Invisible Paladin

[generalhenry]

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

qft

 

[Hypersmurf]

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

It's certainly not important that the Paladin takes damage. What's important is that the opponent does not make an attack that does not include the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is visible, and the opponent swings and misses, he's made an attack that includes the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is visible, and the opponent makes an attack targeting a square that the Paladin isn't in, he's made an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target.

If the Paladin is invisible, and the opponent makes an attack targeting a square that the Paladin isn't in, isn't that exactly the same as making an attack targeting a square the Paladin isn't in when he is visible, regarding the question of whether or not you've made an attack that doesn't include the Paladin as a target?

-Hyp.

 

[Runestar]

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.

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.

In this manner, being invisible as actually become a liability. By not being aware of where the paladin might be exactly, the marked enemy can get away with simply deciding that the now-invis paladin could be anywhere on the map and still continue his original attack, while claiming that the paladin just might be occupying one of the square in which he attacks!

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.

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?

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

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.

Despite the apparent disconnect between rules and flavour, the mechanics of divine challenge seem fairly clear cut. So I don't see what can go wrong or what sort of confusion can possibly arise here.

 

[jaelis]

As for attacking an empty square or an object, I wouldn't count that as an attack for this purpose. So if you are swinging at an invisible paladin, I think you would not take any damage unless you happened to swing at a square that contained another invisible character.

 

[SableWyvern]

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 situations you outline only come into play if you are reading the rules strictly literally. And, if you're reading the rules literally, attempting to attack an inviisible paladin who has marked you means you take Divine Challenge damage under all circumstances, so the situations you outline can't come into play.

If, on the other hand, you're attempting to play by the spirit of Divine Challenge, regardless what the literal wording might say, and rule that making an attempt to strike the paladin doesn't draw challenge damage, then you would also rule that such an attempt must be made in good faith. Thus, you cannot claim "I think the paladin is beside the wizard" when you know he is not beside the wizard. Ergo, the situations you outline can't come into play.

In short, you're presenting a situation where we ignore the literal rules, but then use the literal rules to manipulate the situation to an unfair advantage. That's called hypocrisy, and no ruleset can overcome that sort of attitude.

While I can barely begin to fathom Hypersmurf's perspective on this issue, I can at least see how a group of likeminded individuals could go with his interpretation, come to a consensus and have a fun game. If I knew what I was getting into up front, I might even be able to enjoy such a game myself. However, I cannot see how any group that isn't fundamentally disfunctional already could run into the sort of issues Runestar mentions and find that they cause a legitimate problem.

 

[Kobu]

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.

 

[Mort_Q]

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.

I don't care how much bending and twisting of the RAW you want to do, it is not, IMHO, going by the RAI.

That said, it's your game, do what you want.

 

[Kobu]

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.

 

[smallkiwi]

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.

I guess my argument to this is they could have easily made changes to make your version of the rules correct. They could have simply forced the paladin to end its turn next to the marked target. Since they didn't, and they didn't even specify a melee attack must be made, your interpretation of RAI must be incorrect.

As for the whole Invisible Paladin vs. Marked target debate, I have to agree that anyone standing in a targeted square inherits the consequences of the attack. Thus if an enemy makes an attack against a square containing the invisible paladin, he has made an attack including the paladin as a target. If the enemy makes an attack against a square not including the paladin, he has made an attack that does not include the paladin, and suffers the radiant damage from Divine Challenge.

Arguing that RAI is more correct that RAW implies that the designers couldn't figure out how to convey their ideas. Its a static system, it received a lot of testing, what makes you think that RAW aren't, for the most part, RAI? I believe the designers could have easily defined things to match your expectations if they so chose.

 

[Mort_Q]

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.

Well... I guess. I can't see this as an optimal build though...