Wolfiej's page

It looks like you fully understand it - not only did you arrive at the correct result, you also gave the exact right reasoning!

Thanks! It weakens my magus player a little, and makes Flurrying arcana less attractive as an ability. It's not like its completely useless since they can still use things like Frostbite with Flurry.

RAW it's iffy. But there's a FAQ or two (linked plus the next one) which might give you hope.

Thanks for the FAQ. That was another question I had in mind, but wasn't too worried about. It didn't help answer my original question, in fact I think it made it murkier. ;)

A follow on question I would have is, if Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows do work together since they both add -2 to the attack modifier and are doing the same thing, would the attack modifier by -2 or -4?

Question around Jistkan Artificer (Golemfist) Magus

I was looking at the RAW of this, and I must admit, I'm a bit puzzled. Jistkan Artificer Magus have an arcana called Flurrying Arm, which grants them a Monk's (non-UC) Flurry of Blows, but only grants one extra attack.

Spell combat is a full-round action that lets you take all your attacks as well as casting a spell (assuming requirements are met).
"As a full-round action, he can make all of his attacks with his melee weapon at a –2 penalty and can also cast any spell from the magus spell list with a casting time of 1 standard action (any attack roll made as part of this spell also takes this penalty)."

Flurry of Blows is a a full-round attack action, that replaces a normal full-attack action with specific rules.
"Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action."

Both rules do not say "when you take a full-attack action", both say "you may do flurry of blows/spell combat as a full action". Since they are both full actions, that would mean you can't do both because they are separate and distinct actions.

If I'm looking at RAW, despite that they both do similar things, it looks like Spell Combat and Flurry of Blows can't be used together, because they are both different full round actions.

Am I missing something?

Thanks for the feedback all! This is a very niché case.

It’s really no different than if you cast teleport and the person you are touching resists the teleport.

That was a fascinating response. This got me where I needed to be. Thank you Chell! Although, Teleport doesn't give non-willing characters a spell resistance roll, they automatically ignore effects. The SR is purely for attended objects. This is why you knock out non-willing targets. :3

Target: you and touched objects or other touched willing creatures

Spell Resistance no and yes (object)

So using this as an example, I can see where the issue is.

Target: one creature or object within range and you

Spell: Resistance yes

Both spells target "you" and "creature/touched", although in a different order. The problem is that the SR for Teleport has two separate entries for SR, while Force Hook Charge doesn't and should. I guess it was an assumption that "Why would a caster want to resist a personal/you spell?" and personal spells don't generally have SR, i.e. Bladed Dash.

So yeah, short answer is that it should be B, but due to the slight omission it is A, but we really shouldn't play it as that.

Hi there,

When targeting a creature that has spell resistance with Force Hook Charge and then failing to beat its SR, what happens?

Does:
A: The spell fail to cast and nothing happens. (This appears to be correct as per RAW).
B: The damage of the spell is negated due to spell resistance. The caster then is pulled towards the target (regardless of the fact that the target resisted the spell.
C: Something else?

I searched through the entire Core Rulebook PDF and these are my findings (sorry for repeating a lot of stuff):

No problem. I’m glad someone double checked what I’ve looked at and confirming what I’ve seen.

So "stuck in your square" / "unable to leave your square" seems to cut it. You could add "on your own", because someone else could move a petrified person - or you could drop from the sky.

Sounds good.

I always understood Immobilized as "unable to leave your square", or having Movement reduced to 0.

I like that branch example. You're not helpless or stunned, you're immobilized until you are no longer stuck on a branch (which seems as simple as taking move action to untangle)

So this leads to an interesting point. If we say that immobilised is caused when your movement is reduced to 0, this has potential consequences. Some examples are:

If your jacket catches on branch, you might be stuck for a moment, but you aren't immobile. If you are bound hand-and-foot with zip ties or paralyzed by a drug/injury, then you're immobile.

Then why bother calling it immobilized when they can just say “helpless” which is an actual condition. Also monks AC bonus specifically calls out “helpless” OR “immobilized”.

