Dust of Dryness allows you to turn a cube of water (15 ft on a side) into one marble sized pellet. You can then "use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed" (DMG, p. 166). So what happens if you throw the pellet at a baddie's heavy armor or at a wall or column (or some other hard object) right next to a baddie? Do you make an attack roll? Does the baddie have to make a saving throw? If so, what type? Does the baddie take any damage on a failed save? How about on a successful save? How much damage and what type? Just curious to find out how to use pellets (full of tons of water) in combat to do damage. Also interested in crowd/battlefield control if outright damage isn't an option. Thanks so much!!
Dust of Dryness allows you to turn a cube of water (15 ft on a side) into one marble sized pellet. You can then "use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed" (DMG, p. 166). So what happens if you throw the pellet at a baddie's heavy armor or at a wall or column (or some other hard object) right next to a baddie? Do you make an attack roll? Does the baddie have to make a saving throw? If so, what type? Does the baddie take any damage on a failed save? How about on a successful save? How much damage and what type? Just curious to find out how to use pellets (full of tons of water) in combat to do damage. Also interested in crowd/battlefield control if outright damage isn't an option. Thanks so much!!
... Nothing happens. A DM may allow you to make an improvised ranged weapon attack for 1d4 damage? Yet that would not activate the item.
If you're using your action for anything other than the [Tooltip Not Found] action to doing exactly what is explicitly described by the item--"use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed"--then it doesn't activate. You absolutely must take the [Tooltip Not Found] action when activating magic items.
Magic items activated with an action are weird in 5e in the sense that they absolutely require the use of your entire action to "use the object", yet they are not the [Tooltip Not Found] action specifically so that Rogues cannot benefit from the Fast Hands feature...
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I seem to partially disagree with Sigred and Lyxen:
"Smashing" something can absolutely be achieved by throwing the pellet against a hard surface, which a heavily armored opponent could qualify as. The description provides no specific limitations on the fragility of the pellet, nor the hardness of the striking surface other than that it is "hard". Though, I would personally require that the armor be something more rigid, like Plate, Split, Half-plate, or Breast plate. Anything else has enough give, that there is room for error.
It may justify an attack roll, but would be an "Action" not an "Attack", as Sigred said.
No damage on impact, RAW or RAI, as the object shatters, dissipating all of the force.
15ft x 15ft x 15ft is a lot of water, but as the item makes no explicit mention of how it can be used as a weapon, any combat application would be purely up to DM discretion, and not RAW. It's obviously magical, so the water may simply "appear" in unoccupied space, and not deliver any explosive force at all to creatures in the area.
However, that much water would weigh 208,285 lbs, which is nothing to sneeze at. If you were to make an oversized steel flask, fly above a target with it, and then chuck the pellet inside, the "flask" would suddenly become a very formidable falling object and could potentially deal up to 20d6 non-magical bludgeoning damage. (Falling Object damage isn't technically defined in 5e, but the consequences of being crushed are pretty unavoidable.)
The pellet should instantly kill a fire elemental, right? They take 1 point of damage per gallon of water, and that should be a lot more than 102 gallons of water.
The phrasing on Fire Elemental's Water Susceptibility is odd.
For every 5 ft. the elemental moves in water, or for every gallon of water splashed on it, it takes 1 cold damage.
5ft of movement in water does not seem like it should be equivalent to being splashed by a gallon.
However, I think the best model for how it should effect a fire elemental is to reverse the effect of the Dust of Dryness on Water elementals.
An elemental composed mostly of water that is exposed to a pinch of the dust must make a DC 13 Constitution saving throw, taking 10d6 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Say, DC 13 Dexterity check to avoid the water, and taking 10d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Make a long tube of solid reinforced iron. Put the pellet at the bottom. Aim the tube at the target. Take a barbed 50lb metal spear whose handle is almost the inner diameter of the tube. Ram the spear down the tube and jump back hoping the tube doesn't explode. The thrust from the instantaneous expansion of 3375 cubic feet of water in s volume of about an inch could send that spear through anything :) ... though on second thought it might be safer to use wall of force or something similar to confine and direct the blast.
As for the OP questions ... all of them are a DM call. The item says that using an action to smash the pellet releases the water. It doesn't say anything about the method of release or other likely effects of releasing 3375 cubic feet of water all at once. This makes everything about this item and the side effects a DM decision. Clearly, a sharp blow is expected to break the spell and release the water. Hitting the pellet with a mallet/hammer on a hard surface is likely sufficient. Would throwing be hard enough? DM call but it would depend on whether the DM considers "smash" to mean the object is fragile or durable.
