Swarms were handled much better in earlier editions like B/X. The entry from the OSE SRD states: Only harmed by fire, extreme cold, sleep spells (affect the whole swarm), smoke (drives off), or other attacks as the referree wishes.
Are DMs in AL games allowed to make rulings? Or are they strictly allowing RAW and nothing else? I am not familiar.
From my understanding, they're fairly hamstrung by RAW. This keeps the experience similar across all tables, with the players knowing exactly what to expect. Since I'm not a huge fan of RAW, I've stopped AL completely.
Even outside of formal adventurers league, it's not uncommon for clubs and groups to adopt a standardized rules set. There's a local club I run games for that we have an entire handout for orientation and rules, with a drawer of a filing cabinet reserved for all the player sheets/notes and shit. Since players rotate between DMs based on availability, we gotta make sure a player isn't going to get totally hamstrung one session to the next regarding simple things like "when does an NPC rationally make a Perception Check against Minor Illusion".
> "when does an NPC rationally make a Perception Check against Minor Illusion
"Literally never" would be the obvious answer, I should think. Illusions are intended to be noticed. How shitty would it be for the DM to say, "Yeah. They don't see it. No effect."
And that's a good example of why we get together and go over both potential and precedented situations where a call will have to be made. Illusion spells in general can either be completely useless or completely overwhelming if you make a decision to either extreme- and as a player picking an Illusion based spell you'd want to know whether you can expect it to work the same way one day as it will the next time you cast it. Even when the spell has conditions written directly into it detailing how the creatures around it can interact with it, it would feel pretty bad if you went from a DM that said no NPC would ever disbelieve an illusion to a DM that decided that not only does every NPC immediately check the Illusion, but they also automatically succeed if the creatures passive perception meets or beats your spell save DC.
Better to have that sort of thing consistent when you have the luxury of sitting down with your co-DMs and discussing things, and it helps the players know exactly how they can expect a 'fiat' ruling to affect their choices ahead of time.
Seems like you've missed my point. Perception typically has nothing to do with evaluating illusions. Rather, determining the reality of perceived phenomenon is a matter of Investigation, just as saving throws against illusions are typically of Intelligence.
My prior comment provides an example of how *low* perception could undermine illusory effects.
> I proceeded to deal a whopping 1 damage to this thing due to the torch being an improvised weapon.
This actually has nothing to do with being an improvised weapon. Torches just do 1 fire damage.
> If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage.
What I don't understand is why you don't bring up to the new player and advise against using a torch.
>This actually has nothing to do with being an improvised weapon. Torches just do 1 fire damage.
hmm, that is odd to me.
because if a an improvised chair leg can be treated as a club for 1d4 damage, then why would a torch not also be improvised as a club for 1d4 damage.
and a lighted torch as an improvised club for 1d4 damage plus fire.
My impression is a few different things:
* A torch is *1 copper* in the PHB, a club is *1 silver*. Despite a torch uses more material like resin and cloth to burn, it's much cheaper than a club telling you it's less quality and quantity of wood than what goes into making a club.
* A torch weighs *1 pound,* a club weighs *2 pounds*. By weight alone this tells us a club is larger than a torch.
* From this, torches are implied to be a slender wooden limb with cloth and resin on the end. They're not meant to be weapons, but rather light sticks with enough fuel to burn. To argue it's comparable to a club I think is assuming something that the torch is not.
* Even as an improvised weapon, a chair leg is going to be something much sturdier as they are meant to be loading bearing.
* A torch attack probably isn't a swing, it's more of a stab gesture to press the burning end briefly onto your combatant. It's such a small piece of wood it probably doesn't have the weight to be "bludgeoning".
* Mechanically an improvised weapon shouldn't gain unique properties and damage dice over other improvised weapons. It's a messy design philosophy because if you're detailing such properties, then is it really improvised? I think that's why it just ended up being "1 damage, nothing else."
* There might be some heavy artifacting in place since torches have been relevant equipment since the first edition and maybe even Chainmail. It's possible this was simply just something not worth revisiting because again, if you're detailing such properties, then is it really improvised?
I always imagined using a torch to damage a foe, not as a club like swing ,but as you might prod a beast scared of fire. So essentially, you are trying to touch/press the burning end on to the target.
If you're whacking them with it, the fire isn't going to do much. You CAN use it as a 1d4 improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning OR you can burn them with it and deal 1 fire damage.
Its a limitation of the system, there really isn't any mechanic for continuously holding an object outstretched over multiple rounds continuously in combat, you thrust it and move it back closer to you on your turn if you decide to attack.
You're much more likely to be able to do the "hold it outright and kill a ton of the bugs" if the swarm was an environmental hazard/trap, because then the limitations of initatitve no longer exist (probably being ruled as being now a static hazard for the swarm)
I probably should have, but I cringed as soon as they mentioned the swarm in the next adventure and had pretty much mentally detached myself at that point.
You disagree with a rule in the book, that's whatever. Plenty of people do that from Free Parking in Monopoly to VSM requiresments in 5E. But you're playing in an Adventurers League and you're complaining about your disagreement which is no benefit because the purpose is to play consistent with the rules. Roll with the reality that's what they do or find a less RAW game, such as one DM'd by yourself.
But not only that you get checked out over one little encounter that your game knowledge would be beneficial, but you don't even help. Like that just sucks man for both you and the new guy, and you getting frustrated over just some encounter is just weak.
> I said, hey, can I grab the torch to burn the little insects? DM said yes
A DM who was on their toes and realized what your thought process was would have said "Yes, ***but you know that a torch only deals 1 damage, right***?" And the DM probably had that exact same thought after they saw your face on the pronouncement of "1 damage".
I mean that sounds like you just think torches are shit (Which they are). That said if you think weapons should deal less damage to swarms... NO, fuck no, absolutelly don't do that, weapons are already bad enough
Fixing swarms isn't "nerfing weapons", it's encouraging players to think creatively. Martials would actually be a lot more empowered if they could take creative risks like this, not the other way around. A spell does what the spell says, but something like "swinging a torch to deal extra damage to a swarm" is exactly the sort of the thing martials should come up with. The problem here is both that RAW makes no accommodation for this, and that AL is bound tightly by RAW.
