How can I explain to my player that Alchemist's Fire is safe to carry?
$begingroup$
The Player's Handbook says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":
Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.
A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-ingniting substance.
His logic is pretty solid:
- An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.
- The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.
- Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.
However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game? (I believe that a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so")
dnd-5e equipment
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
$endgroup$
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
The Player's Handbook says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":
Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.
A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-ingniting substance.
His logic is pretty solid:
- An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.
- The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.
- Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.
However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game? (I believe that a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so")
dnd-5e equipment
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
3
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
The Player's Handbook says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":
Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.
A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-ingniting substance.
His logic is pretty solid:
- An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.
- The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.
- Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.
However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game? (I believe that a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so")
dnd-5e equipment
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
$endgroup$
The Player's Handbook says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":
Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.
A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-ingniting substance.
His logic is pretty solid:
- An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.
- The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.
- Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.
However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game? (I believe that a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so")
dnd-5e equipment
dnd-5e equipment
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
edited 1 hour ago
enkryptor
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
asked Jan 13 at 19:01
enkryptorenkryptor
25k1286202
25k1286202
6
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
3
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago
|
show 8 more comments
6
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
3
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago
6
6
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
3
3
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
4
4
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
8
8
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
10
10
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago
|
show 8 more comments
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)
However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."
A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
$endgroup$
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Why not let them play their character authentically?
That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.
I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."
Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.
By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.
Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.
Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.
Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."
But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.
Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simplest answer:
You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)
Not so simple answer:
It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)
I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.
Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.
Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.
I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.
You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.
You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).
If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.
But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
Let me give you an example of similar behavior:
Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.
As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically
Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.
This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138988%2fhow-can-i-explain-to-my-player-that-alchemists-fire-is-safe-to-carry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
9 Answers
9
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)
However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."
A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
$endgroup$
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)
However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."
A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
$endgroup$
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)
However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."
A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
$endgroup$
It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)
However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."
A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
answered Jan 13 at 21:08
NovakNovak
16.6k52875
16.6k52875
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
50
50
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
$begingroup$
This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
$endgroup$
– keithcurtis
Jan 13 at 21:13
2
2
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
$begingroup$
When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
$endgroup$
– KRyan
Jan 14 at 2:29
5
5
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
$begingroup$
You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
$endgroup$
– Tektotherriggen
Jan 14 at 9:09
3
3
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
$begingroup$
I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
$endgroup$
– R. McMillan
Jan 14 at 19:22
3
3
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
$begingroup$
"blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
$endgroup$
– Artur Biesiadowski
2 days ago
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
Why not let them play their character authentically?
That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.
I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."
Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.
By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not let them play their character authentically?
That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.
I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."
Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.
By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Why not let them play their character authentically?
That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.
I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."
Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.
By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
$endgroup$
Why not let them play their character authentically?
That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.
I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."
Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.
By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
edited Jan 14 at 11:13
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
answered Jan 14 at 10:41
lightcatlightcat
1,946426
1,946426
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
$begingroup$
I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
$endgroup$
– Freiheit
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.
Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.
Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.
Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.
Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.
Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.
Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.
Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.
Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.
Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
$endgroup$
It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.
Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.
Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.
Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
answered Jan 13 at 19:21
ErikErik
45.2k12164232
45.2k12164232
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
$begingroup$
You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 19:31
5
5
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
$begingroup$
@AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:26
4
4
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
$begingroup$
@enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
$endgroup$
– Allan Mills
Jan 13 at 21:25
7
7
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
$begingroup$
"...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
$endgroup$
– RyanfaeScotland
Jan 14 at 0:20
1
1
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."
But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."
But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."
But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
$endgroup$
I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."
But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
edited Jan 14 at 2:21
V2Blast
20.5k359130
20.5k359130
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
answered Jan 13 at 23:11
LichtbringerLichtbringer
441210
441210
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.
Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.
Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.
Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
$endgroup$
You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.
Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
answered Jan 14 at 10:27
colmdecolmde
78056
78056
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simplest answer:
You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)
Not so simple answer:
It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)
I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.
Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simplest answer:
You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)
Not so simple answer:
It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)
I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.
Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Simplest answer:
You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)
Not so simple answer:
It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)
I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.
Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
$endgroup$
Simplest answer:
You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)
Not so simple answer:
It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)
I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.
Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
answered Jan 14 at 4:17
Jay CarrJay Carr
2971316
2971316
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
+1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
$endgroup$
– Phlucious
yesterday
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
53 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
40 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
$begingroup$
@enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
$endgroup$
– Jay Carr
38 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.
Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.
I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.
Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.
I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.
Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.
I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
$endgroup$
If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.
Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.
I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
edited Jan 14 at 10:52
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
answered Jan 14 at 9:06
TektotherriggenTektotherriggen
359210
359210
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.
You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.
You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).
If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.
You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.
You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).
If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
$endgroup$
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.
You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.
You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).
If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
$endgroup$
The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.
You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.
You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).
If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
answered Jan 13 at 20:13
Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger
6418
6418
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
add a comment |
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
6
6
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
$begingroup$
Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
$endgroup$
– enkryptor
Jan 13 at 20:23
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.
But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
Let me give you an example of similar behavior:
Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.
As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically
Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.
This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.
But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
Let me give you an example of similar behavior:
Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.
As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically
Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.
This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.
But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
Let me give you an example of similar behavior:
Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.
As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically
Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.
This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.
But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
Let me give you an example of similar behavior:
Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.
As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically
Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.
This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited Jan 14 at 10:49
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
answered Jan 14 at 10:43
ManukiManuki
315
315
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138988%2fhow-can-i-explain-to-my-player-that-alchemists-fire-is-safe-to-carry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
6
$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51
3
$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
2 days ago
4
$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
8
$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
2 days ago
10
$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
2 days ago