Mark Quarry is awkward and situational.

[Lamp Flower]

This ability was one of my two main mechanical concerns about the class before the playtest document dropped. I think this deserves its own thread since the quarry mechanic is such a big part of the class.

Mark Quarry relies on three conditions:

1. You must be facing at least one enemy whose level is equal to or higher than yours.
2. You must find signs of the enemy in advance.
3. You must be in a situation where you can take 10 minutes to use Mark Quarry.

This works just fine for monster hunting quests, which makes sense for a monster hunter class. In other situations though, these conditions might not always get fulfilled. This makes it such that the slayer can't reliably use all of its features in all campaigns.

The first condition will probably be met fairly frequently. However, combats where every enemy is lower level than the party can still be serious threats and such will be encountered decently often. Even if the reason there are no enemies of at least PL is that the fight is supposed to be a cake walk (e.g. to show how far the party has come or for environmental storytelling), that just means that the slayer doesn't get to use all of its fun toys in that encounter.

Conditions 2 and 3 are an issue more consistently. In my experience, it is very common to be ambushed or otherwise have very little information going into a quest. A pretty common quest premise in all of our campaigns has been that we have to go to a place and fetch something. We know that there is likely to be danger but don't know the exact nature of it. In this case, it's really a coin flip whether or not it's realistic to find the necessary information before something attacks. If you either find out about the enemy when you're already too near to take 10 minutes to mark it or it finds you before you find it, you might have to enter a fight without having a quarry. You might even be tracking a quarry only to run into a different enemy eligible for Mark Quarry before you see your actual quarry.

If I had to guess, I'd say that one reason why 2 and 3 exist is to reward preparation. This is a good idea in principle, but it's not necessary in practice. This is because that is something the reinforcing mechanic is already doing. If you're able to prepare in advance, you can, for example, get a bonus to saves against certain enemies, proc a weakness, or resist a key damage type. The reward for preparation should not be the freedom to use abilities tied to Mark Quarry, it should be a chance to benefit from carefully choosing which trophies to use.

There's also currently the awkward case where you know you will eventually want to track and possibly RK about a specific creature that has plot relevance, but have more pressing matters to attend to first. If the creature is the same level as you, you could become worse at both of these things by leveling up, since the +2 from Mark Quarry is replaced by a +1 to proficiency from the level up. This is kind of an edge case, but I do think leveling up should make you better at things, not worse.

I'm sure that in some campaigns Mark Quarry would work just fine as it is, but I think reducing the effect of table variance on an ability that so many feats and all of the primary tools rely on would be a good idea. I'm just spitballing here, but here are some ideas:

1. Remove the level requirement from Mark Quarry. This would allow a slayer to operate normally no matter what kind of enemies the GM throws at the party. A reasonable compromise would be to limit trophies to only creatures of your level or higher. This would keep the trophy acquisition process as it is, while making the slayer's abilities less situational. Then again, you can already use a trophy gained from a level 1 enemy at level 20, provided that you claimed it at level 1. Because of that, I think it would be fine to allow trohies to be claimed from lower level enemies.

2. Make Instant + Endless Enmity a part of the chassis. This would allow you to still gain a quarry if you get ambushed. You would still have to spend your reaction, so no going On the Hunt, and you have to delay to go after the enemy or only get the benefits starting on your second turn. I know that Endless Enmity is currently a mid-level feat, but it honestly doesn't seem too strong. (These should be available at level 1. I can imagine paizo deciding to give these at like level 3, for some reason.)

These solutions might not be the correct ones, but I think something needs to be done. Also worth noting that there are already feats to address these issues. I just don't think they do enough, and chassis issues should not be solved with feats.

[exequiel759]

Yeah, Mark Quarry is in a rough spot and I hope it gets revised on release.

I was thinking what if Mark Quarry was instead a free action that triggers when rolling initiative allowing you to know the levels of all foes in the encounter, marking the highest level foe as your quarry. I was also toying with the idea of, rather than having Monster Lore, Assurance, and Automatic Knowledge, allowing the slayer to ask one question about their quarry every turn as a free action with the same restrictions as Recall Knowledge.

Mostly because I think yet another class with a universal lore is kinda boring. The slayer already borrows enough from the thaumaturge I think.

