Starting at odd levels up to 7th? A commitment to have most content available without boons, including ancestries? Two thumbs up in my book.

I stopped playing OP back in like 2020 when the big drama about playable ancestries and the high XP costs to purchase boons for them was at its height. I decided that I wasn't going to play OP until that was addressed. This looks like it addresses my concerns, and I look forward to playing SFS 2E.

Any chance you'll give me a way to play kitsune in SF2 with low/reasonable effort? ;3

I am significantly concerned about the level cap section. Is this only a SFS 2 Year One thing? One of the biggest reasons we don't see more high level play is because they are not repeatable. Something you've seemingly alleviated for this campaign. Combined with the shorter scenario length, I get the feeling characters will be leveling up faster on average. I understand that higher level play has more variance and there are significant design challenges that entails, but I don't believe that capping expectations at 10 is a welcome change, as both a GM and player. The benefits of a high level scenario is that you get to experience high level play without the time commitment of an AP. APs are not a viable replacement.

I like the idea of starting above 1st level! So many of my society characters either never got to where I wanted them or had to be played by pregens and then take the chronicle at 1st level or much later (or occasionally never).

Will there be higher level adventures before a character could reach there via play? 26 scenarios would be enough to go from 1st to 9th level if it is still three sheets per level, but that would only work if you released scenarios specifically to level up a character at that progression speed.

I am significantly concerned about the level cap section. Is this only a SFS 2 Year One thing?

It is not. We do not intend to publish adventures higher than tenth level for Starfinder Society. Players who want to experience higher-level play are encouraged to check out our Starfinder Adventure Paths and other standalone Adventures, perhaps even with people you've played SFS2 alongside!

Maybe it will become more obvious next week as XP will be presumably discussed, but I am curious as to whether the "level cap" just means that adventures won't be published and so characters will be forced into retirement, or if characters will actually be capped, such that they can continue playing level 9-10 scenarios indefinitely. I could see it going either way.

Will there be higher level adventures before a character could reach there via play? 26 scenarios would be enough to go from 1st to 9th level if it is still three sheets per level, but that would only work if you released scenarios specifically to level up a character at that progression speed.

Unlikely; we want to be sure folks don't have to start at a higher level to play a newly-released adventure if they're playing along.

Allowing people to miss a scenario or to before starting to release higher level scenarios is probably prudent, too, and continuing to release newbie friendly stuff level 1-2 stuff later in the season is also probably a good idea.

So the plan is to turn SFS2 in to D&D Adventurer's League... a system hemorrhaging players... a fair number who have been joining PFS2...

I'm interested to see what PF2 content will be allowed. I'm itching to play a runesmith as a graffiti artist inspired by Jet Set Radio.

So far, I'm loving everything I see, especially being able to start at higher levels. There's a lot of concepts that just don't work until level 4 or 6 and even more that don't work until level 2.

I think the ability to start at various levels is intriguing. It looks like this as well as the fully repeatable nature of scenarios is really designed to bring in newer players as it helps remove the barriers of entry. The level cap I think means that it will bring along with it even more adventure paths and stand alone adventures. I have a bunch of level 13 SF 1st edition characters due in large part to playing a bunch of APs. I think the sweet spot for a lot of characters is 10-12th level.

Playing at much higher levels (we went to 20 with our Intrepid Heroes crew playing Devastation Ark) made for a lot of long encounters.

Anyway I look forward to these changes and think we'll likely see a lot of new blood in Org Play as a result of these along with the coolness that SF2 brings!

I don't think the level 10 cap is great. From my experience these scenarios lacked players due to the need of leveling up through many sessions (when you start at level 1, this is 30 PFS scenarios to get into level 10), which is a lot. You already solve this issue with allowing to start at level 7.

Also I used these scenarios as parts of my full campaigns. We're just now running a slightly modified Power of Legends PFS scenario as a part of prequel for Prey for Death, at level 12. I was low key hoping to get even higher level scenarios with the start at level 7. I'm running PFS subscription even though I don't really run Pathfinder Society organized play - for this exact reason. Having the option of higher level scenarios in Starfinder would be a great addition.

