Gluing Splash Weapons Together


Pathfinder Society

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

Chris Mortika wrote:
Rumormonger the Rogue Advanced talent? What's wrong with that?

Its the sort of thing you could already do/can already do without it. Before the existence of rumor monger it just would have been a bluff check diplomacy check or something. (and still is in many scenarios).

For the potion sponge, there is no rule that you can't drink under water. Its possible to infer that from the potion sponge, or you can rely on a pool and an old coke bottle to see if its possible can do it. Its very annoying to have a rule come in from an alternate source that people may not have access to and have no way of knowing about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:


For the potion sponge, there is no rule that you can't drink under water. Its possible to infer that from the potion sponge, or you can rely on a pool and an old coke bottle to see if its possible can do it. Its very annoying to have a rule come in from an alternate source that people may not have access to and have no way of knowing about.

For the underwater potion, at least, it's definitely not possible without investing in custom equipment. In a rigid vessel, the contents can only be evacuated by displacing it with another substance. In the case of potions on land, air does the displacing without causing problems, and gravity provides a clear means of separating the two substances.

Under water, the surrounding material is of similar density, and composition. This would cause, at best, a ruinous dilution as the water and potion mix within the vessel and pathway between mouth and vial. Worse yet, the potion will be at lower pressure than the surrounding water, so the aquatic environment will actually force a bit of fluid back into the container. Quite a pain in the rear.

A sponge is a reasonable fix, however, a better solution would simply be to put the potion in a flexible container like a waterskin, so that the action is to suck, rather than pour.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kjatan wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


For the potion sponge, there is no rule that you can't drink under water. Its possible to infer that from the potion sponge, or you can rely on a pool and an old coke bottle to see if its possible can do it. Its very annoying to have a rule come in from an alternate source that people may not have access to and have no way of knowing about.

For the underwater potion, at least, it's definitely not possible without investing in custom equipment. In a rigid vessel, the contents can only be evacuated by displacing it with another substance. In the case of potions on land, air does the displacing without causing problems, and gravity provides a clear means of separating the two substances.

Under water, the surrounding material is of similar density, and composition. This would cause, at best, a ruinous dilution as the water and potion mix within the vessel and pathway between mouth and vial. Worse yet, the potion will be at lower pressure than the surrounding water, so the aquatic environment will actually force a bit of fluid back into the container. Quite a pain in the rear.

The air in ones gullet does not have similar density to the surrounding water.


BigNorseWolf wrote:


The air in ones gullet does not have similar density to the surrounding water.

