|
I was in a game yesterday with people who were more well-seasoned players than I. We were playing The Confirmation, all of us at level 1 save for one (who was at 2 (obviously)).
We came across a lone NPC in the middle of a cave and the paladin said "I cast detect evil". I said that he probably won't show up 'cause he can't have more than 4 hd (me assuming the thing wasn't an outsider and didn't have aura class ability). And everybody just kind of looked at me.. Even the GM didn't know what I was talking about. Granted, I think the GM mentioned this was his 11th or so game and obviously I can't expect everyone to know everything (I know I don't).
But this just got me wondering how you guys handle this. I mean, if you've got a new player who rolled up a paladin and didn't read the minutiae about how Det Evil works, and they come to the final bad guy in the scenario and they saved their one smite for it, but wanted to Det Evil first.. Pretty good chance it's evil if it's the last guy. Pretty good chance smite would actually work. But most of the time it wouldn't technically show up for the paladin in a tier 1 scenario (if it doesn't have an aura as a class ability and is a native (is that the right term?)). Do you just hand-wave it and tell them the creature is evil? Do you stop and explain why it wouldn't work and they can't be sure whether or not it's evil? Do you just stick straight to the rules with no explanation and say it doesn't show up as evil (which to a new player could be synonymous with "it's not evil")? Or something else?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smites
If a creature has evil intent that is strong enough to ping from detect evil, IMO it would be a jerk move to not allow smite to work against them. Either you're evil or you're not. You don't get to walk like evil, talk like evil, smell like evil, taste like evil, but not be vulnerable to affects that specifically target evil.
|
|
I make sure that the player running the PC who can cast detect evil, no matter how they cast it, understands the rules for it, including the fact that, not only can low level Evil NPCs not detect as Evil, but that some of their fellow PC Pathfinders can detect as Evil, even if they aren't.
And that, sometimes, because of party makeup, members of the party can detect as Evil for a minute, and then stop pinging...
|
We have enough paladin players around here that we run it by the rules. In social situations we also generally say using it is an obvious act and likely to cause a scene. What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smites. Well, that and something being evil isn't license to simply go all murderhobo, although I'm not sure that is forgetting so much as willful ignorance.
I have heard other people say similar things. I will ask you what I ask them: how would one know that the paladin is using detect evil? It is a spell-like ability. It has no verbal, somatic, or material components, nor does it require a spell focus. It is activated mentally.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was described a scene where a cultist was removing the heart of an infant halfling, and then eating it...
...a PC Paladin asked " do I detect evil on the cultist?"
-Not the brightest character, or player.
|
|
I have heard other people say similar things. I will ask you what I ask them: how would one know that the paladin is using detect evil? It is a spell-like ability. It has no verbal, somatic, or material components, nor does it require a spell focus. It is activated mentally.
And yet their use triggers AOO's, so there must be a process involved that alerts people to the fact that something is going on. Its not a Su.
|
I was described a scene where a cultist was removing the heart of an infant halfling, and then eating it...
...a PC Paladin asked " do I detect evil on the cultist?"
-Not the brightest character, or player.
No harm in being sure. There are scenarios with dominated folk in it or folks under the effect of a curse.
|
|
And yet their use triggers AOO's, so there must be a process involved that alerts people to the fact that something is going on. Its not a Su.
I have heard other people say similar things. I will ask you what I ask them: how would one know that the paladin is using detect evil? It is a spell-like ability. It has no verbal, somatic, or material components, nor does it require a spell focus. It is activated mentally.
I always took it as the paladin having to focus on his target. Not really a component, but he has to concentrate on it and thus drops his defenses, allowing hits that normally wouldn't connect to actually have chance to do so (read: AoO). I also assumed the paladin had to "stare" at his target - and if the paladin is not one of the really obvious types his party could distract the person so nobody would notice.
What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smites.
I did not forget this, I never knew this.
The spell does not note that this is the case, neither does the paladin's class feature.The spell tells you about "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present." - so as long as this creature isn't evil, a mere thought would not set off a Detect Evil.
It's not a mindreading spell.
Thus: It detects as evil -> Smite Works.
(Except maybe if they are dominated by an evil spell and the paladin just noted the presence of evil, but did not have the time double check the source.)
|
|
What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smites.
I did not forget this, I never knew this.
