Divine Challenge at the end of your turn

[kouk]

As an example take this scenario:

You're a Paladin. You begin your turn by Challenging an enemy, who is standing 5 squares away from another enemy. You must now pretty much go into melee with the marked enemy. The other enemy attacks your friends, and moves several squares or so away, so he is now 9 squares away from the Paladin.

Next round, you are fighting the original mark, because you pretty much have to. Your original mark dies to your Standard Action for whatever reason. Now the other monster has free reign for an entire round even if you Ran after him with your Move action. It wouldn't matter if you used your Mark now even though he is in range after your Move action, because it would immediately end if you weren't adjacent and you cannot make another attack (assume no action points).

Not doing such a great job as a Defender there in my opinion, if you can't even take heat off of your friends from one other monster for one round. And, what's more, if you tried to by Marking the enemy when you couldn't have gotten adjacent anyway, you wouldn't be able to Challenge next round!
So that would be 2 rounds of no Challenge for the Paladin who is running up to the next monster, doing his darndest to Distract the creature and call down his deity's righteous fury, all to help his friends! Apparently his deity doesn't take kindly to being called upon if his servant is not immediately next to a bad guy or swinging at its head...

Anyway, I know examples always end up being stupid (poor tactics and whatnot), but this isn't that uncommon a situation (the only remaining enemy or most threatening to allies is out of a single move action).

I think allowing the Challenge at the end of the turn fits the flavor, it fits the role, it fits player expectations, and I feel fits the Intent of the rule.

 

[fedelas]

CSR ask me about this question

Tony from customer service tell me that you had to engage (attack or end adjacent) your challenged enemy in order to mantain it. I explictly ask if changing the target is enough and he respond me that is not sufficient and that i had to engage the new target or lose DC.
Just as a side note, before asking my opinion was that changing target is enough to mantain the challenge, reading this thread put me in doubt and now i have changed my mind ( perhaps i will allow my player to challenge an enemy who is beating a squishies in order to had that opponent concentrate is "aggro" against the paladin worried by other enemies. They are fair players no power-gamers at all, that's my role, and never exploit the mark-amnd-run tactics which they consider silly and "anti-paladinlike".)
Hope this helps a bit.

 

[LokiDR]

Hey Average, thanks for responding to the points I asked.

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.

So, in your opinion, leaving the room and entirely removing yourself from combat while continuing the challenge is "nearly identical" to moving around the area and keeping the challenge on a monster only half the time? You believe the use of this ability requires me to make myself an easy target or it is an abuse. Hmm, are you also opposed to flanking giving sneak attack?

Challenge has a short range. Alternating targets would still require you to be very close to the enemy, within a single move in most cases. The abuse of DDXP was applying a permanent penalty to an enemy they could not address ever. Remaining in the area and challenging provides the enemy a target and gives them an incentive to go after the paladin, which would be point of the ability in the first place.

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.

The paladin is incapable of "pulling" enemies, he can only "glue" them. Your reading is roughly similar to painting a target on myself and running next to the enemy. My method is a lasso that keeps tugging them back. Your reading could be better written as "after you attack a creature in range or move adjacent to it, the target is marked."

What is the point of a defender if not to pull enemies to you?

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.

Really? You just said "However, it doesn't prevent the nearly identical abuse of....". If that is not your argument, why did you say it?

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.

We can agree the archer paladin challenging and then shooting is perfectly legal, can we not? This can lead to something a lot closer to abuse seen at DDXP and I say is significantly more powerful. Likewise, and invisible paladin can end his turn next to an enemy he challenged with no problem in the rules. That is far more abusive than what I'm discussing and is also clearly legal. If you want to discus the spirit of the rules, I'll refer you back to the role of a defender argument.

If it is not more powerful than legal tactics and it directly assists the role as spelled out in the rules, what major difference of opinion is relevant? Certainly, if you don't like it you are free to house-rule but that isn't relevant here.

