# Divine Challenge at the end of your turn



## Pielorinho (Jul 6, 2008)

The Divine Challenge is on page 91.  As a minor action, the paladin marks an enemy.  My question is regarding this text:



> On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target.  To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it.  If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use divine challenge on your next turn.



Does this mean that if I move, attack kobold 1, and divine challenge kobold 2 (who's two squares away), the divine challenge has no effect except to keep me from using DC next turn?  Or does it mean that my very next action must be to attack or to move?

I'm inclined to the first interpretation, but figured I'd get other folks' input.

Daniel


----------



## Mort_Q (Jul 6, 2008)

I'd allow the second interpretation.  The rules are meant to prevent cheap tactics like marking and running.  As long as you're not being... un-Paladin-like, let it go.


----------



## Tonester (Jul 6, 2008)

Which Kobold did the Paladin Challenge the turn prior?  If it was Kobold 1, then yes, the Paladin could use Divine Challenge again against Kobold 2 this turn since the Paladin did engage (attack or end turn adjacent to) the target he had challenged the turn prior (Kobold 1).

After ending his turn by challenging Kobold 2, if he does not engage Kobold 2 his next turn or challenge a new creature his next turn, he is unable to use Divine Challenge for 1 turn and whichever creature that is currently marked is no longer marked.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 6, 2008)

Mort_Q said:


> I'd allow the second interpretation. The rules are meant to prevent cheap tactics like marking and running. As long as you're not being... un-Paladin-like, let it go.



 I had it come up in a game where the player was doing something like that:  marking an enemy fighting an ally, an enemy he couldn't get to, in order to punish it for continuing to fight that ally.  I didn't much like the feel of it, but wanted to make sure I wasn't being stingy with the rules in preventing him from doing it.  

Daniel


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 6, 2008)

Tonester said:


> Which Kobold did the Paladin Challenge the turn prior? If it was Kobold 1, then yes, the Paladin could use Divine Challenge again against Kobold 2 this turn since the Paladin did engage (attack or end turn adjacent to) the target he had challenged the turn prior (Kobold 1).
> 
> After ending his turn by challenging Kobold 2, if he does not engage Kobold 2 his next turn or challenge a new creature his next turn, he is unable to use Divine Challenge for 1 turn and whichever creature that is currently marked is no longer marked.



Hmm, I see what you're saying: I wasn't paying enough attention to "or challenge a different target" in the quoted material.  Assume that he'd not challenged anyone previously.  Does that make a difference?

I'd think it doesn't.  And given your post, I'm inclined to reverse my position and allow this tactic.

Daniel


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 6, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> Does this mean that if I move, attack kobold 1, and divine challenge kobold 2 (who's two squares away), the divine challenge *has no effect except to keep me from using DC next turn?*




Yes, this first interpretation is correct.

Remember that the Divine Challenge persists until the paladin specifically challenges a different target or fails to engage the challenged target.

The phrase "you must engage the target you challenged *or challenge a different target*" does not mean that challenging a different target _by itself_ is sufficient to meet the condition.  Rather, this caveat is included to account for cases where the paladin challenged a target on the _previous_ turn (and did, indeed, engage it that turn), is _still_ challenging it at the start of his current turn (because the challenge persists until he ends it or fails to engage), but the paladin wishes to use this turn to challenge _and engage_ a different target on this second turn.

For example:

Turn 1: The paladin challenges Orc A and engages Orc A (by attacking this orc or ending his turn adjacent to this orc).

Turn 2: Because the paladin _did_ engage Orc A on Turn 1, he is _still_ engaging Orc A at the start of Turn 2.  He now has two options for how to spend Turn 2 without losing his Divine Challenge ability on Turn 3.  He can either:

(a) engage Orc A once more on Turn 2.  This will meet the requirements and cause him to still be challenging Orc A at the start of Turn 3.

or

(b) use Divine Challenge on a different target, say Orc B, and _engage_ Orc B on this same turn.  He will then still be challenging Orc B at the start of Turn 3.

He _cannot_, however, do the following:

(c) use his standard and move actions for other unrelated things, and then end his turn by using his minor action to challenge Orc B.

If he could do this, it would open up the same abuse that Divine Challenge was rewritten to avoid - challenging a target and running away.  Observe:

Paladin Turn 1: The paladin does something or other and then challenges Orc A (without ending Turn 1 adjacent to Orc A).

Orc A Turn 1: Orc A is challenged and cannot attack anyone but the paladin without taking damage.  He is forced to either move to the paladin (possibly taking opportunity attacks in the process) or waste his turn doing virtually nothing (or suffering automatic damage).

Paladin Turn 2: The paladin begins this turn still challenging Orc A.  He thens spends this turn completely ignoring Orc A.  He ends this turn by using Divine Challenge on Orc B (whom he has also been completely ignoring).  If we allow the explotive interpretation of "or challenge a different target", then the paladin has fully satisfied this requirement.

Orc B Turn 2: Orc B is in the same situation that Orc A previously was.  He either moves to the paladin who has been ignoring him or wastes his turn doing virtually notihing.

Paladin Turn 3: The paladin begins this turn still challenging Orc B.  He then spends this turn completely ignoring Orc B.  He ends this turn by using Divine Challenge on Orc C.

Repeat.

Long story short: The paladin must engage a target on the _same turn_ he challenges that target or the challenge will end and he will lose use of Divine Challenge for a turn.


----------



## LittleElvis (Jul 6, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> Long story short: The paladin must engage a target on the _same turn_ he challenges that target or the challenge will end and he will lose use of Divine Challenge for a turn.




And of course it goes without saying that you can "engage" a target by simply ending your turn adjacent to it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Jul 6, 2008)

I would agree that a paladin must attack or end the turn next to their target or lose the DC for a turn.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 6, 2008)

LittleElvis said:


> And of course it goes without saying that you can "engage" a target by simply ending your turn adjacent to it.




Correct.  He needs to do at least one, but not necessarily both, of the following:

(a) Attack the target.  Any form of attack will do.

(b) End his turn in a space adjacent to the target.

The key point is that he must do at least one of these two things in the _same turn_ in which he first challenges the target.

Challenging on Turn 1 with the intent to engage on Turn 2, for example, is not good enough.  If he can't also engage on Turn 1, he needs to wait until Turn 2 to challenge.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 7, 2008)

Okay, I've reversed position yet again .  I think y'all are right:  the intent of Divine Challenge is too easily gamed if you don't have to do anything special on the round in which you issue it.

Daniel


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 7, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> Okay, I've reversed position yet again .  I think y'all are right:  the intent of Divine Challenge is too easily gamed if you don't have to do anything special on the round in which you issue it.
> 
> Daniel




I'm not quite sure I understand - what sort of gaming is going to happen and why is it bad?

It just seems to me that challenging a target who is 5 squares away in order to encourage him to stop killing your friend and come get you instead seems very paladinlike, while (for instance) throwing javelins from the other side of a 20 foot pit isn't.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 7, 2008)

Saeviomagy said:


> It just seems to me that challenging a target who is 5 squares away in order to encourage him to stop killing your friend and come get you instead seems very paladinlike




When you describe it like that, yes it does sound "paladin-like".

But read my post above.  The problem is that if you permit the Divine Challenge ability to be used in this way, the paladin doesn't need to engage any target he challenges.  _Ever_.  He's basically free to hop and skip around the battlefield like a little girl, goading enemies into chasing him but never actually turning to face them.  This, I'm sure you'll agree, is extremely un-paladin-like.


----------



## Xorn (Jul 7, 2008)

I'd say the challenge fails.  You need to attack the target or move adjacent before the end of your turn.  I don't think this is unfair, either:

A fighter must attack the target they want to mark, every turn they want it marked.
A paladin must attack the target they want to mark, or stay adjacent to it.

The paladin can stand next to their mark and attack something else--the fighter can't.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 7, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> But read my post above. The problem is that if you permit the Divine Challenge ability to be used in this way, the paladin doesn't need to engage any target he challenges. _Ever_. He's basically free to hop and skip around the battlefield like a little girl, goading enemies into chasing him but never actually turning to face them. This, I'm sure you'll agree, is extremely un-paladin-like.



 Yep--this is it.  The paladin in question was being grabbed by an ant, and saw another ant bothering a friend of his.  The player knew he couldn't go attack that other ant (being grabbed and all), but wanted to hinder it, so he DCed that other ant, not intending to go attack it at all, but simply trying to mess it up (in order to attack him, it'd need to take a move action, thereby suffering multiple Opportunity Attacks).  He then kept beating on the ant that grabbed him.

It was everyone's first 4e combat, done mainly to test out character powers, so I don't fault the player at all for trying that out, but for the next session, I'll make it clear that someone challenged must be attacked or be adjacent every round, including the round that the challenge is issued.  (I will, of course, allow a paladin to attack an opponent and THEN challenge it during the same round; the challenge needn't come first.  Indeed, this is probably the best order of events:  if your attack kills the opponent, you don't want to have wasted your challenge on it.)

Daniel


----------



## Wish (Jul 7, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> This, I'm sure you'll agree, is extremely un-paladin-like.




I can build a paladin whose personal ethos is a complete disregard for others.  She can kill, steal, and betray for personal gain.  Her word is meaningless.  There's no such thing as "unpaladinlike" in the brave new world of square circles.  I bet it was a chaotic evil paladin that exterminated all the druids, and drove the gnomes into hiding, in fact.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 7, 2008)

That "or challenge a different target." seems to only add confusion and I can't see why it is there.

Assuming you challenge a different target you go back to the top of reading the power.

Minor: "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target (see below)."

So you get to the engage bit and read...

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

Well if you have any minor actions left you could challenge another target I suppose but then you need to start *reading from the top again*. Eventually you are going to run out of actions to challenge other targets and in that case you have to* engage the target on your turn*. In which case you read the rest.

"To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn."

So there is no way you can have a challenge up against a target you haven't engaged.


----------



## Dizlag (Jul 7, 2008)

To further your example, Pielorinho, if the move-attack actions killed a DC'd enemy and a paladin wishes to DC another enemy, I would allow it.  Even if the DC'd enemy didn't die and the paladin wishes to DC another enemy he's not adjacent to, then I would allow it as well.

The third paragraph in the "Effect" section is very clear about this.  You either engage a target or challenge a different target.  To engage you either need to attack it or end your turn adjacent to it.  If none of these happen, you loose the ability to DC an enemy for a turn.

In the above example, if on the next round the paladin didn't engage the enemy or mark a different target, then he would loose his ability to DC for a turn.  You'll have to make a judgment call  as a DM if your player is maneuvering around the battlefield like a girly-man challenging the enemy.  If he is, deny him the DC ability for a turn.



Dizlag


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 7, 2008)

Dizlag said:


> To further your example, Pielorinho, if the move-attack actions killed a DC'd enemy and a paladin wishes to DC another enemy, I would allow it.  Even if the DC'd enemy didn't die and the paladin wishes to DC another enemy he's not adjacent to, then I would allow it as well.
> 
> The third paragraph in the "Effect" section is very clear about this.  You either engage a target or challenge a different target.  To engage you either need to attack it or end your turn adjacent to it.  If none of these happen, you loose the ability to DC an enemy for a turn.
> 
> ...




Why are you allowing it on the next turn? 

You've said that the in the previous paragraph that the text is very clear you have to attack or end adjacent to a target on your turn, the turn you challenged it.


----------



## Dizlag (Jul 7, 2008)

Bagpuss,

I was writing my last post when you posted yours and upon reading your post, I've changed my view here.  I agree with you that the text -- "or challenge a different target" -- is confusing and shouldn't be there.  The bottom line is you have to engage a challenged target on your turn to get the benefits out of it.

Thanks for the clarification.

Dizlag


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 7, 2008)

Bagpuss said:


> Well if you have any minor actions left you could challenge another target I suppose but then you need to start *reading from the top again*. Eventually you are going to run out of actions to challenge other targets and in that case you have to* engage the target on your turn*.




As a minor note, the complication of challenging multiple enemies until you run out of actions is already avoided by the rules.

Near the bottom of the Divine Challenge power it explicitly states that you may only use it once per turn anyway.  So once you challenge even a single enemy on a given turn, you must engage that enemy by the end of that turn or suffer the consequences.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 7, 2008)

Dizlag said:


> I agree with you that the text -- "or challenge a different target" -- is confusing and shouldn't be there.




I also agree that this text is confusing and should probably have been phrased better; but it is, unfortunately, necessary for the rules to say something to this effect.

Without the "or challenge a different target" clause, it becomes impossible for a paladin to cease challenging one target and challenge a different one instead.  Without this clause the rule would effectively read "On your turn you _must_ engage the target that is currently challenged.  _Period_."  This would mean that once a target has been challenged, the paladin can do nothing but engage that same target turn after turn until it is dead (or abandon the target and suffer the consequences of not engaging).  He would be unable to switch targets without an automatic penalty.

But yes, the rule should probably have been worded more clearly.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 7, 2008)

Wish said:


> I bet it was a chaotic evil paladin that exterminated all the druids...




... after divine challenging them and running away, no less.

Thus appeared the first official 4E errata. Too late though, the druids were no more.

I'm glad we finally got to the bottom of this.

Sky


----------



## Nonalla (Jul 10, 2008)

Alright I have a question that's bound to come up soon regarding paladins and marking.

Let's say a Paladin has Arcing Smite:
*Encounter*




*Divine*, *Weapon*
* Action* *Melee* weapon
*Targets*: One or two creatures
*Attack*: Strength vs. AC, one attack per target
_Hit_: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage, and the target is marked until the end of your next turn.

Let's say he hits 2 different targets, now they are both marked.  Are they marked with Divine Challenge?  Does this supercede the rule that you can only have one marked creature at a time or does the Paladin have to choose 1 creature to mark?


----------



## chaotix42 (Jul 10, 2008)

No, just because the paladin marked someone it does not mean they are subject to Divine Challenge. Only when the paladin uses DC itself is the target exposed to it - if he marks an enemy some other way they are marked and that's it.


----------



## Skyscraper (Jul 10, 2008)

Since specific beats general, two creatures could be marked at the same time with this power, contrary to the general rule of a single mark.

I'm unsure about them being marked with Divine Challenge however. I'd assume that they are but would first check out the general entry on marking in the PHB if there is one. Otherwise, since the paladin does not mark in any other way, Divine Challenge would be applicable.

Sky


----------



## Nonalla (Jul 10, 2008)

So the paladin in question could use Arcing Smite on 2 monsters, then mark an additional adjacent monster with DC to mark 3 targets in one turn?  That's pretty elite tanking, right there.


----------



## Lord Sessadore (Jul 10, 2008)

Where do you see the limitation that a character can only have one marked enemy at a time?  As far as I know, the number of enemies you can have marked simultaneously is simply a limit imposed by whatever abilities you have that mark enemies.  

A creature can only be marked by one other creature, but I haven't seen anything saying a creature can't have more than one mark active at once.


----------



## Nareau (Jul 10, 2008)

Pielorinho said:


> Does this mean that if I move, attack kobold 1, and divine challenge kobold 2 (who's two squares away), the divine challenge has no effect except to keep me from using DC next turn?



I think that's the most sensible reading.  I think there are two reasonable strict readings that hinge on the word "none":
"None" could refer to "No attacking the target, no standing next to the target, and no challenging a new target".  This reading would mean challenging a different target is sufficient to guarantee you can use DC on your next turn.  I think this is likely the intent of the wording, despite it being abusable.

