| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2kz3i?Flaming-Sphere-what-counts-as-flammable#2 4
"You're making this out to be more complex than it actually is. Any large source of fire (frex, a fireball spell) can set someone's clothes on fire.
Fail your save vs. flaming sphere or fireball? You're on fire. Save once per round on your turn. If you make the save, you put out the fire. If you fail the save, you take 1d6 fire damage. If you failed your save by rolling a 1, then you start dealing with items catching fire--turn to page 216 and work your way through the hierarchy of objects until you find something flammable.
The rules have a structure that you can use to decide what to do when something happens that isn't spelled out exactly in the rules."
Was this quote rules or opinion?
Because it actually improves Fireball a lot if it has this effect. Flaming Sphere isn't instantaneous so the rules support it already doing that.
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.... and the fireball spell specifically says "The fireball sets fire to combustibles...."
...Like I said, if you fail your save with a 1, that's when I'd look to see about gear catching on fire.
I would not normally include living creatures as 'combustibles'. Sure you can be damaged by fire, but you aren't really going to ignite. Certainly it would be strange to say your flesh has ignited and is burning but carried objects like fabric or paper are NOT burning.
The rules quote above actually contrasts non-instantaneous fires igniting "clothes, hair, or equipment" with instantaneous fire not "set[ting] a character on fire". So you personally catching on fire would plausibly seem to involve your clothes, hair, or equipment catching on fire. Of course, your 'clothes' may well be enchanted magic robes in this game. But if the 'combustible' line from fireball is meant to bypass the rule for instantaneous fire, it would seem that it should plausibly be affecting 'clothes, hair, or equipment' as well...
I had previously ruled that fireball set fire to unattended combustable objects in the area, and if you roll a Nat 1, a combustable item on your person could catch fire.
As to whether catching lots of stuff on fire improves Fireball alot, yes and no.
Sometimes that can create more problems or more dangerous situations :-)
Yes it is a rule. Attended objects such as things you are wearing don't normally catch fire so it is a non-issue most of the time. Now if you fail the save then it would be safe to assume the object you are wearing fails the save, but that is just one more complications for the game. So "IF" you want to enforce the "flammable" rules he is correct.
TLDR:Yes your clothes should catch on fire on a failed save, just like magic items should be damaged on a nat 1, but those are rules most groups just ignore.
|
Weird I thought by RAW fireball will not set stuff on fire as it is instantaneous.
The description of Fireball does say "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze."
The rules for catching on fire state. "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."
But I guess Fireball specifically calls out the catching on fire bit.
So assuming Fireball's 'sets fire to combustible' line over-rules the normal protections for worn/carried objects, then ALL worn/carried combustible items are affected and catch fire, magic or not, regardless of the save result. This is distinct from the immediate fire damage of the fireball, which the items are still protected from. There isn't really explicit rules, but the best we have is that 'catching on fire' does 1d6/round to CHARACTERS so we can apply the same damage to items as well (this may well be absorbed by the hardness of some items, e.g. heavy darkwood armor).
The only difference for a Nat 1 is that the direct fireball damage may be applied to an item, and it doesn't matter whether the item is combustible or not (albeit non-combustible items would be halving the damage and so-on).
IMHO (and how I have always ruled it), is that the 'sets fire to combustibles' line is only over-ruling the normal rule about suffering fire damage and instantaneous effects... In other words, all the unattended combustible objects affected by the fireball can catch fire even though it is instantaneous. All your worn items are normally protected from the direct fireball damage, and thus catching fire as a result is not even in the cards... EXCEPT when you roll a Natural 1 and one item may be affected (although it is not necessarily combustible). If it IS combustable then it would catch on fire (as if it has failed the initial DC 15 Save for catching on fire).
The problem with things catching fire, is that very few catch fire quickly. Anyone that has started a fire, knows that it even takes paper some duration to actually catch and stay on fire. Even things like gasoline are hard to set of fire, you can drop lit matches into a bucket of gasoline and never get it to ignite.
Out of curiosity why would making your save protect your clothing, unless you take no damage, the fire is still burning the target.
If fire sets clothes and such ablaze, shouldn't acid attacks destroy clothing and other equipment also? How about slashing someone with a big honkin' sword?
Players could spend hours determining damage to clothes and other equipment during every battle.
An off the cuff remark by SKR... I would wager this one won't stand the test of other developers input come Monday morning. If it does, then Fireball just got an entirely unneeded buff.... To me, this is a good example of what happens when someone (with some authority, in this case) reads the rules literally with no regard for the possible implications.
