No, channel energy isn't an attack.
No, channel energy isn't an attack.
Except Smite Evil doesn't specify that it can only be used on attacks.
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.
When Smiting Evil, the Paladin adds her Paladin level to all damage rolls. She also adds her Charisma bonus to attack rolls, but there's nothing indicating only damage rolls as a result of attack rolls receive the bonus.
This is a really good question. I never considered Smiting like this would be allowed, but there does exist a good argument. I would be very interested in the RAI of the ability.
Also, if it's possible to smite with damaging spells like Ray of Frost or Flaming Sphere.
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.
Dear god this can make channeling crazy against a evil undead for a pally.
Smite does not work with channel energy. I just realized that the OP was asking.
There are different types of attacks. Attacks made with weapons are attacks, and spells such as charm person are also attacks, but you can't apply an ability designated for one attack on the other. You have to apply the correct ability to the correct attack.
If Smite applies then the ranger's favorite enemy applies, and the inquisitor ability applies if you multiclass. The intent was to increases weapon damage.
Another example would be applying it to spells that do hp damage, since they are attacks. A dragon could apply it(smite, favored enemy, inquisitor ability) to its breath weapon.
The PRD does not say all damage.
It says all damage rolls which is only listed under situations that use attack rolls.
A channel energy or fireball might have you roll the dice for damage but the words damage roll are never used as a term for effects that deal damage if they are not involving a weapon making an attack roll.
Evidence:
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
Destructive Smite (Su): You gain the destructive smite power: the supernatural ability to make a single melee attack with a morale bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You must declare the destructive smite before making the attack. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
Wooden Fist (Su): As a free action, your hands can become as hard as wood, covered in tiny thorns. While you have wooden fists, your unarmed strikes do not provoke attacks of opportunity, deal lethal damage, and gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum +1). You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3). The bonus doesn’t apply to spell damage.
As you can see the word damage rolls only applies when you are using a weapon. If you open a pdf of the core book, and do a search for "damage rolls" it only comes up when using a weapon. That is not a coincidence.
The intent was to increases weapon damage.
i'm not sure that's the correct interpretation...
the prd is fairly consistent in its use of "damage rolls" but it seems to me that it consistently uses it vaguely. you are correct, concerro, that it uses that term repeatedly for natural/weapon attacks but it never makes explicit that it is confined to that use. in numerous cases (such as divine favor, which you quote) it specifically calls out that an ability only functions for weapons; in cases like litany of vengeance its less clear- the short description uses the term "damage rolls" but
Anyone who hits the target with an attack gains a +5 sacred or profane bonus (depending on the alignment of the caster) to that attack's damage.
in this case it seems clear that the effect which is summarized with "damage rolls" is actually any attack (which we've already seen the definition for, in your post) that hits a target- so that expands beyond just "weapon damage" and would clearly include targeted spells like searing light or scorching ray...
then,
Dirigible: Lighter-than-air alchemical gases can be harnessed to give a vehicle flight. Dirigibles are often easier to destroy than the vehicle they convey. Dirigibles have 5 hit points per square and no hardness. They take double the normal damage from acid, electricity, and fire attacks (multiply the damage roll by 2).
this is a clear counter example to your argument. the "damage roll" from any acid, electricity, or fire source (which would include fireballs and the like) are doubled.
like i said i think the term "damage roll" is a bit vague, but based on the precedent set by litany of vengeance, i think that smite should at least apply to any attack that requires a roll to hit- and based on the clear counter example of the Dirigible entry i think there's a valid argument to apply it any time the paladin has to roll any damage. and frankly, imho, it shouldn't be that big a deal- the smite bonus damage is based on the paladin's level so a character won't be able to dip just for a damage bonus on spells or anything and if a paladin wants to dip sorcerer or pick up a couple attack spells with Unsanctioned Knowledge they're really not gonna gain all that much for the levels/feats they spend. the only time that bonus is really gonna be significant is when a straight class paladin channels against an undead creature targeted with smite but a) only the undead he smote will take extra damage, b)it won't change the DC to reduce the whole channel (including smite damage) by half, and c) if you're in a campaign where undead aren't worried about paladins you're GM is probably doing something wrong.
ps- the favored enemy ability says "+2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls" which seems pretty clear in limiting the bonus to 'weapon attacks' and 'weapon damage' (sorry rangers with natural attacks), so that's clearly not relevant to this discussion. likewise, the inquisitor's destruction judgment specifically says "weapon damage rolls"
Sorry for my english but it's not my birth language. I'm french ;)
I try my best.I found here that answer from James Risner (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
heredo a search for "damage rolls" it only comes up when using a weaponSee answer 3 in the post above. No weapon is need.
