Need some help here. DM wackiness in action

[Numion]

Come on, this isn't any wonderstuff, and it was 4 gallons of water. That hardly should make it worse, and at least should make putting it out easier.

And why yes, I have put out a fire on a training dummy that had napalm on it. That stuff isn't always the wonderstuff people say it is, either Napalm is kewl, though.

 

[kreynolds]

Water doesn't smother fires. Water removes the excess heat needed to continue the exothermic reaction.

I have a burning sensation between my toes.

Alchemist's fire is supposed to be Greek fire. The stuff they used to set a bay on fire...(It floats on top of water.)

You didn't read the description of Alchemist's Fire, did you?

The purify is a bit much and comes down to wether the stuff is toxic or not.

It is a bit weird.

It's oddly written since even water can be toxic....

So can air, or me in the morning.

 

[0-hr]

So how big was this "canister" of Alchemist Fire? If it was just a single, standard dose, then I would have let 4 gallons of water put it out (if use before it spread). But if it was a whole barrle of the stuff, then it would be far to big to be smothered.

As for the "Purfiy" trick, there's just no way I'd let something like that work. At best, it would separate the burning goo and the water. I just don't see it magically disintegrating things as large and distinct as equiment items (which a flask of alchmist fire is).

Otherwise you'll see people saying "I want to purfiy that water of the kobold that is permeating it!" (assuming, like humans, kobolds are composed mostly of water)

 

[JacktheRabbit]

It was a small earthen jug on a log that fell off and impacted on the ground.

A kobold is not drinkable, so your comparison does not work. A purify spell will instantly remove the most lethal non-magical poison one could possibly put in water per the description. So why is alchemist fire different.

So how big was this "canister" of Alchemist Fire? If it was just a single, standard dose, then I would have let 4 gallons of water put it out (if use before it spread). But if it was a whole barrle of the stuff, then it would be far to big to be smothered.

As for the "Purfiy" trick, there's just no way I'd let something like that work. At best, it would separate the burning goo and the water. I just don't see it magically disintegrating things as large and distinct as equiment items (which a flask of alchmist fire is).

Otherwise you'll see people saying "I want to purfiy that water of the kobold that is permeating it!" (assuming, like humans, kobolds are composed mostly of water)

 

[KarinsDad]

I think your DM goofed.

4 gallons of water should have put the fire out and the water, but not much of the Alchemist's Fire since it is sticky, should have spread around the area.

"On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. The target can take a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. It takes a successful Reflex saving throw (DC 15) to extinguish the flames."

If you can extinguish it by making a saving throw without water, how come you cannot extinguish it with water?

"Rolling on the ground allows the character a +2 bonus. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the flames."


The description of Alchemist's Fire implies that once out, it stays out since characters can extinguish the blaze.

Personally, I think if he wanted it to be a super hot burning napalm or Greek Fire that prevents attempts at extinguishing it, he should have not used Alchemist's Fire.

 

[Pielorinho]

I'm going back and forth on it, too; I think that your DM's snap judgement was probably poor, but could be made within the rules.

I do NOT think that purify food & water oughtta be able to rid the world of alchemist's fire -- the possibilities there for abuse seem too high to me. However, it seems reasonable that water would extinguish the flames, if it were traditional alchemist's fire.

How I'd suggest your DM handle things from here on:

-rule that 1 gallon of water is sufficient to extinguish one flask of alchemist's fire, if it's the traditional stuff.
-rule that you encountered some exceptionally fluid alchemist's fire: we'll call it Flameoil.
-Rule that flameoil cannot be extinguished by water, but it can be diluted: 1 gallon of water on flameoil reduces damage to the target by 1/2, but causes 1 point of splash damage to each surrounding square.
-give you an XP bonus for quick thinking.
-In the future, if he's gonna make a spot ruling like this against you, tell you about the ruling before you commit to the action (or at least give you enough additional description of the scene that you can logically reach the same conclusions as he's reaching).

Daniel

 

[doktorstick]

-In the future, if he's gonna make a spot ruling like this against you, tell you about the ruling before you commit to the action (or at least give you enough additional description of the scene that you can logically reach the same conclusions as he's reaching).

I disagree with that. If your decision is based on a poor understanding of your surroundings, or envionrment, then I would agree. However, in this case, that is exactly what experience is about. Trying things and seeing that they work or don't. The important thing, from a DM's perspective, is to be consistent with rulings like this whatever they are.

 

[Pielorinho]

I disagree with that. If your decision is based on a poor understanding of your surroundings, or envionrment, then I would agree. However, in this case, that is exactly what experience is about. Trying things and seeing that they work or don't. The important thing, from a DM's perspective, is to be consistent with rulings like this whatever they are.

I should be more specific. If the DM is going to rule that a spell doesn't work in a specific manner (e.g., it won't remove alchemist's fire from a puddle of water), I think it's fair to tell the caster of this fact. Generally, spellcasters are experts at their magic; they should have an idea of how it works in the DM's world.

Second, the DM should make sure the player has all the information necessary to judge an environment.

If both of these conditions are satisfied, then I generally agree with you: the PC may make a bad decision and learn from it.

The DM should be very careful, though, that the PC doesn't make a bad decision based on incomplete information from the DM.

This is especially important when it comes to spot rulings on clever ideas: otherwise, the DM runs a risk of feeling like a railroader.

Daniel

 

[0-hr]

This spell makes spoiled, rotten, poisonous, or otherwise contaminated food and water pure and suitable for eating and
drinking.

It doesn't mention disintegrating the contaminants. Given that this is a zero level spell, I would have to rule that it simply separates the water from the junk inside. Otherwise players are going to start using it as a general garbage disposal (just dump whatever you want into a barrel of water an "presto", it's gone!).

 

[Umbran]

I should be more specific. If the DM is going to rule that a spell doesn't work in a specific manner (e.g., it won't remove alchemist's fire from a puddle of water), I think it's fair to tell the caster of this fact. Generally, spellcasters are experts at their magic; they should have an idea of how it works in the DM's world.

Spellcasters are not experts at their magic, in general. They are experts in their magic if they have the Knowedge(Arcana) and/or Spellcraft skills. Being able to cast a spell is not the same as knowing the details of it's function and operation.

Additionally, if the character knew nothing about Alchemist's Fire, he'd have little information upon which to base a conclusion....