What is Divine Sanction?

47 posts / 0 new
Last post
I just purchased Divine Power and see no reference to Divine Sanction besdies a samm vblurb in the Paladin section. Was it left out? Ir am I just missing something?
I'm guessing it's explained as an alternative Paladin class feature. If I could purchase a searchable PDF... :P

From elsewhere on the internet:
Divine sanction is like DC that doesn't need to be upheld, but still deals 3/6/9+Cha damage when the enemy attacks others. It's a mark that damages. Ardent Vow replaces lay on hands and gives Wis uses of a minor action that gives you 5+Wis extra damage against the target and each hit until end of encounter puts the divine sanction on the target.

Why don't you tell those of us unlucky people who don't have access to DP yet what that blurb says and then maybe we'll tell ya? Hehe :P
It's a special mark. It's not a power in and of itself.
It is that Blurb on that page. Basically, its a mark that has the burn of the Divine Challenge but does not have the engagement clause and has a set duration implied by the power that applies it.

It is not something you choose, it is simply something additional that certain powers (Both attack and a class feature you can substitute for LoH) apply for a set duration.
divine sanction is the new type of power for paladins. in the divine power there are new at-wills and encounters, dailies that will allow you to mark your enemies as part of the attack or the effect of the attack to mark them as your divine sanction. most of them will go away at the end of your next turn.

the effect of the divine sanction is the same effect as your divine challenge. the target gets a -2 to attack and if he attacks someone that's not you, he will get damage equal to 3+your cha mod.

for example lets say there are two goblins (goblin one, goblin two). you as a paladin can divine challenge goblin one, and with one of the new at-wills you can divine sanction the other. so now both will had a -2 to attack and will get 3+cha mod if they att someone that's not you.

it's made so the paladin can effect more than just one bad guy on the field. there is a new feat on heoric teir feat that you can add your str mod as extra damage to your divine challenge....but your divine sanction is always cha mod. i hope this helps.
check out my EDH blog that I started with my friends - DEADLYRECLUSE.COM
divine sanction is the new type of power for paladins. in the divine power there are new at-wills and encounters, dailies that will allow you to mark your enemies as part of the attack or the effect of the attack to mark them as your divine sanction. most of them will go away at the end of your next turn.

the effect of the divine sanction is the same effect as your divine challenge. the target gets a -2 to attack and if he attacks someone that's not you, he will get damage equal to 3+your cha mod.

for example lets say there are two goblins (goblin one, goblin two). you as a paladin can divine challenge goblin one, and with one of the new at-wills you can divine sanction the other. so now both will had a -2 to attack and will get 3+cha mod if they att someone that's not you.

it's made so the paladin can effect more than just one bad guy on the field. there is a new feat on heoric teir feat that you can add your str mod as extra damage to your divine challenge....but your divine sanction is always cha mod. i hope this helps.

Of course, just as strength tries to become a viable defender, charisma paladins get new stuff.
i understand how you feel. but there are encounter powers that say you can use either str or cha when making the attack. looking through divine power it seems to me if you're going to be a cha based paladin you're going to be more of a controller on the field since there are alot of burst and area attack that let you divine sanction all bad guys.

while if you're going str paladin you're more of a one-on-one type of defender. going toe to toe with the biggest guy in the room. but yeah it's starting to look like why be anything else but a cha based pally
check out my EDH blog that I started with my friends - DEADLYRECLUSE.COM
but yeah it's starting to look like why be anything else but a cha based pally

Starting to look like that?!?!?!

This is the first time I've heard people talk excitedly about straladins since just after 4.0th ed came out.
In the most recent podcast, the Dev's said they recognized they went overboard with Paladin's being TOO much one-on-one.

They also said they liked the dual-main-stat classes for being able to double the effective races that would be good for them....

But it looks like they completely missed the point that STRENGTH paladins needed the help, not Charisma paladins.
Planes Wanderer
A quick "just checking" question for anyone that has the book:

Does anything in the divine sanction blurb (or its context within the book) suggest that only paladins can use divine sanction? Obviously you need an appropriate power (e.g. ardent strike) to be able to apply a divine sanction, but does anything suggest that a wizard, say, who had multiclassed into paladin and picked up a paladin power that applied "your divine sanction" would not be able to actually do it?

