Dust explosion

[Soultpp]

Well.... although there is good evidence that explosive powder technology of some sort has existed in some D&D campaigns, what I was not able to find evidence of is that any medieval mill ever exploded. I can find no evidence of any dust explosion prior to industrial scale milling in the early 19th century. Moreover, I've not even found any evidence of medieval coal mine explosions, as shaft mining doesn't have been much of a thing in the medieval period. Most coal was strip or trench mined, and the pace of mining doesn't appear to have provided for a lot coal dust explosions. No easy to find documentary evidence of even a mine explosion surprised me.

While D&D technology levels are usually several centuries more advanced than a medieval setting, it's entirely possible that dust explosions aren't a well known thing in many D&D settings. The conditions to create dust explosions don't seem to have been created in the real world until modern times. Despite many attempts to create reliable incendiary devices in the ancient world, no group ever appears to have researched or attempted a 'flour bomb' - this includes groups like the Japanese that continued to use primitive weapons until relatively late periods. Ninjas used powder bombs as distractions, but no attempt was made to make incendiaries out of them. This strongly suggests to me that there is no easy way to make one, and at least in my game I'd consider dust explosive technology to be a rare and not well known technology that a low level character would be unlikely to be aware of.

Non-accidental dispersal of dust in a fashion suitable to make an explosive requires explosives. I've found absolutely no evidence otherwise. Otherwise, it takes too long for the dust to disperse into a sufficient volume of air for complete combustion to occur. Powder tubes, along the lines of blowguns or the like, produce not explosions but brief relatively low damage flame thrower effects, and you might as well have the shtick, "I'm a firebreather" as all that. I suggest d3 damage in a single 5' square. Mildly useful against swarms of fine creatures, I suppose.

The fact that you've still been looking is something that I appreciate since you did say that you were not actually helping me any more. I thank you for that. I can understand, with the lack of evidence what you are saying and I can't wholly disagree. That much of a lack of historical evidence is a bit disheartening though.

No. Nothing that the DM hasn't thought of exists. Whatever the DM thinks exists, is what exists. If you want specific experiences in your background, they have to be approved by a DM. You can't just in the middle of play say, "My character survived a mill explosion as a kid, and so he is aware of the explosive power of flour.", any more than you can say, "My character has three older brothers, and one of them works as a guard at the castle." and expect the DM to validate this idea. Some DMs might. Some might think, "That's cool; let's run with it." But until the DM validates something in the setting, it doesn't exist.

Fundamentally, there is absolutely no purpose in asking about or arguing about any of this stuff with us. House rules conversations are a strictly DM to DM, peer to peer conversation. How you want to run your table is your affair.

I was not actually suggesting that I would just come up with something like that on the fly and expect my DM to accept it. It was more that it could have been in the character's existing and approved background. I also want to mention that my comment was more that a player may come up with ideas and backgrounds that the DM had not considered beforehand. And historical events will 'technically' have occurred. Obviously none of this is official unless and until the DM approves it of course.

To tell you the truth, a "Trap Maker" character concept is more suited to a video game than a typical PnP RPG. It's not that I can't think of a character usefully making traps, but setting a trap is more of a hours long affair than something you can use in typical D&D combat. Since PC's are almost always the active agents, the aggressors if you will, they rarely get a chance to prepare the ground for defensive action except perhaps when making camp for the night. And in general, you'll be far better off with caltrops, snares, and other simple traps than trying to talk your DM into complex dust explosions, which will probably provoke even the most tolerant DM to crushing your dreams with inflexible rulings. And even then, understand that, "I can make traps" is probably not your primary shtick.

Yes, and the caltrop, snares, trip lines were all other things that I was planning on using often. I understand that it isn't a concept that is easy in PnP, but that was part of the fun. I never expected to be able to make super complicated traps. I definitely would not have expected traps anywhere near as complex as even the CR 1 traps in the DMG. I was hoping the concept could be useful for a small amount of battlefield control I guess, and maybe a little more if the players actually have time to set the battlefield. I was trying to be different and stretch myself creatively I guess.

But stop wasting your time here and talk this over with your DM.

You are quite right, nothing will be decided without discussing it with my DM since he is the ultimate authority in this. When I broach the subject I will point out the lack of historical evidence though, because I want to be as fair as possible.

 

[Greenfield]

No, you do not have me right. I am NOT trying to replace magic or even recreate fireball with mundane means. I even agreed that lowering the damage number was acceptable and for all the reasons given.

The fact that you're seeking damage numbers at all says that you're trying to create a fireball-like damage AOE effect, without magic. Larger, smaller, more damage or less, these are just the details.

You're trying to create fire effects similar to Fireball without the use of magic.

I agree with you, unlimited access to some forms of magic would be quite game breaking, like a high lvl wizard is.

Yet you appear to be attempting to do exactly that.

Secondly, why would something involving flour, a little fire, and and a bit of ingenuity require alchemy, and WHY would it ever be way more more difficult than than things far more practical and effective? I COULD have just had this trap dumping a vial or several of AF on the person triggering it, but I felt that the dust explosion was a little more interesting and creative. I thought creativity is what these games were supposed to be about?

Because skill checks are how things like this are handled in the game. The child who would grow up to become your PC would have a maximum of 4 skill ranks in any skill (Level plus three), and a maximum of 5 Ability ability points (presuming a natural 18 plus a racial mod), so +9 total. As I said, target number should be in the mid 40s, so not possible.

Now, why Alchemy? Because that's the skill that deals with chemical reactions and incendiaries. Your DM may, of course, ask for some different skill to be used, but some kind of skill check is called for. It's D&D after all.

How would a character in game know that such a thing as flour exploding was possible, or at least know to start experimenting with it? Simple, they worked at, or lived near, a grainery/flour mill where it happened on a large scale. It would be reasonable to assume that a large scale explosion like that could be paired down to a small focused burst.