Meh, I didn't link that FAQ right. Click this FAQ instead

Thanks for finding that! It's annoying that its not more clear on what being immobilised actually is.

The only issue I have with that is that it doesn't quite tie up cleanly with the rules. Particularly if a character is stunned, that surely must be an immobilised state as well, but that doesn't set the dex to 0, merely denies the dex modifier. The same with pinned, which actually has a precedent in the CRB with the Iron Bands of Binding (CRB p521) which says that they are immobile (as if pinned):

A single Large or smaller creature can be captured thus and held immobile (as if pinned) until the command word is spoken to bring the bands into spherical form again.

The only thing that the conditions that I referenced from Aiming a Spell (cowering, grappling, helpless, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned), have in common is that they all set the movement to 0. So are these the conditions that are effectively immobilising characters? They do all make sense. I.e. if you're grappled, you are being held in place so how can you dodge? It also makes sense in terms of the dictionary definition of the word, which is:

to something or someone from being able to move or operate

However, I can see that this potentially has wider rules complications because it means if we allow grappled to mean immobilised in this context, any other character performing a combat maneveur automatically succeeds (page 199 of CRB).

If your target is immobilized, unconscious, or otherwise incapacitated, your maneuver automatically succeeds (treat as if you rolled a natural 20 on the attack roll).

However, the next line then implies that being stunned does not quite line up with being immobilised:

If your target is stunned, you receive a +4 bonus on your attack roll to perform a combat maneuver against it.

It's super confusing. I'm so glad in 2E they made it an official condition.

It means nothing in pathfinder. You would need to show the specific case where it's used to be able to determine the effects of what happens with the relevant ability/feat/spell.

So what does it mean in context of Uncanny Dodge? When does one count as being immobilised so they lose their uncanny dodge? If its simply that they are unable to take any form of action, they would have used the wording "Helpless" instead, which is a condition gained by anyone tied up, paralysed, or otherwise unable to act (i.e. Dex = 0)

This affects other rules as well:
Shooting into melee specifically calls out about attacking immobilised characters.
Performing combat maneveurs against immobilised characters automatically succeed.
They are referred to under the Aiming a Spell section, where it states:

Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing, but a character who is conscious but immobile or helpless (such as one who is bound, cowering, grappling, paralyzed, pinned, or stunned) is not automatically willing.

That indicates that being immobile is not the same as being helpless. It also implies that anyone grappling counts as immobile, which means that anyone grappling cannot benefit from Uncanny Dodge.

What does "immobilized" mean? What is the trigger for someone to be classified as immobile? Is it just not being able to move from their current space, or is it not being able to carry out any action, effectively helpless?

Does someone entangled in a net tied to a immovable rod count as being immobilised?
Does being pinned count as immobilised?

There's a few instances where the word is used but in most cases its not clear what it actually means. Halt Undead is an exception because it clearly tells you that they are immobilised as per Hold Person, and this is because Undead are normally immune to the paralyze condition. Snake Sepia Sigil is another where immobilised is referred to but again it explains that they are in stasis. Tatzlwyrm Rake uses it in the fluff text when talking about grappling.

The only reference I can find as a rule is from the 3.5 Rules Compendium (which I know is not the same as PF), which defines it as so:
Immobilized: An immobilized creature can’t move out of the space it was in when it became immobilized. It otherwise functions normally unless it’s flying. Immobilized flying creatures that have the ability to hover can maintain their initial altitude. All other flying creatures subjected to this condition descend at a rate of 20 feet per round until they reach the ground, taking no falling damage.

Just wanted to answer these points in case others question these points

Starting with the INT 15 thief guildmaster who happens to possess detect magic but didn't notice the massive aura on the pendent he's wearing nor did he consider looking into its value? And wait, not only that but he actually possesses all the information about the object in a language he can read. He still seems happy with treating it solely as a "pretty trinket" and parting with the 98k magic pendant for only 2k. Its also a little surprising that Fex kept notes of such a nature just laying about for any thief to snatch up or that a thief would grab such notes without having a specific interest in them.

