paladin divine challenge at the end of a turn?

[mattdm]

So, we had a little uncertainty about this rule in our game group last night. Divine Challenge says:

On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.​

The question is: does this mean you must engage the enemy this turn, or can it mean "your next available turn"?

The strict reading seems to me to imply that if you use the challenge as a minor action at the end of your turn from across the battlefield, it's wasted. (Particularly important since it was a multiclassed character doing the challenge, so it's once/encounter.)

However, the players argued that it makes sense for a paladin to make the challenge as they come charging across the battlefield towards the intended foe. "By the wrath of Kord, I come for you...."

Your thoughts? Thanks.

 

[Mengu]

The rule is pretty clear. If you have done the challenge, and have not engaged the enemy by the end of your turn, you wasted the challenge.

This rule was set in place to discourage the paladin from marking an enemy, and then running away. If you do not feel this will be an issue in your game, you can scrap the whole thing out, but I'd be careful, since the temptation to mark, and then avoid the enemy will always be there.

 

[Kordeth]

Personally, I'm allowing "move toward the target" to count as engaging, but that's a house rule. By the RAW, you need to end the turn on which you used Divine Challenge a) adjacent to the marked target or b) having attacked the target. In other words, don't use Divine Challenge as the final action of your turn unless you're already adjacent or have attacked the target.

 

[mattdm]

Personally, I'm allowing "move toward the target" to count as engaging, but that's a house rule.

Yeah, that's really what the players' argument comes down to.

One way to make the "don't cheat" a little more harsh but still allow some flexibility would be to say that if you choose to engage by moving towards rather than attacking, you must attack your next turn or suffer the divine challenge damage yourself.

 

[DracoSuave]

So far, we've got three primary marking abilities in the game.

One is the fighter's. You attack someone, they are marked. Range doesn't really play into the marking aspect, but you have to be close enough to hit them to actually deal the consequence component. In return, however, you have this consequence on all the enemies you've marked.

Advantage: Can sticky down as many enemies as you can attack.
Disadvantage: You have to position yourself where -they- are. This is not always a good thing.

Then we look at the swordmage. You attack someone, they are marked. However, if they -hit- someone else, they'll either have the attack's damage severely mitigated, you teleported in the worst position for them, or worse... they might find themselves suddenly teleported in the middle of your ranks surrounded by your buddies.

Advantage: Works against distant enemies without attacking them, very useful for breaking up artillery ranks.
Disadvantage: No 'sticky' power, enemies will still go where they like.

The paladin's is in between. You choose someone, and they are marked so long as you're adjacent or you attacked them. Now let's look at that... the adjacent part is the same as the fighter's, but the second part 'You attacked them' is different. This is -by design.-

What a lot of the arguments about engaging and 'paladin's honour' and such imply is that the paladin, sword in hand, is constantly charging at monsters and will fight the monsters where the monsters are. Why? This completely is opposed to the proliferation of Ranged powers on the paladin's list. The Paladin is as likely to say 'You. Unclean one. Get ovah heah and face my wrath!' and blast the monster harassing the striker followed by a Divine Challenge to peel them off.

That's the thing, the Paladin is more geared towards peeling enemies -off- the party, while the Fighter is more geared towards keeping enemies off. Yet the ideas presented here seem to suggest the Paladin is like the Fighter in terms of how it should work. That's simply not the case.

 

[Anthony Jackson]

If you use divine challenge at the end of your turn, the mark will fail (due to not engaging) unless you are already adjacent to the target you marked. This is true even if you attacked that target previously during the same turn.

 

[mattdm]

If you use divine challenge at the end of your turn, the mark will fail (due to not engaging) unless you are already adjacent to the target you marked. This is true even if you attacked that target previously during the same turn.

That strikes me a quite strict reading.

 

[Maxim Machinery]

If you use divine challenge at the end of your turn, the mark will fail (due to not engaging) unless you are already adjacent to the target you marked. This is true even if you attacked that target previously during the same turn.

Not true. 'On your turn' you must 'engage' the target - not 'on your turn, after you've marked them.' You may qualify 'enagage' (attack them), then mark, and the Challenge persists, because you satisfied 'engage' on your turn.

Your options are:

1) Attack the target, then Challenge it.
2) Challenge the target, then attack it.
3) Challenge the target, then end your turn adjacent to it.
4) Some combination of the above (attack, challenge, end adjacent, etc).

Anything else and the mark fades and you lose Challenge next turn.

RE balance: the Fighter's mark is, strictly speaking, better, but the Fighter lacks the number of abilities the Paladin has to force non-marked targets to attack them instead. A Fighter's main tanking ability is his Challenge, wheras for the Paladin the Challenge is merely one move in his tanking arsenal.

 

[icarusfallz]

see this thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234690

 

[DracoSuave]

Not true. 'On your turn' you must 'engage' the target - not 'on your turn, after you've marked them.' You may qualify 'enagage' (attack them), then mark, and the Challenge persists, because you satisfied 'engage' on your turn.

Your options are:

1) Attack the target, then Challenge it.
2) Challenge the target, then attack it.
3) Challenge the target, then end your turn adjacent to it.
4) Some combination of the above (attack, challenge, end adjacent, etc).

Anything else and the mark fades and you lose Challenge next turn.

Correct.

RE balance: the Fighter's mark is, strictly speaking, better, but the Fighter lacks the number of abilities the Paladin has to force non-marked targets to attack them instead. A Fighter's main tanking ability is his Challenge, wheras for the Paladin the Challenge is merely one move in his tanking arsenal.

Exactly. Even Lay on Hands changes how a Paladin tanks. If hits get past him, he heals. What the Paladin lacks in 'stickiness' he makes up for with his prayers.