What causes things to catch fire?


Rules Questions

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

We all got that little Pyromaniac Goblin in us.

Don't worry you aren't as bad as me.

I would say Thermite would be to volatile to use in combat...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've usually ruled that if the damage is greater than the hardness, it catches on fire. That way I don't have to worry about low level stuff burning down dungeons... though I have had that happen too.


Talynonyx wrote:
I've usually ruled that if the damage is greater than the hardness, it catches on fire. That way I don't have to worry about low level stuff burning down dungeons... though I have had that happen too.

That seems a simple way to handle it...


My 2 cents:

"[catching] on fire" is a specific environmental condition specific to creatures that has specific effects (namely DoT). I think one could say that just because the source of ignition is "instantaneous fire" doesn't mean a generic fire couldn't be permanently created on an object, particularly kindling. It would just mean that the target doesn't start to suffer 1d6 fire damage a round in combat.

I don't see where you guys are getting this "cannot start a fire with X" line of reasoning from...

The fact that the rules don't mention something means dick-all. This isn't a mechanics issue when it comes to lighting fires (although a boat or staff being on fire is certainly more relevant to find a rule). Wheels roll down hills, guards and PCs take pee breaks — you don't need a rule in the game for that to happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joesi wrote:

My 2 cents:

"[catching] on fire" is a specific environmental condition specific to creatures that has specific effects (namely DoT). I think one could say that just because the source of ignition is "instantaneous fire" doesn't mean a generic fire couldn't be permanently created on an object, particularly kindling. It would just mean that the target doesn't start to suffer 1d6 fire damage a round in combat. I was under the impression that it's generally to creatures on fire, not objects.

I don't see where you guys are getting this "cannot start a fire with X" line of reasoning from...

Because of rule interactions people find.

Grand Lodge

Joesi wrote:
I don't see where you guys are getting this "cannot start a fire with X" line of reasoning from...

Anger, and frustration. Maybe a little self-righteousness, but I could be wrong.


It has to do with objects burning not being explained in the rules...

It has lead to people asking if this is legal or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Joesi wrote:

My 2 cents:

"[catching] on fire" is a specific environmental condition specific to creatures that has specific effects (namely DoT). I think one could say that just because the source of ignition is "instantaneous fire" doesn't mean a generic fire couldn't be permanently created on an object, particularly kindling. It would just mean that the target doesn't start to suffer 1d6 fire damage a round in combat.

I don't see where you guys are getting this "cannot start a fire with X" line of reasoning from...

Well, for one thing:

From the fact that some fire spells, but not other fire spells, say they ignite flammable materials.

This strongly implies that some fire effects don't ignite flammable materials.

Quote:
The fact that the rules don't mention something means dick-all. This isn't a mechanics issue when it comes to lighting fires (although a boat or staff being on fire is certainly more relevant to find a rule). Wheels roll down hills, guards and PCs take pee breaks — you don't need a rule in the game for that to happen.

But when something has potentially highly significant effects, and some rules exist which suggest strongly the intent for SOME kind of variance...

Well, look at it this way. Say we agree that "flaming weapons" can indeed ignite fires. So, say. Five rounds with a torch held up to a flaming sword? Torch definitely lit.

Okay, I take my flaming crossbow, I fire a single bolt at a wooden building. Does it ignite the building? I mean, you might be fine with saying it can ignite a pile of dry straw. How about reasonably dry solid oak? I dunno if you've ever tried this, but you can have a really, really, dry piece of wood, and if you just hold a match up to it, all that happens is the match burns out.

So some kind of differentiation of what can be ignited, and when, would be really handy.

Especially with the strong implication (exception proves the rule) that most fire spells DON'T ignite fires. If they generally ignited fires, you wouldn't have special language in Flame Arrow, Burning Hands, and Fireball saying "by the way, this can ignite things".

Grand Lodge

Well, it is tricky with magical fire.

You cannot say all fire based spells and magical abilities can ignite things, because magical fire is not real mundane fire, and has it's own rules.

