fast bombs plus two weapon fighting


Rules Questions


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

those this work in the book its stated that the alchemist actually creates the bombs in the turn he throws it so he is not actuallly holding a bomb in each hand but preparing them and throwing them as soon as they are ready, but ive seen people saying these two work toghether so i'd like confirmation
thanks


Yes this should work.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

so with improved two weapon fighting i could be throwing 4 bombs per round at lvl 8?


Yes but at +2/+2/+2/-3 +dex and you Will still be limited to a number pr Day.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

cool cool good to know,thanks mate


There's a FAQ which specifically states TWF works with Fast Bombs. I played a PC who used this tactic once, and I felt like I had really gone too far. I doubt that they'd ever change the ruling at this point though.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

i think the trick with this is paying atention to how many bombs you are spending if you are not careful you could easly end up with no bombs when its time to face the big bad


If you're a gnome who takes extra bombs with your favored class bonuses you should have enough bombs to last for a "typical" adventure day. Of course the DM can crank up the difficulty and create special situations where the party can't rest safely. At that point the mad bomber is dramatically affecting the entire campaign style though.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

or just throw in a couple graplers to pin down that alchemist, also the bombs require special components those could run out, or be contaminated or stolen and out in the wildreness those are hard to replace


Still fits in the point of "the DM has to alter the campaign style for them".

Might fit in some parties, horribly break others. Depends on what everybody else is using.


Im still giggling at "Mad Bomber", I'm going to have to make one now.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:

Still fits in the point of "the DM has to alter the campaign style for them".

Might fit in some parties, horribly break others. Depends on what everybody else is using.

not really there is travel distance between towns sometime a week between them a couple encounters might deplete the ingredients for bombs if the alchemist aint careful


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Biztak wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Still fits in the point of "the DM has to alter the campaign style for them".

Might fit in some parties, horribly break others. Depends on what everybody else is using.

not really there is travel distance between towns sometime a week between them a couple encounters might deplete the ingredients for bombs if the alchemist aint careful

Just like it might deplete the wizard's spell components.

Much like the components found in a spell component pouch, there are no rules for running out or refilling them. If you're going to add them, I suggest being up front and explicit about cost and weight and how often an alchemist's kit needs to be refilled.

Obviously the kit could be sundered or stolen, much like a component pouch could be. However, as this leaves the alchemist even more useless than the wizard, I'd be very careful about doing so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Pendagast - Personally the phrase "mad bomber" makes me think of the old Atari game Kaboom! I like the idea of an explosion crazed gnome flinging bombs everywhere. In practice the damage output was even higher than I expected and Force Bombs seemed like a "one size fits all" solution to kill literally any powerful monster we met. Sometimes I wouldn't even bother to use my bombs, but they were like a get out of jail free card.

@Biztak - Throwing in a couple of grapplers to pin down the PC pretty much works against anybody without Freedom of Movement. The fact that Alchemists can cast Freedom of Movement with Delayed Consumption makes it a little less compelling here. To me the rest of what you're suggesting sounds kind of similar to "Wizards aren't too powerful because their spellbooks might get ruined or stolen and the DM can make sure that they don't have enough material components to cast more than a few spells per adventure". Obviously if you and your group find all that fun it is great. On an objective level TWF+Fast Bombs is really strong though, especially if you add in Force Bombs so that resistances and immunities aren't a problem. I also found that Sticky Bombs helped me conserve my bombs per day a little.

As for the Alchemist's real weaknesses I'd say that the low Will save is a big problem. At one point my Alchemist PC failed a Will save and went crazy for a brief time. Most of the party was wise enough to run away and hide, but the Oracle insisted on fighting and got killed. In fact, the player kept insisting on redoing the combat and got killed over and over. The funniest was when he tried putting up a Wall of Ice so he could buff. It took one or two bombs to blow a hole in the Wall. Then I blew up the Oracle with the remaining bombs.


Biztak wrote:
kestral287 wrote:

Still fits in the point of "the DM has to alter the campaign style for them".

Might fit in some parties, horribly break others. Depends on what everybody else is using.

not really there is travel distance between towns sometime a week between them a couple encounters might deplete the ingredients for bombs if the alchemist aint careful

If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

And bombs are powerfull but IMOP not game Breakingly so. Remember the kind of damage they do and dont just use bad guys with bad touch AC.


Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Eridan wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.

It's ok for him to change the campaign, but he really ought to discuss the problem - preferably before the game so no one builds a character who's then broken by the changes, but at least before implementing them.

Finding out a week in to your three week cross country trek that you've used up all your bomb making supplies (and other ingredient needed for extracts?), is pretty damn low. Especially when the rules don't limit them so you had no idea that was even a factor and couldn't try to stock up. But of course if you do stock up, then it's not limiting the "uber" character.

