Some help?
Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.
That means a "large" Rat Swarm (two swarms put together) would occupy 8 5-foot squares, and still do 1d6 damage, correct? It wouldn't "become" a single 6 HD creature (and therefore do 2d6 damage). Correct?
Also, a brief interaction with James and another player:
Silly Seltyiel.
Rays don't work on swarms!
Do they?
They do. So does the fire damage from a flaming sword. Energy damage more or less trumps that whole thing... if it didn't, then there'd REALLY be no reason aside from pure GM cruelty and hatred to have lower than CR 3 swarms.Just looking for some clarification about, say, scorching ray working on a swarm. My confusion lies with
"A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)"
I understand that Scorching ray doesn't "just" target a creature (it's an effect that could target, say, the floor or the air), but I'm just looking for a definitive answer for my players.
I'd say that targeting, say, the wall behind a swarm of bats would burn a whole lotta bats -- but would that work for, say, rats on the floor? Would both instances take full damage, or would the rats say, take half?
----> Last question: What about Create Pit? Would a swarm of rats suffer normal damage from a 50 foot pit cast by a 10th level wizard? Cockroaches (those things are sturdy!)
Thanks!!!
You are the GM; make the call. Sounds like you know what you want to decide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Larger swarms are represented by multiples of single swarms. The area occupied by a large swarm is completely shapeable, though the swarm usually remains in contiguous squares.That means a "large" Rat Swarm (two swarms put together) would occupy 8 5-foot squares, and still do 1d6 damage, correct? It wouldn't "become" a single 6 HD creature (and therefore do 2d6 damage). Correct?
Correct, though in general, the swarms are more useful if they overlap, rather than spreading out.
Just looking for some clarification about, say, scorching ray working on a swarm.
It doesn't. It's a single target spell exactly like Disintegrate. I believe James Jacobs was answering more about energy damage in general than he was about rays.
Swarms are immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (and one is a specific number), thus a Swarm cannot be hit with Scorching Ray.
I understand that Scorching ray doesn't "just" target a creature (it's an effect that could target, say, the floor or the air), but I'm just looking for a definitive answer for my players.
If Disintegrate is a single target spell, then so is Scorching Ray, and thus it definitively does not work on Swarms.
----> Last question: What about Create Pit?
Create Pit does not generate a ray (which is a single target effect), it opens up a large pit. It affects an area, not a specific number of targets. So, yes, a Swarm would be affected.
Would a swarm of rats suffer normal damage from a 50 foot pit cast by a 10th level wizard?
Yes.
Cockroaches (those things are sturdy!)
No, because they can fly.
I don't know. I think that JJ really might have intended to let Scorching Ray work against swarms. Certainly he meant to let energy damage on weapons work against them, which is something my groups have been doing for a long time (perhaps as a house rule).
I don't know. I think that JJ really might have intended to let Scorching Ray work against swarms. Certainly he meant to let energy damage on weapons work against them, which is something my groups have been doing for a long time (perhaps as a house rule).
Perhaps a common rule? My group ran that some time ago, against swarms that were immune to weapon damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree with James Jacobs interpretation. I go by the old bee movies from the late 70s and 80s. You didn't do jack squat swinging a torch (or its equivalent aka a flaming sword) to a bee swarm. If you can't do AoE damage, you are screwed. Pure and simple for me. If you are getting swarmed, run for cover or expect to die. I would allow something like jumping in water if the swarm doesn't have a swim speed or can't survive in that environment.
Scorching Ray does nothing to a swarm. It's like firing a bullet into a swarm of bees. Doesn't do much but maybe kill a few.
Swarm rules are great as far as I'm concerned. Why not have the equivalent of a golem for melees? I don't see a problem with it. If a wizard fights a construct, he can do nearly nothing to it. Swarms are that for a melee.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swarm of Golems for the win!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, imagine a Swarm of tiny centipede golems. Immune to weapon damage and magic...
