A paladin Smite evil is applicable to spell damage?


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

47 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

Until today I hadn't even dreamed it was possible, but in another thread it was propose and the text of the ability seem to allow it.

PRD 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. 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.

Reading the ability text, if you roll damage you get to add your smite evil damage to it.

Corollary questions:

- if applied to a magic missile damage it is applied once or once for each missile hitting the target of smite evil?

- what happen when it is applied to a spell/power that don't do hit point of damage but deal other forms of damage?


I would at least expect it to apply to spells that require attack rolls. I don't know about things like fireball or magic missile. FAQing, as it's come up before with no satisfactory answer.

The closest analogue I can think of is an arcane trickster's surprise spells class feature, which adds sneak attack to spells. According to FAQ, this works with fireball, adding the damage to all afflicted targets, but for spells launching multiple separate attacks, only one such attack is augmented. I'll run it this way for smite and other such attacks for now, but I wouldn't assume that it is supposed to work that way for smite solely based on the arcane trickster FAQ.

Note that without surprise spells, sneak attack applies only to spells that require an attack roll. I would assume that the augment-only-one-damage-roll-per-spell rule applies in that case as well.


Yes they work for spell attacks (auto-hit spells and area spells are not attacks). You can also use smite evil during an offensive lay on hands for massive damage against undeads.

Liberty's Edge

I agree that at most it should add once for each attacks against a single target of smite evil, but what happen if you have multiple smite evil in effect and you target multiple targets with a magic missile spell?

If smite evil applies to spell, you have 3 of them active and you fire a level 5 magic missile, splitting the MM between the 3 targets of smite evil, I think that each of them would get the extra damage, as each smite evil is adding its damage only once.

I must admit that for me the idea of smite evil adding to spell or special abilities damage is decidedly new. I have always limited it to physical attacks damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

I agree that at most it should add once for each attacks against a single target of smite evil, but what happen if you have multiple smite evil in effect and you target multiple targets with a magic missile spell?

If smite evil applies to spell, you have 3 of them active and you fire a level 5 magic missile, splitting the MM between the 3 targets of smite evil, I think that each of them would get the extra damage, as each smite evil is adding its damage only once.

I must admit that for me the idea of smite evil adding to spell or special abilities damage is decidedly new. I have always limited it to physical attacks damage.

That looks legit. You uses up 3 smites, you smites 3 bad guys.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would apply to most spells that you could add sneak attack damage to. i.e. those that use attack rolls.

Ray of Frost, Scorching Ray, Yes. Fireball, Magic Missle, no.


Why not directed damage spells such as magic missile?

You still get sneak attack damage when you're in an auto-hit situation with a coup de grace, for example. And I believe paladins would also get smite damage with a coup de grace if applicable.


A coup de grace is not a directed damage spell. It's an attack that automatically hits and crits. The roll is not required because it automatically succeeds. Contrary to that, directed damage spells like fireball and magic missile do not require an attack roll.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW there is no need to make an attack roll to use the paladin smite ability.
it gives a bonus to an attack roll, but the attack roll isn't a requirement.

Sczarni

I think it's ironic that all of the points made and examples used in this thread I just summarized for a player the other day, lol.


I would rule that you could add smite damage to any spell that specifically targets and deals hp damage. This would include magic missile (but only one missile would get the extra damage) but not aoe spells like fireball, as you are targetting an area and not an opponent.

The fact that magic missile does not require an attack roll (in my opinion) is just the same as coup de grace not requiring an attack roll. You make the attack, but it automatically hits.

Sovereign Court

I don't see any language in Smite or Fireball that would stop the Smiting Fireball from doing some additional damage to one person in the AoE.

Then again, I also don't see language in Sneak Attack and Magic Missile or Fireball preventing you from adding SA damage to those spells. But the premise of the Arcane Trickster PrC is that you need a special ability for that.


As a quick rule, anything that breaks invisibility is an attack, so throwing fireball is definetly an attack.


Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.


1) One target.

Quote:
As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite.

2) Magic missiles and fireballs, even with multiple dice, are still one damage roll. If you target all your five missiles at someone, it is still one roll, the bonus isnt PER DICE of damage, but per roll.

3) A smiting fireball would only deal extra damage against one target, specified when the paladin used smite evil.

Quote:
to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite.

Sovereign Court

wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.

I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.

Liberty's Edge

Ascalaphus wrote:

I don't see any language in Smite or Fireball that would stop the Smiting Fireball from doing some additional damage to one person in the AoE.

