Considering that Smite Evil does no damage to non-evil creatures ("If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."), I'd think it would be pretty obvious whether the smite worked.
This would be true if hit points were not abstract; 20 damage on a target with 100 hp is a smaller wound than 10 damage on a target with 20, and yet both can be the same size creature with the same outward appearence. So if you hit for 10 basic + 10 smite, you could have inflicted a small wound on a powerful evil target, or a severe wound on an minor non-evil target. You tell the difference how, exactly?
DM's job is to describe the effect of a hit, not to give you the stats of the foe.
I removed a post. Please don't abuse the quote function.
I removed a post. Please don't abuse the quote function.
Strangest reason yet I've seen for a post being removed. Was the poster putting words in other people's mouths?
It was my post, I tweaked someones comment to inject a little humor. Guess that's against the rules.
It was my post, I tweaked someones comment to inject a little humor. Guess that's against the rules.
It most certainly is, because people do not like words being placed in their mouths. I am sure you meant it in jest, but the person quoted (and others) may not have taken it that way.
Considering that Smite Evil does no damage to non-evil creatures ("If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect."), I'd think it would be pretty obvious whether the smite worked.This would be true if hit points were not abstract; 20 damage on a target with 100 hp is a smaller wound than 10 damage on a target with 20, and yet both can be the same size creature with the same outward appearence. So if you hit for 10 basic + 10 smite, you could have inflicted a small wound on a powerful evil target, or a severe wound on an minor non-evil target. You tell the difference how, exactly?
DM's job is to describe the effect of a hit, not to give you the stats of the foe.
True, but it's plainly obvious when an attack does absolutely no damage, and a smite against a non-evil foe is just that--it deals no damage, has no effect, and so forth.
I can sorta see it both ways.
I mean as a DM it'd seem like giving out freebie info.
But from a Paladin point of view, i mean.. you are say 10th level. You've presumably been swinging that sword a long time. You know what happens when you hit something with it. You alsso know what usually happens when you smite. You'd also know (assuming it happened before) what happens if it hits with one of the special critter types.
so you would know, just from your own experience:
my hit wasn't normal- it didn't do enough damage.
My hit was normal- nothing special happened.
My hit was normal for a smite- that dude was evil.
My hit was a holy smite home run! woohoo look at the rent that made in that things flesh! Wow!
If you take a hammer, in your hand, and hit a concrete floor. Then take it and hit a metal door, then a standard red brick, and then a glass mug.
You generally know what you should expect. If you smash the concrete floor and it shatters like glass- somethng is up.
if you smash the glass and your hammer rebounds without a scratch to it, you know whats up.
You may not know the exact damage done or why- but you know something is different. And thats without even being an expert.
I guess TL;DR would be: if you can hit something and know whether or not it has DR based on knowing what your hits usually do, then a paladin should also know if he got normal, smite, or super smite damage.
-S
|
I can sorta see it both ways.
I mean as a DM it'd seem like giving out freebie info.
But from a Paladin point of view, i mean.. you are say 10th level. You've presumably been swinging that sword a long time. You know what happens when you hit something with it. You alsso know what usually happens when you smite. You'd also know (assuming it happened before) what happens if it hits with one of the special critter types.
so you would know, just from your own experience:
my hit wasn't normal- it didn't do enough damage.
My hit was normal- nothing special happened.
My hit was normal for a smite- that dude was evil.
My hit was a holy smite home run! woohoo look at the rent that made in that things flesh! Wow!If you take a hammer, in your hand, and hit a concrete floor. Then take it and hit a metal door, then a standard red brick, and then a glass mug.
You generally know what you should expect. If you smash the concrete floor and it shatters like glass- somethng is up.
if you smash the glass and your hammer rebounds without a scratch to it, you know whats up.
You may not know the exact damage done or why- but you know something is different. And thats without even being an expert.I guess TL;DR would be: if you can hit something and know whether or not it has DR based on knowing what your hits usually do, then a paladin should also know if he got normal, smite, or super smite damage.
