Level Up (A5E) Damage with alchemist fire

darius379

Chaos Coordinator
Perhaps a silly question, but I'll ask anyways.

Alchemist fire says:
Make a ranged weapon attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d6 ongoing fire damage.

If a character has the circusfolk culture, it includes this feature:
Slapstick. You are proficient with improvised weapons, and improvised weapons you use can deal 1d6 damage rather than the damage they normally deal. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your improvised weapons.

So how does one assess the initial damage of thrown alchemist fire? Does the improvised weapon damage (normally 1d4) get replaced ith 1d6, and also add 1d6 fire along with the dex damage? If not, how do you interpret this?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Perhaps a silly question, but I'll ask anyways.

Alchemist fire says:
Make a ranged weapon attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon. On a hit, the target takes 1d6 ongoing fire damage.

If a character has the circusfolk culture, it includes this feature:
Slapstick. You are proficient with improvised weapons, and improvised weapons you use can deal 1d6 damage rather than the damage they normally deal. You can use Dexterity instead of Strength for the attack and damage rolls of your improvised weapons.

So how does one assess the initial damage of thrown alchemist fire? Does the improvised weapon damage (normally 1d4) get replaced ith 1d6, and also add 1d6 fire along with the dex damage? If not, how do you interpret this?
Typically the damage from alchemist's fire is not the object being thrown, but the fire produced after that object breaks, thus the ongoing 1d6 fire damage.

Since the thrown object doesn't cause any damage, it is not replaced by the Slapstick feature's damage.

So just the 1d6 ongoing fire damage. At least that is how I would rule it.
 

Typically the damage from alchemist's fire is not the object being thrown, but the fire produced after that object breaks, thus the ongoing 1d6 fire damage.

Since the thrown object doesn't cause any damage, it is not replaced by the Slapstick feature's damage.

So just the 1d6 ongoing fire damage. At least that is how I would rule it.
I agree that's how it's typically ruled. But why call it an improvised weapon then? By calling it that, it can be tied to a number of other aspects of the game. And if we ignore the improvised weapon languaage, there are a lot of RAW implications that can just be ignored.

To be clear, I think your interpretation as RAI is reasonable. I could use it. But I feel a bit like improvised weapons are underpowered as is. Having it be 1d6+DEX+1d6 hardly seems overpowering as a ranged option for someone who invests in this.
 

I agree that's how it's typically ruled. But why call it an improvised weapon then? By calling it that, it can be tied to a number of other aspects of the game. And if we ignore the improvised weapon languaage, there are a lot of RAW implications that can just be ignored.

To be clear, I think your interpretation as RAI is reasonable. I could use it. But I feel a bit like improvised weapons are underpowered as is. Having it be 1d6+DEX+1d6 hardly seems overpowering as a ranged option for someone who invests in this.
I agree, but I was just explaining how I would rule it. Maybe one of the designers will chime in with what they intended (@Morrus). Outside of that, I am all rulings over rules, so go with what makes most sense to you.
 

Ongoing damage does not include ability score bonuses unless it specifically says so (and I don’t think there’s any example of that ever happening).
 


I agree, but I was just explaining how I would rule it. Maybe one of the designers will chime in with what they intended (@Morrus). Outside of that, I am all rulings over rules, so go with what makes most sense to you.
I agree I could just make a ruling. But I was hoping there was some missing information that would resolve these apparently conflicting descriptions without a house rule.
 

I agree I could just make a ruling. But I was hoping there was some missing information that would resolve these apparently conflicting descriptions without a house rule.
I guess I should be clear: I think my answer is RAW. I don't think it is a house rule or "ruling" at all. I don't think there is any issue to be resolved. To me it is clear:
  1. The fire doesn't do any damage on a hit as it only inflicts ongoing damage (which occurs at the end of the target's turn).
  2. Since there is no damage on a hit, the Slapstick feature doesn't apply (there is no damage to switch).
  3. The only reason the Fire is noted as an improvised weapon is for the to hit roll (if a PC has proficiency in improvised weapons).

To me this is very clear, simple, and straight up RAW.
 

I agree that's how it's typically ruled. But why call it an improvised weapon then? By calling it that, it can be tied to a number of other aspects of the game. And if we ignore the improvised weapon languaage, there are a lot of RAW implications that can just be ignored.
I'd say it's classified as improvised weapon mostly to not give proeficiency bonus on the attack for most characters.
Besides, the feature talks about upgrading the damage to 1d6 instead of it's base damage. The alchemist's fire only does ongoing damage, so no "on hit" damage: the Slapstick feature doesn't apply here.

To be clear, I think your interpretation as RAI is reasonable. I could use it. But I feel a bit like improvised weapons are underpowered as is. Having it be 1d6+DEX+1d6 hardly seems overpowering as a ranged option for someone who invests in this.
I personally don't agree: a character with this feature can not only have better chances of hitting with the alchemist's fire (which does ongoing damage) but also has improved to hit and damage with literally any mundane object: pebbles, stones chairs etc. 1d6+dex/str with a pebble is not something I'd scoff at.
Ongoing damage with the alchemist's fire means that either the creature spends an action to roll a dex save to extinguish it (possibly failing), or to douse with at least 1 gallon of water (not always available), or will take 1d6 damage per round for 1 minute. In any case, the creature will have to spend at least an action to prevent it. Having better chances to hit with this effect is really not something I'd consider minor
 

I'd say it's classified as improvised weapon mostly to not give proeficiency bonus on the attack for most characters.
Besides, the feature talks about upgrading the damage to 1d6 instead of it's base damage. The alchemist's fire only does ongoing damage, so no "on hit" damage: the Slapstick feature doesn't apply here.
I think I'd argue that by describing it as an improvised weapon should cause 1d4 damage per the improvised weapon texts along with the ongoing fire damage. The Slapstick then should update the 1d4 to 1d6.

Now, I'll concede that I think that this was not intended to work like this, and that most folks (including myself) have assumed that this is the case simply because of the citation of ongoing fire damage. But just because it was not intended to work like this doesn't mean the rules don't create enough ambiguity to believe this might be a way to interpret it.

I personally don't agree: a character with this feature can not only have better chances of hitting with the alchemist's fire (which does ongoing damage) but also has improved to hit and damage with literally any mundane object: pebbles, stones chairs etc. 1d6+dex/str with a pebble is not something I'd scoff at.
Counter argument. An empty alchemist fire bottle should be treated as an improvised weapon that causes 1d6+DEX/STR damage when thrown (via Slapstick). If we agree on that, how does a full bottle differ, except for providing more damage? Did the additional fire damage change somehow go away once the alchemist fire was removed from the bottle?

Ongoing damage with the alchemist's fire means that either the creature spends an action to roll a dex save to extinguish it (possibly failing), or to douse with at least 1 gallon of water (not always available), or will take 1d6 damage per round for 1 minute. In any case, the creature will have to spend at least an action to prevent it. Having better chances to hit with this effect is really not something I'd consider minor
This now gets in into the effect the change would create, not necessarily the reading of it. But I'll suggest that this is only an effective strategy for early games where one has easy access to gold. Using 25g for one attack (that could miss!) seems a very limited option. Beyond the first few levels (when more gold is available) this will be quickly overcome by far better options most of the time. Not combat breaking, but a fine use of tactics occasionally.
 

Trending content

Remove ads

Top