Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 elwyndas Aug 09, 2009 10:21:26	I never play those classes even though I'd love to, because I just can't stand their class-specific mechanics. They all share the same basic technique to increase damage output. As an extra action (minor or whatever) the player has to announce during his turn who is quarry, cursed, oath target, or victim of divine challenge. Then he and the DM have to keep track of this. Every turn one has to watch out for this, and make sure to announce it. In addition, if that wasn't enough, there are further restrictions that give me the rest in terms of fun. Has to be the nearest, there can't be another enemy adjacent, have to "challenge", and so on. Long story short: These classes make the game more complicated than it should be, and increase the headache for everyone. The straight damage dealers like sorcerer, barbarian and rogue are much more fun to play. Am I the only one who thinks so?
#2 urza-s_content_filter_dup Aug 09, 2009 10:27:23	I'd have to say it isn't exactly that bad when players are taking Feats to get them those very abilities while playing other classes. I think it really comes down to personal preferences but i can't personally imagine the minor micromanagement to be daunting unless playing online.
#3 crimson_lancer Aug 09, 2009 10:33:21	The player is supposed to keep track of that type of thing; it is not the DM's responsibility, though he should be generally aware of the situation. Also, trying to get the "right" target Cursed/Quarried and all means you actually have to move; without that limitation, Archer Rangers would be even more boring to play. I've personally found that it coincides with a Warlock's Shadow Walk Class Feature very, very well, and really gives the Warlock it's own identity. The Challenge is also really sweet, as you can use it to create awesome Catch-22 situations. :D
#4 kamikazegerbil Aug 09, 2009 10:34:20	The Warlock and Ranger damage mechanics arn't really much more difficult to handle than the rogue one. In fact less so as the Warlock and Rogue only have to spend a minor to declare your quarry/curse (if it's too much of a book-keeping headache to remember which enemy that is I suggest using tokens to show which enemies is cursed/quarry. Same can be done with Oath if you like.) and apply the damage once per round when you deal damage. Alternatively the rogue has to get combat advantage to apply the damage which requires tactics. Oath of emnity only really matters when you attack your Oath target so it's easy to remember/check if there are other enemies adjacent to you. Lastly Divine Challenge is a marking mechanic not a damage one. It's designed to encourage enemies to attack the Paladin not deal damage. It also requires the same amount of book-keeping as any other marking mechanic.
#5 elwyndas Aug 09, 2009 10:40:12	I'm throwing Divine Challenge in there simply because it is more complicated and restrictive than the very straight forward fighter mark (you attack = you mark). I think because Divine Challenge is so annoying they came up with Divine Sanction which is easier to play. I realize most of you are really experienced D&D players, and the mechanics give you another thrill and tactical challenge. I think however that they deter people from playing them. That's not the world's end because there are other classes. I'm just saying that they make the rules more and more complicated, and add more and more class-specific stuff only the super-cracks can keep track of. And yeah, the player has to track those curses and so on. But we all know that the DM needs to know what's going on too, because those curses, oaths also determine the monster's actions. For example, whoever is cursed might want to kill the origin of the curse first. And so on.
#6 skalgrimm Aug 09, 2009 10:51:30	Well, the fighter is (able to be) marking everybody he attacks, so, given burst powers and ranged powers (and dragonbreath, etc), you need to be able to track multiple foes. In addition, his mark only lasts until the end of his next turn, so you have to keep refreshing them. Many of these other "marks", like Quarry, last until moved, or until the target dies. Thus, they are, in many ways, easier to track than the fighter's marks. In addition, many of these "marks" are singular, as compared to the fighter, who can mark multiple targets easily from level 1. This also makes them easier to track. In any case, given that rangers, fighters, paladins, warlocks, avengers, wardens, and swordmages all use some sort of "mark" (and other classes can too, even without multiclassing), I think that it's pretty clear you need some simple method of denoting marks on your minis/counters/tokens. Once you have chosen a method, it's pretty easy to follow through for any variation in "marking" from class to class. Given that every single defender marks, and half of the strikers "mark", you're gonna have to have some system for keeping track of marks. Once you do, the differences between fighter marks and ranger quarries and swordmage aegis, etc. are not that difficult to handle.
#7 Alex_ Aug 09, 2009 11:10:09	The straight damage dealers like sorcerer, barbarian and rogue are much more fun to play. Am I the only one who thinks so? There's a thread over in the Striker section where a player seems to be complaining that their Ranger's quarry+deal damage routine isn't stimulating enough. A common criticism of 4E in comparison to 3E was the relatively lower number of subsystems, which many believed made the game overly simplistic. I think different people desire different levels of complexity. You are not the only one who prefers straight damage dealers, but there are others who do not. There's even a vocal minority that would prefer to deal little if any damage at all and accomplish nearly everything through any variety of subsystems and effects!
