Obviously, opinions may change once the official book is out.
But just for funsies, what is the first class you're looking forward to playing in your first real PF2 campaign.
For me it's either wizard or bard.
Really gotta see how Wizard fares now with the change to spells.
But also very interested in seeing how Barb and Ranger got improved.
Yea. Obviously spells got upgraded. Proficiencies changed things. So no one knows what we don't know. Just what you're gravitating towards or looking forward to trying out.
I heard a lot of people say they liked shields. I haven't tried them out. I know those got a few changes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monk. I just want monks to be good out of the box for once.
Tough question!
I'll be GMing so... all of them!!
When I get around to playing with a PC... Definitely a Dwarf, though that's not the question... Currently I'm considering between Wizard and Barbarian, even though Cleric is my typical class.
I'll be rebuilding all my old favourite PCs, first. After that...I guess a Rogue?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yea. Obviously spells got upgraded. Proficiencies changed things. So no one knows what we don't know. Just what you're gravitating towards or looking forward to trying out.
I heard a lot of people say they liked shields. I haven't tried them out. I know those got a few changes.
In the playtest I played a Paladin dual wielding bossed shields, because that’s clearly something that wouldn’t work in PF1, but sounds cool. And it was fun. He had the Lion shield, and even without activating it it was surprisingly satisfying to kick ass with a non weapon like that. He was also very effective in protecting everyone. I never thought I would have fun playing a paladin, but it was. And that’s the complete opposite from what I usually play, being a fan of the Investigator class. Other times I play bards or rogues... always skill monkeys.
Also, knowing that shield could break, I had two spare shields, and they even had magic bosses too, to be sure, and I never needed them (played him on the cleric chapter).Answering the OP question: I wanna try to make an anti-magic Wizard. She’ll probably be a Wizard with Fighter dedication, that all her Wizard stuff are counterspells, dispels and anti-magic stuff.
Tough question!
I'll be GMing so... all of them!!
I will also be GMing. My players' characters tend to befriend local NPCs, so the first character I create will be filling out a full description on such a friend. A helpful local would likely be an alchemist, cleric, or fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger with Animal Companion, I just hope that they buffed the Animal Companion for the Ranger since it looked kind of anemic when compared to the Druid's
It’s no secret that I’m so happy about how rogue is looking. The character I played in DD 1, 4 and 7 was an extremely fun and effective goblin rogue and I will probably do the same for my 1st PF2 game. Chirch’s opulent retirement in Qadira after saving the world will sadly have been only a dream.
Alternatively to that I also really like how the storm order druid looks and would like to give it a real go. I tried one out in DD 5 but that chapter didn’t allow it to use it’s full tool box and was just the worst chapter in general.
I will probably be the GM, so I'm hoping to at least get one starter game in and see how people like it.
This will probably be a standard old fashioned party with pregens for everybody to get right into. Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard. If I wind up having six I'll probably tap in Elf and Dwarf as something to complete the stereotypes/tropes/cliches. If five, I'll add a bard.
Hopefully this will be both familiar territory and be able to highlight how things are different.
One of my players is going to run a one shot so I can play a Goblin Alchemist. I like the changes they made to that class.
While it maybe a while till I get to to play, as I am a consummate GM, I really want to play a cleric. I never played one in PF1, but a N Cleric of Norgorber has me very interested in the possibilities. Maybe even Multiclass as rogue.
I'll be GMing, definitely.
So the first thing I test is how it feels to homebrew NPCs and monsters. I definitely won't be using PC rules for my NPCs, as I never have, so it'll be easy to see if it's intuitive, if it's quick, if it's easy/difficult to balance, etc.
Enchanter Wizard with a talking cat familiar named Tuna.
Unless I go with Rogue multiclassing into Bard.
I'm really unsure about this. I don't even know if I want to play a caster or not. XD But so far, based on character concepts I have in mind, I'm leaning towards either a bard or a fighter.
|
Mostly, I'll have to wait until the book comes out and I see what the classes ACTUALLY are (not what Paizo thinks they are, what I think they are). They're changing (probably) too much for me to know
I HOPE that after reading the book the Druid and Bard classes both inspire me enough to take. But both are spellcasters and spells is one of the big unknowns. They need SOME boost from the Playtest but not too much. I'm not overwhelmingly confident in Paizo getting that balance approximately right without playtesting. After all, they got it woefully wrong in the original playtest version of PF2 and they have a LONG history of overcompensating for problems.
Both will need changes from the playtest. The Druid is largely lackluster right now (at mid levels a Druid multiclassing into a paladin was viable, a druid by itself really wasn't).
And the Bards emphasis on handing out a small bonus could easily NOT work correctly given the changes to the underlying math that we've been promised. The amount of bonus a bard should give is exactly the kind of thing that I wish had been playtested. What amount of bonus both FEELS enough and actually IS enough to matter is something hard to gauge without playtesting
In fairness, balancing full spell casting classes with lots of other class features across all 20 levels is HARD. Which is why I wish they'd spent more time playtesting :-(
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will be torn between a monk or something with the cavalier dedication - mounted combat is one of my favourite ways to play 1E and the style feats looked really fun.Slow race monk cavalier! For one action you horse can move you probably 3x your speed, then for flurry is two attacks! Thats 5 actions worth of stuff for only two actions, leaving one spare!
Huh, now I want to play a monk/bard/cavalier, a martial arts battle herald type that does what you said and then uses the third action for a composition.
Thinking about it, I might actually try out that Monk at some point. So that's actually more likely to be the first.
