Smite Evil + Magic Missile


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Master of Shadows wrote:
Malag wrote:
Like BNW said, no attack, no smite.
You opinion is noted, but without explanation or citation it is unproductive except as a means of dotting the thread so you can watch for an eventual FAQ.

Citation? Unproductive? I'v seen these rules struggles for 5000 times. It's becoming unproductive to actually be productive.

My only citation is that RAI, I suspect like everyone else that Smite Evil isn't supposed to apply to spell damage. Most of the abilities, spells or feats do not amplify spell damage. If you are cool with 10x antipaladins 1-shot killing your PC, by all means, say so.

Shadow Lodge

I can't think of any circumstance in which I would use more than a single antipaladin, such characters are usually the bbeg. And were I to use such a tactic, I would be targeting the player with the most HP, or the one with the active shield spell or spell turning effect first so as to provide them an opportunity to counter it.

Additionally my players understand and enjoy the fact that every encounter has the potential to be fatal, and that intelligent foes will kill them if possible.

Shadow Lodge

I believe you are correct about the intent only as it applied to the original and horribly underpowered class ability from 3.5, I disagree regarding the intent of the upgraded pathfinder class ability. However that is only my opinion, and like yours it is irrelevant. RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

I have seen nothing yet that would link the damage bonus as being dependent upon the attack. If I am misunderstanding the language or parsing it poorly, please feel free to explain where I went wrong.

Sczarni

@Master of Shadows

Let me just say first that I can understand the RAW citations and truly, maybe there is some milk in it, after all, PC's are supposed to be heroes of the story, but that doesn't mean that I have to watch players obliterating NPCs through some wierd questionable combo's for 100 auto-hit dmg. Not in a private home game at least and even in PFS, this wouldn't work. It's okay for PCs to be in middle of attention, but this has nothing with it. It's pure powergaming attempt.


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reminder that is 100 auto-hit damage at LEVEL 20 using a wand of at least CL 7 against monsters that have tons of SR and magical defenses


Master of Shadows wrote:

I believe you are correct about the intent only as it applied to the original and horribly underpowered class ability from 3.5, I disagree regarding the intent of the upgraded pathfinder class ability. However that is only my opinion, and like yours it is irrelevant. RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

I have seen nothing yet that would link the damage bonus as being dependent upon the attack. If I am misunderstanding the language or parsing it poorly, please feel free to explain where I went wrong.

I guess if we are gonna go with RAW and strict readings, this ability only works with female Paladins.

RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

:D

Shadow Lodge

Malag wrote:

@Master of Shadows

Let me just say first that I can understand the RAW citations and truly, maybe there is some milk in it, after all, PC's are supposed to be heroes of the story, but that doesn't mean that I have to watch players obliterating NPCs through some wierd questionable combo's for 100 auto-hit dmg. Not in a private home game at least and even in PFS, this wouldn't work. It's okay for PCs to be in middle of attention, but this has nothing with it. It's pure powergaming attempt.

I disagree, I've read the OP and all you'll find there is an honest attempt to understand the how the rule as written works. I've played in power gaming campaigns before, and I can tell you of a certainty, there are better and less convoluted ways to deal more damage consistently. At best this is a one trick pony. And if as a GM you let it go off more than once per combat, there is something wrong with you.

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:

I believe you are correct about the intent only as it applied to the original and horribly underpowered class ability from 3.5, I disagree regarding the intent of the upgraded pathfinder class ability. However that is only my opinion, and like yours it is irrelevant. RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

I have seen nothing yet that would link the damage bonus as being dependent upon the attack. If I am misunderstanding the language or parsing it poorly, please feel free to explain where I went wrong.

I guess if we are gonna go with RAW and strict readings, this ability only works with female Paladins.

RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

:D

You mean paladins can be male?

Shadow Lodge

alexd1976 wrote:
I guess if we are gonna go with RAW and strict readings, this ability only works with female Paladins.

No, because they have clarified the use of pronouns to be determined by iconic characters for consistency and is not meant to be limiting to characters. RAW.


