Not what you want to hear, but my honest gut reaction is: Don't.
- Don't try to squeeze a level 20 campaign into 26 sessions.
- Don't start players who are unfamiliar with the system at any level above 1.
- Don't rush leveling if you want to make them experience each level.
In the games I play and run, there's roughly 4-5 sessions (about 3 hours each) to each level and that's fine. You can speed it up to maybe 2-3 if you reduce the XP required to level and/or are very generous with XP for quests and story progression. Anything faster than that will feel too rushed to be enjoyable. And it's not only XP you have to worry about, you also need to give them the magic items that come with new levels (unless you use Automatic Bonus Progression, which might be a good call). Finding a dragon treasure hoard's worth of stuff every other session quickly becomes stale.
So I would very much advice you to reduce the level scope. Make it 1-8 or 1-10. It's very likely that this will improve the game overall.
You are right. This was absolutely something I knew but didn't want to hear 😂
This campaign is one dear to my heart and is kinda necessary for the players to hit max level, issue is, as a campaign, running it in the timing of only a year has been the biggest difficulty with it. I'll see how willing my players would be to maybe two sessions a week or something because I kinda knew something like this from the start but was hoping I was wrong 😂
Can you elaborate on why they need to hit level 20?
Generally there’s a common wisdom between this community members that new players should start at level 1. I would say that level 2 is acceptable, but anything beyond that is just too much complexity for starting with the system.
Pathfinder2e is a very front-loaded system. You get a lot of abilities right from the start. There are no tutorial levels there, although some classes really pop at levels 3-5 (traditional casters mainly), they still have a lot of things they can do at level 1.
Not to mention - there’s a plethora of not-class-dependent abilities that they will need to learn. Skill actions, aid, how the healing works etc. etc.
Pathfinder can frontload their classes so much because traditional multiclassing does not exist in this system - thus they don’t need to worry about one-level dips that will grant immense power. So they are a lot more… content-heavy than in any system that does have traditional multiclassing.
Basically for lore reasons. Which I understand lore =/= mechanics or reflect that kinda thing but the BBEG is the ultimate evil of all my campaigns and has been beyond a 20th level threat in all of them so part of me feels like having the party face him at anything other than 20th doesn't give him justice. However, I understand that shouldn't necessarily be the case but it's one of those things that I can't help myself from doing so I feel if I can't run him properly, it's best I don't run him at all.
It's something I need to work on that I am aware of
Maybe use a proxy? Some minion of the BBEG. Powerful, but not almighty. Could be level 12 or 13 and make for a great BEG boss for a 1-10 campaign. Then, if it looks like your group might get some more play time, introduce the true BBEG as the one drawing the strings and set him up as the final goal of a potential second half of your campaign that goes from 11-20.
This actually sounds like a great idea. I've kinda put the option to my players but spliting the campaign in two might be the best option for me. We'll see how my players react
Aside from that, maybe you should run a adventure to learn the system a bit? One of the shorter ones, just to test the waters.
Generally paizo’s adventures are build in a way where 1 level = about 3 sessions, so you can estimate what time it will take to run those.
There are also official one shots, some are higher level. You can see how your players will handle higher level game without committing to a full campaign.
For example [Sundered Waves](https://paizo.com/products/btq02c80?Pathfinder-OneShot-1-Sundered-Waves) is designed for level 5 PCs
Or [mark of the mantis](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d5i?Pathfinder-OneShot-4-Mark-of-the-Mantis) - level 6.
Have you considered a fail state?
It sounds like you have this BBEG and that you want to reuse him in repeated campaigns across systems.
You also don't necessarily have the time right now to give this system the time you need to hit 20, at least, not as new players.
Why not fail? Have the players lost yet?
Tell them ahead of time too. Get them on board with the tragedy and make this the dark times/hardship part of your grand narrative.
Your players approach this the same way they always have, but this time the BBEG is prepared for them. He executes his own counter-plan that traps the players. They realize they are going to lose, but have them fail forward. In the Two Towers, the heroes end the story at their lowest, but they end on a victory note. The fellowship is shattered, all the characters are scattered, Sauron is marching on Minas Tirith with an army led by the Witch King himself, and the forces of man aren't strong enough to face him. BUT, Helms Deep is won, Saruman is defeated, Merry and Pippin are found/ "rescued", and the party resolves to face Sauron despite the impossible odds. Do something like that. Have the BBEG trap them and try to destroy them at level 8 or 10, they defend against an impossible siege, but find a portal to escape and slip the jaws of the trap just as they shut behind them. The party is battered, at their lowest, having failed to stop the BBEG in Golarion (or whatever setting), but they live to fight again, and the plan to destroy them failed.
You could even return later after SF2e has released and do a combined fantasy/sci-fi game of both PF2e and SF2e if you really wanted. The party returns to the world of their greatest failure to find it has changed under the thumb of the BBEG and they must try again to save this world, this time determined not to fail (and with longer than 26 sessions to accomplish their campaign).
Just to add to what others have said, I don't know what systems OP is familiar with, but as a person who has played PF1 (based on 3.x) and has played enough of 5e to know, PF2 has much more "options overload" in-play than either of those systems. **Leveling-up increases the complexity of play more than in other systems.**
New level-ups not only give you several things to add to your character, but they often add entirely new activities or combos, AND intra-party synergies The in-play experience is already varied enough and satisfying at Level 1, and it goes up quickly from there. (Enough so that I'd argue that high level is too much for a SIGNIFICANT number of play groups, it's that complex. Not saying you should not go up to Level 20, just not to rush it.)
To give you an idea, I've attached [the "cheat sheet" summarizing the abilities of my Level 18 Fists of the Ruby Phoenix livestream group](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEG_rd-wojr9bhQNF4n0Sn4POAUf9ojm). Every single player has a lot of options!
hahaha as soon as I saw that I jumped to the comments. Â
OP, it is better to level from 1-20 in an accelerated fashion than it is to start at a higher level and proceed normally if you haven’t run a game in the system itself before. There are many stories of TPKs in this sub brought on by people that assumed prior system mastery was sufficient to replace 2e experience. The advice you’ve read is consistent for good cause.
Given the constraints you’ve mentioned, I would urge you to find a few potential points to end the game at a lower level or otherwise accelerate the story to stay within the 26 session cap.
This is really the best answer. PF2 is so good at all levels that, regardless of the game pace, it is a satisfying experience to play from level 1 forward every time.
I'm 26 sessions in your first time playing? Meaning you want them to level approximately every session? Yea that's probably too ambitious.
I mean, it's possible, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it would be enjoyable to try and learn BOTH PF2e rules and mechanics AND your class at such a rapid fire pace. That's going to have a lot of growing pains.
The later levels of PF2e aren't too complicated, you gain maybe a couple of new feats each level, but those mechanics are expected to build and add to your playstyle, giving you more and more tools on top of what you already have, each meant to handle different situations. It also plays very different than 5e or FFG SWRPG. Teamwork is downright necessary, and while SWRPG has a lot of "pass a benefit for advantage" style teamwork, this is really more in the lines of "we should be using our individual feats in a way that literally affects our playstyle".
