AS a DM I would Rule yes, but officially I do not know.
this is mainly because both spells damage any creature that enters their space while the spell is in effect or that the spell move over/through.
They should be. The rules state that a swarm is not affected by single-target spells, such as magic missile, scorching ray, etc. However, flaming sphere doesn't affect a single target but rather a 5' square of area much like an AOE spell would.
I agree. As long as the spell affects an area, which both of those spells do, it should be fine. They only affect a very small area, but they still affect an area and not a specific target.
What ball lightning and flame sphere do not address is what happens if the ball enters a square with more than one creature (because it is an edge case not often encountered). I'd rule that a flame sphere that rolls over a square with two tiny creatures would damage both tiny creatures equally, just as I'd rule it works on swarms as if it is an AOE spell.
Can cone spells hit swarms? Like, breath weapons and junk?
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do have this commentary from James Jacobs. It's old, and he doesn't do rules questions anymore, but at the time he was posting in the Rules forum, so take it for what it's worth:
Swarms are tough enough as they are. They're basically immune to weapons.
Note, though, that spells are NOT weapons. A few of them mimic weapons (such as flame blade and spiritual weapon) but any spell effect that allows a reflex save to avoid damage (such as flaming sphere) is not one of those spells.
Flaming sphere should work VERY well on swarms, in other words.
And it also passes the common sense examination; a big ball of fire that rolls through a carpet of ants is going to mess those ants up.
Additionally, note that the swarm trait rules don't say that "they're only affected by area effects", they say that they're "immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures". So for flaming sphere to affect a swarm, it doesn't have to qualify as an area effect; it just has to NOT qualify as a "spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures".
It's a bit different for the extra 50% damage, though; swarms take half again as much damage from "spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells". I personally would say flaming sphere affects an area, but I could see someone ruling otherwise and denying the damage boost.
But for the issue of whether it affects a swarm *at all*, there's really no question.
So then, do attacks like cleave hit a swarm? If you just say you're wildly flinging your sword without targeting any bees, do you hit any bees?
Wow.
It's pretty simple, in my opinion.
Does the spell have a "Target" line? If so, then it can't affect the swarm. If not, then it can.
Does the spell have an "Effect" line that includes one of the "Area" descriptors (usually Burst, Emanation, Spread, Cone, Cylinder, Line, Sphere)? If so, then it deals extra damage. If not, then it doesn't.
yay, Jiggy to the rescue!
Well, keep in mind that Jacobs posts, while insightful, do not constitute any official ruling. Absent an official FAQ, I'd start every PFS session off with a clarification with the GM just to be sure you know what they think about it.
Wow.Were you expecting a different answer?
I think he was just surprised. Swarms are scary and the very small ones are very scary. Had a swarm of ticks almost kill half the party because only the wizard had any means to damage them but not nearly the constitution to stand up to actually being damaged by them.
I allow Great Cleave (the 3E version, at least) to attack once and deal normal melee damage to a swarm.
I allow Whirlwind Attack, since by the letter of RAW it attacks EVERY creature within reach to work exceptionally well on a swarm: Roll a single attack and if it hits do damage x 1.5 as if it was an area effect.
Of course, it's not surprising PF would make exceptions for spells that by RAW don't work, like Flaming Sphere, but not anything for noncaster classes, the ones swarms actually screw the hell over.
I hate swarms so much, as if class balance wasn't a joke already. Even GOLEMS, the supposed anti-mage creatures, are not immune to ALL spells with no recourse. No SR ones work just fine, in fact in my experience golems are tougher fights for melee people (due to high combat stats and high DR) than they are casters, who just chuck pyrotechnics or glitterdust or web, or whatever spells specifically affect the golem.
|
Noncasters can just chuck alchemical fire and such onto swarms. And if your GM is into common sense, you can probably use fire and smoke to deal with many swarms, because animals/vermin will tend to avoid those.
Of course, not all GMs like common sense. But it's worth a try; what would ordinary people without magic try?
