Smite Evil wording


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

"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."

Now I am aware that the intent of smite evil was likely only to apply to the paladin, but with the wording the way it is the RAW interpretation is that any damage roll against a smote target gets the paladin's level in damage and bypasses DR. This is outrageously strong and how we have been using it in my campaign (I am the paladin). Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.

Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording?


Oh nice. That's pretty crazy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No? It says directly "the paladin adds" not the paladin and her friends.

Only the paladin gets the benefit.


Claxon wrote:

No? It says directly "the paladin adds" not the paladin and her friends.

Only the paladin gets the benefit.

All Damage Rolls made against the target of her smite is pretty crazy sounding.

This is a legitimate concern considering that it says "Her attacks" in regards to the Paladin's charisma bonus to attack rolls, but then says that the Paladin level is added to ALL damage rolls made against the target.

Why is there a difference in wording there?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that way.


Claxon wrote:

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that way.

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

This doesn't seem too good to be true. It seems too massively and overwhelmingly good to be true.

Silver Crusade

Removing the "and" turns this into 2 sentences...

"The paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls made against the target of her smite."

"The paladin adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

And...
How does a Paladin's friend get a smite evil attack? They don't have the class ability to announce such a tactic. No bypassing DR for them.


Brad McDowell wrote:

Removing the "and" turns this into 2 sentences...

"The paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls made against the target of her smite."

"The paladin adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

And...
How does a Paladin's friend get a smite evil attack? They don't have the class ability to announce such a tactic. No bypassing DR for them.

Removing the and just solidifies the original post.

Bypassing the DR is part of having an attack affected by smite, if you have smite provide damage, it provides its other benefits that aren't specifically restricted like attack roll.


Claxon wrote:

No? It says directly "the paladin adds" not the paladin and her friends.

Only the paladin gets the benefit.

Um, okay? That still doesn't change the fact that the paladins adds her paladin level to ALL attack rolls. It does not say her attack rolls, it says all. The implication of whose attack rolls they are supposed to be because of the previous portion of the sentence is not important in accordance with RAW.


Claxon wrote:

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that way.

Reading something any way except as it is literally written is RAI. This is about the RAW. Deliberate or not, the change of function is there because it's not attack rolls AND damage rolls. The addition of the adding paladin levels to damage instead of cha to damage interrupts the previous point and makes an entirely separate one. The person who worded this worded it poorly.


fretgod99 wrote:
Claxon wrote:

It is all once continuous sentence explaining what happens. There is not a dilberate difference in wording to change how it functions.

And in this case is effectively meaning also or in addition to. It doesn't change whom it affects. It only applies to the paladin.

Further, as the OP pointed out, there are abilities that specifically grant the ability for other to apply smite damage from the paladin's smite. So it seems quite clear that you shouldn't be reading or interpreting that way.

If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

This doesn't seem too good to be true. It seems too massively and overwhelmingly good to be true.

Of course it's not true, there is evidence of this because of the existence of aura of justice and powerful justice as I have already outlined. I'm not asking if it's true, I'm stating what the RAW is and if it has ever been officially acknowledged in some way.

Shadow Lodge

You are incorrect about what the RAW is. This construction is quite common throughout the rules and is not poorly worded. Abilities, feats, etc...only apply their benefits to those that possess them unless it explicitly states otherwise. Example:

PRD wrote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Power attack doesn't say you take a -1 penalty to all of YOUR attack rolls to gain a bonus on all of YOUR damage rolls. However, it is clearly understood that is the case because it doesn't state otherwise.

Likewise, Smite Evil doesn't need to state that the "all damage rolls" is referring to YOUR damage rolls because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.


PatientWolf wrote:

You are incorrect about what the RAW is. This construction is quite common throughout the rules and is not poorly worded. Abilities, feats, etc...only apply their benefits to those that possess them unless it explicitly states otherwise. Example:

PRD wrote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Power attack doesn't say you take a -1 penalty to all of YOUR attack rolls to gain a bonus on all of YOUR damage rolls. However, it is clearly understood that is the case because it doesn't state otherwise.

Likewise, Smite Evil doesn't need to state that the "all damage rolls" is referring to YOUR damage rolls because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Power attack doesn't affect the target, it's a personal "buff".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.

Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading. Covering your ears and yelling until I go away does not make it any more true.

This is no more valid than the thread asking about flat-footed vs traps because there were some very "special" people in that thread. If people can't get that right, there is room for this question too.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember, folks:

"RAW" stands for "rules as written".

Writing, by definition, involves the use of a language.

Language (or at least, the English one) involves grouping words together to form a meaning that's different than the sum of the individual words (i.e., language is different than a bulleted list).

If your idea requires ignoring how written language works, then your idea is NOT "rules as written", or "RAW".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

Remember, folks:

"RAW" stands for "rules as written".

Writing, by definition, involves the use of a language.

Language (or at least, the English one) involves grouping words together to form a meaning that's different than the sum of the individual words (i.e., language is different than a bulleted list).

If your idea requires ignoring how written language works, then your idea is NOT "rules as written", or "RAW".

Thank you Jiggy, you are much kinder and more patient than I.


