How many creatures can you target with a single arrow?
A: One.Q: Is that a specific number?
A: Yes.Q: Are all swarms immune to arrows?
A: No.
I'm sorry, but I missed the justification for that somewhere in the noise. Could you kindly explain how - aside from an exception - arrows work on swarms?
Because the immunity/half damage for weapons is based on the size of the creatures that make up the swarms, and is applicable only to weapons. A ray is a spell with weapons like properties but isn't a weapon. And is governed by the fact that it targets a single creature. I guess the question is in your view does a ray that hits a creature stop, or continue on past that creature. I see it that it stops, and so one spider/wasp dead, and nothing else. An arrow will have momentum and continue thru the swarm causing some damage, none in the case of a swarm made of tiny creatures. Now one could argue that given the rays weapon like characteristics that it can be viewed as to do similar to an arrow. I don't think that is how it works, but that just how I read the rules on ray effects.
I still don't understand how you see Energy damage is Weapon damage. I guess I never will.
Thank you for attempting to show me how you think it should work.
Flaming states it is extra damage on a weapon attack. So it is part of the weapon attack. However, tiny swarms don't take "half damage from weapons" they "takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons". Since fire is not slashing or piercing, they don't half it.
|
Hey guys (pokes head into hornet's nest briefly) - 3.5 srd had some wording on torches and flaming weapons damaging swarms (I think it was the only way to deal with them other than alchemist's fire and oil pints at low levels...)
Did this wording carry over into the prd? Did I utterly dream up that wording or received some kind of implanted memory from an evil spellcaster?
Thank you!
(ducks out of hornet's nest and waits at the foot of the tree... ;) )
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found the old wording:
"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:
A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon 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 hit, 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."
Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the Hornet's Swarm PDK. :-)
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
The fire damage is an effect, not weapon damage.
Swarm Traits tells us how how to deal with effect damage.|
|
Based on the above and based on the current swarm wording in regards to splash weapon, by extrapolation alchemist's fire should deal its full damage on swarms + 50% (i.e. target the swarm for direct hit) then next round an additional 1d6 (or additional 1d6 + 50% right?)
Same for alchemist bombs
Edit: except regular bombs don't have extra damage next round, unless they're explosive bombs.
PRD:
"Explosive bomb*: The alchemist's bombs now have a splash radius of 10 feet rather than 5 feet. Creatures that take a direct hit from an explosive bomb catch fire, taking 1d6 points of fire damage each round until the fire is extinguished. Extinguishing the flames is a full-round action that requires a Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target with a +2 to the save. Dousing the target with at least 2 gallons of water automatically extinguishes the flames."
--> this makes Explosive Bombs pretty effective against swarms... wow!
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Welcome to the Hornet's Swarm PDK. :-)
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The fire damage is an effect, not weapon damage.
Swarm Traits tells us how how to deal with effect damage.
In that case, the swarm is immune to it because it is an effect which targets a specific number of creatures (the one hit by the weapon).
Welcome to the Hornet's Swarm PDK. :-)
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The fire damage is an effect, not weapon damage.
Swarm Traits tells us how how to deal with effect damage.
This is correct. For example, a flaming weapon used against a creature with high DR, still does fire damage even if the DR blocked/prevented all weapon damage. Such a weapon would not however apply poison as actual physical damage needs to occur for the poison rider to kick in.
Weapon damage is the physical damage that a weapon does - one of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning. Fire damage is energy damage - which is separate from the weapon damage. Sneak attack adds to weapon damage done, a magus shocking grasp adds (not adds to) energy damage as an additional effect on top of weapon damage on a successful hit. Innate energy damage on a magical weapon (like flaming) is similar to the magus using spellstrike.
However, a shocking grasp only targets a single creature, so would not be effective against a swarm. Flaming weapons do not have that limitation (unless I missed a rule somewhere that states that?)
|
In that case, the swarm is immune to it because it is an effect which targets a specific number of creatures (the one hit by the weapon).Welcome to the Hornet's Swarm PDK. :-)
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The fire damage is an effect, not weapon damage.
Swarm Traits tells us how how to deal with effect damage.
Weapon rules and spell rules for dealing with swarms aren't the same.
In that case, the swarm is immune to it because it is an effect which targets a specific number of creatures (the one hit by the weapon).
When a swarm is hit by a weapon it is not a hit against a single creature in the swarm. This can be shown because some sizes of swarms still take some damage from weapons. If the weapon only hit a single creature (like a ray) then it would have negligible effect and do no damage.
