Changing the Hunter's Quarry feature

[tatoolo]

I'm not a big fan of the Hunter's Quarry class feature. All it really amounts to is throwing an extra d6 (or d8) on one attack every turn, with very little required to get the bonus damage. At least rogues have to do a little work and risk their necks to get combat advantage!

I'm thinking of changing the hunter's quarry in the following way. A ranger can designate any creature in line of sight as his or her quarry (not just the closest), but he or she cannot apply any quarry damage to that target on the same turn as it was designated. In my mind, this captures the idea of the ranger studying its target before striking, and also injects a little more strategy in that a ranger must try to figure out this turn who they want to attack next turn.

Do you think it is imbalanced one way or another? On the one hand, you might not be doing quarry damage as often (your target may move out of range or be killed by an ally before you can attack it), but bow-wielding rangers will be able to dispose of squishy back-line enemies quicker than usual.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sounds like a pain to remember which enemy you quarried last turn. Guess the simplest approach would be to quarry the foe you're attacking, resigning yourself to the fact you're not getting any HQ damage each turn you have just switched to a new foe.

On the other hand, if you come up with a mechanic that really forces Rangers to "do a little work" in some way comparable to Rogues, you should probably increase HQ damage to the level of Sneak Attack damage.

 

[Nifft]

On the other hand, if you come up with a mechanic that really forces Rangers to "do a little work" in some way comparable to Rogues, you should probably increase HQ damage to the level of Sneak Attack damage.

This here is pretty much the crux of the issue.

Warlocks do the least extra damage, but also have the least "effort": their extra damage dongle persists. Rangers do more damage, with slightly more effort, as their extra damage dongle doesn't. Rogues have no extra damage dongle, but combat advantage can be created in a bunch of different ways, only some of which require effort on the Rogue's part. Still, it's not entirely under the Rogue's control, so they get to deal the most extra damage.

Cheers, -- N

 

[chriton227]

This here is pretty much the crux of the issue.

Warlocks do the least extra damage, but also have the least "effort": their extra damage dongle persists. Rangers do more damage, with slightly more effort, as their extra damage dongle doesn't. Rogues have no extra damage dongle, but combat advantage can be created in a bunch of different ways, only some of which require effort on the Rogue's part. Still, it's not entirely under the Rogue's control, so they get to deal the most extra damage.

Cheers, -- N

I thought Warlock Curse and Hunter's Quarry were the same damage, +1d6 per tier, once per round?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I thought Warlock Curse and Hunter's Quarry were the same damage, +1d6 per tier, once per round?

Rangers can take a feat to up hunters quarry to +1d8 per tier

 

[Nifft]

Rangers can take a feat to up hunters quarry to +1d8 per tier

This is most of it; the other bit is Twin Strike, which gives two chances to trigger the extra damage, and is usually more likely to hit at least once than a single attack, even if the single attack is against Reflex or Will.

Rangers hit harder; Warlocks get a bonus when foes die. It's supposed to balance out.

Cheers, -- N

 

[CapnZapp]

Because of Twin Strike, yes, Hunter's Quarry is at an increased chance of being triggered each round.

However, a Warlock can choose which cursed enemy to attack (and possibly even have his allies attack). This versatility adds to the warlock side of things.

Generally, it seems all three striker classes are balanced on the assumption they get in their bonus damage on most of their hits (not attacks).

From what I've seen, the Ranger has the easiest time accomplishing this. He will rarely hit a foe without getting HQ on top (unless HQ is already spent for the round, which doesn't count).

When comparing Rogue and Warlock, it gets difficult.

The Warlock doesn't get a Proficiency bonus and so must be more particular as to whom he attacks, or his to hit suffers. Adventures such as Keep of the Shadowfell are really badly designed from a showcase-the-new-Warlock-class, because its Kobolds are almost perfectly suited to resisting anything the Warlock can throw against them.

For the Rogue it's pretty straight-forward. The only way you'll get consistent striker damage is if you enter melee and flank. Any safer way of conducting combat means your "extra damage on a hit" ratio will plummet.

At the first few levels, two-blade rangers seem to be the strongest striker offered by the PHB. I hope this disappears at higher levels; that especially warlocks start to get some cool stuff with which to compete.

 

[BlackSeven]

What I'm about to say focuses on the balance between them as it exists in the PHB.

The Warlock and Ranger must spend an action, while the Rogue can simply have it, often times as part of another character's actions. Yes, they may have to move into place to achieve it, but many times they don't. Also, more damage.

The Ranger has Twin Strike, allowing for more opportunites to trigger the damage in an at-will attack. However, one could conceivably not choose Twin Strike. They can only have as their quarry one target and that target must be the closes to them.

Warlocks actually have the most powerful of them, in some ways. Like the ranger it takes a minor action and must be the closest enemy. But then they can choose another and curse them as well, now having two curses floating around. The reason this is more powerful is because, unlike the ranger and rogue who must hit with an attack to get their damage, the warlock gets an effect when the enemy dies, regardless of whether they hit said target or not. So, with some movement, they can curse multiple targets and get the benefits without ever attacking them.

As for the original post, I disagree with the idea of not being able to use the damage in the immediate round. They're spending an action as it is, but there's a solid chance that this action could be useless if another party member kills the quarry first. I think spending a minor action is supposed to represent the time taken to study the quarry and works just fine.

Though I do have my own issues regarding it being the nearest enemy, much like I despise the Prime Shot class feature. Unless the party decides in advance to allow it, I've never seen that come into play. Ever.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, with some movement, they can curse multiple targets and get the benefits without ever attacking them.

Now you're talking about the Boon. Not the Curse damage.