Alchemical Fireballs?

[kreynolds]

2) Is it overpowered?

Absolutely. You argue that a single charge of a 8HD fireball from a wand is only 360gp, and this is correct. However, the fault in your argument is that wands are only useable by characters that have the spell on their class list, thus the reduced cost in price.

The only fair comparison would be Any spell, single use, use-activated, which is spell level x caster level x 100gp. That would bring the cost of a one time use 8HD fireball that is useable by anyone to 2,400gp, or 1,200gp if you made it yourself. That's a big fat difference over a wand charge.

Also, you can't use the potion cost because that's not what potions are for. Oil pricing serves this purpose, and oils are wondrous items, not potions.

3) Is it a fun and creative thing that you want to let into your campaign? --Your call!

Oh, don't get me wrong, your idea is most certainly a creative one, but your delivery method and cost is faulty.

 

[Psifon]

<<sigh>>

kreynolds, I get the impression that you are just looking for reasons to nerf this idea. Saying that making a glass jar that will reliably break is a problem seems like a straw horesman to me. If I was asserting that my adamantium jars would break, then you would be in your rights to be picking my statements appart like that, but I'm not. Never mind that as the glass jar shrinks, the glass it is made of gets thinner by a factor of 1/12. If anything, the problem would be keeping them from breaking during handling. Your arguement seems like smoke to me.


I still don't get why being shrunk would make the item LESS subject to breakage according to your logic. I just have not heard what your logic is. The spell doesn't say that it makes the items more durable, why do you insist that it would not break, just because it is shrunk.

I still assert that being shrunk makes no difference to whether or not the item is subject to breakage. The only reason it would, is because it is lighter, less force would be applied to the glass if it were just casually dropped (as opposed to thrown with some force). On the other hand, the glass would be thinner and more fragile, so I figure these would balance out.

You said "That kinda sounds like it's in a form of stasis, doesn't it? " My response is: not at all. It is not stasis, it is a limited form of polymorph (into cloth). The fire and it's fuel are being turned into something else, so the fire stops consuming the fuel. When the spell is dispelled, everything goes back to normal, and the fire continues to burn. If it is not turned into cloth, the fire would burn normally, and I would argue for the same duration. For example a shrunken torch would still burn for one hour, even if it was now the size of a match. This is my interpretation, but as I said, DM's need to make this decision, not players.

What It sounds like you are saying is that if I take normal flask full of alchemist fire, one that is designed to break, and shrunk it, and hurled it at a brick wall as hard as you could (lets assume this counts as "tossed on solid surface for the sake of arguement), it would return to normal size and NOT BREAK. Do I have this right? Is this your position?

 

[jodyjohnson]

Alchemist Fire's Damage

If a character needs to use an Epic level feat to make Alchemist's Fire that does 2d6 (2 splash), I wouldn't allow normal fire to do multiple dice per round just because you used a higher quantity.

A pint of AF does 1d6 (1 splash), a barrel of AF does 1d6 (1 splash) but probably a proportionally increased area or duration by DM ruling.

I agree that the initial impact with the target would not harm the 'shrunk' object. The secondary impact with the ground would since it only needs to be tossed.

 

[Gaiden]

Actually it seems that the idea of the shrunken jar proves to be even more effective than initially thought.

If the jar grows to be much larger than its initial size and is made of glass that breaks upon impact, then

damage equals, bolt damage + fire damage (presumably 4d6) + impact damage from the large glass flask that is breaking+splash damage from broken glass...pretty cool if you ask me.

 

[AuraSeer]

I get the impression that you are just looking for reasons to nerf this idea.

And I get the impression that you are just trying to convince your DM that this trick works, despite several well-reasoned rules arguments to the contrary.

I wonder whose impression is shared by more readers of this thread?

What It sounds like you are saying is that if I take normal flask full of alchemist fire, one that is designed to break, and shrunk it, and hurled it at a brick wall as hard as you could (lets assume this counts as "tossed on solid surface for the sake of arguement), it would return to normal size and NOT BREAK. Do I have this right? Is this your position?

I can't speak for KR, but that is my position exactly. The object would bounce off the wall with a cute little *plink* sound, and begin growing back to normal size. Thanks for asking.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: <<sigh>>

What It sounds like you are saying is that if I take normal flask full of alchemist fire, one that is designed to break, and shrunk it, and hurled it at a brick wall as hard as you could (lets assume this counts as "tossed on solid surface for the sake of arguement), it would return to normal size and NOT BREAK. Do I have this right?

*sigh* OK. How can I put this without totally pissing you off.....I don't know....screw it....

...Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Ironically, that's exactly what the spell says as well. Striking a surface triggers the expansion of the item. Thus breakage, if any, would occur after the impact, not because of the impact.

This makes sense if you aren't trying to completely rape the Shrink Item spell. Be nice to it. It's just a spell.

 

[las]

Why make the jar smaller do the Alf that it brakes and lights them on fire.

 

[kreynolds]

Why make the jar smaller do the Alf that it brakes and lights them on fire.

What the heck is an "Alf"?

(besides the friendly neighbor alien that likes to eat cats)

 

[Psifon]

Re: Re: <<sigh>>

...Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Ironically, that's exactly what the spell says as well. Striking a surface triggers the expansion of the item. Thus breakage, if any, would occur after the impact, not because of the impact.

OK, great, now we are getting somewhere. We are both in agreement that striking the surface triggers the expansion of the item.

Now explain to me why it would not also break, simply because it is a flask full of liquid that is striking a wall with some force. Why does the spell somehow protect the flask from breaking? Where does it say that it does protect the flask?

BTW, I am not angry, and thank you for giving me a straight answer. I have read many of your posts, Kreynolds, and I have great respect for your understanding of the rules. I just don't see this one the same way you do. I am looking for a meeting of minds.

 

[Mistwell]

I think the answer here has already been proposed.

1) You create a small glass bead that will break under the pressure of a shot arrow that strikes a surface. This will cost you something, either in gold pieces or in skill ranks.

2) You shrink the AF. Then you pour the shrunken AF into the glass ball. Question - does pouring the AF into another item trigger it to grow again? I do not know. Thoughts?

3) You attach the full glass bead to the end of an arrow. This may also require some ranks in a skill.

4) You fire the AF arrow at a target. The bead breaks. The AF splashes against the target, it expands on that impact, and the target is now engulfed in the AF flame.

I think this will work, with the exception of the pouring process. It is possible pouring the AF triggers its growth.