| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A thread discussing which attacks can injure swarm-like enemies?
...
ಠ_ಠ I'm keeping my eye on you.
If you think the FAQ I linked is incorrect about smite then I suggest pressing the FAQ button because as of now that FAQ is official and it says smite is a self buff not an affect on a single target.It's not that it's an effect on a single target, it's that it is a self buff to the paladin versus a single target... and the WtW invalidates that since its component worms are individual creatures that can be sloughed off or incorporated as the monster desires.
Let me put this another way what Smite does in comparison to rage as an example is allow you to use your bonuses against only one creature. The smite damage is extra damage that is a part of the weapon damage. It is not extra damage that is tacked on as a rider affect. Smite is not a physicial affect on the target at all. It is an affect on the paladin that allows him to harm an opponent of his choosing. If smite just force a single creature to take more damage because he was the focus of some deity's divine energy that would be different.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing with a Worm that Walks is that it's both a single creature in many ways (one initiative, one bunch of actions per round, one HP total) and a sort of swarm.
Saying that you can't challenge is is like saying you can't see the forest for the trees. Smite is a bit more ambiguous maybe, but I think it should still be possible. It's saying "You're naughty, I'm calling you out", and you can definitely say that to a WtW.
While I believe that technically Smite doesn't work, I believe it probably should work against a worm that walks.
The thing with a Worm that Walks is that it's both a single creature in many ways (one initiative, one bunch of actions per round, one HP total) and a sort of swarm.
Saying that you can't challenge is is like saying you can't see the forest for the trees. Smite is a bit more ambiguous maybe, but I think it should still be possible. It's saying "You're naughty, I'm calling you out", and you can definitely say that to a WtW.
But it only counts as swarm-like when it is being targeted by a physical affect. Smite is not a physical effect targeting the worm. Smite itself does nothing to the worm. Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it. Disintegrate however is a physical affect just like scorching ray would be. I see no resemblance between either of those and smite.
But it only counts as swarm-like when it is being targeted by a physical affect. Smite is not a physical effect targeting the worm. Smite itself does nothing to the worm. Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it. Disintegrate however is a physical affect just like scorching ray would be. I see no resemblance between either of those and smite.The thing with a Worm that Walks is that it's both a single creature in many ways (one initiative, one bunch of actions per round, one HP total) and a sort of swarm.
Saying that you can't challenge is is like saying you can't see the forest for the trees. Smite is a bit more ambiguous maybe, but I think it should still be possible. It's saying "You're naughty, I'm calling you out", and you can definitely say that to a WtW.
So by your logic, since smite evil is NOT a physical effect targeting the worm than how do you explain the BOLD emphasis:
Smite Evil: 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. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. 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.
Smite Evil is most certainly a physical effect targeting a single creature and since the Worm is immune to that, a Smite Evil attack has no effect on a Worm That Walks...
A shadow,
Taken from The PRD, Worm that Walks
It says NE Medium vermin (augmented human)
It also says: When a powerful spellcaster with a strong personality, a lust for life, and a remorselessly evil soul dies and is buried in a graveyard infused with eldritch magic, a strange phenomenon sometimes occurs. The flesh of the decaying body fats and instructs the very worms that gnaw, and these graveworms quicken not only on corruption but upon the spellcaster's memories and magical power. The spellcaster's very soul is consumed in this vile process, only to be split apart to inhabit each of the individual chewing worms in so many fragments. The result is a hideous hive mind of slithering life known as a worm that walks—a mass of worms that clings to the vague shape of the body that granted it this new existence, and can wield the powers and magic the spellcaster had in life. A worm that walks retains memories of its life as a spellcaster before its death, but is not undead—it is a hideous new form of undulant life.
In other words, A Worm that Walks isn't undead despite eating a dead body. It's also not an Evil Outsider or Evil Dragon.
Smite Evil is most certainly a physical effect targeting a single creature and since the Worm is immune to that, a Smite Evil attack has no effect on a Worm That Walks...
It might target a single creature, but don't see where it says it's a physical effect. It's a supernatural effect where you call out to the powers of good to aid you in your battle against the target.
