Do Alchemist bombs work with a Conductive Weapon?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

The Bombs class feature is a bit of a mess in that it's a set of combined actions. You draw the components for, mix, and throw the bomb all with the same action. The act of mixing and throwing the bomb isn't supernatural, but the effects of the bomb are. But the rules never make this distinction. Bombs meet all the prerequisites of the conductive property.

I think the only argument against them working together is that it goes against the logic of bombs. The ranged touch attack shouldn't be considered supernatural, just the effects, and a conductive weapon is an odd substitution for the process of alchemy. Though, as mentioned, explosive missile essentially does the same thing. It's a powerful option, but nothing too crazy.


It's a magic weapon.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
**EDIT** And may I add, on what grounds does an object, being used as a Thrown Splash Attack type of weapon, of whose origins come from an SU or SP ability, qualify to work with the Conductive Property?

On the grounds that nowhere in the Conductive property does the enhancement say, "Supernatural and Spell-like abilities that include an object are disqualified from being used with the Conductive property".

By RAW, can a non-Alchemist take a vial of reagent and catalyst, mix them together, throw it, and have any useful effect? No. Then the supernatural ability is an integral part of the object's function, and without the supernatural ability throwing the object is useless - thus, the object and the throw are all parts of the same supernatural ability.

The whole "but it's an object!" argument keeps getting tossed around, yet there's no basis for it whatsoever in the RAW of the Conductive property. The RAI argument seems to be, "Well, it doesn't make sense that you can use a physical object with the conductive property!" But then again, there are plenty of ways around that - for instance, crushing the vials against the arrow to soak the shaft in them, then infusing it with your energy - no problem.


Rynjin wrote:
They only exist as part of the ability. The ability IS Bombs. The ability is not "Bomb creation", you can't like make a Bomb and then have it exist for any length of time afterwards.

The length of time is 1 round. One could for example make a bomb and use it for an attack of opportunity later in the same round.

Bomb is a supernatural ability that allows one to make temporary ranged splash weapons.

No conductive.


Hawktitan wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
They only exist as part of the ability. The ability IS Bombs. The ability is not "Bomb creation", you can't like make a Bomb and then have it exist for any length of time afterwards.

The length of time is 1 round. One could for example make a bomb and use it for an attack of opportunity later in the same round.

Bomb is a supernatural ability that allows one to make temporary ranged splash weapons.

No conductive.

That would require a feat, since you wouldn't threaten with it normally. And just like class abilities are designed assuming a two-armed humanoid, they're also designed assuming that they can be functional without specific feats.

The Bomb ability states that it allows you to draw and mix components and throw them ("Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity."). Separating the throw from the ability itself is an arbitrary step that is not supported by the RAW of the ability; despite the cries of "straw man!" I still stand by the fact that same logic would indicate you can arbitrarily separate the touch attack granted by the use of a touch spell-like ability and declare that it can't be used with Conductive "because it's a supernatural ability that allows one to make temporary touch attacks".

Silver Crusade

Xaratherus has presented the only argument that makes any sense by RAW, although my opinion was that it would work before I saw his argument. Nothing in the conductive weapon property limits what type of (Su) and (Sp) abilities it works with, only that they be delivered through a touch attack, whether melee or ranged. Bombs are a (Su) ability and are delivered through a ranged touch attack. Therefore, they work with the conductive property.

Sczarni

It's actually possible to cast a touch spell without using it. It's called holding a charge. This is because the touch granted by the spell is an additional free action granted by touch spells, per the rules. However, the creation of a bomb and the throwing of the bomb are the exact same action. The throw is not a free action granted by the ability, thus you cannot create a bomb without throwing it. The standard action to create the bomb requires you to throw the bomb. Since the ability is Supernatural, the entire ability is supernatural, which means the throwing of the bomb is supernatural as well. Hence, ranged supernatural touch attack.

Yes Conductive.