[Dragonchess Player]

IMO, Mark Quarry is something you do 1) before traveling to the adventure location (as part of the time spent Gathering Information/research/etc.), 2) during exploration, or 3) [with Instant Enmity] when meeting an unexpected monster. It's not just another version of Hunt Prey, because the slayer also needs to customize their arsenal for the arsenal bonuses (which are generally better than the ranger's Hunter's Edge).

[Tridus]

I was thinking back to some of my past AP campaigns while reading this. In some of them it would work pretty well. Like in SoT, a lot of the time you're deliberately going somewhere to do a specific thing and you can actively prepare to do the thing. Mark Quarry will work really well here.

Then I thought about book 1 of Spore War where there's a lot of reacting to stuff happening and you actively don't know what you're going to be up against for various reasons. It'll feel crappy here and the feats to do it faster are effectively taxes for that class mechanic to function at all. Like "I want to mark the boss in this place, that I know nothing about at all and am not even sure exists, and that we can't scout due to the danger" is pretty lame.

Adventures do this a lot. Ambushes happen. Random encounters happen. Being on the defensive happens. Delving into a dungeon with no idea what you're going to find because no one has been in there for 700 years happens.

There's a lot of extra setup GMs are going to have to incorporate to make this work in cases where you simply can't know what is coming next or the player will have to pay the feat tax.

Investigator kind of already has this problem in some scenarios but since they're investigating a mystery, they can at least ask a broader question without needing to know the target.

This just feels like a worse version of the same problem.

[Dubious Scholar]

Honestly, maybe the solution is just to be able to take trophies at least without having to quarry first at all? Like, if the big game hunter gets jumped by a dragon he's taking a tooth home as a trophy even if he didn't set out to hunt a dragon, right?

Or at least, it's part of a solution, and then the level 2 feat handles the rest of ambushes.

[Perpdepog]

I also think that Mark Quarrey should perhaps let you know the level, or at least viability, of your quarry before you start it. As it stands the ability reads that you take ten minutes and then get told whether those minutes you spent actually matter because that's when you discover the level of your quarry. That doesn't feel great and leads to spending extra time that would be tedious at best and lead to the party falling behind in a time-sensitive situation at worst.

Also, as a suggestion for hunting creatures below your level but trying to retain the "worthy prey" aspect of Mark Quarry, what if you need to use Mark Quarry against an enemy/enemies who are collectively 40 ExP? It's more of an abstraction than level, but it makes the ability more flexible; a single enemy the same level as the party is 40 ExP.

Edit: And just realized what I'm proposing is basically Pack Slayer, but with fewer restrictions, oopse.

[Dr. Frank Funkelstein]

Investigator has the Person of Interest feat, it costs an action but allows Devise a Strategem as a free action which makes it basically cost neutral.
Once every 10min feels much more reasonable than 1/day like the slayer feat, and as the investigation is a lot broader and can apply to multiple creatures it should be a baseline feature for slayer, not a feat.

[Kitusser]

Lamp Flower wrote:

This ability was one of my two main mechanical concerns about the class before the playtest document dropped. I think this deserves its own thread since the quarry mechanic is such a big part of the class.

Mark Quarry relies on three conditions:

1. You must be facing at least one enemy whose level is equal to or higher than yours.
2. You must find signs of the enemy in advance.
3. You must be in a situation where you can take 10 minutes to use Mark Quarry.

This works just fine for monster hunting quests, which makes sense for a monster hunter class. In other situations though, these conditions might not always get fulfilled. This makes it such that the slayer can't reliably use all of its features in all campaigns.

The first condition will probably be met fairly frequently. However, combats where every enemy is lower level than the party can still be serious threats and such will be encountered decently often. Even if the reason there are no enemies of at least PL is that the fight is supposed to be a cake walk (e.g. to show how far the party has come or for environmental storytelling), that just means that the slayer doesn't get to use all of its fun toys in that encounter.

Conditions 2 and 3 are an issue more consistently. In my experience, it is very common to be ambushed or otherwise have very little information going into a quest. A pretty common quest premise in all of our campaigns has been that we have to go to a place and fetch something. We know that there is likely to be danger but don't know the exact nature of it. In this case, it's really a coin flip whether or not it's realistic to find the necessary information before something attacks. If you either find out about the enemy when you're already too near to take 10 minutes to mark it or it finds you before you find it, you might have to enter a fight without having a quarry. You might even be tracking a quarry only to run into a different enemy eligible for Mark Quarry before you see your actual quarry.

