Alchemist Bomb (Su) without Throw Anything (Ex)?


Rules Questions

Scarab Sages

10 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

Found a few related threads online, but nothing direct and no official responses. Please FAQ.

Does the Alchemist's Bomb (Su) class feature retain it's INT bonus to Bomb damage if it loses (archetypes) the Throw Anything (Ex) class feature?

Quotes of the class abilities (in spoiler form, pasted from PRD)

Spoiler:

Quote:

Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, 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. An alchemist can use a number of bombs each day equal to his class level + his Intelligence modifier. Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert—their method of creation prevents large volumes of explosive material from being created and stored. 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.

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. On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike). Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb's minimum damage (so if the bomb would deal 2d6+4 points of fire damage on a direct hit, its splash damage would be 6 points of fire damage). Those caught in the splash damage can attempt a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the alchemist's level + the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.

Alchemists can learn new types of bombs as discoveries (see the Discovery ability) as they level up. An alchemist's bomb, like an extract, becomes inert if used or carried by anyone else.

Quote:
Throw Anything (Ex): All alchemists gain the Throw Anything feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Put it this way: if you just delete the Throw Anything ability, the Bomb ability still contains the "additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier" language. So no, they don't lose it.


The RAW is unambiguous and not obviously an error.


Agreed with the above, why would it not?


Throw Anything clearly states where the extra damage comes from even if the damage is per-calculated in the Bombs description for simplicity.
If you lose Throw anything you lose the extra damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:

Throw Anything clearly states where the extra damage comes from even if the damage is per-calculated in the Bombs description for simplicity.

If you lose Throw anything you lose the extra damage.

That might be the intention, but the Bomb class feature, in isolation, still says that you add int mod damage still. Ian Bell is in the right.

I mean, you could also make the argument that Throw Anything's description merely makes it clear that you can't get Int to damage twice from bombs.


I think the intention was you lose TA, you lose the int on the bombs. but the writing of the bombs RAW will still retain it.

so you still get it techincally.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't know I think the alchemist will still, and is supposed, to get the int to damage with their bombs. I think getting the feat only allows the alchemist to add their int to damage with other splash weapons like alchemist fire and bottles of acid.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LilWilly5 wrote:
I think getting the feat only allows the alchemist to add their int to damage with other splash weapons like alchemist fire and bottles of acid.

Just a heads up, the FEAT doesn't add INT to splash weapon damage. The Throw Anything (Ex) is what grants the INT to splash weapon damage.

The Throw Anything feat allows you to wield improvised throwing weapons without the improvised penalty, and gives a +1 Circumstance bonus on thrown splash weapons.

Given the same name and that class feature grants the feat, they are easy to mistake.

Quantum Steve wrote:

Throw Anything clearly states where the extra damage comes from even if the damage is per-calculated in the Bombs description for simplicity.

If you lose Throw anything you lose the extra damage.

Except, that isn't what it says, which is the point of this thread, as the class feature meantions nothing regarding the loss of Throw Anything (ex) having any effect on the Bomb (Su) rule.

Manly-man teapot wrote:
The RAW is unambiguous and not obviously an error.

That's exactly the issue. If an archetype removes Throw Anything (Ex), then when reading the Class features you HAVE, there is no RAW related issues and the INT "clearly" applies to Bomb (Su) damage.

So if the intention is that the INT bonus to damage is part of the Throw Anything (Ex), then this really needs to be explained as part of the Bomb (Su) rules.

Though regarding the intentions, I think it's entirely possible that the intention is that the Bombs don't add INT twice (once for Bomb and again for throw anything), which would be more ambiguous if Throw anything (Ex) didn't include the line regarding INT damage already being included in the Bomb (Su) class feature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure they specifically mentioned it in both the Bombs and the Throw Anything sections for this exact reason.

Lose just Throw Anything, and you lose Int to damage with splash weapons other than your Bombs.
Lose just Bombs, and you get Int to damage with all other splash weapons, but no bombs.

Fairly simple.

Scarab Sages

I agree, seems simple. But this topic is a spin off of this other one I did recently, which seems very certain that Bomb (Su) doesn't attain INT damage if the class lacks access to Throw Anything (ex).

This thread

So now I've two threads that disagree on the same general idea, with the intention of both threads just being clarity...

