Your Take on Remastered?

[Dark_Schneider]

The alignment could be based on percentile, from 0-100 from totally evil to totally good. Depending actions the GM could increase or decrease that number.
Then when it matters (maybe some magical items or detection spells) it could set the range.
If want to differentiate lawful-chaotic and evil-good can have 2 numbers.

[Gortle]

The Thing From Another World wrote:

I just don’t like using online SRD in general and even then only got an fest or class. I am not in any financial distress or broke. I just don’t feel buying the Remaster or any similar editions at this time.

I prefer the online. It is just eaiser to find things.

[Temperans]

Dark_Schneider wrote:

The alignment could be based on percentile, from 0-100 from totally evil to totally good. Depending actions the GM could increase or decrease that number.

Then when it matters (maybe some magical items or detection spells) it could set the range.
If want to differentiate lawful-chaotic and evil-good can have 2 numbers.

There was already an alt system for it. You had 2 tracks both 1 to 9. Good/Lawful was 1 Evil/Chaos was 9. It was difficult to stop being on the extremes, but easy to stop being neutral.

[ottdmk]

I'm looking forward to the Remaster, and I will buy the new books because I can afford to and I like supporting Paizo. I just wish we had more hints about how the Alchemist remaster will go. It's my favourite class, and I'll admit to being a bit worried they might break something in the effort to "fix" it.

[The Thing From Another World]

Perhaps a separate new thread instead of derailing this one is in order.

[Blave]

ottdmk wrote:

I'm looking forward to the Remaster, and I will buy the new books because I can afford to and I like supporting Paizo. I just wish we had more hints about how the Alchemist remaster will go. It's my favourite class, and I'll admit to being a bit worried they might break something in the effort to "fix" it.

Alchemist is still 11 months away. I'm sure we'll get more information in time.

[PossibleCabbage]

Quantified morality systems really only work when they're aspirational rather than descriptive. Like in V:tM, famously, you have a "Humanity" stat that reflects how much of your humanity you've retained despite being a vampire, when you do horrible things it goes down and when it bottoms out you become a monster controlled by their hungers and lose your character. This sort of thing *can* work.

But it's never going to work when a game is supposed to accommodate someone who wants to be as close to "max morality" as they can get in the same party as someone who wants to be right in the middle as equally valid choices. Notably humanity goes down when you cross another line, and it's very hard to unring that bell.

[3-Body Problem]

Dark_Schneider wrote:

The alignment could be based on percentile, from 0-100 from totally evil to totally good. Depending actions the GM could increase or decrease that number.

Then when it matters (maybe some magical items or detection spells) it could set the range.
If want to differentiate lawful-chaotic and evil-good can have 2 numbers.

Any system that attempts to quantize morality will fail to capture nuance and lead to debates over things like, "If stealing out of need increases your score by 2 and regular stealing by what do you do when your character starts doing the former but their life of poverty causes it to become a habit? Is stealing from those who horde even evil at all no matter why one steals from them? etc."

[Lurker in Insomnia]

Flag and move on, let the mods handle it.

[tivadar27]

1. I like the change to unify damage around only using dice rather than caster stat. Caster stat gets factored in with the attack/save, and this simplifies things by not having a difference between cantrips/levelled spells.
2. I don't like the move away from stats being more of a choice for classes like cleric (Charisma no longer important). For me, those character choices were interesting ones. I think they could have found a medium ground by giving a base of 3 channels, then having a feat requiring 16 charisma at level 4/6 that would grant more scaling with level.
3. I like the move to have a single "spell proficiency", but I don't think they went far enough. A unified progression for all classes (including martial) to progress to master at 17 (similar to warpriest/magus), and then class features which boosted proficiency for particular classes would have been preferable to me, as right now, gishes are on the outside of all of this and that seems weirdly unnecessary. Yes, this system is "better", but if you're going to change something, you might as well change it all the way IMO, and right now fighter/caster MCs are weaker on the power scale.
4. I like the removal of alignment, but don't feel like I know enough about how sanctification works to say if it's overall simpler.
5. I like the removal of ability scores, and the renaming of spell level to spell rank. Both, to me, make things a lot clearer.

[Aaron Shanks]

Let me share some of our Pathfinder Remaster Promo Plans.

