Ranger damage not adding up?

[Starfox]

Pathfinder has a ranger spell, gravity bow, that increases missilve weapon as if fired by a character one size larger. If the bow is a frost bow, and firing frost arrows, it is actually possible to get up to 2d6 + 2d6 frost. But that's stretching rules interpretations andusing a spell from another edition of the game, and still does not do 6d6.

 

[Grogg of the North]

While I think I would enjoy D&D more if I did that, it's a group of friends and there's not many other places for it here anyways.
Every indication points to the fact that he is a 7th-level ranger, the previous DM even referred to him as the ranger (What are character names anyways) And he doesn't move the 10ft requirement for Skirmish before rolling for 6d6 (Unless I'm misreading it)

I guess my main frustration is about the fact that the character is so overwhelmingly strong that other party members don't get to contribute much to the campaign.


Not sure as to why the previous DM left, the last week he played DM he split the party into two groups (Good and evil) to have them fight each other to the death. A few people may have been unhappy about this decision, and I found it weird because we had no reason to kill the good players at the time - we weren't really presented a strong motivation for this other than "This fight decides whether good or evil leads the world" - As if my character was interested in such a thing.

It can't hurt to look here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/memberlist.php

Who knows, maybe there is someone on the boards here that you can play with. Or, ask your other friends if they'd be willing to give the game a whirl. Some of my fondest memories were of my friends and I playing D&D in college. None of us had really played before and, yea, we probably screwed up the rules a bunch but we were having fun and that was all that mattered.

Your frustration regarding the ranger is one that many people have. Everyone optimizes a character to some degree but problems always arise when someone does it to a degree far more than the rest of the group. It's compounded by the fact that his math just isn't holding up either and, as some members here have pointed out, he may be cheating.

Your previous DM having the party duke it out sounds like he was throwing his hands up in frustration. Either he didn't know what to do next story wise or was just frustrated with the party / group.

 

[Starfox]

I haven't played 5E myself, but for a casual group like yours it seems to be a good fit; the rules seem simple enough that no great amount of rules mastery is needed. And simple rules are also easier to understand correctly and harder to optimize.

 

[Dandu]

While I think I would enjoy D&D more if I did that, it's a group of friends and there's not many other places for it here anyways.

Maintain your friendship by engaging in non-competitive activities that will offer others the opportunity to cheat, and find a D&D group near you through use of the internet, or just start playing in an online campaign. You should never put up with people who are behaving badly out of friendship. (In fact, I think this was a point of one of the My Little Pony episodes in season one.)

 

[nroug7]

[MENTION=6682960]Grogg of the North[/MENTION] & Dandu: Well, I've had a chat with the replacement DM and he said he might be fine with splitting the group into two and allowing me to practice DMing with 3-4 players.

I realise that the DM basically has the say over all rules in the game, and to keep the game fair I want to implement a few rules that attempt to deter the killing of players for ridiculous reasons, for example, there's a certain paladin in our group who will kill any evil character outright just for the sheer fact they are evil - I'm pretty sure this might be against the code, but I haven't played a Paladin so I wouldn't know, I do know however that they are required to respect authority.
If I added a law in my world that evildoers must be bought before the law/subdued if at all possible before killing them in self defence or as an attempt to capture them, would this be enough to give a penalty to a paladin if he broke that kind of law?
Overall, I guess I want to run a campaign so it's for the benefit of the group and not the individual and most importantly I want their deaths to be fair and not influenced by the fact that they have to deal with the player across the table who wants to kill them simply because of alignment differences that the characters don't even know about.

 

[Grogg of the North]

has the say over all rules in the game, and to keep the game fair I want to implement a few rules that attempt to deter the killing of players for ridiculous reasons, for example, there's a certain paladin in our group who will kill any evil character outright just for the sheer fact they are evil - I'm pretty sure this might be against the code, but I haven't played a Paladin so I wouldn't know, I do know however that they are required to respect authority.

If I added a law in my world that evildoers must be bought before the law/subdued if at all possible before killing them in self defence or as an attempt to capture them, would this be enough to give a penalty to a paladin if he broke that kind of law?

If you're going to start DMing, I'd recommend new characters all around. Wipe the slate clean and start out at level 1. Less of a headache for you as you start out DMing. With that being said....

Paladins must be lawful good. They have a code of conduct, and one of the requirements is to respect legitimate authority. While they will not knowingly associate with evil characters there can be exceptions, such as attempting to redeem an evil person.

Now, outright killing evil characters because they're evil seems more Lawful Neutral, bordering on Lawful Evil, to me. If you start DMing be sure to talk with your paladin's player about what you expect from him and his code. The code of conduct isn't there to punish the player but to allow some roleplaying opportunities. Let him know that in this land it is expected that all reasonable actions will be taken to bring an evildoer to justice and face the courts. Now if the evil necromancer surrenders and the paladin lops his head off, then you have to address issue. But don't punish him because the ogre chieftain decides to fight to the death.

Finally, if something seems fishy with what a player is doing, don't be afraid to ask them to explain it to you or ask the boards here for help. And remember, have fun. Maybe you're ignoring a rule in a book. Maybe you're introducing house rules. So long as everyone at the table, including you, is having fun that's all that matters.

