Invisible Paladin

[Bagpuss]

Nowhere in 4E does it require paladins to be noble and honorable.

See page 189 of the DMG.

Although I would probably just house rule that if the opponent attempts to attack the paladin that counts, a long with if the paladin is included in a area effect, etc.

 

[Branduil]

I'm still waiting for someone to bring up the invisible archer paladin as a strategy (after the invisible paladin and the archer paladin).

Oh wait. Imagine a group of doppleganger archer paladins. They all polymorph into the same person, delay their actions to move and attack at the same time: the target can't recognize who shot him since they all look alike. Add in a warlock multiclass for eyebite so that the one who really shot him is additionally invisible.

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

Bah. I still prefer my first idea. The paladin teleports behind a wall next to the target or under the floor under the target, still adjacent to it, after his attack. Simpler.

Players who want to play the paladin class like this need to multiclass as lawyers

Sky

This is why I like the earlier interpretation where the DC'ed creature magically knows where the Paladin that challenged him is.

 

[Mort_Q]

This is why I like the earlier interpretation where the DC'ed creature magically knows where the Paladin that challenged him is.

It does work nicely with the fluff... a magical compulsion pulling them toward the Paladin... at least the distance and direction, perhaps the square....

 

[Regicide]

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

-Hyp.

Yes, I've been waiting for the wall of fire, square, target, attack intersection. When is it going to happen? Grinding stupid rules against each other is fun. Can't wait!

 

[interwyrm]

It seems to me like RAW, the creature takes damage if it tries to make any attack. (unless of course, it can negate invisibility).

RAI, the creature takes no damage as long as it *tries* to attack the paladin.

 

[Surgoshan]

Nowhere in 4E does it require paladins to be noble and honorable.

Nowhere in any edition did it require paladins to be honorable-to-a-fault retards, either.

 

[RefinedBean]

Just because the creature has the DC on them, and it's a "magical compulsion," doesn't mean they HAVE to attack the Paladin. Effectively, if we go with the reasoning that the enemy knows where the Paladin is due to the DC, it could willingly take the damage and point out to all its brethren the EXACT SQUARE that the target is in.

Which, in my opinion, violates both RAW and most definitely RAI. "You've gone invisible, used one of your class abilities, and now your invisibility is crappy. Enjoy."

 

[Kordeth]

Nowhere in any edition did it require paladins to be honorable-to-a-fault retards, either.

Exactly this. Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Stupid, and honor and chivalry doesn't mean challenging the orc horde to face you man-to-horde on a flat open plain.

 

[Regicide]

Exactly this. Lawful Good does not equal Lawful Stupid, and honor and chivalry doesn't mean challenging the orc horde to face you man-to-horde on a flat open plain.

Paladins don't have to be lawful or good.

 

[Tale]

honor and chivalry doesn't mean challenging the orc horde to face you man-to-horde on a flat open plain.

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.