Unithralith's page

Well, yeah, there's no shield to block it anymore, but you're probably not going to be too pleased with your damage output.

I think I might give a technomancer a try and see what happens. It seems like once you hit 3rd level spells, their damage dealing options become more competitive.

That was my impression as well, Voss. Having an AoE damage spell or two in your pocket seems prudent, but otherwise, I can't see why you'd bother, generally. It does irk me that an entire playstyle and a number of the associated spells might as well not exist past a certain level though.

The thing I don't get is that in SF they seem to have shifted their design philosophy to be more focused on direct and somewhat linear scaling up of damage as level increases... which is what spells were ALREADY doing in PF. Now, the weapons scale up, but they've removed the scaling for spells? I just don't follow the logic. To me it would've made a lot more sense to have spells scale much as they did in Pathfinder, so that even low level damage spells will find a use from time to time, rather than having spells like Overheat in the game that will have trouble killing a space goblin reliably.

While I do agree, in my opinion, that is a niche example. It is still reasonably effective for that specific type of technomancer, but most technomancer will be facing the problem I mentioned above. The spell shouldn't only be worth casting for a single subset of a class.

Alright, I've had a preliminary read-through of the Starfinder rules, and so far, there is quite a bit I like. There is one thing that has perplexed me a bit though. When looking at Mind Thrust and the Cure Wounds spells, I thought to myself "oh okay, they're embracing the 5th edition D&D idea of scaling spells up strictly with higher spell slots". After I read through more spells though, it became clear that was more the exception than the rule. When I look at low level damage spells, particularly Magic Missile, I just cannot see a character using it at high levels.

The lowest BAB in the game is medium, and by the time you're level 10, a decent pistol is going to be doing 3d6 + 5 (avg. 15.5). Magic Missile would deal 1d4 +1 x 2, for an average of 7. Granted, you need to roll to hit with the pistol, but even so, the damage difference between a weapon attack and a damaging spell here (which requires expenditure of resources in the form of spell slots) is staggering. You could also potentially fire said pistol twice, potentially increasing the gap even more against low AC targets.

I guess one could argue that you should just swap out your damage spells for something else at higher level, but that just feels like lazy design to me. Am I missing something here? Is there some redeeming factor I've overlooked?

This is something that I have also been curious about. Seeing as nobody else is really weighing in, I'm going to give you my opinion on how it is meant to function, though this is by no means an official answer.

1) No. A creature cannot contract multiple instances of the same disease.

2a + b) The disease type is chosen when creating and throwing the bomb, and the same disease applies to all targets.

2c) Because the cloud of contagion remains for 1 round / level and contagion does not specify that creatures are immune to the effects after a successful save, a creature needs a new saving throw for every round they remain in the area of effect.

3) This one is less clear. It does say that it duplicates the effect of contagion INSTEAD of fog cloud, and contagion itself does not block sight in any way. However, it also refers to the "smoke" created by the alchemist's bomb in its description. I would say that although there is smoke produced, it no longer duplicates the effect of fog cloud, and thus the smoke is not sufficiently dense to block line of sight.

This is what I believe RAI is on this ability, but I agree that it could use some clarification.

- Unithralith

Although, it should be noted that fighters can retrain their fighter bonus feats (at 4th level and every 4 levels thereafter). They are the only exception that I'm aware of off-hand.

Indeed. Take a look at some of the better buff spells you've missed out on from the sorcerer / wizard spell list, or any touch spells that you didn't have access to. Heroism and Greater Heroism are gems.

For reasons that are suspect at best, Paizo has greatly diminished the effectiveness of alchemical weapons. The argument I've heard was that it was too strong on rogues with rapid shot and sneak attack (because rogues really needed a hard nerf, right?). Maybe they just didn't like the flavour of a rogue who focuses on chucking flasks around, I don't know.

Regardless, to your questions:

1. I am inclined to say no. In every other case I'm aware of, a weapon must specifically have the race's name along with the weapon name to qualify as a racial weapon (eg. Dwarven Longhammer, Elven Curve Blade, Halfling Sling Staff, etc).

2. Technically, since the flask thrower doesn't indicate a reload speed and all it states in terms of function is that it increases the range on alchemical weapons, it uses the standard attack rate of a splash weapon (eg. a standard action to fire, no reload required). Of course, this is my interpretation based on their very flimsy description. RAI may be different.

