D&D 2024 is now finally named as D&D 5.5e. They made this to make the things clearer and easier.
So now Paizo can also follow the example and finally call the Pathfinder 2e Remaster, simply as Pathfinder 2.5 too?
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they?
For the same reason, to make it simple.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I implore Paizo
stick to what you do
Don't imitate those corporate drone buffoons who don't know the heart of their own game and are only successful because they appear everywhere
Thank you, thats all
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the same reason, to make it simple.
I don't think it would make things simpler. The designation of 'Legacy' is sufficient.
Yes, I know that 'Legacy' is something on AoN, not something published in the physical books or .pdfs. But that doesn't really change my opinion on the matter.
Since the conversion between Legacy PF2 content and Remaster PF2 content can practically be done subconsciously, I don't think there needs to be a version number increase.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We still have some people that have difficult to understand what is legacy and what is remaster content. Just have a numeric number may help to make the thing more intuitive.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
The obvious difference here is that D&D's playerbase was themselves largely calling it D&D 5.5 over Hasbro's attempt to push the "D&D 2024" name. The playerbase rejected that name.
This is the marketing department pulling a "we're going to show leadership by following what everyone else is already doing after what we wanted flopped" play. And hey, it's smart to stop fighting their own playerbase and go with what works.
But "Pathfinder 2.5" isn't a name the PF2 playerbase is largely using. Remaster/legacy stuck. Paizo trying to change the name now is more likely to annoy people and sow more confusion by creating a third term than it is to help.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But "Pathfinder 2.5" isn't a name the PF2 playerbase is largely using. Remaster/legacy stuck. Paizo trying to change the name now is more likely to annoy people and sow more confusion by creating a third term than it is to help.
Yeah. Having all of the new books printed with a 'Remaster' logo on them might be useful. It would have the same effect that YuriP is wanting, but using the terms that the community is familiar with.
Having all of the old books marked with a 'Legacy' logo on them would be even better. But it isn't really possible to retroactively add ink to the covers of books that have already shipped.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just use “PF2R”. Sure, it *is* kinda “2.5” (see my
alias…) but the official title is Pathfinder 2nd Edition Remastered. While there have been plenty of ORC/OGL nomenclature changes, I don’t feel there have been enough mechanical jinks in the system to warrant a “half-edition” in the same way that “3” differed from “3.5” but even if there have been Paizo should as other posters have suggested, do their own thing and definitely, definitely not do anything just because WotC have.
As I have said elsewhere, WotC/Hadbros seem destined to push DnD into an AI-fuelled, videogame executive-led Seasonal digital microtransactive “experience” and “fan/culture” engine, at the absolute cost to the actual game and the players.
Paizo should….not do *any* of that.
On top of this, I feel like Legacy was a name the player base coined. I don't recall Paizo using the term, but saw it a lot used as a common name from around the forums.The obvious difference here is that D&D's playerbase was themselves largely calling it D&D 5.5 over Hasbro's attempt to push the "D&D 2024" name. The playerbase rejected that name.
This is the marketing department pulling a "we're going to show leadership by following what everyone else is already doing after what we wanted flopped" play. And hey, it's smart to stop fighting their own playerbase and go with what works.
But "Pathfinder 2.5" isn't a name the PF2 playerbase is largely using. Remaster/legacy stuck. Paizo trying to change the name now is more likely to annoy people and sow more confusion by creating a third term than it is to help.
The latter term is used in Organized Play documentation
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My tinfoil hat theory on the matter is that it's an indication that WOTC leadership are moving away from their attempt to turn 5e into a live service game and are starting to consider their options for a 6e. Lest we forget the inital name was "OneDnD" which wasn't subtle.
That aside we really don't need to call it PF2.5e. Aside from the fact nobody is doing that, unlike 5.5e, the remaster isn't a new edition, and wasn't billed as one. Legacy/Remaster makes the cross compatability very clear.