You have to at least admit that there different kinds of real world fires, and they behave differently. It is not a far stretch that some magical fires would behave differently.


By Rule all I am saying is it would be nice if they said what caused an object to ignite and exactly how to handle it. Does the object take 1d6 damage per hour/round til it is out of HP which then means it is reduced to ashes or what?

Liberty's Edge

Doomed Hero wrote:

Hey, look a that! Fireball! Awesome. Learn something new every day. Thank you BBT! Thank you Fireball for not being completely stupid!

Looking at other fire spells though, it looks like that caveat is pretty rare.

Azaelas, Alchemist Fire isn't "super heated liquid". It's called Alchemist Fire. It deals Fire damage. The additional text specifically mentions steps that can be taken to extinguish the flames. It definitely makes things light on fire, but only for 1 additional round, then it goes out, which is silly. Why wouldn't an alchemist add something that burns longer to the mixture?

As an aside- ** spoiler omitted **

PRD wrote:

Alchemist's Fire: You can throw a flask of alchemist's fire as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet.

A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the flask hits takes 1 point of fire damage from the splash. On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.

So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

PRD wrote:

Catching on Fire

Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.

Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.

A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.

Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.

"Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire."

1) Alchemist fire is instantaneous? No it has a duration (anything with a duration, even 1 round, isn't instantaneous)

2) The target is exposed to the risk of catching fire? Yes, the target is exposed to something equivalent to "burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires"

3) So when someone with clothing, gear or body parts that can catch fire is hit by a flask of alchemist fire he can catch fire and suffer additional damage.

To prevent alchemist fire to be a killing weapon at low level I wouldn't allow the fire damage from the alchemist fire to stack with the fire damage fro catching fire but would make them overlap and ask for a single ST to douse both fires, but the alchemist fire would still have a chance to set someone on fire.


Strictly speaking, it's not a magic fire, though.

Note that "equivalent to" isn't listed. So for instance, lava doesn't appear to ignite characters, just damage them by heat a lot.


Diego Rossi wrote:


So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

This is another thing that bothers me-

Say you have a Halfling Alchemist. They make halfling-sized alchemist fire bombs what deal damage normally.

He's facing a Frost Giant Alchemist, who makes giant-sized alchemist fire bombs. Still only deals 1d6 damage even though it's probably 100 times the volume.

Even if we count Alchemist Fire as a "weapon" (which it isn't, but there's a good argument that it could be treated as such) which lets us size the damage dice up and down, there's still the problem of the Alchemist Bomb ability, which is a Supernatural Ability, not a weapon.

A pixie throwing a thimble full of Bomb Juice is exactly as potent as a Titan throwing a Hogshead of the stuff.
Which means, apparently, that the explosive volatility is inversely proportional to the size of the bomb itself.

It gets even crazier with Tanglefoot Bags. The Hogshead of Tanglefoot Juice thrown by the Titan only effects a 5 foot square, even though the container it's in is probably the size of a cow. A Pixie throwing the stuff effects the same 5' square equally with an eyedropper's worth of the stuff.


It is an Alchemical Weapon.


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
It is an Alchemical Weapon.

So you think they size up and down? I've never seen anything to support this. I'd love it if it were true, but it would rather screw over Halfling Alchemists. Their Alchemist Fire would kinda suck.

And it still doesn't address the issue of Bombs or Tanglefoot Bags.

(Sorry, getting off topic a bit. If this keeps up I'll take it to a new thread)


Alchemical Weapons are from Ultimate Equipment.

They don't scale as they aren't made to. Just like a Rogue's Sneak Attack Dice doesn't scale.


You do see why that's not a very good comparison, right? Rogues don't get better or worse at stabbing kidneys based on their size. Explosive substances do get more damaging by volume.


Doomed Hero wrote:
You do see why that's not a very good comparison, right? Rogues don't get better or worse at stabbing kidneys based on their size. Explosive substances do get more damaging by volume.

There is sort of an interesting question here.

Compare what happens if you touch lava to what happens if you're immersed in it; the latter does 20d6 instead of 2d6 of damage.