Kaito Darkborn wrote:

It's actually possible to cast a touch spell without using it. It's called holding a charge. This is because the touch granted by the spell is an additional free action granted by touch spells, per the rules. However, the creation of a bomb and the throwing of the bomb are the exact same action. The throw is not a free action granted by the ability, thus you cannot create a bomb without throwing it. The standard action to create the bomb requires you to throw the bomb. Since the ability is Supernatural, the entire ability is supernatural, which means the throwing of the bomb is supernatural as well. Hence, ranged supernatural touch attack.

Yes Conductive.

Responding to the bolded part - you can absolutely choose to make but not throw an alchemist bomb, it would be unusual, but you could.

Sczarni

How so? They are the same action. The throw is not a free action, thus you cannot separate the two.


Rynjin wrote:
Davick wrote:


EDIT: Oh also, does that mean if I had Summon Monster as an SLA and I could summon something that made touch attacks I could channel it through a conductive weapon?

No, because Summon Monster creates an actual creature with a number of different abilities and its own mind.

Likewise, many Creation spells won't work because they create actual objects (and are defined as objects).

Bombs and Flame Blade are not this.

You're moving the goal posts. You're defining the limits of conductive arbitrarily where you want them to be defined. As far as I can tell, Bombs are this and create an actual object. A BOMB. Bombs can even have a number of different abilities given the correct discoveries.

Silver Crusade

Hawktitan wrote:
Kaito Darkborn wrote:

It's actually possible to cast a touch spell without using it. It's called holding a charge. This is because the touch granted by the spell is an additional free action granted by touch spells, per the rules. However, the creation of a bomb and the throwing of the bomb are the exact same action. The throw is not a free action granted by the ability, thus you cannot create a bomb without throwing it. The standard action to create the bomb requires you to throw the bomb. Since the ability is Supernatural, the entire ability is supernatural, which means the throwing of the bomb is supernatural as well. Hence, ranged supernatural touch attack.

Yes Conductive.

Responding to the bolded part - you can absolutely choose to make but not throw an alchemist bomb, it would be unusual, but you could.

Absolutely not. The standard action is the creation and use of the bomb. There is no listed action for just creating a bomb or just using a bomb. Therefore, when you create the bomb, you immediately have to use it. Unless, of course, you can find me rules text for what type of action it is to create, but not use, a bomb.

Davick wrote:
You're moving the goal posts. You're defining the limits of conductive arbitrarily where you want them to be defined. As far as I can tell, Bombs are this and create an actual object. A BOMB. Bombs can even have a number of different abilities given the correct discoveries.

Really? Can you sunder a bomb? What are you going to do, ready an action to sunder it when the alchemist creates it? If that's the case, your readied action goes off before he creates the bomb and there's nothing to sunder. You could sunder his catalyst vial, but that would not do much except destroy 1 catalyst. Chances are he has others and he can make more once combat is over. So unfortunately, even though it seems like the Bombs (Su) ability creates a physical object, at no point in time does this physical object acttually exist where it can be interacted with, other than by the alchemist with his creation and throwing of it.


From bomb wrote:
[...]and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert[...]

Says precisely what happens if they are not used.


Xaratherus wrote:
Hawktitan wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
They only exist as part of the ability. The ability IS Bombs. The ability is not "Bomb creation", you can't like make a Bomb and then have it exist for any length of time afterwards.

The length of time is 1 round. One could for example make a bomb and use it for an attack of opportunity later in the same round.

Bomb is a supernatural ability that allows one to make temporary ranged splash weapons.

No conductive.

That would require a feat, since you wouldn't threaten with it normally. And just like class abilities are designed assuming a two-armed humanoid, they're also designed assuming that they can be functional without specific feats.

The Bomb ability states that it allows you to draw and mix components and throw them ("Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity."). Separating the throw from the ability itself is an arbitrary step that is not supported by the RAW of the ability; despite the cries of "straw man!" I still stand by the fact that same logic would indicate you can arbitrarily separate the touch attack granted by the use of a touch spell-like ability and declare that it can't be used with Conductive "because it's a supernatural ability that allows one to make temporary touch attacks".

