| 51 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is clear that this is not as clear as some people have previously thought so lets try a new FAQ attempt (I think they have changed their policy since the last attempt).
FAQ Question: Does a paladin need to activate Detect Evil with a Standard action before using the Move action to determine if a creature is evil?
Yes: You must spend a standard action to activate Detect Evil and then you can use a move action to shortcut the amount of time required to tell if a single creature is evil.
No: You can use the move action without already having spent a standard action to activate the Detect Evil ability.
I do not recall where, but I read that innate abilities do not provoke AoO in general. And the detect evil seems an innate to me for the paladin, so I'd say no provoke.
Edit: forget what I just wrote.
The power of detect evil as written in it's class, is a Spell like ability that gives the effect of detect evil at will.
To activate the ability you need to spend a standard action as per the spell. Normally the spell tells you to spend 3 rounds studying to gain information about an aura, but a Paladin may do this as a move action (instead of three rounds).
So activating detect evil provokes an AoO if threatened (check the list of actions that either provoke ot not provoke AoO). Using a move action to study requires concentration only and I do not think that provokes an AoO when threatened. Using concentration (as a standard action) to maintain a spell does not provoke an AoO when threatened, so I will go out on a limb assuming that the paladin's move action concentrating doesn't either.
Simply check the paladin class at Paizo's PRD, the spell 'detect evil' and the table in the chapter combat where possible actions (move, standard, swift, free) and their consequenses are summarised.
Tanks but i know about that ( possible actions and their conséquences)
But like the "move action detect evil" is not referenced ( spell detect evil is a standard, concenctration to maintain the spell is a standart action too) that's not clearIf the paladin don't need to activate the spell like "detect evil" for scan a creature in a move action , does it provok a AO ?
that is my question
I answered that question: activating a spell-like ability provokes an AoO when threatened. Check the table in the chapter Combat in the Paizo PRD (it's online).
And the move action is normally 3 rounds of concentrating for someone who cast the spell (check the spel detect evil in the Paizo PRD). So, yes off course the spell needs to be activated, otherwise there is no spell effect active.The only thing that is unclear is if the concentrating during the move action provokes an AoO. I stated that this is unknown as it is not defined in the table of Combat. But considering the fact that concentrating to maintain a spell as a standard action does not provoke an AoO it's likely that a move action to concentrate doesn't either. So if you want to ask a ruling about that go ahead, but I actually think it's obvious even though you are correct when stating it's not mentioned.
|
The wording states that "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."
Now, can they normally see evil without using the Detect Evil SLA just by studying for 3 rounds? No, it means they don't need to spend 3 rounds of Detect Evil to determine if what they are looking at is evil. Anyone other then a Paladin who CASTS detect evil has to study a subject for 3 rounds to get that information.
Tanks but i know about that ( possible actions and their conséquences)
But like the "move action detect evil" is not referenced ( spell detect evil is a standard, concenctration to maintain the spell is a standart action too) that's not clearIf the paladin don't need to activate the spell like "detect evil" for scan a creature in a move action , does it provok a AO ?
that is my question
I answered that question: activating a spell-like ability provokes an AoO when threatened. Check the table in the chapter Combat in the Paizo PRD (it's online).
And the move action is normally 3 rounds of concentrating for someone who cast the spell (check the spel detect evil in the Paizo PRD). So, yes off course the spell needs to be activated, otherwise there is no spell effect active.
The only thing that is unclear is if the concentrating during the move action provokes an AoO. I stated that this is unknown as it is not defined in the table of Combat. But considering the fact that concentrating to maintain a spell as a standard action does not provoke an AoO it's likely that a move action to concentrate doesn't either. So if you want to ask a ruling about that go ahead, but I actually think it's obvious even though you are correct when stating it's not mentioned.It's not obvious that the paladin need to activat the standard action spell like ability detect evil before scan , as a move action, the evilness of a creature or a object
( see the faq demand above)
Again: read the spell description of the spell detect evil. When a cleric has cast detect evil, he/she can determine if a person, object is evil. For more specific details (strength of the aura) the cleric needs to spend three rounds studying a target.
A paladin may cram those three rounds (mentioned in the spell detect evil) in 1 move action. So without a detect evil spell (or spell like ability detect evil for a paladin) being active you may study all you want but you will not gain any information about the evil aura.So the only unclear situation is: Does the concentrating during the move action provokes an AoO. I stated that this is unknown as it is not defined in the table of Combat. But considering the fact, that concentrating to maintain a spell as a standard action does not provoke an AoO, it's likely that a move action to concentrate doesn't either. So if you want to ask a ruling about that go ahead, but I actually think it's obvious even though you are correct when stating it's not mentioned.
