| 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.
Weapons and spells can do fire damage without having the fire trait. You are making some leaps of logic jumping from damage type to trait. I think in this instance that is correct and we are seeing more and more signs that is the intent, but it has yet to convince my GM that is true, and it seems like that is the case for others as well.
For a long time I thought the delay in errata was due to them wanting to change it at the level of the trait itself, and having to update that in multiple places in the core rule book, but that was when I thought we’d see more spells like it. Now it is really starting to seem like the spell itself could just be changed to say “it works like a bomb” and that would clear it up.
That would be a fine train of thought, but Acid Splash doesn't have the Splash Trait.
And even if it did, the trait refers to a weapon so that by itself would lead to more confusion. [like if something refers to a weapon, it doesn't work with an unarmed attack so what would that mean for a spell?] IMO, Splash should be rewritten to make it reference 'attack' and then attach said trait to spells and weapons that deal splash damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play it like a splash weapon. I'm pretty sure that was intended.
I play it like a splash weapon. I'm pretty sure that was intended.
With all the fuss made about unarmed attacks not being a weapon it seem odd that we're intended to use a trait as reference for spells even though that trait only works with weapons... I mean, with SoM it looks like we ARE but It's IMO it's not a conclusion that comes naturally.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This WAS covered in the rules before errata snipped the bit out that had it make sense.
You may recall a bit of rules that stated that if a particular attack deals a kind of damage (such as fire, acid, positive etc) then the associated Trait is applied to the attack itself. Well, until that was removed the Spell simply saying it does "splash damage" was more than enough to grant the attack the Splash Trait even though the Spell itself doesn't have it, with that gone though this makes things a bit more complicated. Unicore is right as it stands though from a RAW perspective, that rule was removed and just because an attack does cold, precision, or any other type of damage does not mean it is always supposed to have the Trait.
Nonetheless, because "splash damage" isn't really defined anywhere else except the Splash Trait itself I personally believe that the only reasonable and logical interpretation would be to have the Trait apply to the attack following the rules defined there. The fix here is SUPER simple, add the Splash Trait to the Spell itself and swap "weapon" for "attack" in the Splash Trait definition, easy-peasy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you're back to the problem of practically guaranteed damage than can be repeated over and over.
Which is available from multiple sources anyway. So... non issue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wether the spell does damage on a miss is definitely a grey area in this spell. I think it should just be treated like a bomb attack in all ways, but that is not what the spell says at it explicitly calls out only doing splash damage on a hit so it seems reasonable to assume that it doesn’t do damage on a miss. Until it gets Eratta’d though, I will never be able to chose the spell since my GM still reads the spell as only doing 1 point of additional splash damage to the primary target if the spell.
Even with Secrets of Magic outright saying that acid splash hits creatures in an area, Unicore?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't disagree.
More than anything, it fries too really feel worth it to try to bring up every little new piece of evidence that “might” clear it up, until it is Errata’d because my GM doesn’t need me constantly complaining in their ear. When there is a clear , “this is how it has been fixed” I think my GM will be fine, but with little hints here and there that don’t explicitly say how to arbitrate it, his reading is not more wrong than mine so it is his game to run.
The spell is just dead until it is Errata’d.
As a GM, I treat it like a bomb. I have had 1 player cast it 1 time over 21 levels total of play. It certainly doesn’t seem over powered.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For "practically guaranteed damage that can be repeated over and over", see:
• Spamming any other damaging Cantrips
• Striking with non-consumable Weapons
Or even getting creative during a torturous interrogation session using a Feather Token Ladder and a Steel Shield.
All of those methods have the same repetitive use potential, with the same critical fail potential, and while they may not deal 1 damage on a miss, they're going to be capable of way more damage on a hit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which sources would those be?That does damage and persistent damage even if you make a save.
Its a cantrip and its not going to be popular.
Its not a problem.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every basic save cantrip does damage on a 'failure' (successful enemy save). It's exactly the same thing.
Precisely, and most of them have a much greater range than the 5ft radius around the initial target.
I don't see how applying the Splash function as written (only triggers on an actual hit of the primary target) is anywhere near overtuned or exceptionally powerful at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The spell does say in its first sentence: You splash a glob of acid that splatters your target and nearby creatures.
I think this is the case of the specific overrulling general. It uses the splash rule, even though it is not a thrown weapon, since it does splash damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell does say in its first sentence: You splash a glob of acid that splatters your target and nearby creatures.
I somehow never noticed that. Or at least, it never really registered in my brain completely. Good catch!
As the evidence piles up, the only weird part about the spell now is that the splash damage is stated together with the on hit damage.