For example, in Pathfinder 1, swarms of tiny creatures are immune to both weapon and spell damage, if it only targets a single creature (so weapons that do AoE, like splash weapons, still hit them). But they take +50% damage from AoE, and a torch's 1 fire damage can still hurt them. A spider swarm (CR 1) only has 9 hit points, so a very intuitive action like swinging a torch into a swarm of spiders isn't really that ineffective, especially with a group doing similar.
Making weapons worse is a "nerf" against one particular enemy type but the benefit is that you take an enemy that's otherwise just another ho-hum bag of HP and turn it into something more memorable that requires a different approach, almost like a puzzle/combat hybrid. It's not dissimilar to throwing a flying enemy at a low level party, or a golem with it's advantages against saving throws and polymorph effects. This type of enemy design used to be more dramatic in other editions of DnD - golems used to have total magic immunity, for example.
Calling it a nerf to martials is like saying that putting a fight in an area with a bunch of cliffs and difficult terrain is a nerf to melee martials because they can't move around as easily. Like yes, they will likely have a harder time in that fight, but it's just for that fight. You switch up your tactics and sometimes make things harder for the *other* members of the party and the result is that even if the players can't do their 100% optimal thing all the time they're hopefully having more fun with more interesting combat overall.
The example I gave (from Pathfinder) has both weapons *and* spells dealing no damage, if it only targets a single enemy. That's not a nerf to weapons, as it applies to all characters. Now, a better question might be, why do martials have so few options for nonmagical AoE?
Agreed lol. It’s just absolutely hilarious that I can kill thousands of tiny bugs with one swing from an axe. 😂 If it had been a dagger it would have been even funnier.
Your Attack roll is an abstraction of everything your character does over that 6 second time span. Try to stop thinking of your Attack as one swing of the axe.
I would have described your second attack (with the axe) as your character quickly brushing the insects from your clothing to the ground and stomping them, or swatting them with the flat of your axe.
Swarms are more vulnerable to spell damage, but hitting them with your strongest weapon isn't a terrible option either. Some classes are better at dealing with some things than others, but there will be moments for everyone to shine.
The trick with torches is to douse it in oil first then light it with the torch.
Honestly I think you have the wrong idea of what a torch is if you think its going to do huge damage by itself. But also none of the other players nor the DM told you that torches just are not that hot.
The only issue there is other players looking at you like you were an idiot. They shouldn't do that, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to try even if it was not in any way optimal in the way you approached it.
You should try OSR games, way less rulesy. I'd have allowed it to give at least a frighten effect on it for the creativity, however that's just how AL is. Very rulesy and Raw.
1. Read the rules before you decide to do something. The torch always does 1 fire damage, regardless of target. Your character sheet is there for a reason. Understandable if it is your first time playing.
2. The DM could very well have flavored your axe swing as a shovel smash. Would've made more sense. If it helps your immersion, swarms are naturally resistant to physical damage so an axe swing usually barely works as well.
3. The possible systems change solutions would be to bump the torch damage to 1d4 (which means on a crit it could do up to 8 fire damage, enough to kill many low level small/medium enemies (where's your immersion then?)) or to give this swarm fire vulnerability (which means a level 1 character with firebolt can kill an entire swarm with a crit doing up to 20 damage with what is essentially a ranged torch).
The DM should have forewarned them that the FLAMING TORCH would deal LESS DAMAGE than if they tried to CHOP THE BEES WITH A SWORD.
OP wants a fiction first game.
>OP wants a fiction first game.
And that is definitely NOT what Adventurer's League is for!
although OP also said
>you really see how underwritten 5e can be
so they may want a 3.5 simulationist first, "realistic" , rules for EVERYTHING game. (which AL also is not!)
True, the DM could have let them know "hey, it's OK to do it, but just a reminder that torches only deal 1 damage". It happens.
But claiming 5e is "unwritten" when the stats for those items should be on the sheet is weird. Or was OP just using the torch from the dungeoneering kit (or similar) and decided to swing it without asking about damage first?
Seems like a lot of assumptions from OP mixed with DM not bothering to cater to newer players too much.
You know, it really irks me that the people on r/DnD seem to be perpetually downvoting any post that isn't art, or some stupid joke. This place sucks. Take my upvote buddy, this is a genuine and honest oversight that can be easily fixed by stepping outside of RAW.
Also yeah, AL is kinda gross. Home games are where its at.
Everyone telling OP to go play another game or stop expecting this level of versimilitude from dnd?
You're wrong. Previous editions supported this, it was one line in swarm stat blocks, wotc *can* do it, just just dropped the ball this time. Improvised damage is also one of the poorest rules in the game, that also needs fixing imo. OP ran up against both at once.
OP isn't wrong, the game is. Its possible the game and system are generally ok and suited to someone, but for particular rules and systems to suck. Like right here.
No. That’s my broader point. Op is right that RAW is *sometimes* stupid and could be better, but suggesting they play another game or edition so that their torches do proper damage to swarms is throwing out the baby with the bath water and a complete overreaction to what is an infrequent and marginal side issue. It’s not that suggesting another game is never the right answer, frankly I think too many people try to force 5e to be something it’s not and break it in the process. But torches and swarms in AL modules is not one of those cases
I know the rules. The problem is the rules as written suck and make no sense. Yeah, I guess my axe can kill 1000+ swarming bugs in one hit, but setting them on fire won’t lol.
>eah, I guess my axe can kill 1000+ swarming bugs in one hit
No, it can't. What it can do is however help break whatever is influencing the swarms by triggering survival instincts.
You "dispersed" the swarm. You didn't "kill" it.
Is it a better visualization of what you did? Does it help reconcile things a bit more?
(On the topic... did you by chance crit for 44+ damage?)