The latter term is used in Organized Play documentationOn top of this, I feel like Legacy was a name the player base coined. I don't recall Paizo using the term, but saw it a lot used as a common name from around the forums.The obvious difference here is that D&D's playerbase was themselves largely calling it D&D 5.5 over Hasbro's attempt to push the "D&D 2024" name. The playerbase rejected that name.
This is the marketing department pulling a "we're going to show leadership by following what everyone else is already doing after what we wanted flopped" play. And hey, it's smart to stop fighting their own playerbase and go with what works.
But "Pathfinder 2.5" isn't a name the PF2 playerbase is largely using. Remaster/legacy stuck. Paizo trying to change the name now is more likely to annoy people and sow more confusion by creating a third term than it is to help.
I believe you're right. PFS uses it. The rest of Paizo generally doesn't. They don't actually use "Remaster" unless its relevant to the book, either: Draconic Codex isn't labelled specifically as a "remaster" book the way Dark Archive's remaster release is. It does have the green "second edition" in the corner that tells you if you know what you're looking for, but that's it. (Which makes sense since they were specifically trying to make the remaster feel like a straightforward transition and not an edition change, or even a half edition change.)
Early on there were a few different terms ("premaster" was one I liked), but AoN went with Legacy and that stuck.
In hindsight maybe there was a better way to label things, but those terms are in wide use now and trying to relabel things again at this point is going to be a serious uphill climb at best.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the thing about the Legacy and the Remaster is that those are still the same game. The difference is because due to copyright laws, there were books they needed to change some things about in order to be able to sell, and instead of just changing what they needed to they also changed some things they wanted to. I genuinely don't think there's a need for us to separate those things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I generally feel like the system is basically the same. Like I was running before, during, and after the Remaster process and I would have to look to see what has been remastered and what has not. It barely constitutes more than errata.
The other thing is lets look at goals. One reason they said they "remastered" it was so people would not feel as much need to buy a rulebook or other book. They can, certainly, and I am sure Paizo would not hate getting that cash, but that was not the goal. Evidence suggests part of the 5.5 thing is D&D wanting people to go out and buy another rulebook. Not using a separate name applies less pressure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That aside we really don't need to call it PF2.5e. Aside from the fact nobody is doing that, unlike 5.5e, the remaster isn't a new edition, and wasn't billed as one. Legacy/Remaster makes the cross compatability very clear.
This same argument is valid for D&D too. I don't consider the changes from 5e to 5.5e like a fully incompatible edition in the same way as the remasters aren't either. I can even extend this to 3.5 and 3.0. In the end, all they are glorified errata that are due to have a bit higher number of balance and improvement changes and to the desire to try to earn a bit more selling as a “new edition”.
I like the term subversion with a period because it clearly and directly indicates that “look, it's the same game, compatible with the same material, just with several improvements”. Even though the term “remaster” conveys a similar message, it still causes confusion because it can still seem like a new edition to laypeople, especially when they see the term “legacy” elsewhere.
I won't lie and say that D&D 2024 wasn't even worse than that, because it really gave the feeling of a completely new edition when it wasn't, and changing to 5.5e made that much clearer.
The big problem with this terminology is that many players on 3.5 considered it incompatible; for that reason, they thought they had to buy the new material, and many players stopped accepting 3.0 material because “it was poorly balanced” (as if 3.5 ever was) or similar excuses. But in most of the games I played, it was normal to accept 3.0 material that hadn't been reprinted, especially adventures and material for the DM to use, and we simply reinforced that the “repeated” material that should be prioritized was the 3.5 material, as it was considered a kind of errata.
This bad reputation of 3.5 as being “a D&D 3.0 with a big errata that WotC made to make more money from players” is precisely what kept D&D and PF2e from using this nomenclature up to now. But it was always very efficient in simply showing what it was about.
