PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Rule... situation.



Fire Tarrasque
2018-02-04, 07:37 PM
So, I just encountered a very, very strange situation, and I have no real idea how too respond here.
It started out... strangely. A player decided to spend all of their money on alchemist's fire. I don't know why. He was then challenged too a duel, rejected it, proposed a different duel, which was accepted, and that was basically; Fight too the death in a small area.
He then brought his FIFTY SEVEN vials of alchemist's fire in a chest, went too the dual, cast fireball, and blew them both up. They were both players by the way.
What happened here was: Everyone took their 57d6 fire damage, along with the other fire damage, didn't instantly die, but they were both knocked out. They will now die due too the 1d4 damage a turn. Both succeeded their dex save, both are level five, one is a goliath zealot barbarian, one is a tiefling storm sorcerer. The Barb got in this order: Succeed, fail, natural twenty, the sorc got three successes. They are in a settlement of bugbears.
Anything i'm missing that could save one of them? How should the explosion and such be executed? Is there a fundamental flaw in the entire setup of this situation? I NEED HELP.
P.S: I'm technically a player; but it's a first time DM, i'm not one of those two, and i'm the only one with access too this forum. This seemed a more pertinent thing to classify it as.
To summarize; I need help figuring out how the above situation should be executed; and beyond that, I need to know if theres a way to save either of them. No one is close enough to help.

Grod_The_Giant
2018-02-04, 07:43 PM
Alchemist's Fire doesn't explode, and there's certainly nothing to suggest that multiple vials would stack like that (the usual rule is "the same effect can't stack with itself"). It shouldn't be allowed to, either, for exactly the reason you see here. That said... the DM has already allowed it to happen, and I can't say that the player didn't earn this death-- I mean, what did he thing was going to happen?

Mr Beer
2018-02-04, 08:03 PM
I don't know how alchemist's fire is supposed to behave but I wouldn't stack the damage like that either. It's going to be too cheesy, a player can just have some kind of servitor carry around oil-drums of this substance and explode them at a distance in order to mini-nuke dragons and such.

A bigger problem though is the players killing each other's characters, it's the kind of thing that tends to cause or reflect real world conflict. That should probably be addressed out of game.

As far as the 2 characters dying goes, oh well, I'd likely let it happen if it got to this point. If you really want them to stay alive, have the bugbears investigate the explosion and one can be a priest that saves their lives. Of course they want something in return, so there's a hook right there.

Vance_Nevada
2018-02-04, 08:11 PM
Specifically, alchemist's Fire simply doesn't work that way - it does not explode upon damage to the PC, or it would be completely impossible to carry around (since every sword blow, bump, fall, and magic missile the PC took would explode it.)

Generally speaking, if your game allows PCs to duel each other to the death as a routine matter, PCs will die all the time, so I wouldn't sweat this one overly.

Goaty14
2018-02-04, 08:15 PM
This reminds me of the old 3.5 trick where you fill a spellbook full of Explosive Runes, throw it at the enemy, and set it off with a botched dispel magic.

Just have it all be spread out over an increasing area; 1d6 per 5', 5' per bottle or something. Of course, this means you have a burning arena and a bunch of very angry bugbears. Going to just re-iterate what everybody else has said: Alchemist's Fire doesn't explode, it just sets fire to whatever it hits, kinda like a Molotov Cocktail (https://youtu.be/lfvceHUBWnU?t=1m45s).

dps
2018-02-04, 08:57 PM
Well, why don't you tell us what abilities your character has? That would help us figure out what you can do about saving the duelists. I assume that you don't aren't a healbot, or else you wouldn't even be asking.

Wasteomana
2018-02-04, 09:36 PM
If I was a DM I would have a short aside with the 2 PCs. What do they want to do and what are their expectations going forward? That short conversation between the involved PCs and the DM is likely to do a million times more good than anything else we try to say to you or about how 'it should have gone down'.

Grek
2018-02-05, 06:16 AM
It sounds like the character got exactly what they were expecting from setting off an unreasonable number of explosives in a confined space. What's the problem here?

