|
I don't have any anger. I little frustration but no anger.
I do want to use a legal metaphor though since I stand accused of the high crime of rules layering:
@BNW failure to show cause will get your case thrown out of court.
Also, the judiciary system is one largely of precedent. While my claim is that because Pathfinder is a new game which Paizo has willfully and with avengeance tossed aside decades of history in the interest of making a better game, there is no precedent for smite in its current form; BNW's claim is entirely one of precedents (despite the fact that he willfully ignores Paizo's direction not to use the FAQ's in that way).
So I wonder, which of us is the more lawyerly?
No, because a Coup is just an automatic success on a hit roll, and maximum damage, so it is a non-issue. IT's just a formal way of doing maximum damage.
No. Its not max damage.
You automatically hit and score a critical hit. If the defender survives the damage, he must make a Fortitude save (DC 10 + damage dealt) or die. A rogue also gets her extra sneak attack damage against a helpless opponent when delivering a coup de grace.
It is an autocrit, you still have to roll actual damage.
While I'm happy to be corrected on what a coup actually does, 3 people piling on is a little over the top! :)
As an auto hit, you're still hitting the guy with a physical weapon. IF the attack roll is an automatic hit, so what? Magic missile, you never even are called to roll at all. A coup is called out as an exception to the general rule, it's an attack roll that auto-hits. MM never rolls at all.
As for holy Smite, that's the name of a spell. In case you didn't notice, there's 3 other variants of it, two of which don't use the word smite, and which do the exact same thing based on alignment.
We are also not referring to zeus and his thunderbolts, or the divine wrath of god, which are also spells, by any definition.
We are talking about a Paladin Smiting evil, which the first definition of a physical beat down is and always has been the point of it.
There is no support in the rules for Smite working on spells, past or present, and definitely not in an intentionally expanded capacity, pretty much anywhere in the Pathfinder rules. It's a rules lawyered loophole based on inadequate definition of what 'smite' means, which is totally lawyerish. One inadequately defined word opening up a can of worms is exactly what rules lawyers DO!
==Aelryinth
What the FAQ says its talking about is raw. What the FAQ implies is the RAI that the game actually runs on.I agree with both of these statements. However, what you fail to grasp is that the rules in the official FAQ are intended to apply to only the question asked in the FAQ itself. We know this is true because Paizo has told us in actual words, not with read-between-the-lines implications, that it is so.
What that means, is that you cannot reference an FAQ about sneak attack because it only pertains to sneak attack and only in the specific context mentioned.
In addition, there are major differences between the extra damage from sneak attack, and the damage added by smite. Chief among those is that sneak attack is precision damage which expressly forbids it from being added on multiple missiles as part of the same attack. Smite is by no means a form of precision damage, so sneak attack absolutely cannot be used to set precedent for this entirely different ability.
Not believing that the answers to questions set precedents for other almost identical questions and circumstances is a characteristic of loopholers, as well.
==Aelryinth
|
@Master of Shadows
You know, there is still one statement on this forum which makes me cringe each time I see it, "The rules are on my side. You have to quote and prove that I am wrong", which is to say the least, disheartening to see. Everyone claims that they are right and that they deserve to be proven wrong. How about looking an entire objective picture for a change?
Srsly... anyone else see the elephant?I'm going to mention Coup de Grace again...
If an attack roll is required, Paladins aren't allowed to Coup de Grace.
Is this the "attacking sleeping enemies" item again? If so... yeah, I backed out of that thread.
Surely the Smite damage should be added onto the Bleed effect from a wounding weapon, as well.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
Citation provided
Smite Evil (Su): 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 Charisma 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.
Seriously people.
I'm always amazed at how people find the slightest chip in wording to pour down rivers of cheese. Further, some seem specialized at doing it when the intention of a text is more than clear.
Beyond other things, take into account that the description of Smite Evil makes no open mention of spells and other abilities, while it screams of physical combat only, including the bonus it grants to AC and the bypassing of DR.
