toastedamphibian wrote: John Murdock wrote: , especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon Sand Tubes and certain guns disagree... i should have precise melee weapon and unarmed strike but i think you get what i wanted to say
Jhaeman wrote: Cavall wrote: Agreed. Both sides have decent points. FAQ it and let the team give an answer. What? I was hoping for 99 more posts of "Yes!" "No!" "Yes!" "No!" +1
John Murdock wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: John Murdock wrote: , especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon Sand Tubes and certain guns disagree... i should have precise melee weapon and unarmed strike but i think you get what i wanted to say Oh... I apologize in that case.
I SHOULD have said Efreeti Touch disagrees.
toastedamphibian wrote: John Murdock wrote: toastedamphibian wrote: John Murdock wrote: , especially since you roar to make a cone attack (15foot) which by logic is impossible to do with a weapon Sand Tubes and certain guns disagree... i should have precise melee weapon and unarmed strike but i think you get what i wanted to say Oh... I apologize in that case.
I SHOULD have said Efreeti Touch disagrees. its the same as the dragonroar feat you are not doing an attack but making a burst of fire instead of sound now you are playing with semantic
No, it is the same wording as trample. You deal your unarmed strike damage to all creatures in the cone. And also a little bit of fire damage.
toastedamphibian wrote: No, it is the same wording as trample. You deal your unarmed strike damage to all creatures in the cone. And also a little bit of fire damage. trample
''Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier.''
its the same wording as dragonroar and efreeti touch you deal an amount of damage = to x, were x can be slam damage, unarmed damage or whatever you want it to be damage
The wording isn't exactly the same.
With Efreeti touch, it says, directly, that you do unarmed strike (weapon) damage. With trample it says that you do damage 'equivalent' to your slam damage. Slightly different. Different enough to call one 'weapon damage' and the other not? I don't think so, but obviously some might.
With Efreeti touch, there is no question that RAW says it is weapon damage, it's right there, directly, in the text.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Is the swarm wearing mithral chain shirts?
_Ozy_ wrote: The wording isn't exactly the same.
With Efreeti touch, it says, directly, that you do unarmed strike (weapon) damage. With trample it says that you do damage 'equivalent' to your slam damage. Slightly different. Different enough to call one 'weapon damage' and the other not? I don't think so, but obviously some might.
With Efreeti touch, there is no question that RAW says it is weapon damage, it's right there, directly, in the text.
i have reread it and yep its seem like a weapon damage, but it make no sense since its a cone of fire you are making
Cantankerous Rules Lawyer wrote: Is the swarm wearing mithral chain shirts? what help would it give to the discussion? the question make no sense
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: The wording isn't exactly the same.
With Efreeti touch, it says, directly, that you do unarmed strike (weapon) damage. With trample it says that you do damage 'equivalent' to your slam damage. Slightly different. Different enough to call one 'weapon damage' and the other not? I don't think so, but obviously some might.
With Efreeti touch, there is no question that RAW says it is weapon damage, it's right there, directly, in the text.
i have reread it and yep its seem like a weapon damage, but it make no sense since its a cone of fire you are making Not quite sure what you mean. Of course it doesn't make 'sense' if you are trying to tie it to any sense of 'realism' because it's not even close to being a realistic ability. Nonetheless, according to the rules, it is weapon damage, at least the non-fire part is weapon damage.
Now, knowing that, does it make any less sense for trample to also be weapon damage?
_Ozy_ wrote: John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: The wording isn't exactly the same.
With Efreeti touch, it says, directly, that you do unarmed strike (weapon) damage. With trample it says that you do damage 'equivalent' to your slam damage. Slightly different. Different enough to call one 'weapon damage' and the other not? I don't think so, but obviously some might.
With Efreeti touch, there is no question that RAW says it is weapon damage, it's right there, directly, in the text.
i have reread it and yep its seem like a weapon damage, but it make no sense since its a cone of fire you are making Not quite sure what you mean. Of course it doesn't make 'sense' if you are trying to tie it to any sense of 'realism' because it's not even close to being a realistic ability. Nonetheless, according to the rules, it is weapon damage, at least the non-fire part is weapon damage.
