I think the argument being made about INITIAL attacks is RAI, but if we're sticking to RAW as Fangeye was, then yes I don't see any indication that there's an expiration date on damage from the attack or whether it's just immediate damage or any damage caused by the attack.
I was only asking questions to try to better understand LucasCoulter's position.
When I posted my questions my understanding was that the Saving Throw was the proximate cause of the poison damage, not the attack roll. Haravikk however did a great job going over the rules and now I see the scenario I described is not as clear cut as I thought.
For Booming Blade though the language "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn." indicates to me that the sheath of booming energy is a separate effect from the attack.
However, the biggest reason I see for not treating the damage when the target moves as part of the attack is avoiding bogging down the game. Depending on initiative order this extra damage could occur almost a whole round later and then you would have to remember if the original attack roll was a crit or not.
If the attack hits and does multiple types of damage (e.g. flying snake) then all damage dice double on a crit and the total damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
If there are conditional effects that cause damage, either immediately (e.g. giant spider) or later (e.g. booming blade) then only the initial damage dice doubles on a crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
I think after reading Crawfords tweets, there is strong evidence that the BB secondary damage should not be rolled twice if the attack was a crit based on RAI.
He mentions that if a saving throw is involved to reduce damage then that damage isn't doubled and I think it's reasonable to treat the movement requirement the same way.
RAW is a different story. There are only three rules that I can find that are relevant to the question of BB secondary damage on a crit.
pg. 194 "Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."
pg. 194 "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
pg. 196 "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once."
After reading these rules, I believe that following the RAW would double the secondary damage. We are given no rules as to when an attack ends and all the damage (both initial and secondary) occurs as a result of the same attack action. If there are rules besides these that specify when an attack is over or something of the sort that states that damage occurring later in that round isn't considered the earlier attacks damage than that would change my mind.
This doesn't apply for GFB because it's not the target that you rolled against. It doesn't work for witch bolt because each turn your using a new action to deal the damage.
I think after reading Crawfords tweets, there is strong evidence that the BB secondary damage should not be rolled twice if the attack was a crit based on RAI.
He mentions that if a saving throw is involved to reduce damage then that damage isn't doubled and I think it's reasonable to treat the movement requirement the same way.
RAW is a different story. There are only three rules that I can find that are relevant to the question of BB secondary damage on a crit.
pg. 194 "Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."
pg. 194 "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
pg. 196 "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once."
After reading these rules, I believe that following the RAW would double the secondary damage. We are given no rules as to when an attack ends and all the damage (both initial and secondary) occurs as a result of the same attack action. If there are rules besides these that specify when an attack is over or something of the sort that states that damage occurring later in that round isn't considered the earlier attacks damage than that would change my mind.
This doesn't apply for GFB because it's not the target that you rolled against. It doesn't work for witch bolt because each turn your using a new action to deal the damage.
Your argument is based on a premise that everyone else in this thread is disputing, that despite happening after and separate from the attack, this additional damage is still “the attack’s damage.” That’s the argument you actually need to make; you can’t just assume it and proceed from there. There isn’t RAW in either direction here, because the rules are written with the idea in mind that common sense doesn’t need to be legislated by rules. It’s obvious that damage that happens three turns after an attack isn’t the attack’s damage. It’s obvious that damage that occurs after a saving throw isn’t an attack’s damage. That absolutely leaves room for DMs to make rulings that violate what most other people agree on as being common sense, but such DMs ought to do so with the understanding that they’re not “following RAW” any more than anyone else.
Your argument is based on a premise that everyone else in this thread is disputing, that despite happening after and separate from the attack, this additional damage is still “the attack’s damage.” That’s the argument you actually need to make; you can’t just assume it and proceed from there. There isn’t RAW in either direction here, because the rules are written with the idea in mind that common sense doesn’t need to be legislated by rules. It’s obvious that damage that happens three turns after an attack isn’t the attack’s damage. It’s obvious that damage that occurs after a saving throw isn’t an attack’s damage. That absolutely leaves room for DMs to make rulings that violate what most other people agree on as being common sense, but such DMs ought to do so with the understanding that they’re not “following RAW” any more than anyone else.
So um... where is the damage coming from if not the attack brother?
