Dropping 12+ level support: huh? Someone clue me in

[Lormyr]

andreww wrote:

It very much depends on the characters. High level combat can run extremely quickly if your group is on the upper end of the scale, sometimes barely more than a round.

On the other hand if you are a group with, say, a Ranger/Wizard, Bard/Rogue, Duellist and defence focused Monk it could take several days to get past the first vaguely challenging fight.

And the enemies.

I have found that most CR appropriate monster combats tend to get steamrolled to defeated in fairly short order. There are some exceptions however, such as very old dragons with very high magic access.

Fights against a group of CR appropriate enemies with PC class levels, though? If they are built in the general ballpark of the PC's level of optimization, those fights are always iffy. One bad d20 roll on either side can completely turn the fight around at that level.

[talbanus]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

There aren't many adventures for 12+ that could be run in the five hour time slot. One combat can last 60-90 minutes alone.

There were plenty of Living Greyhawk scenarios which supported APLs 12-16. It's certainly doable.

And as I mentioned before, such a scenario could have one combat and be an excellent 12+ scenario.

-Matt

Power creep from 3.5. SIGNIFICANT power creep since Ultimate Etc have been released. I'd estimate subtier 7-8 in PFS corresponds to APL 10 of LG (sometimes 12) and subtier 10-11 corresponds to APL 14 (sometimes 16) of LG.

[Silh]

One thing I would like to point out-- and I don't know if it is a problem, but a concern of mine:

Not too long ago, I played Eyes of the Ten and have a character sitting at 13.2 in terms of experience and I have already played season specials that also allow for a 12+ tier meaning this character will never be at a flat level for the rest of his PFS career. (I was also hoping to see a 12+ tier for the season 6 special, or something season 5 related that was 12+ and possibly related to Tankred Desmire-- my character played all the scenarios in which that NPC was involved in that I know of.. needless to say, I am kinda bummed he probably won't have the chance to confront that traitor to the Society.)

In light of that, if I play modules that give multiple experience, would I just receive less in order to make my character hit an exact level?

Again, I don't think this is a problem, but should it at least be a concern for the developers and people who write scenarios?

[Silh]

There are plenty of modules for people to participate in who are level 12+ though, which is nice.

[Lormyr]

Nope, you just add in the 3 xp per module/AP normally. Thus your character would progress to 14.2, then 15.2, ect.

[Michael Brock]

Swiftbrook wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

I was including the cost of a badge in my estimate.

4-day GenCon badge $70
5 GenCon slots $30
Total $100. error 9%

Local con 4-day badge $25
Local con 5 slots: included

Then it confirms that it was the right thing to do not including it on the schedule this year. Thanks for helping to confirm it with numbers.

If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else but play 5 slots of EoT. You listed above a four day badge cost $70 but EoT doesn't take the full four days to play. It takes half of that.

Additionally, you are guaranteed to have a 5 star GM run your game since I assign them. I guess you have to decide if that "extra" $40 is worth it.

[Michael Brock]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Kyle Baird wrote:

At those levels, there's very little you can do (combat wise) in 4 hours.

If combat length is a problem, this figurative scenario wouldn't have to have more than one fight in it. Or any, if the team feels that one is too many. Just saying.

-Matt

But people don't want just one 12+. They want 3 or 4 or 5 or more. After one of these figurative scenarios, people are going to want something different.

[Michael Brock]

LazarX wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

You can't buy those five slots unless you also buy admission to the Con itself. You have to factor in that ticket price as well. And that's assuming you're not paying for a room, food, or travel.

So I guess we are now assuming the only reason someone is making the trip to Gen Con is to play EoT and do nothing else? Because that is what both you and Swiftbrook are alluding to. If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else. If the person was planning to do other things, them that badge cost is at least cut in half since EoT is only 5 slots assuming you live through the entire thing.

[Silh]

Michael Brock wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

You can't buy those five slots unless you also buy admission to the Con itself. You have to factor in that ticket price as well. And that's assuming you're not paying for a room, food, or travel.

So I guess we are now assuming the only reason someone is making the trip to Gen Con is to play EoT and do nothing else? Because that is what both you and Swiftbrook are alluding to. If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else. If the person was planning to do other things, them that badge cost is at least cut in half since EoT is only 5 slots assuming you live through the entire thing.

