Seems pretty obvious to me that it works.
Almost makes me want to craft a flaming shocking cold acid flyswatter, for use on swarms.
Or a whip.
Mmm, there's an idea. Aren't whips touch attacks?
|
Seems pretty obvious to me that it works.
Almost makes me want to craft a flaming shocking cold acid flyswatter, for use on swarms.
Or a whip.
Mmm, there's an idea. Aren't whips touch attacks?
Umm no. Whip is a normal melee attack that provokes AoOs
But guns on the other hand...
"Watch me shoot the wings off that fly"...
Developer
|
You're wrong on inflict wounds. "Target creature touched". That is a single creature. It is a targeted effect. Does not work on tiny or smaller swarms.
You got me. I was using my can attack invisible test. This clearly isn't perfect, and should be augmented with "and cannot brew in a potion"
Good catch, my bad
But guns on the other hand...
"Watch me shoot the wings off that fly"...
I could maybe see a Flaming Burst Gun do some damage to a swarm of flies as the flaming bullet passes through the swarm.
So, swarms basically have DR oo/ Area of Effect.
That's supposed to be an infinity symbol there by the way.
Hmm... except they also have invulnerability to single target spells. Hmm. But why wouldn't a globe of acid, or a ray work? I always pictured them more as a 'firin mah lazorr!!!1' type broad energy beam rather than a pencil thin thing that would only toast one or 2 guys.
Feels like energy should just work on them- even stuff like inflict. Massive negative energy obliterates the first one touched and 'leaks' into the other things in the swarm it's touching. Sort of a domino effect. For one, this would be way easier to word.
2) By your definition here, a swarm would not take damage from Alchemist's Fire, other than the 1 point of splash damage.
I'm just (trying) to read the rules. I've already commented on what I think q:
And yes, even according to the 3.5 rules, the only "special vulnerability" listed that would be comparable is a lit lantern (1d4 AoE). How a lit lantern does more AoE damage to a swarm than an alchemist fire is completely absurd.
But yes, the single target component of an alchemist fire hits a single target. Reading the rules as they are, swarms are immune to any effect which applies to a single target. Thus, the swarm is immune to the single target damage of the alchemist fire. The swarm does take the 1 point of damage from the AoE effect.
(Do I play that way, heck no q:)
Swing a sword or a hammer or a spear around in a cloud of bees. You won't do much harm
But light that sword or hammer or spear on fire and do the same thing—you'll kill quite a few bees by burning them out of the air.
And although it's harder to do in real life, a cold weapon or an electricity weapon basically does the same thing.
Oooh I like thought experiments (: That's a good one!
Perhaps a better way of describing this would have been to say "Swarms don't take bludgeoning, slashing, or piercing damage from weapons."
The more I think about swarms, the more I get confused ):
So, a scorching ray deals no damage at all to a swarm. No one argues that.
A spiritual weapon spell effect is not a weapon. The actual "weapon" itself strikes as a spell, so it ignores DR.
Because it is a spell effect that targets one target, it should work the same was a scorching ray -- no damage at all.
But using the "swing a sword" thought experiment above, the spiritual weapon should work. Using the rules though, it *probably* doesn't work. How confusing ):
|
Developer
|
But yes, the single target component of an alchemist fire hits a single target.
Alchemists fire is not single (or specific number) target.
Here's the 2 part test for target:
Can you target something without knowing whether or not it's there (i.e. attack an invisible creature) with the method in question?
You cannot with charm, that's out. You cannot with Magic Missile, that's out. You can with scorching ray, that's still in. You can with alchemist's fire. That's still in. You can with a weapon. That's still in (though the swarm is immune to weapon damage).
If it's a spell, can you make it into a potion (only 1 or more target spells can be potions (ignoring spell level limit))?
Scorching ray does not affect one or more targets. It cannot be a potion, and therefore is not a targeted spell . Scorching ray works against a swarm. Nowhere in the spell description does it mention targets, just rays. Rays are weaponlike and can attack invisible as above. They're in. Alchemists fire is not a spell, no need for this test. A flaming sword is not a spell (unless you count flame blade, but that doesn't work as a potion, so it's good) so it's in.