Or "none" could refer to "No attacking the target and no standing next to the target".  It would have been better to use the word "neither" to make it clear they were referring to the immediately preceding events.  I think this would be a better interpretation.  If you want to use your DC next turn, you MUST end your turn next to whomever (if anyone) is currently marked by it.

Nareau


----------



## Cascade (Jul 10, 2008)

So, a few related questions...

Does the Piercing smite mark over write a DC mark? 
Lets say your wisdom is +4 and only 3 targets are adjacent; one DC'd, one unmarked and another marked by a fighter. Does the Piercing smite overwrite all of the others, or just the unmarked? Can I choose not to have it overwrite either of the others?


----------



## Staffan (Jul 10, 2008)

Lord Sessadore said:


> Where do you see the limitation that a character can only have one marked enemy at a time?  As far as I know, the number of enemies you can have marked simultaneously is simply a limit imposed by whatever abilities you have that mark enemies.



Right. Both Divine Challenge and Combat Challenge make it difficult to mark multiple opponents (DC because it explicitly says that using it on a new opponent breaks previous uses of DC, and CC because it only lasts until the end of your next turn), but there's nothing about marks themselves that make it impossible.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 10, 2008)

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." On your turn, engage OR pick a new target.  That is the RAW.  This means that if you want to, you can switch back and forth between multiple targets and never engage.  If this offends your concept of a paladin, do not use this tactic, but that isn't relevant to the rules.

The issue seen at D&D Experience that prompted a change to DC was the exploit of fully running away and the DC remaining active.  In the case of twisted tunnels with a double move, that meant the enemy would never be able to safely attack ANY target.  The paladin's best tactic was to run from the final dragon in the Scalegloom module.  Now, you must engage an enemy to keep the DC active on that creature.

The role of the paladin is defender, and that means keeping the enemies occupied.  In the standard 5 on 5 of encounters, what use is a divine challenge that can't effectively change for role that is intended to tie up enemies?  You tie up one, the rest gang the wizard.  That does violate the concept of the class.

In the example we started with, the ant eating your friend, you can give your friend a chance by DC the ant.  This is only temporary if you can't get to the ant on your friend but it is better than nothing.  Remember your role as a paladin: defend.  You are there to soak the agro.  If you can't engage the ant attacking your friend, you either challenge another creature, (leaving your friend out to dry) or lose DC for a turn (leaving your friend out to dry).

For those of you who consider this an abuse of the rules, consider a pair of elven paladins with bows, firing from the trees.  Engage explicitly includes "attack" and not "melee attack" in it's definition in Divine Challenge.  This means that I cause a melee character damage every round if he doesn't ineffectually attack me or waste his turn.  This is perfectly legal by the rules even as they have been interpreted by most here.

In short, the rules say, turn by turn, engage or pick a new target.  There is no requirement in the ability to engage every round.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 10, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." On your turn, engage OR pick a new target.  That is the RAW.  This means that if you want to, you can switch back and forth between multiple targets and never engage.




Nope. You are taking that line out of context. You need to read the whole power.

At the top it says...

_*Effect: *You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use the power against another target, *or you fail to engage the target*._

Since you can only use it once a turn, you can't go using it on another target so there is no need to worry about the mark disappearing because of that, but there is still the case of you failing to engage and after the bit you quoted it tells you what you have to do to engage a target.

_To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it._



> There is no requirement in the ability to engage every round.




But if you don't engage the mark ends, says so in the second sentence.

Say you mark the this distant ant with the your Divine Challenge at the end of your go, you can't get to it or attack it. You use the power you read the Effect.

*Step 1:* You mark the target.

You can do that no problem... however keep reading.

*Check 1:* remains marked until you use the power against another target

Well I'm not going to do that this round because I can't, I can only use the ability once around. So no worries there.

*Check 2:* or you fail to engage (see below) the target.

(below) *On your turn*, you must engage the target or challenge a different target (_can't do that once a turn remember_). To engage the target, you must either attack it (_can't do run out of actions or held, etc._) or end your turn adjacent (_can't do that either_)

Hmmm I can't engage him so what happens?

If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use divine challenge on your next turn.

Bugger.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 10, 2008)

Yup, Bagpuss has it exactly right.  Read the whole description of the power, consider how the different rules interact, and it becomes clear that a target must be engaged on the same turn it is challenged or else the challenge will end automatically.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 10, 2008)

As to the new discussion of whether multiple marked targets will all be under Divine Challenge, the answer is *no*.

Remember that Divine Challenge is a power _in itself_.  It requires a minor action to use it, and it can only be used once per turn.  One _part_ of the a Divine Challenge is that the challenged target is marked.  However, even though all "divinely challenged" targets are marked, _not all_ marked targets are under a Divine Challenge.

*Being marked and being under a Divine Challenge are not the same thing.*

A paladin can, through the use of other powers, have multiple creatures marked at one time.  However, no more than _one_ creature can be under a Divine Challenge at one time; and even that one creature must have been specifically targeted by the paladin with the Divine Challenge power as a minor action.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 10, 2008)

Bagpuss said:


> Nope. You are taking that line out of context. You need to read the whole power.
> 
> At the top it says...
> 
> _*Effect: *You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use the power against another target, *or you fail to engage the target*._



That would be the issue of not having books at hand.  But that reading fails to account for actions such as move.  On my turn, first I DC monster, then I move to a better position (not adjacent).  At this point, I have failed to engage.  Should the target be no longer marked?



Bagpuss said:


> But if you don't engage the mark ends, says so in the second sentence.



Agreed.  Now, how often do we check for "engaged"?  Is it impossible for a paladin to do anything other than engage?



Bagpuss said:


> Say you mark the this distant ant with the your Divine Challenge at the end of your go, you can't get to it or attack it. You use the power you read the Effect.



Effect: creature is marked. Each turn you must engage the creature or choose a new target to challenge.  A strict reading of the second sentence not only makes for silly situations such as negating most movement, but it also ignores another sentence in the effect: "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."



Bagpuss said:


> *Step 1:* You mark the target.
> 
> You can do that no problem... however keep reading.
> 
> ...



Emphasis mine.  This is a clause of engage which you improperly apply to the entire ability.  Note, divine challenge does not read _"If at any point you do not engage the enemy, the mark ends."_  It says _"remains marked until you use the power against another target or you fail to engage (see below) the target"_.  Now, if the ability can only be used once a round, why does _"until you use the power against another target"_ appear at all, let alone first?

Each turn, challenge a different target or engage.  There is no requirement to engage every challenged creature every round.

Lets take another situation to show why your view of timing doesn't work.  Again, paladin Bob has a range weapon.  In the first round of combat, Bob moves and then uses his ranged attack against monster Tim.  Then Bob's player recalls his divine challenge and uses it against Tim.  At this point, Bob does not have another attack or movement to use to engage Tim.  By your reading, Bob is buggered.  A lapse of memory should not deny Bob his ability.

I'll grant, that situation is absurd in play, as no decent DM would be dick to Bob's player for such a mistake, but it illustrates a point of the rules.  If we are going to technical, lets be technical.

If none of those arguments are to your taste, can we just fall back to the "say yes" advice of the DMG?  This tactic allows a player to be unconventional in their paladin and doesn't contradict any obvious rule.  It is not game breaking, it is interesting and at least I think it's fun.  It does fit the paladin's role (take the heat for the other guys), why shouldn't it work?

Your table, your rules, you can call it as you wish, but I will need to have this discussion endlessly at conventions and RPGA tables, so I need to be prepared with a reasoned response.  Don't take this the wrong way, I have no problem with your ruling, I just need to know the most "technical" answer.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 10, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> Yup, Bagpuss has it exactly right.  Read the whole description of the power, consider how the different rules interact, and it becomes clear that a target must be engaged on the same turn it is challenged or else the challenge will end automatically.



Then why targeting another mentioned twice?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 11, 2008)

Cascade said:


> So, a few related questions...
> 
> Does the Piercing smite mark over write a DC mark?
> Lets say your wisdom is +4 and only 3 targets are adjacent; one DC'd, one unmarked and another marked by a fighter. Does the Piercing smite overwrite all of the others, or just the unmarked? Can I choose not to have it overwrite either of the others?




Well, the Fighter and Warpriest both have language that states something to the effect of "You may choose to mark...", whereas many powers have language that states "Creature X is marked."

If we assume that the lack of "You may choose" wording means the marking happens regardless, then all three enemies are marked by Piercing Smite, which overwrites the Fighter's mark.  It also overwrites the Divine Challenge mark, meaning that when the Piercing Smite mark expires at the end of your next turn, the creature under the Divine Challenge will no longer be marked (since the mark applied by Divine Challenge, which expires when you use DC again or fail to engage the target, doesn't exist any more).  

I'm not certain this means that he is no longer subject to Divine Challenge, however, while he remains marked by you, even though that mark is no longer the mark DC applied.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> That would be the issue of not having books at hand.  But that reading fails to account for actions such as move.  On my turn, first I DC monster, then I move to a better position (not adjacent).  At this point, I have failed to engage.  Should the target be no longer marked?




Right.  On your turn, did you attack it or end your turn adjacent to it?

If neither is true, then you failed to engage.



> Now, how often do we check for "engaged"?




At the end of each turn, since engaging is something you must do on your turn.

If, by the end of your turn, you have not engaged, then you have not engaged on your turn.



> Lets take another situation to show why your view of timing doesn't work. Again, paladin Bob has a range weapon. In the first round of combat, Bob moves and then uses his ranged attack against monster Tim. Then Bob's player recalls his divine challenge and uses it against Tim. At this point, Bob does not have another attack or movement to use to engage Tim. By your reading, Bob is buggered. A lapse of memory should not deny Bob his ability.




Uh...

Paladin Bob has a ranged weapon.  In the first round of combat, Bob takes a move action to move around a corner, so he no longer has line of effect to monster Tim.  Then Bob's player remembers that he forgot to use a ranged attack against Tim before he moved, and from his new position he can't.  He still has a standard action he could use to move back around the corner... but then he wouldn't have a standard action left to make his attack!

Timing is kinda crucial to whether or not actions are viable.  A lapse of memory should certainly deny Bob his ability, if he forgets to do something while it is possible and only remembers after events have rendered it impossible.

-Hyp.


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 11, 2008)

So the thought is that every enemy in a Divine Challenge burst is marked by the paladin, but only one has the actual damage dealing DC mark?

It seems weird if that is the case when it says target one creature.  Was this errata'd somewhere or on a FAQ?

Tellerve


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 11, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> So the thought is that every enemy in a Divine Challenge burst is marked by the paladin, but only one has the actual damage dealing DC mark?
> 
> It seems weird if that is the case when it says target one creature.  Was this errata'd somewhere or on a FAQ?
> 
> Tellerve




Eh? No, you can only target one enemy with Divine Challenge, what gave you an idea otherwise?


----------



## Tellerve (Jul 11, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> As to the new discussion of whether multiple marked targets will all be under Divine Challenge, the answer is *no*.
> 
> Remember that Divine Challenge is a power _in itself_.  It requires a minor action to use it, and it can only be used once per turn.  One _part_ of the a Divine Challenge is that the challenged target is marked.  However, even though all "divinely challenged" targets are marked, _not all_ marked targets are under a Divine Challenge.






This is where I got the idea.

Tellerve


----------



## Kordeth (Jul 11, 2008)

Tellerve said:


> This is where I got the idea.
> 
> Tellerve




He's talking about other powers and abilities that let you mark targets, like Piercing Smite. It's possible to have more than one target _marked_ at a time, but those marks are not part of he Divine Challenge power. You can only use Divine Challenge on one target.


----------



## dcyale (Jul 11, 2008)

When I read Divine Challenge I thought it meant something different from everyone so far- at least my understanding of what people are saying.  

    In the sentence, “On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged
or challenge a different target” I took “On your turn” to mean the next turn.  In other words, the paladin moves to and attacks monster A.  He thinks monster B is going after someone else so as a minor he challenges Monster B, who is not adjacent to him.  His turn ends.

      I thought Monster B had the challenge at this point, but on his turn, his next turn in other words, the paladin had to engage or end adjacent to monster B, or challenge someone else. 

     This would also make the last part of the sentence, “or challenge a different target” make sense.  You can only divine challenge once per turn so this sentence must apply to a turn that starts with some target already being marked with the paladin’s divine challenge.  Any other interpretation leads to that part of the sentence being totally nonsensical.  Not even an action point will let a paladin challenge more than once in a turn in light of the sentence, “You can use divine challenge once per turn.”

     And why didn’t the authors just say “By the end of your turn” instead of “On your turn” if that’s what they meant.

     I think it also makes more sense when read with the top of the entry. “The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail
to engage the target.”  

            Does this make sense to anyone else?  Of course it wouldn’t be the first time I was the only person to agree with me.

Cheese:  I guess all paladins should carry a bag of rocks they can throw at marked monsters to keep the challenge going.  Doesn’t matter if they hit or not, as long as they make the attack.  It’s cheaper than daggers.

More cheese:  The rouge readies an action to move by the monster after the paladin divine challenges it.  The Paladin challenges from 5 squares away, the rouge’s readied moves goes off, the monster makes the choice… take the damage or forego the OA?  And if it takes the OA it’s at –2.  Seems like it would work under the RAW.  Maybe it’s just smart, not cheese?  And this would seem to work no matter which interpertation of challenge you use.


----------



## dcyale (Jul 11, 2008)

[duplicate message deleted- stupid computer!]


----------



## FireLance (Jul 11, 2008)

dcyale said:


> And why didn’t the authors just say “By the end of your turn” instead of “On your turn” if that’s what they meant.



I'll be frank: I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the challenge disappears if the paladin failed to engage the target _*by the end of his next turn*_ (it could have been an informal fix posted somewhere on ENWorld), and I played it that way for my first few 4e sessions. However, this not what it says in the PH power description.


> Cheese: I guess all paladins should carry a bag of rocks they can throw at marked monsters to keep the challenge going.  Doesn’t matter if they hit or not, as long as they make the attack.  It’s cheaper than daggers.



Rocks are pretty much a waste of the paladin's standard action, though. Effectively giving up your own standard action just to ensure that another opponent doesn't attack an ally or takes damage if he does only really makes sense against an Elite or Solo opponent.


> More cheese:  The rouge readies an action to move by the monster after the paladin divine challenges it.  The Paladin challenges from 5 squares away, the rouge’s readied moves goes off, the monster makes the choice… take the damage or forego the OA?  And if it takes the OA it’s at –2.  Seems like it would work under the RAW.  Maybe it’s just smart, not cheese?  And this would seem to work no matter which interpertation of challenge you use.



I vote for smart. Fortunately, rogues don't have the baggage from previous editions carried by paladins, so this tactic won't be looked on with disapproval.


----------



## dcyale (Jul 11, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Rocks are pretty much a waste of the paladin's standard action, though. Effectively giving up your own standard action just to ensure that another opponent doesn't attack an ally or takes damage if he does only really makes sense against an Elite or Solo opponent.




Actually, I should have been more specific- I was thinking of a situation where, for whatever reason, the paladin couldn't get up to engage directly.  Throw a rock and you keep the challenge going.  Maybe a five foot hallway, the fighter is in the front with the monster, and the paladin is in the back?


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Right.  On your turn, did you attack it or end your turn adjacent to it?



On my turn, I changed who I challenged.  



Hypersmurf said:


> If neither is true, then you failed to engage.



Yes, but Divine Challenge does not state you need to engage.  It says you need to engage OR pick a new target.



Hypersmurf said:


> At the end of each turn, since engaging is something you must do on your turn.
> 
> If, by the end of your turn, you have not engaged, then you have not engaged on your turn.



