There is a lot of stuff that isn't going to be remaster with the 4 remaster books, will those be in future books, or are they never going to be properly remaster?
Officially no.
Paizo designers said that the only remastered books planned are PC1-2, GMC and MC. The other supplementary books will be just errata to become compatible.
That said I don't doubt that they would make some "remastered" version of the books that out of stock because this is basically what they done with pre-remastered books when a new print was made (that's why we have 4 prints (now 5 if we count PC1) of CRB).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The existing pre-Remaster books are also scheduled to get errata. That was actually a plan before the Remaster became necessary.
Some of the books have already gotten a Remaster Compatibility errata pass. There will likely be more minor updates like that coming later.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they'll make a PC3 with Summoner, Magus, Inventor, Gunslinger, Psychic, Thaumaturge and 2 new classes. And also a lot of new content for other classes, I feel that many classes would love more feats (especially casters that are extremely limited otherwise).
I also think the game is advanced enough that Paizo can start adding new concepts. I'd love RK-based feats giving bonuses against enemies, especially for Int-based casters like Wizard as it would be very fitting.
I hope they'll make a PC3 with Summoner, Magus, Inventor, Gunslinger, Psychic, Thaumaturge and 2 new classes. And also a lot of new content for other classes, I feel that many classes would love more feats (especially casters that are extremely limited otherwise).
I also think the game is advanced enough that Paizo can start adding new concepts. I'd love RK-based feats giving bonuses against enemies, especially for Int-based casters like Wizard as it would be very fitting.
Not sure I agree with you here. Player Core gave its casters lots of feats, including knowledge feats for the wizard. As long as player core 2 casters get the same treatment we should be sitting pretty there. The only non-core class whose fear pickings ever felt slim to me were from Guns & Gears, and only before level 4. Past that point I've always found enough variety that I felt bad about what I couldn't take.
The only remaster specific things I'd like for those non-core classes are:
1. Psychic needs something thanks to the new refocus eating their lunch. My table is just giving them e slots per level for now.
2. I'd really like it if the divine eidolons' spirit damage didn't only get applied to opposed traits. That miffs me something fierce.
Beyond that, there's lots of little stuff that could be buffed with errata, but it doesn't really call for remastering. Tweak singular expertise so melee gunslingers can use their full proficiency. Make spell strike not provoke reactions. But none of that intersects with the remaster changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I agree with you here. Player Core gave its casters lots of feats, including knowledge feats for the wizard.
According to AoN, the Fighter has 94 Common feats, the Wizard 49, the Inventor 46. Sure, the Inventor has an Innovation and a few Modifications to take, but still, I find that unfair to have twice less choice.
And then, for casters, you can look at the feats that are not copy pasted among them (because that's booooring!). For example, for the Wizard, if you remove the feats shared with other casters and the feats from the Core Rulebook (we are supposed to move to the remaster) there are... is, actually, a single level 1 feat. And a couple at level 2. And 4 at level 4 (is it a trend?). And a grand total of 31 feats so you're supposed to end up with a third of them. It's even more funny for the Oracle with its 21 unique common feats, half of them being supposed to end up in your character sheet (there's still the remaster to come, but I don't think the number will double).Sorry to disagree, but there is a clear lack of feats for casters in my opinion. I play a lot of casters and I don't want them to have the same feats despite having different classes. And I want to be able to build 2 casters from the same class and not end up with half of their feats in common.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. No more remaster books? I really wish Secrets of Magic to be remastered. That book gave detailed information about magic, essences, and schools. Since the previous information regarding magic schools are completely useless now, I wish to see the remastered version of Secrets of Magic someday.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. No more remaster books? I really wish Secrets of Magic to be remastered. That book gave detailed information about magic, essences, and schools. Since the previous information regarding magic schools are completely useless now, I wish to see the remastered version of Secrets of Magic someday.