Please reconsider this for Season 2, when players get to know Starfinder 2e more and want to get into higher levels

I am incredibly discouraged to hear that there will be an imposed level cap. Most of the other changes I've heard in regards to the Society structure have been positive, but this completely killed my excitement for it. Paizo needs to do more to promote playing the full breadth of their games!!! Gah, whatever

Given how long level 10 and 15 combat encounters have taken my playtest players, I completely understand the decision to cap short-form organized play scenarios to lower levels.

I've been loving most of the design choices for Starfinder 2e Society play and would like a lot of these changes to one day be brought over to Pathfinder society play, but am really disheartened by so low a level cap. I understand that a single high-tier combat can last HOURS, but level 10 feels too low. Even level 12 would be better without hopefully tipping into the time sink of level 15 combat. APs feel like a cheap substitute for higher than half level play; I would hope for a lot of high-tier APs to compensate. I know this makes things more difficult for the writers, but personally I'd rather have longer scenarios if it means a higher level cap.
Just my 2 cents. As I mentioned, most of the design choices seem very positive to me.

I usually do campaign mode for the APs so this is pretty neat.

"...characters may be created at 1st-, 3rd-, 5th- or 7th-level."
Just amazing. I was all the time locked with pregens. Very good idea.

"We do not intend to publish adventures for characters above 10th level."
Sad. Really, really not cool.

"Those who are interested in play above 10th-level should look to our other published Adventure Paths and Adventure content."
It's kinda harder to find an AP group than a SFS game. SFS is bigger and helps to grow and improve the community.

I believe the starfinders want to reach a higher level. Since we have more chance to create characters above the 1st level, will be more players playing in higher tiers.

What might Achievement Points be used for?
Should be very interesting:
- anything to improve your character;
- anything to be a part of the galaxy;
- more allies to create to improve rp and game mechanics;
- whatever to help us to tell stories and being part of it, not a XXXXXX-XXXX random code and a unknown character

Is slow mode still a thing? Leveling at a slower pace?

How will we prove we played the playtest? I played it 3 times.

And thank god for starting at higher levels. Low-level play is just not fun for me.

How will we prove we played the playtest? I played it 3 times.

And thank god for starting at higher levels. Low-level play is just not fun for me.

Your GMs will have reported your participation during each game you played, just like in Society play.

Bit confused about your phrasing, though. There are six different playtest adventures, two of which are not one-shots.

As someone who has run a bunch of higher level PF1 and SF1 content, a level cap for org play feels right. That said, there was a cap on PFS 1st edition when I started and it mostly went away eventually.

As long as AP's and modules are available for the 11+ crowd we should be good.

When creating your character concept, remember that you are a member of the Starfinder Society. They must be able to work with any other Starfinder and abide by the Society’s motto: “Explore, Report, Cooperate.”

s AP's and modules are available for the 11+ crowd we should be good.

At first I thought that this seemed unnecessary.

DemonicDem wrote:

How will we prove we played the playtest? I played it 3 times.

And thank god for starting at higher levels. Low-level play is just not fun for me.

Your GMs will have reported your participation during each game you played, just like in Society play.

Bit confused about your phrasing, though. There are six different playtest adventures, two of which are not one-shots.

Oh, I don't think any did that. I didn't play with the Society.

Hopefully it never comes up in your groups, but some players just need to be contrary. They have to build something that bends (or breaks) the campaign frame and makes it hard to bring them in. Even with a session 0. Even fully explaining why we're doing it this way.

Specifically calling out the motto helps us poor GM's wrangle the occasional wayward player. Like I said, there may be some fortunate groups out there who don't have one (or more) of those. If you have never encountered one, then Desna truly smiles upon you.

the player I have in mind isn't on these forums, he knows what he did

As someone who has run a bunch of higher level PF1 and SF1 content, a level cap for org play feels right. That said, there was a cap on PFS 1st edition when I started and it mostly went away eventually.

