A question has come up about the exact meaning of what a "flammable" substance constitutes. Flaming Sphere says that flammable substances are ignited in the area a Flaming Sphere is in. Would that include the clothes of an opponent who failed his Reflex save against the Sphere itself?
|
A question has come up about the exact meaning of what a "flammable" substance constitutes. Flaming Sphere says that flammable substances are ignited in the area a Flaming Sphere is in. Would that include the clothes of an opponent who failed his Reflex save against the Sphere itself?
Anything that can "flamm" would be flammable. Stuff like unattended oil, wax, cloth, torches, paper, books, etc. I would rule that it burns gear for those that rolled a "1" on their save, not necessarily because they failed the save. The text is there to differentiate it from fireball, which is just a quick flash that may not ignite everything in the area. Flaming sphere lingers...
Does the game really need to define "flammable"? It means the same thing as it means in English.
|
A question has come up about the exact meaning of what a "flammable" substance constitutes. Flaming Sphere says that flammable substances are ignited in the area a Flaming Sphere is in. Would that include the clothes of an opponent who failed his Reflex save against the Sphere itself?
I would say no to the clothing. you already took damage, and recurring burn damage or item destruction might be a little much. I'd apply the flammable ruling to any object common sense says would ignite that is not currently in a person's possession.
Unattended objects that would burn when subjected to open flame IRL would count as flammable in d20. But attended flammable objects on a person? Maybe if the player was specifically trying to set it alight, there should be a DC by the owner of the item, much like the reflex against the sphere itself.
Otherwise, I wouldn't spend too much time on it, unless someone was trying to set something alight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
runs in carrying a lit torch
me am available for demonstration of what "flammable" mean.
Sounds like somebody pissed in SKR's corn flakes this mornin lol
No, it just makes sense that if something isn't defined in the game, you should go to the real-world definition of that thing. The game doesn't define "boots," "bones," "metal," or even "water," but you know what those things are. Otherwise the Core Rulebook becomes a dictionary as well as a collection of game rules, and expands to 1,000 pages....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that one of my players claims that it'd set the opponents clothes on fire, if that opponent fails his normal save ( or a second save ). Which is quite a bother if that opponent happens to be a spellcaster, who then has to make concentration checks every time he wants to cast. Not to mention that then the question arises of how many rounds those clothes would burn.
So, the question wasn't what exactly constitutes "flammable material" ( because, d'oh ), but if opponents clothes could catch fire.
|
I don't think magical clothing would catch on fire, but regular clothes maybe. You might lose an eyebrow or something too :D
Aren't there rules for being set on fire, like you take a move/standard action to put the flames out?
The spell doesn't specifically say that targets hit with flaming sphere will set on fire and take continuous fire damage until doused/patted out etc. But you could use common sense and DM discretion.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess it's up to the GM to decide whether or not a five-foot-diameter ball of fire that deals 3d6 fire damage to anything it touches is capable of igniting cloth (hardness 0, 2 hp/inch of thickness).
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I guess it's up to the GM to decide whether or not a five-foot-diameter ball of fire that deals 3d6 fire damage to anything it touches is capable of igniting cloth (hardness 0, 2 hp/inch of thickness).
This is certainly sound reasoning, but it introduces even more problems. According to the rules for "Catching on Fire," the victim must make a DC 15 Reflex save or catch fire, suffering an additional 1d6 fire damage each round until they succeed on the save.
Then, there's the real doozy: "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."
Now, instead of rolling one save vs. the spell, you roll a save vs. the spell and, if you fail, you make a save vs. catching on fire. If you fail THAT, now you have to make a save for each and every potentially flammable item in your inventory?!? I'm sorry, that's just way too much for me. A simple 2nd-level spell could grind combat to a stand-still whenever someone failed a save. If an enemy were coated in oil or otherwise made EXCEPTIONALLY flammable, I would agree. But having their clothing catch fire and immolate them entirely is gratuitous and cumbersome mechanically. Also, I believe it makes the spell much more powerful than intended.
|
I guess it's up to the GM to decide whether or not a five-foot-diameter ball of fire that deals 3d6 fire damage to anything it touches is capable of igniting cloth (hardness 0, 2 hp/inch of thickness).
This kinda goes back to another thread...3.5/PFRPG is already bordering on being overly codified. And all because some people can't occasionally use common sense to figure out something like the above.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Inflammable means flammable?
What a country!
I literally burst into flames reading this.
