If i attack a swarm (let's say a bat swarm) can i damage them with a flaming weapon?
Let's say i have a +1 flaming longsword can i do the 1d6 fire damage to the bat swarm?
| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If i attack a swarm (let's say a bat swarm) can i damage them with a flaming weapon?
Let's say i have a +1 flaming longsword can i do the 1d6 fire damage to the bat swarm?
Short answer: In 3.5 yes. In PF no. . .
Long answer: The 3.5 rules said:
Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.
A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each hit, even if the weapon’s normal damage can’t affect the swarm.
A lit lantern can be used as a thrown weapon, dealing 1d4 points of fire damage to all creatures in squares adjacent to where it breaks.
That text simply doesn't exist in PF. I'm not sure if the authors accidentally omitted that text or if they really didn't intend those abilities to be used against swarms.
I would probably allow them. . . gives a party with zero AoE a chance I guess. . .
I would probably allow them. . . gives a party with zero AoE a chance I guess. . .
Emphasis mine.
That's exactly what happened to my group last night in the Kingmaker campaing i play in, 3 level 6th characters we almost couldn't defeat 2 bat swarms, we ended up throwing all of our alhemist's fire and acid flasks to them (good thing that we has a total of 6).
I'm going to start houseruling that anything sheathed in energy is a very small area effect.
We smoked those bats out. But yeah, swarms can be a horrible disadvantage to a party with no AoE elemental damage. My druid had to start preparing summon swarm as an anti-swarm device!
Try thinking outside the box next time. Retreat from swarms, they're slow, and get back until you can use conventional mechanics with flint and tinder to kill them. Thunderstones should also tend to disperse swarms in one go as well.
Immunity to weapon damage wouldn't apply to the weapon's associated energy damage. So a flaming weapon would do its damage as normal on a hit.
Immunity to weapon damage wouldn't apply to the weapon's associated energy damage. So a flaming weapon would do its damage as normal on a hit.
Yeah but:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind.
Is the fire damage granted from being hit by a flaming sword considered an effect that targets a specific number of creatures (1)?
*shrug*
Is the fire damage granted from being hit by a flaming sword considered an effect that targets a specific number of creatures (1)?
No. A swarm can be attacked by weapons as normal, although it may take half or no damage from the weapon itself. Additional damage associated with the attack should also work as normal, no targeting needed.
Is the fire damage granted from being hit by a flaming sword considered an effect that targets a specific number of creatures (1)?No. A swarm can be attacked by weapons as normal, although it may take half or no damage from the weapon itself. Additional damage associated with the attack should also work as normal, no targeting needed.
Additional damage associated with the attack should work. . . as long as it not an effect "that targets a specific number of creatures". The flaming weapon's fire damage (an effect) targets a single creature (the creature struck). Thus it should deal no damage against a swarm because it is immune to such an attack.
That's why the missing 3.5 text was kind of important ): I agree that it should work the way you're saying it should -- it just doesn't say that anymore.
|
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#swarm-subtyp e
Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
The flaming is not "weapon" damage, and would thus affect the swarm normally, but it is not an area attack, so the damage would not be multiplied.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#swarm-subtyp eSwarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
The flaming is not "weapon" damage, and would thus affect the swarm normally, but it is not an area attack, so the damage would not be multiplied.
It's not weapon damage. It's an effect. It targets one creature (per swing). Swarms are immune to any effect that applies to one target.
Now, if there was a damage effect on striking that applies to an area, that would indeed cause damage to the swarm. But the flaming mod on a weapon hits one target -- the target hit by the weapon. And with no further text, the swarm is immune to that effect.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#swarm-subtyp eSwarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
The flaming is not "weapon" damage, and would thus affect the swarm normally, but it is not an area attack, so the damage would not be multiplied.
It's not weapon damage. It's an effect. It targets one creature (per swing). Swarms are immune to any effect that applies to one target.
Now, if there was a damage effect on striking that applies to an area, that would indeed cause damage to the swarm. But the flaming mod on a weapon hits one target -- the target hit by the weapon. And with no further text, the swarm is immune to that effect.
