Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[Pale Jackal]

I have to agree with SoulStorm.

I am, generally, very positive about 4E. However, I need a good justification for these types of abilities. This feels like another, "why can't two fighters mark the same target?" situation... something I'm going to have to house rule.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've just tried running a '4e' game with friends using the information which we've got (which clearly has lots of omissions) and one of the things I was uncomfortable with was the Quarry and Curse mechanics, which felt as if they should have been 'per encounter' things, as in practice you might as well have just given the bonus damage to the classes...

 

[am181d]

Think of it this way: You presumably don't have to take this power. So only take it to model characters who specialize in taking out characters in close proximity.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've just tried running a '4e' game with friends using the information which we've got (which clearly has lots of omissions) and one of the things I was uncomfortable with was the Quarry and Curse mechanics, which felt as if they should have been 'per encounter' things, as in practice you might as well have just given the bonus damage to the classes...

I agree. It seems like just another annoying thing to have to remember to do each round. Why not just give them a passive bonus to damage?

 

[Mouseferatu]

I've just tried running a '4e' game with friends using the information which we've got (which clearly has lots of omissions) and one of the things I was uncomfortable with was the Quarry and Curse mechanics, which felt as if they should have been 'per encounter' things, as in practice you might as well have just given the bonus damage to the classes...

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.

For what it's worth, one of the guys in my playtest group is playing a ranger. He's not the most mechanics-oriented of us, by a long shot, but it didn't take him long at all to get the quarry bit down pat.

 

[Cadfan]

I've just tried running a '4e' game with friends using the information which we've got (which clearly has lots of omissions) and one of the things I was uncomfortable with was the Quarry and Curse mechanics, which felt as if they should have been 'per encounter' things, as in practice you might as well have just given the bonus damage to the classes...

The party is attacked by an enemy necromancer, plus 3 big zombies. The big zombies are in the center. The necromancer is standing in the back.

Does the ranger designate a big zombie as his quarry and shoot it for a lot of damage? Or does he give up his quarry ability to shoot at the necromancer in the back, reasoning that its more important to drop the spellcaster first? Or does he venture out from his safe spot behind the party's tank characters, maneuver around the edge of the room until he's closest to the necromancer, and designate the necromancer as his quarry?

It makes a difference.

 

[helium3]

I don't really know the details of how marks work. However if you're that irritated by the marking mechanic simply disallowing targeting of all but the closest target, maybe some sort of additional success/fail check before hand would work. There'd have to be a fairly high chance of failure to keep the house rule within the spirit of the original rule, in my opinion. I'd start at a flat 50/50 test and then go up from there if it seemed necessary. I doubt I'd go lower though. Too bad it's not a passive action. If it was, you could make it feat.

 

[Betote]

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.

Nope; it's more like saying that playing a fighter makes you: a) use a shield and b) do it in a predetermined way.

 

[robgmsft]

Tough choices = good game design.

The hallmark of good game design is having multiple choices that are all good. As a ranger without quarry, I would generally always shoot the soft blasters in the back row of the enemy army or focus fire with the rest of the party on a single character. All in all, with the excellent range of my bow, there's no reason for me to move around the battlefield. With quarry, now I need to make some tough choices - shoot the nearby meat-shield for lots of damage, shoot the guy in the back for less damage, or move and shoot the guy in the back for lots of damage, but expose myself - tough choices = good game design.

I don't know how you explain this story-wise, but then again I'm not the kind of player to lose sleep wondering why my monopoly dog only moved three spaces this turn instead of five either.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't know how you explain this story-wise, but then again I'm not the kind of player to lose sleep wondering why my monopoly dog only moved three spaces this turn instead of five either.

Did you just liken the verisimilitude of 4e to that of Monopoly?