Grease spell confusion

[LokiDR]

Sure, valid house rule. I already think the spell is plenty powerful enough, however, and don't want to make it more powerful.

I think it is pretty weak, but I compare everthing to the most powerful spells. This makes it nice for combat based games.

I agree with this. In fact, if a clever caster decided to cast grease on a fire elemental she'd just summoned, I'd grin happily and increase the elemental's fire damage by 1d6 for a round or two, as the grease burnt off.

The difference is that if the grease is cast on a very hot surface, and there's enough energy in the surface to heat up the grease without cooling down the surface itself too much, then sure, flames result.

IMC, it's normal grease, meaning it can burn, but doesn't under normal applications. Using the spell like this would be specific to very particular situations, but it would be possible.

Daniel

Thank you.

If the fire-trap trick doesn't work, I don't mind. Even if the fire elemental didn't get more damage, I wouldn't mind. But if I need an emergency flare and the DM just said "no" I would be miffed. That is just a DM stopping creativity. At that point, I might as well to CRPGs.

 

[Pielorinho]

I think we've come as close to agreement on this as we can; at the point where we're arguing over whether the grease spell produces lard or crude oil, and whether a fireball's heat more closely resembles a blowtorch or an acelytene torch, we're done.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

Okay, not quite done .

I do have an underlying philosophy of gaming here, and it's not about staying faithful to thermodynamics. It's about avoiding turning clever tricks into cliches.

D&D already has too many cliched combat maneuvers for my tastes: magic missile, fireball, power-attack over and over, etc. My ideal is to run a game in which every combat looks different from every other combat, in which every fight is memorable.

Allowing a trick to work once, under peculiar circumstances, makes that fight more memorable. "Remember the time we got attacked by that troll with fire resistance 5 and my fire elemental couldn't hurt it, so I cast grease on the elemental and was able to affect the troll? That rocked!"

Allowing a trick to work often, under a broad array of circumstances, just makes it stale. "Oh dear. Another opponent. Well, guess I'll cast grease on the ground and follow it up with a burning hands, per my standard tactics."

In this case, I think basic physics supports my inclination to not allow this trick to work. Even if it didn't, I'd be reluctant to allow it, however: it seems like it'd be too easy for this to become a routine tactic, and routine battles are boring.

However, I'm very inclined to let creative uses of spells or abilities work under weird circumstances. Those are the things that make combat memorable, and I love them.

Daniel

 

[Zogg]

Were I a DM,
these are ways I would let my PCs ignite their "grease" spell:

1. Have the mage cast fireball in the area of effect.
2. Have the cleric cast fire storm/flame strike in the area of effect.
3. Have a summoned fire elemental walk over the area of effect.

If they attempted to light the area with a torch or other small flammable device, they would need to beat a Knowledge: Pyrotechnics DC of 30.

What other ways could a grease spell (reasonably) be ignited?

 

[LokiDR]

Okay, not quite done .

I do have an underlying philosophy of gaming here, and it's not about staying faithful to thermodynamics. It's about avoiding turning clever tricks into cliches.

D&D already has too many cliched combat maneuvers for my tastes: magic missile, fireball, power-attack over and over, etc. My ideal is to run a game in which every combat looks different from every other combat, in which every fight is memorable.

Allowing a trick to work once, under peculiar circumstances, makes that fight more memorable. "Remember the time we got attacked by that troll with fire resistance 5 and my fire elemental couldn't hurt it, so I cast grease on the elemental and was able to affect the troll? That rocked!"

Allowing a trick to work often, under a broad array of circumstances, just makes it stale. "Oh dear. Another opponent. Well, guess I'll cast grease on the ground and follow it up with a burning hands, per my standard tactics."

In this case, I think basic physics supports my inclination to not allow this trick to work. Even if it didn't, I'd be reluctant to allow it, however: it seems like it'd be too easy for this to become a routine tactic, and routine battles are boring.

However, I'm very inclined to let creative uses of spells or abilities work under weird circumstances. Those are the things that make combat memorable, and I love them.

Daniel

Yes, different kinds of tatics should be encouraged. I agree with all that.

Now look at the other side: consistancy. I want characters to develope the kind of "cliched" tatics that define a character. I want characters to find things that work and favor them, but in different ways. If I was playing a sorcerer who always tried the grease/flame trick, I would expect to encounter enemies who knew about it after while and develop counter tatics (fly, spiderclimb). Then I have adapt, perhaps by performing the trick on the fighter's longsword that is locked in a gauntlet.

In a perfect world, there would be other options besides MM for good damage dealing at low levels. So, one mage would be fond of his MM while another likes his *1st level damage spell as good as MM*. Then the characters are distinct, interesting, and they each can find good uses for their spells.

