| 3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I've been seeing people talk about explosive ammunition lately and it's utility against swarms--specifically that it counts as having the explode quality and thus allowing single-target weapons to attack them. I'm not sure explosive rounds damage swarms the way people think they do, however, and would like some clarification on the sentence that contains this rule.
The rule in question here is Fiery. Fiery is a weapon property granted by Explosive ammunition that says "Fiery ammunition bursts into glowing embers when fired. While this is not enough to change its normal damage to fire damage, any extra damage from a critical hit is considered fire damage and the weapon deals half damage to targets that take half damage from energy attacks but no damage from kinetic attacks (such as incorporeal creatures) and counts as a weapon with the explode special property against creatures with swarm defenses."
The important part is contained within the dependent clause. Now I will be the first to admit that grammar isn't my strong suit, but the way I parse the sentence is:
- *Bonus damage from a critical hit with fiery ammo is all fire damage.
- *The critical hit deals half damage to creatures that take half damage from energy but no damage from kinetic.
- *This critical hit counts as having the explode quality against creatures with swarm defense.
What some people argue, however, is that there are actually three separate clauses within the sentence:
- *Bonus damage from a critical hit with fiery ammo is all fire damage
- *The weapon deals half damage to incorporeal creatures
- *Fiery ammo damage counts as having the explode quality vs. swarm defense.
I have difficulty agreeing with this second reading, because it seems to me that if the author wanted to indicate that fiery ammunition counts as having the explode quality vs. swarms, they would have included that in a separate sentence. Instead, it is included in the same sentence as the rules about critical hits with fiery ammunition, suggesting--to me at least--that the "explode" quality only happens on a critical hit.
Obviously I would love some input from the devs here as to what the purpose of fiery is supposed to be. Is it the former, or the latter?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way you're parsing it breaks the ability to damage swarms. Swarms are immune to crits, so they would never be subject to clause A, meaning clause B (which specifically mentions swarms) NEVER works.
I'm sure grammarians could fight all day about the hypertechnical reading, but whatever standard those folks are looking for probably doesn't exist in the english language and DEFINITELY isn't in the ruleset we have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The way you're parsing it breaks the ability to damage swarms. Swarms are immune to crits, so they would never be subject to clause A, meaning clause B (which specifically mentions swarms) NEVER works.
I'm sure grammarians could fight all day about the hypertechnical reading, but whatever standard those folks are looking for probably doesn't exist in the english language and DEFINITELY isn't in the ruleset we have.
It's in an even more bizarre bit of writing.
Immunities give them immunity to critical hits which negates the whole thing.
If they somehow have swarm defenses but not immunities, then they can't be targeted as an individual creature... unless it's a crit so retroactively... bleargh...
All in all, I'd say there was an intent for explosive ammo to do something against swarms, but the RAW is a no go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fiery/exploding ammunition is indeed busted.
Fiery ammunition bursts into glowing embers when fired. While this is not enough to change its normal damage to fire damage, any extra damage from a critical hit is considered fire damage and the weapon deals half damage to targets that take half damage from energy attacks but no damage from kinetic attacks (such as incorporeal creatures) and counts as a weapon with the explode special property against creatures with swarm
defenses. If fiery ammunition is used in a weapon that already deals half fire damage (such as a weapon with the flaming weapon fusion), on a critical hit, all the damage dealt is fire damage. At the GM’s discretion, fiery ammunition can set extremely flammable materials on fire, such as oil-soaked rags or dry tinder.
To do what I think they intended, you need to change "and counts as a weapon with the explode special property" to ", and it counts." Separate that from the crit language and make it always on.
This clause is also a little weird: "If fiery ammunition is used in a weapon that already deals half fire damage." If you look at the specifics of exploding ammunition...it already deals half fire damage, independent of the fiery special quality. It might be future proofing, but as of now only explosive ammunition has been published with the fiery quality.
The language could definitely use some serious clean up.
In the meantime, since this kind if grammatical issue can go without official address for extended periods, I will d3finitely continue to read and run explosive rounds under the assumption that they were intended to function.
I think the clause about weapons that already deal half fire damage is also there to account for projectile weapons with Flaming fusions, and be another case of clumsy language that didn't accomplish the original intent. Or possibly an editorial confusion, where an earlier form didn't have the half fire damage under explosive rounds, as well as under the Fiery property.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All in all, I'd say there was an intent for explosive ammo to do something against swarms, but the RAW is a no go.
No.
The RAW is "counts as a weapon with the explode special property against creatures with swarm defenses"
If you run the entire sentence through your grammar chainsaw and conclude that it doesn't say that the weapon winds up damaging swarms that is a problem with your grammar chainsaw.
What you at best wind up with is one interpretation of raw where the weapon doesn't do what it says it does, and one interpretation of raw where it says it does what it does in the most explicit terms possible: its not metaphorical swarms, it's not swarms of enemies, its "Creatures with swarm defenses" as explicit a game term as it can possibly be. It would also be realy, really, really weird to sell an ammunition that has a 1 in 20 chance of working on swarms when the same store probably also sells grenades and actual exploding ammunition. (Shop smart. Shop spacemart)
Taking the grammar chainsaw to the rules can be important, but it is not the only tool in the reading comprehension toolbox. It isn't nearly as objective as its proponents make it out to be, it's not "the" raw, and it does not have a very good track record of getting the right answer.