My concern is the GMs brother who plays two rangers. The guy just does not understand what a striker is supose to do. He gets in my way, preventing me from pulling in bad guys, blocking charges, and what not. He thinks he can only flank with his bear so there are two of them who get in my way. Strikers are suppose to stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things. This causes him to go down numerous times.
His bow ranger is no better. While he loves getting his extra d8, he does not understand that he should be picking off threats at a range, take care of the guy shooting me or the one we can get to, not the guy I am fighting.
I have tried to commnet to him a few times but am told I am metagaming and to play my own character. It gets fustrating, that is all.
This way you are not metagaming but instead attempting to improve party tactics In character.
I have tried to commnet to him a few times but am told I am metagaming and to play my own character. It gets fustrating, that is all.
I appreciate your frustration. On the other hand, D&D isn't World of Warcraft; you don't need a team playing perfectly optimised to gain ultimate success. If the ranger guy enjoys playing this way, then there's no inherent reason not to let him play his ranger this way.
The two caveats are:
(1) If you're actually having trouble with battles because he's not doing his job. In which case, ask your DM to dial down the difficulty to compensate for him being a noob, so you'll still be challenged but not murdered.
(2) If he actively prevents you from having fun in some way - for instance by blocking you from entering rooms or repeatedly pushing monsters you were tanking outside your threat range. In which case, you need to politely say, "Hey, however you want to play is cool, but *I* would have more fun if you'd let me melee more enemies."
Otherwise if he's enjoying playing this way then as far as D&D is concerned, mission accomplished.
NB: Our group has a rogue who insists on meleeing all the time, even when there's no combat advantage to be had, when her powers can just as easily be used at range. She also tends to tank enemies when there's a defender right next to her. She likes playing that way, we let her go, and every time she goes unconscious we politely reminder her why it happened. She has fun, we have fun, everything's fine.
...
I have tried to commnet to him a few times but am told I am metagaming and to play my own character. It gets fustrating, that is all.
Try commenting him in character, "Get out of my way yah wankin' ranger."
"Eh, yah wankin' ranger shoot those slingers over there."
If your really upset, let the player and DM know how you feel. Tell the Dm, "His game playing is ruining my fun." My role is to to be the front line defender, he is stepping on my toes. I' m not having fun with this."
I don't now what else to tell you.
Hope you can work it out.
If he actively prevents you from having fun in some way - for instance by blocking you from entering rooms or repeatedly pushing monsters you were tanking outside your threat range. In which case, you need to politely say, "Hey, however you want to play is cool, but *I* would have more fun if you'd let me melee more enemies."
This.
But also, as a defender you don't have to be the "Get behind me!" guy. You have to defend your teammates, not tell them how to fight. If they run off to get killed then its your job to run in and "save" them. If the ranger wants to flank with his beast, then make sure you keep everything else off him. If the (other) ranger wants to shoot the brutes, then go after the artillary yourself. Adapt to what your party does, not tell them how to suit you.
Hope this helps.
In the thick of it, everyone is going to do what they are gong to do. But there is no reason not to tell the ranger (as has been said already) "Hey, ranger, move over there so I can get this guy!"
My party has even discussed fighting strategies, since after fighting for a while, we have all gotten to know and understand what we can all do.
As for not following a certain "role," my character is a swordmage, a defender. He thinks he's a striker, and acts like a skirmisher. We seem to be having a blast.
If he wants your help, he should work with you instead of against you.
PtM
Do nothing. Just stand there with your sword sheathed until he gets out of the freakin' way. If asked, just say "Let me know when you're finished screwing around."
If he wants your help, he should work with you instead of against you.
PtM
This. Seriously. Try the polite way first, but if he still doesn't get the message, let him know you mean business. I understand it's his style, but someone's style shouldn't come at another's cost. In fact, let him take a beating if you can. When's he bloodied and staring up at you asking "Why?", he should get the picture.
Do nothing. Just stand there with your sword sheathed until he gets out of the freakin' way. If asked, just say "Let me know when you're finished screwing around."
If he wants your help, he should work with you instead of against you.
PtM
QFT.
Do nothing. Just stand there with your sword sheathed until he gets out of the freakin' way. If asked, just say "Let me know when you're finished screwing around."
If he wants your help, he should work with you instead of against you.
PtM
I don't understand how people can actually act like this when playing a game with their friends. All this does is create more tension, and it sure as hell doesn't solve the problem. If the problem can't be solved in a gentlemanly manner because you're taking the game so seriously that you have to pout, then your priorities aren't straight. You're going to end up with an unpleasant situation and a potentially ruined night.