Possible Implications: If items in the area take damage, then all your items that are combustible take damage on a failed save? This would mean that a 13th level character (for example) could lose his cloak, his robe, his padded armor, his pants, his chest slot shirt, and his headband all to a single failed save against fireball...? This is a horrible idea.
I've always understood the first paragraph of the spell where it states "Unattended items also take this damage" to be important part of the spell - it specifically states unattended objects take damage, meaning that attended objects DO NOT take this damage. This is further reinforced by following quote...
Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects). Refer to Table: Items Affected by Magical Attacks: Items Affected by Magical Attacks. Determine which four objects carried or worn by the creature are most likely to be affected and roll randomly among them. The randomly determined item must make a saving throw against the attack form and take whatever damage the attack dealt.
The question is this - Does the descriptive text for fireball state otherwise? It states that "[The Fireball Spell] deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage." I interpret this to be refering specifically to the things that take damage. With the exception being the above quote about items surviving after a Saving Throw and rolling a natural 1.
The final paragraph of Fireball gives a bit more information immediately following the quote SKR referenced that seems relevant to the intent of the quote....
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
To me, the intent of this paragraph is clarified beyond the first sentence where it talks about barriers (an unattended object, obviously).
I suppose we'll see where this all fleshes out in the end, but my 2 cp is that Fireball should not destroy about 5 magical items on a single failed save...
If items in the area take damage, then all your items that are combustible take damage on a failed save?
A failed save (besides Nat 1) has nothing to do with it.
The fireball says "the fireball sets fire to combustibles..." which is irrespective of passing the save or not.Attended objects are still completely shielded from the direct fire damage of the fireball itself (1d6/CL, Save for Half), and IMHO all effects of the spell.
I've always understood the first paragraph of the spell where it states "Unattended items also take this damage" to be important part of the spell - it specifically states unattended objects take damage, meaning that attended objects DO NOT take this damage. This is further reinforced by following quote...[Items Surviving a Saving Throw]Unless the descriptive text for the spell specifies otherwise, all items carried or worn by a creature are assumed to survive a magical attack. If a creature rolls a natural 1 on its saving throw against the effect, however, an exposed item is harmed (if the attack can harm objects)...
Exactly. If the spell was bypassing the normal 'Saving Throw umbrella' for attended objects, why wouldn't it make that clear in the first paragraph where it (RAW) affects only creatures and unattended objects? In fact, based on how it's written, I don't think attended objects should even suffer damage on a Natural 1 since the damage is only affecting creatures and unattended objects... I wouldn't enforce that, but the rules there are trying to mirror the normal rules for spell damage, they really should just say "this damages everything within the area" and the NORMAL function of the rules would shield attended objects without the spell needing to distinguish between attended/unattended in the first paragraph. But ignoring that detail, on a Natural 1, ONE randomly selected attended object will suffer the effects of the spell, the direct fireball damage and catching on fire.
As I see it, the reason there is the line "The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area." is to bypass the normal limitation on the "Catching on Fire" rules, that instantaneous fire effects will not catch something on fire. It certainly isn't explicitly over-riding the "attended items protected except on Nat 1" rule, what it is directly changing is the fact that instantaneous fire effects don't normally risk catching ANYTHING on fire.
I'm not sure if "catching on fire" should require being exposed to at least 1 point of fire damage (or whether getting thru Hardness or not matters). As well as the issue of fire damage/catching on fire, I'm not sure what the intent of the spell is for setting on fire generally (attended or un-attended), if the line is read as merely over-riding the instantaneous limitation then the items still get a separate save... or it can be read as 'forcing' them to catch fire (basically, as if they failed the initial normal DC 15 reflex save for that).
Sooooo many spells deal 1d6/level. Period. Why should this one spell do that AND destroy half the stuff every victim in the full area of effect is carrying? Why should it do that without having to be a higher level spell than the other 1d6/level spells?
No, Fireball sets fire to unattended combustibles and damages unattended objects in the area. RAW? Probably, even if the rule isn't written that way in the Fireball spell, because it is written in the stuff about items surviving failed saving throws. That section has explicit rules for this very question, and it says "Unless the descriptive text for the [Fireball] spell specified otherwise".
Does Fireball specify that it sets fire to attended combustibles and damages attended objects in the area?
No.
Clearly no.
Ergo, Fireball can only do this to unattended combustibles and objects.
And reading SKR's quote, he agrees, at least with regards to the items you're carrying. He said IF you fail your save vs. Fireball your items could be damaged, turn to page 216 and use the hierarchy of objects to find ONE flammable "something". Singular. Clearly, he's not burning all the flammable items off of a character who fails a save and VERY clearly he's not doing that to someone who makes a save.
