View Full Version : Warlock Curse Question

12-12-2008, 03:50 PM
My DM and I had quite an argument last week regarding the Warlock Curse. In a dungeon, I was in a corner being protected by a paladin. I had cursed and attacked the enemy that was engaged with the paladin. On the enemy's move, it backed into a hallway out of my sight. My following turn I attempted to curse an enemy on the other side of the room from me. He said I could not do that. His argument was that I was closer to the enemy in the hallway and that I couldn't curse anyone else. My argument was I couldn't see him so I was going for something that I could see. He said since I was closer to the one in the hall that my curse didn't work on something farther away.

I think the book makes it really clear. A warlock can curse the closest enemy that he can see. He feels I am trying to exploit the rules in my favor. I let it fly and moved to attack the man in the hall, but then he and I had a very drawn out discussion about it afterwards and never really resolved it. Both of us annoyed by the other.

We came up with tons of situations: what about a man on ramparts that ducks behind them, a person behind a door, people with invisibility, someone that is there that I don't know about (hidden). My point was that the best is the easiest. The closest enemy that I can see when I try to curse is a legal target. He said it was situational and a blanket statement won't cover everything. I aruged then I will never know what I can and cannot do I will be at his mercy everytime I potential situation comes up.

Just wondering if anyone else has had this issue and if so have you come up with a solution?

12-12-2008, 04:26 PM
Once per turn as a minor action, you can place a Warlock's Curse on the enemy nearest to you that you can see.

(emphasis mine)

You already noted the relevant wording that defines the ability. It's Line of Sight from you to the nearest enemy that you can see (or target). RAW, you are correct in how to use a Warlock's Curse.

12-12-2008, 07:08 PM
It certainly does read in your favor, but if he's that stubborn, the opinions of some anonymous message board people probably won't do much to sway him. :(

12-12-2008, 08:29 PM
I just reread the text. What you did seems valid enough, and it clearly states LOS is major deciding factor not distance.

12-12-2008, 08:53 PM
Just out of curiosity, how would this work if there was somebody 10' behind you, and somebody else 20' in front of you?

12-12-2008, 10:37 PM
We discussed that you are considered to always see what is in your line of sight. You can't cover your eye to see what you want.

12-13-2008, 09:32 AM
Syvanis, for what it is worth, I would say that your arguement about cursing another target inside the room is right. As shown above, the ability states "that you can see". As soon as the other person left the room and is out of sight, they no longer are a target for this action. The only way it could be enforced would be if that person were seen through the doorway, but from what you wrote, that was not the case here. The only thing that I can say in your DM's favor would be that being the DM of the game does make them the final word in their game, however, maybe you could get your DM to join the site, if they are not already a member, and hopefully myself and others here would be able to persuade a change of interpretation of the action.

12-13-2008, 05:47 PM
Just out of curiosity, how would this work if there was somebody 10' behind you, and somebody else 20' in front of you?
In D&D, you are assumed to have 360 degree vision while in combat. You are actively perceiving your surroundings, threats and allies. This persists so long as you are considered in an encounter (eg. combat).

So you do not consider any facing issues, only distance. The person 10' behind you is closer to you than the person 20' in front of you. You must target the person 10' away since they represent the nearest target that you can see.

12-14-2008, 03:44 PM
Well, now that he's houseruled away the "that you can see" part, you can feel free to use your Curse as a scanner to detect hidden targets that are actually closer than targets that you can see. Try cursing what looks like the closest target. If the DM says the curse fails due to a closer, unseen target, you have your "radar contact". Be sure to emphasize that this is now a new use of the power due to his rule change, and that he's now forced to reveal hidden foes due to his new curse mechanic.

12-14-2008, 04:19 PM
I like the way you think, Valdar.

12-15-2008, 08:27 AM
Valdar is using the DM's house rule against him and it is genious. The rules are rather clear in their language. The Warlock curses what is both close to him and in his line of sight. The guy could be an inch from your warlock but if that 1 inch difference is a wall, for example, then the warlock would curse someone else. Abuse the house rule for a while and strongly suggest that the DM re-read the Warlock section of the PHB for a better understanding on the rule.

12-15-2008, 11:13 AM
After more discussion and me being adament about him ruling this wrong he has agreed to play it as everyone else seems to think this works. I think the invisible "detection" thing is what made him see my side of things (although we did discuss that last week). I feel this is the most simple anyway. Thanks for all your agreements!