I like the hose wrangling mechanics idea, but my "realism" sense floods the shooter. If you allow the munition to deliver the flood to the target on impact with target, Dust of Dryness is uncommon, so expect the future of warfare in your game to get literally bogged down by this tactical innovation with things like sieges being resolved by waterball munitions producing let's call it "explosive liquefaction" and the like; and dust of dryness is your game world's uranium. Just came here to drop the puns.
This is a great example of why I really dislike the game's rarity system for magical items. It feels like no one understands what 'common' or 'uncommon' mean as words.
Again one does not need this work with a firearm to be an issue. It could be fired from a sling with negligible risk of breaking on launch. It could be dropped from the air. It could be dropped en masse.
Sure, but it wouldn't be a very effective form of warfare, because the item does no damage and has no negative effect other than making stuff wet.
Do you know what liquefaction is or where the word undermine comes from? Imagine this being used in siege scale weapons. It gives a whole elemental method to that sort of warfare. Rule of Cool needs to think through consequences of precedent. I find it entertaining so might try it out in a game world. It comes down to how you interpret the way the pellet renders the water. As mentioned elsewhere, 15 cubic feet of water is gonna have an impact if it's a magical "poof" effect.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I like the hose wrangling mechanics idea, but my "realism" sense floods the shooter. If you allow the munition to deliver the flood to the target on impact with target, Dust of Dryness is uncommon, so expect the future of warfare in your game to get literally bogged down by this tactical innovation with things like sieges being resolved by waterball munitions producing let's call it "explosive liquefaction" and the like; and dust of dryness is your game world's uranium. Just came here to drop the puns.
This is a great example of why I really dislike the game's rarity system for magical items. It feels like no one understands what 'common' or 'uncommon' mean as words.
Again one does not need this work with a firearm to be an issue. It could be fired from a sling with negligible risk of breaking on launch. It could be dropped from the air. It could be dropped en masse.
Sure, but it wouldn't be a very effective form of warfare, because the item does no damage and has no negative effect other than making stuff wet.
Do you know what liquefaction is or where the word undermine comes from? Imagine this being used in siege scale weapons. It gives a whole elemental method to that sort of warfare. Rule of Cool needs to think through consequences of precedent. I find it entertaining so might try it out in a game world. It comes down to how you interpret the way the pellet renders the water. As mentioned elsewhere, 15 cubic feet of water is gonna have an impact if it's a magical "poof" effect.
I have a Latin degree, so there's no need to condescend ;) Anyway, it's a magic item, which means it does what it says and doesn't do things it doesn't say. "Rule of Cool" is not meant to create massive leaps forward in military technology with relatively common availability. The item makes stuff wet. It doesn't explode. How a GM chooses to rationalize that is up to them; at the end of the day, it's literal magic.
I like the hose wrangling mechanics idea, but my "realism" sense floods the shooter. If you allow the munition to deliver the flood to the target on impact with target, Dust of Dryness is uncommon, so expect the future of warfare in your game to get literally bogged down by this tactical innovation with things like sieges being resolved by waterball munitions producing let's call it "explosive liquefaction" and the like; and dust of dryness is your game world's uranium. Just came here to drop the puns.
This is a great example of why I really dislike the game's rarity system for magical items. It feels like no one understands what 'common' or 'uncommon' mean as words.
Again one does not need this work with a firearm to be an issue. It could be fired from a sling with negligible risk of breaking on launch. It could be dropped from the air. It could be dropped en masse.
Sure, but it wouldn't be a very effective form of warfare, because the item does no damage and has no negative effect other than making stuff wet.
Do you know what liquefaction is or where the word undermine comes from? Imagine this being used in siege scale weapons. It gives a whole elemental method to that sort of warfare. Rule of Cool needs to think through consequences of precedent. I find it entertaining so might try it out in a game world. It comes down to how you interpret the way the pellet renders the water. As mentioned elsewhere, 15 cubic feet of water is gonna have an impact if it's a magical "poof" effect.
I have a Latin degree, so there's no need to condescend ;) Anyway, it's a magic item, which means it does what it says and doesn't do things it doesn't say. "Rule of Cool" is not meant to create massive leaps forward in military technology with relatively common availability. The item makes stuff wet. It doesn't explode. How a GM chooses to rationalize that is up to them; at the end of the day, it's literal magic.
