Pathfinder 2E What are you most looking forward to when it comes to Pathfinder Second Edition?

[Kaodi]

I particularly particularly like how multi-classing integrates with the feat system. And the different levels of success or failure. I look forward to seeing if multi-classing has been refined in the final product.

 

[JesterOC]

Coming from 5e DM and occasional player I am looking forward to monster's being more dynamic (was hoping for more of a 13th age vibe but at the same time the bestiary is filled with great monsters), access of Paizo adventure paths, 3 action economy, PC's that feel a bit more epic, and more character options in general.

 

[mewzard]

The more I hear about the 3 action mechanic the more I like it. That and the shield mechanic had peaked my interest now.

Oh definitely, the shield mechanic has potential, more than just getting the AC bonuses (which are nice of course). Given the Champion can pick their Shield as the host for their Righteous Ally, I'm imagining they can do the most overtly crazy things with the mechanic.

Bard, Druid, Ranger.

I can see why, all three are interesting classes. I really need to try a Druid one of these days. The closest I ever came was the Hunter. I had fun with that, but I'd like to give full casting nature a shot.

Before my first game of 5e, my group was playing Rise of the Runelords with PF1. I was playing a storm-themed druid. It was a bit OP, especially casting spells as a lightning elemental. I would welcome a nerf. But I am glad to see that the storm druid is one of the themes available for the PF2 druid. So one of my first character creation exercises in PF2 will probably be recreating the character.

I fully relate to recreating a character as my first exercise. My longest running character ended up being a Svirfneblin Unchained Monk I eventually multiclassed into a Serpent Fire Adept, hit level 20 by the end. He was insane in all the best ways. Going to try and recreate him as best as possible (with a few improvements, as with Titan Wrestler, his grappling potential will be much more viable).

I got my books last week, so this feels a little like cheating. What I like is that they appear to have taken 3e/Pathfinder and rebuilt it on top of consistent framework. I like that all checks resolve the same way (no different crit/auto success/failure for attacks, saves, and skills). That should make the game easier to teach, though I fear the written rules may be a bit intimidating to new players.

As a GM, I’m looking forward to running monsters with interesting abilities. For my players, I’m looking forward to their having more options for their characters. The three action economy should be fun. We used the Unchained action economy in PF1, and I thought it had evolved nicely when I played in a demo at Origins last year.

Man, you're lucky! The wait is rough on my end.

A solid, consistent framework was definitely something I hoped was the case. Consistency will go a long way to making to making it easier for new players to learn the basics.

While I've used some of the Unchained Classes, my group never did the Unchained action economy. So for us, this will all be new.

I particularly particularly like how multi-classing integrates with the feat system. And the different levels of success or failure. I look forward to seeing if multi-classing has been refined in the final product.

Yeah, I pretty much never multiclassed in Pathfinder 1e due to how messy it was. 2e's system seems much more viable. Especially with caster multiclassing.

Coming from 5e DM and occasional player I am looking forward to monster's being more dynamic (was hoping for more of a 13th age vibe but at the same time the bestiary is filled with great monsters), access of Paizo adventure paths, 3 action economy, PC's that feel a bit more epic, and more character options in general.

Oh yeah, that epic feeling is something I'm looking forward to as well, especially for Martials. Character options are also nice. That was something that I felt was lacking from 5e.

Of course, Paizo's adventures are also always great. My group is currently running through two of them right now, with a third on pause. We tend to do a mix of their stuff and original campaigns.

 

[Celtavian]

Three action mechanic.

Death mechanic. I prefer death to be a little more dangerous. I'm glad pop up healing is gone.

Initiative. I like not having to make a Perception check, then roll initiative. Removes one encounter step in a fashion that fits pseudo-realism.

I'm glad PF monsters kept spell-like abilities and longer duration abilities that can be used out of combat. One major thing I did not like about 5E is every monster block being heavily focused on combat with no non-combat abilities I can recall.

