Tom S 820 wrote: Pathfinder Design Team wrote: 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? Just because the Paladin has a natural weapon doesn't change the requirements that the Paladin must meet in order to overcome incorporeal traits. Unless the unarmed strikes or natural weapons are magical, the incorporeal is immune to the attack the Paladin makes.
Lay on Hands is a Supernatural ability that directly targets the incorporeal. It is not an attack, though its positive energy harms undead. I am not sure if Smite Evil benefits would apply per RAW, though I don't see why they wouldn't.
StrangePackage wrote: Drachasor wrote: 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
d20pfsrd wrote: Range personal
Targets you
Duration 1 minute
You 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 ability
the Advance Rogue Talent Hunter's Surprise
the Golden... I'd respond with the Unwilling Shield, which targets a creature and gives you a +1 Luck Bonus on AC and Saving throws.
As for class abilities, those don't seem to be clearly worded. Certainly the Challenge Ability and Smite Evil are implied by Warding and other interacting abilities to target a creature and to affect the target.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: Tom S 820 wrote: Pathfinder Design Team wrote: 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? Just because the Paladin has a natural weapon doesn't change the requirements that the Paladin must meet in order to overcome incorporeal traits. Unless the unarmed strikes or natural weapons are magical, the incorporeal is immune to the attack the Paladin makes.
Lay on Hands is a Supernatural ability that directly targets the incorporeal. It is not an attack, though its positive energy harms undead. I am not sure if Smite Evil benefits would apply per RAW, though I don't see why they wouldn't. Lay on Hands used against Undead or the like to cause damage IS a supernatural attack. It would affect an incorporeal creature normally. Smite Evil ought to work with this, as you ARE making an attack (a touch attack, to be precise) and it does damage.
Tom S 820 wrote: Pathfinder Design Team wrote: 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? I'm more interested in how this affects Warding and the like. If Smite Evil and Challenge abilities do not affect a target, then Warding cannot end their effect on the target.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote: 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. Having CONDITIONS for the ability to work depending on the target's alignment/type/etc doesn't change that what it is doing is applying bonuses to the Paladins' own rolls and AC. Let me put it this way: Activating Smite vs a chosen Target does not break Invisibility.
Favored Enemy also depends on the enemy's type, but all it's doing is affecting the Ranger's rolls.
Instant Enemy also has a condition based on the enemy's type: it can't already be a favored enemy of yours.
You aren't entitled to bypass Incorporeal's immunities just because you have Favored Enemy: Undead.
I don't think Wrath is a good example of what Drachasor was specifically asking for because it says "Target: You",
but Instant Enemy IS a spot on example. Any reason why you didn't respond to that when that's exactly what you asked for, Drachasor?
(if that exactly satisfied what you wanted and now you undertand, that's great, but acknowledgement is nice)
Drachasor wrote: Lay on Hands used against Undead or the like to cause damage IS a supernatural attack. It would affect an incorporeal creature normally. Smite Evil ought to work with this, as you ARE making an attack (a touch attack, to be precise) and it does damage. If by 'normally' you mean doing 50% damage as called out in the Incorporeal SQ for magic weapons and (su) effects, sure.
Offensive usage of LoH (vs. Undead or such) is definitely an attack so I don't see why Smite shouldn't work with it.
Quandary wrote: Darksol the Painbringer wrote: 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. Having CONDITIONS for the ability to work depending on the target's alignment/type/etc doesn't change that what it is doing is applying bonuses to the Paladins' own rolls and AC. Let me put it this way: Activating Smite vs a chosen Target does not break Invisibility.
Favored Enemy also depends on the enemy's type, but all it's doing is affecting the Ranger's rolls.
Instant Enemy also has a condition based on the enemy's type: it can't already be a favored enemy of yours.
You aren't entitled to bypass Incorporeal's immunities just because you have Favored Enemy: Undead.
I don't think Wrath is a good example of what Drachasor was specifically asking for because it says "Target: You",
but Instant Enemy IS a spot on example. Any reason why you didn't respond to that when that's exactly what you asked for, Drachasor?
(if that exactly satisfied what you wanted and now you undertand, that's great, but acknowledgement is nice) Hmm, I actually found Wrath a good example.