** spoiler omitted **
My hatred for you causes flammable objects to burst into flame.
Actually, now that I think about it, this thread reminds me of an incident long ago in a high school club. We were building a set, and the stuff we used to make the walls had the helpful safety warning "will combust if exposed to sufficient heat." To which we responded "no s&~* sherlock, won't just about everything?"
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
...the helpful safety warning "will combust if exposed to sufficient heat." To which we responded "no s@#& sherlock, won't just about everything?"
Oddly enough, the answer is "no."
com·bust
v. com·bust·ed , com·bust·ing , com·bustsv. intr.
1.
a.To catch fire; burst into flame: The fire started when a pile of oily rags spontaneously combusted.
b.To undergo combustion; burn: As the fuels were combusting they gave off noxious vapors.2.To become suddenly angry or agitated: The defendant combusted when he heard the verdict.
v. tr.
1.To cause to burn; ignite.
2.To cause to become angry or violent: riots that are combusting whole provinces.
The key words here are "burn" or "ignite." Most plastics and metals will simply melt when superheated, likewise for minerals and other dense, solid objects. Something like a fiberglass would simply turn into a puddle of molten goo, while organic materials (cloth, wheat, etc.) will actually catch fire.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
...the helpful safety warning "will combust if exposed to sufficient heat." To which we responded "no s@#& sherlock, won't just about everything?"Oddly enough, the answer is "no."
The key words here are "burn" or "ignite." Most plastics and metals will simply melt when superheated, likewise for minerals and other dense, solid objects. Something like a fiberglass would simply turn into a puddle of molten goo, while organic materials (cloth, wheat, etc.) will actually catch fire.com·bust
v. com·bust·ed , com·bust·ing , com·bustsv. intr.
1.
a.To catch fire; burst into flame: The fire started when a pile of oily rags spontaneously combusted.
b.To undergo combustion; burn: As the fuels were combusting they gave off noxious vapors.2.To become suddenly angry or agitated: The defendant combusted when he heard the verdict.
v. tr.
1.To cause to burn; ignite.
2.To cause to become angry or violent: riots that are combusting whole provinces.
You sir, are technically correct.
Which is the best kind of correct.
But you ruined the joke. And are flammable. Keep that in mind.
A question has come up about the exact meaning of what a "flammable" substance constitutes. Flaming Sphere says that flammable substances are ignited in the area a Flaming Sphere is in. Would that include the clothes of an opponent who failed his Reflex save against the Sphere itself?
Generally, a character's items only run the risk of taking damage on a natural "1" on the saving throw roll. So I'd say no.
Items Surviving after 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). 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.
If the selected item is not carried or worn and is not magical, it does not get a saving throw. It simply is dealt the appropriate damage.
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is certainly sound reasoning, but it introduces even more problems. According to the rules for "Catching on Fire," the victim must make a DC 15 Reflex save or catch fire, suffering an additional 1d6 fire damage each round until they succeed on the save.
Then, there's the real doozy: "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."
Now, instead of rolling one save vs. the spell, you roll a save vs. the spell and, if you fail, you make a save vs. catching on fire. If you fail THAT, now you have to make a save for each and every potentially flammable item in your inventory?!? I'm sorry, that's just way too much for me. A simple 2nd-level spell could grind combat to a stand-still whenever someone failed a save. If an enemy were coated in oil or otherwise made EXCEPTIONALLY flammable, I would agree. But having their clothing catch fire and immolate them entirely is gratuitous and cumbersome mechanically. Also, I believe it makes the spell much more powerful than intended.
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.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
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.
But the PRD specifically says that instantaneous spells like fireball don't normally run the risk of igniting creatures. Sure, there might be extenuating circumstances, but that's not what I was getting at.
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.
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.
So, when you say "Fail your save... You're on fire" that implies to me that the character's clothing and other effects have ignited. See my previous reference to the following: "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."
I'm aware that rolling a 1 on a save exposes items to danger. But this seems to skirt around that and say "If you're on fire at all, regardless of the saving throw result, your equipment is at risk."
While I may be making a mountain out of a molehill here, it does seem worth debating. Personally? No. A flaming sphere will not ignite a character unless that character is rendered exceptionally flammable via lantern oil or other fuel or is rendered immobile and exposed to the ignition source for several consecutive rounds. The rules as written (which is what is being debated here) seem to suggest a ludicrous (IMO) alternative.
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...."