If I had to guess, I'd...

Yeah it's going to lead to campaigns where you cant use your main stuff for a portion of encounters that is just way too high. In the type of game I play in, it would be like 40% of encounters at least that I wouldn't be able to use this.

It also just encourages DMs to throw boss encounters at players constantly, which I think is bad.

[Tridus]

Dubious Scholar wrote:

Honestly, maybe the solution is just to be able to take trophies at least without having to quarry first at all? Like, if the big game hunter gets jumped by a dragon he's taking a tooth home as a trophy even if he didn't set out to hunt a dragon, right?

Or at least, it's part of a solution, and then the level 2 feat handles the rest of ambushes.

Yeah this definitely makes sense. Plus, only being able to take a trophy from a quarry makes no narrative sense at all. The dragon's fang is a dragon's fang either way, isn't it?

I guess the idea is to make it so that trophies only count if they're from something you specifically hunted, but if you win a severe encounter ambush, I don't know how as a GM I'm supposed to explain why you can't take a trophy from that. If anything, isn't this MORE impressive since you beat the dragon without any chance to prepare for the encounter?

It feels overly gamest to me and I'd just house rule it away.

[ElementalofCuteness]

Mark Quarry is just watered down Hunt Prey and I don't want to say this but Paizo should hear it. Why does Paizo always seem to make classes with similar mechanics which are never on par with each other? Slayer specialize in hunting one big monster...What's the point of the Out Wit Ranger then? Isn't this what the Ranger was suppose to do....?

Am I missing something from these classes or could they both just be Class-Archetypes of Swashbuckler & Ranger?

[YuriP]

Lamp Flower wrote:

1. You must be facing at least one enemy whose level is equal to or higher than yours.

2. You must find signs of the enemy in advance.
3. You must be in a situation where you can take 10 minutes to use Mark Quarry.

4. Doesn't have humanoid trait.

--

IMO the Mark Querry should be a 1-action and work against any creature.

This proposed Slayer so high specialty to fight only monsters that he have already got some info taking 10 minutes of preparation restrict it way too much. Even wild focused adventures, you don't got such information nor such frequency of monsters to justify to play the class. Even most boss in most adventures that I played are 90% humanoids!

Also, I don't see a very good thematic reason to restrict the Slayer to hunt only monsters.

Instead, the only thing that should be restricted are the trophies, that should be limited to get from only enemies that don't carry nor use items and have a level equal or higher (you won't need to know the level when you use Mark Querry, just when you take the trophy) and the 10 minutes activity should be only the process to take these trophies.

[Dubious Scholar]

YuriP wrote:

Lamp Flower wrote:

1. You must be facing at least one enemy whose level is equal to or higher than yours.

2. You must find signs of the enemy in advance.
3. You must be in a situation where you can take 10 minutes to use Mark Quarry.

4. Doesn't have humanoid trait.

No, that's just Monster Lore.

[YuriP]

Oh, sorry my mistake.

Anyway I still think that Mark Querry should be a 1-action anyway.

[John R.]

I think Mark Quarry should be 1 action but have a 10 minute cooldown and they can keep the flavor of "you've spent at least 10 minutes researching this creature" but in the background, just like Prescient Planner.

[Roadlocator]

Maybe they could do something with a shorter version as the base, and get bonuses if you can dedicate more time to studying the target?

[exequiel759]

The slayer gets Assurance and Automatic Knowledge at 5th level, right?. Well, what if to differentiate it from the thaumaturge, Mark Quarry allowed the slayer to ask questions about his quarry as if they made a succesful (or critically succesful) a RK check?

I feel this would be a more elegant way to get the same idea across without directly borrowing a worse version of Esoteric Lore from the thaumaturge.

[Tridus]

Roadlocator wrote:

Maybe they could do something with a shorter version as the base, and get bonuses if you can dedicate more time to studying the target?

This sounds a lot better to me. If I'm being attacked by a dragon that suddenly appeared out of nowhere, I probably want that as my quarry.

But if I have preparation time, maybe I can get some extra benefit for having a chance to plan ahead.

[OrochiFuror]

Could it also be interesting to have a monster journal, many hunter/slayer type stories also include writing down what you know about monsters. So after meeting a certain required amount of lore in your book you can one action or for free when rolling initiative mark quarry on something you know well. So you have a list of creatures that you know well enough to always be ready for them.

