Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Soultpp" data-source="post: 6935317" data-attributes="member: 6822710">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)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'.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 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.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.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.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."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:"HistoryArchaeological 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.</blockquote>

Verification