Be assertive, polite, and cool when telling him that what he's doing is preventing your character from doing his job, and that you are not having fun as a result. This should be done before a game session, and with his brother present. Assuming he's (they're) not completely unreasonable, you should see some change. If not, then just go about your business with the knowledge that at least he's enjoying himself. If the rest of the party isn't as tactically challenged and you're having fun playing with them, there's no reason to let this one guy ruin your fun.
I don't understand how people can actually act like this when playing a game with their friends.
If I'm reading the OP right, he and this guy aren't necessarily "friends". If they were, I don't see why the problem wouldn't be resolved by now.
If the problem can't be solved in a gentlemanly manner because you're taking the game so seriously that you have to pout, then your priorities aren't straight. You're going to end up with an unpleasant situation and a potentially ruined night.
It's not that he's taking the game too seriously. Another person is preventing him from having a good time. He's trying to make the best of it, but he's fed up (and has every right to be).
Be assertive, polite, and cool when telling him that what he's doing is preventing your character from doing his job, and that you are not having fun as a result. This should be done before a game session, and with his brother present.
I actually did suggest that this be the first method used.
If not, then just go about your business with the knowledge that at least he's enjoying himself. If the rest of the party isn't as tactically challenged and you're having fun playing with them, there's no reason to let this one guy ruin your fun.
While it's true the OP can still have fun because his friends are happy, he's entitled to a bit of personal enjoyment. If he's not having fun, he shouldn't have to settle for less. While I'm not suggesting everyone else change their playing styles for the OP's sake, a group should play in harmony with one another, not work against each other.
I don't understand how people can actually act like this when playing a game with their friends. All this does is create more tension, and it sure as hell doesn't solve the problem. If the problem can't be solved in a gentlemanly manner because you're taking the game so seriously that you have to pout, then your priorities aren't straight. You're going to end up with an unpleasant situation and a potentially ruined night.
Be assertive, polite, and cool when telling him that what he's doing is preventing your character from doing his job, and that you are not having fun as a result. This should be done before a game session, and with his brother present. Assuming he's (they're) not completely unreasonable, you should see some change. If not, then just go about your business with the knowledge that at least he's enjoying himself. If the rest of the party isn't as tactically challenged and you're having fun playing with them, there's no reason to let this one guy ruin your fun.
Politeness and reason are notoriously ineffective when dealing with self-centered idiots. You have to do something to break them out of their stupor, bring the problem they're creating to their attention, and let them know you're not putting up with any crap. At which point you can start to deal with them.
I don't 'suffer fools gladly' nor do I see any any reason to. They want to have fun? Fine! Let 'em do it without ruining everyone else's evening.
PtM
Do nothing. Just stand there with your sword sheathed until he gets out of the freakin' way. If asked, just say "Let me know when you're finished screwing around."
Politeness and reason are notoriously ineffective when dealing with self-centered idiots. You have to do something to break them out of their stupor, bring the problem they're creating to their attention, and let them know you're not putting up with any crap. At which point you can start to deal with them.
I don't 'suffer fools gladly' nor do I see any any reason to. They want to have fun? Fine! Let 'em do it without ruining everyone else's evening.
I understand not wanting to put up with it, but I think your idea is unlikely to work. Nothing the OP has said about the ranger character makes me think he even cares what the defender does--he pretty much ignores him already.
And it's not like being knocked unconscious is going to change his mind--from the OP, that already happens to him frequently.
I think something along the lines of this is likely to happen:
GM's brother: My ranger . My bear .
Defender: It's my turn? I do nothing.
GM's brother: Why aren't you attacking?
Defender: I'm not going to do anything until you're finished screwing around.
GM's brother: Whatever, dude. My archer .
Cleric (alarmed): Look, I get that you're frustrated, but we're in the middle of combat. How about we talk about this after we've killed these guys off?
Are you really going to stick to your guns and do nothing for the entire fight?
If you do, I'm betting the rest of the party is going to be more angry at you than the ranger. I would be.
And if it's a level equivalent fight, the party is very likely going to win anyways. What exactly will that teach the ranger?
If you try this during a hard encounter, you risk turning it into a TPK, and that's all sorts of bad.
Just focus on how you feel - "*I* took this class because I wanted to defend the party, and *I* would have more fun if you'd help me in doing that." That's the only valid argument here anyway. A game where everyone has to play their role optimally is only fun for the player who knows the most optimal way to play the classes; in that situation everyone else just ends up getting told the best move to make and then making it. Both you and the DM need to make room for suboptimal play in order to allow for optimal fun.
"*I* took this class because I wanted to defend the party, and *I* would have more fun if you'd help me in doing that." That's the only valid argument here anyway.
I believe the OP tried that and it failed.
I believe the OP tried that and it failed.
Then you suck it up or you leave the group. At the end of the day it's your responsibility to ensure your own fun, and you can't do it by forcing others to do or not do something no matter how wrong they might be.