Master of Shadows wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:

I believe you are correct about the intent only as it applied to the original and horribly underpowered class ability from 3.5, I disagree regarding the intent of the upgraded pathfinder class ability. However that is only my opinion, and like yours it is irrelevant. RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

I have seen nothing yet that would link the damage bonus as being dependent upon the attack. If I am misunderstanding the language or parsing it poorly, please feel free to explain where I went wrong.

I guess if we are gonna go with RAW and strict readings, this ability only works with female Paladins.

RAI is speculative. The only things that are relevant are well informed arguments that analyze the written rules.

:D

You mean paladins can be male?

I don't think so... ;)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

...ah hell.


TOZ wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:
I guess if we are gonna go with RAW and strict readings, this ability only works with female Paladins.
No, because they have clarified the use of pronouns to be determined by iconic characters for consistency and is not meant to be limiting to characters. RAW.

Although that is mentioned early in the book, I interpret this particular instance of RAW to be that the entry specifically written for Smite Evil to be gender specific. I see it as specific>general.

You can FAQ if you like.

I also am of the opinion that Magic Missile doesn't attack five times (five missiles, but a single action, a single spell, a single target, thus a single attack), and that Smite Evil should only be added to the opponent once in the above situation.

Lastly, I will point out, that RAW, nothing in Magic Missile states that each missile is a separate "attack"...

So like a swarm (containing hundreds of creatures, but only dealing a single roll for damage), magic missile is, in my opinion, one attack.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
So like a swarm (containing hundreds of creatures, but only dealing a single roll for damage), magic missile is, in my opinion, one attack.

None of that actually matters, since you're still rolling damage five times.

Sczarni

Master of Shadows wrote:


I've played in power gaming campaigns before, and I can tell you of a certainty, there are better and less convoluted ways to deal more damage consistently. At best this is a one trick pony. And if as a GM you let it go off more than once per combat, there is something wrong with you.

But this is the point. I have perfectly enough experience to counter this "flimsy tactic" (I am saying flimsy because people already mentioned several dozen reasons how to do it), but this is putting you on borderline which you admitted yourself "And if as a GM you let it go off more than once per combat, there is something wrong with you.". We will agree to disagree in the end, but this entire thing can be done in more legal ways then like this, so why just not do so?

So in the end, I still believe that only attack rolls trigger the benefit of Smite Evil, which is why I said same as BNW; no attack -> no smite.

Shadow Lodge

Malag wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


I've played in power gaming campaigns before, and I can tell you of a certainty, there are better and less convoluted ways to deal more damage consistently. At best this is a one trick pony. And if as a GM you let it go off more than once per combat, there is something wrong with you.

But this is the point. I have perfectly enough experience to counter this "flimsy tactic" (I am saying flimsy because people already mentioned several dozen reasons how to do it), but this is putting you on borderline which you admitted yourself "And if as a GM you let it go off more than once per combat, there is something wrong with you.". We will agree to disagree in the end, but this entire thing can be done in more legal ways then like this, so why just not do so?

So in the end, I still believe that only attack rolls trigger the benefit of Smite Evil, which is why I said same as BNW; no attack -> no smite.

Can't tell by this response if you understood, so to clarify, I meant that as a GM, the first time a player pulls this out, you don't say "you can't do that!" rather you have their enemy take steps in game to counter its effectiveness so they cannot get a second spell off.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Apologies, I meant to say I've never seen Smite evil used on anything that doesn't require Attack Rolls, I didn't mean to restrict it to Melee attack rolls (I've let it hit on archery all the time.) Basically, if there's no attack roll, there's no 'attack action', and thus no smite-smite.

As for resist fire and Scorching Ray, I believe that was ruled as multiple sources happening at the same time, like getting hit by three arrows at once, and resistance applies per Ray. Exactly as DR, actually...if you Manyshot something, each arrow is a separate DR event, but Deflect Missiles will still deflect ALL the missiles at one time, because it's one shot.