That's true, the flavor stuff could use a look. I'm not sure if that would best come from remastering Secrets of Magic though... They might want to make a new book which focuses on Runelords, for example, and were heavily tied to the magic schools. Seems like a decent Lost Omens line entry, especially with 7 Dooms of Sandpoint on the horizon.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone in doubt that there will be more repackaged pre-remaster books that get a complete repackaging and facelift isn't looking at the incentives for them to do so.
Right now they're finally JUST starting to get to the point where they can wrap up and put out all the stuff that had to be put on hold because they felt the need to start and follow through with the remaster project, they haven't even really had much time to breath at all since the thing put them at least 6-12 months behind their original plan.
Once they wrap up all the stuff that was already in the pipeline and had to be put on hold due to the remaster I can just about guarantee that they're going to cannibalize and redo as much of the PF2 OGL era material as they possibly can in the form of PC3 and PC4 at LEAST, there is absolutely no reason for them to have chosen a number system for the Player Core line if they only ever intended to put out two books, instead the would have kept the same name scheme they've used for over a decade and used Player Core and the Advanced Player Core names. It may be 2026 before we see PC3 but I'm confident it will arrive eventually and probably cover most if not all of the Classes other than maybe Kinetecist that haven't seen the remaster touch-up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure I agree with you here. Player Core gave its casters lots of feats, including knowledge feats for the wizard.
According to AoN, the Fighter has 94 Common feats, the Wizard 49, the Inventor 46. Sure, the Inventor has an Innovation and a few Modifications to take, but still, I find that unfair to have twice less choice.
And then, for casters, you can look at the feats that are not copy pasted among them (because that's booooring!). For example, for the Wizard, if you remove the feats shared with other casters and the feats from the Core Rulebook (we are supposed to move to the remaster) there are... is, actually, a single level 1 feat. And a couple at level 2. And 4 at level 4 (is it a trend?). And a grand total of 31 feats so you're supposed to end up with a third of them. It's even more funny for the Oracle with its 21 unique common feats, half of them being supposed to end up in your character sheet (there's still the remaster to come, but I don't think the number will double).Sorry to disagree, but there is a clear lack of feats for casters in my opinion. I play a lot of casters and I don't want them to have the same feats despite having different classes. And I want to be able to build 2 casters from the same class and not end up with half of their feats in common.
I think it is a no it more nuanced than those numbers let on. Like, looking at first level feats for caster is a bit of a waste of time because only humans (and their adopted children) can actually take a caster feat at 1st level. Adding more feats between levels 1 and 2 just makes non-human casters feel worse than they already do. I would never play a witch that couldn't have cackle/couldron AND basic lesson by level 2. Meanwhile, lots of 1st level fighter, ranger, gunslinger, and swashbuckler feats basically enable your whole play style and are essential at level 1.
Fighters are a particularly unique case because they don't get a class path. They need a lot of feats to feel different at level 1. Meanwhile, 1st level wizards aren't distinguishable by feats but by school and thesis. And then further distinguished by spell selection.
Plus, while fighters have a lot of feats that aren't found in other classes... Did you look how many aren't shared by archetypes? Not in the multiclass, every feat below 10 is an archetype feat sense. I mean APG combat archetypes. I haven't counted, but there's a huge amount of overlap which makes every class able to pilfer fighter feats cheaply.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. No more remaster books? I really wish Secrets of Magic to be remastered.
What, exactly, would be the difference?
I'm not understanding what the benefit of Remastering Secrets of Magic would be. The cantrips already got errata to bring them in line with the Remaster change of removing attribute damage and increasing their dice count at Rank 1.
The Summoner and Magus classes don't need all that much changing in order to work perfectly with things like the change to how focus point pool is calculated and how Refocus works.
None of the detailed information about magic or essences has changed.
School is going to be addressed in a later book because the devs have promised us that the Runelord archetype will make a triumphant return someday.
The vast majority of the changes would be to the terminology. Replacing spell level with spell Rank and things like that.
So why do we need to have an entirely new book for Remastered Secrets of Magic? That just seems like a detriment to the people who already own Secrets of Magic since these new Remastered books disconnect getting .pdf updates for the new content.