I don't mean disrespect but I don't super know what that has to do with anything because 2e is not 1e. The experience is only so comparable. That said I'm mostly expecting Paizo to go back on the decision after all like you suggest might happen simply because of the backlash. Only time will tell.

As long as AP's and modules are available for the 11+ crowd we should be good.

And this I vehemently disagree with. It majorly shifts the expectation to make high level play accessible from the structures set in place to make the rest of the system accessible and onto the community in private games. Many people will only play PFS and it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth to think that they're not even supposed to get the chance to play past the first half of (hopefully) a very well made game, especially when bumping the starting levels might very well alleviate some of the issues with higher level Org play.

Focusing more on the 1-10 range is something I can understand completely, but never publishing 11+ SFS adventures is something I can't really get behind.
Especially as others have pointed out that higher starting levels might alleviate the issue entirely.
Hope that this decision will be reverted.

Not a fan of the level cap, or the other play differences to PFS2. I've always hoped that once we got to SFS2, the similarities to PFS2 would convince more people to try it, and we could get a larger player base. I'm afraid the differences will convince players otherwise.

DemonicDem wrote:

How will we prove we played the playtest? I played it 3 times.

And thank god for starting at higher levels. Low-level play is just not fun for me.

Your GMs will have reported your participation during each game you played, just like in Society play.

Bit confused about your phrasing, though. There are six different playtest adventures, two of which are not one-shots.

There isn't anywhere to report SF2 playtest. You just get a sheet with check boxes

Not a fan of the level cap, or the other play differences to PFS2. I've always hoped that once we got to SFS2, the similarities to PFS2 would convince more people to try it, and we could get a larger player base. I'm afraid the differences will convince players otherwise.

I know that everyone's experience will be different, but in our lodge, it is having the opposite effect. Finding out that every scenario is repeatable, will easily run within the 4 hour hard cap that we have, and has tight level ranges is getting people interested in Starfinder who otherwise wouldn't have considered it.

Rheinguard wrote:

I am significantly concerned about the level cap section. Is this only a SFS 2 Year One thing?

It is not. We do not intend to publish adventures higher than tenth level for Starfinder Society. Players who want to experience higher-level play are encouraged to check out our Starfinder Adventure Paths and other standalone Adventures, perhaps even with people you've played SFS2 alongside!

Are the APs likely to be sanctioned for SFS2?

DeadGators wrote:

DemonicDem wrote:

How will we prove we played the playtest? I played it 3 times.

And thank god for starting at higher levels. Low-level play is just not fun for me.

Your GMs will have reported your participation during each game you played, just like in Society play.

Bit confused about your phrasing, though. There are six different playtest adventures, two of which are not one-shots.

There isn't anywhere to report SF2 playtest. You just get a sheet with check boxes

The GM can report the session of the playtest as long as it is one of the 4 scenarios, Empires Devoured or a Cosmic Birthday. If reported it should show up in the players sessions.

The only thing the playtest does not have are chronicle sheets - this one just has a tracking sheet, but if the sessions are properly reported that one also feels like something the GM does not need to be involved with.

At one point during Outpost VIII I ended up playing 6 8th-level pregens at one time in addition to 3 of my own characters. I've played a lot of low-level pregens before with no problem, but at 8th level, I found a lot of issues that being able to make your own high-level character helps solve.

At one table, we had 3 8th-level pregens in an underwater scenario. The pregens don't have any underwater gear, many of their spells didn't work underwater, and they didn't have enough credits to buy underwater gear at the start of the scenario. I don't mind the challenge of dealing with new environments, but this was a bit extreme. Being able to start a character at higher levels would have let us gear up properly for this adventure, which would have normally happened had we played the earlier parts of the mini-plot. So happy to see this change.

