Abilities where you are called upon to select a target. I think that works for a definition.
Smite Evil is somehow both not an attack and not a non-damaging effect upon the Incorporeal creature, despite the fact you must target said creature.
So yes, quite odd.
Yet you don't have a problem with smite not overcoming the target's hardness, energy resistance, immunity to criticals, concealment miss chance, or other special defenses... it's just the "doesn't bypass incorporeality" that's making you think this ability is confusing.
BTW, holy aura is a targeted ability (you cast in on an ally) that gives the target a buff (AC bonus, save bonus, SR, protection from mental influence), and yet also harms creatures that attack that target (save or be blinded). And there are other examples of multipurpose effects like this.
So very odd.
It would seem to potentially lead a lot of vagueness in how to treat other effects, if one where you target a creature and then gain bonuses on said creature isn't REALLY targeting/affecting, and yet also isn't an attack that causes damage.
As it turns out, magical effects can do several things at once, and they don't all have to be in the same category (attack, defense, buff, etc.), whether they're targeted or affect an area. So I get that you're confused that smite evil doesn't fit into your classifications of how rules effects work, but your definition is flawed, and that's all on you, and not a problem with the rules.
It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities.
Fairly certain that the bolded text is referring to things like dragons (who have DR/magic and whose attacks count as being magical for bypassing DR), monks (with a similar effect), and creatures attacking with natural weapons who are wearing an Amulet of Mighty Fists.
Abilities where you are called upon to select a target. I think that works for a definition.
Smite Evil is somehow both not an attack and not a non-damaging effect upon the Incorporeal creature, despite the fact you must target said creature.
So yes, quite odd. It would seem to potentially lead a lot of vagueness in how to treat other effects, if one where you target a creature and then gain bonuses on said creature isn't REALLY targeting/affecting, and yet also isn't an attack that causes damage.
Would you allow a creature under the effects of Bless or Bull's Strength to hit and damage an incorporeal creature? They both are magical buffs that improve one's attacks (and damage in the latter case), just like Smite Evil. And, just like smite evil, they don't actually affect weapons, and instead improve the person.
Smite is targeted only because it works against just a single foe. It has no effect upon your weapon, and mentions nothing about your weapons becoming magical, or being able to harm incorporeal creatures. It also is not an attack; just like Bless and Bull's Strength, Smite Evil is a buff that improves your attack, damage, and AC, as well as granting you the ability to bypass any DR your target my have when attacking it. It has no text along the lines of, "...your weapon counts as..."
And as for supernatural attacks affecting incorporeal creatures, I'd imagine that it is referring more to explicitly offensive supernatural abilities like Channel Energy or something similar. After all, paladins are rife with supernatural abilities that affect themselves, yet they do not automatically gain the ability to harm incorporeal creatures.
Finally, "target(ing)" isn't a rules term in Pathfinder/D&D 3.5 (except in spell descriptions), and does not govern the entirety of effects of an ability. This isn't Magic the Gathering where "target" is an important keyword with a clearly defined set of rules governing how it works. As SKR pointed out, there are plenty of instances of abilities that have a target, yet have effects outside of the specifically targeted individual(s).
I reread the description of incorporeal ability and I see where the source of misunderstanding lies:
Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature.
It says nothing about being selected or targeted. It specifically says about being affected. Smite evil does not affect the selected victim directly - it affects the paladin with a buff and the paladin in turn affects the incorporeal creature with a (buffed) attack. That's why using Smite Evil does not suffer from 50% chance of not working - it does not affect the incorporeal creature when activated, it only affects incorporeal creature when the attack is made and even then it is done indirectly.
so smite evil in a sense, a character sees a target and asks for help to slay that evil target. If the target is indeed evil, the deity grants a buff to the character to dish out dmg and overcome. If the target isnt evil, then the deitys do nothing and the character swings and hits and realizes hes not getting help from his gods and he made a miscalculation.