In the weeks leading up to the release of the Player Core and GM Core on November 15 you will see two kinds of blogs, speaking to two different audiences. The first will be written by the designers and dive into the changes for veteran players. (We’ve announced the biggest changes already, but they will go into more detail for those who crave it.) The second will be written by the marketing team and dive into Pathfinder for new players who are picking up the game for the first time. Some of these will roll well past the release date—Player Core 2 should release at Gen Con 2024.

You can tell these speak to different folks. Perhaps the veteran players will amplify the Pathfinder basics blogs to help us educate and inspire new players and GMs? Perhaps the beginners will see the detail blogs and see Pathfinder as a vibrant, dynamic ttrpg that evolves and grows? That’s our hope.

And of course we will have the creatives on Paizo LIVE every month, usually talking about the remastered books for a segment, well into 2024 for the Monster Core and Player Core 2.

Actual Play plans are not crystallized yet, but we always want to show people having fun playing Pathfinder. A mix of rules will be necessary and healthy for the foreseeable future. We’ve met a lot of great people and organizations in recent months want to use Actual Plays to build community.

As much as we want to sell you all new books, we are making an effort to showcase how Pathfinder is still Pathfinder. The new rules will be available for free. You don’t have to go out and buy new books, although we hope to inspire you to do so.

Our Adventures and Adventures Paths will lag behind the rulebooks. The staff can’t write remastered adventures, with remastered monsters, until the rules are remastered—and they write them months ahead. So for example, Season of Ghosts is OGL. When staff tells us they’re publishing the first ORC adventure, we’ll say so.

It is a process and we are grateful you are going on this unexpected journey with us.

Thanks for playing—and playtesting—Pathfinder!

[Jonathan Morgantini]

Cleaned up LOTS of flag. There will be no further discussion of those off topic conversations here or any forum at Paizo. They are a clear violation of the Community Guidelines. We maintain a PG-13 rating here. Please keep the discussion relevant to the topic at hand and keep within the Guidelines.

[Blave]

Really looking forward to those remaster preview blogs. Since it was mentioned on reddit that the Wizard will be "top of the list", we might get blogs on all Player Core classes. We have exactly 10 weeks left until release and we usually got one design blog per week in the past. So I would expect those blogs to start this week or maybe next at the latest so we have enough time left to actually cover all classes.

Most of this is speculation and wishful thinking, of course. xD

But I personally can't wait for the Wizard blog.

[glass]

Zaister wrote:

ElementalofCuteness wrote:

How do you feel about the fact Spellcasters are now just trained in Spell Attack Modifier and Spell DC?

What is that supposed to mean?

I think it means that casters proficiencies are no longer split into different traditions. EDIT: Or what Blave said....

[Paul Jr]

I'm open to some of the changes. However certain things I had no issues with. For example I don't like that they are changing how grab works, being an attack roll and then a confirm roll.

I will see. If I don't like the remaster I have all the other books and with archives of nethys I can pick and choose what I want.

I don't know how much of a pain it will be using some things from remaster and not remastered at same time.

[CorvusMask]

I mean I think I've said my takes mostly. I'd rather have them have replaced alignment with something else(like pledging yourself to cosmic forces) than remove it altogether and I'm sad at any small thing that hints they might further down play law/chaos cosmic stuff even further. Besides my mechanical want for law/chaos champions though, I don't mind replacement of alignment damage with spirit damage(it was already kinda bummer how fiends pretty much never had chaos or law damage weaknesses)

There in general aren't really any changes I dislike in remastered(I don't really care about ability scores for example, I do care about stat rolling being presented as an option though even if it really doesn't work for pf2e)), I feel bit sad about somethings they were forced to change though(regarding OGL creatures) but I do think it has potential be freshen things up a lot, like increasing focus on serpentfolk is actually interesting to me since I felt they were often overshadowed by D&D's underground civilizations.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

CorvusMask wrote:

I mean I think I've said my takes mostly. I'd rather have them have replaced alignment with something else(like pledging yourself to cosmic forces) than remove it altogether and I'm sad at any small thing that hints they might further down play law/chaos cosmic stuff even further. Besides my mechanical want for law/chaos champions though, I don't mind replacement of alignment damage with spirit damage(it was already kinda bummer how fiends pretty much never had chaos or law damage weaknesses)

There in general aren't really any changes I dislike in remastered(I don't really care about ability scores for example, I do care about stat rolling being presented as an option though even if it really doesn't work for pf2e)), I feel bit sad about somethings they were forced to change though(regarding OGL creatures) but I do think it has potential be freshen things up a lot, like increasing focus on serpentfolk is actually interesting to me since I felt they were often overshadowed by D&D's underground civilizations.