There's been some discussion of this on other threads but I was looking for some convergence of opinion :P
as far as i can tell, divine sanction is an add-on much like invigorating is an add-on to fighter powers. even if you M.C. fighter if you hit with an attack that has the keyword invigorating you still get temp HP equal to your con mod.

the same is with divine sanction. as long as the describtion of the power says as a result of the attack the enemy is now under your divine sanction than the enemy has your divine sanction. i don't see any problem with a class that M.C. paladin won't be able to do so.

the only thing i can think of why the game developers did this, is to make a defender that relies on something other than strength. it's starting to look like if you want a defender heavy in str pick warden or fighter, if you want a defender heavy in int pick swordmage, and if you want a defender heavy in cha go paladin.

looks like str based paladins are an endangered species.
check out my EDH blog that I started with my friends - DEADLYRECLUSE.COM
At least str paladins can get some love from their divine challenge with that new feat adding str to the damage... but yeah, what a pity that feat does not also apply str to divine sanction damage. Maybe something for errata, WotC? ... PS - I havent' actually read DP yet, just going off forum spoilers.
Always surprises me how they can be so inconsistent in their designs and so consistent in their mistakes. Its obvious to anyone that made a V type character (paladin/cleric/warlock for example) that you lose more options then gain. The paladin though is the worst because only one of the builds cha, not str, is actually supported by the class features. This is truly a mistake on their part and the problem more than anything else was in their attempt to remove the stat penalties and give every race bonuses to stat they made it so class is incredibly important for picking your race. Sure you could play a dragonborn swordmage, but the penalties you take for doing so compared to an genasi or githyanki are huge.
I've had an opportunity to flip through my copy of the book and check out the updated paladin features. I don't think Strength paladins have it anywhere near as bad as some of you are suggesting. The problem they had before was that you couldn't select Strength powers at every level. That is no longer an issue.

Divine Sanction greatly increases the defending ability of the paladin. Boosting Divine Sanction's damage with the new Mighty Challenge feat (if I remember the name correctly) would be nice, but I don't feel it's a hindrance to strength-based paladins to not get that boost.

Overall, it's a great time to play a paladin. They are no longer the redheaded stepchild of the defender family, no matter what the form.
I've had an opportunity to flip through my copy of the book and check out the updated paladin features. I don't think Strength paladins have it anywhere near as bad as some of you are suggesting. The problem they had before was that you couldn't select Strength powers at every level. That is no longer an issue.

Divine Sanction greatly increases the defending ability of the paladin. Boosting Divine Sanction's damage with the new Mighty Challenge feat (if I remember the name correctly) would be nice, but I don't feel it's a hindrance to strength-based paladins to not get that boost.

Overall, it's a great time to play a paladin. They are no longer the redheaded stepchild of the defender family, no matter what the form.

Nice to hear. I'm going with a Warforged Paladin next time unless the Dragonborn can mark with their breath weapon as I have seen in rumors. Anyone care to comment on that breath weapon mark?
Nice to hear. I'm going with a Warforged Paladin next time unless the Dragonborn can mark with their breath weapon as I have seen in rumors. Anyone care to comment on that breath weapon mark?

Yes, there is a feat to place enemies hit by your dragon breath under divine sanction. MC to Cleric to get another dragon breath feat so that it will only target enemies.
Also, for Strength Paladins, your Weapon powers are pretty high damage (there's a 3[W] Encounter one at level 1, and a 4[w] daily at level 1).

There are now 2 or 3 seemingly viable STR powers at each "attack" level. I don't think the STR paladin is weak any longer. It may not be the best build for paladin, but I think it is much more "competitive".
Also, for Strength Paladins, your Weapon powers are pretty high damage (there's a 3[W] Encounter one at level 1, and a 4[w] daily at level 1).

