Premaster Refugee Rules?

[Luke Styer]

Starting with the assumption that you’re using the Remastered rule set, are there any Premaster rules elements that you’ve made a conscious decision to hang onto, be they feats, monsters, spells, magic items, or whatever? I’m mostly thinking of “Core” content here, since there are dozens of Premaster books, but if something else that “feels Premaster” comes to mind, chime in with that, too.

A couple from me.

While I wouldn’t take the trouble of changing a published adventure, in my non-AP campaign, if I use Ghouls, I’ll probably use the old style.

I’m a mark for Owlbears, and buy nearly every Owlbear mini I come across, so I’ll continue to work them in where they fit.

I like the flavor of Continual Flame a little more than that of Everlight, though not to the degree that I’d push it, more just allow either version.

[Castilliano]

Heck, I still hang onto classic D&D monsters, and have converted early modules for newer generations (though they often pressure the players white room PC-builds, I see that as a good thing, one might say character building). For example, I present trolls as rubbery good climbers that can operate in medium spaces and sleep in 5x5 holes (and occasionally form into Troops that swarm high-level parties). Now that standard trolls have been shifted into forests, maybe there's more room for a troll that acts much like a Morlock.
And yeah, I have minis that frighten so those will stay :-) (and not enough minis to phase out old ones). And keeping dragons of all types.
I still accept the existence of spells which have obvious counterparts, but different names, i.e. Ray of Frost. I think Magus & Eldritch Archer need those that changed from a Spell Attack; so few since Remaster.

Not sure what I'll do with ghouls, being among the champions of the TPK, especially underwater where a few too many writers like to place them. The paralysis feels too iconic, yet it's the cause. (See also: Harpies)

[Mathmuse]

When I began my Strength of Thousands campaign in March 2024, I told the players that they could pick classes and feats from both pre-Remastered PF2 and Remastered PF2. I would be running the game under Remastered rules but would grandfather older material in. One player had specific plans to play a divination wizard, so she ignored the Remastered wizard. Another player wanted the pre-Remastered Gelid Shard archetype for her rogue. A third player made a Redemption-Cause champion. Pre-Remaster was necessary for the champion because the Remastered champion in Player Core 2 had not yet been published.

The biggest difference we noticed is that some spellcasters had learned pre-Remaster Ray of Frost and others had learned Remastered Frostbite. Frostbite is supposed to be the new Ray of Frost, but the spells differ a lot. Ray of Frost has 120-foot range and targets AC. Frostbite has 60-foot range and requires a Fortitude save. They think Ray of Frost is better.

Another difference is that the players like Reposition.

[Perpdepog]

Castilliano wrote:

I still accept the existence of spells which have obvious counterparts, but different names, i.e. Ray of Frost. I think Magus & Eldritch Archer need those that changed from a Spell Attack; so few since Remaster.

I do the same thing. I like the options it presents, and my players seem to like it, too. Ray of Frost is a good example; while Frostbite is nominally it's replacement, Ray of Frost has enough differences going for it--the difference in range, an attack roll rather than a save, and a different effect applying if it crits--that it makes total sense to me to allow both.

Also, just wanted to point out that, as of the latest errata, magus can now spellstrike with save spells by default. Eldritch archer is still a bit screwed though, unfortunately.

[Tridus]

Fortissimo Composition/Inspire Heroics. The original version's DC was a very hard DC by level, which is high but consistent with how Linger works.

The remaster version is based on the highest Will DC in the party, which has bizarre side effects like the DC changing if buffs/debuffs that impact Will come into play. Cast Heroism on someone that causes them to have the best Will save? It suddenly gets harder to do this.

It also makes it harder to use on the Fighter if you have a class with a really good Will progression like an Oracle (or a WIS based class like Cleric) in the party, so you can effectively nerf a Maestro Bard simply by existing in the same party unless they actively exclude you, which isn't fun for anyone.

Meanwhile, Lingering Composition doesn't work this way and remained DC by level. The inconsistency makes no sense to me at all. So, quite a few reasons why I ignore this change entirely and use the original version.

There may be other cases where I'm doing it without thinking about it, but this is the one that comes to mind most glaringly as "this change makes no sense and I'm actively ignoring it."

The other one is that if someone wants to use a premaster class I'll generally allow it, though the only case I've ever had anyone actually want to do that is Oracle, as the remaster basically broke their character.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Rules that I have as options:
- players can choose to play premaster alchemist, oracle or wizard. (Before anyone gets grumpy, the alchemist had its upper ceiling lowered for mid and high level play if you had decent system mastery). Ancestors and Lore oracles get house fixes though.

