New to PF2e.
Coming from D&D 5e, I know lots of campaigns there tend to fizzle out, and many DMs kinda hate doing anything level 10+. It is infamously terrible.
So I was wondering how PF2e holds up in this regard. I tend to prefer rolling my own campaigns so this is pretty important for me.
Do many of you reach high level homebrew campaigns? Is low level play more fun like it is in D&D 5e? Or is high level play actually reasonable?
Are there certain classes which get more engaging at higher level?
Any classes that are really front loaded?
Also, I couldn't find anything about this in the forums but if there is already, I'd appreciate a link.
Thanks for any contributions.
The game is pretty balanced at high levels so that shouldn't be a concern.
Every class has something to look forward to at high levels, but casters probably are the most engaging, but they do have a more painful early game (not to say they are "bad" at early game).
The most "front loaded" classes are probably classes like Magus or Summoner, which have spellcasting on top of good martial ability, but this should even out at like level 4-5. Fighter is also probably another frontloaded class due to being the only class who gets reactive strike (Attack of Opportunity) at level 1. But it's honestly not that bad and not too noticeable.
Casters are more complex, but I wouldn't discourage players from playing it. You should be versatile with your spell choice, and probably focus more on combat spells, especially at low levels. At higher levels you can use your lower level spell slots for utility with no real problems. Another thing I'd recommend is for your casters to have a non-situational focus spell, as they really help out with attrition. Usually a focus spell that deals damage is going to be fine. Lastly make sure to read your abilities and spells.
Low level play is fun, but the players shouldn't be fighting enemies that are 3 or 4 levels above the party until like level 5 or 6. Mostly due to the low HP of the players.
The game probably is way more fun at high levels, due to all the fun abilities the players get, and how they're able to interact with more elements of the system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've GMd more high level games than low level ones in PF2. High level is great here. The system actually works at all levels, though enemies can get easier if players are building on the stronger end or you give them free archetype (though it's nothing like how 5e in that it doesn't break).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do many of you reach high level homebrew campaigns?
I'm going to give you my experience as someone that plays exclusively online game; There isn't a huge difference in this. Games tend to die out the longer they go on for various reason so I don't see a lot of games reach high level. If anything though, homebrew tend to hang on longer as the Dm is usually more invested in it.
Is low level play more fun like it is in D&D 5e? Or is high level play actually reasonable?
All levels of play can be fun, especially with the remaster where classes were buffed to have more staying power at low levels like the Alchemist.
Are there certain classes which get more engaging at higher level?
Any classes that are really front loaded?
All of the classes get more engaging as you level as they all gain new options and abilities as they level. As far as frontloaded? Not dramatically so. Your strategies, tactics, synergy with your group and use of your 3 actions intelligently goes farther than any minor power difference at start.
Is low level play more fun like it is in D&D 5e?
I'm going to circle around to this again. Low level can be a struggle until you understand the system and how everything fits together, especially if you come in expecting things to go like other games. For instance, using your 3 actions to attack 3 times isn't normally the best use of those action: instead using some of your actions to debuff your enemies, move into a position to flank them or maybe try to figure out it's weaknesses are most time a better use of of some of your actions.
I home brewed a campaign that started at one and went to maybe 12? It is hard to remember. I started feeling a little overwhelmed by encounter design and decided to run fist of the Ruby Phoenix to get a better sense of things. I find my players (and myself when I played a level 16 stand alone) tend to get overwhelmed by free archetype at high level and that can result in slower turns . This is in comparison to low level PF2, not any other game. High level PF2 is very quick in comparison to many other games.
New to PF2e.
Coming from D&D 5e, I know lots of campaigns there tend to fizzle out, and many DMs kinda hate doing anything level 10+. It is infamously terrible.So I was wondering how PF2e holds up in this regard. I tend to prefer rolling my own campaigns so this is pretty important for me.
Do many of you reach high level homebrew campaigns?
Many of my players are relatives and old friends, so we often play a 3-year campaign, give or take a year. We played Paizo's Ironfang Invasion adventure path, converted from PF1 to PF2, from October 2019 to August 2023. It was designed to run from 1st level to 18th level, but the players had gained an extra level on side quests of their own invention, so I rewrote the last two modules to get them to 20th level. And then I took the Continuing the Campaign suggestion at the end of the last module, combined it with some material from Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Lands of Conflict and made a 20th-level mission (chronicled here) to cap off the campaign.
