|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 1:09PM
#111
|
|
|
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" would be more appropriate to me. Though care would have to be taken to not disallow applying quarry damage to opportunity or immediate action attacks if it has not been used that round yet.
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe does, then decide "hmmm...let me go ahead and apply the damage to that foe since I don't like what he is about to do and maybe the damage will kill him."
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 1:27PM
#112
|
Date Joined:
Sep 17, 2009
|
Agree, though I really think it should be worded to prevent someone from waiting until their turn almost comes around again and then deciding that their first attack on their last turn also did quarry damage. "in an turn" or even "in an action" would be more appropriate to me. Though care would have to be taken to not disallow applying quarry damage to opportunity or immediate action attacks if it has not been used that round yet.
Certainly, I have missed before only to have the Warlord Commander's Strike so quarry damage could still be applied, which is yet another out-of-turn use that should not be barred. But it would be weird to hold onto quarry damage, see what the foe does, then decide "hmmm...let me go ahead and apply the damage to that foe since I don't like what he is about to do and maybe the damage will kill him."
Or for that matter, what he just did. Since the quarry damage is applyed to the attack it would mean that if you waited you could see that the target then attacked you and damaged you so you decided to apply the quarry dmg to your attack against him two init points ago, which was enough to kill the target, so his attack never could have happened because he was dead on your turn. Ridiculous and definately not what was intended unless I grossly underestimate the logic of the writers...
hmmm
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 1:54PM
#113
|
|
|
Another weirdness comes from rigorous application of the ordering of actions. If for instance you are 2 squares from one foe but want to quarry the foe 5 squares away you are going to charge at, it seems that if you had to first use the minor action to quarry, then the standard action to charge, that you could not quarry your intended target. .
That's correct.
But instead, it seems you should be able to apply your quarry mid-standard action, between the move and the attack, for it to apply sensically as opposed to oddly due to overly strict rules constraints.
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 2:40PM
#114
|
|
|
Another weirdness comes from rigorous application of the ordering of actions. If for instance you are 2 squares from one foe but want to quarry the foe 5 squares away you are going to charge at, it seems that if you had to first use the minor action to quarry, then the standard action to charge, that you could not quarry your intended target. .
That's correct.
But instead, it seems you should be able to apply your quarry mid-standard action, between the move and the attack, for it to apply sensically as opposed to oddly due to overly strict rules constraints.
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking. The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking, but due to oddities in the timing in rules constraints, this cannot be done.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
What's the harm of being able to do another action within an action, as long as it is sensical? Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem?
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 2:47PM
#115
|
|
|
I am still in shock that they made the change to Call Spirit Companion like they did. I mean, did they forget about Primal Power's "Sudden Call" feat being added as a heroic-tier feat? They certainly didn't errata it. My Shaman will definitely be taking Sudden Call at level 6 now ... it was undecided before, but it's a no-brainer now.
Also, if they are changing Righteous Brand, I wonder how long it will be before they change Commander's Strike to be a flat damage bonus. Currently, my 21-INT Warlord likes giving +5 bonus damage to the local Fighter or Barbarian. She would cry rivers of herself (she *is* a Watersoul Genasi, after all...) if they made it only +3 damage. (NOTE: I am *not* complaining about Commander's Strike! Do *not* change it and then point at me and say "Well, he complained!")
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 2:56PM
#116
|
Date Joined:
Jun 18, 2003
|
And here's a perfect example of the wonky stuff I was talking about, LoW. Let's say I make that Burning Spray against three guys using a Frost Weapliment with the At-Will Power turned off; I miss the first two guys by 1 point, but I Crit the last guy. So now the Attack has the Cold Keyword, right, because adding Extra Cold Damage makes it so, correct?
But wait! I'm a Dragonborn with Cold Breath and the Draconic Sorcerer Feat! Do I now go back and retroactively hit the two guys I originally missed by 1 point? Is that really how it works, or how it should work to make any sense?? IMO, not even remotely. Extra Damage that is added on to a Power should not add Keywords; since Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability ignore Keywords when it comes to Damage anyway (btw, thanks for that, MindWanderer; that is exactly what I was looking for), that means the Extra Damage will still be subject to the Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability, but the System will ignore ridiculous antics like the above example and the one about gaining Keyword-specific Bonuses from Feats like you were talking about earlier.
Resident Logic Cannon
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 3:14PM
#117
|
|
|
Also, if they are changing Righteous Brand, I wonder how long it will be before they change Commander's Strike to be a flat damage bonus. Currently, my 21-INT Warlord likes giving +5 bonus damage to the local Fighter or Barbarian. She would cry rivers of herself (she *is* a Watersoul Genasi, after all...) if they made it only +3 damage. (NOTE: I am *not* complaining about Commander's Strike! Do *not* change it and then point at me and say "Well, he complained!")
Bonuses to damage are not NEARLY as big a deal as bonuses to hit.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 3:19PM
#118
|
|
|
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking.
No. Wrong. The closest enemy was *2* squares away from you, and you attacked someone *5* squares away, who was not the closest enemy.
