Rules for Flame Weapons

[CRMcNeill]

So, I'm trying to work out realistic rules for flame weapons. The way I'm currently leaning, flame weapons have a base damage, and if a successful attack results in a wound, the target catches fire, inflicting an automatic attack at the same damage of the initial attack until the target is killed or the fire is extinguished. However, I'm hitting a wall on a few issues:

-With regards to affecting characters with armor, should a flamer count as a projectile weapon, or an energy weapon because of the thermal energy, or as something else entirely?

-Due to biological concerns, some creatures (such as Wookiees, with their full-body hair) would be more vulnerable to flame weapons that their Strength dice would suggest. What would be some realistic factors to increase or decrease damage to reflect a species being more resistant to flame attacks

-What are some possible rules for characters putting out the flames? Normal fires should obviously be easier to put out as opposed to a concentrated accelerant like napalm or something, but what else should apply?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[garhkal]

A while back i posted a new flamethrower unit i made up for a WW2 esque napalm like flamer unit, here is the link
http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1042&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=flame&start=15

Its the 4th post down the 2nd page.

I also prior questioned whether flamers would be phys or energy.. of the 8 or so responses i got, most said energy.

On the putting it out, that would (for me) Depend on whether they are using their hands to pat it out. Stop'drop'n'rolliing, or something else.
The stop drop and roll, would imo be a dex check. Not sure for say using a blanket to smash it out (like we see them do in westerns/medieval films)..

For wookies (and other hairy) critters, have it just do a +d damage. based on how much fur they have.
Wookies, tiranni, torgorians, s***, defel and Whiphids would all be at least +1d, maybe even +2d.
Bothans may only be +2 pips.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

Very cool. Some great ideas in there.

As far as area effect, rather than going with blast radius, I was thinking about simply allowing an automatic additional attack against a nearby target, with the number of possible additional attacks based on the target's range (and the resulting spread of the shot from the nozzle).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Esoomian]

Given the variety of species in Star Wars and the possibility that Wookiee hair (or whatever) may not be particularly flammable due to some weird chemical quirk (or any number of fluff reasons) I'd leave the damage static unless the species is noted to have a vulnerability to fire or the like.

Otherwise you're going to have to keep track of which player wears polyester or other flammable clothing just to keep things even.

Best not to have a player with an interest in chemistry attempting to argue that species XYZ should actually be less vulnerable to fire so just keep the damage the same.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[CRMcNeill]

There is definitely something to be said for that as well. Of course, the flip-side is that, as tough as Wookiees are, giving them a vulnerability to flame would make them vulnerable to a specific weapon type, especially when they can shrug off others so easily.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Esoomian]

Sure but it is a vulnerability that isn't listed in any source so if that was sprung on me as a player I'd feel somewhat put out.

I'm all for having things make sense logically and having the wookiee who travels through the jungle get covered in burs or even have them get fleas but it seems a bit much to assume that wookiee fur burns just as well as human hair.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[CRMcNeill]

[Esoomian]

We only have a sample size of one planet. Every carbon based creature we have tested flamibility on comes from Earth but in Star Wars this isn't true.

There is no reason that Wookies couldn't have damp hair all year round or sweat some sort of chemical that acts as a fire retardant because it also repels mosquitos on Kashyyk. Given the number of unknowns I tend towards not adding damage.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[CRMcNeill]

[Esoomian]

Essentially all hair on earth is made of keratin which if a quick Google search is to be believed is composed of approximately 51% carbon, 21% oxygen, 17% nitrogen, 6% hydrogen, and 5% sulfur.

If all species in the universe had the same chemical makeup for hair then hair would always burn well but I just find it hard to believe that species with no root ancestor or even common planet are going to have the same chemical makup and biological quirks. Especially since you see Wookiees get shot by blasters (which have caused small fires in other films) and they do not catch fire.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.

[CRMcNeill]

[jmanski]

So, moving past the hair issue....
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[CRMcNeill]

[jmanski]

_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[lurker]