Divine Challenge at the end of your turn

[Slaved]

Divine Challenge definitely allows for Changing Targets to keep the Challenge on against Some Creature without needing to Engage that Turn. Doing so Fulfills one of the two Conditions.

 

[Jeriatric_ceasa]

Since I have wasted way too much time reading this thread, I may as well give my interpretation.

I think it is important to note that there are 3 paragraphs describing the effect of this power and that each paragraph serves a different function.

Paragraph 1: Tells you that you mark the target and how long this mark remains.

Paragraph 2: Describes the effect of the mark.

Paragraph 3: Describes the conditions that lead to the paladin not being able to use divine challenge on his next turn.

The problem with Loki's interpretation (as I understand it) is that it attempts to use both paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 together to determine when the mark ends, when paragraph 3 is not concerned with how the mark ends. The only part of paragraph 3 that should be used in interpreting paragraph 1 is the definition of engaging the target because it is specifically referenced.

Thus, read in this way, paragraph 1 contains all of the operative language for this argument. The mark ends (along with its associated effects) when the paladin uses the power against another target or fails to engage the target (meaning to either attack the target or to end his turn adjacent to the target.)

The language quoted from paragraph 3 that "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target" has nothing to do with when the mark ends. It only concerns when the paladin should be punished by not being allowed to use his divine challenge on his next turn.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

Not at all. I would be content that you had satisfied the requirement of the first Divine Challenge on your turn. But if you've managed to somehow use a second Divine Challenge on your turn, that has its own requirement, which is separate from that of the first Divine Challenge, and you have not yet satisfied that requirement.

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.

It's not regression. Each use of the power is separate, not nested.

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.

Right. You've satisfied the condition of the ability you used last turn. Now you need to satisfy the condition of the abiilty you just used this turn.

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.

I don't leave off half the options; the text of Divine Challenge leaves off half the options. It specifically states you can only challenge once per round; how, then, can you challenge a target and also challenge a different target in one round? You can't, per the rules of the ability.

-Hyp.

 

[mlooney]

During my "new rules" announcement today, I mentioned that there was a longish discussion on EnWorld on Divine Challenge, and went over the two schools of thought. My ruling as to which school was correct was "both of them". So using it at the end of your turn to scream "Your next Dirt Bag" as a monster is fine. You better be doing something to the Dirt Bag next turn, not just dropping a Divine Challenge on some other Critter. If you use Divine Challenge in a way that is not Paladin Like, as defined by me, your God and/or Goddess will gently tap you up side the head and ask you to not do that any more. Intent matters more than exact actions.

Now I have, in my players handout a line that reads "You are Heroes. Act like it." Every one knows what I mean, so saying "Act like a Paladin" isn't a problem in my games. I don't care if the RAW allow you to do tactic X, if using tactic X is not in class or character concept, you will, repeat, will regret using it soon enough.

 

[mellack]

If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost. It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.

Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc. He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away. Now it is the gnolls turn. If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins. If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.

Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya. Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.

 

[Bagpuss]

If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost. It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.

Setting at the end of the turn isn't the problem it's setting it against a target you don't engage and then not applying the penalty for not engaging.

You can set it at the end of a turn against an opponent you engaged that turn or end adjacent to without a problem.

 

[kclark]

If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost. It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.

Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc. He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away. Now it is the gnolls turn. If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins. If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.

Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya. Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.

Yes it is a bit of a boost to the Paladin's Challenge. However it is not quite as powerful as you make it out to be. The target could choose to Shift away from the rogue and then charge the paladin or he could decide to go defensive and see if the paladin backs up his challenge.

 

[Slaved]

If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost. It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.

Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc. He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away. Now it is the gnolls turn. If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins. If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.

Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya. Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.

You do not like the Paladin being a Defender?

 

[kevinha]

True, you can only be marked by one enemy, but the challenge doesn't go away, only the Marked status was changed.

This actually helps clarify my thinking around Piercing Smite and marking. If you distinguish that a mark and a divine challenge are two different things, now attacks like Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike make much more sense, especially after throwing out a Piercing Smite in a group.

Furthermore, with this understanding, a Divine Challenge has the nice side benefit of also marking the target. Therefore, a DC'd target is not only compelled to fight you, but is marked and suffers from additional damage or debuffs.

The only question this leaves in my mind is how marking works between the likes of a fighter and a paladin. My first read through things leads me to believe that you cannot mark a target already marked - which makes things a tad difficult if the fighter and paladin in close proxmity and engaged on the same set of creatures.

The line of text in Divine Challenge that causes me grief here is "A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place." It doesn't make sense to apply this logic to Divine Challenge as "you can't place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another character's divine challenge" and a DC stays in place as long as your engaged. But by the same token, I can't fathom that a fighter marks a target, and then I mark a target, then the fighter, etc.

Thoughts?

 

[Hypersmurf]

This actually helps clarify my thinking around Piercing Smite and marking. If you distinguish that a mark and a divine challenge are two different things, now attacks like Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike make much more sense, especially after throwing out a Piercing Smite in a group.

They're two different things - the paladin can mark a creature with certain powers, or he can mark it with Divine Challenge. But Divine Challenge always incorporates a mark.

The only question this leaves in my mind is how marking works between the likes of a fighter and a paladin. My first read through things leads me to believe that you cannot mark a target already marked - which makes things a tad difficult if the fighter and paladin in close proxmity and engaged on the same set of creatures.

You can mark a target that is already marked; it removes the mark that was already present.

If the paladin uses Divine Challenge on a creature, that creature is marked. If the fighter then marks the same creature, it is no longer marked by the paladin, and it will not take the radiant damage for making an attack that does not include the paladin.

While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you as a target. Also, it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target before the start of your next turn.

The damage applies "while a target is marked", with an implicit "by you".

-Hyp.