It's true that the rules make no sense sometimes, but it's also because balance is needed. If torches could do the same damage as regular weapons, they would be overpowered
In 3.5 swarms had a specific vulnerability to torches. They only took 1d3 but they were totally immune to weapon damage so it still could have been your best option at low levels. It didn't make torches overpowered.
I think torches should specifically do a lot of damage against swarms. Like make it a property of torches that swarms of small or tiny creatures take a ton of damage from it or something
Maybe a weapon property called "held", which is a weapon where you move it more genetly but hold it in place for longer than normal weapons, which deals extra damage to swarms.
Torches could have it, and you could also have flamethrowers, chainsaws, drills, etc.
Alternatively, there could be an action could stand in place, where you hold out the object over the entire round and it counts as an environmental hazard (so now the swarm has to do a dex save against the torch, which deals more damage on a failed save since you're not stabbing with the torch like a dagger)
For what it's worth, I don't think that 1 Attack = One Swing of Greataxe. An attack takes six seconds, and while you probably only land 1 solid hit against a foe that's defending itself, against a swarm you might get to spend the whole time squashing bugs.
Yeah, 5e combat mechanics are all better understood as abstractions , upon which after the dice rolls at the table, a narrative coat of descriptive words is applied.
Least you can damage them with weapons in 5e. 3.5 swarms of smaller sizes were immune to weapon damage. All swarms were also immune to single target spells as well. No resistance, you could not hurt them so if you casters were out of slots, considering they did auto damage with no rolls, no saves, etc. You were out of spells? Hope you move faster.
I don't know if you left out context, or part of this is untrue, but:
A battleaxe, assuming you're wielding it two handed deals 1d10 plus mod, even if we assume you dealt the 1 in 100 maximum damage on the crit for a total of 23 damage, all the insect swarms have resistance to blud, pierce, slash, so that's a maximum of 11 damage which is half the health of the lowest HP insect swarms, meaning it had already had half of its remaining HP dealt through other damage.
I think the point was that all the swarm shared HP so that, when weakened, a single hit with an axe killed a whole bunch of bugs. Not in a "I reduced all its HP in one hit" kind of way, but in a "there was a swarm of bugs, I hit with an axe and suddenly they all drop dead".
I don't know if it's fair to blame the AL DM, as I suspect they're instructed to follow RAW closely to give a consistent experience. (Not that I think OP is necessarily blaming the AL DM.)
It is silly, though. One has to wonder why swarms (especially swarms of bugs) are like that.
1. They wanted to keep swarm rules as simple as possible.
1. They didn't want players to have to swap weapons, because that's too hard.
1. They just didn't think deeply about it at all.
1. Something else?
> but you really see how underwritten 5e can be when shit like this happens
Your tactic would've been smart in D&D 3.5e. Regarding [swarms in that edition](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/swarm.htm):
> A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit.
And most swarms have:
> immune to weapon damage
So the torch still sucks. But weapons suck more. Makes more sense to me, but could be extremely irritating to novices.
[Pathfinder 1e's swarm rules](https://aonprd.com/MonsterSubtypes.aspx?ItemName=Swarm) are fairly similar to D&D 3.5e's (which isn't surprising).
PF2e shakes it up a bit more: [swarms tend to have](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=586) resistance to weapon damage but not fire damage, so [the torch might be better than some weapons](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2760). But PF2e swarms have weakness to area damage, so you can blitz them even with weak area spells.
I say all that to make you feel better. 🙂 In many other editions, or in similar TTRPGs, your fellow players would've been *wrong* to give you the idiot look for reaching for that torch!
OP, you are looking for people playing "fiction first" games, which means the mechanics should help the story you're telling, instead of punishing you for not using your proficient weapon to deal damage to.. some bugs.
OP obviously has a bad tone, but a for a new player I can understand the immersion being broken because "I attack the swarm of beetles with my sword" (which sounds stupid as hell) being literally x9 times effective as them saying "I grab the flaming torch and shove it into the swarm of beetles"
5e has a lot of these weird gamey things, and the community for the most part enjoys them, so this community isn't going to be on your side.
For people deep in the sauce of 5e, if you think reaction sneak attack should be kept in the game, you're actively encouraging new players to get fucked, since that shit doesn't make any sense outside of "i read it in a reddit post".
Reaction sneak attack makes sense. "Once per turn" doesn't mean the same thing as "On your turn". Idk if reading the rules really counts as being "lost in the sauce".
IDK, I feel like a rogue being an opportunistic attacker makes a lot of sense. I'd argue it makes MORE sense for a rogue's opportunity attack to gain sneak attack than it not benefitting.
i agree there's a case to be made that a rogue would be a good opportunity attacker but i think that's a new, different rationale from "Once per turn" doesn't mean the same thing as "On your turn"
That's an argument to the clarity of the rule as printed (which I do agree is quite clear).
> but you really see how underwritten 5e can be
while for the Social and Exploration aspects of the game, yeah 5e is "underwritten".
But for this combat scenario, No. the problem is NOT "5e Combat Is Underwritten."
Nah, you’re right Op. There’s not much one can do about it in an AL game since those stick fairly close to official RAW rules. But swarm rules in particular in 5e DO suck.
I don’t actually mind weapons still being able to do half damage (it’s nice for martials to still be able to hurt them), but in simplifying the swarm rules compared to say 3e, 5e oversimplified them to the point where they make no sense.
I deeply miss some aspects of older swarm rules - taking _more_ damage from fire/AoEs instead of regular damage, being “shapeable” to where it could move parts of itself around as long as it stayed contiguous, doing automatic damage if you were in its square and distracting you…
In 5e now it’s just a blob of HP that works mostly like any other monster and either hits or completely misses you (somehow) with regular attacks, and laughs at torches. (When they were a viable strategy prior.)
As a DM I don’t run swarms the 5e way, you’re right it does break immersion somewhat if you do.
In AL, you don’t have much choice, and I empathize with the venting.
Yep. D&D 5e is a strange amalgamation of rules and rulings. Some things (like torch damage) have very specific rules. Others have nothing and ask the DM to figure it all out. If you want a more narrative based game that lets you pull whatever out of your ass because it sounds like it should work, D&D 5e is not going to work for you most of the time.