Then again, I also don't see language in Sneak Attack and Magic Missile or Fireball preventing you from adding SA damage to those spells. But the premise of the Arcane Trickster PrC is that you need a special ability for that.

To deal sneak attack you nee to target someone with an attack:

PRD wrote:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC

Fireball don't target anyone, it has an area of effect.

Smite evil require you to target someone with the smite evil ability but then the effect trigger every time you roll damage against him.

PRD 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. 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.

So you don't need a targeted attack for smite evil, while you need a targeted attack for the sneak attack damage.

Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.
I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.

I know, this post of mine has just proved that you can't apply sneak attack damage to a fireball, but you can apply it to a magic missile.

Scarab Sages

Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work. This has been clarified by the dev.s several times. That's why sneak attack works with something like Scorching Ray, but not Magic Missile UNLESS you have the Arcane Trickster ability.

A Paladin's smite evil, however, simply adds to damage rolls, and this is one of those times where individual instances of damage in a spell are actually REALLY important. Magic Missile fires individual missiles, which means that each missile would gain the bonus smite damage, since they are resolved individually from each other, just like each ray from a Scorching Ray would gain the damage. As written, you could apply smite damage to an area spell, but only smote targets would take the bonus damage.

How you would get the two (Magic Missile and Smite Evil) CONSISTENTLY, with decent power behind each, is a bit of an issue, as going into the Chevalier prestige class SERIOUSLY hurts your spellcasting, but it's an interesting idea.

Ooo! You could be a Samsaran, though. One of the few ways I can think of to do it.


What about an improved familiar with the celestial servant feat + wand of magic missile (or is there one that has a nice damage SLA?)?

Or a caster with Bracers of the Avenging Knight?


Back in development, smite was limited to a melee weapon. That language was changed to allow ranged.

We might be looking at something from that era (has it really been that long?).


Davor wrote:
Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work.

SO not true.

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


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.


shadowkras wrote:
auto-hit spells and area spells are not attacks

Incumbent rules disagree.

Take invisibility as an example.

Quote:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

So, precedent exists.

shadowkras wrote:
A smiting fireball would only deal extra damage against one target, specified when the paladin used smite evil.

Correct.

Scarab Sages

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Davor wrote:
Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work.

SO not true.

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


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.

Okay, there's ONE loophole, mister snarky pants. :P


Looking at the time and date of when this thread started was pretty much exactly when my friend last night brought up this issue with our GM during PFS. He's been debating if this works for a few weeks, and doesn't seem to like using the boards. Thank you for posting this thread!


Fun fact: a Star Archon can use smite evil, and then use the touch attack option with meteor swarm to utterly destroy something. +19 damage to each of the four meteors.


I'm in the camp which believes that Smite Evil adds damage to spells which require an attack roll such as Scorching Ray. I feel that the damage would apply once per attack rather than once per spell. For instance, a CL12 Scorching Ray cast while smiting as an 8th level Paladin would generate 3 attacks for 4d6+8 each. If you were a 12th level Bard using Inspire Courage you'd add another +3 damage to each ray.

At least that's the way I think it should work. My Paladin 4/Bard 12 has been impacted by several FAQs and erratas so far though, so I wouldn't be surprised if a ruling that Smite Evil doesn't work on spells comes out just in time to stop my PC from Smiting with Deafening Song Bolts next level.


Diego Rossi wrote:


Reading the ability text, if you roll damage you get to add your smite evil damage to it.

Corollary questions:

- if applied to a magic missile damage it is applied once or once for each missile hitting the target of smite evil?

- what happen when it is applied to a spell/power that don't do hit point of damage but deal other forms of damage?

1. Each missile is a separate damage packet/damage roll, so it would be applied to each one.

2. The smite damage would be HP damage.


Ascalaphus wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Sneak attack does not call for attack rolls either but most players know the intent was for attack rolls. The same goes for smites.
I'm fairly certain the INTENT was for SA not to work with stuff that doesn't use an attack roll. But I'm having a hard time PROVING it.

Attacks normally means attacks using attack rolls. It could have been spelled out better, but +95% of players get the intent. I doubt most people here are really that confused. Most likely they just want the book to say exactly what it means. Not that I don't think the book should not say what it means hopefully they don't try this in a real game and expect for it to work.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Davor wrote:
Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work.

SO not true.

d20pfsrd.com wrote:


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.

Fair enough. An attack that normally uses an attack roll is required.