It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all. The point was, bombs can do something another character would require a conductive weapon to do.

Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability. It's a way to make throwing a bomb not take a full round. It's the same as spell components. You can draw them and cast a spell as part of a single action, but that doesn't mean components are spells. Just like bombs aren't abilities. They're bombs. The ability is named Bombs because why not name it bombs (this, this is why)?


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Hawktitan wrote:
Kaito Darkborn wrote:

It's actually possible to cast a touch spell without using it. It's called holding a charge. This is because the touch granted by the spell is an additional free action granted by touch spells, per the rules. However, the creation of a bomb and the throwing of the bomb are the exact same action. The throw is not a free action granted by the ability, thus you cannot create a bomb without throwing it. The standard action to create the bomb requires you to throw the bomb. Since the ability is Supernatural, the entire ability is supernatural, which means the throwing of the bomb is supernatural as well. Hence, ranged supernatural touch attack.

Yes Conductive.

Responding to the bolded part - you can absolutely choose to make but not throw an alchemist bomb, it would be unusual, but you could.

Absolutely not. The standard action is the creation and use of the bomb. There is no listed action for just creating a bomb or just using a bomb. Therefore, when you create the bomb, you immediately have to use it. Unless, of course, you can find me rules text for what type of action it is to create, but not use, a bomb.

Davick wrote:
You're moving the goal posts. You're defining the limits of conductive arbitrarily where you want them to be defined. As far as I can tell, Bombs are this and create an actual object. A BOMB. Bombs can even have a number of different abilities given the correct discoveries.
Really? Can you sunder a bomb? What are you going to do, ready an action to sunder it when the alchemist creates it? If that's the case, your readied action goes off before he creates the bomb and there's nothing to sunder. You could sunder his catalyst vial, but that would not do much except destroy 1 catalyst. Chances are he has others and he can make more once combat is over. So unfortunately, even though it seems like the Bombs (Su) ability creates a physical object, at no point in time does this physical...

So much for countering spells then, since if I ready an action to counter, he hasn't cast a spell for me to identify and counterspell with my own yet.

Why are there rules for bombs outside the hands of an alchemist if that physical object doesn't exist?


Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.

And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.


Xaratherus wrote:
Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.
And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.

When's the last time you mixed components to use an SLA? And you're still not looking at it in the context of spell components. Quit ignoring that.


Following with interest as I have a gunslinger/ alchemist in progress in PFS (and a vague interest in building a truly stupid-powerful gnome BBEG capable of doing great wyrm / nuclear damage without the pesky saving throws).

For the pro-Conductive bombs folks...

Spoiler:
How many times do you think a BBEG gnome (pyromancer) magus 6 (myrmidarch) / alchemist 14 (grenadier) should be able to stack conductive delayed bombs inside of other conductive delayed bombs?

Related: ... and can you have an explosive missile bomb conductive bomb bomb? (Conductive Arcana on Weapon Bomb + Explosive Missle Discovery with Delayed Bomb), and would targeted bomb admixture add to all 3? Curious how many bricks of d6's I'm going to need.

-TimD


Xaratherus wrote:
Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.
And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.

Your logic makes my brain hurt.

A spell like ability that grants a touch attack doesn't mean the touch attack is part of the ability..... If it wasn't for my horse I wouldn't have spent the year in college.... *blood starts shooting through my nose*

Where does the word 'touch' ever appear in the Bombs ability. I'll wait while you find it.

Silver Crusade

Hawktitan wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.
And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.

Your logic makes my brain hurt.

A spell like ability that grants a touch attack doesn't mean the touch attack is part of the ability..... If it wasn't for my horse I wouldn't have spent the year in college.... *blood starts shooting through my nose*

Where does the word 'touch' ever appear in the Bombs ability. I'll wait while you find it.