The spell does not note that this is the case, neither does the paladin's class feature.The spell tells you about "Number of evil auras (creatures, objects, or spells) in the area and the power of the most potent evil aura present." - so as long as this creature isn't evil, a mere thought would not set off a Detect Evil.
It's not a mindreading spell.
Thus: It detects as evil -> Smite Works.
(Except maybe if they are dominated by an evil spell and the paladin just noted the presence of evil, but did not have the time double check the source.)
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smitesIf a creature has evil intent that is strong enough to ping from detect evil, IMO it would be a jerk move to not allow smite to work against them. Either you're evil or you're not. You don't get to walk like evil, talk like evil, smell like evil, taste like evil, but not be vulnerable to affects that specifically target evil.
It is not being a jerk. It is following the rules. Someone not wanting to ignore the same rules you do, does not make them a jerk or a bad person.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the writers decide to make a seemingly obviously evil enemy chaotic neutral I can only assume that is for mechanical reasons (smite and protection from evil). Whatever the reason it's not up to me to change. I don't have a specific npc example in mind but I could probably find a few CN NPC rogues waiting to ambush the party (what I would call evil intent). It has never actually come up where I've seen someone try to smite someone who detected as evil but actually wasn't but the possibility is there.
So do you also ding the PCs for committing evil acts when they set up ambushes for the monsters? There is at least one module and at least one scenario I can think of where the PCs are asked to do exactly that.
|
|
Edit: What the appearance of using the detect evil SLA is might vary by GM but it does provoke so we figure it has some giveaway in social situations.Shouldn't that at least require a Spellcraft check?
Are you asking if it should require a Spellcraft check to see if you notice if you can tell if someone is using an SLA that provokes (and the provocation is regardless of using a Spellcraft check)?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"It provokes" is not a justifiable reason to know what a particular SLA does.
An NPC uses a spell-like ability and vanishes from sight. The PCs reasonably assume that either the thing teleported or is simply invisible, and ask you which it was. Do you, as GM, tell them exactly which it was, or do you ask them to make a Spellcraft check?
If NPCs can tell that paladins are using detect evil just because "it provokes" then it is reasonable for the players to ask to know exactly what each and every spell and spell-like ability cast by an NPC opponent is, on the same grounds.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I often think of a paladin using detect evil as a violinist listening to the vibrations of his instrument to determine if anything is off key. An insufficiently evil source won't disrupt the normal sounds enough to detect and listening to those vibrations takes a moment of complete concentration, hence the attack of opportunity.
There's nothing in the rules that would explicitly cue an onlooker in to the fact that the paladin is using detect evil, but with that said, there could be allowances. If the onlooker knows or suspects that the paladin is a paladin, a sense motive check wouldn't be unreasonable.
In my home games, I like to use evil NPCs that aren't doing anything wrong and have them interact with the PCs, especially if there's a paladin the group. It's important to remind the players that there are evil people living in the world, and that not all of them are threats that need to be put down.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It provokes" is not a justifiable reason to know what a particular SLA does.
An NPC uses a spell-like ability and vanishes from sight. The PCs reasonably assume that either the thing teleported or is simply invisible, and ask you which it was. Do you, as GM, tell them exactly which it was, or do you ask them to make a Spellcraft check?
If NPCs can tell that paladins are using detect evil just because "it provokes" then it is reasonable for the players to ask to know exactly what each and every spell and spell-like ability cast by an NPC opponent is, on the same grounds.
They won't know that the PC did, but they will know something was cast. People casting weird spells for no apparent reason in front of other people tends to be suspicious.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They won't know that the PC did, but they will know something was cast. People casting weird spells for no apparent reason in front of other people tends to be suspicious.
You see the paladin in deep concentration. That's it. There are no gestures. There are no words. There are no materials being consumed. The paladin does not even need to touch his holy symbol.
On the other hand, I guess thinking *is* kind of suspicious for the paladin...
|
|
They won't know that the PC did, but they will know something was cast. People casting weird spells for no apparent reason in front of other people tends to be suspicious.You see the paladin in deep concentration. That's it. There are no gestures. There are no words. There are no materials being consumed. The paladin does not even need to touch his holy symbol.
On the other hand, I guess thinking *is* kind of suspicious for the paladin...
