A paladin Smite evil is applicable to spell damage?


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Majuba wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?

If you're not making an attack roll, you're not dealing smite damage.

As a background, Smite used to apply only to a "normal melee attack", in 3.5. Obviously that's changed to include ranged, but there are several parts of the current ability that make it very clear it's talking about weapon attacks (which generally get extended to spells with attack rolls).

  • It says "attack rolls... and... damage rolls"
  • It says the attacks bypass DR
  • It talks about a "successful attack"

    If you want to smite with a fireball, create a custom metamagic feat.

  • It's nice that you feel that way, but the ability says "all damage rolls". You COULD take it out of context by negating the "all" to make it fit, but as written Smite Evil applies to ALL damage rolls, and damage rolls from a spell are still damage rolls.


    ryric wrote:

    An easy way to pull off this trick is to use Aura of Justice on your blaster sorcerer ally.

    It's slightly less nice on a non-Cha based caster.

    Aura of Justice uses the paladin's cha and level I believe, so everyone gets the hook up.

    Sovereign Court

    Davor wrote:

    It's every damage roll, so yup, every time you roll for damage, including damage caused by DoT effects. That's how I'd rule it, anyways.

    The only exception, I think, would be damage for catching on fire and bleed damage, as that damage isn't a part of the damage the Paladin deals, it's a secondary effect with a (typically) fixed amount of damage rolled by the creature. But that's a little iffy, so /shrug.

    Majuba wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?

    If you're not making an attack roll, you're not dealing smite damage.

    As a background, Smite used to apply only to a "normal melee attack", in 3.5. Obviously that's changed to include ranged, but there are several parts of the current ability that make it very clear it's talking about weapon attacks (which generally get extended to spells with attack rolls).

  • It says "attack rolls... and... damage rolls"
  • It says the attacks bypass DR
  • It talks about a "successful attack"

    If you want to smite with a fireball, create a custom metamagic feat.

  • It's so nice that everyone agrees on the "obvious" interpretation.

    Sovereign Court

    Anyway, supposing that you think the "afterburn" of Acid Arrow also get Smite damage.

    If the arrow was your first attack against an evil dragon, would the afterburn also get double smite damage?

    Smite Evil wrote:
    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.

    Is the afterburn still a part of the first successful attack?


    Ascalaphus wrote:

    Anyway, supposing that you think the "afterburn" of Acid Arrow also get Smite damage.

    If the arrow was your first attack against an evil dragon, would the afterburn also get double smite damage?

    Smite Evil wrote:
    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.
    Is the afterburn still a part of the first successful attack?

    Spells are attacks so yes though it would prevent you from dealing the increased damage for the rest of your attacks.

    It's strong but unlikely to create some new meta. Paladins kill evil stuff quick. It's not news.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Majuba wrote:
    Ascalaphus wrote:
    What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?

    If you're not making an attack roll, you're not dealing smite damage.

    As a background, Smite used to apply only to a "normal melee attack", in 3.5. Obviously that's changed to include ranged, but there are several parts of the current ability that make it very clear it's talking about weapon attacks (which generally get extended to spells with attack rolls).

  • It says "attack rolls... and... damage rolls"
  • It says the attacks bypass DR
  • It talks about a "successful attack"

    If you want to smite with a fireball, create a custom metamagic feat.

  • An authoritative tone isn't enough. Your bullet points are not persuasive. Got anything else?


    I find this incredibly interesting as I'm going to be playing in a gestalt campaign as a Words of Power Crossblooded Sorcerer/Oath of Vengeance Paladin.

    At level 10, with magical lineage, I'll be able to do an intensified lengthy corrosive bolt for 10d4+10 each round for four rounds, and then swift in a litany of righteousness to double it (I could probably swift in a litany every round). 10d4+30 each round if I went dual damage dice bloodlines.

    Thanks for this topic, and I hope it gets the FAQ it deserves.

