Flame Cannons are too expensive to use, but a good source of volatile loot

[Zhorn]

"A flame cannon is a bulky mechanical contraption that hurls casks of alchemist's fire that explode on impact. Before one of these weapons can be fired, it must be loaded and aimed. It takes one action to load the weapon, one action to aim it, and one action to fire it. Each flame cannon has three casks of alchemist's fire resting next to it. "

Cask (40 gallons)

Alchemist's Fire (flask) 50 gp

Flask or tankard 1 pint of liquid

Alchemist's Fire = 50 gp per Flask
1 flask = 1 pint
8 pint = 1 gallon
40 gallons per barrel/cask
50 x 8 x 40
Alchemist's Fire = 16,000 gp per cask

This is that whole adamantine/mithral door problem all over again. You come across these things put in the dungeon to protect the loot... damn stuff is more valuable than the loot, and you don't have to delve as deep to get it most of the time.

What are some other situations you've run into where an adventure just lays out ridiculous wealth without drawing attention to how valuable it really is? Be it official modules, or just coming across DM that slip up and put things in without realising (bonus points to the DM if they own their slip up and don't immediately retcon it to take it away from the players).

[Naanomi]

Back in 2e we ran into a series of traps with about 200’ of completely indestructible wire as part of the mechanism. We took the trap apart to steal the wire and although we never tried to sell it, it was way more useful than anything that trap was guarding to our adventuring career

[Dork_Forge]

Wouldn't a cask of oil with a flask of Alchemist's Fire insdie achieve the same thing on a much cheaper budget?

[stoutstien]

Wouldn't a cask of oil with a flask of Alchemist's Fire insdie achieve the same thing on a much cheaper budget?
Add some sawdust as well for coppers.

[Zhorn]

Wouldn't a cask of oil with a flask of Alchemist's Fire insdie achieve the same thing on a much cheaper budget?

Add some sawdust as well for coppers.
Thread's less about what would make more practical sense for damage dealing, and more just the crazy levels of wealth on display with such setups.
If you manage to secure one of these cannons before the enemy has a chance to use any of the three casks, by RAW that's 48,000 gp worth of Alchemist's Fire. And at 50 gp per pint per pound, that stuff is worth it's weight is gold.

[Mastikator]

A few years ago I was a player in a sci-fi game. I joined on session 2, on session 1 the other players had apparently fled their jobs as military personnel. Specifically they stole a military airplane to get away.
What kind of airplane? Oh just a state of the art fully armed stealth bomber. That airplane was more valuable than everything we we accomplished in that entire game combined. By an order of magnitude.

[Asisreo1]

Alchemist's Fire = 50 gp per Flask
1 flask = 1 pint
8 pint = 1 gallon
40 gallons per barrel/cask
50 x 8 x 40
Alchemist's Fire = 16,000 gp per cask

This is that whole adamantine/mithral door problem all over again. You come across these things put in the dungeon to protect the loot... damn stuff is more valuable than the loot, and you don't have to delve as deep to get it most of the time.

What are some other situations you've run into where an adventure just lays out ridiculous wealth without drawing attention to how valuable it really is? Be it official modules, or just coming across DM that slip up and put things in without realising (bonus points to the DM if they own their slip up and don't immediately retcon it to take it away from the players).
It's alot easier to justify when the loot is much more valued to the protector than the market value.

For instance, if the loot includes a Ring of Protection, it wouldn't be worth much expensive protection objectively. But if the ring was the engagement ring of the widowed owner, the lengths they've gone to protect the ring becomes more understandable.

[Valmark]

The prisoner's cage on wheels where the walls were made from prismatic walls (3.5).

We weren't exactly in a position to take those at the time, but it always struck me as odd the fact that the opposition could make those things for what were still basically random schmucks and yet our party of idiots wasn't squashed by the first guards all jacked in magical stuff.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Alchemist's Fire = 50 gp per Flask
1 flask = 1 pint
8 pint = 1 gallon
40 gallons per barrel/cask
50 x 8 x 40
Alchemist's Fire = 16,000 gp per cask


The Wish spell can create a non magical item up to 25,000 gp...so 16k is letting the Weave off easy. 🧙🏻*♀️

A nigh immortal, crazed Demi-god like Halaster Blackcoat doesn't care about money, or frivolity, or having to cast the Wish spell 3 days in a row to create the casks.

