| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Some abilities (like the sacred shield paladin's bastion of good ability) use the word "attack" but don't elaborate further (Sorry if this is obvious and I'm missing something, but I'd like a definitive answer please) For the purposes of invisibility, attacking includes spells, not just the attack action. Does this mean that The allies of the sacred take half damage from spells as well or just attacks? If no, does do spells and traps that use attack rolls count as attacks?
Anything offensive, such as a fireball or traps, would be an attack.
Note though that sacred shield is only against a specified target, so it couldn't work against traps. Target a caster and they cast fireball at your buddy would work though.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page -- you don't cast a fireball "at" anyone; it's an area-of-effect spell that targets a particular grid intersection. However, just casting a fireball with anyone in the AoE counts as an "attack" for breaking invisibility, casting an AoE with your buddy in the AoE should still count as an "attack" for purposes of receiving half damage.
|
Anything offensive, such as a fireball or traps, would be an attack.
Note though that sacred shield is only against a specified target, so it couldn't work against traps. Target a caster and they cast fireball at your buddy would work though.
Just to make sure we're all on the same page -- you don't cast a fireball "at" anyone; it's an area-of-effect spell that targets a particular grid intersection. However, just casting a fireball with anyone in the AoE counts as an "attack" for breaking invisibility, casting an AoE with your buddy in the AoE should still count as an "attack" for purposes of receiving half damage.
Yep.
Alright cool thanks!
Context matters, not all spells that do damage count as an attack for some rider effects.
e.g, Magic missile is an attack that would break invisibility, it is not an attack that would benefit from sneak attack or smite evil bonus damage. See this FAQ. So in some contexts an attack specifically requires an attack roll to be made.
It is unclear if the ability you specifically mentioned would work against a fireball or magic missile, or if the ability is intended to work only against "attacks that require an attack roll" type of attack. Given that "This ability functions as smite evil..." I'd be inclined to believe that it only works against attacks that require an attack roll. But I wouldn't bat an eye at a GM ruling otherwise on it.
|
|
Context matters, not all spells that do damage count as an attack for some rider effects.
e.g, Magic missile is an attack that would break invisibility, it is not an attack that would benefit from sneak attack or smite evil bonus damage. See this FAQ. So in some contexts an attack specifically requires an attack roll to be made.
It is unclear if the ability you specifically mentioned would work against a fireball or magic missile, or if the ability is intended to work only against "attacks that require an attack roll" type of attack. Given that "This ability functions as smite evil..." I'd be inclined to believe that it only works against attacks that require an attack roll. But I wouldn't bat an eye at a GM ruling otherwise on it.
If it was normal Smite Evil that buffed attacks I would agree with you, but it's not. It protects against damaging attacks, the ability even says "any attacks". Magic Missile is a damaging attack.
And smite evil says "...adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite." Magic missile results in a damage roll against a target. Yet the FAQ says it doesn't apply. It is therefore unclear from the context of sacred shield whether it really applies to any (all) attacks, or just "attack roll required" attacks.
However, in any case
But I wouldn't bat an eye at a GM ruling otherwise on it.
/shrug
The problem is that there seem to be two kinds of attacks.
a) Everything that includes an attack roll. This is commonly used for class features and feats, like a rogues sneak damage. If you get some bonus to AC against the next attack a fireball wouldn't interact with it at all, because it is not considered an attack.
I believe this definiton is intended to be used whenever mechanically dealing with any specific attack.
b) Everything that is an offensive action. This is important for invisibility and when gauging what breaks certain enchantments. A fireball would be considered an attack, but my understanding is that this definition only comes up when you want to know if someone is participating in a fight, not when resolving the action in any other way.
Using this interpretation bastion of good would only help against attacks that include an attack roll. Keep in mind this is only backed up by evidence, not any definition I would know of.
|
|
The problem is that there seem to be two kinds of attacks.
a) Everything that includes an attack roll. This is commonly used for class features and feats, like a rogues sneak damage. If you get some bonus to AC against the next attack a fireball wouldn't interact with it at all, because it is not considered an attack.
I believe this definiton is intended to be used whenever mechanically dealing with any specific attack.b) Everything that is an offensive action. This is important for invisibility and when gauging what breaks certain enchantments. A fireball would be considered an attack, but my understanding is that this definition only comes up when you want to know if someone is participating in a fight, not when resolving the action in any other way.