Much better to have the changes handled in errata.
|
|
The primary benefit, from the standpoint of the business, would be that they're making a new book and can generate income from it and at the same time shed OGL connections with their baby, they only spent millions of dollars, delayed almost all of their product lines, probably canceled some number of projects outright, and pivoted an entire department to create and support the remaster.
To me, assuming they'll continue making copies of books that are defunct and have to be fixed is like assuming that Paizo is going to cycle back to the physical copies and PDFs of the Pathfinder Second Edition Playtest book and update it to be in line with the new ACTUAL rules.
The better question is what benefit there is in NOT continuing to make new remaster books, of which I think there are very few and the only one I can think of is that it would be easier and less expensive (in the very short term) to simply issue errata for incompatible content and books like SoM and basically every other non-remaster book and set up a new print run for it versus the cost of creating entirely new books that fix all that stuff and repackage it.
Issuing errata costs them time and money while at the same time doing very little to increase revenue even IF they do end up putting out new print runs of old books with fixed applied to them, on the other hand, no matter WHAT content it includes a new book will always generate an order of magnitude more income than a new printing of an old/existing one even if MOST people who own the book that some/most of the content that is included in the remaster book that it was lifted from never buy the remaster book.
I think the pivot point for "are they going to remaster other stuff" Is that remastering things allows 3rd party companies to use Pathfinder content under the ORC license. So if someone wants to make more witch patrons and release that as 3PP they can do so.
But if someone wanted to make more Summoner feats, that would be tricky since Secrets of Magic was an OGL product. Paizo can keep reprinting Secrets of Magic as long as they want since it's under safe harbor, but I'm honestly not sure how much they can refer to it and remain entirely free of the OGL. Paizo's interest in "printing more stuff for old classes" in new books has been minimal.
But the most important things to have remastered are "the rules". Since what Paizo hopes people do with their licensed content is "publish 3pp stuff that fills various niches."
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The better question is what benefit there is in NOT continuing to make new remaster books, of which I think there are very few and the only one I can think of is that it would be easier and less expensive (in the very short term) to simply issue errata for incompatible content and books like SoM and basically every other non-remaster book and set up a new print run for it versus the cost of creating entirely new books that fix all that stuff and repackage it.
I think you're skipping over the most compelling reason I've heard. That Paizo is a company with a very limited workflow pipeline that means the Remaster has left us with like an over year gap between RoE and WoI.
How much of an appetite is there going to be for buying Secrets of Magic again, or Guns and Gears again, or Dark Archive again, as full priced books with a handful of small updates and pushing back new content even further? Player Core had a lot of good will because of the way the OGL/ORC thing shook out, but even still there's been some (marginal) negativity over how little the product actually changed the system given its high price point. That's only going to get worse if they keep doing it.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think you're understating the work this would take from Paizo, and overstating how much people want to buy a book they already own again.
I wonder how much work it would be to retrofit a book like Dark Archive if you're doing a second printing and want to publish it under the ORC not the OGL. Like second printings regularly incorporate errata, and if all they really need to do is change the legal boilerplate, remove all mentions of alignment, and replace "attack of opportunity" with "reactive strike" that's probably doable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm just gonna listen to what the designers have continuously been stating, and assume that books like Secrets of Magic, Guns & Gears, etc. are just gonna be errata'd to bring them up to the Remaster'd standards. We MIGHT get a Monster Core 2 (or possibly 3) much later on to get the rest of the Bestiary books Remaster'd, but those hypothetical books won't be interrupting any of the future planned books like PC1/GMC/MC/PC2 did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's Divine Mysteries, that book connected to War of Immortals that's supposed to be the Gods & Magic replacement (which makes sense since deities are getting a shake up and alignments getting axed). That's pretty much all the announced remaster plans though iirc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is a no it [a lot??] more nuanced than those numbers let on.Agree with it being more nuanced. You can create a lot of different caster themes and types based on subclass and spell choice, which has little equivalent for fighter. IMO caster identity isn't as defined by feat choice anywhere near as much as with fighter, so they don't necessarily need as wide a variety of feats for players to be able to realize different visions of the class. I can make 3 witches all with the same feat choices and if one of them is Occult/resentment, one is primal with a focus on shapeshifting, and one is Arcane blaster, they are going to play very very differently, both in terms of the player getting to "be" a different character and in terms of how that character interacts with different situations in the campaign. Feats don't define the role or playstyle of a caster as much, so you don't need 90 of them per caster class to accommodate different playstyles. Casters also have more playstyle flexibility: if I start off with that primal shapeshifter concept, and decide at level 10 that I'm growing bored with it and want to be a blaster, I just pick different spells the next day and boom, all new playstyle. That's much better than having to downtime retrain feats to realize a different character concept.
