Charge & smite rules question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Charge & smite rules question [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
EvilI
04-08-08, 02:38 PM Hi

I need to know if it is possible in D&D 3.5 for a paladin to smite as a part of a charge, without having another special feat to allow this?

PHBI states that you may smite "on a normal attack". Howerver, charging is listed under special attacks. PHBII, on the other hand, states under "Charging smite" that *if* a paladin performs a smite as his charging attack, he gets 2 extra points of damage. The added ability to perform a smite as a charging attack is not mentioned.

NB: I need e reference for an official source or ruling on this, as our DM is referring to PHBI as core rules, and claims that said book forbids the use of smite in a charge.

Sincerely
KevReklaw
04-08-08, 03:29 PM a charge is considered a normal attack,if you sunder or trip,thats not a normal attack on the other hand
EvilI
04-08-08, 06:03 PM The DM refers to the passage on page 154 of PHBI where Charge is listed under Special Attacks, thus not making it a "normal attack" and hence disabling the smite. Is there an official statement concerning this issue? No unofficial consensus on any public forum is going to swing our DM.
Damned slayer
04-08-08, 07:26 PM mounted combat and two weapon fighting are considered special attack

I guess they are referring to attack that deals hp damage and that aren't special

they probably put normal to prevent it's use with magical attack or attacks that don't deal damage

you won't find anything to support this since normal attack ain't defined
Eerongal
04-09-08, 09:02 AM there is no clarification or official statement on this, because there doesn't need to be one. The rules aren't complicated in this regard. A paladin is allowed to use a smite on an attack action, similar to how you can trip, grapple, or sunder on an attack action. At the end of a charge, you get an attack action. Thus you can trip, grapple, sunder, or even yes, smite. Any attack you could use a trip/grapple/sunder on you can use a smite on. This includes moving and attacking, a full attack action, an attack of opportunity, a charge, etc. So if your DM wont allow it because there's not official clarification, there's nothing you can do, because there is none. If he feels it shouldnt work that way, nothing we can say will change his mind.
mjukglass
04-09-08, 12:11 PM Well. I guess we wont be using smite on the charge attack then. While the mentioned guy is still DM:ing that is.

It's worth noting that the OP:s DM didn't allow a paladins Aura of Courage to work against a dragons Frightful Presence since the Frightful Presence described in MM doesn't have 'fear' in its description.

Even when confronted with the rule compendiums collected Fear rules and Frightful Presence listed as a fear attack he refused.
Damned slayer
04-09-08, 12:38 PM Well. I guess we wont be using smite on the charge attack then. While the mentioned guy is still DM:ing that is.

It's worth noting that the OP:s DM didn't allow a paladins Aura of Courage to work against a dragons Frightful Presence since the Frightful Presence described in MM doesn't have 'fear' in its description.

Even when confronted with the rule compendiums collected Fear rules and Frightful Presence listed as a fear attack he refused.

WOW frigth is a synonim of fear

At this point the DM doesn't want to be rectified he wants it to works like he wants

you either live with it or find a new game (or DM) since their's nothing you can do to reason him
because it's stated that rule compendium overwritte what was written in any previous book
Damned slayer
04-09-08, 12:41 PM BTW from the SRD

Panicked

A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a -2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape.

Panicked is a more extreme state of fear than shaken or frightened.

fear is written in the description of panicked lol
Douglasm
04-09-08, 12:50 PM Take a look at the alternate class feature for paladins in PHBII. Instead of getting a special mount, you get (I think) double smite damage when smiting with a charge attack. The wording is something like "when you make a smite attack as part of a charge", which pretty clearly implies that doing so is a normally allowed action.
mjukglass
04-09-08, 12:54 PM BTW from the SRD
fear is written in the description of panicked lol

Yup. I thought it was simple logic to deduct that anything having a fear effect is a fear attack of sort. But according to the said DM an effect must have the exact phrase 'fear' in its description to be effected by Aura of Courage.
mjukglass
04-09-08, 01:02 PM Take a look at the alternate class feature for paladins in PHBII. Instead of getting a special mount, you get (I think) double smite damage when smiting with a charge attack. The wording is something like "when you make a smite attack as part of a charge", which pretty clearly implies that doing so is a normally allowed action.

