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 opinion of a paladin does not make it something different. Because why is their a holygun if your opinion is the only one of a paladin.
Argueing a specific rule with a specific requirement(precision damage) does not make precedence. I am too lazy to argue the difference between precision damage and all it's individualness.
Now accusing other people that of ruleslaywering for ignoring not related things, but you ignore a part right inside the rule of smite, and ADD extra into based on what you feel something should be is much worse than rule lawyering.
Your opinion of a paladin does not make it something different..
The design intent of a paladin is what makes it what it is.
Argueing a specific rule with a specific requirement(precision damage) does not make precedence.
How many specific times does it have to work that way before you get that its a trend? If you don't have an attack roll its not you that's doing damage its the spell.
This is doubly problematic for most paladins because spells cast from items are cast by the item, not by you.
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
posted August 2010 | back to top
Now accusing other people that of ruleslaywering for ignoring not related things, but you ignore a part right inside the rule of smite,
Which itself ties a damage roll to a hit roll.
and ADD extra into based on what you feel something should be is much worse than rule lawyering.
Its called rules intent, and it has a much better track record of being right than rules lawyering.
The answer is no. This does not work. If you can't zoom out of one sentence to see why, just wait.
Your opinion of a paladin does not make it something different..The design intent of a paladin is what makes it what it is.
Argueing a specific rule with a specific requirement(precision damage) does not make precedence.How many specific times does it have to work that way before you get that its a trend? If you don't have an attack roll its not you that's doing damage its the spell.
This is doubly problematic for most paladins because spells cast from items are cast by the item, not by you.
Now accusing other people that of ruleslaywering for ignoring not related things, but you ignore a part right inside the rule of smite,Which itself ties a damage roll to a hit roll.
and ADD extra into based on what you feel something should be is much worse than rule lawyering.Its called rules intent, and it has a much better track record of being right than rules lawyering.
The answer is no. This does not work. If you can't zoom out of one sentence to see why, just wait.
I see no valid addition to the argument. Your opinions of how things should be are not rules.
If you say they are intent provide reasons why I should accept them as intent too. Just saying they are because you say they are is circular logic(aka bad logic).
Now where does it tie to a damage rule. If it does please how me in the rules so I can accept it.
because you want the rules to be one way does not make people that disagree and provide text of the rules as rule lawyering. I much more prone to argue someone not providing rule text but rhetoric like yourself is rules pandering, and much less desired.
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.
LOOK at it. There is NO separator. It adds to your attack and damage rolls. All one ability NOT separate ones. This seems clear as day, if there is no attack roll it doesn't then get a damage boost.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a powerful psychic, I have read the minds of the developers, and I alone know the true intent behind the Paladin rules. And all of you are entirely wrong about everything.
@Aranna I'm not a native english speaker. However, I'm moderately sure that "and" IS a separator between two different sentences, each one having his own statement.
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.LOOK at it. There is NO separator. It adds to your attack and damage rolls. All one ability NOT separate ones. This seems clear as day, if there is no attack roll it doesn't then get a damage boost.
I'm pretty sure that according to the English grammar, in a compound sentence the "and" between two independent clauses IS a separator.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aranna I'm not a native english speaker. However, I'm moderately sure that "and" IS a separator between two different sentences, each one having his own statement.
Not that it really matters either way. Paizo's technical writing can be atrocious at times. Trying to figure out what text means when there is a lot of disagreement tends to be an exercise in futility(see:this thread). Without Dev input it's a tossup as to how the ability works. And that's not even getting into legacy issues, where Paizo didn't actually write a lot of the CRB but copy-paste it, which means that you have to guess what those writers intended (unless Paizo decides to go with their own interpretation of the text they didn't write for whatever reason).
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.
I roll damage once. There may be multiple dice, but it's only a single spell... a single roll...
*shrugs* Again, this isn't covered in enough detail for anyone to be 'right'.
You COULD follow that bullcrap errata ruling, OR you could just follow the rules and apply Smite damage to every missile.So you think it's balanced that, for example, a 10th level paladin with a wand and a decent UMD bonus can do 5d4+100 damage with a single charge of the wand?
