Paladin Detect Evil

[YogoZuno]

After DMing for a Paladin a few times recently, I had some questions about the specifics of the Detect Evil abillity.

1. Is Detect Evil a Standard Action by default?
2. The paladin can focus on a single subject as a move action - does this require the paladin to have activated the unfocussed version of the abillity first? i.e. Is focussing on one subject actually a full round action in total?
3. To focus on one target, does the Paladin have to be able to see the target?
4. If the above is a no, does the Paladin need to know where an invisible or unseen target is to be able to focus on it? i.e. if the target has moved from where it was last seen, and successfully made a stealth check, can the Paladin still focus on it?

[GM Jeff]

1. Casting the spell, Detect Evil, is a standard action. The class feature Detect Evil for the paladin is a move action.

2. The paladin choose a target, and uses Detect Evil, and finds out the results as if concentrating for 3 rounds with the spell all as a move action.

3. Not really. If the paladin can't see, being able to touch the target would qualify as targeting with Detect Evil.

4. You have to be able to see or touch the target.

[Happler]

ability in question:

Quote:

Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. A paladin can, as a move action, 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. While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

The following may not be RAI , but it is how I read the RAW.

1) If they are using it just as the spell, it is a standard, but they have the option of only checking 1 thing (item or individual), this makes it a move action.

2) Since it stops you from doing the general sweep, I say that they do not need to activate the unfocused version first. They get an either/or option, not a general sweep, narrow to a focus option (at least to do this in 1 move action instead of 3 standard actions).

3) I believe that this makes it a "targeted effect" as any targeted spell which requires you to be able to see or touch your target. see "Aiming spells in the book"

[TimrehIX]

Happler: I see how you would get that but I sincerely think you are wrong.

The paladin only has one form of detect evil. He can’t chose between an area effect for standard action and a single target ability for a move action. He only gets the single target ability.

The paladin ability is not a spell the descriptive text is telling you how the special ability is different from the spell. “Detect Evil, as the spell” just means that in all ways other than the ways it is expressly stated to work differently treat it as the spell.

[YogoZuno]

Lol, good to see some consistency. GM Jeff, I think you should read the text a little closer, mainly the first sentence.

However, you both got me looking at the Aiming a Spell portion of the Core Rulebook - never thought of looking there. Thanks very much, and it certainly seems to answer the overall question in this case. The thing that muddied the waters was that the description for the 3rd round of Detect Evil says 'If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.' - does this imply you CAN target an evil creature you can't see or touch but know is present?

[Malachi Silverclaw]

The RAW is ambiguous. It could be read to mean different things:-

• it is a SLA, which duplicates the spell. A paladin may use the SLA just like the spell (the 'normal' version), but he also has the ability to, as a move action, '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.'
- it is possible to read the RAW to mean that the normal version must already be in use and the 'single subject' must already be in the detection area of the SLA
- it is possible to read the RAW to mean that the two versions may be used entirely independently

• it is possible to read the RAW to mean that the paladin only has the single-target, move action version, and cannot use the 'normal' version at all

All three interpretations are not contradicted by the RAW, but only one version can be RAI! Since the RAW doesn't help us decide which version is intended, this is where we have to actually use our minds! I know, right?

3.0 and 3.5 only had the 'normal' version. If we are to believe that it was an intentional change to the move action, single-target version, and take away the previous ability to use it 'normally', they would know to make this deliberate change very clear. As it is, the current description includes;-

Quote:

While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

This leads me to believe that the ability may also be used 'normally'. If it were only useable as a single-target version, this line would not make sense, and the ability would have been worded differently from the start!

That leaves two choices, does the 'normal' version have to be in operation for the move action version to work, or are they really two separate but related abilities?

If the former, then it would take the paladin one standard and one move action to use! He's using the move action version to make sure he isn't wasting a Smite Evil on a non-evil opponent. If this is as intended, then the paladin is wasting an entire combat round without attacking, which seems contrary to the design philosophy evinced by making Lay On Hands a swift action when healing himself!

In 3rd ed, detect evil could only be used as a standard action, denying the paladin any attacks in the round where it is used. Since the Pathfinder version has been specifically changed to include a move action version (which does allow that round's standard action to be used to make an attack), I must conclude that the move action version does not require the 'normal' version to already be active!

I believe that the paladin has, in effect, two separate but related abilities:-

• the ability to use detect evil as a spell-like ability, working as the spell

• the ability to, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil, learning the strength of its aura as if he had used detect evil to study it for 3 rounds

YMMV.