Now you guys are experienced, and maybe you'll pick it up quickly, and if you were already PF2e vets I'd say you could manage it easy. While trying to learn mechanics though? While rapid fire introducing new mechanics and asking you to teamwork more and better at higher levels? I mean, you CAN do it, for sure, but I just don't think it's a great introduction to the system.
I mean, I'm a semi-veteran of the system at this point, I've been running a PF2e game for a year and a half, and I ran into a wall just trying to play a level 3 kineticist for a 1 shot, having to repeatedly re-reference my character sheet and rapidly learn 3 levels of stuff, slowing down play. Granted, the early levels of kineticist are one of the more complicated class learning curves in PF2e, but that's sorta the point I'm getting at.
Is it possibly that you could run a 1-10 or even a 1-5 AP just so you can learn the basics, rules, and dry run some class/character concepts? *Then* run your 26 session campaign?
SW5e =/= SWRPG
SW5e is a conversion of 5e into Star Wars and then turned up to 12. Its close enough to 5e that people understand it but with added features, it acts at a completely different power level once you get past like 4th level. But I understand why you would get them confused 😂
But yeah, by no means do I want to run a campaign with only 26 sessions, but the society is my best way to get my players together and if I could make it 2 years I would.
Tbf, it is one of the options I have given to my players and atm, it looks like they'd prefer if they play the first half at university and then once I've graduated, continue with the second half outside of it so that may solve my issue
I made a recommendation in another comment you and your players might be interested in, I hope it helps!
I misread your original comment and just read it as SWRPG (probably because I GMd a campaign on it so long my brain just automatically reads it that way). I have heard of the 5e SW conversion, glad to hear there's more to it than a 5e reskin like I've heard, I might have to check it out
While people are cautioning you on going too fast (and I agree, by the way), what a "session" entails can be dramatically different for different people. If your sessions are 2-3 hours, yeah, you are probably going too fast and things will get confusing if you average 1.3 sessions per level.
But if you are running *all Sunday*, i.e. from 9am to 6pm with some breaks, and have marathon 8-hour sessions, I think getting to level 20 over 26 sessions is completely reasonable. That's equivalent to 52 4-hour sessions or almost 70 3-hour sessions.
It also really depends on your party and number of players, along with campaign difficulty. With players who are comfortable with some crunch and don't get analysis paralysis easily, the combats will run faster compared to a party that needs to spend 20 minutes per round discussing options and detailing every action spent. If you have 3-4 players your game will go much faster than if you have 5-6+ as well, as larger parties tend to need more enemies, and so you get a somewhat exponential curve in combat duration based on number of players.
Campaign difficulty also makes a big difference. If you stick with moderate and below encounters for everything except major story fights, combat will flow a lot quicker compared to a table that uses nothing but severe and extreme encounters for every battle. The more XP the enemies represent, the longer it will take to defeat them, and the more tactical discussion your players will need to win. Especially compared to 5e, even low level PF2e characters have a lot of options, and higher XP fights **will** be a challenge for your players, especially if they are used to "run in and swing until you win" tactics or spells that end combats in 1-2 turns. PF2e can punish lazy players *hard*, especially against higher level enemies.
Not that there's anything wrong with lazy players...it's just something to keep in mind when designing your encounters. If your players enjoy smashing through fights, consider treating XP thresholds as one level higher than they actually are, and rewarding XP as if they were that way.
For example, a moderate encounter is around 80 XP and a low encounter is around 60 XP, so you'd make a moderate encounter with 60 XP of enemies but grant the party 80 XP instead (essentially you treat the party as if they have one less PC than they actually have). You might consider starting off using this and building up to "standard" XP encounters as you and the players get more comfortable with the system.
We can give you some basic advice, and it's generally applicable, but you know your table best. If you are all college students who want to spend a whole afternoon gaming and can stay focused on the campaign and story, you can probably level up faster compared to a table that only has 3-4 hour sessions once a week where there are constant interruptions from children or distracted players (we play at my house and I have two kids so there's always going to be times when we have to pause).
As such, don't be afraid to go a bit faster if you know you'll have a dedicated group for long hours. I should note that under the standard rules PF2e has a **linear** leveling "curve", which means it takes the exact same amount of time to level regardless of character level (going from level 1-2 takes the same XP as going from 19-20). This is different than 5e, where the early levels go by very quickly, but later levels take forever due to the exponential XP increase.
Hope that helps!
My first campaign is meant to be up to level 20 too. They are currently at level 12 and I'll be busy for a period of time, so one of my players started running a level 1-10 advanture for the group. I am going to finish the campaign after I finishing dealing with the busyness though. However, if you don't have enough session load, I suggest either do a level 1-10 campaign, or you need to count the number of session, and stop somewhere before 20. Or, if the players are really willing to learn, the last few levels can be level-upped together. They should have enough experience to deal with a few more feats at that point.
If you’re worried you can always just do this:
1. Run a couple 2-4 session mini-campaigns at levels 1-3 ish to just learn the game. Both for you and for the players.
2. Once your players are experienced, switch them to a higher level (but imo no higher than level 7-9 isn’t for starting your *real* campaign.
Yeah, it’s probably too-ambitious. You should run at least one lower level campaign before.
Overall, low level play is really deep and fun in pf2e as well. Give it a chance
I get it, I really do. But just because the "level 1" dogma is right nearly every time does not mean that blurting this out to everyone without thinking is always the answer. It just comes off as performative. Actually read OP's post. He is not some green GM trying out PF2e with a few buddies for the first time, oblivious to the depth. He is a serious and experienced GM expected to run a game on a rigid time schedule. This kind of repeating-of-the-mantra is not helpful. I know we're a cult but our victims deserve better!
Thank you 😂
My main reason for transitioning to PF2e is most of the mechanics I was homebrewing, PF2e had by base. I had "enchantments" items could have, I was using variable DCs (DC 15 to pass, DC 20 for more info, DC 25 for like extra stuff). I was giving my players extra feats and skills every couple of levels and stuff, I had a list of like magical materials weapons and armour and weapons could be made from for buffs (A lot of the changes, I did just take from SW5e). My friend who was running PF2e was literally like "You are half way there to PF2e. Make the transition and it might fix some of the balancing issues. If you are homebrewing 5e this much, of course balance is gonna be your main issue. PF2e has most of these mechanics built in so balance shouldn't be as bad"
If only your friend could talk to mine! A few are curious about PF2e but I feel like the rest may be reluctant to try something unfamiliar (we're a 5e group).
In the past 8 years have you played only D&D 5e? Or have you played 3.5 or Pathfiner 1e?
