?
I think Erik Mona revealed it on his appearance on the Roll for Combat youtube stream, just after the Jason and Logan stream.I didn't see this anywhere. Where is it listed. In the blog?Is wizards getting simple weapon proficiency and rogues getting martial weapon proficiency huge?
We know those things are happening.
I just went and watched it. He did not say that. Someone asked it in their chat. And he said it's something they would definitely look at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...
Major issues:
1. I cannot learn enough feats. I wish the PCs would be able to learn one class feat every level. I also wish that starting with two ancestry feats and gaining another at every odd level thereafter would become a default rule.
2. I cannot learn and cast enough spells. I hope the spell slots of caster classes would be doubled or perhaps tripled. For example, I wish a 20th level sorcerer will learn 8 spells for each level and 10 cantrips.
3. Focus spell system should be entirely overhauled. I have not found out satisfying house rules yet but I think removing focus point entirely and allowing PCs to cast focus spells freely, or perhaps using the D&D 3.5 recharge magic variant rule seems good enough.
4. Sustain a Spell should be removed entirely. I honestly have no idea why the developers thought forcing the casters to pay attention to the spell that has already been cast to sustain its effect would be a good idea.
5. The duration of most spells should be extended. I really miss the good old days when the spells lasted several hours.
Ah, yeah. That's solidly in the realm of "you would need to go play a casters-only system for something like that", or at least a system with much higher power in general. I found Godbound to be pretty enjoyable, but it's probably too low on how many individual abilities you get. You can always check back if PF2 ever releases a mythic equivalent, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. I cannot learn enough feats. I wish the PCs would be able to learn one class feat every level. I also wish that starting with two ancestry feats and gaining another at every odd level thereafter would become a default rule.
For non-PFS gamesFree Archetype and Ancestry Paragon address this (OK I know that Free Archetype have it's own restriction to players that just want to have more feats to their own classes like monks but is already helps). I know that there are alternative rules, some GMs and tables may won't implement it but also there's little reason to then deny too once these changes usually give more versatility than power at the point that's normally it isn't even need to do any adjustments to encounters.
2. I cannot learn and cast enough spells. I hope the spell slots of caster classes would be doubled or perhaps tripled. For example, I wish a 20th level sorcerer will learn 8 spells for each level and 10 cantrips.
Wow! That's a huge amount! IMO 50% increase is enough, maybe a Spell Point variant to allow more flexibility too.
But in general the casters problems with number os spellslots is more an adventure problem than a caster problem. If you GM limits the encounter budget to 160XP per in game day you probably won't need all these spell slots. Including this is a common limit for PFS adventures. The currently problem is that some APs many times force players to have DGs with a total 800 or even more XP bugdget in a single in game day. This harms too much the spellcasters due their daily limited resources.Anyway Paizo will probably won't change the spellslot numbers in any remaster or errata. Try to ask to your GM (or if you are GMing) to avoid make adventures that forces the spellcasters too much or if they don't want ask to they compensate giving more spellslots.
3. Focus spell system should be entirely overhauled. I have not found out satisfying house rules yet but I think removing focus point entirely and allowing PCs to cast focus spells freely, or perhaps using the D&D 3.5 recharge magic variant rule seems good enough.
Paizo appear that will do some changes in focus spells but don't expect anything huge or the changes the currently rules so much. We don't know what expect yet but don't expect too much here.
Also may players, including myself, are OK with currently focus spell rules in general. I only want that they remove the recharge improval feats and add it to refocus rules itself because the feats requirements is too high, too taxing to just allows to recover 1 or 2 more focus points per refocus.4. Sustain a Spell should be removed entirely. I honestly have no idea why the developers thought forcing the casters to pay attention to the spell that has already been cast to sustain its effect would be a good idea.
To prevent 5e concentration situation at same time that restrict a player to stack many sustainable spells at once. I don't agree that this need to change at all.
5. The duration of most spells should be extended. I really miss the good old days when the spells lasted several hours.
No! No more daily pre-buff please. These turn the buffs mandatory and trivialize magical itens.
Minor issues
1. Fine, Diminutive and Colossal size categories should return. Simply reading the size category helped me estimate the rough size of a creature a lot. But now that Paizo incorporated Colossal creatures into Gargantuan creatures, estimating the size of a creature that I'm not familiar with became quite hard and inaccurate. In First Edition, I can anticipate a purple worm would be clearly smaller than Tarrasque because their size category was different. Now they both are Gargantuan and thus it would not be quick and easy to compare the size of them. Actually, when I heard the Second Edition will be developed, I hoped there will be a new size category that is even bigger than Colossal, so that those truly big creatures (the Spawn of Rovagug, kaiju, mu spores) can have suitable size category. I honestly have no idea why Paizo removed Fine, Diminutive and Colossal.
I don't have problem with bigger creatures at all. But I think they changed this due the high space needed in many battle maps.