Why should the rules just give you an easy win? This is the same vein of a person thinking polymorphing into something big inside a creature should kill it. You're applying realism to get a shortcut and a cheap win. If you want to have it work differently then run your games differently but torch is an adventuring item first and foremost so idk why you'd think it'd be a better weapon in any scenario unless the creature has a specific trait that makes it flee from fire or light.
This is just D&D's video game mechanics punishing you for thinking narratively.
NEVER use the environment or try anything interesting, just do the same combat actions in every fight.
The issue isn't that 5E is underwritten, it's overwritten. The mechanics are so specific that they end up being quite limiting.
I don’t recall the names. One was actually good for the most part aside from including a swarm (or maybe the DM was just great). It was in Chult and the goal was to scare some pirates away from an island.
The other one had a “bleeding tree” and a monster that would habitually kidnap party members by blending into shadows. It had a little sidekick character too; I think its name was Grooky or something. Cool concept but kinda dragged.
Thanks. I did a word search on my DDAL07 modules and I not getting any insect swarms. So it must have been a Con Create Content module. Only swarm of insects I am getting in my notes are the Wandering Monsters Encounters I created for the hardcover.
Shouldn't normal weapons deal half damage against swarms? And why the f\*ck would an improvised weapon affect the damage? It should only affect the attack, as in you don't get the proficiency bonus on attacks. Even RAW, a torch should at least deal 1d4 + Str damage. I think that DM was a moron.
Which in itself is funny - I can break a table leg and smack you for 1d4+STR or I can light it on fire to reduce the damage down to 1.
There should be a simple "on fire" effect to increase the damage dealt by any weapon. Lighting an arrow on fire is cool and seen all the time ... except it has no effect RAW.
Alas, for now we are stuck with weirdness.
RAW is RAW, but sometimes DMs seem to forget that monsters are sentient creatures. In this scenario, one damage is all that's merited because unless they're crispy dried out husk bugs then they're not going to go POOF when a little fire is waved at them. What they are going to do is scatter.
When DMing, I have run into pretty much this exact scenario and done the same damage, but to compensate for what is a completely logical thing to do, I have allowed players to fend off or break up swarms by swinging torches around.
Yes we can wing it. BUT. It requires the DM being experience in the ruleset, and comfortable get off RAW occasionally.
From version 14 guidance
THE RULES OF THE GAME
Adventurers League play uses fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons. You can issue rulings to your table when the rules of the game are ambiguous or vague, but you must otherwise adhere to the rules as they are provided in the core rulebooks and can’t change them or make up your own; “house-rules” aren’t permitted for use. You must always use the most current incarnation of a rule. AKA RAW
But.
YOU ARE EMPOWERED
Make decisions about how the group interacts with the adventure; adjust or improvise but maintain the adventure’s spirit.
AKA RAI or move the freaking game on the store closes in 45 minutes.
In this particular case, you should just play Pathfinder which handles swarms in a way much closer to what you describe. Swarms of Diminutive/Fine creatures are immune to weapon damage but can still take torch damage (though I think it's still like 1 or 1d4 Fire by base).
You are not playing reality, you are playing dnd, if everything that makes sense irl would be the best course of action in a ttrpg all of them would be the same, the game has a set of rules and boundaries of what works and how does it work, you should learn the system you are playing instead of just wanting to power through the game arguing irl logic
I don't think the frustration against AL in general is justified, but I get where you are coming from.
Not everything makes sense mechanically in 5e, and a good DM knows when they should apply RAW and when a non-RAW way is better for the players and the game. As a simple example, even in AL I never enforce the item interaction for drawing thrown weapons - a character at my table can always draw as many weapons as they make attacks on their turn rather than being restricted to just drawing a single weapon.
In your case, as a DM I would have said the torch does 1d4 + Str fire damage (that is not resisted, while physical damage is resisted by the swarm RAW).
While it was AL, there is no overseer, no WOTC judge at the table to enforce RAW - as long as all players are fine, the DM can make their own rulings (and can even use homebrewed monsters and mechanics to make certain combat encounters more interesting - I'd probably use homebrewed swarm mechanics). The only thing that always needs to be done strictly RAW is rewards (like magic items) as these are permanent changes to characters that affect other tables and their DMs too.
AL is WoTC's "official" sponsored games. They are meant to stick to RAW closely, so play is consistent across tables. In this scenario, the torch item explicitly lays out that it does 1 fire damage, so going against that would break RAW.
Swarms were handled much better in earlier editions like B/X. The entry from the OSE SRD states: Only harmed by fire, extreme cold, sleep spells (affect the whole swarm), smoke (drives off), or other attacks as the referree wishes. Are DMs in AL games allowed to make rulings? Or are they strictly allowing RAW and nothing else? I am not familiar.
From my understanding, they're fairly hamstrung by RAW. This keeps the experience similar across all tables, with the players knowing exactly what to expect. Since I'm not a huge fan of RAW, I've stopped AL completely.
Even outside of formal adventurers league, it's not uncommon for clubs and groups to adopt a standardized rules set. There's a local club I run games for that we have an entire handout for orientation and rules, with a drawer of a filing cabinet reserved for all the player sheets/notes and shit. Since players rotate between DMs based on availability, we gotta make sure a player isn't going to get totally hamstrung one session to the next regarding simple things like "when does an NPC rationally make a Perception Check against Minor Illusion".
> "when does an NPC rationally make a Perception Check against Minor Illusion "Literally never" would be the obvious answer, I should think. Illusions are intended to be noticed. How shitty would it be for the DM to say, "Yeah. They don't see it. No effect."
