One creature in burst and concealment

[Anthony Jackson]

Well.. its quite simple with the gnome and his concealment..

Concealment doesnt mean you do not see him..

Well, he actually had invisibility. I messed up my terminology.

 

[Plane Sailing]

It's fairly straight forward: Divine Challenge is a Close Burst. It does damage. Swarms take extra damage when hurt by Close Bursts.

I disagree - the Close Burst is used as a mechanism for (a) sorting out who you can target and (b) making it clear that you don't incur an OA for doing it.

The divine challenge damage is not a burst or blast, it is single target damage so it doesn't do additional damage to a swarm.

Swarms take extra damage from bursts, but divine challenge doesn't do burst damage. ergo, the swarm just takes the normal damage.

That seems straightforward to me.

 

[Oompa]

Ahhh ok, still doesnt matter hehehehe

 

[Plane Sailing]

When in doubt, stick with the rules as written unless you have a very good reason not to and flavor is almost never a good reason. For example, according to official ruling you can knock an Ooze prone. Use the rules and make up the flavor, and if it still seems wrong the DM can give it +2/-2.

Your example seems counter to common sense though!

The fact that something is a blob on the floor seems like an exceptionally good reason for adjusting the rules in that circumstance!

Much simpler to just say "no you can't knock the ooze prone" rather than try to come up with some convoluted explanation for making an ooze extra-wobbly or something

Cheers

 

[eamon]

The fact that something is a blob on the floor seems like an exceptionally good reason for adjusting the rules in that circumstance!

Much simpler to just say "no you can't knock the ooze prone" rather than try to come up with some convoluted explanation for making an ooze extra-wobbly or something

Yeah, same thought here. It seems that 3.5 was too simulation-oriented and included convoluted rules for arriving at a result according to some set of rules, but that 4e is tending towards overcompensating: I like that they don't bother with too much simulationist detail in monster design, but this kind of stuff...

I think it's unfortunate that they didn't try to explain a bit better what rules represent. It's fine for rules to be designed to be simple and fun in gameplay, but you're bound to encounter corner cases (like the prone ooze, or marking in general) which are difficult to interpret.

If there had been some motivating fluff (and not just descriptive prettiness), making a sane, believable ruling on the spot would be easier.

 

[Runestar]

Your example seems counter to common sense though!

The fact that something is a blob on the floor seems like an exceptionally good reason for adjusting the rules in that circumstance!

Much simpler to just say "no you can't knock the ooze prone" rather than try to come up with some convoluted explanation for making an ooze extra-wobbly or something

Cheers

It is however debatable how much of a place common sense is supposed to have in dnd. If we assume that the rules are conceptualized based on game balance issues, and less so to simulate a setting consistent with real-life physics, this means that we should be expected to follow existing rules, even if they don't necessarily make sense. Likewise, going with what "makes sense" may end up making the powers weaker than they were designed to be, when the DM starts imposing all sorts of rulings which restrict how well the powers work.

For example, no existing limitations were set on what a rogue may knock prone with his attacks. This could imply that the designers found nothing wrong with allowing outlier scenarios such as a rogue knocking a tarrasque back multiple squares, or tripping foes such as oozes which should normally be immune to such effects. Heck, the lack of rulings may even suggest that the designers expected you to be able to perform such stunts (how you choose to rationalize it is entirely up to you, what really matters is that you are indeed able to do it, and not shortchanged of what your abilities entitle you to achieve).

Likewise, nothing in the rules prevents me from hitting a hovering dragon with the icy terrain spell, even though the flavour suggests that it can only affect foes on the ground! If the DM rules that I cannot do such a thing, it will make my wizard weaker, because I have a useless encounter power, possibly contrary to the intentions of the designers.

As such, I disagree that this is anything but straightforward. It could either mean that wotc felt that such oddities could and should be resolved by DM fiat, or it could mean that wotc fully intended us to run them strictly as written without 2nd thoughts regarding their viability.

In fact, I agree with ac_noj that in such cases, RAW ought to take precedence over RAI.

 

[Torebo]

Wow, you're right it -does- make seperate basic attacks for each bloke in its aura! Good eye.

Rat Swarms are heinous at level 1 if you're crazy enough to think that "being different" and not taking Scorching Burst or Thunderwave on your wizard is a great idea.

...hurray for Retraining being core...

...or so I heard.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Cloud of Daggers is an area attack too, you know ... just not a very big area.

 

[Aservan]

Combat challenge is a burst. You can hit invisible opponents with it. The gnome can't avoid being the target. He can though move his invisible self to a point where you are not adjacent to him or attacking him and have the effect end.

The damage from Divine Challenge is not a burst though. It is a status effect that is placed on a creature. The status effect does the damage. I think of it as akin to the powers that set you one fire or douse you in acid. The area power put the effect on you so it would do extra damage to the swarm (if the attack did damage). The continuing damage though does not trigger the vulnerability. In this case the damage comes from a special effect of the paladin's mark not from the initial burst.

In the case of the swarm's aura the aura may trigger many attack rolls but so does fireball. The source of the attack rolls is all the same so, no, divine challenge will not whack-a-doodle a swarm using it's aura power unless you aren't in the aura of course.

Maintaining the zone that doesn't attack the paladin is a trickier question to my mind. I don't think the challenge would be triggered though. Again it is the idea that the zone is a conjuration and is now a separate entity from the caster. Its just is a piece of terrain that requires the caster to devote effort to it's maintenance. The caster is no longer attacking. The zone is. You don't provoke divine challenge by using second wind you don't provoke it by concentrating even if concentration causes damage indirectly. That'd be my take on it anyway. Most zones only take a minor action so you would still catch the caster on his standard action anyway.

If the power was one of those continuous beam powers (like the starlock level 29 one) then yes you get your divine challenge damage. It's not an independent entity like a zone. It is an attack that once it is on you can't really miss any more. It is still an attack from the warlock to the target, however.

 

[ac_noj]

Your example seems counter to common sense though!

That's the point. The Official Monster Manual FAQ on the Wizards web site says:

Can an ooze be knocked prone?
In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

Rules > Flavor