| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A direct hit deals 1d6 points of fire damage. ... On the round following a direct hit, the target takes an additional 1d6 points of damage. If desired, the target can use a full-round action to attempt to extinguish the flames before taking this additional damage. Extinguishing the flames requires a DC 15 Reflex save. Rolling on the ground provides the target a +2 bonus on the save. Leaping into a lake or magically extinguishing the flames automatically smothers the fire.
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.
The rules on alchemist's fire, read literally, do not explicitly state that a target of a direct hit catches on fire, but a reading of the rules on catching on fire suggests to me that it is implied. Again, literally, the rules on catching on fire do not explicitly include alchemist's fire in the list of things that can cause a person to catch on fire, but the list may not be meant to be exhaustive.
So the question is: does alchemist's fire cause the character to catch fire and so take 1d6 on the first round it hits and then every following round that the character does not put the fire out? Or is there some special quality to alchemist's fire that makes it cause damage for 1 or 2 rounds but in those two rounds, the character does not actually catch fire and so does not need to put the fire out for the damage to stop?
Edit: A third possibility: do the rules on catching on fire imply that one only takes 1d6 damage for a maximum of 2 rounds, the first round exposed to the fire and the next round if the fire is not put out?
The first seems more logical to me, but some of my players have argued that it would make alchemist's fire too potent if it could keep on causing damage after 2 rounds. I see the logic of that, but have trouble understanding how AF would not cause a person to catch on fire.
A secondary question is this: the rules on alchemist's fire specifies that putting the fire out is a full-round action requiring a DC 15 Reflex Save. The rules on catching on fire do not state what kind of action the attempt to put out the fire is, although it also requires a DC 15 reflex save. Is the attempt to put out a (non-AF caused) fire on one's person generally full-round action?
|
I read it this way:
1) alchemist fire do 1d6 fire damage in the first round plus 1d6 fire damage in the second round unless you extinguish the fire.
2) you risk catching on fire while the alchemist fire burn. You should make a Reflex DC 15 save to avoid catching on fire.
3) On a more shaky ground: the alchemist fire already subsume the catching on fire damage for the first 2 rounds, so you don't add that damage. (It is more a guess about balance that suggest that than some rule. I don't like the idea of applying the fire damage twice)
Just to be clear:
3a) RAW I think that you should roll your save against catching on fire on the first round and take an additional 1d6 of fire damage if you fail it and, if you don't fail it, you need to make it again on the second round unless you have smothered the alchemist fire.
That is a separate save from the one you use to smoother the alchemist fire.
I definitely would not require two saves or apply two fire damage rolls of 1d6 each. The 1d6 damage is for catching fire and the point of alchemist's fire is that it explodes and burns on the target in the first round, no save allowed. At least that's how the entry on AF reads.
I would argue that the first round damage is from the chemicals igniting and burning, which puts you at risk of catching fire, so if you make the reflex save on the next round, you don't catch fire. But I can't see why you would not actually catch fire as per rules on "catching on fire" if you fail the reflex save the round after you are hit. I read the source of the fire, Alchemist's Fire, is similar to burning oil.
I think the rules as written assume the target remains on fire if the save is missed. They just did not spell out all the rules for catching fire again in the entry on AF, assuming the reader will shift over to the rules for catching on fire. The challenge I got was that the rules for AF do not explicitly state that if you fail the roll, you catch on fire. So is that omission intentional or just the writers saving a few words by assuming the reader will interpret the situation as requiring it?
If one wanted to make it less likely to be lethal to low level characters, who are the only ones likely to be concerned about it due to low hit points and low reflex saves, one could always lower the DC of the reflex save.
I've pointed out to my players that they can also aid another (I would use a DC 10 reflex save) to help put the flames out. One player said that if one can catch fire from alchemist's fire, she's going to stock up. I warned that I'd pay very close attention to situations that might cause one of the flasks to break. We happen to be playing the Wrath of the Righteous AP, which has a lot of demons and tielfings which will only laugh at fire that only does 1d6 a round. So I don't think it's unbalanced.
One could also consider the things that can burn on the character. If someone is wearing armor, for example, then there isn't much flammable material that can burn. A barbarian wearing little but armor and a loincloth would also not burn for long. A wizard in robes might be a different story, but one could allow the wizard to shed his clothes as a full round action to eliminate the fire.
|
|
One could also consider the things that can burn on the character. If someone is wearing armor, for example, then there isn't much flammable material that can burn. A barbarian wearing little but armor and a loincloth would also not burn for long. A wizard in robes might be a different story, but one could allow the wizard to shed his clothes as a full round action to eliminate the fire.
I don't know about that. A regularly oiled and waxed leather armor or a fur covered hide armor isn't so different from a wool vestment when we speak of catching fire. And those arrow are at least as prone to catch fire as a wand.
Both the armor and the wool are reasonably fire resistant. They get damaged but don't stay on fire.
Follow-up question: If someone takes splash damage when an adjacent character gets a direct hit form Alchemist's fire, do they risk catching on fire?
If being hit by alchemist fire required a roll to avoid catching on fire, it would say so. It doesn't, and so alchemist fire doesn't do that.
What it does instead, is cause an effect that is quite similar to catching on fire automatically, but will only last a single round.
This is probably designed to represent the idea that alchemist fire burns hotter (hence no save to the additional round of damage) but faster (hence only a single round of additional damage) than other substances.
The catching on fire rules are part of the environmental hazards. In that context, being 'exposed to burning oil' is probably more like having a barrel dumped on you than a flask thrown at you. A weapon attack, unless it has special rules that particularly say to, should not use the catching on fire rules.
Alchemist Fire, Flasks of Oil, Torches used as improvised weapon would generally not include any risk of catching on fire (I only add generally because in some situations, say a trap had covered a PC in lamp oil, an environmental hazard has been added to the situation).
Thanks.
It makes sense as a way of achieving game balance, but it adds an irrational result that if something that burns hot sets you on fire, you only burn for 2 rounds, but if anything else catches you on fire, you burn until you make your saving throw or can jump in a pool of water.
It would be nice to have the rules be consistent, such as saying you only burn for 2 rounds if you catch on fire, after which time the flammable materials have burned themselves out, or else say that alchemist's fire catches you on fire automatically and after that you burn until you make your save, same as for any other situation that catches you on fire.
There are so many questions on Alchemist's fire in the messageboard rules forums, it would be nice if Paizo would publish a comprehensive list of rules for fire in general and alchemist's fire in particular, to give examples of the many cases that raise questions.