If at first you don't succeed...
Yeah, yeah, I'm looking at more crazy options for an eidolon that's also an evil outsider. Hey, smites are scary! But in any case, I think Smiting Reversal is good enough (and not 'evil-only' enough) to be added back in to the Additional Resources for ::sigh:: the Agents of Evil book.
Agents of Evil wrote: Smiting Reversal: Three times per day after being targeted by the smite attack of an enemy, you can immediately make an attack of opportunity against the target. You gain a bonus on this attack roll equal to your Charisma bonus. If this attack of opportunity hits, you gain a bonus on the damage roll equal to your character level. This attack of opportunity ignores all damage reduction the creature possesses. So, you can smite back someone who's trying to smite you. That's kind of neat! It feels a bit Calistrian in a way.
1) This feat would be useful for anyone (good) who gets into a fight with an antipaladin or a fiendish animal. It doesn't have an 'evil only' requirement, and it could actually be useful to other pathfinders.
There are other ways to stuff a smite anyway that are allowed by the resources. None of them have quite that verve that Smiting Reversal has, though.
2) The warding armor enchantment.
3) The spell unholy ward. Now this is an interesting one, because it's also from Agents of Evil, and it really is only for bad guys.
So, that's what I have for reasons to add the feat back in: it's interesting, it does something unique, and there are already some anti-smite items and spells on the books. What do you think?
That doesn't sound terrible to me, and it would be equally valid for defending yourself from a smite from an antipaladin boss, a summoned fiendish creature, or something else with nefarious purposes.
I will second your motion. You make a good case, and the feat doesn't seem overpowered and isn't evil by definition or requirement AFAIK (though I don't have the book, so I'm relying on the OP's posting.)
I think the issue is more in the mechanics of how the adjudication of the feat's mechanics and how it is written, namely "smite" doesn't generate any real discernible effects, nor does it specify that the enemy who smote you is your target. This would also trigger on destruction domain ability, possibly a channel smite, and might have even stranger adjudication for situations where someone can trigger a "smite" effect for someone else (is it the wielder of the weapon or the originator of the smite effect?)
I think it would be fine if the feat's wording was cleaned up a bit, but can see why it's not legal as-is.
TimD wrote: nor does it specify that the enemy who smote you is your target. Uhh...
Smiting Reversal wrote: Three times per day after being targeted by the smite attack of an enemy, you can immediately make an attack of opportunity against the target. That kind of says you're making it against the enemy that tried to smite you, to me...
The lore behind the feat is heavily geared for evil characters and not good, I don't see it being reverse-engineered for paladins.
It's also a niche and the Organized Play almost certainly has more urgent foci to follow so I wouldn't bank on them ruling on this.
SCPRedMage wrote: TimD wrote: nor does it specify that the enemy who smote you is your target. Uhh...
Smiting Reversal wrote: Three times per day after being targeted by the smite attack of an enemy, you can immediately make an attack of opportunity against the target. That kind of says you're making it against the enemy that tried to smite you, to me... Sure. So when you've specified you are attacking the creature in melee with you and the Destruction Domain archer with Greater Invisibility hits you with an arrow from 25 feet away, where does your attack go? - to your "target" that you are in melee with or the person who destruction domain-smote you with an arrow that you have no way to know that it used a smite and probably don't know where it is?
TimD wrote: Sure. So when you've specified you are attacking the creature in melee with you and the Destruction Domain archer with Greater Invisibility hits you with an arrow from 25 feet away, where does your attack go? - to your "target" that you are in melee with or the person who destruction domain-smote you with an arrow that you have no way to know that it used a smite and probably don't know where it is? "Target" refers to the combatant that triggered the ability, because no other creature is mentioned. You don't get to redirect it just because you can't make a melee attack against the target, any more than you would be able to redirect a normal attack of opportunity just because you couldn't attack the guy who moved because, say, you failed your save against his sanctuary.
It's impossible to use the feat as smite has no discernible indicator. Completely understandable to ban a feat that requires you to metagame in order to use it.
The feat is also poorly written in that its language doesn't quite match how smite works. For example, smite isn't actually an attack but rather a buff that augments your attacks against a particular creature.
Cyrad wrote: It's impossible to use the feat as smite has no discernible indicator. Completely understandable to ban a feat that requires you to metagame in order to use it.
The feat is also poorly written in that its language doesn't quite match how smite works. For example, smite isn't actually an attack but rather a buff that augments your attacks against a particular creature.
a) no discernible indicator, eh?
Core Rulebook wrote: 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. One would think that to 'call out to the powers of good' is to perhaps use your voice when doing so, no? Is 'calling out' a purely mental action then, something you could do while paralyzed?
I think that when a dude wearing heavy armor starts screaming to his deity and is pointing at you with a sword, that that is very good indicator of a smite being activated.
b) well, some things called 'smite' are actually attacks (with attack rolls and such). I'll agree with you that the implementation is a bit weird (does using 'smite evil' provoke, or does attacking someone you've 'declared smite' on provoke?) But still...this armor enhancement is PFS-legit for some reason.
Ultimate Combat wrote: warding: Once per day as an immediate action, the wearer of warding armor can activate it to end all active challenge, judgment, and smite abilities affecting her. This does not prevent opponents from selecting her as a target for these abilities in the future. As a swift action, the wearer can expend one of her own challenge, judgment, or smite abilities to refresh the armor’s ability to end these attacks. If you're wearing warding armor, and you call out to the forces of good against a target, can you use an immediate action to cancel your smite? I mean, it is 'affecting' you, certainly.
I think the intent of Smiting Reversal is clear. If someone attacks you in melee with something something 'smite', then you get to hit them back. Plus, if warding armor lets you affect others' smitey powers, is PFS-okay, and is also a little ambiguous, I don't think Smiting Reversal's problems should disqualify it.
You know, IMO. :)
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
