"Nearest enemy"?

Makes me think of a silly item: striker blinkers.
Allows another character to designate a single target, which renders every other enemy invisible till the end of the next turn.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

'Nearest Creature' is in the index. p. 273: "When two or more squares or creatures are equally close, you can pick either one as the nearest."

If they still used the 3E rule, the Battlefield Archer's Battlefield Experience feature would really, really suck. :D
 

Okay, thanks for that ref!

This must mean that a character could use terrain (dungeon walls, trees, etc) to his advantage (in a fairly "meta" way, admittedly):

By positioning himself so he can only see a certain creature, he could quarry/curse/etc even the farthest enemy in the room, simply because that is the only one he can see from where he has positioned himself just prior? (Line-of-sight is currently blocked to all nearer foes, even though the character is perfectly aware they're there).

Theoretically, he could even carry binoculars, so that he could choose who to look at when it's time to designate a quarry or similar.... :p

Zapp
 


Binos wouldn't work.

It's "can" see, not "do" see.
That's a fine distinction. If you are using binoculars, you can't see around you, right?

Of course, doing this in combat strikes me as rather unwise. If a player were to insist upon it, I'd probably suggest he grants combat advantage and takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of his next turn - or something, since it's an obviously unwise decision.
 

No, you -can- see around you. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from using the ancient art of turning your head. Line of sight is not disrupted by equipment you hold in front of your face, when said equipment can be moved almost as easily as your head.
 

No, you -can- see around you. Absolutely nothing is stopping you from using the ancient art of turning your head. Line of sight is not disrupted by equipment you hold in front of your face, when said equipment can be moved almost as easily as your head.

Well, If I use binoculars my field of view is dramatically narrower, and while I can turn my head to see in a particular direction, the requirement to refocus and further the lack of good orientation mean that I wouldn't be visual aware of what's going on except in a close vicinity to the region I'm primarily looking at. In any case, my remark wasn't meant to be taken too seriously... I think it's a crazy idea to use binoculars in close combat.
 

Text which says that has been errata'd to say "nearest creature you can see". They might have missed a spot, but usually it's clearly the intent, so you're pretty safe in assuming that they mean nearest enemy you can see.

And thus the invention of the Warlock Blinkers, placed over the head they restrict a warlock's view to what is directly in front of him/her. Thus they can call the first enemy on any straight line from their position the nearest enemy.

(Yes we thought it was a silly idea too, but an obvious exploit)
 
Last edited:

And thus the invention of the Warlock Blinkers, placed over the head they restrict a warlock's view to what is directly in front of him/her. Thus they can call the first enemy on any straight line from their position the nearest enemy.

(Yes we thought it was a silly idea too, but an obvious exploit)

And this would work beautifully if D&D had facing...because it doesn't, and characters are assumed to be moving and looking around within their squares at all times, neither binoculars nor blinkers as described here could work.

DC
 

And this would work beautifully if D&D had facing...because it doesn't, and characters are assumed to be moving and looking around within their squares at all times, neither binoculars nor blinkers as described here could work.

DC

You change the assumption by being specific in your description of how your character acts. Characters are assumed to stand on two legs, but you can specify you character is hopping.
 

Remove ads

Top