1) The group has always run that continued uses of Alchemists Fire have an eventual heat metal effect, per the spell.  This is from the back of the DMG where it says that characters who are on fire will eventually be affected as per heat metal.

2) Dave's issue:  Free second level spell.  While I appreciate creativity, this group seems to have a tendency to try to "make simple things way better".  Besides this issue, this group has made frag grenades that deal ticking shrapnel damage, rulles that removing said shrampnel causes extra damage, etc.  I do not want to "break the game" (in fact, I find most enjoyable when it is not broken and it takes legitamate teamwork to accomplish a goal...rather than a cheap exploit.

As for heat metal with alchemists fire:  Alchemists fire has a very well defined effect.  It staters in the PHB that it does 1d6 to primary target, 1 dmg to those adjacent.  It then ticks 1d6 on the next round to primary, unless he takes a std. action to put out the flames (there are some bonuses that apply).

The on fire rules apply to "long lasting" fires and powerful magic effects.  Alchemists fire is a single source.  Repeat applications of alchemists fire stack for DMG, but not for duration.  This means that they are each a discrete event, and there effect terminates.  Adding a second alchmeists fire does not propogate a proplonged event.  Rather, it begins a new event.

Thoughts?

You leave my frag grenades out of this! 

On point:

If your shirt is set on fire by, let's say, a cigar and then while that fire is burning another part of your cigar falls and sets another part of your shirt on fire. If they are both burning at the same time can you distinguish between the fires? Say you put the first one out, while the second is going. Can you distinguish now? (aside from the fact that I have stated that you can)

With the reveal from the DMG on lasting exposure to fire, I would say that if you keep someone on fire with Alchemists Fire for the perscribed minute (10 rounds) then yes, heat metal should apply as per the DMG fire exposure rules. Should the character who is on fire opt to take that standard action to put the flames out during that time, then your timer is going to reset to zero. It is not the fault of the players if an NPC opts to ignore the fact that he/she is on fire.

Being on fire for a minute is being on fire for a minute. No where in Alchemists Fire or the DMG rule does it say that just because it's two vials of alchemists fire that they are completely separate fires. As my example (as stupid as it is) above should demonstrate, if your chest is on fire, it's on fire. Being on fire in two different places is still being on fire if you put one out.

"On Fire" is a status per the DMG p. 304.

Alchemists fire does NOT induce this status.  If it did, the explanation of alchemists fire would read, "You attain the on fire status."  Alchemists fire does not burn gear.  "On fire" has a much more dramatic effect of requiring that EVERY piece of gear suffer damage if the victim of the "on fire" status fails a DC 15 RFL save.

You example with the cigar does not apply.  By way of analogy, if I hit an orc with a sword, then he has had his skin rent by a slashing weapon.  He should be bleeding, right?  This would entail continual loss of HP (so why not put the "wounding" status on them.  It's not the fault of players if the NPC's don't take a round to make a heal check.

So here is the issue:  This group likes to get more bang for their buck than what the rules permit.  Creativity in combat is one thing.  CHANGING clear rules (i.e. how alchemists fire behaves) is another.  As for your4 frag grenades, they are very very much the issue here.  D&D is not a perfect representation of "what really happens".  It's a system for fairly determining with mutual satisfaction the complex interactions of fantasy characters in combat.

Point of Claruty:  You are not on fire from alchemists fire.  The substance is.

At what temperature does cloth catch fire? Wood? Etc.

Lets say for a moment that yes, it is the alchemist fire that is burning, not anything else. Alright, then I think that the alchemist's fire should catch everythin else flammable on fire too. Your polearm? On fire. Your cloth padding beneth your full plate? On fire. As your demonstration with the metal heating up on the grill, you may not feel the grill getting hot, but you feel the heat from the fire on your flesh. What if you put a piece of cloth on the grill. I can guarantee that in 12 seconds that it is going to catch fire.