Hah, good point. I got a little overly technical and missed the obvious. Yeah, if they are holding their breath, they can do it (IRL). If they are breathing water, they can't. However, if someone stops holding their breath to drink a potion or cast a spell, they may immediately start drowning, so that had better be a very important potion.

~~~

On the subject of circumventing spells or items through mundane means, a lot of spells and items simply ease a number of basic activities, like prestidigitation being used to make clothes wet, or light torches, obviously that can be done by anyone.


Then again... Pathfinder seems to only impose a Concentration check on spellcasting underwater, and makes no mention of drowning related consequences, so ignore my previous speculation. I'm surprised it doesn't have anything to say about potions, but it would be less laborious than casting a spell with verbal components, so I must assume it wouldn't be a problem. (Other than the description of Potion Sponge, that is.)

Aquatic Terrain:
Spellcasting Underwater: Casting spells while submerged can be difficult for those who cannot breathe underwater. A creature that cannot breathe water must make a concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to cast a spell underwater (this is in addition to the caster level check to successfully cast a fire spell underwater). Creatures that can breathe water are unaffected and can cast spells normally. Some spells might function differently underwater, subject to GM discretion.


Another question that could come up would be, can a medium or smaller creature, which can consume minerals, such as dragons, simply eat a potion, vial and all? Simply popping it in like candy. They can eat rocks, metals, and gemstones, so glass should be no problem.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Kjatan wrote:
Another question that could come up would be, can a medium or smaller creature, which can consume minerals, such as dragons, simply eat a potion, vial and all? Simply popping it in like candy. They can eat rocks, metals, and gemstones, so glass should be no problem.

Expect table variation...

1/5

Chris Mortika wrote:


Does it work to glue regular flasks together? No, because those two items exist.

Nowhere does it say that the existence of one way to do something precludes all other ways to do it. But I agree with you that the existence of these items is Paizo's way of saying this is the trade-off we want you to make.

3/5

I would think the easiest way to do this would be to make your decanters round. Tie about a foot of rope to each globe. Tie three ropes together. Take EWP Bola.

4/5

Kjatan wrote:

Then again... Pathfinder seems to only impose a Concentration check on spellcasting underwater, and makes no mention of drowning related consequences, so ignore my previous speculation. I'm surprised it doesn't have anything to say about potions, but it would be less laborious than casting a spell with verbal components, so I must assume it wouldn't be a problem. (Other than the description of Potion Sponge, that is.)

** spoiler omitted **

Tangent regarding aquatic combat:
It is my opinion, as well as a number of other GMs in the MN lodge, that the concentration check does not include holding one's breath. Similarly, if trying to cast a spell with verbal components while subject to a chokehold, you are no longer holding your breath. With that in mind, the concentration check is to ensure you can actually form the appropriate verbal components while underwater - failure means you failed to do so and the spell is expended with no effect.

And yes, I expect table variance with that, despite the fact that most casters are going to have options to handle this by level 5, if not earlier.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Just to throw a wolf amongst the chickens, there is a trap in a module that uses multiple alchemist's fires.

Trap:
A successful DC 20 Perception check reveals that a thin layer of oil coats the walls, floor, and ceiling of this passageway. At the point where the hallway turns west lie a number of well-hidden triplines—any creature rounding this corner causes a dozen vials of alchemist’s fire hidden against the ceiling to drop down into the room, igniting the oil and turning the entire hall into a fiery tube.
ALCHEMICAL INFERNO TRAP CR 3
XP 800
Type mechanical; Perception DC 20; Disable Device DC 20
EFFECTS
Trigger touch; Reset manual
Effect alchemical inferno (2d6 fire damage on first round, 1d6 fire each round thereafter for 10 rounds, DC 15 Reflex save for half damage); multiple targets (all creatures in the hallway)
Treasure: If the inferno trap is disarmed, the 12 vials of alchemist’s fire can be gathered safely.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kinevon wrote:

Just to throw a wolf amongst the chickens, there is a trap in a module that uses multiple alchemist's fires.

** spoiler omitted **

Sorry, but a a trap that drops alchemical fires is pretty irrelevant here, it doesn't even use an attack roll. And the damage is not consistent with using 12 of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The most common scenario for throwing multiple splash weapons might be in the case of a bandolier, which can hold 8 flasks at a time. A player may choose to throw the entire bandolier as a Hail Mary against a bbeg. No glue, no rope, no last minute modifications, or a caster might target a bandolier with Shatter and destroy all of the flasks simultaneously. Either way, all 8 flask are going to break, and a DM has to figure out the damage.

Actually... with a spell like shatter, carrying a large number of splash weapons suddenly becomes a very dangerous proposition. Alchemists have a very poor will save against such an effect.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Kjatan wrote:

The most common scenario for throwing multiple splash weapons might be in the case of a bandolier, which can hold 8 flasks at a time. A player may choose to throw the entire bandolier as a Hail Mary against a bbeg. No glue, no rope, no last minute modifications, or a caster might target a bandolier with Shatter and destroy all of the flasks simultaneously. Either way, all 8 flask are going to break, and a DM has to figure out the damage.

Actually... with a spell like shatter, being an carrying a large number of splash weapons suddenly becomes a very dangerous proposition. Alchemists have a very poor will save against such an effect.

A, no matter what way you use to combine those items (maybe in a net) you force the GM to make a ruling, which he might not appreciate.

B:Store your potions in iron vials (1 sp each), obviousy this does not work for splash weapons.

2/5

Kjatan wrote:
The most common scenario for throwing multiple splash weapons might be in the case of a bandolier, which can hold 8 flasks at a time. A player may choose to throw the entire bandolier as a Hail Mary against a bbeg. No glue, no rope, no last minute modifications, or a caster might target a bandolier with Shatter and destroy all of the flasks simultaneously. Either way, all 8 flask are going to break, and a DM has to figure out the damage.