Actually, the item concentrates water, possibly for storage or flash dessication, I thought Latin degree holders were careful readers ;). But when its RAW work is done, how does it "make stuff wet?" It doesn't discuss the delivery of water in any way, so is up to interpretation and those interpretations lead to ramifications, which is how this thread has evolved. This thread was "can we do this?" My point is "sure, but think of the ramifications" which I think might be fun to play with, though my "main game" would probably just have a soggy misfire. If you want to protect "common sense" or "simplicity's sake" you can, but there's nothing saying you must if you're willing to roll with the precedent the table's establishing. DMs have broad latitude to reward entertaining novel thinking at the edges of item descriptions, but also have to decide on consistency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've decided to "wade" back in this thread despite it being an argument no one can win, because there are inherent contradictions.
I'm not worried about firing water pellets becoming a staple of warfare. First, uncommon is uncommon. That means it's not that hard to find one, but you aren't going to be able to supply a whole army with one per soldier or per squad. Maybe one or a few per army. Second, rule of cool should require you to be moderately clever to find an effective use for it. I don't think you should allow it to work like a water cannon and topple things over from the impact or explode things from the inside as water erupts after penetration. The water emerges on impact and flows down from there. Clever usages might allow you to flood a basin of some sort. I especially like the idea of using the weight of the water to topple something. But if that becomes a military reality, everyone will just deploy shields in front of any concave basin so that the water falls harmlessly in front. Clever uses of magic items usually only work on people who aren't expecting them.
I also thought of a resolution for the assumption that the pellet breaks in the gun and explodes the barrel. The item description says nothing about how long it takes the pellet to release the water. Since it takes an action, it might be reasonable to assume it's between instant and 6 seconds. However, I think a DM has discretion to say it takes an action to initiate, but an amount of time proportional to the amount of water to release its contents. But even at 6 seconds, that's more than enough time for the pellet to exit the gun and reach its target.
Actually, the item concentrates water, possibly for storage or flash dessication, I thought Latin degree holders were careful readers ;).
Serious question, are you trying to be as rude as you possibly can be? The premise of the thread is that the item has already been used to absorb the water and is now being shattered to release water. If you're going to try to take cheap shots, at least be right about them.
But when its RAW work is done, how does it "make stuff wet?" It doesn't discuss the delivery of water in any way, so is up to interpretation and those interpretations lead to ramifications, which is how this thread has evolved. This thread was "can we do this?" My point is "sure, but think of the ramifications" which I think might be fun to play with, though my "main game" would probably just have a soggy misfire. If you want to protect "common sense" or "simplicity's sake" you can, but there's nothing saying you must if you're willing to roll with the precedent the table's establishing. DMs have broad latitude to reward entertaining novel thinking at the edges of item descriptions, but also have to decide on consistency.
The item description explains all of the RAW ramifications. The release of water doesn't do damage. The thread is about discussing reasonable ad hoc rulings ("Rule of Cool"); my point is that allowing these items to become incredibly effective siege weapons is not reasonable, because it's wildly inconsistent with what the game expects the item to be able to do.
Actually, the item concentrates water, possibly for storage or flash dessication, I thought Latin degree holders were careful readers ;).
Serious question, are you trying to be as rude as you possibly can be? The premise of the thread is that the item has already been used to absorb the water and is now being shattered to release water. If you're going to try to take cheap shots, at least be right about them.
But when its RAW work is done, how does it "make stuff wet?" It doesn't discuss the delivery of water in any way, so is up to interpretation and those interpretations lead to ramifications, which is how this thread has evolved. This thread was "can we do this?" My point is "sure, but think of the ramifications" which I think might be fun to play with, though my "main game" would probably just have a soggy misfire. If you want to protect "common sense" or "simplicity's sake" you can, but there's nothing saying you must if you're willing to roll with the precedent the table's establishing. DMs have broad latitude to reward entertaining novel thinking at the edges of item descriptions, but also have to decide on consistency.
The item description explains all of the RAW ramifications. The release of water doesn't do damage. The thread is about discussing reasonable ad hoc rulings ("Rule of Cool"); my point is that allowing these items to become incredibly effective siege weapons is not reasonable, because it's wildly inconsistent with what the game expects the item to be able to do.
I get the feeling you have me blocked, but I will try one more time. It is not merely 'the release of water.' It is the release of a massive amount of water. There is a difference
Nah bro, you're fine. I don't really want to argue about anything. You're more than welcome to feel that the lack of forethought on the part of the designers when they wrote this item is a valid reason to stretch the potential of said item from "one-shot a fire elemental" to "blast a giant hole in the walls of Helm's Deep." I've said my piece on the matter, we don't need to convince each other, and unlike some people, you haven't been a massive jerk in a way that makes me lose my sense of self-control.