There are now 2 or 3 seemingly viable STR powers at each "attack" level. I don't think the STR paladin is weak any longer. It may not be the best build for paladin, but I think it is much more "competitive".

meh, I never thought str paladins sucked. str/wis pallies that mc into fighter for the pit fighter pp do very well, especially when using holy strike on a marked target. I'm playing one right now, and I rock face. i do great damage, i have high defences/ac, and I can heal myself and others.

I also chose longtooth shifter for stat optimization, since they get plus 2 to str and wis.

sooo I'll be even happier once i get my mitts on divine power.
I find playing my dwarf str/wis paladin effective enough as a defender/striker (with a dash of leader), but am glad divine power introduces more options. The problem with a str paladin is they get a bit boring after a while. New powers to choose from = awesome. Although I suspect at the end of the day, I'll end up multiclassing him with cleric or invoker, for a few cool and unlikely abilities....
The problem I have with Divine Sanction is that you always have to apply it. You get no option to not apply it. I find that this is pretty limiting if there is another defender. You pretty much always override their marks which isn't a good idea sometimes. Sometimes you want the other defender to mark some targets and you mark others.
<\ \>tuntman
I find playing my dwarf str/wis paladin effective enough as a defender/striker (with a dash of leader), but am glad divine power introduces more options. The problem with a str paladin is they get a bit boring after a while. New powers to choose from = awesome. Although I suspect at the end of the day, I'll end up multiclassing him with cleric or invoker, for a few cool and unlikely abilities....

Yeah having a pally summon angels and floating holy swords (from multiclassing with invoker) has some nice flavor to it.
The problem I have with Divine Sanction is that you always have to apply it. You get no option to not apply it. I find that this is pretty limiting if there is another defender. You pretty much always override their marks which isn't a good idea sometimes. Sometimes you want the other defender to mark some targets and you mark others.

Since Divine Sanction is tied to special attacks (e. g. Ardent Strike) and these are not the only ones you know, there are still possibilities to not override other marks.

IMAGE(http://www.wizards.com/magic/images/whatcolor_iswhite.jpg)

Right on Seradane, THAT would be COOL
Since Divine Sanction is tied to special attacks (e. g. Ardent Strike) and these are not the only ones you know, there are still possibilities to not override other marks.

Some powers make it difficult not to override marks. There is a first level daily power that places the DS on all adjacent enemies every round until the end of the encounter. With this power, it makes it difficult to allow another defender mark a target if the paladin is surrounded by multiple enemies. If another defender marks a target adjacent to the paladin, the paladin will automatically override the mark on the paladin's turn.
<\ \>tuntman
What about a Half-elf *anything* taking the new Paladin at-will Ardent Vow, which allows you to apply your devine sanction to the target ... how would that work?

Since my half-elf is *not* a Paladin and isn't multiclassed into Paladin, can I still apply divine sanction from Ardent Vow?
What about a Half-elf *anything* taking the new Paladin at-will Ardent Vow, which allows you to apply your devine sanction to the target ... how would that work?

Since my half-elf is *not* a Paladin and isn't multiclassed into Paladin, can I still apply divine sanction from Ardent Vow?

Nothing about Divine Sanction says you have to be a paladin to use it.
Also worth noting, in the balance between chaladins and straladins - strength-based paladins get far easier access to weapon feats. So now you have a choice. You can go chaladin, spend a feat that gives you a cha-based MBA, take feats and powers that throw down divine sanctions, and do the multimark thing, or you can be a strength paladin, spend a feat making your divine challenge damage strength-boosted, and take weapon feats. The charisma paladin has a bit more controller and a bit more leader, while the strength paladin gets a bit more straightforward striker.

Remember, divine sanction is an option. Everything you can get that throws out a divine sanction is one option slot (feat or power) that you didn't spend elsewhere. If you're a build that takes advantage of sanctions (ie, dedicated chaladin) then it's quite nice. If you're a build that finds them underwhelming (ie, dedicated straladin) then you spend your options elsewhere.

