How can I explain to my player that Alchemist's Fire is safe to carry?












64












$begingroup$


The Player's Handbook (p. 148) says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":




Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.




A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-igniting substance.



His logic is pretty solid:




  1. An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.

  2. The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.

  3. Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.


However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game?



(I believe a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so".)






dnd-5e equipment







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    Jan 14 at 18:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
    $endgroup$
    – Clockwork-Muse
    Jan 15 at 3:40






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Does the player carry any health potions?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 7:42






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 8:09






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
    $endgroup$
    – user969366
    Jan 15 at 13:28
















64












$begingroup$


The Player's Handbook (p. 148) says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":




Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.




A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-igniting substance.



His logic is pretty solid:




  1. An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.

  2. The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.

  3. Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.


However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game?



(I believe a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so".)






dnd-5e equipment







share|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    Jan 14 at 18:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
    $endgroup$
    – Clockwork-Muse
    Jan 15 at 3:40






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Does the player carry any health potions?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 7:42






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 8:09






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
    $endgroup$
    – user969366
    Jan 15 at 13:28














64












64








64


3



$begingroup$


The Player's Handbook (p. 148) says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":




Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.




A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-igniting substance.



His logic is pretty solid:




  1. An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.

  2. The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.

  3. Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.


However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game?



(I believe a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so".)






dnd-5e equipment







share|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Player's Handbook (p. 148) says that Alchemist's Fire "ignites when exposed to air":




Alchemist's Fire. This sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air. As an action, you can throw this flask up to 20 feet, shattering it on impact.




A player noticed this and refuses to carry such a self-igniting substance.



His logic is pretty solid:




  1. An adventurer's life is full of running, fighting, jumping and falling.

  2. The flask has to be fragile enough, otherwise it won't shatter on impact when you throw it.

  3. Given that, carrying the flask will eventually ignite it.


However, reading 5e adventures (HotDQ, for example), I came to the conclusion that Alchemist's Fire is considered quite safe to carry. Is this correct? How can I explain this in-game?



(I believe a good DM should explain things, instead of just saying "it works this way because I say so".)






dnd-5e equipment




dnd-5e equipment






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday









V2Blast

20.6k359131




20.6k359131










asked Jan 13 at 19:01









enkryptorenkryptor

25k1286202




25k1286202








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    Jan 14 at 18:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
    $endgroup$
    – Clockwork-Muse
    Jan 15 at 3:40






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Does the player carry any health potions?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 7:42






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 8:09






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
    $endgroup$
    – user969366
    Jan 15 at 13:28














  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
    $endgroup$
    – Joshua
    Jan 14 at 18:51






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
    $endgroup$
    – Clockwork-Muse
    Jan 15 at 3:40






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Does the player carry any health potions?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 7:42






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    @FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 8:09






  • 12




    $begingroup$
    You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
    $endgroup$
    – user969366
    Jan 15 at 13:28








6




6




$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51




$begingroup$
Where's the bag of holding when you need one?
$endgroup$
– Joshua
Jan 14 at 18:51




3




3




$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
Jan 15 at 3:40




$begingroup$
Note that the last point is almost certainly a non-issue; the flasks aren't going to have just a simple cork in them, and not protruding in such a way to come out. In addition to the cork, there might also be wax to help seal it, or wire around the neck and cork - look at wine bottles. The flask might also be more permanently stoppered with something else entirely... like lead.
$endgroup$
– Clockwork-Muse
Jan 15 at 3:40




4




4




$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
Jan 15 at 7:42




$begingroup$
Does the player carry any health potions?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
Jan 15 at 7:42




8




8




$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
Jan 15 at 8:09




$begingroup$
@FabianRöling but if the lore says that alchemist's flasks are regularly employed by adventurers and no real warning or stories of malfunction follow, wouldn't it mean that whatever the method of their packaging is, it works?
$endgroup$
– vlaz
Jan 15 at 8:09




12




12




$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
Jan 15 at 13:28




$begingroup$
You're missing an opportunity as a DM to weave his fear of Alchemist Fire into your campaign in a fun and interesting way.
$endgroup$
– user969366
Jan 15 at 13:28










9 Answers
9






active

oldest

votes


















225












$begingroup$

It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)



However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."



