Confusion Bomb: Should it be clarified, banned or left alone?

[Charender]

wakedown wrote:

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.

No, sorry, my psychic reading of the designers intent is they they did not mean to allow a saving throw. /sarcasm

Again, the spell contagion gives you an effect. If you go into the cloud, you contract a disease. You can make a save against the disease itself, but you cannot avoid contracting a disease.

For Example

rules wrote:

Blinding Sickness
Type disease, ingested; Save Fortitude DC 16

Onset 1d3 days; Frequency 1/day

Effect 1d4 Str damage, if more than 2 Str damage, target must make an additional Fort save or be permanently blinded; Cure 2 consecutive saves

If you get hit with a plaque bomb, you automatically contract, for example, Blinding sickness and lose 1d4 strength. If you lose 3 or 4 strength, you must immediately make a DC16 fort save or be blinded.

That puts it right above Madness bombs(-2d6 damage, -1d4 wisdom vs -1d4 strength with a low chance to blind) at the cost of 2 discoveries(smoke bomb, plague bomb).

Now you can argue that the RAI is that the designers meant for plague bomb to create a plague cloud that operates like most of the other conjuration cloud effects(IE allows a cloud on contact), and I would probably agree, but RAW says no save on plague bombs.

[Diego Rossi]

Charender wrote:

Diego Rossi wrote:

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...

Rules wrote:

Blinding Bomb (Su)
Prerequisite: Alchemist 8

Benefit: 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 6

Benefit: 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 am really that unclear in what I say?

While heading your post as if you were confuting me, you are repeating what I have said:
- there is a bunch of bombs that don't call for a save but that mimic spells where you save against the lasting effect of the sell. You get a saving throw against them as you get a saving throw against the lingering effect of the spells the bombs mimic.
- the confusion bomb don't mention a save and the spell that it mimic don't allow a save against a lingering effect. So the confusion bomb don't allow a save.

[Diego Rossi]

Charender wrote:

If you get hit with a plaque bomb, you automatically contract, for example, Blinding sickness and lose 1d4 strength. If you lose 3 or 4 strength, you must immediately make a DC16 fort save or be blinded.

Diseases don't work that way.

You are hit by the bomb, you contract the disease without a save and without an onset time - Right
But then you follow the rules for afflictions,a s you are afflicted by a disease.

PRD wrote:

Onset: Some afflictions have a variable amount of time before they set in. Creatures that come in contact with an affliction with an onset time must make a saving throw immediately. Success means that the affliction is avoided and no further saving throws must be made. Failure means that the creature has contracted the affliction and must begin making additional saves after the onset period has elapsed. The affliction's effect does not occur until after the onset period has elapsed and [b]then only if further saving throws are failed.]/b]

After the onset period of 0 you get your first Save to remove the disease and you get damaged only if you fail it.

You don't "automatically ... lose 1d4 strength.", you "automatically contract, for example, Blinding sickness and [i]if your subsequent save against the effect of Blinding sickness fail you[i] lose 1d4 strength."

By the rules you can have contracted a disease but never suffer any damage from it.

[Charender]

Diego Rossi wrote:

I am really that unclear in what I say?

While heading your post as if you were confuting me, you are repeating what I have said:
- there is a bunch of bombs that don't call for a save but that mimic spells where you save against the lasting effect of the sell. You get a saving throw against them as you get a saving throw against the lingering effect of the spells the bombs mimic.
- the confusion bomb don't mention a save and the spell that it mimic don't allow a save against a lingering effect. So the confusion bomb don't allow a save.

Sorry, my bad, I read it as saying because those spells have saves in the effects section, then ALL saves are part of the spells effects, which is clearly not the case. That's what I get for skimming though the posts.

[Diego Rossi]

Teach me about making long posts.
[followed by another 10.000 characters :P]

[Charender]

Diego Rossi wrote:

Charender wrote:

If you get hit with a plaque bomb, you automatically contract, for example, Blinding sickness and lose 1d4 strength. If you lose 3 or 4 strength, you must immediately make a DC16 fort save or be blinded.

Diseases don't work that way.

You are hit by the bomb, you contract the disease without a save and without an onset time - Right
But then you follow the rules for afflictions,a s you are afflicted by a disease.

PRD wrote:

Onset: Some afflictions have a variable amount of time before they set in. Creatures that come in contact with an affliction with an onset time must make a saving throw immediately. Success means that the affliction is avoided and no further saving throws must be made. Failure means that the creature has contracted the affliction and must begin making additional saves after the onset period has elapsed. The affliction's effect does not occur until after the onset period has elapsed and [b]then only if further saving throws are failed.]/b]

After the onset period of 0 you get your first Save to remove the disease and you get damaged only if you fail it.

You don't "automatically ... lose 1d4 strength.", you "automatically contract, for example, Blinding sickness and [i]if your subsequent save against the effect of Blinding sickness fail you[i] lose 1d4 strength."

