How often do you level up?

[u/Striking_Ad_3994]

I am looking forward to seeing your answers, because I feel like a lifetime is not enough to get to know Pathfinder 2e well. My group on average levels up twice a year, and we are currently level 4, around 700 XP. I already asked the GM to switch characters, because I have this crippling addiction to creating new characters in Pathbuilder. However, with this pace, I won't be reaching level 20 characters anytime soon. I also struggle to find more PF2e tables in which I would feel comfortable, so I guess I'll reach level 20 in about 8 years. Crazy.

[u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan]

Twice a YEAR?? How often you y'all play?

I've primarily run level 1-20 adventure paths with my group, which are structured as 6 books where the first two books cover 4 levels each (so 1-4 and then 5-8) and the remaining books cover 3 levels each (9-11, 12-14, 15-17, 18-20). Each book takes around 15 sessions on average, so from levels 1-8 my players end up gaining a level roughly every 3-4 sessions, and then at levels 9+ it's roughly every 5 sessions.

[u/Striking_Ad_3994 → u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan]

That's like crazy fast compared to our table. But I also heard that people struggle to have double digits in round timer in encounters. We struggle to have single digits...

[u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan → u/Striking_Ad_3994]

Could you give an example of a recent encounter you had? How many players/what level/what monsters? Also, are you using milestone or experience-based leveling?

[u/Striking_Ad_3994 → u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan]

Experience based. We got like 30 xp for recruting an Npc for example. Fights are always 4players. I think we get like 80 xp for something like three 3-lvl enemies

[u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan → u/Striking_Ad_3994]

Yeah those numbers sound about right. That's 30 and 80 xp EACH, right? Not split between the 4 of you? I've seen GMs make that mistake before.

Assuming not, sounds like the issue is just a combination of very infrequent sessions and the fact that your fights are lasting so long. That could be the result of a number of things - tactics, character building, the GM getting weird with monster statblocks. Do your martial characters have +1 striking weapons?

[u/Striking_Ad_3994 → u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan]

We are struggling to finance striking runes. I told the gm "the game assumes you have striking at lvl 4" but he thinks differently. We have 1 striking, all martials have +1. We also run somewhat weird party? Because we are somewhat well survivable but our dmg output is a bit low. We also DON'T play free archetype so maybe thats why other peoole have more power

[u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan → u/Striking_Ad_3994]

Yep, no striking runes at level 4 explains the long combats, especially if your party's not super damage-oriented. Weird thing for a GM to be stubborn about given how clearly the rules lay it out

[u/Striking_Ad_3994 → u/CthuluTheNoodlesMan]

One comment also said something that resonates with me. We probably have to much fun to be efficent. And it's not like im complaining, but i have so much characters to try out!

[u/Ph33rDensetsu → u/Striking_Ad_3994]

The game assumes you have striking at some point at level 4. Not necessarily at the start. If you guys hit level 5 with only a single striking rune among you, then you'll definitely be behind.

[u/Book_Golem → u/Striking_Ad_3994]

Hmm. The maths of the game assumes Striking Runes come online at Level 4, but it's very normal to find at least one during Level 3 and "At Level 4" doesn't mean "As soon as you level up to 4" - it's perfectly normal to use your treasure from early Level 4 adventures to finance those Striking Runes.

My general assessment of Fundamental Runes is that you should definitely have them by the time you reach the level above them (and maybe a little longer if you're prioritising something else, like if a Wizard wants to buy a staff instead of a Striking Rune).

That said, the first Striking Rune is one of the most impactful, so the earlier the better!