I could point out that this presumes that dust explosions are in the game world. As in, you're telling the DM, not asking the DM.

I could also point out that such a thing could (and probably would) be attributed to a mischiveous spirit or an abuse of magic. I could ask what skill checks your character made. I could point out that the grain silos you're thinking of only occur in a modern farm, where they have tractors and threshing machines and modern high-yield grain varieties, that grain at the time was transported and stored in sacks or barrels, not loose for easy loading and unloading by screw-hoists into delivery trucks. In other words, no clouds of grain dust or flour.

I could point out a few dozen more flaws, and bury you in facts about barley yield in un-irrigated fields, average size of the medieval family farm, and so forth.

I won't. You'd just rationalize a way around them. You want this, you want to substitute "a little ingenuity" for the rules, you've convinced yourself that you deserve to have a game advantage that the rules don't allow for and that nobody else has, and I'd be frankly shocked if any level of fact could change your mind.

Sorry if that came out harsh, but I've had this conversation with dozens of munchkins over the years and I've yet to see one dissuaded.

Just for fun though, maybe reality can do what reason and fact can't: Grab a couple of bags of flour or corn starch (pastry flour is the finest) and go find a nice large parking lot where you can experiment without lighting anything on fire.

Now, try different methods of throwing flour into the air and lighting it. No electric fans or blowers, it has to be some way available to the medieval tech level, and man-portable.

Do that and then count how many attempts you make, how much flour you waste before you get a flare effect of any kind. You don't need to tell me or anyone on the board, but once you get a successful technique (presuming that you actually do) try to repeat it, and note the failure rate. Note how high you had to throw to get the air mixture right, so you know how high a ceiling has to be for it to be used.

Then, when arguing for the effect, tell the DM about your experiments, learning curve and failure rates.

I'd bet money that your experimental data will shoot you down in flames.

<TANGENT> Once upon a time there was a sizable reward offered for anyone who could come up with an acceptable substitute for Ivory, for Billiard balls. Many people tried to develop one. One small team ended up dissolving cellulose (paper) to a mush with Nitric acid, them compressing it into a ball and letting it dry. (They had to rinse it a bit.) It worked. It had the right hardness, the right bounce, the right color, the right everything. They were celebrating by bouncing their first ball around the room. At some point they hit it just right (or just wrong) and the compresses ball of nitro-cellulose (also known as flash paper or gun cotton) exploded, killing everyone in the room. The tale was reconstructed from their notes later on.</TANGENT>

A "little ingenuity", without actually knowing what you're doing can go a long way. Not always in the right direction, of course.

 

[Soultpp]

The fact that you're seeking damage numbers at all says that you're trying to create a fireball-like damage AOE effect, without magic. Larger, smaller, more damage or less, these are just the details.

You're trying to create fire effects similar to Fireball without the use of magic.


Yet you appear to be attempting to do exactly that.

Okay, in essence you are right in that this would resemble a fireball superficially. I won't argue that the effect would be similar in at least some aspects, but I HAVE seen fire effects in games that were similar but not magical. I just wish I could remember the source. They weren't dust explosions admittedly, that I'm sure of. And why can't it be like a few minor version of a fireball? As I said, I never envisioned it to have near the scope, applicability, efficiency, or power of Fireball. At most, it would be roughly the same as a burning hands, with perhaps a slightly higher average dmg (if I went d6 vs d4), yet even then, burning hands would be infinitely more playable as it is never a fixed location effect but flexible and portable with the caster. Also, this would never scale with level without treading into a full permanent trap, requiring weeks of careful planning and setup. (Basically directly following the RAW in the DMG)

Because skill checks are how things like this are handled in the game. The child who would grow up to become your PC would have a maximum of 4 skill ranks in any skill (Level plus three), and a maximum of 5 Ability ability points (presuming a natural 18 plus a racial mod), so +9 total. As I said, target number should be in the mid 40s, so not possible.

Skill check I agree with, its the number you've chosen that gives me pause as for such a minor effect that seems highly excessive for such a minor effect with less chemicals involved than Alchemist's Fire or a Tanglefoot Bag likely would have. I would like to know if you followed any specific rules logic at deriving that number, or if it was an arbitrary thing that you chose because 'no magic=no boom'.

Now, why Alchemy? Because that's the skill that deals with chemical reactions and incendiaries. Your DM may, of course, ask for some different skill to be used, but some kind of skill check is called for. It's D&D after all.

After having time to think on it, I can actually agree that having some alchemical skill would be expected for this kind of trap, and it is something I'll discuss with my DM if and when the situation occurs.

I could point out that this presumes that dust explosions are in the game world. As in, you're telling the DM, not asking the DM.

I would not actually presume, but I would present it as an optional background for the DM to approve of or not. If he didn't like the idea, that would be that.

I could also point out that such a thing could (and probably would) be attributed to a mischiveous spirit or an abuse of magic. I could ask what skill checks your character made. I could point out that the grain silos you're thinking of only occur in a modern farm, where they have tractors and threshing machines and modern high-yield grain varieties, that grain at the time was transported and stored in sacks or barrels, not loose for easy loading and unloading by screw-hoists into delivery trucks. In other words, no clouds of grain dust or flour.

I could point out a few dozen more flaws, and bury you in facts about barley yield in un-irrigated fields, average size of the medieval family farm, and so forth.

I won't. You'd just rationalize a way around them. You want this, you want to substitute "a little ingenuity" for the rules, you've convinced yourself that you deserve to have a game advantage that the rules don't allow for and that nobody else has, and I'd be frankly shocked if any level of fact could change your mind.

Feel free to point out every little thing. Whether you are pointing out flaws in the concept or are actually trying to help me to do something different, I am taking all advice and not discounting things I don't like. That being said, I will probably still discuss it with my DM, including both the arguments for and against the idea. What I "want" is for you to stop assuming things about me and what I am trying to do. It feels to me that you are letting your own biases color your perceptions of me and my goals. Yes I'm debating the points listed, but I am not flat out refusing to accept the counter argument that you are offering, I have already modified my position on the idea more than once in this discussion. I must admit though, the antagonistic tone of your responses make it a little harder to give proper credit to what you are saying, nevertheless I am thankful for the facts you are providing as it adds further dimensions to the situation that I may not have considered.

