The upcoming CHANGES in the next edition of Pathfinder RPG leaked during PaizoCon! (Rules Lawyer)

[@Chadius]

The number one big change is making the Player Core easier to learn. There are so many newcomers who bounce right off the Core Rulebook because it's a technical manual, and not beginner friendly.

[@questmarq7901]

I had suggested in Reddit of Player Core 1 to be max 99Pages, to explain shortly the choices a player can have, and the Player Core 2 to be the actual details book. But i got downvoted to hell of course

[@Ianlee1977]

I totally agree. When people ask me what RPGs to start with i always suggest them to stay away from D&D and Pathfinder for the time being. If it takes you a whole day just to create a character..it's kind of long winded.

[@brandonmichaelscott]

I played PF1 and DnD for decades and I bounced off of it.

[@Ianlee1977]

@@brandonmichaelscott I agree that yes, D&D and Pathfinder are good games but the thing is when introducing new players to TTRPGs whether they are coming from watching youtube or fresh, character creation alone is dauting as heck. For me, i like to get that part done in 15-30 min or less than go to the game proper. Ease them into the more complex systems as it were.

[@27182818284590452354]

But it's a very useful filter. Why would you want to play with people who don't have enough patience and interest to learn a trivial model? What commitment can you expect from them? Do you want your community deluded by randoms incapable of finishing a one-off? No standards means no quality.

[@christopherplummer1299]

Glad I already have the original core book. It may be thick enough to stop Pinkertons bullets. Or used to beat them over the head.

[@Chadius]

Raise the book to get a +2 AC and use a Shield Block reaction.

[@wolffrdu6463]

@@Chadius and because it's a holly book, make extra damage (because only deamon can be part of the Pinkertons)

[@sethb3090]

​@@Chadius I think you do need the Raise a Tome feat for that

[@BittyVids]

@@wolffrdu6463 spirit damage may not effect pinkertons since it only damages those with a soul.

[@wolffrdu6463]

@@BittyVids DAMN THIS SOULESS MONSTER !

[@WhiteSpyder170]

I honestly feel like they should call it Pathfinder 2.ORC, but maybe that's just me.

[@vatusia]

I like it. I'll probably call it Pathfinder 2: ORC edition.

[@StanNotSoSaint]

Nice one. I like it

[@nicolasvillasecaali7662]

Pathfinder: Electric ORC-galoo edition

[@craigjones7343]

Im defiantly using this

[@9652769]

I prefer just calling it ORC EDITION.

[@NimbusEntry]

I personally really love the removal of the spell schools. Reason why? It felt like every other class got a flavourful and unique element added to their character when choosing their "subclass", but wizards got a checkbox based around a core system element completely independent from the flavour of their class.

[@SwitchbackCh]

Same, even in DnD the subclasses felt very cookie cutter with "you''re slightly better in this school and it costs less to copy spells from them" copy-pasted multiple times.

[@gabrieldossantos1116]

And the spell schools don't even feel like different schools of thought, that would imply they have a different philosophy and methodology behind it. At best they feel like different disciplines. In the new system we may have something like "War School" with various damage and field control spells or "Court School" focused around spells for a courtly advisor kinda The Witcher style. Then you might have some spells that are present in more than once school kinda like how Algebrae is a common discipline in various different degrees. That way it really feels like a Wizard is a real scholar

[@alecchristiaen4856]

​@@gabrieldossantos1116also the division is arbitrary as hell. Firebolt is evocation, but produce flame is conjuration. The implication of how the spell operates in-universe is what decides the difference.

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

Honestly agreement and celebration across the board for everything. I just hope to see a couple straight up new things coming in like feats or subclasses, and unpopular feats getting tuned up. I’d also really like to see skill and general feats be a bit more fun and open for what they’re willing to work with. A lot of the time they’re kinda too linear or not very exciting. A lot of “umm this one I guess?”, which makes the Classes that get oodles of skill feats technically good, but not memorable in our experiences.

[@xaropevic7918]

Agreed, I personally am on the point of skipping skill feats and general feats I always pick more or less in the same order

[@BestgirlJordanfish]

@@xaropevic7918 Yeah started to be at the point of a house rule that you can trade a General Feat for either a Class Feat or an earlier proficiency bump (like the lv7 general feat for saves or attacks or defense if you’re a casting class, and a tiny +1 to damage rolls if already proficient). Or allowing trading skill feats for profession Archetype Feats. With those two rules and allowing a free 1st or 2nd level Class Feat at Lv1, it kinda worked as a nice alternative to free archetype. A bit less overwhelming to remember and track everything.

[@xaropevic7918]

@@BestgirlJordanfish But aren't general feats supposed to be worse than class feats,

[@Nintenglo]

Hoping they take another look at general/skill feats. There’s some retroactive rules which I’m not a big fan of, and I feel like some are rather dull. Would love to see more options!

[@JohnQDarksoul]

I liked the spell schools, honestly, but I'm interested to see what they replace it with. That's just about my only "concern" with PF2.1e. But playing a Magus I am SO EXCITED FOR MORE FOCUS POINTS.