I totally agree there, Jiggy. ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yumad wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading.

Confirmation bias is a thing.

No, this is not how smite evil works. No, you are not clever in discovering that English is context-sensitive. No, no GM worth a damn is going to allow this.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
yumad wrote:
I don't think you are right but even if you are, not everyone reads at a competent level. Unless they want to continue to be bombarded by FAQ requests (see flat-footed vs traps) they need to use more concise language for people who don't read at what is classically considered a competent level and simplify the language. By today's standards, the average person would consider your clarification pedantic at best.

...Did you just try to justify your assertion that this is a legitimate question because some people aren't good enough at reading to get it right?


blahpers wrote:
yumad wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading.
Confirmation bias is a thing.

My point was not that it is a correct reading, but that people may believe it is. This is not confirmation bias, this is evidence.


yumad wrote:
blahpers wrote:
yumad wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading.
Confirmation bias is a thing.
My point was not that it is a correct reading, but that people may believe it is. This is not confirmation bias, this is evidence.

The only point that you've made is that apparently you believe the rules should be written in Lojban so that it's literally impossible to misread a rule. Unfortunately, most gamers don't know Lojban, and thus if you try really hard, you can misread pretty much any rule in the book.


blahpers wrote:
yumad wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
This is really, REALLY a stretch to even claim this is worth asking. No, it doesn't work like that, no the wording doesn't hint, or indicate or anything else that this is how it works.
Except the first reply to the thread was an acknowledgement that this is a valid reading.

Confirmation bias is a thing.

No, this is not how smite evil works. No, you are not clever in discovering that English is context-sensitive. No, no GM worth a damn is going to allow this.

No of course not. But the interpretation exists. It could have been written in such a way as to provide absolutely no other interpretation.

But yeah, things don't often work out that way.


PatientWolf wrote:

...

PRD wrote:

Power Attack (Combat)

You can make exceptionally deadly melee attacks by sacrificing accuracy for strength.
Prerequisites: Str 13, base attack bonus +1.
Benefit: You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls.

Power attack doesn't say you take a -1 penalty to all of YOUR attack rolls to gain a bonus on all of YOUR damage rolls. However, it is clearly understood that is the case because it doesn't state otherwise.

...

Did you really?


I think people are missing the point:

yumad wrote:

Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.

Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording?

The question was not "lol dose this work". It has already been established that this was not the intended use of smite, but the way that it's written is extremely clear in that the effects (besides the bonus to the paladin's personal attack roll) apply to "all damage rolls made against the target of her smite".

There is no grey area. It means exactly what it says. The question was whether or not this has been addressed by anyone important (ie: not the self-proclaimed English majors in this thread).

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am not sure if the Developers are laughing or crying right now... perhaps a bit of both?

The intent is clear, the wording is clear... there is nothing to see here. Move along.


What the supposed English majors in this thread (Faelyn, Jiggy) seem to be implying is that there is an implied subject.

Let's examine this a little more closely.

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all [her] damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

The supposed implication is bolded. This is not correct. The only way that there would be implied ownership to the damage roll portion of the sentence is if the original was worded as such:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

Note the omission of all, which is the explicit wording of whose damage rolls they are, which would make the first correction and implication true.

If you are going to try to correct people's english, actually be right.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is an FAQ that says "Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin."

Quick rewrite: "Smite is not an effect on the target, it is an effect on the paladin."
In other words, when a paladin smites evil, she "[calls] out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil". It is an effect on her, not her allies or anyone else, and it only applies when attacking that one selected target.

FAQ in question:
Does smite evil bypass the defenses of the incorporeal special quality?

Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin. The weapon still needs to be magic to harm the incorporeal creature, and even a magic weapon still only deals half damage against it.


Thymus Vulgaris wrote:

There is an FAQ that says "Smite is not an effect on the weapon, it is an effect on the paladin."

Quick rewrite: "Smite is not an effect on the target, it is an effect on the paladin."
In other words, when a paladin smites evil, she "[calls] out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil". It is an effect on her, not her allies or anyone else, and it only applies when attacking that one selected target.

** spoiler omitted **

See THIS is helpful. I like you.

This is helpful for people who are looking for the intended use.

The sentence structure, as outlined by Swift016 very clearly (wrekt), states that all damage rolls gain the damage bonus. It doesn't matter if the effect is something on the paladin, it has no stated range limit, target limit and most importantly, does not state the paladin as the explicit recipient for the damage roll bonus.

Edit: You're too fast for me! I returned the original post so yours isn't out of context.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Aww, thanks :)


yumad wrote:

What the supposed English majors in this thread (Faelyn, Jiggy) seem to be implying is that there is an implied subject.

Let's examine this a little more closely.

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all [her] damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

The supposed implication is bolded. This is not correct. The only way that there would be implied ownership to the damage roll portion of the sentence is if the original was worded as such:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

Note the omission of all, which is the explicit wording of whose damage rolls they are, which would make the first correction and implication true.

If you are going to try to correct people's english, actually be right.

You're confusing your own stylistic choice vs. actual rules.