Pathfinder 2nd Edition is easier to run at high levels than Pathfinder 1st Edition. I have not run Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition any higher than 8th level, so I cannot compare that system. PF2 has two advantages.
First, combat does not slow down at high levels. I remember PF1 combat slowing down as the martial characters gained more attacks on a full-round action and everyone had something way to exploit swift or immediate actions. PF2 uses 3 actions and one reaction per turn, and higher level characters gaining a good use for the reaction was barely a slowdown. Adding in summoned creatures or animal companions reduces the commanding character's actions so the number of actions does not grow drastically with summons.
Second, building high-level opponents is easier for the GM. For example, in PF1 if I wanted them to fight a CR 18 vampire fighter, then I had to add fighter levels to a high-level vampire and figure out each level. In PF2 I can pull the stats for an 18th-level martial character from the Building Creatures tables and then I customize it with about three typical vampire abilities and two fighter class features that fit the scenario. In that final quest after Ironfang Invasion I built a 20th-level graveknight druid as the 2nd-to-last boss. The party sorcerer threw a kaiju at her.
Is low level play more fun like it is in D&D 5e? Or is high level play actually reasonable?
Be warned that PF2 has a different tactical style than PF1 or D&D5e. In PF1 the players can build characters who are more powerful than the standard characters of their level and who defeat level-appropriate monsters by overwhelming strength. PF2 carefully balanced the character classes and the monsters so that just about everything labeled at the same level has the same power in combat. The party cannot have overwhelming strength except against monsters of lower level than them or by outnumbering a same-level or level+1 monster.
Instead, the player characters win by better teamwork. PCs have versatile abilities, but monsters typically have only one or two good tactics, so the party can invent countertactics that defeat the monsters's tactics.
I myself think that teamwork and tactics is fun, but it takes experience to master them. This different style happens at both low levels and high levels, but typically players start at low levels and are surprised by how combat works differently then.
Are there certain classes which get more engaging at higher level?
The spellcasters get new levels of spells that they haven't tried yet. Some of the martial characters get new tactics that are fun to apply. Other martials seem to keep doing the same thing, like the ranger in my campaign.
Any classes that are really front loaded?
Some classes have more 1st-level abilities because their combat style is weird. For example, the monk needs more abilities to fight well with their fists than the fighter needs to fight well with his sword. But due to PF2's different multiclass system--multiclassing means borrowing feats from another class rather than taking a level in the class--no character can frontload a second class's 1st level.
I've played 2 characters to high level, 18 and 20. I would say high level, even with FA, is much more fun. Past 10 you get unique class feats that you can't poach from multi class and builds can really pull together.
I would perhaps suggest lowering exp needed to level 1-5 to 600 then 6-10 to 800 so you can get to mid levels faster and really start getting into the more game changing aspects of classes. There's no reason to stay in any level bracket longer then you and your group find fun. I find low levels boring, useful only for understanding a new class or getting your characters personality and quirks figured out.
PF2 classes aren't as front loaded as 5e classes in general but offer vastly more options as you level. Every single level in PF2 gives you more building blocks for your character, sometimes their big, but usually smaller then what you'd get in 5e. I would say it's because 5e combat is bland so needs crazy stuff to liven it up. While in PF2 every martial can pick up new attacks every even level to change up how they engage in combat, except Thaums if I recall correctly they get more passive abilities. Casters are a mixed bag some have interesting feats and some don't, but that opens up more archetype options.
So maybe try a fast leveling campaign first, see what people think of different levels and where you and your group have the most fun. PF2 is mostly balanced the same 1 through 20 except that HP scaling and CC effects tend to favor multiple enemies over single strong enemies as you get higher in levels.
Another thing to add about Gming a homebrew and treasure:
The APs give 150% or more (often double) of the treasure per level recommendations of the GM Core. This is because the treasure you get in APs tends to be static and so a whole lot of it gets sold for half price. If you are GMing and tailoring your treasure to your players, be aware of how much stuff they are selling, and how much they are keeping.
As a player of casters who really likes my scrolls/other consumables. If a GM is homebrewing and not giving me useful scrolls, and I am having to sell stuff to buy them, then I will end up seriously under the expected wealth per level expectation of the game. In APs it works out, but when GMs are being stingy it can be rough.
i run all my adventure paths to the highest level available and then to level 21 so my players can experience at least one session at level 20.
Unfortunately I think the game breaks down and bogs down at such high levels in heavy favor of the PCs.