I'm not going to argue size or weight, but if releasing the water knocked things down or caused damage, the item would say so. It only says:
Someone can use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed. Doing so ends that pellet's magic.
It doesn't say anything about the smasher needing to save vs falling down or taking damage from the sudden release of water.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I'm not going to argue size or weight, but if releasing the water knocked things down or caused damage, the item would say so. It only says:
Someone can use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed. Doing so ends that pellet's magic.
It doesn't say anything about the smasher needing to save vs falling down or taking damage from the sudden release of water.
That's a solid argument and suggests that when the pellet is crushed a 15 foot cube of water just poofs into existence in the nearest empty space. Now gravity would take effect after that and unless contained is going to spread over a huge area.
I'm surprised no one has linked to the Decanter of Endless Water yet. (If someone has, and I missed it, my apologies.)
The decanter is a perfect model for how a weaponized spout of water should behave mechanically. The Decanter focuses 30 gallons into a 30ft geyser, whereas the dust of dryness bead has vastly more.
Considering that both are uncommon items, and the Dust of Dryness has an average of 8 "charges:, treating a channeled hydroburst as a single-use geyser seems perfectly appropriate to me. Since the Dust of Dryness was never meant to be used this way, it's appropriate to assume a certain level of inefficiency.
The bead ruptures, a controlled geyser sprays forth, and the rest of the water just sprays wildly in every direction, soaking everything in a 30ft cone.
If you want to give it a small bump, you could have it act like the Catapult spell, wherein it would target the next creature in a line if the previous passed their save.
**snip**The decanter is a perfect model for how a weaponized spout of water should behave mechanically. The Decanter focuses 30 gallons into a 30ft geyser, whereas the dust of dryness bead has something like 112 gallons.**snip**
Dust of dryness is a 15 foot cube, not 15 cubic feet.
A 15 foot cube is 15'x15'x15' = 3375 cubic feet.
1 cubic feet of water is 7.48 gallons.
Therefore dust of dryness is 3375 cubic feet * 7.48 gallons/cubic foot = 25,245 gallons of water.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
***This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it***
I corrected myself shortly after posting. It's a whole lot of water, but the underlying point is that the bead of water is not designed to be used this way, so it would be less effective than an equivalent water cannon.
As soon as the jet of water leaves the barrel, it would expand into a spray of aerosolized pellets that would turn into a relatively harmless cone fairly quickly. An average musket takes 0.69in balls, whereas the average firehose has a 1.125in diameter nozzle, so the musket loses the benefit of larger caliber.
The in-game combat effects should be balanced against comparable magic items, while the absurd volume can be highlighted in other, non-gamebreaking, ways.
Ultimately, anything less than having the musket immediately explode and harm everyone in the immediate vicinity is DM mercy.
I'm surprised no one has linked to the Decanter of Endless Water yet. (If someone has, and I missed it, my apologies.)
The decanter is a perfect model for how a weaponized spout of water should behave mechanically. The Decanter focuses 30 gallons into a 30ft geyser, whereas the dust of dryness bead has vastly more.
This exactly.
The decanter specifies what it does and how much damage it does.
The dust doesn't say it causes damage or knocks anything anywhere. The water just appears. I would say if you put iit n a gun, you would be inside a cube of water like a gelatinous cube for a shot time, then it would wash away. No damage, no knocking. Because if it was meant to do damage or push anything the item would say so like the decanter.
Given the item description, one reasonable interpretation is that it doesn't "soak up" the water, but instead just transforms all water within a 15ft cube instantly into a pellet (as if by magic lol). Given that, it would not be unreasonable to say that a 15ft cube of water just instantly appears when it is shattered, regardless of any obstacles. So, if it shattered in a musket, there would suddenly be a 15ft cube of water, centred where the pellet was and surrounding the gun, character etc. The same if it broke when hitting a target. That way, you don't need to consider the effects of the water expanding, jets, pressure, etc.
If there is nothing containing that water, it would then collapse. A 15ft cube of water collapsing would be powerful, basically a flash flood. I might ask for saving throws for anyone within, say, 30ft (the radius of the circle which would contain a 1ft deep layer of water) or be knocked prone and pushed away from the centre.
If there was something to contain the water, like a room or a dungeon, the effects would need to be considered based on the situation. However, I could see people drowning.
I would say the attacked creature takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and then both the attacker and the attacked make Strength saving throws, the attacker with a lower DC, or be knocked prone.