And that the vanilla Paladin, for whom Smite Evil was written first and foremost (meaning I highly doubt they wrote it thinking "hey, one might multiclass with [random class] or get uber spells from future books and exploit this, but who cares about clarifying here, right?"), has, like, three spells that roll for damage in its whole list (and they're mostly Cure Wounds), since it's not a class made for attacking through spells, but with weapons.
Counter:[citation needed]Citation provided
Smite Evil (Su): 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 Charisma 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.Seriously people.
Attacks: Some spell descriptions refer to attacking. All offensive combat actions, even those that don't damage opponents, are considered attacks. Attempts to channel energy count as attacks if it would harm any creatures in the area. All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or that otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks. Spells that summon monsters or other allies are not attacks because the spells themselves don't harm anyone.
Perhaps highlighting the word "attack" in smite evil isn't as conclusive as you want it to be. This is how people entertain the idea that smite can be added to spells in the first place.
o0o0o0o0ohhhhh! (Waves hand) Is there a reason why Smite Evil bypasses DR, but doesn't bypass spell resistance?!? Or even mention it?
Since it is now a magical effect, does this mean spell resistance can withstand Smite Evil?
Inquiring minds want to know!
==Aelryinth
Attacks do not need to have attack rolls
Smite does not specify physical damage (a good point of reference is Power Attack, which does specify "all melee damage rolls" but restricts touch attacks without actually requiring an attack roll otherwise)
YAY!
So, if I throw poison at an enemy with a Smite Evil attack, I can do Con damage!!!!
I can see Poison Use becoming de riguer among smiting Paladins now, I can!
==Aelryinth
o0o0o0o0ohhhhh! (Waves hand) Is there a reason why Smite Evil bypasses DR, but doesn't bypass spell resistance?!? Or even mention it?
Since it is now a magical effect, does this mean spell resistance can withstand Smite Evil?
Inquiring minds want to know!
==Aelryinth
There are spells that have damage blocked by DR but not SR
There are spells that have damage blocked by DR but not SRo0o0o0o0ohhhhh! (Waves hand) Is there a reason why Smite Evil bypasses DR, but doesn't bypass spell resistance?!? Or even mention it?
Since it is now a magical effect, does this mean spell resistance can withstand Smite Evil?
Inquiring minds want to know!
==Aelryinth
Citation needed, we need a rule that says Smite Evil isn't blocked by spell resistance!
o0 oh, it's supernatural. that's why. Bummer.
==Aelryinth
Until someone from Paizo says otherwise smite evil doesn't buff magic missile
come on guys this goes way beyond power gaming and rules lawerying that it is almost silly
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Celestial Servant: "Goddess, I bring good tidings."
Goddess: "What is it?"
CS: "The vanquishing of the arch-demon has begun. Even now, one of your faithful has invoked your name to purge his realm of the abyssal infection."
G: "Ah yes. I see it now. I have always prided myself in that Paladin. I remember the day he was brought before the clergy and tested. He is an innovator and always coming up with new strategies to combat the darkness."
CS: "Yes, about that..."
G: "I have given him my blessing so that he may be a beacon in these dark times. A shining light among the twilight draws believers into the fold like moths to a flame. As long as he brings my justice and light into the world all is forgiven. These things bring hope and inspiration to all that behold it."
CS: "He is attempting to channel your glory into magic to defeat the beast."
G: "Interesting, which of my divine spell gifts is he using? I don't feel anything..."
CS: "Magic Missile..."
G: "He must have been accessing unsanctioned knowledge, and drawing upon one of my brethren for support. I can't say I approve, but the ends may well justify the means. I wonder which one?"
CS: "Erhm, he is using a wand..."
G: "WHAT? What glory is there in such a battle? This means my divine authority can be foiled by a simple level one spell, assuming the spell can even penetrate the spell resistance of the dark beasts... The entire purpose is to overcome the resistances... The smite is to let them know there is no misshapen form, imagined or real, that can protect their evil hearts from my fury; there is no place darkness can hide that my light cannot find."
