I noticed some classes aren't in PC2, such as Gunslinger? Not sure what other classes were missing.
There are no in plans for it, but it could happen.
For the most part the classes that aren't in Player Core 1 or 2 aren't that hard to rework for the remastered rules. For the most part it's stuff like the summoner changing the damage type for certain eidolons or the magus's arcane cascade getting reworked now that magic schools aren't the same.
Does the Gunslinger actually need a remaster?
I simply mentioned it as a class I didn't notice in the PC2. I have no idea if it needs one or not. Never played it, don't own the book either.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, to be clear, classes made after the Advanced Player's Guide are not "Core" classes. They are from optional themed rulebooks, and so they probably wouldn't be compiled into a theoretical "Player Core 3". The 16 classes across the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide, now appearing in Player Core and Player Core 2, are the only classes considered to be core to the base game.
As has been said before elsewhere: Unless there is a very loud demand for it from those who want it, the remaining 6 non-Remastered classes (Magus, Summoner, Gunslinger, Inventor, Psychic and Thaumaturge) will simply need to receive additional compatibility errata in order to make them work fully in the Remaster. How drastic that errata will be will depend on the book. Something like Guns & Gears will need very little to get it to where it needs to be. And something like Secrets of Magic... well, I'm still waiting to see Paizo's answer to that mess of a situation.
@Ezekeriu: Put simply, what do you think is/are the issues with Secrets of Magic with regard to the Remaster? Are there issues with the Summoner? Magus? Both? I haven't played either in PF2 (not sure I played a Magus in PF1) so I'm a bit out of the loop...
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What devs have basically said in paizocon amas is "If there is demand for it"
So yeah, if people are like "these classes need to be remastered" then maybe, but honestly lot of the classes out of player cores work fine enough and don't really need remastering because they were already good classes and ogl removal doesn't affect them much.
Classes don't need to be remastered just for sake of it
Don't they need to remaster the remaining classes due to their own rule changes?
@Ezekeriu: Put simply, what do you think is/are the issues with Secrets of Magic with regard to the Remaster? Are there issues with the Summoner? Magus? Both? I haven't played either in PF2 (not sure I played a Magus in PF1) so I'm a bit out of the loop...
There are but most are already addressed by errata (Secrets of Magic Errata (Remaster Compatibility)) and is already applied in online sources like AoN.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules wise, Secrets of Magic is fine since they tweaked arcane cascade. A remaster glow up might be nice for buffing stuff, or making it so eidolons spirit damage work normally instead of the bad "only applies against opposed traits" version the errata gave us. But it certainly isn't necessary.
However, lore is a different story. The biggest problem is each school of magic got an in-depth write up page which is now defunct. Most other lore tweaks are subtle and mostly just renamings. But they have also added some interesting stuff the book could explore, like class specific words of power.
Don't they need to remaster the remaining classes due to their own rule changes?
Think about that critically. What specific rule changes need to be addressed? The answer is essentially none since they released remaster compatibility errata. The remaster rule changes were extremely light and affected very little class specific stuff. Especially since the non-core classes are all Paizo originals with no D&D serial numbers to file off.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I think we need to demand "Player Core 3" because these classes need some look over like Magus and Arcane Cascade being nerfed for no actually reason.
If the developers are saying “only if there is a demand for it,” they are basically saying that there is almost nothing about these classes they would change in such a book, so you would pretty much be getting the same mechanics you already have with these classes.
That is a little interesting with the psychic and the summoner, but not that surprising, and while I too want the lore of secrets of magic updated, we might be getting enough of that in the upcoming books not to need secrets of magic again, but instead a book that moves forward with newer arcane stuff.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's one thing left on psychic that should probably be addressed. Their refocus advantage over other casters was mostly nullified. They should get something else to compensate, but that can probably be in errata. In my home games we just have the psychic 3 slots per spell level but not an additional spell known.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't they need to remaster the remaining classes due to their own rule changes?
No.
The rules changes aren't nearly extensive enough to warrant it.
The most the post-APG classes really need is a couple lines of errata.
It would be much more reasonable and desirable that Paizo focus their attention on making new content.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Releasing a Player Core 3 would be nice for multiple reasons:
- Reviewing the classes, of course, if they need so.
- Regrouping them on a single player-oriented book. One issue of putting classes in lots of different books is that players don't have any book to buy. Sure they can buy Dark Archive for the 2 classes, but they also get a lot of GM-oriented content they don't care about or even shouldn't know about (as their GM may prefer this information to stay secret, especially in the case of Dark Archive).
