| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Let us take Alchemist fire vs a swarm of Diminutive creatures.
" 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."
"A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. "
So, does the direct hit, rolling a 6 do:
A. Nothing.
B. 6 pts
C. 9 pts
d. other.
If the answer is A, then what does the line "such as splash weapons " mean? Splash weapons do 1 pt, so 1.5 X 1= 1. So splash weapons do NOT do half again.
I think this need a FAQ.
Most people seem to think d. 9 points (6 x 1.5).
Alchemist fire is not 'weapon damage', it's area of effect fire damage. Swarms are not immune to the direct hit of an alchemist fire.
A typo, I thought I had put in 'rolling a 4".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another rule is "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)" which could also describe the effect of a direct hit from a splash weapon.
But I support the idea that RAI is 9 damage. Specific trumps general, and the rule about 'splash weapons' doing damage +50% sounds more specific to me than a rule about 'weapons' doing no damage.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need for a FAQ. Lets be serious, you know exactly what it means.
There is no need for a FAQ. Lets be serious, you know exactly what it means.
What does it mean? Because it has been argued endlessly and in on of my PF tables is under debate now.
Another rule is "A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate)" which could also describe the effect of a direct hit from a splash weapon.
But I support the idea that RAI is 9 damage. Specific trumps general, and the rule about 'splash weapons' doing damage +50% sounds more specific to me than a rule about 'weapons' doing no damage.
Yes, i agree RIA= 9. But what does RAW say? That's why it need a FAQ.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no need for a FAQ. Lets be serious, you know exactly what it means.
Likely false, and DEFINITELY rude.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No. It's called being straight forward with you. I left the rude parts out. Not everything needs a FAQ. This is nonsense.
I know what most agree the RAI is, but that seems to disagree with the RAW is.
But what do YOU think it means?
Alchemists' Fire is a splash weapon; they deal full damage to whatever is at the center of the effect, and then splash damage to the surrounding squares.
They don't target a specific number of creatures, as they hit whatever is in the area, so that line of argument doesn't mean anything.
Yes, i agree RIA= 9. But what does RAW say?
RAW is ambiguous. It uses words like "weapon" that aren't clearly defined. (See 'Are Improvised Weapons weapons?' and other such debates.)
If there is a broad consensus over RAI, that seems good enough to me. Who wants to play a game where if you don't have a caster with area-effect spells you can only fight insect swarms by doing one splash damage per round?
|
Damage for a direct hit with a grenade-like "splash" weapon vs a swarm = dice result +50%. The whole of the alchemists' fire is a splash weapon, not merely the "splash damage". If you only hit the swarm with a splash, it takes the splash damage amount for the weapon +50%. For an alchemists' fire that is 1 + 0.5, which rounds to 1. For an alchemist bomb the splash damage is much more significant.
Where I have seen table variation is in deciding how much damage a swarm takes if multiple squares occupied by the swarm are within the area of effect. To use the alchemists' fire example, say a spider swarm occupying four squares is missed by Red the Rogue's alchemists' fire attack, but the flask lands just one square short and two of the squares occupied by the swarm would take "splash damage." This could be ruled as:
1. swarm takes 1 damage; it was hit by a splash, splash damage is 1 x 1.5 = 1
2. swarm takes 2 damage; it was hit in two squares by splashes, total splash damage is 2 x (1 x 1.5 = 1).
3. swarm takes 3 damage; it was hit in two squares for (2 x 1 x 1.5) = 3.
I'd rule it as option 2.
Using AoE effects in general on Large+ creatures works like option 1. I'd say that's enough precedent to settle swarms.
|
Damage for a direct hit with a grenade-like "splash" weapon vs a swarm = dice result +50%. The whole of the alchemists' fire is a splash weapon, not merely the "splash damage". If you only hit the swarm with a splash, it takes the splash damage amount for the weapon +50%. For an alchemists' fire that is 1 + 0.5, which rounds to 1. For an alchemist bomb the splash damage is much more significant.
Where I have seen table variation is in deciding how much damage a swarm takes if multiple squares occupied by the swarm are within the area of effect. To use the alchemists' fire example, say a spider swarm occupying four squares is missed by Red the Rogue's alchemists' fire attack, but the flask lands just one square short and two of the squares occupied by the swarm would take "splash damage." This could be ruled as:
1. swarm takes 1 damage; it was hit by a splash, splash damage is 1 x 1.5 = 1
2. swarm takes 2 damage; it was hit in two squares by splashes, total splash damage is 2 x (1 x 1.5 = 1).
3. swarm takes 3 damage; it was hit in two squares for (2 x 1 x 1.5) = 3.I'd rule it as option 2.
If you rule it as option 2 or 3 then you also have to rule that a direct hit on the swarm deals 1d6 and takes an additional 3(option 2) or 4(option 3) points of damage from the 3 squares worth of swarm that are within 5' of the direct hit.
