I will try to check all the things that Paizo is doing in the boundaries of the system. The stuff that "pushes the envelope" so to speak. The rules where they are truly innovative and brave. I want to be supportive of innovation and encourage them to be daring.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently you can’t make a character bad at a skill. At all.For me, the test is going to be whether I can accidentally make a bad PC, without intentionally trying to sabotage it (like started with an Int 7 wizard - although it would be cool if I could make an Int 7 wizard actually viable like I can in 5e).
One of my players wants to see what the lowest level of a caster is needed to "break" the system.
Another player is interested in how fighters feel during all levels.
What is going to be the test you use too see how good PF2 will be?
Not true. A lvl 1 untrained character is pretty bad at things, even worse than in OPF.
What you can't do, tho, is to level up and keep being as bad as you were before leveling up. That was already true in a lot of things, like saves and attacking with weapons, because such is the nature of games with levels. It's just that it has now expanded to do basic things with skills, in addition to dodge fireballs, survive poisons, and attack with a spear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My test will be: Does it still feel like I'm playing the same game. If Paizo are doing an iterative design (and we're simply focusing on everything that's different because that's what stands out/is getting covered) then so be it. But if they're doing a tear-down/rebuild system that resembles 1st edition in name only, I'm going to be less likely to convince my players to play and enjoy it and it's going to be more likely we stick with Pathfinder 1st ed.
In addition to being recognisably descended from Pathfinder 1st ed: I want a game system that's better balanced than Pathfinder 1st ed and offers more meaningful choices. I need incentive to abandon (or spend hours converting) PF 1st ed material or otherwise I'm better off just playing the previous edition.
Finally I also want proper sized APs. If we're getting the Starfinder nonsense (only full length AP finishes at 12th level and then 3 linked modules and another 3 linked modules) I'm going to have even less reason to convert over.
I will try to check all the things that Paizo is doing in the boundaries of the system. The stuff that "pushes the envelope" so to speak.
me too. hopefully there won't be too much of that
Apart from the obvious is it fun criteria I would say:
1) Easier to pick up and get playing for new players
2) Retains the huge number of different build options for characters
3) Consistent rules with few exceptions
4) Consistent use of language so for example if something calls itself a serum of enhancement, the bonus it gives is an enhancement one not something else
5) How easy it is to run one of the first edition Adventure Paths in the second edition
I will try to check all the things that Paizo is doing in the boundaries of the system. The stuff that "pushes the envelope" so to speak.me too. hopefully there won't be too much of that
No matter how much or how little there is, I'd ask for more.
I was going run the playtest adventure/campaign. Then a PF1 to try to test the "can covert on the fly while running" concept.
Doing the same. Working on maps on right now: I am going to start before we get playtest stuff and have them convert fully when we get the rest.
I'll include most of what we know (resonance, weapon properties, etc).I'll take out shadow and replace with burning skeleton though (fits same thematic area but less TPK).
I think I'll include Core + Alchemist on GitP PBP.
For me?
I want for there to be less math involved in the role playing. Let's tell a story, not write a calculus paper.
Bruno grapple.
And trip.
And dirty trick.
Bruno want to see if combat maneuver specialist viable.
Hopefully Bruno will find grappling with understanding the new rules no challenge.
Thinking about it, maybe I'll run the playtest here since no players yet in GitP recruitment thread.
I’m playing a spell sage wizard that is so much fun. So, how much I can recreate a ‘screw schools, I want the powa’ wizard with just the CRB.
For me I am hoping to run it for my 3 groups of 6 player parties. Main group is more than willing to temp out our latest AP started (Kingmaker), 2nd group a bit more tricky (Ironfang Invasion), some interested and others so so, but they said they would at least like to try it for a bit. 3rd group (Wrath of the Righteous) is hard to get a handle on them as of yet.
For me if my players are liking it then that is half the battle, my take will be after I get some game time in it GMing (as well as player feedback) to see how it all flows together and how hard or easy this system will be for my players first, then me, compared to the good old trusty PF1.
Should be an interesting ride regardless I think :)
Tom
I intend to run shorter adventures that span at most two sessions, upping levels and having the players switch characters and classes. I haven't decided what the actual adventures are going to be, but I have time to figure that out.
Unless they include monster creation rules in the playtest rules, I'm going to attempt to reverse engineer the monster stat blocks and build new things. Monster creation is one of my favourite things to do as a GM, so if there are rules for it I want to try them out.
I also intend to houserule some of the more divisive topics of discussion on the forums (raise shield, resonance, and what-have-you). To see if I can "fix" or break them, or if it's not necessary.
I don't know if our group's other GM has any inclination to run a playtest adventure, but if so I would have to give my favourite class, the bard, a spin.
Thinking about it, maybe I'll run the playtest here since no players yet in GitP recruitment thread.
I'm not surprised considering the playtest comes out in half a year.