[Happler]

I agree that there are ambiguous readings for the RAW here. I tagged it for a FAQ myself.

Part of the reasoning for how I read it is the lack of the wording "except as follows".

If it read "Detect Evil (Sp): At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell except as follows." or something similar it would call out that they are changing how the spell normally works. Instead it goes on with "A paladin can, as a move action," which, for me at least, calls it out as a separate activation style from a normal spell like ability.

As I said though, I can see that the RAw can be read many ways. Before now I never questioned mine. I do hope that they can chuck us a quick little FAQ on the RAI for it.

[Mmcdowell1972]

With the wording "can" in the description means that they have a choice between one of two conditions. If the wording is "must" then it would be exclusive to one and not both conditions.

If it were worded "a paladin can cast detect evil as the spell detect evil. A paladin must, as a standard action, concentrate. . ." then there would be less confusion.

[claudekennilol]

Happler's interpretation is how I run it at my tables. It's the input one that fits the written entry for paladins.

[Matthew Downie]

I don't know the intended rule, but you can find out how most people run it here.

Given the slow response to FAQ requests (this thread is 20 months old), maybe 'use the most popular interpretation' is a better approach than trying to deduce the intent of various writers by studying ambiguous English words.

[Hyperlance]

Good pickup Yogo. I've always thought I could play it as a move action to give a Yes/No response. So if I was in combat, i could move action detect evil, swift action to smite evil, then say vital strike with a holy weapon to do insane amount of damage.

But now I feel that its a standard action to start it (at will) and then be a move action to get all the information from it, so if done in one round, would mean basically a 1 round detect. But you could however do it as a standard action and then move say into position next to the big bad. Then next round, move action to get the result.

Now question though, does detect evil give you anything straight away, or does it take a round before you get the information, so basically on your next turn. If it was immediate, and there was only really one source of evil, you could at least smite, and then move.

However I've been playing my paladin with a shining wayfinder, doing a standard action to point to the nearest evil. I always thought it looked more dramatic to do that.

[gamerdork]

I am in agreement with the end of Malachi's post: two separate abilities. I am in an AP and the GM ruled the other way (to my surprise) - but it's his game so I have to comply.

And if a thread is FAQ'd several times, why can Paizo not take two fricking minutes to answer the question from an official perspective? <rant> I am so frustrated with their vague wording on so many things. Here's an idea: maybe learn how to look at your writing from an objective point of view, you know to make sure it makes sense before you print it in 7 million books and charge $50 each for that book. Rules, by definition, should not be open to so many and varied interpretations.</rant>

Game on!
- Corey

[Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan]

gamerdork wrote:

And if a thread is FAQ'd several times, why can Paizo not take two fricking minutes to answer the question from an official perspective? <rant> I am so frustrated with their vague wording on so many things. Here's an idea: maybe learn how to look at your writing from an objective point of view, you know to make sure it makes sense before you print it in 7 million books and charge $50 each for that book. Rules, by definition, should not be open to so many and varied interpretations.</rant>

With your 64th overall post on these boards you decide to Necro a months old thread and rant on something that's been discussed a hundred times in other threads, and expressed your displeasure at the lack of a FAQ for every thread that's been "tagged several times."

Do you know how many threads that is? What if Paizo has left this intentionally vague? What if Paizo means, "hey guys, it works exactly how it says it works, what's the problem?"

Do you realize Paizo is way more interactive with us than TSR or WOTC ever were?

I am always glad to welcome new folks to the forums, but sheesh.

[gamerdork]

Zahir ibn Mahmoud ibn Jothan wrote:

With your 64th overall post on these boards you decide to Necro a months old thread and rant on something that's been discussed a hundred times in other threads, and expressed your displeasure at the lack of a FAQ for every thread that's been "tagged several times."

Do you know how many threads that is? What if Paizo has left this intentionally vague? What if Paizo means, "hey guys, it works exactly how it says it works, what's the problem?"

Do you realize Paizo is way more interactive with us than TSR or WOTC ever were?

I am always glad to welcome new folks to the forums, but sheesh.