Everyone is being thrown off by the nature of targeted effects. Just because you can target something with a given technique does not make it targeted. RAW targeted means something else.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures
refers to the target line of spells or supernatural. Such things fail if used against an invisible creature. I use my weapon against a creature, but that does not mean I need to target that creature. Targeting is differing in the rules.
If targeting means weapon attacks and alchemist fire automatically fails, then why specify that swarms made of creatures with a specific size are immune to weapon damage? All swarms have the targeted immunity, ergo the need to mention weapon damage immunity proves that weapon attacks are not targeted . The only things swarms are immune to are things that do not work against an unseen assailant, like magic missile, or things that list a specific number of creatures as targets, like cause light wounds.
Scorching ray only mentions one or more rays. As above, rays are not targeted effects by the RAW. You can shoot at a square and pray something's there.
Cause light wounds mentions one creature as its target. Though you can attack invisible, the target line in the spell means its targeted.
The confusion arises from the difference of an effect having a target, and one requiring it. If it does not require a target, it is not targeted.
Example. Sorcerer Steve is beset by an invisible stalker. He thinks he knows what square it's in. He's wrong, so every attack he tries will fail, but they fail in different ways depending on whether or not they are targeted effects.
Steve wants to cast magic missile. He can't. The missile is targeted and the spell cannot go off. He cannot even cast
Steve UMDs a wand of cause light wounds and tries to touch the stalker. There's nothing there to touch and the charge remains on his hand. The spell is not targeted for casting purposes, he can cast it and hold the charge. The spell requires a target to discharge, though. If he touches nothing, the charge remains.
Steve grows weary of the Invisible Baddie. He decides to cast scorching ray. He can cast it, as there is no target line to the spell. Steve fires the ray at a square containing nothing, hoping his assailant is there. The ray fires. It hits nothing.
Steve is getting desperate. He swings his staff at the square. He is perfectly able to do this despite nothing being there. The ray and the staff treat the presence or absence of a target the same.
So, in summation, alchemists fire works against a swarm. Scorching Ray works. The flaming part of a flaming weapon works (not being weapon damage). Magic Missile does not work.
ergo the need to mention weapon damage immunity proves that weapon attacks are not targeted
You can probably prove the sun is a banana, too (:
Here's the sarcasm rule.
A creature can put spiked armor, a flaming sword, or any other blade sheathed in energy in it's mouth without taking damage. This does not work when I GM because I have been taking my meds so I do not act crazy. Sane people know that dangerous things damage by touch even when someone is not actively attacking with them. :p
|
Developer
|
Alorha, I think you might be wrong about the ray because there is reference to disintegrate - which is a ray.
Or do you think it only refers to disintegrate because it affects only a single ray - not multiple rays?
I'm a little uncertain here...
Someone else pointed this out to me, and it does indeed throw a wrench into my reasoning.
Of course by negating rays you pretty much negate weapons, which pretty much means by the RAW that AoE and only AoE works.
This makes James wrong, and I'm generally of the mind that that shouldn't happen.
Maybe it refers to spells that could realistically only target one creature....
If James is right on the RAI (which, being James, he should be), then there's a problem with the RAW.
RAW, I'm wrong. Swarms are immune to everything that isn't an AoE. RIA... I think you've got to remove disintegrate from the example. A ray is a weapon. It uses weapon mechanics. You take out rays you take out weapons, but that's a topic for a different forum.
Alorha, I think you might be wrong about the ray because there is reference to disintegrate - which is a ray.
Or do you think it only refers to disintegrate because it affects only a single ray - not multiple rays?
I'm a little uncertain here...
Someone else pointed this out to me, and it does indeed throw a wrench into my reasoning.
Of course by negating rays you pretty much negate weapons, which pretty much means by the RAW that AoE and only AoE works.
