| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Source PRG:CRB
You can throw a flask of alchemist's fire as a splash weapon with a range increment of 10 feet.
A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.
Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible 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.
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.
Swarms made up of Diminutive or Fine creatures are susceptible to high winds, such as those created by a gust of wind spell. For purposes of determining the effects of wind on a swarm, treat the swarm as a creature of the same size as its constituent creatures. A swarm rendered unconscious by means of nonlethal damage becomes disorganized and dispersed, and does not reform until its hit points exceed its nonlethal damage.
My personal opinion is that RAW it does. But only 1 point as the 1d6 is only dealt to a single "target".
...but that doesn't settle well for me because back in my day it was a classic tactic to use Alchemist's Fire on swarms. So RAI, I think it ought to do all the damage.
So I am torn as I can't reconcile my personal opinion with a strictly RAW reading. So, I hope I am missing something.
|
Yes alchemists fire works on swarms because it has an area of effect. In fact this is one of the only reliable ways to deal with swarms at low level and is why every one of my characters starts with a splash weapon (alchemists fire if I can afford it or acid flask if I can't afford the fire). Also because it has an area effervescent it will actually do 1.5x of normal damage.
|
This has been brought up several times before. Some people think it works, some think it doesn't.
Splash weapons are a murky category here, because they're in between single target and area effects. They're also frequently advertised in various books and scenarios as THE answer to swarms, so RAI seems to be they should work. It's also easily imaginable how they would work, so common sense isn't threatened.
So I suspect most people go like "the rules are murky and might mean that it doesn't work, but it's intended that it DOES work", and therefore allow it.
Note that swarms still tend to have high touch AC due to size and dex.
My take, that allows both rules to co-exist:
The flask is the weapon. That is ineffective against a swarm (throw a flask of anything at a swarm of flies, it goes right through them and the flask never breaks so it is an ineffective weapon). But the fire inside the flask is as effective as any other area effect fire, doing its normal damage of 1d6 and benefiting from the 1.5x multiplier.
The trick is making the flask break.
If the swarm is on the ground, or airborn next to a solid wall, then it's easy, just break the flask on the floor or wall and enjoy the full effect of using your alchemist's fire. But if the swarm is not on solid ground (flying, or on very soft ground) or near a solid wall, then there might be no way to throw the flask and cause it to break.
I once had a PC in armor run into the swarm, take the swarm's damage, just so the other PCs could throw alchemist fire at his solid armor. Might have been my fault for putting the swarm in a room full of spongy fungus that prevented the flasks from breaking.
Note: I can't prove the above by RAW, but I like the interpretation because it makes BOTH rules relevant.
I guess I should have asked for only rules specific answers but I thought that was a given in the rules forum.
Lets try it this way: when you throw Alchemist's Fire what do you target? Do you target a creature or a square? What are the differences mechanically when you do each? How would this affect a swarm?
thejeff seems to have a grasp,of the issue at hand.
That is how I would rule as well but with the realization that I am moving away from RAW and into personal opinion of how it should work.
...I don't like to do that, though. I'd prefer a rule.
The entry for swarms says that spells and effects that deal area damage, do 50% additional damage. That is, if the spell or effect deals any area damage at all it can fully affect the swarm and does +50% damage. There is no qualification for spells or effects that do only partial area effect damage. If it does AoE damage at all then it can target and fully affect the swarm. Does alchemist fire do any area effect damage? Yes, it does. So it can target and affect the swarm normally and do +50% damage.
|
I once had a PC in armor run into the swarm, take the swarm's damage, just so the other PCs could throw alchemist fire at his solid armor. Might have been my fault for putting the swarm in a room full of spongy fungus that prevented the flasks from breaking.
Only once? in my current campaign a PC has resist 5 fire, so he wades in and smashes flasks against himself! This is even against Tiny swarms where weapon damage would do.
Once when I was a PC I fell unconscious (very low level) so they just threw flasks at me to burn me and the swarm up.
There seems to be a pattern there ..
The entry for swarms says that spells and effects that deal area damage, do 50% additional damage. That is, if the spell or effect deals any area damage at all it can fully affect the swarm and does +50% damage. There is no qualification for spells or effects that do only partial area effect damage. If it does AoE damage at all then it can target and fully affect the swarm. Does alchemist fire do any area effect damage? Yes, it does. So it can target and affect the swarm normally and do +50% damage.