It says you treat the bomb like a thrown spalsh weapon. When you reference thrown splash weapons, you find out that they use a ranged touch attack. You can be pedantic all you want, but when you're wrong and pedantic, it just makes you look like you're whining.


Because the bomb ability lets you make thrown splash weapons that last one round. That's what it does.

Silver Crusade

Hawktitan wrote:
Because the bomb ability lets you make thrown splash weapons that last one round. That's what it does.

That's great, except there are no rules anywhere that allow an alchemist to create a bomb and not use it. How can you not see that the ability clearly states that creating the bomb and using the bomb are the same action?


Davick wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.
And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.
When's the last time you mixed components to use an SLA? And you're still not looking at it in the context of spell components. Quit ignoring that.

First, why would I look at it in regards to spell components? It's not a spell; the ability doesn't work with spells; in fact, the types of abilities it works with explicitly are described as generally not requiring any components whatsoever.

Second, I did mention a way that the components are taken into account: You hold your bow in one hand, pull the vials and palm them, draw the arrow, crush the vials on the arrow (soaking it in the catalyst and reagent), channel your energy into it, and fire the arrow. All that can be done while holding your bow in the other hand.


Hawktitan wrote:
Xaratherus wrote:
Davick wrote:
It is usable without feats, that wasn't the point there at all.

That was the point; please read the conversation again and follow it up to my response.

Hawkitan's reply was to the statement that there's no reason you would ever really make a bomb and then not throw it. Hawktitan responded that you could create it on your turn and not immediately throw it, then throw it as an AoO later in that same round.

You cannot do that without a feat.

Davick wrote:
Just because you can mix the components and throw them as one action, doesn't mean what you're throwing is part of the ability.
And to sound like a broken record: By that exact same logic, a spell-like ability that grants a touch attack can't be used with Conductive. Just because the spell-like ability grants you a touch attack doesn't mean that the touch attack is part of the ability - and since that's required for Conductive to function, poof - no more SLA touch attacks with Conductive.

Your logic makes my brain hurt.

A spell like ability that grants a touch attack doesn't mean the touch attack is part of the ability..... If it wasn't for my horse I wouldn't have spent the year in college.... *blood starts shooting through my nose*

If the touch attack isn't part of the ability, then by the definition of Conductive as you're parsing it, it doesn't work with it.

I see no reason to respond to you further since at this point you're either intentionally being obtuse or you lack the basic understanding necessary for the discussion to bear any useful results.


TimD wrote:
How many times do you think a BBEG gnome (pyromancer) magus 6 (myrmidarch) / alchemist 14 (grenadier) should be able to stack conductive delayed bombs inside of other conductive delayed bombs?

Conductive can only be used once per round (arguably, once per round per conductive weapon) and the Bomb ability states that the effects only remain potent for a round - so you'd only be able to channel the power of one bomb through a ranged attack per round.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Hawktitan wrote:
Because the bomb ability lets you make thrown splash weapons that last one round. That's what it does.
That's great, except there are no rules anywhere that allow an alchemist to create a bomb and not use it. How can you not see that the ability clearly states that creating the bomb and using the bomb are the same action?

Im gonna play devils advocate and ask why a bomb can go inert then? If u HAVE to throw it when its created, why did they add the text that if a bomb is not used it goes inert?

I think u can if ur wanting to use it as the poster stated for a attack of oppertunity, but if they dont use it for an attack then they wasted a bomb for that day.

Can anyone find a supernatural spell that uses components that woukd qualify for conductive? If so then bombs using the vials and such doesnt matter then if other ones have to use a component to be able use.


Redneckdevil wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Hawktitan wrote:
Because the bomb ability lets you make thrown splash weapons that last one round. That's what it does.
That's great, except there are no rules anywhere that allow an alchemist to create a bomb and not use it. How can you not see that the ability clearly states that creating the bomb and using the bomb are the same action?

Im gonna play devils advocate and ask why a bomb can go inert then? If u HAVE to throw it when its created, why did they add the text that if a bomb is not used it goes inert?