It's obvious that it doesn't come from thin air and wouldn't happen without the attack. Didn't think that that was up for debate Mr. common sense.
If I crit my grenade throw at you and hit u in the face for 1d6 and then the grenade blew up three seconds later, I think that both sources of damage are from the same attack.
So um... where is the damage coming from if not the attack brother?
From the spell. Being a result of the attack doesn't make it the attack's damage. It's the spell's damage, and it happens because the target moved. The attack was over ages ago.
It's obvious that it doesn't come from thin air and wouldn't happen without the attack. Didn't think that that was up for debate Mr. common sense.
You're still begging the question. You need to actually make a case for damage that happens after an attack is over being "the attack's damage."
If I crit my grenade throw at you and hit u in the face for 1d6 and then the grenade blew up three seconds later, I think that both sources of damage are from the same attack.
Grenades force a saving throw. They are not attacks, and they cannot crit.
Your argument is based on a premise that everyone else in this thread is disputing, that despite happening after and separate from the attack, this additional damage is still “the attack’s damage.” That’s the argument you actually need to make; you can’t just assume it and proceed from there. There isn’t RAW in either direction here, because the rules are written with the idea in mind that common sense doesn’t need to be legislated by rules. It’s obvious that damage that happens three turns after an attack isn’t the attack’s damage. It’s obvious that damage that occurs after a saving throw isn’t an attack’s damage. That absolutely leaves room for DMs to make rulings that violate what most other people agree on as being common sense, but such DMs ought to do so with the understanding that they’re not “following RAW” any more than anyone else.
So um... where is the damage coming from if not the attack brother?
It's obvious that it doesn't come from thin air and wouldn't happen without the attack. Didn't think that that was up for debate Mr. common sense.
SagaTympana is correct, fundamentally we are disagreeing over what defines an "attack's damage".
You are using a "but for" test to define an attack's damage and SagaTympana and I are using the "but for" test and proximate cause to define an attack's damage.
As far as I am aware there is no RAW source that defines what constitutes an attacks damage. To me this looks like a situation where we are all correct in our interpretation of RAW as the RAW itself is insufficiently defined. If you can find a definition for an attack's damage in the rules it would be extremely helpful in resolving this debate.
In the absence of such a definition we are all agreed on what the intended outcome of the rules is and it is constant with applying the "but for" test and proximate cause to decide what qualifies as an attack's damage.
If there are conditional effects that cause damage, either immediately (e.g. giant spider) or later (e.g. booming blade) then only the initial damage dice doubles on a crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
This does seem to be the consensus, and it works well enough for applying consistency to the game. The written rules don't get that granular as far as I can see, so we are left to make our own rulings on attacks that contain additional complexity.
RAW is a different story. There are only three rules that I can find that are relevant to the question of BB secondary damage on a crit.
pg. 194 "Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."
pg. 194 "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
pg. 196 "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once."
Firstly, I completely understand that you're not trying to be willfully ignorant or anything. I see you understand that RAI is the damage should NOT be doubled and a DM should rule that it isn't. You're just arguing the RAW to the literal sense that many of us do. Note: I am excluding the extra thunder damage the spell does when cast by a 5th level or above character.
So RAW I'm going to concentrate on the first one you've noted "On a hit, roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". Booming Blade then states: "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn". Finally for the critical hit we have "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target".
I think it's important to note two things in all of this "a critical hit" is just a subset for "a hit" so any rules that apply to "a hit" should apply to "a critical hit" unless specified otherwise.
Following all of this. does the Spell's damage occur on a hit? No. The spell is cast successfully against the target but it's damage does not occur on a hit because the "particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". The target suffers whatever normal effects it would from the weapon attack "and then" becomes sheathed in booming energy. The critical hit rules occur "When" you score a hit, at which point you roll the "weapon attack's normal effects and then" note that the target becomes sheathed in booming energy, which we can think of as a special condition, specific to this spell.
Later, the affected target might choose to move and suffer the damage of the booming blade spell. Is this damage caused by a hit or attack? No, the hit or attack caused the target to become sheathed in booming energy, the target's movement caused/activated the damage from the latent spell. Certainly the spell has an attack roll, as some other spells do, but this attack roll is only for applying the spell to the target, the damage of the spell is not caused by the attack, the regular damage and sheathing of the target in booming energy is caused by the attack.