In the case of the diminutive swarms the weapon still strikes multiple creatures, but either their numbers are so vast that hitting 10-20 creatures has negligible effect, or such creatures are merely brushed aside by the physical weapon. It still hits creatures in the swarm, it just does no damage. Ever tried killing a mosquito with a sword? Or a swarm of mosquito's? Just not an effective way to go about it. Make that a flaming branch taken out of the firepit though and that has some effectiveness in dispersing the swarm.
Arrows are not spells. An arrow would continue through some amount of rats and deal (halved) damage to the swarm. This is the same rational for a sword dealing damage against a swarm of rats.
The ray only affects one rat. It is magic and can only affect one. This is why it does no damage to the swarm. Why? Magic.
As always, if you don't like it, you can house-rule in your game, but its important to know what the rules actually say before you make changes.
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
I'm sorry, but I missed the justification for that somewhere in the noise. Could you kindly explain how - aside from an exception - arrows work on swarms?How many creatures can you target with a single arrow?
A: One.Q: Is that a specific number?
A: Yes.Q: Are all swarms immune to arrows?
A: No.
"A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons."
Based on the above and based on the current swarm wording in regards to splash weapon, by extrapolation alchemist's fire should deal its full damage on swarms + 50% (i.e. target the swarm for direct hit) then next round an additional 1d6 (or additional 1d6 + 50% right?)
Same for alchemist bombs
I started a FAQ thread on this. Please hit the FAQ there, if you are interested.
This is correct. For example, a flaming weapon used against a creature with high DR, still does fire damage even if the DR blocked/prevented all weapon damage. Such a weapon would not however apply poison as actual physical damage needs to occur for the poison rider to kick in.Welcome to the Hornet's Swarm PDK. :-)
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.The fire damage is an effect, not weapon damage.
Swarm Traits tells us how how to deal with effect damage.
Spells, spell-like abilities, and energy attacks (even nonmagical fire) ignore damage reduction.
DR specifically doesn't apply to energy damage. The energy damage is still extra damage being applied by the weapon.
Weapon damage is the physical damage that a weapon does - one of slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning.
Is there a source for this? I know weapons have their type of damage specified as B/P/S but what states that "weapon damage" means B/P/S damage? Any extra damage added to a weapon should be weapon damage.
Additional Damage Dice: Some magic weapons deal additional dice of damage. Unlike other modifiers to damage, additional dice of damage are not multiplied when the attacker scores a critical hit.
This sure sounds like the additional dice of damage you get from weapon abilities is not a separate effect, but additional to the weapon damage.
Fire damage is energy damage - which is separate from the weapon damage. Sneak attack adds to weapon damage done, a magus shocking grasp adds (not adds to) energy damage as an additional effect on top of weapon damage on a successful hit. Innate energy damage on a magical weapon (like flaming) is similar to the magus using spellstrike.
I disagree that fire damage is seperate from the weapon damage. I also disagree that flaming functions like magus spellstrike. You agree that sneak attack is extra weapon damage. That is good. Lets look at the exact wording.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
So, the rouge's attack deals extra damage under certain conditions. Starting with 1d6. Great. Now lets look at flaming's exact wording.
Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.
Very similar. Except this extra damage happens to be fire damage instead of whatever type (B/S/P) the weapon deals. Its still extra damage the same as sneak attack is, just with a different type (making it energy damage).
Flaming adds extra damage while spellstrike adds the effects of a spell. The spell damage is not extra damage, but instead a second source of damage. Spellstrike lets a magus use a weapon to deliver a touch spell. Similar to a spell caster using a natural weapon to deliver a touch spell. The spell and the weapon are independent of each other (other than requiring a successful attack to deliver the spell).
However, a shocking grasp only targets a single creature, so would not be effective against a swarm. Flaming weapons do not have that limitation (unless I missed a rule somewhere that states that?)
Flaming weapons deal extra damage to the target hit by the attack. Against a tiny swarm, they would deal full damage, because they are only resistant to slashing/piercing damage. Against fine/dim swarms, they deal none, because it is extra damage on the weapon attack, and they are immune to all weapon damage. If you had a Bane (Animals) weapon, and attack a bat swarm (diminutive) the bats would be immune to the attack.
If someone can find where weapon damage is defined as B/P/S only, then I would agree that other damage types (energy, etc) would still damage swarms immune to weapon damage.
Arrows are not spells. An arrow would continue through some amount of rats and deal (halved) damage to the swarm. This is the same rational for a sword dealing damage against a swarm of rats.
The ray only affects one rat. It is magic and can only affect one. This is why it does no damage to the swarm. Why? Magic.