Using this interpretation bastion of good would only help against attacks that include an attack roll. Keep in mind this is only backed up by evidence, not any definition I would know of.
Instead, any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage.
The ability targets an opponent, so you would have to be aware of them, and I take "any" attacks to mean just that.
The reason smite evil is being brought up is because the Bastion of Good ability replaces the smite evil ability for sacred shield paladins.
I would read it as applying to weapon attacks, as in "standard action attack or full-round action attack", not spells or other effects.
|
|
The reason smite evil is being brought up is because the Bastion of Good ability replaces the smite evil ability for sacred shield paladins.I know Bastion of Good replaces Smite Evil, the point of contention is that they are arguing that since SE was FAQed to not buff abilities and spells like magic missile then BoG shouldn't work against things Smite Evil doesn't buff, which makes absolutely no sense.
I would read it as applying to weapon attacks, as in "standard action attack or full-round action attack", not spells or other effects.
Then it would actually call out melee/ranged physical attacks. It says "any" attacks.
If I blast you with magic missile I'm attacking you.
Instead, any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage.The ability targets an opponent, so you would have to be aware of them, and I take "any" attacks to mean just that.
Fair enough. However, would you also take "...adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite." All damage rolls to be ALL rolls, or just some of them?
Clearly there is an undefined distinction being made. Because there is a distinction, even if not spelled out for those of us who are not part of the PDT, then we have to understand that using the definition of attack as defined in the magic chapter for breaking invisibility (and various enchantments) is not the one that should always be used.
Except in the case of ending magical effects, attacks talked about in the rules seem to usually refer to attacks that require an attack roll. That doesn't mean your wrong Rysky, but evidence to date leans more towards this being of the "requires an attack roll" variety.
Note smite evil isn't the only ability that has been limited in this fashion. There are others, the #1 that usually gets talked about is sneak attack.
The reason smite evil is being brought up is because the Bastion of Good ability replaces the smite evil ability for sacred shield paladins.I know Bastion of Good replaces Smite Evil, the point of contention is that they are arguing that since SE was FAQed to not buff abilities and spells like magic missile then BoG shouldn't work against things Smite Evil doesn't buff, which makes absolutely no sense.I would read it as applying to weapon attacks, as in "standard action attack or full-round action attack", not spells or other effects.Then it would actually call out melee/ranged physical attacks. It says "any" attacks.
If I blast you with magic missile I'm attacking you.
There's multiple meanings of attack within the rules.
1) Attack: as in, make a hostile action, would break invisibility. Yes, magic missile would break invisibility, and count as attacking me.
2) The attack or full-attack action. These are specific actions that are taken that are attacks. Yes they would also break invisibility, but they are limited to some type of weapon. If the attack roll is successful then you deal damage.
The base smite evil gives a bonus on the attack roll of attack and full attack actions. It also gives a bonus on the damage dealt as a result of those actions.
Bastion of good, replacing smite evil, is meant to reduce the damage dealt from successful attack actions against allies by half. I disagree that it would reduce the damage from a fireball (action: cast a spell) or magic missile (same: cast a spell).
|
|
Instead, any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage.The ability targets an opponent, so you would have to be aware of them, and I take "any" attacks to mean just that.Fair enough. However, would you also take "...adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite." All damage rolls to be ALL rolls, or just some of them?
Clearly there is an undefined distinction being made. Because there is a distinction, even if not spelled out for those of us who are not part of the PDT, then we have to understand that using the definition of attack as defined in the magic chapter for breaking invisibility (and various enchantments) is not the one that should always be used.
Except in the case of ending magical effects, attacks talked about in the rules seem to usually refer to attacks that require an attack roll. That doesn't mean your wrong Rysky, but evidence to date leans more towards this being of the "requires an attack roll" variety.
Note smite evil isn't the only ability that has been limited in this fashion. There are others, the #1 that usually gets talked is sneak attack.
