Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belphanior" data-source="post: 5002823" data-attributes="member: 12401">While FireLance's interpretation makes sense, that's arguably not what's in the RAW.The first sentence appears to provide a mutually exclusive choice: either you engage or you challenge somebody else. The second sentence clarifies what "engage" means, and the third sentence provides the consequences.Due to the way it's written, the most RAW-compliant interpretation is that "challenge a different target" removes the "must engage" restriction for that round. Because you've met one of the two obligations, the consequences don't kick in.An interpretation where both obligations must be met results in an ugly scenario: now you must both engage and challenge a different target on each turn. This is clearly not what's intended.From a different perspective, we can also analyze the other elements of the power. Particularly the range; if you'd have to engage immediately on the same turn in which you challenged, there is no purpose in having it be a close burst 5. Paladins don't have enough or strong enough ranged attacks to engage a target from 5 squares away (particularly in just the PHB, where the Challenge originated). So if you de facto have to either be or end up in melee in the same turn in which you challenge, what's the point of that range?It seems to me that you're supposed to be able to challenge a target 5 squares away and leave it at that. Since the range is not that great, both you and the monster can easily reach eachother on your respective next turns.tl;dr version: I agree with Stalker0</blockquote>

Verification