[@Gaschdisturbed]

They talked about it during PaizoCon. They're replacing spell schools with... spell schools. Like, actual schools. A place you went to and learned your magic at. And those places have different emphasis on certain things, like there's the "blaster caster school" and the "support magic school" and the like and that gives you bonus spells from the list of spells the school specializes in I think? So I guess it's gonna stay similar but slightly different. One thing they pointed out was that with the old spell schools they were stuck with those, you can't easily add another one because you'd have to develop dozens and dozens of spells for it immediately. With the new one you can, because you can use any existing spells and nothing stops you from having overlap between some of the spells being taught by the schools.

[@Cezili]

I'm just curious how this'll be reflected all around. It's mentioned here for the Wizard, but does that mean they're removing the 8 Schools as a concept entirely? Like will "Fireball" no longer be classified as "Evocation" if you're say, a Sorcerer? Or is it just the Wizard "sub classes" as it were?

[@erinschram7535]

I once researched the origin of D&D druids not using metal armor or shields. It had no basis in druid mythology. Instead, the D&D druid design wanted an iconic appearance for druids, looking like they made their clothes out in the forest.

[@theeyeofterra6807]

Yeah, it's always been a funny thing that. They allow leather which is dead animal but not a natural resourse found in the ground. Glad to see metal coming to Druids.

[@Good_Hot_Chocolate]

​​@@theeyeofterra6807 likely because the mining of metals and the process of crafting them is harmful to wildlife and the ecosystem. Especially in noise pollution.

[@eliaullerichs5511]

The changes to wizard and magic has for the first time made me excited about playing a wizard. I love the idea of grounding wizardry more within Golarion, because wizardry was always the 'nerdy' form of magic, but it never felt flavored that way. Now we see the different academic schools of thought on how to approach the study of and application of wizardry. Choosing 'Civic wizardry' says alot more about your character than 'Conjuration'.

[@maycontainviolence5587]

I ran my first session with the beginner box for my fairly new DnD players. It's a big hit with them. Looks like we will be switching come November.

[@tinear4]

Yes, that’s all good, but will they be adopting Ronald’s Revised Rules for Recall (Knowledge)?

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

RRRR!

[@tinear4]

Good point. I hope they don’t decide to wait until a subsequent errrratum. ;-)

[@PH03NIX96]

Alignments were never meant to be restrictive. They're a guideline of tendancies your character will mostly adhere to. My GM once told me I was wrong for running away from combat as a neutral good character, and I told him to shove it since we were losing. 😂

[@Michael-ls9eu]

They could also pull a Kingdom Hearts and throw out random numbers that fit roughly where they want

[@Chadius]

Pathfinder 3.14 Final ORC Remix

[@devcrom3]

Pathfinder 364/2.1 Days

[@JWK1101]

Pathfinder 2 + i

[@camiloguadalupetorres2442]

The change in magic schools may be the one which takes me more time to adapt. 😅

[@casteanpreswyn7528]

I'm not entirely sure I'll be able to adjust to that change...

[@hernandolopez6329]

​@@casteanpreswyn7528me too

[@jeffreymilliman2306]

Yeah, that seems like the only thing that I'm not wild about.

[@AlossFS]

I'd love for disarm to keep the rules but move to acrobatics as the core skill. Wouldn't be underpowered at that point and buffs acrobatics a bit.

[@questmarq7901]

Or even better allowing you to use either Acrobatics or Athletics

[@thedruski85]

Not sure that would make it better, just easier to access. Athletics is already the premier combat skill, so I think spreading the love to the other combat skill would diversify more builds.

[@tamwehwukzdcti8198]

@@questmarq7901 That's my houserule. You can do most things one does with the other, though sometimes I require Trained for something you can do Untrained in the other.

[@RadeFoxxy]

Yay! Hoping the Starfinder work is going to bring the 2 settings in sync, with the difference being Stamina kept as baseline for SF.

[@Bloodfencer1990]

I love the Stamina system because it makes Starfinder a more fast-paced, action-packed thrill ride, while I see Pathfinder 2e as slower, more pre-meditated group excursion kind of deal. It would be nice if they revisited Stamina as an optional system for PF2e to enable fast-paced campaigns.

[@lyracian]

Nice to see Hammers getting an errata even if it makes me sad I have not had a chance to exploit this loophole with a Fighter yet. I have no plans to buy 6th Edition D&D but will be getting these books.

[@hunteriv4869]

I must admit, I sort of disagree with Michael on this. The changes are big enough to count as a 2.5 version IMO, at least if we compare it 3rd edition D&D, as the changes are similar in scope. Still backwards compatible, but they are changing a LOT, and either people are misremembering that D&D 3.5 changed more than it actually did, or they are underestimating the impact of the rules. I mean, they can call it "2.1" if they want, but I'm not convinced it isn't a full-on rules update, considering how much is being modified even compared to errata.

[@mirtos39]

Exactly, there were some big things in 3.0 -> 3.5, but most were pretty minor. Id also go back as far to say that the edition change from 1e to 2e (AD&D) was pretty much a minor change. This .1 thing is really just trying to defend Paizo's claim that there really wasnt much of a change. This is an edition change. Sure, it might not be as big as a whole number, but parsing the numbers to .1 is just really disengeous in my opinion. If WOTC tried saying their new edition is 5.1, no matter the level of changes, people here would be up in arms. Im not comparing Wizads to Paizo, but if its open and honesty that we as a community are striving for, lets have that. The changes they are doing are signficiant. Also, the whole "at least they do it for free", doesnt negate anything. Many people prefer to game by books, and if they were planning a change of this significant why didnt they say anything when they were planning on it? Perhaps, just perhaps, to ensure they could sell the content they already had?