Let me put this another way what Smite does in comparison to rage as an example is allow you to use your bonuses against only one creature. The smite damage is extra damage that is a part of the weapon damage. It is not extra damage that is tacked on as a rider affect. Smite is not a physicial affect on the target at all. It is an affect on the paladin that allows him to harm an opponent of his choosing. If smite just force a single creature to take more damage because he was the focus of some deity's divine energy that would be different.If you think the FAQ I linked is incorrect about smite then I suggest pressing the FAQ button because as of now that FAQ is official and it says smite is a self buff not an affect on a single target.It's not that it's an effect on a single target, it's that it is a self buff to the paladin versus a single target... and the WtW invalidates that since its component worms are individual creatures that can be sloughed off or incorporated as the monster desires.
You can't compare rage with smite. A Barbarian with Rage active is getting bonus damage against everything she so choose to attack; the Paladin only receives that bonus damage against the target of the smite.
That's the argument. Smite must be a targeted ability because it only works on the targeted creature, no one else.
A shadow,
Taken from The PRD, Worm that Walks
It says NE Medium vermin (augmented human)
It also says: When a powerful spellcaster with a strong personality, a lust for life, and a remorselessly evil soul dies and is buried in a graveyard infused with eldritch magic, a strange phenomenon sometimes occurs. The flesh of the decaying body fats and instructs the very worms that gnaw, and these graveworms quicken not only on corruption but upon the spellcaster's memories and magical power. The spellcaster's very soul is consumed in this vile process, only to be split apart to inhabit each of the individual chewing worms in so many fragments. The result is a hideous hive mind of slithering life known as a worm that walks—a mass of worms that clings to the vague shape of the body that granted it this new existence, and can wield the powers and magic the spellcaster had in life. A worm that walks retains memories of its life as a spellcaster before its death, but is not undead—it is a hideous new form of undulant life.
In other words, A Worm that Walks isn't undead despite eating a dead body. It's also not an Evil Outsider or Evil Dragon.
Seamstress_Druid,
Sorry for not making it more clear but I was really trying to point out the part of "If the target of the smite evil...", not the particulars of who the target actually is.
Wraith's argument seems to boil down to the Paladin is the target of his smite evil ability:
Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it.
If that were the case, the text I pointed out within Smite Evil would make zero sense since the paladin needs to actually target someone for his smite, in which case, the Worm is immune...
Let me put this another way what Smite does in comparison to rage as an example is allow you to use your bonuses against only one creature. The smite damage is extra damage that is a part of the weapon damage. It is not extra damage that is tacked on as a rider affect. Smite is not a physicial affect on the target at all. It is an affect on the paladin that allows him to harm an opponent of his choosing. If smite just force a single creature to take more damage because he was the focus of some deity's divine energy that would be different.If you think the FAQ I linked is incorrect about smite then I suggest pressing the FAQ button because as of now that FAQ is official and it says smite is a self buff not an affect on a single target.It's not that it's an effect on a single target, it's that it is a self buff to the paladin versus a single target... and the WtW invalidates that since its component worms are individual creatures that can be sloughed off or incorporated as the monster desires.You can't compare rage with smite. A Barbarian with Rage active is getting bonus damage against everything she so choose to attack; the Paladin only receives that bonus damage against the target of the smite.
That's the argument. Smite must be a targeted ability because it only works on the targeted creature, no one else.
EXACTLY! The barbarian doesn't need to pick a target to rage against. If he did, the Worm would be immune to that as well...
Personally, I would allow Smite to work against a hivemind swarm. Just like mind-affecting effects do.
My apologies Shadow, I misunderstood.
I guess it comes down to
"Oh Lord grant me the power to defeat this evil" vs. "Evil thing prepare to face the wrath of my Lord"
which one sounds right to you?
