Basically, when a Paladin does Divine Challenge, the mark lasts until the conditions aren't met or you switch, but the ability to do damage only happens once. Then you have to spend another Divine Challenge to get damage to happen.
CustServ disagreed with that(basically, you just need to mark once and maintain and you can do damage once a round), but I'd like to see some more opinions...
I can see how they read it the way they did, but it isn't excluding it from happening on subsequent turns, just that it can only happen once per turn.
How's that eye-biting paladin treating you :P
Once per turn is the only ruling I have seen thus far, and is the way I interpret it.
How's that eye-biting paladin treating you :P
Fine. It actually came up in regards to a different character - I have a Bard who took the Paladin feat. It really doesn't matter that much for the Bard - you use Divine Challenge as a ranged character, and you're basically inviting the enemies to go after you, generally by going through the party. It lasts a round or two, maybe three, but no more than that.
But as a Paladin, that is just a world of hurt as you never have any spare minor actions to use.
Well, as I read it, you only have to put it on them once, and as long as you meet the conditions of engagign the enemy to kee it goign, you can do damage to the enemy 1/round that the Challenge stays on them. Not that you have to put the challenge on them 1/round.
Engagement is defined as: (1) making an attack roll or (2) ending your turn adjacent to the target.
Automatic damage does not count as engaging.
Fortunately, it is easier to attack than to damage automatically.
I can see how they read it the way they did, but it isn't excluding it from happening on subsequent turns, just that it can only happen once per turn.
I can see how you'd interpret it that way, but I read it as saying that the marked condition persists, but that the damage is only dealt once, and only if the attack happens before your next turn.
I honestly can't tell what the intention is here. My guess would be that Divine Challenge was written relatively early in the process and went through a number of revisions without being completely rewritten, leading to clumsy wording and varying intentions from revision to revision. (Compare with, say, Aegis of Shielding, which is more more precise.)
Basically, the question is whether there is a difference between the following variations:
"It takes radiant damage the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target."
"It takes radiant damage the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."
"It takes radiant damage the first time each round it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target."
I would consider each of these variations to be saying different things. You may very well be correct in saying that the designers meant the third variation, but I have trouble reading that into the rule.
Personally, I expect that the entire power would be written differently if done now, as I infer from the swordmage that the whole "Oh no, paladins are going to mark people from a distance" crisis that caused the ability to be revised between the playtest and release appears to be seen as no longer a problem.
Basically, the question is whether there is a difference between the following variations:
"It takes radiant damage the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target."
"It takes radiant damage the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."
"It takes radiant damage the first time each round it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target."
That's assuming the 'while' at the beginning of the paragraph is irrelevant to that sentence. Why do you think that's justified?
While a target is marked (1), it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack that doesn’t include you as a target. Also (2), 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 (3).
(1): This statement describes how long the rest of the paragraph should apply.
(2): The following applies as long as the preceeding section applies.
(3): When the target doesn't include you in an attack it takes the damage previously described, but it can only take this damage once per start of your turn.
Now if you want a real headache, lets argue over what kind of speed the damage occurs at - interrupt speed or reaction speed? The divine challenge of a Paladin is possibly the most poorly-worded and ill-defined mechanic in the entire PHB and I am amazed it made it past editors and playtesters. I like pallys and I like the Soldier of the Faith feat, so I come across all the little problems inherent in how the mechanic is described pretty regularly.
If a Paladin would deal it's divine challenge damage to a foe who was attacking one of it's allies, does the damage get dealt as soon as the foe attacks, possibly halting the attack altogether as a fighter could, or does it get dealt after the attack is resolved and damage is dealt? This is a pretty big issue, and so far it seems to be handled by DM fiat, with different DMs having different rulings. I think that's pretty weaksauce. It's a core part of the Paladin character, and in my opinion, a player shouldn't have to wait until he sits down at a table to know exactly how his character will function.
That's assuming the 'while' at the beginning of the paragraph is irrelevant to that sentence. Why do you think that's justified?
Of course it's relevant, since "while a target is marked" is a precondition to the rest of it. I don't see it changing the meaning, though. Let's add it in, to see if it looks any different.
"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 the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target."
This variation seems to me to quite plainly be saying that the target takes a -2 penalty as long as it's marked. Plus, the first time after you use this power (and only the first time) it attacks, it takes damage, if it's still marked at that time.
"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 the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn."
Adding "before the start of your next turn" makes the power more restrictive than variation 1, not less so. Now, the target takes damage the first time it attacks, so long as the attack is before the start of your next turn.
To get to your interpretation, you need to interpret "the first attack before the start of your next turn" to mean "the first attack made between your turns, each and every turn".
Essentially, for your version of the power to be correct, you have to view Divine Challenge as a power that gets re-applied as a free action every turn by engaging, so that "before the start of your next turn" doesn't mean the next turn after you use the power, but every next turn as the power keeps being renewed.
I don't see any basis for that viewpoint: Divine Challenge doesn't get renewed every time you engage, rather it gets put in place once and gets removed when you stop engaging. I can't think of any other instance where a power uses the term "before the start of your next turn", where the clock doesn't start ticking at the point where you use the power.
(3): When the target doesn't include you in an attack it takes the damage previously described, but it can only take this damage once per start of your turn.
To be honest, unless you're using a RAI argument, I don't even really see this as a question.
Riposte Strike (Rogue 1) deals damage to a target. Also, if the target attacks you before the start of your next turn, you get to make a riposte.
Divine Challenge marks a target until certain conditions are met. Also, if the target attacks someone else before the start of your next turn, you get to deal damage to him.
I don't really see any textual basis for reading "before the start of your next turn" differently in these two instances.
To make this argument you're making, you really need to find some instance where "your next turn" means something other than, well, the turn right after you use this power. You might also want to explain why simpler language like "The target only takes this damage once each round, beginning with your turn" wasn't used if that was what they meant.
I'm not really even sure the RAI argument is that strong. Consider that the Divine Challenge text in Keep on the Shadowfell (which uses early versions of the rules in some places) doesn't have the "before the start of your next turn" language, and instead says:
While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 6 radiant damage if it makes an attack doesn’t include you as a target. The target takes this damage only once per turn. On your turn, you must engage the target...
If I'm going to be asking what the designers intended, I think the fact that it changed from "The target takes this damage only once per turn" to "before the start of your next turn" in the final version says something.
Personally, my opinion is that some designer really didn't like the idea of automatic damage to marked targets, and the "you must engage" and "before the start of your next turn" restrictions were added to water down the power. I expect that if Divine Challenge were being written today, the "must engage" restriction would be lifted and the radiant damage would just be an immediate reaction (or maybe an interrupt; we really have no idea when this damage is supposed to be applied).
I'm not saying that a version that said "the first time each and every round" would be a bad thing or imbalanced. I'd be fine if the power was errataed to say that; Lord knows it could use some errata.
However, that's not the version we ended up with, and unless the DM decides to empower things differently, I read Divine Challenge as only doing damage the round after it is applied.
I don't see any basis for that viewpoint: Divine Challenge doesn't get renewed every time you engage, rather it gets put in place once and gets removed when you stop engaging. I can't think of any other instance where a power uses the term "before the start of your next turn", where the clock doesn't start ticking at the point where you use the power.
All other powers that have 'before the start of your next turn' are based on a specific action that is clearly discrete. As an example, Riposte Strike is based on a hit. Divine Challenge is based on while marked.