At another table, I played 2 8th-level pregens in a scenario with high gravity, normally not a big deal until I realized none of the pregens had their bulk recorded, and we had to drop equipment to be able to fly. Had I made my own characters, then I would have known the bulk.

On the other hand, there is no way I would have had the time to make 6 8th-level characters fast enough for all of those games, but being able to make your own high-level character under normal circumstances would be great. I do have fun playing the pregens just not 6 at a time...

Side note I recently bought Angels of the Drift reading it really helped me play the pregens, because its hard to play a character when you don't know ther personality.

Reading other people's comments, I kinda feel like while its nice paizo is setting up expectation that "no, sorry, we won't ever really have level 14-16 tier scenario", it kinda feels like allowing people to ask for "high level scenario, when?" constantly is probably less controversial than straight up telling them "never!", especially when it kinda seems like high level AP content is becoming rarer as well as 2e goes on. Like there are going to be bunch of folks who would try out SFS2e otherwise, but just kinda never bother due to thinking that "its not the 'real' game really, I'd never get my cool character concept to high levels, I just wait until I get chance to join campaign that does"

But yeah, I was mostly surprised that level cap is this low despite allowing pcs to start much higher level AND all scenarios being replayable. There are ton of experimentations with this organized play campaign iteration and I'm was thinking that lot of these could have been gradual like "let's test replaying all scenarios AND higher starting point before putting down the foot on level cap due to some scenarios barely selling and barely being played"

It was important to us to be upfront about our level cap plans because we didn't want people to create characters whose builds wouldn't come online until higher levels and then discover that they'd never get to play them. Announcing two years from now that we wouldn't do content that high would be extremely frustrating to someone whose build comes online at 8th level and has been playing since launch. This way, everybody is fully aware of what to expect from the start.

I feel like I'm echoing my post on the previous blog:
Too many changes at once.

With the repeatable nature and the ability to start at a higher level, it's easier than ever for high level scenarios to fire! So lets just get rid of them.

I'll also echo the other comment in this thread: This seems like what makes D&D AL unappealing to me.

The level 10 limit probably won't be a factor till year/season 3 but it disappoints. When you've played a character that much, you don't want to give them up. I get that AP's will one day be available but, organizing an high level AP will be much more frustrating than finding SFS tables.
-D

Isit possible or likely that you'll publish Adventures, modules and/ or APs that start at 11, like "Eyes of the Ten from PFS1, or "Night of the Grey Death" from PF2? Something that would allow the characters to continue into higher levels?

I wonder what lowering the level cap will do to adventures near the level cap.

Sometimes people get excited to play 5th level adventures to level their characters to 8 or 10 to get them to 11 etc. If the level cap is 10 do level 9 adventures become "eh why bother"

Although I would prefer them to keep the option open for scenarios for levels 11+ I'm not sure it's going to make much difference in practice.

Paizo has the data on what levels organised play characters are and for Pathfinder Society it has taken six years for the number of level 11 characters to reach a point where an 11+ scenario is considered worthwhile.

They will have similar information for Starfinder society and I'm reasonably confident that if in 5 years time there are sufficient numbers of level 11+ Starfinder characters to make such a scenario worthwhile they will be able to review the decision without people being upset that they have changed their position.

I've been playing in Organized Play since D&D Legacy of the Green Regent and Living Greyhawk.

Hearing this level cap caused me a bit of consternation; I like higher level play and find level 1-4 not as fun (but I understand I may be in the minority there). I do like the idea of being able to start play at higher levels, lowering the barrier to entry.

One of the best things about Living Greyhawk, in my opinion, was having regional play and regional authors and a regional triad (you could add this overview to Venture Captain's realm) - local authors. I wrote two scenarios for my region, Theocracy of the Pale, and enjoyed the writing of other local authors.

I'd really like Paizo to allow interested authors to write for Society play; especially to fill the higher level ranges. Throw out an open call for adventures of level 10+, since characters would be 'retired' anyway, and turn the beast loose!

I am happy with PFS2 as is.

