| 18 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have seen this discussed on various threads. I am wondering if I am missing an official source or ruling or errata document.
Can you sneak attack swarms?
Is the sneak attack damage halved or ignored for various-sized swarms as per weapon damage?
Thank you!
The Swarm subtype is immune to sneak attack. This is explicitly in the Bestiary.
Very few creatures are immune to sneak attack anymore -- oozes, elementals, aeons, animated objects -- but swarms are one of them.
The swarm subtype never mentions sneak attack. What it does say is:
Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. 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. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
Since you must see the target well enough to pick out a vital target to sneak attack it, and the swarm has no discernible anatomy, it wouldn't have a vital spot to sneak attack.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
The swarm subtype never mentions sneak attack. What it does say is:
Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking. 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. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.Since you must see the target well enough to pick out a vital target to sneak attack it, and the swarm has no discernible anatomy, it wouldn't have a vital spot to sneak attack.
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment.
Unless it says somewhere that swarms are immune to sneak attack, I rule they aren't and work around the fluff.
A vital spot could be a location where the swarm is thinner than usual, and hitting it there could cause a gap and thus disrupt it more than a normal strike.
I goofed. Sorry about that. Now I'm remembering the prior arguments about this. "Maybe a rogue is picking out the leader bugs so they disperse more quickly" and whatnot.
If a swarm is immune to weapon damage, wouldn't that also rule out sneak attacks with weapons?
so things that make you immune to critical hits don't make you immune to sneak attack damage anymore?
The no discernible anatomy thing pretty much puts the kabash on sneak attack. And don't give me any made up BS about 'lead bug'. There's no fluff supporting a 'lead bug' but there is a crunch saying the rogue must be able to see the character clearly enough to pick out a vulnerable spot. Feel free to FAQ it, but a swarm is immune to sneak attack. Even if it is a tiny corner case (given the only way to do it is to flat foot them at the top of the round with a fireball as an Arcane Trickster).
The no discernible anatomy thing pretty much puts the kabash on sneak attack. And don't give me any made up BS about 'lead bug'. There's no fluff supporting a 'lead bug' but there is a crunch saying the rogue must be able to see the character clearly enough to pick out a vulnerable spot. Feel free to FAQ it, but a swarm is immune to sneak attack. Even if it is a tiny corner case (given the only way to do it is to flat foot them at the top of the round with a fireball as an Arcane Trickster).
No crunch saying swarms have no vulnerable spots, either.
First, I do agree that swarms can't be dealt sneak attack damage. I do think the no discernible anatomy is meant to portray this.
This being the rules question forum and all, I think there is another way to deny it.
Swarm Traits: "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures"
Sneak Attack: "If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."
Sneak attack deals extra damage to a single creature (the target of the rogues attack). Swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures. Therefore, swarms are still immune to sneak attack damage.
The no discernible anatomy thing pretty much puts the kabash on sneak attack. And don't give me any made up BS about 'lead bug'. There's no fluff supporting a 'lead bug' but there is a crunch saying the rogue must be able to see the character clearly enough to pick out a vulnerable spot. Feel free to FAQ it, but a swarm is immune to sneak attack. Even if it is a tiny corner case (given the only way to do it is to flat foot them at the top of the round with a fireball as an Arcane Trickster).No crunch saying swarms have no vulnerable spots, either.
I'd say that is pretty solid crunch. If you can't critical it, then how exactly does it have a vulnerable spot?
| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think the intent is no sneak attack, but they forget to specifically include it. Time for errata I guess. :)
This one will need an FAQ to be official.
The no discernible anatomy thing pretty much puts the kabash on sneak attack. And don't give me any made up BS about 'lead bug'. There's no fluff supporting a 'lead bug' but there is a crunch saying the rogue must be able to see the character clearly enough to pick out a vulnerable spot. Feel free to FAQ it, but a swarm is immune to sneak attack. Even if it is a tiny corner case (given the only way to do it is to flat foot them at the top of the round with a fireball as an Arcane Trickster).No crunch saying swarms have no vulnerable spots, either.I'd say that is pretty solid crunch. If you can't critical it, then how exactly does it have a vulnerable spot?
Aeons are immune to critical hits, but not sneak attacks. So that's not a particularly crunchy approach.
Others have taken the 'lead bugs' line. I fluff it as thin spots in the swarm, where attacking that point can cut a section out and cause it to scatter.
