A monk can deflect the bombs that an alchemist throws, but those bombs are just an assortment of chemicals and whatnot, it doesn't really have a spherical case as one would assume a bomb would have.
So deflecting the alchemist bombs would of course deflect the bomb but as it is being deflected it would blow up in the monk's face then... right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Deflect Arrows is one of those 'no blood, no foul'-type abilities.
No. Deflect arrows would harmlessly deflect it.
How?
How?
In a nutshell, because the rules say so. What makes sense in the real world has no real bearing in the game itself
What about splash damage?
If an alchemist (or any class with bombs for that matter) throws a bomb that's a miss on the attack, it still explodes on a random square.
So if it doesn't blow up in the monk's face, doesn't it logically blow up in a random square?
It's not a miss, there's the rub. It's thrown, might have contacted, but was instead harmlessly deflected. It didn't miss, it just didn't hit. Therefor, nothing happens.
You could do what I do, after discussion things like this with my players, they liked the idea I came up with.
We faced the same situation, I have a scatter dice from my 40k playing days, so I roll that and a d6, it's flung in that direction, and that many spaces far from him. Anyone caught in the blast range after that gets a reflex save to avoid all damage, normally most things are halved like that, but since it's something we added for flavor, I let it avoid all.
Just something we decided as a group, makes it exciting and seems a bit more real. Of course, this does no popup often though. Keep in mind, the rules say it's deflected and nothing happens, but it all depends on the people playing, my group likes added dangers like this, your mileage may vary.
I read that page some time ago when hearing about bullets vs that feat, i used 'miss' in the loose form here. Slapping aside a bomb gives the feeling of missing your target.
Big woohoo....depending which side you're on.
Given time, maybe there's someone who's going to figure some cheesy way around it....just maybe.
Edit: Chozo Hybrid, that's an excellent idea. Consider me 'borrowing' that idea, should the opportunity ever come up.
Chozo Hybrid, that's an excellent idea. Consider me 'borrowing' that idea, should the opportunity ever come up.
Sure, no problem. So long as the group is all good with something, you can do anything with an rpg :)
Homebrew...houserules, as long as it's plausible and 'brought gently'.
The relevant FAQ on deflecting attacks.
Deflected attacks are not treated as misses. Nothing that would trigger on a miss (such as Splash Damage, or Feats that allow you to re-roll missed attacks, or what have you) do not trigger.
Fluff it any way you like. Maybe the character catches the bomb and drops it to the floor. Maybe he slaps it away and it detonates harmlessly in the air behind him somewhere.
So, if someone is using snatch arrows do they get to catch the bomb and hold it until later like the feat says?
They can, but Bombs become inert a round after being mixed and thrown so unless you throw it back immediately there's no point.
There's some text in the Bomb (Su) ability which implies to me that the Bombs have a physical casing, usually in the form of a vial:
In order to create a bomb, the alchemist must use a small vial containing an ounce of liquid catalyst—the alchemist can create this liquid catalyst from small amounts of chemicals from an alchemy lab, and these supplies can be readily refilled in the same manner as a spellcaster's component pouch. Most alchemists create a number of catalyst vials at the start of the day equal to the total number of bombs they can create in that day—once created, a catalyst vial remains usable by the alchemist for years.
That text doesn't specify exactly how the vial is used, but assuming it gets infused with the Alchemist's magical reserves and then thrown as the Bomb seems pretty reasonable to me. The idea of catching the Bomb with Snatch Arrows and throwing it back at the Alchemist seems like fun to me, but the rules for Bombs go on to say, "An alchemist's bomb, like an extract, becomes inert if used or carried by anyone else." Oh well!
As an aside, I used to play with a DM who allowed giants to catch Alchemist Bombs with Rock Catching, probably on the basis that they were "projectiles of similar shape".
Sure.
Pointless, but sure.
I would tend to disagree. I don't think a catch and return constitutes someone else possessing it.
I'm guessing that the restrictive language was put into the Bombs ability to prevent the Alchemist from sharing Bombs with other PCs rather than to prevent Monks from rebounding Bombs at the Alchemist, but per RAW I don't think returning a Bomb with Snatch Arrows would work. It seems pretty cool though, and Snatch Arrows seems like it would be a weak feat in most games, so I wouldn't be surprised if many DMs allowed the Bomb return to work.