Also, please point me to the place in the rules that I am attempting to replace that says this is not allowed. I would like to read official words on the matter. I would also like to understand why this is such a huge 'game advantage' to be able to use a little mundane fire creatively. I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like you to expand on the point to try to convince me that you are right.

Sorry if that came out harsh, but I've had this conversation with dozens of munchkins over the years and I've yet to see one dissuaded.

I am no munchkin, and these past 'conversations' you've had are what I think are causing you to have a biased viewpoint toward me. I am not these other people, and I am actually trying to PREVENT creating something over powered by seeking advice in its mechanics. Again, I've modified my initial impressions more than once based on the input I've received.

Just for fun though, maybe reality can do what reason and fact can't: Grab a couple of bags of flour or corn starch (pastry flour is the finest) and go find a nice large parking lot where you can experiment without lighting anything on fire.

Now, try different methods of throwing flour into the air and lighting it. No electric fans or blowers, it has to be some way available to the medieval tech level, and man-portable.

Do that and then count how many attempts you make, how much flour you waste before you get a flare effect of any kind. You don't need to tell me or anyone on the board, but once you get a successful technique (presuming that you actually do) try to repeat it, and note the failure rate. Note how high you had to throw to get the air mixture right, so you know how high a ceiling has to be for it to be used.

Then, when arguing for the effect, tell the DM about your experiments, learning curve and failure rates.

I'd bet money that your experimental data will shoot you down in flames.

Honestly, why would anyone waste that kind of time for a GAME? Whether you are correct in your assessment that the experiments would yield poor results or not is moot compared to that point. Spending hours or days on experiments just so one has a chance to do something vaguely similar to a magical effect without 'magic' probably one time seems silly to me. If my DM says to me, "I'll allow you to do it in game if you show me experiments that you did to prove it can work in real life." I would say, "It's not worth that much effort, I'll think of something else."

<TANGENT> Once upon a time there was a sizable reward offered for anyone who could come up with an acceptable substitute for Ivory, for Billiard balls. Many people tried to develop one. One small team ended up dissolving cellulose (paper) to a mush with Nitric acid, them compressing it into a ball and letting it dry. (They had to rinse it a bit.) It worked. It had the right hardness, the right bounce, the right color, the right everything. They were celebrating by bouncing their first ball around the room. At some point they hit it just right (or just wrong) and the compresses ball of nitro-cellulose (also known as flash paper or gun cotton) exploded, killing everyone in the room. The tale was reconstructed from their notes later on.</TANGENT>

A "little ingenuity", without actually knowing what you're doing can go a long way. Not always in the right direction, of course.

That is an intriguing little story actually. I may look at that later in more detail. You're right though, ingenuity doesn't always mean 'success', that is why people do experiments on smaller scale usually first, and perhaps the character I am making may have been burnt in the experimenting towards making this work, that would be logical to assume.

One final thought that I felt I should mention in relation to your historical facts... From the wikipedia page on silos:
"History
Archaeological ruins and ancient texts show that silos were used in ancient Greece as far back as the late 8th century BC, as well as the 5th Millennium B.C site of Tell Tsaf, Israel. The term silo is derived from the Greek σιρός (siros), 'pit for holding grain'."

Now that doesn't refute anything you said except the inference that they never happened before the industrial revolution, but I felt I should point it out. I am not saying that these were the same as modern silos either, I haven't researched them enough to make that claim, just pointing out that they did exist.

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, in essence you are right in that this would resemble a fireball superficially. I won't argue that the effect would be similar in at least some aspects, but I HAVE seen fire effects in games that were similar but not magical. I just wish I could remember the source. They weren't dust explosions admittedly, that I'm sure of. And why can't it be like a few minor version of a fireball? As I said, I never envisioned it to have near the scope, applicability, efficiency, or power of Fireball. At most, it would be roughly the same as a burning hands, with perhaps a slightly higher average dmg (if I went d6 vs d4), yet even then, burning hands would be infinitely more playable as it is never a fixed location effect but flexible and portable with the caster. Also, this would never scale with level without treading into a full permanent trap, requiring weeks of careful planning and setup. (Basically directly following the RAW in the DMG)

So we're agreed that you want an AOE fire damage effect similar to a Fireball. And we've previously agreed that allowing PCs to access spell-like effects without the use of magic (as a usage limitation) is game breaking. Now you're asking why it can't/shouldn't be like Fireball.

As noted, we've already addressed and answered that question, and you agreed that it had game-breaking potential.

Skill check I agree with, its the number you've chosen that gives me pause as for such a minor effect that seems highly excessive for such a minor effect with less chemicals involved than Alchemist's Fire or a Tanglefoot Bag likely would have. I would like to know if you followed any specific rules logic at deriving that number, or if it was an arbitrary thing that you chose because 'no magic=no boom'.

Okay, now we've agreed that skill checks are proper.

Looking at game balance, how game breaking is Tanglefoot Bag, which has a material cost that's not insignificant to a low level PC.

The DC I quoted wasn't to replicate an existing effect, whose formula/recipe is already known, it was to research/invent an entirely new effect from a single example that may or may not have been observed (at a distance) by a child.

Let's compare it to using Spell craft to identify a spell you see cast. Normally it's 10 plus the spell level. Let's call your dust-bomb the equivalent of a Level 2 spell. (Less than a Fireball, but in the same class). That makes it a 12.

But with Spellcraft, you suffer a -5 penalty for each component you're not able to observe. Since the child wasn't able to observe the inside of that maybe-real silo, that's a -5 for not knowing materials. There's another -5 for not knowing the ignition source, if any. Add another -5 for not being able to rule out magic, or the presence of some supernatural creature playing a joke. In short, the penalty for not being able to see or hear the "casting" at all is pretty high.

