|
The logic that other bombs already allowing saving throws so Confusion Bomb should as well makes good sense to me. For those who might not be convinced I'll add that even touch attack spells which inflict a serious condition or massive damage often allow saving throws too. Take Bestow Curse, for instance. Confusion is arguably as bad or worse than the 50% chance to lose your action which can be imposed by Bestow Curse.
I've built some theoretical Alchemists at levels 10 and 15, and I feel confident in saying that without a Will save their "per bomb" success rate against susceptible foes from the Bestiary would approach 90%. This is based on analysis of all CR11 monsters listed, but honestly even higher CR stuff doesn't tend to have higher touch AC. Meanwhile the CR11 monsters would only fail an associated Will save about 46% of the time.
Regardless of whether you think Confusion is a powerful effect I think it seems clear that 90% and 46% are very different success rates. Meanwhile, if you required both the touch attack and the save that would allow the Alchemist to still have a 41% "per bomb" success rate shooting APL+1 monsters. I think that compares reasonably well to spells and especially other bomb effects, and the Alchemist could still spam the bombs at anybody he or she really wants Confused.
** spoiler omitted **...
Just for the record.
The saves of bombs that don't duplicate exactly a spell would have a save based on the use of supernatural abilities, for the alchemist this should be used to determine the save of the bombs:
"The DC of any saving throw called for by a discovery is equal to 10 + 1/2 the alchemist's level + the alchemist's Intelligence modifier."
So the difficulty of the save against a confusion bomb would increase when the alchemist level increase.
That would keep up the bombs efficiency when the character increase in level.
Ok what is so hard to understand. The Confusion bomb EXPLICITLY STATES that the target is UNDER THE EFFECTS of confusion. I.e. THEY ARE CONFUSED. If it acted like the spell CONFUSION it would say " target is affected by Confusion, as per the spell." or "this ability acts like the spell Confusion" which would then mean it effectively as the confusion spell, and therefore call for a save. Since it doesn't say that, it does not have a save.
And besides, at level 8, confusion is not nearly as strong as what other clases are doing.
Noireve, please reread the discovery. It explicitly states "under the effect of a confusion spell" not the confused condition.
The RAW does not state if there is or isn't a save, thus the reason for this long thread.
Yes, IT IS UNDER THE EFFECT, I.e. what the confusion spell does (You know, its EFFECT). It does not say, as per Confusion Spell or as if the confusion spell (That would imply that it is effectively a confusion spell that cannot be countered). Additionally, if the RAW does not mention a need for a save, then the default setting is that there is no save. Simple as that. Look at EVERY OTHER BOMB DISCOVERY that does something other than change damage. If a save is required, guess what, they tend to say "The target must make a *** save, or (suffer condition or ability here). Even abilites that copy other spells (like the entangling bomb) specifically mention the need for a save. So, if no need for a save is mentioned, that means it defaults to not requiring a save.
Entangling Bomb simulates an item, not a spell. Of those that do, Inferno, Poison, Plague have similar language, as I already stated upthread. If Dispelling Bomb allows no save, then neither do they. The other two, Smoke and Dispelling don't simulate spells with saves, so are not relevant to this particular point.
Ok, I was thinking of the Tanglefoot Bomb when you said Entangling Bomb. Is that what you meant?. I'm not familiar with an entangling bomb.
Edited, $@#& auto text.
Threads like this remind me just how confusing RPG rulesets can be.
This one has been FAQ'd extensively. Some clarification is in order.
I'd love to see someone clean up Confused and confusion and calm emotions to make them all more clear.
Yes, IT IS UNDER THE EFFECT
And you get a save against the effect.
It should be clarified.
Yes, IT IS UNDER THE EFFECTAnd you get a save against the effect.
If you save against a spell, are you under it's effects?
I think effect is one of those words like attack and energy that gets used an lot and not nessasarily in the same way. Trying to pin down a consistent nuanced usage is problematic.
If you are under the effect of something, you are affected by it. If you make a save, you are not affected by it.
Because with stink bomb you have very little control over collateral damage.
Act normally = he can choose how to act, but he still treat any attempt to cast a spell on him as an hostile act.
I found interesting, in a negative way, how people try to game the system, calling what they don't like "fluff" and what they like "rule".
I find it interesting - in a negative way - how people assume that those who disagree with them are "trying to game the system" rather than assuming that they honestly disagree (especially when they're pointing out the very clear reason why they disagree).