[@mirtos39]

Im glad that we're finally admitting its a new version. I remember being blasted for saying it was. To be fair Paizo (and even some pro paizo people) really tried to claim this wasnt a new edition either. Edition changes dont have to be sweeping changes. (If you go far enough back, look at the differences between AD&D and 2e when 2e first came out).

[@devcrom3]

No one except Ronald is saying that.

[@davidbowles7281]

It's 2.5. Don't let them tell you otherwise. There's nothing wrong with that. 3.5 was a huge success.

[@antimatters6283]

if Wotc/Hasbor did this, they'd call it 2.5 in order to sell books. Pazio is commendable for not engaging in trickery like that. I still wish the PF2's player's manual had a more open, easier to read, less crammed format, even if it forced it being sold as two books (such as classes, and spells). Readability and page organization is a factor

[@moonlight2870]

Except wizards is literally naming one dnd just 5e and making it compatible with the current 5e (or at least trying). Wizards is not the good guys, no matter what they do they are probably trying to screw us over, but let's not be dishonest about it.

[@scytheseven9173]

I hope they change the Investigator a lot in Player Core 2, I love the class but it is rough and Thaumaturges with Diverse Lore are kinda just better than Investigators at knowing stuff, getting an automatically-scaling Lore skill that's based on Charisma and can be used for everything (Bardic/Loremaster Lore but better) and getting reliable information as if a successfull Recall Knowledge check from a non-Secret roll if they roll well to Exploit Vulnerability. Diverse Lore is insane for a first-level feat, it's like Super Bardic Knowledge based on their key stat combined with a better Known Weaknesses, all for a single feat. Investigator Leads are also a really janky mechanic, since the bonuses with Pursue a Lead and Clue In are really small and don't stack with a lot of stuff and for combat purposes a Lead can generally only involve a single creature, when frequently you'll have to deal with groups of enemies-say, when investigating a criminal organization.

[@koboldprime2257]

Its evolving! And forwards! What a breath of fresh air to have a company employ competent people and give them time to develop a good product.

[@liamcage7208]

I hope they don't nerf the Fighter Class or make them redundant by buffing everyone else so that no one wants to play Fighters anymore. Fighters are one dimensional killing machines that can't really do anything else please let them remain to be good at it.

[@moosher12]

The only concern I have about the removal of spell schools is how they will coincide that with sin magic.

[@misterb6]

Feeeeeeeding the algorithm! Honestly this all sounds really good, glad to hear they are addressing some of the more, shall we say, challenging aspects of the CRB. Crafting, I'm looking at you!

[@drunkenhobo64]

Change for magic schools is really weird for me as a caster main since forever, but I'm happy with the changes generally. I just need some more info on how things like detect magic and countering are going to work without spell schools anymore.

[@darkowl9]

Whilst it's cool that they're updating and rebalancing and fixing some things, it's a bit of a shame that I'll now have to get four new core books. I'm guessing Secrets of Magic is just entirely void now? With the base PF2e it felt like each new rules book added on to the system really well. So... should I wait until they have 2.1 equivalents for the add-on books? If I'd been a few years into PF2e I'm sure I'd be cool with this. But having just come across this year after the OGL fiasco (and realising all the things I tried to homebrew into D&D are just things that already exist, and better, in PF2e), even _finding_ copies of the books as they were sold out everywhere... and now they're already going to be out of date after less than a year. It does sting a bit.

[@indiegameswithT]

Wonderful video! thanks for always breaking down these announcements in easy to digest bits!

[@GryphonDes]

Super concise and targeted info dump -- THANK you so much!

[@simontemplar3359]

the only thing that sucks is I stumbled in like a dumb-dumb - hadn't played a TTRPG in ages. So I bought D&D manuals- found out WoTC= twunts. So I returned them and then dropped probably like 200 bucks on Pathfinder 2e books and then they announced the reorg... so I'm not like mad, but wondering if I just wasted loot on books that aren't current anymore.

[@josecruz8803]

+It's a new edition - I'm not sure this changes much but if it makes people happy for this clarification, I'm good with it +New Layout? - I'll be interested to see how this works. Say what you will of DnD 4th but I liked the layout and I could generally find what I was looking for very quickly in those book, sometimes opening up to the exact page I wanted. +No more Alignment - Finally! This has stopped me in the past from playing classes that use this mechanic. Champion, here I come! +Ancestries - ok this is pretty cool. My only issue is that this will make it pointless to be a full-breed now. Why have one list of options when you can have 2? +Classes - Rogues MWT makes sense, Bards MWT does not, hope the Warpriest changes work out, Witches sound cool now, looking forward to seeing the Champion changes +Magic schools - I'm not sold on whether this is a good thing or not. I like the idea of more versatile spell combinations, but who is going to pick something like "Structural Integrity" school over something like "Battle mage" school? +Spells - OMG, the refocus change is so cool! It makes time the resource instead of points, adding more RP and pressure when dealing with time sensitive situations. Other changes are nice too, especially to Magic Weapon. +Items - flail/hammers still OP and I am ok with it, talismans needed a buff and I am here for it, I love playing the crafter so any love to the skill is welcome, shield runes have been very wanted at my table.

