-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The dangers of Alchemist's Fire
- Thread starter Nareau
- Start date
Notes.
First, note that this guy must have the Quick Draw feat to do what he wants to do. With the odd exception of arrows, every ranged weapon -- well, I guess maybe it's every thrown weapon -- takes a move-equivalent action (MEA) to draw them first.
If it takes you a MEA to draw shurikens before you throw them, it's going to take a MEA to draw an alchemist's fire.
Second, it's true that the rules don't have any specific place where they mention the possible danger of walking around with a bunch of fragile stuff on you. Potions, though, are one-ounce containers; figure that they're pretty easy to miss.
Alchemist's fire comes in a flask, though, and it weighs a FULL POUND. That's a pint of liquid. I don't know that these would fit easily into a bandoleer. And even if they do, anyone walking around with a half-dozen of these things on them is realistically risking life and limb.
"Creative thinking" my ass. The difference between most "creative thinking" and munchkin thinking is the difference between being a player and being a DM
.
Anyone carrying around more than . . . say three of these things, in a location on the bod where there could easily quick-draw them, should be risking nasty stuff in the event they get hit or they fall a great distance.
YMMV. But it shouldn't
First, note that this guy must have the Quick Draw feat to do what he wants to do. With the odd exception of arrows, every ranged weapon -- well, I guess maybe it's every thrown weapon -- takes a move-equivalent action (MEA) to draw them first.
If it takes you a MEA to draw shurikens before you throw them, it's going to take a MEA to draw an alchemist's fire.
Second, it's true that the rules don't have any specific place where they mention the possible danger of walking around with a bunch of fragile stuff on you. Potions, though, are one-ounce containers; figure that they're pretty easy to miss.
Alchemist's fire comes in a flask, though, and it weighs a FULL POUND. That's a pint of liquid. I don't know that these would fit easily into a bandoleer. And even if they do, anyone walking around with a half-dozen of these things on them is realistically risking life and limb.
"Creative thinking" my ass. The difference between most "creative thinking" and munchkin thinking is the difference between being a player and being a DM
. Anyone carrying around more than . . . say three of these things, in a location on the bod where there could easily quick-draw them, should be risking nasty stuff in the event they get hit or they fall a great distance.
YMMV. But it shouldn't
Last edited:
Re: Notes.
Sounds like a DM with a "God" complex.
As I have noted previously if you have never played that the result of being hit has either:
Severed backpack straps.. ... Cut open bags, smashed lanterns, cut off pouches, cut bow strings or chopped a bow in half in addition to the damage that if being given . THEN....THEN
.......... HOW could you all of a sudden Fabricate a rule just because the character is carrying Alchemists Fire..
Don't get me wrong....you can do anything you want ... but it would be INCONSISTENT and you look like a petty and foolish DM.
Forrester said:
"Creative thinking" my ass. The difference between most "creative thinking" and munchkin thinking is the difference between being a player and being a DM
Sounds like a DM with a "God" complex.
Forrester said:
As I have noted previously if you have never played that the result of being hit has either:
Severed backpack straps.. ... Cut open bags, smashed lanterns, cut off pouches, cut bow strings or chopped a bow in half in addition to the damage that if being given . THEN....THEN
.......... HOW could you all of a sudden Fabricate a rule just because the character is carrying Alchemists Fire..
Don't get me wrong....you can do anything you want ... but it would be INCONSISTENT and you look like a petty and foolish DM.
Rashak Mani
First Post
My answer is BURN BABY BURN !!
Just to throw an additional problem into the mix...
Shatter's area effect of a 3' radius is problematical. The DMG explains (this is from memory, I couldn't find it in the SRD) that area effect spells are targetted on a corner of a square. Someone feel free to call me names if I am wrong. This generally works well because most area effect spells effect areas that are some multiple of 5'.
However, if shatter only effects a 3' radius and that area is centered on one of the corners in which the alchemist fire-filled bandoleer is being worn then the spell only affects 28% ((pi/4)*3^2)/(5^2) of the square containing the bandoleer wearer and does not reach the exact middle of the square (3 < (5*sqrt(2)). So there is some not insignificant chance that a shatter centred on the corner of a square would not reach the intended target.
Maybe it would make more sense for the area of effect to be one 5' square, which is pretty close to a 3' radius area centred on the centre of a square.
Spotty
PS Maybe it's 'affect' rather than 'effect'.
Shatter's area effect of a 3' radius is problematical. The DMG explains (this is from memory, I couldn't find it in the SRD) that area effect spells are targetted on a corner of a square. Someone feel free to call me names if I am wrong. This generally works well because most area effect spells effect areas that are some multiple of 5'.
However, if shatter only effects a 3' radius and that area is centered on one of the corners in which the alchemist fire-filled bandoleer is being worn then the spell only affects 28% ((pi/4)*3^2)/(5^2) of the square containing the bandoleer wearer and does not reach the exact middle of the square (3 < (5*sqrt(2)). So there is some not insignificant chance that a shatter centred on the corner of a square would not reach the intended target.
Maybe it would make more sense for the area of effect to be one 5' square, which is pretty close to a 3' radius area centred on the centre of a square.
Spotty
PS Maybe it's 'affect' rather than 'effect'.
Last edited:
