Can you sunder evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Can you sunder evil? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Nor'Morgwae
07-03-07, 03:55 PM Okay, the Paladin's smite evil ability does not seem to specifically state that it is only effective against a creature. Could it be used on a sunder attempt against and evil object?

For example, a paladin is fighting a blackguard who is wielding an unholy longsword. Could the paladin make a sunder attempt and add his damage and attack bonus from smite evil?

What about the holy weapon property? Could it be used against an evil weapon?

If not RAW kosher, would you allow it anyway?
Leilond
07-03-07, 04:00 PM Okay, the Paladin's smite evil ability does not seem to specifically state that it is only effective against a creature. Could it be used on a sunder attempt against and evil object?

For example, a paladin is fighting a blackguard who is wielding an unholy longsword. Could the paladin make a sunder attempt and add his damage and attack bonus from smite evil?

What about the holy weapon property? Could it be used against an evil weapon?

If not RAW kosher, would you allow it anyway?

It look like it can be don by the RAW
By the way I will surely admit it, without any problem... it doesn't look unfair, because you do not meet so much evil object
Some_call_me_Tim
07-03-07, 05:58 PM Smite Evil (Su)
Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day.

At 5th level, and at every five levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: The Paladin, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level.
"One normal melee attack" depends on what "normal" is. I would rule that none of the special attacks are eligible (bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder etc.).

When the ability talks about "accidentally smites a creature" it implies the target is always a creature. Otherwise you could argue that you can smite evil a door and get the bonus because it only says it has no effect on non-evil creatures not non-evil objects. Reductio ad absurdum

So, as I see it is against The Rules As Written. All hail The Rules As Written! :bow:

Now, that said I really like the idea. Unholy requires a spell with the Evil descriptor so by extension it should make the blade Evil as well. I would rule that smite evil can be used on anything that would normally detect as evil. Evil creatures, objects, or artifacts are fair game.
Kaurus
07-03-07, 09:33 PM I really like the idea too, so I would allow it :D

Maybee only for a Paladin with Improved Sunder ?

By the way, what does RAW stand for ?
Anathema
07-03-07, 09:41 PM It seems to apply to just creatures, but I would go ahead and allow it for an item that's actually evil. Sounds cool if you ask me. No chance of failing if the Paladin uses his line-up shot, as well. Along with a full power attack he'd probably dust most non-magical objects in a single shot. Again, sounds cool :D

RAW literally stands for Rules As Written. More often it means "Rules as I interpret them", since the frequent arguments are over rules that contradict even if it's in some trivial way.
runestar
07-03-07, 11:01 PM Intelligent weapons perhaps. They count as creatures, don't they?:)
calronmoonflower
07-04-07, 03:02 AM Intelligent weapons perhaps. They count as creatures, don't they?:)

No they actually don't. They have no type and there for are not creatures.
Some_call_me_Tim
07-04-07, 12:45 PM No they actually don't. They have no type and there for are not creatures.
According to the SRD:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.
calronmoonflower
07-04-07, 04:01 PM According to the SRD:
Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.

Dang. I also found this

Q: Dear Sage,
Do mind-affecting spells work against intelligent magic items?
--Rob

A: No.

Technically speaking, any intelligent magic item can be considered a creature (DMG pg. 268). The book doesn’t specifically list what type of creature an intelligent magic item is, but it seems safe to consider them constructs, which makes them immune to all mind-affecting effects. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070226a)
Millennium
07-04-07, 11:36 PM This sounds interesting. I'd allow it, provided that the object being sundered actually had an Evil alignment: just being wielded by an Evil creature isn't enough. Some examples of Evil-aligned objects would include:
Weapons under the effect of an align weapon [Evil] spell.
Unholy weapons
Intelligent items with an Evil alignment (though, as The Sage points out, these are technically creatures anyway).
eamon
07-05-07, 03:21 AM Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?
Kaurus
07-05-07, 09:39 AM Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?

Align Weapon:
Target: Weapon touched or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting)

A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does.

Sounds fair to me :D

The question if an unarmed attack to sunder a weapon would provoke 2 AoO is not important here, because an unarmed touch attack to deliver a (possibly harmfull) spell does not cause an AoO.
Some_call_me_Tim
07-05-07, 12:28 PM Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?The paladin would have to be traveling with a neutral cleric as a good cleric couldn't cast the spell and he isn't allowed to travel with an evil cleric.

The question if an unarmed attack to sunder a weapon would provoke 2 AoO is not important here, because an unarmed touch attack to deliver a (possibly harmfull) spell does not cause an AoO.It's actually a harmless spell. ;) Oddly enough, the rules on touch spells don't specify that it has to a harmful spell, only that you are attempting to use a touch spell on an enemy. So, what you say is true, I just found it odd that it isn't because its a harmful spell.

