| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core name was chosen because the CRB, GMG, APG, and the three bestiaries were considered the core of PF1 already by Paizo. But they hadn't settled on that nomenclature when first publishing content. Now, the core designation will be official and (hopefully) obvious.
| 4 people 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.
If we use the Semantic Versioning Specification (SemVer) normally used in IT it would be 2.1 while erratas was 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3 and 2.0.4. Curiously this was the extra-official versioning used by designers in some interview.
But if we just do a visual comparison with what we got from changes in D&D 3.0 to 3.5, probably 2.5 is right. But I prefer the SemVer for the case of we have more changes in the future. Including the SemVer is perfect to describe the compatibility with older versions.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core name was chosen because the CRB, GMG, APG, and the three bestiaries were considered the core of PF1 already by Paizo. But they hadn't settled on that nomenclature when first publishing content. Now, the core designation will be official and (hopefully) obvious.
(You mean, PF2, right?)
But yeah, they've already commented how the perception of the APG being an "advanced" player-only book was regretable, when in reality they wanted the APG, along with the CRB, GMG and the three Bestiaries to all act as the 6 books every group has access to. It was only from Secrets of Magic onwards that the rulebooks were not considered absolutely necessary.
They are merely re-contexualizing the books to make it clear that these four titles (and a possible 5th/6th book in the form of future Monster Core books to replace Bestiaries 2 & 3) are Core to playing Pathfinder 2E.
| 5 people 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.
Hey, it even got me to try out the game, when I was quite vocal about not changing when 2E came out. Well, still a few years away to actually play (too much 1E adventures to get through, still), but I'm buying the books now.
The people who are upset that other players are labelling it 2.5 probably think that labeling it as such will make people angry who'll think that their books just got invalidated. Which isn't the case this time, but as the present is influenced by the past, the still pretty big changes from 3.0 to 3.5 made the old stuff back then pretty obsolete and therefore made it necessary to buy all the new books. And that comparison is what the "It's not 2.5, but 2.1!" people are trying to avoid. Remastered will, from what it looks like, be usable with past material, especially the adventures, with minimal adjustments.
|
| 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.
If we use the Semantic Versioning Specification (SemVer) normally used in IT it would be 2.1 while erratas was 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.0.3 and 2.0.4. Curiously this was the extra-official versioning used by designers in some interview.
But if we just do a visual comparison with what we got from changes in D&D 3.0 to 3.5, probably 2.5 is right. But I prefer the SemVer for the case of we have more changes in the future. Including the SemVer is perfect to describe the compatibility with older versions.
In my job, we use a similar kind of nested versioning. But it is not based on the amplitude of changes (mostly) but on who gets to see the different versions.
For example, the client's managers outside the project team will only see v1, v2...
The client's leaders of the project team will see v1.1, v1.2 ... until one is chosen to become the official v1 ...
The company's members of the project team will be working together on v1.1.1, v1.1.2 ... until one is choses to become the official v1.1
I would be working on v1.1.1.1, v1.1.1.2 ... versions until I am happy with the one I can officialy share with the team and that will be v1.1.1.
This way, knowing the version helps you find it AND makes it obvious which level of official sharing it got, and thus who laid eyes on it.
Paizo's way in the PF2 playtest sounded really similar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Apologies if this has already been answered and I missed it: I think the primary source for these teasers was at the PaizoCon Remaster stream. To read about these changes, I must recommend The-Magic-Sword's notes available on Reddit.
There may be hidden details in other locations, especially dev comments around here, though I don't believe there were any in the very large Remastered Wizards thread located around these parts.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Verbal, somatic, and material as tag was just a way to imply certain traits and those traits are just going to be shown outright. It not a change in how things are presented not in how they spells work.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Silence was a great way to shut down enemy casters. Knowing whether or not you could cast certain buffs without a verbal component alerting enemies in the next room beyond the door was rather critical. To say nothing of feats like Silent Spell, which allowed for an entirely new way to play.
