Of Rangers and Rogues

[DefKab]

So, doing a lot of research on 4th, and I realised that the Rogues Sneak Attack feature was errata'd to allow the extra damage once per turn. The Ranger's Quarry feature, however, was errata'd to once per ROUND.
That means they looked at it, and make a second opinion that the Ranger's 1d6 was WAY too powerful to allow more than once per round, while the Rogue's 2d6 wasn't powerful enough, so we should let him do it every Turn.

So, I want your opinion. Granted, you need Combat Advantage for Sneak Attack, no requirements for Quarry. Except that pesky 'Declare on the Closest Enemy' and 'Takes a Minor Action.'
As you can probably tell, it's got me more than a little miffed.

So, can you rationalize what about the Ranger makes it so that another d6 per round on one designated creature is just one straw too many, while the Rogue can achieve up to 6d6 given out to whomever he has combat advantage against?

[Surrealistik]

Twin Strike + an abundance of Minor/Off-turn attacks; these things are the _real_ Ranger striking feature.

[Kurald Galain]

So, doing a lot of research on 4th, and I realised that the Rogues Sneak Attack feature was errata'd to allow the extra damage once per turn. The Ranger's Quarry feature, however, was errata'd to once per ROUND.
No, the quarry was always once per round. And rangers are still the top-tier striker that significantly outdamages rogues anyway, because of all their multiattacks.

That said, the change to the rogue was not made for reasons within 4.0, but to make its 4.4 counterpart easier to play with zero regard for balance. The 4.4 ranger doesn't even have hunter's quarry, so WOTC had no reason to make changes there. Sorry to say, but the 4E writing team hasn't cared about balance for at least two years now.

[tcrudisi]

Yeah, no reason to be miffed here. The Ranger is still the top striker in the game. It brings the Rogue closer in line with the Ranger in terms of power, but the Ranger is still on top.

[shamgar001]

It's worth noting that without obscure feats, the rogue is limited to small, low damage weapons, while the ranger can fight with a broadsword in each hand right out of the gate. The rogue needs that extra damage.

[obryn]

So, can you rationalize what about the Ranger makes it so that another d6 per round on one designated creature is just one straw too many, while the Rogue can achieve up to 6d6 given out to whomever he has combat advantage against?
The ranger does not need any more buffs. Simple as that.

And it's weird that your comparison is 1st level quarry damage vs. 21st level sneak attack. Kind of a bit rhetorically overboard, you think?

-O

[DefKab]

The ranger does not need any more buffs. Simple as that.

And it's weird that your comparison is 1st level quarry damage vs. 21st level sneak attack. Kind of a bit rhetorically overboard, you think?

-O

Not really that comparison...
A 1st level Ranger gets 1d6 once per round. No more than that.
A 1st level Rogue gets 2d6, but can get it on his turn, once using a Themes immediate Reaction, and again during an opportunity attack. Not rare enough for me to consider it a niche case, but I will admit, it isn't 'every round'. My complaint is that the ranger doesn't even get an option. Now, sure the ranger is DPS king in theory, in game play, it doesn't always ring true, and I find annoyances in the disparity between the two almost identical features with a lack of reasoning to the difference. Also, in the scope of things, after everything an Epic Ranger can do, would allowing another 3d8 (epic Quarry with feat even) be too much? Is 13 points (avg) that unreasonable?
That is my issue.
I think, since It's been chalked up to weird design, I might houseful it a per turn ability...

[Surrealistik]

A Rogue just might have the edge over the Ranger in Heroic. At Paragon and beyond though, a properly optimized Ranger will pull ahead easily unless the Rogue is in a party granting him all kinds of off-turn attacks.

[Epinephrine]

I think, since It's been chalked up to weird design, I might houseful it a per turn ability...

It's not actually that common for everyone chiming in on a topic to agree. When they all do, it's probably worth considering that they are probably agreeing because they are correct. House rule whatever you want, but the consensus here doesn't support it - they've recommended against it.

[Ashdate]

I find annoyances in the disparity between the two almost identical features with a lack of reasoning to the difference. Also, in the scope of things, after everything an Epic Ranger can do, would allowing another 3d8 (epic Quarry with feat even) be too much? Is 13 points (avg) that unreasonable?
That is my issue.

Two things, largely echoing that's already been said here:

1) The ranger doesn't need a better Hunter's Quarry to be competitive with rogue damage. In fact, the rogue needs the better sneak attack to competitive with ranger damage. What the ranger needs isn't more damage, it needs more variety.

2) In a system that is already largely criticized for classes being too "samey", I don't really know why you would choose to make two classes more similar.

If you really wish to houserule the Ranger (and I really don't think it's a good idea, but if you really wish to), instead of giving the ranger +Xd6 damage with their quarry, why not give them a different benefit? Perhaps the ranger can slide their quarry one square as a free action on their turn, or the ranger can move through their quarry's square and doesn't draw attacks of opportunity, or they can reroll 1's on their damage dice.