Since we're apparently trying to go by strict RAW, I disagree that the flaming property is a targeted effect. Please cite the rule that says so.
Since we're apparently trying to go by strict RAW, I disagree that the flaming property is a targeted effect. Please cite the rule that says so.
First, let's establish that the flaming property is an effect.
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
So clearly by definition it is an effect.
Now to determine if a flaming property is targeted.
A flaming weapon is a use-activate magic item. You use the flaming property by "swinging the sword" and hitting something with it. This is typically done by an attack.
If you're attacking something, you're targeting something:
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
So, given the above, an attack with a flaming weapon is a targeted effect.
Again, I'm not arguing that you should do what I'm saying (: I'm saying that's how it's written right now. Without that 3.5 text I quoted above, you can't use a torch or a flaming sword to damage a swarm. *I think you should*, and I would allow it in my games (:
Since we're apparently trying to go by strict RAW, I disagree that the flaming property is a targeted effect. Please cite the rule that says so.First, let's establish that the flaming property is an effect.
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.So clearly by definition it is an effect.
Yes. "Flaming" is an ongoing effect that enhances the weapon it's cast on. "Flaming" is not an effect that targets a creature; the "flaming" effect targets the weapon, providing a benefit when the weapon attacks a target.
Therefore, by RAW, the "flaming" effect deals energy damage to a swarm when a character successfully attacks the swarm with the flaming weapon.
"Flaming" is not an effect that targets a creature; the "flaming" effect targets the weapon, providing a benefit when the weapon attacks a target.
So, when a flaming weapon strikes a creature, the flaming part of the weapon has no effect on the creature? Kind of makes the weapon mod a bit worthless, no? (:
If you're saying the damage is simply part of the weapon's damage and not part of the flaming ability, then the swarm can also be immune to weapon damage. So no dice there either ):
(We're talking about an ambiguous game term here. . . "effect" is not well-defined. Pretty much anything that can apply to a creature -- damage, status ailments, spells, magic items, etc -- is an effect. By saying "spells and effects" when talking about what can apply to a swarm, they're being about as broad as possible.)
|
|
It's not weapon damage. It's an effect. It targets one creature (per swing). Swarms are immune to any effect that applies to one target.Now, if there was a damage effect on striking that applies to an area, that would indeed cause damage to the swarm. But the flaming mod on a weapon hits one target -- the target hit by the weapon. And with no further text, the swarm is immune to that effect.
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
The damage is "fire" damage. It is not a "targeted" effect. It is an "effect," but not a "targeted" one. As such, a flaming bludgeoning weapon does full weapon damage against a swarm of tiny creatures, plus 1d6 fire damage, a slashing weapon does 1/2 weapon damage plus 1d6 fire damage against a swarm of tiny creatures and any weapon does no weapon damage plus 1d6 fire damage against a swarm of fine or diminutive creatures.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.
The key here is "specific number of creatures." When a spell's description lists under the target heading something like: 1 creature/level, 1 creature, etc. that is referring a "specific number" of creatures.
A flaming weapon does not target "1 creature" hit with the weapon; it targets "all" creatures hit with the weapon. Much as a spell cares not how many creatures are within the burst, it targets them all, a weapon cares not how many times you swing it or connect - it works every time in delivering it's damage. Something immune to "fire" damage may not be hurt by it, but just as a flaming weapon would hurt someone with stoneskin on, so does it hurt a swarm that is immune to weapon damage.
We're talking about an ambiguous game term here. . . "effect" is not well-defined.
No, but "targets" is better defined. And the "flaming" effect doesn't target the creature it affects.
A flaming weapon does not target "1 creature" hit with the weapon; it targets "all" creatures hit with the weapon.
How many creatures can you hit with a single melee attack roll using a melee weapon? All of 1? If there's no difference between all and 1, they mean the same thing.
No, but "targets" is better defined. And the "flaming" effect doesn't target the creature it affects.
Then the swarm is immune to it (whatever "it" is)?
Either it has an effect on the swarm (which the swarm is immune to) or it has an effect on the weapon (which the swarm is immune to).
Either it has an effect on the swarm (which the swarm is immune to) or it has an effect on the weapon (which the swarm is immune to).
