PaizoCon Remaster changes compilation.

[Karmagator]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Can we get back to compiling the changes now?

I would love to, but it seems that's all we are getting until more blog posts come out in the coming weeks.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Oh, boy, sixteen new posts on this thread. I can't wait to read about all the new developments!

[Gortle]

Karmagator wrote:

Hunted Shot (and Twin Takedown) is the one I least expect to see any changes.

They would get poached via multiclass characters.

[Laclale♪]

Anything related to magic school will be reworked...

Runelord's sin assignment
Magic Aura(in general)

[Deriven Firelion]

Gortle wrote:

Karmagator wrote:

Hunted Shot (and Twin Takedown) is the one I least expect to see any changes.

They would get poached via multiclass characters.

True. I'd still like something better than working off Hunt Prey.

[YuriP]

The Raven Black wrote:

TBH PF2 was pretty much a new game compared to PF1.

DnD 3.0 to 3.5 was not. And neither was 3.5 to PF1.

Remastered feels somewhere between 3.5 to PF1 and PF1 to PF2. It is definitely not what I would consider PF3 though the changes are vast and many.

Talking about editions seems to confuse rather than clarify because people use the same word to mean different things.

Exactly!

The truth is that I and many others have played several adventures made for 3rd edition using 3.5 and PF1 with no problems! Because in the end they were all 3rd edition! It was the same basic rules, the same DCs, the NPCs and monsters were compatible, no one really had to relearn the system to play these 3rd edition versions.

It's exactly the same thing that will happen with the remaster. If you want to run an AoA on it you will get it without problems and probably at most what you will have to adjust will be the alignment damage that will change to spiritual damage, adding holy and unholy depending on whether it was good or evil damage.

Now, having said that the remaster was not going to be an equivalent of what 3.5 was for 3.0 or PF1 was for 3.5, I'm sorry but that was a lie. What is happening is that we won't have a 2.5 written on the cover of the books only, as something similar to this is happening with One-D&D that WotC also said they will call 5th edition, even messing with all classes, races, spells and some rules.

Once again, that being said, what really should cause some problems are some details of some ancestries and non-CRB/APG classes like the Arcane Cascade of the Magus, which depends on the school of the cast spells to know the effect. But this is honestly even something simple to deal with, just keep using the old school traits until some errata about it comes out.

It's even something curious in my opinion.

I expected the alignment damage removal to be a much more impactful thing to the game than it actually was due to the various interactions with spells and outsiders. But in the end, it looks like it's going to give more "headache" even for us players and GMs, the removal of the traits of the schools will be. Something that at first glance seemed much simpler.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Can we get back to compiling the changes now?

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

Oh, boy, sixteen new posts on this thread. I can't wait to read about all the new developments!

Unfortunately now we are going to enter another information hiatus until new blog posts or eventual interviews with the designers come out.

From here it will only be discussions about these new modifications.

[Unicore]

Well, we will be talking about narrative changes today with the darklands that could be as big as many other remaster changes. Fundamentally, remaster is 90+ percent narrative changes and not mechanical balance changes, it is just that narrative and mechanic are not really as separate of categories or divisions as we tend to think of them when we organize “rules team” as separate from “lore team.”

Having been a college professor through an emergency pandemic shift and now a few short years latter a generative AI panic that has forced drastic changes (that require hundreds of hours of unpaid extra labor as all the tools change almost overnight with conflicting and often absent guidance ) to my entire profession 2 times in less than 5 years, I don’t see these remaster changes as a full edition shift and can appreciate not making a full edition shift based upon an emergency situation if needing to adapt to new licensing restrictions.

[Red Griffyn]

Blave wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Warpriest already plays painfully in L5/L6 (waiting for expert)

You're not waiting for expert at those levels. You're using your (effectively) full spell casting proficiency. And when the other casters go to expert, you have (effectively) full martial proficiency. And when the martials go to master, you've already been at full caster and full martial proficiency for two levels.

Level 15-18 will really be the only levels you're behind both, martials and casters. Not ideal, but you are also casting level 8+ spells by that time, which is already a great deal of power. Getting juggernaut is also no small thing.

So lets say my player concept is that I'm a martial forward gish with a divine flavour. Your trying to tell me that I have to start with an 18 in my casting stat, 16 in my striking stat, keep CHA scaling for font, and someone also get STR for damage (if using finesse weapons) or DEX for reflex/AC (if using non-finesse) or CON for HP. What you're suggesting is an insanely MAD martial gish that is narratively unsatisfying.

