Divine Challenge at the end of your turn

[Hypersmurf]

If the implementation of your reading requires infinite regression, perhaps there is something wrong with your reading.

How can there be infinite regression, when you're only allowed to use the power once per round?

There's no regression at all. You use the power on a target, the power tells you what you must do: on your turn, engage the target, or challenge a different target.

You're the one claiming that "challenge a different target" can be satisfied by challenging a target different to that of a prior use of the power. That's the only regression occurring in this conversation!

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It does if you want to invoke the "or change targets" clause on the same turn you challenge a target.

You can't change targets on the same turn you challenge a target - changing targets requires challenging someone else, and you can only challenge once per round. You can only change targets next round.

Which is my whole point. On the turn you challenge a target, you must either engage the target or change targets, and you can't change targets. Therefore on the turn you challenge a target, you must engage him.

Any turn after that, both options are available.

-Hyp.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

So what's the point of a pally's mark being ranged if the marking itself doesn't count as a challenge?

It lets you use marking with ranged attacks, reach attacks, and charges.

 

[LokiDR]

How can there be infinite regression, when you're only allowed to use the power once per round?

Hmm....

Not at all. If, instead of engaging the enemy on your turn, you come up with a way to challenge a different target even though you've already used Divine Challenge once this turn, I'll be content that you've satisfied the clause despite not engaging.

(Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use, or challenge yet another different target, on your turn in order to satisfy the clause in this use of Divine Challenge...)

You claim you would be content and then go on to show you would not be content.

There's no regression at all. You use the power on a target, the power tells you what you must do: on your turn, engage the target, or challenge a different target.

You're the one claiming that "challenge a different target" can be satisfied by challenging a target different to that of a prior use of the power. That's the only regression occurring in this conversation!

-Hyp.

The regression is clear in your previous statement: "Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use...". You regress to the beginning of the power in order to rectify the option of "choose a different target". This becomes an infinite regression until the paladin choose the only REAL option in your opinion, engage.

In my method, there is NO regression. Targeting is changing your target. Changing your target is one of the two things you must do on your turn to ensure the challenge continues. Simple.

Can you make any argument beyond the only one you have repeated several times?

You can't change targets on the same turn you challenge a target - changing targets requires challenging someone else, and you can only challenge once per round. You can only change targets next round.

Now you are repeating yourself in back to back posts. This really isn't getting us anywhere.

Which is my whole point. On the turn you challenge a target, you must either engage the target or change targets, and you can't change targets. Therefore on the turn you challenge a target, you must engage him.

Of course you can, you can change targets once per round. You have satisfied one of the two options: changing targets. In essence, challenging a new target always satisfies one condition of the ability for the turn it is used.

Any turn after that, both options are available.

And that would be the clearest indication of your interpretation's problem. You leave off half the options in the first turn the ability is used.

Have we beat this point to death yet? Let me ask you a meta-question: is a lawyeristic, semantics focused method of rules interpretation the only way the rules should be interpreted? You've decided what you think the text says, I decided my interpretation. Should all such disagreements be settled by literature professors and lawyers or is this an RPG to play and have fun?

 

[mlund]

From my own take on things, I see each use of a Power as independent of any other use of the Power except where explicitly specified.

In the case of Divine Challenge, the only place where there is any interconnection between the effects and criteria of Divine Challenge #1 (DC1) and Divine Challenge #2 (DC2) is here: "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

You must either engage the target of DC1 or use DC2. If you do neither of these, DC1 imposes the following consequence on you: "the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.".

Meanwhile, DC2 has its own requirement of "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." that just popped into being when you made the challenge. It's reference to "the target you challenged" is unique to DC2 and thus engaging the other target (of DC1) during your turn won't satisfy this requirement at all.

The issue as to whether removing the Divine Challenge's Marked status removes the looming Radiant Damage consequence is more debatable. The argument can be made that it falls under the "while the target is marked," that starts the paragraph. The argument can also be made that the effects are independent.

Regardless of that, the looming Radiant Damage only lasts until the start of your next turn and you can only use Divine Challenge once per turn, so there is never more than 1 target with the Radiant Damage hovering over him at any given time.

Personally, I find the idea that the Damage remains even while the target is under another ally's mark to be distasteful and I have a "as goes the mark, so goes the radiant damage," ruling in effect for my games.

- Marty Lund

 

[LokiDR]

The issue as to whether removing the Divine Challenge's Marked status removes the looming Radiant Damage consequence is more debatable. The argument can be made that it falls under the "while the target is marked," that starts the paragraph. The argument can also be made that the effects are independent.
....
Personally, I find the idea that the Damage remains even while the target is under another ally's mark to be distasteful and I have a "as goes the mark, so goes the radiant damage," ruling in effect for my games.

I agree the proper method on this point is "while the target is marked...". It's simpler, clearer to the rules, matches the fighter implementation and is the general consensus of posters here. The argument for splitting into separate effects doesn't help and may overpower the ability.

Regardless of that, the looming Radiant Damage only lasts until the start of your next turn and you can only use Divine Challenge once per turn, so there is never more than 1 target with the Radiant Damage hovering over him at any given time.

So, you follow the trailing challenge implementation I favor? It's a minor point, as I don't think it can come up, but I apply the challenge through the paladin's following turn or until there is another target. I think this is minor because the challenge can only rarely attack someone other than the paladin on the paladin's turn. The only exception is an immediate attack gained when some creatures are dropped to blooded/0 hp.

 

[jedrious]

If you guys are argueing this much about it I am glad you aren't in my games because I don't like my sessions slowing to a crawl

 

[MeMeMeMe]

If you guys are argueing this much about it I am glad you aren't in my games because I don't like my sessions slowing to a crawl

I believe that's called threadcrapping, and is frowned on around here. Anyway, don't assume that because people are discussing this at length here, that means that they also argue it at length during a roleplaying session. That doesn't follow.

 

[mlooney]

Anyway, don't assume that because people are discussing this at length here, that means that they also argue it at length during a roleplaying session. That doesn't follow.

Does with some ex members of my gaming group.

 

[Bagpuss]

Emphasis mine. This is a clause of engage which you improperly apply to the entire ability. Note, divine challenge does not read "If at any point you do not engage the enemy, the mark ends." It says "remains marked until you use the power against another target or you fail to engage (see below) the target". Now, if the ability can only be used once a round, why does "until you use the power against another target" appear at all, let alone first?

Because Divine Challenge and the mark don't disappear if you successfully engage the target. So round one engage one target (and engage) round two challenge his adjacent ally and you now have two Challenges at once. That extra bit is just to make it clear you can only have one challenge going at a time.

Each turn, challenge a different target or engage. There is no requirement to engage every challenged creature every round.

Yes there is. Otherwise why have all the hassle of the engagement text if you never need to engage the target?

Lets take another situation to show why your view of timing doesn't work. Again, paladin Bob has a range weapon. In the first round of combat, Bob moves and then uses his ranged attack against monster Tim. Then Bob's player recalls his divine challenge and uses it against Tim. At this point, Bob does not have another attack or movement to use to engage Tim. By your reading, Bob is buggered. A lapse of memory should not deny Bob his ability.

But he just did at the start of his turn. You can challenge after you attack a target on a target. So long as the target you challenge is the one you attacked (and therefore enganged) earlier "On your turn".

This tactic allows a player to be unconventional in their paladin and doesn't contradict any obvious rule.

Other than the obvious one about having to engage your target on your turn.

It is not game breaking,

And yet the whole engaging stuff was introduced after the D&D Experience, because of the same sort of situation. Where a paladin never was at risk or even threatening a target it engaged.