Pathfinder Player and GM Core Are Now Available

The new Remastered core rulebooks will serve as a fresh entry point for Pathfinder 2nd Edition under the ORC license.

Today, November 15th, Paizo released the first two books of their remastered line: Pathfinder Player Core and Pathfinder GM Core. They will continue the line in 2024 with Pathfinder Monster Core and Pathfinder Player Core 2.

These books serve as a fresh entry point into 2nd edition while removing any carried over OGL content and incorporating several years of errata and changes to the game. This comes as a response to the concerns brought about earlier this year with the shifting conditions of the Open Gaming License and the huge influx of new Pathfinder players. This explosion of new players saw Paizo selling out of Pathfinder Core Rulebook in Q1 and triggered an unexpected new and final printing of the book.

Paizo used this opportunity to pull content from many of the previous books, along with errata and feedback from the developers and players, to replace the OGL books as they are phased out of production. They also streamlined the organization of the books to make it easier to navigate for old and new players alike.

The design team also took this opportunity to introduce new rules, heritages, and feats, as well as overhauling spellcasting.

We did a review of both books earlier this month. They are available now in standard hardcover, Special Edition hardcover, and hobby-retailer exclusive Sketch Cover hardcovers.

If you want to find out more about the ORC license, you can find it on Azora’s website.

 

[Retreater]

Or Worlds Without Number!

I'll settle for anything.
Real life has kept us from gaming for weeks

 

[Retreater]

I bought and thought I’d like OSE, until I realized my fighter for 9+ levels could only swing my sword once in a combat round. I used to like that style game in 1985 when I first started playing but I find it more enjoyable with the game mechanics that have becomes part of the game in the last 30+ years.

I got so bored with OSE. (I didn't start with B/X, so I had no nostalgia for it.)
I'm still trying to find that Goldilocks system, but maybe the answer is to just switch up games more often?

 

[EthanSental]

I just wanted to run something simple that they can make a character themselves and not have a bunch of rules to understand. If they like the concept and want to play more, I’ll see what their tolerance for game complexity is and go from there.

Good idea, a couple sessions to see if they like it, with most systems would be 1-3 levels…OSE would be a good entry to RPGs for a new group and see if they want to keep playing RPGs.

 

[GreyLord]

I bought and thought I’d like OSE, until I realized my fighter for 9+ levels could only swing my sword once in a combat round. I used to like that style game in 1985 when I first started playing but I find it more enjoyable with the game mechanics that have becomes part of the game in the last 30+ years.

If that is all your fighter is doing in B/X, or BECMI, or AD&D....you may need a new DM.

A fighter should not just be "swinging his sword" once in a combat round. You should be inspired to be more creative (and perhaps not even get into combat...if you are primarily just doing combat your DM was probably raised on 3e or later...in older editions that's a good way to get eaten, turned undead, or worse) to avoid the combat and get the treasure.

 

[EthanSental]

If that is all your fighter is doing in B/X, or BECMI, or AD&D....you may need a new DM.

A fighter should not just be "swinging his sword" once in a combat round. You should be inspired to be more creative (and perhaps not even get into combat...if you are primarily just doing combat your DM was probably raised on 3e or later...in older editions that's a good way to get eaten, turned undead, or worse) to avoid the combat and get the treasure.

The DM is fine for combat but at the most basic level, a fighter gets 1 action in that minute long round to swing the weapon to fell an opponent. This isn’t Errol Flynn’s Robin Hood that swings from a rope to shoot a bow combat style with OSE or BX. Once combat starts, the fighter does only get 1 swing of the sword to injure the bad guy/monster. Doing trips and other shenanigans to injure or Incapacitate the bad guy quickly wears thin since leveling is slower and by 4th level, a person has used ever gadget trick play besides swing the sword for his round.

 

[thullgrim]

I got so bored with OSE. (I didn't start with B/X, so I had no nostalgia for it.)
I'm still trying to find that Goldilocks system, but maybe the answer is to just switch up games more often?