It's really simple: If what you're quoting is a rule, then the condition either contradicts itself - or what you're quoting has a fairly different meaning when taken in context with the whole passage.
Personally I don't believe there is a contradiction; I believe that when it says that you treat everyone as enemies, it's describing the outcome of the specific roll where you attack the nearest person. If you instead roll that you act normally, then you do act normally - and that includes being able to voluntarily 'lower your shields' to accept spells, because otherwise you aren't acting normally.
38 FAQ requests and counting. Outside of being buddy buddy with someone on the inside, is there a way to know if this is being looked at?
If you save against a spell, are you under it's effects?Yes, IT IS UNDER THE EFFECTAnd you get a save against the effect.
There is no difference between making a save against a spell and making a save against its effect. They're used interchangeably. Splitting the hairs to disallow a saving throw doesn't fly.
Saving Throw
Usually a harmful spell allows a target to make a saving throw to avoid some or all of the effect.
"Making the save against the spell, not the effect" is a bit of aleged rules lawyering that's not actually found in the rules.
The word automatically isn't there.
I've re-read it a few times, and I am pretty sure that, RAW, there is no save here. The interesting question, to me, would be whether this also bypasses SR. Basically, I see nothing saying that there are qualifiers past the ranged touch for determining whether you are affected.
Bombs are (Su), so spell resistance does not apply to them.
If that interpretation is actually correct, Poison Bomb is pretty nasty. Auto death for anything 6th level or lower, without poison immunity, caught in it.
Very annoying bomb, very much should have a save. Very much does not have a save as it is worded.
If that interpretation is actually correct, Poison Bomb is pretty nasty. Auto death for anything 6th level or lower, without poison immunity, caught in it.
How much is there that is level 6 or lower and has SR?
|
|
Entangling Bomb simulates an item, not a spell. Of those that do, Inferno, Poison, Plague have similar language, as I already stated upthread. If Dispelling Bomb allows no save, then neither do they. The other two, Smoke and Dispelling don't simulate spells with saves, so are not relevant to this particular point.
Inferno bomb*: The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist's bomb duplicate the effects of incendiary cloud
The effect of incendiary cloud include: "In addition, the white-hot embers within the cloud deal 6d6 points of fire damage to everything within the cloud on your turn each round. All targets can make Reflex saves each round to take half damage."
It has no save when cast, the save is against the effect.
The bomb has no save, but you save against teh effet.
Poison bomb*: The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist's bomb duplicates the effects of cloudkill
Effect of cloudkill: "This spell generates a bank of fog, similar to a fog cloud, except that its vapors are yellowish green and poisonous. These vapors automatically kill any living creature with 3 or fewer HD (no save). A living creature with 4 to 6 HD is slain unless it succeeds on a Fortitude save (in which case it takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud).
A living creature with 6 or more HD takes 1d4 points of Constitution damage on your turn each round while in the cloud (a successful Fortitude save halves this damage). Holding one's breath doesn't help, but creatures immune to poison are unaffected by the spell."
Again, you save against the effect, not the spell.
Plague Bomb (Su)*: The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist's bomb duplicates the effects of contagion
Contagion: "The subject contracts one of the following diseases: blinding sickness, bubonic plague, cackle fever, filth fever, leprosy, mindfire, red ache, shakes, or slimy doom. The disease is contracted immediately (the onset period does not apply). Use the disease's listed frequency and save DC to determine further effects. For more information see Diseases. "
You bypass the initial save against the spell and are immediately infected, but again you get the normal saves against a disease, so the targets get a save against the ability damage.
Confusion Bomb* (Su): The alchemist's bombs twist the target's perception of friend and foe. A creature that takes a direct hit from a confusion bomb takes damage from the bomb and is under the effect of a confusion spell for 1 round per caster level of the alchemist.
But the effect of confusion has no saving throw. a noticeable difference from the other bombs you cited.
I see a lot here and so I thought I would share how it was put to me by my DM.
I wanted to get this on my alchemist, as well as Madness Bomb. I liked the idea of lowering Wisdom as well as causing confusion. My DM perused the forums (he's much faster at finding things than I am) and told me that no, the bomb did not require a save.
However, he pointed out that the spell says they attack the last thing that hurt them, and since I had hit them this was, in essence, a taunt. Granted, there can be uses for this (pulling a mob off a caster came to mind) but it also means that the alchemist in question needs to set things up in such a way to make sure they don't tank something they can't deal with.