Leave the group, start your own, and if the other players genuinely believe the other guy's in the wrong they'll come join you. If they don't, possibly you were making a mountain out of a molehill.
NB: If this were a DM having the issue, rather than a player, they'd have the additional option of telling the ranger to respect the other players or get the hell out. DMs do get the option of forcing the players to behave - that's their job.
Then you suck it up or you leave the group. At the end of the day it's your responsibility to ensure your own fun, and you can't do it by forcing others to do or not do something no matter how wrong they might be.
Leave the group, start your own, and if the other players genuinely believe the other guy's in the wrong they'll come join you. If they don't, possibly you were making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think compromise would be the best bet, even if it's achieved through a brief "butting of heads" so to speak. If there's still a chance of improving his lot, the OP should go for it, even if he has to be (brutally) blunt. Other than that, I agree, leaving the group would be a smart move.
If I'm reading the OP right, he and this guy aren't necessarily "friends". If they were, I don't see why the problem wouldn't be resolved by now.
This is true. I was making the assumption that they were friends. Perhaps the OP can elaborate further on this. If they're not really "friends", and the GM's brother's actions are completely ruining the OP's game, maybe the best course of action would be to leave. It's easier to do when all that's at stake is a game.
It's not that he's taking the game too seriously. Another person is preventing him from having a good time. He's trying to make the best of it, but he's fed up (and has every right to be).
I actually want to clarify that this was a response to the hypothetical situation presented which suggested sheathed swords and inactivity as a kind of protest. I often want to be as reactionary as this, but have found, with experience, that it never seems to resolve anything. In fact, all it seems to do is create conflict, and you can end up being seen as an antagonist by the rest of the group. Responding to someone's unintentional stupidity with direct confrontation may make you the instigator in the eyes of the group, and they'll probably overlook the fact that you're absolutely correct in whatever accusation you're bringing to the table. Any subsequent problems you have with the game, however small, will only lend credence in their eyes to their assumption.
Of course, it doesn't have to be the other extreme, either; you don't have to be a pushover. You can be assertive and polite, and try to come to a compromise. Whether that should involve a 'butting of heads' depends on the relationship the OP has with his gaming group.
It would be interesting to see exactly what kind of compromise would be worked out in this situation.
"OK, from now on you'll act like an idiot half the time."
1) Is a Striker the best possible class to "defend" the party? I don't know.
2) Can the Striker effectively defend the party? Probably.
Coming from the days of 2nd and 3.x editions, our groups dealt with what would now be considered non-optimum builds.
And even when our builds did functionally cover most classes we still had one or two players that wanted to play "outside the box". In one notable instance we had a group with a fighter, paladin, ranger, wizard, cleric and bard (2nd edition). Our bard took it upon himself to head out first in our marching order, and often engaged into combat before backup was able to help.
The party tried reasoning with him, with a usual response of "why should they get all the fun?"
Ultimately we all had fun, it even made for quite some humorous anecdotes later.
This is true. I was making the assumption that they were friends. Perhaps the OP can elaborate further on this. If they're not really "friends", and the GM's brother's actions are completely ruining the OP's game, maybe the best course of action would be to leave. It's easier to do when all that's at stake is a game.
I agree.
Do nothing. Just stand there with your sword sheathed until he gets out of the freakin' way. If asked, just say "Let me know when you're finished screwing around."
If he wants your help, he should work with you instead of against you.
PtM
YOU MUST PUT YOUR FOOT DOWN! KILL HIS CHARACTER! THAT HELPS EVERYTHING!
My concern is the GMs brother who plays two rangers. The guy just does not understand what a striker is supose to do. He gets in my way, preventing me from pulling in bad guys, blocking charges, and what not. He thinks he can only flank with his bear so there are two of them who get in my way. Strikers are suppose to stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things. This causes him to go down numerous times.
I'd suggest that you stop picking up his slack when he goes down, if that's what you're doing now. For example if he goes down, don't go out of your way to draw off possible coup de graces. Otherwise, if he doesn't mind going down so often I don't see a problem.
His bow ranger is no better. While he loves getting his extra d8, he does not understand that he should be picking off threats at a range, take care of the guy shooting me or the one we can get to, not the guy I am fighting.
Well, focussed fire is very often an effective strategy.
My concern is the GMs brother who plays two rangers. The guy just does not understand what a striker is supose to do. He gets in my way, preventing me from pulling in bad guys, blocking charges, and what not. He thinks he can only flank with his bear so there are two of them who get in my way. Strikers are suppose to stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things. This causes him to go down numerous times.
Maybe I am reading things wrong, but the ranger you are talking about here is 2WF, correct? If so, how is he supposed to "stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things"? Using melee weapons means you have to be in melee range. And even if he tries staying on the edges of melee, any intelligent monster is going to pull him into the thick of things.