The problem here, as I see it, is that Smite has you choose a target and then gives you bonuses against that target and only that target. This is fairly unusual as has been noted. Most abilities have you pick a target and then that target gets penalties or gets bonuses -- hardly any give bonuses to someone ELSE.
Wrath does this. You pick an enemy and get bonuses against that enemy, but the target is you. This supports the idea you can have abilities where you choose an enemy and the target of the ability is not that enemy. Unwilling Shield, on the other hand, has you pick an enemy and then you get bonuses (though not specifically against that enemy). Shield Other is somewhat like this, as you do not target yourself with it either, but it still affects you.
A problem with Wrath though, as you said, is that it doesn't say "target an enemy" or the like language. It avoids the word "target" because that IS a game term. Smite Evil and Challenge are two abilities that don't do this.
Instant Enemy is also like this. It would have a 50% failure chance on an Incorporeal.
Drachasor wrote: Lay on Hands used against Undead or the like to cause damage IS a supernatural attack. It would affect an incorporeal creature normally. Smite Evil ought to work with this, as you ARE making an attack (a touch attack, to be precise) and it does damage. If by 'normally' you mean doing 50% damage as called out in the Incorporeal SQ for magic weapons and (su) effects, sure.
Offensive usage of LoH (vs. Undead or such) is definitely an attack so I don't see why Smite shouldn't work with it. Of course. That is normal against incorporeals. Sadly the Fist of Justice! does not also have the Force of Justice.
Quandary, I think you missed some of the conversation here, so I'll fill you in on where things are. We've gotten a bit off the OP.
Originally, I made the argument that Smite Evil modified your attacks into Supernatural attacks. I based this on the fact it says that you make "Smite Evil Attacks". The FAQ indicated the Devs consider this an unfortunate turn of phrase. (Regarding Instant Enemy, my reasoning wouldn't work since Favored Enemy is Extraordinary ability and it also doesn't say you make Favored Enemy Attacks against FEs). I did say I viewed the text as unclear on this matter, though indicated I would probably allow it at my table.
Here's where the thread turns, however. The FAQ ruling said the Paladin's Smite Evil is just a buff on the Paladin -- it does not do anything to the target. This is rather odd given the language of Smite Evil (compared to Wrath), as Smite Evil repeatedly talks about the target -- and that's a game term. So this tarted a debate on whether Smite Evil has a 50% failure rate on Incorporeals, since 50% of non-damage effects don't work on them, which would include things like applying a Smite effect by RAW.
So now we are talking about whether the idea of Smite Evil being just a buff is actually supported by RAW or even RAI. I do not think it is as the armor quality Warding clearly indicates it is something applied to the target. Similar, there's a feat (I forget the name) that also emphasizes the targeting nature of Smite Evil. While there are few spells where you target an enemy and get a buff as part of it, they do exist. Such spells, like Instant Enemy or Unwilling Shield could not be dispelled by targeting the caster, but would have to be dispelled off the target.
So, in fact, it seems like abilities where you pick a TARGET (wording is key), do apply an effect to the target going by other spells and abilities. Ones where the term "target" is avoided would not seem to operate that way based on Wrath. That later isn't certain, by any means, but it is modest evidence in favor of that.
Now, do I like that this is what the rules indicate? No, not really. I rather thing non-physical effects should be able to affect an Incorporeal creature normally. Especially the more intangible ones like Smite Evil. Thems the rules though.
Quote: Smite Evil has a 50% failure rate on Incorporeals, since 50% of non-damage effects don't work on them But since Smite Evil itself [or Instant Enemy] isn't directly affecting the target, there's no effect of it to have a 50% failure rate when cast/used.
Multi-target offensive spells may target a creature for whom the effect has a 50% failure to negate the effect vs. that creature,
but that does not negate the other effects of the spell, in this case ALL the effects of the spell don't affect the creature.
That gets into my point about activating Smite Evil itself not dropping Invisibility, because it doesn't do anything to the 'target',
the designation of the 'target' simply is a limitation on the buffs it applies to the Paladin.
I understand why the formal 'Target' designation troubles you, but that's how Smite works and that's how Instant Enemy works,
that's why Instant Enemy is the perfect example that cuts to the chase of the matter.
Just because Target is rarely used in that way doesn't mean it CAN'T be.
Smite Evil's offensive effect is the exact same type as your weapon. If your weapon is wholly physical, so is Smite Evil's effect.
