By RAW that seems to be correct, the Paladin would need see invisibility or something else to see the BBG.
I don't think invisibility blocks line-of-sight. It's not "must be in sight", it's "must be in line of sight".
To put it another way: He was totally in sight, he just happened to look exactly like empty space.
Actually, the direct quote from the SRD is:
"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite"
So RAW the opponent must be in sight, not must be in line of sight. Thus I guess, yeah, you would need to actually be able to see an invisible opponent to smite them. The square is not enough. Odd.
|
That directly contradicts the statement "regardless of the target", no? It certainly seemed as though the intent was to make smite evil a way for paladins to bypass DR. If it means something other than "regardless of the target", what exactly are those words there for?You need to target the creature you want to smite, if you can't see it you can't target it, so you can't activate smite evil.
@seebs
All the effects of smite evil work only if the target is evil.
You are discarding the phrase before that:
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
That "regardless of the target" is in relation of the type of the creature, so you don't bypass only the DR of a " outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature" but of any target.
But to get the benefits of smite evil it should work. And we have a different rule about that. "If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect." Very clear cut.
If the target isn't evil the smite fizzle without doing anything. You aren't benefiting from smite, so you don't bypass anyone DR.
"Regardless of the target" is just a way to say "frack your DR", even if it is Epic. It does not mean Smite works on good or neutral creatures in any way at all.
Notice that is also says "the creature" which is referencing the one being smited, which we know is evil.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
"Regardless of target" is talking about evil creatures other than the tree mentioned on the previous phrase.
You know, evil aberrations, evil plants, evil humanoids, evil magical beasts, etc.
I am not at all sure that "in sight" precludes "invisible", because I think "in sight" just means "you have line of sight to" in this context.
Actually, Line of Sight is the same as line of effect but with the need to see.
Line of sight and line of effect are needed both for a lot of effects, including Smite evil, but also spells like Haste for example.
And the last sentence of Smite Evil is just a reminder that it has no effect when used against a non-Evil creature (no bonus damage, no bonus AC, no DR bypass).
|
You can't just dismiss a sentence to make the ability do what you want. It very clearly says that smite evil only works on evil creatures, period. That means everything about it, including bypassing DR.
Take a minute and think about the entire purpose of the ability and what the paladin class is. A paladin is a defender of good and fighter of evil. He has special abilities that allow him to battle evil better because that it what he's good at. On top of that, the ability in question is called smite evil, not smite neutral or smite everything.
The has badly written rules. Some from 3.5 and some new to Pathfinder, but even then many of them are not hard to read, just not written as well as they could have been. The ability only works on evil creatures. I will try to find the post, but one of the devs counters to smite overcoming DR was to use neutral creatures at times.
I am sure since they made the ability, they would know how it worked.
I can't find it.
If the ability to is to "call out the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil", shouldn't all the benefits be restricted by that idea?
I doubt the "powers of good" would want their aid going to overcome the DR of other good creatures, who are also (presumably) out there furthering the desires of these same "powers of good", even if not as explicitly as the paladin.
If they wanted the ability to function against non-evil characters (but only in part), they'd really have to be explicit. E.g., "Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess, even if that creature is not evil."
"Regardless of the target", particularly when following up a sentence which makes the type of creature the evil target is relevant, is not enough to distinguish that only one small portion of the abilities granted by Smite Evil is intended to function against creatures which aren't evil.
The power has no effect on non-evil undead or dragons, regardless, right? So why qualify "evil-aligned" dragon, but not qualify undead?
There are outsiders that are not evil aligned. There are dragons that are not evil aligned. At the time of writing (or even now) how many undead are not evil aligned?
Unnecessary verbiage sure, but over clarifying things isn't really a bad thing.
Are you aware of any standard undead that aren't evil? More importantly, are you aware of any ordinary processes of creating undead that aren't evil?
Generally, they don't exist. So it's unnecessary to clarify that it pertains to evil undead because it applies to all undead. Being an evil outsider isn't sufficient; it must be an evil aligned outsider with the evil subtype. Dragons don't have evil subtypes and they're not ubiquitously evil or even evil-associated, so they have to clarify that it is limited to evil-aligned (since it's in a list of other creatures which have their evilness specifically defined).
It's not meaningless. Perhaps redundant in some cases, but redundancy isn't always bad.