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?

On your turn, you must engage or target a different creature. That's what the power says, twice. Your reading is "on your turn if you challenge a different creature you must engage it." If you think the two are equivalent, perhaps there isn't anything more to discuss.

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.

You assume you are right then use that as proof you are right. That's called post-hoc reasoning and is rather silly. My argument is that your reading is wrong. If you accept that the rules are unclear (which should be obvious by now) you must accept other reasons for choosing a position. If you don't accept you can be wrong, there is no reason to discuss anything.

I read the ability as allowing the pull tactic and clearly players want to use it. You say no. The DMG says "say yes".

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.

Occams Razor: all things being equal, the simpler answer is usually the most correct. If you are going to pick a ruling, mine is simpler. Your's involves reading the ability over every time you reach the choice of targeting. Your reading applies one half of one definition of one piece of the power to the entire power.

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.

Again, all things being equal, your interpretation limits the game to a much more static game. Oh, there is shifting but pretty much you are forcing the paladin to pair off. If you read Mearls and the DMG advice, you will see the game should encourage DYNAMIC combat, and that means movement.

Bottom line: allowing the end of round pull challenge tactic fits the game.

 

[icarusfallz]

I see DC as a way of the Paladin calling someone out and saying "Yer Next!" and then kicking that person's kiester. I don't like the CONCEPT of a coward paladin, and even if the RAW allows it, I wouldn't allow it in my game. An Archer Paladin, who shoots down every foe before he can even reach him, is a different matter, and an interesting concept (a hella kewl elf thing)

 

[abyssaldeath]

No one is suggesting a "coward" Paladin. We just want to be given the option of pulling enemies to us.

More of a "Hey, you think you are so tuff? Why don't you fight me? I'll kick your ass and your two friends asses at the same time."

 

[Stormtalon]

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.

The thing is, the fighter's cheapshots (for either moving away or for attacking someone not the fighter) depend on the target being marked by the fighter in exactly the same way as the DC damage depends on being marked by the paladin. The only difference is one requires an attack roll and the other doesn't. They're both still cases of "If you have the target marked, this additional effect can occur."

 

[icarusfallz]

No one is suggesting a "coward" Paladin. We just want to be given the option of pulling enemies to us.

More of a "Hey, you think you are so tuff? Why don't you fight me? I'll kick your ass and your two friends asses at the same time."

no no, I LOVE this aspect. I hate the tactic of using DC, and running away. Standing back and saying "Come and get it!" while staying in front of yer squishy buddies is a VERY paladinlike thing to do. I love this tactic. (even if the rules do/don't support it, a player in my games would be well rewarded!)

 

[Stormtalon]

On the main topic, I agree with allowing the end-of-round challenge. What seems to be in dispute here is what exactly constitutes "engaging" the target. To me, the initial issuance of the challenge is sufficient to count as engaging the target for that round.

 

[icarusfallz]

I agree. You issue the DC to an enemy, saying "Yer next, pencilneck!" or some other worthy insult, and then the pencilneck in question gets to quake in his boots till the next round, wherein you proceed to knock him out of them. Not overpowering, not an abuse, just good, clean roleplaying!

 

[LokiDR]

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.

That isn't a question. The question is "how long do I have until I am counted as failing to engage?"

In the simplest example, Bob challenges Mon then move adjacent to Mon then attacks. On Mon's turn, he attacks. Back to Bob, he decides to use a ranged power so he shifts back. At this point, he has failed to engage in the turn: he hasn't attacked and won't be adjacent at the end of the turn.

You hand wave this by only checking for "engaged" at the end of the round. Why is that more correct than after every action? After all, only half of the definition of engage involves the end of the round. I say, for the choice to be truly meaningful, the first challenge must have the option to be replaced and that means you check engage OR target each turn. On the first turn you target, you changed your target from nothing.

At this point, I think it's clear you aren't going to accept my point so there is little reason to post more.