Why use the attacker's Strength for a musket shot?
Because the explosion which would propel a bullet instead breaks the pellet, creating the effect of a fireman's hose, which by the way requires multiple people to hold on to because of its sheer water pressure.
I like the hose wrangling mechanics idea, but my "realism" sense floods the shooter. If you allow the munition to deliver the flood to the target on impact with target, Dust of Dryness is uncommon, so expect the future of warfare in your game to get literally bogged down by this tactical innovation with things like sieges being resolved by waterball munitions producing let's call it "explosive liquefaction" and the like; and dust of dryness is your game world's uranium. Just came here to drop the puns.
That kind of warfare innovation is a major plot driver in the setting actually. It's also a desert setting, with the major conflict over the only major source of freshwater in that half of the continent. Plus, it's the beginning of an industrial revolution, with one of the PCs building an industrial manufacturing center. The same PC was talking about mass producing the dust.
I would say the attacked creature takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and then both the attacker and the attacked make Strength saving throws, the attacker with a lower DC, or be knocked prone.
Why use the attacker's Strength for a musket shot?
Because the explosion which would propel a bullet instead breaks the pellet, creating the effect of a fireman's hose, which by the way requires multiple people to hold on to because of its sheer water pressure.
....ok, but why the attacker's Strength.
The attacker is trying to hold on to the weapon, which is going to be very difficult if a massive amount of water is shooting from it at high speed. As MilesToGo mentioned, it is like a firefighters' hose, and most have seen that it takes a team of strong, well-trained firefighters to control them.
I would say the attacked creature takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and then both the attacker and the attacked make Strength saving throws, the attacker with a lower DC, or be knocked prone.
Why use the attacker's Strength for a musket shot?
Because the explosion which would propel a bullet instead breaks the pellet, creating the effect of a fireman's hose, which by the way requires multiple people to hold on to because of its sheer water pressure.
....ok, but why the attacker's Strength.
It's a saving throw against the rush of water knocking him down. What else would you use?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The law of conservation of energy (and/or conservation of momentum) says that energy going in is equal to the energy coming out. Because this is explosive acceleration the energy when the pellet is fired has to be equal or greater to the energy the pellet has at impact (some will be lost to air resistance). Therefore, if the pellet has enough energy to break at impact it should have had enough energy to break at launch. (Note: this specifically applies to explosive acceleration, a more gradual acceleration like a sling might still work. This is the difference between hitting the gas until your car reaches 90 miles per hour vs loading it in a cannon with enough TNT to accelerate it to 90 miles per hour).
I think the "explosion" here comes less from the energy of the blackpowder and more from it impacting a surface at high speed and having nowhere to go. Its similar to real bullets. Theres huge explosive energy that fires the bullet, which since the bullet can travel down the barrel is converted to kinetic energy giving the bullet speed and momentum. When the bullet hits the target, its momentum is brought to a sudden stop and all of that kinetic energy is transferred. Usually this results in the bullet piercing its target as well as the bullet itself being bent/reshaped from the impact.
So, in this case as long as the pellet is sturdy enough to not immediately break from the blackpowder, then it should be propelled forward. Once it hits the target, the energy that propelled it is transformed into the energy damaging the target and the damage which could break its shell.
So, to me, it comes down to how fragile OP thinks a pellet is in this case.
Very fragile - Some of the explosive energy will probably break it before it has a chance to aquire any movement (thus explode in the barrel, probably causing significant kickback against the wielder and possibly breaking the rifle).
Sturdy - It will probably act like a normal bullet and some of the energy from impacting the target will break it at the target's position
Very Sturdy (imagine an adamantine bullet) - It will act like a bullet and be strong enough to transfer all of the energy to the target without breaking (i.e. nothing happens)
I would say the attacked creature takes 2d6 bludgeoning damage, and then both the attacker and the attacked make Strength saving throws, the attacker with a lower DC, or be knocked prone.
Why use the attacker's Strength for a musket shot?
Because the explosion which would propel a bullet instead breaks the pellet, creating the effect of a fireman's hose, which by the way requires multiple people to hold on to because of its sheer water pressure.
....ok, but why the attacker's Strength.
It's a saving throw against the rush of water knocking him down. What else would you use?
My error. I thought you meant the DC would be based on the attacker's STR, which wouldn't be a factor because the force is imparted from the item.
