What causes things to catch fire?

[seebs]

Previous thread: paizo.com/threads/rzs2lnck?Catching-on-fire

Starting a new one since my question is slightly different, and that one's long-dead.

Basic question: Under what circumstances do objects or structures catch fire?

There are rules for characters catching fire:

http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/environment.html#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."

Now, a quick look at specific spells shows:

Flame Blade:

"A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth."

(Side note: That's very similar to the 1E DMG's listing of things, like webs, oil, dry wood, or cloth, that a Flame Tongue blade could ignite.)

Fireball[url]:

"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."

[url=http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/burningHands.html]Burning Hands:
"Flammable materials burn if the flames touch them. A character can extinguish burning items as a full-round action."

Flame Arrow:
"This spell allows you to turn ammunition (such as arrows, crossbow bolts, shuriken, and sling stones) into fiery projectiles. Each piece of ammunition deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage to any target it hits. A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won't ignite a creature it strikes."

There are also Flaming weapons:

Flaming (some ways down the page)

"Flaming: Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder. The effect remains until another command is given.

Moderate evocation; CL 10th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor and flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +1 bonus."

Finally, the Igniting weapon property:
Igniting (scroll down the page)

"Igniting (weapon special ability): An igniting weapon functions as a flaming weapon that also causes foes to catch fire upon striking a successful critical hit. The target does not get a saving throw to avoid catching fire, but can make a save each round on its turn to put out the fire. The flaming ability must be active for the weapon to set enemies on fire.

Strong evocation; CL 12th; Craft Magic Arms and Armor, flame blade, flame strike, or fireball; Price +2 bonus."

Combining all of these: What about a mere "flaming" weapon? Can it ignite things?

I think the answer is: Things yes, creatures no. In general, non-instantanous magical fires can cause creatures to catch on fire. In some cases, even instantaneous fires can ignite flammable objects. The "Igniting" property is distinguished not only by the possibility of catching fire, but the certainty that the target catches fire -- no saving throw to avoid it.

A flaming weapon produces a magical fire, which is not instantaneous; the effect "remains" until something else is done to the weapon. In general, magical fires which are not instantaneous can cause creatures to catch fire, although the creatures get a save. By analogy to Flame Arrow, we can reasonably argue that the weapon enchant can ignite objects, but not creatures -- especially because there's a better weapon enchant that ignites creatures.

But I don't see anything suggesting that the flaming weapon is not an example of a non-instantaneous magical fire, and thus capable of igniting things.

[Azaelas Fayth]

I haven't seen any rules for setting items on fire...

[blackbloodtroll]

Catching on Fire.

[seebs]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

I haven't seen any rules for setting items on fire...

Interesting point! But then... HOW DO TORCHES WORK? So there must be something, somewhere.

Hmm. Flint & Steel:

"Lighting a torch with flint and steel is a full-round action, and lighting any other fire with them takes at least that long."

Lamps and lanterns say nothing about how they are caused to burn; by RAW, so far as I can tell, you pour oil in them and they then cast light for six hours.

Oil can be poured on the ground. "If lit, the oil burns..." but nothing says how it can be lit. Interestingly, RAW, it takes "at least" a full-round action to ignite oil with flint and steel, even if you have oil-soaked rags, because it's not a torch.

A torch can be used as an improvised weapon which deals bludgeoning damage equal to that of a gauntlet of its size, plus one point of fire damage.

So. Strictly speaking, by the rules: You cannot ignite oil with a torch, because nothing anywhere says that you can ignite anything with a torch. So far as I can tell, you can hold a torch under a captive prisoner and as long as you don't hit them with it, absolutely nothing happens.

Magnifying glass: You need "tinder" to ignite, and it requires "at least a full-round action", plus a bright light "such as sunlight".

The catching on fire rules appear to cover bonfires, burning oil, and non-instantaneous magical fires; again, no way for other fires (such as a mere campfire) to have any effect.

Lava deals fire damage, but there is no mention of it causing things to ignite.

So.

Let's say that you have a torch, and some oil-soaked rags, and some gunpowder, and you throw them on molten lava. So far as I can tell, they do not ignite in any way. The torch is made of wood, so it takes damage until it runs out of hit points, and is then destroyed. Rags, similarly, are made of cloth. Gunpowder doesn't list any material hardness or hit points, so it can't be damaged, so it just sits there being on top of liquid rock, with nothing happening to it.