I understand that there isn't exactly a time limitation on critical hits applying damage, but there is a limitation that they apply to the "attack's damage". This spell (outside 5th level+) does not apply damage as part of the attack, the weapon's attack's normal affect's apply and then the target becomes sheathed in booming energy. That's what the spell does as part of the attack, it inflicts a special condition upon the target, "sheathed in booming energy". This special condition inflicts damage "If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more". This is all about damage resulting from a special condition and actions taken by the creature inflicted with that condition, not as a direct result of the attack which merely inflicts the condition.
If I crit my grenade throw at you and hit u in the face for 1d6 and then the grenade blew up three seconds later, I think that both sources of damage are from the same attack.
Actually, no. And you've provided an excellent example. Your "attack" was throwing the grenade at someone's face. For purposes of the attack roll, you might as well have thrown a rock. You deal extra bludgeoning damage because you threw it really well. But throwing a grenade really well doesn't make it blow up any bigger. Three seconds AFTER, well beyond the point at which your throw is relevant to the situation, it blows up. Not because you threw it particularly well, but because it's a grenade and not a rock.
In the 5E way of doing things, the explosive damage from the grenade wouldn't be determined by an attack roll, it'd be more like a Fireball spell. When it blows, everything in its radius would take damage, likely making a Dex save to see if they take all of it or just half.
Now, if you're throwing something like a Molotov cocktail, that's a different story since it's designed to explode/shatter on impact. The PHB has something like that in fact, Alchemist's Fire.
Hmm, alchemist's fire (flask) is tricky for me too. It's obviously an attack roll, but no damage is applied immediately. Do we double the damage at the beginning of the target's turn when it is first applied? And if we accept that this is the case, what part of the rules tells us we should stop after the first time damage is applied? If I apply my own standard from the booming blade discussion, a critical hit would not double any of the damage dice for this particular attack because no damage is applied at the time of the attack.
Hmm, alchemist's fire (flask) is tricky for me too. It's obviously an attack roll, but no damage is applied immediately. Do we double the damage at the beginning of the target's turn when it is first applied? And if we accept that this is the case, what part of the rules tells us we should stop after the first time damage is applied? If I apply my own standard from the booming blade discussion, a critical hit would not double any of the damage dice for this particular attack because no damage is applied at the time of the attack.
Yeah, for alchemist's fire I'd rule that the effect of the attack is "target is one fire", though it's not a very well phrased item description; it should really read something more like "a creature that was hit will take 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns", i.e- make it more obviously past-tense and a result following the attack.
That said, if we were re-writing it I'd have it deal damage immediately on the hit (which would be critical hit worthy) then repeat the damage at end of the turn, as that'd be a lot more consistent with similar effects and remove the possibility of another creature putting out the flames before any damage occurs at all. In its current form it's a pretty underwhelming item all around. But that's me getting off-topic.
Hmm, alchemist's fire (flask) is tricky for me too. It's obviously an attack roll, but no damage is applied immediately. Do we double the damage at the beginning of the target's turn when it is first applied? And if we accept that this is the case, what part of the rules tells us we should stop after the first time damage is applied? If I apply my own standard from the booming blade discussion, a critical hit would not double any of the damage dice for this particular attack because no damage is applied at the time of the attack.
Yeah, for alchemist's fire I'd rule that the effect of the attack is "target is one fire", though it's not a very well phrased item description; it should really read something more like "a creature that was hit will take 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns", i.e- make it more obviously past-tense and a result following the attack.
That said, if we were re-writing it I'd have it deal damage immediately on the hit (which would be critical hit worthy) then repeat the damage at end of the turn, as that'd be a lot more consistent with similar effects and remove the possibility of another creature putting out the flames before any damage occurs at all. In its current form it's a pretty underwhelming item all around. But that's me getting off-topic.
You're absolutely right, I didn't realize that alchemist's fire didn't do damage on impact. You'd think it would.
My ruling would be that the first time you apply damage, it's double because of the critical hit, while also acknowledging that it's a weird item that doesn't fit neatly into the normal attack process.