How do we go about getting an FAQ or errata judgement on this from an official source? What is the process? Who is even capable of making such a ruling?
|
"Precision-Based Damage (like Sneak Attack)
The following creature types (or subtypes) do not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack):
Elemental (subtype): "<An elemental...> does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack.)"
Incorporeal (subtype): "An incorporeal creature is immune to precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality."
Ooze (Type): "<An ooze is...> does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack.)"
Protean (subtype): (50% chance to ignore, see below*)"
They aren't listed. They can take precision damage. The rogue will get lucky to get one in the whole fight, and even then only with tiny swarms, which still halve the damage. I could see letting them get one in.
My thought is that swarms "should not" be vulnerable to sneak attacks, but the wording makes it ambiguous. Either the swarm subtype could be reworded to say they're invulnerable to precision damage (including critical hits and sneak attacks) or the subtype could be given the amorphous property (which basically says they have no discernible anatomy and are immune to crits and precision damage like sneak attacks). I think the first option is better because they're not technically amorphous. They're very close to it, but they're still made up of a bunch of little shaped creatures.
They aren't listed. They can take precision damage. The rogue will get lucky to get one in the whole fight, and even then only with tiny swarms, which still halve the damage. I could see letting them get one in.
By halve the damage do you mean from the weapon or from the sneak attack itself? Is sneak attack "weapon damage" or is it "precision damage"? It says they halve "weapon damage".
Sneak attack is weapon damage if it's delivered from a weapon. If you deal 1 damage plus sneak attack against a creature with DR, the DR subtracts from the total -- it doesn't negate the 1 damage and prevent the sneak attack from happening. Similarly, if you sneak attack with a scorching ray, it's all fire damage.
Sneak Attack on swarms that aren't immune to weapon damage? Did the developers really intend swarms to be harmed by Sneak Attack?
I guess you could argue that a swarm not immune to weapon damage could be affected by precision-based damage. It seems pretty absurd, but I guess by the rules it is possible since there is a clear delineation between immune to critical hits and immune to precision-based damage now.
Sneak Attack on swarms that aren't immune to weapon damage? Did the developers really intend swarms to be harmed by Sneak Attack?
I guess you could argue that a swarm not immune to weapon damage could be affected by precision-based damage. It seems pretty absurd, but I guess by the rules it is possible since there is a clear delineation between immune to critical hits and immune to precision-based damage now.
It wasn't possible to sneak attack swarms in 3.5 D&D.
A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies—undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.
With the changes Pathfiner made to sneak attack, immunity to critical hits no longer gives immunity to sneak attacks.
The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "vital spot" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.
The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.
The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
|
so things that make you immune to critical hits don't make you immune to sneak attack damage anymore?
Sneak attack is one of several ways to deal precision damage. Swarms do not specify immunity to precision damage but do specify a lack of vital points.
If a swarm is immune to weapon damage, wouldn't that also rule out sneak attacks with weapons?
There are ways around this.
Swarms are not immune to sneak attacks, but they can only be sneak attacked while flat footed (which is pretty much the first round of combat)
There are ways to render opponents flat footed during combat. My favorite is Grease.
"Discernible anatomy" is not language used in the text to determine vulnerability to sneak attack.
"Discernible anatomy" is not language used in the text which determines vulnerability to sneak attack.
It used to be, so it is most likely swarms were overlooked in being updated when that language was removed.
The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
Yes it does. I was confusing the sneak attack entry for 3.5 with the one for Pathfinder. I meant to say "vital spot", and so went back and changed it. Pathfinder sneak attack doesn't care about discernible anatomies, just that the creature has a vital spot.
Yes it does. I was confusing the sneak attack entry for 3.5 with the one for Pathfinder. I meant to say "vital spot", and so went back and changed it. Pathfinder sneak attack doesn't care about discernible anatomies, just that the creature has a vital spot.The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
If there is no vital spot to hit on a critial, then how is there one for hitting with sneak attack?
If there is no vital spot to hit on a critial, then how is there one for hitting with sneak attack?Yes it does. I was confusing the sneak attack entry for 3.5 with the one for Pathfinder. I meant to say "vital spot", and so went back and changed it. Pathfinder sneak attack doesn't care about discernible anatomies, just that the creature has a vital spot.The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
I just did this exact back-and-forth with wraithstrike[eta: actually, with you]upthread.