Yeah, imagine a Swarm of tiny centipede golems. Immune to weapon damage and magic...
And that is what Alchemist's fire is for! We had a GM that was crafty and had several swarms in a null-magic area. Thank goodness for alchemical splash damage!
Yeah, imagine a Swarm of tiny centipede golems. Immune to weapon damage and magic...And that is what Alchemist's fire is for! We had a GM that was crafty and had several swarms in a null-magic area. Thank goodness for alchemical splash damage!
By crafty I think you mean sadistic.
My players used grease and burning hands to light a rat swarm on fire. The swarm then ran into their nest and lit the tower on fire. Not exactly the intent, I think, but it worked Beautifully (from a cinematic perspective).
Too bad grease isn't flammable. If it were it would have similar language to the web spell.
I disagree--the special language in the Web spell is due to the fact that fire actually destroys the Web.
Nothing says the Grease spell is flammable or not flammable--it could be either. The only thing we know from it lacking the special Web language is that fire won't destroy the Grease and change the duration of the spell.
I can tell you, though, that lighting the Grease spell on fire has been a classic trick from the beginning of D&D that has carried on to other games. Hell, Dragon Age had a special power specifically for what happens when you use a fire effect near a Grease effect.
I'm pretty sure most GMs would rule Grease to be flammable, but nothing is stated one way or the other, officially.
I believe JJ or SKR has stated that it's not flammable, as that would make a level 1 spell far more powerful than it should be. I found the post here in the forums a week or so ago during a session where this came up.
I disagree with James Jacobs interpretation. I go by the old bee movies from the late 70s and 80s. You didn't do jack squat swinging a torch (or its equivalent aka a flaming sword) to a bee swarm. If you can't do AoE damage, you are screwed. Pure and simple for me. If you are getting swarmed, run for cover or expect to die. I would allow something like jumping in water if the swarm doesn't have a swim speed or can't survive in that environment.
Scorching Ray does nothing to a swarm. It's like firing a bullet into a swarm of bees. Doesn't do much but maybe kill a few.
Swarm rules are great as far as I'm concerned. Why not have the equivalent of a golem for melees? I don't see a problem with it. If a wizard fights a construct, he can do nearly nothing to it. Swarms are that for a melee.
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?
Yes, yes (partly), and yes.
James has said his posts are giving people his opinion on how he would run it. They're not errata, they're not "official" rules. People looking for official rules need to look for Jason B, SKR, or the other TLA whose name I can never remember (and only learned of a day ago).
That said, most of us find James' posts to be very valuable in both common rulings of how to make the table run better, as well as insight into what the designers were thinking.
He's the Man, but that doesn't mean you can't run your game how you want.
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?
Those last two aren't really questions. :P
And you can disagree with the author of a book about what he wrote. I disagree with George Lucas about whether Storm Troopers should really be so incompetent when folk keep saying they're precise shots.There's a difference between telling Rowling she wrote Harry Potter wrong and telling Jacobs one of his rules doesn't make sense. I'm not saying I feel one way or the other, but your rebuttal isn't exactly fair.
^ Also, what he said.
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?
Well, in all fairness, in this case, he's disagreeing about something that just has to be out of context. Scorching Ray is virtually identical to Disintegrate--it has the same effect, a ray. Disintegrate is the example spell used to show what can and can't target swarms. There is no logical explanation for why Scorching Ray should work and Disintegrate can't.
So, I don't think people are disagreeing with James Jacobs here, I think they are disagreeing that the quote in the original post is in proper context.
So, I don't think people are disagreeing with James Jacobs here, I think they are disagreeing that the quote in the original post is in proper context.
Here's the post so you can get the context.
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?Yes, yes (partly), and yes.
James has said his posts are giving people his opinion on how he would run it. They're not errata, they're not "official" rules. People looking for official rules need to look for Jason B, SKR, or the other TLA whose name I can never remember (and only learned of a day ago).
