Alchemist Bombs and Incorporeal Creatures


Rules Questions


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Has there ever been a faq or thread response from a Paizo rules genie on whether alchemist bombs affect incorporeal creatures?

Do they?

Full Damage?

Half Damage?

Sail right through to do nothing?

Thoughts? FAQ candidate?


Vials of Holy Water will sail right through incorporeal creatures (stated in description of Holy Water), so I imagine bombs would do the same.

I'm not sure the bombs splash is considered a magical effect, though I believe it is. If so then if you aimed for the square that the creature was in with the intent to deal splash damage, it would do half (or quarter after Reflex).

My Alchemist used the discovery that allows him to infuse bomb properties into ammunition, then fired said ammo from a magical crossbow which allowed the full bomb effect to hit for half damage + arrow damage.


The glass vial would sail right through, but the bomb material inside the vial is a supernatural ability which should take effect when the glass vial "sails" right through.

Holy water is not a supernatural effect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Ectoplasmic Bomb Discovery from the Undead Slayer's Handbook lets bombs do full damage to incorporeal creatures (among other effects). That suggests to me that regular bombs don't do full damage to incorporeal creatures.

Sczarni

Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.


Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.

I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.


Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Vial doesn't need to break to explode.

"alchemists are adept at swiftly mixing various volatile chemicals and infusing them with their magical reserves to create powerful bombs that they can hurl at their enemies"

Makes them sound more like a Grenade than Greek fire. This is reinforced by things like Delayed Bomb, Implant Bomb, Remote Bomb, etc...

Direct hit against an incorporeal creature is more about timing the explosion just right so that it explodes just as it is passing through the middle of the creature

Sczarni

Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Just tell your GM next time that the jalapeño sauce used in the bomb admixture to give it that fiery "kick" has extra special ghost-bane properties.

If they can make up rules that don't exist to negate your very class, you can make up equally ridiculous rules in return.


Nefreet wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Just tell your GM next time that the jalapeño sauce used in the bomb admixture to give it that fiery "kick" has extra special ghost-bane properties.

If they can make up rules that don't exist to negate your very class, you can make up equally ridiculous rules in return.

Sad part is it was a VO at a pfs table.

Sczarni

Makes no difference.

They're going to need to show you rules that rienforce their argument, such as something clearly in print that overrides the general rule that an Alchemist's (Su) Bomb class feature is ineffective against an incorporeal target.

Singling out one ingredient in order to negate an entire class feature is overly pedantic and not supported anywhere.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Just tell your GM next time that the jalapeño sauce used in the bomb admixture to give it that fiery "kick" has extra special ghost-bane properties.

If they can make up rules that don't exist to negate your very class, you can make up equally ridiculous rules in return.

Sorry, you must use ghost peppers, not jalapeno.


thorin001 wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Just tell your GM next time that the jalapeño sauce used in the bomb admixture to give it that fiery "kick" has extra special ghost-bane properties.

If they can make up rules that don't exist to negate your very class, you can make up equally ridiculous rules in return.

Sorry, you must use ghost peppers, not jalapeno.

Nicely done!


There was a post about this same thing just a while ago.

There wasn't any solid consensus.

Personally my opinion is that realism isn't meant to come into play with this, otherwise you're on a slippery slope of disallowing 90% of things in pathfinder.


IMO the Alchemists bomb is volatile but requires impact to explode. The reason there are discoveries like Delay Bomb suggests that adding a fuse to the bomb is a special action.

However Nefreet has an excellent point, the alchemist bomb ability is supernatural, is there for magical, and that would include the vial it was put in.

TBH the DM that runs my games actually tried this one on me with my alchemist. Fortunately my alchemist snipes with a magical crossbow and doesn't throw vials, so I got away with it because there was an impact that caused an explosion.


Mulgar wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.
I agree. but yesterday in a scenario I had a gm say that the bomb was supernatural but the glass vial was not. So, since the vial wasn't hitting anything to break it as it traveled through the incorporeal creature.

Nefreet has it right: 50% damage, just like any other magical weapon. Incorporeal =/= immune to physical attacks. That's why they only take 50% damage from spells (100% from force spells) and magical weapons. The logic was already built into them by that 50% reduction (i.e, they can be damaged by corporeal weapons and beings).

For the GM's logic to apply to incorporeal creatures, no physical weapon - magical or otherwise - could inflict any damage because "oh! it passes right through the creature!"

With regard to holy water:

Holy Water, alchemical weapons wrote:

Holy water damages undead creatures and evil outsiders almost as if it were acid. A flask of holy water can be thrown as a splash weapon.

Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A flask breaks if thrown against the body of a corporeal creature, but to use it against an incorporeal creature, you must open the flask and pour the holy water out onto the target. Thus, you can douse an incorporeal creature with holy water only if you are adjacent to it. Doing so is a ranged touch attack that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

A direct hit by a flask of holy water deals 2d4 points of damage to an undead creature or an evil outsider. Each such creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of damage from the splash.

Just for easy reference.


