| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like Disintegrate, Ray of Frost is a ray aimed at a target. I am with your DM on this one.
They specifically call out disintegrate as an example that won't work on swarms. The spell effects (as in, what they affect and how they manifest) are identical.
Look at the description for Disintegrate:
Effect ray
A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit.
Now look at Ray of Frost:
Effect ray
A ray of freezing air and ice projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack...
However it clearly indicates TARGETTED spells don't affect the swarm, and I challenge you to show me the Target line on Ray of Frost (it ain't there, :) )
No, it very clearly says "spells that target a specific number of creatures". It doesn't have to be a Target spell to target a creature.
Target spells (that is, spells with a Target: line) are spells that target a specific creature. You must be able to see the creature to cast the spell.
Effect spells, specifically ray spells, are also spells that target a specific creature. You don't have to see the creature to cast the spell.
Not all spells that target a specific number of creatures have a Target line. Only those spells that require you to seethe creature as you cast the spell have the Target: line.
A ray of freezing air and ice projects from your pointing finger. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d3 points of cold damage.
Only Area Effect Damage damages Swarms. Rays only Targets one Target, not an Area.
The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path.
Spells like Lightning Bolt say they damage in a path, and have an Area of Line in there spell descriptions.
|
I was the GM for the game, and Val'bryn2 has accurately described my interpretation. I came to the boards to see if there were any past threads on it, and saw he'd started this one.
After the game, he pointed out this line at the end of the disintegrate spell.
Only the first creature struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
That made me wonder why that line would need to be included. It seems odd, because I'm not sure how a ray could strike more than one creature or why they would need to specify that this spell works that way (presumably compared to other ray spells working differently?).
Anyway, I still feel like I'm reading the swarm rules correctly, but I'm open to being wrong if there's something about rays that I don't understand/know, and I'll admit that line in disintegrate is bothering me. I just want to make sure I run things correctly in the future, so if I'm getting it wrong I'd like to know.
I'm with your GM on this one. Rays can't affect a swarm.
|
Val'bryn2 - I agree that swarms are annoying - but Ray of Frost still doesn't work against it. (At low levels - just use a torch.)
Basically Ray of Frost wasn't "the only offensive spell I had that wouldn't be useless" - you just had no offensive spells that wouldn't be useless.
I will say - with a 10ish DC knowledge check I'd let you know that so that you didn't have to burn an action on it.
|
|
Ok, did some research. Reading through older threads, near as I can tell this is a holdover from 3.5 that wasn't worded well with the transition to Pathfinder. Apparently in 3.5 even weapon abilities, like Flaming, would affect a swarm, though the actual weapon damage would not. That is not as clearly the case reading just the Pathfinder rules. I did not play 3.5. I stopped at 2nd edition, then started back up with Pathfinder in 2012. By then it seems like the general thought on it had changed to weapon abilities, Rays, etc. not working.
The best evidence in support of Val'bryn2's take is this post by James Jacobs from 2010, still relatively early in Pathfinder's existence. Past threads pointed out that he is not a rules authority, but if at least one of the paizo staff believes it works, I think it deserves more thought.
This thread here has a longer discussion that talks about the 3.5 history.
I'm now of the opinion that this might be FAQ-worthy, as it is not as clear to me that the intent was to keep weapon abilities and rays from working with the changeover to Pathfinder, even if that's the way it reads right now. I may try to post the question in the ask Mark Seifter thread a little later today and see if he weighs in.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, morale effects, patterns, and phantasms) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. 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.
Ray: Some effects are rays. You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon, though typically you make a ranged touch attack rather than a normal ranged attack. As with a ranged weapon, you can fire into the dark or at an invisible creature and hope you hit something. You don't have to see the creature you're trying to hit, as you do with a targeted spell. Intervening creatures and obstacles, however, can block your line of sight or provide cover for the creature at which you're aiming.
So we know that swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures, and rays are aimed like a ranged weapon.
