Pathfinder Second Edition Remaster Project!

[QuidEst]

Perpdepog wrote:

I'd rather walk down the roads paved with pavement. Intentions make a notoriously poor building material.

... The road to Axis is paved with pavement that accommodates a variety of weather conditions, laid out according to well-tested civil engineering principles?

[Souls At War]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^Yeah, now just imagine where the roads paved with evil intentions go . . . .

Sibelius Eos Owm wrote:

Assuming that alignment must always be logically balanced and mirrored left/right and down/up, clearly that road must go to Heaven, provided there is no law-chaos skew.

Lead to the Heavenly gates, but don't grant entry.

[Ed Reppert]

I suspect it's too late to change the names. I could be wrong, but...

Core Rulebook Was fine when it covered player information as well as GM information, but now not so much. In the new milieu, I think GM Core is fine, though I wonder if that book will cover everything GM oriented in the current CRB and GMG. If not there will, one assumes, be another GM <something> somewhere down the pike. They could probably have done better than "Player Core 1" and Player Core 2" as well, but those aren't to my ear terribly bad. I do wonder what the next player book will be. "Player Core 3" will be a bit strange to my ear.

[Unicore]

I honestly think I am saddest about losing bestiary as a word, out of the whole OGL divorce. I can live with a monster core, knowing future books will all be stuff like howl of the wild, but there is nothing fantastically evocative about it. It is a title you go back and buy after being lured in by titles like rage of elements, dark archive, secrets of magic, etc. not a title that grabs you as a kid and makes you want to read the lore of everything in there because you found some awesome journal or tomb of monstrous research. Hopefully it will functional for new audiences to know core means necessary to play.

[Ed Reppert]

Is "bestiary" the IP of WotC? Of *anybody*? if not, I have to wonder why Paizo chose not to use it. If so, I wonder how such a common sounding English word got to be IP. I say common *sounding* because it's not actually in either my Oxford Dictionary of American English or my Oxford Dictionary of British English. I wonder where it came from? Maybe the full OED knows. <shrug>

Edit: Google says it's at least two centuries old. For whatever that's worth.

[Unicore]

I mean “handbook” isn’t their property either, but having a player’s handbook is a recipe for confusion at best. D&D’s core monster book is a Monster Manual, but I guess there could still be issues with WitC having a bestiary product and with people not knowing what pathfinder books are the ORC lisence ones. Having all the core products end with the word core probably takes care of that. I just remember falling in love with D&D through creature books with cool names.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I do think "Bestiary Core" would work just as well. It's weird.

[keftiu]

We've had four years of people reading citations for "PF2 Bestiary, page 6" as "PF1 Bestiary 6." Every so often, someone buys the Advanced Player's Guide for the wrong edition and gets mad. I can see why Paizo doesn't want to potentially re-use titles a third time, especially during an already-confusing mid-edition refresh.

[GM DarkLightHitomi]

How about the Monstrous Book of Monsters!
:)

[LandSwordBear]

Perpdepog wrote:

I'd rather walk down the roads paved with pavement. Intentions make a notoriously poor building material.

See in Australia, we walk on the pavement (I guess in the US that is the…sidewalk?) but drive on the road. So it would be super weird for the road to have pavement on it, because you’d either end up with angry drivers honking their horns or multiple pedestrian fatalities.

And if the road to hell really is paved with good intentions, then it must use that Solar Freakin’ Roadways product, coz those folx made a packet on Indie-gogo, but I haven’t seen one…anywhere.

[Squiggit]

LandSwordBear wrote:

See in Australia, we walk on the pavement (I guess in the US that is the…sidewalk?) but drive on the road. So it would be super weird for the road to have pavement on it, because you’d either end up with angry drivers honking their horns or multiple pedestrian fatalities.

Sidewalk, yeah.

But pavement is often used interchangeable to refer to both, or really any form of finished solid pathing material (as opposed to dirt or grass trails).

[Temperans]

Squiggit wrote:

LandSwordBear wrote:

See in Australia, we walk on the pavement (I guess in the US that is the…sidewalk?) but drive on the road. So it would be super weird for the road to have pavement on it, because you’d either end up with angry drivers honking their horns or multiple pedestrian fatalities.

Sidewalk, yeah.

But pavement is often used interchangeable to refer to both, or really any form of finished solid pathing material (as opposed to dirt or grass trails).

The original word meant floor beaten or rammed down, which implies compacted dirt road. But yeah now its all hard covering on a pathway or location regardless of material.