Swarms aren't immune to all effects; they're immune to spells or effects which target a specific number of creatures, which the flaming weapon property is not.
The swarm is not immune to weapon attacks; it may be immune to weapon damage, which energy damage from the flaming weapon property is not.Since neither of the swarm's immunities apply to this damage, this damage applies as normal.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms are kinda messed up. They have a defensive ability (immunity to weapons) that makes them really scary and hard to handle at low level, but most swarms are low CR creatures.
The more ways lower level characters (or ANY characters, for that matter) have to fight swarms, the better. And letting the energy part of a flaming or shock or whatever weapon damage swarms is a good way to do that.
And the mental image of using a flaming sword, or heck, even a torch, to swing through a swarm to fight it and do damage to it is cool and believable.
.
..
...
....
.....
Swing that flaming sword..
Slap that torch..
Zap that salt water with a mighty lightning bolt and hastily generate hydrogen and chlorine gas to kill the buggers along with the party!
BEES?
:-)
I like my women like I like my coffee...... covered in bees!
.
..
...
....
.....
:D
I like my women like I like my coffee...
...hot and strong.. ..with a spoon in them.
|
|
.
..
...
....
.....:D
I like my women like I like my coffee......hot and strong.. ..with a spoon in them.
Don't do drugs. <point>
Swarms are kinda messed up. They have a defensive ability (immunity to weapons) that makes them really scary and hard to handle at low level, but most swarms are low CR creatures.
The more ways lower level characters (or ANY characters, for that matter) have to fight swarms, the better. And letting the energy part of a flaming or shock or whatever weapon damage swarms is a good way to do that.
And the mental image of using a flaming sword, or heck, even a torch, to swing through a swarm to fight it and do damage to it is cool and believable.
Oh I totally agree -- and I play that way in my games (: It's just the old 3.5 wording for letting energy weapons work against swarms is missing. If someone doesn't know any better (the 3.5 wording that is), then they're going to assume that flame blade/flaming weapons/etc. effects -- which target a single creature -- are worthless against swarms.
I'm not trying to argue against what your saying (: I'm just saying the book doesn't really tell people that they can do that.
Swarms aren't immune to all effects; they're immune to spells or effects which target a specific number of creatures, which the flaming weapon property is not.
But the flaming weapon does damage. Damage is an effect. . . which applies to only one thing -- the thing hit by the sword. The swarm is one thing of many things. When you target it for an attack, it's one thing. When the flaming weapon property does damage, it applies the damage to one thing. . . even though swarms are many things.
I 100% agree with James. . . swarms are messed up. Use energy weapons!
.
..
...
....
.....
I'm just saying the book doesn't really tell people that they can do that.
Aye aye.
The rules can't account for all aspects of gaming - if we're not having fun due to an aspect of the game we're free to change things and see what happens.
Hopefully, we'll find the change/s provide more/improved fun!
'course, you go to another table/group and things may be different - but hey, if you want to work within a universal framework there is PFS. See Spoiler.
..and if some jerk kicks off for us attempting to improve our fun, then hey, ignore them.
Unless they're the current DM. O_O
Then you gotta decided 'Hmm, do I want to game with this dude/dudette/dudemisc'....
Thing is, we, the people, gotta realise the rules are more like..
... guidelines.
Guidelines for fun!
RUN AWAY O_O
::
Anyhoo, I figure you know this meabolex - soz mon, stating this in an attempt to ingrain it into a few skulls, not to be a jerk. :)
I'm just saying the book doesn't really tell people that they can do that.Aye aye.
The rules can't account for all aspects of gaming - if we're not having fun due to an aspect of the game we're free to change things and see what happens.
Hopefully, we'll find the change/s provide more/improved fun!
'course, you go to another table/group and things may be different - but hey, if you want to work within a universal framework there is PFS. See Spoiler.
..and if some jerk kicks off for us attempting to improve our fun, then hey, ignore them.
Unless they're the current DM. O_O
Then you gotta decided 'Hmm, do I want to game with this dude/dudette/dudemisc'....
Thing is, we, the people, gotta realise the rules are more like..
