Invisible Paladin

[Jhulae]

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.

I can see what you're saying, Hyp, and it's a good question. However, I think the *intent* is the target of the mark is trying to hit the Paladin (instead of going for a non-hiding target, for instance), so I'd rule it that the target is indeed trying to attack the Paladin, especially if the target chooses the proper square.

 

[SJay]

I can see what you're saying, Hyp, and it's a good question. However, I think the *intent* is the target of the mark is trying to hit the Paladin (instead of going for a non-hiding target, for instance), so I'd rule it that the target is indeed trying to attack the Paladin, especially if the target chooses the proper square.

Would have to agree with this, also if an area effect accidentally hits the paladin then sure they can take damage... (otherwise intent does not matter).

 

[Spatula]

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.

Ah, but the paladin does not have to be the target - or at least not the only target - for the attacker to avoid the Divine Challenge penalties. If a marked wizard attacks with an area effect spell that includes the paladin, the wizard is targetting a square to center the AE on, no?

 

[Hypersmurf]

But to rule, "you're not attacking the paladin, merely the square you think he's in," is, IMO, remarkably ludicrous in this context..

Though that's nearly word-for-word what the book says you do when an opponent has total concealment.

I can understand an argument that says if you accidentaly hit the wrong target, you take divine challenge damage.

I'd rule it that the target is indeed trying to attack the Paladin, especially if the target chooses the proper square.

That's the next question - what if there are two invisible opponents, one of whom is the Paladin? There's no "I try to hit the Paladin"; you choose a square, which might contain the Paladin, and might contain (say) the Warlock, and might contain neither. Since you don't have the option of attempting to attack the Paladin - you pick a square, and roll your die - how does intent apply?

If the creature casts a Fireball, 'intending' to catch the Invisible Paladin in the area (), but instead crisping a dozen minions and missing the Paladin entirely, his intent is meaningless - he has made an attack that does not include the Paladin as a target. If the same Fireball crisps the same dozen minions and also catches the Paladin, he has made an attack that includes the Paladin as a target. But that's because area attacks don't have the same "Targets you can't see" provision as ranged and melee attacks.

Regardless of how one rules if the attacker chooses the correct square with his basic melee attack, surely the ruling for if he chooses the wrong square with his basic melee attack should be the same as choosing the wrong region to blanket with his Fireball?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, but the paladin does not have to be the target - or at least not the only target - for the attacker to avoid the Divine Challenge penalties. If a marked wizard attacks with an area effect spell that includes the paladin, the wizard is targetting a square to center the AE on, no?

The wizard doesn't target a square; the wizard chooses an origin square for the area. Consider Fireball: the origin square is not the target; rather, the targets are "each creature in burst".

So if the Paladin is a creature in the burst, then the attack includes the Paladin as a target.

Area attacks don't care about concealment.

With a ranged or melee attack, however, if a creature has total concealment from you, you can't choose him as a target. Instead, you choose a square as the target. And hope it's the one he's in.

-Hyp.

 

[SableWyvern]

Though that's nearly word-for-word what the book says you do when an opponent has total concealment.

I agree that your original comments are in line with a literal interpretation of the two rules in question. What I question is whether they should be interpreted literally, side-by-side, or whether one should consider the context of each situation.

The invisibility rule is talking about a process by which you attempt to hit a creature that you cannot see. The paladin's challenge talks about what happens if you're attacking someone other than the paladin that marked you.

If someone in our group tried, in all seriousness, to make the argument that in this situation, attacking an invisible creature (generally) didn't qualify as attacking an invisible creature (by the rules), they'd be roundly mocked and their argument quickly dismissed.

Edit: Based on the "What is an Attack" thread, you seem to be determined to treat 4E as if it is a tightly written ruleset that allows you to take only the RAW and extropolate a consistent, obvious and sensible method of play. It seems clear to me that 4E is not written in a fashion condusive to this approach, and insisting on consistent, literal interprations is going to lead to one illogical, unintuitive and unexpected situation after another.

Read generously, for the most part it's an excellent system. Read strictly, it's a mess, and a mess is what you'll end up with.

 

[SJay]

Regardless of how one rules if the attacker chooses the correct square with his basic melee attack, surely the ruling for if he chooses the wrong square with his basic melee attack should be the same as choosing the wrong region to blanket with his Fireball?

-Hyp.

Well what if a character that has been called out by the a viable paladin instead attacks a chair... or some other irrelevant object.

Reading Divine Challenge it's looks like they should take damage... However this does not really make sense. Attacking a chair is just swinging your sword around, similar to not attacking anyone.

Lets say you don't take damage from attacking the chair, in this case you would not take damage from attacking empty spaces either (or attacking a space with the paladin in it). But would take damage if there was another invisable dude there. In this situation intent no longer matters.

 

[Gimby]

I agree that "intent" is probably too problematic to be used as a decision here - For this I think that the best definition of an attack including the paladin is whether or not you roll against his defenses - A similar case would be where you use an AoE of some type - you do not target the paladin directly, he is hit because he is within the area. Attacking the square is effectively a Burst 1

So, if you pick the wrong square, you get tagged for the damage. Pick the right one and you don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well what if a character that has been called out by the a viable paladin instead attacks a chair... or some other irrelevant object.

Zap. They've made an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target.

Reading Divine Challenge it's looks like they should take damage...

Exactly.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A similar case would be where you use an AoE of some type - you do not target the paladin directly, he is hit because he is within the area.

The Paladin is a target of your attack.

-Hyp.