A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 52




    $begingroup$
    This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
    $endgroup$
    – keithcurtis
    Jan 13 at 21:13






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
    $endgroup$
    – KRyan
    Jan 14 at 2:29








  • 6




    $begingroup$
    You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
    $endgroup$
    – Tektotherriggen
    Jan 14 at 9:09








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
    $endgroup$
    – R. McMillan
    Jan 14 at 19:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
    $endgroup$
    – Artur Biesiadowski
    Jan 15 at 9:15



















41












$begingroup$

Why not let them play their character authentically?



That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.



I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."



Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.



By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
    $endgroup$
    – Freiheit
    2 days ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
    $endgroup$
    – frarugi87
    15 hours ago



















22












$begingroup$

It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.



Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.



Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.



Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
    $endgroup$
    – Allan Mills
    Jan 13 at 19:31






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
    $endgroup$
    – enkryptor
    Jan 13 at 20:26






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
    $endgroup$
    – Allan Mills
    Jan 13 at 21:25






  • 8




    $begingroup$
    "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
    $endgroup$
    – RyanfaeScotland
    Jan 14 at 0:20






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
    $endgroup$
    – vlaz
    Jan 15 at 7:46



















7












$begingroup$

I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."



But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    6












    $begingroup$

    Simplest answer:



    You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)



    Not so simple answer:



    It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)



    I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.



    Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
      $endgroup$
      – Phlucious
      2 days ago










    • $begingroup$
      this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
      $endgroup$
      – enkryptor
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
      $endgroup$
      – Jay Carr
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
      $endgroup$
      – enkryptor
      yesterday










    • $begingroup$
      @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
      $endgroup$
      – Jay Carr
      yesterday



















    6












    $begingroup$

    You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.



    Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.






    share|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      5












      $begingroup$

      If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.



      Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.



      I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.






      share|improve this answer











      $endgroup$





















        3












        $begingroup$

        The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.



        You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.



        You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).



        If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.






        share|improve this answer









        $endgroup$









        • 7




          $begingroup$
          Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
          $endgroup$
          – enkryptor
          Jan 13 at 20:23



















        3












        $begingroup$

        Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.



        But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
        Let me give you an example of similar behavior:



        Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.



        As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically.



        Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.



        This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".






        share|improve this answer










        New contributor




        Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.






        $endgroup$













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "122"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138988%2fhow-can-i-explain-to-my-player-that-alchemists-fire-is-safe-to-carry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes








          9 Answers
          9






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          225












          $begingroup$

          It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)



          However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."



          A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 52




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
            $endgroup$
            – keithcurtis
            Jan 13 at 21:13






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
            $endgroup$
            – KRyan
            Jan 14 at 2:29








          • 6




            $begingroup$
            You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
            $endgroup$
            – Tektotherriggen
            Jan 14 at 9:09








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
            $endgroup$
            – R. McMillan
            Jan 14 at 19:22






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Biesiadowski
            Jan 15 at 9:15
















          225












          $begingroup$

          It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)



          However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."



          A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 52




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
            $endgroup$
            – keithcurtis
            Jan 13 at 21:13






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
            $endgroup$
            – KRyan
            Jan 14 at 2:29








          • 6




            $begingroup$
            You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
            $endgroup$
            – Tektotherriggen
            Jan 14 at 9:09








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
            $endgroup$
            – R. McMillan
            Jan 14 at 19:22






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Biesiadowski
            Jan 15 at 9:15














          225












          225








          225





          $begingroup$

          It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)



          However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."



          A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          It is probably possible to come up with in-game reasoning, but to my ears they sound contrived and might have adverse effects on the rest of your game, so I won't bother. ("But wait, if that's true, then why can't we just...?" and the next thing you know they've invented blood-tracking stirge-artillery or something out of genre.)