The renew part is simply that at any given point in time, you will have a next turn and that's not the exit condition to the while. The exit condition is switching the mark or a failure to engage/attack. Once your turn passes, there is once again a first time that an opponent can make an attack before your next turn (since your previous turn)
Engagement is defined as: (1) making an attack roll or (2) ending your turn adjacent to the target.
Automatic damage does not count as engaging.
Did I say that automatic damage was engaging?
Also, after reading the power again for the umpteenth time, I am beginning to believe that you must use the Challenge on each turn. i.e. it doesn't persist.
The relevant bits being that when you use the Challenge you must engage the target using the conditions specified. If you don't then theh marked condition ends and you cannot use Challenge on your next turn. After that it says you can use the challenge 1/turn.
I'll admit that I don't play a Paladin so i never read this power that closely. It is sounding more like you need to be spending a minor every turn to challenge someone.
Did I say that automatic damage was engaging?
Also, after reading the power again for the umpteenth time, I am beginning to believe that you must use the Challenge on each turn. i.e. it doesn't persist.
The relevant bits being that when you use the Challenge you must engage the target using the conditions specified. If you don't then theh marked condition ends and you cannot use Challenge on your next turn. After that it says you can use the challenge 1/turn.
I'll admit that I don't play a Paladin so i never read this power that closely. It is sounding more like you need to be spending a minor every turn to challenge someone.
The problem with that theory is that you unambiguously cannot challenge the same person every turn.
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.
So if you had someone already challenged at the start of your turn, that challenge will not go away until the end of your turn (when it is too late to reapply it) unless you move it to someone else.
You can use divine challenge once per turn.
So you can't move it to someone else then move it back.
Special: Even though this ability is called a challenge, it doesn’t rely on the intelligence or language ability of the target. It’s a magical compulsion that affects the creature’s behavior, regardless of the creature’s nature. You can’t place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another character’s divine challenge.
So you can't reinstate it while it's already in place.
So if bgibbons' interpretation is correct, after one round your divine challenge loses its bite and you can only get damage out of it again by moving it to someone else and possibly moving it back on a subsequent round, or else by failing to engage so that it elapses, waiting another turn because you can't use it the next turn if it elapses and then putting it back on. Ironically, it becomes more powerful of a mark if you have a fighter or other friend that can supersede your mark (but not another Paladin!) every round so you can reinstate it full force.
If I'm going to be asking what the designers intended, I think the fact that it changed from "The target takes this damage only once per turn" to "before the start of your next turn" in the final version says something.
Once per turn means once on every single creatures turn. So if the creature ends up taking 5 opportunity attacks in a round it gets automatically damaged 5 times. This way identifies when during each round the 1/rd resets, but leads to two possible interpretations. Yours seems to be a more natural reading of the language, but a really bizarre and pointless interpretation of RAI on par with the RPGA/Dragon Bard nerf of Majestic Word. (Since it is made 100% clear that you CANNOT mark the same person round after round unless someone overrides your mark, it is rather absurd to assume the power only works as intended if you do so.) The other possible reading of it is certainly more of a stretch of the words chosen (suggesting poor editing along the way perhaps?) but leads to a power that is sane, functional, well balanced, and not functionally self contradictory.
I'll admit that I don't play a Paladin so i never read this power that closely. It is sounding more like you need to be spending a minor every turn to challenge someone.
Definitely not. The challenge requires a paladin to engage a creature and thus open itself to attack, to balance the challenge's power. It was added because otherwise paladins could abuse the challenge. The limitation makes no sense otherwise.
If the challenge is only a mark, then it won't be very effective: there is no sense at all in using the challenge if you have to renew it every other round (and have it lapse in the mean time as well).
The challenge is what makes the paladin sticky - without it, a paladin makes a very poor defender, if at all. The effects of the challenge need to last for the paladin to fulfill her role.
So while you could deliberately choose to read the wording this way, this is not what was intended.
Gomez
The wording is such to make it clear that the damage will only apply to the first attack which does not include you, in any one turn. So if the marked opponent gets an OA (or multiple OAs) or uses an action point for additional attack, for instance, a second attack on someone else (not necessarily the same character as victim of the triggering attack) will not trigger that damage.
The challenge must be "continued" by engaging, either through an attack or remaining adjacent to the marked opponent.
Each turn, there will be a "before the start of your next turn" until the challenge is gone, etc.
Keith
The challenge must be "continued" by engaging, either through an attack or remaining adjacent to the marked opponent.
You may very well be correct that this was the intention, but that's not what the rules actually say.
In truth, when DMing, I use empowerment so that Divine Challenge works the way you believe it should work, since I feel the RAW is too harsh on PCs. I suppose you can contort the rules if it makes you more comfortable; I'd rather just say that the rules do have their plain and obvious meaning, but they aren't saying what I feel they should, so I'll DM empower* the rules to say what I think they should.
Your argument appears to be that the power is re-applied every round as you engage the target, and "before your next turn" means the turn after you use the power, plus every turn after you re-apply the power as a free action by engaging the target.
Problem: The rules don't actually say that. Nothing in the rules say that you are "continuing" the challenge. The power isn't re-applied each round if you engage. Rather, you make the challenge once and only once, and it lasts until such time as you don't engage.
If you impose a condition (say, being stunned) which a save can end, it is imposed once. It doesn't get imposed anew each and every time the target fails a save (a distinction that might matter if an effect is triggered when a particular condition is imposed); rather, it gets imposed once, and simply lasts until the save ends it.
A warlock's curse is applied once. It lasts until the end of the encounter or the target drops to 0 hps. A warlock using a rod of dark renewal gains a +1 bonus to AC until the start of the next turn after he applies the curse.
A paladin's divine challenge is applied once. It lasts until the paladin uses the power against another target or the paladin fails to engage the target. A paladin deals damage if his target attacks someone else before the start of the next turn after he applies the divine challenge.
Anything else is ignoring a plain reading of the rules.
Your interpretation is like saying that the warlock's curse is re-applied each and every round, so long as the precondition (the encounter is still ongoing and the target is above 0 hps) is met, so anything which refers to the next turn after a curse is applied really means every next turn so long as the curse is in effect. Would be nice to be a warlock with a rod of dark renewal under that interpretation.
The fact that the power has a precondition of "while the target is marked" from the previous sentence doesn't mean that "before the start of your next turn" really means before the start of every next turn so long as the precondition is met. There are quite a few other powers with preconditions and powers with multiple effects that we don't read this way, so arguing for this interpretation will cause you problems elsewhere.
Arguing that the word "also" in that sentence changes the plain meaning and incorporates the duration of the previous sentence is quite a reach. Indomitable Strength (Iron Vanguard fighter paragon path 20) says "you push the target 1 square and it is knocked prone. In addition, the target is dazed until the end of your next turn." So, does "in addition" mean that we count "the end of your next turn" from every turn that the target remains prone?
Are you hanging your hat on the use of the word "while" in the cut-and-paste from the description of what a mark means? If so, does that mean that if Indomitable Strength gave further explanation and said that "you push the target 1 square and it is knocked prone. While prone, the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls. In addition, the target is dazed until the end of your next turn." that the magic word "while" would transform the duration of the daze effect to last as long as the target was prone?
Bah.
If the rules don't say what we think they should say, accept that truth, argue for errata and DM empower them away, rather than try to strain for an interpretation that let's you change the rules while still claiming to follow them.
The playtest version of the Divine Challenge rules that came out in Keep on the Shadowfell were simple: "While a target is marked, it takes X damage. The target takes this damage only once per round." and nothing stopped a paladin from re-applying the challenge (though there was no need to).
The final version made two changes. Now, the damage is dealt only on the first attack before the next turn, and the challenge can't be re-applied to an affected target.