Buri wrote:
shadowkras wrote:
auto-hit spells and area spells are not attacks

Incumbent rules disagree.

Take invisibility as an example.

Quote:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

So, precedent exists.

shadowkras wrote:
A smiting fireball would only deal extra damage against one target, specified when the paladin used smite evil.
Correct.

I don't disagree with your overall position, but felt it necessary to comment that the Invisibility spell is not helpful in supporting the case.

Quote:
For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe.

That AoE spells are attacks for the purpose of Invisibility does not mean that AoE spells are necessarily attacks for purposes other than in the context of an attack for the Invisibility spell. They certainly could be, but the language of the Invisibility spell doesn't prove it.


Clearly, my only goal was to show precedence. My post was fine for that purpose.


Buri wrote:
Clearly, my only goal was to show precedence. My post was fine for that purpose.

But that's my point. It doesn't really show precedence because in the instance you pointed out, it's explicitly called out. Typically (but not always), when something is specifically called out like that, it's because it's different from the norm. It can be argued that since AoE spells have to be called out as attacks for the purposes of Invisibility, they are not ordinarily considered "attacks". The precedent demonstrated would be that AoE spells can be considered attacks, if specifically called out as counting as an attack for whatever relevant purpose we're discussing. Since they're not specifically called out here, it doesn't help make the case. An argument can actually be made that it hurts the case (though perhaps not a particularly convincing one).

Regardless, we're getting a bit far afield.


fretgod99 wrote:
Buri wrote:
Clearly, my only goal was to show precedence. My post was fine for that purpose.

But that's my point. It doesn't really show precedence because in the instance you pointed out, it's explicitly called out. Typically (but not always), when something is specifically called out like that, it's because it's different from the norm. It can be argued that since AoE spells have to be called out as attacks for the purposes of Invisibility, they are not ordinarily considered "attacks". The precedent demonstrated would be that AoE spells can be considered attacks, if specifically called out as counting as an attack for whatever relevant purpose we're discussing. Since they're not specifically called out here, it doesn't help make the case. An argument can actually be made that it hurts the case (though perhaps not a particularly convincing one).

Regardless, we're getting a bit far afield.

What about this:
Quote:
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.


The idea of Smite Evil applying to Channel Energy is kind of interesting, but I still feel like there should have to be an attack roll to get the bonus damage as with Inspire Courage. I'll go ahead and click FAQ.


Devilkiller wrote:
The idea of Smite Evil applying to Channel Energy is kind of interesting, but I still feel like there should have to be an attack roll to get the bonus damage as with Inspire Courage. I'll go ahead and click FAQ.

Inspire Courage specifically calls out for Weapon Damage. I'm not sure what kind of FAQ there will be, the Smite Evil ability does say ALL damage rolls against the target.


Rikkan, that works because it's a clear, broad statement.

Sovereign Court

Huh. Smite damage on a channel. That's cool, if it works.

Liberty's Edge

Davor wrote:

Alright, I'm gonna clarify this really quickly. Sneak attack requires an attack roll to work. This has been clarified by the dev.s several times. That's why sneak attack works with something like Scorching Ray, but not Magic Missile UNLESS you have the Arcane Trickster ability.

I would like a link to the developers statements you cited. I vaguely recall something similar but I have enough experience with "vaguely recalled" rules to want the source.

For your second statement, sneak attack is appleid only once to a Scorching ray spell. There is a FAQ about that:

FAQ wrote:

Sneak Attack: Can I add sneak attack damage to simultaneous attacks from a spell?

No. For example, scorching ray fires simultaneous rays at one or more targets, and the extra damage is only added once to one ray, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.
Spell-based attacks which are not simultaneous, such as multiple attacks per round by a 8th-level druid using flame blade, may apply sneak attack damage to each attack so long as each attack qualifies for sneak attack (the target is denied its Dex bonus or the caster is flanking the target).

Actually there are 2 applicable FAQs.

FAQ wrote:


Arcane Trickster: How does the Surprise Spells class feature work with spells like magic missile and fireball?

The Surprise Spells class feature allows the Arcane Trickster to add his sneak attack dice to spells that deal damage that target flat-footed foes. This damage is only applied once per spell. In the case of fireball this means it affects all targets in the area, with each getting a save to halve the damage (including the sneak attack damage). In the case of magic missile, the extra damage is only added once to one missile, chosen by the caster when the spell is cast.

As you see we don't always operate with rules as they are, but with rules as they are remembered. so hard proof is very useful.