Do we know if people aren't coming to conventions and PFS in general for just one specific thing that isn't 12+ ? Does that make a lower tier more or less significant? Some people might want to show off a character that they are proud of.. why not? If they are willing to spend that much, should they be denied?

Edit-- I'm not siding with other people who have posted, just genuinely curious.

[BigNorseWolf]

Michael Brock wrote:

that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else.

[brand loyalty] What else is there besides PFS?[/brand loyalty] :)

[Michael Brock]

Silh wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

You can't buy those five slots unless you also buy admission to the Con itself. You have to factor in that ticket price as well. And that's assuming you're not paying for a room, food, or travel.

So I guess we are now assuming the only reason someone is making the trip to Gen Con is to play EoT and do nothing else? Because that is what both you and Swiftbrook are alluding to. If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else. If the person was planning to do other things, them that badge cost is at least cut in half since EoT is only 5 slots assuming you live through the entire thing.

Do we know if people aren't coming to conventions and PFS in general for just one specific thing that isn't 12+ ? Does that make a lower tier more or less significant? Some people might want to show off a character that they are proud of.. why not? If they are willing to spend that much, should they be denied?

Edit-- I'm not siding with other people who have posted, just genuinely curious.

Because a scenario that is 12+ takes approximately twice as much time to develop as a low level scenario. People have been clamoring for more low level material. If we released one tier 1-5 and one tier 12+, it most likely would not be very favorable to the majority. Even when we release a 1-5 and 5-9 or 7-11 we tend to hear the same feedback. I've seen numerous threads where people have debated that low tier is more significant than higher tier for both new and veteran players.

I don't know how to advise more clearly that level 12+ play just doesn't see the amount of reporting, whether it be from EoT or modules or APs, that dedicating half a month's scenarios to that tier. It will eventually happen when we see the numbers that warrant it. Until then, we will just keep waiting and watching.

People wanted more high level content so we sanctioned APs and modules to afford those players something else to do. Now we mostly hear that wasn't worth the effort since it really isn't feasible to schedule, even though high level groups typically tend to be the same people that play together. If we did produce 1-3, tier 12+ we would likely get feedback that people want more. It just isn't tenable for less than 3% of a 64,000 person player base who the majority wants low level material.

[LazarX]

Michael Brock wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

You can't buy those five slots unless you also buy admission to the Con itself. You have to factor in that ticket price as well. And that's assuming you're not paying for a room, food, or travel.

So I guess we are now assuming the only reason someone is making the trip to Gen Con is to play EoT and do nothing else? Because that is what both you and Swiftbrook are alluding to. If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else. If the person was planning to do other things, them that badge cost is at least cut in half since EoT is only 5 slots assuming you live through the entire thing.

It very well may be. When I went to Gen Con I spent my time mostly volunteering for Gen Con I remember the RPGA Living Greyhawk days, there was a special series of modules that needed to be completed so that you could get a Holy Avenger. There were people who went to conventions for no other reason than to do those modules. Just as there were people whose main reason for going was seeing Leonard Nimoy. They may do other things as bonus And dedicating 5 slots out of a possible 13 is not a trivial commitment. Eyes of Ten is rare enough that people will go to cons specifically to chase them down. Problem of course is getting tables of 12th levels together to do it.

[Swiftbrook]

Michael Brock wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

Swiftbrook wrote:

It would cost $20 to $30 to play EoT at a local small con, but at GenCon that's more like $110 and all the time away from the other great things a GenCon.

$6 per ticket for five time slots does not equate to $110, not even close.

You can't buy those five slots unless you also buy admission to the Con itself. You have to factor in that ticket price as well. And that's assuming you're not paying for a room, food, or travel.

So I guess we are now assuming the only reason someone is making the trip to Gen Con is to play EoT and do nothing else? Because that is what both you and Swiftbrook are alluding to. If you want to add in costs for travel, hotel, food, etc... and say it costs $100 to play EoT, that means the person wasn't planning to come to Gen Con to do anything else. If the person was planning to do other things, them that badge cost is at least cut in half since EoT is only 5 slots assuming you live through the entire thing.

I don't know. You tell me. Last year you scheduled two tables of Eyes of the Ten - 12 players. How many did you actually have? I bet this had more bearing on your decision to or not to offer EoT this year than anything else.