AS Sebastian has said, please don´t put extra work in your GM. Usually is enough to know about all the legal posibilities the players have, to even try to determinate rules for when someone wnat to "invent something".

By the way, my rule will be a direct hit from 1 Alchemis´ts fire and splash damage from the rest (and a destroyed bandolier). And that only if you hit, because a bandolier is not a thrown weapon (so -4 yo hit, less reach, maybe time to untie the bandolier...).

If you ask about this in a home game in wich I have time to think about it, maybe I´ll rule other way. Buy in middle of a game, with time pressure, I need a quick and non-abusable answer.

Silver Crusade

In agreement with WiseWolfofYoitsu, but slightly different use of bold.

Alchemist wrote:
Throw Anything (Ex): All alchemists gain the Throw Anything feat as a bonus feat at 1st level. An alchemist adds his Intelligence modifier to damage done with splash weapons, including the splash damage if any. This bonus damage is already included in the bomb class feature.
Focusing Flask wrote:
This round, rainbow-hued glass flask allows up to three alchemical splash weapons of the same type to be poured into it, concentrating them such that they never increase its weight noticeably. If multiple types of alchemical items are poured in, all the contents are ruined. The flask can be thrown as a normal splash weapon, and when it breaks, it releases all of the contained splash weapons in the same space, and the focusing flask is destroyed. If the items held within the flask normally allow a saving throw to reduce or negate the effects, the target of a focusing flask needs to succeed at only a single saving throw, regardless of the number of items held within the focusing flask. The DC of the saving throw increases by 2 if the flask contains two alchemical items, or by 4 if it contains three items.
Hybridization Funnel wrote:
This two-spouted funnel is used to safely mix two alchemical splash weapons into a single flask. Using the vial requires 10 minutes and a DC 25 Craft (alchemy) check; a half-elf has a +5 bonus on this check. Failing the check means both splash weapon are destroyed. Success means the two materials are safely mixed into one vial that is the same volume as a normal splash weapon vial; when thrown as a splash weapon, the mixture has the effects of both component substances and creatures are affected as if hit by both. The mixture becomes inert after 24 hours. Only liquids may be mixed with the funnel. The bearer can use it to mix an alchemical splash weapon with either holy water or unholy water, but the Craft (alchemy) DC increases to 30; half-elves still get the +5 bonus on this check. The funnel does not work on potions, elixirs, extracts, or other materials. Mixing a substance with a similar or identical substance (such as alchemist’s fire with alchemist’s fire) has no effect. A mixture cannot be combined with another mixture.

With this, I would say you would get +int damage once as the focusing flask functions as 'a normal splash weapon'. There is some gray area as the following sentence talks about releasing "all of the contained splash weapons" but I would interpret that as a record of what went into it rather than remaining distinct. Also, you would not be able to combine multiple Shirley Temples (liked the example!) as a mixture cannot be combined with another mixture per the funnel description. Discussions of separate reservoirs within the focusing flask seems like that is stretching things a bit too far, imo. Plus, if that were the case there should be no problem with combining multiple types of alchemical items.

In regards to gluing several bottles together, I would treat it as a single improvised throwing weapon (+int damage once), and would definitely be looking at encumbrance to carry/throw and how it would be stored (safely).

Liberty's Edge 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't know why I engage in these sorts of threads anymore, to be honest. All it does is aggravate when you get some players who demand that things should work the way they want it to work, and then get close to insulting your intelligence or motivations for even trying to help with an answer.

That being said, the entire crux of my argument in this discussion, is that you shouldn't be able to get something EXTRA above and beyond what the rules allow you to get, just because you "thought it up."

As a GM, I do my best to make fair rulings, and allow players to do cinematic things with their characters. And if it really matters for their survival and they are grasping at straws, I may allow them to do some hinky stuff as long as they have some specific skill rolls and such. I always like to allow them to try something.

But as a general course of action, to build your character around creating more "power" by just "thinking up stuff that should work" is not a fair to other players or the GM. The rules exist for a reason, and anything you try to do, should try to make use of some rule or other within the game. Rather than making up your own rules based on what is realistic in the real world.

So in this case, gluing or tying splash weapons together, as a general strategy for a character, isn't going to fly at my table. In very rare and specific circumstances, as a creative solution for a very specific issue, to help the players and characters feel heroic and to advance the plot of the scenario forward, I may make some exceptions.

But in general, you can't get more power, ability, or capability, without some cost above and beyond the built in cost for an ability, power, capability or item.

Slam me for that if you wish. But I'm tired of guys like NN 959 being extremely derisive toward me, when I'm trying to help "think" through the rules that may apply to a situation.

Think about that for a second. I'm being hammered and nearly attacked for trying to "help" someone with a rules question.

I don't appreciate it, and that's why you see a lot of folks stop posting on the boards because of that general attitude toward anything that might disagree with what want.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:


That being said, the entire crux of my argument in this discussion, is that you shouldn't be able to get something EXTRA above and beyond what the rules allow you to get, just because you "thought it up."

I find that an odd statement. It's odd because I see GMs let players get stuff for free all the time. It all depends on whether what the players are trying to do coincides with that GMs arbitrary sense of fairness. I've seen GMs allow completely contrary uses of skills to do things there's no way the rules would allow it. I've seen GMs allow egregious encroachment on other skills/abilities, because that GM particularly liked the idea. So let's not pretend there is some universal rule about fairness and balance, because there isn't.

