Alchemists Fire & Catching on Fire

[Gizzard]

I'm trying to square up the descriptions of Alchemists Fire (PHB 113) and Catching on Fire (DMG 86).

Does Alchemist's Fire only last one round and then burn out? The PHB description seems to imply so, but the DMG makes reference to it in the Catching on Fire section. The DMG talks about things like burning until you extinguish yourself and making saving throws for your items which arent mentioned in the PHB. But then, at the end of the section it says, "See Alchemist's Fire". Hrm.

So how does Alchemist's Fire work?

Also, are there any rules for Alchemist's fire setting other inanimate things on fire? Like if I throw it on the carpet, what is the chance I can burn down the room? And how can any characters present prevent such a thing?

-edit- In the 1E DMG there was a table which had saves like "Metal v. Crushing Blow" or "Thin Rope v. Normal Fire". That's the sort of thing I am looking for.

 

[Conaill]

I agree, the description is confusing.

AFAIK, Alchemists Fire normally burns for two rounds, athough you can avoid the 2nd round of damage by putting yourself out. However, if the target is wearing anything flammable, he also needs to roll to avoid catching on fire.

 

[Gizzard]

However, if the target is wearing anything flammable, he also needs to roll to avoid catching on fire.

Maybe, but the Catching on Fire section talks about "hair and clothes" catching on fire; so I'd guess if that were true then everyone would have to roll. Unless they were naked and bald. ;-)

I'm still confused.

 

[Conaill]

I'd ignore the hair if you've already been on fire for two rounds. But yes, a lot of the stuff you might throw Alchemist's Fire at (i.e. most monsters) does count as "naked". And non-flammable clothing (like armor) probably shouldn't be counted anyway.

So... that platemale fighter is not going to "catch on fire". Neither is that Sahuagin that he's fighting with. But the wizard in his flowing robes had better watch out...

 

[Pielorinho]

Huh. We've generally treated alchemist's fire like naphtha, the legendary Greek fire that would stick to its victims and continue to burn. You could throw it on a slimy fish-man, and it would still continue to burn for a couple of rounds.

I think this is a simple, balanced method for adjudicating it.

Daniel

 

[Conaill]

"Couple of rounds", sure... two rounds exactly in fact. But the slimy fish-man won't need to worry about his clothes catching on fire. So after the Alchemist's Fire has burnt out, he doesn't need to make any rolls to avoid "catching on fire".

Here's how I think Alchemist's Fire works "officially":

1) on attackers turn: take 1d6 fire damage
2) on target's turn: take full-round action to extinguish (Refl DC 15) or take additional 1d6 fire damage
3) target's 2nd turn: A.F. has burnt out. If not extinguished in last round and you are wearing flammable materials, make a Reflex saving throw DC 15 to avoid having those catch fire.

The slimy fish-man wouldn't need to worry about the last part, so only takes 1d6 or 2d6, depending on whether he wants to spend a full round to extinguish the A.F. However, someone wearing flammable clothing (or equipment!) would need to worry about those catching on fire.

Someone only *splashed* with A.F. takes a single point of fire damage on the attackers turn. Then he skips straight to point 3): Reflex save to avoid having your gear catch fire.

 

[Pielorinho]

"Couple of rounds", sure... two rounds exactly in fact. But the slimy fish-man won't need to worry about his clothes catching on fire. So after the Alchemist's Fire has burnt out, he doesn't need to make any rolls to avoid "catching on fire".

Oh! Gotcha -- you make it nastier than I do, not less nasty . I'd never before ruled that "catching on fire" lasted anywhere beyond the two rounds mentioned.

Hmm...maybe I'll change that. Thanks!
Daniel

 

[Gizzard]

...you make it nastier than I do, not less nasty...

That's exactly the point I was wondering about. If you make people with hair and/or clothes save v. DC 15 then suddenly Alchemists Fire becomes much more dangerous. If you don't though, then I'm not sure how many characters would bother with a full-round action to extinguish the flames. "Ah well, I'd rather just take 1d6 and get my action."

Tangent: Melf's Acid Arrow does something kinda similar. A "potion" of Acid Arrow would cost 50*2*3 = 300 G. It's better than Alchemist's Fire since it does 2d4 each time and there is no save for the second round of damage. And it doesn't miss. Since Alchemist's Fire only costs 20 G, I suppose it makes sense to go with the "less nasty" version from a game-balance point of view.

Does that make sense?

 

[Conaill]

I don't think you need to spend a full-round action to extinguish your clothes *after* the A.F. has burnt out. The SRD simply states "Characters at risk of catching fire are allowed a Reflex saving throw (DC 15) to avoid this fate". It makes sense that A.F. would be harder to extinguish than just having your clothes on fire.

The optional jumping into water, rolling on the ground or smothering the fire with a cloak probably does take a full round, but gives you an extra bonus.