|
Yeah, the switch from 1-4 can be pretty jarring. I'm playing nice with my GM, and I'm just going to ump to 2-3 at 8th, moving my way up to maybe 5, 6 if I use transformation to get that last bomb in. Still formidable, but nowhere near as ridiculous. Also, It frees up a bunch of feats, which I've found the Alchemist to be lacking, but that's probably just because I like taking Extra Discovery.
Confusion bomb isn't in the class description, so I assume it's in the Ultimate magic guide?
I've been talking with my group a bit, one of whom wanted to never have more than one bomb a round (which is obviously too far). So, I found a nice compromise that seems to work for us.
· The alchemist bomb now uses the full amount of dice damage when calculating vital strike and critical hits.
· The Fast Bombs discovery now lets you throw a bomb as a swift action instead of its usual bonuses.
So, no more than 2 bombs in one round, and one of them can be vital striked for extra damage that scales with level nicely. And crits are double the dice rolled too (baseline not VS of course). The bombs quota will last longer, and at level 8 its still like, 12d6 per round plus int for 8 of those d6's, more if a crit is scored, and no twf or haste effects. If the player wants more damage output, he can take deadly aim or something similar :)
I don't think this weakens the class below other classes of similar level at all, even if it is a huge step back from those scary numbers that made my brain hurt. Please don't hate meeee
Whoah! Vital Striking a bomb's full damage is very powerful since it's actually a weapon where most of the damage comes from its dice, rather than static mods. Yes, it's not as damaging as a full attack with Rapid Shot and TWF, but it's still really strong.
I would not let Vital Strike and crits apply--that would allow Alchemists to do similar (yes, less, but still a lot) damage while getting to worry significantly less about their bombs per day limit.
And its the Confusion bombs that have no save, not concussion bombs.
Yes, corrected the confusion bomb thing :)
Part of the problem I have is putting out so much damage in the one round (or indeed, over the course of two or three rounds). Ok, let me crunch some numbers here (please correct me if I get this wrong)
This is assuming 20 intelligence of course, and I've included deadly aim as well.
Current level 8: 24d6+30(int)+24(deadly aim) (6 attacks/rd) 2 main, 1 haste, 1 rapid shot, 2 twf
vs
House level 8: 12d6+10(int)+8(deadly aim) (1 VStrike attack plus 1 swift)
Current level 15: 56d6+40(int)+48(deadly aim) (8 attacks)3 main, 1 haste, 1 rapid shot, 3 twf
vs
House level 15: 28d6+15(int)+10(deadly aim) (1 VStrike attack plus 1 swift)
So, big difference in damage output there (even if he gets lucky and nails a few crits), and if the alchy has extra bombs to throw around over a long period of time, I don't have a problem with that. It's the 'going nuclear in the first two rounds of a fight' that has my group raising eyebrows ;)
|
At 8th TWF will only add one attack not two. Since you need a BAB of 6 for ITWF the earliest a straight Alch could take it is 9th. It is your game but my opinion of full crit and vital strike is that it will make for a more powerfull charecter. Changing the discovery to a swift throw is a neat idea if the discovery was written that way currently I would take it and not feel cheated.
I'd like to actually show you how much damage we're talking about here. I think a lot of people get scared of piles of d6s, so I just want you to see what numbers we're really talking about. Oh, and as has already been stated, Deadly Aim does not work with bombs, so that's removed.
Current level 8: 24d6+30(int)+24(deadly aim) (6 attacks/rd) 2 main, 1 haste, 1 rapid shot, 2 twf
114 for 6 bombs.
House level 8: 12d6+10(int)+8(deadly aim) (1 VStrike attack plus 1 swift)
52 for 2 bombs. That's just below half the damage, but for 1/3 as many bombs, and they get a move action to boot.
Further, for your consideration, I'd like to show you what an archer Fighter could do at the same level:
Such a Fighter will likely have 18 Dex and 16 Strength to start. Maybe reversed. They want to equalize these, so it doesn't really matter, since their 2 points would be to put the other to 18. He'll have a +2 item for both stats and can actually make use of Deadly Aim. He'll have 2 BAB attacks, Rapid Shot, Manyshot, and, if the Alchemist is hasted, the Fighter should be, too. The Fighter will also have Weapon Specialization, the +1 to hit and damage from their Weapon Training feature, +1 from PB Shot, and at least a +1 magic bow.