Instead of getting to 'hit with weapons' as my thing at the expected scaling accuracy/math of the system I have to wait 2 levels. So fundamentally I have to put my concept on hold. Your surrogate for that is to cast spells/cantrips (even if that isn't the thing I want) for 2 levels. If I did max out my WIS to allow for this period where suddenly get worse at the thing I want to be good at (since monsters scale while I don't) then I necessarily hurting my build/concept because the 2-4 boosts I put into WIS to keep it maxed didn't go to STR/DEX/CON/CHA (i.e., dilution of my core concept). If I don't put in WIS as you suggest I'm stuck with what I just described, 2 levels of getting worse (not just no progression because monsters scale) in 'my concept' with a painful few levels of back-up options. I could only foucs on support spells or things without DCs but then your whole argument that I have 'maxed' spell DC is moot because it isn't being used.

THAT is why it is painful. You can't have it all so the argument that proficiency in weapon use and proficiency in spells are interchangeable at all levels isn't accurate. They are two independent things that provide two independent manifestations of my character. One does not replace the other (mechanically and conceptually) and both require investment at the expense of the other (mechanically).

Even if you were of the opinion that they were equivalent in power then we fall back to the other complaint spectrum of the warpriest (i.e., why bother with weapons at all and just be a cloistered cleric focused on WIS and pick up sentinel at L2/shield block at L3 and be a better version).

What Paizo is suggesting is that the painful L5 to L7 hiccup in progression of your PC be a simple preview to another longer and drier dry spell of L13 to L19. Of course getting it at all is an improvement. But that is why I'm calling it a half measure. Put it at L15 and maintain the same painful 2 level precedent would have made way more sense (it wouldn't make the warpriest playable for me but I wouldn't complain about it). Put juggernaut at L19 so they still have it.

Or do what Clerics+ did (which is IMO is the best warpriest to date). Give weapon proficiency E/M at L5/L13, give a martial level AC/Saves scaling, pair back the chassis to a bounded caster to balance it, decouple the font from CHA so you can focus on being the best Martial you can, add a few action economy booster feats like other martials, allow for options in your doctrines so they aren't just 'proficiency boosts' but exciting parts build/player agency, etc.

I do hear that some people love their Warpriests as the 85% caster/15% martial it is. But clearly there is a huge community pull/desire for the 50% caster/50% martial of a divine persuasion (call it a battle cleric, warpriest, inquisitor, w/e you want). But the complaints about the warpriest are fundamentally rooted in the deviations in expectations and because there is no 'other' Paizo made option. We have to acknowledge the two desires are not the same instead of pretending the current warpriest scratches the itch. Then Paizo can make an option or as a community we can be much more open to high quality third party content that addresses the big gaps in the system in a timely manner.

[Unicore]

Juggernaut (plus a fort save bump) is so much more valuable than master proficiency in weapons. But this conversation feels pretty off topic, no? Maybe make a new thread for talking about remastered cleric doctrines?

[Blave]

If you have 12 Dex or heavy armor, you can easily go with 16 12 10 10 18 12 at level 1. That is perfectly viable and the new heavy armor feat means you can also go with 12 con instead of dex.

Use Iruxi for even better stats if you need it. Then increase Str, Con, Wis and Cha every 5 levels. You get the best possible casting and martial abilities for your (sub)class and still start with two font slots (3 for Iruxi). It's not like a cloistered cleric has more unless he sacrifices his defenses.

[YuriP]

Red Griffyn wrote:

Blave wrote:

Red Griffyn wrote:

Warpriest already plays painfully in L5/L6 (waiting for expert)

You're not waiting for expert at those levels. You're using your (effectively) full spell casting proficiency. And when the other casters go to expert, you have (effectively) full martial proficiency. And when the martials go to master, you've already been at full caster and full martial proficiency for two levels.

Level 15-18 will really be the only levels you're behind both, martials and casters. Not ideal, but you are also casting level 8+ spells by that time, which is already a great deal of power. Getting juggernaut is also no small thing.

So lets say my player concept is that I'm a martial forward gish with a divine flavour. Your trying to tell me that I have to start with an 18 in my casting stat, 16 in my striking stat, keep CHA scaling for font, and someone also get STR for damage (if using finesse weapons) or DEX for reflex/AC (if using non-finesse) or CON for HP. What you're suggesting is an insanely MAD martial gish that is narratively unsatisfying.