Now, knowing that, does it make any less sense for trample to also be weapon damage? even if it would make sense the wording make it look like a non weapon damage because go look the ability whirlwind of the elemental, everybody play it that it affect swarm but use the same wording as trample
whirlwind
''Creatures one or more size categories smaller than the whirlwind might take damage when caught in the whirlwind (generally damage equal to the monster’s slam attack for a creature of its size) and may be lifted into the air.''
the efreeti touch make it sound like a weapon damage but not trample nor whirlwind
I freely admit there's a sliver of daylight between the wording of Efreeti Touch and trample that would let a purist argue that one is weapon damage and one is not.
My contention is that reading the rules to that level of detail is not nearly supported by the care put into the wording in the first place. It presumes a verbal accuracy that we have plenty of evidence, just doesn't exist.
Furthermore, when you consider the practical effect of what the Efreeti Touch ability actually does, a 'cone' of weapon damage, compared to what trample does, slam damage to everyone in a path, obviously there can be no argument that trample isn't weapon damage only based on the fact that it affects creatures in an area without an attack roll.
So all you have is that sliver of wording difference. Again, IMO, not enough to call it different.
_Ozy_ wrote: I freely admit there's a sliver of daylight between the wording of Efreeti Touch and trample that would let a purist argue that one is weapon damage and one is not.
My contention is that reading the rules to that level of detail is not nearly supported by the care put into the wording in the first place. It presumes a verbal accuracy that we have plenty of evidence, just doesn't exist.
Furthermore, when you consider the practical effect of what the Efreeti Touch ability actually does, a 'cone' of weapon damage, compared to what trample does, slam damage to everyone in a path, obviously there can be no argument that trample isn't weapon damage only based on the fact that it affects creatures in an area without an attack roll.
So all you have is that sliver of wording difference. Again, IMO, not enough to call it different.
then with your reasoning an air elemental with the whirlwind abilities is a weapon damage and deal no damage to a swarm, congratulation you just killed a lot of party because they relies on those thing to kill swarm since it is more effective than alchemical fire or casting a lot of spell on a swarm just to kill it
John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I freely admit there's a sliver of daylight between the wording of Efreeti Touch and trample that would let a purist argue that one is weapon damage and one is not.
My contention is that reading the rules to that level of detail is not nearly supported by the care put into the wording in the first place. It presumes a verbal accuracy that we have plenty of evidence, just doesn't exist.
Furthermore, when you consider the practical effect of what the Efreeti Touch ability actually does, a 'cone' of weapon damage, compared to what trample does, slam damage to everyone in a path, obviously there can be no argument that trample isn't weapon damage only based on the fact that it affects creatures in an area without an attack roll.
So all you have is that sliver of wording difference. Again, IMO, not enough to call it different.
then with your reasoning an air elemental with the whirlwind abilities is a weapon damage and deal no damage to a swarm, congratulation you just killed a lot of party because they relies on those thing to kill swarm since it is more effective than alchemical fire or casting a lot of spell on a swarm just to kill it I'm sorry, did you just present an argument via consequence as an actual serious reply?
_Ozy_ wrote: John Murdock wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: I freely admit there's a sliver of daylight between the wording of Efreeti Touch and trample that would let a purist argue that one is weapon damage and one is not.
My contention is that reading the rules to that level of detail is not nearly supported by the care put into the wording in the first place. It presumes a verbal accuracy that we have plenty of evidence, just doesn't exist.
Furthermore, when you consider the practical effect of what the Efreeti Touch ability actually does, a 'cone' of weapon damage, compared to what trample does, slam damage to everyone in a path, obviously there can be no argument that trample isn't weapon damage only based on the fact that it affects creatures in an area without an attack roll.