Not like a bomber alchemist is really that uber anyway. Sure, a lot of damage when he novas, but compared to a god-mode wizard?
Do you routinely tell wizards they can't cast anymore because they need to go to town to refill their spell component pouch?


thejeff wrote:
Eridan wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.

It's ok for him to change the campaign, but he really ought to discuss the problem - preferably before the game so no one builds a character who's then broken by the changes, but at least before implementing them.

Finding out a week in to your three week cross country trek that you've used up all your bomb making supplies (and other ingredient needed for extracts?), is pretty damn low. Especially when the rules don't limit them so you had no idea that was even a factor and couldn't try to stock up. But of course if you do stock up, then it's not limiting the "uber" character.

Not like a bomber alchemist is really that uber anyway. Sure, a lot of damage when he novas, but compared to a god-mode wizard?
Do you routinely tell wizards they can't cast anymore because they need to go to town to refill their spell component pouch?

This


Eridan wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.

I am sure you do great at your table but i doubt you tell the barbarian that his boots gave out because you got tired of him running fast.

If a alchemist is Breaking your campaign with bombs i say go back to the Drawing board and strengthen your story and pehaps your encounters (a bad guy with step up and combat reflexes pehaps).
Any way if you have problems with a level 8 alchemist how do you handle gunslingers? And if any of them gives you problems what about Spell casters?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Eridan wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.

It's ok for him to change the campaign, but he really ought to discuss the problem - preferably before the game so no one builds a character who's then broken by the changes, but at least before implementing them.

Finding out a week in to your three week cross country trek that you've used up all your bomb making supplies (and other ingredient needed for extracts?), is pretty damn low. Especially when the rules don't limit them so you had no idea that was even a factor and couldn't try to stock up. But of course if you do stock up, then it's not limiting the "uber" character.

Not like a bomber alchemist is really that uber anyway. Sure, a lot of damage when he novas, but compared to a god-mode wizard?
Do you routinely tell wizards they can't cast anymore because they need to go to town to refill their spell component pouch?

i never stated that a mad bomber is giving me trouble and also i do remind all my players to stock before leaving town they used to pack for 2-3 days they now stack for weeks because being on the middle of nowhere with no food could end with a barabarian eating wichever character he finds anoying (beware the hungry brute)


Biztak wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Eridan wrote:
Cap. Darling wrote:
If a GM is gonna make up this kind of problems for one class i think he need to warn folks before the game.

So it is ok when a player breaks a campaign with an 'uber' build. It is not ok when a GM modifies a campaign to make it interesting and challenging for players with 'uber' builds (and himself)?

On my table i change campaigns every day because sometimes may players use 'uber' builds and sometimes they use funny ,stylish weak builds.

It's ok for him to change the campaign, but he really ought to discuss the problem - preferably before the game so no one builds a character who's then broken by the changes, but at least before implementing them.

Finding out a week in to your three week cross country trek that you've used up all your bomb making supplies (and other ingredient needed for extracts?), is pretty damn low. Especially when the rules don't limit them so you had no idea that was even a factor and couldn't try to stock up. But of course if you do stock up, then it's not limiting the "uber" character.

Not like a bomber alchemist is really that uber anyway. Sure, a lot of damage when he novas, but compared to a god-mode wizard?
Do you routinely tell wizards they can't cast anymore because they need to go to town to refill their spell component pouch?

i never stated that a mad bomber is giving me trouble and also i do remind all my players to stock before leaving town they used to pack for 2-3 days they now stack for weeks because being on the middle of nowhere with no food could end with a barabarian eating wichever character he finds anoying (beware the hungry brute)

Sure, stock up on food and other actual consumables. But there's no way in the rules for the alchemist to know how much he needs. How many bombs can an alchemist make without restocking? By RAW, there's no limit (other than daily). If you're going to impose one, you need to be explicit about it. And then the alchemist can just buy spare supplies so he can keep throwing them on longer trips.


I'd rather see the Alchemist (and perhaps the Wizard) be a little less over the top so that the DM wouldn't be tempted to implement special fixes or feel like he needs to constantly work on "better encounter design". Obviously there's an idea that players should regulate PC power on their own instead of just relying on hard limits imposed by the game rules. I think that the hard limits can be very helpful too though. If nothing else they help define the boundaries of what seems reasonable. Anyhow, I was just trying to advise the OP and other readers that the Mad Bomber style Alchemist can be very disruptive and over the top. Maybe that's what some folks are aiming for. I'm not a game cop who can go arrest folks for attempting to play overpowered builds. I'm just somebody who can say from experience that I probably should have toned it down a little.