Since the alchemist's fire is a ranged weapon attack adding the Dexterity modifier to the damage roll, i believe a critical hit would double the damage roll (at least the first) as it would still be the attack's damage even though it was delayed, where Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade the spell's effect is not part of the attack's damage but a secondary effect coming after it.
I'm not convinced that you can call it damage from the attack when it is not dealt during the attack. Do the rules tell us when an attack has ended?
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I was only asking questions to try to better understand LucasCoulter's position.
When I posted my questions my understanding was that the Saving Throw was the proximate cause of the poison damage, not the attack roll. Haravikk however did a great job going over the rules and now I see the scenario I described is not as clear cut as I thought.
For Booming Blade though the language "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn." indicates to me that the sheath of booming energy is a separate effect from the attack.
However, the biggest reason I see for not treating the damage when the target moves as part of the attack is avoiding bogging down the game. Depending on initiative order this extra damage could occur almost a whole round later and then you would have to remember if the original attack roll was a crit or not.
Another similar example is what happens when Witch Bolt crits with its initial attack roll?
This is also something JC has also addressed here: https://www.sageadvice.eu/what-if-the-witch-bolt-crited/amp/a
This is just how JC would rule it and it isn't surprising he would rule similarly to how he would rule Green-Flame Blade
A similar question was asked in the thread https://www.dndbeyond.com/forums/dungeons-dragons-discussion/rules-game-mechanics/148165-uncanny-dodge-vs-seconday-poison-effects?page=2.
The way I read the rules:
If the attack hits and does multiple types of damage (e.g. flying snake) then all damage dice double on a crit and the total damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
If there are conditional effects that cause damage, either immediately (e.g. giant spider) or later (e.g. booming blade) then only the initial damage dice doubles on a crit and only that intial damage can be reduced by things like uncanny dodge.
I think after reading Crawfords tweets, there is strong evidence that the BB secondary damage should not be rolled twice if the attack was a crit based on RAI.
He mentions that if a saving throw is involved to reduce damage then that damage isn't doubled and I think it's reasonable to treat the movement requirement the same way.
RAW is a different story. There are only three rules that I can find that are relevant to the question of BB secondary damage on a crit.
pg. 194 "Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage."
pg. 194 "If the d20 roll for an attack is a 20, the attack hits regardless of any modifiers or the target’s AC. In addition, the attack is a critical hit, as explained later in this chapter."
pg. 196 "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal. To speed up play, you can roll all the damage dice at once."
After reading these rules, I believe that following the RAW would double the secondary damage. We are given no rules as to when an attack ends and all the damage (both initial and secondary) occurs as a result of the same attack action. If there are rules besides these that specify when an attack is over or something of the sort that states that damage occurring later in that round isn't considered the earlier attacks damage than that would change my mind.
This doesn't apply for GFB because it's not the target that you rolled against. It doesn't work for witch bolt because each turn your using a new action to deal the damage.
Your argument is based on a premise that everyone else in this thread is disputing, that despite happening after and separate from the attack, this additional damage is still “the attack’s damage.” That’s the argument you actually need to make; you can’t just assume it and proceed from there. There isn’t RAW in either direction here, because the rules are written with the idea in mind that common sense doesn’t need to be legislated by rules. It’s obvious that damage that happens three turns after an attack isn’t the attack’s damage. It’s obvious that damage that occurs after a saving throw isn’t an attack’s damage. That absolutely leaves room for DMs to make rulings that violate what most other people agree on as being common sense, but such DMs ought to do so with the understanding that they’re not “following RAW” any more than anyone else.
Your argument is based on a premise that everyone else in this thread is disputing, that despite happening after and separate from the attack, this additional damage is still “the attack’s damage.” That’s the argument you actually need to make; you can’t just assume it and proceed from there. There isn’t RAW in either direction here, because the rules are written with the idea in mind that common sense doesn’t need to be legislated by rules. It’s obvious that damage that happens three turns after an attack isn’t the attack’s damage. It’s obvious that damage that occurs after a saving throw isn’t an attack’s damage. That absolutely leaves room for DMs to make rulings that violate what most other people agree on as being common sense, but such DMs ought to do so with the understanding that they’re not “following RAW” any more than anyone else.
