Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6934431" data-attributes="member: 4937">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.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.  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.But stop wasting your time here and talk this over with your DM.</blockquote>

Verification