Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pielorinho" data-source="post: 97601" data-attributes="member: 259">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</blockquote>

Verification