P.S. 3375 cubic feet of water expands into a column 1"x1" by 5.8 MILLION inches long. This is over 90 miles. The water pressure from the column of water would be pretty incredible :)
Make a long tube of solid reinforced iron. Put the pellet at the bottom. Aim the tube at the target. Take a barbed 50lb metal spear whose handle is almost the inner diameter of the tube. Ram the spear down the tube and jump back hoping the tube doesn't explode. The thrust from the instantaneous expansion of 3375 cubic feet of water in s volume of about an inch could send that spear through anything :) ... though on second thought it might be safer to use wall of force or something similar to confine and direct the blast.
As for the OP questions ... all of them are a DM call. The item says that using an action to smash the pellet releases the water. It doesn't say anything about the method of release or other likely effects of releasing 3375 cubic feet of water all at once. This makes everything about this item and the side effects a DM decision. Clearly, a sharp blow is expected to break the spell and release the water. Hitting the pellet with a mallet/hammer on a hard surface is likely sufficient. Would throwing be hard enough? DM call but it would depend on whether the DM considers "smash" to mean the object is fragile or durable.
P.S. 3375 cubic feet of water expands into a column 1"x1" by 5.8 MILLION inches long. This is over 90 miles. The water pressure from the column of water would be pretty incredible :)
It all depends at the rate of which the water is released and with what pressure. The only difference between a slow burn and an explosion is the rate of combustion. Dust of dryness only says : "Someone can use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to Shatter and release the water the dust absorbed. Doing so ends that pellet's magic."
It might be that if there is pressure restraining the release of water, it just seeps out gently as there is no indication how much time it takes to release the water. Personally, I would go for a "slow burn" to avoid that kind of "idea", if there is enough space, the water is released quickly, but if there's not, the pressure of release is actually negligible. This also avoids silly things like force feeding the pellet to someone then punching him hard in the gut... :p
Ruling is entirely up to the DM. Personally, I'd allow some level of explosive force behind the release of the water in a confined space. Even swallowing one and breaking it inside a creature is likely to be fatal unless the DM insists that when swallowed the water will trickle out over days or weeks .. in which case it becomes a great tool for desert travel since you won't need any water.
In either case, I go for consistency in rulings, I don't think the object would know its surroundings (ruling #1) so whatever I decide the release rate would be (ruling #2), it wouldn't change just because a player tries to use the object in an innovative or unexpected way (ruling #3). Of course, if a DM wants to shut down player innovation and creativity they are welcome to rule it however they wish.
Make a long tube of solid reinforced iron. Put the pellet at the bottom. Aim the tube at the target. Take a barbed 50lb metal spear whose handle is almost the inner diameter of the tube. Ram the spear down the tube and jump back hoping the tube doesn't explode. The thrust from the instantaneous expansion of 3375 cubic feet of water in s volume of about an inch could send that spear through anything :) ... though on second thought it might be safer to use wall of force or something similar to confine and direct the blast.
As for the OP questions ... all of them are a DM call. The item says that using an action to smash the pellet releases the water. It doesn't say anything about the method of release or other likely effects of releasing 3375 cubic feet of water all at once. This makes everything about this item and the side effects a DM decision. Clearly, a sharp blow is expected to break the spell and release the water. Hitting the pellet with a mallet/hammer on a hard surface is likely sufficient. Would throwing be hard enough? DM call but it would depend on whether the DM considers "smash" to mean the object is fragile or durable.
P.S. 3375 cubic feet of water expands into a column 1"x1" by 5.8 MILLION inches long. This is over 90 miles. The water pressure from the column of water would be pretty incredible :)
It all depends at the rate of which the water is released and with what pressure. The only difference between a slow burn and an explosion is the rate of combustion. Dust of dryness only says : "Someone can use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to Shatter and release the water the dust absorbed. Doing so ends that pellet's magic."
It might be that if there is pressure restraining the release of water, it just seeps out gently as there is no indication how much time it takes to release the water. Personally, I would go for a "slow burn" to avoid that kind of "idea", if there is enough space, the water is released quickly, but if there's not, the pressure of release is actually negligible. This also avoids silly things like force feeding the pellet to someone then punching him hard in the gut... :p
Ruling is entirely up to the DM. Personally, I'd allow some level of explosive force behind the release of the water in a confined space. Even swallowing one and breaking it inside a creature is likely to be fatal unless the DM insists that when swallowed the water will trickle out over days or weeks .. in which case it becomes a great tool for desert travel since you won't need any water.
Not having explosive pressure does not mean not having a lot of inconfort and being unable to swallow anything else because your whole guts are permanently full of water.