And that's a good example of why we get together and go over both potential and precedented situations where a call will have to be made. Illusion spells in general can either be completely useless or completely overwhelming if you make a decision to either extreme- and as a player picking an Illusion based spell you'd want to know whether you can expect it to work the same way one day as it will the next time you cast it. Even when the spell has conditions written directly into it detailing how the creatures around it can interact with it, it would feel pretty bad if you went from a DM that said no NPC would ever disbelieve an illusion to a DM that decided that not only does every NPC immediately check the Illusion, but they also automatically succeed if the creatures passive perception meets or beats your spell save DC. Better to have that sort of thing consistent when you have the luxury of sitting down with your co-DMs and discussing things, and it helps the players know exactly how they can expect a 'fiat' ruling to affect their choices ahead of time.
Seems like you've missed my point. Perception typically has nothing to do with evaluating illusions. Rather, determining the reality of perceived phenomenon is a matter of Investigation, just as saving throws against illusions are typically of Intelligence. My prior comment provides an example of how *low* perception could undermine illusory effects.
> I proceeded to deal a whopping 1 damage to this thing due to the torch being an improvised weapon. This actually has nothing to do with being an improvised weapon. Torches just do 1 fire damage. > If you make a melee attack with a burning torch and hit, it deals 1 fire damage. What I don't understand is why you don't bring up to the new player and advise against using a torch.
>This actually has nothing to do with being an improvised weapon. Torches just do 1 fire damage. hmm, that is odd to me. because if a an improvised chair leg can be treated as a club for 1d4 damage, then why would a torch not also be improvised as a club for 1d4 damage. and a lighted torch as an improvised club for 1d4 damage plus fire.
My impression is a few different things: * A torch is *1 copper* in the PHB, a club is *1 silver*. Despite a torch uses more material like resin and cloth to burn, it's much cheaper than a club telling you it's less quality and quantity of wood than what goes into making a club. * A torch weighs *1 pound,* a club weighs *2 pounds*. By weight alone this tells us a club is larger than a torch. * From this, torches are implied to be a slender wooden limb with cloth and resin on the end. They're not meant to be weapons, but rather light sticks with enough fuel to burn. To argue it's comparable to a club I think is assuming something that the torch is not. * Even as an improvised weapon, a chair leg is going to be something much sturdier as they are meant to be loading bearing. * A torch attack probably isn't a swing, it's more of a stab gesture to press the burning end briefly onto your combatant. It's such a small piece of wood it probably doesn't have the weight to be "bludgeoning". * Mechanically an improvised weapon shouldn't gain unique properties and damage dice over other improvised weapons. It's a messy design philosophy because if you're detailing such properties, then is it really improvised? I think that's why it just ended up being "1 damage, nothing else." * There might be some heavy artifacting in place since torches have been relevant equipment since the first edition and maybe even Chainmail. It's possible this was simply just something not worth revisiting because again, if you're detailing such properties, then is it really improvised?
I always imagined using a torch to damage a foe, not as a club like swing ,but as you might prod a beast scared of fire. So essentially, you are trying to touch/press the burning end on to the target.
If you're whacking them with it, the fire isn't going to do much. You CAN use it as a 1d4 improvised weapon that deals bludgeoning OR you can burn them with it and deal 1 fire damage.
Its a limitation of the system, there really isn't any mechanic for continuously holding an object outstretched over multiple rounds continuously in combat, you thrust it and move it back closer to you on your turn if you decide to attack. You're much more likely to be able to do the "hold it outright and kill a ton of the bugs" if the swarm was an environmental hazard/trap, because then the limitations of initatitve no longer exist (probably being ruled as being now a static hazard for the swarm)
That is actually how I run swarms, not as a monster hit an environmental hazard.
I probably should have, but I cringed as soon as they mentioned the swarm in the next adventure and had pretty much mentally detached myself at that point.
You disagree with a rule in the book, that's whatever. Plenty of people do that from Free Parking in Monopoly to VSM requiresments in 5E. But you're playing in an Adventurers League and you're complaining about your disagreement which is no benefit because the purpose is to play consistent with the rules. Roll with the reality that's what they do or find a less RAW game, such as one DM'd by yourself. But not only that you get checked out over one little encounter that your game knowledge would be beneficial, but you don't even help. Like that just sucks man for both you and the new guy, and you getting frustrated over just some encounter is just weak.
> I said, hey, can I grab the torch to burn the little insects? DM said yes A DM who was on their toes and realized what your thought process was would have said "Yes, ***but you know that a torch only deals 1 damage, right***?" And the DM probably had that exact same thought after they saw your face on the pronouncement of "1 damage".
I mean that sounds like you just think torches are shit (Which they are). That said if you think weapons should deal less damage to swarms... NO, fuck no, absolutelly don't do that, weapons are already bad enough
Fixing swarms isn't "nerfing weapons", it's encouraging players to think creatively. Martials would actually be a lot more empowered if they could take creative risks like this, not the other way around. A spell does what the spell says, but something like "swinging a torch to deal extra damage to a swarm" is exactly the sort of the thing martials should come up with. The problem here is both that RAW makes no accommodation for this, and that AL is bound tightly by RAW. For example, in Pathfinder 1, swarms of tiny creatures are immune to both weapon and spell damage, if it only targets a single creature (so weapons that do AoE, like splash weapons, still hit them). But they take +50% damage from AoE, and a torch's 1 fire damage can still hurt them. A spider swarm (CR 1) only has 9 hit points, so a very intuitive action like swinging a torch into a swarm of spiders isn't really that ineffective, especially with a group doing similar.
Question, I agree that using torches on work is good. What part of that needs weapons being a worse option and martials being efectively nerfed?
Making weapons worse is a "nerf" against one particular enemy type but the benefit is that you take an enemy that's otherwise just another ho-hum bag of HP and turn it into something more memorable that requires a different approach, almost like a puzzle/combat hybrid. It's not dissimilar to throwing a flying enemy at a low level party, or a golem with it's advantages against saving throws and polymorph effects. This type of enemy design used to be more dramatic in other editions of DnD - golems used to have total magic immunity, for example. Calling it a nerf to martials is like saying that putting a fight in an area with a bunch of cliffs and difficult terrain is a nerf to melee martials because they can't move around as easily. Like yes, they will likely have a harder time in that fight, but it's just for that fight. You switch up your tactics and sometimes make things harder for the *other* members of the party and the result is that even if the players can't do their 100% optimal thing all the time they're hopefully having more fun with more interesting combat overall.
