Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Fitz10019 12-28-07, 04:52 PM	An alchemist's fire burns for two consecutive rounds PHB128. A flask of oil can be prepared as a similar weapon, like a Malatov cocktail, but it must prepared as a full-round action and then thrown, with a 50% chance of igniting properly on impact PHB127. Because the alchemist fire burns two rounds, can a player alternate throwing alchemist's fires and then oils (unprepared, as normal flasks), with the reasoning that the existing alchemist's fire is still burning in the next round and will reliably ignite the oil on impact? This is attractive because oil is significantly cheaper than alchemist's fire. Consider a party of five, where the first PC throws an alchemist's fire, and then each of the other 4 throw oils. Assuming everyone hits, is everyone getting 1d6 this round, and another 1d6 next round? Next round, all 5 PCs use oil, because the previous oil burns for 2 rounds. In 2 rounds of attacks, the party does 20d6 damage for an expense of 20g 9sp (assuming 1 target). Does this seem correct? Or, would the miss chance for igniting successfully apply to each oil?
weasel0 12-29-07, 12:34 PM	Meh, I could roll with this as a DM. Of course, my players are forewarned at the beginning of campains that once they use certain tactics, they become fair game to be used against them. PS i think the existing fire burning would be reliable enough.
PenderGrass 12-29-07, 01:42 PM	I don't think the alchemist fires are going to stack for a total of 20d6 damage per round. :dragon: *****
Tedronai 12-29-07, 03:16 PM	20D6 for the cost of 20.9 gp, and 10 standard actions, and dealt over the course of 3 rounds from a total of 10 sources (thus allowing even the most meager fire resistance or hardness to overcome the vast majority of this damage - this still won't even ignite wood!)? I don't think that's too dangerous to campaign stability.
Loren Pechtel 12-29-07, 03:33 PM	I would rule that oil always lights when it hits a burning target no matter what is causing it to burn. Stacking the damage is another matter. I've been debating how that should work, I do *NOT* believe simply adding it up is right. My current inclination is the first does 1d6, the third adds another d6, the 6th a third d6 and so on. If the hits are coming from one direction I would cap the damage at 10d6, if they are coming from all around it could go up to 20d6.
weasel0 12-29-07, 07:12 PM	Lava Effects Lava or magma deals 2d6 points of damage per round of exposure, except in the case of total immersion (such as when a character falls into the crater of an active volcano), which deals 20d6 points of damage per round. Damage from magma continues for 1d3 rounds after exposure ceases, but this additional damage is only half of that dealt during actual contact (that is, 1d6 or 10d6 points per round). An immunity or resistance to fire serves as an immunity to lava or magma. However, a creature immune to fire might still drown if completely immersed in lava (see Drowning, below). 20d6 seems a bit much when compared to lava that melts rock. Cap at 10d6 seems appropriate. As well as each only burns for 2 rounds. Every 2 oils after 10 dice(at a given moment) spreads the fire outward by 5' in a random direction.
PenderGrass 01-02-08, 02:20 PM	Anything more than 1d6 is excessive, IMHO. If you read the alchemist fire entry, the 1d6 is given for a "direct hit." This means you can't get any better without it being a critical hit. Also, if you think about the severity of the alchemist fire that burns at 10d6 - you are talking about total annihilation of a commoner in less than a 6-second round. Total annihilation. 1d6 per round is pretty powerful. Heck, even a 10th level barbarian constitution beast can be beaten down eventually when you are burning him for 1d6 every round (especially when you add in opponents - see How To Be A Bastard DM for more info). Now, if you really want to do more damage with alchemist fire, start burning stuff around the target - like a pile of wood and tinder - this will create more heat than just the alchemist fire and will cause more damage. I bet this is the reason witches burn so well when you place them atop a bonfire. :dragon: *****
weasel0 01-03-08, 09:30 PM	Each pint of oil(only the first was Alchemist Fire), could also be doing damage by sudden combustion thusly explaining the additional 1d6 instead of thinking about it as simply adding more of the same temperature. If one were merely(heehee) pouring on oil every round then yes, it would really only be doing 1d6 per round as the oil simply catches fire as it pours all over the place.
PenderGrass 01-04-08, 03:52 PM	Each pint of oil(only the first was Alchemist Fire), could also be doing damage by sudden combustion thusly explaining the additional 1d6 instead of thinking about it as simply adding more of the same temperature. If one were merely(heehee) pouring on oil every round then yes, it would really only be doing 1d6 per round as the oil simply catches fire as it pours all over the place. I don't disagree that there are ways to rationalize alchemist fire damage stacking and/or doing more damage with each use. I do disagree with the potential unbalancing of the game by viewing it in such a way. I would rather view the alchemist fire burning with the same heat/damage, regardless. A player can prolong the damage by adding more alchemist fires. A player can increase the damage by burning additional fuel around, under, above or close to the original target. A player can even lock a target in a box and suffocate the target by using alchemist fire to burn up all the oxygen. There are many ways to make alchemist fire more lethal, but just adding more damage based on multiple uses in the same round isn't going to do it for me. :dragon: *****
weasel0 01-04-08, 06:17 PM	Fair enough.