It is clear that this is not as clear as some people have previously thought so lets try a new FAQ attempt (I think they have changed their policy since the last attempt).
FAQ Question: Does a paladin need to activate Detect Evil with a Standard action before using the Move action to determine if a creature is evil?
Yes: You must spend a standard action to activate Detect Evil and then you can use a move action to shortcut the amount of time required to tell if a single creature is evil.
No: You can use the move action without already having spent a standard action to activate the Detect Evil ability.
And what about that ? When i read the class ability, that's not clear
but i have clearly understood that the paladin can use detect evil , at will, like the spell
copy pasted the ability:
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 (sp) after detect evil means spell like ability
The operative word here is the spell like ability detect evil (at will, as the spell). This means:You do not need to memorise this spell it's available to you. To activate this spell like ability read the spell's description and the spell says it takes a Standard Action to cast. So activating the spell like ability costs you a Standard Action and provokes AoO if threatened.
Then the paragraph of the spell like ability detect evil states: The paladin only needs a move action instead of three rounds of concentration to determine the strength of the aura (this refers to the spell like ability). If you read the spells description you notice that clerics typically need three rounds for the same assesment, after they cast the spell. It even says that when focussing on a single object/individual does not detect other objects or individuals within range. Because normally when the spell is active all objects and individuals are detected as evil in a 60 foot cone.
There is no ambiguity in that description of the skill, just read it.
So the only unclear situation is: Does the concentrating during the move action provokes an AoO. I stated that this is unknown as it is not defined in the table of Combat. But considering the fact, that concentrating to maintain a spell as a standard action does not provoke an AoO, it's likely that a move action to concentrate doesn't either. So if you want to ask a ruling about that go ahead, but I actually think it's obvious even though you are correct when stating it's not mentioned.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After a fairly long thread about the subject, the original question was marked as answered in the FAQ... except it wasn't. When I commented, someone suggested they had marked it to clear it from the queue, but couldn't determine the actual question. So I thought I'd simply ask again and clarify.
Please mark this for the FAQ so we can get a response.
Question:
Does the paladin have to cast the Detect Evil SLA normally before he can use the move action version on a single target, or is the latter an independent use that can be done on its own?
I read it as an either or scenario. Either the paladin can cast Detect Evil and follow its normal rules governing the spell, OR he can use Detect Evil as a move action to focus on a SINGLE item or creature and determine if it is evil in a single round.
The former would be used if you are unsure if/where evil is nearby, whether invisible or whatever. The latter would be used if you needed to make an on the spot judgement if you can see an item or creature, presumably to use Smite Evil without wasting it.
I read it as an either or scenario. Either the paladin can cast Detect Evil and follow its normal rules governing the spell, OR he can use Detect Evil as a move action to focus on a SINGLE item or creature and determine if it is evil in a single round.After a fairly long thread about the subject, the original question was marked as answered in the FAQ... except it wasn't. When I commented, someone suggested they had marked it to clear it from the queue, but couldn't determine the actual question. So I thought I'd simply ask again and clarify.
Please mark this for the FAQ so we can get a response.
Question:
Does the paladin have to cast the Detect Evil SLA normally before he can use the move action version on a single target, or is the latter an independent use that can be done on its own?
And the you are wrong because you did not read everything.
First it's a move action and secondly it states: 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.This is said in the same subparagraph as the spell like ability and clearly adds an exception to the spell detect evil. it is not seperate as the statement is in the same subparagraph as the rest of the spell like ability and not an extra option apart from the spell like ability.
When you read Detect evil you even understands the reference it makes as the discription says: learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. And that is a major advantage to a paladin because a cleric needs to study three rounds after casting detect evil.
At will means that you do not need to memorise the spell. Not that the power is activated instantly as a free action. Read the description of spell like ability.
|
|
I read it as an either or scenario. Either the paladin can cast Detect Evil and follow its normal rules governing the spell, OR he can use Detect Evil as a move action to focus on a SINGLE item or creature and determine if it is evil in a single round.
And the you are wrong because you did not read everything.
