Byakko's page

A medium (or smaller) creature picks one corner of its square. The 4 squares surrounding this point are within the 5' emanation.

Regardless of whether you think this makes "sense" or not is moot. The rules are very clear on this.

(The FAQ only addresses Large+ sized creatures)

I'm surprised so many people think this is FAQ worthy.

Just because a nat 1 is always a miss, doesn't change what 4 minus 1 is. It's 3. And this difference of 3 meets the criteria of "5 or less". Thus, the image pops (assuming all other conditions for that are met).

It's really that simple. (imho, anyway)

Good luck.

This archetype's abilities are very loosely written and are in serious need of rewordings.

Here's a thread I made about it a while ago, which may provide some clarifications... or perhaps it may just raise more questions for you:

linky

Here's a bit of feedback from Mark Seifer basically agreeing that it's going to be a GM call:
linky

Yep, the above people have got the right of it. You won't be able to apply Precise Strike to the bite attack due to the exclusionary clause written into the ability.

Additionally, I believe that if you try to use TWF with unarmed attacks, the attacks made with your offhand will conflict with the "a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand" clause, even if the unarmed strikes are made with some other body part ("hands of effort" rules, etc).

(while the above wasn't specifically asked about, it's a likely path for someone doing this to consider)

Yep, it applies. This also allows you to use soft cover to avoid attacks of opportunity from reach weapons.

The rules seems ambiguous on this one, so FAQing.

I'd personally rule against it being usable while pinned, since the various rules wordings imply to me that a pinned character is largely incapable of doing stuff with the exception of things specifically mentioned.

The people in this thread saying that a medium creature won't be able to easily fit within an EMF... may be right. However, that is nothing new, and predates the FAQ.

The FAQ simply doesn't apply to creatures smaller than Large size. So just carry on adjudicating EMF's space constraints on a medium creature the same way you did before the FAQ was released. If that means such creatures are squeezed in your game, so be it. It's not like EMF will stop being taken and used.

Technically, a Large creature might also get a bit squeezed even inside their larger hemisphere. Or perhaps not... again, I'll leave that up to your GM to decide.

Regardless, this lack of consistency is a direct result of the FAQ. We may not like it (or perhaps we do?), but that's just the way it is until another rules change is made.

Yep, but still an option rule.

Medium and smaller creatures use one corner as the point of origin, whereas larger creatures can measure from their exterior.

The GM is, of course, allowed to adjust the rules as he/she sees fit, but this shouldn't be happening in an environment like PFS, as the official rules are clear.

The rules are actually kinda ambiguous on this, although most reasonable GMs will allow it as long as you're not trying to abuse some rules interaction.

Byakko wrote:

Kigvan wrote:

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

First let me point out this is for PFS, so GM Caveat/Houserules are out.

Tower Shield Specialist Feat wrote:

Benefit: You reduce the armor check penalty of tower shields by 3, and if you have the armor training class feature, you modify the armor check penalty and maximum dexterity bonus of tower shields as if they were armor.

Armor Expert wrote:

When you wear armor of any sort, reduce that suit's armor check penalty by 1, to a minimum check penalty of 0.

I believe it is quite clear that if you have the armor training class feature you treat the shield as armor for all effects that reduce armor check penalties.

It does not just say that you can apply your armor training to the tower shield.

That doesn't logically follow.

The Armor Expert trait is not the same thing as the Armor Training class feature. You only modify a Tower Shield's checks/dex based on the Armor Training class feature, because that's what the rules say.

No, the rule says that if you have the Armor Training class feature, you modify tower shields' max dex mod and ACP as if they were armor. It does not limit that modification just to the class feature's modification. If you have both the feat and the class feature, anything that modifies the ACP and/or max dex of armor also applies to tower shields.

So you think having the Armor Training class feature makes a Tower Shield count as armor for ALL other purposes? I suppose that's one possible interpretation.

IMHO, however, it's not referring to ALL such modifiers, but only the modifiers provided by the armor training class feature mentioned directly beforehand.

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

First let me point out this is for PFS, so GM Caveat/Houserules are out.

Tower Shield Specialist Feat wrote:

Benefit: You reduce the armor check penalty of tower shields by 3, and if you have the armor training class feature, you modify the armor check penalty and maximum dexterity bonus of tower shields as if they were armor.

Armor Expert wrote:

When you wear armor of any sort, reduce that suit's armor check penalty by 1, to a minimum check penalty of 0.