<grumbles>
"There is no challenge here. Nothing to bring out his inner reserves combining his faith and righteousness."
CS: "Truly, I doubt we will draw in converts with tales of such a victory. I think he intends to auto-hit the beast safely behind the cover provided by his more robust comrades. He has constantly argued to the collective clergy this is allowed because it is less formidable than his brethren using your chosen weapon; he is quite charismatic you know."
G: "Sigh... Please bring me some wine, I must relax and contemplate"
CS: "Some cheese as well?"
G: "No, I think I've had enough cheese for one day"
There are spells that have damage blocked by DR but not SRo0o0o0o0ohhhhh! (Waves hand) Is there a reason why Smite Evil bypasses DR, but doesn't bypass spell resistance?!? Or even mention it?
Since it is now a magical effect, does this mean spell resistance can withstand Smite Evil?
Inquiring minds want to know!
==Aelryinth
Citation needed, we need a rule that says Smite Evil isn't blocked by spell resistance!
o0 oh, it's supernatural. that's why. Bummer.
==Aelryinth
At least you caught it before a bunch of people hit you over the head with it. Not that it will necessarily stop someone who doesn't keep reading before replying, but you did what you could.
So...smite evil doesn't call out "weapon attack rolls" or "weapon damage". It just says "attack rolls" and "all damage rolls". Smite therefore applies to spells, even if they don't have an attack roll - it's not a statement that says "if(attack roll = true) and if(damage dealt=true) then smite=true". It says if smite=true then attack roll = attack roll + defined bonus; damage rolls = damage rolls + other defined bonus.
I'm not going to argue for or against how many times that damage applies (all 5 magic missiles versus once per spell) because I can see both sides of that argument.
The Hide option. I highly recommend it.
People keep mentioning this, but I don't see anything marked 'hide.' Where do I look for this marvelous button?
I never noticed that little symbol. Thanks!
@Lord Tobies
I was thinking same thing there. If people can argue that Smite applies to all damage rolls, then surely, they won't mind 1d4+10 Dex damage from Calcific Touch getting by. That's pretty neat.
Smite is applied to "all damage rolls", not ability damage, which has specific mention of when it is increased and multiplied.
If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal.
Damage reduces a target's current hit points."
Damage is only dealing with hit point damage. Ability damage is a specific listing under damage and also has a specific listing for how its multiplied.
Things like Weapon Specialization;
Which is worded the same way as Smite Evil(all damage rolls) doesn't add to ability damage.
Damage is only dealing with hit point damage.Yes it says this. It also lists ability damage under the damage heading, refers to it later in sentences as just "damage" without any adjectives ("Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores."), and even if hitpoitn and ability damage are different "damage" words, where does it establish which (or both) "damage rolls" refer to?
At the most, this = contradictory rules or just an unresolvable mess without FAQ, Though I wouldn't say it seems like a high priority FAQ.
Damage and Ability damage are not the same thing.
|
|
Damage is only dealing with hit point damage.Yes it says this. It also lists ability damage under the damage heading, refers to it later in sentences as just "damage" without any adjectives ("Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores."), and even if hitpoitn and ability damage are different "damage" words, where does it establish which (or both) "damage rolls" refer to?
At the most, this = contradictory rules or just an unresolvable mess without FAQ, Though I wouldn't say it seems like a high priority FAQ.
Damage and Ability damage are not the same thing.
Once again, the FAQ resolution can only be applied in the specific instance covered in the FAQ.
I would allow it due to this part in the paladin smite ability:
"adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite".
The description of magic missile is pretty clear, you use multiple missile as you gain level 3,5,7 & 9. Scorching ray would work to with this tactic.
I know it's not necessarily classic paladin but hey that is why I play pathfinder at home, the rule have a goldmine of fun tricks like this that an ingenious player can try.