==Aelryinth

Sczarni

Master of Shadows wrote:


Can't tell by this response if you understood, so to clarify, I meant that as a GM, the first time a player pulls this out, you don't say "you can't do that!" rather you have their enemy take steps in game to counter its effectiveness so they cannot get a second spell off.

It's a bit clearer now, thank you. You see, I am not exactly GM who counters players in such way. Only specific NPCs will do such a thing otherwise players will feel neglected and might not have fun at the table. I usually let the circumstances favor the bad guys, but I understand your response. If the enemy is aware of PCs and well prepared to scout their tactics, they would probably do so as you mentioned.


Malag wrote:
So in the end, I still believe that only attack rolls trigger the benefit of Smite Evil, which is why I said same as BNW; no attack -> no smite.

That's fine if you want to rule it that way.

But the rules don't have any such restriction in Smite Evil.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Threads like this always drive me up the wall, not because I don't understand the confusion, but because there is no reason to disallow it. It's not overpowered, requires noticeable investment, and allows different character ideas to be viable and effective.

Instead, we have to come here and strip away options from martial/caster hybrids, who are already suboptimal, because of some inborn fear of accurately damaging monsters.

It's not OP, the rules at the very worst are only slightly vague, so why take away options from your players?


Quote:
adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

I don't see any ambiguity here. ALL DAMAGE ROLLS. Are you rolling damage 5 times? Then apply the paladin level to all of them. This is straightforward.

The FAQ linked does not say anything about smite evil, nor does it make any generally relevant rulings. It is purely about sneak attack damage, which smite evil is not, thus is simply not relevant.

Which leaves us with what the ability says: all damage rolls.

Shadow Lodge

Davor wrote:

Threads like this always drive me up the wall, not because I don't understand the confusion, but because there is no reason to disallow it. It's not overpowered, requires noticeable investment, and allows different character ideas to be viable and effective.

Instead, we have to come here and strip away options from martial/caster hybrids, who are already suboptimal, because of some inborn fear of accurately damaging monsters.

It's not OP, the rules at the very worst are only slightly vague, so why take away options from your players?

This. Exactly this.

I don't usually play paladin's (twice in 20 years), the class just doesn't hold a ton of appeal for me. Of the paladin's I have played, my favorite is a female paladin of a goddess of magic that I played in second edition. This rule might inspire me to dust off her aging character sheet and write up a pathfinder version of her. I may never even play her again, but I might if the opportunity arises. However, a further restriction being placed upon smite evil is far more likely to result in her being left to molder quietly in the binder of lost souls for all eternity.

Also @Crimeo its nice to see another voice of reason.


Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

I don't see any ambiguity here. ALL DAMAGE ROLLS. Are you rolling damage 5 times? Then apply the paladin level to all of them. This is straightforward.

The FAQ linked does not say anything about smite evil, nor does it make any generally relevant rulings. It is purely about sneak attack damage, which smite evil is not, thus is simply not relevant.

Which leaves us with what the ability says: all damage rolls.

The fact that the beginning of that statement is lumped in with attack rolls implies that it required one for it to apply to damage rolls. It's not exactly clear as day though.

Besides. If it were to function that way, how come we have never seen an NPC Paladin use such tactics in his or her Stat block?

Shadow Lodge

Malag wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:


Can't tell by this response if you understood, so to clarify, I meant that as a GM, the first time a player pulls this out, you don't say "you can't do that!" rather you have their enemy take steps in game to counter its effectiveness so they cannot get a second spell off.
It's a bit clearer now, thank you. You see, I am not exactly GM who counters players in such way. Only specific NPCs will do such a thing otherwise players will feel neglected and might not have fun at the table. I usually let the circumstances favor the bad guys, but I understand your response. If the enemy is aware of PCs and well prepared to scout their tactics, they would probably do so as you mentioned.

I really don't think advanced knowledge of player tactics is needed. Rather an intelligent foe will adjust its tactics on the fly.