This makes James wrong, and I'm generally of the mind that that shouldn't happen.
Maybe it refers to spells that could realistically only target one creature....
If James is right on the RAI (which, being James, he should be), then there's a problem with the RAW.
RAW, I'm wrong. Swarms are immune to everything that isn't an AoE. RIA... I think you've got to remove disintegrate from the example. A ray is a weapon. It uses weapon mechanics. You take out rays you take out weapons, but that's a topic for a different forum.
Here you go:
Beastiary, 313, "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 mindaffecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind."Disintegrate, Core, 271, "Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting."
Disintegrate is a special ray, that can only effect one target. Because it is the exception to how ray spells work, it was also pointed out in the swarm traits text, to ensure people didn't miss it.
Other rays don't require a target, so they are valid for swarms.
Disintegrate is a special ray, that can only effect one target.
I'm pretty sure that means the disintegrate ray can't continue to destroy things as it moves along. Otherwise it could destroy one enemy (leaving along a trail of fine dust), continue through the dust to another enemy, and so forth.
You still have to pick a target with disintegrate -- or if you can't see a specific target, you target a specific square.
This whole thing with "target" and "effect" is funny. . . there's no game-specific definition for the terms "target" or "effect".
The result of something is its effect. If you pick something to attack, or if you pick a creature to affect -- it's your target. . .
Maybe it was to dispel any myths regarding shooting lightning bolts through a door? I recall that, at least back in the day, you could fire a lightning bolt through a door and if the door was destroyed, it would attack creatures on the other side using the remainder of the damage.
I'm guessing the "Immunity to Weapon Damage" was brought up to prevent someone from using the new Great Cleave to stall the game with 300+ attack rolls to kill the swarm. What is a swarm but a massive number of adjacent "targets?"
[/sarcasm]
If you wrap your sword blade in oily rags, soak the blade in more oil, light it, and attack a swarm, it will do fire damage to the swarm.
They need to change the wording for weapons that do energy damage.
Disintegrate is a special ray, that can only effect one target.I'm pretty sure that means the disintegrate ray can't continue to destroy things as it moves along. Otherwise it could destroy one enemy (leaving along a trail of fine dust), continue through the dust to another enemy, and so forth.
You still have to pick a target with disintegrate -- or if you can't see a specific target, you target a specific square.
This whole thing with "target" and "effect" is funny. . . there's no game-specific definition for the terms "target" or "effect".
The result of something is its effect. If you pick something to attack, or if you pick a creature to affect -- it's your target. . .
Spells that have a Target (capitalizing as its the game term) have such a line in their description. Example: Power word: Kill, "Target one living creature with 100 hp or less"
Spells that do not have a Target, do not list one in their attributes: Example: Ray of frost: "Ray of Frost
School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect ray
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes"
No Target line, the spell doesn't use a Target. Ergo, you can use on swarms.
Disintegrate includes the line I quoted stating it only effects one target, as thus, does not work on a swarm.
Troubleshooter, that should work fine, as lightening bolt is a LINE effect spell, not a RAY.
|
|
Disintegrate is a special ray, that can only effect one target.I'm pretty sure that means the disintegrate ray can't continue to destroy things as it moves along. Otherwise it could destroy one enemy (leaving along a trail of fine dust), continue through the dust to another enemy, and so forth.
You still have to pick a target with disintegrate -- or if you can't see a specific target, you target a specific square.
This whole thing with "target" and "effect" is funny. . . there's no game-specific definition for the terms "target" or "effect".
The result of something is its effect. If you pick something to attack, or if you pick a creature to affect -- it's your target. . .
Mechanical definitions of "target" and "effect" are found in the 'Magic' chapter, under 'Aiming a spell' (see core rulebook p. 213).
I have soaked a bedroll in oil to create a set area flaming AOE.
Having an effect on the weapon would in real life be useless without something to cause an area effect such as smoke or gasoline. In the bee movies, or B-movies if you prefer, if you didn't have a bee suit or a flame thrower, you were screwed.
