ok then, use that as your real life experiment then. Open up a brand new can of paint. Now have a friend who is standing 3 inches away from you attempt to dodge while you try to splash some paint on him and let us all know if he was successful in fully dodging it.
Your first paragraph there is disingenous. Most hostile creatures capable of holding a can of paint or an oil flask are not capable of getting 3 inches or even 12 inches from you to attack with an improvised weapon. The general 5 foot reach exists for a reason. It's not super hard to dodge something clunky like a paint can being thrown from five feet away, esp. if you are expecting it.
Ok, now you are just arguing against common sense just for the sake of it. There are two ranges mentioned. WITHIN 5 feet, and between 5 and 20 feet. The word "within" is pretty well defined in common language. For example, you could even be GRAPPLED with an enemy and then decide to take this action against them. In which case you are exactly 0 feet away from them (still within 5 feet). Sure, if you play it out on a grid you might still give each creature their own grid square, but that doesn't mean that melee is always happening exactly 5 feet away from someone -- it's WITHIN 5 feet.
And nobody said anything about throwing a can of paint at anybody -- that would be handled under the 2nd case of an enemy being more than 5 feet away and up to 20 feet and that WOULD require an attack roll obviously. At close range, we are talking about SPLASHING the liquid onto an enemy. Please reread the description if you are still not getting that concept. It's like holding an open water bottle or paint can and then thrusting your arm forward such that a small portion of the liquid inside SPLASHES onto the creature. Getting hit by at least a little bit of it would be pretty obviously unavoidable. Note that according to my interpretation of that action being an auto-success, the obvious follow up is . . . and so what? No damage has been done. No adverse affect has occurred. No "condition" has been inflicted upon the enemy. An entire action was just spent to . . . splash someone. To make any use of this, an entire additional action would have to be taken, almost certainly THEN requiring an attack roll or saving throw effect, to ignite the liquid to cause a small amount of bonus damage. All of this makes perfect common sense. But ok, keep requiring double natural 20s just to splash someone at point blank range in your games, because that somehow makes more sense . . .
ok then, use that as your real life experiment then. Open up a brand new can of paint. Now have a friend who is standing 3 inches away from you attempt to dodge while you try to splash some paint on him and let us all know if he was successful in fully dodging it.
Your first paragraph there is disingenous. Most hostile creatures capable of holding a can of paint or an oil flask are not capable of getting 3 inches or even 12 inches from you to attack with an improvised weapon. The general 5 foot reach exists for a reason. It's not super hard to dodge something clunky like a paint can being thrown from five feet away, esp. if you are expecting it.
Ok, now you are just arguing against common sense just for the sake of it. There are two ranges mentioned. WITHIN 5 feet, and between 5 and 20 feet. The word "within" is pretty well defined in common language. For example, you could even be GRAPPLED with an enemy and then decide to take this action against them. In which case you are exactly 0 feet away from them (still within 5 feet). Sure, if you play it out on a grid you might still give each creature their own grid square, but that doesn't mean that melee is always happening exactly 5 feet away from someone -- it's WITHIN 5 feet.
And nobody said anything about throwing a can of paint at anybody -- that would be handled under the 2nd case of an enemy being more than 5 feet away and up to 20 feet and that WOULD require an attack roll obviously. At close range, we are talking about SPLASHING the liquid onto an enemy. Please reread the description if you are still not getting that concept. It's like holding an open water bottle or paint can and then thrusting your arm forward such that a small portion of the liquid inside SPLASHES onto the creature. Getting hit by at least a little bit of it would be pretty obviously unavoidable. Note that according to my interpretation of that action being an auto-success, the obvious follow up is . . . and so what? No damage has been done. No adverse affect has occurred. No "condition" has been inflicted upon the enemy. An entire action was just spent to . . . splash someone. To make any use of this, an entire additional action would have to be taken, almost certainly THEN requiring an attack roll or saving throw effect, to ignite the liquid to cause a small amount of bonus damage. All of this makes perfect common sense. But ok, keep requiring double natural 20s just to splash someone at point blank range in your games, because that somehow makes more sense . . .
Do you think it would be very easy to hit somebody with a mace or flail while within 0 inches of them? Probably not. Therefore, the only logic conclusion is that all maces and flails have disadvantage on all attacks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
So, if the dude right next to me happens to be wearing some really nice armor and has an AC above 20, I would have to roll a natural 20. TWICE. To splash any oil on him.
Not quite. You add your dexterity modifier. So best case scenario you only need to roll a 15 twice.
This is a good point. Sometimes a character will have a useful Dex modifier. And yet, sometimes they won't.
Also, I stand corrected about the bit with the "once per turn". I guess that this does come up here and there in 5e and the phrase "once per turn" has been accepted to mean once on any creature's turn. I honestly believe that a great many instances of seeing this wording throughout 5e is simply the result of slopping writing and was not actually intended to function in this way, but RAW there's no way to determine that so it is what it is.
"While the potential damage across a full ten rounds is high, most fights don't last even close to that . . ."
This notion is irrelevant. You're suggesting that the bonus damage should recur over and over and over and over again, likely for the entire battle. Such an interpretation is just way overpowered in this case. If it was meant to work that way, it would be spelled out as such. Since you mentioned Heat Metal, let's have a look at that:
Requires burning a 2nd level spell slot and holding concentration and:
Any creature in physical contact with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus action on each of your subsequent turns to cause this damage again.
The oil flask description doesn't have ANY wording like this that would indicate ongoing damage when splashed or thrown onto a creature. However, in the description of the last option for using the oil flask, pouring it onto the ground, it is explicitly spelled out that it's supposed to work differently. It says:
If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds
So, not one round and done, but explicitly 2 rounds in this case.
In response to: " . . . it already gives an explicit duration of 1 minute for the ranged attack . . . "
No. It gives nothing of the sort. The 1 minute in the description refers to how much time you have to LIGHT the oil on fire. If you splash oil onto an enemy and then hit it with fire damage 3 weeks later, the oil does nothing, there would be no bonus damage. The 1 minute has absolutely nothing to do with ongoing damage after the oil is lit.
The "once per turn" only refers to the area damage while the oil on the ground is burning. When oil has splashed onto a creature it is used up after the first instance of the bonus damage. So, only one single scorching ray during the entire battle will result in bonus damage from one flask of oil. If you wanted to get bonus damage from a 2nd scorching ray, you'd have to hit the creature with another flask of oil first.
Just a quick note about comparing with the similar description for the vial of acid -- In the case of the acid, damage is being dealt to the creature immediately upon splashing acid or breaking the vial onto the creature, unlike what happens when you splash a creature with oil. Further, it makes some logical sense that you might splash some acid onto somebody but it simply gets a little bit onto their clothes or onto their shield or armor and therefore doesn't actually damage the creature. This can be abstracted as a "miss" on an attack roll. So it would make sense for splashing acid to require an attack roll but for splashing oil to be an auto-success even though it sort of seems like a similar action.
It's been fun debating with you guys about the mechanics of a silly item that should probably never be used in battle. I've decided what I think is the best ruling. I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. Hopefully the next version of the game is more carefully written.
