Overall Remaster impression?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm cautiously optimistic pending the release of Core, Core2, etc.

A lot of the things that were definite problems appear to either getting removed entirely and/or fixed/replaced.

EDIT: I'm a lot more optimistic about Core than I was for PF2.0.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
EDIT: I'm a lot more optimistic about Core than I was for PF2.0.

One thin I will say for the PF2.0 Playtest though is that it showed that Paizo does a proper playtest, not a video game company style playtest.

Video Game companies do playtests as a marketing gimmick, genuine feedback is not important - getting eyes in a new finished product is as a way to keep investors off your back and drive up pre-sales.

I'm in tech, but not in gaming. We do real 'tests' when we send things to QA: what works, what's broken, what needs more attention.

The PF2.0 Playtest is often derided by people - but when I look back at it it did exactly what a playtest should do: find and fix issues before the full product is out.

I don't know how they do current playtests or how the remaster changes will get tested - but I've got hope that they have a good process in place.

Thus far all but one change I've seen appears to be a good one. I even like the Wizard school change that it seems everyone else dislikes. But if everyone else dislikes it - the final version might be different still.

My only dislike is the loss of the 3-18 stats. I said why in an earlier post.

On the top of my lists of things I like... the things they hinted for Witch all seem to be going in the right direction. The removal of Drow is perhaps my number one like. The removal of alignment is a close second. Everything else just seems like 'this is good stuff that should help'.

Liberty's Edge

Scarablob wrote:

It's pretty minor, but the new names are a bit hit or miss for me. The new witch patrons for exemple seems great and evocative, but the new wizard schools feel just goofy for the most part.

Speaking of witch patrons, I understand not including the specific rare patrons in the core book, but I really hope they don't wait too much to publish the mosquito witch new familiar ability. Even outside of the mosquito witch herself (which is a pretty cool in universe cryptid, and fitting for a patron), it was the one patron that worked really well with an insect themed witch, and without it, there isn't any other fitting ones.

In a way, Baba Yaga can wait because the "silence in snow" can emulate her pretty aptly for the moment, but the mosquito witch is more important because she's the one that can emulate a wild array of different insect based patron.

The rare patrons will stay the same. Their Witches will benefit from the class' improvements too. You can still play them.

For which my PFS Witch of Baba Yaga is quite thankful.


So far so good. Refocus is the biggest change at this point. Everything else feels minor or needed. We'll see how the class changes end up.

Polymorph and form spells still need a lot of cleaning up.
Not enough changes to make me feel I need to buy new books.

Paizo Employee Community and Social Media Specialist

Removed more off topic posts.


The Raven Black wrote:

The rare patrons will stay the same. Their Witches will benefit from the class' improvements too. You can still play them.

For which my PFS Witch of Baba Yaga is quite thankful.

Unless I misunderstood some part of the reveals, patrons will get a new unique familiar effect on top of what they already have (maybe with some balancing and tweaks, but they'll keep the hex spell, spell list choice and granted spell). If this is right but the rare patrons aren't updated, then they will be strictly worse than the normal patrons, because they'll lack that new feature. They'll be like a sorcerer bloodline that is fully fleshed out but lack a "blood magic" ability.

Basically, "staying the same" when the rest of the options get new features around them is akin to "getting worse". Witch need help so I'm glad for those change, but I'm bummed that my favorite patron won't get it and will be left in the dust for a while (I do believe it won't be permanent tho, keeping three incomplete patrons around would be weird and easy to fix.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scarablob wrote:
Basically, "staying the same" when the rest of the options get new features around them is akin to "getting worse".

As a side point, this is the main thrust for psychics if they don't get something to compensate for everyone else getting the new refocus rule.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Every positive change I've heard only gets better as I get more info. Alignment changed to edict/anathema, more flexible Champions, more lore based wizard schools.
Every negative change I've heard is almost immediately given more context and sounds amazing with the full info. No metal druid... because all druids are metal druids. No drow... but full Sekmin empire plotting against the surface.
All in all, the remaster sounds amazing, and any doubts I've had quickly are put to rest. I can't wait to hear more, especially the new dragons and ancestry options.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, the Remaster got me interested enough in the second edition that I finally made the mental leap to try to change editions, with caveats.

