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

[FireLance]

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.

I see how it could be interpreted that way, but I would still prefer to take the approach that the paladin has to engage his second target in the round that he challenges it. Otherwise, you get the rather odd situation that the paladin has to engage his first target in the same round that he challenges it, but never has to engage his second and subsequent targets. Apart from "that's the rules of the game," I don't think there's a really satisfying answer to the question, "If the paladin doesn't have to engage his second target, why does he need to engage his first?" or conversely, "If the paladin needs to engage his first target, why doesn't he need to engage his second?" Even an argument along the lines that the paladin needs to engage his first target just *once* to show willing doesn't sound convincing to me.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I'm not sure who you're referring to by "some people," but if I'm included in that you misunderstand me. Like you, I take "if none of these events occur" to mean the original two choices given - engage or challenge someone else.

The problem is, the moment you challenge a second monster, the challenge on the first monster immediately vanishes. The second challenge is a separate, distinct instance of the power, independent from the first challenge and possessing it's own set of rules.

Because it's still the paladin's turn, according to the rules of this second challenge, he must either engage the target or challenge a different one by the end of the turn or suffer the consequences. However, he can't challenge a different target because he already used DC. So in order to maintain the second challenge, the paladin must engage.

 

[jbear]

Edit: Didn't take into account the Paladin's restriction of one challenge per round. Wiped post. Restart.

I think your RAW interpretaion is very valid. But it makes the paldin's mark feel very 'swordmagey'. It's in his interest to always change marks, and move away attacking someone else, avoiding the person he challenged. Not really in the spirit of the paladin at all.

I like paladins, and hence I really like your interpretation, but I don't think this is what the designers intended. Feels like something there is broken and some wording needs fixing. I'd love it if that weren't the case... but... I have a funny feeling it is.

 

[Stalker0]

Because it's still the paladin's turn, according to the rules of this second challenge, he must either engage the target or challenge a different one by the end of the turn or suffer the consequences. However, he can't challenge a different target because he already used DC. So in order to maintain the second challenge, the paladin must engage.

Thing is, that's iterative based logic and you start getting into trouble if you read powers that way.

Here's an easy example, the battlecrazed weapon. The weapon says I do +1d6 when I'm bloodied.

If you use iterative logic, the power would do this.

I am bloodied.
The weapon does +1d6 damage.
I check again, I'm still bloodied, I do +1d6 more damage.
I'm still bloodied, another +1d6 damage, etc, etc.



Powers do a set thing, and then stop. You don't keep recycling the text over and over again while you are using a power. For the divine challenge, it says that on your turn you must engage your challenged target or challenge a new one. The second you challenge a new guy, the power's criteria has been met.

 

[Stalker0]

I think your RAW interpretaion is very valid. But it makes the paldin's mark feel very 'swordmagey'. It's in his interest to always change marks, and move away attacking someone else, avoiding the person he challenged. Not really in the spirit of the paladin at all.

I'll disagree, I think it can in fact be exactly how a paladin would work.


I challenge a target, "come and fight me!".

The target and I begin fighting in melee.

With the ability to change marks, I can now go "And you over there, fight me as well!" And continue to fight the same guy I was fighting, while the mark draws in another opponent.


Without that, if the paladin wants to draw in a second guy, he would have to throw a ranged attack or leave the man he's fighting to do it. That seems more unpaladiny to me.

 

[eamon]

Thing is, that's iterative based logic and you start getting into trouble if you read powers that way.

Here's an easy example, the battlecrazed weapon. The weapon says I do +1d6 when I'm bloodied.

If you use iterative logic, the power would do this.

I am bloodied.
The weapon does +1d6 damage.
I check again, I'm still bloodied, I do +1d6 more damage.
I'm still bloodied, another +1d6 damage, etc, etc.

Right - so for every single instance of an attack made while you were bloodied you add +1d6. To one particular instance, the rules text applies; when you roll damage, you roll an extra 1d6.

This is distinctly different from re-applying the same rule to the same instance recursively. You do apply to rule in each situation - exactly once.