The oil flask description doesn't have ANY wording like this that would indicate ongoing damage when splashed or thrown onto a creature.
It literally does; it says 1 minute in the description, so it lasts for 1 minute, there is no ambiguity there.
In response to: " . . . it already gives an explicit duration of 1 minute for the ranged attack . . . "
No. It gives nothing of the sort. The 1 minute in the description refers to how much time you have to LIGHT the oil on fire. If you splash oil onto an enemy and then hit it with fire damage 3 weeks later, the oil does nothing, there would be no bonus damage. The 1 minute has absolutely nothing to do with ongoing damage after the oil is lit.
Again it literally says this; I've already quoted the entire text of the oil (flask) item, but here's the relevant part:
On a hit, the target is covered in oil. If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil.
This is not ambiguous; the 1 minute duration only applies to the ranged attack, because it refers to the same target you just hit. It makes no mention of the damage only occurring once and then no more, literally all it says is that it must take fire damage before the oil dries, and the oil drying takes 1 minute, ergo 1 minute duration for the effect.
The two round limit does not apply to the ranged attack, because it's mentioned only within the description of how the area effect works, and that's for explicitly lighting the entire puddle of oil on fire, rather than splashing it on someone and seeing what happens.
The "once per turn" only refers to the area damage while the oil on the ground is burning. When oil has splashed onto a creature it is used up after the first instance of the bonus damage.
Reference to the actual rules please, because they make no mention whatsoever to the damage only applying once. It says "if the target takes any fire damage" not "the first time (or next time) the target takes fire damage" or similar.
You'll find no disagreement that it's a poorly worded item that requires reworking, but this is the current text of the item, so that's how it works; it doesn't matter if you don't like how strong it can potentially be (again, it's not an item you can guarantee success with, so it takes work to fully utilise), because personal feelings don't change what the text says.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yes, I can see that you really want the item to work that way. But personal feelings don't change what the text says.
This is not ambiguous
Obviously that's wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading it incorrectly.
The 1 minute in the description refers to a window of opportunity to light the oil on fire. If you try to light the oil on fire after it has dried, there is no effect. It has nothing to do with duration or repeat uses.
" . . . literally all it says is that it must take fire damage before the oil dries, and the oil drying takes 1 minute, . . . "
Yes, that's correct.
" . . . ergo 1 minute duration for the effect."
No. That is incorrect. I can see why you think it says this, but it doesn't.
If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil.
This is a consumable item. After splashing a creature the flask is empty and the creature has some droplets of wet oil on it. This oil remains wet for 1 minute. During this time, if the creature takes any fire damage, the oil burns up and the creature takes a single 5 bonus fire damage. When this happens, the oil does not revert back to being untouched and wet. The oil has burned. It is no longer wet. We know that it burns because it says:
the burning oil.
Nothing additional is mentioned in that section. The oil has burned. HOWEVER, in the last section, an exception is made explicitly. In that case, you have used the item to create a large puddle of oil on the ground. Therefore, when lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds. We know this because it says:
If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds
In case it matters just for context, this has always been a relatively weak item. You can experience how it was implemented in old-school Gold Box computer games that were based on an old version of the game rules or just go back and review how those rules have evolved over time -- it's actually been nerfed over the years. Here's an interesting article on the topic:
Obviously that's wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading it incorrectly.
Just because you don't want it to function the way I'm pointing out does not mean that I am reading it "incorrectly"; I've literally quoted the exact wording multiple times, I'm not referring to anything invented or assumed here.
During this time, if the creature takes any fire damage, the oil burns up and the creature takes a single 5 bonus fire damage.
The word "an" in the rule only limits the bonus for a single source of fire damage, it says nothing whatsoever about multiple sources of fire damage, nor does it state that the oil is now gone or that the effect cannot be repeated. You are inventing detail here that simply does not exist in the rule.
HOWEVER, in the last section, an exception is made explicitly. In that case, you have used the item to create a large puddle of oil on the ground. Therefore, when lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds. We know this because it says:
If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds
You're omitting the rest of the text:
If lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds and deals 5 fire damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area.
Because this is a condition that is applied to the area version of the effect. You could try to argue that the area damage is secondary and the first part applies to both, but we have no reason to assume that when it's grouped with the area effect use-case; even the once per turn condition is unclear on which case(s) it actually applies to. Even if you argued that position however, it refers to the oil being lit, while the ranged attack version does not. While it's not unreasonable to assume that fire damage could light the oil, what does it do in the ranged case? The item doesn't say, it only says that "burning oil" does an extra 5 damage, but is all of the oil now alight (if so, what does that actually mean? Again it doesn't say). Increasing the ambiguity doesn't support that position any better.
Or are you now proposing that dousing the ranged target with oil and then hitting it with fire also triggers the area effect (i.e- once hit with fire damage, the target is now in an area of burning oil as well, that area just happens to be on them)? That might have been a better way to structure the rule, it might even be what was intended, but that's not what the item's description currently says.
What's perhaps strangest about the item is that it exists as anything more than simple fuel; we have rules for improvising weapons and damage that could handle it, all we're really missing is a generic "splash" weapon. Beyond that oil is just a flammable substance, so it could add fire damage whereas acid would do acid damage on its own etc. Hopefully OneD&D can improve this along with overhauling equipment in general, it's long overdue, but for now we're stuck with the wording as it is.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You bring up some good points about the poor wording and also some interesting complications.
As for whether or not the splash effect and the area effect could affect a creature at the same time -- I would rule that it would take two different flasks of oil to do that. Example, character A uses his action to splash a monster with flask A (in my interpretation this is an auto-success). Then, character B pours the contents of flask B onto the floor surrounding the monster. Lastly, character C would have to light both of these oils at the same time, perhaps with a Fireball spell (a DM would have to rule that the Fireball spell actually does light the oil that's sitting in a puddle on the floor, but it seems logical that it would). So now, the monster is on fire and the area that it's standing in is on fire. In that case, I think that you could apply 10 points of bonus damage to the creature -- 5 from 2 separate sources. The only gotcha with this that I can see goes back to a question that I had a long time ago about the wording of WHEN to apply the area damage to a monster when the area has just been lit. The wording says "damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area" but technically I'm not sure if a monster who is already somewhere when the area is first lit would count as "enters the area" or not.
Anyways, I wasn't trying to add any ambiguity. I'll try to summarize my interpretation:
You have 3 options to use the (consumable) flask of oil as an item in battle (all requiring a full action):
1) splash the oil onto a creature at melee range (auto-success) (does nothing yet)
2) throw the flask at a target creature or object at medium range in an attempt to shatter it and cover the target in oil (requires an attack roll) (does improvised weapon projectile damage, but nothing else yet)
-- In both cases, the creature has a thin layer of oil sticking to it and it has begun to dry. Once dried, it cannot be lit. If lit, the oil burns up and is fully consumed upon giving 5 bonus fire damage.
3) pour the contents of the flask of oil onto the ground to create a thick puddle. This puddle takes a lot longer to dry (unspecified) and if lit, it is able to continue burning for 2 rounds before being fully consumed.
