Smite spell in PvP and MvP?

[Kaeso]

I'll get straight to the point: why is the smite spell feat so often ignored when comparing clerics to wizards or when talking to wizards in general? A cleric with smite spell can shut down a wizard entirely in a single turn. This tactic relies on the cleric winning initiative, but most wizard tactics rely on the wizard winning initiative as well (hence the term "rocket tag" to describe high level play). If a cleric uses the "smite spell" feat to deliver the "antimagic field" spell in a melee attack, he can create an antimagic field and deliver damage in the same action. This means a cleric loses his spells, his greatest asset, but to a cleric spells are just that: one of many assets. To a wizard, spells are everything. Without spells, the wizard is a chump, a cleric with a bunch of feats he can even use right now. Without spells, a cleric is a man wearing heavy armor with the BAB of a rogue and roughly twice as much hp as the commoner in a dress standing before him. Combined with a reach weapon (like the longspear) and means to attack within 5 ft. (like a spiked gauntlet, unarmed attack or the short haft feat) the wizard is now trapped as well. The cleric has him trapped and powerless.

Why is this tactic never mentioned? Has it really never been considered or am I just overlooking something?

[eggynack]

I'm not sure what makes this feat particularly good. At the most basic level, your intended combo, AMF+smite spell, doesn't actually work. AMF doesn't have a range of touch, after all. Beyond that, if there is a beyond that, it's a feat that ties your effectiveness to your ability to hit the wizard in the face. If you're able to do that, then you've probably already won the fight, at least at later levels. I think you're seeing in this feat something that's not there.