Sneak attack is not dependent on critical hit vulnerability. They are not tied together in the rules and Aeons provide a precedent for critical-hit-immune/sneak-attack-vulnerable.
If there is no vital spot to hit on a critial, then how is there one for hitting with sneak attack?Yes it does. I was confusing the sneak attack entry for 3.5 with the one for Pathfinder. I meant to say "vital spot", and so went back and changed it. Pathfinder sneak attack doesn't care about discernible anatomies, just that the creature has a vital spot.The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
I just did this exact back-and-forth with wraithstrike[eta: actually, with you]upthread.
Sneak attack is not dependent on critical hit vulnerability. They are not tied together in the rules and Aeons provide a precedent for critical-hit-immune/sneak-attack-vulnerable.
I don't see any specific mention of precision damage in Aeon descriptions. Also, it is not a perfect analogy, as Swarms state there is no discernible anatomy. This implies there is no vital spot to strike for precision damage.
The Aeon description does not mention anatomy, so they likely do have a discernible anatomy, and it makes sense that they could be delt precision damage.
Why do you think that not having a discernible anatomy means they still have a vital spot to be sneak attacked?
Vital spot and discernible anatomy are not "rules terms" but they do have plain english meanings, which is why I am applying here.
If there is no vital spot to hit on a critial, then how is there one for hitting with sneak attack?
Vital areas aren't needed for critical hits. A critical hit is just a hit that does more damage than usual. Thats why you can critically hit a stone golem or skeleton.
I don't see any specific mention of precision damage in Aeon descriptions. Also, it is not a perfect analogy, as Swarms state there is no discernible anatomy. This implies there is no vital spot to strike for precision damage.If there is no vital spot to hit on a critial, then how is there one for hitting with sneak attack?Yes it does. I was confusing the sneak attack entry for 3.5 with the one for Pathfinder. I meant to say "vital spot", and so went back and changed it. Pathfinder sneak attack doesn't care about discernible anatomies, just that the creature has a vital spot.The only thing in Pathfinder that may make a swarm immune to sneak attack is if thy have a "discernible anatomy" or not. I would say they do not, and so are immune to sneak attack.The swarm traits description specifically states they do not have a discernible anatomy.
"Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking."
I just did this exact back-and-forth with wraithstrike[eta: actually, with you]upthread.
Sneak attack is not dependent on critical hit vulnerability. They are not tied together in the rules and Aeons provide a precedent for critical-hit-immune/sneak-attack-vulnerable.
Sneak attack=precision damage. If my argument was that it doesn't have immunity to sneak attack, then you shouldn't expect to see that language.
The Aeon description does not mention anatomy, so they likely do have a discernible anatomy, and it makes sense that they could be delt precision damage.
I think this makes it a pretty good comparison:
"Void Form (Su) Though aeons aren't incorporeal, their forms are only a semi-tangible manifestation of something greater. An aeon's void form grants it a deflection bonus equal to 1/4 its Hit Dice (rounded down).
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/monsters/creatureTypes.html#_aeon-subtyp e
Why do you think that not having a discernible anatomy means they still have a vital spot to be sneak attacked?"
Vital spot and discernible anatomy are not "rules terms" but they do have plain english meanings, which is why I am applying here.
You keep equating 'discernible anatomy' with 'vital spot' without yet providing a justification for doing so. The terms are not linked in the rules, and when the crunch says yes but you don't like the fluff, you refluff it.
I will also add that the folks at the pfsrd are on board with this.
They aren't official, but they have a pretty good track record.
Check the sidebar on the right:
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue#TOC-Sneak-Attack
I'm pretty sure the developers intended swarms be immune to sneak attack and precision-based damage. But due to the changes in rules language, it is no longer clear.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
...pfsrd... they have a pretty good track record.
With respect, I would have to disagree. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into a rules debate that turned out to be the result of someone believing something on the SRD was an actual published rule when it wasn't, and it turned out to flatly contradict the actual rules. They used to have a sidebar stating that your CMD was equal to 10+CMB+DEX (thereby letting you double-dip DEX if you took Agile Maneuvers), and listed it on a page of published Pathfinder rules without noting that the sidebar was written by them rather than by Paizo.
They also used to have an entire paragraph explaining how certain combat maneuvers work (which was in error at the time), right in there with the actual CRB text, such that people honestly believed it was in the CRB even though it was authored by one of the SRD's volunteers (I've even had my intelligence/literacy directly insulted due to recognizing that said text was not published by Paizo).
