You make a single attack that deals significantly more damage than normal.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: When you use the attack action, you can make one attack at your highest base attack bonus that deals additional damage. Roll the damage dice for the attack twice and add the results together, but do not multiply damage bonuses from Strength, weapon abilities (such as flaming), or precision-based damage (such as sneak attack). This bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit (although other damage bonuses are multiplied normally).
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?
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...)
I can imagine hitting someone in the face with a bomb is going to lead to a Really Bad Day.
Personally, I would house-rule it as doing Vital Strike damage on the primary, but not on the splash. That seems reasonable.
I would not allow it, as bombs are a set number of uses, now if you choose to give up the same about of uses per extra dice like you do the attack I could see it. So vital strike 1= 2 bomb uses other wise your skirting the rules and number of uses you have.
an attack action is a standard action, and throwing a splash weapon is an attack action is it not? bombs are consumable and need the improvement. you are basically throwing it harder to create more impact. throwing a bomb is still using a weapon.
an attack action is a standard action, and throwing a splash weapon is an attack action is it not? bombs are consumable and need the improvement. you are basically throwing it harder to create more impact. throwing a bomb is still using a weapon.
Well, the Vital Strike feat says that "When you use the attack action, you can make one attack (...)", and an Attack Action is a specific kind of Standard Action.
"Standard Actions: Most of the common actions characters take, aside from movement, fall into the realm of standard actions.Attack: Making an attack is a standard action. (...)" (page 182)
However, the Alchemist Bomb states specifically that "Detonating a bomb (typically by throwing the vial of volatile liquid) is a standard action that utilizes the 'Throw Splash Weapon' special attack (see page 202 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook)."
The 'Throw Splash Weapon' is a special attack which is not even shown under the regular Standard Actions, but in the section 'Special Attacks' by itself (near the Feint Action and the Charge Action, for example). This leads me to believe that, although it's an action which includes an attack (like the Charge Action), it's not specifically an 'Attack Action', and so it cannot benefit from the Vital Strike feat (again, like the Charge Action).
As a side note, this post from James Jacobs shows the original intentions behind the creation of the Vital Strike chain feat. Now it's true that an Alchemist is not precisely a caster, and his Bombs are not exactly spells, but their abilities are close to that of casters, and so it seems logical that limitations to weapon-like spells should apply to Alchemist Bombs, too.
But I agree that most of these actions should be clarified in the future.
Just my 2c.
The vital strike chain of feats will not, in the end, work with bombs. At least, I hope not! Because the next step after that is allowing vital strike to work with disintegrate.
Isn't the big problem that fighters' damage doesn't scale across levels, and that this feat chain is part of what's supposed to fix that problem?
Creative Director
|
The vital strike chain of feats will not, in the end, work with bombs. At least, I hope not! Because the next step after that is allowing vital strike to work with disintegrate.Isn't the big problem that fighters' damage doesn't scale across levels, and that this feat chain is part of what's supposed to fix that problem?
We're not talking about fighters, though.
But since you brought it up... the issue that the Vital Strike chain is addressing is the fact that a melee character often has to move to get in range to use his weapon, and since higher level melee types have most of their damage potential locked up in their iterative attacks... making them move around unnecessarily hampers them. Vital Strike and its chain lets a fighter or whoever move and hit hard, just like a wizard (or an alchemist) can.
Alchemists don't NEED Vital Strike to make their bombs keep up with the damage curve. Their bombs are already there, is the theory. If an alchemist's bombs aren't doing enough damage or they don't get enough per day, that's easy to fix in the design of the 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.
Ability Scores: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8
STR: 8 (-1)
DEX: 20 (+5) (+2 race, +4 belt)
CON: 14 (+2) (+4 belt)
INT: 24 (+6) (+1 level, +2 race, +6 headband)
WIS: 14 (+2) (+1 level)
CHA: 10 (0)
HP: 78 HP (10d8+30)
Saving Throws
Fort: +11 Ref: +14 Will: +7
AC: 24 - Touch 16, Flatfooted 18 (+7 +3 mithral shirt, +5 Dex, +1 Amulet of Natural Armor, +1 Ring of Protection)
Attacks: bomb +15, 5d6+7 dmg
Class Abilities:
Alchemy
bomb, 5d6, 16/day
Mutagen
Poison use
Poison immunity
Discovery; frost bomb
Discovery; explosive bomb
Other non-relevant stuff
BAB: +7 CMB: +6 CMD: 21
Feats:
1-Point Blank Shot
3-Craft Wondrous Item
5-Weapon Focus (bomb)
7-Far Shot
9-Toughness
Skills:
He's awesome at making Alchemical items.
Other stuff, doesn't matter
Gear:
bombs, lots of bombs
16,000 +4 Int helm
16,000 +4 belt dex
13,100 +3 mithral shirt
4,000 cloak of resistence
2000 +1 Amulet of Natural Armor
2000 +1 Ring of Protection
2000Handy Haversack
4000 GP in miscellaneous consumables, gear, non-portable goods, etc.
** 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?
For the most part I wouldn't allow it because the whole concept of the feat is that you are striking with your weapon into a vital spot so that achieves more damage.
However, I would also rule that it would be circumstantial times when one could use a bomb combined with vital strike.
For Instance, if you have achieved a grapple check and you have a hold you can make another grapple check to shove it down someone's pants, now that would be a vital strike.
Another instance, I could be allowed is that if you delayed your action in order to toss the bomb into a monster's mouth so that it explodes within it, tossing it just right at the right time so that it goes to the right spot inside the monster.
