Post/Author/DateTime	Post
slockard 04-25-07, 12:29 AM	Certain types of swarms are unaffected by weapon damage. Is a monk's unarmed attack, which can be enhanced like a weaopn, considered a weapon? Reading the FAQ, it seems like the attack is an unarmed attack that can do lethal damage, but I'd love to find confirmation on that. Thanks!
Lord_Zeb 04-25-07, 01:38 AM	An unarmed attack from a monk (or anyone with Improved Unarmed Attack feat) is considered to be from an armed opponent, i.e. counting as a weapon. They may choose to do non-lethal damage if they want though. Furthermore, monks have Ki at 4th level, striking and damaging enemies as if they were attacking with +1 weapons. (Which increases at higher levels.) If that helps. Some Swarms may need area damage to be swatted out though, but I am a bit unsure here.
bondious 04-25-07, 03:22 AM	I'd rule that an unarmed strike is like a weapon, and thus if the swarm has immunity against weapon damage then it would then also against an unarmed strike. Now if that player had a big ass fly swatter, that'd be another story... :D
Kouk 04-25-07, 03:30 AM	If you can't bother the swarm with a warhammer, your fist probably won't work that much better.
slockard 04-25-07, 07:41 AM	From above "An unarmed attack from a monk (or anyone with Improved Unarmed Attack feat) is considered to be from an armed opponent, i.e. counting as a weapon. They may choose to do non-lethal damage if they want though. " I need to go back and cite some rules pages, because I think we're reading the same rules here and getting two differnt interpretations of them. Is there a rules section that says that above. I read the section that I think this refers to as giving the unarmed attack the ability to do lethal damage, and be enhanced as a weapon, (i.e. inheriting some traits) but not actually being weapon. "If you can't bother the swarm with a warhammer, your fist probably won't work that much better" Well beyond the rules saying that they are only impervious to weapon attacks and not unarmed ones, if a swarm of spiders were crawling all over you, what else would you do but swat 'em? :)
draconic_swine 04-25-07, 09:24 AM	Certain types of swarms are unaffected by weapon damage. Is a monk's unarmed attack, which can be enhanced like a weaopn, considered a weapon? A monk's unarmed attack is considered a manufactured weapon only for the purposes of spells or other effects that improve manufactured weapons. From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#unarmedStrike): A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
Lakaniss 04-25-07, 09:32 AM	Monk unarmed strike is either considered a Natural Attack or a Weapon Attack, both fall under the weapon category (Natural Weapon, Manufactured). If a swarm is immune to ''Weapons'' then the Natural Attacks are also covered.
slockard 04-25-07, 09:41 AM	Monk unarmed strike is either considered a Natural Attack or a Weapon Attack, both fall under the weapon category (Natural Weapon, Manufactured). If a swarm is immune to ''Weapons'' then the Natural Attacks are also covered. I'm not disagreeing, but where in the SRD or the printed rules does it say that? I can't find a place that says that unilaterally, but that they are treated that way under certain conditions... Thanks!
Frugal 04-25-07, 09:47 AM	I'm not disagreeing, but where in the SRD or the printed rules does it say that? I can't find a place that says that unilaterally, but that they are treated that way under certain conditions... Thanks! I think you're right that it's just specific cases that they're considered both a natural or manufactured weapon. However, for the case of swarms we have Weapons, of which there are 2 types in D&D, manufactured and natural, so it really doesn't matter which subset the monk's unarmed strike is considered a member of for this, it's still a weapon either way.
slockard 04-25-07, 10:11 AM	Found this in the SRD: -------- "Armed" Unarmed Attacks Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. ---------- Note that it makes a disctinction between a creature with natural weapons and all those other types. The character is considered/counts as being armed for things like Attacks of Opportunity, but is not armed with a "weapon". Maybe I should bundle this line of questioning up and send this on to the Sage?
Captain_Kobold 04-25-07, 10:29 AM	I was under the impression that the reason that a swarm was immune/resistant to pysical attacks was that you just could not kill enough of the component creatures to make a difference. Unluss you have an elemental effect on a weapon, or a torch, which can kill/drive away many of the creatures at once, the few hundred you might kill with an attack is not going to affect the swarm as a whole. On this basis I would say that practically any physical attack that involves hitting your opponent with an object to cause damage would count as a weapon that the swarm would be immune to.
slockard 04-25-07, 11:31 AM	My apologies to Frugal. I'm not srue what type of weapon it is, but unarmed strike is even listed on the weapons list (no cost of course <G>). So that would be a definitive no, just like he said. Thanks for bearing with me :)
bondious 04-25-07, 12:03 PM	Here's something that just came to mind: would a Bane weapon of the appropriate type, say a Vermin-Bane sword, deal its extra 2d6 damage against a spider swarm? Its size/type is "Diminutive Vermin (swarm)", so I'm thinking that the Vermin-Bane is applicable, but I'm not sure if that extra 2d6 damage is akin to that of Flaming or Frost (which a swarm is vulnerable to) or not. I would probably say that it is if it ever came up in one of my games, but I'm curious what others might think.