Ergo, Fireball doesn't destroy attended objects, except it can damage one object if the owner fails a save.
The only interesting difference here is that SKR says you catch on fire if you fail a save vs. Fireball, and you must then take ongoing fire damage (1d6) every round because of this. The rules for catching on fire disagree with this statement by specifically saying that instantaneous spells do not set characters on fire, and Fireball doesn't say anything about catching on fire if you fail a save, so I think SKR was probably incorrect on this point.
And reading SKR's quote, he agrees, at least with regards to the items you're carrying. He said IF you fail your save vs. Fireball your items could be damaged, turn to page 216 and use the hierarchy of objects to find ONE flammable "something". Singular. Clearly, he's not burning all the flammable items off of a character who fails a save and VERY clearly he's not doing that to someone who makes a save.
That's using the rule for a Nat 1 on a Save, not just 'failing the save' in general (which is much more common).
The only interesting difference here is that SKR says you catch on fire if you fail a save vs. Fireball, and you must then take ongoing fire damage (1d6) every round because of this. The rules for catching on fire disagree with this statement by specifically saying that instantaneous spells do not set characters on fire, and Fireball doesn't say anything about catching on fire if you fail a save, so I think SKR was probably incorrect on this point.
Right, like I wrote up-thread, I don't think it's reasonable to count most creatures as 'combustable'. If you look at the spell, that entire paragraph (separated from the rest of the text) is solely discussing the effects of the spell on OJBECTS, not characters:
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what the thing about melting some metals is supposed to mean, the damage dealt isn't different or anything, so I guess we can take it solely as flavor test for HOW it destroys some metals vs. others...? Or perhaps as some VERY vague guidance for how to apply the 'some materials suffer full energy damage, instead of half" rule (or the parallel 'vulnerability to certain types of energy damage' rule (which I'm not sure the parameters on where you apply one but not the other, or both).
As MechE wrote, if the spell meant to over-ride the normal 'saving throw umbrella' for attended items (except on Nat 1), that should logically go earlier, in the first paragraph. Since that effect is based on your own personal saving throw, it needs to be bypassed explicitly in reference to that personal saving throw, discussions of what the spell does to objects in general are not sufficient to over-ride that (IMHO).
so if you fail a save vs fireball....theres s chance all your money will melt?
|
If you interpret it to affect all the stuff carried by a PC, then not only can your money melt, but you should go through your entire inventory to see if anything catches on fire. Piece by piece, looking up the item's hitpoints and check if it's particularly vulnerable to fire.
That's a total combat-stopper.
Let's not do that.
We've got the "on a 1 on a saving throw, risk one item" principle which is nasty enough but lets you continue with the game rather than having three players looking up their entire inventory to see if it'll burn.
"ooo you rolled a 1, goodby money...goodbye spellbook...tent, bedroll, map...."
If DMs go with this ruling the magic ring which grants 10 fire resistance will become a much better item. Even if your PC insists on being naked or buys clothes at Princess Leia's metal clothing store it could be annoying to track that 1d6 fire damage every turn and figure out what kind of action the save to stop it is.
That said, I guess that Flaming Sphere really was already supposed to work that way. I think that gets largely ignored since a lot of monsters don't wear clothes and tracking this stuff might be a nuisance. I guess Scorching Ray still wouldn't set folks on fire since there's no save to fail?
And Scorching Ray is Instantaneous.
If DMs go with this ruling the magic ring which grants 10 fire resistance will become a much better item. Even if your PC insists on being naked or buys clothes at Princess Leia's metal clothing store it could be annoying to track that 1d6 fire damage every turn and figure out what kind of action the save to stop it is.
That said, I guess that Flaming Sphere really was already supposed to work that way. I think that gets largely ignored since a lot of monsters don't wear clothes and tracking this stuff might be a nuisance. I guess Scorching Ray still wouldn't set folks on fire since there's no save to fail?
You would need protections against fire AND electricity, as lightning bolt does the same thing.
I think Devilkiller was looking to protect against the 1d6 damage from catching on fire. While resisting the entire damage from the initial spell would be nice, a 10 resistance won't usually be enough, but it is enough to keep from incinerating all my stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being a SCA Constable, I can tell you that wool is pretty darn fire resistant*. In fact wool blankets are used to put out fires. Most adventurer gear would be wool and leather. Pretty much, an adventurers clothes are about as flammable as the adventurer himself.
Sorry SKR, you blew this one.
* Nylon, poly goes up really fast, cotton also burns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Calling out what a dev said three years later eh? Glad to see the forums are still keeping it classy.