It is precisely in this aspect that I can't see differences in the approach of 5e and 5.5e and Pathfinder 2e legacy and remaster. For me, they are all just big errata with a new cover, and nothing is better than a versioning nomenclature to indicate this. They only avoided it because, for some players, it created a kind of bad reputation (although PF1 greatly benefited from being called D&D 3.75).
Anyway, for me it only complicates things. I was happy that WotC finally simplified things a bit on their side; I think it would be great if Paizo also simplified things and called it something clear that reduces doubts.
I also know that there are people here who argue that “oh, just because the RPG is a market leader doesn't mean we have to copy it; in fact, let's be different to show that we are better.” But I return to the point: PF1 benefited from the unofficial term D&D 3.75 because of the easy identification of what it was about (even not being an errata of 3.5 but a new game based on its rules and concepts). D&D will benefit from 5.5e because of its easy identification as well. Trying something different from this simplicity only complicates and hinders what should be simple.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The primary difference is that dnd went through multiple name changes that didn't stick to arrive here. Dndnext, OneDnd, Dnd 2024, and now 5.5, and it's had to go through that painful journey only because it's not simply stuck with a name the fanbase can retain/name that carries traction with the audience.
Pathfinder doesn't have this problem. There's no clarity to be gained from switching from Remaster and Legacy to 2.5. The example you listed is still going to exist of people asking "What does the 2.5 mean? Do I need to multiply it 2 and a half times?" and getting that question answered. Like, it's literally going to be exactly the same thing, and all you're doing is burning money on redoing all the covers and book texts in an environment where you're already needing to raise prices to keep the lights on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to add my voice to the overwhelming tide of 'No, Remaster is fine actually'. The labels, as they are, do exactly the same job as numbers and do it as functionally. I still see people regularly get confused by Starfinder 1e and Starfinder 2e despite them using the purportedly better edition naming convention. Changing now would require re-releasing all of the books and generate even more confusion of exactly the type that switching to 'Pathfinder 2.5e' would ostensibly be intended to reduce.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
YuriP, that's a very well thought out and logically consistent argument.
I don't really agree. The narrative that there was some stigma about 3.5 that's holding people back isn't really accurate to the era at all. They claims it's the core reason for the naming choice when it's an argument I've never even heard before now.
The position also hinges on the idea that PF2.5 is objectively more clear of a name than PF2 Remaster and using the novel argument above as a bait and switch.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
YuriP, that's a very well thought out and logically consistent argument.I don't really agree. The narrative that there was some stigma about 3.5 that's holding people back isn't really accurate to the era at all. They claims it's the core reason for the naming choice when it's an argument I've never even heard before now.
The position also hinges on the idea that PF2.5 is objectively more clear of a name than PF2 Remaster and using the novel argument above as a bait and switch.
TBH when Remaster arrived there was a strong pushback in the community here against the people who called it PF2.5.
Eagerly looking forward to PF3.5
This time we'll definitely make casters feel strong while also keeping them balanced with non-casters. Trust.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The reason people started calling the OneD&D edition 5.5E is that despite WotC insisting that they weren't making a new edition, they went into their playtest with the goal of completely overhauling everything: class chassis, feats, spells, etc. Only the underlying engine was staying intact (which is why I personally disagreed with calling it 6E). Now, they have foolishly walked a lot of their changes back before release, but the final product of the 2024 D&D is distinct enough from 2014 D&D. Meanwhile, Paizo's goal with the remaster was to take out the OGL legacy and clean up some historical rough edges. While some classes, spells and stuff got heftier changes, at its core, the Remaster stayed much the same as Legacy.
Or to look at it another way, if you build a character using the 2014 PHB then try to use it as a 5.5E character, you'll find you're missing background ASI, origin feats, weapon masteries, etc. It's a very different beast. But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.
And that is why 5.5E deserves to be numbered as a half-edition as 3.5E was back in the day while PF2E remaster is mostly just a minor footnote
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also want to push back on the "D&D 3.75" nickname for PF1E being a positive, or at least an unalloyed positive
PF1e was basically a large errata draft from Paizo when WotC dropped 4e and its restrictive license, i think we called it "3.6" back then, but it found its own footing pretty quick, and a lot of people were happy to just continue playing "as is", but with new content.