Vegepygmy 04-25-07, 12:12 PM	Its size/type is "Diminutive Vermin (swarm)", so I'm thinking that the Vermin-Bane is applicable, but I'm not sure if that extra 2d6 damage is akin to that of Flaming or Frost (which a swarm is vulnerable to) or not.It is not. The vulnerability of swarms to the energy abilities (flaming, frost, etc.) is explicitly called out in the swarm rules. There is no equivalent statement for bane weapons.
Kouk 04-25-07, 03:02 PM	Bane affects a single target, and single target effects don't do anything to swarms. If you are in a swarm, and all you have is your fists, you better move. Kind of silly to think "My greatclub does nothing, what should we do?" "Drop it and start swatting the flies, your hands are now registered as splash weapons."
bondious 04-25-07, 03:17 PM	Kind of silly to think "My greatclub does nothing, what should we do?" "Drop it and start swatting the flies, your hands are now registered as splash weapons." Or you and your party (with exception to the spellcasters) can bust out the acid flasks and alchemist's fire. That'd probably do the trick! Those things can come in handy.
Devlonir 04-25-07, 04:01 PM	Hmmm.. i might houserule that someone with a flaming bane(vermin) weapon will be able to add his 2d6 to the flaming damage though.. gotta think it through for abuse first though
bondious 04-25-07, 04:19 PM	I'm still kinda on the fence about the 2d6 Bane damage. My thoughts on this are that MOST swarms I've seen are comprised of either animals or vermin, and from what I can tell, those two aren't really popular Bane weapon choices. There are exceptions, of course, like the Hellwasp Swarm (magical beast, though I think they should be outsiders) and the Bone Rat and Corpse Rat Swarms (undead) from the Libris Mortis. Now if they had a universal "Swarm Bane" ability, but I don't see it on the list. Since they don't, it kinda feels to me that these swarms should fall under some category, and that maybe the extra Bane damage SHOULD work. Now that I think about it, here's another question. I'm looking at the Hellwasp Swarm and it says they're always Lawful Evil. So what if you have a Holy weapon, instead: do you apply the 2d6 extra Holy damage to the swarm if it is evil?
Vegepygmy 04-25-07, 07:50 PM	I'm looking at the Hellwasp Swarm and it says they're always Lawful Evil. So what if you have a Holy weapon, instead: do you apply the 2d6 extra Holy damage to the swarm if it is evil?No, for the same reason that Devlonir should not houserule that a flaming bane weapon's +2d6 damage applies to the +1d6 fire damage it deals: holy weapons don't deal "holy damage," and bane weapons don't deal "bane damage," they deal extra damage of the weapon's type. If the swarm is immune to weapon damage, increasing the amount of damage the weapon deals will obviously have no effect.
Kouk 04-26-07, 12:07 AM	From SRD A swarm made up of Tiny creatures takes half damage from slashing and piercing weapons. A swarm composed of Fine or Diminutive creatures is immune to all weapon damage. A swarm is immune to any spell or effect that targets a specific number of creatures (including single-target spells such as disintegrate), with the exception of mind-affecting effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects) if the swarm has an Intelligence score and a hive mind. A swarm takes half again as much damage (+50%) from spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells. From Monster Manual Swarm entry, pg. 237 Vulnerabilities of Swarms: ... A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 fire damage per hit. A weapon with a special ability such as flaming or frost deals its full energy damage with each hit, even if the weapon's normal damage can't affect the swarm. A lit lantern can be used as a thrown weapon, dealing 1d4 points of fire damage to all creatures in squares adjacent to where it breaks. I am fairly confident the Bane quality affects a single target, and so would not function against the swarm. Fire or Ice or other "energy" damage does work against a swarm for the same reason the lit torch does. As long as the swarm is made of at least Tiny creatures, unarmed strike would work like any other weapon.
bondious 04-26-07, 02:48 AM	I think I see what you all mean. A Flaming (Frost, etc) weapon, when activated, is sheathed in that element that will harm pretty much anyone who comes into contact with it except the wielder. Bane and Holy (Unholy, etc) are not sheathed in a contant effect, which probably means that they are "hit activated", and thus affect only that creature it hits. If you drop an active Flaming sword, I'm pretty sure that you'll take d6 fire damage to pick it up, and then once in your possession it becomes "yours" and you'll suffer no furthar ill effects while in your possession. But if you drop a Bane weapon (say if you're a human picking up a Human Bane weapon) or if you're evil and picking up a Holy weapon, neither one is going to damage you just for picking it up (besides the negative level from the Holy weapon, of course), only if you are actually attacked and hit. Got it! ;) So now I'm looking at Thundering and Vicious. Thundering is actived on a sucessful critical hit, which against a swarm isn't probably all that good since the likelyhood of hitting a critical is low, and the rest of the hits are for naught since the swarm would be immune to the damage, but if you DID hit a critical would you get the Thundering damage? Vicious, on the other hand, specifically states that the damage is "between the opponent and the wielder", so I'm thinking that it's more of a "one-on-one" thing and NOT a "one-on-many at the same time" thing. Any thoughts/confirmations/conflicts?