|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I recently played a game where my DM just ruled that a druid's flame blade is automatic ignition. I don't have a problem with that, but he said it was RAW, can I get clarification on this? We were nearly TPK by the druid in the Rise of the Rune Lords' first module since we entered the Thristle top area with a mixed party level of 2-3.
If I recall correctly it was 4 goblin dogs + cougar + 8 goblins and the druid flanking in/out of the thorny walls.
Tactics aside, is this true?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/f/flame-blade
I thought you at least had a reflex save to avoid catching fire.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/environment/environmental-rules#TOC-C atching-on-Fire
I'm not sure if that's environmental specific, or generally whenever exposed to fire unless explicitly stated otherwise (ie: you are lit on fire, no save)
Um, automatic ignition isn't in the rules. You get a DC 15 reflex save to avoid catching or take 1d6 damage, then get the save every round to try and put the fire out or take the same damage. If he's not allowing the save, he's breaking the rules and should be promptly tarred and feathered.
Well it wasn't truly automatic:
he rolled a 1d6, on a 6 you caught fire. He just ended up with a bunch of 6s where it hurt the most.
That doesn't seem right. I mean, the point of it being a reflex save is that you can influence your chances.
Hmm, for a low-level game, his method actually is more in your favor. To get the equivalent of a 1/6 chance to catch fire, you'd need a Reflex save bonus of 11 or 12 which a lvl 2-3 character might be hard-pressed to have. If you had, say, a +5 reflex save, you'd have a 50/50 chance to catch or not.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It seems to me that Flame Blade cannot set a creature on fire by just striking them in melee.
However if the creature is helpless (or willing for some reason) you should be able to set them on fire
The line:
"" wrote: A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth. probably refers to setting inanimate objects on fire.
Someone's clothing(assuming they are not wearing it at the time), important paper work, an unintended spell book, straw in a barn, pool of lamp oil on the ground ect.
The ability to set some one on fire on a failed reflex save when ever you hit them is to powerful for a level 2 spell that lasts minutes per level, let alone automatically.
Well it only affected me, so I ended up being flanked from behind. As the primary healer, this sucked for everyone else. I do believe the druid had some kind of ranged fire attack which also set players alight; I speak from experience that having character death occur due to burning while unconscious really is a crappy way to go.
So you're saying that flame blade doesn't have an ignition chance as long as the combustible objects are attended?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
NO! Flame blade does not have a chance to catch you on fire. 0% chance to catch fire from a hit. Look at the description for 'Burning Gaze'
Burning Gaze wrote: Your eyes burn like hot coals, allowing you to set objects or foes alight with a glance.
As a standard action as long as this spell's effects persist, you may direct your burning gaze against a single creature or object within 30 feet of your location. Targeted creatures must succeed at a Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of fire damage. Unattended objects do not get a save. Creatures damaged by the spell must make a Reflex save or catch fire. Each round, burning creatures may attempt a Reflex save to quench the flames; failure results in another 1d6 points of fire damage. Flammable items worn by a creature must also save or take the same damage as the creature. If a creature or object is already on fire, it suffers no additional effects from burning gaze.
Note that this spell does not grant an actual gaze attack—foes and allies are not in danger of catching on fire simply by meeting your gaze.
If flame blade could catch you on fire it would state so just like it does for Burning Gaze.
Nough said.
Thanks Darth, Kazaan and Skerek for the clarification.
Flame Blade has a 0% chance of catching fire on strike (but can be used against unattended objects).
DM ruled it as final so oh well, burnt to a crisp. Thanks everyone!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Catching on Fire
Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and non-instantaneous magic fires might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire. Spells with an instantaneous duration don't normally set a character on fire, since the heat and flame from these come and go in a flash.
Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a DC 15 Reflex save to avoid this fate. If a character's clothes or hair catch fire, he takes 1d6 points of damage immediately. In each subsequent round, the burning character must make another Reflex saving throw. Failure means he takes another 1d6 points of damage that round. Success means that the fire has gone out—that is, once he succeeds on his saving throw, he's no longer on fire.
A character on fire may automatically extinguish the flames by jumping into enough water to douse himself. If no body of water is at hand, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with cloaks or the like permits the character another save with a +4 bonus.
Those whose clothes or equipment catch fire must make DC 15 Reflex saves for each item. Flammable items that fail take the same amount of damage as the character.
The line from Burning Gaze are just reiterating what's already listed in the environmental rules for catching fire. But the environmental rules clearly indicate that non-instantaneous magical fire (which Flame Blade clearly qualifies as) can set a player's clothes or hair alight. In fact, it explicitly states that cloth is one of the things that can be ignited.
I'd say, if your GM is going to simplify it by saying it's a flat 1/6 change to catch fire, he should amend it to say that if you spend the action economy to drop prone and roll around, it should be an auto-success to extinguish the fire.
