Excerpt: Swarms

[Ginnel]

IIRC, the Flaming Weapon we saw a but ago made the weapon deal Fire damage instead of Weapon damage. So yes, a Flaming Longsword deals full damage to a swarm.

Unfortunately not the sword is still a melee attack so would do half damage according to the written description on the stat block.

 

[Lizard]

Skipping over the usual "3e was t3h suxx0r!" introduction, we get swarms that....aren't really all that different from 3e swarms. They aren't subject to forced movement from normal attacks, which is a change which is really only relevant to 4e. They're vulnerable to area attacks, which makes sense, and is also the way it was in 3e. Instead of automatic damage, they have a free attack on anyone adjacent to/within them, and I'm not sure how that is more "Ah, get 'em off me!" than the 3e auto-damage was. (3e also had them inflict conditions, such as nausea, if you were in a swarm, while in 4e, you only suffer damage. So, again, not sure how the changes meet the stated design goals.)

Looking at the 3e swarm rules, it seems 4e swarms can be flanked, knocked prone (unless that's forced movement), and affected by single-target spells, in ways 3e swarms can't. Melee attacks which do fire damage don't seem more effective against 4e swarms than any other melee attack. So, again, unless I'm missing some special interactions with the rules, I'm not seeing how the 4e swarms are "swarmier" than the 3e ones; if anything, they're more like normal creatures. And I'm not sure why 4e swarms are any less "boring" (my group must have a high tolerance for boredom, as we never thought swarms were any more boring than any other monster; I am beginning to get the impression that the 4e design team uses "boring" to mean "may cause some characters to be more effective than others" -- but this still doesn't work, as strikers and defenders are much less effective against swarms in 4e than controllers and at least some leaders -- the warlord's positioning powers are basically useless.)

 

[Plane Sailing]

I would call the area effects, at least by the way I view those spells. I can see two alternatives when it comes to those spells:

1) The acid arrow spell sends out a swarm of arrows, one large for the main victim and a bunch of smaller for collateral damage. The force orb hits one target and then splits up into smaller orbs that hit the ones close to the target that you want them to hit.

2) The acid arrow splashes out around the target and the force orb is a controlled explosion.

I view them as version 2) and in that case I would say that they can hurt swarms.

The spell descriptions are actually very clear though.

Acid Arrow is a ranged attack with a primary target of one creature and secondary targets of adjacent creatures. It isn't an area or a blast effect. Force Orb likewise affects creatures, and is neither a blast nor an area spell.

On the other hand,

Burning Hands (encounter power from KotS) is a Close Blast 5 which will be great against them, and the Scorching Burst at-will is a Area burst 1 within 10 squares, which will also be fine.

Cheers

 

[med stud]

The spell descriptions are actually very clear though.

Acid Arrow is a ranged attack with a primary target of one creature and secondary targets of adjacent creatures. It isn't an area or a blast effect. Force Orb likewise affects creatures, and is neither a blast nor an area spell.

On the other hand,

Burning Hands (encounter power from KotS) is a Close Blast 5 which will be great against them, and the Scorching Burst at-will is a Area burst 1 within 10 squares, which will also be fine.

Cheers

Yeah I know. It's just the judgement call I would make.

 

[Ashardalon]

Soo... swarms are vulnerable to close and area attacks. Sleep is an area attack. Does that mean what it seems to mean?

The stormwarden attack Exploits were both close attacks. Martial characters seem to get the tools to handle swarms this time around.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd just like to go on the record and say that I think it's really awesome that they used that word! Way better than just saying "they suck your blood" or whatever.

Gygaxian.

 

[beverson]

In Soviet Union, action points spend you.

Mouseferatu FTW!!!!! You, sir, have won the thread!

 

[Lizard]

Soo... swarms are vulnerable to close and area attacks. Sleep is an area attack. Does that mean what it seems to mean?

Don't see how it couldn't, unless there are more rules giving them immunity to mind affecting type spells. Go to sleeeeep, little dragons....sleeep....

 

[Mort_Q]

Soo... swarms are vulnerable to close and area attacks. Sleep is an area attack. Does that mean what it seems to mean?

Vulnerable does extra keyword damage when you take damage of the keyword type.

Since the Sleep spell doesn't do damage, even though it is an area spell, a swarm, despite the vulnerability to area suffers no worse from the spell than a non-vulnerable creature.

 

[Lacyon]

Skipping over the usual "3e was t3h suxx0r!" introduction, we get swarms that....aren't really all that different from 3e swarms. They aren't subject to forced movement from normal attacks, which is a change which is really only relevant to 4e. They're vulnerable to area attacks, which makes sense, and is also the way it was in 3e. Instead of automatic damage, they have a free attack on anyone adjacent to/within them, and I'm not sure how that is more "Ah, get 'em off me!" than the 3e auto-damage was. (3e also had them inflict conditions, such as nausea, if you were in a swarm, while in 4e, you only suffer damage. So, again, not sure how the changes meet the stated design goals.)

Looking at the 3e swarm rules, it seems 4e swarms can be flanked, knocked prone (unless that's forced movement), and affected by single-target spells, in ways 3e swarms can't. Melee attacks which do fire damage don't seem more effective against 4e swarms than any other melee attack. So, again, unless I'm missing some special interactions with the rules, I'm not seeing how the 4e swarms are "swarmier" than the 3e ones; if anything, they're more like normal creatures. And I'm not sure why 4e swarms are any less "boring" (my group must have a high tolerance for boredom, as we never thought swarms were any more boring than any other monster; I am beginning to get the impression that the 4e design team uses "boring" to mean "may cause some characters to be more effective than others" -- but this still doesn't work, as strikers and defenders are much less effective against swarms in 4e than controllers and at least some leaders -- the warlord's positioning powers are basically useless.)

I'm with you on the "not that different from 3E" angle, except for one thing: the aura means a single square of swarm attacks 9 squares of targets. Also, 3E swarms had to enter your space to do anything to you, meaning that you could typically just step 5-feet out and swing at them in melee. Heck, even against foes with reach, the 4E swarm can enter your square, which means you need a full move (provoking) to get out of the aura.

Also unlike 3E, you can end up in multiple damage auras. 3Es "have to be in the same space" thing made that - well, I'd have to look up if it was technically possible for multiple swarms to share a space with each other, but the aura means that they can overlap a whole lot more area.

Hmmm... I guess after thinking about it some more I'm not so much with you on the "not that different from 3E" angle anymore... sorry.