Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
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.and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
And I say that the direct hit from an alchemist fire is weapon damage, while the splash is not.
This way, it makes sense; the other, it does not. If you want to play that way, it's fine, but at this point I think that arguing about it is pointless.
|
Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
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.and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
And I say that the direct hit from an alchemist fire is weapon damage, while the splash is not.
This way, it makes sense; the other, it does not. If you want to play that way, it's fine, but at this point I think that arguing about it is pointless.
Unfortunately, the rule, as interpreted, still means nothing. For most splash weapons, a splash damage of 1, multiplied by 1.5, is still 1.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
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.and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
I've always seen damage as two types. Physical and Energy.
Physical deals Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing. Which is blocked by DR (Ex or Su).Energy deals Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Sonic, Positive, Negative, and Untyped. Which is blocked by Resistance (Ex).
A swarm is immune to any spell or Effect that targets a specific number of creatures
Torches deal Fire Energy damage witch is an Effect. (Fire dose not go out if it touches a specific number of creatures)Not an area effect, but still damages Swarms. Not the Torch itself, just the Fire.
Weapons with Flaming or Frost deal Fire/Cold Energy damage witch is an Effect. (Fire/Frost dose not go out if it touches a specific number of creatures)
Not an area effect, but still damages Swarms. Not the Weapon itself, just the Fire/Frost.
Splash Weapons don't do Weapon damage, they do Energy damage witch is an Effect. (While it is a one time use, it can hit any number of creatures in its area of effect)
Is an area effect, witch dose +50% damages to Swarms. Not the Flask itself, just what is in it.
As to the OP's question, Trample would be a Physical Bludgeoning damage. So to me A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes full damage. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune. (Have you ever tried to squash a bug and it just walks away. Heck it's the powe of the Tick, he can't be squashed. SPOON!!!)
So to me Efreeti Touch would not do the Unarmed Strike damage like Trample, but would do the Elemental Fist damage.
Unfortunately, the rule, as interpreted, still means nothing. For most splash weapons, a splash damage of 1, multiplied by 1.5, is still 1.Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
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.and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
And I say that the direct hit from an alchemist fire is weapon damage, while the splash is not.
This way, it makes sense; the other, it does not. If you want to play that way, it's fine, but at this point I think that arguing about it is pointless.
The rule is there to cover all possible cases. If a splash weapon would do 2 damage, it instead does 3 to swarms.
you can't cherry pick what is a weapon and what is not, a flaming weapon is still a weapon the fire damage come from a weapon thus a weapon damage, energy damage is only the type of damage not the source, the source of damage for a flaming weapon is a weapon, a splash weapon is still a weapon its not an effect and to say how much they are weapon they are in the category alchemical weapon liste in the simple ranged weapon so they are weapon thus the source of the damage is from a weapon, trample do not come from a source of weapon damage, even if its does bludgeoning damage, if we take your logic then spell that do slashing, pierce and bludgeoning damage are now weapon even if its an AoE and thus deal no damage to a swarm, but spell are not weapon so your logic is flawed, a damage type do not say if its a weapon damage, or effect damage or a spell damage
What???
If a Swarm moves over a camp Fire it takes Fire damage.
If you take a log from a camp Fire that is on Fire, throw it at a Swarm, it takes Fire damage... it's the same Fire... it doesn't change because you made the Fire into a weapon.
Weapons damages have crit multipliers...
A Flaming Sword that crits, you only multiply the Sword damage, not the Flaming damage. Because they are different types of damage.
Spells that do slashing, pierce and bludgeoning damage make weapons to do that type of damage, so they are weapon damage, not Effect damage.
Take Blade Barrier for example. What type of damage does it do? To me it does Slashing damage. So to me a Swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage. A Swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune.
Your camp fire is not a weapon and deal environmental damage which deal 1d6 of damage not fire damage and your log on fire is not a weapon and deal environmental damage same thing for the camp fire
You are confusing me???
How is my log on Fire, a torch on Fire, and a sword on Fire, not all the same type of Fire damage.I can't find rules on Spell Damage...