Fire Tarrasque
2018-02-05, 08:49 AM
I listed the race and class levels, only one feat was taken, which is completely useless here, being great weapon master.
Also, yeah, one of the players intended too die. I have no clue why they intended this, being as the entire point of the duel was a religious dispute, or more too the point, a "religious dispute" of the Zealot telling the Sorcerer to stop attempting to build a cult, at which point the sorcerer did what you have above seen.
So, if I understand correctly, the points are:
1. Alchemist's fire should not stack. (Or truly explode.)
2. If it does, they should both die.
3. The bugbears are going to kill everyone involved now.

Did I get that right? If so, thank you all for your help.

johnbragg
2018-02-05, 09:12 AM
I listed the race and class levels, only one feat was taken, which is completely useless here, being great weapon master.
Also, yeah, one of the players intended too die. I have no clue why they intended this, being as the entire point of the duel was a religious dispute, or more too the point, a "religious dispute" of the Zealot telling the Sorcerer to stop attempting to build a cult, at which point the sorcerer did what you have above seen.
So, if I understand correctly, the points are:
1. Alchemist's fire should not stack. (Or truly explode.)
2. If it does, they should both die.
3. The bugbears are going to kill everyone involved now.

Did I get that right? If so, thank you all for your help.

It sounds like you got that right.

Open the next session with an OOC discussion.
Option 1 is to retcon the last session, because 2 PCs are dead, and you all need to have a talk about what sort of game you're playing and about how the party gets along.
Option 2 is to have the 2 PCs rise as homebrewed fire-typed free-willed undead and see where that goes.
Option 3 is to try option 2 for one session, before choosing between 1 and 2 and 4
OPtion 4 is to just start a new campaign because this one is borked.

For future reference, if I were staring at a battlemap where 57d6 damage worth of alchemists' fire had just blown up, I'd have ruled that the explosion gets bigger rather than intensifying, or a mix of the two. If you're using squares, I'd say 8d6 at point of origin, 4d6 one square away, 2d6 two squares away, 1d6 3 squares away. That works rather well because 57 is not too far from 64, and SQRT(64)=8, and 8/4/2/1 is easy math.

If I had to run your game, from this point I'd declare that both PCs have risen as some form of homebrewed, fire-typed anger-powered free-willed undead, if I can't find something "just right" in a splatbook. (Oops, this is 5E, splatbooks aren't a go-to yet. I was about to give a bunch of 3X specific advice for converting, but that won't help.) That will make for a cool session or two, at least. Then see what the players want to do--barbarian may want to make a new character, the rest of the party may or may not be okay with adventuring with an undead fire-breathing lunatic.

Zombimode
2018-02-05, 09:18 AM
It sounds like the character got exactly what they were expecting from setting off an unreasonable number of explosives in a confined space. What's the problem here?

Ecept Alchemists Fire are not explosives.

Keltest
2018-02-05, 09:31 AM
For my part, I would say to the group before they really get going something to the effect of "Hey guys, I was doing some thinking after last session, and I don't think Alchemist's Fire is supposed to explode like that. Do we want to maybe restart at the beginning of the duel instead?"

be prepared to point to the relevant section on alchemist's fire in the book, and be doubly prepared for the idea that hey, maybe the other players liked the bomb going off and want to see the fallout. If theyre all having fun, its not a problem no matter how much it breaks the rules as theyre written.

johnbragg
2018-02-05, 09:37 AM
For my part, I would say to the group before they really get going something to the effect of "Hey guys, I was doing some thinking after last session, and I don't think Alchemist's Fire is supposed to explode like that. Do we want to maybe restart at the beginning of the duel instead?"

be prepared to point to the relevant section on alchemist's fire in the book, and be doubly prepared for the idea that hey, maybe the other players liked the bomb going off and want to see the fallout. If theyre all having fun, its not a problem no matter how much it breaks the rules as theyre written.

