D&D 3.x Paladin Smite Question 3.5

[Cryohaggar]

I disagree. The very first sentence of the ability description is: "Once per day, a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack."

That seems quite explicit to me.

Exactly, besides, if it'd be a sandard action and not an attack then you wouldn't be able to make a charging smite, and then the PHBII variant would be absolutely pointless.

Now, as a matter of common sense, a Paladin is a melee character, and limiting her attacks is a terribe idea, paladin smites as an attack, then --if BAB and such allows to-- continues pressing the bad guys.

As for getting the attack bonus against non-evil characters, duh, it's called Smite EVIL for some reason, don't you think?

For those guys who want to smite non-evil folks with a Paladin and getting all the pros and none of the cons, play a Gray Guard (with Smite Chaos and later plain Smite), play a Pious Templar (again, plain Smite) or trick your DM to let you get the bonus to hit...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

As for getting the attack bonus against non-evil characters, duh, it's called Smite EVIL for some reason, don't you think?

For those guys who want to smite non-evil folks with a Paladin and getting all the pros and none of the cons, play a Gray Guard (with Smite Chaos and later plain Smite), play a Pious Templar (again, plain Smite) or trick your DM to let you get the bonus to hit...

What the hell are you talking about? All of the pros and none of the cons?! Even with that interpretation, you're not getting the main benefit (bonus damage) -- since it's a full BAB class and you'll typically use it on the first attack so as to be sure you don't waste it the attack bonus always seemed like the distant second benefit to me -- and you're still getting all of the con. Namely, one less smite per day. There is no other con related to smite evil usage.

My reading was that the charisma to attack should happen regardless. The bonus damage will not apply if the paladin ends up attacking a non-evil creature (of course all his other damage still applies), but the attack roll is resolved before you can determine if the Paladin has smote the right thing or not. I always saw the charisma to attack roll as the Paladin's zeal, fervor, or other synonym for those things leading him to attack with greater ferocity or skill, not like Evil acts as a sort of magnet and draws his weapon in. Apparently most others never saw it that way.

 

[Cryohaggar]

My reading was that the charisma to attack should happen regardless. The bonus damage will not apply if the paladin ends up attacking a non-evil creature (of course all his other damage still applies), but the attack roll is resolved before you can determine if the Paladin has smote the right thing or not. I always saw the charisma to attack roll as the Paladin's zeal, fervor, or other synonym for those things leading him to attack with greater ferocity or skill, not like Evil acts as a sort of magnet and draws his weapon in.

What about Strenght of Conviction feat? (Exemplars of Evil, p. 26)

STRENGTH OF CONVICTION
You can channel the fury of your deity against a foe.
Prerequisites: Smite good or smite evil.
Benefi t: Each day, you can sacrifice one use of smite evil or
smite good to smite a single target regardless of his alignment.
You gain no additional bonus on the attack roll, but if you
hit the target, you deal a number of extra points of damage
equal to your class level.

That way you surely can smite anyone who dares to cross your path, at the cost of accuracy in the attack. If the case is as you say, that your charisma bonus would apply even against non-evil dudes, then any Paladin could be any-smiter at the cost of a single feat.

Of course, Strenght of Conviction states clearly that you must give up your charisma bonus, but also writes that the smite itself is the extra damage, AND the attack bonus as a single ability, and you must give up a component of it in order to use that feat. According to that, if you Smite Evil a non-evil target you get no bonus to attack nor to damage and the attempt is wasted.

And as a last word on why bonus to hit wouldn't be applied (as far as I concern), take a look at this:

smitev. smote, smit·ten or smote, smit·ing, smites
v.tr.1. a. To inflict a heavy blow on, with or as if with the hand, a tool, or a weapon.
b. To drive or strike (a weapon, for example) forcefully onto or into something else.

2. To attack, damage, or destroy by or as if by blows.
v.intr. To deal a blow with or as if with the hand or a hand-held weapon.

...I don't know, but seems like smiting is more about damaging than just hitting.

Of course, you're free to apply the rules as they fit best in your game, this is just my opinion.

 

[Jhaelen]

Now, as a matter of common sense,

Common sense is a common myth

 

[FEADIN]

Always played as part of an attack (as written) you can smite each time you attack if you have smites left for the day.