Sovereign Court

I think Throw Anything mentions bombs only to prevent double INT to damage. And if you take an option that removes TA, the Bomb class feature still tells you to add INT to their damage.


Murdock Mudeater wrote:

.

So if the intention is that the INT bonus to damage is part of the Throw Anything (Ex), then this really needs to be explained as part of the Bomb (Su) rules.

Except, word count is at a premium and it's already explained in the Throw Anything feature, i.e. the feature that actually grants the bonus.

Quote:
Though regarding the intentions, I think it's entirely possible that the intention is that the Bombs don't add INT twice (once for Bomb and again for throw anything), which would be more ambiguous if Throw anything (Ex) didn't include the line regarding INT damage already being included in the Bomb (Su) class feature.

If Throw Anything didn't apply to Bombs (because Bombs already get their own bonus) it would have said that: "... all splash weapons except bombs", or some variation thereof.

Instead, Throw Anything states "This bonus damage" i.e the aforementioned bonus damage i.e. the bonus damage granted by Throw Anything, "is already included in the bomb class feature."

Throw Anything is quite clear that the bonus from Throw Anything is included in the listed damage for bombs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quantum Steve wrote:
Except, word count is at a premium and it's already explained in the Throw Anything feature, i.e. the feature that actually grants the bonus.

Word count being at a premium is an argument against your point though, as under your interpretation of the rules, mentioning int to damage at all in the bomb class feature and including that clause in the Throw Anything class feature is completely superfluous and needlessly confusing. That's 132 characters that serve no purpose whatsoever.

Quote:
If Throw Anything didn't apply to Bombs (because Bombs already get their own bonus) it would have said that: "... all splash weapons except bombs", or some variation thereof.

And if bombs didn't get int mod damage on their own, there'd be no reason to mention that in the class feature itself.

You're possibly right about the intent, but as the class is written right now, removing Throw Anything (which is honestly just the internal alchemist archetype) doesn't change the text of the Bomb class feature which still mentions int to damage itself.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
You're possibly right about the intent, but as the class is written right now, removing Throw Anything (which is honestly just the internal alchemist archetype) doesn't change the text of the Bomb class feature which still mentions int to damage itself.

Actually, the Bogborn Alchemist and the Internal Alchemist have the Bomb (Su) without Throw Anything (Ex).

The Arcane Bomber (Wizard archetype) also has a modified Bomb (Su) without Throw Anything (Ex). This archetype, of course, says to use Bomb (Su) damage as the alchemist class feature so it brings us back to the topic at hand.

The "Thuvian Alchemist" Prestige Class (not PFS legal) can also obtain the Bomb (Su) Class feature without having the Throw Anything (Ex) ability.

There is a Rogue Talent, Bomber (Su), which grants bombs, but that talent specifies that those bombs don't add INT damage.


Bombs don't have Int to damage. It's the throw anything that's giving them int to damage.
"This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature."
Meaning that the throw anything bonus of adding int to damage was already calculated into bombs when they told you how much damage the bombs would do.
Cause to remove the ability would remove it from being already included in the bomb description which would mean you'd need to change bombs to not have the ability that throw anything gives, namely int to damage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Bombs don't have Int to damage.

Per RAW, they do. If a class archetype trades away one class ability, you still read and run the remaining class abilities per their text. And in the Bomb class ability text, it explicitly says they get INT to damage.

Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, 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. An alchemist can use a number of bombs each day equal to his class level + his Intelligence modifier. Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert—their method of creation prevents large volumes of explosive material from being created and stored. 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.

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. On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike). Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb's minimum damage (so if the bomb would deal 2d6+4 points of fire damage on a direct hit, its splash damage would be 6 points of fire damage). Those caught in the splash damage can attempt a Reflex save for half damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the alchemist's level + the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.

Alchemists can learn new types of bombs as discoveries (see the Discovery ability) as they level up. An alchemist's bomb, like an extract, becomes inert if used or carried by anyone else.


Rory wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Bombs don't have Int to damage.

Per RAW, they do. If a class archetype trades away one class ability, you still read and run the remaining class abilities per their text. And in the Bomb class ability text, it explicitly says they get INT to damage.

Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, 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. An alchemist can use a number of bombs each day equal to his class level + his Intelligence modifier. Bombs are unstable, and if not used in the round they are created, they degrade and become inert—their method of creation prevents large volumes of explosive material from being created and stored. 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.

