PF: Paladin Smite -- Does it affect the target?

[Drachasor]

The text:


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 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.

In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.

The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: Paladin, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.

Also note 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.

Now it seems to me that Smite in PF, unlike 3.5, is an ability where you target a creature and that creature is affected by the ability. Perhaps the Paladin is targeted as well, but I do not see how the target is not affected by Smite given the wording of Smite (and the wording of spells and abilities that interact with Smite Evil).

Can someone present a strong argument that this isn't the case and that Smite Evil is merely something that affects the Paladin using it (like Divine Favor or the like)?

I just need to make sure I'm not missing something here or being irrational.

[TuggyNE]

As far as I can tell, yes: it's essentially a specialized debuff that enables extra damage.

[grarrrg]

While cancelling a Smite or Challenge makes sense, as you are required to choose a target for them, how in the heck do you cancel a Judgement???


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.

Judgement only ever bonuses to the Inquisitor.
Does this mean I can just ignore whatever bonuses the Inquisitor gets, but the Judgement is still active?
Does this mean that the Judgement is canceled?

[ericgrau]

It says "end all... that are affecting her". For judgement "Starting at 1st level, an inquisitor can pronounce judgment upon her foes as a swift action".

Warding ends the effect affecting the wearer, and an inquisitor's judgement affects multiple foes. It seems like it ends the whole judgement, saving allies from it as well, and the Inquisitor needs to spend another swift to reactivate it again to use it.

Basically instead of cancelling a wonky debuff that looks like a buff, you're cancelling an (entire) wonky mass debuff that looks like a buff.

[Drachasor]

Thanks guys. I ask this because on the PF forums everyone seems to act like reading that as an targeted effect is crazy and it is so CLEARLY a buff just on the Paladin. Probably because the context was Smite Evil and Incorporeal creatures so by RAW there's a 50% failure chance to apply Smite.

Hmm, doesn't help that SKR was there acting like I was crazy too.

The PF forums seem to be somewhat unpleasant.

I did want to check my reasoning, since so far it seems to me that the PF Devs/community can have a bit of a disconnect between what they want the text to say and what it actually says.

[ericgrau]

Now the funny part with judgement is if "foes" only means currently present foes. What about new foes that join the fight? What about all of the inquisitor's foes in the world? A reoccurring villain with warding and a crystal ball might randomly cancel the inquisitor's judgement from miles away.

[Drachasor]

Now the funny part with judgement is if "foes" only means currently present foes. What about new foes that join the fight? What about all of the inquisitor's foes in the world? A reoccurring villain with warding and a crystal ball might randomly cancel the inquisitor's judgement from miles away.

All the ones in the universe. Judgement is useless since we can assume Warding getting used even at an extreeeeemely low rate is enough to have a cancellation every round.

Maybe I'm a bit biased at the moment, but it seems like Pathfinder writing is more sloppy as far as rules go than 3.5 (not that 3.5 was perfect, of course).

[ericgrau]

But not everyone in the universe is the inquisitor's foe. Hence the reoccurring villain thing. Unless the inquisitor seeks to wipe all evil from the multiverse. That could get problematic.

And wait, a staff member who wrote the rules said the same thing? Has he seen the warding ability? I suppose even if you see smite or judgement as affecting foes you could still say it's not a targeted ability. Like a fireball or a solid fog. Then you say well it's affecting me and I still end it even though I'm not a specific target. Nevermind the abilities clearly say "target".

I have seen a lot of silly oversights in 3.5 and haven't read a lot of PF material so I can't say if PF exceeds them.

[Drachasor]

But not everyone in the universe is the inquisitor's foe. Hence the reoccurring villain thing. Unless the inquisitor seeks to wipe all evil from the multiverse. That could get problematic.

Yes, a highly selective Inquisitor would be ok. But one that opposes Evil everywhere or other uncountably large groups is ruined.


And wait, a staff member who wrote the rules said the same thing? Has he seen the warding ability? I suppose even if you see smite as affecting foes you could still say it's not a targeted ability. Like a fireball.

I brought up the Warding ability, so I assume he's seen it. Though SKR, on the forums at least, has a habit of being a bit dismissive and snarky and not worrying so much about understanding what the other person is saying. At least, I've seen him several times seem to not follow the argument he disagrees with. That's at least how it seems to me.

He argued that there's no definition of "targeted abilities" so my whole premise was flawed and I was wrong. I think that was about the last bit of back and forth yesterday. At that point I don't see how you could have any way judge whether some supernatural abilities affect an enemy or not -- seems arbitrary. No response on that yet.

Edit: We probably would need to do a statistical analysis of PF and 3.5 to tell if one was more badly written than the other.

[BWR]

Am I the only one in this discussion that thinks the Warding ability seems perfectly straight foreward and easily understandable?
If it's obvious what it's supposed to do, what's the problem?