And Spellcraft for a spell is, again, identifying the exact spell from a known and finite list of known spell effects. Again, you're trying to identify the fine operational detail of an unknown effect, while standing outside the building and at a safe distance.

Suddenly mid-40s doesn't sound all that insane, does it?

I would not actually presume, but I would present it as an optional background for the DM to approve of or not. If he didn't like the idea, that would be that.

And if you did that while informing him of where you plan to go with it, so it's not a DM ambush, I'd have no objections.

Feel free to point out every little thing....

We'd be here all day. I'll add a few to the bottom.

...That being said, I will probably still discuss it with my DM, including both the arguments for and against the idea.

As I said, I didn't expect to dissuade you.

What I "want" is for you to stop assuming things about me and what I am trying to do.

I can see how that would be annoying, and I'm not actually trying to pick on you.

However, you seem to be supporting or agreeing with most if not all of those assessments I've made.

It feels to me that you are letting your own biases color your perceptions of me and my goals. Yes I'm debating the points listed, but I am not flat out refusing to accept the counter argument that you are offering, I have already modified my position on the idea more than once in this discussion. I must admit though, the antagonistic tone of your responses make it a little harder to give proper credit to what you are saying, nevertheless I am thankful for the facts you are providing as it adds further dimensions to the situation that I may not have considered.

Sorry for the antagonistic tone. As I mentioned, I've had discussions like this many times over the years.

So let me cut to the chase:
The objection isn't to "realism" (though it's of questionable value in a magical/fantasy game.)
The objection isn't to the "physics" or even to your farm boy without a formal education knowing about them.
The objection isn't to the scale of the effect, be it in area or damage.
The objection isn't to the attempt to introduce a "modern" weapon idea to a medieval tech (consider that the Oklahoma city bombing was powered by oil and fertilizer, and did far more damage than any Fireball ever cast in a game.)

The objection is to a player in a game trying to rationalize a mechanical advantage for themselves and themselves alone, that has the potential to break the game balance.

]Also, please point me to the place in the rules that I am attempting to replace that says this is not allowed. I would like to read official words on the matter. I would also like to understand why this is such a huge 'game advantage' to be able to use a little mundane fire creatively. I am not saying you are wrong, but I would like you to expand on the point to try to convince me that you are right.

Let's see... There are no rules for researching such things, anywhere. There are no rules for researching/inventing new Alchemical effects, which you've more or less agreed this is.

I can't point to the lack of rules, just as I can't point to the rule against using Polymorph Any Object to turn water into nitroglycerine, or a horseshoe into a planet-busting volume of fissionable, weapons-grade Plutoniom. (minimum caster level produces up to 1,500 cubic feet, when less than a quarter of a cubic foot destroyed Nagasaki.)

And to be fair, I never said there was a specific rule against this, just that there were no rules supporting the possibility.

Honestly, why would anyone waste that kind of time for a GAME?

Same question right back at your character. Why research something like tht unless he somehow knew in advance what he was trying to build? Answer: No valid in-game reason.

That is an intriguing little story actually. I may look at that later in more detail. You're right though, ingenuity doesn't always mean 'success', that is why people do experiments on smaller scale usually first, and perhaps the character I am making may have been burnt in the experimenting towards making this work, that would be logical to assume.

And recall that, in game terms, 1st level commoners have very few hit points. So that "burned" may well be "burned to death".

One final thought that I felt I should mention in relation to your historical facts... From the wikipedia page on silos:
"History
Archaeological ruins and ancient texts show that silos were used in ancient Greece as far back as the late 8th century BC, as well as the 5th Millennium B.C site of Tell Tsaf, Israel. The term silo is derived from the Greek σιρός (siros), 'pit for holding grain'."

Now that doesn't refute anything you said except the inference that they never happened before the industrial revolution, but I felt I should point it out. I am not saying that these were the same as modern silos either, I haven't researched them enough to make that claim, just pointing out that they did exist.

Grainaries were what made cities possible. But grainaries of the size needed to get more than a flash of dust are another matter.

So let's being with facts and objections:

1) Using modern farming techniques and strains of barley, an unirrigated acre will produce 44.2 bushels of grain. (A bushed is 4 pecks, or about 60 pounds by weight)
2) The average medieval farm was sized based on what one man could work, without a tractor, disk-plow, fertilizer, harvester, thresher or bailing machine. So consider 30 acres, of which 10 are under active cultivation at any one time. (10 acres for winter crops, 10 for summer, and 10 fallow.)
3) Taking points 1 and 2 together, we see an annual yield of 442 bushels of barley (presuming modern grains and methods. Probably 60% of that or less at the time.) 400 +/- 6o pound bags of grain a year, raw, wouldn't cover the floor of a modern grain silo more than knee deep, much less produce enough dust to cause an explosion.
4) The miller didn't store large stockpiles of grain either. He milled each farmer's harvest separately, keeping a share for himself as payment. Another share (often more than half) would go to the local nobility, as rent and/or taxes.
5) Grain was neither transported nor stored loose, where grain dust could fill the air. It was in sacks or barrels, of a size a man could move.
6) A farmer would hold back a portion of his harvest from the miller. Some would go to brewing beer (every farmhouse brewed their own), some for direct use (barley soup is good), but the largest part as seed for next year. Again, stored in sacks, not loose.
7) Seeing a grainary blow up would represent the destruction of a season's food supply. Not something anyone could afford to experiment with, nor want to recreate. It was an immediate threat of starvation.
8) Remember that your PC doesn't have a high-school education, nor any exposure to even the idea of explosives. No training in the scientific method of experimentation or the concept of reproducibility. What learning he or she does have is represented by the Skill ranks whose use you questioned.
9) If we set the research target number at, say, 25, and your non-spellcaster PC somehow managed to study Alchemy (which you have to be a spell caster to use), and you somehow rationalized the repeated attempts involved in a "Take 20" on the skill check, long odds you'd kill yourself. Dust clouds, by their nature, billow all around, rather than staying neatly in a confined space. Lighting such a cloud would mean you'd need to be inside, where the dust-air density was just right. Think of setting off a Fireball at range zero. Not conducive to a long and storied career.
10) Every attempt, failed or otherwise, is destroying several meals worth of food, in a world far different from our own. Food is neither plentiful nor cheap. The "It's only flour" world is very modern and very western.