I can find rules on Weapon damage... Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing damage...
I can find rules on Effect damage... Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Sonic, Positive, Negative, and Untyped damage...
"the creatures in its path" is not a specific number, it is a specific location relative to the trampler.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.
"Creatures" denote specific targets, not an area. Trample would work like chain lightning -- it's effect skips any areas that do not have a legitimate target in them -- this is not an true "area effect" type action.
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!"
Man, I love this thread--it just keeps giving and giving!
This argument your making is equally applicable to any affect that says "creatures", even ones that are specifically noted as area attacks, such as lighting bolt and burning hands. As such, I must say it is wrong.
No, because lightning bolt and burning hands specifically mention an area of effect, which means all applicable things in the area are affected.
Note the difference between lightning bolt and chain lightning. One is an area, the other are specific targets.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spells doing physical damage, weapons doing energy damage, energy damage triggering from weapon strikes, special attacks doing damage as a weapon, improvised weapons not being weapons, alchemist stuff splash damage being a weapon...
The only way to clear the mess is: attacks and effects that damage X creatures don't work; attacks and effects that damage ALL creatures inside an area do, and at 150% effectiveness.
This is what I use, this is what makes sense, this is what I believe is the RAI; and no one will ever convince me that I absolutely need to cling to a wording that makes a community fight about what is considered "weapon" and what is not.
If we can't even agree on how much damage an Alchemist's Fire does to a swarm, which is probably the most popular anti-swarm tactic there is (given that most PCs don't have area-effect spells), I doubt we'll achieve consensus on rare tactics like summoning a creature that can trample.
So some people think "Splash Weapons" don't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms.
So I guess following that logic the Alchemist's Bombs ability doesn't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms either?
|
I don't think there's any official definition of what an "effect" is; it's just about the vaguest term in Pathfinder. Usually it's just a catch-all term for supernatural abilities, extraordinary abilities, spell-like abilities, spells, feats, class abilities, traits, racial abilities, environmental effects, functions of equipment, side-effects of weapons with unusual properties, and other things that don't fit a neat category.
"Effects" is the word you use if you don't want to exclude a category by accident.
Splitting hairs over the definition of "weapon" vs. "effect" is missing the point of why you have trouble hitting swarms: because it doesn't help to kill individual ants. Anything that can attack all ants at once should work fine. Like trample. Like gasoline.
So some people think "Splash Weapons" don't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms.
So I guess following that logic the Alchemist's Bombs ability doesn't work on Fine/Diminutive Swarms either?
By this reasoning, the direct damage doesn't work, since that can only affect a specific number of targets (one), but the splash damage does work (at +50%).
(Or, by another set of reasoning, bombs and splash weapons are weapons, so they do no damage.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms take increased damage from alchemist fire.
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.and a swarm is immune to all weapon damage
''A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage.''
so 0 x 1.5 = 0 wow, much damage, very useful, so dangerous
the splash weapons was an example and a poorly one since its a weapon and thus immune, nowhere it say that splash weapon bypass the immunity, at least in 3.5 they say it was an exception to the immunities same with torche who deal 1 fire damage and energy damage from weapon like flaming or frost
I've always seen damage as two types. Physical and Energy.
Physical deals Bludgeoning, Piercing, and Slashing. Which is blocked by DR (Ex or Su).
Energy deals Acid, Cold, Electricity, Fire, Sonic, Positive, Negative, and Untyped. Which is blocked by Resistance (Ex).A swarm is immune to any spell or Effect that targets a specific number of creaturesTorches deal Fire Energy damage witch is an Effect. (Fire dose not go out if it touches a specific number of creatures)Not an area effect, but still damages Swarms. Not the Torch itself, just the Fire.
Weapons with Flaming or Frost deal Fire/Cold Energy damage witch is an Effect. (Fire/Frost dose not go out if it touches a specific number of creatures)
Not an area effect, but still damages Swarms. Not the Weapon itself, just the Fire/Frost.Splash Weapons don't do Weapon damage, they do Energy damage witch is an Effect. (While it is a one time use, it can hit any number of creatures in its area of effect)
Is an area effect, witch dose +50% damages to Swarms. Not the Flask itself, just what is in it.As to the OP's question, Trample would be a Physical Bludgeoning damage. So to me A swarm made up of Tiny...