Liberty's Edge

fretgod99 wrote:
Buri wrote:
Clearly, my only goal was to show precedence. My post was fine for that purpose.

But that's my point. It doesn't really show precedence because in the instance you pointed out, it's explicitly called out. Typically (but not always), when something is specifically called out like that, it's because it's different from the norm. It can be argued that since AoE spells have to be called out as attacks for the purposes of Invisibility, they are not ordinarily considered "attacks". The precedent demonstrated would be that AoE spells can be considered attacks, if specifically called out as counting as an attack for whatever relevant purpose we're discussing. Since they're not specifically called out here, it doesn't help make the case. An argument can actually be made that it hurts the case (though perhaps not a particularly convincing one).

Regardless, we're getting a bit far afield.

Touch Spells in Combat: wrote:
Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. The act of casting a spell, however, does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack as long as the spell deals damage. Your opponent's AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally.

By that quote, casting invisibility, blur or remove curse on a unwilling target (say a confused friend) is an attack.

Sovereign Court

@Diego: I'd call those attacks, yes. You may have his best interests at heart, but he's not willing.


@Scavion - I think we'd both allow a Paladin/Sorcerer to apply the bonus damage from Smite Evil to the initial hit with an Acid Arrow. Would you also allow the Smite Evil damage to apply to the additional damage on subsequent rounds?


As I intend to be smiting some evil with spells tonight for PFS and this came up last week (the day posted on here) I'm very happy that this exists. Most of it seems straight forward to me, and the only question I have is if the smite damage gets added to the magic missiles individually or as a group. They are individual missiles that deal 1d4+1, not one missile that deals Xd4+X.

Also, while I'm pretty sure it does not, magic missile would not receive extra damage from point blank shot even if it's within 30 ft, correct? Or is that phrase "ranged weapon" going to be my undoing?


Devilkiller wrote:
@Scavion - I think we'd both allow a Paladin/Sorcerer to apply the bonus damage from Smite Evil to the initial hit with an Acid Arrow. Would you also allow the Smite Evil damage to apply to the additional damage on subsequent rounds?

Yes. All damage rolls is powerful wording. Though ruling on the side of smite damage once per spell is reasonable. To me, it's a ruling that isn't RAW but acceptable.


No smite on fireball, yes smite on deadeye's arrow.


Majuba wrote:
No smite on fireball, yes smite on deadeye's arrow.

I disagree. In the end the smite damage is only applied to 1 target anyways(Or more if you decided to use all your smites in the combat).

Sovereign Court

What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?

Scarab Sages

It's every damage roll, so yup, every time you roll for damage, including damage caused by DoT effects. That's how I'd rule it, anyways.

The only exception, I think, would be damage for catching on fire and bleed damage, as that damage isn't a part of the damage the Paladin deals, it's a secondary effect with a (typically) fixed amount of damage rolled by the creature. But that's a little iffy, so /shrug.


Ascalaphus wrote:
What about damage over time effects, like Acid Arrow?

If you're not making an attack roll, you're not dealing smite damage.

As a background, Smite used to apply only to a "normal melee attack", in 3.5. Obviously that's changed to include ranged, but there are several parts of the current ability that make it very clear it's talking about weapon attacks (which generally get extended to spells with attack rolls).

  • It says "attack rolls... and... damage rolls"
  • It says the attacks bypass DR
  • It talks about a "successful attack"

    If you want to smite with a fireball, create a custom metamagic feat.

  • Liberty's Edge

    BaconBastard wrote:

    As I intend to be smiting some evil with spells tonight for PFS and this came up last week (the day posted on here) I'm very happy that this exists. Most of it seems straight forward to me, and the only question I have is if the smite damage gets added to the magic missiles individually or as a group. They are individual missiles that deal 1d4+1, not one missile that deals Xd4+X.

    Also, while I'm pretty sure it does not, magic missile would not receive extra damage from point blank shot even if it's within 30 ft, correct? Or is that phrase "ranged weapon" going to be my undoing?

    As I read it it activate once for each attack made by the paladin against the target of the smite, and a volley of multiple magic missile is a single attack.

    The caveat is that if the paladin can have multiple smite running against different targets, he can split the magic missile anf deal the smite damage once against each target of his smites.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

    An easy way to pull off this trick is to use Aura of Justice on your blaster sorcerer ally.

    It's slightly less nice on a non-Cha based caster.

    1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / A paladin Smite evil is applicable to spell damage? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.