          However, out-of-game, a public statement in front of other players such as, "Look, it's a standard piece of adventuring equipment, and I don't want to get too far into the weeds with justifications about why it's safe. But I will say, publicly, that I will never have one of these things randomly shatter and incinerate on you without warning. Normal adventuring won't break them, and if you're doing something that would stress it, I will warn you."



          A public GM declaration of "I'm not going to screw with you over this," really ought to be good enough. If it isn't, you're treading on your player's suspension of disbelief, and maybe shouldn't press it much harder unless you have a good reason. Let the player play his character.







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 13 at 21:08









          NovakNovak

          16.7k52975




          16.7k52975








          • 52




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
            $endgroup$
            – keithcurtis
            Jan 13 at 21:13






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
            $endgroup$
            – KRyan
            Jan 14 at 2:29








          • 6




            $begingroup$
            You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
            $endgroup$
            – Tektotherriggen
            Jan 14 at 9:09








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
            $endgroup$
            – R. McMillan
            Jan 14 at 19:22






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Biesiadowski
            Jan 15 at 9:15














          • 52




            $begingroup$
            This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
            $endgroup$
            – keithcurtis
            Jan 13 at 21:13






          • 2




            $begingroup$
            When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
            $endgroup$
            – KRyan
            Jan 14 at 2:29








          • 6




            $begingroup$
            You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
            $endgroup$
            – Tektotherriggen
            Jan 14 at 9:09








          • 5




            $begingroup$
            I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
            $endgroup$
            – R. McMillan
            Jan 14 at 19:22






          • 3




            $begingroup$
            "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
            $endgroup$
            – Artur Biesiadowski
            Jan 15 at 9:15








          52




          52




          $begingroup$
          This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
          $endgroup$
          – keithcurtis
          Jan 13 at 21:13




          $begingroup$
          This is the answer that requires the absolute least invention. I give it the Occam's Plus One.
          $endgroup$
          – keithcurtis
          Jan 13 at 21:13




          2




          2




          $begingroup$
          When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
          $endgroup$
          – KRyan
          Jan 14 at 2:29






          $begingroup$
          When I first saw this question, there was no answer like this and I was planning to write one. Now that I’m home, I see that you have: +1 for saving me the effort ;) And, ya know, being the right answer.
          $endgroup$
          – KRyan
          Jan 14 at 2:29






          6




          6




          $begingroup$
          You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
          $endgroup$
          – Tektotherriggen
          Jan 14 at 9:09






          $begingroup$
          You might like to add that 5e mechanics very rarely affect PC's equipment. For example, most fire spells do not ignite equipment that is being worn or carried, and armour is not damaged in combat.
          $endgroup$
          – Tektotherriggen
          Jan 14 at 9:09






          5




          5




          $begingroup$
          I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
          $endgroup$
          – R. McMillan
          Jan 14 at 19:22




          $begingroup$
          I like this answer best, but I would also ask the player to clarify if their refusal is from the player or the character. In the long run it may not really matter, but if the refusal is character based then I would give the player kudos for committing to the role-play, and give them some encouragement for the added dynamic to their character's personality.
          $endgroup$
          – R. McMillan
          Jan 14 at 19:22




          3




          3




          $begingroup$
          "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
          $endgroup$
          – Artur Biesiadowski
          Jan 15 at 9:15




          $begingroup$
          "blood-tracking stirge-artillery" is going to be my new plot device, thanks ;)
          $endgroup$
          – Artur Biesiadowski
          Jan 15 at 9:15













          41












          $begingroup$

          Why not let them play their character authentically?



          That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.



          I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."



          Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.



          By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
            $endgroup$
            – Freiheit
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
            $endgroup$
            – frarugi87
            15 hours ago
















          41












          $begingroup$

          Why not let them play their character authentically?



          That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.



          I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."



          Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.



          By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
            $endgroup$
            – Freiheit
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
            $endgroup$
            – frarugi87
            15 hours ago














          41












          41








          41





          $begingroup$

          Why not let them play their character authentically?



          That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.



          I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."



          Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.



