Post/Author/DateTime	Post
johniemi 02-03-07, 06:46 PM	One of our group's players insists that the following is a valid strategy in a game of Dungeons & Dragons; Buy a bag. Fill the bag with alchemists fire. Drop the bag on critters head for zillion x d6 damage. I say the alchemist fire does not stack. He says that it would work in real life. To which I reply; "Yes, of course it would, but this is not real life, this is a fantasy game with balanced game mechanics and your idea is a good one but it breaks the game mechanics, thus I won't allow it." Arguing over this is getting frustrating, could someone please back me up so I can show him this thread the next time he starts complaining about this matter? Thanks. -John
Dan Hemmens 02-03-07, 06:52 PM	It wouldn't stack in real life. Look at it this way. If you pour a litre of petrol over somebody, and set them on fire, and then pour twenty litres of petrol over somebody else, and set them on fire, does the guy with the twenty litres of petrol on him take twenty times as much "damage"? Of course he doesn't.
gamerlamer666 02-03-07, 06:52 PM	One of our group's players insists that the following is a valid strategy in a game of Dungeons & Dragons; Buy a bag. Fill the bag with alchemists fire. Drop the bag on critters head for zillion x d6 damage. I say the alchemist fire does not stack. He says that it would work in real life. To which I reply; "Yes, of course it would, but this is not real life, this is a fantasy game with balanced game mechanics and your idea is a good one but it breaks the game mechanics, thus I won't allow it." Arguing over this is getting frustrating, could someone please back me up so I can show him this thread the next time he starts complaining about this matter? Thanks. -John Not just saying this to agree with you but ya he is an idiot if he usess real world logic in a fantasy game. because in fantasy games you can do anything, even say uhh make fire damage not stack.( also like the previous poster stated that ya in real life fire dont stack)SO ya whoever your freind is needs to get his head outta reaility and into gaming( just my 2 platnum)
Ace_of_Diamonds 02-03-07, 06:56 PM	PROGRAM stop_being_stupid; FUNCTION throw_bottle; BEGIN WHILE players = stupid DO throw_bottle; writeln('Stop being stupid'); END; END. And I though my players asked me some ridiculous things. Also there's the fact that you can only throw one weapon at a time, including splash weapons, and alchemist's fire is a splash weapon. They could counter with "Yes, but it's logical to..." at which point you can hit them with a hammer and say "The moment you start trying to apply logic to D&D is the moment you start screwing it up. I can hit someone with a spoon far more than one time every six seconds, but in D&D I'd only get one attack per 6 seconds with a spoon until at least level 6."
Radijs 02-03-07, 07:02 PM	A whole bag FULL of breakable vials filled with a volatile liquid. Does this guy WANT to be a walking bomb? The moment that bag gets a shake some of those flasks are going to break pouring out the burning fluid. The bag catches fire, tears and all the bottles fall out breaking from the impact & thermal stress. I can smell the burning flesh already.
Dei 02-03-07, 07:13 PM	Well in the player's defense, the damage certainly wouldn't stack an arguement could be made that whoever the bag was thrown at would have to pass a zillion reflex saves to put out the fire in the next round so in that way throwing multiples would have a benefit. Though as a DM I'd rule that even this wouldn't stack. Other than that, as the first reply said, 1 litre of petrol or 20 litres, makes no difference to how hot the fire is (i.e. how much damage it does).
OneWinged4ngel 02-03-07, 07:38 PM	Not just saying this to agree with you but ya he is an idiot if he usess real world logic in a fantasy game. And you're not so bright yourself if you think what he just said was anything like real world logic. And I'm getting sick of people like you saying that you can't apply logic to *anything* as if fantasy world shouldn't make sense within the limits of their own setting, which is clearly wrong... and indeed contradictory to what the DMG tells you. It's a tired cop-out. Talk about a lamer, gamer. Anyways... 1: You're dumping more of a flammable substance on someone... so what? They don't get *more* on fire. 2: If you're dumbing, you're not aiming. You're going to miss with many of those flasks. 3: If your bag gets hit, YOU explode. 4: It's a huge waste of money. One time I had this happen, but it worked out pretty simply... an area of effect attack on the area the stuff was dumped on, for like 3d6+lights you on fire (don't remember what it was exactly)
GospelofRob 02-03-07, 07:44 PM	In this situation, I'ld compare it to the rules on lava. Unless he is going to have a bag large enough to completly immerse the target. And if he has a.) that much money, and b.) a "bag" large enough, why not let him? Just have him drop off a small cliff and BOOOM!! no more problem (that last part is a joke, a joke!)