Let me just invent another real life example to explain my logic. Picture a sunny day in the summer and you are at a pool party wearing nothing but a bathing suit. Someone walks up to you and splashes water on you. Your skin feels pretty wet, but after standing out in the sun for a minute this water has dried (evaporated). A few minutes later someone throws a water balloon at you -- it successfully bursts and covers your shoulders and back in water. But again, after standing out in the sun for a minute this water has dried. Lastly, someone pours the entire contents of a water bottle at your feet onto the pool deck, creating a puddle of water. This water does not fully dry in one minute, maybe it takes 5 or 10 minutes, who knows? But it's a substantial enough collection of water such that it takes twice as long to cause it to evaporate with a hair dryer than in the first two cases where some water was just dripping down your skin.
So, that's why I think that it works that way. There's nothing in the description to refute this interpretation but I also recognize that it isn't fully spelled out either.
I recognize that the text could be interpreted a few different ways -- that's unfortunate. I guess if someone actually tries to use this item in their games the DM will just have to make a decision in the moment.
1) splash the oil onto a creature at melee range (auto-success) (does nothing yet)
There's no reason to assume the 5 foot splash is automatic; whether you're throwing only the oil itself, or the entire flask, both are ranged attacks. You need to roll to hit for both ranges, because hitting is what triggers the rest of the effect (the 1 minute duration and 5 bonus fire damage).
If you were to interpret this item has having a third automatic melee range variation then it wouldn't actually do anything; if it never rolls an attack then it never hits, and the condition of the effect is "on a hit".
2) throw the flask at a target creature or object at medium range in an attempt to shatter it and cover the target in oil (requires an attack roll) (does improvised weapon projectile damage, but nothing else yet)
While a DM is free to have the flask deal damage on impact, this isn't guaranteed as attacks don't need to deal direct damage; they could just as easily rule the impact does no meaningful damage, and that applying the oil is the only effect.
-- In both cases, the creature has a thin layer of oil sticking to it and it has begun to dry. Once dried, it cannot be lit. If lit, the oil burns up and is fully consumed upon giving 5 bonus fire damage.
The text of the item says nothing about the oil being consumed; again, you're inventing detail that isn't there. All we're told is that the oil dries after one minute, giving us a 1 minute duration; it says nothing else about the effect ending.
So, that's why I think that it works that way. There's nothing in the description to refute this interpretation but I also recognize that it isn't fully spelled out either.
I don't disagree with the different timings; the ranged attack definitely has a 1 minute duration, and the area effect definitely ends two rounds after being triggered, I don't think either of these are ambiguous. My problem is with the idea that the oil is somehow fully consumed when the ranged attack effect is triggered; there's no text in the item to support that interpretation.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Prolonged disagreements over what is and is not ambiguous are counterproductive because ambiguity requires personal perception, and that means it's always going to be at least a little bit subjective. All I can say is that it isn't ambiguous to me.
The text of the item says nothing about the oil being consumed; again, you're inventing detail that isn't there. All we're told is that the oil dries after one minute, giving us a 1 minute duration; it says nothing else about the effect ending.
If the oil drying does not end the effect, how is it relevant at all and why is there a 1 minute duration?
I think you may be confusing my point, or what I was replying to? There is absolutely a 1 minute duration, that part isn't ambiguous:
If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil.
So for the extra fire damage to occur the target must take fire damage "before the oil dries" which is explicitly given as happening after 1 minute. Once the oil dries, no extra damage can occur.
However up2ng was asserting the extra fire damage only occurs once because the oil is consumed, but I see no text to support that; as far as rules as written you could trigger the bonus damage multiple times up to a maximum of once per turn, until the oil dries.
Also, if it is merely 'dry' could water reactivate it? If not, why not?
Safe to say, the meaning of 'dry' in this context is 'evaporated,' i.e. gone.
I think that's reasonable; mechanically it being dry has no specific way to reverse it, all you can do is apply more oil.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
1) splash the oil onto a creature at melee range (auto-success) (does nothing yet)
There's no reason to assume the 5 foot splash is automatic; whether you're throwing only the oil itself, or the entire flask, both are ranged attacks. You need to roll to hit for both ranges, because hitting is what triggers the rest of the effect (the 1 minute duration and 5 bonus fire damage).
If you were to interpret this item has having a third automatic melee range variation then it wouldn't actually do anything; if it never rolls an attack then it never hits, and the condition of the effect is "on a hit".
I recognize that there are multiple ways to read that first section, but there are actually lots of reasons to assume the 5 foot splash is automatic as has been explained already throughout this thread.
-- Multiple real life examples have been given to demonstrate that the splash effect is virtually impossible to dodge or effectively parry.
-- It's an action that's specifically limited to within 5 feet which is typically considered to be melee, not at range.
-- It already requires a full action to basically do nothing. Requiring an attack roll (regardless of disadvantage or no disadvantage) would be clearly "too bad to be true" as pointed out earlier in the thread.
-- The splashing activity is not implied to be an attack, it simply says "as an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature . . ."
-- Compare the wording against the acid attack, which says: "In either case, make a ranged attack . . . " It does NOT say that in the description of the oil flask. There are reasons for this:
-- The acid does damage as soon as it's splashed, the oil does not. So, for game balance, it works differently.
-- The acid "missing" where the oil does not can be easily abstracted. The acid could get only onto clothing or armor and shield where it does no damage to the creature. The acid damage could be weak enough that it is resisted this time by the creature. Not enough droplets of acid got onto the creature to effectively deal any damage and so on. None of this would apply to the oil, which does no damage anyway but instead is simply resulting in covering the creature in oil.
-- The text says that you can splash the enemy OR if you are too far away to do that you could attempt to throw the flask at it if desired.
The way that I am reading this, it's one OR the other. Melee OR ranged. Only the ranged option goes on to describe how an attack roll is needed. Again, compare to the acid item which specifically says "In either case, make a ranged attack". So, we could ignore all of this evidence and assume that the splashing activity from within melee distance requires a ranged attack roll as you've said. Or we could read it another way, which is that the sentence regarding making a ranged attack roll applies only to the . . . ranged attack. In my opinion, common sense dictates the latter.
whether you're throwing only the oil itself, or the entire flask, both are ranged attacks.
You are making an assumption that is not in the text. As explained above, I believe that this is wrong. Now, here I will have to admit that there was a tweet by JC at some point that gave the opinion that you've made above and I know that for many people this weakens my argument on this point. But JC was wrong this time. He may have mixed it up with the acid attack, who knows?
hitting is what triggers the rest of the effect (the 1 minute duration and 5 bonus fire damage).
So, there are multiple things wrong with this statement. Hitting is not required unless you are making an attack. As explained above, my interpretation of the splashing activity from point blank range is not an attack, it's just something that you can do.
Secondly, there is no 1 minute duration. The 1 minute refers to a window of opportunity to ignite the oil.
Third, covering the creature in oil has nothing to do with "triggering" 5 bonus fire damage. Covering the creature in oil only covers the creature in oil. That's it. Nothing else is triggered. The 5 bonus fire damage is only applied when the oil is lit on fire.
If you were to interpret this item has having a third automatic melee range variation then it wouldn't actually do anything; if it never rolls an attack then it never hits, and the condition of the effect is "on a hit".