A shadow,
Taken from The PRD, Worm that Walks
It says NE Medium vermin (augmented human)
It also says: When a powerful spellcaster with a strong personality, a lust for life, and a remorselessly evil soul dies and is buried in a graveyard infused with eldritch magic, a strange phenomenon sometimes occurs. The flesh of the decaying body fats and instructs the very worms that gnaw, and these graveworms quicken not only on corruption but upon the spellcaster's memories and magical power. The spellcaster's very soul is consumed in this vile process, only to be split apart to inhabit each of the individual chewing worms in so many fragments. The result is a hideous hive mind of slithering life known as a worm that walks—a mass of worms that clings to the vague shape of the body that granted it this new existence, and can wield the powers and magic the spellcaster had in life. A worm that walks retains memories of its life as a spellcaster before its death, but is not undead—it is a hideous new form of undulant life.
In other words, A Worm that Walks isn't undead despite eating a dead body. It's also not an Evil Outsider or Evil Dragon.
Seamstress_Druid,
Sorry for not making it more clear but I was really trying to point out the part of "If the target of the smite evil...", not the particulars of who the target actually is.
Wraith's argument seems to boil down to the Paladin is the target of his smite evil ability:
Smite is on the paladin, and the paladin chooses who he wants to hurt with his weapon while using it.If that were the case, the text I pointed out within Smite Evil would make zero sense since the paladin needs to actually target someone for his smite, in which case, the Worm is immune...
The FAQ I quoted says the paladin is the one affected. The smite itself is not a physical affect on the target. It empowers the paladin to have more power versus a certain enemy.
Now that I am home and not too lazy to go into detail I can better explain my position. Those who disagree with me and seemingly the FAQ are focuses on the word "target". That is a fair judgement, but what must be remembered is that there are two used of the word target in the game. One use of target is a specific way of aiming a spell or magic affect at someone/something. The other use of target is when you target someone for an attack that requires an attack roll.
However before I go any further I want to go into the ways to aim a spell.
One way is to aim a spell is with the target method. Examples of such spells are magic missile, hold person, and Reveal Visage from Hastur. In each of these cases when you are the target the ability does something directly to you. There is no ability that targets you per the magical ability use of the word that does not cause an effect to be directly placed on the target.
Another way to aim a magical ability is with an effect. These spells tend to bring things into being such as the summon monster line of spells. Effects can also come in the form of rays and spreads. Examples of such magical abilities would be disintegrate and fireball
The next way to aim a spell is with the area method. Emanations, lines, cones, spreads(also fall into this area), and more are examples of effects that are under the area method. A dragon's breath weapon is a an example of this type of aiming.
So what do we know about smite. We we know the that smite is an effect on the paladin because of the FAQ. The only method of aiming that allows for an effect on a specific creature is the "target method.
Now the point of contention is that some claim the target whoever the paladin decides to fight. However smite does not do anything to the smited person. If so nobody has said what it does.
Now someone is going to say that "smite" causes harm to the paladin's opponent, but that is not true. For smite to target someone and have an effect upon them they would be taking daamge upon being targeted, but they don't take damage until they are targeted and hit by an attack roll. Upon the "target of the attack roll" being hit they take extra damage.
The worms that walks even use disintegrates as an example when it says " effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Disintegrate however being a ray would fall under the "effect" method of aiming a spell or magical ability. Smite is not an effect that is aimed at someone. It is just a buff to the paladin. If smite was it's own attack like disintegrate was then smite would not work.
So to recap we know the WtW calls out "effects" as defined in the book, and even uses a ray( a specific effect). We know the smite effects the paladin.
As far as I can see smite is not using the effect version of aiming at all with relation to the worm that walks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll just say that, while I disagree with your assertion, I can understand where you are coming from. FAQ'd.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with wraithstrike on this question. I think a paladin should be able to use Smite Evil on a worm that walks... or any evil-aligned swarm for that matter.
My reasoning doesn't get into parsing the rules too deeply. The question is: Would it be more fun if the effect worked? At my table, the answer is a redounding "yes." So, smite away, Ms. Paladin! Making a PC's signature power fail in an encounter with a worm that walks seems like a petty "Gotcha!" to me.
Contributor
|
My reasoning doesn't get into parsing the rules too deeply. The question is: Would it be more fun if the effect worked? At my table, the answer is a redounding "yes."
