| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Int is also skill access. The higher your Int, the more skills you are trained in. This, in turn, opens up more options in and out of combat.This is okay at low levels but at higher levels it requires a GM to give you checks that you can succeed on with skills that you've placed zero investment in. High Int doesn't make you a proper skill character in PF2.
This assessment forgets how many more bonuses you can get at high levels besides proficiency.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DC 50 would be level 25 DC or level 20 dc with incredibly hard adjustment.
Basically, DC 50 isn't supposed to even be reasonably possible by five levels lower character unless they have absolutely all bonuses. So if a module uses it multiple times for absolutely plot critical checks, its either author error or you aren't supposed to make all of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, problem with "no +5/+6 until level 10/20" is that instead of it being "stat has lower growth after 18 and needs more investment", it'd be "oh, on level 5 I just put by ability boost into lower stat rather than investing into higher one."
Like it completely changes the design decision with the stat growth. It also means it would be way easier to have multiple +5 stats
But yeah, remastered likely prolongs the lifespan of pf2e because of its essentially being errata on a grand scale, but I do think its believable that its not different enough to count as a different edition. So I just appreciate the possibility that maybe PF2e has ten more years to it rather than PF3e coming along because devs and audience have gotten annoyed with particular small problems
I personally don't see a problem with this, and is honestly the way I wish they would have went with the Remaster.
With that change, Players who invest in secondary options aren't as behind as people who invest in primary options, to the point that their investment feels wasted/pointless. Now, if a Fighter takes Wizard dedication and boosts his Intelligence, he won't be as smart as the actual Wizard in the party, but now he can utilize Saving Throw/Spell Attack spells and not feel completely trash at them compared to the Wizard (putting him only 3 behind said Wizard by 20th level).
It also promotes characters who want to use a different primary attribute than the one not assigned by their class as being more viable to build towards in the endgame to where them being behind in the early game is an acceptable difference. For example, Warpriests, Alchemists, Thaumaturges, etc. can now actually reach the +7 Strength/Dexterity they would normally want for their class, instead of being forever handicapped by being 1 less than everyone because of how boosting works and because the game doesn't let you adjudicate your primary attribute accordingly (compared to a class like Rogue that lets you based on your Racket choice, or Fighters/Rangers/Monks/etc. having multiple primary attribute choices to pick from).
As for the small problems thing, while I am glad that they are taking steps to further streamline things as well as rebalance/change some other minor things, the problem is that these changes are only going to come to players who want to use the new rules. They aren't going to apply to players who stick with the OGL content because Paizo will not update/errata those old books with the new changes. (Which is why we are getting new Player Core/GM Core/Monster Core books instead.)
It's also problematic when it comes to mixing and matching things that were published under OGL compared to things that were published under ORC; having two "versions" of the same rule can create table issues if the players are assuming it's ran one way, when the GM intended for it to be ran another way. (And before we say "Well, just do a Session 0," that isn't foolproof and doesn't consider any potential balance changes between these versions that can easily be forgotten/glossed over by one or both parties.)
In fairness published modules do this a lot too. I have seen DC 50 skill checks in modules multiple times. Published DCs are frequently painfully high.So... your GM only gives you skill checks with absolutely maxed out DCs? Man that sucks.Int is also skill access. The higher your Int, the more skills you are trained in. This, in turn, opens up more options in and out of combat.This is okay at low levels but at higher levels it requires a GM to give you checks that you can succeed on with skills that you've placed zero investment in. High Int doesn't make you a proper skill character in PF2.
And? They usually only spell out the DCs for specific and important things, exactly the sort of thing that would be spotlit as challenging.
The point of being trained in a lot of things is to open up options and reward lateral thinking with lower DCs. Being trained in athletics is still going to be the difference between being able to climb a brick wall or failing and getting cornered. If my GM did the good GM thing and warned me a particular task was going to be very difficult, I'd start thinking of ways around it even if I had maxed out the relevant skill.
|
|
I mean, problem with "no +5/+6 until level 10/20" is that instead of it being "stat has lower growth after 18 and needs more investment", it'd be "oh, on level 5 I just put by ability boost into lower stat rather than investing into higher one."