OP doesn't really have a rules problem. The real problem isn't whether 57 vials of alchemists fire properly models as a single-point effect, or as a blast-wave explosion. That's a trivial question--the DM being WRONG! is actually fine sometimes. It's that one player happily planned out a murder-suicide and pulled it off. (The other player agreed to a duel to the PC death, so he can't reasonably complain about whatever happens.)

But the players at the table need to talk about what they want to happen to the campaign.

Fire Tarrasque
2018-02-05, 04:10 PM
I've discussed it with the DM and the players, we're starting the battle over with the correct rules of Alchemist's fire.
Also believe it or not, this isn't the most broken a campaign has gotten. They manage to pull it back together.

Kaptin Keen
2018-02-05, 04:25 PM
OP doesn't really have a rules problem. The real problem isn't whether 57 vials of alchemists fire properly models as a single-point effect, or as a blast-wave explosion. That's a trivial question--the DM being WRONG! is actually fine sometimes. It's that one player happily planned out a murder-suicide and pulled it off. (The other player agreed to a duel to the PC death, so he can't reasonably complain about whatever happens.)

But the players at the table need to talk about what they want to happen to the campaign.

A destructive player of this sort - I'd simply ask to leave and not come back. Maybe not my first reaction, but if a friendly discussion of the facts that there must be room for everyone, and everyone should be having fun, isn't effective ... then I'd toss him from the group without flinching.

johnbragg
2018-02-05, 04:51 PM
A destructive player of this sort - I'd simply ask to leave and not come back. Maybe not my first reaction, but if a friendly discussion of the facts that there must be room for everyone, and everyone should be having fun, isn't effective ... then I'd toss him from the group without flinching.

We don't know them and we don't know their group. There are tables who use D&D to play Munchkin instead of high fantasy, and have great fun and no one takes anything too seriously. At that table, burning a PC is worth it just to have the story of the time you went King's Landing on some barbarian.

Kaptin Keen, you might not like playing at their table. But they do. (I assume--otherwise OP would have been talking about how to handle a total wet-fart of a player who just ruined the campaign. HE didn't say that, so...)

ross
2018-02-05, 06:50 PM
Alchemist's Fire doesn't explode, and there's certainly nothing to suggest that multiple vials would stack like that (the usual rule is "the same effect can't stack with itself"). It shouldn't be allowed to, either, for exactly the reason you see here. That said... the DM has already allowed it to happen, and I can't say that the player didn't earn this death-- I mean, what did he thing was going to happen?

Everything should always stack, because that's hilarious

Lord Torath
2018-02-05, 08:25 PM
Everything should always stack, because that's hilariousThis is the Brik Wars version. Interpret any rule in the way that, in the current situation, results in the most carnage.
:belkar:

vasilidor
2018-02-05, 08:35 PM
the rules for stacking vary by edition. you could always drop a monsoon on them or some such.

Koo Rehtorb
2018-02-05, 09:02 PM
I don't see any particular reason why adding more of a volatile substance wouldn't stack.

Kaptin Keen
2018-02-06, 12:55 AM
We don't know them and we don't know their group. There are tables who use D&D to play Munchkin instead of high fantasy, and have great fun and no one takes anything too seriously. At that table, burning a PC is worth it just to have the story of the time you went King's Landing on some barbarian.

Kaptin Keen, you might not like playing at their table. But they do. (I assume--otherwise OP would have been talking about how to handle a total wet-fart of a player who just ruined the campaign. HE didn't say that, so...)

Oh, so ... clearly he's posting here because there's no problem. My bad then.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-06, 01:23 AM
The good old unreliable God Call.

johnbragg
2018-02-06, 07:26 AM
Oh, so ... clearly he's posting here because there's no problem. My bad then.

I'm not saying there's NO problem. I'm saying be careful of assuming what the problem is.

OP didn't post "HElp! My player is a jerk /are all jerks and what do I do?" (There are plenty of those threads.)

OP posted "Help! I made a rules call that killed 2 PCs, did I make the right rules call? Is there any RAW way to save one or both of the PCs? I'm a first time DM what do I do?"