[@ShadowDrakken]

Talismans aren't forgotten at most of the tables I play at. They're mentioned almost every game. And the consensus ends up being that they're a waste of money for a one time, extremely minor effect.

[@Xinderkan]

Yeah. We literally turned them in to wand style: once per day, and they were still generally not worth the money

[@matc1995]

More useful at high levels, as some effects are still useful at any level. A lvl 17 character can use lvl 1-4 talismans effectively which is so cheap at the point.

[@superguy183828]

Am I crazy or is every single change an excellent improvement in the system? Great work Paizo, I look forward to seeing how it actually shakes out.

[@kevinbarnard355]

Love it as always. Thank you for the summary and insights. I'm super excited too for all the improvements big and small.

[@DankLilGnurblin]

This is PF 2.5 and there's nothing wrong about it.

[@comfortablegrey]

I am already using the new refocus rules, this is how everyone thought it worked until they saw the recovery feats!

[@nathanmitchell9695]

First of all, as a Magus main, the ability to regain all my Focus Points by taking the Refocus action multiple times is FUCK YEAH! On another note, I like the Sturdy Rune instead of not being able to use any cool shield I looted because I have to have a Sturdy Shield if I want to actually use it to Shield Block. I like the sound of changes to Warpriest and removal of alignment. I like the sound of most of the changes tbh, it just depends how it plays out at the table.

[@nabmcfeegle]

I think the most pertinent point should be (as with any set of rules you have) - nothing stops you playing with what you already own! Buy in if you want to but your group can play which ever version they want!

[@FluffyFailure0]

The only alignment that I was opposed to was the alignment prerequisites, the only part where alignment restricted player creativity. But on the other hand, I find the loss of spell schools absolutely abhorrent without exaggeration. In fact, I believe spell schools should rather be expanded upon, allowing spells to possess one or more of them instead. Although I'm not opposed to having more "universalist" Arcane Schools for the Wizard. :3 P.S. In my personal opinion if it isn't bad, overly complicated, or broken, don't fix it.

[@Malkamok]

Very optimistic about these changes all across the board!

[@RogueWraith909]

I couldn't get the set of books during the OGL scandal due to everywhere selling out within minutes... so I'm waiting for the new core books instead which will make life easier for me as the errata will be in there instead of seperate... plus I like books!

[@agsilverradio2225]

This "stealth-rebalancing," has me on edge agianst power creep. ... Also, I think they should keep spell-schools, at least as a searchable tag.

[@Barthenn]

Ancestries; My gods yes, this is so cool. I don't understand why two of the most common race like Human and Dwarf have no Half Dwarf. It seems that it would be one of the most likely hybrid outside of Half-Elf. And maybe Half-Orc. Dnd have supplement called An Elf and an Orc Had a Little Baby: Parentage and Upbringing in D&D. I wish someone made that supplement for Pathfinder.

[@BlueTressym]

While WotC has made their new rules for half-races stupid. You can claim any two species as parents but you have to have all of the traits from one of them; there's no way to mix and match.

[@gabrielrussell5531]

They need to use this opportunity to give us a core Warlord class.

[@foebok]

They should create a Half-Human Ancestry to apply to other Ancestries, such as Dwarf. With a note discussing the difference between a Human with Half-Elf Heritage, and an Elf with the Half-Human Heritage; likely the difference primarily having to do with the Ancestry Ability Boosts.

[@quanion2464]

I do like the improvements. It is a bittersweet victory since this basically invalidates some of the older books. But again, I really like the changes and look forward to what else they have up their sleeves. Maybe this will be my chance to finally play a druid and not be the GM... one can dream ^^ (I just hope that this won't end up as them re-doing all the books.)

[@JediMage]

Witch: can now turn her nails and hair into a weapon My brain instantly: pervy old man with a toad familiar

[@Chadius]

I'm still trying to thinking about how to make a melee Witch. Whipping around with your hair and nails is too strong. Maybe a Fighter with Witch Dedication.

[@aralornwolf3140]

@@Chadius , Changeling Witch... is what you want. Slag May ancestry. 1d6 Cold Iron claws... who will say no to that? Then... pick up Martial Artist dedication... Or Monk with Witch Dedication...

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

@@Chadius I’ve managed to make one from lvl 1-4. It does fine. Really strong at lvl. 1, did fine. Never got to do 5, but I was alright stopping there as the proficiency and ability score boost essentially relegates the melee witch into the back. The other version I wanted to try was a Fate Mauler Witch + Living Hair and a focus on Athletics as Living Hair can maneuver while your hands are full.

[@Bovineicide]

2:48 "Did you see it?"

[@oughtought468]

Your cat made its Stealth check : )

[@butregenyo_yavrusu]

I am loving these changes so far. I am kinda most excited about focus point recovery changes!

[@questmarq7901]

Im hopeful about the general Detection and Cover system to be further simplified and deepen. Can you do a video about it? Its flaws currently and maybe how it could be improved?