If I move away, I cannot apply the only portion of engage that mentions end of turn: being next to the enemy.  Why at this point, I have failed to engage.  There is no reason one clause of one half of one definition in the power should apply to entire power.



Hypersmurf said:


> Paladin Bob has a ranged weapon.  In the first round of combat, Bob takes a move action to move around a corner, so he no longer has line of effect to monster Tim.  Then Bob's player remembers that he forgot to use a ranged attack against Tim before he moved, and from his new position he can't.  He still has a standard action he could use to move back around the corner... but then he wouldn't have a standard action left to make his attack!
> 
> Timing is kinda crucial to whether or not actions are viable.  A lapse of memory should certainly deny Bob his ability, if he forgets to do something while it is possible and only remembers after events have rendered it impossible.
> 
> -Hyp.



The difference is that DC doesn't do anything until after your turn.  Movement does.  In that case, movement is vital and in my reading of DC when it is used is incidental making the game easier and simpler.

Hey Hyp, can you address the other points:

D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement
Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role
This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics
The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice
DMG "say yes" advice

I'd also like to ask which reading is simpler: each turn engage or target OR if you challenge you must engage before the end of your turn.  If this edition's goal is simplicity, it should figure into our reading.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

dcyale said:


> Does this make sense to anyone else?  Of course it wouldn’t be the first time I was the only person to agree with me.



That is exactly how I read it and I think it is the only way all the text makes sense.



dcyale said:


> Cheese:  I guess all paladins should carry a bag of rocks they can throw at marked monsters to keep the challenge going.  Doesn’t matter if they hit or not, as long as they make the attack.  It’s cheaper than daggers.



Arrows are cheap, have a longer range and more damage.  Neither reading stops archer paladins.



dcyale said:


> More cheese:  The rouge readies an action to move by the monster after the paladin divine challenges it.  The Paladin challenges from 5 squares away, the rouge’s readied moves goes off, the monster makes the choice… take the damage or forego the OA?  And if it takes the OA it’s at –2.  Seems like it would work under the RAW.  Maybe it’s just smart, not cheese?  And this would seem to work no matter which interpertation of challenge you use.



The paladin could do the same by moving adjacent to the monster.  This what I call a sucker bet for the monster.  It is a tactic that helps allies move around the board which is a focus of 4e.  It isn't cheese that much as the damage is small and the monster has a choice.  I'll note from the other topic in this thread, a paladin can Challenge a monster from one side and a fighter can mark the same monster from the other side.  Either choice for the monster is bad: attack the paladin at -2 or attack the fighter and take damage.  I don't see this as cheese, it is the tactics of 4e.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> I'll note from the other topic in this thread, a paladin can Challenge a monster from one side and a fighter can mark the same monster from the other side.  Either choice for the monster is bad: attack the paladin at -2 or attack the fighter and take damage.  I don't see this as cheese, it is the tactics of 4e.




Actually, a fighter's mark supercedes a paladin's mark/challenge and vice versa; one cannot be marked by two or more enemies at the same time.  As a tangentially-related aside, note that mechanics like Hunter's Quarry and Warlock Curses aren't technically marks, so you _can_ have a guy who's Fighter-marked/Quarried/Cursed or a guy who's Challenged/Quarried/Cursed but you _cannot_ have someone who's Marked/Challenged/Quarried/Cursed.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> Actually, a fighter's mark supercedes a paladin's mark/challenge and vice versa; one cannot be marked by two or more enemies at the same time.  As a tangentially-related aside, note that mechanics like Hunter's Quarry and Warlock Curses aren't technically marks, so you _can_ have a guy who's Fighter-marked/Quarried/Cursed or a guy who's Challenged/Quarried/Cursed but you _cannot_ have someone who's Marked/Challenged/Quarried/Cursed.



True, you can only be marked by one enemy, but the challenge doesn't go away, only the Marked status was changed.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 11, 2008)

Hmm, I'll have to look at it more closely, but the way I've read it is that the Challenge is a specific subset of Marking and subject to all mark rules.  I also recall when the first info was coming out, there was a developer comment that the rule was changed for marks to not stack _specifically_ due to too strong of a synergy between fighter mark & paladin challenge.

Remember, there's two sub-tactics that fighters choose from at character creation; one gives a cheapshot from the fighter if the marked target moves away.  The other gives the fighter a cheapshot if the marked target _attacks_ someone else.  Suddenly the monster is in an even deeper catch-22; attack the paladin and get whacked in the head by the fighter, or attack fighter and get burned by the paladin.  


Based on the fact that those two abilities are tied to the marked condition and the fact that the paladin challenge also applies the standard -2 mark penalty, it only makes sense that the challenge stays on only as long as no other defender marks the target.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

I can understand your confusion, Loki.  The description of the power is, indeed, worded in an complex way.  But you are, nonetheless, mistaken in your interpretation.  Bagpuss and Hypersmurf have both spelled out very clearly why you're mistaken.

I do, however, think I know what the source of your confusion is, so I'll take one more stab at it:

The key concept, which I believe you're missing, is that the first line of the power description immediately comes into play *EVERY* time the Divine Challenge ability is used, even when the only reason you're using it is to fulfil the "or challenge a different target" option..  Here are the consequences of this:

(A) As per the beginning of the power description, if you use the Divine Challenge power then "you mark the target.  The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target (see below)."

This means that the Divine Challenge ability persists until either (1) it is used against a different target or (2) you fail to engage the challenged target.

(B) Paragraph 3 discusses the restrictions placed on the paladin when he uses this power.  It states that as a result of using Divine Challenge, "on your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

So, the paladin must, on his turn, either (1) engage his target or (2) challenge a different target.  This restriction applies *EVERY* time he uses Divine Challenge.

(C) The second sentence of paragraph 3 defines what the paladin must do to fulfil the "engage the target you challenged" option.  It states, "To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it."

So, if he goes with the "engage the target you challenged" option, the paladin must either (1) attack the challenged target this turn or (2) at least finish this turn standing next to the challenged target.

(D) The third sentence of paragraph 3 defines the consequences for failing to fulfil either of the options from (B).  It states, "If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn."

So, if the paladin reaches the end of "his turn" (that is, if *ANY* turn of his, including the current one, comes to an end) without fulfiling either option from (B), then the power is negated and is rendered unusable for one turn.

*STEP-BY-STEP BREAKDOWN:*

#1. Turn 1: The paladin uses the Divine Challenge power on a enemy.  This brings him to situation (A) and imposes the restrictions of (B).

#2. He cannot fulfil (B) by challenging a different target, since he can only use Divine Challenge once per turn.  He must, therefore, fulfil the other option - engage the target.

This takes him to (C).  He can either attack it before his turn ends or finish his turn standing next to it.  If he does neither, he suffers the consequences from (D).

#3. Suppose he does engage it successfully.  This means that the target, as per (A), is still challenged at the start of Turn 2.

As per (B), this means that the paladin must again fulfil one of the two options of (B) to avoid negative consequences.

#4. Suppose he chose to again use the first option - engage the target.  This will play out like step #2 above.  If he engages successfully, this takes us back to step #3 above.  As per (A), the target will still be challenged at the start of Turn 3 and the paladin must again choose how to meet the restrictions of (B).

#5. Suppose instead of engaging the target at step #3, the paladin chooses to fulfil the second option of (B) - challenge a new target.  He has now activated the Divine Challenge power anew.  This takes us back to step #1 and brings about the situation of (A):

The Divine Challenge ability persists until either (1) it is used against a different target or (2) you fail to engage the challenged target.

and the behavioural restrictions of (B).

Like at step #2 above, he cannot meet the restrictions of (B) by challenging a new target since he has already used Divine Challenge this turn.  He must, therefore, engage the target before the end of his turn in order to satisfy (B).  If he does not, then he suffers the consequences of (D).

---------------------------------------------------------------

And that's it.  If he challenges a new target on his turn; but doesn't engage it on that same turn, then he suffers the consequnces.  This is because challeging the new target is _itself_ a use of the Divine Challenge power, bringing him back to step #1 in the cycle and imposing the same restrictions as if he had used the power for the very first time.  And, since he has already just used the power once this turn and cannot do so again, the only way to meet those restrictions is to engage before his turn ends.

There's no room for debate here, the rules are very clear once you spell them out.  They've now been spelled out for you three different ways by three different people, so hopefully you can see what we're getting at.  If you still don't, however, then I don't know what else to tell you.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> Hmm, I'll have to look at it more closely, but the way I've read it is that the Challenge is a specific subset of Marking and subject to all mark rules.



Divine Challenge applies multiple conditions to the target.  If a person resists the damage from the challenge, are they also not marked?  Taken another way, assume some power's effect is to mark a target until the end of your next round and give them ongoing fire damage 5 (save ends).  Does the loss of the mark negate the ongoing fire damage?



Stormtalon said:


> I also recall when the first info was coming out, there was a developer comment that the rule was changed for marks to not stack _specifically_ due to too strong of a synergy between fighter mark & paladin challenge.



I'd like to read that, if you have a link.  But most of all, I'm interested in the rules as written.  If it's too good, feel free to change it for D&D 4.5. 



Stormtalon said:


> Remember, there's two sub-tactics that fighters choose from at character creation; one gives a cheapshot from the fighter if the marked target moves away.  The other gives the fighter a cheapshot if the marked target _attacks_ someone else.  Suddenly the monster is in an even deeper catch-22; attack the paladin and get whacked in the head by the fighter, or attack fighter and get burned by the paladin.



Yep.  The best choice for the monster is tactical withdraw to a position they aren't totally boned.  This encourages movement and according to Mike Mearls, that is a focus of the game.



Stormtalon said:


> Based on the fact that those two abilities are tied to the marked condition and the fact that the paladin challenge also applies the standard -2 mark penalty, it only makes sense that the challenge stays on only as long as no other defender marks the target.



Paladin's Challenge applies multiple conditions on an enemy and gives them the same duration.  Negating one does not negate another.

If your argument is "it's too good" we can discuss reasonable house rules.  But what do the rules say in the first place?


----------



## kclark (Jul 11, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> (B) Paragraph 3 discusses the restrictions placed on the paladin when he uses this power.  It states that as a result of using Divine Challenge, "on your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."
> 
> So, the paladin must, on his turn, either (1) engage his target or (2) challenge a different target.  This restriction applies *EVERY* time he uses Divine Challenge.




I understand the logic of your assessment and agree with it, except for one part.

Under your ruling you cannot ever have B2 occur successfully. If it is impossible to fulfill the condition B2 why is the option written out? Thus I must read the power with the assumption that it is possible to fulfill condition B2.

There are two ways of fulfilling the condition B2.
1) You have no one marked. You use DC to mark an opponent. You have now fulfilled B2's requirement to challenge a different target. Surely Creature A is a different target than nothing. The target remains marked for the round without needing to engage. See #2 for what happens next round.
2) You start a turn with Creature A marked. You can fulfill B2 by using DC on Creature B. You have now fulfilled the requirement to challenge a different target as Creature B is a different target than Creature A. The DC is sustained for the round without needing to engage.

This interpretation still nullifies the Coward Paladin tactic of mark and run.

The difference between the two interpretations is it does add the ability to do a round of distance tanking. You can even switch around your tanking target while focusing on others. 
This makes a paladin pretty distinct from the fighter tanking. The fighter is sticky he wants things right next to him all the time, the paladin flows around fighting where help is needed. He is a much more mobile defender.
I think this adds a needed boost to the paladin's marking ability.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> I can understand your confusion, Loki.  The description of the power is, indeed, worded in an complex way.  But you are, nonetheless, mistaken in your interpretation.  Bagpuss and Hypersmurf have both spelled out very clearly why you're mistaken.



Average, I can understand your confusion.  The power has a history of abuse and you are concerned with power gaming.  But you are, none the less, mistaken.  As I have pointed out to Bagpuss and Hypersmurf clearly with several points unanswered, the ability should be a simple on your turn, engage or challenge.



AverageTable said:


> I do, however, think I know what the source of your confusion is, so I'll take one more stab at it:
> 
> The key concept, which I believe you're missing, is that the first line of the power description immediately comes into play *EVERY* time the Divine Challenge ability is used, even when the only reason you're using it is to fulfil the "or challenge a different target" option..



That is the point of contention, you are correct.  I read the ability once through, you repeat over and over.  I can understand this, but I still think it is wrong.  Most simply, your method of starting from the beginning every time you apply any part of the power makes the choice redundant.

I am clear on your interpretation: engage by the end of the turn or lose the challenge.  No long details are required.  If you would be so kind, please address the points I raised:
   1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement
   2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role
   3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics
   4. The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice.  Your interpretation negates this choice
   5. DMG "say yes" advice
   6. Simplicity.  The fact your interpretation involves so many steps should show you which is simpler.
   7. Game focus on movement



AverageTable said:


> And that's it.  If he challenges a new target on his turn; but doesn't engage it on that same turn, then he suffers the consequnces.  This is because challeging the new target is _itself_ a use of the Divine Challenge power, bringing him back to step #1 in the cycle and imposing the same restrictions as if he had used the power for the very first time.  And, since he has already just used the power once this turn and cannot do so again, the only way to meet those restrictions is to engage before his turn ends.



This is clear point I can't understand you missing.  If the power can only be used once a turn, why mention choosing a new target?  Your interpretation would be very easy to write: "You must engage the target (see below) after you mark him on the same turn."  That isn't what the ability says.  Your own extended discussion of the ability generates the confusion where mine is simple and matches the text: each round challenge another or engage.



AverageTable said:


> There's no room for debate here, the rules are very clear once you spell them out.  They've now been spelled out for you three different ways by three different people, so hopefully you can see what we're getting at.  If you still don't, however, then I don't know what else to tell you.



If that is your opinion, there's no need to respond my posts.  Repeating your interpretation does not convince me and it's a waste of both of our time to just repeat ourselves.  If you aren't open, this discussion is not for your benefit.  Don't worry, I won't come to your games and force you to use my interpretation if you promise the same to me.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> If the power can only be used once a turn, why mention choosing a new target?  Your interpretation would be very easy to write: "You must engage the target (see below) after you mark him on the same turn."  That isn't what the ability says.  Your own extended discussion of the ability generates the confusion where mine is simple and matches the text: each round challenge another or engage.




No, because there's is a consequence for failure to [engage the target or mark a new target]: you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.

Let's say I have two opponents, one of whom I Divine Challenged last round and engaged.  This turn, he has moved somewhere where I can neither attack him, nor end my turn adjacent to him.  So I use Divine Challenge on the other opponent, and engage _him_ instead (either by attacking, or ending adjacent).

If Divine Challenge said "You must engage the target, or you can't use Divine Challenge next turn", then even though I successfully DCed the second opponent this round, I wouldn't be able to use the ability _next_ round, because I failed to engage the target of my original DC this round.  Because DC says "You must engage the target or challenge a new target", I've fulfilled the condition to prevent losing my use of Divine Challenge next round.

What that condition _doesn't_ alter is the description of the duration of the mark - it expires if I use the power against a new target, and it expires if I fail to engage my target.

When I use Divine Challenge on the second opponent, I know that a/ the mark on the second opponent will expire if I use the power against a new target, and it will expire if I fail to engage my target.

I also know that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent), or I must challenge a different target (from the second opponent).  Since I can only use Divine Challenge once per round, this round I do not have the option of challenging a different target (from the second opponent); this means that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent).

