Will Cloudkill automatically kill a swarm?

[Robert Young]

The hive mind of the swarm causes it to condense and hold the dead husks of the fallen together as an outer layer to shield its living constituents against the effects of the poisonous cloud. For as long as it can.

[TriOmegaZero]

Rikkan wrote:

Disintegrate is also a ray (weapon) for which you have to make an attack roll that targets touch armour class. Yet just like alchemical fire, swarms are immune to it because of:

Quote:

A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate),

While a attacking a swarm consisting of tiny creatures with a sword use this part of the swarm rules:

Quote:

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.

I don't understand why a sword attack isn't an effect that targets a specific number of creatures but a splash weapon is.

In any event, the half damage rule does not cancel the immunity rule, so the swarm would be immune to that half damage if we are parsing the rules this way.

[Spook205]

The argument isn't that fine or diminutive creatures aren't damaged by you weapon.

The argument is you swinging your weapon doesn't do sufficient damage to the swarm as a whole.

I could conceivably fight a swarm of bees by whacking at a hundred square-feet of them with a frying pan, but I'm not going to be meaningfully killing enough of the bees.

Try to use a rifle to stop a swarm of locusts attacking a farm sometime. Same issue.

You'll likely go through barrels of ammunition and maybe kill like...20-30 locusts out of several hundred thousand.

I'd argue that alchemist's fire is intrinsically a template attack though. It hits a central square/creature and the adjacent squares. As such, it would get the 1.5 bonus that gets applied and be on full damage.

Alternatively if you want to get all RAWy, you could throw it at a square, incurring the 1d6x1.5 (as a single square could qualify as an area for the swarm rule) and then still take the splash damage from other squares it occupies.

I've always found splash weapons like alchemist fire to be goofy though since technically if you throw alchemist fire at a huge creature, and hit it dead center, he ends up taking 1d6 damage and 8 points of splash damage, whereas a large creature would take 1d6+3.

[Ravingdork]

Dieben wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nzBaljEHj8

I found this on Google, I'm sure it is relevant somehow. Safe for work.

TOTALLY FAKE!

It's obvious he superglued them all together.

;D

[Rikkan]

Spook205 wrote:

I'd argue that alchemist's fire is intrinsically a template attack though. It hits a central square/creature and the adjacent squares. As such, it would get the 1.5 bonus that gets applied and be on full damage.

Alternatively if you want to get all RAWy, you could throw it at a square, incurring the 1d6x1.5 (as a single square could qualify as an area for the swarm rule) and then still take the splash damage from other squares it occupies.

That is not how splash weapons work.

Here is how they work:

you either target a creature and the direct hit damage only hurts that creature (so if there are two creatures in that square, it'll still hit only 1).

Or you target a grid intersection (not a square) and if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.

[Liz Courts]

Removed some unhelpful posts. Let's relax, folks! Flag it and move on.

[HangarFlying]

Rikkan wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

I'd argue that alchemist's fire is intrinsically a template attack though. It hits a central square/creature and the adjacent squares. As such, it would get the 1.5 bonus that gets applied and be on full damage.

Alternatively if you want to get all RAWy, you could throw it at a square, incurring the 1d6x1.5 (as a single square could qualify as an area for the swarm rule) and then still take the splash damage from other squares it occupies.

That is not how splash weapons work.

Here is how they work:

you either target a creature and the direct hit damage only hurts that creature (so if there are two creatures in that square, it'll still hit only 1).

Or you target a grid intersection (not a square) and if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.

And in the case of the swarm, you are targeting the swarm, not the intersection the swarm occupies.

[Axl]

So the major argument here is:-

Does alchemist's fire deal 1 damage, or 1d6 + 50% damage?

Just Fireball it!

[LazarX]

PD wrote:

EvilPaladin wrote:

So, if cloudkill auto-kills swarms due to each creature in it having 1HD or less, does that mean that that it also automatically removes lingering diseases or contagions from areas, providing the bacteria have <1HD?

Who says bacteria even exist? Everyone knows diseases are caused by malign spirits.

Ars Magica even had stats for them. Spoiler Hint: You don't want to mess with a Plague of the Black Death spirit.

[KuntaSS]

So if swords are excepted from the single target rule because of the more specific ruling they take half damage from a sword or spear, then the alchemist fire is excepted by the more specific rule they take half again as much damage

PRD wrote:

from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.

[Spook205]

I am suitably informed on how splash weapons work now.

Thanks! :D

[Rikkan]

KuntaSS wrote:

So if swords are excepted from the single target rule because of the more specific ruling they take half damage from a sword or spear, then the alchemist fire is excepted by the more specific rule they take half again as much damage

PRD wrote:

from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells.

The specific rule only applies to spells and effects that affect an area. Thus you'd increase the splash (area effect) of a splash weapon, but you would not increase the direct hit (not an area effect). In fact swarms are still immune to the direct hit effect.

[Nefreet]

How is...

PC: "I swing my sword at the rat swarm."
*rolls dice*
PC: "I got a 16."
GM: "You hit. Roll damage."

...versus...