Quote:
As a GM, I do my best to make fair rulings, and allow players to do cinematic things with their characters.

I see,so if its cinematic, then it's okay, but if it's equally clever, only in a mechanical sense, then it should be shut down because you're suddenly getting something for free.

Quote:
But as a general course of action, to build your character around creating more "power" by just "thinking up stuff that should work" is not a fair to other players or the GM.

The guy is talking about glueing two flasks together. How is that building his character for more power? It's not like he's taking some feat or ability that gives him free glue. So the reality is that this violates your personal sense of how the game should be played and your associating this with trying to get more "power" reveals your mindset.

Quote:
Rather than making up your own rules based on what is realistic in the real world.

Right, because no PFS GM ever made a ruling based on how it works in RL. You know, you talk about insulting people's intelligence, and then you go an assume we're complete morons.

Quote:
So in this case, gluing or tying splash weapons together, as a general strategy for a character, isn't going to fly at my table. In very rare and specific circumstances, as a creative solution for a very specific issue, to help the players and characters feel heroic and to advance the plot of the scenario forward, I may make some exceptions.

I see. So completely arbitrary approach to allowing it. Person A wasn't doing it creatively, so you told them no, but Person B, you like her schtick and how she plays her character so you'll give her more leeway. Both players are doing the same thing, but you're all about how it's sold. Boy, that sounds fair.

Quote:
But in general, you can't get more power, ability, or capability, without some cost above and beyond the built in cost for an ability, power, capability or item.

PC's do this all the time. You just find a GM who uses the same trick or agrees it should be allowed.

Quote:
Think about that for a second. I'm being hammered and nearly attacked for trying to "help" someone with a rules question.

Uh, no. You weren't trying to help anyone. Your posts were all about how and why this should not be allowed.

Let's look at your very first post,

Andrew Christion wrote:
These weapons were balanced with the intention that you throw one at a time. Doing this smacks of gaining extra power without actually paying for it.

Using the term "smacks" is insulting and derogatory. There's nothing remotely helpful in your approach.

Later you try to back that up with some pseudo-rules post about Enlarge Person, intentionally omitting crucial facts about the spell. When you're called on that, you now try and play the victim.

[ranton]What is annoying about the responses of many of the GMs on subjects like this is that it reflects a fundamental flaw in this game. Spells and spell casters get away with bloody murder. Why? Because there is no RL or IC metric against which we can evaluate spells. Should the same spell really be able to clean your clothes and warm your drink? Should that spell really be available at 1st level? Who frickin knows. But what we absolutely can't have is a medium creature using Large sword one-handed, no matter how strong he or she is. That's just wrong.

Not too long ago, I saw a guy post about doing The Walking Rune on hard mode. He was doing with a group of casters. Well, they smoked it. Anyone know if an all martial party was able to smoke it? I'm sure someone will say it happened somewhere, but in every version of this game, casters over power the game. I've seen players with casters talk about holding back so as not to trivialize combat. Know any 6th level Fighters who have to hold back for fear of dominating the encounter? I don't. [/ranton]

Grant it, an Alchemist is certainly closer to the caster community rather than the marital. And I certainly do not want to see Alchemists being able to tie/glue several bombs together. But let's not kid ourselves about what's going on here. If something like this should not be allowed, then Paizo should come up with a valid reason. One that makes sense IC.

Let me leave you GMs with a rhetorical question - Why should GMs allow a spell like Charm Person to have a wide latitude of influencing an encounter outcome, but there's no way we'll let a player do anything creative to gain even +1 point of extra damage? Why can't there just as much latitude on inventive mechanics?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:


That being said, the entire crux of my argument in this discussion, is that you shouldn't be able to get something EXTRA above and beyond what the rules allow you to get, just because you "thought it up."

I find that an odd statement. It's odd because I see GMs let players get stuff for free all the time. It all depends on whether what the players are trying to do coincides with that GMs arbitrary sense of fairness. I've seen GMs allow completely contrary uses of skills to do things there's no way the rules would allow it. I've seen GMs allow egregious encroachment on other skills/abilities, because that GM particularly liked the idea. So let's not pretend there is some universal rule about fairness and balance, because there isn't.

Quote:
As a GM, I do my best to make fair rulings, and allow players to do cinematic things with their characters.

I see,so if its cinematic, then it's okay, but if it's equally clever, only in a mechanical sense, then it should be shut down because you're suddenly getting something for free.

Quote:
But as a general course of action, to build your character around creating more "power" by just "thinking up stuff that should work" is not a fair to other players or the GM.

The guy is talking about glueing two flasks together. How is that building his character for more power? It's not like he's taking some feat or ability that gives him free glue. So the reality is that this violates your personal sense of how the game should be played and your associating this with trying to get more "power" reveals your mindset.

Quote:
Rather than making up your own rules based on what is realistic in the real world.

Right, because no PFS GM ever made a ruling based on how it works in RL. You know, you talk about insulting people's intelligence, and then you go an assume we're complete morons.

Quote:
So in this case, gluing or tying splash weapons together, as a general strategy for a character, isn't going
...

I'm not going to argue with you about this. You don't allow people to have a friendly discussion about things and I'm done with your bullying attacks upon my intelligence.

Its guys like you that chase folks who just want to find out what other people think and come to a compromise, away from the boards.

1/5

nosig wrote:

Heck, by this logic I could just tie two (or more) maces together to increase damage output. Or heck, why stop at 2? The new terror weapon becomes 6 clubs roped together.

