Rules theory. Using a Alchemist fire in Melee as a once off attack. Is it strength + simple weapon profiency? Should you add strength? Is this not awesome for a charhide goblin alchemist with energy mutagens and lots strength!
There are no rules to support this, but it is cool so I'd allow it. I'd probably treat it as a finesse weapon but not have it be expended on a normal miss.
I second not adding strength to the damage roll. Bombs in PF2 are usually fragile vials rather than metal grenades, so imparting more force to the vial probably won't result in more physical damage. Instead the bomb "goes off" on the enemy on a hit.
Also note that you'll be in the splash zone of the weapon, and given the circumstances, I'd think it would be fair to apply the splash to the user even if you are a bomber and can normally restrict the splash to just the target. It stands to reason that since you aren't throwing the bomb as intended, you can't quite get the same amount of control over it's splash as you normally would.
finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
Doesn't ruling this conservatively make this close to strictly worse than throwing it? Just let Alchemists have some fun, they won't break the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't ruling this conservatively make this close to strictly worse than throwing it? Just let Alchemists have some fun, they won't break the game.finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
Not expending the bomb on a miss is a pretty great deal.
I don't know about the other parts of their ruling, but I would agree that making it too attractive to use in melee might also be bad. I don't want alchemists constantly kicking themselves for not deciding to use it in melee when they miss at range. Splash damage isn't that big of a concern compared against being able to spam your bombs without wasting them.
I'd probably slap an improvised weapon penalty on the attack and call it a day.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a Rules discussion IMO, but instead homebrew IMO.
The GM would need to adjudicate 100% of this in the first place given that you're using the Bomb as an improvised weapon. If you want to go deeper than that you'd need to start relying on houserules given that the RAW has no support for this kind of thing beyond "ask your GM."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't ruling this conservatively make this close to strictly worse than throwing it? Just let Alchemists have some fun, they won't break the game.finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
Not expending the bomb on a miss is a pretty great deal.
I don't know about the other parts of their ruling, but I would agree that making it too attractive to use in melee might also be bad. I don't want alchemists constantly kicking themselves for not deciding to use it in melee when they miss at range. Splash damage isn't that big of a concern compared against being able to spam your bombs without wasting them.
I'd probably slap an improvised weapon penalty on the attack and call it a day.
I was under the impression that the damage on a miss was literally the only thing keeping bomb alchemist's damage (debatably) above water.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the primary thing helping alchemist damage was the ability to make a variety of bombs that would target various Weaknesses, including a variety of elements, and of course also including the fundamental Splash damage weakness.
I think saving the bomb (resource use) would be considered a boost, over doing a point of damage in most cases.
Doesn't ruling this conservatively make this close to strictly worse than throwing it? Just let Alchemists have some fun, they won't break the game.finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
The benefit of not throwing is two fold, first you don't lose to bomb on a miss, second you don't provoke AoO. Another thing is that you use your simple weapon proficiency. Bombs are usually martial, so now everyone can use it (except the wizard).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To say you're not throwing it is to say it's exploding in your hand.
So 'only splash damage' would be generous to the wielder.
At worst, you're taking as much damage as they are (which hey, sometimes you gotta do).
A vial or flask would be an improvised weapon at best, and without finesse since you do have to smash it and there's nothing more special about this than any other improvised object. This then would imply that Str applies, which I might allow (if I allowed this at all) except the weapon's breaking so likely no. And I'd also say the bomb's spent even if you miss since AC is about penetrating defenses, not simply contact or no contact. Contact's most likely except perhaps with a crit fail, which would have other reasons to deem the vial broken.
Just a mess that would need a lot of "cool" to validate breaking the rule, and I don't see that happening. As mentioned, not spending one's bombs except on successful hits is a pretty sweet boon (and arguably so is being able to use Str on attack, since every martial could be doing this with the Alchemist's bombs, especially vs. specific enemies, i.e. Trolls).
To say you're not throwing it is to say it's exploding in your hand.
So 'only splash damage' would be generous to the wielder.At worst, you're taking as much damage as they are (which hey, sometimes you gotta do).
A vial or flask would be an improvised weapon at best, and without finesse since you do have to smash it and there's nothing more special about this than any other improvised object. This then would imply that Str applies, which I might allow (if I allowed this at all) except the weapon's breaking so likely no. And I'd also say the bomb's spent even if you miss since AC is about penetrating defenses, not simply contact or no contact. Contact's most likely except perhaps with a crit fail, which would have other reasons to deem the vial broken.Just a mess that would need a lot of "cool" to validate breaking the rule, and I don't see that happening. As mentioned, not spending one's bombs except on successful hits is a pretty sweet boon (and arguably so is being able to use Str on attack, since every martial could be doing this with the Alchemist's bombs, especially vs. specific enemies, i.e. Trolls).
I like the idea of a Miss means Enemy takes splash and Alchemist takes full.
The benefit of not throwing is two fold, first you don't lose to bomb on a miss, second you don't provoke AoO. Another thing is that you use your simple weapon proficiency. Bombs are usually martial, so now everyone can use it (except the wizard).Doesn't ruling this conservatively make this close to strictly worse than throwing it? Just let Alchemists have some fun, they won't break the game.finesse and no strength damage. You also take splash damage. No damage on a miss, but not expended either. On a critical miss you break it and only you take splash damage.
I would agree that most of the bomber feats wouldn't apply either.
You would provoke AoO when drawing the Bombs, no? So only if you were facing someone with two AoO reactions would you actually be benefited by using it as a melee weapon (excluding your first one or two strikes), whereas in this rare case a Quick Bomber thrown bomb would actually trigger two AoOs, one when they draw a bomb and one when they throw it (assuming they stay in melee range for some reason).