| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAW,
The cantrip acid splash makes it seem like it only does splash damage to the primary target and only on a success, because the rules for splash as a trait are exclusive for items and even the glossary entry for splash only talks about splash weapons.
However,
Why would the spell specify that it does 1 splash damage if that damage can only effect the primary target and only on a success? Why not just say that it does +1 point of acid damage?
With how weak of a cantrip it is by these rules, I am thinking that it is supposed to work more like splash weapons, but I can't for the life of me figure out if RAI would be for the splash to work on a miss like all other splash damage, or if, because it is a cantrip, it only does the splash damage on a hit.
Right now, it doesn't seem like the rules for splash damage can accommodate anything other than a thrown weapon, but I am hoping that is just me missing something somewhere else in the book. If it is not just me, this is probably something that needs to be errata'd or at least explained more clearly in a FAQ.
By RAW it seems like there is no way to interpret what "splash damage" means for a spell.
Swarms are weak to splash damage, I suspect interactions like that are why the spell does this without hitting other creatures or being +1 damage instead of 1 splash.
By RAW, that does seem to be the only situation with clear rules for what splash damage on a spell does.
if it is what is intended, it also makes Acid splash a terrible cantrip only even approaching moderate utility against swarms and only really at low levels. Against trolls, produce flame is massively superior cantrip as it is against any other regenerating creature for whom fire or acid stops regeneration.
The damage on it scales much too slowly not to be intended for the splash damage to work like a splash, but there is no where in the rules currently that would allow it to do so.
For comparison,
As a 5th level spell, acid splash is doing 2d6+attribute damage +2 splash (just targeting main target and only on a hit). And can do 2 persistent damage on a crit.
Produce flame is doing 5d4+attribute and 5d4 persistent damage on a crit.
Since we can assume the same attribute damage, that works out to:
Acid splash: 4-14 acid damage with an average of 9.
Produce flame: 5-20 fire damage with an average of 12.5 AND a massively superior critical effect.
It gets much worse at 9th level.
I think this does probably need errata, but is probably a complicated one to fix now, because it will probably need to happen in multiple places were the splash trait is discussed, including the glossary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the correct Errata, assuming that acid splash is supposed to work like a splash thrown weapon, would be to give the spell the splash tag, and to change the wording of the splash trait on page 544 to say:
Most bombs also have the splash trait. When you use a attack with the splash trait, you don’t add your Strength modifier to the damage roll. If a splash attack fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage. On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage.
Add splash damage together with the initial damage against the target before applying the target’s resistance or weakness. You don’t multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
For example, if you threw a lesser acid flask and hit your target, that creature would take 1d6 persistent acid damage and 1 acid splash damage. All other creatures within 5 feet of it would take 1 acid splash damage. On a critical hit, the target would take 2d6 persistent acid damage, but the splash damage would still be 1. If you missed, the target would take 1 splash damage. If you critically failed, no one would take any damage.
And then make similar changes to the glossary page. This keeps the cantrip competitive, but very different from the alchemist bomb because it doesn't do persistent damage except on a critical hit, and takes two actions to perform.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Splash damage is automatic, and affects all creatures within 5 feet of the target. "If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage." Just don't critically fail and you're golden.
Acid Splash is not a weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swarms are weak to things with the "splash" tag, which is apparently the only situation that applies WRT spells.
That's also what this thread is *about*, people saying that the splash tag is useless/weak.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Splash damage is automatic, and affects all creatures within 5 feet of the target. "If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target (including the target) take the listed splash damage." Just don't critically fail and you're golden.
That makes acid splash a very nice spell. It's an AoE that does some nearly automatic damage. It's a very nice way to make trolls never regenerate. Unlike an Alchemist you aren't spending resources to make your attack. You just cast the cantrip until the GM says, "Enough already!"
Acid Splash does inferior damage when compared to other cantrips, but in most cases those cantrips don't affect multiple targets and/or don't do anything when the roll goes against you (i.e failed hit roll or successful save).