I wonder how many GMs who are running 6 or more slots would rather be playing EoT? We'll never know.

And yes, some people do go to conventions just for __________. Everything else is extra. One year I went to Gen Con just for the Living Greyhawk special. I remember sitting in line at 7 am on a hard cement floor with generic tickets trying to get into the game. I got in. It was worth it.

[Dragnmoon]

Swiftbrook wrote:

I don't know. You tell me. Last year you scheduled two tables of Eyes of the Ten - 12 players. How many did you actually have? I bet this had more bearing on your decision to or not to offer EoT this year than anything else.

If I am remembering correctly, only 1 went off and it only had 3 players, but I might be confusing the year prior.

[chris manning]

we played Eyes of the Ten at a residential con this year, it had taken us probably 6-8 months of planning to pull together a GM and 6 players, including running a couple of games to make people exactly 33xp.

we played exclusively in my lodge and it was two full days - if we had to play in open gaming space it would probably have taken far longer (or if we broke it out into individual slots).

i have another L11 and 2x L9 characters that get very little play - unless a significant amount of planning is done to set up a decent 7-11 table (usually as a home game).

At most cons i play lower levels (as thats what is avaialble) and my 7+'s see maybe 2 or 3 games a year. Its so hard to fit a 7-11 into a 4h (or even a 5h slot) that few people want to run them at cons.

[Lormyr]

Michael Brock wrote:

People wanted more high level content so we sanctioned APs and modules to afford those players something else to do. Now we mostly hear that wasn't worth the effort since it really isn't feasible to schedule, even though high level groups typically tend to be the same people that play together. If we did produce 1-3, tier 12+ we would likely get feedback that people want more. It just isn't tenable for less than 3% of a 64,000 person player base who the majority wants low level material.

Just so that someone says it Mike, my core group is extremely grateful for the sanctioning of APs and modules, and we can't wait to see the other APs get sanctioned as well. I am sure we are not alone there.

[Kyrie Ebonblade,]

Lormyr wrote:

Michael Brock wrote:

People wanted more high level content so we sanctioned APs and modules to afford those players something else to do. Now we mostly hear that wasn't worth the effort since it really isn't feasible to schedule, even though high level groups typically tend to be the same people that play together. If we did produce 1-3, tier 12+ we would likely get feedback that people want more. It just isn't tenable for less than 3% of a 64,000 person player base who the majority wants low level material.

Just so that someone says it Mike, my core group is extremely grateful for the sanctioning of APs and modules, and we can't wait to see the other APs get sanctioned as well. I am sure we are not alone there.

Definitely. We're (slowly) working our way up towards the high end stuff. I've have like 3 AP groups implode on me. I really wish I could jump my Wizard/Rogue in Shattered star to another group (Anyone online need one for book 3?)

[Lormyr]

Thomas Graham wrote:

Definitely. We're (slowly) working our way up towards the high end stuff. I've have like 3 AP groups implode on me. I really wish I could jump my Wizard/Rogue in Shattered star to another group (Anyone online need one for book 3?)

Ah, that's rough man. I hope you are able to find a reliable group. Our core group's play styles mesh really well together, and everyone is reliable, so we're lucky there. We've completed rise of the runelords and shattered star so far, and have characters part way through skull and shackles and jade regent.

[bsctgod]

Dragnmoon wrote:

If I am remembering correctly, only 1 went off and it only had 3 players, but I might be confusing the year prior.

Can you play EoT with only 3 players?

[Kyle Baird]

bsctgod wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

If I am remembering correctly, only 1 went off and it only had 3 players, but I might be confusing the year prior.

Can you play EoT with only 3 players?

Not legally.

[Auke Teeninga]

Kyle Baird wrote:

bsctgod wrote:

Dragnmoon wrote:

If I am remembering correctly, only 1 went off and it only had 3 players, but I might be confusing the year prior.

Can you play EoT with only 3 players?

Not legally.

Only with special discompenstation from the campaign management. Not likely to happen again ever!

[Gnasher]

I'll chime in and say that I echo Lormyr and Thomas Graham in the issue about the Adventure Paths and Modules. Having these things available for credit is an awesome resource, and I can't wait either for new ones to become available.

[Soluzar]

To me all I would want is some occasional support. The AP's are great as well as the modules. I myself would love to do Tomb of the Iron Medusa on my 13.2.