Right, that. Official erratta 'last word'-type answers aren't even in this forum, they're in the product FAQ on the books product page. All those quotes are JB and SKR.
If you want official, hit the faq button. That's like appealing to the supreme court - sometimes they take up the matter, most often not.
Above them is the table GM, who has the power to house rule, same as congress can amend the law if they don't like the supreme court's rulings.
So, I don't think people are disagreeing with James Jacobs here, I think they are disagreeing that the quote in the original post is in proper context.Here's the post so you can get the context.
That just confuses the manner. He can't be correct, but he's not out of context either. Must have just been a mistype or something--because Scorching Ray is practically identical in all relevant ways to Disintegrate, and that is the specific spell called out as an example of a spell that Swarms are immune to.
I think he was referring mostly to the idea of the energy damage, not the ray part. I think he got distracted in his head by a question that wasn't actually asked.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It doesn't. It's a single target spell exactly like Disintegrate. I believe James Jacobs was answering more about energy damage in general than he was about rays.
Swarms are immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (and one is a specific number), thus a Swarm cannot be hit with Scorching Ray.
A ray is an effect. Ray spells have no target in their stat block and calling them single-target spells is inaccurate. If you had to target a ray (per the definition of Target in the Magic section of the core rules) you would not be able to use it against a creature that was invisible or otherwise had total concealment. All a ray needs is line of effect and a successful ranged attack roll.
Rays affect swarms.
If the target of a spell is yourself (the Target line of the spell description includes You), you do not receive a saving throw, and spell resistance does not apply. The saving throw and spell resistance lines are omitted from such spells.
Some spells restrict you to willing targets only. Declaring yourself as a willing target is something that can be done at any time (even if you're flat-footed or it isn't your turn). Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.
Some spells allow you to redirect the effect to new targets or areas after you cast the spell. Redirecting a spell is a move action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Effect: Some spells create or summon things rather than affecting things that are already present.
You must designate the location where these things are to appear, either by seeing it or defining it. Range determines how far away an effect can appear, but if the effect is mobile, after it appears it can move regardless of the spell's range.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell.(Note: emphasis mine, clearly differentiating between a ray effect spell and a spell with a target.) Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
If a ray spell has a duration, it's the duration of the effect that the ray causes, not the length of time the ray itself persists.
If a ray spell deals damage, you can score a critical hit just as if it were a weapon. A ray spell threatens a critical hit on a natural roll of 20 and deals double damage on a successful critical hit.
A ray is an effect. Ray spells have no target in their stat block and calling them single-target spells is inaccurate.
I will accept that statement gladly.
However, the effect of Disintegrate is a ray. Disintegrate is the spell used as an example of a single target spell that would not work on a swarm. Please explain this discrepancy.
A ray is an effect. Ray spells have no target in their stat block and calling them single-target spells is inaccurate.I will accept that statement gladly.
However, the effect of Disintegrate is a ray. Disintegrate is the spell used as an example of a single target spell that would not work on a swarm. Please explain this discrepancy.
Simple.
The author of that particular passage incorrectly identified Disintegrate as a single-target spell. There's only really two ways to go from here; disregard the example as erroneous (which it unquestionably is) and therefore irrelevant, or attempt to deduce the RAI.
RAW, it's not at all hard to argue that Scorching Ray works on swarms.
There's only really two ways to go from here; disregard the example as erroneous (which it unquestionably is) and therefore irrelevant, or attempt to deduce the RAI.
Or assume it's not erroneous--it could just as easily be that a ray by it's very nature is a single target spell. Because, you know, that makes sense since you only get to hit one target with each ray...
RAW, it's not at all hard to argue that Scorching Ray works on swarms.
I think it's harder than you think--for one, James Jacobs statement isn't RAW, so you'd have practically no justification for thinking Disintegrate is a false example in the first place.