I'm aware that rolling a 1 on a save exposes items to danger. But this seems to skirt around that and say "If you're on fire at all, regardless of the saving throw result, your equipment is at risk."
Like I said, if you fail your save with a 1, that's when I'd look to see about gear catching on fire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rather then apply real life logic, I apply fantasy rules logic, which states that a person's clothing or armor is only damaged when thematically suitable.
In other words, unless you want to have the slapstick adventures of Bucko the Nude Halfling in the middle of a dungeon, no.
Rather then apply real life logic, I apply fantasy rules logic, which states that a person's clothing or armor is only damaged when thematically suitable.
In other words, unless you want to have the slapstick adventures of Bucko the Nude Halfling in the middle of a dungeon, no.
That kinda was what I was getting at. Because what is good for the goose is also good for the ganter and if my players think that setting opponents clothes on fire is fun, there'll be an amazing amount of naked PCs running around shortly through the next dungeon. ^^
I think I'll go with the "clothes catch on fire on a natural 1 on the save" suggestion, that makes the most amount of sense from an RP perspective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like somebody pissed in SKR's corn flakes this mornin lolNo, it just makes sense that if something isn't defined in the game, you should go to the real-world definition of that thing. The game doesn't define "boots," "bones," "metal," or even "water," but you know what those things are. Otherwise the Core Rulebook becomes a dictionary as well as a collection of game rules, and expands to 1,000 pages....
I guess I should have qualified that statement...I completely agree with you, I guess it's just uncommon to see board moderators/devs gettin snarky on folks. TBH, it's kinda nice lol.
|
|
Rather then apply real life logic, I apply fantasy rules logic, which states that a person's clothing or armor is only damaged when thematically suitable.
In other words, unless you want to have the slapstick adventures of Bucko the Nude Halfling in the middle of a dungeon, no.
Because nothing says fun more than when your group's half-orc fighter has everything except his armor and sword eaten away by a black pudding and chooses to wear a burlap sack for underwear and nothing else for the rest of the adventure.
I guess it's just uncommon to see board moderators/devs gettin snarky on folks.
SKR and snark? Wait what? :)
Rather then apply real life logic, I apply fantasy rules logic, which states that a person's clothing or armor is only damaged when thematically suitable.
In other words, unless you want to have the slapstick adventures of Bucko the Nude Halfling in the middle of a dungeon, no.
This guy gets it. :-)
I guess it's just uncommon to see board moderators/devs gettin snarky on folks.SKR and snark? Wait what? :)
To quote myself, "I'll cut you!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like somebody pissed in SKR's corn flakes this mornin lolNo, it just makes sense that if something isn't defined in the game, you should go to the real-world definition of that thing. The game doesn't define "boots," "bones," "metal," or even "water," but you know what those things are. Otherwise the Core Rulebook becomes a dictionary as well as a collection of game rules, and expands to 1,000 pages....
+1
We live in a dark era of roleplaying. Too many rules. Too many silly discussions that slow things down when a simple and quick DM ruling could fix it.
I run into situations where people feel "cheated" if things don't go specifically as stated in the "rules" all the time. What a poor attitude to have, and what a bad direction the industry as a whole has taken.
|
|
Because nothing says fun more than when your group's half-orc fighter has everything except his armor and sword eaten away by a black pudding and chooses to wear a burlap sack for underwear and nothing else for the rest of the adventure.
In other words, unless you want to have the slapstick adventures of Bucko the Nude Halfling in the middle of a dungeon, no.
My buddy Nate, (see directly above) once played a cleric who wasn't really happy unless he was naked. As you can imagine, it put all three of the characters I played in that campaign off of religion. :P
|
|
On the other end of the scale...
Someone throws a bucket of water on my character. How wet do I get? Seems another huge rule hole in PF if your ask me ;)
Also can I have rules on altitude sickness please, when exactly does my character loose consciousness or have his blood boil if I fly my broom of flying straight up?
PF all those pages and still missing a ton of critical rules!
hmmmpfh,
S.
PS: As stated before - it's what the DM is for...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Someone throws a bucket of water on my character. How wet do I get? Seems another huge rule hole in PF if your ask me ;)
Apparently, you've never played PFS#69, Debauchery in the Keys. It includes an encounter where the PCs must judge a wet t-shirt contest, and is completely broken without these rules. The module is virtually unplayable, and Paizo should hang their head in shame for publishing it.
Particularly given that they didn't include any appropriate "art."
On the other end of the scale...
