Swarms and Alchemist Bomb

Since the Alchemist class feature Bomb counts as a weapon, can they affect swarms since swarms are immune to weapon damage? It seems like the splash damage from one would, but I mean the main damage.

They do fire damage, or some other type of energy damage with other bomb discoveries. They affect swarms just fine.

From the class ability:

On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.

Bombs are Splash Weapons, and therefore are just as effective against swarms as alchemist fire and others of it's type. In short, Yes.

Alchemist bombs and other thrown splash weapons require a specific target for their direct hit damage. Swarms are immune to spells and effects that affect a specific target. Thus, only the splash damage from these weapons affect swarms.

A creature swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures

A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.

This thread is currently happening, and possibly using the faq ruling regarding rays gaining the damage benefit of inspire courage, you wouldn't be able to hurt a tiny or smaller swarm with these weapons due to its immunity to weapon damage. The slash damage I believe would indeed hurt the swarm though.

It's not the immunity to weapon damage that prevents direct hit bomb damage, it's the immunity to spells and effects that target a specific number of creatures.

Guys...the swarm subtype specifically calls out that it not only is it affected by splash weapons, it takes +50% damage from them.

Could someone explain how bombs and alchemist fire are listed under effects and not ranged weapons? I'm unfamiliar with the alchemist class and their bombs.

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.

Splash weapons have an area effect (their splash) which is increased by 50%. This doesn't mean that all of the damage from a splash weapon is area of effect damage, indeed, splash weapons specifically state which portion is AoE and which is not.

Guys...the swarm subtype specifically calls out that it not only is it affected by splash weapons, it takes +50% damage from them.

Yeah, but is that just the splash part or does the direct damage affect it?

Could someone explain how bombs and alchemist fire are listed under effects and not ranged weapons? I'm unfamiliar with the alchemist class and their bombs.

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories. A 'ray' can be both a spell, an effect, and a ranged weapon depending on the context.

A bomb is a ranged weapon that is subject to 'weapon' feats like precise shot, rapid shot, etc...

Bomb damage is not 'weapon' damage, it is fire damage (or cold, or shock, or ...). Weapon damage is blunt, piercing, or slashing. Bomb damage is none of these.

Guys...the swarm subtype specifically calls out that it not only is it affected by splash weapons, it takes +50% damage from them.

It says they're affected by attacks that effect an area, and use splash weapons as an example. I think the swarm would only take splash damage (+50%).

I'm not really a fan of that interpretation though, swarms are scary enough, and seems only casters have any real chance of hurting them at higher CRs. That kind gets at the magic vs mundane disparity though.

Rathendar wrote:

Guys...the swarm subtype specifically calls out that it not only is it affected by splash weapons, it takes +50% damage from them.

Yeah, but is that just the splash part or does the direct damage affect it?

Nope, as mentioned already:

Swarm Traits: ... A creature 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 if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A creature swarm takes a –10 penalty on saving throws against spells or effects that affect an area, such as many evocation spells or grenade-like weapons. If the area attack does not allow a saving throw, the swarm takes double damage instead. ...

So it also appears that the swarm would make the reflex save with a -10 penalty to halve the splash damage.

Human Fighter wrote:

Could someone explain how bombs and alchemist fire are listed under effects and not ranged weapons? I'm unfamiliar with the alchemist class and their bombs.

Those aren't mutually exclusive categories. A 'ray' can be both a spell, an effect, and a ranged weapon depending on the context.

A bomb is a ranged weapon that is subject to 'weapon' feats like precise shot, rapid shot, etc...

Bomb damage is not 'weapon' damage, it is fire damage (or cold, or shock, or ...). Weapon damage is blunt, piercing, or slashing. Bomb damage is none of these.

can you.cite how you determine these distinctions?

The faq with.rays and inspire courage is saying that the "weapon damage" part increases the rays damage. Wouldn't anything that the inspire courage affects then be weapon damage? Yes, it deals fire damage for alchemist fire, but inspire courage affects it, so it's less specifically categorized as weapon damage by this logic. Am I wrong?

Also, I asked for someone to help me understand how a bomb or alchemist fire is defined as an effect. Please, enlighten me.

Many spells produce effects that are "weapon-like" and can be enhanced by things that normally affect weapons. So they get the benefits of feats like point blank shot despite them not actually _being_ weapons.

The term "effect" is kinda a catch all term, similar to how the word "thing" is used. For instance, you can put "things" in a bag, even if some of those things turn out to be gnomes, which people wouldn't normally classify as "things".