If there's no visible effect of the SLA, how can we make a Spellcraft check on it in the first place? Spellcraft checks aren't stopped by a lack of verbal, somatic or material components.
|
|
If there's no visible effect of the SLA, how can we make a Spellcraft check on it in the first place?They won't know that the PC did, but they will know something was cast. People casting weird spells for no apparent reason in front of other people tends to be suspicious.You see the paladin in deep concentration. That's it. There are no gestures. There are no words. There are no materials being consumed. The paladin does not even need to touch his holy symbol.
On the other hand, I guess thinking *is* kind of suspicious for the paladin...
You can't. My point was that at the very least, the GM should have his NPCs make Spellcraft checks to identify SLAs cast by the PCs. If not, then the PCs should be able to automatically identify all spells and SLAs cast by the NPCs.
I don't give my NPCs Spellcraft checks vs a paladin's detect evil. I don't penalize the PC at all for the use of that ability. Even if they use it at a party.
Spellcraft checks aren't stopped by a lack of verbal, somatic or material components.
Are you sure about that?
Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are in the PFS section of the boards
I am well aware where I am. What does this have to do with the topic?
It is not being a jerk. It is following the rules. Someone not wanting to ignore the same rules you do, does not make them a jerk or a bad person.
Its not MY rules, its what it says in the CRB. The point is that the spell detect evil clearly provides the option for a non-evil aligned target to ping as evil if their intentions are imminently evil. A paladin's smite evil ability does not specify an alignment requirement, only that the target "be" evil. It would seem illogical to say a creature is manifesting an evil aura under the rules of evil as defined by the detect spell, but not be susceptible to a smite attack. Of course it is up to the GM to decide if the target's intentions would be considered evil. Once that ruling has been made, the game mechanics covering evil seem to be clear.
It is certainly within the GM's perogative not to have a creature ping based solely on its intentions, but it would be poor form, to do it and then screw anyone who used that information to cast a spell or performs an action based on the result.
As far as spellcrafting an SLA with no components, the skill says you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast, not the spell components. Since a SLA, even one with no components, still provokes an attack of opportunity it stands to reason there is some indication the action is occurring, otherwise, there would be no AoO. Therefore, there has to be something occurring that would allow the spellcraft check.
Relevant text from the CRB...
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."
Note it says nothing about spell components, just a reference to having line of sight to the casting.
"Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies."
This establishes that when you cast a spell, you provoke. Again, it does not reference spell components being require.
"A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions like a spell."
Since a SLA functions in all other ways as a spell, it would provoke an AoO if the spell it derives from would also provoke.
"A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus. The user activates it mentally."
So, if there was no physical indication that a spell(-like ability) is being cast and it requires no actions, why would it provoke an AoO? The fact is, it does provoke. Therefore, the caster has to be doing something that would indicate the action is occurring and therefore, permit an attempt to identify it using spellcraft.
I'm not necessarily happy about it, but seems pretty clear to me. As a GM, I would much rather SLA not provoke since most of the time it is benefit to the players more than for their enemies.
|
|
I tend to think of detect spells having some form of cosmetic effect that shows a spell has been cast such as glowing eyes or the 'cone shaped emination' being visable to others. almost all spells should have some visable component to allow the spellcraft checks allowed in the rules baring things like invisibility. a small rule i like to play by, if my fantasy doesnt match up with the rules, then i need to change how im imagining things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are in the PFS section of the boardsI am well aware where I am. What does this have to do with the topic?
It is not being a jerk. It is following the rules. Someone not wanting to ignore the same rules you do, does not make them a jerk or a bad person.Its not MY rules, its what it says in the CRB. The point is that the spell detect evil clearly provides the option for a non-evil aligned target to ping as evil if their intentions are imminently evil. A paladin's smite evil ability does not specify an alignment requirement, only that the target "be" evil. It would seem illogical to say a creature is manifesting an evil aura under the rules of evil as defined by the detect spell, but not be susceptible to a smite attack. Of course it is up to the GM to decide if the target's intentions would be considered evil. Once that ruling has been made, the game mechanics covering evil seem to be clear.
It is certainly within the GM's perogative not to have a creature ping based solely on its intentions, but it would be poor form, to do it and then screw anyone who used that information to cast a spell or performs an action based on the result.
As far as spellcrafting an SLA with no components, the skill says you have to be able to clearly see the spell being cast, not the spell components. Since a SLA, even one with no components, still provokes an attack of opportunity it stands to reason there is some indication the action is occurring, otherwise, there would be no AoO. Therefore, there has to be something occurring that would allow the spellcraft check.
Relevant text from the CRB...
