|
I'm posting this question, cos recently another poster posted that his DM felt that Alchemist's Bombs are overpowered. The DM for my Kingmaker Campaign feels the same way too.
So... Are Alchemist's Bombs, Overpowered???
What are your thoughts on this?
Alchemist's Bombs:
1) +1d6 every odd level
2) Supernatural Ability (Su) - Not subjected to spell resistance, counter spells, or dispel magic, and don't function in antimagic areas.
3) Limited to class level + Intelligence modifier/per day.
4) Touch AC attack.
5) Splash
Personal experiences: My Kingmaker Campaign has an Alchemist with 1 level dip to fighter for heavy armor and shield. (The Alchemist was passed down from another player.)
She is now a walking tank, throwing bombs left and right and able to hit with rolls as low as a 2. Coupled with Kingmaker's max of 1 or 2 encounters a day, this makes her one of the highest constant DPR in the party. She does not deal as much as the Wizard per round, but she is very constant in her output, hitting 90% of the time. She is also much harder to be hit then the wizard.
Personally? No. The alchemist bombs are on average dealing less damage per hit than a rogue sneak attack, in exchange they gain a much higher chance too hit. Does your GM think that rogues are overpowered?
Remember that on average a 1d6 of damage is +3.5 damage, and the large number of dice being rolled can throw people off in how effective the damage actually is.
Honestly, any character with limited resources can feel very strong when the encounters a day stay low enough to not force them too manage their resources, but Kingmaker defiantly has key situations where you will find yourself having to ration your bombs, and when it does you should see a bit more balancing coming into play.
Remember that throwing a bomb is a ranged attack and provokes attacks of opportunity just like any other ranged attack.
Actually with a half decent team, a wand of blindness, or any access to a form of improved invisibility which with UMD isn't exactly hard to get yes a rogue can, and a rogue can get sniper goggles meaning he also deals +2 damage per sneak attack die rolled. Now I'm not trying to say a rogue is that strong, but of course a ninja or a vivisectionist alchemist has far more damage dealing capability than the alchemist bomb class feature.
Edit:- and ANYONE can take a level of fighter for heavy armour if they so wish. That is hardly a grounds for claiming something is powerful.
|
|
Personally? No. The alchemist bombs are on average dealing less damage per hit than a rogue sneak attack, in exchange they gain a much higher chance too hit. Does your GM think that rogues are overpowered?
Remember that on average a 1d6 of damage is +3.5 damage, and the large number of dice being rolled can throw people off in how effective the damage actually is.
Honestly, any character with limited resources can feel very strong when the encounters a day stay low enough to not force them too manage their resources, but Kingmaker defiantly has key situations where you will find yourself having to ration your bombs, and when it does you should see a bit more balancing coming into play.
Remember that throwing a bomb is a ranged attack and provokes attacks of opportunity just like any other ranged attack.
I have to agree on the assumption that many player/DMs make where they equal "many dices" = "lots of damage".
More of then not the classes that have static damages on a hit do more damage then those that rely on the number of dice rolls. But for some reason or other they assume that the one that roll more dices must surely be doing more damage.Same for healing.
And Kingmaker do make it easy for those those that need to count their resources.
Personally? No. The alchemist bombs are on average dealing less damage per hit than a rogue sneak attack, in exchange they gain a much higher chance too hit. Does your GM think that rogues are overpowered?Because rogues can sneak attack at range in every round of the encounter?
Alchemist bombs are clearly superior to rogue sneak attacks in every way except the fact that bombs have a limited number of uses per day (which is irrelevant in many cases).
The problem with alchemist is that on top of his bombs he has 3289472394723 other class features, all of which conveniently stack with martial classes.
As OP said, this can even be done in heavy armor.
The specific Alchemist in my campaign dips into Fighter to get the most out of having armor and a heavy shield. The default Alchemist is much more fragile.
That said with a +4 to Dex/Str/Con just a drink away. Even basic Alchemist can turn into a AC powerhouse. Just not all the time.
Do note that Alchemist's bombs are a limited resource, that flavor ease-to-hit and AOE over damage.
Bombs are not overpowered however they can appear to be overpowered in certain situations.
for example against highly spell resistance and energy resistant monsters who are normally immune to anything a mage can throw the Alchemist can stroll in with Force bombs and lay waste to such creatures bypassing everything that makes them tough.
Supernatural attacks imo break the CR threat value of certain monsters however that doesn't make bombs overpowered, the GM just needs to be aware when he's designing threats for a group with alchemist.
