|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can get SA vs swarms, wouldn't every character with SA & a torch be able to get SA the first round if they beat the swarms initiative?
If a torch is used in combat, treat it as a one-handed improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus 1 point of fire damage.A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible 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 all weapon damage.Swarms are immune to the weapon damage - not the fire damage. Since the rogue/ninja/slayer/etc. is doing fire damage with an attack roll, the SA would apply. (I'm with what others have said though. While it looks like it works RAW, RAI seems to be that it's not supposed to.)
You used to be able to use torchs on swarms in 3.5. That text was also left out in the transition. I'm also pretty sure you can't add sneak attack to fire damage. It would be added to the physical damage and then negated as well.
Bah! Two minutes! If I'd been two minutes faster I could have added, like, one more link! >:/
So close!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sooo...would Cthulhu's Cleaving Claws ability deal damage to a Diminutive or Fine swarm? It's weapon damage, so I'm leaning no, but it's also an area effect. I guess they would take 50% additional damage out of a total of 0 damage.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
People you play with get uncomfortable when other people interpret the rules differently than they do?
Most of the tables I've played and GM have people using the rules in a reasonable way, without purposefully interpreting a rule counter to logic, intent, or simplicity.
But this only makes someone uncomfortable when the GM says "nope it works this way" and the player says "Not by my reading, but sure that is fine." Which is the only comfortable answer.
People you play with get uncomfortable when other people interpret the rules differently than they do?
Most of the tables I've played and GM have people using the rules in a reasonable way, without purposefully interpreting a rule counter to logic, intent, or simplicity.
This looks like a very arrogant and unpleasant implication about people who play or read things differently from you; it may not be intentional, but it should be clarified that it certainly appears to be a poor showing.
But this only makes someone uncomfortable when the GM says "nope it works this way" and the player says "Not by my reading, but sure that is fine." Which is the only comfortable answer.
... it looks like you're saying something contradictory here. It might not be what you mean.
Reading this several times, I think you mean, "It is uncomfortable when people disagree disagreeably; it is comfortable when they agree or disagree in an agreeable manner."
Please clarify if my understanding is incorrect in some way. Since the way you've written it means something very different (and counter-intuitive to the way you're presenting it), I'm presuming, this is the understanding you're intending, but can't be sure.
You used to be able to use torchs on swarms in 3.5. That text was also left out in the transition. I'm also pretty sure you can't add sneak attack to fire damage. It would be added to the physical damage and then negated as well.
This is another thing I hadn't thought of.
So basically, after a point of smallness, swarms are only mage-fodder.
WELP. :I
YAY for house rules (and house interpretations of RAW/RAI)~! :D
EDIT: Hahah~! I totally messed that one up, didn't I? xD
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this several times, I think you mean, "It is uncomfortable when people disagree disagreeably; it is comfortable when they agree or disagree in an agreeable manner."
+1
You are much better at using words than I am apparently.
The GM is in charge of the RAW for the game. If a player disagrees with the GM, that is fine. Go with the GM's interpretation and talk to the GM after the game or online. Don't just refuse to accept his interpretation and keep stalling the table. That makes people not want to play with you again. That is disagreeing in a disagreeable way.
You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".
*shrug*
That... doesn't make something not a house rule.
Even if it's a mistake made by the authors, there is a differentiation in desire (what is intended) and print (what is written). Thus patching is a (perfectly legitimate) house rule (and a good idea to boot - if it fits your table's gaming concept better).
That it's not explicitly written doesn't make something not RAW, either. So there's that.
The indicators are pretty clear that swarms are not meant to be sneaked, even though it isn't explicitly stated. Thus, recognizing that it is likely a mistake from the port makes it less "house rule" (which, like it or not, tends to have a negative connotation around these parts) and more "simply how the rule is supposed to work".
|
You used to be able to use torchs on swarms in 3.5. That text was also left out in the transition. I'm also pretty sure you can't add sneak attack to fire damage. It would be added to the physical damage and then negated as well.
It's not specifically mentioned - but that's because they added a point of fire damage to torches in general. In 3.5 it did d3 to swarms only.
Arguably the damage would be added to the base damage rather than the fire damage.
Of course - another option is just to use the acid damage gloves. Not a solution at really low levels, but that would definitely apply SA to swarms.
You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".
*shrug*
That... doesn't make something not a house rule.
Even if it's a mistake made by the authors, there is a differentiation in desire (what is intended) and print (what is written). Thus patching is a (perfectly legitimate) house rule (and a good idea to boot - if it fits your table's gaming concept better).
That it's not explicitly written doesn't make something not RAW, either. So there's that.
The indicators are pretty clear that swarms are not meant to be sneaked, even though it isn't explicitly stated. Thus, recognizing that it is likely a mistake from the port makes it less "house rule" (which, like it or not, tends to have a negative connotation around these parts) and more "simply how the rule is supposed to work".
I'm sorry you find House Rules to have a negative connotation - because the PDT certainly don't, and neither do I!