"Identifying a spell as it is being cast requires no action, but you must be able to clearly see the spell as it is being cast, and this incurs the same penalties as a Perception skill check due to distance, poor conditions, and other factors."Note it says nothing about spell components, just a reference...
Bob, I agree with most of what you wrote but have to disagree with your first statement on the detecting as evil meaning they are smiteable.
Remember detect evil specifically states
Animals, traps, poisons, and other potential perils are not evil, and as such this spell does not detect them. Creatures with actively evil intents count as evil creatures for the purpose of this spell.
It clearly states the target is only evil for the purpose of the detect evil spell specifically.
It may be an unpleasant action by the GM but it is rife with literary elements where the bad guy tricks the paladin into violating his ethics or falling with stunts just like this.The paladin who runs around smiting anything that detects as evil but isn't doing evil is supposed to fail.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you just stick straight to the rules with no explanation and say it doesn't show up as evil (which to a new player could be synonymous with "it's not evil")?
Definitely not this, because sometimes the character might know more than the player. Just because the player might not realize that "no ping" could mean "not a cosmically-significant enough person to register even while being evil", that doesn't mean that the paladin would be ignorant of that. So if you think the player might misunderstand, remind them of the possibility (though I don't think you should tell them whether or not that's the reason he's not pinging).
I'm of the general philosophy that characters know their own capabilities. They might not use the same terminology, but they know.
|
|
There's nothing in the rules that would explicitly cue an onlooker in to the fact that the paladin is using detect evil, but with that said, there could be allowances. If the onlooker knows or suspects that the paladin is a paladin, a sense motive check wouldn't be unreasonable.
I would disagree with this. Detect evil is a spell-like ability. SO you use it like a spell. It provokes an attack of opportunity. Plus there is this line.
A spell-like ability has a casting time of 1 standard action unless noted otherwise in the ability or spell description. In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell.
Suggesting someone can spellcraft it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a very important difference between the Paladin's Detect Evil and the spell Detect Evil: Paladins "concentrate on a single item or individual within 60 feet and determine if it is evil... the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range." So many people stop reading after "Detect Evil" that this comes as a surprise to them.
That means they don't get a cone of evildar. They have to pick out the specific evil cleric in the crowd in order to detect the ambush, they don't get an Aliens style radar of people who ping as evil. So there's no question of using their Detect Evil to find hidden or invisible enemies, and they have to spend a move action for each skeleton in the crypt to figure out which will animate.
I agree with this: Imminent evil intent pings as evil, but it's left to GM's prerogative to decide what "evil intent" is. The GM can decide that a Neutral enemy is intending to commit the non-evil act of defending his home instead of the evil act of murdering a party of Pathfinders for fun and profit. Or maybe he thinks that he's the good (or at least non-bad) guy; just working for the Aspis Consortium, arbitraging between local rubes and nobles who are willing to part with obscene sums of cash for those under appreciated cultural paraphernalia; and he's fighting the good fight against those murder-hoboing Pathfinder freaks that really should be in a circus with their horns and halos and wings and tails.
It is certainly within the GM's perogative not to have a creature ping based solely on its intentions, but it would be poor form, to do it and then screw anyone who used that information to cast a spell or performs an action based on the result.
Note: Paladin: Detect Evil:
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.So, part 1: At will, a paladin can use detect evil, as the spell.
Standard to use, gives the 60' cone.
Part 2: 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.
A Paladin can then, once he has Detect Evil running, immediately (or anytime during the concentration time) use a move action to focus his attention on a single target in the 60' cone.
Note: YMMV, ETV, but this is how I read it. Only once a standard Detect Evil is running can the Paladin then focus fire it at a single target for immediate gratification, instead of having to wait until the third round.
|
|
I can see what you're saying Kevin, but I think that is a bit too taxing. Paladins are already short on action economy because most of their class tricks take a standard action while most classes now get their cool stuff as free or swift actions, worst case a move. IMO, it doesn't really hurt game balance to allow a paladin to activate a focused detect evil as a move. Otherwise, it takes at least a round and a half to determine if the target is evil. An evil enemy can do a lot of damage in that amount of time.
|
|
I view the detect evil of a paladin almost as two different actions.
One is the standard action just like the spell.
The second action is anything within 60 feet of him he can target as a move action to identify.