If I'm a spell caster and an enemy hits me with a super up smity magic missile from a wand, you can rest assured that my next action will involve one of the following: shield, dispel magic, greater dispel magic, or disjunction all of which come standard on nearly every caster I make because they're 'no brainer' spells for their level. Conversely if I am a non-caster, I will do everything in my power to prevent further missiles up to and including sundering the wand, or grappling the paladin.

To paraphrase Sun Tzu: No plan survives first contact with the enemy.

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

As a GM I would rule with BNW and others that Smite requires an attack roll, but I am now convinced that that is not current RAW. Hope this gets FAQ'd because this definitely needs more clarity.

Shadow Lodge

Zenogu wrote:
Crimeo wrote:
Quote:
adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

I don't see any ambiguity here. ALL DAMAGE ROLLS. Are you rolling damage 5 times? Then apply the paladin level to all of them. This is straightforward.

The FAQ linked does not say anything about smite evil, nor does it make any generally relevant rulings. It is purely about sneak attack damage, which smite evil is not, thus is simply not relevant.

Which leaves us with what the ability says: all damage rolls.

The fact that the beginning of that statement is lumped in with attack rolls implies that it required one for it to apply to damage rolls. It's not exactly clear as day though.

Besides. If it were to function that way, how come we have never seen an NPC Paladin use such tactics in his or her Stat block?

This is most likely because the designer who signed off on the class ability is not the designer of the NPC, and likely was not consulted by the designer of the NPC who is probably writing tactics based upon the assumption of its functionality as informed by years of prior experience with older rules. Much as all of you do, and much as I myself am guilty of until my error is pointed out to me.


Quote:
The fact that the beginning of that statement is lumped in with attack rolls implies that it required one for it to apply to damage rolls.

I don't see how it is "lumped in".

"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 is not grammatically ambiguous. They went out of their way to do "adds her" twice to avoid any referent ambiguity, and it's also not even the same frickin' bonus applied to the two different things. These are unambiguously two separate clauses that apply separately.

Quote:
Besides. If it were to function that way, how come we have never seen an NPC Paladin use such tactics in his or her Stat block?

Probably because putting other class' spells on wands and training them up with UMD is obviously not an archetypal, typical thing to do with examples of a class printed for reference in books? Or they just didn't think of it. So what? Something not being a listed stat block tactic is not a meaningful argument about whether it is allowed or not by RAW one way or the other. Come on.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
No attack, no smite.

Where does it say you need to attack?

It one part it clearly states all damage.

NOWHERE in the smite rules does it limit smite to just attacks.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have quoted the rules twice that says ALL DAMAGE.

That would mean if it is damage it adds smite.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zenogu wrote:
If it were to function that way, how come we have never seen an NPC Paladin use such tactics in his or her Stat block?

Because Paizo generally writes NPC tactics and builds to suit the character of the NPC, not what is optimally superior.

A paladin using a wand of magic missiles is not a common trope in the stories Paizo and the rest of the gaming world tell.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Zenogu wrote:
If it were to function that way, how come we have never seen an NPC Paladin use such tactics in his or her Stat block?

Because Paizo generally writes NPC tactics and builds to suit the character of the NPC, not what is optimally superior.

A paladin using a wand of magic missile is not a common trope in the stories Paizo and the rest of the gaming world tell.

Nor does it remotely approach optimally superior. However I think he was referring to adding smite damage to spells that do not require attack rolls, not magic missile specifically. Pretty sure there are spells on the paladin list that would also work.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

A few. Deadeye's Arrow, Firebelly, Arrow of Law, and the like.

Scarab Sages

TriOmegaZero wrote:
A few. Deadeye's Arrow, Firebelly, Arrow of Law, and the like.

Certainly makes me look at the Unsanctioned Knowledge feat in a whole new light...


Davor wrote:

Threads like this always drive me up the wall, not because I don't understand the confusion, but because there is no reason to disallow it. It's not overpowered, requires noticeable investment, and allows different character ideas to be viable and effective.

