1) This is just completely standard battle tactics. In the perfectly contrived example, keep in mind that we are talking about only one single enemy being covered in oil which then persists through all of these fire-based triggers. (To be clear, I am arguing that this is NOT how the item actually works.) We can arrange the battlefield however we want. We can even be in melee range to cover the enemy in oil and then our ally can easily target a Fireball spell such that it damages the enemy and not us. Totally standard.
2) and 3) This is missing the point. The Fireball spell was used in the example simply because it's a well known source of fire damage that does not require an attack roll. The whole point was that we cannot assume that attack rolls will be required to trigger the bonus damage, and if it can be triggered over and over again without reapplying more oil then the item becomes obviously overpowered. Why people are getting stuck on how much the bonus damage is compared to the original fire damage that triggered it is beyond me. Only 1 point of fire damage is required to trigger the bonus damage.
4) I agree, if thousands of rocks were thrown then that could do potentially thousands of points of damage. But that would be thousands of individual items being used on separate turns with separate actions. That's a totally different cost within the action economy than using ONE single item to cause potentially massive damage if triggered perfectly. That's the main point that you seem to be missing. The interpretation that I am arguing against allows for a single item that is extremely common and extremely inexpensive to become potentially extremely powerful. That makes no sense and is simply the result of reading the paragraph in a different way and nothing else.
5) and 6) Again, it looks like you are just misunderstanding the debate here. No one is talking about bombarding multiple combatants with oil. We are talking about how ONE single flask of oil works.
And none of that has anything to do with whether the oil being consumed on burning 6 seconds is 'convoluted' or not. If spread on the ground, there is no rule about it drying ever, and it burns for 2 rounds when lit.
Unfortunately I have no idea what you're trying to say here so I can't respond to that.
Since the rule for oil specifies that thrown oil flasks are considered an improvised weapon, does this mean it should do 1d4 on impact, and function with Tavern Brawler?
I have been arguing in favor of this throughout this thread. But I admit that it could go either way and the consensus is that such a ruling would be considered homebrew. It seems to me that this should be one of the results of "treating the [item] as an improvised weapon". But when comparing this item with descriptions for a few other items throughout the rulebook, it starts to make less sense and at least in terms of RAI it's probably not supposed to work that way after all.
In particular, the three other common items that have similar wording throughout their descriptions to the flask of oil are the vial of acid, the flask of holy water, and the flask of alchemist's fire. In the case of the alchemist's fire, the splashing activity isn't allowed. In the cases of the flask of holy water and the vial of acid, those both allow for splashing but they both explicitly treat that activity as a ranged attack with the phrase "In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object" (NOTE -- this wording is absent from the descrption of the flask of oil). In the cases where splashing is considered to be a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, it just doesn't make sense for such a splash to cause 1d4 projectile (bludgeoning?) damage. And when the flask of holy water or the vial of acid are thrown, these do immediate damage when the contents are spilled onto the creature on a hit, so also adding additional damage from the projectile "shattering" might be unintended and overpowered in those cases. So therefore, it probably shouldn't work that way for the flask of oil either in retrospect.
A less extreme and less contrived example than the Wands of Infinite Fireballs would be dousing a PC with one flask of Oil, while they are attempting to cross a metal bridge suspended over a large pit of lava. Let's say the bridge is 300 feet long. Assuming the bridge is close enough to the pit of lava to heat the metal of the path to a dangerous temperature, the PC would take fire damage simply from walking/running on the bridge. Is it fair that the PC take an additional 5 points of fire damage each round for 10 rounds (300 feet divided by 30 feet per round) from the oil lit on fire after just one dousing of said oil?
I'd like to pop in to say that I think the fireball example was just to say that it isn't really reasonable for a single thing of oil to be physically able to burn hot and long enough to deal hundreds of points of fire damage.