[DefKab]

I'm sorry guys, really the only problem I have is that it, as a mechanic, is distinctly different from a similar set of mechanics ( the striker mechanic group ) in such a tiny way, and at the time its difference irked me. I want it to be Per turn simply so I dont want to have to remember two rule sets. It's a little petty, and a lot personal and I'm sorry. I'm not saying its wrong how it is, I'm saying would it be TOO wrong to make even?

[vasharanpaladin]

I'm sorry guys, really the only problem I have is that it, as a mechanic, is distinctly different from a similar set of mechanics ( the striker mechanic group ) in such a tiny way, and at the time its difference irked me. I want it to be Per turn simply so I dont want to have to remember two rule sets. It's a little petty, and a lot personal and I'm sorry. I'm not saying its wrong how it is, I'm saying would it be TOO wrong to make even?

To be perfectly honest? No, it bloody well WOULDN'T.

Warlock's Curse was also errata'd to 1/turn usage... and warlocks can still curse everyone they happen to get close to over the course of a combat. But, as with the rogue, the warlock's extra damage matters MUCH more than the ranger's.

If only because an extra 3.5/tier damage on ONE attack ultimately means NOTHING when you make FIVE attacks every round.

[Ashdate]

I'm sorry guys, really the only problem I have is that it, as a mechanic, is distinctly different from a similar set of mechanics ( the striker mechanic group ) in such a tiny way, and at the time its difference irked me. I want it to be Per turn simply so I dont want to have to remember two rule sets. It's a little petty, and a lot personal and I'm sorry. I'm not saying its wrong how it is, I'm saying would it be TOO wrong to make even?

I don't know if remembering is a very good excuse to change the rule; clearly, you already know the difference :)

Would it break your game to make such a change? Maybe.

If you have one player as a Ranger, and another as any other striker (such as a Rogue), they're likely already going to feel "worse" as a striker just because Rangers are pretty good as it is. The change will make the Ranger's off-turn attacks (which are already fantastic) even better when they're adding in the extra damage. Plus, unlike the Rogue, a melee Ranger doesn't need to spend a thief to get a great opportunity attack, so those will be even better too. Adding a leader like a Warlord and you've got a lot of potential to take advantage of the rule change.

If the Ranger is the lone striker, or if they/the party doesn't build him to take advantage of his new-found Quarry damage? Then no, you're probably not going to notice much of a difference, as the rule change won't come up often enough.

The long story short - as has already been repeated here - is that the Ranger is already an incredibly strong striker, even limited to using their quarry damage once per round. If you feel you can handle making what is basically a Tier 1 striker even better, then fill your boots I guess. But please, don't do it because you think you're going to have trouble remembering "which rule set is which". That's a terrible reason to house rule something, if for no other reason that you've got players who should be in charge in remember such things.

[masteraleph]

Just going to echo everyone else- the Ranger averages at least one extra attack per round, and often more. Once you start adding enhancement bonuses to damage, item bonuses to damage, feat bonuses to damage, whatever elemental tricks you get up to (for example, Lasting Frost), etc., it quickly outpaces the rogue. The Ranger is already the most powerful striker in the game, as a melee version at least, and just doesn't need more power.

[Kurald Galain]

If you want consistency, then simply remove the hunger's quarry altogether - because other strikers like barbarians, sorcerers, and monks don't have quarry dice either. Plus it's more balanced that way because rangers already outdamage everyone else.

[neonchameleon]

If you want consistency, then simply remove the hunger's quarry altogether - because other strikers like barbarians, sorcerers, and monks don't have quarry dice either. Plus it's more balanced that way because rangers already outdamage everyone else.

This. Actually the class feature that needs removing from Rangers, the most dangerous class feature of all is Twin Strike. Without Twin Strike Rangers would be pretty much fine - with Twin Strike their at will is better than most encounter powers, and they can use interrupt attacks for their encounter powers - Hunters' Quarry is really not necessary.

[BlckDv]

I'm sorry guys, really the only problem I have is that it, as a mechanic, is distinctly different from a similar set of mechanics ( the striker mechanic group ) in such a tiny way, and at the time its difference irked me. I want it to be Per turn simply so I dont want to have to remember two rule sets. It's a little petty, and a lot personal and I'm sorry. I'm not saying its wrong how it is, I'm saying would it be TOO wrong to make even?

Obviously what bothers you is a matter of feeling, nd as such cannot be right or wrong, but the why here I feel a need to address. the "Striker Mechanic Group" is already different rules for every striker (my listing leaves off Essentials cause I'm not familiar with all of their features, and is based on just the feature itself).

Ossassin: + a variable amount of d6 and static damage to one target based on level and how many times you prep the target.

Rogue: +a scaling amount of d6 by level with certain weapons once a turn when you have CA.

Ranger: +a small scaling amount of d6 once a round to a target that is your quarry

Sorcerer: Static ability score based bonus to all targets of your spells.

Warlock: + a small scaling amount of d6 once a turn to a cursed target

Avenger: roll two d20 for attacks against your Oath target (accuracy/crit as damage bonus)

Barbarian: Free followup attacks and higher damage options like charging madness.

Monk: Bonus small static damage that can be spread around an increasing number of nearby targets as you level.