Each shot is 1d8 + 5(Str) + 2(Spec) + 1(WT) + 1(Enhance) + 1(PBS) + 6(Deadly Aim), which averages 20.5 each hit. With 5 shots, that's 102.5 damage, and this Fighter can do this all day. There is absolutely zero limit to his shooting. He can even take AoOs with his bow via Snap Shot.
In other words, this isn't really the worst thing that such a character can do.
The only reason I think Vital Shot is actually powerful for Alchemists (since it's awful for just about every other PC possible) is that it helps them deal extra damage without costing them bombs. Running out of bombs is a serious fear that bombers should face.
I mean, at level 8, the alchemist in your example has 13 bombs (and cannot possibly have taken the extra bombs feat since all of his feats were taken up to make extra attacks). That means he can do this 114 damage barrage twice per day, and then throw out a single additional bomb after that.
For the record, that's 247 bomb damage a day. With the Vital Shot version, your Alchemist can throw his full allotment of bombs(2) six times a day, plus another Vital shot bomb if he needs.
That's 345 bomb damage a day for the Vital Shot guy (assuming he throws a Swift Action bomb at every possible opportunity).
|
|
At 8th, TWF won't add any, technically, only reduce the penalty associated, but we're talking about that, Rapid shot, and the second iterative attack gained by Alchemists at level 8.
I was reading the below as 2 main hand attacks, 1 haste attack 1 rapid shot attacks and 2 additional attacks from Two Weapon Fighting for 6 attacks total.
Current level 8: 24d6+30(int)+24(deadly aim) (6 attacks/rd) 2 main, 1 haste, 1 rapid shot, 2 twf
I've decided I'm going to nerf the bomb ability a bit for our house rules. It clearly gets completely mental at high level, and leaves the other players sitting around eating popcorn while he carpet bombs entire armies in a couple of rounds :P Thanks for your input guys, it was a big help. :D
Do you realize the Alchemist has a limited number of bombs, I wouldn't nerf the Alchemist's trade mark attacks because if the fight lasts more than 3 rounds the Fighter over takes him in damage easily. Not just that if the Alchemist uses all his bombs fighting in one encounter which is easily possible he has nothing left during a second encounter later that day.
At 8th, TWF won't add any, technically, only reduce the penalty associated, but we're talking about that, Rapid shot, and the second iterative attack gained by Alchemists at level 8.I was reading the below as 2 main hand attacks, 1 haste attack 1 rapid shot attacks and 2 additional attacks from Two Weapon Fighting for 6 attacks total.
Current level 8: 24d6+30(int)+24(deadly aim) (6 attacks/rd) 2 main, 1 haste, 1 rapid shot, 2 twf
But he only has 13 bombs per day assuming a 20 Int and 8th level so he is good for 2 rounds of Bomb Throwing and has nothing left for the rest of the day. Yes you can do horrific damage but it is very wasteful in play.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Whoah! Vital Striking a bomb's full damage is very powerful since it's actually a weapon where most of the damage comes from its dice, rather than static mods. Yes, it's not as damaging as a full attack with Rapid Shot and TWF, but it's still really strong.
I would not let Vital Strike and crits apply--that would allow Alchemists to do similar (yes, less, but still a lot) damage while getting to worry significantly less about their bombs per day limit.
And its the Confusion bombs that have no save, not concussion bombs.
The bonus damage bombs deal (everything past the first d6) does not double on a crit or on Vital Strike. So a Vital Strike bomb at 8th level would deal 5d6+INT Bonus damage and that's it.
Bomb 'weapon' damage is *always* 1d6+INT. At third level and every odd level after that it gets 1d6 points of bonus damage.
|
|
Whoah! Vital Striking a bomb's full damage is very powerful since it's actually a weapon where most of the damage comes from its dice, rather than static mods. Yes, it's not as damaging as a full attack with Rapid Shot and TWF, but it's still really strong.
I would not let Vital Strike and crits apply--that would allow Alchemists to do similar (yes, less, but still a lot) damage while getting to worry significantly less about their bombs per day limit.
And its the Confusion bombs that have no save, not concussion bombs.
The bonus damage bombs deal (everything past the first d6) does not double on a crit or on Vital Strike. So a Vital Strike bomb at 8th level would deal 5d6+INT Bonus damage and that's it.
Bomb 'weapon' damage is *always* 1d6+INT. At third level and every odd level after that it gets 1d6 points of bonus damage.