I want each combat to be memorable, but I also want my character to be different than other characters in my place.

 

[jasper]

I did the same trick in jr high. But with a sheet of notebook paper floated into a box. First time it worked. Second time the box folded in half due to a little too much water. It put out the flame.

Some one mentioned lightning bolt.
Lead melting point 600.61 K, 327.46 C, 621.43 F from the webelements.com site
Gold melting point 1337.33, 1064.18 C, 1947.52 F
Copper melting point 1357.77, 1084.62 C, 1984.34 F
Silver melting point 1234.93 K, 961.78 C, 1763.2 F

Bronze melting point 1880 F thru 1922 F from precision steel warehouse site

Steel melting point 1510 C, 2750 F from the Jefferson Lab site

So if you want to be literal any material with a melting point or burning point under 1985 F will be destroyed or damaged by lightning point.

On grease spell. If you really want to catch fire I do either a d4 or d6 for 1 round and then make the spell elapse.

http://ehs.unl.edu/SOP/s-SPCChazards_oil.pdf
I think will explain some things

 

[Camarath]

If you don't want to think, why not? Now, for the rest of us: can ray of frost freeze water? Can a mount summoned by the spell of the same name eat food? The spells don't say they can, so by Camarath's theory, they can't. I will assume that any property not listed in the spell is going to be covered by material properties as appropriate to setting. Hence, frost freezes, mounts eat, and paper burns.

Have no poblem with those spells doing those things I just have a problem with saying that they necessarily do them. In my opinion there are rule points where a player (or another DM) can insist or aurge that that is the way the game works. I don't think any of these things fall in that category. They are all an individual DM's personal call these thing should IMO work the way the DM wants. If I did not make it clear the players should not be able to tell the DM whether or not the grease should be flammable, thats my take on the rules.

When was silicon grease invented? Does that fit your game world? It doesn't fit in mine. Consistance of the setting is important, you know.

I don't know and it does not fit as a common material in my game but I was mainly using it as a example of a substance that could be created by the spell and that would not be flammable.

Almost nothing a person will ever carry is flammable. Oil is not flamable. That is a worthless definition because it doesn't add anything to the discussion. Even lantern oil isn't flammable, and if that doesn't burn at the touch of a torch this whole discussion is pointless.

That is a good point. I think it does have some value in determining how long a substance would take to ignite.

Take a can of motor oil, dump it in a pan, apply a lit blowtorch for 12 seconds. If it doesn't burn, I'll give up.

2 rounds and a blowtorch sounds much more resonable to me than one action and a medieval torch.

*sigh* House rules are not "grease burns". They are specific damage and lenght of burn. The fact that grease burns is the non-house rule. In any game I play, I expect the grease spell cast into a large heat source to flare.

I agree with that. I also think it is resonable that the grease might not burn if the DM thinks it shouldn't. The fact that the grease might burn or does burn is not in an of it's self a house rule but IMO the mechanic employed of simulate this fact would be a house rule.

Because this use was not forseen, you can not do it? You don't like being creative, do you? Your mount (from the spell) can not eat grass. Your flaming sphere can not burn a rope bridge down. Hey, if that is the way you play, more power to you. For myself and others, the rules do not present every action possible, only the limits. Creative play should be encouraged, not banned.

You can not assume that you can do it. Whether or not it is possible or probable is not what I was trying to address. What I was trying to address is what actions and effects under the rules can be assumed to be possible and which are ambiguous and thus the DM call as to whether or not they are possible. I agree creative play should be encouraged IMO thats what this game is all about. I would probly let a player use the grease as an accelerant or ad-hoc damage spell if they wanted but would not let them dictate it's effects or even it's flammability to me.

2) Grease, as understood by fantasy settings, will burn if it is hot enough. Casting grease into a furnace, forge, or large fire elemental should cause a flare up of the fire. This is not a house rule.

I agree normal grease should burn and having it do so is not a house rule. Magical grease might not function the same way are then again it might neither of which would be a house rule IMO.

I would say crude oil, but you can't normally buy that in a store. I am willing to bet that motor oil is pretty close to crude oil, and there is not medieval equivelant to silicone gel.

Crude oil is not a grease. A grease is a solid or semi-solid at normal tempratues. Sorry if this was a joke.

A single second of a blowtorch will not kill (and then some) most average people the way 5d6 will. And blowtorches are not white hot. They can get most metal to a bright red but that is about it.

If you want to more accurate, a better analagy would be oxy-asetiline (sp?) welding torch. That should light oil in a single second and better reflect the amount of heat to flash fry a person.