Bastion of Good is not Smite Evil. Stop bringing up things that specifically affect Smite Evil when talking about Bastion of Good.
|
|
The reason smite evil is being brought up is because the Bastion of Good ability replaces the smite evil ability for sacred shield paladins.I know Bastion of Good replaces Smite Evil, the point of contention is that they are arguing that since SE was FAQed to not buff abilities and spells like magic missile then BoG shouldn't work against things Smite Evil doesn't buff, which makes absolutely no sense.I would read it as applying to weapon attacks, as in "standard action attack or full-round action attack", not spells or other effects.Then it would actually call out melee/ranged physical attacks. It says "any" attacks.
If I blast you with magic missile I'm attacking you.
There's multiple meanings of attack within the rules.
1) Attack: as in, make a hostile action, would break invisibility. Yes, magic missile would break invisibility, and count as attacking me.
2) The attack or full-attack action. These are specific actions that are taken that are attacks. Yes they would also break invisibility, but they are limited to some type of weapon. If the attack roll is successful then you deal damage.
The base smite evil gives a bonus on the attack roll of attack and full attack actions. It also gives a bonus on the damage dealt as a result of those actions.
Bastion of good, replacing smite evil, is meant to reduce the damage dealt from successful attack actions against allies by half. I disagree that it would reduce the damage from a fireball (action: cast a spell) or magic missile (same: cast a spell).
Again, I repeat, it says ANY attack, as in a hostile action that deals damage.
And again, stop referencing what all Smite Evil does and doesn't do when talking about what Bastion of Good does and doesn't do. One replaces the other. They are not the same ability.
Bastion of Good is not Smite Evil. Stop bringing up things that specifically affect Smite Evil when talking about Bastion of Good.
Stop ignoring the point being made?
Should we talk about sneak attack working the same way instead? Smite evil was used as ONE example only.
|
|
Bastion of Good is not Smite Evil. Stop bringing up things that specifically affect Smite Evil when talking about Bastion of Good.Stop ignoring the point being made?
Should we talk about sneak attack working the same way instead? Smite evil was used as ONE example only.
Because the point you're tying to make is nonsense. Whatever attacks Smite Evil buffs or doesn't buff has absolutely no bearing on what Bastion of Good protects you from.
Because the point you're tying to make is nonsense. Whatever attacks Smite Evil buffs or doesn't buff has absolutely no bearing on what Bastion of Good protects you from.Bastion of Good is not Smite Evil. Stop bringing up things that specifically affect Smite Evil when talking about Bastion of Good.Stop ignoring the point being made?
Should we talk about sneak attack working the same way instead? Smite evil was used as ONE example only.
Your still fixated on smite evil.
Very well, can you apply sneak attack to magic missile? Why or why not?
|
|
Because the point you're tying to make is nonsense. Whatever attacks Smite Evil buffs or doesn't buff has absolutely no bearing on what Bastion of Good protects you from.Bastion of Good is not Smite Evil. Stop bringing up things that specifically affect Smite Evil when talking about Bastion of Good.Stop ignoring the point being made?
Should we talk about sneak attack working the same way instead? Smite evil was used as ONE example only.
Your still fixated on smite evil.
Very well, can you apply sneak attack to magic missile? Why or why not?
I don't know and I don't care, what does it have to do with Bastion of Good?
I don't know and I don't care, what does it have to do with Bastion of Good?
It has to do with understanding how the rules work as a whole. It has to do with drawing parallels in the rules when it is clear there are some discrepancies - i.e. that there are multiple contexts for what counts as an attack.
|
|
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.It has to do with understanding how the rules work as a whole. It has to do with drawing parallels in the rules when it is clear there are some discrepancies - i.e. that there are multiple contexts for what counts as an attack.I don't know and I don't care, what does it have to do with Bastion of Good?Your still fixated on smite evil.
Very well, can you apply sneak attack to magic missile? Why or why not?
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.
Again, I repeat, it says ANY attack, as in a hostile action that deals damage.
I disagree. It says ANY attack. As in the attack or full-attack action.
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.
Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
|
|
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
Bastion of Good isn't the attack, what does your response even mean?
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.
Which is fine. But lots of people thought ALL damage rolls from smite evil was quite clear - in this case they turned out to be wrong.
Some people have thought that sneak attack being applied to all damage rolls by rogues (assuming flat footed/denied dex/flanked target) was quite clear that it would apply to spells like magic missiles cast by the rogue, based on the argument that magic missile is an attack - in that case they have also been wrong.
