"Nearest enemy"?

[DracoSuave]

So we need to add a neck brace?

I don't really think that nit-picking over the meaning of 'can' is the way to go about this. Just tell the prospective blinker wearer to get lost, it's silly.

That was the point. Recockulous exploits require recockulous debunking.

Mind you, that sillyness is being provoked by the profoundly silly "nearest target that you can see" rule, whos purpose is purely to give the warlock and ranger some reason to move.

Personally I'd rather that prime shot was more powerful rather than such bizarreness. If prime shot and curse/quarry were linked, for instance, you'd see the same level of focus on movement without any of this blinker nonsense.

The idea behind Prime Shot is to add a tension between the safe shot and the good shot, so that you can either hit well, or hit from the safety of your cohorts. Curse/Quarry on the other hand is designed to force you to focus on a target (the striker role job), and as well, to make it hard for a warlock to curse everything without some form of tactical thinking involved.

As well, it keeps the threat value of artillery and controller monsters at a decent and fair level when the striker can't simply go 'I ignore all the terrain and monsters and just murder the hell out of -that guy.-' without putting his arse on the line. (read: Exciting challenge)

 

[Istar]

(Please redirect me if this has been asked before)

Several powers use the language "on the enemy nearest to you". I find this language unclear.

If a Warlock (say) stands in front of three Orcs, the rule for diagonal movement tells me they are all equally near. And a ranger in the middle between two Kobolds is also equally near both.

Now, can the Warlock or Ranger choose which enemy to place his Curse/Quarry when there are more than one that is "nearest"?

Or is there another rule governing these cases? (Perhaps even that he can't choose any of them as there isn't a single target that is clearly nearest??)

Best, Z

Yes you are right, I find this very hard to interpret as well, taking into account some of the actions of our party members.

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes you are right, I find this very hard to interpret as well, taking into account some of the actions of our party members.

This one's easy. If there's multiple who qualify as closest you choose the one you wish to quarry/curse. It's in the errata.

 

[Festivus]

This thread has made me dream up a creature that projects an image of itself two squares away. A not real target that distracts rangers and warlocks.

 

[Eldorian]

True. But a 4E Ranger is encouraged to move in ways completely contradictory to common sense, having some bizarre supernatural ability to hurt some people but only if he can't see other, closer, people; even if he knows they're there!

It's completely jarring. And from how you phrase yourself, it seems you agree.

The 4e ranger has a martial ability to pick a target nearest to him to focus more of his effort in doing damage to.

Think of it this way: A ranger wants to shoot a controller, but a soldier is closer, so the ranger is having psychological problems focusing on the further opponent because there is a nearer one. So the ranger blocks the nearer opponent's line of sight to himself so he can focus on the far opponent. Hunter's quarry is a purely psychological thing, it's a ranger saying to himself, OK I'm gonna feather me yon THAT oaf until he's d e d. I bet in real combat soldiers have a much easier time shooting far targets when nearer targets can't see them.

Prime shot also follows this idea. The ranger is at his best when he's facing an opponent seemingly without aid from his allies, so he likes to be the closest to that enemy, and that enemy to be the closest to him. It's a mental thing. A rogue likes it when his opponent is unaware of him, and a fighter likes it when his tries to avoid him.

 

[smitty22]

...

The 4e ranger has a martial ability to pick a target nearest to him to focus more of his effort in doing damage to.

Think of it this way: A ranger wants to shoot a controller, but a soldier is closer, so the ranger is having psychological problems focusing on the further opponent because there is a nearer one. So the ranger blocks the nearer opponent's line of sight to himself so he can focus on the far opponent. Hunter's quarry is a purely psychological thing, it's a ranger saying to himself, OK I'm gonna feather me yon THAT oaf until he's d e d. I bet in real combat soldiers have a much easier time shooting far targets when nearer targets can't see them.

Prime shot also follows this idea. The ranger is at his best when he's facing an opponent seemingly without aid from his allies, so he likes to be the closest to that enemy, and that enemy to be the closest to him. It's a mental thing. A rogue likes it when his opponent is unaware of him, and a fighter likes it when his tries to avoid him.

It reminds me of the D&D mini's game rule that ranged attacks must target the nearest enemy because a rank&file solider deals with threats in order of proximity unless a commander tells them otherwise.

I think that shackleing PC's with this irritation was a bit irritating, but it does keep strikers moving.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks Eldorian for trying, but I'm not really asking for made-up pseudo-credible explanations here... ;-)

I'm fairly confident of of my opinion, which is that any such artifical-feeling mechanisms sucks big time, and that I won't have anything to do with them.

Thus I've changed the (errataed) PHB language from

Once per turn as a minor action, you can designate the enemy nearest to you that you can see as your quarry

to

Once per turn as a minor action, you can designate the enemy nearest to you that you're aware of as your quarry if you have line of sight

The same goes for other classes with similar class features, of course (i.e. Warlock's Curse).

That final part is for a very straight-forward reason: if you can't shoot it, you shouldn't be able to quarry it. And if you can shoot it (which you can even if it's invisible), you should be able to quarry it.

Put simply, don't try to place your Quarry if you know there's an enemy hidden behind a boulder nearby (assuming he's closer than any visible foes). However, in this case I will tell you "you can't do that" when you attempt to take your minor action. (This leaves you with your minor action intact - you don't lose the designate action when it would "fail" because of this rule.)

 

[Istar]

This one's easy. If there's multiple who qualify as closest you choose the one you wish to quarry/curse. It's in the errata.

Ah yes, sometimes there are 2 PC's that I could classify as the enemy, but usually its just the one person.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm fairly confident of of my opinion

I noticed.

Thus I've changed the (errataed) PHB language

I'd recommend trying a different game. It's less work than writing your own.

 

[CapnZapp]

I noticed.
I'd recommend trying a different game. It's less work than writing your own.

Congrats on the snark, but no thanks.

Writing my own game would require a considerably larger amount of work than simply changing the very few things I don't like about the present game we're discussing.

If you meant this belongs in the house rule forum, however, you're absolutely right.