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. On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier. The damage of an alchemist's bomb increases by 1d6 points at every odd-numbered alchemist level (this bonus damage is not multiplied on a critical hit or by using feats such as Vital Strike). Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb's...

Per RAW they don't.

This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature. if you lose this feature you lose the bonus damage already figured in.


I did have this issue when my friend made a big born. However he took the throw anything feat, so I thought he paid enough of a tax just to give it back to him.


But the bomb class feature doesn't internally reference that the bonus damage is from another source. If the only class feature you've got is bombs, it says right there you get Int damage. That's the RAW.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm about 99% sure that line in the Throw Anything feature is just there to stop you from adding the bonus twice.


Ian Bell wrote:
I'm about 99% sure that line in the Throw Anything feature is just there to stop you from adding the bonus twice.

But you would be 100% wrong. It doesn't just say "this doesn't stack with the Bomb feature's bonus damage from Int". Instead it says explicitly in the Throw Anything (Ex) class feature that the feature's bonus, not a similar or separate bonus but the actual Throw Anything class feature's bonus, is included in the Bombs feature.

The mention of Int to damage in the Bombs feature, per the author's explicit explanation, is NOT some independent feature that Bombs have. The authors outright state they were applying Throw Anything when they mention it.

It is just mind boggling how people will try to ignore rules text and twist logic trying to get the rules to say what they want rather than what they actually say.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ambiguity of the Alchemist strikes again!

@Rory & Chess Pawn: That's not RAW, that's RAI.

Ian Bell wrote:
I'm about 99% sure that line in the Throw Anything feature is just there to stop you from adding the bonus twice.

It wouldn't be allowed without the line anyway, you can't add bonuses from the same source twice (EDIT: Removed a bad example and replace with an FAQ link). But the line is probably included to clarify that you don't add Int to bomb damage again.

@OldSkoolRPG: Ponder removing the Throw Anything class feature from the Alchemist entierly, no mentioning of it what so ever. Would the Alchemist not gain Int to bombs' damage, eventhough it's mentioned in the Bomb class feature? How is it that one class feature can redefine another without explicitly stating "this ability changes X"? No other rules like this comes to mind.

I'm pretty sure that Throw Anything is only supposed to add damage to splash weapons. Coincidentally, bombs are splash weapons. But that doesn't mean that Throw Anything is the only source of Int to bomb damage within the class (just like how loosing Slashing Grace wouldn't exclude the Dex to damage gained by agile weapons).


Yes it's RAW.

This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

What does this mean?
It means adding INT to the splash weapon's damage, which is the bonus damage being talked about, was already listed in bomb class feature. And in the bomb class feature we see that INT is being added to the bombs in that feature.

It's explicitly saying that the bomb was written to include the bonus damage in it's block.


Please also note that the line in Throw Anything says "This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature" which points toward that it's actually already included in the bomb class feature and that Throw Anything isn't the source of Int to damage with bombs.

It is not already "listed", Int to damage is already included in the class feature.


Rub-Eta wrote:
EDIT: Please also note that the line in Throw Anything says "This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature" which points toward that it's actually already included in the bomb class feature and that Throw Anything isn't the source of Int to damage with bombs.

THIS BONUS DAMAGE. It's not saying that bombs have it's own bonus damage that THIS BONUS DAMAGE doesn't apply to. It's saying that THIS BONUS DAMAGE equal to your INT was written in the bomb's description.


And that's RAI. (Please note, I'm not saying that I'm presenting RAW or that I'm right. It's hard when you need to connect ambiguous statments to each other. Sometimes it can't be done. I've found that to be the case for many rules surrounding the Alchemist).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So click the FAQ button. It's clearly ambiguous.


Rub-Eta wrote:


@OldSkoolRPG: Ponder removing the Throw Anything class feature from the Alchemist entierly, no mentioning of it what so ever. Would the Alchemist not gain Int to bombs' damage, eventhough it's mentioned in the Bomb class feature? How is it that one class feature can redefine another without explicitly stating "this ability changes X"? No other rules like this comes to mind.

I'm pretty sure that Throw Anything is only supposed to add damage to splash weapons. Coincidentally, bombs are splash weapons. But that doesn't mean that Throw Anything is the only source of Int to bomb damage within the class (just like how loosing Slashing Grace wouldn't exclude the Dex to damage gained by agile weapons).

