Some advice for a new DM on rangers

Okay just got a new guy in my group which ive nown for some time now. Playing pathfinder and hes been experienced with 3.5 and 4 so its not gonna be hard getting him in.
I run games that are more focused on "fluff" and roleplaying and I try to encourage my players to have charecters that strs but also weaknesses. I tell them that the focus is not to win the game but to roleplay and experience it.
Very strange but the very new players who have never play grasp what im aiming at very well but the players who have already played before min/max to get the most powerful charecter they can create. Now im a bit leniet on the ban hammer and so far dont think ive actually banned anything but I have said no to a couple of creations because they screamed "implaying to win and squash anything thats thrown at me" when I want the focus to be on roleplaying and I find it easier when charecters have both strengths and flaws.

Now backstory done, heres the question. I have a new guy who wants to be a ranger but wants to focus both on archery AND 2 handed fighting. Im looking at the core rulebook and see this very possible with rule because he could take feats in 2 handed fighting and get bonus archery feats for free if he choses to go archery route and vice versa.
I have no problem with him being able to both but I would like for rp purposes to focus on 1 or the other, basically take feats and focus on one or the other.

What should I do? Should I accept and deal with it or is it possible or what? Whats yals suggestions for a still newbie dm whos learning still

I think that you should let them do it. If he focuses solely on one or the other he is more likely to squash everything you throw at him.

I think you can say thins like. "Hey Ranger Rick, I think you are optimizing a bit much and will outshine the other players, so I would rather you not have any stats below a 10 and nothing about an 18 after bonuses."

Or whatever, but I have never heard of a switch-hitter ranger being game squishing before. But I could be wrong.

A common new (and even old) GM problem is control. It is your player's character. You exist to moderate rules, provide framework, and offer suggestions, but you should resist actively preventing a player from making the character he wants to make. The exception comes when the player is attempting something illegal or overpowered that you have chosen to ban from the game (which should be decidedly rare).

Now, you can provide arguments such as "in any fight, only one half of your abilities will be used" and "dividing attention can lead to suboptimal development", but ultimately it is his decision to play the character he wants to play.

You exist to provide an interesting story. You should consider your players and their characters; supply scenarios that both play to the strengths and exploit the weaknesses in the party to ensure interesting situations and memorable events.

By the rules, he can specialize in one path and use his normal feats to do alright with the other. This will ensure he doesn't progress as fast as he could if he used his feats and his specialization in concert, but he'd also be less content with the character as it wouldn't be what he had in mind.

Now, if after a few levels he is unhappy with the progress, allow him a free character modification to one path or another and let him repick his feats. It doesn't really hurt anything to do so and if he's really unhappy with how the character is progressing mechanically, this would address that issue nicely. I wouldn't tell him about this up front; keep it in your pocket until he complains about the mechanical limitations (which may never come, which means you succeeded in your job of letting the player have fun).

Let him play what he wants and make sure there are alot of chances for him to roleplay. Ask him to come up with some type of a role-play reasoning behind his choices and fit it into his backstory.

Don't be that guy. This game and all other Table top RPG's are made fun by being able to use all the fun little tools at our disposal so let them. If this player is having fun and not upsetting the table then everything should be fine. Counter his combat op with good GM FU. As to social flavor encounters find ways to interact with this player and if he keeps coming up short maybe sit down with him and see if he would like to adjust. Some folks derive their joys from gaming in different ways. Don't stifle them just roll with it.

Your motives are alien to me.

Why do you want to choose what the PC focuses on? What if the concept he is RPing is a flexible, resourceful huntsman who has tried to diversify his tactics?

I'm not sure what your getting at, is all. If I caught myself doing this as a GM, I'd need to take a deep breath and remember that the characters are the part of the game I don't control.

I'd say allow it, and here's why. To be proficient at both fighting styles the way he wants, he's going to be feat heavy in combat. Which means his out-of-combat skillset suffers.

There's his weakness right there. Pit him up against people who require social skills and negotiation, like bargaining with a Ranger's guild leader who will only negotiate with him because the other PCs are "beneath him" and "just don't understand".

Like the above posters said/implied. It's up to the players to create their characters. If you want each one to have weaknesses, then it's up to YOU to create/alter your storyline to compensate.

