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

[eamon]

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?"

While I agree with your conclusion later on, I can't hope but notice that Divine Challenge's text is freakishly long in comparison to other powers. I think WotC solidly screwed up writing this monster. Yes, the rules are unambiguous. But they're also far from clear. Especially, if you've misinterpreted the power once, you really need to take a step or twenty backwards and reevaluate every sentence in a new context; that's tricky.

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.

It should be errata'd to more clearly say what they mean.

If YOU think it should be errata'd (or at least clarified) please post some support on the WotC errata boards.

 

[CapnZapp]

Well, I happen to have the opinion the designers do not need to clarify by errataing "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target" to read

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target (and fulfilling all rules for that new challenge)"

There simply is no support for the view you can challenge without having to engage. You don't have to spell out this as if there was a valid case where a challenge wasn't always coupled with engagement restriction. If for no other reason any rule interpretation requiring a rules lawyer is probably wrong.

Of course, if they do it anyway, great.

In general I agree the power description is long and complex. However, this thread is probably not a good argument for change.

 

[keterys]

Part of me has to wonder if the text used to not include the whole different target mess, just the 'must engage target' bit, but some DMs were causing paladins to lose their DC when they switched targets cause they failed to engage their previous target on their turn. So WotC then added that clause.

And hilarity ensued.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

In general I agree the power description is long and complex. However, this thread is probably not a good argument for change.

To add fuel to the fire, I've participated in threads where this phrase was called into question:

While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you as a target. Also, it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target before the start of your next turn.

The text after "Also" was taken to apply *only* before the start of your next turn after you applied this power. According to this interpretation, the only effect of Divine Challenge that lasts after "the start of your next turn" is the -2 penalty to attack rolls.

So I think Divine Challenge could use some TLC. I think the best thing would be to incorporate Divine Sanction into the power. Perhaps something like:

The target is subject to your divine sanction. The target remains subject to your divine sanction until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target (see below).

On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged 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, your target is no longer subject to your divine sanction and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.

You can use divine challenge once per turn.

But this still leaves the problematic "different target" phrase that is, I think, the primary source of disagreement in this thread.

 

[eamon]

In general I agree the power description is long and complex. However, this thread is probably not a good argument for change.

Well, how about the fact that it doesn't fit on a power card with a human-readable font-size, and, say, a few more threads....

• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234690-divine-challenge-end-your-turn.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/267411-paladin-divine-challenge-query.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...h-edition-questions-divine-challenge-etc.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/255363-paladins-divine-challenge-timing.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/235447-paladin-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/238584-paladin-divine-challenge-end-turn.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/259866-divine-challenge-sanction-invis.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/238707-soldier-faith-overpowered.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229122-paladins-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/235669-customer-service-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/233839-paladins-challenge-question.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/241683-paladins-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234902-invisible-paladin.html

(not all of those threads start in confusion, mind you, they just tend to (d)evolve into confusion...)
I divinely challenge someone else to find similar things on the wizards boards; I'll bet it's no different. On the other hand, since they rewrote all the urls, it got kind hard to find stuff over there...

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, if the designers added clarification to every little rule that started an enworld thread, the PHB would have been a thousand pages thick.

In other words, it isn't (nearly) enough to be able to demonstrate a rules passage can be rules-lawyered into a specific interpretation.

You also need to ask yourself "is every step of such a logic chain reasonable?" and "do normal gamers consider this a problem?".

If the answer to these two questions are "hell no", then I don't have a problem with WotC leaving the issue unattended.



Edit:
@Jonathan Moyer: I think having two separate mechanisms (Divine Challenge, Divine Sanction) doing much the same thing in subtly different ways is a horrible horrible kludge. So if you're suggesting they become one single, unified, clear ability, then I'm all for it!

 

[CapnZapp]

@Eamon: That the rule is long and complex is a good reason to change it.

That the rule can be driven into esoterica is not. Few average gamers have anything to set against a rules lawyer ripping a thread into shreds.

But whatever; I didn't come here to stop people from rules-laywering this issue to death. I just felt the thread needed a quick summary for all those of us who simply glazed over as the thread went into detailed obscurity. In particular, if this thread morphs into a "this issue needs errata" thread, I'm losing interest fast.

In short: I've made my point, I'm done.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234690-divine-challenge-end-your-turn.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/267411-paladin-divine-challenge-query.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4t...h-edition-questions-divine-challenge-etc.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/255363-paladins-divine-challenge-timing.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan-creations-house-rules/235447-paladin-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/238584-paladin-divine-challenge-end-turn.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/259866-divine-challenge-sanction-invis.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/238707-soldier-faith-overpowered.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/229122-paladins-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/235669-customer-service-divine-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/233839-paladins-challenge-question.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/241683-paladins-challenge.html
• http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-4th-edition-rules/234902-invisible-paladin.html

Interesting, the discussion we're having here was already touched upon in 6th thread you linked to.

 

[Kzach]

Here's another two situations that cropped up in a session.

1) Can you Divine Challenge the same target you have Divine Sanctioned? The MARK is superseded but the Challenge and Sanction aren't marks in and of themselves, so do they stack?

2) If a creature uses its action to control another creature to attack for it, and the one of them is marked... do either of them take damage or suffer the mark penalty?

 

[abyssaldeath]

Here's another two situations that cropped up in a session.

1) Can you Divine Challenge the same target you have Divine Sanctioned? The MARK is superseded but the Challenge and Sanction aren't marks in and of themselves, so do they stack?

DS/DC are totally dependent on their marks. In both cases their damage mechanics last until the mark ends. If the mark gets superseded then that mark has ended. So no, you can't stack them.