Look, I'm not opposed to changing my mind on this, nor am I particularly invested in the answer. I just know that I find there to be absolutely zero doubt in my mind about whether or not a Scorching Ray can affect a swarm when I read the text, and when I read James Jacobs clarification, everything just gets muddy and dubious, rather than clear cut the other way.
However, the effect of Disintegrate is a ray. Disintegrate is the spell used as an example of a single target spell that would not work on a swarm. Please explain this discrepancy.
I'd go with the bad example argument. It's definitely a candidate for an errata or FAQ... I'm not sure if they incorrectly use disintegrate as an example or if the wording was meant to be something similar to, "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including spells with ray or other ranged touch attack effects such as disintegrate)."
I'm really hoping they just incorrectly used disintegrate as an example. Swarms are nasty for their CR... letting a 1st-level wizard plink away at rats with a ray of frost before they can gnaw his face off is okay in my book.
That said, most of us find James' posts to be very valuable in both common rulings of how to make the table run better, as well as insight into what the designers were thinking.
This sums up my opinion exactly... James' posts may not be RAW and I disagree with some of them, but they are a worthwhile addition to any relevant rules discussion.
The relevant part of his post about scorching ray damaging swarms could be, "Energy damage more or less trumps that whole thing," meaning he wasn't intending to say that any ray should affect a swarm but that anything that deals energy damage should affect a swarm.
The relevant part of his post about scorching ray damaging swarms could be, "Energy damage more or less trumps that whole thing," meaning he wasn't intending to say that any ray should affect a swarm but that anything that deals energy damage should affect a swarm.
This is the point, I think.
Any source of energy damage harms a swarm. For a Scorching Ray, you just sweep it through the square(s) the swarm occupies. You're not targeting the swarm, you just blasting fire lasers through it.
For Disintegrate, only the first creature or object struck can be affected, it needs to 'land' in order to do anything. Shooting it at a swarm will disintegrate one rat.
That's the fluff/non-mechanical aspect of it, I think, anyway.
For Disintegrate, only the first creature or object struck can be affected, it needs to 'land' in order to do anything. Shooting it at a swarm will disintegrate one rat.
That's the fluff/non-mechanical aspect of it, I think, anyway.
I don't get that. Why can't I sweep Scorching Ray across a cluster of goblins, then?
I agree with you that the "energy damage trumps swarms" is what he was going for, but it's hard for me to reconcile Scorching Ray as working that way.
I would think the optimal way to handle a swarm at really low levels is with Alchemical fire, Burning Hands, torches, etc. Also running away, since they are rarely super fast.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)
Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.
It's pretty clear 'target' is being used in the same sense as in the spell description, in that it affects specific individuals, which distinguishes it from something like a Line, which can affect any number of creatures in it's path. This is why disintegrate is used as the example.
There's only really two ways to go from here; disregard the example as erroneous (which it unquestionably is) and therefore irrelevant, or attempt to deduce the RAI.Or assume it's not erroneous--it could just as easily be that a ray by it's very nature is a single target spell. Because, you know, that makes sense since you only get to hit one target with each ray...
Impossible. It is unquestionably erroneous. Disintegrate is not a single-target spell. It does not have any targets at all. It produces an effect.
One could attempt to argue that that effect targets a number of creatures, but using that same condition, other effect spells would also be "targeted." Produce Flame despite working very much like a torch, must "target" a creature with it's attack, so must Spiritual Weapon.
It's not a difficult mistake to make. For example, one might easily make the mistake of putting a Scorching Ray in a Spell Storing Weapon, but Scorching Ray is not a targetable spell. If one were to redefine a targeted spell as any spell that targets creature after it is cast, Summon Monster could be considered a targeted spell.
I think the point that is being missed here is that both Disintegrate and Scorching Ray hit exactly 1 creature and stop. Good job in crisping a single rat in the swarm, or turning one roach to ashes. It has virtually no impact on the swarm. Unless you can obliterate all 300 Tiny rats with rays you can't really do much to the swam.