I believe it is quite clear that if you have the armor training class feature you treat the shield as armor for all effects that reduce armor check penalties.

It does not just say that you can apply your armor training to the tower shield.

That doesn't logically follow.

The Armor Expert trait is not the same thing as the Armor Training class feature. You only modify a Tower Shield's checks/dex based on the Armor Training class feature, because that's what the rules say.

It's good to tailor the information you give to players based on what they need, would find useful, and would make sense for their characters to know.
Try to look at the monster and determine things that would affect how the players would tackle it. Ie, if knowing the bit of info would likely change the tactics they use, it's probably a good candidate for a bit of "useful information".

If it's not info which would be tactics-changing, then either lump that info in with "basics" you give for free, or as bonus information for exceptionally high rolls.

The party makeup should be taken into consideration when deciding which and how much info to give.

For example, in a party of martial characters, knowing that a monster has high elemental resistances isn't particularly useful, so you might lump all of that into one piece of information.

On the other hand, in a party of mage blasters, each elemental resistance, such as "fire resistance 20", "electrical resistance 10", and "cold resistance 10" might be a different piece of vital information.

In a more typical mixed party, you might give as once piece of information something like this: "You recall that this monster is known for high overall resistances, particularly fire (of which it ignores the first 20 points). These beasts are typically fought with physical attacks, although some mages have noted success with more obscure damage types.".

Finally, try not to get into the habit of allowing players to decide the information they get. While it's reasonable to allow them to influence the choice, ultimately it falls upon the GM to make the decision as to what is appropriate. There's many reasons I recommend this, which I can go into more detail on if desired, but I'll leave it at that for now.

This smells very like the "I ready to shoot through the doorway as soon as the door is opened." debate.

Yes, readied actions typically occur before the triggering event, but in some situations it makes sense to have them happen just afterwards. You can justify this however you want, and it's quite easy. For example, agree that in cases like these, the intent of the ready is actually "I ready to attack a moment after the <condition>.".

I'd love to see the things being discussed here turned into a proper FAQ thread if anyone has the time. Movement an stealth in unusual situations has always seen quite a bit of variation at different tables, in my experience.

Just to spice things up, I'm going to argue that the DC to jump a 10' pit is actually LESS than 10.

This is because when you're just about to leave the ground, your center of mass could be slighter over the edge since your body is tilted forward. Similarly, when you land, your feet could be ahead of your center of mass.

Thus, the actual distance covered by a 9' jump may be effectively 10', so the DC should be 9. (depending on the height of the individual) *evil grin*

This would also explain how a gargantuan giant may not need to make a jump check at all to cover a 10' gap. The effective gap size, after taking into account the length of the giant's legs and position relative to their center of mass, may be 0.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find a GM, PFS or otherwise, who'd object to that.

Just don't try to have your bird do anything raven-like which a hawk couldn't also do.

I was just noting that when they mention "large", they're (obviously?) not referring the game size category.

The (Giant) Raven animal companion entry isn't really relevant to this archetype. Even if you choose a raven as your scavenging bird of choice, it will still use the stat block for the Bird entry, not Raven. Whether a raven, in real life, qualifies as a large scavenging bird may be contested, which is what I was referring to.

Byakko wrote:

The companion can be any type of reasonable avian. But regardless of what species it is, it has the stats of the "bird" druid animal companion.

You do understand the question, right? In PFS there are actual rules against using one animal to represent another, provided there are actual rules for both versions. So, for PFS, I can't normally select a bird companion to appear as a Vulture, because there is an actual Vulture companion option.

I totally agree that for non-PFS play, I could represent any bird with this class, no issues at all.

So my question is if, for PFS, this Class Archetype grants special exception for using a Vulture or Raven (or other specific bird) with the rules for Bird companion in the CRB?

Yes, I'm aware of that. That's why I said "reasonable avian".

In this case, reasonable avian is "any type of large hunting or scavenging bird".

So sure, break open your nature encyclopedia or wikipedia, and grab something appropriate. As long as you pick a bird that meets the above criteria, you are correctly fulfilling the requirements of the power. You are not substituting one animal for another, as the power specifically allows you to choose.

Now there might be some table variation if you go for a particularly small bird of pray, since it does say "large" (relative to other birds, not the game term), but honestly, it really shouldn't matter if you need to temporarily change the name for that one uptight GM, since there are no mechanical differences derived from what you call it.