Not long ago I also discovered that their description of some item or feat (I forget which) involved them taking the actual text, splitting one of the sentences in half, putting one half in italics and adding words of their own to finish a new sentence, putting the other half down below (with more original text to make that into its own sentence), with a bolded label in between (that didn't appear in the Paizo material) and labeled the whole thing as being cited directly from a Paizo publication. Someone was arguing that part of the item/feat's description was just flavor text (based on the SRD's presentation), when in reality only half of the text they were reading was actually what Paizo published, and the parts getting separated as being fluff or rules were actually published as a single sentence.
Frankly, d20pfsrd.com attributes so much original text to Paizo that Paizo could (if they wanted to) sue them for plagiarism and shut them down forever.
The SRD is a noble idea, and definitely gets points for convenience, but a reliable rules source it is not. Not until they stop making s#$* up and saying Paizo published it.
I'm feeling pretty confident now that RAW make swarms susceptible to sneak attacks.
In fact, looking at the most recent printings of the Core Rulebook and on the Paizo PRD sneak attack's description does not contain the phrase "precision damage". It makes it sound like it is extra damage stack on top of the original weapon (or whatever) damage.
The only thing I can find from Paizo that makes sneak attack "precision damage" is the definition of the amorphous creature type (unless this is more-clearly defined in an FAQ I overlooked).
d20pfsrd's sneak attack description appears to make it clear that sneak attack is precision damage:
'The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage")'
But I can't see that the text in the parentheses originates from Paizo.
So RAW would make sneak attack damage just damage lumped into the weapon damage, which would then be ignored/halved as per swarm rules? This is my best interpretation at this point.
You keep equating 'discernible anatomy' with 'vital spot' without yet providing a justification for doing so. The terms are not linked in the rules, and when the crunch says yes but you don't like the fluff, you refluff it.
Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?
|
|
Swarmbane clasp could allow you do deal normal damage so you would be able to sneak attack a swarm.
Swarm:
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 has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits or flanking.
Swarmbane clasp:
The wearer’s weapons, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks deal full damage to swarms, regardless of the swarm’s immunity to weapon damage (if any, although damage reduction applies as normal).
Sneak attack:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target.
Of course, you need to find a way to deny the swarm of it's dex bonus. Beat its initiative or attack it while being invisible (they don't seem to be immune to invisibility). alternatively, you could feint a swarm (weird I know) at -8 (int of 2 - animal intelligence).
HOWEVER, let's look at this important piece of information:
The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot.
And since...
A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy
... one could easily extrapolate that you can't sneak attack a swarm.
The real question here is probably if you can have a vital spot if you don't have a discernible anatomy.
Personally, I would allow it since I feel that rogues need that extra damage. I know that "feelings" are not RAW material but if you can sneak attack an incorporeal shadow with a ghost touch weapon, IMHO you can sneak attack anything unless it says CLEARLY so.
An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits and precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.
Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?
I think that sneak attack isn't targeted. I think its power stems from the attack itself which can clearly be targeted at the swarm. It's a modifier on attack damage, not a "spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures".
Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?I think that sneak attack isn't targeted. I think its power stems from the attack itself which can clearly be targeted at the swarm. It's a modifier on attack damage, not a "spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures".
How can a single sneak attack ever effect more than 1 creature?
Disintegrate is the example used. It uses a ranged attack roll to target the ray. You think a rogue can use an attack roll to target their attack, but somehow it doesn't limit it to a single target?|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sneak attack:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
The part I bolded is not actually in the sneak attack rules published by Paizo as part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game. The actual text is as follows:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC
See? No parenthetical note about "precision damage". The fact that d20pfsrd.com has added that text but attributed it to Paizo is yet another instance of plagiarism. I recommend avoiding the SRD when wording matters, as its contributors tend to assume their own interpretations to be correct and then insert them into the text to pass off as being actual rules. Granted, sometimes they're correct, but it sure is a royal pain in the arse when they're wrong but people think their ideas are actually in the rules.
How can a single sneak attack ever effect more than 1 creature?
Disintegrate is the example used. It uses a ranged attack roll to target the ray. You think a rogue can use an attack roll to target their attack, but somehow it doesn't limit it to a single target?
You have to admit that you can attack a swarm. That attack, itself, is the sneak attack.