Fun as Golarion is, I think I may not be patient enough for the final release of the game and just convert some of my EverQuest RPG stuff to PF2 rules and adventure in Norrath. Some of the most fun I ever had was playing in that setting! So I'll tinker with creating ancestries for Iksar and so on.
There was an EverQuest RPG? O.o Is it d20? Adventuring in Norrath sounds like fun!
(we had an Iksar monk in our guild, we called him 'Fluffy' for some reason?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fun as Golarion is, I think I may not be patient enough for the final release of the game and just convert some of my EverQuest RPG stuff to PF2 rules and adventure in Norrath. Some of the most fun I ever had was playing in that setting! So I'll tinker with creating ancestries for Iksar and so on.There was an EverQuest RPG? O.o Is it d20? Adventuring in Norrath sounds like fun!
(we had an Iksar monk in our guild, we called him 'Fluffy' for some reason?)
Yes, there was! And other than the fact it runs on the aging D20 engine, it was quite good. In fact, they did a lot of interesting things with the system, and some of the races are pretty powerful, just how I like them. You can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.
I really love that setting, especially Kunark. The Iksar were so awesome. One of my favorite fantasy races of all time.
Yes, there was! And other than the fact it runs on the aging D20 engine, it was quite good. In fact, they did a lot of interesting things with the system, and some of the races are pretty powerful, just how I like them. You can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.
Oh! Okie! That would be nifty! Thank you! ^.^
I really love that setting, especially Kunark. The Iksar were so awesome. One of my favorite fantasy races of all time.
I found Kunark kind of terrifying, but that's prolly just me being my usual scaredy-cat self. Luclin was prolly my favorite; being on the moon appealed to my kerri-riffic sense of weird.
I found Kunark kind of terrifying, but that's prolly just me being my usual scaredy-cat self. Luclin was prolly my favorite; being on the moon appealed to my kerri-riffic sense of weird.
We got a Froglok character that joined us, and we'd go swimming in the tunnels beneath Cabilis. It was pretty great. I never got to go to Luclin, really, but I'd love to have that chance. It always sounded so cool.
You can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.
Oh! Me too, please! :D
As for my playtest, I'm hoping to get a bunch of non-Pathfinder players together and running Strange Aeons for them.
This seems exceedingly cruel. But I suppose the easiest way to see how the rules are streamlined and how much easier everything is would be to throw them in the meat grinder
For me, the test is going to be whether I can accidentally make a bad PC, without intentionally trying to sabotage it (like started with an Int 7 wizard - although it would be cool if I could make an Int 7 wizard actually viable like I can in 5e).
One of my players wants to see what the lowest level of a caster is needed to "break" the system.
Another player is interested in how fighters feel during all levels.
What is going to be the test you use too see how good PF2 will be?
If I were running it myself, I'd probably make a short campaign that covered the same characters in two time periods, with flashbacks between them, covering an epic storyline, so that we can thoroughly test both low and high level rules. To be honest, our group has rarely had many issues with low-level play, it's always when the levels hit 9 and up that the problems started to accumulate. If we could run a short series of missions with characters level 12 to 15, and not go crazy from analysis paralysis, or have problems be immediately solved by reality-smashing spells, or have combats that take three hours to play out 5 rounds, then I'm happy as a clam.
I plan on testing a bard, cleric, paladin and wizard. I'll test them against the play test material and see if they are better/more fun than PF1.
Bruno, a handsome and beautiful tetori, does not mind if they simplify the grappling rules but is worried if they neuter it too much to the point it only niche or situational.
One of the declared design goals is for maneuvers to be useful even if you aren't specifically building for them, so hopefully a maneuver master in PF2 will be even better than one in PF1.
|
This seems exceedingly cruel. But I suppose the easiest way to see how the rules are streamlined and how much easier everything is would be to throw them in the meat grinderYou can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.
Oh! Me too, please! :D
As for my playtest, I'm hoping to get a bunch of non-Pathfinder players together and running Strange Aeons for them.
They’re all Call of Cthulhu fans, the cruelty of the meat grinder is fine :D
They’re all Call of Cthulhu fans, the cruelty of the meat grinder is fine :DThis seems exceedingly cruel. But I suppose the easiest way to see how the rules are streamlined and how much easier everything is would be to throw them in the meat grinderYou can find the EverQuest PHB on Amazon, in fact. I'll PM you the link, if you'd like. It was pretty great.
Oh! Me too, please! :D
As for my playtest, I'm hoping to get a bunch of non-Pathfinder players together and running Strange Aeons for them.
Oh well okay then. If they have a general idea of what's coming then that's fine.
The only think I would like to know how it works(Though neither of us will remember it in about 5 months) is how well Resonance works. People can debate about wands all day; Strange Aeons doesn't seem very easy unless you find the CLW and Lessor Restore Wands. And maybe someone to deal with illness.
Actually thinking about it as I just did the first book, it's a decent hot bed to test things. I question how you translate Haunts though.