So I think it is a very good simulation that a flaming sword or the like does nothing to a swarm. It wouldn't do anything to a swarm but get you killed if you lit a stick on fire or sword and tried to swing it at them. Now bring a flame thrower and you might have a chance.
The only way such a weapon would have any effect is if the swarm hadn't yet begun to swarm attack, was all over a tree, and sat still while you slowly burned the various parts that make it up to death. Swinging a flaming weapon of any kind in the middle of a swarming swarm is a sure way to die. You won't do any better than swinging a non-flaming stick. The bees and creatures making up a swarm will disperse over you attacking you from all sides and dodge and avoid that flaming stick as easily as any other weapon.
We're talking about a magic fire sword... and how's this - an actual magic fire sword: the spell flame blade. This spell, without question, can damage a swarm RAW. It is nothing but fire damage. It is shaped like a sword. For purposes of your B Movie example, it would not work either, yet clearly does given the rules.
Swarms are not immune to anything that isn't an area, they are immune to affects that target one creature. Yes... your point on attacks... it's wrong.
Target in the RAW means something different.
Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.
(Bold mine)
I can swing my flaming weapon at a creature with total concealment I cannot see. ...
So what? The effect still targets the creature after you hit. The target of the flaming effect is "creature hit". That is what is implied by the text.
And the weapon is casting the spell. You are using the weapon to select the target by what you swing at.
Why do you assume that because the effect targets weapon creating an effect that targets a single creature would make the targeting any different?
I can easily interpret by RAW as you put it that you cast a spell that targets your weapon that created an effect on the weapon that targets the creature struck. You are still targeting an individual creature with the spell effect. Same thing with the flame sword by RAW.
It is not clearly defined at all and is up to the DM. Not your interpretation of the rules.
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.
It does not matter if the spell or effect stems from an object (sword with flame property) or a spell that creates an effect that targets a creature (flaming sword spell) or from the individual caster (scorching ray). It is all the same. If it targets an individual creature, it has no affect on the swarm.
No idea why you think because the object is causing the effect or the flaming sword is the effect and the targeted melee touch attack against a single creature is something other than an effect because the rules are not clear about it. It is clearly an effect.
Flaming Sword
Spell definition effect: Create scimitar of flame
Scimitar of flame effect: Do fire damage to individual target upon successful melee touch attack
No different than firing a scorching ray or magic missile save that the flaming blade is causing the effect or the sword with flaming is casting the still single target effect.
By RAW my argument is still validated and supported. Yours is merely a different interpretation in the absence of a 100% clear ruling. I still believe my argument is more valid because effects generated by an item or spell effect are still effects targeting an individual and not an area effect.
Disintegrate is a special ray, that can only effect one target.I'm pretty sure that means the disintegrate ray can't continue to destroy things as it moves along. Otherwise it could destroy one enemy (leaving along a trail of fine dust), continue through the dust to another enemy, and so forth.
You still have to pick a target with disintegrate -- or if you can't see a specific target, you target a specific square.
This whole thing with "target" and "effect" is funny. . . there's no game-specific definition for the terms "target" or "effect".
The result of something is its effect. If you pick something to attack, or if you pick a creature to affect -- it's your target. . .
Spells that have a Target (capitalizing as its the game term) have such a line in their description. Example: Power word: Kill, "Target one living creature with 100 hp or less"
Spells that do not have a Target, do not list one in their attributes: Example: Ray of frost: "Ray of Frost
School evocation [cold]; Level sorcerer/wizard 0
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Effect ray
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes"No Target line, the spell doesn't use a Target. Ergo, you can use on swarms.
Disintegrate includes the line I quoted stating it only effects one target, as thus, does not work on a swarm.
Troubleshooter, that should work fine, as lightening bolt is a LINE effect spell, not a RAY.
Now if the swarm template said only "spells that target" individual creatures, I would agree.
But the swarm entry says "spells or effects" that target individual creatures.
A scorching ray creates an effect (the ray) that targets an individual creature. The ray is the effect, but the ray is still targeting an individual creature. Thus it is useless against swarms.