          By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Why not let them play their character authentically?



          That's a great personality trait to use as part of a plot development. Their hyper vigilance and over-concern for minor issues can be a great addition to the game.



          I GMed with a player with a Bard who (like the player) had a hard time paying attention. Every time the group was being stealthy he would start singing songs and playing his flute "quietly." At first it was frustrating, but after changing the course of the game several times I and the other players came to appreciate his "flaw." We all got a lot of laughs and he became very proud of his "adhd bard."



          Let the player worry about the bottles breaking and adjust your story telling accordingly.



          By the way, that bard ended up being the only player in the party not captured by the minions of evil near the end of the campaign. He had everything he needed to free his companions but of course he had to roll three separate stealth checks. Everyone was holding their breaths as I narrated and he snuck around, and he did it! Without once singing or playing his flute. It was one of those moderately exciting moments that ended up being totally epic and gripping, and it was all because this player had to overcome a real character flaw.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Jan 14 at 11:13

























          answered Jan 14 at 10:41









          lightcatlightcat

          1,956426




          1,956426








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
            $endgroup$
            – Freiheit
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
            $endgroup$
            – frarugi87
            15 hours ago














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
            $endgroup$
            – Freiheit
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
            $endgroup$
            – frarugi87
            15 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
          $endgroup$
          – Freiheit
          2 days ago




          $begingroup$
          I like this approach as a characters personality or habit. Drawing an analogy to real life - Some people wrap their phones in cases and protectors and insure them. Others chuck them in pockets with keys and rocks and tools. Neither person is wrong per-se, its a different aversion to risk for each individual. How someone chooses to treat their gear says more about that person than the gear.
          $endgroup$
          – Freiheit
          2 days ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
          $endgroup$
          – frarugi87
          15 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          I second this. Let him play the way he wants. Maybe they can meet someone mocking at him because "everybody transports them without any issue", and then this NPC vanishes in an Insanely Overpowered Fireball later in the campaign
          $endgroup$
          – frarugi87
          15 hours ago











          22












          $begingroup$

          It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.



          Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.



          Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.



          Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 19:31






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
            $endgroup$
            – enkryptor
            Jan 13 at 20:26






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 21:25






          • 8




            $begingroup$
            "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
            $endgroup$
            – RyanfaeScotland
            Jan 14 at 0:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
            $endgroup$
            – vlaz
            Jan 15 at 7:46
















          22












          $begingroup$

          It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.



          Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.



          Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.



          Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 19:31






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
            $endgroup$
            – enkryptor
            Jan 13 at 20:26






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 21:25






          • 8




            $begingroup$
            "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
            $endgroup$
            – RyanfaeScotland
            Jan 14 at 0:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
            $endgroup$
            – vlaz
            Jan 15 at 7:46














          22












          22








          22





          $begingroup$

          It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.



          Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.



          Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.



          Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?






          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          It's probably assumed that adventurers aren't just chucking the fragile glass container directly into their backpack with all their other stuff, but put them in a safer container and remove it when it needs to be thrown at something.



          Sliding the flask into a form-fitting metal container or wrapping it inside your bedroll should make it pretty resilient to accidental impacts. Once you get to the point where enough crushing force is applied to you that the flask can break through your bedroll or its protective covering, you probably have more pressing concerns than the flask shattering.



          Carrying adventuring gear is always a trade-off between risk and reward; wearing a full plate armor also introduces some risks when you travel near the water. Still, most adventurers would prefer taking the risk of falling in the water over the risk of being in combat without their armor.



          Likewise with Alchemist's Fire. Sure, there's some risk to carrying it (which you'll want to mitigate with protection) but would you rather be in a situation where it hurts you, or in a situation where you desperately needed it to hurt something else, but refused to bring it for its risk?