And, as noted, all of this ignores the idea that such a disaster would be blamed on some enemy intent of destroying the local food supply, or the always convenient "evil spirits", which aren't mere superstition in a game world like yours.

It also presumes that such an explosion occurred in the first place, a detail which is far from settled.

So, whether you view this as adversarial or not, I'll say that a "magical trap" that isn't subject to Detect Magic and which can be created at a fraction of the cost of traps listed in the books is unbalancing and to be discouraged. Allowing a similar effect without expending limited resources like spell slots is also a bad idea, for the same reasons.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure you'll press for it anyway. You've already said as much.

 

[Soultpp]

As I have been busy these past few days with school, I only now got a chance to return to reply.

Rather than firing off another quote fest I am just going to try to sum things up in a shorter form. (Okay in the end, I failed in making this short)

I did agree that it is similar to a fireball in much the same way that any sudden burst of flame is similar to another. The scope and effect and even the actual appearance are only superficially so though.

You are attempting to use logic traps against me here and it is not going to work because while I agreed that it is superficially similar I do not agree it is the same thing as replicating a magical effect with non-magical means.

I must also suggest that, to research such magic in the first place, the original creators of the spells needed to be inspired by something, a natural explosion of some kind seems logical.

As for the skill check, your description of the various modifiers is faulty in a very large regard. You are inferring massive amounts of fore-knowledge about the character's background and pre-game experience. Not every single adventurer starts on a farm, neither do they all start uneducated. What I had or had not planned with the actual background of the character was never discussed beyond the scope of this one trap idea. Now that being said, some of those modifiers may apply, some may not. It is entirely by your presumptions that this is even based around a Spellcraft check to begin with. Then there is the fact that most, if not all of these modifiers could not be mitigated or in some cases eliminated with adequate investigation. You are also labeling this a 2nd lvl effect when it most closely resembles burning hands which is a 1st lvl effect. So in the end, it still feels like an arbitrary number, a punishment for doing something you don't think should happen.

At least we can agree on at least one point, I would never attempt to do anything that the DM did not agree with, and that includes background information, which I always discuss with my DM, especially if there is anything in it that is unusual. I have been known to offer him 7-10 page short stories detailing the backgrounds of my character and there has been at least one instance where he did not accept what was there, and that's fine.

Dissuade me from what? Attempting to make this trap, or talking to my DM about something that he has every right to make the final judgement on as to whether it is a viable option? I did not say that I still intended to craft the trap, only discuss the possibility with my DM.

I do not think that you are specifically picking on me no, but I do think that you are looking at everything I say with a biased viewpoint and so of course I am going to fall into your pigeonholed expectations of my motives.

There are no rules saying it can, but at the same time no rules saying it can't. I am not using this statement to justify anything, I am just stating a fact to add to yours. The rules neither support, nor deny either of our positions. As for your excersise in reductio ad absurdum using plutonium, that is something that would be up to a DM to stop from happening. Though unless the DM already exposed the caster in question to plutonium, or allowed the caster to have had research into or contact with it in the past said caster can't know of it to create it. So the creation of plutonium in a campaign would be a DM failure as much as anything else. Theoretically it could prove to be an interesting campaign though.

As for a character researching things: they want to learn about how it works in an attempt to replicate it is is the usual reason. There are countless 'tinker gnomes' and 'gadgeteers' in the RPG universe as well as sages and numerous other researchers trying to learn about the world around them. My question is, why wouldn't they?

And every little detail of the background was done with rolls. This is background information, not part of the actual campaign.

Now I can't refute your agricultural facts as I have no knowledge in that regard. I will go over some points, and yes I'll use quotes for this part just for simplicity's sake.

7) Seeing a grainary blow up would represent the destruction of a season's food supply. Not something anyone could afford to experiment with, nor want to recreate. It was an immediate threat of starvation.

This is true in theory. For most people it would be just a threat of starvation. Of course this presupposes that this is the only grainery, it is a significantly large grainery and the character in questions was directly tied to the food stored within in a very tangible fashion. A street urchin (not necessarily my character just an example of one type amount several) that saw something like this may or may not tie the actual explosion to his/her food source.

8) Remember that your PC doesn't have a high-school education, nor any exposure to even the idea of explosives. No training in the scientific method of experimentation or the concept of reproducibility. What learning he or she does have is represented by the Skill ranks whose use you questioned.

Again, this is supposition on your part and the very fact of HAVING skill ranks would counter your arguement here to a degree. I am not arguing for 'high-school' education, though some cultures tend to be quite educated in certain D&D settings. However, having skill ranks in a craft skill presupposes training and knowledge in the methods used to create and invent things within the purview of said skill.

9) If we set the research target number at, say, 25, and your non-spellcaster PC somehow managed to study Alchemy (which you have to be a spell caster to use), and you somehow rationalized the repeated attempts involved in a "Take 20" on the skill check, long odds you'd kill yourself. Dust clouds, by their nature, billow all around, rather than staying neatly in a confined space. Lighting such a cloud would mean you'd need to be inside, where the dust-air density was just right. Think of setting off a Fireball at range zero. Not conducive to a long and storied career.

