Who takes damage when you miss?
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. On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack still takes the splash damage.
The first sentence clearly indicates all creatures within 5', including the target, take the splash damage even when the attack fails.
Why is the second sentence even there? It seems totally redundant.
However, the example given in the next paragraph makes it seem like the adjacent creatures do not take splash:
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.
----
So… what actually happens when the alchemist's splash weapon attack fails? We know the target takes the splash, but what about adjacent creatures?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The example is illustrating what changed, which was the damage to the target. Likely an artifact of formatting for printed books.
Crit success : damage x2 + splash to target and surrounding + damage that only applys on a crit
Success : damage + splash to target and surrounding
Fail : splash to target and surrounding
Crir fail : no damage.
We've been playing it
Fail: Splash only to target.
I wonder which reading is what they wanted.
Personally I'd go with the reading that on a failure only the target takes splash damage.
Reasoning: The "failure" in the first rules sentence might be a typo. Only if ruled that way the second sentence even should be there, as OP stated. And the example also goes with that ruling. Also, otherwise the effect on adjacent targets would be the same except for a crit fail, which I don't think should be.
I also acknowledge that this makes Alchemists sad, though.
I think on a fail everyone within 5ft of the target (including the target) takes the splash damage.
This basically simulates failing to hit the target, but hitting their square, so the item goes off and the splash still hits everyone.
I do think the wording of the item could have been better though.
Hmm, good explanation and good point for splashing everyone on a failure. I'm convinced.
Then that should totally get errata'ed. 2 out of 3 sentences mentioning splash damage on a failure being wrong is something. ^^
Hmm, good explanation and good point for splashing everyone on a failure. I'm convinced.
Then that should totally get errata'ed. 2 out of 3 sentences mentioning splash damage on a failure being wrong is something. ^^
The wording is technically correct, the rules explain what happens on a crit success, success and failure.
Then explains that on a failure that the target still takes splash damage (reinforcing the exception) it never says only the target takes splash damage.This is further reinforced by the example given above.
I can understand people being confused at a glance, but it does make sense if you break it down.
More FAQ candidate than errata candidate imo.
Hmm, good explanation and good point for splashing everyone on a failure. I'm convinced.
Then that should totally get errata'ed. 2 out of 3 sentences mentioning splash damage on a failure being wrong is something. ^^
The wording is technically correct, the rules explain what happens on a crit success, success and failure.
Then explains that on a failure that the target still takes splash damage (reinforcing the exception) it never says only the target takes splash damage.This is further reinforced by the example given above.
I can understand people being confused at a glance, but it does make sense if you break it down.
More FAQ candidate than errata candidate imo.
I had read the rule the same way, Gleeful, but the example states who takes damage when in each case. It doesn't say the adjacent targets take splash so it's inferred they don't take splash.
I'm not so sure it's as cut and dry as it seems at first blush. Both interpretations are totally reasonable. Seems like an errata candidate to me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would be great for all the rules around splash (including the spell acid splash) to get sorted out in an errata.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At my tables we play that the splash damage goes to all within 5 feet on everything but a critical failure. The 1st sentence lays it out plain as day. The second sentence seems to be trying to highlight something, but it's important to note that it doesn't negate anything in the 1st sentence.
The example.. well, examples in rulebooks shouldn't ever trump the actual rule. I'm not sure why, but so many times, from so many different publishers, examples seem to confuse issues rather than make them clearer. And I think this is one of those situations.
IMO, any other interpretation requires you to assume a mistake somewhere. But if you approach it logically and don't insert a negation unless it is explicit, you'll see that the first sentence carries throughout, and the examples and clarifications down the line simply leave out a bit here or a piece there.
And as Acid Splash came up, my tables rule that Acid Splash gains the Splash trait and acts just like a bomb would. We find that it doesn't make Acid Splash better than other cantrips, and it further defines its niche. But that is decidedly a house rule. The spell still functions fine when you're attacking a creature that has a weakness to Splash damage, which seems to be the key part of what Acid Splash does (well that and being good against creatures with a weakness to acid of course...).
I can't imagine not hitting the main target and just splash its square.
On a hit the vial strikes the target (likely well above the ground), splashing it and everyone nearby.