Instead of getting to 'hit with weapons' as my thing at the expected scaling accuracy/math of the system I have to wait 2 levels. So fundamentally I have to put my concept on hold. Your surrogate for that is to cast spells/cantrips (even if that isn't the thing I want) for 2 levels. If I did max out my WIS to allow for this period where suddenly get worse at the thing I want to be good at (since monsters scale while I don't) then I necessarily hurting my build/concept because the 2-4 boosts I put into WIS to keep it maxed didn't go to STR/DEX/CON/CHA (i.e., dilution of my core concept). If I don't put in WIS as you suggest I'm stuck with what I just described, 2 levels of getting worse (not just no progression because monsters scale) in 'my concept' with a painful few levels of back-up options. I could only foucs on support spells or things without DCs but then your whole argument that I have 'maxed' spell DC is...

So what you're looking for here is not a cleric, but a new warpriest class, much more martial and Magus-inspired. What Paizo wants to deliver is a well-rounded warpriest spellcaster, who has chosen to be better at using weapons and armor than focusing completely on his spells, but who is still primarily a spellcaster.

I don't think the idea of Clerics+ is bad, I even recommend that you like it and don't play in PFS or with Foundry (lol) to try to convince your GMs to accept it because it serves this niche well. But that's clearly not what Paizo's designers intended with their Warpriest.

Personally, I liked them putting access to heavy armor as a feat and the warpriest being able to reach Master at level 19. This made it clear what the warpriest is, he is a divine spellcaster specialized in buffs and healing, but that instead of If he keeps his distance, he prefers to stay on the front lines with his allies, but combat is not his specialty.

Another alternative, not well liked by many, is to take a martial character or the summoner and put a caster MC on him. So you'll have a much more martial frontline character that also heals and buffs.

[Kobold Catgirl]

They should just make a Magus variant for Divine magic.

[The Raven Black]

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

[Shisumo]

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

Kind of have this planned for a future "champion of Nethys" character, in fact.

[The Raven Black]

Shisumo wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

Kind of have this planned for a future "champion of Nethys" character, in fact.

Currently playing it in PFS with an Elven archer who is also a devout follower of Ragathiel.

Having access to positive and aligned damage through the Cleric dedication is great for her concept of an arrow for every weakness.

[Karmagator]

Kobold Catgirl wrote:

They should just make a Magus variant for Divine magic.

I'd love that, even outside the whole warpriest discussion. But the divine spell list needs more than 6 attack spells first. And of those 6, half are either useless or AP material. So yeah, I don't see that happening anytime soon ^^

[Kobold Catgirl]

If only there was a new major Pathfinder publication that could easily slip in a few extra spells here and there. ;)

In fact, we already have word of one: Divine Lance is getting an upgrade.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Gortle wrote:

Themetricsystem wrote:

The changes here are BIGGER and farther reaching than the 3.0 to 3.5 switch which was for all intents and purposes a new edition.

Agreed it will be a fairly seemless change though. But for some coporate reason probably marketing they can't name it a as new edition.

I was thinking it was going to be just a 2.1 but they are changing much more than I thought.

That is also my impression.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

How effective is it, I was under the impression that the magus class itself can only strike with the arcane spell list, but if you went arcane archer you can chose from the divine list.

[shroudb]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

How effective is it, I was under the impression that the magus class itself can only strike with the arcane spell list, but if you went arcane archer you can chose from the divine list.

nothing in the spellstrike dictates what spell you can strike with apart from it having an attack roll (without feats, with feats, that can change as well).

it gives the Arcane trait to the attack, yes, but that doesn't mean you can only spellstrike with arcane spells.

[gesalt]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

How effective is it, I was under the impression that the magus class itself can only strike with the arcane spell list, but if you went arcane archer you can chose from the divine list.

Not the case. In fact, the spells of choice for spellstriking have been cleric and psychic focus spells since they're as strong as top slots while also being renewable via refocus.

[Riddlyn]

Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

How effective is it, I was under the impression that the magus class itself can only strike with the arcane spell list, but if you went arcane archer you can chose from the divine list.

Any spell you have access to with an attack roll or any spell causes harm to a creature or has an area with a feat.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

Thank you all for the clarification!

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Removed posts of either being off topic or harassing. Please abide by the Community Guidelines. I will do my best to make sure there is a moderator post for each removal. The Paizo forums should be thought of as a place to focus discussion on the lore and products under the Paizo umbrella, and less as a 'slice of life' forum where anything can be posted. As stated before, some of you will disagree with this, and thats ok.

[Terevalis Unctio of House Mysti]

The Raven Black wrote:

Magus with MC Cleric can perfectly be played as a Divine gish.

Do you have a build that I could see?