Having said that, I am all for more content. If Paizo wanted to add 5-6 feat chains of 3-5 feats/chain to every class as part of the remaster (and because they decided that was a good way to get greater variety of character concepts), I'd be buying that Player Core 3. :)
What I'm realizing is that I'm not as pro-new content for the sake of content as I thought I was. I'm pro-GOOD new content, but lots of stuff... Isn't. There's a ton of undertuned options and very occasionally an overtuned one. Most of the Knights of Lastwall feats and spells feel like traps, and many of the Firebrands options feel like power creep.
That stuff just clutters up the game and makes it take longer to build characters because you need to sift through bad feats/items/spells I'm finding myself relying on my Player Core hard copy to look at spells and feats where I used to use Pathbuilder, because the book has a much tighter set of options to consider.
Give me more oracle feats because oracle has a small amount of feats, they are worse than what cleric now has, and there's a lot of interesting thematic space to explore. Don't give me wizard feats just so for the sake of having more wizard feats, be they actually have a pretty rich set of options in Player Core. But if Paizo can make something mechanically enticing but balanced which explores a new, interesting design space? Go for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm realizing is that I'm not as pro-new content for the sake of content as I thought I was. I'm pro-GOOD new content, but lots of stuff... Isn't. There's a ton of undertuned options and very occasionally an overtuned one.
And that description is giving me flashbacks to the last time I tried creating a PF1 character.
Officially no.
Paizo designers said that the only remastered books planned are PC1-2, GMC and MC. The other supplementary books will be just errata to become compatible.
That said I don't doubt that they would make some "remastered" version of the books that out of stock because this is basically what they done with pre-remastered books when a new print was made (that's why we have 4 prints (now 5 if we count PC1) of CRB).
I guess I have a dumb question.
There will be more Monster Core books, right?
Paizo cannot cover all monsters, daemons, demons and devils in one book...so there will be future Remastered monster books, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There will be ORC books that contain monsters. There are not announced plans to do a Monster Core 2.
The four Remastered core books are the bare minimum to support a viable product line if the OGL blows up again. Once they're all out there (PC2 is all that's left) they can move on to their regular releases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will certainly be new books of monsters. I don't expect that the developers are going to say, "enough is enough and we will just continue using the same stagnant monsters that we already have".
I think people are getting confused about what a book being Remastered means.
The Remaster was never intended or advertised as causing old content to become unavailable - other than some things removed for licensing problems.
The idea that 'Oh, that was from an old book, so we can't use it since we switched over to the Remaster rules' is something that is coming from people on the internet - not from the game developers.
For example, the Cave Scorpion is from Bestiary 2. Which hasn't been Remastered. But that doesn't mean that the next AP book that comes out isn't going to include a Cave Scorpion or reference Bestiary 2 to get the stats for it rather than reprinting the stat block for the creature in the AP page count.
The only thing I don't know is what the name of the new book of monsters will be: "Bestiary 4" or "Monster Core 2".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Howl of the Wild product description states that it contains "A menagerie of Golarion’s animals and beasts for GMs to unleash on players..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will certainly be new books of monsters. I don't expect that the developers are going to say, "enough is enough and we will just continue using the same stagnant monsters that we already have".
I think people are getting confused about what a book being Remastered means.
