Ranger vs Paladin

[DLichen]

Would you rule that a secondary attack triggers the Paladin's ability?

It is afterall, an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target, but definitely part of the same attack power.

If a wizard hits the Paladin with acid arrow and the splash hits an adjacent warlock, would the wizard in question get hit for hurting the ally?

I think the ambiguity here is over the use of attack roll vs attack power and I could see it going either way thematically.

 

[Reln]

I think we need to look at the flavor a little hear. The DC ability is to punish someone who chooses not to attack the Paladin. When you use Twin strike you can chose to attack two people or you can chose to attack one person twice.

Based on intent of the DC power I feel the ranger should take the penalty and damage for the attack on the Warlock.

 

[Tonester]

I totally agree ^. The entire mechanic of "mark" is the same that "taunt" serves in popular CRPGs. The idea is to punish enemies who don't focus their attention on the defender (Paladin). And to be quite honest, I probably WOULD force a Wizard to incur such a penalty if they made an attack that was not at the Paladin. Why? For a couple of reasons:

1) A paladin has to get pretty close to DC someone.
2) If the paladin is caught in the burst/area, then there would be no -2 penalty to the roll against the paladin but there would be a -2 to every other target the wizard had to roll for.
3) The wizard only takes damage on the FIRST attack... not each one.
4) The DC ends if the paladin doesn't attack or end their turn next to the Wizard - something that should rarely happen if a Wizard is playing correctly (unless there is a warlord and terrain involved)

I agree that the wording is a bit ambiguous, and like I said originally... its a pretty close call. However, looking at the spirit and the intent of what DC and Mark are supposed to do - it just seems inappropriate to me that there are attacks that can circumvent this mechanic. I would rule in favor of DC on this one until WoTC clarifies.

 

[eamon]

2) If the paladin is caught in the burst/area, then there would be no -2 penalty to the roll against the paladin but there would be a -2 to every other target the wizard had to roll for.

That makes sense neither from a literal point of view nor from a flavor point of view: clearly a fireball thrown at the paladin is an attack including the paladin and thus DC's penalties do not kick in, and flavorwise, a challenge is met when you attack the challenger - which that fireball is doing. Flavorwise, that challenge is about forcing you to engage the paladin, not about avoiding collateral damage.

With twin strike, the issue is less clear. Would DC trigger if you performed a two-wolf pounce, hitting the paladin as a primary target, and performing a secondary attack against a different attack (you can't target the secondary on the same creature)?

 

[ST]

Ignoring the discussion about "what is an attack" (I think the multiple Wizards CServ responses make it clear that they haven't really thought about the implications this has at all), I'd say he doesn't take the damage from Divine Challenge, since he used an ability that targeted the paladin (as well as someone else).

I think that the assumption for a number of abilities was that an attack includes all the attack rolls it gives. That just seems obvious to me that it was what they meant, although that's only my opinion (I don't have any rules quotes to back it up).

 

[Hypersmurf]

The thing that stands out to me is it says "that doesn't include you as a target". The paladin is a target, even though he is not the only target.

The paladin is a target of Twin Strike, certainly. But Twin Strike includes two attacks, one attack which includes the paladin as a target and one attack which does not include the paladin as a target.

-Hyp.

 

[Reln]

The key here to me is that twin strike (I'm not sure if there are others) allows you chose whether or not you want to attack multiple targets. Most other powers are Area of effect or primary/secondary where you can not concentrate the attack on one target.

If you make an attack and can chose wither or not it all hits the paladin, if you chose not you take the penalty/damage. That is how I will rule.

 

[Tonester]

That makes sense neither from a literal point of view nor from a flavor point of view: clearly a fireball thrown at the paladin is an attack including the paladin and thus DC's penalties do not kick in, and flavorwise, a challenge is met when you attack the challenger - which that fireball is doing. Flavorwise, that challenge is about forcing you to engage the paladin, not about avoiding collateral damage.

With twin strike, the issue is less clear. Would DC trigger if you performed a two-wolf pounce, hitting the paladin as a primary target, and performing a secondary attack against a different attack (you can't target the secondary on the same creature)?

At first, I was going to completely disagree because Divine Challenge in the PHB under Special states:

"Even though this ability is called a challenge, it doesn't rely on the intelligence or language ability of the target. It's a magical compulsion that affects the creature's behavior, regardless of the creature's nature." (emphasis mine)

However, after reading the fluff, trying to comprehend its purpose, etc... it seems pretty clear now. RAW: This would not apply to AE attacks as long as the Paladin was included in the AE. RAW: It doesn't deal with the case of Twin Strikes at all. RAI: I don't think it is supposed to interfere with secondary or tiertiary attacks at all (like Twin Strikes) as long as the paladin is one of the targets.

Divine Challenge seems more like a , "Heed my challenge or suffer the consequences" as opposed to a, "Only interact with me or suffer the consequences" type of thing.

That being said... I'm reversing my decision. I do reserve the right to point out that I clearly said it was a tough one in the beginning.