[Red Griffyn]

YuriP wrote:

So what you're looking for here is not a cleric, but a new warpriest class, much more martial and Magus-inspired. What Paizo wants to deliver is a well-rounded warpriest spellcaster, who has chosen to be better at using weapons and armor than focusing completely on his spells, but who is still primarily a spellcaster.

Let me maybe clarify my position. 100% the warpriest does not provide me what I want. I don't hold any illusions about that.

The bigger issue is that the title of warpriest carries with it a bias of what the class was in PF1e, which was a much more martial version of a cleric (not a caster with some martial dressings). Personally I don't care if they keep the existing subclass, keep the title warpriest, etc. But after many years of debating with people (especially before the magus) many people still argue this thing does the martial forward caster gish as a divine class.

Secrets of magic and thus 'a balanced gish' chassis (i.e. wave caster/bounded caster) was published on September 14, 2021. Its almost been 2 years and people clamouring for that same framework but with a primal, divine, and occult basis. The critique here is more far ranging then you might suppose because in essence any of the 3/4 BAB, 2/3 Caster Classes from PF1e are simply not represented in the current game. The closest we have is the thaumaturge which is almost like an occultist but without any of the occult spell casting and of course the magus.

Again call it what you will but if there was a book that only added a bard (a better warrior muse), cleric (a better warpriest), and druid (a better wildshape melee combatant) bounded caster class archetype or subclass choice it would satisfy so many current design niches that aren't fulfilled. Part of the issue (and why fighter MC with them isn't an option) is there are some really great feats already in those classes that would work extremely well with a martial forward bounded caster chassis (but only if you're getting them at the expected level, not if you're getting them at 1/2 level like in a MC). Think about how much time and money a new class/playtest would be as compared to one that just had 80-90% of its content already written in the existing classes.

Of course Paizo isn't bound to make a symmetrical system with those mechanical niches being populated but the holes become glaringly more obvious the longer they are left with 'no attention'.

Magus focuses on bounded casting with casting being offensive.
A cleric could focus on bounded casting with casting being a self buff.
A bard could focus on bounded casting with casting being a party buff.
A druid could focus on bounded casting with casting being use of nature/animal companions/wildshape.

There are more combinations and asks but those might be better for an actual new class if it needs a mechanic like 'spell strike' that is more disruptive to game mechanics/not well supported in the current game.

[Tactical Drongo]

In that vein I homebrewed something that might work easily enough

Turn Warrior Muse Bards and Warpriests into wave casters with full martial progression like the magus
but besides that, just keep the class as is

for my games that will always be an option - especially now that more warpriest feats are coming that should work easy enough
and the classes can also be more easiliy and effectively be combined with a martial archetype

[YuriP]

Some more sneak peak info from preview of Rage of Elements.
https://ibb.co/3m7Yt8H

Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/Ilt5OvoFgzk?feature=share&t=1609

You will no more being flat-footed but off-guard.
Attack of Opportunity now will be Reactive Strike.
Illusion still a trait with rules.
Positive damage/energy is now Vitality damage/energy, negative damage/energy is now Void damage/energy.
Saves are now Defense.

Wish is now a Ritual!!! Probably the similar spells from other traditions was also removed.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

YuriP wrote:

You will no more being flat-footed but off-guard.
Attack of Opportunity now will be Reactive Strike.
Illusion still a trait with rules.
Positive damage/energy is now Vitality damage/energy, negative damage/energy is now Void damage/energy.
Saves are now Defense.

lol, I honestly didn't expect those to be license things... like "positive" and "negative" is hardly WoTC creation, those are common terms... Saves also. "Attack of Opportunity" I get, it's specific term. Also how "flat-footed" is an license issue where that is litereally medical name of "having a condition in which the foot has an arch that is lower than usual."

Seems little over the top to change those.

[TriOmegaZero]

Over the top is how you make 100% clear legal distinctions.

[YuriP]

They probably is trying to prevent any chance of a term or a conjunction of terms that can be used to bases a process. So if there's a risk even being minimum they try to avoid.

[Gortle]

It seems extreme though. This may be going too far. It is putting a language barrier between D&D and PF, and PF still gets mosts of its players from D&D first.

[Evan Tarlton]

If it makes them safe from reprisal, I say it goes far enough. Remember who we're talking about.

[Romão98]

YuriP wrote:

Positive damage/energy is now Vitality damage/energy, negative damage/energy is now Void damage/energy.

I'm sad that they have abandoned both positive and negative energies. Now I'm interested in knowing how Vitality and Void will be presented and how these two energies will be related to the spells that deal with necromancy and the lore in Golarion like Book of the Dead.