Wouldn't Fore Bombs do for incorporeal targets?

Sczarni

Full damage, rather than half.


Guys, I soooooo agree with you. Just every know and then I gotta do a sanity check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Finding agreement in this forum should confirm that your sanity has left the building.


Live Bait wrote:
Finding agreement in this forum should confirm that your sanity has left the building.

It is a sign of the End of Days.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Wouldn't Fore Bombs do for incorporeal targets?

That's what makes the Crypt Breaker Archetype so nice against Undead. Their Bombs are Acid vs. Corporeal Undead and Constructs, Force vs. everything else including Incorporeal Undead. No discoveries needed


Live Bait wrote:
Finding agreement in this forum should confirm that your sanity has left the building.

Never said I was sane, lol.....

Sczarni

Greylurker wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Wouldn't Force Bombs do for incorporeal targets?
That's what makes the Crypt Breaker Archetype so nice against Undead. Their Bombs are Acid vs. Corporeal Undead and Constructs, Force vs. everything else including Incorporeal Undead. No discoveries needed

The word "Force" is a typo. It's supposed to be acid.

(yes, "not a rules guy", and all that)


That said, in any setting where RAW is used, such as PFS, they do force damage.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
That said, in any setting where RAW is used, such as PFS, they do force damage.

You try to pull that at my table and I'll refer you to the part of the guide that says we're not robots.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
That said, in any setting where RAW is used, such as PFS, they do force damage.
You try to pull that at my table and I'll refer you to the part of the guide that says we're not robots.

At least he started his sentence with an if. If your table is not strict RAW he won't bring it up.

Grand Lodge

Entryhazard wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
That said, in any setting where RAW is used, such as PFS, they do force damage.
You try to pull that at my table and I'll refer you to the part of the guide that says we're not robots.
At least he started his sentence with an if. If your table is not strict RAW he won't bring it up.

I was referring to his comment about PFS.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Nefreet wrote:
Bombs are (Su), so they should deal half damage, just like any other magical weapon.

I am proud to agree with you on this. :)

Sczarni

I'd wager that if you quantified all the threads where you and I have discussed rules interpretations, the vast majority of them would put us on the same side.

Shadow Lodge

Well yeah. We're usually right, except when we're wrong!


Nefreet wrote:
Greylurker wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Wouldn't Force Bombs do for incorporeal targets?
That's what makes the Crypt Breaker Archetype so nice against Undead. Their Bombs are Acid vs. Corporeal Undead and Constructs, Force vs. everything else including Incorporeal Undead. No discoveries needed

The word "Force" is a typo. It's supposed to be acid.

(yes, "not a rules guy", and all that)

It always made sense to me that it did force as it's meant as an anti-undead bomb and that would allow it to do full damage to Incorporeal Undead. So I disagree with him that it's a "flavor disconnect" and go with the written rule. As James agrees it's not "particularly game breaking" and "from a rules standpoint it still works fine" as/is.

Grand Lodge

The problem then comes in that in a large number of cases, the non-undead version of the bomb is flat out better than the anti-undead version.

Also, the bomb is meant to be anti-corporeal undead (see the first sentence) not anti-undead.


Jeff Merola wrote:

The problem then comes in that in a large number of cases, the non-undead version of the bomb is flat out better than the anti-undead version.

Also, the bomb is meant to be anti-corporeal undead (see the first sentence) not anti-undead.

I'm unsure what you mean for the first part. If it's resistances, does acid resistance overcome the damage die dropping down two die sizes? If not, I don't see the flat out better part. And recall that the person that made the unofficial ruling agreed that it wasn't "particularly game breaking" and "from a rules standpoint it still works fine".

For the second, the bomb already does 1d4 damage to Incorporeal Undead (1/2 die size of corporeal) and without force does 1/2 again. For me it makes sense that it stays force to provide a viable undead deterrent while still being better vs constructs and corporeal undead. (2 step better damage, bonus damage and increased crit).

PS: As to the first sentence, I'll refer you to the last sentence of the intro. "They are often involved in expeditions into dangerous tombs and catacombs, where their ability to create alchemical devices designed to neutralize constructs and undead are often crucial to survival." No reason not to have the bombs be effective against all undead imo. For me, flavor is intact with it staying force (the only thing it says it "eats away" is "unliving flesh and animated constructs") and I fail to see anything overpowered by it's continued inclusion.

Now feel free to use James' suggested alteration. I just don't agree it's an issue, flavor or otherwise, that needed changing.

Grand Lodge

Lets see:

If you target a grid intersection, does the grid intersection have to be on a solid surface?

If it does not say that, it implies you can fuse the bomb to explode in mid air. If you can fuse the bomb to explode in mid air, you can fuse it to explode mid ghost.

Grand Lodge

graystone wrote:
I'm unsure what you mean for the first part. If it's resistances, does acid resistance overcome the damage die dropping down two die sizes? If not, I don't see the flat out better part. And recall that the person that made the unofficial ruling agreed that it wasn't "particularly game breaking" and "from a rules standpoint it still works fine".