[Temperans]

As for the names, they are meh. They should had just called them Core Rulebooks and made the fact its Pathfinder 2e more prominent than a tiny blue mark on the side saying "2nd edition". Don't get me wrong the fact its out of the way is great for the art. But that should be front and center for rulebooks so that people don't get confused, not off to the side.

[Magus Tata]

Temperans wrote:

As for the names, they are meh. They should had just called them Core Rulebooks and made the fact its Pathfinder 2e more prominent than a tiny blue mark on the side saying "2nd edition". Don't get me wrong the fact its out of the way is great for the art. But that should be front and center for rulebooks so that people don't get confused, not off to the side.

I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect.

[Temperans]

Gurnioc wrote:

Temperans wrote:

As for the names, they are meh. They should had just called them Core Rulebooks and made the fact its Pathfinder 2e more prominent than a tiny blue mark on the side saying "2nd edition". Don't get me wrong the fact its out of the way is great for the art. But that should be front and center for rulebooks so that people don't get confused, not off to the side.

I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect.

While helpful, most book spines also don't have that. I think the only ones I have seen have that are medical books.

[Fumarole]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Is "bestiary" the IP of WotC? Of *anybody*? if not, I have to wonder why Paizo chose not to use it.

To differentiate it from the current books. Imagine the posts on these forums if the book titles were similar, or Groetus forbid the same. Ugh.

[Magus Tata]

Temperans wrote:

Gurnioc wrote:

I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect.

While helpful, most book spines also don't have that. I think the only ones I have seen have that are medical books.

Most books (typically including medical texts) don’t have “compatibility” issues from edition to edition. The Pathfinder books, however, are incompatible across editions due to the vast differences between 1st and 2nd in terms of gameplay. Any time I see a Bestiary in the store I wonder whether or not it applies to 2e and I can’t find out without seeing the cover. Some stores (e.g., Half Price Books) keep a number of RPG books in locked cabinets, so all you can see is the spine.

[Cori Marie]

The spines for any 2E book that shares a name with 1E books are very distinct from the 1E books. Yes, they probably should have something more to distinguish but they are distinct.

[Temperans]

Gurnioc wrote:

Temperans wrote:

Gurnioc wrote:

I’m curious why there is no 2E indicator on the books’ spines. That would be very helpful to shoppers, I expect.

While helpful, most book spines also don't have that. I think the only ones I have seen have that are medical books.

Most books (typically including medical texts) don’t have “compatibility” issues from edition to edition. The Pathfinder books, however, are incompatible across editions due to the vast differences between 1st and 2nd in terms of gameplay. Any time I see a Bestiary in the store I wonder whether or not it applies to 2e and I can’t find out without seeing the cover. Some stores (e.g., Half Price Books) keep a number of RPG books in locked cabinets, so all you can see is the spine.

Different editions of medical books can be completely incompatible.

Also the issue of not seeing the cover is not an issue with the book, but how the store is displaying it.

[Ed Reppert]

Last time I checked if a store has something locked up, you can ask a store employee to let you get a closer look at it. If you can't, don't shop there.

[Shar Tahl]

Is this being released at GenCon like most major releases have been?

[Magus Tata]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Last time I checked if a store has something locked up, you can ask a store employee to let you get a closer look at it. If you can't, don't shop there.

I don't like the idea of dragging an employee over and then realizing I don't want it. It's not something I'm particularly comfortable with.

#introvertProblems

[GM DarkLightHitomi]

Gurnioc wrote:

Ed Reppert wrote:

Last time I checked if a store has something locked up, you can ask a store employee to let you get a closer look at it. If you can't, don't shop there.

I don't like the idea of dragging an employee over and then realizing I don't want it. It's not something I'm particularly comfortable with.

#introvertProblems

But you're comfortable making a choice without really knowing what you're choosing?

Also, having been that employee a long time ago, it's what we were there for.

[Kobold Catgirl]

I don't see anything wrong with the assertion that a book's spine should clearly indicate what it's for. Blaming the customer for not wanting to go to extra trouble seems like a losing strategy for any company. It's the publisher's job to make things as easy as possible. I agree that making the books more distinct to new players would be an improvement. The spines merely being distinct from one another doesn't help someone who doesn't know which to pick.

[Perpdepog]

Shar Tahl wrote:

Is this being released at GenCon like most major releases have been?

No, mostly because of how suddenly the project had to be thrown together. Player Core and GM Core will be released in November or around that time, with Monster Core and Player Core 2 being released in 2024 early on.

[Magus Tata]

GM DarkLightHitomi wrote:

But you're comfortable making a choice without really knowing what you're choosing?

Also, having been that employee a long time ago, it's what we were there for.