So, Bastion of Good. Where does it stand? If other parts of the rules use phrases like "all" or "anytime [the rogue meets sa requirements]" actually have some limitations on them that shows that "any/all/anytime" isn't actually quite accurate - that there are some other conditions to be met, then is it possible Bastion of Good might also have some limitations? Note the limitations on none of these are spelled out (short of FAQ updates), but they indeed do exist, and so far the trend has been one based on the context of what is meant by "attack".
And again, stop referencing what all Smite Evil does and doesn't do when talking about what Bastion of Good does and doesn't do. One replaces the other. They are not the same ability.
Bastion of Good (Su): At 1st level, a sacred shield can call upon the powers of good to defend her and her allies against evil. This ability functions as smite evil, except that the paladin gains no benefit on attack or damage rolls against her target. Instead, any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage. Attacks against the paladin deal full damage, but the paladin gains a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) against attacks made by the target of the smite. This bonus increases by +1 for every four paladin levels (to a maximum of +6 at 20th level). As with smite evil, if the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, her bastion of good ability is wasted with no effect. Feats, abilities, and the like that increase a paladin's number of uses of smite evil per day increase a sacred shield's uses of bastion of good per day. This ability replaces smite evil.
Smite evil is relevant to this discussion, because BOG functions as smite evil.
|
|
It is clear, but that doesn't mean Paizo didn't mess up and not actually mean what they wrote. Sometimes any attack really does mean any attack, and sometimes it means any attack with an attack roll (sneak attack uses the same attack language as bastion of good but only applies to attack roll attacks). And its impossible to tell without a FAQ. So barring said FAQ, Magic Missile would be affected by Bastion of Good, but it wouldn't surprise me to be contradicted on FAQ.Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.It has to do with understanding how the rules work as a whole. It has to do with drawing parallels in the rules when it is clear there are some discrepancies - i.e. that there are multiple contexts for what counts as an attack.I don't know and I don't care, what does it have to do with Bastion of Good?Your still fixated on smite evil.
Very well, can you apply sneak attack to magic missile? Why or why not?
Or it could have been the original 3.5 writers not thinking of Paladins getting access to magic missile?
And I don't think it's impossible to tell.
Smite Evil/Sneak Attack = modifiers to your attack
Bastion of Good = defense against attacks
|
|
And again, stop referencing what all Smite Evil does and doesn't do when talking about what Bastion of Good does and doesn't do. One replaces the other. They are not the same ability.Bastion of Good (Su): At 1st level, a sacred shield can call upon the powers of good to defend her and her allies against evil. This ability functions as smite evil, except that the paladin gains no benefit on attack or damage rolls against her target. Instead, any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage. Attacks against the paladin deal full damage, but the paladin gains a deflection bonus to her AC equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) against attacks made by the target of the smite. This bonus increases by +1 for every four paladin levels (to a maximum of +6 at 20th level). As with smite evil, if the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, her bastion of good ability is wasted with no effect. Feats, abilities, and the like that increase a paladin's number of uses of smite evil per day increase a sacred shield's uses of bastion of good per day. This ability replaces smite evil.Smite evil is relevant to this discussion, because BOG functions as smite evil.
Not in the way they positing it. The fact that Smite Evil doesn't buff magic missile has absolutely no bearing on whether Bastion of Good affects magic missile.
Bastion of Good isn't the attack, what does your response even mean?Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
BOG references attacks the target makes against the paladins allies take half damage. BOG is not a spell, so attacks in its description cannot be compared to using the definition that applies to spells which reference attacks.
The only other definition of an attack is the attack actions a character can take, and these are the attacks which BOG applies to.
|
|
Bastion of Good isn't the attack, what does your response even mean?Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
BOG references attacks the target makes against the paladins allies take half damage. BOG is not a spell, so attacks in its description cannot be compared to using the definition that applies to spells which reference attacks.
The only other definition of an attack is the attack actions a character can take, and these are the attacks which BOG applies to.
Wtf are you even talking about?
Bastion of Good isn't a spell, it's also not an attack. It protects you from attacks.
