Smite Evil: What's a "normal" melee attack?

[FireLance]

The description of the smite evil ability states that "a paladin may attempt to smite evil with one normal melee attack". A "normal" melee attack is generally considered to be a strike with a weapon. However, would you also allow a paladin to smite evil with the following? Why or why not?

(1) Lay on hands ability, when used against an undead creature (requires a melee touch attack).

(2) A cure spell used against an undead creature (also requires a melee touch attack).

(3) A weapon-like spell (say, the paladin has cast Flame Blade from a wand with a successful Use Magic Device check).

(4) An incorporeal touch attack (say, the paladin has cast Shapechange from a staff with a successful Use Magic Device check and has assumed an incorporeal form).

 

[aurance]

Normal melee attack is just that, the action described on p. 139 of the PHB as "melee attacks." Under a strict (and I believe intended) interpretation, everything else is ineligible for the smite ability.

SRD quote: "Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can’t strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet)."

In the above examples, I think a good case can be made for #3, but not for the others.

 

[Darklone]

I don't see reasons why the others shouldn't be allowed as well. You are considered armed in that regard... so why not?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

...However, would you also allow a paladin to smite evil with the following? Why or why not?

(1) Lay on hands ability, when used against an undead creature (requires a melee touch attack).

I might if the player really, really wanted it to happen, but my inclination is no. A smite is a massive blow with a weapon, at least how I envision it, not a Laying of Hands.

(2) A cure spell used against an undead creature (also requires a melee touch attack).

Same as (1).

(3) A weapon-like spell (say, the paladin has cast Flame Blade from a wand with a successful Use Magic Device check).

I'd allow it. It doesn't matter what the source of the weapon is, so long as the paladin has a melee weapon and is using it to make an attack.

(4) An incorporeal touch attack (say, the paladin has cast Shapechange from a staff with a successful Use Magic Device check and has assumed an incorporeal form).

If I understand it correctly (never had to DM Shapechange,) a PC loses all (Su) abilities while shapechanged, so the paladin loses the ability to smite anyway, under these circumstances. So, no.

 

[argo]

(1) Lay on hands ability, when used against an undead creature (requires a melee touch attack).

Only if he was in fact making an unarmed attack against the opponent. That is an attack v normal AC not a touch attack. Same thing as with a cleric trying to get unarmed damage when delivering Inflict Wounds.

(2) A cure spell used against an undead creature (also requires a melee touch attack).

Same as #1

(3) A weapon-like spell (say, the paladin has cast Flame Blade from a wand with a successful Use Magic Device check).

A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. I would allow this.

[/quote]
(4) An incorporeal touch attack (say, the paladin has cast Shapechange from a staff with a successful Use Magic Device check and has assumed an incorporeal form).[/QUOTE]
Issues about kepint your su abilities when shapechanged aside. I say this comes down to the same issue as #1 and #2: if your attack deals melee damage in and of itself then you should be able to make it a smite. That is I would say it has to deal HP damage, not ability damage like an energy drain. I can't really think of a way to do that while incorporeal though.