Jo_Pistachio 02-03-07, 07:50 PM	Why not fill the portable hole with the stuff and stick it on the ground. Then illusion it to make it look like you are standing over it, and that it's not a hole. He may mistake the illusion for you, and run into the portable hole. Then you close the portable hole. Personally, I prefer acid.
lastknightleft 02-03-07, 08:50 PM	I agree that the fire damage wouldn't stack, but with the petrol example, no he isn't more on fire, but a larger area around him is, what you could do is let him do that and make the effect engulf a 10ft area. Also, if while in that area he won't be able to extinguish the flames because of the large amount of friggin napalm, which is what alchemist fire is supposed to be. Then just next time an enemy with a bow has the jump on him have the enemy shoot the bag and have him be the victim of his own tactic and he'll never do it again
Ramses III 02-04-07, 01:25 AM	So he's dumping flasks of alchemist's fire out of a bag? They break on contact if thrown. If they're dumped out of a bag, they break when they hit the ground. The target only takes splash damage, and the PC takes an equal amount of splash damage, with neither continuing to burn. Congratulations, you just found a really expensive way to take a bunch of damage.
Always-Late 02-04-07, 01:29 AM	Think of acid. You can throw a liter of acid on him, and he'll be screaming, but you coud dump a truck's worth of acid on him and he'd melt. I agree, applying logic is not the smartest, but the petral argument I don't think s great. I'd probably rule that keeping lots of alchemists fire close to each aother is not a smart oidea, as is "common knowledge," and they could cause an explosion if sored together too long.
Deekin 02-04-07, 01:44 AM	I would apply the law of dimishing returns. For Every doubling of the amount of alchemists fire, add 1d6 fire damage. 2=2d6, 4=3d6 8=4d6, ect...
dengarbountyhunter 02-04-07, 03:47 PM	The petrol argument does not make sense at all. I burn my fingertip with a match? "Ouch", that's it. My whole body is subject to the same burn? "AAAAAAAGH! *ambulance siren*". Same thing with the 1 liter vs 20 liters of fuel. If the guy manages to put all the alchemist's fire together safely and use it as a weapon, let him have at least a slight advantage out of it, be it more damage, bigger area of effect or whatever. By the time he has enough money to use that tactic on a regular basis, everything he'll encounter will either have too many hit points to care, high fire resistance, or both. If that tactic was really worth it, nobody would ever use a sword or spells and the winner of epic battles would be determined by the size of the bag of alchemist's fire they manage to throw at each other.
Thungrum_The_Exile 02-04-07, 06:00 PM	I would personally agree with the player to a degree. first of all as for the petrol argument go dump a litre of water on yourself, then try twenty. Is more of your body wet? of course it is, therefore a greater percentage of your body would be covered in third degree burns = more damage. I would have to agree with Deekin on the deminishing returns idea as a lot of the excess would go into the thickness of the coating rather than the area of the coating. As for the splash damage it would still only go five feet. I would also increase the DC for being set on fire by one point per extra d6 of damage, not make them take a bunch of saves. As to aiming it would be an improvised thrown weapon. Were talking -4 to hit along with the range penalties kicking in at every 10ft to a maximum of 50ft. so anyone with a shortbow can stay out of his range. As for the missing point, I would say if he misses by one then it lands within one square and the target takes splash damage Never penalize a person for being smart, always encourage it otherwise you end up in hack and slash, with little time for creativity. So to end up, yes it would work but not by directly stacking otherwise I would coat my weapons in 10 vials before each combat and the rogue's sneak attack would become pointless
green_yawgmoth 02-04-07, 07:43 PM	PROGRAM stop_being_stupid; FUNCTION throw_bottle; BEGIN WHILE players = stupid DO throw_bottle; writeln('Stop being stupid'); END; END. OMG H4X! Seriously though, this is awesome. Print this out and say "I have implemented this program into my DMing subroutines. Do not activate it." http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Ramses III 02-04-07, 07:50 PM	Even if you throw the bag, or drop the bag from a height, and the bottles do shatter on impact, they break inside the bag. The bag then falls to the floor. Now you have a burning bag -- still not a burning target.