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Jan 13 at 19:21









          ErikErik

          45.4k12165233




          45.4k12165233








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 19:31






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
            $endgroup$
            – enkryptor
            Jan 13 at 20:26






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 21:25






          • 8




            $begingroup$
            "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
            $endgroup$
            – RyanfaeScotland
            Jan 14 at 0:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
            $endgroup$
            – vlaz
            Jan 15 at 7:46














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 19:31






          • 5




            $begingroup$
            @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
            $endgroup$
            – enkryptor
            Jan 13 at 20:26






          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
            $endgroup$
            – Allan Mills
            Jan 13 at 21:25






          • 8




            $begingroup$
            "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
            $endgroup$
            – RyanfaeScotland
            Jan 14 at 0:20






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
            $endgroup$
            – vlaz
            Jan 15 at 7:46








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
          $endgroup$
          – Allan Mills
          Jan 13 at 19:31




          $begingroup$
          You'd probably have custom paddded metal tubes on a bandolier if you were carrying alchemist's fire, acid or holy water. Same with magical potions now that I think of it.
          $endgroup$
          – Allan Mills
          Jan 13 at 19:31




          5




          5




          $begingroup$
          @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
          $endgroup$
          – enkryptor
          Jan 13 at 20:26




          $begingroup$
          @AllanMills If the question was "what device allow me to carry Alchemist's Fire safely", this answer it. But that wasn't the question.
          $endgroup$
          – enkryptor
          Jan 13 at 20:26




          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
          $endgroup$
          – Allan Mills
          Jan 13 at 21:25




          $begingroup$
          @enkryptor There are really only two options available for a DM faced with this question. Either tell the player that alchemist's fire is safe because the rules don't cover it breaching while being carried or give the player and in game reason like protective casings for the flasks. The player clearly hasn't accepted the former.
          $endgroup$
          – Allan Mills
          Jan 13 at 21:25




          8




          8




          $begingroup$
          "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
          $endgroup$
          – RyanfaeScotland
          Jan 14 at 0:20




          $begingroup$
          "...where enough crushing force is applied to you... ...you probably have more pressing concerns..." - nice.
          $endgroup$
          – RyanfaeScotland
          Jan 14 at 0:20




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
          $endgroup$
          – vlaz
          Jan 15 at 7:46




          $begingroup$
          @enkryptor but isn't it assumed that the adventurers have that? Do you have to list everything and anything as equipment - like underwear or what type of socks the character is wearing, or don't we just assume that the character has whatever is appropriate?
          $endgroup$
          – vlaz
          Jan 15 at 7:46











          7












          $begingroup$

          I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."



          But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.






          share|improve this answer











          $endgroup$


















            7












            $begingroup$

            I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."



            But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.






            share|improve this answer











            $endgroup$
















              7












              7








              7





              $begingroup$

              I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."



              But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.






              share|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              I agree that you should probably just say out of game: "As the DM I am not going to let it break, just like you are not going to hurt yourself on the 5 swords you carry in your backpack."



              But, I would add that if your players really care about that stuff, then you can also just accept it. If they want to track how all their equipment (and loot) is stored, let them do it. But I would put the work on them. They tell you how it's stored. If they think there was a chance for the alchemist's fire to break because of something they did, they can roll themselves to check it. If they don't want to use alchemist's fire because of it, so be it.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Jan 14 at 2:21









              V2Blast

              20.6k359131




              20.6k359131










              answered Jan 13 at 23:11









              LichtbringerLichtbringer

              441210




              441210























                  6












                  $begingroup$

                  Simplest answer:



                  You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)



                  Not so simple answer:



                  It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)



                  I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.



                  Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Phlucious
                    2 days ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday
















                  6












                  $begingroup$

                  Simplest answer:



                  You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)



                  Not so simple answer:



                  It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)



                  I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.



                  Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Phlucious
                    2 days ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday














                  6












                  6








                  6





                  $begingroup$

                  Simplest answer:



                  You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)



                  Not so simple answer:



                  It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)



                  I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.



                  Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  Simplest answer:



                  You all are overthinking it. Just don’t worry about it, right? Right? (I mean, I can’t even do that, I’m literally sitting here writing up an answer to the question! Not sure why I’m suggesting it ;)



                  Not so simple answer:



                  It’s important to remember, and each rule book points this out: the rules (and the world itself) are at the discretion of the DM. So you don’t really need an answer that is based on existing canon of any sort (not that you were necessarily looking for one. Just wanted to make that clear for anyone else reading this.)