My belief it is two completely independant abilities is because when you use the move action it expressly states " the paladin does not detect evil in any other object or individual within range"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see what you're saying Kevin, but I think that is a bit too taxing. Paladins are already short on action economy because most of their class tricks take a standard action while most classes now get their cool stuff as free or swift actions, worst case a move. IMO, it doesn't really hurt game balance to allow a paladin to activate a focused detect evil as a move. Otherwise, it takes at least a round and a half to determine if the target is evil. An evil enemy can do a lot of damage in that amount of time.
I don't know what you're talking about. As far as I'm aware, most paladins around here detect evil as a swift action. It's called smiting by spending 2 lay on hands to trigger their oath of vengeance and see if their smite evil works. :p
|
|
I can see what you're saying Kevin, but I think that is a bit too taxing. Paladins are already short on action economy because most of their class tricks take a standard action while most classes now get their cool stuff as free or swift actions, worst case a move. IMO, it doesn't really hurt game balance to allow a paladin to activate a focused detect evil as a move. Otherwise, it takes at least a round and a half to determine if the target is evil. An evil enemy can do a lot of damage in that amount of time.
Round and a half?
Standard - activate DE, you sense evil in your cone.
Move - Focus on NPC S or Y, know if evil, and strength of aura if evil
Swift - Smite
No action: 5' step
Next round: 5' step, if needed, and full attack Smite target.
The only difference might be the ability to do some sort of single attack, if the target is close enough or the Paladin is an archer type, in that first round. Probably not a big deal.
|
|
Two more things to add to the table variation list:
1) Some people read smite evil as working against anything that detects as evil and that includes: animals with evil intent, neutral clerics who worship an evil god, folks under the temporary effect of Infernal Healing. Others read it as only working against things with an evil alignment unmodified by intent or worship or spell.
2) Some people read the Paladin detect evil power grants 2 related abilities and some people read only a move action ability.
a. Move action to detect evil on an individual.
b. Standard action and multi-round concentration to detect evil as per the spell.
Any more from this thread?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
1) Some people read smite evil as working against anything that detects as evil and that includes: animals with evil intent, neutral clerics who worship an evil god, folks under the temporary effect of Infernal Healing.
Paladin: "Dang it, I can't Smite the Giant Boar. It doesn't detect as evil."
Wizard: "Hold on a second. I cast Infernal Healing on the Giant Boar."Paladin: "Cool! I smite it's ass!"
To paraphrase Forest Gump (who would make an interesting character concept for a paladin): "Evil is as Evil does."
|
Thus: It detects as evil -> Smite Works.
(Except maybe if they are dominated by an evil spell and the paladin just noted the presence of evil, but did not have the time double check the source.)
If you are a Neutral Cleric of an evil god - you might not be evil but you would detect as evil
does smite work on that person?
|
|
Detect Evil is not a failsafe for reasons given above and several more.
Not only can it fail to detect evil, it can give false positives.
Smite Evil, otoh, IS failsafe. If you're evil, it works. But just because someone detected as evil (perhaps in a false positive) doesn't mean Smite Evil will work. You'll only know with 100% certainty when the Smite works or not.
Of course, if you go around liberally smiting things, you won't remain Lawful Good for long...
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
It is not being a jerk. It is following the rules. Someone not wanting to ignore the same rules you do, does not make them a jerk or a bad person.What I see people forget the most is that creatures with evil intent detect as evil potentially leading to a lot of ineffective smitesIf a creature has evil intent that is strong enough to ping from detect evil, IMO it would be a jerk move to not allow smite to work against them. Either you're evil or you're not. You don't get to walk like evil, talk like evil, smell like evil, taste like evil, but not be vulnerable to affects that specifically target evil.
I read "evil intent" as "they are about to commit an act that if completed would shift their alignment toward evil. Thus a good creature about t commit an evil act would ping as both good and evil (as would an evil creature about to commit a good act). But the good creature would not be suitable before or after.
A neutral creature about to commit an evil act serious and bough to ping as evil *would* be smitable after the act,but if the evil act is killing the party, that may not count for much.
|
|
Since it has already been necro'd, has anyone's oppinions on dectect evil changed? Just curious. I can see several good points made in this thread, and was wondering if reading it or play time since it came out have changed anything.
Mine has.
Upthread, I thought that observers should not be allowed to recognize that detect evil was being used, because it had no components (M, S, V, F, or DF). Now, my opinion is that observers can tell that some magic is being used by the paladin, and a Spellcraft DC 16 check is required to discern exactly which effect.