Consider Lay on Hands.  I use the power, I spend a healing surge.  Next round, I use the power again.  When I get to the line that says "spend a healing surge", I can't say "I already did that" - the power doesn't 'remember' that I spend a healing surge last time.  Each time I use the power, I read from the beginning.

Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge.  When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin _is_ a different target"... "different target" means "different _from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin.  He can't be different from himself!

By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round.  But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.

-Hyp._


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> Divine Challenge applies multiple conditions to the target.  If a person resists the damage from the challenge, are they also not marked?  Taken another way, assume some power's effect is to mark a target until the end of your next round and give them ongoing fire damage 5 (save ends).  Does the loss of the mark negate the ongoing fire damage?




Yes, see below.



> Paladin's Challenge applies multiple conditions on an enemy and gives them the same duration.  Negating one does not negate another.




I think this is where our disagreement is.  You see it as separate and exclusive conditions applied by a single action.  I see Marking as a single condition with class-specific riders inextricably attached.  

I.E.:  The fighter cannot cheapshot a moving/attacking target that he does not have an active mark on AND the paladin can't burn an attacking target that he does not have an active mark on.  As soon as the mark goes away or is overridden by another, the attached riders become null and void.


----------



## kclark (Jul 11, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge.  When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin _is_ a different target"... "different target" means "different _from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin.  He can't be different from himself!
> 
> By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round.  But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.
> 
> -Hyp._



_

At the beginning of the round the target of you power Divine Challenge is the orc.
Reactivating the power allows you to challenge a target. You choose the goblin. You have filled the requirement to challenge a different target.
If you follow your logic then the phrase "or challenge a different target" is meaningless and should never have been in the sentence because you cannot ever have it matter. 

Of course a target can't be different from itself and thus is silly to interpret it that way. So that leaves us with comparing it to the last target the power affected.
If the current target is different than the last then the challenge maintains itself._


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> No, because there's is a consequence for failure to [engage the target or mark a new target]: you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.
> 
> Let's say I have two opponents, one of whom I Divine Challenged last round and engaged.  This turn, he has moved somewhere where I can neither attack him, nor end my turn adjacent to him.  So I use Divine Challenge on the other opponent, and engage _him_ instead (either by attacking, or ending adjacent).
> 
> If Divine Challenge said "You must engage the target, or you can't use Divine Challenge next turn", then even though I successfully DCed the second opponent this round, I wouldn't be able to use the ability _next_ round, because I failed to engage the target of my original DC this round.  Because DC says "You must engage the target or challenge a new target", I've fulfilled the condition to prevent losing my use of Divine Challenge next round.



Again, you are applying the ability recursively.  "You mark the target.  You must engage the target before the end of your turn." is clear and doesn't run over rounds.  You DC and engage.  The next round, you can pick a new target and the second choice, "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." keeps the ability going.  This is essentially your ruling and the verbiage could very clearly support you.  It does not and we have recursive application of the definition.

Even simpler, the verbiage could say "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target _and engage them_."  The lack of these simple phrases implies you are working too hard at interpretation.



Hypersmurf said:


> What that condition _doesn't_ alter is the description of the duration of the mark - it expires if I use the power against a new target, and it expires if I fail to engage my target.



By your reading, it expires if you fail to engage the target by the end of the round.  Do you see the difference?



Hypersmurf said:


> When I use Divine Challenge on the second opponent, I know that a/ the mark on the second opponent will expire if I use the power against a new target, *and* it will expire if I fail to engage my target.



The ability says "*or*", you say "*and*".  Isn't this clearly different than the ability states?



Hypersmurf said:


> I also know that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent), or I must challenge a different target (from the second opponent).  Since I can only use Divine Challenge once per round, this round I do not have the option of challenging a different target (from the second opponent); this means that on my turn, I must engage the target I challenged (the second opponent).



Again, it is clear the ability can only be used once a round.  Why do you insist the ability expires before I have a chance to make the choice of engage or pick different target?



Hypersmurf said:


> Consider Lay on Hands.  I use the power, I spend a healing surge.  Next round, I use the power again.  When I get to the line that says "spend a healing surge", I can't say "I already did that" - the power doesn't 'remember' that I spend a healing surge last time.  Each time I use the power, I read from the beginning.



First off, Lay on Hands doesn't have any effect that lasts from round to round so it's an improper example.  Second, I am reading from the beginning: You mark the target.  "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use the power against another target, or you fail to engage the target."  Until that choice is made, the mark remains.

Again, why doesn't "fail to engage" apply the instant I am not engaged, such as shifting away?



Hypersmurf said:


> Likewise, If I use Divine Challenge last round on an orc, and this round on a goblin, then "the target" refers to the orc for the first Divine Challenge, and "the goblin" for the second Divine Challenge.  When I use Divine Challenge on the goblin, I can't read "or challenge a different target" and say "Oh, the goblin _is_ a different target"... "different target" means "different _from the target of Divine Challenge", and the target of Divine Challenge is the goblin.  He can't be different from himself!
> 
> By challenging the goblin, you satisfied the "or challenge a different target (from the orc)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used last round.  But the "or challenge a different target (from the goblin)" clause of the Divine Challenge you used this round is yet to be addressed.
> 
> -Hyp._



_
Yes, the previous challenge must be resolved first: you challenged a different target.  Ok, the first DC is done.  Now we work on the second target.  He is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage.

There's a lot of semantics in your argument.  Lets set that aside for a moment and look at all the other reasons to follow the simpler "each turn engage or pick new target" interpretation:
1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement
2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role
3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics
5. DMG "say yes" advice
7. Game focus on movement_


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> I think this is where our disagreement is.  You see it as separate and exclusive conditions applied by a single action.  I see Marking as a single condition with class-specific riders inextricably attached.
> 
> I.E.:  The fighter cannot cheapshot a moving/attacking target that he does not have an active mark on AND the paladin can't burn an attacking target that he does not have an active mark on.  As soon as the mark goes away or is overridden by another, the attached riders become null and void.



The fighter cheapshot is different as it is power with a prerequisite of having a marked opponent.  The Divine Challenge doesn't have a prerequisite, it applies the marked condition and more.  Because Marked is defined condition, I tend to treat it as ongoing damage or prone rather than special case all it's own.

Another weird interpretation: even if the fighter takes the Challenge away there is still a condition on the power itself: the target remains marked until you challenge another or you fail to engage.  If I move away to heal, for example, do I negate the fighter's mark?

I think it is simpler for odd situations to treat powers by their smallest piece.  I can see how you get DC as specific sub-set of marked, however.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> The fighter cheapshot is different as it is power with a prerequisite of having a marked opponent.  The Divine Challenge doesn't have a prerequisite, it applies the marked condition and more.  Because Marked is defined condition, I tend to treat it as ongoing damage or prone rather than special case all it's own.




It's not that I treat it as a special case all it's own; it's just that the Challenge _is_ the paladin's mark, with the effect -2 to hit and damage if the target attacks someone other than the paladin.  This also evens things between paladin and fighter -- as the fighter cannot cheapshot a target that he himself has not marked, allowing the paladin's challenge damage to still occur after his mark has been removed by another's mark seriously devalues the fighter's abilities.



> Another weird interpretation: even if the fighter takes the Challenge away there is still a condition on the power itself: the target remains marked until you challenge another or you fail to engage.  If I move away to heal, for example, do I negate the fighter's mark?




Once the fighter has engaged the target and hit it, thus applying his mark, the entirety of the paladin's mark is gone, freeing the paladin to move to engage someone else.



> I think it is simpler for odd situations to treat powers by their smallest piece.  I can see how you get DC as specific sub-set of marked, however.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

To kclark:

You're making the exact same mistake I pointed out to Loki earlier.  You're failing to realise that "challenging a different target" means *USING* the Divine Challenge ability once again.  And using it again means that you need to fulfil the same requirements once again - challenge a new target or engage.  Since you can't do the first (only one Divine Challenge is permitted per round), you must do the second.



kclark said:


> At the beginning of the round the target of you power Divine Challenge is the orc.
> Reactivating the power allows you to challenge a target. You choose the goblin. You have filled the requirement to challenge a different target.




Correct.  But in the process of challenging a different target, you have *USED* the Divine Challenge power.  Using this power imposes the requirement that you now (1) engage the goblin or (2) challenge a different target before the end of your turn.

You can't do (2) since Divine Challenge is limited to one use per turn.

You must, therefore, do (1) - engage the goblin _this turn_.



> If you follow your logic then the phrase "or challenge a different target" is meaningless and should never have been in the sentence because you cannot ever have it matter.




No, it isn't meaningless.  As Hypersmurf said, and as I said days ago in this same thread, the "or challenge another creature" clause is necessary to allow the paladin to change his Divine Challenge target next round.

As I said back on page 1:

"Without the "or challenge a different target" clause, it becomes impossible for a paladin to cease challenging one target and challenge a different one instead. Without this clause the rule would effectively read "On your turn you _must_ engage the target that is currently challenged. _Period_." This would mean that once a target has been challenged, the paladin can do nothing but engage that same target turn after turn until it is dead (or abandon the target and suffer the consequences of not engaging). He would be unable to switch targets without an automatic penalty."

So the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.


----------



## Nail (Jul 11, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> ...the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.



Exactly.

I hadn't realized - until I read this thread - how badly some gamers might interpret the class feature Divine Challenge.  Now I do.  Thanks, LokiDR!


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> It's not that I treat it as a special case all it's own; it's just that the Challenge _is_ the paladin's mark, with the effect -2 to hit and damage if the target attacks someone other than the paladin.  This also evens things between paladin and fighter -- as the fighter cannot cheapshot a target that he himself has not marked, allowing the paladin's challenge damage to still occur after his mark has been removed by another's mark seriously devalues the fighter's abilities.



The problem I have with this is that "marked" is defined in general.  I want to use that definition as much as possible, so I split DC into "mark target" and "damage target" if something would apply to either.

I hear you on the fighter being devalued.  But marking a target is separate than cheapshot.  Two fighters would fight over marks, but if you use different classes (paladin and fighter), they both get something.  There is reason to be both of the classes where two fighters would constantly be stepping on one another for the marked status.

I could go either way on this, honestly.  It would be simpler if it was all or none.  Ya, I like that.  I'm just concerned with other abilities that have multiple effects, I like to be consistent too.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

Nail said:


> Exactly.
> 
> I hadn't realized - until I read this thread - how badly some gamers might interpret the class feature Divine Challenge.  Now I do.  Thanks, LokiDR!



I'm always happy to help. 

I hadn't realized until this thread just how hard some gamers would cling to history and certain views of the paladin class.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> If you would be so kind, please address the points I raised:
> 
> 1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement




Only is a certain sense.  You interpretation does prevent the paladin from challenging a single target and then spending the next few rounds running away from that same target.

However, it _doesn't_ prevent the nearly identical abuse of challenging a different target each round (or even just alternating between two targets) while running in circles and never engaging any of them.  See my discussion of this early in the thread on page 1.

The key point is, your interpretation of the rule is still open to serious abuse - an abuse which is, indeed, almost _exactly the same_ as the D&D Experience Issue.



> 2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role




Of course it doesn't.  This is a serious strawman.

It does, indeed, remove certain options he might otherwise have if your interpretation was used.  However, it leaves many other options open, all of which are very effective in helping him perform his "Defender" role.



> 3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics




Firstly, I'm not arguing that your interpretation is "abusive".  I'm arguing that it violates the rules.  These are different things.

Secondly, even if your interpretation was correct, whether or not the behaviours it permits are "abusive" would be a matter of opinion.  That would depend, primarily, on whether or not they violated the "spirit" of the rules - something that is also largely a matter of opinion.



> 4. The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice. Your interpretation negates this choice




I'm not sure why it's being mentioned twice is relevant to our discussion.

As to our interpretation "negating this choice", of course it doesn't.  You still have the choice to engage your current target or challenge a new target (and then engage it).  When did anyone ever say you didn't?



> 5. DMG "say yes" advice




You're not using that advice as intended.

That advice applies to cases where there is no rule regarding the action in question and the DM needs to make an "on the fly" decision.

Our point is that there _is_ a rule in this case - one that _forbids_ the action you're suggesting.  The advice you quote doesn't apply here.



> 6. Simplicity. The fact your interpretation involves so many steps should show you which is simpler.




It doesn't involve many steps, nor is it complicated.  I only wrote it out so explicitly to attempt to show you the point you were missing - that when you "challenge a different target" you *USE* the Divine Challenge power again, thereby imposing the same requirements on your following actions as before (i.e. you must now engage your target or challenge a different target _again_).

I can state my view as succiently and simply as yours.  I only elaborated so much to help you understand where I was coming from.

Also, while simplicity is a virtue in interpretations, _all other things being equal_, to merely assume a simpler interpretation is correct is fallacious.



> 7. Game focus on movement




What about it?

The game already includes numerous restrictions on movement.  One interpretation of a rule offering less freedom of movement than another is no reasonable basis for assuming the latter is correct.[/quote]


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 11, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> So the "or challenge a different target" clause is still doing very important work, even though the paladin must always engage the challenged target on the same round the challenge is made.



After.  The paladin always engage the challenged target on the same round AFTER the challenge is made.  This is your position, is it not?


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> Yes, the previous challenge must be resolved first: you challenged a different target. Ok, the first DC is done. Now we work on the second target. He is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage.




Although this is only one small piece of a longer post, I singled it out because it contradicts your own position so strongly.  You just agreed perfectly with Hypersmurf.

You just said yourself that the new target "is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage."

_Exactly._

It's marked until you either (1) challenge another target _or_ (2) fail to engage.  If either of these (challenging another or not engaging) occurs, then the mark ends.  Thus, if you _fail to engage_, the target is _no longer marked_.  This is what we're all trying to tell you.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> I hadn't realized until this thread just how hard some gamers would cling to history and certain views of the paladin class.




This had better not be aimed at me, because nothing I've argued has anything to do with preconceptions of the paladin.  I'm simply arguing the rules as written.  If the rules said differently, I would be arguing differently, regardless of what they said.

If this _was_ directed at me, I find the implication insulting.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> After. The paladin always engage the challenged target on the same round AFTER the challenge is made. This is your position, is it not?




Well according to the letter of the rules I believe it is technically permissible to attack the target first, move away, and then challenge the same target you have attacked.  As long as you attack it during the round in question, this seems to qualify as "engaging".

But this has no relevance that I can see to our discussion.  You can still only challenge a target that you have already attacked (or am already standing next to and will not be moving away from this turn).  And on the following turn you must, again, either attack the first target, finish your turn next to the first target, or challenge a different target (which you will attack at some point during the turn or finish your turn standing next to).


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 11, 2008)

Here is how I understand the rules. Lets say we have a paladin and a wizard and two enemies(lets call them e1 and e2).  

round one: Paladin challenges e1 and engages by attacking e1. Wizard atacks e2. E1 attacks the paladin and e2 moves to attack the wizard immobilizes him.

round two: Paladin attacks e1 and notices that the wizard just got hit really hard and challenges e2 to get him to come to the paladin. E1 is now no longer marked or challenged. The wizard uses a close burst spell to attack. E1 continues to attack the paladin. E2 decides to take the damage from the mark and continue to attack the wizard.

round three: The paladin seeing E2 isn't execpting the challenge decides to move the challenge back to e1 and contiue his attacks. E2 is no longer marked or challenged. 

The scenario above seems completely legal to me.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 11, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:


> round one: Paladin challenges e1 and engages by attacking e1. Wizard atacks e2. E1 attacks the paladin and e2 moves to attack the wizard immobilizes him.




This much is fine.



