| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhat against my better judgment, I read through the entirety of this thread to try to better understand why someone might feel that rays affect swarms (which had previously seemed self-evidently wrong to me).
I think I understand the argument now, which seems based primarily on the notion that rays are not "Target" spells (per their descriptions) and so do not meet the restrictive language of swarms dealing with immunity to spells or effects targeting a specific number of creatures. As Link2000 did a credible job of arguing: rays, like weapons, target the swarm, rather than an individual creature within the swarm.
While I think I understand the basis for this argument, I don't agree with it.
I know people tend to get fixated on RAW or on a strict reading of the language in isolation, but to me it is always necessary to consider the intention behind the rules to really understand how they should work together (but on the basis that this understanding has to be assessed in the context of how the rules are written).
So I ask myself: did the drafters of the rules intend that swarms be affected by ray spells?
I don't think they did, and here is why:
I think they wanted swarms to be primarily affected by things which affect an area (hence the bonus to that sort of damage) and to limit or prevent the effectiveness of things which typically only affect a single target within the roiling mass of rats/bats/wasps/spiders/whatever. Hence their inclusion of this language:
"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."
Getting caught up on the inclusion of disintegrate as an example of the things swarms are immune to doesn't really help the discussion in my view. The drafters wrote "including single-target spells such as disintegrate", but that does not in any way limit the prior language about swarms being immune to "any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures". That language is very broad and, I believe, should be interpreted that way.
Turning to look at how rays work, while I appreciate they don't necessarily have the "target" wording in their descriptions, it seems quite clear that a single ray only ever affects one target. This distinguishes it from a "line" effect spell, for example.
So to summarize from my perspective, the language used by the drafters indicates they wanted swarms to be immune to things which only affect one target/creature. Rays fit in that category, so I cast my 'vote' towards the notion that rays do not affect swarms.
...Somewhat against my better judgment, I read through the entirety of this thread to try to better understand why someone might feel that rays affect swarms (which had previously seemed self-evidently wrong to me).
I think I understand the argument now, which seems based primarily on the notion that rays are not "Target" spells (per their descriptions) and so do not meet the restrictive language of swarms dealing with immunity to spells or effects targeting a specific number of creatures. As Link2000 did a credible job of arguing: rays, like weapons, target the swarm, rather than an individual creature within the swarm.
While I think I understand the basis for this argument, I don't agree with it.
I know people tend to get fixated on RAW or on a strict reading of the language in isolation, but to me it is always necessary to consider the intention behind the rules to really understand how they should work together (but on the basis that this understanding has to be assessed in the context of how the rules are written).
So I ask myself: did the drafters of the rules intend that swarms be affected by ray spells?
I don't think they did, and here is why:
I think they wanted swarms to be primarily affected by things which affect an area (hence the bonus to that sort of damage) and to limit or prevent the effectiveness of things which typically only affect a single target within the roiling mass of rats/bats/wasps/spiders/whatever. Hence their inclusion of this language:
"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."
Getting caught up on the inclusion of disintegrate as an example of the things swarms are immune to doesn't really help the discussion in my view. The drafters wrote
I guess I disagree that every time one considers intent it signals a need for a FAQ.
To the contrary, every time one interprets a rule, I believe intent is part of the equation. I don't mean one needs to speculate as to the drafters' intentions, or look outside the language of the rules for clues to that intention (in fact, I think that should be avoided, where possible). Instead, I think it is important to first consider the specific language of the individual rule in question to determine its meaning, but then also consider that meaning within the larger context of the rules, and how they all work together.
While it come from the legal context, I'm reminded of Driedger's modern principle of statutory interpretation, namely:
"Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context, in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament." (Ruth Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes, 6th ed.)
It is based on this sort of approach that I think it is important to look at the actual wording of the swarm immunity rules and assess (based on that wording) whether or not they were intended to permit rays to affect swarms. I don't believe so based on my contextual, purposive reading of the rule and the broad language used.