[Valmark]

The Wish spell can create a non magical item up to 25,000 gp...so 16k is letting the Weave off easy. 🧙🏻*♀️

A nigh immortal, crazed Demi-god like Halaster Blackcoat doesn't care about money, or frivolity, or having to cast the Wish spell 3 days in a row to create the casks.

To be fair, Wishing for it 3 days in a row is likely to make you uncapable of casting Wish for the rest of your life so I'm not sure it'd worth it even for such an npc.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Creating a non magical item is one of the "safe" uses of the Wish spell. At least as I rule it.

When you control the fundamental forces of the universe, creating an excessive amount of napalm is apparently "routine". 🧞

[Dork_Forge]

To be fair, Wishing for it 3 days in a row is likely to make you uncapable of casting Wish for the rest of your life so I'm not sure it'd worth it even for such an npc.

To be fair though he doesn't play by PC rules for this kind of thing (or is insanely lucky), after all he does things with Wish like:

Wish a Spelljammer and its Illithid capatin out of space and under a mountain to just be a jerk

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Wouldn't Creation be cheaper then wish to create to alchemist's fire?
Just need to recast it every X amount of time based on the ingredients.

[Valmark]

Creating a non magical item is one of the "safe" uses of the Wish spell. At least as I rule it.

When you control the fundamental forces of the universe, creating an excessive amount of napalm is apparently "routine". 🧞
RAW Wish is only safe when duplicating a spell.

To be fair though he doesn't play by PC rules for this kind of thing (or is insanely lucky), after all he does things with Wish like:

Wish a Spelljammer and its Illithid capatin out of space and under a mountain to just be a jerk

Alright, he probably has the right to do whatever he wants when he wakes up in the morning then xD

[Thunderous Mojo]

RAW Wish is only safe when duplicating a spell.


Alright, he probably has the right to do whatever he wants when he wakes up in the morning then xD

😀 Agreed...that is ,indeed, what is written in the RAW😀...which is why I signified my personal preference.

This is way off topic...but I adjudicate the 8th level spell duplication requirement more broadly then most. I don't require an exact spell to be duplicated, but that the effect Wished for must be inline with an 8th level effect.

Spells get added to the game, and RAW never encompass the full range of what our imaginations can dream up.

A player that Wished for a fortress in August 2017 was assed a substantial list of penalties, including potentially losing the ability to cast the Wish spell at all.
That same player in November 2017, after XGE was published, could duplicate Mighty Fortress and suffer no penalties.

In a living game, even RAW is not consistent for all points of it's existence.

Using the Wish spell to summon 16k worth of Alchemist Fire, or a really fancy dinning room table (made from a long extinct tree)...doesn't seem so extreme, or outside the range of what should be possible for an 8th level spell effect.

Put it this way, if a player wanted to create a Summon Alchemist Fire spell...at what level would you peg the spell at?

[Valmark]

😀 Agreed...that is ,indeed, what is written in the RAW😀...which is why I signified my personal preference.


Yeah, I was just clarifying it since 'rule it' looked more like 'ruling' then 'house rule'.

[Thunderous Mojo]

The distinction between a "House Rule", a "Table Rule", or a "Ruling" is largely semantic.

If I was a player in a game, I would argue for a broader reading of how the "duplicating a spell" verbiage should be applied.

The Mighty Fortress example is a illustrative of why a slavish devotion to the text, without consideration of the spirit behind it, can lead to wildly disparate results.
In October you have 33% chance of losing Wish, in November you are just emulating Mighty Fortress.

[Tvtyrant]

Alchemist's Fire = 50 gp per Flask
1 flask = 1 pint
8 pint = 1 gallon
40 gallons per barrel/cask
50 x 8 x 40
Alchemist's Fire = 16,000 gp per cask

This is that whole adamantine/mithral door problem all over again. You come across these things put in the dungeon to protect the loot... damn stuff is more valuable than the loot, and you don't have to delve as deep to get it most of the time.

What are some other situations you've run into where an adventure just lays out ridiculous wealth without drawing attention to how valuable it really is? Be it official modules, or just coming across DM that slip up and put things in without realising (bonus points to the DM if they own their slip up and don't immediately retcon it to take it away from the players).

How much damage does it do? It might be worth it if it auto-kills an enemy.

[Zhorn]

How much damage does it do? It might be worth it if it auto-kills an enemy.
not enough to justify the cost
Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 60/240 ft., one target. Hit: 3 (1d6) bludgeoning damage plus 17 (5d6) fire damage, and the target catches fire. While on fire, the target takes 3 (1d6) fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by immersing itself in water or by using an action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

[Tvtyrant]

not enough to justify the cost
Ranged Weapon Attack: +4 to hit, range 60/240 ft., one target. Hit: 3 (1d6) bludgeoning damage plus 17 (5d6) fire damage, and the target catches fire. While on fire, the target takes 3 (1d6) fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by immersing itself in water or by using an action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames.