First it's a move action and secondly it states: 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.This is said in the same alinea as the spell like ability and clearly adds an exception to the spell detect evil. it is not seperate as the statement is in the same alinea as the rest of the spell like ability and not an extra option apart from the spell like ability.
When you read Detect evil you even understands the reference it makes as the discription says: learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. And that is a major advantage to a paladin because a cleric needs to study three rounds after casting detect evil.
At will means that you do not need to memorise the spell. Not that the power is...
1st - Spell check and a little proof-reading is your friend. What is "alinea"?
2nd - I'm wrong because you said so? Isn't this a discussion asking for our take on the matter? If so, then I have given my take, and in the absence of "official" responses, all of this is conjecture anyway. Some folks read it one way, others another.
3rd - The entry does not specify one way or the other; when we get "official" word on the matter, that will hopefully settle the issue.
I read it as an either or scenario. Either the paladin can cast Detect Evil and follow its normal rules governing the spell, OR he can use Detect Evil as a move action to focus on a SINGLE item or creature and determine if it is evil in a single round.And then you are wrong because you did not read everything.
First it's a move action and secondly it states: 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.This is said in the same subparagraph as the spell like ability and clearly adds an exception to the spell detect evil. it is not seperate as the statement is in the same subparagraph as the rest of the spell like ability and not an extra option apart from the spell like ability.
When you read Detect evil you even understands the reference it makes as the discription says: learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds. And that is a major advantage to a paladin because a cleric needs to study three rounds after casting detect evil.
At will means that you do not need to memorise the spell. Not that the power is...1st - Spell check and a little proof-reading is your friend. What is "alinea"?
2nd - I'm wrong because you said so? Isn't this a discussion asking for our take on the matter? If so, then I have given my take, and in the absence of "official" responses, all of this is conjecture anyway. Some folks read it one way, others another.
3rd - The entry does not specify one way or the other; when we get "official" word on the matter, that will hopefully settle the issue.
1: Sorry i didn't notice I hadn't translated that yet: Alinea means subparagraph, I corrected it allready.
2: If you only read the ability, you may think what is that 'three rounds is a move action instead'. If you read the spell description of Detect Evil as well, no ambiguity is left and you understand what is said.
3: The entry doesn't have to specify one way or the other because it all refers to one skill: The spell like ability Detect Evil and the two ways you may use to detect after you activate/cast the spell. Unconcentrated will show evil in a 60 foot cone AND concentrating on a single target will tell the strength an evil aura of that specific target!!!
1st - Spell check is a beautiful thing. :) And proofreading is golden as I've already felt that bite for lack of on this very thread.
2nd - You're wrong because the rules say so. Not because Snowleopard says so. But to put it less blunt, the part of the "move action" CAN be confusing. So I can understand the problem. That being said, if this was an EITHER/OR situation where you could choose between two ways of using the ability, it would say so. Something like "Or a paladin can, as a move action..." would have been in place to delineate a different use. Instead what they're spelling out is the difference between using a Standard Action as normal or a Move Action for focusing. The text is already assuming activation via normal means and now has moved on to the concentration part.
3rd - The entry DOES specify one way over the other as explained above. However, if this is not clear to you, then onward this thread goes. :)
|
|
1st - Spell check is a beautiful thing. :) And proofreading is golden as I've already felt that bite for lack of on this very thread.
2nd - You're wrong because the rules say so. Not because Snowleopard says so. But to put it less blunt, the part of the "move action" CAN be confusing. So I can understand the problem. That being said, if this was an EITHER/OR situation where you could choose between two ways of using the ability, it would say so. Something like "Or a paladin can, as a move action..." would have been in place to delineate a different use. Instead what they're spelling out is the difference between using a Standard Action as normal or a Move Action for focusing. The text is already assuming activation via normal means and now has moved on to the concentration part.
3rd - The entry DOES specify one way over the other as explained above. However, if this is not clear to you, then onward this thread goes. :)
I respectfully disagree on points 2 and 3.
Which you certainly have every right to do. If we may break down the ability in question for a moment, could you please lay it out for me as to how you see this as two different uses? I am understanding there is a different interpretation, but I do not understand the thinking behind it.
|
|
I don't see it as two different uses, but a quickened narrow focus of the same ability. It's a paladin thing. They excel at rooting out evil. I really don't see any nebulous phrasing here. To me it is cut and dry. If others want to rule it one way or another, to me that is ok. If there is an official ruling, that could settle the issue.
The AoO part is simple.