-S
I believe they don't teach undead or outsider physiology in convents. Its a little harder to get living or unliving speciments rather than a floor & a hammer.
True, but it's plainly obvious when an attack does absolutely no damage, and a smite against a non-evil foe is just that--it deals no damage, has no effect, and so forth.
It does no extra smite damage, you mean. You still belted somebody with a three foot length of sharpened metal, and that will hurt. As smite has no visual component what else would you expect to see?
|
As it is something that bug me:
This one was a prison for a shadow daemon
.....
The paladin charges, he hits, he rolls all his DMG - TH sword + Power Attack + Smite and he asks if he gets double smite dmg. [b]I said no,[/] and tried to describe the damage he dealt "The shadow creature seems badly hurt, the blow pushed him to the wall of the chamber..." I would probably describe more if not for the arguing, which I tried to postpone untill the game ends for the benefit of all.
Why "No"? A shadow demon is an evil outsider, so why the paladin hasn't delivered double smite damage?
I believe they don't teach undead or outsider physiology in convents. Its a little harder to get living or unliving speciments rather than a floor & a hammer.I can sorta see it both ways.
I mean as a DM it'd seem like giving out freebie info.
But from a Paladin point of view, i mean.. you are say 10th level. You've presumably been swinging that sword a long time. You know what happens when you hit something with it. You alsso know what usually happens when you smite. You'd also know (assuming it happened before) what happens if it hits with one of the special critter types.
so you would know, just from your own experience:
my hit wasn't normal- it didn't do enough damage.
My hit was normal- nothing special happened.
My hit was normal for a smite- that dude was evil.
My hit was a holy smite home run! woohoo look at the rent that made in that things flesh! Wow!If you take a hammer, in your hand, and hit a concrete floor. Then take it and hit a metal door, then a standard red brick, and then a glass mug.
You generally know what you should expect. If you smash the concrete floor and it shatters like glass- somethng is up.
if you smash the glass and your hammer rebounds without a scratch to it, you know whats up.
You may not know the exact damage done or why- but you know something is different. And thats without even being an expert.I guess TL;DR would be: if you can hit something and know whether or not it has DR based on knowing what your hits usually do, then a paladin should also know if he got normal, smite, or super smite damage.
-S
Unless its a level 1 paladin on his very first smite evil ever in his life, then he's gonna know the difference between a smite and not a smite- just like he knows when he hits something with DR.
He doesn't know what DR, he just knows his hit wasn't as effective as it should be. If you rob them of that information generally then you are failing at something the DM is supposed to be: the eyes and ears of the PC's in the world.
Player:"I hit the wall with the hammer"
DM: *crickets*
Player: "Well, what happened"
DM: "I'm not telling you."
No, you have to tell him something. And when something out of the ordinary happens the player gets to know that too.
Now does this mean you tell him "He has DR 10/Cold Iron and Evil"
No, of course not. But he does get told that (however you want to fluff it) that it doesnt' do as much damage or instantly heals or whatever.
When the PC smites for extra damage the hit is bigger than it would normally be, and when its a Home Run Smite because of the critters type the hit is even /bigger/.
Regardless of how many HP the bad guy has:
5 damage is less than 20 is less than 45.
If 5 is normal and a smite is 20 and a home run smite is 45, regardless of whether bad guy has 50 or 500000 HP, the hit still shows as normal, greater, or holy cow. It does so because of the PC's (not the player, the character's) expectations given his knowledge of what his actions usually accomplish.
The DM is the only window into the game the PC has. If you withhold information the PC should have from the Player, then you need to change that.
The PC hitting a home run smite is something the PC would realize. Even if its just "You notice that hit did far more damage than you otherwise would have expected from your smite attack".
Does he automatically know why or what type? not necessarily. He can guess- but thats no different than a wizard realizing his fireball was extra nasty on that creature who happened to have cold vuln or something. He knows it was extra nasty but can only guess as to why. (absent a knowledge check, of course).