So all you have is that sliver of wording difference. Again, IMO, not enough to call it different.
then with your reasoning an air elemental with the whirlwind abilities is a weapon damage and deal no damage to a swarm, congratulation you just killed a lot of party because they relies on those thing to kill swarm since it is more effective than alchemical fire or casting a lot of spell on a swarm just to kill it I'm sorry, did you just present an argument via consequence as an actual serious reply? do you have an actual replies against what i have said or you just want to attack my choices or word and phrase?
John Murdock wrote:
do you have an actual replies against what i have said or you just want to attack my choices or word and phrase?
I wasn't attacking your choice of word and phrase, I was attacking your logic. Specifically, the logic of: argument A can't be correct because, if so, then bad thing B would happen. It's known as the argument via consequence fallacy. Not one of the most common ones, but yet, there it is.
Now, pretending that it isn't actually a logically fallacious argument, I'll say this. Any party that would solely depend on summoning an air elemental to deal with a swarm is fantastically self-limiting itself. If you can summon an air elemental, you have a multitude of other options at your fingertips that are at least as effective if not more. Heck, flaming sphere will work just fine.
At low levels, cheap lamp oil, 1 sp per flask, will work if you take a bit of time.
I've never seen a party use an air elemental to kill a swarm, so pardon me if I don't accept that deciding a whirlwind is weapon damage will doom them all.
_Ozy_ wrote: John Murdock wrote:
do you have an actual replies against what i have said or you just want to attack my choices or word and phrase?
I wasn't attacking your choice of word and phrase, I was attacking your logic. Specifically, the logic of: argument A can't be correct because, if so, then bad thing B would happen. It's known as the argument via consequence fallacy. Not one of the most common ones, but yet, there it is.
Now, pretending that it isn't actually a logically fallacious argument, I'll say this. Any party that would solely depend on summoning an air elemental to deal with a swarm is fantastically self-limiting itself. If you can summon an air elemental, you have a multitude of other options at your fingertips that are at least as effective if not more. Heck, flaming sphere will work just fine.
At low levels, cheap lamp oil, 1 sp per flask, will work if you take a bit of time.
I've never seen a party use an air elemental to kill a swarm, so pardon me if I don't accept that deciding a whirlwind is weapon damage will doom them all. and you always wanting at first saying but we must use logic and common sense, but then the efreeti touch which make no sense that its a weapon damage (but i still say it is worded to seem like one) was more of an appeal to your supposed common sense that seem to be only there when its convenient for you, using an air elemental is very cheap at casting and it is a good way to distract the swarm so it do not attack you but the elemental, while the other spell has the same duration the problem is that the swarm will go away from that attack and go toward you but if you redirect the attack toward the swarm there's a good chance you will hit allies thus accelerating their death and they will not appreciate it, and since a swarm is a creature they can and will make a reflex save for no damage thus being less useful than the elemental which can trapped the swarm into the whirlwind inflicting the damage every round no save
You are completely misunderstanding my argument.
You think when I say 'use common sense' I mean to try and interpret Pathfinder using real world physics and limitations, when that isn't close to being true.
When I say 'use common sense' I mean trying to interpret the rules by allowing a little bit of leeway with which they are expressed.
It is purely RAW that Efreeti Touch is weapon damage. You don't have to 'use common sense' because it is spelled out explicitly. The common sense comes in when comparing Efreeti Touch to trample, and when considering what it means to trample within the context of the rules. Creatures trample using their physical, natural weapons. Their feet, for example. These same feet that count as natural weapons when using them to slam.
To say that these feet no longer count as natural weapons just because that slam damage is done in an area, and doesn't require an attack roll, defies common sense because Efreeti touch does weapon damage in an area and doesn't require an attack roll.
The only, and I mean only, argument you have that trample is not weapon damage is the sliver of difference in meaning provided by the words 'equal to' in the definition of trample.
Again, I've never seen a swarm killed by an air elemental, so I'm not sure why you are pretending that's the only tactic that is effective. Do you guys just not know how to use lamp oil? Do you think swarms always make their reflex saves?
_Ozy_ wrote: You are completely misunderstanding my argument.