I really don't see too much unbalancing here. You need a cleric of the correct alignment. Need to cast the spell and touch the weapon. Have the weapon fail the save. Then have the paladin succeed on his sunder attack and do enough damage to destroy the weapon. Sounds like a lot of work for a little gain.
Millennium
07-05-07, 03:55 PM Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?
Ooh; what an interesting idea. Note the stuff that Kaurus said about it, but otherwise that would be a nifty example of party teamwork.
PopeNyarlathotep
07-06-07, 02:22 AM I'd allow it. An attended object would use the wielder's saves, so why not allow it to "inherit" the wielder's alignment for purposes of smite. Plus it's just plain cool and that usually trumps rules in my game ;)
Millennium
07-06-07, 08:48 AM Some creatures impart an alignment onto their weapons for the purpose of getting past DR, and I might allow such items to be sunder-smited, but I don't think I'd allow that form of "alignment inheritance" for a plain longsword wielded by an Evil human rogue. Among other things, I really like that idea of using align weapon offensively, and alignment inheritance for all creatures would make that tactic redundant.
Kaurus
07-06-07, 10:25 AM ...

It's actually a harmless spell. ;) Oddly enough, the rules on touch spells don't specify that it has to a harmful spell, only that you are attempting to use a touch spell on an enemy. So, what you say is true, I just found it odd that it isn't because its a harmful spell.

Jupp it is a little odd, if you really wanted to houserule that one, let the defender make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell, but it sounds quite unlikely that in real live you would count on that combat spell analysis thing, I would always try to defend against a touch delivered spell, even if I thought it should be a harmless one (let´s invent a spell that seems to be harmless and kill people with it :eek:) [at least in this situation I would not let the player roll, but would do it secretly for him and just tell him what he thinks this spell is].

I really don't see too much unbalancing here. You need a cleric of the correct alignment. Need to cast the spell and touch the weapon. Have the weapon fail the save. Then have the paladin succeed on his sunder attack and do enough damage to destroy the weapon. Sounds like a lot of work for a little gain.

Neither do I, I tried to make it apparent that I even think it is way to much work / effort with the smiley (these AoO can be quite unpleasant).
Dowjin
07-07-07, 04:59 AM I'd allow a pally to use up a smite to dmg anything evil, object or not. However I doubt he's going to run into any objects that can be evil without being creatures (which would mean a DM ruling) and so it should be allowed (by a second DM ruling) that the evil object be vulnerable to smite. However none of of thats RAW.