To identify the magical item requires a Spellcraft check of DC 27 (15 + CL 12 of the talisman). The thief guild master does not have any Spellcraft skill. He cannot identify it even if he took 20. All he would see is a strong magical aura of abjuration magic.

OR the more egregious clue. In which two errant devils attack clearly superior opponents BEFORE completing their intended mission of delivering apparently TWO copies of the same letter for their master. This is despite their ability to greater teleport and fulfill said task almost instantly...

Greater Teleport requires that the character has at least an understanding of where they are going by description. They've never been there, and neither has Visperthul. They have no divination magic to obtain this information. Hence, the barbed devil's have to walk. Whisperwood is not the safest place, so sending two copies of the message to ensure it gets through does make sense.

I've been looking at the rules for the synthesist summoner, researching on the forums, looking at other rules, FAQs, etc, but not come up with a definite answer. I'm not an expert on summoners or synthesists but I've tried to look through this to find answers.

The simple question is, does a synthesist's eidolons gain benefits from continuous effects from magical items?

With regards to the specific rules that I'm looking at, these are the three important lines:

1. While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist uses the eidolon’s physical ability scores (Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution), but retains his own mental ability scores (Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma).

2. The synthesist uses the eidolon’s base attack bonus, and gains the eidolon’s armor and natural armor bonuses and modifiers to ability scores.

3. While fused with his eidolon, the synthesist can use all of his own abilities and gear, except for his armor.

To try and provide a common starting point I should clarify some points of how I'm reading these.

Starting with point 1, I've seen people state that the physical attributes being replace are base attributes and thus the enhancement bonuses from belts, such as a belt of might constitution, are added on afterwards. However that is a RAI interpretation as it makes no mention of the word "base" in the text. This means it is open to interpretation by the players/GM.

With point 2, it's unclear from the line whether the armour and natural armour bonuses add on to the existing bonuses or replace the armour bonus. However in this case we can infer from the FAQ that it replaces it.

The key point for this rules query/discussion is point 3. The wording is clear in some people's mind that any gear can be used except armour. However if this is the case then there's interaction issues with the other two points that are not clearly addressed. For example with regards to gear with continuous effects, such as stat increases. Does an enhancement bonus to constitution from a Belt of Mighty Constitution apply to the summoner's stats following the eidolon's summoning? Does it apply to the eidolon's stats? You might wonder why I seemed to have asked the same question twice but they are two different questions. Because if the increase only affects the summoner's stat line and not the eidolon then the eidolon doesn't get a boost to the temporary HP it provides to the summoner. Thus I question whether this line actually means you can use items like blinkback belts, amulets of the planes, wands rather than gaining the benefits of continuous effects.

Some points I came up with while I was researching this:
1.They are overpowered. Everyone seems to be in agreement that they are extremely powerful. And they got banned from PFS. Not necessarily because of the reasons I'm giving in my post but it certainly contributes to them being powerful.

2. Twin Eidolon. This is slightly different mechanic as its a polymorph effect (similar to wildshaping) and clearly states that items with continuous effects are absorbed. From the perspective of a synthesist there is very little reason to use this ability. If the items only provided their bonuses if the synthesist is in their twin eidolon form then it makes the ability more attractive.

3. Double ability increases. Everyone is probably aware of how synthesists can min/max their scores, and effectively use their eidolon's scores to achieve what is essentially a 52~ point buy. But it's also important to bear in mind that they can effectively gain double the attribute increases that would normally be afforded to them via the use of eidolon evolutions. They get their +5 attribute increases that everyone gets, which they spend increasing their mental attributes. And then for the physical side they can get five instances of the Extra Evolution feat which grants an additional evolution point for a total of 20 points which can all be spent on the Ability Increase evolution and grants +8 to two stats, and +2 to another stat. On top of this we then add on the +5 str/dex bonus enhancement. This means if you assume a bipedal eidolon and wearing +6 belt and headband we are looking at a potential stat line of something like Str: 35, Dex: 25, Con: 27, Int: 29, Wis: 23, Cha: 21. This doesn't include any other bonuses such as inherent bonuses from wish/book, but even these are a little over the top in my mind.