He's referring to the house-rule proposed by the OP, which is to not let a fast bombs work as is, but instead allow a bomb to be thrown as a swift action. In exchange, crits and vital strike multiply the full damage.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Eh.
Under the rules alchemists can *nova* with 3-5 rounds of crazy damage then they are done. That suggestion gives alchemists 3x damage instead of 4x damage but they can do it essentially all day long. AND it also allows them to do it as a standard action. Alchemists are plenty powerful, giving them a boost like this isn't needed.
The OP's example fight was an admittedly single fight with a single target. Prime alchemist "Spotlight fight". Same CR encounter with 4 creatures of a lower CR, and things would be very different. Also, energy resistance prior to Sonic or Force bomb can absolutely ruin an alchemist's day.
Most of all, discourage the 15 minute adventuring day. Alchemists become fun but not crazygood.
Kingmaker = Alchemist rules the playground without modification.
I'm playing a goblin alchemist in Osirion, between random encounters in long desert trekking, or being stuck in tombs with angry guardian creatures, I have to ration my bombs very carefully, or end up going home in a bag.
Eh.
Under the rules alchemists can *nova* with 3-5 rounds of crazy damage then they are done. That suggestion gives alchemists 3x damage instead of 4x damage but they can do it essentially all day long. AND it also allows them to do it as a standard action. Alchemists are plenty powerful, giving them a boost like this isn't needed.
Guess you didn't read the OP - In exchange for getting VS and crits, fast bombs no longer gives you the full attack action so that you throw a lot less. This is to reduce power not to increase it.
Deadly aim doesn't apply to bombs? (yay!)
Duly noted that ITWF can only be taken at 9th for the alchy, but one level difference is a minor issue here (the numbers work the same at 9th as they do at 8th.)
Eh.
Each shot is 1d8 + 5(Str) + 2(Spec) + 1(WT) + 1(Enhance) + 1(PBS) + 6(Deadly Aim), which averages 20.5 each hit. With 5 shots, that's 102.5 damage, and this Fighter can do this all day. There is absolutely zero limit to his shooting. He can even take AoOs with his bow via Snap Shot.
You are not taking into account the fact that the fighter has to contend with damage reduction and High AC - the alchemist's bomb does not, and that's a huge difference. The alchemist bomb can dispel magic, concuss, confuse, do acid burn, and deal sonic damage which is difficult to resist as well, so they're not remotely equal. The alchy might only get two or three rounds to do his thing, but in that time he can obliterate a big bad, or cripple a small force if they're spread out. Everyone else is on mop-up duty.
Do you realize the Alchemist has a limited number of bombs, I wouldn't nerf the Alchemist's trade mark attacks because if the fight lasts more than 3 rounds the Fighter over takes him in damage easily. Not just that if the Alchemist uses all his bombs fighting in one encounter which is easily possible he has nothing left during a second encounter later that day.
Perspective for you: In the last encounter the party faced, they were all 9th level except for the alchy that was 8th. They faced a CR 14 Umbral dragon, and the idea was to rally the townsfolk and guardsmen to fight it off. Instead, they went on a frontal assault without aid and should have all died. The alchy did 157 damage in 3 rounds, the rest of the party put together only did 40 in that same time. Alchy used all his bombs, and saved the day almost solo. So, something that is a challenge for regular characters is not a problem for the alchemist
The only way to challenge the alchemist is to put in ANOTHER dragon (i.e. big threat) after the first, or at the same time, and this is a huge disadvantage to people NOT playing alchy's, who are substantially less powerful than this.
For my next session, I think I'll leave the alchemist as is, and have the party deal with a group of alchys intent on taking over a city. Same level as the party, same number of alchemists. And we can guess the result :P
The OP's example fight was an admittedly single fight with a single target. Prime alchemist "Spotlight fight". Same CR encounter with 4 creatures of a lower CR, and things would be very different. Also, energy resistance prior to Sonic or Force bomb can absolutely ruin an alchemist's day.
Most of all, discourage the 15 minute adventuring day. Alchemists become fun but not crazygood.
The session I had done took place over 24 hours during which time there was no resting, and fatigue checks were being made etc. But yes, one big bad = alchemist wins, and everyone else is a spectator, which I still think is bad design.
I'll keep the rules as is for now, for my next session involves multiple big bads and we'll see how it goes.