Any player is going to want to min/max to some degree. Let them do it, outside of obvious bannable overpowering stuff in their specific builds(i.e., Rage Prophet cycling, etc...).

I have no problem with him being able to both but I would like for rp purposes to focus on 1 or the other, basically take feats and focus on one or the other.

What should I do? Should I accept and deal with it or is it possible or what? Whats yals suggestions for a still newbie dm whos learning still

Why would it be better for him to roleplay if he was only competent at one fighting style?

He's a ranger, he spends a lot of time by himself out in the wild, relying on his ability to hunt. Hence the archery feats. He's also a trained warrior (full BAB class) and is prepared to handle himself should the fight come to him. Hence the 2 hander. Why is this less fluffy than a dedicated archer or a dial wielder or a greatsword swinging brute?

Switch hitting on a ranger is both a very strong fighting style, (but not the strongest, he has to divide stats and items between two different fighting styles,) and flavorful as hell. It's also fun and unique to rangers; no other class can pull it off as well. Would you prefer your player run a ranger with its own personality or "dual wielding ranger with a big cat companion #47?" Why would imitating Drizzt be "more focused on fluff" than creating his own character, simply because the Drizzt clone is locked into one combat style with specific weaknesses?

But really, what does his combat style have to do with good roleplaying? You don't have to have a weak character to roleplay well. My favorite character to roleplay is a fighter archer who absolutely explodes the bad guys. He's also got the most personality of any of my characters because I knew exactly what I wanted him to be before I picked my first stat.

I pretty much agree with you Barry, but if the player is going to disrupt the game with his power level (relative to the rest of the group), then the DM is right to bring it up before play. A discussion is not the same as saying no.

I pretty much agree with you Barry, but if the player is going to disrupt the game with his power level (relative to the rest of the group), then the DM is right to bring it up before play. A discussion is not the same as saying no.

This is hardly a case of a min-maxer ratcheting up the "power level". If anything, a THW/Archery build, in a ranger, is sub-optimal. If the player wants to spend his feats, and money, on a weapon he's only going to need occasionally, why not let him? Especially if it's supposed to be a "fluff" game?

The OP is setting off all sorts of warning bells here.

so he can take feats into 2handed and focus his actual feats on 2 handed while getting the archery feats even though he decided on archery as his focus?

I let players chose their class and such, its just I want him to fit in and not basically outshine all the other players. All the other players with very minimum input from me have design charecters that are good at something and horrible at another.
I got a 2handed fighter whos built like a tank but sucks at range and talking.
I got a magus who deadly up close but a bit squishy and like to shot his bow which hes pretty sorry at while saving his main focus spells and auch for upclose combat.
I got a cleric who cant stand the sight of blood or someone whos hurt and will freak out and stop whatever hes doing to go help said person and forget about everythings thats going on around him.
I got a sorcerer that focuses on buff and debuffing which hes pretty sick at but when up close to something, hes almost helpless.

This is the grp so far that ive had hardly any input in their builds. I just told them upfront it was about fluff and if theirs strengths, have a weakness. They coukd pick.

Thats why im asking for advice because I think I got the handle on throwing encounters against my group so far to eep them on their toes but have that ego boost afterwards, that hey we were pretty badass to overcome that. With the ranger, I have a fear hes gonna outshine the rest of the party and im trying to get advice on what I should do.
Would saying that since u specced for archery, if u take feats designed strictly for melee combat u lose that freebie feat for archery that level? Or as pretty much all of u are saying let him roll that way, but how can I get it to where hes not outshining the rest when most of our scenarios is combat?

How do I get that to fit if allowed to mesh well with whats been going on?

Redneckdevil, I understand what you're talking about. I've frequently run RP-heavy/optimize-light games and I know how someone who creates a character the other way can disrupt that whole group. If he's only spending feats on combat and only building for combat, he will likely feel overwhelmed by non-combat encounters, mostly sitting there quietly while others handle the tasks, a spectator more than a participant, and then we do have a combat encounter he'll be the superstar and everyone else will be his sidekicks.

I've seen it happen. It can disrupt the flow of the game and it can disrupt the harmony of the group.