Also if we really want to get into RAW interpretations then, an alchemist flask targeting the square (not the creature directly) is the ultimate swarm weapon since:
"A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash"
So the direct hit is to the square, every "Creature" within the swarm is within 5' of the square that was hit, so every "Creature" in the swarm takes 1 point of splash damage. So since swarms are typically 300 or more individual creatures you're dealing 300+ dmg from a single alchemist fire.
Tiny = 300 nonflying creatures or 1,000 flying creatures.
Diminutive = 1,500 nonflying creatures or 5,000 flying creatures
Fine = 10,000 nonflying or flying creatures.
|
|
Damage for a direct hit with a grenade-like "splash" weapon vs a swarm = dice result +50%. The whole of the alchemists' fire is a splash weapon, not merely the "splash damage". If you only hit the swarm with a splash, it takes the splash damage amount for the weapon +50%. For an alchemists' fire that is 1 + 0.5, which rounds to 1. For an alchemist bomb the splash damage is much more significant.
Where I have seen table variation is in deciding how much damage a swarm takes if multiple squares occupied by the swarm are within the area of effect. To use the alchemists' fire example, say a spider swarm occupying four squares is missed by Red the Rogue's alchemists' fire attack, but the flask lands just one square short and two of the squares occupied by the swarm would take "splash damage." This could be ruled as:
1. swarm takes 1 damage; it was hit by a splash, splash damage is 1 x 1.5 = 1
2. swarm takes 2 damage; it was hit in two squares by splashes, total splash damage is 2 x (1 x 1.5 = 1).
3. swarm takes 3 damage; it was hit in two squares for (2 x 1 x 1.5) = 3.I'd rule it as option 2.
If you rule it as option 2 or 3 then you also have to rule that a direct hit on the swarm deals 1d6 and takes an additional 3(option 2) or 4(option 3) points of damage from the 3 squares worth of swarm that are within 5' of the direct hit.
Also if we really want to get into RAW interpretations then, an alchemist flask targeting the square (not the creature directly) is the ultimate swarm weapon since:
"A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash"So the direct hit is to the square, every "Creature" within the swarm is within 5' of the square that was hit, so every "Creature" in the swarm takes 1 point of splash damage. So since swarms are typically 300 or more individual creatures you're dealing 300+ dmg from a single alchemist fire.
Tiny = 300 nonflying...
Same thing for negative channeling.
I'm now persuaded that my option 1 is correct.
I agree 1 is the answer. You only take 1 point of splash damage regardless of how large you are, and 1 x 1.5 is 1 in our world. It's not "1 point of damage per square within 5 feet" it's "1 point of damage per creature within 5 feet." You also can't target a grid section within the area of the creature itself (I mention this only because it came up recently in our group on Sunday).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we have solid RAI that everyone agrees on, why do we need legalistic RAW?
Because there are many that dont accept RAI as anything.
Damage for a direct hit with a grenade-like "splash" weapon vs a swarm = dice result +50%. The whole of the alchemists' fire is a splash weapon, not merely the "splash damage". If you only hit the swarm with a splash, it takes the splash damage amount for the weapon +50%. For an alchemists' fire that is 1 + 0.5, which rounds to 1. For an alchemist bomb the splash damage is much more significant.
Where I have seen table variation is in deciding how much damage a swarm takes if multiple squares occupied by the swarm are within the area of effect. To use the alchemists' fire example, say a spider swarm occupying four squares is missed by Red the Rogue's alchemists' fire attack, but the flask lands just one square short and two of the squares occupied by the swarm would take "splash damage." This could be ruled as:
1. swarm takes 1 damage; it was hit by a splash, splash damage is 1 x 1.5 = 1
2. swarm takes 2 damage; it was hit in two squares by splashes, total splash damage is 2 x (1 x 1.5 = 1).
3. swarm takes 3 damage; it was hit in two squares for (2 x 1 x 1.5) = 3.I'd rule it as option 2.
Please dont hijack this thread.
or agree that your RAI of the RAW is the RAI that the RAW is saying.
A good example I like is mounted combat. Personally I feel the RAW can't work and has no RAI. Any solution comes down to ignoring some part, OR using strange definitions of words. (Like directly towards meaning vaguely near)
The answer is 9. Splash damage (1) only happens when you fail the attack.
They are still arguing it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Really?
This has been brought up so often, for so long, completely unaddressed, that I think at this point we need to accept that it's actually a stupid question to be asking in the first place because everyone knows what the other half of the swarm rules mean. Splash weapons hurt swarms, for their full damage, and ignore the weapon immunity and targeting restrictions.
Do we really want to play in a system where non-magical characters have absolutely no options to fight a swarm because of such a pedantic technicality wrought from self-contradictory rules?