A monk can deflect the bombs that an alchemist throws
Can you give a citation on that? I haven't seen that official rule.(I've seen the James Jacobs post that says it can, but that's not actually official, is it?) But I don't see anything that says how Deflect Arrows interacts with supernatural abilities, and it seems to me that a supernatural ability has more in common with a spell than a weapon.
A monk can deflect the bombs that an alchemist throwsCan you give a citation on that? I haven't seen that official rule.(I've seen the James Jacobs post that says it can, but that's not actually official, is it?) But I don't see anything that says how Deflect Arrows interacts with supernatural abilities, and it seems to me that a supernatural ability has more in common with a spell than a weapon.
Bombs are Splash weapons.
Splash weapons are ranged thrown weapons.
Ranged weapons (including thrown weapons) can be deflected by Deflect Arrows.
Therefore Bombs can be deflected by Deflect Arrows.
The "citation" is the rules text of everything taken together.
Your logic at the end is kind of faulty as well. Supernatural abilities have almost nothing to do with spells. You are thinking of SLAs.
The only thing Su abilities have in common with spells is that they stop working in an Antimagic Field.
And even if that were correct...a spell that functioned as thrown weapon could be defected the same way (such as Ice Javelins).
This does bring up an interesting question.
Can you use Snatch Arrows to throw an alchemist's bomb back at her in the round it is activated?
The wording of the feat says the caught projectile can "immediately be thrown back", and so wouldn't be carried. I suppose the use of this feat could qualify as the bomb being "used" though..
Obviously, if the bomb was held for any length of time it definitely would become inert.
Which is a shame, because this would be very, very cool..
And even if that were correct...a spell that functioned as thrown weapon could be defected the same way (such as Ice Javelins).
lovely image (manticore spikes and maximised Snowballs being flung back at their originator), but the feat specifically calls out ranged attacks from natural attacks or spell effects as undeflectable.
Such a shame.
Maybe there should be an Improved Deflect Arrows feat which allows this? missiles up to Dex bonus or able to deflect one ranged spell effect a round.
here is a question , since bomb have:
"An alchemist's bomb, like an extract, becomes inert if used or carried by anyone else."
what if the alchemist took the discovery that let others use his extract(i think it is called infusion?)
and add this to the table. what if the monk has a level of alchemist or somehow has the bomb special ability(taking a rogue levels and bomb tricks for example)
would then a monk be able to catch his alchimst friend bomb and throw it(and as Aydin D'Ampfer up the thread mantioned include Throw Anything + Ki Missile from the Far Strike Monk)
And even if that were correct...a spell that functioned as thrown weapon could be defected the same way (such as Ice Javelins).lovely image (manticore spikes and maximised Snowballs being flung back at their originator), but the feat specifically calls out ranged attacks from natural attacks or spell effects as undeflectable.
Such a shame.
Maybe there should be an Improved Deflect Arrows feat which allows this? missiles up to Dex bonus or able to deflect one ranged spell effect a round.
D'oh.
I was just looking at Snatch Arrows, not Deflect Arrows and missed that bit. I never use either.
That's kind of dumb, honestly. I can understand not deflecting Rays, but there's no appreciable difference between a Manticore spike and an arrow or a Javelin and a Javelin made of ice.
If you can catch frickin' BULLETS you should be able to catch those.
here is a question , since bomb have:
"An alchemist's bomb, like an extract, becomes inert if used or carried by anyone else."
what if the alchemist took the discovery that let others use his extract(i think it is called infusion?)
and add this to the table. what if the monk has a level of alchemist or somehow has the bomb special ability(taking a rogue levels and bomb tricks for example)
would then a monk be able to catch his alchimst friend bomb and throw it(and as Aydin D'Ampfer up the thread mantioned include Throw Anything + Ki Missile from the Far Strike Monk)
...Nothing would change. Infusion affects Extracts. Not Bombs.
and the bomb work like extracts in the case of what happen when other use it. that was my point.
so if you change how your extract act when others uses it. and your bombs act like your exctracts. doesnt' that change how your bombs work?