You cannot take an existing, already lit torch, and use it to light a lamp or another torch. You cannot use a lamp to light torches or lamps. You cannot, in general, use any source of fire to ignite any other source of fire.

If I understand what you are telling me, then, your theory is that any ruling under which a character is permitted to, say, use a torch to ignite a campfire, or use a campfire to ignite a torch, is a "house rule", because there are no specific rules for this? Similarly, while forests can burn, houses can't, and there is no danger of a house which is declared to be on fire by GM fiat spreading that fire to other nearby houses, or even so much as lighting a candle, because there is no rule covering this?

I am having a hard time accepting this interpretation.

The most obvious interpretation would be to conclude that things which can cause characters to catch fire can also cause flammable objects to catch fire.

[seebs]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Catching on Fire.

I think the point AF is making is: That rule describes causing characters to catch on fire. There is nothing talking about plain old objects.

Which is true.

And is why in PFS games, you can never allow a character to use one torch to ignite another torch.

[Azaelas Fayth]

So this is a gap in Pathfinder's Rules?

[Adamantine Dragon]

seebs wrote:

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Catching on Fire.

I think the point AF is making is: That rule describes causing characters to catch on fire. There is nothing talking about plain old objects.

Which is true.

And is why in PFS games, you can never allow a character to use one torch to ignite another torch.

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

[blackbloodtroll]

I think you are taking just the idea of a Flaming weapon not catching things on fire badly, and using other, extreme examples, and rules interpretations to present a case that mostly everything else that could be similar to this case as ridiculous.

This is just about an enchantment, what you want it to do, and trying to prove that anything that could be close to disagreeing with you to be exceptionally silly, and grossly misinformed.

At least, that is my opinion.

[seebs]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

So this is a gap in Pathfinder's Rules?

That is my conclusion.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

I think you are taking just the idea of a Flaming weapon not catching things on fire badly, and using other, extreme examples, and rules interpretations to present a case that mostly everything else that could be similar to this case as ridiculous.

Sort of.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Me.

Not kidding, but using a rhetorical device (reductio ad absurdum).

The point I am trying to make is: There is indeed a very large gap in the rules here, if we are going to require an explicit statement that something can be ignited, because if we require that, we produce ridiculous results. Obviously, there must be SOME way in which things can be ignited other than those explicitly identified.

BTW, I went and looked; we've always let people use prestidigitation to ignite things, but I don't think it can. Where I got this, I think, was that 1E Unearthed Arcana had a "firefinger" cantrip which was basically a lighter (complete with Gygax's humor; magic words of power such as "zip-po"). And that didn't do damage, but could easily ignite things.

So what we have is a gap. There's no rules for igniting objects, as opposed to players, except a few specific spells which identify that they can ignite or burn objects, and a few specific cases. You can ignite a torch with flint and steel. Any other fire takes "at least a full-round action", but there is no guidance at all on this topic.

If we accept that a torch can ignite another torch, though, we have a problem: We don't know what the limits are. There's no rules. Can a torch ignite a prepared fire complete with tinder and twigs? Probably. How about a large tree which is soaking wet and still totally alive? Almost certainly not.

But that's all house rules! We haven't got an actual ruling as such.

So my answer is: I think the intent of the catching on fire rule is to give guidance as to what will ignite things, with the assumption that if it won't damage anyone, no one cares very much.

In which case, I would say: Magical fire which is not instantaneous can in general ignite things which are of a kind which allows them to be ignited.

But I will agree that there is probably not an explicit rule here. I just don't think that the game that results if we declare that absolutely nothing can be ignited unless there's an explicit rule saying it can is a coherent game.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Spark

[blackbloodtroll]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Spark

Yeah, I had to point that cantrip out when someone at our table wanted to use Prestidigitation to lite a torch.

I was met with grumbling acceptance.

[seebs]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Spark

Ah-hah! I wonder why I missed that when I went looking for it. (Answer: I was looking in the Core list.) Okay, that makes it definite; prestidigitation can't do that.