[Perpdepog]

Kitusser wrote:

It also just encourages DMs to throw boss encounters at players constantly, which I think is bad.

Not really. You only need a single on-level enemy, which isn't a big deal on its own.

[Teridax]

John R. wrote:

I think Mark Quarry should be 1 action but have a 10 minute cooldown and they can keep the flavor of "you've spent at least 10 minutes researching this creature" but in the background, just like Prescient Planner.

I think this is a design philosophy for actions that Paizo could stand to apply a lot more, and I think it would help Mark Quarry significantly. Not every adventure allows for preparation and, quite frankly, roleplaying overlong preparations in absence of concrete information can slow games down to a crawl really easily, so I'd rather there were more flashback mechanics where the flavor text just goes: "yeah, turns out you did prepare for this eventuality, and you're putting that in action now."

The one risk I see is that the more we make Mark Quarry easier to use, the more it just reverts back to Hunt Prey. I suppose Paizo could just bite that bullet and accept the comparisons to the Ranger, but it would make the classes even more samey.

[NoxiousMiasma]

I think this whole discussion is fascinating, because my table usually tries to gather some information before setting out into a new environment, so Slayer's Mark Quarry would just get rolled into that (especially because it happens during the Gathering Information/tracking/etc stage). Just funny how different tables play.

[Castilliano]

NoxiousMiasma wrote:

I think this whole discussion is fascinating, because my table usually tries to gather some information before setting out into a new environment, so Slayer's Mark Quarry would just get rolled into that (especially because it happens during the Gathering Information/tracking/etc stage). Just funny how different tables play.

But it's only one creature. So Quarry abilities remain off the table until the climax (at least that leg's climax). And that's if correct, if non-humanoid, etc. That's so seldom I'd likely avoid Quarry abilities other than to acquire body parts. (And I've found it's often the unexpected battle that's the hardest, not the advertised big boss an adventure often equips you for.)

[Richard Lowe]

Mark Quarry matches the fantasy of the monster hunter really well, I think we can all imagine Geralt tearing down the wanted poster for some awful bog creature, asking around the locals for info, going and getting something it's specifically weak to and then tracking and killing it, the class perfectly captures that feel!

But most Pathfinder games don't. If we just look at published APs there's really not a lot of times where that scene above happens, it's far more often investigating places full of different creatures without knowing what's in there to begin with. Let alone Society scenarios where you might only have one or two fights and if the bad guy isn't highlighted ahead of time your main ability is significantly hampered.

It feels like the ability will play really well in a game about hunting monsters, everywhere else it'll feel like you're missing out on something that feels like it should be a core ability. Hopefully they'll consider that.

[LandSwordBear]

I think someone should apologise to this Mark Quarry. Saying that they are awkward and “situational” is entirely unfair and uncalled for.

How do you feel about these accusations, Mark?

[Squiggit]

Looking at a few APs there tends to be a pattern where the game telegraphs a monster but puts them deep into a series of encounters which means you're 'missing' interim fights.. or it's an AP where you just open a door and there's a random monster inside.

If I was playing Abomination Vaults as a slayer the best way to manage the mechanic would be to invest in stealth so I can peek into rooms and then leave for ten minutes before immediately coming back which just... feels a little silly.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Roadlocator wrote:

Maybe they could do something with a shorter version as the base, and get bonuses if you can dedicate more time to studying the target?

I like this idea because it's two pronged:

1) You establish a baseline level of competency where your ability always at least functions

2) You incentive specific behavior and mechanically reward players for performing actions that make them "feel like a Slayer".

I think a lot of the best Signature Class Actions have both of these traits. You want something that always Does The Thing, but also pushes players to get into their party role.

[Dubious Scholar]

I think ideally, I'd have Mark Quarry be a bonus.

That is, the Slayer is great at fighting dangerous enemies, but they're better at it when they have time to study them and prepare. Part of this, of course, is that if you know what's coming you can tailor your trophy loadout against it. Another part is how the Blade and Mail work - you have a constant bonus from the attached trophy, but you get an additional bonus specifically against your quarry. And I think that's the ideal way for the class to work as a whole.