- First off, there are still some 1E campaigns I want to do. However, my Tuesday group just agreed yesterday to try out a full conversion of Return of the Runelords 2E campaign, when it comes up.
- Which will be after our current GM there will finish Strange Aeons in 1E, which just started yesterday.
- The caveat is that, if the players do not like 2E, we'll just switch back to the original 1E version mid-campaign.
- In my Friday groups (we switch every week between the two groups), I have one player who is in both groups who categorically doesn't want to switch to 2E. Since I don't want to lose the player, he's a good friend, I'll have to roll a lot of diplomacy over the next two or three years to get there.
- We still got a 1E Iron Gods game going there with him as the GM, which will start in three weeks, followed by either a 1E or 2E War for the Crown game with me as a GM, depending on if I can convince him.
- In the other Friday group the other GM and I are switching each module between an Ironfang Invasion and Hell's Rebels 1E game, so we are talking, in both groups, about 3 - 5 years until the topic really comes up there.

So, looking forward to getting into 2E at least in the Tuesday group in about 1 - 2 years. ^^

I originally wanted to wait out 2E for a full 3E release, to see if the game would get back a bit more towards the 1E feel, but a.) I can see that Paizo is sticking with their new format and the two systems are not really compatible with each other and b.) my assumed timeline of waiting 10 years and playing 1E materials in the meantime is kaputt, because I think the Remaster release means a reset of said timeline and 3E will come in a decade now.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The Ancestry moves in Player Core 1 and 2 have me elated. Changelings, Dhampirs, Iruxi, Kobolds, Kholo (my first ever character was a Gnoll!), Nephilim, Orcs... I can't believe how good folks will have it, compared to Ye Olde PHB Standards.


It all depends on a particular DMs table. Many may still play with 1E core races as a standard even if other non-core ancestries are in the PHB. Im pretty permissive as an DM with player choirs. Though every now and then I may still limit the ancestries to the traditional fantasy races ( Dwarf, Elf, Gnome ) etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I was against moving to Remaster at first. Still am with anything I have in OGL based content playing on my table right now, but I think when the core books are out, I'll be doing an entirely new campaign setting that will use absolutely no OGL content at all. In fact, the remaster of dragons has me thinking about completely remastering nearly anything considered a monster in my campaign setting and not using even a single published monster, though they may look and feel a bit familiar.

So long as the Game Master Core manual has guidelines for monster stat blocks and encounter difficulty, that and the Pathfinder Player core may be all I need for a VERY unique campaign completely under ORC.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xyxox wrote:

I was against moving to Remaster at first. Still am with anything I have in OGL based content playing on my table right now, but I think when the core books are out, I'll be doing an entirely new campaign setting that will use absolutely no OGL content at all. In fact, the remaster of dragons has me thinking about completely remastering nearly anything considered a monster in my campaign setting and not using even a single published monster, though they may look and feel a bit familiar.

So long as the Game Master Core manual has guidelines for monster stat blocks and encounter difficulty, that and the Pathfinder Player core may be all I need for a VERY unique campaign completely under ORC.

That will be an interesting experiment. I wish you fun.

I just want to mention for readers that everything previously published under OGL will still be usable with Remastered ORC products.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

player core 2 would be extremely awkward naming

why not player core rulebook advanced

sound like game console but still better

It makes Player Core sound like it is *not* advanced and 'Player Core Rulebook Advanced' sounds like it has *everything* that is needed to play a character when it is going to be closer to the current Advanced Player's Guide.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

player core 2 would be extremely awkward naming

why not player core rulebook advanced

sound like game console but still better

It makes Player Core sound like it is *not* advanced and 'Player Core Rulebook Advanced' sounds like it has *everything* that is needed to play a character when it is going to be closer to the current Advanced Player's Guide.