This is actually a big part of my decision-making process as well... the result just ended up being different. :) I'm mostly thinking of my Wrath of the Righteous campaign here.
Wraith has certainly brought a well-written/researched argument - enough so that, while I still disagree, I'm probably disagreeing with the developers as well. :)
The worms that walks even use disintegrates as an example when it says " effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Disintegrate however being a ray would fall under the "effect" method of aiming a spell or magical ability. Smite is not an effect that is aimed at someone. It is just a buff to the paladin. If smite was it's own attack like disintegrate was then smite would not work.
I'm just going to have to disagree.
Ok, Smite Evil is an effect on the paladin BUT the paladin STILL needs to target an individual for his Smite Evil attack. If he didn't need to target someone for a Smite Evil, every creature he attacks would suffer from Smite Evil then.Since that is NOT the case and the paladin MUST choose a target for his Smite Evil then the Worm's 'immune to individual targeted' ability kicks in and overrides the Paladin's smite.
I picture something like this:
Paladin: "I'm going to Smite Evil"
DM: "Who are you going to Smite?"
Paladin: "Huh? But it's an effect on me so anyone that I hit that is evil will suffer."
DM: "No, the paladin must target an individual to Smite."
Paladin: "Oh, then by the power of my god, I am smiting Biff the Worm That Walks."
DM: "You attack and hit but realize the Smite has no effect since the Worm is immune to targeted effects."
The only method of aiming that allows for an effect on a specific creature is the "target method.
I'm not sure this is true... An "effect" as well allows this via rays (or maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here). Disintegrate is an 'effect ray' and you need to aim that at a something to hit... And that's a specific example in the Worm's entry.
Now someone is going to say that "smite" causes harm to the paladin's opponent, but that is not true. For smite to target someone and have an effect upon them they would be taking daamge upon being targeted, but they don't take damage until they are targeted and hit by an attack roll. Upon the "target of the attack roll" being hit they take extra damage.
Disintegrate doesn't cause damage to someone when they are targeted either. The caster actually has to make an attack roll to hit because, you know, the caster has to actually target something... Which is pointed out in the Worm's entry as the Worm being immune...
The worms that walks even use disintegrates as an example when it says " effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Disintegrate however being a ray would fall under the "effect" method of aiming a spell or magical ability. Smite is not an effect that is aimed at someone. It is just a buff to the paladin. If smite was it's own attack like disintegrate was then smite would not work.I'm just going to have to disagree.
Ok, Smite Evil is an effect on the paladin BUT the paladin STILL needs to target an individual for his Smite Evil attack. If he didn't need to target someone for a Smite Evil, every creature he attacks would suffer from Smite Evil then.Since that is NOT the case and the paladin MUST choose a target for his Smite Evil then the Worm's 'immune to individual targeted' ability kicks in and overrides the Paladin's smite.
I picture something like this:
Paladin: "I'm going to Smite Evil"
DM: "Who are you going to Smite?"
Paladin: "Huh? But it's an effect on me so anyone that I hit that is evil will suffer."
DM: "No, the paladin must target an individual to Smite."
Paladin: "Oh, then by the power of my god, I am smiting Biff the Worm That Walks."
DM: "You attack and hit but realize the Smite has no effect since the Worm is immune to targeted effects."The only method of aiming that allows for an effect on a specific creature is the "target method.I'm not sure this is true... An "effect" as well allows this via rays (or maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say here). Disintegrate is an 'effect ray' and you need to aim that at a something to hit... And that's a specific example in the Worm's entry.
I just posted a long rules based explanation. How am I wrong by the aiming rules?
edit: Don't forget that FAQ I quoted saying smite is on the paladin.
Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).
Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...
Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).
Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...
Yes a ray can target you via an attack roll, but "target" based aiming such as magic missile means the person is automatically subject to the ability.
Disintegrate is aim based like other ray effects not targeted(such as magic missile or hold person, or a vampire's dominate).
Smite has a targeted(per the way magic is aimed) affect on the paladin.
