Hi everybody,
What do you think would be the best level to start an adventure?
I admit I tend to do this reasoning regardless the system, and mostly in terms of "characters customization".
What I mean is
"What would be a level which would give you enough feats/perks/spells/skills/etc... to create many different characters of the same class?"
I know that in terms of roleplay we have infinite possibilities, but since even the mechanics ( combat, skills interaction, etc ) are part of the game, I'd also like to see different builds with different possibilities.
Like the difference between 3 lvl 1 fighters and 3 lvl 4 fighters.
As for me, I really like the idea of starting an adventure by level 8.
- 4/5 class feats which could give more possibilities during combat and even outside combat.
- A skill pool which would allow a character to be more specialized.
- Extra customization through magic items ( by being level 8, you will be able to have some extra customization in terms of minor magic items, which I really really like ).
- A wider range ( is range the correct word here? ) of spells.
Think I could have said everything.
What about you?
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
I like starting from the beginning, and building from the ground up personally. It really helps with a feeling of development and growth.
That said, PF2E has done really well with making sure the game is functional at all level ranges.
You get enough hit points, skills, and feats so as to have enough survivability and options for the game to be fun at level 1.
Higher levels are reigned in sufficiently that combat still works and doesn't devolve into rocket tag.
I'm currently half way through book 6 of Age of Ashes, and things have worked well so far all the way along the AP.
KrispyXIV wrote: I like starting from the beginning, and building from the ground up personally. It really helps with a feeling of development and growth.
That said, PF2E has done really well with making sure the game is functional at all level ranges.
You get enough hit points, skills, and feats so as to have enough survivability and options for the game to be fun at level 1.
Higher levels are reigned in sufficiently that combat still works and doesn't devolve into rocket tag.
I'm currently half way through book 6 of Age of Ashes, and things have worked well so far all the way along the AP.
Hey, I am exactly at the same part.
What concerns me most is the combat part
- Fighter with power attack ( eventually 2x strikes )
- Champion with raise shield and strike + extra ( lay on hand or strike )
- The druid has probably been the most varied character ( healing stuff, shapeshift, companion, etc ).
- Wizard with his longbow and sometimes some higher spells
- Sorcerer more or less like wizard ( but limited choices among his spells ).
Things worked well for us too, apart from a lvl 1 and a lvl 4 encounter which gave us some troubles.
Currently we are more specialized ( because of the expert skill level, and starting from lvl 7 every character could decide to invest his skill point in a skill, in order to hit master ) if compared to when we was lvl 1 ( all trained social skills had the same bonus, same goes with knowledges, etc... ).
About the lvl 1 part what I mean is not "No s#~* sherlock!" but say that I like different skill which benefits from the same stats being at different levels ( you can't do that by lvl 1 ).
Also, I forgot to say this before, unless it starts with that elf heritage I forget, a character is not allowed to start his adventure as a Fighter/Cleric or Rogue/Wizard.
I mean, you could hit lvl 6 in 3 months, and get more customization than a character around his thirties could have, if it begins from lvl 1.
These are just considerations, not complains ( I like the system, and I easily avoid it starting from an higher level, so it's perfect ).
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
If it's your first PF2 campaign, Level 1.
You can't come into PF2 with assumptions from other editions. This isn't 5E, where the first 2 levels are "training wheels" before your class actually starts feeling like your class. And this isn't even PF1, where your archer didn't really feel like an archer until they took 2-3 feats.
Characters can be very different at Level 1. Two sorcerers can have entirely different magical traditions. One monk can be a Mountain Stance tank, while the other one is an uncatchable fast-moving ki-using monk. One fighter can be an archer, while the next fighter is a sword-and-board armored tank. One druid is a shapechanger, while the next is a weather-wielding almost-evoker wizard.
And PF2 combat can be very challenging, and you will be forced to think more tactically than in other editions. You will want to start learning the importance of flanking, demoralizing, buffing and debuffing, Athletics maneuvers, exploiting positioning, denying actions to the enemy, etc., etc. And these are all things you can do at Level 1.
Classes and combat is more interesting at Level 1 in PF2 than in other editions, and the challenge of the game means you will want to know the basics before getting more toys to play with at higher levels.
level 1 is good in PF2. You could easily have an entire party be the same class and still not have duplicate characters in the party, plus everyone gets to make 5 important choices (which ability score build to use, heritage, ancestry feat, class 'thing', and which gear to start with) so there is plenty of feeling of choice - but not so many choices to make that a player could get overwhelmed.
Also, I am resistant to having players load out a higher-level build unless it is known in advance that it will be a one-shot and exactly the nature of the one-shot because otherwise there is a significant risk of the player's build and the campaign not being in alignment and the player can resent that even if I provide plenty of retraining time as a safety net against it, because they "were allowed to build the wrong character."
The Rot Grub wrote: If it's your first PF2 campaign, Level 1.