Shrinking the gap between fighting styles was very nice too. I like every type of fighting style being viable.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm looking forward to potentially playing in a game while the edition is still new, and nobody has any system mastery. The freedom to experiment, and get things wrong, is a refreshing change of pace from a game that's already been solved.

 

[mewzard]

Three action mechanic.

Death mechanic. I prefer death to be a little more dangerous. I'm glad pop up healing is gone.

Initiative. I like not having to make a Perception check, then roll initiative. Removes one encounter step in a fashion that fits pseudo-realism.

I'm glad PF monsters kept spell-like abilities and longer duration abilities that can be used out of combat. One major thing I did not like about 5E is every monster block being heavily focused on combat with no non-combat abilities I can recall.

Shrinking the gap between fighting styles was very nice too. I like every type of fighting style being viable.

No doubt, the Action Economy will be getting a lot of love and attention for how it shakes the game up.

Death does seem interesting, to be sure. Even the risk of injuries from revival has potential. I'm curious to see how many will try for the Ritual casting to resurrect if they lack a proper caster with such a spell. Ritual Spells in general I'm curious about.

Also, I like that Initiative is impacted by your actions. Perception being the default is good, but I also like that it can factor in, say, your stealth result if you sneak into combat, or your Diplomacy perhaps if you steer a conversation in a way to give yourself a chance to act quickly.

Agreed, not every single encounter or action should revolve 100% around combat. Sometimes you want to beat someone with prose or a good ol' fashioned Rock Off.

Between various weapons and armors having little abilities and stances for combat plus the massive number of feats, it does feel like it's going to be easy to play multiple of the same class and make them come off as quite varied.

I'm looking forward to potentially playing in a game while the edition is still new, and nobody has any system mastery. The freedom to experiment, and get things wrong, is a refreshing change of pace from a game that's already been solved.

That's also quite an exciting aspect. Avoiding "I know the perfect broken feat path" or "I need to follow this guide exactly to be good", you just go for what feels right. If something doesn't work out, give it a bit of retraining down the line. Learning from one's own failings can be quite exciting.

 

[Morrus]

Some of my favourite things:

3-action economy
Less complexity with more depth
Initiative

 

[Aldarc]

* Initiative not keying off Dexterity as default (something I find ridiculous) but is instead linked with (1) Perception per default, but can be keyed off other skills (e.g., Stealth, Survival, Diplomacy, etc.) depending upon what the players are doing in the fiction.

* No Dead Levels: You get something every character level apart from simply more spells.

*3 Action Economy: I appreciate more tactical depth with a simple, intuitive system. I also like how this can also be used to alter (some) spell effects.

* Shields: I appreciate that PF2 made shields more meaningful than bonus AC. They are an active part of combat and round-to-round tactical decision-making process.

* Monsters: They are more than boring stacks of HP. They have lots of cool things that they can do that individualize them. It was one of the most popular aspects of 4e that was surprisingly not brought over into 5e.

* Class/Feat/Archetype Integration: Sure, it's a wall of feats** but it's a sleek design that looks incredibly modular. Combining multiclassing, archetypes, and prestige classes is also a smart move that streamlines the game.

** It is INCREDIBLY REMINISCENT of some of the d20 era's favorite spinoff systems: d20 Modern, Grim Tales, True20 / Blue Rose, and Star Wars Saga Edition, etc.

 

[Gladius Legis]

It's going to come down to how the classes turn out. I was terminally unimpressed with most of them in the playtest, so there'd better be some serious changes there. Especially to the Paladin, which if it's anything like it was in the playtest, would be the single worst class ever in the combined history of D&D and Pathfinder.

 

[RangerWickett]

Gladius, I was a huge fan of the PF1 paladin, having run a campaign with four paladin PCs all the way to 17th level. I've asked a lot of questions about the PF2 Champion over at the Paizo boards, from people who have the books.

The PF2 champion (of which paladin is a subtype) doesn't feel right to me. The paladin probably got the most class features of anyone in PF1, but it feels like they took away a lot of those powers to get them on par with fighters, and then made those powers feats. I would have preferred if all the classes got upgunned to a number of powers equal to the paladin.