My point is thus: D&D is not perfect. But, unless you want me burining anything not metal, then allowances have to be made. When white gas burns on your pants (which, by the way, I have lit myself on fire in such a manor before) it burns your pants, too. And your shirt. And your arm hair. Just because somethin else is on fire doesnt mean your other gear doesnt feel the pain too.

Edit: Didnt finish, but it decided to post >.<

I dont want to burn all your organic material, like I think it should. But, say after 1 minute (which, by the way, I will never do except in the most extreme situation) I think it is very likely for your metal breastplate, which has been exposed to fire for the past 60 seconds, is gonna be hot. Probably pretty frickin hot by then. After examining this more fully, I would argue now that other things should be on fire, too. Thats what is so scary about fire: It destroys things, easily. But rather than make alchemist fire SHIVA, the destroyer of everything organic, I think the way we have been using it is acceptable.

I think my core issue is that it is extra damage, outside of the rules, that has just been assumed.  I can list an example for every single alchemical substance that can be argued for more effect.  So here is my baisc notion:

1) Using alchemist fire as inteded is not super creative, but it is a very good idea.  I have no issue around that.

2) Cost:  Heat Metal Scroll:  150 gp + divine casting OR UMD enough to use it vs. 140 for a strictly better effect, +1d6 to +2d6 damage per round in ADDITION.  By this model, alchemists fire s/b ~50gp per flask.  There is simply no other alchemical item that is as good.

3) When does damage tick?  If I am hit with alchemists fire, does damage tick on my turn, end of round, or beginning iof round?  If I put out fire from round 1, then drop my init in round 2 and I'm hit a second time before my turn, does my check put out both fires?  Does my heat metal still increment?  These sorts of questions are part of why I suspect that the rule was NOT made this way.

4) This is a house rule being pass off as "The way it was inteded to be" or "the way the rule reads".  That's the part of the arguement that I get nerfed at the most.

Ok, that being said:  I propose one of the following three rule as a compromise:

1) Alchemist's Fire costs 50 GP.  Works as it has been. (Damage ticks on victim's turn)

2) Alchemists fire provides the "On Fire" status on hit until extinguished.  More applications of alchemists fire do not increase dmg per round, but rather give one more round of duration.  Heat metal starts as above, no change in cost.

3) Alchemists fire works per the book.  If a target at the rate of at least 1/round for 5 consecutive rounds, they begin to experience heat metal per the spell.  A standard action to extinguish flames at any point interrupts this process.

Some final things to recall:

Heat Metal rules are base on an environmental temperature of 140 degrees F+.  This means that the squares inhabited by the victim all have to be above 140 degrees.  Being on fire, unless put out, causes things that are flamable to burn.  It does not make metal hot, unless DM says.

First, "On Fire" is -not- a status, it's listed under Heat Dangers as part of Environment. Check DMG pg. 300 for a list of all conditions that a character can suffer from. On that same page, 304, though there is a quote, "Characters exposed to burning oil, bonfires, and noninstantaneous magic fires such as a wall of fire might find their clothes, hair, or equipment on fire." I'll return to this quote later.

Second, since you actually want to attack my frag grenades (I was trying to be funny with regard to them in my first post, let me drop the comedy here) without EVER having seen them made, used, or anything other than what we've relayed about the damage that they cause let me clear this up.

They come with a few HUGE drawbacks. To start, I need an explosive (black powder in most cases) which is up to the DM if it is in the campaign, what the cost is, AND how much of it I can get. Then I need the gold to aquire that and all the other items I need, granted the rest is fairly cheap or character made. Third, and most importantly, I need an trigger. That is, something that will cause the explosive to go off while it is contained in order to fragment the container and send the contents out to inflict damage. A fuse would work here if I was setting something up on a timer, but for general combat purposes that won't work and thus causes another item I need from the DM. These triggers are almost always expensive, because they go a little beyond the listed alchemical devices. On top of these three other conditions that I -must- have to construct the grenades I then have to make them. Which involves needing IC time and craft rolls. They have, however, generally been exempt from the crafting system's "work per week" because, while they may require percise construction, they do not require a substantial amount of time to create.