... guidelines.
Guidelines for fun!
Well, I am on a rules forum -- trying to answer questions about the rules. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's day or anything (:
It's just when a rule says, "YOU CAN DO XYZ! YAY!" suddenly vanishes in a different version of the book, you can draw several different conclusions:
* Hmm, maybe they don't want you to do that anymore. . .
* Screw that. . . I think it should work *this* way.
* I think it should work that way, therefore it does. (The James Answer From The Heavens!)
* This weapon ability targets the *weapon* which doesn't target anything! Because the weapon doesn't target anything, the player does! And weapons don't have effects on bad guys, people do! Etc. Etc. Etc.
* (If you didn't know it existed in the old version:) Yeah, you can't do that.
That last one is the problem. If no one has a history of 3.5, they probably don't know about the previous version's "exceptions". And unless you do logical contortions to get it to work within the frame of the rules, it's pretty hard to replace a rule that simply says, "YOU CAN DO XYZ! YAY!"
fair comment
Aye, aye, I hear ya! :)
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
::
./buys beers
::
Such.
A good.
Word.
DOOM!
|
A flaming weapon does not target "1 creature" hit with the weapon; it targets "all" creatures hit with the weapon.How many creatures can you hit with a single melee attack roll using a melee weapon? All of 1? If there's no difference between all and 1, they mean the same thing.
By ROI I will say: "Not against a swarm".
A swarm of tiny creatures (let's say a rats swarm) take 1/2 damage from slashing weapons.
By the description that swarm is a "roiling mass of hundreds" of rats.
A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 non flying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures.
Yet a barbarian with a 2 handed sword and a +6 strength bonus will wipe them out with 2 attacks (the swarm has 16 hp).
Honestly I doubt that 300 rats will disperse because 2 rats have been smashed by an overkill.
So our barbarian is swinging his sword in arc trying to maim, stun, ecc. as much rats as possible in one swipe. That is why he get half damage. He probably is hitting teens of rats with each swipe.
So, similarly, against swarm of diminutive creatures like the bats, you get 0 damage because you will be killing maybe 10 creatures our of 5.000 (A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying
creatures or 5,000 flying creatures). But the flaming part of your sword has a larger area of effect and don't need to get a direct hit to damage/scare a larger number of creatures.
Naturally it is an interpretation based on what I think is the ROI, but it seem acceptable.
|
|
Swarms aren't immune to all effects; they're immune to spells or effects which target a specific number of creatures, which the flaming weapon property is not.But the flaming weapon does damage. Damage is an effect. . . which applies to only one thing -- the thing hit by the sword. The swarm is one thing of many things. When you target it for an attack, it's one thing. When the flaming weapon property does damage, it applies the damage to one thing. . . even though swarms are many things.
I 100% agree with James. . . swarms are messed up. Use energy weapons!
1) James is one of the PF designers.
2) By your definition here, a swarm would not take damage from Alchemist's Fire, other than the 1 point of splash damage.
|
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thought Experiment Time (since I cannot endorse anyone actually attacking a real-life swarm).
Swing a sword or a hammer or a spear around in a cloud of bees. You won't do much harm
But light that sword or hammer or spear on fire and do the same thing—you'll kill quite a few bees by burning them out of the air.
And although it's harder to do in real life, a cold weapon or an electricity weapon basically does the same thing.
Perhaps a better way of describing this would have been to say "Swarms don't take bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage from weapons."
My party of 5 level 2s were forced to run away from 2 wasp swarms after my witch cast burning hands twice and rolled poorly.
In another group (Rise of the Runelords), we were something like 6th level and fighting a swarm of rats, and were at a complete loss at what to do, until the Cleric just started channeling on them.
|
I would say allow the energy damage from the sword. maybe not perfect RAW but it works. In my Kingmaker group they came across 2 spider swarms that were immune to weapon dmg, and had no splash weapons to use. After some thought the druidess used the create water cantrip on them to deluge them in water for a moment. Not an attack spell, but at 3rd level its 6 gallons (or roughly 50 pounds) of water suddenly dropped on them. I ruled that it didnt damaged them but that it stunned or dispersed them for 1d4 rounds. which at least allowed the group to get away.