First, let me say that while I understand and accept that the rules state that one needs some type of spellcasting to use alchemy, I have seen an example in D&D literature (again only literature, not rulebooks) wherein a non-caster was quite proficient with alchemy. That being said, it could be argued that a basic knowledge gained as an assistant to an actual alchemist could be enough for something like this, assuming that at least part of the research was aided, if not primarily undertaken by said alchemist, maybe it was he that was investigating and his 'brat assistant' just capitalized on it to figure out a new trick. I would think that such a line of reasoning would be up to a DM to arbitrate and I accept that probably not every DM would agree, that's fine and their right as DMs.

10) Every attempt, failed or otherwise, is destroying several meals worth of food, in a world far different from our own. Food is neither plentiful nor cheap. The "It's only flour" world is very modern and very western.

Again, supposition as to the nature of the experiments, some of the experiments may not have used actual 'flour'. As far as trade goods go though, flour is among the cheapest on the list I have at 2 CP per pound with raw wheat at half that. A pound of flour would be used up in a very short amount of time as that is about 4 cups worth and it takes more than that for a loaf of bread. I think even a minor alchemist would believe that such a minimal cost is worth it for a bit of experimentation.

And, as noted, all of this ignores the idea that such a disaster would be blamed on some enemy intent of destroying the local food supply, or the always convenient "evil spirits", which aren't mere superstition in a game world like yours.

It ignores nothing. It may assume that the person or persons doing the experimentation are not concerned with the larger connotations of the incident, a common occurrence in closeted researcher types. Perhaps it was caused by an enemy plot to affect the regional food supply, perhaps triggered by something else, but that's for 'bigger people than me' to deal with.

It also presumes that such an explosion occurred in the first place, a detail which is far from settled.

Well true enough, it has not been settled in fact, because it cannot be. We are not there and cannot witness this. The most we can do is agree or disagree that it could happen in theory. I believe it could.

So, whether you view this as adversarial or not, I'll say that a "magical trap" that isn't subject to Detect Magic and which can be created at a fraction of the cost of traps listed in the books is unbalancing and to be discouraged. Allowing a similar effect without expending limited resources like spell slots is also a bad idea, for the same reasons.

As a matter of fact, for this trap one would be expending more resources for less effect as compared to fireball which you keep referencing. Spells are restricted per day unless they require extra restrictions, but otherwise that is it. A sorcerer for example, can on getting it, cast a 6d6 fireball a minimum of 3 times per day, every day, forever for free, a wizard gets it sooner though with less uses but again per day, every day and usually they have something more effective they would rather memorize. The trap can't match that. A Lv 1 caster can cast burning hands a minimum of 1/day for a wizard or 3 per day for a sorcerer, and that's just core classes and not taking into account bonus spells and again for free. The trap MAY be able to match that rate for a short time, by then that burning hands spell will likely be stronger than it as it scales with the caster which the trap does not. Not to mention the trap costs infinitely more and is entirely dependent on the threat coming to it. Balance-wise, it looks like the casters beat out my idea by a mile.

As for the cost of traps listed in books, do you not realize how arbitrary some of THOSE are? Look at the CR 1 trap, Doorknob Smeared with Contact Poison as an example. It is listed as 900 GP, the Carrion Crawler Brain Juice used in it costs 200 GP... Do you really think it takes 700 GP to smear some goo on a doorknob? The prices are not listed there in any form of 'balancing' act either. I could personally duplicate a Camoflauged Pit Trap myself with enough time, a single shovel, and some large grass. Do you really think that it would cost me $1800 (GP) to do it? Apart from the shovel, most of the 'materials' there are effectively without cost, as could any character with any amount of upper body strength. This would be a bit different if made in stone, but still theoretically still similar in concept adding in a pickaxe for chipping the stone and a wheelbarrow for carting it away or else there would be a lot of loose rock to hint to passers that something isn't right. These can be done by hand by a Lv1 commoner whereas the lowest level spell I can find to possibly duplicate the feat is the Lvl4 shape stone (looking only at arcane). Now with magic it is infinitely faster than by hand, but at least with the dirt version of the pit trap, it would still only take a few hours or so for a reasonably fit person to dig, gravediggers do this for a living in fact, though not quite as deep as the trap version. This is an example of magic and non-magic being able to achieve the same ends, like you are accusing me of attempting to do.

Now then, on to the fact that you are stuck on this being a supposed 'magical trap'... Why does fire have to be magical? Why? This is the biggest point I can't understand in your arguement. It is just because it makes it undetectable by detect magic? That Doorknob trap certainly can't be, nor can the Camoflauged Pit Trap. And although they'd be nearly naked, it is theoretically possible that a 1st lvl character could have a jar of the brain juice.

One final point here is that the whole 'dust' aspect was purely for flavor, it was never meant to require even a fraction of the thought you've given it.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure you'll press for it anyway. You've already said as much.

As for this, I said that I would likely discuss it with my DM. Discuss, not 'press for it'. In doing so, I would bring in all arguements, even yours, for and against the idea so that he could make up his own mind on the subject, if he decided that the idea was unique and original and interesting for role playing, that would be his decision. Likewise if he agreed with you that it would be horiffically game breaking to have a one time trap that just happened to use dust to cause a very minor burst of fire that affected one or two monsters, then so be it I would think up something else.

Am I still considering talking to him about it? Probably, but I have never fully decided in my own mind whether to do so or not as yet. Why is it so wrong for me to even talk to my DM about it in your eyes?

I must admit that a part of me, a smallminded and overly defensive part, really wants to do it just because of your vociferousness in trying to argue against it. I am trying not to let that petty side rule my judgement however, but I am quite honestly trying to understand just how this is so game breaking an idea, when everything I see tells me the opposite is the case. I want to understand your position and for some parts of it I do, for replicating actual spell effects in non-magical means... Well yes there are many spells that should never, or could never, be duplicated that way. There are others that already are duplicated, to no great balance issues that I can see.

Part of my issue with your argument is that I can't see what balance issues it would upset. It does damage equal to your average sword with the only exception that it may hit a second target and is fire, not slashing damage. Further more there is every possibility that a spot check will detect it and make it that much less likely to work. Would you argue as much against a flaming ball of pitch being lobbed by a catapult?