I'm not comfortable with the unknown, so I end up just ignoring the items behind the glass.

In future, maybe I'll remember that the employees are willing to play ball - we shall see.

[Eldritch Yodel]

See, the real issue with the term "Player Core" is the acronym. What are we going to call it? The PC? We are truly doomed to confusion! /jk

[PossibleCabbage]

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

See, the real issue with the term "Player Core" is the acronym. What are we going to call it? The PC? We are truly doomed to confusion! /jk

I would guess PC1, PC2, GMC, and MC1 would be the acronyms.

[David knott 242]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

See, the real issue with the term "Player Core" is the acronym. What are we going to call it? The PC? We are truly doomed to confusion! /jk

I would guess PC1, PC2, GMC, and MC1 would be the acronyms.

And it has definitely been long enough since TSR published its Creature Crucible series that we don't need to worry about confusing Paizo's Player Core books with Tall Tales of the Wee Folk or Top Ballista.

[Unicore]

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

[Pronate11]

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I mean, you could say that about player core 2. And the core books the Core line are replacing includes 3 bestiaries. Kinda feels weird that Paizo would go "well, we could only fit 4 hags in the monster core, so there will be no more hags until a themed book comes out that we probably won't make becouse it would step on the dark archive's toes"

[The Raven Black]

The PF2 bestiaries will still be usable with Remastered though.

[YuriP]

Yes probably the old bestiaries will be the most compatible part. Yet we will need a good conversion document. Something that help to adjust the spell names and other little thing that would be renamed.

[Easl]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

See, the real issue with the term "Player Core" is the acronym. What are we going to call it? The PC? We are truly doomed to confusion! /jk

I would guess PC1, PC2, GMC, and MC1 would be the acronyms.

We could call the first two "Core One" and "Core two." Those terms have fewer syllables, are faster to speak than "Pee Cee One" (or two), and would be less confusing. "GM core" is just as fast as "GMC". Only with monster core does the acronym actually save you any time or effort.

Sometimes acronyms make things longer. As one of my friends likes to point out, world wide web = much faster and easier to say than doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou.

[The Raven Black]

I would call them Player 1, Player 2, GM Core and Monster Core.

After all, we do not have similar titles in PF2 IIRC.

[PossibleCabbage]

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

[Captain Morgan]

YuriP wrote:

Yes probably the old bestiaries will be the most compatible part. Yet we will need a good conversion document. Something that help to adjust the spell names and other little thing that would be renamed.

I don't see why you would even need that. If you don't know the Remastered spell name you can always just use the old spells. The remaster isn't changing the game's math. The Remaster versions may be a little more powerful on average but monsters being underpowered is not a common complaint for PF2. If you can figure out to convert alignment damage you should be Gucci. The worst case scenario is that traits get a little tweaked and may be confusing, but that only really seems relevant to certain illusion spells.

[The Raven Black]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

Those will still be available for use in their OGL products' version. No need to put them in Monster Core.

[thejeff]

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

Those will still be available for use in their OGL products' version. No need to put them in Monster Core.

That's fine for people already playing who've got a stash of books, but awkward for new players in years to come who want to start and have just bought the Core books.

[Unicore]

thejeff wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

Those will still be available for use in their OGL products' version. No need to put them in Monster Core.

That's fine for people already playing who've got a stash of books, but awkward for new players in years to come who want to start and have just bought the Core books.

I mean the question will be whether unremastered 2nd edition is going to have to be taken down from free online sources or not at some point in the future. If yes, I could see this being an eventual problem, but if not, then everyone will still have free access to the stat blocks for those creatures.

[The Raven Black]

thejeff wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

Those will still be available for use in their OGL products' version. No need to put them in Monster Core.

That's fine for people already playing who've got a stash of books, but awkward for new players in years to come who want to start and have just bought the Core books.

Archives of Nethys ?

[Temperans]

The Raven Black wrote:

thejeff wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Unicore wrote:

I would be surprised if we ever get another Monster Core, or else the book isn’t really the core bestiary of the game. I think future creature books will always be themed for specific flavors/adventures and be more than just creature books.

I guess the question is will the Monster Core have enough of the basic kinds of critters in their to support basically any kind of game you want to run. The point of the book is firstly to get out replacements for the OGL monsters we're dropping (like new dragons), but there's a lot of enemies that Paizo again just love to use again and again, so I'm curious if they're all going to fit in the Monster Core.

Those will still be available for use in their OGL products' version. No need to put them in Monster Core.

That's fine for people already playing who've got a stash of books, but awkward for new players in years to come who want to start and have just bought the Core books.