On the comment about RAW and splash weapons only dealing the 1 pnt splash dmg...that actually seems reasonable if you look at it. 1 bottle, 1pnt dmg with NO save and only an AC five touch attack to hit. not great but figure 10 bottles means 10 pnt with no save and easy to hit. not every group carries 10 bottles but maybe they should...
just my 2 cp.
Thought Experiment Time (since I cannot endorse anyone actually attacking a real-life swarm).
Swing a sword or a hammer or a spear around in a cloud of bees. You won't do much harm
But light that sword or hammer or spear on fire and do the same thing—you'll kill quite a few bees by burning them out of the air.
And although it's harder to do in real life, a cold weapon or an electricity weapon basically does the same thing.
Perhaps a better way of describing this would have been to say "Swarms don't take bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage from weapons."
You're dealing with rules lawyers. Playing the devil's advocate here- by phrasing it that way you could have some (total jerk mind you) point out that while the barbarian's great club is useless against the swarm... technically unarmed strikes can take out the horde of diminutive critters... it's not a weapon no? But alas the monk is rendered useless- his hands count as weapons.
A little silly unless we really want mundane heavy parties to typically solve their swarm problems by diving in and moshing. (and hoping they don't get nauseated)
I think the big issue is there really needs to be a term for physical/material damage to refer to the inverse of energy damage. Can't use 'weapon' damage because then people get confused as to whether you're talking about the weapon in its entirety (such as any mojo on it) plus that amusing caveat of 'unarmed damage.'
So just as a working term I'm going to use the word 'material.' Then you could just say that swarms are immune/resistant to non-area effect material (or whatever term) damage. Punching, slings, arrows etc do nothing- but drop a large bolder onto the swarm, or powerful wind (both of which would be 'material' damage)- lots of squish.
If I recall correctly, a Monk's unarmed strike is considered both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for beneficial effects.
But it doesn't make sense to interpret it that way in this case. A Monk punching a swarm to death when a paladin does nothing with a sword?
The issue here is whether the flaming quality of a weapon is a "targeted" effect.
It is not.
The flames on the blade of a sword burn anyone they come in contact with. If you hold your flaming sword in front of you, and someone grabs the flaming blade, they get burned. If six people grab the blade at the same time, they all get burned. The flames are an area of effect spell in which the area happens to be the blade of the sword.
Contrast this with a spell that is targeted, such as charm person. If a person is targeted by the spell, it has a chance to affect them. If you cast the spell at someone, and six other people are all standing really, really, really close to the target, it doesn't matter. None of them are caught in the effect because it is not affecting an area, just a single target.
See the difference?
It deals the damage on a successful hit.
Since we're apparently trying to go by strict RAW, I disagree that the flaming property is a targeted effect. Please cite the rule that says so.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#swarm-subtyp eSwarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
The flaming is not "weapon" damage, and would thus affect the swarm normally, but it is not an area attack, so the damage would not be multiplied.
It's not weapon damage. It's an effect. It targets one creature (per swing). Swarms are immune to any effect that applies to one target.
Now, if there was a damage effect on striking that applies to an area, that would indeed cause damage to the swarm. But the flaming mod on a weapon hits one target -- the target hit by the weapon. And with no further text, the swarm is immune to that effect.
Cite the rule that says it isn't. Nowhere is a flaming weapon considered anything more than creating an effect that does damage to a single target when hit by a weapon. I would never allow your argument to stand.
A flaming weapon does damage to a single target. And a swarm does not take damage from single target effects whether they be cast by a weapon or an individual. Even if you are saying the effect targets the weapon as you are trying to imply, then it is weapon damage. And a swarm is immune to weapon damage be it a flaming effect or physical.
The issue here is whether the flaming quality of a weapon is a "targeted" effect.
It is not.
The flames on the blade of a sword burn anyone they come in contact with. If you hold your flaming sword in front of you, and someone grabs the flaming blade, they get burned. If six people grab the blade at the same time, they all get burned. The flames are an area of effect spell in which the area happens to be the blade of the sword.