The companion can be any type of reasonable avian. But regardless of what species it is, it has the stats of the "bird" druid animal companion.

As a tiny creature, your viper can't attack someone adjacent to you, regardless if it's a readied attack or a regular attack. Tiny creatures can only attack creatures in it's own square.

You can combine a 5' step with a readied action, so this isn't terribly hard to overcome.

There are also other ways for a familiar to gain reach.

In PFS (and many home games) familiars have one or the other of the following states

1) NOT active. Not scouting, not fighting. Just hanging out and providing their static bonuses,
2) Active. Scouting, fighting, etc.

This is actually completely a house rule, as far as I know. Please give a PFS ruling reference for this.

However, it is true that if your familiar in in a sufficiently enclosed space, a typical GM will grant it complete cover from external effects. This would naturally prevent it from attacking and should also preclude its ability to 5' step.

There are also familiar items which grant this sort of protection, specifically, iirc.

Additional questions that come to mind:
What happens if a tiny creature enters your space ? Can the familiar attack then ?
Or if you enter the space of a much larger creature ?

And finally... what kind of protection can a familiar claim while still being able to attack ? Cover ? Improved Cover ? I would assume no total cover

Whenever a creature enters another's space (with many exceptions), it provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature whose space it is entering.

The amount of protection is up to GM discretion, but you can probably expect the familiar to suffer the same penalties attacking out that others have attacking in.

Good stuff. Thanks and welcome back!

Hi,

On behalf of the rules forum, I'd like to enquire about the general silence in the forums and the lack of published FAQs for the Pathfinder game system these last few months.

Way back in 2015, it was mentioned that the design team would answer some of the most pressing questions about once a week.

While once a week may have been a little over ambitious, we generally still received about one or two rulings each month. However, since about 3 months ago, new FAQs have been conspicuously absent. People are starting to wonder what's going on.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate how interactive the Paizo staff have generally been in the forums, and the frequency of their replies. I just hope they return to doing the excellent job they are known for soon, as this is genuinely one of the factors which determines my purchasing decisions, and other contributions.

-Byakko

Quote:

Those who have seen a phoenix rise claim that the bird's corpse initially becomes brittle and blackened, like the wrinkled form of a charred log. Moments later, crimson light begins to seep from the cracked remains before the rejuvenated phoenix bursts forth aflame, reducing the husk to ashes. If the magical firebird should be slain again before its legendary power has regenerated, however, it can only be raised via powerful magic from an outside source. Few sights are more disheartening than the true death of a noble phoenix.

So, when the phoenix dies its body becomes brittle and blackened like a charred log. When the phoenix resurrects, the old body turns to ash and a new one rises out.

Personally, I wouldn't think that describes a "mostly intact corpse or skeleton". Expect variation on this one.

As you are the GM, I think that's a reasonable call to make, although as seen, others may have ruled otherwise.

*chews gum lazily*

Weren't they supposed to come out with a FAQ every month? Seems like they're a couple months behind. It'd be nice to get this one answered, especially since it has implications for other similar questions.

Holy necro, batman!

One remaining question, in my mind, is whether False Life stacks with Greater False Life...

It might be good for everyone to take a step back and think about game design for a bit. While it's easy to dismiss speculation of designer intent with a flippant "Who knows? We can't make rulings based on guesses.", I think in many cases veterans really should know what the spirit of the game is, beyond the written legalese.

With that in mind, let me present a few assumptions based on the history of D&D/Pathfinder and general game design:

1) Combatants using weapons were expected to use a single "style" of combat for fighting (ie ranged, TWF, Two-Handed, etc).

2) Rules exist for changing from one style to another, but these were intended to be for convenience and flexibility, and not as methods for merging different fighting styles in a single round for an advantage.

3) FAQs and rules clarifications invariably try to address these rules gap by eliminating potential advantages a character can gain by trying to flip between styles during a single round.

4) Hence, if you ever find a situation where changing between styles grants a notable advantage over simply staying in a single style, there's a high change that it was unintended.

5) Some of these situations can be veto-ed by reasonable readings of the rules, stretching the interpretation of a relevant rules block, or by simply saying "no". The last of these options is naturally the least desirable, especially in a rules-enforced setting/forum, and it is in these cases that a FAQ/errata is most needed.

