|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the PRD
On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike).
I do not believe this is the RAI but the RAW seems to be that a first level Alchemist would do a base of 1d6 damage plus another 1d6 from first level being an odd numbered level. Similar progressions such as the rogues sneak attack are worded differently and make it clear that at first level the damage is 1d6.
No. There is a chart. Use the chart. Put the cheese down.
I have no interest in playing an alchemist just something I noticed. Every odd-numbered level includes level 1. As to the chart it could be viewed that the progression is just the bonus damage from gaining odd-numbered levels.
Well, in 3.5 D&D Text always beats table when there is a rules disagreement, but I'm not sure if Pathfinder has that sort of rules solution.
|
|
I have no interest in playing an alchemist just something I noticed. Every odd-numbered level includes level 1. As to the chart it could be viewed that the progression is just the bonus damage from gaining odd-numbered levels.Well, in 3.5 D&D Text always beats table when there is a rules disagreement, but I'm not sure if Pathfinder has that sort of rules solution.
Don't be ridiculous. It is the same progression as sneak attack, it is basically the same chart as sneak attack. It is the same wording, more or less, as sneak attack.
So...
So...
They should have added "...past first level." to the description?
Or people should look at the chart and not look for cheese loopholes.They should have added "...past first level." to the description?
So...
To which it was pointed out, text trumps charts typically. Not saying it should be 2d6, but that it is "technically" 2d6 because RAW didn't have 3 little words.
|
|
The chart clears everything up. The PRD is up to date rules.
It is not in any way RAW 2d6 at level 1, since 1d6 is clearly written in the rules, "technically"
The logical flaw in the argument is
Fact 1: Level 1 you gain bombs, which do 1d6
Fact 2 : The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level.
You apply Fact 2 to Fact 1 every level up. You ask yourself, "Is this an odd level?". If "yes", increment it 1d6. You do not hit this logic check until you level up, so the fact 2 statement never kicks in since you have not gained any levels yet (Fresh character)
To be clear, he's challenging the assumption that 1st level counts as part of "increase".
Easy way to look at it Adventure path #44 has a level 4 alchemist in it he does 2d6+4 bomb damage. Think that solves it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Option #3: The chart is right and the text is right. The text is being interpreted wrong, despite(or in spite of) hard evidence on the chart.
That is the entire issue. There will be no amount of explaining that will satisfy you since you are dead set on arguing your side to the bitter end, so....
You gain a feat at level one and another at every odd level, so I get two feats at level one right? /sarcasm
You can't gain 1d6 at level 1 because you didn't have it until level one. I take a level and it gives me bombs so I write bombs on my character sheet (along with everything else that comes with 1 level of alchemist). Okay nothing else to write, "done" okay now I officially have bombs! yippee!! Wait! I gain 1d6 at every odd level! 1 is odd! but... I already finished leveling up, if I go back bombs are no longer set in stone so they can't increase.... hmmm, yeah I guess they are only 1d6.
PS. for anyone that could follow that, +3 competence bonus to a skill check for the next 10 min. ;)
Option #3: The chart is right and the text is right. The text is being interpreted wrong, despite(or in spite of) hard evidence on the chart.
That is the entire issue. There will be no amount of explaining that will satisfy you since you are dead set on arguing your side to the bitter end, so....
I agree it is 1d6 at first and 2d6 at third, as was the intent.
However from a RAW, RULES AS WRITTEN, point of view the fact that the editing of the ability was a little lax means that it could in fact be RULED as 2d6. As the bomb ability states it does 1d6 and that every odd level it increases by 1d6 (whether you want to argue or not, 1 is in fact an odd level). No matter what way you want assault the logic behind it, the text "says" that.
It comes down to either an editing error or a not completely thought out wording. Three words would have nipped any loose interpretation, but they are not there. They should be, but as they aren't the "loop hole" remains and is RAW. Whether or not it is intended or usuable is up to the DM to decide, most will probably "point and laugh" at you for bringing it up. But as the text doesn't actually call out for ignoring the initial odd level, it could be ruled as 2d6.