Yes I do.
@Aranna I'm not a native english speaker. However, I'm moderately sure that "and" IS a separator between two different sentences, each one having his own statement.
My experience has shown that people learning english as a second language wind up learning it properly, as compared to we poor mono-linguistic fools who just pick it up on the streets...
To those arguing that an attack roll is required to use Smite...
If this is true, then Paladins are not allowed to use a Coup de Grace to try and finish off a BBEG (say, a regenerating Devil of some sort?)-grammatically, the ability allows for spells, there really isn't anything indicating otherwise.
I still don't think that Magic Missile counts as separate attacks in this case though, any more than a swarm is... so Smite would only apply once per casting.
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.
As already shown previously, this tactic doesn't put out any more damage per round than, say, a smiting archer anti/paladin AND costs a not insignificant amount of gold (more than most NPCs can easily afford).
If you want to kill your PCs with magic missile you can do this much more simply with pure classed level 1-3 NPC wizards. Massed magic missile has always been capable of blowing apart PCs pretty easily if they aren't expecting it. Antipaladin parade adds nothing other than making it LESS efficient by requiring higher CR baddies which can't be massed as effectively.
And.
For those that don't know is a logic argument. It means BOTH the first part and second part must be true for the argument to be true.
|
As already shown previously, this tactic doesn't put out any more damage per round than, say, a smiting archer anti/paladin AND costs a not insignificant amount of gold (more than most NPCs can easily afford).If you want to kill your PCs with magic missile you can do this much more simply with pure classed level 1-3 NPC wizards. Massed magic missile has always been capable of blowing apart PCs pretty easily if they aren't expecting it. Antipaladin parade adds nothing other than making it LESS efficient by requiring higher CR baddies which can't be massed as effectively.
You are right, it doesn't put really a lot of damage and GM can orchestrate better "combos" out there. The point of the tactic is that you will do it once and never again as a GM. It's highly unlikely that party will be prepared for it in the same way that NPCs won't be.
I exaggerated on purpose, because when you use the same tactic from the other side of the screen, suddenly you have to reduce it's effect otherwise it might seem too effective. There are better legal ways to deal serious damage, why not just use those instead of far stretching the rules?
I believe same thing that BNW believes. Paizo went with a lot of rules thus far and most of the FAQs suggest or imply that spell damage isn't "boosted" in any way (those that do not require attack rolls). It would make sense to use the same principle here, but some people will disagree as usual. In fact, I am curious what do experienced GMs think of this? And when I say experienced, I mean PFS GMs with 100 tables of experience. What do you believe their comment on this would be?
I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
"And" isn't a separator. "Or" is separator.
Conjunction and disjunction, both are separators if between clauses.
And.
For those that don't know is a logic argument. It means BOTH the first part and second part must be true for the argument to be true.
I deal with formal logic as a profession, and that one is not a logical "and" between enunciates, but the grammatical conjunction of two clauses.
Also what you said about the truth value of those two sentences of smite doesn't make sense at the earliest scrutiny.
I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
Srsly... anyone else see the elephant?
|
|
@entryhazard
"And" is usually used in a programming language to include that both statements need to be true in order for entire statement to be true. I am not sure if I explained it correctly enough because English isn't my native language, but that's the basic principle. If one of those statements isn't true, their entire statement is false.
@entryhazard
"And" is usually used in a programming language to include that both statements need to be true in order for entire statement to be true. I am not sure if I explained it correctly enough because English isn't my native language, but that's the basic principle. If one of those statements aren't true, their entire statement is false.
I was speaking strictly from a grammatical standopoint, but if you want to go to formal logic is something like this:
(attack roll ⇒ add charisma mod) ∧ (damage roll ⇒ add paladin level)
And in this case, a damage roll without attack roll still makes the statement true, as the enunciate "attack roll" becomes false, making the entire statement before the "and" true by default.
in programming:
if(attack roll)
attack bonus += cha mod
if(damage roll)
damage += paladin level
still an attack roll missing results just in skipping the first "if" block
Both statements are true. The paladin both gains a bonus to attack rolls and a bonus to damage rolls. Still, there's no reason to conclude they must occur together.