If the answer is: Standard to activate +Move to concentrate on one creature then the Standard action provokes but the move does not provoke because concentration does not provoke (CRB p185).
If the answer is: Move to activate on one creature then the Move action provokes because it is a spell-like ability and spell-like abilities provoke (CRB p186).
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.
Ok, the first sentence isn't causing any conflict with anyone, right? Detect Evil is a spell that requires a Standard Action to cast and further Standard Actions to maintain through concentration. In the paladin's case it is a SLA with limitless uses per day.
But this next part seems to be what is causing the conflict. It says a paladin can concentrate as a Move Action. Concentrating is normally a Standard Action, but this rule changes it. But concentrating on what? What is in effect for the paladin to concentrate on to maintain? Something has to be active first.
If it were a separate use of the ability, the text should read "A paladin can, as a move action, activate this ability to concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet..."
But there is no indication of activation. So how did he get to the concentration part of it without something being activated first? Where in the text does it talk about activation? The only place I see it is in the 1st sentence where it talks about "as the spell". Unless there is a rule present to change how something works, it is assumed to work as previously established by the general rule. The general rule is that this ability works "as the spell". The following sentence is talking about the change to the concentration rule from Standard to Move. Concentration implies previous activation. But I don't see the text showing where this is happening other than the 1st sentence.
If it is there, I am curious to know where. Otherwise without evidence of another activating mechanism, the only one we can go off of is the general rule of "as the spell" and how that activates...ie 1 Standard Action.
|
if this was an EITHER/OR situation where you could choose between two ways of using the ability, it would say so. Something like "Or a paladin can, as a move action..." would have been in place to delineate a different use.
If this wasn't an EITHER/OR situation where you could choose between two ways of using the ability, it would say so. Something like "And a paladin can, as a move action..." would have been in place to delineate that the full version has to be active first.
This lack of either an 'and' or an 'or' isn't going to settle the argument. It's ambiguously written.
So why am I convinced that it's either/or? First:-
While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range
....means it's mutually exclusive to the other use, not additional to.
Second, the 3rd ed paladin had the main version, but not the move action version. This caused problems for the paladin:-
• it stopped him attacking on any round he used it, either activating or concentrating, because either takes a standard action
• not knowing if your target is evil you might waste a precious use of Smite Evil
The paladin is more about Smiting than detecting. He is designed as a martial, and he should be attacking the baddies every round.
So the PF devs designed a solution: instead of being forced to waste one (or three!) rounds not attacking, he can check out a single target as a move action, potentially activate Smite as a swift action, and still have a standard action to do what he's meant to do, attack!
The other way of reading it would have the paladin not only waste a standard action to activate the detect, but also another move action! This is worse than 3rd ed! I don't find this credible.
This lack of either an 'and' or an 'or' isn't going to settle the argument. It's ambiguously written.
Not really. You are ambiguously interpreting it as such, but the way it is written is straight forward. The rule is set forth in the 1st sentence. The burden of proof is upon you to show where the text changes this. It is not incumbent upon the rule to provide text to explain its own consistency. The rule remains as originally written unless specific text acts to change it. This is the case in all general vs specific instances.
...he can check out a single target as a move action...
I agree he can do this, but how can he do so without first activating Detect Evil? What part of the text are you drawing from that shows the ability is active in order for him to "check out a single target"?
The general rule of concentrating requires a Standard action. In the 2nd sentence the text specifically changes this to a Move action, but I am not seeing where the text is talking about the 'activation' of the SLA other than in the 1st sentence.
So please provide the text so that I can better understand where you are getting it from.
|
|
When it says:-
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil
...then I believe what it says.
Remember, the paladin is much more interested in the binary evil/not evil information just so he doesn't waste his Smite. That is why PF added the ability.
The 3rd ed version takes a standard action. You can angle your cone to catch a single creature (or there may only be a single creature to check), so the first round answer of 'there is evil in the area' is enough, but it stopped you attacking because it took that standard action.
The reason for PF's change is to allow the standard action to be used to attack, therefore the detecting can be done as a move (the Smite uses the swift).
The other way to interpret it means that this extra clause would have the whole process either be unchanged or take even longer. This doesn't make sense in context.
There's no point either side saying 'Its obvious' because it was equally obvious to both sides. It didn't seem ambiguous to me when I read it, and it isn't until I read differently on these threads that it entered my head that it would be interpreted another way. But both sides have exactly this experience. Given that, it's really inaccurate to say 'Its obvious' anymore.