Incorrect. The "on a hit" portion of the description is simply explaining what happens when the clay flask shatters upon impact. When the flask shatters (on a hit), the oil that was inside of the flask now spills out of it and "the target is covered in oil". The melee splashing activity already doesn't really do anything, but not in the way that you are thinking. It DOES splash oil onto a creature. It just doesn't do anything else:
As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature
As for the next comment:
While a DM is free to have the flask deal damage on impact, this isn't guaranteed as attacks don't need to deal direct damage; they could just as easily rule the impact does no meaningful damage, and that applying the oil is the only effect.
I agree with this. A lot of DMs probably would rule that way. I like the idea of adding the impact damage for a few reasons. Mostly, it's a nice way of balancing the really detrimental fact that you have to roll a low percentage attack roll (without proficiency) just to . . . do basically nothing. In addition, there are a bunch of clues in the description to support such damage, such as:
Oil usually comes in a clay flask . . . throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact . . . treating the oil as an improvised weapon.
When the description then follows up with "On a hit, the target is covered in oil", it does not necessarily mean that that's ALL that happens on a hit. It means that a hit does what it normally does, which is typically to cause damage, and in addition to that, specifically in the case of this item, the target is [also] covered in oil. Now, I know how much you hate it when reading between the lines is required and not every little thing is completely spelled out, but that's how the entire rule book is written. Things are assumed to work a certain way throughout the entire rule book until there is an exception which is then explicitly detailed. For example, a consumable item is assumed to be consumed everywhere in the rule book, UNLESS it EXPLICITLY says otherwise. There are countless examples of this all over the place. Which brings us to:
The text of the item says nothing about the oil being consumed; again, you're inventing detail that isn't there. All we're told is that the oil dries after one minute, giving us a 1 minute duration; it says nothing else about the effect ending.
This is how consumable items work. They are consumed. I've already shown you a history of how the oil flask has always worked since the 1970s. I get that that's not an argument in and of itself for determining 5e RAW, but context is helpful in interpreting text that might have multiple interpretations. It has always been assumed to burn and fully consume in one round except for the times when it explicitly lasts for exactly 2 or exactly 3 rounds. This has persisted with this item for decades.
Jumping from the oil drying in 1 minute to "giving us a 1 minute duration" is becoming exhausting to keep explaining why that's wrong. The 1 minute refers to a window of opportunity to light the oil on fire, otherwise it will simply have no effect. It has nothing to do with its ability to remain totally unchanged AFTER it has been SET ON FIRE. Of all the points that you keep making, this one is particularly annoying. There is NO WAY that this item works that way.
the ranged attack definitely has a 1 minute duration
No. It does not.
My problem is with the idea that the oil is somehow fully consumed when the ranged attack effect is triggered; there's no text in the item to support that interpretation
It's true that this isn't spelled out very well. You have to read between the lines a little bit to understand it. The text says this:
If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil.
First, from grammar class, we know that a parenthetical expression can be removed without destroying the meaning of a sentence. So, we can rewrite the text like this:
"If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil."
Now, the reason why there is "burning oil" is because there was fire damage. Without the fire, the oil is not burning, it is wet (it is assumed that it is wet before it dries). However, if it is burning, it is no longer wet. It is burning. Not wet. Burning. It was wet, then there was fire, now it is burning. Because the oil is burning, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage.
The other thing to realize is that when the text says "if the target takes any fire damage", the word "any" simply means "more than 0" in this case. Thus, the text could be rewritten again like this:
"if the target takes at least 1 point of fire damage before the oil dries, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil."
I mean, it's abundantly clear to me what's going on with that sentence but if you're still not seeing it then there's just not much more to say about it I guess.
I do apologize if my tone in this post was poor, this discussion has become frustrating. I guess that means I should just let it go at this point and encourage DMs to rule however they wish to rule on this matter. If you feel like you have to have the last word on this discussion then so be it.
Yeah I'm not wasting any more of my time on this if you're just going to keep inventing text that isn't on the item.
At present we have one interpretation that sticks entirely to the text of the item itself, and which Jeremy Crawford's tweet supports (though his tweets aren't official sage advice), and on the other we have an interpretation that requires inventing more and more additional text to make increasingly convoluted and self-defeating arguments.
This is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum; a ruling on rules as written should be as simple as possible, the moment it's not, it's no longer RAW.
But I'm washing my hands of this thread now; you run it however you like in your own games, I'll be running what it says on the item.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, you can have the last word on how you think the item works, but I refuse to be insulted by you. No text has been invented. Stop saying that. Nothing is convoluted or self-defeating about anything that I've said. Stop saying that. Behave yourself and act like a human please.
Duration of the "on fire" effect when oil from a flask is thrown or splashed is but one 1 round per pint of oil.
Per the rules: "If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil." There is nothing to indicate that fire damage reoccurs round after round. The "after 1 minute" applies to when the oil dries, not to the duration of the target taking additional fire damage.
Compare this to the text from Alchemist Fire: "On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." Here, the duration is ongoing unless a creature uses its action to put out the fire.
Alchemist's Fire is listed at 50 gp price while Oil is listed as 1 silver price. The reason for this difference of price, one can safely assume, is in large part due to the superior military-use application of Alchemist's Fire. If regular Oil could cause 10 rounds of fire damage from a single application, why would PHB rules list the Alchemist's Fire price point at 50 gp?
Duration of the "on fire" effect when oil from a flask is thrown or splashed is but one 1 round per pint of oil.
There's no text to support this notion.
Per the rules: "If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil." There is nothing to indicate that fire damage reoccurs round after round. The "after 1 minute" applies to when the oil dries, not to the duration of the target taking additional fire damage.
No one is suggesting that the fire damage reoccurs round after round. They're suggesting that it occurs when the target takes fire damage before the oil dries, because that's what the text says happens.
Compare this to the text from Alchemist Fire: "On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." Here, the duration is ongoing unless a creature uses its action to put out the fire.
Alchemist's Fire is listed at 50 gp price while Oil is listed as 1 silver price. The reason for this difference of price, one can safely assume, is in large part due to the superior military-use application of Alchemist's Fire. If regular Oil could cause 10 rounds of fire damage from a single application, why would PHB rules list the Alchemist's Fire price point at 50 gp?
For regular oil to cause 10 rounds of fire damage, the target would need to take fire damage from other sources on each of those ten rounds. It is fruitless to muse about why anything in the PHB costs anything. Why is a trident a martial weapon that's more expensive than a spear?
Duration of the "on fire" effect when oil from a flask is thrown or splashed is but one 1 round per pint of oil.
There's no text to support this notion.
Per the rules: "If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil." There is nothing to indicate that fire damage reoccurs round after round. The "after 1 minute" applies to when the oil dries, not to the duration of the target taking additional fire damage.
No one is suggesting that the fire damage reoccurs round after round. They're suggesting that it occurs when the target takes fire damage before the oil dries, because that's what the text says happens.
I apologize if I have misunderstood the core of the debate about duration. RAW, it's ambiguous whether repeated fire damage from a non-Oil source within that 1 minute time frame would cause re-occurence of 5 points of fire damage each successful attack roll.
