Hello,
I have a few questions about aquatic combat for the alchemist:
1) Can bomb (other than fire) work underwater ?
The rules is:
You’re flat-footed unless you have a swim Speed.
You gain resistance 5 to acid and fire.
You take a –2 circumstance penalty to melee slashing or bludgeoning attacks that pass through water.
Ranged attacks that deal bludgeoning or slashing damage automatically miss if the attacker or target is underwater, and piercing ranged attacks made by an underwater creature or against an underwater target have their range increments halved.
You can’t cast fire spells or use actions with the fire trait underwater.
At the GM’s discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.
(478 Core Rulebook)
So, since bombs do not deal bludgeonin or slashing damage, it should work, right ? But bombs explode on contact with something, so it's sort of bludgeoning no ?
I don't know if their is rules about that already
2) Do poisons stay on blades / arrows underwater ?
In PF1, i think there was a feat for oily poisons so stay on weapons underwater. But this not exist in PF2 and there is no precision about poisons underwater no ?
3) Alchemical crossbow underwater:
In case of bombs don't work underwater, can alchemical crossbow work and apply some bonus damage (except fire obviously)
Thanks for your time and sorry if i made some lingual mistakes, i'm French ;)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There used to be a rule stating that when an attack dealt a specific damage type it gained that trait, but it was quietly removed in the second printing. It's unknown if it was intentional or not since it was never mentioned anywhere as being removed. So that rule (which would affect alchemical crossbows) is currently in limbo until they clarify if it was intentional.
|
An alchemist bomb does not have the bludgeoning trait so it can be used underwater. I know that is not logical, but much in the rules is not logical.
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.
The range for the bomb is not halved because the rules don't say they are. Again, not logical.
The underwater rules for alchemists was recently highlighted in a PFS adventure.
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.
Wouldn't it deal normal damage, subject to the target gaining resist fire 5?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can’t cast fire spells or use actions with the fire trait underwater.
Alchemist's Fire has the Fire trait, so it can be argued that it simply doesn't work underwater.
|
|
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.Wouldn't it deal normal damage, subject to the target gaining resist fire 5?
Good Question. I was going to say No but your comment about fire resistence made me pause.
I think that an alchemist's fire would no damage but could be thrown is because of the description for alchemist's fire.
Alchemist’s fire is a combination of volatile liquids that ignite when exposed to air.
When underwater, there is no air for the volatile liquids to interact with.
|
|
You can’t cast fire spells or use actions with the fire trait underwater.Alchemist's Fire has the Fire trait, so it can be argued that it simply doesn't work underwater.
True but the Strike action, which is what is being used to throw the bomb, does not have the fire trait. The rules say it is the action, not the item. that has to have the fire trait.
An alchemist bomb does not have the bludgeoning trait so it can be used underwater. I know that is not logical, but much in the rules is not logical.
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.
The range for the bomb is not halved because the rules don't say they are. Again, not logical.
The underwater rules for alchemists was recently highlighted in a PFS adventure.
Wich one please ? I'm interested
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An alchemist bomb does not have the bludgeoning trait so it can be used underwater. I know that is not logical, but much in the rules is not logical.
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.
The range for the bomb is not halved because the rules don't say they are. Again, not logical.
The underwater rules for alchemists was recently highlighted in a PFS adventure.
I would say that's covered by:
At the GM’s discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating.
Rather than write a whole chapter about underwater combat, they just listed rules for what they thought were the most common cases and explicitly left the rest to GM discretion.
In practice I've seen it ruled that bombs would be hampered in the same way as piercing ranged weapons, mostly to avoid making alchemists entirely unplayable in that adventure.
If your gm lets it work they could easily also let the fact that the target is fully submerged work as the assist to lessen the flat check for shaking the persistent damage. So maybe you can apply acid but the fact you are fully submerged makes it easier to wash it off.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please try throwing a rock underwater vs on land and come back to this thread. You will find that not being able to throw bombs underwater to be quite reasonable.
And please don't just replay with "But RAW!" It's clearly intended to apply to any non-piercing thrown weapon and they just forgot to mention "bombs". Really it should have just said non-piercing thrown weapons...
When we find a rule that was intended to be one way but the writing makes it unclear we should try to raise the issue to the developers, instead of trying to find loopholes and break the rules.
|
|
Anyone with Martial weapon proficiency can use a bomb, alchemists just get them free. Some classes can even throw bombs further than a standard alchemist can.
You can't equate swinging a weapon underwater to throwing it. When swinging you maintain control on the weapon, and while the force of the water is acting against your swing, you can still power through and complete the swing, which is why they get a penalty instead of failing. Meanwhile once you release a thrown weapon it is completely at the mercy of the force of the water on it. This means any thrown item that's not designed for aquadynamics will quickly stop moving regardless of how much force you impart on it.