    Silver Crusade

    This is a very, very interesting thread for Paladins like me who can cast scorching ray...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I think this thread has identified a lot of edge cases it would be good to get clarification on:

    1. AoE attacks with instantaneous duration (e.g. fireball)
    2. Targeted instantaneous spells with multiple damage packets (e.g. magic missile) with or without a to hit roll (e.g. scorching ray)
    3. Multi-round spells with multiple damage packets (produce flame, call lightning, flaming sphere) requiring additional actions
    4. Multi-round spells with multiple damage packets that auto-damage (e.g. acid arrow)
    5. Continuous effects (e.g. wall of fire)
    6. Any difference in summoning vs. evocation damage spells (e.g. acid splash vs. ray of frost)?
    7. Boost to summoned creatures by the paladin against smite target?
    8. Any difference in item-created effects vs. inherent spells?
    9. Pre-set spells, such as glyphs?
    10. Attack roll needed?
    11. If it applies to spells, do they get around DR, or elemental resistance (unlikely)?
    12. Spiritual weapon spell?
    13. Adds to offensive channel?
    14. Adds to offensive lay on hands?
    15. SLAs vs. spells vs. EX vs. SU abilities?
    16. Add to passive damage done to smite target (e.g. fire shield, or from body spike abilities)
    17. Preset traps (e.g. trap ranger levels - unlikely)?
    18. Manyshot vs. rapid shot?
    19. Bonus to attack if the smite target is your second cleave target, whirlwind strike or from triggered attacks such as Cleaving finish? (this ones probably easy)
    20. Bonus on an attack with 'carrier damage' such as unarmed strike with shocking grasp, or spellstrike - does it apply to weapon and spell, or just once? Flaming weapons?
    21. Spells dealing ability score damage?
    22. Offensive spells dealing no damage? (probably easy)

    Anything else?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm not sure about how the rules will fall with Magic Missile and Smite Evil. However, for those who think it wouldn't be a big deal if it applied to each missile, since it's hard to make a Paladin who is good at both... please remember that it's not at all hard to make a Paladin who is good at UMD.

    9th level magic missile wand would be, what, 6750gp? For 50 charges, each of which does 5d4+5+5xPaladin level in damage?


    Lenthalia wrote:

    I'm not sure about how the rules will fall with Magic Missile and Smite Evil. However, for those who think it wouldn't be a big deal if it applied to each missile, since it's hard to make a Paladin who is good at both... please remember that it's not at all hard to make a Paladin who is good at UMD.

    9th level magic missile wand would be, what, 6750gp? For 50 charges, each of which does 5d4+5+5xPaladin level in damage?

    That caps out at 112.5 average damage (level 20). 67.5 average damage at level 11. I can see the issue since it's auto-hit, but the damage isn't that impressive and several basic spells/items can counter magic missile. With a nice 2-hander and power attack, or a bow with deadly aim/rapid shot/many shot, you should be able to do more damage on average if I'm not mistaken, especially with Divine Bond included.

    So I don't think it's a big deal, since there don't seem to be a lot of options to increase the damage of this combination, preventing it from outpacing more standard approaches, and magic missile is easily nullified.


    72.5 damage at level 11, though that's admittedly a minor difference. Whether it actually does more than just attacking would depend, as you say, on AC.

    What's not minor, it seems to me, is that we're talking about a standard action.

    EDIT: Also note that this would not require much investment for the Paladin build; at most a trait to get UMD as a class skill. Thus, we're not talking about an archer paladin versus a magic missile paladin, but about an archer paladin who also has a wand of magic missile.

    EDIT2: It's actually even better for a melee paladin, who can use it when he couldn't otherwise get a full attack against the smite target; it clearly outstrips a single melee attack by a significant margin.


    Class abilities, feats, etc can't be added to spell trigger items, such as wands (Staves being a defined exception). So, a paladin could not use a Magic Missile wand and get smite bonus damage.


    I want to believe you're right, Ben, but can you direct me to a source on that?

    I've heard that about metamagic feats, for sure, but not about generic class abilities.

    Shadow Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
    Ben the Red wrote:
    Class abilities, feats, etc can't be added to spell trigger items, such as wands (Staves being a defined exception). So, a paladin could not use a Magic Missile wand and get smite bonus damage.

    You're completely incorrect, and there is nothing whatsoever to support this claim. This is the Rules Questions forum, show some actual Rules to justify this.

    Sovereign Court

    It isn't so broken IMO. You only add your Paladin level rather than your Character level. How many Paladins have many viable attack spells and spells per day? I mean granted, you could get a wand of magic missile or something? Still I hope this gets FAQ'd.