I think u can if ur wanting to use it as the poster stated for a attack of oppertunity, but if they dont use it for an attack then they wasted a bomb for that day.

Can anyone find a supernatural spell that uses components that woukd qualify for conductive? If so then bombs using the vials and such doesnt matter then if other ones have to use a component to be able use.

If the bomb did not go inert, you could mix a bunch of bombs before combat and then use TWF to throw multiple bombs in a round - which would effectively make Fast Bombs useless.

[edit]
And just to note, I would allow an Alchemist who has Snap Shot to make a bomb and not throw it, with the intent of using it as a possible AoO. However, as I mentioned that requires a fairly significant feat investment and design philosophy indicates that they wouldn't have factored that in when creating the Bomb ability.


Thats the thing though that we are debating. U couldnt stockpile a bunch of bombs even if they didnt go inert by the reasoning because the standard action is creating AND throwing them. By the arguements stating that u HAVE to use a bomb, that line wouldnt need to be there then if they couldnt JUST make a bomb but indeed HAVE TO create AND throw.

Tbh i think if we could find a supernatural ability that uses components, then this issue would be solved. If there is no supernatural abilities that qualify that indeed has to have components, then bombs do not work with conductive. Thats my line of thought there on how to solve this question.


People really need to read the ability about what they are arguing about

Quote:
Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert

This line says (or at least it implies) that it's possible for them to not be used and describes what happens when they don't. Creating and throwing the bomb is a single standard action - no one is disputing that and it's very clear.

However an ability granting a splash thrown weapon attack is not the same as granting a ranged touch attack - it's simply not. If we disagree on that point then there is no point in arguing further. As you can tell from this thread I'm not the only one that thinks so. At the bare minimum, expect table variance.

It also fails a simple logic test - is the conductive property roughly equal to other +1 enhancements when used in this manner.

Silver Crusade

Hawktitan wrote:

People really need to read the ability about what they are arguing about

Quote:
Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert

This line says (or at least it implies) that it's possible for them to not be used and describes what happens when they don't. Creating and throwing the bomb is a single standard action - no one is disputing that and it's very clear.

However an ability granting a splash thrown weapon attack is not the same as granting a ranged touch attack - it's simply not. If we disagree on that point then there is no point in arguing further. As you can tell from this thread I'm not the only one that thinks so. At the bare minimum, expect table variance.

It also fails a simple logic test - is the conductive property roughly equal to other +1 enhancements when used in this manner.

I've read the ability numerous times. I just want to know where the rules are for creating, but not using, a bomb. Show me those please. You've shown me the rules for what happens to the bomb if you don't use it. Now show me the rules for how I create, but not use, a bomb.

Also, in reference to AoOs, I'm of the opinion that if an alchemist meets all the requirements for taking a ranged AoO, they can do it with a bomb without having to "pre-mix" the bomb. An AoO uses the attack action, which we know is a standard action. Creating and throwing a bomb is also spelled out as a standard action. Based on that, I see no reason why you couldn't use a bomb in an AoO.


Quote:
An AoO uses the attack action, which we know is a standard action. Creating and throwing a bomb is also spelled out as a standard action. Based on that, I see no reason why you couldn't use a bomb in an AoO.

No, an AoO does not use the attack action. As a simple counter example Vital strike uses the attack action, you can not vital strike on an AoO.

Quick thread for reference.

Silver Crusade

Hawktitan wrote:
Quote:
An AoO uses the attack action, which we know is a standard action. Creating and throwing a bomb is also spelled out as a standard action. Based on that, I see no reason why you couldn't use a bomb in an AoO.

No, an AoO does not use the attack action. As a simple counter example Vital strike uses the attack action, you can not vital strike on an AoO.

Quick thread for reference.

Hmmm...an attack of opportunity is a single melee (or ranged attack if you qualify) and a melee (or ranged attack) is a standard action. So tell me again how an attack of opportunity is not the equivalent of a standard action?