[Drachasor]

Am I the only one in this discussion that thinks the Warding ability seems perfectly straight foreward and easily understandable?
If it's obvious what it's supposed to do, what's the problem?

We all think it is straightforward outside of Inquisitions. It is really weird for them...long quote:


Starting at 1st level, an inquisitor can pronounce judgment upon her foes as a swift action. Starting when the judgment is made, the inquisitor receives a bonus or special ability based on the type of judgment made.

At 1st level, an inquisitor can use this ability once per day. At 4th level and every three levels thereafter, the inquisitor can use this ability one additional time per day. Once activated, this ability lasts until the combat ends, at which point all of the bonuses immediately end. The inquisitor must participate in the combat to gain these bonuses. If she is frightened, panicked, paralyzed, stunned, unconscious, or otherwise prevented from participating in the combat, the ability does not end, but the bonuses do not resume until she can participate in the combat again.

When the inquisitor uses this ability, she must select one type of judgment to make. As a swift action, she can change this judgment to another type. If the inquisitor is evil, she receives profane bonuses instead of sacred, as appropriate. Neutral inquisitors must select profane or sacred bonuses. Once made, this choice cannot be changed.

Destruction: The inquisitor is filled with divine wrath, gaining a +1 sacred bonus on all weapon damage rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every three inquisitor levels she possesses.

Healing: The inquisitor is surrounded by a healing light, gaining fast healing 1. This causes the inquisitor to heal 1 point of damage each round as long as the inquisitor is alive and the judgment lasts. The amount of healing increases by 1 point for every three inquisitor levels she possesses.

Justice: This judgment spurs the inquisitor to seek justice, granting a +1 sacred bonus on all attack rolls. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled on all attack rolls made to confirm critical hits.

Piercing: This judgment gives the inquisitor great focus and makes her spells more potent. This benefit grants a +1 sacred bonus on concentration checks and caster level checks made to overcome a target’s spell resistance. This bonus increases by +1 for every three inquisitor levels she possesses.

Protection: The inquisitor is surrounded by a protective aura, granting a +1 sacred bonus to Armor Class. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, this bonus is doubled against attack rolls made to confirm critical hits against the inquisitor.

Purity: The inquisitor is protected from the vile taint of her foes, gaining a +1 sacred bonus on all saving throws. This bonus increases by +1 for every five inquisitor levels she possesses. At 10th level, the bonus is doubled against curses, diseases, and poisons.

Resiliency: This judgment makes the inquisitor resistant to harm, granting DR 1/magic. This DR increases by 1 for every five levels she possesses. At 10th level, this DR changes from magic to an alignment (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) that is opposite the inquisitor’s. If she is neutral, the inquisitor does not receive this increase.

Resistance: The inquisitor is shielded by a flickering aura, gaining 2 points of energy resistance against one energy type (acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic) chosen when the judgment is declared. The protection increases by 2 for every three inquisitor levels she possesses.

Smiting: This judgment bathes the inquisitor’s weapons in a divine light. The inquisitor’s weapons count as magic for the purposes of bypassing damage reduction. At 6th level, the inquisitor’s weapons also count as one alignment type (chaotic, evil, good, or lawful) for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. The type selected must match one of the inquisitor’s alignments. If the inquisitor is neutral, she does not receive this bonus. At 10th level, the inquisitor’s weapons also count as adamantine for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction (but not for reducing hardness).

Outside of that, it is also very strange if Smite Evil does not place an effect on the target. If nothing is on the target, then there's nothing to remove. I started this thread here to make sure I wasn't being crazy with Smite Evil, since on the PF forums I was being told that it doesn't do anything to the target and it is clearly just a self-buff.

Granted it can all still make sense if you change the wording on everything. Except..Judgement is still odd.

[ericgrau]

So Targeting (as a rules term) and on ongoing effect on the target doesn't exist for these abilities, only targeting (as an English term)? Ok I suppose but the results should be the same either way: warding cancels the whole smite or the whole judgment. The only difference is that some ability that removes ongoing abilities on a target would not work against those ablities. Like an antimagic field on the foe (assuming it's a long ranged Su) wouldn't stop to-hit bonuses on the archer shooting him, but an AMF on the archer would.

Or the other possibility is that the author forgot his own rules and the AMF should be on the foe to stop the bonuses.

[Kudaku]

What exactly were you trying to get clarified at the paizo forums? You mentioned wraiths and miss chance...

[Drachasor]

What exactly were you trying to get clarified at the paizo forums? You mentioned wraiths and miss chance...

It started in a thread where I made the argument (since no one else would) that Smite Evil could be interpreted as allowing you to successfully attack incorporeal creatures with a non-magical weapon. The text of the ability talks about making "Smite Evil Attacks" and those attacks would logically be supernatural in origin. I didn't say this was remotely definitive, merely that this wasn't wholly unreasonable given the text.