The Remaster was never intended or advertised as causing old content to become unavailable - other than some things removed for licensing problems.
The idea that 'Oh, that was from an old book, so we can't use it since we switched over to the Remaster rules' is something that is coming from people on the internet - not from the game developers.
For example, the Cave Scorpion is from Bestiary 2. Which hasn't been Remastered. But that doesn't mean that the next AP book that comes out isn't going to include a Cave Scorpion or reference Bestiary 2 to get the stats for it rather than reprinting the stat block for the creature in the AP page count.
The only thing I don't know is what the name of the new book of monsters will be: "Bestiary 4" or "Monster Core 2".
Even "some things removed from licensing problems" only matter for publishers. Owlbears are still mechanically compatible with the remaster, and a GM can choose to insert them wherever they please. Paizo just won't be writing owlbears into APs anymore.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Howl of the Wild product description states that it contains "A menagerie of Golarion’s animals and beasts for GMs to unleash on players..."
Yeah, Paizo's plan is clearly to release mixed GM and Player-Use books like Rage of Elements, Howl of the Wild, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive than straight up Bestiaries. This makes sense since everybody wants to own the book with a new class, most people are going to want to own the book with the new ancestries, but mostly the GM buys the bestiaries.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will certainly be new books of monsters. I don't expect that the developers are going to say, "enough is enough and we will just continue using the same stagnant monsters that we already have".
I think people are getting confused about what a book being Remastered means.
The Remaster was never intended or advertised as causing old content to become unavailable - other than some things removed for licensing problems.
The idea that 'Oh, that was from an old book, so we can't use it since we switched over to the Remaster rules' is something that is coming from people on the internet - not from the game developers.
For example, the Cave Scorpion is from Bestiary 2. Which hasn't been Remastered. But that doesn't mean that the next AP book that comes out isn't going to include a Cave Scorpion or reference Bestiary 2 to get the stats for it rather than reprinting the stat block for the creature in the AP page count.
The only thing I don't know is what the name of the new book of monsters will be: "Bestiary 4" or "Monster Core 2".
AFAICT ORC and OGL must be completely divorced. Paizo could not mention an OGL book or a monster that comes from an OGL book in any of their future products since all those will be ORC.
For home games, everything is still available though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There will certainly be new books of monsters. I don't expect that the developers are going to say, "enough is enough and we will just continue using the same stagnant monsters that we already have".
I think people are getting confused about what a book being Remastered means.
The Remaster was never intended or advertised as causing old content to become unavailable - other than some things removed for licensing problems.
The idea that 'Oh, that was from an old book, so we can't use it since we switched over to the Remaster rules' is something that is coming from people on the internet - not from the game developers.
For example, the Cave Scorpion is from Bestiary 2. Which hasn't been Remastered. But that doesn't mean that the next AP book that comes out isn't going to include a Cave Scorpion or reference Bestiary 2 to get the stats for it rather than reprinting the stat block for the creature in the AP page count.
The only thing I don't know is what the name of the new book of monsters will be: "Bestiary 4" or "Monster Core 2".
AFAICT ORC and OGL must be completely divorced. Paizo could not mention an OGL book or a monster that comes from an OGL book in any of their future products since all those will be ORC.
For home games, everything is still available though.
I believe this is why we haven't had any ORC APs yet, because the content was there to publish an AP under the ORC license. Going forward after 7 dooms though, I am pretty sure any AP that wants to use a monster that is not in ORC published content is going to have to put the creature in the AP bestiary or have the stat block in the book as a "new" creature.
I don't think the OGL and the ORC need to be completely divorced. Like the Summoner was printed in an OGL book, as were the Eidolon options for the summoner. But a player's guide for an ORC AP wants to mention that Summoners are a good fit for the campaign and a particular set of Eidolons are especially good choices they can.
The thing is the provenance of the IP from the OGL book. If it's something that Paizo created, even though it's in an OGL book, they can continue to use it since they don't need to license their own intellectual property.