Being a SCA Constable, I can tell you that wool is pretty darn fire resistant*. In fact wool blankets are used to put out fires. Most adventurer gear would be wool and leather. Pretty much, an adventurers clothes are about as flammable as the adventurer himself.
Sorry SKR, you blew this one.
* Nylon, poly goes up really fast, cotton also burns.
Why would most adventuring gear be wool? I'm sure wearing wool would only really be good in colder regions, while cotton and silk would be a great deal better in warmer regions.
Yes, DM Blake, my plan would be to avoid the 1d6 ongoing fire damage. I think that this would protect you against catching on fire after a Lightning Bolt too since presumably once it sets you on fire you're taking fire damage rather than lightning damage.
I guess another option might be to get underpants made from the hide of red dragons, salamanders, or other fire immune creatures. For those who can't afford such luxuries stripping down to the bare minimum might make sense. I wonder how long socks can burn for...
Sooooo many spells deal 1d6/level. Period. Why should this one spell do that AND destroy half the stuff every victim in the full area of effect is carrying? Why should it do that without having to be a higher level spell than the other 1d6/level spells?
No, Fireball sets fire to unattended combustibles and damages unattended objects in the area. RAW? Probably, even if the rule isn't written that way in the Fireball spell, because it is written in the stuff about items surviving failed saving throws. That section has explicit rules for this very question, and it says "Unless the descriptive text for the [Fireball] spell specified otherwise".
Does Fireball specify that it sets fire to attended combustibles and damages attended objects in the area?
No.
Clearly no.
Ergo, Fireball can only do this to unattended combustibles and objects.
And reading SKR's quote, he agrees, at least with regards to the items you're carrying. He said IF you fail your save vs. Fireball your items could be damaged, turn to page 216 and use the hierarchy of objects to find ONE flammable "something". Singular. Clearly, he's not burning all the flammable items off of a character who fails a save and VERY clearly he's not doing that to someone who makes a save.
Ergo, Fireball doesn't destroy attended objects, except it can damage one object if the owner fails a save.
The only interesting difference here is that SKR says you catch on fire if you fail a save vs. Fireball, and you must then take ongoing fire damage (1d6) every round because of this. The rules for catching on fire disagree with this statement by specifically saying that instantaneous spells do not set characters on fire, and Fireball doesn't say anything about catching on fire if you fail a save, so I think SKR was probably incorrect on this point.
Finally someone that makes sense.
Calling out what a dev said three years later eh? Glad to see the forums are still keeping it classy.
Being a SCA Constable, I can tell you that wool is pretty darn fire resistant*. In fact wool blankets are used to put out fires. Most adventurer gear would be wool and leather. Pretty much, an adventurers clothes are about as flammable as the adventurer himself.
Sorry SKR, you blew this one.
* Nylon, poly goes up really fast, cotton also burns.
Why would most adventuring gear be wool? I'm sure wearing wool would only really be good in colder regions, while cotton and silk would be a great deal better in warmer regions.
First of all, cotton (and esp silk) was a luxury fabric.
Next of all, wool breathes so well that actually a fine wool is better in hot climates than even cotton. Google “Smartwool”, etc. Many performance clothes are now made from wool.
Now yes, a campaign set in a Middle-eastern location, etc is different.
I've heard of wool being less flammable, but I've never heard of wool breathing better than cotton in hotter climates. And admittedly, yes, silk is a luxury, although cotton was only a luxury in Europe because it wasn't really grown there, only imported from Asia and, later on, the Americas. And actually, rereading my book on textiles throughout history, I would hesitate to even call cotton a luxury. Perhaps not common to every peasant out there, but certainly less of a luxury than linen or silk. And even then, we don't really know (and I suppose don't care in a game) whether or not a campaign world has a cotton gin. Which would be... anachronistic but acceptable. Much like the printing press I suppose.
I'm rambling now. Sorry :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, cotton (and esp silk) was a luxury fabric.
On Earth. Or, some parts of Earth.
Next of all, wool breathes so well that actually a fine wool is better in hot climates than even cotton.
Then explain why WW2 reenactors complain about how hot the (wool) Nazi uniforms are. Or why the actual Nazis did.
Google “Smartwool”, etc.
... invented in the 1990s...
First of all, cotton (and esp silk) was a luxury fabric.On Earth. Or, some parts of Earth.
Next of all, wool breathes so well that actually a fine wool is better in hot climates than even cotton.Then explain why WW2 reenactors complain about how hot the (wool) Nazi uniforms are. Or why the actual Nazis did.