I think intention matters, and while a lot of people bought the remastered books it was not intended to be necessary.
I also agree that the changes were rather small compared to the D&D ones and am perfectly fine with calling it "Remaster"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This same argument is valid for D&D too. I don't consider the changes from 5e to 5.5e like a fully incompatible edition in the same way as the remasters aren't either. I can even extend this to 3.5 and 3.0. In the end, all they are glorified errata that are due to have a bit higher number of balance and improvement changes and to the desire to try to earn a bit more selling as a “new edition”.
Exactly. 5.5e isn't a big enough change to warrant being called a new edition, and neither is the remaster. I don't agree with the name change but they are trying to bill 5.5e as its own edition. That's something Paizo are just simply not doing.
As I said this is all downstream of WOTC getting caught out with the OGL situation and having to backpedal other things they were going to try after losing their goodwill. That's why they want to make this new edition seem "new" because I do genuinely believe their original intent was a 5e that would go into infinity and they're trying to break from that. 5.5e implies a 6e in a way that 5e 2024 doesn't. It's not a decision about finding the most optimal possible name, it's marketting giving up fighting the players and signalling a change in priorities.
But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.
It's less than that even. You would already have your Attribute Modifiers calculated. You would just need to mentally rename them as Attribute Modifiers instead of Ability Score Bonus. And you could ignore the Ability Score value.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Or to look at it another way, if you build a character using the 2014 PHB then try to use it as a 5.5E character, you'll find you're missing background ASI, origin feats, weapon masteries, etc. It's a very different beast. But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.
And that is why 5.5E deserves to be numbered as a half-edition as 3.5E was back in the day while PF2E remaster is mostly just a minor footnote
No, they aren't missing; these things have simply changed location, but they're still there. The fact that, for example, the attribute bonus has moved from race to background isn't a problem, unless you want to mix the rules instead of simply importing the entire character.
This issue also occurs in the PF2e remaster in several places. For example, you can't simply take the old Legacy Oracle Mysteries and try to use them in the remastered version; it simply doesn't work; it's incompatible in terms of rules. Or try to use many of the old Witch Patron Themes; you'll be missing the entire familiar mechanic. There are simply rules that cannot be merged due to incompatibility. But this doesn't prevent you from using, especially pre-made characters from the previous “version” in the new one. In fact, this is the main compatibility factor that makes it easier for game masters; you don't need to rewrite an NPC or monster from an adventure you already have ready or that doesn't exist in the remaster, just use it following its original rules normally, and it will work.
I have to admit I'm confused by these two paragraphs. You start off by saying that using the “.5” designation is a way to market “glorified errata” in a way that “can earn a bit more selling as a 'new edition',” but then say that you like it because it it clearly communicates that it is the same game, but with some balance changes. Those seem like two contradictory positions to hold; either the .5 designation is intended as a marketing tactic, and it's confusing to players because companies are trying to pass off errata passes as new editions, or it's a method for clearly communicating that the .5 edition is the same game, just with some errata changes.This same argument is valid for D&D too. I don't consider the changes from 5e to 5.5e like a fully incompatible edition in the same way as the remasters aren't either. I can even extend this to 3.5 and 3.0. In the end, all they are glorified errata that are due to have a bit higher number of balance and improvement changes and to the desire to try to earn a bit more selling as a “new edition”.
I like the term subversion with a period because it clearly and directly indicates that “look, it's the same game, compatible with the same material, just with several improvements”. Even though the term “remaster” conveys a similar message, it still causes confusion because it can still seem like a new edition to laypeople, especially when they see the term “legacy” elsewhere.
The thing is, you're reading this as a criticism, and that's not the message; it's just an observation.
