jerdog's page

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.

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.

I would like to thank the Paizo team for looking at ways to make PFS better. One way to make things easier for the GM is to either have the stat blocks at the end of the scenario or have them as a separate file. This way, it will not be necessary to constantly flip back and forth when running a game. There have been several scenarios that I have run (cannot remember the names) where, in a later combat, you were told to use a stat block from the first encounter. If you have time to prep you can just print out the pages but if you have to run cold it makes things very difficult. Also, if complete stat blocks can be included rather than a reference to a Bestiary or NPC Codex entry, that would be great. Thanks for the great work.

Painlord wrote:

Andrea Brandt wrote:

I hope you're happy, Pain. But you still have to have someone else get you coffee. I'm busy, keeping time and prepping a lovely mug to gather all the BoneKeep Tears.

Sheesh. I like the avatar that wasn't making claims upon my unborn tears.

Can we go back to that one?

She's become a monster!

She's critting seven-year olds, making their nine-year old brother cry, and then brutally murdering characters. If I hadn't killed Jerry's character with an errant bomb, I'm sure Andi would have! She certainly didn't hesitate to kill Scott's character.

I'm not sure the bomb was errant.