Nope.
Now feral mutagen on the other hand...
So what you're saying is that a rogue + tens of thousands of gold is more powerful than an alchemist + no gold at all?
I think the real answer is that a Vivisectionist is more damaging than a regular bomber Alchemist, and that Rogues are kind of on the weak side of things in general.
Bombs are not overpowered, nor are bombs stronger than sneak attack. But Alchemists (and most other classes) are probably better than Rogues, over all.
You don't need that probably in that last sentence mplindustries
|
|
Given that Bombs are touch attacks with an AOE effect and the fact that they can bypass SR, the reasons why DMs feels that they are OP?
As in that they are a constant source of damage. So DMs feel like their monsters have no proper defense against Bombs.
I have to 2nd Cheapy. Alchemists may deal a more constant damage then Rogues, but that does not make them better overall.
Remember that the range on a bomb is 20 feet (-2 stacking for each increment outside that), enemies usually have something prepared to deal with ranged spells be it a wall, a cloud of fog, wind wall, partial concealment due to things like underbrush or magic, throwing minions in the way to get +4 from soft cover (I know its not much against a touch attack but everything helps). Make sure the alchemist has precise shot or else she gets another -4 if the target is engaged in melee.
Overall I do not think bombs are overpowered they are just really good at always hitting and doing something (touch attack, no SR, no DR, little no no resistance if you grab fore bombs). If you really feel that they are hindering gameplay you can calculate the APL as on higher and just throw in some more mooks to harass the tank.
The Fast Bombs discovery (when combined with Rapid Shot, etc.) might be pushing it a little. But without Fast Bombs, no, I don't think alchemists' bombs are overpowered.
I think you missed some points.
Alchemist Bombs:
~Can save for half from splash.
~Can be resisted by fire resistance the only way around it is to invest discoveries.
~Limited in the number of uses per day.
~Can miss, bounce, and blow up your allies.
You can sneak attack nigh infinitely and all you have to do to bypass DR is to change weapons.
Alchemists are good, don't ge tme wrong and definitely better than rogues. But are bombs overpowered? No, no not really.
I don't see bombs any more powerful than the sorcerer blasting fireballs with an really high Chr stat. Had Infrit Primal Elemental(fire) Sorcerer 9 with at Chr stat of 28 (20 starting +2 stat boost, +4 headband and +2 racial ability. He had 9 3rd level spells per day. So he's doing 9D6+9 with save DC of 24. The Alchemist in the group had more bombs but less damage and wasn't area of effect. The two complimented each other though, lots of fire. I didn't see one more powerful than the other though.
My point was that alchemists are better than rogues, sorry.
The AoE aspect of bombs is both a blessing and a curse. It requires a discovery just to be safe after the first round of combat, once the melee has begun.
They don't get Improved Precise Shot until level 15, so basically they have to spend actions moving around to avoid that -4 to hit, which even against touch AC still hurts. Nevermind the -4 unless they have Precise Shot.
Resist Energy eats up bombs, and there are a ton of feat / discovery taxes in place to make them safe to use.
Plus, it's a limited resource and their main schtick.
I'm more worried about Fighter Archers, to be honest.
Coupled with Kingmaker's max of 1 or 2 encounters a day. . .
I don't think bombs are overpowered, but as someone who's currently playing Kingmaker, I do "encounter" this problem. Our party is Rogue(Scout), Paladin, Oracle, Witch. Although we're at low levels now, I can see the pattern being established, and I suspect the melee characters will be bodyguards by mid-high levels.
|
One of my playersn is an alchemist. The bombs are consistently good, especially with the discoveries that can allow you to set targets on fire, dispel magic and other tricks that may make some encounters vunerable.
The fighter in the group consistently outdamages the alchemist however, especially now the party has hit 6th level. He doesn't have the versatility of the alchemist, but thats not part of the fighter class.
Alchemist bombs appear good in the same way a 3.5 warlocks eldrich blast did. However, its a limited resource, creatures can be immune and other classes have access to higher damage output.
I think this is more a one to two encounters per day problem.
Yes, the Alchemist is clearly superior to one of the weakest classes in the game. Congratulations on proving that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
They're still weaker than Bards, and nobody ever complains about Bards being too powerful.
So what you're saying is that a rogue + tens of thousands of gold is more powerful than an alchemist + no gold at all?Actually with a half decent team, a wand of blindness, or any access to a form of improved invisibility which with UMD isn't exactly hard to get yes a rogue can, and a rogue can get sniper goggles meaning he also deals +2 damage per sneak attack die rolled. Now I'm not trying to say a rogue is that strong, but of course a ninja or a vivisectionist alchemist has far more damage dealing capability than the alchemist bomb class feature.