Like it completely changes the design decision with the stat growth. It also means it would be way easier to have multiple +5 stats
But yeah, remastered likely prolongs the lifespan of pf2e because of its essentially being errata on a grand scale, but I do think its believable that its not different enough to count as a different edition. So I just appreciate the possibility that maybe PF2e has ten more years to it rather than PF3e coming along because devs and audience have gotten annoyed with particular small problems
I personally don't see a problem with this, and is honestly the way I wish they would have went with the Remaster.
With that change, Players who invest in secondary options aren't as behind as people who invest in primary options, to the point that their investment feels wasted/pointless. Now, if a Fighter takes Wizard dedication and boosts his Intelligence, he won't be as smart as the actual Wizard in the party, but now he can utilize Saving Throw/Spell Attack spells and not feel completely trash at them compared to the Wizard (putting him only 3 behind said Wizard by 20th level).
See, that's the thing, people saying that often assume it would change statbuilding to "fighter could make their lower stats bit higher" when what it would actually create is meta of "start with stat as 14 at minimum to increase them up to 22 by level 20", hence your example of fighter with +6 int. THAT'S why the mechanic of "when stat gets super high, its growth becomes slower" is necessary. Sure it might not break the math or it might be what some players would prefer, but its not what I would prefer x'D
(so basically, it would become meta to three to four stats at 22 and then you'd feel dumb for not doing the obvious great thing. This is system where having just +4 or +5 in stat is already rather valid option)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
THAT'S why the mechanic of "when stat gets super high, its growth becomes slower" is necessary.
Because someone might be able to play a fighter that's slightly smarter than they'd otherwise be?
IDK letting players diversify into their tertiary stats more freely sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
I don't think that the main problem with going that direction is having slightly more powerful (or well-rounded) characters. It's that it would mean rebuilding every existing character, when the remastered rules are meant to be compatible with what you are playing right now and with whatever has been published before.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that the main problem with going that direction is having slightly more powerful (or well-rounded) characters. It's that it would mean rebuilding every existing character, when the remastered rules are meant to be compatible with what you are playing right now and with whatever has been published before.
I would agree with this if the Remaster also didn't make it a point to include blatant rules changes (and not just for OGL reasons).
The factor that they are willing to make broad stroke changes to classes and their functionality regardless of OGL concerns tells me that this was definitely an option they could have done, and that regardless of this attribute change, players are still going to have to rebuild existing characters anyway (especially if said tables are disbarring OGL content).
That is just a symptom of the mass errata that is the Remaster, not because of them deciding attributes are changing (which they aren't anyway, just expressing disappointment that they didn't).
|
|
Like to just clarify what I'm talking about, let's say you create human fighter with statline of(note: yaeh I know I'm using scores instead of modifiers, they are stuck in my head x'D)
18, 14, 14, 10, 12, 10
After level 5 ability boosts: 18, 16, 16, 12, 14, 10
After 10: 20, 18, 18, 12, 14, 10
After 15: 20, 20, 20, 12, 16, 10
After 20(without apex) 22, 22, 22, 12, 18, 10
So with some shenanigans around, like with three ability boosts ancestry you could have 22, 22, 22, 22, 10, 8 statline unless ye want to add apex to 10 or 8 as well :p
Ye kinda see what I mean? The "you can only get +5 at level 10 and +6 at level 20" naturally leads to "well, now character is good at almost all stats")
What about making anything over +4 cost two boosts, together with the level limitation? That would only mean that you only have an extra +1 on a secondary stat at levels 5-9 and 15-19.