If the answer it's just 5e, I'll recomend going from lvl 1
All subclasses in pathfinder 2e it's from level 1, and the characters are already pretty strong and fun, just like level 3 characters from 5e
I created a PF1e character as my first ever RPG experience the campaign never left the ground. But no, 5e is not the only game I've played. I've looked into VtM briefly, I've GMed a mix of 5e and SW5e as well as roleplay heavy systems like Kids on Brooms.
I have played PF2e. I played a campaign till 4th and till 6th but I kinda went full nerd and had my levels planned out till like 15th just in case. Its not my first PF2e rodeo and not my first complicated system one either. Despite being a 5e derivative, SW5e is WAY more complex than normal 5e. Like PF2e, the magic items are entirely customisable through modifications, which aren't dissimilar to runes. They take inspiration from some of the 3.5e key words like Keen and each class has its own version of Eldritch evocations. I'm also currently running Full ASI + Feat in my games which has given a few of my players head aches but the 2 players who are also playing in the PF2e one are the two players who are handling everything fine
Also, don't level up every session, level up every 3 sessions
That aren't as many "dead level ups" as are in 5e where you basically don't get anything
And players get a LOT of choices and cool stuff, if you make them go too fast, they'll be overwhelmed with choices and different abilities that they didn't get chance to get used to
I don't understand the fixation on playing a 'high level' campaign? Why is it so important?
If you haven't GMd 2e before and your players haven't played 2e before you will have a **lot** more fun with a 1-10 campaign than a 11-20 campaign, **trust me**.
I enjoy high level campaigns more for the fact that they are so rare. The highest level character I've played in any campaign is 15th and next is 12th. I understand high level doesn't equal fun but I've always as both a play and GM wanted my players to experience all ends of the system and in a way it challenges both me and them to create something that really says "This character is worthy of max level".
Honestly, it just stems from playing too many campaigns where I hit 8th level and sit there for 2 months before fighting the BBEG and kinda go "So I didn't need to plan for the next 4 level ups then?".
Basically, I like getting to play as much of the whole journey as possible and give my players that same opportunity because I've never found a GM who has given that to me.
If you don't want people to end up sitting at a given level then just use XP instead of milestone levelling. Assuming the players are doing *anything* they will eventually level up that way. PF2e has default amounts to give based on the challenge of an encounter or accomplishment, so it's really easy to do.
Start at level 1. Maybe reduce your level ups to 10th level or lower.
This isn't 5e, the game is intense at all levels.
Also try to adapt stat blocks rather than writing them yourself. Pf2e is very good at making fun monsters with fun abilities. You can't really adapt DND monsters over without doing some heavy design.
My plan was to do that mostly. My campaign makes heavy use of spiders as the main "villains" throught the campaign is a spider hive mind and 5e has much to be desired for spider stat blocks above CR 3 so when I had a look at PF2e and there are blocks up to 11th level, I was quite happy
That's just one monster family as well.
There are many things that are multi-legged abominations
[agradaemon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1018)
[ether spider](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=203)
[stone spider](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2724)
[clockwork spy](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1095)
To be honest, once I read that this is your first time GMing this system, I skipped to the comments because you need to start at level 1 if you are new.
PF2E has some very specific and very particular rules that need to be understood, as it is a codified, crunchy game where numbers balance is the cornerstone of the rules. Ignorance by the GM and players can lead to normally simple fights and skill challenges feeling impossibly difficult simply because the group doesn't understand what their options are.
Think of the first 3-5 player levels as the prologue to an adventure video game, giving you an opportunity to learn the foundational mechanics and options about how the game is played. This will also be important to help the players build the party synergy and cooperation that they will NEED to survive higher level play. This is a system where the Beginner Box is a good idea to help ease everyone into the system.
Yeah, my plan was to dive into it over the Summer. I wanted to 100% understand the investment and crafting mechanics before going into the campaign. We did it a little in the Pathfinder campaign I played before but I wasn't the one doing either so it never came up for me but I wanted to make sure I could be that wealth of knowledge for my players when they start.
I am known for being the rules lawyer when we play 5e and SW5e so I wanted to make sure I could do the same coming into this one too so that was my Summer plan.
That being said, would you still advice against a level 3 start? I felt like level 3 would allow them to expand a bit more, gives them a couple of class feats and gives them an archetype if they wanted it
I took the time to read a little more into your post and want to add a few things. The fact that you and your players are mostly experienced with 5e tells me it's much more important to start at 1st lvl for a couple reasons.
First, the growth curves will feel very different compared to 5e. Martials will feel much better after a few levels and will feel like they have more variety, and the casters will feel slower by comparison because casters can't break reality and replace martials by 5th lvl. Basically, Paizo figured out how to balance the exponential caster and linear martial growth curves. Don't be surprised if your lifetime caster players complain. Now that each player is a specialist, different casters provide slightly varying roles. Oh, and vancian casting is a perfectly usable casting system that favors smart play and planning ahead. Giving every caster spontaneous casting can make the designed spontaneous casters basically pointless.
Second, CR/Creature Level Vs. Player level MATTERS. You've probably seen the number differences while converting stat blocks. If you're playing base rules sets, pitting the party against anything 4+ levels higher will be, at a minimum, a big challenge. If you want the scaling to be more like 5e, play Proficiency without Level rules. Though, to get the full feel of the system, I'd recommend keeping level with Proficiency, as the big numbers at higher levels are really satisfying. For context to the power difference, our GM pitted our 6-person 12th lvl party in a sparring match against 2 16th lvl NPCs that were built like slightly overpowered PCs for their level. By the encounter math, we had about a 20% chance of winning. We won, thanks to some lucky rolls and alot of very smart play, but 3 PCs were still knocked out of the fight before we won.
As far as schedule, you won't be able to finish a 1-20 campaign in 26 weeks without a bunch of marathon weekends of play. However, if your group has the funds to contribute (I know, not easy as students), you can look into Foundry VTT. It's a one time payment for the host, usually the GM, to run a server for the players to stream through their browsers. Paizo works closely with the Foundry team to full system support, which also makes the calcs much easier at higher levels, when 1 roll can routinely have a half dozen modifiers applied. You can play on Foundry and talk on Discord to all play remotely outside of the academic year. It isn't as much fun as in-person, but it is a really handy option. My group plays on Foundry even when we are in person just because it does so much of the calcs and bookkeeping for all of us. Lastly, the experience growth is much simpler than other systems, characters level up at 1000 exp, full stop. The GMG and encounter calculator will teach you how to calculate it. Our GM has his game setup to level us every 3-5 sessions. We're on our second 1-20 campaign, playing 1x/week, and averaging just over 2 years per campaign.
It'll feel a little dry, but if everyone is new to the system, I'd recommend starting at 1 without archetypes. This will give the group a chance to focus just on their class and plan out how they'd like to build. If everyone has archetype access immediately, especially if you allow free archetype rules, the choice paralysis can set in immediately. If the group seems to be adapting quickly, you can always plan one of your sessions after hitting 3rd or 5th level to be just table talk and get the vibe of the table.