Yakiniku 02-04-07, 09:01 PM	One of our group's players insists that the following is a valid strategy in a game of Dungeons & Dragons; 1. The plan requires a sack full of alchemists fire, each of which costs 20 gp and weighs a pound. 2. He must carry the sack around until he has a chance to use it. 3. He risks the sack breaking and setting himself on fire. 4. The sack cannot be throw as per a normal splash weapon, and therefore must be dropped onto the target. 5. In order to drop the sack, he must find some sort of terrain that allows him to be directly overhead of the target. 6. In order to position himself overhead of the target, he must either climb up in the middle of combat and hope the target walks underneath him, or have some form of advance preparation. 7. He still has to roll to hit. 8. IF the DM is feeling generous, the sack deals a bunch of fire damage to the target. Hooray! 9. If the target happens to be in melee with the other members of the party, then they will each take 1 point of fire damage for every bottle of alchemist's fire. 10. If he misses with the sack, and the target is in melee with the other members of the party, then he might deal a bunch of fire damage to one of his allies. If he really feels this is a valid strategy, I say let him try it.
Mock26 02-04-07, 09:13 PM	Not just saying this to agree with you but ya he is an idiot if he usess real world logic in a fantasy game. because in fantasy games you can do anything, even say uhh make fire damage not stack.( also like the previous poster stated that ya in real life fire dont stack)SO ya whoever your freind is needs to get his head outta reaility and into gaming( just my 2 platnum)But even in a fantasy world those parts that are based on the real world should follow the logic of the real world. If a man walks off a cliff he should be subject to the laws of gravity and the laws of stopping suddenly, if he doesn't use magic! So, yes, this is a fantasy world, and you can do anything. But, if you pour oil on someone and set them on fire you have to use the logic of the real world and have the oil react accordingly and ignite.
Mock26 02-04-07, 09:20 PM	One of our group's players insists that the following is a valid strategy in a game of Dungeons & Dragons; Buy a bag. Fill the bag with alchemists fire. Drop the bag on critters head for zillion x d6 damage. I say the alchemist fire does not stack. He says that it would work in real life. To which I reply; "Yes, of course it would, but this is not real life, this is a fantasy game with balanced game mechanics and your idea is a good one but it breaks the game mechanics, thus I won't allow it." Arguing over this is getting frustrating, could someone please back me up so I can show him this thread the next time he starts complaining about this matter? Thanks. -John While I agree with you on this one, I don't think he was being stupid. He may have simply been following the logic of magic or the logic of the real world. For example, even though the size of a fireball never changes, the amount of damage it does increases as the mage goes up in level. If you pack more gunpowder into a bomb it will do more damage. Or, if you pour a cup of oil on someone vs. pouring a buck of oil on someone, one will do more damage. So, I can understand why someone might think that adding more fuel would to a fire might get it to cause more damage. Afterall, with smaller fires, adding more fuels would get it to cause more damage. But, at some point the amount of damage would stop increasing. At that point the only possible additional effect would be to increase how long the fire would burn.
Andrew 02-04-07, 09:53 PM	I recommend using the Larger Weapons rules; have every doubling in price increase the damage size by 1 step, and impose a -2 penalty on the attack roll. You should be able to scale up twice (using 4 flasks to do 2d6 point damage and 1d3 splash damage) without problem, and I can see an argument for a flask being small enough to be scaled up three times (like daggers used to be Tiny in 3.0).
CaptainPicard 02-04-07, 10:05 PM	I've allowed Alchemist's Fire to stack in certain circumstances before. While I would not allow what you are describing to work perfectly, I consider Alchemist's Fire to be comparable to napalm, and there is some benefit to having more of it. One of the best applications I've seen of this is putting lots of Alchemist's Fire and a minor explosive in a crate and dropping it on a town, from a hot air balloon or some kind of flying creature (depending on your level of technology). Now that's some good carpetbombing!
