This is mostly a discussion around interpretations so I'm just looking for input from seasoned players. I guess it kind of reflects the same rulings around catapult shenanigans, so I'll start off with that one.
The spell "Catapult" roughly states that it can fling one object, and on a failed save, it and the object each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage. Apt players have said and concluded that, if a "Acid (vial)"was to be flung by catapult, the spell would deal an additional 2d6 acid damage, as the acid vial hits the target. Ofcourse, nowhere in the rules does this state so directly, but if you read the description of "Acid (vial)" it does state that if the attack hits a target it "Shatters on impact" and it will deal the damage as a result. Now the consensus is that you're allowed to do this combination and interaction, but as soon as you decide to start tying 5 of these things together and act like thats one object, to proceed to do 3d8 + 10d6 acid damage is too much.
Oil is in a similar boat if you ask me. However, there is one clear difference to me between something like oil and acid or holy water. Lets first analyze the description of acid:
"you can splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. In either case, make a ranged attack against a creature or object".
First of all, what is specifically meant here with "in either case"? You would think it's about splashing and throwing. However, in the case of splashing, it specifically state you can only do that onto a creature. There is no ranged attack roll against an object when specifying the splashing. But that's actually a sidetrack of my point. This object has two things it can do: splash within 5 feet. Or throw within 20 feet. It than specifies what you can do in either case.
Alchemist fire has a similiar description, but is slighly different in noticable ways.
As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a creature or object, treating the alchemist's fire as an improvised weapon
Here there is actually only one action; throwing the flask. And then specified with this action, it states you need to make a ranged attack roll.
Finally, knowing these two options exists, lets look at the description for oil:
As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an improvised weapon.
My argument and whole discussion point is as follows: Since "Acid (vial)" has two distinct actions: Splashing and Throwing, and the description specifically states: "In either case". And "Alchemist's Fire (Flask)" only has one action: Throwing, with the added ruling that you need to make a ranged attack roll. I propose that Oil, that states two actions; Splashing and Throwing, but does not specify: "In either case". I argue that the splashing part of the oil is just an action, and the throwing part is the part that needs to make the attack role, as per both the other object rulings.
As an action, you can splash the oil in this flask onto a creature within 5 feet of you or throw it up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact. Make a ranged attack against a target creature or object, treating the oil as an improvised weapon.
My argument and whole discussion point is… that Oil, that states two actions; Splashing and Throwing, but does not specify: "In either case". I argue that the splashing part of the oil is just an action, and the throwing part is the part that needs to make the attack role, as per both the other object rulings.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
If the splashing were in one sentence, and the throwing and attack roll were in another separate sentence, then I would agree with you. However, the splashing and throwing are instead both in the same sentence and the attack roll is in a separate sentence. Therefore I think it’s pretty clear that the attack roll applies to both. I think the whole “in either case” part of the acid vial’s description is wholly unnecessary and superfluous and should be removed in an errata and future publications so as to preclude discussions such as this from even needing to happen.
PS- One thing I noticed you didn’t point out is that the splashing can only happen on a target within 5 feet, and requires a ranged attack, which means such an attack would be made at disadvantage just like attacking with a net.
My argument and whole discussion point is as follows: Since "Acid (vial)" has two distinct actions: Splashing and Throwing, and the description specifically states: "In either case". And "Alchemist's Fire (Flask)" only has one action: Throwing, with the added ruling that you need to make a ranged attack roll. I propose that Oil, that states two actions; Splashing and Throwing, but does not specify: "In either case". I argue that the splashing part of the oil is just an action, and the throwing part is the part that needs to make the attack role, as per both the other object rulings.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
Yea I'm with Sposta on this, grammatically the "in either case" is unnecessary. In both cases you have one sentence that says "you can do this or that" that is then followed by a sentence that says "this is how you do it". There is no text that describes any other way to do the things and thus the "this is how" part clearly refers to both "this" and "that". Arguing that there is another, completely unmentioned, way to do "this" (but only "this") is a bad argument IMO. The rules are written in natural language and that means that sometimes sentences that mean the exact same thing isn't worded in the exact same way. I truly wish they had done it a different way but unfortunately they didn't/haven't.
I also agree with Sposta on the "splashing is done at disadvantage" issue. It is a poor design choice IMO but then again, all of these are quite clearly not meant to see big usage.
First of all, what is specifically meant here with "in either case"?
In either case mean wether you:
splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you
OR
throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact
you make a ranged attack against a creature or object and if it's a Ranged Attacks in Close Combat then you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
This is a good lesson on reading rules. While I agree with others in this thread about the final result and that the words "In either case" may not be required, I don't think they're wholly redundant.
