Alchemists fire

[Zocelot]

I had a revelation. Please correct me if this goes against the rules.

An Alchmists fire weighs 1 pound, and a vial weighs one tenth so 9/10ths of a pound do 1d6 damage the first round and another 1d6 the round after if the opponent fails a DC 15 reflex save.

A bag of holding type IV can hold 1500 pounds or 1666d6 (on the first round). The bag of holding only breaks if it takes piercing damage. The fire is just fine in there. The idea is to throw the bag at a creature, and have another character ready an action to shoot an arrow at it to explode it just as the bag hits the monster. The bag has an AC of 5

To recap, this trick costs 33320 for the fire and 20000 for the bag for a total of 53320 gold.

A dm may house rule that due to the amount of the fire, the DC for the reflex save to put it out increases (most monsters will save). If they do not, then acid is cheaper then alchemist's fire, and will do the same amount of damage

This strategy does 5831 damage on average with a minimum of 1666 and a maximum of 9996. This is not nearly as much as the osmium/antiosmium trick, and it costs money, but it is a nice alternative, as most DMs will ban the former. Also, any type of character can use it (because power gamers sometimes play characters other then wizards)

[Myatar_Panwar]

When a bag of holding bursts, I thought that all of the contents were just lost forever, stuck in the extra-dimensional space, not that they were spilled on the ground. Although I might be wrong

[deathbyhokie]

When a bag of holding bursts, I thought that all of the contents were just lost forever, stuck in the extra-dimensional space, not that they were spilled on the ground. Although I might be wrong

I think you're right. When it's turned inside out, all the contents spill out.

[Uthug]

I have to agree there.

If the bag is overloaded, or if sharp objects pierce it (from inside or outside), the bag ruptures and is ruined. All contents are lost forever.

Emphasis mine. So if an arrow hits it, your 53320 worth of gold is lost forever. Hmm, what happens if its hit by a sharp pointy rock?
Why don't you get someone to ready an action to turn it inside out while its over the opponet? He might provoke AoOs however...

[Aquillion]

This is a common mistake; you're assuming (basically) that if one vial of alchemist's fire does 1d6 damage when thrown, dropping the equivalent of 100 vials on someone at once would do 100d6, and so on. (You made the math more complicated by accounting for the vials and used a different number due to the bag's capacity, but that's the idea.)

There is nothing in the rules to suggest that it would work this way, though. The rules state that when you spend one action to throw one vial as a ranged touch attack, it deals 1d6 damage on a direct hit and 1 point on a splash. If you want to use those rules to calculate the damage for 100 vials (or the equivalent), you either have to have 100 people throwing 100 vials, or you have to take 100 actions to throw each of those vials individually. Nothing in those rules says that if you pour all 100 vials into a bag and then throw the bag, it'll do as much damage as if you'd thrown each of those vials individually over 100 turns.

And there's a good reason to say that it wouldn't. Alchemist's fire works by lighting the target on fire (the damage described is exactly that from the 'Catching On Fire' section of the environmental hazards section.) When you throw more vials, you're, what, lighting them more on fire? Maybe you can increase it a bit by making it hotter or catching more of them on fire, but suggesting that you can just take the rules for throwing a single vial and extrapolate them to the damage done by the contents of 1000 vials is silly. If you could do that, you could just ask to brew an 'extra-big' vial that deals double or triple damage, say.

A good guideline might be the rules for acid, which also comes in a flask. The rules for acid say:

You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash.

A lot of people, following your logic, have plotted to drop thousands of acid flasks on someone to do thousands of d6 of damage. But the problem is that the environmental hazards section says:

Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of exposure except in the case of total immersion (such as into a vat of acid), which deals 10d6 points of damage per round. An attack with acid, such as from a hurled vial or a monster’s spittle, counts as a round of exposure.

In other words, the absolute limit for acid is 10d6, and that's if you cover them completely. Anything less than that just deals 1d6 (shut up, I know it's stupid. "Hey, it's ok, I held my hand out of the acid pool I just got shoved into, so I only take 1d6!")