The issue here, is that Pathfinder is designed around an encounter system of 4 or so encounters per day.
If you only throw one at the party, and its one that the alchemist can nova on...sure its gonna be powerful.
In the end though, thats bad encounter design, not a bad system.
The fighter rarely has to contend with high AC, as his attack bonus is through the roof enough to be hitting on 2-3 most of the time, and 7-8 for an iterative attack (hasted attack is at best bonus too)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Guess you didn't read the OP - In exchange for getting VS and crits, fast bombs no longer gives you the full attack action so that you throw a lot less. This is to reduce power not to increase it.
I was replying to the post immediately prior to mine (Which is why I didn't quote it). And FWIW the OP says nothing along these lines.
Guess you didn't read the OP - In exchange for getting VS and crits, fast bombs no longer gives you the full attack action so that you throw a lot less. This is to reduce power not to increase it.
And he and I are contending it doesn't reduce power, that it raises it, because it deals almost as much damage as a full attack, but for a tiny fraction of the bombs.
Your method removes Novas, but allows sustained bombing all day.
You are not taking into account the fact that the fighter has to contend with damage reduction and High AC - the alchemist's bomb does not, and that's a huge difference.
For the DR issue, there's Clustered Shots. For the High AC, there's the fact that a Fighter generally has the highest attack bonus achievable by a PC.
Oh, and there's the fact that the Archer can literally do this all day against any number of enemies.
I know you're pissed about the nova capabilities, but the fact is that D&D 3rd, Pathfinder, and D&D4e are all balanced completely around PCs facing 4 encounters per day. If they do not face 4 encounters per day, balance will suffer. The power of an Alchemists bombs are balanced by the fact that they can only use a finite number of them.
If your Alchemist had faced three encounters before the Dragon, which the game is balanced to assume, he would not have had 13 bombs to use. He'd mostly likely have had much closer to 3 or 4.
If you're going to lower the number of encounters per day, many, many classes will have balance issues. If you make sure to use multiple encounters every day, you'll realize the Alchemist isn't really that powerful.
The issue here, is that Pathfinder is designed around an encounter system of 4 or so encounters per day.
If you only throw one at the party, and its one that the alchemist can nova on...sure its gonna be powerful.
In the end though, thats bad encounter design, not a bad system.
The fighter rarely has to contend with high AC, as his attack bonus is through the roof enough to be hitting on 2-3 most of the time, and 7-8 for an iterative attack (hasted attack is at best bonus too)
I find the idea of four fights per day ridiculous unless you have more than 3 hours to play a session. Mine tend to be more RP than fighting (usually 1-3 fights), so maybe you've just got more time to play than my group.
And the single powerful opponent works fine in 3.5 and previous, it's just that pathfinder decided that 3 classes needed to be able to kill single opponents super quick (paladin, alchemist, inquisitor). When a group doesn't have any of these classes, single powerful opponents work just fine, and I like doing them because having a nemesis is a staple of fantasy literature, and involves the players more than just 'you're facing 17 generic criminals yet again'. If Drizzt had been an alchemist, he would have killed Artemis Entreri on their first encounter :P
Anyway I sense the goodwill of this thread evaporating, so I'm done here.
I generally simply don't assume resting will be possible between gaming sessions. We are also willing to end in the middle of a fight if needed. I'm also willing to have combats that are simply resource expenditures for the PCs where the enemy has little to no chance of winning -- it's simply a question of what resources the party chooses to expend, spells, rage rounds, or the occasional bit of HP.
I'm sorry but the idea that single opponent combats ever worked in 3.5 is just laughable. The fact that you seem to think the only people of one round wonders are the paladin, alchemist and inquisitor suggests to me a lack of experience with fighters, barbarians or halfling cavaliers... and quite possibly the Zen Archer Monk.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Guess you didn't read the OP - In exchange for getting VS and crits, fast bombs no longer gives you the full attack action so that you throw a lot less. This is to reduce power not to increase it.And he and I are contending it doesn't reduce power, that it raises it, because it deals almost as much damage as a full attack, but for a tiny fraction of the bombs.
Your method removes Novas, but allows sustained bombing all day.
Exactly.
The proposed change means the alchemist would do 3/4 the damage of the nova alchemist but he can do it for twice as long and as a standard action. It's also a lot easier to pull off a standard action than it is to pull off a full round action.
Peak DPR doesn't mean a lot when you can only do it four times per day.