The smite evil isn't necessarily targeting or the creature isnt marked physically or magically by and spells. Its more like asking someone for help and they give u backup against the creature u asked help against, which in this case instead of a ranger shotting ur target from afar in helping taking down ur target, which would be a case where the target couldnt do anything to themselves to get rid of a character helping another one out, and in this case it would be a deity helping in giving a supernatural "buff" (like a different form of syrength that operates under different rules bc its from a divine and not from the plane of mortals) to help against the one target. The help is received and used by the character himself and not with his equipment.
When a character can do more than one smite evil a day, its like asking a deity to watch his back amd help him against the ones he is able to smite evil against.
Yes, Holy Aura has a generic quality about evil creatures that attack the target. Smite Evil does not work this way. Holy Aura requires you select an ally. Smite Evil requires you select an enemy. I'm not seeing how these are comparable. Show me something where you select an enemy, but the target of the spell is an ally that gains bonuses or some other affect relative to that enemy only.
You're the one defining smite evil as a "targeted ability," meaning "Abilities where you are called upon to select a target." Using that definition, smite evil and holy aura are the exact same type of ability: a "targeted ability."
Yes, but with Holy Aura you are selecting ALLIES. With Smite Evil you are selecting an enemy.
Ah, so you're changing your definition: smite is not an "ability where you are called upon to select a target," it's ""ability where you are called upon to select a enemy." Which is still not a definition the game uses to categorize effects, so I'm not surprised that smite doesn't work exactly like what you think its classification is.
What about Ranger's Focus?
Ranger's Focus (Ex): At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the ranger's focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.
Except for using the term "focus" instead of "target," it's much the same thing. The ranger (guide) selects a target it gets bonuses to attack and damage against. The ranger focusing on the enemy in this way is neither an attack nor a non-damaging effect; it's just him saying, "Yeah, that guy, I don't like him."
Yes, Holy Aura has a generic quality about evil creatures that attack the target. Smite Evil does not work this way. Holy Aura requires you select an ally. Smite Evil requires you select an enemy. I'm not seeing how these are comparable. Show me something where you select an enemy, but the target of the spell is an ally that gains bonuses or some other affect relative to that enemy only.You're the one defining smite evil as a "targeted ability," meaning "Abilities where you are called upon to select a target." Using that definition, smite evil and holy aura are the exact same type of ability: a "targeted ability."
I thought the RAW for Smite Evil stated that "...as a swift action, the Paladin chooses one target within sight to smite..." to receive the cited benefits against the designated creature, hence why I was baffled that the 50% miss chance for incorporeal did not apply.
I don't really have an issue with it not applying to Smite Evil, but I am confused as to how the conclusion is reached, since it seems I'm missing some variables, or the variables are represented incorrectly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can you show me any spell that works like that? Or any other supernatural ability where you select a target and you would claim that you don't affect that target?
I don't have to, because the game doesn't say smite evil is classified as a select-an-enemy ability.
Here's your logic:
1) Y is defined as "a special ability that targets an enemy"
2) smite evil is a Y
3) because a Y targets an enemy, it should work like X
4) because smite evil is a Y, it should work like X
The problem with that is, your steps 1 and 3 are false.
1!) The game doesn't define Y, therefore the game has no guidelines for how Ys are supposed to work.
3!) Because the game does not classify smite evil as a Y, smite evil doesn't have to follow your definition of Y, nor does it have to work like your expectation of what a Y should do.
Unrelated to that, you haven't explained why you think smite evil should overcome incorporeality, but aren't arguing that it should also bypass hardness, energy resistance, immunity to criticals, concealment miss chance, or other special defenses. Why is that?
Yes, but with Holy Aura you are selecting ALLIES. With Smite Evil you are selecting an enemy.Ah, so you're changing your definition: smite is not an "ability where you are called upon to select a target," it's ""ability where you are called upon to select a enemy." Which is still not a definition the game uses to categorize effects, so I'm not surprised that smite doesn't work exactly like what you think its classification is.No, I am not changing my reasoning at all. I simply don't see your point with Holy Aura. They are both abilities where you select targets. One has you select a single enemy, and one has you select (potentially) multiple allies. They are both abilities where you target something. Holy Aura affects the beings you target. Yet you are saying the Smite Evil does not affect the being you target. Can you show me any spell that works like that? Or any other supernatural ability where you select a target and you would claim that you don't affect that target?
