Paladin. Disappointing

[fafhrd]

I stand by my suggestion: the Paladin must close distance with or make a melee attack against an enemy within a given turn (not necessarily the mark). That solves the whole "mark and run" deal by forcing the Paladin to get into the thick of a fight, but doesn't restrict the Paladin's movement on the battle grid if he chases a stray enemy on the way.

Your solution multiplies absurdities.
"Let me at 'im! Just let go and I'll take his head off!"
So the paladin advances one square on the foe and a party member slides or pushes him back. Problem persists.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Your solution multiplies absurdities.
"Let me at 'im! Just let go and I'll take his head off!"
So the paladin advances one square on the foe and a party member slides or pushes him back. Problem persists.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't even make any sense. Why would an ally prevent the defender from doing his job? Keep in mind that Divine Challenge is being used in a case where the battle has already started.

Context, man. Context.

And another reason why line of sight vanishing is a problem: what if the mark was a Rogue? Who then, a couple turns later, dives in on your Wizard while stealthed? The Paladin's Divine Challenge is supposed to discourage that from happening!

 

[fafhrd]

Why would an ally prevent the defender from doing his job?

For the same reason that the paladin would be running away in the first place.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I wish they'd simply say that the paladin needs to be able to see his foe or the mark winks out. Yes, it means that the bad guy can go invisible or hide to get rid of it. It takes a minor action to switch it to someone else. Big deal.

If the bad guys can't strike the paladin because they lack missile weapons and he's behind the lines, that's an encounter design problem. Big monsters should be able to bull or reach their way to the paladin. This should be a big, fat non-issue.

Maybe it does in the full rules? Would make sense that you have to have line of effect or line of sight.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Would make sense that you have to have line of effect or line of sight.

To mark a target in the first place? I'd agree.

To remove a mark -- an ongoing divine effect -- in such a simple fashion as hiding or invisibility? Something else entirely. And introducing a very unneeded side nerf.

- Line of sight maintenance would be a nerf.

- Melee attack or move toward mark only would be a nerf.

- Melee attack or move toward any enemy? Making the Paladin play fair, while still allowing him to keep a stranglehold on his mark. Now we're onto something.

 

[fafhrd]

what if the mark was a Rogue? Who then, a couple turns later, dives in on your Wizard while stealthed? The Paladin's Divine Challenge is supposed to discourage that from happening!

Paladins are supposed to defend the squishies. Rogues are supposed to strike with surprise. Welcome to the arms race. The wizard has a light cantrip. If hiding works in a fashion similar to 3.x, then he can often counter that tactic. If it proves to be a recurring problem, then maybe the paladin will invest in skill training: perception.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Paladins are supposed to defend the squishies. Rogues are supposed to strike with surprise. Welcome to the arms race. The wizard has a light cantrip. If hiding works in a fashion similar to 3.x, then he can often counter that tactic. If it proves to be a recurring problem, then maybe the paladin will invest in skill training: perception.

You're missing the point.

The POINT is that we're trying to force the Paladin to play fair with his Divine Challenge without nerfing the crap out of him. And line of sight maintenance WOULD nerf the crap out of him.

And the Rogue can still surprise strike at the Wizard, mind you. But he'll pay the price for it. That's the intent of Divine Challenge in the first place!

 

[fafhrd]

- Melee attack or move toward any enemy? Making the Paladin play fair, while still allowing him to keep a stranglehold on his mark. Now we're onto something.

You mean like deciding that you suddenly dislike Bob, the fighter, and slapping him with a wet paper napkin, all the while both of you run away from the encounter with a brief pause to close and bolt the door? Your solution leaks like a sieve. It's not designed with munchkin rulesmastery in mind, and thus it is inherently prone to abuse.

 

[fafhrd]

The POINT is that we're trying to force the Paladin to play fair with his Divine Challenge without nerfing the crap out of him. And line of sight maintenance WOULD nerf the crap out of him.

Forgive me for disagreeing with your POINT. Playing fair boils down to the paladin doing the absolute minimum necessary to satisfy your conditions, all the while the player finds ways to contravene its intent. In any case, it doesn't seem likely that we're going to find any resolution here. So I'm off to bed. Good night.

 

[AllisterH]

I think the problem is simple.

We want the paladin challenge to make sense yet at the same time, actually be useful in most situations.

Magic though, seems never to have to answer the same restriction which is always what made it so broken (D&D should've never allowed MU)