If it work for spells, why couldn't it work for smite ? nowhere it is written that it couldn't.
I never said it did not work with any spells. If you use spells that use attack rolls it should work, but I already said that, at least by RAW anyway.
I am saying that it does not work just because damage is done. You need a damage roll, which is only mentioned in certain situations.
then,Dirigible: Lighter-than-air alchemical gases can be harnessed to give a vehicle flight. Dirigibles are often easier to destroy than the vehicle they convey. Dirigibles have 5 hit points per square and no hardness. They take double the normal damage from acid, electricity, and fire attacks (multiply the damage roll by 2).this is a clear counter example to your argument. the "damage roll" from any acid, electricity, or fire source (which would include fireballs and the like) are doubled.
like i said i think the term "damage roll" is a bit vague, but based on the precedent set by litany of vengeance, i think that smite should at least apply to any attack that requires a roll to hit- and based on the clear counter example of the Dirigible entry i think there's a valid argument to apply it any time the paladin has to roll any damage. and frankly, imho, it shouldn't be that big a deal- the smite bonus damage is based on the paladin's level so a character won't be able to dip just for a damage bonus on spells or anything and if a paladin wants to dip sorcerer or pick up a couple attack spells with Unsanctioned Knowledge they're really not gonna gain all that much for the levels/feats they spend. the only time that bonus is really gonna be significant is when a straight class paladin channels against an undead creature targeted with smite but a) only the undead he smote will take extra damage, b)it won't change the DC to reduce the whole channel (including smite damage) by half, and c) if you're in a campaign where undead aren't worried about paladins you're GM is probably doing something wrong.
ps- the favored enemy ability says "+2 bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls" which seems pretty clear in limiting the bonus to 'weapon attacks' and 'weapon damage' (sorry rangers with natural attacks), so that's clearly not relevant to this discussion. likewise, the inquisitor's destruction judgment specifically says "weapon damage rolls"
You have consistency throughout the entire core book, and 1 entry in the last book has a different use. At best it shows bad use of the word.
I guess the OP can be FAQ's, but I like I said I doubt any one is going to let that interpretation work.Weaponlike spells are treated like weapons for the purpose of effects(feats as an example-->weapon focus or improved critical). I was not dismissing all spell, just ones like fireball, as an example.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Evidence:
Let's have a look at the evidence you present:
When you hit with a melee or thrown weapon, including a sling, add your Strength modifier to the damage result. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies on damage rolls made with a bow that is not a composite bow.
This says "damage rolls with a bow", not just "damage rolls". It's being specific.
Destructive Smite (Su): You gain the destructive smite power: the supernatural ability to make a single melee attack with a morale bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum 1). You must declare the destructive smite before making the attack. You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier.
This says you can "make a single melee attack with a bonus on damage rolls". So it too is being specifc.
Wooden Fist (Su): As a free action, your hands can become as hard as wood, covered in tiny thorns. While you have wooden fists, your unarmed strikes do not provoke attacks of opportunity, deal lethal damage, and gain a bonus on damage rolls equal to 1/2 your cleric level (minimum +1). You can use this ability for a number of rounds per day equal to 3 + your Wisdom modifier. These rounds do not need to be consecutive.
This specifically says your "unarmed strikes... gain a bonus on damage rolls", so we're still not talking about a generic use of the term "damage rolls".
Calling upon the strength and wisdom of a deity, you gain a +1 luck bonus on attack and weapon damage rolls for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3). The bonus doesn’t apply to spell damage.
And this one says "weapon damage rolls", not just "damage rolls".