That’s not a bad idea. Run shorter campaigns as seasons. 6-8-12 sessions then switch. Try and tell a complete short story arc. You can always come back for a season 2.

You can treat character advancement however you want. SWADE has recommendations for an advancement every session if you. No reason you can’t arbitrarily level after 2-3 sessions. No reason to tie advancement to XP or include filler encounters.

 

[Retreater]

If that is all your fighter is doing in B/X, or BECMI, or AD&D....you may need a new DM.

A fighter should not just be "swinging his sword" once in a combat round. You should be inspired to be more creative (and perhaps not even get into combat...if you are primarily just doing combat your DM was probably raised on 3e or later...in older editions that's a good way to get eaten, turned undead, or worse) to avoid the combat and get the treasure.

But this is all that the book gives the player and DM. It doesn't give examples of creative actions or guidelines on how to adjudicate.

So many proponents of old school style encourage gamers to "ignore the rules, let your imagination run wild, make it interesting yourself." That is a difficult proposition without experience and/or guidance (I've been GMing for 30 years - and it can still be challenging running this way at times.)

At best, this mentality is unhelpful. At the worst, it's gatekeeping in that "get good, bro" kind of way.
I would argue that the onus of presenting the best way to have fun in a game system falls on the game system itself. If the game is a boring slog by using the rules as written, then that issue is with the rules system. It is not the responsibility of the GM or players to try to "divine" what the unwritten tradition of playing the game is.

When you look at a game, does it provide examples of things like the following...
1) a fighter flips over a table to get a bonus to AC. If so, how much might it be?
2) what kind of roll should be taken to swing across a chandelier? How much damage might be done by dropping on a goblin below?
3) can you trip? disarm? grapple? Is it harder to do against a giant?
4) can you re-shape a spell to have a different area of effect? create a different form of energy damage?
5) you're breaking out of a prison cell and using a rat bone to pick the lock. what is the penalty for not having thieves' tools?
6) can you light arrows on fire? if so, does that make them more difficult to aim? how much fire damage will it do to that troll?
7) can you shove the orc into the other orc behind him, perhaps sending him into the yawning chasm behind? what do you have to roll to do that?

While it doesn't have to present rules for all of the above, does it give the players the idea that it's possible while giving the GM a way to expect how to rule about these actions? If you get outrageous bonuses for doing the same creative thing every action (I'm going to trip every turn, for example), then the game becomes boring again with repeated behavior.

This is why, to me, most retroclones fail to be interesting beyond a one-shot. Running a campaign with a system like OSE is like going on a cross country trip on a Model T. Sure you might eventually get to your destination, but how many breakdowns will you have along the way - and can you find the parts and help to fix it?

 

[Velderan]

I got so bored with OSE. (I didn't start with B/X, so I had no nostalgia for it.)
I'm still trying to find that Goldilocks system, but maybe the answer is to just switch up games more often?

That's sorta what my group is doing.

We run PF2e every Monday on Foundry VTT, but we pick different games to run in person every month or so as schedules align in-person. It's given me a chance to run some games I've been curious to try (CoC, Pendragon, Starfinder, BitD) while changing things up so we don't get bored. So far I've approached the games we've tried from the perspective of "we may never touch this again, so keep what I have planned to something we can finish in a one-shot" and it's worked good enough. CoC was a huge hit, to where I've had requests to run it again. SF was good, but with 2e on the horizon and us being familiar with PF2e I think we'll largely leave that alone until the edition change. Pendragon and BitD haven't been tried yet, but those will hopefully get a turn before the end of the year.

 

[payn]

But this is all that the book gives the player and DM. It doesn't give examples of creative actions or guidelines on how to adjudicate.

So many proponents of old school style encourage gamers to "ignore the rules, let your imagination run wild, make it interesting yourself." That is a difficult proposition without experience and/or guidance (I've been GMing for 30 years - and it can still be challenging running this way at times.)

