A really stupid Smite Evil question...

[mattmanak]

In a play session tonight, I had a player who is playing a Paladin insist that *all* damage to the target of a smite evil would receive the damage bonus that his Paladin would have applied due to this description from the rules:

"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."

Bold added by me. This is directly from the book. I informed him that the intent was for the damage of all attacks from the Paladin, but he insists that the phrase "all damage rolls" means that any other player character who does damage would also get to add the effects of the smite. I, of course, think this is ridiculous, but would rather not use the "It's that way because I told you that's the way it works" ruling...

I've seen other wording for the smite evil ability, but can't confirm that it's Paizo backed.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Matt

[GM Kyle]

Only the Paladin adds her level to her damage until she gets the ability that allows her party to get Smite Evil bonuses.

[Name Violation]

key words: THE PALADIN, NOT PALLY AND HIS ALLIES.

thats another (higher level) ability for everyone to get smite

[Detect Magic]

Aura of Justice (Su): At 11th level, a paladin can expend two uses of her smite evil ability to grant the ability to smite evil to all allies within 10 feet, using her bonuses. Allies must use this smite evil ability by the start of the paladin's next turn and the bonuses last for 1 minute. Using this ability is a free action. Evil creatures gain no benefit from this ability.

If he is right, this ability is pointless.

[Elinor Knutsdottir]

Interestingly, and I hadn't thought of this before despite playing a paladin in one campaign, it probably does read that damage from throwing alchemist's fire, or a fireball if multi-class sorcerer would get the smite bonus.

I agree with Name. "the paladin /snip/ adds her paladin level to all damage rolls". You could make the semantic argument that the barbarian does their damage and then the paladin adds their paladin level to that damage, but if so the characters should have their character sheets taken from them and be beaten with them till they pass out. There's probably several places in the rules where a literal use of the word 'all' would create similar ridiculousness.

Alternatively, you could throw in a villain with a smite good and have them initiate their smite on the paladin and then run off so the paladin takes +Level damage from all sources for ever.

[mattmanak]

I'm so tired I completely forgot about Aura of Justice! Thanks for the heads up!

Matt

[Neo2151]

You should point out that there aren't any spelled-out rules for what happens when a soul leaves it's body, so technically you can still take actions if you have the "dead" condition. You know; just to show them what a tool they're being. ;)

[Steve Shippy aka Beerwolf]

To the OP. no question is ever dumb. That's why we have the boards, to help each other out.

[Cyrus Lanthier]

Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:

Interestingly, and I hadn't thought of this before despite playing a paladin in one campaign, it probably does read that damage from throwing alchemist's fire, or a fireball if multi-class sorcerer would get the smite bonus.

Wow... I didn't realize that it worked with ranged weapons at all. Somehow became convinced that it said "melee" somewhere in there. Just wow. We fought a manticore that was flying around shooting the party and I used my Smite just for AC (which was still a big deal), then scared it off by just making it waste it's spines... Next time I am in that situation, I am going to wreck whatever it is with my sling/javelins...

[Platosbeard]

Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:

Interestingly, and I hadn't thought of this before despite playing a paladin in one campaign, it probably does read that damage from throwing alchemist's fire, or a fireball if multi-class sorcerer would get the smite bonus.

I agree with Name. "the paladin /snip/ adds her paladin level to all damage rolls". You could make the semantic argument that the barbarian does their damage and then the paladin adds their paladin level to that damage, but if so the characters should have their character sheets taken from them and be beaten with them till they pass out. There's probably several places in the rules where a literal use of the word 'all' would create similar ridiculousness.

Alternatively, you could throw in a villain with a smite good and have them initiate their smite on the paladin and then run off so the paladin takes +Level damage from all sources for ever.

That's evil and vindictive. I really like it.

Tell your player to spend a few more years reading rule books and learning how to parse the language.

[mattmanak]

Platosbeard wrote:

Tell your player to spend a few more years reading rule books and learning how to parse the language.

Unfortunately, I believe the years spent reading rules books and listening to others "lawyer" these kinds of things have done their damage in this case. Thanks to one and all for the suggestions!