2. Quickened casting should be less restricted. Seriously, once per day? I honestly have no idea why I should learn this feat so that I can cast two spells in a round only once per day. We could use quicken spell feat without such a restriction in First Edition!
I agree. IMO Quickened casting could by once per encounter at minimum and could be some levels lower. Currently Quickened casting is completely ignored by most casters due it's high level requirement and so limited utility.
3. Applying two or more metamagic feats to a spell should be available. I really liked to make my spell incredibly powerful via applying several metamagic feats at once in First Edition.
I don't agree. I like the limit this prevent some OP stacks but I think there are many things considered as metamagic without need (like spellstrike, amps and Shadow Signet) and many metamagics that won't worth at all. IMO metamagic feats and itens that need a rework instead.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Major issues
1. No reason to expect the amount of feats awarded to change. (Which I'd like, personally, but seems beyond the scope of the changes and would make the game less accessible for new players.) We do know the free archetype variant will be published in Core, so that will probably legitimize it as a popular choice. Also, some feats are being punched up and others eliminated. So it is possible you could wind up with a similar net benefit if certain feats becomes basic class abilities and feat chains are condensed into singular feats. For example, animal companion progression could theoretically cost less.
2. No way this is happening. Shifts game balance too much, makes the game harder for newbs, and would require overhauling all the other classes not included in Core.
3. They are planning to make focus spells "easier to use" but I doubt the changes will be enough to satisfy you, TBH.
4. Seems very unlikely.
5. Possible. They are talking about buffing spells. Again, probably not as much as you're hoping.
Minor issues
1. I see no reason to expect them to add the size categories back. At a certain point it just becomes too big or too small to matter.
2. I doubt it. Quickened is really strong and I don't see it changing unless they also change the number of slots. Action economy is king.
3. Maybe, but seems unlikely.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...
Major issues:
1. I cannot learn enough feats. I wish the PCs would be able to learn one class feat every level. I also wish that starting with two ancestry feats and gaining another at every odd level thereafter would become a default rule.
2. I cannot learn and cast enough spells. I hope the spell slots of caster classes would be doubled or perhaps tripled. For example, I wish a 20th level sorcerer will learn 8 spells for each level and 10 cantrips.
3. Focus spell system should be entirely overhauled. I have not found out satisfying house rules yet but I think removing focus point entirely and allowing PCs to cast focus spells freely, or perhaps using the D&D 3.5 recharge magic variant rule seems good enough.
4. Sustain a Spell should be removed entirely. I honestly have no idea why the developers thought forcing the casters to pay attention to the spell that has already been cast to sustain its effect would be a good idea.
5. The duration of most spells should be extended. I really miss the good old days when the spells lasted several hours.
Yeah, don't expect any of that to change. And I disagree strongly that any of those are real problems. We could get into a long discussion as to why, but I don't want to clutter up this thread with that discussion.
I would say prepare to be disappointed on all these cases.
The only thing I could sort of see making sense is maybe some class feats that allow people to regain a point of focus during combat by doing something in particular. But it's not supposed to be an inexhaustible resource, but something that you can use a few times and then need to recover. Focus spell are generally pretty effective, and need to be more limited than cantrips. About the only change I could see as being reasonable is increasing the number of focus point you have. Maybe starting with 2 instead of one when you gain a focus spell, and maybe gaining an extra 2 whenever you gain a focus power up to a cap of 6. But that's it.
What I've hard they do plan to change is the mechanics for regaining focus points, that it will stop being an activity you take while you can also do vaguely associated things and instead it will just recharge 10 minutes after being used. Though this might be more conjecture than fact.
[
I just went and watched it... Someone asked it in their chat. And he said it's something they would definitely look at.
Oh. I see he came back several minutes later and said they were.
I don't know how I feel about rogues getting all martial.
Not just from a legacy standpoint. But from a standpoint of they're not a brawler class. Fighting is what fighters do. They should get them all. I'd see rogues getting a selection.
But if it's done, it's done.
|
If the remaster project can be considered PF2.1e or PF2.5e or just still PF2e, It's hard to measure just how big the change is. I like just calling it PF2r Should that be an r or R is another question.
I'm all so wondering if just the new core books should use PF2r so they are not confused with the original core books, and other books and if AP keeps using PF2e.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
YeFighting is what EVERYONE does, it’s a combat focused game :3Are you talking about the game, or posting on the forums? :)
I'm proficient in Simple arguments, but I prefer to use maneuvers like "Strawman", "Beg The Question" and "Misuse 'Beg The Question'". It makes the fight feel more dynamic.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what they've said, this is clearly smaller than the 3.0->3.5 change, but clearly bigger than mere errata (for instance, I find it highly unlikely that they'd have ever removed alignment via errata).
Now whether this level of change is could properly be called a new edition is less clear, and largely dependent upon what definition of "edition" one prefers. Personally, I believe that Paizo honestly doesn't see it as a new edition, and that their hands were clearly forced by WotC's @$%@$ OGL tantrum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what they've said, this is clearly smaller than the 3.0->3.5 change, but clearly bigger than mere errata (for instance, I find it highly unlikely that they'd have ever removed alignment via errata).