Powers do a set thing, and then stop. You don't keep recycling the text over and over again while you are using a power. For the divine challenge, it says that on your turn you must engage your challenged target or challenge a new one. The second you challenge a new guy, the power's criteria has been met.

The challenge does not recursively apply to the same opponent over and over again, as you say. However, the challenge's rule text does apply separately every single time you use it (each occurrence is easily identified since it requires a minor action). Whatever target creature you just challenged, it's clear from the rules that you must either challenge a different creature (impossible since you can only use divine challenge once each turn) or engage - or suffer the consequences. The fact that the requirements of some other independent usage of the Divine Challenge power have been met is irrelevant to the requirements of this usage of Divine Challenge. Thus, when you challenge a creature, you must engage it.

No need for recursion.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

It says: On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target.

RAW states you only need to engage the first challenge.


ROUND ONE
Is Divine Challenge in Play? No.
So>>Challenge>>then A or B (you can only do A = engage)

ROUND TWO
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND THREE
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND FOUR
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND FIVE / etc / etc ...

God the Paladin core class is so messed up...

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Ugh, I'm trying to write this in a way that doesn't make my head swim and sounds logical, but I don't have the necessary skill to do either.

Suffice to say that I feel "different target" refers directly back to the "target you challenged." So if you mark Joe, that means "on your turn, you must engage Joe or challenge a different target from Joe." On your second turn, you mark Bob, so "on your turn, you must engage Bob or challenge a different target from Bob." I feel the bolded bits are redundant and therefore unnecessary to write, but that they are implied by the meaning of "different."

 

[eamon]

RAW states you only need to engage the first challenge.


ROUND ONE
Is Divine Challenge in Play? No.
So>>Challenge>>then A or B (you can only do A = engage)

ROUND TWO
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND THREE
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND FOUR
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

ROUND FIVE / etc / etc ...

God the Paladin core class is so messed up...

Like every other power in the game, the rules of Divine Challenge apply to each target challenged. When you Divine Challenge some monster X you must "execute" all rules text of Divine Challenge. When you challenge another monster Y you must again execute all rules text of Divine challenge; this time vs. Y.

So let's take your example:

ROUND ONE
Is Divine Challenge in Play? No.
So>>Challenge>>then A or B (you can only do A = engage) [Agreed]

ROUND TWO
Is Divine Challenge in Play? Yes
So>>Challenge someone new>>Condition B is fulfuilled. Run freely around battlefield.

In round two, for the first instance of divine challenge (the one you used in round 1) you've fulfilled the need to either engage or challenge someone else. However, in round 2 you used divine challenge again! The target of this new divine challenge suffers the full effect of Divine Challenge, not some limited form thereof - just like every other power in the game.

The Divine Challenge you use in Round two is just like the one in round one, and it also states that you must engage or challenge someone else. If you run around the battlefield; you're doing neither. Thus, to avoid violating the second DC's requirements after using it you must either challenge a new opponent - impossible - or engage.

Note that the requirement is not "have challenged another opponent at some earlier point in time" it is "challenge". When you challenge an opponent, any previous challenges are not relevant to fulfilling this new Challenge.

Divine challenge is a power like any other in that each usage is a new usage which performs the full rules text. You cannot circumvent one instance's requirements satisfying another's.

 

[jbear]

I'll disagree, I think it can in fact be exactly how a paladin would work.


I challenge a target, "come and fight me!".

The target and I begin fighting in melee.

With the ability to change marks, I can now go "And you over there, fight me as well!" And continue to fight the same guy I was fighting, while the mark draws in another opponent.


Without that, if the paladin wants to draw in a second guy, he would have to throw a ranged attack or leave the man he's fighting to do it. That seems more unpaladiny to me.

Ok, you've convinced me. It's like a 'get over here and fight me' power... like scorpion from mortal combat (not a very good example, since he's a ninja). It would be worth putting the question to CS at Wotc (even though that is not very reliable).

It's definitely 180º change from how i understood the power.

So, you've got one on your side at least!