Taking trophies shouldn't require Quarry I think, as long as it's a significant fight. The rest of Mark Quarry is more or less fine then, because it's just making it easier to track and identify and hunt something. Maybe it should allow an immediate Recall Knowledge using Monster Lore if applicable? Give you information now you can use to prepare your kit for the fight. (Truthfully, the rules already allow this I believe, but it's worth calling out anyways)

[Castilliano]

I've also been reviewing APs & modules and have found few times when Mark Quarry would work, maybe once/level if that, essentially only for advertised bosses. The exception being Pack Slayer when you're taking on a tribe.* I encourage recon, yet seldom witness it (it can get dangerous). And I don't expect changes in APs, etc. to factor in Mark Quarry, so it kinda needs to change. Trouble is that the obvious fixes lean toward it replicating Hunter's Edge.

*And that's awkward since you could designate an army unit/thieves' guild/bandit force as a pack when it's one species, but not if it's mixed, even if barely. Heck, where do towns fit in?? Take out the few outsiders and now it's Quarry worthy?? And not that Ettin, Troll, and Two-Headed Troll offspring rampaging together. Hmm.

[Ryangwy]

It's sort of funny that they already figured out this issue when remastering Investigator and yet won't apply the same logic here (that is, let all the minions of the boss be applicable for the combat use of marking), but on the other hand they were so willing to apply the panache lesson to daredevil that risky has no risk (because it triggers hit or miss)

[Lonesomechunk]

honestly I kind of want Mark Quarry to get totally reworked or removed personally. I dont mean that in a mean way either, it just feels very much like a worse hunt prey thats harder to use and it feels like its designed the way it is to slow down the rate at which you obtain trophies. While I get wanting to pace trophy-obtaining and not making it so you can grab one off every single enemy who's your level or higher, I feel like the current iteration of Mark Quarry is both too close to Hunt Prey and also worse and I feel like making it "easier to use" would just make it.... Hunt Prey. And like, thats just not as interesting as a more bespoke and unique mechanic imo that really pushes away from what other classes can already do
Like, if paizo really wants to pace out how fast you can get slayer's trophies thats fine, but Mark Quarry is not it imo.

[YuriP]

And considering it's a worse version of Hunt Prey is a terrible feat. Because Hunt Prey is probably the most criticized mechanic of the ranger.

[Trip.H]

It is honestly bizarre and disappointing that Pazio could retool the Investigator to make Pursue a Lead much easier to do, plus adding the extra DaS feat, but still think Slayer's even more restrictive Mark Quarry is a good idea.

In all aspects, it is much more restrictive than Pursue a Lead ever was, and it's just wild that Paizo might make the same mistake as with Investigator, but even worse this time around.

It's pretty often stated that the level-based mechanics like incap are a very rough spot of pf2, and it's astounding to see Paizo so insistent on Slayer magically being unable to fight a foe at full power because of something as metagamey as creature level.

_________________________

Think about how silly this is:
Slayer took a feat tax to Mark Quarry on Reaction once per day. The roiling swarm of demonic filth claws as his Cleric, and Slayer shouts his sudden enmity and pledges to destroy the horde.

Versus: The cleric takes the hit, but this time the 'demonic filth' is not a [swarm] and is instead 5 small demons. Slayer is unable to use his Reaction ability, because the XP budget and statistics are split among the 5 small demons, instead of being consolidated into one [swarm] foe.

But even worse, because the Player:Slayer is going to attempt to do so at the table, ham it up with roleplay, only for the GM to respond with
"I'm Sorry Player, I can't let you do that. The foe level is lower than Slayer's."

[kaid]

Richard Lowe wrote:

Mark Quarry matches the fantasy of the monster hunter really well, I think we can all imagine Geralt tearing down the wanted poster for some awful bog creature, asking around the locals for info, going and getting something it's specifically weak to and then tracking and killing it, the class perfectly captures that feel!

But most Pathfinder games don't. If we just look at published APs there's really not a lot of times where that scene above happens, it's far more often investigating places full of different creatures without knowing what's in there to begin with. Let alone Society scenarios where you might only have one or two fights and if the bad guy isn't highlighted ahead of time your main ability is significantly hampered.

It feels like the ability will play really well in a game about hunting monsters, everywhere else it'll feel like you're missing out on something that feels like it should be a core ability. Hopefully they'll consider that.