Very well put. Especially for us old-timers who still remember the monumental difference between Basic and Advanced… I shudder to think of what was going through my brother’s friend’s mum’s mind as she chainsmoked her way through the DMG in preparation for Keep on the Borderlands. She did an awesome job.


... Just call it what it is:

- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Rulebook Part 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Rulebook Part 2
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Guide Part 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Guide Part 2


3 people marked this as a favorite.

"Part 1" and "Part 2" would imply you need both parts of a finished whole.

It's also not accurate to even call it the Core Rulebook anymore. The Player Core doesn't contain all the information you need to play, and the GM Core isn't optional like the Gamemaster's Guide was. If you call them by the same titles, you imply that they serve the same purposes as they did previously, and that just isn't true. To be blunt, those titles would probably be the worst option Paizo could take.


I think in a court of law the Remaster would be version PF 2.5, but I don't care what it's called. Who cares if it's a new version of a game we like if it's improved, especially when the basic rules will be available online and we are able to change anything we want to suit our home games? I think it'll be an improved version, and this is an opportune time to capitalize on a project like this (a Remaster).

I do understand the Remaster version will negate/errata-ish a lot of my previous books and cause some confusion about what's legal and not, but I really believe GMs can work through some of that. I realize it's hard to keep supporting a company, though, that puts out major changes (new editions) to a beloved system every 5 years, and Paizo will have to do deal with this, but this one time I think we can accept the move Paizo is making to capitalize on the ORC system and the WotC fiasco. I know I personally want more Pathfinder 2e players and want to continue to play and have supported content.

I also think fans and Paizo people should also be able to accept some constructive criticism and understand fans' feelings on the matter without locking thread and being snarky, as I've seen in other posts. But fans should also not make it personal. People like James Jacobs and Jason Buhlman have put their heart and souls into Pathfinder (as have many a player and GM like myself) and I hope everyone can accept that we are all working through this to get to a better outcome for the game.

The forums are a great way for fans to critique some of the rules and it's wonderful when devs actually reply with their reasoning. Paizo is a leader in the aspect, and it's my opinion the posters here have a lot to offer.

Man, the Alchemist class is such a pain to get right!

I'm fine with the Nephilim; we can just specify as an aside what "sort" of * characters are, i.e. my character is a tiefling, etc.

I also like the spell schools and 3-18 stats, but also know with certainty they have no real in-game impact, so getting rid of those for something new is fine with me, especially if it helps intuitiveness and continuity.

Lore issue has already been thoroughly discussed.

Regarding focus issues- I'm not familiar with any issues with focus, my table has never had any. Maybe we missed something somewhere that's an issue?

Regarding previous APs: these are still playable, even with new editions, with some GM work. I have run exclusively all PF 1 APs so far with 2E (currently on Strange Aeons). Just takes time to convert some things, but the 2E rules makes monster creation a breeze.

I am slightly concerned about the new changes being playtested...has anyone seen info on this?

Finally, I'm hoping spellcasters get a feat that can bump up offensive spell DC by at least 1 (yes, I know using debuffs is a round about way to do this).


5 people marked this as a favorite.
25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:
player core 2 would be extremely awkward naming

You're not wrong, but you should be warned that others have died on this hill. ;-)

Liberty's Edge

No playtest, just as we don't have them for errata.

The focus thing is that currently, though your focus points feel the same, they're not. Your first focus point will regenerate after 10 minutes. So you can usually use it every encounter. The other ones regenerate every day. So you can only use them once a day each, until you get the feats to regenerate more than 1 focus point every 10 minutes.

It is confusing.

So, in Remastered, if you have enough time between encounters, you will be able to regenerate ALL your focus points, and thus use them all every encounter without having to wait for the next day.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm mostly finding myself impatient to get my hands on it to check out the class changes, Wizard and Witch in particular. That'll be nothing compared to my excitement/impatience for PC2, though.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My most recent PFS character is a Baba Yaga Witch. Being the incarnation of humility (among many other qualities too numerous to mention), he goes by the moniker of Elazar The Great.

I might wait till Remastered to change it to the more fitting Elazar The Too Mighty.


Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Part 1" and "Part 2" would imply you need both parts of a finished whole.

