Divine Challenge at the end of your turn

[Stormtalon]

Hmm, I'll have to look at it more closely, but the way I've read it is that the Challenge is a specific subset of Marking and subject to all mark rules. I also recall when the first info was coming out, there was a developer comment that the rule was changed for marks to not stack specifically due to too strong of a synergy between fighter mark & paladin challenge.

Remember, there's two sub-tactics that fighters choose from at character creation; one gives a cheapshot from the fighter if the marked target moves away. The other gives the fighter a cheapshot if the marked target attacks someone else. Suddenly the monster is in an even deeper catch-22; attack the paladin and get whacked in the head by the fighter, or attack fighter and get burned by the paladin.


Based on the fact that those two abilities are tied to the marked condition and the fact that the paladin challenge also applies the standard -2 mark penalty, it only makes sense that the challenge stays on only as long as no other defender marks the target.

 

[AverageTable]

I can understand your confusion, Loki. The description of the power is, indeed, worded in an complex way. But you are, nonetheless, mistaken in your interpretation. Bagpuss and Hypersmurf have both spelled out very clearly why you're mistaken.

I do, however, think I know what the source of your confusion is, so I'll take one more stab at it:

The key concept, which I believe you're missing, is that the first line of the power description immediately comes into play EVERY time the Divine Challenge ability is used, even when the only reason you're using it is to fulfil the "or challenge a different target" option.. Here are the consequences of this:

(A) As per the beginning of the power description, if you use the Divine Challenge power then "you mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target (see below)."

This means that the Divine Challenge ability persists until either (1) it is used against a different target or (2) you fail to engage the challenged target.

(B) Paragraph 3 discusses the restrictions placed on the paladin when he uses this power. It states that as a result of using Divine Challenge, "on your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

So, the paladin must, on his turn, either (1) engage his target or (2) challenge a different target. This restriction applies EVERY time he uses Divine Challenge.

(C) The second sentence of paragraph 3 defines what the paladin must do to fulfil the "engage the target you challenged" option. It states, "To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it."

So, if he goes with the "engage the target you challenged" option, the paladin must either (1) attack the challenged target this turn or (2) at least finish this turn standing next to the challenged target.

(D) The third sentence of paragraph 3 defines the consequences for failing to fulfil either of the options from (B). It states, "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."

So, if the paladin reaches the end of "his turn" (that is, if ANY turn of his, including the current one, comes to an end) without fulfiling either option from (B), then the power is negated and is rendered unusable for one turn.

STEP-BY-STEP BREAKDOWN:

#1. Turn 1: The paladin uses the Divine Challenge power on a enemy. This brings him to situation (A) and imposes the restrictions of (B).

#2. He cannot fulfil (B) by challenging a different target, since he can only use Divine Challenge once per turn. He must, therefore, fulfil the other option - engage the target.

This takes him to (C). He can either attack it before his turn ends or finish his turn standing next to it. If he does neither, he suffers the consequences from (D).

#3. Suppose he does engage it successfully. This means that the target, as per (A), is still challenged at the start of Turn 2.

As per (B), this means that the paladin must again fulfil one of the two options of (B) to avoid negative consequences.

#4. Suppose he chose to again use the first option - engage the target. This will play out like step #2 above. If he engages successfully, this takes us back to step #3 above. As per (A), the target will still be challenged at the start of Turn 3 and the paladin must again choose how to meet the restrictions of (B).

#5. Suppose instead of engaging the target at step #3, the paladin chooses to fulfil the second option of (B) - challenge a new target. He has now activated the Divine Challenge power anew. This takes us back to step #1 and brings about the situation of (A):

The Divine Challenge ability persists until either (1) it is used against a different target or (2) you fail to engage the challenged target.

and the behavioural restrictions of (B).

Like at step #2 above, he cannot meet the restrictions of (B) by challenging a new target since he has already used Divine Challenge this turn. He must, therefore, engage the target before the end of his turn in order to satisfy (B). If he does not, then he suffers the consequences of (D).

---------------------------------------------------------------

And that's it. If he challenges a new target on his turn; but doesn't engage it on that same turn, then he suffers the consequnces. This is because challeging the new target is itself a use of the Divine Challenge power, bringing him back to step #1 in the cycle and imposing the same restrictions as if he had used the power for the very first time. And, since he has already just used the power once this turn and cannot do so again, the only way to meet those restrictions is to engage before his turn ends.