No, the Bomb does not work like an Extract. The Bomb becomes inert, which is like an Extract in that one specific aspect and nothing more.
An ability that says "Extracts do this now" doesn't affect Bombs for the simple fact that Bombs are not Extracts.
That's like saying "My car works like your car because it needs gas to go" and then expecting your car to fill up on gas every time your friend filled up his car.
im sorry but that is a wrong analogy. if the infusion would have said it only work on specific extract(like only on cure light wounds etc) then youd have a point ,but the bomb say that in realte to how it is handaled when some1 else pick it up it works like an extract. then you have infusion that changes all this guys extracts. that would be like having a car and a bike and a tank. al lruning on gas. and having a sale on gas.
you are right bomb s are not extract. but they look up the extract for the use by other rule. and i should expect that anything the cahracter have that changed said rule would be aplied to anything that uses that rule.
And you would expect wrong.
oh well. in this specific rule id agree it won't work. BUT that is not because bombs don't work like changed extract when used by others.
i looked up the infusion and before it say stuff like "your extract now can be used by others" it mantioned that it cahnges the part of making an extract. and since bombs only match up with the extract on how they are hadneld when used by others but not on how they are made they can't use the infusion rule.
I doubt that returning the Bomb to the Alchemist via Snatch Arrows is legal, but I guess you could call it a grey area. Using Snatch Arrows to perform some kind of "alley-oop" Bomb advancement scheme with your Alchemist ally is clearly not possible though since the rules for Snatch Arrows say: "Thrown weapons can immediately be thrown back as an attack against the original attacker (even though it isn't your turn) or kept for later use." At best you might be able to argue that you could use Snatch Arrows to throw the Bomb back AT the Alchemist, but it seems like the Alchemist could have just thrown the Bomb at himself or his square to begin with. If you keep the Bomb for later use it would become inert as per the usual rule.
I'd like to see Snatch Arrows be a little more fun, but it seems doomed to remain an infrequently chosen feat which mostly just causes people to make jokes about Winona Ryder.
A monk can deflect the bombs that an alchemist throwsCan you give a citation on that? I haven't seen that official rule.(I've seen the James Jacobs post that says it can, but that's not actually official, is it?) But I don't see anything that says how Deflect Arrows interacts with supernatural abilities, and it seems to me that a supernatural ability has more in common with a spell than a weapon.Bombs are Splash weapons.
Splash weapons are ranged thrown weapons.
Ranged weapons (including thrown weapons) can be deflected by Deflect Arrows.
Therefore Bombs can be deflected by Deflect Arrows.
The "citation" is the rules text of everything taken together.
Your logic at the end is kind of faulty as well. Supernatural abilities have almost nothing to do with spells. You are thinking of SLAs.
The only thing Su abilities have in common with spells is that they stop working in an Antimagic Field.
And even if that were correct...a spell that functioned as thrown weapon could be defected the same way (such as Ice Javelins).
No, I'm not thinking of SLAs. I'm comparing three items that function as ranged weapons (e.g., you can use Weapon Focus with them):
- Ray spells- Splash weapons
- Alchemist's bombs
Ray spells explicitly cannot be deflected by Deflect Arrows ("natural attacks or spell effects can't be deflected").
By inference, slash weapons can be deflected by Deflect Arrows (i.e., there is no explicit wording regarding Deflect Arrows and this category of weapon).
So we have two categories of ranged weapons, one that can and one that can't be deflected with Deflect Arrows. Since the Deflect Arrows feat was written before the funky "magic-but-not-a-spell" alchemist abilities came along, we can't expect any explicit text calling them out, so we have to determine which of these two categories alchemist's bombs belong in.
Bombs are like spells because
- They are a class feature, not a purchasable item
- The damage scales with level
- The save DC scales with level
- The alchemist has a limited number per day, and they automatically refresh each day
- No one but the alchemist can use them
Bombs are like splash weapons because
- They do splash damage
That's why I say that an alchemist's bomb has much more in common with a spell (that happens to do splash damage) than a purchased splash weapon. To me, the line in Alchemist's bombs that refers to bombs as ranged weapons ("Bombs are considered weapons and can be selected using feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Weapon Focus") is not any different than the various lines that designate a ray as a weapon for those same feats (Under Ray: "You aim a ray as if using a ranged weapon", and under Weapon Focus: "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat").