Anyway, I don't mind too much about keeping the rule as-is. We still don't know to what extent the remaster will change things that force characters to be rebuilt; I still think that giving a blanket increase to ability modifiers would be something out of scope.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like to just clarify what I'm talking about, let's say you create human fighter with statline of(note: yaeh I know I'm using scores instead of modifiers, they are stuck in my head x'D)
18, 14, 14, 10, 12, 10
After level 5 ability boosts: 18, 16, 16, 12, 14, 10
After 10: 20, 18, 18, 12, 14, 10
After 15: 20, 20, 20, 12, 16, 10
After 20(without apex) 22, 22, 22, 12, 18, 10So with some shenanigans around, like with three ability boosts ancestry you could have 22, 22, 22, 22, 10, 8 statline unless ye want to add apex to 10 or 8 as well :p
Ye kinda see what I mean? The "you can only get +5 at level 10 and +6 at level 20" naturally leads to "well, now character is good at almost all stats")
To be honest, I already do this with the current system, simply because I am already starting at 14 to boost to 20 at 20th. 16s only make it to where I hit 20 by 15th, and 12s don't go past 18. All this change does is make it possible to hit 22 by 20th (or by 15th if you start with a 16), and make starting with a 12 less of a drawback in the endgame, since you can hit 20 by 20th. Boosting secondary/tertiary attributes to higher values will hardly break the game compared to raising the ceiling.
Just as well, 15th+ level characters are basically superheroes anyway, so the complaint of "they are too powered up" doesn't really track when you got characters who can literally skydive from space like a meteorite and not die from burning up in the atmosphere.
Also, you missed a boost at 15th, to make the 12 a 14.
And? They usually only spell out the DCs for specific and important things, exactly the sort of thing that would be spotlit as challenging.The point of being trained in a lot of things is to open up options and reward lateral thinking with lower DCs. Being trained in athletics is still going to be the difference between being able to climb a brick wall or failing and getting cornered. If my GM did the good GM thing and warned me a particular task was going to be very difficult, I'd start thinking of ways around it even if I had maxed out the relevant skill.
Er. So. Apparently your GM only gives you relevant skill checks with absolutely maxed out DCs? Man that sucks.
But in all seriousness, the fact that many of the DCs the modules give you can't be done with mere skill training is a problem. Since they're by definition important to the plot, and not being able to contribute to the plot is sad. And the modules sure don't go out of their way to tell you "gee this is hard."
Why were we discussing this again? Yes, Int is worse than Con unless Int is your primary stat. This is not controversial. Con gives you hit points and good Fortitude saves. Int gives you semi-relevant training in skills. Unless you basically never get into combat of course Con is going to be more important. If you disagree, look back at your own characters - excluding Int-based casters, how many of them pumped Con vs. pumped Int?
Nope! That's the great thing about having a decent GM that understands how to set difficulties. I just like to have multiple options in hand in case the primary approach fails due to bad die rolls or if another PC does not have the relevant skills.
Yeah, not going to dispute your second point but it is something that can be addressed by having a decent GM that understands when to be frank with their players. A certain level of this is required to establish challenge and stakes. All the more reason to have access to multiple skills and polish up that lateral thinking.
A) That's a bold assumption. I usually end up pumping Int as much as Con early in a build in order to snag the skill proficiencies I want for a character. Once I've got those I refocus. I usually like to establish core competencies first and then settle down to improve them at later levels. The actual breakdown varies wildly from character to character though.
B) The statement I was pushing back against was "Int is easily the worst stat in the game". Which... it's not, especially not when you're looking to build a character that is broadly competent.
But... I'm done here. I always forget how miserable these multi-point arguments become until I get caught up in one.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, you missed a boost at 15th, to make the 12 a 14.
And one at 10th too.
Anyway, the more I think about the possible rule I talked about in my previous post, the more I like it.
