Divine Challenge at the end of your turn

[Stormtalon]

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.

It's not that I treat it as a special case all it's own; it's just that the Challenge is the paladin's mark, with the effect -2 to hit and damage if the target attacks someone other than the paladin. This also evens things between paladin and fighter -- as the fighter cannot cheapshot a target that he himself has not marked, allowing the paladin's challenge damage to still occur after his mark has been removed by another's mark seriously devalues the fighter's abilities.

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?

Once the fighter has engaged the target and hit it, thus applying his mark, the entirety of the paladin's mark is gone, freeing the paladin to move to engage someone else.

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.

 

[AverageTable]

To kclark:

You're making the exact same mistake I pointed out to Loki earlier. You're failing to realise that "challenging a different target" means USING the Divine Challenge ability once again. And using it again means that you need to fulfil the same requirements once again - challenge a new target or engage. Since you can't do the first (only one Divine Challenge is permitted per round), you must do the second.

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.

Correct. But in the process of challenging a different target, you have USED the Divine Challenge power. Using this power imposes the requirement that you now (1) engage the goblin or (2) challenge a different target before the end of your turn.

You can't do (2) since Divine Challenge is limited to one use per turn.

You must, therefore, do (1) - engage the goblin this turn.

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.

No, it isn't meaningless. As Hypersmurf said, and as I said days ago in this same thread, the "or challenge another creature" clause is necessary to allow the paladin to change his Divine Challenge target next round.

As I said back on page 1:

"Without the "or challenge a different target" clause, it becomes impossible for a paladin to cease challenging one target and challenge a different one instead. Without this clause the rule would effectively read "On your turn you must engage the target that is currently challenged. Period." This would mean that once a target has been challenged, the paladin can do nothing but engage that same target turn after turn until it is dead (or abandon the target and suffer the consequences of not engaging). He would be unable to switch targets without an automatic penalty."

So the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.

 

[Nail]

...the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.

Exactly.

I hadn't realized - until I read this thread - how badly some gamers might interpret the class feature Divine Challenge. Now I do. Thanks, LokiDR!

 

[LokiDR]

It's not that I treat it as a special case all it's own; it's just that the Challenge is the paladin's mark, with the effect -2 to hit and damage if the target attacks someone other than the paladin. This also evens things between paladin and fighter -- as the fighter cannot cheapshot a target that he himself has not marked, allowing the paladin's challenge damage to still occur after his mark has been removed by another's mark seriously devalues the fighter's abilities.

The problem I have with this is that "marked" is defined in general. I want to use that definition as much as possible, so I split DC into "mark target" and "damage target" if something would apply to either.

I hear you on the fighter being devalued. But marking a target is separate than cheapshot. Two fighters would fight over marks, but if you use different classes (paladin and fighter), they both get something. There is reason to be both of the classes where two fighters would constantly be stepping on one another for the marked status.

I could go either way on this, honestly. It would be simpler if it was all or none. Ya, I like that. I'm just concerned with other abilities that have multiple effects, I like to be consistent too.

 

[LokiDR]

Exactly.

I hadn't realized - until I read this thread - how badly some gamers might interpret the class feature Divine Challenge. Now I do. Thanks, LokiDR!

I'm always happy to help.

I hadn't realized until this thread just how hard some gamers would cling to history and certain views of the paladin class.

 

[AverageTable]

If you would be so kind, please address the points I raised:

1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement

Only is a certain sense. You interpretation does prevent the paladin from challenging a single target and then spending the next few rounds running away from that same target.

However, it doesn't prevent the nearly identical abuse of challenging a different target each round (or even just alternating between two targets) while running in circles and never engaging any of them. See my discussion of this early in the thread on page 1.

The key point is, your interpretation of the rule is still open to serious abuse - an abuse which is, indeed, almost exactly the same as the D&D Experience Issue.

2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role

Of course it doesn't. This is a serious strawman.

It does, indeed, remove certain options he might otherwise have if your interpretation was used. However, it leaves many other options open, all of which are very effective in helping him perform his "Defender" role.

3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics

Firstly, I'm not arguing that your interpretation is "abusive". I'm arguing that it violates the rules. These are different things.

Secondly, even if your interpretation was correct, whether or not the behaviours it permits are "abusive" would be a matter of opinion. That would depend, primarily, on whether or not they violated the "spirit" of the rules - something that is also largely a matter of opinion.

4. The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice. Your interpretation negates this choice

I'm not sure why it's being mentioned twice is relevant to our discussion.

As to our interpretation "negating this choice", of course it doesn't. You still have the choice to engage your current target or challenge a new target (and then engage it). When did anyone ever say you didn't?

5. DMG "say yes" advice

You're not using that advice as intended.

That advice applies to cases where there is no rule regarding the action in question and the DM needs to make an "on the fly" decision.

Our point is that there is a rule in this case - one that forbids the action you're suggesting. The advice you quote doesn't apply here.

6. Simplicity. The fact your interpretation involves so many steps should show you which is simpler.

It doesn't involve many steps, nor is it complicated. I only wrote it out so explicitly to attempt to show you the point you were missing - that when you "challenge a different target" you USE the Divine Challenge power again, thereby imposing the same requirements on your following actions as before (i.e. you must now engage your target or challenge a different target again).

I can state my view as succiently and simply as yours. I only elaborated so much to help you understand where I was coming from.

Also, while simplicity is a virtue in interpretations, all other things being equal, to merely assume a simpler interpretation is correct is fallacious.

7. Game focus on movement

What about it?

The game already includes numerous restrictions on movement. One interpretation of a rule offering less freedom of movement than another is no reasonable basis for assuming the latter is correct.[/quote]

 

[LokiDR]

So the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.

After. The paladin always engage the challenged target on the same round AFTER the challenge is made. This is your position, is it not?

 

[AverageTable]

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.

Although this is only one small piece of a longer post, I singled it out because it contradicts your own position so strongly. You just agreed perfectly with Hypersmurf.

You just said yourself that the new target "is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage."

Exactly.

It's marked until you either (1) challenge another target or (2) fail to engage. If either of these (challenging another or not engaging) occurs, then the mark ends. Thus, if you fail to engage, the target is no longer marked. This is what we're all trying to tell you.

 

[AverageTable]

I hadn't realized until this thread just how hard some gamers would cling to history and certain views of the paladin class.

This had better not be aimed at me, because nothing I've argued has anything to do with preconceptions of the paladin. I'm simply arguing the rules as written. If the rules said differently, I would be arguing differently, regardless of what they said.

If this was directed at me, I find the implication insulting.

 

[AverageTable]

After. The paladin always engage the challenged target on the same round AFTER the challenge is made. This is your position, is it not?

Well according to the letter of the rules I believe it is technically permissible to attack the target first, move away, and then challenge the same target you have attacked. As long as you attack it during the round in question, this seems to qualify as "engaging".

But this has no relevance that I can see to our discussion. You can still only challenge a target that you have already attacked (or am already standing next to and will not be moving away from this turn). And on the following turn you must, again, either attack the first target, finish your turn next to the first target, or challenge a different target (which you will attack at some point during the turn or finish your turn standing next to).