#8 elwyndas Aug 09, 2009 11:15:00	There's a thread over in the Striker section where a player seems to be complaining that their Ranger's quarry+deal damage routine isn't stimulating enough. A common criticism of 4E in comparison to 3E was the relatively lower number of subsystems, which many believed made the game overly simplistic. I think different people desire different levels of complexity. You are not the only one who prefers straight damage dealers, but there are others who do not. There's even a vocal minority that would prefer to deal little if any damage at all and accomplish nearly everything through any variety of subsystems and effects! yes, but the subsystems have the disadvantage that they are delaying the game for everybody else. So one guy has more fun because he loves it the complicated way, while 5 others are waiting for him to figure out his curse mess. Or even better, the inevitable after-the-turn-already-ended back paddling.
#9 Alex_ Aug 09, 2009 11:24:19	yes, but the subsystems have the disadvantage that they are delaying the game for everybody else. So one guy has more fun because he loves it the complicated way, while 5 others are waiting for him to figure out his curse mess. Or even better, the inevitable after-the-turn-already-ended back paddling. And some people have the exact opposite situation. The person watches everyone doing something more complex on their turn, but when it comes to his character, all he does is roll for damage. The player types and everyone in between could argue all day about which style is objectively more enjoyable until they're blue in the face (welcome to the internet) and all would have at least one other person on their side. Like I said earlier: I think different people desire different levels of complexity.
#10 kamikazegerbil Aug 09, 2009 11:28:13	yes, but the subsystems have the disadvantage that they are delaying the game for everybody else. So one guy has more fun because he loves it the complicated way, while 5 others are waiting for him to figure out his curse mess. Or even better, the inevitable after-the-turn-already-ended back paddling. This can be simplified by tokens/counters as others have said. In this case your warlock keeps a small stock of "curse tokens". Whenever he spends a minor action to curse an enemy he puts a token next to that enemy. This means at a glance he can see what is cursed and knows he can apply his bonus damage if he attacks one. I fail to see how that he will have to take time to figure it out then. In the same vein the Avenger and Ranger can employ a token for their Quarry/Oath target. And I recomend defenders using tokens to show which enemies are marked. Another advantage of this is that the GM can easily see what is effecting each monster.
#11 Pundrake_the_Mad Aug 09, 2009 11:31:48	yes, but the subsystems have the disadvantage that they are delaying the game for everybody else. So one guy has more fun because he loves it the complicated way, while 5 others are waiting for him to figure out his curse mess. Or even better, the inevitable after-the-turn-already-ended back paddling. This isn't a character class problem or a game mechanic problem. It's a player problem. Whoever is playing the warlock needs to get his act together and quit delaying the game. This is yet another classic case of 'it's not working in my game therefore it sucks. I've got some news for the OP: I play a warlock myself. And yes, I know WTF I'm doing. There haven't been any complaints about me delaying our game, because when my turn comes around, I usually know ahead of time what I'm going to do. There are others at our table, however, who never seem to have their minds made up in advance, and take a while to figure out what to do. Guess what? They're not playing any classes on the OP's little 'short list' of 'problem classes.' Their turns take considerably longer than mine, in spite of the fact that their classes use (according to the OP) 'simpler mechanics.' It comes down to this: It doesn't matter what class a player chooses, if they can't get their act together, they're going to hold up the game. PtM
#12 AttilatheNun Aug 09, 2009 11:37:09	4e is inherently a very tactically oriented game. Movement and positioning are very important for things like gaining cover/concealment, avoiding difficult/hindering terrain, making use of class features like prime shot, gaining flanking, etc. Deciding which power to use in which situation can be key. Compared to the wealth of tactical options considerations provided by such things, I wouldn't think of the abilities you seem to be so irritated by as all that complicated. Also, I wouldn't exactly hold up the sorcerer as an example of simplicity. Personally, I think a wild magic sorcerer would be more complicated to play than an infernal warlock. The sorcerer has to keep track of whether he rolled an odd or even attack roll for not only his Chaos Burst class feature, but also many of his attack powers. He has to keep rolling for his Wild soul resistance. He has to keep track of the Unfettered Power effects on nat 20's and 1's. Not to mention the abundance of area attacks he gets means he has to decide when it's worth it to catch an ally or two in the blast in order to get more enemies. It comes down to a matter of opinion and personal taste. Personally, I and most of the people I game with find the abilities you mentioned fun. I like the added challenge posed by trying to get my Oath of Enmity target alone so I can beat on him harder. Appealing to a wide variety of tastes is good for D&D. For me, there's the classes you don't like. For you, there's the classes I don't like.
#13 Mad_Jack Aug 09, 2009 15:52:16	Until rangers get to high enough level that they're laying down more than one quarry at a time, it's ridiculously simple for them to keep track of their quarry - my ranger starts off her turn by saying "I quarry the guy in front of me", then runs up and slaps the snot out of the guy till he either falls over or somebody more important comes along. Rinse and repeat. How do I remember when to quarry people? My quarry checklist, that I go through at the start of my turn and every time I roll an atack... 1. Did the guy I hit last time die yet? A. If he did, then pick someone else to quarry. B. If not, ask question 2. 2. Is there somebody else I should be hitting instead of the last guy I hit? A. If there is, then close in and switch my quarry to them. B. If not, go back to hitting the guy in front of me again. C. If he's dead, see question one.