In either case, I go for consistency in rulings, I don't think the object would know its surroundings (ruling #1
It's not a question of knowing, it's a question of physics. A gaz released inside a balloon does not "know" the balloon but will not make it explode and will inflate it until the surrounding external pressure equals that of the inflated balloon.
Absolutely! :) ... Gas is compressible, water is not. Basic physics though since this is D&D there are times when it doesn't apply however since I prefer a world that works as expected, in the games I play physics usually matches the real world as much as feasible. One of these pellets inside a living creature is most likely to cause some part of the body to explode (likely the stomach) even with a relatively slow release rate since the body can't clear the water fast enough. It would only take a few cubic feet of water to burst the stomach and the abdominal cavity (typical human stomach size is 2-4 liters. 4 liters is about 1/10 cubic feet - out of 3375 being released).
Anyway, a party that manages to break one of these inside a creature is likely to do an immense amount of damage if not kill it outright. On the other hand, if the creature has a huge stomach then you might just be looking at indigestion :)
so whatever I decide the release rate would be (ruling #2), it wouldn't change just because a player tries to use the object in an innovative or unexpected way (ruling #3). Of course, if a DM wants to shut down player innovation and creativity they are welcome to rule it however they wish.
Creativity is all well and good, but abusing it with things which are not made for it is much less so. The initial idea of a tube is OK but insisting on instant kill or even high damage because of the strength of the blast is not. If you go that way, and it was that explosive, maybe the tube would not be able to contain that pressure of water and would just explode, injuring his wielder.
This is not a combat item except in rare circumstances against water elementals. Going beyond that and allowing fort repeatable use is dangerous and leads to situations described on this forum in which players kill the BBEG by burying barrels of black powder under the road where he is supposed to be travelling. Where is the fun in that ?
Really? If your party came up with a cool plan that could severely damage or kill the BBEG at no risk to themselves you'd shoot it down? Personally, I adjudicate the character actions in a fair and unbiased way while privately cheering them on. I like it when the party comes up with a creative way to use the tools they have to hand and I will evaluate the plan on its merits and see how well it executes. So ... YES ... if the party comes up with a cool way to kill off a BBEG while he is traveling while minimizing the risk to themselves there is a LOT of fun in that. (If every boss fight simply involved rolling lots of dice for combat ... it eventually gets pretty stale for most folks). There is always another BBEG, plots are like an onion and there can always be another layer that the players haven't seen yet.
Anyway, in a game I was running the players would ask about the release rate of water as one of the constraints with their planning. If I wanted to potential for it to be used explosively, I would describe a fast release rate ... maybe over a round. Other rates of water release simply limit the other applications. If I said the water is released over a period of an hour - that is actually about 1 cu ft/sec - which is actually still more than sufficient to rip apart the abdominal region of most humanoids in a few seconds.
As for explosives or other tools, if I put them in the game then it is on me as DM when the players come up with cool and unusual ways to use them. I go with it and adjudicate what happens, I don't change stated rules midstream simply to foil a plan that goes off script. Honestly, there is absolutely no need to ever do that since an adventure is an ever evolving moving target of ideas and interactions - there is nothing specific involving players that EVER has to happen in games I run. What happens depends on the character actions, the world and the events going on simultaneously. Resolve the interaction of the intentions of NPCs and their actions/plans with the actions taken by the players and the result is the campaign.
Activating some magic items requires a user to do something in particular, such as holding the item and uttering a command word, reading the item if it is a scroll, or drinking it if it is a potion. The description of each item category or individual item details how an item is activated. Certain items use one or more of the following rules related to their activation.
If an item requires an action to activate, that action isn't a function of the Use an Object action, so a feature such as the rogue's Fast Hands can't be used to activate the item.
There is no attack roll, no saving throw, and no damage to anything except a water elemental (specifically exposed to the dust). RAW, there is no interaction between fire elementals and this item, as there is no reference to how much water would be splashed on the target. RAI, I highly doubt this item is intended to be an instant kill for creatures with water susceptibility, and would lean toward 10d6 maximum as Memnosyne suggested.
RAW, there are two functions this item has:
use an action to sprinkle a pinch of it over water
use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface
The item does not say that you can throw the pellet to activate it (pellet -> water), so RAW that's not an option. RAI, I don't think that's meant to be an option either. If you could activate the pellet by throwing it, there would be a reference to making a ranged attack roll, making an ability check, having a range increment, or just straight up telling you that is a function. It would mirror the language of items like Alchemist's Fire (flask) and Acid (vial).
