Player just doing the same thing problem- please help.

[Goonalan]

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!

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.

 

[77IM]

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

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

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.

 

[Syrsuro]

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:

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.

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

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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...)

 

[MarkB]

Barring a strange build an Archer Ranger build is far more effective with the bow than in Melee.
If a bow archer in melee is better than the cleric then I'd say that the cleric build needs looking at.

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]

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.

 

[Regicide]

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]

The tradeoff here is you can't Quarry the target you want to hit each time (only the closest enemy),

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.

and you are never getting Prime Shot, because you are never closest to your target.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.