Your supposition isn't really logical from where I'm sitting.

1. A weapon does damage not solely because of its physical characteristics, but because of how it is used. The damage is based on proficiency with the weapon, as that weapon. I do 1d8 hitting you with the cutting edge of a longsword, not from hitting you with the flat side.

2. Two maces tied together would require proficiency in a new weapon. A person proficient in using one mace is not able to employ two maces tied together with the same proficiency that they employ one mace. The new weapon is/must be used as an improvised weapon.

3. A weapon used as an improvised weapon is generally going to be far less effective than when the weapon is used as it was intended.

4. Doubling the height, weight/mass/length, etc. of a weapon, does not double its effectiveness. Or rather, there is no rule or rules we can go by in Pathfinder to come away with such a conclusion.

The OP's suggestion is categorically different than what you're suggesting.

1. The PC has the Throw Anything ability. This makes the character automatically proficient at throwing two flasks as easy as throwing one. This is key. Because without this ability, we'd have to impose some major penalty on trying to throw a double flask.

2. The flask does not do damage based on its physical characteristics, it does them based on its mechanics: breaking on impact and the fluid contacting the target.

3. The Focusing Flask tells us that twice the liquid on the same target does twice the damage.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
. You don't allow people to have a friendly discussion about things and I'm done with your bullying attacks upon my intelligence.

You all but openly accusing the OP of power gaming. You do that from your very first post. I don't know what world you live in that you call this "friendly conversation." Next time try and be more civil at the start.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As the OP, I'll just go ahead and say that I felt no insult as a result of Andrew's contribution. Gaining excess power through certain uninhibited mechanics, even if entirely justifiable, is contrary to the PFS goals of providing a relatively balanced and reasonably consistent gameplay.

Items like the Hybridization Funnel and Focusing Funnel fortunately provide a legitimate Avenue for combining splash weapons, but even without them, adhering multiple vials together opens up a door to infinitely abusable damage. Quite simply, it should be banned under the context of an unspoken rule, like casters holding back with certain spells.

However, there is definitely reasonable concern from players in the case of GMs taking personal liberties when faced with unfamiliar mechanics. I've had plenty of perfectly legitimate characters made irrelevant because single attacks were deemed too powerful compared to other players, despite only ever being able to land a small number of hits in any given session.

I suppose what it may boil down to is, do you trust the players to help regulate the quality of gameplay, or do you expect the GM to be judge and jury? Obviously conventions need to be more strict because you get lots of people who aren't inclined to be team players or outright abuse the system for personal gratification and there is more at stake. At local games, the GMs should probably encourage and trust the players to actively engage with the community to ensure fair and enjoyable play. Let players keep a few tricks up their sleeves with the understanding that it is intended to be an exception, rather than a style. If there is repeat abuse, simply tell them that they risk missing out on gold, prestige, or experience by making the encounter too easy to qualify. (If GMs have that kind of control.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
These weapons were balanced with the intention that you throw one at a time. Doing this smacks of gaining extra power without actually paying for it.
You all but openly accusing the OP of power gaming. You do that from the very first post. I don't know what world you live in that you call this a "friendly conversation." Next time try and be more civil at the start.

So your opinion that my first post wasn't "friendly" enough, excuses you treating me like a class A jerk? By trying to shred my opinions and credibility and essentially impugning my intelligence? Heck, you do this no matter what I say or how I post sometimes. If you disagree with what I say, for whatever philosophical reason, you attack.

And I'm not the only one you do this to.

And yeah, trying to get more power, without paying some sort of cost for it, is trying to get more for nothing. That isn't power gaming, that's trying to bypass the rules just to do more.

You shouldn't be able to just do whatever you want, as a player, just because you thought it up. You need to have some rules precedence to back you up. Failing that, expect table variation.

But to straight up attack any opinions that don't agree with your own, is not ok.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about this. You don't allow people to have a friendly discussion about things and I'm done with your bullying attacks upon my intelligence.

Its guys like you that chase folks who just want to find out what other people think and come to a compromise, away from the boards.

This is unfair argument to toss out. These are boards are often context is misunderstood. You seem to make assumptions(correct or not) that this is an attack on you. It is still another opinion different then yours.

Someone challenging your views should be embraced as it gives you another side to think about. If you perceive them to be aggressive towards you then you are in your fair judgement to point it out.

From your posts I have an opinion you are an antagonistic DM, but I admit I could be horribly wrong. I would be extremely eager to play at your table because even if my assumptions are correct you still have brilliance behind your screen and I would love to steal the best of it when I DM(Infact I try to organize trips to Minnesota from Milwaukee to play at cons you are at because of you).

Here i am providing honest feedback for you to take or leave as you see fit. I am not trying to scare you from the board but create equal understanding for something we are both passionate about. I am sorry if mine or others words are caustic.

To all not let perceived attacks on the forums chase you away. It is silly. If you have are offended i suggest messaging them because if you are both here spending your free time discussing this game you both obviously have a passion for it and that is something to share to become friends. I am not perfect and I say wrong things and I do not intend to hurt or offend anyone. Lets talk, discuss, and let the poorly choosen words be assumed differently.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kjatan wrote:

