Player just doing the same thing problem- please help.
- Thread starter Goonalan
- Start date
I play in a similar party...I play the reluctant tank paladin (she didn't really want to be the defender, but after the party split, we had no choice), we also have a nasty striking rogue, a "laser happy" cleric who often doesn't do the most ideal heals, a wizard, and recently we teamed up with a melee strong ranger...who opens up with a volley of arrows.
Our big difference, for the longest time (like lv2-3) our defensive line was ONLY my paladin and our rogue...our cleric "could" take a beating but he almost exclusively stays at range (elf with bow), and our wizard, well, he decided to feat up to hide armor recently.
The rogue is near useless WITHOUT combat advantage and we try our darndest to position him so he can get the extra 2d8 damage. I often play to position my paladin (how noble of her) so that the party "shares the wealth" of damage...cause my pally drops fast even though she's in plate. With 3 lay on hands a day, she mostly supplements herself with healing during combat, often downing five healing surges in ONE encounter.
However, once the ranger joined the group, combat has gotten a tad better. He's smart enough to maneuver all over the place...launching arrows and more arrows all over the place but charging into the ranged opponents to really mess up the artillery line.
Wish our cleric was a bit more on it and coordinated the with party a bit more...but he's getting there. Twice last combat he realized that if my paladin was affected by his +1 attack bonus (divine glow and something else) we woul have downed opponents MUCH faster. He's also learning the concept of focus fire (HUGE benefit!)...and that instead of using Healing Word on himself, he should load it onto those taking serious damage.
By the rest of the party working together, I think the ranger may understand the importance of taking some hits for the team. Once the cleric drops...and your party is down some serious heals, and the pally runs out of lay on hands...the ranger will realize that jumping into combat to take hits is vitally important.
It ALWAYS hurt the party when one defender takes about four or five hits right off the bat....dropping unconscious...that greatly leaves the rest of the party vulnerable... My party understands how...greatly, that they need to keep their pally up, and they need to trust that she'll take hits and mark opponents when she's able to handle multiple attackers at once.
Fox
Our big difference, for the longest time (like lv2-3) our defensive line was ONLY my paladin and our rogue...our cleric "could" take a beating but he almost exclusively stays at range (elf with bow), and our wizard, well, he decided to feat up to hide armor recently.
The rogue is near useless WITHOUT combat advantage and we try our darndest to position him so he can get the extra 2d8 damage. I often play to position my paladin (how noble of her) so that the party "shares the wealth" of damage...cause my pally drops fast even though she's in plate. With 3 lay on hands a day, she mostly supplements herself with healing during combat, often downing five healing surges in ONE encounter.
However, once the ranger joined the group, combat has gotten a tad better. He's smart enough to maneuver all over the place...launching arrows and more arrows all over the place but charging into the ranged opponents to really mess up the artillery line.
Wish our cleric was a bit more on it and coordinated the with party a bit more...but he's getting there. Twice last combat he realized that if my paladin was affected by his +1 attack bonus (divine glow and something else) we woul have downed opponents MUCH faster. He's also learning the concept of focus fire (HUGE benefit!)...and that instead of using Healing Word on himself, he should load it onto those taking serious damage.
By the rest of the party working together, I think the ranger may understand the importance of taking some hits for the team. Once the cleric drops...and your party is down some serious heals, and the pally runs out of lay on hands...the ranger will realize that jumping into combat to take hits is vitally important.
It ALWAYS hurt the party when one defender takes about four or five hits right off the bat....dropping unconscious...that greatly leaves the rest of the party vulnerable... My party understands how...greatly, that they need to keep their pally up, and they need to trust that she'll take hits and mark opponents when she's able to handle multiple attackers at once.
Fox
Sounds a lot like the ranger in my (3E) group. As a DM I don't feel it's something I should do something about. I'm throwing all kinds of encounters at the group. Most of the time he manages to stay out of trouble, though.
The other players definitely dislike his behaviour but imho it's something they have to arrange among themselves.
The other players definitely dislike his behaviour but imho it's something they have to arrange among themselves.
Wow that's a lot of good advice, I'm going back to look at the encounters the group have ahead, some tinkering is in order.
Just to clarify, the Rogue gets stuck out front because nobody else is offering him anything in the way of advice, or even contributing to what's happening. The Ranger is the last of the bunch, he generally waits at the back of the queue. The Rogue scouts comes back and tells them what he's found- the other players nod there heads, and no plan of attack gets made.