For regular oil to cause 10 rounds of fire damage, the target would need to take fire damage from other sources on each of those ten rounds. It is fruitless to muse about why anything in the PHB costs anything. Why is a trident a martial weapon that's more expensive than a spear?
This is not a fruitless question. When a player is looking a list of items and their prices, some are likely to ask pricing questions, either in character or OoC. As such, it's good practice for DMs to answer such questions for themselves rather than just saying "I have no idea".
Alchemist Fire is a more specialized military application to regular Oil that most people would burn to light the darkness. That's presumably why "Alchemist" is in part of its description.
As for why the Trident is 5 gp instead of the 1 gp of the Spear, I would argue that the Trident's military application is secondary to its value as a symbol of prestige. I mean, there are only so many ways you can gussy up a Spear, right? You cannot make a similar argument for Alchemist Fire because Alchemist Fire is not associated with having a prestige value or display case value that a Trident would. There is no historical or fictional media where you see the leader of a sovereign territory holding a flask of Alchemist Fire as a symbolic display of power.
RAW, it's ambiguous whether repeated fire damage from a non-Oil source within that 1 minute time frame would cause re-occurence of 5 points of fire damage each successful attack roll.
What's being suggested is even more crazy than that, and also far more crazy than recurring "round after round". Specifically, in regards to "each successful attack roll" -- no additional successful attack rolls are ever required under that theory. Picture a battle field full of dozens of combatants, friends and foes, each of which has some sort of wand that is capable of casting unlimited Fireball spells. Within ONE round you could have every single creature in the entire battle cast Fireball, and the creature within the radius of all of these Fireball spells would take an additional 5 fire damage every single time. And then THIS could happen over and over again for 10 rounds. Potentially thousands of points of Bonus damage in a perfectly contrived example.
This, of course, depends upon a concept of unused and wet oil being lit on fire, burning, becoming hot enough to do the bonus damage, then becoming extinguished a fraction of a second later, upon which the oil cools back down and somehow becomes totally unused and wet all over again in time for the next creature's turn when another source of fire damage sets the oil on fire again. Then it instantly cools back down and becomes unused and wet again. And so on.
Somehow this is thought to be less "convoluted" than the other legitimate way to read and interpret the paragraph which is simply that wet oil dries in 1 minute when unlit, and wet oil that is lit on fire burns and is consumed while doing the described damage.
What's being suggested is even more crazy than that, and also far more crazy than recurring "round after round". Specifically, in regards to "each successful attack roll" -- no additional successful attack rolls are ever required under that theory. Picture a battle field full of dozens of combatants, friends and foes, each of which has some sort of wand that is capable of casting unlimited Fireball spells. Within ONE round you could have every single creature in the entire battle cast Fireball, and the creature within the radius of all of these Fireball spells would take an additional 5 fire damage every single time. And then THIS could happen over and over again for 10 rounds. Potentially thousands of points of Bonus damage in a perfectly contrived example.
In your "perfectly contrived example" being doused in oil increases the damage of fireball by less than 20%. Genuinely don't understand how you think that's at all crazy.
So, obviously the crazy part is getting over 1000 points of bonus damage from the oil contained in a single flask of oil that costs 1 silver piece. The Fireball spell was just meant as a quick and easy example of not needing to succeed on an attack roll to trigger the bonus damage.
If you prefer, we can refer instead to the type of fire breath that is used by a magma mephit which does an average of 7 damage, or 3 damage on a save. No successful attack roll needed and now the bonus damage is approximately 100% of the triggering damage. If you could dig up a way to do a guaranteed 1 point of fire damage then the bonus damage would become 500% of the triggering damage. I'm not sure what your point is though . . .
Again:
This, of course, depends upon a concept of unused and wet oil being lit on fire, burning, becoming hot enough to do the bonus damage, then becoming extinguished a fraction of a second later, upon which the oil cools back down and somehow becomes totally unused and wet all over again in time for the next creature's turn when another source of fire damage sets the oil on fire again. Then it instantly cools back down and becomes unused and wet again. And so on.
I mean, either you think that this is an unreasonable interpretation or you don't. I think it's unreasonable. Apparently you don't.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok, now you are just arguing against common sense just for the sake of it. There are two ranges mentioned. WITHIN 5 feet, and between 5 and 20 feet. The word "within" is pretty well defined in common language. For example, you could even be GRAPPLED with an enemy and then decide to take this action against them. In which case you are exactly 0 feet away from them (still within 5 feet). Sure, if you play it out on a grid you might still give each creature their own grid square, but that doesn't mean that melee is always happening exactly 5 feet away from someone -- it's WITHIN 5 feet.
And nobody said anything about throwing a can of paint at anybody -- that would be handled under the 2nd case of an enemy being more than 5 feet away and up to 20 feet and that WOULD require an attack roll obviously. At close range, we are talking about SPLASHING the liquid onto an enemy. Please reread the description if you are still not getting that concept. It's like holding an open water bottle or paint can and then thrusting your arm forward such that a small portion of the liquid inside SPLASHES onto the creature. Getting hit by at least a little bit of it would be pretty obviously unavoidable. Note that according to my interpretation of that action being an auto-success, the obvious follow up is . . . and so what? No damage has been done. No adverse affect has occurred. No "condition" has been inflicted upon the enemy. An entire action was just spent to . . . splash someone. To make any use of this, an entire additional action would have to be taken, almost certainly THEN requiring an attack roll or saving throw effect, to ignite the liquid to cause a small amount of bonus damage. All of this makes perfect common sense. But ok, keep requiring double natural 20s just to splash someone at point blank range in your games, because that somehow makes more sense . . .
Do you think it would be very easy to hit somebody with a mace or flail while within 0 inches of them? Probably not. Therefore, the only logic conclusion is that all maces and flails have disadvantage on all attacks.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This is a good point. Sometimes a character will have a useful Dex modifier. And yet, sometimes they won't.
Also, I stand corrected about the bit with the "once per turn". I guess that this does come up here and there in 5e and the phrase "once per turn" has been accepted to mean once on any creature's turn. I honestly believe that a great many instances of seeing this wording throughout 5e is simply the result of slopping writing and was not actually intended to function in this way, but RAW there's no way to determine that so it is what it is.
"While the potential damage across a full ten rounds is high, most fights don't last even close to that . . ."
This notion is irrelevant. You're suggesting that the bonus damage should recur over and over and over and over again, likely for the entire battle. Such an interpretation is just way overpowered in this case. If it was meant to work that way, it would be spelled out as such. Since you mentioned Heat Metal, let's have a look at that:
Requires burning a 2nd level spell slot and holding concentration and:
The oil flask description doesn't have ANY wording like this that would indicate ongoing damage when splashed or thrown onto a creature. However, in the description of the last option for using the oil flask, pouring it onto the ground, it is explicitly spelled out that it's supposed to work differently. It says:
So, not one round and done, but explicitly 2 rounds in this case.
In response to: " . . . it already gives an explicit duration of 1 minute for the ranged attack . . . "
No. It gives nothing of the sort. The 1 minute in the description refers to how much time you have to LIGHT the oil on fire. If you splash oil onto an enemy and then hit it with fire damage 3 weeks later, the oil does nothing, there would be no bonus damage. The 1 minute has absolutely nothing to do with ongoing damage after the oil is lit.
