Wow, by strict RAW I'd have to say no. You can't see it, therefore, you can;t smite it. However, you CAN use Detect Evil on it, locate it's 5' square, and smite it then, IMO, but that is ONLY my opinion, and would be your DMs call, technically.
Sounds like a good time for the Wiz to cast Glitterdust :)
Descrption says: "As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite"
Last night the monster was invisible. Can I smite?
The target is within sight. You just can't see him at the moment. :)
The target is within sight. You just can't see him at the moment. :)Descrption says: "As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite"
Last night the monster was invisible. Can I smite?
If you can't see them, they obviously aren't in sight. =P
Well it says you have to choose a target, which would be very difficult to do if you can't see it. lol. But if you knew where he was by some other means other than sight, I would think that you can smite him.
Well it says you have to choose a target, which would be very difficult to do if you can't see it. lol. But if you knew where he was by some other means other than sight, I would think that you can smite him.
I dont think you have to be able to see an enemy to choose that enemy. When you smite all you are doing is channeling your divine power towards killing the particular creature. I don't think its wise to depend on a 50% miss chance, but that is another thread in itself.
I'd say no, for flavour reasons:
DM: ''Alright Dave, what are you going to do?''
Dave: ''RIGHTEOUS SMITE ATTACK!!''
DM: ''Ok, who are you.. righteously smiting?
Dave: ''THAT GUY!''
DM: ''Who?''
Dave: ''I dunno, the guy I can't see..''
DM: ''You can't see him..''
Dave: ''..but I know he's there!''
DM: ''How do you know it's a he?''
Dave: ''It's always a he..''
DM: ''...moving on, you can't see him.''
Dave: ''I kinda know where he is tho, right?..''
DM: ''Ok, you can kinda righteously smite her.''
Dave: ''Him.''
DM: ''It.''
Dave: ''Roll for damage?''
DM: ''*sigh* Go for it glory boy..''
>.> Ok, so the above doesn't prove anything. I'll admit I enjoy typing out samples of play. Sue me.
However, it does say, ''...within sight.'' o_o
I'd say no, for flavour reasons:
DM: ''Alright Dave, what are you going to do?''Dave: ''RIGHTEOUS SMITE ATTACK!!''
DM: ''Ok, who are you.. righteously smiting?
Dave: ''THAT GUY!''
DM: ''Who?''
Dave: ''I dunno, the guy I can't see..''
DM: ''You can't see him..''
Dave: ''..but I know he's there!''
DM: ''How do you know it's a he?''
Dave: ''It's always a he..''
DM: ''...moving on, you can't see him.''
Dave: ''I kinda know where he is tho, right?..''
DM: ''Ok, you can kinda righteously smite her.''
Dave: ''Him.''
DM: ''It.''
Dave: ''Roll for damage?''
DM: ''*sigh* Go for it glory boy..''
>.> Ok, so the above doesn't prove anything. I'll admit I enjoy typing out samples of play. Sue me.
However, it does say, ''...within sight.'' o_o
lol, my next villain will be an evil invisible stalker with cleric levels =p
So - three say yes, two say no, one says maybe. All comments appreciated! I knew he was there cause he was beating me to a bloody pulp. And I was more than willing to take the 50% miss change because the smite ups my AC as well as the bonus attack/damage.
I don't see a consensus here. Anyone else wish to comment? Paizo overlords?
Greater invis? In this case, a Perception check to see "his" feet stirring up dust or something similar should have given you the ability to pinpoint his square and attack that. If it was ranged attacks, yeah, you're screwed, unless you again make a Perception check to see where the arrows are coming from, and can get your wizard friend (always need a wizard friend) to glitterdust him. Again. the ba$7@*d.
|
As a DM I see no problem with letting someone choose a square and smite evil on the "thing in that square." But remember they might also choose the wrong square and waste a daily use of Smite Evil. It's also just as easy to detect evil as a move action to concentrate on one specific instance of evil which in my opinion would let you smite.
If they didn't have the target pinpointed them I'd still force them to choose a specific square and if the opponent wasn't in that square it would be wasted. Otherwise if they "choose wisely" I'd let it work.
|
|
It's also just as easy to detect evil as a move action to concentrate on one specific instance of evil which in my opinion would let you smite.
