Your attempt failed, and swarms are not immune to sneak attacks.
I'm curious, do you think swarms were meant to retain their sneak attack immunity they had in previous editions? (Previously, creatures required a discernible anatomy to be vulnerable to sneak attack, something swarms do not have.)
I wouldn't be surprised if with the next bestiary errata, they changed the swarms do not have discernible anatomy to swarms are immune to precision damage and sneak attack.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seems like Jiggy's got it out for d20pfsrd.com. I was originally going to ignore this thread but he keeps going on about how horrible we are and I think it deserves a response. Unfortunately it's bedtime here so I'll try to remember to get back on here tomorrow sometime to defend our reasoning. It likely will make no difference though since some people just decide they don't like something, and others go on trying to convince others not to as well. Sigh.
Your attempt failed, and swarms are not immune to sneak attacks.I'm curious, do you think swarms were meant to retain their sneak attack immunity they had in previous editions? (Previously, creatures required a discernible anatomy to be vulnerable to sneak attack, something swarms do not have.)
I wouldn't be surprised if with the next bestiary errata, they changed the swarms do not have discernible anatomy to swarms are immune to precision damage and sneak attack.
No, like most monsters in Pathfinder, they have changed they so they can be sneak attacked.
Previously, many creatures could not be sneak attacked that currently can be, undead being a prime example. Tell me, where does the term discernible anatomy appear in the PF rules?
You are trying to apply 3.5 rules to PF.
It makes sense that a person can sneak attack a vampire. After all, a vampire has apparent physiological weak spots. I always thought it was a bit silly that undead were wholly immune from sneak attacks in 3.5, anyway.
But where is the apparent physiological weak spot in a grouping of thousands of bugs crawling all over each other? Or hundreds of rats or bats? That's why, to me, it seems more likely that not amending the language regarding swarms to specifically exclude them from sneak attacks was an oversight. The language that would have made them immune in 3.5 is still present.
Of course, I could absolutely be wrong on that. It may have very well been considered and simply not changed because sneak attack was altered. But I think it makes more sense that swarms would be immune. Anatomy is relevant in my opinion.
I asked my wife about this, she is currently playing a Ninja and I agree with her response. While it could be ruled either way, whether Paizo meant to make this change RAW, or this is accidentally unclear, either way can be argued.
People saying that precision damage doesn't make sense when fighting swarms of rats/bugs/bats " But where is the apparent physiological weak spot in a grouping of thousands of bugs crawling all over each other? Or hundreds of rats or bats?" Why could a ninja/rogue not use their precise aim to accurately skewer 15 rats with one stab, or slash in just a way with their weapon to kill more bugs?
I am of the opinion that swarms should be immune to sneak attack. If you think about it though, how are you going to sneak attack that swarm anyway since it is immune to flanking? Quaff invisibility potions? The only other way, other than invisibility, that you could get a sneak attack off is to make the swarm flat-footed and even then, it is immune to your weapon attack. Perhaps it is intentional so rogues can use a swarmbane clasp and sneak attack with it, but I'm not so sure. Even though I think swarms should be immune to sneak attacks, they don't specifically call them out as being immune. Other creatures such as elementals specifically call out their immunity to sneak attacks and other precision damage.
Elemental Subtype: An elemental is a being composed
entirely from one of the four classical elements: air, earth,
fire, or water. An elemental has the following features.
• Immunity to paralysis, poison, sleep effects, and
stunning.
• Not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take
additional damage from precision-based attacks, such
as sneak attack.
• Proficient with natural weapons only, unless generally
humanoid in form, in which case proficient with all
simple weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
• Proficient with whatever type of armor (light,
medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as
all lighter types. Elementals not indicated as wearing
armor are not proficient with armor. Elementals are
proficient with shields if they are proficient with any
form of armor.
• Elementals do not breathe, eat, or sleep.
Swarm traits doesn't include the entry about being unaffected by sneak attacks.
Your attempt failed, and swarms are not immune to sneak attacks.I'm curious, do you think swarms were meant to retain their sneak attack immunity they had in previous editions? (Previously, creatures required a discernible anatomy to be vulnerable to sneak attack, something swarms do not have.)
I wouldn't be surprised if with the next bestiary errata, they changed the swarms do not have discernible anatomy to swarms are immune to precision damage and sneak attack.
No, like most monsters in Pathfinder, they have changed they so they can be sneak attacked.
