A (hopefully) simple question.
If I'm throwing a splash weapon and miss, it deals splash damage randomly, possibly including a PC. If there exists a chance that some direct action I take could harm another PC, could a player veto that action declaring PVP?
Even the Precise Bombs discovery doesn't give a 100% guarantee that I won't hurt an ally. I would like for Bombs to be my primary combat tactic. I don't want to get any allies in trouble.
|
A (hopefully) simple question.
If I'm throwing a splash weapon and miss, it deals splash damage randomly, possibly including a PC. If there exists a chance that some direct action I take could harm another PC, could a player veto that action declaring PVP?
Even the Precise Bombs discovery doesn't give a 100% guarantee that I won't hurt an ally. I would like for Bombs to be my primary combat tactic. I don't want to get any allies in trouble.
ON a miss, I don't think there is an issue, since it was not intentional - also splash on a miss is a smaller area than on a hit (a miss targets a grid intersection and only affects 4 squares unless explosive).
The issue as I see it - is throwing a bomb where on a hit it would hit fellow PCs - many GMs don't call that PVP.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You can take the Splash Weapon Mastery feat, which lets you nudge your misses by one square (in addition to extending the splash radius to a square of your choice, and halving any range penalties).
I don't think anyone would object if you threatened to do splash damage to them on a miss; you probably won't miss very often anyway. But if you don't have Precise Bombs (or are using some other splash weapon), I'd probably let anyone caught in the splash veto it.
|
|
My understanding is, on a miss, damage is done randomly starting with a square adjacent to the intended target. That's how every GM I've run my alchemist for plays it, anyway.
Yes, a player can veto that if they're afraid of PvP--which is to say, if they're within two squares of the target. That said, I've never seen anyone have a serious problem with it unless they're down to a few HP, in which case it's probably not an ideal tactic anyway.
|
|
IMNSHO, any effect that could potentially endanger a fellow party member needs to be discussed with that party member in advanced. Be it an alchemist's bomb, a fireball, or something more obscure. An excuse such as, "it'll only happen on a 1" or something similar is no reason to skip over such an easy requirement.
A (hopefully) simple question.
If I'm throwing a splash weapon and miss, it deals splash damage randomly, possibly including a PC. If there exists a chance that some direct action I take could harm another PC, could a player veto that action declaring PVP?
Even the Precise Bombs discovery doesn't give a 100% guarantee that I won't hurt an ally. I would like for Bombs to be my primary combat tactic. I don't want to get any allies in trouble.
ON a miss, I don't think there is an issue, since it was not intentional - also splash on a miss is a smaller area than on a hit (a miss targets a grid intersection and only affects 4 squares unless explosive).
The issue as I see it - is throwing a bomb where on a hit it would hit fellow PCs - many GMs don't call that PVP.
Incorrect. On a miss, the bomb lands in a random square determined by a d8 and number of range increments, and affects all adjacent squares.
|
|
If your a melee class, and your party has an Alchemist, you might wanna invest in some fire insurance. :)
Seriously, if you have an Alchemist, you KNOW you're gonna eat one now and then. Throw in a Critical Fumble Deck, and you can have some REAL fun! :)
|
@Furthermore
Be careful about friendly fire. An alchemist on a single session got eager to bomb those pesky undead and two allies ended up receiving friendly fire for 8 splash fire damage. One of those allies was my cleric character who was left at exactly 13/14 Con at the end of fight.
In your case however, that should not be PvP. A regular miss chance if you miss target on bombs is normal, but you should always check it out with your players (especially if they are low on hp). The nearby targets receive only splash damage tho. There is some sort of discovery or formula if I recall right that grants you more direct damage without splash damage at all. Maybe you should check that.
Adam
|
|
IF the alchemist has precise bombs I can't see the PVP rule being used to say "sorry, your entire class is hosed for the night because I have a melee combatant" and you MIGHT miss. I think I'd have to allow the alchemist with precise bombs to throw unless the other pc was at 1 hit point or so.