And, as someone who might casually jump into a SFS2 game here or there, knowing that I would have the barrier of entry lowered (jump with a 3/5/7 non-prejen) is pretty cool.

But I can understand people's consternation. We'll just have to see how this shakes out.

Maybe PFS will be more "hard core" and SFS will be more "easy going"?

Definitely like the "and you can keep playing your Playtest PC until book drops" as my favorite change.

I never post on these forums, but I think a lot of the comments above are very unfair to Paizo. They have the numbers and the data, and I trust them to make a decision that will direct their resources where they will be most effective for their own future and our enjoyment.

To that end, the level cap at 10 is perfectly reasonable. Our program has been going strong for years, but the amount of times we can get a 7-10 (or even 9-12) is very rare, just because there are so few players at that level, and it's a ton of work to run those high-level encounters for both player and GM. A lot of players coming into the program have little to no TTRPG experience, so asking them to make a Level 7 character is a big stretch for the majority of our players.

The people here commenting on this forum will always be the "most hardcore" and is likely not indicative of the general player experience.

Also, to the people saying this will make it "just like Adventurer's League," that's just cruel. My choice to do Society over AL is because of the quality of the system and the quality of the adventures being published, which are far superior in Paizo's house.

Every week I get to see the numbers and the players and the GMs. Most of these changes feel very positive to me, and address a lot of the common issues we face as a program. Let's not try to sink Paizo's hard work before it's even launched.

Echoing others: I am very excited about all of these changes, save the cap. Starting at higher levels sounds great, and making most content available at release without boons or Spacey-Ps? Chef's space-kiss! Seeing That Cantina Feel remain as a core tenet of Starfinder Society from 2e's get-go warms the cockles of this longtime Starfinder Society fan's heart <3

However, the level 10 cap just doesn't feel good. I think a lot of people will agree that the "sweet spot" of play happens around mid level, roughly levels 5 - 15, where you have enough abilities to do cool stuff, but not so much complexity that a single PC's three actions takes 30 minutes and requires a delve into two rulebooks. Cutting down on the higher end of the sweet spot hurts.

I know the player counts aren't there for higher level content, but those of us who are there, love it. High tier is where all the cool stuff happened: high tier is where we fought demi-gods. High tier is where we ensured smooth transitions of power in AbadarCorp's Board of Directors. High tier is where we performed unexpected power cycles on Guidance. Those are the things I remember my high level characters doing throughout their careers, in 1e.

Maybe keep the door open for some "Space-Seeker" content at tier 11-12, someday. Mechanically speaking, a lot of cool stuff happens at lvl 11: proficiency bumps for the things your class is good at, aim dice ++, level 6 spells, access to lvl 12 "elite" weapons and the damage dice ++ that that entails, and so on. In many ways, level 10 feel close to a cool level to end at, but not quite there. Just one or two more levels would feel more "settled," if that makes sense. Level 10 feels like an unsatisfying, or perhaps unfinished, level to end at, in the 2e math.

Let me also repeat that you (Paizo devs) already addressed the problem of drop off with high level tables by giving us shorter repeatable scenarios. These 11+ tables will fill in these new conditions. If this is just about not wanting to make scenarios complicated for levels 11+, might I suggest you just keep the high level challenges simple? Maybe let the fantastically nature of the threats and locals befitting high level play do the heavy lifting. Maybe slow the release schedule so we can get the same quality without burning out the writers.

I think people really don't want to be held back more than they already are. I really hope you reconsider.

I think people are making the lvl 10 cap into a bigger thing than what it actually is. PF2e didn't have scenarios for level 11 characters before the end of year 3, so it's not like this actually has any effect for the next 3 years, end of year 4 saw the second scenario, end of year 5 we got the third, and this year we are getting fourth level 9-12 scenario and first 11-14 scenario.

All of those were level 9-12, so they were still playable at level 9-10, and a lot of folks probably played them as such, so not all of the characters involved even were lvl 11+. We're literally getting just a single lvl 10+ scenario per year (on average) so those high level characters aren't seeing play anyway aside from once a year - announcing this plan in advance seems very far sighted, and helps set the expectation.