There is no point in arguing this because all it does is give ammunition to the most utterly inane testament to pedantry yet. If your DM is telling you that their swarm monster is somehow immune to alchemist fire, because they gloss over half the rules text to do it, you walk out of the building and don't play with them anymore, because they have abused the spirit of the game for a cheap win. That's my less than subtle opinion on this matter.
Yup. The fact that people can argue about anything doesn't mean that everything is worth arguing about.
I disagree, precisely by arguing one proves it has value and may I dare importance.
On a side note since this topic seems to be not moving forward, swarm can deal their damage with each move, thus twice a round since they have two moves.
You could say that burning (heh) 20gp for 1 point of damage is..... a bit... umm...
Yup. The fact that people can argue about anything doesn't mean that everything is worth arguing about.
I strongly, firmly, kindly, obnoxiously, repeatedly, mindlessly object m'lord!
|
|
Please dont hijack this thread.Damage for a direct hit with a grenade-like "splash" weapon vs a swarm = dice result +50%. The whole of the alchemists' fire is a splash weapon, not merely the "splash damage". If you only hit the swarm with a splash, it takes the splash damage amount for the weapon +50%. For an alchemists' fire that is 1 + 0.5, which rounds to 1. For an alchemist bomb the splash damage is much more significant.
Where I have seen table variation is in deciding how much damage a swarm takes if multiple squares occupied by the swarm are within the area of effect. To use the alchemists' fire example, say a spider swarm occupying four squares is missed by Red the Rogue's alchemists' fire attack, but the flask lands just one square short and two of the squares occupied by the swarm would take "splash damage." This could be ruled as:
1. swarm takes 1 damage; it was hit by a splash, splash damage is 1 x 1.5 = 1
2. swarm takes 2 damage; it was hit in two squares by splashes, total splash damage is 2 x (1 x 1.5 = 1).
3. swarm takes 3 damage; it was hit in two squares for (2 x 1 x 1.5) = 3.I'd rule it as option 2.
Not at all my intention. I answered your initial question, then gave some examples of the different ways that I have seen alchemist fire vs swarm handled in play, then offered my own opinion, which I subsequently revised after other posters' discussion. Thought I was contributing.
|
Do we really want to play in a system where non-magical characters have absolutely no options to fight a swarm because of such a pedantic technicality wrought from self-contradictory rules?
Heroes of the Streets has a feat, Rat Catcher, which allows non-magic characters to deal half normal damage to even the smallest swarm.
Plus swarms are not immune to poison, so inhaled poisons can be effective (like a poison cloud). The Poisoned Sand Tube from Ultimate Combat is a great way for a fighter, or other non-magic character, to cover an area with clouds of poison. The Poisoned Sand Tube is considered a Martial Weapon.
Really?
This has been brought up so often, for so long, completely unaddressed, that I think at this point we need to accept that it's actually a stupid question to be asking in the first place because everyone knows what the other half of the swarm rules mean. Splash weapons hurt swarms, for their full damage, and ignore the weapon immunity and targeting restrictions.
There is no point in arguing this because all it does is give ammunition to the most utterly inane testament to pedantry yet.
which is exactly why is needs to be FAQed, not argued.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No baby,
That is why it needs to be ignored.
Do we really want to play in a system where non-magical characters have absolutely no options to fight a swarm because of such a pedantic technicality wrought from self-contradictory rules?Heroes of the Streets has a feat, Rat Catcher, which allows non-magic characters to deal half normal damage to even the smallest swarm.
Plus swarms are not immune to poison, so inhaled poisons can be effective (like a poison cloud). The Poisoned Sand Tube from Ultimate Combat is a great way for a fighter, or other non-magic character, to cover an area with clouds of poison. The Poisoned Sand Tube is considered a Martial Weapon.
Ergh, I've used that feat actually. I should know that.
BUT, this was with a character with Martial Flexibility, so he didn't have to take it as a permanent option. He also had Energy Mastery.
Okay, so there do exist options, but not every character is a Brawler or a fighter with Barroom Brawler, and a lot of those options aren't available or extremely unreasonable to take at first. To kill a spider swarm at first level requires the entirety of a full BAB's starting wealth to accomplish. If you do not have a sorcerer or wizard and they didn't bring along burning hands, you are shit out of luck.
Also poisons worth a damn are horrendously more expensive than even alchemist fires. If I was really going to blow several hundred gold for killing a swarm, I'd do it with alchemist fire. If I remembered to bring along 30 vials of the stuff to kill one Wasp Swarm, a CR 3 creature.
I guess I am a primitive, unless there is a roleplay reason not to, no junior adventurer is without a few vials of kerosene/lamp oil and rags to make a couple emergency molotovs.
Indeed, but if this was how splash weapons work, then the primary reason for taking those kinds of equipment, which is to fight swarms, is entirely useless.