The Rogue gets frustrated goes back to have another look, the Cleric and Paladin are so armour heavy they've got no stealth so they stay where they are or try to shuffle a little closer to whatever the encounter is. The Ranger stays behind them.
Then there's a few minutes silence as nobody does anything, the Rogue who's still close in, and not quite sure what to do either gets spotted or cracks and launches an attack. There follows a conga line of the others running to catch up with the Rogue. Maybe it's not the Ranger, maybe it's the fact that none of the players are the "Leader", and so no plans get made, or rather very few. Partially the reason for that is the Ranger has a habit of saying "no", even when the Cleric is fed up of being the Defender and has a ranged at will that he has only ever got to use once, becuase he's stood next to the Paladin getting smacked.
The Ranger is the source of the ire at times because everyone else is on last legs and he's still 10 squares away.
I agree the Archer Ranger is best as an Archer, it's just all he does at times (90%), even when others seem to be having a very hard time of it.
The Killing the Kobold Kid thing was a bit annoying because it effectively pissed off two of the other players, there was absolutely no reason for it- as the Paladin said the Lord was not going to pay them for the heads of children, so he was just doing it because a) he could, b) he knew it would annoy somebody, c) or else he just doesn't think about it.
So Rogue- gets little advice, I just heard from the Cleric he's going to start advising the Rogue and try and help him out, the Rogue however looks to the Ranger- who usually just says "naaah, you do scouting", and sounds pissed off that somebody asked him again.
Cleric- doesn't want to be a Tank all the time, has to be- in the example as I outlined above, with the Ranger getting whacked by the Kobold Chieftain the Clerics plan is a do or die rush to get the Ranger back to full. He's not going to let anybody through to the Ranger, he's roleplaying the good guy, the hero.
The Paladin, is doing good and follows the Cleric's lead, or else does the good guy stuff for herself.
The Wizard stays out of the way and is forgiven for it because she does serious chunks of damage, has a crap AC and HP and incapable of combat, she also contributes with lots of cantrips to help out along the way.
The Ranger doesn't do scouting, is excellent as an archer, but relieves nobody- not even for a minute, does stuff that the other party members either dislike (in character), or find annoying (out of character), then moans that they are not doing it right.
So what the Ranger is doing may not be the problem, how he's doing it may be, the fact that all the other characters are covering for each other and he's on his own is very apparent at times.
Does that make it a little clearer?
Oh and I've had a word with the Ranger out of game, he just says that's what he's best at, that's what he's doing.
Thanks again for the advice, overwhelmed with the number of replies, top work- just trying to make it work.
Just to clarify, the Rogue gets stuck out front because nobody else is offering him anything in the way of advice, or even contributing to what's happening. The Ranger is the last of the bunch, he generally waits at the back of the queue. The Rogue scouts comes back and tells them what he's found- the other players nod there heads, and no plan of attack gets made.
The Rogue gets frustrated goes back to have another look, the Cleric and Paladin are so armour heavy they've got no stealth so they stay where they are or try to shuffle a little closer to whatever the encounter is. The Ranger stays behind them.
Then there's a few minutes silence as nobody does anything, the Rogue who's still close in, and not quite sure what to do either gets spotted or cracks and launches an attack. There follows a conga line of the others running to catch up with the Rogue. Maybe it's not the Ranger, maybe it's the fact that none of the players are the "Leader", and so no plans get made, or rather very few. Partially the reason for that is the Ranger has a habit of saying "no", even when the Cleric is fed up of being the Defender and has a ranged at will that he has only ever got to use once, becuase he's stood next to the Paladin getting smacked.
The Ranger is the source of the ire at times because everyone else is on last legs and he's still 10 squares away.
I agree the Archer Ranger is best as an Archer, it's just all he does at times (90%), even when others seem to be having a very hard time of it.
The Killing the Kobold Kid thing was a bit annoying because it effectively pissed off two of the other players, there was absolutely no reason for it- as the Paladin said the Lord was not going to pay them for the heads of children, so he was just doing it because a) he could, b) he knew it would annoy somebody, c) or else he just doesn't think about it.
So Rogue- gets little advice, I just heard from the Cleric he's going to start advising the Rogue and try and help him out, the Rogue however looks to the Ranger- who usually just says "naaah, you do scouting", and sounds pissed off that somebody asked him again.