I'm moving to the Remaster and using Core Only as an option and trying to set up Pathbuilder for it, but I thought that Rage of Elements was technically a Remastered book and Kineticists are a Remastered class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm moving to the Remaster and using Core Only as an option and trying to set up Pathbuilder for it, but I thought that Rage of Elements was technically a Remastered book and Kineticists are a Remastered class?
In terms of technicalities, Rage of Elements is entirely an OGL book and seems to be listed as the last of the rulebooks published under the OGL - albeit it certainly does contain a preview of many changes coming for the ORC, including dropping alignment from creature and deity stat blocks, some updated creature design and name changes, and some setting names that shifted which they're listed under.
So, going by the technicalities of which licence they were published under, no, Kineticists are not a Remastered class - however, they were made with knowledge of the Remaster. Even so, they are not the only class that would (theoretically) be permanently eliminated from the game using a Remastered-exclusive restriction. Some exceptions necessarily must exist to account for legacy classes which remain legacy and likely will not be republished as remastered classes but nevertheless have received compatibility errata.
|
|
I don't think the OGL and the ORC need to be completely divorced. Like the Summoner was printed in an OGL book, as were the Eidolon options for the summoner. But a player's guide for an ORC AP wants to mention that Summoners are a good fit for the campaign and a particular set of Eidolons are especially good choices they can.
The thing is the provenance of the IP from the OGL book. If it's something that Paizo created, even though it's in an OGL book, they can continue to use it since they don't need to license their own intellectual property.
That is a very good point. I guess that, if Paizo is quite clearly the owner of the IP, then they can reference it in ORC books even if it was described in an OGL book first.
But I am not at all an expert in IP legalities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Paizo's plan is clearly to release mixed GM and Player-Use books like Rage of Elements, Howl of the Wild, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive than straight up Bestiaries. This makes sense since everybody wants to own the book with a new class, most people are going to want to own the book with the new ancestries, but mostly the GM buys the bestiaries.
I just hope they knock it off with scattering GM content through player content... dark archive was the worst for this with literal adventure content in nearly every chapter.
In general it just devalues the books for me as a GM though, I have a couple of players who buy the books and they read through them because they have paid for them... which means if a piece of monster art stands out they will generally geek about it and read it out of curiosity. So I have learnt anything from a bestiary is safe as a rule, but anything from one of the mixed books gets a "oh I remember this" or similar when I bring it out.
I just hope they knock it off with scattering GM content through player content... dark archive was the worst for this with literal adventure content in nearly every chapter.
In general it just devalues the books for me as a GM though, I have a couple of players who buy the books and they read through them because they have paid for them... which means if a piece of monster art stands out they will generally geek about it and read it out of curiosity. So I have learnt anything from a bestiary is safe as a rule, but anything from one of the mixed books gets a "oh I remember this" or similar when I bring it out.
Totally agree. I'm also not a fan of rules being scattered throughout the book rather than being collected together in a single section - the books are generally fun reads, but they are also rules references and having to scour a book to find a sidebar or figure out what chapter a particular piece of equipment in is frustrating to say the least.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, going by the technicalities of which licence they were published under, no, Kineticists are not a Remastered class
Even though the developers themselves have said that the book was written to remaster standards using remaster terminology, you'd still say it doesn't count?
|
As Paizo own the full copyrights of the things they printed in Rage of Elements, and as it doesn't reference any OGL text, they would only need to "Errata" the OGL page to the ORC one, like they did for the Beginner Box. That would make the content licensed for both ORC and OGL licenses.
The remaster "system" is different from ORC "License" :P
(Of course, until they do that, anyone else than Paizo would still need to wait for it before referencing it... or to publish it using the OGL, stopping them from referencing the things only released through ORC.)
Like you only need the OGL when you are licensing copyrighted works that are made available to you under the OGL, this is for example how the PF1 CRB had some language nearly identical to language in the 3.5 PHB.
But you still might want to use the OGL for the same reason its authors started using it to begin with- to allow the non-Product Identity stuff from that book to be licensed by someone else with the OGL. Like if a third party wanted to print new Kineticist feats or new Kineticist elements, because RoE was printed with the OGL, they are able to do so via the OGL.
