Smite Evil wording

[Lifat]

yumad wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

yumad wrote:

What the supposed English majors in this thread (Faelyn, Jiggy) seem to be implying is that there is an implied subject.

Let's examine this a little more closely.

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all [her] damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

The supposed implication is bolded. This is not correct. The only way that there would be implied ownership to the damage roll portion of the sentence is if the original was worded as such:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

Note the omission of all, which is the explicit wording of whose damage rolls they are, which would make the first correction and implication true.

If you are going to try to correct people's english, actually be right.

You're confusing your own stylistic choice vs. actual rules.

I wouldn't hire you as an editor (and I use editors so I don't have to worry about it, as you can tell from most of my posts which use incorrect English).

If you are going to try to correct people's English, try to actually be right and don't be one of those pains who think they know English, only to try to impose their writing style on everyone else.

For example...

"I closed the book and put it on the table."

I am the only subject. It is implied I both closed the book and that I also put it on the table.

As the subject of the sentence, I am implied to be the subject of both actions.

There is no other subject defined in the sentence. There is no other subject defined in the paragraph.

If it said...

The family asked me to put the book on the table. I closed the book and it was put on the table."

That could imply the family or I, as another subject has been defined.

Then again, I normally use terrible English so don't correct

...

I don't see how you can use Swift's way of looking at the sentence as evidence for other people being wrong in how they look at it, unless Swift is some kind of authority on grammar.

And you previously dismissed a FAQ that stated the effect of smite was on the paladin and said it didn't matter, yet you dismissed someone elses example with power attack because it was a personal buff. You can't have it both ways. Either power attack affects everyone same as the smite thing or neither of them affect everyone.

[Pink Dragon]

This discussion is very interesting and has many implications for the Smite Evil ability. Let's break it down.

Smite Evil (Su):

"Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil."

RAW states "call out". Since the paladin has to call out, does she have to be able to verbalize something? Can mute paladins actually do smite evil?

"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite."

Within whose sight? The sentence doesn't actually specify that the target has to be within sight of the paladin. Can the target be within sight of the paladin's compatriots for the paladin to make the "call"? Can the target be within sight of the target's henchmen for the paladin to make the call? And if the target is invisible, or the paladin blind, can the paladin even make the call, since the target must be within sight?

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

The sentence that started it all. I do think I need to add more here.

"If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses."

The first successful attack on what? Nothing is specified. Why should it be implied that the attack is against the outsider with the evil subtype, the evil-aligned dragon, or the undead creature when the sentence clearly does not specify that the first successful attack is against such.

"Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."

If the damage of smite evil applies to all damage done to the target, then everyone's attacks on the target must also bypass the target's DR.

"In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."

I'm getting tired of twisting wording around so I will go on to the next one, the most important one of all!

"The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability."

So if a paladin used the smite evil on a target, as long as the target is alive the smite evil is in effect. There is nothing in this sentence that indicates that the smite evil ends, except when "the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability". So if the paladin never rests and never regains the use of the ability, the smite evil remains in effect forever. So if the target of smite evil kills the paladin, the paladin's smite evil remains in effect on that target forever. After all, RAW does not state that the smite evil ends when the paladin is killed. Further, if the paladin is killed while the smite evil is in effect and since all damage done to the target has a bonus equal to the paladin's level, every successful attack on the target will enjoy that bonus -- forever!

"At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table 3–11, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level."

And high level paladins can use smite evil on multiple targets in one day and everyone gets to add the paladin's level to damage on all those targets, as well as bypass the targets' DR. And this would be forever if the paladin dies before resting and regaining the use of the ability!

Thank you yumad for opening a wealth of possibilities about smite evil!

[Sara Marie]

Removed some posts. Stay civil.

[thebigragu]

Pink Dragon wrote:

This discussion is very interesting and has many implications for the Smite Evil ability.

I'd say the discussion is mostly absurd and the implications are as they ever were. Once it's clear that Smite Evil is an ability centered on the paladin rather than the target, any pretense that the wording is vague can be dropped.

[Pink Dragon]

Precisely! Well said thebigragu!

[Pink Dragon]

Just to be clear, since satire doesn't translate well in print, my previous post was to illustrate how wording can always be taken out of context and parsed to produce a meaning that has no basis in reasonableness.

