What is going to be your test of the new system?


Prerelease Discussion

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

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?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, for me the whole point of a new system is to be able to divest itself of the baggage of the old and make something better because of it.

So I'm going to be looking at areas where I think PF1 is weak: High level play in general, versatility and flexibility for non-casters, action economy (regarding attacks in particular), blasting, feat trees, very low level play, etc.

Then beyond that I just want to see how flexible core is. How far I can stretch each class, whether or not I can build a functional battle mage since there's no magus-equivalent in core, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

honestly, my group and I haven't decided yet, other than testing how easy the playtest adventure can be converted to Pathfinder (since that, for us, is the most important aspect)
I will, however, probably dive deep into character creation to see what can and can't be done


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm going to play a cleric~

>.>

what? I want to know how the new action system will work with the new variable healing stuffs.


If the math works up to about level 12 or so.

Particularly in light of the cleric at static 8 HP+Con bonus every level, if the combat ends up as a really tedious padded sumo problem where you just bang on enemies like a drum, round after round.


I'll be starting my playtest at level 13 and attempt to run it to 20


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it fun to play?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am gonna try to build exotic dancer sorcerer with unique heritage to test its flexibility


bookrat wrote:


What is going to be the test you use too see how good PF2 will be?

Paying attention to the comments from smart people here who have posted enough that I have a reasonable handle on their opinions and preferences, in order to which of my likely players will like and dislike bits of it, and how best to be persuasive with them if needed.


Spellcasting. I've never liked traditional spellcasting, usually taking Path of War, Psionics, of Spheres of Power options if available over normal spellcasting.

I'm wanting to play a fighter too, since everyone seems, or at least the cleric, the fighter treatment of "FEATS EVERYWHERE!".


I want combat to flexible, cinematic, fun, and not time consuming.

I want my fellow group of middle-aged fools, mostly with a long history in classless games, to feel like the classes provide something unique without straitjacketing them into really outdated, bad fantasy tropes.

Everything I've seen so far points towards me being pretty pleased.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Mine will be how far does it deviate from 1E. I'f it's more than a few changes....then naw.....


I want to put the iterative attack option through its paces. I still feel it'd be better if characters worked like monsters: full BAB for the primary attack and then BAB minus 5 for every subsequent attack, instead of a cumulative penalty. In other words, if you get 3 attacks, I feel it should probably be at BAB / BAB-5 / BAB-5 instead of BAB / BAB-5 / BAB-10. But while this works well for me in PF1E, I want to see if it holds true in PF2E. Maybe they made that -10 attack actually worthwhile, as unlikely as it feels.

Traditionally, D&D and Pathfinder work best at levels 5-12. I want to see how PF2E works outside those long-established bounds. Are low levels still just a hurdle to clear until you get to the fun, or are they more fun now? Does high-level play dissolve into a world of weird duckery like it always did in earlier editions, or is that fixed?

Probably my main focus though, will be specifically looking for dumb underpowered character options. I actually don't feel strong options are as much of a problem in the game, it's the weak "traps" that are what prove most disappointing, when a player realizes that the cool concept they had is actually trash because the rules don't support it. Obviously designers (probably) don't intentionally bake traps into the system. But they do still arise from overzealous balance concerns, from unforeseen interactions with other rules systems, or just by comparison with better options available at the same level because five designers worked on feats and each had different priorities than the others.


I will make more of an effort to test high level play since that's what I'm most interested in them fixing, it will ideally be a major part of what'll differentiate PF2 from 5e, and fewer people will do it if they're playing a playtest AP from level 1.

The point of testing being to see if and how the thing can be broken, I'll deliberately try to break the system and see how difficult it is.

And since it'll supposedly be more closely tied to the Golarion setting, I'm curious to see how easy it'll be to run adventures in other settings. For testing purposes I would convert fluff only, not trying to houserule in other mechanics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My friends and I continue to have fun, and my friends have an easier time.


I'm going to see how hard it is to homebrew in extraplanar ancestries and how well it can reflect my extraplanar manapunk setting.


I think my test will be if non spellcasters have varied choices of actions beside default attack they can do in combat.


One of the tests I put 5e through was to play what optimizers said, "never play this" just to see how much it holds up. Usually race/class combos or multiclass combos that were deemed to suck.

I never found a character that was non-viable.

I'm really curious if that also holds up in PF2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Due to short amount of playtesting vs 5E one probably start at level 5+ and try and test level 10-15 and see how it runs. Perfect balance doesn't matter more ease of running the game.


bookrat wrote:
One of the tests I put 5e through was to play what optimizers said, "never play this" just to see how much it holds up. Usually race/class combos or multiclass combos that were deemed to suck.

That actually encourages me to try out my Rogue Scout3/Lore Bard 3/Knowledge Cleric 1 which I built specifically for the purpose of having all skill proficiencies and as many expertises as possible at L7 (where our campaign just arrived).

I don't know if Pathfinder will be that accomodating. I feel like 5e is basically on cruise control with character building, it makes sure you are neither exceedingly powerful nor weak by basically taking most of the customization away. PF2 looks to be going very heavily toward customizable classes, by having you choose your class features from a list of feats.


Is it better than 1E? Mostly going to be looking out for all the things 5e did wrong and hoping they keep the stuff that makes me love pathfinder


I'm going to put the martial classes through the grinder and see how much Cool Stuff I can do with them. The Barbarian is my pet class in 1E so I might start with that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bookrat wrote:

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?

Mine is pretty simple but VERY subjective.

Is it fun and do I enjoy playing it?

That's my test right there.


Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm going to put the martial classes through the grinder and see how much Cool Stuff I can do with them. The Barbarian is my pet class in 1E so I might start with that.

if you're doing it online shoot me a PM


Ideally, I would like to see how the different classes and heritages work through all (or most) of the levels. That's not something I can accomplish on my own of course, especially as a player. So I am planning to GM a few games and join others as a player: what I want to test is the whole new edition, actually, there is not something in particular I want to test more than other things. OK, perhaps I am a bit more curious about the new three-actions system for combat, the active use of shields, and the transition betweeen "exploration" mode and "encounter" mode.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I'm going to try to explain it to a bunch of newish players who never quite got the hang of PF1 and see if they can actually play without me telling them what to do next. And create the characters they want without me having to "guide" them.

Scarab Sages

My big test:

Did they create a system of keywords and similarly worded rules elements, so-as to make it easier to make it forward compatible with future rules books.

If they did not, right out of the gate, this may be a deal-breaker for me.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

If our current campaign goes on just a little bit longer than expected and the final version of the PF2 rules is out, our group will most likely have a vote as to which set of rules to use. My vote will be based on whether I can make something like a certain PF1 character I have in mind; I will go with the new edition only if it either directly supports that character type or provides options that I like even better.

Needless to say, this vote would be repeated with each campaign until PF2 is robust enough for everybody. I would be very surprised if the campaign after the next one ends up going by PF1 rules.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whether or not they stole all my house rules or just some of them.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Whether or not they stole all my house rules or just some of them.

Part of me wishes they stole more of mine.


My wife is terrible at getting crunch and building an effective character. I will record going over the game with her and if she can make a halfway decent character then I'm sold.


My tests?

I'm down with the action economy. Sounds fun.

I'm cautiously optimistic with all the new feat lists. Character customization is a must.

I'm cynical of the skills system. I dont want to see further consolidation or a 5E style snooze fest system.


Is the system fun, is it changing things for change sake or with purpose, is it easy to modify or if i don't care for a rule can i change it, does it feel like pathfinder, is it backwards compatible.

(Sorry for the formating, I'm really tired.)


Character building.

I'm going to build an Elf Fighter/Mage at different levels, from 2 to 20.

If I'm capable of building a single character that is viable as either the party's primary Fighter or its primary Mage-- depending on which one the party needs-- I will consider it a major improvement over previous PF and WotC D&D.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two things:
One- is the game open to hyperoptimization? Playing an inoptimal character is fine and all, but sometimes I want to spend three hours trying to squeeze every last +1 I can from the thing and make it as powerful as possible.

Two- is playing an inoptimal character fun? Playing a hyperoptimized character is fine and all, but sometimes I don't want to spend three hours needing to find every last +1 as I can just to make something viable and fun to play.


I think the goal is to lessen the gap between the two.

So it'll only take 2 hours.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seeing if the system is robust enough to handle the characters I like to play. It took forever in PF1 for them to hit the point where I could make a fencer paladin, a holy or arcane monk, and spiritual samurai swordmaster, a tanky immovable mountain monk a divine ninja, anyone covered in interesting magical tattoos, a magimechanical artificer, or an elemental blaster.

Some of those never ended up being viable in PF1, I'm hoping for better in 2.0.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Play EXACTLY by RAW to actually know if the new stuff is fine. Pointless to try and play PF1 or with "no resonance" house rules unless the new system is thoroughly experienced.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm with Wolfism. I'm going to try to make dozens of characters with all sorts of weird backgrounds, requirements, fighting styles, and goals. If I can make almost all of them in PF2e as well as PF1e, then I'll be much more open to switching over.

I do not plan on waiting years and years to be able to play a divine dragon disciple kobold, or a divine+arcane caster, or a shapeshifting specialist without spells, or a sword and board slayer, or a sneak attacking melee focused non-shapeshifting druid

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just wish that level 1-20 playtest adventure they're putting out could be reasonably completed before the playtest is over. Maybe if my group played more than once a week it could be possible, but likely not too fun.

Personally I think I will test out multiclassing and seeing if a certain character concept I really enjoy is capable with ot without it.


I will most likely test with The Temple of Elemental Evil

Liberty's Edge

I'm planning to run the provided playtest adventure. Having already given up on Pathfinder 1E, I'll be interested in things like:

- How much prep is required compared to 1E?
- Is combat faster than 1E's?
- Is it fun?
- Does the new action economy introduce analysis paralysis?
- Does it degrade into chaos after 12th level, or does it stay balanced/fast/fun?

Really looking forward to taking the playtest for a spin.


I'm interested in the playtest adventure. I like the idea of a "module" designed to showcase the whole level spread.
Do we know much about it yet? I can't actually believe they've got a full 1-20 campaign in 7 scenarios and 96 pages. I assume the scenarios are separate and staged at different levels, but with some connective tissue.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
QuidEst wrote:
My friends and I continue to have fun, and my friends have an easier time.

Yup.


I'll mess around with character gen. Then talk with friends(though none of us like what we're seeing this far). After that maybe recycle an Ap if the conversion is easy and see how it plays out a bit. Say do a dungeon from each book.


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.

Oh, also, probably going to create a lot of monsters and traps and things to see how those rules feel.


I've heard the "campaign" is actually a series of adventures of different levels so that you dont necessarily take the same PCs through entire thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was going run the playtest adventure/campaign. Then a PF1 to try to test the "can covert on the fly while running" concept.


I want to see how the whole system behaves in general, but magic items&resonance is the big one. Basically I have no faith in paizo with magic items as they have proven themselves with modifying 3,5system for the worse, nerferrataing the good items toand uselessness, and simply not making any item worth comparing with the big 6.


bookrat wrote:

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?

Apparently you can’t make a character bad at a skill. At all.

1 to 50 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / What is going to be your test of the new system? All Messageboards