Rules I kept premaster:
- grab and trip don't use the new system. I find it makes weaker enemies less interesting (since they still need to hit) and stronger enemies significantly swingier. It worked well previously. (I ran this remastered till this year, a new change but it immediately had an impact)

I don't really avoid premaster monsters and view them as one big collective.

Not really a remaster thing, but I have found lately that when running on foundry I am not allowing things that cannot be automated well that I have seen impact play speed (by hand or by module) and keeping a list. It is a short one, but it has been worth it from a tedium reduction perspective.

Mathmuse wrote:

The biggest difference we noticed is that some spellcasters had learned pre-Remaster Ray of Frost and others had learned Remastered Frostbite. Frostbite is supposed to be the new Ray of Frost, but the spells differ a lot. Ray of Frost has 120-foot range and targets AC. Frostbite has 60-foot range and requires a Fortitude save. They think Ray of Frost is better.

Another difference is that the players like Reposition.

Half damage on a miss and it doesn't worry about allies giving light cover by being in the way. Plus it leaves you without MAP which allows for cheeky third action full attack bonus shots with a weapon (ranged or reach)

They must really value that range (which can be great, don't get me wrong, but still).

[Perpdepog]

I could also see someone potentially wanting to play a Premaster alchemist, too. Some people do like the niche of "all items, all day, every day" that the Premaster alchemist can deliver on with their larger pool of reagents. I don't think anybody in my specific playgroup is that player, at least, not that player who also has the free time to go reading through all the alchemical items, but the option is definitely there should someone want it.

[Castilliano]

Perpdepog wrote:

Castilliano wrote:

I still accept the existence of spells which have obvious counterparts, but different names, i.e. Ray of Frost. I think Magus & Eldritch Archer need those that changed from a Spell Attack; so few since Remaster.

I do the same thing. I like the options it presents, and my players seem to like it, too. Ray of Frost is a good example; while Frostbite is nominally it's replacement, Ray of Frost has enough differences going for it--the difference in range, an attack roll rather than a save, and a different effect applying if it crits--that it makes total sense to me to allow both.

Also, just wanted to point out that, as of the latest errata, magus can now spellstrike with save spells by default. Eldritch archer is still a bit screwed though, unfortunately.

Yeah, my issue is more needing the Int for the save. Losing a few points damage on the front end due to low-modest Int hurts less than losing chunks of damage due to low DCs w/ modest Proficiency. I embrace the notion of using one's martial prowess to deliver spells, but if I need the spell prowess too, that undermines that, and I'm just saving actions (that I have to bank to reuse). Rather play full martial class w/ Cantrips & 16 in casting stat; Magus is too fragile to spend much on Int (IMO of course, having heard success stories too).

[Squark]

Ray of Frost still shows up not infrequently at our local PFS games. The local maguses all tend to keep Shocking Grasp in their spell lists too.

[Ectar]

I use a mix of premaster and OG remaster versions of Long Jump, instead of the newest one. Chosen by the player prior to attempting:
1.) If they want to jump to a particular square, premaster. Set the DC based on how far the desired jump is.
2.) If they want to jump "as far as they can" OG remaster. This means they can, in fact, overshoot by rolling high.

If you don't recall, OG remaster basically said roll Athletics and Jump that distance, rounded down to the nearest 5ft.
Current rule is to roll Athletics and jump up to that distance.

[Luke Styer]

Ectar wrote:

I use a mix of premaster and OG remaster

What is OG remaster? Has the remaster version changed again post remaster? Has there been a post-remaster erratum?

Quote:

If they want to jump "as far as they can" OG remaster. This means they can, in fact, overshoot by rolling high.

If there’s a particular spot you want to land, why would you ever voluntarily use a mechanic that allowed you to “overshoot” with a die roll that would otherwise land you exactly where you want to land? That seems like it just adds additional failure results.

Like maybe a Swashbuckler stunting, I guess.

[BotBrain]

My players are allowed to opt-in to any premaster version of options, at my discrection. So far the only real picks have been spells that were spell attack rolls and have become saves.

[Ectar]

Luke Styer wrote:

Ectar wrote:

I use a mix of premaster and OG remaster

What is OG remaster? Has the remaster version changed again post remaster? Has there been a post-remaster erratum?

Quote:

If they want to jump "as far as they can" OG remaster. This means they can, in fact, overshoot by rolling high.

If there’s a particular spot you want to land, why would you ever voluntarily use a mechanic that allowed you to “overshoot” with a die roll that would otherwise land you exactly where you want to land? That seems like it just adds additional failure results.

Like maybe a Swashbuckler stunting, I guess.