Ranged Attacks: With a ranged weapon, you can shoot or throw at any target that is within the weapon's maximum range and in line of sight. The maximum range for a thrown weapon is five range increments. For projectile weapons, it is 10 range increments. Some ranged weapons have shorter maximum ranges, as specified in their descriptions.
Ranged attacks target a single creature. Therefore, ray spells target a single creature, and thus swarms are immune to them.
Ok, did some research. Reading through older threads, near as I can tell this is a holdover from 3.5 that wasn't worded well with the transition to Pathfinder. Apparently in 3.5 even weapon abilities, like Flaming, would affect a swarm, though the actual weapon damage would not. That is not as clearly the case reading just the Pathfinder rules. I did not play 3.5. I stopped at 2nd edition, then started back up with Pathfinder in 2012. By then it seems like the general thought on it had changed to weapon abilities, Rays, etc. not working.
The best evidence in support of Val'bryn2's take is this post by James Jacobs from 2010, still relatively early in Pathfinder's existence. Past threads pointed out that he is not a rules authority, but if at least one of the paizo staff believes it works, I think it deserves more thought.
This thread here has a longer discussion that talks about the 3.5 history.
I'm now of the opinion that this might be FAQ-worthy, as it is not as clear to me that the intent was to keep weapon abilities and rays from working with the changeover to Pathfinder, even if that's the way it reads right now. I may try to post the question in the ask Mark Seifter thread a little later today and see if he weighs in.
Swarms are immune to weapon damage, and spells/effects which target a single target.
A flaming sword deals weapon damage, and energy damage, to the target of the attack. Since the energy damage is not an area effect, the swarm is immune to it. You can attack the swarm all you want, but the damage won't be applied.
|
|
Ok, did some research. Reading through older threads, near as I can tell this is a holdover from 3.5 that wasn't worded well with the transition to Pathfinder. Apparently in 3.5 even weapon abilities, like Flaming, would affect a swarm, though the actual weapon damage would not. That is not as clearly the case reading just the Pathfinder rules.
Actually - it's still true.
Flaming etc. isn't weapon damage - it's fire damage.
A flaming sword deals weapon damage, and energy damage, to the target of the attack. Since the energy damage is not an area effect, the swarm is immune to it. You can attack the swarm all you want, but the damage won't be applied.
Swarm says nothing about only area effects working.
It's immune to weapon damage if small enough (which flaming isn't - it's fire damage) and it's immune to single target spells (which flaming isn't). Therefore flaming works just fine.
But by that logic, they are also immune to direct damage from splash weapons, which also require a ranged touch attack, they would only take the splash damage, and we all know that isn't how it works.
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.
They specifically take +50% damage from splash weapons or spells that affect an area. If this sentence wasn't in the rulebook, then yes, they would only take splash. However, because the rules say they take 50% additional damage from splash weapons, they take 50% additional damage.
Ok, did some research. Reading through older threads, near as I can tell this is a holdover from 3.5 that wasn't worded well with the transition to Pathfinder. Apparently in 3.5 even weapon abilities, like Flaming, would affect a swarm, though the actual weapon damage would not. That is not as clearly the case reading just the Pathfinder rules.Actually - it's still true.
Flaming etc. isn't weapon damage - it's fire damage.
A flaming sword deals weapon damage, and energy damage, to the target of the attack. Since the energy damage is not an area effect, the swarm is immune to it. You can attack the swarm all you want, but the damage won't be applied.Swarm says nothing about only area effects working.
It's immune to weapon damage if small enough (which flaming isn't - it's fire damage) and it's immune to single target spells (which flaming isn't). Therefore flaming works just fine.
Is flaming not an effect that targets a single creature (the target of the attack?)
Its not just spells, its "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Ray of frost is out because it is a spell that targets a single creature. Flaming should also be out because it is an effect that effects a single creature.
On a related note, could you bull rush a swarm? Or is that an effect to a "single creature" that they would be immune to?
On a related note, could you bull rush a swarm? Or is that an effect to a "single creature" that they would be immune to?
