Divine Challenge/Sanction with Invis

[babinro]

My friends stumbled upon this fun combo and I was just wanting to make sure that its actually legal. I've allowed it so far and can't see anything specifically wrong with it except that it comes across as a little bit cheesy (in a fun way).

My players Paladin uses level 1 Encounter Valorous Smite, which places a divine sanction on all enemies within 3 squares upon hitting. He'll also use divine challenge on the primary target he attacked. Assuming the initiative count works out fine, the druid will use his Camouflage Cloak (level 6 utility) to make the Paladin invisible.

When it comes around to the creatures turn, they will typically avoid the invisible paladin (barring things like tremor sense) and take a significant amount of damage as he has been maximizing it with feats.

Also, hypothetically, if the creature were to attack the square in which they believe the Paladin to be in, would they take challenge damage if they guessed the wrong square? Or does that qualify as trying to attack the Pally?

Is there anything wrong with this? Or is just the PC's working together in a cool way to maximize the Paladin's potential.

 

[Garthanos]

Also, hypothetically, if the creature were to attack the square in which they believe the Paladin to be in, would they take challenge damage if they guessed the wrong square? Or does that qualify as trying to attack the Pally?

Heh trying to attack him and doing badly at it ... is in my book attacking the paladin and an awesomeness for the Paladin in itself, without the damage.

Is there anything wrong with this? Or is just the PC's working together in a cool way to maximize the Paladin's potential.

There are probably quite a few defender based combos, swordmages with teleportation... mark and run tactics.... think they might be intended implications of team work.

 

[abyssaldeath]

My players Paladin uses level 1 Encounter Valorous Smite, which places a divine sanction on all enemies within 3 squares upon hitting. He'll also use divine challenge on the primary target he attacked. Assuming the initiative count works out fine, the druid will use his Camouflage Cloak (level 6 utility) to make the Paladin invisible.

When it comes around to the creatures turn, they will typically avoid the invisible paladin (barring things like tremor sense) and take a significant amount of damage as he has been maximizing it with feats.

Being invisible doesn't make you hidden. The creatures still know where you are and can target you with no problem other then the receive a -5 to hit. It would a total DM call whether or not the creatures attack someone else.

Also, hypothetically, if the creature were to attack the square in which they believe the Paladin to be in, would they take challenge damage if they guessed the wrong square? Or does that qualify as trying to attack the Pally?

Is there anything wrong with this? Or is just the PC's working together in a cool way to maximize the Paladin's potential.

See above.

 

[Stalker0]

I would rule that if the monster is making his best attempt to attack the paladin, then he doesn't activate the mark.

Otherwise, its a perfectly fine combo.

 

[keterys]

Now, if they manage to, say, Fey Switch or Dimensional Warp the invisible paladin in replacement with another invisible ally such that they inadvertently attack a different ally...

More power to them. That's hilarious.

 

[Jurph]

The rule as written specifies "makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target". But in combat against invisible opponents, barring abilities that remove the ambiguity, there is no way to know the number or disposition of the invisible opponents. The PHB specifies that to attack an invisible opponent you pick a square to attack, but if you pick the wrong square "only the DM knows" whether you missed or whether you picked the wrong square. The question of knowledge is an important one, because Stalker0 would rule that the damage is based on intent whereas keterys would seemingly rule on the facts as the DM alone understands them. If you rule on intent you can get some broken results from scenarios like the ones keterys proposes:

1) The monster attacks an invisible decoy creature (let's say it's a rogue wearing an identical invisibility cloak) where it expects to find a paladin. It takes no damage because its intent was to strike a paladin. Because creatures know about the marks that are on them, the creature now deduces that it struck the paladin and continues to strike the rogue in that square without taking damage, because its intent is to kill the paladin.

2) ...but then the paladin takes off his invisibility cloak and appears on the other side of the room. On any subsequent attack against the rogue, the monster would clearly take damage!

3) Four turns go by, with the monster hitting the invisible rogue and taking radiant damage each time, and then it is revealed that the paladin who appeared on the far side of the room was actually an illusion cast by the mage in the party, and the paladin is nowhere to be seen. If the monster decides that the invisible creature next to him is a paladin, he can attack with impunity; otherwise he takes damage.

4) Meanwhile another monster, also marked, has crossed the room to attack the illusory paladin. He is attacking an illusion (and missing!) but his intent is also to attack the paladin. If we rule on intent the monster takes no damage.

5) Rewind the tape and start over. The rogue and paladin switch places using Fey Switch after each becomes invisible. The monster strikes at the invisible opponent nearby and connects, but the rogue cries out (in a language the monster comprehends) "Hey, I'm not the holy warrior - if you keep attacking me you're going to get burned!" Subsequent strikes will damage the monster if we rule on intent.

6) Wait, rewind the tape to the part where the rogue cries out. This time he does a convincing impersonation of the paladin's voice and says "In the name of Moradin, you'll never strike me!" The monster successfully makes its bluff check, and now knows that it will take damage if it attacks the bluffing rogue.

7) Rewind the tape again. The rogue and paladin both disappear but don't switch places. The mage manages to use Ghost Sound to emulate a voice which is not the paladin's, emanating from a square next to the monster. That voice says (in a language the monster comprehends) "Hey, I'm not the holy warrior - if you keep attacking me you're going to get burned!" The monster fails its bluff check, and the paladin shifts into the square with the sound. Now no matter whom the monster attacks it takes damage!


