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

 

[Rushbolt]

Ok, I understand where you're getting a bit lost:

They aren't doing this to "avoid the copyrighted game expression of any mechanics" which that statement concerned the system itself, it's the product identity that's the problem-- Pathfinder 2e does not use any copy-written mechanics of any edition of DND, literally it does not use the text of any game system that Wizards has ever put out (in contrast to first edition, or say Old School Essentials or something) their Chromatic Dragons have their own rules, the problem is that they're called Chromatic Dragons in the book at all and that means they have to scrub the product of that identity. Magic Missile has to become Force Missile because calling it Magic Missile is the problem, not because it was designed in a way that required the OGL. But because they realized they need new base products to sell on an ongoing basis and reference back to, those products need to be scrubbed of identity even if they had no rules changes, but they realized that if they had to go that far, it makes more sense to update the core of the system, from a design standpoint, of the things they've learned about it from the first four years and provide the product as an entry point of for new players and a "that time they 'fixed' alignment, the Witch, and added my new favorite the Diabolic Dragon, to the game." They've brought up that it was the sales during those early days of OGL tomfoolery that led to them having the resources to flip everything around and do this, which means that their plans to do so were being formed simultaneously to the big spike in sales.

The fact you had to write that much to explain the meaning of that statement confirms why it is misleading. Do you think I may not be the only one who got a bit lost?

 

[Rushbolt]

I don't know where you get 3-5, because it can definitely mean as low as 2. And working on something doesn't necessarily mean that it's coming out "soon", it may have been a backburner project that was meant to come out in the future but they pushed it up after the whole OGL incident.



This feels exceedingly conspiratorial and unnecessary. It seems pretty obvious that they are taking out a bunch of OGL stuff and using this moment to try and take care of everything at once (inserting errata, doing a balance patch on a few classes, removing OGL components for future-proofing) in as expedient manner as possible.

I'm sorry. They have been totally transparent. They have assured all their new players that this was not a bait-and-switch. They have done those things, right? When you decide you are going to update rulebooks the ethical decision is to let possible buyers know that day. Not a week later. Not a month later. Not 2 months later. Not 3-5 months later.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The fact you had to write that much to explain the meaning of that statement confirms why it is misleading.

I'm long-winded but "That statement is referring to the system itself, this is about product identity" would have sufficed.

Also, because this is a pet peeve of mine, you don't represent some kind of baseline that suggests anything meaningful about things you don't understand, that's just a kafkatrap: if you're against something, and it has to be explained to you, it must be wrong because if it was true it wouldn't have to be explained to you, the only remaining option is to agree-- its just sophistry.

 

[Justice and Rule]

They should rage when any underhanded techniques used by any company.

But there is a perfectly reasonable and mundane explanation for this.

The fact you had to write that much to explain the meaning of that statement confirms why it is misleading.

Or maybe it's just a complex topic which requires a complex explanation. Again, you are taking a statement that was made at the very beginning of this whole thing. They may have seen more vulnerabilities that they didn't see initially. Or maybe they were told to just maximize their safety from liability.

I'm sorry. They have been totally transparent. They have assured all their new players that this was not a bait-and-switch. They have done those things, right?

A bait and switch is when you are promised something but given something else. No books are becoming obsolete any more than when they did errata for the Alchemist.

I also don't know how you declare yourself as being "completely transparent", given that you've shown us nothing particularly revealing about your motivations. We have no more insight into your thoughts than Paizo's.

 

[Rushbolt]

But there is a perfectly reasonable and mundane explanation for this.



Or maybe it's just a complex topic which requires a complex explanation. Again, you are taking a statement that was made at the very beginning of this whole thing. They may have seen more vulnerabilities that they didn't see initially. Or maybe they were told to just maximize their safety from liability.



A bait and switch is when you are promised something but given something else. No books are becoming obsolete any more than when they did errata for the Alchemist.

I also don't know how you declare yourself as being "completely transparent", given that you've shown us nothing particularly revealing about your motivations. We have no more insight into your thoughts than Paizo's.

I simply believe that Paizo did not release the information about their update of their rules in a timely manner. The community should hold them accountable for this. That's it. Am I asking too much? I'm not releasing any new rulebooks so I don't think it applies to me.