The Don't Be a Jerk rule can come up, however. We once had one of those super-Int alchemists with middling Dex, and he also drank a Con mutagen for more health instead of Dex. He didn't have Precise Shot yet due to non-human, so he was throwing into melee at about -1 net versus touch AC (which is usually around 12 at all CRs). 50/50 chance to miss and possibly hit the melees. I was GMing, and I told him that while I think it didn't count as PvP since only a miss hit his friends, I did think that his entire build violated Don't Be a Jerk.
|
The Don't Be a Jerk rule can come up, however. We once had one of those super-Int alchemists with middling Dex, and he also drank a Con mutagen for more health instead of Dex. He didn't have Precise Shot yet due to non-human, so he was throwing into melee at about -1 net versus touch AC (which is usually around 12 at all CRs). 50/50 chance to miss and possibly hit the melees. I was GMing, and I told him that while I think it didn't count as PvP since only a miss hit his friends, I did think that his entire build violated Don't Be a Jerk.IF the alchemist has precise bombs I can't see the PVP rule being used to say "sorry, your entire class is hosed for the night because I have a melee combatant" and you MIGHT miss. I think I'd have to allow the alchemist with precise bombs to throw unless the other pc was at 1 hit point or so.
Not going to lie. That kind of sounds like the sort of build someone would run if they were trying to nuke party members on purpose. It would definitely make circumventing any accusations of direct PvP a breeze, though some folk would probably catch on after a bit.
|
I do not think that we should force people to ask for permission to do actions that could have negative affects on failure. As it raises the question of how responsible are you for bad rolls? If an alchemist should ask before throwing any alchemist bombs because of damage on a failure, should people have to ask to perform any of the following actions
-Using diplomacy on an unfriendly npc? Failure can cause combat.
-Climbing up a narrow space with players below you? You may fall on them.
or even
-Buying a helm of brilliance, lesser? failing a couple saves can result in over 100d6 fire damage.
I think the cut off point needs to be at the intent of the player. As long as the player does not intend to harm the PCs the action should be fine. I also think that alchemists should be prepared to heal any damage their bombs may cause with their own resources. It is annoying to tank an encounter not receive any damage from the foes and over half you health from alchemists and then when you ask to be healed they ask for your wand of CLW.
|
Yes, but you have to ask yourself if throwing grenades into melee is really in the spirit of "Cooperate." I love my alchemist, but I wouldn't play him if he didn't have Precise Bombs, Splash Weapon Mastery, and a good Dex. Even with all that, I try to aim my bombs so they don't hit party members and try to work with my party to make sure everyone has a chance to engage the target with the least risk possible. And if I do significant damage to a party member, I heal them using my own resources.
Splash babies need to suck it up. Like Samish pointed out, not every action has a favorable outcome. I have seen melee miss 5+ times in a row. Should we make them stand in back and do nothing due to their lack of effectiveness? The dice rolls are random. Just like the splash attack. Rolls will not always be in our favor.
Sometimes in close quarters it is better for melee to take a fireball for the team to kill 5 opponents.
I've seen melee, open doors before traps can been searched for, screwing the party with aoe traps. Not a good choice. It boils down to choices. What is needed at the moment. We are adventurers and we need/must adapt to every situation.
-Play more and cry on
|
|
In my mind, players do not get to veto another's action because it puts them at risk. If the player tossing the bomb is being malicious that's PvP. Carelessness is not. The GM has responsibility to determine the difference.
Also a lot of GMs should apparently read up on splash weapons. They don't hit vertices.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Throw-Splash-Weapon
|
|
Chris,
I think your worry about splash damage with large level differences is only an issue at low levels, as the splash damage doesn't scale much and the HP you get per level at low levels are huge percentage increase to total HP. I suppose if the low level characters are still playing in their tier and the alchemist is playing below tier the alchemist can hand out infusions and do actions that will not hurt the party on a failure. If however the low level is playing up, then I think the low level melee should grab a ranged weapon rather than have a damage dealer not be able to function.
