Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[SoulStorm]

The alternative is to nerf it.

Would you prefer that they nerf it?

I bet they could nerf it.

Actually, I would prefer them to nerf it. As far as I can tell these two class abilities are a significant part of what makes the Ranger and Warlock ranged strikers. If you can't use your striker abilities without attacking a predetermined target something is wrong. Aren't strikers supposed to be the tactical guys targeting the biggest threats?

If you can't use your striker abilities to target the most significant threats why play a striker at all? Why even show up to the game table if the game is going to dictate your targets for you?

 

[SoulStorm]

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.

And if the player were the one who chose the designated quarry that would be cool, but the player doesn't choose, the game mechanics choose for the player.

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't have an issue with this.

 

[SoulStorm]

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.

Now that makes sense. Good job Kobu! So when do you start your job at WOTC?

Any playtesters interested in passing this suggestion along to WOTC?

 

[Sphyre]

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.

Count me in. The more I play, the more I care about having fun, not forcing my view of what is realistic in a fantasy world onto players.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Ok, maybe it should read like: "the nearest creature in your line of sight. You may ignore any creatures engaged in melee with an ally (not you)."

 

[small pumpkin man]

And if the player were the one who chose the designated quarry that would be cool, but the player doesn't choose, the game mechanics choose for the player.

I'm honestly surprised that more people don't have an issue with this.

The player does choose, the player chooses among the equal closest enemies, or chooses by moving so that the enemy they want to shoot is the closest, they just have to actually work for it, as opposed to just going "I shoot the guy at the back for maximum damage!".

Actually, I would prefer them to nerf it. As far as I can tell these two class abilities are a significant part of what makes the Ranger and Warlock ranged strikers. If you can't use your striker abilities without attacking a predetermined target something is wrong. Aren't strikers supposed to be the tactical guys targeting the biggest threats?

If you can't use your striker abilities to target the most significant threats why play a striker at all? Why even show up to the game table if the game is going to dictate your targets for you?

It doesn't dictate your targets, it provides an option other classes don't have, that works under certain circumstances to encourage a particular kind of play, to encourage tactics, and to make battlefield placement and maneuvering actaually mean something.

 

[Demigonis]

It doesn't dictate your targets, it provides an option other classes don't have, that works under certain circumstances to encourage a particular kind of play, to encourage tactics, and to make battlefield placement and maneuvering actaually mean something.

Bingo!