6) Thus, I suggest this thread, and similar ones, should fore-mostly be asking the following questions:
"Is these any benefit the combatant is gaining from switching styles mid-round over a similar one who switched at the end of their round?"
and if so:
"Can we find rules to disallow this and bring it back in line?"
and if not, finally:
"Can we acquire a FAQ to fix this issue, and if so, what should it be?"

Barring an official response (haven't they been getting rather sparse of late?), I think we can at least agree that the rules are a bit muddy here.

Despite some decent from the other side, I still believe the combo won't work because WA bars additional attacks, and the spell from Spell Combat functions like TWF. Since you can't use TWF, you can't use Spell Combat (even if the latter may not actually be an attack).

I believe this is both RAW and RAI, but expect table variation. :)

Q1: 3. You attack with Serpent's Lash once and then a second time. The first one is affected by Mirror Strike's "when you make your next melee attack roll" and is split into two.

Q2: As True Strike triggers on "Your next single attack roll", it will apply to the attack roll used in conjunction with Mirror Strike, and thus affect those two targets. It's my opinion that the "same bonus" referred to in Serpent's Lash are your basic attack roll modifiers, and that True Strike's "single next attack" is more specific and trumps Serpent's Lash in this case.

Q3: While Gisher is correct about the spell dissipation, if you were to use Chill Touch instead of True Strike, each opponent hit would consume a charge (assuming your attacks qualify for applying Chill Touch to). While the flavor of Mirror Strike may mislead you into believing that it's a single "cloned" attack, you're actually still hitting both targets with your weapon, just with different rules for determining whether you hit and how to adjudicate the results.

This is still a clever use of the spell, however, as the reduced damage doesn't generally matter for a non-damaging attack.

This is basically the old "Do spells stick with the body of the soul when you use Magic Jar?" question, in disguise.

It's never really been resolved.

I agree with the people saying you won't be able to cast the spell, as you've forfeited your offhand attacks by using Whirlwind Attack.

(even if the spell isn't an attack spell, it still requires the equivalent of 2-weapon fighting... which W.A. forbids)

Firebug wrote:

I could imagine some GM saying that:

Champion of Irori wrote:

"In addition to the normal uses of this ki pool, a champion of Irori may expend 2 ki points to trigger either his lay on hands ability (if he has it) or his smite evil ability."

doesn't actually give you more uses of Smite Evil, the smite is merely triggered.

Where are you getting Still Mind? It seems like you need at least 2 paladin, at least 1 cleric (unless you were counting hospitaler paladin has the cleric), and 3 levels of monk?

I could see that interpretation, and it is open to a little bit of table variation. My other local GM's have all signed off on the interpretation that I'm using, but I would recommend running this by your local GMs before using it elsewhere.

I am using monk in order to get Still Mind. Specifically the Master of Many Styles and Monk of the Sacred Mountain archetypes.

I start out with monk and paladin for the martial ability, and then move into champion of irori for the ki pool stacking. I then return to paladin for the channel pool and mercy, and then dip into cleric for an additional channel pool.

Ha, that's funny. I have a character who is doing the same things, just via a different route.

I would also agree that the Champion of Irori doesn't work for this how you're hoping, as it says "triggers". You never actually gain any additional uses of Smite Evil.

The definition I selected was the Google box for 'define conscious'.

Try it yourself.

And no, generally a sleeping person doesn't respond to the environment unless they actually wake up. That's why when you ask a sleeping person a question, they don't answer back. ;)

Well, that's just a matter of sensitivity. ;)

If you yell at them, they will respond... if not coherently at first.

Conversely, a fully awake person might not hear a whispering question, and thus fail to answer back.

I've already agreed to that. What I disagree with is that 'falling asleep' is consistent with the common definition for 'remaining conscious'.

Especially when the definition of conscious is:

con·scious
ˈkän(t)SHəs/
adjective
aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake.

The definition you happened to select isn't a very good one, imho.

The two definitions given actually contradict each other, as it's been pointed out that a sleeping person responds to their environment and is, on a certain level, aware of what's going on around them.

But yeah, I agree, that people often commonly interchange the two terms. There's not a lot you can do when people disagree about the basic meaning of a word, except agree to disagree.

Some of this is recap, but let's start from the top.

Symbol of Striking works like Symbol of Death and, "when triggered", does stuff.

As a default, a symbol of [Striking] is triggered whenever a creature does one or more of the following, as you select: looks at the rune; reads the rune; touches the rune; passes over the rune; or passes through a portal bearing the rune.