True but the action is an exploration action where you are actively asking and looking around and digging into things. Should be pretty reasonable for the locals to have some idea what is lurking around enough to get you a quarry target. It doesn't need to be some named enemy just something you can identify as your quarry. Most scenarios don't bring this stuff up in advance because it isn't needed for most people. If you take the pack version of this it is even easier yet find a rumor about one group of things in the dungeon or area should be very reasonable to do.

[Kitusser]

Teridax wrote:

John R. wrote:

I think Mark Quarry should be 1 action but have a 10 minute cooldown and they can keep the flavor of "you've spent at least 10 minutes researching this creature" but in the background, just like Prescient Planner.

I think this is a design philosophy for actions that Paizo could stand to apply a lot more, and I think it would help Mark Quarry significantly. Not every adventure allows for preparation and, quite frankly, roleplaying overlong preparations in absence of concrete information can slow games down to a crawl really easily, so I'd rather there were more flashback mechanics where the flavor text just goes: "yeah, turns out you did prepare for this eventuality, and you're putting that in action now."

The one risk I see is that the more we make Mark Quarry easier to use, the more it just reverts back to Hunt Prey. I suppose Paizo could just bite that bullet and accept the comparisons to the Ranger, but it would make the classes even more samey.

And even when you get "preparation", this feature is still going to struggle. Because you likely will only get info on one or two encounters, and it's likely going to be the most difficult one. So for all those other encounters you won't get to use your feature. Even then it's possible it wont work due to the higher level than you thing.

It's the same issue prepared casters have but even worse. In theory prep makes them better but in practise it's not really that amazing.

[John R.]

Yeah, like, if you have a classic dungeon and the ONLY creature you're actually fully aware of is the boss monster at the end, so you've lost access to a major class feature and possibly various feats for the vast majority of the dungeon. Also, it makes feats like Instant Enmity and Endless Enmity mandatory when it's frankly, just not a fun feat but a hurdle you have to jump just to more easily access a base feature. Oh, and you don't even get trophies from the targets of those feats!

On the other hand, if they made Mark Quarry a single action, the class could have SO MUCH flow and dynamism between fights:
Mark Quarry > Gain Buffs Against Quarry > Focus Quarry > Kill Quarry > Claim Trophy > Reinforce Arsenal > Repeat

You have a reliable rotation that also allows change up between fights and gives you a consistent role of pack-leader/boss killer. I'm flabbergasted how this was completely missed!

[Kitusser]

John R. wrote:

Yeah, like, if you have a classic dungeon and the ONLY creature you're actually fully aware of is the boss monster at the end, so you've lost access to a major class feature and possibly various feats for the vast majority of the dungeon. Also, it makes feats like Instant Enmity and Endless Enmity mandatory when it's frankly, just not a fun feat but a hurdle you have to jump just to more easily access a base feature. Oh, and you don't even get trophies from the targets of those feats!

On the other hand, if they made Mark Quarry a single action, the class could have SO MUCH flow and dynamism between fights:
Mark Quarry > Gain Buffs Against Quarry > Focus Quarry > Kill Quarry > Claim Trophy > Reinforce Arsenal > Repeat

You have a reliable rotation that also allows change up between fights and gives you a consistent role of pack-leader/boss killer. I'm flabbergasted how this was completely missed!

This also is not the fault of a GM, just wanna say this before anyone says it. A GM shouldn't be forced into running a game in a certain style just for a class to work.

Also I'm not sure this class is encouraging good things anyway. I feel like this class pushes GMs into throwing single boss encounters at the PCs which I don't think is a good thing to encourage. These encounters are the weakest types of encounters in PF2e.

[Squiggit]

Kitusser wrote:

Also I'm not sure this class is encouraging good things anyway. I feel like this class pushes GMs into throwing single boss encounters at the PCs which I don't think is a good thing to encourage. These encounters are the weakest types of encounters in PF2e.

While I think mark quarry is in an awkward spot I think this issue is being overstated a bit. You don't need a single boss enemy, Quarry works on anything your level or higher.

On The Hunt also gives you really good tempo against mooks (at least at low levels), which makes them better in multitarget scenarios than something like a Ranger or Thaumaturge that has to keep reapplying their gimmick.

[Castilliano]

Also, if you only know about the boss monster, you don't necessarily want to Mark it until you know you're approaching it. If you Mark it early, then get the heads up on another worthwhile Quarry en route, you're stuck. If you switch, you lose the ability to Mark the boss again for 24 hours.
Yes, it's meta to not Quarry an enemy your PC's actually researching, but the alternative is fighting Quarry-less until the finale, and that's feel-bad territory. The ability's a mess.