Maybe I am reading things wrong, but the ranger you are talking about here is 2WF, correct? If so, how is he supposed to "stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things"? Using melee weapons means you have to be in melee range. And even if he tries staying on the edges of melee, any intelligent monster is going to pull him into the thick of things.
Said guy also has another ranger, a bow ranger, who does nothing to get in the OP's way when firing arrows.
Said guy also has another ranger, a bow ranger, who does nothing to get in the OP's way when firing arrows.
I wasn't addressing the bow-archer, only the 2WF.
I wasn't addressing the bow-archer, only the 2WF.
Ah, sorry, I read you wrong. Anyway, I think what the OP is saying is that the Ranger charges in, but gets surrounded and becomes stranded, which results in said ranger dropping quickly before the OP can lift a finger to help. He just tries to flank with his bear; he'll go for the enemies at the center when it's more advantageous to start with the foes composing the outer line of the enemy formation, who then close in on him. And he doesn't learn his lesson. At least, that's what I'm taking away from it. Other than that, you're absolutely right about 2WF.
- Is he just irritating you? It is one thing to be concerned for the welfare of the party, but another to have a different play style, however efficient or lacking thereof. If it’s just a style issue, you may be suffering from a need to control other people.
- Do you think the DM gives preferential treatment to his brother? This is definitely not good for the game. It’s like working for a company where the management are all family or friends of one another. You know you will always be a second class game participant.
If you still plan to play in the game and feel the need to change the dynamic, you could try this: The next downtime, in character, ask the ranger player for suggestions on how the group can adapt their tactics to work with his fighting style. If he mocks you or otherwise blows you off, your next gaming session should be with a new GM. If he makes suggestions, you just might learn something, and it is the starting point for negotiating a working group dynamic. It is possible that the ranger will adopt tactics that you’d prefer him to use, but you should be prepared for a compromise. If you are unwilling to collaborate on tactics, insisting your way is the only way, then I am wasting my time in typing this.
When's he bloodied and staring up at you asking "Why?", he should get the picture.
"The rangers will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I will whisper 'No.'"
Although I don't see how the ranger could be hindering you that badly. Even if two rangers and the bear are cluster****ing the enemies, you still have 5 open squares to charge into.
And IIRC players don't block movement and such for their allies.
Maybe I am reading things wrong, but the ranger you are talking about here is 2WF, correct?
I don't think it can be. He mentioned a ranger with a bear, and an archer ranger. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that you choose Beast Mastery, Two Weapon Fighting, or Archery as a weapon style.
I broke the ice to my party after the martial handbook came out and I decided to take Brash Assault. I sat them down at an extended rest and told them in character that this is what I learned (sketches in the dirt with a stick party tactics) and this is why I did it. Rogue, I now have a way to give you combat advantage without having to flank. Maybe you can retrain Tumble for Sneak in the Attack, that way blah blah blah.... It opened up tactical discussions between us and I think has made us all better players both tactically and role playing wise as it has brought our party closer together.
I am my parties defender. My job is to take the butt whippings and deal it back 10 fold. I have no problem going down multiple times in an encounter. It is my job and I do it gladly.
My concern is the GMs brother who plays two rangers. The guy just does not understand what a striker is supose to do. He gets in my way, preventing me from pulling in bad guys, blocking charges, and what not. He thinks he can only flank with his bear so there are two of them who get in my way. Strikers are suppose to stay on the outside picking off targets not in the thick of things. This causes him to go down numerous times.
His bow ranger is no better. While he loves getting his extra d8, he does not understand that he should be picking off threats at a range, take care of the guy shooting me or the one we can get to, not the guy I am fighting.
I have tried to commnet to him a few times but am told I am metagaming and to play my own character. It gets fustrating, that is all.
Let him Die. No, I am not being mean. After spending much of my beginning D&D career making new characters I caught on to the usefulness of strategy.
To paraphrase a bit from my WoW days: If the Defender dies, it's the Leader's fault. If the Leader dies, it's the Defender's fault. If the Striker dies, it's their fault. ;)
Try commenting him in character, "Get out of my way yah wankin' ranger."
"Eh, yah wankin' ranger shoot those slingers over there."
I was originally going to go with the protest angle, but after thinking it over, this is probably the best way to go.
If you give the ranger in-character tactical advice, and he doesn't follow through, then let what happens happen. The next time someone says anything about metagaming, you calmly state that it isn't, and request that his ranger respond in-character to justify his thwarting of the defender.
"RANGER! Why are you blocking my gorram charging lanes?" "Get this filthy animal out of the way!" "See what happens when you think you can handle this by your lonesome?" (Then proceed to rescue him. Continue to rub it in, in character, after the battle.)
Make sure it's good-natured but poignant. As other have expressed, the last thing you want to do here is come off as "the bad guy."