Which leaves open the general question: We have no generic rules for under what circumstances fire, or heat, can ignite objects. And if we don't make some guesses, we get ridiculous results like "a torch can't light another torch".

So I think this is pretty much a hole in the rules. Heck, I just noticed another aspect: The rules say that some spells, like Burning Hands, can ignite flammable objects.

So what happens to an object that has been ignited? Does it take damage? Does it stay ignited? Does it eventually burn out? I don't think there's any rules there.

Hmm.

Okay, here's my proposed simplification: Assume for the sake of argument that (flammable) objects count as characters for the purposes of the Catching On Fire rule, but that they are objects, so they always fail reflex saves.

Alternatively, go find your 1st Edition copy of Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and look up the rules there on fires.

[seebs]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Spark

Yeah, I had to point that cantrip out when someone at our table wanted to use Prestidigitation to lite a torch.

I was met with grumbling acceptance.

What bugs me about it is:

If I hadn't seen that cantrip, I'd have said "sure, that's a minor effect that doesn't duplicate any other spell".

So adding this cantrip has weakened prestidigitation. So if I just did a TON of spell research, I could basically cripple all the 1st-level wizards. :)

[Azaelas Fayth]

I guess they would take damage as a character set on fire would.

I guess this is an artifact that a GM has to answer...

[Artanthos]

seebs wrote:

And is why in PFS games, you can never allow a character to use one torch to ignite another torch.

You laugh.

In PFS I've had a elemental fire bloodline sorcerer with a full list of fire spells told he could not use magic to start a fire.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Artanthos wrote:

seebs wrote:

And is why in PFS games, you can never allow a character to use one torch to ignite another torch.

You laugh.

In PFS I've had a elemental fire bloodline sorcerer with a full list of fire spells told he could not use magic to start a fire.

Why is it I immediately thought that if they didn't do that it would lead to the Pathfinder Society becoming like Fairy Tail. I.E.: Getting in trouble for property damage and such.

[Odraude]

Threads like this remind me of why I avoid PFS like the plague.

[seebs]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

I guess they would take damage as a character set on fire would.

I guess this is an artifact that a GM has to answer...

Yeah. I think "an object is a character that always fails reflex saves" is pretty good. Obviously, non-flammable things don't catch fire.

I mean, for a counterpoint: Look at the rules for "catching on fire".

Imagine a character made of a substance such that they OBVIOUSLY cannot burn. Nevermind how they got there, it's a hypothetical. Character is made of metal, say.

Character has no hair.

Character has no equipment whatsoever.

Character is subjected to fire of a sort which normally triggers the "catching on fire" rules.

Can they catch on fire? Obviously not -- there's nothing to burn. But the rule never says that...

[Gilfalas]

seebs wrote:

Basic question: Under what circumstances do objects or structures catch fire?

Any circumstance that the GM or even table concensus deems common sense enough that it should happen.

It never ceases to boggle my mind that some folks need a rule for everything and anything before they can do it in an RPG.

Some things are just common sense and can/should be adjudicated by the referee.

And if you have PFS GM's saying you cannot light fires with magic then I would recommend they not be GM's any more.

[seebs]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

seebs wrote:

And is why in PFS games, you can never allow a character to use one torch to ignite another torch.

You laugh.

In PFS I've had a elemental fire bloodline sorcerer with a full list of fire spells told he could not use magic to start a fire.

Why is it I immediately thought that if they didn't do that it would lead to the Pathfinder Society becoming like Fairy Tail. I.E.: Getting in trouble for property damage and such.

No worries! Instantaneous spells in general don't burn things, and most combat magic is instantaneous.

... On the other hand, seems to me that Wall of Fire is probably a HECK of a lot more destructive than most people realize.

[seebs]

Gilfalas wrote:

seebs wrote:

Basic question: Under what circumstances do objects or structures catch fire?

Any circumstance that the GM or even table concensus deems common sense enough that it should happen.

It never ceases to boggle my mind that some folks need a rule for everything and anything before they can do it in an RPG.

Some things are just common sense and can/should be adjudicated by the referee.

And if you have PFS GM's saying you cannot light fires with magic then I would recommend they not be GM's any more.