Cleric- doesn't want to be a Tank all the time, has to be- in the example as I outlined above, with the Ranger getting whacked by the Kobold Chieftain the Clerics plan is a do or die rush to get the Ranger back to full. He's not going to let anybody through to the Ranger, he's roleplaying the good guy, the hero.
The Paladin, is doing good and follows the Cleric's lead, or else does the good guy stuff for herself.
The Wizard stays out of the way and is forgiven for it because she does serious chunks of damage, has a crap AC and HP and incapable of combat, she also contributes with lots of cantrips to help out along the way.
The Ranger doesn't do scouting, is excellent as an archer, but relieves nobody- not even for a minute, does stuff that the other party members either dislike (in character), or find annoying (out of character), then moans that they are not doing it right.
So what the Ranger is doing may not be the problem, how he's doing it may be, the fact that all the other characters are covering for each other and he's on his own is very apparent at times.
Does that make it a little clearer?
Oh and I've had a word with the Ranger out of game, he just says that's what he's best at, that's what he's doing.
Thanks again for the advice, overwhelmed with the number of replies, top work- just trying to make it work.
I think it's pretty fantastic that the rogue is always the one who gets into trouble and the party has to bail him out. I also don't see anything wrong with the Ranger trying to stay out of harms way and shoot either. I think as DM, your job is to challenge the Ranger a bit more, and go a bit easier on the rogue.
If there is enemy artillary or skirmishers, have them slink to a flank and focus their range attackes on the Ranger once they notice him as a threat. Also throw more fights in tight quarters, where the Ranger has to choose between not having any valid targets, or being closer than 10 squares to the action. Throw some smoke or fog or have some fights in dense woods where there is no LoS beyond 5 squares. Use Lurkers that immobilize him and surprise him from behind. Create a situation where the others have to save his bacon for a change.
Against the Rogue, if it looks like a pair of soldiers and a pair of skirmishers are lined up to shank him, have one of the Soldiers say with confidence, "I got this one handled" and the other three can run around the rogue to get to the rest of the party. It'll still put the rogue in a hard place, but it won't eat up three quarters of his hitpoints on the first turn.
The only thing the ranger is doing wrong is the way he seems to complain to the other players about their tactics. Tell him if he has any problems with their tactics, he should take it up with the others in character. This could solve some of your problems.
He also seems to have a bit too much self confidence. Destroy it. Give him red herrings with a whisp of truth in them. Misguide him into making a mistake. Give one of the other characters hints about the improbable truth. It's not easy to do and you need an elaborate layout, but it should be quite rewarding, and may get his character to start trusting some of the others. Of course, you then have to give them a chance to fix the mistake.
If there is enemy artillary or skirmishers, have them slink to a flank and focus their range attackes on the Ranger once they notice him as a threat. Also throw more fights in tight quarters, where the Ranger has to choose between not having any valid targets, or being closer than 10 squares to the action. Throw some smoke or fog or have some fights in dense woods where there is no LoS beyond 5 squares. Use Lurkers that immobilize him and surprise him from behind. Create a situation where the others have to save his bacon for a change.
Against the Rogue, if it looks like a pair of soldiers and a pair of skirmishers are lined up to shank him, have one of the Soldiers say with confidence, "I got this one handled" and the other three can run around the rogue to get to the rest of the party. It'll still put the rogue in a hard place, but it won't eat up three quarters of his hitpoints on the first turn.
The only thing the ranger is doing wrong is the way he seems to complain to the other players about their tactics. Tell him if he has any problems with their tactics, he should take it up with the others in character. This could solve some of your problems.
He also seems to have a bit too much self confidence. Destroy it. Give him red herrings with a whisp of truth in them. Misguide him into making a mistake. Give one of the other characters hints about the improbable truth. It's not easy to do and you need an elaborate layout, but it should be quite rewarding, and may get his character to start trusting some of the others. Of course, you then have to give them a chance to fix the mistake.
Excellent advice, thanks- I've got a complex plot brewing, I've spent days and weeks (evenings) on developing the maps on RPMapTools and plotting out the campaign arc(s), around fifty sides of A4 already written, 60 encounters mapped out and populated- macros done, speeches written et al, all on MapTools- ready to deliver at the click of a button, with me doing the voices via Skype, it looks lovely- I'm making a real effort to do my own thing as opposed to relying on existing products and storylines. The worry is it's unraveling, I heard from the Cleric and the Paladin last night, that they are going to have a long (in-game) chat about the slaying of Kobold Kids, they're both opposed to the killing of innocents, my fear is the Ranger will just say, "so...", and go about his business as usual. The Rogue needs some help and the character that can give it is usally not even in position (on MapTools) to see what's happening.