The release of water itself also has no interaction with creatures in general. It does not deal damage, it does not cause forced movement, it does not apply conditions (such as Prone), it does not create difficult terrain, nor anything which isn't referenced by the item. Considering Tidal Wave, it's not like the developers were unaware of what a large volume of rushing water can do--this doesn't. It's an uncommon wondrous item; it transports water.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
No, but this is not what this is about. The plan with the dust of dryness is using out of genre and out of character thinking and knowledge, just as the player trying to mix sapetre, sulphur and coal "just to see what happens". This is not cleverness, neither is it roleplaying.
Whether it is "out of genre" depends on the education and training of the character. Basic hydraulics has been known for a long time. Water powered mills and other methods of harnessing and understanding the properties of water have been known for a long time. Archimedes principle about bouyancy goes back to 247 BCE. There is no reason that a sage in a D&D world might understand water sufficienlty to see how water under pressure could be used as thrust.
Anyway, application of such concepts to a pellet of dust of drying depends on the prior character experience with the dust, how fast and in what manner the water is released, and how the DM wants to run it.
The rules don't say. It could be that when the broken pellet is exposed to sufficient water pressure it simply stops releasing the water until the pressure is removed. This would let you put the broken pellet into a canteen and it might only release more water when the cap is removed. Either way, since the item doesn't say, it is up to the DM to make a ruling on it for their game.
First no, there is not always another BBEG, if the player blew up Strahd, there would not be another one and it would be incredibly stale for the story. And for me, a campaign finishing like this would be extremely disappointing.
That is not to say that plans like this cannot be put in place and succeed, but they will do so only if it is appropriate for the genre and the characters, that's all, and the players in my group are usually mature enough to play that way.
We might joke about things like this during the game - almost all of us are engineers anyway - but our characters would not think that way and neither would we.
I actually disagree, even in the case of Strahd. Having Strahd as the head villain is the theme of the module and I would always play it out that way. However, if I was running it for a group that somehow killed Strahd unexpectedly (which I honestly can't imagine happening) then it only ends the campaign if the DM wants it to. The real villains in CoS are the evil remnants in the Amber Temple. They corrupt the inhabitants, derive sustenance from Strahd's evil nature and created the demiplane of Barovia in the first place. In the module, they bring Strahd back after a few months since he can never really be killed as long as his curse is active.
Given that, I would just shift the BBEG in CoS to being one or more of the evil entities in the amber temple with their goal being to ideally corrupt one or more of the party. It's D&D, the plot is entirely up to the imagination of the DM and if something happens to take an adventure so far away from the expected plot line then just create another that logically fits into the existing structure. In some sense, the longer term goal of a CoS based campaign could extend far beyond dealing with Strahd to the destruction of the evil remnants and their hold over the Demiplanes of Dread freeing the inhabitants from their evil grasp. They are actually a far more sinister BBEG than Strahd himself. (Assuming someone wanted to homebrew a campaign starting with CoS and going to level 20 or beyond. Dealing with the dark powers brings in the demiplanes and even the Shadowfell ... lots of potential for an epic storyline and Strahd is only the first and perhaps most minor BBEG).
Again, physics do not work that way, the rate of release depends on the pressure of the origin of the fluid and the resistance of the destination, which can increase as max capacity is reached.
The source is magical. Water comes from crushing the pebble of dust and no guidance is given for how this water is released. As a result, the source pressure is undefined. Any finite release rate of water from the dust will eventually result in water pressures in whatever container that would exceed the mechanical ability of the container to hold it. On the other hand, if the water conversion stops at some specific pressure then sealing the container would prevent further conversion of the pebble. As far as the actual physics of flows goes, the Navier-Stokes equations are a good starting point.
As for explosives or other tools, if I put them in the game then it is on me as DM when the players come up with cool and unusual ways to use them.
Which is one reason not to put it in the game without controlled limitations.
The companion conversation for this thread would be a similar application of the Decanter of Endless Water against a Fire Elemental:
It offers (3) clear options: "Stream", "Fountain", "Geyser". Of which, "Geyser" comes with explicit mechanics for how it functions, including targeting a creature.
RAW, a Fire Elemental would have to make a DC 13 Strength save or take 1d4 bludgeoning damage and fall prone.
How does the room rule?
(A) Only what the item description lists;
(B) Add 30 points of cold damage (By gallon; equivalent to ~9d6);
(C) Add a 6 points of cold damage (By foot of "movement"; equivalent to ~2d6); or
(D) Other?
The "Geyser" effect seems to presume that a Hit is automatic, akin to a Line effect, so what happens if there is a line of 6 Fire Elementals?