I am sad that they didn't go the order / chaos route... although maybe they didn't want to try GW... given that they are silly levels litigious.

[Inspector Jee]

It's getting a lot harder to pretend Pathfinder is just better, freer D&D. I didn't realize how much of my drive to engage with it was based on that feeling, but now that it's threatened I'm looking around feeling a little lost. I like Magic Missile. I like Chromatic Dragons. I like ability scores. These are all touchstones of the last 50 years of my culture, and it pisses me off that Hasbro somehow owns that. I can still use these things in my games of course, but unofficial rules necessarily disconnect you from the shared zeitgeist.

But what are my options here? 5E is something between an slow expensive video game and an excuse for fantasy LARP, and I am just not interested in that spectrum. PF2E is actively trying NOT to be D&D, while still embracing that market. Is DCC any good? Should I go crawling back to AD&D begging for forgiveness?

Ya know, I even like most of the changes Paizo is making here I just ... can't shake the feeling that Pathfinder is also converging - albeit slowly - with 5E's design philosophy (and that of all mainstream gaming): homogenize and prune.

- Jee

[Paul Jr]

Inspector Jee wrote:

It's getting a lot harder to pretend Pathfinder is just better, freer D&D. I didn't realize how much of my drive to engage with it was based on that feeling, but now that it's threatened I'm looking around feeling a little lost. I like Magic Missile. I like Chromatic Dragons. I like ability scores. These are all touchstones of the last 50 years of my culture, and it pisses me off that Hasbro somehow owns that. I can still use these things in my games of course, but unofficial rules necessarily disconnect you from the shared zeitgeist.

But what are my options here? 5E is something between an slow expensive video game and an excuse for fantasy LARP, and I am just not interested in that spectrum. PF2E is actively trying NOT to be D&D, while still embracing that market. Is DCC any good? Should I go crawling back to AD&D begging for forgiveness?

Ya know, I even like most of the changes Paizo is making here I just ... can't shake the feeling that Pathfinder is also converging - albeit slowly - with 5E's design philosophy (and that of all mainstream gaming): homogenize and prune.

- Jee

I know exactly what you are going through.

I just recently got DCC, it is really good. I also started looking into OSR, and started to re read 2nd edition AD&D. I forgot with 2nd how easy the system was, most of what I thought complicated it is actually optional.

Of course if I wanted to run it I would go with bab and ascending armor class etc...

I am perfectly happy with 2e as is. I am also intrigued with some of the things changing in remaster. However I am also not happy with some.

I also think pathfinder is becoming too much of something too different.

It is becoming another generic fantasy system. A good one but still generic.

It sucks that they had to go this route, when the other OSR games still are keeping on with the dndisms.

I also looked into castles and crusades and that looks more D&D then Pathfinder.

[Master Han Del of the Web]

Please don't take this as being snarky... but yeah, maybe you should try a different game. If what was keeping you invested in Pathfinder was a set of specific signifiers that harken back to the cultural cache of D&D and not the actual mechanics and feel of the game, then OSR games might really be a better fit. Pathfinder is a very different beast from the games you seem to be longing for.

[Paul Jr]

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Please don't take this as being snarky... but yeah, maybe you should try a different game. If what was keeping you invested in Pathfinder was a set of specific signifiers that harken back to the cultural cache of D&D and not the actual mechanics and feel of the game, then OSR games might really be a better fit. Pathfinder is a very different beast from the games you seem to be longing for.

I don't find it sparky at all. I just wish that Paizo pulled the plug when first designing 2nd edition. I love the mechanics and the system.

My main issue is now that they are changing the mechanics, some I don't like. Yes I can use the rules as is currently. However the ieda of running a game that is say 70% remaster, 30% before remaster kinda puts me at unease. How well will that work.

I agree if want to play a version of D&D then go OSR, or earlier version of D&D. Unless you want to spend the time hacking PF2E to make it fit what you want.

The difficulty of doing that will depend on how much you alter.

[Captain Morgan]

Paul Jr wrote:

I also think pathfinder is becoming too much of something too different.

It is becoming another generic fantasy system. A good one but still generic.

