Divine Challenge/Sanction with Invis

[Mahali]

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

True, but the original version of DC alloed a paladin to challenge and run away. This was changed prior to release so the paladin had to stay and fight (even if it's at range).

The designers clearly did not want a paladin to be able to challenge and hide.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think things probably work out best if you work off of results instead of intentions. Naturally monsters will KNOW that, so they're only going to swing at something if they think that they've got a reasonable chance of hitting the right target. It also means that players who are that way inclined can mess with the heads of the monsters, which is all good.

 

[DracoSuave]

True, but the original version of DC alloed a paladin to challenge and run away. This was changed prior to release so the paladin had to stay and fight (even if it's at range).

The designers clearly did not want a paladin to be able to challenge and hide.

I disagree. The only clear intent for the design of the DC is that the Paladin -interact- with the monster, either through attacking, or through being adjacent. There is nothing wrong with attacking and then hiding; that's still interacting with the monster, and something the paladin has to keep doing in order to maintain this.

 

[babinro]

Has anyone tried a cowardly paladin build? Perhaps one with feats like Defensive Mobility to help survive Opportunity attacks. If you have a melee centered party, the paladin could challenge as a minor, attack with the standard...and simply walk away with the move.

If the creature were to try and walk over to the Pally they'd get OA attacks from melee allies. If it attacks those allies, it would take DC damage. Seems like a potential build at least vs melee oriented foes.

 

[Jurph]

If you don't know where the paladin is, you can't very well attack him.

If you don't know where the paladin is, you can attack him. The mechanics of attacking an invisible enemy are clearly laid out in the PHB p. 281 ("Targeting what you can't see").

Does that make DC/DS not work? No. Notice that -ability- to attack the paladin is not inherent in how the ability operates.

I think everyone in this thread noticed that. That's sort of the point of the thread - the RAW does not make any allowance for paradoxical situations where the paladin is unavailable as a target, and it leads to some bizarre situations. If the creature makes its best effort to attack a paladin, and the attack ends up not including the paladin as a target, then by the RAW the monster takes damage.

Why is that?

I think that's what we're trying to figure out.

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.

I don't think anybody is arguing that a paladin's class (or class concept) has anything to do with it. Divine Sanction specifically states that the paladin does not have to engage the target; Divine Challenge specifically states that the paladin does have to engage the target. For cases where the paladin vacates the combat, DC is very clear about what happens after the end of the paladin's turn.

babinro's original question had to do with making attacks where the monster includes (a square in which the monster expects to find) a paladin as a target, but either fails to hit the paladin or hits something other than a paladin. I think the consensus so far has been that trying to hit the paladin and missing is just a miss, but trying to hit the paladin and (even accidentally) hitting something other than the paladin causes the damage to proc.

In your example where the invisible paladin stays adjacent (to keep DC working), let's imagine that the creature has a close blast attack. If he uses the attack as a probe to hit the paladin and the paladin isn't in one of those squares -- but another ally is -- then even if the attack misses everybody, it was an attack that didn't include the paladin as a target, and it procs the damage.

However, if the paladin is using DS instead of DC, and performs some trickery like stepping into Mordenkainen's Mansion or an Arcane Rift to sit out the fight, then there is no way for the creature to include the paladin as a target. Given a typical party's hit points and the damage that DS can deal, that single challenge could cause more damage than any other PC in the fight, because it always hits and the creature will almost certainly continue attacking. DS from a feat-pumped paladin is effectively "ongoing 8 radiant, save doesn't end" against a hostile creature. If you don't think there's anything wrong with that, consider the paladin daily at-will On Pain of Death which deals 1d8 radiant (save ends) after the monster attacks on its turn, or 1d4 radiant (save ends) if it misses.

I'm not saying you're wrong - the RAW seems to support your assertion that the paladin can hide and still zap the challenged target - I'm just saying that there are exploits of the power that boost its potential into the realm of "broken". Adding a DM judgment call on the availability of the paladin as a target seems to un-break these exploits but leaves plenty of room in the gray cases for mild-and-fun exploitation.