I would tend to go with this. The reason this came up is I made an offhand remark that a flaming crossbow is a good way to start fires, and someone pointed out that the "flaming" weapon quality doesn't say it will ignite things. I think it obviously does in general because it is a non-instantaneous magical fire.

FWIW, the actual in-game ruling was:

seebs: Hmm. Flaming crossbow, do the arrows ignite dry stuff?
GM: Yes.

[Tacticslion]

... which is the best way to determine that it does!

[Doomed Hero]

The fact that red dragons can't actually light things on fire with their breath weapons (because breath weapons are instantaneous effects) is a g%$*!!n travesty.

[Azaelas Fayth]

This falls into GM/Group/Common Sense Fiat territory...

I would let a dragon focuses its breath to set a fire within five feet per age category.

[Odraude]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

This falls into GM/Group/Common Sense Fiat territory...

...which sadly doesn't exist in PFS.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Odraude wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

This falls into GM/Group/Common Sense Fiat territory...

...which sadly doesn't exist in PFS.

Exactly. BTW I edited my previous post.

[seebs]

Doomed Hero wrote:

The fact that red dragons can't actually light things on fire with their breath weapons (because breath weapons are instantaneous effects) is a g$~~%@n travesty.

Well, that one... You know, think about how they put out oil rig fires. By hitting them with HUGE fire ALL AT ONCE. Because that can indeed put fires *out*.

That said...

Now I really want an official ruling, not just on the flaming weapon question, but on the "light a torch using another torch" question.

[Doomed Hero]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

This falls into GM/Group/Common Sense Fiat territory...

I would let a dragon focuses its breath to set a fire within five feet per age category.

You're still saying that dragons can't normally light things on fire with their breath weapon. You're saying they have to specifically focus on doing just that, and at a drastically reduced range.

G&*$#@n travesty.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Sorry I misspoke on that.

What I was meaning for the target to get a Higher Save or Combust effect.

I thought you were referring to a Player getting set on fire...

A normal pile of Firewood or the like goes up in flames under their breath.

At least in my games. And does a dragon's breath count as a instantaneous magical effect.

[Benchak the Nightstalker]

Odraude wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

This falls into GM/Group/Common Sense Fiat territory...

...which sadly doesn't exist in PFS.

Only as far as the boards are concerned.

None of the PFS GMs I've played under have been the legalistic RAW-bots people make them out to be. YMMV, of course.

[Doomed Hero]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Sorry I misspoke on that.

What I was meaning for the target to get a Higher Save or Combust effect.

I thought you were referring to a Player getting set on fire...

A normal pile of Firewood or the like goes up in flames under their breath.

At least in my games. And does a dragon's breath count as a instantaneous magical effect.

Instantaneous is any effect that doesn't persist from round to round.

Which means Dragons can't set people or objects on fire.

I really think they aught to be able to do both. Heck, I think Fireball should catch houses on fire. I think Alchemist Fire should make it's targets flail around like people-torches.

At some point some 3.x designer had this idea that supernatural/magic fire shouldn't make things burn (and whoever they are, they're f&*+ing dumb), and for some reason no designer since has looked at that and went "wait, what?".

Like the Size rules, this one needs an overhaul.

[Azaelas Fayth]

I see no indication of what necessitates an instantaneous effect in the rules.

People I see them more as dodging enough fire to only receive the heat and that is the damage they receive.

Fireball can catch a house on fire.

Alchemist Fire I think is more of a super-heated liquid.

Size rules are fine.

[blackbloodtroll]

I am not sure if it was mentioned, but it is noted in the description of the Fireball spell that it can catch things on fire.

[Doomed Hero]

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-

Size Rules:

Size rules are fine?. Let's start with the 5' Adjust. Small creatures can move more than their entire body length and still full attack. Colossal creatures can't even adjust further than the length of their own foot without losing the ability to swing more than once. Chew on that for a bit. It's just the beginning of the problems with the size rules.

[seebs]

Quote:

Instantaneous is any effect that doesn't persist from round to round.

Is it? I thought it was a technical term used in spell descriptions.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Alchemist Fire sounds more like a Alcohol mixture that ignites in contact with the air.

Now I would make the 5-Foot Step work based on the Spacing of the creature. so 10x10 gets you a 10 foot step.

And I know Short People that move faster than a tall person.