The overall character power doesn't change. It allows you to start with a 16 in your main stat without suffering forever. It allows you to have two 22s (before apex) at level 20, which I think is a good thing especially for certain classes where it makes sense thematically. It doesn't require making investments that bear no value for 5 entire levels. And it's pretty simple to write and understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I didn't think you guys would talk so much but I can not wait for all of the Remastered spells!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also not a fan of splitting the core into two books.I'm with you on this. I'm not sure why they are doing this.
it's because the core rule book is way, way, way too big. It's so big that the mere size of the book obliterates it's spine over time.
Splitting them in two is something I've wanted for years.
I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner Sea
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner Sea
Wait, pardon? Perhaps I have missed it but I've seen no evidence at all to suggest Paizo wants to leave the Inner Sea behind--an adventure or two published that acknowledges other regions even exist is a drastic difference from ditching the Inner Sea and without some kind of statement of intent, and does not seem nearly sufficient as evidence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner SeaWait, pardon? Perhaps I have missed it but I've seen no evidence at all to suggest Paizo wants to leave the Inner Sea behind--an adventure or two published that acknowledges other regions even exist is a drastic difference from ditching the Inner Sea and without some kind of statement of intent, and does not seem nearly sufficient as evidence.
Given that Paizo can only produce so many APs any AP outside of the Inner Sea means less chance to see any given Inner Sea-specific item see its time in the spotlight. Hellknights could easily be something that continues to fall by the wayside given this trend.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that Paizo can only produce so many APs any AP outside of the Inner Sea means less chance to see any given Inner Sea-specific item see its time in the spotlight. Hellknights could easily be something that continues to fall by the wayside given this trend.I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner SeaWait, pardon? Perhaps I have missed it but I've seen no evidence at all to suggest Paizo wants to leave the Inner Sea behind--an adventure or two published that acknowledges other regions even exist is a drastic difference from ditching the Inner Sea and without some kind of statement of intent, and does not seem nearly sufficient as evidence.
I have that formula written on my worksheet, too, I'm working with the same math--but the premise is still more questionable than the conclusion. Who said, where and when, that Paizo wanted to move away from the Inner Sea? If somebody has a quote of James Jacobs of Michael Sayre saying "Yeah, we're kind of done with stories set in the Inner Sea" there might be a point to this discussion, but speculating that the Hellknights are done because of an unproven premise seems like there's a cart wandering around here with a horse following it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Besides, Paizo has been doing APs set entirely or partially outside of Inner Sea for quite some time and yet Hellknights are still a prominent part of the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have that written on my worksheet, too, I'm working with the same math--but the premise is still more questionable than the conclusion. Who said, where and when, that Paizo wanted to move away from the Inner Sea? If somebody has a quote of James Jacobs of Michael Sayre saying "Yeah, we're kind of done with stories set in the Inner Sea" there might be a point to this discussion, but speculating that the Hellknights are done because of an unproven premise seems like there's a cart wandering around here with a horse following it.Given that Paizo can only produce so many APs any AP outside of the Inner Sea means less chance to see any given Inner Sea-specific item see its time in the spotlight. Hellknights could easily be something that continues to fall by the wayside given this trend.I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner SeaWait, pardon? Perhaps I have missed it but I've seen no evidence at all to suggest Paizo wants to leave the Inner Sea behind--an adventure or two published that acknowledges other regions even exist is a drastic difference from ditching the Inner Sea and without some kind of statement of intent, and does not seem nearly sufficient as evidence.
I agree. I just wanted CastleDour to understand that they had a valid concern about seeing Hellknights get time in the spotlight.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I just wanted CastleDour to understand that they had a valid concern about seeing Hellknights get time in the spotlight.I have that written on my worksheet, too, I'm working with the same math--but the premise is still more questionable than the conclusion. Who said, where and when, that Paizo wanted to move away from the Inner Sea? If somebody has a quote of James Jacobs of Michael Sayre saying "Yeah, we're kind of done with stories set in the Inner Sea" there might be a point to this discussion, but speculating that the Hellknights are done because of an unproven premise seems like there's a cart wandering around here with a horse following it.Given that Paizo can only produce so many APs any AP outside of the Inner Sea means less chance to see any given Inner Sea-specific item see its time in the spotlight. Hellknights could easily be something that continues to fall by the wayside given this trend.I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner SeaWait, pardon? Perhaps I have missed it but I've seen no evidence at all to suggest Paizo wants to leave the Inner Sea behind--an adventure or two published that acknowledges other regions even exist is a drastic difference from ditching the Inner Sea and without some kind of statement of intent, and does not seem nearly sufficient as evidence.