    The Morphling wrote:
    Ben the Red wrote:
    Class abilities, feats, etc can't be added to spell trigger items, such as wands (Staves being a defined exception). So, a paladin could not use a Magic Missile wand and get smite bonus damage.
    You're completely incorrect, and there is nothing whatsoever to support this claim. This is the Rules Questions forum, show some actual Rules to justify this.

    OK... He's right, actually.

    "The modifications made by these feats only apply to spells cast directly by the feat user. A spellcaster can't use a metamagic feat to alter a spell being cast from a wand, scroll, or other device."

    It's in the section under Meta-magic feats. Staves are an exception as per staff rules. What you *can* do is store a meta-magic version of the spell in an item you create yourself. Granted, you need DM permission to get Item Creation feats usually. And it's a total non-starter in society. I've seen this ran incorrectly by a number of people in Indianapolis.

    Metamagic feats (and most feats, items, powers, etc.) do not effect spell-trigger items. Activating a magic item is a totally separate action, defined in the combat chapter, than casting a spell.


    Actually he is wrong.
    It is true that you can't metamagic in the way the FAQ describes, but that has nothing to do with smite damage.
    Smite is not modifying the wand. Smite is an effect upon the victim causing him to take extra damage. So if he uses a wand of scorching ray the smite damage applies.

    Quote:
    Smite Evil (Su): Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. 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.

    However I still think an attack roll is required per RAI, so fireball will not get any smite damage.


    Micah Halfknight wrote:
    This is a very, very interesting thread for Paladins like me who can cast scorching ray...

    alas... no scorching ray for me, as much as I would love that. Or Magic Missile for that matter. Toppling Smiting Magic Missiles + Litany of Righteousness would be awesome.


    I think you need to make an attack roll to get the bonus damage from Smite, so I don't think Smite Evil would add anything to Magic Missile. Of course there's little hope of "proving" this to the satisfaction of anybody with a differing opinion, and the devs seem loathe to address the question for some reason.


    So wait, what is "Damage Roll"? Can paladin do a smiting ray?
    What about smiting alchemist's fire?


    wraithstrike wrote:
    However I still think an attack roll is required per RAI, so fireball will not get any smite damage.

    Since this has been necro'd, I don't think this is right. It would mean that a smiting paladin couldn't make a smiting coup de grace, which seems thematically backwards.

    Not addressing the core question, just the idea that an attack roll is a prerequisite to smite damage.


    A coup de grace is effectively rolling two 20s on your attack roll because you automatically critically hit. I don't think that's an issue here.


    Claxon wrote:
    A coup de grace is effectively rolling two 20s on your attack roll because you automatically critically hit. I don't think that's an issue here.

    You automatically hit. You automatically crit. And yet the argument against magic missile has been that there's no attack roll.


    Relevant FAQ request.

    Feel free to slam it with more FAQs if you want an answer.


    Anguish wrote:
    Claxon wrote:
    A coup de grace is effectively rolling two 20s on your attack roll because you automatically critically hit. I don't think that's an issue here.
    You automatically hit. You automatically crit. And yet the argument against magic missile has been that there's no attack roll.

    There is a difference between "No attack roll/automatic hit" and "Treat as if you rolled a 20 on your attack roll". Magic Missile is of the former variety, CdG is of the latter.


    Devilkiller wrote:
    @Scavion - I think we'd both allow a Paladin/Sorcerer to apply the bonus damage from Smite Evil to the initial hit with an Acid Arrow. Would you also allow the Smite Evil damage to apply to the additional damage on subsequent rounds?

    Somehow I don't see a rush of spellcasters going out to train a level in Paladin AND take the alignment restrictions to gain one measly point of damage per spellcasting level they're forced to give up to get it.


    fretgod99 wrote:
    Anguish wrote:
    Claxon wrote:
    A coup de grace is effectively rolling two 20s on your attack roll because you automatically critically hit. I don't think that's an issue here.
    You automatically hit. You automatically crit. And yet the argument against magic missile has been that there's no attack roll.
    There is a difference between "No attack roll/automatic hit" and "Treat as if you rolled a 20 on your attack roll". Magic Missile is of the former variety, CdG is of the latter.

    There is a difference between what the rules actually say and what you are saying. The rules do not include your quote. They merely say you automatically hit and crit. The magic missile spell uses the phrase "the missile strikes unerringly". So yeah, fun.