If a sentence can reasonably be interpreted either way (and given such wide support on both sides in several threads, it's folly to assert otherwise) then further examination of the wording is useless. At this point we have to try to understand which interpretation makes the best sense in context.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is ambiguous.
I could have been written, "A paladin can then, as a move action..." which would indicate the SLA had to be active first.
Or it could have been written, "Or a paladin can, as a move action..." which would indicate an either/or option.
But, it wasn't... Until there is an official response, everyone is just offering either their preference, or the interpretation they applied at their first reading. Because the language doesn't indicate one way or the other.
My original reading was "either/or". I'll stick with that until...
When it says:-
A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil...then I believe what it says.
Unfortunately, this is not saying what you think it does.
Until there is an official response, everyone is just offering either their preference, or the interpretation they applied at their first reading. Because the language doesn't indicate one way or the other.
See that's just it. The language DOES indicate one way or the other.
The description given to us is not talking about any activation of the ability. It is talking about concentrating. This is the point where the rule about concentrating changes. It even gives the word "concentrate" right in the text. This says nothing about activation. The general rule of activation is that it works "as the spell", meaning it requires 1 Standard Action to activate. Nowhere in the description of this ability is this general rule changed. The only change is made from 'Standard Action Concentrating for the cone effect' to 'Move Action Concentrating for a single target effect.'
So we have:
The general rule of activation and concentration is set forth.
The offered language changes the rule of concentration.
The offered language does not change the rule of activation.
So unless there is text present somewhere to support it, the Either/Or argument is incorrect as the activation rule remains unchanged.
Now if you disagree with this, then please indicate the text that changes the rule of activation. Because I am still missing it. It is not the part mentioning how you can concentrate as a move action. That part is talking about the change in concentration rule. So what other part are you seeing that I am missing?
Elbedor, everyone I have ever played with has interpreted it the opposite from how you are interpreting it. Most people posting in this thread are surprised when they see the interpretation you agree with (standard to activate, move to concentrate).
So when people say "Wow! I did not realize it could be read that way!" you may want to accept that a good chunk of the population is reading it that way and that it might be ambiguous.
In any case, please keep arguing it as that keeps the thread on top. Perhaps more people will FAQ it here.
Heh. I am certainly willing to argue it a certain way, although I can only argue it so much. If people wish to take or leave what I post, that is up to them. I still sleep well at night regardless. :)
As to "most people", I have always been under the impression that people's interpretations do not make RAW, but rather the other way around. So it doesn't matter if 1% or 50% or 99% feel something is a certain way. RAW is what it is regardless. It is a matter of interpreting it correctly. Now if the designer of a product wants to be successful, it is generally incumbent upon them to make sure ambiguity is as minimal as possible. Hence the FAQ mechanic which helps to clean things up here.
That being said, I am certainly open to reading the Paladin's ability the other way. But when discussing RAW my approach must always be that I begin with the general rule. As I and others are not seeing where the general rule is being changed with regards to the activation of the ability, we can only assume it is therefore unchanged...meaning requiring a Standard Action to activate. So I am certainly willing to consider another view, but before that happens, I will need something to consider other than "Lots of people see it this way." Specifically I am looking for the text that spells out the rule change.
If you can present it for argument, then great! I may have to reconsider my position. If not, however, then I must humbly request that you reconsider yours. Rejecting that, then we are at an impasse with no resolution short of FAQ. But before we get to that point, I think the matter is certainly worthy of discussion. But the discussion only works so long as everyone involved is open to considering what is presented. If the focus digresses to "I MUST prove myself right", then we end up getting nowhere....short of FAQing anyway.
Elbedor, at no point did I suggest you change your stance on the rule itself. I suggested that you change your stance that it is clear cut and without ambiguity.
My point is that there is sufficient evidence that there are two ways to interpret the rules and that a significant number of people are interpreting the rules differently from yourself. Ie: ambiguity.
However, please keep debating as that may generate more FAQ requests. :)
Gauss, I'm sorry. When people posted on here that the rules were "Ambiguous" I was reading it as "Vague". And the rules are anything but Vague.
