As a DM how would you handle this?

[Sir cryosin]

1.So your party's wizard pulls out a vial of Alchemist fire. Then cast Catapult on it. The enemy fails the save and get hit.

2. Your part Sorcerer pulls out a flask of oil. The just like the wizard cast Catapult on the flask. The creature fails it save. Then the Sorcerer quickens a fire bolt in hopes of catching the oil on fire.

[PhoenixPhyre]

1.So your party's wizard pulls out a vial of Alchemist fire. Then cast Catapult on it. The enemy fails the save and get hit.

2. Your part Sorcerer pulls out a flask of oil. The just like the wizard cast Catapult on the flask. The creature fails it save. Then the Sorcerer quickens a fire bolt in hopes of catching the oil on fire.

1. Catapult + alchemist fire.

2. Catapult damage. Oil fire damage if the sorcerer hits.

Adding Catapult basically just extends the range and adds some base damage.

This is all my immediate take on it, though.

[DeTess]

1. The rules serm rather clear here. Catapult deals d6+x damage, alchemists fire deals dome fire damage, as described in the rules.

2. In addition to damage from catapult and fire damage from the spell, I'd have the victim catch on fire as per the alchemists fire rules.

All in all, this seems rather simple, ruling-wise. What's the catch?

[Zman]

Edited

Catepult launches the Alcchemists fire which is housed in a flask, Catepult damages the target and the object, we have rules for how to deal with a damaged flask, and we have rules for what happens when Alchemist's fire shatters on a target.

It works just as your gut tells you it should.

[Unoriginal]

Is the Sorcerer aiming at the person, or at the oil?

[Ravinsild]

1. Alchemist's Fire

RAW

Catepult launches the item(alchemist's fire) as normal, dealing damage on a failed save. But, since the character did not spend their turn using alchemist's fire as required, ie using an action to use it, the achemists fire does nothing extra. It does not break.

ROC

Resolve Catepult as normal, resolve alchemist's fire as if it was activated and the target was hit on a failed save.
or
Resolve Catepult as normal, deals no damage, instead resolve Alchemist's fire as if it was activated and the target was hit on a failed save.


2.

RAW This cannot be done. Catapult is a leveled spell, it can be resolved as normal with the flask of oil. We end up in the same RAW ROC problem as above.

But, it also cannot be done since Catepult is a leveled spell that uses an action, and a quickented firebolt is a Bonus aCtion, by the psellcasting rule if you use your bonus action to cast a spell in a turn, you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action. So, this definitely can't be done without some DM handwaving.

Is not firebolt just a cantrip? Standard Action: Cast a spell - Catapul. Bonus Action: Cast a Cantrip - Firbolt. No?

[DivisibleByZero]

Is not firebolt just a cantrip? Standard Action: Cast a spell - Catapul. Bonus Action: Cast a Cantrip - Firbolt. No?

You would need to Quicken the Catapult, cast as a bonus action. Then Firebolt as your action.

[Zman]

Is not firebolt just a cantrip? Standard Action: Cast a spell - Catapul. Bonus Action: Cast a Cantrip - Firbolt. No?

B o n u s A c t i o n
A spell cast with a bonus action is especially swift. You
must use a bonus action on your turn to cast the spell,
provided that you haven’t already taken a bonus action
this turn. You can’t cast another spell during the same
turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action.



Nope, you cannot cast any bonus action spell, cantrip or not, and cast a leveled spell as your action.




You would need to Quicken the Catapult, cast as a bonus action. Then Firebolt as your action.

This would work.

[RSP]

Is not firebolt just a cantrip? Standard Action: Cast a spell - Catapul. Bonus Action: Cast a Cantrip - Firbolt. No?

I believe it needs to be the other way around: Quicken Catapult, then Action to cast a cantrip.

If you use a BA to cast a spell, you can only then cast a cantrip on your turn.

[sithlordnergal]

1. Alchemist's Fire

RAW

Catepult launches the item(alchemist's fire) as normal, dealing damage on a failed save. But, since the character did not spend their turn using alchemist's fire as required, ie using an action to use it, the achemists fire does nothing extra. It does not break.

ROC

Resolve Catepult as normal, resolve alchemist's fire as if it was activated and the target was hit on a failed save.
or
Resolve Catepult as normal, deals no damage, instead resolve Alchemist's fire as if it was activated and the target was hit on a failed save.


2.

RAW This cannot be done. Catapult is a leveled spell, it can be resolved as normal with the flask of oil. We end up in the same RAW ROC problem as above.

