Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Rules for setting people on fire.
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
emo samurai
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.
Silo
Seems like you could make a guestimation on the amount of body that was on fire and give it a power code, run that damage each round, rinse, repeat.

So...just a leg on fire, 3P...full body, 8P.

Something of that nature perhaps.
PlatonicPimp
you could also look at the engulf rules for fire elementals, as I would assume those would be similar to what you want.

But I'd just handle it that continued exposure does a certain amount of damage each round, depending on the size. The on fire person still resists the damage. Fire resistant clothes and armor would be helpful.
MK Ultra
Allso take a look at the ignite spell. you can just use that one just insted of using a spell, youd say an improvised hairspray flamethrower is comparable to the force 1 or 2 spell, a tankmounted military flamethrower is equal to the force 12 spell, anything else lies somewhere in betweem.
PBTHHHHT
QUOTE (MK Ultra)
Allso take a look at the ignite spell. you can just use that one just insted of using a spell, youd say an improvised hairspray flamethrower is comparable to the force 1 or 2 spell, a tankmounted military flamethrower is equal to the force 12 spell, anything else lies somewhere in betweem.

Hmmm... straight to the point and something easy to use for correlations. I like it. smile.gif
hobgoblin
SR4 companion on the way anyone?
nezumi
QUOTE (emo samurai)
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.

Generally it's 20 years to life. I'd tend to look at the repurcussions for setting someone on fire now and simply assume they haven't changed much. As for rules... Try to set their clothes on fire first, they burn easier.

If you're looking for statistics however, I'll be of no help whatsoever and you can just ignore my post.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 5 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (emo samurai @ Feb 5 2006, 02:01 PM)
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.

Generally it's 20 years to life. I'd tend to look at the repurcussions for setting someone on fire now and simply assume they haven't changed much. As for rules... Try to set their clothes on fire first, they burn easier.

If you're looking for statistics however, I'll be of no help whatsoever and you can just ignore my post.

Clothes are easier to ignite but they don't burn nearly as well. Its all about the fat, you see. Body fat burns steadily and brightly. Once you get the fat burning it is very hard to stop. Also, if you burn people bonfire tyle, every fifth one should be female, higher body fat percentage helps keep the fire going. Although, a really fat man could do in a pinch.
PBTHHHHT
And after Hyzmarca's remark... let's all wave to the nice FBI/NSA/<insert gov't group> folks... wavey.gif

edit: did an edit, grammatical error. placed the word 'people' were it should not have been. frown.gif
SL James
Stare at them with your burning hatred, which is hotter than a million suns.
nezumi
I certainly agree, hyzmarca, but if you've ever lit a camp fire, you know you light the kindling, which catches easily, then let that light the heavier stuff (which, in this case, would be the fat). Fortunately for us, people are blobs of delicious fat wrapped up in highly flammable clothing. The only thing that would make it better is if we showered in gasoline. So catch the clothes and let the clothes catch the fat!

For some reason I keep thinking of pigs in a blanket as I write this...
Azralon
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (emo samurai @ Feb 5 2006, 02:01 PM)
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.

Generally it's 20 years to life. I'd tend to look at the repurcussions for setting someone on fire now and simply assume they haven't changed much. As for rules... Try to set their clothes on fire first, they burn easier.

If you're looking for statistics however, I'll be of no help whatsoever and you can just ignore my post.

I cannot ignore brilliance.
Squinky
QUOTE (emo samurai)
Setting people on fire is awesome

Best. Post. Ever.
MK Ultra
QUOTE (hyzmarca)
QUOTE (nezumi @ Feb 5 2006, 10:53 PM)
QUOTE (emo samurai @ Feb 5 2006, 02:01 PM)
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.

Generally it's 20 years to life. I'd tend to look at the repurcussions for setting someone on fire now and simply assume they haven't changed much. As for rules... Try to set their clothes on fire first, they burn easier.

If you're looking for statistics however, I'll be of no help whatsoever and you can just ignore my post.

Clothes are easier to ignite but they don't burn nearly as well. Its all about the fat, you see. Body fat burns steadily and brightly. Once you get the fat burning it is very hard to stop. Also, if you burn people bonfire tyle, every fifth one should be female, higher body fat percentage helps keep the fire going. Although, a really fat man could do in a pinch.
Solstice
QUOTE (emo samurai)
I couldn't find any. Setting people on fire is awesome, and I want there to be repercussions for the set on firee.

Man these forums have really gone down hill in recent months. I thought I might drop in and at least attempt to be helpful. The Canon answers which you might seek can be found on the following pages of SR4.

Fire damage pg 155
Fire engulf pg 288


They are listed clearly in the index so you might try looking there for future reference.
emo samurai
QUOTE
Man these forums have really gone down hill in recent months.


Why? Because I'm here, or because of SR4 in general?
Brahm
QUOTE (emo samurai)
QUOTE
Man these forums have really gone down hill in recent months.


Why? Because I'm here, or because of SR4 in general?

No, because he left.

wink.gif
emo samurai
QUOTE
No, because he left.


Oh god, I hope that's not what he means.
Solstice
QUOTE (emo samurai)
QUOTE
No, because he left.


Oh god, I hope that's not what he means.

Well, first off, your welcome.

And second, I was referring to the apparent propensity of some of the posters here to reply with off the cuff answers, inane comments or outright thread highjacking of a valid question/topic. I mean I'm aware that such things are the Dumpshock way, but it's been especially heavy lately.
emo samurai
QUOTE
Oh god, I hope that's not what he means.


I don't mean it personally; it's just a gut reaction to anyone who would mean it that way. And I hope that's everyone's gut reaction to such an insinuation, which I will assume for the purposes of propriety and trusting people in general does not exist. And I'm pretty much okay with thread hijacking; threads often spring up out of the void, especially mine, and thread hijacks are molded by people. The latter, therefore, flame wars notwithstanding, are preferred. At least from my alien, post-rational standpoint. And being on the butt of many of those inane comments that do nothing but insult, I can do nothing but nod my head off in agreement.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012