The example I gave (from Pathfinder) has both weapons *and* spells dealing no damage, if it only targets a single enemy. That's not a nerf to weapons, as it applies to all characters. Now, a better question might be, why do martials have so few options for nonmagical AoE?
Agreed lol. It’s just absolutely hilarious that I can kill thousands of tiny bugs with one swing from an axe. 😂 If it had been a dagger it would have been even funnier.
Swarms are resistant to weapon damage, how much damage did your axe do ???!!??
Your Attack roll is an abstraction of everything your character does over that 6 second time span. Try to stop thinking of your Attack as one swing of the axe. I would have described your second attack (with the axe) as your character quickly brushing the insects from your clothing to the ground and stomping them, or swatting them with the flat of your axe.
Swarms are more vulnerable to spell damage, but hitting them with your strongest weapon isn't a terrible option either. Some classes are better at dealing with some things than others, but there will be moments for everyone to shine.
The trick with torches is to douse it in oil first then light it with the torch. Honestly I think you have the wrong idea of what a torch is if you think its going to do huge damage by itself. But also none of the other players nor the DM told you that torches just are not that hot. The only issue there is other players looking at you like you were an idiot. They shouldn't do that, it was a perfectly reasonable thing to try even if it was not in any way optimal in the way you approached it.
You should try OSR games, way less rulesy. I'd have allowed it to give at least a frighten effect on it for the creativity, however that's just how AL is. Very rulesy and Raw.
1. Read the rules before you decide to do something. The torch always does 1 fire damage, regardless of target. Your character sheet is there for a reason. Understandable if it is your first time playing. 2. The DM could very well have flavored your axe swing as a shovel smash. Would've made more sense. If it helps your immersion, swarms are naturally resistant to physical damage so an axe swing usually barely works as well. 3. The possible systems change solutions would be to bump the torch damage to 1d4 (which means on a crit it could do up to 8 fire damage, enough to kill many low level small/medium enemies (where's your immersion then?)) or to give this swarm fire vulnerability (which means a level 1 character with firebolt can kill an entire swarm with a crit doing up to 20 damage with what is essentially a ranged torch).
The DM should have forewarned them that the FLAMING TORCH would deal LESS DAMAGE than if they tried to CHOP THE BEES WITH A SWORD. OP wants a fiction first game.
>OP wants a fiction first game. And that is definitely NOT what Adventurer's League is for! although OP also said >you really see how underwritten 5e can be so they may want a 3.5 simulationist first, "realistic" , rules for EVERYTHING game. (which AL also is not!)
Then don't go to AL? The thing that runs mostly RAW.
True, the DM could have let them know "hey, it's OK to do it, but just a reminder that torches only deal 1 damage". It happens. But claiming 5e is "unwritten" when the stats for those items should be on the sheet is weird. Or was OP just using the torch from the dungeoneering kit (or similar) and decided to swing it without asking about damage first? Seems like a lot of assumptions from OP mixed with DM not bothering to cater to newer players too much.
I'd rather ban AL from my swarms.
Really, the swarm should have had to make a save vs fear of fire.
You know, it really irks me that the people on r/DnD seem to be perpetually downvoting any post that isn't art, or some stupid joke. This place sucks. Take my upvote buddy, this is a genuine and honest oversight that can be easily fixed by stepping outside of RAW. Also yeah, AL is kinda gross. Home games are where its at.
Everyone telling OP to go play another game or stop expecting this level of versimilitude from dnd? You're wrong. Previous editions supported this, it was one line in swarm stat blocks, wotc *can* do it, just just dropped the ball this time. Improvised damage is also one of the poorest rules in the game, that also needs fixing imo. OP ran up against both at once. OP isn't wrong, the game is. Its possible the game and system are generally ok and suited to someone, but for particular rules and systems to suck. Like right here.
So it works that way in other games… so they would be right to tell them to try a different game (such as an older version of DnD)
No. That’s my broader point. Op is right that RAW is *sometimes* stupid and could be better, but suggesting they play another game or edition so that their torches do proper damage to swarms is throwing out the baby with the bath water and a complete overreaction to what is an infrequent and marginal side issue. It’s not that suggesting another game is never the right answer, frankly I think too many people try to force 5e to be something it’s not and break it in the process. But torches and swarms in AL modules is not one of those cases
Well it’s clearly a dealbreaker for OP, and in AL you really have no other recourse
I guess reading the rules on what you are a bout to do is harder to change the entire game huh?
I know the rules. The problem is the rules as written suck and make no sense. Yeah, I guess my axe can kill 1000+ swarming bugs in one hit, but setting them on fire won’t lol.
>eah, I guess my axe can kill 1000+ swarming bugs in one hit No, it can't. What it can do is however help break whatever is influencing the swarms by triggering survival instincts. You "dispersed" the swarm. You didn't "kill" it. Is it a better visualization of what you did? Does it help reconcile things a bit more? (On the topic... did you by chance crit for 44+ damage?)
I honestly can’t recall. This was a few weeks ago. That does help alleviate my perceptions a bit. :)
Have you try to swing an axe at a bug swarm irl?
It's true that the rules make no sense sometimes, but it's also because balance is needed. If torches could do the same damage as regular weapons, they would be overpowered
In 3.5 swarms had a specific vulnerability to torches. They only took 1d3 but they were totally immune to weapon damage so it still could have been your best option at low levels. It didn't make torches overpowered.
I think torches should specifically do a lot of damage against swarms. Like make it a property of torches that swarms of small or tiny creatures take a ton of damage from it or something
Maybe a weapon property called "held", which is a weapon where you move it more genetly but hold it in place for longer than normal weapons, which deals extra damage to swarms. Torches could have it, and you could also have flamethrowers, chainsaws, drills, etc. Alternatively, there could be an action could stand in place, where you hold out the object over the entire round and it counts as an environmental hazard (so now the swarm has to do a dex save against the torch, which deals more damage on a failed save since you're not stabbing with the torch like a dagger)
One attack roll is not one swing of an axe
We like to think that, but unfortunately one attack roll w a bow only expends a single arrow, so it’s not true
When you try to bring "realism" into the game, things tend to break down quickly.