Don't like the rules for acid? Well, remember, the only rules for catching on fire come down to 1d6 damage, period, no ways of increasing it. That strongly implies that it doesn't matter how much alchemist's fire you dump on someone at once; they still only catch on fire and still only take 1d6 damage.

[its_all_ogre]

not disagreeing with the above post btw, it makes good balance sense if not real sense

however if you have that sort of money then invisibility and fly above target and then up-end the bag pouring all the vials out.

[Irreverent Fool]

Similarly, if you overlap the cubes of a fire storm spell, the target only takes the CLd6 damage, not CLd6 for each overlapped cube.

[Rift_Wolf]

Off on a slight tangent with the alchemists fire...

Our party is facing off against a pirate armada (We've has forewarning and some time to prepare). One of my counterplans was to use some spell or item to set fire to their sails before they get to our port. Can alchemist fire set an item on fire indefinitely (So the whole sail catches fire) or would it burn then peter out (Burning a 5 foot hole in the sail)?

[Zocelot]

I checked through the rules, and hitting the bag with the arrow would make it lost forever. Turning the bag inside out still works though. As to the logic of the fire capping damage, a commoner can use a dagger to stab a fighter to the point that the figher doesn't have a midsection anymore, but this won't kill the fighter, because even 40d4s don't really make a difference to a guy with as much hit points as the fighter.

[DrizztFan24]

Off on a slight tangent with the alchemists fire...

Our party is facing off against a pirate armada (We've has forewarning and some time to prepare). One of my counterplans was to use some spell or item to set fire to their sails before they get to our port. Can alchemist fire set an item on fire indefinitely (So the whole sail catches fire) or would it burn then peter out (Burning a 5 foot hole in the sail)?

I'd aim to set the boat on fire, they were covered with tar and wax to waterproof them.

The sails were generally made of canvas, I'm not sure how well that would burn, but you could just throw to the section just above the ropes and detatch part of the sail. :P

[Swooper]

Hmm, Aquillon makes a good point. A similar ruling would make sense for Explosive Runes.

[Aquillion]

Hmm, Aquillon makes a good point. A similar ruling would make sense for Explosive Runes.

For Explosive Runes, it would make a good houserule, but I'm not sure you could make an argument that it can't be stacked per RAW; per RAW, I can't see any reason why a bunch of exploding runes hit by a dispel that fails wouldn't all go off at once and do their normal damage. Of course, you can use logic, but I only brought up logic above because I thought the existing rules pretty clearly don't cover the case mentioned...

For throwing vials of alchemist's fire (or acid), I don't think the rules provide any specific instructions for anything beyond using an action to throw a single vial, by hand, containing the ~1 lb of liquid listed. Anything else requires a DM call... but there are guidelines in the 'environmental hazard' section, which strongly imply that you're not going to get more than 1d6 damage out of it whatever you do (short of dipping someone in acid completely.)

And throwing alchemist's fire that isn't in a vial (say, any amount of alchemist's fire in a bag), or putting it to any use that isn't throwing a single 1 lb vial of it definitely isn't covered by the rules (sorry, no pots or jars of alchemist's fire!) The most likely rules are just the 'catching on fire' 1d6 damage for any amount, plus some houseruled splash, though. All indications are that alchemist's fire is natural fire in every respect.

[Crow]

The nuclear arrow (or spearhaed) costs around 200300gp

Spoiler

Show

1. shaft
2. "fine"-sized Staff of Power
3. safety pin
4. blunt head (compresses on impact)
5. splitting point (chisel shaped)
6. staff and striker mounts

The idea is to trigger a retrbutive strike. Waaaaaay too expensive, but fun nonetheless. ps. Sorry about my lousy paintbrush skills.

[Aquillion]

The nuclear arrow (or spearhaed) costs around 200300gp

Spoiler

Show

1. shaft
2. "fine"-sized Staff of Power
3. safety pin
4. blunt head (compresses on impact)
5. splitting point (chisel shaped)
6. staff and striker mounts

The idea is to trigger a retrbutive strike. Waaaaaay too expensive, but fun nonetheless. ps. Sorry about my lousy paintbrush skills.