 

[Greenfield]

Okay, here's the very short answer: You are trying to get a contrived advantage that isn't limited by such things as spell slots.

That unbalances the game.

You can argue how it is or isn't a spell like effect, how it's really okay if the scope is small, or how your character really truly did observe this and figure it out without a credible rules basis.

It's still a bad idea.

Now, the longer answer:

You are attempting to get an effect that you described as greater than a Burning Hands but less than a Fireball. (Your own wording).

I'm not trying logic traps, just logic. I noted your apparent agreement before I read on and saw that you weren't really agreeing, you were arguing that it's too small to be a problem.

You can rationalize this all you like. (You are, in fact, which is pretty much what I predicted.)

You can say that I read you wrong, made unfounded presumptions about who you are and what you intended. Sorry.

I can say I was right in those presumptions, since you are behaving exactly as I predicted. Who cares what I say?

We can both argue about inspiration for inventing magic, alchemical or mechanical effects that make fiery explosions. Bottom line, you're arguing for a fiery explosion, with no real use limits. You can say the scope and scale are small, but you're still arguing for a scope and scale enough to be useful as a weapon.

You have questioned why there needs to be a skill check. You have questioned why there needs to be a cost for such a trap. You have argued, well, a lot of things.

The over all direction of these arguments has been that you should be able to research this, without cost or skill check needed, that you should be able to build it without cost or skill check needed, even though there are costs listed for building traps and researching spells, and skill checks needed for... Oh, sorry, I'm getting away from myself here.

Simply put, you've argued against any limiting factor on the development and/or use of this fire burst trap/weapon. You've then argued that I was wrong to notice and criticize that.

Bottom line, what I think of it, or you, doesn't matter. It's your DM you need to convince.

 

[Soultpp]

I will start with the last one first and say yes, you are right, its my DM I need to convince. And since I had serious doubts even before your tone made me a tad defensive, I had already resolved to show him this thread, including all arguments. He said, before I ever brought it up again, that he thought you were exaggerating your position and was amazed at how you went to great length to prove your position.

That being said, wizards unbalance the game already, the core game is horribly unbalanced to begin with. That isn't an argument for the trap idea, I may just give up on it for now.

I was not trying, even once to say that the idea did not come with costs, never. I in fact said on numerous occasions that it was in fact MORE costly than fireball in numerous ways both practical and tactical. No I did not price it based on the traps listed in the DMG because I don't see any logic to them for one thing.

I may have said that it started at a slightly higher average dmg than burning hands initially, but as you said the size is not your issue, the lack of any scaling doesn't seem to matter either. Because it isn't limited by some arbitrary spell slot system which only restrains a wizard at the lowest possible levels from becoming godly, you claim that makes it unbalancing despite increased effort and resources required to create or even discover such a thing that I have said at every point exist.

As far as scope or scale goes, I could do more for less just grabbing a crossbow for the character: Better damage, father range, no skill, and not fixed to a predefined location, nothing but an attack roll. Again, this was about flavor, not function.

I never said that I should be able to do anything without anything. If the DM required some sort of research first fine, that would happen through the campaign. Most DMs I know would just assume that such things were left for down time honestly. Some may or may not allow such things in to the background. You obviously would not, that is clear. My entire point on the observations in background for the basis of the idea was that it was possible, not that I was trying to avoid any and all restrictions in its implementation.

As far as skill checks go, I agreed to them. I believe that this would require one. My disagreement was on the number you chose and your logic behind it. I did not actually argue for its removal or even actually directly for its reduction, I merely pointed out that most of the 'modifiers' you proposed could, and only could be reduced or eliminated by time and research not that they would.

Okay yes I may have argued for the possibility of this existing. I never once said 'without cost', never. I also agreed with the idea of skill checks. Even if you had never mentioned the fact I would have expected some kind of checks, at the very minimal several Craft(Trapmaking) checks as it was being prepared. A different skill than you think, but still a skill. This isn't a spell, so spell research has no baring on this. Dwarven trap makers building defenses against invasion would never research spells for their quite clever non-magical traps.

In point of fact, you have been ignoring one of the biggest limiting factors this idea has for this whole time. Location. It cannot happen outside of a very specific setting. Magic of any type is far more mobile barring a few specific 'trap spells'. In actual fact, my opinion on the cost is that this is up to the DM to decide. If my DM said, it would cost the same as 'X' trap in the DMG in order for me to use it, then that's the end of it. I personally don't agree with some of the costs, but it is the DM who decides that and I'm sure most would likely follow the DMG, so be it.

I have not exactly argued against limiting factors at all, in fact I've on several occasions insisted that there were in fact more of them than for spells. I may have brought up points that I felt countered your arguments, but that is all I did.

But as far as 'developing this trap'... You haven't ever really given any help in actually developing anything, just tried to argue against the idea existing. We wouldn't be in this debate if you had been offering assistance in the construction/mechanics. Even if you had just found a comparative trap in the DMG and posted it like delericho did as a guideline, we probably would not have needed to debate anything.

As of this moment though, I don't think I am going to pursue the trap for the foreseeable future. It just really is not worth any more effort in even thinking about. I also do not know if I will come back here much in the future. I have not felt particularly welcome through out this.

 

[Greenfield]

Fireball has a cost: A 3rd level spell slot, which can be quite precious indeed.

Your idea costs some flour. When someone else suggested that such a trap should have a specific cost, you questioned why, ignoring the fact that every standard trap in the game has a cost, sometimes in the thousands of gold. You wanted to pay for the flour.

Researching a spell has a cost, in time and money, as well as skill checks.

You didn't understand why there should be skill checks or research costs. "A bit of ingenuity" was all you said it took. You still like to hand-wave the fact that there's nothing in the rules to allow such research.