Which is 1.5, rounded to 1, since only the splash is area effect.
Which I do not think is what's intended.
Or, in an even more pedantic interpretation, is nothing, since Alchemist's Fire is a weapon, not a spell or effect.
No, if the spell or effect deals AoE damage, it does full damage. It doesn't matter if the only a portion of the spell or effect is AoE. If it does AoE at all it affects the swarm just as it would affect a creature normally. So it doesn't matter that only the splash damage of alchemist fire is AoE. Alchemist fire does do AoE damage and therefore can be thrown at a swarm for normal damage, 1d6, +50%.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem to me that since the swarm entry explicitly states that splash weapons do extra damage, then they must indeed deal damage.
If you hit a swarms touch AC with a vial of alchemist fire the flask does indeed break (as it does no matter what you are throwing the flask at, the plush teddy monster, will still break the vial too) and the swarm will take 1d6 + an additional 50%.
|
The entry for swarms says that spells and effects that deal area damage, do 50% additional damage. That is, if the spell or effect deals any area damage at all it can fully affect the swarm and does +50% damage. There is no qualification for spells or effects that do only partial area effect damage. If it does AoE damage at all then it can target and fully affect the swarm. Does alchemist fire do any area effect damage? Yes, it does. So it can target and affect the swarm normally and do +50% damage.
Which is 1.5, rounded to 1, since only the splash is area effect.
Which I do not think is what's intended.
Or, in an even more pedantic interpretation, is nothing, since Alchemist's Fire is a weapon, not a spell or effect.
The fire damage is an effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would seem to me that since the swarm entry explicitly states that splash weapons do extra damage, then they must indeed deal damage.
If you hit a swarms touch AC with a vial of alchemist fire the flask does indeed break (as it does no matter what you are throwing the flask at, the plush teddy monster, will still break the vial too) and the swarm will take 1d6 + an additional 50%.
This is the way I've always done/understood it.
From the first post and quoted directly above me (basically just piling on I guess):
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, and many evocation spells.
Ergo splash weapons are effective and deal 50% more damage.
also one part of the relevant rules wasn't quoted (for the sake of completeness):
A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don't take the –4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target. If the target is Large or larger, you choose one of its squares and the splash damage affects creatures within 5 feet of that square. Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as the damage from the rogue's sneak attack class feature).
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.
If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares.
You targeted the 'creature' the swarm is said creature, that's why it's listed as such, you do 1d6+50%.
It doesn't target a specific creature number instead targeting the 'creature' that is the swarm that takes extra damage.
You don't say, "I target fly 125"
You say, "I target the swarm"
All creatures adjacent to the swarm take 1 point of fire damage.
The only way you get to do it your way is if you say each creature in the swarm takes 1 point of damage... which means a swarm of 150 creatures is going to take 150 points of damage 1 point per creature.
Which would be completely non-sensical.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is the splash weapon an AOE?
Yes
It hits the creature it is targeting -- the swarm -- is an aoe. What is the damage to the creature? 1d6, as an AOE +50% against swarms.
Nothing in the swarm description says that an AOE doesn't do its full damage, only that attacks that are not AOE don't.
The attack is an AOE -- it doesn't say that it isn't so there is no reason not to apply its damage as normal, the full 1d6 to the target.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No no no no no please stop no I've done my time I'VE DONE MY TIME YOU CAN'T MAKE ME GO BACK THER—
We have had this thread before.
My posts linked sum up my arguments (I recommend the second link as the best explanations of this overly explored issue—make sure to scroll down!). I have no stomach to regurgitate them again.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I will note again, because it's important:
RAW is on RAI's side here.
RAW, it says "splash weapons", not "splash damage". This means that the damage from a splash weapon is multiplied—not just the 1 splash damage (which is, as has been pointed out many times*, unmultipliable in this game). Splash weapons are called out as affecting an area.
This isn't a "I know it sucks, but RAW says this" argument. This is a, "We've latched on to this idea and won't let go" argument. There's no actual basis—not in rules, not in intention, not in classic tactics, not in realism, and not in balance. The closest we have to evidence in favor of the "alchemist's fire is useless" interpretation is an intentional misreading of rules that should really be quite clear.