The issue here, is that Pathfinder is designed around an encounter system of 4 or so encounters per day.
If you only throw one at the party, and its one that the alchemist can nova on...sure its gonna be powerful.
In the end though, thats bad encounter design, not a bad system.
The fighter rarely has to contend with high AC, as his attack bonus is through the roof enough to be hitting on 2-3 most of the time, and 7-8 for an iterative attack (hasted attack is at best bonus too)
I find the idea of four fights per day ridiculous unless you have more than 3 hours to play a session. Mine tend to be more RP than fighting (usually 1-3 fights), so maybe you've just got more time to play than my group.
And the single powerful opponent works fine in 3.5 and previous, it's just that pathfinder decided that 3 classes needed to be able to kill single opponents super quick (paladin, alchemist, inquisitor). When a group doesn't have any of these classes, single powerful opponents work just fine, and I like doing them because having a nemesis is a staple of fantasy literature, and involves the players more than just 'you're facing 17 generic criminals yet again'. If Drizzt had been an alchemist, he would have killed Artemis Entreri on their first encounter :P
Anyway I sense the goodwill of this thread evaporating, so I'm done here.
4 fighters per adventuring day (between rests) not per game session. Thats what the system assumes. Thats what 3.5 assumed too, given classes like the factotum that had per encounter mechanics as opposed to per day.
Again, you go outside whats designed, you get unintended consequences, like classes that can nova. No ones fault but your own, honestly.
I generally simply don't assume resting will be possible between gaming sessions. We are also willing to end in the middle of a fight if needed. I'm also willing to have combats that are simply resource expenditures for the PCs where the enemy has little to no chance of winning -- it's simply a question of what resources the party chooses to expend, spells, rage rounds, or the occasional bit of HP.
I'm sorry but the idea that single opponent combats ever worked in 3.5 is just laughable. The fact that you seem to think the only people of one round wonders are the paladin, alchemist and inquisitor suggests to me a lack of experience with fighters, barbarians or halfling cavaliers... and quite possibly the Zen Archer Monk.
We had a zen archer monk last time - very powerful indeed, but didn't break the game. We've had rangers, fighters, barbarians, wizards, clerics, monk (both zen archer and regular), sorc, bard, and THEY didn't break the game like this. I've been DMing for a very long time mate, and I didn't have this sort of problem in 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 3.5 editions until switching to pathfinder. But hey, look, we're arguing on the internet; you're not going to convince me and I'm not gonna convince you. You've got your own style, and hey, stick with whatever works for you.
The issue here, is that Pathfinder is designed around an encounter system of 4 or so encounters per day.
If you only throw one at the party, and its one that the alchemist can nova on...sure its gonna be powerful.
In the end though, thats bad encounter design, not a bad system.
The fighter rarely has to contend with high AC, as his attack bonus is through the roof enough to be hitting on 2-3 most of the time, and 7-8 for an iterative attack (hasted attack is at best bonus too)
I find the idea of four fights per day ridiculous unless you have more than 3 hours to play a session. Mine tend to be more RP than fighting (usually 1-3 fights), so maybe you've just got more time to play than my group.
And the single powerful opponent works fine in 3.5 and previous, it's just that pathfinder decided that 3 classes needed to be able to kill single opponents super quick (paladin, alchemist, inquisitor). When a group doesn't have any of these classes, single powerful opponents work just fine, and I like doing them because having a nemesis is a staple of fantasy literature, and involves the players more than just 'you're facing 17 generic criminals yet again'. If Drizzt had been an alchemist, he would have killed Artemis Entreri on their first encounter :P
Anyway I sense the goodwill of this thread evaporating, so I'm done here.
4 fighters per adventuring day (between rests) not per game session. Thats what the system assumes. Thats what 3.5 assumed too, given classes like the factotum that had per encounter mechanics as opposed to per day.
Again, you go outside whats designed, you get unintended consequences, like classes that can nova. No ones fault but your own, honestly.
Please tell me where I can read this in an official rule guide.
|
There is no need to nerf the alchemist in any way. The alchemist does increase his bombs per round rather suddenly, but this is built into the class. When you nerf a core ability to a class, you destroy it's effectiveness. If you decide that you will nerf it, you have to think, what am I going to take away from the other players? You can say it is for balance, but to maintain this balance, you have to take a little something from everyone. Make sure you understand what you are doing, and make sure you know what you are taking away.