PC: "I throw my acid flask at the rat swarm."
*rolls dice*
PC: "I got a 16."
GM: "You hit. Roll damage."

...any different?

[TriOmegaZero]

Rikkan wrote:

In fact swarms are still immune to the direct hit effect.

"A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target "

Why do you think the direct hit damage is not an area effect?

[Rikkan]

In the same way that:
PC: "I launch a disintegrate ray at the rat swarm"
*rolls dice*
PC: "I got a 16"
GM: "You hit. Roll damage."

is different from

PC: "I swing my sword at the rat swarm."
*rolls dice*
PC: "I got a 16."
GM: "You hit. Roll damage."

[Nefreet]

Except, we know that you can hit a swarm with a sword, and we know you can't with Disintegrate.

[Rikkan]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

In fact swarms are still immune to the direct hit effect.

"A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target "

Why do you think the direct hit damage is not an area effect?

I'm not sure I properly understand your question. Are you asking why something that affects a single target is not an area effect? Or are you asking if the direct hit damage only affects a single target?

I assume it is the latter and I'll try to quote some of the relevant rules for you:

Quote:

To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target.

A hit deals direct hit damage to the target,

However, if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature.

If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8.
After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares.

You can see from these rules, the direct hit damage is only dealt to the specific target you hit and whenever you don't hit a specific target, just a square where a target is in, you don't deal direct hit damage.

[FLite]

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

[Umbranus]

FLite wrote:

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

I would not embrace the argument but I see this as an interesting house-rule I could see me using should the situation ever arise.

[Gaberlunzie]

Rikkan, you seem to rely on the following assumptions for your interpretation to be valid. Please correct me if you do not make any of the following assumptions:
1. Sword attacks are not effects, but alchemist fire attacks are.
2. Attacks are inherently single-target, so if an attack is also considered an effect, it is a single-target effect.
3. An alchemist's fire attack is not actually an effect, but two effects, one single-target effect and one area effect.

Are these the assumptions you make? Can you make a rules-backed argument for these? Because to me:
1. Is unsupported by the rules; there's no game definition of "effect" and devs have mentioned it being used kinda loosely, so there's no reason to assume an "attack" is not an effect.
2. Is unsupported at best, and if sword attacks _are_ considered effects, then they by themselves are proof that attacks are not inherently single-target (or they couldn't target swarms).
3. Is factually incorrect, as alchemist fire is an explicit example of an effect.

[wraithstrike]

FLite wrote:

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

Not in the rules section since that is not even close to what is written. In the advice or house rule section that is fine if a GM does not like cloudkill not killing swarms.

[Gaberlunzie]

wraithstrike wrote:

FLite wrote:

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

Not in the rules section since that is not even close to what is written. In the advice or house rule section that is fine if a GM does not like cloudkill not killing swarms.

I do think the constitution damage would increase by 50% however.

Several people have asked why one would make a difference between Fireball and Cloudkill in this circumstance. From a rules perspective they clearly work the same, but I do think that on a _thematic_ level there's an important difference.

A fireball is simply a blast of fire, and in say a packed rat swarm, some rats' bodies will take the brunt of the damage, protecting the others. However, a cloudkill (thematically) fills a whole area in a way a fireball usually isn't depicted as doing, so it would affect every creature in the swarm. Again, not saying this is in the rules - it clearly isn't - but that's why I feel it, or something similar to it, _should_ be in the rules.

[Rikkan]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Rikkan, you seem to rely on the following assumptions for your interpretation to be valid. Please correct me if you do not make any of the following assumptions:

1. Sword attacks are not effects, but alchemist fire attacks are.
2. Attacks are inherently single-target, so if an attack is also considered an effect, it is a single-target effect.
3. An alchemist's fire attack is not actually an effect, but two effects, one single-target effect and one area effect.

Are these the assumptions you make? Can you make a rules-backed argument for these? Because to me:
1. Is unsupported by the rules; there's no game definition of "effect" and devs have mentioned it being used kinda loosely, so there's no reason to assume an "attack" is not an effect.
2. Is unsupported at best, and if sword attacks _are_ considered effects, then they by themselves are proof that attacks are not inherently single-target (or they couldn't target swarms).
3. Is factually incorrect, as alchemist fire is an explicit example of an effect.

Not exactly.

1: I'm not relying on sword attacks to not be effects. I think I can with reasonable certainty extrapolate from the rules that they are not though.
2: You're completely mistaken. I don't believe that at all. A fireball would be an attack and I would definitely not classify fireball as single-target.
3:Is factually correct. See the splash weapon rules. If for example you target an intersection, you'd deal splash damage but not direct hit damage. Thus clearly the splash damage and the direct hit damage are separate components.
Or check this faq:

Quote:

Point Blank Shot: Do I add the feat's extra damage to the splash damage from a splash weapon?

No, the extra damage from Point Blank Shot only applies to the target of a direct hit with a splash weapon (including direct hits from an alchemist's bomb

[wraithstrike]

Gaberlunzie wrote:

wraithstrike wrote:

FLite wrote:

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

Not in the rules section since that is not even close to what is written. In the advice or house rule section that is fine if a GM does not like cloudkill not killing swarms.