With apologies, I was directed to the thread by another player in the game in which the question came up. I chose "necro'ing" a thread over starting a new thread, because I figured a new thread might get me yelled at by the community that there were already discussion(s) about it (which of course, there are). Seems I was doomed on either path :)

I have no idea how many threads are faq'd, or what their intentions are by not answering this (or any other). With apologies, I do not generally have the time to search through the forums. I used my lunch today, to take a look at a couple of other threads on the same subject, and still do not see a definitive answer. Which is too bad, because I really feel my GM is interpreting the ability incorrectly, and was hoping to have some official statement(s) to back up my position. Oh well, no worries. It's just a game, after all.

Thanks for your guidance!
- Corey

[N N 959]

Detect Evil, PRD wrote:

....While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range.

This line is unambiguous and makes it 100% clear that:

1. If the paladin were not detecting in an individual, they would otherwise be able to detect evil on anything in range;

2. Given #1, that means the paladin must be able to use Detect Evil "as the spell."

While it's is certainly within the universe of possibilities that the original author did not, in fact, intend to let the paladin use the ability "as the spell" and only meant them to detect evil as a move action, RAW says they can do either the spell or the move action version.

[Ty-Ri]

Maybe this is a question for another thread, when a paladin uses the detect evil (especially as the quick scan on one target using his movement) is this obvious that the paladin is scanning or can it be done on sly? At Dragon Con this past year I got into a heated debate over the action and it seemed the GM role played the character to be personally offended by the paladin's action.

[Bob Bob Bob]

So, by the rules, a Paladin's detect evil can be identified with spellcraft and they provoke an attack of opportunity for it. It doesn't matter that it has no verbal, somatic, or material components, you can identify it with spellcraft (without penalty even).

The devs have clarified this is true and suggested fluff reasons as to why this happens and what it might look like.

The big issue is that there is no listed skill for "identify spellcasting" I can find anywhere. There's skills for identifying a specific spell being cast or already in place but not for just identifying spellcasting in a general sense. If the NPC had spellcraft they could attempt to identify the spell used against them, but by attempting to identify the spell then clearly they knew you cast a spell against them. If the NPC suspected you were hostile they could notice you glazed over for long enough for them to AoO you and suspect spellcasting. If we roll with the fluff provided by the devs then all spellcasting (including SLAs) has a noticeable element and the NPC knew you were a paladin, they probably had a pretty good idea what you were casting.

Dev reference here.

[N N 959]

Bob Bob Bob wrote:

The big issue is that there is no listed skill for "identify spellcasting" I can find anywhere.

Technically, it's Perception. But you're right in that the game doesn't really talk about how one knows if someone is casting a spell. However, based on all the rules written that involve spell casting, it is apparent that anytime a spell or SLA is used, everyone in visual range knows it. So the Perception DC is essentially the same DC to see someone standing there.

One question I need to look at, is wether Invisibility hides spell casting. I'd go with now. In 3.5, spells of both Divine and Arcane nature are tapped from the same source: The Weave. I am not certain if Pathfinder subscribes to this paradigm. In any case, I envision spell casting to be something that creates some visual effect that is clear to all and has nothing to do with wether the spell has components. Jason suggests the same thing here:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

...and other flavor bits that happen when a spellcaster makes the magic happen, as it were.

Those "flavor" bits are discernible by anyone and are clear indications that magic is being invoked. No spellcraft check needed.

[Bob Bob Bob]

Minor point, the Weave is Forgotten Realms, not default D&D 3.5 (which is Greyhawk). I believe 4e was Forgotten Realms though.

As an aside, the suggested fluff for spellcasting from Paizo's art appears to be floating runes.

[bob_the_great]

I have to agree with the people who say that there should be a FAQ about this. This is an iconic ability of a base class and has been a known issue for 5 years. If there is an easy answer it would take a minute for this whole question to be out to rest. If there isn't an easy answer, well, that's a major fault which should be fixed.

N N 959 wrote:

This line is unambiguous and makes it 100% clear that...

I personally read that line as a slightly redundant but possibly necessary clarification that the move-action precludes additional use of the spell effect. I could see someone trying to argue that the 'as if studied for 3 rounds' effect was single target but still getting the regular benefits of the spell against others. Said another way, that line clarifies that they can't have the larger cone effect of the spell active and concentrate on one target within effect while keeping it going.

[N N 959]

Sounds like we are saying the same thing. When I look at the context of the class ability, it seems to make sense that both options of normal spell use and targeted spell use are an option.

Paladins can detect evil as a rule, however, because of Smite, you can't force them to waste three rounds to localize it. Thus the additional use which improves the usefulness of Smite at the cost of obtaining the benefits of normal use.