Bastion of Good isn't the attack, what does your response even mean?Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
BOG references attacks the target makes against the paladins allies take half damage. BOG is not a spell, so attacks in its description cannot be compared to using the definition that applies to spells which reference attacks.
The only other definition of an attack is the attack actions a character can take, and these are the attacks which BOG applies to.
Wtf are you even talking about?
Bastion of Good isn't a spell, it's also not an attack. It protects you from attacks.
Your quote defines the term "attacks" in regards to spells which reference attacks in their description. This definition is not applicable to BOG because BOG is not a spell.
BOG reduces the damage from attacks. Attacks meaning the attack action or full-round attack action. Not any spell cast by the target. Casting a spell is not "an attack" as far as BOG is concerned.
|
|
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.Which is fine. But lots of people thought ALL damage rolls from smite evil was quite clear - in this case they turned out to be wrong.
Some people have thought that sneak attack being applied to all damage rolls by rogues (assuming flat footed/denied dex/flanked target) was quite clear that it would apply to spells like magic missiles cast by the rogue, based on the argument that magic missile is an attack - in that case they have also been wrong.
So, Bastion of Good. Where does it stand? If other parts of the rules use phrases like "all" or "anytime [the rogue meets sa requirements]" actually have some limitations on them that shows that "any/all/anytime" isn't actually quite accurate - that there are some other conditions to be met, then is it possible Bastion of Good might also have some limitations? Note the limitations on none of these are spelled out (short of FAQ updates), but they indeed do exist, and so far the trend has been one based on the context of what is meant by "attack".
The difference between those is, aside from the time gap of when those abilities were introduced and Designers realizing what all [players can get up to, that Smite Evil modifies your attacks, and they clarified what all of your attacks it modifies.
Bastion of Good defends against attacks, "any" attacks.
Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.Which is fine. But lots of people thought ALL damage rolls from smite evil was quite clear - in this case they turned out to be wrong.
Some people have thought that sneak attack being applied to all damage rolls by rogues (assuming flat footed/denied dex/flanked target) was quite clear that it would apply to spells like magic missiles cast by the rogue, based on the argument that magic missile is an attack - in that case they have also been wrong.
So, Bastion of Good. Where does it stand? If other parts of the rules use phrases like "all" or "anytime [the rogue meets sa requirements]" actually have some limitations on them that shows that "any/all/anytime" isn't actually quite accurate - that there are some other conditions to be met, then is it possible Bastion of Good might also have some limitations? Note the limitations on none of these are spelled out (short of FAQ updates), but they indeed do exist, and so far the trend has been one based on the context of what is meant by "attack".
The difference between those is, aside from the time gap of when those abilities were introduced and Designers realizing what all [players can get up to, that Smite Evil modifies your attacks, and they clarified what all of your attacks it modifies.
Bastion of Good defends against attacks, "any" attacks.
Right, any attack that follows the attack roll and damage described at the start of the combat chapter.
|
|
Bastion of Good isn't the attack, what does your response even mean?Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.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.Is Bastion of Good a spell? No. That description doesn't apply.
So what is an attack other than for spells that refer to attacks?
The attack or full-attack actions.
BOG references attacks the target makes against the paladins allies take half damage. BOG is not a spell, so attacks in its description cannot be compared to using the definition that applies to spells which reference attacks.
The only other definition of an attack is the attack actions a character can take, and these are the attacks which BOG applies to.
Wtf are you even talking about?
Bastion of Good isn't a spell, it's also not an attack. It protects you from attacks.
Your quote defines the term "attacks" in regards to spells which reference attacks in their description. This definition is not applicable to BOG because BOG is not a spell.
BOG reduces the damage from attacks. Attacks meaning the attack action or full-round attack action. Not any spell cast by the target. Casting a spell is not "an attack" as far as BOG is concerned.
No, seriously, what are you talking about, that was all gibberish.
Bastion of Good isn't an attack or a spell, so? It's defending against those. It's not a spell, it's defending against spells. The fact that it's not a spell doesn't mean it can't defend against spells.
|
|
Right, any attack that follows the attack roll and damage described at the start of the combat chapter.Then could you actually be clear on those parallels instead of this nonsense? I think "any attacks" is quite clear.Which is fine. But lots of people thought ALL damage rolls from smite evil was quite clear - in this case they turned out to be wrong.
