Invisible Paladin

[jjsheets]

The fluff for the power indicates it is a magical compulsion. The wizard would have no problems if he truly believed the invisible paladin was in his AoE. An individual melee or ranged attack cannot know for sure that the paladin is in this or that square. Once he's invisible, the opponent just isn't sure. Thus they'd either have to take the damage, or wait out their turn. If something could truly believe that a chair IS the paladin (not something I'd ever do), then yes, the loony bastard wouldn't take the damage. But then he has other problems already, so...

 

[Celestian]

mis-read post.

 

[ogre]

semantics aside, ask yourself this...
If a PC wanted to attack an invisible paladin who DC'd him what would he say to the DM. "I attack the paladin" DM: "You don't see him, you have to pick a square and hope he's in it"
So, in this example, he is attacking the paladin. The metagame aspect of targeting a square is purely for us sitting around the table. Targeting a square is simply a mechanic to resolve the action "I attack the paladin".

 

[Lurker37]

If I was DMing, I'd rule that turning invisible was failing to engage the target. The whole point of that clause is to give the enemy the option to attack you.

 

[Terwox]

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?

You know, I would rule that the wizard would take damage in that instance -- he violated the terms of the challenge and attacked someone else, even if he incidentally happened to accidentally tag the paladin too.

Of course, this is merely a house rule. However, I do feel it reflects the spirit of the rules.

Just because alignment is out of the game doesn't mean intent necessarily must be...

 

[SJay]

If I was DMing, I'd rule that turning invisible was failing to engage the target. The whole point of that clause is to give the enemy the option to attack you.

(first off note i realize you could do that if you were DM)

But you need to read the whole bit:

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it."

So it specifies exactly what it mean when it says "engage". Also the whole point of the clause is not "to give the enemy the option to attack you" because then they would have said just that you must "end your turn adjacent to it" and would have left out attacking it... by saying attacking it this means you either a ranged attack or a close attack then move away.

The clause is just there to stop you picking someone who is no where near you and saying "you have to attack me" and then otherwise ignoring them.

Once you start attacking them you are effectively engaged, whether you are using an axe or a bow or a spell...

 

[Plane Sailing]

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?

No.

No.

No.

Easy answers, eh?

 

[Hypersmurf]

No.

No.

No.

Easy answers, eh?

Well, simple answers, at least

I don't actually think it's unreasonable to rule that if the selected square contains a creature, that creature inherits the 'target' designation from the square. Otherwise, it gets odd... you make an attack roll against the creature's defense (with a -5 penalty), and the power might have an effect on "the target" on a Hit or, indeed, on a Miss... if the creature whose defense you are opposing is not, then, "the target", then the results could be rather disappointing.

So I'd be inclined to say that if the opponent makes his basic melee attack targeting the square that contains the invisible paladin, then hit or miss, he has made an attack that includes the paladin as a target. But if the opponent makes his basic melee attack targeting an empty square, or the square that contains the invisible warlock, then hit or miss, he has not made an attack that includes the paladin as a target.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

I'm torn. On the one hand, I can the the advantage in absolute clarity in rules. However, absolute clarity in rules tends to involve multiple terms (to differentiate an attack power from an attack action from an attack roll, for example) and much convoluted wording, which will detract from the (relative) simplicity of 4e.

In this specific case, I don't want an opponent to take divine challenge damage from attacking an empty square, although I'm perfectly fine with the opponent taking damage from attacking another invisible creature that isn't the paladin. So, maybe the simplest fix for me would be to re-word divine challenge to say something along the lines of: if the target makes an attack against a creature that does not also include you as a target, etc.

 

[Arakim]

I believe intent is key here.

If the Paladin is invisible, and the challenge-ee doesn't know what square he is in, and designates a square he guesses the Paladin is in, he has satisfied the spell's conditions; He has attacked the Paladin.

Whether he hits the Paladin is as irrelevant in this discussion as it would be if our Marked Man could see the Paladin, swung and missed.

It's not important that the Paladin takes damage, but that the marked targets attempts to engage the Paladin.