You think when I say 'use common sense' I mean to try and interpret Pathfinder using real world physics and limitations, when that isn't close to being true.
When I say 'use common sense' I mean trying to interpret the rules by allowing a little bit of leeway with which they are expressed.
It is purely RAW that Efreeti Touch is weapon damage. You don't have to 'use common sense' because it is spelled out explicitly. The common sense comes in when comparing Efreeti Touch to trample, and when considering what it means to trample within the context of the rules. Creatures trample using their physical, natural weapons. Their feet, for example. These same feet that count as natural weapons when using them to slam.
To say that these feet no longer count as natural weapons just because that slam damage is done in an area, and doesn't require an attack roll, defies common sense because Efreeti touch does weapon damage in an area and doesn't require an attack roll.
The only, and I mean only, argument you have that trample is not weapon damage is the sliver of difference in meaning provided by the words 'equal to' in the definition of trample.
Again, I've never seen a swarm killed by an air elemental, so I'm not sure why you are pretending that's the only tactic that is effective. Do you guys just not know how to use lamp oil? Do you think swarms always make their reflex saves?
the feet of the creature is not its slam attack, let's just take the elephant it has a gore attack and a slam attack which is done with is long snout since it won't make an attack whit is feet, but it has trample which use its slam damage for its trample damage (feet do the trample while its long snout do the slam) so no trample is not a natural weapon attack, and don't come with oil lamp which by raw since it is environmental damage does untype damage and can kill a red dragon same with hot water (scalding damage), yes we know how to use oil lamp but we do not carry those on us because most of the time it has no use and normally you rarely see swarm, so summoning creature is better (those that can do AoE) at lower level its better the air elemental but higher level you have other creature which are more efficient, the elemental was just an example of how a summoned creature was better vs swarm than a lot of other option especially when you normally don't encounter swarm that often
_Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Throwing one rock is a weapon. Dumping a bunch of rocks on the swarm is an area-of-effect. The dispute isn't area vs. non-area of effect, the dispute is weapon vs. non-weapon damage.
If I'm immune to fire, it doesn't matter if it's a single-target fire effect or an area of effect fire effect, does it? A trample isn't "you do a few slam attacks". It is a creature with a significative mass barrelling in a area, hitting everything in that area with its whole body while moving at a significative speed. In the real world if you are trampled by an horse you aren't hit only bu its hooves. You are hit by its body, throw to the ground and then it pass over you.
As someone pointed out earlier, it it like being hit by a car.
Note that the slam attack of a creature isn't necessarily linked to its hooves/feet. Take the Triceratops: it don't have a slam attack at all, but it has a trample attack.
And you are making a false analogy
Noone love for trampleshark?
The best part of tramplesharks is they only trample while raging.
Like... the shark was just a shark doing sharply things until it waits in a queue too long and loses it.
Thus is born Tramplesharks
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
I think you only find tramplesharks in Sharknados. They get mightily pissed flying around in circles.
That's the thing. Tramplesharks only happen in straight lines. They rage about NOT being in a sharknado.
Diego Rossi wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: KingOfAnything wrote: Throwing one rock is a weapon. Dumping a bunch of rocks on the swarm is an area-of-effect. The dispute isn't area vs. non-area of effect, the dispute is weapon vs. non-weapon damage.
If I'm immune to fire, it doesn't matter if it's a single-target fire effect or an area of effect fire effect, does it? A trample isn't "you do a few slam attacks". It is a creature with a significative mass barrelling in a area, hitting everything in that area with its whole body while moving at a significative speed. In the real world if you are trampled by an horse you aren't hit only bu its hooves. You are hit by its body, throw to the ground and then it pass over you.
As someone pointed out earlier, it it like being hit by a car.
Note that the slam attack of a creature isn't necessarily linked to its hooves/feet. Take the Triceratops: it don't have a slam attack at all, but it has a trample attack.