Now whether this level of change is could properly be called a new edition is less clear, and largely dependent upon what definition of "edition" one prefers. Personally, I believe that Paizo honestly doesn't see it as a new edition, and that their hands were clearly forced by WotC's @$%@$ OGL tantrum.
That's the key thing to keep in mind. This is happening to get away from Open Game License debacle. Paizo needs to publish new books that don't rely on OGL but instead the ORC license, and they have to remove any content that might fall under OGL. And I'm not an expert, but it may be cleanest (even if not 100% necessary) to publish "new" books that don't use the same title and eliminate the OGL content so that there is 0 chance WotC could try to lay claim or do anything to it.
That's the biggest driving force behind this. They're also taking it as opportunity to do some errata and tidying up of things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...
Pathfinder 1st Edition has just about everything you seem to want.
PF2R is not a new edition. It’s an errata pass and enough shakeups to make them legally distinct from the OGL.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would not expect anything too significant. Wishlisting in threads is fun but realistically I'm expecting even the classes Paizo has mentioned as getting significant changes to remain more or less the same.
If the remaster project can be considered PF2.1e or PF2.5e or just still PF2e, It's hard to measure just how big the change is. I like just calling it PF2r Should that be an r or R is another question.
I'm all so wondering if just the new core books should use PF2r so they are not confused with the original core books, and other books and if AP keeps using PF2e.
We wont know until the release. We just know that it will keep as 2e. But I expect changes in a similar way to 3.5. Many spells changing name or effects, many classes with many minor changes, removal of alignments but same game base rules.
Creative Director
|
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the issues I have with Second Edition are...
The remastered rules are still 2nd edition. None of the things you mentioned will be changing, as they're core parts of the rules that we are retaining because this is not an edition change.
As mentioned above, it sounds like 1st edition is more to your liking, and that's cool! Not everyone has to like everything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they clean up and clarify some of the rules that are unclear or problematic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they clean up and clarify some of the rules that are unclear or problematic.
If they are well known issue you might get your wish, in the form of errata.
The only thing I don't like is that we can't make them work 24 hrs a day and weekends to get it out. After watching the videos and reading the blogs, I am super excited.
I've got all the old monsters. Plus I'm getting new ones. The books are being split back up. Errata added. This is gonna be awesome.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want the Paizo designers to sleep, take their time, and do this remaster well. Fixed rules, good new systems in place for alignment, intelligent class changes that will carry us forward and create more clarity for DMs, a well done remaster that won't lead to a bunch of new rules issues.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately I don't think they have such time. They probably have some pressure due remastering being a pressure derivate from OGL problem that suddenly appear in middle of their plans.
But I think that they taking this as an opportunity too. Probably the remaster project is something that they are already thing to do sometime (including they already planned to improve their errata frequency and response before the OGL crisis). Things like make a pocket book, divide the content better and even take the opportunity to redraw to make more complex changes to the book was probably in the cards, but most likely not for now.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the changes will be fewer than we want, but more than we actually expect. There will be quite a few unexpected things that'll make you go "oh, neat", but that's it. They have clearly communicated that this is not a major rework of content. Changing major systems beyond what was announced or anything of that magnitude would break that promise, which is not Paizo's style.
I'm frankly amazed that they have found the time to do even this much, given their already loaded release schedule. Repackaging the rules and polishing them up a bit alone must take more time than I'd care to think about.
So yeah, most people here seem to be aware of roughly what we can expect, but we like our high-level discussions and will take every opportunity to have them ;)
I think the changes will be fewer than we want, but more than we actually expect. There will be quite a few unexpected things that'll make you go "oh, neat", but that's it. They have clearly communicated that this is not a major rework of content. Changing major systems beyond what was announced or anything of that magnitude would break that promise, which is not Paizo's style.
Agree probably the changes will far below the most optimistic expect but more than most pessimists believe.
I'm frankly amazed that they have found the time to do even this much, given their already loaded release schedule. Repackaging the rules and polishing them up a bit alone must take more time than I'd care to think about.
I agree that's why I believe they already had changes already at least considered. Because if it was just to solve OGL issues, they wouldn't need to mess with Alchemist, Oracle and Witch since these classes are not related to the necessary changes due to the change in licenses.
So yeah, most people here seem to be aware of roughly what we can expect, but we like our high-level discussions and will take every opportunity to have them ;)
Agree!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully the extra workload is balanced to a degree by the increase in sales that paizos been getting. Spporting a product, to me, means you support what's best for the people that make it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully that increase translates to employee pay, too!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I may be against new editions but I am very much in favor of everyone involved bring paid well for their work and given the respect they deserve both on and off the clock.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All power to the union in those relevant negotiations!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All power to the union in those relevant negotiations!