The phrase is from Charging Smite
Benefit: Beginning at 5th level, if you smite evil on a
charge attack, you deal an extra 2 points of damage per
paladin level..

And yes, Charging Smite implies that you can make a smite as an attack on a charge. Now, the DM says that the PHB1 are core rules and overrides any contradicting rules, therefor nullifying the implication.

The DM goes further and implies that you can interpret Charging Smite as the 'feat' that allows smite on a charge, how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me.
Damned slayer
04-09-08, 01:09 PM The phrase is from Charging Smite

And yes, Charging Smite implies that you can make a smite as an attack on a charge. Now, the DM says that the PHB1 are core rules and overrides any contradicting rules, therefor nullifying the implication.

The DM goes further and implies that you can interpret Charging Smite as the 'feat' that allows smite on a charge, how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me.

Id doesn't override it just says you can since it wasn't defined in PhB1

BTW he makes it the bad way

further publication should be considered to be the correction

just play a caster and throw infinite number of spells with quicken than he'll find that swift action was a good adaptation
JamesMaissen
04-09-08, 01:29 PM just play a caster and throw infinite number of spells with quicken than he'll find that swift action was a good adaptation

Before the swift action you were still limited to one quickened spell each round.

-James
SupaTalka
04-09-08, 01:50 PM The DM refers to the passage on page 154 of PHBI where Charge is listed under Special Attacks, thus not making it a "normal attack" and hence disabling the smite. Is there an official statement concerning this issue? No unofficial consensus on any public forum is going to swing our DM.

First off, I love how obstinate your DM is when he's obviously wrong.

Next, as others have said, there is 100% no mention of what constitutes a "normal attack" in the PHB at all. There are several phrases that come *close* like "normal attack bonus" and "a normal melee weapon" but NOWHERE ELSE but the Smite Evil description are the words "Normal Attack" used.

So, tell your DM to show you where in the PHB it says ANY attack is a so-called "normal attack." He cannot do it, because it does not exist. Therefore Smite Evil does not work at all, right? Really press this.

Finally, and I love this one. your DM is wrong about page 154 PHB, so use it to disprove him.

First, the section title says "Special Attacks" but continue on to the entry for Charge.

"Charging is a special full-round action...it carries tight restrictions on how you can move."

So there you have it. That's your best bet. Charging is a special Full Round Action (not a special attack) and it has restrictions (making it "non-normal") regarding MOVEMENT. Remember, text trumps table, and the text says it's a special Full Round Action - not a special attack, so ignore the table, BAM!

If those 2 examples don't work for him, then he's just house-ruling it and make him say the words out loud "I am house-ruling Smite Evil to not work on charges."
Damned slayer
04-09-08, 01:56 PM Before the swift action you were still limited to one quickened spell each round.

-James

never played core 3.5
was it 3.0? or was it limited too?

I don't remember but their was something broken about cumulation free actions
EvilI
04-09-08, 04:31 PM Thank you for excellent replies. I will *try* to use the listed arguments arguments to best effect, as well as the answer from wotc customer support pasted below. I'm not convinced :rolleyes: it will work, mind you.

From: wizardscusthelp@wizards.com
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:33:13 -0700
Subject: Charging and smiting [Incident: 080408-000140]

Subject
Charging and smiting

Discussion Thread
Response (Support Agent) 04/08/2008 01:33 PM
Bengt,

Thanks for writing in. Yes, a paladin can smite as part of a charge. When you charge, you are moving, and then making a "normal melee attack", in which you can use smite.

Please write us back if you require any further assistance.

...

Evan
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
beepaladin
04-11-08, 02:07 PM Man, you're awesome. I didn't even know you could DO that with Wizards customer support :O! It's like ask the Sage!

But seriously, Evil, you might be SoL. Some DMs just get chips on their shoulders against certain classes (Paladin very frequently). You seem to have a good case though. :) good luck!