Splash weapons are area-affecting attacks that deal 150% damage to swarms. It's why diminutive-creatured swarms have ACs given. It's why Erik Mona himself advises that parties travel with flasks of alchemist's fire. It's why swarms can be used against a party lacking in blasting magic but not lacking in properly paranoid dungeon delvers. It's realistically the most logical thing to expect of a weapon that arguably would deal 1 damage to every single individual creature within the swarm itself.
Splash weapons work. End of story.**
*In fact, I was one of the very first to bring this point up!
**Hahaha if only.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Splash weapons are explicitly cited as area-affecting attacks.
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.
This is consistent with both interpretations. I.e. I agree, they DO have an effect on swarms - dealing at least 1 damage... Nobody would disagree that they work.
Except anybody who's actually playing with them with your house rule?
If you interpret that to mean "the weapons are an example because they have at least one applicable effect" then ALL the text works out fine.
If you interpret that to mean "everything about the weapon applies" then you have created an internal contradiction with the preceding sentence about effects.
Given those two options, the first is definitely much better, as it explains everything but does not require editing words or ignoring words or creating contradictions.
Except, one, the first creates way more problems (nerfing splash weapons, the "1*1.5" contradiction, and everything else I've already mentioned), and two, there's no "internal contradiction".
And three, had they meant "splash damage", they would have said "splash damage". Splash damage is an effect of a splash weapon being thrown. A splash weapon attack is also an effect. It's like saying that Fragile is a weapon effect—yes, true, but it's not exactly the main effect, is it? The primary effect of a splash weapon is the splash weapon itself—an attack that deals a certain amount of rolled damage.
Splash damage happens to everything adjacent. Nothing in the rules says that there is a way to deal splash damage to something short of hitting an adjacent square. As such, your reading could just as easily dictate that splash damage only affects a swarm if you deliberately aim to the left. If you actually hit the swarm (which is possible, since they have a Touch AC), there's no effect at all, since splash damage is explicitly for adjacent squares only.
In other words, this mangled so-called RAW reading actually requires assumptions and GM rulings. They might seem intuitive, but they aren't as-written—and if we're going by what's "intuitive", I think we all know who the winner is here.
splash weapons do not target a specific number of creaturesTheir 1d6 effect does target a specific number.
Their 1 point splash damage does not.The whole weapon does neither overall, it does part one, part the other. So it's a good thing they distinguished in the swarm rules based on effect type specifically, making it unambiguous.
I'm surprised, but glad, that we appear to agree.
I think it's telling that Ozy is arguing on our side. For those who didn't click the links, Ozy used to actually firmly believe the opposite. I take it his views have evolved.
1) It's not "nerfing" if it's what the rules were all along... what does this even mean? I'm not aware of this ever having been changed since the first edition printing of CRB.
You aren't? That's weird. Erik Mona himself has called out alchemist's fire as being the best line of defense against swarms. You can find it in his interview in Kobold Quarterly #1, if you're curious.
2) 1.5 rounding to 1 is how everything in pathfinder works. Fractional favored class bonuses round down, quadruped carrying capacities multiplying out odd numbers round down, everything in the whole game rounds down before being applied. You do 1.5 damage, but since hp only is tracked in full integers, you do 1 rounded. How have you played more than like half a session of pathfinder without needing to round anything???
I haven't. Rounding is the standard. Which is why your interpretation of the rules makes no sense. Why state that splash weapons deal 150% damage if splash weapons cannot capitalize on that bonus? At the time of that rule's printing, only two splash weapons existed. Both did only 1 point of splash damage.
So either we take the rabbit hole further, and claim it to be an error, or we accept that the rules are not in your favor. I wonder which it shall be.
3) ... what other things? I don't see any others.
Gosh, it's frustrating when people don't click your links to see what you're saying.
You keep asking "why would this happen", or "what makes us think such-and-such". Should I take this to indicate you want me to repost my list of reasons?
Well, okay...here, I'll add one to make this a bit more fresh.
Realistic: The reading doesn't work. Realistically, a splash weapon would be very effective, since it splatters its contents all over no fewer than nine squares. It doesn't take much damage to kill a bug. You're basically dealing at least 1 damage to every living creature in that nine-block radius. There will be no survivors.
