generalhenry
First Post
It's not important that the Paladin takes damage, but that the marked targets attempts to engage the Paladin.
qft
It's not important that the Paladin takes damage, but that the marked targets attempts to engage the Paladin.
It's not important that the Paladin takes damage, but that the marked targets attempts to engage the Paladin.
That is ridiculous. By your logic, the enemy could fireball the wizard at the back of the party and not suffer any penalties by claiming that the invisible paladin might be adjacent to him, even though he is clearly somewhere at the other end of the room, though his exact location is unknown, well out of its blast radius.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.
I would argue that to be able to meaningfully target someone, you must first be well aware of just where he is exactly. Else, what is the stop the marked ogre from still swinging at the wizard and claiming that he suspects the now invisible wizard could be hiding under the wizard's skirt, hence he is still actively trying to engage the paladin, just that the wizard is in the way and it is inevitable that he got hit?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.
Too vague and arbitrary, IMO. This simply offers too much wriggle room to work around the divine challenge ability. I think that in situations like this, it is best to disregard intent and simply follow a literal interpretation of the rules. Divine challenge requires you to target the paladin or suffer penalties. So if the paladin is invisible or has made himself untargetable to the monster's attacks somehow, the foe's choices are clear. Either he refrains from attacking altogether (because he cannot attack the paladin), or he attacks another target, while suffering the appropriate drawbacks.It's not important that the Paladin takes damage, but that the marked targets attempts to engage the Paladin.
That is ridiculous. By your logic, the enemy could fireball the wizard at the back of the party and not suffer any penalties by claiming that the invisible paladin might be adjacent to him, even though he is clearly somewhere at the other end of the room, though his exact location is unknown, well out of its blast radius.
Plus a lot of other stuff along the same lines
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.
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.
It is my understanding that the changes made from the playtest version of Divine Challenge to the published version of Divine Challenge were made specifically to disallow the mark and run exploit.
It is my understanding that the changes made from the playtest version of Divine Challenge to the published version of Divine Challenge were made specifically to disallow the mark and run exploit.
That was my understanding also until I actually reread the power. I thought WotC understood the problem and fixed it. However, it is pretty clear cut that "mark, shoot, run" satisfies the requirements. All you need to do each round is make an attack and ranged attacks work just as well as melee.