Now compare what happens if you touch alchemical fire (1d6) and if you're immersed in it (1d6).

My analysis: The rules are really not intended to handle this kind of thing very well.

Grand Lodge

Alchemist Bombs are a supernatural ability.

There is no real world comparison when dealing with the supernatural.

The answer is "uh, magic" whether you like it or not, and real world examples are meaningless.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Doomed Hero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

This is another thing that bothers me-

Say you have a Halfling Alchemist. They make halfling-sized alchemist fire bombs what deal damage normally.

He's facing a Frost Giant Alchemist, who makes giant-sized alchemist fire bombs. Still only deals 1d6 damage even though it's probably 100 times the volume.

Even if we count Alchemist Fire as a "weapon" (which it isn't, but there's a good argument that it could be treated as such) which lets us size the damage dice up and down, there's still the problem of the Alchemist Bomb ability, which is a Supernatural Ability, not a weapon.

A pixie throwing a thimble full of Bomb Juice is exactly as potent as a Titan throwing a Hogshead of the stuff.
Which means, apparently, that the explosive volatility is inversely proportional to the size of the bomb itself.

It gets even crazier with Tanglefoot Bags. The Hogshead of Tanglefoot Juice thrown by the Titan only effects a 5 foot square, even though the container it's in is probably the size of a cow. A Pixie throwing the stuff effects the same 5' square equally with an eyedropper's worth of the stuff.

Bomb (Su): In addition to magical extracts, alchemists are adept at swiftly mixing various volatile chemicals and infusing them with their magical reserves to create powerful bombs that they can hurl at their enemies.

The alchemist bombs damage depend on the magic infused by the alchemist, not by the bomb size.

- * -

Alchemical fire is a piece of equipment with a listed weight, Alchemist's fire (flask) 20 gp 1 lb.
so a thimble or a titan sized version will not do the same damage. Probably it will not scale 1:1 between size and damage (generally burning stuff don't work that way) but the damage and area affected would increase.

- * -

Same thing for tanglefoot bags.
Tanglefoot bag 50 gp 4 lbs.
The standard version is 4 lbs of stuff. If a titan is throwing a tanglefoot bag he is throwing a 4 lbs bag. If he is throwing a large or huge tanglefoot bag the GM can and should adjust the statistics of the item.

- * -

To put it another way, a human sized greatsword will do the same basic damage independently from its user, be him a human or a titan. You need a titan sized greatsword to do more basic damage if you can wield it.


Interesting point about the alchemist's fire; it has a listed size, so presumably that's the size it comes in, period. No size scaling. Seems right.

And the "alchemist" class abilities are indeed personal magic more than they are a substance with particular properties.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Doomed Hero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

This is another thing that bothers me-

Say you have a Halfling Alchemist. They make halfling-sized alchemist fire bombs what deal damage normally.

He's facing a Frost Giant Alchemist, who makes giant-sized alchemist fire bombs. Still only deals 1d6 damage even though it's probably 100 times the volume.

Even if we count Alchemist Fire as a "weapon" (which it isn't, but there's a good argument that it could be treated as such) which lets us size the damage dice up and down, there's still the problem of the Alchemist Bomb ability, which is a Supernatural Ability, not a weapon.

A pixie throwing a thimble full of Bomb Juice is exactly as potent as a Titan throwing a Hogshead of the stuff.
Which means, apparently, that the explosive volatility is inversely proportional to the size of the bomb itself.

It gets even crazier with Tanglefoot Bags. The Hogshead of Tanglefoot Juice thrown by the Titan only effects a 5 foot square, even though the container it's in is probably the size of a cow. A Pixie throwing the stuff effects the same 5' square equally with an eyedropper's worth of the stuff.

And a Giant Cavalier has to take a Prestige Class at 10th level to ride the Mount he gets at 1st.

The game is written with humans or human-like PCs in mind, which means that not every class is a good fit for every monster.

Liberty's Edge

Doomed Hero wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
I wonder if there is a magical equivalent to a Thermite fire.
If there isn't, there friggin' should be. That seems like something a high level alchemist should definitely know how to make.

