Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Skyscraper" data-source="post: 4368475" data-attributes="member: 48518">EDIT: Nevermind the following post, what i overlooked has been brought to my attention in the replies. You can disregard this thread.The paladin's Divine Challenge ability can me summarized as follows. It allows him to effectively mark a target on his turn when the paladin either (a) attacks the target on that same turn or (b) finishes his turn adjacent to the target. If, on its turn, the marked creature attacks another creature than the paladin, it takes -2 to its attack rolls and it also takes radiant damage equal to 3 + the paladin's charisma modifier.In view of the mechanics of Divine Challenge, it seems like a good strategy for a paladin that starts its turn next to a creature to mark the creature and attack it, then move away behind his allies to hopefully get that creature to either relinquish its attacks, move to attack the paladin hopefully taking OAs from the paladin's allies, or attack the paladin's allies taking damage and attack penalties from Divine Challenge.In other words, a paladin will first move to engage an opponent in melee, but on the second round will move away behind his allies. Then rinse and repeat: round 1 move to attack; round 2 mark, attack and move away. (Or this can also be accomplished in a single round with an action point.)Now i see nothing inherently wrong with this tactic mechanically speaking; however, it does appear to be a rather drastic departure from the old paladin fluff we're used to seeing. The paladin effectively taunts his enemies continuously while running to cower behind his allies. Indeed, it puts the opponents in a no-win situation: either respond to the taunt and take OAs from the paladin's allies, or don't respond and take damage from Divine Challenge. Or don't attack, but we all know what not attacking means for many creatures: lose a round. Isn't that weird for good paladins?Now I've not seen much 4E action yet, we've barely started our first game last week (with a paladin, who didn't try this tactic though). It is quite possible that i misunderstand the mechanics.In any event, what are your thoughts regarding this tactic?Side note: i know the terrain might not yield itself to this tactic all the time, nor will some combat situations (the party is surprised, etc...). It's simply my impression that this tactic might be an optimal one for a paladin, when it's possible to achieve. And for a paladin to hope to achieve a situation where he can cower behind his allies is, well, counter-intuitive to me.Other side note: of course if the party is 4 wizards and a paladin he doesn't want to do this. Again, the paladin might want to achieve this situaiton when possible.Yet another side note: 4E includes non-lawful good paladins. I'm quite comfortable with that in fact  - i've had that houserule for years in 3E. I'm mostly looking at how the Divine Challenge class ability is likely to be used, and how this might impact the fluff around good paladins. SkyP.S.: This thread was triggered by the thread on invisible paladins. For the purpose of this thread, please disregard any combo where the paladin becomes invisible or teleports away or whatnot; if you wish to discuss these combos, please refer to the invisible paladin thread here  <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234902" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234902</a>p.p.s.: i'm now done with side notes and post scriptums <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" /></blockquote>

Verification