Invisible Paladin

[Arakim]

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.

The Paladin's role is to make the monsters attack him instead of his allies. To promote this role he was given a power that makes not attacking him painful.

If you mark a target and run away, you are still in the letter of the law. turning invisible, teleportation, flying on the back of a dragon, all of these things are within the letter of the law.

The difference between all these others and invisibility is the fact the Marked target can no longer identify who challenged him. How he could suddenly become so invisible that the creature could not even identify his square is beyond me, but that is what this argument is based on. In that case the desire to attack the Paladin by picking the square he might be in is sufficient enough to consider it an attack on the Paladin. It's a miss, of course, but the spell does not punish for misses, just for the intention of not attacking the Paladin.

If you attack someone and miss by a mile, you have still attacked them; you just suck at it.

 

[Arakim]

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.

You are too hung up on hitting the Paladin. Even a bad target is still a target.

If Mongo thinks you are in square A and attacks square A he is still attacking you, even if you are in Square B.

If you really want to get into semantics the spell never says you have to target the proper square, just that you include the paladin as a target.

It's not Mongo's fault if he can't see the Paladin, and it shouldn't stop him from attacking said Paladin.

If the Paladin wants to insure that the monster doesn't attack his friends he should remain in view of the challenged target.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You are too hung up on hitting the Paladin. Even a bad target is still a target.

Target is a defined term in 4E. I don't care whether or not the attack hits the Paladin. The attack can Hit or Miss the Paladin, and he's still a target. But if the attack is into the wrong square, then it can neither Hit nor Miss the Paladin.

Remember, if you're standing to the north of me, and I have a power that deals 5 damage on a Miss, and I attack to the south of me, I haven't Missed you, and you don't take damage. You were never a target of my attack.

Even if I thought you were to the south, I still didn't Miss you with my attack, and you don't take 5 damage.

If Mongo thinks you are in square A and attacks square A he is still attacking you, even if you are in Square B.

No, he isn't. He's making an attack, but it's not against me. I'm not there.

If you really want to get into semantics the spell never says you have to target the proper square, just that you include the paladin as a target.

That's right. And if he attacks the wrong square, he isn't including the Paladin as a target.

-Hyp.

 

[bardolph]

Has anyone playtested the Paladin/Warlock with Eyebite build? How does it play?

 

[SJay]

I don't see how the current wording prevents this in any way. In a game I ran, the paladin used a ranged attack, then ran through all his allies and hid behind a wall. There was no possible way he could have been attacked.

After reading a lot of threads on the topic, I had it in my mind that running like that would invalidate the challenge and I disallowed it only to find out that the player had built his character with multiclassing in mind to specifically take advantage of running after challenging. Going by the RAW, I have to now agree that the player was correct.

Unless the wording gets changed, there's nothing to prevent automatic damage from this ability.

Yes but in this situation the paladin has engaged the enemy... my situation was to say the clause was their to stop the paladin not even attacking the character...

 

[Danceofmasks]

To the OP, yes by the RAW any attack, even against the square a paladin is in, will cause hurt.

So a rogue walks past the guy a paladin challenged. They refuse to take an OA 'cos they're not willing to take the damage. It's all good.

So a wizard who was challenged drops a wall of fire to burn the rest of the party. No problem, wall of fire is not an attack.

 

[Arakim]

Target is a defined term in 4E. I don't care whether or not the attack hits the Paladin. The attack can Hit or Miss the Paladin, and he's still a target. But if the attack is into the wrong square, then it can neither Hit nor Miss the Paladin.

Remember, if you're standing to the north of me, and I have a power that deals 5 damage on a Miss, and I attack to the south of me, I haven't Missed you, and you don't take damage. You were never a target of my attack.

Even if I thought you were to the south, I still didn't Miss you with my attack, and you don't take 5 damage.



No, he isn't. He's making an attack, but it's not against me. I'm not there.



That's right. And if he attacks the wrong square, he isn't including the Paladin as a target.

-Hyp.

Well, if you attack with a single target power and attack the wrong square, then no, the target would take no damage even if the spell called for damage on a miss.

Of course, we aren't talking about wether the monster hits you, but if he is attacking you.

A level 11 Paladin / Fey Warlock Multiclass. Paladin Eye-bites and marks the target. You are saying that basically the Paladin get an extra 8-10 points of damage a round if the monster attacks and misses due to choosing a wrong square. I say if the monster is trying to attack yo uhe satisifies the condition of the geas. He's being penalized enough for not hitting.

If it's an exploit with a munchkin, it's an exploit period.

 

[SJay]

Has anyone playtested the Paladin/Warlock with Eyebite build? How does it play?

This all started just after I started this thread... I think Hypersmurf read that and started to wonder...

I have not started playing 4th ed at all as we are still playing a 3.5 campaign, but I intend this to be my first 4th ed character. (however I'm much more flexible than the rest of the group so will prob just end up filling what roll is left if there is a gap)

NOTE: I did not expect the whole not attack the right square to take damage... though this may be the RAW. I'd say we will end up playing that if the monster picks the wrong square then he takes no damage unless there is another invisible guy in there (intended to hit my guy). I don't plan on running away as most of my attacks will still be close with a weapon (but i may not be adjacent on that first one or two turns).

My paladin will not beat stealth checks often so they will often know direction at the least.

Character is a Half-Elf Paladin of either Corellon who picks up sneaky feypact feats... character is obviously non-aligned...

Stats:
Str 11
Con 15
Dex 12
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 18

(we're using standard array)

Pick up only Cha attack powers... also I'll prob be human if what i asked in the other thread does not work like i think it does. Also thinking Sehanine is a more appropriate diety.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, if you attack with a single target power and attack the wrong square, then no, the target would take no damage even if the spell called for damage on a miss.

If you're attacking the wrong square, he takes no damage because he isn't the target. If he is the target, then he does take the damage on a miss.

Since you didn't hit him, but he didn't take damage, he wasn't the target.

-Hyp.

 

[waytoomuchcoffee]

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.

This is EXACTLY the type of tactic a Gnome paly would love.