Edit:- and ANYONE can take a level of fighter for heavy armour if they so wish. That is hardly a grounds for claiming something is powerful.
Actually with a nice team mate he can do it for free too, but yeah generally rogues do in fact need a investment too keep up in combat with other classes. The money is just something he can grab later game too make life easier for him... On the other hand i'm fairly certain I can make a ninja that leaves any bomb throwing alchemist in the dust, and if I wanna be mean I could do it with a Vivisectionist just to rub it in.
I would be highly interested in seeing a ninja who can outdo an alchemist that has bombs.
|
I think this is more a one to two encounters per day problem.
Maybe at lower levels but around 12th or so an alchemist is running around with between 20 and 30 bombs, toss in sticky, fast bombs, and twfing and the damage output is very hard to deal with when the alchemist usually only needs to not roll a 1 to miss. An optimized alchemist is way scary for a DM/PM/GM.
He has enough Int to give 8-18 bonus bombs?
Just off the top of my head cheapy,
1) Pick up a longbow, take any method you normally would for ranged sneak attacks, rapid shot, plus ninjas extra ki attack (manyshot is nice, but since it doesn't work with precision damage not necessary), take sniper goggles for +2 damage per sneak attack die rolled, and boom you've just outdamaged a bomb alchemist,
2) Now I'm not sure how thrown weapons work for enchanting, but if you can enchant them for cheaper than normal you could instead choose too enchant shurikens up to your highest amount of attacks per turn with returning, dual wield shurikens and use flurry of stars for an extra two attacks, of course this build deals with a problem hitting it's targets, though not a unsurmountable problem.
3) My personal favorite, requires the most money too get going but by far the most effective once you can, dual wield 2 guns with gloves of storing for reloading, add rapid shot, and the ninjas attack allowing at level 8 about 6 attacks before haste, at the touch ac.
Of course these all deal with having to get ranged sneak attacks which is far from a certain thing at low levels, and being within 30(+10 per talent you are willing to give up) feet and are far from properly sorted out builds (a bit of a reliance on sniper goggles I'll admit), just some random things I threw together for you. I can try and see if I can make them work properly at a later time.
And which method is our ninja using to get ranged sneak attack reliably and consistently? I presume Invisible Blade, which will let him go greater invis for maybe 10 rounds? Whatever his level is.
How many ki points will be devoted to the extra attack vs going invisible?
How is he going to reliably get ranged sneak attack before level 10, where most campaigns start and end?
The most reliable method is to of course have a controller in the group, since many of the strongest controller techniques reduce dexterity in some form or another, if that isn't the case a wand of blindness could be picked up, and of course just making sure you go first with the amount of damage you can do will cause a lot of pain. The main problem is without a team mate to back you up, until level 10 anyway, you would have to give up a turn to use something like a wand of blindness.
On the other hand, with the pressure points ninja trick every time you deal sneak attack damage you can lower dexterity by 1, so all you need is to go first and your safe, since it's a dex based build that isn't outside the realm of possibility.
Other than grease, which battlefield control spells did you have in mind?
It would seem to me that relying on a 4,500 gp wand that has a DC 12 fortitude save isn't the wisest method with which to ensure sneak attacks.
Snap Shot, the rogue talent, helps, but only against one guy. And then just barely, since it would only allow one attack.
Well, honestly I'd probably rely on poison more. In a serious fight you could easily coat each of your first volley of ammunition with any of the following poisons, and for each one that hits after the first the dc goes up by 2.
And my main control methods I was actually thinking of was trip to be honest, or any of the "ice" style spells that lower dexterity, or anything that applies conditions of a relevant nature. (If you manage to go before the target none of this matters of course).
Poisons :-
Cockatrice Spit, dhabba spittle, giant was poison, Hag Spit, Malyass Root, and small centipede poison can all be crafted via craft alchemy, and a ninja has use poison so no worries about self poisoning.
Prone doesn't deny dexterity bonus to AC. But a lot of Lowering dexterity is different from being denied dexterity. Being denied your dex bonus to AC is a specific state in the game. Even critters with negative Dex modifier aren't denied their dex bonus to AC unless one of the specific conditions which causes them to lose their dex bonus to AC come up.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, just that I find it slightly improbable.