Because of the spooky action at a distance created by monsters knowing about their marks and markers, you end up with a Schroedinger's Paladin situation where the monster's understanding of the battlefield changes the damage it takes. But ruling on the facts as the DM understands them is no better; the counterfactual produces gibberish results as well. Reviewing the previous cases we would get:

1) Monster takes damage even though it attacked (what it thought was) a paladin.
2) Monster continues to take damage for attacking an invisible non-paladin target because it now "knows" the target isn't a paladin...
3) ...but then the non-spooky evidence for that knowledge turns out to be falsified and now the monster's knowledge is retroactively incorrect. Does the damage go away? The damage is the only data the monster has to base its decision on.
4) Monster takes damage even though it attacked (what it thought was) a paladin.
5) If we rule on facts, the monster takes damage for each attack.
6) If we rule on facts, the monster takes damage regardless of the bluff.
7) ...but in this peculiar case the monster makes an attack against what it thinks is not a paladin, and takes no radiant damage. Now, assuming it has rudimentary intelligence, it can deduce that the creature in that square is the paladin, despite failing its bluff check.

The biggest problem with ruling on the facts is that the players can cause damage to the creature based on unknowable information that only exists in the metagame. A side effect is that the creature can deduce unknowable metagame information from the results of its attacks. How do you distinguish between a paladin marking a creature and retreating (via Mordenkainen's Mansion or an Arcane Gate, for example) and a paladin marking a creature and then moving a few squares away? I think at some point you need to rule that the paladin is unavailable as a target, and the creature is free to change its focus with no penalty.

So I think, because it results in more consistent battle logic, that you should rule on the facts at hand (rather than the intent), but there needs to be a DM ruling or a judgment call on when the paladin is no longer available as a target.

 

[babinro]

I wish players would be that creative all the time Jurph. I particularly like the ghost sound as a bluff situation in combat.

All and all, until something like this gets too outrageous, I'll let the players have their fun and reward the paladin by granting his challenge/sanction bonuses.

 

[Garthanos]

In my opinion the option to using the creatures intent... is why you have a DM instead of a computer
and yes
"I think at some point you need to rule that the paladin is unavailable as a target, and the creature is free to change its focus with no penalty."

 

[Jurph]

In my opinion the option to using the creatures intent... is why you have a DM instead of a computer
and yes
"I think at some point you need to rule that the paladin is unavailable as a target, and the creature is free to change its focus with no penalty."

Garthanos, I think you must be right. Ruling on intent-plus-availability would create an erratum something like this: "If the paladin is unavailable as a target, the marked condition ends."

The scenarios I outlined above would then have the following outcomes:

1) The paladin disappeared and then moved a significant distance (DM's call) away, and therefore there is no way that the creature could target the paladin. Probing attacks will cause no damage, but attacks that connect generate divine tactile feedback (ZAP) for striking the non-paladin. The monster becomes painfully aware of the absence of the paladin, and the sanction is lifted.

2) The paladin revealing himself makes him available as a target again, and even probing attacks would cause damage at this point. If the monster had already connected with a target and gotten zapped, the sanction condition would have already ended, and would not reappear.

3) ...but if the paladin was illusory, then as soon as the illusion is discovered (and assuming the paladin doesn't have a readied action to appear on the other side of the room) the paladin becomes unavailable as a target and the condition ends.

4) Probing attacks against the illusory paladin cause the monster no pain. If the monster rolls a 20 to hit, or passes a perception check, perhaps the illusion is dispelled, forcing case (3) above. I'd go with standard illusion rules here, but I don't know them off the top of my head.

5) Just as in case (1) above, the probing attacks cause no damage until they connect with a non-paladin target, but the players get a free ZAP the first time the monster connects with a non-paladin target.

6) Converse of case (1) above - the monster knows that the nearby invisible target is not the paladin, but there's no evidence as to the paladin's location. Paladin becomes unavailable as a target and the monster is free to attack.

7) The monster believes that the nearby target is not a paladin, and may therefore believe that the paladin is unavailable as a target, but the players are being so damned creative that I'd give them this one - the monster's next attack will cause Divine Sanction to deal damage even though the monster believes itself to be free from the effect¹. I might even rule that the monster's defenses were lowered (believing itself to be free from the effect) and so it takes max damage from trying to strike the invisible-paladin-which-seems-to-not-be-an-invisible-paladin. I would also rule that the ZAP is tactile feedback that makes the monster aware of the ruse, though. So the players get one solid ZAP at max damage and a few extra XP for a creative trap.

babinro, you really helped me puzzle out this last step when you said "let the players have their fun." It's a game not a law school exam, and the players' enjoyment of the story is what matters. Trickery on this scale and complexity is why we still have legends about Loki and Odysseus -- if the players can pull it off, the monster deserves to get burned!

Footnote 1: I know the PHB says that monsters are always aware of the conditions on them, but in this situation I would overrule it on the grounds that the monster's awareness of the situation is too muddled.

 

[DracoSuave]

Wow, this is way over thinking it. Some common sense.

If you don't know where the paladin is, you can't very well attack him. Does that make DC/DS not work? No. Notice that -ability- to attack the paladin is not inherent in how the ability operates. Why is that? Not all Paladins serve gods of honourable combat. I'm certain a Paladin of Sehenine/The Traveler would have NO PROBLEM sanctioning and going invisible.

'But a 3rd edition paladin--' Stop right there. This isn't 3rd edition, paladins don't work that way.