Google “Smartwool”, etc.... invented in the 1990s...
Having been a Civil War re-enactor I can tell you that the only time I ever found wool to be even remotely "cool" was when I'd already soaked it with my sweat. There is nothing quite as... "fun" as laying out "dead" in the July sun in a wool uniform...
Now in the winter, it was a good thing...
I was going to comment on this issue, but I notice that I made a comment three years ago in the other thread and my opinion hasn't changed since then. :-)
From what I'm reading, it's pretty much cotton, linen, and silk that were really cool to wear in the heat. Don't know much on hemp unfortunately.
And admittedly, this is off topic... so... I guess to a different topic!
The main advantage of wool was its ability to keep a person warm when wet. In the often wet and often cold northern european climate wool was a superior choice to cotton, even if cotton was available as cotton is useless when wet for anything other than causing hypothermia. This is also why many military uniforms were historically made of wool. It is tough and durable and "all weather". Cool and comfortable unfortunately is not really one of its strengths but it would keep you alive which historically was more important.
First of all, cotton (and esp silk) was a luxury fabric.On Earth. Or, some parts of Earth.
Next of all, wool breathes so well that actually a fine wool is better in hot climates than even cotton.Then explain why WW2 reenactors complain about how hot the (wool) Nazi uniforms are. Or why the actual Nazis did.
Google “Smartwool”, etc.... invented in the 1990s...
True. I am basing this on northern or western europe. Golarian may use more cotton, but by the looks of the Iconics, they are heavily into leather. Just sayin ..... :-)
Those German uniforms wre made of darn heavy stuff, no doubt. Thing is, you can make wool into light and cool, or heavy and warm.
Yes. But all it is is a lightweight weave of merino wool ( designed to allow machine washing too). i have a wool t tunic made of such a light weave that many think its silk.
And not one mention of linen! (made from plant fibers from the Flax plant). Probably flammable and certainly what the hot weather gear is made from. However, this is all on earth.
Galarion probably has it's own plant fibers to make cloth. These Assassin vine pants always fit a little too tight! Your coat is so warm because I made if out of wool from my pet yeti.
And not one mention of linen! (made from plant fibers from the Flax plant). Probably flammable and certainly what the hot weather gear is made from. However, this is all on earth.
Galarion probably has it's own plant fibers to make cloth. These Assassin vine pants always fit a little too tight! Your coat is so warm because I made if out of wool from my pet yeti.
But, I did mention linen :(
And not one mention of linen! (made from plant fibers from the Flax plant). Probably flammable and certainly what the hot weather gear is made from. However, this is all on earth.
.
Linen is more flammable that wool, yes. Good point.
http://www.resistflamefinishing.com/flammability_of_fabrics.asp
"Untreated fabrics such as cotton, linen and silk burn more easily than wool, which is more difficult to ignite and burns with a low flame velocity."
It's still safer than poly, etc, of course.
|
Most adventurer gear would be wool and leather.
Until the good doctor (evil doctor?) opened his mouth again, just to put his foot in it, I thought that his quote was referencing the 'outfits' in the equipment chapter, which talk a lot about wool and leather in the descriptions of the kind of outfits you can get for free!
On topic: fireball now effectively 'sunders' all the treasure you were about to take from their corpses?
Any sane caster skips fireball because if it doesn't kill an enemy (which it likely won't) you've effectively done nothing to stop an enemy from killing you or your friends.
It makes me sad to see people slander the classic and wonderful Fireball spell in such terrible ways. Fireball can certainly kill an enemy or even multiple enemies. Even when it doesn't kill it does damage though. Causing damage is what a lot of classes are focused on, so Fireball is a great spell for a team player. Fireball helps other party members such as Barbarians, Paladins, and even Rogues take monsters HP down to 0, and death is a very effective debuff.
Scorching Ray is often a smarter choice against a single foe, but AoE spells like Fireball can affect multiple foes, and Fireball has great range. It is also quite flexible for use with metamagic. Besides being Intensified, Empowered, or Maximized it can act as a powerful delivery system for something like Dazing Spell. I'll have to read up on this stuff about Fireball potentially destroying treasure, but other than that it is a great spell. Since the days of AD&D this is the spell which many low level mages have aspired to.
Ok, Sean, let me suggest a compromise. You must agree that adventurers wear study and practical clothing for the most part. A lot of leather, and perhaps wool. Not to mention metal. Not a lot of loose flowing cottons, linens, while dungeon crawling.
So perhaps this is one advantage of wearing the iconic Explorer's Outfit: that it doesn't get set aflame except on a natural 1?