3. On this note actually, I would say yes it should. An alchemist bomb is indeed "a thrown substance that deals splash damage". If you go by my earlier logic about the lack of a specified reload, that also means you could make a full attack using bombs from a flask thrower, making them pretty useful to a bomb-focused alchemist.

4. I think you already knew the answer to this one, but I would say no. It is neither a sling nor a double sling; it is a flask thrower.

5. Unfortunately, no. An alchemist focusing on throwing flasks of acid and the like is interesting flavour and would give bomb-based intelligence alchemists a much needed backup for when they run out of bombs, but RAW, there is no way to make more than one attack per round with them. If your GM is reasonable, they may allow you to full attack with alchemical weapons. It's not particularly overpowered; yes, they target touch AC, but with terrible crit range/damage and unimpressive standard damage, not to mention how many enemies have energy res in the 5 - 10 range. This is also ignoring the fact that if you throw acids (the cheapest damaging alchemcial weapon available) each throw costs you 3.33 gp, assuming you craft it yourself.

It's strange that you can pull out, mix and throw bomb flasks as a full attack action (even using two-weapon fighting, potentially) if you have fast bombs, but you can't throw pre-made acids tucked in your belt as a full attack action, but it is what it is. You'll have to rely on house rules to do some of the stuff you're talking about.

As to the magical flask thrower, that's unclear. If it were my game, I would allow a magical flask thrower to modify the damage of alchemical weapons at least. I'd have to give enchanted alchemist bombs a fair bit of thought before I allowed that though.

I hope that helps!

- Uni

When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type...

You only apply the conductive properly after you successfully hit. Along with the verbiage about only being able to do it once per round, you're not getting a full attack with infused conductive bombs. You can still full attack, but you would only get the bombs once.

I agree with you, but I believe the previous poster meant that you can't combine a full attack of any kind with a bomb attack without Fast Bombs. Perhaps I misunderstood his point. As I stated earlier, I don't WANT to use all my bombs as a full attack. Part of the purpose of this build is to reduce the number of bombs you're expending in a round while maintaining a respectable damage output.

Ramarren wrote:

Joesi wrote:

If someone was to allow this, it only makes sense to still require the fast bombs discovery for it to be usable in full-round attacking.

Per Conductive: "This weapon property can only be used once per round". So Fast Bombs or not, you can only have one conductive shot per round (all the rest would be normal shots)

Sure, but a bomb is normally a standard action, so it makes sense that fast bombs would be needed in order to perform multiple attacks while still using the bomb ability.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The purpose of the Conductive weapon property in ALL cases is to allow you to use an ability that normally requires a standard action as part of a weapon attack. The examples they give (cleric domain powers, sorcerer bloodline powers, oracle mystery revelations, etc) all require standard actions to use. If the Conductive property works for bombs, there is absolutely no reason why you would need Fast Bombs to make use of it.

To the "just take Explosive Missile" Camp; what Azaelas said. Harald, I see your point, but the same could be said of any other character using a ranged Conductive weapon. He charges it with his ranged touch attack power, fires it, and when it misses, it all of a sudden doesn't take up a usage? Strange.

Oh I agree, GM is god. That's how this works. We were just curious if there was any official word on this.

Ok this is going to have to be a DM ruling.

I have just one more question

What are the characters stats, you are talking like you have a high STR, high DEX, high INT. All three? or are you using buffs, mutagens ect?

We're using a 32 pointbuy from the old school 3.5 rules (we prefer that pointbuy to the PF one). I think that translates to close to "high fantasy". He's a Tiefling, so +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Cha.

Str: 14 (6 pts)
Dex: 18 (10 pts)
Con: 12 (4 pts)
Int: 18 (10 pts)
Wis: 10 (2 pts)
Cha: 6 (0 pts)

I would love to see an official ruling on this rules interaction. Hopefully someone gets around to it at some point.

Just thinking about this but would the following work?

Assume a Grenadier with an +1 Agile Conductive dagger with an Alchemist's Fire. He applies the Alchemist's Fire to the weapon, throws the dagger, hits the enemy, and then uses the conductive property. Will he get (1d4+Dex)+(1d6+Int)+(xd6+Int) for a total of 1d4+(x+1)d6+Dex+2Int? Thats not bad for a high Dex/Int character.