The symbol doesn't care if the person triggering it is invisible or not. If they do one of the things specified, it is triggered.

Ok, so you probably triggered the rune, despite being invisible. What happens?

When triggered, the symbol threatens its area and the area around it as if it were a Medium creature wielding a magic version of the weapon you used as the material component.

As the symbol is functioning as a creature, and it doesn't mention any special senses for it, I would say that it would be unable to see you and thus won't be able to make attacks of opportunity versus you.

If it didn't mention or indicate that it functioned as a creature, you would use the caster's vision. (this is the default for all spells)

Note that if this spell relied on and used the caster's vision, it would be pretty ineffective when the caster wasn't around!

*shrug* then we disagree.

Google's boxed answer, states "Being asleep is not the same thing as being unconscious. A sleeping person will respond to loud noises or gentle shaking -- an unconscious person will not. An unconscious person cannot cough or clear his or her throat. This can lead to death if the airway becomes blocked.".

The majority of the other hits also agree with us.

Whether that translates over to the game is naturally subject to the GM.

I did mention that the circle might not be perfectly circular(/spherical), depending on how you measure distance, which is what will happen if you measure from the surface of your body.

Note that for distances between two non-points, distance is generally defined to be the shortest distance between the things in question. This is why the distance between a point and a straight line is determined by a line segment perpendicular to the line that lands on the point - any other line segment drawn between the point and the line would be longer. (however, you do seem to agree with this, since you made a statement to that effect)

For a 3 dimensional regions, like the body, you would find the shortest line segment between the region of the body and the region of your heart. It is simple to find a line segments of length 0 where one "end" is in the region of your heart and the other "end" is in the region of your body. For something like distance, numbers less than zero aren't meaningful, thus you can quickly conclude that 0 is indeed the answer. (and yes, it is perfectly fine to a have a line segment of length 0 where both "ends" are co-located, for the purposes of measuring distance)

Traveling no distance IS the same thing as a distance of 0.

On a number line, how far is the number 6 to the number 6? The answer is 0. The distance between a point and itself is 0. That's why 6-6=0, for example. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that, but that's just how mathematics is defined.

If you wish to use a mathematical system where 6-6=undefined... by all means. Just don't expect me, or pretty much anyone else, to get on-board with it, especially for a mundane situation like this.

Byakko wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

Byakko wrote:

Except it doesn't say "other creatures".

Are you within 5 feet from yourself? No. You are the starting point for measuring.

Example: How far away from you is your heart?

Yes, you are within 5 feet of yourself. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

The distance from yourself to yourself is 0, which is less than 5 feet.

You are the measuring point. You can't be a distance away from yourself. You also didn't answer the example question.

I really hope you're not trolling...

Ok, let's try again.

Imagine drawing a line around yourself at a distance of 5 feet. This circle (or near-circle, depending on how you draw it) marks the boundary of everything which is within 5 feet and everything that is not. Now ask yourself, which side of this line are you on? I really hope you agree that you're on the inside of the circle. Hence, you are within 5 feet of yourself.

I didn't answer your "example question" directly, because you were actually asking something not directly relevant: what the distance between a thing and a sub-component of that thing is.

However, to answer this additional question, let me rephrase it into a more obvious version:
"How far is Missouri from the United States?" (Missouri is a state of the US)

While there's several ways to approach this question, probably the easiest is to determine how far someone in Missouri must travel for them to be within the United States. When rephrased like this, the answer should be obvious: they don't have to travel at all and therefore the distance in question is zero.

Likewise, how far must your heart move to be co-located with the region that defines your body?
The answer is, again, zero. (barring some calamitous heart surgery!)

Byakko wrote:

Tarantula wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

That's how I run it. A four square swarm, hit by a alchemist fire, will take (eg) 6pts the square it hits, and one point extra for the other three, total of 9.

Quote:

Swarm Subtype: A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature.

Throw Splash Weapon wrote:

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

Swarms are treated a single creature. Direct hits from splash weapons deal direct hit damage to the target, and splash to other creatures within 5 feet. That's how I read it anyway.

Except it doesn't say "other creatures".

Are you within 5 feet from yourself? No. You are the starting point for measuring.

Example: How far away from you is your heart?

Yes, you are within 5 feet of yourself. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?

The distance from yourself to yourself is 0, which is less than 5 feet.

Although it's a bit of a tangent to the topic, I would like to remind people that being asleep isn't necessarily the same thing as being unconscious. In medical terms anyway.