[Unicore]

We don't really know what is going on behind the scenes with the lawyers and what Wizards of the Coast has made moves towards protecting as far as terms that are distinctly licensed under the OGL. I had a feeling that the positive and negative planes of energy were a little too tied into OGL cosmology. I hope they really run with expanding the void as a concept. I know they had started to with the end of PF1, but it felt like that went to the back burner for a while with PF2.

Reactive strike feels like a better title for what AoO was in PF2. Flat-footed and Off-guard feel about the same to me. Defense really implies something that is rolled against and not something you actively roll. That could either be a bigger change or something that could be a little misleading. You do have Saving Throw DCs, so those make sense to call defenses to me, it is just the active rolling that will be weird unless everything is now attack rolls.

I think spells as a whole are getting quite the shake up.

I am not sure I see how compatible the OGL PF2 system is going to be post remastery. It is really starting to sound like it is going to be very confusing to use old material with the remastery, especially with newer players.

[Ashanderai]

Vitality makes sense and we can already see it listed as a trait for the Kineticist's Water Impulses that have healing.

[Perpdepog]

I'm bugged more by vitality damage than I have any reason to be. I think it's because it's a three-syllable word, and that feels too long for a damage type to my ear for ... some reason. Calling it vital damage would sound weird though, like the damage was especially effective.

And yeah, I am totally aware that positive and negative damage also fall into that camp, and are similarly weird to think about when you consider it. Is positive damage damage that you want? Is negative damage subtracting damage? These are just terms I haven't had to think about for a while, and now I am, and it's bugging me.

This ramble brought to you by our sponsors, Vitality Damage and Caffeine.

[PossibleCabbage]

Reactive Strike makes a lot more sense and is more descriptive than "Attack of Opportunity" IMO.

[Perpdepog]

I hope that this new wish ritual is more of a narrative-focused ritual, and that the wish-style spells that let you replicate lower ranked spells remain.

[Pieces-Kai]

Honestly think I prefer Vitality and Void damage the names are a lot more evocative than negative and positive

[QuidEst]

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm bugged more by vitality damage than I have any reason to be. I think it's because it's a three-syllable word, and that feels too long for a damage type to my ear for ... some reason. Calling it vital damage would sound weird though, like the damage was especially effective.

And yeah, I am totally aware that positive and negative damage also fall into that camp, and are similarly weird to think about when you consider it. Is positive damage damage that you want? Is negative damage subtracting damage? These are just terms I haven't had to think about for a while, and now I am, and it's bugging me.

This ramble brought to you by our sponsors, Vitality Damage and Caffeine.

"Negative damage" didn't work well either, because it sounded like it was healing or a low roll on negative modifiers. The fix for vitality is the same as it was for negative- "vital energy damage".

[Perpdepog]

QuidEst wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

I'm bugged more by vitality damage than I have any reason to be. I think it's because it's a three-syllable word, and that feels too long for a damage type to my ear for ... some reason. Calling it vital damage would sound weird though, like the damage was especially effective.

And yeah, I am totally aware that positive and negative damage also fall into that camp, and are similarly weird to think about when you consider it. Is positive damage damage that you want? Is negative damage subtracting damage? These are just terms I haven't had to think about for a while, and now I am, and it's bugging me.

This ramble brought to you by our sponsors, Vitality Damage and Caffeine.

"Negative damage" didn't work well either, because it sounded like it was healing or a low roll on negative modifiers. The fix for vitality is the same as it was for negative- "vital energy damage".

I'm aware; I brought that up in my post. Like I said, it's bugging me more than it has any reason to. Eventually it'll stop.

Also, void damage is a top-knotch name. I love how unapologetically edgy and evocative it is.

[Tangorin]

Off-guard seems like a better description than a medical foot condition. Same goes for reactive strike. That said my table will probably stick with old terminology.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

Tangorin wrote:

Off-guard seems like a better description than a medical foot condition. Same goes for reactive strike. That said my table will probably stick with old terminology.

Flat-footed in the sense of being caught flat-footed means to be unprepared. It's early 1900's baseball slang to refer to a play who is not on their toes, again that is to say, not ready to act/move.

Off-guard is still a more immediately intuitive term, but flat-footed only shared a name with a medical condition.

[Evan Tarlton]

The Material Plane seems to have been renamed the Universe. I like that a lot.

[Rysky]

Evan Tarlton wrote:

The Material Plane seems to have been renamed the Universe. I like that a lot.

So the other planes are... what? Alternate Universes? Is it just "Universe"?

Fascinating regardless, wonder how it'll feel in play.