#14 elwyndas Aug 09, 2009 18:01:14	great, one needs to know set logic in order to play rangers
#15 AttilatheNun Aug 09, 2009 20:10:57	Giving it a fancy name doesn't hide the fact that what he described is actually quite a simple thought process.
#16 DanTracker Aug 10, 2009 11:07:21	as a DM i force my players to track the specialty mechanics. if my ranger forgets to mark a quarry, then too bad for her. if she forgets who is her quarry, she can rechoose or live without. my fighter better say, "hey he's marked by me, so he takes a penalty attacking someone else." and better say so when the enemy attacks someones. if the fighter doesn't invoke his marks, then i don't count them. to OP, you're right, playing these other classes...or any class...has specific mechanics that are meant to give them additional flavor. i say it is up to my players to make use of the mechanics. i've moved marked targets away from a fighter without the fighter saying, "hey, i get OA because of that." too bad for fighter not paying attention to the battle. the only thing i'm giving players right now is that i mention when an OA is provoked and let them make that attack. special class mechanics are up to them to remember and maintain. not me. this is helpful becuase then one player is worried about his own mechanics and i am not worried about the mechanics of several players, just my creatures.
#17 erk_ Aug 10, 2009 11:43:20	great, one needs to know set logic in order to play rangers Dude. Rangers are widely known as the easiest class in the game to play. You've picked a strange bandwagon and are clinging to it despite evidence that it's subjective. Calling it set logic doesn't stop it from being a case of "I'll quarry and attack the dude I wanna kill", every single turn. So your group, or at least one person in it, hasn't figured out how to make mark situations (mark, quarry, challenge, curse, et cetera) smooth. This is not a problem with the game mechanic, as these are no different bookkeeping-wise from status effects, temporary conditions, and all manner of other major mechanics. It's a problem with how your group handles them. Plenty of folks have offered solutions: I made little flags out of toothpicks that the players attach to enemy minis (via putty) when they invoke any kind of effect. Tokens. Works great. Or you can keep complaining, despite a lot of evidence that your problem is yours, not a common one, and refuse to listen to ways to fix it. Your call.
#18 doppelganger Aug 10, 2009 11:55:12	As a player, I really like the quarry, challenge, curse, whatever mechanic. I ham up the pointing at an enemy and snarling "I've got this one." It's a lot of fun and it brings to mind all sorts of movie scenes and wrestling moves. Having to keep track of the one that I'm on is part of the fun. Other creatures may interfere with me before I can take my target down. If they bother me enough, one minor action later they're on the receiving end of some badness. I like it. It is a good mechanic and it's fun in play.
#19 mellored Aug 10, 2009 13:46:50	Long story short: These classes make the game more complicated than it should be, and increase the headache for everyone. The straight damage dealers like sorcerer, barbarian and rogue are much more fun to play. Am I the only one who thinks so? You're not the only one, but you are in the minority. Assuming your group is all with you, just simplify some of the other classes. Ranger, minor action, +1d6 to you're next hit. Warlock, minor action, +1d6 to you're next hit. If you kill someone, gain your boon. Avenger, +4 to hit, must attack the same target till it dies. Paladin, minor action, target must attack you, unless it provokes an OA or takes damage by trying to get to you. That won't change things to much.
#20 auspex7 Aug 10, 2009 18:51:11	This can be simplified by tokens/counters as others have said. In this case your warlock keeps a small stock of "curse tokens". Whenever he spends a minor action to curse an enemy he puts a token next to that enemy. This means at a glance he can see what is cursed and knows he can apply his bonus damage if he attacks one. I fail to see how that he will have to take time to figure it out then. In the same vein the Avenger and Ranger can employ a token for their Quarry/Oath target. And I recomend defenders using tokens to show which enemies are marked. Another advantage of this is that the GM can easily see what is effecting each monster. /agree. At our table, we use red markers for 'bloodied', blue for 'marked' (swordmage), yellow for cleric effects (astral seal, others), and my personal favorite... a mangled pink paperclip slapped on a mini to denote who my Avenger's Oath of Enmity target is. Since this is a family-friendly site, I won't go into detail about why the paperclip is pink, other than saying that the paperclip carries with it the implication of upcoming immasculation and shame. Tokens = good stuff.
#21 Nyarlathotep Aug 11, 2009 9:54:47	I don't think they complicate the game in general overmuch, but I would agree that there are some players they aren't suited toward. If you are the type that would tend to forget to do your extra damage dealing thing, then those aren't the best choice of class for you. But in general, I think they work just fine.
#22 Stuntman Aug 11, 2009 15:00:37	yes, but the subsystems have the disadvantage that they are delaying the game for everybody else. So one guy has more fun because he loves it the complicated way, while 5 others are waiting for him to figure out his curse mess. Or even better, the inevitable after-the-turn-already-ended back paddling. It seems you have an issue with the particular players playing those type of characters. In my group the people who play the ranger and warlock are able to keep track of everything and do things quickly. I don't find that the people playing the rogues do things any faster because they have to make sure they can get into flanking position without provoking opportunity attacks. On top of that, rogues don't always deal sneak attack damage so the player tends to end up looking for their d8's half the time because they don't need it the other half the time. The warlock and ranger players always have their d8's because they are practically always rolling them.