DrDeth wrote:

That's how I run it. A four square swarm, hit by a alchemist fire, will take (eg) 6pts the square it hits, and one point extra for the other three, total of 9.

Quote:

Swarm Subtype: A swarm is a collection of Fine, Diminutive, or Tiny creatures that acts as a single creature.

Throw Splash Weapon wrote:

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

Swarms are treated a single creature. Direct hits from splash weapons deal direct hit damage to the target, and splash to other creatures within 5 feet. That's how I read it anyway.

Except it doesn't say "other creatures".

Mulet, would you mind sharing some details about the other players' characters? That might shed some light on why they feel ineffective compared to a swashbuckler.

If there are some other damage focused characters in the party, perhaps providing them a bare bones example of how they can perform comparably might convince them that the swashbuckler's damage isn't anything special. Then give them the chance to make a few adjustments to their character, if everyone agrees.

Also, contrary to many of the posts here, I would advise against designing some plot/story to specifically (and temporarily) target the swashbuckler. It sounds like the real issue here is that the player is taking up too much of the limelight in the game, and effort should be taken to shine the spotlight on other characters, and their merits, instead.

DrDeth wrote:

I think everyone interprets it that way.

But still, the rules can be read another way.

So no matter how you play it, it would be good to see that the RAW clearly match the RAI.

.

Because the Pathfinder Design Team has absolutely nothing to do except issue pedantic FAQ responses to clarify that the way everyone interprets a clause is correct, and that a possible alternative reading that no one actually accepts is, in fact, unacceptable.

Shall we also issue a FAQ request to confirm that water is wet and the religion practiced by the Pope? Just in case there's someone out there --- someone that doesn't actually include anyone who plays Pathfinder, but, you know, someone -- who misunderstands?

And meanwhile, the rules for Starfinder and next month's Adventure Path will happily write and edit themselves.

You realize you're using a logically fallacious argument there, right?

There are no rules in pathfinder discussing the wetness of water or the religion of the pope. There are, however, rules detailing how to handle splash weapons.

Those rules indicate that they should be run in a counter-intuitive and ineffective manner (unless you wish to very favorably interpret them). It is perfectly reasonable to desire an update to a bit of sloppy rules text.

Personally, I'd be overjoyed to have one less Adventure Path published if it led to the creation of an equivalent number of pages of errata. (and the increased stability and balance of the game would surely improve the longevity of the game and total eventual sales... I'd hope)

Any creature can make unarmed attacks, no FAQ required.

It's on the list of available standard actions in combat and there are rules on how to combine them with a monster's natural attacks.

While generic monsters will likely stick to the tactics and attacks listed in their bestiary entry, players are free to do whatever they like with their actions.

Once again, if you're reading that swarms only take splash damage, and not damage from a direct hit, that is YOUR INTERPRETATION. It is not the fault of the Developers that you read it that way.

Feel free to run with it as a GM. You'll probably lose your playerbase fairly quickly. Feel free to run with it as a player. That 1st level Spider Swarm is gonna suck for you.

Meanwhile the rest of us that read, and interpret, that swarms take +50% damage from a direct hit won't be skipping a beat.

Well, of course it's my interpretation. EVERYTHING is an interpretation. However, I do believe it is the most straightforward reading of the rules presented, RAI notwithstanding.

While naturally developers aren't going to write in legal-ese, they should at least do their best to give rules that work as intended when read in a straightforward manner. Really, I just don't get people who think the rules are perfect and couldn't benefit from a bit of improvement here and there.

And obviously, you haven't been reading my posts all that closely, as I have repeatedly mentioned that I don't run splash weapon this way. Attacking my GMing quality (and not even validly!) does nothing but diminish your own reputation and credibility.

Quote:

Anyway, even if it did say "all other creatures", it doesn't change the outcome of the damaging swarms discussion. The +50% damage still only applies to the damage actually dealt to the area... which is just the splash damage.

Incorrect. The swarm doesn't say 150% of splash damage, it says 150% of damage from splash weapons. This includes direct target damage because it doesn't actually say otherwise.

What is 150% of the damage from a typical splash weapon to a swarm?

Just because you're increasing the damage by a factor doesn't mean you get to ignore the other parts of the rules governing swarm damage.

If it said "other", you'd just ignore that second block of damage. (meaning, it'd be prudent not to aim directly at the swarm)

Yup, and those rules existed before the alchemist, so we are supposed to believe that the developers meant for the 150% rule to do exactly nothing.