> round two: Paladin attacks e1 and notices that the wizard just got hit really hard and challenges e2 to get him to come to the paladin. E1 is now no longer marked or challenged. The wizard uses a close burst spell to attack. E1 continues to attack the paladin. E2 decides to take the damage from the mark and continue to attack the wizard.




The mistake is here.

At the end of this round the Divine Challenge on E2 would end and the paladin would be prevented from using Divine Challenge in round 3.

This is because the paladin used the Divine Challenge power during round 2.  He must now either:

(1) Challenge a different target, which he didn't do (and couldn't have done because the power can only be used once per turn).

or

(2) Engage E2, which he also didn't do.

Since he did neither, he fails to fulfil the requirements of the power before the end of his turn.



> round three: The paladin seeing E2 isn't execpting the challenge decides to move the challenge back to e1 and contiue his attacks. E2 is no longer marked or challenged.




The round would begin with neither enemy challenged and with the paladin unable to use his power this round.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 12, 2008)

He did indeed challenge a different target in the second round. E1 was still challenged during the paladin second turn untill the paladin switched the challenge to E2. So since E1 was still challenged the paladin meets the challenge a different target potion of the requirments.


----------



## Alpha Polaris (Jul 12, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:


> He did indeed challenge a different target in the second round. E1 was still challenged during the paladin second turn untill the paladin switched the challenge to E2. So since E1 was still challenged the paladin meets the challenge a different target potion of the requirments.



No she doesn't. The rule says "_On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target._", in which _target_ refers to E2, since her latest use of the ability targets E2. So here we go: the paladin uses Divine Challenge on E2, so on her turn, or what remains of it, she must engage E2, or target someone else. Can she issue a new challenge ? No, she can't, because she can use it at most once per round. So she has to engage E2.

If we consider her challenging E1 (first use of the Divine Challenge ability), she has now challenged another target, so she won't be stopped from using it on her next turn. But if we consider her challenging E2 (second use of the ability), she has neither engaged E2, nor challenged another target, and if she doesn't comply before the end of her turn, she'll suffer the consequences.


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 12, 2008)

Why wouldn't you consider him still challenging E1? A challenge lasts untill you mark another target or fail to engage the target. Since he did engage the target in the previous round E1 is still marked. Since E1 is still marked then he has fullfilled the challenge another target requirment when he challenges E2.


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 12, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:


> Since he did engage the target in the previous round E1 is still marked. Since E1 is still marked then he has fullfilled the challenge another target requirment when he challenges E2.




Correct.  But all he has fulfilled is the "challenge another" requirement for the *FIRST* use of the Divine Challenge power that was made against E1 in the first round and is still ongoing in the second round.

However, when he fulfils that first requirement, he does so by *USING* the Divine Challenge power *AGAIN*.  Now this *SECOND* use of the power also has an "engage or challenge another" requirement.  Before the end of this second turn he must either engage E2 or challenge a different target than E2.  He can't do the latter, so he must do the former.

This has all been argued extensively in this thread, so I don't know what else to tell you that isn't in the posts above.


----------



## dcyale (Jul 12, 2008)

This can go on forever.  None of us knows what they meant when they wrote the text, in that post DDXP re-write.  We think we know, but that's not knowing, obviously becasue we think different things.

My reading of the whole challenge is, the first paragraph, the one that starts with "Effect:" talks about the turn you mark the monster.

The second paragraph talks about the monster's turn- the next sequential event.

The third (and I know some people think I'm wrong- and I may be) talks about your next turn- the next sequential event.   I think it makes the most sense. 

Anyway, that's how I'll be running it at a convention next weekend, but I'll try to make sure I tell them that's my interpertaion and it's subject to someone with authoruty to make a clearer rule to tell me I'm wrong.  

I think this one is a dead dog not worth kicking at this point.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> The problem I have with this is that "marked" is defined in general.  I want to use that definition as much as possible, so I split DC into "mark target" and "damage target" if something would apply to either.




Except that the damage only applies while the target is marked.

"While the target is marked" describes the entire paragraph.  While the target is marked, it takes a -2 to attack rolls; also, it takes damage.

Once the target is no longer marked, the -2 and the damage are no longer applicable.



> Again, you are applying the ability recursively.




I'm applying the ability each time the ability is used.



> Even simpler, the verbiage could say "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target _and engage them_."  The lack of these simple phrases implies you are working too hard at interpretation.




It does say that.

"On your turn, you must engage the target or challenge a different target."

I don't want to engage the target, so I challenge a different target.  Since I just used Divine Challenge, I check the rules:

"On your turn, you must engage the target or challenge a different target."

Well, I can't challenge _another_ different target this turn, so on my turn, I must engage the target.



> The ability says "*or*", you say "*and*".  Isn't this clearly different than the ability states?




No.  

"You lose if you go out of bounds *or* fall down" is identical to "You lose if you go out of bounds *and* you lose if you fall down".  It's not identical to "You lose if you go out of bounds and fall down".

"The mark ends if you mark a new target *or* fail to engage" is identical to "The mark ends if you mark a new target *and* the mark ends if you fail to engage".  It's not identical to "The mark ends if you mark a new target and fail to engage".



> Again, it is clear the ability can only be used once a round.  Why do you insist the ability expires before I have a chance to make the choice of engage or pick different target?




It doesn't.  You have the choice to engage or pick a different target, but since you have already used the ability this round, the "pick a different target" route is closed to you.  Thus, if you used the Divine Challenge power this turn, you must engage on your turn.




> Second, I am reading from the beginning: You mark the target.  "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use the power against another target, or you fail to engage the target."  Until that choice is made, the mark remains.




And when must you choose a different target or engage the target?  On your turn.  So you have until it is no longer your turn to either choose a different target or engage.



> Yes, the previous challenge must be resolved first: you challenged a different target.  Ok, the first DC is done.  Now we work on the second target.  He is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage.




Exactly.  ... on your turn.  Once your turn is finished, if you have neither chosen a different target (which you can't) or engaged, you've failed that condition.

-Hyp.


----------



## Daag (Jul 12, 2008)

Isn't Divine Challenge an attack itself? Divine Challenge is not marking, it's an ability that puts the marked condition on another creature, and also has the secondary effect of doing damage in certain circumstances. It's a magical compulsion that puts a condition on a target creature. And as such, it's meets its own requirements of engaging a target. I can't really think of any other power that would put a condition on a creature and not be considered an attack.

That's how I look at it.

In any case, I agree with Loki's interpretation and is how me and my group will run it, should anyone ever make a paladin. It really restricts the paladin's ability to mark and do his job as a defender otherwise, compared to the fighter anyway.

Daag


----------



## kouk (Jul 12, 2008)

I interpret the Divine Challenge to literally mean you can't just target someone as your last possible action unless you are already adjacent.

However, I allow that tactic in games. That was the way everyone at the table interpreted it originally, which leads me to believe it makes more sense inherently. 

But the main reason I allow it is because it makes the Paladin a fairly effective Defender if it is allowed. 

The Paladin's Challenge is (I feel) *far* inferior to the Fighter's. The Fighter has many more ways to mark several enemies, and a marked enemy takes significantly more damage when violating the fighter's mark or even trying to move away.  And he might not even be able to move away! The Fighter's Challenge takes no action by itself, and theoretically can grant many attacks against a single target (it is not limited to just one enemy attack a round, as the Paladin's is).

The Paladin's challenge is just a minor damage effect should an enemy attack someone else. Yes, it is guaranteed damage, but one instance of 6 or 7 damage is not terribly impressive, even with scaling of 3 additional at each tier (especially since OA's also improve at each tier as they are basic attacks). It also takes an action to use, whereas the Fighter's does not.


The only real advantage the Paladin's Challenge has is that it can be used at range. However, with the literal interpretation, the Paladin basically has to end up in melee in the same round, so there's no benefit to being ranged, nor purpose. Yes, Paladins can attack with ranged weapons: but why would they? Their powers aren't suited for it, it would be an emergency measure at best for when you are unable to get near your enemy. Fighters could attack at range and Mark as well, so there's no real gain for the Paladin in comparison.

If you let the Paladin mark an enemy at the end of the round, what's the real problem? Real problem. Is the party Paladin _really_ going to try to kite a creature? Is he _really_ going to attempt to stay out of melee or stand around and do nothing? Would the party members stand for that behavior?

All allowing Challenging at the end of a round even when not adjacent to an enemy does is make it difficult for a _single enemy _to attack one of the Paladin's buddies, and only the _first_ _time_ in the case of multiple or area attacks against your friends. It's a different enemy than the one who was marked before, because the previous one is no longer marked. The single enemy that would be getting marked is within 5 squares, so he's already pretty close -- it's not like he's Challenging a guy on the other side of the map.

I think we also agree from a flavor standpoint that the Defender shouting out at an enemy he intends to go after fits, even if he can't in that particular round. Rounds are supposed to be abstractions of flowing time after all; the end of one round is basically the start of the next. Or in other words there is no real distinction in the "Game World" except for things with durations.

I've seen a Paladin in a same party as a Fighter, and the Fighter has a much more compelling Challenge -- no comparison. These are both Defenders, so theoretically they should be about as good as Defending, no? Even if you allow the Divine Challenge at the end of a round, a Fighter is still better at the job. No need to rule harshly against the Paladin in addition.


----------



## kouk (Jul 12, 2008)

As an example take this scenario: 

You're a Paladin. You begin your turn by Challenging an enemy, who is standing 5 squares away from another enemy. You must now pretty much go into melee with the marked enemy. The other enemy attacks your friends, and moves several squares or so away, so he is now 9 squares away from the Paladin. 

Next round, you are fighting the original mark, because you pretty much have to. Your original mark dies to your Standard Action for whatever reason. Now the other monster has free reign for an entire round even if you *Ran* after him with your Move action. It wouldn't matter if you used your Mark now even though he is _in range_ after your Move action, because it would immediately end if you weren't adjacent and you cannot make another attack (assume no action points).

Not doing such a great job as a Defender there in my opinion, if you can't even take heat off of your friends from *one* other monster for *one* round. And, what's more, if you tried to by Marking the enemy when you couldn't have gotten adjacent anyway, you wouldn't be able to Challenge *next* round! 
*So that would be 2 rounds of no Challenge for the Paladin who is running up to the next monster, doing his darndest to Distract the creature and call down his deity's righteous fury, all to help his friends! *Apparently his deity doesn't take kindly to being called upon if his servant is not immediately next to a bad guy or swinging at its head...

Anyway, I know examples always end up being stupid (poor tactics and whatnot), but this isn't that uncommon a situation (the only remaining enemy or most threatening to allies is out of a single move action).

I think allowing the Challenge at the end of the turn fits the flavor, it fits the role, it fits player expectations, and I feel fits the *Intent* of the rule.


----------



## fedelas (Jul 12, 2008)

*CSR ask me about this question*

Tony from customer service tell me that you had to engage (attack or end adjacent) your challenged enemy in order to mantain it. I explictly ask if changing the target is enough and he respond me that is not sufficient and that i had to engage the new target or lose DC.
Just as a side note, before asking my opinion was that changing target is enough to mantain the challenge, reading this thread put me in doubt and now i have changed my mind ( perhaps i will allow my player to challenge an enemy who is beating a squishies in order to had that opponent concentrate is "aggro" against the paladin worried by other enemies. They are fair players no power-gamers at all, that's my role, and never exploit the mark-amnd-run tactics which they consider silly and "anti-paladinlike".)
Hope this helps a bit.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

Hey Average, thanks for responding to the points I asked.

*1. D&D Experience issues are addressed without limiting to immediate engagement*


AverageTable said:


> Only is a certain sense.  You interpretation does prevent the paladin from challenging a single target and then spending the next few rounds running away from that same target.
> 
> However, it _doesn't_ prevent the nearly identical abuse of challenging a different target each round (or even just alternating between two targets) while running in circles and never engaging any of them.  See my discussion of this early in the thread on page 1.



So, in your opinion, leaving the room and entirely removing yourself from combat while continuing the challenge is "nearly identical" to moving around the area and keeping the challenge on a monster only half the time?  You believe the use of this ability requires me to make myself an easy target or it is an abuse.  Hmm, are you also opposed to flanking giving sneak attack?

Challenge has a short range.  Alternating targets would still require you to be very close to the enemy, within a single move in most cases.  The abuse of DDXP was applying a permanent penalty to an enemy they could not address ever.  Remaining in the area and challenging provides the enemy a target and gives them an incentive to go after the paladin, which would be point of the ability in the first place.

*2. Negating Divine Challenge remote enemies negates the paladin's defender role*


AverageTable said:


> Of course it doesn't.  This is a serious strawman.
> 
> It does, indeed, remove certain options he might otherwise have if your interpretation was used.  However, it leaves many other options open, all of which are very effective in helping him perform his "Defender" role.



The paladin is incapable of "pulling" enemies, he can only "glue" them.  Your reading is roughly similar to painting a target on myself and running next to the enemy.  My method is a lasso that keeps tugging them back.  Your reading could be better written as "after you attack a creature in range or move adjacent to it, the target is marked."

What is the point of a defender if not to pull enemies to you?

*3. This isn't an abuse of the rules any more than other perfectly legal tactics*


AverageTable said:


> Firstly, I'm not arguing that your interpretation is "abusive".  I'm arguing that it violates the rules.  These are different things.



Really?  You just said "However, it _doesn't_ prevent the nearly identical abuse of....".  If that is not your argument, why did you say it?



AverageTable said:


> Secondly, even if your interpretation was correct, whether or not the behaviours it permits are "abusive" would be a matter of opinion.  That would depend, primarily, on whether or not they violated the "spirit" of the rules - something that is also largely a matter of opinion.



We can agree the archer paladin challenging and then shooting is perfectly legal, can we not?  This can lead to something a lot closer to abuse seen at DDXP and I say is significantly more powerful.  Likewise, and invisible paladin can end his turn next to an enemy he challenged with no problem in the rules.  That is far more abusive than what I'm discussing and is also clearly legal.  If you want to discus the spirit of the rules, I'll refer you back to the role of a defender argument.

If it is not more powerful than legal tactics and it directly assists the role as spelled out in the rules, what major difference of opinion is relevant?  Certainly, if you don't like it you are free to house-rule but that isn't relevant here.

*4. The choice of engage or target is mentioned twice. Your interpretation negates this choice*


AverageTable said:


> I'm not sure why it's being mentioned twice is relevant to our discussion.
> 
> As to our interpretation "negating this choice", of course it doesn't.  You still have the choice to engage your current target or challenge a new target (and then engage it).  When did anyone ever say you didn't?



On your turn, you must engage or target a different creature.  That's what the power says, twice.  Your reading is "on your turn if you challenge a different creature you must engage it."  If you think the two are equivalent, perhaps there isn't anything more to discuss.

*5. DMG "say yes" advice*


AverageTable said:


> You're not using that advice as intended.
> 
> That advice applies to cases where there is no rule regarding the action in question and the DM needs to make an "on the fly" decision.
> 
> Our point is that there _is_ a rule in this case - one that _forbids_ the action you're suggesting.  The advice you quote doesn't apply here.



You assume you are right then use that as proof you are right.  That's called post-hoc reasoning and is rather silly.  My argument is that your reading is wrong.  If you accept that the rules are unclear (which should be obvious by now) you must accept other reasons for choosing a position.  If you don't accept you can be wrong, there is no reason to discuss anything.

I read the ability as allowing the pull tactic and clearly players want to use it.  You say no.  The DMG says "say yes".