Hmm. Okay, but that's kind of my entire point. A concern is not like an emotional reaction. A concern founded on no evidence is not valid--transphobes around the world right now are proving that. Do you not think it would be better to have your concerns addressed according to their likelihood than to be misled by validation of incorrect assumptions which contribute to further misinformation?
I will not argue with anybody wanting more cool Hellknight content, or who may worry for seeing their favourite factions being forgotten. I aim to address misinformation and confusion where I find it, and without any reason to believe that Paizo is moving away from the Inner Sea, the concern that this will lead to less Hellknight content is invalid--even though worrying about the status of your favourite content is.
On the other hand, concern that the next year might be lean on Hellknight content because we'll be spending a lot of that time in Tian Xia is absolutely valid unless Paizo announces a new Hellknight stronghold in Kaoling. Concern that in a world as rich and diverse as Golarion, your specific favourite might not get much new content is as valid as it is for every other element of the setting until new content for your favourite thing is announced.
When possible, it's better to validate people's emotions without misleading them. If they are even seeking emotional validation in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm worried Hellknights won't be represented anymore if Paizo wants to move adventures away from the Inner Sea
I mean, just because an adventure takes place outside of the Inner Sea region doesn't mean that Hellknights will no longer be a part of the setting. Unless Paizo has come out and said that they are no longer having Hellknights be a part of the setting (either by no longer making content with them or axing them from the universe entirely), I'm pretty sure they're here to stay, and are likely just content with sticking to the Inner Sea region, since expansion doesn't seem likely, and there is no motivation for them to be elsewhere.
Besides, Paizo has been doing APs set entirely or partially outside of Inner Sea for quite some time and yet Hellknights are still a prominent part of the setting.
Yeah, "can we justify having a game take place outside the inner sea" is something that they were experimenting with in PF1, and the results were positive (people really liked being sent far afield in Reign of Winter, Strange Aeons, etc.) So for the most part they feel comfortable doing this.
But like the mission statement of the Adventures Line is that not everything is going to be to everybody's taste, and their modus operandi has been to balance "experimental" with "familiar" in alternating stories for a while.
I think the bigger issue for the Hellknights is not "whether they're going to show up" but "are they going to get their own splatbook, like the Knights of Lastwall and the Firebrands" since it's conceivable that a lot of non-completionists would skip that book since they don't really think it would be that fun to play a character who's that fashy.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Made me go back to PF1e
It's gonna be hard to find games for (Classic?) Pf2e now, specially in PFS which is gonna be full Remastered rules.
TBH I am not sure what people will be missing that would make them wish to go back that much.
And, of course, in home games, pre-Remastered content will be both quite usable and still available for free on Archives of Nethys.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand the frustrations of people who are unable to play the game they want to play. One issue the Remaster will showcase is that there is now essentially two "versions" of the game, and tables will have to explain whether they play Version 1 (OGL), Version 2 (ORC), or some mixture in-between (the most likely answer), which can create further dissonance with the player base.
I suspect a lot of home tables can figure it out, but organized play is a whole different animal (always has been anyway), and some people won't get the choice of which "version" they want to play.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given how little is actually changing with everything we've seen of the Remaster I feel like that's really overstating how much of a 'dissonance' there really needs to be.
|
|
I can understand the frustrations of people who are unable to play the game they want to play. One issue the Remaster will showcase is that there is now essentially two "versions" of the game, and tables will have to explain whether they play Version 1 (OGL), Version 2 (ORC), or some mixture in-between (the most likely answer), which can create further dissonance with the player base.