[Trip.H]

Yup, even from the start, Investigator knew that having 2 leads instead of being stuck with only 1 makes a big difference.

I really gotta say I'm legit surprised Paizo biffed Mark Quarry so badly. Every single restriction on Mark Quarry seems intentionally designed to be anti-fun and cause table headaches.

Seriously, what designer in their right mind thinks it's a good mechanic to prevent a Slayer from swapping back to an earlier target? What possible 'abuse' or bad play does that prevent?

That 'abandon prey lockout' mechanic is too specific for me to ignore, as it's also the remaining WTF? mechanic that Investigator still has after the remaster. It's not as crippling for them, as the mystery/investigation is not a single prey creature, so it can dynamically update without abandoning the case. And having 2 slots means you can keep the big picture/boss in mind, get the bonus on all related encounters,
but also still have a slot for when you see monster poop signalling a creature is sharing the underground space with the smugglers that you came for.

_____________________

Still, just like with Slayer, some designer thought it a good idea that if you fully abandon a case as an Investigator, you cannot pursue it again until next daily prep. That is a very specific and odd limitation to set.

That leads me to conclude that one of the Investigator designers is writing the Slayer, and whoever slapped sense into them last time is/are not around to do it again this time.

What is really baffling is that the Slayer text is not just a worse regression of conceptual design compared to Investigator, but it's also more sloppy in its textual implementation.
Little details, like how Investigator's knows to make the lockout until next daily prep, while Slayer says "24 hours," is kinda eye opening.
As you get used to writing pf2 content, you are supposed to get savvy in the other direction, so I'm rather stumped as to how that happened.

mark quarry compressed:

Mark Quarry wrote:

You designate a single creature, spending 10 minutes listening to rumors about it, researching it in a library, or taking note of its tracks. After you finish gathering details, the GM tells you whether the creature’s level is equal to or higher than yours. If it is, you can mark that creature as your quarry, preparing your tools to hunt it. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Survival checks when you Track your quarry and to Monster Lore and Society checks to Recall Knowledge about your quarry.

You also gain additional benefits based on your slayer’s arsenal. You can have only one creature designated as your quarry at a time, and the designation lasts until you use Mark Quarry again or until your level exceeds your quarry’s. If you already had a creature designated as your quarry when you used Mark Quarry, the first creature can’t be your quarry again for 24 hours.

pursue a lead compressed:

Pursue a Lead wrote:

You name one detail you've identified that you think is part of a larger mystery, then spend 1 minute examining it. The detail is typically either obvious or something you've already discovered using Recall Knowledge, Sense Motive, Gather Information, or a similar action. After the minute passes, the GM either confirms there's a larger mystery or tells you there's nothing more to learn (the detail is inconsequential or you know all the information already). If there is in fact a larger mystery at play, you can't Pursue a Lead again for 10 minutes, but you can choose to open an investigation. To do so, define the question at the heart of the mystery, such as “Where has the priceless work of art that was supposed to hang here been taken?” or “Who or what killed this priest?” Work with your GM to refine the question if need be. You can also give your investigation a name to better keep track of it (such as “The Case of the Cheated Goblin” or “The Skinsaw Murders”).

Investigation Bonus Whenever you attempt a Perception check or skill check to attempt to get closer to answering the question at the heart of an active investigation, you gain a +1 circumstance bonus to the check. The exact checks this applies to depend on the actions you use to investigate and are determined by the GM, but checks to investigate are typically Perception checks or skill checks that use Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.

Active Investigations You can maintain two active investigations at a time. If you Pursue another Lead after that, the case must be different from any of your current investigations (as far as you are aware), and you give up on a current investigation of your choice. Once you've given up pursuit of an investigation, you can't Pursue a Lead into it again until after the next time you make your daily preparations. Solving an Investigation If you answer the question at the heart of your investigation, the GM tells you that you've done so. You don't lose the bonus or other benefits until you choose to close the investigation by Pursuing a Lead again or voluntarily Dismissing it. If what you discover points to an even larger mystery, you can work with the GM to adapt the question and name of the investigation to the new information.