When the Remaster first released, Long Jump rules were such that you jumped a distance equal to your Athletics roll. That was is.

It was errata'd fall 2023 to be such that you jumped a distance up to the value of your Athletics roll.

The reason is because if you want to jump close to your maximum theoretical jumping distance, setting the DC equal to something like your modifier plus 19 is going to fail most of the time. That was the issue with the premaster Long Jump.
And in cases where it's better to under shoot by a square than to set the dc too high and fail outright, it makes more sense to try to just jump arbitrarily far.

Also also, the modality in choice feels a little less "gamey" than the current rules where bigger number equates both to longer and more accurate jumps. Plus with the contemporary rules, you can kind of choose after the result of rolling what square you want to end up in. I don't like that.

[Luke Styer]

Ectar wrote:

When the Remaster first released, Long Jump rules were such that you jumped a distance equal to your Athletics roll. That was is.

Weird. I wasn’t aware of that. The world moves on.

Quote:

It was errata'd fall 2023 to be such that you jumped a distance up to the value of your Athletics roll.

Interesting.

Quote:

The reason is because if you want to jump close to your maximum theoretical jumping distance, setting the DC equal to something like your modifier plus 19 is going to fail most of the time.

Yeah. That makes sense. I guess I was I imagining a canyon or something, where coming up short was a problem,

[dirkdragonslayer]

While I'm not bothered by most OGL monsters leaving (I never cared for Drow, and Pathfinder has enough Drow-like peoples in the Darklands), but I do mourn the loss of monsters that had specific mechanics and niches.

Mimics; The biggest loss of the remaster, no monster fills their story or combat niche. It's such a classic hazard that it's worked it's way into countless RPGs and video games. I'm very surprised Paizo didn't make up a new fey or abberation that shape-shifts into objects/treasure chests and prey on adventurers.

Rust Monster; A low level creature that rusts and destroyed equipment I think is important to teach players about these hazards while their gear is still cheap. There's still a few other monsters that destroy equipment, but they are all around level 10 or 12 IIRC where players lose their magic sword to rust breath is gonna be a hard wake-up call. A low level metal/water elemental that feeds on rust could be a good replacement.

Doppelgangers; Yeah the Ugothol are basically the same exact monster, and we honestly didn't need both in the monster core... but the Doppelganger just had better art. The Ugothol looks like a ground beef man, not scary. Pathfinder Doppelgangers were scary horror monsters you could see contorting themselves through a cracked window.

Golems; I understand the name change, I understand the mechanics changes, but they needed to lump these ex-golem constructs (Brass Bastion, Noxious Needler, Stone Bulwark) in the same family/keyword. It's wierd that they still share mechanics and lore, but aren't grouped for ease of searching anymore.

[TheTownsend]

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

But I was just looking today through all the Bestiary monsters that went un-Remastered. I'm surprised Ettin didn't make the cut, the word's a not-uncommon bastardization of Norse Jotunn, and even if you had to change that, the way the 3 action economy interacts mechanically with having two heads feels like a good example to have in your Core monster book. Same with Salamanders and a couple other elementals. Simurgh were also cool to have around, even if they do overlap with Roc a bit. And a bunch of Lovecraft brainchildren didn't make the cut, Gugs and Shoggoth and such. Those are all still in the setting presumably, they just didn't make the edit, but still. What, the cuckoo hag can be blatantly out of Coraline, but no Cthulhu mythos in the Core book?

[Virellius]

dirkdragonslayer wrote:

Mimics; The biggest loss of the remaster, no monster fills their story or combat niche. It's such a classic hazard that it's worked it's way into countless RPGs and video games. I'm very surprised Paizo didn't make up a new fey or abberation that shape-shifts into objects/treasure chests and prey on adventurers.

Mimics are so Generic Fantasy that I don't think WotC could defend their ideological ownership of them if they tried. Final Fantasy, Every Fantasy Anime, literally everything.

[magnuskn]

TheTownsend wrote:

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

As someone who has run AP's with quite a number of Drow in them, I gotta disagree. I still find the un-personing of those NPC's to be a big storytelling mistake by Paizo.

[NorrKnekten]

magnuskn wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

As someone who has run AP's with quite a number of Drow in them, I gotta disagree. I still find the un-personing of those NPC's to be a big storytelling mistake by Paizo.

Not to sure i agree, canonically its just that the stories about the so called drow in reality were just overly exagerated based on Cavern Elves. Ayindilar are still elves who escaped to the darklands, they just arent that great of a demon worshipping empire as previously stated.

