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]

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.

Heh. Well, cooperate with this.

I refuse to play a heal bot or a buff bot.

If you want to help me take down the big bad. I appreciate a sidekick. Or better yet a combat buddy who is an equal.

 

[Yaarel]

It is absurd to privilege the Fighter class as the main character of the story, and then be indignant that players who like other classes demand the same thing.

 

[Aldarc]

Heh. Well, cooperate with this.

I refuse to play a heal bot or a buff bot.

That attitude doesn't sound very cooperative at all.

If you want to help me take down the big bad. I appreciate a sidekick. Or better yet a combat buddy who is an equal.

It is absurd to privilege the Fighter class as the main character of the story, and then be indignant that players who like other classes demand the same thing.

Please stop framing this in terms of "main character of the story," especially when you are gleefully willing to depict your character as the main character of the story and your fellow players as less than or equal to your character and their story.

 

[Yaarel]

That attitude doesn't sound very cooperative at all.



Please stop framing this in terms of "main character of the story," especially when you are gleefully willing to depict your character as the main character of the story and your fellow players as less than or equal to your character and their story.

My "glee" is for teaching purposes.

To communicate how asinine it is when Fighter players assume they have some kind of right to be the center of the story, and take for granted that all the other players need to play "side kicks" or "buff bots" to pamper the ego of the Fighter player even more, while the spotlight shines on the Fighter sword battling the big bad.

Sorry, but it doesnt need to be a Fighter there. It can be Wizard wand battling the big bad. Or a Cleric, or Rogue, or Bard, or Monk, or Sorcerer, or any class that each player prefers to play.

All classes need options to be the main character of a combat story. Any class should be able to function in the King Arthur role, in any of the guises of the archetypal hero.

It boils down to this: the mechanical option to choose heavy single-target damage.

And when players choose feats and options for their characters, the feats that a Wizard character qualifies for should be just as good as the feats that a Fighter character qualifies for − it is the same design space − but this balance between class options fails in Pathfinder 2.

 

[Jahydin]

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.

Ooh, good call! Really dialed up the ugly for them...

Non-issue for me though, really like the sketch versions, so will be picking these up instead:

 

[Aldarc]

My "glee" is for teaching purposes.

People are certainly schooling you in this thread.

To communicate how asinine it is when Fighter players assume they have some kind of right to be the center of the story, and take for granted that all the other players need to play "side kicks" or "buff bots" to pamper the ego of the Fighter player even more, while the spotlight shines on the Fighter sword battling the big bad.

How many posts have you made now talking about how you feel entitled to be the center of the story and other PCs' stories with your God-Mage characters?

Sorry, but it doesnt need to be a Fighter there. It can be Wizard wand battling the big bad. Or a Cleric, or Rogue, or Bard, or Monk, or Sorcerer, or any class that each player prefers to play.

All classes need options to be the main character of a combat story. Any class should be able to function in the King Arthur role, in any of the guises of the archetypal hero.

Except you haven't done any work demonstrating that other classes, including casters, can't be combat heroes in PF2.

It boils down to this: the mechanical option to choose heavy single-target damage.

...which would give the wizard the ability to do both and the martials without the ability to choose AoE, control, buffing, support, etc.

And when players choose feats and options for their characters, the feats that a Wizard character qualifies for should be just as good as the feats that a Fighter character qualifies for − it is the same design space − but this balance between class options fails in Pathfinder 2.

Prove it. Show some evidence for your claims.

 

[glass]

And I claim that One D&D is a new edition (as do many PF2 players). Ergo, this is a new edition.

Does not follow. I can claim an orange is an orange, without also having to concede that an apple is an orange.

We will not know for sure whether this is a an apple or an orange until we see the finished product (or its AoN equivalent) but I do not see any reason to assume Paizo is lying just because WotC has a history of doing so.

Focus Points (System)

I missed that. Is there any more info about what is happening to them?

I dislike the name. If a new player, totally new to the hobby, looks at these books. Something like "Player Core" or "DM Core" is very vague and meaningless. Only someone really used to D&D knows what "core rulebooks" actually means.

I am fine with Player Core and GM Core, but I worry about Player Core 2; when WotC released PHB2 (both time) it sold well as an individual product but caused confusion and ill feeling that hurt the line over all. This feels like it has the potential to be the same.

My problem is with the lack of transparency and the misleading statements made by this company during January. There was no indication during the sales spike that the rulebooks being purchased were, let's be honest here, being replaced

This is flat out not true. They announced in January that they intended to move away from the OGL. There is no way to do that without either a new edition or at least revised core books. EDIT: It may have been February. The point is we have known for a long time that something is coming, and fairly soon. Just not the exact form it would take.

I agree fully with this - Paizo likes to put on the "we're like you!" customer service face, but they are obviously a business too, and not too dissimilar to WotC.

They are a business (and we should always remember that - even the friendliest business is not our friend), but they are very "dissimilar to WotC".

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

Notice that @Aldarc said "fighter or warlord". Warlord was a support class.

It is absurd to privilege the Fighter class as the main character of the story, and then be indignant that players who like other classes demand the same thing.

It is, but nobody is doing that. If you argued that the nerfs to casters in PF2 compared with PF1 went to far in some cases I would agree with you. But you are way overreaching!

 

[Yaarel]

If you argued that the nerfs to casters in PF2 compared with PF1 went to far in some cases I would agree with you. But you are way overreaching!

Every class needs to include options to function as the primary damage dealer − without privileging the Fighter.

In 4e the "Striker", including Rogue and Sorcerer, were the heavy hitters, and the Fighter "Defender" was somewhat disappointing at damage dealing.

Dont gatekeep the damage role by privileging certain classes over others.

If the player wants to be a damage dealer, allocate the design space to help make it happen.

 

[glass]

Dont gatekeep the damage role by privileging certain classes over others.

Using inapplicable buzzwords doesn't make your argument any better; it just makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about. And trying to dilute serious terms like "gatekeep[ing]" is bad - please don't do it!

 

[Yaarel]

Using inapplicable buzzwords doesn't make your argument any better; it just makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about. And trying to dilute serious terms like "gatekeep[ing]" is bad - please don't do it!

By "privilege", I strictly mean privilege: namely empowering the Fighter class to deal heavy single-target damage while disempowering the Wizard class to enjoy this central role of a combat game.

"Gatekeeping" is a normal term to use in game design, and relates to disruptive "niche protection".

And for what it is worth, the Straight White Male "jocks" tend to identify with King Arthur Fighter class, and being the center of the story. So the other uses of these term apply here anyway, tho they are not my main concern.

My main concern is balance in power and flexibility between classes at each level.