Yes PDKM, that is along the lines of what I would want to do on this build, only using a composite bow with a strength bonus. Note that using the Conductive property doesn't require an action, only a hit, so you could do the following:

- Bow damage
- Bomb damage
- Alchemist's Fire + Int mod damage (Grenadier)
- Unstable Accelerant damage (fun to sneak in there if you've got the cash)

If you can only take a standard, you could throw another bomb in there with explosive missile, another unstable accelerant, and watch the sparks fly!

Does anyone know if the Fast Bombs discovery must be used to throw only bombs, or does it also allow you to throw bombs in addition to other weapons during a full attack?

Explosive Missile is explicitly referred to as being a Standard Action, and thus, cannot be combined with Fast Bombs. Fast Bombs also specifically affects THROWING bombs, in its description. If they could be combined, that would entirely solve my dilemma and I wouldn't use a Conductive weapon at all. The wording also seems to suggest that you couldn't combine bomb attacks with other types of attacks.

Explosive Missile is quite nice combined with Conductive though (assuming it works). As you pointed out, you could spend three uses of Bomb to shoot one arrow as a standard action dealing two times your bomb damage + arrow damage.

It is a nice thought though, Fayteri. I appreciate the input.

I don't see anything that indicates the splash damage would not apply.

"When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type,
he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability
to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent,
which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the
special ability."

The effect of the special ability also includes splash damage. It doesn't say anything to indicate that if the special ability has secondary effects on other targets besides the initial one, they don't apply. It is exactly as if you had struck the enemy with the special ability.

As to your point about how it is not better, refer to my previous post explaining why this approach can be effective. Though again, to reiterate, that really isn't the matter at hand.

Nicos:

He is using a bow to deliver the bomb energy.

Question: are you expecting to get the splash damage from the arrow?

That I am uncertain of. Presumably yes, if the ability is taking effect exactly as it usually does. I will defer to my DM on that (if he even allows me to do this).

Thanks for the responses everyone. I expected a lively discussion on this, and it seems that's exactly what we have.

While this post was about the rules interaction between these two abilities rather than its viability in combat, I will briefly segway into why this strategy is very effective when wielding a bow, for the sake of ye naysayers.

As I'm sure we're all aware, the archery feat tree is a very strong one. This build focusing on Conductive weapons has two big things going for it: action economy, and feat economy. One of the big problems with bomb Alchemists is that they are even further from a "go all day" class than any of the full spellcasting classes. Let's look at why:

Most of the current bomb Alchemist builds touted as the golden standard involve either Rapid Shot and the Fast Bombs discovery, or Two Weapon Fighting and the Fast Bombs discovery. This type of Alchemist can indeed completely blow enemies away (quite literally), but they're likely only going to be able to do it for 4 or 5 rounds in a day at most.

Let's look at level 8 as an example, with a Rapid Shot bomb alchemist (the less bomb-intensive of the two builds). Let's assume he's hasted and using Rapid Shot. He's throwing four bombs per round, likely at a reasonable attack bonus thanks to Heroism, a Dex Mutagen (if not using a Cognatogen), and other buffs. He's probably going to hit with everything, but at that level he has a total of 11 bombs per day assuming he has 24 Intelligence (which is an extremely generous figure) if he's not a Gnome. That's a grand total of... just under THREE ROUNDS of full attacks! ...And then what? Your most important resource is gone. You took a pile of feats and discoveries to make them better. You drank a Dex mutagen (or worse, a Cognatogen) so your melee damage is sub-par at best. You could throw Acids or Alchemist's Fires at 1d6 +7, but that's a long ways from competitive at level 8. Even if we look at a Gnome who took the Favored Class Bonus for extra bombs and took the Extra Bombs feat twice, that's a grand total of just under five rounds of hasted full attacks.

The solution of a Conductive weapon is a sneaky one. You are essentially "wasting" one bomb every time you use it, but you're also getting a full ranged attack with your bow at the same time. In this way, a Conductive weapon could be thought of as a way to "quicken" your bombs in order to fire one per round (albeit against normal AC). This lets you take feats to focus on your archery, such as Manyshot, Clustered Shots, and Improved Critical Longbow. Comparatively, you're using TWO bombs per round instead of four, which is twice as efficient on a round-per-round basis than throwing bombs is. The disparity in efficiency increases with level as well, as you become able to throw more bombs per round. You will be doing somewhat less damage and have more difficulty hitting, but far more reliably and sustainably.