A lot of people will say it's cheesy, I say NAY! It's ingenious and however came up with the idea should be praised not bashed.
After all I myself made a wizard that specialized using toppling spell + magic missile, you should have seen the face of the GM when he understood I could trip attempt 10 creatures a turn with quicken magic.
|
|
@Brain in a Jar
Well, Smite is obviously worded in such way that it's clear as a sunny day. All damage is increased. It doesn't even mention it's weapon damage or spell damage, it simply increases everything that damages target. It says all damage is increased and it does not specify among it. Ability damage is also a damage type in such a case.
But of course, I am sarcastic completely, because this will open a larger can of worms then making it clearer. Paladins already are among most decent classes due to Smite. Why buff it further?
The ability damage =/= hit point damage is a decent question worthy of a topic though.
|
|
@Brain in a Jar
Well, Smite is obviously worded in such way that it's clear as a sunny day. All damage is increased. It doesn't even mention it's weapon damage or spell damage, it simply increases everything that damages target. It says all damage is increased and it does not specify among it. Ability damage is also a damage type in such a case.
But of course, I am sarcastic completely, because this will open a larger can of worms then making it clearer. Paladins already are among most decent classes due to Smite. Why buff it further?
The ability damage =/= hit point damage is a decent question worthy of a topic though.
I don't really think you're sarcasm is necessary, but i am equally guilty of it at times so who am I to judge.
I agree whole heartedly that there are aspects of smite that need clarification. Just not the particular one at issue in the OP.
The smite questions I have are as follows:
1. Smite says it "adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite" does this include damage roles made by anyone, or only those made by the paladin?
Grammatically it reads as all damage by everyone which I believe does require errata.
2. Does the phrase "all damage" include both Ability damage and Nonlethal damage as well as normal HP damage?
I believe it should be restricted to normal HP damage only, but again that is not how it reads.
|
|
@Master of Shadows
I think there is one most important question worthy to consider. Does the paladin add the effects of Smite Evil to consumable items, such as wands or scrolls? Usually such items are affected by their creator only. Class abilities usually do not add anything to such effects unless they are specially designed to do so, like special feats, prestige classes and archetypes (Cypher Magic feat and Cyphermage class for example). I believe BNW mentioned this at some point also.
Malag, I would love to see a citation on that rule. That could bring a lot of clarity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Malag, I would love to see a citation on that rule. That could bring a lot of clarity.
Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
posted August 2010 | back to top
|
|
Part of the issue with Smite, is the fundamental change in its nature from previous editions.
The language used to describe Smite as a single powerful melee attack x times a day, where as now the language that of a supernatural debilitating status effect that is applied to the target and not to the paladin. But later it is almost self contradictory because it uses language that describes 'smite attacks' as being able to bypass DR.
So I guess that adds another question:
What is a 'smite attack'? is it Any attack made against the target of smite, or only attacks made by the paladin which are subject to the Cha bonus.
Thank you BigNorseWolf, but your link isn't working.
|
|
Malag, I would love to see a citation on that rule. That could bring a lot of clarity.Items as Spells: Does using a potion, scroll, staff, or wand count as "casting a spell" for purposes of feats and special abilities like Augment Summoning, Spell Focus, an evoker's ability to do extra damage with evocation spells, bloodline abilities, and so on?
No. Unless they specifically state otherwise, feats and abilities that modify spells you cast only affect actual spellcasting, not using magic items that emulate spellcasting or work like spellcasting.
posted August 2010 | back to top
So then, to answer the OP, under the current wording, Yes to Magic Missile not to wand of Magic Missile.
Ah, BNW saves the day! That quote might do the trick.
/bows to BNW
Well it certainly solves the magic missile question since its not on the paladin spell list, but the general questions are still on the table.
Edit: I suppose also a paladin/wizard build could raise the question, but even the best munchkin on the boards couldn't make that build work.