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

[Nahat Anoj]

@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!

Well, I don't think it's horrible so much as an artifact of earlier design. Here's what I proposed, in spiffy power format:

This version of the power is really not different from what we currently have, but I feel Divine Sanction is more clearly worded. If they were to republish PH1 with Divine Sanction in it, Divine Sanction could be treated as a paragraph of text much like the fighter's Combat Superiority feature. Powers would then reference that paragraph. That appeals to the inner organizer in me.

But, if they were to republish the PH1, I'd hope and pray they make all versions of the paladin Cha-based. That's way more important than Divine Challenge fixes, for me.

 

[FireLance]

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?

My group's approach is that the one who makes the attack roll suffers the penalty if it is marked.

Examples:
The warlord is marked and uses commander's strike to get the fighter to attack an enemy other than the one who marked him. The fighter suffers no penalty.

The fighter is marked and the warlord uses commander's strike to get the fighter to attack an enemy other than the one who marked him. The fighter suffers the penalty for being marked.

 

[FireLance]

Nice! I would just add a couple of things to clear up some of the current confusion with divine challenge:

1. The first sentence of the second para should read: "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge and engage a different target." Otherwise, this discussion is going to be repeated again and again.

2. Another issue that divine sanction still doesn't address is whether the target takes damage before it makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target (which would negate the attack if it kills the attacker) or after.

 

[eamon]

Well, I don't think it's horrible so much as an artifact of earlier design. Here's what I proposed, in spiffy power format:

This version of the power is really not different from what we currently have, but I feel Divine Sanction is more clearly worded. If they were to republish PH1 with Divine Sanction in it, Divine Sanction could be treated as a paragraph of text much like the fighter's Combat Superiority feature. Powers would then reference that paragraph. That appeals to the inner organizer in me.

But, if they were to republish the PH1, I'd hope and pray they make all versions of the paladin Cha-based. That's way more important than Divine Challenge fixes, for me.

How 'bout this minor variant:

Effect: The target is subject to your divine sanction for the duration of this power. This power ends whenever the divine sanction ends, when you use this power against another target, when the target falls unconscious, or when you fail to engage the target by the end of your turn.

At the end of each of your turns, you have engaged the target if you have either attacked the target on that turn or ended your turn adjacent to it. If this power ends because you fail to engage, you can't use divine challenge on your next turn.

You can use divine challenge once per turn.
​

• The bit in italics is optional, I'm not sure if it's a good idea. I added this to avoid the scenario where a paladin is technically in violation if he drops his enemy and charges a new enemy without changing his divine challenge. It makes DC ever so slightly weaker if enemies become conscious after being unconscious, but I think it's simpler all around. Note that irrespective of this bit I would also suggest that all marks end by default when the marking creature drops, but that's another issue.
• I rewrote the bit on "engagement" to make it easier to evaluate; it now gives a clear set of guidelines that clearly don't require any particular order (old DC and your variant it's potentially confusing what happens if you attack-then-DC). It also makes the common lazy-player error legal of challenging after an attack, which I hope doesn't cause balance issues but may simplify game play.
• I explicitly note that the penalty (no usage of divine challenge next turn) only kicks in when the power ends do to that clause. I hope that this avoids discussions whereby the power ends for some other reason and it's not clear if the engagement clause is still relevant - now, it never is.
• I added a bit saying the power ends if for any reason the divine sanction ends. In your version of the power, it may be construed that the challenge (and with it the engagement clause) doesn't automatically end when the sanction does (i.e., if you or someone else overwrite the mark).

Here's an even simpler version, with a bit more of a change:

Effect: The target is subject to your divine sanction. The sanction ends when you use this power against another target. At the end of each of your turns, the sanction also ends unless you have attacked the target that turn or ended your turn adjacent to it.

You can use divine challenge once per turn.
​

This variant gets rid of the (probably unnecessary) clause penalizing the paladin for failing to engage. The divine sanction still ends, so you still need to engage for the power to be at all useful, but the extra penalty isn't required for balance (It's just a minor harassment which rarely kicks in and almost never matters anyhow). Without the extra penalty, you can get rid of a bunch of unnecessary definitions since you now no longer care how the power ended. This last version is my preferred update, really ;-).

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

-Hyp.

In my games you can. This is ignoring senseless rules.

IMHO a good change would be:

Effect: The target is subject to your divine sanction until this power ends. As long as the target is under the effect of your divine sanction, you cannot hide from the target. If at the end of your turn the target has no line of effect to you or is more than 10 squares away, this power ends and you cannot use your divine challenge until end of your next turn. You can end this power with a minor action or by using divine challenge on a different target.

 

[Kzach]

This variant gets rid of the (probably unnecessary) clause penalizing the paladin for failing to engage. The divine sanction still ends, so you still need to engage for the power to be at all useful, but the extra penalty isn't required for balance (It's just a minor harassment which rarely kicks in and almost never matters anyhow). Without the extra penalty, you can get rid of a bunch of unnecessary definitions since you now no longer care how the power ended. This last version is my preferred update, really ;-).

Vote 1: eamon for President.

One of the design goals of 4e was supposedly moving away from penalties. They should re-examine this ability in light of that design goal.

 

[abyssaldeath]

Here is my suggention on a change to DC

Divine Challenge Paladin Feature
You boldly confront a nearby enemy, searing it with divine light if it ignores your challenge.
At-Will ✦ Divine, Radiant
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: One creature in burst
Effect: You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
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, if you engaged the target on your turn, 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 damage increases to 6 + your Charisma modifier at 11th level, and to 9 + your Charisma modifier at 21st level.
To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it.
You can use divine challenge once per turn.
Special: Even though this ability is called a challenge, it doesn’t rely on the intelligence or language ability of the target. It’s a magical compulsion that affects the creature’s behavior, regardless of the creature’s nature. You can’t place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s divine challenge.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

this variant gets rid of the (probably unnecessary) clause penalizing the paladin for failing to engage. The divine sanction still ends, so you still need to engage for the power to be at all useful, but the extra penalty isn't required for balance (it's just a minor harassment which rarely kicks in and almost never matters anyhow). Without the extra penalty, you can get rid of a bunch of unnecessary definitions since you now no longer care how the power ended. This last version is my preferred update, really ;-).

+1.

 

[eamon]

Whaddaya know, they finally fixed this.

 

[eamon]

Sigh.

Unfortunately, they got it subtly wrong. Now, the marking penalty applies when an attack does not include you, but the radiant damage applies when an attack power does not include you.

That's particularly confusing for PC powers, since many monsters have multi-attacks that basically say "The Monstrous beast makes two Xyz attacks". Then clearly the overall "multiattack" power doesn't trigger the damage, but subtly (and confusingly) the individual Xyz attacks - which attack powers in their own right - possible do irrespective of the overall multiattack. And of course the distinction Attack Power vs. attack is particularly confusing for monsters, which don't label their powers with words like that at all.

It's a mess; I'm just going to ignore that unfortunate word "power" there.