Swarm Traits: A swarm has no clear front or back and no discernable 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. Reducing a swarm to 0 hit points or less causes it to break up, though damage taken until that point does not degrade its ability to attack or resist attack. Swarms are never staggered or reduced to a dying state by damage. Also, they cannot be tripped, grappled, or bull rushed, and they cannot grapple an opponent.
Duh, that'll teach me for not reading the full paragraph! Thanks.
You can be both vulnerable and immune to damage in pathfinder. A red dragon lich is both vulnerable to (red dragon trait) & immune (lich) cold. Likewise, according to your logic, a swarm is immune to the direct damage, which is targeted, and takes half again the splash damage, which is AOE.
Splash weapons don't affect a single target. They are specifically used as an example as something that instead gets 50% additional damage to the swarm.
|
|
Its not just spells, its "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures". Ray of frost is out because it is a spell that targets a single creature. Flaming should also be out because it is an effect that effects a single creature.
Flaming isn't an effect that targets a single creature. It's an effect which deals 1d6 damage on a successful hit - NOT a specific number of creatures. (since it works against however many creatures you hit)
Just to provide some history, here is the DND 3.5 entry.
A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon (usual -4 penalty) deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.
A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each it, even if the weapon's normal damage can't affect the swarm.
A lit lantern can be used as a thrown weapon, dealing 1d4 points of fire damage to all creatures in squares adjacent to where it breaks.
This made it very clear that flaming still dealt damage to a swarm.
Pathfinder didn't include these options in their swarm entry. Maybe they thought it was clear enough without it.
Lets use the example of a Tiny swarm. They take 1/2 damage from piercing and slashing. You have a flaming longsword. You have 10 strength to keep the bonuses simple. Lets assume max damage also to keep rolls simple.
You swing and do max 8 damage, halved. Total 4 slashing. You also get +6 fire from the flames on the sword. This is not halved since it is not slashing damage. I do think you would apply the fire damage, since you could apply the weapon damage, so 4+6=10 damage.
Now lets look at a Fine swarm. Immune to weapon damage. Same sword, same rolls.
8 damage, negated, because it is slashing. 6 damage fire. This isn't negated since it isn't weapon damage. Since the swarm is only immune to weapon damage, I would give you the 6 fire damage. This is a reversal of my previous position. Its also more consistent with historical (3.5) running of swarms.
Ray of frost is still out because it is still a spell which targets a single creature.
About what Val'bryn said, you can't be vulnerable and immune to the same kind of damage. If something would grant you immunity to something you are weak to, it doesn't work.
|
|
As an aside, your argument against flaming working would also discount torches, which are the standard weapon of last resort against swarms.
I don't think under Pathfinder rules that it's clear that a torch would do anything to a swarm. The way I've always seen it run is that you cover the square with oil, then light the oil with the torch. Otherwise a torch is just a weapon that deals damage, and therefore doesn't affect a fine or diminutive swarm at all.
Seeing the 3.5 rules helps understand where the idea comes from. The issue is that those aren't the Pathfinder rules, and the Pathfinder rules have been interpreted differently by a large number of GMs for several years. I can see the logic behind allowing weapon effects to work, I'm just not sure Pathfinder includes the rule to do that.
I also can't see how it seems Charon is saying that flaming would work but a ray wouldn't. It seems to me if one is allowed, then the other is allowed.
Anyway, this has moved into "unclear" or table variation territory for me, so I'll probably allow it going forward, as I tend to not deny something unless I'm sure (or at least think I'm sure, which was the case here) that I know how it works. But I would also not argue strongly in favor of this being absolutely the way it works in Pathfinder, because it takes an awful lot of digging through the rules of not just Pathfinder, but also 3.5, to come to this conclusion. Just reading swarm traits, I think it's much easier to come to the conclusion these things don't work, and that's supported by a lot of anecdotal evidence. Look at any of the threads on the PFS boards that talk about things you need to survive. When they mention swarms, they mention splash weapons, oil, are effect spells, and swarmbane clasps. None I've found mention rays or weapon abilities.
