Invisible Paladin

[Kordeth]

Double post.

 

[Kordeth]

Paladins don't have to be lawful or good.

I was talking about previous editions.

That actually sounds like Chaotic Good to me. It doesn't sound like a plan given to thinking, but more of one of impulse.

IE, I could see Barbarians demanding it.

I agree 100%, but many DMs and players felt that the paladin code meant any sort of tactical thinking beyond "square off in face-to-face combat" was the work of a dishonorable cur. God forbid you try to outflank your enemy or steal a march on the foeman while he's busy dealing with a peasant insurrection.

But I really don't want to derail this into a discussion of the (mercifully defunct) old paladin code of editions past. Back to invisible mirror image'd doppelganger paladins!

 

[Tale]

Back to invisible mirror image'd doppelganger paladins!

I totally should start up some stat blocks. They'd obviously be evil Gnome Paladins.

 

[Arakim]

It's certainly not important that the Paladin takes damage. What's important is that the opponent does not make an attack that does not include the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is visible, and the opponent swings and misses, he's made an attack that includes the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is visible, and the opponent makes an attack targeting a square that the Paladin isn't in, he's made an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is invisible, and the opponent makes an attack targeting a square that the Paladin isn't in, isn't that exactly the same as making an attack targeting a square the Paladin isn't in when he is visible, regarding the question of whether or not you've made an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target?

-Hyp.

See, we are discussing different things.

You are talking about a program that if Marked Target does not attack within 5' of Marking Paladin, then Marked Target Takes damage. Living in a society of technology we tend to think this way, and it is a valid interpretation.

But if you look at divine spells you'll notice a common theme. Look at any Divine AOE and tell me the target list. Bad stuff happens to, "Enemies." Good stuff happens to, "Allies."

How does the spell determine who is friend and who is foe?

Intent. It's as simple as that. You either want to kill me or you don't, and the spell knows.

All Divine spells are built off intent, and intent is what I see for Divine Challenge.

It's a compulsion with consequences. You must attack the Paladin, and if don't attack him you suffer damage.

If you intend to attack the Paladin and he isn't really there for some reason, the intent has been satisfied.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Another one: the paladin multiclasses in wizard. He gets the mirror image power. Would attacking his image count as attacking the paladin?

You don't 'attack an image' in 4E. You attack the character, who has a power bonus to AC, and if you miss, an image disappears.

So you'd still be making an attack that included the paladin as a target, if you made his image disappear.

-Hyp.

 

[Gulgrim]

I did not read past the first page, so I don't know if this has been said or not, but: The intent of the creature to strike the paladin is almost certainly the measurement Divine Challenge utilizes in order to trigger its damage.

I'm not equipped with any page numbers here, but I do recall reading that upon being subjected to any sort of effect, a character is immediately made aware of the parameters of the effect and the consequences for disobeying them.

Ergo, in this case, the creature is aware that if he does not focus his attacks on the paladin, he will be harmed. He makes his decisions and attacks oriented around this knowledge. He can choose to attempt to strike the invisible space where he believes the paladin is without fear of reprisal. He can also choose to lower arms and not risk it in the first place.

Right?

 

[Mort_Q]

But if you look at divine spells you'll notice a common theme. Look at any Divine AOE and tell me the target list. Bad stuff happens to, "Enemies." Good stuff happens to, "Allies."

How does the spell determine who is friend and who is foe?

Intent. It's as simple as that. You either want to kill me or you don't, and the spell knows.

All Divine spells are built off intent, and intent is what I see for Divine Challenge.

There are plenty of Arcane AoE spells that only affect enemies. Just saying.

 

[Arakim]

That is ridiculous. By your logic, the enemy could fireball the wizard at the back of the party and not suffer any penalties by claiming that the invisible paladin might be adjacent to him, even though he is clearly somewhere at the other end of the room, though his exact location is unknown, well out of its blast radius.

In this manner, being invisible as actually become a liability. By not being aware of where the paladin might be exactly, the marked enemy can get away with simply deciding that the now-invis paladin could be anywhere on the map and still continue his original attack, while claiming that the paladin just might be occupying one of the square in which he attacks!

I would argue that to be able to meaningfully target someone, you must first be well aware of just where he is exactly. Else, what is the stop the marked ogre from still swinging at the wizard and claiming that he suspects the now invisible wizard could be hiding under the wizard's skirt, hence he is still actively trying to engage the paladin, just that the wizard is in the way and it is inevitable that he got hit?

Too vague and arbitrary, IMO. This simply offers too much wriggle room to work around the divine challenge ability. I think that in situations like this, it is best to disregard intent and simply follow a literal interpretation of the rules. Divine challenge requires you to target the paladin or suffer penalties. So if the paladin is invisible or has made himself untargetable to the monster's attacks somehow, the foe's choices are clear. Either he refrains from attacking altogether (because he cannot attack the paladin), or he attacks another target, while suffering the appropriate drawbacks.

Despite the apparent disconnect between rules and flavour, the mechanics of divine challenge seem fairly clear cut. So I don't see what can go wrong or what sort of confusion can possibly arise here.

We are discussing Paladins who mark foes and then turn invisible. This in itself is ridiculous. Someone that uses a Mark or Divine challenge and then tries to exploit the letter of the rules in favor of the intent is to me ridiculous.

My point is, and will always be for this subject, that if the Marked Target believes he is attacking the Paladin, then he has satisfied the intent of the rule, and the letter. "Makes an attack that does not include the Paladin as a target." Attacking a square that you believe the Paladin is in is in fact including him as a target.

If you want to avoid such problems in the future, then rule that invisible Paladins can't mark targets.

 

[bardolph]

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?

Yes.

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?

No.

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?

No.

If the creature doesn't want to take Divine Challenge damage, it can also choose not to attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm not equipped with any page numbers here, but I do recall reading that upon being subjected to any sort of effect, a character is immediately made aware of the parameters of the effect and the consequences for disobeying them.

Right.

Ergo, in this case, the creature is aware that if he does not focus his attacks on the paladin, he will be harmed.

Strictly, he's aware that if he makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target, he will be harmed.

He makes his decisions and attacks oriented around this knowledge. He can choose to attempt to strike the invisible space where he believes the paladin is without fear of reprisal.

He can choose to attempt to strike the invisible space where he believes the paladin is, with the knowledge that if he makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target, he will be harmed.

-Hyp.