This is how I want Acid splash to work, and how I will house rule it to work, but by RAW it doesn't.
For one thing, the spell needs to have the "splash" tag added to it, because that would be the only way for the splash to work the same way it does for splash weapons, but then the splash trait needs to be Errata'd as well to accommodate spells, because PF2 rules are pretty explicit about things referencing weapons as requiring weapons and for spells to not default to acting like weapons and making strikes, which is why I made my Errata suggestion for this above. Without this Errata, the one splash damage done by the spell is wildly underwhelming, especially because it still requires a success to trigger when attacking swarms.I think the balance question that I am not sure about, is whether or not is ok for there to be ANY AoE Attack Cantrips? Right now acid splash feels like the one that is supposed to work closest to this but, by rules, does not. I hope this gets fixed quickly in the next Errata, but until then, Acid splash is a pretty garbage cantrip in comparison even to other less powerful cantrips like produce flame.
That's the whole point of this thread...Semantics or a typo. It's being used like one. If the word was changed to attack would that satisfy?
By your logic spell splash has no rules and thus does nothing.
to be exact, it doesn't do "nothing". As it's written right now, the "splash" in the spell acts only as a "type" of damage for resistances and vulnerabilities.
Saying "1 splash damage" in a spell is no different than saying "1 cold damage".
This is basically true, but there really is no reason, in that context for the spell not to do all acid splash damage. So far there is no resistance to splash damage and the spell is called acid splash. Setting 1 point of damage aside in that matter makes me believe it is supposed to work differently.
This is why I hope we see an Errata on it sooner than later as well, because I am not as good at doing the full math analysis to determine whether it would trivialize alchemist acid bombs or not, but it doesn’t feel like it would. The alchemist bomb does a lot of persistent damage, which is absolutely brutal. The spell will only do a little bit and only on a crit. I will not be running a game as a GM for another 2 weeks but I will be trying out treating it exactly like the splash trait mentioned above. We’ll see if my players even choose it.
|
I agree that RAW, Acid Splash's splash damage only hits the target of the spell. However, I'm fairly sure that Paizo intended the splash damage to have a 5 foot radius, and I have two pieces of evidence.
First, Hei Feng's avatar form does lightning splash damage, and the caster is listed as immune to it (Gods and Magic p63); this clause is (almost) pointless unless non-thrown-weapon splash damage has an area.
Second, Jason Bulmahn seems to think Acid Splash's damage has an area, as displayed when GM'ing Band of Bravos (ep5, I think). When asked by a player whether Acid Splash works this way, Jason dismissively says something like, "Yeah, that's just how splash damage works."
Hopefully this gets errata'ed soon.
Sorry for the threadsurrection, but I can't find any reference to this on the rules forum.
Tbh, on BoB, that have been more of a problem than a boon, as that splash dmg almost exclusively hit players... xD
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until I hear differently from errata or the like, acid splash will be assumed to be in error, and we will be using the normal splash rules for the spell in my games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until I hear differently from errata or the like, acid splash will be assumed to be in error, and we will be using the normal splash rules for the spell in my games.
Ditto. I find it absurd to interpret the words "splash damage" as even possibly intended to only hit a single target.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
An old thread, but given all the "discussion" about how acid splash works, I thought I'd post Nefreet's discovery in this thread so it's easier to find if people are searching for acid splash info:
The Secrets of Magic playtest document might answer this question?
It still has any non-targeted effects that might affect creatures other than the target, and any ongoing effects starting from the moment you hit with the Strike. For example, acid splash would still deal its splash damage to creatures other than the target, tanglefoot’s penalty would last for its normal duration, and vampiric touch still gives you temporary Hit Points. The spell takes effect after the Strike deals damage; if the Strike has other special effects, the GM determines whether they happen before or after the spell.
Although not a specific ruling or errata, it does appear the developers think the Acid Splash cantrip has the Splash trait.
It's as it was in the Playtest.