- Making the PC3 classes core and as such be able to publish content (feats and such) in further books. As long as these classes are not in a PC book, Paizo seems reluctant to release new options in other books.
- And of course, classes are just a small portion of a Player Core book, so there could be a lot of other stuff. And I think a lot of players are asking for more options for all classes. That'd be a good place to put that.
So I'm all in for a PC3!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm all for remastering the classes (Magus) that need it, but I don't think it should be in another Player Core. Player Core is very specifically meant to be the CORE classes, of which none of the remaining are. There's a reason the bindings on the books changed after the APG, because only the Bestiaries, GMG, CRB and APG were considered Core. That's how it's always been, and probably how it will remain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most who want pc3 want it because every class will always have (at least) small nitpicky things people want fixed. Some people may hope for a way to avoid reactive strike on spell strike, a way to have your inventor innovation be made of a precious metal, or a touch up to fey eidolons (maybe even synthesist summoner).
I don't know what I'm talking about with this point but I imagine there are some benefits to having all classes under the orc licence as well.
I doubt it. Pulling all these classes into a Player Core 3 nullifies a lot of the value of the other books, without fully replacing them. The "X Core" books so far are full replacements for other books, which got retired effectively.
Taking the biggest thing from a bunch of other books and combining them into one class book isn't doing that. You're winding up with more books with less relevant stuff in them instead of the same number of books being updated.
Most of them don't really need it anyway. They need some errata updates but don't need a full remake the way something like Oracle does.
(The thing that does need errata is SoM itself as there's multiple issues with the book that have gone years being ignored. Arcane Cascade was just the most glaring one and even that took an absurd amount of time to get corrected.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be down for PC3, but generally books that incorporate player and GM content is more financially viable; everyone wants a piece of the pie.Thats why the thematic format has prevailed since the apg. I'm a DM as well as a player so mixed books are welcome, plus, I enjoy thematic through lines that tie a book together
Don't they need to remaster the remaining classes due to their own rule changes?
Rules changes are very minor and mostly needed significant editing of classes with stuff like the Champion (which had a lot to do with alignment, which no longer exists) and the Oracle (whose refocus mechanic is obsolete as anyone can now fully refocus with enough time.)
Everything else is within the lines of a normal errata pass. Some of the original classes got more attention in the remaster since time had passed and they realized issues with those classes they wanted to fix.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where Paizo has infinite time and money, sure, but the normal release (and errata) schedule already got delayed big time for the remaster. I think if you could get people to actually understand that PC3 would come at the expense of new books the number of people asking for it would shrink.
I think if you could get people to actually understand that PC3 would come at the expense of new books the number of people asking for it would shrink.
Agreed.
I am firmly in the camp that errata of the existing books like Secrets of Magic and Guns & Gears is plenty. Compiling those classes into a Player Core 3 is not needed or warranted.
I think it's more likely that they update something like Guns & Gears to be an ORC book when reprinting it than they actually put the Gunslinger and Inventor in a core book. Classes in themed books are supposed to be for campaigns that use that theme, and suggesting that you should be able to play them anytime (which is what "core" suggests) is probably the wrong idea.
Of course, I have no idea how hard it would be to make Guns & Gears ORC compatible, it's possible that it's just as simple as "change the prerequisite on the Gunslinger Dedication feat to Dexterity +2 instead of Dexterity 14" since that book doesn't touch on a lot of OGL stuff, I believe.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I for one am for a PC 3. Magus, Summoner and Psychic at the least need to be freshened up and made more consistent with the Remaster designe philosophy and have all their annoying little issues(that are easily fixable by GMs) that see a thread on here and reddit weekly be given a attention. Also just having these classes in an ORC book and a non-legacy content page on AoN would be nice.
I think some of the confusion/hope people have for the magus is that it really doesn’t work anymore if a GM doesn’t allow players to use old versions of cantrips and spells published from the no remastered rulebooks. There just are not enough attack roll spells that are officially “remastered” for some players to feel safe bringing a magus to a table where a GM might have a “remastered content only” policy.
But that could be fixed without remastering the whole class pretty easily, unless publishing more spell attack roll spells would be seen as setting other casters to have more complicated spell lists. Like offensive divine casting gets pretty complicated and dependent on what spells you can poach into your list already. So I don’t know that more new spell attack roll spells is really as good of an idea, especially because those old spells are already there and it’s not like they need improvement, so then there is the problem of not wanting to tread back on spells that were dropped for narrative reasons and replaced with saving throw targeting spells more to help cover missing bases in the mechanics.