As a ranged touch attack it can have only a single target and effect only a single creature. In the case of a swarm that one creature you've hit with the ray... or one that is acting as cover to for the one you were aiming at... has no net impact.
The relevant part of his post about scorching ray damaging swarms could be, "Energy damage more or less trumps that whole thing," meaning he wasn't intending to say that any ray should affect a swarm but that anything that deals energy damage should affect a swarm.This is the point, I think.
Any source of energy damage harms a swarm. For a Scorching Ray, you just sweep it through the square(s) the swarm occupies. You're not targeting the swarm, you just blasting fire lasers through it.
For Disintegrate, only the first creature or object struck can be affected, it needs to 'land' in order to do anything. Shooting it at a swarm will disintegrate one rat.
That's the fluff/non-mechanical aspect of it, I think, anyway.
That argument is easily reversed. Scorching ray can only affect the first creature it touches, roasting only one rat per ray.
Disintegrate, on the other hand, you just sweep though the square blasting rats with your "laser".
I think the point that is being missed here is that both Disintegrate and Scorching Ray hit exactly 1 creature and stop. Good job in crisping a single rat in the swarm, or turning one roach to ashes. It has virtually no impact on the swarm. Unless you can obliterate all 300 Tiny rats with rays you can't really do much to the swam.
As a ranged touch attack it can have only a single target and effect only a single creature. In the case of a swarm that one creature you've hit with the ray... or one that is acting as cover to for the one you were aiming at... has no net impact.
That point is not being missed. Check the PRD spoiler description I posted, in particular the part I highlighted. A ray effect is explicitly differentiated from a targeted spell, so when something says, "targeted spells don't work on me," it isn't referring to rays. If ray effects and other spells that provide a ranged touch attack required a Target (i.e., were a single-target spell) then they would not be able to attack a creature with total concealment; to Target a creature with a spell you must have line of sight (rays just need line of effect).
Since creatures in a swarm are so small, it's not unreasonable to think a ray aimed at a square containing a swarm can hit more than one creature. Unless the ray of fire from a scorching ray is a monomolecular beam, it may just have a chance of hitting more than one of the 1" spiders milling around in a 5-foot square.
it's not unreasonable to think a ray aimed at a square containing a swarm
Then you shoot the ground, and unlike a splash weapon most rays do not have an Spread or Area effect at their terminus.
To turn the possibly of hitting multiple creatures in the same square I point to the squeezing rules which would allow creatures to occupy the same square, if temporarily. Take a readies action to Scorching Ray any creature that trys to pass it's buddy in a tight corridor. When the ray fires both creatures are in the same square. Only one is hit, even if you declare the ray is going dead down he middle of the hallway.
"A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures"
A ray can only be targeted (in a manner similar to a ranged attack) at a "specific number" of creatures, typically one sometimes more.
.... Do we want to even consider the import of Sonic damage Rays, which are a wave and not particle or molecule.
=====
Similarly we can extend this debate to Area. Most Rays have none, there for their beam would be "monomolecular" or more like a stream of photons/particles.
=====
What I will do will do is concede that being targeted as a ranged weapon it makes Rays fall more into that category... which means they would still do no damage to Diminutive or Fine swarms. Only Tiny would receive damage from rays.... Except Disintegrate because it still only zaps the 1st critter it hits and stops.
"Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting."
No disintegrator beams sweeping through swarms.
*edit*
Treating Rays and Melee Touch Attack delivered spells as weapon attacks against swarms is perhaps the best compromise. Shocking Grasp and other similar spells could be called into question along with Rays if we continue this much further.
If they act like weapons/attacks in virtually all other regards (see weapon focus in rays) then it is perhaps best to keep that precedence and extend it to things like Swarms.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"Similarly we can extend this debate to Area. Most Rays have none, there for their beam would be "monomolecular" or more like a stream of photons/particles."
This is more or less why I don't think enervation or disintegrate would work on a swarm.