In the line of my objection to the atomic alchemist's fire bag, here's my objection to this:

A staff of power can be used for a retributive strike, requiring it to be broken by its wielder.

Per RAW, breaking it by any other means (or, as in this case, when it is not wielded) does not necessarily trigger the desired effect; it would be up to DM call if it does anything at all and, if so, what.

Also note that the damage even within two squares of the point of impact is only 400 -- high, but not excessively so (a decent high-level fighter could probably do more in a round or two.) Those only 3 or 4 squares away only take 300, those 5 or 6 away take 200, and everyone gets a DC save for half. The destructive power of a retributive strike is vastly overrated, and it's unlikely to damage high-level rogues (or anyone else with evasion) at all.

[holywhippet]

Off on a slight tangent with the alchemists fire...

Our party is facing off against a pirate armada (We've has forewarning and some time to prepare). One of my counterplans was to use some spell or item to set fire to their sails before they get to our port. Can alchemist fire set an item on fire indefinitely (So the whole sail catches fire) or would it burn then peter out (Burning a 5 foot hole in the sail)?

Anything that is hit by a burning substance (like alchemists fire or lamp oil) can make a DC 15 reflex save to avoid catching on fire. This doesn't cover things like fireballs since the flame is intense, but too brief to set things on fire. Only lingering magical fire spells can set things on fire. The sails on a ship can't make a saving throw so they would keep burning after the item/spell stopped working. That being said, the crew of the ship would begin throwing water onto the sails as soon as it caught on fire so the damage might be minimal. Also, there's a chance they may have wet down their sails in advance, expecting such a tactic (I think they used to do that in human history).

[Irreverent Fool]

Anything that is hit by a burning substance (like alchemists fire or lamp oil) can make a DC 15 reflex save to avoid catching on fire. This doesn't cover things like fireballs since the flame is intense, but too brief to set things on fire. Only lingering magical fire spells can set things on fire. The sails on a ship can't make a saving throw so they would keep burning after the item/spell stopped working. That being said, the crew of the ship would begin throwing water onto the sails as soon as it caught on fire so the damage might be minimal. Also, there's a chance they may have wet down their sails in advance, expecting such a tactic (I think they used to do that in human history).

Actually...

From the SRD:
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.

[holywhippet]

I think by combustibles it means thinks that are particularly flammable like oil. I don't believe a fireball can set a person on fire.

[wormwood]

com·bus·ti·ble (kəm-bŭs'tə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
Capable of igniting and burning.
Easily aroused or excited.

[Irreverent Fool]

I think by combustibles it means thinks that are particularly flammable like oil. I don't believe a fireball can set a person on fire.

Hm. I was just replying to his 'the fire is too brief to set things on fire' but that's interesting...

You know, I think I may have my PCs who fail a save against a fireball have to make a second save against catching on fire... yes.. yes... *rubs hands together*

[RukiTanuki]

The rule of thumb I use is that each successive doubling of the substance adds an additional die of damage. So:

1 vial = 1d6
2 vials = 2d6
4 vials = 3d6
8 vials = 4d6
16 vials = 5d6
32 vials = 6d6

and so on.

16 vials of alchemist's fire cost 320 gold. A scroll of Fireball costs 375 gold. I know which one my players would buy. :D

[tyckspoon]

I think by combustibles it means thinks that are particularly flammable like oil. I don't believe a fireball can set a person on fire.

Gold melts at around 1950 Fahrenheit.. if the Fireball can release enough heat to flash-melt gold, I wouldn't bet on anything made of organic substances surviving. I think the intent probably was not to have people be set on fire, and whoever wrote that bit just didn't do the research- it's hard to say both lead and gold have low melting points when you compare the low melting point of lead (~600 Kelvin, 327.5 C, 621.5 F) to that of gold. Really broad range of metals given.