Of course, I would be lying if I told you I did not derive some comfort from the fact that the vast majority of other posters agree.
-----
One additional note re: a low level swarm being 'unbeatable' by PCs without access to burning hands or similar magic, or alchemical items.
I suppose it's a valid concern, but the reality is that we always rely on DMs to incorporate challenges suitable to the party, or which are surmountable in some way -- either with the right preparation, or perhaps simply by fleeing.
I guess I'm just saying the fact that this ruling makes swarms more difficult to deal with doesn't do anything to invalidate the ruling. I mean, one could argue that parties without a caster with an appropriate spell (whatever that happens to be) are already hosed by the immunity to weapon damage (for tiny/diminuitive swarms) -- but that does not mean we ignore the way that aspect of rule works.
I see it simply as a house rule to say that the single targeted damage of a splash weapon is effective. I agree, per RAW, it isn't but that in on way eliminates the splash damage that results from the attack. Sure the lantern hits one rat, breaks and splashes flaming oil about. The area takes damage, and that is increased by 150% and the single direct hit does nothing noticeable to the swarm. Rays are not line effects, and target a single element of the swarm and are not effective against a swarm. I disagree with stating that a spell must have a "Target" line that specifically states that it effect one or more creatures, to be ineffective against a swarm. Especially given that disintegrate doesn't and is specifically called out as not working on a swarm. Ray of frost is a ray effect, just like disintegrate, that targets a single creature, and as such doesn't work on swarms. I really don't see much inconsistency in the rules, but clearly others do :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter. It's a targeted effect. According to the Combat chapter of the core rulebook, ranged attacks require an attack roll, which requires a target.
The fact that its targeted doesn't matter. Swarm's are not immune to target based spells. They are immune to spells which affect a specific number of creatures. That happens to be 99% of the Target spells, but not all of them.
A splash weapon is not a spell, or an effect, that targets a specific number of creatures. It is a weapon, which you make an attach with against a creature. The same as your longsword. The difference being some swarms take 50% damage from weapons, and some are immune. Splash weapons are specifically called out as doing 150% damage to all swarms. They are as much as targeted effect as attacking with a longsword is, and we know that does work on swarms (to a degree). Splash weapons work the same, but with the extra damage as specifically called out.
That's what was used to tell me it wouldn't work. The words don't change, only your interpretation of them does.
I'm explaining why your interpretation is incorrect. Swarms aren't immune to a ray because its targeted. They are immune to the ray because it is a spell that affects a specific number of creatures.
Swarms can be attacked by weapons. Splash weapons are a type of weapon. Swarms take reduced damage from weapons (50% or immune). But, they instead take increased damage from splash weapons (150%).
As for the people saying to houserule it, I would agree (and do for my homegames) BUT this arose in Society play, and as such cannot be houseruled in there. For better or worse, cooperative play in Society style requires the rules to be consistent and clear, which these are not. I don't see why some of you don't see damage to be an effect, but there it is. Some of you are using the same language to disallow rays as you use to show why splash weapons work.
A splash weapon is a weapon in just the way a ray is. Both target AC, both have an effect.
By that logic, the damage from a sword is "an effect", which affects a specific number of creatures (one) every time it successfully hits.
A splash weapon is a weapon in just the way a ray is. Both target AC, both have an effect.
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.
Charm monster targets one living creature. "Target one living creature" It is a spell. Swarms are immune to the spell because it only targets one living creature.
Ray of frost creates an effect. "Effect ray" The effect is a ray that deals damage to a creature if you hit with a ranged touch attack. The swarm is immune to the effect created by ray of frost because it only affects one specific creature.
Weapon attacks are not a spell, nor are they an effect. They are a weapon attack. Tiny swarms take half damage from slashing and piercing attacks. Fine/Diminutive swarms are immune to weapon damage.