Having read through the replies again I now feel I'm being too harsh on the Ranger, he's doing his job afterall, the problem is the other players are either not so fixed on what their job is- they'll fill any gap, even the Wizard is looking into getting some armour (and Feat), just in case he has to get in the thick of it.
The problem I think then is nobody knows what they are doing, except what they have been doing, some of the players resent the Ranger for being always out of the way when trouble hits, the solution is to get them to develop their tactics a bit and assign some jobs, the problem with this is the Ranger is already saying "no" to anything other than what he's already decided to do.
Having read through the replies again I now feel I'm being too harsh on the Ranger, he's doing his job afterall, the problem is the other players are either not so fixed on what their job is- they'll fill any gap, even the Wizard is looking into getting some armour (and Feat), just in case he has to get in the thick of it.
The problem I think then is nobody knows what they are doing, except what they have been doing, some of the players resent the Ranger for being always out of the way when trouble hits, the solution is to get them to develop their tactics a bit and assign some jobs, the problem with this is the Ranger is already saying "no" to anything other than what he's already decided to do.
Ah yes, the Timid Timmy Types.
I've encountered a lot of players like this over the years. So many, in fact, that it's made it into my little spiel I do for groups before I DM. In a nutshell, I tell players that if they're not going to adventure, then there's no point in me DM'ing.
Have the party sit in a tavern for awhile and have absolutely nothing interesting happen to them whatsoever. If they don't get the hint that adventurers, oh, I don't know... ADVENTURE, then dump them like a sack of wet puppies and find a better group.
Wednesday Boy
The Nerd WhoFell to Earth
I would talk to the Rogue and suggest that they become more of a leader if the lack of group initiative is frustrating to them. I've seen players get frustrated with the group for some reason, do something rash and become miffed at how things turned out, but never take action to alleviate the frustration. It seems to me that's what the Rogue is doing too. If the Rogue doesn't communicate with the group to coordinate a plan, they don't have any room to complain when they stalk off and get attacked alone.
Old Gumphrey
First Post
The tradeoff here is you can't Quarry the target you want to hit each time (only the closest enemy), and you are never getting Prime Shot, because you are never closest to your target. You're actually less effective if you just sit in the back and never move around as a ranged striker. There's a reason the archer build gets +2 AC on OAs for free.
Ranged strikers are most effective when they can lure enemies away from the rest of the group and then burn them down fast. Shooting from 20 squares behind a mob of your friends is for when you get beaten up trying to do your job.
SweeneyTodd
First Post
I would be more concerned with the intersection of "massively planned plot" and "ranger playing really not seeming to care about anything" than I would about the tactical issues. He seems to be having a good time blowing up bad guys and that's about it; it's possible your players aren't really on board with your plan of massive campaign arcs.
That's not a deal-breaker, but it's something worth having a group conversation (totally OOC) about.
One thing I always try to keep in mind when I'm off on a tear, creating lots of cool content, is that I'm primarily doing it for my own enjoyment. If the players see the content and get to enjoy it, fantastic, but my rule of thumb is I ever feel like I'm doing it just for them, then I try to scale back a little bit in terms of how much effort I put into it.
Good luck with the campaign!
That's not a deal-breaker, but it's something worth having a group conversation (totally OOC) about.
One thing I always try to keep in mind when I'm off on a tear, creating lots of cool content, is that I'm primarily doing it for my own enjoyment. If the players see the content and get to enjoy it, fantastic, but my rule of thumb is I ever feel like I'm doing it just for them, then I try to scale back a little bit in terms of how much effort I put into it.
Good luck with the campaign!
This campaign came about because we were fed up with pre-produced campaign arcs, I got the players to come up with backstories all ending in the town of Fallcrest- they all did this, I used this as a jumping off point for the campaign, although I had a good idea where I wanted them to get to in the end. We discussed this as a group before the campaign started.
I'm enjoying the writing, and am sold on 4e when used with MapTools, so I'm having fun, the frustration comes because a character chooses to go his own direction, sometimes against the other players, which I can handle to a degree but the players are getting frustrated at times.