And again, I'd note the Smite Evil enhancing spells require that you target an enemy, so Incorporeal should potentially mean there's only a 50% chance they work if they don't do damage. And they are just piggy-backing off the Smite Evil ability.
I believe the target is basically like the guy above stated witb ranger focus, is just saying THAT guy right there. Targeting being like pointing a finger at someone in real life, statimg THAT right there. Ur targeting it and its somethimg that they cant debuff themselves or miss because ur not actually doing anything to them.
Its like calling out for a character to help another character against something and stating that u need help with THAT (being the targeting) guy but for a paladin using holy smite, its a deity helping him against THAT guy thru a supernatural buff.Since holy smite is a buff to the paladin, it cant miss of the paladin can see the incorporal, because he getting a buff on himself against THAT guy and not actually placing anything ON the THAT guy but himself so as long as he sees THAT guy. Holy smite cannot miss because its going on the paladin to help him against THAT guy.
Some effects like spells target enemies, but the enemy may be immune, e.g. because it is mind-affecting.
Smite also isn't useful offensively vs. enemies immune to weapon attacks, for example Swarms.
Giving you the possibility to target a creature doesn't guarantee it will work the same on them as other targets,
because the target has their own abilities which can potentially change anything in the game.
But even if you don't get to do full damage vs. incorporeal or swarms, etc,
you still benefit from Smite vs. Incorporeals/Swarms: +CHA to your AC/TouchAC/CMD,
as well as triggering abilities that work when you have activated Smite.
@Drach: I don't think the issue lies with your position being unclear. I understood it completely; but the rules do not back it up.
I agree in that it is a hostile effect that targets a creature, of which you get the listed benefits, as the RAW specifies the Paladin "targets a creature within sight to smite". Hence why I am baffled as to why the 50% miss chance for incorporeal does not apply. It is also with the that I state it's not an attack.
In short, I do not agree that it makes weapons magical or attacks supernatural, since RAW it adjusts your attack type no different than it does Power Attacks or Sneak Attacks, whereas Arcane Strikes specifically state your weapons while so enhanced are considered magic. If such text was listed in Smite Evil as currently worded, I'd concede.
If this was 3.X, you'd be correct, as Smite Evil functions as a direct attack. But this is not 3.X, so that ruling does not apply.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
it doesnt get the 50% miss because to target something for ur smite evil phase of attack (aka like rage) all u have to do is SEE something to ask for help from ur deity against. If u see it, thats the target of ir righteous fury. If u dont, u cant target it soyou cant smite evil it.
I believe the problem is people are seeing smite evil as part of an attack when its not. The targeting is the same as "target of my affection", "target of my hate", etc etc. its not something placed onto the target, the paladin just receives supernatural help against that target. Its just targeting in the sense of of "hey, I see that creature, thats who im gonna smite evil (aka buff myself up against).
Target of spells are similar to the same thing, BUT the only way the 50% chance effects them is if they are themselves affected by the spell. The spell (fireball, magic missil, acid splash, etc etc) is actively doing something to THAT target, hence why it gets a chance to miss. Smite evil doesnt do anything to THAT target, but buffs the paladin against THAT target.
Its like u really hated someone and u see them at school. If u threw a roll at that person, they would have a chance to miss, because its the roll effecting them. If u was in a fight with someone u hated, smite evil would be ur hate for that person. Yes ur hits may not hit him, BUT ur hate against that person couldnt miss because u know the person u hate and its effect YOU to try harder to hurt them . Hope that makes sense.
So, do you believe that a Guide can't get his bonuses to hit and to damage from Ranger's Focus against incorporeals because it's an Extraordinary ability, not a spell, spell-like ability, or supernatural ability? (EDIT: Or a Cavalier's Challenge, for that matter. Is it useless vs. incorporeals because it's Extraordinary? Even if he has a magic weapon, he can't "target" the incorporeal with the ability and get his extra damage?)
If Smite Evil were rewritten so it said "The paladin can focus on a single enemy within line of sight" instead of "The paladin chooses one target within sight," would that solve the problem for you? Because Ranger's Focus and Smite Evil basically do the same thing; it's just that Ranger's Focus's flavor text doesn't include the word "target." (EDIT: Although Challenge does.)