It's also not accurate to even call it the Core Rulebook anymore. The Player Core doesn't contain all the information you need to play, and the GM Core isn't optional like the Gamemaster's Guide was. If you call them by the same titles, you imply that they serve the same purposes as they did previously, and that just isn't true. To be blunt, those titles would probably be the worst option Paizo could take.

Then,

- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Player Handbook 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Player Handbook 2
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Rulebook 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Rulebook 2

Also the issue is that despite stating that they are removing some things they still need to split the bookm into two. Idk about you but that screams to me that there is a ton of redundancy being used.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The "2.5" argument is kind of silly. "3.5" was only treated as a new edition at all because, at the time, errata wasn't really a thing the way it is now. The rules were not all conveniently online (the d20srd doesn't count), So everyone had to buy new books if anything changed. Any major modification was effectively a new edition--even if all it was were some tweaks to skills and classes and such.

Basically, the idea of a "half-edition" just doesn't make sense anymore. It was a decision extremely specific to its time, place, and medium. Either something is a new whole edition, or it's an errata.

Also, "Player's Handbook" or any variation thereof is not gonna happen.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Temperans wrote:
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

"Part 1" and "Part 2" would imply you need both parts of a finished whole.

It's also not accurate to even call it the Core Rulebook anymore. The Player Core doesn't contain all the information you need to play, and the GM Core isn't optional like the Gamemaster's Guide was. If you call them by the same titles, you imply that they serve the same purposes as they did previously, and that just isn't true. To be blunt, those titles would probably be the worst option Paizo could take.

Then,

- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Player Handbook 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Core Player Handbook 2
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Rulebook 1
- Pathfinder 2e Revised Gamemaster Rulebook 2

Also the issue is that despite stating that they are removing some things they still need to split the bookm into two. Idk about you but that screams to me that there is a ton of redundancy being used.

Or its because the CRB is over 600 pages. The APG is 270, which is about the length of other PF2 books. take about 100 pages of GM stuff, lore, and items out to put into the GMs guide, then even the content between the two books, and you have 2 books with about 400 pages each, about 100 pages more than the average PF2 book. That seems reasonable to me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

It's PF2.ORC.


Do we know if or when we might be able to expect regular teaser information? We are getting some here and there, but something to look forward to would be nice, like Fridays Remastered or something.

Horizon Hunters

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lurker in Insomnia wrote:
Do we know if or when we might be able to expect regular teaser information? We are getting some here and there, but something to look forward to would be nice, like Fridays Remastered or something.

Jason has promised us more information, including what's inside the player core 1 in the coming months.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

The recurring "controversy" about the names is really strange to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Karmagator wrote:

Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

The recurring "controversy" about the names is really strange to me.

Some people don't know how to follow Elsa's example


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Karmagator wrote:
The recurring "controversy" about the names is really strange to me.

Like the thing about "fun, exciting names" is that they're only really important for optional supplements that people might or might not look into, not "the basic stuff you need."

Like "Stolen Fate 3: The Worst of All Possible Worlds" is going to get more eyeballs and presumably sales than titling the thing "Pathfinder #190."


Can someone point me to where u can read about the teased changes to the witch and wizard?

Those are the things I’m most interested/excited about but I don’t know how to read them.


no good scallywag wrote:
II am slightly concerned about the new changes being playtested...has anyone seen info on this?

Staff members have repeatedly stated that they don't normally run playtests when they publish errata. The gist of their comments has been "The past 4 years have been the playtest for these changes."

The changes are not significantly different enough from the current ruleset to need a playtest to validate them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

The "2.5" argument is kind of silly. "3.5" was only treated as a new edition at all because, at the time, errata wasn't really a thing the way it is now. The rules were not all conveniently online (the d20srd doesn't count), So everyone had to buy new books if anything changed. Any major modification was effectively a new edition--even if all it was were some tweaks to skills and classes and such.

Basically, the idea of a "half-edition" just doesn't make sense anymore. It was a decision extremely specific to its time, place, and medium. Either something is a new whole edition, or it's an errata.