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)
What is your thoughts on stacking effect of oil? Is it additional 5 fire damage per one flask? For example - if I would successfully (so they would hit) shatter a few flasks (in other words - if I would choose to spend few of my turns to, one by one (on each respective turn) shater a few flask upon enemy) and only then make some kind of fire attack, would each flask, (that successfully hit), give additional 5 damage? Yes, I understand, that it must happened in 1 minute, after first shattered flask, so it is limited in that way...
My thoughts is that a creature already covered in oil wouldn 't take more additional damage from being covered in more oil and would subject it to limitations on Combining Different Effects saying when two or more effects have the same proper name, only one of them (the most powerful one if their benefits aren’t identical) applies while the durations of the effects overlap.
What is your thoughts on stacking effect of oil? Is it additional 5 fire damage per one flask? For example - if I would successfully (so they would hit) shatter a few flasks (in other words - if I would choose to spend few of my turns to, one by one (on each respective turn) shater a few flask upon enemy) and only then make some kind of fire attack, would each flask, (that successfully hit), give additional 5 damage? Yes, I understand, that it must happened in 1 minute, after first shattered flask, so it is limited in that way...
The damage should not "stack" in an immediate sense. Dumping 4 flasks of typical oil on a creature and lighting the creature on fire should not become 20 additional points of damage at one go. However, it makes sense that the burn damage would last longer if the creature is unable to somehow either rid itself of the oil or douse the flames....which somewhat renders Alchemist Fire a somewhat moot item, expense-wise since it is so much more expensive. So either Alchemist Fire, per RAW, does not do enough damage or the actual fire damage from default oil of theOil Flask is only supposed to last 1 round, even if multiple flasks are dumped on the same creature. As you can probably tell, the devs did not think through the in-game logic of this very well.
Hm. But this is not a magical effect. And with all due respect - but it does not make any sense to my mind. It is like saying, that the falling rock could not make more then 5 damage, no matter - is it a small pebble, or a giant boulder, weighing many tons, that came crashing down on you - "because effect does not stack". The damage in this example comes from the weight, and the more weight - the more damage it should cause. Following that logic - fire damage comes from the heat, that radiate burning fuel - the more fuel - more heat (or/and more surface of the target, that it covers) and thus more damage. Otherwise it just dont make any sence at all.
Essentially what you are saying - that it is not possible to create normal fire, that would deal more then 5 damage - no matter how much fuel you adding to it, and how much your target is covered in it. Or, if put it another way, you are saying, that it is no different - to splash (roughly) a mug of fuel and set it ablaze on someone, or to completely soke him in that fuel, like pour few gallons on him and set it ablaze. You saying, that it is completely equall, and have no difference. This is just wrong. D&D or not - it should not be this way. It is simple breaking causality and immersion.
I mean really - if you splash about a pint of oil - ok, no questions, it is reasonable, that it would leave some burns, but hardly would be lethal , so 5 fire damage per one flask - reasonable. But imagine if you complitely soke someone in lots of oil and then set it ablaze - it would just kill the poor person and this is how it should be. This is reasonable. To say that if you manage to drench someone with oil up to a point, that he could be compared with living torch, then set it ablaze and it would deal just 5 damage... - sorry, but this just do not make any sence. It must be hard to execute, but absolutely lethal, like in real life...
And to my mind - it doesn't break any balance in the slightest! You have to spend an entire action just to cover someone in oil (and they might evade!), and spend 1 silver worth item, to elicit just 5 damage more to the future attack! Firebolt, that is infinite and free, potentialy could do twice that damage (or same on average) for one action instantaneously and have 5 times the range, for example.
Yes, you could get creative, and make like fiery oil traps, pits or use catapult, to do heaps of damage per one shot, but that is reasonable - you would be able to do it only, if you cafully prepare it, and execute it perfectly, and your enemy would fail all their checks and saves...