Xaratherus wrote:
TimD wrote:
How many times do you think a BBEG gnome (pyromancer) magus 6 (myrmidarch) / alchemist 14 (grenadier) should be able to stack conductive delayed bombs inside of other conductive delayed bombs?
Conductive can only be used once per round (arguably, once per round per conductive weapon) and the Bomb ability states that the effects only remain potent for a round - so you'd only be able to channel the power of one bomb through a ranged attack per round.

It was more of an existential question for the bomb as to whether or not it is still considered "in existence" when absorbed (?) into a conductive weapon (which in this case happens to be another bomb).

Delayed bomb extends the "life" of a bomb beyond the standard 1 round in the base class ability "bomb".

-TimD


The difference is you can't vital strike/felling smash/overhand chop an AOO. This is one reason people feel that Vital Strike played by RAW is so terrible.

Another thread for reference

If you think I'm wrong about this I'd be happy to continue this discussion in another thread.


Ah, understood TimD.

I think we might be able to look at another FAQ (I'm in another thread discussing it now, actually) related to the Defending property for an answer. The FAQ for the Defending enhancement states that in order to benefit from it, you must use the item to which its connected. That's standard for all magic items, really - use the item, gain the benefit.

Conductive is the enhancement that allows you to burn two Su or Sp charges to 'imbue' the weapon with that ability. Since it's tied a weapon, you have to use the weapon in order to activate the effect. And that means you'd only be able to do one Bomb per Conductive weapon per round.


Rynjin wrote:
Bombs exist, but they are not an object. They're their own thing, completely undefined in the details of its existence besides the fact that it involves a catalyst of some sort and minor bits of magical energy.

While I find most of your arguments hold merit, this one is somewhat directly contradicted by the description of delayed bomb discovery. If it is not an object, it could not have contents which could be removed nor would the vial be able to be broken.

-TimD

Silver Crusade

Eh, it's not really a big deal to me. I'm more concerned with the whole bombs and conductive discussion than whether or not you can use a bomb on an AoO.


Redneckdevil wrote:


Im gonna play devils advocate and ask why a bomb can go inert then? If u HAVE to throw it when its created, why did they add the text that if a bomb is not used it goes inert?

My guess?

Abilities like Snatch Arrows.

They exist for a round because of abilities that can potentially interact with them past that one Standard action.


What precisely is the RAW argument for this not working? That conductive doesn't work with abilities that create objects (because I haven't read that in the ability) or that Bombs are not a touch attack (or not an attack at all?)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

I still don't think there is anything, that everyone, can agree, works with Conductive.

Vendetta?

Dark Archive

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still don't think there is anything, that everyone, can agree, works with Conductive.

Vendetta?

Lay on hands? (Being that it is the listed example in the description...)

Sczarni

But only with a Greatsword-wielding Paladin. Greataxes, go home!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Happler wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still don't think there is anything, that everyone, can agree, works with Conductive.

Vendetta?

Lay on hands? (Being that it is the listed example in the description...)

I thought that was being contested as well, despite being an example.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Happler wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still don't think there is anything, that everyone, can agree, works with Conductive.

Vendetta?

Lay on hands? (Being that it is the listed example in the description...)
I thought that was being contested as well, despite being an example.

I think I'm one of the only ones who brought up LoH - and it wasn't so much that I was contesting that it worked (I'm aware it does - it's the example they use, after all), I was contesting that by the logic used to disqualify Bomb it would cause LoH not to work.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Happler wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

I still don't think there is anything, that everyone, can agree, works with Conductive.

Vendetta?

Lay on hands? (Being that it is the listed example in the description...)
I thought that was being contested as well, despite being an example.

The truth of the matter is that it isn't being contested; more or less, it's being compared with the Bombs SU ability. If the book says so and so ability works with it, saying it doesn't is a matter of going against the RAW.