The normal alchemist has to contend with a d4 for their force option as well, only they can't get it until 8th level (although theirs is better in that it also can knock things prone). And yes, acid resistance does matter. The difference between a d8 and a d4 is 2 points of damage, on average. Against anything with acid resistance 5 it's better until you get to level 5, acid resistance 10 until level 9, acid resist 20 until level 19, and is always better vs acid resist 30 or immunity. Nothing in the game even resists force damage. This might not be much in some games, but in others like ones with a heavy focus against Devils or Demons, it'll come up a lot.

graystone wrote:
For the second, the bomb already does 1d4 damage to Incorporeal Undead (1/2 die size of corporeal) and without force does 1/2 again. For me it makes sense that it stays force to provide a viable undead deterrent while still being better vs constructs and corporeal undead. (2 step better damage, bonus damage and increased crit).

The fact that you can hit them at all is pretty good, I'd say.

I'm not going to bother with the flavor bit anymore, since that's not exactly something that can be objectively defined.


Jeff Merola: I haven't found acid resistance to be super common, especially at low levels. Lets take your examples. Before 5th level, how many enemies had acid resist? In my last game, I can say 1, an Oread and that was an anomaly. So force not having a resist is pretty meaningless. By the time acid resistance becomes more common, the damage difference pretty much equals out IMO.

As to how common enemies with resistances can be, that varies do to campaign makeups. Things that work in a game vs giants may be good/bad vs an underwater game or an outsider invasion game. I'm only looking at the average game. I've seem it played as force into the mid teen levels and it never seemed overpowered. We weren't in a niche game with every monster having energy resistance though, I'll admit.

As far as force being a discovery, so is acid (as it's resistances are less common).

And to be clear, I'm not trying to get you to change your mind. If you think this is super-dupper-ultra OMG overpowered, more power to you. Don't use it in your games. I was just making a comment on my thoughts on the issue and how I play it. As with most thing, that means you mileage may vary.

Grand Lodge

Demons and devils aren't common in your games? Almost all of them, including the lowest level ones have Acid Resist 10+. And Acid Bombs can be taken 6 levels earlier than Force bombs can.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Demons and devils aren't common in your games? Almost all of them, including the lowest level ones have Acid Resist 10+.

Not really, just a few summoned ones. Unless we're doing a demon invasion type game they're an occasional enemy and FAR from common enemies. This is especially true of games where this archetype shines; ones vs constructs and undead. You think Iron Gods or Mummy's Mask is swimming in outsiders?

Jeff Merola wrote:
And Acid Bombs can be taken 6 levels earlier than Force bombs can.

I reply 'meh'. I often find the level requirements given things in pathfinder overly conservative. In this case, I'd say the acid ability is MORE valuable at low levels 1-8) than force would be as acid deals more damage (initial + next round) and the amount of times resistances comes into play is mostly negligible. Seems like a fair tradeoff not needing the extra levels to take.

Grand Lodge

Obviously we play in quite different games, as I run into demons and devils with regularity, especially in PFS. Resistances are also quite common in PFS.

Also, I'd rather knock the target prone than do an extra 1d6 of damage, honestly, since that d6 doesn't ever scale.


Jeff Merola wrote:
Obviously we play in quite different games, as I run into demons and devils with regularity, especially in PFS. Resistances are also quite common in PFS.

Well as I've NEVER played PFS, I'll agree with you that we play in different circles. However, I've played some of the AP's and I don't recall acid resistance being commonplace.

Jeff Merola wrote:
Also, I'd rather knock the target prone than do an extra 1d6 of damage, honestly, since that d6 doesn't ever scale.

It's a higher die AND a d6 next round vs prone. The acid might not scale, but that means VERY little in a talk about low levels. Myself, a dead target is preferable to a prone one. Acid has a better chance of doing that at low levels. IMO there seems little reason for making someone needing to be 8th for force.

To compare, it's the same level you can get holy bombs. Divine damage (talk about NO resistance) vs evil + stagger, 1/2 damage vs neutral and NO damage vs good. Seems like a much better value than force to damage (with no resist possible and higher die) + stagger foes while avoiding damaging friends at the same time.

At high levels, it's more of a toss up. It's even more so looking at Alkahest as there is no secondary effect. It's the difference in die vs type. Myself, I didn't see force do significantly more damage vs other types of bombs like acid or sonic where the base damage is higher and MAY do less when the target has a resist. As long as the type isn't fire/cold, the damages have seemed pretty competitive to each other.


I suggest moving the Crypt Breaker discussion to it's own thread.


GreenMandar wrote:
I suggest moving the Crypt Breaker discussion to it's own thread.

Not really needed as I've said what I'd wanted to: I don't think the unofficial 'fix' to Crypt Breaker was needed. While it's not totally off topic, I'm fine with moving along. I'm not sure if there is any 100% on topic things left to say on the original topic though. ;)

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alchemist Bombs and Incorporeal Creatures All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.