Probably run away till the swarm dissipates or spray/dump water on a flying swarm (why doesn't this work / do anything?) or something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms are terrible design from a "we want people to have fun playing this game" perspective. What generally happens is that the GM and the wizard end up playing by themselves while everyone else wanders around looking bored, seeing what's on TV or in the fridge, wondering how long it's going to be before they're allowed to participate in the game again. Not to mention that something's just wrong with a world in which a dragon or giant or elemental is easier to defeat than a handful of bats.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms are terrible design from a "we want people to have fun playing this game" perspective. What generally happens is that the GM and the wizard end up playing by themselves while everyone else wanders around looking bored, seeing what's on TV or in the fridge, wondering how long it's going to be before they're allowed to participate in the game again. Not to mention that something's just wrong with a world in which a dragon or giant or elemental is easier to defeat than a handful of bats.
PCs incapable of contributing against swarms are terrible design from a "we want to have fun playing this game" perspective. What generally happens is that the GM and the wizard end up playing by themselves while everyone else wanders around looking bored, seeing what's on TV or in the fridge, wondering how long it's going to be before their linear builds allow them to participate in the game again. Not to mention that something's just wrong with a PC for whom a dragon or giant or elemental is easier to defeat than a handful of bats.
|
|
A flask of alchemist's fire costs 20gp, does 1d6 damage on the first round, and has a decent chance of doing 1d6 on the second round unless the bat swarm spends its turn rolling on the ground trying to succeed at a DC 15 ref save (it needs 8+, so could still go either way). Regardless, bats that have just been set on fire will probably be trying to get away.
It's not that the means to get rid of swarms aren't available; it's unprepared players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're playing a game where the point is to show off how much system mastery you the player have, I suppose it makes sense to walk around with a golfbag full of different weapon materials and options for every contingency. Personally, I prefer a playstyle where, until my PC has encountered it or made a Knowledge check on it, she doesn't actually know the strengths and weaknesses of everything in the bestiary. If she's made it through years of in-game time and six levels without the party ever needing alchemist's fire, why should she be carrying it around, other than metagaming?
|
|
If you took some fairly well-trained people from our world, let's say marines. Comparing post-level 3 adventurers with marines isn't entirely absurd.
And you asked them "how would you deal, using no high tech, with a swarm of angry bats", they'd be able to come up with some ideas. Probably based on how bats don't like to be roasted, smoke is harmful to animals that breathe, and so on. Or maybe scaring them with loud noises. Crawling under something so the bats can't get to you. But they won't sit around complaining that they lack system mastery or that it's not fair that Pest Control gets to have all the glory.
Flaming sphere states: Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
Ball lightning states: Effect two or more 5-ft.-diameter spheres
Both create an effect area of 5' sphere(s). Going to the magic section, you find, "Cone, Cylinder, Line, or Sphere: Most spells that affect an area have a particular shape."
This means sphere effects are area effects and therefore deal extra damage to swarms. "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."
All spheres are area affects. FS is a sphere. Therefore FS is an area affect.
Right. That's why if two creatures are in the same square, the sphere hits both of them.
Oh wait... It doesn't.
Right. That's why if two creatures are in the same square, the sphere hits both of them.
Oh wait... It doesn't.
Why do you think it doesn't?
Flaming sphere: If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates that damage.
Aqueous orb: Any creature in the path of the aqueous orb takes 2d6 points of nonlethal damage. A successful Reflex save negates this damage, but a Large or smaller creature that fails its save must make a second save or be engulfed by the aqueous orb and carried along with it.
Ball Lightning: If a globe enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of electricity damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates the damage.
Aqueous Orb is the clearest, with the explicit statement of 'any creature' but it seems most reasonable to read the others as dealing damage to each target the description is appropriate to. If a ball lightning or flaming sphere moves into a square with two creatures, "enters a space with a creature" applies to both of them.
Flaming Sphere, full description:
"A burning globe of fire rolls in whichever direction you point and burns those it strikes. It moves 30 feet per round. As part of this movement, it can ascend or jump up to 30 feet to strike a target. If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates that damage. A flaming sphere rolls over barriers less than 4 feet tall. It ignites flammable substances it touches and illuminates the same area as a torch would.
The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you); otherwise, it merely stays at rest and burns. It can be extinguished by any means that would put out a normal fire of its size. The surface of the sphere has a spongy, yielding consistency and so does not cause damage except by its flame. It cannot push aside unwilling creatures or batter down large obstacles. A flaming sphere winks out if it exceeds the spell's range."
