Alchemical Fireballs?

[Psifon]

So, Kreynolds, I challange you. Without making up a new rule that shrunken items are somehow indistructible, how would you do this? I am in your campaign, and I make 4 gallons of alchemist fire. I put two gallons it in a (fragile) glass jar. I shrink it and attach it to a bolt. I put the other two gallons in another glass jar, and I shrink it, and I use this to "toss" at enemies.

For the purpose of this excersize you cannot rule that the item doesn't break on impact because there is no rule that would indicate otherwise. Flask can be made to automatically break on impact, the PHB says so. These flasks are made the same way that those flasks are.

How does this work and why?

 

[kreynolds]

Kreynolds, my respect for you is deminishing daily.

Not my problem.

Every time I make an assertion about how this thing works, you say that it doesn't work that way.

Then make an assertion that is backed by the rules.

When I ask you why, you simply find a different thing to "pick appart" without answering my question.

I answered your questions. You just don't like my answers because it means you can't do whatever you want.

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

This is...what?...the third time for me to answer this question? The shrunken object doesn't break because the Shrink Item spells uses the impact as a trigger to return the shrunken item to it's original size. The initial impact won't do a damn thing to the item except for trigger it's size increase. A secondary impact, however, could break it.

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

I have answer that question multiple times. Asking me that same question over and over and over again will not eventually illicit a response that you will be happy with.

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

I fail to see the relevance. A house rule is a house rule. If you wanna discuss house rules, take it to the house rules thread. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that.

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.

Right. Know why? Cause it is.

I agree.

Good. So what's the problem? Why don't you get it?

But it is a house rule using the EXISTING rule for the damage progression of larger than normal weapons found in the core rules.

Sorry. That doesn't apply to alchemist's fire.

The only "house rule" part of it is that it is applied for each doubling of volume of the liquid.

A house rule none the less. Take it somewhere else.

So it is not a huge leap to apply this to the volume of a grenade-like weapon.

Sure thing.

In fact, one could argue that a larger volue IS a larger weapon.

Not by the rules. I would agree that the large jar would indeed cause more damage, simply because it's bigger, heavier, stronger, etc, but the damage caused by the alchemist's fire doesn't increase.

Anyway, as I said, this is a DM's call.

It's a house rule.

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!

Show me in the rules where it states that, and do so without the addition of any of your house rules.

2) The phrase "toss on a solid surface" may or may not be fullfilled by being shot from a crossbow.

It impacts a surface doesn't it? That's all the spell needs.

This is not so much a house rule as a DM's interpretation.

It doesn't matter. The spell states that if the object hits a solid surface, it is returned to original size. The item won't break and then return to full size. The spell doesn't work that way.

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.

Do you have a point here? I missed it.

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.

Your "trick" doesn't work because the rules simply don't allow it. Your "trick" is back by house rules, not rules.

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.

I'm making up rules? LOL

Because I am not the one inventing rules here!.

ROTFLMAO Oh, that's rich!!!!!! ROTFLMAO

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.

Exactly what rule did I make up?

 

[kreynolds]

So, Kreynolds, I challange you.

Oh, this should be interesting.

Without making up a new rule that shrunken items are somehow indistructible, how would you do this?

Nevermind. I was wrong. This won't be interesting at all.

I am in your campaign, and I make 4 gallons of alchemist fire. I put two gallons it in a (fragile) glass jar. I shrink it and attach it to a bolt. I put the other two gallons in another glass jar, and I shrink it, and I use this to "toss" at enemies.

Fine. You toss the jars, they hit someone or something, and they return to their normal size, possibly, and more than likely, breaking afterwards by falling or hitting something else.

Also, alchemist's fire does not cause greater damage in larger quantities. There is no rule that states it does, nor is there any errata say it does.

For the purpose of this excersize you cannot rule that the item doesn't break on impact because there is no rule that would indicate otherwise.

You might as well say, "Show me that a 4th level fighter has a +4 base attack bonus, but you can't rule that he has it because the class says he does." I don't need to make anything up. I don't have to "rule" that the item doesn't break on impact, precisely because the spell already indicates that the impact is what triggers the item to return to normal size.

Flask can be made to automatically break on impact, the PHB says so.

So what?

These flasks are made the same way that those flasks are.

And your point?

How does this work and why?

It doesn't work. See previous answers.

 

[Anthron]

It doesn't matter. The spell states that if the object hits a solid surface, it is returned to original size. The item won't break and then return to full size. The spell doesn't work that way.

Is this just your interpretation of the spell? I don't see where it states or implies that the force of all impacts are negated, that would more or less be like giving the object a one time infinite hardness. How do you come to the conclusion that the force is negated rules wise? Stating that the spell doesn't work that way gives me the impression that there is a rule behind that idea.

 

[Psifon]

What Anthron said!

The fact that the item returns to normal size

IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO

The fact that it breaks on impact.

Are you deliberatly being dense?!?

 

[kreynolds]

Are you deliberatly being dense?!?

I told you that you wouldn't like my answer.

 

[apsuman]

Ok, I am with kreynolds on this one.

Here is the spell:


Shrink Item

Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 3
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: Touch
Target: One touched object of up to 2 cu. ft./level
Duration: 1 day/level (see text)
Saving Throw: Will negates (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (object)

The character is able to shrink one nonmagical item (if it is within the size limit) to one-twelfth of its normal size in each dimension (to about 1/2,000th the original volume and mass). Optionally, the character can also change its now-shrunken composition to a clothlike one. Objects changed by a shrink item spell can be returned to normal composition and size merely by tossing them onto any solid surface or by a word of command from the original caster. Restoring the shrunken object to its normal size and composition ends the spell.

If shrink item is made permanent (see the permanency spell), the affected object can be shrunk and expanded an indefinite number of times, but only by the original caster.
__________________________________________________



Ok, now here is the clause that seals the deal for me:
Objects changed by a shrink item spell can be returned to normal composition and size merely by tossing them onto any solid surface or by a word of command from the original caster.

By, I think, the most reasonable interpretation an impact onto a solid object will simply restore an object to it's former condition.

g!

 

[Psifon]

Kreynolds, I'll take that as a yes.

I would like to introduce you to a guy on the WotC boards named Frank. He's a real smart guy, but he has this blind spot where when he comes to an erroneous conclusion, he is consitutionally incapable of even registering any information that disproves his conclusion. He is a great source of creative ideas, but he's impossible to argue with because he cannot admit that he has made a mistake.

I think the two of you have a lot in common.

 

[Psifon]

Ok, now here is the clause that seals the deal for me:
Objects changed by a shrink item spell can be returned to normal composition and size merely by tossing them onto any solid surface or by a word of command from the original caster.

By, I think, the most reasonable interpretation an impact onto a solid object will simply restore an object to it's former condition.

g!

"Former size and composition" doesn't mean that it is not broken. it is still a large glass jar full of alchemist fire, it is just a broken glass jar full of alchemist fire. The spell doesn't grant indistructability. It doesn't say that.

 

[kreynolds]

I think the two of you have a lot in common.

OK. I don't know Frank, so I'll have to take your word for it.