The companion conversation for this thread would be a similar application of the Decanter of Endless Water against a Fire Elemental:
It offers (3) clear options: "Stream", "Fountain", "Geyser". Of which, "Geyser" comes with explicit mechanics for how it functions, including targeting a creature.
RAW, a Fire Elemental would have to make a DC 13 Strength save or take 1d4 bludgeoning damage and fall prone.
How does the room rule?
(A) Only what the item description lists;
(B) Add 30 points of cold damage (By gallon; equivalent to ~9d6);
(C) Add a 6 points of cold damage (By foot of "movement"; equivalent to ~2d6); or
(D) Other?
The "Geyser" effect seems to presume that a Hit is automatic, akin to a Line effect, so what happens if there is a line of 6 Fire Elementals?
Good question. I'd say the answer is probably a combination of A, B, and D.
First, of course it only does what it says it does. That means only the geyser option can be used directly (action to activate, and bonus action to aim). You could use the stream/fountain options to gather water in an open container, that you could use to subsequently attempt tossing the water on another turn, but that's probably going to end up being resolved as an improvised action.
With the geyser, it's not really a line effect; at least, as far as we're concerned for definitions and rules. It does not say that it affects all creatures in the area; only a single target.
For the damage, the item itself only deals the 1d4 bludgeoning (and Prone) on a failed save. It's not a Dex save to avoid the water; just a Str save to resist getting knocked down. That's the end of the story for the item interaction, but then there's the Fire Elemental's specific trait which would cause them to take some damage from the water itself. I think the answer to that is going to rely on interpretation by the DM.
For simplicity, I would probably just rule they take 30 cold damage. The item was nice enough to list an exact volume of water, and that's typically good enough for me in edge cases like this. Conversely, I can easily see the validity of a DM saying they don't get hit by all the water being produced... even high-quality pressure nozzles have a spread. Not all the liquid coming out of a fire hose goes right to where you aim the nozzle.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I suppose the other factor to consider is that even though Elementals have their "Air/Fire/Water" forms, and can choose to enter a hostile creature's space and end their turn, the reverse isn't true, as they are still physically present in the space they occupy. (When sharing a space, they wrap around their victim like a liquid, so you are on their "inner side", not "inside" them.)
The geyser would hit their corporeal body and stop as though it hit any other solid obstacle. So, it is definitely a "splash", rather than a "pass through" situation.
Subsequently, even if you can throw the Pellet of Greater Moistness, the Fire Elemental wouldn't count as a "Hard" target. If you stood adjacent to it and smashed it, you could only douse one side of it before the water drained away. At best, you might expose it to about as much water as a Geyser, but without the continuous directed stream, it would likely be more equivalent to 10-20 gallons as there is a maximum amount of surface area that can be affected.
Reviving this thread with a related question. How would you all rule about the dust affecting an ice elemental? There really isn't much to go on other than the flavor text of an ice mephit, as it appears to be the only official ice based elemental.
"Comprising frigid air and water, ice mephits are aloof and cold, surpassing all other mephits in pitiless cruelty."
Because it's only half water based, I'm currently thinking about giving the elemental either advantage on the save, or resistance to the damage dealt.
By RAW, I can't see why it wouldn't work, but in my head it just really shouldn't....
The ice mephit has a False Appearance that states that it is indistinguishable from a shard of ice, so I would suggest that it is composed primarily of ice, thus already dry, or it can reflexively adjust its composition to ice in response to the Dust of Dryness, rendering it impervious.
Anything in between can be DMs discretion. Maybe if you surprise one in motion, it'll be vulnerable, but not if it's hiding or in combat.
Dust of Dryness allows you to turn a cube of water (15 ft on a side) into one marble sized pellet. You can then "use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed" (DMG, p. 166). So what happens if you throw the pellet at a baddie's heavy armor or at a wall or column (or some other hard object) right next to a baddie? Do you make an attack roll? Does the baddie have to make a saving throw? If so, what type? Does the baddie take any damage on a failed save? How about on a successful save? How much damage and what type? Just curious to find out how to use pellets (full of tons of water) in combat to do damage. Also interested in crowd/battlefield control if outright damage isn't an option. Thanks so much!!
... Nothing happens. A DM may allow you to make an improvised ranged weapon attack for 1d4 damage? Yet that would not activate the item.
If you're using your action for anything other than
the [Tooltip Not Found] action todoing exactly what is explicitly described by the item--"use an action to smash the pellet against a hard surface, causing the pellet to shatter and release the water the dust absorbed"--then it doesn't activate.You absolutely must take the [Tooltip Not Found] action when activating magic items.Magic items activated with an action are weird in 5e in the sense that they absolutely require the use of your entire action to "use the object", yet they are not the [Tooltip Not Found] action specifically so that Rogues cannot benefit from the Fast Hands feature...