[Castilliano]

Maybe it's so we're thankful for whatever the final iteration is? :-P

Only half-kidding since some of the playtests feel like Paizo's lowballing us. The amount of improvement has sometimes been amazing, when maybe there shouldn't have been so much room for improvement. But if that's what works for them, and gets our brains percolating out new ideas for these classes, then I'm fine with it; they've long been the RPG company most in tune with my sensibilities.

[Kitusser]

Squiggit wrote:

Kitusser wrote:

Also I'm not sure this class is encouraging good things anyway. I feel like this class pushes GMs into throwing single boss encounters at the PCs which I don't think is a good thing to encourage. These encounters are the weakest types of encounters in PF2e.

While I think mark quarry is in an awkward spot I think this issue is being overstated a bit. You don't need a single boss enemy, Quarry works on anything your level or higher.

On The Hunt also gives you really good tempo against mooks (at least at low levels), which makes them better in multitarget scenarios than something like a Ranger or Thaumaturge that has to keep reapplying their gimmick.

It's not necessary but it certainly encourages it. Generally when a big bad enemy is being built up, it's usually going to be a set piece encounter, which many GMs like to do as solo boss encounters. This ability encourages that loop of building up a big scary guy ahead of time and then throwing your players at it.

[rainzax]

At the barber, you can always cut off more hair, but you can't cut off less.

=)

[3Doubloons]

I think Mark Quarry is a mechanic in conflict with itself.

On the one hand, it gives bonuses when fighting the quarry so ideally you want it at all times.

On the other, the way you only start with a trophy for every other level when making a character seems to indicate that Mark Quarry is something that should be seldom used; that you should effectively use Mark Quarry for a trophy at most once per level.

Personally, I think the latter design is potentially more interesting and helps differentiate Slayer from Ranger (Ranger switches Prey on the fly to get bonuses on one target at a time, while Slayer draws their bonuses from their tools which they occasionally seek Quarries to empower further). That said, I don't know how you'd design Mark Quarry to enable that gameplay in a satisfying manner without people trying to always have it on.

[exequiel759]

3Doubloons wrote:

I think Mark Quarry is a mechanic in conflict with itself.

On the one hand, it gives bonuses when fighting the quarry so ideally you want it at all times.

On the other, the way you only start with a trophy for every other level when making a character seems to indicate that Mark Quarry is something that should be seldom used; that you should effectively use Mark Quarry for a trophy at most once per level.

Personally, I think the latter design is potentially more interesting and helps differentiate Slayer from Ranger (Ranger switches Prey on the fly to get bonuses on one target at a time, while Slayer draws their bonuses from their tools which they occasionally seek Quarries to empower further). That said, I don't know how you'd design Mark Quarry to enable that gameplay in a satisfying manner without people trying to always have it on.

That's the thing. You either design a feature most people are going to ignore or a feature that's supposed to be used from time to time but people are going to find a way to use it every time. There's no middle ground and I feel that in either case people are not going to be pleased with it.

[Castilliano]

It matters how much of a bother it is. Right now it is a bother, and if I were to fill my trophy case with enough breadth, I'd only Mark Quarry when convenient (i.e. broadcasted bosses) and avoid feats that relied on it (unless I often fought such bosses, like in a tournament arc).

So whether I'd ever take Relentless feats would depend on how often I fought larger groups, and that seems uncommon in modern play. So maybe one or two and I'd try to find a better use for my Reactions. There might remain enough oomph to the class to play it because it hits its numbers and has some distinct feats, plus a Combat Style or MCD Archetype can fill gaps. But yeah, I'd play the Mark Quarry/Relentless portions on auto-pilot (as written).

[Wendy_Go]

I agree that the only likely use of Mark Quarry as currently written is vs "broadcasted bosses". And not all published adventures even have those.

An example is that basic box set - the adventure is largely about discovering what the boss is! If the Slayer can't use their core class feature in the most common introductory adventure, that's gonna make for a lot of annoyed new players!

A sensible GM might find a way to allow the Slayer to use the presented clues to Mark Quarry in that adventure, but IMO the presentation of the ability shouldn't require the GM to make such a reach, and should allow more explicit player agency in selecting a quarry.

And perhaps "On the Hunt" should take a page from the remastered investigator, and apply to all combats "in pursuit of" or "against allies of" that quarry? That way the Slayer in my hypothetical box set play through would quite likely gain the use of On the Hunt for most of the adventure, not just in the final combat.