Your spell still has any non-targeted effects that might affect creatures other than the target, as well as any ongoing effects starting from the moment you hit with the Strike. For example, acid splash would still deal its splash damage to creatures other than the target and tanglefoot’s circumstance penalty would last for its normal duration.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is also Corrosive Body, which says "You can cast acid splash as an innate spell; the splash damage affects all creatures within 15 feet instead of the normal 5 feet."
Which just proves that the Splash trait is not intended to only work for splash weapons, but all attacks with the Splash trait.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It will be nice when they errata this and I can point to the specific rule that indicates what splash damage is beyond just a damage type, so my GM will let the spell work this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean splash only exists in the rules as a weapon trait. The acid splash spell does not even have the splash trait. Before Secrets of Magic there was no reference anywhere to treating splash damage as connecting to the splash weapon trait. Making it even more confusing, there are creatures with weakness to splash damage, so there is nothing in the book that make it obvious that splash damage is more than just a damage type.
Even if there is no desire to errata more than the spell, adding a line into it saying that the attack acts as if it had the splash weapon trait would go a very long way in clarifying how the spell is supposed to be treated.
because Acid splash doesn't have the splash trait. It does splash damage. Splash damage is undefined in the game. My GM took that to mean that the spell should not be treated like a bomb, because nothing says it should be treated like a bomb.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My only recommendation would be to point to the times in which splash damage from spells is inferred to be assumed to do damage to more than one target (the SoM spellstrike example is a great one for this, but I think a couple were mentioned in this thread). If that doesn't convince them that players are supposed to assume that the only rules we have in any book for splash damage are supposed to apply to non-weapons, then honestly I think there's bigger problems with how said GM is interpreting rules, but that's just my opinion.
It's also worth noting that I do agree it should be errata'd, since it's technically wrong as written, but I also think that when presented with the aforementioned evidence it's pretty obvious, and it's not hard to work around it once you realize that there's an error in the splash damage rules.
My only recommendation would be to point to the times in which splash damage from spells is inferred to be assumed to do damage to more than one target (the SoM spellstrike example is a great one for this, but I think a couple were mentioned in this thread). If that doesn't convince them that players are supposed to assume that the only rules we have in any book for splash damage are supposed to apply to non-weapons, then honestly I think there's bigger problems with how said GM is interpreting rules, but that's just my opinion.
I have to say I don't agree with you here. I've seen it more often rules that splash damage is just a damage type and having it affect an area was just from the trait. This is because the only place it's mentioned is the trait and if you do not refer to it, there is no way to determine how far it's effects are. Even if we assume it splashed in an area, how do we assume it's 5'? This is why if it doesn't have the trait, I see people assume it's doesn't follow what's in the trait.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
nothing says it should be treated like a bomb.
Not "nothing".
We now have two instances (plus the SoM playtest) where the intent is clear.
While I agree there should be something direct and concrete to point to, ignoring the information that's available is a choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it is the intention, and I look forward to them issuing an Errata so it does work that way. I appreciate that it can be hard to write errata exactly right to explain something, but they can't really expect that people buy non-core books to understand how core options are supposed to work.
they can't really expect that people buy non-core books to understand how core options are supposed to work.
Or read an unrelated spell on AoN.
|
|
they can't really expect that people buy non-core books to understand how core options are supposed to work.
And I don't think they do.
But this happens in life all the time, right? You think you understand something, and then you find out information through the grapevine that there's this other possibility.
Once you have that knowledge, you can either choose to use it and share it, or ignore it and avoid it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, this was a thread started in 2019. There are clearly many people that are not sure how the spell is supposed to work, because splash damage is still undefined as a term 2 years later. It is a bit of a curious omission at this point, especially as it is getting talked about in newer material without anything clearly saying that acid splash should be treated like a bomb, or that it should do damage on a miss (especially since the language of the spell itself only talks about doing that damage on a hit).
The intentions are probably knowable at this point, but only with a lot of internet detective work that a lot of players and GMs don't do. And showing up with print outs of discussion boards, or video from twitch streams to make a spell work the way you want it too is usually not a very good way to foster a fun environment. Anytime the issue comes up and a GM says (acid damage is just another type of damage) I usually say, "ok" and move along.