This makes the most sense to me as well. Gonna tack for FAQ!
|
|
This argument your making is equally applicable to any affect that says "creatures", even ones that are specifically noted as area attacks, such as lighting bolt and burning hands. As such, I must say it is wrong.No, because lightning bolt and burning hands specifically mention an area of effect, which means all applicable things in the area are affected.
Note the difference between lightning bolt and chain lightning. One is an area, the other are specific targets.
No, it specifically affects creatures. "Creatures in it's area" as opposed to tramples "Opponents in its path".
Moreover, your argument was that the use of the phrase "creatures in" makes something not an area attack but something that effects only discrete targets. That is untrue, that verbiage is common to many area attacks.
Coming at this from another tack, the Trample ability specifically targets creatures, with the user getting a choice for each and every creature it passes through, while area effects never target, only affect.
That is untrue, that verbiage is common to many area attacks.
No, "select creatures within a defined space is limited to those creatures in that defined space.
A true area attack covers everything in that defined space. Not just creatures, but objects as well, including the very space within that area.
A fireball is an area effect. A melee attack (which is what trample is) is selective to creatures.
Coming at this from another tack, the Trample ability specifically targets creatures, with the user getting a choice for each and every creature it passes through, while area effects never target, only affect.
Correct, that is why trample is not an area effect, and thus could not target a swarm.
Coming at this from another tack, the Trample ability specifically targets creatures, with the user getting a choice for each and every creature it passes through, while area effects never target, only affect.
This argument your making is equally applicable to any affect that says "creatures", even ones that are specifically noted as area attacks, such as lighting bolt and burning hands. As such, I must say it is wrong.No, because lightning bolt and burning hands specifically mention an area of effect, which means all applicable things in the area are affected.
Note the difference between lightning bolt and chain lightning. One is an area, the other are specific targets.
No, it specifically affects creatures. "Creatures in it's area" as opposed to tramples "Opponents in its path".
Moreover, your argument was that the use of the phrase "creatures in" makes something not an area attack but something that effects only discrete targets. That is untrue, that verbiage is common to many area attacks.
So if you fire a Selective Fireball, the swarm becomes immune because you are not hitting everything?
|
|
So if you fire a Selective Fireball, the swarm becomes immune because you are not hitting everything?Coming at this from another tack, the Trample ability specifically targets creatures, with the user getting a choice for each and every creature it passes through, while area effects never target, only affect.
This argument your making is equally applicable to any affect that says "creatures", even ones that are specifically noted as area attacks, such as lighting bolt and burning hands. As such, I must say it is wrong.No, because lightning bolt and burning hands specifically mention an area of effect, which means all applicable things in the area are affected.
Note the difference between lightning bolt and chain lightning. One is an area, the other are specific targets.
No, it specifically affects creatures. "Creatures in it's area" as opposed to tramples "Opponents in its path".
Moreover, your argument was that the use of the phrase "creatures in" makes something not an area attack but something that effects only discrete targets. That is untrue, that verbiage is common to many area attacks.
Interesting. It's not that you aren't hitting everything, but that Selective spell introduces targets to an area spell. Still, this just introduces both an area component and a target component, and in this case the targets are specifically not affected by the spell; as such, this effect isn't relevant to the conversation. Do you know of any effect that actually affects both targets and creatures in an area (splash weapons are one)?
You'll notice that, with regards to splash weapons, the majority of debate is, whether the targeted damage is considered an "effect that targets a specific number of creatures" and therefore unable to affect swarms, not the splash damage.
Interesting. It's not that you aren't hitting everything, but that Selective spell introduces targets to an area spell.
Excluding a single thing in an area spell does not exclude other things not specifically excluded.
You could, theoretically, burn off a swarm from an ally without harming the ally with a selective fireball.