The "once per turn" only refers to the area damage while the oil on the ground is burning. When oil has splashed onto a creature it is used up after the first instance of the bonus damage. So, only one single scorching ray during the entire battle will result in bonus damage from one flask of oil. If you wanted to get bonus damage from a 2nd scorching ray, you'd have to hit the creature with another flask of oil first.
Just a quick note about comparing with the similar description for the vial of acid -- In the case of the acid, damage is being dealt to the creature immediately upon splashing acid or breaking the vial onto the creature, unlike what happens when you splash a creature with oil. Further, it makes some logical sense that you might splash some acid onto somebody but it simply gets a little bit onto their clothes or onto their shield or armor and therefore doesn't actually damage the creature. This can be abstracted as a "miss" on an attack roll. So it would make sense for splashing acid to require an attack roll but for splashing oil to be an auto-success even though it sort of seems like a similar action.
It's been fun debating with you guys about the mechanics of a silly item that should probably never be used in battle. I've decided what I think is the best ruling. I suppose we'll just agree to disagree. Hopefully the next version of the game is more carefully written.
It literally does; it says 1 minute in the description, so it lasts for 1 minute, there is no ambiguity there.
Again it literally says this; I've already quoted the entire text of the oil (flask) item, but here's the relevant part:
This is not ambiguous; the 1 minute duration only applies to the ranged attack, because it refers to the same target you just hit. It makes no mention of the damage only occurring once and then no more, literally all it says is that it must take fire damage before the oil dries, and the oil drying takes 1 minute, ergo 1 minute duration for the effect.
The two round limit does not apply to the ranged attack, because it's mentioned only within the description of how the area effect works, and that's for explicitly lighting the entire puddle of oil on fire, rather than splashing it on someone and seeing what happens.
Reference to the actual rules please, because they make no mention whatsoever to the damage only applying once. It says "if the target takes any fire damage" not "the first time (or next time) the target takes fire damage" or similar.
You'll find no disagreement that it's a poorly worded item that requires reworking, but this is the current text of the item, so that's how it works; it doesn't matter if you don't like how strong it can potentially be (again, it's not an item you can guarantee success with, so it takes work to fully utilise), because personal feelings don't change what the text says.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Yes, I can see that you really want the item to work that way. But personal feelings don't change what the text says.
Obviously that's wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't be reading it incorrectly.
The 1 minute in the description refers to a window of opportunity to light the oil on fire. If you try to light the oil on fire after it has dried, there is no effect. It has nothing to do with duration or repeat uses.
" . . . literally all it says is that it must take fire damage before the oil dries, and the oil drying takes 1 minute, . . . "
Yes, that's correct.
" . . . ergo 1 minute duration for the effect."
No. That is incorrect. I can see why you think it says this, but it doesn't.
This is a consumable item. After splashing a creature the flask is empty and the creature has some droplets of wet oil on it. This oil remains wet for 1 minute. During this time, if the creature takes any fire damage, the oil burns up and the creature takes a single 5 bonus fire damage. When this happens, the oil does not revert back to being untouched and wet. The oil has burned. It is no longer wet. We know that it burns because it says:
Nothing additional is mentioned in that section. The oil has burned. HOWEVER, in the last section, an exception is made explicitly. In that case, you have used the item to create a large puddle of oil on the ground. Therefore, when lit, the oil burns for 2 rounds. We know this because it says:
In case it matters just for context, this has always been a relatively weak item. You can experience how it was implemented in old-school Gold Box computer games that were based on an old version of the game rules or just go back and review how those rules have evolved over time -- it's actually been nerfed over the years. Here's an interesting article on the topic:
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48307/roleplaying-games/ptolus-running-the-campaign-on-the-efficacy-of-burning-oil
I really do hope that all of this clears some things up for those folks who really want this item to be overpowered. It's not.
Just because you don't want it to function the way I'm pointing out does not mean that I am reading it "incorrectly"; I've literally quoted the exact wording multiple times, I'm not referring to anything invented or assumed here.
The word "an" in the rule only limits the bonus for a single source of fire damage, it says nothing whatsoever about multiple sources of fire damage, nor does it state that the oil is now gone or that the effect cannot be repeated. You are inventing detail here that simply does not exist in the rule.
You're omitting the rest of the text:
Because this is a condition that is applied to the area version of the effect. You could try to argue that the area damage is secondary and the first part applies to both, but we have no reason to assume that when it's grouped with the area effect use-case; even the once per turn condition is unclear on which case(s) it actually applies to. Even if you argued that position however, it refers to the oil being lit, while the ranged attack version does not. While it's not unreasonable to assume that fire damage could light the oil, what does it do in the ranged case? The item doesn't say, it only says that "burning oil" does an extra 5 damage, but is all of the oil now alight (if so, what does that actually mean? Again it doesn't say). Increasing the ambiguity doesn't support that position any better.
Or are you now proposing that dousing the ranged target with oil and then hitting it with fire also triggers the area effect (i.e- once hit with fire damage, the target is now in an area of burning oil as well, that area just happens to be on them)? That might have been a better way to structure the rule, it might even be what was intended, but that's not what the item's description currently says.
What's perhaps strangest about the item is that it exists as anything more than simple fuel; we have rules for improvising weapons and damage that could handle it, all we're really missing is a generic "splash" weapon. Beyond that oil is just a flammable substance, so it could add fire damage whereas acid would do acid damage on its own etc. Hopefully OneD&D can improve this along with overhauling equipment in general, it's long overdue, but for now we're stuck with the wording as it is.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
You bring up some good points about the poor wording and also some interesting complications.
As for whether or not the splash effect and the area effect could affect a creature at the same time -- I would rule that it would take two different flasks of oil to do that. Example, character A uses his action to splash a monster with flask A (in my interpretation this is an auto-success). Then, character B pours the contents of flask B onto the floor surrounding the monster. Lastly, character C would have to light both of these oils at the same time, perhaps with a Fireball spell (a DM would have to rule that the Fireball spell actually does light the oil that's sitting in a puddle on the floor, but it seems logical that it would). So now, the monster is on fire and the area that it's standing in is on fire. In that case, I think that you could apply 10 points of bonus damage to the creature -- 5 from 2 separate sources. The only gotcha with this that I can see goes back to a question that I had a long time ago about the wording of WHEN to apply the area damage to a monster when the area has just been lit. The wording says "damage to any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area" but technically I'm not sure if a monster who is already somewhere when the area is first lit would count as "enters the area" or not.
Anyways, I wasn't trying to add any ambiguity. I'll try to summarize my interpretation:
You have 3 options to use the (consumable) flask of oil as an item in battle (all requiring a full action):
1) splash the oil onto a creature at melee range (auto-success) (does nothing yet)
2) throw the flask at a target creature or object at medium range in an attempt to shatter it and cover the target in oil (requires an attack roll) (does improvised weapon projectile damage, but nothing else yet)
-- In both cases, the creature has a thin layer of oil sticking to it and it has begun to dry. Once dried, it cannot be lit. If lit, the oil burns up and is fully consumed upon giving 5 bonus fire damage.
