Barrel of Alchemist's Fire
- Thread starter erian_7
- Start date
erian_7
First Post
Anax said:
That's actually along the lines of why this particular barrel was created in the campaign--experiemental prototype for seige warfare in a land with few wizards (only 2 at 17th, most at 5th or lower) surrounded by stronger neighbors. The only thing the nation has going for it is raw materials.
erian_7
First Post
the Jester said:
That might be appropriate (although the DC is a bit high) for the person taking a direct hit. Those in the splash damage would get the standard AF result (an additional round, 1d6 damage, Ref DC 15 to put out). My thinking is the stuff generally burns out fairly quickly in air. Only a direct hit would cover someone in enough to burn for multiple rounds (as the layers of goo burn off). Of course, not much is going to survive a direct hit in the first place.
erian_7
First Post
A point of reference for the damage. Submersion in boiling water deals 10d6/round (regardless of size) while submersion in lava deals 20d6/round. Is AF more akin to lava, or boiling water? I'm thinking it's somewhere in between. So perhaps 15d6 is the right damage for a direct hit (which is assumed to cover the target in AF). Going with the 15-25% range I assumed for splash damage, that'd put the splash at 3d6 or 4d6. Perhaps 4d6 for anyone within 5' and 3d6 for those 10-15' away.
MerakSpielman
First Post
I'd say that the pressure of the explosion makes the Alchemist's Fire cover a tremendous area. Perhaps a radius of 60 feet? And then another 30 feet of spash damage.
I'd keep the damage and effects identical with being hit with a regular flask of Alchemist's Fire. People in the direct blast take 1d6 damage, followed by another 1d6 next round if they don't extinguish it, and people in the splash radius take 1 point of damage. Is this worth 5000gp? Against an opposing army in a tight formation, maybe. Against a small handful of opponents, probably not.
I'd keep the damage and effects identical with being hit with a regular flask of Alchemist's Fire. People in the direct blast take 1d6 damage, followed by another 1d6 next round if they don't extinguish it, and people in the splash radius take 1 point of damage. Is this worth 5000gp? Against an opposing army in a tight formation, maybe. Against a small handful of opponents, probably not.
Creamsteak
Explorer
I wouldn't trust wood to contain any liquid that volatile. Glass or at least some form of rust-proofed metal. Your talking about storing a liquid that burns on contact with (let's say oxygen, but it could also be nitrogen or anything else in air) being stored in a material that probably won't be completely without traces of the stuff. Perhaps glass like the flask? Perhaps a smooth coating on the inside?
I imagine that a large amount of alchemists fire from one container acts similar to how a couple dozen flasks of the stuff would react if dropped in an area simultaneously. I'd do the stats for a gallon of the stuff first, then move up to twelve gallons, and then to a barrel.
I imagine that a large amount of alchemists fire from one container acts similar to how a couple dozen flasks of the stuff would react if dropped in an area simultaneously. I'd do the stats for a gallon of the stuff first, then move up to twelve gallons, and then to a barrel.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think 20d6 or even 15d6 damage is to much.
Compare it to a flask of water that hits a person, and a barrel of water "exploding" near him. Probably the latter one would wet him a bit more, but he is certainly not submerged in it, even in a direct hit. (Remember, submerged for 1 round = 6 secons in lava deals 20d6.)
From the pure cost point of view, the cost of 5.000 gp puts it near a scroll of a 7th level fireball, so the damge cap should be near 7d6 (from a game balance point of view). Probably less if there is no saving throw allowed (or only to avoid catching on fire).
I suggest a generous area where the liquid burns and deals full primary damage (maybe 10 ft). Let`s say 5d6 fire damage, with a Reflex save for half. The direct hit allows no save against the direct damage and deals an additional 2d6 of bludgeoning damage. The splash area (maybe 30 ft) deals 1 point of damage.
In all cases (especially the direct hit) a reflex save is required to avoid catching on fire.
You might also say the alchemist fire burns a bit longer than usual (maybe 2d4 rounds), because not all liquid is immediately exposed to the air.
During this time, anyone moving in the inner area continues to take 1d6 points of damage and has to save against fire. (A single failure of the rolls means the character caught on fire and has to put it out using the standard rules, though that is impossible in the fire)
Compare it to a flask of water that hits a person, and a barrel of water "exploding" near him. Probably the latter one would wet him a bit more, but he is certainly not submerged in it, even in a direct hit. (Remember, submerged for 1 round = 6 secons in lava deals 20d6.)
From the pure cost point of view, the cost of 5.000 gp puts it near a scroll of a 7th level fireball, so the damge cap should be near 7d6 (from a game balance point of view). Probably less if there is no saving throw allowed (or only to avoid catching on fire).
I suggest a generous area where the liquid burns and deals full primary damage (maybe 10 ft). Let`s say 5d6 fire damage, with a Reflex save for half. The direct hit allows no save against the direct damage and deals an additional 2d6 of bludgeoning damage. The splash area (maybe 30 ft) deals 1 point of damage.
In all cases (especially the direct hit) a reflex save is required to avoid catching on fire.
You might also say the alchemist fire burns a bit longer than usual (maybe 2d4 rounds), because not all liquid is immediately exposed to the air.
During this time, anyone moving in the inner area continues to take 1d6 points of damage and has to save against fire. (A single failure of the rolls means the character caught on fire and has to put it out using the standard rules, though that is impossible in the fire)
This is actually not as hard as it sounds. First, don't over analyze.
1. Expensive and heavy. (8 flasks/gal. x 20 gp x 35 gal.= 5600 gp) It would also weigh upwards of 400 lbs.
2. Wide area of damage. 20-40 foot radius, max.
3. More damage than one flask. At most, however, I'd say 6d6 damage. I base this by treating the space the character occupies as a 2-meter cube. 1d6 points of damage per face of the cube.
4. Splash damage of 2d6. If you're splashed, you're only hit from two faces of the cube (above you from the upward splash, and from the side of you the barrel just landed on).
5. I would allow a Ref save for half.
6. The barrel would deal damage as a falling object of its weight. This would be crushing or bludgeoning.
7. I would not allow any creature that could not carry it as a medium load to throw it. Thrown, I would treat it as a ranged improvised weapon.
8. Great siege artillery, all else being equal.
1. Expensive and heavy. (8 flasks/gal. x 20 gp x 35 gal.= 5600 gp) It would also weigh upwards of 400 lbs.
2. Wide area of damage. 20-40 foot radius, max.
3. More damage than one flask. At most, however, I'd say 6d6 damage. I base this by treating the space the character occupies as a 2-meter cube. 1d6 points of damage per face of the cube.
4. Splash damage of 2d6. If you're splashed, you're only hit from two faces of the cube (above you from the upward splash, and from the side of you the barrel just landed on).
5. I would allow a Ref save for half.
6. The barrel would deal damage as a falling object of its weight. This would be crushing or bludgeoning.
7. I would not allow any creature that could not carry it as a medium load to throw it. Thrown, I would treat it as a ranged improvised weapon.
8. Great siege artillery, all else being equal.