As the OP, I'll just go ahead and say that I felt no insult as a result of Andrew's contribution. Gaining excess power through certain uninhibited mechanics, even if entirely justifiable, is contrary to the PFS goals of providing a relatively balanced and reasonably consistent gameplay.

Items like the Hybridization Funnel and Focusing Funnel fortunately provide a legitimate Avenue for combining splash weapons, but even without them, adhering multiple vials together opens up a door to infinitely abusable damage. Quite simply, it should be banned under the context of an unspoken rule, like casters holding back with certain spells.

However, there is definitely reasonable concern from players in the case of GMs taking personal liberties when faced with unfamiliar mechanics. I've had plenty of perfectly legitimate characters made irrelevant because single attacks were deemed too powerful compared to other players, despite only ever being able to land a small number of hits in any given session.

I suppose what it may boil down to is, do you trust the players to help regulate the quality of gameplay, or do you expect the GM to be judge and jury? Obviously conventions need to be more strict because you get lots of people who aren't inclined to be team players or outright abuse the system for personal gratification and there is more at stake. At local games, the GMs should probably encourage and trust the players to actively engage with the community to ensure fair and enjoyable play. Let players keep a few tricks up their sleeves with the understanding that it is intended to be an exception, rather than a style. If there is repeat abuse, simply tell them that they risk missing out on gold, prestige, or experience by making the encounter too easy to qualify. (If GMs have that kind of control.)

Thanks Kjatan. I appreciate that you did not take my comment as insult. It was certainly not meant that way.

I think the key here, is players being able to regulate themselves.

I've had tables full of power gamers and min-maxers, and had a fantastic time. They wanted me to try and pull out all the stops and use my best tactical genius to thwart them. They wanted to play the game as a strategic war game. So I obliged them. At least one or two encounters became somewhat challenging for them. Fortunately I enjoy that sort of exchange as a player or GM as well.

I've also had tables full of new folk just trying to learn the game, and so I pull back and try and help them along. I let things be cinematic so they each get to shine for a moment and enjoy that their character did something somewhat epic.

So exploits only really become a problem, when the player doesn't know how to regulate themselves to everyone else at the table. If they constantly are dominating game play, and everyone else is getting bored and not having fun, that's a problem. And the easiest way to take care of that so that you don't take too much time during what may be a limited time slot, is to just say no.

Is it really a huge issue to glue two alchemists flasks together and get 2d6 damage? No, not really.

But I'm going to make a slippery slope argument here.

When does it stop? If I allow 2 flasks, should I allow 3? 4?

This goes for any number of exploits people think up. And whether its just a creative mind trying to come up with a creative way to do more, or malicious attempt to thwart the rules, the end result is the same.

The rules have been bypassed for more power, with no cost involved. And when you start allowing that to happen, it really can snowball out of control, quickly.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
By trying to shred my opinions and credibility and essentially impugning my intelligence?

So pointing out that your logic is contradictory or that you're totally ignoring key elements of the discussion is attacking your intelligence and impugning your character?

This is s forum for discussion. If someone makes a post that I believe misrepresents the rules or encourages bad behavior/outcomes, then I'm completely within my right speak out against it. Anytime I make a post on a forum, I expect that the same will happen to me. I expect I may have to defend my opinions or analysis. I expect poor thinking or logic on my part will be exposed and I'll learn from it rather than attack the person who exposed me.

Quote:
And I'm not the only one you do this to.

You're right, if someone else posts contradictory logic, I will talk about how the logic doesn't work. Just like I did with nosig. It isn't personal.

Quote:
You shouldn't be able to just do whatever you want, as a player, just because you thought it up. You need to have some rules precedence to back you up. Failing that, expect table variation.

And you know what, you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want as a GM. If the rules allow it or do not specifically prohibit it, then you should allow it. That's actually written in to the D&D Game Master guide under the rubric of "permissive GMing". Is another 1d6 because of a glued flask going to ruin the game? I'm guessing no, but I could be wrong.

And yes, I already told the OP he should expect he won't be allowed to do this.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I'm not going to argue with you about this. You don't allow people to have a friendly discussion about things and I'm done with your bullying attacks upon my intelligence.

Its guys like you that chase folks who just want to find out what other people think and come to a compromise, away from the boards.

This is unfair argument to toss out. These are boards are often context is misunderstood. You seem to make assumptions(correct or not) that this is an attack on you. It is still another opinion different then yours.

Someone challenging your views should be embraced as it gives you another side to think about. If you perceive them to be aggressive towards you then you are in your fair judgement to point it out.

From your posts I have an opinion you are an antagonistic DM, but I admit I could be horribly wrong. I would be extremely eager to play at your table because even if my assumptions are correct you still have brilliance behind your screen and I would love to steal the best of it when I DM(Infact I try to organize trips to Minnesota from Milwaukee to play at cons you are at because of you).

Here i am providing honest feedback for you to take or leave as you see fit. I am not trying to scare you from the board but create equal understanding for something we are both passionate about. I am sorry if mine or others words are caustic.

To all not let perceived attacks on the forums chase you away. It is silly. If you have are offended i suggest messaging them because if you are both here spending your free time discussing this game you both obviously have a passion for it and that is something to share to become friends. I am not perfect and I say wrong things and I do not intend to hurt or offend anyone. Lets talk, discuss, and let the poorly choosen words be assumed differently.