My intuition is that the first change was made by a designer scared of automatic damage (probably with the intention that the paladin would have to re-apply the power each round to get automatic damage, though the mark would persist even without that), and the second change was made for foolish consistency with other powers such as the warlock's curse, and so screwed up the first change. It's unfortunately not uncommon for multiple WOTC designers to be making changes at the same time without seemingly knowing what the others are doing (cf. the errata to skill challenges, in which a footnote to a table was deleted in order to subtract 5 from all skill DCs in skill challenges, and then the table itself was also changed to subtract 5 from the table which determines skill DCs in skill challenges).
In any event, regardless of why the changes were made, it's clear that they were made. The Keep on the Shadowfell version, in which damage is dealt once per round, might be a better version, and it's quite arguable that the final version is a mistake, but like the Bard preview in Dragon Magazine, you can't both say that you're strictly following the rules as written and ignore changes in the final version that you think are a mistake.
I agree that if you play by the RAW, a key paladin ability is weaker than it should be (and I think paladins already have some issues with being under-strength).
You have two options:
- You can give a strained reading of "You can't divine challenge someone already under the effects of a divine challenge" to say that, since the automatic damage effect is over at the start of your turn, the target is no longer fully under the effects of the divine challenge and you can re-challenge them. (A weak interpretation, but a good end result.)
- You can change "before the start of your next turn" to "within one round after you place the divine challenge or engage the target". (A flat-out change, but a good end result.)
Personally, I'll generally empower the second version when running. Either way is fine, but neither is really what the rules say.
And why am I having this conversation if I empower away my own interpretation when running anyway? Because empowerment is a gift, not something you can demand from a DM. When playing a paladin, I play him by the rules as written, unless the DM decides otherwise.
-- Brian Gibbons.
*
Yes, yes, you're right. DM empowerment doesn't let you affect the rules or the characters, only the module and the world of the adventure, so instead of saying you are changing the rules, you have to go the extra step and say that you are playing completely by the rules, it's just that, in this adventure, the paladin's deity is so happy with him that the paladin is under a divine effect that makes his divine challenge more powerful. Same effect as if you changed the rules, but it makes the more lawful types happier.
Did I say that automatic damage was engaging?
No, you said:
Well, as I read it, you only have to put it on them once, and as long as you meet the conditions of engagign the enemy to kee it goign, you can do damage to the enemy 1/round that the Challenge stays on them. Not that you have to put the challenge on them 1/round.
I was only clarifying that it is easier (and harder) to engage than you thought because you don't have to deal damage, you just have to attack.
It is easier to attack than to hit. But in someways attacking on your turn is harder than automatic damage.
Also, after reading the power again for the umpteenth time, I am beginning to believe that you must use the Challenge on each turn. i.e. it doesn't persist.
It persists as part of the engagement.
Istaran: If you don't engage (end adjacent or attack the target--ranged weapons can attack without being adjacent), even if you use your minor action last to challenge, it will still disappear (and lock out next turn's challenge option) if engagement fails.
However, if your standard action (Before your challenge) was to throw a javelin at the target, that would count as engagement even if you challenge afterwards.
In fact, the only reason a Paladin should challenge BEFORE the end of their turn is if they plan to use a Charge action (or any other action that immediately ends your turn at its completion).
In fact, the only reason a Paladin should challenge BEFORE the end of their turn is if they plan to use a Charge action (or any other action that immediately ends your turn at its completion).
Clearly you, sir, are not a fan of strength based paladins for any paladin who plans to use Holy Strike ought to divine challenge first in order to reap the bonus damage.
bgibbons: I don't understand why it does not refresh on YOUR turn, I don't see the RAW disproving it like you do, but then again, I am someone who thought Warlock's curse was a personal effect!
I think you are taking a lot of stock in the "takes the damage on the first attack before your next turn" as being intent that a new minor action is required to inflict more damage.
I beleive this to be a clarification so that you cannot choose WHEN to apply random Paladin 'damage. The previous statement of 'once per round' was limited in that fact, in that it did not say WHEN it occurred, if it was an OA, or whatever. If you read it that way, it is much more in line with a 'clarification' of the intended original power.
Hence the reason for the clarification.
So if you had someone already challenged at the start of your turn, that challenge will not go away until the end of your turn (when it is too late to reapply it) unless you move it to someone else.
Istaran: If you don't engage (end adjacent or attack the target--ranged weapons can attack without being adjacent), even if you use your minor action last to challenge, it will still disappear (and lock out next turn's challenge option) if engagement fails.
However, if your standard action (Before your challenge) was to throw a javelin at the target, that would count as engagement even if you challenge afterwards.
In fact, the only reason a Paladin should challenge BEFORE the end of their turn is if they plan to use a Charge action (or any other action that immediately ends your turn at its completion).
I realize this thread is already full of detailed language parsing, so I'll forgive you for not parsing my sentence correctly. I was referring to the situation where you issued a Divine Challenge on a previous round, and therefore "had someone already challenged at the start of your turn", rather than a situation where a Divine Challenge was the first thing you did on your turn.
I just ran into what I thought was an odd ruling on a Paladin - has anyone else seen this ruling before?
Basically, when a Paladin does Divine Challenge, the mark lasts until the conditions aren't met or you switch, but the ability to do damage only happens once. Then you have to spend another Divine Challenge to get damage to happen.
CustServ disagreed with that(basically, you just need to mark once and maintain and you can do damage once a round), but I'd like to see some more opinions...
I haven't DM'd with a Paladin, and have only played with one once. I've read the rest of the thread.
I think that Divine Challenge gives the target the risk of taking radiant damage one time only during the duration from the beginning of the mark until the start of the paladin's next turn. Afterword, this aspect of the DC is gone until the DC is reapplied.
1) This is the most direct reading of the rule.
2) The first sentence, "While..." is not a topic sentence. It describes one effect of the mark. There is no reason to unnecessarily apply it to the rest of the paragraph.
3) There is no other reason to prohibit reapplication of a Divine Challenge on a target who you have already DC'd.
4) While it isn't the most elegant writing in the word, a lot of what is described as ambiguity stems from trying to parse it as ongoing or repeating threat.
I agree that it could be reworded for clarity. I can certainly see that people want it to be different than this. And, given the way WotC seems to be editing rules these days, I won't be surprised if it is changed to read how people want it to be.
David
I agree that it could be reworded for clarity. I can certainly see that people want it to be different than this. And, given the way WotC seems to be editing rules these days, I won't be surprised if it is changed to read how people want it to be.
It is not simply 'wanting it' to be that way. It has always been that way (throughout the playtests), and the only way in which a paladin can effectively play his role as defender. All other defender's powers last indefinitely - the fighter's, the swordmage's, etc.
The paladin's powers were altered to require engagement because it was otherwise open for abuse, specifically in combination with a fighter. If the power doesn't last, there was no need for that change.
You applying various rules of grammar, can read it one way, and you can read it the other way, depending on how you desire to read it. But I see no reason why you would want to read it in such a way that a paladin becomes useless in his role.
This is a game, not English Grammar 101.
Gomez
It is not simply 'wanting it' to be that way. It has always been that way (throughout the playtests)
Let's look at the various versions, to see what "always" means.
Keep on the Shadowfell
You mark the target. If the creature was already marked, your mark supersedes the previous one. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or if you fail to engage the target (see below). A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 6 radiant damage if it makes an attack doesn’t include you as a target. The target takes this damage only once per turn.
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.
While a target is marked, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 6 radiant damage if it makes an attack doesn’t include you as a target. The target takes this damage only once per turn.