A lot of this comes down to how comfortable a person/group is with ambiguity. Some folks are just not built to play rulings over rules style. I think there is an art to it that cant be explained fully in text. Some folks are looking for simplicity in a fighter that just swings a sword every turn, others want that freedom to be creative and as soon as you define the rules you start to confine that space.

At best, this mentality is unhelpful. At the worst, it's gatekeeping in that "get good, bro" kind of way.
I would argue that the onus of presenting the best way to have fun in a game system falls on the game system itself. If the game is a boring slog by using the rules as written, then that issue is with the rules system. It is not the responsibility of the GM or players to try to "divine" what the unwritten tradition of playing the game is.

Possible, but I dont fully agree here. If you find something boring, that is subjective, and not totally on the system itself. I'm not saying the material is immune to criticism, but if you dont enjoy it, thats not entirely on how the system is written and presented. It could be you have a certain style or need that leans rules over rulings to make clear the system intent. You do have some responsibility for your own experiences too.

When you look at a game, does it provide examples of things like the following...
1) a fighter flips over a table to get a bonus to AC. If so, how much might it be?
2) what kind of roll should be taken to swing across a chandelier? How much damage might be done by dropping on a goblin below?
3) can you trip? disarm? grapple? Is it harder to do against a giant?
4) can you re-shape a spell to have a different area of effect? create a different form of energy damage?
5) you're breaking out of a prison cell and using a rat bone to pick the lock. what is the penalty for not having thieves' tools?
6) can you light arrows on fire? if so, does that make them more difficult to aim? how much fire damage will it do to that troll?
7) can you shove the orc into the other orc behind him, perhaps sending him into the yawning chasm behind? what do you have to roll to do that?

While it doesn't have to present rules for all of the above, does it give the players the idea that it's possible while giving the GM a way to expect how to rule about these actions? If you get outrageous bonuses for doing the same creative thing every action (I'm going to trip every turn, for example), then the game becomes boring again with repeated behavior.

This is why, to me, most retroclones fail to be interesting beyond a one-shot. Running a campaign with a system like OSE is like going on a cross country trip on a Model T. Sure you might eventually get to your destination, but how many breakdowns will you have along the way - and can you find the parts and help to fix it?

I've never had a issue free ride across the country even in a Lamborghini. My experience has always been that there is a compromise between playstyle and system to get the right fit. I agree that some systems are best played one shot, but I find long term campaigns typically fall more into player playstyle than system. YMMV.

 

[Jahydin]

So many proponents of old school style encourage gamers to "ignore the rules, let your imagination run wild, make it interesting yourself." That is a difficult proposition without experience and/or guidance (I've been GMing for 30 years - and it can still be challenging running this way at times.)

Interesting comment, because I understand it competently. As someone who played 3.5/4th heavily, I had to rewire my brain when I started playing C&C.

But then I realized this was exactly the way my friends and I played RPGs for years in Grade School. Not so much a skill, but a freedom I forgot as I got more "serious" about the hobby.

Some examples off the top of my head (AD&D 2E):
We started a campaign where we all got to design our own gigantic mounts to ride on. Mine was a beetle the size of a house.
During recess, we didn't have our books or dice, so we just "LARPed" all the combats with a list of rules we all agreed on.
I got my books taken away (Satanic Panic), so ran an entire campaign over the school year with a system I just made up on the fly using monsters and dungeons from my NES Dragon Warrior guide.
I was gifted Traveler (GDW) for Christmas and 5th grade me couldn't quite understand how to play, so just "winged it" using the RIFTS rules. Kept us entertained for months.

It's kind of amazing to me after all those years of creativity (and fun!) I would abandon the mindset completely and spend days rereading my 3rd Edition rule book over and over so I could get everything right. And if there was a question about a ruling, I would scour the internet for the "right" answer instead of just making up my own.

Anyways, cool train of thought for some self-reflection...