I suspect a lot of home tables can figure it out, but organized play is a whole different animal (always has been anyway), and some people won't get the choice of which "version" they want to play.
TBH this has always been the case each time elements of the game were added (new books) or changed (errata).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is your take on the Remastered?
I understand the need for it.
I am on board with 80% of the proposed changes - which is a really strong result. There is very little that turns out that well.
I think my groups are going to struggle most with the nomenclature changes.
I have ordered my copy of the book through a local supplier. Though I expect I'll see it all on line first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given how little is actually changing with everything we've seen of the Remaster I feel like that's really overstating how much of a 'dissonance' there really needs to be.
There aren't systematic changes, nothing so grand as to warrant a new edition, but there are still balance changes and different "versions" of existing options, which is what I was getting at.
The Magus errata thread is a prime example of the "dissonance" being created as a result of a change between "versions" of the game.
Magi no longer have Shocking Grasp as a spell since the Remastered version did away with it, meaning Shocking Grasp is at-best a "GM May I" spell, and at-worst banned from the game (especially notable for PFS players). And Thunderstrike doesn't work with Spellstrike unless you take the Expanded feat, which is already pretty bad anyway unless you're using non-save spells like Magic Missile.
TBH this has always been the case each time elements of the game were added (new books) or changed (errata).I can understand the frustrations of people who are unable to play the game they want to play. One issue the Remaster will showcase is that there is now essentially two "versions" of the game, and tables will have to explain whether they play Version 1 (OGL), Version 2 (ORC), or some mixture in-between (the most likely answer), which can create further dissonance with the player base.
I suspect a lot of home tables can figure it out, but organized play is a whole different animal (always has been anyway), and some people won't get the choice of which "version" they want to play.
To a point. With the release of new content, the new content doesn't affect the old content in any way; I could still play the old content the same exact way I have before, and not have to worry if the new content will invalidate it or change it in any way. Errata does this more, but often times it is more of a clarification of unclear rules interactions or removing unintended interactions within the same book. I can't say the same thing in regards to the Remaster, since we have confirmation that specific things are being outright replaced/removed, and this issue is doubly true for PFS players, whom are basically at the whims of the rulings behind PFS (which, based on how licensing works, probably will be going full ORC rules).
And no, this isn't a case of me saying "Paizo is forcing me to buy and play the new product," this is a case of me having to check between different versions of existing abilities (or confirming if I still want certain old abilities to exist in place of or in addition to the new ones) and clarifying how it works for my players (or showing it to the GM to see if I get the approval), and not in a "finding out how it's actually supposed to work" way via Errata, but in a "deciding if I want X option or Y option in my game" kind of way, not unlike allowing Uncommon/Rare options in your games, which is already shoddy to say the least.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
AFAIK Paizo has not said they are banning pre-remaster content from PFS. What Aaron Shanks did say was:
"As you’re discussing the remaster changes, kindly be aware that the remaster reflects the rules we are using going forward, but that no content is being banned at your tables. We need to publish what we need to publish for the legal health and safety of our company—and we’re adding improvements to the game along the way. But nothing we’re printing should be considered a subtraction from the game you love. All the options will still be in the System Reference Document at Archives of Nethys.
The Remaster Project is a process. We’re going to be remastering Pathfinder at least into Gen Con 2024 with Player Core 2. And that doesn’t even address the errata that our design team may consider for every rule published after the Advanced Player’s Guide.
In short, a blended OGL/ORC experience should be expected for many months. And we’re never, we can’t, put an end date on what you play at your tables. We’re not coming to your home and taking away your older books. We want you to keep using everything you’ve purchased. As always, we’re trying to deliver to you the best deep character customization options in the industry."
