Player just doing the same thing problem- please help.

[DM_Blake]

and finally giving him to an intelligent sword

Ooooh, the sword owns him now - reminds me of the good old days when a really cool intelligent sword had so much ego that those low-INT, low-WIS, low-CHA fighters who could have actually put that sword to good use were constantly dominated by the sword.

The sword becomes the PC; the character becomes the NPC sword-bearer.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

We have a similiar term. My friend calls people like this "Dungeon Tourist". He plays with a group of people who are "afraid" to do anything that *might* put them at risk. So they'll go into a dungeon, wander around, happen upon a door and be like "I'm not opening it, you open it" and argue about it for 30 minutes...

Dungeon Tourist(tm)

 

[Tony Vargas]

The archer-ranger does lend itself somewhat to shooting from the back ranks once battle is joined. However, it's most effective when it acts in a scouting role leading up to battle. The ideal scenario is that the ranger & rogue sout ahead, pick an important target in the enemy group, then the rogue SAs it, the ranger designates it Hunter's Quary and hits it with Prime Shot - then they both book as the frontliners attack. The Ranger can then spend some time in the back, laying Hunter's Quary damage on some hapless Controller or Artillery monster, and doing a lot more good than he would plinking minions or soldiers. If he doesn't embrace the scouting role, the ranger's Prime Shot is lost and his Hunter's Quary is wasted on hard-to-hit soldiers and mountain-of-hps brutes when he could be using it on a higher value target.

The problem of the Rogue is a common one. Rogues are good scouts, rogues do get to do nice SA damage when they take the first shot. So it's tempting to be out in front, flanking the enemy front line from behind. But, Rogues should then run for the protection of the party defenders. Flanking is good, flanking when it gets you surrounded by the enemy is /bad/.

The funny thing is, the rogue and ranger in my party are acting similarly. The ranger is a dedicated archer and spends 90% of his time shooting from the back rank (along with the wizard and 'lazer' cleric). However, he does take up scouting duties, and will move around in more open combats to get in the occassional prime shot, then scoot when the enemy comes after him. The rogue is, IC, supposed to be impulsive and foolhardy - and the player is that way OOC - so he gets in tons of trouble. Once he's been sufficiently mauled, we keep him in the middle of the party, as a ranged combatant. But, we have a big party (7 if everyone shows up), so we can afford to have a character or two underperforming a little at times.

 

[IceFractal]

As has been said - firing from the back is pretty much what an archery Ranger does. Like a Wizard, things have gone wrong if they're regularly going into melee. Scouting - and the rest of the party providing inadequate backup for that scouting - is the real problem here.

First you have to ask the question - is scouting even a good idea? While it might sound like an obvious tactic, it's often not worth the risk in 4E, especially as there's not much you can do to prepare for a fight. This may be where the Ranger is coming from - he doesn't go scouting, because he feels it's not really helping.

And definitely, the Rogue should not actually go into combat with the rest of the party a distance behind. If people are being indecisive, someone needs to take a leadership role and say something like "Ok, everyone get moving to the attack, tanks in front".

Now the Ranger being obnoxious and pissing people off for the hell of it - that's a different problem, and one you should talk to him about. But firing from the back isn't really the issue.

 

[Mad Hamish]

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.

Yeah, I should have been clearer in what I wrote.
iirc the original post in this thread said that the cleric was more of a tank than anything else so I took that to mean he was a strength based cleric.

In which case I'd expect him to have better bonuses to hit in melee than an archer ranger.

It's possible to create a ranger who can hold their own in both fields (although I suspect that you're still better focusing on one or the other and accepting that you'll be worse on the other one) but with the way this ranger is being played it strikes me as unlikely to have happened here.

(Of course I'm probably also affected by my 10 str, 20 dex Elven ranger)

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, I should have been clearer in what I wrote.
iirc the original post in this thread said that the cleric was more of a tank than anything else so I took that to mean he was a strength based cleric.

Sorry, I'd missed that detail.

In which case I'd expect him to have better bonuses to hit in melee than an archer ranger.

It's possible to create a ranger who can hold their own in both fields (although I suspect that you're still better focusing on one or the other and accepting that you'll be worse on the other one) but with the way this ranger is being played it strikes me as unlikely to have happened here.

(Of course I'm probably also affected by my 10 str, 20 dex Elven ranger)

Yeah, I think I was likewise being biased by my 12 STR 20 WIS devoted cleric, and my 16 STR 16 DEX ranger.

Hey, at least it shows there's a fair variety of character builds in 4e.