As always, if you don't like it, you can house-rule in your game, but its important to know what the rules actually say before you make changes.
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures
Rays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.
Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Found the old wording:
"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon 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 hit, 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."
Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...
That line is missing from the D20 open source license, so Paizo couldn't port it over, and they didn't put in some text replacing that, probably to avoid problems with copyrights.
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creaturesRays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.
Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.
Yes, that's very nice. You can quote the rules. And while indeed that is a line from the rules, it seems to be contradicted by other lines.
However, I wasnt arguing what the rules ARE but what they SHOULD BE after the FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I started a FAQ thread on this. Please hit the FAQ there, if you are interested.Based on the above and based on the current swarm wording in regards to splash weapon, by extrapolation alchemist's fire should deal its full damage on swarms + 50% (i.e. target the swarm for direct hit) then next round an additional 1d6 (or additional 1d6 + 50% right?)
Same for alchemist bombs
Good idea! FAQ'ed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That line is missing from the D20 open source license, so Paizo couldn't port it over, and they didn't put in some text replacing that, probably to avoid problems with copyrights.Found the old wording:
"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon 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 hit, 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."
Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...
No, all of that does appear in the SRD. It is in the Swarm creature entry, not the swarm creature traits. 3.5 D&D had all swarms listed under a single swarm entry in the Monster Manual - that is where those rules appeared. Paizo decided to split the various swarms up, putting each with its base creature instead of all in a single location. When they did so, they either deliberately or accidentally forgot to move the rules that appeared in the swarm creature entry to somewhere else.
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creaturesRays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.
Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.
Yes, that's very nice. You can quote the rules. And while indeed that is a line from the rules, it seems to be contradicted by other lines.
However, I wasnt arguing what the rules ARE but what they SHOULD BE after the FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.
Got it! So with your proposed change, would fine/dim swarms that are immune to weapon damage be vulnerable to ray of cold?
|
|
That line is missing from the D20 open source license, so Paizo couldn't port it over, and they didn't put in some text replacing that, probably to avoid problems with copyrights.Found the old wording:
"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon 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 hit, 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."
Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...
Understood. It's HASBRO's fault then. Bad HASBRO, bad! (IMO, this text should have been part of the creature type description in the first place because it's a special rule on those items that only affect swarms; the equipment section of the 3.5 srd shows gauntlet + 1 pt. fire for torch i.e. same as prd)
|
|
No, all of that does appear in the SRD. It is in the Swarm creature entry, not the swarm creature traits. 3.5 D&D had all swarms listed under a single swarm entry in the Monster Manual - that is where those rules appeared. Paizo decided to split the various swarms up, putting each with its base creature instead of all in a single location. When they did so, they either deliberately or accidentally forgot to move the rules that appeared in the swarm creature entry to somewhere else.That line is missing from the D20 open source license, so Paizo couldn't port it over, and they didn't put in some text replacing that, probably to avoid problems with copyrights.Found the old wording:
"Vulnerabilities Of Swarms
Swarms are extremely difficult to fight with physical attacks. However, they have a few special vulnerabilities, as follows:A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon 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 hit, 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."
Edit: I think Paizo just forgot to carry over the above wording. I'm just going to assume it's still valid...
I'm back to "Bad Paizo, bad!" :P
I'm back to "Bad Paizo, bad!" :P
You can still blame Wizards of the Coast too. That section should of been included in the swarm traits rules, as it is something that affects all swarms. IT shouldn't of been in a separate section.
You can't blame Hasbro though, they never cared about D&D. They just wanted Magic: The Gathering and the Pokemon card game (which at the time was owned by WotC.) You can't even find any of the Dungeons and Dragons stuff mentioned on their website, aside from some Lego knock off toys (Kre-o).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Got it! So with your proposed change, would fine/dim swarms that are immune to weapon damage be vulnerable to ray of cold?
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creaturesRays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.
Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.
Yes, that's very nice. You can quote the rules. And while indeed that is a line from the rules, it seems to be contradicted by other lines.
However, I wasnt arguing what the rules ARE but what they SHOULD BE after the FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.
No. Just like arrows, I think the analogy works.
I also think that flaming on a weapon should add (if the weapon can damage at all), and that the direct hit from a splash weapon should do 150% damage, and that a torch should do damage to all normal swarms.
But that's why we need a FAQ.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.
There's no reason why it should either though. Magic is sort of by definition arbitrary in nature.
It seems perfectly reasonable then to say that because it's a magical effect, it targets a single creature which makes it ineffective against a swarm, whereas an arrow's momentum isn't necessarily stopped by the first creature, allowing it to slice through many more (and therefore do half damage against an appropriately sized swarm).