When we get to roleplaying time the Ranger is often uncivil with the NPCs that the other players are trying to befriend, or extract information from, or sympathise with and soon after offer their services to make good whatever terrible thing has occurred. He doesn't do it all the time, and when he does he's funny with it, but sometimes I have to (as the NPC) ignore it because the thread of the narrative will break, even though the other four players are trying to keep hold of it.
A good philosophy of role-playing is "Play to entertain your fellow players, not yourself." The very best games occur when everyone does this at once!
You might mention this to your players, or even dangle an XP carrot if necessary (like awarding 10-20 XP whenever anybody does something totally awesome or selflessly gives another character an "assist" instead of hogging the glory). Be sure to announce clearly what the awards are and why so that people can learn and adjust their expectations accordingly.
-- 77IM
You might mention this to your players, or even dangle an XP carrot if necessary (like awarding 10-20 XP whenever anybody does something totally awesome or selflessly gives another character an "assist" instead of hogging the glory). Be sure to announce clearly what the awards are and why so that people can learn and adjust their expectations accordingly.
-- 77IM
Traveon Wyvernspur
First Post
It does sound to me now that you explain it more that the Ranger is taking his role as the ranged attacker correctly and the rogue is the one getting the group into trouble. You need to chat with your players let them know someone has to be the 'leader' and to come up with some sort of tactics for their encounters. The rogue, as you explain it, is going off on his own and either getting spotted or he's attacking w/o his friends around to save his butt for a few rounds. I'd have an OOC chat w/ the rogue that he should not do this unless he wants to be killed 5 or 6 on 1 before the group gets there to save his bacon.
If the Ranger thinks he's this great tactician, I would suggest to him OOC that he be the leader and decide the group's tactics in battle, otherwise he should quite himself down about how he is so great at it. I would think that the paladin or cleric should be the group leader though, have that rogue come back to the group, report what he saw, and have them draw up a battle plan together, if noone is doing this, they aren't thinking like their characters would and it just seems like it wouldn't be very fun if they aren't doing anything at all or contributing at all to the campaign. I applaude you for having such a great deal of time and effort put into this campaign, sounds like a ton of fun, and these players would be missing out if they screw it up.
If the Ranger thinks he's this great tactician, I would suggest to him OOC that he be the leader and decide the group's tactics in battle, otherwise he should quite himself down about how he is so great at it. I would think that the paladin or cleric should be the group leader though, have that rogue come back to the group, report what he saw, and have them draw up a battle plan together, if noone is doing this, they aren't thinking like their characters would and it just seems like it wouldn't be very fun if they aren't doing anything at all or contributing at all to the campaign. I applaude you for having such a great deal of time and effort put into this campaign, sounds like a ton of fun, and these players would be missing out if they screw it up.
I have a serious problem with the premise of this thread.
You have a character who contributes to the party, but has strong preferences in how he does so.
He prefers to stay in the back and use archery to stepping into the fray and using melee and he doesn't scout ahead.
He gets into ethical arguments with the other party members (over kobold children).
(And Kobold children grow up into Kobold adults. So there certainly IS a reason to kill kobold children - even if the paladin feels it to be inappropriate. Unless you are going to set up an Kobold orphanage to raise them with a less hostile outlook on life. Most places that offer bounties are doing so in the name of genocide, not rewarding effort and would be just as happy to pay for a female/child bounty as an adult. And even if there was no bounty the above STILL gives more than adequate role playing reason to kill them. Bounty or no bounty, they are evil and need to die.)
Etc.
This is a roleplaying game. This is not an online RPG that is all about optimising kills. As long as the character is contributing to the group* he should be allowed to play his character any darn way he wants to. The DM should not, under any circumstances, interfere with how he plays his character.
*this is an important point. If he wasn't contributing to the group, then you would need to talk to him. But he is clearly contributing based on these posts.
That said - you DO have a problem. It sounds like one of two things is happening. Either A - you have a group who is paralyzed by indecision and has trouble making up an attack plan on the spur of the moment or B (far more likely in my mind) - you have a group with very different play styles.
Based on this post:
Speculating: Your rogue has no patience for discussing or roleplaying and just wants to move from encounter to encounter. He runs off and scouts the next encounter while the party is cleaning up the previous one. He finds the next encounter and comes back and the party is not yet ready to move on. So, rather than wait or join whatever interaction is happening with the party, he goes off AGAIN and continues to snoop around.