There's no room for debate here, the rules are very clear once you spell them out. They've now been spelled out for you three different ways by three different people, so hopefully you can see what we're getting at. If you still don't, however, then I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[LokiDR]

Hmm, I'll have to look at it more closely, but the way I've read it is that the Challenge is a specific subset of Marking and subject to all mark rules.

Divine Challenge applies multiple conditions to the target. If a person resists the damage from the challenge, are they also not marked? Taken another way, assume some power's effect is to mark a target until the end of your next round and give them ongoing fire damage 5 (save ends). Does the loss of the mark negate the ongoing fire damage?

I also recall when the first info was coming out, there was a developer comment that the rule was changed for marks to not stack specifically due to too strong of a synergy between fighter mark & paladin challenge.

I'd like to read that, if you have a link. But most of all, I'm interested in the rules as written. If it's too good, feel free to change it for D&D 4.5.

Remember, there's two sub-tactics that fighters choose from at character creation; one gives a cheapshot from the fighter if the marked target moves away. The other gives the fighter a cheapshot if the marked target attacks someone else. Suddenly the monster is in an even deeper catch-22; attack the paladin and get whacked in the head by the fighter, or attack fighter and get burned by the paladin.

Yep. The best choice for the monster is tactical withdraw to a position they aren't totally boned. This encourages movement and according to Mike Mearls, that is a focus of the game.

Based on the fact that those two abilities are tied to the marked condition and the fact that the paladin challenge also applies the standard -2 mark penalty, it only makes sense that the challenge stays on only as long as no other defender marks the target.

Paladin's Challenge applies multiple conditions on an enemy and gives them the same duration. Negating one does not negate another.

If your argument is "it's too good" we can discuss reasonable house rules. But what do the rules say in the first place?

 

[kclark]

(B) Paragraph 3 discusses the restrictions placed on the paladin when he uses this power. It states that as a result of using Divine Challenge, "on your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

So, the paladin must, on his turn, either (1) engage his target or (2) challenge a different target. This restriction applies EVERY time he uses Divine Challenge.

I understand the logic of your assessment and agree with it, except for one part.

Under your ruling you cannot ever have B2 occur successfully. If it is impossible to fulfill the condition B2 why is the option written out? Thus I must read the power with the assumption that it is possible to fulfill condition B2.

There are two ways of fulfilling the condition B2.
1) You have no one marked. You use DC to mark an opponent. You have now fulfilled B2's requirement to challenge a different target. Surely Creature A is a different target than nothing. The target remains marked for the round without needing to engage. See #2 for what happens next round.
2) You start a turn with Creature A marked. You can fulfill B2 by using DC on Creature B. You have now fulfilled the requirement to challenge a different target as Creature B is a different target than Creature A. The DC is sustained for the round without needing to engage.

This interpretation still nullifies the Coward Paladin tactic of mark and run.

The difference between the two interpretations is it does add the ability to do a round of distance tanking. You can even switch around your tanking target while focusing on others.
This makes a paladin pretty distinct from the fighter tanking. The fighter is sticky he wants things right next to him all the time, the paladin flows around fighting where help is needed. He is a much more mobile defender.
I think this adds a needed boost to the paladin's marking ability.

 

[LokiDR]

I can understand your confusion, Loki. The description of the power is, indeed, worded in an complex way. But you are, nonetheless, mistaken in your interpretation. Bagpuss and Hypersmurf have both spelled out very clearly why you're mistaken.

Average, I can understand your confusion. The power has a history of abuse and you are concerned with power gaming. But you are, none the less, mistaken. As I have pointed out to Bagpuss and Hypersmurf clearly with several points unanswered, the ability should be a simple on your turn, engage or challenge.

I do, however, think I know what the source of your confusion is, so I'll take one more stab at it:

The key concept, which I believe you're missing, is that the first line of the power description immediately comes into play EVERY time the Divine Challenge ability is used, even when the only reason you're using it is to fulfil the "or challenge a different target" option..

That is the point of contention, you are correct. I read the ability once through, you repeat over and over. I can understand this, but I still think it is wrong. Most simply, your method of starting from the beginning every time you apply any part of the power makes the choice redundant.