...Where does the actual liquid go? 50 gallons of oil and it doesn't splash at all? DC10?

Maybe if it threw lamp oil so you aren't throwing literal pots of gold (which would be cheaper, 16000GP weighs between 6,000 and 11,000 lbs.)

[Zhorn]

...Where does the actual liquid go? 50 gallons of oil and it doesn't splash at all? DC10?

Maybe if it threw lamp oil so you aren't throwing literal pots of gold (which would be cheaper, 16000GP weighs between 6,000 and 11,000 lbs.)

320 lb. , for both the gold coin weight and the Alchemist's Fire
50 coins the the pound; 16,000 / 50 = 320
1 flask of Alchemist's Fire is 1 lb for 1 pint, 8 pints to the gallon; 40 gallons = 320 pints = 320 lb.

But yeah, the sheer volume of fuel used to the amount of damage dealt and the DC is very pitiful.
As depicted in RAW, I don't see it as worth using, hence the thread title.

[JackPhoenix]

You're making unbased assumption that the "cask" used with flame cannon is the same size as the barrel from PHB.

Considering the low damage, both from impact and from the fire, and the fact it can be loaded by a single NPC with an action, I find that assumption rather dubious.

[Valmark]

You're making unbased assumption that the "cask" used with flame cannon is the same size as the barrel from PHB.

Considering the low damage, both from impact and from the fire, and the fact it can be loaded by a single NPC with an action, I find that assumption rather dubious.

They are using the size of the cask in the DMG as quoted in the OP.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption to say that a cask is as big as a cask.

[Zhorn]

I would have loved to go with a firkin (10 gallons), pot (1 gallon), or smaller given the damage it deals, but the descriptor of the flame cannon named the container for the alchemist's fire as "cask", DMG defines a cask as 40 gallons. To define it as any other measurement would be a house ruling and wouldn't be RAW.

[JackPhoenix]

I would have loved to go with a firkin (10 gallons), pot (1 gallon), or smaller given the damage it deals, but the descriptor of the flame cannon named the container for the alchemist's fire as "cask", DMG defines a cask as 40 gallons. To define it as any other measurement would be a house ruling and wouldn't be RAW.

DMG also says firkin *is* a (small) cask, and DotMM doesn't say how big the cask is. 10 gallons is still a lot, but much more reasonable.

And, let's be honest, if the adventure wrote the cannon (which is not a cannon either, but some sort of catapult) shoots firkins of alchemist's fire, most of the readers would ask "a what?"

[Valmark]

DMG also says firkin *is* a (small) cask, and DotMM doesn't say how big the cask is. 10 gallons is still a lot, but much more reasonable.

And, let's be honest, if the adventure wrote the cannon (which is not a cannon either, but some sort of catapult) shoots firkins of alchemist's fire, most of the readers would ask "a what?"

This is probably more pedantic then what anybody cares here, but it says a cask which is specifically defined. If they meant a firkin they would have said at least a small cask.

"A what?" Was literally what I thought though xD.

[Zhorn]

DMG also says firkin *is* a (small) cask, and DotMM doesn't say how big the cask is. 10 gallons is still a lot, but much more reasonable.

And, let's be honest, if the adventure wrote the cannon (which is not a cannon either, but some sort of catapult) shoots firkins of alchemist's fire, most of the readers would ask "a what?"

And if we're going off that logic of using the in bracket descriptor of (size cask) instead of the container that has only the singular name of 'cask', then arguments could be made for the Hogshead (large cask, 65 gallons), or Pipe (large cask 105, gallons), or Tun (huge cask, 250 gallons), and since there are more of the bigger sized than smaller ones, then one could argue that probability would lean more in the direction of bigger over smaller.

Now to be clear, I agree that the volume of the container used SHOULD be smaller than the 40 gallon cask, but that is not the language used. It says 'cask', we have a container called 'cask'. Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, yada yada yada.
And as far as the whole "what the heck is a firkin" reasoning, that could apply to any word someone has not heard before. Learning new words is like that.

[Thunderous Mojo]

40 gallons of liquid weighs approximately 334 lbs, before the weight of the barrel is factored in.