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I seem to partially disagree with Sigred and Lyxen:
"Smashing" something can absolutely be achieved by throwing the pellet against a hard surface, which a heavily armored opponent could qualify as. The description provides no specific limitations on the fragility of the pellet, nor the hardness of the striking surface other than that it is "hard". Though, I would personally require that the armor be something more rigid, like Plate, Split, Half-plate, or Breast plate. Anything else has enough give, that there is room for error.
It may justify an attack roll, but would be an "Action" not an "Attack", as Sigred said.
No damage on impact, RAW or RAI, as the object shatters, dissipating all of the force.
15ft x 15ft x 15ft is a lot of water, but as the item makes no explicit mention of how it can be used as a weapon, any combat application would be purely up to DM discretion, and not RAW. It's obviously magical, so the water may simply "appear" in unoccupied space, and not deliver any explosive force at all to creatures in the area.
However, that much water would weigh 208,285 lbs, which is nothing to sneeze at. If you were to make an oversized steel flask, fly above a target with it, and then chuck the pellet inside, the "flask" would suddenly become a very formidable falling object and could potentially deal up to 20d6 non-magical bludgeoning damage. (Falling Object damage isn't technically defined in 5e, but the consequences of being crushed are pretty unavoidable.)
For an alternative use, refer to this Sage Advice
The pellet should instantly kill a fire elemental, right? They take 1 point of damage per gallon of water, and that should be a lot more than 102 gallons of water.
The phrasing on Fire Elemental's Water Susceptibility is odd.
5ft of movement in water does not seem like it should be equivalent to being splashed by a gallon.
However, I think the best model for how it should effect a fire elemental is to reverse the effect of the Dust of Dryness on Water elementals.
Say, DC 13 Dexterity check to avoid the water, and taking 10d6 cold damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
Make a long tube of solid reinforced iron. Put the pellet at the bottom. Aim the tube at the target. Take a barbed 50lb metal spear whose handle is almost the inner diameter of the tube. Ram the spear down the tube and jump back hoping the tube doesn't explode. The thrust from the instantaneous expansion of 3375 cubic feet of water in s volume of about an inch could send that spear through anything :) ... though on second thought it might be safer to use wall of force or something similar to confine and direct the blast.
As for the OP questions ... all of them are a DM call. The item says that using an action to smash the pellet releases the water. It doesn't say anything about the method of release or other likely effects of releasing 3375 cubic feet of water all at once. This makes everything about this item and the side effects a DM decision. Clearly, a sharp blow is expected to break the spell and release the water. Hitting the pellet with a mallet/hammer on a hard surface is likely sufficient. Would throwing be hard enough? DM call but it would depend on whether the DM considers "smash" to mean the object is fragile or durable.
P.S. 3375 cubic feet of water expands into a column 1"x1" by 5.8 MILLION inches long. This is over 90 miles. The water pressure from the column of water would be pretty incredible :)
Ruling is entirely up to the DM. Personally, I'd allow some level of explosive force behind the release of the water in a confined space. Even swallowing one and breaking it inside a creature is likely to be fatal unless the DM insists that when swallowed the water will trickle out over days or weeks .. in which case it becomes a great tool for desert travel since you won't need any water.
In either case, I go for consistency in rulings, I don't think the object would know its surroundings (ruling #1) so whatever I decide the release rate would be (ruling #2), it wouldn't change just because a player tries to use the object in an innovative or unexpected way (ruling #3). Of course, if a DM wants to shut down player innovation and creativity they are welcome to rule it however they wish.
Absolutely! :) ... Gas is compressible, water is not. Basic physics though since this is D&D there are times when it doesn't apply however since I prefer a world that works as expected, in the games I play physics usually matches the real world as much as feasible. One of these pellets inside a living creature is most likely to cause some part of the body to explode (likely the stomach) even with a relatively slow release rate since the body can't clear the water fast enough. It would only take a few cubic feet of water to burst the stomach and the abdominal cavity (typical human stomach size is 2-4 liters. 4 liters is about 1/10 cubic feet - out of 3375 being released).
Anyway, a party that manages to break one of these inside a creature is likely to do an immense amount of damage if not kill it outright. On the other hand, if the creature has a huge stomach then you might just be looking at indigestion :)
Really? If your party came up with a cool plan that could severely damage or kill the BBEG at no risk to themselves you'd shoot it down? Personally, I adjudicate the character actions in a fair and unbiased way while privately cheering them on. I like it when the party comes up with a creative way to use the tools they have to hand and I will evaluate the plan on its merits and see how well it executes. So ... YES ... if the party comes up with a cool way to kill off a BBEG while he is traveling while minimizing the risk to themselves there is a LOT of fun in that. (If every boss fight simply involved rolling lots of dice for combat ... it eventually gets pretty stale for most folks). There is always another BBEG, plots are like an onion and there can always be another layer that the players haven't seen yet.