What about Ranger's Focus?
Ranger's Focus (Ex): At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the ranger's focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.Except for using the term "focus" instead of "target," it's much the same thing. The ranger (guide) selects a target it gets bonuses to attack and damage against. The ranger focusing on the enemy in this way is neither an attack nor a non-damaging effect; it's just him saying, "Yeah, that guy, I don't like him."
I brought that up but it was "overlooked". Now I will stroll down to see if anyone replied to it this time.. :)
What about the cavalier's Challenge then? Or the inquisitor's Judgment? Both are included in Warding armor, when the inquisitor's Judgment specifically doesn't "target" a foe, merely buffs the Inquisitor against any number of creatures she may fight during a combat.
(Honestly, I think that the warding special quality is the poorly-written one here. How can a subject end an inquisitor's judgment that doesn't have a target in the first place? To which judgments does this apply? Just attack/damage/spell resistance, or would the inquistor lose her AC bonus or DR or energy resistance only vis-a-vis this one opponent or fast healing against damage done by the opponent in warding armor?)
If flavor text isn't the right word, how about explanatory text? Because Challenge, Ranger's Focus, and Smite Evil all do the same basic thing -- provide buffs vs. a single opponent -- but only Challenge and Smite Evil use the term "target." "Target" can be a game-defined term, as in the target line of spells, but I believe it can also be used in non-mechanical terms to refer to a designated goal, focus, or object. Again, I ask: If Smite Evil (and Challenge) were rewritten to remove the language about a target and instead referred to choosing a single enemy within line of sight, would that resolve your issues with it? Because it could do the same thing using the language from Ranger's Focus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the problem is people are seeing smite evil as part of an attack when its not. The targeting is the same as "target of my affection", "target of my hate", etc etc. its not something placed onto the target, the paladin just receives supernatural help against that target. Its just targeting in the sense of of "hey, I see that creature, thats who im gonna smite evil (aka buff myself up against).If this were true, then something like Warding armor should not work.
Wheres warding armor at so I can look it up?
EDIT-nvm, I found it. With the ruling, I would take it as by activating the armor, u cancel out the effect the other person has. Sorta like dispelling a mage armor. The mage armor doesnt effect u but does make it harder for YOU to hit them, only with smite evil the buffs they gain are strictly against u instead of universal. Notice how to refresh u have to expend a supernatural for that day to recharge it. So basically its almost as a quick emergency call from the person's deity who enhanted it to basically tell the other deity to stop helping the person who has u targeted for their smite evil buffs. I no that sounds silly, but eh I mean smite evil is calling upon help from that characters deity for help against you, not so silly if thats accepted to think another deity would cancel out the other deitys help.
So since u need a religous supernatural ability to recharge, u are using that supernatural effect not to buff urself against a target but dispell a target who is supernaturally buffed against you.
I believe the problem is people are seeing smite evil as part of an attack when its not. The targeting is the same as "target of my affection", "target of my hate", etc etc. its not something placed onto the target, the paladin just receives supernatural help against that target. Its just targeting in the sense of of "hey, I see that creature, thats who im gonna smite evil (aka buff myself up against).If this were true, then something like Warding armor should not work.
Actually RND is correct. The warding armor is mechanically making it so that smite is no longer able to give the paladin the extra benefits against the person it chose to attack(smite).
bad guy with warding-->"I may be the subject/target of your hate, but it wont make any better at fighting me."
The problem with warding armor is that it says "affecting her", when it should read "directed towards her" or something similar. The bad language for warding has no bearing on smite.
So since u need a religous supernatural ability to recharge, u are using that supernatural effect not to buff urself against a target but dispell a target who is supernaturally buffed against you.Unfortunately your argument is not actually supported by the text of Smite Evil, however much you would like it to be true.
It is NOT just Warding. Everything that talks about Smite Evil seems to assume it like Protector's Strike.
Holy smite-very first sentence. A paladin can call upon the powers of good to aid them in their fight against a foe.
Divine help right there.BUT I will say I agree what I stated is flawed for 2 reasons.