Good catch, I forgot it's actually a benefit on ranged attacks, however I have trouble seeing exactly why it's improbable. If I don't (with my dex focused build) attack first, then they have to beat a dc of a fairly decent level +2 for every attack I land on them, and that's all assuming I don't just have a ally too back me up. Remember, once I've made two sneak attacks against a target he's now a free hit for basically the whole fight, and that's not even including things like snap shot etc.
And honestly this is just stuff I've come up with tidbits I've heard from other peoples discussions, with a bit of research I'm sure I could find a more reliable method.
They may be nigh free hits (ignoring how expensive poison is), but you still won't be getting sneak attack, so you are no better off than an alchemist.
Actually, like i said, with pressure points they'd have a dexterity penalty of 2, and thus would be viable for sneak attacks.
Pressure Points* (Su): A ninja with this trick can strike at an opponent’s vital pressure points, causing weakness and intense pain. Whenever the ninja deals sneak attack damage, she also deals 1 point of Strength or Dexterity damage, decided by the ninja. Unlike normal ability damage, this damage can be healed by a DC 15 Heal check. Each successful check heals 1 point of damage caused by this trick. A ninja with this trick receives a +10 insight bonus on this Heal check.
Sneak attack does not work off dex damage. Only when they are denied their Dex bonus to AC. That's a specific state. It's not the way you think it is, but I can see how you would think that.
Ranged sneak attack is very, very hard to pull off.
"Dexterity: Damage to your Dexterity score causes you to take penalties on Dexterity-based skill checks, ranged attack rolls, initiative checks, and Reflex saving throws. The penalty also applies to your Armor Class, your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Tiny or smaller), and to your Combat Maneuver Defense. A character with a Dexterity score of 0 is incapable of moving and is effectively immobile (but not unconscious)."
"Sneak Attack
If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.
The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not)"
I'm having trouble seeing how dexterity damage reducing some-ones ac wouldn't count as denying them a dex bonus too ac.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all my years, I have never seen anyone try to make that argument.
"denied dexterity bonus to AC" has a clear meaning. If a condition says those magical words, or an ability makes an enemy be denied their dex bonus to AC, then the rogue can sneak attack them.
Not only does dexterity damage not deny Dexterity (it just applies a penalty, your full dex bonus is still there), but from the section on armor class:
Note that armor limits your Dexterity bonus, so if you're wearing armor, you might not be able to apply your whole Dexterity bonus to your AC (see Table: Armor and Shields).
Sometimes you can't use your Dexterity bonus (if you have one). If you can't react to a blow, you can't use your Dexterity bonus to AC. If you don't have a Dexterity bonus, your AC does not change.
That's being denied your dex bonus.
Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses.
Your view would mean you'd lose any dodge bonus from taking dexterity damage.
From Ability Damage section:
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability.
You aren't being denied anything.
If you aren't flanking and an ability doesn't say the enemy is denied their dexterity bonus to AC, rogues cannot get sneak attack.
I wish it was easier for rogues to get sneak attack at range, but as RAW and RAI, it is very, very hard. That's one of the reasons I worked to come up with this sneak attack replacement.
I'm not sure I agree with this, simply because the language doesn't match up. In sneak attack it only says they need to be denied a dexterity bonus to armour which implies only a fraction of it, not that they need to be denied their dexterity bonus which would imply all of it, the language isn't matching up. Do you have anything official on this i could check out? I could well just be reaching a incorrect conclusion on the basis of "That'd pretty much makes ranged sneak attack pointless".
I can sort of see where your conclusion is coming from, but it doesn't seem worded in sneak attack like you think.
And my view wouldn't mean that you lose your dodge bonus, as the conditions for sneak attack and losing dodge bonus are in fact differently worded.
"The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC"
"Any situation that denies you your Dexterity bonus also denies you dodge bonuses."
Further I find it's hard too argue that if you have a penalty you aren't being denied something by the very definition of the word "denied" being refusing to be allowed something.
EDIT:- I would also like too point out that snap shot doesn't actually allow you to count as flanking something, since flanking is only gained on melee attacks, so ranged sneak attack is basically impossible to be viably used before improved invisibility with the way you are interpreting this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure I agree with this, simply because the language doesn't match up.
Let me second Cheapy in saying I have literally never heard this argument before in, what is it, 15 years of 3rd edition being out? Not once.
If you have a Dex modifier of +0, and you are allowed to add that 0 to your AC, you are not denied a Dex bonus to AC, it's just a bonus of +0 and thus means nothing.