Most devs/designers say to look at the text and that text trumps tables as they actually spend more time writing out the text. More thought goes into it and more attention is paid when writing it out. A table is generally a summary of something and because of the formatting I suppose it is more likely to contain errors, a cell moved up or down by accident, copy pasted too many times, etc. This is one of those times I'm sure a dev would come in and say, "yeah 1st level should not be counted" or "'..above 1st level.' should be added to the end of that sentance.
Does this thread really exist?
Nope
Does this thread really exist?
Sadly yes and its still going even after a pointed out example of a character who's stat block reflects the answer.
Does this thread really exist?Sadly yes and its still going even after a pointed out example of a character who's stat block reflects the answer.
Example character are often wrong. look at Spring attack, Valeros had strategy of Spring attack + Vital Strike even though they can't be combined. And Valeros was the example of Pathfinder's rules.
Where are you getting you cant. (this is for personal reasons have a player doing it never saw anything that said you couldn't) And the fact that the NPC only had to is better evidence than most on the no you can't side.
Thanks then makes my GM's job much easier now that i dont have a two weapon fighter spring attacking for 4d12 damage.
Spring Attack + Vital Strike was hashed out for quite a while, with an official ruling of "it doesn't work", but where the Creative Director says that since they have a specific official character using that combo (called out as using it), that it can "officially" be allowed (I think, for things like PFS).
Very touchy subject around here..
|
|
To which it was pointed out, text trumps charts typically. Not saying it should be 2d6, but that it is "technically" 2d6 because RAW didn't have 3 little words.Or people should look at the chart and not look for cheese loopholes.They should have added "...past first level." to the description?
So...
To which you pointed out...something that isn't true.
Show me where it trumps the chart.
Here are a few assumptions I make when cracking open the rulebook, in order of precedence:
1: The rules should be clear and concise
2: The GM should know that he will have to make rules decisions that make sense for his/her game
3: The rules should in some way indicate when the designer's intent was for the GM to make a decision
Here we have a situation that slips past assumption #1, but is easily caught by #2.
Most people think that NOTHING should slip past #2, but to think so is naive, for a number of reasons.
For the multitude of cases that slip by #2, practically NO RULES in the rulebooks are covered by #3.
Obviously there will be mistakes. This one is forgivable because most GMs will look at this and say "Yeah... not a chance, buddy." The really unfortunate situations come in when implications are confusing.
To be clear, he's challenging the assumption that 1st level counts as part of "increase".Before 1st level, you have nothing. At 1st level you get 1d6.
I was pointing out the error in Soporific Lotus' reply to Shar Tahl.
Shar Thal was saying that the fact that you can't have a "before level 1" makes it so the term "increase" as it applies to level 1 make no sense.Soporific Lotus was attempting a strawman (restated the point in different words, but didn't fully capture what he said, and so wasn't actually countering the point he was making). "Either you believe this, or this", neither of which covered his actual point.
Your interpretation is another way of looking at it, however my post you quoted was simply to clear up the strawman mistake (which may have been accidental due to miscomprehension, rather than maliciously intended).
The APG has a couple instances of different wording of a standard mechanic causing discussions like this. I think the summoner has something for their Eidolons that are like that as well (in that case, a "5 level" wording) that is actually going to be errata'd.
While I love the content of these books, and the design direction and flavour they've been going with, I feel that the books could use a bit more time invested in design/rules editing before they go out the door.
I can always rule it how I want, but I don't want the staff at Paizo to feel like they have to rush out a project. It seems like they are always on the verge of releasing something else new that they can't catch a breath.
I'll say it again 4th level alchemist NPC has 2d6+4 bomb damage it can be argued that its a misprint sure but then so could yours be so i would err on the side with the most supporting evidence
|
The alchemist went through a long, mulitistage, and public beta test. The RAW is poorly worded, but was present through that process because everyone understood the intent. It would have definitely come up as an issue if people started chucking 2d6 damage bombs at first level.