So, if we look at the item listing and its description it turns out that there isn't actually very much oil in a single flask. It's a clay flask that contains 1 pint (16 ounces) of liquid. So, when the description says "covered in oil" it probably does not mean that every square inch of the entire target is covered. It just means that the oil is now covering the target as opposed to still sitting inside the flask. So, in my mind, multiple flasks could easily be covering different parts of the target -- one spills onto its shoulder, another splashes all over its back, etc. I am firmly in the camp that the fire damage only lasts for a single round anyway so I would be totally on board with each flask doing its own damage when they are all lit on fire. So, if the party can manage to cover their target with 4 flasks of oil and then light it on fire then I think 20 additional fire damage one single time and then all of it is used up is a totally reasonable interpretation.
One flask poured/splashed on target, is covering part of its body and has a potential to deal 5 fire damage to part of the body that it is covering and nearby parts. You could cover/splash target until you fully cover its body (depending on the size of the creature, I would say medium humanoid could be fully covered with 4-5 flasks, for example), thus increasing damage, but no more, than full coverage. So maximum additional damage, for medium size humanoid - is 20-25, to smaller creatures - proportianuly less, to bigger - proportionaly larger.
If target was literally drenched in oil (fallen to the pit with oil and then got out, or, if like a barrel of oil was successfully poured on it) that maximum damage could last for 2 turns (because it is not simpy superficially covered, but saturated with oil).
And if target fallen in to the pit with a lot of oil, and it was set ablaze, I would say it should take about half of that maximum damage (because it is partly submerged) each turn, but that oil could last for long, and if target is incapable of getting out - it takes damage until dead or rescued by someone, not just for two turns.
Mate a bomb unless incendyary dosent burn ita mostly sheer pressure and srapnel. Maybe the First defragration might set the oil ablaze buth It aint consuming It
I am surprised by this discussion. I feel that the two sides are not playing the same game, at least not using the same game logic. In RAW (Rules As Written), I support Haravikk's opinion, and I even think paragraph "A creature can take this damage only once per turn" would be only related to the paragraph "any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area." (Although it is obviously overpowered, criticizing it should be the job after we reading it correctly)
Then, I know it will definitely go back to how the real environment works, that 1SP of oil cannot be this powerful, and so on. Yes, I also think these considerations are reasonable, but we are not designers. When we are discussing RAW, we should not invent additional details over the rules, such as "the reality in the game" or how the values in the game are set - even if it seems unreasonable or unbalanced, I know it is the right and job for DMs but is not our job when discussing RAW.
Please look directly at the fact that the rules may have deficiencies or loopholes at the RAW level, which is not uncommon in the history of D&D, and that is why RAI (Rules As Intended) and RAF (Rules As Fun) exist - there is no high and low between them, and no one insult other one, only differences in orientation. Some people like RAW, some people like RAI or RAF, why force the other party to recognize your own correctness? You are not the players and DMs in a table.
The disagreement has nothing to do with RAW vs RAI or about whether or not one interpretation is overpowered. It's because people are reading the words on the page and interpreting them differently.
As it turns out, Haravikk's interpretation is incorrect in this case. That's because the rule says:
"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."
His interpretation would be correct if it had said this:
"If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage."
But, because it explicitly adds the clause "from the burning oil", this oil is consumed in this process. After all, oil in this game is more typically used as a fuel for lamps and other such devices. The fuel works by burning it. Doing so produces light and heat for a certain amount of time and then it is consumed and must be replaced with more oil. The same mechanic must be applied when used as a weapon.
In addition to this mechanic, the rule also explicitly states that once oil is exposed to the open environment in a thin layer, wet and unused oil will dry up and become unusable (unburnable) after 1 minute. These are 2 separate mechanics and they both apply.
So finally, what you are just arguing for is the right to interpret RAW. RAW has more credibility for our view, so you think you must be RAW. But what I mean above is that, it doesn’t matter whether it’s RAW or RAI, it is just okay when the PCs and DMs in the game are consistent. Presented clearly is just fine, we can seek common ground while reserving differences.
And then, I don't think it is reading by "as Written", since it is beginning to search a lot of non-base rules, or descriptive sentences to support the point (it is a process finding the intended of writing behind), such as the cost and the description of "burning oil", even if I agree with your said and add into my HR (and also provide a higher-cost item for Haravikk's ver.).