Ok, so you want me to pretend like the text that explicitly says my argument is correct doesn't exist and then see if my argument holds up? "Your honor, yes there is a clause that explicitly states that if my client does not finish the work in the agreed time he will pay damages to the plaintiffs but we would like you to ponder if that clause didn't exist in the contract whatsoever would my client really have to pay them?"

The fact is that Throw Anything IS in the text and it DOES explicitly state, as ChessPwn has pointed out, that "This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature." Not just any bonus damage but THIS bonus damage, i.e. the bonus damage just mentioned.

thejeff wrote:
So click the FAQ button. It's clearly ambiguous.

It isn't at all ambiguous unless you erase an entire portion of text from the book.


you know, if we're talking about removing things. If we took out the bomb class feature then why is Throw Anything referencing something that isn't there to say that THAT ability already include this one?


thejeff wrote:
So click the FAQ button. It's clearly ambiguous.

We had a 100+ long thread asking if jumping 5 ft could be done with a result of 5 on acrobatics when you travel 1ft per point rolled.

Just because there are two views going doesn't mean the answer to the question is ambiguous.


Chess Pwn wrote:
you know, if we're talking about removing things. If we took out the bomb class feature then why is Throw Anything referencing something that isn't there to say that THAT ability already include this one?

In most rules arguments here you have two sides trying to argue that logic dictates a specific interpretation of the text. I've never before seen a discussion where the text explicitly said something and the entire opposing argument is "Well what if the text didn't explicitly say that?"


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:

Yes it's RAW.

This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

What does this mean?
It means adding INT to the splash weapon's damage, which is the bonus damage being talked about, was already listed in bomb class feature. And in the bomb class feature we see that INT is being added to the bombs in that feature.

It's explicitly saying that the bomb was written to include the bonus damage in it's block.

It's RAW written in the wrong place. If I have an ability that says something, I can do what that ability says, full stop. I don't have to go read every other ability and see if they claim to be modifying the ability I'm concerned about.

I agree that RAI is that bombs get Int from Throw Anything. But the bombs feature has to stand on its own, and it just says it gets Int to damage. If Throw Anything didn't exist, or was traded away, or you never read the description, RAW for bombs getting Int to damage wouldn't change.

Be mad at whoever wrote it that way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
So click the FAQ button. It's clearly ambiguous.

We had a 100+ long thread asking if jumping 5 ft could be done with a result of 5 on acrobatics when you travel 1ft per point rolled.

Just because there are two views going doesn't mean the answer to the question is ambiguous.
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
It isn't at all ambiguous unless you erase an entire portion of text from the book.

Well then fine. Don't click the FAQ button.

Just argue back and forth until everyone gets bored and you can leave still knowing you were right.

Productive.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

The Throw Anything class feature is unambiguous that the INT damage from the bombs is generated by that feature, if you don't have that feature, you don't have that damage.

However, since archetypes remove features or grant them independently and or other abilities reference them, then the Bombs class feature really should have indicated somewhere that the source of the bonus INT damage comes from Throw Anything, so anyone looking at only what they have (not what they don't have) will realize that they don't get the bonus damage.

The RAW of the text, taken as a whole which it must be, is not ambiguous, but the application of simply adding (or not looking at a removed power) does easily lead to confusion.

Showing the INT damage directly in the Bomb feature makes sense, since most alchemists will have throw anything and that makes it a lot easier for the majority to figure out their damage but it should have been phrased like this for clarity:

"On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier (from the Throw Anything Class Feature). "

Lack of ease of looking up something doesn't mean the the rules are ambiguous though.


Unpleasantly enough, I'm pretty sure that the line in Throw Anything was, in fact, there to prevent double INT to damage.

This... is unfortunate for me for a very simple reason.

It's not because I want extra damage for an alchemist - I don't play one and don't really plan on it (and generally hope to trade away Alchemy when I play Invesigators): it's because that daggum FAQ, at long last, finally has a piece of evidence that is internally-consistent with the rest of the game.

This is especially frustrating, because I don't believe the FAQ team ever pointed it out. That particular FAQ caused great consternation and frustration at the time of its release, and the only thing that was mentioned was the Paladin's thing, with no real apparent internal consistency. The entire description, then, of the RAI felt forced and counter-intuitive.

But here, for the first time, we have a clear cut-and-dry example of the FAQ in-action, prior to it being the FAQ.