Meanwhile, I love the level 3+ starting characters, a lot of builds come online at level 3 (or 4-5) so skipping lvl 1-2 is nice.

Speaking as a GM, we've really had problems with high level play taking too much time and game stores with firm cut off times.

I also don't really like level 1-4 play, but I absolutely understand the move to cap games at level 10.

The "people can only do high level play in SFS mode" commenters... No, only if the scenario is not running over time. You hit the same time commitment problem as AP books if your GM lets you have fun with role play, or if players spend time arguing or planning.
Even if your GM is moving you around quickly, or you're replay "speedrunning", you can still run over time on some scenarios if combat blows out. And combat can blow out from bad rolls, so it may not actually be anything in your GM's control.

Also, AP books don't neccessarily take that long. 3 sessions (of 4-6 hours) is doable. Same as an SFS retirement arc, really.

Deciding before you actually experience it isn't an informed decision.

I'll admit, I really liked the way unlocking ancestries worked with the Achievement Point system for Pathfinder 2E and Starfinder 1E. It made the Achievement Points worthwhile while still allowing the more unusual ancestries to be accessible. I get the idea that in a space-based game you want a bunch of unusual alien types, but this definitely strikes me as an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation, and from my perspective it wasn't broke.

That having been said, though, I'm very curious to see what other options you're putting out there for the use of Achievement Points.

"I do not think it means what you think it means." Indigo Montoya

I have absolutely observed the same thing that the Paizo developers have observed; high level tables seem to play less often.

I do not believe this means what Paizo has claimed it means: Starfinder players are less interested in high level content.

Rather, although there is a correlation, I do not believe it is a result of a direct causation.

Evidence that I would look to:

- As a regular GM at several live conventions, overwhelmingly I am asked by coordinators to run high level scenarios. These scenarios have always fired. They are often the fastest things to fill up.

- Looking at PaizoCon as an example, the Starfinder content being offered trends substantially more towards the higher end. The 11-14 Final Assessment scenarios offered filled up faster than any other scenario for Starfinder.

It definitely appears as though the interest in high end content is there.

So why then is low level content running more frequently than high level content?

I politely suggest that it has nothing to do with player interest. In fact, I'm positive that if Paizo did an internal metrics analysis, they would find that an overwhelming majority of Replays are being spent on high level scenarios, supporting the idea that players want to play this content more than any other content, even when they have already played it.

Instead, I would suggest these as the reasons why low level content fires more frequently than high level content.

- Lack of high level repeatables. When dozens of low level scenarios are able to be replayed, but none of the high level scenarios are able to be replayed, Society Players do not have the choice to play high level content as much as they can play low level content. We exhaust the high level content available and are forcibly funneled into low level scenarios with no other options.

- Lack of society legal characters. Level 1-4 content always has the option to make a new character, or had the option to play a Level 1 or Level 4 Pregen. Level 3-6 could play the Level 4 pregen. 5-8 had the level 8 pregen. Level 9-12 and 11-14 required a character that had been fully leveled to that point by legal society play. That means a bare minimum of 24 tables of level 1-8 content before a player qualifies for a level 9 game. Sometimes players simply do not have a character that high. Sometimes, our characters reach level 13 and we do not have an additional character that high. Lack of a legal character does not equate into lack of desire to play.

- Simple math. In a game with linear progression, the results will exclusively taper. What is the most frequently played character level? Level 1. Because not every level 1 character will be continued at level 2, but every level 2 character had to first play level 1. And so on. If we try to interpret this as meaning the most frequently played level is the favorite level for the players to play, the results would suggest that players love to be Level 1. Talk to basically any player and you're going to overwhelmingly hear the contrary, that most do not truly enjoy a character until at least level 3 when customization and basic game abilities like Weapon Specialization come online. The further the player goes, the more customization is available, and the more fun the player seems to have. But because those lower levels are mandatory, they will always be more frequently played because they are REQUIRED.

