Developer
|
In a game I ran recently, the party (which includes an alchemist) encountered a pair of flesh golems. We got into a debate about how the flesh golems' magical immunity interacts with alchemist bombs. Here are the relevant rules.
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
• A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds (no save).
• A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. A flesh golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.
Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, alchemists are adept at swiftly mixing various volatile chemicals and infusing them with their magical reserves to create powerful bombs that they can hurl at their enemies. [...]
We thought one of the following must be true:
A) The golem is entirely immune to the "magical" bombs. (Seems unlikely as they are a supernatural attack and don't allow SR.)B) The golem takes damage normally and is not slowed, because the attack is not a spell or spell-like ability and thus not technically "magical"
C) The golem takes no damage, but is slowed, which is what would happen with a "regular" magical fire attack such as fireball.
D) The golem takes damage AND is slowed, because it is not explicitly immune to the damage, and the bombs are a "magical attack" and thus fall under the category of attacks which slow the golem.
I ended up using option C in my game, and the party mopped the golems up with ease. I felt that options A and B were likely incorrect and option D gave the PC's too much of an advantage. The encounter was easy enough with option C, so option D would have made it that much easier. Still, it is unclear to me whether this was correct. Does anyone have any insight regarding alchemist bombs and the golems' immunity to magic? Much appreciated!
Supernatural abilities (Su) are not subject to SR and so they should affect the golem. I would also rule that as bombs are fire damage it would slow the golem.
I would go with D.
|
In a game I ran recently, the party (which includes an alchemist) encountered a pair of flesh golems. We got into a debate about how the flesh golems' magical immunity interacts with alchemist bombs. Here are the relevant rules.
Immunity to Magic (Ex) A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance. In addition, certain spells and effects function differently against the creature, as noted below.
• A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds (no save).
• A magical attack that deals electricity damage breaks any slow effect on the golem and heals 1 point of damage for every 3 points of damage the attack would otherwise deal. If the amount of healing would cause the golem to exceed its full normal hit points, it gains any excess as temporary hit points. A flesh golem gets no saving throw against attacks that deal electricity damage.Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, alchemists are adept at swiftly mixing various volatile chemicals and infusing them with their magical reserves to create powerful bombs that they can hurl at their enemies. [...]We thought one of the following must be true:
A) The golem is entirely immune to the "magical" bombs. (Seems unlikely as they are a supernatural attack and don't allow SR.)
B) The golem takes damage normally and is not slowed, because the attack is not a spell or spell-like ability and thus not technically "magical"
C) The golem takes no damage, but is slowed, which is what would happen with a "regular" magical fire attack such as fireball.
D) The golem takes damage AND is slowed, because it is not explicitly immune to the damage, and the bombs are a "magical attack" and thus fall under the category of attacks which slow the golem.I ended up using option C in my game, and the party mopped the golems up with ease. I felt that options A and B were likely incorrect and...
If you break it down:
A flesh golem is immune to any spell or spell-like ability that allows spell resistance.
Bombs do not allow spell resistance, and are not spells or spell-like. They are supernatural.
And by default they are a magical source of fire damage and thus fall under this:
A magical attack that deals cold or fire damage slows a flesh golem (as the slow spell) for 2d6 rounds (no save).
I would have gone with D as the answer.
I agree. D is the only logical answer. Although I would need to look up supernatural in the PRD.
|
Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically alchemists are extremely effective at fighting golems assuming they can throw bombs with the proper type of energy. I think I'll lower the CR of any golem encounter when any of my groups has an alchemist. Thanks for the input.
I suppose the same ruling would be used for something like a dragon's breath weapon, which is "magical" but not a spell or spell-like ability. Interestingly enough, supernatural abilities are suppressed by anti-magic fields. But apparently not by the magic immunity of golems.
No more than hitting it with a flaming weapon.
So basically alchemists are extremely effective at fighting golems assuming they can throw bombs with the proper type of energy. I think I'll lower the CR of any golem encounter when any of my groups has an alchemist. Thanks for the input.
I suppose the same ruling would be used for something like a dragon's breath weapon, which is "magical" but not a spell or spell-like ability. Interestingly enough, supernatural abilities are suppressed by anti-magic fields. But apparently not by the magic immunity of golems.
Do you do the same whenever there is a fighter archer in the party? If anything, they will destroy a golem even more quickly than an alchemist.
|
Developer
|
Do you do the same whenever there is a fighter archer in the party? If anything, they will destroy a golem even more quickly than an alchemist.So basically alchemists are extremely effective at fighting golems assuming they can throw bombs with the proper type of energy. I think I'll lower the CR of any golem encounter when any of my groups has an alchemist. Thanks for the input.
I suppose the same ruling would be used for something like a dragon's breath weapon, which is "magical" but not a spell or spell-like ability. Interestingly enough, supernatural abilities are suppressed by anti-magic fields. But apparently not by the magic immunity of golems.
If any character allowed the party to quickly and effortlessly bypass the encounter without really using up any resources, then yes, I would likely make an ad-hoc XP adjustment after the fact. But, I'd add another encounter to make up for it.
