_Ozy_ wrote: Crimeo, are you really saying that the direct target of a splash weapon takes both the 1d6 direct damage and the splash damage because these are two effects? I'd never even considered it before, but now that it's been raised I find it hard to read it any other way: Quote: A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target. Is the target a creature within 5 feet of itself? If so, it takes splash damage.
If they are two separate effects as Crimeo claims, then yes that would be how to read it.
If it's a single effect, it's hard to see how a single effect could be doing multiple identical damaging effects to the same target.
But hey, if he's right, my alchemist just got a whole lot deadlier.
_Ozy_ wrote: If they are two separate effects as Crimeo claims, then yes that would be how to read it.
If it's a single effect, it's hard to see how a single effect could be doing multiple identical damaging effects to the same target.
But hey, if he's right, my alchemist just got a whole lot deadlier.
I'm not even thinking about whether it's two separate effects or not, just the literal text of the rule for splash damage.
It a bit into the grammatical weeds, but given that they both are part of the same sentence, it seems that one phrase is exclusive of the other.
But you could certainly make your argument.
As I said, my 11th level mindchemist certainly wouldn't mind the 16 extra points of bomb damage on the target.
Quote: It a bit into the grammatical weeds, but given that they both are part of the same sentence, it seems that one phrase is exclusive of the other. "X and Y" is not grammatically "in the weeds." You do X... and Y.
"This spell throws you up in the air and poisons you" would not be ambiguous. "This spell does 1d6 damage to target and 1 damage to everyone in radius" is not any more ambiguous.
It doesn't matter for this point what is an effect or not, either. Regardless of that, it's telling you to do X and Y, so you do X and Y... It doesn't say "X or Y" or "X and in some cases Y" etc. Effects are only relevant to the other discussion, not the fact that 1 hp clearly applies to everyone within 5 feet.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: It a bit into the grammatical weeds, but given that they both are part of the same sentence, it seems that one phrase is exclusive of the other. "X and Y" is not grammatically "in the weeds." You do X... and Y.
"This spell throws you up in the air and poisons you" would not be ambiguous. "This spell does 1d6 damage to target and 1 damage to everyone in radius" is not any more ambiguous.
It doesn't matter for this point what is an effect or not, either. Regardless of that, it's telling you to do X and Y, so you do X and Y... It doesn't say "X or Y" or "X and in some cases Y" etc. Effects are only relevant to the other discussion, not the fact that 1 hp clearly applies to everyone within 5 feet. So in other words, that's how you play? You apply both direct target damage and splash damage to whoever is hit by the splash weapon?
I understand the argument you are making, I'm asking you if that's how you actually play it.
Edit: The effects discussion is actually relevant, because the exclusivity comes from the fact that you're talking about the same effect.
"Throws you up in the air" and "poisons you" are two different effects. "Fire burns you for 10 points if you are within 10 feet, and 5 points if you are in 20 feet" implies exclusivity.
Normally one would read the latter sentence that the person within 10 feet would take 10 damage, not 15.
Quote: So in other words, that's how you play? You apply both direct target damage and splash damage to whoever is hit by the splash weapon? Yeah definitely!
Quote: "Throws you up in the air" and "poisons you" are two different effects. "Fire burns you for 10 points if you are within 10 feet, and 5 points if you are in 20 feet" implies exclusivity. You keep saying that, but not really explaining why you think that... I would probably apply 15 in that case too.
(Especially since 15 vs. 5 better approximates actual inverse square fire area density than 10 vs. 5 does, but I'm sure that's coincidental)
If you wanted to communicate exclusivity, you don't need to "IMPLY" anything. You can just use the word "or"!
"Fire burns you for 10 points if you are within 10 feet, OR 5 points if you are in 20 feet"
Crimeo wrote: Quote: So in other words, that's how you play? You apply both direct target damage and splash damage to whoever is hit by the splash weapon? Yeah definitely! So, everyone in your game plays alchemists?
Quote: Quote: "Throws you up in the air" and "poisons you" are two different effects. "Fire burns you for 10 points if you are within 10 feet, and 5 points if you are in 20 feet" implies exclusivity. You keep saying that, but not really explaining why you think that... I would probably apply 15 in that case too.
(Especially since 15 vs. 5 better approximates actual inverse square fire area density than 10 vs. 5 does, but I'm sure that's coincidental to an off the cuff example ;)
You might apply 15 in that case, but I can assure you, taking a poll of how people would interpret that statement, you would be in the very small minority.
Furthermore, fire damage from a large wall would likely fall off linearly rather than by the inverse square you would get from a point source. ;)
Quote: So, everyone in your game plays alchemists? I lightly discourage alchemists for unrelated reasons because I think they're really really hokey flavor-wise, without ever really having considered this point as relevant (don't know if players have). So hasn't come up.
I'm not quite seeing how +28% damage would be dramatically difficult to deal with anyway, even if not intended, though. Any 9 level caster is already way more than 28% more powerful eventually than an alchemist anyway, and is still manageable.
