Targeting "closest enemy" with curses, powers

I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere, but in putting together my first 4e Warlock I realized that the curse and a number of other powers allow a character to target only their closest enemy on any given round.
I find this a bit mystifying as I try to imagine it in play. That means my Warlock can't target, for example, the big boss standing two squares away but one square behind and to the left of his minion. Why the hell not? There's a clear line of sight, no cover and he's nice and close.
Sure, the warlock only has to shift a couple squares and the big guy's the closest. No big deal.
But a savvy DM will make sure the big guy positions himself whenever possible so that nobody can make him the closest target.
So my warlock is likely going to be denied one of the most potent tools in his arsenal just about all the time. In 1 square wide corridors, or just about anywhere tight, he will almost never be able to move into position to use the curse, since the tanks will be in there up close and personal, taking up squares that could give the warlock the proximity he needs.
I find that a massive limitation to the class. I have this great power that is central to my character's combat effectiveness, but in many situations I won't be able to use it.
This must have come up in playtesting. I certainly hope that in the errata such things will be given a short range rather than the "closest" requirement. I'll be sure the asking my group to house rule this one.

The drawbacks are obviously intended. They force the Warlock (just like the Rogue) to keep moving, and the enemy can try to use counter-tactics. All leading to a more dynamic battle field.

Why is tactical movement and positioning bad?

Do you want to stay back and nuke the boss all day? Sure, go ahead, but without your special bonus.

Do you maneuver yourself into a clever position, curse the boss and retreat? Bonus damage ahoi.

And this is also to counteract the fact that the bonus damage for rogues requires combat advantage.

It's only useless if you plan on ignoring minions and the bonuses they give when they die.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:

The drawbacks are obviously intended. They force the Warlock (just like the Rogue) to keep moving, and the enemy can try to use counter-tactics. All leading to a more dynamic battle field.

Click to expand...

Dynamic is great, but (and, admittedly, I haven't observed it in play yet) why should you need to "force" a character to keep moving? Just to promote dynamism? I don't see the point in that. Fights are or they aren't dynamic, it's the situation that should determine that, not the rules.

AGFlynn said:

I'm not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere, but in putting together my first 4e Warlock I realized that the curse and a number of other powers allow a character to target only their closest enemy on any given round.
I find this a bit mystifying as I try to imagine it in play. That means my Warlock can't target, for example, the big boss standing two squares away but one square behind and to the left of his minion. Why the hell not? There's a clear line of sight, no cover and he's nice and close.
Sure, the warlock only has to shift a couple squares and the big guy's the closest. No big deal.

Click to expand...

First point: There are no warlock powers that only target the nearest enemy except the Warlock's Curse. There are a few that compel the target of the attack to attack the creature nearest to it, but that's it.

Second of all, the reasoning behind this is to reinforce the striker's role as a skirmisher. Warlocks and rangers are supposed to skulk around the edges of the fight and look for targets of opportunity. Being required to curse the nearest enemy encourages that.

But a savvy DM will make sure the big guy positions himself whenever possible so that nobody can make him the closest target.

Click to expand...

That's not a savvy DM, that's a jerk DM. Besides, given the surprisingly decent number of mobility powers and a modicum of intelligent tactics on the warlock's part, it's actually very hard to consistently avoid being cursed. Move around, teleport if you can, ready actions--it's not very hard to curse the target you want.

So my warlock is likely going to be denied one of the most potent tools in his arsenal just about all the time. In 1 square wide corridors, or just about anywhere tight, he will almost never be able to move into position to use the curse, since the tanks will be in there up close and personal, taking up squares that could give the warlock the proximity he needs.

Click to expand...

This is a prime example of why 4E combats should not take place in one-square wide hallways.

I find that a massive limitation to the class. I have this great power that is central to my character's combat effectiveness, but in many situations I won't be able to use it.

Click to expand...

You can always use it, it might just take a round or two before you can use it on the big target you want to use it on most.

This must have come up in playtesting. I certainly hope that in the errata such things will be given a short range rather than the "closest" requirement. I'll be sure the asking my group to house rule this one.

Click to expand...

They've already errata'd it--to closest enemy you can see. The Curse and the ranger's Hunter's Quarry work exactly as they're meant to, and they do a great job of encouraging tactical gameplay.

AGFlynn said:

So my warlock is likely going to be denied one of the most potent tools in his arsenal just about all the time.

I have this great power that is central to my character's combat effectiveness, but in many situations I won't be able to use it.

Click to expand...

Holy blowing things out of proportion.

It is never useless. You will always be able to use it. Stating otherwise is just lying.

Just because it can't be used to target exactly who you want when you want doesn't deny you from using, make it useless or make your character ineffective.

TimeOut said:

Why is tactical movement and positioning bad?

Do you want to stay back and nuke the boss all day? Sure, go ahead, but without your special bonus.

Do you maneuver yourself into a clever position, curse the boss and retreat? Bonus damage ahoi.

And this is also to counteract the fact that the bonus damage for rogues requires combat advantage.

Click to expand...

Never said tactical movement and positioning was bad. But like I said, this is not just going to be a challenge in many dungeon setttings, it won't be an option.

I agree there shouldn't be a situation where the big boss can be nuked from orbit all day, I just don't see the justification for the rule other than that it works as a combat rule. Exactly what is it in game terms that prevents me from slapping a curse on the guy five feet further away?
Seems arbitrary to me, a point where the framework of the rules pokes throug hthe skin of the game.

unobserved said:

Holy blowing things out of proportion.

It is never useless. You will always be able to use it. Stating otherwise is just lying.

Just because it can't be used to target exactly who you want when you want doesn't deny you from using, make it useless or make your character ineffective.

Click to expand...

Dude, I didn't say it was useless. I implied it was nerfed.

Unless you refuse to kill anything except the solo monster, eventually his minions will be dead (probably very soon, especially if you have a wizard). That ability would be too good otherwise and it would overshadow the abilities of the rogue. Yes the abilities want you to move around, that is part of the situation that determines mobility.