You could kill some one who was helpless in 6 seconds (1 round) with a blowtorch and you might not be able to ingite grease in that period of time. Even with a Oxyacetylene blowtroch it would probly take more than a second (not much longer though) to kill some if they weren't helpless.

With enough heat and preasure, you can theoretically break nearly any law of physics. But if you don't like jokes, I won't make anymore

Most comon understandings of those Laws anyway. Sorry, I didn't realizes you were making a joke.

By the way, if you can't stand my simple misspelling, I can switch entirely to bad 133t-eez. Would that make you go away? Wait, you don't like jokes, nevermind.

Sorry did not mean to be offensive just meant it as a light jab. I always spell things wrong anyway so who am I to joke about it. I far as 133t speak please don't or I might really have to go and hide . (that was i joke )

 

[Camarath]

Were I a DM,
these are ways I would let my PCs ignite their "grease" spell:

1. Have the mage cast fireball in the area of effect.
2. Have the cleric cast fire storm/flame strike in the area of effect.
3. Have a summoned fire elemental walk over the area of effect.

If they attempted to light the area with a torch or other small flammable device, they would need to beat a Knowledge: Pyrotechnics DC of 30.

What other ways could a grease spell (reasonably) be ignited?

IMO all of these suggestion are resonable and would keep Grease from doing relatively large amounts of damage (depending also on the game mechanic you use) at lower levels. At higher levels I think balance issues would not be much of a factor. I think this good way to house rule it. (I think I probly have a broader and more encompassing definition of what constitutes a house rule then most. I realy don't think you can play with out them.)

 

[LokiDR]

Have no poblem with those spells doing those things I just have a problem with saying that they necessarily do them. In my opinion there are rule points where a player (or another DM) can insist or aurge that that is the way the game works. I don't think any of these things fall in that category. They are all an individual DM's personal call these thing should IMO work the way the DM wants. If I did not make it clear the players should not be able to tell the DM whether or not the grease should be flammable, thats my take on the rules.

You can't argue against a house rule. "I say fireball lights things on fire." In that game, it does.

But if some person says "you can't move yourself with the telekinisis spell, because the spell doesn't say you can, that is what fly is for" I am going to be pissed. If something says it creates paper, I will assume normal paper. As a player, I have to make basic assumption about the world because the DM can't spell out everything. A good starting assumption is that anything created by magic will act like a normal item unless stated otherwise. Hence, grease (as understood in a fantasy setting) would burn. I can't make any assumption about how well, but I can assume it will burn in some way.

I don't know and it does not fit as a common material in my game but I was mainly using it as a example of a substance that could be created by the spell and that would not be flammable.

Can you think of any non-burnable grease that does fit setting? If you can, I might just change my opinion

That is a good point. I think it does have some value in determining how long a substance would take to ignite.

Naw, that defination doesn't give you flash points or the temperature of the average flame. Those would be more important, but the definition doesn't give those. Besides, OSHA is just there to make companies sweat.

2 rounds and a blowtorch sounds much more resonable to me than one action and a medieval torch.

A medieval torch is a stick, wrapped in cloth soaked in oil. That is going to burn pretty hot. I am almost tempted to try this now. (mmm, fire.....)

I agree with that. I also think it is resonable that the grease might not burn if the DM thinks it shouldn't. The fact that the grease might burn or does burn is not in an of it's self a house rule but IMO the mechanic employed of simulate this fact would be a house rule.

I think a DM that says "it says it creates grease, but that isn't real grease" is reading beyond the spell and house ruling. A DM that says "Ok, the furnace flares for a second and then dies down again dealing no extra damage" is keeping the "realism" without letting the players get an undue advantage. It doesn't have to be a good tatic to suit me, it just has to do something.

You can not assume that you can do it. Whether or not it is possible or probable is not what I was trying to address. What I was trying to address is what actions and effects under the rules can be assumed to be possible and which are ambiguous and thus the DM call as to whether or not they are possible. I agree creative play should be encouraged IMO thats what this game is all about. I would probly let a player use the grease as an accelerant or ad-hoc damage spell if they wanted but would not let them dictate it's effects or even it's flammability to me.

I have to make some assumption. Given the material, I would have to say it would burn since that is what "normal" grease would do. This doesn't mean much other than it will produce flame if very hot. It might be anything from a great fire trap to a rather crappy flare.

Players expectation should be that the world works a specific way, normally like ours. As a DM, we have to maintain that effect. So, anytime something isn't stated, whatever would be logical for the situation should be the default. By default, grease in a medieval setting burns.