I am clear on your interpretation: engage by the end of the turn or lose the challenge. No long details are required. If you would be so kind, please address the points I raised:
1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement
2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role
3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics
4. The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice. Your interpretation negates this choice
5. DMG "say yes" advice
6. Simplicity. The fact your interpretation involves so many steps should show you which is simpler.
7. Game focus on movement

And that's it. If he challenges a new target on his turn; but doesn't engage it on that same turn, then he suffers the consequnces. This is because challeging the new target is itself a use of the Divine Challenge power, bringing him back to step #1 in the cycle and imposing the same restrictions as if he had used the power for the very first time. And, since he has already just used the power once this turn and cannot do so again, the only way to meet those restrictions is to engage before his turn ends.

This is clear point I can't understand you missing. If the power can only be used once a turn, why mention choosing a new target? Your interpretation would be very easy to write: "You must engage the target (see below) after you mark him on the same turn." That isn't what the ability says. Your own extended discussion of the ability generates the confusion where mine is simple and matches the text: each round challenge another or engage.

There's no room for debate here, the rules are very clear once you spell them out. They've now been spelled out for you three different ways by three different people, so hopefully you can see what we're getting at. If you still don't, however, then I don't know what else to tell you.

If that is your opinion, there's no need to respond my posts. Repeating your interpretation does not convince me and it's a waste of both of our time to just repeat ourselves. If you aren't open, this discussion is not for your benefit. Don't worry, I won't come to your games and force you to use my interpretation if you promise the same to me.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the power can only be used once a turn, why mention choosing a new target? Your interpretation would be very easy to write: "You must engage the target (see below) after you mark him on the same turn." That isn't what the ability says. Your own extended discussion of the ability generates the confusion where mine is simple and matches the text: each round challenge another or engage.

No, because there's is a consequence for failure to [engage the target or mark a new target]: you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.

Let's say I have two opponents, one of whom I Divine Challenged last round and engaged. This turn, he has moved somewhere where I can neither attack him, nor end my turn adjacent to him. So I use Divine Challenge on the other opponent, and engage him instead (either by attacking, or ending adjacent).

If Divine Challenge said "You must engage the target, or you can't use Divine Challenge next turn", then even though I successfully DCed the second opponent this round, I wouldn't be able to use the ability next round, because I failed to engage the target of my original DC this round. Because DC says "You must engage the target or challenge a new target", I've fulfilled the condition to prevent losing my use of Divine Challenge next round.

What that condition doesn't alter is the description of the duration of the mark - it expires if I use the power against a new target, and it expires if I fail to engage my target.

When I use Divine Challenge on the second opponent, I know that a/ the mark on the second opponent will expire if I use the power against a new target, and it will expire if I fail to engage my target.

I also know that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent), or I must challenge a different target (from the second opponent). Since I can only use Divine Challenge once per round, this round I do not have the option of challenging a different target (from the second opponent); this means that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent).

Consider Lay on Hands. I use the power, I spend a healing surge. Next round, I use the power again. When I get to the line that says "spend a healing surge", I can't say "I already did that" - the power doesn't 'remember' that I spend a healing surge last time. Each time I use the power, I read from the beginning.

Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge. When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin is a different target"... "different target" means "different from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin. He can't be different from himself!

By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round. But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.

-Hyp.

 

[Stormtalon]

Divine Challenge applies multiple conditions to the target. If a person resists the damage from the challenge, are they also not marked? Taken another way, assume some power's effect is to mark a target until the end of your next round and give them ongoing fire damage 5 (save ends). Does the loss of the mark negate the ongoing fire damage?

Yes, see below.

Paladin's Challenge applies multiple conditions on an enemy and gives them the same duration. Negating one does not negate another.

I think this is where our disagreement is. You see it as separate and exclusive conditions applied by a single action. I see Marking as a single condition with class-specific riders inextricably attached.

I.E.: The fighter cannot cheapshot a moving/attacking target that he does not have an active mark on AND the paladin can't burn an attacking target that he does not have an active mark on. As soon as the mark goes away or is overridden by another, the attached riders become null and void.

 

[kclark]

Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge. When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin is a different target"... "different target" means "different from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin. He can't be different from himself!

By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round. But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.

-Hyp.