That combined with lack of the Area parameter makes it pretty clear that it's only hitting one "target" to me. Much firmer proof than anything to support it hitting all within the space.
Stream, you're picking and choosing your scripture to support your argument. Any intelligent play group would eventually come to the consensus that a flaming 5' sphere would not conveniently damage only one creature occupied by that sphere. The spell description only assumes a single target because it wastes literary space in print to detail of space occupying rules elsewhere in a book that already states it.
By your argument, in a hypothetical situation wherein the party is at a choke point, say a 5' wide tunnel leading to a larger room, the lead party member willingly takes the damage, and thus the rest of the party can squeeze past, taking none at all. Vice versa, a swarm of goblins can do so to get at the party, negating what may be a wizard's desperate attempt to help the party get to a safer area.
I'm picking out parts that actually say it hits a single target. The other side has yet to show a single thing indicating it affects an entire 5 ft square.
As for how to determine who is hit, the caster is controlling it, so presumably he'd choose who. Or you roll a d100 with 50% chance of either getting hit, I suppose.
It is not an area spell, though. If it actually filled an entire 5 ft space...and remained there for the entire round, how would the victim be able to reflex save to NEGATE the damage yet still stay in that space? This isn't Evasion, where it's some special ninja dodging skill of certain classes on an effect that would otherwise be impossible to completely avoid. This is a spell that anyone who dodges out of the way takes zero ziltch nada damage from.
By your argument, in a hypothetical situation wherein the party is at a choke point, say a 5' wide tunnel leading to a larger room, the lead party member willingly takes the damage, and thus the rest of the party can squeeze past, taking none at all. Vice versa, a swarm of goblins can do so to get at the party, negating what may be a wizard's desperate attempt to help the party get to a safer area.
Oh no, the poor spellcaster! If only he had cast one of the myriad *actual* area spells at his disposal, he could have been more useful. Surely, this is an injustice and we must fix it!
I'm picking out parts that actually say it hits a single target. The other side has yet to show a single thing indicating it affects an entire 5 ft square.
Hi. I'm Ximen Bao. You may recognize me from relevant posts, such as this one:
Aqueous Orb is the clearest, with the explicit statement of 'any creature' but it seems most reasonable to read the others as dealing damage to each target the description is appropriate to. If a ball lightning or flaming sphere moves into a square with two creatures, "enters a space with a creature" applies to both of them.
...
Aqueous Orb explicitly says "any creature in it's path" not the 'a creature' language you quoted for flaming sphere. Even in the mode of textual analysis you're using, you have to concede aqueous orb.
|
I'm picking out parts that actually say it hits a single target. The other side has yet to show a single thing indicating it affects an entire 5 ft square.
As for how to determine who is hit, the caster is controlling it, so presumably he'd choose who. Or you roll a d100 with 50% chance of either getting hit, I suppose.
It is not an area spell, though. If it actually filled an entire 5 ft space...and remained there for the entire round, how would the victim be able to reflex save to NEGATE the damage yet still stay in that space? This isn't Evasion, where it's some special ninja dodging skill of certain classes on an effect that would otherwise be impossible to completely avoid. This is a spell that anyone who dodges out of the way takes zero ziltch nada damage from.
** spoiler omitted **By your argument, in a hypothetical situation wherein the party is at a choke point, say a 5' wide tunnel leading to a larger room, the lead party member willingly takes the damage, and thus the rest of the party can squeeze past, taking none at all. Vice versa, a swarm of goblins can do so to get at the party, negating what may be a wizard's desperate attempt to help the party get to a safer area.Oh no, the poor spellcaster! If only he had cast one of the myriad *actual* area spells at his disposal, he could have been more useful. Surely, this is an injustice and we must fix it!
You make a good point, but another equally valid interpretation is that both now have to save. Most of us tend to go with the latter, as it does say it's a 5' diameter sphere, no matter how much of a 5' square it doesn't take up (and if you think about it, it doesn't, by virtue of it being a sphere). There are edges and corners in the square that the sphere doesn't encompass.