If you can make non-physical attacks some how, Smite Evil tags along.
LoH seems to work just fine, so I hope that keeps you happy with a means to affect such creatures.
Magic Weapons come into the game pretty quickly, and Paladin Weapon Bond also exists for that.
There is an Anti-Paladin Spell that adds Ghost Touch to their Bonded Weapon, you could adjust that to be a Paladin Spell,
or use a scroll of the Anti-Paladin version via UMD ([Evil] descriptor be damned, even the Paladin Code let's you associate with Evil scrolls!) ;-)
Quandary wrote: Quote: Smite Evil has a 50% failure rate on Incorporeals, since 50% of non-damage effects don't work on them But since Smite Evil itself [or Instant Enemy] isn't directly affecting the target, there's no effect of it to have a 50% failure rate when cast/used. It most definitely is affecting the target. You can't use Instant Enemy on a creature in an Anti-Magic Field for instance. Dispel Magic on the target during the duration of Instant Enemy will dispel the effect. These abilities ARE applying an effect to the target and they do no damage. Hence a 50% failure rate due to the wording of Incorporeal.
There's no clause about how it has to affect the target in any particular way. No minimum standard. Nothing. If it affects the target is all. These do affect the target, even if it is just marking them as a target.
Quandary wrote: Multi-target offensive spells may target a creature for whom the effect has a 50% failure to negate the effect vs. that creature,
but that does not negate the other effects of the spell, in this case ALL the effects of the spell don't affect the creature.
If it didn't affect the target, then Instant Enemy couldn't be dispelled by casting Dispel Magic on the target. It can. It does affect the target. It says "the ranger can now attack you for more damage." Smite Evil is the same way. This is why Warding is worded the way it is. This is because these abilities require that you pick a TARGET.
With Wrath or similar abilities, you'd be right. But that's not how Smite or Instant Enemy are written.
Quandary wrote: That gets into my point about activating Smite Evil itself not dropping Invisibility, because it doesn't do anything to the 'target',
the designation of the 'target' simply is a limitation on the buffs it applies to the Paladin.
I understand why the formal 'Target' designation troubles you, but that's how Smite works and that's how Instant Enemy works,
that's why Instant Enemy is the perfect example that cuts to the chase of the matter.
Just because Target is rarely used in that way doesn't mean it CAN'T be.
Smite Evil's offensive effect is the exact same type as your weapon. If your weapon is wholly physical, so is Smite Evil's effect.
If you can make non-physical attacks some how, Smite Evil tags along.
Instant Enemy is a perfect example, but you are reading it wrong. It has a target and a duration. If the target goes into an AMF, then Instant Enemy is suppressed. If the ranger goes into an AMF, then instant enemy still works if the target is outside of it. Both use the same language with "target" so they should work the same here.
Wrath on the other hand, would work the opposite way, because you target yourself and merely pick a creature.
It seems pretty consistent with how Warding, Feats, and Spells treat this distinction.
Well, I would like to see somebody from Paizo confirm one reading or another there.
(including re: Invisibility, which I still think is in the same boat as those other mechanics)
Sean didn't agree with your inferences about 'Target', and all your readings seem to stem from that rejected interpretation.
Quandary wrote: Well, I would like to see somebody from Paizo confirm one reading or another there.
(including re: Invisibility, which I still think is in the same boat as those other mechanics)
Sean didn't agree with your inferences about 'Target', and all your readings seem to stem from that rejected interpretation.
Target is a game term. Agreed? Instant Enemy also uses it in much the same way. It's clear that if the target goes into an AMF then Instant Enemy stops working.
There are spells that affect the caster even though they target someone else and would be suppressed if that other person went into an AMF. What do language do they all use? Why they talk about the game term "target."
Spells that are similar but are of personal range don't use the word target.
Then you have stuff like Warding, which just confirms all this.
Just what exactly is unclear here? If it talks about picking a target and targeting someone, then it affects them. If it doesn't use the word "target" then it does not. This seems to be entirely consistent with how the terms are used, abilities are written, etc, etc.
What seems to be happening here is that people don't like what the rules say. They want the Paladin Smite to work like Wrath or the Guide's ability. So they pretend it does, despite the fact it invokes game terms that mean something specific. We must distinguish between what we want the rules to say and what they do say.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