Also worth noting that the straladin has two base NADs - str and wis. The chaladin has only one..
The problem I have with Divine Sanction is that you always have to apply it. You get no option to not apply it. I find that this is pretty limiting if there is another defender. You pretty much always override their marks which isn't a good idea sometimes. Sometimes you want the other defender to mark some targets and you mark others.

It's not just limiting to another defender. You limit yourself if you are a Str/Wis paladin focused on striking (Ardent Vow). Why?

Divine Sanction, like all other marks, overrides the mark already on the target - including your own Divine Challenge. Not only does it override the DC, it's much crappier than your DC, because it doesn't get Str to the damage dealt.

Big deal, right? Just take powers that don't rely on divine sanction.

Except you have a class feature that imposes it every time you hit the target you use it against! Whenever you hit an Ardent Vow target, you impose your sanction on them. Now, you have three options:

1) Stick with the ineffectual (due to lack of Cha) divine sanction.
2) Spend a minor action every round after you attack to renew the DC.
3) Avoid using Ardent Vow on the target of your DC.

As the third option showcases, the new Ardent Vow power competes with Divine Challenge. The Strength paladin now has conflicting class features. If they want to focus all their attention (both offensive and defensive) on a single target (which seems pretty paladin-y to me), they must either pay an action tax, settle for a practically useless mark, or sacrifice part of their strikery aspect by taking lay on hands or call of virtue (removing access to a few cool PP's).

I see one of two fixes:

1) Including a clause that Divine Sanction does not override DC.
2) Fixing Mighty Challenge so it applies to both DC and DS.
You forgot #3 of your fixes:

3) Minor action, divine challenge one enemy adjacent to you, standard action, attack another target with Ardent Vow.

Divine Sanction is meant to complement Divine Challenge, in that you can maintain the Divine Challege on one target and divine sanction on another (through any number of attacks and feat option.)

Also, the fact that your divine sanction is not limited in the same way as Divine Challenge (if you don't maintain it, you can't use it again until your *second* turn after this one,) instead requiring nothing more than attacking with a specific power or having a specific feat.

Also, unless the power says "You *must* apply your divine sanction to the target" or something along those lines, there is nothing in the rules that says that you cannot ignore rider effects. Sure, it's usually to your benefit to allow those rider effects, but you can ignore them, if you so choose. So, feel free to use Ardent Vow and just don't apply divine sanction to the target. Nothing is stopping you from gimping yourself in that way.
While as I stated before, using Ardent Vow and DC against separate targets is a viable option, it means that you're not focusing your offense and defense on the same enemy. As a strikery paladin, you would presumably want to focus on one foe, and DCing a different target so it doesn't interfere with your Vow would seem slightly strange fluff wise (not challenging the enemy you've vowed to defeat? a little non-paladin-y).

Then again, the character I'm envisioning is the type of paladin who would stay away from divine sanction in general. The only issue I have is that DS is built right into the Ardent Vow class feature, which also happens to be the feature most fitting for the character.

I think I'll take the last route you suggested, and ignore the DS rider when fighting the target of my DC. I suppose it's always possible to opt out of an effect if you don't want to apply it.
Remember, you get TWO at-will attacks at level 1. This means its beneficial to take an attack which can cause Divine Sanction, and one which doesn't.

Personally, I am going with Ardent Strike for moments when I need to control a second target, and Holy Strike for my main source of damage to targets marked with DC.

Basically if given the opportunity and two monsters remain adjacent to each other (such as phalanx options available to it), I can DC one, and DS the other with Ardent Strike. Keep your focus on the DS target until it goes down, and the DC will remain in effect throughout on the secondary target. Two targets essentially locked down. Switch to Holy Strike to take down the DC'd target, or use Ardent Strike if there are additional adjacent targets.
the effect of the divine sanction is the same effect as your divine challenge. the target gets a -2 to attack and if he attacks someone that's not you, he will get damage equal to 3+your cha mod.