*6. Simplicity. The fact your interpretation involves so many steps should show you which is simpler.*


AverageTable said:


> It doesn't involve many steps, nor is it complicated.  I only wrote it out so explicitly to attempt to show you the point you were missing - that when you "challenge a different target" you *USE* the Divine Challenge power again, thereby imposing the same requirements on your following actions as before (i.e. you must now engage your target or challenge a different target _again_).
> 
> I can state my view as succiently and simply as yours.  I only elaborated so much to help you understand where I was coming from.
> 
> Also, while simplicity is a virtue in interpretations, _all other things being equal_, to merely assume a simpler interpretation is correct is fallacious.



Occams Razor: all things being equal, the simpler answer is usually the most correct.  If you are going to pick a ruling, mine is simpler.  Your's involves reading the ability over every time you reach the choice of targeting.  Your reading applies one half of one definition of one piece of the power to the entire power.

*7. Game focus on movement*


AverageTable said:


> What about it?
> 
> The game already includes numerous restrictions on movement.  One interpretation of a rule offering less freedom of movement than another is no reasonable basis for assuming the latter is correct.



Again, all things being equal, your interpretation limits the game to a much more static game.  Oh, there is shifting but pretty much you are forcing the paladin to pair off.  If you read Mearls and the DMG advice, you will see the game should encourage DYNAMIC combat, and that means movement.

Bottom line: allowing the end of round pull challenge tactic fits the game.


----------



## icarusfallz (Jul 14, 2008)

I see DC as a way of the Paladin calling someone out and saying "Yer Next!" and then kicking that person's kiester.  I don't like the CONCEPT of a coward paladin, and even if the RAW allows it, I wouldn't allow it in my game.  An Archer Paladin, who shoots down every foe before he can even reach him, is a different matter, and an interesting concept (a hella kewl elf thing)


----------



## abyssaldeath (Jul 14, 2008)

No one is suggesting a "coward" Paladin. We just want to be given the option of pulling enemies to us. 

More of a "Hey, you think you are so tuff? Why don't you fight me? I'll kick your ass and your two friends asses at the same time."


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 14, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> The problem I have with this is that "marked" is defined in general.  I want to use that definition as much as possible, so I split DC into "mark target" and "damage target" if something would apply to either.
> 
> I hear you on the fighter being devalued.  But marking a target is separate than cheapshot.  Two fighters would fight over marks, but if you use different classes (paladin and fighter), they both get something.  There is reason to be both of the classes where two fighters would constantly be stepping on one another for the marked status.




The thing is, the fighter's cheapshots (for either moving away or for attacking someone not the fighter) depend on the target being marked by the fighter in exactly the same way as the DC damage depends on being marked by the paladin.  The only difference is one requires an attack roll and the other doesn't.  They're both still cases of "If you have the target marked, this additional effect can occur."


----------



## icarusfallz (Jul 14, 2008)

abyssaldeath said:


> No one is suggesting a "coward" Paladin. We just want to be given the option of pulling enemies to us.
> 
> More of a "Hey, you think you are so tuff? Why don't you fight me? I'll kick your ass and your two friends asses at the same time."





no no, I LOVE this aspect.  I hate the tactic of using DC, and running away.  Standing back and saying "Come and get it!"  while staying in front of yer squishy buddies is a VERY paladinlike thing to do.  I love this tactic.  (even if the rules do/don't support it, a player in my games would be well rewarded!)


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 14, 2008)

On the main topic, I agree with allowing the end-of-round challenge.  What seems to be in dispute here is what exactly constitutes "engaging" the target.  To me, the initial issuance of the challenge is sufficient to count as engaging the target for that round.


----------



## icarusfallz (Jul 14, 2008)

I agree.  You issue the DC to an enemy, saying "Yer next, pencilneck!" or some other worthy insult, and then the pencilneck in question gets to quake in his boots till the next round, wherein you proceed to knock him out of them.  Not overpowering, not an abuse, just good, clean roleplaying!


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> Although this is only one small piece of a longer post, I singled it out because it contradicts your own position so strongly.  You just agreed perfectly with Hypersmurf.
> 
> You just said yourself that the new target "is marked until I mark another target or fail to engage."
> 
> ...



That isn't a question.  The question is "how long do I have until I am counted as failing to engage?"

In the simplest example, Bob challenges Mon then move adjacent to Mon then attacks.  On Mon's turn, he attacks.  Back to Bob, he decides to use a ranged power so he shifts back.  At this point, he has failed to engage in the turn: he hasn't attacked and won't be adjacent at the end of the turn.

You hand wave this by only checking for "engaged" at the end of the round.  Why is that more correct than after every action?  After all, only half of the definition of engage involves the end of the round.  I say, for the choice to be truly meaningful, the first challenge must have the option to be replaced and that means you check engage OR target each turn.  On the first turn you target, you changed your target from nothing.

At this point, I think it's clear you aren't going to accept my point so there is little reason to post more.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

icarusfallz said:


> I agree.  You issue the DC to an enemy, saying "Yer next, pencilneck!" or some other worthy insult, and then the pencilneck in question gets to quake in his boots till the next round, wherein you proceed to knock him out of them.  Not overpowering, not an abuse, just good, clean roleplaying!



When it comes to fun outside lawyering the rules, I agree this is more fun.  It also works both as "Come get some!" and "Where do you think yer going?"


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

kouk said:


> I interpret the Divine Challenge to literally mean you can't just target someone as your last possible action unless you are already adjacent.
> 
> However, I allow that tactic in games. That was the way everyone at the table interpreted it originally, which leads me to believe it makes more sense inherently.
> 
> But the main reason I allow it is because it makes the Paladin a fairly effective Defender if it is allowed. ...



Well put.  So, you consider my interpretation a house rule but one you like?  I can accept that.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jul 14, 2008)

I was wondering about this yesterday while watching the Paladin player. At first, I ruled that he could DC at the end of his turn and he wouldn't be required to engage until next turn. But now I realize I was wrong... and I'm glad.

The rule clearly states 'on your turn, you must engage the target you challenged...'
A Pally can DC as the last action of his turn. However, it will only stay active if he DCs an adjacent enemy. If he uses his minor actionj last to DC a non-adjacent enemy (and some strange power doesn't immediately allow him to engage through movement or attack), the DC will then immediately end.

This wording allows the following:
Say a Pally DCed an opponent last round and engaged it at range (or was adjacent but the enemy moved away.) This round the Pally can reengage the DCed opponent (let's say he makes a ranged attack at it) then DC a different opponent and move adjacent to engage it.

That's where the 'challenge a different target' comes in to play. So far I've only seen 'DC followed by attack' but this wording allows one to attack a previously DCed target, then DC a different one and engage it. Or, he could choose not to engage the one he DCed last turn and DC a different one and engage it this turn.

Really, the wording clearly does not allow a DC to remain active past the end of the Paladin's turn unless the Paladin engages it that turn. This means the Paladin can't use it to try to pull an enemy off a friend... the Paladin has to go to it or throw something at it. And I'm cool with that... it makes the Paladin actively seek his foe, not the other way around.

Too bad I didn't figure that out sooner... maybe the Pally would have spent more time in the front rank yesterday.


----------



## Stormtalon (Jul 14, 2008)

Thing is, the phrase "engage the enemy" _isn't_ clearly defined and could very well include the act of issuing the challenge itself.  

For a corner case to consider, imagine a paladin that's, say, 3 squares farther away from an enemy than even a double move would allow him to reach.  The enemy on its next turn may be able to start wreaking havoc on someone who's gotten separated from the group.  The paladin double-moves and winds up short but issues his challenge.  He's _clearly_ on his way to get in the thick of things with the monster, but according to the more restrictive reading of the power the enemy will be free to wreak havoc unimpeded and without threat of damage because this thundering, stampeding bolt of holy wrath isn't right next to him and thus not a concern.

I'm going to have to go with "the Issuing of the Challenge is counted as Engaging the Enemy," as it's the only reading that makes sense to me.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Jul 14, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> Thing is, the phrase "engage the enemy" _isn't_ clearly defined and could very well include the act of issuing the challenge itself.
> 
> I'm going to have to go with "the Issuing of the Challenge is counted as Engaging the Enemy," as it's the only reading that makes sense to me.




It is clearly defined: (second sentence of third paragraph)
'To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it.'

So, issuing the challenge is not engaging.


----------



## kouk (Jul 14, 2008)

Stormtalon said:


> For a corner case to consider, imagine a paladin that's, say, 3 squares farther away from an enemy than even a double move would allow him to reach.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

Reaper Steve said:


> I was wondering about this yesterday while watching the Paladin player. At first, I ruled that he could DC at the end of his turn and he wouldn't be required to engage until next turn. But now I realize I was wrong... and I'm glad.
> ...
> Too bad I didn't figure that out sooner... maybe the Pally would have spent more time in the front rank yesterday.



So, you feel the paladin must stay on point and that "pulling" the enemy is bad?


----------



## AverageTable (Jul 14, 2008)

To Loki:

I've repeated my views on this matter multiple times already, and by now you've heard everything I have to say on the subject.  Keeping the discussion going now would be a waste of both our time.

I could respond to each of your points as I did before; but it's obvious that we're only talking past each other, anyway.

Although as one final unrelated comment, kindly refrain from accusing me of illogic and fallacy if you aren't even making your accusations accurately.  This is not intended as a insult, so please don't take it personally, but there's nothing you can teach me about logic.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 14, 2008)

AverageTable said:


> To Loki:
> 
> I've repeated my views on this matter multiple times already, and by now you've heard everything I have to say on the subject.  Keeping the discussion going now would be a waste of both our time.



I do believe I have said as much.



AverageTable said:


> Although as one final unrelated comment, kindly refrain from accusing me of illogic and fallacy if you aren't even making your accusations accurately.  This is not intended as a insult, so please don't take it personally, but there's nothing you can teach me about logic.



If you offended at the thought that could make an illogical statement it is not I who seems to have an issue.  I will continue point out statements I see as fallacious as such.  It is the statement, not the person who makes it, which is the target.  This is not an insult, merely a statement of intent.


----------



## phoenxhwk (Jul 14, 2008)

So what's the point of a pally's mark being ranged if the marking itself doesn't count as a challenge?  It seems silly to be forced to mark and then chuck a javelin at the enemy to ... umm, remind them that you just called them out.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 14, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> On your turn, you must engage or target a different creature.




Exactly.



LokiDR said:


> That isn't a question.  The question is "how long do I have until I am counted as failing to engage?"
> 
> In the simplest example, Bob challenges Mon then move adjacent to Mon then attacks.  On Mon's turn, he attacks.  Back to Bob, he decides to use a ranged power so he shifts back.  At this point, he has failed to engage in the turn: he hasn't attacked and won't be adjacent at the end of the turn.
> 
> You hand wave this by only checking for "engaged" at the end of the round.  Why is that more correct than after every action?




Because "On your turn, you must engage your target or challenge a different target."

At any point before the end of your turn, you still have a chance to do it "on your turn".  Once the end of your turn arrives, you no longer have a chance to fulfill either of those conditions "on your turn".

At the point where Bob shifts back, he has not yet engaged, but we won't know whether he has failed to engage _on his turn_ until his turn is over.

Now, instead of making a ranged attack on Mon, Bob now challenges Al.  He has fulfilled the condition of the Challenge on Mon - on his turn, he either engaged Mon or challenged a different target.  So the Challenge on Mon will not trigger the "can't use DC next turn" consequence.

But he's just used Divine Challenge on Al, and Divine Challenge has a condition - "On your turn, you must engage the target or challenge a different target."  So on his turn - before the end of his turn - he must engage Al, or challenge a target different to Al.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 15, 2008)

This is becoming very circular Hyp.  I can repeat my interpretation but that's not going to help.  Lets leave semantics aside for a moment and assume that either interpreation is valid.  Which interpretation is more fun?  Is either too powerful?  I offered up a list of points for you to address, I could repost it if you would prefer.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 15, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> This is becoming very circular Hyp.  I can repeat my interpretation but that's not going to help.  Lets leave semantics aside for a moment and assume that either interpreation is valid.  Which interpretation is more fun?  Is either too powerful?  I offered up a list of points for you to address, I could repost it if you would prefer.




That's the thing, though - I'm not making an argument from the perspective of fun, or balance, so your list of points are irrelevant to me.  I'm not going to assume your interpretation is valid, regardless of whether it's fun or balanced, when your interpretation ignores "On your turn, you must engage the target or challenge a different target" for the instance of Divine Challenge you used this turn.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 16, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> That's the thing, though - I'm not making an argument from the perspective of fun, or balance, so your list of points are irrelevant to me.  I'm not going to assume your interpretation is valid, regardless of whether it's fun or balanced, when your interpretation ignores "On your turn, you must engage the target or challenge a different target" for the instance of Divine Challenge you used this turn.
> 
> -Hyp.



I've already explained my understanding of the semantics.  I think you are ignoring the use of "or" in the description.  We can repeat ourselves endlessly, but that's a waste of time.  Responses here have made clear the wording is unclear.  If nothing else matters because you are stuck on a few words and your understanding of them, what is there to discuss?  If you just assume I'm wrong, you don't need to do anything.  You've said nothing that will make me change my mind.

I'm not going to assume your point is valid just because you repeat yourself.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 16, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> I think you are ignoring the use of "or" in the description.




Not at all.  If, instead of engaging the enemy on your turn, you come up with a way to challenge a different target even though you've already used Divine Challenge once this turn, I'll be content that you've satisfied the clause despite not engaging.

(Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use, or challenge yet another different target, on your turn in order to satisfy the clause in _this_ use of Divine Challenge...)

-Hyp.


----------



## jedrious (Jul 16, 2008)

I Divine Challenge

Then Eyebite


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 16, 2008)

jedrious said:


> I Divine Challenge
> 
> Then Eyebite




That works fine - Eyebite is an attack, so it qualifies as engaging the target.

-Hyp.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> Not at all.  If, instead of engaging the enemy on your turn, you come up with a way to challenge a different target even though you've already used Divine Challenge once this turn, I'll be content that you've satisfied the clause despite not engaging.
> 
> (Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use, or challenge yet another different target, on your turn in order to satisfy the clause in _this_ use of Divine Challenge...)
> 
> -Hyp.



If the implementation of your reading requires infinite regression, perhaps there is something wrong with your reading.


----------



## MeMeMeMe (Jul 17, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> If the implementation of your reading requires infinite regression, perhaps there is something wrong with your reading.



You may have a point, except Hypersmurf's reading (IMO the correct one) does not require infinite regression.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 17, 2008)

MeMeMeMe said:


> You may have a point, except Hypersmurf's reading (IMO the correct one) does not require infinite regression.



It does if you want to invoke the "or change targets" clause on the same turn you challenge a target.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 17, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> If the implementation of your reading requires infinite regression, perhaps there is something wrong with your reading.




How can there be infinite regression, when you're only allowed to use the power once per round?

There's no regression at all.  You use the power on a target, the power tells you what you must do: on your turn, engage the target, or challenge a different target.

You're the one claiming that "challenge a different target" can be satisfied by challenging a target different to that of a prior use of the power.  That's the only regression occurring in this conversation!

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 17, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> It does if you want to invoke the "or change targets" clause on the same turn you challenge a target.




You can't change targets on the same turn you challenge a target - changing targets requires challenging someone else, and you can only challenge once per round.  You can only change targets next round.

Which is my whole point.  On the turn you challenge a target, you must either engage the target or change targets, and you can't change targets.  Therefore on the turn you challenge a target, you must engage him.

Any turn after that, both options are available.

-Hyp.