@entryhazard
You forgot to add "and" between those two "if-s", but regardless of it, I am not gonna debate about it much. I merely wanted to explain the "and"/"or" part of logic.
because in the programming language the "and" of that phrase is the change of line, in C++ and Java the ";" for example
|
@BNW you have yet to produce a concrete argument for your case using factually accurate data.
What you have done is attempted to present a poorly formed opinion as fact by presenting multiple FAQ references which Paizo has themselves stated on numerous occasions cannot and should not be taken beyond the scope of the specific question asked in the FAQ.
You're so quick to use the RAI argument that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring the RAI of the FAQ. For which the stated intent is to address only specific question asked.
|
|
because in the programming language the "and" of that phrase is the change of line, in C++ and Java the ";" for example
That's incorrect. The "&&" is AND operator. An example of such condition would go something like: if (A==1) && (B==1). My c++ is very rusty and I don't remember a lot, but I am sure somewhat about that part.
That's incorrect. The "&&" is AND operator. An example of such condition would go something like: if (A==1) && (B==1). My c++ is very rusty and I don't remember a lot, but I am sure somewhat about that part.
yes but the AND operator is something that can be used on something that returns a value, and "the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls" is an operation that does not return anything per se, like "void foo(int arg)".
The meaning of that "and" is to separate two commands in the English language like in in a recipe you have "mix the flour with the sugar and melt the chocolate", so converted in a more formal programming language, is the separator between two operation, that is ";" in C++, C# and Java, starting a new paragraph in Python.(Actually in C++ i can write an entire application without ever starting a new line, as what separates the operations is the ";" and blocks under controllers are determined by the "{}", see the "for" cycle for an example.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Computer logic rules do not equate to English language grammar rules. I'm in IT and have done my fair share of programming. My mother was an English teacher for about 35 years. My grandmother was an English teacher for another 16 or so. You can correctly assume that I learned the English grammar rules accurately, for I can walk and have all of my teeth.
The and/or functions in computer programming are largely for the testing of a boolean situation (yes/no or true/false for those that don't know). In the smite evil passage, it's not checking to see if these clauses are true. The separate clauses are simply true because it is a set of written instructions using the grammar of the English language. "You will do this. You will do this." = "You will do this and you will do this." An overall truth. Not a comparative situation of "if(a>b) and if(a>c) then". It's simply a combined sentence telling you to do two separate things. Clean your room and mow the lawn.
Computer logic rules do not equate to English language grammar rules. I'm in IT and have done my fair share of programming. My mother was an English teacher for about 35 years. My grandmother was an English teacher for another 16 or so. You can correctly assume that I learned the English grammar rules accurately, for I can walk and have all of my teeth.
The and/or functions in computer programming are largely for the testing of a boolean situation (yes/no or true/false for those that don't know). In the smite evil passage, it's not checking to see if these clauses are true. The separate clauses are simply true because it is a set of written instructions using the grammar of the English language. "You will do this. You will do this." = "You will do this and you will do this." An overall truth. Not a comparative situation of "if(a>b) and if(a>c) then". It's simply a combined sentence telling you to do two separate things. Clean your room and mow the lawn.
Exactly this but I suck at explaining myself so thank you for stating it more clearly than me
This is turning a bit too much into semantic. Anyway, from wikipedia
And
presents non-contrasting item(s) or idea(s) ("They gamble, and they smoke.")
About computer logics, smite evile states
if(target == evil)
{
attack = attack + char.modifier && damage = damage + Paladin.level ;
}
witch is the same as
if(target == evil)
{
attack = attack + char.modifier ;
damage = damage + Paladin.level ;
}
Srsly... anyone else see the elephant?I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
No, because a Coup is just an automatic success on a hit roll, and maximum damage, so it is a non-issue. IT's just a formal way of doing maximum damage.
Suddenly adding a whole bunch of new rules for Smite out of nowhere after ten years, and saying it was INTENDED, that's an elephant.
