Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder To Get New Core Rulebooks Soon

It's not just D&D that's getting a 'revised' set of core books--Pathfinder is also getting 'remastered' books! The core rulebooks are being replaced by a new set of books, with new names, but like D&D it is being reiterated that this is not a new edition--"With the exception of a few minor variations in terminology and a slightly different mix of monsters, spells, and magic items, the rules remain largely unchanged."

The existing Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Gamemastery Guide, Bestiary, and Advanced Player’s Guide are being replaced with Pathfinder Player Core, Pathfinder GM Core, Pathfinder Monster Core, and Pathfinder Player Core 2.

These books appear to focus on re-organization and consolidation of existing material rather than substantive changes. They also represent Paizo's move away from the Open Gaming License and towards the new Open RPG Creative (ORC) license. Paizo says "This transition will result in a few minor modifications to the Pathfinder Second Edition system, notably the removal of alignment and a small number of nostalgic creatures, spells, and magic items exclusive to the OGL. These elements remain a part of the corpus of Pathfinder Second Edition rules for those who still want them, and are fully compatible with the new remastered rules, but will not appear in future Pathfinder releases."

Pathfinder 2E - Paizo Reveals Wayne Reynolds' Pathfinder Remastered Cover Sketches

While the final colour pieces won't arrive for a few weeks, Paizo's Erik Mona revealed the cover sketches of the upcoming Pathfinder Remastered core rulebooks while at the GAMA industry trade show yesterday. In an unsual move, you will actually be able to buy special 'sketch' editions of the...

www.enworld.org

 

[Yaarel]

As long as you talk of caster supremacy and wanting to beat the snot out of warriors, I don't think anyone will take your message of egalitarian equality with anything more than a grain of salt.

When I say the Wizard should be able to beat the snot out of a Fighter, I mean, in a fair fight witha 50% 50% outcome.

I have 0% interest in a "support role".

I want my Wizard to be the archetypal hero of the story, the King Arthur, not a behind the scenes advisor, or heal bot or buff bot.

I want a Wizard that can win fights, wielding magic as the weapon.

 

[Andvari]

The Gamemastery Guide cover art is puzzling to me.

It has the most uncharismatic characters I've ever seen... Is this how they envision adventuring parties now?

Those are probably the NPCs (mostly villains) controlled by the GM, rather than the PCs. It's the GM Guide, after all. Perhaps they are scheming and planning on how to defeat the PCs.

 

[Aldarc]

When I say the Wizard should be able to beat the snot out of a Fighter, I mean, in a fair fight witha 50% 50% outcome.

I have 0% interest in a "support role".

I want my Wizard to be the archetypal hero of the story, the King Arthur, not a behind the scenes advisor, or heal bot or buff bot.

I want a Wizard that can win fights, wielding magic as the weapon.

Merlin played a support role. King Arthur was a fighter or warlord.

 

[Yaarel]

Merlin played a support role. King Arthur was a fighter or warlord.

My point precisely.

The "support role" buff bot can die in a fire.

 

[Yaarel]

My point precisely.

The "support role" buff bot can die in a fire.

Let the geeks rule the world and win the fights, not the jocks.

I want to play Wizards that win fights.

Heh, and if character chooses to look fit and muscular it will be because of shapeshift magic.

 

[Aldarc]

Let the geeks rule the world and win the fights, not the jocks.

I want to play Wizards that win fights.

See? There's that caster supremacy sentiment completely demolishing any pretentions that you care about egalitarian equality. I hope you appreciate how your mixed messages can make your argument come across as being more than a little hypocritical.

 

[Yaarel]

See? There's that caster supremacy sentiment completely demolishing any pretentions that you care about egalitarian equality? I hope you appreciate how your mixed messages can make your argument come across as being more than a little hypocritical.

I have a problem with only allowing jock Fighter Arthur to win fights.

You seem to think the discrimination is ok (by citing Merlin as a lackey). But I feel this hierarchical discrimination is deeply, archetypally, not ok.

It is time for the Wizard to win fights too.

That is where the egalitarianism comes in.

Equals.

 

[Aldarc]

I have a problem with only allowing jock Fighter Arthur win fights.

It is time for the Wizard ti win fights too.

That time was between 2000 and 2019, between the time of 3e to PF1.

That is where the egalitarianism comes in.

Equals.

Equality comes in when you accept that there should be downsides and costs for being a mage.

 

[Yaarel]

That time was between 2000 and 2019, between the time of 3e to PF1.


Equality comes in when you accept that there should be downsides and costs for being a mage.

To be clear. I dont play 3e because its mages are too powerful at high levels compared to warriors.

I want real balance beteen classes at every level.

But I also despise the support role and its privileging only a certain type of person as the "main character".

Any class should be able to function as the main character, namely the winner of the fights in a combat game.

 

[Aldarc]

But I also despise the support role and its privileging only a certain type of person as the "main character".

Any class should be able to function ss the main character, namely the winner of the fights in a combat game.

This is a cooperative game. There is no single, main character. Even if the wizard chose to play the support role, this doesn't make the fighter into the main character. These games are not about about the egoistic desire for your god wizard to be the main character in a story where they kick jocks' butts and rule over them.