Thus, if someone is hit with a sword, they are being affected by an "effect", it just happens to be a very specific type of effect: damage from a weapon, aka weapon damage. Bombs and alchemist fire, however, are not listed on the weapons table and are not weapons, even if they still benefit from things that affect effects which are "weapon-like".

Could someone explain how bombs and alchemist fire are listed under effects and not ranged weapons? I'm unfamiliar with the alchemist class and their bombs.

Alchemist Bombs are SU abilities and alchemist fire is a special as is Holy Water.

Alchemist's Fire: You can throw a flask of alchemist's fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack 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.

Holy Water: Holy water damages undead creatures and evil outsiders almost as if it were acid. A flask of holy water can be thrown as a splash weapon.

Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A flask breaks if thrown against the body of a corporeal creature, but to use it against an incorporeal creature, you must open the flask and pour the holy water out onto the target. Thus, you can douse an incorporeal creature with holy water only if you are adjacent to it. Doing so is a ranged touch attack that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A direct hit by a flask of holy water deals 2d4 points of damage to an undead creature or an evil outsider. Each such creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of damage from the splash.
Most weapons that can be reused are these melee and ranged weapons that are found in the weapon section of the CRB. Most one shot items that are a TYPE of weapon are not.

Removed some fighty posts. Don't turn one person's rules questions thread into a platform to argue with each other/insult each other.

Ozy,

The text you quoted appears to be from a 3pp swarm template, and not in the actual swarm traits, is it somewhere in Paizo material?

Quote:

Swarm Traits: ... A creature 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 if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A creature swarm takes a –10 penalty on saving throws against spells or effects that affect an area, such as many evocation spells or grenade-like weapons. If the area attack does not allow a saving throw, the swarm takes double damage instead. ...

So it also appears that the swarm would make the reflex save with a -10 penalty to halve the splash damage.

Yeah, you're right. I didn't notice the 3pp content. The Pathfinder swarm traits are slightly different with regard to area damage.

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.

A thrown splash weapon is both an 'effect that affects an area' and an 'effect that targets a specific number of creatures'. As such I don't think there's a clear RAW ruling to be made. Needs to be FAQed.

I think the likely RAI, given how obnoxious swarms already are, is to allow the direct hits to work at the full +50% damage, but as written the rules directly contradict themselves.

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

In my humble opinion, swarms should be instakilled by a splash weapon.

A swarm of Tiny creatures consists of 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Diminutive creatures consists of 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures. A swarm of Fine creatures consists of 10,000 creatures, whether they are flying or not

So, let's take a spider swarm:

Diminuitive, nonflying. So 1500 spiders.

1500 spiders al take 1 hp fire damage from the splash.

Swarm 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.

Not all swarms are immune to weapon damage. Only Fine or Diminutive swarms.

Bombs do not do weapon damage. The direct damage should be dealt to a swarm of any Size because it is Fire damage (or Cold, Acid, Sonic, etc.), not weapon damage. You have to hit the swarm in order to affect it, unless you want to argue that - because they are so small - the bomb or vial can't "break" on them. Even Fine or Diminutive swarms have an AC. You're not targeting an individual creature, but the swarm itself.

I can see arguing both sides on Fine or Diminutive swarms from ONLY the splash damage (+50%), but this does seem personal interpretation to me.

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

It adds up when the whole party is tossing them at the swarm. It's certainly better than "I stand there glaring at the swarm that I am physically incapable of attacking in any meaningful way."

It adds up when the whole party is tossing them at the swarm. It's certainly better than "I stand there glaring at the swarm that I am physically incapable of attacking in any meaningful way."

1 point of damage to a 30-40 hp swarm is close enough to meaningless as to be indistinguishable, IMO.

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

thejeff wrote:

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

Splash from bombs does more.

As, I believe do any splash weapons used by alchemists.

It adds up when the whole party is tossing them at the swarm. It's certainly better than "I stand there glaring at the swarm that I am physically incapable of attacking in any meaningful way."

At 20 gp a pop?

If there's actually anyone in the party capable of hurting it meaningful, you're better off letting them do so and just standing there. Or Aiding or something else.

Or running away.

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

Splash from bombs does more.

As, I believe do any splash weapons used by alchemists.

Yes, but at the time the rule was first published for Pathfinder there were no alchemists and alchemist bombs. Until the alchemist came along splash weapons could only do 1 point of splash damage, making the language about 50% damage pointless unless swarms were meant to take full damage from splash weapons.

thejeff wrote:

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

Splash from bombs does more.