Point in fact, it is the extremely rare table that does not use (intentionally or otherwise) some variance from RAW - often misunderstandings as much as voluntary choice. As two examples, Mark Seifter has often mentioned how important house rules are, and Mr. Jacobs has noted a couple of times that the only reason he doesn't use many hose rules is that his house rules happen to be... the rules. (Though he still uses a couple of house rules.)
House rules are not bad things - they are, in fact extremely important and common, even among RAW-focused groups.
And if it isn't written... then it is not RAW. Because that's what "RAW" means: it's an abbreviation that means "Rules As Written" - if it is not written, it is RAI, or "Rules As Intended" which is a different but also-important thing.
Following RAI instead of RAW is an act of willfully applying intentional house rules or an accidental application of the same. This is not a bad thing.
EDIT: As an example, what was the original RAW for SLA-effects qualifying for feats and PrCs? What is the current RAW? What was the RAI? What is the current RAI? How are those different or the same? Even the PDT changes its mind on the rules from time to time.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".I'm sorry you find House Rules to have a negative connotation
And if it isn't written... then it is not RAW. Because that's what "RAW" means: it's an abbreviation that means "Rules As Written"
You are reasonable.
The problem is there are far too many people who use RAW to mean "Only I get to dictate the interpretation and you need to shut up".
So there are more people on the forums that cringe whenever we hear "RAW" because more often than not it is used as a bludgeon to support something clearly not what the rules say.
"House Rules" is often used by those to reject anyone that doesn't agree with their interpretation of RAW.
In other words, house rules are when you know what the rule says and choose to do something else. It doesn't apply when you know what the rules say but it differs from the player's desired "RAW" interpretation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RAW is a myth, because everything written must be interpreted. Many rules are written so as to be interpreted one way, but many are not.
I should know. I enjoy composing messages here that can be read in more than one way, as the reading to which a person responds reveals a great deal about how they think.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you go there you can find an FAQ covering this very specific topic, and as it is open source I will post it here:
Precision damage (such as that dealt by a rogue's sneak attack ability) applies to more creatures than it did in previous editions of the game.
Some may balk at this but it can easily be imagined or explained as the rogue having found a weak point in the undead's "body" (such as a zombie's head) or even finding a crack or flaw in a construct's "body."
There is some degree of confusion as to what should separate a "critical hit" from a "precision-based attack" but in any event, in some cases they are treated differently.
Critical Hits
The following creature types (or subtypes) have immunity to critical hits (that is, they do not take any additional damage from critical hits):
Aeon (subtype): "Immunity to cold, poison, and critical hits."
Elemental (subtype): Elementals are "not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks, such as sneak attack."
Incorporeal (subtype): "An incorporeal creature is immune to critical hits (unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality.)"
Ooze (Type): <Oozes are...> "not subject to critical hits or flanking. Does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack.)"
Protean (subtype): (50% chance to ignore, see below*)
(Type): "A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to critical hits."
Precision-Based Damage (like Sneak Attack)
The following creature types (or subtypes) do not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack):
Elemental (subtype): "<An elemental...> does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack.)"
Incorporeal (subtype): "An incorporeal creature is immune to precision-based damage (such as sneak attack damage) unless the attacks are made using a weapon with the ghost touch special weapon quality."
Ooze (Type): "<An ooze is...> does not take additional damage from precision-based attacks (such as sneak attack.)"
Protean (subtype): (50% chance to ignore, see below*)
Creatures Immune to Flanking
Opponents do not gain any special flanking bonuses against the following creature types (or subtypes):
Ooze (Type): "<An ooze is...> not subject to ... flanking."
(Type): "A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernible anatomy, so it is not subject to flanking."
Elemental (subtype): "<Elementals are...> not subject to flanking."
*Special: Proteans have a special ability called "Amorphous Anatomy" which might protect them: "<Amorphous Anatomy> grants <a protean> a 50% chance to ignore additional damage caused by critical hits and sneak attacks,"
|
RAW is a myth, because everything written must be interpreted. Many rules are written so as to be interpreted one way, but many are not.
Personally, I have always considered 'RAW' a way of describing the limitations of the written rule. As in, 'RAW there is nothing preventing a dead character from taking actions'. RAW is inherently a bad/incomplete thing and we should always be looking for the 'rules as intended' (RAI).
So according to that FAQ I posted above, you CANNOT Crit a SWARM, you CANNOT Flank a SWARM, you CAN Sneak Attack a SWARM.
Reading this several times, I think you mean, "It is uncomfortable when people disagree disagreeably; it is comfortable when they agree or disagree in an agreeable manner."+1
You are much better at using words than I am apparently.
The GM is in charge of the RAW for the game. If a player disagrees with the GM, that is fine. Go with the GM's interpretation and talk to the GM after the game or online. Don't just refuse to accept his interpretation and keep stalling the table. That makes people not want to play with you again. That is disagreeing in a disagreeable way.
I think you have a different understanding of what RAW is then most people.