My point is with specials only. It's strange that Paizo started to support specials for two years in a row then suddenly stop. It's more than just fighting big monsters. It's about dusting off an old friend once a year for one more last adventure. Typically, the people you have playing at those levels are your most dedicated. So what's wrong with doing something for your biggest fans? It might take more time/money to do it but the expenditure seems worth it.

In regards to EoTT, I don't think it's a good metric to measure by. When I did it, my group coordinated it for 3+ months over a holiday weekend. We spent all day Saturday and Sunday at our VC's house who was running the event. I enjoyed it but there was a realization that my character's days are numbered.

I guess I'm going to have to clone that one and start over then.

[Drogos]

I'm quite happy with the Module and AP sanctioning as well. I've picked up several just on the off chance that I could also run them in PFS as well as home games as I chose and the options to play through them in campaign mode and apply credit to a PFS PC is just gravy. I definitely appreciate the continued support, Mike.

As for the 12+ support, I don't exactly have a dog in the fight as my first character is just now closing in on 11. But at the local cons I've been to that have offered specials with seeker tiers, those tables generally had difficulty making either because there were few PCs in that tier or because players that had characters in that tier opted to play with their friends in the lower tiers. I imagine at the larger conventions you would have significantly less issues, but at those cons you end up with a large mix of people, many of whom have little exposure to PFS and are likely trying it for the first time that weekend. For those settings, I feel it's even more important to provide lower level play experience because these players are still learning.

At least that's been my experience. When I finally get up and through EotT, I'll miss Vikram's adventures, but I have 6 other characters I'm equally attached to and who I can enjoy the new story lines that Paizo is releasing for the seasons to come.

[BigNorseWolf]

I think another problem with seeker tables is the absolute restriction in eyes. I know I've skipped running a special with a seeker because i wanted to do eyes.

[Tarma]

Michael Brock wrote:

I don't know how to advise more clearly that level 12+ play just doesn't see the amount of reporting, whether it be from EoT or modules or APs, that dedicating half a month's scenarios to that tier.

Would it be possible to make an infographic that shows what levels are commonly played? There could also be some other neat info that can be included such as the most popular factions, least popular factions, and if there is access to the info, what the most popular classes are.

[teribithia9]

I know it's beating a dead horse, but my friends and I would be able to play a lot more over 12 stuff if the 12th level pregens for the iconics from the npc codex were legal for play. We don't want to cheat, so the only time we really get to play our characters who are retired are in specials (which won't happen now) and when over 12 modules are offered in campaign mode like Wardens of the Reborn Forge will be (so it doesn't matter if we only have three players and a GM). It doesn't mean we don't want to play over 12 stuff. We just don't get the chance very often.

[redward]

For me, the current paradigm is working pretty well. We have a core group of 5 - 6 seekers around level 16. Beyond that, many in the group have secondary characters around 12 - 14, along with several other players in the same range.

We now organize high-level play drawing among the interested and available from this corps of characters. Some we schedule across multiple game days at the FLGS, some we run as home games. In both cases, we usually include a PbP component to inject a little more RP and to keep momentum between sessions.

As characters played at our weekly FLGS games level up to 12, we run EotT there. Our second EotT run this year is scheduled to begin at the end of June.

For players who can't commit to the full EotT, we've also been running Ruby Phoenix and Academy of Secrets.

We do struggle to find GMs for all the lower tables the weeks we run high-tier play, but I see these opportunities as a thank-you to our local GMs for all the work they do for the community.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to play my L14.1 character in a 12+ Scenario and get her one step closer to a round level. But looking at the numbers, I can't justify asking for that at the cost of more lower-level scenarios. A new 1 - 5 can be experienced by every single PFS player in the world. A 12+ scenario would be experienced by a few hundred at the most.

[kinevon]

Maybe the PFS Online VOs can chime in with the table numbers from this past weekend, when they had two of the Specials run?

Blood Under Absolom and Race for the Runecarved Key.

I know we had too many GMs signed up for the second one, so I wound up playing my Seeker at a 12-13 table, but we also had an 11th level PC in our group.

I have no idea what sub-tiers we had games in for those two Specials, though, other than the 5-6 I ran for BUA, and the 12-13 I played for RftRK.