3) pour the contents of the flask of oil onto the ground to create a thick puddle. This puddle takes a lot longer to dry (unspecified) and if lit, it is able to continue burning for 2 rounds before being fully consumed.
Let me just invent another real life example to explain my logic. Picture a sunny day in the summer and you are at a pool party wearing nothing but a bathing suit. Someone walks up to you and splashes water on you. Your skin feels pretty wet, but after standing out in the sun for a minute this water has dried (evaporated). A few minutes later someone throws a water balloon at you -- it successfully bursts and covers your shoulders and back in water. But again, after standing out in the sun for a minute this water has dried. Lastly, someone pours the entire contents of a water bottle at your feet onto the pool deck, creating a puddle of water. This water does not fully dry in one minute, maybe it takes 5 or 10 minutes, who knows? But it's a substantial enough collection of water such that it takes twice as long to cause it to evaporate with a hair dryer than in the first two cases where some water was just dripping down your skin.
So, that's why I think that it works that way. There's nothing in the description to refute this interpretation but I also recognize that it isn't fully spelled out either.
I recognize that the text could be interpreted a few different ways -- that's unfortunate. I guess if someone actually tries to use this item in their games the DM will just have to make a decision in the moment.
There's no reason to assume the 5 foot splash is automatic; whether you're throwing only the oil itself, or the entire flask, both are ranged attacks. You need to roll to hit for both ranges, because hitting is what triggers the rest of the effect (the 1 minute duration and 5 bonus fire damage).
If you were to interpret this item has having a third automatic melee range variation then it wouldn't actually do anything; if it never rolls an attack then it never hits, and the condition of the effect is "on a hit".
While a DM is free to have the flask deal damage on impact, this isn't guaranteed as attacks don't need to deal direct damage; they could just as easily rule the impact does no meaningful damage, and that applying the oil is the only effect.
The text of the item says nothing about the oil being consumed; again, you're inventing detail that isn't there. All we're told is that the oil dries after one minute, giving us a 1 minute duration; it says nothing else about the effect ending.
I don't disagree with the different timings; the ranged attack definitely has a 1 minute duration, and the area effect definitely ends two rounds after being triggered, I don't think either of these are ambiguous. My problem is with the idea that the oil is somehow fully consumed when the ranged attack effect is triggered; there's no text in the item to support that interpretation.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
deleted.
Prolonged disagreements over what is and is not ambiguous are counterproductive because ambiguity requires personal perception, and that means it's always going to be at least a little bit subjective. All I can say is that it isn't ambiguous to me.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I think you may be confusing my point, or what I was replying to? There is absolutely a 1 minute duration, that part isn't ambiguous:
So for the extra fire damage to occur the target must take fire damage "before the oil dries" which is explicitly given as happening after 1 minute. Once the oil dries, no extra damage can occur.
However up2ng was asserting the extra fire damage only occurs once because the oil is consumed, but I see no text to support that; as far as rules as written you could trigger the bonus damage multiple times up to a maximum of once per turn, until the oil dries.
I think that's reasonable; mechanically it being dry has no specific way to reverse it, all you can do is apply more oil.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
Like I've already said, we've both presented interpretations for the RAW for this item, a DM will just have to decide how they want to rule it.
Lol, eventually I am going to get you to stop saying this.
The existence of this ongoing thread is evidence that the description of this item is, indeed, ambiguous, by definition.
We've already gone over everything you've said in your latest response, but we can go through them again just for fun . . .
I recognize that there are multiple ways to read that first section, but there are actually lots of reasons to assume the 5 foot splash is automatic as has been explained already throughout this thread.
-- Multiple real life examples have been given to demonstrate that the splash effect is virtually impossible to dodge or effectively parry.
-- It's an action that's specifically limited to within 5 feet which is typically considered to be melee, not at range.
-- It already requires a full action to basically do nothing. Requiring an attack roll (regardless of disadvantage or no disadvantage) would be clearly "too bad to be true" as pointed out earlier in the thread.
-- The splashing activity is not implied to be an attack, it simply says "as an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature . . ."
-- Compare the wording against the acid attack, which says: "In either case, make a ranged attack . . . " It does NOT say that in the description of the oil flask. There are reasons for this:
-- The acid does damage as soon as it's splashed, the oil does not. So, for game balance, it works differently.
-- The acid "missing" where the oil does not can be easily abstracted. The acid could get only onto clothing or armor and shield where it does no damage to the creature. The acid damage could be weak enough that it is resisted this time by the creature. Not enough droplets of acid got onto the creature to effectively deal any damage and so on. None of this would apply to the oil, which does no damage anyway but instead is simply resulting in covering the creature in oil.
-- The text says that you can splash the enemy OR if you are too far away to do that you could attempt to throw the flask at it if desired.
The way that I am reading this, it's one OR the other. Melee OR ranged. Only the ranged option goes on to describe how an attack roll is needed. Again, compare to the acid item which specifically says "In either case, make a ranged attack". So, we could ignore all of this evidence and assume that the splashing activity from within melee distance requires a ranged attack roll as you've said. Or we could read it another way, which is that the sentence regarding making a ranged attack roll applies only to the . . . ranged attack. In my opinion, common sense dictates the latter.
You are making an assumption that is not in the text. As explained above, I believe that this is wrong. Now, here I will have to admit that there was a tweet by JC at some point that gave the opinion that you've made above and I know that for many people this weakens my argument on this point. But JC was wrong this time. He may have mixed it up with the acid attack, who knows?
So, there are multiple things wrong with this statement. Hitting is not required unless you are making an attack. As explained above, my interpretation of the splashing activity from point blank range is not an attack, it's just something that you can do.
Secondly, there is no 1 minute duration. The 1 minute refers to a window of opportunity to ignite the oil.
Third, covering the creature in oil has nothing to do with "triggering" 5 bonus fire damage. Covering the creature in oil only covers the creature in oil. That's it. Nothing else is triggered. The 5 bonus fire damage is only applied when the oil is lit on fire.
Incorrect. The "on a hit" portion of the description is simply explaining what happens when the clay flask shatters upon impact. When the flask shatters (on a hit), the oil that was inside of the flask now spills out of it and "the target is covered in oil". The melee splashing activity already doesn't really do anything, but not in the way that you are thinking. It DOES splash oil onto a creature. It just doesn't do anything else:
As for the next comment:
I agree with this. A lot of DMs probably would rule that way. I like the idea of adding the impact damage for a few reasons. Mostly, it's a nice way of balancing the really detrimental fact that you have to roll a low percentage attack roll (without proficiency) just to . . . do basically nothing. In addition, there are a bunch of clues in the description to support such damage, such as:
When the description then follows up with "On a hit, the target is covered in oil", it does not necessarily mean that that's ALL that happens on a hit. It means that a hit does what it normally does, which is typically to cause damage, and in addition to that, specifically in the case of this item, the target is [also] covered in oil. Now, I know how much you hate it when reading between the lines is required and not every little thing is completely spelled out, but that's how the entire rule book is written. Things are assumed to work a certain way throughout the entire rule book until there is an exception which is then explicitly detailed. For example, a consumable item is assumed to be consumed everywhere in the rule book, UNLESS it EXPLICITLY says otherwise. There are countless examples of this all over the place. Which brings us to:
This is how consumable items work. They are consumed. I've already shown you a history of how the oil flask has always worked since the 1970s. I get that that's not an argument in and of itself for determining 5e RAW, but context is helpful in interpreting text that might have multiple interpretations. It has always been assumed to burn and fully consume in one round except for the times when it explicitly lasts for exactly 2 or exactly 3 rounds. This has persisted with this item for decades.