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.
I simply believe that 'the first time it makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target before the start of your next turn' is rephrasing of 'The target takes this damage only once per turn', to indicate when the fdamage takes place (the first time it attacks in a turn).
I did playtest, and the problem was never that the power persisted, but that the Paladin originally had the choice to not engage.
I interpret the rule differently, becasue I don't believe that the intend was to make the paladin utterly useless as a defender.
Gomez
Basically, the question is this: If the Treasure of Talon Pass version was the final version, would you honestly say that the "before the start of your next turn" language could be ignored and what it really means is "every round, so long as other effects of this power are still affecting the target"?
Yes. The problem with the Treasure of Talon Pass version is that it isn't reasonably clear what happens when the following occurs:
Turn 1:
Target goes
Paladin marks Target
Turn 2:
Target attacks something else(and gets zapped)
Paladin moves next to Target and attacks.
Rogue moves past Ogre into flanking position, but provokes an AoO in the process.
If you're interpreting the language the way most of us seem to be, the Ogre gets zapped again and that's the reason for the language. In ToTP, the Ogre has already been zapped this turn and can't be zapped again. Which makes the power really, really odd as it is independent of the Paladin's turn.
It is not simply 'wanting it' to be that way. It has always been that way (throughout the playtests), and the only way in which a paladin can effectively play his role as defender. All other defender's powers last indefinitely - the fighter's, the swordmage's, etc.
It hasn't always been that way. It was that way and now it isn't. It changed. While the wording might be awkward, it is (not surprisingly) at it's worst when trying to get it to say something other than what's there. My statement about wanting it to be that way may have been a bit unfair, if so, I apologize.
The comparison to other defenders isn't relevant. It works differently. This is only a problem if you insert the premise that all defenders are supposed to have an indefinite marking power.
The paladin's powers were altered to require engagement because it was otherwise open for abuse, specifically in combination with a fighter. If the power doesn't last, there was no need for that change.
You applying various rules of grammar, can read it one way, and you can read it the other way, depending on how you desire to read it. But I see no reason why you would want to read it in such a way that a paladin becomes useless in his role.
This is a game, not English Grammar 101.
I'm reading what I see. The only grammar that I presented was a refutation of the position that "While..." must apply to the whole paragraph. I'm not chosing to apply grammar to support a desired position.
I didn't have a position on this until asked about it yesterday. I read it, it seemed pretty clear. Another person who was there thought it was clear. The opposition seems to be based on ambiguity when comparing the preview and/or playtest versions of the rules to the PHB. The PHB, when taken alone, seems relatively clear. I finally read this thread and was, quite frankly surprised to find that there was a strong opposition.
My goal isn't to nerf the paladin or make him unplayable as a defender. It's to gain an understanding of the rule. He is what he is, based upon that rule. If that means he is more generalist (semi-effective defender best suited for multiple targets with healing capabilities) than pure defender, so be it.
David
The Paladin is not required to renew the Divine challenge each turn, but must meet the conditions to maintain the Divine Challenge, ie. to engage, meaning to attack during his turn, or end the turn adjacent to the marked target.
When I read the paragraph starting with "While a target is marked..." the "Also, it takes radiation damage..." is clearly the second effect of the Divine Challenge.
The latter part of the sentence "...the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target before the start of your next turn." does not uniquely define the limitation of the first attack...to only one time or the first turn. Each turn of the marked target (or intervening immediate actions such as OAs) is a new turn (which will be followed by a next turn) and nothing in the statement is untrue or not viable in the new turn. What that sentence says is this radiant damage will only apply to that first attack (which does not include the Paladin) before the Paladin's next turn. Because the damage could come on a OA which does not occur on the target's turn, but in the midst of the round, it was understandable (to me) that they chose to word the power this way.
Obviously YMMV.
EDIT: I just emailed Andy Collins, who is their senior guy in R&D, and, he responded promptly:
to my question on the radiant damage (only once per challenge, or once per round) with the following statement.
"A target marked by divine challenge can take the radiant damage once per round as long as it remains marked by that divine challenge."
Keith
EDIT: I just emailed Andy Collins, who is their senior guy in R&D, and, he responded promptly:
to my question on the radiant damage (only once per challenge, or once per round) with the following statement.
"A target marked by divine challenge can take the radiant damage once per round as long as it remains marked by that divine challenge."
I'm fine accepting that this is the intent and using it as such. It will keep things consistent for rulings that follow, etc.
Now, if they would update it so that it actually said clearly, we'd be golden.
Thanks for taking it to Andy.
David
But I still think this needs errata. It should be rewritten and clarified, and not just because of the generally horrible wording. I'd really like to know whether that radiant damage gets dealt before or after the triggering attack's final resolution.
And besides, if you took the meaning of the way it was written to indicate that the "Also it takes radiant damage ..." part wasn't a correlation of the "While it is marked ..." part, and stood alone as a separate effect of the power the way some people here were arguing then that would mean the Paladin could mark a target, fail to engage it, and still deal the damage. Just plain silly.
That's not a position that I was taking, and I agree that it would be silly. I don't think anyone has presented the position that failure to engage could result in radiant damage despite no mark. But, I do see your point as to how someone might come to that position.
But I still think this needs errata. It should be rewritten and clarified, and not just because of the generally horrible wording. I'd really like to know whether that radiant damage gets dealt before or after the triggering attack's final resolution.
Agreed. It's nice to have things to agree about. :D
David
Agreed. It's nice to have things to agree about. :D
David
I concur.
"A target marked by divine challenge can take the radiant damage once per round as long as it remains marked by that divine challenge."
I agree that this is the better version of the power, and what at least some designers intended. It's just not the way the power is actually worded, however. In every single other power in the book, "your next turn" means "the turn after you use this power", and absent language indicating otherwise (e.g., "Engaging your marked target renews the divine challenge."), I have a difficult time reading the phrase to mean something radically different from what the phrase means every other time it's used.
As long as you have a designer's ear, you might want to pass up a suggestion for errata.
If the power is supposed to mean "the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target after each turn in which you engage the target" instead of "before the start of your next turn", errataing the power to say so wouldn't be a bad idea.
If no errata is needed, and the interpretation of "before the start of your next turn" actually means "before the start of as many of your next turns in which the preconditions are still true", I've been running a lot of other powers quite wrong.*
To give this thread some further point, it might be worth discussing how divine challenge really should have been worded (and how it wouldn't be a bad idea to see errataed).
Here's my suggestion:
Effect: You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target. If you mark other creatures using other powers, the target is still marked. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
If you did not either attack your marked target during your turn or end your turn adjacent to the target, your mark is removed from the target at the end of your turn and you cannot use divine challenge on your next turn.
If your marked target makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls. When your marked target makes such an attack, you can use an immediate reaction to deal radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier to your marked target. The damage increases to 6 + your Charisma modifier at 11th level, and to 9 + your Charisma modifier at 21st level.
You can use divine challenge once per turn. You can't place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another paladin's divine challenge.
Note: This power does not require the target to be intelligent or understand the paladin. It affects the target regardless of the target's nature.
- Yes, I agree. I don't see why the paladin needs to engage the target, since the idea of "Oh noes, paladins will mark a target and then run away; that'll destroy everything!!!" seems a bit irrelevant, inasmuch as the swordmage class was created to do exactly that. However, I'm assuming that this will be kept, so we might as well write a clear precise version of it. (NB: Why do playtesters hate paladins? 3e playtesters gave us the silly "Paladins can't multiclass" restriction; 4e playtesters gave us silly restrictions on the core ability a paladin needs to be a good defender. What is it about the class that makes it a magnet for unnecessary restrictions?)