Personally, I skip over this bomb these days. I'll get my Madness bomb later, strip their minds, and be happy to not die by accidentally pissing off the dragon.
|
|
I see a lot here and so I thought I would share how it was put to me by my DM.
I wanted to get this on my alchemist, as well as Madness Bomb. I liked the idea of lowering Wisdom as well as causing confusion. My DM perused the forums (he's much faster at finding things than I am) and told me that no, the bomb did not require a save.
However, he pointed out that the spell says they attack the last thing that hurt them, and since I had hit them this was, in essence, a taunt. Granted, there can be uses for this (pulling a mob off a caster came to mind) but it also means that the alchemist in question needs to set things up in such a way to make sure they don't tank something they can't deal with.Personally, I skip over this bomb these days. I'll get my Madness bomb later, strip their minds, and be happy to not die by accidentally pissing off the dragon.
Confusion say: "Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes."
throwing a bomb is an attack, but it was made against a character that was not confused, he did become confused after the attack. So you don't trigger the automatic attack.Naturally, any attack made after teh confusion effect has takem hold will trigger it.
The argument that it should grant a save is that the spell would grant a save. But the spell would also be subject to spell resistance. This isn't the spell. That removes the only real argument for it giving a save.
What does spell resistance have to do with the save?
Diego c'mon I see nothing in the magic chapter to support that there are two different kinds of saving throws, one against spells and one against spell effects.
As far as the saving throw description being in here:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.
That means that the saving throw is more complicated then something like "Fortitude negates". It doesn't mean it's now a save against an effect instead of a save against a spell.
|
That said... I do wonder why they didn't say "confused for N rounds" instead of "under the effect of the confusion spell for N rounds".
I agree with this musing and wonder why this discussion hasn't been swiftly nipped.
I'd assume if they wanted a supernatual confusion condition with no save than the confusion bomb would've been worded to cause the "confused condition" directly. By saying the creature is being subjected to the effect of a confusion spell, it seems to imply both a saving throw and spell resistance apply. Otherwise, why cite the spell at all?
I know, that in general, when I look at any rule, I consider how I'd want it to work if a monster/BBEG used the ability in question against a character I was playing. I'd absolutely want a saving throw if I was hit by this bomb.
|
That said... I do wonder why they didn't say "confused for N rounds" instead of "under the effect of the confusion spell for N rounds".I agree with this musing and wonder why this discussion hasn't been swiftly nipped.
I'd assume if they wanted a supernatual confusion condition with no save than the confusion bomb would've been worded to cause the "confused condition" directly. By saying the creature is being subjected to the effect of a confusion spell, it seems to imply both a saving throw and spell resistance apply. Otherwise, why cite the spell at all?
I know, that in general, when I look at any rule, I consider how I'd want it to work if a monster/BBEG used the ability in question against a character I was playing. I'd absolutely want a saving throw if I was hit by this bomb.
Isn't the citing of spells for their effects a means to reduce reprinting of large among of words?
If citing of a spell = copy that spell, then won't every ability that cite a spell have to be reworded to clearly state what that ability does?
For example, instead of a short and simple "as if using dimension door", the Shift (Su) ability would have to be written with out the entire wording of the dimension door spell rewritten to differentiate it from the dimension door spell.
Citing of spell for their effects is common and and a simple means of "copy and pasting" while still allowing changes to be made.
|
|
Indeed, but in the case of the confusion bomb, they could have referenced (a) the confusion spell or (b) the confused condition.
Either they were up against a hasty deadline (that never happens, right?) and it wasn't seen as much of an issue at the time, or it's intentional because the effect of the spell is slightly different than the effect of the condition.
My default reading of something that works like a spell, is that it's the same as casting the spell, especially if it's (Sp). In this case, it's a (Su), but I'd read it as just like the spell (meaning a save and SR) until something makes it clearer that its not effectively the same as casting the spell, and shortcuts straight to the condition being applied on a hit.
I'm not saying I'm right - just chiming in on how I'd run this at my home game or a PFS session if it came up. Largely because I could see a level 15 group TPKing because a trio of level 10 alchemists lobbed some confusion bombs at them and then turned invisible while the PCs sorted out how they killed each other (if only a touch attack was needed, and not saves).
|
|
Diego c'mon I see nothing in the magic chapter to support that there are two different kinds of saving throws, one against spells and one against spell effects.