And you are making a false analogy I rather think the analogy to a car is the false one, as elephants certainly aren't 'trampling' by running into a creature at 60mph. In fact, the trample listed in the Universal Monster Rules effectively is 'you do slam damage' to everything in your path. The fact that the triceratops has a 'trample' and no listed slam doesn't prove otherwise, since it obviously can't be using the ability that is under discussion which, and I'll quote:
Quote: Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature’s slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Thus, the triceratops either is not using this particular ability, or it has an unlisted slam ability. Pick one.
And finally, if you want to argue that trample may include being hit by it's 'whole body' before being, well, trampled, is it then your claim that such an attack (being slammed by a body) is not a natural weapon attack?
Is Rend (the monster ability) weapon damage? Is Two-weapon Rend (the feat) weapon damage?
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
Rend damage is an addition to weapon damage and would have the same restrictions as the triggering attacks.
_Ozy_ wrote: Is Rend (the monster ability) weapon damage? Is Two-weapon Rend (the feat) weapon damage? yes and yes here why
''If it hits with two or more natural attacks in 1 round, a creature with the rend special attack can cause tremendous damage by latching onto the opponent’s body and tearing flesh. This attack deals an additional amount of damage, but no more than once per round. The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description. The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus.
Format: rend (2 claws, 1d8+9); Location: Special Attacks.''
''Prerequisites: Dex 17, Double Slice, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Two-Weapon Fighting, base attack bonus +11.
Benefit: If you hit an opponent with both your primary hand and your off-hand weapon, you deal an additional 1d10 points of damage plus 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier. You can only deal this additional damage once each round.''
one cleary say its an attack and the other cleary say you deal an additional damage from your weapons
Rend never says it is an attack with a natural weapon, it says it is a 'special attack', just like trample. But I'm not asking what type of attack it is, I'm asking what type of damage it does, when it says this:
Quote: The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus. Which is nearly identical to the wording in trample.
The wording from two weapon rend does not say that you do additional damage from your weapons, it says that you do additional damage, period.
|
5 people marked this as a favorite.
|
SWARM RENDING TRAMPLESHARKS.
If we take anything from this thread let it be this
Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber
_Ozy_ wrote: Rend never says it is an attack with a natural weapon, it says it is a 'special attack', just like trample. But I'm not asking what type of attack it is, I'm asking what type of damage it does, when it says this:
Quote: The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus. Which is nearly identical to the wording in trample.
The wording from two weapon rend does not say that you do additional damage from your weapons, it says that you do additional damage, period.
Lol. What is it in addition to, then?
KingOfAnything wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: Rend never says it is an attack with a natural weapon, it says it is a 'special attack', just like trample. But I'm not asking what type of attack it is, I'm asking what type of damage it does, when it says this:
Quote: The additional damage is usually equal to the damage caused by one of the attacks plus 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus. Which is nearly identical to the wording in trample.
The wording from two weapon rend does not say that you do additional damage from your weapons, it says that you do additional damage, period.
Lol. What is it in addition to, then? Er, in addition to the damage that was already done from the previous attacks, if any. You know, extra. Like how a flaming weapon does an extra 1d6 points of damage. In that case, it's fire damage. In the case of rend it is...what? And why does it get to add 1.5x STR?
So rend deals additional weapon damage, because you're rolling to attack with it. Thus Swarm creatures would be immune
Where do you roll to hit with trample, since it is damage from a weapon , and thus not hurting swarms?
Hey Now, no where in the game do you roll a rend attack. That's automatic damage because of circumstances. Like people being in the way of a trample.
Let's keep that in mind.
"The type of attacks that must hit and the additional damage are included in the creature’s description"
That line implies there is a roll made for rend (whether directly or since it is an additional effect of an attack)
rend only occurs when you successfully hit with two claw attacks. if swarms are immune to claw attacks then the requisites actions that trigger rend cannot be completed. so regardless of what rend is,
swarms that are immune to weapon damage are also effectively immune to rend
Oddman80 wrote: rend only occurs when you successfully hit with two claw attacks. if swarms are immune to claw attacks then the requisites actions that trigger rend cannot be completed. so regardless of what rend is,
swarms that are immune to weapon damage are also effectively immune to rend
Incorrect. Rend does not stipulate that you must do damage with your attacks to trigger, therefore it doesn't matter if a swarm is immune to the claw attacks, you can still rend the swarm.
