Smite Evil wording


Rules Questions

101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Smite Evil wrote:
adds her paladin level to all damage rolls

So by your logic, all damage rolls everywhere in the world get a bonus equal to the paladin's level?

And yes, I used the exact same kind of faulty logic as the OP.


Justin Sane wrote:
Smite Evil wrote:
adds her paladin level to all damage rolls

So by your logic, all damage rolls everywhere in the world get a bonus equal to the paladin's level?

And yes, I used the exact same kind of faulty logic as the OP.

Only against the target of the smite. That part is clearly spelled out when you don't cut the sentence short. Let's not accuse the OP of taking things out of context like that. :)


@Swift: I know that some of the people on here are simply saying no without providing any proof. But there have been others who actually did but I notice you didn't respond to them.

IE:
"She closed the book and put it on the table."
Here it is clearly understood that she did in fact put it on the table even though the sentence doesn't spell it out 100%. Why can't the same amount of interpretation be used on the smite evil reading?

"Her father told her to put the book on the table, so she closed the book and put it on the table."
Again a sentence that is clear but it has to be interpreted. I don't think anyone is arguing that the father did it or that someone else other than "she" did it, so why can't the same level of interpretation be put on the sentence of smite evil?

This next part is a direct copying from another poster. Sorry for the poor formatting on my part.

Quote:

I'm taking this in slightly larger chunks rather than pointing out every single conjunction to keep things clearer:

If(conditional)
this target(subject)
is evil(predicate)
the paladin(subject)
adds(predicate)
her Cha bonus(object) (if any)
to her attack rolls(indirect object)
and adds(predicate)
her paladin level(object)
to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.(indirect object)

We have three predicates and two subjects, not one. The latter two predicates refer to the paladin.

Edit for clarification of intent: So if Swift016's analysis was incorrect (failing to identify the second subject), how does that qualify him/her as "clearly the only person that does know something of the English language" (paraphrased)?

How is this any different than what you did? And this person came to a different conclusion. How is that? Remember you have to have arguments proving your points otherwise you are no better than the "nay-sayers" going "lulz no".

On top of all that. If we interpret it the way you and OP does then it leads to some very weird results. Smite evil is a personal buff on the paladin and not the target, (There is a FAQ post that directly states that smite evil is indeed a personal buff for the paladin), so staying true to your interpretation it would lead to power attack and other such abilities affecting everyone

Quote:
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

Now in reading this rule as long as the user of the feat is using a weapon larger than light-handed in two hands EVERYONE (including enemies) takes the penalties to hit AND the damage buff (with the 50% increase because you are holding your weapon in two hands) meaning that the rogue who are dual-wielding two light-handed weapons get the same 1 to 3 ratio and he doesn't even need the feat... Neat.

Now as others have pointed out (and I reprinted in this post) the reading of the sentence clearly implies that the paladin is the one getting the damage buff. Unless you refute each argument in this post with solid arguments I don't see how you are more right than everyone else.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Looks like it's time for the Reasonableness Test on Smite Evil:

Would a non-gamer who is not reading the rules as a legal text interpret Smite Evil as applying the damage to anything other than the paladin's attacks against the smite target?

If the answer is "no", then the rule is fine as written.

Sovereign Court

Suppose a sentence was constructed in a grammatically ambiguous way, or even grammatically incorrect way. Like the line under discussion right now - it's at least gramatically ambiguous.

In addition, suppose there is widespread consensus on the intended meaning. (Unanimity is not required.) This intended meaning is obvious to pretty much all readers. However, it is different from (one of) the strict grammatically correct interpretations of the sentence.

What is then the "correct" way to read the sentence?

A) Grammar trumps author intent.

B) Readers should make an honest effort to use the author's intent, even if he expressed himself poorly.

I think B is the preferable strategy for "correct" reading. One reason is that a lot of text isn't grammatically perfect, because:
- The author just doesn't have that command of grammar. Maybe he's not even a native speaker/writer. Should poor command of grammar disqualify you from being an author? That would cost us a lot of content.
- Most natural languages have a lot of ambiguity in them.
- Writing unambiguously often requires a more long-winded writing style, but books often have word limits. More precision would mean sacrificing content.
- Unambiguous writing is often unpleasant to read. Like reading a legal text; not something you do for fun. It might even be harder to understand than a more informal writing style. The extra words used to eliminate uncertainty strike the casual reader as redundant. Good style and good grammar do not always go hand in hand.
- Checking a book's grammar to ensure it is flawless is expensive. This means the book will become more expensive.

It is fortunate that humans are much better than computers at coping with grammatical ambiguity. And we all want books with a lot of content, light prose and cheaply.


Man this thread blew the frack up.

Without reading everything that's been written since my last post I think it's safe to say all the grammatical arguments have been made and the the OP still probably wont see fit to accept how things work because he has a hard on for his "RAW".

The rules as intended are far more important than the rules as written. Why is that so difficult for people? Think about context and how things are likely intended to work and you will have a clear explaination of function. Don't be overly literal in interpretations because that way lies only madness.

Shadow Lodge

Claxon wrote:

Man this thread blew the frack up.

Without reading everything that's been written since my last post I think it's safe to say all the grammatical arguments have been made and the the OP still probably wont see fit to accept how things work because he has a hard on for his "RAW".

The rules as intended are far more important than the rules as written. Why is that so difficult for people? Think about context and how things are likely intended to work and you will have a clear explaination of function. Don't be overly literal in interpretations because that way lies only madness.

The fact is that all of the grammatical points don't matter one bit. Feats, special abilities, and the like do not apply their benefits to anyone other than their possessor except when stated otherwise. I used Power Attack as an example of similar wording. Their responses for why they have trouble understanding one but not the other:

yumad: Claimed power attack is a personal buff and smite evil affects a target, although this is obviously untrue (and there is even a FAQ saying it is untrue). He has not given any other response.

Swift016: "Did you really?" Yep...that was swift's entire response. How do you argue with such unassailable logic lol.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed more posts and locking. Personal digs at the intelligence/literacy of others and acknowledgement that you know it is not OK to do here is not the way to get Rules Questions answered/addressed. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

101 to 109 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Smite Evil wording All Messageboards