    Coup de Grace

    As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

    You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

    Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

    You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).


    Except smite doesn't specify needing an attack roll to function.

    Also, UMD.

    Read the thread I linked, I talk about the issue in detail.


    Anguish wrote:
    fretgod99 wrote:
    Anguish wrote:
    Claxon wrote:
    A coup de grace is effectively rolling two 20s on your attack roll because you automatically critically hit. I don't think that's an issue here.
    You automatically hit. You automatically crit. And yet the argument against magic missile has been that there's no attack roll.
    There is a difference between "No attack roll/automatic hit" and "Treat as if you rolled a 20 on your attack roll". Magic Missile is of the former variety, CdG is of the latter.

    There is a difference between what the rules actually say and what you are saying. The rules do not include your quote. They merely say you automatically hit and crit. The magic missile spell uses the phrase "the missile strikes unerringly". So yeah, fun.

    Coup de Grace

    As a full-round action, you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace (pronounced "coo day grahs") to a helpless opponent. You can also use a bow or crossbow, provided you are adjacent to the target.

    You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.

    Delivering a coup de grace provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents.

    You can't deliver a coup de grace against a creature that is immune to critical hits. You can deliver a coup de grace against a creature with total concealment, but doing this requires two consecutive full-round actions (one to "find" the creature once you've determined what square it's in, and one to deliver the coup de grace).

    I am aware of what the rule says. I paraphrased, because that's literally what the function of the rule is. You make a melee weapon attack ("you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace" - literally a final blow to kill a wounded creature).

    "You automatically hit" (from Attack Roll in the Combat Section - "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit.").

    "You score a critical hit."

    Combat wrote:
    Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to "confirm" the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.

    Critical hits exist for attacks. If you're not doing a thing that is analogous to an attack, critical hits aren't relevant.

    Yes, the language used "merely" is you automatically hit and crit. But what defines "hit" and "crit" are defined in the rules. A coup de grace is unquestionably an attack and the attendant damage roll.

    This is also unquestionably different than what Magic Missile does. MM "strikes unerringly". No attack roll necessary. No chance for a critical hit. It simply works.

    A CdG is an attack roll with a presumed roll of 20 and a presumed confirmation of the critical threat roll. This is the language that is used and how the rules function.

    The rules do say what I'm saying. I just cut out the middle man. So yeah, fun.


    CampinCarl9127 wrote:

    Except smite doesn't specify needing an attack roll to function.

    Also, UMD.

    Read the thread I linked, I talk about the issue in detail.

    The whole attack roll thing is one of the things being debated, so you can't really presume an answer like that.

    And attack rolls are contemplated by the rule anyway. So the question is whether the whole attack roll aspect of the Smite entry colors the entire section or if the attack and damage benefits are intended to be separate things.

    To me (and apparently a lot of other people), the most natural reading is that attack rolls are relevant. That doesn't mean it must be so, but you can't really do away with the debate by saying "No". This isn't one of those abundantly clear answers.


    I didn't say "No, you're wrong", I said "Smite doesn't specify needing an attack roll". Just noting a comment.


    CampinCarl9127 wrote:
    I didn't say "No, you're wrong", I said "Smite doesn't specify needing an attack roll". Just noting a comment.

    Ah gotcha. Sorry, read it as making a claim.


    All good!


    All damage rolls is a pretty big phrase.

    Compare it to the Bard's Inspire Courage which applies to weapon damage rolls.

    See the difference?

    The bard ability applies to rays and touch attacks because those qualify (See Weapon Focus).

    The Paladin ability also applies but lacks the weapon qualifier so while some spells are not considered weapons by the game, Smite applies to ALL damage rolls it seems.


    fretgod99 wrote:

    I am aware of what the rule says. I paraphrased, because that's literally what the function of the rule is. You make a melee weapon attack ("you can use a melee weapon to deliver a coup de grace" - literally a final blow to kill a wounded creature).

    "You automatically hit" (from Attack Roll in the Combat Section - "A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit.").

    "You score a critical hit."
    Combat wrote:

    Critical Hits: When you make an attack roll and get a natural 20 (the d20 shows 20), you hit regardless of your target's Armor Class, and you have scored a "threat," meaning the hit might be a critical hit (or "crit"). To find out if it's a critical hit, you immediately make an attempt to "confirm" the critical hit—another attack roll with all the same modifiers as the attack roll you just made. If the confirmation roll also results in a hit against the target's AC, your original hit is a critical hit.