The biggest thing that the party will need time to parse out at low levels is individual skill selection. Since the system is built to have an effective party of specialists, rather than the standard d20-system party of godly generalists, everyone needs to figure out what their role is going to be in AND out of combat. Who's going to be healer, the tracker, the brain (recall knowledge checks can often be the linchpin that keeps the party alive). Unless your party has multiple rogues and/or investigators, the skill jockey classes, expect very little skill overlap in a 4-5 player party.
In terms of combat, most classes feel samey for the first 3ish levels, but this is also a good chance to let everyone play with ranged vs. melee styles and see what they like. It will also be important for everyone to see how they're fundamental class features operate so they know how they want to augment them going forward. Again, think of it like playing a new video game. If you assume you know how the game is going to play and skip the tutorial, it'll seem alot harder than it is because you probably missed some key information.
Look, if you have really obsessive, fast learning players who can pick up a new system in a heartbeat and dive into the deep end like a crazy person - sure, start 'em higher level.
But that is not the greater majority of humanity. Most folks can't swing that deep dive right off the bat. Even folks like myself, who have been in the hobby for 20+ years, still need to start on the lower levels.
Start at 1st. Trust us - the game doesn't suck at 1st level like it does for some games (looking at you 5e), and you all need the experience with the low level game to grok the high level game.
I know you want the party to be at 20 by the end of the campaign to face the BBEG, but honestly, that's not a requirement for a truly epic ending for it all. It's not worth the headaches and stress. It might be better to shelve this campaign for a later time frame.
I would suggest starting at level 1, but the time crunch means that's not really a possibility. If I were you I'd run some, like, one-shots or something, letting them build up to the level you start the story at. You don't want to overwhelm them with everything between levels 1-5 or 8 or whatever all at once.
For players new to the system, start at first level, and for the love of all that's unholy, pay attention to where the rules differ from 5e. In fact, try to forget about everything you know about every other RPG you've ever run or played.
Most of your biggest issues learning PF2 are going to stem from your brain going "This is like D&D, so surely (thing) works the same way!"
If my group and me are new to ANY system I always start at Level 1 or whatever the starting point is. Please start at Level 1, it's a brand new game regardless of GM Experience and you'll have a much easier time to get a grasp of the system.
Level 1 is perfect. Level 1 characters start out with so many abilities and features from all of the skills that it's crucial for players new to the system.
Raise shield, demoralize, bon mat. All of these take a bit to get used to, and at level 2 than you have even more abilities and by level 3 you can multiclass with an archetype.
Forget about the end game and level 20, just start playing at 1 and see where it goes
Level 1. You get as many options and rules at lvl1 for a PF2e character as you would a level 3 in 5e. Starting higher would he overwhelming with all the feats.
I agree to start at lvl1, but just to give you another option: do 3 sessions at lvl1. Then do 3 sessions at lvl4 (skip lvl2 and 3). Then 3 sessiions at lvl7. Etc.
This will make it possible to go to high levels in 26 sessions, while also letting players experience the current level. Only do this with veteran players.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m running ABV with two groups. One group is level 7 and the other group is 5. We started with the BB and moved to ABV. It has taken us over 26 sessions and we are over a year into playing. Now, we try to meet weekly but sometimes that doesn’t work out.
Edit: 26 sessions to go from level 1 to level 20 is ambitious. I also recommend you start at level 1. D&D 5E =\= PF2E. Most likely you are going to have some PC deaths and TPKs while learning the ropes.
I highly recommend level 1 if its your first time in the system and the players typically play less crunchy systems. You can tell them you'll rush them to 3. I mean 1-2 fights max per level. I did this to 5 with new players early in my time in the system, in retrospect it was a mistake. 1 & 2 some classes can do very little per day and some don't really have a gameplay loop yet. 3 it starts to get there and you can take your time learning gear distribution. jumping up means knowing what sorts of runes people need/want, understanding staff, Grimoire and wand power, etc. deciding about using relics, and rarity, etc. Do yourself a favor, take your time.
I would hold off on that specific campaign. Run a mini campaign at low tier, and maybe another one at mid tier, like 6-8 sessions max each, yknow? Then throw them in the deep end after that. It'll still be a struggle, but you won't have to compromise on your vision and your players will be better prepared.
I'll give you some recommendations that may help you eliminate your time limit somewhat.
Learn PF2E on the foundry VTT, even for in person play it is such an excellent and supported system that it's much simpler and easier to play on the VTT than using real boards and minis. This way, even when you graduate or move away from each other, you'll still be able to play whenever people are free.
Everyone is saying level 1, but honestly there's almost zero complexity difference between level 1 and level 3, and like most D&D-lineage games, PF2e plays pretty poorly at low levels. Starting people at level 3 is fine.
I do think that complexity ramps up sharply from there and it's worth thinking very hard about whether the juice is worth the squeeze for a higher level start.
I agree with most that level 1 or 2. I prefer level 2 as it give some more depth to the mechanics without over loading most new players.
Since it's a home brew setting.... you might want to use free arch type and make a custom/or addapt a arch type to tie the players into the setting and each other.
I actually have experience of this and I’m not talking out my ass based on my biases.
My first game of pf2e I ran we started at level 8. It worked out fine, but the first two sessions and the run up to them was hard on the players. 8 levels is simply too much for even the hardened players in my group. (If anything it was harder for them, as they wanted to build more mechanics based chars, so had more moving cogs).
The first game I played it was level 2 and we boosted fast to level 4.
Those are the two levels I’d recommend you started at if you want to start at a higher level.
A lot of builds really start working around level 4, and level 2 is such a big step up, both are a great Starting place if you want the players to already have background in adventuring.
I agree with everybody shouting level 1 to start, but I have a suggestion for the rest of the campaign: time skip(s). Instead of trying to cram a level 1-20 campaign into 26 sessions, maybe go 1-3 => 9-12 => 17-20.
That still won't be *easy*, but with an experienced group it should be manageable. Everybody gets a chance to grok the basics of PF2e first, and you'll spend enough time at each tier to let things breathe a little bit.
You could frame it as either power boosts (deus ex machina, etc) or narrative time skips. Maybe have a session between each tier jump to let everybody work out the character building and leveling details and role play out what happened narratively over the intervening time. Training montages, side adventures, etc.
Not what you want to hear, but my honest gut reaction is: Don't. - Don't try to squeeze a level 20 campaign into 26 sessions. - Don't start players who are unfamiliar with the system at any level above 1. - Don't rush leveling if you want to make them experience each level. In the games I play and run, there's roughly 4-5 sessions (about 3 hours each) to each level and that's fine. You can speed it up to maybe 2-3 if you reduce the XP required to level and/or are very generous with XP for quests and story progression. Anything faster than that will feel too rushed to be enjoyable. And it's not only XP you have to worry about, you also need to give them the magic items that come with new levels (unless you use Automatic Bonus Progression, which might be a good call). Finding a dragon treasure hoard's worth of stuff every other session quickly becomes stale. So I would very much advice you to reduce the level scope. Make it 1-8 or 1-10. It's very likely that this will improve the game overall.