- Yes, you're right. The special note at the end is unnecessary. All it essentially says is "Ignore the fluff of the power's name and flavor description." We don't put such notes on any other power, so unless you're saying that a character can't use Armor-Piercing Thrust (Fighter 3) if the target is naked, Dance of Steel (Fighter 3) if you're wielding a wooden weapon or Skullcrusher (Fighter 23) if the target doesn't have a skull, this special note is unnecessary (and worse, since it implies that maybe the fluff and flavor of other powers should be given mechanical meaning). Unfortunately, removing the note now would imply that the statements in the special note are now untrue, which would be incorrect.
Anyone have an improvement?
-- Brian Gibbons.
*
As the most obvious example, I've been interpreting the duration of the penalty of Enfeebling Strike ("If you marked the target, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.") incorrectly, since I've always thought the penalty just lasts until the end of the turn after you use this power. Clearly, under the Divine Challenge interpretation, each turn we're supposed to look to see whether the target is still marked, not whether I just used the power this turn; as long as they're marked, the penalty keeps going.
The Fighter 3 exploit, Dance of Steel ("If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.") just became a lot better. I had been running it that the slow condition only lasts until the end of the next turn after the fighter used the power. Instead, I should be checking each round to see whether the fighter is still wielding a polearm or heavy blade; if so, the Slow is good to go for another round.
We don't have to worry about the Iron Vanguard 20th level exploit, Indomitable Strength, for a while ("You push the target 1 square and it is knocked prone. In addition, the target is dazed until the end of your next turn.") Based on the Divine Challenge interpretation, however, I'll be sure to run it that the target is dazed until the end of the next turn after he stands up, rather than the end of the next turn after the power is used.
The Fighter 3 exploit, Dance of Steel ("If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.") just became a lot better. I had been running it that the slow condition only lasts until the end of the next turn after the fighter used the power. Instead, I should be checking each round to see whether the fighter is still wielding a polearm or heavy blade; if so, the Slow is good to go for another round.
We don't have to worry about the Iron Vanguard 20th level exploit, Indomitable Strength, for a while ("You push the target 1 square and it is knocked prone. In addition, the target is dazed until the end of your next turn.") Based on the Divine Challenge interpretation, however, I'll be sure to run it that the target is dazed until the end of the next turn after he stands up, rather than the end of the next turn after the power is used.
I agree that this is the better version of the power, and what at least some designers intended. It's just not the way the power is actually worded, however. In every single other power in the book, "your next turn" means "the turn after you use this power", and absent language indicating otherwise (e.g., "Engaging your marked target renews the divine challenge."), I have a difficult time reading the phrase to mean something radically different from what the phrase means every other time it's used.
As long as you have a designer's ear, you might want to pass up a suggestion for errata.
If the power is supposed to mean "the first time it makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target after each turn in which you engage the target" instead of "before the start of your next turn", errataing the power to say so wouldn't be a bad idea.
If no errata is needed, and the interpretation of "before the start of your next turn" actually means "before the start of as many of your next turns in which the preconditions are still true", I've been running a lot of other powers quite wrong.*
To give this thread some further point, it might be worth discussing how divine challenge really should have been worded (and how it wouldn't be a bad idea to see errataed).
Here's my suggestion:
- Yes, I agree. I don't see why the paladin needs to engage the target, since the idea of "Oh noes, paladins will mark a target and then run away; that'll destroy everything!!!" seems a bit irrelevant, inasmuch as the swordmage class was created to do exactly that. However, I'm assuming that this will be kept, so we might as well write a clear precise version of it. (NB: Why do playtesters hate paladins? 3e playtesters gave us the silly "Paladins can't multiclass" restriction; 4e playtesters gave us silly restrictions on the core ability a paladin needs to be a good defender. What is it about the class that makes it a magnet for unnecessary restrictions?)
- Yes, you're right. The special note at the end is unnecessary. All it essentially says is "Ignore the fluff of the power's name and flavor description." We don't put such notes on any other power, so unless you're saying that a character can't use Armor-Piercing Thrust (Fighter 3) if the target is naked, Dance of Steel (Fighter 3) if you're wielding a wooden weapon or Skullcrusher (Fighter 23) if the target doesn't have a skull, this special note is unnecessary (and worse, since it implies that maybe the fluff and flavor of other powers should be given mechanical meaning). Unfortunately, removing the note now would imply that the statements in the special note are now untrue, which would be incorrect.
Anyone have an improvement?
-- Brian Gibbons.*As the most obvious example, I've been interpreting the duration of the penalty of Enfeebling Strike ("If you marked the target, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of your next turn.") incorrectly, since I've always thought the penalty just lasts until the end of the turn after you use this power. Clearly, under the Divine Challenge interpretation, each turn we're supposed to look to see whether the target is still marked, not whether I just used the power this turn; as long as they're marked, the penalty keeps going.
The Fighter 3 exploit, Dance of Steel ("If you’re wielding a polearm or a heavy blade, the target is slowed until the end of your next turn.") just became a lot better. I had been running it that the slow condition only lasts until the end of the next turn after the fighter used the power. Instead, I should be checking each round to see whether the fighter is still wielding a polearm or heavy blade; if so, the Slow is good to go for another round.
We don't have to worry about the Iron Vanguard 20th level exploit, Indomitable Strength, for a while ("You push the target 1 square and it is knocked prone. In addition, the target is dazed until the end of your next turn.") Based on the Divine Challenge interpretation, however, I'll be sure to run it that the target is dazed until the end of the next turn after he stands up, rather than the end of the next turn after the power is used.
Yeah, I think the language is actually pretty clear. The situation of it possibly taking damage is a condition that is spelled out to last as long as the target is marked.
Now if you want a real headache, lets argue over what kind of speed the damage occurs at - interrupt speed or reaction speed? The divine challenge of a Paladin is possibly the most poorly-worded and ill-defined mechanic in the entire PHB and I am amazed it made it past editors and playtesters. I like pallys and I like the Soldier of the Faith feat, so I come across all the little problems inherent in how the mechanic is described pretty regularly.
If a Paladin would deal it's divine challenge damage to a foe who was attacking one of it's allies, does the damage get dealt as soon as the foe attacks, possibly halting the attack altogether as a fighter could, or does it get dealt after the attack is resolved and damage is dealt? This is a pretty big issue, and so far it seems to be handled by DM fiat, with different DMs having different rulings. I think that's pretty weaksauce. It's a core part of the Paladin character, and in my opinion, a player shouldn't have to wait until he sits down at a table to know exactly how his character will function.
As I play a Paladin my understanding is the damage from "Divine Challenge" happens before the attack but it does not prevent the opponent from continuing it's turn. Further more the people who think damage should be dealt once per use of Divine Challenge are wrong the RAW clearly states that the damage happens once each round in which the Paladin is not included as part of an attack. I think this is yet another case of some people not liking the aspect of an ability then finding a slight wording issue to justify their position.
As you have it now worded the Paladin can choose which triggering attack to respond to, or choose not to respond at all ... neither of those are supported by the rule as it is currently written (no matter -how- we want to interpret it). And 2) this new wording takes away the Paladin's Immediate action for the round, again this would be a change to the power, and not just a rewording for clarification.
Sure, as I said, this is my version of how I think Divine Challenge should have been worded (and how I'd love to see it get rewritten), not what I think the ability actually says right now.
As I play a Paladin my understanding is the damage from "Divine Challenge" happens before the attack but it does not prevent the opponent from continuing it's turn.