Really advanced alchemy.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

We all got that little Pyromaniac Goblin in us.

Don't worry you aren't as bad as me.

I would say Thermite would be to volatile to use in combat...

Military uses of termite.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Odraude wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Apologies for being unclear. Was going back and forth between books and the OGL for something so I'm a bit scatterbrained

What I mean is that unlike what we see in movies and on TV, it's actually much more difficult to catch stuff on fire without a continuous source of fire and/or flammable material/fuel. And even then, it's all how you do it. Like, dropping a lit match into oil will actually get the match put out instead of lighting it. That's why I can understand how alchemist's fire doesn't spread out like you'd imagine. Or a brief dragon's breath (within reason of course). You'll char some things and highly flammable items like paper will go off, but burning a house down with a 1-3 second dragon's breath seems unlikely.

Jeeze, I feel like some psycho arsonist now. ;)

I thought that is what you meant...

I could see a Dragon setting stuff on fire. Well after a certain age category. Maybe if they hit Straw or Such they might cause a fire.

Well, dry straw is very flammable and I could see any duration of a dragon's breath catching it in flames.

I swear to Aroden I am NOT an arsonist! ;)

First edition Wilderness survival guide suggestion: don't use flame strike to ignite a fire camp, it will destroy all the wood in its blast and ignite nothing.

Probably a dragon fire blast would consume all the straw in the initial blast so there would nothing left to ignite.

Or char the external layer of a haystack and leave a smoldering crust of charred material. Very dangerous with a good chance of starting a fire as soon as the internal layers get a bit of oxygen but not immediately burning.

To start a fire you need a mix of a combustible and an oxidant.
A pool of gasoline will not burn, what burn are its fumes.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Tindertwig wrote:
Creating a flame with a tindertwig is much faster than creating a flame with flint and steel (or a magnifying glass) and tinder. Lighting a torch with a tindertwig is a standard action (rather than a full-round action), and lighting any other fire with one is at least a standard action.

note: Pathfinder is NOT a simulation ! There are no mechanics for simulating the ignition and spread of house fires. There are no rules for Hobo Murder Arsonists (unless your DM is a volunteer firefighter trainer and has house rules). Yes, you can stand in a large (20x20 foot) pan of diesel fuel and drop lit matches into it without igniting it.

Edit: @bbt I get "invalid session" when I try your link.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Okay, I take my flaming crossbow, I fire a single bolt at a wooden building. Does it ignite the building? I mean, you might be fine with saying it can ignite a pile of dry straw. How about reasonably dry solid oak? I dunno if you've ever tried this, but you can have a really, really, dry piece of wood, and if you just hold a match up to it, all that happens is the match burns out.

My reply was in a post in the other thread. I deleted it as it was a digression from that thread.

To set something on fire you need to bypass the item hardness and energy resistance and the item should still have some hp left.

So let look your wooden beam:
Hardness 5 and 15 hp.
It is susceptible to fire so it would take full damage from a flame (not halve it as normally happens for energy damage).
You put you flaming weapon in contact with it.
Roll your damage:
- 3 nothing
- 1 nothing
- 6, 1 point of fire damage bypass the hardness and the beam catch fire
- you remove your weapon, the fire from the burning beam do 3 hp pf damage, don't surpass its own hardness and the fire is snuffed out.

Similar situation, but instead of trying to set fire to the wooden 1' tick beam we are trying to set fire to several mall pieces of wood suitable for kindling a fire set under your wooden beam and we use a match.
Hardness 0, 6 hp, plus some larger piece of wood, hardness 2 and 10 hp and our beam with hardness 5 and 15 hp.
- round one the march ignite the kindling.
- round 2 the kindling do 3 hp of fire damage to all the material, so the middle sized wood ignite and the beam don't care
- round 3 the kindling do another 2 point of damage and is almost spent with 5 point of damage; the middle sized pieces of wood do 4 points of damage and merrily bun (total damage 3 points, still plenty of wood); the beam catch fire and suffer 1 point of damage
- round 4 the kindling do 1 point of damage and is all burned up. The middle sized wood do 2 point of damage and the beam do 3 points of damage, total fire damage 6 (I am adding up the fire damage from multiple sources, questionable under the RAW). Total fire damage to the middle sized wood 7, total fire damage to the beam 2
- and so on.