At the beginning of the round the target of you power Divine Challenge is the orc.
Reactivating the power allows you to challenge a target. You choose the goblin. You have filled the requirement to challenge a different target.
If you follow your logic then the phrase "or challenge a different target" is meaningless and should never have been in the sentence because you cannot ever have it matter.

Of course a target can't be different from itself and thus is silly to interpret it that way. So that leaves us with comparing it to the last target the power affected.
If the current target is different than the last then the challenge maintains itself.

 

[LokiDR]

No, because there's is a consequence for failure to [engage the target or mark a new target]: you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.

Let's say I have two opponents, one of whom I Divine Challenged last round and engaged. This turn, he has moved somewhere where I can neither attack him, nor end my turn adjacent to him. So I use Divine Challenge on the other opponent, and engage him instead (either by attacking, or ending adjacent).

If Divine Challenge said "You must engage the target, or you can't use Divine Challenge next turn", then even though I successfully DCed the second opponent this round, I wouldn't be able to use the ability next round, because I failed to engage the target of my original DC this round. Because DC says "You must engage the target or challenge a new target", I've fulfilled the condition to prevent losing my use of Divine Challenge next round.

Again, you are applying the ability recursively. "You mark the target. You must engage the target before the end of your turn." is clear and doesn't run over rounds. You DC and engage. The next round, you can pick a new target and the second choice, "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." keeps the ability going. This is essentially your ruling and the verbiage could very clearly support you. It does not and we have recursive application of the definition.

Even simpler, the verbiage could say "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target and engage them." The lack of these simple phrases implies you are working too hard at interpretation.

What that condition doesn't alter is the description of the duration of the mark - it expires if I use the power against a new target, and it expires if I fail to engage my target.

By your reading, it expires if you fail to engage the target by the end of the round. Do you see the difference?

When I use Divine Challenge on the second opponent, I know that a/ the mark on the second opponent will expire if I use the power against a new target, and it will expire if I fail to engage my target.

The ability says "or", you say "and". Isn't this clearly different than the ability states?

I also know that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent), or I must challenge a different target (from the second opponent). Since I can only use Divine Challenge once per round, this round I do not have the option of challenging a different target (from the second opponent); this means that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent).

Again, it is clear the ability can only be used once a round. Why do you insist the ability expires before I have a chance to make the choice of engage or pick different target?

Consider Lay on Hands. I use the power, I spend a healing surge. Next round, I use the power again. When I get to the line that says "spend a healing surge", I can't say "I already did that" - the power doesn't 'remember' that I spend a healing surge last time. Each time I use the power, I read from the beginning.

First off, Lay on Hands doesn't have any effect that lasts from round to round so it's an improper example. Second, I am reading from the beginning: You mark the target. "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use the power against another target, or you fail to engage the target." Until that choice is made, the mark remains.

Again, why doesn't "fail to engage" apply the instant I am not engaged, such as shifting away?

Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge. When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin is a different target"... "different target" means "different from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin. He can't be different from himself!

By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round. But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.

-Hyp.

Yes, the previous challenge must be resolved first: you challenged a different target. Ok, the first DC is done. Now we work on the second target. He is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage.

There's a lot of semantics in your argument. Lets set that aside for a moment and look at all the other reasons to follow the simpler "each turn engage or pick new target" interpretation:
1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement
2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role
3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics
5. DMG "say yes" advice
7. Game focus on movement

 

[LokiDR]

I think this is where our disagreement is. You see it as separate and exclusive conditions applied by a single action. I see Marking as a single condition with class-specific riders inextricably attached.

I.E.: The fighter cannot cheapshot a moving/attacking target that he does not have an active mark on AND the paladin can't burn an attacking target that he does not have an active mark on. As soon as the mark goes away or is overridden by another, the attached riders become null and void.

The fighter cheapshot is different as it is power with a prerequisite of having a marked opponent. The Divine Challenge doesn't have a prerequisite, it applies the marked condition and more. Because Marked is defined condition, I tend to treat it as ongoing damage or prone rather than special case all it's own.

Another weird interpretation: even if the fighter takes the Challenge away there is still a condition on the power itself: the target remains marked until you challenge another or you fail to engage. If I move away to heal, for example, do I negate the fighter's mark?

I think it is simpler for odd situations to treat powers by their smallest piece. I can see how you get DC as specific sub-set of marked, however.