Yes, I agree that there are 2 primary views. If there weren't, then this wouldn't be here. My argument has not stemmed just from trying to show one interpretation as valid over another, but also that such an interpretation can be reached. This has happened numerous times for me when I've come into a thread and found after reading much back and forth that my initial interpretation actually doesn't quite fit as well as I thought it did. So was the rule ambiguous? Not necessarily. Ambiguity says that the issue is unresolvable; that there is no definitive conclusion without Dev input. But by reasoning out the text and the steps and so forth, I've found it is quite possible to reach a definitive conclusion.
Now my intention is never to go the route of "Well it's obvious if you use your brain!" or "Well you're free to House Rule it as you want, but I'm sticking with RAW."
Both of those types of comments are nothing short of back-handed insults that delegitimize the counter-stance. That is why when my comment of "Seems pretty straight forward" was challenged on the previous page, I attempted to clarify what I meant...meaning the way I was reading it seemed straight forward. Not that it should be to everyone.
That being said, I DO believe that a final decision is possible without Dev help. Usually I see arguments playing out one of three ways:
#1 Either the text truly is vague and the Devs are needed to step in and explain what they meant.
#2 The text isn't vague, but it appears initially as ambiguous. Yet with enough discussion over the details, a general agreement can be met.
#3 The interpretation falls into 2 camps that do not budge. So the issue either remains unresolved or the Devs must step in and rule one way or the other...or something else entirely.
The 3rd option is what I would call Ambiguous. There are multiple interpretations, none of which will move regardless. Like Greater Trip for example...but that's another thread. :P
My hope is for us to be able to reach #2. I'm an old-time gamer and I do not think we need to necessarily jump to having the Devs spoon feed us information for anything short of Vagueness. But that stems from my faith in the gaming community and our ability to reason things out. There are some on here that would say my faith is misplaced. But I'm not so sure. THAT would have to be discussed and reasoned out...if it isn't too vague or ambiguous. :P
This is incredible. Elbedor explained how rules and reading works perfectly. And still people hope that an easy shortcut is valid. The move action even states that the normal working of the spell is different when concentrating and a spell-like ability is not working constantly. That fact alone is enough to see that the spell like ability needs to be active before you can concentrate. The spell detect evil explains how it may be used and what effect that gives. No exception to the activation of the spell is given and still a lot of people 'hope' they can get away with a move action for activating and using the spellike ability. The description specifically states that a paladin can use a move action instead of three rounds of concentrating and those three rounds are mentioned in the spell and nowhere else.
A cleric using this spell needs 4 rounds (one standard action to cast the spell and three rounds of concentrating on a single target) to make a determination of the strength of an evil aura. A Paladin can do so in a single round (standard action to activate the spell-like ability and a move action to concentrate on a single target)! How much more advantage does everyone needs???
Ah yes. I overlooked that connection between the 1 round of "Move Concentrating" and how it correlates with the 3 rounds of "Standard Concentrating".
"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."
Out of context, this is clear RAW for a paladin being able to detect evil things as a move action just by concentrating.
Taken in the context of the preceding and following sentences and after reading the Detect Evil spell, the implied RAI is that you have to spend a standard action first.
Is it just me or does it seem like the only people saying "It isn't clear" are those who stand behind the Either/Or interpretation?
:P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Otherwise you could have the ridiculousness of a paladin using their move action to concentrate and determine an enemy is evil, swift action smiting, and then readying their standard action for the creature to move in range and they attack it. And I just do not think that is intended at all.
While the opposed camp believes that is exactly what is intended and do not find that ridiculous at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it just me or does it seem like the only people saying "It isn't clear" are those who stand behind the Either/Or interpretation?
:P
On the contrary. When I initially read it, and for the nearly five years since, I read it very clearly as "Either/Or". It was abundantly clear to me that:
At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell. *Full Stop - This is an independent clause that does not contain any references to the following independent clause*
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. *Full Stop - This is an independent clause that does not contain any references the previous independent clause*
Now, this thread is the first occasion in which this has ever been called into question in my Pathfinder experience. I am capable of understanding why some people believe that it is "First-Second". But, to do so, you actually have to believe the language is unclear. Claiming that it is clearly NOT "Either/Or" is disingenuous.
Of course, there is a way for a paldin to smite and attack in the same round, but it requires the paladin assuming the creature is evil.
Having played with the 'detect evil is a move action rule', the situation often comes up that someone starts their round adjacent to an enemy, and has to choose between detecting evil on them and attacking once, or assuming they're evil and making a full-round attack. So there's a trade-off.