That is how I would model starting a fire.
Houserules I would use:
- against item susceptible to fire I would sum up the effects of multiple fires before subtracting the hardness.
- when a massive item like a wooden beam get the broken condition I would halve his hardness against attacks to which it is susceptible.


Doomed Hero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

This is another thing that bothers me-

Say you have a Halfling Alchemist. They make halfling-sized alchemist fire bombs what deal damage normally.

He's facing a Frost Giant Alchemist, who makes giant-sized alchemist fire bombs. Still only deals 1d6 damage even though it's probably 100 times the volume.

Even if we count Alchemist Fire as a "weapon" (which it isn't, but there's a good argument that it could be treated as such) which lets us size the damage dice up and down, there's still the problem of the Alchemist Bomb ability, which is a Supernatural Ability, not a weapon.

A pixie throwing a thimble full of Bomb Juice is exactly as potent as a Titan throwing a Hogshead of the stuff.
Which means, apparently, that the explosive volatility is inversely proportional to the size of the bomb itself.

It gets even crazier with Tanglefoot Bags. The Hogshead of Tanglefoot Juice thrown by the Titan only effects a 5 foot square, even though the container it's in is probably the size of a cow. A Pixie throwing the stuff effects the same 5' square equally with an eyedropper's worth of the stuff.

This is just an artifact of the classes assuming core races.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
seebs wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
You do see why that's not a very good comparison, right? Rogues don't get better or worse at stabbing kidneys based on their size. Explosive substances do get more damaging by volume.

There is sort of an interesting question here.

Compare what happens if you touch lava to what happens if you're immersed in it; the latter does 20d6 instead of 2d6 of damage.

Now compare what happens if you touch alchemical fire (1d6) and if you're immersed in it (1d6).

My analysis: The rules are really not intended to handle this kind of thing very well.

No.

You alchemical touch fire = splash damage, 1 hp of damage
You are immersed in it = direct hit, 1d6 damage for 2 rounds.

Grand Lodge

SlimGauge wrote:
@bbt I get "invalid session" when I try your link.

Here, try it now.

Be safe.


I've king of wondered about alchemist's fire and "catching on fire" as well.

Personally, I was under the opinion that because it specifically mentions catching fire for only one round subsequent, with the regular save to put out the fire and avoid the damage, I assumed that alchemist's fire does not ignite a creature/player, even though it's in disagreement with the rule.

It'd be kinda strong if it actually put a target on fire, wouldn't it?


I am thinking of the wind and heat causing straw nearby to ignite.

Thermite, if going by Middle Age tech, would be horribly volatile to carry into battle.

Liberty's Edge

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

I am thinking of the wind and heat causing straw nearby to ignite.

Thermite, if going by Middle Age tech, would be horribly volatile to carry into battle.

To go by the middle age tech, the aluminum would not be available or it would be extremely costly (on par with gold at least) as it would have to be produced by alchemical methods.

To cite wikipedia:
"Before the Hall-Héroult process was developed in the late 1880s, aluminium was exceedingly difficult to extract from its various ores. This made pure aluminium more valuable than gold. Bars of aluminium were exhibited at the Exposition Universelle of 1855. Napoleon III of France is reputed to have given a banquet where the most honoured guests were given aluminium utensils, while the others made do with gold."


Thermite was normally made from the dust they could get. It was mostly used as an emergency Signal Fire ignition item. Until they could reliably manufacture Black Powder.

Liberty's Edge

You are not speaking of thermite, I think, but of other stuff working in a similar way but with a way lover heat production.


Is there anything in the rules that says that air is breathable?


Diego Rossi wrote:
You are not speaking of thermite, I think, but of other stuff working in a similar way but with a way lover heat production.