Instead, we have to come here and strip away options from martial/caster hybrids, who are already suboptimal, because of some inborn fear of accurately damaging monsters.

It's not OP, the rules at the very worst are only slightly vague, so why take away options from your players?

What you are blinding yourself to is the fact that a great many people don't feel they are stripping anything away. In fact they see it as sneaky rules lawyers trying to make new tricks where there aren't supposed to be any. Just because this trick isn't OP doesn't mean that same rules lawyer isn't going to apply this corner ruling to some other class/spell to truly craft a monster of a PC.

Shadow Lodge

It isn't rules lawyering. It is simply the way the rule was written, and it was even written quite clearly using unambiguous language. What we're doing has far less to do with lawyering than it does to do with a willingness to embraces the changes brought about in a new edition of the rules. An edition that has already been proven time and again that it has no qualms about discarding the old ways.

The confusion surrounding smite evil has very little to do with the language it was written with, and everything to do with a stubborn refusal to let go of the old ways of doing things in favor of a newer and better way.

To quote another great master:
"You must unlearn what you have learned."

-Yoda


Aranna wrote:
Davor wrote:

Threads like this always drive me up the wall, not because I don't understand the confusion, but because there is no reason to disallow it. It's not overpowered, requires noticeable investment, and allows different character ideas to be viable and effective.

Instead, we have to come here and strip away options from martial/caster hybrids, who are already suboptimal, because of some inborn fear of accurately damaging monsters.

It's not OP, the rules at the very worst are only slightly vague, so why take away options from your players?

What you are blinding yourself to is the fact that a great many people don't feel they are stripping anything away. In fact they see it as sneaky rules lawyers trying to make new tricks where there aren't supposed to be any. Just because this trick isn't OP doesn't mean that same rules lawyer isn't going to apply this corner ruling to some other class/spell to truly craft a monster of a PC.

How is reading the ability Smite Evil and applying it to exactly what it says "rules lawyering"?

It says add Charisma modifier to attack rolls and paladin level to all damage rolls against the target.

Its not a new trick in Pathfinder, in fact its been like that from the start, just because it wasn't obvious to some doesn't make it a sneaky rule lawyer dirty trick.

If you smite a target and deal damage to that target you add smite damage. Plain and simple.


When I started reading this thread I would have said 'no'

By the end of this thread, I think the answer is 'yes'.

It isn't game-breaking, it is flavourful, and it is interesting. Moreover, there is nothing in the text to prevent it. It is well balanced by the paladin level requirement. Why not allow it?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Master of Shadows wrote:

It isn't rules lawyering. It is simply the way the rule was written, and it was even written quite clearly using unambiguous language. What we're doing has far less to do with lawyering than it does to do with a willingness to embraces the changes brought about in a new edition of the rules. An edition that has already been proven time and again that it has no qualms about discarding the old ways.

The confusion surrounding smite evil has very little to do with the language it was written with, and everything to do with a stubborn refusal to let go of the old ways of doing things in favor of a newer and better way.

To quote another great master:
"You must unlearn what you have learned."

-Yoda

Rules lawyering is interpreting the language of the rules in a way they were not meant to be used.

NOT 'just taking the language and applying it unambiguously.'

This is indeed rules lawyering. There's no indication in ANY iteration of D&D that Smite Evil is supposed to attack with no-hit spells, and it's even kind of a stretch to think it stacks on ANY spells, period.

I fully expect that if "Smite" were defined out, it would include the phrase 'weapon using an attack roll' and not any form of spell or magic.

Because that's always been past intentions, and I see no verbiage that in ANY stretch leads me to believe they wanted smite damage added to fireballs.

Likewise, it's not going to stack on independent magic missiles, even if it did work, unless they were all at different targets, meaning you're spending multiple smites. It would function exactly like Manyshot...once per instance of spell per target, possibly per round.