If any character allowed the party to quickly and effortlessly bypass the encounter without really using up any resources, then yes, I would likely make an ad-hoc XP adjustment after the fact. But, I'd add another encounter to make up for it.Do you do the same whenever there is a fighter archer in the party? If anything, they will destroy a golem even more quickly than an alchemist.So basically alchemists are extremely effective at fighting golems assuming they can throw bombs with the proper type of energy. I think I'll lower the CR of any golem encounter when any of my groups has an alchemist. Thanks for the input.
I suppose the same ruling would be used for something like a dragon's breath weapon, which is "magical" but not a spell or spell-like ability. Interestingly enough, supernatural abilities are suppressed by anti-magic fields. But apparently not by the magic immunity of golems.
So everyone should make weaker characters in your games because you aren't able/willing to build more appropriate challenges, or to let their strengths shine every once in a while? For shame!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, the "Punish effectiveness" routine is still alive and strong I see.
Good thing Corporate America doesn't run this way...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, I sure am glad that this thread was solved so quickly and won't turn into a flamefest.
|
Developer
|
So everyone should make weaker characters in your games because you aren't able/willing to build more appropriate challenges, or to let their strengths shine every once in a while? For shame!
I recall reading in some gamemastering section of a book (might have been a DMG, or the Core Rulebook, or GMG) that experience awards can and should be adjusted based on the actual difficulty of the encounter. I've played too many versions to recall which book it was. In any case, it is my group's preference to receive less XP for easy combat encounters and more XP for the ones which are really fun/difficult. I also award generous roleplaying XP, so it balances out. :)
|
Developer
|
So everyone should make weaker characters in your games because you aren't able/willing to build more appropriate challenges, or to let their strengths shine every once in a while? For shame!
Also FYI, the game is a "sandbox" game. For this game I am not structuring encounters based on the party, which constantly changes anyway: all of the players have multiple characters and choose each session which character they would like to play. I have notes on which enemies are in which areas, random encounter tables, etc, and the players decide each session which areas they will explore. So it's not really a question of "building appropriate encounters." My players don't want me to build encounters that are "just right." They want to explore the world. They know that sometimes they'll mop up the enemies and sometimes they'll encounter things that are too difficult. When they defeat the really difficult stuff, I give them bonus XP, usually an extra encounter's worth at the end of the session. It all seems to work out in the end.
|
Developer
|
So, I sure am glad that this thread was solved so quickly and won't turn into a flamefest.
I feel like the initial question has been resolved and questions of XP awards warrant no further discussion. Thanks to everyone for their input! I am always happy with the speed at which questions are answered on these forums.
If anything, what with the RP awards, bonuses, and the fact that they're on the fast track, I give my players too much XP! :)
In any case, it is my group's preference to receive less XP for easy combat encounters and more XP for the ones which are really fun/difficult. I also award generous roleplaying XP, so it balances out. :)
Well why didn't you say so in the first place? That's a horse of a different color! ;P
|
Developer
|
In any case, it is my group's preference to receive less XP for easy combat encounters and more XP for the ones which are really fun/difficult. I also award generous roleplaying XP, so it balances out. :)Well why didn't you say so in the first place? That's a horse of a different color! ;P
Haha, yes, I can see how my original post suggesting reducing the XP just 'cause the PC's beat up my poor widdle monsters seems very... grouchy. I don't blame you for saying it's an uncalled-for adjustment!
|
Do alchemist bombs pass thru SR? Also does confusion bomb allow a save?
1) Yes, alchemist bombs pass thru SR.
2) It does now. Link
|
Developer
|
Ok sorry for all the questions about bombs, I'm running a game where a player is for the first time playing an alchemist and we are running into all kinds of things. I think I understand how it works now. Please tell me if I have anything wrong:
1. Bombs and their damage type (fire default) are considered thrown magic weapons. Therefore they are subject to DR of monsters but not SR because they aren't actually spells.
Almost. Damage reduction doesn't reduce damage dealt by energy attacks (e.g. acid, cold, electricity, fire, force, and sonic). As a class ability that deals energy damage, you'll find it's not important to distinguish between whether bombs are magic attacks or not.
2. Since bombs are magic weapons and are corporeal, they can affect incorporeal undead and other incorporeal creatures but only hit for half damage as per the rules of incorporeal state. However, using either the force bomb or holy bomb discoveries would cause an incorporeal to take full damage.
Sounds right.
Incorporeal states: Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source (except for channel energy). Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that do not cause damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
Issue was the player with fast bombs discovery and a ton of feats to increase number of attacks threw 6 bombs at a powerful wraith. He hit with 5 of the 6 doing 103 damage. Wraith is incorporeal obviously.
Yep, I did something similar in a game when my 10 Strength alchemist took 6 points of Strength damage from a shadowdancer's shadow. The alchemist's bomb is a corporeal effect, yes, but it also does damage, so the 50% chance of no effect doesn't quite come into play.
forget this, im /ragequitting on alchemists til its spelled out by the developers of the game too much back and forth on too many issues.
A shame really—alchemists are one of my favorite classes. I'm not sure what more you're expecting from the designers and/or developers here, especially since it seems that folks have been helping you to answer your questions.