4. Double stacking bonuses. If you apply enhancement bonuses to the eidolon and to the summoner you effectively get some limited amount of double stacking. Specifically with HP although there may be others. If you apply belts to eidolons stats it gains double the number of HP that any other class gains. For every 2 points of constituion that a synthesist gains, they get +1 HP and +1 temporary HP from the Eidolon per level. So a +6 Belt of Might Constitution grants +6 HP per level compared to +3 for every other class. If you don't think that's a lot let's look at some theorycrafting. A 10th level cleric (which shares the same HD as a summoner) with a con score of 20 gets a maximum of 130HP. A 10th level barbarian with a con score of 20 gets 170HP. When they rage they get an additional 20HP for a total of 190HP. A 10th level summoner with 20 con gets 130HP + 150 temporary HP (or 105 temporary HP if you take it as racial HD) for a total of 280HP (or 235 HP). And it simply gets worse as the con modifiers increase.

From the reading I've done I've seen mixed thoughts on whether enhancement bonuses from belts should add onto the eidolon's physical attributes although the general consensus seems to be yes it does. Similarly there should be a question as to whether rings of protection and amulets of natural armour should also add onto the eidolon's armour. The only posts I've seen seem to indicate that people think that amulets of natural armour dont stack and thus it swings the other way which confuses the issue.

I feel that certainly the synthesists are extremely powerful with high stat lines, effectively near double the HP of other classes, good attacks, etc. My feeling is that if they do not gain bonuses from continuous magical items to stats that are replaced by the eidolon then it may help to mitigate some of the power problems they have.

Thoughts?

1) It sounds like it doesn't stack so two pools

2) You should be able to use your ki pool to use ki abilities of any class

3) It adds to touch

4) I've heard they don't stack but I'm not sure :/

scaled fist is a great dip even if confident defense doesn't stack

Thanks for the answers. It's a great dip but after looking at it if it doesn't stack then it's not quite as good as there is a fair bit of double up in abilities. Honestly if paladin had flurry then I don't think there would even be a reason to dip!

Wolfiej wrote:

Lady-J wrote:

they stack, one is an untyped bonus the other is a dodge so there is no conflict.

It's not dodge...

it effectively is a dodge bonus, its just caped by armors max dex but otherwise functions as dodge(only applying to touch and normal ac and gets removed if you are denied dex)

No. It's not a dodge bonus. Dodge bonuses are clearly typed. While they share similarities there is clear differences because of the specifics of the rule requiring it to cap at the armour's max dexterity modifier.

The reason for the question is the point that it is not a clearly typed/untyped bonus. If it said "as a dodge bonus", or "as a deflection bonus", or better yet "as part of the dexterity modifier" then there would be no issue. It doesn't. All it states is:
an Enlightened paladin adds 1 point of his Charisma bonus (if any) per class level to his Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class.
There is no change in the bonus type indicated. It just chains the additions together.

From what I've seen from looking around various forums the disagreement comes down to whether the person counts the armour class calculation as a single score that the bonuses can be applied to, or whether it is a multiple part calculation which different bonuses can be applied to.

• If it's a multiple part calculation then it counts as part of the dexterity modifier as that is calculated as before calculating the AC which means a scaled fist/irorian (enlightened) paladin can effectively double stack their charisma bonus (dexterity type bonus and charisma type bonus).
  
• If it's a single calculation and applying the various bonuses together then it counts as an charisma type bonus which means it then doesn't stack as the scaled fist's AC Bonus ability is a charisma type bonus.

So you say it's a multiple part calculation, correct? I ask you then what other instances have you seen multiple part calculations like this? Where a bonus is added multiple times because its applied as part of specific bonuses in the formula. I'm looking for any supporting instances to establish a common trend.

they stack, one is an untyped bonus the other is a dodge so there is no conflict.