Every party should have those items. But this significantly weakens their impact and the ability to combat swarms at all. Frankly, this means swarms are ludicrously under CR'd as well.
Don't forget that a Torch dose 1point of Energy damage, that Swarms are not immune to.
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.
|
|
Ergh, I've used that feat actually. I should know that.BUT, this was with a character with Martial Flexibility, so he didn't have to take it as a permanent option. He also had Energy Mastery.
Okay, so there do exist options, but not every character is a Brawler or a fighter with Barroom Brawler, and a lot of those options aren't available or extremely unreasonable to take at first. To kill a spider swarm at first level requires the entirety of a full BAB's starting wealth to accomplish. If you do not have a sorcerer or wizard and they didn't bring along burning hands, you are s#*% out of luck.
Also poisons worth a damn are horrendously more expensive than even alchemist fires. If I was really going to blow several hundred gold for killing a swarm, I'd do it with alchemist fire. If I remembered to bring along 30 vials of the stuff to kill one Wasp Swarm, a CR 3 creature.
For starters, the easiest option with swarms is to just run away. They usually aren't very fast and they can't make oppertunity attacks, so fleeing should be the most obvious and easiest option.
Regarding poisons, depends if you are PFS or not. For non-PFS character, you can actually take poison from living creatures. One of the many advantages of having a pet/companion with a poison ability. For PFS, yeah, poison is very overpriced and often impractical. Still, there are times where it can be an advantage to spray and area with a poison cloud, flee, and come back to dead or incompacitated enemies - that is the premise of bug spray.
Regarding CRB solutions to swarms at 1st level: Lamp Oil, Splash Weapons, Channeled Energy, Burning Hands, and Summon Nature's Ally 1 (Mite has Vermin Empathy, would require a shared language to order it. The required language is Undercommon. Might not have enough time due to the short duration, but up to the GM and worth attempting).
I'll additionally note that Burning Hands is part of the Fire Domain, so a 1st level Druid or Cleric can cast it as a Domain spell. A scroll of Burning hands is only 25GP, so a non-caster character could also attempt it if they were trained in UMD.
And again, you could run away, or sneak past, or find another way to avoid the swarm. Obscuring Mist can work well against swarms that lack Scent or Blindsense. You certainly don't need to fight them in every encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
which is exactly why is needs to be FAQed, not argued.
Personally I'm getting sick of FAQs that merely repeat rules that already exist or state the obvious. So please no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A bit official clarification about how swarms work might actually be worthwhile - I've seen GMs confused by all this. Can swarms double move? Does a torch actually work on diminutives or is that weapon damage or an effect that targets a single creature?
A bit official clarification about how swarms work might actually be worthwhile - I've seen GMs confused by all this. Can swarms double move? Does a torch actually work on diminutives or is that weapon damage or an effect that targets a single creature?The fire damage from a torch is not 'weapon damage', it's fire damage. However, it is a single target effect, and therefore doesn't affect swarms.
Can you please quote where it states Fire damage is single target? As far as I can tell, any number of creatures can touch it in a single round. Making it useful against Swarms. It's not an area effect, so no +50%, but does not end after effecting a single target like a Ray spell.
It feels right to me that a swarm of spiders wouldn't like being hit with fire.
Is every damage source either an area effect or a specified-number-of-targets effect? Would a Scorching Ray work?
If you hit a swarm of larger critters with a sword, the swarm takes damage. So swords are capable of affecting more than one creature at a time.
Can you please quote where it states Fire damage is single target? As far as I can tell, any number of creatures can touch it in a single round. Making it useful against Swarms. It's not an area effect, so no +50%, but does not end after effecting a single target like a Ray spell.Because nowhere in the description does it say that it does damage to every creature in a square. You have to hit a creature with it, and it only does damage to that creature.
Honestly I'm not sure what you're asking, it's like trying to prove that the rules say a sword only hits one creature at a time. I'm sure you can parse the rules to support it, but obvious things like this are sometimes hard to explicitly quote.
You are correct a weapon would not hit every creature in a square. It would hit the Swarm. Swarms are a special case, it can be single targeted. A Ray spell ends when it hits one creature. Hence would not work against Swarms. A torch would also hit just the Swarm. But would not go out when it hit the first of the creatures in a Swarm. Which would disqualify it from the immunity of a Swarm of any effect that targets a specific number of creatures.
A Ray spell ends when it hits one creature. Hence would not work against Swarms.
Source? It looks to me like a ray is used like a ranged weapon, and a ranged weapon hits a 'target', not a 'creature'. A swarm is a single target composed of multiple creatures.
Since we have Disintegrate as an example of something that doesn't work, I think rays don't work by RAI, but I still think it's a bit confusing.
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.
All the above are single creature hits.
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.
This also shows that if you hit any other creature or object the spell is blocked.