So, if the damage kills him, he attacks anyway? What if he becomes bloodied and has powers that are activated on becoming bloodied? The first is the primary issue. The second is gravy. Creative types will come up with more issues.
Further more the people who think damage should be dealt once per use of Divine Challenge are wrong the RAW clearly states that the damage happens once each round in which the Paladin is not included as part of an attack. I think this is yet another case of some people not liking the aspect of an ability then finding a slight wording issue to justify their position.
No, the RAW doesn't clearly say that, which is the entire point of the discussion. Personally, I have no problem with the power in either case, but am rather indisposed to rule in a player-favorable manner if the reason is to merely go along with the crowd. I am fine ruling in a player-favorable manner for other reasons.
There is a tendency to see the worst in the motivations of others, and to see the best in our own. It's a regular challenge to be aware of this aspect of dealing with others and to take it into account when dealing with them. This is doubly so in the semi-anonymous setting of public forums.
David
Sure, as I said, this is my version of how I think Divine Challenge should have been worded (and how I'd love to see it get rewritten), not what I think the ability actually says right now.
I think your version is well crafted. Nice job. Since you've donated it to WotC by posting it here, I hope they use it. :D
One aspect that it introduces, and which is a change from the original rule, it that by specifying it as an immediate action it means the paladin cannot take other immediate actions until he resets, or, having done so, the radiant damage doesn't take place. Is there wording that would treat it as an on-going effect that would do otherwise?
David
Here's my suggestion:Effect: You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target. If you mark other creatures using other powers, the target is still marked. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
If you did not either attack your marked target during your turn or end your turn adjacent to the target, your mark is removed from the target at the end of your turn and you cannot use divine challenge on your next turn.
If your marked target makes an attack that doesn’t include you as a target, it takes a –2 penalty to attack rolls. When your marked target makes such an attack, you can use an immediate reaction to deal radiant damage equal to 3 + your Charisma modifier to your marked target. The damage increases to 6 + your Charisma modifier at 11th level, and to 9 + your Charisma modifier at 21st level.
You can use divine challenge once per turn. You can't place a divine challenge on a creature that is already affected by your or another paladin's divine challenge.
Note: This power does not require the target to be intelligent or understand the paladin. It affects the target regardless of the target's nature.
[LIST]
Generally speaking, I lke this change. At first glance, I didn't like its being an immediate interrupt as this uses up any immediate interrupts the character might have and thus weakens the character.
But upon reflection, the parallel between the Paladin's Divine Challenge and the Fighter's Combat Challenge seems to be a good one.
What I'm still not happy about is the 'you cannot use divine challenge on your next turn' line. I presume that this is there to prevent certain abuses of the power (challenge and run, etc). But it also penalizes those who are prevented from attacking through no fault of their own. I.e. if a mark is being carried through from a previous round but the Paladin is incapable of acting on his turn (stunned, for example) the mark ends and the Paladin is also incapable of reapplying it on his next turn. So stunning the Paladin for one turn makes him unable to mark for two turns. This does not seem to be, imho, the intent.
Bottom Line: Since the mark expires if certain conditions are not met, I don't see why we need a penalty line about reapplying it the next round as well. Can anyone give me a better argument for why that line is in the original rules and why it would need to be in rewritten rules?
Carl
2) I assume it also was to make it so Paladins dont apply it and then run away.
3) The auto damage doesn't take up an action.
It's all a balancing act. Comparing it to Combat Challenge, the fighter still has to roll to hit to do damage, it stops movement, and it costs him/her/it a Immediate action whether they hit or miss. Sure, the fighter has higher average damage with the basic attack, but the Paladin auto hits.
1) Because Divine Challenge does auto damage if the conditions are met.
2) I assume it also was to make it so Paladins dont apply it and then run away.
3) The auto damage doesn't take up an action.
It's all a balancing act. Comparing it to Combat Challenge, the fighter still has to roll to hit to do damage, it stops movement, and it costs him/her/it a Immediate action whether they hit or miss. Sure, the fighter has higher average damage with the basic attack, but the Paladin auto hits.
1) Divine Challenge does not do automatic damage, it does damage if certain conditions - which are under the control of the target - are met, which makes the damage not 'automatic'). This has no bearing on why it can't be reapplied. Also, unlike the fighter mark, it does not impose any restrictions on movement so you can't simply compare it to the damage component of the fighter attack without considering that as well. Finally, this clause was also not part of the pre-release Paladin's Divine Challenge. It was added as part of the rush-job attempt to rewrite the Challenge just before release so that Paladin's could no longer run away. This leads directly to the conclusion that it had nothing to do with the 'automatic damage' and everything to do with stopping them from running away.
2) Divine Challenge has already been changed so that this is no longer possible. If you apply it and run away, the mark will expire and you aren't there to try and apply it the next turn anyway. So this has no bearing on why it can't be reapplied the turn after it expires.
3) True. But what is being prevented is its reapplication which does take an action. And thus this is just a restatement, at best, of point 1. Besides which, the modified version suggested above does take an immediate action, making it even less necessary.
None of these explain, imho, why it is necessary to penalize a Paladin for letting a mark expire and I just don't see why it is 'necessary' given the other restrictions that were also put in place at that time.
Bottom Line: This thread (and many others) demonstrate that the emergency fix to the Paladin's Divine Challenge was neither well tested nor well written. But it is (barring house rules) the rule they went with and will likely not see extensive errata.
Please describe the specific set of actions that this is designed to prevent and why those actions must be prevented.
Carl
1) Divine Challenge does not do automatic damage, it does damage if certain conditions - which are under the control of the target - are met, which makes the damage not 'automatic').
Do you have to roll to hit? I didn't think so. That makes it automatic. You have no chance to miss the target when you are able to do damage via the Divine Challenge. (and even i said when conditions are met... contrast it against Combat Challenge where when conditions are met you have to roll to hit, giving you a chance to miss)
How many other powers allow you the chance to do damage without an attack roll?
This has no bearing on why it can't be reapplied.
It's all about the balance.
Also, unlike the fighter mark, it does not impose any restrictions on movement so you can't simply compare it to the damage component of the fighter attack without considering that as well.
I did.
Finally, this clause was also not part of the pre-release Paladin's Divine Challenge. It was added as part of the rush-job attempt to rewrite the Challenge just before release so that Paladin's could no longer run away.
You're assuming. That's a possibility (although most Paladins I have seen run away anyway to get the chance to do damage or make the enemy come after them), but without a psychic link to the devs we'll never know. They could very well have been acting on playtest feedback.
This leads directly to the conclusion that it had nothing to do with the 'automatic damage' and everything to do with stopping them from running away.
Perhaps.
2) Divine Challenge has already been changed so that this is no longer possible. If you apply it and run away, the mark will expire and you aren't there to try and apply it the next turn anyway. So this has no bearing on why it can't be reapplied the turn after it expires.
Well, since Divine Challenge hasn't had any errata, and differences pre-release and post publication don't mean much, it's all supposition. You could apply it to a new target if you were allowed to do so after it expired. As it is you can't. Paladins running away aren't' very defendery.
3) True. But what is being prevented is its reapplication which does take an action. And thus this is just a restatement, at best, of point 1. Besides which, the modified version suggested above does take an immediate action, making it even less necessary.
It takes a minor action. You're opinion may differ, but a minor action is, well, minor. An Immediate Interrupt is worth more (it interrupts an enemy's action, possibly stopping whatever they were going to do).
None of these explain, imho, why it is necessary to penalize a Paladin for letting a mark expire and I just don't see why it is 'necessary' given the other restrictions that were also put in place at that time.