Jumping from the oil drying in 1 minute to "giving us a 1 minute duration" is becoming exhausting to keep explaining why that's wrong. The 1 minute refers to a window of opportunity to light the oil on fire, otherwise it will simply have no effect. It has nothing to do with its ability to remain totally unchanged AFTER it has been SET ON FIRE. Of all the points that you keep making, this one is particularly annoying. There is NO WAY that this item works that way.
No. It does not.
It's true that this isn't spelled out very well. You have to read between the lines a little bit to understand it. The text says this:
First, from grammar class, we know that a parenthetical expression can be removed without destroying the meaning of a sentence. So, we can rewrite the text like this:
"If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil."
Now, the reason why there is "burning oil" is because there was fire damage. Without the fire, the oil is not burning, it is wet (it is assumed that it is wet before it dries). However, if it is burning, it is no longer wet. It is burning. Not wet. Burning. It was wet, then there was fire, now it is burning. Because the oil is burning, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage.
The other thing to realize is that when the text says "if the target takes any fire damage", the word "any" simply means "more than 0" in this case. Thus, the text could be rewritten again like this:
"if the target takes at least 1 point of fire damage before the oil dries, the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil."
I mean, it's abundantly clear to me what's going on with that sentence but if you're still not seeing it then there's just not much more to say about it I guess.
I do apologize if my tone in this post was poor, this discussion has become frustrating. I guess that means I should just let it go at this point and encourage DMs to rule however they wish to rule on this matter. If you feel like you have to have the last word on this discussion then so be it.
Yeah I'm not wasting any more of my time on this if you're just going to keep inventing text that isn't on the item.
At present we have one interpretation that sticks entirely to the text of the item itself, and which Jeremy Crawford's tweet supports (though his tweets aren't official sage advice), and on the other we have an interpretation that requires inventing more and more additional text to make increasingly convoluted and self-defeating arguments.
This is the Rules and Game Mechanics forum; a ruling on rules as written should be as simple as possible, the moment it's not, it's no longer RAW.
But I'm washing my hands of this thread now; you run it however you like in your own games, I'll be running what it says on the item.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
I mean, you can have the last word on how you think the item works, but I refuse to be insulted by you. No text has been invented. Stop saying that. Nothing is convoluted or self-defeating about anything that I've said. Stop saying that. Behave yourself and act like a human please.
Duration of the "on fire" effect when oil from a flask is thrown or splashed is but one 1 round per pint of oil.
Per the rules: "If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage from the burning oil." There is nothing to indicate that fire damage reoccurs round after round. The "after 1 minute" applies to when the oil dries, not to the duration of the target taking additional fire damage.
Compare this to the text from Alchemist Fire: "On a hit, the target takes 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns. A creature can end this damage by using its action to make a DC 10 Dexterity check to extinguish the flames." Here, the duration is ongoing unless a creature uses its action to put out the fire.
Alchemist's Fire is listed at 50 gp price while Oil is listed as 1 silver price. The reason for this difference of price, one can safely assume, is in large part due to the superior military-use application of Alchemist's Fire. If regular Oil could cause 10 rounds of fire damage from a single application, why would PHB rules list the Alchemist's Fire price point at 50 gp?
There's no text to support this notion.
No one is suggesting that the fire damage reoccurs round after round. They're suggesting that it occurs when the target takes fire damage before the oil dries, because that's what the text says happens.
For regular oil to cause 10 rounds of fire damage, the target would need to take fire damage from other sources on each of those ten rounds. It is fruitless to muse about why anything in the PHB costs anything. Why is a trident a martial weapon that's more expensive than a spear?
I apologize if I have misunderstood the core of the debate about duration. RAW, it's ambiguous whether repeated fire damage from a non-Oil source within that 1 minute time frame would cause re-occurence of 5 points of fire damage each successful attack roll.
This is not a fruitless question. When a player is looking a list of items and their prices, some are likely to ask pricing questions, either in character or OoC. As such, it's good practice for DMs to answer such questions for themselves rather than just saying "I have no idea".
Alchemist Fire is a more specialized military application to regular Oil that most people would burn to light the darkness. That's presumably why "Alchemist" is in part of its description.
As for why the Trident is 5 gp instead of the 1 gp of the Spear, I would argue that the Trident's military application is secondary to its value as a symbol of prestige. I mean, there are only so many ways you can gussy up a Spear, right? You cannot make a similar argument for Alchemist Fire because Alchemist Fire is not associated with having a prestige value or display case value that a Trident would. There is no historical or fictional media where you see the leader of a sovereign territory holding a flask of Alchemist Fire as a symbolic display of power.
What's being suggested is even more crazy than that, and also far more crazy than recurring "round after round". Specifically, in regards to "each successful attack roll" -- no additional successful attack rolls are ever required under that theory. Picture a battle field full of dozens of combatants, friends and foes, each of which has some sort of wand that is capable of casting unlimited Fireball spells. Within ONE round you could have every single creature in the entire battle cast Fireball, and the creature within the radius of all of these Fireball spells would take an additional 5 fire damage every single time. And then THIS could happen over and over again for 10 rounds. Potentially thousands of points of Bonus damage in a perfectly contrived example.
This, of course, depends upon a concept of unused and wet oil being lit on fire, burning, becoming hot enough to do the bonus damage, then becoming extinguished a fraction of a second later, upon which the oil cools back down and somehow becomes totally unused and wet all over again in time for the next creature's turn when another source of fire damage sets the oil on fire again. Then it instantly cools back down and becomes unused and wet again. And so on.
Somehow this is thought to be less "convoluted" than the other legitimate way to read and interpret the paragraph which is simply that wet oil dries in 1 minute when unlit, and wet oil that is lit on fire burns and is consumed while doing the described damage.
In your "perfectly contrived example" being doused in oil increases the damage of fireball by less than 20%. Genuinely don't understand how you think that's at all crazy.
So, obviously the crazy part is getting over 1000 points of bonus damage from the oil contained in a single flask of oil that costs 1 silver piece. The Fireball spell was just meant as a quick and easy example of not needing to succeed on an attack roll to trigger the bonus damage.
If you prefer, we can refer instead to the type of fire breath that is used by a magma mephit which does an average of 7 damage, or 3 damage on a save. No successful attack roll needed and now the bonus damage is approximately 100% of the triggering damage. If you could dig up a way to do a guaranteed 1 point of fire damage then the bonus damage would become 500% of the triggering damage. I'm not sure what your point is though . . .
Again:
I mean, either you think that this is an unreasonable interpretation or you don't. I think it's unreasonable. Apparently you don't.