The part being contested is that the Bombs SU ability calls out for materials to be drawn (of which has been cited and proven to contain actual objects, one of which is a container holding the chemicals for the Bomb being created), compiled to together, and then thrown at the target, all within the same Standard Action. Most (if not all) other such abilities do not require actual objects to perform the touch attacks with, and using an object as an otherwise unquantified (manufactured) weapon at the very least calls into question whether such an ability is plausible to work with the Conductive Weapon property (which I argue the Bomb ability is to simply create the bomb to be able to throw at them; in terms of intent, that is).

The reason it is phrased to work as all in the same Standard Action is because doing so the other, old-fashioned way not only nullifies the point of the ability, but becomes impossible to do within the same round, of which the intent is that the Alchemist is so skilled with drawing and compiling such creations that they aren't as slow as other classes.

Another methodology as to why it's all "consolidated in the same action," is that if we assumed that drawing components (since the drawing and subjects in an Alchemy Crafting Kit behave similarly to a Spell Component Pouch) are a Free Action (of which there are 2 being taken), mixing them and infusing it with your magical reserve (some would argue Move Action, I'd say Free Action so as to further expand the ability's swiftness strengths, as well as the Alchemist's mere innate ability to do so), and then making an attack with a Thrown Splash Weapon (the Standard Action that any other regular Attack would simulate); disregarding the "All in the Standard Action" clause, the Alchemist would have to take 3 Free Actions (or 2 and a Move Action, if we want to be a real jerk about things) in addition to the Standard Action otherwise needed to make the Attack against the target.

Taking that into consideration, a really hardball GM could limit the Alchemist's Free Actions available to him through this method, and if he wanted to, say, activate a Boots of Speed, the GM could say "You spent a lot of Free Actions creating that Bomb, I won't allow you to use your Boots of Speed in the same round."

It's safe to say that obviously the intent of the "All in the Standard Action" clause is to not have the Free Actions the Alchemist would otherwise have to take hinder other Free Actions he would be able to take (in addition to those). To me, treating it otherwise makes no sense and doesn't add up consistently with similar abilities that function on the same level.


Xaratherus wrote:

First, why would I look at it in regards to spell components? It's not a spell; the ability doesn't work with spells; in fact, the types of abilities it works with explicitly are described as generally not requiring any components whatsoever.

Second, I did mention a way that the components are taken into account: You hold your bow in one hand, pull the vials and palm them, draw the arrow, crush the vials on the arrow (soaking it in the catalyst and reagent), channel your energy into it, and fire the arrow. All that can be done while holding your bow in the other hand.

I can only assume you have misunderstood everything I've said.

Drawing spell components does not affect the action of casting a spell. A spell with eschew materials is the same action as without. Also, components are not spells themselves. In the same sense, getting a free throw when creating a bomb does not mean the throw is a supernatural ability any more than components are spells. If you choose to create a bomb, you can throw it for free, just as if you choose to cast a spell, you can prepare components for free. But you can choose not to throw the bomb and you can choose not to prepare components. Creating a bomb does not rely on a touch attack to hit. The bomb it creates is used as a splash weapon. It relies on combining volatile extracts and magical reserves. That's it. The ability is making the bomb. It is coincidence that what it creates targets touch AC. No different than using conjuration magic to conjure a splash weapon to then be thrown or to summon a monster that targets touch AC with its attacks. (It doesn't say it has to rely on you making a touch attack...) I don't see how you could allow bombs and not summoned monsters. Them being "separate" is exactly my point about bombs.


The ability is not making the Bomb, though. The ability is creating AND THROWING the Bomb. I mean, it says it right there in the ability description.

You can't choose to not throw the Bomb that you made, because making and throwing the Bomb are the same action.

Meanwhile, Summoning conjures another creature. The spell is explicitly summoning the creature or object.

Then the creature or object is there.

The two things are separate. The spell summons the creature or object. Anything you DO with the creature or object requires a separate action.


Rynjin wrote:

The ability is not making the Bomb, though. The ability is creating AND THROWING the Bomb. I mean, it says it right there in the ability description.

