So I've recently started a game with a system loosely based on 3.5 and it's set in low/mid fantasy in the late medieval ages. This is the first campaign for the guy playing the ranger and I can't seem to build an encounter that he can shine in, that also includes the rest of the group. I'm not very experienced with DMing (my 3rd game), so I was wondering if some more experienced GMs could give some pointers on how to liven up combat for my ranger.
>>44374458
>loosely based on 3.5
What's the level of CharOp you're dealing with? Is the ranger attempting to be functional in a world of CASTER DOMINATION?
If he's a more sneaky ranger, some stealth/shadowing missions could be fun.
If he's a more naturey ranger, a little jaunt through a forest tracking a monster of some sort could be entertaining.
>>44374472
It early game so everything's kinda low leveled all the players are lvl1. And there aren't any casters in the world yet, but they'll know when they show up.
>>44374458
Depends. What's the party composition like?
Off the top of my head, I'd say that you might wanna create a situation in which the party actually has to hunt down a creature in the wilderness. It'll give the ranger a chance to be the rugged outdoorsman, and depending on their favored enemy, the steely hunter.
Play enemies intelligently. They move, reposition, use high places. Make his range seem important.
>>44374458
Throw the ranger's favourite enemy at them.
It's the only way they will be even vaguely useful.
>>44374507
So what's the problem? Is he just weaker in combat than the other martials he's associating with? Describe the party, with an emphasis on combat shit, since that's the subject of your inquiry.
>>44374532
>playing a ranged ranger
Art thou a Sodomous knave, perchance?
>>44374458
>Ranger
>3.5
It's shit, FE is the worst feature ever unless the campaign is heavily focused on them, and even so it's just meh.
>>44374588
The problem is that combat for him is more lackluster than for the rest of the party, we have a cleric, fighter, ranger, and a barbarian. So I have 3 people who get really involved with combat encounters while the ranger is just like "I shoot the enemy"
>>44374458
The problem with a nature-based ranger is that he's a solution in search of a problem. He's good at overcoming challenges that the GM wouldn't have included if there hadn't been a ranger in the party.
>>44374790
basically
>>44374762
Lackluster because it's boring because all he does is attack stuff?
Logically the FIghter and the Barbarian should be in the same boat. How do they cope with Five Foot Step And Full Attack Edition?
>>44374881
The martial combat has more variety what with more options on how to approach an engagement while the rangers approach is get somewhere and shoot. So yeah I guess you can say that all he does is attack stuff.
>>44374831
This is a common problem in RPGs. You get character types that come with what amounts to their own minigames. Shadowrun is notorious for it. But it's usually a failing of the GM, who will handwave certain kinds of problems away if the party doesn't have a character handy who can readily solve them.
>>44375043
Nah, archery is just as stimulating as chopping nerds. They're both awfully dull in 3.5.
>>44375152
In melee combat at least you can trip, grapple, bullrush, etc, if you have ToB you can do lot of stuff...archery is the dullest shit in 3.5
>>44375166
If you've ever been permitted to viably use trip, grapple, or bull rush, I envy you, Anon.
And yes, Tome of Battle is pretty rad shit.
>>44374458
Trick arrows!
Yeah that's all I got.
>>44374458
Depends how he's playing the ranger.
Something I seem to come across an awful lot is people who see 'Ranger' and read 'Sniper', but that sort of thing just doesn't work in 3.5 unless he goes into some splatbooks and breaks the system to guarantee crits, because that gun/crossbow isn't going to do more than 2d10+X damage even if he spends an hour waiting in a bush half a mile away from his target to line up a shot.
>>44375152
So what would a better system be? I don't have a problem introducing a new system seeing as how we're not that far into the game.
>>44375216
Use Tome of Battle if you aren't already.
>>44375214
That's basically the problem. Also anybody got some good ranger character art? I seem to have misplaced mine.
>>44375216
4th and 5th edition are both better for what it sounds like you're doing.
I've heard AD&D is fun, but don't have relevant experiences therewith.
GURPS is a classic recommendation, natch.
>>44375244
Figured as much.
One solution is just to make the battle maps larger, so he's multiple turns away from the enemy. Maybe give him different ammunition with interesting effects like napalm splashes, smoke clouds, that sort of thing.
Don't let him lone wolf though. 3.5 just isn't designed to support that sort of thing, and it's going to annoy the other players.
>>44375251
I don't really like 4e but I'll take a look at 5e.
>>44375290
So maybe try and work with him to fill a more long ranged support role?
>>44374500
> sneaky rangers can be fun
Focus feats and skills on hiding and bows. Use a few skill points for craft traps.
Player needs to make himself relevant to the battle/encounter. Not expect other players and DM to cater to his specific strengths. Imo
>>44375327
Essentially, yes.
He might not like not being able to 360 noscope people, but hopefully he will understand that instakill sniping isn't really a thing, because HP is narrative, and not a measure of how dead a person is. Nobody will survive a bullet to the head, but a successful attack roll, even a crit, doesn't actually mean you hit them, just that you damage their contractual plot armour. An attack which actually kills them can be assumed to be a head shot, but up until then it's all just flesh wounds.
>>44374458
Called shots to vital areas resulting in status effects.
>>44375466
Difficult to do at low levels.
>>44375303
As someone who started with 4e and went backwards to 3.PF, AD&D/2e, the 40k systems, and is now DM'ing 5e, I can tell you to not bother with 4e. If you have an issue with "my combat is shoot things and not much else", you won't like 4e unless you play an avenger.
Check out 5e, make sure you get the Unearth Arcana's that have additional ranger options.
>>44375874
> If you have an issue with "my combat is shoot things and not much else", you won't like 4e unless you play an avenger.
Wot
That is literally why you would switch to 4e. That is the ONLY thing 4e does well.
If you don't mind switching system the cypher system have different ways of doing a "ranger" and surely do more than shooting in battle.
>>44374602
holy shit this is gold