But, it also cannot be done since Catepult is a leveled spell that uses an action, and a quickented firebolt is a Bonus aCtion, by the psellcasting rule if you use your bonus action to cast a spell in a turn, you can only cast a cantrip with a casting time of one action. So, this definitely can't be done without some DM handwaving.

Catapult/Achemist Fire: I think you forgot the part where catapult deals the damage to both the object and the target, which can shatter the object being launched. Alchemist's Fire specifically states that when you throw it, the bottle shatters, then you have the effects of the fire. Now, you do need to make a ranged attack roll to see if you hit your target normally, but it doesn't change the fact that the bottle shatters. In this case, the attack roll is being done by the Dex Save.

Bonus Action Spells: you can cast either spell on either action, as long as the leveled spell goes first. You do not need to take your bonus action first. The action rules in the book state:

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

The spell rules are as follows:

You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action

Quickened Spell wouldn't change these rules. You could cast them at either point in the round. All that matters is that you only cast a cantrip and a leveled spell. That said, Quickened Spell costs two Sorcery Points no matter what spell is used, so it really doesn't matter which is the bonus action.

[Zman]

Catapult/Achemist Fire: I think you forgot the part where catapult deals the damage to both the object and the target, which can shatter the object being launched. Alchemist's Fire specifically states that when you throw it, the bottle shatters, then you have the effects of the fire. Now, you do need to make a ranged attack roll to see if you hit your target normally, but it doesn't change the fact that the bottle shatters. In this case, the attack roll is being done by the Dex Save.

Bonus Action Spells: you can cast either spell on either action, as long as the leveled spell goes first. You do not need to take your bonus action first. The action rules in the book state:

You choose when to take a bonus action during your turn, unless the bonus action's timing is specified, and anything that deprives you of your ability to take actions also prevents you from taking a bonus action.

The spell rules are as follows:

You can't cast another spell during the same turn, except for a cantrip with a casting time of 1 action

Quickened Spell wouldn't change these rules. You could cast them at either point in the round. All that matters is that you only cast a cantrip and a leveled spell. That said, Quickened Spell costs two Sorcery Points no matter what spell is used, so it really doesn't matter which is the bonus action.

Sure, Catepult deals damage to alchemist's fire bottle. But, RAW the only way we get an effect is if you use you action to throw it and score a hit. Doesn't make commoner sense, but those are the rules. Note, I wouldn't play it that way.


As stated, the couldn't cast catapult as their action and forevokt as their Bonus action. Yes, it is perfectly legal to quicken catepult as your BA and cast firebolt as your action. I know the rules for casting spells, I quoted them too, I just missed the pretty obvious solution of quicken the leveled spell instead.

[imanidiot]

1.So your party's wizard pulls out a vial of Alchemist fire. Then cast Catapult on it. The enemy fails the save and get hit.

2. Your part Sorcerer pulls out a flask of oil. The just like the wizard cast Catapult on the flask. The creature fails it save. Then the Sorcerer quickens a fire bolt in hopes of catching the oil on fire.

I'd let it work exactly the way the PCs hope it will. Catapult damage, plus Fire Bolt damage, plus Alchemist Fire damage, plus the target (s) is now on fire.

Then I would have enemies start doing the same thing to them.

[Ravinsild]

I believe it needs to be the other way around: Quicken Catapult, then Action to cast a cantrip.

If you use a BA to cast a spell, you can only then cast a cantrip on your turn.

Oh I always had it backwards. I thought you could cast a regular spell on your turn but could only quicken cantrips. So you couldn't do 2 fireballs, but you could do Fireball and Firebolt. Oh well. I guess it roughly works out to be the same, doesn't it?

[mephnick]

Oil doesn't catch fire for a period of time. It does 5 fire damage and burns away instantly. It's in the item description.

So:

1. Catapult damage + effects of alchemist's fire

2. Catapult damage + Firebolt damage + 5 fire damage. That's it. No effects.

[Easy_Lee]

I'd let it work exactly the way the PCs hope it will. Catapult damage, plus Fire Bolt damage, plus Alchemist Fire damage, plus the target (s) is now on fire.

Then I would have enemies start doing the same thing to them.

Surely enemies can lay more creative traps for players. For example, the Telekinesis holding up the ceiling thread.

