Correct me if I'm wrong: Paladin Marks

[Nail]

See, it is obvious if you take their advice and read the section on conditions, ....

Hmmm.

First: Let's be careful this thread doesn't also degenerate into bickering.

Second: I'm not sure saying "you should read the section on conditions" answers the question, as it's not clear that being marked is a condition. Saying "It's a condition; look it up" is predicated on knowing it's a condition in the first place.

Third: Have you noticed the other ambiguity in the Paladin's Divine Challenge text? If you read it closely, you'll see that the divine challenge works off of a marked creature....and that the marking could be from someone else (if read "strictly) rather than the paladin! The only requirement is that the target has the condition "marked". <chuckle> A funny (if weak) point.

 

[Milambus]

Back to front. Once he marks the target, he is then required to attack by the end of his turn (or end his turn adjacent). If he attacks, then marks, he won't fulfill that condition, because the requirement to attack by the end of his turn comes into being after he's attacked, so the attack he's made has no bearing on the Challenge condition.

When the Paladin uses Divine Challenge, this happens:
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'tuse divine challenge on your next turn.

So when the Paladin uses Divine Challenge, he is now required to engage the target on his turn.

He wants to Challenge, then attack, then move away to let the fighter in.

-Hyp.

I disagree. Nothing in the Divine Challenge power states that a paladin has to engage the creature AFTER they have used Divine Challenge. It simply says "On your turn, you must [do X]", it goes on to state "If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, [do Y]".

None of that implies that the paladin has to engage the target after they have used Divine Challenge, it simply has to be done on their turn.

Its a simple flow chart here.

Paladin's turn ends
- Have they Divine Challenged anything? If not, skip the rest.
- Is the Paladin adjacent to the target? If yes, skip the rest.
- Did the Paladin attack the target this turn? If not, remove the mark.

 

[Nail]

I disagree. Nothing in the Divine Challenge power states that a paladin has to engage the creature AFTER they have used Divine Challenge.

Uhm...no, you are mistaken:

On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged
or challenge a different target.

Note the tense of the verb "to challenge".

 

[CapnZapp]

See, it is obvious if you take their advice and read the section on conditions, because it's all on the same page. But if you ignore their direct advice, and do not read the parts they directly reference, including conditions WHICH THEY MENTION YOU SHOULD READ, then the failure is yours.

'You should read this stuff.'
'No, I don't have to.'
'It has important information, including explanations of -that- page you have right there..'
'Nope, don't have to.'
'So, do you understand it?'
'Yep.'
'So you know how this works?'
'No.'
'It's in the part I suggested you read.'
'WELL YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME!'
'I did, dumbass.'

If I had to read (read p 277) on every other power just to sate people who don't bother following advice, it'd be a horrible read.

Because it's ALWAYS (read p277) for conditions. And if you have to look one up, why, lo and behold, they are all there.

Reported.

If you don't have the empathy to understand when a lot of reasonable people don't get a rule right, the rule is sub-par per definition, that is your problem.

But you don't need to get all unfriendly about it. It's not as if we're attacking you, and your rules design skills.

(I hope, for your sake).

 

[DracoSuave]

Sorry, bud. But it isn't an unreasonable stance. I knew marked was a condition, because I read. The book tells you to read, shows you where. It's not going to single out conditions specifically because that -entire- section (how to resolve attacks) is necessary to the understanding of the game. Every class besides Warlord uses conditions at level 1. Eventually, you're going to go to the conditions page, and there it is.

And if you read the section on conditions, you'll learn marked is one. It's not unreasonable to expect people to do what the book tells you to do. There's a limit to how much handholding a book needs to do, and if they needed to put (see page whatever) for -every- condition than that is going to appear in the book 500 times, rendering the book less readable. It's unreasonable to demand to complain they didn't tell you where to find it, when they -did- tell you to. I'm sorry, but that is true.

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the complaint is that they didn't put the pointer with that one power. The fact that they -did- tell you what marked does is going above and beyond; they didn't have to do that. The confusion then stems not from them -not- holding your hands, but from them actually holding your hand.

 

[abyssaldeath]

I'm with DracoSuave. The first instance the marked condition is mentioned as part of class powers is in the Cleric power Healing Strike. Healing Strike makes no mention as to what marked means like Divine Challenge and Combat Challenge do. It is by no means unreasonable to assume then that "marked" is define somewhere else in the book.