However, it's just my view, don't be mind.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ok I'll give it a shot to tackle these questions:
1) This is just completely standard battle tactics. In the perfectly contrived example, keep in mind that we are talking about only one single enemy being covered in oil which then persists through all of these fire-based triggers. (To be clear, I am arguing that this is NOT how the item actually works.) We can arrange the battlefield however we want. We can even be in melee range to cover the enemy in oil and then our ally can easily target a Fireball spell such that it damages the enemy and not us. Totally standard.
2) and 3) This is missing the point. The Fireball spell was used in the example simply because it's a well known source of fire damage that does not require an attack roll. The whole point was that we cannot assume that attack rolls will be required to trigger the bonus damage, and if it can be triggered over and over again without reapplying more oil then the item becomes obviously overpowered. Why people are getting stuck on how much the bonus damage is compared to the original fire damage that triggered it is beyond me. Only 1 point of fire damage is required to trigger the bonus damage.
4) I agree, if thousands of rocks were thrown then that could do potentially thousands of points of damage. But that would be thousands of individual items being used on separate turns with separate actions. That's a totally different cost within the action economy than using ONE single item to cause potentially massive damage if triggered perfectly. That's the main point that you seem to be missing. The interpretation that I am arguing against allows for a single item that is extremely common and extremely inexpensive to become potentially extremely powerful. That makes no sense and is simply the result of reading the paragraph in a different way and nothing else.
5) and 6) Again, it looks like you are just misunderstanding the debate here. No one is talking about bombarding multiple combatants with oil. We are talking about how ONE single flask of oil works.
Unfortunately I have no idea what you're trying to say here so I can't respond to that.
I have been arguing in favor of this throughout this thread. But I admit that it could go either way and the consensus is that such a ruling would be considered homebrew. It seems to me that this should be one of the results of "treating the [item] as an improvised weapon". But when comparing this item with descriptions for a few other items throughout the rulebook, it starts to make less sense and at least in terms of RAI it's probably not supposed to work that way after all.
In particular, the three other common items that have similar wording throughout their descriptions to the flask of oil are the vial of acid, the flask of holy water, and the flask of alchemist's fire. In the case of the alchemist's fire, the splashing activity isn't allowed. In the cases of the flask of holy water and the vial of acid, those both allow for splashing but they both explicitly treat that activity as a ranged attack with the phrase "In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object" (NOTE -- this wording is absent from the descrption of the flask of oil). In the cases where splashing is considered to be a ranged attack with an improvised weapon, it just doesn't make sense for such a splash to cause 1d4 projectile (bludgeoning?) damage. And when the flask of holy water or the vial of acid are thrown, these do immediate damage when the contents are spilled onto the creature on a hit, so also adding additional damage from the projectile "shattering" might be unintended and overpowered in those cases. So therefore, it probably shouldn't work that way for the flask of oil either in retrospect.
A less extreme and less contrived example than the Wands of Infinite Fireballs would be dousing a PC with one flask of Oil, while they are attempting to cross a metal bridge suspended over a large pit of lava. Let's say the bridge is 300 feet long. Assuming the bridge is close enough to the pit of lava to heat the metal of the path to a dangerous temperature, the PC would take fire damage simply from walking/running on the bridge. Is it fair that the PC take an additional 5 points of fire damage each round for 10 rounds (300 feet divided by 30 feet per round) from the oil lit on fire after just one dousing of said oil?
I'd like to pop in to say that I think the fireball example was just to say that it isn't really reasonable for a single thing of oil to be physically able to burn hot and long enough to deal hundreds of points of fire damage.
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)
What is your thoughts on stacking effect of oil? Is it additional 5 fire damage per one flask? For example - if I would successfully (so they would hit) shatter a few flasks (in other words - if I would choose to spend few of my turns to, one by one (on each respective turn) shater a few flask upon enemy) and only then make some kind of fire attack, would each flask, (that successfully hit), give additional 5 damage? Yes, I understand, that it must happened in 1 minute, after first shattered flask, so it is limited in that way...
