I got a bunch of 2nd level characters fighting a Spider swarm.
There are two elves among them one a sorcerer, one a wizard.
Both know (and did prepaire) acid splash for the day.
But the question that arose is: Is acid splash considered to be a splash weapon?
The spell description specifies one target, and no area of effect.
The relevant portion of the swarm subtype traits are as following:
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures... . 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.
So, would that acid splash deal 1d3*1.5 acid damage against the spider swarm, or none at all?
It seems like you pretty much answered your own question. The trick is to ignore the name of a spell and simply look at the effects. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures and take extra damage from effects that affect an area. Acid splash is a single target spell, no area of effect. Ergo, Acid Splash has no effect on the swarm.
Now, if the group is having a particularly hard time (as I imagine a 2nd level group would against a swarm of Diminutive creatures), you could give them a little help by allowing the cantrip to affect the swarm. At most, I would allow it to do normal damage. The spell isn't designed to be able to affect more than one creature, but as a splash of acid it might catch a number of spiders when it hits.
My interpretation: weapon-like spells with no "Target:" line do not target a specific number of creatures (even though practically speaking that is the case). Otherwise you end up with the strange situation where a sword can kill a rat sworm, but Mordenkainen's Sword cannot (well, it seems strange to me, anyways).
But Acid Splash isn't a splash weapon; that has a specific definition in the rules.
So by my interpretation, Acid Splash does 1d3 damage against a spider swarm.
I would go with hogarth on the interpretation of the "swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures". Thinking about it, I believe that is for the effects of a hold monster spell or similar effect, while it specifically mentions mind-affecting spells in the same statement if I remember correctly. Any spell that requires an attack roll could simply be treated as a weapon for the purposes of determining its effects. If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...
EDIT: the line about a specific number of targets mentions by name the disintegrate spell. Therefore, it seems for the purposes of swarms, any spell which requires you to pick a single creature to target (either for an attack or for an immediate effect) would be ineffective against a swarm.
I still stand by my previous statement though, if it would prevent the party from being wiped out, I would allow something to deal damage rather than let them simply be wiped out...
I would go with hogarth on the interpretation of the "swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures". Thinking about it, I believe that is for the effects of a hold monster spell or similar effect, while it specifically mentions mind-affecting spells in the same statement if I remember correctly. Any spell that requires an attack roll could simply be treated as a weapon for the purposes of determining its effects. If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...
EDIT: the line about a specific number of targets mentions by name the disintegrate spell. Therefore, it seems for the purposes of swarms, any spell which requires you to pick a single creature to target (either for an attack or for an immediate effect) would be ineffective against a swarm.
I still stand by my previous statement though, if it would prevent the party from being wiped out, I would allow something to deal damage rather than let them simply be wiped out...
I should have copied the half sentence in brackets as well, my fault, yeah.
I left out the mind-affecting part as I wasn't unsure about that though.End of the line: acid splash normally doesn't affect swarms.
As it stands, the sorcerer is badly hurt now, the others lightly.
I'm going to go easy on them for now though.
Thanks for the help!
Ugh...that line about "disintegrate" does ruin my interpretation a bit. For my game, I think I'll still interpret it my way and pretend that disintegrate is special because of the line: "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting."
If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...
Yes, but note that a spider swarm is not immune to the flaming part of a flaming arrow's damage, for instance.
OH WAIT -- it looks like they deleted that bit of the swarm description in the translation from 3.5 to PFRPG, along with the ability to attack using a swarm or a lantern. Double ugh. :-(
|
If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...Yes, but note that a spider swarm is not immune to the flaming part of a flaming arrow's damage, for instance.
OH WAIT -- it looks like they deleted that bit of the swarm description in the translation from 3.5 to PFRPG, along with the ability to attack using a swarm or a lantern. Double ugh. :-(
IIRC, that "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" section was left out by mistake, and should still apply.
Since swarms take full energy damage according to that section, I'd allow acid splash to affect a swarm.
EDIT: Off-topic, but I just had a great idea. What about an area of wild/super-powered magic where, instead of affecting a swarm, acid splash effected a swarm?
If I remember, however, spider swarms (which use diminutive creatures) are immune to weapon damage...Yes, but note that a spider swarm is not immune to the flaming part of a flaming arrow's damage, for instance.
OH WAIT -- it looks like they deleted that bit of the swarm description in the translation from 3.5 to PFRPG, along with the ability to attack using a swarm or a lantern. Double ugh. :-(
IIRC, that "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" section was left out by mistake, and should still apply.
Since swarms take full energy damage according to that section, I'd allow acid splash to affect a swarm.
EDIT: Off-topic, but I just had a great idea. What about an area of wild/super-powered magic where, instead of affecting a swarm, acid splash effected a swarm?
Except that it still lists swarms as taking extra damage from area effects, which would be considered a vulnerability. I'm not sure why they took out the section about elemental damage still affecting them, unless they really didn't want to include it...
Except that it still lists swarms as taking extra damage from area effects, which would be considered a vulnerability. I'm not sure why they took out the section about elemental damage still affecting them, unless they really didn't want to include it...
The issue is that the 3.5 SRD has two places where it lists information about swarms: under the Swarm subtype, and in the monster listing for swarms. Paizo should have amalgamated all the information in the Swarm subtype description, but instead they just dropped the monster listing stuff.
OH WAIT -- it looks like they deleted that bit of the swarm description in the translation from 3.5 to PFRPG, along with the ability to attack using a swarm or a lantern. Double ugh. :-(IIRC, that "Vulnerabilities of Swarms" section was left out by mistake, and should still apply.
Since swarms take full energy damage according to that section, I'd allow acid splash to affect a swarm.
If I read James Jacobs post here correct, that section was left out intentionally.
Still, I'm unsure about how to read that post.
If I read James Jacobs post here correct, that section was left out intentionally.
Still, I'm unsure about how to read that post.
Later in the same thread he admits he misread the question.
|
|
Later in the same thread he admits he misread the question.If I read James Jacobs post here correct, that section was left out intentionally.
Still, I'm unsure about how to read that post.
And suggests that the issue get added to the errata thread.
Hence my view that swarm vulnerabilities should be included in PFRPG.