Anyway, in a game I was running the players would ask about the release rate of water as one of the constraints with their planning. If I wanted to potential for it to be used explosively, I would describe a fast release rate ... maybe over a round. Other rates of water release simply limit the other applications. If I said the water is released over a period of an hour - that is actually about 1 cu ft/sec - which is actually still more than sufficient to rip apart the abdominal region of most humanoids in a few seconds.
As for explosives or other tools, if I put them in the game then it is on me as DM when the players come up with cool and unusual ways to use them. I go with it and adjudicate what happens, I don't change stated rules midstream simply to foil a plan that goes off script. Honestly, there is absolutely no need to ever do that since an adventure is an ever evolving moving target of ideas and interactions - there is nothing specific involving players that EVER has to happen in games I run. What happens depends on the character actions, the world and the events going on simultaneously. Resolve the interaction of the intentions of NPCs and their actions/plans with the actions taken by the players and the result is the campaign.
RAW, nothing happens unless you use your action to activate the item, and only to activate the item.
There is no attack roll, no saving throw, and no damage to anything except a water elemental (specifically exposed to the dust). RAW, there is no interaction between fire elementals and this item, as there is no reference to how much water would be splashed on the target. RAI, I highly doubt this item is intended to be an instant kill for creatures with water susceptibility, and would lean toward 10d6 maximum as Memnosyne suggested.
RAW, there are two functions this item has:
The item does not say that you can throw the pellet to activate it (pellet -> water), so RAW that's not an option. RAI, I don't think that's meant to be an option either. If you could activate the pellet by throwing it, there would be a reference to making a ranged attack roll, making an ability check, having a range increment, or just straight up telling you that is a function. It would mirror the language of items like Alchemist's Fire (flask) and Acid (vial).
The release of water itself also has no interaction with creatures in general. It does not deal damage, it does not cause forced movement, it does not apply conditions (such as Prone), it does not create difficult terrain, nor anything which isn't referenced by the item. Considering Tidal Wave, it's not like the developers were unaware of what a large volume of rushing water can do--this doesn't. It's an uncommon wondrous item; it transports water.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
As for RAW ... I entirely agree with Sigred.
The item does nothing beyond what is stated. It absorbs up to a 15' cube of water and it can be broken as an action to release the water.
Anything else is up to the DM interpretation and how they want to run it.
Whether it is "out of genre" depends on the education and training of the character. Basic hydraulics has been known for a long time. Water powered mills and other methods of harnessing and understanding the properties of water have been known for a long time. Archimedes principle about bouyancy goes back to 247 BCE. There is no reason that a sage in a D&D world might understand water sufficienlty to see how water under pressure could be used as thrust.
Anyway, application of such concepts to a pellet of dust of drying depends on the prior character experience with the dust, how fast and in what manner the water is released, and how the DM wants to run it.
The rules don't say. It could be that when the broken pellet is exposed to sufficient water pressure it simply stops releasing the water until the pressure is removed. This would let you put the broken pellet into a canteen and it might only release more water when the cap is removed. Either way, since the item doesn't say, it is up to the DM to make a ruling on it for their game.
I actually disagree, even in the case of Strahd. Having Strahd as the head villain is the theme of the module and I would always play it out that way. However, if I was running it for a group that somehow killed Strahd unexpectedly (which I honestly can't imagine happening) then it only ends the campaign if the DM wants it to. The real villains in CoS are the evil remnants in the Amber Temple. They corrupt the inhabitants, derive sustenance from Strahd's evil nature and created the demiplane of Barovia in the first place. In the module, they bring Strahd back after a few months since he can never really be killed as long as his curse is active.
Given that, I would just shift the BBEG in CoS to being one or more of the evil entities in the amber temple with their goal being to ideally corrupt one or more of the party. It's D&D, the plot is entirely up to the imagination of the DM and if something happens to take an adventure so far away from the expected plot line then just create another that logically fits into the existing structure. In some sense, the longer term goal of a CoS based campaign could extend far beyond dealing with Strahd to the destruction of the evil remnants and their hold over the Demiplanes of Dread freeing the inhabitants from their evil grasp. They are actually a far more sinister BBEG than Strahd himself. (Assuming someone wanted to homebrew a campaign starting with CoS and going to level 20 or beyond. Dealing with the dark powers brings in the demiplanes and even the Shadowfell ... lots of potential for an epic storyline and Strahd is only the first and perhaps most minor BBEG).