A paladin is a warrior. He knows what his weapon does or doesn't do in the normal course of events. He knows a normal hit from a critical hit from a smite hit from a smite critical from a 2xsmite hit or whatever.
-S
Unless its a level 1 paladin on his very first smite evil ever in his life, then he's gonna know the difference between a smite and not a smite- just like he knows when he hits something with DR.
I keep hearing this, but I keep failing to hear any justification for it.
As I said above, hitting a weak foe for 10 out of their 20 hit points will inflict a greater-looking 'wound' than hitting a strong for for 30 out of 100 hit points. How does the paladin know the difference? Smite evil does not produce a glowing sparkly rainbow when it hits...it just makes the hit 'count' more than it otherwise would have.
There is nowhere a description in the core of how DR and smite do their extra damage, no description of visual effects. So how the DM chooses to describe it is up to him. Indeed I can see the DR of different creatures acting differently - a werewolf may take a wound that seems to close immediately if the weapon is not silver, a golem might just have blows bounce off, barely scratching it.
All I can say is that when I DM, I describe the hit and the apparent damage. It's up to the player to judge if his abilities are working or not and what this means. In the example given of the shadow demon, another character might hit said demon and inflict barely a scratch. At this point the paladin player should be able to work out that they are dealing serious mojo to this thing.
|
|
@ Dabbler
Smite evil against a phlymorphed evil outsider with 500 hp
My first hit do 30 points of damage. 6% of the target hit points
Second and successive do around 20 point of damage. 4% of the target hit points.
You seem to claim that the a 2% difference is small and not perceptible.
On the other hand:
- the difference is larger than most weapons range of damage. Only the greatsword and the greataxe have a larger difference between minimum and maximum damage. It is hard to think that the first hit was for maximum damage and all the following hits are for minimum damage
- my first hit delivered 50% more damage than all the following hits. It would be hard not to notice the difference.
The paladin is not operating in a vacuum without points of reference. Every hit he do is a point of reference.
The paladin is not operating in a vacuum without points of reference. Every hit he do is a point of reference.
I agree with you, insofar as the DM should be describing what the character sees, and should include sufficient information for the player to work it out for themselves should such information be available.
I just don't believe in spoon-feeding players...
|
Unless its a level 1 paladin on his very first smite evil ever in his life, then he's gonna know the difference between a smite and not a smite- just like he knows when he hits something with DR.
I keep hearing this, but I keep failing to hear any justification for it.
As I said above, hitting a weak foe for 10 out of their 20 hit points will inflict a greater-looking 'wound' than hitting a strong for for 30 out of 100 hit points. How does the paladin know the difference? Smite evil does not produce a glowing sparkly rainbow when it hits...it just makes the hit 'count' more than it otherwise would have.
There is nowhere a description in the core of how DR and smite do their extra damage, no description of visual effects. So how the DM chooses to describe it is up to him.
You're correct, that it's a GM call how he describes a successful smite, and if he chooses for it not to have a visible effect, or be otherwise detectable, that is his prerogative.
The issue the OP had, is that up to the contested encounter, the GM had been describing the effects of a succesful smite.
For him, it's an issue of consistency.
For my own campaign, I inserted the Alpha playtest version of the paladin into the 3.5 rules, and since it was a new mechanic, I emphasised the effect as detectable by the user (a wave of energy running down his sword arm).
I continued to do so, as we introduced the Beta version, then ported the whole game to PF.
Each time the mechanics changed, I made sure to discuss it outside of the session, so the player knew there had been an official change, rather than it being down to my transient mood.
And the first time he was tricked into picking ineligible targets (Ebon Triad agents, with glamered appearance, and misdirection, who were specifically gunning for him), he knew that the energy circuit hadn't been completed.
But because I had always been consistent up till then, he knew it wasn't because I had simply got tired of describing the effect, but that something very unexpected had happened in-game. Therefore, it was up to him to use in-game methods to discover what had happened.
That's perfectly reasonable, and another matter entirely!