There is no such thing as playing by RAW. There is only playing by the interpretation that readers put on the words that are written, the interpretation being in accordance with developer intent or not.

[Thymus Vulgaris]

yumad wrote:

See THIS is helpful. I like you.

This is helpful for people who are looking for the intended use.

The sentence structure, as outlined by Swift016 very clearly (wrekt), states that all damage rolls gain the damage bonus. It doesn't matter if the effect is something on the paladin, it has no stated range limit, target limit and most importantly, does not state the paladin as the explicit recipient for the damage roll bonus.

Edit: You're too fast for me! I returned the original post so yours isn't out of context.

I am sad to see that you changed your opinion. Lifat is right, though. You cannot dismiss power attack as an argument for being a personal buff and at the same time say that it is irrelevant to your misinterpretation that smite evil is a personal buff.

Either way, regarding the last part that you originally bolded ("smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess"), what makes you think that anyone without the smite evil class feature can make a "smite evil attack"?

yumad wrote:

See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.

That sentence analysis was neglectful as "the target" is not the only subject of the sentence.

I'm taking this in slightly larger chunks rather than pointing out every single conjunction to keep things clearer:
If(conditional)
this target(subject)
is evil(predicate)
the paladin(subject)
adds(predicate)
her Cha bonus(object) (if any)
to her attack rolls(indirect object)
and adds(predicate)
her paladin level(object)
to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.(indirect object)

We have three predicates and two subjects, not one. The latter two predicates refer to the paladin.

Edit for clarification of intent: So if Swift016's analysis was incorrect (failing to identify the second subject), how does that qualify him/her as "clearly the only person that does know something of the English language" (paraphrased)?

[DarkKnight27]

yumad wrote:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess."

Now I am aware that the intent of smite evil was likely only to apply to the paladin, but with the wording the way it is the RAW interpretation is that any damage roll against a smote target gets the paladin's level in damage and bypasses DR. This is outrageously strong and how we have been using it in my campaign (I am the paladin). Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.

Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording

So I've emphasized the first sentence;

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

This ENTIRE sentence refers to the the Paladin (only) who has smote an evil creature. There's no wiggle room here and no need for anyone to FAQ it. It refers to "her" (a.k.a. The Paladin) four separate times in the above sentence and can only be misconstrued if you try to misrepresent what it says by separating out a single sentence into different sentences that don't exist.

[Thymus Vulgaris]

ZOMG GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING!!!

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

[DarkKnight27]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

ZOMG GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING!!!

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

lol, yeah that's about the sum of it.

[yumad]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

yumad wrote:

See THIS is helpful. I like you.

This is helpful for people who are looking for the intended use.

The sentence structure, as outlined by Swift016 very clearly (wrekt), states that all damage rolls gain the damage bonus. It doesn't matter if the effect is something on the paladin, it has no stated range limit, target limit and most importantly, does not state the paladin as the explicit recipient for the damage roll bonus.

Edit: You're too fast for me! I returned the original post so yours isn't out of context.

I am sad to see that you changed your opinion. Lifat is right, though. You cannot dismiss power attack as an argument for being a personal buff and at the same time say that it is irrelevant to your misinterpretation that smite evil is a personal buff.

Either way, regarding the last part that you originally bolded ("smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess"), what makes you think that anyone without the smite evil class feature can make a "smite evil attack"?

yumad wrote:

See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.

That sentence analysis was neglectful as "the target" is not the only subject of the sentence.

I'm taking this in slightly larger chunks rather than pointing out every single conjunction to keep things clearer:
If(conditional)
this target(subject)
is evil(predicate)
the paladin(subject)
adds(predicate)
her Cha bonus(object) (if any)
to her attack rolls(indirect object)
and adds(predicate)
her paladin level(object)
to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.(indirect object)

We have three predicates and two subjects, not one. The latter two predicates refer to the paladin.

Edit for clarification of intent: So if Swift016's analysis was incorrect (failing to identify the second subject), how does that qualify him/her as "clearly the only person...

You are now* one of only two people that have actually went out of their way to break down the sentence into its components, correct or not for either you I cannot tell, though I am amused that someone in this thread thought that this was taught at a third grade level.