While one could read PFS as not being included in "your" tables, I kind of doubt that is the case. I can't imagine PFS is going to ban the use of old scenarios which reference OGL content. Maybe for the most official of events, like GenCon. Beyond that, I can't imagine how a bunch of rando nerds using shocking grasp in a rando LGS is a lawsuit risk.
It might even be the case that Paizo just keeps silent about the use of OGL content in general, much like I doubt they will acknowledge they sneakily published a "how to convert the old golems" patch.
Wait, Magi don't get Shocking Grasp no more?
Well, Shocking Grasp (much like Magic Missile and Dimension Door) straight up doesn't exist anymore. The basic "do electrical damage" spell is different now.
As a result of the shakeup, the "do fire damage' spell is better for the Magus (it gets an extra die in melee) and the "do electrical damage" spell is weaker (since it targets saves.)
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seb, why would you switch back to an even older edition which will never have new content, when you could keep playing with the old pre-remaster content for PF2 and leave yourself the option for new content? It seems like you just prefer PF1 to PF2. Which is fine, but I'm not sure why you'd blame that on the remaster.
Wait, Magi don't get Shocking Grasp no more?Well, Shocking Grasp (much like Magic Missile and Dimension Door) straight up doesn't exist anymore. The basic "do electrical damage" spell is different now.
As a result of the shakeup, the "do fire damage' spell is better for the Magus (it gets an extra die in melee) and the "do electrical damage" spell is weaker (since it targets saves.)
Again, it is not "doesn't exist anymore" so much as "new monsters and items published from now on won't reference it." You can still use pre-remaster content, and Paizo is encouraging you to do so.
And by contrast, PF2 magic missile is basically just renamed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seb, why would you switch back to an even older edition which will never have new content, when you could keep playing with the old pre-remaster content for PF2 and leave yourself the option for new content? It seems like you just prefer PF1 to PF2. Which is fine, but I'm not sure why you'd blame that on the remaster.
Wait, Magi don't get Shocking Grasp no more?Well, Shocking Grasp (much like Magic Missile and Dimension Door) straight up doesn't exist anymore. The basic "do electrical damage" spell is different now.
As a result of the shakeup, the "do fire damage' spell is better for the Magus (it gets an extra die in melee) and the "do electrical damage" spell is weaker (since it targets saves.)
Again, it is not "doesn't exist anymore" so much as "new monsters and items published from now on won't reference it." You can still use pre-remaster content, and Paizo is encouraging you to do so.
And by contrast, PF2 magic missile is basically just renamed.
It's mostly about the fact that I kind of fell out of love with PF2e with the recent changes. And I'm not a guy who plays at tables (My city has next to no roleplay clubs) so I must rely on online games. Most of those games (if not all) will use the content I do not enjoy, and since I've been GMing for 2 years straight I would have liked to be a player. Seeing there isn't as much a choice in regards to finding OGL PF2e games (mostly for commodity of people which I have no issue with) I'm going back to PF1e, which still has plenty of content I can play, GM and use for my own games.
I just don't see myself agreeing with almost any changes done to PF2e. So instead of fighting against the river, I'm walking on land instead. Apologies if my way of expressing myself seem trollish or even ignorant at times.
How do you know the tables won't use the content you don't enjoy, though? (Which as an assumption, BTW, since the content isn't actually our for you to try.) I feel like there will still be more people playing pre-remaster APs just by virtue of there being more pre-remaster APs, and everything is cross compatible. No one is going to remove drow from Abomination Vaults.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can still use all the spells from before the remaster. Paizo printed materials won't reference the OGL spells, but it's not like people don't own copies of the original CRB that has the rules for alignment and magic missile in it.
So really what changed is that "you won't encounter a magus in a PF2 adventure who has shocking grasp prepared" not "your magus can't prepare shocking grasp".
Tables are going to have to have a discussion when people want to use a previous version of something that's better than the current one, but if it's just different then there's no real problem. Probably the clunkiest thing will be mixing cantrips that add your stat mod with ones that don't.