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. *Full Stop - This is an independent clause that does not contain any references the previous independent clause*
I think it's unclear but I have come to believe over the course of this thread that this is not an independent clause since (a) if you hadn't already entered Detect Evil mode as a standard action, studying it for 3 rounds wouldn't do anything, and (b) the next sentence "While focusing on one individual or object, the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range" doesn't make much sense unless you are assumed to already be in a 'Detect Evil' state.
Feel free to attack the rules themselves. Please don't attack my command of the English language.Is it just me or does it seem like the only people saying "It isn't clear" are those who stand behind the Either/Or interpretation?
:P
It was sarcasm only. No attack intended, so don't worry. I live in a country where I do not speak the native language well. So I understand such a position as you are describing.
|
You emphasized the wrong parts of your post. I cleaned it up a bit for you. =)As per page 221 of the Core Rulebook, a spell-like ability takes a standard action to activate, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DESCRIPTION. In all other ways, the spell-like acts as per the spell.
On page 60 of the Core Rulebook: "A paladin can, AS A MOVE ACTION, concentrate on "a single item or individual within 60 ft. and determine if it is evil, learning the strengths of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds."
Therefore....
For what it's worth, I stand by my original disection of the rules, cleaned up and properly emphasized by Crusader.
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. *Full Stop - This is an independent clause that does not contain any references the previous independent clause*I think it's unclear but I have come to believe over the course of this thread that this is not an independent clause...
Ok, let me stop you right there.
An independent clause (or main clause) is a clause that can stand by itself, also known as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate; it makes sense by itself.
This isn't really up for debate. This is just a fact of basic grammar.
Does this sentence reference the previous sentence in a meaningful way?
Simply put, no.
Should it? Maybe. That's the point of this discussion.
Ok, let me stop you right there.
An independent clause (or main clause) is a clause that can stand by itself, also known as a simple sentence. An independent clause contains a subject and a predicate; it makes sense by itself.This isn't really up for debate. This is just a fact of basic grammar.
Does this sentence reference the previous sentence in a meaningful way?
Simply put, no.
OK, let me try to come up with an analogy... Suppose there was a rule phrased like this:
"An Aeromancer can cast Fly, as the spell, at will. Aeromancers must make a DC 25 fly check every round or fall to the ground. If they make their fly check, they must either move at least 30 feet or land."
Now, the middle sentence there can stand by itself - making it an independent clause in the technical sense - but if you treat it as one, it's silly; the character must make fly checks all the time while walking around or fall over. The sentence is not intended as an independent entity but is sandwiched between two other sentences that give it context.
"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."
Studying a creature for three rounds does not give you the strength of a creatures aura - unless you have previously cast detect evil. So the sentence doesn't stand on its own in an entirely satisfactory manner.
If we're getting grammatically correct here for a moment, there is actually a very important reference between the two sentences. The 2nd sentence is not simply a single Independent Clause, but rather is comprised of both Independent and Dependent Clauses. The Independent could exist on its own in a vacuum.
"A paladin can, as a move action, concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil."
Sounds pretty basic. No issue there for anyone? But then Paizo goes and tags on the Dependent Clause.
"...learning the strength of its aura as if having studied it for 3 rounds."
Now what is this referring to? "...as if having studied it for 3 rounds?" This is referencing absolutely nothing from the Independent Clause. Nowhere else in the sentence is there mention of what studying the target for 3 rounds means. This reference is in regard to the 1st Sentence...or more namely, to Detect Evil.
So this 2nd Sentence, although part of it is an Independent Clause by the rules of Grammar, cannot stand alone in its entirety. It would be like me saying "I will separate Part A from Part B." Technically this is an Independent Clause, but you have no idea what I'm referring to. Now if you happen to know that I'm talking to my little one about how to brush his teeth and if I've already defined for him that the Toothpaste tube is Part B and the cap is Part A, then you get the reference. But only because you know the context the sentence exists in.
In the same way, the 2nd Sentence does not exist on its own. Its purpose is defined in context to the 1st Sentence.
We are talking about Detect Evil.
All general rules for Detect Evil as a SLA are in place.
Rule change concerning Concentration takes place.
Specific rule of Concentration cost only a Move action now in place.
Single expense of Move-action Concentration equates to 3 rounds of regular Concentration.
Conclusion = Once Detect Evil is active, I may Concentrate as normal on an area or, as a move, concentrate on a single target and immediately gain 3 rounds worth of study.
Sounds like a very nice ability.