I certainly do not recall anything in the 5e DMG that indicates the appropriate damage range for a 40 gallon barrel weighing over 300 lbs is 1d6 bludgeoning damage.

1d6 Bludgeoning damage indicates that the cask is indeed very small.

[Valmark]

40 gallons of liquid weighs approximately 334 lbs, before the weight of the barrel is factored in.

I certainly do not recall anything in the 5e DMG that indicates the appropriate damage range for a 40 gallon barrel weighing over 300 lbs is 1d6 bludgeoning damage.

1d6 Bludgeoning damage indicates that the cask is indeed very small.

Do you recall anything in the 5e DMG that indicates the appropriate damage range for a 40 gallon barrel weighing over 300 lbs isn't 1d6 bludgeoning damage?

If not it's kind of pointless to argue that the damage seems too little for the size. You can either work on what the book does say or house rule it homewever you want.

[Zhorn]

I'm in full support of people house ruling this to make it make more sense, because yes the damage it deals by RAW and the cost of the fuel source by RAW is badly mismatched.
If I were to put flame cannons in any of my games, or come across a module that included them, I would change them to make more sense.

But for this thread, I agree with Valmark, that it is pointless to debate what the flame cannon should be when the thread was about the ridiculous aspect of what it IS by RAW, and how it serves better as loot than as a weapon.

[Mr Adventurer]

Do you recall anything in the 5e DMG that indicates the appropriate damage range for a 40 gallon barrel weighing over 300 lbs isn't 1d6 bludgeoning damage?

If not it's kind of pointless to argue that the damage seems too little for the size. You can either work on what the book does say or house rule it homewever you want.

Improvised Damage, DMG249.

Seems like it'd be more than a falling bookcase or falling into a flaming pit, since it's being flung with force. I'd go with the 4d10 entry myself.

Edit:


since there are more of the bigger sized than smaller ones, then one could argue that probability would lean more in the direction of bigger over smaller.


This is absurd.

[Zhorn]

This is absurd.
Yes it is, that was the point.

[Valmark]

Improvised Damage, DMG249.

Seems like it'd be more than a falling bookcase or falling into a flaming pit, since it's being flung with force. I'd go with the 4d10 entry myself.

Edit:



This is absurd.

That doesn't actually say that the damage of a barrel etc. Though. Sure, as a DM you can decide it no problem, but that isn't the scope of the thread.

(Also I kinda disagree on using rules that say that suggested damage for a lightning bolt is less then Call Lightning but that's a personal opinion).

And yeah, it's absurd. Like the adamantine door worthy enough to retire the characters or the prisoner's cage made out of prismatic walls. It's the point of the thread as far as I understood it.

[Zhorn]

And yeah, it's absurd. Like the adamantine door worthy enough to retire the characters or the prisoner's cage made out of prismatic walls. It's the point of the thread as far as I understood it.

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ValidUniqueAsianelephant-small.gif

Talking with a few other DMs on discord, I think the root problem comes down to trying heighten the cool/exotic factor, or attempting to blockade the party from one tactic that has been effective without thinking through the full implication of what they are doing.

Adamantine/mithral doors, jail bars, manacles, etc. are what I see more often as a result of the barbarian raging and juggernauting their way though lesser obstacles, and so the DM in a panic attempts to block it with higher DC substances rather than just accept that a character is built for handling a particular type of challenge and it's okay to let players have those moments.

Current campaign our party came across about 3 tons of adamantine which we then proceeded to take with us
When we first decided to bring them adamantine objects with us to sell, the DM initially tried to counter with "no common forge is hot enough nor large enough to melt it down for use"
So we buy wagons and a team of draft horses to transport them for almost a month in game (probably 8 sessions or more in just overland travel) to reach a dwarven citadel to make the sale.
DM lets us barter on the price, getting 10 gp to the pound. 3 tons gives us quite a hefty pay day.
Needless to say we make special efforts next time we find adamantine to do the same thing, as that last haul's value accounted for over 90% of all the treasure we'd earned in the game, and the last few quest arcs haven't been paying squat.
Next time we do this, the DM nerfs our next haul of 1.5 tons to to just being worth 1000 gp total, no negotiations.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Do you recall anything in the 5e DMG that indicates the appropriate damage range for a 40 gallon barrel weighing over 300 lbs isn't 1d6 bludgeoning damage?

If not it's kind of pointless to argue that the damage seems too little for the size. You can either work on what the book does say or house rule it homewever you want.