1. A paladin doesnt have to follow a "good" deity becajue they can follow a lawful nuetral, which then means they are not receiving their buff from a "good" source.
2. The warding amor doesnt have to have a supernatural effect because I overlooked that they can recharge it with Challenge which is not a buff received from a deity.
I will say that warding armor just negates and dispells the buffs of those 3 (smite, judgement, and challenge) that the target has against me, 1 once per day. Smite, judgement, and challenge isnt something that effects the target in which they had something done to them, its just a buff for them AGAINST that target.
Protecters strike is basically the buffs they receive is also placed on fellow party members. If a divime can grant buffs to one person, whats stopping that divine to buff another person who is helping their champion if they champion wanted them to?
Can anyone here actually give me any evidence that ANYWHERE in the books Smite Evil is treated as a buff -- something that affects only the Paladin?
Smite says you get a bonus to attack and damage against the target(focus) of your smite. If smite was on the actually on the target it would have to apply a penalty to their AC and not a buff to your attack rolls. It would also say the target receives extra damage, but instead it says the paladin does extra damage. The paladin also gets a bonus to AC. All of these things are making the paladin better. They are not directly placed on the enemy.
it doesnt get the 50% miss because to target something for ur smite evil phase of attack (aka like rage) all u have to do is SEE something to ask for help from ur deity against. If u see it, thats the target of ir righteous fury. If u dont, u cant target it soyou cant smite evil it.
I believe the problem is people are seeing smite evil as part of an attack when its not. The targeting is the same as "target of my affection", "target of my hate", etc etc. its not something placed onto the target, the paladin just receives supernatural help against that target. Its just targeting in the sense of of "hey, I see that creature, thats who im gonna smite evil (aka buff myself up against).
Target of spells are similar to the same thing, BUT the only way the 50% chance effects them is if they are themselves affected by the spell. The spell (fireball, magic missil, acid splash, etc etc) is actively doing something to THAT target, hence why it gets a chance to miss. Smite evil doesnt do anything to THAT target, but buffs the paladin against THAT target.
Its like u really hated someone and u see them at school. If u threw a roll at that person, they would have a chance to miss, because its the roll effecting them. If u was in a fight with someone u hated, smite evil would be ur hate for that person. Yes ur hits may not hit him, BUT ur hate against that person couldnt miss because u know the person u hate and its effect YOU to try harder to hurt them . Hope that makes sense.
Yet the effect requires them to target a specific creature for them to smite. Saying it works as a "buff" when the language and context states the exact opposite leads to contradiction.
Just because the range is my sight doesn't mean it symbolizes anything. It's the range, and that's it.
Again, I can understand the intent, but there is no RAW language to support such claims.
it doesnt get the 50% miss because to target something for ur smite evil phase of attack (aka like rage) all u have to do is SEE something to ask for help from ur deity against. If u see it, thats the target of ir righteous fury. If u dont, u cant target it soyou cant smite evil it.
I believe the problem is people are seeing smite evil as part of an attack when its not. The targeting is the same as "target of my affection", "target of my hate", etc etc. its not something placed onto the target, the paladin just receives supernatural help against that target. Its just targeting in the sense of of "hey, I see that creature, thats who im gonna smite evil (aka buff myself up against).
Target of spells are similar to the same thing, BUT the only way the 50% chance effects them is if they are themselves affected by the spell. The spell (fireball, magic missil, acid splash, etc etc) is actively doing something to THAT target, hence why it gets a chance to miss. Smite evil doesnt do anything to THAT target, but buffs the paladin against THAT target.
Its like u really hated someone and u see them at school. If u threw a roll at that person, they would have a chance to miss, because its the roll effecting them. If u was in a fight with someone u hated, smite evil would be ur hate for that person. Yes ur hits may not hit him, BUT ur hate against that person couldnt miss because u know the person u hate and its effect YOU to try harder to hurt them . Hope that makes sense.Yet the effect requires them to target a specific creature for them to smite. Saying it works as a "buff" when the language and context states the exact opposite leads to contradiction.
Just because the range is my sight doesn't mean it symbolizes anything. It's the range, and that's it.
Again, I can understand the intent, but there is no RAW language to support such claims.