You've acknowledged that spell like effects, without use limits like spell slots, unbalances the game. Now you try to hand wave that by saying that the game isn't too well balanced anyway. So what's a bit more, eh? (hint: Some try to improve the game balance instead of pretending it doesn't matter.)

Yes you agreed to skill checks. And I only had to twist your arm how many times?

Yes you agreed there should be costs. I think it was Delricho that twisted your arm on that one. And yes, you never said "no cost", you just asked why there had to be one. Same thing, different words.

All of which is meaningless.

There are dozens of in game reasons why this shouldn't be allowed. The dedicated power seeker will rationalize their way past them all, as you have sought to do.

There are problems with the total lack of rule mechanics to cover such experimentation (Hint: It's called "D&D", not "R&D" ) The dedicated power gamer will ignore this, as you have,

There are real game balance reasons, the ones that aren't just technical objections. But for someone whose very goal is to unbalance the game, these aren't objections at all, they're victory points.

You say that high level wizards unbalance the game: Only if the DM lets it happen.

Want to defeat a high level adventuring party? It's actually pretty easy, and it doesn't require any divine intervention. Just tactics and patience. A power focused DM will try to outdo the high powered spell casters at their own game. The story teller will force them to diversify their portfolio, so many of those spell slots have to be reserved for non-combat duties. The field tactician will note that they may have the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, but they don't have a lot of them, and spreading the hits out into waves, times long enough the buffs go down will drain them dry.

There are lots of ways a good DM can maintain game balance. The best tool for that job is to learn to say "no" to bits of game breaking "ingenuity". A good dose of Dispel BS goes a long way.

 

[Soultpp]

Actually no, someone did not suggest such a trap should have 'a specific cost' in fact what he did was find the nearest equivalent trap from the DMG and modify it slightly for flavor. I did not question that there was a cost, but how he arrived at it. He said that he copied it from a similar trap but admitted that he did not believe there was any specific logic to it. He even suggested hand waving the cost at the same time. I will agree that I did state that I would look at lowering the cost, if possible, but even if I were to follow the trap making rules directly from the DMG the trap I had suggested would be far cheaper as it would likely be a CR 1 trap, roughly equivalent to a pit trap in damage and effect, if not less.

Most of the traps in the DMG would take a lot of painstaking setup so a higher cost is accepted and expected. Some of them have costs that are listed that are completely illogical, as I've pointed out a few already.

I acknowledged that spell equivalents could unbalance the game yes. I also agreed that having them in unlimited use would be bad. I disagreed with your perception that my idea was without such strict uses though. I also wish you'd stop referencing fireball as I do not agree it is an equivalent effect. If you must reference a spell, burning hands would be the closest in similarity. I mentioned the lack of balance not to excuse further unbalancing at all, just stating a fact. And you are right, many do try to re-add balance, often by banning core classes like wizards.

As far as 'agreeing on costs,' I never disagreed with them and Delericho even suggested I could ignore them as I said. He merely provided one single example of a trap that could be similar to what I was asking, though I even said then that it was far stronger than what I had in mind. Again, I questioned only the reason behind the costs suggested, not that they existed in the first place.

I agreed to skill checks from the get go actually, before you ever mentioned them even. My only initial question to you on that subject was your choice of skill and the high level of your chosen check number, not why they should ever be used. You never browbeat me into that, nor did anyone. No arm twisting at all here.

As for the mechanics, I merely asked why it should be assumed that nothing is allowed if there is not specifically a rule already for it, which is what you seem to be implying? If the RAW covered everything, house rules would never be needed.

I'm not interested in power gaming here and never was. I was only interested in the possibility of an idea for a one time flashy effect that would 'look cool' as it were and be a little useful in an extremely specific circumstance if I was lucky. Perhaps I got caught up in the debate/argument and lost focus on this aspect a little, I've already admitted your aggressiveness was making me feel defensive after all, that I needed to 'fight back' as it were.

At this point though, I am thinking of scrapping the whole character concept before I ever start playing the character. I just can't think I'll enjoy it now as I'll always flash back to this argument and that will just sour everything I am doing.

 

[Greenfield]

Actually no, someone did not suggest such a trap should have 'a specific cost' in fact what he did was find the nearest equivalent trap from the DMG and modify it slightly for flavor.

See Delricho's post #4

I did not question that there was a cost, but how he arrived at it.

This sounds about what I was looking for, but I have to ask why the cost? I assume its just set by the trap rules. I would have to lower that if possible, and I may consider lowering the dmg but adding a secondary bull rush for the concussive force (since fireball is clearly stated as not having a shockwave)

I acknowledged that spell equivalents could unbalance the game yes. I also agreed that having them in unlimited use would be bad. I disagreed with your perception that my idea was without such strict uses though. I also wish you'd stop referencing fireball as I do not agree it is an equivalent effect. If you must reference a spell, burning hands would be the closest in similarity. I mentioned the lack of balance not to excuse further unbalancing at all, just stating a fact. And you are right, many do try to re-add balance, often by banning core classes like wizards.

You send mixed messages a lot. You said you wanted an AoE fire effect more powerful than a Burning Hands. A burst rather than a cone. You've argued that the difference is scale and scope, while citing as an inspiration an explosion that was larger and destroyed an entire building. I think you can see where I got the idea that you wanted a Fireball, can't you?

So instead, how about we compare it to the feat Fiery Burst? 10 foot area, far fewer dice of damage. Oh, and it doesn't use spell slots.

As far as 'agreeing on costs,' I never disagreed with them and Delericho even suggested I could ignore them as I said. He merely provided one single example of a trap that could be similar to what I was asking, though I even said then that it was far stronger than what I had in mind. Again, I questioned only the reason behind the costs suggested, not that they existed in the first place.

You really need to cut down on the mixed messages: You say you never disagreed on cost, then argue that they can be ignored. (And again, see your own post #6 in the thread.)

I could continue to dissect your post with your own previous posts, but the temperature is approaching the point where Mods get involved.

Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?