That seems pretty non-RAI to me.

You're correct, this is absolutely non-RAI. That's why the rules need to be updated, to reflect what the developers actually intended.

Byakko wrote:

RE: Edit: That is actually correct. Technically, the target of a splash weapon will take both the direct damage and also the splash damage.

<A great example with Targeted Bomb Admixture>

You really think that's how things work?

I certainly don't think this is how it was intended to work and it's not how I run them. But:

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

Is a creature within 5 feet of itself? I'm gonna say yes.

It really should've said "all OTHER creatures". But it doesn't. This is a great example of why RAI is important and why one shouldn't just follow the RAW blindly. This text should really be corrected at some point, though. ;)

Anyway, even if it did say "all other creatures", it doesn't change the outcome of the damaging swarms discussion. The +50% damage still only applies to the damage actually dealt to the area... which is just the splash damage.

You've basically just gotta ask this question: "How much damage is the attack dealing to all creatures within the area?" Whatever the answer to that is, increase it by 50% to any swarms there.

Byakko wrote:

_Ozy_ wrote:

Exactly. Trying to 'separate' the direct and splash damage into separate effects is just not supported by the rules.

But that's exactly how splash weapons work.

Their first effect is dealing damage to the target of your ranged attack.

And their second effect is dealing damage to creatures in their splash radius.

I don't see how you could possibly say these are the same effect, since they are so different.

If someone is standing closer to a wall of fire than someone else, they take more damage, yet the effect is the same, fire damage. Just because an effect has conditions on its result doesn't make it a different effect. There is ONE burst of fire from an alchemist flask, and it does variable damage depending on a specific set of criteria, just like the wall of fire.

That doesn't make it two separate effects.

Edit: also, if splash and direct damage were two separate effects, the direct target would take both direct target damage AND splash damage.

One side of the wall, selected by you, sends forth waves of heat, dealing 2d4 points of fire damage to creatures within 10 feet and 1d4 points of fire damage to those past 10 feet but within 20 feet.

The way wall of fire is worded, a single creature won't be hit by more than one of those two options. I suppose a huge creature may fall into both of those ranges, but I believe it's understood that it'll take the higher of those two amounts.

I think your confusion stems from believing a single attack can only produce a single effect. This isn't the case, though. Consider a wolf attacking a creature. Its attack may have two effects: dealing damage and tripping the target. The target may be immune to one of these effects while fully suffering from the other.

RE: Edit: That is actually correct. Technically, the target of a splash weapon will take both the direct damage and also the splash damage.

Exactly. Trying to 'separate' the direct and splash damage into separate effects is just not supported by the rules.

But that's exactly how splash weapons work.

Their first effect is dealing damage to the target of your ranged attack.

And their second effect is dealing damage to creatures in their splash radius.

I don't see how you could possibly say these are the same effect, since they are so different.

[swarms] are just IMMUNE to effects that only target a specific number of creatures. Splash weapons do not fall under this category...

Uh, wut?

A splash weapon is a ranged weapon... make a ranged touch attack against the target.

Looks like the rules disagree with you there.

I guess in your games you allow people to deal targeted splash weapon damage to all creatures in an area? I hope people are chucking them at mounted combatants! (since they'll deal direct damage to both the rider and the mount, right?)

*Groan*

The rules are clear.

PRD wrote:

A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons

Not "splash damage". "Splash weapons". Why do people have to try to inject ambiguity where there is none?

Guys, seriously. You all know this wasn't intended, so why even bother? Why are we so obsessed with proving a point nobody actually cares about? It's literally just arguing for the sake of winning, which is basically the Rules Questions subforum in a nutshell.

How do do splash weapons affect an area? By dealing their splash damage to it. Only their splash damage is affecting the area, thus it is this splash damage which is increased by 50%.

Their single target damage, however, does not affect an area, meaning it is not increased by 50%. It is actually negated, instead, due to another part of the swarm rules.

------

The point of "bothering" is twofold:

1) To point out a RAW vs RAI inconsistency. By noting that, technically, splash weapons don't work as intended against swarms prevents people using it as justification for other things by extension. Such as rays affecting swarms. (the topic of this thread)
2) To get the rules clarified/fixed in future editions of the game.

So the better question is, why are YOU so adamant at arguing the rules here are not, kinda, broken? Don't you want things to get fixed?