Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imban" data-source="post: 4139001" data-attributes="member: 29206">Well, once you've targeted a foe, he remains targeted forever, even if he's the furthest-away foe, so it's more that it's easiest to hit the enemy who you have hate on, even if two rogues are all up in your grill with sneak attacks right then.Furthermore, at least half of the fights I've ever been in in D&D open with the heroes (metaphorically or literally) kicking down the door and seeing the enemy formation, then fighting. With the current Ranger and Warlock, there's no "hectic and fast close-quarters fight" going on yet, but I still have to aim for the closest guy - and he remains the guy I get a ton more damage against even if he turned out to be a squishy who flees to the back of the battle on his first turn.So to me, it fails from a believability perspective pretty hard, too. But that isn't why I started the thread - I was talking about its implications on play, which I think suck.That's a pretty good idea - removing the Ranger's "mark" and just saying he gets +1d8 damage against anyone he has an uninterrupted line of fire to (something that's really darn easy to verify on MapTool, at least) might be a great solution for this.</blockquote>