[Citan]

1. Alchemist's Fire

RAW

Catepult launches the item(alchemist's fire) as normal, dealing damage on a failed save. But, since the character did not spend their turn using alchemist's fire as required, ie using an action to use it, the achemists fire does nothing extra. It does not break.

I think you are overthinking RAW here. It's not because the player "used an action to throw" or "made a ranged attack" that the Alchemist's fire deals damage. It's because it shattered. On impact. Because it was thrown.

Simply because as stated in the description, "this sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air", and since it's glass, it shatters even on a small impact.

So whether the thrown comes from a spell effect or your own hand is irrelevant. It just works either way.

[Zman]

I think you are overthinking RAW here. It's not because the player "used an action to throw" or "made a ranged attack" that the Alchemist's fire deals damage. It's because it shattered. On impact. Because it was thrown.

Simply because as stated in the description, "this sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air", and since it's glass, it shatters even on a small impact.

So whether the thrown comes from a spell effect or your own hand is irrelevant. It just works either way.

I'm not overthinking RAW, that is the RAW. To get any effect from Alchemists Fire you need to use your action to throw it, and if you hit with a ranged attack, the effect then happens. RAW, there is no other way for Alchemist's Fire to do anything, it only does what it says it does in its description. RAW, alchemist's fire does nothing even if it misses. Now, I'm of the opinion that RAW can often be stupid and make no sense, this is one of those instances, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want AF to do anything, you need to expend your action. You need to hit a creature or object with a ranged attack treating it as an improvised weapon. Then you get your affect. Ruling you can get the affect of AF any other way is doing so through a DM ruling which is perfectly fine, but requires a ruling, and is not explicitly in the rules as written.

Ruling that Alchemist's Fire works any other way, like shattering on any impact, is a houserule and is most decidedly not RAW. What you are leaning towards is more a RAI(Although the rules aren't ambiguous), so more like a ROC(Rule of Cool) ie how you would rule it and how it makes sense to be ruled, but still a houserule and well within the DM's power to do.

[sithlordnergal]

I'm not overthinking RAW, that is the RAW. To get any effect from Alchemists Fire you need to use your action to throw it, and if you hit with a ranged attack, the effect then happens. RAW, there is no other way for Alchemist's Fire to do anything, it only does what it says it does in its description. RAW, alchemist's fire does nothing even if it misses. Now, I'm of the opinion that RAW can often be stupid and make no sense, this is one of those instances, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want AF to do anything, you need to expend your action. You need to hit a creature or object with a ranged attack treating it as an improvised weapon. Then you get your affect. Ruling you can get the affect of AF any other way is doing so through a DM ruling which is perfectly fine, but requires a ruling, and is not explicitly in the rules as written.

Ruling that Alchemist's Fire works any other way, like shattering on any impact, is a houserule and is most decidedly not RAW. What you are leaning towards is more a RAI(Although the rules aren't ambiguous), so more like a ROC(Rule of Cool) ie how you would rule it and how it makes sense to be ruled, but still a houserule and well within the DM's power to do.

By RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air".

By RAW Alchemist Fire shatters on impact with something. "As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact"

By RAW, Catapult states "both the object and the creature or solid surface take 3d8 bludgeoning damage."

By RAW, on page 246-247, a tiny object like a bottle generally has 2 hp (1d4), unless it is resilient. Then it generally has 5hp, (2d4). Now, it does say use common sense when determining if an item breaks and how, and it does not give a specific example for how glass breaks.However, it does give the example of a statue toppling over when a leg takes enough damage to be reduced to zero.

Given that glass shatters, and the book literally says use common sense, you can bet that a vial with 2hp will shatter when hit by 3d8 bludgeoning. When it shatters, the Alchemist Fire is no longer sealed in the vial. Unless you're in a place with no air what so ever, such as in space or underwater, then that Alchemist Fire is being exposed to air. And again, by RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air". Heck, it even states the shattering on impact part before it talks about making a ranged attack. Meaning it'll shatter no matter what it hits.

[Citan]

Thanks Sithlordnerdal for taking the time to demonstrate how RAW worked in this case from A to Z. I would not have been able to do that (at least not that clearly)
Hope Zman will understand. : )

[Asmotherion]

1.So your party's wizard pulls out a vial of Alchemist fire. Then cast Catapult on it. The enemy fails the save and get hit.

2. Your part Sorcerer pulls out a flask of oil. The just like the wizard cast Catapult on the flask. The creature fails it save. Then the Sorcerer quickens a fire bolt in hopes of catching the oil on fire.