My thoughts is that a creature already covered in oil wouldn 't take more additional damage from being covered in more oil and would subject it to limitations on Combining Different Effects saying when two or more effects have the same proper name, only one of them (the most powerful one if their benefits aren’t identical) applies while the durations of the effects overlap.
The damage should not "stack" in an immediate sense. Dumping 4 flasks of typical oil on a creature and lighting the creature on fire should not become 20 additional points of damage at one go. However, it makes sense that the burn damage would last longer if the creature is unable to somehow either rid itself of the oil or douse the flames....which somewhat renders Alchemist Fire a somewhat moot item, expense-wise since it is so much more expensive. So either Alchemist Fire, per RAW, does not do enough damage or the actual fire damage from default oil of theOil Flask is only supposed to last 1 round, even if multiple flasks are dumped on the same creature. As you can probably tell, the devs did not think through the in-game logic of this very well.
In response to Plaguescarred:
Hm. But this is not a magical effect. And with all due respect - but it does not make any sense to my mind. It is like saying, that the falling rock could not make more then 5 damage, no matter - is it a small pebble, or a giant boulder, weighing many tons, that came crashing down on you - "because effect does not stack". The damage in this example comes from the weight, and the more weight - the more damage it should cause. Following that logic - fire damage comes from the heat, that radiate burning fuel - the more fuel - more heat (or/and more surface of the target, that it covers) and thus more damage. Otherwise it just dont make any sence at all.
Essentially what you are saying - that it is not possible to create normal fire, that would deal more then 5 damage - no matter how much fuel you adding to it, and how much your target is covered in it. Or, if put it another way, you are saying, that it is no different - to splash (roughly) a mug of fuel and set it ablaze on someone, or to completely soke him in that fuel, like pour few gallons on him and set it ablaze. You saying, that it is completely equall, and have no difference. This is just wrong. D&D or not - it should not be this way. It is simple breaking causality and immersion.
I mean really - if you splash about a pint of oil - ok, no questions, it is reasonable, that it would leave some burns, but hardly would be lethal , so 5 fire damage per one flask - reasonable. But imagine if you complitely soke someone in lots of oil and then set it ablaze - it would just kill the poor person and this is how it should be. This is reasonable. To say that if you manage to drench someone with oil up to a point, that he could be compared with living torch, then set it ablaze and it would deal just 5 damage... - sorry, but this just do not make any sence. It must be hard to execute, but absolutely lethal, like in real life...
And to my mind - it doesn't break any balance in the slightest! You have to spend an entire action just to cover someone in oil (and they might evade!), and spend 1 silver worth item, to elicit just 5 damage more to the future attack! Firebolt, that is infinite and free, potentialy could do twice that damage (or same on average) for one action instantaneously and have 5 times the range, for example.
Yes, you could get creative, and make like fiery oil traps, pits or use catapult, to do heaps of damage per one shot, but that is reasonable - you would be able to do it only, if you cafully prepare it, and execute it perfectly, and your enemy would fail all their checks and saves...
So, if we look at the item listing and its description it turns out that there isn't actually very much oil in a single flask. It's a clay flask that contains 1 pint (16 ounces) of liquid. So, when the description says "covered in oil" it probably does not mean that every square inch of the entire target is covered. It just means that the oil is now covering the target as opposed to still sitting inside the flask. So, in my mind, multiple flasks could easily be covering different parts of the target -- one spills onto its shoulder, another splashes all over its back, etc. I am firmly in the camp that the fire damage only lasts for a single round anyway so I would be totally on board with each flask doing its own damage when they are all lit on fire. So, if the party can manage to cover their target with 4 flasks of oil and then light it on fire then I think 20 additional fire damage one single time and then all of it is used up is a totally reasonable interpretation.
While RAW sounds like you are correct, as a GM I would rule with this in mind:
So no matter how large a pool of oil the target is standing in, and whether they roll around in it, they will only take 5 damage each turn.