As far as the saving throw description being in here:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.That means that the saving throw is more complicated then something like "Fortitude negates". It doesn't mean it's now a save against an effect instead of a save against a spell.
GreenMandar, you have cited a lot of bombs that mimic spell effect with the "Saving throw see text" line, and then you go "c'mon" when someone point to you that you have cited thing that have special rules about the saves?
Read the effects of the bombs you cited and the linked spells before c'moing.|
|
Indeed, but in the case of the confusion bomb, they could have referenced (a) the confusion spell or (b) the confused condition.
Either they were up against a hasty deadline (that never happens, right?) and it wasn't seen as much of an issue at the time, or it's intentional because the effect of the spell is slightly different than the effect of the condition.
My default reading of something that works like a spell, is that it's the same as casting the spell, especially if it's (Sp). In this case, it's a (Su), but I'd read it as just like the spell (meaning a save and SR) until something makes it clearer that its not effectively the same as casting the spell, and shortcuts straight to the condition being applied on a hit.
I'm not saying I'm right - just chiming in on how I'd run this at my home game or a PFS session if it came up. Largely because I could see a level 15 group TPKing because a trio of level 10 alchemists lobbed some confusion bombs at them and then turned invisible while the PCs sorted out how they killed each other (if only a touch attack was needed, and not saves).
Bombs are supernatural abilities, SR never apply to that kind of ability.
Spell Resistance
...
Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities (including enhancement bonuses on magic weapons) are not. A creature can have some abilities that are subject to spell resistance and some that are not. Even some spells ignore spell resistance; see When Spell Resistance Applies, below.
Very explicit: "Only spells and spell-like abilities are subject to spell resistance. Extraordinary and supernatural abilities are not."
Diego c'mon I see nothing in the magic chapter to support that there are two different kinds of saving throws, one against spells and one against spell effects.
As far as the saving throw description being in here:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.That means that the saving throw is more complicated then something like "Fortitude negates". It doesn't mean it's now a save against an effect instead of a save against a spell.
GreenMandar, you have cited a lot of bombs that mimic spell effect with the "Saving throw see text" line, and then you go "c'mon" when someone point to you that you have cited thing that have special rules about the saves?
Read the effects of the bombs you cited and the linked spells before c'moing.
Yes, I am fully aware that the associated spells say that. It's part of my point. I'm saying that regardless if a spell has the "see text" line like those, or doesn't like the Confusion spell, doesn't change it from a save against spell effects to a save against a spell. I'm not understanding your counter-argument.
I agree with you Diego, on the Spell Resistance part.
|
|
Yes, I am fully aware that the associated spells say that. It's part of my point. I'm saying that regardless if a spell has the "see text" line like those, or doesn't like the Confusion spell, doesn't change it from a save against spell effects to a save against a spell. I'm not understanding your counter-argument.Diego c'mon I see nothing in the magic chapter to support that there are two different kinds of saving throws, one against spells and one against spell effects.
As far as the saving throw description being in here:
Descriptive Text
This portion of a spell description details what the spell does and how it works. If one of the previous entries in the description includes “see text,” this is where the explanation is found.That means that the saving throw is more complicated then something like "Fortitude negates". It doesn't mean it's now a save against an effect instead of a save against a spell.
GreenMandar, you have cited a lot of bombs that mimic spell effect with the "Saving throw see text" line, and then you go "c'mon" when someone point to you that you have cited thing that have special rules about the saves?
Read the effects of the bombs you cited and the linked spells before c'moing.
Try to follow the logic of the original post:
Bomb -> it generate an effect, it don't cast a spell -> almost all the bombs you cited mimic spells that generate an effect against which you save, as the spells are not targeted spells and have a duration -> the bomb generate an effect, but the mimicked spells allow a save against the effect of the spell, especially as they are ongoing effects that last several rounds and something that will affect people entering the area of effect after the spell has been cast/the bomb throw, at the same time leaving the area of effect will remove the need for further saves.
Confusion bomb -> it generate an effect, it don't cast a spell -> the spell it mimic don't allow a save against the effect, it allow a save against being affected by the spell when it is cast -> the bomb say you get the effect of the spell. The effect of confusion is defined in the spell description and don't allow a sawing throw. The ST is before applying the effect.