It is thermite but it wasn't ever fully mixed just rapidly. Similar to making Homemade Sparklers with the 3 ingredients for Black Powder. The difference is it allowed a soldier to throw a pouch/vial of one of the components that mixed into the other and ignited.


Diego Rossi wrote:

Alchemical fire is a piece of equipment with a listed weight, Alchemist's fire (flask) 20 gp 1 lb.

so a thimble or a titan sized version will not do the same damage. Probably it will not scale 1:1 between size and damage (generally burning stuff don't work that way) but the damage and area affected would increase.

If that's the case, then why doesn't Alchemist Fire damage go up with an Alchemist drinks an Extract of Enlarge Person?

It's been covered that Archers with Enlarge do gain a damage dice increase (assumable because the arrows don't shrink back to normal until some time after they hit).

If's you're suddenly hitting someone with a 5 gallon bucket of Alchemist fire, why doesn't it do more damage?


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Is there anything in the rules that says that air is breathable?

Yes, actually, funnily enough (if I recall).


Doomed Hero wrote:

It's been covered that Archers with Enlarge do gain a damage dice increase (assumable because the arrows don't shrink back to normal until some time after they hit).

Re-read the Spell.

Other source.

Both contradict that statement.


for what it is worth, I giggle every time I see this thread title


Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:

It's been covered that Archers with Enlarge do gain a damage dice increase (assumable because the arrows don't shrink back to normal until some time after they hit).

Re-read the Spell.

Other source.

Both contradict that statement.

Hmm. just saw a thread about it last week. Well that's good, thanks. Argument withdrawn.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8

Whale_Cancer wrote:
Doomed Hero wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:


So the alchemist fire, regardless of the target composition, do 1d6 points of fire damage the first turn and another 1d6 the next turn (unless the target has some form of fire resistance overcoming that damage).

This is another thing that bothers me-

Say you have a Halfling Alchemist. They make halfling-sized alchemist fire bombs what deal damage normally.

He's facing a Frost Giant Alchemist, who makes giant-sized alchemist fire bombs. Still only deals 1d6 damage even though it's probably 100 times the volume.

Even if we count Alchemist Fire as a "weapon" (which it isn't, but there's a good argument that it could be treated as such) which lets us size the damage dice up and down, there's still the problem of the Alchemist Bomb ability, which is a Supernatural Ability, not a weapon.

A pixie throwing a thimble full of Bomb Juice is exactly as potent as a Titan throwing a Hogshead of the stuff.
Which means, apparently, that the explosive volatility is inversely proportional to the size of the bomb itself.

It gets even crazier with Tanglefoot Bags. The Hogshead of Tanglefoot Juice thrown by the Titan only effects a 5 foot square, even though the container it's in is probably the size of a cow. A Pixie throwing the stuff effects the same 5' square equally with an eyedropper's worth of the stuff.

This is just an artifact of the classes assuming core races.

Exactly. Here's another one:

Spell Component pouches and spell material components don't scale based on the size of the caster. Picture the giant wizard, using a jeweller's loupe and tweezers to carefully remove a ball of bat guano the size of a pea so he can cast fireball.

Edit: Posting from my phone, may have been a bit glitchy for a second.

Liberty's Edge

Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You are not speaking of thermite, I think, but of other stuff working in a similar way but with a way lover heat production.
It is thermite but it wasn't ever fully mixed just rapidly. Similar to making Homemade Sparklers with the 3 ingredients for Black Powder. The difference is it allowed a soldier to throw a pouch/vial of one of the components that mixed into the other and ignited.

You have a link to this stuff?

Aluminum was isolated in the middle of the XIX century and the thermite reaction was discovered in 1893 so I found a bit strange hearing that it was used 6 centuries earlier than that.


Unattended Magic items get a save 2 + 1/2 Caster level I believe. This implies that mundane items, being weaker then magic in both hit points and hardness have a harder time saving. I would argue that no caster level means the save is at most a 2.

