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

 

[glass]

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 disruptive "niche protection".

No, that is not what "privilege" means. The literal meaning is "private law", but in the sense that you are trying unsuccessfully to invoke it carries connotations of rights granted to the detriment or exclusion of others, and/or not having to face obstacles in your daily life, career, etc that others do face.

No that is not what "gatekeeping" means. Gatekeeping is trying to limit a person's access to something (usually a hobby, fandom, or other subcultural group) because they do not live up to some arbitrary irrelevant standard.

There are other definitions of course, but the others are even less applicable to class design in an elfgame, if possible.

---

A couple of earlier bits that I meant to respond to before, but didn't:

They didn't say "going forward, you can only use this new Unchained monk in PFS."

They did however say that about the Unchained Summoner, which did lead to some grumbling (not least from me), but nobody claimed it was an edition change. The other chained classes remain legal in PFS1 to this day.

Anyway, unless I missed it they have not announced that the unRemixed classes will be banned from PFS2. Have they?

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

So, if the Wizard gains single-target damage equal to the fighter on top of all their other abilities, what do they give up? Specifically?

 

[Yaarel]

it carries connotations of rights granted to the detriment or exclusion of others, and/or not having to face obstacles in your daily life, career, etc that others do face.

The rights granted to the Fighter class to enjoy the central role of damage dealing for a combat story, to the detriment and exclusion of the Wizard and other classes who must function as peripheral "support role" to the Fighter.

Privilege is the correct term.

 

[Yaarel]

So, if the Wizard gains single-target damage equal to the fighter on top of all their other abilities, what do they give up? Specifically?

The Wizard class needs to have different options to choose from, each weighted according to how powerful it actually is according to mechanical gaming effectiveness and frequency of usefulness.

Then a player decides for oneself which options one prefers for their own character concept.

The same should be reasonably true for every class, including Fighter, when building a character of that class.

 

[Yaarel]

The social meaning of the term "gatekeeping" also applies here (in addition to the design meaning).

Only non-geek "jocks" and wannabe jocks are allowed to enjoying being the central character of this combat game. This is an irrelevant requirement that shuts out many players, including me, who are not especially interested in playing a nonmagical character, and who have zero interest in privileging a jock. (No offense to any jocks. I want egalitarianism.)

It is a small step to say, this Fighter privilege is about enforcing reallife straight white male social identity, in the empowerment and the celebration − and the centralization − of the archetype of King Arthur.

 

[Aldarc]

So, if the Wizard gains single-target damage equal to the fighter on top of all their other abilities, what do they give up? Specifically?

Easy. Wizards give up the idea that they should be equals with the non-casters.

 

[glass]

The rights granted to the Fighter class to enjoy the central role of damage dealing for a combat story, to the detriment and exclusion of the Wizard and other classes who must function as peripheral "support role" to the Fighter

The fighter and wizard are not people, they are abstract game constructs; themed packages of mechanics. They do not have "rights".

The Wizard class needs to have different options to choose from, each weighted according to how powerful it actually is according to mechanical gaming effectiveness and frequency of usefulness.

So nothing then? God-mode wizards it is! Just be honest that this is what you are asking for (and prepare yourself for the possibility that you might not get it). Don't try to pretend that wizard players are some marginalised group in society. It doesn't help your case, it's tacky, and most importantly it is harmful to actual marginalised groups.

he social meaning of the term "gatekeeping" also applies here (in addition to the design meaning).

There isn't a "game design meaning", and the social meaning applies only here:

Only non-geek "jocks" and wannabe jocks are allowed to enjoying being the central character of this combat game

...where you try to pretend that someone who likes sports cannot also be a "geek".

 

[Retreater]

Why not just have a higher level wizard? If that's what fits the story - that your wizard can beat the party's fighter? A higher level wizard can easily "beat the snot" out of a lower level warrior in PF2. The save DCs are higher, the chances of getting a critical on a spell attack roll.

 

[Nylanfs]

I will accept as an apology if they made all of their rules content available online for free.
Until that happens, I'll refuse to GM Pathfinder 2.
(I have a game in 1 hour and 45 minutes - so get to work, Paizo!)

Umm, you do realize they are right?

 

[Velderan]

The social meaning of the term "gatekeeping" also applies here (in addition to the design meaning).

Only non-geek "jocks" and wannabe jocks are allowed to enjoying being the central character of this combat game. This is an irrelevant requirement that shuts out many players, including me, who are not especially interested in playing a nonmagical character, and who have zero interest in privileging a jock. (No offense to any jocks. I want egalitarianism.)

It is a small step to say, this Fighter privilege is about enforcing reallife straight white male social identity, in the empowerment and the celebration − and the centralization − of the archetype of King Arthur.

What are you talking about? lol

I'm currently GMing a PF2e campaign with a group made up of a fighter, barbarian, bard, magus, summoner, and cleric. Who is the main character? None of them, because they're all PCs that different encounters give them different moments to shine.

 

[glass]

Umm, you do realize they are right?

Given the winking smiley, I am pretty sure @Retreater does realise that, yes.