 

[MockingBird]

I'm with Rushbolt on this one. I clearly remember the statement being made about PF2e being designed in such a way the ogl could be stripped. It was very apparent they saw a spike in sales, they even bragged about it. This "revision" feels very underhanded. Especially when you just onboarded a lot of new players. I'm reading this whole thread and can't help but compare and contrast it with how the 5e anniversary is going. There's a lot of raised pitch forks about it being a new edition and how "drastically" its being changed. It's a stark difference in how Paizo seems to be getting a pass here. I know how this would go if WotC did the same thing. The whole world would be on fire.

 

[payn]

I'm with Rushbolt on this one. I clearly remember the statement being made about PF2e being designed in such a way the ogl could be stripped. It was very apparent they saw a spike in sales, they even bragged about it. This "revision" feels very underhanded. Especially when you just onboarded a lot of new players. I'm reading this whole thread and can't help but compare and contrast it with how the 5e anniversary is going. There's a lot of raised pitch forks about it being a new edition and how "drastically" its being changed. It's a stark difference in how Paizo seems to be getting a pass here. I know how this would go if WotC did the same thing. The whole world would be on fire.

I think they both deserve a pass honestly.

 

[Retreater]

I'm with Rushbolt on this one. I clearly remember the statement being made about PF2e being designed in such a way the ogl could be stripped. It was very apparent they saw a spike in sales, they even bragged about it. This "revision" feels very underhanded. Especially when you just onboarded a lot of new players. I'm reading this whole thread and can't help but compare and contrast it with how the 5e anniversary is going. There's a lot of raised pitch forks about it being a new edition and how "drastically" its being changed. It's a stark difference in how Paizo seems to be getting a pass here. I know how this would go if WotC did the same thing. The whole world would be on fire.

For me, there are a few differences:

• Paizo makes a product I like - WotC does not. (completely subjective, I know.)
• Paizo makes their rules available online for free, with regular deeply discounted PDFs - WotC does not.
• Paizo has a free rules set, masterfully executed for VTT play on Foundry - WotC is planning a microtransaction VTT.
• Paizo is trying to make it easier to publish for their system and to be able to do it in perpetuity - WotC tried to pull that from all their content creators.

Yes, it's a cruddy situation Paizo is doing with their Pathfinder 2.25. But for the four points above, I'm more inclined to give them my support than WotC.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm with Rushbolt on this one. I clearly remember the statement being made about PF2e being designed in such a way the ogl could be stripped. It was very apparent they saw a spike in sales, they even bragged about it. This "revision" feels very underhanded. Especially when you just onboarded a lot of new players. I'm reading this whole thread and can't help but compare and contrast it with how the 5e anniversary is going. There's a lot of raised pitch forks about it being a new edition and how "drastically" its being changed. It's a stark difference in how Paizo seems to be getting a pass here. I know how this would go if WotC did the same thing. The whole world would be on fire.

You're seeing the difference a good reputation makes as opposed to a sleazy one, and that the people in the know can see signs that they're telling the truth (most of the revised classes being part of errata we were told was coming for the APG, the others being necessary for the alignment changes, their insistence on continuing with the scheduled books like Tian Xia in the middle of it and Rage of Elements right before), rather than ambiguity and signs that they're lying and statements about a lack of monetization.

Remember, truth lies in substance, not symmetry.

 

[glass]

I'm long-winded but "That statement is referring to the system itself, this is about product identity" would have sufficed.

Not quite. PI is the things you are not allowed to use under the OGL. This is about Wizards' OGC, which they can use under the OGL but not otherwise. The point is that the OGC is in peripheral stuff like certain monsters and spells, and not in the core mechanics.

(IANAL, TINLA.)

I'm with Rushbolt on this one. I clearly remember the statement being made about PF2e being designed in such a way the ogl could be stripped.

There was such a statement, and it has been quoted upthread: That's exactly why this isn't underhanded. This is the stripping, and we knew it was coming right back in January.

I know how this would go if WotC did the same thing. The whole world would be on fire.

It seemed, briefly, like WotC would do something similar to this (minus the OGL stuff which is irrelevant to them). There was a remarkable lack of the world burning.

Then it became clear that they were doing a new edition rather than revised core books, and we started to smell smoke. And then they just kept pouring more fuel on the fire....