Catching Fireballs

[Dougal DeKree]

Tankard vs. Bag

...how about this:

The barbarian doesn't use the aforementioned Tankrd, but a bag of devouring?

 

[Ruvion]

Well the monk in question was using Deflect Arrow feat, so I guess ready action would be redundant.

 

[nameless]

I don't know if the tankard is automatically dead. Energy damage to objects if halved, first of all. Then hardness of the object (I'll assume steel) applies, then the fireball has to chew through HP. The tankard is maybe 1/4 inch thick, giving it 8 hp or so. All of this means that the fireball needs to do 36 damage to go through the tankard. Seeing how that's exactly one point aobve average damage, there's a good chance that the tankard would in fact contain the explosion.

-nameless

 

[Ma'varkith]

Assuming, of course, that the lid will contain the rapidly expanding flames...

Catching a fireball in a tankard? Sure. Said action preventing you from being roasted? Nope.

 

[Ancalagon]

QUARTER INCH thick steel for a tankard? No freakin way.

Ancalagon

 

[twjensen]

QUARTER INCH thick steel for a tankard? No freakin way.

Ancalagon

Maybe it's an Ogre barbarian? Who got the tankard from a crappy Ogre blacksmith whose dex was so low he couldn't deal with steel less than 1/4 inch thick?

Of couse, at that point we may as well start debating the relative carrying capacities of African migratory swallows.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I don't know if the tankard is automatically dead. Energy damage to objects if halved, first of all. Then hardness of the object (I'll assume steel) applies, then the fireball has to chew through HP. The tankard is maybe 1/4 inch thick, giving it 8 hp or so. All of this means that the fireball needs to do 36 damage to go through the tankard. Seeing how that's exactly one point aobve average damage, there's a good chance that the tankard would in fact contain the explosion.

-nameless

Um...a 1/4 inch tankard... This might be likely, if the tankard were made of glass. After all, the glass had to be thick to keep from breaking easily. Indeed, I see most tankards made of glass, wood, or bronze. (I found a website that mentions a bronze tankard, though only in passing.) The bronze one would probably only be roughly 1/10th of an inch thick, not 1/4. (Think of the sheer weight!) Now let's imagine the objects in question:

Material (hardness:hit points for appropriate thickness) = damage absorbed before object is destroyed.

Glass (1:1) = 2hp
Wood (5:10/4=2.5) = 7.5hp
Bronze (substitute iron, 10:30/10=3) = 13hp

Since objects take 1/2 damage from energy, double those amounts, and the iron tankard will still most likely be destroyed, (at 26hp) though possibly not. The glass and wooden ones are toast.

I'd stick with a monk and Deflect Arrows.

 

[whatisitgoodfor]

For Shame!!!

You're introducing real world pehnomena in a game setting.

This isn't the real world, where a metal cup is going to be a fraction of an inch thick, this is a game world where a flail weighs 20 pounds and a lance only weighs 10.

Using those for reference, the adamantine flagon will be either paper thin or 3 inches thick.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

You do have a point.

 

[Arkham]

This isn't the real world, where a metal cup is going to be a fraction of an inch thick, this is a game world where a flail weighs 20 pounds and a lance only weighs 10.

I am convinced that the designers set the weight
of weapons and armor to account for 'bulk' and
awkwardness as well as simple heft...

And believe me, heavy flails are a pain to
transport unless you wrap the whole thing...