Our DM's cleric got initiative on us, and fired off Shatter, asking for will saves for all our potions.
My spellthief (with ranks in Alchemy and gold to burn) had:
25 Alchemists fire,
25 Acid,
15 Alchemists Frost,
15 Alchemists Shock.
We were level 5. All standing next to each other.
On the plus side, I made half the saves. The down side - the ones that saved were promptly blown up by the half that failed.
DM ruled the cleric died one round later from hysterics.
I can just see the look on your poor spellthief's face a split second before the explosion.
his cleric did this why?was he an ally a enemy? if he was an ally your DM is mean
Cleric was a baddie. Even I had forgotten about the vials by this point of the campaign (Various complaints about the splash damage meant I couldn't use them as much as I had planned. Also tired etc).
The DM was desperately trying to find a get out of that TPK, and there was a two round delay before the 1st lot of failed saves killing 2 and me realising that the failed lot would have been also destroyed.
Suffice to say, no one in our group is going to be able to beat that wipe any time soon.
My spellthief (with ranks in Alchemy and gold to burn) had:
25 Alchemists fire,
25 Acid,
15 Alchemists Frost,
15 Alchemists Shock.
Your spellthief must have been awfully strong, since each flask weighs a pound. That's 80 pounds of flasks. Where were you storing these?
Your spellthief must have been awfully strong, since each flask weighs a pound. That's 80 pounds of flasks. Where were you storing these?
We don't actually worry about weight too much in game (barring the ridiculous stuff).
Also, it was in a Handy Haversack.
@ strenoth : We (DM included) thought the vials would still be affected as they were carried by the person (as an attended object), and all that glass shrapnel would have shredded the HH
Also, it was in a Handy Haversack.
That's still extradimensional, isn't it?
That's still extradimensional, isn't it?
Good point: Shatter doesn't have line of sight to the vials than.
Good point: Shatter doesn't have line of sight to the vials than.
It also sounds like DM was metagaming. Did the cleric (Are you sure it was a cleric? Did you see a holy symbol or roll a Spellcraft check after seeing a spell and knew it was a Cleric spell?) have any reason to know you would be carrying around a ton of glass containers? Do you jhave a reputation as a heavy user of alchemy? I mean let's be frank shatter is a pretty limited use spell and it seems to me odd that a cleric would memorize it when there are plenty of other spells clerics get that would be more useful. Scroll of it would make more sense as it is a spell you might find useful but wouldn't want to use a slot to pray for. I mean it would be one thing if it were a warlock who can use it as an invocation. But even then it's limited as it dosen't affect magic items.
From what you told us it sounds like your DM wanted to screw with you. Now if you don't care and got a good laugh out of it then hey good for you man. I would not have reacted the same way especially if the DM blatantly metagamed and broke rules to deprive me of items i had sacrificed time and my hard earned share of teh treasure to make just for a laugh.
Ever heard of ceramic bottles?
Yes, and so have the creators of the spell:
Used as an area attack, shatter destroys nonmagical objects of crystal, glass, ceramic, or porcelain
.
Just....Wow.
Wow. You tell a great story about a funny TPK that has already happened and you and your group look back at and laugh, and immediately an army of rules lawyers rise up to negate it.
Just....Wow.
What's wrong with negating it, if the party was unfairly TPKed?
Wow. You tell a great story about a funny TPK that has already happened and you and your group look back at and laugh, and immediately an army of rules lawyers rise up to negate it.
Just....Wow.
TPK is only funny is it happened in a humorous manner (check) that is wihin the rules (CHING!), and the player's fault (well...)
Originally Posted by Ecalsneerg
TPK is only funny is it happened in a humorous manner (check) that is wihin the rules (CHING!), and the player's fault (well...)
I wonder why this is the only way a TPK can be funny? I don't think you can decide what everyone thinks is hilarious. Rules lawyers go to far, by suggesting there are actual rules for somehting to be funny. The DM allowed it, the players didn't care that much(or they would have looked up some stuff) and so RAW gets shoved to the side to make way for a funny story about a Spellthief that brought down the team. His character is dead, but has a place in his heart as the TP killer. Asfor shatter, who knows what evil clerics think of on their time off? And how do you know the cleric didn't DIVINE that they had some glass objects? He might have also thought that they had some potions, and he didn't want to deal with the extra health, so BANG, there they go.