Scorching ray I don't really see that way, it's more a flaming beam with a fairly small but visible radius. It's not big enough to target two small or medium sized creatures, but it's wide enough to cut a swatch through a swarm of creatures. I know RAW does't really support it, but I allow it because to me it makes sense.
I wouldn't give it the bonus for area effect spells, but at least half base damage.
Also, someone suggested a torch or flaming sword wouldn't work against a swarm... why the heck not? Energy damage isn't treated the same as weapon damage. For example damage from the flaming property isn't blocked by DR. Bees are now fireproof!
And they are also impact trauma proof. Seriously, think about a warhammer being swung full speed through a swarm. You are going to hit/hurt something but in the rules this equates to no noticeable impact on swarms of Diminutive and Fine creatures as a whole. Ditto goes on Rays for the same reason. It just isn't there long enough, wide enough, whatever enough to appreciable kill off the critters.
Thank you for brining up enervation which mechanically works virtually the same to scorching ray in terms of targets hit but is a non-damage status effect. Technically if you say scorching ray should hit, so should enervation. After all a Ray is Ray unless it has wording like Disintegrate.
Germane to topic
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3m6e&page=2?Question-about-swarms#80
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Again, no-where does it say swarms are immune to energy damage, only that they are immune to weapon damage. You can absolutely cook a swarm with a torch or a flaming sword.
Also, no-where did I say RAW treats scorching ray any different from enervation. I said *I* see it differently and that *I* rule it differently. If you read the message you'd have seen I even say specifically that RAW does not support it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good example of a spell that differentiates between target spells and rays is SPELL TURNING. It makes it clear that ray spells are not also target spells.
Perhaps that will help to clarify things?
My apologies if I offended you. I am attempting to take a contrary position in order to bring as many problems forward as possible. Before we start making exceptions for specific rays based on personal preference of how we each *think* they should work, we need to figure out how they actually work in this instance.
See the linked thread for the prior discussion on semantics regarding energy damage coming from weapons, and it also highlights the missing section regarding vulnerabilities in 3.5 that made this considerably less of an issue.
@Ravingdork, it does and it doesn't. While Rays don't have a Target line in the spell description, as ranged attacks (often touch) you still have to pick a target.
This produces and odd instance where you can use Produce Flame to Melee Touch attack a Swarm but not Shocking Grasp. This is perhaps a longer standing issue where Rays and Melee Touch attack delivered spells do not operate the same way normal Melee/Ranged attack duality operates.
Effect spells cover a wider array of things then Rays. Acid Fog, Wall of Fire, and similar Effect spells which do not have any kind of individual level targeting are easier to place then Produce Flame which has several components.
From my point of view *in this discussion*, the need to pick a [specific] Target involved in the Melee or Ranged touch attack spell/effect is enough to trigger the swarm's immunity (or Spell Turning in this case, although that's harder because Rays are slotted under Effects, which are given a blanket pass).
can you disagree with James Jacobs? he did design the fricking game? it is like disagreeing with the author of a book about what he wrote?I disagree with James Jacobs interpretation. I go by the old bee movies from the late 70s and 80s. You didn't do jack squat swinging a torch (or its equivalent aka a flaming sword) to a bee swarm. If you can't do AoE damage, you are screwed. Pure and simple for me. If you are getting swarmed, run for cover or expect to die. I would allow something like jumping in water if the swarm doesn't have a swim speed or can't survive in that environment.
Scorching Ray does nothing to a swarm. It's like firing a bullet into a swarm of bees. Doesn't do much but maybe kill a few.
Swarm rules are great as far as I'm concerned. Why not have the equivalent of a golem for melees? I don't see a problem with it. If a wizard fights a construct, he can do nearly nothing to it. Swarms are that for a melee.
Sure, you can. Some of James Jacobs posts make it in to the FAQ, some don't. I'm quite sure he disagrees with other game designers like Buhlman or Reynolds and vice versa. But they all respect each other when they run the game.