Now you could be arguing that it targets the paladin and the worm that walks, but smite would be a very special case, and that FAQ saying it is an affect on the paladin shows that it is on the paladin. It is not a physical affect on the worm that walks. It just allows him to take extra damage from the paladin's smite. If it is a physical affect on the worm then what is the direct affect? The smite does nothing to the worm directly. The paladin hitting it with a weapon, and allows him to do his smite damage.
Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).
Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...
My longer post list several methods of aiming a spell. None of them fit with how smite would be aimed at the worm that walks.
Ok, Smite Evil is an effect on the paladin BUT the paladin STILL needs to target an individual for his Smite Evil attack. If he didn't need to target someone for a Smite Evil, every creature he attacks would suffer from Smite Evil then.
Since that is NOT the case and the paladin MUST choose a target for his Smite Evil then the Worm's 'immune to individual targeted' ability kicks in and overrides the Paladin's smite.
Except it isn't immune to effects that target individuals, unless they're 'physical' effects. Designating a target for smiting is not physical.
My longer post list several methods of aiming a spell. None of them fit with how smite would be aimed at the worm that walks.Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).
Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...
Smite Evil is not a spell though. If anything it is a physical effect (whether it's on the Paladin's person or the Creature's person) that targets a single creature...
Cripes it's in the text of Smite Evil:
"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite."
I don't see how anyone can argue Smite Evil doesn't target an individual... It's right there in the text...
Then you apply the Worm's ability:
"Worms that walk are immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of such spells and effects generated by the worm that walks itself, which treat the worm that walks as one single creature if it so chooses."
Anyway, the beauty of all this is you can interpret it your way and I can interpret it my way and each of us can be right...
so Question 2.....Is Smite Evil a Physical Effect? None of it's effects are typed except for the Deflection bonus to AC. It could be argued that it is a Spiritual Effect not a physical one.
Question 3 .... What if I follow up with a Wrathful Mantle Blast. That's an AOE force effect and because it invovles damage I get Smite bonus on the Smite target.
My longer post list several methods of aiming a spell. None of them fit with how smite would be aimed at the worm that walks.Unless I'm mistaken, the 'effect' method of aiming a spell/ability can target individual creatures (i.e. rays).
Maybe I'm missing what you're trying to explain or point out but saying "the only method of aiming that allows an effect on a specific creature is 'target'" isn't true...
Smite Evil is not a spell though. If anything it is a physical effect (whether it's on the Paladin's person or the Creature's person) that targets a single creature...
Cripes it's in the text of Smite Evil:
"As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite."I don't see how anyone can argue Smite Evil doesn't target an individual... It's right there in the text...
Then you apply the Worm's ability:
"Worms that walk are immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of such spells and effects generated by the worm that walks itself, which treat the worm that walks as one single creature if it so chooses."Anyway, the beauty of all this is you can interpret it your way and I can interpret it my way and each of us can be right...
The magic section tells you how to aim magical abilities not just spells. You have yet to explain which method of aiming smite is using. Non-target aiming methods also use the word "target" so be very specific and cite rules from the book like I did. Telling me the word "target" is written in smite when the word target is used in several ways wont be enough.
I see you chose to say it is an effect but there are certain types of effects with rays being one. What type of effect is smite?
Telling me the word "target" is written in smite when the word target is used in several ways wont be enough.
What other ways is the word target used? I honestly don't know.
Telling me the word "target" is written in smite when the word target is used in several ways wont be enough.What other ways is the word target used? I honestly don't know.
I listed two in my long post on aiming spells.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Worm That Walks is a conglomerate hivemind, and Smite Evil works with/against forces of the spirit rather than the flesh. I, for one, disagree with your DM's ruling. You could almost argue that, in this very particular case, it's akin to saying Smite Evil can't work on a human because their body is composed of cells that are each living organisms of a sort in their own right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smite evil isn't a mind affecting effect, so the hivemind thing isn't mechanically relevant. The worm that walks has a mechanical definition for it's abilities that account for having a hivemind. The rules that account for it's hivemind have no interaction with Smite whatsoever, because Smite isn't mind affecting.
