Ryan White 148's page

I assume it's a Type-O that it's called a Tactical Feat and not a Teamwork Feat like the others.

It was mentioned there is a VERY similar Feat in Pathfinders: Seekers of Secrets (except better because it only needs a willing ally and not someone with the Feat). Would that Feat be re-printed (and classed as a Teamwork Feat) or would Cavaliers be stuck with a 2nd-rate Feat compared to those with Pathfinder: Seekers of Secrets Feats?

doesn't the final version say that an Inquisitor's teammates are treated as having the feat even if they don't? If that's the case, then swap places WOULD work with a willing ally.

Since it says "Creating a bomb requires a move-equivalent action that provokes an attack of opportunity as the alchemist infuses the catalyst vial with magical energy." I've been assuming that you can decide to make a bomb special on the turn you juice it up for throwing.

Doesn't it say something to the effect that you make up vials of normally inert material that are made explosive when you infuse some of your magical aura into them?

chemists aren't really situational. Everything they can do, other classes can do more often and better. The only situation an alchemist is good for is for sixth party member.

Wasn't that basically what was stated for the bard in 3.5?

The alchemist in my party has a tendency to target creatures instead of squares with his bombs. I was thinking this might count as an improvised ranged weapon, in which case I'm quite certain vital strike would apply. However, I'm unsure if the bomb would detonate if used in this way and not just deal 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage from impact or something.

They wouldn't be improvised. Alchemists have the throw anything feat so they aren't taking penalties for throwing. Plus the editor of the books has already stated its not intended to work with bombs and spells.

The Eidolon as it is would probably be underpowered, yes. But more than the power of it, I like the concept of a planetouched type class that evolves over time...maybe with a capstone class ability that would allow a restructure of EVPs after X amt of time spent in heavy meditation contacting the planes or something like that. All i'm saying is the concept for a new character class is there, and with some minor tweaking could definitely be feasible.

So the thing it seems you come back to is the def vs. offense of the eidolon. It seems that a barbarian would be a good comparison. A barbarian uses light armor as i recall...relies on dex, gets natural armor. It just seems like your going to have a pocket barbarian following you around taking orders. I just think that summoner w/ SLA = good class by itself (albeit maybe add better spell progression) and Eidolon = good class by itself with some minor tweaks. Yes they would be a bit squishy at first, but as they progress and get natural armor (and possibly a light armor class proficiency - no weapon proficiencies) this squishyness would be reduced and eventually they would catch up to other classes later on. I like the evolution system as it is, and i think it would just be a nice departure from the standard class progression that would put more control into the hands of the players if it was a stand alone class.

Ok, so a level 10 alchemist, geared to the gills will deal 24.5 with a bomb. At level 12 you can deal 29 on the first round, and 58 on every round you keep hitting them with a bomb because of Sticky bomb. At level 20, 45 damage on first round, 90 damage each additional round you hit them with a bomb. You could add in Inferno Bomb for an extra 21 damage, possibly more if the damage from multiple incendiary clouds stacks. Then again whatever you're fighting is now surrounded by a huge cloud of embers, great for your teammate.

Unless I'm missing out on some way to throw multiple bombs a round, or there's some other aspect of this class that can deal damage then I just don't see them keeping up with any other class currently.

I know there are revisions coming so I look forward to them gleefully.

** spoiler omitted **

Now one thing i could see combining your bombs with the Craft (weapons) skill and integrate them into Crossbow bolts. Still have the attack DC be ranged touch, but if you beat the armor class, then the bomb explodes in way that limits or eliminates splash damage (splash damage would apply normally if only ranged touch DC was met). The only problem i could see with this would be the increased range increment for the random table when you miss (could be really bad for party or totally inefective). If you did it this way you could replace throw anything feat with weapon focus (crossbow) feat and go nuts.

Now another thing i thought of is the delay bombs...you could activate X number of them (x being the number of your full round attacks) one round, and then on your next turn fire off all 3 of them (since they explode when they reach limit or when they break). While this probably wouldn't be of too much affect until later levels, you could feasibly activate say 9 of them at higher level during round 1 and then over the next 3 rounds lob 3/round.