As, I believe do any splash weapons used by alchemists.

Yes, but at the time the rule was first published for Pathfinder there were no alchemists and alchemist bombs. Until the alchemist came along splash weapons could only do 1 point of splash damage, making the language about 50% damage pointless.

Which suggests to me that direct hits from splash weapons are intended to do full damage.

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

Splash from bombs does more.

As, I believe do any splash weapons used by alchemists.

Yes, but at the time the rule was first published for Pathfinder there were no alchemists and alchemist bombs. Until the alchemist came along splash weapons could only do 1 point of splash damage, making the language about 50% damage pointless.

Which suggests to me that direct hits from splash weapons are intended to do full damage.

I completely agree.

There may not have been splash weapons doing more than one point of damage, but there certainly were area spells.

There may not have been splash weapons doing more than one point of damage, but there certainly were area spells.

I fully understand that area of effect spells do more than 1 point of damage. The point is that splash weapons would not have been called out as doing fifty percent extra damage to swarms unless they were, in fact, capable of doing more than 1 point of damage.

thejeff wrote:

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

jerdog wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Seranov wrote:

There are two parts of splash weapons.

1) The direct damage that targets a single target. Swarms are immune to this, as they are immune to anything that targets a specific number of creatures.

2) The splash damage that targets everything in a certain range. Swarms are not immune to this, because it does not target a specific number of creatures. Additionally, it is specifically called out in the swarm immunity that swarms take 1.5x damage from such attacks.

Is that stupid, imo? Very much so, yes. But that's what the rules say.

Which makes the standard advice of "buy Alchemist fire to use against swarms" pretty pointless. Splash damage is only 1 pt.

That brings up a good point. If swarms only take splash damage, then there is no point is stating that they take an additional 50% damage from splash weapons as 50% of 1 point of damage is, in PF terms, still only 1 point of damage.

Splash from bombs does more.

As, I believe do any splash weapons used by alchemists.

Yes, but at the time the rule was first published for Pathfinder there were no alchemists and alchemist bombs. Until the alchemist came along splash weapons could only do 1 point of splash damage, making the language about 50% damage pointless.

Which suggests to me that direct hits from splash weapons are intended to do full damage.

I completely agree.

This.

People overthink the swarm traits. I've always thought the intent of the rules were fairly clear in this respect.

You know, I agree with the above sentiment that splash weapons, like alchemist's fire, were/are intended to do 150% damage to swarms.

This is probably a good case of RAW vs RAI. Both RAW and RAI are fairly clear, but conflict with each other.

The easiest fix would probably be to add an exception in the swarm trait calling out that splash weapons affect them fully, despite targeting single creatures.

_Ozy_ wrote:

There may not have been splash weapons doing more than one point of damage, but there certainly were area spells.

I fully understand that area of effect spells do more than 1 point of damage. The point is that splash weapons would not have been called out as doing fifty percent extra damage to swarms unless they were, in fact, capable of doing more than 1 point of damage.

They are called out as an example of area effect damage, and thus subject to the +50% rule. The fact that, due to rounding, this doesn't increase the damage is irrelevant. The devs just wanted to provide examples of both magical and non-magical area damage.

Can you imagine the arguments over whether alchemist bombs affected swarms if the rules hadn't included splash weapons in the swarm traits? Given how restrictive many people interpret the rules, you would have pages upon pages of comments stating RAW only allows magical area spells to damage swarms.

Direct damage from bombs affect ONE target. So great, one of the 10,000 swarming spiders got totally vaporized. The rest take splash damage.

I am quite certain that the intent at publishing was to require a Wizard or 180 gp minimum in investment for every 1st level character to take on a swarm.

Yep.

That certainly wouldn't be stupid at all.

It's one thing to try and interpret RAI when RAW is ambiguous.

It's quite another to directly contradict when the rules say immune to effects that target a specific number of creatures. I mean, it's not even kind of ambiguous, it's directly, 100% contrary to what the rules say.

I mean, you can call it stupid all you like, and I'm all for relaxed interpretation to align with common sense, but this is literally disregarding the rules.

It is perfectly clear that swarms are immune to the direct hit damage of alchemy weapons and bombs etc.

Which is why you use oil instead.

And pathfinder did not invent the swarm rules, they copied them from 3.5.
And IIRC you did have options to do more splash damage already when they wrote that.