Previously, many creatures could not be sneak attacked that currently can be, undead being a prime example. Tell me, where does the term discernible anatomy appear in the PF rules?
You are trying to apply 3.5 rules to PF.
I think that swarms were overlooked when they re-worded sneak attack, and as a result, PF accidentally removed their inability to be steak attacked.
Yes, previously many creatures (exclusively ones that have discernible weak points) that were immune to sneak attack (for no good reason) are not able to be sneak attacked. I am not trying to apply 3.5 rules. I am saying RAW right now, you are right, swarms can be sneak attacked.
RAI I think that swarms are not meant to be sneak attacked, just like other non-anatomy things (oozes, elementals, etc.) As a result, I won't be surprised when they errata swarms to be immune by RAW. Apparently you will be and cannot fathom why a swarm would be immune to a precision attack.
I think that swarms were overlooked when they re-worded sneak attack, and as a result, PF accidentally removed their inability to be steak attacked.
A steak attack? Who in their right mind would throw perfectly good steaks at a swarm? Waste of good meat if you ask me.
The only way a swarm should be able to be sneak attacked is if the swarm as a whole was being controlled by one (or possible several) of the creatures inside of it. That would give the swarm a vital spot, which if killed would cause the swarm to disperse. Though finding that one creature in a mass of hundreds or thousands would be next to impossible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't wiggle my fingers and make a fireball appear either.
As a general rule, though I'm not sure if its stated anywhere expressedly, immunity to critical hits is immunity to sneak attack. Swarms are immune to critical hits so they should also be immune to sneak attacks.
Besides that, the swarm traits say "A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy".
How much more intention or clarity do you need to say that swarms are not subject to critical hits, precision damage, or sneak attack damage. Besides, swarms are immune to weapon damage anyways so you would have to sneak attack them with a spell.
Unless you can kidney shot 500 rats with one attack then no, you can't sneak attack a swarm...
Same problem with simply attacking a swarm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a general rule, though I'm not sure if its stated anywhere expressedly, immunity to critical hits is immunity to sneak attack. Swarms are immune to critical hits so they should also be immune to sneak attacks.
It is stated nowhere, explicitly or implicitly.
Besides that, the swarm traits say "A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy".How much more intention or clarity do you need to say that swarms are not subject to critical hits, precision damage, or sneak attack damage. Besides, swarms are immune to weapon damage anyways so you would have to sneak attack them with a spell.
I require the intention and clarity of putting 'immune to sneak attack' as in all the entries which are actually immune to sneak attack.
I trust you have common sense and understand what an oversight is. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
With the exception of the Aeon and Swarm subtypes, other things mentioned as being immune to critical hits also mention being immune to sneak attack. I think this is clear case of oversight. I'm positive no reasonable GM is going to let you sneak attack swarms and is completely justified in doing so.
Is it even relevant to the game your were playing? Did your character even have spells it could sneak attack with since you can't damage a swarm with weapons?
Edit: I also found what I was talking about with regards to critical hits and sneak attacks, they are conflated within the Fortification Armor Special Ability.
Sneak attack:
The rogue's attack deals extra damage (called "precision damage") anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to ACThe 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 ACSee? 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.
They are supposed to copy it verbatim, and put any "ideas" in a side bar as a suggestion. I do wish they would follow instructions. It is not that hard to do.
edit:I fixed it.
Your attempt failed, and swarms are not immune to sneak attacks.
99% of the time is something is immune to critical hits, then it is immune to sneak attack. I want to say 100%, but there is likely a rules exception, but I don't think swarms are it RAI, even if they the exception per RAW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On another note the PFSRD site is right more often than not, so to way they are mostly wrong is far from accurate, but when mistakes are made that is what people will notice.
There is a big difference between the site is mostly wrong, and they have noticeable errors.
Easy. Buy a Swarmbane Clasp for 3,000g. Then you can sneak attack a swarm all day long. (assuming the specific swarm is not immune to sneak attacks)
*Without the Clasp, swarms are immune to any damage that is not area of affect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I trust you have common sense and understand what an oversight is. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill.
With the exception of the Aeon and Swarm subtypes, other things mentioned as being immune to critical hits also mention being immune to sneak attack. I think this is clear case of oversight. I'm positive no reasonable GM is going to let you sneak attack swarms and is completely justified in doing so.
Is it even relevant to the game your were playing? Did your character even have spells it could sneak attack with since you can't damage a swarm with weapons?