Depending on the form this component errata takes, it could mean a great deal to certain people and could certainly change how spells work in many games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Verbal, somatic, and material as tag was just a way to imply certain traits and those traits are just going to be shown outright. It not a change in how things are presented not in how they spells work.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Silence was a great way to shut down enemy casters. Knowing whether or not you could cast certain buffs without a verbal component alerting enemies in the next room beyond the door was rather critical. To say nothing of feats like Silent Spell, which allowed for an entirely new way to play.
Depending on the form this component errata takes, it could mean a great deal to certain people and could certainly change how spells work in many games.
I think what is being suggested is that you'll still need to speak in a strong voice and concentrate on the spell, it just won't be called verbal anymore. (I'm not entirely sure about this, mind you, but I also didn't watch the stream myself.)
In fact with the removal of components we don't really know how will this end. Maybe we get a general rule saying that all concentration spells need to be verbally casted when have concentration trait with an exception for psychics.
The problem is that this can make the things a little more confusing once this isn't anymore explicitly but implicit in a general rule just to make the spells stat block a bit different from spell stat blocks of OGL games.
Or maybe designers may go into a bold move and remove all required "spell" part and makes it work like currently works for psychics and as kineticists will work too and remove silence spell or change it to some concentration diffusion spell.
Honestly I don't expect soo much change but I currently we can't completely discard such possibility.
The other point is how will material and focus components will do? Currently there's no trait to represent "this spell requires a free hand and some item to be used". Maybe they just add this to the spell stat block or maybe they remove these requirements at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.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. ;-)
This is my bugbear as well. I agree that Player Core 2 is a mislabled titled. My preference is Player Core Expansion. Though I've said this on many a platform and thread now. Time for a break.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's gonna be fun watching posts on places like Discord when people are listing a game they plan to run.
PF2rE
PF2.1E
PF2.5E
PF2Er
PF2E.1
PF2E.5
PFR
PFRE
PFCore
PFetc
Filtering to find a game to join is gonna get complicated for a bit.
That said... they can call it whatever, as long as folks show up and keep playing it's all good.
I'll note again that every change I've seen so far is one I'm for.
I'm seeing a lot of people on discord predicting that all the other books with get Core 3, 4, etc... but I suspect once Core 1 and 2 are out, other books will just get an errata entry to denote things like "all the spells from this are now in that" and similar.
| 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.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. ;-)
The CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiaries are explicitly the core of 2e. Player Core 2 is a mix of APG material and CRB player options. By definition it therefore has core options for players. So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a supplement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to keep up with the announced changes, it's a bit hard with so many threads to sift through... Does anyone know if there's a compilation of what's been confirmed somewhere, or at least a link to what was revealed at Paizocon?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to keep up with the announced changes, it's a bit hard with so many threads to sift through... Does anyone know if there's a compilation of what's been confirmed somewhere, or at least a link to what was revealed at Paizocon?
I don't know if there is a more comprehensive collection, but you should be able to find most of the stuff we know over here.
I'm seeing a lot of people on discord predicting that all the other books with get Core 3, 4, etc... but I suspect once Core 1 and 2 are out, other books will just get an errata entry to denote things like "all the spells from this are now in that" and similar.
I'd expect Secrets of Magic getting a sort of "remaster light", but even then it wouldn't be called "Player Core", as it isn't part of the core rules. Would keeping the old name (Secrets of Magic) work or do people think that would be too confusing for new buyers? Because I can easily see that being a problem.
For the rest, there is not enough to change, so it wouldn't make sense for a remaster of any kind. We even sort of have official confirmation of that for GnG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd expect that the non-Core books will be handled with errata through the standard errata channel, rather than being full reprintings.
After all,we did get a new errata channel earlier this year... shortly before it got put on ice so they could run a full-court press on getting remaster out the door. Presumably once the remaster is done they'll start that back up again.