Citations:
Subjects, Effects, and Areas: If the spell affects creatures directly, the result travels with the subjects for the spell's duration. If the spell creates an effect, the effect lasts for the duration. The effect might move or remain still. Such an effect can be destroyed prior to when its duration ends. If the spell affects an area, then the spell stays with that area for its duration.
Cloudkill
..
Effect cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius, 20 ft. high
|
|
Ah yes, I'm on board with Diego with SR not applying because it's a (Su) ability.
Also, in times like this, I also look for a precedent set by similar abilities. As stated before, I look at this through the lens of a GM running the alchemist as enemies rather than a player asking if they can be more powerful. Thus, I compare it to other challenges a party may be up against.
Proteans (Naunet and Voidworn varieties) come to mind, which have a tentacle/bite attack that can cause confusion. It requires the protean to hit with the tentacle/bite and then gives the subject a DC19 Will save to avoid becoming confused. These attacks aren't against touch AC either. For parity in a GM's hands, it would seem sensible the alchemist confusion bombs require both a hit and a saving throw.
Stuff about Incidinary Cloud and Poison Cloud pulled out of context.
Incindary Cloud and Poison Cloud both have conjuration effects that create a cloud of something that persist after the spell is cast, and thus have rules on what happens to anyone in the area of these clouds as part of the effect. The effect of the spell is to create a cloud, which then has certain effects.
If there were a Hold Monster Bomb, then I would expect the victim to get a save every round to break free, because the is part of the spells effect, but if the bomb did not call out a save on the initial hit, you would not get a save. You get hit, you are immediately paralyzed, you can attempt to break free next round.
Last I checked, confusion does not linger in an area as a conjured effect, and the saves are not mentioned anywhere in the spell's effects.
Further, there are bombs that specifically mention that they allow a save like...
Blinding Bomb (Su)
Prerequisite: Alchemist 8Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose for it to detonate very brightly. Creatures that take a direct hit from a blinding bomb are blinded for 1 minute unless they succeed at a Fortitude save. Creatures in the splash area that fail their saves against the bomb are dazzled for 1 minute. This is a light effect.
Concussive Bomb
Prerequisite: Alchemist 6Benefit: When the alchemist creates a bomb, he can choose to have it inflict sonic damage. Concussive bombs deal 1d4 points of sonic damage, plus 1d4 points of sonic damage for every odd-numbered level, instead of 1d6. Creatures that take a direct hit from a concussive bomb are deafened for 1 minute unless they succeed at a Fortitude save.
The rules make it very clear when a bomb allows a save by specifically calling it out. Since confusion bomb does not specifically allow a save, and it does not generate an effect that can be saved against at a later time, the RAW is very clear that no save is allowed.
I don't see any indication of it requiring a save. The description states that if directly hit, the target takes damage and is under the effect of a confusion spell.
You save against a spell to avoid falling under its effect.
Also, the argument regarding the target immediately attacking the alchemist who threw the bomb doesn't hold up for me. The target wasn't under the confusion effect when the bomb hit it. "Attacking the attacker" would happen after the target comes under the effect of the spell.
|
|
I'd suggest that blinding bomb and concussive bomb are described in that way because they do not mimic the effects of something else like a spell. The blinding bomb is not exactly a blindness spell, so you get a self-contained description about how to adjudicate the bomb in its entry.
However, when the designer has the convenience to point the reader to a spell, you don't simply ignore mechanics of that spell because another supernatural ability that doesn't mimic a spell lists a saving throw.
Plague bomb is a great example.
It reads: "The effects of the smoke created by an alchemist's bomb duplicates the effects of contagion..."
Just because it doesn't list a saving throw here, it doesn't mean that creatures inside the effect of this bomb suddenly don't get a chance to make saving throws. You'd run any creature hit by the plague bomb as if they had contagion cast at them, and the effect of a contagion spell hitting you means roll a Fort save to avoid becoming diseased.
I'd suggest if they wanted to automatically apply the effects of a failed save against a spell, they'd state that (like they do for tanglefoot bombs).
It seems the crux of the argument stems from deciding (and I don't think this is anywhere in the rules), that the "effect of a spell" means you just look at the spell's description and ignore everything else (specifically the save).
The effect of being in the radius of a confusion spell is to make a saving throw.
The effect of being confused (the condition) means no saving throw.
The designer could've picked either the effect being targeted by the spell or the condition. They picked the spell, presumably because they wished to allow for the save.