Warlock's Curse / Hunter's Quarry

[Pale Jackal]

I do think this is good game design, however, unless the closest target is attacking you, or within 5' of the ideal target (going perpendicular to you... if that makes sense, not necessarily within 5' but within 5' on a single axis) it seems hard to justify.

I'd be tempted to try the "Hunter's Quarry" business but make it someone within 20 feet (i.e. 3 squares between you and the target.)

Of course, then that makes it similar to "sneak attack", or possibly allows you to take shots while you're being attacked (which has its own penalty.)

Not entirely sure what to do with it, though I suppose I should take comfort in the fact it's good game design.

 

[Mercule]

I'll have to wait to see the full rules, but my initial reaction to this is WTF? It sounds unbelievably bad. Something that might work well in a board game, but doesn't make sense in an adventure setting.

 

[Crosswind]

Honestly, I suspect that it's a balance mechanic. You can justify it however you like - there have been at least 3 solid ways mentioned earlier. But the facts are these:

You have 3 strikers, Rogue, Warlock and Ranger. The Warlock is primarily a ranged striker, and the Rogue is primarily a melee striker. The Ranger can probably do either (TWF or Bow). Ranged Strikers can, it seems, get full striking damage every round, whenever they like via Curse or Quarry. Melee strikers can only get it when they have a specific set of conditions met (Combat Advantage). Nobody knows how easy it will be to get these conditions, but one can imagine it will not happen all the time. Therefore, there needs to be some limitations on how effective the ranged striking abilities are. That limitation seems to be that they can only be used on a subset of the enemy.

Makes sense to me.

-Cross

 

[robgmsft]

Perhaps my first 4E character should be 'Monopoli Daag'

Hmm, I guess I play DND to:

1. Hang out with my friends once a week, eating and drinking good food.
2. Take part in an interactive storytelling session.
3. Play an interesting game.

I think 4E will improve #3 for me, #2 will benefit from much more cinematic (and interesting) combat, and will leave #1 unchanged.

 

[shadowguidex]

In a football game, the quarterback notices the defensive linemen who are trying to crush him way more than the linebackers and safeties.

I really really like the idea that the Ranger cannot just attack the Artillery target in the rear immediately and gain the quarry. If you want to ignore the brutes and soldiers in front and focus on the artillery in the rear, you either need to move around the battlefield and get closer to the artillery, or you need to just accept that you lose the extra 1d8 damage.

In my experience as a DM, I have always hated that the heroes ALWAYS kill my spellcasters and clerics first and then kill the beef. With the Quarry and Curse rules, it will force decisions on the Strikers - more damage against the beef, or less damage against the nukers.

 

[eleran]

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.

 

[Incenjucar]

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

Well yes if your fighter was predetermined to survive the encounter he would be predetermined to use the shield as a shield and not a hat.

 

[Pale Jackal]

IMO, I don't feel any of the above suggestions sufficiently justify the ranger's "quarry" business.

Sure, if he's 5 feet away from you, that makes sense. But what about when the closest target is 15 feet away, and your desired target is 30 feet away, and there's twenty feet between the two of them?

I'm also having a hard time coming up with psychological justifications that ring true, when you can "deadeye aim" when two opponents are 5' away from you (be they standing right next to each other or far away... take whichever is more daunting to your sense of versimilitude with regards to your favored reason. ) But not when one is 15' away and one's 30' away?

 

[Voss]

I've been running some trial encounters with the available info. I think these work pretty well. The rational is a bit weird, but it does seem a bit better than just getting a damage bonus on whoever you want, because yeah, you'd just snipe the heck out of the guy in the back. Mobility is a big deal in 4e (that shifty trait on those kobolds is darn frustrating!) and many, many things keep everyone moving all over the board, particularly on the warlock, with the concealment and teleportation class features.

The warlock is turning into one of my favorite characters (and the cleric, if the sample character had been better optimized).

 

[VannATLC]

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 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.

Its a tactical requirement that wasn't previously there, but it has a create deal of promise around it, I believe. If it *wasn't* there, you might as well just give it to them willy-nilly. But this actually requires some tactical thought.