[Azothath]

^ That (header) is a leading question.
Clearly APs are coming out with 12+ level stuff and PFS has followed suit with chronicles for those APs, so the answer is a resounding NO. PFS supports higher level play.

on GenCon you can read what Mike Brock posted. The table count is 3.5% at best.
I can tell you that smaller conventions or local groups are your best bet if you want to play Eyes of the Ten or a slice of an Adventure Path(module). It'll also cost you less as smaller Cons don't pay for celebs or professional marketing/coordination.

Big conventions are more about the boons, specials, and the meet and greet factor of playing with writers and some cool players & GMs. Chronicles are the same if you play it at GenCon, a smaller Con, your local store, online, or at home.

I can see where a few tables would be run at GenCon, but most of your experienced players will be GMing and will probably have conflicting duties. That's just the practicality of the situation.

Some GMs are organized and will get a table of GMs together for a high level game before, during(late night), or (ugh)after the Con. These are usually by invite only so they don't show up on the Con schedule. If you are going to a Con and know GMs going there - ask!

I don't know why people don't report online... especially once they or their group is at higher levels. You'd think they'd have figured it out by then. It's truly ironic if they post on the boards and don't report their games. *-<8^(

[Thrawn007]

I've only been playing PFS since September, so I just finally hit level 7 with my highest level character. I'm not ready for high level content, but I look forward to playing EoT in the future. Now on to the point...

I don't think an extreme commitment to seeker content is needed, but I think there is a line over 0. I think using stats from EoT is likely a bit slanted. It's a 3 part module, so it needs a lot of commitment to complete. It's the only PFS module for above 11, so playing it has an opportunity cost, that none of your other characters will get a chance to play any PFS modules over level 11. I think if you were to publish a single 9-13 module, you'd get a better idea of stats.

I definitely agree that low levels should be supported the most. In a 25 module season, I'd see the breakdown needing to be something like:
1-5 12 Modules
3-7 6 Modules
5-9 4 Modules
7-11 2 Modules
9-13 1 Module

It's definitely a pyramid build with most support at the bottom. However, by putting a little bit at the top, it extends the life of favored characters, gives something special at the top, etc. I like the 9-13 instead of pure seeker content because it will be much easier to make tables, and one of these a year would allow people to dust off retired characters. I also think a 9-13 mod would be easier than balancing a special for 12+ content.

Note, that breaking down modules like this gives enough content to go from level 1 to 5 just on low level mods, then to level 7 on 3-7 level modes. The 5-9 and 7-11 material would get you to 9. Therefore a single character could play out an entire season without any outside content, and they could level from 1 to 9.

[Paz]

Just another data point: this week I reported a table of 'Fortress of the Stone Giants' (tier 12-14), played in campaign mode.

As a aside, it's irritating that we needed to avoid assigning this credit to PCs we hope to play EotT with, as we would apply the chronicle as soon as the PCs reached 12th level (bumping them up to 13th), therefore blowing straight past eligibility to start the seeker arc.

In terms of normal PFS play, I've played or GMed nearly 100 sessions, but I've never taken part in a tier 7-11 game. I've played a handful of 5-9s (at subtier 5-6) and subtier 6-7 a few times in 3-7s. But the vast majority of my 'normal' PFS play has been low-level. The only reason I have a 9th-level PFS PC is from assigning Adventure Path GM credit to him.

[Stemboy]

I'd be quite interested to see what play/report a single scenario 12+ release got. I agree with Kyle that is would have to be longer than a normal scenario, but not quite as long as EoT and certainly without as many parts.

I think the idea of the 'First Steps' version for being a Seeker would be especially interesting and would give a much more genuine figure on if it was worth Paizo investing in further 12+ content.

That being said, EoT is still there, so are the sanctioned modules/AP (which IMO are a great idea regardless of whether they see convention play.) A yearly event/release for Seeker play that isn't quite the investment of EoT might be the way forward?

[LazarX]

teribithia9 wrote:

I know it's beating a dead horse, but my friends and I would be able to play a lot more over 12 stuff if the 12th level pregens for the iconics from the npc codex were legal for play.

I've seen enough complaints from people who say the regular pre-gens are "terri-bad". The last place where you want to see pre-gens is Eyes of Ten or any 12+ table. Also, quite frankly, I don't want people who haven't played their high level characters over the long haul, on a high level table.... that's a disaster waiting to happen. I still have memories of the day when my friend Chris played a 14th level pre-generated wizard for a home campaign. it was his first wizard ever, and an almost unqualified disaster.