The source is magical. Water comes from crushing the pebble of dust and no guidance is given for how this water is released. As a result, the source pressure is undefined. Any finite release rate of water from the dust will eventually result in water pressures in whatever container that would exceed the mechanical ability of the container to hold it. On the other hand, if the water conversion stops at some specific pressure then sealing the container would prevent further conversion of the pebble. As far as the actual physics of flows goes, the Navier-Stokes equations are a good starting point.
Agreed. :)
The companion conversation for this thread would be a similar application of the Decanter of Endless Water against a Fire Elemental:
It offers (3) clear options: "Stream", "Fountain", "Geyser". Of which, "Geyser" comes with explicit mechanics for how it functions, including targeting a creature.
RAW, a Fire Elemental would have to make a DC 13 Strength save or take 1d4 bludgeoning damage
and fall prone.How does the room rule?
(A) Only what the item description lists;
(B) Add 30 points of cold damage (By gallon; equivalent to ~9d6);
(C) Add a 6 points of cold damage (By foot of "movement"; equivalent to ~2d6); or
(D) Other?
The "Geyser" effect seems to presume that a Hit is automatic, akin to a Line effect, so what happens if there is a line of 6 Fire Elementals?
Good question. I'd say the answer is probably a combination of A, B, and D.
First, of course it only does what it says it does. That means only the geyser option can be used directly (action to activate, and bonus action to aim). You could use the stream/fountain options to gather water in an open container, that you could use to subsequently attempt tossing the water on another turn, but that's probably going to end up being resolved as an improvised action.
With the geyser, it's not really a line effect; at least, as far as we're concerned for definitions and rules. It does not say that it affects all creatures in the area; only a single target.
For the damage, the item itself only deals the 1d4 bludgeoning (and Prone) on a failed save. It's not a Dex save to avoid the water; just a Str save to resist getting knocked down. That's the end of the story for the item interaction, but then there's the Fire Elemental's specific trait which would cause them to take some damage from the water itself. I think the answer to that is going to rely on interpretation by the DM.
For simplicity, I would probably just rule they take 30 cold damage. The item was nice enough to list an exact volume of water, and that's typically good enough for me in edge cases like this. Conversely, I can easily see the validity of a DM saying they don't get hit by all the water being produced... even high-quality pressure nozzles have a spread. Not all the liquid coming out of a fire hose goes right to where you aim the nozzle.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
I suppose the other factor to consider is that even though Elementals have their "Air/Fire/Water" forms, and can choose to enter a hostile creature's space and end their turn, the reverse isn't true, as they are still physically present in the space they occupy. (When sharing a space, they wrap around their victim like a liquid, so you are on their "inner side", not "inside" them.)
The geyser would hit their corporeal body and stop as though it hit any other solid obstacle. So, it is definitely a "splash", rather than a "pass through" situation.
Subsequently, even if you can throw the Pellet of Greater Moistness, the Fire Elemental wouldn't count as a "Hard" target. If you stood adjacent to it and smashed it, you could only douse one side of it before the water drained away. At best, you might expose it to about as much water as a Geyser, but without the continuous directed stream, it would likely be more equivalent to 10-20 gallons as there is a maximum amount of surface area that can be affected.
Reviving this thread with a related question. How would you all rule about the dust affecting an ice elemental? There really isn't much to go on other than the flavor text of an ice mephit, as it appears to be the only official ice based elemental.
"Comprising frigid air and water, ice mephits are aloof and cold, surpassing all other mephits in pitiless cruelty."
Because it's only half water based, I'm currently thinking about giving the elemental either advantage on the save, or resistance to the damage dealt.
By RAW, I can't see why it wouldn't work, but in my head it just really shouldn't....
Where is that description from?
The ice mephit has a False Appearance that states that it is indistinguishable from a shard of ice, so I would suggest that it is composed primarily of ice, thus already dry, or it can reflexively adjust its composition to ice in response to the Dust of Dryness, rendering it impervious.
Anything in between can be DMs discretion. Maybe if you surprise one in motion, it'll be vulnerable, but not if it's hiding or in combat.
That description is right below the stat block on the details page. Kind of easy to miss because it's so small.
Can you drop a link? That bit seems to be absent from its official entry in the Basic Rules. Maybe it was duplicated in another book.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/ice-mephit
Shows up for me....
Hah, fascinating.
Well, nevertheless, the picture and False Appearance seem to contradict the description. Ambiguity is a gift for the DM.