Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6679401" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, to nitpick your nitpick, I disagree.&nbsp; Within the simulation, at least one sufficient prerequisite to setting something on fire is that it takes fire damage.&nbsp; Things that are immune to fire damage cannot be set on fire even when &quot;hit by fire&quot; because they can't be ignited (they are either fire itself or some material which is completely incombustible).&nbsp;&nbsp; The steps of the simulation might be:1) Is it an object that is not explicitly vulnerable to fire?&nbsp; If so, half the fire damage.2) Is the object explicitly immune to the damage?&nbsp; If 'yes', stop.3) Does the object's hardness apply to fire?&nbsp; If so, subtract the hardness from the fire damage taken.4) Is the damage the object zero or less.&nbsp; If 'yes', stop.5) Apply the damage to the object.&nbsp; If the object has no remaining hit points, it is incinerated.6) If the object is not incinerated, it may catch on fire.&nbsp; Make a reflex save.&nbsp;&nbsp; If this save fails, the object now takes 1d6 fire damage in the next round.&nbsp; Repeat the procedure for this damage.&nbsp;&nbsp; (Note: Large or persistent fires might develop to 2d6 fire damage per round at the DM's option.)A brick wall under this model ultimately doesn't burn.&nbsp; Being not vulnerable to fire and having a high hardness, it can't actually burn.&nbsp; It can be mildly damaged by intense heat, but its not actually going to burn.&nbsp; Conversely, a pile of paper will burn.&nbsp; If the rule was only, &quot;Things burn when hit by fire&quot;, bricks and paper would both burn.Reviewing this model, with nonlethal fire damage, if the object is explicitly immune to non-lethal damage we don't apply damage and we never set the object on fire.&nbsp; I think this is the expected result.&nbsp; Presumably 'nonlethal' fire is the equivalent of a sunburn or some hot to a living organism but not hot to an object sort of thing.&nbsp; We wouldn't expect exposure to 200F to even burn paper, but we would expect such exposure to be ultimately uncomfortable to animals.&nbsp;&nbsp; Plenty of things that wouldn't burn all but the most temperature senstive objects would raise angry red welts on living things.But then again, we also see why I wouldn't allow non-lethal substitution metamagic.&nbsp; Ultimately it doesn't make sense even within a world of magic for fire damage to be just as debilitating, just as briefly applied, but not be as hot.&nbsp; I can see no way to color that consistently, and no reason why the 'nonlethal' fire shouldn't be say 1/5th as effective in traumatizing a living target.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6679401, member: 4937"] Well, to nitpick your nitpick, I disagree. Within the simulation, at least one sufficient prerequisite to setting something on fire is that it takes fire damage. Things that are immune to fire damage cannot be set on fire even when "hit by fire" because they can't be ignited (they are either fire itself or some material which is completely incombustible). The steps of the simulation might be: 1) Is it an object that is not explicitly vulnerable to fire? If so, half the fire damage. 2) Is the object explicitly immune to the damage? If 'yes', stop. 3) Does the object's hardness apply to fire? If so, subtract the hardness from the fire damage taken. 4) Is the damage the object zero or less. If 'yes', stop. 5) Apply the damage to the object. If the object has no remaining hit points, it is incinerated. 6) If the object is not incinerated, it may catch on fire. Make a reflex save. If this save fails, the object now takes 1d6 fire damage in the next round. Repeat the procedure for this damage. (Note: Large or persistent fires might develop to 2d6 fire damage per round at the DM's option.) A brick wall under this model ultimately doesn't burn. Being not vulnerable to fire and having a high hardness, it can't actually burn. It can be mildly damaged by intense heat, but its not actually going to burn. Conversely, a pile of paper will burn. If the rule was only, "Things burn when hit by fire", bricks and paper would both burn. Reviewing this model, with nonlethal fire damage, if the object is explicitly immune to non-lethal damage we don't apply damage and we never set the object on fire. I think this is the expected result. Presumably 'nonlethal' fire is the equivalent of a sunburn or some hot to a living organism but not hot to an object sort of thing. We wouldn't expect exposure to 200F to even burn paper, but we would expect such exposure to be ultimately uncomfortable to animals. Plenty of things that wouldn't burn all but the most temperature senstive objects would raise angry red welts on living things. But then again, we also see why I wouldn't allow non-lethal substitution metamagic. Ultimately it doesn't make sense even within a world of magic for fire damage to be just as debilitating, just as briefly applied, but not be as hot. I can see no way to color that consistently, and no reason why the 'nonlethal' fire shouldn't be say 1/5th as effective in traumatizing a living target. [/QUOTE]

Verification