Look at the dodge feat. The character has to disnignate a target for them to receive the dodge bonus to their ac against. Is the target actually effected in anyway? No, theres nothing actually effecting the target, theres the feat effecting the character against the target.
Rangers focus. When u desginate a target for rangers focus, is the target actually effected by anything that it can use to dispell the rangers focus? No theres not, bc its not actually effecting them, its effecting the character against that target.Its effecting the character against the target, not actually effecting thebtarget at all. Its only a result of the buff to the character that due to the buffs even effects the target by taking more dmg or harder to hit the character because of his buffs.
Spells use target as the same way. Targeting is only abouytwho is being disnignated to have a chance to be effected by the spell actually effecting them, not as a buff against the character. Acid splash, magic missil, etc etc requires u to target to target so that u can actually effect that target with what ur doing, as in it doesnt actually effect u but is effecting the target. Smite, judgements, challenges, etc etc are effecting the character and by the effects the character gains is how the target experiences the effects. It experiences the effects thru second hand and not as a direct effect.
So yes targeting with smite and spells are really the same, its just tmtargeting who ur dealing with. The differences is how the effects are distributed with spell having a chance to miss is because the spells are directly effecting the target whereas there are targeting that characters receive buffs to be strengthen against, where the target isnt directly effected but is effected by another course of action that it was effected by the sakd effevts and not directly the target.
I re-read the Dodge feat in the Core, and here's what it says:
You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefit of this feat.
So this "select the target this bonus applies to" garbage is not listed or explained, most likely a 3.X rule that you thought still applies, but doesn't.
I read the Ranger's Focus, and it requires you to focus on a specific target to receive its benefits, which is extra attack bonus and damage bonus, like Smite Evil, which apply only to that target. It still has a target you must affect, it's a hostile effect to the target that was designated, and incorporeals have a 50% chance to negate hostile effects that do not deal hit point damage, regardless of type or application.
Even so, I could argue that because it's an extraordinary ability it cannot affect incorporeals at all, but there's no point to.
Back to Smite Evil, the ability still says the Paladin targets a foe in sight to smite; this would commonly mean that the creature affected suffers additional damage and makes it harder to hit the Paladin, both of which are negative effects applied to the incorporeal.
My point is the RAW does not support such views or concepts, and until it does, all we have here is the Devs unable to phrase their intent correctly. The intent CAN be there, and I never said it couldn't or shouldn't, merely that it currently doesn't, and until it does the intent can't be universally taken.
So the FAQ has been answered, a developer has weighed in, and...
Where exactly is the remaining grey area here?
We're arguing as to how Smite Evil does not accrue a 50% miss chance towards incorporeals when the RAW says otherwise. It's something the FAQ clarified but is contradicted by RAW.
Again, I don't see how Smite Evil can be interpreted as a selective buff when the RAW does not support such concepts (and thusly, if the interpretation I provide is wrong, then so is the RAW).
I re-read the Dodge feat in the Core, and here's what it says:
You gain a +1 dodge bonus to your AC. A condition that makes you lose your Dex bonus to AC also makes you lose the benefit of this feat.So this "select the target this bonus applies to" garbage is not listed or explained, most likely a 3.X rule that you thought still applies, but doesn't.
I read the Ranger's Focus, and it requires you to focus on a specific target to receive its benefits, which is extra attack bonus and damage bonus, like Smite Evil, which apply only to that target. It still has a target you must affect, it's a hostile effect to the target that was designated, and incorporeals have a 50% chance to negate hostile effects that do not deal hit point damage, regardless of type or application.
Even so, I could argue that because it's an extraordinary ability it cannot affect incorporeals at all, but there's no point to.
Back to Smite Evil, the ability still says the Paladin targets a foe in sight to smite; this would commonly mean that the creature affected suffers additional damage and makes it harder to hit the Paladin, both of which are negative effects applied to the incorporeal.