Now all of the Rage of Elements stuff was original to Paizo, so if they just want to update the one page to have the ORC and not the OGL they can do so easily. Then people who want to make new Kineticist feats or elements can do so with the ORC.
Because of this it will probably be possible to print 3rd party Kineticist stuff under both the OGL and the ORC, but I don't think that's really a problem. Paizo doesn't want to stop any 3rd party publisher from making more Kineticist stuff anyway.
So, going by the technicalities of which licence they were published under, no, Kineticists are not a Remastered classEven though the developers themselves have said that the book was written to remaster standards using remaster terminology, you'd still say it doesn't count?
I answered the question with regard to technicality, which technically is what the OP asked. Absolutely RoE and kineticist are fully fit for the remaster, but if you go looking on a database exclusively for ORC content you may find they've been left out--same as Psychic or Magus. The question seemed to be in the mind of excluding any non-remaster content and I thought it prudent to highlight what that may mean if one isn't planning to adopt a flexible stance toward what published content is still viable.
|
|
I'm moving to the Remaster and using Core Only as an option and trying to set up Pathbuilder for it, but I thought that Rage of Elements was technically a Remastered book and Kineticists are a Remastered class?In terms of technicalities, Rage of Elements is entirely an OGL book and seems to be listed as the last of the rulebooks published under the OGL - albeit it certainly does contain a preview of many changes coming for the ORC, including dropping alignment from creature and deity stat blocks, some updated creature design and name changes, and some setting names that shifted which they're listed under.
So, going by the technicalities of which licence they were published under, no, Kineticists are not a Remastered class - however, they were made with knowledge of the Remaster. Even so, they are not the only class that would (theoretically) be permanently eliminated from the game using a Remastered-exclusive restriction. Some exceptions necessarily must exist to account for legacy classes which remain legacy and likely will not be republished as remastered classes but nevertheless have received compatibility errata.
Pathbuilder likely does not consider RoE as Remastered content since it is not ORC.
And it surely does not consider it Remaster Core. And thus not in Core Only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn’t someone looking at “core only” in either the remastered content or the original PF2 rules be ignoring all supplemental books? Like, even if you are playing core only in a preremasted game you aren’t going to be seeing any Kineticists, psychics, magi or inventors.
I answered the question with regard to technicality, which technically is what the OP asked.
Yeah, but you answered a different on a technicality (what license was the book published under) than was asked (was the book built for the remaster). So it was worth pointing out the disconnect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think I've ever heard 'core' used to describe the whole line of rulebooks. For that matter, I think this is the first time I've heard someone call APG core either (though core+apg is a common combination I see).
Like when I see a "core only" game online, it usually refers to literally just that, only the CRB for player facing options. This is true of both PF2 and PF1 (and D&D for that matter, for games that only want to use the original set of books).
I understood that one of the express reasons the remastered books are all labeled "Core" was to minimize the confusion behind books like the APG considered part of the core books that had been intended before. I also can't point to a specific reference, but I've been thinking of CRB, APG, GMG and the bestiaries as "Core" because of discussions I've seen here on the boards.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
During the PF1 days tha rulebook line was all considered "core". That changed in 2E, and the Paizo staff has said over and over that Core for PF2 was CRB, GMG, APG, and the Bestiaries. This is why books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears got different spine treatments. The core line has the matching spines, the other rulebooks have unique spines.
Design Manager
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
During the PF1 days tha rulebook line was all considered "core". That changed in 2E, and the Paizo staff has said over and over that Core for PF2 was CRB, GMG, APG, and the Bestiaries. This is why books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears got different spine treatments. The core line has the matching spines, the other rulebooks have unique spines.
There's some trickiness where "if everything's core, nothing is" that can make a game pretty inaccessible the longer it runs, so we've tried to make it clear what's "essential" and what's "extra" with the book treatments and marketing.
I expect that the essentials all having "core" in the title will help with that going forward.