Pyratheon's page

I'm having a few problems challenging my players properly during encounters. I'm finding that my encounters often turn out as far too easy, or very unforgiving.

The group: 5th Level.

Summoner: Physically weak, but has a ridiculously overpowered Eidolon with an AC higher than the fighter, (I have to roll 17 or above to hit him with most things), and a very strong attack.

Fighter: Phalanx style, wears a shield and spear. Very strong, high AC, you know the gist.

Inquisitor: Shines in social situations, but has very useful spells, and has a crossbow.

Ranger/Rogue: Ranged/melee fighter. Hits pretty damn hard with the box, but also useful with a sword.

We also recently got a heal-focused Paladin, though it looks like the player won't be arriving much anymore, so basing it off this 4-player thing.

Essentially, I've found that even the strongest monsters I throw at them get beaten down in a few seconds. The Eidolon gives me a lot of problems, I've only come near to beating it once, and then the summoner sacrificed most of his HP to save it. That effort took most of the opponents beating constantly on the Eidolon.

The party composition is a bit unusual, and I'm pretty unsure of how to fight them without being horribly unfair. If I throw loads of archers/spellcasters, they're pretty much dead. I should also say that they're all fairly experienced players.

I suppose my main problem, is that players have gotten relatively high HP by now, we roll it, and their AC is considerable. Monsters are often unable to hit them often enough, and even when they do, the damage isn't enough to scratch them much. Our sessions rarely have more than 2 encounters, as we all prefer that to several small ones. Though it does differ, of course.

I was basing the campaign off the Council of Thieves, but after Module 2, the adventure spun completely off due to many events happening differently, so I decided to run it my own way from now on, so I no longer follow the books.

This is my first campaign; I'm a very inexperienced GM. If any of you could give me any sort of hints as to improve the challenge, fun, and experience of combat, that would be awesome! I'm finding the other aspects of the game to be manageable enough. Do let me know if you need more information.

PS: Nobody's died yet in the campaign. Been going on for nigh-on a year, but only a couple times a month per average, due to cancellations, and so on. I'm not opposed to doing so, but feel like the character should deserve it if it happens.

I've managed to play Janiven as a bit too naive a leader - to the point where one of my players managed to frame her as the leader of the council of thieves, straight after we dealt with the Bastards of Erebus, at the end of part 1, which led to her imprisonment. It was quite well-thought through, so I just went along with it.

Now, I'm quite happy with changing the plot to making her guilty of being associated with the Council (although perhaps not leader), what I'm curious about, however, is if she will become absolutely necessary to the plot at a later stage (I haven't read all of the books yet), and if so, if she can be replaced by another NPC, or simply by Arael.

Let me know your thoughts about this.

@Lokie & @Ringtail: Oh, right, I wasn't aware of that. That solves the problem pretty well, then. Thanks very much for your help!

Great suggestions. I'll certainly mention them to him tomorrow.

However, I think he's quite set on being an Urban Ranger, as he's essentially the party's Rogue, so those skills come in handy.

Anything not entirely conventional could be worth considering, too. Perhaps something as simple as an extra feat, or maybe taking elements from the archetypes you two mentioned? Let me know what you think. Anyway, it doesn't necessarily need to be in any rulebook, I'm perfectly happy with houseruling it.

Greetings!

We're a few sessions into my campaign, and one of my players, an Urban Ranger, has got a question for me.

He quite dislikes the idea of magic with his character, so he wonders if it could be possible for him to not gain any magical powers for his ranger.

Naturally, I'm happy to oblige to this, in fact I find low-magic games intriguing.

The problem, however, is that I'm not certain what to give in compensation. To ask him to give up magic with no added benefit does seem a bit harsh. He rolled his stats quite well too, so I'm not comfortable with giving him any bonuses there, nor with any attack abilities, and so forth. Obviously, none of this will apply until he reaches to appropriate level to wield magic.

I'm looking for advice in regards to this, essentially.

TL;DR: What can I give in compensation to a character who willingly gives up magic? Admittedly a ranger, which won't possess much magic at any rate.

Thanks very much in advance!

So, a summoner just summons it, and it gets to act after the summoner's turn, while a Cleric has to use a full round summoning, and the summoned monster won't appear until the cleric's next turn? Full round actions have always confused me a bit - so far I've gone with spell effects = immediate. I'm probably doing something horribly wrong, however.

So, in my game I've got a Summoner, and also a Cleric who's able to summon monsters.

Essentially, I'm wondering how the mechanics work for the summoned monsters. That is, do they have their own turn, initiative roll, and so forth? Or do you have to substitute actions if you want your summoned creature to do something? Also, is there any difference between summoned creatures from different classes?

If there's anything else in particular I should know about summoning, I'd be grateful for any response!

Thanks.

Thank you all so much - very helpful!

Just a quick question regarding the health gained when you reach a new level:

Say, you have a d8 Hit Die. Do you just add your result from the die, or also add your constitution modifier?

Ah, so I see you've got a full band of adventurers. Do let me know if someone regrets their decision, as I'd be happy to take their place, and set sail.

It's all vile witchcraft as far as I'm concerned. I'll have none of it.

I'm fine with either, although I'm in the UK, so time-zones may differ, and have never played a game using Play-by-post. At any rate, when I wake in the morning, I shall have a look at this thread again, and if you still have room, I will certainly make a character.

Terribly sorry to break up the wonderful roleplaying - I was merely wondering how the campaign will work. Will you be playing via forums, or via a program like Skype?

Thanks very much.

Thanks everyone. :)

Ooh, tough one. I'm going to ban solo projects from my list. In no particular order:

Wintersun
Zilch
X Japan
Machinae Supremacy
Kamelot

If you want to check out my awful music taste: http://www.last.fm/user/Pyratheon

Just to let you know, it's not running on my Samsung Galaxy Mini. Might be because it's one of the mid-range phones, but thought I'd let you know anyway! It's forcing me to close it.

Anyway, interesting project! I'd definitely use it if it worked for me, haha. :)

Tempestorm: The players are just level one, so he hasn't gained the "phalanx fighting" ability yet.

Wow, very active community. Thanks for responding, helped me out quite a bit.

One of the players in my Pathfinder game is currently playing a fighter, specifically a phalanx soldier. He has chosen to wield a shield with a shield spike attached to it in his off-hand, as well as a one-handed sword in the main.

What it boils down to, is that we're terribly confused by penalties to attack when it comes to attacking with *just* the shield. He's got the two-weapon fighting feat, so if he is to attack with both his sword *and* shield, the penalties would of course apply. However, often he chooses to simply use a shield bash.

If someone could enlighten me with a detailed description as to how we should calculate the attack bonus for attacking with a shield, I'd be very much obliged.

Thanks very much.