You can't come into PF2 with assumptions from other editions. This isn't 5E, where the first 2 levels are "training wheels" before your class actually starts feeling like your class. And this isn't even PF1, where your archer didn't really feel like an archer until they took 2-3 feats.
Characters can be very different at Level 1. Two sorcerers can have entirely different magical traditions. One monk can be a Mountain Stance tank, while the other one is an uncatchable fast-moving ki-using monk. One fighter can be an archer, while the next fighter is a sword-and-board armored tank. One druid is a shapechanger, while the next is a weather-wielding almost-evoker wizard.
And PF2 combat can be very challenging, and you will be forced to think more tactically than in other editions. You will want to start learning the importance of flanking, demoralizing, buffing and debuffing, Athletics maneuvers, exploiting positioning, denying actions to the enemy, etc., etc. And these are all things you can do at Level 1.
Classes and combat is more interesting at Level 1 in PF2 than in other editions, and the challenge of the game means you will want to know the basics before getting more toys to play with at higher levels.
I share what you say ( Especially the comparison with other systems for what concerns the combat ).
Just one thing: what I meant to say was something like:
I think that 10 out of 10 fighters specialized in using 2 daggers will end up being identical with their fighting style, while even by lvl 4 they could have a pool of different attacks to use
Also in terms of skills, some fighters would be expert in intimidations, others in athletics, others in religion since they are very devoted, and so on.
Because of how it works the system, the difference will be huge ( a +2 is a huge bonus ).
thenobledrake wrote: Also, I am resistant to having players load out a higher-level build unless it is known in advance that it will be a one-shot and exactly the nature of the one-shot because otherwise there is a significant risk of the player's build and the campaign not being in alignment and the player can resent that even if I provide plenty of retraining time as a safety net against it, because they "were allowed to build the wrong character." That could indeed be an issue.
Are you mainly referring to performant and underpeformant ( a comparison ) characters or simply "bad choices" a player made because of its inexperience?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think any level can work well, but I wouldn't start higher than 5 unless you have very experienced players. Characters have a lot to keep track of, and players will need to learn how to play their character over time.
My personal preference is starting at level one and after the intro quest (1-2 sessions) bump it up to two
gives a good kickstart for long running campaigns
HumbleGamer wrote: Are you mainly referring to performant and underpeformant ( a comparison ) characters or simply "bad choices" a player made because of its inexperience? I was meaning stuff like a player going big on undead-slaying options and there not being much undead in the campaign, or spending a lot of options toward having a mount but the campaign focuses on narrow spaces their mount doesn't fit into well, and that sort of thing.
The player building a "combo" that doesn't happen to shine in the given campaign, and which they'd likely not have built into if not for being able to make all the choices at the same time and with the same information.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I am going to be a contrarian and say level 10.
Generally speaking, a lot of classes feel like they have a mini capstone at around 10. That is when you see the feats that really define the late game of a particular build- rogue rackets get their unique debilitations, skill based builds get things like master monster hunter (ranger's built in knowledge feat used for all IDs) or terrifying howl (AoE intimidation), reach fighters get combat reflexes, etc.
Usually, it doesn't feel like you get much more added to your main gimmick (well, other than the 'regain 2 focus points' feats, which can allow more spam since you can refill your focus points back to full). Sure, higher level abilities are often nice, but 10 is when you usually get the last one that feels like bread and butter.
I'd like to say 13 or higher, for the sake of promoting more high level superheroics actually played.
The new half-APs, expecially the higher leveled half one(s, hopefully), make me keep my hopes up.
PF1e? 4 or 5 (or 13 as I never got to see high level play). D&D5e? 3. PF2e? 1 or 2.
I think you get enough customisation and enough to do at level 1 that I'd be happy starting there. Starting at second level has the advantage of being able to go straight into an archetype and that opens up a huge range of concepts and customisation options.
I'm running a Fall of Plaguestone game and started my players at second level due to what I'd heard about it's difficulty. I think it was the right choice. I even gave my players the option to take a free archetype but they tuned it down as they didn't want to over complicate things.
I think 8 is exactly right for what you want. 10 is when you get action efficiency feats, so you're not giving players a whole lot of time before they go into the deep end of the pool when you start at 8. I think 8 is where every character feels unique due to the options they've chosen.
That said, I think level 1 or 2 is the best new player experience by far. The looser roles and builds really gives players time to build and discover their characters in play, which is often what is needed to account for group dynamics both RP and mechanics wise.
Agree with the above about mid and high level PF2 working really well.
Though I want to disagree with the earlier posters. It's certainly better than in PF1 but I still think level 1 PF2 kinda sucks. Damage is still swingy (especially with enemies like goblin warriors running around with shortbows) and characters still don't feel like they have a lot to do or really define themselves. Some characters don't even get a class feat until 2.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
I'm running a short adventure that started at level 4, and it feels really good as far as the characters have a good variety of options and being quite unique, without character creation being overwhelming.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