The indirect object is not intrinsically tied to the direct object that is associated with it, right? Would that not mean all damage rolls is indeed all of them, not all rolls associated with the direct object associated with the subject? Grammar is hard.

You are correct in that if smite evil is a personal buff and the FAQ does state it is then smite evil is intended to be a personal effect on the paladin then I concede that the power attack example is a good one. The wording on Warding had me thinking that smite evil had a component that affected the target as well.

*Edlited for clarity.

[Swift016]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

No.

Smite wrote:

If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

Uses her, then omits the possessive and simply says "all". The way that the target of the bonuses is indicated changes wording in very deliberate fashion. The sentence is also made up of two separate phrases.

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

This not only says "the inquisitor" and nothing else, but the fluff text (the inquisitor is spurred) very clearly indicates that the inquisitor alone is spurred.

2/10 please see me after class.

[Scavion]

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

ZOMG GUYS, I JUST DISCOVERED SOMETHING!!!

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

There is a difference however.

One is the interpretation that smite acts more like a debuff on the foe rather than a buff on the Paladin.

To further this interpretation it mentions only adding her charisma bonus to her attacks. In regards to her attack rolls it specifically mentions that it only applies to her attack rolls, yet when we get to damage rolls it says ALL damage rolls made against the target.

[Pink Dragon]

@ Swift016

Your interpretation is overly literal and leads to a result that that way overbalances the smite ability. Smite Evil is already powerful enough for the paladin alone, but to extend it to everyone around the paladin and everyone who will ever fight the target of the paladin's smite evil ability is simply beyond the pale.

The same can be said for the Inquisitor judgment ability.

Being in the legal profession, I can understand the desire for absolute clarity in language, but absolute clarity in language does not exist. That is why there are principles of equity that underlie all law. It is simply not equitable in the game to interpret the rules on Smite Evil (and Judgment) in the way you suggest.

[Swift016]

Pink Dragon wrote:

@ Swift016

Your interpretation is overly literal and leads to a result that that way overbalances the smite ability. Smite Evil is already powerful enough for the paladin alone, but to extend it to everyone around the paladin and everyone who will ever fight the target of the paladin's smite evil ability is simply beyond the pale.

The same can be said for the Inquisitor judgment ability.

Being in the legal profession, I can understand the desire for absolute clarity in language, but absolute clarity in language does not exist. That is why there are principles of equity that underlie all law. It is simply not equitable in the game to interpret the rules on Smite Evil (and Judgment) in the way you suggest.

There is no interpretation. It's simply correct reading.

As I stated before, the purpose of this thread was not the argue smite mechanics because the original poster clearly said that he knew how it worked.

But alas, thread mentions A, asks a question about B, but the Paizo monkeys want to fling their feces about A instead. Typical.

[Thymus Vulgaris]

Swift016 wrote:

Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

The inquisitor's judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. There is no specified target and no range, which means that all attack rolls in the world receive this bonus for as long as the inquisitor is in combat. Isn't that amazing!?

</sarcasm>

No.

Smite wrote:

If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

Uses her, then omits the possessive and simply says "all". The way that the target of the bonuses is indicated changes wording in very deliberate fashion. The sentence is also made up of two separate phrases.

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

This not only says "the inquisitor" and nothing else, but the fluff text (the inquisitor is spurred) very clearly indicates that the inquisitor alone is spurred.

2/10 please see me after class.

Smite Evil wrote:

Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. [...] If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

And the fluff text that the paladin calls out to the powers of good to aid her doesn't spell out that the paladin, not her allies, are aided? Purely based on what has been quoted above in this very post, arguing that either ability applies only to the one activating it is a matter of RAI and not RAW.

Judgment wrote:

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

By spurring the inquisitor to seek justice, the judgment grants a +1 sacred bonus on ALL attack rolls. It doesn't specify the inquisitor or anyone else, just like when the Paladin's smite evil leaves it out.

Based on these quotes, the interpretation that either ability applies to everyone is just as valid as the other.

Now, the key to dismissing my b$!*%@&* is to look to the place where it says that "Starting when the judgment is made, the inquisitor receives a bonus or special ability based on the type of judgment made."
The key to dismissing the OP's "problem" is to look to the FAQ that states that "Smite [...] is an effect on the paladin."