Scatter guns and swarms

[mellowgoth]

Can anyone point me to any rulings on whether guns firing with the scatter ability do damage as an area effect to swarms?

[Roaming Shadow]

mellowgoth wrote:

Can anyone point me to any rulings on whether guns firing with the scatter ability do damage as an area effect to swarms?

Well, scatter is a cone area affect, so what are the rules on targeting a swarm with a cone effect? The scatter weapon quality may be new, but what it does isn't.

[mellowgoth]

My quandry is that, unlike most cone effects that effect everything wiithin their area, a scatter gun rolls to hit against each target in its cone.

[Roaming Shadow]

"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."

For the purposes of making an attack roll and health, the swarm counts as a single entity. So if you make a scatter attack against a swarm, you make one attack roll, and if you hit, deal X1.5 damage, because the cone of a scatter weapon affects an area (the cone). So scatter weapons brutalize swarms. The fact that you have to roll seperately for each target in the cone is irelevent here, as the swarm is only immune to effects that target a specific number of creautres, and a scatter cone can target any number of creatures that are withing the cone.

[Some call me Tim]

Scatter guns are still weapons.

"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."

A swarm of Fine or Diminutive creatures take no damage from a scatter gun.

[Godwyn]

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

Hits a cone (AoE). Ignores concealment, and other similar effects (like an AoE). Has an attack roll and not a save (like. . .?). Wait, what?

Even worse, the misfire chance is based on the number of targets that are actually there. A horribly thought out mechanic. Firing a scatter weapon at just a single target has a higher chance to misfire than firing it at a room full of targets. How many the character thinks they are firing at is irrelevant. Fire at a room of illusions with 1 real target, high misfire. Fire at an "empty" room full of invisible creatures and 1 visible creature, and the chance to misfire becomes negligible if there are just 2 invisible creatures in addition to the 1 seen creature.

And a character can actually deflect or even catch bullets, but cannot simply get out of the way of a scatter shot?

[moon glum]

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

Hits a cone (AoE). Ignores concealment, and other similar effects (like an AoE). Has an attack roll and not a save (like. . .?). Wait, what?

Even worse, the misfire chance is based on the number of targets that are actually there. A horribly thought out mechanic. Firing a scatter weapon at just a single target has a higher chance to misfire than firing it at a room full of targets. How many the character thinks they are firing at is irrelevant. Fire at a room of illusions with 1 real target, high misfire. Fire at an "empty" room full of invisible creatures and 1 visible creature, and the chance to misfire becomes negligible if there are just 2 invisible creatures in addition to the 1 seen creature.

And a character can actually deflect or even catch bullets, but cannot simply get out of the way of a scatter shot?

Scatter is silly in many ways, but my guess is that they wanted to retain the attack vs. touch AC rule for scatter (though I think that is silly too). Also, attack roles mean that intervening creatures provide cover to some in the area.

Scatter is very silly. For one thing, shot guns firing shot have more than a 30' range, and don't fire in a cone. Same with the blunderbuss. Blunderbusses didn't actually have coned shaped bores, the cone shape was just to make them easier to aim.

[Some call me Tim]

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Godwyn wrote:

Even worse, the misfire chance is based on the number of targets that are actually there. A horribly thought out mechanic. Firing a scatter weapon at just a single target has a higher chance to misfire than firing it at a room full of targets. How many the character thinks they are firing at is irrelevant. Fire at a room of illusions with 1 real target, high misfire. Fire at an "empty" room full of invisible creatures and 1 visible creature, and the chance to misfire becomes negligible if there are just 2 invisible creatures in addition to the 1 seen creature.

This is exactly why I hate most fumble rules. The number of targets shouldn't affect a misfire. Either it misfires or it doesn't.

[HappyDaze]

Some call me Tim wrote:

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Well, they can evade blasts of flame/lightning/acid so why not little bits of metal?

[Some call me Tim]

HappyDaze wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Well, they can evade blasts of flame/lightning/acid so why not little bits of metal?

Well, to me it's still a weapon attack. They can't evade other bits of metal wielded by foes or metal tipped arrows shot from bows.

[ItoSaithWebb]

Some call me Tim wrote:

HappyDaze wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Well, they can evade blasts of flame/lightning/acid so why not little bits of metal?