If you have Dex modifier of -3, and you are allowed to add that -3 to your AC, you are not denied a Dex bonus to AC, it's just a bonus of -3 and thus, you'd generally be better off having such a bonus denied.
And yes, if you are not denied your Dodge bonus, then you are not denied your Dex bonus and vice versa. Dodge bonuses apply in exactly the same situations as Dex modifiers, so the presence or absence of one is a good indicator of whether or not you can sneak attack.
As for ranged sneak attack, yes it's always been this difficult to do. You essentially have to do it from hiding/invisibility or you need some way to ranged feint or stun or something like that. It's almost always pointless to build for.
Snap shot is a rogue talent that just happens to be a different feat too. Snapshot ensures you start near the top of the initiative order for the first round, meaning that you get sneak attack since everyone is flatfooted.
And yes, ranged attacks is almost impossible. As I have been saying.
My point, I feel I should clarify, is that some-one being denied there dex bonus is certainly a clear indicator of whether you can sneak attack, but considering how the two sentences are rather different, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way too gain one it's fairly clear that not all of the dexterity bonus needs to be denied for you too sneak attack.
And please don't use the "no-ones brought it up before" fallacy (not sure the exact name for that one), as my surprise with Cheapys statement has risen from never having realised some people associated sneak attack with a very defined set of conditions that cause you to lose dex to ac, rather than the losing dex to ac part.
Due to the fact that I can see this from both points of the argument, I've decided to post in the ask in the James Jacobs thread, now normally I only give a slightly higher opinion to it than normal but in this case I'm going to suck it up and accept that more people with a greater understanding of the rules disagree with me and that I should concede the point, should he agree with your ruling.
EDIT:- Secane Valid point, I was going to suggest that a bit back but after the thread got move to the general discussion board I figured it was pretty dead and didn't matter much, however we should be done pretty soon I get the feeling I've more or less conceded anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My point, I feel I should clarify, is that some-one being denied there dex bonus is certainly a clear indicator of whether you can sneak attack, but considering how the two sentences are rather different, that doesn't mean it's the ONLY way too gain one it's fairly clear that not all of the dexterity bonus needs to be denied for you too sneak attack.
And please don't use the "no-ones brought it up before" fallacy (not sure the exact name for that one), as my surprise with Cheapys statement has risen from never having realised some people associated sneak attack with a very defined set of conditions that cause you to lose dex to ac, rather than the losing dex to ac part.
But if your Dexterity is reduced, you're not being denied your Dexterity bonus. Not even some of it. You're still getting your full Dexterity bonus to AC, that full bonus is just lower now.
Nothing about losing Dexterity points denies you anything.
And it's not that we're associating it with a defined set of conditions that causes you to lose Dex to AC, we're associating it with, well, losing Dex to AC which happens in very specific, defined circumstances.
Sure, but damage doesn't reduce your stat, it just applies a penalty too what that stat gives you, aka it denies you the full modifier. Drain on the other hand...
You should ask Rule Questions instead.
He has enough Int to give 8-18 bonus bombs?He has around a 24 int but with a couple Extra Bombs feats, which any Alchemist tossing bombs should do, they should have 8-18 extra bombs. If they don't they aren't playing a bomb-throwing alchemist.
Oh ok. I wasn't aware that there was such a strict and narrow definition of bomb throwing alchemist.
|
|
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place. "
It's a phrase in the place where you reply. If you are playing a morphing alchemist, take the feats to support it. If you are a more bomb-throwing build of alchemist, take the feats to support it.
Don't let the anonymity of the internet allow you to treat people differently then you would in person.
He has enough Int to give 8-18 bonus bombs?He has around a 24 int but with a couple Extra Bombs feats, which any Alchemist tossing bombs should do, they should have 8-18 extra bombs. If they don't they aren't playing a bomb-throwing alchemist.
I don't know, personally, I don't think the Extra Bomb feat is really worth taking once, never mind taking it four or five times. It's like the Extra Rage feat. It's great at level 1 and then slowly becomes pointless. It seems like an especially weak choice when you could be using those feats on Extra Discovery instead (much as a Barbarian should be spending the majority of their feats on Extra Rage Powers).
I mean, seriously, the 24 Int Alchemist at level 12 has 19 bombs (plus 2 more in a pinch when he downs his Cognatogen--you are a mind chemist, right?). With four encounters per day you can throw about 5 bombs a fight. But taking Extra Bombs even 5 times only gets you about 2 more a fight. I don't think that's worth it.