 

[Nail]

It is by no means unreasonable to assume then that "marked" is define somewhere else in the book.

Sure! I agree completely.

Now: Where do you suppose "marked" would be defined? (Try to pretend you had not read past the paladin section in the PH.)

Looking in Table of Contents? Not there.

Looking in the Glossary? Doesn't have one.

Looking in the Index? Not there.

Looking in the Fighter section....ah hah! It says "marked" in the area labeled "Combat Challenge". Maybe being "marked" means being under the effects of a Combat Challenge?

Etc. The confusion is understandable.

 

[Matt Black]

Sorry, bud. But it isn't an unreasonable stance. I knew marked was a condition, because I read. The book tells you to read, shows you where. It's not going to single out conditions specifically because that -entire- section (how to resolve attacks) is necessary to the understanding of the game. Every class besides Warlord uses conditions at level 1. Eventually, you're going to go to the conditions page, and there it is.

And if you read the section on conditions, you'll learn marked is one. It's not unreasonable to expect people to do what the book tells you to do. There's a limit to how much handholding a book needs to do, and if they needed to put (see page whatever) for -every- condition than that is going to appear in the book 500 times, rendering the book less readable. It's unreasonable to demand to complain they didn't tell you where to find it, when they -did- tell you to. I'm sorry, but that is true.

I'm not trying to be a dick about it, but the complaint is that they didn't put the pointer with that one power. The fact that they -did- tell you what marked does is going above and beyond; they didn't have to do that. The confusion then stems not from them -not- holding your hands, but from them actually holding your hand.

Hmm... I didn't really understand that last part. Perhaps we do speak different languages after all. If we all learned 4E designer-ese we wouldn't have a problem. But let me try to understand: You're saying that it's possible to understand all the rules from a complete reading of the PHB? True! Assuming that you have perfect recall.

The problem is that very few people will have perfectly memorized that list of conditions by the time they get up to the class abilities sections; even those who followed that somewhat buried reference to p.269 and then read 9 pages of dense combat rules before before ever continuing on to classes. That was basically how I read the book, and I came to the classes section with a fair understanding of what a condition was and how to apply it (i.e. I followed the directions perfectly). But did I remember every single condition? Of course not. Most people wouldn't.

So when I encountered marking, which has more in common to the ranger's hunter's quarry or the warlock's curse than to conditions, I didn't make the connection.

Manual-writers can't expect perfectly understanding of all rules on a first reading. That's why good manuals have judicious redundancy, clarification, and cross-referencing. And I do mean judicious! Like in 3E. No one wants page references after every mention of a condition name - just where there is frequent confusion. Marking generates frequent confusion (amongst D&D nerds!), therefore those rules are poorly presented.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Sure! I agree completely.

Now: Where do you suppose "marked" would be defined? (Try to pretend you had not read past the paladin section in the PH.)

Looking in Table of Contents? Not there.

Looking in the Glossary? Doesn't have one.

Looking in the Index? Not there.

Looking in the Fighter section....ah hah! It says "marked" in the area labeled "Combat Challenge". Maybe being "marked" means being under the effects of a Combat Challenge?

Etc. The confusion is understandable.

What I did when I got confused by it was thumb through the combat section of the book since since marked has something to do with combat.

 

[Alabast]

Wow, when I made this thread, I just wanted to confirm my suspicions about distinguishing Divine Challenge from other marks a Paladin makes. Now it's turned into a 3 page old school message board not-quite-flame-fest.

Here's the low-down:

1. I am a smart guy who has been playing D&D for about 15 years and has a general interest in game design.

2. I was unsure enough about the intent of the designers that I felt the need to start this thread.

3. Several in this thread have expressed similar confusion.

Conclusion: The rule could have been written in a clearer way. It's OK. I still like WOTC. I guess I don't pass the Dracosuave test for instant comprehension.

I'm not trying to be a dick about it,

If you'll forgive me, I think you ARE trying to be a dick about it. A group of people have think a rule is unclear. You are insisting (repeatedly and sarcastically), that, despite our confusion, it is perfectly clear. Essentially, then, you are telling a group of people that they are either too impatient or unintelligent to properly read a rule. Since I doubt that you care that much about defending the editorial abilities of WOTC, I can only assume you are doing this to demonstrate how much smarter you think you are to everyone else.

That's a pretty dick-ish thing to do.