I wouldn't hire you as an editor (and I use editors so I don't have to worry about it, as you can tell from most of my posts which use incorrect English).

If you are going to try to correct people's English, try to actually be right and don't be one of those pains who think they know English, only to try to impose their writing style on everyone else.

For example...

"I closed the book and put it on the table."

I am the only subject. It is implied I both closed the book and that I also put it on the table.

As the subject of the sentence, I am implied to be the subject of both actions.

There is no other subject defined in the sentence. There is no other subject defined in the paragraph.

If it said...

The family asked me to put the book on the table. I closed the book and it was put on the table."

That could imply the family or I, as another subject has been defined.

Then again, I normally use terrible English so don't correct others...unless they are not being nice about it already.


GreyWolfLord wrote:
yumad wrote:

What the supposed English majors in this thread (Faelyn, Jiggy) seem to be implying is that there is an implied subject.

Let's examine this a little more closely.

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all [her] damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

The supposed implication is bolded. This is not correct. The only way that there would be implied ownership to the damage roll portion of the sentence is if the original was worded as such:

"If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to damage rolls made against the target of her smite."

Note the omission of all, which is the explicit wording of whose damage rolls they are, which would make the first correction and implication true.

If you are going to try to correct people's english, actually be right.

You're confusing your own stylistic choice vs. actual rules.

I wouldn't hire you as an editor (and I use editors so I don't have to worry about it, as you can tell from most of my posts which use incorrect English).

If you are going to try to correct people's English, try to actually be right and don't be one of those pains who think they know English, only to try to impose their writing style on everyone else.

For example...

"I closed the book and put it on the table."

I am the only subject. It is implied I both closed the book and that I also put it on the table.

As the subject of the sentence, I am implied to be the subject of both actions.

There is no other subject defined in the sentence. There is no other subject defined in the paragraph.

If it said...

The family asked me to put the book on the table. I closed the book and it was put on the table."

That could imply the family or I, as another subject has been defined.

Then again, I normally use terrible English so don't correct others...unless they are not being nice...

See Swift016's post to see why you are not correct.

Edit:

Disclaimer: I know nothing of english, but it's clear that this entire thread except for one person does not either.


http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp

It's a stylistic change they are pushing.

NOT a rule of English.

The sentence may be incorrectly phrased, but unless another subject is listed, there is no other subject to refer to.

Quote:


Sentences often have more than one subject, more than one verb, or pairs of subjects and verbs.

Two subjects and one verb
She lifts weights and jogs daily.
One subject and two verbs


PS: The only reason I'm responding is that those who try to impose their own stylistic style of writing on others is a PET PEEVE of mine.

As I stated, I normally could care less about proper English (as you should be able to tell from my writing and my posts), but when someone is trying to force their own style and state it's a rule of English...something just sets off in me.

The sentence itself may be badly written, and there may be other problems with proper English in it, but the specific item I am referring to is someone confusing STYLE vs. Grammar.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
yumad wrote:

"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."

Now I am aware that the intent of smite evil was likely only to apply to the paladin, but with the wording the way it is the RAW interpretation is that any damage roll against a smote target gets the paladin's level in damage and bypasses DR. This is outrageously strong and how we have been using it in my campaign (I am the paladin). Looking over the aura of justice class feature and also the oath of vengeance archetype feature powerful justice it is very clear the intent of smite evil isn't to give the bolded benefits to the party out of the box but require the use of the two mentioned class features to do so.

Has there been any official developer response to this silly wording?

The problem with RAW?... is the frequently selective attention we pay to parts of it. The only reason you are interpreting it to be that way is that you seem to forget the part where it says "the paladin adds", and inserting "everyone adds" instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread is absurd. I'm sorry, but we don't need the rules to be written in legalese. The game is complicated enough, we don't need every sentence of how to hit a goblin with a sword to be written like a effing contract. The Smite Evil ability is a property of the Paladin, so it can be assumed that Smite Evil affects the Paladin, and only the Paladin, unless specified. There's rules as written, and there's applying even an once of common sense when making rulings. The reading that everyone gets level to damage is entirely redundant with the Aura of Justice ability. It can be reasonably assumed that the Paladin would not have been given an ability that does literally nothing, therefore, the reading that results in this must clearly be wrong. Just follow the logic to the conclusion, and you'll see why this is the only thread that's ever had this discussion.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jorshamo wrote:
This thread is absurd. I'm sorry, but we don't need the rules to be written in legalese. The game is complicated enough, we don't need every sentence of how to hit a goblin with a sword to be written like a effing contract. The Smite Evil ability is a property of the Paladin, so it can be assumed that Smite Evil affects the Paladin, and only the Paladin, unless specified. There's rules as written, and there's applying even an once of common sense when making rulings. The reading that everyone gets level to damage is entirely redundant with the Aura of Justice ability. It can be reasonably assumed that the Paladin would not have been given an ability that does literally nothing, therefore, the reading that results in this must clearly be wrong. Just follow the logic to the conclusion, and you'll see why this is the only thread that's ever had this discussion.

But now that the discussion has been made, I'm sure we'll have several more before summer.

1 to 50 of 109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Smite Evil wording All Messageboards