I think most of the people here think that smiting a worm that walks isn't necessarily wrong from a thematic standpoint. The question is if the mechanics by RAW support the thematic appropriateness. The answer is a resounding definite "Maybe?". I would allow it personally, but I would do so from a thematic basis, while being aware that I don't know if it is permitted by the rules and that my ruling could contradict the RAW (and frankly I wouldn't really care).
I wouldn't suggest that another GM is wrong for ruling the other way. This is a corner case with ambiguously worded rules thrown in. There are arguments for allowing it and denying it both by RAW and by fluff.
What's actually going on in the game trumps RAW - overseeing and arbitrating disparities between the two with the agility of a sentient mind is one of the most important aspects of the DM's function.
Spiritual!=Mind affecting
Magic Jar works on vampires. Vampires are immune to mind affecting.
Smite is arguably a physical effect that targets the worm that walks and directly affects it through the paladin's strikes. Therefore the worm that walks is immune to it. From a fluff standpoint you can think of it as the smite only affecting a single maggot in the WtW's body, because smite only allows the paladin to become empowered against a single creature and the WtW is composed of many independent creatures that share a mind, so inflicting great damage to one of them through smite does almost nothing to the collective whole.
Smite arguably does not directly affect the WtW, since the paladin is the one being affected by it, not the WtW, and the boost to the paladin's strikes are only an indirect effect of smite. Therefore the WtW can be Smited, because cannot be targeted!=immune and immune arguably does not prohibit being targeted. From a fluff standpoint, this can be justified fluff wise by the WtW still being a single entity in some spiritual sense, which is enough for Smite to distinguish the WtW as a whole from it's component creatures.
See, there is an argument both ways no matter whether you adhere to RAW or disregard RAW and only look at the fluff. You think the latter interpretation is right. I like the latter interpretation more. Unlike you, however, I don't think that people thinking the former is better are wrong. I know there is a justification both ways, and even though I have my reasons why I like mine more, that doesn't mean that the reasons others like theirs more are invalid or they are doing something wrong by disagreeing with my personal preferences.
Honestly until a few years ago when I noticed spell turning said it did not counter Effect and Area spells, I was not aware of the various ways to aim a spell. In most games it never comes up, but it is broken down in a very specific manner.
I understood that fireball did not work like magic missile, but I did not how much trouble the designers went through to say how magic worked with regard to aiming a magical effect.
Yes, there is a difference between magic having an effect on you, and it being effect based magic. Charm person has an effect on you, but it uses target based aiming, while polar ray is an effect based spell, not a target based spell. However you considered the target for the purpose of who the attack roll is aimed at. In this case both of the words "target" and "effect" are not used in the same manner.
PS: I already knew it did not work on area effects, but I did not know rays could bypass spellturning.
You're implying that Smite Evil is a spell... It is not, so therefore magic rules and 'aiming' rules don't apply. If it is, please point me to the Smite spell's entry...
The 'aiming' rules for Smite Evil are pretty clear in the ability's text: A target the paladin can see. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the FAQ, when they say 'effect' you believe they are referring to the magic 'effect' listed in the rules. I think that is incorrect because Smite is NOT a spell. It's not even an attack (i.e. you don't make an attack roll when you declare a Smite). I believe they are just using the word 'effect' as in "this is something affecting this person (i.e. an effect)" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the magic rules.
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune). The Worm wouldn't be immune to the Barbarian's rage because the Barb doesn't need to choose a target to rage against...
A worm that walks is a single entity (e.g. hivemind) and therefore a valid target for a smite. Vowing to destroy an evil creature is by no means a physical effect and the worm that walks is not immune.
It is arguable that since smite targets the WtW and is causing the paladin to deal extra damage which makes smite a physical effect and thus the WtW is immune.
It is also arguable that this is not the case.
Corner case interactions involving ambiguous rules text are !!!fun!!!.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune).
The Worm is immune to physical effects that target a single creature.
There are two main aspects to the smiting.
The first is picking a target. This is an effect that targets a single creature, but it is not physical.