"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 personally would interpret it like this.
One flask poured/splashed on target, is covering part of its body and has a potential to deal 5 fire damage to part of the body that it is covering and nearby parts. You could cover/splash target until you fully cover its body (depending on the size of the creature, I would say medium humanoid could be fully covered with 4-5 flasks, for example), thus increasing damage, but no more, than full coverage. So maximum additional damage, for medium size humanoid - is 20-25, to smaller creatures - proportianuly less, to bigger - proportionaly larger.
If target was literally drenched in oil (fallen to the pit with oil and then got out, or, if like a barrel of oil was successfully poured on it) that maximum damage could last for 2 turns (because it is not simpy superficially covered, but saturated with oil).
And if target fallen in to the pit with a lot of oil, and it was set ablaze, I would say it should take about half of that maximum damage (because it is partly submerged) each turn, but that oil could last for long, and if target is incapable of getting out - it takes damage until dead or rescued by someone, not just for two turns.
This rule doesn't necessarily have to be magical effect. Many 5E rules are designed for simplicity or balance reasons even if they don't make sense.
Mate a bomb unless incendyary dosent burn ita mostly sheer pressure and srapnel. Maybe the First defragration might set the oil ablaze buth It aint consuming It
I am surprised by this discussion. I feel that the two sides are not playing the same game, at least not using the same game logic. In RAW (Rules As Written), I support Haravikk's opinion, and I even think paragraph "A creature can take this damage only once per turn" would be only related to the paragraph "any creature that enters the area or ends its turn in the area." (Although it is obviously overpowered, criticizing it should be the job after we reading it correctly)
Then, I know it will definitely go back to how the real environment works, that 1SP of oil cannot be this powerful, and so on. Yes, I also think these considerations are reasonable, but we are not designers. When we are discussing RAW, we should not invent additional details over the rules, such as "the reality in the game" or how the values in the game are set - even if it seems unreasonable or unbalanced, I know it is the right and job for DMs but is not our job when discussing RAW.
Please look directly at the fact that the rules may have deficiencies or loopholes at the RAW level, which is not uncommon in the history of D&D, and that is why RAI (Rules As Intended) and RAF (Rules As Fun) exist - there is no high and low between them, and no one insult other one, only differences in orientation. Some people like RAW, some people like RAI or RAF, why force the other party to recognize your own correctness? You are not the players and DMs in a table.
The disagreement has nothing to do with RAW vs RAI or about whether or not one interpretation is overpowered. It's because people are reading the words on the page and interpreting them differently.
As it turns out, Haravikk's interpretation is incorrect in this case. That's because the rule says:
"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."
His interpretation would be correct if it had said this:
"If the target takes any fire damage before the oil dries (after 1 minute), the target takes an additional 5 fire damage."
But, because it explicitly adds the clause "from the burning oil", this oil is consumed in this process. After all, oil in this game is more typically used as a fuel for lamps and other such devices. The fuel works by burning it. Doing so produces light and heat for a certain amount of time and then it is consumed and must be replaced with more oil. The same mechanic must be applied when used as a weapon.
In addition to this mechanic, the rule also explicitly states that once oil is exposed to the open environment in a thin layer, wet and unused oil will dry up and become unusable (unburnable) after 1 minute. These are 2 separate mechanics and they both apply.
So finally, what you are just arguing for is the right to interpret RAW. RAW has more credibility for our view, so you think you must be RAW. But what I mean above is that, it doesn’t matter whether it’s RAW or RAI, it is just okay when the PCs and DMs in the game are consistent. Presented clearly is just fine, we can seek common ground while reserving differences.
And then, I don't think it is reading by "as Written", since it is beginning to search a lot of non-base rules, or descriptive sentences to support the point (it is a process finding the intended of writing behind), such as the cost and the description of "burning oil", even if I agree with your said and add into my HR (and also provide a higher-cost item for Haravikk's ver.).
However, it's just my view, don't be mind.