                  I think a simple, fairly logical solution is to make up a little lore that explains that the flask works like unto a grenade. Ie., the flask has to be “armed” in order for it to go off. How you want it to be armed is really up to you. Maybe there’s a ribbon to pull? Maybe you have to say a code word? Granted, these would add some new rules...since you suddenly have a physical or verbal component ;). The cleanest solution would be to say that the trigger is psychic. Ie., the bottle literally is designed to know who is throwing it and will not arm itself until after it’s been thrown.



                  Any of these explanations could work. But, beware, as has been noted elsewhere: anytime you start to add lore, there’s going to be a chance that the players will extrapolate that lore into other situations. Some DMs frown on that but....I dunno, I really enjoy it when my players push my logic back at me. I enjoy working with the players on my own bullsh*t to make the game more fun. And in the end, that’s what we’re after, eh?







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Jan 14 at 4:17









                  Jay CarrJay Carr

                  3071316




                  3071316












                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Phlucious
                    2 days ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday


















                  • $begingroup$
                    +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Phlucious
                    2 days ago










                  • $begingroup$
                    this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                    $endgroup$
                    – enkryptor
                    yesterday










                  • $begingroup$
                    @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Jay Carr
                    yesterday
















                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Phlucious
                  2 days ago




                  $begingroup$
                  +1 for the "trigger mechanism" explanation.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Phlucious
                  2 days ago












                  $begingroup$
                  this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                  $endgroup$
                  – enkryptor
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  this contradicts the PHB description, doesn't it?
                  $endgroup$
                  – enkryptor
                  yesterday












                  $begingroup$
                  @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Jay Carr
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  @enkryptor You’re going to be more specific.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Jay Carr
                  yesterday












                  $begingroup$
                  The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                  $endgroup$
                  – enkryptor
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  The PBH says that Alchemist's Fire is a "sticky, adhesive fluid ignites when exposed to air". If the flask is broken, it ignites, regardless of the arm mechanism.
                  $endgroup$
                  – enkryptor
                  yesterday












                  $begingroup$
                  @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                  $endgroup$
                  – Jay Carr
                  yesterday




                  $begingroup$
                  @enkryptor Ah, I think I may not have been clear: The arm mechanism would keep the bottle from breaking on accident, thus keeping the air away from the fluid :)
                  $endgroup$
                  – Jay Carr
                  yesterday











                  6












                  $begingroup$

                  You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.



                  Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.






                  share|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$


















                    6












                    $begingroup$

                    You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.



                    Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.






                    share|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$
















                      6












                      6








                      6





                      $begingroup$

                      You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.



                      Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.






                      share|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      You want an in-game solution? The shop that sells Alchemist's Fire also sells the containers that are specifically designed to safely contain the vials (while making them easy to remove so they can be thrown as a single attack), sort of like the gun-powder containers found on old battle-ships.



                      Since everybody uses these, any Alchemists's fire recovered as "loot" will also be contained in these containers.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Jan 14 at 10:27









                      colmdecolmde

                      78056




                      78056























                          5












                          $begingroup$

                          If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.



                          Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.



                          I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.






                          share|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$


















                            5












                            $begingroup$

                            If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.



                            Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.



                            I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.






                            share|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$
















                              5












                              5








                              5





                              $begingroup$

                              If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.



                              Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.



                              I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.






                              share|improve this answer











                              $endgroup$



                              If your player does not accept an out-of-character answer, like Novak's, offer an in-character solution. In the next item shop they find armoured bandoliers for sale, with several (whatever number you think is reasonable) padded steel cylinders that neatly fit one alchemist's fire flask (or acid flask, or holy water, or...) in each can. Perhaps the shopkeeper demonstrates by putting a delicate glass rose in one, and chucking it across the room.