I refer you to a very congenial discussion I had with Tabletop Giant regarding communicating with summoned creatures. We started with differing opinions, and through calm discussion and querying of eachother's opinions, came to what would have been a nice compromise should we have been at the same table.

1/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

But I'm going to make a slippery slope argument here.

When does it stop? If I allow 2 flasks, should I allow 3? 4?

That's a valid question. One I think PFS/Paizo should help us out with.

3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
stuff

here is where a DM can be creative. If a player wants to do something they would be physically capable of doing I allow them but at a caveat.

Well two of them glue together is a giant mass. So you need a full found action to throw it with both hands and it is at a -4. Well 5 of them well that's at a -20 with a range of 5 feet because it is so massive.

I allow players to do things not in the rules all the time but I balance it with something that makes sense as well.

I find unless your players are being unrealistic to let them.

Side story of me saying no:
A boat was chasing the PCs. SO the dumb paladin wanted to build a a catapult in the few minutes it would catch up to them. I asked if he had ranks in engineering. No. Ok you can try but you get the idea you have no idea what youa re doing. He says it is this simple as he take a pencil balances on a book and smacks the end of it. The pencil goes up in the air, backwards and lands on his head spiking him. Your 7 int paladin is not as smart as you and you hurt yourself doing it, what do you think will happen.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
N N 959 wrote:

And you know what, you shouldn't be able to do whatever you want as a GM. If the rules allow it or do not specifically prohibit it, then you should allow it. That's actually written in to the D&D Game Master guide under the rubric of "permissive GMing". Is another 1d6 because of a glued flask going to ruin the game? I'm guessing no, but I could be wrong.

And yes, I already told the OP he should expect he won't be allowed to do this.

There's no such book in Pathfinder, and so we can't use that in arguments regarding Pathfinder. If the Pathfinder Game Mastery Guide indicates similar statement, that's fine. But you can't reference a game system that we aren't even playing to support your argument about a game system we are playing.

And your comment about allowing something if the rules don't specifically prohibit it, doesn't really work well. Because you can make all sorts of ludicrous claims about "well the game doesn't say I can't do X so you have to allow it." And those are just that, ridiculous.

This is not an inclusive game. Its an exclusive game. The rules tell you what you can do, and how to do it. They do not cover every conceivable angle though. As a GM, you have to make a judgement about whether 1) you are going to allow something, 2) how you are going to allow something if the rules don't cover it, and 3) just how difficult such an action should be.

The rules don't say a horse can't climb a rope. But we all know its patently ridiculous, and as a GM I feel justified in disallowing that.

Does that mean its ridiculous to glue two flasks together? No. But there are no rules for doing this without the use of specific items created to, essentially, glue two flasks together.

But lets say I wanted to allow it anyways. I need to figure out how to allow it. Because just allowing it without some sort of cost (feat, item, monetary, etc.) is not being true to the game you are playing. The game does not allow a player to do whatever they want just because they thought it up. There needs to be some sort of cost for doing something the rules don't consider. Whether that's having to make a skill check, or buy some item, or take a feat when you reach the next odd level, or whatever.

In this case, as I proposed earlier, the cost would be a penalty to the throw or potentially the purchase of sovereign glue.

But my type of argument is the type you are going to receive at the table. Because a GM doesn't have time to research all the logic behind the rules set and the action the player wants to take, when they are sitting at the table trying to play the game. And it is not fair of the player to constantly make them do so.

The easiest response, in that case, is simply, "no."

I didn't say that, I tried to come up with some rules precedence. But rather than having a nice discussion about the rules, you attacked what I was trying to do, indicated I should just allow it, derided any GM who would say no (despite agreeing that most would), and so on.

So why did you attack my opinion so aggressively, when I was actually trying to present a rules argument that would lead to a permissive decision at the table?

EDIT: And for the record, I have never said I should be able to do whatever I want as a GM. That isn't how I GM either. Until you've sat at my table, I'd ask you to keep that kind of assertion to yourself.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
stuff

here is where a DM can be creative. If a player wants to do something they would be physically capable of doing I allow them but at a caveat.

Well two of them glue together is a giant mass. So you need a full found action to throw it with both hands and it is at a -4. Well 5 of them well that's at a -20 with a range of 5 feet because it is so massive.

I allow players to do things not in the rules all the time but I balance it with something that makes sense as well.

I find unless your players are being unrealistic to let them.

** spoiler omitted **

You'll note, that the rules precedence argument I was bringing up earlier in the thread, that NN 959 was trying to discredit aggressively, was my attempt at using rules precedence to be permissive.

I was trying to make a case, that a penalty, at the very least, would be required for trying to throw two flasks glued together.

So again, why try to discredit an opinion, that ultimately is trying to be permissive, but still stay true to the game rules being used?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

But I'm going to make a slippery slope argument here.

When does it stop? If I allow 2 flasks, should I allow 3? 4?

That's a valid question. One I think PFS/Paizo should help us out with.

But without that help, as a GM, I need to come up with a ruling at the table.

I have the rules to help me.

I have my version of common sense to help me.

I have my experience to help me.

I may have other players (or even the player in question) to help me.

I rarely just say, "no" at the table. I often try to find a way to let something happen by using the rules I do know. Wanna do something cool? Lets figure out how to make it happen. Quickly.

But if I have someone showing up at the table, and in the middle of a combat with several swarms that have Fire Resistance 10, suddenly say they are going to glue 3 alchemists flasks together to be able to thwart the resistance...

What would you do?

Paizo Employee 4/5 Developer

