Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 4372458" data-attributes="member: 6239">That would be the issue of not having books at hand.  But that reading fails to account for actions such as move.  On my turn, first I DC monster, then I move to a better position (not adjacent).  At this point, I have failed to engage.  Should the target be no longer marked?Agreed.  Now, how often do we check for "engaged"?  Is it impossible for a paladin to do anything other than engage?Effect: creature is marked. Each turn you must engage the creature or choose a new target to challenge.  A strict reading of the second sentence not only makes for silly situations such as negating most movement, but it also ignores another sentence in the effect: "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."Emphasis mine.  This is a clause of engage which you improperly apply to the entire ability.  Note, divine challenge does not read "If at any point you do not engage the enemy, the mark ends."  It says "remains marked until you use the power against another target or you fail to engage (see below) the target".  Now, if the ability can only be used once a round, why does "until you use the power against another target" appear at all, let alone first?Each turn, challenge a different target or engage.  There is no requirement to engage every challenged creature every round.Lets take another situation to show why your view of timing doesn't work.  Again, paladin Bob has a range weapon.  In the first round of combat, Bob moves and then uses his ranged attack against monster Tim.  Then Bob's player recalls his divine challenge and uses it against Tim.  At this point, Bob does not have another attack or movement to use to engage Tim.  By your reading, Bob is buggered.  A lapse of memory should not deny Bob his ability.I'll grant, that situation is absurd in play, as no decent DM would be dick to Bob's player for such a mistake, but it illustrates a point of the rules.  If we are going to technical, lets be technical.If none of those arguments are to your taste, can we just fall back to the "say yes" advice of the DMG?  This tactic allows a player to be unconventional in their paladin and doesn't contradict any obvious rule.  It is not game breaking, it is interesting and at least I think it's fun.  It does fit the paladin's role (take the heat for the other guys), why shouldn't it work?Your table, your rules, you can call it as you wish, but I will need to have this discussion endlessly at conventions and RPGA tables, so I need to be prepared with a reasoned response.  Don't take this the wrong way, I have no problem with your ruling, I just need to know the most "technical" answer.</blockquote>

Verification