Edit: I also found what I was talking about with regards to critical hits and sneak attacks, they are conflated within the Fortification Armor Special Ability.
I happen to be a GM in the habit of running swarms against characters with AC so high they need to be reminded they aren't invincible. I can't actually remember ever fighting a swarm as a player. Had one a few months ago as part of a set piece encounter, but it went away.
I do not think this is a clear case of oversight, although it may be an oversight. That most things which are immune to critical hits also have immunity to sneak attacks does not imply that all things immune to critical hits are immune to sneak attacks.
As far as mountains and molehills go, only one of us as claimed that all reasonable people will take their side, implying that the opposing side is ridiculous and unreasonable. If you're going to go that far in making a claim, trying to also claim the other guy is taking it too far is a stretch.
Since they lifted the relevant section of the Swarm Subtype verbatim, to me it seems much more reasonable that it was simply an oversight and they neglected to include the ordinary "immune to precision damage" line. Sure RAW says sneak attacks work. I think RAI is rather clear, though.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Easy. Buy a Swarmbane Clasp for 3,000g. Then you can sneak attack a swarm all day long. (assuming the specific swarm is not immune to sneak attacks)
*Without the Clasp, swarms are immune to any damage that is not area of affect.
Only fine and diminutive swarms are immune to weapon damage, so if you're allowing sneak attack with the clasp, you should allow it on tiny swarms without it.
Personally, I'm with the camp that says swarms are immune to sneak attack, clasp or no clasp (and I wrote the swarmbane clasp, for what that's worth).
Since they lifted the relevant section of the Swarm Subtype verbatim, to me it seems much more reasonable that it was simply an oversight and they neglected to include the ordinary "immune to precision damage" line. Sure RAW says sneak attacks work. I think RAI is rather clear, though.
This would suggest leaving out the rule that creatures immune to critical hits are immune to sneak attack was also an oversight, since you're suggesting they wanted to maintain that functionality.
I do not believe that is the case.
|
How about this to remember with swarms. You are not "killing" the swarm at all. All attempts to "damage" it are merely attempts to disperse it. This is stated in this section (bolding mine):
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.
So, could a rogue use their ability to sneak attack to help disperse the swarm faster?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are supposed to copy it verbatim, and put any "ideas" in a side bar as a suggestion. I do wish they would follow instructions. It is not that hard to do.
Just a minor point of correction: We're not supposed to do anything and there are no instructions to follow.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
If we have anything that is a flat-out contradiction of the "rules" please *anyone* let us know and we'll correct it. If you want to use the site but not take the time to point out mistakes, then either shut up or use a different site. You chose the latter option, fair enough.
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.
We try to make playing Pathfinder easier by trying to explain what our understanding is. Most things we post are "peer reviewed" by multiple site contributors before going live. Then, even after live, users can (and do) report mistakes which we're more than happy to correct. Our purpose is NOT to be a copy and paste of the PRD and if one remembers correctly, we existed long before the PRD. Our purpose is to make running and playing Pathfinder easier and we try to arrange things in order to accomplish that, as well as offering sidebars where and when we can to try to explain things. If we make a mistake you can be a jerk and call us out or complain about it but never inform us, or you can help us make it better for everyone. You chose the former, fair enough.
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).
I have no idea what you're referring to here but in almost every case we try to clearly indicate sources where text is from if not from the CRB. If we missed doing so somewhere then again, feel free to let us know at the time.
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.
Yes, we (I) do this all of the time. Again, we are not attempting to be a direct word for word copy of the PRD. If that is what you want then I recommend using the PRD. More power to you. If, instead, you want PRD+, that is, everything that is in the PRD but in some cases rearranged in order to help make things easier to locate or understand, PLUS content from products beyond just what appears in the PRD, PLUS 3rd Party Publisher content, then I think we're the best you will find. If there's an occasional mistake, our bad, but we make corrections generally within minutes of someone informing us of such.
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.
Nonsense.
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.
Nonsense.
Lastly, I don't have the time or interest in debating the usefulness or the comparative accuracy of our site vs. other options. If you don't like d20pfsrd.com don't use it. Simple as that.
As far as mountains and molehills go, only one of us as claimed that all reasonable people will take their side, implying that the opposing side is ridiculous and unreasonable. If you're going to go that far in making a claim, trying to also claim the other guy is taking it too far is a stretch.