Just some thoughts

You can't take Improved Natural Armor at level 1, so your Eidolon has all of 13 AC. Yeah, it's got two attacks, but a player can have that, too, and have a higher AC to boot. Even the hit points won't be that different, since the Eidolon does not get maximized hit points for its first hit die and the player does. A level 1 Fighter is likely to have 12-16 hit points (10 from maximized d10, +2-6 from Con and/or Toughness); a level 1 Summoner's Eidolon will have, on average, 13 hit points (2d10 averages to 11, +2 for a +1 Con bonus and 2 HD). So, the Eidolon has better offense but worse defense. That seems fair to me.

touche on the INA (just re-read description)...but as for a player having 2 attacks at a +5 bonus?? The only base class i can think of having 2 attacks open at first level (not using TWF) is the monk, and those are going to be at max of +3/+3 (if they have a 20 str). As for the armor, if you can't take that, then share spell + mage armor...puts AC at 17 when it's up...and in all reality...what use does the summoner have for any spells that don't enhance their Eidolon? The Summoner comes across as a cohort or companion to the Eidolon, not the other way around.

I think doing away with the summoner and adding the Eidolon as the class would add a nice, original class option with a different mechanic than any other class...again just my $0.02.

So I've been doing some reading through the message boards and have noticed that, well, (most) everyone seems to be in agreement that the Eidolon is pretty OP.

For example:

My Eidolon at first level (humanoid form):

Str 16
Dex 12
Con 13
Int 7
Wis 10
Cha 11

Evolutions:
Slam (to replace claws) 1D8+3
Bite 1d6+3
Improved Natural Armor

AC: 15
CMB: 5
CMD: 16

Since these are both primary attacks, they are made at the full attack bonus. This gives a companion two attacks at a bonus that would not be attainable except by a character with good attack progression and an 18-19 Str (and they would still only get 1). Add on top of this the fact that you have a "buffer" for the Eidolon, and I can see things getting out of control fast.

What I would like to see is the Eidolon as a player class. You would select a base race, and through progressively frequent contact with other planes, they begin to harness the magical energies and use them to change their form. I don't believe this would be OP if the STR/DEX stat progression were removed. Having this as a class would be pretty damn close to broken...having it as a companion just makes it seem rediculous...

You are now $0.02 richer :D

The design goal of the Vital Strike feats was to give fighters an option in battles where they have to move. A 20th level wizard, after all, can take a move action and still cast most of his toughest spells. A 20th level rogue can run around to flank someone and get in a hefty backstab. A 20th level cleric can move and then unleash a spell or a blast of channeled energy.

But fighter types? They move and they lose their additional attacks. Vital strike and its chain of feats was created to help fighters; essentially, they can move and still pack a powerful single hit by using Vital Strike, especially if they combine it with things like Power Attack, critical feats, and the like.

It wasn't ever intended to give spellcasters a way to double their damage dice, and you can expect it to be reworded in an upcoming FAQ sooner or later to enforce this role.

After reading through this, it's very clear to me that any player that uses this feat to increase their bombs' damage is clearly exploiting a loophole in the system that has yet to be rectified. As such, I would probably allow them to have the feats, but make a house rule that the increased damage of the bombs leads them to be increasingly unstable as the feat progresses...lending them to a higher critical fumble rate and a very interesting and punitive fumble table.

Once the feat is clarified, however, they would replace those feats with something else--or hell, i might make em keep them. It just seems like a blatant attempt at powergaming to me...3 feats for 20d6 worth of damage? PER BOMB??? if you only had an int of 20, that would be an extra 500d6 per game day...

** spoiler omitted **

The name "vital" seems contrary to using a bomb but the fluff description and benefit would appear to apply pretty accurately. Using a bomb is an attack, this would allow bombs to scale appropriately with your level compared to damage dealt by other sources.

Thoughts and ideas on this feat regarding bombs?

I think i just killed your vital strike :( sorry.

Vital strike reads as such:

Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one
attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional
damage.

When you throw a bomb, you are using a standard action, not an attack action...otherwise you could potentially throw 3/round.

Bomb text reads: "Detonating a bomb (typically by throwing the vial of volatile liquid) is a standard action..."

Sorry to be a dream killer, but thems the breaks bro.