Biggest difference is that they are now proper elves with varying cultures and not just rovagug afflicted demonworshippers with a natural propensity to evil and destruction.

[moosher12]

My only Legacy clinging point is I'd rather say Fairies speak Sylvan than Fey. (I think all of the other new language names are great, and happily use them.) Otherwise I've fully converted, and only use Legacy content if there is no clear Remaster replacement. Like I don't consider Monster Core's Dragons to be a good replacement for Chromatic and Metallic Dragons with the exception of perhaps the Horned Dragon. But the hinted what I would assume to be Monster Core 2 coming out later this year which has Cinder Dragons looks like it will potentially replace legacy chromatic and metallic dragons.

[dirkdragonslayer]

TheTownsend wrote:

But I was just looking today through all the Bestiary monsters that went un-Remastered. I'm surprised Ettin didn't make the cut, the word's a not-uncommon bastardization of Norse Jotunn, and even if you had to change that, the way the 3 action economy interacts mechanically with having two heads feels like a good example to have in your Core monster book.

Oh, so this one I know. As you said, Ettin is just another older way to say Eotun/Jotun. Two-headed giants have been around in myth for a long time too. Ettin as a name to refer to a two-headed giant was created by Gary Gygax. Before him, they were just called two-headed giants.

It feels dumb because an Ettin *feels* like an older thing, something that's always been around, and I guess that's how foundational 1e D&D was. In my opinion it's one of those things that had become genericized, I knew what Ettins were years before I knew what TTRPGs were. But I guess that's for lawyers to argue...

[Tridus]

magnuskn wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

As someone who has run AP's with quite a number of Drow in them, I gotta disagree. I still find the un-personing of those NPC's to be a big storytelling mistake by Paizo.

After Second Darkness and its explanation for why the Drow exist in Golarian, I'm perfectly happy never seeing them again. Even though I think Paizo had already walked back a bunch of that, the whole thing just left a sour taste.

[Ectar]

Tridus wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

As someone who has run AP's with quite a number of Drow in them, I gotta disagree. I still find the un-personing of those NPC's to be a big storytelling mistake by Paizo.

After Second Darkness and its explanation for why the Drow exist in Golarian, I'm perfectly happy never seeing them again. Even though I think Paizo had already walked back a bunch of that, the whole thing just left a sour taste.

GMing the first 5 books of Extinction Curse, Shraen became one of my favorite locations in The Universe.

Real shame that it'll never be used again.

[Castilliano]

Ectar wrote:

Tridus wrote:

magnuskn wrote:

TheTownsend wrote:

I agree Drow are no big loss, with no specific Lolth equivalent I think they always felt a bit unmoored in Pathfinder. A lot of the other changes I also agree with, disentangling Oni from a very western concept of Giants feels like a good.

As someone who has run AP's with quite a number of Drow in them, I gotta disagree. I still find the un-personing of those NPC's to be a big storytelling mistake by Paizo.

After Second Darkness and its explanation for why the Drow exist in Golarian, I'm perfectly happy never seeing them again. Even though I think Paizo had already walked back a bunch of that, the whole thing just left a sour taste.

GMing the first 5 books of Extinction Curse, Shraen became one of my favorite locations in The Universe.

Real shame that it'll never be used again.

That's kinda the point of this thread, that we will be reusing these elements that the Remaster has left adrift. The content for Shraen remains, and you can introduce it into your world, even if that world is a Golarion.

[Sibelius Eos Owm]

moosher12 wrote:

My only Legacy clinging point is I'd rather say Fairies speak Sylvan than Fey. (I think all of the other new language names are great, and happily use them.)

This is me, too. Almost all of the other language name changes delight me and sound even more evocative and grounded than they did before... but Fey being the name for both the language and the creature type is a miss for me. Especially given how both Fey and Aklo are supposed to be descended from an older First World language, and double-especially because Sylvan had the air of a language spoken by various creatures of the forest, not a species-specific language like Goblin or Halfling.

I get that there are good reasons for cutting down on complexity by giving two related things the same name, but I feel like a name like sylvan could have been evocative enough without tying it specifically to fae. Presuming that a fairy language named "Sylvan" was no good for Paizo's lawyers (or else they'd have kept it, one imagines), I'd have preferred another 'foresty' by-word name, like Green Speech, or perhaps Old Tongue.

[Red Griffyn]

Champion Pre-remaster blade ally feature.

Though I'm hoping Maya Coleman will update us any day now with RAI clarification on whether the intent was to truly remove the free rune effect from said bespoke list. Hopefully in one of the following threads she asked the community to make up for the issue from the fall 2024 blog post:

Thread 1

Thread 2