Got it! So with your proposed change, would fine/dim swarms that are immune to weapon damage be vulnerable to ray of cold?
But you see, we dont agree on 'what the rules actually say". Which is why we need a FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creaturesRays are spells. Swarms are immune to spells that target a specific number of creatures. When you cast a ray, you make a ranged touch attack against a target. That is 1 specific creature. So swarms are immune.
Arrows are weapons, so swarms follow their rules for weapons against them. That is why a ray does not work like an arrow.
Yes, that's very nice. You can quote the rules. And while indeed that is a line from the rules, it seems to be contradicted by other lines.
However, I wasnt arguing what the rules ARE but what they SHOULD BE after the FAQ.
There is no reason why a ray cant work like a arrow. That's how the FAQ should fix this.
No. Just like arrows, I think the analogy works.
I also think that flaming on a weapon should add (if the weapon can damage at all), and that the direct hit from a splash weapon should do 150% damage, and that a torch should do damage to all normal swarms.
But that's why we need a FAQ.
I think its a consistent house rule you could make that does make sense and reduces the power of swarms by letting more affect them. As you said, fine/dim swarms wouldn't take damage, so those are still dangerous.
I agree flaming adds full damage to a swarm if the weapon does damage. If the swarm is immune to weapon damage, flaming doesn't add any. Splash weapons do 150%.
As for torches, "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." I don't think a torch should be more effective than a flaming club against a swarm. So, if the swarm is immune to weapon damage, and your flaming club does no damage. There is no reason a torch would do damage to it either.
Guys, come on, common sense here.
if you have a swarm of diminuative creatures and can hurt it by sticking an arrow through the head of one rat, why can't you hurt it by freezing one of said rats solid?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, come on, common sense here.
if you have a swarm of diminuative creatures and can hurt it by sticking an arrow through the head of one rat, why can't you hurt it by freezing one of said rats solid?
Because the arrow isn't sticking through one rats head, but cuts through a number of them. The one rat you freeze solid isn't meaningful as far as hit points go. (16hp / 300 rats = .05hp a rat).
The average longbow doing 1d8 damage ranging from 1 nonlethal (1 damage halved to .5 round down to 0 means 1 nonlethal minimum damage) to 4, meaning 20-80 rats. The ray of frost is 1/20th to 1/80th as effective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, come on, common sense here.
if you have a swarm of diminuative creatures and can hurt it by sticking an arrow through the head of one rat, why can't you hurt it by freezing one of said rats solid?
Because the arrow isn't sticking through one rats head, but cuts through a number of them. The one rat you freeze solid isn't meaningful as far as hit points go. (16hp / 300 rats = .05hp a rat).
The average longbow doing 1d8 damage ranging from 1 nonlethal (1 damage halved to .5 round down to 0 means 1 nonlethal minimum damage) to 4, meaning 20-80 rats. The ray of frost is 1/20th to 1/80th as effective.
if you can get rat kabob out of an arrow you can get a bucket of ratsickles out of a ray of frost.
if you can get rat kabob out of an arrow you can get a bucket of ratsickles out of a ray of frost.Guys, come on, common sense here.
if you have a swarm of diminuative creatures and can hurt it by sticking an arrow through the head of one rat, why can't you hurt it by freezing one of said rats solid?
Because the arrow isn't sticking through one rats head, but cuts through a number of them. The one rat you freeze solid isn't meaningful as far as hit points go. (16hp / 300 rats = .05hp a rat).
The average longbow doing 1d8 damage ranging from 1 nonlethal (1 damage halved to .5 round down to 0 means 1 nonlethal minimum damage) to 4, meaning 20-80 rats. The ray of frost is 1/20th to 1/80th as effective.
Now we're back to the "how do you see a Ray spell functioning?"
I see a ray like a laser pointer dot. It goes *blip* as you point and the thing it touched gets the effect.
It sounds like you see it as more of a beam or longer duration instead of instantaneous.
if you can get rat kabob out of an arrow you can get a bucket of ratsickles out of a ray of frost.
I don't see why you'd assume that to be the case though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why you'd assume that to be the case though.
I really don't have conversations where one persons ideas are assumptions and another persons are "the rules"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you see it as more of a beam or longer duration instead of instantaneous.
No. I just see the weapon like spell working the same as a weapon in this case.
|
No. I just see the weapon like spell working the same as a weapon in this case.
It sounds like you see it as more of a beam or longer duration instead of instantaneous.
