Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jurph" data-source="post: 4877825" data-attributes="member: 84577">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 effect[sup]1[/sup].  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.</blockquote>

Verification