Each of these features was developed with the whole class in mind, and the powers/feats/etc. each class can take are built with this difference in mind. So while "some bonus dice" is a feature of more than one striker, it is far from the universal mechanic for them, and really the similarity is more of the oddity than the difference in how they trigger. How would you "make it even" with Avenger or Sorcerer?.

[Dimers]

To add a bit to BlckDv's point, another part of the Sorcerer striker mechanic is resistance-piercing, and another part of the Barbarian's mechanic is having class powers with larger-than-typical numbers of [W]s. Two more ways of increasing damage that are not based on adding a certain number of d6s per turn or per round.

[DefKab]

Alright, alright. I concede. I didn't think it all the way through when I asked this. I can see what you're talking about, and I understand why it's better like this.
I was just in a grumpy mood I guess, and wanted to moan about something.

[obryn]

(my listing leaves off Essentials cause I'm not familiar with all of their features, and is based on just the feature itself).
I'll fill in on these, as I remember them...

Thief - basically identical to the Rogue, but with a few more weapon options, like shortbows.

Scout - A second weapon attack after hitting with a basic attack, along with stat bonus to damage. The second weapon attack is probably how Rangers should have worked in general. Also, stances providing bonus damage. Also a striking encounter power.

Slayer - Stat bonus to damage, scaling upwards. Also, stances and a striking encounter power.

Blackguard - A whole lot of various things like cannibalizing temp HPs for damage, extra damage on sneak attacks, striking encounter power, etc. that all add up to striker-level damage.

Elementalist - More damaging at-wills than any other class, scaling bonus damage from stat, and a killer striking encounter power.

Vampire - Pretty fair at-wills, along with ways to cannibalize healing surges. Less familiar with these guys.

-O

[Yakk]

If the two hits of Twin Strike (and other multi-hit powers) counted as one for the purpose of bonus stacking when they hit the same target, Rangers should get once-per-turn Hunter's Quarry.

(Explicit damage in the Hit description, like "[W]+Str from each weapon", would add to [W]+[W]+2*Str -- but enhancement bonuses or other implied bonuses would follow standard stacking rules, where a +2 mainhand and +1 offhand weapon produces +2 total damage on the target, and a +2 untyped bonus from a feat would produce a total of +2 damage if both weapons [W] is used on the same target.).

Note that this would reduce the Ranger's ability to do damage. But it would make things more symmetric.

[allonym]

I have toyed with the idea of doing something similar to Twin Strike, making it so that the first attack is as normal, and the second attack is something like a (post-errata) Magic Missile - automatically hitting, but only dealing [Stat]+[Enhancement Bonus]. This would make Twin Strike somewhat like a bladespell, I guess.

[Yakk]

The "second" attack can deal full damage if on a distinct target (two-target twin strike is not a problem).

And it can even have its insane accuracy boost without the problem. The issue becomes when you both boost your accuracy high enough that (Hit%^2) approaches 1, and your static damage goes up.

With 50% hit, you get 0.25 miss-miss, 0.5 hit-miss, and 0.25 hit-hit. This produces 1.0x static bonus DPR. After the above change, 0.75x static bonus DPR.

At 90% hit, you get 0.01 miss-miss, 0.81 hit-hit, and 0.18 hit-miss. 1.8x static bonus DPR with RAW, 0.99x with the above change.

Basically, it puts a cap on how much you can abuse static damage bonuses, and reduces the advantage of accuracy optimization for attack-spamming Rangers.

[Epinephrine]

(Explicit damage in the Hit description, like "[W]+Str from each weapon", would add to [W]+[W]+2*Str -- but enhancement bonuses or other implied bonuses would follow standard stacking rules, where a +2 mainhand and +1 offhand weapon produces +2 total damage on the target, and a +2 untyped bonus from a feat would produce a total of +2 damage if both weapons [W] is used on the same target.).

Note that this would reduce the Ranger's ability to do damage. But it would make things more symmetric.
This is how the whirling barbarian powers are written.

e.g., Hit: 1[W] + 1[W] (off-hand weapon) + Strength modifier damage.

If you re-write Twin strike that way, it wouldn't dominate the ranger choices, and you could afford to tweak things like Quarry.

[Kurald Galain]

I have toyed with the idea of doing something similar to Twin Strike, making it so that the first attack is as normal, and the second attack is something like a (post-errata) Magic Missile - automatically hitting, but only dealing [Stat]+[Enhancement Bonus]. This would make Twin Strike somewhat like a bladespell, I guess.

It's called Throw And Stab, which is another ranger at-will.

[Yakk]

This is how the whirling barbarian powers are written.

e.g., Hit: 1[W] + 1[W] (off-hand weapon) + Strength modifier damage.

If you re-write Twin strike that way, it wouldn't dominate the ranger choices, and you could afford to tweak things like Quarry.
Somewhat: I'd leave in double-strength modifier (for encounter twin-strike clones), and have two attack rolls.

So you get the accuracy boost of two chances to hit (which is awesome), and double strength/dex (in some cases).

Not the one attack roll of whirling barbarian.

---

Sadly, this just makes minor actions and off-turn actions even more dominant over the double-attack encounter powers.