                              Make it fairly cheap (1gp?), and don't penalise the player for using it (don't force them to use an action to draw a flask from a cylinder), and hopefully the player will accept that their character is now convinced.



                              I think this is better than just telling them that their backpack is secure enough, because it allows the player and character to take a deliberate action to ensure their safety. I think they will thus find it a bit more convincing.







                              share|improve this answer














                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer








                              edited yesterday









                              V2Blast

                              20.6k359131




                              20.6k359131










                              answered Jan 14 at 9:06









                              TektotherriggenTektotherriggen

                              359210




                              359210























                                  3












                                  $begingroup$

                                  The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.



                                  You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.



                                  You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).



                                  If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$









                                  • 7




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – enkryptor
                                    Jan 13 at 20:23
















                                  3












                                  $begingroup$

                                  The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.



                                  You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.



                                  You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).



                                  If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$









                                  • 7




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – enkryptor
                                    Jan 13 at 20:23














                                  3












                                  3








                                  3





                                  $begingroup$

                                  The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.



                                  You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.



                                  You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).



                                  If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.






                                  share|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$



                                  The simple answer is "it's up to the DM". If the player is comfortable enough carrying around glass bottles of healing potion and not worrying if they break, then they shouldn't worry about the vial of alchemist's fire. If you have a history of breaking potions in their bags if they botch a roll, then it's a very rational fear.



                                  You're the DM. YOU are the one who decides if anything will crack the vial. And the vial will not crack unless the DM says it does. If you say it won't crack, it doesn't matter if the player powerbombs it off a mountain into a lake of nitroglycerin.



                                  You can also specify what situations WOULD crack the vial (rolling a 1 on an acrobatics check for fall damage, the player being hit with enough damage, etc).



                                  If you really want to have fun with it, you can have them make a dex check to put it in a sturdy metal thermos or something. When the time comes to use it, the player throws it out like a flamethrower rather than an incendiary grenade.







                                  share|improve this answer












                                  share|improve this answer



                                  share|improve this answer










                                  answered Jan 13 at 20:13









                                  Miles BedingerMiles Bedinger

                                  6418




                                  6418








                                  • 7




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – enkryptor
                                    Jan 13 at 20:23














                                  • 7




                                    $begingroup$
                                    Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                    $endgroup$
                                    – enkryptor
                                    Jan 13 at 20:23








                                  7




                                  7




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – enkryptor
                                  Jan 13 at 20:23




                                  $begingroup$
                                  Yes I am the DM and I can't think of a plausible explanation. That was the reason I asked the Q.
                                  $endgroup$
                                  – enkryptor
                                  Jan 13 at 20:23











                                  3












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.



                                  But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
                                  Let me give you an example of similar behavior:



                                  Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.



                                  As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically.



                                  Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.



                                  This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".






                                  share|improve this answer










                                  New contributor




                                  Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                  $endgroup$


















                                    3












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.



                                    But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
                                    Let me give you an example of similar behavior:



                                    Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.



                                    As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically.



                                    Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.



                                    This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".






                                    share|improve this answer










                                    New contributor




                                    Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                    Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                    $endgroup$
















                                      3












                                      3








                                      3





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.



                                      But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
                                      Let me give you an example of similar behavior:



                                      Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.



                                      As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically.



                                      Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.



                                      This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".






                                      share|improve this answer










                                      New contributor




                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      $endgroup$



                                      Depending on the style of your game you might allow this role-play just for fun. Maybe this player is not interested in using that item at all. Like others have answered, the correct way would be to tell them out of game that you won't screw them like this.



                                      But I want to consider another way of seeing it.
                                      Let me give you an example of similar behavior:



                                      Once in a game of 5e, my character (knows how to swim) fell in deep water. My character, afraid of drowning, chose to drop his sword, bow, boots and other things in order to swim out safely. Now the rules technically, I believe, only say that full-plate will be a problem when swimming, I could have kept the sword and everything according to the rules. However I'm not about min-maxing or something like that, for me the fun is in the role playing so I chose to do that, even if the rules favorised min-maxing (keeping my stuff), because I felt that is how my character would think. (swimming with a sword in hand ? no thanks) I still had some daggers and options, and a replacement weapon is not hard to find, since the equipment wasn't anything precious. It was also funny, since everyone knew I didn't have to drop my sword.