Edit: bbangerter, when did you take a level in Ninja?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you really trying to make smite evil work even on good targets? Wow... I've seen a lot of different interpretations of grey areas, but that is a first.
Edit: bbangerter, when did you take a level in Ninja?
Born with it. Just so good people don't even realize I have it most times :). Shame on me for getting caught.
There are outsiders that are not evil aligned. There are dragons that are not evil aligned. At the time of writing (or even now) how many undead are not evil aligned?At least some!
Only ghost qualifies here, with the note that the vast majority of ghosts should be CE. So at least some isn't really accurate, but rather one, sometimes under special circumstances.
But the qualifier on dragons, and the "if the target is evil", are both completely meaningless if we accept that the later statement completely eradicates any effect on non-evil targets.
Redundant and meaningless are not the same thing.
Whereas with undead, it might well be intentional to have the spell target non-evil undead,
Possibly, that's quite a stretch though.
for the same reason that non-evil undead detect as evil regardless.
Where do the rules state this is the case?
Zombies and skeletons are not non-evil. Being mindless doesn't make them neutral, though that is the general case for mindless things. But thematically something that is a corruption or abomination of life and is bent on destroying life, even though mindless, still fits the evil description.
|
|
There are outsiders that are not evil aligned. There are dragons that are not evil aligned. At the time of writing (or even now) how many undead are not evil aligned?
The power has no effect on non-evil undead or dragons, regardless, right? So why qualify "evil-aligned" dragon, but not qualify undead?
At least some!
Speaking of undead, in Pathfinder only some ghost is non evil. And the example ghost is CE.
Are you really trying to make smite evil work even on good targets? Wow... I've seen a lot of different interpretations of grey areas, but that is a first.I'm arguing that Paizo added words to that power when they converted it from 3rd edition which make no sense unless we assume that, at some point in the editing or revision process, there was some intent to make it into a power which was at least somewhat useful on some non-evil targets (such as neutral undead), but which was more effective on evil targets.
Come to think of it, even apart from the canon establishing that ghosts can be of any alignment, aren't some of the most common undead non-evil? Zombies, skeletons, and so on...
Answer: No, they're Neutral Evil. That's odd, I was sure they used to be considered unaligned because they weren't sapient and non-sapient creatures were always-neutral. Go figure.
It was a intended change. All undead in Pathfinder are evil, with the possible exception of some ghost.
Zombies are the hungry zombies of Romero films, not the automatons of earlier editions.
What about those clerics using touch of evil on themselves to escape being smitten?
|
|
@seebs - I think you're taking certain sentences and phrases out of context.
I don't mean to be condescending, but let's break down the description of smite evil sentence by sentence.
Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite.
I don't think there's any contention here. The first sentence says you can do it once per day and the second says it's a swift action.
If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.
Here it starts to explain the benefits of the ability with a prerequisite of the target being evil.
If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses.
This sentence references the previous sentence because it is an alteration to the benefits based on certain criteria. That criteria is evil subtype outsiders, evil dragons and undead. If the target is one of those then the first attack hits harder, otherwise revert to the previous sentence.
Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
Now, you can't read this sentence correctly unless you have read the previous sentences (that's kinda how paragraphs work). "Regardless of the target" just means regardless of whether it is just a regular evil creature (3rd sentence) or one of the special ones just mentioned (4th sentence), the following benefit works the same. So smite evil bypasses DR but it still has to meet the very first prerequisite stated in the third sentence of it being evil. Nothing has changed that.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
This just gives another benefit of the ability and then reiterates that the target need be evil for the smite to work. Redundant? Yes. Meaningless? No.
I don't see any ambiguity in reading this if you read it following normal English paragraph reading rules (again, not trying to be condescending, just trying to explain).
|
Thread kind of got hijacked.
Still trying to decide if by RAW you can Smite Evil a Invisible evil creature that the paladin knows what square it's in.
I think it was answered in the first post: "Target was 'within line of sight' but wasn't in sight."
:>
The ability specifies that the target must be "in sight". You can't see it, it's not in sight. Seems simple enough to me. Many abilities and spells require you to see a creature to target it. I don't see why this would be any different.
|
|
I think it was answered in the first post: "Target was 'within line of sight' but wasn't in sight."
:>
The ability specifies that the target must be "in sight". You can't see it, it's not in sight. Seems simple enough to me. Many abilities and spells require you to see a creature to target it. I don't see why this would be any different.
