|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
The following diagram applies to my question: Splash Miss Diagram. Please look at it before reading.
Additional Reference: Splash Weapon SRD (Combat Page)
"If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a grid intersection), roll 1d8. This determines the misdirection of the throw, with 1 falling short (off-target in a straight line toward the thrower), and 2 through 8 rotating around the target creature or grid intersection in a clockwise direction. Then, count a number of squares in the indicated direction equal to the range increment of the throw. After you determine where the weapon landed, it deals splash damage to all creatures in that square and in all adjacent squares."
The above paragraph about missing the target has the following issues:
1. It does not adequately explain what "indicated direction" means2. It does not specify the 1st square to start counting from when using the thrown range increment as a miss modifier
3. I am curious to know what is supposed to happen on vertical splash weapon attacks (not covered by the SRD)
Regarding #1: The SRD says that 1d8=1 miss roll falls short towards the thrower, and the implication from that minimal text is that misses are modified outward/radially by the range increment (rather than in the direction of the throw, for example). Assuming the radial interpretation is correct, the SRD should include a diagram that actually indicates a direction (similar to the one I have posted). Also, this interpretation means that corner misses travel farther because they are on the diagonal - not a problem, really...just a slight anomaly.
Regarding #2: The SRD does not say which square is the first counted square when modifying the miss location by a number of squares equal to the throw's range increment. However, given the assumption of outward radial miss adjustment, the only way that splash damage will ever hit the target is if the weapon is thrown in the 1st range increment and the squares immediately surrounding the target square are the first squares counted as part of the adjustment.
Otherwise, if you modify the miss location outward by 1 square for a first range increment miss from the resulting 1d8 roll square, then the miss location will be at least 2 squares away from the target (again, radially) and the target will take no splash damage. So, which is it? Do we start counting on the numbered squares in my diagram above as the 1st square of the range increment miss adjustment or do we use the next square beyond?
Regarding #3: What happens when missing with vertical splash weapon attacks (throwing at a target above you, such as a flying enemy or one in a tree, etc.)? Do you assume the same horizontal plane in space with the target in the center or do you rotate the plane 90 degrees and treat the miss vectors (shown in my diagram) as #5 pointing straight up and #1 pointing straight down? One corner case with a vertical miss grid interpretation would be that if the miss goes above the target, then it potentially falls down on them if there's no upper point of impact. It seems that the best and most consistent interpretation might just be to use the same horizontal grid, but elevated. However, again, if there is no point of impact, then the splash weapon should probably fall straight down until it hits something. Then it can detonate.
I have seen some other threads on splash weapon miss and they were not helpful to me in resolving my questions and do not seem to be completely correct according to my implied reading of the SRD. So, I hope this post will help FAQ the splash miss rules, because the wording would benefit from improvement and additional specificity to help eliminate ongoing confusion, whether mine or someone else's.
|
This is not a PFS-specific question, so flagged to move to rules forum.
1) I don't see the problem. Your diagram looks correct to me.
2) Yes, a standard splash weapon won't hit a medium creature on 2+ range increment scatter. A bigger splash area (Explosive Bomb) or bigger creature might still get splashed.
3) I think you always scatter on the horizontal plane. Bombs that miss flying creatures should additionally fall to the ground. Splash damage should be dealt in a sphere radius, so it could still splash upwards and hit a low-flying monster.
As for splash weapons that do hit a flying target; I'd say the splash also hits everything below the splash area, since it falls down. Throwing splash weapons straight up is just a dumb plan.
|
|
Thanks - I intended it to go in the rules forum and had the window open, but clicked the wrong window on the add.
On #1, thanks - the problem is that the SRD language is very vague. I've seen various posts where people think that a miss in square 1 in front will somehow end up behind the attacker after the increment adjustment. It would be easy to update the language to include the words "outward," "radially" or include a diagram showing the directions.
On #2, the question is specifically where is the first counted square for the adjustment? It's the square immediately adjacent to the target's square, right? (which would be the squares with the numbers in them in my diagram) So, an increment 1 miss would land 1 square from the target (or 5' away) and splash it. Correct?
On #3, I agree on the dumbness of vertical attacks, but am still interested in the mechanics. I agree about the splash-down from above to squares below, assuming the projectile hits something above that will detonate it. The comment about spheroidal damage is helpful.
|
|
1) didn't seem all that vague to me. If you're determining scatter direction relative to the target, it makes sense to me that the placement of the weapon will also be relative to the target.
2) Yes. To move 1 square off-target means ending up adjacent to the target, and therefore splashing it.
3) The problem here is that the way Pathfinder is written, it's mostly a 2D game. The grid doesn't actually exist in the vertical dimension; the game has squares, not cubes. This occasionally creates some weirdness that is best solved just by using common sense and applying gravity.
|
|
Thanks, Ascalaphus. It's OK if it's just my confusion. I don't mind, but I have seen this topic come up a number of times and if the SRD were clarified, there might be less confusion. It is also likely a topic of in-game discussion and delays.