Splash weapons are specifically named as an example of affecting an area and that swarms take 50% additional damage from them, the same they would from fireball. Because of this specific usage, swarms take extra damage instead of reduced damage from splash weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Besides, in the sister thread, we have a link to James Jacobs asserting that rays DO affect swarms.
To be fair, James Jacobs works on the creative side and has been very clear that whenever he weighs in on the rules, he is not making any official or semi-official ruling, and is instead indicating how he would rule on it personally as a DM. He is obviously very hesitant to even comment on such things for fear of them being relied upon as evidence of the way things are 'meant' to work.
His comments are therefore equally valid to yours or mine or those of any other poster, but not any more so in this context.
It seems that that discussion has reached the point where there is little if anything new to be said, so in the interests of avoiding any digression into 'sniping' or other rudeness over a disagreement in position, I'm hopeful that perhaps the thread will die down or be locked soon.
The powers that be can then determine whether or not this issue requires clarification via FAQ.
Weapon attacks are not a spell, nor are they an effect. They are a weapon attack. Tiny swarms take half damage from slashing and piercing attacks. Fine/Diminutive swarms are immune to weapon damage.
Splash weapons are specifically named as an example of affecting an area and that swarms take 50% additional damage from them, the same they would from fireball. Because of this specific usage, swarms take extra damage instead of reduced damage from splash weapons.
Ray of Frost is a weapon-like spell, hence why you can take weapon focus and why point blank shot works.
Splash weapons themselves don't affect an area. They affect a target AND have an AOE. The targeted part is negated, and the AOE damage is multiplied.
If you aimed a Meteor Swarm spell at a swarm, they would be immune to the targeted bludgeoning damage, but would take the fire AOE, right?
Ray of frost creates an EFFECT RAY. That ray effects a specific number of creatures. Swarms are immune to effects which target a specific number of creatures. Therefore, swarms are immune to rays.
Splash weapons explicitly deal 50% more damage to swarms, and swarms are effected by them. Why? Because they are called out as an example of things that get 50% extra damage to swarms. If this line did not exist, then I would agree with you. Because the rules say "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." splash weapons affect swarms.
If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by a sphere takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and takes a –4 penalty on the saving throw against the sphere's fire damage (see below). If a targeted sphere misses its target, it simply explodes at the nearest corner of the target's space. You may aim more than one sphere at the same target.
Yes, I would rule that a swarm is immune to the bludgeoning damage effect of hitting a single creature with a meteor because it is an effect of the spell which targets a specific number of creatures. The AREA fire damage would still apply and would get a 50% bonus damage for being an area effect against a swarm.
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.
Yes, they need to rewrite and FAQ that.
"A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons ....."
But some say the direct hit is targeted, this no swarm damage. And the splash almost always does 1pt, and "half again as much damage (+50%)" of 1 is 1.
Splash weapons themselves don't affect an area. They affect a target AND have an AOE. The targeted part is negated, and the AOE damage is multiplied.
what's "half again as much damage (+50%) " of one point of damage?
Look, the rule CLEARLY means for splash weapons to be extra effective vs swarms.
This makes them mostly ineffective and what little is left is not more effective.
*Groan*
The rules are clear.
A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weaponsNot "splash damage". "Splash weapons". Why do people have to try to inject ambiguity where there is none?
Guys, seriously. You all know this wasn't intended, so why even bother? Why are we so obsessed with proving a point nobody actually cares about? It's literally just arguing for the sake of winning, which is basically the Rules Questions subforum in a nutshell.
KC is right. Obviously the rules are meant so that swarms take 150% of damage from alchemist fire. all swarms should 1d6 X 150%, in other words, if a normal PC tosses one and rolls a 4, the swarm should take 6 points. Plus one extra point for each square of the swarm that is hit by splash.
Now the RAW for Splash weapons and the RAW for Swarms contradict one another, but the RAI is clear. The RAW is wrong here.
My opinion on the rays is that "A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage" just like from a arrow. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune.