There just are not enough attack roll spells that are officially “remastered” for some players to feel safe bringing a magus to a table where a GM might have a “remastered content only” policy.How would one bring a Magus, a pre-remaster class, to a "remastered content only" table?
Is a "remaster only table" even a thing? Like I get why Paizo needs to keep the core rules in print with a break from the OGL, but even PFS allows legacy content and in one's home games there's no need to respect anybody's copyrights. Like all the legacy rules are still on AoN.
It feels like if you want to play a Magus, you should have a conversation with the GM regarding spells that have attack rolls, but having a conversation with a GM isn't a huge ask.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There just are not enough attack roll spells that are officially “remastered” for some players to feel safe bringing a magus to a table where a GM might have a “remastered content only” policy.How would one bring a Magus, a pre-remaster class, to a "remastered content only" table?
Well the specific issue I can see happening is a GM saying “no spells from player’s handbook,” and that eating away a huge chunk of what an offensive, spell-striking magus is relying on, since there are only a handful in secrets of magic.
“We use the player Core 1, not the player’s handbook,” seems like something a lot of GMs will be specifying at their tables. Especially for new players, “what spells am I supposed to be casting?” Is going to be a relevant question to ask if you have player core 1 and secrets of magic as your rules books for building your character.
@Unicore: Do you mean “CRB” where you say “player’s handbook” or do you mean “SoM”?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not think there will be a PC3 that reprints “updated” Summoner, Magus, Psychic, Thaumaturge, Gunslinger and Inventor.
They aren’t Core, for one, and they don’t require enough changes across them all to warrant an entire book, even with extraneous “back matter/spells/equipment etc to fill it out.
Having said that, I personally feel like the Inventor is one of the most ill-served classes in terms of options or even…power I have seen, though I have not played one. The options are so few and the power so poor I would love to see the entire class revamped. And clearly, Magus-players have a bunch of things that are upsetting them. Again, the Errata of a whole 9 changes, while some of them might be broadly applicable also looked…anemic.
I feel like something more substantial than the current errata for those classes needs to be embarked upon, but it isn’t a PC3 with them in it.
Now a PC3 with 6 new classes…that are “Core”….to the setting and the ruleset, well, I’m all for that.
The pre remaster classes compiled would be nice.
Albeit the one thing I really want included in the ORC block is the rules text for Dual Class, rough spots sanded off...
I also would like inventor to get more juice, though they did get buffs through errata and they have at least some toys coming in the near future. It's nice to know it's not forgotten. But yeah things like being able to make your innovation precious metal (for durabilities sake), more/better gadgets, etc would be very welcome.
Print a feat, item, or feature that allows the magus to convert single-target save spells into attack roll spells, perhaps.There just are not enough attack roll spells that are officially “remastered” for some players to feel safe bringing a magus to a table where a GM might have a “remastered content only” policy.How would one bring a Magus, a pre-remaster class, to a "remastered content only" table?
OMG, yes please!
Expansive Spellstrike allows you to use any spell, but the target STILL can save.
Have a feat that just outright remove any save and you're good to go!
I do not think there will be a PC3 that reprints “updated” Summoner, Magus, Psychic, Thaumaturge, Gunslinger and Inventor.
They aren’t Core, for one, and they don’t require enough changes across them all to warrant an entire book, even with extraneous “back matter/spells/equipment etc to fill it out.
Having said that, I personally feel like the Inventor is one of the most ill-served classes in terms of options or even…power I have seen, though I have not played one. The options are so few and the power so poor I would love to see the entire class revamped. And clearly, Magus-players have a bunch of things that are upsetting them. Again, the Errata of a whole 9 changes, while some of them might be broadly applicable also looked…anemic.
I feel like something more substantial than the current errata for those classes needs to be embarked upon, but it isn’t a PC3 with them in it.
Now a PC3 with 6 new classes…that are “Core”….to the setting and the ruleset, well, I’m all for that.
Secrets of Magic didn't get a true errata. It got "Remaster compatability and we'll throw in Arcane Cascade at the same time because it's been literally broken RAW since released to the poitn that even PFS GMs used a house rule and we're finally getting around to it 3 years later."
There's quite a few issues that do need errata in that book still, including acknowledged ones. And yes, Magus got a defacto nerf if you remove legacy spells given the reduced number of options it can use (which was better for other casters because Spell Attack Rolls are bad, but thats another issue).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ezekeriu: Put simply, what do you think is/are the issues with Secrets of Magic with regard to the Remaster? Are there issues with the Summoner? Magus? Both? I haven't played either in PF2 (not sure I played a Magus in PF1) so I'm a bit out of the loop...