So not all ranged weapons can be deflected. Are alchemist's bombs ones that can or ones that can't?
Bombs are not like spells at all. Bombs are like a Su scaling class feature.
Bombs are like Splash Weapons because Bombs ARE SPLASH WEAPONS.
"Drawing the components of, creating, and throwing a bomb requires a standard action that provokes an attack of opportunity. Thrown bombs have a range of 20 feet and use the Throw Splash Weapon special attack. Bombs are considered weapons and can be selected using feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Weapon Focus. "
And the half-Elf FCB:
"Add +1 foot to the range increment of the alchemist’s thrown splash weapons (including the alchemist’s bombs). This option has no effect unless the alchemist has selected it 5 times (or another increment of 5)."
Bombs are weapons. Bombs are THROWN weapons. Bombs are Splash weapons. Bombs are THROWN splash weapons.
Deflect Arrows deflects those things.
It is as simple as that.
Bombs are a Su ability. Su abilities are not spells. Period. They are not. They are fundamentally different things, hence why they are in different sections of the rulebook and as a whole have nothing in common with each other.
Bombs are not spells, because Bombs are a Su ability and Su abilities are not spells. It is as simple as that as well.
"Bombs share these superficial features with spells therefore Bombs are spells" is as meaningless as "Bombs share these superficial features with Bardic Performance therefore Bombs are Bardic Performance".
Neither is true, but at least you'd be a little LESS wrong if you said Bombs were like Bardic Performance, because at least both of those are Su abilities (which is a class feature, whose DC and damage where applicable scales with level, are limited per day and refreshed every day, and none but the Bard can use the rounds).
You are simply WRONG in likening Bombs to spells. There is no convoluted, tortured reading of the rules that makes a Su ability a spell. There is zero ambiguity here. You need only look as far as the name. Bombs (Su). That bit in the parentheses makes them not spells.
You can argue (barely) that Bombs are not truly Splash Weapons, or Weapons at all (despite the text EXPLICITLY saying they are, but I digress) but you CANNOT claim that Bombs are spells.
This sentence:
As with an extract or bomb, a mutagen that is not in an alchemist's possession becomes inert until an alchemist picks it up again.
..made me wonder, can one alchemist use extracts and bombs from another alchemist like they can mutagens?
If so could an alchemist with deflect arrows and snatch arrows catch other alchemist's bombs and throw them back?Or could a monk catch a bomb and hand it to his waiting alchemist buddy who has readied his action to throw back the bomb?
|
Deflecting Attacks: Does an attack that is deflected count as a miss?
It depends on the ability that is deflecting the attack.
For example, the Deflect Arrows feat says, "Once per round when you would normally be hit with an attack from a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." It doesn't say the attack is a miss or is treated as a miss--instead, you take no damage from the attack. Because it is not a miss, effects that would trigger on a miss (such as Efreeti Style or Snake Fang from Ultimate Combat) are not triggered.
Likewise, the Crane Wing feat (Ultimate Combat) uses similar language and does not say the deflected attack is a miss or treated as a miss.
Note that the Snatch Arrows feat counts as a deflected attack--you do not take damage if you choose to catch the weapons instead of just deflecting it, and catching the weapon does not mean the attack was a miss.
Update 5/29/13: If the attack is deflected, not only does the target take no damage, but any other effects (ability drain, negative levels, harmful conditions, and so on) associated with that attack do not occur. If the deflected attack is a touch spell or other effect that requires "holding the charge," the charge is not expended. For example, if a ghoul's claw attack is deflected, the target is not subject to the ghoul's paralysis ability from the attack. If a shocking grasp touch attack is deflected, the attacker is still "holding the charge." The Crane Wing feat will be updated in a future printing of Ultimate Combat to clarify these issues.
Reading this FAQ I think that the bomb will explode, but the guys using deflect arrow will take no damage for the bomb, neither the direct hit damage nor the splash damage.