Pointless? Your language strikes me as a bit strident, but setting that aside...how is inductive/deductive reasoning "pointless"?

A club does 1d6 damage. Comparing the damage done to a human body by being struck once by a club versus being hit by a nigh 400 lb, 40 gallon barrel leads me to conclude that a 40 gallon, 400 lb barrel should do more than 1d6 damage.

I call this Reason, however, if someone wishes to dub this conclusion a "Houserule"....that is fine with me.

Out of pure curiosity, do people honestly believe that 1d6 damage is an accurate qualitative assessment of the damage done by a full 40 Gallon barrel?

(This seriously nerfs Donkey Kong🦍)

[Keltest]

DMG page 255 includes some siege weaponry, oddly enough. A cauldron of boiling oil does 3d6 fire damage. A ballista does 3d10 damage. A Mangonal (a type of catapult) does 5d10 damage. A trebuchet, whose stones would weigh about half as much as this barrel of alchemist's fire, does 8d10 damage.

1d6 damage for a full sized keg is incredibly low.

[Thunderous Mojo]

Talking with a few other DMs on discord, I think the root problem comes down to trying heighten the cool/exotic factor, or attempting to blockade the party from one tactic that has been effective without thinking through the full implication of what they are doing.


Scarcity would account for the decrease in selling price for the Adamantium, the market was glutted by your initial 3 Ton shipment.
Wood rots, but a bit of adamantium mined 4 million years ago is still, (mostly), indestructible.

In a world that isn't as consumeristic as our own, and lacks industrial production...3 Tons of Adamantium, might last centuries.

I'm not supporting the steep price reduction your DM assessed. As a player I would have refused to sell the ore, at that price. Clearly your DM, feels they gave out too much treasure with your first 3 tons of ore and 60K gold payment, and is flailing a bit to recover their equilibrium.

Humans deem many impractical luxury items as symbols of social status.
In our world, that translates into Plutocrats buying/leasing private Jets and ridiculously large Yachts.

In the D&D universe, maybe the Adamantium Door, is the social status equivalent of the Private Jet?

If Elminster has an ensorcelled Adamantium door installed for his Reference Library, then Mordenkainen is going to try to top Elminster.

Large egos and Wish spells are bound to result in some ridiculous results....like Owlbears.

[Valmark]

Pointless? Your language strikes me as a bit strident, but setting that aside...how is inductive/deductive reasoning "pointless"?

A club does 1d6 damage. Comparing the damage done to a human body by being struck once by a club versus being hit by a nigh 400 lb, 40 gallon barrel leads me to conclude that a 40 gallon, 400 lb barrel should do more then 1d6 damage.

I call this Reason, however, if someone wishes to dub this conclusion a "Houserule"....that is fine with me.

Out of pure curiosity, do people honestly believe that 1d6 damage is an accurate qualitative assessment of the damage done by a full 40 Gallon barrel?

(This seriously nerfs Donkey Kong🦍)

It's pointless to argue something that would be dependant on the DM and is also not within the scope of the thread, that's what I mean. If we talk about how Scrying and Teleport interact and we rule it different ways nobody's right, but if we are both players at the same DM's table and they rule it one way they are right (I'm assuming sensible rulings here).

In this case it's the former- arguing how you'd do it doesn't matter when the thread's about stuff too valuable for the usefulness it gives. Talking about that magical gemstone ship that flies in the sky when everybody has flight and teleporting and you don't need high capacity transports is what we are talking about (didn't actually see something like that but it wouldn't surprise me).

Nobody's even saying that it being as big as that for so little damage is correct (in fact the OP has stated the opposite)- we're simply going along with what the DMG states as a rule accessible to everybody.

Or to sum it up you're arguing about something nobody has disagreed on and that isn't relevant to the thread.

EDIT: Right, sorry if it looks strident- you aren't the first to say that. I guess my way of writing doesn't quite work with the lack of non-verbal communication. Anyway, I assure you that's not intended and apologize for it.

[Zhorn]

Scarcity would account for the decrease in selling price for the Adamantium, the market was glutted by your initial 3 Ton shipment.
Wood rots, but a bit of adamantium mined 4 million years ago is still, (mostly), indestructible.

In a world that isn't as consumeristic as our own, and lacks industrial production...3 Tons of Adamantium, might last centuries.
It would be nice if I could say that way their reasoning, but sadly it's just a case of this DM having a tendency to impulsively retcon things, or double down on their latest reasoning even if you point out the book giving a different answer or even referencing when they ruled differently previously.
I'll not be sticking around this campaign as this has been getting progressively worse.