I am not advocating that a bomb alchemist should not get precise bomb. I have been in a party where a 9th level alchemist bomber did not have it and my tank would routinely take more damage from the alchemist than the opponents. I am saying that when an alchemist has taken precautions to avoid friendly fire damage on a success, you should not force them to get permission for their actions because of the possibility of unintended damage on a failure.
@Furthermore
Be careful about friendly fire. An alchemist on a single session got eager to bomb those pesky undead and two allies ended up receiving friendly fire for 8 splash fire damage. One of those allies was my cleric character who was left at exactly 13/14 Con at the end of fight.
In your case however, that should not be PvP. A regular miss chance if you miss target on bombs is normal, but you should always check it out with your players (especially if they are low on hp). The nearby targets receive only splash damage tho. There is some sort of discovery or formula if I recall right that grants you more direct damage without splash damage at all. Maybe you should check that.
Adam
The spell is Targeted Bomb Admixture from Ultimate Combat.
When you throw bombs, they can only hit a direct target; they do not splash. However, the bomb deals its base damage plus double your Intelligence modifier instead of just its base damage plus your Intelligence modifier.
lasts 1 round/level
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my mind, players do not get to veto another's action because it puts them at risk. If the player tossing the bomb is being malicious that's PvP. Carelessness is not. The GM has responsibility to determine the difference.
Also a lot of GMs should apparently read up on splash weapons. They don't hit vertices.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Throw-Splash-Weapon
What you cannot do is aim for a square at AC5 which a lot of people do and apply splash only - if you want to not aim at a creature you HAVE TO AIM at a vertex.
FROM CORE RULEBOOK
You can instead target a specific grid intersection. Treat
this as a ranged attack against AC 5. However, if you target
a grid intersection, creatures in all adjacent squares are
dealt the splash damage, and the direct hit damage is not
dealt to any creature. You can’t target a grid intersection
occupied by a creature, such as a Large or larger creature;
in this case, you’re aiming at the creature.
If you miss the target (whether aiming at a creature or a
grid intersection), roll 1d8.
|
|
That seems like a pretty reasonable ruling to me. I could see asking someone if they're all right with you potentially burninating their character to be polite, but at the end of the day.. yeah. Playing melee brings a lot more risk than it does reward, and being nuked by a party member can be one of those risks.
|
|
The spell is Targeted Bomb Admixture from Ultimate Combat.When you throw bombs, they can only hit a direct target; they do not splash. However, the bomb deals its base damage plus double your Intelligence modifier instead of just its base damage plus your Intelligence modifier.
lasts 1 round/level
That's probably it. Thanks Azouth.
|
|
I have Splash Weapon Mastery (so I can shift the location of a "miss" slightly), Percise Bombs and a good dex. I regularly use Reduce Person (to increase DEX and to give another +1 to hit), but I still roll a "1" sometimes (seems to happen about 5% of the time!).
SO, just to get it out of the way at the start of the adventure, I will take a moment during the VC briefing to turn to the other characters and say:
"I want to formally apoligize for setting you on fire at some point during the upcoming adventure. I try to miniumize the times this occures, but every now and again it happens. Sorry!"
and then I am aware of the chance each time I take a shot. I will often throw at intersections beside the monster - as AC 5 is much easier to hit, and if I miss it is a smaller AOO.
I have shown people the gimmick of throwing at an intersection, adding another square on the edge (with Splash Weapon Mastery) and then excluding all 4 of the "normal" splass squares (Percise Bomb). This allows me to splash a monster, while targeting 5' away, and not hit anything else. Combined with Explosive Bomb and things get interesting.
Just because I'm an Alchemist, doesn't mean I'm a Jerk...
|
My alchemist/musket master hasn't used her bombs that often, aside from Tanglefoot bombs but with a gain of new weapon ("The Countess", a +1 Conductive Double Barrel Musket) I'm using the conductive property to put the bomb on my target. I also have the explosive missile discovery to use my pepperbox to do the same (without the 2:1 cost)
I like the bombs.. just haven't had much use out of them yet (save for swarms). That will change now that I got the Countess. I know other grenadiers who use Explosive Missile with bows/xbows for the same reasons.
|
|
Splash weapons are what they are, and accidents happen. Having a player who throws first and looks for friends later is being rude, but I won't say anything to the player about it until the other players at the table speak up.