For the splash damage area the bomb would work as if it had hit the character with deflect arrows but he would get 0 damage and no secondary effects.
Bombs are not like spells at all. Bombs are like a Su scaling class feature.
Bombs are like Splash Weapons because Bombs ARE SPLASH WEAPONS
Bombs are weapons. Bombs are THROWN weapons. Bombs are Splash weapons. Bombs are THROWN splash weapons.
Deflect Arrows deflects those things.
[...]
Bombs are a Su ability. Su abilities are not spells. Period. They are not. They are fundamentally different things, hence why they are in different sections of the rulebook and as a whole have nothing in common with each other.Bombs are not spells, because Bombs are a Su ability and Su abilities are not spells. It is as simple as that as well.
"Bombs share these superficial features with spells therefore Bombs are spells" is as meaningless as "Bombs share these superficial features with Bardic Performance therefore Bombs are Bardic Performance".
[...]
You are simply WRONG in likening Bombs to spells. There is no convoluted, tortured reading of the rules that makes a Su ability a spell. There is zero ambiguity here. You need only look as far as the name. Bombs (Su).
I'm not saying bombs are spells. I'm not saying supernatural effects are spells. I understand the difference, I really do.
I'm saying that when Deflect Arrows was written, there were no supernatural effects that functioned like thrown weapons. Therefore, the question "Does Deflect Arrows work against supernatural effects?" was never asked.
- Deflect Arrows does work against weapons.
- Deflect Arrows does not work against natural attacks even though natural attacks are considered weapons for many purposes.
- Deflect Arrows does not work against spell effects, not even those spell effects that are considered weapon for many purposes.
So, the question is, "Does Deflect Arrows work against supernatural effects that are considered weapons for many purposes?"
Regarding "Bombs just are weapons":
"Bombs are considered weapons" does not mean the same thing as "Bombs are weapons". It is much closed in meaning to "as if it were a weapon" than it is to "it is a weapon". (If one of my composition students used that phrase, I would mark it "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_word]weasel words" and "
unnecessary passive voice" and "awkward phrasing". In English, the only time you would use the term "is considered to be" instead of "is" would be when "it isn't, but you should treat it like it is".
If bombs are just weapons, why did they use an extra half of a line to hedge that description?
How?
See the climax of "Shaolin Soccer" for how.
***Spoilers***
Team Evil fires a brutal shot at the last remaining goalie and rather than catching or smacking the ball away, the goalie (Mui) starts spinning her hands around the ball, causing it to circle around her. She changes the direction of the ball almost passively, than actively.
Link: Ending Scene
Be inventive on how mystical things work, because it can make the game more unique.
I'm not saying bombs are spells. I'm not saying supernatural effects are spells. I understand the difference, I really do.
I'm saying that when Deflect Arrows was written, there were no supernatural effects that functioned like thrown weapons. Therefore, the question "Does Deflect Arrows work against supernatural effects?" was never asked.
- Deflect Arrows does work against weapons.
- Deflect Arrows does not work against natural attacks even though natural attacks are considered weapons for many purposes.
- Deflect Arrows does not work against spell effects, not even those spell effects that are considered weapon for many purposes.So, the question is, "Does Deflect Arrows work against supernatural effects that are considered weapons for many purposes?"
Regarding "Bombs just are weapons":
"Bombs are considered weapons" does not mean the same thing as "Bombs are weapons". It is much closed in meaning to "as if it were a weapon" than it is to "it is a weapon". (If one of my composition students used that phrase, I would mark it "weasel words" and "
unnecessary passive voice" and "awkward phrasing". In English, the only time you would use the term "is considered to be" instead of "is" would be when "it isn't, but you should treat it like it is".If bombs are just weapons, why did they use an extra half of a line to hedge that description?
"Bombs are considered weapons" is functionally identical in meaning to "Bombs are weapons". The only difference being in this case that it calls direct attention to Su abilities and class features not normally BEING weapons.
If it said "Bombs are considered weapons for the purpose of" like some things, I might agree with you, but the lack of that "for the purpose of" is very important.