While I think it is legit if you are going to miss the cultural signifiers of D&D, I don't understand the generic complaint. D&D is generic. It has defined the baseline for not just TTRPGs but various video games, comics, and anime as well. It also plays to a many of the generic Tolkien default fantasy staples-- humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, and hobbits. The further a system moves away from D&D the less generic it becomes.

[breithauptclan]

I don't think that D&D is generic. D&D was the standard and the baseline and the inspiration for a lot of other things. But it was its own flavor.

Missing that flavor is valid.

But we can't expect Pathfinder to have that same flavor now. It has its own flavor. Firebrands sailing around in the Shackles. Sky Citadels. Hellknights. The River Kingdoms region. Isger and Cheliax. Tar-Baphon and the Gravelands. Things like that.

[magnuskn]

Inspector Jee wrote:

It's getting a lot harder to pretend Pathfinder is just better, freer D&D. I didn't realize how much of my drive to engage with it was based on that feeling, but now that it's threatened I'm looking around feeling a little lost. I like Magic Missile. I like Chromatic Dragons. I like ability scores. These are all touchstones of the last 50 years of my culture, and it pisses me off that Hasbro somehow owns that. I can still use these things in my games of course, but unofficial rules necessarily disconnect you from the shared zeitgeist.

But what are my options here? 5E is something between an slow expensive video game and an excuse for fantasy LARP, and I am just not interested in that spectrum. PF2E is actively trying NOT to be D&D, while still embracing that market. Is DCC any good? Should I go crawling back to AD&D begging for forgiveness?

Ya know, I even like most of the changes Paizo is making here I just ... can't shake the feeling that Pathfinder is also converging - albeit slowly - with 5E's design philosophy (and that of all mainstream gaming): homogenize and prune.

- Jee

I got to disagree. The rules changes in the Remaster are mostly fiddling with some numbers on the same chassis (so far mostly for the better, we'll have to see how it ultimately shakes out... I'm pretty optimistic so far).

The lore changes... well, aside from necessary name changes most of all things seem to have stayed mostly the same. The exception being making Drow non-people ("actually imaginary all along" non-people at that), which I still think was a bad lore decision and will do a lot to put off longtime D&D-oriented players. Also the removal of slavery as an acceptable topic in the writing has made a lot of really loopy writing necessary to get around the fact that before that decision was made at an editorial level, slavery was bloody everywhere on Golarion.

The setting has become more inclusive of what were previously considered exotic races, which I view mostly positively by now (I was initially very against making Goblins a player character race).

[Paul Jr]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Paul Jr wrote:

I also think pathfinder is becoming too much of something too different.

It is becoming another generic fantasy system. A good one but still generic.

While I think it is legit if you are going to miss the cultural signifiers of D&D, I don't understand the generic complaint. D&D is generic. It has defined the baseline for not just TTRPGs but various video games, comics, and anime as well. It also plays to a many of the generic Tolkien default fantasy staples-- humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, and hobbits. The further a system moves away from D&D the less generic it becomes.

Generic might be wrong word. Yes both rulesets are fantasy. I do think it is the cultural signifiers, that make the game in some ways. It invokes a certain feeling when you see or read the books.

D&D has the mind flyers, beholders etc. When you play baldurs gate 3, you can tell it is a D&D game.

Pathfinder has its own culture now. Goblins, lesheys etc....

Mechanically pf2e is a beautiful system

I see nothing wrong with wanting to play dnd using that system

However it is now drifting from that.

Not a bad thing just different

[CorvusMask]

I mean, the thing is that they are trying to have "Paizo/Pathfinder identity" rather than identity as "TSR/WotC/D&D" game, so I'm not sure I fully agree with take that Pathfinder is becoming "generic fantasy" since that kinda implies D&D isn't or that every trpg that isn't D&D is generic

[Easl]

I'm looking forward to the updates to Wizard and Witch and the two new classes. Looking forward to the alignment drop. Very much looking forward to the new dragon types (holy cow! great pics! And what a super great idea to link them in to Golarion themes!) and other uniquely Golarion expanded content. I *like* that one game world's palette is different from another's. Different is fun (IMO). And if I want OGL content that couldn't/didn't make it to the remaster, I'm okay with a DIY reskin.

So if the paizo designers are listening, I say go as different as you wanna be. Get rid of all the tropes. Give us backgrounds nobody else has instead of the same 'ol same 'ol. Monsters nobody else has thought of. Completely new takes on old character archetypes. Making it easy for new players to transition over might mean including *some* familiar concepts, but including /= limited to.