Rather than looking to two very similar rules and picking the differences, you might consider another approach: the rule for acid is just a particular phrasing for the same idea expressed as the rule for oil: an item description will tell you how that item can be used. One description is clearer that the two options it gives use the same rule. The other description still gives two use cases, but only one instruction set. It may not be obvious to you that the same instructions apply for both uses (which is why i don't think the extra words are wholly redundant); but considering that they're the only instructions that you have on how to attack with the item, those instructions must, in fact, be the same for each use case.
This is mostly a discussion around interpretations so I'm just looking for input from seasoned players. I guess it kind of reflects the same rulings around catapult shenanigans, so I'll start off with that one.
The spell "Catapult" roughly states that it can fling one object, and on a failed save, it and the object each take 3d8 bludgeoning damage. Apt players have said and concluded that, if a "Acid (vial)"was to be flung by catapult, the spell would deal an additional 2d6 acid damage, as the acid vial hits the target. Ofcourse, nowhere in the rules does this state so directly, but if you read the description of "Acid (vial)" it does state that if the attack hits a target it "Shatters on impact" and it will deal the damage as a result. Now the consensus is that you're allowed to do this combination and interaction, but as soon as you decide to start tying 5 of these things together and act like thats one object, to proceed to do 3d8 + 10d6 acid damage is too much.
Oil is in a similar boat if you ask me. However, there is one clear difference to me between something like oil and acid or holy water. Lets first analyze the description of acid:
First of all, what is specifically meant here with "in either case"? You would think it's about splashing and throwing. However, in the case of splashing, it specifically state you can only do that onto a creature. There is no ranged attack roll against an object when specifying the splashing. But that's actually a sidetrack of my point. This object has two things it can do: splash within 5 feet. Or throw within 20 feet. It than specifies what you can do in either case.
Alchemist fire has a similiar description, but is slighly different in noticable ways.
Here there is actually only one action; throwing the flask. And then specified with this action, it states you need to make a ranged attack roll.
Finally, knowing these two options exists, lets look at the description for oil:
My argument and whole discussion point is as follows: Since "Acid (vial)" has two distinct actions: Splashing and Throwing, and the description specifically states: "In either case". And "Alchemist's Fire (Flask)" only has one action: Throwing, with the added ruling that you need to make a ranged attack roll. I propose that Oil, that states two actions; Splashing and Throwing, but does not specify: "In either case". I argue that the splashing part of the oil is just an action, and the throwing part is the part that needs to make the attack role, as per both the other object rulings.
I'd like to hear your opinions on this.
I would ignore all of that, way to complicated.
My rule would be that multiple vials do not increase damage, but have a chance to do splash damage to nearby people.
1 Vial would be all in a 5ft get a Dex save DC 13 or take the oil/acid damage as if hit.
2 vials would raise the DC to 15
3 vials would raise the DC to 17
4 vials would raise the DC to 19
5 vials would raise the DC to 21
If the splashing were in one sentence, and the throwing and attack roll were in another separate sentence, then I would agree with you. However, the splashing and throwing are instead both in the same sentence and the attack roll is in a separate sentence. Therefore I think it’s pretty clear that the attack roll applies to both. I think the whole “in either case” part of the acid vial’s description is wholly unnecessary and superfluous and should be removed in an errata and future publications so as to preclude discussions such as this from even needing to happen.
PS- One thing I noticed you didn’t point out is that the splashing can only happen on a target within 5 feet, and requires a ranged attack, which means such an attack would be made at disadvantage just like attacking with a net.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yea I'm with Sposta on this, grammatically the "in either case" is unnecessary. In both cases you have one sentence that says "you can do this or that" that is then followed by a sentence that says "this is how you do it". There is no text that describes any other way to do the things and thus the "this is how" part clearly refers to both "this" and "that". Arguing that there is another, completely unmentioned, way to do "this" (but only "this") is a bad argument IMO. The rules are written in natural language and that means that sometimes sentences that mean the exact same thing isn't worded in the exact same way. I truly wish they had done it a different way but unfortunately they didn't/haven't.
I also agree with Sposta on the "splashing is done at disadvantage" issue. It is a poor design choice IMO but then again, all of these are quite clearly not meant to see big usage.
In either case mean wether you:
splash the contents of this vial onto a creature within 5 feet of you
OR
throw the vial up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact
you make a ranged attack against a creature or object and if it's a Ranged Attacks in Close Combat then you have disadvantage on the attack roll if you are within 5 feet of a hostile creature who can see you and who isn't incapacitated.
This is a good lesson on reading rules. While I agree with others in this thread about the final result and that the words "In either case" may not be required, I don't think they're wholly redundant.
Rather than looking to two very similar rules and picking the differences, you might consider another approach: the rule for acid is just a particular phrasing for the same idea expressed as the rule for oil: an item description will tell you how that item can be used. One description is clearer that the two options it gives use the same rule. The other description still gives two use cases, but only one instruction set. It may not be obvious to you that the same instructions apply for both uses (which is why i don't think the extra words are wholly redundant); but considering that they're the only instructions that you have on how to attack with the item, those instructions must, in fact, be the same for each use case.