Archives of Nethys ?

I think they are talking about confusion on what does what and/or is allowed. But I am not sure.

[TriOmegaZero]

You can use anything you want at your table. Monster Core and future supplements just can't reprint everything. So even if a GM is missing some needed creatures, all they need to do is find a copy of the stats for it, via online resources or previous OGL books.

[Cori Marie]

And Archives have already said that they have no plans to remove unremastered content.

[UnArcaneElection]

Easl wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Eldritch Yodel wrote:

See, the real issue with the term "Player Core" is the acronym. What are we going to call it? The PC? We are truly doomed to confusion! /jk

I would guess PC1, PC2, GMC, and MC1 would be the acronyms.

We could call the first two "Core One" and "Core two." Those terms have fewer syllables, are faster to speak than "Pee Cee One" (or two), and would be less confusing. "GM core" is just as fast as "GMC". Only with monster core does the acronym actually save you any time or effort.

These names sound suspiciously like Intel CPU marketing terms to me . . . .

[Ouatcheur]

Gayel Nord wrote:

Bye owlbear! We will miss you!

Bye owlbear! Hello hawkboar!

[Ouatcheur]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Rolling Stats with a Mod only:

All scores start at -2, roll 1d6 to get a stat from -1 to +4.
(Roll 2d3 if you want something with a bit more of a curve)

Alternatively (Slightly higher powered):

Roll 2d6, and subtract the low dice from the high dice. Should give modifiers between 0 and 5.

1d6 averages to +3.5

2d3 averages to 4.0, so it is clearly definitely better.

And PF2 needs it's maths to be quite tight.

Thus, in other words: Such an optional rule should use either one or the other ways, but not give the DM or the players a choice between both of those ways.

Rolling for stats leads to a more powerful PC Party overall.

Why?

Simple:

By rolling sometimes you get high, sometimes average, and sometimes low.

If a player roll very high, of course he'll keep that PC. Dah. And the player will try very hard to make it survive, but he will have an easier time of it because after all that PC has nice stats: he's above the power curve.

But if he rolls low, it is a nigh certainty that the player will ask the DM to allow him to "reroll his character". Else, outright adopt a high-risk-taking chaotic personality and act in order to try to "suicide" his PC as soon as possible, without making the move TOO obvious for the DM. Lots of ways of taking extremely stupid risks. At low level: trying a hard jump over a deep chasm. Or selling your climbing kit, then trying climbing down that 100 feet tall cliff by hand. At high level: trying a hard jump over the lava pool. Not running away against the big bad way too though for the party yet monster that the entire party decided to flee from, "nobly sacrificing" himself, so that the others can get safely away. Doing any number of Leeroy Jenkins, running headlong ALONE right into the middle of several foes, "seemingly" running away (but the wrong way, towards more rooms that have even more monsters). And so on. Basically, anything that is sure to probably deal your PC twice his MAX HP if he fails a though check, or that is sure to lead to monsters deciding to finish him off and eat him right now, instead of running after the other PCs. Or try to murder the king, or piss off the other PCs (NOT pissing off their players, though) and attack them, etc. Whatever works!

Then the death-wish player will simply roll a new PC (unless he was such a dick of it that DM simply says bye-bye loser for good). In any case, statistically speaking, after rotating through a few PCs, the "crap" PCs (i.e. anything merely average is also seen as unacceptable crap by those players) tend to get rather quickly filtered out, eventually leaving only "above-average" PCs.

Also, a temporary story or event based unfairness in-between the different PCs/players is ok. But a PERMANENT imbalance, not so much. Think of it this way: how would you react if one player said "Ok, half of all the treasure ewe will ever find will go to me (rolled high during PC creation), and Bob will get zilch (he rolled low), and you the other guys you split the rest evenly between you".

Campaigns are much healthier when things are more fair. 99% of the time, when a player is asking to roll, what it means is that what he really wants is not "randomness", but free extra power. Otherwise he'd accept whatever he would roll, even crap scores, without whining, or asking for a reroll, or trying to kill off his PC, or, failing all that, leaving the group.

Sometimes it is even the GM who spontaneouslky say "oh your PC has too bad scores, just reroll!" But it would never occur to them to say "Oh your PC is too strong above the average curve, you need to reroll"! What's even the frigging point of going rando, if you won't even accept the randomness? So most of all, using random rolls = breaking the nice and thight math of game balance, right out the gate.

[25speedforseaweedleshy]

if new creature doesn't run on the same number chart in gm guide than all 2000 existing creature need to be redone

pathfinder 2e can not survive if existing formula are changed in any major way