Well, to me it's still a weapon attack. They can't evade other bits of metal wielded by foes or metal tipped arrows shot from bows.

Well you know at close range it might work because it is not just scattered bits of metal but heated gas. However, you would have to be at least adjacent to the swarm or in it.

[Godwyn]

Some call me Tim wrote:

HappyDaze wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Well, they can evade blasts of flame/lightning/acid so why not little bits of metal?

Well, to me it's still a weapon attack. They can't evade other bits of metal wielded by foes or metal tipped arrows shot from bows.

And on that note, why can a monk deflect bullets, but can not dodge a scatter attack in any way? I see no problem with allowing a reflex save against an AoE attack. That is what a reflex save is for! Cover will almost never matter since it targets touch ac. It gets additional bonuses over most other attacks or AoE spells, it ignores concealment -and- things like mirror image.

Also, dodge bonuses add to touch ac as does dexterity. So a rogue can already dodge bullets or a scatter effect, just in a manner that does not adequately scale with level.

Yes touch ac is lower than a reflex save. I find that the exact reason to have it against reflex and not touch. I see no need for guns to target touch ac to begin with.

Adamantium shield on the ground. Hardness 20, it CANNOT be hurt by most firearms. But as soon as a fighter picks it up, firearms ignore it; shooting through it to hit the fighter regardless of the shield ac. Frak, we have bullet resistant shields today. No reason a magic shield is not at least as effective, and the adamantium shield is not even enchanted yet.

Honestly, there is not a single thing about how firearms are handled in UC that I like. I think I should just stop posting on the subject because it makes me feel really negative about the book. But the firearm rules are just SO BAD.

[ItoSaithWebb]

Godwyn wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

HappyDaze wrote:

Some call me Tim wrote:

Godwyn wrote:

Along with that, why is the scatter property individual attack rolls and not simply a reflex save? It boggles my mind the pointless convolutions added just for firearms.

The most obvious reason is that touch AC tends to be much lower than a reflex save.Second, high-level rogues would be able to evade a shotgun blast.

Well, they can evade blasts of flame/lightning/acid so why not little bits of metal?

Well, to me it's still a weapon attack. They can't evade other bits of metal wielded by foes or metal tipped arrows shot from bows.

And on that note, why can a monk deflect bullets, but can not dodge a scatter attack in any way? I see no problem with allowing a reflex save against an AoE attack. That is what a reflex save is for! Cover will almost never matter since it targets touch ac. It gets additional bonuses over most other attacks or AoE spells, it ignores concealment -and- things like mirror image.

Also, dodge bonuses add to touch ac as does dexterity. So a rogue can already dodge bullets or a scatter effect, just in a manner that does not adequately scale with level.

Yes touch ac is lower than a reflex save. I find that the exact reason to have it against reflex and not touch. I see no need for guns to target touch ac to begin with.

Adamantium shield on the ground. Hardness 20, it CANNOT be hurt by most firearms. But as soon as a fighter picks it up, firearms ignore it; shooting through it to hit the fighter regardless of the shield ac. Frak, we have bullet resistant shields today. No reason a magic shield is not at least as effective, and the adamantium shield is not even enchanted yet.

Honestly, there is not a single thing about how firearms are handled in UC that I like. I think I should just stop posting on the subject because it makes me feel really negative about the book. But the firearm rules are just SO BAD.

There is a difference between dodging and deflecting.

[Godwyn]

But which would you say is harder, dodging a bullet or -catching- it?

Snatch arrows works on bullets.

[ItoSaithWebb]

Godwyn wrote:

But which would you say is harder, dodging a bullet or -catching- it?

Snatch arrows works on bullets.

Ya I really didn't like that they did that in some respects because I know that the myth of catching bullets is just that, a myth. Actually it was a carnival trick because they really have the bullet in their mouth in the first place.

Snatching arrows however is possible and has been documented but the person doing so really needs to be aware that an arrows is being shot and at him. Cutting an arrow in half with a sword has also been documented but it is the same situation.

[mellowgoth]

Thank you, everyone, for the input. For a home game, i'de be inclined to allow the scatter to damage a swarm.

However, if any of our (insert obsequious, flattering adjestives here - and maybe bat eyelashes and give puppy-dog eyes) Devs would care to make an official ruling for things like PFS games, we'd all be (lay it on thick here, too) grateful!

Thanks