Min/Max Boards

First of, thank you very much for taking time in giving such extended help.

Was the encounter with the walls and summons balanced, or relatively so, as a combat encounter for the PCs to fight while the NPC got away?
If so, did the players seem to enjoy that encounter?
If not, did they seem frustrated about the NPC getting away, or about anything else?

It was not balanced at all, but they were in a favourable situation in terms of being able to flee. And they did enjoy the encounter, so much that what was supposed to be a side story is now gonna be a major part of the campaign.
(also, the NPC did not get away, It prevented the party from reaching him)

In what ways did you communicate to the players that attracting attention in the enemy fortress was suicidal? Did you assume it was self-evident? In general, how do you communicate when an enemy is too much for the party to handle?
Regardless of the fortress as a whole, did you communicate the same in the specific instance of the players attacking an enemy, or ask if they were sure?

This particular time, I did not communicate it in any way. But they had an extremely evident chance to study their enemy, something they used to do. I did expect them to take it.
In general, I tend to communicate this sort of things with either abundancy of enemies or by having them gather information about what the enemy is capable of well before facing him.

I'm gonna number the following ones for they are many.

1-Is it possible the players figured they could subdue this particular enemy without raising a general alarm?
2-Have the players ever been in a similar situation before, and did they act differently?
3-Did you have a plan for what would happen if the players were spotted, if they behaved as you expected?
4-If so, why did you not apply it to the situation where they attacked someone in the fortress?
5-If not, why not?

1-I wouldn't say so, but it's not impossible. Particularly, the glass cannon may think he can oneshot people.
2-Kind of, and yes. Two times in similar situations, but more in the open intead of inside a building, they holded their action until they were sure about the enemy numbers and apparent abilities
3-Yes, they could hide in many places or be captured and then get some form of help.
4 and 5- As I said, I take fault in not sticking with what I had planned. I kind of derped out, it was bad DMing. I am making sure that will not happen again, but that's on me. The point of this thread is "how do I let them know that behaviour is stupid", mostly.

6-How common is it for the players to face relatively balanced combat encounters versus situations where they have to avoid combat or flee?
7-How do you handle avoiding combat or fleeing, mechanically? Do you make an effort to make these situations into "encounters" in their own right?
8-How long have you been running sessions for this group?
9-Is this the group's usual playstyle, or a departure from the norm?
10-Before starting the game, did you talk to the players about the tone of the game, what behavior would be expected, and how you would handle dangerous situations and character death?
11-Is it possible that the players are communicating they would like to face more combat encounters they don't have to flee or avoid?

6-most fights are balanced. Occasionally, a fight might be too easy or too hard.
7-when they face someone too strong I always try to have a way out. Maybe they are in narrow corridors and one of them has some form of BFC, maybe the opponent is more interested in doing something else immediately, maybe they happen to be with a convient "red shirt" NPC and it gets caught before them, basically giving them an extra round to react.
8-only a couple of months, but I've been a player in the same group for over a year.
9-in the previous campaign, it was usually me, or another player now off the group, who prevented doing anything without a plan. With the common formation, it's mostly the previous DM who leads the group. His playstyle doesn't seem very consistent, but in sessions with more roleplaying involved everthing went well.
10-no. Do you think it's a good idea to be explicit about this?
11-I don't think so, there have been many balanced fights.





Also,

Teach them what it means to fear.

Yeah, pretty much.

1)No he can't, it's the same bonus from the same source and it doesn't stack if not so explicitely ruled.

2)I think it already applies to each, and it would even apply to divine classes. You only take it once, you get +1 caster level on both sorcerer and wizard spell.

Like hitting everything you move past or whatever.

trumple
but that's not what you're looking for, I guess


There are several manouvers that act similar to a whirlwind or affect an area. I have nothing to do right now so I'll try to build a list (with little formatting) in case you want to write a mini-handbook.