Also, thanks for clearing this up, I had always thought Charging smite gave you the ability to smite on a charge and otherwise you couldn't.
JamesMaissen
04-11-08, 02:26 PM never played core 3.5
was it 3.0? or was it limited too?

I don't remember but their was something broken about cumulation free actions

The limitation on quickened spells was always there as far as I recall. I've tried to purge most of 3.0 from my head to avoid mistakes between the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 so I could be wrong there, but I would bet that it was there even with skewed odds.

Now 3.0 had you being able to be hasted and cast another spell (not quickened) and perhaps that's what you are thinking?

In general I'm not the biggest fan of swift actions.. they just start to further spread out the combat round as your consider your options of them as well as everything else. With the MIC items out there you suddenly have a list of all your swift actions, move actions and standard actions for options and it gets a bit too long imho. Think I'm going to like 4.0 even less in that regard.

-James
Eerongal
04-11-08, 02:29 PM The limitation on quickened spells was always there as far as I recall. I've tried to purge most of 3.0 from my head to avoid mistakes between the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 so I could be wrong there, but I would bet that it was there even with skewed odds.

Now 3.0 had you being able to be hasted and cast another spell (not quickened) and perhaps that's what you are thinking?

In general I'm not the biggest fan of swift actions.. they just start to further spread out the combat round as your consider your options of them as well as everything else. With the MIC items out there you suddenly have a list of all your swift actions, move actions and standard actions for options and it gets a bit too long imho. Think I'm going to like 4.0 even less in that regard.

-James

Yes, there was an explicit rule stating that you may only cast 1 quickened spell on your turn in 3.0. Later, when i get home, i can dig out my old 3.0 books and fish up a specific quote if anyone is interested, but i'm very certain he's correct.
Damned slayer
04-11-08, 02:42 PM Yes, there was an explicit rule stating that you may only cast 1 quickened spell on your turn in 3.0. Later, when i get home, i can dig out my old 3.0 books and fish up a specific quote if anyone is interested, but i'm very certain he's correct.