I just did a quick (and slightly better) search to help unify the historical efforts, which also just uncovered an intersection explanation on Reddit with a nice little graphic showing miss calculations with an intersection as the splash target.
What happens when you target an intersection and miss? There are 8 surrounding intersections and range increments apply in the same manner.
Reddit Splash Miss Intersection Diagram
Other Threads re: Splash Weapon Miss Questions/Confusion
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
Reddit 2013
Reddit 2014 - intersections
Having gone through this process, and re-reading some of the various threads on this issue, I am reading them with different eyes this morning and see that I kept reading over some of the info I needed. For example, to me, the use of the phrase "off-target" just meant "away from the target" in the context of the rest of that SRD sentence, not a phrase that precisely referred to the target square.
However, I am still of the mind that the wording of the SRD can be improved and should incorporate diagrams. The vagueness, at least, seems clear. ^_^ Also, I hope, at least, that this thread is a good resource for others.
I'm sure there are other threads out there that I haven't found, so if someone finds them, maybe post them here.
|
Eh, I suppose it could be clearer. It's tricky to fix though, because you don't want to change the space taken up by the text too much. Everything has to stay on the same page in the CRB to maintain the integrity of references to pages in other books.
That's the problem? Well, it's too late to fix it now, but a more adequate solution would have been to use chapters and subsections to allow room to grow...
|
|
That's one of the reasons given why an overhaul for the rules for the Stealth skill was so hard. The new rules had to fit the same space as the old rules. It took them quite a few printings to figure out.
I knew "word count" was the issue. I just assumed it was because they didn't want to bloat the book. I never realized it was because they wanted the page numbers to remain relevant.
1. It does not adequately explain what "indicated direction" means
2. It does not specify the 1st square to start counting from when using the thrown range increment as a miss modifier
3. I am curious to know what is supposed to happen on vertical splash weapon attacks (not covered by the SRD)
There is no lack of clarity here.
You miss the attack roll.
Roll 1d8 to determine the direction of your miss with 1 being straight toward you and 2-8 being the remaining directions rotating clockwise around your intended target. The result of this d8 roll determines the "indicated direction".
Now count a number of squares equal to the range increment of the THROW (not the weapon). Square 1 cannot be the square you wanted to hit (otherwise if you miss by 1 then you hit your target but since you missed with your attack roll you cannot hit that target). And it makes no sense to "count" a number of squares starting at 2, or at 7, or at 43, or starting at anything other than 1. So count squares from 1 to the range increment of the throw, moving along the line determined by the d8 roll above.
That's actually fairly easy and there is no ambiguity in the rule as written unless we try to apply our own strange interpretations like beginning to count at 0 or at 2.
As for applying in 3 dimensions, the game doesn't really spend much time worrying about that so when it comes up, a GM needs to make judgment calls on the fly. The judgment call here is to remember that this is a grenade and will not auto-detonate; it detonates when it hits something. So missing an airborne target means you use the same rules but on the d8 roll, 1 is directly back toward the thrower in whatever plane that requires - vertical, horizontal, whatever. Then apply the same rules of counting squares to figure out what 3D space the grenade hit - but if there's nothing there, it won't detonate; it will keep going, probably affected by gravity to curve back toward the ground in a parabola, not detonating until it hits something. Most of the time it won't even matter because it just falls on the distant ground at some distant point where it detonates harmlessly (at least, harmlessly with regard to the current battle). Sometimes, it might fall onto another combatant or hit a surface close enough to a combatant to splash him, or maybe fall into the streets of a city down below, or whatever, so the consequences of a miss might matter sometimes - but there are no rules for any of that so it's up to the GM.
|
|
No need for you to have typed all of that or use a derogatory tone. The SRD is unclear for new users for all the reasons previously stated, uses relatively ambiguous wording, should include diagrams to promote immediate understanding, and these assmptions are supported by user experience based on the numerous questions that have been previously posted where others have had similar confusion. Your personal understanding, perhaps filtered through superior experience, doesn't constitute general clarity for other new or less experienced readers of the text in its current form and it is a mistake on your part to assume that it does.
Also, the problem with square counting results from the SRD wording indicating that you select the square with the 1d8 roll, then start counting in the designated direction to adjust based on the range increment. If you didn't happen to catch and interpret "off-target" as meaning start in the target-adjacent square and happened to take a literal interpretation, then the result would be different. Basic rewording, putting aside personal filters and attitudes, would obviously improve the readability, clarity, and usability of this content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, didn't mean anything derogatory. I was just trying to make it extra clear since you and I might not be the only ones reading this.