Understanding 'Hunting Party'

[cdrcjsn]

Very unclear, I agree.

I'm in the 'apply damage once' camp, but I can see the point of view of others who think you can apply it as many times as the ranger misses.

I just think that it was poorly edited and they didn't consider multiple attacks at all.

Just an opinion of course.

But the only opinion that really counts is your DM's. Ask him/her since right now it can be read several ways, putting it in a grey area.

 

[Atreides]

Very unclear, I agree.

I'm in the 'apply damage once' camp, but I can see the point of view of others who think you can apply it as many times as the ranger misses.

I just think that it was poorly edited and they didn't consider multiple attacks at all.

Just an opinion of course.

But the only opinion that really counts is your DM's. Ask him/her since right now it can be read several ways, putting it in a grey area.

In this situation - I am the DM - so that doesn't do me any good

Currently I am leaning in allowing it to work multiple times - it might be abuseable, but it would take a fair amount of work in comparison to other damage builds (Adaptive Strategem + Come and Get It + (AP) Thicket of Blades) or Storm of Blades plus any number of things that boost damage.

Nine extra damage is nice - but the Ranger would still prefer to hit then miss. The only really good use I see so far is Battlefield Archer with Flurry of Arrows (Blast 3) that might allow for true multiple uses of the Quarry damage - even so, so long as everything 'resets' at the end of the Ranger's turn, it shouldn't be too dangerous

I still have a few days before I have to rule - so any additional insights are appreciated!

 

[CapnZapp]

Just to "kill" the "but you can only do quarry damage once per round" thought...

The ally(allies) you give the bonus to "deal extra damage equal to your Hunter's Quarry damage."

It does not give them your Hunter's Quarry ability nor does it use Hunter's Quarry. It allows and ally(allies) to do extra damage equal to your HQ.

I would say that the intent was specifically not to provide the same limits as hunter's quarry.. the wording is conspicuous in it's way of dancing around actually using Hunter's Quarry Damage. If it was meant that way it would be worded "You may add your Hunter's Quarry damage to the ally's attack" or something similar.

There's really no explanation for the wording to be so awkward other than avoiding saying that it's "your hunter's quarry damage"

That the power does not invoke the HQ limitations are clear.

I am definitely in the "the extra damage can be dealt more than once per turn" camp. But I am also in the "the power is broken and should be banned or errataed" camp.

Thus I believe that those limitations was the intention. Both because it seems to be in the spirit of the power, and because it would be unbalanced otherwise.

I simply think that detailed analysis of every word of the power will get you nowhere; only obscuring the simpler truth:

That it wasn't caught by the editing process. Not all powers need to work right from the first draft. This is not a quality power, but that doesn't mean much - I'm sure even the best designers occassionally need the editor to point out mistakes for them.

 

[James McMurray]

We've got a ranger with Hunter's Quarry in our paragon game (curently 12th level). It's nice, but not busted. Assuming a typical 50% miss chance for both the Ranger and the other PC, each miss is doing about 5 damage, which ups his damage a little, but not a lot. And that's assuming the other PC attacks his Quarry, which isn't always the case depending on where everyone is and who they're fighting.

At first I was deep in the camp that it should use their Quarry damage, and would be broken otherwise. But it wasn't worth arguing over, so I let it be. After seeing it in action, I'm no longer concerned.

Compared to the Fighter stances that deal automatic [W] to anyone nearby and how easy it is for fighter's to make you stick to them, Hunting Party may even be a little on the weak side for a damage dealing stance, since it's probably doing less damage than the defender gets.