My gnome alchemist with the pyromaniac alternative racial trait was chucking 2d6 fire bombs at second level, if anyone wants to speed the progression up a bit, legally.
Gnomes make great bombers. No doubt about it quiker damage and more bombs is a great way to go.
Look, the real game-ender here is the word "increase." You can't "increase" an ability you receive at 1st level. Regardless of discrepancies between chart and text, every single person who has a functioning brain and has played more than 20 seconds of D&D before knows the Alchemist would be throwing 1d6 bombs at level 1, with the damage increasing by +1d6 at every odd-numbered level after 1. It doesn't need to be written in. You just have to not be cheating, because that's what you're doing.
Also, in regards to the sneak attack post, you (OP) stated that the rogue's base sword damage is 1d6. This couldn't be more wrong. What about daggers? What about a longsword? The base "Rogue" damage, if you want to term it such, would be x. Just a variable. Then, the attacks would present like this:
Rogue Attack: 1x + Str/Dex + (Sneak Attack Damage)
We played at 2D6 + Int.
"On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike)."
It says you inflict 1D6 +1 on successful hit. This is the base damage which can apply a critical. The extra 1D6 is bonus damage that doesn't. Now I admit we could be reading this wrong. It never occurred to us that there was question on this. It just made sense that it would be 2D6 to us. Just tossing Alchemist fire does 1D6+Int for the Alchemist. So we just looked at it as like alchemist fire and adding potency to that like a rogue adds potency to a blade with sneak attack.
If it only does 1D6 as per the chart at 1st level then does that mean you can't critical with bomb ever but you can with Alchemist fire? That's seems kind of odd to me.
If it only does 1D6 as per the chart at 1st level then does that mean you can't critical with bomb ever but you can with Alchemist fire? That's seems kind of odd to me.
I think what they mean here is that the initial or base damage of 1d6+Int can be treated as a critical just like everything else, but the extra d6's you gain from levels in the class don't. Like sneak attack, if you're using a short sword, that 1d6+Str would apply to crits, but the +2d6 or however much wouldn't.
It does increase at level 1, from 0d6 to 1d6. Previously the character had no bomb damage, now he has 1d6 bomb damage. That's an increase of 1d6. Simples.
Technically it's already a 1D6, anyone can toss Alchemist fire for 1D6 plus splash, the alchemist just does it better. Just saying....
It does increase at level 1, from 0d6 to 1d6. Previously the character had no bomb damage, now he has 1d6 bomb damage. That's an increase of 1d6. Simples.Technically it's already a 1D6, anyone can toss Alchemist fire for 1D6 plus splash, the alchemist just does it better. Just saying....
The main difference is the Alchemist doesn't have to pay gold for his bombs whereas a PC wielding a flask of Alchemist's Fire would have to either purchase or find the weapon. That's what makes it better. Well, that and the +1d6/odd level increase to damage.
If it only does 1D6 as per the chart at 1st level then does that mean you can't critical with bomb ever but you can with Alchemist fire? That's seems kind of odd to me.I think what they mean here is that the initial or base damage of 1d6+Int can be treated as a critical just like everything else, but the extra d6's you gain from levels in the class don't. Like sneak attack, if you're using a short sword, that 1d6+Str would apply to crits, but the +2d6 or however much wouldn't.
But the argument is there is no base damage. It's just bomb bonus damage which says it can't apply to a critical or vital strike.
The main difference is the Alchemist doesn't have to pay gold for his bombs whereas a PC wielding a flask of Alchemist's Fire would have to either purchase or find the weapon. That's what makes it better. Well, that and the +1d6/odd level increase to damage.It does increase at level 1, from 0d6 to 1d6. Previously the character had no bomb damage, now he has 1d6 bomb damage. That's an increase of 1d6. Simples.Technically it's already a 1D6, anyone can toss Alchemist fire for 1D6 plus splash, the alchemist just does it better. Just saying....
True, it's costly at 20GP per shot but just pointing out there is way before 1st level Alchemist to do what the Alchemist does. That's all I was pointing out.