My solution has been manyfold:

1. For groups like this I create houserules that limit how feats, traits, and other abilities must be selected. For example, divide the feat list into two groups, feats for combat and feats for everything else, and then make a houserule that says when a character is allowed to select a feat, he must select from whichever list his last feat did NOT come from. This means that half of their feats will be chosen from each list.

2. Tell the players, in advance, some of what they'll have to do in the upcoming adventures. Don't spoil it, but give hints such as "you're all going to need to invest heavily in the following skills and you're going to want the following feats (maybe each character could pick a 'necessary' feat and they could divide this responsibility amongst themselves)."

3. Talk to the player specifically. Alone. Work it out privately between the two of you. Let him know what it is you (and the rest of the players) are trying to do. Get him on board. If he can't or won't, then maybe he's the wrong player for your group. If he is the right player, then he'll see that your game is about RP and not about optimizing and he'll appreciate the opportunity to create a character that fits in (because he's the right player for the group).

And finally, what others have said, "optimizing" means specializing your character to the point that he is amazingly good at one thing. This ranger is trying to be somewhat good at two things. It's probably not going to be game breaking. The only concern is whether he's ignoring all non-combat options and is he going to be the guy who just watches everyone else handle the non-combat stuff?

I think you're unneccesarily concerned with the ranger being overpowered and without weaknesses. I play a lot of rangers, and I often play this switch-hitting style, where I've got decent melee and decent ranged abilities - but not nearly as strong in either as a fighter who specializes in one or the other (for example, your fighter tank will be much better at that than the ranger, particularly over time). This build will have decent skills, but if he wants to be good at physical skills like Stealth and Climb, he'll need to wear lighter armor, which will mean his AC isn't so good.

I would definitely not support the idea of causing him to lose combat style feats. As another poster said, this build makes for a good generalist build, someone who can do reasonably well on their own but won't be a superstar at any one thing. Allowing him to take his 2H weapon feats as normal feats, and archery feats as his combat style feats, just allows this generalist approach.

In short - if you're concerned about this player's interest/ability in the RP aspects of the game, that's one thing. But there's no reason this build should be overpowered, and there's no reason it should limit his ability to RP the character.

Thanks alot everyone for ur advice. Yes he is focusing heavily in skills and feats purely combat wise. I think I will incorporate that house rule of selecting feats from 1 or the other and rotating.
Its not about strictly him being op or a very good jacl of all trads with combat, its just worrisome that like stated of disrupting the flow and atmosphere of the group.

But ya I will seriously consider the rotating of feats selected house rule, thatd problemly put my mind at ease.

Just that im a dm thats new and rather play, but having charecters that strengths and weaknesses really help make it easier and more interesting in building the world where I feel I have more options to get more responses. makes my job enjoyable :)

This is actually a common Ranger approach from my experience--search on the Switch-Hitter Ranger and you'll find details on building one actually. A Ranger that's okay at both ranged and close combat is no problem at all, and can make RP sense too (e.g. a combat-trained special forces type). If that's his focus, you can have a lot of RP fun out of combat when he fumbles around at social interaction.

Redneckdevil,

Your concerns are somewhat valid, but the solution is active GMing, not constraining character choices. Your heart's in the right place, but you ought to let the players play the game and make their own choices.

It is wise to consider PCs are off limits for you, unless they are damaging the campaign. You are not the master player, you are the GM. The fun in being a GM is precisely that: the lack of control over the main players in your fiction.

so he can take feats into 2handed and focus his actual feats on 2 handed while getting the archery feats even though he decided on archery as his focus? ... Would saying that since u specced for archery, if u take feats designed strictly for melee combat u lose that freebie feat for archery that level? Or as pretty much all of u are saying let him roll that way, but how can I get it to where hes not outshining the rest when most of our scenarios is combat? ...

Not sure what you're asking. Rangers have two sets of feats with different schedules.

One set are the bonus combat style feats; they are only gained at level 2 and every 4 levels after it (6, 10, etc). These are chosen only from the bonus feat list. The ranger can choose a feat from the list regardless of the prerequisites for the feat.

The other set of feats are his normal feats he gets every other level. Feats chosen here follow all normal prerequisites and requirements.

So your player picks Archery and at level 2 can pick a free feat from this list Far Shot, Focused Shot, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, and Rapid Shot. At 6, he can add Crossbow Mastery, Improved Precise Shot, Parting Shot, Point Blank Master and Manyshot to the list and pick any of the 10 feats (really nine since he picked one at level 2) at level 6.