    Critical hits exist for attacks. If you're not doing a thing that is analogous to an attack, critical hits aren't relevant.

    Yes, the language used "merely" is you automatically hit and crit. But what defines "hit" and "crit" are defined in the rules. A coup de grace is unquestionably an attack and the attendant damage roll.

    This is also unquestionably different than what Magic Missile does. MM "strikes unerringly". No attack roll necessary. No chance for a critical hit. It simply works.

    A CdG is an attack roll with a presumed roll of 20 and a presumed confirmation of the critical threat roll. This is the language that is used and how the rules function.

    The rules do say what I'm saying. I just cut out the middle man. So yeah, fun.

    Sigh. So far off the topic. But okay. Note: I only brought this up because I was trying to illustrate the "has to have an attack roll" concept was... kinda lame. Point being, the following is interesting debate, not angry argument. Please don't think I care one way or the other.

    That said.

    All pigeons are birds. All birds are not pigeons.

    Yes, there's a presumed roll of 20. Presumed by you. But there isn't. There's a hit. And - as it happens - a hit is more than just a 20. Yes, 20s are always hits. Unless they're not, for instance in the case of concealment. Turns out coup de grace ignores that, because it always hits. But a roll of 20 doesn't ignore concealment, or any other miss-chance. See where I'm going with this?

    A 20 is a hit. Usually. But a hit is not a 20.

    Coup de grace does what it says. Not other things that may or may not add up to the same result. This meatgrinder works one way. Put the cow in one end, get ground beef out the other. Don't try to reverse engineer it.

    Saying "automatically hit" == "roll a 20" is demonstrably false, in at least one circumstance. So it turns out they're not synonymous. Meaning in the end, "automatically hit" means just that, not the other thing.

    Working out a mechanical method by which the same results can be achieved is mentally useful, but in fact doesn't doesn't result in "coup de grace has an attack roll that is a 20". It doesn't.


    This isnt even powerful. It seems fine that it works.

    Also the wand idea is awfil, as soon as you face an enemy with sr say gg to you doing anything


    CWheezy wrote:

    This isnt even powerful. It seems fine that it works.

    Also the wand idea is awfil, as soon as you face an enemy with sr say gg to you doing anything

    Not if the party wizard has craft wand and makes it at a higher caster level. See the thread I linked earlier.


    The cost is multiplied by caster level right? That doesnt seem sustainable.


    One wand at half price (for crafting) that has 50 charges. 50 blasty spells is a lot of encounters. If you're anywhere near WBL you'll be fine as soon as you get past the first few levels.

    Liberty's Edge

    On the whole 'smite with multi-target spells' concept... keep in mind that, assuming it is even possible, designating someone as a target for smite evil requires a swift action... which you only get one of per round.

    Thus, you couldn't just cast a fireball on a group of orcs and smite them all... you'd have to designate them one at a time over several rounds and THEN hit them with the fireball (or magic missiles, or whatever).


    Yeah, even with spells smite is still a single-target killer.

    However, see my thread about my experience with a smiting wand of magic missile.

    Silver Crusade

    I believe that not, smite evil does not apply to magic missile.

    It was discussed in another similar topic, where the OP presented a very high damage with a Wand of MM+Smite evil, (app 3d4+110 dmg).

    I believe the reason was that Special qualities and special abilities from classes do not stack with Use magic device. For example, having a Wand of fireball and a sorcerer with Enlarge spell (feat), you can not enlarge the spells originated from the wand. Though I dont remember exactly where the explanation is, you could search the forum.

    However, multiclassing could work but It was not so effective as when using a wand.

    Regards!.


    That's not the same thing though. Could you not sneak attack with a spell from a wand because sneak attack is a class ability?


    The Champion of the Faith can abuse smite on spell damage more easily than a Paladin, since they've got Warpriest casting. Smite + Divine Favor + Empowered Admonishing Ray at level 11 is over 100 non-lethal.


    The part that I'm most interested in is whether "all damage rolls" includes non-hp damage options. That would easily turn this from "strong but not broken" into "hilariously overpowered." Seeing as this has been around since Core, I would hope that it's just for hp damage and that the Paladin secretly hasn't been disgustingly overpowered against Evil foes the entire time.