Board_Rider 02-04-07, 10:10 PM	1. The plan requires a sack full of alchemists fire, each of which costs 20 gp and weighs a pound. 2. He must carry the sack around until he has a chance to use it. 3. He risks the sack breaking and setting himself on fire. 4. The sack cannot be throw as per a normal splash weapon, and therefore must be dropped onto the target. 5. In order to drop the sack, he must find some sort of terrain that allows him to be directly overhead of the target. 6. In order to position himself overhead of the target, he must either climb up in the middle of combat and hope the target walks underneath him, or have some form of advance preparation. 7. He still has to roll to hit. 8. IF the DM is feeling generous, the sack deals a bunch of fire damage to the target. Hooray! 9. If the target happens to be in melee with the other members of the party, then they will each take 1 point of fire damage for every bottle of alchemist's fire. 10. If he misses with the sack, and the target is in melee with the other members of the party, then he might deal a bunch of fire damage to one of his allies. If he really feels this is a valid strategy, I say let him try it. I agree.
Xykon 02-04-07, 10:42 PM	1. The plan requires a sack full of alchemists fire, each of which costs 20 gp and weighs a pound. 2. He must carry the sack around until he has a chance to use it. 3. He risks the sack breaking and setting himself on fire. 4. The sack cannot be throw as per a normal splash weapon, and therefore must be dropped onto the target. 5. In order to drop the sack, he must find some sort of terrain that allows him to be directly overhead of the target. 6. In order to position himself overhead of the target, he must either climb up in the middle of combat and hope the target walks underneath him, or have some form of advance preparation. 7. He still has to roll to hit. 8. IF the DM is feeling generous, the sack deals a bunch of fire damage to the target. Hooray! 9. If the target happens to be in melee with the other members of the party, then they will each take 1 point of fire damage for every bottle of alchemist's fire. 10. If he misses with the sack, and the target is in melee with the other members of the party, then he might deal a bunch of fire damage to one of his allies. If he really feels this is a valid strategy, I say let him try it. Agree completely, plus some additional notes. 1. IIRC alchemist fire burst into flames when it comes into contact with air. Thats why you throw it on a target, you do not need to lit it and the contents still bursts into flames... Good luck in "pouring" the thing into a sack... 2. Normal sacks are not "water proof". Good luck in finding one... Might cost him 20 gold per sack... 3. In the event that he managed to find a water proof sack and manage to fill it up with alchemist fire, how is it gonna burst if you throw it at someone? Imagine a leather basketball, fill it up with water, and throw/dropping it at some one... 4. If he tries to get smart and try to open the sack to "pour" the contents on his taget, FOOOM!!! face burn!
PwnageLlama 02-04-07, 11:18 PM	I would apply the law of dimishing returns. For Every doubling of the amount of alchemists fire, add 1d6 fire damage. 2=2d6, 4=3d6 8=4d6, ect... That, along with the grin on your face when you warn him of breaking bottles should be enough to deter him.
Always-Late 02-04-07, 11:25 PM	Instead of a whole ton of small bottles in a sac, we'll just get a really big bottle. Happy?
Solik 02-04-07, 11:26 PM	This would not be an effective strategy. There's nothing wrong with filling a sack with plenty of vials of this stuff and flinging it, but all that's going to happen is the sack is going to burst into flames. Nothing about the description of alchemist's fire leads one to believe that it will create some kind of huge explosion, and the damage one takes from the substance is from being set on fire, which is what the flaming sack will do. The sack will function as an improvised thrown weapon and will do damage equal to a standard vial of alchemist's fire. Dropping lots of them out of a sack onto someone's head, on the other hand, is something else altogether. This is a viable strategy for a character who can fly (fear a grenadier upon a flying carpet). The doubling to increase damage by 1 rule mentioned above is probably the best way to handle this. So, dropping two vials = double damage, four vials = triple damage, eight vials = quadruple damage, sixteen vials = 5x damage, and so on. Dropping is not throwing, however, so there should be a much lower chance of the vials hitting. Perhaps one of the rules gurus can help with resolving avoiding dropped objects.
johniemi 02-05-07, 02:13 AM	Thanks for the replies, to clarify, this tactic was supposed to take place in a small character optimization gladiator battle between our characters. So he thought he could beat us all by flying over his opponent and dropping alchemist's fire on the opponent from a bag of holding. If this would happen in a "real" D&D game, I would probably give some extra damage for this tactic and a larger area of effect, but it would not stack even closely on a 1:1 basis like my friend wants it to (+1 alchemists fire = +1 extra die damage... not). Also I might award the character some XP for an ingenuine idea and for trying something else than hacking away with a full attack :) EDIT: Our characters are at level20, so this tactic is really not that good anyway... *gough* fire resistance *gough*... -John
Always-Late 02-05-07, 02:21 AM	http://www.mysticalley.com/glass_KG12gazeaquairiswirl.jpg Did somebody say alchemist's fire? How about Twenty Liters of the good stuff? http://www.couronneco.com/glass_bottle_jar_vase_wholesale/vases14in+/g4603-grande-water-drop.jpg
Amon_WinterfallIV 02-05-07, 02:24 AM	Well, with a bag of holding and a cost of tens of thousands of GP, it might be possible to deal heavy damage to someone with even a scaling attack ( I rule that you get the square root of the fire in damage.) You might go with some rule calling 20d6 the maximum amount of damage (although I'd never do this). Yes, it's clever.
