Splash Damage Question

[Celebrim]

If you, a large creature, get hit by the primary attack you are still within the splash area because you are "a creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits." So you take splash damage.

Yes, I'm aware of that reading. But the reason that I think that reading wasn't the intention is that the same logic still works regardless of the size of the creature.

For example:

"If you, a tiny creature, get hit by the primary attack then you are still within the splash area because you are "a creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits."

That still works. So in effect, that reading means direct hits always do 1d6+1 damage.

Honestly, this is a situation where logic can be use to support either side because the rules do not expensively exclude either interpretation.

I agree. I have no particular problem with the interpretation of a direct hit doing both direct damage and splash.

However, in my game 1e inspired game alchemist fire does d8 damage on a direct hit and d3 damage on a splash and forces a reflex save to avoid catching on fire, and that is my intention under the rules. So, for my game, it certainly won't be interpretted to mean that a direct hit causes both direct and splash damage because I've already made the attack quite strong.

 

[TanisFrey]

In Older editions being a large creature gave you no advantages, only penalties for taking damage as a large creature (mixed bag, usually did not help you.)

Now in 3.x you get extra strength, larger damage dice, reach attack, bonus to grapple, bull rush and a few drawback like AC penalty, to hit Penalty (usually more than made up by the STR boost), and now under my interpretation a little extra damage for splash damage from Alchemist fire flasks or Acid flasks attacks.