Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kouk" data-source="post: 4376171" data-attributes="member: 55992">I interpret the Divine Challenge to literally mean you can't just target someone as your last possible action unless you are already adjacent.However, I allow that tactic in games. That was the way everyone at the table interpreted it originally, which leads me to believe it makes more sense inherently. But the main reason I allow it is because it makes the Paladin a fairly effective Defender if it is allowed. The Paladin's Challenge is (I feel) far inferior to the Fighter's. The Fighter has many more ways to mark several enemies, and a marked enemy takes significantly more damage when violating the fighter's mark or even trying to move away.  And he might not even be able to move away! The Fighter's Challenge takes no action by itself, and theoretically can grant many attacks against a single target (it is not limited to just one enemy attack a round, as the Paladin's is).The Paladin's challenge is just a minor damage effect should an enemy attack someone else. Yes, it is guaranteed damage, but one instance of 6 or 7 damage is not terribly impressive, even with scaling of 3 additional at each tier (especially since OA's also improve at each tier as they are basic attacks). It also takes an action to use, whereas the Fighter's does not.The only real advantage the Paladin's Challenge has is that it can be used at range. However, with the literal interpretation, the Paladin basically has to end up in melee in the same round, so there's no benefit to being ranged, nor purpose. Yes, Paladins can attack with ranged weapons: but why would they? Their powers aren't suited for it, it would be an emergency measure at best for when you are unable to get near your enemy. Fighters could attack at range and Mark as well, so there's no real gain for the Paladin in comparison.If you let the Paladin mark an enemy at the end of the round, what's the real problem? Real problem. Is the party Paladin really going to try to kite a creature? Is he really going to attempt to stay out of melee or stand around and do nothing? Would the party members stand for that behavior?All allowing Challenging at the end of a round even when not adjacent to an enemy does is make it difficult for a single enemy to attack one of the Paladin's buddies, and only the first time in the case of multiple or area attacks against your friends. It's a different enemy than the one who was marked before, because the previous one is no longer marked. The single enemy that would be getting marked is within 5 squares, so he's already pretty close -- it's not like he's Challenging a guy on the other side of the map.I think we also agree from a flavor standpoint that the Defender shouting out at an enemy he intends to go after fits, even if he can't in that particular round. Rounds are supposed to be abstractions of flowing time after all; the end of one round is basically the start of the next. Or in other words there is no real distinction in the "Game World" except for things with durations.I've seen a Paladin in a same party as a Fighter, and the Fighter has a much more compelling Challenge -- no comparison. These are both Defenders, so theoretically they should be about as good as Defending, no? Even if you allow the Divine Challenge at the end of a round, a Fighter is still better at the job. No need to rule harshly against the Paladin in addition.</blockquote>

Verification