If there is a problem with anyone, it is with the rogue. His playstyle doesn't seem to match that of the rest of the group (at least not if he is complaining about their lack of action.)
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. They are succeeding, they are playing their characters and (hopefully) they are having fun.
You may want to have some in-game consequences for their actions, but I certainly wouldn't, as a DM, do anything to force them to change. I might use some of the ingame suggestions -- skirmishers, opportunities for the rogue to do some thievery while scouting since the party isn't paying attention, etc. Or even a near-fatal encounter when the rogue returns to scout the second time out of boredom (it is his return once he has told the party about the encounter that is unwise).
But the last thing I would ever consider is telling a party that he is playing his character 'wrong'.
Carl
You have a character who contributes to the party, but has strong preferences in how he does so.
He prefers to stay in the back and use archery to stepping into the fray and using melee and he doesn't scout ahead.
He gets into ethical arguments with the other party members (over kobold children).
(And Kobold children grow up into Kobold adults. So there certainly IS a reason to kill kobold children - even if the paladin feels it to be inappropriate. Unless you are going to set up an Kobold orphanage to raise them with a less hostile outlook on life. Most places that offer bounties are doing so in the name of genocide, not rewarding effort and would be just as happy to pay for a female/child bounty as an adult. And even if there was no bounty the above STILL gives more than adequate role playing reason to kill them. Bounty or no bounty, they are evil and need to die.)
Etc.
This is a roleplaying game. This is not an online RPG that is all about optimising kills. As long as the character is contributing to the group* he should be allowed to play his character any darn way he wants to. The DM should not, under any circumstances, interfere with how he plays his character.
*this is an important point. If he wasn't contributing to the group, then you would need to talk to him. But he is clearly contributing based on these posts.
That said - you DO have a problem. It sounds like one of two things is happening. Either A - you have a group who is paralyzed by indecision and has trouble making up an attack plan on the spur of the moment or B (far more likely in my mind) - you have a group with very different play styles.
Based on this post:
Speculating: Your rogue has no patience for discussing or roleplaying and just wants to move from encounter to encounter. He runs off and scouts the next encounter while the party is cleaning up the previous one. He finds the next encounter and comes back and the party is not yet ready to move on. So, rather than wait or join whatever interaction is happening with the party, he goes off AGAIN and continues to snoop around.
If there is a problem with anyone, it is with the rogue. His playstyle doesn't seem to match that of the rest of the group (at least not if he is complaining about their lack of action.)
Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. They are succeeding, they are playing their characters and (hopefully) they are having fun.
You may want to have some in-game consequences for their actions, but I certainly wouldn't, as a DM, do anything to force them to change. I might use some of the ingame suggestions -- skirmishers, opportunities for the rogue to do some thievery while scouting since the party isn't paying attention, etc. Or even a near-fatal encounter when the rogue returns to scout the second time out of boredom (it is his return once he has told the party about the encounter that is unwise).
But the last thing I would ever consider is telling a party that he is playing his character 'wrong'.
Carl
Last edited:
UngeheuerLich
Legend
don´t force them to play in ways they don´t like... but as already suggested: use monsters which strike the ranger...
I once had this "problem" in 3rd edition... one huge lance through his chest leaving him with 3 hp in midair convinced him raising his constitution to 14 before increasing dex or strength to an even number. A hook horror smadhing his flaming bow with an opportunity attack convinced him not to use his bow in melee range again, and finally giving him to an intelligent sword made him balance out his melee over the next few levels, so he was quite a contribution the group in melee or in ranged combat as needed...
Maybe having fights in very close spaces helps to let him think about melee powers or hybrid powers... i think reducing his damage output because he can´t use his bow really effectively will work wonders... (rule that he can only shoot through allies when they have enough room to duck away to let the ranger have a clear shot... let him hit the back of an ally on a critical failure etc...)
I once had this "problem" in 3rd edition... one huge lance through his chest leaving him with 3 hp in midair convinced him raising his constitution to 14 before increasing dex or strength to an even number. A hook horror smadhing his flaming bow with an opportunity attack convinced him not to use his bow in melee range again, and finally giving him to an intelligent sword made him balance out his melee over the next few levels, so he was quite a contribution the group in melee or in ranged combat as needed...