As for a Vivisectionist Jadeite, as any rogue will tell you, getting Sneak Attack on a ranged weapon is a challenging prospect at best (though admittedly, at higher levels Alchemists would have an easier time of it thanks to buffs). Plus I kind of like the flavour of this; he's sort of like Hawkeye from the Avengers. ;)

Hopefully that clarifies the purpose of the Conductive weapon Alchemist archer.

Alright, I should lead off by saying that my friends and I are very experienced players. This is the first time we've had to ask a question on these forums.

I seem to have reached an impasse with my soon-to-be Gamemaster when it comes to the combination of the Conductive weapon property and Alchemist bombs.

The Conductive property states:

"A conductive weapon is able to channel the energy of a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target (such as from a cleric's domain granted power, sorcerer's bloodline power, oracle's mystery revelation, or wizard's arcane school power). When the wielder makes a successful attack of the appropriate type, he may choose to expend two uses of his magical ability to channel it through the weapon to the struck opponent, which suffers the effects of both the weapon attack and the special ability."

My argument is as follows:

- Bombs are a Supernatural ability, as specified in the Alchemist ability description
- Bombs rely on a ranged touch attack to hit a target
- Therefore, you can expend bombs using the Conductive property

My GM's argument is as follows:

- The creation of the bomb is the supernatural ability. Throwing a bomb uses the Throw Splash Weapon special attack, and the bomb is in all ways considered a thrown splash weapon after it's creation.
- The bomb ability specifies "Bombs are considered weapons and can be selected using feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Weapon Focus."
- Therefore, if they are a weapon, they are not a Supernatural ability, and the Conductive property does not function for them.

He may be right, but the rules are unclear. I think the sticking point is in the usage of the word "relies" in the Conductive weapon property. I would certainly say that splash weapons rely on ranged touch attacks seeing as you're required to make one in order to hit, and splash weapon or not, the ability specifies that it's Supernatural. Conductive doesn't specifically prohibit splash weapons.

I am interested to hear others weigh in on this. I freely admit that I am probably biased, since this is my character concept we're talking about.

This is an issue I have a lot of experience with, both as a player and as a GM.

I think that a lot of people make incorrect assumptions and assertions about what "evil" really is. Evil people are rarely completely cold, heartless, sadistic monsters; more often, they're people who have made bad decisions throughout their life, or truly see what they do is justified.

I took a class in university about the psychology of evil. Evil people almost never know that they're evil. Members of racial hate groups who would hang people of different skin colours from trees would go home to their families at the end of the night, kiss their wives and children (who they truly love) goodnight and sleep soundly knowing they'd done a good thing. Convictions gone too far are actually the most common form of evil in the world. Take examples from human history like the inquisition or the crusades; some of the most brutal and terrible of acts committed in the name of what the perpetrators believe is good. The other, second most common form is a form of extreme pragmatism; another self-justification for perpetrators. For example...

*Tallas the assassin stealthily made his way through the hall of his target, silent and grim as the grave. It was unfortunate that this man had to die; he had heard tell that this man was a well-loved philanthropist, but if his guild was to survive, Tallas had to fulfill this contract. Slipping into the kitchen quietly, Tallas' eye caught a flicker of movement from a corner shadow. He drew his dagger and whirled around, ready to strike. A young serving boy, barely eleven, watched him with wide, frightened eyes. Tallas frowned. The boy had seen his face; he had no choice. He drew back his dagger-hand and threw...*

My point is this... just because a character is evil doesn't mean that they are out to kill everyone. Everything they do, the player should ask themselves, "why are they doing this? What do they have to gain?" Evil characters could form bonds with, or, even come to love their fellow party members, and risk their lives to help them. Is it less likely than with a good character? Certainly it is, but how many murders have you heard about that were a result of collaboration between two young lovers? It is not an uncommon story.

It is also a lot easier to motivate evil characters than you realize. If the world is ending, or civilization is collapsing, it is in the best interest of an evil character to prevent it, whether they are lawful evil, neutral evil or even chaotic evil. If everyone is dead, there is nobody left to victimize. Even psychopathic, murderous characters will probably do something, or there won't be anyone left for them to hurt.

Consider these things as you're DMing, and try to remind your players not to play "comic book evil" and instead try to craft a truly flawed, "human" (they could be an elf or anything else, but you know what I mean), realistic evil. It can lead to some of the most interesting and gratifying characters you'll ever play.