1. Catapult Damage as normal. Then, Catches on Fire, as per Alchemist Fire.

2. Catapult Damage as normal. Then, covered in oil. After that (assuming you quickened catapult, as posters above me said), you hit with firebolt, dealing your regular firebolt damage, and the target catches on fire, taking an extra 5 damage, and 5 more damage on his next turn.

On an other notice: Wile Raw may be nice for some things, wile DMing I might prefear to ignore it and reward creativity. So, wile in this case I went for a RAW answer, truth is I don't know how I might have ruled it in an actual game; Perhaps I would have made the oil burn for a whole minute or something... I don't really know.


By RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air".

By RAW Alchemist Fire shatters on impact with something. "As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact"

By RAW, Catapult states "both the object and the creature or solid surface take 3d8 bludgeoning damage."

By RAW, on page 246-247, a tiny object like a bottle generally has 2 hp (1d4), unless it is resilient. Then it generally has 5hp, (2d4). Now, it does say use common sense when determining if an item breaks and how, and it does not give a specific example for how glass breaks.However, it does give the example of a statue toppling over when a leg takes enough damage to be reduced to zero.

Given that glass shatters, and the book literally says use common sense, you can bet that a vial with 2hp will shatter when hit by 3d8 bludgeoning. When it shatters, the Alchemist Fire is no longer sealed in the vial. Unless you're in a place with no air what so ever, such as in space or underwater, then that Alchemist Fire is being exposed to air. And again, by RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air". Heck, it even states the shattering on impact part before it talks about making a ranged attack. Meaning it'll shatter no matter what it hits.

I just wanted to point out that, since Alchemist Fire is inspired by Greek Fire, or "Liquid Fire", Lore says that it should theoretically even work underwater, or at least on the surface of water.

As a Half-Greek I've heard lots of stories about this stuff :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire

[Zman]

By RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air".

By RAW Alchemist Fire shatters on impact with something. "As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact"

By RAW, Catapult states "both the object and the creature or solid surface take 3d8 bludgeoning damage."

By RAW, on page 246-247, a tiny object like a bottle generally has 2 hp (1d4), unless it is resilient. Then it generally has 5hp, (2d4). Now, it does say use common sense when determining if an item breaks and how, and it does not give a specific example for how glass breaks.However, it does give the example of a statue toppling over when a leg takes enough damage to be reduced to zero.

Given that glass shatters, and the book literally says use common sense, you can bet that a vial with 2hp will shatter when hit by 3d8 bludgeoning. When it shatters, the Alchemist Fire is no longer sealed in the vial. Unless you're in a place with no air what so ever, such as in space or underwater, then that Alchemist Fire is being exposed to air. And again, by RAW, Alchemist Fire "ignites when exposed to air". Heck, it even states the shattering on impact part before it talks about making a ranged attack. Meaning it'll shatter no matter what it hits.

Ahh, missed the rules in the DMG, no DM adjudication or hand waving required, as it moves from fluffy description to actual mechanics. Catapult deals damage to the object, the object breaks, the effect of AF happens. We have rules for every step. You are correct, I rescind my argument, and am glad to, rules worked as they should have without needing DM handwringing or arbritrary rulings. I still might quibble with how you are a bit transient with the RAW and draw general conclusions from specific partial rules, but the end result gets it right.

Now, it leads me to offer some counter ones, how about we take a 1lb sack and fill it will four Alchemist's fire or acid vials, and launch the sack at the enemy instead? Do we need a ruling to avoid stacking effects?

[PloxBox]

Now, it leads me to offer some counter ones, how about we take a 1lb sack and fill it will four Alchemist's fire or acid vials, and launch the sack at the enemy instead? Do we need a ruling to avoid stacking effects?

I know I'm not the person you were asking, but reading the description of AF, since it only says they take 1d4 fire damage at the start of their turn I don't think it would stack RAW. Because, afaik, being on fire is not a stackable thing.

Now, I as a DM might make the DC higher because there would theoretically be more of the substance on you, thus covering more.

That's not even taking into account the possibility that, depending on the quality of this sack, you might not even get any of the substance on the person you threw it at. But that also throws ROC out the window.

[Mellack]

Now, it leads me to offer some counter ones, how about we take a 1lb sack and fill it will four Alchemist's fire or acid vials, and launch the sack at the enemy instead? Do we need a ruling to avoid stacking effects?

Since effects from the same source do not stack, I do not think any ruling is required. Use 1 or 100 flasks, they do the same thing.