Contradictory: All swarms have a listed AC. There is no Core effect save a splash weapon that can target their AC. Moreover, the rule allowing swarms to be injured +50% by splash weapons rule is completely ineffective in a Core-only campaign by the proposed reading, since there is no such thing as splash damage higher than 1. Your reading causes rules oversights that do not have to exist.
RAW: Splash weapons are explicitly called out as dealing +50% damage. Not splash damage. Splash weapons.
RAI: Paizo obviously didn't intend this. Erik Mona has stated in interviews that he thinks every party should be prepared to handle swarms with alchemist's fire. Before alchemists became a thing, splash weapons were the #1 way to handle an unruly swarm at low levels. There is no reasonable reason to assume Paizo wanted to change this.
Balance: Yeah, because acid and alchemist's fire usage was just so out of control, we really needed a nerf. And non-mages really needed a low-level type monster that they are effectively incapable of harming. Sounds fair to me. Hey, would any of the people using this ruling like to play in my Whispering Cairn game? No arcane casters or alchemists. Just for fun.
So in conclusion, when I say this reading fails on every level...that is exactly what I mean.
Treating every effect of the weapon as qualifying would result in one of it's effects contradicting earlier stated rules: that the swarms are immune to effects that target a specific number of creatures: the 1d6 effect.
Except swarms aren't immune to all effects that target a certain number of creatures. Tiny swarms can be targeted with weapons, for instance—a blatant breakage of that "rule". Just like all swarms can be targeted with splash weapons.
Gee, it's almost as if deliberately-cited exceptions are...exceptions?
Alchemist's fire says "Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. "
So what happens if you hit the swarm with the Touch AC that it has? Because it has a Touch AC. Which also sort of contradicts your "no targeted attacks never ever" theory.
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.
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.
Just for reference. Note that the first paragraph explicitly explains the weapon damage resistance—showing that the Bestiary does not consider ordinary attacks to fall under the same easy umbrella as the "single-target spells or effects". Internal contradictions all over the place! At least if you buy the narrow wording that allows attacks with swords but not with splash weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If 2 (non-swarm) diminutive creatures are standing in a single square, and you throw an alchemist fire at the square, how much damage to they each take? How about if you throw it at one of the two creatures?
One takes full damage, the other takes splash, as the rules state. They are not a swarm creature and have no special rules.
Are you seriously trying to compare a swarm composed of millions of tiny life forms to a pair of ferrets? Last I checked, I couldn't kill a ferret with a magnifying glass. Not that I checked.
But as a proper response, Byakko, let me "fire" back with a question of my own.
There are two ferrets with tiny burn marks in their fur sitting in a 5x5 square. You have a sword. You make an attack roll, hit, and roll damage. How much damage do they take?
Now, if your answer is, as it should be, "One of them takes damage and the other does not, unless you have Cleave or something", then you understand the contradiction in your argument. Because if there were a hundred ferrets in that square, you would deal every single one of them damage—or, to be precise, you would deal the overall swarm damage, because swarm HP is even more of an abstraction than regular HP.
I'm glad to hear you're only working with RAW in this one. That should make this much easier, since the RAW argument is the messiest one of all. It all hinges on the inconsistently-applied "Single-target effects can't hurt swarms."
And an inconsistently-applied interpretation falls apart very quickly when used as a RAW argument. Now, there are two major exceptions stated in the Swarm subtype that are relevant here.
Splash Weapons: Deal 50% more damage against any swarm. As demonstrated previously, this rule only functions if you interpret it the, well, obvious way, instead of digging for RAW loopholes. Requires an attack roll, but is specifically mentioned as an "area effect" and assigned very specific effectiveness.
Normal Weapons: Deal 50% damage against a tiny swarm, none against any other. Requires an attack roll, and is never mentioned as an exception to the "specific target" rule. RAW—and this is serious—. Sure, that would make the whole half damage rule pointless, but them's the breaks.
The contradiction here is that by your interpretation, a splash weapon, referred to as an area effect and called out as a specific exception, is less effective against a swarm of rats than a dagger.
Obviously the rules on this issue are clumsy. If they weren't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But our reading makes more sense on every front—as acknowledged by you—and prevents rules errors. Your reading, meanwhile, requires a redundant rule, a very specific interpretation of the words "splash weapon" and "effect", and a change from the adventuring norm which even your allies agree would be absurd and accidental if real.