Now, it's possible that OP has a table problem, and some of the players are IRL pissed off. But OP has to tell us that. Because it's also possible that the table thought that, although PC death is regrettable, it was great lulz and will be passed down for years as a Gamer Tale.

Data points:
1. Sorcerer player clearly thought this was a good idea or he wouldn't do it.
2. Barbarian player agreed IC to a duel-to-the-death. Maybe the player didn't want to, but felt coerced (OOC or IC bullying "Don't be a chicken, cmon"), But more likely the Barbarian player thought that axe-murdering the Sorcerer PC would be great lulz.
3. OP the DM didn't lead with "I have a problem player", he instead detailed a bunch of rules info and the exact details of the order that the PCs made/failed death saves.

OP also posts:


I've discussed it with the DM and the players, we're starting the battle over with the correct rules of Alchemist's fire.
Also believe it or not, this isn't the most broken a campaign has gotten. They manage to pull it back together.

So this is part of the game they're playing. (I'm a little sad, I think this table would have enjoyed a session with 2 PCs rising as undead fire-creatures. Maybe they continue their duel, maybe they roast some bugbears, who knows.)

Joe the Rat
2018-02-06, 09:20 AM
A variety of nitpicks

1) Was the chest open? If not, you'd have to break it through fire damage to get to the alchemist's fire.
2) Were the bottles compromised by fire? Fireball is flash damage, and glass isn't flammable.
3) Same source doesn't stack - so at least the ongoing damage is fair.
4) Invoking real world processes on fantasy matter - So you decide burning the chest (delayed reaction) or heating the bottles (immediate pop from... gas pressure?) sets off the alchemists fires. More fuel makes more heat, but not more temperature. A flow or spray of self-igniting material erupts, and maaaaybe does 3d6 for the total coverage (dex save for half) if you go the pressure route. And everything within an appropriate range is or will be on fire.

But that's just me Monday(okay, Tuesday) Morning Dungeonmastering a situation I fully expect to deal with at some point with my resident mad scientist.

Segev
2018-02-06, 11:36 AM
If I was a DM I would have a short aside with the 2 PCs. What do they want to do and what are their expectations going forward? That short conversation between the involved PCs and the DM is likely to do a million times more good than anything else we try to say to you or about how 'it should have gone down'.


It sounds like you got that right.

Open the next session with an OOC discussion.
Option 1 is to retcon the last session, because 2 PCs are dead, and you all need to have a talk about what sort of game you're playing and about how the party gets along.
Option 2 is to have the 2 PCs rise as homebrewed fire-typed free-willed undead and see where that goes.
Option 3 is to try option 2 for one session, before choosing between 1 and 2 and 4
OPtion 4 is to just start a new campaign because this one is borked.

These are the main points I would make. Why did the two players want to do this duel? Do they mind if their PCs die? Generally speaking, real world people don't do this kind of thing because they don't want to die.

ross
2018-02-06, 09:59 PM
A variety of nitpicks

1) Was the chest open? If not, you'd have to break it through fire damage to get to the alchemist's fire.
2) Were the bottles compromised by fire? Fireball is flash damage, and glass isn't flammable.
3) Same source doesn't stack - so at least the ongoing damage is fair.
4) Invoking real world processes on fantasy matter - So you decide burning the chest (delayed reaction) or heating the bottles (immediate pop from... gas pressure?) sets off the alchemists fires. More fuel makes more heat, but not more temperature. A flow or spray of self-igniting material erupts, and maaaaybe does 3d6 for the total coverage (dex save for half) if you go the pressure route. And everything within an appropriate range is or will be on fire.

But that's just me Monday(okay, Tuesday) Morning Dungeonmastering a situation I fully expect to deal with at some point with my resident mad scientist.

Why do people always choose the lamest, most boring interpretation of the rules?

The 57 flasks all violently explode, each dealing 1d6 fire damage for a total of 57d6 fire damage initial, and again on the following round. The blast radius and splash damage also stack, dealing 57 fire damage to all creatures within 285 feet.