My point is that the versions with a dot, especially these .5 versions, are simply major errata that WotC made for commercial gain. But ultimately, they are errata, and the fact that they don't change the “major version” basically serves to reinforce that it's not a new version that would break compatibility and completely rework the game. Simply drawing inspiration from older versions, other systems, and their learning. And in this respect, this type of nomenclature makes sense and sends a very clear message.
Firstly, doesn't this work more as a mark against using the .5 designation, though? Your playgroup aside, if common consensus is that .5 edition stuff encourages people to stop using the old material and buy the new stuff, and Paizo's goal with the Remaster designation is to communicate to players that they don't have to do that, then that sounds like a black mark against switching the designation now, doesn't it? I don't mean to negate your own opinions or experiences here, and largely agree with you that such designations can be confusing, but you talk about both your personal experiences and how they ran counter to the more public narrative and discourse. If public discourse sees a .5 designation as an invalidation of the old material, and Paizo isn't looking to invalidate their old material, then using the .5 designation wouldn't serve them.
Actually, no. The real problem people had with the .5 in 3.5 was that, at the time, many felt “betrayed” by WotC for releasing a new edition only 3 years later. The next problem was that, over the years, the community itself began to reject material from 3.0, considering it too outdated to be used, which worsened the reputation of 3.5 somewhat, as the community itself began to treat everything before it as having been “abandoned” by WotC (when in real was the community that done this), when in fact they gave the same argument that Paizo also uses in the remaster: “that the new edition does not disqualify the previous one; if you already have 3.0 you can continue using it normally; 3.5 is just 3.5 with rebalancing and improvements like an errata.” And honestly, this issue will happen with the remaster as well, and I would even bet on it to a worse degree, because the change in nomenclature opens up even more room for it. The fact that they use the name “remaster” to avoid the stigma of using versions with a period in the past only serves to pretend that it will be different, when it will not be.
In the end, it was a naming decision not very different from the one WotC made when they decided to use 2024 instead of 5.5, and that ended up hindering more than helping. A mistake on their part that Paizo can learn from.
I also want to push back on the “D&D 3.75” nickname for PF1E being a positive, or at least an unalloyed positive. This is my own anecdotal evidence, but I generally heard that term thrown around more as an epithet or as a derogatory term used to highlight how similar Pathfinder was to D&D 3.5. The connotations shifted over time, particularly as people became less and less satisfied with 4E, but it wasn't how the term was used initially. The negative impression would be reinforced if Paizo suddenly decided to change their edition naming. The Remaster has been out for, what, a couple years now? We have to consider things like institutional memory when thinking of rhetorical changes like renaming; if people have associated a .5 designation with trying to sell errata as a new edition in the past, as you do, or if it risks invalidating materials without that designation, as you've pointed out, then switching from the term Remaster to 2.5 this late in the game would risk associating Pathfinder 2E with both of those trends, and for not all that much benefit.
I understand your point, but I disagree with it.
Those who stigmatized the nickname 3.75 were precisely the fourth edition community and D&D loyalists. From the beginning, this nickname was one of the main factors that attracted new players to PF1. It clearly demonstrated Pathfinder's proposition at the time: to attract an audience dissatisfied with the changes of the fourth edition with a system that focused only on improving the previous edition of D&D without creating drastic changes and without breaking compatibility with existing materials. Especially for DMs, such adventures. If it weren't for this nickname and the message it conveys, I don't believe PF1 would have had the success it did at the time. After all, like me, I believe many here ended up in the Pathfinder community precisely because they were curious about “what kind of game is this that proposes to be an improved 3.5?”.
Even today, Pathfinder benefits from this. Even though it's a system with a thoroughly different set of rules from D&D, Pathfinder 2e is still primarily considered an alternative to D&D, as a conceptually similar TTRPG, but much more customizable, better balanced, and more game master-friendly. That's why I've never been against applying D&D concepts here, because Pathfinder is largely based on that: taking advantage of what works and attracts the attention of the medieval fantasy TTRPG community, especially the market leader D&D, while simultaneously rewriting and correcting the various points where D&D goes wrong.