I do think the constitution damage would increase by 50% however.

Several people have asked why one would make a difference between Fireball and Cloudkill in this circumstance. From a rules perspective they clearly work the same, but I do think that on a _thematic_ level there's an important difference.

A fireball is simply a blast of fire, and in say a packed rat swarm, some rats' bodies will take the brunt of the damage, protecting the others. However, a cloudkill (thematically) fills a whole area in a way a fireball usually isn't depicted as doing, so it would affect every creature in the swarm. Again, not saying this is in the rules - it clearly isn't - but that's why I feel it, or something similar to it, _should_ be in the rules.

I thought he was asking about empowering(multiply by 1.5) the number of HD affected.

As an example if cloud kill auto-kills creatures of 4HD or less it would go to 6 HD or less.

[pauljathome]

FLite wrote:

So, back to the cloud kill question.

Anyone willing to embrace the argument that the swarm's +50% damage should be applied to cloud kills HD categories, thus a 4 HD swarm would be slain with no save, a 5-9 HD swarm would save or die, 10+ would take Con damage?

I wouldn't.

As a house rule, I strongly prefer just treating every member of the swarm individually. If they're all 4HD or less, they die. If this is some CR 12 swarm of 6HD mutated dogs then they don't.

In my head, the big difference between this and fireball is that cloudkill is not an instantaneous effect.

[TriOmegaZero]

Rikkan wrote:

You can see from these rules, the direct hit damage is only dealt to the specific target you hit and whenever you don't hit a specific target, just a square where a target is in, you don't deal direct hit damage.

And why does that mean that the direct hit damage is not an area effect?

[Rikkan]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Rikkan wrote:

You can see from these rules, the direct hit damage is only dealt to the specific target you hit and whenever you don't hit a specific target, just a square where a target is in, you don't deal direct hit damage.

And why does that mean that the direct hit damage is not an area effect?

Because the direct hit does not affect an area, thus I believe it is not an area effect.

[Le Petite Mort]

Why use Cloudkill? Just carry a few scrolls of Web Shelter. Virtually any swarm can be bypassed with a 150 gp scroll without a save or SR allowable. My cleric routinely tells the party not to waste any resources on swarm encounters, and ends the encounter with his first standard action. Having the scroll can occasionally have utility for the intended purpose of the spell too, or as a non-navigable submarine.

[Nefreet]

The problem with Web Shelter is the one minute casting time. Scrolls don't make it any faster.

[Le Petite Mort]

Nefreet wrote:

The problem with Web Shelter is the one minute casting time. Scrolls don't make it any faster.

My goodness, I hadn't noticed that. Crud.

[TriOmegaZero]

Rikkan wrote:

Because the direct hit does not affect an area, thus I believe it is not an area effect.

And yet it is part of an area effect. (e.g. a splash weapon)

[FLite]

Le Petite Mort wrote:

Nefreet wrote:

The problem with Web Shelter is the one minute casting time. Scrolls don't make it any faster.

My goodness, I hadn't noticed that. Crud.

Also doesn't help with swarms of tiny or diminutive creatures. The above mentioned crab swarm is diminutive.

[FLite]

(For that matter, I am having trouble finding a fine swarm with a negligable strength score, which is the only thing affected by web shelter...)

[FLite]

Le Petite Mort wrote:

or as a non-navigable submarine.

It is hardness 0, HP 2, and watertight, not air tight. It would be like going underwater in a ziplock bag with all the air squeezed out of it...

[DarkKnight27]

Rikkan wrote:

Spook205 wrote:

I'd argue that alchemist's fire is intrinsically a template attack though. It hits a central square/creature and the adjacent squares. As such, it would get the 1.5 bonus that gets applied and be on full damage.

Alternatively if you want to get all RAWy, you could throw it at a square, incurring the 1d6x1.5 (as a single square could qualify as an area for the swarm rule) and then still take the splash damage from other squares it occupies.

That is not how splash weapons work.

Here is how they work:

you either target a creature and the direct hit damage only hurts that creature (so if there are two creatures in that square, it'll still hit only 1).

Or you target a grid intersection (not a square) and if you target a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not dealt to any creature. You can't target a grid intersection occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature; in this case, you're aiming at the creature.

So I have one of the most narrow readings of the rules of most people I know but even I can see that the description of swarms specifically calls out and says that they take an extra 50% of damage inflicted by a splash weapon, and as others have pointed out it does not say that it takes an extra 50% of damage from the splash damage of a splash weapon.

There's also this;

Quote:

A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects.

So a splash weapon is not like a sword or an arrow that can only hit one target at a time. By it's own description a splash weapon covers and area.

I understand where you are coming from (since swarms made up of creatures smaller than tiny are immune to weapon damage. like a sword or an arrow) but the fact that the description of swarms says that it's vulnerable to damage dealt from a splash weapon and that the both in name and description say that it effects an area, seem to make it pretty clear that they can work on swarms. I think you just need to try and take a step back and look at this from a different angle.