Personally, I'd rule that Flame Blade as an attack is instantaneous, as that's how it is applied to (or by) the PC in combat (albeit repeatedly).
If you want to light a ball of cotton, you hold the blade to it, not continually whack it.
With that said, your GM does have a leg to stand on, but I believe the spell would call out catching on fire during attacks, if such was intended. The poorly worded flammability section makes this arguable though.
Alright look. I play a druid all the time, I know them and there spells.
Here is another Druid spell that specifically stats in the spell description that it can catch you on fire.
Touch of Combustion wrote: Your successful melee touch attack causes the target to ignite in a violent burst of flame, dealing 1d6 points of fire damage. If it fails its saving throw, the target also catches on fire . If the target catches fire, on the first round thereafter, creatures adjacent to it (including you) must each succeed at a Reflex save or take 1d4 points of fire damage. That's two druid spells that state in the spell description that it can catch you on fire if you don't make your reflex save.
Flame blade only states it can catch straw, paper, and other highly flammable non-alive objects on fire, and that would only be if you touch the blade to those objects for full round action. A player character getting struck by the blade, would not catch you on fire!
Nough Nough Said!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
It's a non - instantaneous fire spell. It has a duration. It can catch you on fire, per the environmental rule above (Reflex 15 negates).
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
OMG. Look==>
Produce Flame wrote: Produce Flame
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 1
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S
Range 0 ft.
Effect flame in your palm
Duration 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
Flames as bright as a torch appear in your open hand. The flames harm neither you nor your equipment.
In addition to providing illumination, the flames can be hurled or used to touch enemies. You can strike an opponent with a melee touch attack, dealing fire damage equal to 1d6 + 1 point per caster level (maximum +5). Alternatively, you can hurl the flames up to 120 feet as a thrown weapon. When doing so, you attack with a ranged touch attack (with no range penalty) and deal the same damage as with the melee attack. No sooner do you hurl the flames than a new set appears in your hand. Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute. If an attack reduces the remaining duration to 0 minutes or less, the spell ends after the attack resolves.
This spell does not function underwater.
Flaming Sphere wrote: Flaming Sphere
School evocation [fire]; Level druid 2, sorcerer/wizard 2
Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, M/DF (tallow, brimstone, and powdered iron)
Range medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect 5-ft.-diameter sphere
Duration 1 round/level
Saving Throw Reflex negates; Spell Resistance yes
A burning globe of fire rolls in whichever direction you point and burns those it strikes. It moves 30 feet per round. As part of this movement, it can ascend or jump up to 30 feet to strike a target. If it enters a space with a creature, it stops moving for the round and deals 3d6 points of fire damage to that creature, though a successful Reflex save negates that damage. A flaming sphere rolls over barriers less than 4 feet tall. It ignites flammable substances it touches and illuminates the same area as a torch would.
The sphere moves as long as you actively direct it (a move action for you); otherwise, it merely stays at rest and burns. It can be extinguished by any means that would put out a normal fire of its size. The surface of the sphere has a spongy, yielding consistency and so does not cause damage except by its flame. It cannot push aside unwilling creatures or batter down large obstacles. A flaming sphere winks out if it exceeds the spell's range.
Both of these spells have durations longer than instantaneous, hell Flaming Sphere is a giant ball of flaming squishy inferno that contacts you, and then sits in your square (id imagine under your bum) until the next round, and if you can read, you will notice that neither of these spells say anywhere in the description that they can catch you on fire, or that you need to make a reflex save to avoid catching on fire.
How much clearer does this need to be?? Flame blade slashes thru you instantaneously and does not catch you on fire!!!!
Does a Flaming weapon set things on fire?
----------------------------------
Flaming
Price +1 bonus; Aura moderate evocation; CL 10th; Weight —
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.
Construction Requirements
Cost +1 bonus
Craft Magic Arms and Armor and fireball, flame blade, or flame strike
-----------------------------------
I note it has flame blade as a possible crafting requirement.
Darthslash wrote: Flame blade only states it can catch straw, paper, and other highly flammable non-alive objects on fire. Like clothing? Or hair? Obviously it wouldn't work on a nude and hairless character. But if you smack a Dwarf in the face with your Flame Blade, you better know he's going to have some choice words for you after he douses his face.
An Instantaneous fire attack to your hair or clothes would only singe those things, not catch you on fire.
We're not talking about instantaneous spells; we're talking about fire spells with a duration. The environmental rules are all about catching someone on fire via ignition; if they're not doused with oil or similar, they need to be wearing something combustible or have exposed hair. For the other spells that have been presented, they're about setting the subject themselves on fire; ie. their actual flesh is burning.