    Sovereign Court

    johnnythexxxiv wrote:
    The part that I'm most interested in is whether "all damage rolls" includes non-hp damage options. That would easily turn this from "strong but not broken" into "hilariously overpowered." Seeing as this has been around since Core, I would hope that it's just for hp damage and that the Paladin secretly hasn't been disgustingly overpowered against Evil foes the entire time.

    The paladin is extremely powerful against evil foes. But it's generally ruled that "damage" and "ability damage" are two entirely separate things.

    Sovereign Court

    So there are two questions at stake:

    1) Does smite damage apply to attacks that don't use an attack roll?
    2) If a spell makes multiple attacks simultaneously, do you get Smite damage on all damage rolls?

    #1 I'm inclined to go with Yes, because that's what the ability says; it has no further reservations.

    Smite Evil wrote:
    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.

    #2 I'm pretty sure you only apply it to a single damage roll. Sneak attack on spell attacks making simultaneous attacks is applied only once;

    FAQ1: Sneak Attack on Scorching Ray
    FAQ2: Surprise Spells (Sneak Attack on Magic Missile)

    And the Evocation school damage bonus on spells is also only added once.

    ---

    As for cases when this comes up: last weekend I finally got to use Aura of Justice. Allies smite using your bonuses. (That included a gun crit for >150 damage.)


    Anguish wrote:

    Coup de grace does what it says. Not other things that may or may not add up to the same result. This meatgrinder works one way. Put the cow in one end, get ground beef out the other. Don't try to reverse engineer it.

    Saying "automatically hit" == "roll a 20" is demonstrably false, in at least one circumstance. So it turns out they're not synonymous. Meaning in the end, "automatically hit" means just that, not the other thing.

    Working out a mechanical method by which the same results can be achieved is mentally useful, but in fact doesn't doesn't result in "coup de grace has an attack roll that is a 20". It doesn't.

    The point isn't "automatically hit" = "roll a 20". Nor was that claim ever made.

    The claim is Coup de Grace is an attack. The fact that it says it's an automatic hit (likening it to automatically rolling a 20 on an attack roll) is a way to support the claim.

    Just like another way to support the claim is pointing out that the rules explicitly call out a CdG as a critical hit. Are you aware of contexts (other than the apparently debated CdG) that allow for the rolling of damage as a critical hit that do not also qualify as attacks?

    The point isn't that "automatic hit" = "roll a 20". The point is that, within the context of the language and rules of CdG, that automatic hit = "roll a 20".

    The only time critical hits are relevant is when you make attack rolls. Thus, the rather strong implication that a thing that says "You automatically hit and score a critical hit" is saying those things within the context of making an attack roll. After all, a critical hit is defined as what happens when you make an attack roll subject to specific requirements.

    Since you score a critical hit with a CdG, and we're told we "automatically hit", it stands to reason that one's attack roll is presumed to be a 20 and is followed by confirmation of the threat. Because rolling a 20 means you automatically hit.

    And yes, ordinarily concealment is a concern when making an attack roll. However, CdG is a special rule (for more than one reason). Concealment is irrelevant. We know this because the rule specifically mentions that there is an extra step when the target is subject to Total Concealment. Since no extra step is mentioned for the lesser form of protection, the fairest assumption is that Concealment alone has no impact.

    So again, yes a CdG is an attack roll with a presumed roll of 20. That it has other circumstantially specific rules attached isn't particularly relevant. They don't change the fact that when you make a CdG (which you're specifically told you can only do using a melee weapon or a ranged weapon if you're adjacent to the target), you are effectively attacking your enemy.


    In my opinion Smites application when it comes to multi damage packets vs DR or resistance. If it applies only once to these things, you get the damage only once, if you apply it to every attack, you get the damage for every attack. This includes things like magic missle.
    if you have force resistance 5, you are immune to magic missle if smite would affect every die.

    Someone else can figure out weather or not that applies in which way for every given spell. this ensures the decision is balanced for smite spells


    This question is super old and the devs have never bothered answering it. So I would take the text at face value and simply add the bonus to all damage rolls. It’s really not that big of a deal.

    CRB Magic Chapter wrote:
    Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.

    51 to 100 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A paladin Smite evil is applicable to spell damage? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.