[@ExterminatorElite]

The changes to the Warpriest are of course positive, but the degree to which the changes will actually matter remains to be seen. In abstract though, given what's been shared so far, I don't yet see how they've really addressed Warpriest's current shortcomings in a meaningful way, especially in the existing ecosystem of character build options. We'll just have to wait and see, especially with regard to those Warpriest feats. Practically speaking though, the fact that Warpriests now get mastery in a weapon at all, while an improvement, also isn't going to matter for the vast majority of players who are currently playing or who want to play a Warpriest. Like really, what proportion of players ever actually play at 19th and 20th levels, and how long do those games even last? What level do those games start from? Because as players move on to higher levels, like level 11 and up, they'll find little distinction between what Warpriest and Cloistered Clerics offer, but Cloistered keeps the full spell attack and DC progression, while Warpriests will lag behind both casters *and* martials in their spells and attacks until they just barely catch up to martials at level 19. So what is actually setting the Warpriest apart most of those levels? A higher fort save and access to light and medium armor, just the same as before. An exclusive feat for heavy armor is interesting, but again without details, it's hard to know how this really addresses Warpriest as a play style choice. Until otherwise indicated, Champion dedication continues to be easily the best choice for players who want to clad their Clerics in heavy armor and wade into close combat. With Champion dedication's special reaction, and with incoming buffs to focus abilities, as well as the elimination of alignment requirements, it's poised to present an even more enticing choice for players than it already has. Whatever new class feats Warpriests are presented with, those new options will be weighed against some already really compelling alternatives.

[@kylevarner971]

They should just make war priests a bounded prepared spellcaster and still have font. and have martial class weapon progression.

[@francescocazzola2440]

I've been scouring the internet for a complete set of all the changes for a while, thanks for the video! In my opinion the hammer/flail nerf while warranted could have been handled the other way around by instead making other specialisations more appealing. It's true that as it stands now there's very little reason to use a longsword over a Warhammer or a greatsword over a maul, even finesse users have a really good option in the form of spikes chain. Ultimately it's a fine change as I doubt the usage of those weapons is gonna take any significant hit, they still have the possibility of essentially tripping an enemy for free afterall, but it will make them less oppressive to fight over and over. One last thing, are you planning to also cover the kineticist changes and maybe compare them to the playtest or will you wait for the full release?

[@scriptea]

Getting rid of alignment will be one of the greatest changes. My Champion of Pharasma can finally create holy water, thank god. That never made sense to me that he couldn't do that.

[@shadowkras]

20:55 Its not exactly a buff only to spellcasters, as anyone can learn focus spells if they branch into classes that can learn them using multiclass feats. Some non-spellcasting classes also have access to spell focus abilities, like champions or monks.

[@XanderHarris1023]

Definitely some unique changes but also some changes that were inspired by or inspired (there are definitely former Paizo employees working on One DnD) some One DnD content.

[@FireBorn790]

So they've talked at length about Holy and Unholy with the removal of Alignment as 'replacements' for Good and Evil... but I have to admit it leaves me sitting here wondering how that's also going to affect Law and Chaos, and the Outsiders that exist on planes aligned solely to Law and Chaos without any Good or Evil components in their alignment currently...

[@CouchDrake]

They basically said they don't give a shit about law-chaos. The removal of alignment is a huge mistake and a travesty.

[@JValerianS]

I believe these opposing forces can still exist and have mechanically significant effects in the form of anathemas and target-specific extra damage etc without alignment existing. I feel the simplification of personality into the 3x3 grid is more a hindrance than an assett, while the cosmic manifestations of the extremes can exist without it. I don't see any sense in a mortal taking extra damage etc, because he is "a bit whimsical".

[@BasementMinions]

This all look like really positive changes, I'm also very excited!

[@petenell5807]

They need to fix caster hit rolls. The save spells are ok, but the to hit spells are simply under powered newb traps. It is simply never better to take a hit spell vs a save spell. And that's a problem. Casters should get magic items to boost hit spells.

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

It looks like they’re upping the damage. Two action baseline spells might become 2d4 default based off the number they threw out for (New) Divine Lance. I think they want it to be more economical action-damage-wise.

[@Zoddlander]

I like that ancestory can mix more! its what I want in D&D and other games to! in Fantasy Age they let players do this, but there were less selections! a player could choose to be a Orc-Elf in Fantasy Age! and the rules are realy simple! One of my favorit character in 4e D&D, was a Mul(half-dwarf)! I'd love if most or if not all games would and should add these mixed heritage more! I have still not tried Pathfinder 2e, sadly!

[@moonlight2870]

Dnd is already doing that in one dnd.

[@seanfulldark]

I really like the upgrade to now having it being actual school curriculums, because now we can have some more interesting flavor this is great for both players and DM's for the player side it just means more flexibility more variety more choices and depending on your DM you can even get away with mixing schools/curriculums. For DMS this means you can choose to either actually have universities that have a variety of those different classes, you're gonna have the age of discovery where there's only few masters in the world and they're barely testing out their masters of knowledge and wisdom so you're now having to travel across the globe to find the teacher and learn from them! Basically you have a couple great variety of choices like you could be Merlin the magician teaching King Arthur the methods of magic and sorcery or your Charles Xavier training your students in their amazing abilities of knowledge and magic I know there's another comparison but I'm not gonna be using that one, and besides Charles is the best/worst headmaster. X-Men readers know what I mean by that. Also this could allow for some interesting concepts of allowing sort of interesting scenarios with certain magical setups. That's it I am sad that they did not go with the concept of changing bards to have it where instead of colleges it's genres, or styles I personally think styles would work a little bit better because that can give a variety like you're more of a singer style, or having an actor style. The style that's currently on strike because the producers are not paying yes I'm going to constantly jab at the fact that the Screen Actors Guild and soon the actor style is going to be on strike if the producers of network television don't get their act together!

