Player abusing the rules? [long]

[Darkness]

When he created his Dwarf Ranger, he insisted that he should be able to use a Dwarven Urgosh without Exotic Weapon Proficiency.

Hit him over the head with an urgrosh... No, even dwarves can't do that.

Then he starts using this Urgosh immediately as a double attack according to the Ranger two-weapon fighting rules.

Ranger TWF doesn't apply to double weapons (although many DMs allow it anyway; I don't, BTW).

It wasn't until his character reached 5th level, that I found out that he left key points of those rules out. By then, his Ranger got 2 attacks per full attack anyway

Can't comment on what he did without further info, but I can point out that a 5th-level Ranger doesn't get two attacks per full round since you need a base attack bonus of at least +6 for that, and he has only +5 at that level. Now that he's 7th level, he can do it, of course.


Now, a question to our regulars: If this person really is so much of a powergamer, then why does he play a ranger?!


Okay, now on to something else. First off, tell him that his rules knowledge is lacking, and tell him how it should really be - backing it up with the books or else the other players' advice. And thereafter, if you're unsure about a rule, let him show it to you in the book - or else ask someone else if this is the correct rule. Also, keep in mind that you are the DM - thus, what you say, goes.

 

[Gizzard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's strictly beer and pretzels, hack'n'slash, rules-lawyering gaming.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is it just me, or does "rules-lawyering" not go with the other things here? Beer and pretzels means to me that we are all there to have fun, if Core Rules must be House Ruled on the fly so that fun is achieved, then so be it. But, alternately, its the sort of game where if a player says, "But on page 367 of supplement X the Dwarven Urgosh is clearly described as blah blah blah blah...." the DM replies by saying, "Your loud compaints have loosened a rock in the ceiling above your head. It falls on your helmet with a loud clang. Take 4 points of damage." And everyone in the game laughs about it, because fun has triumphed over banality.

Anyway, if instead you meant "hack-n-slash, munchkinized gaming" then thats fine too, but a different kettle of fish. Is everyone a munchkin? Or is the problem that only one player is a munchkin and he is not happy because a Ranger is not an inherently munchkiny enough class to keep up with the Fighter. If so, the solution could be as simple as offering to let him retire the Ranger and roll up a Fighter. (And having the other Fighter review his character sheet privately to make sure there is no fudging.)

As for those who call the Ranger a cheater, I suppose its technically true. But, I've known tons of people who would shave the rules in their favor, or more simply imagine that the rules say something favorable that they do not. Its not necessarily a conscious action, they assume the most favorable interpretation is the correct one -- perhaps they should be considered optimists. Example: watch a football with a mixed group of fans. On any given controversial play, half will be convinced that their team recovered a fumble, the other half equally convinced by the same TV replay that their quarterback had his arm in motion. Its not like either fan group are "cheaters", they just perceive the world with such strong biases that they aren't reliable judges anymore. So, unless the Ranger is flagrant in his disregard for the written rules, I'd be inclined to just call him "fallible human" rather than judge him harshly as a "cheater". Keeping an eye on him seems like the correct path to follow, anything more harsh is probably too....um....harsh.

 

[Pielorinho]

Another solution

Introduce "rascal points". These are points a player gets for telling the DM about a rule that works against the party's favor (for example, "Remember, the barbarian can't take a full attack, since he had to stand up, and that's a move-equivalent action"). Every rascal point is good for a +2 bonus to an attack roll, skill check, or saving throw; they don't stack.

The name is derived from what you say when someone earns a point at your expense: "Augh! You rascal!" Note that we don't use the word rascal, although we use a word that kinda rhymes with it.

If everyone can keep a good humor about it, this technique can be a great boon to a DM whose players know the rules better than he does.

Daniel

 

[Zoombaba]

I love the idea of rascal points.

I just might do that.

It appears I got a lot of terminology goofed up. Just to re-cap: Basically, it's possible my player is cheating. Furthermore, I've begun to cement this attitude in by not paying better attention to the rules and the group's characters. This is both mine and his first D&D3e game. His opprotunity to fully exploit the system wasn't available right off the bat. The player has been getting more and more nit-picky as the game progresses. He accepts my rulings most of the time, but he's become more prone to contest them in an obvious attempt to better his situation at all costs. The best word to describe it is volatile. I feel he's kind of volatile about his character.

So, that's what's going on.

He's not hindering the group to the point of me wanting to kick him out. If he was that bad, I would, and stop playing with him. But, it is a situation that some players have talked to me about, and that I'd like to defuse before it got to be a bigger issue.

I just wanted to hear some approaches from the forum about what would be best, and how they felt about the gravity of the situation.

Thanks,Zoombaba