Crunch-wise, would an alchemist's bomb have a Perception DC of 0, -10, or -20?

-5 or -10...i wouldn't go so far as -20...i imagine it being loud, but not that loud...although the screams that accompany them are a different matter entirely.

Using an alchemist as a villain in a recent Pathfinder session (during which the players managed to totally avoid him and set him up to be taken out by someone else -- and did it very plausibly, so I couldn't find a loophole in their reasoning or arranging to let me set up a fight between him and them instead ;)!), an odd question came up.

The question is - how loud is the alchemist's bomb when it goes off?

My contention was that it was more of a dull "whoomph" sound, more combustion than explosion, so I had a 'practice room' in the alchemist's house where he set off his bombs to experiment, train, etc.

The players, however, contended that it should be a loud, grenade-like bang going off, and thought he should have been detected earlier by the people living nearby.

Although I DM-fiated that it's a 'whoomph' sound (especially since they never fought him anyway, so who cares ;)?), it does raise an interesting question. Just how loud are the alchemist's abilities? Is the whole dungeon full of monsters going to be alerted by the sound of an alchemical bomb? With the wind right, are you going to potentially hear the bangs a couple of miles away outdoors, or are they only going to be audible from close by (and perhaps not easily identified even then)?

It seems like it might be a fairly important question in a lot of adventuring situations. Any thoughts?

OK, here's how i see the alchy's bombs....

In order to have an explosion you need some type of volatile reaction under pressure...it has to be contained until it breaks it's confines, resulting in an explosion. As it reads, in order for a bomb to explode, the vial has to be broken (with the exception of delay bombs). Due to there being a lack of pressure when a "bomb" explodes, i would liken it more to a molotov cocktail...alot of flames but not necessarily an explosion. I believe your description of it being a "whoomph" sound is more accurate from a pure physics standpoint.

That being said...it is a fantasy game, so /shrug

After reading through, i could not find anything regarding criticals and bombs. My first inclination on bombs would be to disallow criticals with them. My reasoning behind this has to do with the reasoning behind the critical. A critical implies that your strike has hit a particularly vulnerable part of the anatomy. If you score a direct hit with a bomb, I envision the creature within that square being the focal point of the explosion...basically it is very imprecise, and the glass vial it's in doesn't lend itself to shrapnel (which is where i would see a critical come in). Were you to combine your bomb ability with another crafting skill and fashion some type of glass vial embedded with metal pellets, or a metal container designed to fragment and cause shrapnel that the vial could slip into, then I would allow criticals (hell i would even allow larger glass vials with a handful of rocks thrown into it)...but as they stand, I don't see them having enough force to cause a critical.

The other standpoint is more from a physics standpoint. To have an explosion you need pressure. In order for the bomb to explode, the vial has to be broken. If it's broken, then to me it's more like a molotov cocktail...alot of fire, but no real explosion. This much fire could cause the type of damage the bombs describe, but again i come back to a direct hit engulfing the full square of the targeted creature...you're covering the entire creature with flames...not very precise and doesn't lend itself to a critical strike.

sorry for the long and rambling post :(

Hrmm, never considered that about splash weapons. I always assumed they critical on a 20 just like everything else with an unstated critical.

I like having this feat and it's following feats because it keeps the bombs damage level on par with that of other classes. Even with this feat an alchemist at level 10 is still only doing 43 DPR. That's not taking into account avoiding hitting allies. (which happens a lot...)

Boomer, elf alchemist 10

I could have sworn that it said something about it being non-precision damage and not subject to crit in the alchy class description...i could be wrong tho...i'll have to read up on it and see for sure.

This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit

This sentence would kind of influence my decision on the matter...since bombs are not capable of critical hits (if i read the descriptions correctly), i would think this feat would not apply. That would be my personal ruling as a DM, but it appears that until they clarify the feat it will be very open to interpretation.

I realize that get bombs that scale with level and im assuming this is supposed to "replace" 0 level formulae, but it would make sense that an alchemist should have access to a couple of the first level spells (purify water rather than create water), possibly even a stabilize or bleed formulae (the instant clot powder that the military uses is made from chitin, and there are plants with blood thinning properties). These 0 level "formulae" could be administered to other players with the same 1 day inert countdown.