Can you tell me that a arrow should hurt a (tiny critter) swarm but a ray should not?
But that's not what the RAW sez, the RAW is unclear.
I'd also add back that swarms take 1d3 from a torch.
So to summarize from my perspective, the language used by the drafters indicates they wanted swarms to be immune to things which only affect one target/creature. Rays fit in that category, so I cast my 'vote' towards the notion that rays do not affect swarms.
Like arrows affect only one target/creature so all swarms should be immune.... oh wait.
;-)
Look the rules for swarms are badly written and contradict other sections.
Let us just admit this, FAQ this thread and mine, and go on.
Rays are not arrows, why would you expect them to behave the same with regard to swarms?So to summarize from my perspective, the language used by the drafters indicates they wanted swarms to be immune to things which only affect one target/creature. Rays fit in that category, so I cast my 'vote' towards the notion that rays do not affect swarms.Like arrows affect only one target/creature so all swarms should be immune.... oh wait.
;-)
Look the rules for swarms are badly written and contradict other sections.
Let us just admit this, FAQ this thread and mine, and go on.
No, they are not. I am not saying that the RAW sez they work the same, i am saying that the RAW should be changed so that they work the same.
So if you play that most rays cant effect a warm, and that alchemist fire does only 1pt, then vs say a Spider swarm, which is a CR 1 encounter and is common in Aps and even on the random monster chart, the flow chart should look like this for parties of 1-2 or even 3rd lvl:
1. Does the party have a Burning hands spell (or equiv)?
If Yes, then WIN.
If NO, then TPK.
Dont say "well alchmist fire" since you'd need NINE of them, which is hardly SOP in a low level party.
You MUST have a arcane caster (yes, there are a couple of divine caster who get that spell) and he/she MUST have Burning hands ready.
Really? Obviously a spider swarm is not meant to TPK any party without that or a similar spell.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, one can use lamp oil to light a square on fire, which will burn for 2 rounds for 1d3 damage (x1.5) and only costs 1sp per vial.
Keeping the swarm in the burning square is not an easy thing. My gunslinger had to stand in the oil and light it with her pistol once the swarm had entered her square. Highly suboptimal.
She told the party they were lucky the motto was "Explore, Report, Cooperate."
I said I wouldn't post here again, but we have two threads up talking about the same thing. This is counter productive.
I am on the side that rays work against swarms (excluding Disintegrate), but to the others trying to argue the point, you are arguing poorly, and are not adding any support to the cause (in fact you guys are just going around in circles). Ray spells, are not splash weapons, they are not even weapons (though they function similarly to ranged weapons).
So instead of trying to tell people that their interpretation is wrong (let's be honest, it's no more wrong than ours), place out your reasoning why you think a ray spell should work, in its entirety, and why you feel that an FAQ clarification is needed to help future rule decisions. If someone questions your reasoning, then answer to the best of your ability. If they point out flaws in your reasoning, just let them have their view on the matter.
DO NOT try telling someone that "If this works, then logically..." as that is not conductive to the search of a solution, because you are stating that the solution already exists and needs not be clarified.
I would love to see what an official ruling on the matter is, and not more posts about how a Splash Weapon should work compared to a Ray Spell.
TL;DR: Stop fighting over how something works and try to convince people that there is confusion that needs clarification. The goal isn't to win, but to show both sides of the story and let everyone else determine their feelings on the matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing people asserting that because splash weapons deal 150% damage to a swarm, that means they take full damage from a splash weapon. But that isn't what the rules actually say. The rules for splash weapons say "A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target."
Further, "You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. 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. 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."
Splash weapons do NOT say "a direct hit deals damage to all creatures in a square", which is the only way a swarm would take direct hit damage. The rules for swarms do not say "a swarm takes direct hit damage from a splash weapon, which is increased by 150%".
