Pathfinder #26 pg84 under the Graveknight's abilities:
A Graveknight constantly exudes an aura of intense evil and negative energy in a 30 ft radius. This aura functions as the spell desecrate, which the graveknight constantly gains the benefits of. In addition, this miasma of fell energies hinders the channeling of positive energy. Any creature that attempts to summon positive energy in this area - such as through a cleric's channel energy ability, a paladin's lay on hands, or any spell with the healing descriptor - must make a concentration check with a DC equal to 10+ the graveknight's Hit Dice. If the character fails, the effect is blocked, its number of uses of that ability being reduced by 1 or the spell being lost.
The question is if Smite Evil will work normally within this aura or if the concentration check is needed. My initial inclination is that a check is needed, but on a re-read of Smite Evil it never states specifically that positive energy is summoned, only that good deities are called out to for aid. I believe it fits with the motif of the creature that Smite Evil would be difficult to use against it.
If ruled that the paladin must roll and he fails the concentration check, would he be allowed attempts in later rounds or should it be a 'cant try again for 24 hours' type deal?
My thoughts are that he should have to make the check, but can attempt as many times as he can Smite per day.
The question is if Smite Evil will work normally within this aura or if the concentration check is needed. My initial inclination is that a check is needed, but on a re-read of Smite Evil it never states specifically that positive energy is summoned, only that good deities are called out to for aid. I believe it fits with the motif of the creature that Smite Evil would be difficult to use against it.
As written, the Paladin can smite without problems. The rules are fairly clear that smiting is not a positive energy effect. Otherwise, when smiting living creatures, the Paladin would have to use negative energy (strange for a Paladin) or some strange special condition that, in this case, positive energy harms living creatures.
I'd also point out that "positive energy resistance" (assuming it exists) wouldn't help an undead against a smiting Paladin.
If ruled that the Paladin must roll and he fails the concentration check, would he be allowed attempts in later rounds or should it be a 'cant try again for 24 hours' type deal?
My thoughts are that he should have to make the check, but can attempt as many times as he can Smite per day.
Requiring the check seems a plausible house rule, although I would probably let the Paladin use either his Paladin level or possibly his BAB instead of his caster level for the concentration check. His caster level would have a -3 (which is reasonable for a secondary ability), but smiting is a primary Paladin ability. It shouldn't be harder for a Paladin to smite than it is for a cleric to channel (assuming equal levels and stats).
If you do force the concentration check, he certainly should be able to do it as often as he wants (or until he runs out of smites). If the cleric attempts to channel and fails, she can try again on the next round. There's not reason the Paladin should have to wait a day before attempting another smite.
Requiring the check seems a plausible house rule, although I would probably let the Paladin use either his Paladin level or possibly his BAB instead of his caster level for the concentration check. His caster level would have a -3 (which is reasonable for a secondary ability), but smiting is a primary Paladin ability. It shouldn't be harder for a Paladin to smite than it is for a cleric to channel (assuming equal levels and stats).
Would certainly agree there, had planned to use his actual level as the caster level for it.
I guess the problem I have is that Smite Evil seems that it should be a positive energy attack vs creatures of evil, but it isn't stated in the ability.
Thirding. OP is missing the distinction between positive/negative energy and good/evil. They're related but not quite the same; a weapon that does bonus negative energy damage doesn't defeat DR/evil, for instance, and positive energy effects still heal demons.
If this aura blocked [Good] spells and effects, rather than just positive energy effects, then you could make a case for it hindering a smite. That would still be up for DM interpretation though, as Smite Evil isn't called out as a [Good] effect, and there have been some pretty cool prestige classes that could smite evil without being good-aligned.
Thirding. OP is missing the distinction between positive/negative energy and good/evil. They're related but not quite the same; a weapon that does bonus negative energy damage doesn't defeat DR/evil, for instance, and positive energy effects still heal demons.
Not really, I understand the distinction, I say in the OP that I realize by the RAW Smite Evil should work fine without any check or hindrance. My question is if it is valid to make a paladin have to make a concentration check to pull it off because I think the Sacrilegious Aura would be more in the motif of a Graveknight type to make it difficult to use the Smite effect of a Paladin, not because it is good/positive energy. By RAW I realize that's not supported, by typical rules of Positive/Negative Energy, or Good/Evil, that is not supported.
Ignoring the RAW for a sec, if you think that a "can block holy power" effect fits with the creature that's cool, but that's still completely different from a "can block positive energy" effect; the two forces are metaphysically distinct. This strikes me more as giving him a new power than liberally interpreting an old one.
Applying those rules to a smite, though, I'm pretty sure that a failed check would mean that the entire smite fails, but there's nothing to say that he can't try again next round if he can smite evil more than once per day, and once he makes his check the smite sticks.
Just chiming in to belatedly agree that the graveknight's aura does not affect a paladin's smite evil (as the person who wrote the power). The intention of the ability is that it screws with healing magic in the area. The examples listed - channel energy, lay on hands, and healing spells - attempt to suggest this and still leave the door open for any other healing effects PCs might come up with. While this partially falls into the realm of vagaries and half-explained pseudo rules, positive energy should not be equated with holy or good energy. It's the energy that empowers healing magic and damages undead (and threatens anything that goes to the Positive Energy Plane) little else.
Just chiming in to belatedly agree that the graveknight's aura does not affect a paladin's smite evil (as the person who wrote the power). The intention of the ability is that it screws with healing magic in the area. The examples listed - channel energy, lay on hands, and healing spells - attempt to suggest this and still leave the door open for any other healing effects PCs might come up with. While this partially falls into the realm of vagaries and half-explained pseudo rules, positive energy should not be equated with holy or good energy. It's the energy that empowers healing magic and damages undead (and threatens anything that goes to the Positive Energy Plane) little else.
The feedback is sincerely appreciated! It is such a large benefit to the Pathfinder community have access to the writers and their thought processes.
Just to sum up for anyone interested, I went with the concentration check for the pally and he pulled it off effortlessly, but was put to shame by the Sunsword wielding ranger that had 2 massive crits the next round.