==Aelryinth
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.
You're divorcing 'smite Evil' from 'smite', which literally has a definition of forcibly hitting something. The ability isn't called "Do More Damage To Evil". It's called "SMITE" Evil. That heartily implies a physical weapon actively wielded to do a heavy blow.
You're trying to call "Smite Evil" just a damage dealing ability, when Smite actually makes it physical.
And, as noted before, if it was intended for use with spells, we'd have a whole list of FAQ's and rulings on how it applied to spells with durations, spells that are already up, and defensive spells triggered while Smite was in effect, at the very least. Yet none of them have come up over the past ten years.
==Aelryinth
Srsly... anyone else see the elephant?I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
No, because a Coup is just an automatic success on a hit roll, and maximum damage, so it is a non-issue. IT's just a formal way of doing maximum damage.
Suddenly adding a whole bunch of new rules for Smite out of nowhere after ten years, and saying it was INTENDED, that's an elephant.
==Aelryinth
It actually is an automatic hit, not an automatic success on a roll.
No roll is made.
You just hit.
So... if people want to require rolling attacks with using Smite, you literally cannot use Smite with a Coup. No roll.
@BNW you have yet to produce a concrete argument for your case using factually accurate data.
Ive laid out the pattern they're using, because just repeating the words in the book that we're reading differently is an exercise is pointlessness.
What you have done is attempted to present a poorly formed opinion as fact by presenting multiple FAQ references which Paizo has themselves stated on numerous occasions cannot and should not be taken beyond the scope of the specific question asked in the FAQ.
If you don't want to use the obvious pattern that they're using and want to concentrate on one half of one sentence to the exclusion of all else, ignoring not only the other half of the sentence but the almost 20 years of how the game has worked, do so. "Raw" used this way has an almost perfect record of being wrong. Insulting me for not using a rule paradigm that has time and time again been proven wrong is as telling as it is pointless.
You're so quick to use the RAI argument that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring the RAI of the FAQ. For which the stated intent is to address only specific question asked.
Quite the opposite. They often show intent (and in the absence of a far more robust faq process, what players are going to have to rely on)
General comment, can apply to all threads, not just this one.
Don't try to win an argument by attacking someone else's viewpoint.
Present evidence to further your own.
:D
No, because a Coup is just an automatic success on a hit roll, and maximum damage, so it is a non-issue. IT's just a formal way of doing maximum damage.
Um, no. A coup de grace does not do maximum damage. It is an automatically confirmed critical hit, nothing more, nothing less. You still roll damage as for any other critical hit.
|
|
@BNW you have yet to produce a concrete argument for your case using factually accurate data.Ive laid out the pattern they're using, because just repeating the words in the book that we're reading differently is an exercise is pointlessness.
What you have done is attempted to present a poorly formed opinion as fact by presenting multiple FAQ references which Paizo has themselves stated on numerous occasions cannot and should not be taken beyond the scope of the specific question asked in the FAQ.If you don't want to use the obvious pattern that they're using and want to concentrate on one half of one sentence to the exclusion of all else, ignoring not only the other half of the sentence but the almost 20 years of how the game has worked, do so. "Raw" used this way has an almost perfect record of being wrong. Insulting me for not using a rule paradigm that has time and time again been proven wrong is as telling as it is pointless.
You're so quick to use the RAI argument that you don't see the blatant hypocrisy of ignoring the RAI of the FAQ. For which the stated intent is to address only specific question asked.Quite the opposite. They often show intent (and in the absence of a far more robust faq process, what players are going to have to rely on)
If I have insulted you, I apologize, my intention is only to point out the self contradictory nature of your arguments, and the lack of foundational evidence for your argument contained within the specific rules set we're dealing with (Pathfinder).
At no point have I ignored any part of the sentence in question. You seem to be reading an if/then where there is none. The particular sentence in question does not read: when smite, add cha to attack and if the attack hits then add level to damage. There is no if/then. There is only an imperative: when smite, do add cha to attack rolls and do add level to all damage rolls.