Remember pulling stunts should not just about exploiting a system but it should also reflect the spirit of the rule or the game in which you are playing. When you do it in that way people are less likely to argue about you not being able to do something even though it makes sense.
You know though I think that vital strike could apply to guns. My artificer made a hand cannon gun that launches 3d6 X4 crit cannon balls at my enemies. Even though the construction of my gun is not the same as a normal gun I still have to use it like one. Which means I have to make an attack roll.
That would be pretty scary if my Artificer took Greater Vital Strike*. It would be like a crit every time plus since my Artificer wouldn't get multiple attacks till way higher levels it would be so worth it. 12D6 points of damage is just plain crazy.
I'm not familiar with what Artificer class you are using, however keep in mind that Greater Vital Strike has a BAB +16 requirement.
Even Improved Vital Strike might take some high levels (or be impossible) depending on what the class progression is.
.
Which is why I don't see this as being too much of a problem. If I didn't just give this one outright to Alchemists, I'd probably have a feat that allowed them to increase the damage they do with bombs anyways.
And as far as I can tell, the wording (and intent according to the quote from James) allows a ranged specialist to benefit as well. A bow-using Fighter doesn't have to move just the same as the bomb-tossing Alchemist, but could benefit from the feat (moreso, since he has full BAB and access to the triple damage feat).
I guess we'll have to see the future wording to know if Vital Strike was intended for any ranged combat at all.
I'm not familiar with what Artificer class you are using, however keep in mind that Greater Vital Strike has a BAB +16 requirement.
Even Improved Vital Strike might take some high levels (or be impossible) depending on what the class progression is.
.
Which is why I don't see this as being too much of a problem. If I didn't just give this one outright to Alchemists, I'd probably have a feat that allowed them to increase the damage they do with bombs anyways.
And as far as I can tell, the wording (and intent according to the quote from James) allows a ranged specialist to benefit as well. A bow-using Fighter doesn't have to move just the same as the bomb-tossing Alchemist, but could benefit from the feat (moreso, since he has full BAB and access to the triple damage feat).
I guess we'll have to see the future wording to know if Vital Strike was intended for any ranged combat at all.
Well the progression that the conversion that I did a while back uses the rogue progression for BAB. You are correct that I wouldn't be able to take it however that is with the assumption that I stay a pure artificer. There is of course the fact that we might run a epic campaign.
Still even improved vital strike on my artificer's hand cannon would be dangerous because that would be 9d6 points of damage for one shot of my gun. Also take in the fact that an artificer can virtually can put up to a +5 to hit on the gun, increase his Dex to extreme measures so simply put even with a BAB of 11 it wouldn't be hard for my artificer to lay havoc and let loose the dogs of war.
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.
Right now the bombing alchemist deals less damage then a druids animal companion. That's a sad panda indeed. I will stick with it though and get this to work!
The vital strike chain of feats will not, in the end, work with bombs. At least, I hope not! Because the next step after that is allowing vital strike to work with disintegrate.Isn't the big problem that fighters' damage doesn't scale across levels, and that this feat chain is part of what's supposed to fix that problem?We're not talking about fighters, though.
But since you brought it up... the issue that the Vital Strike chain is addressing is the fact that a melee character often has to move to get in range to use his weapon, and since higher level melee types have most of their damage potential locked up in their iterative attacks... making them move around unnecessarily hampers them. Vital Strike and its chain lets a fighter or whoever move and hit hard, just like a wizard (or an alchemist) can.
Alchemists don't NEED Vital Strike to make their bombs keep up with the damage curve. Their bombs are already there, is the theory. If an alchemist's bombs aren't doing enough damage or they don't get enough per day, that's easy to fix in the design of the class.
I would disagree with bombs being in line with the curve.
In fact only with the use of vital strike does the bomb keep up with the damage curve of the standard 1d6/level spells.
I know i had posted this before, but i'll do it again since i couldnt find it.
Level Bomb Spell
1 1d6 1d6 (shocking grasp) or 1d4 (burning hands)
2 1d6 2d6 (shocking grasp) or 2d4
3 2d6 4d6 (scorching ray)
4 2d6 4d6 (scorching ray)
5 3d6 5d6 (fireball)
6 3d6 6d6
7 4d6 7d6
8 8d6(vital strike) 8d6
9 10d6 9d6
10 10d6 10d6
11 12d6 11d6
12 12d6 12d6
13 14d6 13d6
14 14d6 14d6
15 24d6(imp vital strike) 15d6
16 24d6 16d6
17 27d6 17d6
18 27d6 18d6
19 30d6 19d6
20 30d6 20d6
So as you can see, the numbers stay rather even untill you get to level 15 (where an alchemist can take improved vital strike). But in all honesty by that level spellcasters can just reverse gravity and win a fight. Bellow 15th level, a spellcasters [insert damage spell like fireball here] spells do very close same damage at much better range in much more useful areas then the bombs.
There is a potential exploit if you add the sticky bomb discovery, but that is about the same investment as a metamagic feat. If you include things like empower and maximize, since you cannot take sticky bomb prior to 12th level, then you will be able to keep pace the bomb damage with spells. And still have all the advantages of range and area that spells give.
Not to mention, against single targets, spellcasters do much less damage then say a full attacking fighter. And since bombs are basically single target effects (splash damage is often more of a hinderance then a help), they are WAY behind on the damage curve without vital strike, and are still behind if they are allowed it.
The new options from the revision blow all this out of the water. Consider anything said here beforehand a moot point. I knew the Paizo guys had something up their sleaves.