that will do
I don't need a quote it's just that I forgot what cheese you could do with unlimited free actions (before swift appeared)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
EvilI 04-08-08, 02:38 PM	Hi I need to know if it is possible in D&D 3.5 for a paladin to smite as a part of a charge, without having another special feat to allow this? PHBI states that you may smite "on a normal attack". Howerver, charging is listed under special attacks. PHBII, on the other hand, states under "Charging smite" that if a paladin performs a smite as his charging attack, he gets 2 extra points of damage. The added ability to perform a smite as a charging attack is not mentioned. NB: I need e reference for an official source or ruling on this, as our DM is referring to PHBI as core rules, and claims that said book forbids the use of smite in a charge. Sincerely
KevReklaw 04-08-08, 03:29 PM	a charge is considered a normal attack,if you sunder or trip,thats not a normal attack on the other hand
EvilI 04-08-08, 06:03 PM	The DM refers to the passage on page 154 of PHBI where Charge is listed under Special Attacks, thus not making it a "normal attack" and hence disabling the smite. Is there an official statement concerning this issue? No unofficial consensus on any public forum is going to swing our DM.
Damned slayer 04-08-08, 07:26 PM	mounted combat and two weapon fighting are considered special attack I guess they are referring to attack that deals hp damage and that aren't special they probably put normal to prevent it's use with magical attack or attacks that don't deal damage you won't find anything to support this since normal attack ain't defined
Eerongal 04-09-08, 09:02 AM	there is no clarification or official statement on this, because there doesn't need to be one. The rules aren't complicated in this regard. A paladin is allowed to use a smite on an attack action, similar to how you can trip, grapple, or sunder on an attack action. At the end of a charge, you get an attack action. Thus you can trip, grapple, sunder, or even yes, smite. Any attack you could use a trip/grapple/sunder on you can use a smite on. This includes moving and attacking, a full attack action, an attack of opportunity, a charge, etc. So if your DM wont allow it because there's not official clarification, there's nothing you can do, because there is none. If he feels it shouldnt work that way, nothing we can say will change his mind.
mjukglass 04-09-08, 12:11 PM	Well. I guess we wont be using smite on the charge attack then. While the mentioned guy is still DM:ing that is. It's worth noting that the OP:s DM didn't allow a paladins Aura of Courage to work against a dragons Frightful Presence since the Frightful Presence described in MM doesn't have 'fear' in its description. Even when confronted with the rule compendiums collected Fear rules and Frightful Presence listed as a fear attack he refused.
Damned slayer 04-09-08, 12:38 PM	Well. I guess we wont be using smite on the charge attack then. While the mentioned guy is still DM:ing that is. It's worth noting that the OP:s DM didn't allow a paladins Aura of Courage to work against a dragons Frightful Presence since the Frightful Presence described in MM doesn't have 'fear' in its description. Even when confronted with the rule compendiums collected Fear rules and Frightful Presence listed as a fear attack he refused. WOW frigth is a synonim of fear At this point the DM doesn't want to be rectified he wants it to works like he wants you either live with it or find a new game (or DM) since their's nothing you can do to reason him because it's stated that rule compendium overwritte what was written in any previous book
Damned slayer 04-09-08, 12:41 PM	BTW from the SRD Panicked A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a -2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape. Panicked is a more extreme state of fear than shaken or frightened. fear is written in the description of panicked lol
Douglasm 04-09-08, 12:50 PM	Take a look at the alternate class feature for paladins in PHBII. Instead of getting a special mount, you get (I think) double smite damage when smiting with a charge attack. The wording is something like "when you make a smite attack as part of a charge", which pretty clearly implies that doing so is a normally allowed action.
mjukglass 04-09-08, 12:54 PM	BTW from the SRD fear is written in the description of panicked lol Yup. I thought it was simple logic to deduct that anything having a fear effect is a fear attack of sort. But according to the said DM an effect must have the exact phrase 'fear' in its description to be effected by Aura of Courage.
mjukglass 04-09-08, 01:02 PM	Take a look at the alternate class feature for paladins in PHBII. Instead of getting a special mount, you get (I think) double smite damage when smiting with a charge attack. The wording is something like "when you make a smite attack as part of a charge", which pretty clearly implies that doing so is a normally allowed action. The phrase is from Charging Smite Benefit: Beginning at 5th level, if you smite evil on a charge attack, you deal an extra 2 points of damage per paladin level.. And yes, Charging Smite implies that you can make a smite as an attack on a charge. Now, the DM says that the PHB1 are core rules and overrides any contradicting rules, therefor nullifying the implication. The DM goes further and implies that you can interpret Charging Smite as the 'feat' that allows smite on a charge, how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me.
Damned slayer 04-09-08, 01:09 PM	The phrase is from Charging Smite And yes, Charging Smite implies that you can make a smite as an attack on a charge. Now, the DM says that the PHB1 are core rules and overrides any contradicting rules, therefor nullifying the implication. The DM goes further and implies that you can interpret Charging Smite as the 'feat' that allows smite on a charge, how he comes to that conclusion is beyond me. Id doesn't override it just says you can since it wasn't defined in PhB1 BTW he makes it the bad way further publication should be considered to be the correction just play a caster and throw infinite number of spells with quicken than he'll find that swift action was a good adaptation