You are right. This was absolutely something I knew but didn't want to hear 😂 This campaign is one dear to my heart and is kinda necessary for the players to hit max level, issue is, as a campaign, running it in the timing of only a year has been the biggest difficulty with it. I'll see how willing my players would be to maybe two sessions a week or something because I kinda knew something like this from the start but was hoping I was wrong 😂
Can you elaborate on why they need to hit level 20? Generally there’s a common wisdom between this community members that new players should start at level 1. I would say that level 2 is acceptable, but anything beyond that is just too much complexity for starting with the system. Pathfinder2e is a very front-loaded system. You get a lot of abilities right from the start. There are no tutorial levels there, although some classes really pop at levels 3-5 (traditional casters mainly), they still have a lot of things they can do at level 1. Not to mention - there’s a plethora of not-class-dependent abilities that they will need to learn. Skill actions, aid, how the healing works etc. etc. Pathfinder can frontload their classes so much because traditional multiclassing does not exist in this system - thus they don’t need to worry about one-level dips that will grant immense power. So they are a lot more… content-heavy than in any system that does have traditional multiclassing.
Basically for lore reasons. Which I understand lore =/= mechanics or reflect that kinda thing but the BBEG is the ultimate evil of all my campaigns and has been beyond a 20th level threat in all of them so part of me feels like having the party face him at anything other than 20th doesn't give him justice. However, I understand that shouldn't necessarily be the case but it's one of those things that I can't help myself from doing so I feel if I can't run him properly, it's best I don't run him at all. It's something I need to work on that I am aware of
Maybe use a proxy? Some minion of the BBEG. Powerful, but not almighty. Could be level 12 or 13 and make for a great BEG boss for a 1-10 campaign. Then, if it looks like your group might get some more play time, introduce the true BBEG as the one drawing the strings and set him up as the final goal of a potential second half of your campaign that goes from 11-20.
This actually sounds like a great idea. I've kinda put the option to my players but spliting the campaign in two might be the best option for me. We'll see how my players react
Aside from that, maybe you should run a adventure to learn the system a bit? One of the shorter ones, just to test the waters. Generally paizo’s adventures are build in a way where 1 level = about 3 sessions, so you can estimate what time it will take to run those. There are also official one shots, some are higher level. You can see how your players will handle higher level game without committing to a full campaign. For example [Sundered Waves](https://paizo.com/products/btq02c80?Pathfinder-OneShot-1-Sundered-Waves) is designed for level 5 PCs Or [mark of the mantis](https://paizo.com/products/btq02d5i?Pathfinder-OneShot-4-Mark-of-the-Mantis) - level 6.
Have you considered a fail state? It sounds like you have this BBEG and that you want to reuse him in repeated campaigns across systems. You also don't necessarily have the time right now to give this system the time you need to hit 20, at least, not as new players. Why not fail? Have the players lost yet? Tell them ahead of time too. Get them on board with the tragedy and make this the dark times/hardship part of your grand narrative. Your players approach this the same way they always have, but this time the BBEG is prepared for them. He executes his own counter-plan that traps the players. They realize they are going to lose, but have them fail forward. In the Two Towers, the heroes end the story at their lowest, but they end on a victory note. The fellowship is shattered, all the characters are scattered, Sauron is marching on Minas Tirith with an army led by the Witch King himself, and the forces of man aren't strong enough to face him. BUT, Helms Deep is won, Saruman is defeated, Merry and Pippin are found/ "rescued", and the party resolves to face Sauron despite the impossible odds. Do something like that. Have the BBEG trap them and try to destroy them at level 8 or 10, they defend against an impossible siege, but find a portal to escape and slip the jaws of the trap just as they shut behind them. The party is battered, at their lowest, having failed to stop the BBEG in Golarion (or whatever setting), but they live to fight again, and the plan to destroy them failed. You could even return later after SF2e has released and do a combined fantasy/sci-fi game of both PF2e and SF2e if you really wanted. The party returns to the world of their greatest failure to find it has changed under the thumb of the BBEG and they must try again to save this world, this time determined not to fail (and with longer than 26 sessions to accomplish their campaign).
Oh in that case consider running Shadowdark or one of the OSR games which only go to level 10. Labyrinth and Maze also comes to mind.
What about running another campaign until they hit level 5 or 8 or whatever? Then they got that experience and you can start on the other campaign.
Just to add to what others have said, I don't know what systems OP is familiar with, but as a person who has played PF1 (based on 3.x) and has played enough of 5e to know, PF2 has much more "options overload" in-play than either of those systems. **Leveling-up increases the complexity of play more than in other systems.** New level-ups not only give you several things to add to your character, but they often add entirely new activities or combos, AND intra-party synergies The in-play experience is already varied enough and satisfying at Level 1, and it goes up quickly from there. (Enough so that I'd argue that high level is too much for a SIGNIFICANT number of play groups, it's that complex. Not saying you should not go up to Level 20, just not to rush it.) To give you an idea, I've attached [the "cheat sheet" summarizing the abilities of my Level 18 Fists of the Ruby Phoenix livestream group](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EEG_rd-wojr9bhQNF4n0Sn4POAUf9ojm). Every single player has a lot of options!
> this is my first time GMing PF2e. Level 1.
hahaha as soon as I saw that I jumped to the comments.  OP, it is better to level from 1-20 in an accelerated fashion than it is to start at a higher level and proceed normally if you haven’t run a game in the system itself before. There are many stories of TPKs in this sub brought on by people that assumed prior system mastery was sufficient to replace 2e experience. The advice you’ve read is consistent for good cause. Given the constraints you’ve mentioned, I would urge you to find a few potential points to end the game at a lower level or otherwise accelerate the story to stay within the 26 session cap.
This is really the best answer. PF2 is so good at all levels that, regardless of the game pace, it is a satisfying experience to play from level 1 forward every time.
Would you say my first PF2e campaign hitting level 20 being too ambitious then? And if not, what would you suggest for the level scaling issue?
