Splash damage question

[Mojo_Rat]

except nothing in any of the games other mechanics works like that. pr the 25 pt firebal you just hit that ogre with would do 100 damage and we know it doesn't. it would make large monsters trivial for splay weapons. by level 10 an alchemist can easily do 10 or so as the splash damage for a bomb and throw mu,tipple around.

so I'n this situation say an evil warlord riding a huge flying beast. you throw 2 bombs at the warlord. under the rules your proposing the beast would take 90 damage pee throw 10 per square for 180 damage. this would be amazing... I mean against large creatures. why even target them with the main bomb if they get annihilated I'n the splash damage.


no it's ludicrous. you apply the splash damage once per creature like any other effect I'n the game.

 

[Borthos]

except nothing in any of the games other mechanics works like that. pr the 25 pt firebal you just hit that ogre with would do 100 damage and we know it doesn't. it would make large monsters trivial for splay weapons. by level 10 an alchemist can easily do 10 or so as the splash damage for a bomb and throw mu,tipple around.

Once again, a fireball does not deal splash damage at all. Not a good comparison because it's not the same thing.

so I'n this situation say an evil warlord riding a huge flying beast. you throw 2 bombs at the warlord. under the rules your proposing the beast would take 90 damage pee throw 10 per square for 180 damage. this would be amazing... I mean against large creatures. why even target them with the main bomb if they get annihilated I'n the splash damage.


no it's ludicrous. you apply the splash damage once per creature like any other effect I'n the game.

Where are you getting 90 damage? And it would only be near that high if we were using Tanis' rule interpretation, which, no offense to Tanis, is not how I see it working anyway, imo. Right now, if I threw a flask of acid at a huge beast, it would only take 1d6+9. that's it. Under my interpretation, which is not addressed in the rules. It's hardly optimal, and nowhere near 90 damage or 180.

The only thing about Large creatures it says is that you cannot target a large or bigger creature's grid intersection for just splash damage, like you can do with medium or smaller creatures. Now, if I did hit that large creature, is it logical to say that the splash zone went from just the 5' square around where it hit to the 12 squares around the creature? No, it doesn't. Therefore, from the evidence presented to me, unlike a fireball that doesn't deal any splash damage at all, a large or larger creature is within the splash radius of a splash weapon, and thus deserves to take splash damage only once.

I wanted to get other other opinions on it so I came here, but Mojo Rat, a flask of acid or alchemist fire is not a fireball, and therefore they can not be compared because the effects are not similar. The constant fireball comparison doesn't help. Besides, I don't have access to fireball.

And Dalzig, from what I read, I wouldn't say that every creature is within the splash radius because something had to be the target for the hit right? Bigger things just have a bigger chance of being splashed, smaller ones avoid it.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

maybe I'm missing something. but. I was understanding we were discussing splash weapons hitting every square of a large creature? or I'n my example a huge one. a 5d6 bomb thrown by a 22 int alchemist does 12 splash damage. following the suggestion were having a huge creature will get hit 9 times bt it. 2 bombs x 9 etc ALOT of dead huge creatures.

I used fireball I'n my example because spread is basically the closest thing we have to a splash spell. but you are right their two different things.


all I'm saying is there isn't any precedent I'n the game I know of for getting hit by the same effect multiple times simply for being lRger.

 

[TanisFrey]

maybe I'm missing something. but. I was understanding we were discussing splash weapons hitting every square of a large creature? or I'n my example a huge one. a 5d6 bomb thrown by a 22 int alchemist does 12 splash damage. following the suggestion were having a huge creature will get hit 9 times bt it. 2 bombs x 9 etc ALOT of dead huge creatures.

I used fireball I'n my example because spread is basically the closest thing we have to a splash spell. but you are right their two different things.


all I'm saying is there isn't any precedent I'n the game I know of for getting hit by the same effect multiple times simply for being lRger.

The alchemist would have to attack a square at the edge of the creature. thus at most he would get 5 squares to splash into, unless the alchemist learns to fly. Even then he risks splashing his allies.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

right but that's 70 pts of damage on a weapon that on a direct hit does 37. I'm sorry missing my target does more damage? that makes no sense. but if you can't see this breaks internal game logic the rest of the game follows I'm not sure there's any point I'n discussing it.

all I'm going to say is it diest work that way but if you want a better answer post it on the paizo rules forum.

 

[Borthos]

maybe I'm missing something. but. I was understanding we were discussing splash weapons hitting every square of a large creature? or I'n my example a huge one. a 5d6 bomb thrown by a 22 int alchemist does 12 splash damage. following the suggestion were having a huge creature will get hit 9 times bt it. 2 bombs x 9 etc ALOT of dead huge creatures.