They're not going to want to tell people that their old books are obsolete now, after all. They didn't want to do it for the remaster, but the necessary changes there were profound enough to make it worth that cost. The changes to things like SoM... aren't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiaries are explicitly the core of 2e. Player Core 2 is a mix of APG material and CRB player options. By definition it therefore has core options for players. So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a supplement.
I'm "getting the idea" from the dictionary:
sup·ple·mentnoun
noun: supplement; plural noun: supplements
/ˈsəpləmənt/
1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.
As the contents of Player Core 2 cannot be used -- or even understood -- without access to the player-facing core rules found in Player Core 1, it is, literally by definition, a supplement.
|
|
The CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiaries are explicitly the core of 2e. Player Core 2 is a mix of APG material and CRB player options. By definition it therefore has core options for players. So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a supplement.I'm "getting the idea" from the dictionary:
sup·ple·ment
noun
noun: supplement; plural noun: supplements
/ˈsəpləmənt/1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.
As the contents of Player Core 2 cannot be used -- or even understood -- without access to the player-facing core rules found in Player Core 1, it is, literally by definition, a supplement.
I guess the same could be said of anything that does not reprint the player's core rules, including GM Core and Monster Core.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't been able to keep up with the announced changes, it's a bit hard with so many threads to sift through... Does anyone know if there's a compilation of what's been confirmed somewhere, or at least a link to what was revealed at Paizocon?I don't know if there is a more comprehensive collection, but you should be able to find most of the stuff we know over here.
Wonderful, this is exactly what I was hoping for. Thanks!
I think every existing rule book past the CRB, GMG, and Bestiaries for PF2 will be fixable by errata to stay the thing that they are, except for secrets of magic. The sections that need changing there are massive. I don’t think you can errata fix more than 10 pages of content where almost all the words have to change and some even completely ideas discussed. It is definitely an awesomely crafted book…that is just not really remaster ready. Like you could use a lot of its content, but at great risk of confusing players about how magic works in the setting.
I guess the same could be said of anything that does not reprint the player's core rules, including GM Core and Monster Core.The CRB, APG, GMG and Bestiaries are explicitly the core of 2e. Player Core 2 is a mix of APG material and CRB player options. By definition it therefore has core options for players. So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is a supplement.I'm "getting the idea" from the dictionary:
sup·ple·ment
noun
noun: supplement; plural noun: supplements
/ˈsəpləmənt/1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.
As the contents of Player Core 2 cannot be used -- or even understood -- without access to the player-facing core rules found in Player Core 1, it is, literally by definition, a supplement.
With all due respect, that strikes me as willfully obtuse given the context.
A player will be able to play the game with only PC1. They will not with only PC2. It's not difficult to imagine someone comparing the two to decide "oh, I want to be a monk...I'll get the Player Core book that contains that class" -- only to find out they can't actually play the game with said book. It's an objectively bad title, because the book doesn't do what it says on the tin.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for all of the people everywhere that understand that numbered volumes of any media have different information in them. It isn't hard to imagine that either.
Edit: And if people are really going to be that cripplingly confused, there is always the back of the book that can have the contents in large, friendly letters.
Edit: Disagree all you like, but the sarcasm was both unnecessary and unproductive.
There is a nasty pattern on this website of late of mocking anyone who so much as suggests that Paizo might be anything short of infallible. Sure, it's amusing...but it's not healthy. Not for the website, and certainly not for the games those responsible claim to love.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect, that strikes me as willfully obtuse given the context.
A player will be able to play the game with only PC1. They will not with only PC2. It's not difficult to imagine someone comparing the two to decide "oh, I want to be a monk...I'll get the Player Core book that contains that class" -- only to find out they can't actually play the game with said book. It's an objectively bad title, because the book doesn't do what it says on the tin.