                                      As advised by user lightcat: let them play their character authentically.



                                      Your player probably understood that the alchemist's fire is supposed to be safe in game and that such safety consideration can be largely overlooked by players, however he chose to push the realism a bit more far, and he's also developping the personality of his character, a careful, smart, pragmatic character. That's their choice, I think to "convince" the player otherwise is not the right move here. However if they do want the flask, you can reassure them it won't be dangerous.



                                      This is a situation of realism/role-play VS game mechanics. The beautiful thing about DnD is that it allows role-play to transcend "game mechanics".







                                      share|improve this answer










                                      New contributor




                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer








                                      edited yesterday









                                      V2Blast

                                      20.6k359131




                                      20.6k359131






                                      New contributor




                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.









                                      answered Jan 14 at 10:43









                                      ManukiManuki

                                      315




                                      315




                                      New contributor




                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.





                                      New contributor





                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






                                      Manuki is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                                      Check out our Code of Conduct.






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid …



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f138988%2fhow-can-i-explain-to-my-player-that-alchemists-fire-is-safe-to-carry%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          -

                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Homophylophilia

                                          Image
                                          Haec pagina ad tempus protecta est ob maleficia perpetua. Quaesemus, emendationes suggere in pagina disputationis vel magistratum ad hanc deprotegendam pete. Homophylophilia Hyacinthus complexus ab amante suo Apolline, in pictura Mors Hyacinthi quam Jean Broc pinxit. Homophylophilia est sui sexus vel generis amor vel mores romantici vel sexuales, res venerea masculina in masculos, aut mulier in mulieres appetentes. Hoc ingenium sexuale est "exemplar permanens vel inclinatio ad experiendam sexualem, adfectionalem, vel romanticam vim attrahendi," praecipue vel solum ex hominibus eiusdem sexús; notio "etiam ad hominis iudicium identitatis privatae socialisque in illis attractionibus conditum refert, in moribus quoque qui illos exprimant, et in societate communitatis aliorum qui illos communicent." [1] [2] Per aevos alii aliter rem definiverunt, sed Occidentali nostrae aetatis cultu civili non tantum ad ipsa acta erotica spectat, sed etiam igitur
                                          Read more

                                          Updating UILabel text programmatically using a function

                                          Image
                                          0 so I am trying to update the UIlabel text using a func. I have seen few other questions like mine and I tried their method but it doesn't work. fun returns no value when used in the UIlabel. I have shown my code below.It has to be noted that when I use the function in viewdidload I can retrieve the data. lazy var name: UILabel = { let lb = UILabel() lb.text? = getthename() lb.lineBreakMode = NSLineBreakMode.byWordWrapping lb.textColor = .mainGreen lb.textAlignment = .left lb.font = UIFont.boldSystemFont(ofSize:12.0) return lb }() func getthename() -> String { var wins : String = "" let ud = (Auth.auth().currentUser?.uid) self.ref = Database.database().reference() self.ref.child("Users").child(ud!).observeSingleEvent(of: .value, with: {(snapshot) in
                                          Read more

                                          Cloud Functions - OpenCV Videocapture Read method fails for larger files from cloud storage

                                          Image
                                          0 I created a cloud function to read a video file from cloud storage and read frames and create an image for each frame. This function works for small files which is 1-2 MB, However, this method fails while reading larger file 130 MB. import cv2 from google.cloud import storage vidcap = cv2.VideoCapture("https://storage.googleapis.com/[bucker_name]/[filename.mp4]") if vidcap.isOpened(): vidcap.open("https://storage.googleapis.com/[bucker_name]/[filename.mp4]") success,image = vidcap.read() print(success) Expected the print will return true and an image will hold an image of a first frame. python-3.x function opencv cloud share | improve this question
                                          Read more