Splash Weapons vs Swarms?

[Benrislove]

So this is a gray area; purely by Raw splash weapons do 1(.5) damage to swarms, since swarms are fairly common in PFS scenarios, I would like to get a ruling on it.

This only matters for diminutive swarms, tiny swarms are damageable by weapons so the "thrown weapon" would be able to harm them normally.

By Raw - You cannot do single target damage to a swarm of diminutive creatures, meaning the alchemist's fire would only do one point of damage (1.5 rounded down) OR one damage to every creature in the swarm (300+) which basically auto-wins vs swarms.

by raw, you cannot target the square the swarm is in.

Raw, you do ~1500 damage to most diminutive swarms with a splash weapon (each creature, swarms are made up of 300-5000ish creatures).

the rules say that it "acts" as a single creature, but it certainly is hundreds of creatures, all of which would take a damage from being within 5 feet.

How most GMs treat it, (according to previous threads on the topic) and how I think it should probably work is.

"When using a splash weapon against a swarm, you may target the swarm, if you hit, that swarm takes damage equal to the damage of the splash weapon (+50%)."

It's fairly arguable if it's supposed to do that anyway, this just seems FAQ worthy to me.

[Jiggy]

Swarm Traits wrote:

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.

Now let's think for a second. The rule calls out splash weapons as a specific example of something that deals +50% damage to swarms. Presumably, the rule would only say that if it affected gameplay in some way. If the swarm only takes splash damage instead of primary damage from the only splash weapons published at the time the rule was written, then there wouldn't be any effect on gameplay (it would always be 1 damage).

So if we assume that rules are intended to have an effect on the game, then yes, swarms take +50% damage from splash weapons' primary damage (such as 1d6 from alchemist's fire).

[Benrislove]

Jiggy wrote:

Swarm Traits wrote:

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.

Now let's think for a second. The rule calls out splash weapons as a specific example of something that deals +50% damage to swarms. Presumably, the rule would only say that if it affected gameplay in some way. If the swarm only takes splash damage instead of primary damage from the only splash weapons published at the time the rule was written, then there wouldn't be any effect on gameplay (it would always be 1 damage).

So if we assume that rules are intended to have an effect on the game, then yes, swarms take +50% damage from splash weapons' primary damage (such as 1d6 from alchemist's fire).

I agree 100% that is how it should work, it is not how it works by raw. Thus why I want a faq/ruling.

You could easily argue that subset of text if for tiny swarms, as they (by the rules) would take full damage(+50%). I'm suggesting that diminutive swarms also are affected the same way as tiny swarms, as by raw, alch fire is a thrown weapon, with a single target, and would do 0 damage to the swarm, aside from the splash damage.

[Jiggy]

No, the rules function fine as they are. It requires deliberate misinterpretation to come up with what you're talking about.

And flagging things like this as FAQ candidates forces the developers to wade through hundreds of posts of nonsense before addressing things that are legitimately unclear, making the whole FAQ system all but useless. Stop abusing it.

[Lamplighter]

This is a rules question, not a PFS question. And I agree, you have to be really stretching to misinterpret it this way.

[Benrislove]

It came up in a PFS game, and I couldn't find anything to say otherwise despite the obvious intention being the opposite.

It is a PFS question, because despite the clear intention, as PFS GMs we have to be uniform on things like this.

honestly I'm pretty sure the GM didn't think it was right, but it's spelled out in the rules.

Splash weapons are "Thrown weapons" if the initial target is immune to weapon damage, only the splash would happen.

Edit: For clarity I am certainly not in anyway supporting the splash weapons do 1500 damage to swarms, that is more of an example for how outlandish RAW can be.

[Jiggy]

GMs in PFS are supposed to adjudicate rules with common sense. If a GM actually says that the correct interpretation of swarm traits is that they only ever take 1 damage from alchemist's fire, report that GM.

[Jiggy]

Benrislove wrote:

Edit: For clarity I am certainly not in anyway supporting the splash weapons do 1500 damage to swarms, that is more of an example for how outlandish RAW can be.

