Alchemical Fireballs?

[kreynolds]

1) this is not an area of effect, it effects one target.

Point me to a rule that states that. Point me to a rule that states that 5 gallons of alchemist's fire won't have an increased splash damage radius.

2) It does 4d6 over 2 rounds.

House rule. This is the rules thread. I'm not arguing house rules with you because this isn't the place to do it.

3) A character holding a use activated magic item is not douched with alchemist fire when he is hit with a dispel magic!

I don't see how that's relevant to the overall problem. *shrug*

This last one does discourage passing these things out to other party members.

As a DM, I wouldn't let it into the game to begin with. Why? You can't back it up within the rules. You can't explain it within the rules. House rules are not necessary because you can, in fact, do this within the rules, but not the way you want to.

If you do, then you run the risk of torching the whole party with one dispel magic.

The whole party!?! Wait a minute. You better take a look at your first point again. You said it wasn't an area of effect. Now you're saying that it is!?

See, you can't even keep your own argument straight. With that being the case, why I on earth would I, as a DM, even bother listening to this nonsense (no offense, but it is) for more than 30 seconds, when you can't even keep your own argument straight?

 

[kreynolds]

kreynolds: I understand the point you're trying to make, but it seems to hinge on the assumption that the gallon flask is Shrunk as well (so it only has a chance to break *after* impact).

Well...yeah. Know why? Because that's how this whole thing started.

I have a trick where I shrink big vases full of alchemist fire

Psifon confimred this in his first post.

 

[jodyjohnson]

Alchemist Fire

Did the Sage suggest these increased damage AF in Dragon or in a post somewhere?

Since immersion in Acid is 10d6 and Lava is 20d6, I'm interested in where he capped damage for volume.

 

[kreynolds]

Re: Alchemist Fire

Did the Sage suggest these increased damage AF in Dragon or in a post somewhere?

Not as far as I know.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Personally, I think that interpreting the words of that particular spell in as picky a manner as possible (and indeed, interpreting the words of most spells in as picky a manner as possible) is a good thing(tm).

If the only activation situations are command word and, quite specifically, tossed ONTO a solid surface (as discrete from tossed at a solid surface, or tossed onto the surface of air above your opponents head etc), then it becomes very difficult to create a combat application of this spell. And I think that is the point.

The spell reduces the mass and volume of an object so as to make it easier to carry. That's what it's intended for, and that's what it does. And THAT is why it doesn't, say, give damage for a rapidly expanding object, or specify breaking conditions of the object, or anything else.

As soon as you start applying physics to the question, you end up with things suggested in this monstrosity:
The rectangle of doom.

Finally - somewhere on these boards was an argument about how magical effects apply to the alteration of the target (aka - what happens when you continual light a rock, and then split it?). I suggested that when something can no longer be considered the original target, then the spell ceases working (So if someone targeted by haste dies, the corpse not hasted. If the continual light rock is split, it's no longer the original rock, so the spell stops etc). I'd suggest applying that to the scenario of shrinking a vial of alchemists fire and then pouring the alchemists fire out (or you end up with "I shrink the treasure chest and all it's contents, then take the contents out and put them in my pack, getting 12 shrink items for the price of one").

 

[toberane]

Re: Umm ...

Why are you bothering to put it in a jar in the first place?

Create big puddle of (burning) alchemist's fire.

Shrink it, turning it into cloth, which stops fuel consumption, yes?

Attach cloth to bolt/arrow.

Fire bolt. Upon impact, cloth reverts to burning puddle.


As another alternative consider what happens if you make a Gargantuan arrow/bolt head, shrink it and fire it. What happens to the poor victim that has *that* expanding in his wound?

I wish I'd read this thread earlier... This is the same idea I had...

 

[toberane]

The whole party!?! Wait a minute. You better take a look at your first point again. You said it wasn't an area of effect. Now you're saying that it is!?

See, you can't even keep your own argument straight. With that being the case, why I on earth would I, as a DM, even bother listening to this nonsense (no offense, but it is) for more than 30 seconds, when you can't even keep your own argument straight?