Swarms have historically been immune to sneak attack damage. Swarms do not have a discernible anatomy. As far as I know, all things that are vulnerable to sneak attack do have a discernible anatomy, and that was the reasoning used for granting sneak attack damage to things like constructs and undead. Oozes and monsters that do no have a discernible anatomy as a rule are not subject to sneak attacks. What reason would the PF team have to change swarms to become vulnerable to sneak attack, when most of them are completely immune to weapon damage to begin with anyway?
I have read no reasoning behind why swarms should be subject to sneak attack other than "its RAW now and other stuff changed too". I am willing to listen to your point, if you have something more substantial, but I haven't seen it yet.
They are supposed to copy it verbatim, and put any "ideas" in a side bar as a suggestion. I do wish they would follow instructions. It is not that hard to do.Just a minor point of correction: We're not supposed to do anything and there are no instructions to follow.
The problem is that the alteration lead to misreadings of the rules. An example is how you have the bastard sword written up. I understand why you do what you do, but if it reads in such a way as to encourage a different reading the site will continue to get complaints so you should not get defensive about people complaining about the rules, when the rules are in error due to additions made on your(the site's) part.
With that said I do enjoy the site, but thing are a lot easier if I can get all of my rules in one place, and I don't have to jump between the PRD and your site.
edit: finished my statement.
edit2: For anyone reading this the site's is often write when the PRD is wrong when they suggest monster statblocks are wrong, or they make recommendations as to what the RAI should be.
Lastly, I don't have the time or interest in debating the usefulness or the comparative accuracy of our site vs. other options. If you don't like d20pfsrd.com don't use it. Simple as that.
I don't intend to jump into this all the way. All I will say is the D20 site has its uses, as does the official GRD site. D20 tends to be faster on page loads and the built in search works better, but I do agree that for "rule discussions" verbatim from the rulebook itself(or the GRD which is verbatim) is the only way to go.
That’s all very nice and all. But the rules don’t say they are immune to SA. Nor do the rules discuss “discernable anatomy” as a requirement for SA. The rules do tell us which types or specific monsters ARE, and if they are not so listed, they can be SA.
The point is, the RAW is clear- unless otherwise specified, a creature can be SA.
Now yes, of course PF has had errors creep in. They have had this issue brought to their attention several/many times, and no new version has changed it.
That’s all very nice and all. But the rules don’t say they are immune to SA. Nor do the rules discuss “discernable anatomy” as a requirement for SA. The rules do tell us which types or specific monsters ARE, and if they are not so listed, they can be SA.
The point is, the RAW is clear- unless otherwise specified, a creature can be SA.
Now yes, of course PF has had errors creep in. They have had this issue brought to their attention several/many times, and no new version has changed it.
We have already noted that we KNOW what the RAW says. We are now discussing intent, and this is my first time seeing this issue, and maybe it is for other's also.
With that aside some rules have taken a year or more to get corrected. The lack of an FAQ means we have no/less proof of the RAI. It does not mean anyone's vision of RAI is wrong, so a lack of change does not mean "that is the rule(RAI)".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Lastly, I don't have the time or interest in debating the usefulness or the comparative accuracy of our site vs. other options....
You could have fooled me :)
I think you're missing the crux of Jiggy's complaint: Other People are getting goofy information from your site, not recognizing that it's an error, and trying to use it over here in rules arguments. Certainly the thing to do in this situation is to go report the error (and maybe Jiggy does!), but that's kind of like closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped.
Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're altering the text of rules to make them easier to understand, you're presenting an interpretation of the rules. You can't do that and also be a reliable source for the rules themselves (unless you limit clarifications to sidebars and whatnot). You can't refuse to copy the PRD and be the PRD at the same time.
You'll also note that Jiggy has already taken your advice--he no longer uses your site for strict rules interpretations. So telling him to take his ball and go home isn't going to do much good when he and his ball are already there :)
As far as mountains and molehills go, only one of us as claimed that all reasonable people will take their side, implying that the opposing side is ridiculous and unreasonable. If you're going to go that far in making a claim, trying to also claim the other guy is taking it too far is a stretch.Swarms have historically been immune to sneak attack damage. Swarms do not have a discernible anatomy. As far as I know, all things that are vulnerable to sneak attack do have a discernible anatomy, and that was the reasoning used for granting sneak attack damage to things like constructs and undead. Oozes and monsters that do no have a discernible anatomy as a rule are not subject to sneak attacks. What reason would the PF team have to change swarms to become vulnerable to sneak attack, when most of them are completely immune to weapon damage to begin with anyway?