It's an example of outlandishness, but it's not the "RAW" that's being outlandish.

[Benrislove]

Jiggy wrote:

Benrislove wrote:

Edit: For clarity I am certainly not in anyway supporting the splash weapons do 1500 damage to swarms, that is more of an example for how outlandish RAW can be.

It's an example of outlandishness, but it's not the "RAW" that's being outlandish.

lol, fair enough.

[Dennis Baker]

"I know what the developers mean and I know how everyone runs the game, but if you ignore that, there is a problem..."

I 'get' what the OP is saying, but if it's obvious what the developers meant and it's universally run that way, then it's not really a problem. Also... not a PFS thing, it's a rules thing.

[Benrislove]

Dennis Baker wrote:

"I know what the developers mean and I know how everyone runs the game, but if you ignore that, there is a problem..."

I 'get' what the OP is saying, but if it's obvious what the developers meant and it's universally run that way, then it's not really a problem. Also... not a PFS thing, it's a rules thing.

I want the clarification because of PFS and how it works as a living campaign.

It's come to "well it's obviously intended this way" in the rules forums numerous times. I'm certainly not debating intent.

I also think there should be a PFS subforum in the rules forum (or a rules subforum in PFS) since it is different enough.

Also I never thought of it as a problem until it came up in a society game so there is that :-/

[Mark Moreland]

Splash weapons work the same way against swarms in Pathfinder Society as they do everywhere else. This is not a Pathfinder Society-specific rule (like using Fame and Prestige, or a rule appearing in the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play), so I'm moving the discussion to the general PFRPG forums and changing the title to remove reference to Pathfinder Society.

[Peter Kies]

I spent a fair amount of time this week comtemplating Ben's question, with several posts to a local Facebook group site. The part of the rules here that seems to cause the most confusion is that swarms can take several very different shapes and spells and effects that affect an area also come in a variety of shapes, but in all cases you are just supposed to add 50% to damage. The 3 key swarm shapes are:

• crawling swarm spread over a 10x10 area
• flying swarm spread over a 10x10x10 volume
• attacking swarm crawling all over a target creature

When the affecting attack is a splash weapon, the amount of the swarm exposed to the effect would be, respectively:

• about 25% (roughly circular splash area, removing 1/4 of the swarms hp)
• negligible (roughly a parabolic toroid, 7.5" tall at its peak)
• about 100% (covering the surface of a burning target creature, if hit)

For the rules to be easier to interpret, the damage or damage multiplier should take into account the current shape of the swarm and the percentage of that intersected by the shape of the effect (be it burst, emanation or spread and be it line, fan, wall, circle, square, cone, cylinder, sphere or cube). A swarm is only condensed into a creature shape when it is covering a creature; otherwise you need to affect a large area or volume to do significant damage in one attack. One- and two-dimensional effects should be of limited use against two- and three-dimensional swarms, respectively. More detail on my review of this can be found here.

[Peter Kies]

Other key causes of confusion relate to the variable density of swarms and cover for targeting, line of sight and line of effect when swarm creatures and others share a single square:

• for crawling swarms, creatures block horizontal lines of sight within a square (and might provide cover from horizontal bursts, unless you rule that the mass is too small and would just be blown back)
• for flying swarms, the mass of creatures along any splash weapon trajectory appears to be too small to break the container or even deflect or slow it much
• for swarms covering a creature, the much larger creature blocks line of sight and lines of effect to parts of the swarm
• if you can't target the swarm (creature) with a splash, but you can't target the grid intersection in the center because that means you must target the creature above it, does the swarm really block line of sight or targeting of that intersection?
• if splash damage is more than the hp of any individual creature in the area of effect, shouldn't that fraction of the swarm just be considered dead, without carrying over damage to creatures outside that area in the first or second round (even if the affected area covers only part of a square)?

