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

[Kraydak]

Different from what?

-Hyp.

Not actually explicitly clear in the rules. Presumably different from whoever you had previously challenged when the new challenge was issued. The important question is whether you need there to have been a previous challengee for that event to trigger (which is my leaning), or whether a nul set counts.

Elaboration: the text of relevence is:
On your turn, you must engage the target you chal-
lenged or challenge a different target. To engage the
target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent
to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn,
the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine chal-
lenge on your next turn.

I repeat this block because this is the block of text that gets run. It gets run whether I start the turn with target A challenged and don't change, or whether I do change to target B.

If I change to target B, I note that, *On my turn* I *challenged a different target*, (redundantly) which event occurred before the *end of my turn*.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If I change to target B, I note that, *On my turn* I *challenged a different target*, (redundantly) which event occurred before the *end of my turn*.

Let's say I have a hypothetical power, Iterative Strike.

Target: One creature.
Hit: Deal X damage, and make a secondary attack.
Secondary Target: A different creature.
Secondary Hit: Deal Y damage.

I'm facing Orc A and Orc B. I use Iterative Strike; I hit Orc A (one creature), and make my secondary attack on Orc B (a different creature).

Now I spend an action point and use Iterative Strike again. I hit Orc B. Now I need to make my secondary attack.

Can I make the secondary attack on Orc B as well, since Orc B is 'a different creature' to the target of my first Iterative Strike, even though he isn't a different target to the target of the Iterative Strike I'm using now?

-Hyp.

 

[Kraydak]

...
Can I make the secondary attack on Orc B as well, since Orc B is 'a different creature' to the target of my first Iterative Strike, even though he isn't a different target to the target of the Iterative Strike I'm using now?

-Hyp.

Of course not. And your power would be analogous IF DC's 3rd paragraph started with "Before the end of your turn".

And even though I just said that, I'm not 100% sure even there, because it is important to remember that DC itself doesn't have a duration. All DC itself does is erase the previous DC mark (if any) and drops a new one in place.

 

[Hypersmurf]

All DC itself does is erase the previous DC mark (if any) and drops a new one in place.

And impose conditions that must be met.

DC has a target, and references "a different target". A different target is a target different to the target of the power.

-Hyp.

 

[Kzach]

The annoying thing about this whole thing is that I can see both sides having merit. And that's just bad game design. The whole design of the DC from the start has been a botch-up. It really needs to be altered to be simpler and clearer or at the very least have the wording be unequivocally clear and precise.

It shouldn't take half a dozen people arguing for several days to be able to figure this out.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

nope, DC was perfectly fine before the gameday, where a powergamer used it on an enemy and ran away...
... and the nerdrage in these forums afterwards...

I just ignore the passage altogether until one of my players tries to abuse it. And then I judge by common sense:

Challenge and wait is ok. Otherwise you could not use it on a surprise round.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Otherwise you could not use it on a surprise round.

You can't, unless you're fortuitously adjacent.

-Hyp.

 

[Kraydak]

And impose conditions that must be met.

DC has a target, and references "a different target". A different target is a target different to the target of the power.

-Hyp.

a) I am embarrassed to admit I'm not sure what point you are driving at.

b) DC is weird in that it is an instant effect that generates a special mark that has an unusual duration. At least DC doesn't mention that it has a duration and it had better be instant because otherwise it'll last for the encounter and keeping the engagement condition happy could become absurdly convoluted... the only thing that explicitly goes away is the mark. The 3rd paragraph of DC is especially weird because DC isn't around at the end of the turn. Fortunately the 3rd paragraph does not reference "DC's target" (not around at the end of the turn because DC itself isn't around then) but rather "the target you challenged" (and the "different target" will be relative to "the target you challenged").

 

[CapnZapp]

I agree, this thread is hopelessly tangled. And lacking in perspective. The rules-lawyerism has rocketed off to such lofty heights one absolutely vital question has been completely ignored: "do you really believe WotC intended to write a rule so complex you needed several pages of discussion to interpret it?"

Of course not. Things aren't nearly as muddled as this thread makes things out to be.

Any time you divine challenge, you need to engage later in that same round, or you'll suffer the consequences.

Whether you previously had someone else challenged or not (that is, if you "switch targets" or not) is of no consequence.

Call it the Occam's Razor or the Gordian Knot interpretation if you like. But do not seriously ask me to believe switching targets means you don't have to engage.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

So on your first turn, you target Bob. On your second turn, you target Joe.

After you target Joe, the challenge on Bob is satisfied and goes away. The phrase now reads: "On your turn, you must engage Joe or challenge a different target."

A different target from what? A different target from the target you challenged.

Who's the target you challenged? Joe. So you'd have to be able to target someone other than Joe.

I don't think they have to write: "On your turn, you must engage the target of you challenged or challenge a different target from the target you challenged." What else could "different" mean?

In the original sentence, the words "different target" clearly refer to "the target you challenged."