I have read no reasoning behind why swarms should be subject to sneak attack other than "its RAW now and other stuff changed too". I am willing to listen to your point, if you have something more substantial, but I haven't seen it yet.
I think "it's RAW" is the most solid bottom-line answer to "why swarms should be subject to sneak attack." Because the rules say they are. It's that simple.
If that bothers you, and you can't imagine how that would work in game, there have several posts by myself and others suggests ways to portray that happening. If you haven't seen it yet, I submit you haven't been reading very closely.
I think "it's RAW" is the most solid bottom-line answer to "why swarms should be subject to sneak attack." Because the rules say they are. It's that simple.
If that bothers you, and you can't imagine how that would work in game, there have several posts by myself and others suggests ways to portray that happening. If you haven't seen it yet, I submit you haven't been reading very closely.
I understand it is RAW now. I am not debating that. I am asserting that it was unintended to be, and at some point in the future (near or otherwise) I would be very un-surprised to see swarms be changed to be immune.
RAW Swarms are immune to sneak attack. Is that clear enough?
RAI, Rules As Intended. Swarms used to be immune to sneak attack. There isn't a logical reason to change them to be vulnerable to sneak attack. Unlike undead, whose rule text changed significantly from 3.5 to PF, swarm text is practically identical (as far as i know). This means it was likely an oversight that the text was not updated to match the new definition of sneak attack. In 3.5 the "no discernible anatomy" made them immune. In PF, they would need to remove that, and simply state "immune to precision damage".
Again, I am not saying swarms are currently immune, but that they should be as the fact that they are no longer immune was because the PF team did not realize they needed to change text to keep the immunity.
I'm sorry, but there is no fluff which says that there are a few "leader bug" and there is nothing stating that swarms have a "vital spot" which is supposedly what sneak attack is hitting. There is fluff which says they do not have a discernible anatomy, which used to mean "no vital spots" making it even harder for me to accept your explanation. I can make up a reason for anything in game, but it doesn't make sense and breaks immersion, which is when I say that I find things silly. Sure, a level 1 fighter has a 5% on any swing of hitting any creature that possibly exists, even if it had 50000000000000000000000000 AC. I can make up whatever fluff I want for how he hit it even. The fact is, such a thing is silly, just as "lead bugs" are silly, and a pile of bugs having a "vital spot" is silly.
Lastly, you seem to be unable to grasp the difference between a discussion of RAW vs a discussion of RAI. Perhaps you are the one who needs to read more closely.
|
|
I think you're missing the crux of Jiggy's complaint: Other People are getting goofy information from your site, not recognizing that it's an error, and trying to use it over here in rules arguments. Certainly the thing to do in this situation is to go report the error (and maybe Jiggy does!), but that's kind of like closing the barn door after the animals have already escaped.
If there is an error please let us know and we'll fix it. We're *more* than happy to correct legitimate errors.
Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're altering the text of rules to make them easier to understand,
I think it's important to clarify something here. I can't think of a case where we're "altering the text of rules to make them easier to understand." What we DO often do is try to separate fluff from crunch, but only in some cases. Like the first sentence of spells, feats, and traits often are all fluff. For example, a spell that says "A green ball of energy coalesces around your hands and strikes through the air with a screech towards your foe! It deals 2d6 damage to all it strikes." We would often insert a paragraph (</p>) after the end of the first sentence and then start a new paragraph with the second sentence. We also often italicize the first sentence in these cases. We do the same with traits very often. They are worded like "You are one charming fellow. You gain +2 to Diplomacy checks and Diplomacy is a class skill for you." We break that into two sentences and insert "Benefit:" before the second sentence. If that disturbs you or makes you think we've changed the mechanics, or whatever, then go to town, stick with the PRD. Do whatever makes you happy.