I'm not sure if I should be contributing to this fire, but I think we should look at the eidolon's Trample Evolution:
Trample (Ex): An eidolon gains the ability to crush its foes underfoot, gaining the trample ability. As a full-round action, the eidolon can overrun any creature that is at least one size smaller than itself. This works like the overrun combat maneuver, but the eidolon does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. The creatures take 1d6 points of damage (1d8 if Large, 2d6 if Huge), plus 1-1/2 times the eidolon’s Strength modifier. Targets of the trample can make attacks of opportunity at a –4 penalty. If a target forgoes the attack of opportunity, it can make a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is 10 + 1/2 the eidolon’s HD + the eidolon’s Strength modifier. A trampling eidolon can only deal trampling damage to a creature once per round. This evolution is only available to eidolons of the biped or quadruped base forms.
An Eidolon's trample does an unspecified type of damage, and makes no calls to any form of weapon, due to the malleable nature of an eidolon. In this way it should be able to damage a swarm.
The eidolon's attack has size modifiers but that does not in and of itself qualify it as a weapon. After all, Armor Class has a size modifier, but as far as I know, you can't peel off your AC and use it as a weapon (as cool as that would be).
Origami: Sorry, "targets of the trample". It also "works like the overrun combat maneuver -- a combat maneuver which is target specific. Not an area of effect.
Origami: Sorry, "targets of the trample". It also "works like the overrun combat maneuver -- a combat maneuver which is target specific. Not an area of effect.
Ah dang the Target effect clause.
Origami: Sorry, "targets of the trample". It also "works like the overrun combat maneuver -- a combat maneuver which is target specific. Not an area of effect.
Yes, but it still deals damage, just no AoE bonus. It IS possible to trample those dastardly swarms.
Dealing damage is not the problem. The problem is that your attacks single out targets -- and swarms are specifically immune to this type of attack. In order to damage a swarm, you have to hit every constituent member of the swarm at once, not one at a time -- which is done by AoE effects.
It's a combat maneuver, and thus a melee attack, regardless of the nature of the damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Coming at this from another tack, the Trample ability specifically targets creatures, with the user getting a choice for each and every creature it passes through, while area effects never target, only affect.
This argument your making is equally applicable to any affect that says "creatures", even ones that are specifically noted as area attacks, such as lighting bolt and burning hands. As such, I must say it is wrong.No, because lightning bolt and burning hands specifically mention an area of effect, which means all applicable things in the area are affected.
Note the difference between lightning bolt and chain lightning. One is an area, the other are specific targets.
No, it specifically affects creatures. "Creatures in it's area" as opposed to tramples "Opponents in its path".
Moreover, your argument was that the use of the phrase "creatures in" makes something not an area attack but something that effects only discrete targets. That is untrue, that verbiage is common to many area attacks.
Trample targets ALL creatures within the defined area. There is no specified limit to the number of creatures that can be affected by trample.
Dealing damage is not the problem. The problem is that your attacks single out targets -- and swarms are specifically immune to this type of attack. In order to damage a swarm, you have to hit every constituent member of the swarm at once, not one at a time -- which is done by AoE effects.
Trample does not target a specific number of creatures that are dealt damage, which is the test specified for swarms. It damages ALL creatures within the specified path. If there are 10,000 individual members of the swarm within the traveled path, it will damage all 10,000.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Dealing damage is not the problem. The problem is that your attacks single out targets -- and swarms are specifically immune to this type of attack. In order to damage a swarm, you have to hit every constituent member of the swarm at once, not one at a time -- which is done by AoE effects.
I'll add my nitpick - it doesn't need to be literally every constituent member of the swarm. If the swarm covers multiple squares and you can only get half of them in the AoE, it still has full effect. You just need to affect a broad swath of the swarm to do damage to the corporate swarm body.
Ozy, his point is that it doesn't say you're using a slam to do damage. It says you do damage in that area = to your slam damage + X.
And you making up hypothetical special abilities doesn't prove your point.
