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: 4379876" data-attributes="member: 6239">Hey Average, thanks for responding to the points I asked.1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagementSo, 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 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 tacticsReally?  You just said "However, it doesn't prevent the nearly identical abuse of....".  If that is not your argument, why did you say it? 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 choiceOn 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" adviceYou 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.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 movementAgain, 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.</blockquote>

Verification