There is no need to nerf the alchemist in any way. The alchemist does increase his bombs per round rather suddenly, but this is built into the class. When you nerf a core ability to a class, you destroy it's effectiveness. If you decide that you will nerf it, you have to think, what am I going to take away from the other players? You can say it is for balance, but to maintain this balance, you have to take a little something from everyone. Make sure you understand what you are doing, and make sure you know what you are taking away.
Holding off on the house ruling for the time being. Going to try a few other techniques to 'bleed' the party over time first ;)
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'm not sure Pathfinder has an explicit encounters per day guideline, I recall from 3.5 there was a guideline of four per day. In Paizo's in published adventures it varies quite a bit but I've seen a lot of adventures with more than that and my least favorite adventure path had one per day for a big part of the adventure.
My personal preference is keeping things mixed up so players don't know what exactly to plan for. Mix ranged encounters with melee encounters, easy with hard, sometimes one encounter a day, sometimes four or even eight. This often allows everyone in the group to shine a bit.
We just had a long session with "Sea to Shore" (a great adventure FWIW) and the circumstances of the adventure led to 8 encounters, including several toughies in a single day and the players were pushing on in spite of the fact that one character was completely disabled from strength damage.
It's all good -- I've simply seen many cases where the three you mentioned do fine, but don't outstrip the fighter for sheer "I kill you all" power in all situations. I'll readily grant that if you play right into their strengths each of those classes can wreck havoc on an encounter or three, but I've yet to see them do it as consistently or regularly as the fighter does.
But at the same time I've also not had an encounter go as planned yet either. I know what each character has been capable of and planned (as a GM) what would appear, when and in what number. Each has done well in its role but I've not had anyone steamroll an encounter on me yet (at least that wasn't suppose to be a steamrolling).
|
|
Change up the type of challenges. This will keep your players on their toes, and let different players shine. Altering, or nerfing your players should be on bottom of the list, as this can lead to players feeling cheated. Being creative with challenges on the other hand is great way. My older DM ran Legacy of Fire, and noticed some of the big bads were a bit too easy, so he added another creature to mix with some of the confrontations, and altered the battlefield on some. We did not even know, we just said to each other "this is a hard adventure". A good DM knows that not all groups are the same, and he must adapt.
It's all good -- I've simply seen many cases where the three you mentioned do fine, but don't outstrip the fighter for sheer "I kill you all" power in all situations. I'll readily grant that if you play right into their strengths each of those classes can wreck havoc on an encounter or three, but I've yet to see them do it as consistently or regularly as the fighter does.
But at the same time I've also not had an encounter go as planned yet either. I know what each character has been capable of and planned (as a GM) what would appear, when and in what number. Each has done well in its role but I've not had anyone steamroll an encounter on me yet (at least that wasn't suppose to be a steamrolling).
Oh certainly, the paladin is kinda ordinary when not facing evil. It's amusing for me to recall that the guy actually playing the paladin, upon reaching level 9, said to me 'I don't want to play this anymore, it's... so broken', which is why we banned them for a time.
That character did actually steamroll two encounters (different sessions) against a black dragon and an evil cavalier, but as I recall he did get several critical hits as well which skews the result.
I appreciate that having longer 'days' in game really helps even out the power of classes, and clearly the problem I'm having is that I just can't run it that way. My group have families and other commitments these days, so I'm not guaranteed to have the same people each session. I can't really just leave off in the middle of a dungeon half-way through (I did that once, and two people didn't show up for next time which made things awkward), and they didn't want other people playing their characters either (that went hilariously wrong in times past lol).
So yeah, I am at fault with the issue of module balance :( In fact, looking at the house rules I put in for some classes speaks to this, like reducing the number of bane rounds the inquisitor gets. I'm sad now :'(
Eh.
Under the rules alchemists can *nova* with 3-5 rounds of crazy damage then they are done. That suggestion gives alchemists 3x damage instead of 4x damage but they can do it essentially all day long. AND it also allows them to do it as a standard action. Alchemists are plenty powerful, giving them a boost like this isn't needed.
Guess you didn't read the OP - In exchange for getting VS and crits, fast bombs no longer gives you the full attack action so that you throw a lot less. This is to reduce power not to increase it.
Deadly aim doesn't apply to bombs? (yay!)