Except the magical effect your thinking of would be line effect, ray of frost is not a line it is ray which only effect the singular creature it hits. In this case that would be the singular rat, the ray itself makes no distinction about the size of the creature it hits Tiny or Gargantuan it doesn't matter.
Except the magical effect your thinking of would be line effect,
No. It would not.
Do you have any more insight about how you know what i'm thinking more than i do?
Except, of course, that rays don't behave like arrows. You get one. Enjoy your SINGLE ratsickle! ;)
They do behave in the same fashion...
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.
Since there really is no text as to how exactly a bow and arrow is used other than you must use two hands, I think it safe to assume it is a ranged attack roll:
Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
Attack BonusYour attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
Just pointing it out, not saying your interpretation is wrong.
|
|
Except the magical effect your thinking of would be line effect,No. It would not.
Do you have any more insight about how you know what i'm thinking more than i do?
Thinking about it I was wrong to assume a line effect, what you describe sounds more like a small scale Area of Effect spell. Ray of Frost is cast, hits the rat and effects the surround rats. This is how you justify the ray effecting a swarm (Thematically).
However as I stated in my other post, a ray only ever effects one creature per ray regardless of size. That's why it doesn't effect swarm regardless of the size of component creatures and why weapons do.
A sword or arrow has momentum behind it that allows it to hit multiple creatures int e swarm with each hit, but the magic of the spell discharges into one creature.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thinking about it I was wrong to assume a line effect, what you describe sounds more like a small scale Area of Effect spell. Ray of Frost is cast, hits the rat and effects the surround rats. This is how you justify the ray effecting a swarm (Thematically).
Flashlight beam of freezy ouchie.
|
|
Flashlight beam of freezy ouchie.
Thinking about it I was wrong to assume a line effect, what you describe sounds more like a small scale Area of Effect spell. Ray of Frost is cast, hits the rat and effects the surround rats. This is how you justify the ray effecting a swarm (Thematically).
Now that made me giggle.
Flashlight beam of freezy ouchie.
There's our difference. You see a flashlight, I see a laser pointer.
Except, of course, that rays don't behave like arrows. You get one. Enjoy your SINGLE ratsickle! ;)They do behave in the same fashion...
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.Since there really is no text as to how exactly a bow and arrow is used other than you must use two hands, I think it safe to assume it is a ranged attack roll:
Just pointing it out, not saying your interpretation is wrong.Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
Attack BonusYour attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
Certain special abilities (for instance rays, kinetic blasts, and mystic bolts) can specifically be selected with feats like Weapon Focus and Improved Critical. They still...
Okay... and that changes the way they attack a target... how?
Except the magical effect your thinking of would be line effect,No. It would not.
Do you have any more insight about how you know what i'm thinking more than i do?
Thinking about it I was wrong to assume a line effect, what you describe sounds more like a small scale Area of Effect spell. Ray of Frost is cast, hits the rat and effects the surround rats. This is how you justify the ray effecting a swarm (Thematically).
However as I stated in my other post, a ray only ever effects one creature per ray regardless of size. That's why it doesn't effect swarm regardless of the size of component creatures and why weapons do.
A sword or arrow has momentum behind it that allows it to hit multiple creatures int e swarm with each hit, but the magic of the spell discharges into one creature.
And not to say anyone is wrong, but I would like to continue to point out that Ray of Frost says it attacks "a target" and not "a creature". They may seem the same, but they are different.
Except, of course, that rays don't behave like arrows. You get one. Enjoy your SINGLE ratsickle! ;)They do behave in the same fashion...
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.Since there really is no text as to how exactly a bow and arrow is used other than you must use two hands, I think it safe to assume it is a ranged attack roll:
Just pointing it out, not saying your interpretation is wrong.Attack Roll
An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target's Armor Class, you hit and deal damage.
Automatic Misses and Hits: A natural 1 (the d20 comes up 1) on an attack roll is always a miss. A natural 20 (the d20 comes up 20) is always a hit. A natural 20 is also a threat—a possible critical hit (see the attack action).
Attack BonusYour attack bonus with a melee weapon is the following:
Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier
With a ranged weapon, your attack bonus is the following:
Base attack bonus + Dexterity modifier + size modifier + range penalty
They don't work because swarms treat spells differently than weapon attacks. A spell must affect an area or a non-specific number of creatures to affect a swarm. Ray of cold does neither, so the swarm is immune to it.
And not to say anyone is wrong, but I would like to continue to point out that Ray of Frost says it attacks "a target" and not "a creature". They may seem the same, but they are different.
A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)
Ray of cold attacks a target. Singular. Singular target spells are explicitly included in the swarm immunity to spells.