Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[SoulStorm]

Both of these abilities can only target the nearest enemy. Am I the only person here who thinks this is a really dumb mechanic? Ok, let's say on the first round the closest opponent is 4 squares away. The opponent gets cursed by the Warlock. The following round the opponent you really want to curse is 4 squares away, but there is another target 3 squares away. Sorry, you can't curse your primary target because another opponent is closer to you. Why not just give these abilities a maximum range instead of forcing the player to play a certain way. I thought I was playing an RPG, not chess.

You know, I've really been looking forward to 4th edition, but if this is an example of the kind of mechanics I'm going to be seeing, I'm may have to pass.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm sorry you feel that way. Personally, I really like this feature. It creates the need for tactical decision making. On one hand, you can mark the nearest target and beat them up. Or, you can shoot at far away targets for less damage. Or, you can maneuver so that you are closer to your choice far away target, so that you can mark them and deal extra damage.

If you could mark just anyone, you might as well skip designating the target and just grant +1d6 damage to the warlock and ranger.

 

[keterys]

It encourages tactical movement and allows soldiers to do their job. It appears to work well in play.

 

[Incenjucar]

I really like the forced mobilization thing. It MAKES you use your class abilities rather than just hiding up in a tree for the entire combat.

 

[SoulStorm]

Chess works well in play too, but D&D isn't chess. What's the logic for the limitation. Range limitations I can understand, but who's the closest? That doesn't make any sense at all. It may create tactical complexity, but it's completely illogical.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I view it like this. I never when it came to viewing combat in-game as the monsters simply standing there, they are always moving about.

So for the Hunter's Mark it can be viewed as it can only be the closest because he by moving around, kicking up dust, etc. is slightly obscuring further in the back creatures from such precise attacks, thus the Hunter's Mark works against the closest foe.

Warlock's Curse it is a force the seems to radiate off and strike against whatever creature nearest the Warlock has his hatred brought against.

 

[SoulStorm]

I really like the forced mobilization thing. It MAKES you use your class abilities rather than just hiding up in a tree for the entire combat.

It doesn't MAKE me use my class abilities. It MAKES me use them in a predetermined way. I see it is an argument between free will and determinism. I can play deterministically and use my class abilities effectively, or I can play with free will and be ineffective. Not much of a choice in my book.

 

[Incenjucar]

Soulstorm: This is like saying that playing a sword'n'board fighter makes you use a shield in a predetermined way.

Nobody is going to stop you from using it as a sled or hat or something instead.

 

[Khaim]

Chess works well in play too, but D&D isn't chess. What's the logic for the limitation. Range limitations I can understand, but who's the closest? That doesn't make any sense at all. It may create tactical complexity, but it's completely illogical.

It's not at all illogical. Tons and tons of games have rules about only targeting the closest enemy. Why? Because in a real battle, you have to be incredibly disciplined to ignore the guy right in front of you and instead shoot at the people behind him. In other words, people prioritize targets by proximity a lot more than you, as a person sitting at a table with pencil and paper, would like to believe.

They could have done it the other way: you need a special ability to target non-closest enemies. Instead they gave certain classes a bonus for concentrating on the closest enemy. This is a good thing.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Chess works well in play too, but D&D isn't chess. What's the logic for the limitation. Range limitations I can understand, but who's the closest? That doesn't make any sense at all. It may create tactical complexity, but it's completely illogical.

For the Quarry: It's kinda hard to focus all your attention on a guy 50 feet away when there's another guy 2 feet away trying to stab you in the face. You can certainly go after a particular target rather than just blasting whatever's closest to you, but that means moving into optimal position. Your target isn't your "quarry" until you've got him sitting comfortably in your sights.

For the Curse: As a warlock, you're basically a seething pyre of dark energy. It takes most of your effort to guide your dark power at foes and not friends, let alone picking out a particular enemy in the distance. (And note that warlock curse can be applied to everyone stupid enough to come close to you, unlike the quarry, which can only be applied to one target at a time.)

Honestly, my biggest issue is that the warlock "curse" doesn't seem to actually DO anything until you start blasting the target... I hope there are some feats or powers you can take that make targets suffer a bit more as soon as they're cursed.