[@Vision667]

Literally changing everything I just paid hundreds of dollars for...

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

Some minor adjustments: •The Patron making a portal to reach and bash enemies comes from the familiar and not you. For the new Witch, familiars/hexes/patron is core to the playstyle. •Magic Weapon and Magic Fang are now Runic Weapon and Runic Body. They’re also Primal spells only now.

[@cernunnos_lives]

I've been sharpening up my Pathfinder Lore and ...oh another thing i wanna watch here.

[@LazarusXavier]

I called it 2.1 before friday, after that remaster panel, I'm calling it 2.5 all day, they totally downplayed it, the "remaster" is significant! I feel like they just don't want to call it 2.5 because they don't want to tick off all the people that just bought the CRB and such, and I totally get that. But I'd rather they just call it 2.5 and make it clear, remaster is starting to feel like muddy/unclear marketing.

[@craigjones7343]

If following software version numbering conventions the previous erratas would be versions: 2.0.1 2.0.2 2.0.3 2.0.4 The significant scale of changes and yet still full compatible with the current rules makes this update 2.1.0. It’s only unclear/muddy marketing because people do not understand proper version numbering conventions.

[@devcrom3]

​@@craigjones7343 for software. This is a ttrpg, bud.

[@thedukeofawesome4361]

@@devcrom3 Your right, this is a ttrpg. Which doesn't really have a "version numbering conventions" set. Just because Wizards did it, doesn't mean Piazo has to do it the same way. This gives more room if they want to do another pass later. 2.1 is fine, it's a new version, but you can still use all your previous books if you want. Unlike the 3.0 to 3.5 shift.

[@TheRulesLawyerRPG]

​@@devcrom3 And where did WOTC get the idea for 3.5? From software. And no other publishing industry uses software conventions but here we are.

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

It’s understandable they downplayed it. Apparently the Wizard schools, Drow retcon, and alignment removal is just too much for some players and *those things* somehow crossed a line for them. (Shrug)

[@Twigggggy]

i agree on the formula take i had multiple alchemist in this city on was all about telling the players he can bulk make certain items for them quickly for a price hike the othe had formula books you could purchase and special labs which you could use if you gained favor with the alchemists.

[@FirstLast-wk3kc]

Scoundrel fient+step sounds AMAZING action economy, wow now i am hyped up even more. (From 200% to 222% after this video)

[@undraxis]

Im not keen on saying good bye to the basic 8 schools. Yes they can be redone as curriculums, but it brought a sense of order to the magic system.

[@ThomasBD]

I hipe that one of the changes in the Alchemist is to make its text easier to understand. Unfortunately I only played PF2 once, but I played as an Alchemist and it took me days of reading and rereading, watching videos online and talking to people to understand what was going on at level 1 alchemist. 😅

[@ssfbob456]

Whaaat? Listening to customer criticism and making changes to fox the problems?! Hey, WotC, can you do that? Maybe fix the CR system? WotC: No! You need rules for dealing with problem players more!

[@larsbangjensen5332]

Hoping for an alternative approach to wounds / healing (just an optional grimdark approach)

[@seb24789]

Witches can use their hair to attack? They added Bayonetta to the game? Now i've got to check it out.

[@ex0stasis72]

I hope they give it a concise name to call it something like Pathfinder 2.1 or 2.5. otherwise, it might get confusing which version a group is settling on for a campaign.

[@bluntpencil2001]

It's nice to see crit spec changing for the blunt weapons. I'd like to see axes changed too, though, in their special rules. Axes should get 'razing' instead of 'sweep'. Axes shatter shields much better than most other weapons.

[@FoldingScreenMonkey]

So glad I bought the player's handbook this year just in time to buy a new one 🙃 in all seriousness though this isn't dnd and all the important changes are available online so I'm not mad about it. I'm also looking forward to the GM core, I've heard that book (or its current iteration) is much more useful than the 5e DMG.

[@BillDing88]

As someone who loves Red Mantis Assassin, the rogue change to make them proficient in all martial weapons is HUGE if you wanted to be a RMA Rogue. Previously, the only way for a rogue to get access to the RMA Dedication by level 2 was to go Human -> Versatile Heritage so you could take both Weapon Proficiency AND Unconventional Weaponry at level 1. Now, you can be ANY variant human and just take Unconventional Weaponry to get access. Score!!

[@Kitusser]

I'm kinda hoping they give classes like sorcerer and oracle "focus spell progression", so they don't need to spend feats to get access to their subclasses' focus spells. It feels like a feat tax to me, at least thematically. They said they were combining some weaker spells together (like detect magic and read aura), I'm hoping they do the same for class feats. Also please give casters more interesting feat options, especially at early levels. But overall really excited, these changes looks really fun.