...you're presenting an interpretation of the rules. You can't do that and also be a reliable source for the rules themselves (unless you limit clarifications to sidebars and whatnot). You can't refuse to copy the PRD and be the PRD at the same time.
a) ok, fine, if you want to say we're presenting an "interpretation" of the rules, whatevs lol
b) I'll leave the reliability of the sites accuracy for the majority to judge. I'm confident in the speed and timeliness of our errata and FAQ updates and additions and suspect a great deal others do as well. I think the value and convenience the site offers to the vast majority of users outweighs the infinitesimally small number of mistakes we may have made.. mistakes which I reiterate we are more than happy to remedy within minutes of them being reported to us (and once we confirm they are, in fact, errors.)
c) We don't copy the PRD because a) it doesn't have 90% of what we want and b) we don't want to be the PRD lol Also, I restate what I've said many times before, we were around long before the PRD.
You'll also note that Jiggy has already taken your advice--he no longer uses your site for strict rules interpretations. So telling him to take his ball and go home isn't going to do much good when he and his ball are already there :)
I suppose my real point was why does he want to jump up in here and tell everyone else to take their balls and go home too lol
I think "it's RAW" is the most solid bottom-line answer to "why swarms should be subject to sneak attack." Because the rules say they are. It's that simple.
If that bothers you, and you can't imagine how that would work in game, there have several posts by myself and others suggests ways to portray that happening. If you haven't seen it yet, I submit you haven't been reading very closely.
I understand it is RAW now. I am not debating that. I am asserting that it was unintended to be, and at some point in the future (near or otherwise) I would be very un-surprised to see swarms be changed to be immune.
RAW Swarms are immune to sneak attack. Is that clear enough?
RAI, Rules As Intended. Swarms used to be immune to sneak attack. There isn't a logical reason to change them to be vulnerable to sneak attack. Unlike undead, whose rule text changed significantly from 3.5 to PF, swarm text is practically identical (as far as i know). This means it was likely an oversight that the text was not updated to match the new definition of sneak attack. In 3.5 the "no discernible anatomy" made them immune. In PF, they would need to remove that, and simply state "immune to precision damage".
Again, I am not saying swarms are CURRENTLY immune, but that they SHOULD BE as the fact that they are no longer immune was because the PF team did not realize they needed to change text to keep the immunity.
I'm sorry, but there is no fluff which says that there are a few "leader bug" and there is nothing stating that swarms have a "vital spot" which is supposedly what sneak attack is hitting. I can make up a reason for anything in game, but it doesn't make sense and breaks immersion, which is when I say that I find things silly. Sure, a level 1 fighter has a 5% on any swing of hitting any creature that possibly exists, even if it had 50000000000000000000000000 AC. I can make up whatever fluff I want for how he hit it even. The fact is, such a thing is silly, just as "lead bugs" are silly, and a...
Nothing says anything has a vital spot. Specific entries say that they don't. As has been pointed out, the 'discernible anatomy' text you keep flogging has no rules relevance.
They specific detached critical hits and sneak attacks.
There are two subtypes that allow sneak attacks but not critical hits.
There are plenty of ways to fluff it sensibly, heavy pockets of the swarm smashed, connective areas disrupted, the edges of the swarm thrown into disarray, etc.
There is no indication beyond your pure disbelief that it an actual oversight.
Nothing says anything has a vital spot. Specific entries say that they don't. As has been pointed out, the 'discernible anatomy' text you keep flogging has no rules relevance.
The point is "discernible anatomy" used to have rules relevance. PF changed the text of sneak attack. They did not change the text of swarms. That indicates an oversight, as swarms previously had immunity to sneak attack.
They specific detached critical hits and sneak attacks.
Yes, and they did not update the swarm text. Swarms are immune to critical hits. They were immune to sneak attack. Because PF separated criticals and sneak attacks swarms are now vulnerable to them. It was likely an oversight that they did not update swarms, as no text for swarms was updated from 3.5 to PF.
There are two subtypes that allow sneak attacks but not critical hits.
Which are? I see Aeon, which are immune to crit, but not specifically to sneak attack. Protean get a 50% immunity to both crits and sneak attacks.
There are plenty of ways to fluff it sensibly, heavy pockets of the swarm smashed, connective areas disrupted, the edges of the swarm thrown into disarray, etc.
Right, so the fighter, who has trained to be the most effective with a weapon, can't figure out to hit the biggest blob of bugs? "Connective areas"? What? What exactly is connecting them? How does any of these explanations make sense, but yet you can't "critically hit" those same exact areas?
There is no indication beyond your pure disbelief that it an actual oversight.