Intelligent items are considered construct creatures, reference above, and so, if evil, can be smited.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Nor'Morgwae 07-03-07, 03:55 PM	Okay, the Paladin's smite evil ability does not seem to specifically state that it is only effective against a creature. Could it be used on a sunder attempt against and evil object? For example, a paladin is fighting a blackguard who is wielding an unholy longsword. Could the paladin make a sunder attempt and add his damage and attack bonus from smite evil? What about the holy weapon property? Could it be used against an evil weapon? If not RAW kosher, would you allow it anyway?
Leilond 07-03-07, 04:00 PM	Okay, the Paladin's smite evil ability does not seem to specifically state that it is only effective against a creature. Could it be used on a sunder attempt against and evil object? For example, a paladin is fighting a blackguard who is wielding an unholy longsword. Could the paladin make a sunder attempt and add his damage and attack bonus from smite evil? What about the holy weapon property? Could it be used against an evil weapon? If not RAW kosher, would you allow it anyway? It look like it can be don by the RAW By the way I will surely admit it, without any problem... it doesn't look unfair, because you do not meet so much evil object
Some_call_me_Tim 07-03-07, 05:58 PM	Smite Evil (Su) Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack. She adds her Charisma bonus (if any) to her attack roll and deals 1 extra point of damage per paladin level. If the paladin accidentally smites a creature that is not evil, the smite has no effect, but the ability is still used up for that day. At 5th level, and at every five levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: The Paladin, to a maximum of five times per day at 20th level. "One normal melee attack" depends on what "normal" is. I would rule that none of the special attacks are eligible (bull rush, disarm, grapple, overrun, sunder etc.). When the ability talks about "accidentally smites a creature" it implies the target is always a creature. Otherwise you could argue that you can smite evil a door and get the bonus because it only says it has no effect on non-evil creatures not non-evil objects. Reductio ad absurdum So, as I see it is against The Rules As Written. All hail The Rules As Written! :bow: Now, that said I really like the idea. Unholy requires a spell with the Evil descriptor so by extension it should make the blade Evil as well. I would rule that smite evil can be used on anything that would normally detect as evil. Evil creatures, objects, or artifacts are fair game.
Kaurus 07-03-07, 09:33 PM	I really like the idea too, so I would allow it :D Maybee only for a Paladin with Improved Sunder ? By the way, what does RAW stand for ?
Anathema 07-03-07, 09:41 PM	It seems to apply to just creatures, but I would go ahead and allow it for an item that's actually evil. Sounds cool if you ask me. No chance of failing if the Paladin uses his line-up shot, as well. Along with a full power attack he'd probably dust most non-magical objects in a single shot. Again, sounds cool :D RAW literally stands for Rules As Written. More often it means "Rules as I interpret them", since the frequent arguments are over rules that contradict even if it's in some trivial way.
runestar 07-03-07, 11:01 PM	Intelligent weapons perhaps. They count as creatures, don't they?:)
calronmoonflower 07-04-07, 03:02 AM	Intelligent weapons perhaps. They count as creatures, don't they?:) No they actually don't. They have no type and there for are not creatures.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-04-07, 12:45 PM	No they actually don't. They have no type and there for are not creatures. According to the SRD: Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise.
calronmoonflower 07-04-07, 04:01 PM	According to the SRD: Intelligent items can actually be considered creatures because they have Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. Treat them as constructs. Intelligent items often have the ability to illuminate their surroundings at will (as magic weapons do); many cannot see otherwise. Dang. I also found this Q: Dear Sage, Do mind-affecting spells work against intelligent magic items? --Rob A: No. Technically speaking, any intelligent magic item can be considered a creature (DMG pg. 268). The book doesn’t specifically list what type of creature an intelligent magic item is, but it seems safe to consider them constructs, which makes them immune to all mind-affecting effects. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070226a)
Millennium 07-04-07, 11:36 PM	This sounds interesting. I'd allow it, provided that the object being sundered actually had an Evil alignment: just being wielded by an Evil creature isn't enough. Some examples of Evil-aligned objects would include: Weapons under the effect of an align weapon [Evil] spell. Unholy weapons Intelligent items with an Evil alignment (though, as The Sage points out, these are technically creatures anyway).
eamon 07-05-07, 03:21 AM	Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?
Kaurus 07-05-07, 09:39 AM	Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits? Align Weapon: Target: Weapon touched or fifty projectiles (all of which must be in contact with each other at the time of casting) A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. Sounds fair to me :D The question if an unarmed attack to sunder a weapon would provoke 2 AoO is not important here, because an unarmed touch attack to deliver a (possibly harmfull) spell does not cause an AoO.
Some_call_me_Tim 07-05-07, 12:28 PM	Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits?The paladin would have to be traveling with a neutral cleric as a good cleric couldn't cast the spell and he isn't allowed to travel with an evil cleric. The question if an unarmed attack to sunder a weapon would provoke 2 AoO is not important here, because an unarmed touch attack to deliver a (possibly harmfull) spell does not cause an AoO.It's actually a harmless spell. ;) Oddly enough, the rules on touch spells don't specify that it has to a harmful spell, only that you are attempting to use a touch spell on an enemy. So, what you say is true, I just found it odd that it isn't because its a harmful spell. I really don't see too much unbalancing here. You need a cleric of the correct alignment. Need to cast the spell and touch the weapon. Have the weapon fail the save. Then have the paladin succeed on his sunder attack and do enough damage to destroy the weapon. Sounds like a lot of work for a little gain.
Millennium 07-05-07, 03:55 PM	Do you see the party cleric casting align weapon on the opponents weapon to have the paladin smash it to bits? Ooh; what an interesting idea. Note the stuff that Kaurus said about it, but otherwise that would be a nifty example of party teamwork.
PopeNyarlathotep 07-06-07, 02:22 AM	I'd allow it. An attended object would use the wielder's saves, so why not allow it to "inherit" the wielder's alignment for purposes of smite. Plus it's just plain cool and that usually trumps rules in my game ;)
Millennium 07-06-07, 08:48 AM	Some creatures impart an alignment onto their weapons for the purpose of getting past DR, and I might allow such items to be sunder-smited, but I don't think I'd allow that form of "alignment inheritance" for a plain longsword wielded by an Evil human rogue. Among other things, I really like that idea of using align weapon offensively, and alignment inheritance for all creatures would make that tactic redundant.
Kaurus 07-06-07, 10:25 AM	... It's actually a harmless spell. ;) Oddly enough, the rules on touch spells don't specify that it has to a harmful spell, only that you are attempting to use a touch spell on an enemy. So, what you say is true, I just found it odd that it isn't because its a harmful spell. Jupp it is a little odd, if you really wanted to houserule that one, let the defender make a spellcraft check to recognize the spell, but it sounds quite unlikely that in real live you would count on that combat spell analysis thing, I would always try to defend against a touch delivered spell, even if I thought it should be a harmless one (let´s invent a spell that seems to be harmless and kill people with it :eek:) [at least in this situation I would not let the player roll, but would do it secretly for him and just tell him what he thinks this spell is]. I really don't see too much unbalancing here. You need a cleric of the correct alignment. Need to cast the spell and touch the weapon. Have the weapon fail the save. Then have the paladin succeed on his sunder attack and do enough damage to destroy the weapon. Sounds like a lot of work for a little gain. Neither do I, I tried to make it apparent that I even think it is way to much work / effort with the smiley (these AoO can be quite unpleasant).
Dowjin 07-07-07, 04:59 AM	I'd allow a pally to use up a smite to dmg anything evil, object or not. However I doubt he's going to run into any objects that can be evil without being creatures (which would mean a DM ruling) and so it should be allowed (by a second DM ruling) that the evil object be vulnerable to smite. However none of of thats RAW. Intelligent items are considered construct creatures, reference above, and so, if evil, can be smited.