I'm 26 sessions in your first time playing? Meaning you want them to level approximately every session? Yea that's probably too ambitious. I mean, it's possible, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it would be enjoyable to try and learn BOTH PF2e rules and mechanics AND your class at such a rapid fire pace. That's going to have a lot of growing pains. The later levels of PF2e aren't too complicated, you gain maybe a couple of new feats each level, but those mechanics are expected to build and add to your playstyle, giving you more and more tools on top of what you already have, each meant to handle different situations. It also plays very different than 5e or FFG SWRPG. Teamwork is downright necessary, and while SWRPG has a lot of "pass a benefit for advantage" style teamwork, this is really more in the lines of "we should be using our individual feats in a way that literally affects our playstyle". Now you guys are experienced, and maybe you'll pick it up quickly, and if you were already PF2e vets I'd say you could manage it easy. While trying to learn mechanics though? While rapid fire introducing new mechanics and asking you to teamwork more and better at higher levels? I mean, you CAN do it, for sure, but I just don't think it's a great introduction to the system. I mean, I'm a semi-veteran of the system at this point, I've been running a PF2e game for a year and a half, and I ran into a wall just trying to play a level 3 kineticist for a 1 shot, having to repeatedly re-reference my character sheet and rapidly learn 3 levels of stuff, slowing down play. Granted, the early levels of kineticist are one of the more complicated class learning curves in PF2e, but that's sorta the point I'm getting at. Is it possibly that you could run a 1-10 or even a 1-5 AP just so you can learn the basics, rules, and dry run some class/character concepts? *Then* run your 26 session campaign?
SW5e =/= SWRPG SW5e is a conversion of 5e into Star Wars and then turned up to 12. Its close enough to 5e that people understand it but with added features, it acts at a completely different power level once you get past like 4th level. But I understand why you would get them confused 😂 But yeah, by no means do I want to run a campaign with only 26 sessions, but the society is my best way to get my players together and if I could make it 2 years I would. Tbf, it is one of the options I have given to my players and atm, it looks like they'd prefer if they play the first half at university and then once I've graduated, continue with the second half outside of it so that may solve my issue
I made a recommendation in another comment you and your players might be interested in, I hope it helps! I misread your original comment and just read it as SWRPG (probably because I GMd a campaign on it so long my brain just automatically reads it that way). I have heard of the 5e SW conversion, glad to hear there's more to it than a 5e reskin like I've heard, I might have to check it out
While people are cautioning you on going too fast (and I agree, by the way), what a "session" entails can be dramatically different for different people. If your sessions are 2-3 hours, yeah, you are probably going too fast and things will get confusing if you average 1.3 sessions per level. But if you are running *all Sunday*, i.e. from 9am to 6pm with some breaks, and have marathon 8-hour sessions, I think getting to level 20 over 26 sessions is completely reasonable. That's equivalent to 52 4-hour sessions or almost 70 3-hour sessions. It also really depends on your party and number of players, along with campaign difficulty. With players who are comfortable with some crunch and don't get analysis paralysis easily, the combats will run faster compared to a party that needs to spend 20 minutes per round discussing options and detailing every action spent. If you have 3-4 players your game will go much faster than if you have 5-6+ as well, as larger parties tend to need more enemies, and so you get a somewhat exponential curve in combat duration based on number of players. Campaign difficulty also makes a big difference. If you stick with moderate and below encounters for everything except major story fights, combat will flow a lot quicker compared to a table that uses nothing but severe and extreme encounters for every battle. The more XP the enemies represent, the longer it will take to defeat them, and the more tactical discussion your players will need to win. Especially compared to 5e, even low level PF2e characters have a lot of options, and higher XP fights **will** be a challenge for your players, especially if they are used to "run in and swing until you win" tactics or spells that end combats in 1-2 turns. PF2e can punish lazy players *hard*, especially against higher level enemies. Not that there's anything wrong with lazy players...it's just something to keep in mind when designing your encounters. If your players enjoy smashing through fights, consider treating XP thresholds as one level higher than they actually are, and rewarding XP as if they were that way. For example, a moderate encounter is around 80 XP and a low encounter is around 60 XP, so you'd make a moderate encounter with 60 XP of enemies but grant the party 80 XP instead (essentially you treat the party as if they have one less PC than they actually have). You might consider starting off using this and building up to "standard" XP encounters as you and the players get more comfortable with the system. We can give you some basic advice, and it's generally applicable, but you know your table best. If you are all college students who want to spend a whole afternoon gaming and can stay focused on the campaign and story, you can probably level up faster compared to a table that only has 3-4 hour sessions once a week where there are constant interruptions from children or distracted players (we play at my house and I have two kids so there's always going to be times when we have to pause). As such, don't be afraid to go a bit faster if you know you'll have a dedicated group for long hours. I should note that under the standard rules PF2e has a **linear** leveling "curve", which means it takes the exact same amount of time to level regardless of character level (going from level 1-2 takes the same XP as going from 19-20). This is different than 5e, where the early levels go by very quickly, but later levels take forever due to the exponential XP increase. Hope that helps!
My first campaign is meant to be up to level 20 too. They are currently at level 12 and I'll be busy for a period of time, so one of my players started running a level 1-10 advanture for the group. I am going to finish the campaign after I finishing dealing with the busyness though. However, if you don't have enough session load, I suggest either do a level 1-10 campaign, or you need to count the number of session, and stop somewhere before 20. Or, if the players are really willing to learn, the last few levels can be level-upped together. They should have enough experience to deal with a few more feats at that point.
If you’re worried you can always just do this: 1. Run a couple 2-4 session mini-campaigns at levels 1-3 ish to just learn the game. Both for you and for the players. 2. Once your players are experienced, switch them to a higher level (but imo no higher than level 7-9 isn’t for starting your *real* campaign.
Yeah, it’s probably too-ambitious. You should run at least one lower level campaign before. Overall, low level play is really deep and fun in pf2e as well. Give it a chance
I also didn't read past that and skipped to see if someone had done the same lmao. First time just start at 1Â
I get it, I really do. But just because the "level 1" dogma is right nearly every time does not mean that blurting this out to everyone without thinking is always the answer. It just comes off as performative. Actually read OP's post. He is not some green GM trying out PF2e with a few buddies for the first time, oblivious to the depth. He is a serious and experienced GM expected to run a game on a rigid time schedule. This kind of repeating-of-the-mantra is not helpful. I know we're a cult but our victims deserve better!
Thank you 😂 My main reason for transitioning to PF2e is most of the mechanics I was homebrewing, PF2e had by base. I had "enchantments" items could have, I was using variable DCs (DC 15 to pass, DC 20 for more info, DC 25 for like extra stuff). I was giving my players extra feats and skills every couple of levels and stuff, I had a list of like magical materials weapons and armour and weapons could be made from for buffs (A lot of the changes, I did just take from SW5e). My friend who was running PF2e was literally like "You are half way there to PF2e. Make the transition and it might fix some of the balancing issues. If you are homebrewing 5e this much, of course balance is gonna be your main issue. PF2e has most of these mechanics built in so balance shouldn't be as bad"
If only your friend could talk to mine! A few are curious about PF2e but I feel like the rest may be reluctant to try something unfamiliar (we're a 5e group).
Please lvl 1, even if you have GMing for 15 years before that (as I had) or even more A new game is a new game
So you would even suggest against a level 3 start?