It's not dodge...

Hi there,

Looking to preempt any rules complications/discussion with one of my players. He's looking to play an Enlightened Paladin / monk (probably Scaled Fist). The current RAW questions I have are:

• 1) Do the ki pools stack? This is broken down into two different stacking questions:
  a) Do the number of ki points they have stack?
  b) Does the paladin levels (which are counted as effective monk levels) stack with the monk levels to determine the pool/pools abilities?
  My feeling on this is the answer is no, due to the FAQ.

• 2) Assuming two separate ki pools, can an Enlightened Paladin's ki pool be used to power monk's ki abilities, i.e. Flurry of Blows, Abundant Step, Cobra Breath?

• 3) Does the Enlightened Paladin's Confident Defense ability apply to Touch ac? Unlike the Monk/Unchained Monk's AC Bonus which specifically states that it applies to the Touch AC, Confident Defense does not. However it states that it adds it to the Dexterity bonus, which then arguably does get added to the Touch AC.

• 4) Given that a Scaled Fist's AC Bonus and an Enlightened Paladin's Confident Defense both provide increases to AC but use different mechanics (AC Bonus is untyped bonus, and Confident Defense is applying charisma to modify dexterity bonus), do they stack?

If there are any other potential rules issues that may come up with this particular combination then please feel free to add them.

Question on the Radiant Charge feat, on a critical hit as the lay on hands damage is extra (additional) damage rolled by dice it doesn't get multiplied as per the critical hit rules. Does the Cha bonus get multiplied by considering it to be technically flat damage or does it count as part of the additional damage dice?

i.e. If you crit with Radiant Charge, assuming there's no cha modifier and you have 4 lay on hand charges, it's (1d8+4) + (1d8+4) + 4d6 + 0.

If you have cha modifier of +4 as well, is the damage:
A. (1d8+4) + (1d8+4) + 4d6 + 4
B. (1d8+4) + (1d8+4) + 4d6 + 4 + 4

So basically the damage for splash should be the minimum number of the total number of d6’s for the bomb and bonus dice plus the intelligence modifier, not modified for critical hits or Point-Blank Shot. Besides the intelligence bonus, is there anything you can think of that might add to the minimum and thus splash damage?

Honestly, I don't know as starting to look at this has made me question a lot of things. I've seen a couple things where people are suggesting it adds to bomb damage, i.e. Tiefling/Half-Orc/Ifrit/Vanara favoured class gives 1/2 to bomb damage, and then counting that to include splash damage but I don't think that's the case. I think its only the direct bomb damage that gets boosted. I can't find confirmation either way.

So it seems then that a better wording for the splash damage would have been to say at 1st level the splash damage is 1 + intelligence modifier and 1 additional point for every two level thereafter.

That would probably solve a lot of headaches!

If I see minimum damage based off a direct hit, then I will calculate whatever minimum damage would be. So, yes, if I target a fire elemental with a bomb, then I should expect minimum damage to be non-existent.

As I mentioned above, the working out of how much damage you could do is irrelevant to how much damage the monster actually takes. Energy resistance, immunity, vulnerability, and DR are all applied after the damage is determined.

From what you are saying there with the fire elemental example, the fire elemental if hit by a fire bomb will of course not take any damage from the fire bomb and the implication of that is that the splash damage will also now be 0 due to the minimum damage now being 0. The fire elemental has absorbed all the potential damage that the splash could have done, which defeats the whole point of splash damage.

Now to give an example of why it doesn't work like that let's extend that example a little further. What happens if you have a fire elemental and an ice elemental next to each other and you hit the fire elemental with a fire bomb which splashes onto the ice elemental. The fire elemental would reduce it down to 0 damage but then the ice elemental is vulnerable to fire so it should take 50% extra damage. 50% extra of 0 is still 0.

Of course there is the point that the splash damage still gains the +int modifier to the damage, so it would be 0+int damage increased by 50% but that's precisely the point I'm making. The vulnerability (resistance, DR, and immunity) is applied after the damage is worked out.

