The dangers of Alchemist's Fire

[Pielorinho]

I wouldn't make the damage cumulative, but I would make increase the DC to put the flames out by 2 for every vial that broke (decreasing by 2 for every round beyond the first), and increase the duration of the additional damage by 1 round for every vial that broke.

That way you can have the guy covered in flames and flailing about for several rounds.

Interesting. Would you rule, similarly, that a single creature wouldn't take cumulative damage from multiple alchemist fire attacks in a single round? That is, if Bob and I both throw alchemist fire at the troll, would it only take damage from the first flask?

This doesn't make too much sense to me: I'd think the troll would take as much damage as we could chuck at him, to a reasonable extent.

I could see three ways to rule this:
1) Maximum damage from alchemist's fire would be equal to maximum damage from boiling water: both inflict 1d6 with a direct hit, and boiling water inflicts 10d6 damage/rnd when you're immersed in it, so cap the damage from alchemist fire at 10d6.
2) Maximum damage from alchemist's fire would be equal to maximum damage from lava: both are fire damage, and lava inflicts 20d6 damage/rnd when you're immersed in it, so cap the damage from alchemist fire at 20d6.
3) As one or two above, except that you can only catch on fire once. In other words, maximum damage for the first round caps at 10d6 or 20d6, but in the next round, you'll take at most an additional 1d6 points of damage.

There are a couple problems with #3:
3a) This isn't how the rules work. Each dose of alchemist's fire is, by the rules, modular and should be resolved separately.
3b) Alchemist's fire is sticky and adhesive. Presumably if you have more of it on you, you'll get burnt worse.

I think that I'd go with option 1. You'll rarely see situations where you need a cap for alchemist's fire, but I think that when you do, 10d6 damage/round is a good cap. I might consider putting a higher cap for larger creatures, but I probably wouldn't -- too complicated.

Daniel

 

[Caliban]

I'm no sure that it would burn hotter if you have more alchemist fire on you in the same spot, and it's probable that some of the alchemist fire won't burn at once, because only the outer layer that is exposed to air ignites. It would burn longer though, as the surface layer burns off there is more to be exposed.

I was thinking of a lot of alchemist fire hitting one spot at the same time (i.e. the bandoleer is on your chest and they all break at once), not several vials of alchemist fire hitting you in different areas (as when several different people throw them at you).

Beside, I just liked the image of someone covered in flames and flailing around trying to put them out.

I may just be visualizing it wrong though.

 

[Pielorinho]

Beside, I just liked the image of someone covered in flames and flailing around trying to put them out.

You know, if you ever run for office, this quote is going to haunt you .

Another image for shatter on a bandoleer:

If I'm visualizing the things properly, the bandoleer consists of several hardened leather pockets on a belt. Probably with padding inside them.

Anyway, when shatter goes off on a person with a five-flask bandoleer, they may have five gouts of flame shooting straight up at their face. It won't splash all over them, so they won't take the full damage from alchemist's fire; but it will hit them where it hurts.

I don't know how that image (like rocket boy gone horribly wrong) affects the damage, but it makes me smile like a creepy psychopath.

Daniel

 

[Boone]

All things considered it seems a little ridiculous to find ways of punishing this guy for a little creative thinking.

I've read through the thread and people have said give each hit %50 chance to shatter... Please... if some on hits your character do see if it severed your backpack straps... or cut your pouch strings or cut it open... or hit the magic wand that may be on your belt.... Or cut open your bag of holding....? or snapped your bow or severed the bow string your have strapped across your characters ?

I would venture to say that it has never even crossed your minds.

As far as character casting shatter against those items... how often is that really going to happen..? Would that character at that time with that spell really be the best option for the spell caster or is it just the choice of mean spirited dm.

All things considered I think its a cool idea and think that in weighing all the things that could realistically (and by the rules and fair play) that could go wrong.....

its worth the risk

 

[Nareau]

That's a pretty good point...

This kind of thing won't come up often. But my PC will probably start carrying around a scroll of Shatter, just in case.
I'm not one of those DM's that tries to punish my players for creative thinking. But the NPC villains in my campaign spend a good amount of time thinking about strategy, and PC tactics are talked about in their weekly Bad Guy Meetings.

 

[green slime]

Again, there's this thing called the SRD. It has rules on it - useful for discussing things in a rules forum

http://www.opengamingfoundation.org

LOL...or at least an evil chuckle...

 

[Boone]

Re: That's a pretty good point...

PC tactics are talked about in their weekly Bad Guy Meetings.

This the primary reason a number of my Bad Guys have spent some many GP to get High Speed Crystal ball connections so that they can "video" conferance with other Bad Guys around the relm.
(Some have tried to add on their own tounges permanancy spell to the crystal ball hoping to save some money, its never worth it. Just have them get the complete package)

 

[Tiberius]

<snip history of phlogiston>
If you're going to use a defunct scientific theory, at least get it right.

The post about the explosive phlogiston referred to the substance that was described in the 2e Spelljammer set, rather than the historical theory which you impressively restated.

According to the setting, each star system was contained within crystal spheres, which themselves floated as do corks in a polychromatic medium known as the phologiston. This medium was extremely flammable, to the extent that the flame from a standard torch would cause an expolsion duplicating a 6-die fireball (or so). Larger flames would create larger explosions. May whatever deities you favor help you if you lobbed a Meteor Swarm in that stuff. <shudder>

-Tiberius

 

[Tony Vargas]

The post about the explosive phlogiston referred to the substance that was described in the 2e Spelljammer set, rather than the historical theory which you impressively restated.

I know. I wasn't ranting at the guy that posted, but at Spelljammer...

 

[Brown Jenkin]

While the resolution of this may have been house ruled, I thought I might be apropriate to share this story here.

Our DM attacked us with a party of Dwarves several of which were carying such a bandolier of Alchemist fire flasks. One of our party had a firebreath potion which he used on said dwarves. Since the dwarves were hit by fire the DM roled a % chance that the flasks would go off as well. Well they failed and next thing you knew there was the lound sound of a dwarf exploding. As we were in the 5th level range needless to say the combined explosion 3d6 firebreath + 10d6 alchemists fire left little dwarf parts all around.