Invisible Paladin

[Hypersmurf]

Attacking a square that you believe the Paladin is in is in fact including him as a target.

No, it isn't. Attacking a square that the Paladin is in, I can see counting as including him as a target. Attacking a square the Paladin isn't in, though, is not an attack that includes him as a target.

-Hyp.

 

[Fifth Element]

Player: "I steal the golden vase instead of returning it to the temple."

DM: "You take 30 points of radiant damage."

Player: "Huh? From what?"

DM: "Six invisible paladins."

If you don't mind, I'm going to keep this in my back pocket for the first time my players get uppity.

 

[Regicide]

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.

No no no, exploiting the letter isn't invisible paladins, it's a paladin that clones himself, since then any attack that doesn't include ALL of the paladins will trigger.

 

[Kordeth]

If you don't mind, I'm going to keep this in my back pocket for the first time my players get uppity.

Be prepared to explain why six paladins can mark a single character at once and why not putting a chalice back on the altar constitutes an attack that doesn't include the marking paladin. Oh, and why the victim doesn't know about the mark before suffering the damage.

 

[DracoSuave]

Forget not knowing about the mark, not knowing about the effect of the entire power.


Alright. Divine Challenge does NOT say 'You must attack the paladin' per se. You can use a utility power, or any power that does not attack anyone, and have no problem.

What it does do is punish you for attacking those that aren't the paladin without -also- attacking the paladin.

So let's say I AoE where the Paladin is invisible. I'm targeting the paladin so no damage.

I target a square with a ranged or melee power with the intent of smacking down the source of the Divine Challenge power. Is the Paladin in that square? No? Then I ask another question. Is -someone else- in that square? If yes, I take damage, because I -am- targetting with an attack that doth not include the paladin. If no, then damage, because you're attacking the square, and if you miss, the miss effects happen -to the square- (in other words, to nothing)

Think of it this way. You're making an attack, the powers that be go 'THAT ATTACK GOING IN BAD DIRECTION, NOT WHERE PALADIN ARE' and punish you accordingly. Intent doesn't matter, because if another invisible bloke were in that square, you'd have taken damage. Divine Challenge does not care about who you hit with an attack, only that you made one, and that it wasn't the paladin in that party.


And lastly, 6 paladins can't hit the same target with Divine Challenge damage because the damage trigger only exists while the target is marked by you. Any effect that ends the mark ends the damage-trigger.

 

[James McMurray]

Primarily. Divine Challenge is a useful ability for examining the meanings of the words 'attack' and 'target' in the 4E rules.

-Hyp.

Coolio. In that case, I'm outee 5,000 yo.

 

[FireLance]

It seems likely if a Paladin archer was intended to be possible they would have been given proficiency with bows and powers that actually work at a range.

Elf paladins are proficient with bows. Otherwise, bow proficiency is just a feat away. Paladins are also proficient with simple ranged weapons and some paladin powers are also ranged attacks, e.g. on pain of death (Daily Attack 1), radiant delerium (Daily Attack 1), sign of vulnerability (Daily Attack 5), beckon foe (Encounter Attack 7), and radiant pulse (Daily Attack 9).

A paladin archer is certainly intended to be possible, in much the same way that a melee wizard is possible. It may not be the simplest or most most effective way to play your character, but the rules do accomodate it.

 

[Ahrimon]

I think I would have to go with any attack that doesn't include the paladin, or the paladins square (as you have to do with AOE and invisible paladins) would cause damage.

Then after the first two combats the little invisible air elemental paladin would be following that character around marking him and then attacking with his gust of air power (Ranged +20 vs ref, at will, effect: tussels the targets hair) every time the paladin got into combat.

I don't mind players comming up with something creative and unforseen. But when they use the RAW to come up with a one trick pony that (to me) goes against the spirit of the rules, I have no qualms about using it against them to see how annoying it is. As the DM I'm a fellow participant, I'm not against the players, but I still have to play their opponents. So annoying tricks like that get really old really fast.

To note, I would have no problems with the ranged paladin. I think that's a fine concept. His companions might not think so when the opponents soaks the damage and munches on the wizard for a few rounds though.

 

[Gulgrim]

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.

Persuasive, but, ultimately, I would still be bothered by the component of intent; ignored in that undertaking as I see it.

 

[Runestar]

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.

I hardly see it as an exploit. The paladin who turns invisible is equally problematic in that he is now less able to properly fulfill his role. One of the more common responsibilities of a paladin is to tank foes by encouraging them to attack him over anyone else. To do this, he ought be present himself as a target so that monsters can attack him. By turning invisible, monsters have no choice but to either attack some else, or suck up the penalties.

However, the drawbacks of ignoring divine challenge doesn't strike me as particularly prohibitive. -2 to-hit and some minor radiant damage isn't really going to put a dent in a foe unless he is a minion. In fact, the party may well be worse off if the monster instead chooses to suck up the drawbacks and attack another PC over the paladin.

This is a conscious play decision made by the paladin, nothing more. Do you want to wade into combat and get the foes to attack you, or are you willing to forgo your defender role in favour of debuffing said enemy and dealing automatic, albeit potentially lesser damage? After all, the marked monster still has a choice - he can choose to attack other PCs, he does not have to attack you exclusively over everybody else if he believes the benefits far outweighs the risks of suffering marking damage and the downside of attacking a sturdier PC.

So can someone tell me - is the -2 to-hit and minor damage each round going to be such a heaven-shaking event that the paladin is not even allowed to contemplate alternative methods of utilizing his divine challenge? People make ignoring the challenge out to be such a big deal, but however I look at it, the penalties are fairly minor. Granted, the paladin may well be more effective while visible, but as I said, this is a conscious gameplay choice by the individual player, and at least the option is there should it ever be required.