Quote: Furthermore, fire damage from a large wall would likely fall off linearly rather than by the inverse square you would get from a point source. ;) The previous discussion has all been about point sources, but yes a wall might be linear. May also be Gaussian (random ember flight, etc.) or who knows. Probably would just do whatever the book says no matter what and trust their balance, really.
When the entry says that finer swarms are immune to all weapons, I'd say that's only physical weapon damage, not elemental damage, such as from an alchemist's fire.
In my view this would also mean that elemental-enchanted weapons such as "flaming" would also work, just not the physical component.
Regarding the claim that it has a single target is inaccurate. It ends up affecting multiple targets despite the fact that the damage is different for one target from the rest; just because the damage is different for one target doesn't make it a single-target or limited target effect.
Joesi wrote: Regarding the claim that it has a single target is inaccurate. It ends up affecting multiple targets despite the fact that the damage is different for one target from the rest; just because the damage is different for one target doesn't make it a single-target or limited target effect. Quote: Throw Splash Weapon
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.
The rules for thrown splash weapons disagree.
You pick a singular target to attack. Other nearby creatures and objects may be damaged, but there is only one target.
Good thing a swarm "acts as a single creature", complete with "a single Armor Class", as defined by the Swarm subtype.
You also cut off your bolding too soon. "its target and nearby creatures" seems to suggest you're targeting more than a single creature.
Quote: You also cut off your bolding too soon. "its target and nearby creatures" seems to suggest you're targeting more than a single creature. That tells you the opposite: confirmation that those are not targets.
"Let me introduce my family and three other people" does not mean those three are also our family... "I put on the shirt and the rest of the clothes" does not mean I'm wearing nothing but shirts. Similarly, "its target and nearby creatures" means one target and other non-target nearby creatures.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Reread what you just wrote.
Those are the people you're introducing.
Those are the clothes you're putting on.
If I say I'm buying a cat and 2 dogs, that doesn't mean dogs are cats.
What is your point...? The pronoun is totally irrelevant.
The point is you never write out "A and B" if it all qualifies as A and qualifying as A is the only thing that matters. You only do that if you're distinguishing the two.
Irwin, the Gnome wrote: Good thing a swarm "acts as a single creature", complete with "a single Armor Class", as defined by the Swarm subtype.
You also cut off your bolding too soon. "its target and nearby creatures" seems to suggest you're targeting more than a single creature.
Irwin, that's exactly my point. Thrown splash weapons target a specific number of creatures (in this case, one) which is why a swarm is immune to it.
"its target and nearby creatures" actually suggests completely the opposite of what you claim. It splatters over its target and nearby creatures or objects. That other nearby things are also splattered doesn't change the fact that only a single creature was targeted.
To have it say what you claim, it'd have to read something like:
"A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its targets, which may include creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make ranged touch attacks against the targets, one of which you designate to take additional damage."
Even then, there would be room for argument, as the additional damage is only applied to a single creature, which the swarm rules would make it immune to.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
1d6x1.5 dmg per round for two rounds
|
7 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Scoffing at advice on formatting an FAQ request when your own post only has 4 hits despite 100+ comments won't get you very far. You should listen to what people are saying.
Speaking as someone who's had some half a dozen questions FAQ'd, including the most FAQ'd question ever, I can attest to the fact that there is indeed a better format for going about getting a question answered. Several factors include:
1) Don't use an example in your title.
This thread uses "Alchemist Fire" in its title, when the question is really about splash weapons. Alchemist Fire should be used as an example regarding your question, and not the question itself.
2) Your question needs to be clear.
This thread asks whether Alchemist Fire "damages" a swarm. That question will never receive an answer, because everyone knows that Alchemist Fire damages a swarm. The question is "how much?"
3) Show that this is a "frequently asked question".
Link to several previous discussions. Search for at least one thread per year (so about half a dozen links). This will establish that the question has been around for a while a shows that there is legitimate confusion on the matter.
You may also find a thread that's recent, or an older thread with several FAQ hits already that could use a "bump". Doing this also earns you an ally that will appreciate your interest in their thread.
4) Remember that this is a Community (capital "C" intended).
If you want the attention of people, you have to work with them. Ask people for help. Use positive language. Commend people on varying points of view. Foster a discussion. When you reach a milestone such as 25, 50, or 100 FAQ hits, make a post that thanks everyone for getting that far.
5) It has to look like you put effort into it.
Your initial post consists of just a title and two spoilers. Anyone could toss up a similar thread in literally a minute. Why would anyone want to spend more time replying to your post than you spent creating it? If you put in the effort, you'll attract the attention of other like minded responses.
6) Be thorough.
Establish the different sides of the argument. Corral the discussion into a couple or few main points. If you've done your research, you've probably become familiar with tangents that ended previous discussions. Prevent those from happening up front, or at least be aware that they might resurface.