 

[nroug7]

If you're going to start DMing, I'd recommend new characters all around. Wipe the slate clean and start out at level 1. Less of a headache for you as you start out DMing. With that being said....

But don't punish him because the ogre chieftain decides to fight to the death.

Finally, if something seems fishy with what a player is doing, don't be afraid to ask them to explain it to you or ask the boards here for help. And remember, have fun. Maybe you're ignoring a rule in a book. Maybe you're introducing house rules. So long as everyone at the table, including you, is having fun that's all that matters.

I planned on having everyone create new characters anyways, just wanted to make sure I could stop players from killing each other for illogical reasons and slowing the progress of the group or causing irritation - by all means if an evil character tries to resist then he can fight to the death with the paladin, I just want to make sure other options are there.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

[MENTION=6682960]Grogg of the North[/MENTION] & Dandu: Well, I've had a chat with the replacement DM and he said he might be fine with splitting the group into two and allowing me to practice DMing with 3-4 players.

I realise that the DM basically has the say over all rules in the game, and to keep the game fair I want to implement a few rules that attempt to deter the killing of players for ridiculous reasons, for example, there's a certain paladin in our group who will kill any evil character outright just for the sheer fact they are evil - I'm pretty sure this might be against the code, but I haven't played a Paladin so I wouldn't know, I do know however that they are required to respect authority.
If I added a law in my world that evildoers must be bought before the law/subdued if at all possible before killing them in self defence or as an attempt to capture them, would this be enough to give a penalty to a paladin if he broke that kind of law?
Overall, I guess I want to run a campaign so it's for the benefit of the group and not the individual and most importantly I want their deaths to be fair and not influenced by the fact that they have to deal with the player across the table who wants to kill them simply because of alignment differences that the characters don't even know about.

Glad to hear it. Plenty of players quickly became DMs after being in a game with a poor DM. There is at least one upside: it's a learning experience, and you've learned some of what you need to not do.

Since you're taking over from another DM, there might be a need to fix a few issues. You said the group is being split, but presumably the paladin and evil character are in the same group. Please consider putting them into separate groups. It's generally a bad idea to allow mixed alignments in a group, especially with a paladin, as it causes negative roleplaying issues (eg a paladin turning into "Sir Killbot", an evil PC challenging the paladin by openly committing evil acts in front of them, etc).

The paladin code is a can of worms, unfortunately, and of course controversial. It's vague and written in poetic, non-gaming language, and due to alignment association and other aspects it doesn't just affect the paladin's behavior, but those of other PCs at the table. I don't think there's anything in the code that prevents a paladin from summarily executing an evildoer. With the proposed law, the paladin could still beat the evil PC unconscious and take them to the authorities.

I tend to look at the "principled" alignment in this link for a better lawful good code. Your mileage may vary. Link: http://gelvgoldenaxe.proboards.com/thread/23

I don't if you're going to DM for that ranger player, but if you are, they need to submit a character sheet to you before the next session. Email is a good way to send the scan to you. If they refuse, disinvite them. It sucks when a good friend is a bad gamer, but it happens. Please feel free to ask us about any math issues with that character.

 

[Greenfield]

Regarding the Ranger: It seems as if his character was built using the Magic Pencil of Anything and the Decanter of Endless BS. (TM)

My recommendation? Next time he tries it, calmly ask, "Could you go over where all those attacks and damage come from? It seems like an awful lot from a 1D8 weapon. "

Regarding the Paladin: To me this appears to be an all-too-common visual impairment called, "Selective Reading", where people only see the parts of the rules they want to see, and calls for a revocation of his Creative License.

My recommendation? Remind the player that about 1/4 to 1/3 of the population is Evil and that "Suspicion of being a Jerk" doesn't rate a death penalty in any known society. In short, killing people because they have a bad attitude is murder, and will cost him his Paladin status as soon as his behavior is established enough to warrant an alignment change away from Lawful. It can also get his character arrested and executed.

Yeah, funny thing. Even in a D&D fantasy world, murder is against the law.A

Regarding the conflict between the Paladin and the Evil PC: Paladin code says specifically that they can't "knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue to associate with someone who consistently offends her moral code." That means that they can't both be in the same party.

As a DM I'm soft on this point, particularly if the Paladin makes an effort to reform the evil character. In the end though, the condition can't continue. Either the Paladin has to go or the evil PC does. And as it's the Paladin's problem, and the Paladin actually has no way to force the other PC from the party short of murder...

One way to do it without it being murder would be to interrupt the evil one in the middle of some evil act, some predatory move against innocents. Get them arrested,or step in and defend said innocents, by force if necessary.

I somehow doubt that your Paladin player will have the patience to wait for such an opportunity.

 

[Starfox]

A big part of the paladin problem lies in allowing evil characters in the first place. If you do allow paladins in play, definitely disallow evil characters unless the two players are experienced role-players who can role-play the conflict in an interesting way. Ethical conflicts in the party is generally not fun, and easily escalates out of the game. I'd only allow evil characters in a game specially set apart for them, and then I'd definitely disallow paladins and most likely forbid any good characters.