Contrast this with a spell that is targeted, such as charm person. If a person is targeted by the spell, it has a chance to affect them. If you cast the spell at someone, and six other people are all standing really, really, really close to the target, it doesn't matter. None of them are caught in the effect because it is not affecting an area, just a single target.
See the difference?
No. I don't at all. Nowhere does it say contact with the blade causes damage. It says on a successful hit. You are attributing abilities to a flaming weapon it does not have.
In fact, the wielder of a flaming weapon can grab his own blade according to the text and experience no pain.
You all thinking a flaming weapon can damage a swarm are making assumptions about the rules and not reading the rule itself.
I would not allow a flaming weapon to damage a swarm. Now I would allow a flaming weapon to light some oil to create a burning area to damage a swarm. But not the individual blade which would have no more affect than swinging your sword at a tiny swarm would.
Thought Experiment Time (since I cannot endorse anyone actually attacking a real-life swarm).
Swing a sword or a hammer or a spear around in a cloud of bees. You won't do much harm
But light that sword or hammer or spear on fire and do the same thing—you'll kill quite a few bees by burning them out of the air.
And although it's harder to do in real life, a cold weapon or an electricity weapon basically does the same thing.
Perhaps a better way of describing this would have been to say "Swarms don't take bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage from weapons."
Don't you recall all those old bee movies from the 70s and 80s? Swinging a flaming item in the middle of a swarm is about useless. I figured you all studied that before you made the rule. You could light a bat on fire in the middle of a swarm and swing it about, it would be about as useful as swinging the bat by itself.
Having an effect on the weapon would in real life be useless without something to cause an area effect such as smoke or gasoline. In the bee movies, or B-movies if you prefer, if you didn't have a bee suit or a flame thrower, you were screwed.
So I think it is a very good simulation that a flaming sword or the like does nothing to a swarm. It wouldn't do anything to a swarm but get you killed if you lit a stick on fire or sword and tried to swing it at them. Now bring a flame thrower and you might have a chance.
The only way such a weapon would have any effect is if the swarm hadn't yet begun to swarm attack, was all over a tree, and sat still while you slowly burned the various parts that make it up to death. Swinging a flaming weapon of any kind in the middle of a swarming swarm is a sure way to die. You won't do any better than swinging a non-flaming stick. The bees and creatures making up a swarm will disperse over you attacking you from all sides and dodge and avoid that flaming stick as easily as any other weapon.
Since we're apparently trying to go by strict RAW, I disagree that the flaming property is a targeted effect. Please cite the rule that says so.First, let's establish that the flaming property is an effect.
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.So clearly by definition it is an effect.Yes. "Flaming" is an ongoing effect that enhances the weapon it's cast on. "Flaming" is not an effect that targets a creature; the "flaming" effect targets the weapon, providing a benefit when the weapon attacks a target.
Therefore, by RAW, the "flaming" effect deals energy damage to a swarm when a character successfully attacks the swarm with the flaming weapon.
Flaming would be looked as an effect that targets the weapon that creates an effect that targets a creature...the creature hit by the weapon. Like a disrupting weapon targets the weapon, but the effect it creates targets the creature struck.
That is how flaming or any of the weapon properties work. They are effects that enhance a weapon causing to have a greater effect on the creature struck. Flaming is no different from bane, disrupting, vorpal, keen, or the like.
.
..
...
....
.....
Thought Experiment Time (since I cannot endorse anyone actually attacking a swarm).
Oh come on, Mosquitoes?
We can take the hit.
Really..
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having an effect on the weapon would in real life be useless without something to cause an area effect such as smoke or gasoline. In the bee movies, or B-movies if you prefer, if you didn't have a bee suit or a flame thrower, you were screwed.
So I think it is a very good simulation that a flaming sword or the like does nothing to a swarm. It wouldn't do anything to a swarm but get you killed if you lit a stick on fire or sword and tried to swing it at them. Now bring a flame thrower and you might have a chance.