[Scray]

I really think you're over-thinking this. Swarms are easier to deal with, because the rules are already abstract. The individual bodies in the swarm don't take damage, so you don't need to calculate the mass of the individuals or a percentage of the swarm that's hit. The swarm HPs are a simplification so you don't need to do all that. AoE effects get a 50% bonus.

The simple question is, does the primary damage from an alchemist bomb count as AoE?

I've always seen this ruled 'yes', but the rules seem to support either conclusion.

In either case the alchemist bomb normally has a splash radius, so even if the primary damage is not allowed to hit the swarm you'd still have a much smaller damage getting the 50% bonus.

[Peter Kies]

In the end, alchemist's fire used against a crawling swarm ought to have the same effect in one action as pouring a pint of oil over a 5' square and igniting it: anything with less than 1 hp in that area burns, destroying a full quarter of the swarm's hp. The advantage of being able to do this at range with one action comes at the price of a small chance to miss the target square. For a flying swarm, the damage should be much less, as the flames will not be high and the heat from them will dissipate quickly with height as it mixes with cooler air. For a swarm that is covering a creature, the damage should be greater, and more than just 1d6+50% to the collective for 2 rounds. A splash hit on the swarm's victim will cover most of the swarm with burning oil, and when the victim catches fire and the swarm has no way to put out the flames, most of the individuals that didn't burn in the first round should catch fire and burn in the second. I'd say 50% of the swarm has no cover and burns in the first round, and in the second round the other 50% burns unless the swarm makes a reflex save from the spreading flames (and if it makes that save, it still loses another 25% and is left with only 1/4 of its original hp).

[Peter Kies]

Scray wrote:

I really think you're over-thinking this. Swarms are easier to deal with, because the rules are already abstract. The individual bodies in the swarm don't take damage, so you don't need to calculate the mass of the individuals or a percentage of the swarm that's hit. The swarm HPs are a simplification so you don't need to do all that. AoE effects get a 50% bonus.

The simple question is, does the primary damage from an alchemist bomb count as AoE?

I've always seen this ruled 'yes', but the rules seem to support either conclusion.

In either case the alchemist bomb normally has a splash radius, so even if the primary damage is not allowed to hit the swarm you'd still have a much smaller damage getting the 50% bonus.

I am certainly over-thinking this. Firstly because I take some sick pleasure in 3D math and physics, and secondly because the written rules have potential interpretations that could offer hugely unfair advantages to swarms, particularly the ones with higher hit points. Take a bunch of individually weak creatures and then make them resistant to the normal amount of damage that an AoE spell or effect can deliver to everything in its AoE by pooling their hp. Hit an army ant swarm with a 10d6 fireball - done. Indirectly splash it with 4 dozen flasks of alchemist's fire - still coming? Ridiculous. On the flip side, say one flask of alchemist's fire thrown into a 10x10x10 cloud of flying ants will do the same damage as a flask thrown at those same ants gathered on 10x10 area of ground or crawling on that mound that used to be your halfling thief? Unimaginable. Last time I checked, this was a pencil and paper game, and AoE didn't need to be constrained to a number of 5x5 squares with unlimited height. Sometimes gross simplifications make the game go faster, and sometimes they just don't make any sense - which is especially painful if it gets a PC killed. In those cases I'd rather take the time to think things through and question the rules. I'm not a fan of the swarm rules as written. Swarms seem to have some advantages due to variable shape, and the ability to shield their members from AoE damage that would otherwise kill all the members within a certain AoE. If they can take on different shapes, it stands to reason that AoE spells or effects would intersect with and affect those shapes differently. Put that spider swarm on a wall or on a cylindrical column or even on the ceiling. Does that splash weapon still have the same "area" of effect and damage? At some point you have to say that the simple text of one rule wasn't intended to cover a certain situation, and judge by your understanding of a collection of rules and any "real world" knowledge that helps you fill in the gaps. I appreciate you trying to simplify this for me, but I don't really want it simple. I would like it to be what's (IMO) a bit more realistic - and defeatable by parties that don't have 10d6 fireball spells at their disposal.