Someone throws a bucket of water on my character. How wet do I get? Seems another huge rule hole in PF if your ask me ;)
Sadly true. We need to know the encumberance impact of water being saturated into clothing and equipment. Of course I'm being sarcastic, but it does conjure an amusing image of enemy clerics casting Create Water on fleeing PCs to keep them from getting away...
On the other end of the scale...
Also can I have rules on altitude sickness please, when exactly does my character loose consciousness or have his blood boil if I fly my broom of flying straight up?
Straight up what?
"Altitude Zones: In general, mountains present three possible altitude bands: low pass, low peak/high pass, and high peak.
Low Pass (lower than 5,000 feet): Most travel in low mountains takes place in low passes, a zone consisting largely of alpine meadows and forests. Travelers might find the going difficult (which is reflected in the movement modifiers for traveling through mountains), but the altitude itself has no game effect.
Low Peak or High Pass (5,000 to 15,000 feet): Ascending to the highest slopes of low mountains, or most normal travel through high mountains, falls into this category. All non-acclimated creatures labor to breathe in the thin air at this altitude. Characters must succeed on a Fortitude save each hour (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or be fatigued. The fatigue ends when the character descends to an altitude with more air. Acclimated characters do not have to attempt the Fortitude save.
High Peak (more than 15,000 feet): The highest mountains exceed 15,000 feet in height. At these elevations, creatures are subject to both high altitude fatigue (as described above) and altitude sickness, whether or not they're acclimated to high altitudes. Altitude sickness represents long-term oxygen deprivation, and affects mental and physical ability scores. After each 6-hour period a character spends at an altitude of over 15,000 feet, he must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1 point of damage to all ability scores. Creatures acclimated to high altitude receive a +4 competence bonus on their saving throws to resist high altitude effects and altitude sickness, but eventually even seasoned mountaineers must abandon these dangerous elevations.
|
|
On the other end of the scale...
Also can I have rules on altitude sickness please, when exactly does my character loose consciousness or have his blood boil if I fly my broom of flying straight up?
Straight up what?
"Altitude Zones: In general, mountains present three possible altitude bands: low pass, low peak/high pass, and high peak.
Low Pass (lower than 5,000 feet): Most travel in low mountains takes place in low passes, a zone consisting largely of alpine meadows and forests. Travelers might find the going difficult (which is reflected in the movement modifiers for traveling through mountains), but the altitude itself has no game effect.
Low Peak or High Pass (5,000 to 15,000 feet): Ascending to the highest slopes of low mountains, or most normal travel through high mountains, falls into this category. All non-acclimated creatures labor to breathe in the thin air at this altitude. Characters must succeed on a Fortitude save each hour (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or be fatigued. The fatigue ends when the character descends to an altitude with more air. Acclimated characters do not have to attempt the Fortitude save.
High Peak (more than 15,000 feet): The highest mountains exceed 15,000 feet in height. At these elevations, creatures are subject to both high altitude fatigue (as described above) and altitude sickness, whether or not they're acclimated to high altitudes. Altitude sickness represents long-term oxygen deprivation, and affects mental and physical ability scores. After each 6-hour period a character spends at an altitude of over 15,000 feet, he must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1 point of damage to all ability scores. Creatures acclimated to high altitude receive a +4 competence bonus on their saving throws to resist high altitude effects and altitude sickness, but eventually even seasoned mountaineers must abandon these dangerous elevations.
Holy crap! Rules I didn't know existed. Now I just feel silly. Still 6 hours at say 100 km up, from the surface (assuming Earth-like planet), seems a tad on tame side for being in a near vacuum...
Paizo, fix this now! Oh and do something about illustrating wet-tee shirt competitions appropriately in future adventures also!
:)
Technically, a flammable substance is one which easilly catches fire, whereas combustable refers to a substance that can catch fire, but you have to work at it.
Compare and contrast Propane (Flammable) and wood (Combustable).
Your clothes are combustable, by and large, though some exceptional fabrics will be flammable. I'm thinking, period medievil garb will be combustable rather than flammable.
Batts
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, combustable objects on your person could catch fire.
Interesting...
Somebody split the thread, but I thought I would re-post my follow up here, since I think it gives a fuller conclusion to the issue than my previous post. The other (original) thread is HERE though.
=========================================================
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 is subject to catching on fire (per the normal fire rules, i.e. as exception to instantaneous fire damage rule, meaning another dc 15 reflex save for the object itself).
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).