Bmbs are considered weapons [end thought] and can be selected using feats such as Point-Blank Shot and Weapon Focus. [end second thought]
It is a clarity matter, and it does its job well. It is as clear as it could possibly be (or could be considered to be, as the case may be. Be.).
The rest of your thought process is irrelevant. Cut it out and start over.
Natural Attacks and Spell effects don't have anything to do with this. Bringing them into the equation is pointless. It doesn't add anything unless you're trying to say Bombs ARE one of those things.
-Bombs are (thrown splash) weapons. They are not a spell effect or Natural attack.
-Deflect Arrows can deflect ranged weapons, including thrown and splash weapons (excluding Natural Attacks and spell effects).
-Deflect Arrows can defect Bombs.
That is as far as the chain goes.
Rynjin,
It is awesome how you shut down any opposing opinion or thought process as irrelevant. If only we had more people that did that on these forums we could just make it a "copy and paste" forum rather than ones were we try to share ideas and think things through. It would be so much easier that way.
Heck, one could just copy and paste the entire PRD site into one post and "Win" the whole conversation.
But until them, some people discuss the rules. They pose questions that make people think. They show that there might be a problem with RAW or the rules as understood. Heck, we all played Two-Handed Two-Weapon fighting wrong for years. Either you played by the book (wrong) or you didn't follow the book (wrong) and played by unwritten rules. Now we are just all playing wrong the same way.
Bombs are not weapons, they are considered weapons. Maybe this is the same thing, maybe it is different. With Paizo, you can never tell.
Can bombs crit?
Can bombs benefit from Improved Critical?
Can you use them as many times as you want in a day?
Can they be used with iterative attacks?
Can they be used in a charge?
Can you use Two-Weapon Fighting with bombs?
Can you use a bomb if you are not proficient with them?
I think the answer to all of those questions is "no". Can't you do the above with just about every weapon?
Gwen Smith may not be correct in her line of thinking, especially where RAW is concerned. That doesn't mean that she is irrelevant. Clearly there are some issues with calling Bombs weapons for all things.
Where are the issues with treating Bombs as weapons when the text says they are considered weapons (no qualifier)?
I called her points irrelevant because they are. How Spell Effects and Natural Attacks interact with Deflect Arrows DOESN'T MATTER, because Bombs are neither of those things.
How does Weapon Finesse interact with a Greatsword? It doesn't, therefore references to Weapon Finesse in discussions about how Greatswords work are irrelevant.
Same thing here.
Can bombs crit?
Can bombs benefit from Improved Critical?
Can you use them as many times as you want in a day?
Can they be used with iterative attacks?
Can they be used in a charge?
Can you use Two-Weapon Fighting with bombs?
Can you use a bomb if you are not proficient with them?I think the answer to all of those questions is "no". Can't you do the above with just about every weapon?
Why would you think that?
Bombs are considered weapons. Thrown Splash Weapons specifically.
So in order: Yes, Yes, Up to your limit per day, Yes but it needs a Discovery, Yes with Charging Hurler, Yes, and Yes (because Splash Weapons do not require Proficiency. It's in the Throw Splash Weapon rules in the Combat section).
Of course, in the last case unless you're an Alchemist it doesn't DO anything.
Gotcha, so the Deflect Arrow ability is a Supernatural ability that is magical in every way and generates a magical force field around the monk.
Thanks for the info!
Once a round, tops. On a successful reflex dc 20 check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Deflect Arrow basically tells the alchemist bomb to sit down and shut up. And if the alchemist complains, the monk tells him to shut up too while explaining that the Mr. Hyde/Green Goblin wannabe doesn't get to bring "logic" in this argument about his nice things are being taken away/nerfed due to rules. No one gets to make that argument against monks.
Deflect Arrow basically tells the alchemist bomb to sit down and shut up. And if the alchemist complains, the monk tells him to shut up too while explaining that the Mr. Hyde/Green Goblin wannabe doesn't get to bring "logic" in this argument about his nice things are being taken away/nerfed due to rules. No one gets to make that argument against monks.
I have no clue why but for some reason everyone always associates the Mr. Hyde build with alchemists, the bombslinger is a great build and if built right can be crazy overpowered and untouchable due to the range.