Now, if you claim that rend is weapon damage, even though, like trample, nowhere does it claim to be weapon damage, the swarm would still be immune to the damage.
However, rend would still process from the successful attacks.
Also, having to roll to hit is not a prerequisite of doing weapon damage, as we've already determined from the Efreeti Touch ability.
_Ozy_ wrote: Oddman80 wrote: rend only occurs when you successfully hit with two claw attacks. if swarms are immune to claw attacks then the requisites actions that trigger rend cannot be completed. so regardless of what rend is,
swarms that are immune to weapon damage are also effectively immune to rend
Incorrect. Rend does not stipulate that you must do damage with your attacks to trigger, therefore it doesn't matter if a swarm is immune to the claw attacks, you can still rend the swarm.
Now, if you claim that rend is weapon damage, even though, like trample, nowhere does it claim to be weapon damage, the swarm would still be immune to the damage.
However, rend would still process from the successful attacks.
Also, having to roll to hit is not a prerequisite of doing weapon damage, as we've already determined from the Efreeti Touch ability. if you are immune to something you are also immune to its secondary effect (in this case rend)
''Immunity (Ex or Su) A creature with immunities takes no damage from listed sources. Immunities can also apply to afflictions, conditions, spells (based on school, level, or save type), and other effects. A creature that is immune does not suffer from these effects, or any secondary effects that are triggered due to an immune effect.''
and rend is a secondary effect that is trigger when you make two successful claw attack so even if its not a weapon damage swarm are immune to rend
WHOAH!
i'm just going to throw this out there.... but looking at the rules for weapons and the rules for natural attacks, it looks like natural attacks are NOT actually weapons. by RAW, swarms are not immune to natural attacks since they are not weapons, and this whole thread is moot.
Read: Universal Monster Rules: Natural Attacks
Read: Weapons
Rend is not a secondary effect. At all. It is a special attack that triggers upon a successful attack, not damage.
If your attacks don't get through a creatures DR, rend will still trigger.
Secondary effects are things like being staggered from a cold attack.
Natural attack and natural weapon are used interchangeably throughout the rules.
if natural weapons are considered weapons (even though the rules specifically governing natural attacks differentiate then FROM weapons) because they have the word"weapon" in their name, then swarms are immune to alchemists fire, acid, and alchemical grenades add those are all listed as alchemical weapons.
Alchemist fire doesn't do weapon damage, it does fire damage.
We've gone through this already, have you read the thread?
And if for some reason you need actual convincing, here's an example of how 'natural weapons' are used in the rules:
Quote: A demon lord’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic, epic, and evil for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. What do you suppose 'natural weapons' means in this context?
Diego Rossi wrote: 2bz2p wrote: John Murdock wrote: 2bz2p wrote: I would never equate a physical attack to an energy attack (lightning bolt is in no way like a trample at the core function of the attack) Further I would favor the swarm's idea of being multiple targets over a trample's attack of "a path" because the swarm likely exists outside the path as well as on it. I would resolve the trample as a bludgeoning attack most of the time.
But here is where I WOULD get a little crunchy. The Trample should be more effective to swarms that are confined to the ground, lacking flight, limited by space. A horse trampling a swarm of hornets - BS. But a swarm of snakes - well, that's different.
Agree -- this is GM turf, so my opinions are only worth 2 cents.
if you throw a fireball and it do not touch all of the swarm then it do no damage to the swarm since it was not all the swarm since you consider it being multiple target? ok good for you if that's the case, but alas a fireball that touch one square of the swarm is enough to deal dmg to it because a swarm is one creature for AoE or similar effect, so trample would also deal dmg to the swarm even if not all the square are hit by trample, or else colossal creature should have less damage by AoE because not all of their square are hit? No - because that is an energy attack with an area of effect and would have the effect that energy (Fire) has on the swarm. This desire to equate energy attacks with physical ones is disturbingly common on these threads. The problem is that you are inventing a rule and misreading another.