Hi. I'm Ximen Bao. You may recognize me from relevant posts, such as this one:
Aqueous Orb is the clearest, with the explicit statement of 'any creature' but it seems most reasonable to read the others as dealing damage to each target the description is appropriate to. If a ball lightning or flaming sphere moves into a square with two creatures, "enters a space with a creature" applies to both of them.
...
Aqueous Orb explicitly says "any creature in it's path" not the 'a creature' language you quoted for flaming sphere. Even in the mode of textual analysis you're using, you have to concede aqueous orb.
Hi, I'm StreamOfTheSky. You may remember me from such posts as the ones where I was arguing that Flaming Sphere (and Ball Lightning, for that matter) does not hit all creatures in a 5 ft space and made not a single mention of Aqueous Orb.
Which, for the record, DOES affect every creature in that space, as per its description. I never disputed that, and it is definitely correct. Kind of funny that you use a spell that *does* bother to say such a thing as a defense for flaming sphere, which does not, also affecting everything in its "area."
|
|
Hi. I'm Ximen Bao. You may recognize me from relevant posts, such as this one:
Aqueous Orb is the clearest, with the explicit statement of 'any creature' but it seems most reasonable to read the others as dealing damage to each target the description is appropriate to. If a ball lightning or flaming sphere moves into a square with two creatures, "enters a space with a creature" applies to both of them.
...
Aqueous Orb explicitly says "any creature in it's path" not the 'a creature' language you quoted for flaming sphere. Even in the mode of textual analysis you're using, you have to concede aqueous orb.
Hi, I'm StreamOfTheSky. You may remember me from such posts as the ones where I was arguing that Flaming Sphere (and Ball Lightning, for that matter) does not hit all creatures in a 5 ft space and made not a single mention of Aqueous Orb.
Which, for the record, DOES affect every creature in that space, as per its description. I never disputed that, and it is definitely correct. Kind of funny that you use a spell that *does* bother to say such a thing as a defense for flaming sphere, which does not, also affecting everything in its "area."
So your argument is that spheres should not follow the same rules, even when they're the same size?
They're not the same spell, and they do very different things. The FS and BL do damage to targets you move them to; AO does not damage and is instead used to absorb enemies into it and force them to move with it.
|
|
They're not the same spell, and they do very different things. The FS and BL do damage to targets you move them to; AO does not damage and is instead used to absorb enemies into it and force them to move with it.
...and the actual effect of this sphere of the same size is significant...in what way? I'm missing your point.
The point is one spell is designed for and explicitly says you pick up multiple creatures with it and the others are balanced on and explicitly say they only hit one creature at a time.
Getting sick of pointing out the obvious and banging my head against the wall...
I get what you're saying now. Flaming sphere doesn't say Area: 5' diameter sphere. It is an effect. Like a ray. Which is directed and aimed by making a move action by the caster.
So yes, you can park a flaming sphere in a doorway. And all the goblins that want to can run past it, it only deal damage on the caster's turn by spending a move action to make it burn someone.
FS is also lacking the "any creature" language that AO has, which is why only AO can affect multiple creatures. AO is still an Effect spell, and normally would not be able to effect more than one creature, except for the fact that it has language in the spell description allowing it to.
Inexpensive way to deal with swarms: Lamp Oil.
Player 1 throws Lamp Oil at swarm, douses them with oil.
Player 2 lights torch
Player 3 takes torch and lights swarm.
Total price tag: 1.11gp
Alternately, you can prep them as Alchemist fire with a fuse. That will reduce the number of players needed to 2 (one to prep, one to take it and throw) but it will have a 50% chance of not working.
Until I can afford Alchemist's Fire I ALWAYS pack Oil
- Gauss
@Gauss good point. how are the adventurers seeing?
|
|
The point is one spell is designed for and explicitly says you pick up multiple creatures with it and the others are balanced on and explicitly say they only hit one creature at a time.
Getting sick of pointing out the obvious and banging my head against the wall...
But it does not explicitly say it only hits one at a time. It says it stops at the first square where it encounters a creature. It does say it does damage to that creature, but it does not say that it does not damage other creatures in that square. Those statements do not have the same meaning, no matter how many times you say they do.