So, let's look at the damage for the grenades now. They inflict, last we ran them, 2d6 points of initial damage, and if I was to run them again I would say targeting an intersection and dealing this damage to the 4 squares around it. We have used many different methods of the recurring damage, but I think the best way to handle it now would be a heal check (DC 5 + damage dealt) or a full round action to remove the recurring damage. If that action is not taken then they take damage due to moving around with shrapnel in their body to the tune of 1/4 the initial damage (rounded down). The initial damage is piercing, recurring is piercing/slashing.

Still think they're a problem? Simple, don't give me black power and a usable trigger. As you've noticed, I don't go out of my way to make these with what's laying around. I use them in settings that have the items I need. These settings tend to have firearms, which will almost always be better than my grenades.

Back to the alchemists fire. Damage ticks on the thrower's turn, that would be 1-round later and it seems easy enough to me.

You're absolutely right, the alchemists fire is what's burning, not the character. That is -exactly- why we're looking at the Environment section of the DMG. According to that section it would take one minute of exposure to 140 degree heat to cause a heat metal effect to flag. Now, one minute is 10 rounds, a vial of alchemist's fire per round for 10 rounds is 200 gp. This math puts yours about the heat metal scroll out the window. The alchemist's fire now costs more than the scroll would by 50 gp AND requires that our dimwitted foe who is being lit up by this fire completely ignore it for TEN ROUNDS. That means that a player who has invested, let's say 1000 gp, into alchemist's fire trying to flag this effect can be thwarted by a standard action every 9th round.

Nowhere in the Heat Dangers section does it state that the squares inhabited by the victim have to all be above 140 degrees to flag the heat metal. It says you must continue to be -exposed- to that temperature. Having fire stuck to you is a pretty good way to continue to be exposed to that temperature. The only argument here is for the heat metal impact of that high temperature, none of the other effects (not saying this for any purpose other than to inform other readers of the intention).

While we're on the topic of fire, let me bring something else to your attention. You set a very dangerous precedent in the last Night Below session with fire and wooden objects. To quote the sunder rules from the srd "Electricity and fire attacks deal half damage to most objects." Not only did you have the fire bypass the hardness of my tower shield (which it should not), but you had it deal (I'm assuming here, because I did not see the rolls) full damage. This is, of course, not mentioning the fact that piercing weapons cannot be used to sunder (without a feat, and then at 1/2 damage) and bludgeoning arrows do only subdual damage (which also can't be used to sunder).

I'm not attacking anything.  I'm opening discussions on factors that I think need changing.  I will open separate discussions on grenades and the dangerous precident that I have created.

Now:  Per alchemists fire:  It is very clear that you did not read my post fully, as you missed that I suggest that the group pick one of three different rule changes.  You've somehow argued against combining all three rule changes, which is not what I was advocating.  I wil lrestate them here, for your conveinience:

I propose one of the following three rule as a compromise:

1) Alchemist's Fire costs 50 GP.  Works as it has been. (Damage ticks on victim's turn)

2) Alchemists fire provides the "On Fire" status on hit until extinguished.  More applications of alchemists fire do not increase dmg per round, but rather give one more round of duration.  Heat metal starts as above, no change in cost.

3) Alchemists fire works per the book.  If a target at the rate of at least 1/round for 5 consecutive rounds, they begin to experience heat metal per the spell.  A standard action to extinguish flames at any point interrupts this process.

Now, let's also discuss what is meant by the word "environment".  In this case, they refer the fluid medium that surrounds a character.  This can be lava, air, water, etc.  Heat metal -CAN- occur when the AIR around a character (which would mean the square that they inhabit for the sake of combat is 140 degrees.  I don't see any other way you can argue that's what environment is.

So why a 5' square?  B/c that is the smallest unit of measure allowed in the D&D 3.5 combat system.

As for "having the fire stuck to you"...the whole suit of armor has to be considered here.  If we are going to play by the "if I can tweek the rules a bit" method, then you must -IMERSE- the entire suit of armor (with the person inside).  This means you must create a justification for that....which is starting to border on the verge of silly.