I do think this is deserving of an FAQ, as it would be a major shift for a lot of the GMs I know. I'll bring it up with the local VOs and see if any of them have thought about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only the first creature struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.That made me wonder why that line would need to be included. It seems odd, because I'm not sure how a ray could strike more than one creature or why they would need to specify that this spell works that way (presumably compared to other ray spells working differently?).
I think that's because the moment it hits the object/creature, it's no longer being blocked by that object/creature. It's clarifying that it doesn't just keep going. Standard targeting (not formally line of effect, but similar) implies the same thing about effects like ray of frost.
|
|
Disintegrate calls out it only affects one target. There is no such language for Ray of Frost. Therefore, while Disintegrate would affect only one target in the swarm, Ray of Frost targets the Swarm itself, rather than any individuals in it. Ray of Frost uses the same language as making an attack with a splash weapon, if one works, they both do. If one doesn't, neither does.
But splash weapons are called out in the swarm traits entry, so they work explicitly because of that, not necessarily because of the way an attack with a splash weapon is worded.
This edition of mountains out of molehills has been brought to you by the letter "d" and swarms!
About what Val'bryn said, you can't be vulnerable and immune to the same kind of damage. If something would grant you immunity to something you are weak to, it doesn't work.
As far as I know, there is absolutely nothing like that in the rules. So I have to disagree until you can back up your statement with a rules source.
Edit: I see. You are using the general rules from the race builder section of Advanced Race Guide. That only applies to those rules when making a new race. It has absolutely no effect on anything else. Even if it did apply, the Elemental Vulnerability advanced trait can only be used on Outsider (native) creatures, and the limitation on not also having immunity to the chosen element is only against racial traits granting that immunity.
Even with that trait, you can be both vulnerable and immune to the chosen element, as long as the immunity isn't from a racial trait.
Disintegrate calls out it only affects one target. There is no such language for Ray of Frost. Therefore, while Disintegrate would affect only one target in the swarm, Ray of Frost targets the Swarm itself, rather than any individuals in it. Ray of Frost uses the same language as making an attack with a splash weapon, if one works, they both do. If one doesn't, neither does.
A ray of freezing air and ice projects from your pointing finger.
You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d3 points of cold damage.
Ray of frost effects one target. The one you make an attack roll against. Because swarms are specifically immune to spells which target specific numbers of creatures, ray of frost is out.
Scorching ray effects a number of targets, but it is still a specific number. Scorching ray would also do no damage to a swarm.
Damaging spells must be an area spell to work against swarms. Rays are not area spells.
I quoted Ray of Frost. Ray of Frost specifies it affects A target. All the other ray spells specify what their targets are and how they effect.
Disintegrate is more complicated, because it effects a creature OR an object. Most rays only affect creatures. Its named as a specific example of Ray spells because it is one of the most known ray spells. Any spell which effects a specific number of targets do not have any effect on a swarm. So ray of frost? 1 target, no effect. Disintegrate? 1 target, no effect. Scorching ray? 1-3 targets, no effect. Shocking grasp? 1 target, no effect.
Ray of frost clearly says it affects "a target". Disintegrate also clearly states it affects the first creature touched by the ray.
My problem is that the rules are unclear on this. If that's how rays are supposed to work, why is Disintegrate the ONLY spell where it specifies it only affects one creature/object?
Maybe because it also affects a specified volume? Up to a 10 foot cube of material. Some people could read that is disintegrates all objects in that volume. But by stating that it only affects a single object, it brings the spell in line with all other rays.
You might fire the ray at a pile of gold coins, but only the single coin the ray hits is disintegrated. You can fire it at a door, and the door would disintegrate, but the wall around the door won't even if it is in the same 10 foot cube as the door.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think at this point we've offered sufficient evidence. The fact that the OP doesn't want to accept it despite having basically everyone in the thread disagree with his premise doesn't mean we should keep rehaashing the same thing.
Not trying to troll, and i apologize if that seems harsh, but as someone reading the thread, all i see is the same circle. Same proof, same nonacceptance.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its not unclear. If the spell affects a specific number of targets, then the swarm won't take damage. All ray spells (that I could find) fall under this.