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]

The reaction isn't unearned, honestly. Asking to re-buy things being met with skepticism is a healthy response. I like PF2e a lot, but I wouldn't fanboy for it so hard that I would buy literally everything despite little added value.

That being said, I don't think it's a blatant money grab. They can't just re-print the CRB and other books under the ORC because they are already OGL tied, so something like this had to happen one way or another for Paizo to make good on their promise to move to ORC. The solution they came up with is less than ideal (the names of the books in particular are kind of lame) but not a catastrophe.

Paizo stated multiple times during the OGL scandal they could reprint the Core Rulebook with no attestation or under the ORC. It was written without Wizards' copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics according to their blog post on January 12. The book names are lame because I don't believe Paizo is that creative.

 

[Rushbolt]

Whether they withheld information surely depends on when they made this decision.

At one point they seemed to honestly believe they could just swap out licenses and PF2 would be fine.

Then it may have occurred to them that, while the core mechanics are likely safe, things like specific spells, monsters, and alignments that come out of D&D lore would need to be changed. (PF2 already renamed a lot of monsters and spells, but not all of them.)

So, even if they had continued with the Core Rulebook + Bestiary approach, the next errata/reprinting would have been big enough to make some people think they needed to re-buy anyway. Might as well go all the way and make some class and ancestry rebalances they were planning on, and release the whole thing in a clearly new form.

Are they going to be able to rename or redesign all of them this time? I mean thay haven't in 14 years so am I being unreasonable to anticipate they may not be able to do it in a project they claim only started a few months ago? It's a catch 22. Either they still use the ones they think are going to be okay or they change hundreds of game elements in a time frame that obviously allows minimal or zero play testing in one of the most complex systems in print. Let's also not forget they haven't asked for any feedback for any of these changes so are the changes they are bringing to market the changes players want? It's not really the way things are done these days.

 

[Retreater]

Let's also not forget they haven't asked for any feedback for any of these changes so are the changes they are bringing to market the changes players want? It's not really the way things are done these days.

Generally speaking, I trust the designers at Paizo. They made a solid game, which had been extensively playtested before the initial release. The way WotC is going about their playtest is basically a popularity contest and highly focused on the player (not DM) experience - because I guess that's what sells books (subscriptions?)
The classes that are marked for revision in Pathfinder are ones that routinely come up in the bottom of lists - either being confusing to play or underpowered. The decision to scrub the OGL and D&D references from their line also didn't happen in a vacuum - there was a loud outcry of people turning against WotC just a few months ago.
Paizo has a legal team and C-level executives with decades of experience in the industry (unlike some of WotC/Hasbro's suits who have never played the game). I trust that Paizo is making what they think is the best decision for their company.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Are they going to be able to rename or redesign all of them this time? I mean thay haven't in 14 years so am I being unreasonable to anticipate they may not be able to do it in a project they claim only started a few months ago? It's a catch 22. Either they still use the ones they think are going to be okay or they change hundreds of game elements in a time frame that obviously allows minimal or zero play testing in one of the most complex systems in print. Let's also not forget they haven't asked for any feedback for any of these changes so are the changes they are bringing to market the changes players want? It's not really the way things are done these days.

I mean, it's a lot of small changes to a system they've been working on for the past few years-- they have our feedback from the existing versions of everything they're revising and most of the meaningful changes are more like taking the opportunity to iterate than they are because the OGL demanded it, and probably have a lot of the adjustments and pain points in mind just from wishing they could go back and do them, heck the Witch and Oracle adjustments were already on deck for this year's errata before they realized it made sense to just republish them-- the design work they still have to do is more a matter of outright replacing the monsters or simple name changes for things like Magic Missile becoming Force Missile, and taking the chance to alleviate certain restrictions, reword certain rules, and so forth. There's no shortage of discussion of the Witch, or the other classes they're revising and given the fact that we know they have a design document, depending on how alignment is changing should give them a template for how to adjust all the spells. We know this pushed back products too, so they're basically working on this nonstop until it fires off to the printers.

 

[Weiley31]

Once again let me make this clear. I don't have a problem with Paizo publishing new books to avoid entangelment with Wizards. I have a problem with Paizo's misleading January 12 announcement where they stated in writing on their blog, "our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics." If they couldn't make enough changes then to be comfortable that Wizards would not sue them, what makes people think they will make enough changes in the Remastered books? Even if they publish under the ORC license, the problem with having an obviously derivative game is still there.