Also, "Player's Handbook" or any variation thereof is not gonna happen.

Practically speaking, 4th ed also had a half-edition, with Essentials. PF1 unchained was in some ways a half-edition... and both of those were well after the internet became a thing.

Now, I'll agree that arguing over it is kind of silly, because whether it's "2.5" or not is entirely a matter of semantics, with no real meaning underneath them. Like, we know the facts on the ground, roughly, for what is and isn't going to change. Whether or not any individual person mentally appends a ".5" to the edition number isn't particularly significant. Asserting it one way or the other does not carry useful information.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

4E Essentials didn't call itself a half-edition either, though. Neither did Pathfinder Unchained (though calling it a half-edition at all would snap Gumbo in two). We're talking about marketing. The fact that neither 4EE nor PFU marketed themselves as "half-editions" proves my point: Half-editions just aren't a thing in the Internet Age. They were mostly an artifact of everyone getting their content in dead-tree format, a marketing gimmick that went out of style when publishers realized new rules were actually pretty easy to distribute nowadays.

Also, like, if PFU was a "half-edition", every errata is. PFU was a set of variant rules, only one or two of which (class tweaks) got made remotely "official". If Pathfinder Unchained was a "half-edition", the term is meaningless. It was a step towards a new edition, but that's not what "half-edition" means. Was 3.5 a step towards 4e?

Anyways, I think some people fixate on the label as a justification for needing a playtest, maybe? It's sort of hard to read. People might just be sensitive towards change and prone to exaggerating its impact. I do get the sense some people view Paizo as being dishonest here. I think it's a silly debate, but it's also silly to let "just admit it's a new edition" be the dominant read.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Catgirl wrote:

4E Essentials didn't call itself an edition either, though. And Pathfinder Unchained wasn't anywhere close to a half-edition, and again, nobody called it that. We're talking about marketing. The fact that neither 4EE nor PFU marketed themselves as "half-editions" proves my point: Half-editions just aren't a thing in the Internet Age. They were mostly an artifact of everyone getting their content in dead-tree format.

Also, like, if PFU was a "half-edition", every errata is. PFU was a set of variant rules, only one or two of which (class tweaks) got made remotely "official". At that point, "half-edition" is meaningless. The alchemist buff from a few months ago was a half-edition.

I think some people fixate on it as a justification for needing a playtest, maybe? It's sort of hard to read. People might just be reactive towards change.

Well, Remastered isn't calling itself a half-edition either... and people absolutely called essentials a half-edition, back when there were people who actually cared. Like, if this was seriously a discussion about marketing, this wouldn't be a discussion. As far as the marketing is concerned, there's nothing to discuss. Instead, they're using it as a shorthand to describe a certain behavior that we've seen repeatedly in recent D&D history where there's a major shift in the way things get done partway through the lifecycle of the product. Every single one of them has called itself something different... but we can see the lines of commonality that connect them... and it's up to the individual to decide whether this counts as a major shift or not.

Personally, I don't seeing it as a major shift is silly. I just think that arguing about it is silly. There's nothing really concrete to argue from one way or the other, and whether or not any given person is convinced one way or the other changes nothing. If you're trying to use it as a proxy argument, you'd be better served to drop the proxy and just argue the thing. It would clarify almost everything about the argument you're making, and turn it into something that people can actually engage with in a potentially fruitful way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
If you're trying to use it as a proxy argument, you'd be better served to drop the proxy and just argue the thing.

As I said in the post you quoted, I am not myself sure what the proxy argument is supposed to be for. I'm reacting to other people's complaints, after all. I've clarified my post above to include my best guess as to what it's about.

Complaining that Paizo isn't calling this a "half-edition" feels to me like a weird circlejerk, a reference to an old marketing term that has only been used maybe once or twice at most in RPG history and isn't really popular nowadays because it sounds, well, goofy. "Half-edition" isn't a meaningful term in the age of errata. Calling it a "Remaster" is perfectly clear.