He said this right after he talked about handing these bolts out to all the party members. So he wasn't talking about area of effect, here. He was talking about everybody in the party having one or two of these bad boys in their backpacks when a dispel magic spell goes off. Party wipeout without area of effect.

 

[toberane]

Another thought: this would make a really good trap. Place a puddle, clothlike piece of alchemists fire inside a container (bag, pouch, cloak with pockets, etc.) and leave it to be picked up by someone who is following you. When they pick the object up, dispel the spell, either with the command word or with dispel magic, and BOOM! They turn into a Michael Jackson Pepsi commercial.

 

[Psifon]

Kreynolds, my respect for you is deminishing daily.

Every time I make an assertion about how this thing works, you say that it doesn't work that way. When I ask you why, you simply find a different thing to "pick appart" without answering my question.

Again. Why won't a shrunken object break just like a normal sized object?

If you can't answer this question then stop griping, stop changing the subject, and admit that you have lost this arguement.

There are two (and only two) reasons why this might not work. Both of them are up to the DM (NOT YOU) to nerf:

1) The damage for alchemist fire could use a different progression than the one I am using. You state that this is a house rule. I agree. But it is a house rule using the EXISTING rule for the damage progression of larger than normal weapons found in the core rules. The only "house rule" part of it is that it is applied for each doubling of volume of the liquid. So it is not a huge leap to apply this to the volume of a grenade-like weapon. In fact, one could argue that a larger volue IS a larger weapon. Anyway, as I said, this is a DM's call. Note that if you don't do this you end up with 2 gallons of alchemist fire doing 16d6 over two rounds for a total of 32d6 of damage!

2) The phrase "toss on a solid surface" may or may not be fullfilled by being shot from a crossbow. This is not so much a house rule as a DM's interpretation. Yes of course DM's may vary in their interpretation, but that is why we play D&D and not Diablo: because the other humans make the game more fun.

If you want to say my trick doesn't work because of one or both of these reasons, fine. If you want to say it is broken because it doesn't cost enough money, you are entitled to your opinion, although that has NO bearing on whether or not it is legal.

But, if all you want to do is make up new rules so that you can argue that they are the reason my trick doesn't work, then I suggest that YOU go to a new forum. Because I am not the one inventing rules here!. If the only reason that you can come up with to nerf this trick is the rule that you made up, then I really don't want to argue with you any more.

 

[Psifon]

Re: Alchemist Fire

Did the Sage suggest these increased damage AF in Dragon or in a post somewhere?

Since immersion in Acid is 10d6 and Lava is 20d6, I'm interested in where he capped damage for volume.

I got this damage increase from a post (about a year ago) where the poster said that he had written the Sage about this. The Sage was quoted as saying that you should use the increased weapon size rules for each doubling of the volume of the liquid. Alchemist fire comes in a flask. A flask is one pint. 8 pints to the gallon, and so 16 flasks in two gallons. The table used in determining the damage was from the monster manual (and other places):

Old Damage (Each)* New Damage
------------------...............----------
1d2................................1d3
1d3................................1d4
1d4................................1d6
1d6................................1d8
1d8 or 1d10......... ..........2d6
1d12..............................2d8


So starting with 1d6 over two rounds, with 1 point of splash damage you get the progression I listed on the prior page (see previous post). Note that this gives you 4x the damage for 16x the cost.

I like this system because it makes intuitive sense, and it uses existing rules to solve a problem that is not covered in the rules. Namely, how much damage does a gallon of alchemist fire do? I presented this to my DM as a suggestion (note: suggestion) about how to answer this question. It is up to him to decide whether to use it or not.

There is NO QUESTION that I can create a two gallon container of alchemist fire and shrink it with the shrink item spell. So my decision to do so, forces my DM to make a ruling. This is why (despite Kreynold's assertion to the contrary), my trick doesn't use house rules. What it DOES do is force my DM to make house rules. I CAN DO THIS. The question is how will it work in game terms. As you can see in my previous post, this is for the DM to decide, and no one else.

I still think it's a good trick tho.