Why are people ignoring the part that states "spells and effects" and focusing solely on spells. Spells create effects, some of those effects target individual creatures. I'm pretty sure the game designers were aware of it, which is why the incorporated the wording "spells and effects" into the swarm text.
I think in absence of a stance by Paizo, you can also say the flaming weapon property is an creates a flaming affect on a weapon that targets an individual creature. Which still falls under the "spells and effects" swarm text.
|
I'm pretty sure this has been taken to it's illogical conclusion. The question now is not "Can I/ Can I not allow this by RAW/ RAI", but "Will I allow this". As a GM I can make any freaking decision I want as long as it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the players.
Personally:
The Flaming property is a very small AoE. The blade is sheathed (covered) in Fire. The reason the wielder is immune is because the hilt is also covered in Fire. The fact that they have to point out that the wielder is immune must mean that simply touching the weapon (and not being the wielder) is damgerous, and causes Fire damage.
If a fly lands on a flaming blade, logically the fly must burst into flame even though no attack roll was made, as only the wielder is immune to the sheath of flame surrounding the weapon.
Is this interpretation supported by RAW...no, but I have a mind and I can use it to figure things out. A Flaming weapon can ignite webs, so it must have an aura (that sheath) of Fire. Therefore, swinging a Flaming weapon through a swarm must deal Fire damage as the Fire aura (sheath) will do damage by proximity, even if the weapon itself will not.
But, that's just my opinion.
I'm pretty sure this has been taken to it's illogical conclusion. The question now is not "Can I/ Can I not allow this by RAW/ RAI", but "Will I allow this". As a GM I can make any freaking decision I want as long as it doesn't detract from the enjoyment of the players.
Personally:
The Flaming property is a very small AoE. The blade is sheathed (covered) in Fire. The reason the wielder is immune is because the hilt is also covered in Fire. The fact that they have to point out that the wielder is immune must mean that simply touching the weapon (and not being the wielder) is damgerous, and causes Fire damage.If a fly lands on a flaming blade, logically the fly must burst into flame even though no attack roll was made, as only the wielder is immune to the sheath of flame surrounding the weapon.
Is this interpretation supported by RAW...no, but I have a mind and I can use it to figure things out. A Flaming weapon can ignite webs, so it must have an aura (that sheath) of Fire. Therefore, swinging a Flaming weapon through a swarm must deal Fire damage as the Fire aura (sheath) will do damage by proximity, even if the weapon itself will not.
But, that's just my opinion.
I agree about the aura of fire igniting things.
I disagree about the hilt and immunity.As long as the hilt and the guard do not flame the owner can use the weapon without being able to chew on the flaming blade.
|
Developer
|
stuff
Again, having a target and being targetted are different, the effects on the game are different. Magic Missile and Scorching Ray (and any other weapon) work entirely differently in an instance where you do not have a target.
Weapons can work when they lack targets (i.e. invisibility). Targeted effects cannot.
I was then thrown off when the spell called out a ray - disintegrate - as not working.
It was pointed out that that particular spell demands a specific number affected in its text.
Weapons can affect swarms. The fact that swarms of smaller creatures need to be specified immune to damage from weapons (though not necessarily energy that goes along with them) proves it's RAI (James seems with me on this, too, and all things being equal, his word tends to carry the day).
Rays are weapons. They can affect swarms.
Again:
Targeted vs invisible target = cannot use the action (Magic Missile)
Targeted attack vs invisible targeted = if you target the wrong square, effect does not trigger (Inflict light wounds)
Non-Targeted Attack vs invisible = if missed, the effect still goes off (weapon attack, ray, fireball).
Can't Magic Missile a swarm. Can Scorching Ray a swarm. Can't Inflict light wounds. Can hit it with my axe (and if the creatures therein are large enough, it can even do damage sans energy)
[Edit]
I see what's throwing you off, but I can hurt something with a weapon if I'm just swinging in a square and praying. This is not targeted, though, or I could do the same with Magic Missile.