You can't choose to not throw the Bomb that you made, because making and throwing the Bomb are the same action.

Meanwhile, Summoning conjures another creature. The spell is explicitly summoning the creature or object.

Then the creature or object is there.

The two things are separate. The spell summons the creature or object. Anything you DO with the creature or object requires a separate action.

Not being able to not throw a bomb you make makes as much sense as a monk flurrying with a weapon requiring two weapons because it works as twf. That's a world so devoid of rationailty I refuse to live in it. If that's the crux of the argument at this point, I'm done. I'll sit and wait for a developer response for a thousand years before I can seriously debate whether or not an alchemist has to throw any bombs they create. This is ludicrous.


1. Conductive does state that it channels the "energy"...so it's channeling just the power of the ability...you don't actually even use the ability...you simply burn game termed mechanical uses of said ability through the weapon

2. Conductive states that it must be an ability that RELIES on a touch attack to hit the target which bombs absolutely do

If there is no actual rules argument for whether or not the bomb relies on a touch attack then I fail to see anything wrong

A. All thrown splash weapons rely on a ranged touch attack to hit their target

B. Bombs follow rules for thrown splash weapons

C. Bombs happens to be a supernatural ability

If we add the collective knowledge of A + B + C there is the RAW that bombs work with conductive

My opinion is that it doesn't even matter...if an alchemist wants to use up 2 uses of his bombs shooting a bow...meaning he needs a higher than normal dex to hit since he is going against normal AC instead of touch...by all means do just that

Silver Crusade

So far I haven't really seen anything that says Bomb doesn't fit the prereqs for a Conductive weapon. Although I'd appreciate people not bringing up a "smell" or "logical" test. By that definition, Furious for a Barbarian 'fails' since you'd take it for any Barbarian regardless of circumstance. Just because we have a ton of terrible options doesn't make one that actually does something useful broken.


Rynjin wrote:

The ability is not making the Bomb, though. The ability is creating AND THROWING the Bomb. I mean, it says it right there in the ability description.

You can't choose to not throw the Bomb that you made, because making and throwing the Bomb are the same action.

Meanwhile, Summoning conjures another creature. The spell is explicitly summoning the creature or object.

Then the creature or object is there.

The two things are separate. The spell summons the creature or object. Anything you DO with the creature or object requires a separate action.

So then if I cast a Touch Spell, I must also make a Touch Attack in the same round as casting the Touch Spell; I can't choose to not make a Touch Attack with the Touch Spell, hold the charge and then wait until a future round in the combat to utilize it. (We can also take this extension to a Touch SP Ability.)

Seems legit enough for me; if you're going to apply that logic to one scenario, then you must apply it to all other scenarios it fits in, otherwise you're simply rigging the game to work the way you want it to, and we can play that game all day long.

After all, if you can't choose to not throw the Bomb, then there is a lot of excess wording that doesn't belong and needs to be cleaned up, period. None of this "Bomb goes inert if you pass to another character" or "Bomb goes inert if not used in the same round" needs to be in the ability description if it works the way you say it's supposed to.

Or maybe...just maybe...it's not supposed to work that way? Just a thought...I mean, if you're not allowed to do anything inbetween that action, then why is there language present that at the very least suggests you can do what the language implies you can do?

And guess what? The same logic would apply with the Bombs ability; let me paraphrase it for you:

"Meanwhile, Bomb creates a bomb. The ability is explicitly creating the weapon or object.

Then the weapon or object is there."

And then, by your RAW-Ful Stupid Alignment (see what I did there?), you're forced to throw the bomb. You can't keep it, you can't ready it to attempt to interrupt a spell being cast, you can't move out of cover and THEN throw it. No, not at all. It's right there, on the spot, you have to throw it. Period.

Even though there is so much language that suggests or implies otherwise. Logic.

101 to 150 of 166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Do Alchemist bombs work with a Conductive Weapon? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.