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.You're divorcing 'smite Evil' from 'smite', which literally has a definition of forcibly hitting something. The ability isn't called "Do More Damage To Evil". It's called "SMITE" Evil. That heartily implies a physical weapon actively wielded to do a heavy blow.
You're trying to call "Smite Evil" just a damage dealing ability, when Smite actually makes it physical.
And, as noted before, if it was intended for use with spells, we'd have a whole list of FAQ's and rulings on how it applied to spells with durations, spells that are already up, and defensive spells triggered while Smite was in effect, at the very least. Yet none of them have come up over the past ten years.
==Aelryinth
Looking up what smite means, while it's clear that while mainly is physical damage, it CAN be delivered without physical blows. Even in the Bible a lot of people is smitten by God but I don't think it was a gigantic fist coming from the sky but rather people suddenly dying or being struck by lightning. Something that spells do. As long as it's HP damage it's Smiting.
But even then, clinging to the name of things rather than actual mechanics can be shortsighted. I should be able to play a character with levels in Rogue that is a perfectly honest person anyway if I just want the ability to disarm trap and being a mundanely skilled character who relies on agility in combat.
Srsly... anyone else see the elephant?I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
No, because a Coup is just an automatic success on a hit roll, and maximum damage, so it is a non-issue. IT's just a formal way of doing maximum damage.
Suddenly adding a whole bunch of new rules for Smite out of nowhere after ten years, and saying it was INTENDED, that's an elephant.
==Aelryinth
"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."
Using the logic that an attack roll is required to gain the Smite Evil damage means a Paladin suddenly can't use Coup de Grace to gain his Smite Evil damage against the target.
As alexd1976 was good enough to provide.
, my intention is only to point out the self contradictory nature of your arguments
Which you have not done. What the FAQ says its talking about is raw. What the FAQ implies is the RAI that the game actually runs on.
|
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.You're divorcing 'smite Evil' from 'smite', which literally has a definition of forcibly hitting something. The ability isn't called "Do More Damage To Evil". It's called "SMITE" Evil. That heartily implies a physical weapon actively wielded to do a heavy blow.
You're trying to call "Smite Evil" just a damage dealing ability, when Smite actually makes it physical.
And, as noted before, if it was intended for use with spells, we'd have a whole list of FAQ's and rulings on how it applied to spells with durations, spells that are already up, and defensive spells triggered while Smite was in effect, at the very least. Yet none of them have come up over the past ten years.
==Aelryinth
Looking up what smite means, while it's clear that while mainly is physical damage, it CAN be delivered without physical blows. Even in the Bible a lot of people is smitten by God but I don't think it was a gigantic fist coming from the sky but rather people suddenly dying or being struck by lightning. Something that spells do. As long as it's HP damage it's Smiting.
But even then, clinging to the name of things rather than actual mechanics can be shortsighted. I should be able to play a character with levels in Rogue that is a perfectly honest person anyway if I just want the ability to disarm trap and being a mundanely skilled character who relies on agility in combat.
Plus, if they want to go down that hole, they have to explain the existence of the holy smite spell, which is neither physical nor targeted. Seriously, that argument is just sad.
But can we define the meaning of 'is'?
Your references are dated old man!
Carbon dated thank you!
|
|
What the FAQ says its talking about is raw. What the FAQ implies is the RAI that the game actually runs on.
I agree with both of these statements. However, what you fail to grasp is that the rules in the official FAQ are intended to apply to only the question asked in the FAQ itself. We know this is true because Paizo has told us in actual words, not with read-between-the-lines implications, that it is so.
What that means, is that you cannot reference an FAQ about sneak attack because it only pertains to sneak attack and only in the specific context mentioned.
In addition, there are major differences between the extra damage from sneak attack, and the damage added by smite. Chief among those is that sneak attack is precision damage which expressly forbids it from being added on multiple missiles as part of the same attack. Smite is by no means a form of precision damage, so sneak attack absolutely cannot be used to set precedent for this entirely different ability.
I think we should just let Paizo come up with a ruling at this point.
so much anger.