I'm not arguing that this is how it should be, quite the opposite, but that the rules on this are poorly written, and it's not a reading comprehension failure to interpret them in this manner. IF the intent is that swarms take direct hit damage from splash weapons, the rules have to say that. If I'm playing Pathfinder and the GM looks at the rules and says "welp, it looks like the swarm can only take splash damage", the argument of "lol obviously not the intent" isn't going to get me anywhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, one can use lamp oil to light a square on fire, which will burn for 2 rounds for 1d3 damage (x1.5) and only costs 1sp per vial.Keeping the swarm in the burning square is not an easy thing. My gunslinger had to stand in the oil and light it with her pistol once the swarm had entered her square. Highly suboptimal.
She told the party they were lucky the motto was "Explore, Report, Cooperate."
The 'spark' cantrip has a range, or someone can just toss a lit torch. It's easy to hit a square.
Swarms are slow. You get a bit of distance, fill a few squares with lamp oil, and light them up as the swarm closes with you. You're right, it takes a bit of teamwork, but at 1sp a pop, it's a fairly cheap method of dealing with swarms at low level.
"You can pour a pint of oil on the ground to cover an area 5 feet square, provided that the surface is smooth. If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 1d3 points of fire damage to each creature in the area." Well, to use the ultra RAWers here, that doesnt say it's an area attack, so no 1.5 damage! ;-)
And of course, some swarms fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing people asserting that because splash weapons deal 150% damage to a swarm, that means they take full damage from a splash weapon. But that isn't what the rules actually say. The rules for splash weapons say "A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target."
Further, "You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. 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. 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."
Splash weapons do NOT say "a direct hit deals damage to all creatures in a square", which is the only way a swarm would take direct hit damage. The rules for swarms do not say "a swarm takes direct hit damage from a splash weapon, which is increased by 150%".
I'm not arguing that this is how it should be, quite the opposite, but that the rules on this are poorly written, and it's not a reading comprehension failure to interpret them in this manner. IF the intent is that swarms take direct hit damage from splash weapons, the rules have to say that. If I'm playing Pathfinder and the GM looks at the rules and says "welp, it looks like the swarm can only take splash damage", the argument of "lol obviously not the intent" isn't going to get me anywhere.
They may be coming from the fact that 150% of the splash damage is still only 1 damage. The only splash weapons that existed at the time the rule was written are those in the core rulebook. Those splash weapons only deal 1 damage on a splash. 1 x 1.5 is 1.5, but since you always round down unless told otherwise that rounds down to 1. The exact same damage as it did before the 50% increase. On the other hand, if swarms take the direct hit damage, you can actually increase that by 50% and deal more damage.
If swarms could only take the splash damage, then the rule that they take an additional 50% damage from that is actually useless. At least it was at the time it was written. I believe that there have been additional rules created since then that increase a splash weapons spalsh damage.
I keep seeing people asserting that because splash weapons deal 150% damage to a swarm, that means they take full damage from a splash weapon. But that isn't what the rules actually say. The rules for splash weapons say "A hit deals direct hit damage to the target, and splash damage to all creatures within 5 feet of the target."
Further, "You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5. 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. 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."
Splash weapons do NOT say "a direct hit deals damage to all creatures in a square", which is the only way a swarm would take direct hit damage. The rules for swarms do not say "a swarm takes direct hit damage from a splash weapon, which is increased by 150%".
I'm not arguing that this is how it should be, quite the opposite, but that the rules on this are poorly written, and it's not a reading comprehension failure to interpret them in this manner. IF the intent is that swarms take direct hit damage from splash weapons, the rules have to say that. If I'm playing Pathfinder and the GM looks at the rules and says "welp, it looks like the swarm can only take splash damage", the argument of "lol obviously not the intent" isn't going to get me anywhere.
If so, then the swarms do NOT take 150% damage since 1.5 X 1 = 1.
Obviously that wasnt the intent.
I posted a FAQ thread on this, please hit FAQ.