To give a numerical comparison starting with 2d6 damage and assuming no other bonuses aside from +4 int:

1. Applying immunity(etc) before calculating damage:
Fire elemental: Direct damage is calculated as 0 due to fire immunity. Minimum damage is 0. The direct damage is applied to the fire elemental as 0.
Splash damage: Calculated from minimum damage is 0+4.
Ice elemental: Takes splash damage which is 4 damage. This is applied to the ice elemental as 4.

2. Applying immunity(etc) after calculating damage:
Fire elemental: Direct damage is calculated as 2d6+4 damage. Minimum damage for splash is calculated as 2. The direct damage is applied to fire elemental however due to the fire immunity the damage actually taken is 0.
Splash damage: Calculated from minimum damage is 2+4.
Ice elemental: Takes splash damage which is 6. This is applied to ice elemental which due to vulnerability takes an additional 50% damage, bringing the actual total to 9.

I hope that makes sense.

TL;DR - Resistances, immunities, DR, and vulnerabilities are applied after damage has been calculated. Thus the minimum damage should be based off the number of dice rolled for bomb damage.

This poses a couple issues then...

I agree that it does pose some questions but let me address some of the implications you've raised.

what about if the target of the attack is immune to Critical hits? Would the "minimum damage" then NOT change due to the Critical hit?

If the creature is immune to critical hits then the direct damage portion wouldn't get increased so the minimum damage would be the same on a normal hit. That's simply done as part of the calculation of how many dice you would be rolling on damage.

How about if the target is resistant to the damage? say it has Fire Resistance 5... would the splash damage be reduced, because the minimum damage done by the hit changed (was reduced by 5)?

If they hit with fire damage and the opponent has resistance then yes of course the damage would be reduced. There's no change to the mechanic of how damage is applied. The issue that we're discussing with this is "How do you calculate the damage that is to be taken?" not "How much damage is actually taken by the target?"

Or if the Target is damaged MORE by fire, and takes 1.5 times the damage, would that effect the splash damage done?

Same as above on the point with regards to resistance. The damage that the target actually takes is not relevant to working out much damage the player rolls on his damage.

And what about Point Blank Shot? does that modify the "Minimum Damage"? so using your example would it be (for 2d6+5+PBS) 8 points?

Ah HA! This is the one thing that there IS an official ruling on. Or at least partly because I'm sure someone will argue it.

Point Blank Shot: Do I add the feat's extra damage to the splash damage from a splash weapon?

No, the extra damage from Point Blank Shot only applies to the target of a direct hit with a splash weapon (including direct hits from an alchemist's bomb).

Additionally if you read the example in the Bombs (Su) section of the alchemist class, you'll notice the example they provide does not include *any* bonuses to damage on the splash. The damage bonus that is shown comes from the Throw Anything feat, which provides Int mod to any splash effect, that alchemists get for free at level 1. It clearly states that the bonus is added into the Bombs feature.

No, I think it would be best to just calculate the "Minimum damage" from what the weapon would do before any modifications due to circumstances of the individual attack are factored in.

I don't see a problem here if some GMs want to rule it that critical hits increase the minimum damage. It's their game however this is precisely why I raised the question, because there is no clear official answer.

Personally I won't be increasing the minimum damage on crits because Splash Damage can never critical and thus I think it's weird that the splash damage would increase because of an excellent shot against an individual target.

When referring to archetype gained features, you might want to make it a bit clearer, to minimize confusion - here it seems like the Grenadier's Alchemical Weapons ability, correct ?

Yes indeed! I should have done that. It's the Grenadier archetype that has a level 2 special ability called Alchemical Weapon (which unfortunately is the same name as the items used in the benefit).

Conductive needs "a spell-like or supernatural ability that relies on a melee or ranged touch attack to hit its target", but "Bombs [...] use the Throw Splash Weapon special attack "

Does that even qualify, or is a special attack too special ?