----------



## Anthony Jackson (Jul 17, 2008)

phoenxhwk said:


> So what's the point of a pally's mark being ranged if the marking itself doesn't count as a challenge?



It lets you use marking with ranged attacks, reach attacks, and charges.


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 17, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:


> How can there be infinite regression, when you're only allowed to use the power once per round?



Hmm....


			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Not at all. If, instead of engaging the enemy on your turn, you come up with a way to challenge a different target even though you've already used Divine Challenge once this turn, I'll be content that you've satisfied the clause despite not engaging.
> 
> (Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use, or challenge yet another different target, on your turn in order to satisfy the clause in this use of Divine Challenge...)



You claim you would be content and then go on to show you would not be content.



Hypersmurf said:


> There's no regression at all.  You use the power on a target, the power tells you what you must do: on your turn, engage the target, or challenge a different target.
> 
> You're the one claiming that "challenge a different target" can be satisfied by challenging a target different to that of a prior use of the power.  That's the only regression occurring in this conversation!
> 
> -Hyp.



The regression is clear in your previous statement: "Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use...".  You regress to the beginning of the power in order to rectify the option of "choose a different target".  This becomes an infinite regression until the paladin choose the only REAL option in your opinion, engage.

In my method, there is NO regression.  Targeting is changing your target.  Changing your target is one of the two things you must do on your turn to ensure the challenge continues.  Simple.

Can you make any argument beyond the only one you have repeated several times?



Hypersmurf said:


> You can't change targets on the same turn you challenge a target - changing targets requires challenging someone else, and you can only challenge once per round.  You can only change targets next round.



Now you are repeating yourself in back to back posts.  This really isn't getting us anywhere.



Hypersmurf said:


> Which is my whole point.  On the turn you challenge a target, you must either engage the target or change targets, and you can't change targets.  Therefore on the turn you challenge a target, you must engage him.



Of course you can, you can change targets once per round.  You have satisfied one of the two options: changing targets.  In essence, challenging a new target always satisfies one condition of the ability for the turn it is used.



Hypersmurf said:


> Any turn after that, both options are available.



And that would be the clearest indication of your interpretation's problem.  You leave off half the options in the first turn the ability is used.

Have we beat this point to death yet?  Let me ask you a meta-question: is a lawyeristic, semantics focused method of rules interpretation the only way the rules should be interpreted?  You've decided what you think the text says, I decided my interpretation.  Should all such disagreements be settled by literature professors and lawyers or is this an RPG to play and have fun?


----------



## mlund (Jul 17, 2008)

From my own take on things, I see each use of a Power as independent of any other use of the Power except where explicitly specified.

In the case of Divine Challenge, the only place where there is any interconnection between the effects and criteria of Divine Challenge #1 (DC1) and Divine Challenge #2 (DC2) is here: "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target."

You must either engage the target of DC1 or use DC2. If you do neither of these, DC1 imposes the following consequence on you: "the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.".

Meanwhile, DC2 has its own requirement of "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target." that just popped into being when you made the challenge. It's reference to "the target you challenged" is unique to DC2 and thus engaging the other target (of DC1) during your turn won't satisfy this requirement at all.

The issue as to whether removing the Divine Challenge's Marked status removes the looming Radiant Damage consequence is more debatable. The argument can be made that it falls under the "while the target is marked," that starts the paragraph. The argument can also be made that the effects are independent. 

Regardless of that, the looming Radiant Damage only lasts until the *start* of your next turn and you can only use Divine Challenge once per turn, so there is never more than 1 target with the Radiant Damage hovering over him at any given time.

Personally, I find the idea that the Damage remains even while the target is under another ally's mark to be distasteful and I have a "as goes the mark, so goes the radiant damage," ruling in effect for my games.

- Marty Lund


----------



## LokiDR (Jul 18, 2008)

mlund said:


> The issue as to whether removing the Divine Challenge's Marked status removes the looming Radiant Damage consequence is more debatable. The argument can be made that it falls under the "while the target is marked," that starts the paragraph. The argument can also be made that the effects are independent.
> ....
> Personally, I find the idea that the Damage remains even while the target is under another ally's mark to be distasteful and I have a "as goes the mark, so goes the radiant damage," ruling in effect for my games.



I agree the proper method on this point is "while the target is marked...".  It's simpler, clearer to the rules, matches the fighter implementation and is the general consensus of posters here.  The argument for splitting into separate effects doesn't help and may overpower the ability.



mlund said:


> Regardless of that, the looming Radiant Damage only lasts until the *start* of your next turn and you can only use Divine Challenge once per turn, so there is never more than 1 target with the Radiant Damage hovering over him at any given time.



So, you follow the trailing challenge implementation I favor? It's a minor point, as I don't think it can come up, but I apply the challenge through the paladin's following turn or until there is another target.  I think this is minor because the challenge can only rarely attack someone other than the paladin on the paladin's turn.  The only exception is an immediate attack gained when some creatures are dropped to blooded/0 hp.


----------



## jedrious (Jul 18, 2008)

If you guys are argueing this much about it I am glad you aren't in my games because I don't like my sessions slowing to a crawl


----------



## MeMeMeMe (Jul 19, 2008)

jedrious said:


> If you guys are argueing this much about it I am glad you aren't in my games because I don't like my sessions slowing to a crawl




I believe that's called threadcrapping, and is frowned on around here. Anyway, don't assume that because people are discussing this at length here, that means that they also argue it at length during a roleplaying session. That doesn't follow.


----------



## mlooney (Jul 19, 2008)

MeMeMeMe said:


> Anyway, don't assume that because people are discussing this at length here, that means that they also argue it at length during a roleplaying session. That doesn't follow.




Does with some ex members of my gaming group.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 20, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> Emphasis mine.  This is a clause of engage which you improperly apply to the entire ability.  Note, divine challenge does not read _"If at any point you do not engage the enemy, the mark ends."_  It says _"remains marked until you use the power against another target or you fail to engage (see below) the target"_.  Now, if the ability can only be used once a round, why does _"until you use the power against another target"_ appear at all, let alone first?




Because Divine Challenge and the mark don't disappear if you successfully engage the target. So round one engage one target (and engage) round two challenge his adjacent ally and you now have two Challenges at once. That extra bit is just to make it clear you can only have one challenge going at a time.



> Each turn, challenge a different target or engage.  There is no requirement to engage every challenged creature every round.




Yes there is. Otherwise why have all the hassle of the engagement text if you never need to engage the target?



> Lets take another situation to show why your view of timing doesn't work.  Again, paladin Bob has a range weapon.  In the first round of combat, Bob moves and then uses his ranged attack against monster Tim.  Then Bob's player recalls his divine challenge and uses it against Tim.  At this point, Bob does not have another attack or movement to use to engage Tim.  By your reading, Bob is buggered.  A lapse of memory should not deny Bob his ability.




But he just did at the start of his turn. You can challenge after you attack a target on a target. So long as the target you challenge is the one you attacked (and therefore enganged) earlier "On your turn". 



> This tactic allows a player to be unconventional in their paladin and doesn't contradict any obvious rule.




Other than the obvious one about having to engage your target on your turn.



> It is not game breaking,




And yet the whole engaging stuff was introduced after the D&D Experience, because of the same sort of situation. Where a paladin never was at risk or even threatening a target it engaged.


----------



## Slaved (Jul 20, 2008)

Divine Challenge definitely allows for Changing Targets to keep the Challenge on against Some Creature without needing to Engage that Turn. Doing so Fulfills one of the two Conditions.


----------



## Jeriatric_ceasa (Jul 20, 2008)

Since I have wasted way too much time reading this thread, I may as well give my interpretation.

I think it is important to note that there are 3 paragraphs describing the effect of this power and that each paragraph serves a different function.

Paragraph 1: Tells you that you mark the target and how long this mark remains.

Paragraph 2: Describes the effect of the mark.

Paragraph 3: Describes the conditions that lead to the paladin not being able to use divine challenge on his next turn.

The problem with Loki's interpretation (as I understand it) is that it attempts to use both paragraph 1 and paragraph 3 together to determine when the mark ends, when paragraph 3 is not concerned with how the mark ends.  The only part of paragraph 3 that should be used in interpreting paragraph 1 is the definition of engaging the target because it is specifically referenced.

Thus, read in this way, paragraph 1 contains all of the operative language for this argument.  The mark ends (along with its associated effects) when the paladin uses the power against another target or fails to engage the target (meaning to either attack the target or to end his turn adjacent to the target.)

The language quoted from paragraph 3 that "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target" has nothing to do with when the mark ends.  It only concerns when the paladin should be punished by not being allowed to use his divine challenge on his next turn.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 20, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> You claim you would be content and then go on to show you would not be content.




Not at all.  I would be content that you had satisfied the requirement of the first Divine Challenge on your turn.  But if you've managed to somehow use a second Divine Challenge on your turn, that has its own requirement, which is separate from that of the first Divine Challenge, and you have not yet satisfied _that_ requirement.




> The regression is clear in your previous statement: "Of course, that will still leave you needing to engage the target of the new use...".  You regress to the beginning of the power in order to rectify the option of "choose a different target".  This becomes an infinite regression until the paladin choose the only REAL option in your opinion, engage.




It's not regression.  Each use of the power is separate, not nested.



> Of course you can, you can change targets once per round.  You have satisfied one of the two options: changing targets.  In essence, challenging a new target always satisfies one condition of the ability for the turn it is used.




Right.  You've satisfied the condition of the ability you used _last_ turn.  Now you need to satisfy the condition of the abiilty you just used _this_ turn.




> And that would be the clearest indication of your interpretation's problem.  You leave off half the options in the first turn the ability is used.




I don't leave off half the options; the text of Divine Challenge leaves off half the options.  It specifically states you can only challenge once per round; how, then, can you challenge a target and also challenge a different target in one round?  You can't, per the rules of the ability.

-Hyp.


----------



## mlooney (Jul 21, 2008)

During my "new rules" announcement today, I mentioned that there was a longish discussion on EnWorld on Divine Challenge, and went over the two schools of thought.  My ruling as to which school was correct was "both of them".  So using it at the end of your turn to scream "Your next Dirt Bag" as a monster is fine.  You better be doing something to the Dirt Bag next turn, not just dropping a Divine Challenge on some other Critter.  If you use Divine Challenge in a way that is not Paladin Like, as defined by me, your God and/or Goddess will gently tap you up side the head and ask you to not do that any more. Intent matters more than exact actions.

Now I have, in my players handout a line that reads "You are Heroes.  Act like it."  Every one knows what I mean, so saying "Act like a Paladin" isn't a problem in my games.  I don't care if the RAW allow you to do tactic X, if using tactic X is not in class or character concept, you will, repeat, will regret using it soon enough.


----------



## mellack (Jul 21, 2008)

If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost.  It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.

Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc.  He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away.   Now it is the gnolls turn.  If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins.  If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.  

Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya.  Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.


----------



## Bagpuss (Jul 21, 2008)

mellack said:


> If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost.  It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.




Setting at the end of the turn isn't the problem it's setting it against a target you don't engage and then not applying the penalty for not engaging.

You can set it at the end of a turn against an opponent you engaged that turn or end adjacent to without a problem.


----------



## kclark (Jul 21, 2008)

mellack said:


> If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost.  It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.
> 
> Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc.  He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away.   Now it is the gnolls turn.  If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins.  If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.
> 
> Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya.  Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.



Yes it is a bit of a boost to the Paladin's Challenge. However it is not quite as powerful as you make it out to be. The target could choose to Shift away from the rogue and then charge the paladin or he could decide to go defensive and see if the paladin backs up his challenge.


----------



## Slaved (Jul 21, 2008)

mellack said:


> If you allow DC to be set at the end of turn, you are giving Divine Challenge a big power boost.  It can now put an opponent in a serious dilemma, where it has to either face an opportunity attack or take automatic divine damage.
> 
> Take this example, Pal has used his move, and his standard action kills his orc.  He then puts a DC with a minor action on the gnoll that is in melee with the rogue several spaces away.   Now it is the gnolls turn.  If he continues to fight the rogue, he takes damage, with is close to an attack damage for CHA paladins.  If he moves to face the paladin, he has to take an opportunity attack by the rogue.
> 
> Now you may consider this perfectly acceptable in your campaign, and I saw more power to ya.  Just realize this makes DC a lot more controlling, not just a minor difference.




You do not like the Paladin being a Defender?


----------



## kevinha (Jul 30, 2008)

LokiDR said:


> True, you can only be marked by one enemy, but the challenge doesn't go away, only the Marked status was changed.




This actually helps clarify my thinking around Piercing Smite and marking. If you distinguish that a mark and a divine challenge are two different things, now attacks like Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike make much more sense, especially after throwing out a Piercing Smite in a group.

Furthermore, with this understanding, a Divine Challenge has the nice side benefit of also marking the target. Therefore, a DC'd target is not only compelled to fight you, but is marked and suffers from additional damage or debuffs.

The only question this leaves in my mind is how marking works between the likes of a fighter and a paladin. My first read through things leads me to believe that you cannot mark a target already marked - which makes things a tad difficult if the fighter and paladin in close proxmity and engaged on the same set of creatures.

The line of text in Divine Challenge that causes me grief here is "A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place." It doesn't make sense to apply this logic to Divine Challenge as "you can't place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another character's divine challenge" and a DC stays in place as long as your engaged. But by the same token, I can't fathom that a fighter marks a target, and then I mark a target, then the fighter, etc.

Thoughts?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2008)

kevinha said:


> This actually helps clarify my thinking around Piercing Smite and marking. If you distinguish that a mark and a divine challenge are two different things, now attacks like Enfeebling Strike and Holy Strike make much more sense, especially after throwing out a Piercing Smite in a group.




They're two different things - the paladin can mark a creature with certain powers, or he can mark it with Divine Challenge.  But Divine Challenge always incorporates a mark.



> The only question this leaves in my mind is how marking works between the likes of a fighter and a paladin. My first read through things leads me to believe that you cannot mark a target already marked - which makes things a tad difficult if the fighter and paladin in close proxmity and engaged on the same set of creatures.




You can mark a target that is already marked; it removes the mark that was already present.

If the paladin uses Divine Challenge on a creature, that creature is marked.  If the fighter then marks the same creature, it is no longer marked by the paladin, and it will not take the radiant damage for making an attack that does not include the paladin.

_While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn't include you as a target. Also, it takes radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier the first time it makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target before the start of your next turn._

The damage applies "while a target is marked", with an implicit "by you".

-Hyp.


----------



## MeMeMeMe (Jul 30, 2008)

kevinha said:


> The only question this leaves in my mind is how marking works between the likes of a fighter and a paladin. My first read through things leads me to believe that you cannot mark a target already marked - which makes things a tad difficult if the fighter and paladin in close proxmity and engaged on the same set of creatures.
> 
> The line of text in Divine Challenge that causes me grief here is "A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place." It doesn't make sense to apply this logic to Divine Challenge as "you can't place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another character's divine challenge" and a DC stays in place as long as your engaged. But by the same token, I can't fathom that a fighter marks a target, and then I mark a target, then the fighter, etc.
> 
> Thoughts?




It's best to think of the Divine Challenge as a mark, which has extra benefits.
This exactly the same as the fighter's mark: it is a mark, with the additional benefit of allowing the fighter to get an extra attack under cirtain circumstances, for instance.

So, if the Paladin marks an enemy, the Fighter can still attack that enemy perfectly okay. But if the fighter marks that enemy (and remember it's optional), the paladin's challenge ends.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 30, 2008)

MeMeMeMe said:


> It's best to think of the Divine Challenge as a mark, which has extra benefits.