As far as consumables go, I've rarely seen DMs take the time to track food. One who did once had our low level PCs begging farmers for food and trying to "hunt" a sheep with a falchion. Players are also often surprised if they start carefully tracking encumbrance. A 10lb wheel of cheese is a great food source for a Viking with 20 Str, but a lot of PCs can't carry that much and don't have enough Handle Animal to use a donkey or mule. A DM wouldn't be wrong to ask the player of a 7 Str gnome Alchemist or Wizard how the PC is carrying all of his or her gear and supplies around.


Devilkiller wrote:

I'd rather see the Alchemist (and perhaps the Wizard) be a little less over the top so that the DM wouldn't be tempted to implement special fixes or feel like he needs to constantly work on "better encounter design". Obviously there's an idea that players should regulate PC power on their own instead of just relying on hard limits imposed by the game rules. I think that the hard limits can be very helpful too though. If nothing else they help define the boundaries of what seems reasonable. Anyhow, I was just trying to advise the OP and other readers that the Mad Bomber style Alchemist can be very disruptive and over the top. Maybe that's what some folks are aiming for. I'm not a game cop who can go arrest folks for attempting to play overpowered builds. I'm just somebody who can say from experience that I probably should have toned it down a little.

As far as consumables go, I've rarely seen DMs take the time to track food. One who did once had our low level PCs begging farmers for food and trying to "hunt" a sheep with a falchion. Players are also often surprised if they start carefully tracking encumbrance. A 10lb wheel of cheese is a great food source for a Viking with 20 Str, but a lot of PCs can't carry that much and don't have enough Handle Animal to use a donkey or mule. A DM wouldn't be wrong to ask the player of a 7 Str gnome Alchemist or Wizard how the PC is carrying all of his or her gear and supplies around.

"I passed them to the barbarian." At higher levels, "They're in the bag of holding, with everything else."

Really the simple answer to the Mad Bomber novaing, even with the gnome's extra bombs is more encounters and some time pressure so they can't just rest after each. They're nice, but compared to actual full casters, they're not that much of a problem. It's just easier to see since you can add up all the damage and you get big numbers.

A 8th level Gnome Alchemist with extra bombs, the favored class bonus and a 24 Int has 8 + 2 + 4 + 7 = 21 bombs. Just over 5 rounds if he's throwing 4 bombs/round.
It shouldn't be too hard to stretch an adventuring day to last longer than that.


I didn't mean to suggest tracking inventory as a panacea for overpowered PCs, just a "fair" resource management concern the DM could raise. In regards to controlling the nova I'll quote my own earlier post:

"If you're a gnome who takes extra bombs with your favored class bonuses you should have enough bombs to last for a "typical" adventure day. Of course the DM can crank up the difficulty and create special situations where the party can't rest safely. At that point the mad bomber is dramatically affecting the entire campaign style though."

Of course the typical Alchemist has other options for being effective besides Bombs and can use a little discretion to meter the Bombs out as needed. The ability to nova can be really tough on "boss" encounters in particular though.


Devilkiller wrote:

I didn't mean to suggest tracking inventory as a panacea for overpowered PCs, just a "fair" resource management concern the DM could raise. In regards to controlling the nova I'll quote my own earlier post:

"If you're a gnome who takes extra bombs with your favored class bonuses you should have enough bombs to last for a "typical" adventure day. Of course the DM can crank up the difficulty and create special situations where the party can't rest safely. At that point the mad bomber is dramatically affecting the entire campaign style though."

Of course the typical Alchemist has other options for being effective besides Bombs and can use a little discretion to meter the Bombs out as needed. The ability to nova can be really tough on "boss" encounters in particular though.

Welcome to all casters. Fundamental basic problem with the game.

You're talking about "dramatically effecting the entire campaign" for the mad bomber, but it's really the same kind of thing you have to do to for any full caster. Shut down the 15 minute work day.


In my personal experience Fast Bombs + Force Bombs felt like the most ridiculous thing I've ever uncorked in a long and busy career of getting a little too enthusiastic and taking things a little too far.

I can't argue that there aren't full casters who wouldn't be at least as disruptive as the Mad Bomber, but I think it also seems obvious that there are many full casters and even other Alchemists who would tend to be less disruptive. Certainly I've played full casters who didn't have such an impact. In fact, the deceased PC my Alchemist replaced was a very low key Cleric who never stood out at anything except for casting Wall of Fire at inopportune times (such as causing an explosion in a mill or accidentally trapping the party in a burning building)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / fast bombs plus two weapon fighting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.