Well, you asked, and I gave my opinion. Like I said, it's all a balancing act. Want to do damage without a chance to miss and give them a negative to attack rolls against anyone but you, and make it so the marked target may have to move to get to you? You're going to have to give something up.
The Combat Challenge lets you mark at will and you can stop movement, but you have to roll to hit and it takes an immediate interrupt so you can only do it once regardless of the number of enemies you have marked. It becomes like the old AoO. One person draws the AoO so everyoe else can move away.
Bottom Line: This thread (and many others) demonstrate that the emergency fix to the Paladin's Divine Challenge was neither well tested nor well written. But it is (barring house rules) the rule they went with and will likely not see extensive errata.
Im certainly not going to argue that it needs to be worded better. I still don't get the whole "emergency fix" thing though, since there's been no errata to it, and what happens between pre-release and publication can't always be chalked up as an "emergency fix."
Please describe the specific set of actions that this is designed to prevent and why those actions must be prevented.
I never claimed it was specifically to prevent a certain set of actions. Only that it was about balancing the power, which seems to be an argument you hadn't weighed. You may not agree that the power needed said balance, but that's your opinion... the devs obviously thought different.
You asked for opinions on why it was, but you seem pretty dead set on already knowing why, which makes me wonder why you asked in the first place.
How many other powers allow you the chance to do damage without an attack roll?
Cleave does its extra damage automatically to the additional target. Many, if not most, encounter and daily powers do half damage on a miss, which is frequently going to average significantly higher than the damage from a Paladin's Challenge.
The Combat Challenge lets you mark at will and you can stop movement, but you have to roll to hit and it takes an immediate interrupt so you can only do it once regardless of the number of enemies you have marked. It becomes like the old AoO. One person draws the AoO so everyoe else can move away.
How does a combat challenge attack stop movement?
Combat Challenge
... In addition, whenever an enemy marked by you is adjacent to you and shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.
Combat Superiority
... An enemy struck by your opportunity attack stops moving, if a move provoked the attack. ...
Unless I missed something somewhere, an immediate interrupt is not equal to an opportunity attack, so that marked enemy completes its shift or attack, unless the attack kills it.
Cleave does its extra damage automatically to the additional target. Many, if not most, encounter and daily powers do half damage on a miss, which is frequently going to average significantly higher than the damage from a Paladin's Challenge.
The damage from cleave doesn't happen if you don't hit, so I wouldn't count that.
Very few encoutner powers do half damage on a miss. They may have effect that happens regardless and that may be ongoing damage, but they aren't that common. Also, the difference between encounter and dailies and Divine Challenge? DC is an at-will. So yeah, a daily is going to do more damage. It wouldn't be worth taking as a daily power if it didn't do more damage than Divine Challenge.Trying to compare Encounters and Dailies to an At-Will class feature doesn't work. The power levels are vastly different.
The damage from cleave doesn't happen if you don't hit, so I wouldn't count that.
Trying to compare Encounters and Dailies to an At-Will class feature doesn't work. The power levels are vastly different.
All right then, what if you look at At-Wills? A brand new out-of-the-box Paladin who was focused on taking advantage of it would be able to At-Will set up a conditional situation dealing 8 points of damage, using a minor action to get it going, and then using either standard actions or move actions to engage, or tactical decisions to stay next to the target no matter what. The kicker is that the monster (DM) has all the control over whether or not to make the choice to take that damage. In my opinion, and in practice, it's far from automatic. A first level out-of-the-box fighter with the same amount of focus can, At-Will, use a standard action to deal 5-18 to anything that isn't a minion, and the monster (DM) has no option to not take that damage. To me, that seems more "automatic."
Obviously open to debate, but I think it's balanced.
The way I have played it is...
1) The Paladin can only have one enemy marked at one time. Use of Divine Challenge initially takes a minor action.
2) The Paladin must make an attack (not necessarily a melee attack) against this marked target, or move into an adjacent square each round in order to maintain the mark. Maintaining a mark is free... unless you count the need to attack (standard action) or move next to (move action) every round.
3) If the enemy uses an attack, which does not include the Paladin, it take 3+CHA radiant damage before rollling for the attack, to which it receives a -2 penalty. If they marked enemy makes multiple attacks, it takes 3+CHA radiant damage the First Time one of its attacks does not target the Paladin*.
4) If they do not maintain the mark, they mark another target or another defender marks the same target... the mark is removed.
* I think this is the most important part, the Paladin's Divine Challenge can only damage a marked target once, so a marked enemy cannot receive mutliple applications of radiant damage in this fashion if they attack other targets with multiple attack powers... they do however still suffer a -2 penalty on all of these multiple attacks.
I think that's pretty straight-forward...
All right then, what if you look at At-Wills? A brand new out-of-the-box Paladin who was focused on taking advantage of it would be able to At-Will set up a conditional situation dealing 8 points of damage, using a minor action to get it going, and then using either standard actions or move actions to engage, or tactical decisions to stay next to the target no matter what. The kicker is that the monster (DM) has all the control over whether or not to make the choice to take that damage. In my opinion, and in practice, it's far from automatic.
Again, if the conditions are met do you have a chance to miss? No? Did you have to roll anything? No. Looks like auto damage to me.
I'm not using automatic meaning you take the damage no matter what. Obviously there are conditions that need to be met. If those conditions are met, then the enemy takes damage with no attack roll and no chance to miss. If it's not auto damage, then what is it? Sort-a-kinda-automatic damage? Automatic damage but not on Tuesdays? Semi-automatic damage?
A first level out-of-the-box fighter with the same amount of focus can, At-Will, use a standard action to deal 5-18 to anything that isn't a minion, and the monster (DM) has no option to not take that damage. To me, that seems more "automatic."
The only thing that functions as automatic damage for a fighter is Reaping Strike and it doesn't do as much damage as Divine Challange. A fighter with an 18 strength would do 2 dmg on a mis (1-H) or 4 damage (2-H). A Paladin with an 18 Cha would do 7 dmg on the challenge, and it goes up by tier (10 dmg at Paragon and 12 dmg at Epic if the Paladin never raises his Cha again). The Reaping Strike miss damage stays static.
Is the damage from Divine Challenge a lot? No, in the grand scheme of things it isn't. It's more then Reaping Strike though. And it gives a -2 to hit if they don't attack you also.
Anyway, the whole point of all this was: one person asked for opinions on why it was the way it was and I threw out the issue of balance as a possibility. Whether or not it's balanced as-is is another subject.
Automatic damage but not on Tuesdays? Semi-automatic damage?
Given the conditional-ness of the situation, I'd say it was probably one of those two. Haha. :D
I don't really understand this whole debate though. Paladin doesn't need to refresh his mark because, for class balance reason, the paladin needs his minor action to heal and use his Channel Divinity. The whole class wouldn't really work if players needed more than 1 minor per turn to actually play out a combat.
The damage is so weak its not a big deal anyway, its arguably the worst mark (Aegis of Assault being the other bad one) That damage is sweet at level 1, but it doesn't scale well at all.
I'm a fan of semi-automatic damage - that's hilarious!
I don't really understand this whole debate though. Paladin doesn't need to refresh his mark because, for class balance reason, the paladin needs his minor action to heal and use his Channel Divinity. The whole class wouldn't really work if players needed more than 1 minor per turn to actually play out a combat.
The damage is so weak its not a big deal anyway, its arguably the worst mark (Aegis of Assault being the other bad one) That damage is sweet at level 1, but it doesn't scale well at all.
