Divine Challenge and Sanction

[Zaphling]

So let me get this straight. Mighty Challenge does not apply to Divine Sanctions?

 

[Nullzone]

No, it doesn't. Challenge and Sanction are different marks.

 

[Destil]

For now.

Combining these is the number one thing I want to see when they get to the revised Paladin play-test. Paladins don't need three mark mechanics. Making Divine Challenge a special application of sanction and making sanction based on Cha or Str are two of the three changes the class really really needs (the third being relaxing the 'engagement' clause in DC in some way).

 

[OnlineDM]

For now.

Combining these is the number one thing I want to see when they get to the revised Paladin play-test. Paladins don't need three mark mechanics. Making Divine Challenge a special application of sanction and making sanction based on Cha or Str are two of the three changes the class really really needs (the third being relaxing the 'engagement' clause in DC in some way).

What is the third mark mechanic for Paladins? Is it the Cavalier's defender aura?

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

 

[BobTheNob]

What is the third mark mechanic for Paladins? Is it the Cavalier's defender aura?

I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.

They do have a number of powers that apply basic marks.

After playing the paladin for a bit after DP came out, I was getting really peaved at having three marking mechanics. I felt like yelling at the designers "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?!"

By the end of the campaign we had house ruled into one common marking mechanic = Sanction. Worked pretty well, though we had to be careful of things intended purely for challenge and ensure we secured against breakages, but generally a good result.

 

[Geffor]

For now.

Combining these is the number one thing I want to see when they get to the revised Paladin play-test. Paladins don't need three mark mechanics. Making Divine Challenge a special application of sanction and making sanction based on Cha or Str are two of the three changes the class really really needs (the third being relaxing the 'engagement' clause in DC in some way).

I approve of making Sanction/Challenge based on Cha or Str and see both as pretty much the same thing. I also believe that powers that just 'mark' an oponnent should be revised to impose a 'sanction'. However, I disgaree about relaxing the 'engagement' clause of DC.

I find that it adds to the feeling of the character as, to me, this is the act that allows you to impose a 'sanction' on a specific foe (only using a minor) rather than as part of another power (which probably requires a standard).

P.S. There's no need to point out to me any cases where sanctions can be imposed as a minor or challenge as part of a standard - I'm just off to look for them myself

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

To an extent, they have already relaxed the engagement clause, as the last eratta to divine challenge made it so that failing to engage didn't prevent you from challenging next round.

Personally, I think the engagment clause is pretty much perfect - it reinforces the theme by discouraging the "mark and run" mechanic, but is relatively simple. Now, if only sanction worked the same way, rather than having 2 seperate end events for the two otherwise (nearly) identical features... having one that lasts until "do not engage" and one until "end of next turn" is a real pain, especially since it requires seperate tokens to give monsters.

Though, I suppose one could argue that the powers that sanciton all within "close burst x" might be too powerful is they challenged instead... as concievably you could have them all challenged for an entire encounter. On the other hand, given that the use of the challenge is an immediate action, if one monster eats the challenge, the others can just shift away means that it would be challenging to keep them all engaged... still, by having the paladin shift/move after them, you could potentially stretch the length of the divine mark.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I roll them together IMC, and it hasn't broken the thing yet.

Marking is complex enough already. Though even getting that engagement clause right is a headache for my group now. It's simple, but it can be a little counterintuitive.

 

[Zaran]

I can see the reason for making Mighty Challenge for Divine Challenge only because there are many ways to Sanction multiple foes at once. And that's a alot of extra damage for a single feat to grant.

 

[Destil]

Yeah, I think the best think to do is keep sanction and challenge, but drop vanilla marked and redefine challenge as sanction + other stuff. The existing sanction powers don't need the engagement clause, but things like mighty challenge and the other feats that buff challenge shouldn't apply to it.