Duly noted that ITWF can only be taken at 9th for the alchy, but one level difference is a minor issue here (the numbers work the same at 9th as they do at 8th.)
Eh.
Each shot is 1d8 + 5(Str) + 2(Spec) + 1(WT) + 1(Enhance) + 1(PBS) + 6(Deadly Aim), which averages 20.5 each hit. With 5 shots, that's 102.5 damage, and this Fighter can do this all day. There is absolutely zero limit to his shooting. He can even take AoOs with his bow via Snap Shot.You are not taking into account the fact that the fighter has to contend with damage reduction and High AC - the alchemist's bomb does not, and that's a huge difference. The alchemist bomb can dispel magic, concuss, confuse, do acid burn, and deal sonic damage which is difficult to resist as well, so they're not remotely equal. The alchy might only get two or three rounds to do his thing, but in that time he can obliterate a big bad, or cripple a small force if they're spread out. Everyone else is on mop-up duty.
Perspective...
Do you realize the Alchemist has a limited number of bombs, I wouldn't nerf the Alchemist's trade mark attacks because if the fight lasts more than 3 rounds the Fighter over takes him in damage easily. Not just that if the Alchemist uses all his bombs fighting in one encounter which is easily possible he has nothing left during a second encounter later that day.
Still after that one encounter the Alchemist is tsol, out of Bombs and unable to do that damage during any other encounter that day. At level 9 you are looking at 14 bombs and you blew through them in 3 rounds of one encounter. The fighter though not making ranged touch attacks is still doing multiple attacks for decent damage through out the day. The fighters can of whupass stays full 24/7.
Yes an Alchemist can do an insane amount of damage if he or she dumps everything they can, but they run the risk of not being able to do much after that one encounter. I've been in games where 2-4 encounters during a day is not unheard of.
Alchemists are far from being over powered.
Holding off on the house ruling for the time being. Going to try a few other techniques to 'bleed' the party over time first ;)
Some... "tools" from my tool box (not all of them will work all the time of course) that might help:
1. No time to rest! Camping in a dungeon requires a safe area... if it's an 'open design' that can be really hard to find, and it assumes nothing can get to you. My spell casting heavy party found that large groups of mooks using skirmishing tactics can keep them up all night for nights on end, and never be grouped enough for a spell to be worth it. At level 10 this took about 200 drow per night in groups of 10 and a like number of barbarians in the jungle during the day.
2. Waves and Hordes -- waves are a pain, hordes bleed you slowly -- both together really wreck your day.
3. What boss? Oh they saved up and suffered through the entire dungeon saving up their best stuff for the boss? What a disappointment, there wasn't one. I bet those spells you saved would have made those earlier encounters easier.
4. What you weren't expecting a boss now? Oops you thought the road would be safe and got all fancy on those peon bandits, too bad this guy was down the road...
5. Small monsters that don't die easily -- regeneration and diehard together are mean, especially if they aren't sure how to shut off the regeneration.
"Space Slugs" -- I used these during an expedition to the Starfall:
Tiny Aberrations
Initiative +4, Senses: Perception +7 Blindsight
HD 3d10+9(27) Regeneration 5(cold)
AC 17 (+4 Dex +2 Size +1 natural)
DR 5/adamantine and slashing
Move 30 Climb 30
Immunities: Fire, Acid
Attacks: Acidic Spit (20 foot 2d4 acid) Bite (1d4+2+2d4 Acid + Grab)
Special Abilities: Blood drain
Str 14 Dex 18 Con 16 Int 2 Wis 12 Cha 5
Feats: Endurance, Diehard
Several of these were a pain in the butt for my recent party, the big daddy had more hit dice and swallow whole as well as being large size.
Some... "tools" from my tool box (not all of them will work all the time of course) that might help
Hilarious and useful, sir! I'll change up my game a bit and see if I can get past this balance issue with outside the box thinking (not my strong suit, I'll grant you). Thanks for all the advice, forum posters, I hope to improve my sessions with these new insights :)
one thing -- those slugs were electrical damage not cold -- I goofed when I copied them in. They were immune to cold as well (after all *space* slugs duh).
Duly noted :)
What all this amounts to is that pathfinder IS a different system to previous ones, in that the classes are more powerful in general. So, I need to adjust my methods to that, instead of reducing their power. Learning is fun!
Yeah each system is a bit different of course. 3.5 was a completely different beast than pathfinder is now. Common roots but that's about it at this point.