It's one or the other. Either you can fling spells with targets at unseen opponents or you can't even swing a sword at what you can't see.
James, who can make official rulings, has said he allows the energy damage of a weapon to go through even when a swarm is immune to weapon damage.
Also, why say that only certain swarms are immune to weapon damage? Why would this matter if the immunity to targeted effects stopped all weapons for all swarms?
Your reading ignores some of the text. Only one that allows weapons to hit a swarm takes all the rules into account.
Even if I grant that both our readings are logically consistent, mine is still superior because it includes every element of the swarm traits. Specifically weapon immunity by component creature size. Under your reading this is superfluous, under mine, necessary. My reading therefore wins the day
Then break it down.
I want to break it down...
Magic missile kills one bug or ameoba per missile. So does a weapon strike or a disintegrate spell normally. Less than whole bunches will not take out any of the swarms hit points.
As the weapon sheathed in fire or whatever is functionally like a sword blade shaped torch, it will burn what it touches. It will burn whole bunches more than the one thing hit.
I can't look up scorching ray because I have a cat on my lap.
|
|
If it's a spell, can you make it into a potion (only 1 or more target spells can be potions (ignoring spell level limit))?
Scorching ray does not affect one or more targets. It cannot be a potion, and therefore is not a targeted spell .
You can made a potion of scorching ray, the problem is convincing the target to drink it. ;-)
You blast your enemies with a searing beam of fire. You may fire one ray, plus one additional ray for every four levels beyond 3rd (to a maximum of three rays at 11th level). Each ray requires a ranged touch attack to hit and deals 4d6 points of fire damage. The rays may be fired at the same or different targets, but all rays must be aimed at targets within 30 feet of each other and fired simultaneously.
The spell can target up to 3 creatures not an unlimited number, so it will not work against a swarm, as every other ray spells , as they target one or more creatures.
A ligthing bolt instead would work as his Area of Effect is a line:
line-shaped spell shoots away from you in a line in the direction you designate. It starts from any corner of your square and extends to the limit of its range or until it strikes a barrier that blocks line of effect. A line-shaped spell affects all creatures in squares through which the line passes.
|
|
It's one or the other. Either you can fling spells with targets at unseen opponents or you can't even swing a sword at what you can't see.
The ray spell can fire at a location [square in game] hoping to hit a unseen target. So you can fire ray spells and spells that allow to target a square at unseen opponents and try to hit (standard miss chance).
Spells that require a targeted subject (like magic missile or haste) don't allow you to fire at a random square hoping to affect something there.
It is a simple difference.
Weapons work like ray spells in that regard. They can affect unseen object in the square as you can target the area.
I can't look up scorching ray because I have a cat on my lap.
Pathfinder Roleplay Game Reference Document: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/index.html
Very useful for on-line game lawyers. :D
stuffAgain, having a target and being targetted are different, the effects on the game are different. Magic Missile and Scorching Ray (and any other weapon) work entirely differently in an instance where you do not have a target.
Weapons can work when they lack targets (i.e. invisibility). Targeted effects cannot.
I was then thrown off when the spell called out a ray - disintegrate - as not working.
It was pointed out that that particular spell demands a specific number affected in its text.
Weapons can affect swarms. The fact that swarms of smaller creatures need to be specified immune to damage from weapons (though not necessarily energy that goes along with them) proves it's RAI (James seems with me on this, too, and all things being equal, his word tends to carry the day).
Rays are weapons. They can affect swarms.
Again:
Targeted vs invisible target = cannot use the action (Magic Missile)
Targeted attack vs invisible targeted = if you target the wrong square, effect does not trigger (Inflict light wounds)
Non-Targeted Attack vs invisible = if missed, the effect still goes off (weapon attack, ray, fireball).Can't Magic Missile a swarm. Can Scorching Ray a swarm. Can't Inflict light wounds. Can hit it with my axe (and if the creatures therein are large enough, it can even do damage sans energy)
[Edit]
I see what's throwing you off, but I can hurt something with a weapon if I'm just swinging in a square and praying. This is not targeted, though, or I could do the same with Magic Missile.