Furthermore, we would now have to have an entirely new set of rules to determine how it interacts with DoT effects. Does a Wall of Fire suddenly do more damage once the Smite is declared? What about on successive rounds after the initial smite? How would it interact with Fire SHield's defensive damage? What about Acid Arrow's 'bleed' damage effect every round?

None of these rules exist, yet would have to if Smite was meant to dovetail with spellcasting. Surely something as simple as 'is the additional damage counted every round the spell does damage' would have been answered.

So, Smite = damage dealt with a physical weapon, requiring an attack roll.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

Aelryinth wrote:

There's no indication in ANY iteration of D&D that Smite Evil is supposed to attack with no-hit spells, and it's even kind of a stretch to think it stacks on ANY spells, period.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is stubborn thinking.

This is Pathfinder, not D&D while based on D&D there are a great great many rules that were intentionally changed and rebalanced to suit the new dynamics of Pathfinder.

I'd like for you to do me a favor. Take a moment and clear your mind. Forget everything you know about how smite evil worked in older editions. Imagine you're reading Paladin's for the first time. Read the new rule, and see if you can honestly say that we're twisting something around.


master of shadows wrote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is stubborn thinking.

And its right 9 times out of 10.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
master of shadows wrote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is stubborn thinking.
And its right 9 times out of 10.

Like when they said the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.


Master of Shadows wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
master of shadows wrote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is stubborn thinking.
And its right 9 times out of 10.
Like when they said the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

No, like when people said that tail terror doesn't actually require a tail, or that you could stack dex and dex to hit, or that or any of a hundred other loop hole riddled rules lawyering attempts at cheese that got shot down.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Master of Shadows wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
master of shadows wrote:
This is exactly what I'm talking about. This is stubborn thinking.
And its right 9 times out of 10.
Like when they said the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

No, like when people said that tail terror doesn't actually require a tail, or that you could stack dex and dex to hit, or that or any of a hundred other loop hole riddled rules lawyering attempts at cheese that got shot down.

How is applying smite damage to a spell that causes damage anything like that stuff?

Seems like a bit of an exaggeration for no reason. There are no loop holes being used.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

when smite is defined as a strike with a physical weapon requiring an attack roll, that's when, and that's how it is commonly understood.

When 'smite' means delivering any form of attack that does damage, then we have a sudden rules lawyering of what the word is commonly meant to actually be.

==Aelryinth

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

But smite is not an attack. It is an ability that applies a pair of conditions upon the target such that the paladins's attack rolls gain a bonus = to the paladin's cha mod against the target, and all damage rolls against the target receive a bonus = to the paladin's level.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Aelryinth wrote:
when smite is defined as a strike with a physical weapon requiring an attack roll, that's when, and that's how it is commonly understood.

That's 3.5 knowledge.


Aelryinth wrote:

when smite is defined as a strike with a physical weapon requiring an attack roll, that's when, and that's how it is commonly understood.

When 'smite' means delivering any form of attack that does damage, then we have a sudden rules lawyering of what the word is commonly meant to actually be.

==Aelryinth

It is unfair to use "meant". We do not know meant. To assume it is you is wrong. If it was so clear cut the developers would write a faq on it.

Until they do we have to assume the devs did their job correctly. They dicuss what to write, they edit it, they make changes and further editions, and they make faqs.

The end is they wrote all damage. They did not stipulate it to attacks.

To accuse me of bending the rules for reading the English language properly is obscene.

Debate the rules not the person. If you can present anything in pathfinder for the rules that say smite can only be used in attacks. Please present them . If you cannot please stop using it as falsified logic to make your point.


Aelryinth wrote:

when smite is defined as a strike with a physical weapon requiring an attack roll, that's when, and that's how it is commonly understood.

When 'smite' means delivering any form of attack that does damage, then we have a sudden rules lawyering of what the word is commonly meant to actually be.

==Aelryinth

So my Paladin can't smite a evil demon with my Arrow of Law?

I'm sorry but where exactly does the limitation of;

"when smite is defined as a strike with a physical weapon requiring an attack roll, that's when, and that's how it is commonly understood."