[@evans178]

Fingers Crossed for better support for my True Neutral Champion of Pharasma . Currently we just made a neutral ''Paladin'' ( we call them Arbiters ) with some homemade anathemas

[@colgatelampinen2501]

True neutral gets axed along all other alignments

[@evans178]

@@colgatelampinen2501 indeed , but only the name and damage stuff , the role play of what makes a true neutral PC still remains in anathemas. My bad i didnt express it right, i just want a champion in the spirit of true neutral via anathemas and more freedom in tenets and causes so that i dont have to resort to homebrewery to make my edgy angel of death like champion

[@sad1864]

One thing that disappoints me is that like I imagine many others, I literally "bought" into Pathfinder less than 6 months ago. (Due to OGL debacle among other things, I literally sold some of my DnD 5e to buy a Pathfinder 2e Player Handbook Physical copy (along with a Humble Bundle). There is so much I like as I am learning, playing, and GMing but now less than 6 months some significant things will be outdated, especially with my physical book. This is discouraging. Some of you have been playing 2e for years but for some of us this is a lot of changes within 2e after a lot of changes from 5e.

[@TheDarkplace]

We have been running the versatile ancestry like that as a house rule it just gave too many role playing options not to

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

Half-Human for everyone!

[@Nolinquisitor]

It's the Remastered Edition. It doesn't need to be a number.

[@ExterminatorElite]

I keep hearing people describe the changes to Talismans as a buff, but I'm not sure if that's really true, or even the right way to think of the changes. As they stand, most talismans are free actions to activate, which is phenomenal for action economy (assuming that they then, you know, actually do something). And in the example of the bronze bull pendant, we currently get a +2 bonus to shove (big in this edition) and a critical failure on the check instead becomes a failure, which is also big given how much crit fails on shoves and other combat maneuvers hurt (falling prone really sucks). As a requirement, the user must already be trained in Athletics. So what's the idea with this design? Basically, if you're already at least trained at shoving, you can activate the bronze bull without taking any actions out of your turn, just to really ensure your shove works when you absolutely need it to. This is, to be clear, *really* good. It's also inherently unexciting, and I think this is why people have slept on talismans as they have; they often act to simply ensure the outcome of something you're already at least a little good at, taking the risk out of risky actions. That's actually pretty strong, but it isn't interesting. The way that talismans are going to be reworked has been described by Paizo as more "active". What we know for now is that they will likely often take an action to use, rather than a free action, and in some way change or augment the skill check concerned with their use, while the actual bonus they provide will be less, and they may not provide assurance against crit fails. They will also be more generally accessible with less stringent requirements to use in the first place. Those are certainly big changes, and talismans will likely be more interesting to use for more players. But does that all amount to a boost in real efficacy, such that the new action cost is justified? I'm not convinced. I think the devil's going to be in the details that we don't currently have.

[@icefyer2]

As someone who's got an Aasimar Gnoll character, the Nephilim stuff sounds very interesting.

[@cheezeofages]

Decent point. The remaster isn't a 2.5 because 3.5 required a conversion document to use previous content. The monster design and math wasn't the same. The big thing they keep hammering in about the Remaster is none of the math is changing and you can use all the old stuff 1 to 1. With the exception of spell school related features having the issue of new spells not getting grouped that way and alignment stuff not working on newer monsters without the GM going "Yeah this counts as X evil for that." Their stated goal is to not invalidate any previous choices unless they have to, only streamline or add more options.

[@Ahglock]

With the absolute destruction of my favorite class seeming to be happening in 6eD&D(warlock) the revisions to witch will interest me. I've never been a fan of familiars though so i wish they would insert a variant that did not use one.

[@BlueTressym]

Warlock is my fave 5e class too and WotC are definitely getting an earful from me about it when I fill in the feedback survey. Still, it frustrates me a little that the Witch, as an Int caster, requires a lot of changes to 'translate' to PF 2E, because skills and character emphasis, for want of a better term, have to change too. The one thing I like about the new Warlock is getting a choice of primary stat. Also, Witches are still bargaining with powers, so Cha would make sense for them too; it would be nice if you could choose as you can with Psychics or the new (and overall bloody awful) Warlock. PF 1E had the Cartomancer Witch who had a deck of tards instead of a familiar; maybe that could be updated?

[@moonlight2870]

They made warlocks better tho

[@Ahglock]

@@moonlight2870 No, they made them total trash. If I wanted to play a goth ranger I'd just take the gloomstalker sub class on ranger. They destroyed all that made the warlock fun and interesting in the goal of making a arcane gish class damn everything else about the class even though it was the vast majority of it.

[@moonlight2870]

@@Ahglock lol no first of all only bladelocks are even close to a gish, second of all being a half caster is far better and less confusing than the warlock's "full caster but not really " deal it used to have. People are overreacting because change is scary. You can still not like the new warlock, but "goth ranger" and "they ruined it to make a gish" just mean you don't know what's You're talking about.

[@Ahglock]

@@moonlight2870 Yes and only bladelocks kind of work and even then still not great. You go any other route and you are just a really crappy wizard. You aren't a warlock anymore except in name, just a crappy wizard in how you play. And no half caster is not better than pact magic, its far worse. There were 7 long rest caster models to chose from only one short rest class. Having options is a good thing. Everything blending into some bland homogeneous mass is not. You can like change for changes sake all you want, but acting like its not a goth ranger just means you have no idea what you are talking about. The half caster stink hangs all over the class, that is how it plays unless you go all in on mystic arcanums in which case you just play like a really bad wizard. We have playtested it in multiple games with all the pacts. And that is how it plays. You can like that if you want, but not liking that is not over reacting because we fear change. It is because we play tested it, and it sucks.