While I definitely get where you are coming from here, I want to offer the counterpoint that if a game system contains multiple books named "Core", it is probably a reasonable assumption that you may need all of them.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or they could just publish errata/clarifications for the handful of abilities that don't make sense with the new rules and ... just... let people keep playing the game otherwise?
I can't even tell what we're supposed to be panicking about here.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure "issuing errata for books Paizo will no longer sell" does not put Paizo in any legal jeopardy whatsoever as far as the OGL is concerned, since errata takes the form of "free content on a webpage."
Particularly since errata won't be tied to "reprints" anymore.
Right now, I'd have to be masterfully impressed with Remastered to buy them. PF2 already works well enough for me, and I'm sure that most of these changes are going to be released in a superior fashion in 2029 for PF3.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that WotC revoking the OGL wouldn't effect already published material. It would only interfere with things in press or future product.
Ergo they can keep printing stuff like Dark Archive or Guns and Gears and whatnot.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize for being unclear and allowing what I was saying to be mistaken for sarcasm. I genuinely believe that, while these names are bland and generic, they aren't misleading. At most, a simple line in the product description that will be in the backmatter or the online summary will clarify what can be found in a book. If somebody has gone through the trouble to see that PC2 has monks in it, then they will most likely see something else in that same information that says what else they are or aren't buying.
Something on the back of PC1 that says "Further volumes in the players core series will have more options for play" and something on the back of PC2 and further that will say something like "Building on the rules of play presented in PC1, this book will give further options for the Pathfinder game such as" will grant clarity that a boring title won't.
These things are neither hard to imagine nor likely to be neglected by any halfway competent publisher. it isn't that I think Paizo can do no wrong, it is that it is hard for me to imagine them sucking that much.
Now, if they don't do this bare minimum branding then yeah, they done messed up.
Thank you for circling back around; the explanation was appreciated. I'm sorry I allowed what I perceived as unwarranted snark to get my hackles up; I should have just let it go.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understanding is that WotC revoking the OGL wouldn't effect already published material. It would only interfere with things in press or future product.
Ergo they can keep printing stuff like Dark Archive or Guns and Gears and whatnot.
That is my understanding as well. They will continue to sell those books and will likely issue errata to adjust them to work within the remaster. Which seems all fine. I don't entirely get why people are so persnickety about the branding here.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some doomer posting going on in here.
> Player Core 2
It is called core 2 because Paizo want people to think the core of the game and not an optional book for GMs to add or an Advanced book like the APG was and SoM and GaG are.
The name isn't perfect but people suggesting that it having core in the title will result in widespread issues of people thinking it has all the core rules reprinted. I sincerely doubt this will be a real issue that impacts people. The real issue will be the existence of the CRB, not PC2.
> Foundry
Are people under the impression that PF2eR is coming with a bunch of major core system changes?
Nothing presented so far will need major system changes.
I wager the biggest change (for foundry as a system) will be Flat-Footed to Off-Guard and that is not a major system change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested to see what changes Paizo has in mind for Cleric and Oracle. As someone who loved playing divine casters in 1E, I was very disappointed with both Cleric and Oracle in 2E, and the divine spell list in general.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested to see what changes Paizo has in mind for Cleric and Oracle. As someone who loved playing divine casters in 1E, I was very disappointed with both Cleric and Oracle in 2E, and the divine spell list in general.I'm hoping that spirit damage goes a long way to fixing that. That was my main issue when trying to build a divine caster. I'm not super big on always healing and enjoy being divine blasty, but that was hard to pull off in a satisfactory way until now.
Yep, what I really liked about Clerics/Oracles in 1E was their versatility. You can heal\buff, you can blast with an attack spell, or you can crack skulls with a mace. In 2E, that versatility is gone. Cloistered Cleric walks around in robes, has no weapon skills and doesn't even have a decent attack cantrip, while the Warpriest unfortunately has accuracy issues with spells AND with weapons. I'm cautiously optimistic that at least a few of those issues will be addressed.