My point is, people cannot make a RULE for something being funny, and if there were rules, I would hate to Laugh.
The DM allowed it,
I'm pretty sure DM always allows DM fiat
I wonder why this is the only way a TPK can be funny? I don't think you can decide what everyone thinks is hilarious. Rules lawyers go to far, by suggesting there are actual rules for somehting to be funny. The DM allowed it, the players didn't care that much(or they would have looked up some stuff) and so RAW gets shoved to the side to make way for a funny story about a Spellthief that brought down the team. His character is dead, but has a place in his heart as the TP killer. Asfor shatter, who knows what evil clerics think of on their time off? And how do you know the cleric didn't DIVINE that they had some glass objects? He might have also thought that they had some potions, and he didn't want to deal with the extra health, so BANG, there they go.
My point is, people cannot make a RULE for something being funny, and if there were rules, I would hate to Laugh.
Rules laywering is claiming a monk suffers -4 to attack rolls because he isn't proficient. It is not thinking a TPK isn't funny when a very obvious fact of something being not the same plane is ignored.
The OP said that the DM wanted to try and fudge away the TPK, but in the end he couldn't.
Do what all the MMOs do, rollback! The question of course is why would a cleric be using such an absurdly targeted spell randomly.
Re the mean DM - He didn't know about the alchemy vials, he was going for cure potions on the belt etc. Like I said even I had forgotten I had them (and I'm the munchkin of the group - though he's now ruled that I'm not allowed to pack a barrel full of flasks & shrink it
).While he was looking for a way to end the current campaign (it was just dungeon crawl & getting boring for all involved), I don't think he was thinking quite that. :P
I'd be a little miffed if the flasks weren't shatter-able, but its -still- dang funny, regardless. I'd just politely ask the DM to reverse his ruling since it was incorrect and then move on. Doesn't change how funny it is, though.
You made me smile.
Except that it was a level 1-2 dwarf carrying a torch and something like 30 flasks of oil.
He fell down a pit....causing flasks to break per 1st edition "crushing blow" saves to be made in situations like that. save of some kind to see if he dropped the torch (or maybe the fall knocked him out....)....anyway the torch hit the oil and.....
The rest of us continued the fight with bright illumination coming out of the pit....
Having you guys all stand next to each other.....ouch. Splash damage for all.
(I agree that it shouldn't have affected stuff in a heward haversack, but I've seen lots of cases where people put lots of alchemicals on the outside, for quickdraw-throwing or whatever....)
I'm just curious why so much invested in alchemy stuff. Was that all paid for by one dude? Thats what a little under 2k invested in alchemy bombs?
he said he had cash to burn, and are you sure its 2K with him crafting it?
I'm just curious why so much invested in alchemy stuff. Was that all paid for by one dude? Thats what a little under 2k invested in alchemy bombs?
Yeah crafting yourself reduces the cost to 33%.
The idea was to throw liberally at monsters, but that got stepped on when my DM ruled that I couldn't because I was good aligned, the 1pt splash damage to my party members in melee was unacceptable.
Yeah crafting yourself reduces the cost to 33%.
The idea was to throw liberally at monsters, but that got stepped on when my DM ruled that I couldn't because I was good aligned, the 1pt splash damage to my party members in melee was unacceptable.
That's an odd restriction - just because you're good doesn't mean you can't fight tactically. If your allies don't have a problem with occasionally being splashed, there should be no restriction.
That's an odd restriction - just because you're good doesn't mean you can't fight tactically. If your allies don't have a problem with occasionally being splashed, there should be no restriction.
This is also the DM that has a +/- 12% on acceptable (to him) power level, so it's not surprising, just annoying.
Also, I don't think the allies in question were exactly arguing for it.
Great TPK... I really want to try that out now with a character to see the response my fellow gamers get at the table.
My DM rules that bags of holding and handy haversacks don't exist extredimensional but in the fourth dimension where they can be affected by things.
Great TPK... I really want to try that out now with a character to see the response my fellow gamers get at the table.