On a miss the vial lands at the target's feet, slashing it (and only it).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought I'd take a step back and look at the entire splash text, and compare it to the playtest version to see how the thinking might have evolved to understand where an editing mistake might have crept in.
I've bolded the differences between the two:
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. 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.
If an attack with a splash weapon fails, succeeds, or critically succeeds, all creatures within 5 feet of the target take the listed splash damage. On a failure (but not a critical failure), the target of the attack also takes the splash damage. You don't multiply splash damage on a critical hit.
[There is no example text]
So in the playtest, the target didn't take splash damage on a success, critical success, or a critical failure - it only happened on a regular failure. Enough words were changed in the first two sentences and added guidance on stacking damage for resistance to make it clear this was a deliberate change - the original target now takes the splash damage on successes.
My suspicion is that the second sentence was changed to be accurate to the new version where it still hurts the target on a hit, but not as much as it should have been to make sense to someone who didn't just read the playtest version immediately beforehand. It would have been better to completely rewrite that sentence; i.e., don't mention the original target and simply state "No one takes splash damage on a critical failure."
Now, the example didn't exist in the playtest at all, so it was completely new text for the CRB. My guess is that this was written by someone on a completely different pass from the rule update. It's entirely possible that person read the second sentence as implying that the only the original target took splash damage on a failure. This guess is mostly based on the fact that it's the same reading I had (although that was also after I read the example 9 months ago), but it doesn't seem to align to the likely intent from the observable changes from the playtest rules that were made.
Reading the example, it unhelpfully omits the detail (either do to error or space) that the other creatures within 5 feet still take the splash on a miss. The argument that it was cut for space is that it is omitted in a similar way for explaining the splash on a critical hit. If it was trimmed for space, it came at the expense of clarity, and trimming it more would have been better. The miss example would have been clear if it had not included the wording "the target" and just said "if you missed, the splash damage would still be 1."
The alternative interpretation scenario, where the design was changed so that adjacent creatures no longer take splash damage on a miss, feels like it would have prompted a different approach to the updates from the way it worked in the playtest. I don't feel like this was the intent, given how the actual wording changes are all focused on the target, not the other creatures.
So, based on all of that, I'm going to interpret the rule as written as saying the target and everyone within 5 feet takes the splash damage on everything other than a critical failure, except when something else overrides that (like the bomber specialization limiting splash to just the target, or expanded splash range from a critical hit specialization or a feat).
The discrepancy with the example I'll chalk up to either an error or just an unclear wording, but I'm not inclined to have the example override the rules.
Personally, I'm grateful to this thread because I hadn't even caught the discrepancy in my reading. I haven't really had to adjudicate splash damage much, so my apparently incorrect understanding hasn't really mattered.
Also, I really wish that splash damage was defined in a way that did not specify a splash weapon, because it makes no sense to have splash damage in acid splash without it. In my home games, I think I'll treat it exactly like a splash weapon (including still doing the splash damage on a miss), as jdripley suggested, but even adding the splash trait to the spell wouldn't technically do it because it's not a "weapon." Although since no one has taken acid splash in my party, I'm not sure when that will ever matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. When people are going this far to interpret something, it needs errata. Be nice to see this all cleared up with an errata.
I think I might go to allowing splash damage on a failure. Alchemist bombers have a huge splash area. Then again there are many times they are heavily resisted, so shouldn't be too imbalanced to let them shine some splashing. I've been playing Acid Splash like a splash bomb.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok. When people are going this far to interpret something, it needs errata. Be nice to see this all cleared up with an errata.
I think I might go to allowing splash damage on a failure. Alchemist bombers have a huge splash area. Then again there are many times they are heavily resisted, so shouldn't be too imbalanced to let them shine some splashing. I've been playing Acid Splash like a splash bomb.
I mean, what "going this far"? It is literally reading the rules as written and understanding that the explanation doesn't contradict those rules.
The rules text doesn't contradict its self, the example text only contradicts its self if you read it as being exclusively descriptive rather than describing the element that changes.
But it isn't rules text, it is an example and still reads fine under the rules text if you read it as describing what changes. The rules text always comes first, the rules text specifically states that it deals splash damage on a failure.