Well--
Rules wise, Secrets of Magic is fine since they tweaked arcane cascade. A remaster glow up might be nice for buffing stuff, or making it so eidolons spirit damage work normally instead of the bad "only applies against opposed traits" version the errata gave us. But it certainly isn't necessary.
However, lore is a different story. The biggest problem is each school of magic got an in-depth write up page which is now defunct. Most other lore tweaks are subtle and mostly just renamings. But they have also added some interesting stuff the book could explore, like class specific words of power.
Yeah, basically what Captain Morgan said. Between the 8 entire pages of treatises that pertain to the OGL schools of magic, the Runelord archetype that doesn't function with the new schools of magic (lore-wise or mechanically), the class features in the Magus and Summoner classes that don't function well in the Remaster (either from the change of wizard schools, or from the removal of alignment for some of Summoner's stuff), several magic items that don't function from the change to Wizard schools... There's just a ton that probably can't be addressed in a single errata pass. Or two. Or however many.
Honestly, I wonder if it would either end up being a situation where they release an ORC version of the book with those problem areas removed and rewritten with new lore and adjusted mechanics (ala the Remastered Beginner Box), or if it'll end up like the situation with Lost Omens: Gods & Magic being made obsolete by the upcoming Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries book. Basically the same content as the last book, but with new ORC-licensed lore and a further expansion of what was in there. Give people a reason to buy the same book again by giving them more of what they want.
@Unicore: Do you mean “CRB” where you say “player’s handbook” or do you mean “SoM”?
Sorry, I meant the CRB.
If a player only has secrets of magic and PC1, there are not even 5 cantrips they can cast with spellstrike, much less more than a bare handful of spells from their spell slots. Rage of elements offers a couple more, but the magus is pretty dependent on CRB spells if they want to spell strike a lot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Releasing a Player Core 3 would be nice for multiple reasons:
- Reviewing the classes, of course, if they need so.
- Regrouping them on a single player-oriented book. One issue of putting classes in lots of different books is that players don't have any book to buy. Sure they can buy Dark Archive for the 2 classes, but they also get a lot of GM-oriented content they don't care about or even shouldn't know about (as their GM may prefer this information to stay secret, especially in the case of Dark Archive).
- Making the PC3 classes core and as such be able to publish content (feats and such) in further books. As long as these classes are not in a PC book, Paizo seems reluctant to release new options in other books.
- And of course, classes are just a small portion of a Player Core book, so there could be a lot of other stuff. And I think a lot of players are asking for more options for all classes. That'd be a good place to put that.So I'm all in for a PC3!
I agree just like the PC2 will have the ancestries from Characters Guide + Gnolls a PC3 could get not only the classes but also the rest of the ancestries dispersed between other books and Ancestries Guide in it and many spells and some items (specially a big revision in guns in order to make then useful for every class not only for gunslingers) that we got along the books released during this years before RoE.
It will no more a question about "classes that needs to be remastered" but would be cool to get a compiled of the pre-remastered books rules revised into a new book released under ORC license.
I doubt it. Pulling all these classes into a Player Core 3 nullifies a lot of the value of the other books, without fully replacing them. The "X Core" books so far are full replacements for other books, which got retired effectively.
Taking the biggest thing from a bunch of other books and combining them into one class book isn't doing that. You're winding up with more books with less relevant stuff in them instead of the same number of books being updated.
Most of them don't really need it anyway. They need some errata updates but don't need a full remake the way something like Oracle does.
(The thing that does need errata is SoM itself as there's multiple issues with the book that have gone years being ignored. Arcane Cascade was just the most glaring one and even that took an absurd amount of time to get corrected.)
Not really in practice most of supplementary books have their selling closer to their releases after this their selling will reducing along the time once that most of excited players already purchased their copies. But when the Remaster was released the main public that buy it (including myself) was players that already have a CRB copy not new players. Same will be said about PC2. So if a PC3 like book with a compilation of the rest of rules content was made I believe that it would end a way more selling success and revenue than if the all supplementary books was kept alone.
In practice I as same way that I bought the PC1 and I would by a PC2 I would certanly buy a "PC3" in these terms and probably many other people would do this too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ezekeriu: Put simply, what do you think is/are the issues with Secrets of Magic with regard to the Remaster? Are there issues with the Summoner? Magus? Both? I haven't played either in PF2 (not sure I played a Magus in PF1) so I'm a bit out of the loop...Well--
Rules wise, Secrets of Magic is fine since they tweaked arcane cascade. A remaster glow up might be nice for buffing stuff, or making it so eidolons spirit damage work normally instead of the bad "only applies against opposed traits" version the errata gave us. But it certainly isn't necessary.
