RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Yes, it's quite odd for these discussions to go off topic.The stuff about alchemist's fire and swarms; didn't see that anywhere in the thread, so it seemed odd to bring it up....Was that even in contention in the first place?Was what???
I know, right?! What is this, the internet?
I hear people argue this all the time, and I still fail to understand their reasoning.
You toss an Alchemist Fire at a Swarm. You hit its touch AC. You roll 1d6, and add 50%.
When people claim it's only 1pt, and that +50% still makes it 1pt, it makes me sad.
My brain cannot fathom that level of pedantry.
In PF//D&D you always round down. Basically you either get to the number you want or it goes down to the lower number.
As an example if you could get to 1.99 it would count as 1, not 2.That is how the rules work so it is RAI not just people trying to be picky.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I hear people argue this all the time, and I still fail to understand their reasoning.
You toss an Alchemist Fire at a Swarm. You hit its touch AC. You roll 1d6, and add 50%.
When people claim it's only 1pt, and that +50% still makes it 1pt, it makes me sad.
My brain cannot fathom that level of pedantry.
In PF//D&D you always round down. Basically you either get to the number you want or it goes down to the lower number.
As an example if you could get to 1.99 it would count as 1, not 2.That is how the rules work so it is RAI not just people trying to be picky.
I don't think you read his post very carefully.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
it is obviously intended.
So when they intended for splash weapons to always deal exactly 1 point of damage to a swarm no matter what, they chose to communicate that intent by writing "A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from .... splash weapons"?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does say from "splash weapons", not "splash damage" so the 1d6 should apply.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're wrong. Swarms are immune to effects that target a single creature. They only take 50% extra splash damage. The direct hit damage is not splash damage. That is 100% clear in the rules. It might make you sad, but it is obviously intended.I hear people argue this all the time, and I still fail to understand their reasoning.
You toss an Alchemist Fire at a Swarm. You hit its touch AC. You roll 1d6, and add 50%.
When people claim it's only 1pt, and that +50% still makes it 1pt, it makes me sad.
My brain cannot fathom that level of pedantry.
BRAIN HURT!
It does say from "splash weapons", not "splash damage" so the 1d6 should apply.Here is what it says :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.
It does not say splash damage from a splash weapon. It says the splash weapon, which includes the weapon in its entirety.
And there are ways and splash weapons that do more than 1 splash damage. The text was obviously accounting for those.Can you give an example that existed when the swarm rules were written? Because I'm not aware of any.
I was just about to ask about this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does say from "splash weapons", not "splash damage" so the 1d6 should apply.Here is what it says :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.The direct hit damage obviously does not target an area. Thus the 50% extra damage only applies to the splash damage.
The ability says they take +50% damage from "effects that affect an area". It further specifies what constitutes an "effect that affect an area" by exemplifying with splash weapons.
Thus, a splash weapon is an effect that affects an area, and thus affects the centipede, dealing 1.5*1d6 damage.
The ability does not differentiate between different parts of the splash weapon. The splash weapon as a whole is defined as a single effect.
There, solved. RAW and RAI match and works very well and elegantly.
I know there are some splash weapons in 3.0 that do more than 1 splash damage, if that is what you mean.
None before the rules were written.
I agree with Gaberlunzie, but others do not.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is not what the rules say. Splash weapons have a single target component (the direct hit damage) and an area component (the splash damage). That is how splash weapons work.
However, the direct hit damage is still damage from a splash weapon, which affects an area, and thus receives the +50% damage against swarms.
A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target. Thrown splash weapons require no weapon proficiency, so you don't take the –4 nonproficiency penalty. A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target.
The swarm rules do not say 'splash damage' it says 'splash weapons'.
|
|
The direct hit damage requires you to target a single target
And the swarm is a single target for attacks that target AC. So it can take the direct hit damage.
A swarm has a single pool of Hit Dice and hit points, a single initiative modifier, a single speed, and a single Armor Class.
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.
So the direct hit damage of a splash weapon deals +50% more to a swarm.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules are crystal clear in explaining there is a difference between the direct hit damage and the splash damage.
Given that everybody else in the thread disagrees with you and given that alchemists fire definitely does not work the way you think it does in PFS (which is far more RAW than almost any other campaign) to state that it is "Crystal clear" that you are right and everybody else is wrong is, to quote another poster in this thread, the height of hubris.
|
|
Given that everybody else in the thread disagrees with you and given that alchemists fire definitely does not work the way you think it does in PFS (which is far more RAW than almost any other campaign) to state that it is "Crystal clear" that you are right and everybody else is wrong is, to quote another poster in this thread, the height of hubris.Trying to insult me, so you don't have to argue from the basis of the rules is in poor form.
I've got nothing to add to the other arguments pointing out the flaws in your position.
All I wanted to point out is that you are self evidently incorrect when you state that it is "crystal clear" that you are right.
I should have done that more politely and I will apologize for that rudeness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So . . . did anybody get around to explaining why a cloudkill should affect each creature individually but a fireball shouldn't?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fairness to the original poster, the swarm rules really make very little sense from a realism point of view. And they make even less sense for cloudkill than they do for fireball or chanelling negative energy or whatnot.
Personally, I think that allowing cloudkill to just destroy a swarm is a perfectly reasonable house rule. But it IS a house rule.
I hereby throw into the ring that a swarm is immune to fireball since fireball affects a specific amount of creatures (specifically what can fit in it's area of effect)
The swarm as a whole is considered one creature by the rules. The rules even say to use the swarm stats for the purpose of affects.
I guess the rules team has not seen Wanted.
If you can