RAW is nothing more or less than what is actually written. Often this can lead to multiple interpretations, which is fine. But GM's don't run games according to RAW (at least not much, some do when the RAW is clear with no ambiguity as to its meaning, even if that wasn't how it was intended to work).
It would be more accurate to say the GM's are in charge of the RAI for the game. In rules discussions when there is ambiguity, the correct interpretation of RAW is often arrived at by determining what the RAI is - and this what GM's (in my own limited experience comparatively to the sum total of GM's out there I've never played with) use to run their games.
Which is what I think you mean by saying the GM is in charge of RAW. But GM's don't write rules, they interpret them, hence they define an interpretation of the rules for the game, generally using Rules As Intended (RAI).
You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".
*shrug*
That... doesn't make something not a house rule.
Even if it's a mistake made by the authors, there is a differentiation in desire (what is intended) and print (what is written). Thus patching is a (perfectly legitimate) house rule (and a good idea to boot - if it fits your table's gaming concept better).
That it's not explicitly written doesn't make something not RAW, either. So there's that.
The indicators are pretty clear that swarms are not meant to be sneaked, even though it isn't explicitly stated. Thus, recognizing that it is likely a mistake from the port makes it less "house rule" (which, like it or not, tends to have a negative connotation around these parts) and more "simply how the rule is supposed to work".
At this point, we're getting into discussing pedantics. I don't see any written rule that prevents swarms from being sneak attacked. I do see an explicit statement by Pathfinder's creative director saying that he thinks swarms can't be sneak attacked.
To me, that means that the RAW says you can sneak attack swarms. In the game I GM, we won't be allowing it because it's a reasonable house rule not to that's supported by clear RAI and I won't expect my rogue/barbarian to be able to sneak attack swarms in the game I'm a player in.
I'm sorry you find House Rules to have a negative connotation - because the PDT certainly don't, and neither do I!You say "house rule", I say "recognizing a clear oversight in the port over from 3.5".
*shrug*
That... doesn't make something not a house rule.
Even if it's a mistake made by the authors, there is a differentiation in desire (what is intended) and print (what is written). Thus patching is a (perfectly legitimate) house rule (and a good idea to boot - if it fits your table's gaming concept better).
That it's not explicitly written doesn't make something not RAW, either. So there's that.
The indicators are pretty clear that swarms are not meant to be sneaked, even though it isn't explicitly stated. Thus, recognizing that it is likely a mistake from the port makes it less "house rule" (which, like it or not, tends to have a negative connotation around these parts) and more "simply how the rule is supposed to work".
Note that I never said house rules are bad. Nor did I say that I have a negative view of them. I said that, in the rules forum, calling something a house rule tends to have a negative connotation.
And the post I originally replied to had that feel to it. Calling something a house rule is often done in an attempt to dismiss the argument for a differing interpretation of RAW. That is what I was referring to.
House rules are not bad things - they are, in fact extremely important and common, even among RAW-focused groups.
And if it isn't written... then it is not RAW. Because that's what "RAW" means: it's an abbreviation that means "Rules As Written" - if it is not written, it is RAI, or "Rules As Intended" which is a different but also-important.
And here again is where we get a bit into semantics. Again, note that I mentioned things that aren't explicitly stated in the rules. That something is not directly or overtly stated in the rules does not mean the rules do not cover that area. Inferring a rule from indicia within the explicit writing does not make a thing a house rule.
So again, just because a rule is not explicitly stated does not make it a house rule. One can easily infer from the existent language in the sneak attack and swarm entries that swarms should not be subject to sneak attack. Doing so isn't house ruling; it is simply reading between the lines of what is explicitly written to reach a conclusion that everybody agrees we should reach. Thus, it is still applying the rules as they are written.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So according to that FAQ I posted above, you CANNOT Crit a SWARM, you CANNOT Flank a SWARM, you CAN Sneak Attack a SWARM.
That FAQ isn't a FAQ but just something the site owner of d20pfsrd dreamed up.
Which is what I think you mean by saying the GM is in charge of RAW. But GM's don't write rules, they interpret them, hence they define an interpretation of the rules for the game, generally using Rules As Intended (RAI).
+1 better written than mine.
|
|
This is what I got to go against Swarms...
Swarmbane Clasp
Price 3,000 gp; Aura moderate abjuration; CL 8th; Weight 1/2 lb.
An ancient fossilized insect lies trapped within this ornate amber clasp, impaled by the long golden pin that fastens the wearer's cloak. The wearer's weapons, unarmed attacks, and natural attacks deal full damage to swarms, regardless of the swarm's immunity to weapon damage (if any, although damage reduction applies as normal). If the wearer is damaged by a swarm, she automatically succeeds on her saving throw against the swarm's distraction ability.
Construction Requirements
Cost 1,500 gp
Craft Wondrous Item, repel vermin
Now that I can hit the swarm, I should be able to sneak attack it. One of the best magical items out there.
So, would this be the same as having Ghost Touch on a weapon against ghosts? Would having this item allow me to Crit? To me, I would say it still does not allow for it, but others could look at as a parallel.