Let's see at 11th level a Paladin's Channel Divinity should be doing 11 damage every round in which you are not the subject of an attack. That damage adds up to a lot over time 11, 22, 33, 44, when you factor in what all the other players are doing that extra bit of is huge. I come up with 11 by adding Astral Fire + an 18 Charisma and the damage from Channel Divinity jumps from 3+ to 6+ at that level.
Let's see at 11th level a Paladin's Channel Divinity should be doing 11 damage every round in which you are not the subject of an attack. That damage adds up to a lot over time 11, 22, 33, 44, when you factor in what all the other players are doing that extra bit of is huge. I come up with 11 by adding Astral Fire + an 18 Charisma and the damage from Channel Divinity jumps from 3+ to 6+ at that level.
1) Astral Fire only adds to damage ROLLED. The Paladin's Divine Challenge damage is NOT rolled, so Astral Fire is of not benefit/effect.
2) Yes, at 11th level it becomes 6 + Charisma modifier. Let's consider a Charisma-focused Paladin, with a starting Charisma of 20 after burning most of his points (and having a racial bonus to Charisma). At 11th level, he will have a 23 Charisma, if he adds the 4th & 8th level bumps to Charisma. So that is a +6, so he does 12 points of damage when the challenge damage is provoked.
Now, there are a couple of things to think about, here:
12 points of damage, which is the best case scenario, is something that even a first level monster, other than minions, can easily handle for a round or two. An 11th level monster is going to have more, sometimes many more, hit points.
Using the level list from the Monster Manual, the 11th level creatures have 89A, 86A(L), 276EB, 286EB, 118C, 224EC, 238EC, 117C, 560SL, 83L, 186EL, 1M, 1M, 1M, 116Sk, 108Sk, 110Sk, 108So, 120So, 113So & 224ESo.
Against same-level monsters, other than the three minions, the lowest hit point total is still 83, for the Lurker, which has other advantages making it likely to be attacking (and hitting!) the Paladin in any case.
At level, to be honest, the Divine Challenge damage, other than as a moderate anti-Minion choice, and an ability that, like the other marks, discourages the opponent from going after the soft targets, is not going to be all that and a bag of chips.
12 points of damage, which is the best case scenario, is something that even a first level monster, other than minions, can easily handle for a round or two. An 11th level monster is going to have more, sometimes many more, hit points.
Deciding to ignore the damage that taken from a primary class feature is not a strong tactical idea.
What's a Rogue's damage at Paragon...let's assume the Rogue hits 80% of the time, crits 15% of the time, and somehow magically has combat advantage all the time. The average damage from sneak attack = 13.5*.65+24*.15 = 12.375. That number seems generous - most Rogues won't achieve that kind of percentage due problems confirming CA/hitting and it also means the Rogue has a lousy [w] due to using a dagger.
A Paladin with a starting charisma of 18, raised to 22 by 14th, does 12 hp of damage. So when the monster decides to avoid the Paladin, not only is the Paladin basically matching the class feature damage of the Rogue, but he's also debuffing the monster by imposing a -2 to hit. He's a better striker than the Rogue is...
I would like to point out, that a combat challenge is equally as good due to it's battlefield control opportunities. Whilst not an automatic hit, it's still a different option.
And let's not forget to compare it to the benefit of a defensive swordmage, who doesn't even need to engage the target to keep it's mark up...
I think it's reasonably balanced once you take into account those issues. There must be an incentive to attack the Paladin, otherwise it is useless as a defender.
I think you all are missing a key part in the description of the divine challenge. The challenge does not require a language or any level of intelligence for the target. It is a magical compulsion to attack the paladin. As such, my wonderful DM will not take AoO's or make attacks that do not include my paladin. So with this DM the mark is partially worthless. Now to make things worse, let's say The group is fighting a flier with ranged at-will attacks while making our way up an open stairway area. The paladin marks the flier and then notices that they can not attack the flier that is 15 feet out over the edge of the walkway. He can't attack with his sword and has no ranged powers left. Let's say the paladin does mark something in melee. The target slides 5 ft then flies out 40 feet above the ground an 15 feet from a ledge. Now the paladin, with no remaining ranged powers and no thrown or ranged weapons, can only look on and wonder why he ever choose this lot in life. Or without the cliff like stairwell, the monster marked slides 1 square, moves, and burns an action point to attack the paladin and others. Now the paladin closes to keep his challenge up and the following round get's surrounded and slaughtered by monsters. So really the challenge is a way for the monsters to draw the paladin to his death more than it is a way for the paladin to defend the front lines and keep monsters pinned as a defender should.
The divine challenge should have had a line about when the challenged moves away from the changing paladin they also take the damage. That would at least have made him a defender instead of a victim.
Now the paladin, with no remaining ranged powers and no thrown or ranged weapons, can only look on and wonder why he ever choose this lot in life.
A +1 Javelin costs 360 gp, returns to the Paladin after being thrown, and uses Str to attack...all melee characters at some point should spend a found item slot on a weapon that has ranged or reach capabilities.
If your DM keeps attacking the Paladin, that's good too - Paladins ought to be the best overall defenses character in any given party.
A +1 Javelin costs 360 gp, returns to the Paladin after being thrown, and uses Str to attack...all melee characters at some point should spend a found item slot on a weapon that has ranged or reach capabilities.
If your DM keeps attacking the Paladin, that's good too - Paladins ought to be the best overall defenses character in any given party.
I completely agree that you should buy a thrown magical weapon. The paladin I'm playing is not in LFR but in the first adventure path me and some friends are playing in. With that said, I would have a +1 javelin were it not for the fact that I have not found a single magical weapon and had to spend all I had on a magical long sword and improving my armor.
No, it's not the end all be all... but if you have built yourself around being able to deal that damage often.
People keep forgetting that the point is not to deal damage - but to force a creature to attack YOU.
That is how I play my paladin: as a girl with a big "HIT ME!" sign on her forehead. It doesn't always work - some monsters just take the damage and attack the squishies anyway. It's a calculated risk, but the goal is to draw the monsters. Few DMs I know will find a mere -2 to hit a reason to not attack the weaker defended warlock instead... the paladin needs the damage threat, just like the fighter needs the combat challenge threat, to be a useful defender.
And yes, my pally throws javelins if needed to maintain the challenge - at least until she can get to the critter.
Few DMs I know will find a mere -2 to hit a reason to not attack the weaker defended warlock instead
Consider yourself lucky that your DM has not viewed the following in the way mine has. I think this line has hosed me as far as my DM goes.
PHB: pg91 Divine challenge Special: section
It’s a magical compulsion that affects the creature’s behavior, regardless of the creature’s nature.
This turned into the monster will only attack me, forgoing OA's.
Consider yourself lucky that your DM has not viewed the following in the way mine has. I think this line has hosed me as far as my DM goes.
PHB: pg91 Divine challenge Special: section
It’s a magical compulsion that affects the creature’s behavior, regardless of the creature’s nature.
This turned into the monster will only attack me, forgoing OA's.
Seriously, if your DM plays that way, that's awesome. The point of the challenge is to force the monster to behave in the way you want it to behave. If you know that the monster will always attack you, then you build your Paladin in a way that inflicts the most pain on a monster doing that.
The problem usually is that you can't predict how the monster is going to act and your DM has solved that for you.
(edit: to be specific, that's a real powerup for melee strikers in your party as they can go up to your mark, get a flank, and not worry about opportunity attacks)
Consider yourself lucky that your DM has not viewed the following in the way mine has.
I think you just totally failed to grasp the concept of my Paladin of Tempus...
Gomez