Do you know what liquefaction is or where the word undermine comes from? Imagine this being used in siege scale weapons. It gives a whole elemental method to that sort of warfare. Rule of Cool needs to think through consequences of precedent. I find it entertaining so might try it out in a game world. It comes down to how you interpret the way the pellet renders the water. As mentioned elsewhere, 15 cubic feet of water is gonna have an impact if it's a magical "poof" effect.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I have a Latin degree, so there's no need to condescend ;) Anyway, it's a magic item, which means it does what it says and doesn't do things it doesn't say. "Rule of Cool" is not meant to create massive leaps forward in military technology with relatively common availability. The item makes stuff wet. It doesn't explode. How a GM chooses to rationalize that is up to them; at the end of the day, it's literal magic.
Actually, the item concentrates water, possibly for storage or flash dessication, I thought Latin degree holders were careful readers ;). But when its RAW work is done, how does it "make stuff wet?" It doesn't discuss the delivery of water in any way, so is up to interpretation and those interpretations lead to ramifications, which is how this thread has evolved. This thread was "can we do this?" My point is "sure, but think of the ramifications" which I think might be fun to play with, though my "main game" would probably just have a soggy misfire. If you want to protect "common sense" or "simplicity's sake" you can, but there's nothing saying you must if you're willing to roll with the precedent the table's establishing. DMs have broad latitude to reward entertaining novel thinking at the edges of item descriptions, but also have to decide on consistency.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I've decided to "wade" back in this thread despite it being an argument no one can win, because there are inherent contradictions.
I'm not worried about firing water pellets becoming a staple of warfare. First, uncommon is uncommon. That means it's not that hard to find one, but you aren't going to be able to supply a whole army with one per soldier or per squad. Maybe one or a few per army. Second, rule of cool should require you to be moderately clever to find an effective use for it. I don't think you should allow it to work like a water cannon and topple things over from the impact or explode things from the inside as water erupts after penetration. The water emerges on impact and flows down from there. Clever usages might allow you to flood a basin of some sort. I especially like the idea of using the weight of the water to topple something. But if that becomes a military reality, everyone will just deploy shields in front of any concave basin so that the water falls harmlessly in front. Clever uses of magic items usually only work on people who aren't expecting them.
I also thought of a resolution for the assumption that the pellet breaks in the gun and explodes the barrel. The item description says nothing about how long it takes the pellet to release the water. Since it takes an action, it might be reasonable to assume it's between instant and 6 seconds. However, I think a DM has discretion to say it takes an action to initiate, but an amount of time proportional to the amount of water to release its contents. But even at 6 seconds, that's more than enough time for the pellet to exit the gun and reach its target.
Serious question, are you trying to be as rude as you possibly can be? The premise of the thread is that the item has already been used to absorb the water and is now being shattered to release water. If you're going to try to take cheap shots, at least be right about them.
The item description explains all of the RAW ramifications. The release of water doesn't do damage. The thread is about discussing reasonable ad hoc rulings ("Rule of Cool"); my point is that allowing these items to become incredibly effective siege weapons is not reasonable, because it's wildly inconsistent with what the game expects the item to be able to do.
Nah bro, you're fine. I don't really want to argue about anything. You're more than welcome to feel that the lack of forethought on the part of the designers when they wrote this item is a valid reason to stretch the potential of said item from "one-shot a fire elemental" to "blast a giant hole in the walls of Helm's Deep." I've said my piece on the matter, we don't need to convince each other, and unlike some people, you haven't been a massive jerk in a way that makes me lose my sense of self-control.
I'm not going to argue size or weight, but if releasing the water knocked things down or caused damage, the item would say so. It only says:
It doesn't say anything about the smasher needing to save vs falling down or taking damage from the sudden release of water.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
That's a solid argument and suggests that when the pellet is crushed a 15 foot cube of water just poofs into existence in the nearest empty space. Now gravity would take effect after that and unless contained is going to spread over a huge area.
***This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it***
Ahhhhh..... magic.
I'm surprised no one has linked to the Decanter of Endless Water yet. (If someone has, and I missed it, my apologies.)
The decanter is a perfect model for how a weaponized spout of water should behave mechanically. The Decanter focuses 30 gallons into a 30ft geyser, whereas the dust of dryness bead has vastly more.
Considering that both are uncommon items, and the Dust of Dryness has an average of 8 "charges:, treating a channeled hydroburst as a single-use geyser seems perfectly appropriate to me. Since the Dust of Dryness was never meant to be used this way, it's appropriate to assume a certain level of inefficiency.
The bead ruptures, a controlled geyser sprays forth, and the rest of the water just sprays wildly in every direction, soaking everything in a 30ft cone.