Some of the comments about this have felt mean-spirited and cynical, and if that's what you consider a "proxy argument", yeah, those are the comments that are mainly bothering me.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

PF1e Unchained was not PF1.5e because it was not rewriting the core books. It gave some new variant options and that's it.

PF2e remaster is being marketed as rewriting the core books and that you can still use your old stuff. They are effectively saying that they are making a new backwards compatible edition, without actively calling it a new edition. This is why people are saying that its PF2.5e.

PF1e Unchained while it did get further support was just an extension. PF2e Revised is going to become the new standard, while the old standard is going to still be compatible because there was no need to alienate the existing customer base by changing the numbers.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think mainly, folks remember when WotC rolled out D&D3.5. Since Paizocon, it's become clear that the quantity and scope of many of the changes are similar to that change. Personally, I'm more of its PF2.1 or at most, PF2.2. But I'm not against folks going with PF2.5. It's fine. We still have many a year before a 3.0 will be necessary.


Karmagator wrote:
Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

My objection is actually the opposite: Player Core 2 is the only book of the four that doesn't contain the core rules; it is explicitly a supplement, and as such should not have the world "core" in the title. That fact that it does represents an inconsistency that could easily prove confusing for the uninitiated.

To be clear, this isn't a tragedy, but it is a pretty obvious unforced error on Paizo's part. And I expect that, just as WotC figured out that "Player's Handbook 2" was a bad name, Paizo will figure this out when they get tired of fielding questions about why "Player Core 2" doesn't have the core rules for, you know, players.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. ;-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jacob Jett wrote:
I think mainly, folks remember when WotC rolled out D&D3.5. Since Paizocon, it's become clear that the quantity and scope of many of the changes are similar to that change.

Precisely this; imo it's actually a surprisingly similar scope, right down to the apparent amount of effort likely required to use old material.

But unlike WotC with 3.5, Paizo had their hand forced, so I can't really begrudge them releasing new books.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
bugleyman wrote:
Karmagator wrote:
Why exactly shouldn't the books that are explicitly supposed to form the core experience be called "core"? It's not the most exciting name in the world, but in turn it is as straightforward as possible.

My objection is actually the opposite: Player Core 2 is the only book of the four that doesn't contain the core rules; it is explicitly a supplement, and as such should not have the world "core" in the title. That fact that it does represents an inconsistency that could easily prove confusing for the uninitiated.

To be clear, this isn't a tragedy, but it is a pretty obvious unforced error on Paizo's part. And I expect that, just as WotC figured out that "Player's Handbook 2" was a bad name, Paizo will figure this out when they get tired of fielding questions about why "Player Core 2" doesn't have the core rules for, you know, players.

And that's all I'm going to say about that. ;-)

I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is a sizable portion of players that would be outraged if Champions and Sorcerers and Monks were not "Core classes" that are basic staple of the game, and not supplemental classes unnecessary for the game to work. The fact that the classes all already exist makes splitting the player core in half relatively manageable, but I am sure if there were tables telling their players that you can't be a monk because it is not in the core, there would be no end to the bad feelings.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok, how about Pathfinder 2.19 Unleashed Core Remastered All-manak. P2.19UCRA for short.

Oops. Forgot Player and GM.

Ok, Pathfinder Unleashed Core Remastered Player 1. We’ll take off the 2.19 becoz that seems controversial. And then obvs, PUCRGM.

Hang on. Where did Unleashed come from? That comes later in the Remaster line, right before 3.0.

Ok, Pathfinder Remastered Core Player. And PRCGM.

No, the books are only printed in China. So the whole PRC thing is misleading.

Ok, ok, how about Pathfinder Player Core, and Pathfinder GM Core.

Perfik.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I've been calling it Pathfinder 2.5 since the announcement and will probably call it that forever. It's not a slam against it, just an easy way to remember what it is.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

PF 2.5 because it is not 2.0. Not even 2.1 or 2.2 seeing the amplitude of the changes. Not PF3 because it is still the same game/edition.

And I really don't get being that upset about people calling it 2.5.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3.5 was my favorite edition. I look forward to diving into 2.5.

101 to 150 of 248 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Overall Remaster impression? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.