Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[SoulStorm]

Here's another example of why I have an issue with the abilities as written. Let's assume two enemies. One is 15' to the west engaged in melee with the fighter. Another is 30' to the east charging toward the Warlock. Why exactly is it again that I can't curse the target 30" away? Now change the scenario slightly. The target engaged in melee with the fighter is 40' to the west. Now, magically, I can curse the target 30' away to the east. Like I said, completely unrealistic. It might make for good balance and tactical decisions in a miniatures game, but is fails the test of versimilitude. Like I said, if the concern was game balance, they could have just given the ability a max range. Or how about this, give a -2 penalty to defense against other opponents, the cost of focusing your attention so myopically on the other target. Either of those options make sense and preserve game balance.

 

[Felon]

Here's another example of why I have an issue with the abilities as written. Let's assume two enemies. One is 15' to the west engaged in melee with the fighter. Another is 30' to the east charging toward the Warlock. Why exactly is it again that I can't curse the target 30" away? Now change the scenario slightly. The target engaged in melee with the fighter is 40' to the west. Now, magically, I can curse the target 30' away to the east. Like I said, completely unrealistic.

The emphasis on the word "magically" is mine. I just wanted to point out how amusing it is that it's used in a sarcastic sense to ascribe a lack of realism in the way the warlock's curse works, when it is, in fact, it does work magically. SoulStorm, stuff like makes it seem like you're emoting without thinking through what you're saying.

My group did a little playtest last Saturday using the bootleg characters. Sure enough, the warlock wanted to curse the fragile little kobold sorcerer at the far end of the room. The limitation that he couldn't do that until he had cleared the minions out of the way meant that sorcerer didn't just its socks blown off anticlimatically. And that limitation will serve the exact same purpose in many D&D games to come. It's a good thing.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I will put my flame retardant suit on for this, but....

Can't you think of Hunters Quarry as the new Point Blank Shot, at least when using it in conjunction with a bow? He picks out the closest target and unleashes ranged fury of extra damage at him because he is so close.

Sorry to break the verisimilitude for everybody.

That's nice actually, thank-you.

 

[SoulStorm]

The emphasis on the word "magically" is mine. I just wanted to point out how amusing it is that it's used in a sarcastic sense to ascribe a lack of realism in the way the warlock's curse works, when it is, in fact, it does work magically. SoulStorm, stuff like makes it seem like you're emoting without thinking through what you're saying.

My group did a little playtest last Saturday using the bootleg characters. Sure enough, the warlock wanted to curse the fragile little kobold sorcerer at the far end of the room. The limitation that he couldn't do that until he had cleared the minions out of the way meant that sorcerer didn't just its socks blown off anticlimatically. And that limitation will serve the exact same purpose in many D&D games to come. It's a good thing.

First of all, please avoid assumptions about my cognitive processes, it's a little rude.

Second, just because saying "it's magic" is a good explanation for some things in D&D doesn't make it a good explanation for all things in D&D.

Lastly, I understand that the abilities were designed to prevent ranged strikers from immediately mowing down the BBEG, I just think the abilities could have been designed to serve that end without compromising versimilitude.

 

[Felon]

First of all, please avoid assumptions about my cognitive processes, it's a little rude.

I'm not assuming, I'm telling you exactly how it sounds when you use the word "magically" in the same sense that other people use the word when they're attempting to sarcastically deride something that isn't actually magical. Trust me, it's both amusing and bizarre to read. Instead of playing the indignation card, accept that it was a bit of a gaffe.

Second, just because saying "it's magic" is a good explanation for some things in D&D doesn't make it a good explanation for all things in D&D.

Lastly, I understand that the abilities were designed to prevent ranged strikers from immediately mowing down the BBEG, I just think the abilities could have been designed to serve that end without compromising versimilitude.

There's no "verisimilitude" to compromise. That's a misappropriation of the word. The warlock's curse isn't a simulation of something that exists outside of D&D 4e rules; it's a magical effect the designers whipped up, so if they say that one of the curse's properties is that it can only seek out the nearest enemy, then that's how it works. As magical properties of curses go, how is that one so unacceptable?

 

[SoulStorm]

I'm not assuming, I'm telling you exactly how it sounds when you use the word "magically" in the same sense that other people use the word when they're attempting to sarcastically deride something that isn't actually magical. Trust me, it's both amusing and bizarre to read. Instead of playing the indignation card, accept that it was a bit of a gaffe.
QUOTE]

I try to avoid fallacies when making an argument, especially the personal attack variety. If you'd like to give that a try perhaps we could continue this discussion.

 

[Felon]

I try to avoid fallacies when making an argument, especially the personal attack variety. If you'd like to give that a try perhaps we could continue this discussion.

To clarify once more: if I tell you that you said something that struck me as funny or bizarre or outrageous or illogical, that's not a personal attack or a general assumption about your character. That's a comment on that thing you said and the reaction it induced. For instance, right now it sounds like you're trying to use indignation as a way to bail out of admitting that "magically" was not the best choice of words. Nor was "verisimilitude".

 

[Khaim]

Here's another example of why I have an issue with the abilities as written. Let's assume two enemies. One is 15' to the west engaged in melee with the fighter. Another is 30' to the east charging toward the Warlock. Why exactly is it again that I can't curse the target 30" away?

Well, as soon as he actually charges, you can. Because he'll be closer than 15' away. Nice strawman, though.

 

[Incenjucar]

Lastly, I understand that the abilities were designed to prevent ranged strikers from immediately mowing down the BBEG, I just think the abilities could have been designed to serve that end without compromising versimilitude.

The alternative is to nerf it.

Would you prefer that they nerf it?

I bet they could nerf it.

 

[Cavalorn]

Just checking I'm reading these rules right:

If you tag the nearest enemy as your quarry and he then turns tail and runs, meaning that other enemies are closer, he is still your quarry until he is defeated, the encounter ends, or you choose to pick another quarry, right? So you can chase him over hill and dale, twanging away (and doing extra damage because he's your designated quarry) until you bring him down or he escapes?

It looks that way to me; the theme seems to be the relentless hunter who always gets his designated prey.