If you want to give it a small bump, you could have it act like the Catapult spell, wherein it would target the next creature in a line if the previous passed their save.
Dust of dryness is a 15 foot cube, not 15 cubic feet.
A 15 foot cube is 15'x15'x15' = 3375 cubic feet.
1 cubic feet of water is 7.48 gallons.
Therefore dust of dryness is 3375 cubic feet * 7.48 gallons/cubic foot = 25,245 gallons of water.
***This signature says something else when you aren't looking at it***
I corrected myself shortly after posting. It's a whole lot of water, but the underlying point is that the bead of water is not designed to be used this way, so it would be less effective than an equivalent water cannon.
As soon as the jet of water leaves the barrel, it would expand into a spray of aerosolized pellets that would turn into a relatively harmless cone fairly quickly. An average musket takes 0.69in balls, whereas the average firehose has a 1.125in diameter nozzle, so the musket loses the benefit of larger caliber.
The in-game combat effects should be balanced against comparable magic items, while the absurd volume can be highlighted in other, non-gamebreaking, ways.
Ultimately, anything less than having the musket immediately explode and harm everyone in the immediate vicinity is DM mercy.
This exactly.
The decanter specifies what it does and how much damage it does.
The dust doesn't say it causes damage or knocks anything anywhere. The water just appears. I would say if you put iit n a gun, you would be inside a cube of water like a gelatinous cube for a shot time, then it would wash away. No damage, no knocking. Because if it was meant to do damage or push anything the item would say so like the decanter.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I'll wade in here with an alternative PoV.
Given the item description, one reasonable interpretation is that it doesn't "soak up" the water, but instead just transforms all water within a 15ft cube instantly into a pellet (as if by magic lol). Given that, it would not be unreasonable to say that a 15ft cube of water just instantly appears when it is shattered, regardless of any obstacles. So, if it shattered in a musket, there would suddenly be a 15ft cube of water, centred where the pellet was and surrounding the gun, character etc. The same if it broke when hitting a target. That way, you don't need to consider the effects of the water expanding, jets, pressure, etc.
If there is nothing containing that water, it would then collapse. A 15ft cube of water collapsing would be powerful, basically a flash flood. I might ask for saving throws for anyone within, say, 30ft (the radius of the circle which would contain a 1ft deep layer of water) or be knocked prone and pushed away from the centre.
If there was something to contain the water, like a room or a dungeon, the effects would need to be considered based on the situation. However, I could see people drowning.
....ok, but why the attacker's Strength.
That kind of warfare innovation is a major plot driver in the setting actually. It's also a desert setting, with the major conflict over the only major source of freshwater in that half of the continent. Plus, it's the beginning of an industrial revolution, with one of the PCs building an industrial manufacturing center. The same PC was talking about mass producing the dust.
The attacker is trying to hold on to the weapon, which is going to be very difficult if a massive amount of water is shooting from it at high speed. As MilesToGo mentioned, it is like a firefighters' hose, and most have seen that it takes a team of strong, well-trained firefighters to control them.
It's a saving throw against the rush of water knocking him down. What else would you use?
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
"whereupon an amount of fresh water or salt water (your choice) pours out of the flask."
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I think the "explosion" here comes less from the energy of the blackpowder and more from it impacting a surface at high speed and having nowhere to go. Its similar to real bullets. Theres huge explosive energy that fires the bullet, which since the bullet can travel down the barrel is converted to kinetic energy giving the bullet speed and momentum. When the bullet hits the target, its momentum is brought to a sudden stop and all of that kinetic energy is transferred. Usually this results in the bullet piercing its target as well as the bullet itself being bent/reshaped from the impact.
So, in this case as long as the pellet is sturdy enough to not immediately break from the blackpowder, then it should be propelled forward. Once it hits the target, the energy that propelled it is transformed into the energy damaging the target and the damage which could break its shell.
So, to me, it comes down to how fragile OP thinks a pellet is in this case.
Very fragile - Some of the explosive energy will probably break it before it has a chance to aquire any movement (thus explode in the barrel, probably causing significant kickback against the wielder and possibly breaking the rifle).
Sturdy - It will probably act like a normal bullet and some of the energy from impacting the target will break it at the target's position
Very Sturdy (imagine an adamantine bullet) - It will act like a bullet and be strong enough to transfer all of the energy to the target without breaking (i.e. nothing happens)
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
My error. I thought you meant the DC would be based on the attacker's STR, which wouldn't be a factor because the force is imparted from the item.