The intentions are probably knowable at this point, but only with a lot of internet detective work that a lot of players and GMs don't do. And showing up with print outs of discussion boards, or video from twitch streams to make a spell work the way you want it too is usually not a very good way to foster a fun environment. Anytime the issue comes up and a GM says (acid damage is just another type of damage) I usually say, "ok" and move along.
At least anecdotally it's been less 'showing up with print outs video clips' and more 'oh the attack does splash damage' and everyone just moving on.
It's only really here that I see people getting particularly in the weeds about it.
The intentions are probably knowable at this point, but only with a lot of internet detective work that a lot of players and GMs don't do. And showing up with print outs of discussion boards, or video from twitch streams to make a spell work the way you want it too is usually not a very good way to foster a fun environment. Anytime the issue comes up and a GM says (acid damage is just another type of damage) I usually say, "ok" and move along.At least anecdotally it's been less 'showing up with print outs video clips' and more 'oh the attack does splash damage' and everyone just moving on.
It's only really here that I see people getting particularly in the weeds about it.
The issue for me at least is that people go "'oh the attack does splash damage'" but the results end up different depending on who is running it that game. It'd be nice to have it known it works 1 way by the rules and have a way to show it, so that is a game advertises is runs by the rules, you'd know what to expect from it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wouldn't it be cool if we had a FAQ tool, a FAQ page that had dates changed / announced when errata came through... oh and the crb is split into two parts... because reasons.
As a qualifed ex web developer of 11 years it drives me nuts.
-mutters- awesome edition, but boy do elements like this drive me nuts at times.
That and them not going back and providing HQ versions of the AP maps, sure I can rip them from FG... but still.
My only recommendation would be to point to the times in which splash damage from spells is inferred to be assumed to do damage to more than one target (the SoM spellstrike example is a great one for this, but I think a couple were mentioned in this thread). If that doesn't convince them that players are supposed to assume that the only rules we have in any book for splash damage are supposed to apply to non-weapons, then honestly I think there's bigger problems with how said GM is interpreting rules, but that's just my opinion.I have to say I don't agree with you here. I've seen it more often rules that splash damage is just a damage type and having it affect an area was just from the trait. This is because the only place it's mentioned is the trait and if you do not refer to it, there is no way to determine how far it's effects are. Even if we assume it splashed in an area, how do we assume it's 5'? This is why if it doesn't have the trait, I see people assume it's doesn't follow what's in the trait.
As I said, that's just my opinion, and either way I think it should get an errata. And I understand where Unicore is coming from in that you shouldn't have to do this much research to know that RAW is seemingly incomplete / wrong.
However, I don't think I quite follow this comment. The way I see it you either have to completely ignore the splash damage trait on non-weapons, or you should take all of it. Both are reasonable, but to go half way and say "Even if we assume it splashed in an area, how do we assume it's 5'?" makes no sense to me. If someone infers either due to an assumption that splash damage always has the splash trait, or from other books mentioning doing damage in an area, then they'd go to the only reference in the book for what splash damage does and either ignore it because it doesn't mention spells, or implement it completely and the range would be 5'.
However, I don't think I quite follow this comment.
There are people in the middle: people that read splash damage and assume that means it's an area attack but read the word WEAPON in the splash trait and discount it because of that, since you aren't using a weapon. In essence, it becomes an issue of an unlisted area, which needs to be added. I've seen games with it hitting the target square only by default since there isn't a listed area away from the target: IE, a splash of 0'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I take the path of least resistance in cases like this.
Roughly following this logic:
Acid Splash has the Splash trait.
Unclear what that means in this context.
Find nearest applicable thing with Splash trait.
Run Acid Splash like a bomb, dealing energy damage to adjacent enemies, because it is the closest applicable use of the Splash trait.
Move on with the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would be a fine train of thought, but Acid Splash doesn't have the Splash Trait.
Good point, I misspoke. Still seeing that it deals splash damage ends up with the same train of thought.