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 10 people marked this as a favorite.

Gluing two or more splash weapons together seems like it would deliver twice the pain. In fact, my first posts on paizo.com addressed a very similar question. As to whether this alchemical amalgam should deal extra damage depends on a couple of factors.

Physics: I'm sure there are some mechanical, ballistic, and physics-oriented explanations for why one flask might explode but another wouldn't. This is a good starting point for these discussions, but it's fair to say that in a world of heroic action and epic spellcasting, physics doesn't always work as we'd expect. Nonetheless, it's a good starting point and final sanity check.

The next couple fall under the umbrella of game balance.

Action Economy: What's the difference between throwing two glued acid flasks instead of two acid flasks separately? The first response that comes to mind is action economy—how much you get to do with each action. If someone's able to dish out twice as much punishment in the same amount of time, it raises questions of game balance and might make the less deadly character (and player) feel inept.

In the case of splash weapons, we have a pretty universal return on action investment: deal 1d6 damage with a touch attack and a standard action. If we're going to mess with that, it's usually through a class feature like the alchemist's bomb or Throw Anything (add Intelligence to damage) abilities.

Cost Efficiency: The next issue is action economy—almost literally how much bang you get for your buck. Typically the more damage you can dish out in a given amount of time, a) the more levels you had to gain in order to gain that power or b) the more gold you dished out to make it happen. If you take a look at many magic items, you'll see that the price tends to increase at an exponential rate as power grows rather than in a linear way. Were Paizo to publish a splash weapon called "super alchemist's fire," that dealt 5d6 damage, it would probably cost 300+ gp rather than the 100 gp (20 gp times 5) that it would take to purchase five flasks of alchemist's fire.

Precedent in Magic Items: In fact, Paizo has published a few things like that, including the hybridization funnel and the focusing flask. The higher cost of these items indicates the value of their improved action economy; you're throwing two or three splash weapons for the price of one [standard action].

Table variation: Know what, though? I do find the idea of gluing a few flasks together and performing some kind of mega attack rather amusing. This is the kind of thing that I'd be a lot more comfortable handling outside the organized play format because the player and GM could come to a consensus on how it would work. As it is, there are a lot of questions as to how it might scale. If gluing two together were to double the damage, would three triple it, or would I have to quadratically increase the number of flasks (four for 3d6, nine for 4d6, sixteen for 5d6)? Would I instead think, "Well, splashing with acid deals 1d6, and full immersion deals 10d6, so what percentage of this troll do I think eight flasks would cover?" Even once I came to that decision, what would the next GM you had decide? What if you had built your character around one GM's ruling only to see it crushed by another's?

Creative Solutions: The place I would see the glued-flask principle work best is under the Creative Solutions rule in Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide. Do we need a way to defeat an overwhelming foe (let's say it's a diminutive swarm)? Maybe tying a bunch of acid flasks together, lobbing the whole mess, and praying sounds like a pretty clever solution.

As a GM, I want to reward that kind of fun decision-making, and that once I'd probably let you deal more damage as a result. In fact, I'd probably say, "There's not a rule for throwing a whole barrel of acid at a swarm, but I'm going to rule that in this situation it'll do...4d6 acid damage. Sound good?" As the GM, I want to make your character feel like a rockstar but also convey to the player that this worked this time but shouldn't be something to rely on in the future—much in the same way that I would reward a barbarian who ties a table to himself and tries to fly-swatter-bodyslam that same swarm into submission.

Where to from Here?: I wouldn't bet on gluing flasks together dealing extra damage in the organized play setting, as you'll likely have at least a handful of different GMs over the character's career who rule in different ways on this strange circumstance. Maybe you don't care about that rules consistency and are happy to say, "[GM], my alchemist has glued five alchemist's fires together, so he pulls it out, lobs it, and hopes for the best. I've had GMs let me deal extra damage, and others have increased the splash radius. I'm not too concerned about the details, so however you want to rule this goes is fine by me." Just recognize that there is no established rule for gluing flasks together, and the GM is not obligated to provide your character any benefit for your efforts.

Were I the GM, I'd probably find a fun way for you to cause a little more pain and more than a little extra collateral damage to reward your gold expenditure—at least the first time or if you used it sparingly. I'm sure there are plenty of others who would be willing to facilitate your mayhem so long as you don't expect immense returns on this particular practice.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

This is so far outside of what the rules have already set out that you'll have trouble getting a consensus on rules. I think that in general creativity should be acknowledged, and that you definitely should be able to do things outside of the rule book.

However, when you choose to do that (just like when I choose to do it), the GM has the ultimate say. Bringing with you a set of rules that you've made yourself isn't going to make a GM happy to adjudicate things. If they ask for suggestions, go ahead and offer them, but telling a GM what do in a weird situation is just going to come off hostile/power-game-ing/choose-your-pejorative-term.

Some GMs may not want to handle it at all - I know I've told people not to spring stuff on me in PFS games because I know I'm not going to give a good ruling. If you know who your GM is going to be regularly-ish, this is a great thing to bring outside of the game. Maybe show them this thread if they want to see ideas. Otherwise, there's been some alchemical items identified that'll give you a similar result.

Sovereign Court 4/5 * Organized Play Coordinator


John has posted some clarification regarding legality in PFS play. In addition we're locking this thread, and in the future, please keep in mind our Community Guidelines—focus on discussing the issue at hand, not attacking the poster.

51 to 87 of 87 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Gluing Splash Weapons Together All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society