[Cybit]

It seems to be the real issue is creating 12+ scenarios that are fun and under 5 hours. :/

Welp, I know what I need to work on at some point. :D

[Victor Zajic]

This has been said before, but I really think it's the real heart of the matter.

When I started playing PFS and heard that you could play characters above level 11 at the specials they ran at Gencon, I thought it was a really cool idea, one that I looked forward to. Now, a couple years later, when I finally have worked hard and gotten a character into that range, having that option removed, in spite of it being availabel at previous GenCons, is a let down.

Is it required, or even greatly needed for there to be more seeker level support? Not really. But keeping it in at least one special produced per year is a really cool reward for those players who have worked hard to get to those levels. And those players really are some of Paizo's most die-hard, loyal fans. And while it isn't the only reasons someone might choose to attend GenCon, it certainly can be a very compelling reason to come for someone who is on the fence, or has never attended before. I know that personal, I always spend a good chunk of my disposable income every year to attend GenCon because I'm in several living campaigns that offer content at GenCon that will never be offered anywhere else again.

I am also very well aware of the amount of extra work it requires to prepare high level content. The current Seeker Arc available is a really cool option. Having another Seeker Arc would also be amazing. But cutting out any support for Seeker level characters at CenCon just feels like a big letdown on something that used to be one of the cooler things available in the campaign. Is it really that much to want to have the option of one seeker level tier on the special each year?

[Acedio]

If it's any consolation, I can assure you that the 12+ modules are very fun.

Though, there is something to be said about the difficulty in getting a table together for that if your local group does not have a lot of 12's.

[Conman the Bardbarian]

Acedio wrote:

If it's any consolation, I can assure you that the 12+ modules are very fun.

Though, there is something to be said about the difficulty in getting a table together for that if your local group does not have a lot of 12's.

They should make chronicle sheets for the adventure that is putting a table of EoT together. They're having a rough go of it on our local message board. Every time they post it reminds me of this thread.

[Mattastrophic]

Eyes of the Ten is arbitrarily difficult to make a table for, and has become more difficult since Mike Brock took over. Characters have to be at exactly 33XP, and there is no more option to wipe any overage.

So, when a group is aiming for Eyes, what apparently happens is that the first few members make 12th, but it's super-hard for the rest to get there, because they no longer have Tier 10-11 tablemates. This means that the Eyes table has to wait for a new crop of Tier 10-11 characters in order to make the tables which get the Eyes players to exactly 12th.

This was a lot easier when we could use modules to rocket a whole group to 12th, no matter how far the members were into 11th level. But for some unknown reason, we can't do that.

What this means is that if Eyes has very low play numbers, all that proves is how difficult it is to make an Eyes group happen.

-Matt

[Acedio]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Eyes of the Ten is arbitrarily difficult to make a table for, and has become more difficult since Mike Brock took over. Characters have to be at exactly 33XP, and there is no more option to wipe any overage.

So, when a group is aiming for Eyes, what apparently happens is that the first few members make 12th, but it's super-hard for the rest to get there, because they no longer have Tier 10-11 tablemates. This means that the Eyes table has to wait for a new crop of Tier 10-11 characters in order to make the tables which get the Eyes players to exactly 12th.

This was a lot easier when we could use modules to rocket a whole group to 12th, no matter how far the members were into 11th level. But for some unknown reason, we can't do that.

What this means is that if Eyes has very low play numbers, all that proves is how difficult it is to make an Eyes group happen.

-Matt

Erm, hopefully not to cause a needless argument, but I distinctly remember a post from Mike Brock saying that if someone is somehow at 12.2 or some such, they should be treated as if they are at 12 exactly and the extra .2 experience is dropped. Let me try and dig that up.

I know that's a waste of two scenarios and is undesirable for a lot of people.

[Mattastrophic]

Acedio wrote:

Erm, hopefully not to cause a needless argument, but I distinctly remember a post from Mike Brock saying that if someone is somehow at 12.2 or some such, they should be treated as if they are at 12 exactly and the extra .2 experience is dropped.

That is how it used to be. That language in the Guide got replaced with the current "PCs must have 33 XP" language that is there now.