So an instantaneous spell like Blistering Invective will neither set the person on fire nor their clothes/hair.
An instantaneous spell like Fireball that includes a "ignites combustibles" clause can set fire to a person's clothes or hair by the normal Environmental rules, but if they have neither exposed, they are unaffected.
Burning Gaze can set the creature itself on fire as part of the spell and, since it's not an instantaneous effect, it can also set their hair/clothes on fire via environmental rules.
Lastly, Produce Flame can set the creature's hair/clothes on fire only via environmental rules; if they are exposed.
There is no difference between setting the creature itself on fire and setting the creatures hair and clothes on fire, in both cases they are on fire. Unless you want to admit that simply catching hair or clothes on fire doesn't cause any damage and doesn't require any reflex saves, there the same.
Let me show you some points in these spells.
Touch of Combustion wrote: Saving Throw Reflex negates; see text; Spell Resistance yes
Your successful melee touch attack causes the target to ignite in a violent burst of flame, dealing 1d6 points of fire damage. If it fails its saving throw, the target also catches on fire . If the target catches fire, on the first round thereafter, creatures adjacent to it (including you) must each succeed at a Reflex save or take 1d4 points of fire damage.
Touch of Combustion requires you to first make a successful melee touch attack. Then after it takes 1d6 fire damage, it gets a reflex save to avoid catching on fire.
Burning Gaze wrote: Saving Throw Fortitude negates (see text); Spell Resistance yes
Your eyes burn like hot coals, allowing you to set objects or foes alight with a glance.
As a standard action as long as this spell's effects persist, you may direct your burning gaze against a single creature or object within 30 feet of your location. Targeted creatures must succeed at a Fortitude save or take 1d6 points of fire damage. Unattended objects do not get a save. Creatures damaged by the spell must make a Reflex save or catch fire. Each round, burning creatures may attempt a Reflex save to quench the flames; failure results in another 1d6 points of fire damage. Flammable items worn by a creature must also save or take the same damage as the creature. If a creature or object is already on fire, it suffers no additional effects from burning gaze.
Burning Gaze requires the target to fail 2 saves. First they make a Fort save or take 1d6 fire damage, they if they fail that, they have to make a second reflex save to avoid catching on fire.
Skerek wrote: The ability to set some one on fire on a failed reflex save when ever you hit them is to powerful for a level 2 spell that lasts minutes per level, let alone automatically. Skerek is absolutely right here. Lets look at Flame Blade.
Flaming Blade wrote: Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance yes
A 3-foot-long, blazing beam of red-hot fire springs forth from your hand. You wield this blade-like beam as if it were a scimitar. Attacks with the flame blade are melee touch attacks. The blade deals 1d8 points of fire damage + 1 point per two caster levels (maximum +10). Since the blade is immaterial, your Strength modifier does not apply to the damage. A flame blade can ignite combustible materials such as parchment, straw, dry sticks, and cloth.
If you notice, Flame Blade does not allow a Saving Throw!
If you compare both spells that can catch you on fire, with FB, you have to see that if FB could catch you on fire with every hit, it would be WAY over powered for its level.
Being able to touch a flame blade to some straw, or papers on a table, and hold the blade on them till they catch on fire is simply using it like you would a lighter. That's why they say it can catch those materials on fire.
Your constant debating about this is simply becoming argumentative at this point.
BTW, Touch of combustion is a single melee touch attack spell. Burning Gaze only lasts 1 round per level. Flame Blade lasts 1 minute per level.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Flame Blade doesn't allow a Saving Throw because it's using the Environmental Catch On Fire rules. Burning Gaze, Touch of Combustion, and others have their own particular rules elements that involve catching the target on fire separate from the rules in Environmental. You make a claim that catching the target themselves on fire is the same as catching their clothes or hair, but the rules I've already cited beg to differ. Environmental rules are about catching peripherals on fire such as clothes or hair. The more specific rules for the specific spells are in addition to that or as reiteration of it.
No one said that Flame Blade sets the target alight with no saving throw; I clearly showed that the save is outlined in Environmental as a DC 15 Reflex save and would be contingent on having exposed flammable material on the target such as hair or clothes.
Your constant ignorance of the citations I've provided is argumentative... what I'm providing is logically driven debate.
It doesn't say anything about using the environmental catch-on-fire rules, and it's clearly a momentary contact, not sustained contact. I wouldn't let you set something on fire without sustained contact or an explicit statement that it does so.
Contrast with flame arrow, which has language about the resulting flaming arrows igniting easily-ignited things. Even those don't ignite creatures, though!