DANG it, PDT. You should have pointed to that in the first place! I still wouldn't have liked the FAQ, but at least it would have shown that you that the intent the whole time! >:I


Chess Pwn wrote:
you know, if we're talking about removing things. If we took out the bomb class feature then why is Throw Anything referencing something that isn't there to say that THAT ability already include this one?

It doesn't.

It looks like it does, but it doesn't say "this ability" - it says "this bonus damage" which is an important distinction.

Let's look at what the abilities actually say.

Bomb

Bomb wrote:

On a direct hit, an alchemist's bomb inflicts 1d6 points of fire damage + additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier.

<snip>
Splash damage from an alchemist bomb is always equal to the bomb's minimum damage (so if the bomb would deal 2d6+4 points of fire damage on a direct hit, its splash damage would be 6 points of fire damage).

The Bomb ability grants "additional damage equal to the alchemist's Intelligence modifier." as part of the ability.

But then, of course, we have...

Throw Anything

Throw Anything wrote:
An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.

On it's face, I'd agree that it looks like (barring any other input) that the implication of intent (for most common uses of English) is that the bonus damage, then, comes from the Throw Anything ability. That would be one normal reading.

But the rules never quite work that way, it seems, or weren't intended to read quite like most people expect.

Relevant FAQ

The FAQ wrote:

Do ability modifiers from the same ability stack? For instance, can you add the same ability bonus on the same roll twice using two different effects that each add that same ability modifier?

No. An ability bonus, such as "Strength bonus", is considered to be the same source for the purpose of bonuses from the same source not stacking. However, you can still add, for instance “a deflection bonus equal to your Charisma modifier” and your Charisma modifier. For this purpose, however, the paladin's untyped "bonus equal to her Charisma bonus (if any) on all saving throws" from divine grace is considered to be the same as "Charisma bonus (if any)", and the same would be true for any other untyped "bonus equal to her [ability score] bonus" constructions.

The answer explicitly references "Strength bonus" as a method of example, which is notable as the only times the terms "Strength bonus" are ever referred to (from what I can tell*), it is when it deals damage or applies to a skill.

Of those instances, the only times that I can (currently) find the potential to ever have strength bonus applied multiple times, it comes from damage (such as things like two handed fighter mixed with titan mauler or something).

But, that says "bonuses" and not "modifier" - again, a substantial difference, right?

Well, again, the rules come into play: a bonus is a merely a positive modifier.

Ability Scores wrote:
A positive modifier is called a bonus, and a negative modifier is called a penalty.

The two rules taken in consideration with each other provide the following conclusion: "If an ability score has a positive modifier, that positive modifier (also called 'a bonus') can only be applied once, unless multiple types are specified."

So... why the specification? I can't say, but it seems likely that it's because, at the time of the Alchemist's printing, that FAQ didn't exist. There was nothing in-rules that clarified that an ability score modifier doesn't stack, outside of specific, specified instances, like this, so they needed to be specific and explicit when dealing with abilities like the Alchemist. In other words, they were anticipating the question, and added it in both places, to be sure.

Is that the only conclusion a person can come to? No. But that's just because, you know, "English, amirite?!" is a thing we all have to deal with and, from the very beginning of 3.X we've had to deal with a weird combination of loose and tight text for RAW that causes weird situations.

If space was at a genuine premium (which it is, as various Devs have constantly noted), it would be critically easy (and important) to change the wording to only being in the Throw Anything ability - this saves space and eliminates ambiguity at the same time. If necessary, the Throw Anything can add, "This also applies to an alchemist's Bomb ability, or similar abilities." which might be redundant with the ability's text, but doesn't take up more space than it currently does, and clarifies any ambiguity.

Of course, maybe they haven't thought of it. Or maybe now that I've written it out they don't feel that they can use that wording for some reason**. I don't know.

But it's a reasonable conclusion to come to, and it's in no way denying what's actually written - in fact, it's weighing in the FAQ clarifications as well as the actual English of the rules themselves plus following one valid (if circuitous) way (that is non-intuitive for some).

* If you can prove me wrong, this would be ideal! I'd love to know some obscure (or even famous) nuggets of rules lore that I'm currently lacking. :)

** If it helps, I fully cede any and all legal claim or rights or whatsoever may otherwise be used to, in any way, do anything to Paizo or anyone else, to the specific wording above or anything even remotely resembling it, including any compensation, credit or anything. I mean, that's in addition to (I think) the formal waiver that anything that I type here belongs to Paizo that's somewhere 'round the site. I'm not a lawyer, but this should constitute a full waiver for any legal purposes? If not, that's the intent, and any reasonable court*** should be able to clearly follow.