My point is the RAW does not support such views or concepts, and until it does, all we have here is the Devs unable to phrase their intent correctly. The intent CAN be there, and I never said it couldn't or shouldn't, merely that it currently doesn't, and until it does the intent can't be universally taken.
ahh ya got me there. wow my mistake lol, have no idea where I was getting that from lol. im gonna stop now. but I will leave with this, spells and effects have a 50% chance to miss on incorporals. what constitutes as the 'effects" part that misses. is the supernatural ability IF it was placed on the target (which its not with smite evil, but on the paladin)considered to be under the 'effect" or is splash dmg or aoe effects from a spell considered to be the "effects" part? smite evil isn't a spell and its a supernatural character ability. would special supernatural abilities even be considered under the effects part that has a 50% chance to miss, or is that effects FROM spells such as splash dmg or aoe effects thats under the 'effects" part?
|
So the FAQ has been answered, a developer has weighed in, and...
Where exactly is the remaining grey area here?
We're arguing as to how Smite Evil does not accrue a 50% miss chance towards incorporeals when the RAW says otherwise. It's something the FAQ clarified but is contradicted by RAW.
Again, I don't see how Smite Evil can be interpreted as a selective buff when the RAW does not support such concepts (and thusly, if the interpretation I provide is wrong, then so is the RAW).
That you don't see it is not indicative of the flaw in the rules.
Read the text again of Smite Evil. There are no specific effects Smite has on "the target."
Valid question, though it's answered when the RAW says the Paladin chooses the target to smite. If the target she designates is evil, she deals extra damage, bypasses DR, and adds her charisma as a deflection bonus to AC against attacks the target makes.
If the target of Smite Evil (the effects of which is applied directly at the target) is an outsider or some other worthy creature, the benefits increase.
The RAW makes multiple allusions about Smite Evil directly targeting the creature the Paladin chooses and applying these extra effects when attacking or being attacked by that creature. How can it be a buff targeting the Paladin when the RAW they write up says the exact opposite of what it's supposed to mean?
That's the question I ask; the intent you provide is clear and I understand how it works, but it is also contradictory to what's currently presented, both the FAQ resolution and the RAW evaluation. I can concede to one or the other, but I can't ignore both sources because they are both equally credible sources (and also the same one). Again, it has to be one or the other: otherwise the public (myself included) gets confused on the subject.
The RAW uses the word "target" as a noun. You're using it as a verb.
Yet the argument isn't about my viewpoint or portrayal, it's about the conflicting RAW/FAQ information and that's the perspective is being used, not mine.
When the RAW says the ability applies effects to the target that only the Paladin benefits from, it's clear that Smite Evil directly targets the creature, not the Paladin.
But the FAQ says the ability buffs the Paladin and says the Paladin is the target of Smite Evil, not the creature.
I hope you see how I find it conflicting, and also why I want a clarification as to which ruling should be correct.
The RAW uses the word "target" as a noun. You're using it as a verb.Yet the argument isn't about my viewpoint or portrayal, it's about the conflicting RAW/FAQ information and that's the perspective is being used, not mine.
When the RAW says the ability applies effects to the target that only the Paladin benefits from, it's clear that Smite Evil directly targets the creature, not the Paladin.
But the FAQ says the ability buffs the Paladin and says the Paladin is the target of Smite Evil, not the creature.
I hope you see how I find it conflicting, and also why I want a clarification as to which ruling should be correct.
you are still think smite evil is an actual action against the target instead of what it is. What it is not an actual action towards something, its a "mode" that a pally goes in. They are not actually doing a smite evil, they are in the " i'm ready to smite this evil" mode.
But again to your question as far to weather or not smite evil should suffer the 50% miss chance, that depends on if u see the part that states "spells and effects", that the effects part is separate and covers EVERYTHING else, or that effects is talking about the effects from spells (area of effects, splash damage, etc etc). Because if effects covers EVERYTHING then yes, supernatural abilities would indeed be under the 50% chance to miss since they are NOT spells nor effects from spells. If u see the effects as effects from spells not directly targeting them (splash damage, area of effects, etc) then by RAW it states that supernatural abilities do NOT suffer the 50% chance to miss because supernatural abilities are not spells and its only spells and effects that are subject to the 50% chance to miss.But that's how u would determine if a supernatural ability is subject to the 50% chance to hit the target is determining what "effects" is directly talking about, because im not entirely sure what effects means, but it could be that RAW is actually in sync with the ruling.
but smite evil...nope. its a buff ON the paladin to help them against said target. doesn't DIRECTLY effect the target, only effects the target thru actions effected by holy smite, so the only subject to miss is if the paladin has a magic weapon and rolls high enough to overcome their AC.
