Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AverageTable" data-source="post: 4375231" data-attributes="member: 71718">Only is a certain sense.&nbsp; You interpretation does prevent the paladin from challenging a single target and then spending the next few rounds running away from that same target.&nbsp;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.&nbsp; See my discussion of this early in the thread on page 1.&nbsp;The key point is, your interpretation of the rule is still open to serious abuse - an abuse which is, indeed, almost exactly the same as the D&amp;D Experience Issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course it doesn't.&nbsp; This is a serious strawman.&nbsp;It does, indeed, remove certain options he might otherwise have if your interpretation was used.&nbsp; However, it leaves many other options open, all of which are very effective in helping him perform his &quot;Defender&quot; role.&nbsp;&nbsp;Firstly, I'm not arguing that your interpretation is &quot;abusive&quot;.&nbsp; I'm arguing that it violates the rules.&nbsp; These are different things.&nbsp;Secondly, even if your interpretation was correct, whether or not the behaviours it permits are &quot;abusive&quot; would be a matter of opinion.&nbsp; That would depend, primarily, on whether or not they violated the &quot;spirit&quot; of the rules - something that is also largely a matter of opinion.&nbsp;&nbsp;I'm not sure why it's being mentioned twice is relevant to our discussion.&nbsp;As to our interpretation &quot;negating this choice&quot;, of course it doesn't.&nbsp; You still have the choice to engage your current target or challenge a new target (and then engage it).&nbsp; When did anyone ever say you didn't?&nbsp;&nbsp;You're not using that advice as intended.&nbsp;That advice applies to cases where there is no rule regarding the action in question and the DM needs to make an &quot;on the fly&quot; decision.&nbsp;Our point is that there is a rule in this case - one that forbids the action you're suggesting.&nbsp; The advice you quote doesn't apply here.&nbsp; &nbsp;It doesn't involve many steps, nor is it complicated.&nbsp; I only wrote it out so explicitly to attempt to show you the point you were missing - that when you &quot;challenge a different target&quot; 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).&nbsp;I can state my view as succiently and simply as yours.&nbsp; I only elaborated so much to help you understand where I was coming from.&nbsp;Also, while simplicity is a virtue in interpretations, all other things being equal, to merely assume a simpler interpretation is correct is fallacious.&nbsp;&nbsp;What about it?&nbsp;The game already includes numerous restrictions on movement.&nbsp; One interpretation of a rule offering less freedom of movement than another is no reasonable basis for assuming the latter is correct.</blockquote>[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="AverageTable, post: 4375231, member: 71718"] 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 [i]doesn't[/i] 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. The key point is, your interpretation of the rule is still open to serious abuse - an abuse which is, indeed, almost [i]exactly the same[/i] as the D&D Experience Issue. 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. Firstly, I'm not arguing that your interpretation is "abusive". I'm arguing that it violates the rules. These are different things. 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. 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? 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 [i]is[/i] a rule in this case - one that [i]forbids[/i] the action you're suggesting. The advice you quote doesn't apply here. 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 [b]USE[/b] 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 [i]again[/i]). 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, [i]all other things being equal[/i], to merely assume a simpler interpretation is correct is fallacious. 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.[/quote] [/QUOTE]

Verification