I agree normal grease should burn and having it do so is not a house rule. Magical grease might not function the same way are then again it might neither of which would be a house rule IMO.

If it is something other than normal grease, the spell should state that. I should be able to assume, for example, that a mount from the spell can eat and isn't some obvious construct. If you want to change that, it is house rule. Normal unless stated otherwise.

Crude oil is not a grease. A grease is a solid or semi-solid at normal tempratues. Sorry if this was a joke.

Crude oil qualifies as an oily substance, in accord with the general definition that someone posted.

You could kill some one who was helpless in 6 seconds (1 round) with a blowtorch and you might not be able to ingite grease in that period of time. Even with a Oxyacetylene blowtroch it would probly take more than a second (not much longer though) to kill some if they weren't helpless.

We aren't talking about a helpless person. And I don't think 6 seconds of a blowtorch would kill a person. It will hurt them, but it is no 5d6.

Most comon understandings of those Laws anyway. Sorry, I didn't realizes you were making a joke.

I think that was a quote of some pyro character somewhere. Not important.

Sorry did not mean to be offensive just meant it as a light jab. I always spell things wrong anyway so who am I to joke about it. I far as 133t speak please don't or I might really have to go and hide . (that was i joke )

Good, because I am not really fluent in 133t and would hate to have to learn it just for this. I am only fluent in english, c++, php, and mispelled englsh.

 

[Camarath]

But if some person says "you can't move yourself with the telekinisis spell, because the spell doesn't say you can, that is what fly is for" I am going to be pissed. If something says it creates paper, I will assume normal paper. As a player, I have to make basic assumption about the world because the DM can't spell out everything. A good starting assumption is that anything created by magic will act like a normal item unless stated otherwise. Hence, grease (as understood in a fantasy setting) would burn. I can't make any assumption about how well, but I can assume it will burn in some way.

The Telekinesis example is not the same kind of thing since it specifly targets "creature or object"(s) since a person is an a creature I think it is reasonable to say the the caster can affect himself with the spell and to assert this to your DM. It is a good starting assumption that things created by magic function like normal items but IMO you can not rely on it unless specifically stated in the spell.

Can you think of any non-burnable grease that does fit setting? If you can, I might just change my opinion

Slippery Ectoplasm? Most other greases would indead either burn (some at very high temperatures) or would require technical expertise to manufacture that would be beyond a Medieval culture. But they could be created through True Creation (which I guess is not strictly core [PsiH]).

A medieval torch is a stick, wrapped in cloth soaked in oil. That is going to burn pretty hot. I am almost tempted to try this now. (mmm, fire.....)

Just be careful. I would suggest using pitch rather than a thin oil or petroleum product.

I think a DM that says "it says it creates grease, but that isn't real grease" is reading beyond the spell and house ruling. A DM that says "Ok, the furnace flares for a second and then dies down again dealing no extra damage" is keeping the "realism" without letting the players get an undue advantage. It doesn't have to be a good tatic to suit me, it just has to do something.

If burning adds no game effect (i.e. damage or other change) then there no house rule (the effect is merely cosmetic). I do think that the player desreve some sort of explanation if it does not react to heat especially very intense heat.

I have to make some assumption. Given the material, I would have to say it would burn since that is what "normal" grease would do. This doesn't mean much other than it will produce flame if very hot. It might be anything from a great fire trap to a rather crappy flare.

Players expectation should be that the world works a specific way, normally like ours. As a DM, we have to maintain that effect. So, anytime something isn't stated, whatever would be logical for the situation should be the default. By default, grease in a medieval setting burns.

If it is something other than normal grease, the spell should state that. I should be able to assume, for example, that a mount from the spell can eat and isn't some obvious construct. If you want to change that, it is house rule. Normal unless stated otherwise.

Unless as a DM you have a reson why things should work differently I think you should try but are not compeled to preserve the feel of realism. I don't think you can deal with this issue with out making some sort of house rule unless you ignore it.

Crude oil qualifies as an oily substance, in accord with the general definition that someone posted.

Crude oil is not a grease it does not fit the normal qualifications of a grease. Grease is normally solid or semi-solid at room temperatures. And wile crude oil can occasionally be solid at room temperature it is not typicaly a very good lubricant. It is also a substance so varied that it properties cannot be consistently defined beyond generalities qualities. Moter oil which is a good lubricant is also not a grease because it is too thin. You could count them as greases it you want but that would be a bit of a stretch.

Good, because I am not really fluent in 133t and would hate to have to learn it just for this. I am only fluent in english, c++, php, and mispelled englsh.

Good, I was afraid we would have to speak through a translator(my brother) since I don't speak 133t either.