By the rules you can have contracted a disease but never suffer any damage from it.

I read contagions "The disease is contracted immediately (the onset period does not apply)." not as an onset of zero, but as you complete skip the onset phase(IE onset of zero, and you are considered to have failed your initial save).

Not saying you are wrong, but your reading of contagion makes it are really awful 4 level spell(touch attack + fort negates + save against the initial disease effects at fixed DC)

[wakedown]

Charender wrote:

Again, the spell contagion gives you an effect. If you go into the cloud, you contract a disease. You can make a save against the disease itself, but you cannot avoid contracting a disease.

The cloud says it "duplicates the effects of contagion". Contagion is a touch attack followed by a saving throw to avoid becoming diseased. That's the effect of being hit by a contagion spell - you make a saving throw and hope you don't get diseased.

When I read an ability that duplicates, causes the same effect, etc of a spell, I run the spell. Just like it was cast on someone, and just like the touch attack (or whatever) hit successfully.

I think that's the issue, the description section is being mistaken as an effects section, and that interpretation shortcuts past the full effects of a spell being cast (which often means an area is affected, a certain number of targets are affected, a saving throw is needed, etc).

It's even more contentious if you are using the SRD, since it actually includes an "EFFECT" header between "Components" and "Range".

Take a look at Contagion

If you skim through the Core book, it seems that range/duration/saving throws are all part of "the effect of a spell".

You can't simply ignore the saving throw part of a spell's effect because the ability referencing that spell doesn't call it out. There's countless examples in all the books we have now.

Take the witch's poison steep, "in which she can steep fruits and other delicious edibles, transforming them so that when eaten, they have the same effect as a poison spell."

It doesn't say anything about a saving throw for eating the fruit. By some of the logic in this thread, whoever eats the apple is instantly poisoned without a saving throw because it doesn't say a saving throw is needed. But it clearly says they "have the same effect as a poison spell", so why wouldn't you simply resolve the outcome of eating the apple as if a touch attack was automatically successful and a Poison spell was cast on you, and your next step in resolving the effect is to make your Fortitude save?

[Joesi]

I kinda regret resurrecting this (not that it's a necro or anything really), but I just spent a lot of time getting carried away making a post, and I don't want to delete it now, so here it is.

wakedown wrote:

You can't simply ignore the saving throw part of a spell's effect because the ability referencing that spell doesn't call it out. There's countless examples in all the books we have now.

Take the witch's poison steep, "in which she can steep fruits and other delicious edibles, transforming them so that when eaten, they have the same effect as a poison spell."

It doesn't say anything about a saving throw for eating the fruit. By some of the logic in this thread, whoever eats the apple is instantly poisoned without a saving throw because it doesn't say a saving throw is needed. But it clearly says they "have the same effect as a poison spell", so why wouldn't you simply resolve the outcome of eating the apple as if a touch attack was automatically successful and a Poison spell was cast on you, and your next step in resolving the effect is to make your Fortitude save?

Countless seems inaccurate, but that's aside the point. Poison steep says "has the same effect as a poison spell" not "target is under the effect of a poison spell when it's eaten", so while it's still ambiguous if there should be a save, it's more clearly implying (It's still not clear) that it's casting the spell on the target (in which case it would have a save). It's the same sort of thing with Plague bomb, since "has the same effect" seems synonymous with "duplicates the effect".

Confusion bomb could very well be a case of the writer making a blunder, but it's certainly distinct from other sorts of things which allow for saves by saying "A creature that takes a direct hit from a confusion bomb ... is under the effect of a confusion spell for 1 round per caster level". In a scenario where the ability is directly targeting a creature, it makes no sense to say "is under the effect of" instead of "becomes the target of" or "must make a will save, or else is under the effect of" if they meant one of the latter 2.

It seems clear what it's saying unless you think it's wording was a mistake (which is fine for RAI). When dealing with RAW, you can never assume it was a mistake in writing. It very well could be RAI, and every player should be OK with however their GM rules/interprets it (be it the RAW way or not), but it doesn't make it RAW. We don't have confirmation what the RAI is, and that's why everyone wants clarification. I've personally thought it was a mistake, but generally not necessarily a significant impact to the game when interpreting it RAW.

I would think that those who read this discussion would see that people seem to think that neither way will outright break the game, and at the worst it's just overpowered or underpowered. Lots of things are quite overpowered or underpowered in this game; DM's should chose their ruling and defend it, while everyone should wait for Paizo clarification on the issue.

In summary I personally see 3 facts:
- I think it's incorrect to claim that RAW says it should have a save. (is this disputed? I'm thinking some people might dispute this?)
- It's obviously perfectly fine (and maybe even popular) for GMs to rule that it should have a save if they don't like it.
- We all want feedback from Paizo, and balance and other discussion won't give us any real solution. (Bumps maybe help though? Does the discussion maybe help them with their decision too? Seems doubtful)

[Pathfinder Design Team]

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

[Rogue Eidolon]

Excellent!