Lunacy 02-05-07, 07:25 AM	While I agree with you on this one, I don't think he was being stupid. He may have simply been following the logic of magic or the logic of the real world. For example, even though the size of a fireball never changes, the amount of damage it does increases as the mage goes up in level. If you pack more gunpowder into a bomb it will do more damage. Or, if you pour a cup of oil on someone vs. pouring a buck of oil on someone, one will do more damage. So, I can understand why someone might think that adding more fuel would to a fire might get it to cause more damage. Afterall, with smaller fires, adding more fuels would get it to cause more damage. But, at some point the amount of damage would stop increasing. At that point the only possible additional effect would be to increase how long the fire would burn. I actually allow Alchemist's fire to stack with diminishing returns. 1d6 on the first vial, 1d4, 1d3, and then 1. Everything after the fourth just adds to the duration.
Senevri 02-05-07, 10:37 AM	Alchemist's fires cost money, and it's reasonable to cap them at 20d6. Now, if someone wants to throw 20 alchemist's fires = 400GP at an enemy... I'd let them. They've taken the time of filling a bag, and preparing this one-shot bomb which only hits 1 square, has 10ft range increment and requires a Ranged Touch roll... let them.
TarlSS 02-05-07, 10:43 AM	Diminish returns and cap the damage. If you want, calculate the cost of an equivelent level fireball single use item, and say you need to pay that much in Alchemist's fire to do the same amount of damage.
Boraxe 02-05-07, 10:49 AM	I would apply the law of dimishing returns. For Every doubling of the amount of alchemists fire, add 1d6 fire damage. 2=2d6, 4=3d6 8=4d6, ect... How many vials does the player think he can fit in his "bag" anyway? Each vial weighs 1 pound so, assuming it is somewhat lighter than water, it is just over a pint - for simplicity let's roughly round it off to a pint each or 8 per gallon. If he wants to use real-world physics then I'd take Deekin's suggestion above even further. For every eightfold increase in volume you double the damage and the radius. 1 vial = 1/8 gallon, 1 pound = 1d6, 5' radius 8 vials = 1 gallon, 8 pounds = 2d6, 10 ' radius 64 vials = 8 gallons, 64 pounds = 3d6, 20' radius 512 vials = 64 gallons, 512 pounds = 4d6, 40' radius etc. Hardly seems worth the trouble, really.
Mock26 02-05-07, 04:21 PM	1 vial = 1/8 gallon, 1 pound = 1d6, 5' radius 8 vials = 1 gallon, 8 pounds = 2d6, 10 ' radius 64 vials = 8 gallons, 64 pounds = 3d6, 20' radius 512 vials = 64 gallons, 512 pounds = 4d6, 40' radius etc. Hardly seems worth the trouble, really. What about something slightly different, maybe: 1 vial = 1d6 2 vials = 2d6 4 vials = 3d6 8 vials = 4d6 16 vials = 5d6 32 vials = 6d6 etc. This way you still wind up with needing far too many vials to achieve significant amounts of damage, but you can still get some decent enough damage to make carrying a small supply worth the effort.
Boraxe 02-05-07, 05:06 PM	What about something slightly different, maybe: 1 vial = 1d6 2 vials = 2d6 4 vials = 3d6 8 vials = 4d6 16 vials = 5d6 32 vials = 6d6 etc. This way you still wind up with needing far too many vials to achieve significant amounts of damage, but you can still get some decent enough damage to make carrying a small supply worth the effort. But why would you want to make it worth the effort? You did this and pretty soon no one will carry anything except alchemist's fire. I was basing my numbers off of the law of volumetric expansion. As you double the size in three-dimensions your octuple the volume, thus the eightfold increase per doubling of area and damage. If I were DM I'd say "no" and carry on. If they complained and wouldn't let the matter go I'd say "fine, it does a gazillion damage" and let them spend tons of cash buying up potions and bags. Suddenly and inexplicably, however, the PC carrying said massive amounts of the stuff will become the target of a near-endless barage of large-scale bludgeoning and sonic attacks, forcing numerous item saves, until they immolate like a Buddhist monk in the streets of Hanoi.