Misread rule:
PRD wrote: 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. A swarm is immune to weapon damage, not physical damage. A trample attack is an attack that deal physical damage but isn't a weapon.... Sorry - so many posts on this one you probably missed my initial comment, that this is GM turf. not talking RAW in this one but house rule. Apologize if I was coming off sounding like this was in any way RAW.
_Ozy_ wrote: Alchemist fire doesn't do weapon damage, it does fire damage.
We've gone through this already, have you read the thread?
And if for some reason you need actual convincing, here's an example of how 'natural weapons' are used in the rules:
Quote: A demon lord’s natural weapons, as well as any weapons it wields, are treated as chaotic, epic, and evil for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. What do you suppose 'natural weapons' means in this context?
then if you want to play with word because of alchemical fire then a sword don't deal weapon damage it deal slashing damage, slashing is not a weapon damage since some spell can do it too, the more i see it the worst it was worded to say immune to weapon damage since yes an alchemical flask is a weapon it is listed in the weapon category as simple ranged weapon or sometime as a splash weapon, so if we go by that logic swarm are immune, but if because it deal fire damage it is not immune despite saying immune to weapon damage then a flaming longsword should be able to deal damage since it has fire damage despite being a damage cause by a weapon so a weapon damage
_Ozy_ wrote: Diego Rossi wrote: _Ozy_ wrote: It never really defines trample as an area of effect attack, but rather an effect that targets a specific number of creatures, i.e. the creatures in its path.
Not sure.
The number of creatures in the path isn't a specific number of creatures. It is all the creatures in the path.
On the other hand it isn't an area effect, so it don't get the extra damage. If you had a spell called arrow storm that sent a single arrow at every creature within 30' of you, that would not be an area of effect spell, and would be an effect that targeted a specific number of creatures, that being the number that were within 30' of you. I wouldn't think such a spell would or should have any effect on a swarm, as a single hit from an arrow via that spell shouldn't by any more effective than a single hit from an arrow via a bow. Likewise, being trampled as one of N creatures along a movement path shouldn't be any more effective than a single stomp attack.
A 'specific number' of creatures does not have to be a number based on your level, or fixed to a certain number to fall under that definition. I totally disagree with that last statement. Spells that target a specific number of creatures refers to the Target line of the spell. Some spells like Horrid Wilting simply target "creatures" allowing you to target as many as you chose. Presumably every creature in the swarm, or at least enough of them. This is why spells like horrid wilting can damage swarms. They don't target a specific number, there is no limit, they can simply target "all".
A flaming longsword could do damage if a swarm wasn't also immune to effects that only target a specific number of creatures, because a flaming longsword does 1d6 of fire damage along with its weapon damage.
Dude, WTF are you even arguing here? That an alchemical weapon doesn't do fire damage?
_Ozy_ wrote: A flaming longsword could do damage if a swarm wasn't also immune to effects that only target a specific number of creatures, because a flaming longsword does 1d6 of fire damage along with its weapon damage.
Dude, WTF are you even arguing here? That an alchemical weapon doesn't do fire damage?
no that the immunity of the swarm is very badly worded, since an alchemical fire even if it does fire damage it still a weapon damage since its a splash weapon categorize into simple ranged weapon in the list of alchemical weapon, they should instead use the word immune to all single targeted damage or immune to slashing/bludgeoning/pierce damage instead as i see it
So... aside from arguing against other peoples logical inconsistencies: How I Run It:
Anything that deals damage to creatures in an area is an area attack, and deals 1.5x damage to swarms. The rationale behind why weapons are usually ineffective is that there are so many of them, stabbing them one at a time is not significant. Spent 5 feats to be able to make an attack against all foes you can reach in the event that a lot of foes gather in one really small space? Oh sorry, you cannot use that against this huge number of foes gathered in one really small space, on account of there being a lot of foes gathered in the one small space. Just kidding, whirl away!
|