It doesn't have to say anything explicit... it's already said in Environmental rules. That's why they consolidate these things in one place; so they don't have to be repeated all over the rules book. Does it say everywhere referring to Flat-Footed that it denies you your Dex to AC? Take Shatter Defenses, for example; it says the target is rendered Flat-Footed. It doesn't explicitly say that they are denied Dex to AC, but it doesn't have to because Flat-Footed already covers that. Likewise, Flame Blade doesn't explicitly say the target can have their clothes or hair caught on fire, but it doesn't need to because Environmental rules on Catching on Fire already covers that. Now, that's how it's written. If the logical parsing of those words doesn't match the intent, then the words are in error and the burden is on the writers to correct that error so the logical interpretation of the words matches more closely their intent. If, as some people have pointed out, they wanted the Catching on Fire rules to not include things like the quick swipe of a flame-wrought scimitar in addition to Instantaneous effects, they can change "and non-instantaneous magical fire" to "and non-instantaneous magical fire not delivered by Attack roll". That would limit it to prolonged exposure over at least a whole round such as Burning Gaze or Heat Wall while excluding things like Produce Flame and Flame Blade to the same "brief exposure" category as Fire Snake and other Instantaneous fire spells.
Kazaan, your wrong.
Ayanzo got screwed over by an over zealous GM.
I've stated several spells that specifically state they can catch you on fire. They state that in the spell because its a devastating effect at low levels, and they only want it applied to special spells with carefully planed restrictions and checks, and not every single spell that has a little bit of fire in its damage line.
Enjoy your environmental rules, I'm glad I'm not in your group. :)
I'm done with this topic.
Darthslash
Darthslash wrote: Kazaan, your wrong.
Ayanzo got screwed over by an over zealous GM.
I've stated several spells that specifically state they can catch you on fire. They state that in the spell because its a devastating effect at low levels, and they only want it applied to special spells with carefully planed restrictions and checks, and not every single spell that has a little bit of fire in its damage line.
Enjoy your environmental rules, I'm glad I'm not in your group. :)
I'm done with this topic.
Darthslash
Given the response referring to "every single spell that has a little bit of fire in its damage line", it's pretty obvious you never even read what I cited since I quite explicitly said that it only applies to non-instantaneous spells. You never offered a counter-point or any solid refutation to what I brought up. You bring up balance issues, but if it really is unbalanced and not the intent, that pretty much says that I'm absolutely correct; the RAW says exactly what I say it does, but it was written wrong and needs to be corrected. On the other hand, it could be perfectly within the RAI and it's you who is presuming it's not the intent. So, unless you or anyone else has an actual refutation or counter-point, some extra information I may have missed somewhere, the logic of my argument stands.
Consider all the spells that specifically state something about setting things on fire.
The reason they do that is that the environmental rules cover only the environment. Not spells.
Yes, it really does have to say something explicit. Look at clashing rocks. Note how it says that a target may be buried, and then refers you to the applicable section. If it didn't, you wouldn't know whether they intended you to use the environmental rules or something else.
There are many spells which specifically state whether or not they ignite things. This suggests that the writers did not think that it was completely and totally obvious that all non-instantaneous magic would always catch things on fire on any contact. The key implication is that sustained contact can cause things to catch on fire.
Thus, flaming sphere can ignite substances it touches, but does not cause creatures to catch fire. Similarly, produce flame does not cause creatures to catch fire. By level three, we start seeing things that do ignite other objects; for instance, flame arrow says "A flaming projectile can easily ignite a flammable object or structure, but it won't ignite a creature it strikes."
This strongly suggests that the intent of the writers is that attacks with fire do not cause creatures to ignite unless explicitly stated otherwise, and low level ones don't ignite objects, either.
Again...
PRD wrote: 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.
...Exposed to 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... If a character's clothes or hair catch fire... so on and so forth.
That's pretty explicit; Characters exposed to, among other things, magical fire from non-instantaneous spells, in direct contradistinction to instantaneous spells, may find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire, provided they are flammable. If you're wearing non-flammable gear and have your hair covered, no burning. Certain spells include their own clauses involving catching fire, but those are about the person themselves catching persistent fire... as in their body itself is burning (much harder to do) and not just flammable materials like hair or clothing. And, once again, if this is not the intent, if non-instantaneous spells that deliver fire damage in the form of discrete attacks delivered over a given duration were also supposed to be included, that needs to be added to the rules.
Kind of reminds me how I pointed out, long ago, that the rules designated Sunder requires the Attack action while Disarm and Trip only substitute a melee attack and everyone and their grandmother told me I was wrong and stupid for point that out and the rules "clearly" said that it just substitutes a normal melee attack and the Attack Action portion should just be disregarded and didn't mean anything. Long story short, it turned out I (and the minority that agreed with me) was exactly right... the rules were written incorrectly and they needed to be fixed. That may, or may not, be the case here. But disregarding what is written out of hand or saying it's not RAW is not logically sound in the least.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