7) Formatting.
Don't just ask your question in your title. Ask it in your initial post, and BOLD it. Maybe even BIGGER it. Make it stand out. This is the question that'll hopefully end up in print on the FAQ page.
8) Remember that you're not just talking to the Developers.
Questions asking only for "official" responses rarely get anyone's interest. It tells readers that you're not interested in their opinions, and Developers like to hear multiple points of view so that they can understand why the question exists. Plus, maybe a mundane post has the answer you've been looking for all along.
9) Recognize that perception is reality.
Maybe you spent 54 seconds putting together a post. Maybe you hate people. Maybe you think this is a silly discussion that should have been settled ages ago. Whatever your thoughts, don't let others perceive that to be the case. The trick to sales is getting someone else to buy your goods, not for you to buy it from yourself. Be open, polite, responsive, critical, eager and positive.
There are lots of tricks to this sort of thing. And there are certainly outliers. Sometimes a lucky poster will stumble upon a jackpot question and get it FAQ'd like that. But the safest bet is to respect the process and the people that make it happen.
Hope that helps.
Crimeo wrote: No, because slashing weapons ARE a more specific category than weapons, unambiguously. Does a single weapon exist that is not slashing? Yes. Does any slashing weapon exist that isn't a weapon? No. Thus, more specific narrower category, slashing weapon clause wins. This doesn't address the issue at all. Slashing weapons specifically do x0.5 damage to swarms compared to other weapons.... damage which swarms happen to be immune to because it is also an effect.
The text is broken because 'effect' is not defined. Weapons are not supposed to be an effect that targets (bludgeoning weapons are probably supposed to do full damage as they do in 3.5 - along with energy weapon damage), but yet they clearly are in standard language and they put splash weapon as an example of an effect.
There's never going to be a resolution because the language is not tight enough to allow for one. 'RAW hazy, use RAI' is a common occurrence in pathfinder and this is no exception, although I totally agree this is a particularly horrendous example and worth an FAQ.
Quote: Slashing weapons specifically do x0.5 damage to swarms compared to other weapons Not sure where you're getting that from. I see it as very clearly being worded as 50% damage compared to their OWN normal damage, not compared to any other type of weapon.
"A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons."
Quote: The text is broken because 'effect' is not defined. I can agree with this. And clearing this up overall would be a much more productive FAQ which would solve this as a side effect, along with a whole bunch of other things (including several metamagics, as another example, and to certain concentration checks as yet another)
I tried to ask what an effect was in my own thread a month or two ago, and basically got like 12 different answers after a lot of pages.
Not sure if this point has been brought up...
Splash weapons cannot deal precision-based damage (such as sneak attack).
From what I understand precision damage is what swarms are immune to (precise number of targets). A splash weapon dose not hit an ant in an ant swarm. It hits the "swarm" of ants in the 5' square, splashes the 5' squares around the first.
1 1 1
1 d6 1
1 1 1
Every thing in the centre 5' square takes the d6 damage. A swarm that is Large would be taking damage from 4 of the 5' squares. A minimum of 6 damage (4x1.5=6).
Crimeo wrote: Quote: Slashing weapons specifically do x0.5 damage to swarms compared to other weapons Not sure where you're getting that from. I see it as very clearly being worded as 50% damage compared to their OWN normal damage, not compared to any other type of weapon. You're splitting hairs and I don't see how this modifies the conclusion. If I said an enemy had a 50% immunity to fire, both of the following sentences are valid: 'Fire damage does 50% less compared to other forms of damage' and 'Fire damage does 50% less compared to its own normal damage'. If I then had another sentence which said 'this enemy is immune to AOE effects' a fireball would still do 0 damage.
We're arguing semantics at this point, although, I guess the whole thread is pretty much arguing semantics.
Blakmane wrote: Crimeo wrote: Quote: Slashing weapons specifically do x0.5 damage to swarms compared to other weapons Not sure where you're getting that from. I see it as very clearly being worded as 50% damage compared to their OWN normal damage, not compared to any other type of weapon. You're splitting hairs and I don't see how this modifies the conclusion. If I said an enemy had a 50% immunity to fire, both of the following sentences are valid: 'Fire damage does 50% less compared to other forms of damage' and 'Fire damage does 50% less compared to its own normal damage'. If I then had another sentence which said 'this enemy is immune to AOE effects' a fireball would still do 0 damage.
We're arguing semantics at this point, although, I guess the whole thread is pretty much arguing semantics. And your analogy does not fit, because "fire" is not more specific than "fire"
But "slashing weapons" IS more specific than "weapons". When in conflict, specific trumps general, so slashing weapon clause wins and they do 50% normal damage. Immunity clause loses. (But still has reason to exist due to bludgeon weapons, as well as various weapons vs. Diminutive swarms)
Whereas your fire example would be ambiguous, this isn't.
Removed a series of off-topic posts, baiting/heated posts and locking.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