I don't remember how the 50% failure chance was brought up, but here's the Incorporeal text (The relevant bit anyhow).


An incorporeal creature has no physical body. It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.

Someone brought up the bolded bit (possibly me, I do not remember). If Smite Evil targets enemies (which it seems to) and does no damage, then there's only a 50% chance it affects an incorporeal creature when you use it.

Hmm, now that I think about it, I suppose you could read it as a 50% chance on application or a 50% chance per attack.

People largely seemed to think that was crazy and Smite Evil was clearly only a buff on the Paladin -- which doesn't seem to be how the ability is written at all.

Personally I don't like all these implications, but it seems pretty clear that's how it should work.

Edit: Here's a link to the FAQ thread where SKR showed up. (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2py7w?Smite-Evil-and-Incorporeal-creatures)

[Kudaku]

An, I see. I personally think whoever wrote Warding didn't fully consider the ramifications of making Smite, Cchallenge and Judgements a targeted effect - miss chance on smite evil would be a very bitter pill to swallow for paladins. The people who argue that Smite Evil is a buff are primarily arguing RAI since it seems fairly clear that smite, challenge and judgement should not be affected by miss chances, or else that would be specified in the ability text.

RAW you have a good case that it is a targeted effect.

RAI I think you might be on shaky ground.

[ericgrau]

It is still RAW possible that smite is an effect that has an external target but the effect itself is actually on a paladin. Thus the paladin is 100% affected, even though this buff on him only works against one target.

It could go either way but it may be nicer to default to the more expected way.

[Drachasor]

I don't know about RAI. I think they DID intend for it to be at least a partly targeted effect. There's a feat that backs that up too (not just Warding).

However, RAI didn't account for Incorporeality or similar things that might cancel targeted effects (unless specifically worded to work on Smite and the like). So I don't think RAI is that there's a 50% failure, but I that's what the rules say.

One might consider how Smite Evil would be written up as a spell. It's possible that it would have "Target: Self and Targeted Creature" or something like that. That said, it is actually hard to find examples of abilities that only affect the relationship between two creatures like Smite does. A baseline is hard to find. Shield Other might be an example, and you target two creatures there -- oh I guess not, with Shield other you actually just target the other person to be affected. Maybe there is another example?

Makes you think Supernatural/Ex Abilities might need a bit more structure to them to handle stuff like this.

Hmm. Food for thought.

Edit: On the other hand, RAW exists to handle interactions that RAI can't foresee. So I'm not sure guessing that RAI didn't want this is really all that sound. Also, I'm glad we can have a calm discussion about such matters here. It seems to be impossible on the Paizo forums.

[Kudaku]

It is still RAW possible that smite is an effect that has an external target but the effect itself is actually on a paladin. Thus the paladin is 100% affected, even though this buff on him only works against one target.

It could go either way but it may be nicer to default to the more expected way.

Normally I would agree with that but Warding specifically states there is an 'effect' on the wearer of the armor if he is targeted by a Smite.

[ericgrau]

I don't see "effect" in Warding. There is "affecting" but that is a verb and it is a generic term not necessarily referring to any specific game construct. Even if it did have "effect" it isn't the primary source for the rule. Smite has "effect" but it is a different use of the word.

[TuggyNE]

Thanks guys. I ask this because on the PF forums everyone seems to act like reading that as an targeted effect is crazy and it is so CLEARLY a buff just on the Paladin. Probably because the context was Smite Evil and Incorporeal creatures so by RAW there's a 50% failure chance to apply Smite.

Hmm, doesn't help that SKR was there acting like I was crazy too.

The PF forums seem to be somewhat unpleasant.

I did want to check my reasoning, since so far it seems to me that the PF Devs/community can have a bit of a disconnect between what they want the text to say and what it actually says.

Yeah, that seems to be quite common.


It is still RAW possible that smite is an effect that has an external target but the effect itself is actually on a paladin. Thus the paladin is 100% affected, even though this buff on him only works against one target.

That's weird, and I'm not sure that's a thing that's normally possible, but it's theoretically imaginable at any rate.

[Drachasor]

I don't see "effect" in Warding. There is "affecting" but that is a verb and it is a generic term not necessarily referring to any specific game construct. Even if it did have "effect" it isn't the primary source for the rule. Smite has "effect" but it is a different use of the word.

An effect affects you, that's how language works. You don't say the Fireball effect effected you, but the fireball effect affected you.

If it is just a Paladin buff, then the only time the target is affected is when it is getting struck, and it could almost never have multiple such effects at once to dismiss (and it would just work for one attack). That seems pretty clearly not what it was going for.

I grant the Smite Evil in PF has rare wording, but I am not aware of anything in the game where you select a target that does not target the target with some sort of effect. Attacks do it, spells do it, even demons and dragons do it.