On his normal feat levels he can pick any feat he wants, including those on his bonus list, BUT he must follow all requirements and prerequisites.

So a smart switch-hitting ranger would go 2-weapon fighting as the spec and use normal feats to get the archery feats since you get more normal feats than bonus feats.

As pointed out above, it is actually in your best interest that he divides his feats between two goals because a pure Archery ranger is a beast. Once he gets the "I can shoot in melee without provoking AOOs" ability, he might as well be a melee character.

Just that im a dm thats new and rather play, but having charecters that strengths and weaknesses really help make it easier and more interesting in building the world where I feel I have more options to get more responses. makes my job enjoyable :)

One last word of advice, then.

What you see as strengths aren't necessarily all that good. As you become more experienced with the rules, you might find that it's the two-handed fighter that you should have been concerned about, not the ranger; much less a two-weapon ranger who's spread thin over another combat style.

In other words, wait until you see the problem before nerfing.

Good luck to you. That you care enough to ask advice speaks well of your future as a GM.

again ty everyone for ur advice. I guess im the type of person who if forsees a problem down the road, I try to nip it in the butt per se as early as I can. Id hate to get to a problem and then try to fix it when the player had this planned from the start etc etc.
Btw I have no problem being OP, I expect my charecters to get that way down the road to where they are demigods in what they do like the 2 handed fighter and magus are gonna destroy when they are close to something and be OP, but the way they are playing their will be a noticeable difference between say their range and melee results.
Etc etc. I wouldnt care and even expected theranger to be OP in range or melee, but was a little worried when they were gonna be great at both with no noticeable differences.
Again still learning and thats why I asked if their was any grain to my worries and if I should take action now or none at all. Running a light campaign and lower than mid magic as far as gear is concerned where most of the umph to the charecters would be their charecters and choices in such.
But believe I will talk with him and let him do as he pleases and just institute the house rule of atlernating types of feats when leveling up and I think my worries will be gone and so forth.

Again thanks again everyone, time to read up somemore lol

First of all if you "force" him to drop the switch hitting and focus solely on archery then he will probably end up being even more powerful.

Also a few words about the other characters

I got a 2handed fighter whos built like a tank but sucks at range and talking.
I got a magus who deadly up close but a bit squishy and like to shot his bow which hes pretty sorry at while saving his main focus spells and auch for upclose combat.
I got a cleric who cant stand the sight of blood or someone whos hurt and will freak out and stop whatever hes doing to go help said person and forget about everythings thats going on around him.
I got a sorcerer that focuses on buff and debuffing which hes pretty sick at but when up close to something, hes almost helpless.

1. The fighter is the same as most other fighters.

So you see the other players haven't picked concepts with weaknesses (except the cleric) so don't try to force it on the one wanting to play a ranger.
Although you can ask him (and the other players) to keep his optimization level low because you want to make an adventure who isn't hard.

Pretty simple in game fix. Ranger is outshining in combat just say "hey dude reign it in some and lets help the others get some spotlight time." If this is a group of friends or a group that hopes to become gaming buddies then everyones goals will most likely be or become a great time had by all.

Oh and by the by, i personally don't hold the opinion that the "switch-hitter ranger" is the uberness of Rangerdom. A single type build who focuses properly will most likely outshine one who splits his focus. Do they work? Sure. Can they be exploited and nuetered? You bet.

Another bit of my $.02, the goal of the game is, to win, having fun while you are doing it is the best by product just not at the expense of the others.

I am having a problem understanding your posts, OP. Try this: cut and then paste into a Word doc, allow the program to correct, then cut & paste to here.

I think I will incorporate that house rule of selecting feats from 1 or the other and rotating.

I don't know if I made this clear or not, but this should be applied to every character (not just this, but all houserules). It would be awkward at best and certainly prejudiced as well if you only make one player follow any houserule for just his character.

Redneckdevil wrote:

I think I will incorporate that house rule of selecting feats from 1 or the other and rotating.

I don't know if I made this clear or not, but this should be applied to every character (not just this, but all houserules). It would be awkward at best and certainly prejudiced as well if you only make one player follow any houserule for just his character.