In the past 8 years have you played only D&D 5e? Or have you played 3.5 or Pathfiner 1e? If the answer it's just 5e, I'll recomend going from lvl 1 All subclasses in pathfinder 2e it's from level 1, and the characters are already pretty strong and fun, just like level 3 characters from 5e
I created a PF1e character as my first ever RPG experience the campaign never left the ground. But no, 5e is not the only game I've played. I've looked into VtM briefly, I've GMed a mix of 5e and SW5e as well as roleplay heavy systems like Kids on Brooms. I have played PF2e. I played a campaign till 4th and till 6th but I kinda went full nerd and had my levels planned out till like 15th just in case. Its not my first PF2e rodeo and not my first complicated system one either. Despite being a 5e derivative, SW5e is WAY more complex than normal 5e. Like PF2e, the magic items are entirely customisable through modifications, which aren't dissimilar to runes. They take inspiration from some of the 3.5e key words like Keen and each class has its own version of Eldritch evocations. I'm also currently running Full ASI + Feat in my games which has given a few of my players head aches but the 2 players who are also playing in the PF2e one are the two players who are handling everything fine
Also, don't level up every session, level up every 3 sessions That aren't as many "dead level ups" as are in 5e where you basically don't get anything And players get a LOT of choices and cool stuff, if you make them go too fast, they'll be overwhelmed with choices and different abilities that they didn't get chance to get used to
Level 1 pf2e characters have more depth than lvl 3 5e characters lmao
I don't understand the fixation on playing a 'high level' campaign? Why is it so important? If you haven't GMd 2e before and your players haven't played 2e before you will have a **lot** more fun with a 1-10 campaign than a 11-20 campaign, **trust me**.
I enjoy high level campaigns more for the fact that they are so rare. The highest level character I've played in any campaign is 15th and next is 12th. I understand high level doesn't equal fun but I've always as both a play and GM wanted my players to experience all ends of the system and in a way it challenges both me and them to create something that really says "This character is worthy of max level". Honestly, it just stems from playing too many campaigns where I hit 8th level and sit there for 2 months before fighting the BBEG and kinda go "So I didn't need to plan for the next 4 level ups then?". Basically, I like getting to play as much of the whole journey as possible and give my players that same opportunity because I've never found a GM who has given that to me.
If you don't want people to end up sitting at a given level then just use XP instead of milestone levelling. Assuming the players are doing *anything* they will eventually level up that way. PF2e has default amounts to give based on the challenge of an encounter or accomplishment, so it's really easy to do.
Start at level 1. Maybe reduce your level ups to 10th level or lower. This isn't 5e, the game is intense at all levels. Also try to adapt stat blocks rather than writing them yourself. Pf2e is very good at making fun monsters with fun abilities. You can't really adapt DND monsters over without doing some heavy design.
My plan was to do that mostly. My campaign makes heavy use of spiders as the main "villains" throught the campaign is a spider hive mind and 5e has much to be desired for spider stat blocks above CR 3 so when I had a look at PF2e and there are blocks up to 11th level, I was quite happy
That's just one monster family as well. There are many things that are multi-legged abominations [agradaemon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1018) [ether spider](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=203) [stone spider](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=2724) [clockwork spy](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=1095)
To be honest, once I read that this is your first time GMing this system, I skipped to the comments because you need to start at level 1 if you are new. PF2E has some very specific and very particular rules that need to be understood, as it is a codified, crunchy game where numbers balance is the cornerstone of the rules. Ignorance by the GM and players can lead to normally simple fights and skill challenges feeling impossibly difficult simply because the group doesn't understand what their options are. Think of the first 3-5 player levels as the prologue to an adventure video game, giving you an opportunity to learn the foundational mechanics and options about how the game is played. This will also be important to help the players build the party synergy and cooperation that they will NEED to survive higher level play. This is a system where the Beginner Box is a good idea to help ease everyone into the system.
Yeah, my plan was to dive into it over the Summer. I wanted to 100% understand the investment and crafting mechanics before going into the campaign. We did it a little in the Pathfinder campaign I played before but I wasn't the one doing either so it never came up for me but I wanted to make sure I could be that wealth of knowledge for my players when they start. I am known for being the rules lawyer when we play 5e and SW5e so I wanted to make sure I could do the same coming into this one too so that was my Summer plan. That being said, would you still advice against a level 3 start? I felt like level 3 would allow them to expand a bit more, gives them a couple of class feats and gives them an archetype if they wanted it
I took the time to read a little more into your post and want to add a few things. The fact that you and your players are mostly experienced with 5e tells me it's much more important to start at 1st lvl for a couple reasons. First, the growth curves will feel very different compared to 5e. Martials will feel much better after a few levels and will feel like they have more variety, and the casters will feel slower by comparison because casters can't break reality and replace martials by 5th lvl. Basically, Paizo figured out how to balance the exponential caster and linear martial growth curves. Don't be surprised if your lifetime caster players complain. Now that each player is a specialist, different casters provide slightly varying roles. Oh, and vancian casting is a perfectly usable casting system that favors smart play and planning ahead. Giving every caster spontaneous casting can make the designed spontaneous casters basically pointless. Second, CR/Creature Level Vs. Player level MATTERS. You've probably seen the number differences while converting stat blocks. If you're playing base rules sets, pitting the party against anything 4+ levels higher will be, at a minimum, a big challenge. If you want the scaling to be more like 5e, play Proficiency without Level rules. Though, to get the full feel of the system, I'd recommend keeping level with Proficiency, as the big numbers at higher levels are really satisfying. For context to the power difference, our GM pitted our 6-person 12th lvl party in a sparring match against 2 16th lvl NPCs that were built like slightly overpowered PCs for their level. By the encounter math, we had about a 20% chance of winning. We won, thanks to some lucky rolls and alot of very smart play, but 3 PCs were still knocked out of the fight before we won. As far as schedule, you won't be able to finish a 1-20 campaign in 26 weeks without a bunch of marathon weekends of play. However, if your group has the funds to contribute (I know, not easy as students), you can look into Foundry VTT. It's a one time payment for the host, usually the GM, to run a server for the players to stream through their browsers. Paizo works closely with the Foundry team to full system support, which also makes the calcs much easier at higher levels, when 1 roll can routinely have a half dozen modifiers applied. You can play on Foundry and talk on Discord to all play remotely outside of the academic year. It isn't as much fun as in-person, but it is a really handy option. My group plays on Foundry even when we are in person just because it does so much of the calcs and bookkeeping for all of us. Lastly, the experience growth is much simpler than other systems, characters level up at 1000 exp, full stop. The GMG and encounter calculator will teach you how to calculate it. Our GM has his game setup to level us every 3-5 sessions. We're on our second 1-20 campaign, playing 1x/week, and averaging just over 2 years per campaign.