This is a good question. Another question that is a little murky and relates back to my question about Conductive + Bombs. I believe it is partly because the rules are for the 3 relevant items are:

Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Thrown bombs have a range of 20 feet and use the Throw Splash Weapon special attack.

A splash weapon is a ranged weapon that breaks on impact, splashing or scattering its contents over its target and nearby creatures or objects. To attack with a splash weapon, make a ranged touch attack against the target.

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).

The reasoning for saying that it works would be: because Bombs use Throw Splash Weapon rules they are ranged touch attacks. Because the abilities are ranged touch attacks they could as RAW (from what I've seen so far) be used by Conductive.

So I guess there's 3 scenarios:
1. You can't use bombs with Conductive.
2. You can use bombs with Conductive but not in addition Explosive Missile.
3. You can use bombs with Conductive in addition to Explosive Missile.

If there's any rules that supports any of those 3 scenarios I'd be more than happy but as I mentioned I've not found anything.

Edit: Missed closing quote mark.

1. If you mean "Can I use Explosive Missile to infuse an alchemical item?", no.

It is kind of like that but not. The mechanical way it works is that you pre-infuse an arrow, bolt or bullet with alchemical weapons. You then perform Explosive Missile with that arrow which infuses it with the bomb on top of the alchemical weapon. While both are using the word "infuse" and have similar mechanics they are not the same ability so they technically stack.

To summarise how it can work in a single turn.
Swift action to retrieve alchemical weapon from pocket/handy haversack, belt pouch using some mechanism like prehensile tail.
Use Alchemical Weapons as a move action (becomes swift/free action at higher levels) to infuse the bolt with an alchemical weapon (for maximum benefit this would be a compound weapon made via the use of a Hybridisation Funnel).
Use Explosive Missile as a standard action to load, infuse with bomb, and shoot the arrow in a single shot. Interestingly this also gets around the reload times of a Heavy Crossbow.

From the discussions I've seen there's been no clear statement either way but a lot of people seem to assume its legitimate and there's no specific rules that say it doesn't work.

i would go with he can use IF he uses the Explosive Missile ability first to load the ammo with a bomb and use the conductive ability to add something else. but he can not use the conductive ability to add a bomb AFTER he hits (so in the first case if he miss he loose the bomb also loading and shooting is standard action and not part of a full attack.)

The issue with that intepretations that the Conductive weapon enchant states that it only triggers when the target is struck. The RAW is against you on that despite the fact that I do agree with the point of how you can make something at range explode by using the materials locally. I would probably say that it's a reasonable compromise but I unfortunately need to nail down an official/rules defined answer as much as possible.

Hi there,

One of my players is about to play an alchemist for the first time and is coming up with lots of small miniature headache rules questions. This is only the 2nd alchemist we've had in our group (the first being eaten by a giant eel) so we've not had a chance to get to know them very well. I've been trying to research the rules questions that pop up but not had a lot of success. Some of the issues feel relatively minor but it would be great if there was an official rules citation on some of these questions. Here's the questions and my take on them:

1. Can you use Explosive Missile with Alchemical Weapons?

Couldn't official answer. Assumed to be allowed as while the wording declares both abilities "infuse" the weapon or ammo there is no ruling saying that they cannot stack because they provide two different mechanical benefits.

2. Does rolling a critical hit with a splash weapon increase the damage?

Only on the direct damage. Splash damage is automatically applied and thus there is no "roll to hit" that is required to critical.

3. Does critical hit with bombs (and explosive missile) increase the "minimum damage" of bombs for their splash affect.

No. It only increases the direct damage of the bomb. Explosive Missile when crits on a hit increases the ranged weapon damage, the direct bomb damage and the direct alchemical weapon damage only.

4. Can you use Explosive Missile with a Conductive enchanted weapon?

Haven't found an official answer. Again this has the issue in that is empowering the ammo similar to Explosive Missile and Alchemical Weapons, however the mechanical benefit of Explosive Missile and Conductive weapon are the same in this case and so undecided on whether to allow this.

Honestly I just want to be fair to the other players, the player with these issues, and the NPCs.

Thanks!