[@danrimo826]

Thanks for the wrap up. This is looking good. So great to see that Paizo has taken the opportunity to jettison a bunch of legacy stuff (alignment, spell schools that barely did anything and lacked internal consistency, chromatic vs metalic dragons) that DnD will never be able to get rid of. This is really refreshing.

[@diggeroldmate8122]

I'll definitely buy new stuff to support the company that treats me like a valued customer. This is a way out of WotC's OGL. Can't wait to be free of the shackles.

[@QuellAle]

Ronald I have one question that might be worth a video perhaps. Or maybe you already answered. What would happen in terms of damage/costs if they would not cut out of Pf the OGL protected stuff. Examples of recent offensors are Schools of Magic and Drows. I ask because they aren't taking the same road with Starfinder so they will keep publishing APs with NPCs with Alignments, for example. I assume that they decided that the cost/benefit ratio for Starfinder leaned toward leaving the things as is.

[@michaelturner2806]

I'm liking to at minimum indifferent to most everything they've announced so far. I'm not an active player, so the kinds of things that more experienced players are concerned about are lost on me. I'm getting ready to GM my first games the next couple weekends and finally see some of this theory go to practice. I've previously GM'd 3.5, pf1, the number between 3 and 5, and 5e, so I'm not inexperienced in that regard, just rusty.

[@kennethmccomber7311]

In addition to the witch they said that the Campion, alchemist, and Oracle were getting greater changes.

[@testprime4248]

Disarm should be 2 successes or 1 crit success. And it should be 1 to 3 actions. You decide before you roll how much you invest.

[@nip3004]

Honestly even if the old books became completely unusable I wouldn't be upset. Just about everyone I know who has them got them mainly as a way to give support. They put out all the rules for free online. And thanks to the community there are just far more efficient tools for accessing the rules than looking through a book.

[@evrypixelcounts]

Super excited for the changes, especially removing the clutter, like nesting traits in spell components. The refocus changes are great, especially the removal of the feat tax. I hope they add more general feats as part of the greater remaster, and rework the ones that aren't generally applicable.

[@paulgibbon5991]

Really, "remove the clutter" is what the book probably needs the most. You know a product is complete not when there's nothing to add, but nothing left to cut.

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

My concern is that new players and Dm's will regard the classes in Player Core 2 as being optional or worse non essential to the game

[@moonlight2870]

But they are. Both.

[@jamesmaclennan4525]

@@moonlight2870 We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[@RoninRaconteur]

I like where these changes are going and I fully support this. It feels like a class based game mixed with skill based one and I love the sound of that personally. My concern isn't the design or what they're doing...they seem to be doing an overhaul which is needed for many reasons which is logical with how WotC/Hasbro has been acting. My concern is bringing out these books with recent influx of new players and GMs to this system. They all just came in buying the material now the feel of needing to buy an all new set of books is a looming stress on those out there who want to have the most recent and updated thing. In this currently economical state we're in it's also a lot to ask. Which may not be an issue for some but for a lot of folks out there it's stress people may not want to deal with.

[@nemonomen3340]

Please let Paizo buff the Fascinated condition and Recall Knowledge.

[@ergii]

im pretty excited about most of these changes. the only thing im not so sure about is the change of spell schools. the replacements dont sound as flavorful, and i thought it was a useful thing when players are trying to figure out a magical effect. but we'll see if the new schools are also useful for that. i hope they change offensive cantrips too. they all seem fairly weak, except electric arc which is just miles ahead of the rest. i wish theyd make them one action with flourish or something, but im not sure how balanced that would be.

[@ybhandari]

I've gradually been drawn into the world of Pathfinder after playing the PC Kingmaker game, and I love your videos! Any chance you might release them in audio-only podcast format?

[@velemamba260]

I like these changes overall, very excited to see the witch. The only thing I feel kinda sad about are the removal of spell components. I always liked them and felt they were good flavour, but honestly I can just still have my characters use them in-world without the rules requirement. I'm eager to see what the new spell schools will be like. I always felt as if the spell schools in 2e weren't very flavorful, it's one of the few places I think D&D 5e is actually better. I was shocked how little there was for spell schools in wizard feats, it really feels like something that should be a bigger part of the class. I'm also not sure how I feel about bards getting martial weapons proficiency as a baseline. Flavor-wise it feels kindoff off to me, but I dunno. Otherwise, I'm enthused about all of this and can't wait to see what the other classeslook like. I don't envy them the work they're gonna need to redo Champions, since alignment was more important to them than it was to clerics, I feel. And I hope they don't change sorcerers too much. They're a class like fighters that I don't think need a lot of changes.

[@toodleselnoodos6738]

Spell components aren’t really gone. It’s the same as the ability scores. Just an extra step for something that didn’t matter. Somatic = Manipulate and Verbal = Concentrate. They’re just not limiting the specifics anymore and leave it up to the player to describe that was already there.