Air and Water are both liquids, with water being significantly more dense (About 1000x more so.) The reason piercing weapons are typically used underwater is because the cross-sectional area of the force is significantly lower than that of a slashing or bludgeoning weapon. Since the drag coefficient is about 1000 times larger, even small increases in cross-sectional area drastically reduce momentum through water, while it's negligible when it comes to something like a spear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd find rather odd for an alchemist not having at least one magic weapon.
I wouldn't. 100 gp buys a lot of formulas and raw materials.
But I do find it rather odd that people consider alchemists not being able to throw bombs underwater worth a structural change (to equipment or to the rules).
Sometimes the alchemist just needs to pull out the 1d4-1 dagger and Aid an attack or something creative. No character gets to do their preferred actions 100% of the time, this seems no worse than the greatsword fighter pulling out a mundane crossbow to attack a circling dragon, or readying actions every turn hoping their wizard allies can earthbind it.
Please try throwing a rock underwater vs on land and come back to this thread. You will find that not being able to throw bombs underwater to be quite reasonable.
Reality has little to do with the rules.
If it did, there would be weakness to electricity depending on the ionic strength of the water (salt water conducts electricity more than fresh water), sonic damage might have resistances or weaknesses depending on the frequency of the sounds (higher frequencies dissipate readily), resistance to cold would equal resistance to fire due to the heat capacity of the water, and nobody can realistically swim with 5 Bulk no matter how strong they are.
Ruling that alchemists can throw bombs (or certain types of bombs) is fine, ruling that they can't is also fine. It's solely a function of what the rules say/mean.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to analyze the situation
Starting with the obvious
RAW: Piercing ranged weapons work (with reduced range)
Slashing and bludgeoning ranged weapons always fail
Bombs are not mentioned
Now how do I interpret that?
My view:
2e has tried hard to get rid of all stacking shenanigan that plague 1e and therefore tries to write what is possible. If it isn't expressly allowed - ask the GM or assume it doesn't work.
So no - bombs shouldn't work.
So how would I handle it at my table?
I know the story in advance. So if there is lots of underwater fighting I would discourage a player to even consider an alchemist.
If there is a little underwater I would try to warn the alchemist player in advance to allow some backup.
If it is a single encounter I would likely feel - suck it up. Not worse then rolling a nat 1 in the first round of combaet on an incapacitate effect.
...
I'm fully aware there is a PFS scenario with underwater fights. But that is the reason when I played it to use my cleric (prepping water breathing) instead of going in with my alchemist. The blurb is enough to tell me at least some underwater fights are to be expected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An Alchemist underwater isn't necessarily, totally sidelined. . .
He can make Sea Touched Elixirs and Water Breathing from a Spell or Potion is relatively easily obtainable. Breath Control and Underwater Marauder feats also help and are both 1st level.
Just. . . don't try to rely on bombs underwater. They aren't the end-all-be-all of Alchemists, not even for Bombers.
|
|
I think as an alchemist picking up a crossbow or even getting shortbow proficiency is a good idea anyway. It gives you backup for a lot of situations:
- Combat at longer range / monster you don't want to get close enough to to bomb
- Arrows are fairly cheap, so you can have some spares for when you don't have infinite bombs yet
- Monsters with many elemental resistances
- Underwater combat
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so, i ask once more, do you guys dissalow casting spells underwater?
The only proabition listed is on fire spells.
even waterbreathing doesnt have text allowing you to "talk" underwater.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Nothing in aquatic combat, aquatic, or anything else says you can't speak underwater or would you say aquatic elves can't speak to each other underwater because nothing says so?
the "out of breath" issue doesnt usually arise due to underwater combat being facilitated 99% of the time with water breathing, but water breathing does nothing for "speaking" underwater.
Nothing says water breathing creatures can't speak underwater: Merfolk have 2 listed languages and can't breath air so we assume they can never use those languages unless they go on land and can't breathe? The aquatic combat rules tell you how land folks are limited underwater and speaking isn't listed as a limitation on anything other than holding your breathe so I see no reason to assume it's an unwritten limitation.
let alone the simple fact that one can have his containers shaped in Dart shape and then throw them, i mean, the game has exactly 0 rules about the shape the bombs are.
No reason they couldn't but that sounds like something with a rarity higher than common...
I think as an alchemist picking up a crossbow or even getting shortbow proficiency is a good idea anyway.
I think a crossbow is a no-brainer. My alchemist also has a dagger.
This is all within the context of them being super cheap and their bulk not mechanically affecting the character (much easier post-errata, but when I created my alchemist I had to give her 12 STR because the alchemist kit plus 8 Advanced Alchemy items encumbered her).
Shortbow is a different story, because it costs a feat unless you can get it through ancestry. I argue that the backup weapon is pretty far down the list of things to spend feats on. By 7th level an alchemist has unlimited 1st level bombs so if I were really worried about backup weapon damage type, I'd choose the 1d4+4 thunderstones.
I think enchanting a backup weapon is super low priority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Nothing in aquatic combat, aquatic, or anything else says you can't speak underwater or would you say aquatic elves can't speak to each other underwater because nothing says so?