The only way such a weapon would have any effect is if the swarm hadn't yet begun to swarm attack, was all over a tree, and sat still while you slowly burned the various parts that make it up to death. Swinging a flaming weapon of any kind in the middle of a swarming swarm is a sure way to die. You won't do any better than swinging a non-flaming stick. The bees and creatures making up a swarm will disperse over you attacking you from all sides and dodge and avoid that flaming stick as easily as any other weapon.
We're talking about a magic fire sword... and how's this - an actual magic fire sword: the spell flame blade. This spell, without question, can damage a swarm RAW. It is nothing but fire damage. It is shaped like a sword. For purposes of your B Movie example, it would not work either, yet clearly does given the rules.
Swarms are not immune to anything that isn't an area, they are immune to affects that target one creature. Yes... your point on attacks... it's wrong.
Target in the RAW means something different.
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
(Bold mine)
I can swing my flaming weapon at a creature with total concealment I cannot see. It is not a targeted effect, even though it arguably has a target, anymore than a fireball is. Magic Missile, on the other hand, will not work unless I see the thing at which I shoot. I cannot use it to attack the darkness. Your flaming blade swings and remains on fire whether or not you declare a target or have any hope of hitting anything . This is why it is not a targeted effect. Targeting effects are not defined by having a target, but only by failing to function when they do not have one. My fireball goes off, whether or not there is anyone in the square where I suspect the invisible stalker to be. So too can my sword swing there.
You don't want to allow this in your home game, that's fine, but don't say the rules don't allow for it, they clearly do.
Some swarms are "immune to all weapon damage."
The appropriate question is not whether the flaming is targeted, but whether the flaming is "weapon damage."
This is the appropriate question:
The flaming is not "weapon" damage, and would thus affect the swarm normally, but it is not an area attack, so the damage would not be multiplied.
So does flaming bypass DR? DR is for weapon damage. If the flaming bypasses DR then it should also damage the swarms. If the flaming does not bypass DR then it should not damage the swarms, and for the same reasons. Swarm traits apply to "weapon damage" and DR applies to "weapon damage."
Clues to the intent of the swarm traits are found in the DR section:
link
Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
...
Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack, such as injury poison, a monk's stunning, and injury-based disease. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact.
Here, albeit in a funny section of the rules, Paizo gives us a pretty comprehensive list of what they do and do not consider to be "weapon damage."
The individual targeting stuff in the swarm rules is not intended to apply to a flaming sword, it's intended to apply to Cause Serious Wounds.
|
Developer
|
The individual targeting stuff in the swarm rules is not intended to apply to a flaming sword, it's intended to apply to Cause Serious Wounds.
Everything before this is absolutely right. I'm going to be the nitpicky rules lawyer everyone hates and point out the extremely minor thing that's not. Cause serious wounds is a touch attack. It's not targeted either, as you can do it against invisible baddies. Charm Person, Phantasmal Killer, Magic Missile, though. All those are what cannot target the swarm. You technically could totally go all cause wounds on the ants, heh.
(again, this is ridiculously nitpicky, and the rest of your post was very extremely right)
|
|
Beej67 - the flame damage from a flaming weapon bypasses DR.
And thank you for finding the section in the rules to address some of the comments by the folk who think a flaming/frost/shock weapon considers all of it's damage "weapon" damage. By their thinking, I could actually use a flaming weapon on a fire elemental and do 1d8(longsword)+1d6 fire damage to it.
Everything before this is absolutely right. I'm going to be the nitpicky rules lawyer everyone hates and point out the extremely minor thing that's not. Cause serious wounds is a touch attack. It's not targeted either, as you can do it against invisible baddies. Charm Person, Phantasmal Killer, Magic Missile, though. All those are what cannot target the swarm. You technically could totally go all cause wounds on the ants, heh.
(again, this is ridiculously nitpicky, and the rest of your post was very extremely right)
You're wrong on inflict wounds. "Target creature touched". That is a single creature. It is a targeted effect. Does not work on tiny or smaller swarms.
Weapon damage is the listed die for the weapon, plus anything that adds specifically to weapon damage (str bonus, power attack, etc).
Flaming specifically says that "a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit." It is not weapon damage, it is fire damage. Tiny and smaller swarms are not immune to fire damage. Thus the extra 1d6 fire damage applies.