JamesMaissen 04-09-08, 01:29 PM	just play a caster and throw infinite number of spells with quicken than he'll find that swift action was a good adaptation Before the swift action you were still limited to one quickened spell each round. -James
SupaTalka 04-09-08, 01:50 PM	The DM refers to the passage on page 154 of PHBI where Charge is listed under Special Attacks, thus not making it a "normal attack" and hence disabling the smite. Is there an official statement concerning this issue? No unofficial consensus on any public forum is going to swing our DM. First off, I love how obstinate your DM is when he's obviously wrong. Next, as others have said, there is 100% no mention of what constitutes a "normal attack" in the PHB at all. There are several phrases that come close like "normal attack bonus" and "a normal melee weapon" but NOWHERE ELSE but the Smite Evil description are the words "Normal Attack" used. So, tell your DM to show you where in the PHB it says ANY attack is a so-called "normal attack." He cannot do it, because it does not exist. Therefore Smite Evil does not work at all, right? Really press this. Finally, and I love this one. your DM is wrong about page 154 PHB, so use it to disprove him. First, the section title says "Special Attacks" but continue on to the entry for Charge. "Charging is a special full-round action...it carries tight restrictions on how you can move." So there you have it. That's your best bet. Charging is a special Full Round Action (not a special attack) and it has restrictions (making it "non-normal") regarding MOVEMENT. Remember, text trumps table, and the text says it's a special Full Round Action - not a special attack, so ignore the table, BAM! If those 2 examples don't work for him, then he's just house-ruling it and make him say the words out loud "I am house-ruling Smite Evil to not work on charges."
Damned slayer 04-09-08, 01:56 PM	Before the swift action you were still limited to one quickened spell each round. -James never played core 3.5 was it 3.0? or was it limited too? I don't remember but their was something broken about cumulation free actions
EvilI 04-09-08, 04:31 PM	Thank you for excellent replies. I will try to use the listed arguments arguments to best effect, as well as the answer from wotc customer support pasted below. I'm not convinced :rolleyes: it will work, mind you. From: wizardscusthelp@wizards.com Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 13:33:13 -0700 Subject: Charging and smiting [Incident: 080408-000140] Subject Charging and smiting Discussion Thread Response (Support Agent) 04/08/2008 01:33 PM Bengt, Thanks for writing in. Yes, a paladin can smite as part of a charge. When you charge, you are moving, and then making a "normal melee attack", in which you can use smite. Please write us back if you require any further assistance. ... Evan Customer Service Representative Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Friday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
beepaladin 04-11-08, 02:07 PM	Man, you're awesome. I didn't even know you could DO that with Wizards customer support :O! It's like ask the Sage! But seriously, Evil, you might be SoL. Some DMs just get chips on their shoulders against certain classes (Paladin very frequently). You seem to have a good case though. :) good luck! Also, thanks for clearing this up, I had always thought Charging smite gave you the ability to smite on a charge and otherwise you couldn't.
JamesMaissen 04-11-08, 02:26 PM	never played core 3.5 was it 3.0? or was it limited too? I don't remember but their was something broken about cumulation free actions The limitation on quickened spells was always there as far as I recall. I've tried to purge most of 3.0 from my head to avoid mistakes between the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 so I could be wrong there, but I would bet that it was there even with skewed odds. Now 3.0 had you being able to be hasted and cast another spell (not quickened) and perhaps that's what you are thinking? In general I'm not the biggest fan of swift actions.. they just start to further spread out the combat round as your consider your options of them as well as everything else. With the MIC items out there you suddenly have a list of all your swift actions, move actions and standard actions for options and it gets a bit too long imho. Think I'm going to like 4.0 even less in that regard. -James
Eerongal 04-11-08, 02:29 PM	The limitation on quickened spells was always there as far as I recall. I've tried to purge most of 3.0 from my head to avoid mistakes between the changes from 3.0 to 3.5 so I could be wrong there, but I would bet that it was there even with skewed odds. Now 3.0 had you being able to be hasted and cast another spell (not quickened) and perhaps that's what you are thinking? In general I'm not the biggest fan of swift actions.. they just start to further spread out the combat round as your consider your options of them as well as everything else. With the MIC items out there you suddenly have a list of all your swift actions, move actions and standard actions for options and it gets a bit too long imho. Think I'm going to like 4.0 even less in that regard. -James Yes, there was an explicit rule stating that you may only cast 1 quickened spell on your turn in 3.0. Later, when i get home, i can dig out my old 3.0 books and fish up a specific quote if anyone is interested, but i'm very certain he's correct.
Damned slayer 04-11-08, 02:42 PM	Yes, there was an explicit rule stating that you may only cast 1 quickened spell on your turn in 3.0. Later, when i get home, i can dig out my old 3.0 books and fish up a specific quote if anyone is interested, but i'm very certain he's correct. that will do I don't need a quote it's just that I forgot what cheese you could do with unlimited free actions (before swift appeared)