It seems as though Paizo saw the problem and proposed a solution for which I've heard an overwhelming amount of positivity from the community: the ability to start characters at higher levels. That option to just make a higher level character is a great solution to problems like players not having a character in the proper level range, or even for players who do not want to play at the lower levels and prefer the higher levels, improving player experience.

Additionally, the stance that all content would be repeatable, a second solution is made available to the high end content. If it's repeatable, then we can actually play it more often. I'm sure it's no secret behind the scenes that repeatable scenarios are the most popular scenarios, because GMs are more apt to purchase a scenario they can run more than once, and players are more apt to play a scenario more than once if they are allowed to get credit for it more than once.

You have all the tools in place to make high end content available to all, to solve the problems and let the players enjoy themselves. Freely repeatable high end scenarios, along with the ability to create characters starting in those higher level ranges (there is no reason why you couldn't extend the Start At levels to include 9 when 9-12 scenarios become available, or 11 when 11-14 scenarios become available).

But instead, a because of what I am certain is a misinterpretation of data, you have become convinced that the players do not want the thing that they have been starved for. Just because we weren't always allowed to play high level doesn't mean that we didn't want it. And so cutting it off forever is a very sad, very disappointing stance to take.

Adventure Paths are not a substitute for this. In fact, in my experience, Adventure Paths frequently showcase character stories that are not connected to the Pathfinder/Starfinder Society. Transferring a character OUT of Society Play and into an AP would largely not make sense for most characters.

Being truthful, there were a number of things about the SF2 playtest that I do not like, changes from SF1 where I felt that the original Starfinder simply did it better. My local players at the shop were similarly disappointed... until we got to Empires Devoured. It wasn't until we were playing the level 10 characters that I finally started to be able to get some of them on board with the idea of the change. To convince them that maybe part of the reason why they weren't enjoying the new game was simply because it was a reset to zero, and they liked their high level characters and didn't enjoy shunting back to level one, independent of the game's rules. I was starting to get them excited to give it a shot.

And then you announced that you had forbidden the one thing that they actually seemed to like. That half of the playtesting we had done did not represent what Organized Play would be like, because we weren't going to be allowed to play at those levels.

And with that one fell swoop, you killed all interest in the game again. "Yay. Instead of working through the low levels like a chore so that we can later enjoy the high levels, we get to be stuck in the low levels forever doing chores and NEVER get to enjoy the high levels."

I really do hope this is a decision that you're willing to table discussion on, because it absolutely is hedged up as a barrier for player interest. One of the biggest appeals I've heard that has differentiated Paizo from D&D is that Paizo was not afraid of high level games. So it is very sad that you are now afraid of high level games.

I'm assuming Galaxy Guide won't be open access, and people are going to need a copy?

Been an OP player since PF1 season 4. Been a VA most of that time. We play almost all of our OP games online, and high level PF2 scenarios fire INSTANTLY online. You have to watch Warhorn for our games as you can easily miss out when we play a high level scenario if you take your eye off the signing up ball.

HATE the level cap. Many of the most fun scenarios I've played in PF1, PF2 and SF1 have been high level ones, including playing all four Eyes of the Ten scenarios (once) and GMing it (twice).

Getting APs to fire is not easy, but getting them to be sustained through 6 books is almost impossible unless you have a very dedicated set of players who always want to play together. And, as some of the others have posted here, playing through the playtest (I've done it all) the higher level play was really, really fun.

Overall, haven't enjoyed the changes that have been announced.

Sharkbite’s analysis is very well posited. Would like to see if anyone has similar thoughts/experiences or has anything to counter it. My own experience of PbP with both PF1 and PF2 is that there are definitely folks who clamor for high level play, and that being stuck at low levels is boring for them. Personally I find it incredibly hard to start at any level other than 1, but I do seem to be something of an extreme outlier.