I think that's the point. Nothing says bombs don't work underwater either.
So you have people trying to apply "common sense" to one class and then arguing "we don't need to be realistic just follow the rules" for another class.
I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Nothing in aquatic combat, aquatic, or anything else says you can't speak underwater or would you say aquatic elves can't speak to each other underwater because nothing says so?I think that's the point. Nothing says bombs don't work underwater either.
So you have people trying to apply "common sense" to one class and then arguing "we don't need to be realistic just follow the rules" for another class.
But it's common sense to follow the rules here so there isn't a contradiction: IMO, it's common sense that merfolk can speak to each other and for that to happen, water breathing creatures have to be able to speak. this works 100% with there being no specific prohibition on speaking unless you are holding your breath.
I wasn't mentioning bombs as the post I replied to didn't mention them [just their containers]. As to bombs, it's most likely an oversight as bombs sit in a category unique to themselves, both weapon and alchemy item. As such, if you want to rule on common sense, they most likely aren't going to work. It you rule on it with the rules, it's in a grey area: underwater combat lists what ranged weapons work and what ones don't with bombs not listed.
Myself, I'd go with this listing under Aquatic Combat: "At the GM’s discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating." It's a 'get put of jail free card' for things like tossing bombs, so the ground-based action of 'strike with bomb' wouldn't work.
actually the rules say the exact same thing for bombs and underwater talking:
"some physical things may not work"
So, if we go by the rules only, you can throw bombs normally, and you can speak normally.
it's only gm calls that disallow either one of those.
and it's directly rooted to the same exact rule "do a physical thing"
The only difference is we have examples of creatures that live underwater that speak languages and cast spells and are physically incapable of breathing air so it's not exactly true that the game stays silent on it: it just doesn't slap you in the face with an explicit 'hey, water breathing creatures can talk underwater' but I don't think it has to: if you don't, parts of the game stop working like merfolk having to suffocate above water to talk to each other... As such, I'm quite comfortable saying the ability to breathe underwater includes speaking. Saying otherwise is kind of like arguing dead people can move in PF1 even though it's obvious they can't.
As to bombs, again IMO it's a grey area more than anything: with the listing of ranged weapons and how they are affected, it seems doubtful to me that bombs would be the ONLY ranged weapon that is unaffected underwater [even piercing weapons see range halved] so I think it's not as simple as "it's directly rooted to the same exact rule "do a physical thing"": the difference is that one brings about an illogical result if allowed [bombs work better underwater than javelins] and the other brings an illogical result is disallowed [merfolk, krakens, ect can't speak or cast spells without suffocating].
That's why I can see "At the GM’s discretion, some ground-based actions might not work underwater or while floating" getting applied to bombs while I don't see it being done for speech. Bombs affects a subset of alchemists that can just make non-bomb items while speaking/spells affect Bard, Champion, Cleric, Druid, Investigator, Monk, Oracle, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Swashbuckler, Witch, Wizard and any npc/enemy spell casters and/or communication... One clearly severely limits almost every kind of adventure while the other doesn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, while Auditory & Linguistic spells/effects might have difficulty underwater (though I agree with Graystone they usually shouldn't), that doesn't mean Verbal effects have difficulty.
The casters are speaking to the cosmos, not someone's ear.
Also, I've yelled underwater and been understood, so it's not like it's impossible (though yes, only small, basic ideas). Underwater I've also spoken words in a strong voice (as per Verbal trait) even if nearly all of them were unintelligible to others.
The expulsion of one's air supply is already a severe cost, and spells/effects that allow water breathing should enable underwater adventuring. Without spellcasting it'd be like entering the Mana Wastes, and that'd kill the common fantasy trope of exploring under the sea.
as for the rest, i will know to clarify tthat ALL my bomb's containers are dart shaped, since that's a cosmetic change and the rules say absolutely nothing about the shape of the bombs.
So, even with the strictest gm houserules, if someone allows you to throw darts underwater, i can throw bombs.
I'm not sure what dart shaped bombs would do to convince a strict DM: shape is meaningless to the rules, it's DAMAGE done. A morning star's ability to hit underwater is dependent on your choice of the damage you deal with it [hitting with a spike is 2 easier that hitting with a blunt area] but nothing about that alters the shape of the weapon. Making a hydrodynamically efficient bomb shape is no guarantee to change a DM's rulings, as it's clear shape doesn't matter. I mean, realistically a Combat Grapnel or a Starknife wouldn't go anywhere but the rules say they have a range increment of 10' because of it's damage type no matter how bad their hydrodynamics are.
|
|
Which one please ? I'm interestedAn alchemist bomb does not have the bludgeoning trait so it can be used underwater. I know that is not logical, but much in the rules is not logical.
You can throw an alchemist fire underwater, it would just not deal any damage.
The range for the bomb is not halved because the rules don't say they are. Again, not logical.
The underwater rules for alchemists was recently highlighted in a PFS adventure.