Yeah.  I started to describe how ending the mark does not necessarily end the challenge, only the -2 and the potential radiant damage... but then I realised that the power only contains wording for how and when the marked condition ends, not how and when the challenge ends.

If we consider the two to be separate, then once the paladin challenges a creature, that creature can't be challenged again by any paladin, because even once the marked condition ends, he is still 'affected by the challenge'.

Thus, we must assume that the circumstances which end the marked condition also cause the creature to be no longer 'affected by the challenge'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Maxim Machinery (Jul 30, 2008)

I concur with Hypersmurf, AcerageTable and Bagpuss; i would not have thought that the mechanics were so hard to grasp for some. I can only assume at this point that LokiDR is either so emotionally invested in his view he is unable to listen to the arguments of his opposition, or is a troll. Either way, I'm not going to waste my virtual breath spelling it out for him again.

And, as Hypersmurf demonstrated, the radiant damage is linked to the mark - remove the mark, remove the damage (cheese: have an allied fighter throw a rock at you and mark you with his challenge, removing the paladin's mark - you still take a -2, but no longer face radiant damage)


----------



## kevinha (Jul 30, 2008)

Gotcha re: DC and it's mark being linked.

Can I assume that the mark provided by Piercing Smite does nothing more than set the target up for additional damage from something like Holy Strike? i.e., a mark applied by Piercing Smite _does not_ cause a -2 to the creature's attack role if you are not the target (since there is no specific description other than "enemies ... are marked until the end of your next turn."

What I fail to understand is what real value this provides? Piercing Smite is an encounter power and its marking effect lasts "until the end of your next turn." If we assume that a Paladin has a minimum of a +2 to his Wisdom modifier, that can yield up to 3 marked targets (the original targeted creature + 2 adjacent.) However, the Paladin has no ability to take advantage of this number of marks, other than to target one creature next round and use Enfeebling or Holy Strike. Why then, allow you to mark multiple targets? To what end and what value?


----------



## Black Knight Irios (Jul 30, 2008)

Marked is a condition you can find in the PHB P277. It wields a penalty to hit if you don't target the marking creature with an attack. That penalty applies regardless of the source of the marked condition, the penalty is inherent to the marked condition.
All of your marked targets face the potential threat of taking damage because they don't know to whom you are going to apply the damaging part of DC.
-So they all might attack you instead of going after one of your allies.
Sounds pretty much like a good goal for a defender to achieve.

And you can use Piercing Smite as a set up power for the power *Just Radiance*, but there are better set up power for sure.


----------



## Pielorinho (Jul 30, 2008)

This thread is still going on?

Huh.

At any rate, "marked" is a condition in part because there are a fair number of monsters who mark their targets but don't have any cool bonus effects to the mark except for putting that condition on the target.

We've long since settled the issue in our game:  the paladin player agreed that you gotta fulfill the challenge in the same round that you issue it, even when this is inconvenient, and we all agreed that the challenge and the mark are inextricable from one another.

Daniel


----------



## Oliviander (Aug 12, 2008)

*My Vote for Loki*



Jeriatric_ceasa said:


> Since I have wasted way too much time reading this thread, I may as well give my interpretation.
> 
> I think it is important to note that there are 3 paragraphs describing the effect of this power and that each paragraph serves a different function.
> 
> ...




I think you're quite right jeriatric, but in my opinion your'e Interpretation of the 
text rather leads to the same conclusion as Loki's.

Because in the first part of the text there is nothing written that limits the engagement to the very turn when the DC was cast, you cannot assume that it automatically ends at the end of the turn when it was cast and the condition is not fulfilled.

Because if you implicate that "failed to engage or attack" 
means "failed to engage or attack until the end of his turn" 
without the "end of its turn" actually written in the rules, 
you actually read it as "failed to engage or attack at any given time"

I'm sure if this was really meant by the rules in this way, it would have been written completely different.

IMO you only can read it as:

If the paladin "fails to engage or attack" means fails to engage or attack the target with his next possible action. (and I wouldn't count a free action as I don't know a use of a free action to actually engage or attack someone).

So if the Paladin uses DC at the end of his round the enemy cannot lose his mark before the beginnign of the Paladins next turn. 

I'm quite aware that this interpretation leads to other contradictions.

And I'm sure there is no contradiciton free interpretation of that given text possible.

But in Gaming terms I prefer the possibility to use DC in this way.


----------



## icarusfallz (Aug 12, 2008)

MeMeMeMe said:


> I believe that's called threadcrapping, and is frowned on around here. Anyway, don't assume that because people are discussing this at length here, that means that they also argue it at length during a roleplaying session. That doesn't follow.




Calling the guy a threadcrapper is kinda rude.  He was stating a valid opinion (one that I share) about the conversation at hand.  Granted, his opinion was about the conversation, and  not about the TOPIC of the conversation, but at least he weighed in politely.  

Am I now threadcrapping for defending a dude for having a damn opinion?

To me, this response was just as rude as telling someone that they need to go play in a different sandbox.  We're only building castles here, and don't care about building villages.


----------



## MeMeMeMe (Aug 12, 2008)

icarusfallz said:


> Calling the guy a threadcrapper is kinda rude.  He was stating a valid opinion (one that I share) about the conversation at hand.  Granted, his opinion was about the conversation, and  not about the TOPIC of the conversation, but at least he weighed in politely.




It may be hard to believe, but I wasn't using 'threadcrapping' as a perjorative. I apologise to the original poster if it came across as rude, and to anyone else who was offended.
I was just stating that discussion about whether the entire thread itself was valid within the thread was a pointless distraction, since the people taking part obviously do think the discussion is valid. 
Also, I can't see how my comment was seen as more impolite than the comment which prompted it, which was: 
"If you guys are argueing this much about it I am glad you aren't in my games because I don't like my sessions slowing to a crawl." I think everyone involved in the discussion in this thread has reason to feel slighted by that comment, for the reason I stated in my original post: just because people are discussing it at length out of the game doesn't mean they would do so during the game.



> Am I now threadcrapping for defending a dude for having a damn opinion?



Not for having an opinion, no. Threadcrapping is, I believe, diverting a thread from the topic onto other matters (like, say, causing those involved in the thread to defend it's reason for existence) and getting other people to join in and taking over the thread with such discussion, thus ruining the thread for those who originally started it.


----------



## icarusfallz (Aug 12, 2008)

Thanks fer clarifying your position here, "Me to the 4th".  I see what you meant.  

Perhaps he could have said "I hope you guys DON'T argue like this in game." 

personally, I think Smurfy, Loki, and most of these guys seem to be the types to save these discussions for the afterparty.  I love these types of discussions among the people that play in my games, but I (like you, I'm sure) don't have time to mess with them at the table.  If that was to break out in my game, I'd suggest they "take it outside, I'm running a game here", and make a ruling.  Later, I might be convinced that my ruling was wrong, or just misguided, and I might rule differently in the future.

Anyway, thanks fer the intelligent argument.  These things make us all smarter.


----------



## beepeearr (Sep 3, 2008)

You mark the target. The target remains marked until
you use this power against another target, or if you fail
to engage the target (see below). 

On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged
or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge
on your next turn.

You can use divine challenge once per turn.

Looking at the key sentences in question, here is my take.

This is a very poorly worded power.  Way too many contradictions.  For instance why spend a minor action to use this power against another target when you can apparently switch targets each round, and if you can just simply switch targets like it currently implies, are we to assume the new target must be in the initial burst, or just within a certain numbers of the paladin while the power is active.  

If you can't just switch targets, why even have that sentence, if you are in fact simply using the power again (spending the minor action to do so). This entire sentence could have been omitted.

Or can you only switch targets if you did not engage your previous target, say you DC a goblin one round, attack him the next and drop him, can you switch the target of your previous DC (neither death or unconsciousness are listed as reasons for the DC to end) or do you have to spend a minor to reactivate DC.  

Also I don't read it as you have to engage on the turn you used DC, just as having to engage at the next available opportunity or switch to a new target.  Other wise it would have been worded as such.  Note that it says you must engage or choose a new target, not engage or choose a new target and engage it.  It also never specifically states that you must engage it on the turn it is activated, only that the targets need to be engaged in order for the mark to remain after it's initial creation.

It's seems both reasonable and in character for a Paladin to be able to attack his foe, slaying it, then move towards an ally under attack, DC his opponent, using up his available actions.  Next round if he fails to engage that opponent or designate a new one, DC ends and he can't use it next turn.  

Both interpretations have flaws though.  lack of significant wording tends to lead to one, while the other could lead to a situation were the paladin never engages an opponent, but instead switches targets every round. 

I think this just a prime example of a change they made at the last minute, but didn't get the chance to fine tune the rules or wording.  Kind of like they've done with the skill system.  Skill challenges used to be too hard, now they seem too easy.  

If I had to right this rule I think I would go with something like this.

You mark the target. The target remains marked until
you use this power against another target, or if you fail
to engage the target (see below). 

You must engage the target you challenged by the end of your next turn

To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.

You can use divine challenge once per turn.

The wording is simple and clear and the confusion of why use the power if you can simply switch targets is removed. if for some reason you won't be able to engage your target spend the minor action to DC a different opponent (since the target of a DC  cannot be targeted by another one) so you don't lose the ability to so for a round.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 3, 2008)

beepeearr said:


> This is a very poorly worded power.  Way too many contradictions.  For instance why spend a minor action to use this power against another target when you can apparently switch targets each round, and if you can just simply switch targets like it currently implies, are we to assume the new target must be in the initial burst, or just within a certain numbers of the paladin while the power is active.




You switch targets by using your Divine Challenge class feature on a new opponent... which requires a minor action. 



> If you can't just switch targets, why even have that sentence, if you are in fact simply using the power again (spending the minor action to do so). This entire sentence could have been omitted.




No, it couldn't.

If we omit that sentence, it changes the way the power works.

Scenario:
Round 1: I spend a minor action to challenge target A, and then shoot at him with my bow.
Round 2: I spend a minor action to challenge target B, and move and attack him.

In round 3, I can use my Divine Challenge feature.

But let's say we removed "or challenge a different target" from that sentence.  In this case, in round 2, target A was the target of my divine challenge at the start of the round, but by the end of the round, I have not engaged him; I am not adjacent to him, nor have I attacked him.  I am now forbidden from using my Divine Challenge feature in round 3, because I failed to engage target A before the end of my turn.

Fortunately, they included "or challenge a different target" in the list of events that would prevent that misfortune befalling me, so the fact that I challenged target B - a different target - means I'm not forbidden from using Divine Challenge in round 3.



> Also I don't read it as you have to engage on the turn you used DC, just as having to engage at the next available opportunity or switch to a new target.  Other wise it would have been worded as such.




It is worded as such.  It says "by the end of your turn".  It doesn't say "at the next available opportunity".



> Note that it says you must engage or choose a new target, not engage or choose a new target and engage it.  It also never specifically states that you must engage it on the turn it is activated, only that the targets need to be engaged in order for the mark to remain after it's initial creation.




It says "by the end of your turn".

You choose a new target (target B).  You use your Divine Challenge feature on target B.  What does your Divine Challenge feature say?  It says you must engage target B, or challenge a different target from target B, by the end of your turn.  If you don't, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge next round.

Have you challenged a target different from target B before the end of your turn?  No - you challenged target A _last_ round, not this round, so he doesn't count; and you can only use Divine Challenge once per round, so you can't challenge anyone _else_ this turn.  So by the end of your turn, you must challenge a different target from target B (which we've just determined you cannot do), _or you must engage target B_.  If you haven't engaged target B by the end of your turn, no more Divine Challenge!



> It's seems both reasonable and in character for a Paladin to be able to attack his foe, slaying it, then move towards an ally under attack, DC his opponent, using up his available actions.  Next round if he fails to engage that opponent or designate a new one, DC ends and he can't use it next turn.




Reasonable and in character, perhaps, but not in keeping with the wording of the class feature.  If he fails to engage the opponent _by the end of his turn_, the marked condition ends and he can't use DC next round.

-Hyp.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 3, 2008)

There seems to be some misconceptions about what Divine Challenge actually is.  It isn't some dude pointing at another and saying 'You're Next.'  First, it's a power.  Secondly, it has the Divine keyword.  This makes it a prayer.  This is a paladin assaulting someone with either sword, spell, or slingstone, while praying to his font of holy power that the foe continue the fight with him, or else.  It isn't just a matter of saying to the enemy you want to fight him, it's a Divinely empowered affect and a compulsion on the target.  In other words, it'd be called a spell-like effect in previous editions.  Engaging a target means being adjacent to them.  In rp terms, it isn't two enemies standing side by side waving hello at each other.  There's generally swords clashing and footing going back and forth, and while there's no implicit attack made (some auras change this, however), that's more due to the skill of the characters at evading or parrying most blows than an actual lack of attacking.  Divine Challenge works until you're no longer engaged in combat.  That means either not attacking that target with actual attacks, or not being adjacent to them engaged in the minor ineffectual clash of blows represented by being adjacent.


----------



## MeMeMeMe (Sep 3, 2008)

beepeearr said:


> This is a very poorly worded power.



Actually, as Hypersmurf points out, it's not. Once you understand how it works, it's actually very hard to describe it in as few words as the rulebook does, without seeming even more clunky and open to misinterpretation. Believe me, I've tried.

Here's a restatement of the rules for when you can use a divine challenge, and when you can't:
1. At any time except as stated in (2) and (3) below, you can spend a minor action to challenge someone, and then, in the same round, engage them (by either attacking or ending your turn adjacent)
2. If you challenge someone, and aren't able to engage them _by the end of the same turn in which you challenge them_, the challenge ends. If that happens, you can't use the challenge power in your next turn.
3. If you have challenged someone, that challenge continues indefinitely, as long as you engage the target on every one of your turns. If you ever _end_ a turn without engaging a target, the challenge ends and you cannot use the challenge next turn.
4. If you have an ongoing challenge against one target, you can challenge another target. This immediately ends the first challenge, and you spend a minor action to challenge the new target - go back to step 1 for the rules covering that.

I think that covers everything.


----------



## inati (Sep 3, 2008)

It seems that words aren't getting people anywhere. How about pictograms?


----------



## Anand (Sep 24, 2008)

Quick question: when the damage of DC occours? Before or after the maked opponent attack?


----------



## FireLance (Sep 25, 2008)

Anand said:


> Quick question: when the damage of DC occours? Before or after the maked opponent attack?



I run it as an immediate reaction. The marked opponent gets to make his attack roll and possibly deal damage against the target before he takes damage from _divine challenge_.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 25, 2008)

FireLance said:


> I run it as an immediate reaction. The marked opponent gets to make his attack roll and possibly deal damage against the target before he takes damage from _divine challenge_.




It's not an *-immediate-* reaction but it does happen after the attack is made.  It's just not an action at all, but rather a triggered effect, and happens after the effect that triggered it.  However, it's not -immediate- because it doesn't use up the paladin's pool of immediate actions.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 25, 2008)

DracoSuave said:


> It's not an *-immediate-* reaction but it does happen after the attack is made.  It's just not an action at all, but rather a triggered effect, and happens after the effect that triggered it.  However, it's not -immediate- because it doesn't use up the paladin's pool of immediate actions.



Okay, I run it *like* an immediate reaction, then.


----------



## DracoSuave (Sep 25, 2008)

FireLance said:


> Okay, I run it *like* an immediate reaction, then.




Alright.

'This doesn't taste like Raspberries!'

'That's cause it's Raspberry-like'


----------