Quest rewards getting knocked down to a third after it was already distributed to the party.
Spell books of enemy wizards being stripped down to a fraction of the spells previously mentions, often no longer containing spells that were used in the combat.
"Roll for persuasion" *decent roll* "they attack you anyway"
Magic items being removed from the group off-screen between sessions.
A cultists airship being rendered completely useless once secured, saying it requires multiple casters of 9th level or higher to power for 1 hour at a time while having it previously being used by a crew of commoners one encounter earlier, having travelled for many days without assistance.
Most recently a teleportation circle sequence I found in a key location a few sessions back is now being ruled as 'incomplete' and 'unlikely to function' the moment I express a tactic to use it to avoid a confrontation.

[Valmark]

It would be nice if I could say that way their reasoning, but sadly it's just a case of this DM having a tendency to impulsively retcon things, or double down on their latest reasoning even if you point out the book giving a different answer or even referencing when they ruled differently previously.
I'll not be sticking around this campaign as this has been getting progressively worse.

Quest rewards getting knocked down to a third after it was already distributed to the party.
Spell books of enemy wizards being stripped down to a fraction of the spells previously mentions, often no longer containing spells that were used in the combat.
"Roll for persuasion" *decent roll* "they attack you anyway"
Magic items being removed from the group off-screen between sessions.
A cultists airship being rendered completely useless once secured, saying it requires multiple casters of 9th level or higher to power for 1 hour at a time while having it previously being used by a crew of commoners one encounter earlier, having travelled for many days without assistance.
Most recently a teleportation circle sequence I found in a key location a few sessions back is not being ruled as 'incomplete' and 'unlikely to function' the moment I express a tactic to use it to avoid a confrontation.


Alright, it was funny when you said it the first time, but I would have left at any of those points besides the persuasion, circle and magic items one.

And maybe also a good slew of arguing and insults depending on how it went down out of character. I have little patient when it's the person the problem instead of the argument.

Out of curiosity, how did the magic item matter go? Something like "oh yeah, you don't have this stuff anymore, period"?

[Zhorn]

A PC died a while back (remorhaz, which the DM ruled did it's bite and an automatic swallow on the same attack).
They had previously made up a will, detailing who would get what items if their character died.
Player was starting a new job, so was leaving the game anyway, making dying on their last session less of a big deal.

In character, we decided to get them revived just for the RP of looking out for a fellow party member.
Takes a few sessions as no one in the group has the magic needed (plus goopified body, so needed higher level true resurrection or reincarnation)
Brought them back and they left the adventuring life to pursue one of less risk.
Sessions goes by. I'm using bracers of archery to get longbow proficiency.
Magic bow drops. No one in the group has a need for it, so I pick it up as attacking with it was better than cantrip damage.

Between sessions the DM decides that the will didn't matter any more, and ruled that the items the player decided to leave to the group was null since the character was alive again, even if not adventuring any more.
No longer have bracers of archery, and as such no longer proficient with the magic bow.

[Valmark]

Yuuuup that would have made me quit. Wouldn't care about the loss itself as much as the way. If it had happened when the character left it would have been alright, but "retroactively"? Yeah, no. It's a sign of things to come and I'd better cut my losses.

[Thunderous Mojo]

It's
Or to sum it up you're arguing about something nobody has disagreed on and that isn't relevant to the thread.

EDIT: Right, sorry if it looks strident- you aren't the first to say that. I guess my way of writing doesn't quite work with the lack of non-verbal communication. Anyway, I assure you that's not intended and apologize for it.

No insult was taken. A tendency towards stridency comes with focus and passion.
I appreciate focus and passion. I also appreciate the de-escalating language..thank you. It is entirely valid and sound to be annoyed at my arguments and tangents. 😀

I still stand by my assertion that the Ego and Vanity of sentient creatures, can explain actions that seem non-sensical.

A gold plated pistol seems as silly to me as a cheese board cut from a single, enormous piece of ruby.


It would be nice if I could say that way their reasoning, but sadly it's just a case of this DM having a tendency to impulsively retcon things, or double down on their latest reasoning even if you point out the book giving a different answer or even referencing when they ruled differently previously.
I'll not be sticking around this campaign as this has been getting progressively worse.


Hmm....yea...to be charitable..I would call it less then ideal DM'ing.
I wonder if the DM is having a hard time managing the various power levels of your group, and is tightening the reins and cracking the whip erratically, as a means of compensation.