Some people have thought that sneak attack being applied to all damage rolls by rogues (assuming flat footed/denied dex/flanked target) was quite clear that it would apply to spells like magic missiles cast by the rogue, based on the argument that magic missile is an attack - in that case they have also been wrong.
So, Bastion of Good. Where does it stand? If other parts of the rules use phrases like "all" or "anytime [the rogue meets sa requirements]" actually have some limitations on them that shows that "any/all/anytime" isn't actually quite accurate - that there are some other conditions to be met, then is it possible Bastion of Good might also have some limitations? Note the limitations on none of these are spelled out (short of FAQ updates), but they indeed do exist, and so far the trend has been one based on the context of what is meant by "attack".
The difference between those is, aside from the time gap of when those abilities were introduced and Designers realizing what all [players can get up to, that Smite Evil modifies your attacks, and they clarified what all of your attacks it modifies.
Bastion of Good defends against attacks, "any" attacks.
Or the other attack description.
I don't know how to explain it clearer for you. BOG says "any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage." The question is what is "any attack."
You are using a definition of attacks which applies to spells which reference attacks in their description, such as invisibility. I am saying this definition is not applicable, because BOG is not a spell. You agree BOG is not a spell, so please provide some other rules backing that an attack is anything other than attack rolls as described in the combat chapter in regards to BOG.
You claim BOG protects allies from all damage such as an evil cleric channeling negative energy. It does not. Channeling negative energy is a supernatural ability that happens to do damage, but it is not "an attack".
Or the other attack description.
So what tells us to use one description over the other? That's all I'm trying to get you to provide a clear distinction for. How do we know which description of attack to use here? Can you cite a single rules quote that favors one over the other? The pattern from FAQs so far has favored the attack roll variety. That doesn't necessarily mean it does here, but I'm asking you to back it up with something other than "Because Rysky says so".
You use the actual description, the one Rysky is supplying, until a FAQ says otherwise.Or the other attack description.So what tells us to use one description over the other? That's all I'm trying to get you to provide a clear distinction for. How do we know which description of attack to use here? Can you cite a single rules quote that favors one over the other? The pattern from FAQs so far has favored the attack roll variety. That doesn't necessarily mean it does here, but I'm asking you to back it up with something other than "Because Rysky says so".
Why should I use that one over the other one? Why? Why? Why? Because it makes more sense? (I disagree). Because other parts of the rules use it? (Hmm, FAQs on SA and SE disagree). There are two descriptions of what constitutes an attack. There are two contexts of what an attack is.
|
|
Why should I use that one over the other one? Why? Why? Why? Because it makes more sense?You use the actual description, the one Rysky is supplying, until a FAQ says otherwise.Or the other attack description.So what tells us to use one description over the other? That's all I'm trying to get you to provide a clear distinction for. How do we know which description of attack to use here? Can you cite a single rules quote that favors one over the other? The pattern from FAQs so far has favored the attack roll variety. That doesn't necessarily mean it does here, but I'm asking you to back it up with something other than "Because Rysky says so".
Yes.
You are placing a false limit on the rule. The rule doesn't apply only to spells like invisibility, that's just where it needs to define what an attack is. And an attack is any hostile action. Just because Paizo has misused the terminology in the past doesn't mean its misused here.I don't know how to explain it clearer for you. BOG says "any attacks the target makes against allies within 10 feet of the paladin deal half damage." The question is what is "any attack."
You are using a definition of attacks which applies to spells which reference attacks in their description, such as invisibility. I am saying this definition is not applicable, because BOG is not a spell. You agree BOG is not a spell, so please provide some other rules backing that an attack is anything other than attack rolls as described in the combat chapter in regards to BOG.
You claim BOG protects allies from all damage such as an evil cleric channeling negative energy. It does not. Channeling negative energy is a supernatural ability that happens to do damage, but it is not "an attack".
The quote for "attacks" provided comes from the magic chapter, under the heading "Special spell effects" and refers only to spell descriptions which refer to attacking. BOG is not a spell, so this reference has no relevance to the ability.
Instead, we have the combat chapter, which states how you make an attack by using a standard action, or a full-attack action to make multiple attacks. These are the attacks that BOG protects from.