I actually think it is time for Paizo to really make their own game. Walk away from everything in the SRD and just balance the massive amount of content created for 5e created outside that document. Paizo prides itself on it's players being able to create new characters based on combinations of options you just can't get from D&D. Now stop using the spells, monsters, and other game elements inherent in D&D and you might find even more players interested in your game.

I think THAT IS the actual purpose of the Remastered Core Set. They are pretty much stripping the OGL elements out of it and changing the name of things (such as Magic Missile becoming Force Missile or something).

 

[glass]

I actually think it is time for Paizo to really make their own game.

They did.

Walk away from everything in the SRD

Walking away from everything in the SRD is literally the point of the Remix.

Paizo stated multiple times during the OGL scandal they could reprint the Core Rulebook with no attestation or under the ORC.

Citation needed.

They said they could have produced core books with the same basic mechanics without needing the OGL, but they never claimed that they could have included, say, chromatic dragons, without the OGL.

 

[gban007]

They did.


Walking away from everything in the SRD is literally the point of the Remix.


Citation needed.

They said they could have produced core books with the same basic mechanics without needing the OGL, but they never claimed that they could have included, say, chromatic dragons, without the OGL.

Looking up their statement on the 12th, it did have this bit:

'By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.'

Also I believe Starfinder still references a lot of this stuff, and they also mention that 'While the Open RPG Creative License is being finalized, we’ll be printing Pathfinder and Starfinder products without any license, and we’ll add the finished license to those products when the new license is complete.' - but if Starfinder is using info that is potentially under OGL, does that mean Starfinder will need to go under a similar iteration? I believe there is some new Starfinder stuff coming out but didn't think it was to that extent as such.

 

[glass]

'By the time we went to work on Pathfinder Second Edition, Wizards of the Coast’s Open Game Content was significantly less important to us, and so our designers and developers wrote the new edition without using Wizards’ copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics. While we still published it under the OGL, the reason was no longer to allow Paizo to use Wizards’ expressions, but to allow other companies to use our expressions.'

That does not say that they could have ripped the OGL out of the CRB and Bestiary 1 and published them in otherwise exactly the same form (which is @Rushbolt's claim). "Significantly less important" != "excised entirely". The latter is what is happening with the Remix.

 

[gban007]

That does not say that they could have ripped the OGL out of the CRB and Bestiary 1 and published them in otherwise exactly the same form (which is @Rushbolt's claim). "Significantly less important" != "excised entirely". The latter is what is happening with the Remix.

Quite possibly, I think it could be interpreted to suggest they didn't think it needed to be under the OGL, but wanted to to release their content under it, and so could have stripped it out. I think it does somewhat hinge on how much the bit of 'without using Wizards' copyrighted expressions of any game mechanics' covers - whether it means the underlying mechanics for pathfinder 2nd edition, in which case is fine (though alignment / ability scores could arguably fall under that? But at same time if needing to make other revisions, why not revisit some points) to continue publishing pathfinder 2e without issues for the core mechanics as such, but still need to revisit other stuff, vs if it meant it covered all content, as to whether for example chromatic dragons is copyrighted expression of mechanics, or a separate product identify (or however labelled) piece.

 

[Rushbolt]

Generally speaking, I trust the designers at Paizo. They made a solid game, which had been extensively playtested before the initial release. The way WotC is going about their playtest is basically a popularity contest and highly focused on the player (not DM) experience - because I guess that's what sells books (subscriptions?)
The classes that are marked for revision in Pathfinder are ones that routinely come up in the bottom of lists - either being confusing to play or underpowered. The decision to scrub the OGL and D&D references from their line also didn't happen in a vacuum - there was a loud outcry of people turning against WotC just a few months ago.
Paizo has a legal team and C-level executives with decades of experience in the industry (unlike some of WotC/Hasbro's suits who have never played the game). I trust that Paizo is making what they think is the best decision for their company.

I hope you're right. They will really impress the RPG community if they create a remaster of the entire game in 9 months including printing time. I hope they thoroughly tested the dozens of changes they are making that will affect thousands of player option combinations. I don't want to see them asking their players that prefer up-to-date rulebooks for more money in a few more years because they have to write a mountain of errata to fix the books coming later this year. Especially since players may need to spend over $100 to get all the classes in hardback. Pathfinder players have been soaked enough by this short-sighted company.