The fact that swarm text was not changed at all from 3.5 to pathfinder is a strong indication that it was an oversight. If they had updated the swarm text, I would agree and say they are likely supposed to be vulnerable to sneak attack. They didn't. That practically screams oversight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose my real point was why does he want to jump up in here and tell everyone else to take their balls and go home too lol
Because people regularly quote D20 and say "the rules say EXACTLY THIS!" when in fact, they don't, and the person has quoted text that the D20 site has added. Quoting from different sources when there is only 1 RAW source is not helpful in a rules discussion. That is why he tells people to quote the GRD/books exclusively. I agree.
I do appreciate your site, and use it more than the GRD when building characters/referencing rules at the table, but when arguing the exact wording and semantics, there is no substitute.
Nothing says anything has a vital spot. Specific entries say that they don't. As has been pointed out, the 'discernible anatomy' text you keep flogging has no rules relevance.The point is "discernible anatomy" used to have rules relevance. PF changed the text of sneak attack. They did not change the text of swarms. That indicates an oversight, as swarms previously had immunity to sneak attack.
They specific detached critical hits and sneak attacks.Yes, and they did not update the swarm text. Swarms are immune to critical hits. They were immune to sneak attack. Because PF separated criticals and sneak attacks swarms are now vulnerable to them. It was likely an oversight that they did not update swarms, as no text for swarms was updated from 3.5 to PF.
Interesting question. What was affected beyond swarms and Aeons by the uncoupling of critical hits and sneak attacks?
Given that they have undead/constructs as vulnerable to critical hits (and thus sneak attacks under anyone's definiton), and all other potentially sneak-attack immune creatures are specifically called out as such, the ONLY effect of the decoupling I can see is that aeons and swarms are vulnerable to sneak attack.
If you make a change that has one effect, it seems off to assume that effect is an oversight.
Maybe I'm missing something.
@Benchak the Nightstalker
That's awesome!
I can see why folks have a problem with a rogue finding that one weak point to get a good hit in. But remember, even the swarms that can be damaged in melee consist of hundreds of creatures. How does a mighty blow from a great axe, which does 50 points- TO ONE CREATURE- do anything to a swarm of hundreds? So just like a might swing from a great axe can "kill" a swarm while only killing a few of the critters a rogue can hit in just the right place to disrupt the swarm also.
|
I fail to see how there is any question regarding sneak attacks and swarms. Please read the entry for swarms. It answers this question clearly.
Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable 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 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.
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.
Look at the swarm you want to use, because the answer changes based upon the particular swarms.
So for example, a centipede swarm is Diminutive and is therefore immune to ALL weapon weapon damage. That would obviously include sneak attacks.
A rat swarm is Tiny, and therefore takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. Since bludgeoning weapons are not singled out they deal full damage. The damage from a sneak attack is subject to the above rule. So a rogue sneak attacking with a dagger will have his sneak attack cut in half. A rogue sneak attacking with a club would do full sneak attack damage.
It is clearly spelled out how weapons and spells interact with swarms. No need for a FAQ, just look at the description of Swarms.
I can see why folks have a problem with a rogue finding that one weak point to get a good hit in. But remember, even the swarms that can be damaged in melee consist of hundreds of creatures. How does a mighty blow from a great axe, which does 50 points- TO ONE CREATURE- do anything to a swarm of hundreds? So just like a might swing from a great axe can "kill" a swarm while only killing a few of the critters a rogue can hit in just the right place to disrupt the swarm also.
Typically, damage from a great axe, as your used as an example, mostly comes from the strength behind the swing. If you had a block of rats, and swung a great axe through it, you would take out a significant number of rats.
Conversely, if you stab one rat really well right in its brain... that will do absolutely nothing to any other rat, and in fact, has focused your stab on a single creature out of the hundreds.
So, which is more effective, killing a few dozen with one swing, or killing a single rat really really dead.
Remember, bludgeoning weapons do full damage to tiny swarms. And tiny swarms are the only ones vulnerable to weapon damage anyway.
To Krome: Read the rest of the thread. We've covered that. The FAQ is to ask "are swarms supposed to be immune to sneak attack damage, like they were in 3.5, or was it intended that they are now vulnerable?"
There are ways to render opponents flat footed during combat. My favorite is Grease.
I thought grease no longer made opponents flat footed?
For what it's worth I use d20pfsrd almost anytime I game. If you find an error or confused about something, politely asking them about it gets you a polite response back that helps unconfuse you, or they fix the error. They have done a lot of good things and deserve praise more then the unfair scorn I've been reading here.
