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]

Given that a number of spellcasting types are capable of boosting themselves up with their magic to the point where they're perfectly capable of taking on the same sort of opponents a fighting type can do one-on-one--I've seen it done--it appears your position is that they need to be able to do so not only as, but more reliably than most fighting types can, and possibly be able to take on opponents even most fighting types would have trouble handling without help.

So, still not even vaguely buying it. Among other things "being an active combatant" being equated to "can take on opponents by themselves" is a remarkably silly equivelency. The only thing PF2e spellcasters are intrinsically worse at is holding their own against up-rev opponents, and if they're going to be as good as a fighting specialist at that, what are they getting all the other things they're good at for? Because spellcasters are just Supposed To Win?

What I am saying is.

I like the archetype of a mage, and I feel Pathfinder punishes players for this flavor preference.

I believe every class needs to include options to be equally effective in the combat pillar. Also, every class needs to be equally effective in the noncombat exploratory and social pillars.

The choice needs to be diversity of flavors. Not disparities in mechanical effectiveness. Especially when it is a combat game.

Fighter class needs options to effectively support teammates if that is what the player wants to do.

Wizard class needs options to take down single target via heavy and enhanced damage, if that is what the player wants to do.

 

[Xohar17]

They didn't stop printing PF1 when Unchained was released. They didn't say "going forward, you can only use this new Unchained monk in PFS."
Paizo can try to sugar coat it, but this is definitely a 2.5.
Once you see all the changes they've announced in one day, I think you'll agree.

Did they say you will not be able to use old versions of classes in pfs? I only saw them talking about integrating the new options.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I found the core book poorly laid out and really disgusting colours and fonts, it's visually busy. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do here, Paizo have changed the spines of some of their books already (annoying collectors everywhere) so I hope they tone down the internals with this.

I'd totally but a b+w version, with those alt covers, with some coloured headings and colour art! Like deluxe edition novels

 

[Thomas Shey]

What I am saying is.

I like the archetype of a mage, and I feel Pathfinder punishes players for this flavor preference.

I believe every class needs to include options to be equally effective in the combat pillar. Also, every class needs to be equally effective in the noncombat exploratory and social pillars.

The choice needs to be diversity of flavors. Not disparities in mechanical effectiveness. Especially when it is a combat game.

Fighter class needs options to effectively support teammates if that is what the player wants to do.

Wizard class needs options to take down single target via heavy and enhanced damage, if that is what the player wants to do.

Except you can't make non-mages as diverse as mages--except by, effectively, making them mages. Its not possible. There's too many things mages can do that are not doable without magic.

So again, if you want a spellcaster who can do everything a fighting specialist can do, what part of a mage's abilities are you willing to sacrifice to get that? Because it can't be a small amount.

 

[Yaarel]

Except you can't make non-mages as diverse as mages--except by, effectively, making them mages. Its not possible. There's too many things mages can do that are not doable without magic.

So again, if you want a spellcaster who can do everything a fighting specialist can do, what part of a mage's abilities are you willing to sacrifice to get that? Because it can't be a small amount.

Being able to do "anything" is not the same thing as doing "everything".

There are opportunity costs.

Choosing to know one spell that does single-target heavy damage, or a weapon grade cantrip, means less space for spells that do other kinds of effects.

It is reasonably easy for a designer to ensure a balanced character.

 

[ctorus]

Except that some GMs don't use the Gamemasters Guide, but will have to purchase it now to get magic items.
Except that some tables don't use the APG classes (which are more complex than those in the Core Rules), but now will have to purchase it to get access to the other classes.

Do you remember the last time a game did this by having Players Handbook 1 & 2 to get the core classes? And split the DMG into 1 & 2? Yeah, that was 4E D&D. It didn't work then.

Also, this turnaround from PF2 to PF2.5 is the quickest edition change since 3.0 to 3.5.

Not to mention everyone who's going to be asking "which version do I need? If I bought the Core Rulebook, do I need to get Game Master Core 2?" (This is the Old School Essentials conundrum.)

DMG 2 is a great book but was certainly not 'essential' for 4e. Neither was the PHB 2, 3 or any of the other player books for that matter, if you didn't explicitly want to play the classes therein.

 

[Scribe]

Being able to do "anything" is not the same thing as doing "everything".

There are opportunity costs.

Choosing to know one spell that does single-target heavy damage, or a weapon grade cantrip, means less space for spells that do other kinds of effects.

It is reasonably easy for a designer to ensure a balanced character.

Then whats WotC excuse (note, its a rhetorical question)? The flexibility you are desiring, also should come at a cost.

 

[Yaarel]

Then whats WotC excuse (note, its a rhetorical question)? The flexibility you are desiring, also should come at a cost.

The flexibility of options to custom build a character concept.

The character that gets built might be highly specialized. It might not have flexibilty during game play.


In any case, when building a character - including choosing spells - each feature should use up the amount of the character design space according to the amount of power that the feature is genuinely worth.

Single-target heavy damage is valuable in a combat game that benefits from focus fire. Both Fighter and Wizard should pay the appropriate amount of character design space, in exchange for acquiring this feature.

Where the Fighter flavor does this damage via a mundane weapon, the Wizard does this same amount damage via magic.

 

[Aldarc]

"Swarms"

Yeah, no thanks.

Death to the "support role".

Long live egalitarian equality!

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.

 

[Jahydin]

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?