But of course.

So you see the other players haven't picked concepts with weaknesses (except the cleric) so don't try to force it on the one wanting to play a ranger.
Although you can ask him (and the other players) to keep his optimization level low because you want to make an adventure who isn't hard.

Can I ask u a question and I really mean no disrespect, like I said im still learning. But ive listed areas that my other players have like fighter with range and very low cha, magus who squishy and focuses up close up, sorcerer whos squishy and poor in melee, and so on.

What is a rangers weakness then if they go the archery/duel weapon route as far as combat? What I mean is what are they gonna be subpar at with visual results?

Again no disrespect and im still learning hence why im asking. Gonna go ahead and allow it, but what is gonna be his weak areas so I can have some knowledge when designing scenarios thats suppose to test and try them without resulting in "this npc has masssive health and massive dmg" type scenarios?
I usually try to figure out the pros and cons to charecters so that at times I can throw them off with an encounter they think they gonna steamroll but otherwise turns into a fight for their life?

The Ranger's weak areas will be negotiation and social skills. Perfect fodder for your "fluff" campaign of High Roleplay.

The Ranger's weak areas in combat will be against arcane magic and saves based off of INT score. Use spells like Ray of Enfeeblement and Grease (on his weapon) and watch the Ranger turn into Cringer, not Battlecat. Be creative.

It seriously sounds like you'd be the type of GM that may want to fill out pregenerated characters and have your players choose from them. That way you will never be disappointed in their builds.

The DM's job is not (let me repeat that...NOT) to limit the PCs based on their strengths and weaknesses. ESPECIALLY not at creation.

Instead, you should be allowing your characters to create what they want to play (you'd be surprised at the amount of limitations true roleplayers build into their characters). Then, as the storyteller, you adapt your story to compensate for their strengths and weaknesses.

That way, a player will never feel limited by your decisions. They will feel limited by THEIR decisions. Especially if you've explained the campaign design, play style, and house rules a little prior to play.

Next time that player plays in your campaign, he will design his build a bit different to compensate for what he perceives as his "flaws". Then you continue to alter your campaign to thwart him based on his choices.

Rinse, and repeat, and you have a player for life, as long as the campaigns are also FUN, he/she will consider it a CHALLENGE.

leo1925 wrote:

So you see the other players haven't picked concepts with weaknesses (except the cleric) so don't try to force it on the one wanting to play a ranger.
Although you can ask him (and the other players) to keep his optimization level low because you want to make an adventure who isn't hard.

Can I ask u a question and I really mean no disrespect, like I said im still learning. But ive listed areas that my other players have like fighter with range and very low cha, magus who squishy and focuses up close up, sorcerer whos squishy and poor in melee, and so on.

What is a rangers weakness then if they go the archery/duel weapon route as far as combat? What I mean is what are they gonna be subpar at with visual results?

Again no disrespect and im still learning hence why im asking. Gonna go ahead and allow it, but what is gonna be his weak areas so I can have some knowledge when designing scenarios thats suppose to test and try them without resulting in "this npc has masssive health and massive dmg" type scenarios?
I usually try to figure out the pros and cons to charecters so that at times I can throw them off with an encounter they think they gonna steamroll but otherwise turns into a fight for their life?

Most of the fighters aren't good at range (when compared to how good they are at melee) and have low CHA, that's why they fight at melee and don't talk much (or expect anyone to listen). Nearly all magi are kinda squishy at first levels but are good at melee but they deal with it or die trying. All sorcerers are squishy and bad at melee, that's why they don't go into melee.

As about weaknesses to the ranger, spike damage compared to higher average of fighters' and barbarians' damage and low will saves. Also they don't particularly excel at social interactions (but they aren't particualarly bad at either). And finally they can only cast up to 4th level spells.

Tyvm for that insight.
Also wanted to say im against them not playing their classes and what they chose. All I asked for was a strength and weakness and they get to chose. Its basically why I came on here to get advice because this is the first time with a charecter I couldnt find a weakness for me to play on with his build. Ive never denied a class or feats or whatnot, but this was the first time that I was encountering a player who by his build was screaming good at everything and didnt understand the concept of a weakness.

But thanks for everyones information and advice, im happy he can play what he wants and I have info to challenge his charecter as well :)