I've actually told an alchemist, if you throw another bomb into melee after you've been asked multiple times to stop, I'll have to ask you to leave the table. She was not happy and frumped in the corner for the rest of the scenario. My job is not to dictate to the players how they act, it is to do my best to let them have fun.
The fun of the many out weight the fun of the one.
|
|
I think that if you knowingly set off an AoE spell/effect that will definitely hit an ally, the ally can choose to veto the action; the GM should even specifically ask the ally if they want to do that since some won't be aware of it.
But if it's an accident, such as only a roll of a 1 that causes the AoE effect to move slightly and inadvertantly hits an ally, that has to stand and the ally doesn't get to veto it.
The idea behind the no PVP rule is to avoid players intentionally attacking players, which doesn't like is what's happening here.
|
|
I know that my admixture wizard stocks one or two communal protections from energy JUST for this.
Nothing like 120 points of immunity to electricty for the Stonelord to ahve so I can drop the 2 bullettes and a fiendish giant wasp with a 84 point intensified empowered lightning bolt.
I've also dropped a 65 point fireball on the group (AFTER said communal protection from fire was cast. :D )
Proper planning and placement has helped me avoid hurting my party member with other AOEs.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
So, speaking of splash damage, what about the various summon swarm spells, do those constitute PVP, since many of them you lose control of where they go as soon as they are summoned, and they can add a whole extra monster to the encounter for the PC's to fight?
|
|
@FLite
Friendly fire is more under "don't be a jerk" rules, rather then PvP. I wished to use myself such spells on spell casters, but it's just not for PFS. Most of melee oriented characters rush to melee always and there is less tactic based cohesion at Organized Play environment then at home games where people know each other.
How does simple alchemist fares to avoid friendly fire on his teammates is up to him. Often enough, the splash damage is minor and nobody complains about it, but there are always extreme cases.
Adam
|
|
I've had actual melee types tell me to drop an AOE on them..
One said 'He'll do more damage to me than you'
Well, my Reflex save is quite good, and I can take the damage, but that same damage will help take down multiple enemies quicker, thereby, overall, reducing the damage I will probably take overall.
Especially if it is on my Rogue, since a successful Reflex save will dump that damage amount significantly. ;)
Or, to put it another way, 27 mooks, or 3 mooks and some fire damage. 3 is low odds of an actual hit, much less a crit. Fewer attack rolls, less chance of swarming me to death.
===================================
Then again, I have seen a whole combat trivialized because of an empowered fireball that did more damage than the toughest enemy could survive, if he failed the astronomical save.
8 enemies, empowered fireball, 3 enemies, all mooks, none in the AoE, since only the boss, who was caught in the AoE, had enough hit points to survive even on a successful save, and he failed. Sigh. Several of those fights were either underpowered to begin with, or walkovers after one spellcast.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had characters eat fireballs, splash damage, a burning hands, cone of cold, and all that jazz on quite a few occasions now. As far as tactics are concerned, there is absolutely nothing wrong with setting a few party members on fire if it will get the job done, at least if you know they'll survive it. Should ask first.
I can honestly say that I have never, in my entire time participating in Society play, seen anyone decline having their character get a little crispy in return for taking out a huge group of bad guys, a boss, or what have you. People just worry too much about whether or not using your melee guys to herd the room full of mooks into a thirty foot circle is bad form.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen the GM have to get involved regarding PvP. It's usually a player-to-player conversation along the lines of:
P1: "I could drop a [whatever] here and get all these guys, but it'd get you too."
P2: "Totally worth it; roast those guys."
Typically resolved in about 10 seconds.
|
When I hit a party member in my AoE's, I use the charges from my wands to heal them up, rather than their own. If there's a chance of killing a party member, and the situation really requires my AoE, then I better be able to afford the raise and restorations. Unless that party member waves the need.
That said, hooray for Lesser Rod of Selective Spell Metamagic!