Isn't the 4th dimension where the players are?
Isn't the 4th dimension where the players are?
Nah, that's 5th. 4th's generally accepted to be time.
Nah, that's 5th. 4th's generally accepted to be time.
So Bags of holdings have time inside them?
So Bags of holdings have time inside them?
No, a previous poster stated the DM ruled that extra dimensional spaces (bags of holding) didn't exist in an extra dimension, but in the 4th dimension - which is generally accepted as time.
That said, I've just looked at the Bag of holding again, and it's a non-dimensional space - which means, no dimensions.
So how the DM ruled it exists only in time is quite funny
Yes, and so have the creators of the spell:
.
Sick burn!
Again, maybe divinations.
Against a level 5 character? Are you insane?
Yes, and so have the creators of the spell:
.
FATALITY!!!
I've been wrong on countless occasions in the past and this could be just like that, but I think there is a problem with that Shatter spell. Now, unless it's directly targeted (i.e. targeted dispel or sunder attempt) isn't your carried equipment safe from harm unless you roll a natural 1 on your save or something like that? There must be a reason that all those high-caster-level Fireballs don't vaporize the Fighter's shield and sword--and potions and money and so on and yadda yadda.
Nope, not when shatter is used as area effect. Than it can shatter potions/other breakables.
It requires a save to effect sword/shield/armor, but has to be non-magical.
I've been wrong on countless occasions in the past and this could be just like that, but I think there is a problem with that Shatter spell. Now, unless it's directly targeted (i.e. targeted dispel or sunder attempt) isn't your carried equipment safe from harm unless you roll a natural 1 on your save or something like that? There must be a reason that all those high-caster-level Fireballs don't vaporize the Fighter's shield and sword--and potions and money and so on and yadda yadda.
Only certain materials are able to be affected in an area of effect style. Glass and ceramic are some of the materials affected by the aoe, but metal and stone are not. Metal and stone can still be affected, but you can only target 1 item per spell.
The roll a 1 and something you carry is affected is something completely different. It was a mechanic added so that people didn't end up houseruling how a fireball affected their items (which is a legitimate question, but remember in D&D losing half your items every time you got hit with a fireball or lightning bolt would suck.) They added the rule and made it natural 1 only for the sake of items not being crumbled by these spells.
Of course, the first encounter they had, the guy got hit with a fireball. Looking over his screen, the DM grinned and said "ok, so that's 3d6 from the fireball and... I'll be nice, just take 1d2 for each of those candles"
(while not technically a TPK, a player taking infinite damage from combustable items seemed appropriate for this thread)
There is an answer for you , hope you like it! ^_^
The dark cleric broods before his alter to Wee Jas, curved dagger in his hand as he draws a line along his arm to set his blood flowing into the heated braizer where it hisses and steams. "Oh Red Lady, send me a sign of your favor that I may serve your desires this day, I am but the wand you wield in your divine plans." At that moment an oil lamp spontaniously shatters, its flames licking across the marble floor harmlessly, soon its vapors burn out as it all evaporates away. "THank you my mistress." Is all the cleric says as he prepares his spells for the day, taking his omen to put shatter in his list for the day/ add a scroll to his belt.
There is an answer for you , hope you like it! ^_^
Sadly the Red Lady was trying to hint at Grease
(But good call :P)
Is all the cleric says as he prepares his spells for the day, taking his omen to put shatter in his list for the day/ add a scroll to his belt.
There is an answer for you , hope you like it! ^_^
Hardly necessary, really. Those alchemist's items are flasks, not vials. And he's carrying 80 of them. Unless the PC was carrying them all in a sack or in a bag of holding, they would be quite visible. All you have to assume is that the cleric happened to have shatter prepared, which is hardly metagamey.
And it's really not like it was an unavoidable death. The PC got his saves, and he failed them. What do adventurers expect -- that they can carry around 80 lbs of fragile containers of pyrophoric materials into dungeons and other hazardous environments without occasionally suffering the consequences, do they? Wait, nevermind, they're adventurers. ;)
...Wait, nevermind, they're adventurers. ;)
No, that only excuses the murder, theft and vandalism.