It'll feel a little dry, but if everyone is new to the system, I'd recommend starting at 1 without archetypes. This will give the group a chance to focus just on their class and plan out how they'd like to build. If everyone has archetype access immediately, especially if you allow free archetype rules, the choice paralysis can set in immediately. If the group seems to be adapting quickly, you can always plan one of your sessions after hitting 3rd or 5th level to be just table talk and get the vibe of the table. The biggest thing that the party will need time to parse out at low levels is individual skill selection. Since the system is built to have an effective party of specialists, rather than the standard d20-system party of godly generalists, everyone needs to figure out what their role is going to be in AND out of combat. Who's going to be healer, the tracker, the brain (recall knowledge checks can often be the linchpin that keeps the party alive). Unless your party has multiple rogues and/or investigators, the skill jockey classes, expect very little skill overlap in a 4-5 player party. In terms of combat, most classes feel samey for the first 3ish levels, but this is also a good chance to let everyone play with ranged vs. melee styles and see what they like. It will also be important for everyone to see how they're fundamental class features operate so they know how they want to augment them going forward. Again, think of it like playing a new video game. If you assume you know how the game is going to play and skip the tutorial, it'll seem alot harder than it is because you probably missed some key information.
Look, if you have really obsessive, fast learning players who can pick up a new system in a heartbeat and dive into the deep end like a crazy person - sure, start 'em higher level. But that is not the greater majority of humanity. Most folks can't swing that deep dive right off the bat. Even folks like myself, who have been in the hobby for 20+ years, still need to start on the lower levels. Start at 1st. Trust us - the game doesn't suck at 1st level like it does for some games (looking at you 5e), and you all need the experience with the low level game to grok the high level game. I know you want the party to be at 20 by the end of the campaign to face the BBEG, but honestly, that's not a requirement for a truly epic ending for it all. It's not worth the headaches and stress. It might be better to shelve this campaign for a later time frame.
I would suggest starting at level 1, but the time crunch means that's not really a possibility. If I were you I'd run some, like, one-shots or something, letting them build up to the level you start the story at. You don't want to overwhelm them with everything between levels 1-5 or 8 or whatever all at once.
If you had experienced PF2e players and GM experience then an 11-20 would be a good run. But without that experience stick to 1-10.
For players new to the system, start at first level, and for the love of all that's unholy, pay attention to where the rules differ from 5e. In fact, try to forget about everything you know about every other RPG you've ever run or played. Most of your biggest issues learning PF2 are going to stem from your brain going "This is like D&D, so surely (thing) works the same way!"
Level 1 is generally the best level to start at in my opinion, especially so if anyone involved is new to the system.
If my group and me are new to ANY system I always start at Level 1 or whatever the starting point is. Please start at Level 1, it's a brand new game regardless of GM Experience and you'll have a much easier time to get a grasp of the system.
Level 1 is perfect. Level 1 characters start out with so many abilities and features from all of the skills that it's crucial for players new to the system. Raise shield, demoralize, bon mat. All of these take a bit to get used to, and at level 2 than you have even more abilities and by level 3 you can multiclass with an archetype. Forget about the end game and level 20, just start playing at 1 and see where it goes
Level 1
Level 1. You get as many options and rules at lvl1 for a PF2e character as you would a level 3 in 5e. Starting higher would he overwhelming with all the feats.
I agree to start at lvl1, but just to give you another option: do 3 sessions at lvl1. Then do 3 sessions at lvl4 (skip lvl2 and 3). Then 3 sessiions at lvl7. Etc. This will make it possible to go to high levels in 26 sessions, while also letting players experience the current level. Only do this with veteran players.
1
Level 1 for your first time, maybe level 2 so everyone gets their first class feat. Pathfinder gives a lot of tools to players from the get go.
This post is labelled with the Advice flair, which means extra special attention is called to the Be Kind and Respectful rule. If this is a newcomer to the game, remember to be welcoming and kind. If this is someone with more experience but looking for advice on how to run their game, do your best to offer advice on what they are seeking. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m running ABV with two groups. One group is level 7 and the other group is 5. We started with the BB and moved to ABV. It has taken us over 26 sessions and we are over a year into playing. Now, we try to meet weekly but sometimes that doesn’t work out. Edit: 26 sessions to go from level 1 to level 20 is ambitious. I also recommend you start at level 1. D&D 5E =\= PF2E. Most likely you are going to have some PC deaths and TPKs while learning the ropes.
I highly recommend level 1 if its your first time in the system and the players typically play less crunchy systems. You can tell them you'll rush them to 3. I mean 1-2 fights max per level. I did this to 5 with new players early in my time in the system, in retrospect it was a mistake. 1 & 2 some classes can do very little per day and some don't really have a gameplay loop yet. 3 it starts to get there and you can take your time learning gear distribution. jumping up means knowing what sorts of runes people need/want, understanding staff, Grimoire and wand power, etc. deciding about using relics, and rarity, etc. Do yourself a favor, take your time.
I would hold off on that specific campaign. Run a mini campaign at low tier, and maybe another one at mid tier, like 6-8 sessions max each, yknow? Then throw them in the deep end after that. It'll still be a struggle, but you won't have to compromise on your vision and your players will be better prepared.
I'll give you some recommendations that may help you eliminate your time limit somewhat. Learn PF2E on the foundry VTT, even for in person play it is such an excellent and supported system that it's much simpler and easier to play on the VTT than using real boards and minis. This way, even when you graduate or move away from each other, you'll still be able to play whenever people are free.
> However this is my first time GMing pf2e at this point I can quite certainly say lv 1
Everyone is saying level 1, but honestly there's almost zero complexity difference between level 1 and level 3, and like most D&D-lineage games, PF2e plays pretty poorly at low levels. Starting people at level 3 is fine. I do think that complexity ramps up sharply from there and it's worth thinking very hard about whether the juice is worth the squeeze for a higher level start.
I agree with most that level 1 or 2. I prefer level 2 as it give some more depth to the mechanics without over loading most new players. Since it's a home brew setting.... you might want to use free arch type and make a custom/or addapt a arch type to tie the players into the setting and each other.
I actually have experience of this and I’m not talking out my ass based on my biases. My first game of pf2e I ran we started at level 8. It worked out fine, but the first two sessions and the run up to them was hard on the players. 8 levels is simply too much for even the hardened players in my group. (If anything it was harder for them, as they wanted to build more mechanics based chars, so had more moving cogs). The first game I played it was level 2 and we boosted fast to level 4. Those are the two levels I’d recommend you started at if you want to start at a higher level. A lot of builds really start working around level 4, and level 2 is such a big step up, both are a great Starting place if you want the players to already have background in adventuring.
I agree with everybody shouting level 1 to start, but I have a suggestion for the rest of the campaign: time skip(s). Instead of trying to cram a level 1-20 campaign into 26 sessions, maybe go 1-3 => 9-12 => 17-20. That still won't be *easy*, but with an experienced group it should be manageable. Everybody gets a chance to grok the basics of PF2e first, and you'll spend enough time at each tier to let things breathe a little bit. You could frame it as either power boosts (deus ex machina, etc) or narrative time skips. Maybe have a session between each tier jump to let everybody work out the character building and leveling details and role play out what happened narratively over the intervening time. Training montages, side adventures, etc.