Most people should respect the DM. The guy has taken on the difficult task of being the DM. The most important role is the DM. Without them, you have no game.
In my game, I run swarms the way that I see them working. This would probably be one of the few house rules I would add even if it were FAQed. The bee movies did a great job of showing how a swarm works and how useless conventional weapons are against them. I think the swarm rules mirror that pretty well including not allowing things like rays or flaming swords to do anything to them. Swarms already have very low hit points. Allowing a flaming sword or ray to disperse them makes them fairly useless. A high level fighter eliminates half-melee damage swarms in one hit. They have so many hit points and often DR it makes swarms pointless. I prefer them to be one of the few things classes should fear.
My apologies if I offended you. I am attempting to take a contrary position in order to bring as many problems forward as possible. Before we start making exceptions for specific rays based on personal preference of how we each *think* they should work, we need to figure out how they actually work in this instance.
No offense from me at all. :)
There are really two issues I've been trying to debate here: my soapbox issue is the separation of Target and Effect spells. Rays and effects do not have Targets. The wording "target" in a general sense (not referring to Target as defined in PRD>Magic>Aiming a Spell) should be stripped from all spell descriptions and replaced with similar terminology like "aiming at a creature" to avoid confusion. This is one of those, "I must go on a crusade," issues to me that will guarantee I pop up in most threads dealing with spell targetting, swarms, spellstrike (particularly ranged spellstrike), and any other issues that even peripherally get involved with it.
The second issue is the issue of damaging swarms, which is the main point of this thread. Since the wording of swarm subtype in Bestiary mucks up the target/effect issue by association, it drives me nuts. But I'm going to try and address the swarm issue only without getting sucked onto my soapbox. Bear with me, gonna try to stay on point and not ramble too much. ;)
I have to agree with Dennis' comments above. Scorching ray to me is different than disintegrate. They may both be ray effect spells, but they do different things. Disintegrate even directly states in its description, "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected," which implies this extra wording is above and beyond ray rules. To me, it's possible that RAI non-energy effect spells aimed at a single creature like disintegrate are what is included in the swarm subtype's immunity.
JJ's commentary the OP quoted very likely was meant to say that energy attacks damage swarms. The swarm subtype description even implies that some spells can damage swarms that are not area spells and do not gain the +50% damage bonus.
Letting a shocking grasp or scorching ray discharge into a pile of little critters may seem odd to some people, but remember individual swarm members are much smaller than the average creature you'd be using the spell against. It's much easier to picture the discharge of energy damaging more than one of the 300 rats or 1,000 spiders packed into a 5' x 5' square than it is to picture the discharge of energy mystically scaling down into a tiny zap just to hit a 1-6" long creature. The first line of the swarm subtype's description even seems to support any attack (whether by weapon or weaponlike spell) striking the swarm as a whole: "A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature."
To me, the point of negating single-target spells from affecting the swarm is to prevent something like hold animal with a Target of one creature from being able to paralyze 300 rats, and to prevent spells without a Target (like disintegrate) that should only hit a single creature or object regardless of size by their description as well (effects dealing energy damage not included - immunity isn't singling out all ray effects).
If you interpret all swarms as being immune to any spells that require a melee or ranged touch attack (because they are "targeting" a creature), you run into some serious absurdities... particularly with swarms of tiny creatures such as rats. Tiny swarms aren't immune to weapon damage, only taking half slashing and piercing damage. Using this logic:
- A swarm of 300 rats in a 5' x 5' square would get decimated by the party's hasted monk executing an unarmed flurry of blows against it, because it takes full damage from bludgeoning weapons.
- It would take zero damage from the party's sorcerer casting a scorching ray at it because, even though it has no immunity to fire damage from a weaponlike spell, we've decided there is no way this ray can blast the swarm with fire since the swarm is an "illegal target" for the spell. Thank Irori they had someone with the hadouken technique capable of putting his fist and feet through 100 rats per strike.
It means when you want to do a large swarm, do 2 swarms.
