Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ltbaxter" data-source="post: 4210296" data-attributes="member: 60472">I'm aware of that, that doesn't change any one of my examples. The paladin will frequently be battling one foe that choose to stay engaged with him, while he would like to influence another foe to attack him.  (Can I say "draw aggro" without opening up a new can of worms?!)Well, I can't rule out misinterpretting it. But when I read the fluff: "You boldly confront a nearby enemy, searing it with divine light if it ignores your challenge." I have to disagree - that sounds a whole lot like more getting a nearby guy to engage you (or face the consequences) than to force someone already committed to fighting you engaged. In fact, for a foe that has willingly chose to come up and attack you, the Divine Challenge is nearly pointless.Those are valid and important points. No argument on those.To be clear though, my problem was not that they tried to have a clear concise rule, but rather that for the sake of being clear and concise they came up with a 'fix' for exploitative behavior that crushes several common and legitimate applications of the power.True for the most part, but if they're clear it should reduce lawyering. As the rule stands now there is really no arguing about it. We can not like it, whine, or house rule it, but it no longer lends itself to a debate on the interpretation of the rule.Thanks for the feedback...</blockquote>