Arrowhen 02-05-07, 05:10 PM	Go ahead and allow it, then have an opponent pull the trick on him first. Then ask him if he still thinks it's a good idea.
Always-Late 02-05-07, 05:27 PM	Go ahead and allow it, then have an opponent pull the trick on him first. Then ask him if he still thinks it's a good idea.It worked! It worked fantastic! It took me from 56 to -9 in a single smash! *whistles* I have got to get me some of that.
Mock26 02-05-07, 05:40 PM	But why would you want to make it worth the effort? You did this and pretty soon no one will carry anything except alchemist's fire. I was basing my numbers off of the law of volumetric expansion. As you double the size in three-dimensions your octuple the volume, thus the eightfold increase per doubling of area and damage. If I were DM I'd say "no" and carry on. If they complained and wouldn't let the matter go I'd say "fine, it does a gazillion damage" and let them spend tons of cash buying up potions and bags. Suddenly and inexplicably, however, the PC carrying said massive amounts of the stuff will become the target of a near-endless barage of large-scale bludgeoning and sonic attacks, forcing numerous item saves, until they immolate like a Buddhist monk in the streets of Hanoi. I would allow it because even if the player's logic might have been a bit flawed, he did show some creative thinking in ragards to the game. So, I'd give him a bit of a reward. I also don't think that would would start carrying nothing but alchemists fire, even with my more "beneficial" system. For starters, I doubt someone would want to carry around 8 vials just to get 4d6 points of damage. 8 vials might not seem like a lot, but they do take up space, even in a bag of holding. And even if someone did carry around a lot of vials in a bag of holding or a portable hole, it wouldn't really be worth the effort to take the time to pull out 8 vials (or one large one) and try and throw it. It might be worth it at lower levels, but once you get to higher levels your character will be able to deal more damage from his attacks. So, like I said, give him a small reward for trying to come up with a bit of creative thinking.
UAMDB 02-05-07, 06:46 PM	It wouldn't stack in real life. Look at it this way. If you pour a litre of petrol over somebody, and set them on fire, and then pour twenty litres of petrol over somebody else, and set them on fire, does the guy with the twenty litres of petrol on him take twenty times as much "damage"? Of course he doesn't. So if three people throw three flask at a target in one round then it would only take damage from the first one? All the player did (or tried to do) was find a way to throw many flask in one action. So the target is being hit with many flask at once. There is no difference than being hit by three different players in the same round. Now as far as to how many fits in one bag, safty of carring said bag around, and if the bag or the target is actually hit by the bag is up to the DM. If you put a Moffok Cocktail in a paper bag and hit someone with it would they only take one point of damage cause the bag was the first thing the bottle hit? I would allow it but put major penalties because of the weight of the bag, plus -4 for exotic weapon(Bag).
Type2Demon 02-05-07, 07:33 PM	As mentioned earlier, 20 flasks of alchemist fire do not burn any hotter than 1 flask... so there should be no increase in damage from fire. There is a greater amount of fuel though, so the time that the alchemist fire will burn for should be increased by 1 round per 2 extra flasks. This will give more damage over time if the target does not bother to extinguish itself. Increase the size of the pool of fire by 1ft per extra vial. Dropping a 20lb. bag of flasks from 10ft or more will really hurt! Add + 1D4 impact damage. So, dropping a 20lb bag of 20 alchemist fires from 10ft above a target inflicts 1D4 + 2D6 fire + 1D6 fire damage each successive round for 9 more rounds unless the target does a "stop, drop and roll", jumps into a lake or zaps himself with a ray of frost. A powerful but expensive attack. Limited in use, and difficult to carry around.