Sneak attack isn't a replacement for an attack. Sneak attack is not a targeted spell or effect.
Sneak attack most definitely is an effect. It can only effect a creature you hit with an attack while they are denied dex to ac, or are flanked.
Much like disintegrate can only effect a creature if you hit with the ranged touch attack.
Again, how can sneak attack effect multiple creatures? If it cannot, then the swarm is immune.
You have to wonder if Sneak Attack damage from an AoE spell cast by an Arcane Trickster using Surprise Spells would effect a swarm. If that Sneak Attack damage would effect a swarm using because it is an AoE effect which is very effective against a swarm, then it seems that Sneak Attack damage from a weapon capable of hurting a swarm would work.
You keep equating 'discernible anatomy' with 'vital spot' without yet providing a justification for doing so. The terms are not linked in the rules, and when the crunch says yes but you don't like the fluff, you refluff it.Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?
I didn't see where you made it before.
It's easily countered though, since it's horrible semantics abuse.
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round.
...
Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#_attack
Attack itself uses the singular form of "opponent," yet you can explicitly attack a swarm. This means that trying to make "opponent" mean "any opponent but a swarm" fails.
You keep equating 'discernible anatomy' with 'vital spot' without yet providing a justification for doing so. The terms are not linked in the rules, and when the crunch says yes but you don't like the fluff, you refluff it.Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?
Based upon your argument, no physical attack on a swarm can do more than one point of damage, ie one member of the swarm hit & dead. On swarms that are vulnerable to physical attacks, this is clearly not the case. A BBN with a great axe could do a hit that do enough damage to “kill’ an entire swarm with one hit, no? But there are 300-1000 tiny creatures in such a swarm, no? A “rat swarm” has 16 HP, but 300 rats. So, since by your argument each “hit” can kill no more than one rat, it would take 300 hits to kill the swarm, but the rules say that a single mighty blow could destroy the swarm.
Ergo, a swarm made up of tiny creatures can be Sneak attacked,, altho it is very difficult to get one in, as they can’t be flanked.
...pfsrd... they have a pretty good track record.With respect, I would have to disagree. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into a rules debate that turned out to be the result of someone believing something on the SRD was an actual published rule when it wasn't, and it turned out to flatly contradict the actual rules. ....The SRD is a noble idea, and...
Jiggy is right (as usual). The PFSRD is fine if you want to look up a feat or something not in Core, like from a Adventure path or even a 3rd party source. It’s worse than useless for rules debates.
Jiggy is right (as usual). The PFSRD is fine if you want to look up a feat or something not in Core, like from a Adventure path or even a 3rd party source. It’s worse than useless for rules debates....pfsrd... they have a pretty good track record.With respect, I would have to disagree. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten into a rules debate that turned out to be the result of someone believing something on the SRD was an actual published rule when it wasn't, and it turned out to flatly contradict the actual rules. ....The SRD is a noble idea, and...
Fair enough. I guess I've just had better than average luck mostly referencing things that turned out right.
You keep equating 'discernible anatomy' with 'vital spot' without yet providing a justification for doing so. The terms are not linked in the rules, and when the crunch says yes but you don't like the fluff, you refluff it.Why is it that nobody has countered my argument that sneak attack specifies a single target ("an opponent") and that swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures?Based upon your argument, no physical attack on a swarm can do more than one point of damage, ie one member of the swarm hit & dead. On swarms that are vulnerable to physical attacks, this is clearly not the case. A BBN with a great axe could do a hit that do enough damage to “kill’ an entire swarm with one hit, no? But there are 300-1000 tiny creatures in such a swarm, no? A “rat swarm” has 16 HP, but 300 rats. So, since by your argument each “hit” can kill no more than one rat, it would take 300 hits to kill the swarm, but the rules say that a single mighty blow could destroy the swarm.
Ergo, a swarm made up of tiny creatures can be Sneak attacked,, altho it is very difficult to get one in, as they can’t be flanked.
Attacks are their own mechanic and are handled via the "half damage" on tiny creature swarms, and immune on smaller ones.
Sneak attack is a riding effect which takes place if the conditions are met.As I said initially, that is my attempt to justify swarms immune to sneak attack RAW.
RAI I am positive they are supposed to be immune to it, and were overlooked when the wording on sneak attack was changed. I expect at some point swarms will get an errata stating as much.
Your attempt failed, and swarms are not immune to sneak attacks.