Smite Evil:
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. 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.

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.

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

I'm not seeing that limitation.

I see that i get to add my Charisma modifier to attack rolls against my smite target and to my deflection bonus to AC.

I also see that i add my paladin level to all damage rolls against my target.

I even get the ability to bypass DR on my target.

Nothing more nothing less.

My Paladin will be slinging Arrows of Law and Magic Missiles at my smite targets and get extra damage for it.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Mine won't, but not because the rules forbid it.


Brain in a Jar wrote:


How is applying smite damage to a spell that causes damage anything like that stuff?

Seems like a bit of an exaggeration for no reason. There are no loop holes being used.

Yes, there is a loophole being used.

A paladin is a holy warrior that bashes evil in the face with a weapon. They have an ability that makes them better at smashing evil in the face with a weapon: it increases their hit and their damage. Thats what it says it does, thats how its meant to be used.

We also have a general trend that spells need an attack roll to act like a weapon : sneak attack doesn't work with fireball or magic missile. Point blank shot does not add to magic missile damage. You can take weapon speciliation ray or weapon specialization bomb but not weapon specialization fireball.

Ignoring all that because an ability hints at but does not explicitly spell that out is rules lawyering.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:


How is applying smite damage to a spell that causes damage anything like that stuff?

Seems like a bit of an exaggeration for no reason. There are no loop holes being used.

Yes, there is a loophole being used.

A paladin is a holy warrior that bashes evil in the face with a weapon. They have an ability that makes them better at smashing evil in the face with a weapon: it increases their hit and their damage. Thats what it says it does, thats how its meant to be used.

We also have a general trend that spells need an attack roll to act like a weapon : sneak attack doesn't work with fireball or magic missile. Point blank shot does not add to magic missile damage. You can take weapon speciliation ray or weapon specialization bomb but not weapon specialization fireball.

Ignoring all that because an ability hints at but does not explicitly spell that out is rules lawyering.

Your understanding of what a paladin is is quite narrow. A paladin is a holy warrior who uses the divine magic of his god to bolster his martial prowess in furtherance of his god's dogma. To that end, in addition to his other magical abilities, he was given the ability to 'curse' the enemies of his god with an ability that makes it easier to hit them, and also amplifies all the damage they receive.

What you are doing is applying a limitation that is implied by your understanding of how the ability used to work, rather than following the quite explicitly spelled out functionality of the current rule.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Brain in a Jar wrote:


How is applying smite damage to a spell that causes damage anything like that stuff?

Seems like a bit of an exaggeration for no reason. There are no loop holes being used.

Yes, there is a loophole being used.

[No.]

A paladin is a holy warrior that bashes evil in the face with a weapon. They have an ability that makes them better at smashing evil in the face with a weapon: it increases their hit and their damage. Thats what it says it does, thats how its meant to be used.

[Actually it gives a increase to attack rolls, all damage rolls, deflection to AC and bypass DR. It does all of those things. Not sometimes all the time.]

We also have a general trend that spells need an attack roll to act like a weapon : sneak attack doesn't work with fireball or magic missile. Point blank shot does not add to magic missile damage. You can take weapon specialization ray or weapon specialization bomb but not weapon specialization fireball.

[None of that matters, because none of that is a FAQ about Smite Evil. Sneak Attack has nothing to do with this, Point Blank Shot doesn't work with Magic Missile because it mentions ranged weapons; which isn't an issue for smite since it doesn't require a "weapon", and you can't take weapon specialization for the same reason. Yet Smite doesn't have that wording. You add Smite to damage rolls against your smite target. It gives no restriction.]

Ignoring all that because an ability hints at but does not explicitly spell that out is rules lawyering.

[It doesn't hint about add paladin level to all damage rolls. It word for word says that. You have zero proof for your opinion on the matter and keep throwing around rules lawyer like its a negative thing, as if it even means anything.]

Bolded sections added by me to address certain subjects.

101 to 150 of 360 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Smite Evil + Magic Missile All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.