Smite says you get a bonus to attack and damage against the target(focus) of your smite. If smite was on the actually on the target it would have to apply a penalty to their AC and not a buff to your attack rolls. It would also say the target receives extra damage, but instead it says the paladin does extra damage. The paladin also gets a bonus to AC. All of these things are making the paladin better. They are not directly placed on the enemy.
Can anyone here actually give me any evidence that ANYWHERE in the books Smite Evil is treated as a buff -- something that affects only the Paladin?
this right here basically explains WHY smite evil is not subject to the 50% chance to miss. It's effects directly buff the paladin against the target.
Instant Enemy works pretty much like Smite.
No reason you can't target an Incorporeal enemy with it, but it doesn't let your attacks ignore Incorporeal's immunity either.
Only difference between it's and Smite's effects is Smite's CHA to Touch AC which helps alot vs. Incorporeals,
and Favored Enemy gives Precision Damage Type bonus while Smite is untyped.
Target one creature that is not your favored enemy.
With this spell you designate the target as your favored enemy for the remainder of its duration. Select one of your favored enemy types. For the duration of the spell, you treat the target as if it were that type of favored enemy for all purposes.
Smite IS always giving you bonuses vs. the targetted enemy.
It isn't guaranteeing your attacks will be efficacious vs. them, but the bonuses are in effect.The bonuses aren't typed or otherwise different than your normal non-Smite attack rolls/damage rolls,
it's just more of the same, so if the normal attack wouldn't bypass the target's immunities, neither does the Smite-boosted attack.
|
|
If anyone could show me thing in the game that was clearly only a buff yet had you specify a target, then I'd find these argument more convincing. This would likely have to be a spell, since they are explicit.
Smite Evil is rather explicit. You are choosing a target to smite. You are doing something to a target. It repeatedly talks about how it is an effect on the target and what that means (you add this and that to your attacks and get bonuses to defense).
There's no game definition that says when you target an enemy with an effect, that effect can't give you bonuses against that enemy. So I find this line of argument very weak. Especially since there are a number of spells that target a creature and affect the caster in some way as well. Smite Evil does not seem significantly different from those.
I can understand the desire for it to not be this way, but I just do not see the rules to support it when it so clearly refers to a target and other abilities that talk of smite also reference a target.
Apart from instant enemy, there's also Wrath (UM), which says
Range personal
Targets you
Duration 1 minuteYou focus your anger against an enemy. Choose one enemy creature that you can see. You gain a +1 morale bonus on attack rolls and weapon damage rolls against that designated creature for every three caster levels you have (at least +1, maximum +3). You also receive this bonus on caster level checks made to overcome the creature's Spell Resistance, if any. At 12th level, you gain the benefits of the Improved Critical feat on attack rolls made against the designated creature. This effect doesn't stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
Then there are a number of other powers and abilities spread through-out the classes which have specific effects not on the target but on the person who employs them:
the Cavalier/Samurai's Challenge abilitythe Advance Rogue Talent Hunter's Surprise
the Golden Legionarre's Allied Retribution ability
the Sleepless Detective's Predictive Riposte ability
the Liberator's Slavers Ruin ability...
Shall I go on?
There is a difference of wording between those abilities and Smite Evil. Those abilities specifically say they give the person those bonuses against the target they designate for their bonuses to affect.
Smite Evil has language implicating explicit conditions regarding the target of the Paladin's Smite Evil ability.
FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qv0
Paladin: Does smite evil bypass the defenses of the incorporeal special quality?
Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin. The weapon still needs to be magic to harm the incorporeal creature, and even a magic weapon still only deals half damage against it.
What if the paladin is the weapon? ie unarmed strike? or Smites and use his lay on hands? Or channel smites, smite there lay on hands?
Regardless of what weapon you're using (manufactured, natural, unarmed strike, weapon-like spell, held charge of a touch attack, lay on hands, etc.), smite evil only grants the specific benefits described in the ability text.