Maybe having fights in very close spaces helps to let him think about melee powers or hybrid powers... i think reducing his damage output because he can´t use his bow really effectively will work wonders... (rule that he can only shoot through allies when they have enough room to duck away to let the ranger have a clear shot... let him hit the back of an ally on a critical failure etc...)
MarkB
Legend
Actually, a Devoted Cleric who specialises in Wisdom and Charisma will likely pretty much suck in melee. His only two non-Strength-based at-will options are both ranged attacks, so that leaves him burning through whatever melee-friendly encounter powers he has and then resorting to basic melee attacks which are based off his tertiary stat.
A ranged Ranger, on the other hand, will probably have Strength as a secondary stat, and at least one of his at-wills and all of his encounter powers will be useable whilst in melee. In fact, it's quite easy to build a Ranger of either build that can hold his own equally well in melee or ranged combat.
DracoSuave
First Post
But when it comes to defenses, the cleric is in heavy armor, so no build will change his defenses.
The Ranger on the other hand has three options. Dex/Wis (good AC), Str/Dex (well rounded, decent AC), Str/Wis (crappy AC)
Str/Wis Rangers, and Warlocks who don't boost their Int are the worst AC in the game, but at least Warlocks get constant concealment.
The Ranger on the other hand has three options. Dex/Wis (good AC), Str/Dex (well rounded, decent AC), Str/Wis (crappy AC)
Str/Wis Rangers, and Warlocks who don't boost their Int are the worst AC in the game, but at least Warlocks get constant concealment.
If your problem is that everyone hates the ranger because he has healing surges left and others don't, then tell them to rest to get them back... how hard is that? If the party for some reason feels they need to keep going without resting just give them infinite healing surges, it's like resting without getting the action point or dailys back.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
I agree the Ranger should move around to be able to target the opponent you want to target, and a lot of Ranger powers enhance mobility. But, regardless of where you move, you are still going to be far from the target and not up close - because you are an archer Ranger. So when I say in the back, I mean away from the center of the action, not necessarily physically directly behind the rest of the party at all times.
That's because prime shot is nearly useless, and virtually all reports on it agree with that sentiment. If you happen to get prime shot (usually in the first round of combat), cool. But you almost never want to build your tactics around it as an archer...because that would mean you are too close to your target.
I didn't say never move around. You SHOULD move around. You are built to move, and take advantage of terrain, and use stealth, etc.. But you are not built for melee combat, and the +2 AC vs OAs is for the rare occasion when someone charges up to you, not because you are always standing near melee combatants.
You are not less effective if you stay at range from the core of melee combat as a Ranger. As long as you are moving around as you should be to take advantage of terrain, and be able to get appropriate hits on the target you want to hit, you're playing effectively. Getting close just so you can use prime shot is just silly.
I didn't say shooting from behind a mob of your friends...but shooting from relatively far away (not 20 squares, that's just not practical) is the point of an archer Ranger. You're not supposed to be getting close to melee combatants. If you do, most of your defenses and powers will be subpar at best.
DM_Blake
First Post
You could also tell the other players to simply ignore any potential threats that might wanna come the ranger's way, and let him handle them. One of the ideas of healing surges is that everyone should ideally spend the same (relative) amount of them over several encounters, so your defenders don't run out too fast. If the ranger can take a few hits, have the party, encourage them even, let him 'handle it'.
Why would you suggest this?
A bow-specced ranger shouldn't have to deal with melee threats. When it happens in the chaos of battle, hopefully he can deal with it, and hopefully his team will take steps to free him from the melee.
As for healing surges, think of real world battles. Imagine the commanders in Napoleon's army sitting around wishing their artillery units would get flanked and embroiled in melee, just so their company medics could dispense some bandages too. After all, wouldn't want those infantry medics running out of bandages too soon when the artillery company medics still had all their bandages. Who cares if we stop firing canons because the artillery engineers are in hand-to-hand melee? Who cares if we lose canons to the enemy because those artillery engineers are inferior and losing their melee fights too often? Just so long as we keep the bandaging spread out evenly...
The point of that metaphor was to suggest, in a roundabout way, that your fights will end faster, and you won't need to heal the front-line types as much, if everyone does their jobs. Keep the artillery protected, let them fire their devastating ranged barrages from behind the safety of their infantry. Let the infantry soak up the hits - there will be fewer total hits if the enemy is destroyed quickly by proper execution of flawless strategy. And you'll lose fewer rangers that way, too.