[Claxon]

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

PDT to the rescue again!

<3!

[Cheapy]

Hurray for common sense!

[Charender]

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

any chance we could get a clarification about other similar abilities? IE does this only affect confusion bombs, or is this a more general interpretation that affects all similar bombs?

[Wolfmang]

Grunch.

Just wanted to note that a lack of saving throws for confusion is not unprecedented. Gunslingers can, for example, use Targeting to target a creature's head. Upon a hit, the creature is confused for one round with no save.

[Pathfinder Design Team]

This ruling only applies to the confusion bomb.

There's a big difference between a gunslinger spending a full-round action to make a target confused for 1 round and an alchemist spending an attack to make a target confused for 1 round/level (minimum 8 rounds, as the discovery requires alchemist level 8), especially as the alchemist can throw multiple confusion bombs per round.

[Gingerbreadman]

The good thing about this is that I can scratch "Bomb alchemist" from the list of classes I want to play in the future.

Back to good old overpowered full casters.

[Jamie Charlan]

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

OH.

So it's useless then.

[Cheapy]

And then you can replace it with the Overreactionary trait!

[Jamie Charlan]

We CAN look on the bright side I guess: If you multiclass, you can save on Selective bombs, since no one in the party will ever fail their save against the bomb.

Not sure why you're throwing it since neither do the monsters in that case though.

[Partizanski]

Jamie Charlan wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

OH.

So it's useless then.

Really, useless? Not as strong sure, but completely useless? The save DC scales with your level and the stat that is raises your damage. When you get it at level 8, it will have the same DC as a equally stated wizard casting it, and then it will go up. And that is assuming you don't pick up cognatogen for +4 intelligence (which every bomber should).

So you have a damaging high save confusion which you can throw out multiple times. At this level you can get greater invisibility, so you will rarely miss.

I admit it is not as broken as it used to be, but it is still one of the most powerful discoveries an alchemist can take at the moment.

[Xaratherus]

Partizanski wrote:

Jamie Charlan wrote:

Pathfinder Design Team wrote:

FAQ: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9rbh

Alchemist, Confusion Bomb: Should this discovery require a saving throw?

Yes. The target of the bomb may attempt at a save against the confusion effect (Will negates, using the bomb's DC).

This will be corrected in the next printing of Ultimate Magic.

OH.

So it's useless then.

Really, useless? Not as strong sure, but completely useless? The save DC scales with your level and the stat that is raises your damage. When you get it at level 8, it will have the same DC as a equally stated wizard casting it, and then it will go up. And that is assuming you don't pick up cognatogen for +4 intelligence (which every bomber should).

So you have a damaging high save confusion which you can throw out multiple times. At this level you can get greater invisibility, so you will rarely miss.

I admit it is not as broken as it used to be, but it is still one of the most powerful discoveries an alchemist can take at the moment.

Didn't you know? If it's not an auto-"I win" button, it's not worth taking.

</sarcasm>

You're absolutely right, it's far from useless. An alchemist with fast bombs will still be able to force multiple save attempts and has a chance that this 'save or suck' will take effect.

[James Risner]

Xaratherus wrote:

You're absolutely right, it's far from useless.

I take it he hasn't played a 20th level Cleric recently. Where the best spells against someone is to Miracle for a Disintegrate and pray they fail the 9th level spell DC (which requires they roll a 1 on the save.) But hey they made the save so they take 5d6. The only other sure thing effect I know is Tsunami's 8d6.

In other words, Cleric's at level 20 don't have very many no save effect and he wants one that alchemist can use all across level ranges?

[Partizanski]

James Risner wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

You're absolutely right, it's far from useless.

I take it he hasn't played a 20th level Cleric recently. Where the best spells against someone is to Miracle for a Disintegrate and pray they fail the 9th level spell DC (which requires they roll a 1 on the save.) But hey they made the save so they take 5d6. The only other sure thing effect I know is Tsunami's 8d6.

In other words, Cleric's at level 20 don't have very many no save effect and he wants one that alchemist can use all across level ranges?

Actually, I am very happy that this ruling has come in, even though my main PFS character is a (now retired) alchemist. Auto confusion kinda made some encounters look more like a Monty Python sketch with multiple enemies smacking themselves, allies, and babbling.

This pulls in the reigns on an ability that was far too good.

[fretgod99]

James Risner wrote:

Xaratherus wrote:

You're absolutely right, it's far from useless.

I take it he hasn't played a 20th level Cleric recently. Where the best spells against someone is to Miracle for a Disintegrate and pray they fail the 9th level spell DC (which requires they roll a 1 on the save.) But hey they made the save so they take 5d6. The only other sure thing effect I know is Tsunami's 8d6.