However, lore is a different story. The biggest problem is each school of magic got an in-depth write up page which is now defunct. Most other lore tweaks are subtle and mostly just renamings. But they have also added some interesting stuff the book could explore, like class specific words of power.
Yeah, basically what Captain Morgan said. Between the 8 entire pages of treatises that pertain to the OGL schools of magic, the Runelord archetype that doesn't function with the new schools of magic (lore-wise or mechanically), the class features in the Magus and Summoner classes that don't function well in the Remaster (either from the change of wizard schools, or from the removal of alignment for some of Summoner's stuff), several magic items that don't function from the change to Wizard schools... There's just a ton that probably can't be addressed in a single errata pass. Or two. Or however many.
What doesn't work for the magus exactly since they errataed Arcane Cascade to no longer rely on schools? And I think the removal of alignment isn't that complicated. They already errated a fix there, too. (Albeit a bad one I hope they revisit, but they can just remove a few words from the current errata and be golden.)
That said, I agree with you on the lore stuff, and could see a new arcane book being published. Probably some kind of Magical Academics book that includes new wizard schools and feats for wizards and magi.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a world where Paizo has infinite time and money, sure, but the normal release (and errata) schedule already got delayed big time for the remaster. I think if you could get people to actually understand that PC3 would come at the expense of new books the number of people asking for it would shrink.
I'd definitely prefer the PC3 over another book. That would mean:
- A remaster version of the 6 last classes.- 2 extra classes not tied to any setting book (and as such Paizo would have much more freedom to choose what to release).
- A remaster of the most problematic content of G&G and SoM (especially some spells that need a revision) + extra content (like spell attack roll spells for the Magus).
- Lots of player facing options like feats and subclasses for all the "core" classes.
Considering the low number of player-oriented books (PC1 and PC2 and that's all), I'm pretty sure there'd be a lot of demand, certainly more than any other book Paizo could release. So I expect PC3 to be a thing in the coming years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player's Extras 1 :P
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the odds are good that we're going to get a new "magic" book. It could be a remaster pass over Secrets of Magic, or it could be a new book entirely. I'm hoping for a new book entirely because there's really a lot of good stuff that could go in there;
Magus
- Either add more spell attack spells, or make the class less dependent on them (make Expansive Spellstrike a free class feature?)
- Full revision of Arcane Cascade so it feels more important
- Action economy tweaks to even out Starlit Span and the other Studies
- A good plan B for fighting enemies with Reactive Strike
Rune Magic
Runelords are so key to Paizo's setting history that it would be crazy to junk all that because spell schools are OGL. Probably double down on the "Rewards of Rule" as curriculae with more restrictions/more rewards than modern wizardry.
Wizard Schools
We've had a handfull of curriculae but there's much more that could be done with that than you can fit into PC1. Maybe your curriculum should give you access to some exclusive spells that nobody else has / that aren't normally on the arcane list? Also a chance to spruce up some of the current curriculae that have a bit anemic spell offerings.
Psychic
I'd say the idea of being "the cantrip masters" needs some extra shot in the arm since PC1 boosted regular spells a bit while the change in damage for cantrips was a slight nerf. And of course their refocus ability needs something new cool.
Summoner
Needs at least some look at if a celestial/demonic etc summoner can get sanctified. Probably room for a few more tweaks now that the class has been in the wild for a couple of years.
If a Player Core 3 is mainly new content, with just the little re-touch of those other classes, then I'm all for it. Otherwise it's not something I want Paizo to bother with.
A new core rulebook, focusing on the things past the Remaster, might bring some great new content. For example, there seems to be some reluctance to introduce new skill feats, as we just had 2 primal themed books yet no improvement to the Nature skill. What if the new divine mysteries don't bring more stuff for the Religion skill either?
Well, if it requires a core rulebook for those things, along with updated archetypes (e.g. update the Elementalist and allow it for the Tempest Oracle?), ancestries, heritages, feats for all of those, and more new content, then I'm all for Player Core 3.
I'm pretty sure someone from Paizo said the remaster (in regards to the wizard) was made with the runelords in mind, yet...we haven't seen a single thing that proves that? I don't have the quote right now but I think it can be assumed Paizo isn't going to just ignore runelords going forward, specially when one of them is in the cover of the new books.
specially when one of them is in the cover of the new books.
I know, but let's say they put a drow on one of the covers despite them being retconned. If you a put a runelord on the cover is because runelords are assumed to exist in the setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we need to remaster the six other classes. Inventor is funky and Summoner's eidolon is missing usage for stats like Int and Con.