[Peter Kies]

Different interpretations arise from two main problems with the rules as written:

• swarms that appear to be entirely contained within the splash AoE take too little damage
• swarms that appear to be almost completely outside the splash AoE take too much damage

Swarms should move into a PC's square to attack early in combat, so in most cases the swarm will be contained in a relatively small space (on a creature or crawling in a thin layer on the ground). Here the target size and gravity should help PCs catch much of the swarm in the splash, and there is no reason why the swarm should take less than the primary splash damage. Due to most of its mass being exposed in a thin layer, I'm saying that a 50% bonus to that damage isn't really enough in some cases (resulting hp are less than the % of the swarm covered). A swarm covering 4 flat squares is spread out over 100 square feet, and one covering a small or medium creature is confined to a 10-20 square foot surface area in a single square. You could coat a large fraction (25%) of the crawling swarm with burning oil, and (with a well placed burst) almost all of the attacking swarm. The other case only applies to flying swarms that have not yet attacked. They form such a dispersed target that they offer no sufficient centralized mass to break a flask against. If you must therefore break it against the floor in the center of its 4 squares, the splash is simply not going to fill a significant percentage of the volume occupied by the swarm. It's around 1% of the total volume, or 4% of the volume in the 10' high column over one 5x5 square.

[Peter Kies]

There are several cases where the "single creature" swarm concept really won't work well, and it makes more sense to just consider the swarm to be many individual creatures:

• for wind and environmental effects (wind is mentioned in the rules)
• against AoE spells and effects (reasons listed above), and
• when moving through very small spaces

For the last item, rules indicate that the swarm can move through any space large enough for its component creatures - but should it be able to move its whole body through a choke point at the listed speed? Certainly not. Let's say the PCs fall into a pit where there is a hole (better yet, a pipe) coming through the wall, with a diameter just large enough to allow one army ant through at a time. Can all 10,000 ants (each about 1/2" long) get through that pipe in one round to get at the PCs? That would be like a line of ants 5,000 inches long passing through the nozzle in under 6 seconds - 69 ft per second or 47 mph. If that's hard to envision, imagine the pipe is 30' long. Ant #1 is right near the entrance, climbs in and crawls to the other end. Ant #2 was right next to him, moves into his space and crawls up behind him. Ant #3 was on the other side, no further from the PCs than #2, but when he gets near the end of his movement, the last few steps are blocked and he has to stop. In the first round of movement, the best you can do is fill that 30' pipe with 720 ants. On subsequent rounds, that many can spill out the other end each round as others file in behind them. It takes about a minute and a half for them all to get across - nearly 15 combat rounds. On the other end, our perceptive PCs may notice the first few arriving and attempt to stopper the pipe (with gum, wax, a wooden stake, etc.), and the AoE of their makeshift plug then holds off the bulk of the swarm. The little ant in front is not going to get much help from the ones behind him, and won't have the strength to move the plug. If it is something soft and his attack can overcome its hardness, eventually he alone could break it up enough to loosen it and push it out. Let's say our PCs have nothing at hand and one of them uses a finger to plug the hole, while the other tries to stomp on the first few that made it through. Can the one ant in the end of the pipe do swarm damage? No, he is just one fine creature and would have to make an attack roll - which if successful could only do 1 hp of nonlethal damage (STR 1). What about the ones who made it through? Are they enough to constitute a full-strength swarm and do a full 3d6 of damage? At what number do you say there are too few and reduce the damage? At what point does a stomping boot become an effective unarmed attack or area effect? What if the pipe was 6" shorter and only a dozen ants got through before the PCs could act? Perhaps some far-fetched cases, but they illustrate that the spatial distribution of the swarm could be pertinent to what actions the PCs can take and what damage or effect those actions could have. If only a portion of the swarm can be affected (or affect the PCs), you have to either consider percentages for attacks and damage, or resolve things for the individual members independently.