I'm not sure it would reduce doubts. Name changes are going to confuse people pretty much no matter what, and at this point you're asking for a second name change on top of the name change you are already pointing out is confusing. That sounds like it's just going to lead to more confusion to me, not less.
Look, there will always be doubts, but I believe it would reduce them. Today, especially after the 2024 D&D nomenclature change to 5.5e, when someone comes and asks me, “OK, but what is this Remaster in the book, and what's the difference between the books that have it and those that don't, and what is what AoN, Nexus, and PFS call legacy?”, I can simply say “Oh, the remaster is just a PF2.5, it's the same game with improvements,” and many people will automatically understand because the term is clearer and is already used by WotC.
You have a good point when you say that, because the remaster is already being used, changing the nomenclature now could cause confusion, but simply formally adopting the stance that the remaster is a PF2.5 probably helps more than it hinders.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo could have never really gone with 2.5e or PF2.5.
Imagine, if you will, Paizo setting out to remove as many lingering traces of D&D-isms as feasible. For legal reasons, they need to be sure that the casual consumer doesn't confuse it with Dungeons & Dragons. It's a massive undertaking. What do they call it? Well, they sure can't follow the exact naming convention that D&D used for their major mid-edition overhaul that Pathfinder came out of.
Using 2.5 would have been shooting themselves in the foot when it came to the actual goal of the Remaster. Sure, D&D doesn't have ownership over decimal versions, but it could still be brought up to help show a larger pattern for the civil case. D&D formally adopting 5.5e just means that Paizo definitely can't do that for the Remaster.
This same argument is valid for D&D too. I don't consider the changes from 5e to 5.5e like a fully incompatible edition in the same way as the remasters aren't either. I can even extend this to 3.5 and 3.0. In the end, all they are glorified errata that are due to have a bit higher number of balance and improvement changes and to the desire to try to earn a bit more selling as a “new edition”.
Exactly. 5.5e isn't a big enough change to warrant being called a new edition, and neither is the remaster. I don't agree with the name change but they are trying to bill 5.5e as its own edition. That's something Paizo are just simply not doing.
As I said this is all downstream of WOTC getting caught out with the OGL situation and having to backpedal other things they were going to try after losing their goodwill. That's why they want to make this new edition seem "new" because I do genuinely believe their original intent was a 5e that would go into infinity and they're trying to break from that. 5.5e implies a 6e in a way that 5e 2024 doesn't. It's not a decision about finding the most optimal possible name, it's marketting giving up fighting the players and signalling a change in priorities.
My theory is that a large part of the 5.5e base is precisely because it happened because WotC failed in its objective of destroying the OGL.
What WotC/Hasbro wanted was clearly and blatantly to make more money from D&D. The problem is that they saw the OGL as an obstacle to this (when, in my opinion, it was always an asset that the suits at WotC never knew how to use well to their advantage). So the original idea was:
— To destroy the OGL to prevent a new “Pathfinder” from emerging.
— To create a new edition without the OGL, mainly to monopolize the VTT market.
— To earn royalties from the market for third-party material that used D&D rules as a base and facilitator.
The problem is that the backlash from third-party creators and the community was strong, scaring and shaking Hasbro's plans in this regard. And this, along with Jess Lanzillo's departure, simply undid all of WotC's planning. My view today is that D&D 2024 only became a 5.5e (not just in nomenclature, but in effect) because of the OGL crisis. If the crisis hadn't happened, I believe they would have actually made a new edition precisely to make the previous edition obsolete. Not intending to improve the system itself, but simply to extract more money. However, since the crisis occurred and they found themselves in a position where switching to a more closed license would likely be a bigger setback, they chose to abandon any plans to make a new edition. They opted to restrict themselves to making the new edition as this “super errata” we have today. This is precisely to avoid the risk of releasing a new edition that might be poorly received and end up opening space for a new “Pathfinder” using the rules of the old edition. Ultimately, if 5e was still working well under these conditions, it's best not to abandon it.