The second is hitting the enemy and getting bonuses. This is physical and targets a single creature, but it is not an 'effect'.
Neither aspect is blocked by the Worm's powers.
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune).The Worm is immune to physical effects that target a single creature.
There are two main aspects to the smiting.
The first is picking a target. This is an effect that targets a single creature, but it is not physical.
The second is hitting the enemy and getting bonuses. This is physical and targets a single creature, but it is not an 'effect'.Neither aspect is blocked by the Worm's powers.
Worms That Walk are: "immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)".
Your first 'aspect' of smiting is now negated by the Worm's immunity to an "effect that targets a single creature".
Unless of course you can point out a list of what exactly "physical effects" are somewhere in the rules....
You're implying that Smite Evil is a spell... It is not, so therefore magic rules and 'aiming' rules don't apply. If it is, please point me to the Smite spell's entry...
The 'aiming' rules for Smite Evil are pretty clear in the ability's text: A target the paladin can see. Nothing more, nothing less.
In the FAQ, when they say 'effect' you believe they are referring to the magic 'effect' listed in the rules. I think that is incorrect because Smite is NOT a spell. It's not even an attack (i.e. you don't make an attack roll when you declare a Smite). I believe they are just using the word 'effect' as in "this is something affecting this person (i.e. an effect)" and has nothing whatsoever to do with the magic rules.
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune). The Worm wouldn't be immune to the Barbarian's rage because the Barb doesn't need to choose a target to rage against...
I never said smite evil was a spell. I specifically said "magic" has a certain way of aiming.
I also said magic has categories for it aims.
I even used supernatural affects such a how a dragon's breath can use lines or area affects as a way of aiming as dictated in the magic chapter.
I listed the vampire's dominate as way of aiming as another example. All of these supernatual abilities follow the aiming rules. As an example you can't breath fire on someone that you do not have line of affect to. You can't dominate someone you do not have line of effect to.
Seeing is not an aiming method of any magical ability.
Are you saying the smite uses the effect method of aiming?
A worm that walks is a single entity (e.g. hivemind) and therefore a valid target for a smite. Vowing to destroy an evil creature is by no means a physical effect and the worm that walks is not immune.It is arguable that since smite targets the WtW and is causing the paladin to deal extra damage which makes smite a physical effect and thus the WtW is immune.
It is also arguable that this is not the case.
Corner case interactions involving ambiguous rules text are !!!fun!!!.
What physical affect is smite having on the WtW?
Smite itself does nothing to the worm. It is the paladin's sword doing the damage.
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune).The Worm is immune to physical effects that target a single creature.
There are two main aspects to the smiting.
The first is picking a target. This is an effect that targets a single creature, but it is not physical.
The second is hitting the enemy and getting bonuses. This is physical and targets a single creature, but it is not an 'effect'.Neither aspect is blocked by the Worm's powers.
This is probably how the FAQ will explain it. It will be that or the word "target" is using the dictionary term such as when you attack someone with a weapon as opposed to target as it is used in the magic section as it related to how the magic is aimed.
I see Smite as nearly similar to the Barbarian's rage. You wouldn't say that was a spell, would you? The difference between the two is that the paladin actually has to choose a target for his Smite (which the Worm would be immune).The Worm is immune to physical effects that target a single creature.
There are two main aspects to the smiting.
The first is picking a target. This is an effect that targets a single creature, but it is not physical.
The second is hitting the enemy and getting bonuses. This is physical and targets a single creature, but it is not an 'effect'.Neither aspect is blocked by the Worm's powers.
Worms That Walk are: "immune to any physical spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)".
Your first 'aspect' of smiting is now negated by the Worm's immunity to an "effect that targets a single creature".
Unless of course you can point out a list of what exactly "physical effects" are somewhere in the rules....
Are you saying that the word "target" in the paladin section refers to the use of how it is used when aiming magic or the common dictionary term?
OR
Also are you saying the smite is an effect on the WtW? If so what type of effect? Yes effects based aiming is broken down in the book.
It can't be effect based aiming and target(magic aiming). Those are two different methods of aiming magic.
You keep trying to combine the two.