Trample: Universal monster rules
As a full-round action, a creature with the trample ability can attempt to overrun any creature that is at least one size category smaller than itself. This works just like the overrun combat maneuver, but the trampling creature does not need to make a check, it merely has to move over opponents in its path. Targets of a trample take an amount of damage equal to the trampling creature's slam damage + 1-1/2 times its Str modifier. Targets of a trample can make an attack of opportunity, but at a –4 penalty. If targets forgo an attack of opportunity, they can attempt to avoid the trampling creature and receive a Reflex save to take half damage. The save DC against a creature's trample attack is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Str modifier (the exact DC is given in the creature's descriptive text). A trampling creature can only deal trampling damage to each target once per round, no matter how many times its movement takes it over a target creature.
So.
A. It must be to smaller creaturesB. Its just like the overrun combat maneuver.
AND
Trample (Combat)While mounted, you can ride down opponents and trample them under your mount.
Prerequisites: Ride 1 rank, Mounted Combat.
Benefit: When you attempt to overrun an opponent while mounted, your target may not choose to avoid you. Your mount may make one hoof attack against any target you knock down, gaining the standard +4 bonus on attack rolls against prone targets.
Bottom line, no this looks like weapon damage. I see nothing to suggest that running through a swarm as an elephant is more or less effective than running through it as a human.
You are not doing damage to an area - you are doing damage to creatures allow a line of movement.. This is akin to arguing that barreling overrun is an area attack.
Show me anywhere its stated that the Trample feat and the monster special ability are the same thing.
Until then, it's not good evidence. I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but that is a terrible example to try to prove your point.
First, I think any GM is entitled to rule either way on this matter. The arguments are solid enough either way. That said, my ruling is based on:
A. The Trample monster ability says it is just like the over run attack, except no check is needed. An overrun applies hoof + str damage; which is weapon damage.
B. The Trample feat also shows how the developers are thinking. The same word is still consistent in applying weapon damage.
C. Ergo, I believe this is weapon damage; and the OP cleverly phrased it to make the argument that it is area effect damage.
However, it is not. If there were no creatures in the line of the attack, the trample would do no damage. This is different than a fireball. A fireball is an area effect spell. When you target it, it goes off and does damage, regardless if there is anything there to have the damage applied to it.
If there were no creatures in the line of the attack, the trample would do no damage. This is different than a fireball. A fireball is an area effect spell. When you target it, it goes off and does damage, regardless if there is anything there to have the damage applied to it.
A fireball damages everything in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
Channelled Negative Energy damages everything in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
An elephant trample damages everything (living) in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
I don't know the intended definition of "weapon damage" but if there's no finite limit on the number of creatures that can be harmed by the attack, I'm allowing it. Swarms are annoying enough.
If there were no creatures in the line of the attack, the trample would do no damage. This is different than a fireball. A fireball is an area effect spell. When you target it, it goes off and does damage, regardless if there is anything there to have the damage applied to it.A fireball damages everything in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
Channelled Negative Energy damages everything in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
An elephant trample damages everything (living) in an area. If there is nothing in the area, nothing takes damage.
True, but not the point. Fireball does damage (1d6/level) to an area Regardless of the presence of creatures, the damage is defined.
Trample does not; it is an attack rendered against a creature. Suppose you had a rapier. Would sweeping strike kill the swarm?
True, but not the point. Fireball does damage (1d6/level) to an area Regardless of the presence of creatures, the damage is defined.
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area.
It's defined as damaging every creature within the area (and any unattended objects, just as a vase would probably be destroyed if it was in the path of an elephant's trample).
The difference is too subtle for me to comprehend, I'm afraid.
Suppose you had a rapier. Would sweeping strike kill the swarm?
Let's see...
Sweeping Strike is a Supernatural ability where a 6th tier Mythic Champion that allows you to hurt all opponents within your reach with a single attack roll.
I'd allow it. I'd have a hard time claiming it's not weapon damage, but it affects an unlimited number of enemies, and a supernatural mythic martial champion ought to at least be able to do things on a par with what a first level wizard can do.