Desert Wind
This schoold has a lot of AoE, but most are more resembling of spells than melee attacks
Devoted Spirit
6: Rallying Strike - strike an opponent, heal allies in a burst (3d6+IL, max +15)
7: Castigating Strike - strike an opponent with different alignment from yours, cause an AoE centered on him (8d6 to him, 5d6 to others, -2 to hit for one minute on a failed save)
Iron Heart
1: Steel Wind - make two attacks against different foes you threaten
4: Mithral Tornado - make one melee attack against each adjacent foe with an extra +2 to hit
7: Scything Blade - if you hit on your first melee attack, get a free melee attack against a different foe you threaten
8:
Adamantine Hurricane - as Mithral Tornado, but two attacks per foe at +4 bonus
Lightning Throw - attack a 30' line, deal an extra 12d6
Setting Sun
6: Ballista Throw - trip foe, throw him 60' away and deal 6d6 damage to each creature on hit's trajectory
Stone Dragon
5: Mountain Avalanche - trample for 2d6+1.5*STR
8: Earthstrike Quake - knock prone every creature in a 20' burst

I think I missed a couple. I only read the short description to get the list, then checked effect with full description.

methods of gaining a full attack action without using a fullround action?

First things coming to my mind are pounce and ways to get more than one charge per round, e.g. Restricted Activity clause, page 27 of rules compendium, + a swift action that grants an extra standard, the sudden leap dirty trick, et cetera.

Look, IRL you cannot convince someone of just anything, and it's not a matter of how convincing you are.
If you wanted to convince me that I am, dunno, Soro, it would take much more than a crazy high bluff check. It would take elaborate planification, weeks if not months of those crazy high bluff checks. It would take acting, putting me in some kind of truman show.

To me, the point of glibness is that you can convince anyone that you are absolutely honest in what you say. That doesn't mean the BBEG is gonna trust you if you told him he's good, he would just believe you are really convinced of that.

In a world with magic, that's strong and possibly unbalanced, but it's concievable. There are detect thoughts and similar, as a counterpart to crazy high bluff bonuses.

Yes

I can't search the exact quote right now, but there's a rule of "you can never make more than one attack as a standard action" (of course specific>general, but two weapon fighting doesn't say you get the second attack as part of a standard action attack)

That scoring system is overly complex buddy, you're on your own.
Anyway, if you want to do this kind of benchmark you could try checking optimization by the numbers (google it), to get a better idea of what the typical encounter for a given level might be.
After all, there is not much point in facing a melee monster in melee.

If your dungeons are trivialized by short range teleports, then your dungeons are the problem, not short range teleports. If you don't know the layout, short range teleports can't trivialize anything but "Here is a special locked door made of force that can never be broken or opened without the green key" which is just terrible design anyway. If they do know the layout, then teleports can maybe do slightly more, but they had to do something to get the layout, and even with the layout you can build your dungeon to not be trivialized just by having thick walls in some locations.

Quite close to what I told him, thanks.

Also worth mentioning is the Master Specialist PrC, which, as its name implies, focuses your specialization on a school. I don't remember much of anything beyond that about the class.

It's neat in that it has very low entry requirements (it's supposed to be taken at level 4th), then it gives greater spell focus (your school), skill focus (spellcraft), a couple caster level increases and some free spells on your spellbook. The major point of the class are the minor, moderate and major school esoterica at levels 4, 7 and 10, wich are abilities that boost your school's spells or are related to the theme of each school. Most are good, some are not.
e.g.
abjuration: bonus on dispel, mettle for all saves against spells only (when you have an abj active) and 3/day cast abjurations with a range of personal or emanations centered on yourself as touch spell with a target of one creature
evocation: bonus on concentration when casting evocations, energy resistance (while an evocation is in effect) and 3/day on a failed save targets of your evocation take half again the damage they took from your spell one round later.

Many things have racial restrictions, so no, it's totally false.
e.g. Eternal Blade, racial substitution levels...

Evocation is not bad per se, it's more a party building meta thing.
The reasoning is something like: the fighter can deal damage too but he's not gonna teleport.