The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking,
No. Wrong. The point of Quarry is to give you a damage bonus against an enemy, and you can only apply it to the nearest enemy. It doesn't matter which one you *want* to attack.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to get up close and personal with their targets before getting their bonus damage.
What's the harm of being able to do another action within an action, as long as it is sensical?
Well, for one thing, it lets you use Quarry on someone who isn't the closest enemy when you have the Minor Action available to spend.
Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem
Because Free Actions are free. Minor actions are not.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 3:27PM
#119
|
|
|
And here's a perfect example of the wonky stuff I was talking about, LoW. Let's say I make that Burning Spray against three guys using a Frost Weapliment with the At-Will Power turned off; I miss the first two guys by 1 point, but I Crit the last guy. So now the Attack has the Cold Keyword, right, because adding Extra Cold Damage makes it so, correct?
But wait! I'm a Dragonborn with Cold Breath and the Draconic Sorcerer Feat! Do I now go back and retroactively hit the two guys I originally missed by 1 point?
First: You do not "go back and retroactively hit them", because it's one attack. All the attack rolls are simultaneous. To say otherwise would be to open up the question of what happens if the *first* attack roll is a crit. Since your power does Cold damage now, and gains the Cold keyword because of it, you'd get +1 to hit on *subsequent* rolls.
Second: Of course you get the +1 to hit. A power that does Cold damage is a Cold power. This power does cold damage. You get +1 to hit with Cold powers. Therefore, you get +1 to hit with this power.
Extra Damage that is added on to a Power should not add Keywords;
You can argue "should" all you want, but you're dead about "does". Changing the types of damage done by a power changes the keywords of the power, period.
since Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability ignore Keywords when it comes to Damage anyway (btw, thanks for that, MindWanderer; that is exactly what I was looking for), that means the Extra Damage will still be subject to the Resistance/Immunity/Vulnerability,
Are you seriously trying to misread that to say that a guy with Resist 30 Fire who takes 20 Fire and 10 Cold damage from an crit with Burning Spray will resist all of it?
Someone with Immunity To Fire will still take damage from a Fire-Keyword power. They simply won't take any of the FIRE damage.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Mar 03, 2010 - 6:05PM
#120
|
|
|
.... why does that "make sense"?
You can only Quarry the closest enemy. You can't use a Minor Action in the middle of a Charge. Why "should" you be able to do that?
Because the charged foe is ultimately the closest enemy and the one you are attacking.
No. Wrong. The closest enemy was *2* squares away from you, and you attacked someone *5* squares away, who was not the closest enemy.
That's just a silly response. You get my point. You move adjacent to a foe, and you attack that adjacent foe, who is the closest to you when you attack. In most every other circumstance in the game, you can use your minor action in between the move and the attack and get quarry on that foe. But in a few situations like Charge or certain powers that include a move with the attack, you do not get that opportunity.
The very point of quarrying is to apply increased damage to the closest enemy you are attacking,
No. Wrong. The point of Quarry is to give you a damage bonus against an enemy, and you can only apply it to the nearest enemy. It doesn't matter which one you *want* to attack.
And yet another silly response, you are way too tied up with trying to come up with smartass responses than to address the substantive underlying point. Quarry is balanced against Warlock's Curse and Sneak Attack in various ways. Sneak Attack requires no action, but requires Combat Advantage. Quarry requires you to see the target, to spend a minor action, and for that target to be closest. Only because the system works in a wonky fashion with actions that wrap up a move and an attack together in standard action do you get the odd result of not necessarily being able to quarry your ultimately closest opponent. Instead, it should be worded to spend a minor action and during your turn you can select the closest foe to you at a given time to become your quarry.
I would instead ask you the opposite question, why should you NOT be able to quarry the closest enemy you are attacking?
Because that's the same as "quarry anyone on the battlefield", and part of the point of Hunter's Quarry (and Warlock's Curse) having the "closest enemy you can see" restriction is to force Rangers and Warlocks to get up close and personal with their targets before getting their bonus damage.
No it is not, you are clearly wrong here. If it was, then the archer could just quarry the enemy wizard in the back and shoot at him with impunity. If it were written as I wrote above, it would still be the closest foe but address the anomaly that arises when move/attacks are wrapped up together.
What's the harm of being able to do another action within an action, as long as it is sensical?
Well, for one thing, it lets you use Quarry on someone who isn't the closest enemy when you have the Minor Action available to spend.
Wow, another smartass response that doesn't get to the heart of the matter, really surprising! How about trying to identify a truly substantive problem instead.
Presumably one can drop a weapon as a free action during the charge move, or other free actions, so how is doing a minor action then a problem
Because Free Actions are free. Minor actions are not.
And a tautological statement to finish things off, that is about as worthless a statement as could have been made, nice.
Do you *really* think Wizards intended for the quarry effect to not be useful in those limited circumstances, or that this was probably an oversight? I seriously doubt that was a planned limitation but rather a byproduct of how other aspects of the game system work.
|
|
|
