Invisible Paladin

[Hypersmurf]

A Paladin uses Divine Challenge on an opponent, and has total concealment. (Invisible, or blind opponent, or whatever.)

The opponent takes damage if he makes an attack that does not include the Paladin as a target.

Per p281 (and also p272): If you’re fighting a creature you can't see - when a creature is invisible, you're blinded, or you're fighting in darkness you can't see through - you have to target a square rather than the creature.

If the opponent, hoping to attack the Paladin, chooses a square and makes a basic attack, but guesses the wrong square, does he take Divine Challenge damage?

If the opponent, hoping to attack the Paladin, chooses a square and makes a basic attack, and guesses the correct square but misses the Paladin's AC, does he take Divine Challenge damage?

If the opponent, hoping to attack the Paladin, chooses a square and makes a basic attack, and guesses the correct square, and hits the Paladin's AC (taking into account the -5 penalty for total concealment), does he take Divine Challenge damage?

The target of his attack, per p281, is 'the square', not 'the Paladin'.

-Hyp.

 

[Ceylin]

Here's another even easier to set up scenario for you. A warlock taking the paladin multi-class feat.

Eyebite the target and then apply the Divine Challenge. Now you *are* invisible to the target.

 

[Mort_Q]

The Paladin, being a dishonourable cur, takes the equivalent amount of necrotic damage every time he attempts to use his Divine Challenge.

His god is not pleased.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Eyebite the target and then apply the Divine Challenge. Now you *are* invisible to the target.

Right, and hence you have total concealment. Note that the first example I gave in the parentheses was "invisible"

-Hyp.

 

[SJay]

The Paladin, being a dishonourable cur, takes the equivalent amount of necrotic damage every time he attempts to use his Divine Challenge.

His god is not pleased.

What if you're god is Corellon or Sehanine? do you get extra damage for acting in line with them?

 

[Kordeth]

The enemy is still attacking the paladin, even if he can't actually see the paladin--so no, he doesn't take the damage any more than if he swings and misses. That's how I'd rule it at least.

The Paladin, being a dishonourable cur, takes the equivalent amount of necrotic damage every time he attempts to use his Divine Challenge.

Nowhere in 4E does it require paladins to be noble and honorable.

 

[Terwox]

Quick, albeit tangential question --

Regarding the spirit of the rules as divine challenge is written. This spirit of the rules is perhaps easier to ascertain as the ability has been rewritten, and the community has seen two versions of the ability.

Would anyone argue that the spirit of the rules indicates that the creature affected by eyebite would take divine challenge damage? (Alternatively, a wizard using scorching blast at a paladin who was in a murder hole w/ a bow who stealthed out of sight after attacking.)

I would argue that the flavor of the rule states that those affected by divine challenge would not suffer damage if they made a best effort to attack the paladin. If they whiff and hit someone else, so be it.

 

[Kordeth]

Quick, albeit tangential question --

Regarding the spirit of the rules as divine challenge is written. This spirit of the rules is perhaps easier to ascertain as the ability has been rewritten, and the community has seen two versions of the ability.

Would anyone argue that the spirit of the rules indicates that the creature affected by eyebite would take divine challenge damage? (Alternatively, a wizard using scorching blast at a paladin who was in a murder hole w/ a bow who stealthed out of sight after attacking.)

I would argue that the flavor of the rule states that those affected by divine challenge would not suffer damage if they made a best effort to attack the paladin. If they whiff and hit someone else, so be it.

Which raises the further incidental question of if an invisible paladin is caught in the area of a marked wizard's fireball, does the wizard take damage if he didn't think the paladin would be a target of the attack?

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Paladin, being a dishonourable cur, takes the equivalent amount of necrotic damage every time he attempts to use his Divine Challenge.

His god is not pleased.

Of course, "Paladins are not granted their powers directly by their deity, but instead through various rites performed when they first become paladins.
...
Once initiated, the paladin is a paladin forevermore. How justly, honorably, or compassionately the paladin wields those powers from that day forward is up to him, and paladins who stray too far from the tenets of their faith are punished by other members of the faithful."

The enemy is still attacking the paladin, even if he can't actually see the paladin...

But is he making an attack that includes the Paladin as a target, given that we're specifically told "you have to target a square rather than a creature"? The Paladin might get hit, or he might not, but it's the square that's the target.

-Hyp.

 

[SableWyvern]

But is he making an attack that includes the Paladin as a target, given that we're specifically told "you have to target a square rather than a creature"? The Paladin might get hit, or he might not, but it's the square that's the target.

Are you just making an intellectual argument here, or do you honestly think anyone should care about that kind of semantic distinction?

I can understand an argument that says if you accidentaly hit the wrong target, you take divine challenge damage. But to rule, "you're not attacking the paladin, merely the square you think he's in," is, IMO, remarkably ludicrous in this context..