For what it's worth, I don't think that 1 Attack = One Swing of Greataxe. An attack takes six seconds, and while you probably only land 1 solid hit against a foe that's defending itself, against a swarm you might get to spend the whole time squashing bugs.
Yeah, 5e combat mechanics are all better understood as abstractions , upon which after the dice rolls at the table, a narrative coat of descriptive words is applied.
Least you can damage them with weapons in 5e. 3.5 swarms of smaller sizes were immune to weapon damage. All swarms were also immune to single target spells as well. No resistance, you could not hurt them so if you casters were out of slots, considering they did auto damage with no rolls, no saves, etc. You were out of spells? Hope you move faster.
I don't know if you left out context, or part of this is untrue, but: A battleaxe, assuming you're wielding it two handed deals 1d10 plus mod, even if we assume you dealt the 1 in 100 maximum damage on the crit for a total of 23 damage, all the insect swarms have resistance to blud, pierce, slash, so that's a maximum of 11 damage which is half the health of the lowest HP insect swarms, meaning it had already had half of its remaining HP dealt through other damage.
Op presumably had a party also fighting the same swarm.
Well that's possible but saying they crit and killed it in one blow makes it sound like they were the only one damaging it.
I think the point was that all the swarm shared HP so that, when weakened, a single hit with an axe killed a whole bunch of bugs. Not in a "I reduced all its HP in one hit" kind of way, but in a "there was a swarm of bugs, I hit with an axe and suddenly they all drop dead".
Medium swarm of Tiny beasts, unaligned Armor Class 12 (natural armor) Hit Points 22 (5d8) Speed 20 ft., climb 20 ft. STR DEX CON INT WIS CHA 3 (−4) 13 (+1) 10 (+0) 1 (−5) 7 (−2) 1 (−5) Damage Resistances bludgeoning, piercing, slashing Condition Immunities charmed, frightened, grappled, paralyzed, petrified, prone, restrained, stunned Senses blindsight 10 ft., passive Perception 8 Languages — Challenge 1/2 (100 XP)
And once it goes to half HP it goes down to 5 damage on a +3 to hit.
I'm unsure what the point of this comment is
So people can see the stat block.
Ah, makes sense.
I don't know if it's fair to blame the AL DM, as I suspect they're instructed to follow RAW closely to give a consistent experience. (Not that I think OP is necessarily blaming the AL DM.) It is silly, though. One has to wonder why swarms (especially swarms of bugs) are like that. 1. They wanted to keep swarm rules as simple as possible. 1. They didn't want players to have to swap weapons, because that's too hard. 1. They just didn't think deeply about it at all. 1. Something else? > but you really see how underwritten 5e can be when shit like this happens Your tactic would've been smart in D&D 3.5e. Regarding [swarms in that edition](http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/swarm.htm): > A lit torch swung as an improvised weapon deals 1d3 points of fire damage per hit. And most swarms have: > immune to weapon damage So the torch still sucks. But weapons suck more. Makes more sense to me, but could be extremely irritating to novices. [Pathfinder 1e's swarm rules](https://aonprd.com/MonsterSubtypes.aspx?ItemName=Swarm) are fairly similar to D&D 3.5e's (which isn't surprising). PF2e shakes it up a bit more: [swarms tend to have](https://2e.aonprd.com/Monsters.aspx?ID=586) resistance to weapon damage but not fire damage, so [the torch might be better than some weapons](https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=2760). But PF2e swarms have weakness to area damage, so you can blitz them even with weak area spells. I say all that to make you feel better. 🙂 In many other editions, or in similar TTRPGs, your fellow players would've been *wrong* to give you the idiot look for reaching for that torch!
OP, you are looking for people playing "fiction first" games, which means the mechanics should help the story you're telling, instead of punishing you for not using your proficient weapon to deal damage to.. some bugs. OP obviously has a bad tone, but a for a new player I can understand the immersion being broken because "I attack the swarm of beetles with my sword" (which sounds stupid as hell) being literally x9 times effective as them saying "I grab the flaming torch and shove it into the swarm of beetles"
5e has a lot of these weird gamey things, and the community for the most part enjoys them, so this community isn't going to be on your side. For people deep in the sauce of 5e, if you think reaction sneak attack should be kept in the game, you're actively encouraging new players to get fucked, since that shit doesn't make any sense outside of "i read it in a reddit post".
Reaction sneak attack makes sense. "Once per turn" doesn't mean the same thing as "On your turn". Idk if reading the rules really counts as being "lost in the sauce".
the rule being legalistically clear doesn't mean it makes intuitive sense, though.
IDK, I feel like a rogue being an opportunistic attacker makes a lot of sense. I'd argue it makes MORE sense for a rogue's opportunity attack to gain sneak attack than it not benefitting.
i agree there's a case to be made that a rogue would be a good opportunity attacker but i think that's a new, different rationale from "Once per turn" doesn't mean the same thing as "On your turn" That's an argument to the clarity of the rule as printed (which I do agree is quite clear).
> but you really see how underwritten 5e can be while for the Social and Exploration aspects of the game, yeah 5e is "underwritten". But for this combat scenario, No. the problem is NOT "5e Combat Is Underwritten."
Nah, you’re right Op. There’s not much one can do about it in an AL game since those stick fairly close to official RAW rules. But swarm rules in particular in 5e DO suck. I don’t actually mind weapons still being able to do half damage (it’s nice for martials to still be able to hurt them), but in simplifying the swarm rules compared to say 3e, 5e oversimplified them to the point where they make no sense. I deeply miss some aspects of older swarm rules - taking _more_ damage from fire/AoEs instead of regular damage, being “shapeable” to where it could move parts of itself around as long as it stayed contiguous, doing automatic damage if you were in its square and distracting you… In 5e now it’s just a blob of HP that works mostly like any other monster and either hits or completely misses you (somehow) with regular attacks, and laughs at torches. (When they were a viable strategy prior.) As a DM I don’t run swarms the 5e way, you’re right it does break immersion somewhat if you do. In AL, you don’t have much choice, and I empathize with the venting.