As I understand it, using detect evil is a standard action (as it is a spell-like ability). Adding the move action allows the paladin to "concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds."
There was another thread where posters felt it acted per the spell (allow you to scan a general area) but could be focused to get the auras.
Thoughts welcome. I'm torn as to whether the detect/smite/attack can be done in a single round.
I'm not sure what the RAW are (I'm too exhausted to look it up and give a good response), but even if it is standard to activate, move to concentrate, you still should have a swift left to smite. I believe the question is whether you can move more than 5 feet or not.
Looking at the rules, the closest thing I can find to smite evil are targeted spells like hold person.
Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes “You”), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Based on that I would say you have to either be able to see the target or touch them to smite them.
|
|
I'm not sure what the RAW are (I'm too exhausted to look it up and give a good response), but even if it is standard to activate, move to concentrate, you still should have a swift left to smite. I believe the question is whether you can move more than 5 feet or not.If it takes the standard to detect evil, I can't attack that same round. Agreed that smite is swift action.
As much as the word smite implies you are attacking, it isn't. You can technically smite someone without making a single attack action. In fact it has the benefit of increasing your AC versus that opponent so sometimes it's a good idea even if all you're doing is maneuvering in the battlefield (and let's you use your swift to Lay on Hands the next round(s) if needed).
I'd have to also take a move action to sheath the sword, or a free to drop the shield.
Sadly, yup. May I suggest a light shield for this sort of thing? you can easily hold your sword in your shield hand, pop a heal, and then continue to lay waste, IMO as free actions.
rE: the invis ability- you can still look for places where the critter interface with the world outside the glamour. We got into this in one of my games, and realized, Invis is actually kinda weak IF your opposition has a good perception check. It adds +20 to you stealth check, but moving, casting, attacking, etc all bring penalties. At one point, it was almost sad how ineffective Invis really was, as even at a +20 by spell, I had a -4 stealth check due to spell casting, movement, etc.
|
On a mildly related note, i'm pretty sure Detect Evil can't be used to find invisible opponents, and even if it can it will take a few rounds of concentration to pinpoint its location.
And the idea of declaring a smite on something you can't see is... just a little ridiculous to me, whether you try and rules lawyer it or not.
Add my vote to no. I don't see how 'sight range' can be taken to mean anything other than 'the range of what you can see'. If you can't see someone, he's obviously not within your sight range.
Devil's Advocate:
Range and being able to see something are two different things. An invisible creature can very easily be within your sight range; your sight range is the distance to which you can see. Line of sight, on the other hand, is not a range, it's a targeting definition.
That said, what you wrote and what the rules say are not equivalent, so my argument is merely academic :)
+1 on the 'No' column.
If you can't see it you can't smite it.
And yes, even though scent and blindsight work to negate invisibility to an extent you still can't see it therefore you can't smite it.
But put faerie fire or glitterdust on that invisible target then you can smite that if you wish.
Sweet, so all an NPC has to do is turn out the lights and ta-da, they can't do anything! Who knew paladins were so easy to counter?
I'm sorry, it's utterly ridiculous to state that being able to use non-visual senses to discern a target isn't enough to allow smiting. Are you not allowed to use non-visual senses to attack with a ranged weapon, either? After all, that also says you must be able to see your target.
@ Zurai- I agree, some of these interpretations, while dead on by RAW, undoubtedly violate RAI, which is all trumped by R<F (Rules< Fun). Let him Smite fer pete's sake.
Sweet, so all an NPC has to do is turn out the lights and ta-da, they can't do anything! Who knew paladins were so easy to counter?
I'm sorry, it's utterly ridiculous to state that being able to use non-visual senses to discern a target isn't enough to allow smiting. Are you not allowed to use non-visual senses to attack with a ranged weapon, either? After all, that also says you must be able to see your target.
That part is good. If a PC has some other means to determine where the target is or just hits him, the smite should be allowed. You could say "I smite the invisible bastard stabbing me in the kidney" and then do a whirlwind attack. If the monster is close he gets hit and smited. But in the OP's case, he had sight and didn't know where he was at all. So i would say no in that situation at least until he managed to guess the right square and hit him.
So actually I guess my opinion changed, I would say yes if you managed to hit him.
"The paladin knew 'where he was' sufficiently to make a melee attack (with the normal percentile chance of whiffing, based on the invisibility rules)."
Then you can smite him.