Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[Plane Sailing]

I don't intend offense, but that seems to be more of an issue in how you are deploying your monsters.

Feel like invalidating their curse/quarry, or making them move? Hordes of Kobold Minions, between the Kobold Artilllery and your ranger/warlock.

I think the actual issue was that the player overlooked the 'must target nearest enemy as quarry' bit. I can see that improving matters somewhat.

 

[jasin]

It makes a huge difference, actually, in rounds where the ranger might switch targets (perhaps because someone else dropped his quarry), might target more than one creature, and so forth. It's not the same as the characters having the damage "on" all the time.

Isn't it? Does the ranger have anything else to do with his minor action other than switch his quarry to whoever he's shooting at this round?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Isn't it? Does the ranger have anything else to do with his minor action other than switch his quarry to whoever he's shooting at this round?

That was certainly the behaviour that I'd noticed, for instance. Maybe in the full rules there are lots of other useful things to do with minor actions?

 

[hong]

Well, a minor action is the new swift action, so my bet would be that yes, there'll be plenty of things vying for that slice of the action economy.

 

[Kobu]

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.

I agree that it doesn't make much sense. Saying that line of sight to the quarry cannot pass through another enemy's square would make more sense.

 

[hong]

I agree that it doesn't make much sense. Saying that line of sight to the quarry cannot pass through another enemy's square would make more sense.

... that's not a bad idea.

 

[Rechan]

The more I game, and the more I read about 4e, and the more I hang out on these boards, the less I care about verisimilitude.

 

[Wormwood]

The more I game, and the more I read about 4e, and the more I hang out on these boards, the less I care about verisimilitude.

And I thought I was the only one.

 

[Storminator]

That was certainly the behaviour that I'd noticed, for instance. Maybe in the full rules there are lots of other useful things to do with minor actions?

There do seem to be a number of things to do with minor actions. I didn't notice them specifically with the ranger, but other classes had a number of minor actions (minor sustain on spells, Lay on Hands, etc). It wouldn't be surprising if there were more.

And the ranger gets that Split the Tree attack. He can't quarry two creatures, so giving him a flat bonus to damage would be better there.

PS

 

[eleran]

The more I game, and the more I read about 4e, and the more I hang out on these boards, the less I care about verisimilitude.

*stands at podium* Hi, my name is Eleran and I used to be a simulationist.






just to clarify, i am now a strong believer that verisimilitude is the job of the DM and the players, not of the rules system.