It would be a GM call when they get a save (which would almost result in fire)

Quickly combustible items like dry hay, or say gasoline would make a save on contact with any open flame

I would probably house rule that slower burning things, something like a log cabin, would burn only if exposed to enough fire damage to give it the broken(maybe destroyed?) condition. The cabin would be more or less examined as a wooden wall/door of x thickness.

much like a rope being more or less immune to bludgeoning dmg, some
things will be immune to mundane levels of fire damage.

Its one of those situations where if your group has gotten good enough to ask, they should be good enough to house rule it. For something like this make sure you write up your house rule so it stays consistent!

If your players start using wall of fire indoors, at the very least make them lose the priceless works of art on the wall when/if they loot the place.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Azaelas Fayth wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:
You are not speaking of thermite, I think, but of other stuff working in a similar way but with a way lover heat production.
It is thermite but it wasn't ever fully mixed just rapidly. Similar to making Homemade Sparklers with the 3 ingredients for Black Powder. The difference is it allowed a soldier to throw a pouch/vial of one of the components that mixed into the other and ignited.

You have a link to this stuff?

Aluminum was isolated in the middle of the XIX century and the thermite reaction was discovered in 1893 so I found a bit strange hearing that it was used 6 centuries earlier than that.

From what I gather that was the first written record of it. Sadly I can't find the link right now... >:[ I really need to sort through my bookmarks again...

Basically, It wasn't called aluminium and was just viewed as a by-product of collecting another mineral.


Okay, so a few thoughts:

1) Rule Zero Fallacy. This does not mean that Rule Zero itself is a fallacy, just that abusing it is.

To quote Justin Alexander:

"To whit: "The rule isn't broken because I can fix it." In the very act of admitting that no DM would allow it, you have admitted that it is a broken rule which needs to be fixed. (Whenever someone invokes this fallacy I often wonder if they try to use the same logic in real life: "Those brakes aren't broken, any decent mechanic could fix them." "There isn't a hole in that bucket because I could patch it whenever I wanted to.")"

So the fact that yeah, any GM with a brain can "common sense" what lights on fire and what doesn't is not an excuse to leave the rules in a a state of half-assed inconsistency.

2) Putting "Fire", "Flame", Burning" or the like in the name of a spell or magic item or whatever, but then saying "well, it's not actually "fire" fire" is madness and dishonesty. That is just a trend of bad game mechanics design and has got to stop. If it's just a spell that does "generic damage" and doesn't set things on fire, then you have no right to get our hopes up by putting a "fire" descriptor in the name of something that's actually an el-cheapo magic missile with a flame-decal illusion attached.

Don't confuse your players/GMs/audience/customers. If we see "fire" in the name, it had better catch things alight as we expect, or you need to seriously re-think the name, the mechanics, or both of the spell or magic item.

Same thing goes for ice or electric based powers or whatever. If I hit a mug of ale with a Ray of Frost, it had better cool down that beverage.

3) And I cannot stress this next point enough: The rules exist to serve the narrative. Think of the rules as a canvas, and of the narrative as the paint we put on it to make a picture. This game begins with imagination, and the end goal is a collective telling of epic sagas envisioned in the mind's eye.

We don't need "rules for the sake of rules" - this isn't a board game. We need the kind of rules that make the narratives of stories like Lord of the Rings, Conan, Jason and the Argonauts, Canterbury Tales, Beowulf, and so on come to life in the imaginations of the group.

So to the above point: when Smaug the Dragon breathed fire over the town of Dale, was it "instantaneous flash bull-s*@&"? No! It burned a lot of the town down (pretty much anything that wasn't stone).

When Ice-Man in X-Men used his ice powers on Wolverine's beer, did it cool it down? Yes it did, and it was awesome!

That's how these powers ought to act, and that's how the rules ought to govern them!

4) I've always thought of Alchemist's Fire as a generic form of Greek Fire, which is believed to have been an early form of napalm. The exact formula is lost to us today because it was such a fiercely-guarded military secret.

5) Thermite isn't unstable. If anything, it's difficult to light the shredded aluminum/powdered rust mixture with anything short of a magnesium rod (don't look at me like that, I had to pull some EOD duty in the USAF, I had a reason to know this stuff).

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / What causes things to catch fire? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.