Invisible Paladin

[smallkiwi]

To me it just opens up more options for a party - if everyone else can stay ranged, say vs an avg. to slow moving solo enemy, the paladin is able to kite the monster around, but in some cases it might be just to dangerous to leave the monster the option of choosing, say, your wizard or rogue friend to decimate with one attack.

 

[Mort_Q]

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.

Some things are difficult to convey without screwing other things up downstream.

I guess I just don't like these cheesy, imho, interpretations of the RAW, therefor they can't be the RAI, in my mind.

 

[Kobu]

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

The thing with this is that it's great with multiclassing and quite wonderful with another defender getting in the way. All the paladin needs is one good ranged at-will.

Even without mulitclassing, he can make a basic ranged attack and get his guaranteed divine challenge damage, which in quite a few cases is better than risking a couple rolls with another power.

Obviously I can houserule it, but it is hard say that this isn't what WotC intended since a small change prevents it.

 

[lukelightning]

The target wastes its turn shouting "come out and face me, you coward!"

 

[Kobu]

These are the changes I would make to keep what I think is the spirit of the challenge--

1. The paladin having total concealment or superior cover breaks the challenge.

2. The paladin moving away from the target breaks the challenge.

 

[Runestar]

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.

Which means that your options are clear - either refrain from attacking altogether, or attack someone else and suck up the penalties. Or find some way of trying to guess where he is, like scattering a bag of flour around you or something. It is not possible to actively declare that you are trying to attack him because you cannot even designate him as a target, even with area-affecting powers. The best you can do is to hope that you catch him in the area blast, but by that time, it is too late - you will already have suffered the drawbacks, which is not retrospective in nature (in that you do not heal damage if you end up actually hitting him).

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.

Then let me rephrase my earlier point.

Now that the paladin is invisible, he could, in theory at least, be anywhere. While it is likely that he isn't too far away from the last square he occupied while he was still visible, it is not impossible that he may have somehow moved near/adjacent to a PC I happen to want to attack. While you can certainly suspect that such an event is highly unlikely, you cannot dismiss it as utterly impossible, because by definition, you cannot see him, and thus cannot possibly know whether you have managed to attack him or not with your area attack until it has actually been made.

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.

I don't see where I am ignoring the literal rules. My point is exactly that - unless the monster in question has some way of defeating an invisible foe, than there is really no way you can overcome divine challenge+invisibility using conventional methods. They just interact that well together.

Does this make said combination problematic? Perhaps. Does this mean my interpretation is flawed? Again, not necessarily. I have always believed that an argument should not only be correct, but that it should also be correct for the right reasons. Claiming that my explanation is wrong because it appears overpowered just means that a houserule may be in order in your games (and your games alone). After all, no one disputes the seal of binding+regeneration combination even though it clearly lets you 1-shot a lv33 solo brute. I don't write the rules, I merely interpret them to the best of my capabilities.

Nor do I particularly agree that the "intent" of divine challenge is to force the paladin to assume a melee combat role, or that you are not supposed to mark-and-run. The way divine challenge is worded seems to allow exactly that!

The problem with this is that it only appears to work for lawful paladins who actively engage in melee. As pointed out, it is certainly not impossible to build a ranged paladin, such as a halfling paladin who taunts his foes from a distance and frustrates him by mainting his distance and using other evasive maneuvers whenever said foe tries to get near him. After all, the paladin is still facing him in combat. He just never said that it would be easy to locate and take him on.

 

[FireLance]

Even without mulitclassing, he can make a basic ranged attack and get his guaranteed divine challenge damage, which in quite a few cases is better than risking a couple rolls with another power.

Divine challenge damage is hardly "guaranteed". Even if the marked target doesn't also have a ranged attack or some other ability that could affect the paladin, the target could spend its entire turn moving or taking some other non-hostile action. The challenge does its job of stopping an attack from the target, but it doesn't automatically damage it as well.

 

[James McMurray]

Hyp, I'll second the curiosity about your intent. Are you engaging in a mental exercise, or do you intend to make an invisible stealthy paladin who constantly hides while engaging in an effort to cause some extra DC damage?

 

[Kobu]

Divine challenge damage is hardly "guaranteed". Even if the marked target doesn't also have a ranged attack or some other ability that could affect the paladin, the target could spend its entire turn moving or taking some other non-hostile action. The challenge does its job of stopping an attack from the target, but it doesn't automatically damage it as well.

It causes damage if the target wants to do anything remotely effective during the encounter. If it only moves or buffs the whole time while taking at least the paladin's attack, all the better.

 

[Ingolf]

Hyp, I'll second the curiosity about your intent. Are you engaging in a mental exercise, or do you intend to make an invisible stealthy paladin who constantly hides while engaging in an effort to cause some extra DC damage?

Indeed. Is this an argument you are likely to push at the table in real life, or just a bit of internet wankery?

If the former, good luck with it I suppose. My gaming group doesn't have much patience for that sort of foolishness, but your group may of course be different.

On the other hand, if you're just chain-yanking, how about a warning next time?