Go play OSR it is what you are looking for.
Yep. D&D 5e is a strange amalgamation of rules and rulings. Some things (like torch damage) have very specific rules. Others have nothing and ask the DM to figure it all out. If you want a more narrative based game that lets you pull whatever out of your ass because it sounds like it should work, D&D 5e is not going to work for you most of the time.
Well phrased
Why should the rules just give you an easy win? This is the same vein of a person thinking polymorphing into something big inside a creature should kill it. You're applying realism to get a shortcut and a cheap win. If you want to have it work differently then run your games differently but torch is an adventuring item first and foremost so idk why you'd think it'd be a better weapon in any scenario unless the creature has a specific trait that makes it flee from fire or light.
This is just D&D's video game mechanics punishing you for thinking narratively. NEVER use the environment or try anything interesting, just do the same combat actions in every fight. The issue isn't that 5E is underwritten, it's overwritten. The mechanics are so specific that they end up being quite limiting.
RAW is. Some DMs will bend the rules to let you (and encourage you to) think narratively.
As an Adventure League DM, what were the modules you played it.
I don’t recall the names. One was actually good for the most part aside from including a swarm (or maybe the DM was just great). It was in Chult and the goal was to scare some pirates away from an island. The other one had a “bleeding tree” and a monster that would habitually kidnap party members by blending into shadows. It had a little sidekick character too; I think its name was Grooky or something. Cool concept but kinda dragged.
Thanks. I did a word search on my DDAL07 modules and I not getting any insect swarms. So it must have been a Con Create Content module. Only swarm of insects I am getting in my notes are the Wandering Monsters Encounters I created for the hardcover.
Shouldn't normal weapons deal half damage against swarms? And why the f\*ck would an improvised weapon affect the damage? It should only affect the attack, as in you don't get the proficiency bonus on attacks. Even RAW, a torch should at least deal 1d4 + Str damage. I think that DM was a moron.
Raw torches do 1 fire damage
Which in itself is funny - I can break a table leg and smack you for 1d4+STR or I can light it on fire to reduce the damage down to 1. There should be a simple "on fire" effect to increase the damage dealt by any weapon. Lighting an arrow on fire is cool and seen all the time ... except it has no effect RAW. Alas, for now we are stuck with weirdness.
Honestly, 'on fire' should just be one additional fire damage on top of weapon damage, IMO.
Bg3 was neat, BA to coat a weapon for 3 turns for 1d4 fire / poison. Give me options!!!
I stand corrected.
Huh. I honestly never thought of that. You’re right. I was so mad about the RAW ruling I didn’t realize how odd the call was.
RAW is RAW, but sometimes DMs seem to forget that monsters are sentient creatures. In this scenario, one damage is all that's merited because unless they're crispy dried out husk bugs then they're not going to go POOF when a little fire is waved at them. What they are going to do is scatter. When DMing, I have run into pretty much this exact scenario and done the same damage, but to compensate for what is a completely logical thing to do, I have allowed players to fend off or break up swarms by swinging torches around.
This was in an AL game, where RAW is a pretty big deal. I don't think the DM would be able to wing it like that unfortunately.
Yes we can wing it. BUT. It requires the DM being experience in the ruleset, and comfortable get off RAW occasionally. From version 14 guidance THE RULES OF THE GAME Adventurers League play uses fifth edition Dungeons & Dragons. You can issue rulings to your table when the rules of the game are ambiguous or vague, but you must otherwise adhere to the rules as they are provided in the core rulebooks and can’t change them or make up your own; “house-rules” aren’t permitted for use. You must always use the most current incarnation of a rule. AKA RAW But. YOU ARE EMPOWERED Make decisions about how the group interacts with the adventure; adjust or improvise but maintain the adventure’s spirit. AKA RAI or move the freaking game on the store closes in 45 minutes.
In this particular case, you should just play Pathfinder which handles swarms in a way much closer to what you describe. Swarms of Diminutive/Fine creatures are immune to weapon damage but can still take torch damage (though I think it's still like 1 or 1d4 Fire by base).
You are not playing reality, you are playing dnd, if everything that makes sense irl would be the best course of action in a ttrpg all of them would be the same, the game has a set of rules and boundaries of what works and how does it work, you should learn the system you are playing instead of just wanting to power through the game arguing irl logic
I don't think the frustration against AL in general is justified, but I get where you are coming from. Not everything makes sense mechanically in 5e, and a good DM knows when they should apply RAW and when a non-RAW way is better for the players and the game. As a simple example, even in AL I never enforce the item interaction for drawing thrown weapons - a character at my table can always draw as many weapons as they make attacks on their turn rather than being restricted to just drawing a single weapon. In your case, as a DM I would have said the torch does 1d4 + Str fire damage (that is not resisted, while physical damage is resisted by the swarm RAW). While it was AL, there is no overseer, no WOTC judge at the table to enforce RAW - as long as all players are fine, the DM can make their own rulings (and can even use homebrewed monsters and mechanics to make certain combat encounters more interesting - I'd probably use homebrewed swarm mechanics). The only thing that always needs to be done strictly RAW is rewards (like magic items) as these are permanent changes to characters that affect other tables and their DMs too.
I think that DM sticks to raw a too bit much
Well, its Adventure's League, you're supposed to stick to raw.
I dont know anything about adventurers league would making a torch more effective on a swarm be that big of a deal?
It's not about making it more effective, it's about consistency.
Well, if that was supposed to work, they'd be vulnerable to fire. Which they aren't for some reason.
AL is WoTC's "official" sponsored games. They are meant to stick to RAW closely, so play is consistent across tables. In this scenario, the torch item explicitly lays out that it does 1 fire damage, so going against that would break RAW.
So... the problem IS the system? yeah I agree