Definitely alchemist. It was my favorite PF1 class, but I was a little disappointed with the playtest version. Hopefully the final version does the original first edition alchemist justice.
Huh, now I want to play a monk/bard/cavalier, a martial arts battle herald type that does what you said and then uses the third action for a composition.I will be torn between a monk or something with the cavalier dedication - mounted combat is one of my favourite ways to play 1E and the style feats looked really fun.Slow race monk cavalier! For one action you horse can move you probably 3x your speed, then for flurry is two attacks! Thats 5 actions worth of stuff for only two actions, leaving one spare!
How would the progression look? Assuming you don't mind spoiling the multi-class restrictions, that is.
Fighter or Barbarian. It would be between those two
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How would the progression look? Assuming you don't mind spoiling the multi-class restrictions, that is.Huh, now I want to play a monk/bard/cavalier, a martial arts battle herald type that does what you said and then uses the third action for a composition.I will be torn between a monk or something with the cavalier dedication - mounted combat is one of my favourite ways to play 1E and the style feats looked really fun.Slow race monk cavalier! For one action you horse can move you probably 3x your speed, then for flurry is two attacks! Thats 5 actions worth of stuff for only two actions, leaving one spare!
Well I've seen that others have mentioned that we only have multiclass archetypes in the CRB, but using a homebrewed (fairly easy) conversion of cavalier, there's really two options: If I start bard for a much castier version, I would probably go human, take cavalier first, then take monk at 9th with the human ancestry feat that gives me a multiclass dedication, just in time to grab flurry. This is great because it's a full primary caster but is not as strong at fighting and less of a match for the original concept. I'll get more of Malk_Content's original concept if I start monk and do the reverse, grabbing bard at 9th.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha. So now there are folks clicking to post what they're drifting towards, and by the time they read everyone else's ideas, it gives them a new idea. Even happens to Mark. =P
I've been wanting to play an alchemist a lot, even in the playtest. While the class has some issues, it strikes me as the class that most tests your system mastery, and that appeals to me. ^_^ There was an alchemist in my Doomsday Dawn group, and while she's a great player (especially on the RP side of things) she definitely wasn't leveraging the class's abilities to the fullest and that drove me a little crazy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha. So now there are folks clicking to post what they're drifting towards, and by the time they read everyone else's ideas, it gives them a new idea. Even happens to Mark. =P
There are just too many cool character concepts and combinations I can make now that I couldn't really play before in PF1 because the multiclassing would be too painful. And I've mostly been the GM so far ever since I had a more final version of the rules, so plenty of ideas and growing every time you guys come up with something awesome!
Well my favorite class i've ever played was an Arcanist, and my favorite character I've ever made is a Sorcerer, so I'm curious about how wizard and sorcerer develop-I'm confident I could recreate my Sorcerer, but admittedly my arcanist was a little ridiculous (battering blast anyone?) but im also psyched for the full casting bard... but i may want to recreate my half-orc cleric (first ever character)... so many choices!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I open a CRB, it spontaneously opens on Wizards.
But I'll be reading the Cleric first. Just to feel better.
Acid arrow*. You took an Acid Arrow to the face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Acid arrow*. You took an Acid Arrow to the face.
I blame the mice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I open a CRB, it spontaneously opens on Wizards.
But I'll be reading the Cleric first. Just to feel better.
You're not supposed to read the CRB like it was a Manga! Silly!
I'll be comparing Wizard/Rogue and Rogue/Wizard before I choose.
I was looking at converting my existing PF1 characters during the playtest. Two of them used classes that came after the core rulebook (summoner and medium), so they were a no go. However, my aasimar blood mystic (a 3rd party class that combines oracle and sorcerer) with a mnemonic vestment could be approximated as a human divine sorcerer who multiclassed into wizard. I can see getting ever better approximations when the core rulebook comes out and then when they publish rules for the new version of the oracle class and for the aasimar ancestry.
|
I am currently playing through Hell's Rebels with an oracle/sorcerer/mystic theurge as the party's only real caster (we have a ranger and a bloodrager too, but...). Since he's been largely focused on buffs, divine sorcerer/bard or bard/divine sorcerer seem like good options for a conversion, but I'm not sure which makes the most sense to catch the flavor.
I'll play a druid. Probably the Leaf or Storm Order depending on how I'm feeling or party needs at the time of creation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I loved my giant-slaying barbarian from the Playtest (there is nothing like tanking an ankhrav while your party goes swimming in quicksand), all of the changes made to the game as of late have me super excited to put together a champion build (let's go liberator!), as well as a multiclass fighter/sorcerer. I am always asked to GM by my friends, though, so I'll probably have to explore these options through NPCs unless I can convince one of my colleagues to run for me.
I will either try a paladin or wizard evoker depending on the final rule set.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Champion would probably be 3rd for me. Like the changes. To think back in my High School days many many moons ago I played allot of Spell Casters and hated fighters. In my older days switched to fighters and looked at them the closest because it was the class that seemed to have the fewest toys. Pathfinder helped with that some and toward the end weapon master and armor master players guides helped allot. In Pathfindet 2 Playtest Fighter seemed solid. It was also encouraging to hear Jason at last years GAMA talk about how he always liked fighters. So Pathfinder 2 seems to be promising for the Fighter. Just few thoughts.
That multiclassed monk/kineticist I made for a one-off game may be doable from the core rulebook alone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My first character will be a Dex-based spirit totem barbarian wielding an elven curve blade.
The rage will be reflavored to his ancestor spirits coming to give him tips and help in battle. That makes his strikes deadlier but the talking of many ghosts at once makes it impossible to concentrate.