The explosion also craters the ground, so anyone at the exact center takes falling damage for 285 feet of distance, 1d6 crushing per foot, no cap.

The explosion's shockwave also deals an additional 57d6 crushing damage to everything within 285 feet, falling off quadratically from ground zero to maximum distance. Any creature killed by this damage has their skeleton pulverized and organs liquefied.

johnbragg
2018-02-06, 10:51 PM
Why do people always choose the lamest, most boring interpretation of the rules?

The 57 flasks all violently explode, each dealing 1d6 fire damage for a total of 57d6 fire damage initial, and again on the following round. The blast radius and splash damage also stack, dealing 57 fire damage to all creatures within 285 feet.

The explosion also craters the ground, so anyone at the exact center takes falling damage for 285 feet of distance, 1d6 crushing per foot, no cap.

The explosion's shockwave also deals an additional 57d6 crushing damage to everything within 285 feet, falling off quadratically from ground zero to maximum distance. Any creature killed by this damage has their skeleton pulverized and organs liquefied.

Lame. Fire-themed undead apocalypse or go home.

EDIT: Withdrawn. Incorporeal undead who unleash fell drain fireballs on their locations is obviously what you were going for.

ross
2018-02-06, 11:12 PM
Lame. Fire-themed undead apocalypse or go home.

EDIT: Withdrawn. Incorporeal undead who unleash fell drain fireballs on their locations is obviously what you were going for.

The fireballs explode into more undead

Mordaedil
2018-02-07, 02:38 AM
Doesn't alchemist fire splash damage only deal 1 point of fire damage?

ross
2018-02-07, 10:34 PM
Doesn't alchemist fire splash damage only deal 1 point of fire damage?

1 point of fire splash damage per vial, there are 57 vials

Guizonde
2018-02-07, 10:45 PM
This is the Brik Wars version. Interpret any rule in the way that, in the current situation, results in the most carnage.
:belkar:

that's how i roll when i dm, but judging by the carnage i unleash as a pc, that might not be the best call (650-ish d10 damage, before you ask).

frankly, were i in op's party, i'd dope slap the pair of players and tell them to give a moment of silence for the rules abuse. laughter would follow, because 57 bottles of gregian fire is awesomely over the top and i can't help but applaud the silliness. but the rules were not meant to handle such abuse in any system i know of.

i'm glad to know op's situation has resolved peacefully, but i'd gladly know of what turned out of it, since we've got a pc more loaded than a drunk freshman on spring break against somebody who's got a "negative plot" amount of ammo in comparison.

ross
2018-02-11, 04:14 PM
(650-ish d10 damage, before you ask).

yikes, hope that's at level 1, for your sake

Guizonde
2018-02-11, 04:45 PM
yikes, hope that's at level 1, for your sake

it was accidental, and involved exploding dice, a liberal exponential view of increasing kiloton yields, and a hell of a lot of "michael bay" factor. it was in no way representative of powergaming, optimization, or rules abuse. simply taking silliness and my destructive tendencies to its logical conclusion. nearly blew a hole in the plot (i think it was a 0.5 henderson).

Jay R
2018-02-11, 11:52 PM
You had a player who was determined to kill his PC and somebody else's. There's very little you can do to prevent a player from destroying the game for another player other than keeping him out of the game.

If it were my game, those two characters are dead, the victim's player will create a new character for next week, and the player who wanted to destroy the game for somebody else wouldn't be invited back. The only way to protect your game from a player who wants to destroy it is to keep his hands off of it.

You can create a world with safeguards to keep the players from dying. But you can't prevent a player from working around your safeguards.

"You can't make nuthin' foolproof. The fools are too ingenious."

Bohandas
2018-02-17, 10:00 AM
and there's certainly nothing to suggest that multiple vials would stack like that (the usual rule is "the same effect can't stack with itself").

That's not stacking, that's just multiple flasks of alchemist's fire. The same as if fifty-seven flasks got thrown at them during combat