In other words, Cleric's at level 20 don't have very many no save effect and he wants one that alchemist can use all across level ranges?

i don't think we should be analyzing the utility of (potentially) 8th level class abilities based on how effective they might still be 12 levels later. That it might not be the greatest ability at level 20 doesn't mean it can't be perfectly workable for, say, levels 8-12 or whatever.

[Jamie Charlan]

RTA is pretty reliable a hit.

The Confusion component, however, has a save DC only one higher [at 20th] than a 9th level spell would [until 19th it is equal to a spell of highest available level in DC, both use your casting stat as well], and so would be roughly as easy to save against.

It is also a single-target mind-affecting effect. Vermin/Swarms[if not intelligent], Undead, Plants, Oozes, Constructs/Inevitables, Behemoths, as well as Troops, all 'Kami' and certain outsiders are flat out immune. Anything else still gets its save, a save just as easy to make as that ninth level spell of yours.

For a cleric, would you not be better off using Canopic Conversion, Energy Drain or Implosion?

[Mergy]

I don't see how a will save or confused per bomb is useless, but I'm just going to be happy that the broken discovery has been fixed. :)

[James Risner]

fretgod99 wrote:

i don't think we should be analyzing the utility of (potentially) 8th level class abilities based on how effective they might still be 12 levels later.

My point was that 20th level Cleric's don't have much in the way of "no save" effective things.

Jamie Charlan wrote:

For a cleric, would you not be better off using Canopic Conversion, Energy Drain or Implosion?

Canopic has strange material components (you would have 1000's of GP in stuff.

Energy Drain is negated by Scarab of Protections.

Implosion is pointless as it is Save Negates and most save on a 2 or more.

[nthrun5000]

Good to see the errata, with no save the ability is too powerful. Unfortunately with a save on it, it becomes fairly lack luster. You've spent a discovery for something Wizards and Sorcerer's get as a spell. Anyway, better to err on the weaker side than the more powerful one.

[Psyren]

VINDICATION!!!!

I am very happy about this ruling.

nthrun5000 wrote:

Good to see the errata, with no save the ability is too powerful. Unfortunately with a save on it, it becomes fairly lack luster. You've spent a discovery for something Wizards and Sorcerer's get as a spell. Anyway, better to err on the weaker side than the more powerful one.

Spells have SR, Bombs do not. So this is still worthwhile. Before you could confuse a Balor with no chance of him doing anything about it.

[Mekkis]

James Risner wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

i don't think we should be analyzing the utility of (potentially) 8th level class abilities based on how effective they might still be 12 levels later.

My point was that 20th level Cleric's don't have much in the way of "no save" effective things.

Terrible Remorse would like a word with you....

[Diego Rossi]

Mekkis wrote:

James Risner wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

i don't think we should be analyzing the utility of (potentially) 8th level class abilities based on how effective they might still be 12 levels later.

My point was that 20th level Cleric's don't have much in the way of "no save" effective things.

Terrible Remorse would like a word with you....

PRD wrote:

Terrible Remorse

School enchantment (compulsion) [emotion, mind-affecting]; Level bard 3, cleric 4, inquisitor 3, sorcerer/wizard 4

Casting Time 1 standard action

Components V, S

Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)

Target 1 living creature

Duration 1 round/level

Saving Throw Will partial (see text); Spell Resistance yes

You fill a target with such profound remorse that it begins to harm itself. Each round, the target must save or deal 1d8 points of damage + its Strength modifier to itself using an item held in its hand or with unarmed attacks. If the creature saves, it is staggered for 1 round and takes a -2 penalty to Armor Class, after which the spell ends.

It has a limited effect if the target save, but it has a save, so what is your point?

[Mekkis]

Last I checked, staggering an enemy was better than doing a rather small amount of damage. Sure, it might not be effective on a failed save... but on a successful save, it's pretty good.

[Diego Rossi]

Staggering a enemy using a 4th level spell.

Frigid touch will do that with a 2nd level spell. Add spectral hand to use it at a range and you will be using two 2rd level spells, but spectral hand will stay in effect even after you have used Frigid touch.

AFIK there are no other low level spells that stagger a target, but it isn't so spectacular unless you are targeting someone that need to make full attacks to be effective.

PRD wrote:

Staggered: A staggered creature may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can he take full-round actions). A staggered creature can still take free, swift and immediate actions. A creature with nonlethal damage exactly equal to its current hit points gains the staggered condition.

[Majuba]

Would just like to point out that the Contagion Bomb would do automatic damage from the disease. When the onset time is over (instantly for contagion, you deal the initial damage - there's not another save then to prevent it (common mistake).

[Devilkiller]

I somehow just noticed this ruling, but I'm pleased with it. Thanks PDT.