Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 453278" data-attributes="member: 3146">kreynolds, you're building your entire case on the rather shaky distinction between &quot;makes an attack&quot; and &quot;your character's next attack.&quot; I don't think that distinction is justified. (True Strike is different because it specifies your next single attack roll). Consider the following: An invisible 6th level paladin is next to an enemy and makes a full attack action smiting evil.We know two things about this situation:1. Invisibility (and its attendant bonusses) end immediately after the character &quot;makes an attack.&quot;2. The paladin's smite evil applies &quot;to her next attack.&quot; According to your interpretation, after the paladin makes the first attack roll, she has made &quot;her next attack&quot; but hasn't &quot;made an attack.&quot; Thus her invisibility is still up until she finishes making &quot;an attack&quot; (meaning the second iterative attack) but her smite evil is finished since she is finished making &quot;her next attack.&quot;This, however, is not a tenable position.If she hadn't finished making &quot;an attack&quot; then she obviously can't have made &quot;her next attack&quot; (since she hasn't finished making any attack), the Smite Evil bonus would still be effective. If she has finished making &quot;her next attack&quot; then she has finished &quot;making an attack&quot; and her invisibility should be over too.The same situation will come up with the Destruction domain or Templar smite or Divine Sacrifice. Either &quot;the next attack&quot; has been finished and therefore the character has finished making &quot;an attack&quot; or the character hasn't finished making their next attack.You would be on much stronger grounding if the Invisibility spell specified that it ended when you made an &quot;attack action&quot; but that would open up an entirely new can of worms (after all, Magic Missile doesn't require an attack action). Your position would also be stronger if the paladin/Destruction Domain ability/etc. description were worded &quot;your next attack roll&quot; rather than your next attack. However, since both invisibility and smite evil use the &quot;attack&quot; terminology rather than attack roll or attack action, it's pretty clear to me that they refer to the same thing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Elder-Basilisk, post: 453278, member: 3146"] kreynolds, you're building your entire case on the rather shaky distinction between "makes an attack" and "your character's next attack." I don't think that distinction is justified. (True Strike is different because it specifies your next single attack roll). Consider the following: An invisible 6th level paladin is next to an enemy and makes a full attack action smiting evil. We know two things about this situation: 1. Invisibility (and its attendant bonusses) end immediately after the character "makes an attack." 2. The paladin's smite evil applies "to her next attack." According to your interpretation, after the paladin makes the first attack roll, she has made "her next attack" but hasn't "made an attack." Thus her invisibility is still up until she finishes making "an attack" (meaning the second iterative attack) but her smite evil is finished since she is finished making "her next attack." This, however, is not a tenable position. If she hadn't finished making "an attack" then she obviously can't have made "her next attack" (since she hasn't finished making any attack), the Smite Evil bonus would still be effective. If she has finished making "her next attack" then she has finished "making an attack" and her invisibility should be over too. The same situation will come up with the Destruction domain or Templar smite or Divine Sacrifice. Either "the next attack" has been finished and therefore the character has finished making "an attack" or the character hasn't finished making their next attack. You would be on much stronger grounding if the Invisibility spell specified that it ended when you made an "attack action" but that would open up an entirely new can of worms (after all, Magic Missile doesn't require an attack action). Your position would also be stronger if the paladin/Destruction Domain ability/etc. description were worded "your next attack roll" rather than your next attack. However, since both invisibility and smite evil use the "attack" terminology rather than attack roll or attack action, it's pretty clear to me that they refer to the same thing. [/QUOTE]

Verification