Divine Challenge: Switching targets means you don't have to engage?

[Nahat Anoj]

The power essentially says "on your turn you must do A or B." (where A = engage, and B = challenge somebody else)
Why do some people think that anybody who does B must also do A?

Actually, if I understand you, the way the rule is written you could initiate divine challenge on potentially every enemy on the battlefield.

Round 1: Paladin DCs monster 1.
Round 2: Paladin DCs monster 2. Because he challenged someone else, the DC on monster 1 is still up.
Round 3: Paladin DCs monster 3. Because he challenged someone else, the DCs on monsters 1 and 2 are still up.

And so on. It just becomes really hard for the paladin to keep up all the marks after all the monsters are DCed.

EDIT - So at first this rankled me a bit, but now I actually kind of like it. It would be even better if there was a stipulation saying that the monster must also engage the paladin by the end of its turn. It would make paladins much more sticky.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Round 1: Paladin DCs monster 1.
Round 2: Paladin DCs monster 2. Because he challenged someone else, the DC on monster 1 is still up.

"The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target."

-Hyp.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

"The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target."

Oh, duh, how did I forget that??? I had that in my mind when I initially wrote my post, but forgot it when I was trying to figure out the order of events.

Okay, so now here's the way I see it:

Round 1 - Paladin uses a minor action to DC monster 1. Because the paladin can't challenge a different target (you already used DC this round) he must engage monster 1 to maintain the DC on it.

Round 2 - Paladin uses a minor action to DC monster 2. The DC on monster 1 ends. Because the paladin can't challenge a different target (you already used DC this round) he must engage monster 2 to maintain the DC on it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Oh, duh, how did I forget that??? I had that in my mind when I initially wrote my post, but forgot it when I was trying to figure out the order of events.

Okay, so now here's the way I see it:

Round 1 - Paladin uses a minor action to DC monster 1. Because the paladin can't challenge a different target (you already used DC this round) he must engage monster 1 to maintain the DC on it.

Round 2 - Paladin uses a minor action to DC monster 2. The DC on monster 1 ends. Because the paladin can't challenge a different target (you already used DC this round) he must engage monster 2 to maintain the DC on it.

Exactly right. And the Paladin doesn't need to engage monster 1 to avoid the DC penalties in round 2 from his first use of Divine Challenge, because he satisfied the requirements of that use of DC by challenging monster 2.

-Hyp.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Exactly right. And the Paladin doesn't need to engage monster 1 to avoid the DC penalties in round 2 from his first use of Divine Challenge, because he satisfied the requirements of that use of DC by challenging monster 2.

Right. I think I have it now.

 

[Belphanior]

Upon a second, third, fourth, and fifth reading of the rules I come to the conclusion that my interpretation of the power was based on a present tense/past tense reading that's still possible, but ultimately not the most likely.

So I concede I was wrong and now share the opinions of FireLance, Hypersmurf, etc.

Which is a bit of a relief, really. I always played it like that and only today came to a different conclusion. Now I won't have to tell my players to change things.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Upon a second, third, fourth, and fifth reading of the rules I come to the conclusion that my interpretation of the power was based on a present tense/past tense reading that's still possible, but ultimately not the most likely.

I think the problem I have with that reading is with the definition of "a different target".

I read that as "a target other than the current target of the Divine Challenge".

So when you challenge target 2, the requirement becomes "challenge a target other than target 2"... which you haven't done.

I think the permissive reading requires that "challenge a different target" doesn't take account of who the current target is. "I had challenged target 1; now I'm challenging target 2. Therefore I've challenged a different target. The new use of the power requires me to challenge a different target... but I've already done that!"

This reading doesn't take into account the question "Different from what?" Once you use the power on target 2, the answer to that question is "Different from target 2". And challenging a target different from target 2 is something you haven't done this round.

I think that's usually the point this debate comes down to - is the question "Different from what?" being asked?

-Hyp.

 

[Belphanior]

Actually, my problem came from the word "challenged." Because it's past tense, while the rest of the sentence is not, I took that to mean challenged in previous rounds only. So on round one you challenge an orc. Good. On round two maintaining the challenge starts becoming an issue, and you must now either engage or challenge a new foe.

But it's ok. I'm better now.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, my problem came from the word "challenged." Because it's past tense, while the rest of the sentence is not, I took that to mean challenged in previous rounds only.

I guess once he's your target, he's someone you challenged in the past, even if it's still the same round

-Hyp.

 

[Stalker0]

Let's say I have three boxes full of pebbles, and a key.

I'll disagree with you on this one hyp.

My main arguing point is that the power doesn't say "Open Box 1 or open Box 2".

It says "Engage Box 1 or Open Box 2".

The power says you must do one of two actions. I must engage a target, or challenge a different one. Its not the same thing. Engage has a specific meaning which is defined in the next sentence.

The sentence after that says "if none of these events occur". Some people are interpreting that statement to mean the two choices provided for engagement. But the statement could as easily be interpreted as the two choices you are originally given, engage your challenged target, or challenge a new target. Considering the second sentence is designed to clarify what one of your two choices are, I think the final sentence is referring to your choice....and not solely to engagement.