Sorry but where is said that divine sanction give penalty to atack?
Divine chalenge, warden's chalenge adn fighter' chalenge get this information
Sorry but where is said that divine sanction give penalty to atack?
Divine chalenge, warden's chalenge adn fighter' chalenge get this information

I don't have the Divine Power book (yet), but isn't Divine Sanction a mark like any other (with a -2 to attack other targets)?
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the -2 to hit anyone except your marker is the basic consequence of the Marked condition.
From the PHB:
MARKED
✦ You take a –2 penalty to attack rolls for any attack
that doesn’t target the creature that marked you.

Also, unless the power says "You *must* apply your divine sanction to the target" or something along those lines, there is nothing in the rules that says that you cannot ignore rider effects. Sure, it's usually to your benefit to allow those rider effects, but you can ignore them, if you so choose. So, feel free to use Ardent Vow and just don't apply divine sanction to the target. Nothing is stopping you from gimping yourself in that way.

This sounds like a reasonable interpretation of the rules. Is there any specific ruling or rule in the books that say applying these effects are optional? I know that if you use Tide of Iron for example, there is a push effect, but you can choose to not push or push 0 squares. I also know that secondary attacks are optional like those resulting from Chaos Bolt. There was an official ruling for secondary attacks that say that the attack is optional. I do not recall seeing anything regarding other effects like Divine Sanction.
<\ \>tuntman
Note: Italicization added for emphasis

Most of the time if something is labeled "x is y", then it does happen, regardless of choice. The Healing Strike power for the cleric states '[...] and the target is marked until the end of your next turn." This would not be intended to be an optional mark, or why have it? What cleric WANTS to mark something? After all, that only gives him or her even more incentive to be attacked by what it just marked.

With this in mind, the Paladin Divine Sanction-based powers state "the target is subject to Divine Sanction[...]" and I would be inclined to say it is not optional based on the wording of the power.
the effect of the divine sanction is the same effect as your divine challenge. the target gets a -2 to attack and if he attacks someone that's not you, he will get damage equal to 3+your cha mod.

Hold on...I don't see in the book where it says that a Divine Sanction imposes a -2 to Hit if the mob is hitting someone other than the paladin.

I thought Divine Challenge gives the -2 and some radiant damage to a mob that ignores the Paladin.


And Divine Sanction simply gives damage to the mob that ignores the paladin.


Also...do they stack? I don't believe they do. You can't have Sanction and Challenge on one mob right?
Note: Italicization added for emphasis

Most of the time if something is labeled "x is y", then it does happen, regardless of choice. The Healing Strike power for the cleric states '[...] and the target is marked until the end of your next turn." This would not be intended to be an optional mark, or why have it? What cleric WANTS to mark something? After all, that only gives him or her even more incentive to be attacked by what it just marked.

With this in mind, the Paladin Divine Sanction-based powers state "the target is subject to Divine Sanction[...]" and I would be inclined to say it is not optional based on the wording of the power.

I would assume (I know, dangerous practice) that this would fall under the same type of idea as powers such as Overwhelming Strike, which reads as "You shift...", though we know that the shift and the forced-shift of the target are not mandatory, and are at the discretion of the user of Overwhelming Strike.

Of course, we know this because of text in the PHB. Still, it stands to reason that the developers wouldn't rule or intend that a character would be forced to overwrite their own DC with DS if they hit them with Ardent Vow ridden attacks or even Ardent Strike.
I agree that is usually the case. My only concern (whether it ends up being valid or not is another question, heh) is the idea of a squishy leader class being "forced" to mark as the result of a power.

I'm in two games at the moment, one being a Paladin and one being a Cleric. I would love to be able to choose not to mark with Healing Strike, but it seems as though it is not intended to be an option in this case. A sort of "consequence" of using the power is that you have no choice but to mark for a turn. Because of this, and since the wording is nearly identical, I am hesitant to say that unless it is strictly permitted as optional (such as it is with "standard" marks), it is automatic - a consequence of using the power to attack, as it were.

I say consequence of the attack because its something which causes the PC "harm" (in this case, the PC is more likely to be attacked by the creature, rather than a mechanical or status penalty). Now, admittedly that is the main purpose of the defender, but it is still a condition which is not to the PC's advantage. Though I do admit it is to the group-as-a-whole's advantage.