*** If up to me (and it should be), it would never, ever come to this. Daggum, why do I have to cover these things? It seems entirely unreasonable to me, but I'm just trying to make sure that, should the incredibly and entirely unlikely occur (that being my wording somehow be miraculously just what Paizo wants), I didn't just spoil the pot for anyone, or whatever it's called. I literally just put some words together to restate things already said by others. I've officially earned the no-prize.


Tacticslion wrote:
DANG it, PDT. You should have pointed to that in the first place! I still wouldn't have liked the FAQ, but at least it would have shown that you that the intent the whole time! >:I

Addendum*: If you did point this out at the time... whoops! My bad.

I don't remember it, but I could just be a jerk with a bad attitude and a poor memory. I admit this is a possibility. So, potential "WHOOPS!" on my part!

* (Literally seconds too late to edit the above; in fact, I did, but the EDIT didn't take, because the time had expired. Whoops, potentially part two!)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
It wouldn't be allowed without the line anyway, you can't add bonuses from the same source twice (EDIT: Removed a bad example and replace with an FAQ link).

The alchemist predates the FAQ.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:


Ok, so you want me to pretend like the text that explicitly says my argument is correct doesn't exist and then see if my argument holds up?

Since you seemed to miss the obvious, the archetypes in question replace the class feature we're arguing over. They do not have that text, because they lose Throw Anything.

Therefore, what the text says without that class feature is the only thing that matters, because we're talking about an archetype that does not have that class feature.

Quote:
"Your honor, yes there is a clause that explicitly states that if my client does not finish the work in the agreed time he will pay damages to the plaintiffs but we would like you to ponder if that clause didn't exist in the contract whatsoever would my client really have to pay them?"

Well I mean, if you write up a version of that contract that doesn't have that clause and then after the fact want to argue a point based on that clause, yeah. You're out of luck.

Quote:
It isn't at all ambiguous unless you erase an entire portion of text from the book.

Which you're literally doing because the archetype does not have that text.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
It is just mind boggling how people will try to ignore rules text

You mean like, ignoring what the Bomb class feature says about how much damage Bombs do?

You can argue it's not intended. You can argue the author is just bad at his job or made a mistake or doesn't understand why redundant text isn't helpful. Go ahead. There's a good chance you're right.

But insulting people for ignoring rules text when your entire argument is that we should ignore what the class feature says it does is ridiculous.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bombs get Int to damage because the bombs class feature says they do. I cannot understand why anyone is saying they don't get it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

{. . .}

Bombs: At 7th level, he gains the ability to create a number of bombs per day equal to his Intelligence modifier + 1/2 his character level. The bombs deal damage as an alchemist of his character level, but since he doesn't have the alchemist's throw anything class feature, he doesn't add his Intelligence modifier to the damage.
{. . .}

So Pathfinder Unchained seems to think that Alchemists' Throw Anything is required for Bombs to include Int to Damage. (And the regular Throw Anything feat doesn't cut it as a substitute.)


{. . .}

Bombs: At 7th level, he gains the ability to create a number of bombs per day equal to his Intelligence modifier + 1/2 his character level. The bombs deal damage as an alchemist of his character level, but since he doesn't have the alchemist's throw anything class feature, he doesn't add his Intelligence modifier to the damage.
{. . .}
UnArcaneElection wrote:
So Pathfinder Unchained seems to think that Alchemists' Throw Anything is required for Bombs to include Int to Damage. (And the regular Throw Anything feat doesn't cut it as a substitute.)

Ooh~! Nice find!

That certainly makes a nice case for the RAI, then!


Chess Pwn wrote:
Rory wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
Bombs don't have Int to damage.
Per RAW, they do. If a class archetype trades away one class ability, you still read and run the remaining class abilities per their text. And in the Bomb class ability text, it explicitly says they get INT to damage.

...

Per RAW they don't.

This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature. if you lose this feature you lose the bonus damage already figured in.

You can't quote rules text from something traded away by the archetype and call it RAW.

You can do so for a RAI discussion.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Alchemist Bomb (Su) without Throw Anything (Ex)? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.