How would this work if the target is Glitterdusted?
The creature is still invisible but you can see the creature outlined in the Glitterdust.
OK, here goes my feeble attempt at rules-mongering this (sorry its so long):
1. I can find NO direct answer to your question - e.g. an FAQ or developer commend that says you can or cannot smite evil against an opponent you cannot see (but is within line of sight/effect).
2. The text in question: "As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite."
3. Let's ignore "sight" and concentrate on "chooses". Where else do the rules talk about "choosing"? Here's some examples -
Ex 1: Selective Channel Feat (yes I know smite evil is not a feat): "When you channel energy, you can choose a number of targets in the area up to your Charisma modifier. These targets are not affected by your channeled energy."
FAQ: "Selective Channeling: Do I have to be able to see a creature in order to exclude them from the effect of my channeled energy?
Just like using a Target: creature spell, you must be able to see or touch a creature to affect it (or, in the case of this feat, select it to be unaffected). Pinpointing the square of an invisible creature isn't sufficient—you must be able to see or touch the creature.
Note that this works differently than an alchemist's precise bombs discovery, which allows the alchemist to exclude *squares* from his bomb's splash area (not targets)."
Ex 2: PRD Aiming a Spell Rules (yes, I know Smite Evil is not a spell)- "Target or Targets: Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
CONCLUSION: I'm just going to have to say after reading this that and whatever I can find, whenever the rules or developers talk about having to target a creature, they seem to use the Aiming a Spell Rules related to targets of spells. You have to see or touch.
On the Glitterdust, the Glitterdust outlines the invisible creature and most GMs simply say they are visible (which means you can target them). Actually, to be pedantic, I think they are still invisible but have a -40 to stealth (but please start another thread if you want to argue about this, don't derail this one - Ok, I'll start a thread for this). Note that Glitterdust does not have the language from Faerie Fire that says it negates invisibility. However, even if you interpret Glitterdust victims as still being invisible with a -40 stealth penalty (so they still get the benefit of invisibility), RAW or not, I would allow you to target them if you make your perception check.
None of these really helps as in the end it's just my opinion. In my case, unless the spell, supernatural ability, or other ability/power says otherwise, if it says you must choose a target (or similar language requiring you to target a creature or object), then I think you should simply use the Aiming a Spell Rules. I doubt the devs will FAQ this, but a general FAQ stating that foregoing would be nice and would clear up a whole swath of questions among many different supernatural and extraordinary abilities.
Note that I don't think you can use the paladin's fast detect evil power without seeing a target either (person or object, I believe).
My interjection was really that Seebs might have a point only that it might be required for your target to be evil to [BOLD]activate[/BOLD] a smite, but if they stopped being evil for whatever reason, some parts might function (but not others).
Say you're under the effect of infernal healing - smite should work against you. If it ran out before you were smitten to death, some parts of the smite might still work (e.g. ignoring DR). Likewise for a priests touch of evil - if you smote them before they touched, some parts might still work under the effect of the touch.
No?
Note that I don't think you can use the paladin's fast detect evil power without seeing a target either (person or object, I believe).
My interjection was really that Seebs might have a point only that it might be required for your target to be evil to [BOLD]activate[/BOLD] a smite, but if they stopped being evil for whatever reason, some parts might function (but not others).
Say you're under the effect of infernal healing - smite should work against you. If it ran out before you were smitten to death, some parts of the smite might still work (e.g. ignoring DR). Likewise for a priests touch of evil - if you smote them before they touched, some parts might still work under the effect of the touch.
No?
Detecting evil (because of something like an active infernal healing spell) and being evil are not the same thing. A paladin using smite evil on a good or neutral creature with an active infernal healing spell just wasted a smite.
Likewise, an evil creature with a non-detection amulet is fully affected by smite evil, even though they don't detect as such.
Two words - Detect Evil.
Paladin uses move action to concentrate and now knows the location of the evil aura. Done.
Specifically:
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.From the Spell:
3rd Round: The power and location of each aura. If an aura is outside your line of sight, then you discern its direction but not its exact location.So - as long as the line of sight to the aura isn't blocked (behind a wall or something), the Paladin can pinpoint the aura/invis creature.
A paladin needs a target, they don't get an area unless they actually cast the spell.