Also just checked my physical copy of the CRB and its wording for a bastard sword is verbatim to the site.
I have yet to see any 'goofy' information on their very well ran site, this is just baseless attacks without any proof.
It's still a major shame they had to take out the Paizo specific flavor texts on spells, feats, and prestige classes as well.
That said getting on topic.
Yeah you can't sneak attack a swarm regardless of size, ever. It's not only numbers and anatomy though, it's group awareness that keeps the damage from happening. (Like people fighting back to back so nothing 'sneaks' up on them) A swarm almost literally has a 360 degree field of vision so there is no way to 'surprise' one.
Since they lifted the relevant section of the Swarm Subtype verbatim, to me it seems much more reasonable that it was simply an oversight and they neglected to include the ordinary "immune to precision damage" line. Sure RAW says sneak attacks work. I think RAI is rather clear, though.This would suggest leaving out the rule that creatures immune to critical hits are immune to sneak attack was also an oversight, since you're suggesting they wanted to maintain that functionality.
I do not believe that is the case.
No, it doesn't suggest that at all. It merely suggests that they may have copy pasta'd the Swarm Traits and in so doing spaced on the interaction between swarms and sneak attack. More than likely, Swarm Traits got put into the category of "Things We're Not Really Making Any Changes To" and was ported over because they were more worried about other things which contained substantial changes. Simple oversight, if that's what happened. It's not a big deal and that sort of thing is certainly bound to happen, so I am by no means trying to denigrate the PDT in saying this (and again, I could certainly be wrong and that they intentionally made no change because they wanted sneak attacks to apply to swarms).
But for me at this point, it seems far more reasonable that it was simply an oversight. Like I said, RAW says sure. In my opinion though, RAI should still be no.
Since they lifted the relevant section of the Swarm Subtype verbatim, to me it seems much more reasonable that it was simply an oversight and they neglected to include the ordinary "immune to precision damage" line. Sure RAW says sneak attacks work. I think RAI is rather clear, though.This would suggest leaving out the rule that creatures immune to critical hits are immune to sneak attack was also an oversight, since you're suggesting they wanted to maintain that functionality.
I do not believe that is the case.
No, it doesn't suggest that at all. It merely suggests that they may have copy pasta'd the Swarm Traits and in so doing spaced on the interaction between swarms and sneak attack. More than likely, Swarm Traits got put into the category of "Things We're Not Really Making Any Changes To" and was ported over because they were more worried about other things which contained substantial changes. Simple oversight, if that's what happened. It's not a big deal and that sort of thing is certainly bound to happen, so I am by no means trying to denigrate the PDT in saying this (and again, I could certainly be wrong and that they intentionally made no change because they wanted sneak attacks to apply to swarms).
But for me at this point, it seems far more reasonable that it was simply an oversight. Like I said, RAW says sure. In my opinion though, RAI should still be no.
I believe my last post in this thread covers my response to this.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
For what it's worth I use d20pfsrd almost anytime I game. If you find an error or confused about something, politely asking them about it gets you a polite response back that helps unconfuse you, or they fix the error. They have done a lot of good things and deserve praise more then the unfair scorn I've been reading here.
Also just checked my physical copy of the CRB and its wording for a bastard sword is verbatim to the site.
I have yet to see any 'goofy' information on their very well ran site, this is just baseless attacks without any proof.
It's still a major shame they had to take out the Paizo specific flavor texts on spells, feats, and prestige classes as well.
No one is saying d20pfsrd is a bad site. Quite the opposite, it's got some great features. I use it when I'm playing Pathfinder as well.
But when I'm writing for Pathfinder, I go the the PRD, because I know that the text there matches the most recent printing of the book. That isn't always true for d20pfsrd.
Yes, I can politely point out any errors I find and I'm sure they'll be corrected quite quickly, but that doesn't help me if I notice the error after I've already turned in my assignment to my developer. :)
My opinion as stated before regarding "Discernable anatomy" and sneak attacks. Link.
Important piece copied to below:
I will also point out that "Vital Spot" is not longer the same as "Discernable Anatomy." Pathfinder specifically removed that sentence from the rogues sneak attack, thus broadening the definition of what what you can and cannot sneak attack (i.e. undead, contructs, etc).
3.5
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.
Pathfinder
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.
Notice how much they cut out of the last paragraph. No mention of discernible anatomy and no such thing as immune to crit also meaning immune to sneak attack.