As you can see the word damage rolls only applies when you are using a weapon.
In every single instance you quoted, the text explicitly tells you the circumstances under which the damage bonus applies. Not once does it just say "damage rolls" the way Smite Evil does. None of what you gave is evidence for what you say it is.
I will admit that I am arguing more RAI than RAW. RAW the case is strong, but I don't think it was the intent. Most people would only allow it to apply to attack roll based damage so if the intent is for all damage to be affected then an FAQ or errata is needed.
Hi :)
Does Smite Evil works with channel energy ?
Channel energy has damage roll but no attack roll so it's not clear for me.Thanks.
Yes.
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 Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.
Channeling Positive Energy against an undead target results in a damage roll, thus you add Smite damage.
Smite Evil doesn't indicate that this only applies with melee attacks. There are entire builds of paladins centered around using Smite Evil with a bow. You could technically apply the Smite Evil damage bonus to a spell cast from a wand or scroll, as long as it had a damage roll.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I will admit that I am arguing more RAI than RAW. RAW the case is strong, but I don't think it was the intent. Most people would only allow it to apply to attack roll based damage so if the intent is for all damage to be affected then an FAQ or errata is needed.
Well, people have a tendency to "allow" only whatever they've always assumed, regardless of what the rules actually say. People will learn 3E from a friend, continue through 3.5 and into PF, and never actually look at what a given rule says, let alone look at it with fresh eyes, free of traditional assumptions.
There are other abilities that give bonuses to non-attack-based damage (like the Draconic sorcerer bloodline ability, among others). It's not like it's unprecedented.
Maybe smite is supposed to apply to channels, maybe not. It'd be easier to believe it's not if the bonuses to attack rolls and damage rolls were the same number (i.e., if they were both CHA-based or both level-based), but they're not. And having a nasty AoE against evil undead doesn't exactly seem off-theme for the divine warrior of anti-evilness that is the paladin. And the text seems to allow it.
If it's not RAI, fine. But it sure doesn't look like it'd be a problem, does it?
Someone just posted in an old "paladins are OP" thread early this morning. I can say it is fine for me, but for the sake of argument, if this is applied RAW people will be bringing their proverbial pitch forks and torches to take care of the paladin.
I guess FAQ'ing the OP thread won't hurt though.
You need a damage roll, which is only mentioned in certain situations.But not in all situations.
So why, in this one, it would be necessary ?And a channel energy provokes a damage roll on undead.
Thanks for yours answers, but i still stand on my first idea.
RAW I think you have a strong case by RAW. I would hit the FAQ button on your original post though. It is better to try to find out up front, than get to level 10 for your paladin, and find out they changed the wording.
Smite works when you target a foe. You can not target with channel, you hit an area of effect. You may hit the target of the smite with damage, but you are not targeting him with damage.
Irrelevant. The smite is targeted, but once you've done that, there's just specific lasting effects, including the bonus damage. Otherwise, the AC portion wouldn't work, since you're not targeting them when they're attacking you.
I think Bob the Literalist would have this one so I won't even try to counter it RAW.
I think this is another example of the rules written with the assumption that people have 3.5 experience, however.
I think Bob the Literalist would have this one so I won't even try to counter it RAW.
Agreed. I'd read it as applying to any time the paladin rolled damage. Spell, channel, melee, or ranged.
Unlike some other threads, this one actually makes sense that way. The paladin fills the area with holy light, and the one target he especially marked out is in the brightest spot. Or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your smite is an ongoing effect against a single target. by RAW it seems like any damage you inflict to that target should gain the bonus. that is a little bit speculative... it does say "damage rolls made against the target of her smite" so a good argument could be made that it only adds to targeted effects but it also says "all damage rolls made against the target" so i think you can make an equally strong argument for adding it to any damage you do to someone you smote. i hold to the second interpretation- so in the case of channelling i would have a paladin roll damage normally, have all effected creatures roll saves normally, and then when assigning damage to each effected creature add the bonus damage to the smitten creature (or half of it, if the save was successful).
like i said, i think that interpretation can kind of go either way (so take this for what you will) but i've been GMing for a long time and that's how i handle it.