-Matt

[Acedio]

Mattastrophic wrote:

Acedio wrote:

Erm, hopefully not to cause a needless argument, but I distinctly remember a post from Mike Brock saying that if someone is somehow at 12.2 or some such, they should be treated as if they are at 12 exactly and the extra .2 experience is dropped.

That is how it used to be. That language in the Guide got replaced with the current "PCs must have 33 XP" language that is there now.

-Matt

I wonder if it has to do with extra wealth the PCs will have accrued if they are bumped down from 12.2 to 12. There's at least 10k extra gold they'll have going in.

If I recall, there was pretty big change made to the out of tier gold reward rules for similar reasons.

[Mattastrophic]

Acedio wrote:

I wonder if it has to do with extra wealth the PCs will have accrued if they are bumped down from 12.2 to 12. There's at least 10k extra gold they'll have going in.

Previously, that extra gold was lost in the drop to 12, by reducing it by 1/3 for every XP dropped. So, that perceived wealth problem was all taken care of. That was right before the current "you must be exactly 12" rule was put in place.

-Matt

[TOZ]

I'd love for the rules to go back to 'you don't get XP for Eyes, you don't level up mid-way'.

13th level characters make the second half a joke.

[Lormyr]

TOZ wrote:

I'd love for the rules to go back to 'you don't get XP for Eyes, you don't level up mid-way'.

13th level characters make the second half a joke.

In fairness, it already doesn't stand up well to a group of reasonably constructed characters, let alone any optimizers present. It is a great story that is very well put together though, so worth playing if you have a chance to sit down for it.

[Mystically Inclined]

Wow. That's actually really surprising to hear. O.O

An additional level grants you +1 BAB, maybe 5-15 more hitpoints, a +1 bump in one or two saves, a feat or ability, and some additional spell power (for appropriate classes). I'd always figured the spell power and feat/ability helped, but not enough to turn something that had been challenging last level into a joke.

I guess it goes to show how different the game is at higher levels. It should be interesting to go through it when my level 10 Ninja hits 33 exp.

EDIT: Though given Lormyr's comment, maybe my error was in assuming it was meant to be challenging?

[redward]

Jason Hanlon wrote:

Wow. That's actually really surprising to hear. O.O

An additional level grants you +1 BAB, maybe 5-15 more hitpoints, a +1 bump in one or two saves, a feat or ability, and some additional spell power (for appropriate classes). I'd always figured the spell power and feat/ability helped, but not enough to turn something that had been challenging last level into a joke.

I guess it goes to show how different the game is at higher levels. It should be interesting to go through it with my level 10 Ninja.

Well, it's 1 extra level for each character. And that's often 6 (and sometimes 7) characters for something that assumes a party of 4. And the Feats can be game-changers like Dazing Assault or Dazing Spell.

[Mattastrophic]

Keep in mind that Eyes was published during Seasons 1 and 2. Ultimate Magic was in its playtest phase, and the scenarios were written for four PCs.

-Matt

[Iammars]

TOZ wrote:

I'd love for the rules to go back to 'you don't get XP for Eyes, you don't level up mid-way'.

13th level characters make the second half a joke.

After having run it 4 times, there's really only one time I can think of a character's 13th level ability just straight up wrecking a fight that should've been a serious problem.

EotT3:

And that would be Jeff gaining the feat on his gunslinger that lets him take AoOs with ranged weapons. It helped him singlehandly crush the giant/girallion fight.

Players gaining 13th level isn't the problem with the back half of Eyes.

Spoiler:

It's like the rest of the authors looked at all the good encounter design that Erik Mona used in Part 1 and went "Nah, that's stupid." Fortunately, Mark Moreland wrote a decent investigation story in Part 2 which is possible to solve without a lot of combat, which helps give that scenario value. Part 3 suffers from being a giant railroad and having combats for the sole purpose of having combats - the arena fights don't help advance the plot in any meaningful way. Part 4 also has combats entirely to have combats, but the investigation into what the Decemvirate has been doing helps make that scenario interesting. But the combats aren't that hard mostly due to not great encounter design.

[TriOmegaZero]

James McTeague wrote:

After having run it 4 times, there's really only one time I can think of a character's 13th level ability just straight up wrecking a fight that should've been a serious problem.

Spoiler:

Greater Teleport wrecks part three as well. Our summoner was all 'why bother chasing them when we can just board?'