Throw bombs while wielding a weapon.

[LordCoSaX]

Hello all, I have a question about the alchemist class specifically.

One of my players is an alchemist solely focused on ranged combat, so he throws bombs and uses a bow the rest of the time.

From my understanding of alchemist bombs, and from their description, they are an inert compound that must be mixed with a catalyst in order to become explosive. Logically, the alchemist would need to pull his stuff out, mix it with the catalyst and throw it. That's a standard action, that's fine.

My player contends that he can wield his bow and throw bombs at the same time. I dont see how that makes sense. To wield his bow he needs to hold it, and to mix bombs he obviously needs to use his two hands. I say he cant be wielding his bow and mixing bombs at the same time, which means that if in round 1 he throws a bomb, then in round 2 wants to shoot his bow, he cant full-attack since he has to use a move action to ''draw'' his weapon. He could then shoot one arrow.

I think technically speaking, RAW, he may be right, but I don't know for sure. Either way it makes no logical sense to me that you could do that so I might just house-rule it, but I still wanted to know for sure what the rules are regarding that.

Thanks in advance.

[MurphysParadox]

The rules do not specify that you need two hands free to use a bomb. Just that it is a standard action to make and deliver it, and that throwing is the method used - so it requires at least one free hand.

It isn't a huge deal to let him toss a bomb while holding onto the bow; he can't do both in the same round and he has so few bombs a day, the range is so small, and it is about the only way he won't just stand 80 feet away from every fight firing arrows at stuff. So really, it is in your favor to let him do it that way. Anything that makes an archer stand closer to a fight is good for the GM.

[Chess Pwn]

If you need to just imagine that most the work is done, like a glow stick, he just needs one hand to squeeze it enough to trigger the reaction. But it doesn't say he needs two hands to mix, just the one should work.

[LordCoSaX]

If its that simple what is stopping dmg from making the bombs detonate? If its not two components that are kept apart and need to be mixed together, being hit or grappled could make the bombs explode on the alchemist.

[Chess Pwn]

What is stopping it is that the rules don't say it happens from damage or a grapple, but that the alchemist can do it. Maybe it only resonates with that alchemist's "magic" to let him crush it.
This is another case of rules say... and figuring out how that works. The rules say it works so it does, it's up to you to figure out how it works if you want to know how it works. Because there is nothing saying how it works, just that it does. Examples of this is a halfling grappling a Huge dragon, or a crane wing deflecting a Huge dragon's bite. Both are rules saying it works, but I have know idea why it works.

[Rub-Eta]

He is right RAW and RAI. If you want to go the other way and say "you need two hands" you just nerfd him HARD. And bombs can't explode unless used by the alchemist.

You will find that there are other things that doesn't really make sense in Pathfinder.

[LordCoSaX]

Rub-Eta wrote:

You will find that there are other things that doesn't really make sense in Pathfinder.

Im well aware, and these are the things that annoy me. I guess it's a balance choice to allow the alchemist to act in this way, but at least they could have explained the ability better as to make logical sense. It says you have to mix stuff to make the bomb and throw it, they could just as well have said that you just pick up the inert bomb and infuse it with magic and then throw it. Would of served their purpose without breaking logic.

Anyway thanks for the answers. My intention was in no way, shape or form to nerf my player's character, I just want things to make sense at my table.

[Psyren]

I'm with you OP - if he was holding a one-handed weapon that would be one thing, but a 2H weapon + bombs is a no-no unless he's a tiefling with Prehensile Tail or something.

[Chess Pwn]

Psyren wrote:

I'm with you OP - if he was holding a one-handed weapon that would be one thing, but a 2H weapon + bombs is a no-no unless he's a tiefling with Prehensile Tail or something.

why? what's the difference between holding a one handed weapon and holding a two handed weapon? He's not needing to wield either while doing the bomb deal.

[Zwordsman]

LordCoSaX wrote:

If its that simple what is stopping dmg from making the bombs detonate? If its not two components that are kept apart and need to be mixed together, being hit or grappled could make the bombs explode on the alchemist.

They also infuse some of their own magical energy to start off the explosion.

So you could think of it like a glowstick, and when he cracks the stick he puts a bit of his own power into it, which is hte last component needed to go boom.

[Lost In Limbo]

When I think of how my alchemist character uses his bombs, I imagine him activating the contents of the bottle with a zap of magic, shaking it to begin the reaction, and then lobbing it before it blows up in his hand.

[Psyren]

Chess Pwn wrote:

why? what's the difference between holding a one handed weapon and holding a two handed weapon? He's not needing to wield either while doing the bomb deal.

Because bombs count as ranged attacks, and you can't attack with a second weapon while both hands are occupied. You can take a hand off your 2H weapon to do other things (like cast a spell) but not to whip out a dagger an then continue attacking with the 2H weapon during the same attack routine.

They even nerfed spiked gauntlets for this reason.

[MurphysParadox]

He's actually talking about throwing a bomb on round one (while holding the bow in one hand), then on the second round taking a full attack with the bow.

The player was not trying to fire an arrow with the first iterative attack and throw a bomb with the second iterative attack within the same full attack action.

[Some Random Dood]

Psyren wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

why? what's the difference between holding a one handed weapon and holding a two handed weapon? He's not needing to wield either while doing the bomb deal.

Because bombs count as ranged attacks, and you can't attack with a second weapon while both hands are occupied. You can take a hand off your 2H weapon to do other things (like cast a spell) but not to whip out a dagger an then continue attacking with the 2H weapon during the same attack routine.

They even nerfed spiked gauntlets for this reason.

But he's not trying to attack with both in the same round. He was only throwing a bomb while holding the bow in one hand.

[Psyren]

Ah, gotcha. Yeah if he's not trying to do them both in the same sequence then it should be fine.

[Chess Pwn]

Still, If he has two iterative attacks he could totally do one with the sword and the second with the bomb, if he has the fast bomb discovery. You can swing a sword two handed, drop it and quick draw a bow, and then shoot the bow for your second attack.

[Psyren]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Still, If he has two iterative attacks he could totally do one with the sword and the second with the bomb, if he has the fast bomb discovery. You can swing a sword two handed, drop it and quick draw a bow, and then shoot the bow for your second attack.

I'm also fine with you dropping a weapon (or another method of changing weapons as a free action) mid-sequence to go to bombs. But if you can't switch weapons as a free action then that is where you will run into trouble.