Paizo could have never really gone with 2.5e or PF2.5.
Imagine, if you will, Paizo setting out to remove as many lingering traces of D&D-isms as feasible. For legal reasons, they need to be sure that the casual consumer doesn't confuse it with Dungeons & Dragons. It's a massive undertaking. What do they call it? Well, they sure can't follow the exact naming convention that D&D used for their major mid-edition overhaul that Pathfinder came out of.
Using 2.5 would have been shooting themselves in the foot when it came to the actual goal of the Remaster. Sure, D&D doesn't have ownership over decimal versions, but it could still be brought up to help show a larger pattern for the civil case. D&D formally adopting 5.5e just means that Paizo definitely can't do that for the Remaster.
This wouldn't cause legal problems; that would be stretching it too far. This type of versioning predates and is more prevalent than WotC's use of it.
There are many other things retained in the PF2e remaster that would provide a much stronger argument, which were kept because Paizo's lawyers saw that it would be a very forced argument for WotC to use legally against Paizo, such as terms like AC and Saves. Using a versioned edition with a dot is far from serving as any kind of legal argument for plagiarism or anything like that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fractional number should be proportional to the amount of changes they actually made:
- PF2.2e: PC1.
- PF2.5e: PC2, Bestiaries.
- PF2.01e: Every standalone OGL book republished under ORC.
- PF2e Remaster: Every wholly new 'remaster' book.This will make it much less confusing.
/s
This, but with that Euler's constant actually multiplied.
PC1 is going to be PF1.2698744628.|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...
Or to look at it another way, if you build a character using the 2014 PHB then try to use it as a 5.5E character, you'll find you're missing background ASI, origin feats, weapon masteries, etc. It's a very different beast. But if you build a Pathfinder character following the legacy CRB, while you would need to convert your Ability Scores to Attribute Modifiers, for the most part everything else is working perfectly fine.
And that is why 5.5E deserves to be numbered as a half-edition as 3.5E was back in the day while PF2E remaster is mostly just a minor footnoteNo, they aren't missing; these things have simply changed location, but they're still there. The fact that, for example, the attribute bonus has moved from race to background isn't a problem, unless you want to mix the rules instead of simply importing the entire character.
This issue also occurs in the PF2e remaster in several places. For example, you can't simply take the old Legacy Oracle Mysteries and try to use them in the remastered version; it simply doesn't work; it's incompatible in terms of rules. Or try to use many of the old Witch Patron Themes; you'll be missing the entire familiar mechanic. There are simply rules that cannot be merged due to incompatibility. But this doesn't prevent you from using, especially pre-made characters from the previous “version” in the new one. In fact, this is the main compatibility factor that makes it easier for game masters; you don't need to rewrite an NPC or monster from an adventure you already have ready or that doesn't exist in the remaster, just use it following its original rules normally, and it will work.
I'll grant you that the if the ASI was moved from race to background, it's not really missing, yeah. That said, there are still systemic changes to the 5E system in 5.5E: Characters interacting with conditions, grappling, two-weapon fighting, etc. will have different gameplay depending on if they're in a 5E or 5.5E game. For the pf2e examples you mention, those are not global changes, they're just on the class; if you take your legacy Oracle into a remastered game, you'll just use the old Oracle curse rules, because the curse is an Oracle class feature, not something inherent to the game system. It's no different than if you had one class named Oracle that's the old mechanics and another that's Delphite that's the new mechanics; both classes would work perfectly fine in either legacy or remastered pf2e, because the core system didn't change.
Ultimately, it's a question of opinion; there's not really an objectively correct answer to "Should this be a .5 or another label?" Personally, I find that 5.5E has made changes to the underlying engine that while not incompatible with 5E do make it different enough to warrant being 5.5E, while pf2e remaster's changes are more localised and/or cosmetic.