Maybe the average splash damage is 12, I'm not sure about that, so we'll go with it. I'm talking about the direct hit damage plus the splash hitting only once, not every square like tanis says, so it would not be game breaking against bigger creatures. It makes sense for a bigger creature to take that little bit of extra damage simply because of how big they are imo, and on a bomb, the splash damage is a save for 1/2 anyway.

If you throw a glass vial on top of a dragon and it breaks, will most of the material in the vial be splashed on the dragon? logically, yes it will. But throw it a gnome, and the splash channce is severely lessened. It's not as game breaking as you think it is; if you only apply splash damage once that's only an extra 5 damage (depending on int mod) for alchemical items, and 1/2 of 5d6+5 which isn't that much, since I can only throw one bomb at a time for 3 more levels including this one.

I would never rule it to being more damage per square, but to take splash damage once (and only once) if you are in the splash zone. And if you miss with the bomb, they only take splash damage, which if only applied once, will be (1*5)+5= 10, with a reflex save for half. So, 5 damage on a 5d6 bomb that missed it's target slightly. Ouch, that's gonna hurt.

 

[TanisFrey]

Where are you getting 90 damage? And it would only be near that high if we were using Tanis' rule interpretation, which, no offense to Tanis, is not how I see it working anyway, imo. Right now, if I threw a flask of acid at a huge beast, it would only take 1d6+9. that's it. Under my interpretation, which is not addressed in the rules. It's hardly optimal, and nowhere near 90 damage or 180.

The only thing about Large creatures it says is that you cannot target a large or bigger creature's grid intersection for just splash damage, like you can do with medium or smaller creatures. Now, if I did hit that large creature, is it logical to say that the splash zone went from just the 5' square around where it hit to the 12 squares around the creature? No, it doesn't. Therefore, from the evidence presented to me, unlike a fireball that doesn't deal any splash damage at all, a large or larger creature is within the splash radius of a splash weapon, and thus deserves to take splash damage only once.

I would do two things, when you add in the Alchemist class. (A class that I have not read the finale release rules for yet. So, I an relying on what is being said on these boards for their abilities.)

1) With a large creature, whom occupies multiple squares, a character can only attack a square that on the side of the creature closest to the character. Justification: You have to throw the flask at a hard enough preventing you from using indirect fire with grenade-like flasks.

2) Pull a concept from the 3.5 Warmage. The warmage gets to add their INT modifier to the evocations they cast but only once per spell. A magic missile spell cast by the warmage does 1d4+1 per missile and the warmage can choose one to add the INT bonus to. Thus a 3rd level warmage with 18 INT casts magic missile produces a missile that does 1d4+5 and one that does 1d4+1. This concept get imported to the alchemist by limiting the INT bonus damage for a splash to one square of the alchemist choosing per vial thrown. This greatly limits the damage stack from splash damage you guys are worrying about. Justification: The alchemist knows how to put spin on a flask to cause it to do more splash damage in one square.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

I'm not so worried as I don't think it works that way. there is no incentive for the alchemist to score a derect hit under the rules being proposed here.

I will re read the wording o. splash weapons. but I had always understood they worked similar to burst spells.

alright here it is from the prd.

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/combat.html#throw-splash-weapon

nothing I'n the wording there suggests creatures are hit multiple times by the same splash weapon. you either target a creature and it splashes everything else. or you target a grid like a spell and everything I'n range gets splash damage. nothing I'n the wording implies larger creatures are hit more than once.

as I said before this defies internal game logic used by every other similar mechanic I'n the game.

 

[Borthos]

...but there is an incentive to score a direct hit, that you deal more damage to the initial target, as in an additional 6-11, not just 5.

And what similar mechanics are there to splash weapons? As far as I know, splash weapons are their own category. burst spells and splash weapons are nowhere near the same thing, and I'm not sure what is.

 

[Mojo_Rat]

no. using my example earlier of the 5d6+7 bomb. you would do 48 damage to a large creature using this view of the rules. the max dmage if a direct hit is only 42.

where I'n the wording of the bit I linked does it suggest a creature is hit multiple times. it says alll creatures I'n the splash area get hit. but not hit multiple times.. it does not indicate multiple hits to a single creature at all.


look. as I have said several times the game has internal logic. it follows and one of those internal logic rules is creatures get hit by effects once not per area of an effect they ocupy.

well go back to my bomb thrower. he's lvl 10 has swift bombs and is basted. he's fighting a dragon. does he throw 3 bombs at the dragon? or splash it 3 times using thus flawed view of the dukes he would have no reason to target the dragon. just splash it fir 148 damage. I stead of 15d6 +21.

this view is horribly flawed.

splash damage hits a target 1 time per bomb. so using the actual rules he could splash our dragon for 36 damage or hit it directly with all 3 bombs. but I'm done with this argument, since you are not getting it. ask the question on paizos rules forum and the answer will be the same as mine.