It's one or the other. Either you can fling spells with targets at unseen opponents or you can't even swing a sword at what you can't see.
James, who can make official rulings, has said he allows the energy damage of a weapon to go through even when a swarm is immune to weapon damage.
Also, why say that only certain swarms are immune to weapon damage? Why would this matter if the immunity to targeted effects stopped all weapons for all swarms?...
Because you can fire spells at unseen targets does not change that the spell is targeting an individual creature.
For example, you use Perception to pinpoint the general area where an invisible individual creature is. If you fire the ray into a square with no creature present, the ray does nothing. If you fire into the appropriate square where the individual creature is present, you have a chance of striking it and doing damage.
Every attack that requires a hit roll targets a single creature. It doesn't matter if you fire three rays, each ray will target an individual creature and require a to hit roll. The spell generates an effect that is a ray, the ray targets an individual creature thus requiring a hit roll.
That is by RAW. It is automatically part of the rules that any attack requiring a hit roll targets an individual creature with a touch AC or an object. Otherwise it has no game effect.
The part you are focusing on is strictly the text of a spell that designates target. That focus would be relevant if the swarm text did not say "spells and effects".
But a scorching ray generates an effect (the ray) that subsequently can target the following:
an object
a point in space in sight of the caster
an individual creature
Because an effect is capable of targeting something other than an individual creature, does not mean individual creature is not one of its possible targets. If it targets a swarm, it is targeting a creature. And since scorching ray does not say "all creatures within a 5 foot square" or the like, it is not an AoE attack which affects everything within a given space.
You seem to be confusing spells that can't target an individual creature due to breaking line of sight versus spells that can target an individual creature as long as they have line of effect. A spell like charm person cannot be cast on a creature if line of sight is broken aka invisible. But a spell like scorching ray can be cast on a single creature if line of sight is not broken as line as you have line of effect to the creature.
But the benefit of invisibility is to provide a miss chance on top of the usual chance to miss should the caster fail to hit the creatures touch AC. Otherwise, scorching ray and other such spells would automatically affect anything they hit within the square you fire into visible or invisible. But such spells don't because they are targeted spells that are capable of hitting only a single creature at a time.
Anyhow, fun debate.
If you prefer to run it the way you see it, fine by me. If James Jacobs wants to rule in your favor, I can't say much though I will disagree.
When I DM I certainly allow creative use of a flaming weapon, scorching ray, torch, or a create water spell. I won't make it as simple as swinging your sword as the swarming rats or bees. They don't care if you take out a handful of bees. They are swarming all around you, crawling on your skin, getting in your armor and clothing, and trying to bite, rip, and consume the life out of you. You would have to burn your own skin to get them off with a flaming sword, burn your back, reach places you probably couldn't even reach with a flaming sword, scorching ray, or the like.
As a DM I go with the intent of a rule as much as try to determine it with exactitude. I understand exactly what the game designers were going for with the swarm subtype. Creative monster design is exactly why I love the 3.x system over other versions of D&D. The swarm subtype is a great way to simulate all those old killer bee and army ant movies as well as piranha swarms. Watch a few if you haven't, shows you what a swarm looks like attacking a human target. Not a pretty sight at all and you will see absolutely that swinging a flaming sword would not help you one little bit.
I've seen video of people taking tree branches, setting them on fire, and wacking swarms of locusts or ants with them. It harms the swarm, but it is too big for them to destroy that way. They need a death from above spray attack from a plane.
|
Developer
|
But a scorching ray generates an effect (the ray) that subsequently can target the following:
an object
a point in space in sight of the caster
an individual creature
You're right.
So now I'm back to noting that the RAI (As given by James and the weapon damage immunity feature) and the RAW are contradictory. This bothers me to no end (hence my endless attempts to reconcile them). But, as I said above, RAW are RAW.
Good catch, and indeed a fun debate