DaidojiTaidoru 02-05-07, 07:39 PM	1. The plan requires a sack full of alchemists fire, each of which costs 20 gp and weighs a pound. 2. He must carry the sack around until he has a chance to use it. 3. He risks the sack breaking and setting himself on fire. 4. The sack cannot be throw as per a normal splash weapon, and therefore must be dropped onto the target. 5. In order to drop the sack, he must find some sort of terrain that allows him to be directly overhead of the target. 6. In order to position himself overhead of the target, he must either climb up in the middle of combat and hope the target walks underneath him, or have some form of advance preparation. 7. He still has to roll to hit. 8. IF the DM is feeling generous, the sack deals a bunch of fire damage to the target. Hooray! 9. If the target happens to be in melee with the other members of the party, then they will each take 1 point of fire damage for every bottle of alchemist's fire. 10. If he misses with the sack, and the target is in melee with the other members of the party, then he might deal a bunch of fire damage to one of his allies. If he really feels this is a valid strategy, I say let him try it. I would apply the law of dimishing returns. For Every doubling of the amount of alchemists fire, add 1d6 fire damage. 2=2d6, 4=3d6 8=4d6, ect... Combine FTW. No character who can be killed by a sunder on a glass vial is overpowered.
Ramses III 02-05-07, 08:52 PM	As mentioned earlier, 20 flasks of alchemist fire do not burn any hotter than 1 flask... so there should be no increase in damage from fire. There is a greater amount of fuel though, so the time that the alchemist fire will burn for should be increased by 1 round per 2 extra flasks. This will give more damage over time if the target does not bother to extinguish itself. Increase the size of the pool of fire by 1ft per extra vial. Dropping a 20lb. bag of flasks from 10ft or more will really hurt! Add + 1D4 impact damage. So, dropping a 20lb bag of 20 alchemist fires from 10ft above a target inflicts 1D4 + 2D6 fire + 1D6 fire damage each successive round for 9 more rounds unless the target does a "stop, drop and roll", jumps into a lake or zaps himself with a ray of frost. A powerful but expensive attack. Limited in use, and difficult to carry around. 20 flasks don't burn hotter than one flask, true. That's not the source of the stacking damage though. Assuming a medium target, you're looking at a difference between probably 10% of the target's body being on fire and up to 100% of the body being on fire. That's a huge difference in damage. Also, considering this limitation -- a target can't be more than 100% on fire -- it seems reasonable to put an effective cap on the amount of damage a target can take per round from alchemist's fire, say 10d6 for 10 vials. This fits with a similar balancing factor in the game -- spell damage -- where diminishing returns does not.
Mock26 02-05-07, 09:36 PM	Instead of using the law of diminishing returns to stack damage, how about allowing alchemist fire to stack, but have a cap limit based on the size of target? And any additional vials would simply increase the time for how long it would burn. For example, if a single vial only covered 1/4 of a target, what about allowing four vials to stack on that particular target? Of course, that would mean coming up with a system of how much of a creature a vial would cover. Would 1 vial cover 1 medium sized creature completely? Or would it cover 1/2? What about a small sized creature? A large one? Anyone got any thoughts on this?
Ramses III 02-05-07, 10:08 PM	That's essentially what I was getting at in my previous post. A creature only has so much surface area of its body that can be set on fire; a damage cap is the best way to represent that. Actually, I think the 10d6 damage cap I suggested for a medium creature is kind of high. I don't think the cap should be better than that for a level 1 or 2 spell, so a damage cap of 5d6 against a medium creature seems more appropriate; suggesting that 1 vial covers 20% of a human or orc. If this is taken to be the case, then one vial is going to cover about 50% of a halfling or gnome, so the damage cap for a small creature is 2d6. Extrapolate further as you see fit.
Shatteredtower 02-05-07, 10:39 PM	Instead of using the law of diminishing returns to stack damage, how about allowing alchemist fire to stack, but have a cap limit based on the size of target?Then why does a pixie take as much damage as a storm giant does from a fireball?
Mock26 02-05-07, 10:52 PM	Then why does a pixie take as much damage as a storm giant does from a fireball? Magic!
Arganis 02-06-07, 09:50 AM	Multiple alchemist fires effectively equate to a single size-increased alchemist fire. Advance a single alchemist's fire's damage and price by 1-2 size categories and apply the requisite penalties to attack that this entails. This simulates the "sack of alchemist fire" within the framework of the rules.
lone_ranger_84 02-06-07, 12:05 PM	Ah just as a fun joke to end all arguments a portable whole is sitting on the ground as you walk up to it a trunk a holding falls out of the sky in to it a the swirling vortex as time and space are apart inthat little area can usually keep the characters quiet for awhile to keep the game going.:D