[Doomed Hero]

I'm under the impression that spell-like and supernatural abilities used the same terminology as spells to describe their effects.

Still, dragons breath doesn't note anywhere that things have to make saves or Catch Fire.

[seebs]

Went and looked; pretty much, "instantaneous" is a spell duration or effect duration only. And I can't find any explicit statement that dragon breath weapons are instantaneous. I don't see a glossary entry for it in 3.5, either, so it's not a term with a strict definition, so I am not sure breath weapons should be counted that way automatically. Although in practice probably they should.

[seebs]

Doomed Hero wrote:

I'm under the impression that spell-like and supernatural abilities used the same terminology as spells to describe their effects.

Still, dragons breath doesn't note anywhere that things have to make saves or Catch Fire.

Nor does it say that they don't. Nor does it say whether it's instantaneous or non-instantaneous.

My guess is that the intent is that it's instantaneous like most damage spells, and they just never thought to mention. And yes, that this implies that it is Too Fast To Ignite Things. Which is sorta... questionable.

[Doomed Hero]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Now I would make the 5-Foot Step work based on the Spacing of the creature. so 10x10 gets you a 10 foot step.

You and I are in complete agreeance then.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Alchemist Fire sounds more like a Alcohol mixture that ignites in contact with the air.

Something like a self-igniting molotov cocktail? If that's the case, why in the world would it completely burn away in 12 seconds? Nowhere in it's rules does it state that creatures or objects have to save vs. Catching Fire, which means that even if you tossed it on a stack of dry leaves, they wouldn't light. They take the damage and get destroyed, but they don't start a fire that lasts. Doesn't make sense.

The Catching Fire rules are there, they just seem to be almost completely unused by anything that deals Fire damage.

In fact, the only item that seems to be able to directly light things on fire is the Tar bomb. It even mentions that a tar bomb is really just a rope with dipped in tar and lit on fire. If it's that easy, what kind of self-respecting alchemist wouldn't incorporate tar into their projectiles?

New toy. Alchemist Fire, smothered in tar, wrapped in wax paper (so it's carry-able and not a sticky mess) with a rope attached (to throw like a tar bomb). Assuming alchemist fire can ignite tar, now you have alchemist fire that can actually light fires that last.

[Azaelas Fayth]

There is an Alcohol combination that burns away in less than 4 seconds. But it generates enough heat to melt Steel and destroy Human Flesh (though does nothing to bones).

It can't set things on fire because it only burns the alcohol.

Just like you can put type of alcohol on a counter and only the alcohol will burn away.

[blackbloodtroll]

Indeed. Not all fire work exactly the same.

This seems to be true of magical fire as well.

[Odraude]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

There is an Alcohol combination that burns away in less than 4 seconds. But it generates enough heat to melt Steel and destroy Human Flesh (though does nothing to bones).

It can't set things on fire because it only burns the alcohol.

Just like you can put type of alcohol on a counter and only the alcohol will burn away.

Yeah, it's actually a lot harder to catch things on fire without a continual flame and some flammable material or fuel.

[Azaelas Fayth]

Odraude wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

There is an Alcohol combination that burns away in less than 4 seconds. But it generates enough heat to melt Steel and destroy Human Flesh (though does nothing to bones).

It can't set things on fire because it only burns the alcohol.

Just like you can put type of alcohol on a counter and only the alcohol will burn away.

Yeah, it's actually a lot harder to catch things on fire without a continual flame and some flammable material or fuel.

I'm not sure what you are meaning by this...

[blackbloodtroll]

I wonder if there is a magical equivalent to a Thermite fire.

[Odraude]

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Odraude wrote:

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

There is an Alcohol combination that burns away in less than 4 seconds. But it generates enough heat to melt Steel and destroy Human Flesh (though does nothing to bones).

It can't set things on fire because it only burns the alcohol.

Just like you can put type of alcohol on a counter and only the alcohol will burn away.

Yeah, it's actually a lot harder to catch things on fire without a continual flame and some flammable material or fuel.

I'm not sure what you are meaning by this...

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. ;)

[Doomed Hero]

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.

[Azaelas Fayth]

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.

[Odraude]

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! ;)

[blackbloodtroll]

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.

Actually, you don't need to be a high level alchemist.

You can do it. See here.