So um... where is the damage coming from if not the attack brother?
It's obvious that it doesn't come from thin air and wouldn't happen without the attack. Didn't think that that was up for debate Mr. common sense.
From the spell. Being a result of the attack doesn't make it the attack's damage. It's the spell's damage, and it happens because the target moved. The attack was over ages ago.
You're still begging the question. You need to actually make a case for damage that happens after an attack is over being "the attack's damage."
Grenades force a saving throw. They are not attacks, and they cannot crit.
SagaTympana is correct, fundamentally we are disagreeing over what defines an "attack's damage".
You are using a "but for" test to define an attack's damage and SagaTympana and I are using the "but for" test and proximate cause to define an attack's damage.
As far as I am aware there is no RAW source that defines what constitutes an attacks damage. To me this looks like a situation where we are all correct in our interpretation of RAW as the RAW itself is insufficiently defined. If you can find a definition for an attack's damage in the rules it would be extremely helpful in resolving this debate.
In the absence of such a definition we are all agreed on what the intended outcome of the rules is and it is constant with applying the "but for" test and proximate cause to decide what qualifies as an attack's damage.
This does seem to be the consensus, and it works well enough for applying consistency to the game. The written rules don't get that granular as far as I can see, so we are left to make our own rulings on attacks that contain additional complexity.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Firstly, I completely understand that you're not trying to be willfully ignorant or anything. I see you understand that RAI is the damage should NOT be doubled and a DM should rule that it isn't. You're just arguing the RAW to the literal sense that many of us do. Note: I am excluding the extra thunder damage the spell does when cast by a 5th level or above character.
So RAW I'm going to concentrate on the first one you've noted "On a hit, roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". Booming Blade then states: "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then becomes sheathed in booming energy until the start of your next turn". Finally for the critical hit we have "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target".
I think it's important to note two things in all of this "a critical hit" is just a subset for "a hit" so any rules that apply to "a hit" should apply to "a critical hit" unless specified otherwise.
Following all of this. does the Spell's damage occur on a hit? No. The spell is cast successfully against the target but it's damage does not occur on a hit because the "particular attack has rules that specify otherwise". The target suffers whatever normal effects it would from the weapon attack "and then" becomes sheathed in booming energy. The critical hit rules occur "When" you score a hit, at which point you roll the "weapon attack's normal effects and then" note that the target becomes sheathed in booming energy, which we can think of as a special condition, specific to this spell.
Later, the affected target might choose to move and suffer the damage of the booming blade spell. Is this damage caused by a hit or attack? No, the hit or attack caused the target to become sheathed in booming energy, the target's movement caused/activated the damage from the latent spell. Certainly the spell has an attack roll, as some other spells do, but this attack roll is only for applying the spell to the target, the damage of the spell is not caused by the attack, the regular damage and sheathing of the target in booming energy is caused by the attack.
I understand that there isn't exactly a time limitation on critical hits applying damage, but there is a limitation that they apply to the "attack's damage". This spell (outside 5th level+) does not apply damage as part of the attack, the weapon's attack's normal affect's apply and then the target becomes sheathed in booming energy. That's what the spell does as part of the attack, it inflicts a special condition upon the target, "sheathed in booming energy". This special condition inflicts damage "If the target willingly moves 5 feet or more". This is all about damage resulting from a special condition and actions taken by the creature inflicted with that condition, not as a direct result of the attack which merely inflicts the condition.
It comes from the spell's effect, which is conditional to attacking and hitting the target in order to have the target sheated in booming energy.
Actually, no. And you've provided an excellent example. Your "attack" was throwing the grenade at someone's face. For purposes of the attack roll, you might as well have thrown a rock. You deal extra bludgeoning damage because you threw it really well. But throwing a grenade really well doesn't make it blow up any bigger. Three seconds AFTER, well beyond the point at which your throw is relevant to the situation, it blows up. Not because you threw it particularly well, but because it's a grenade and not a rock.
In the 5E way of doing things, the explosive damage from the grenade wouldn't be determined by an attack roll, it'd be more like a Fireball spell. When it blows, everything in its radius would take damage, likely making a Dex save to see if they take all of it or just half.
Now, if you're throwing something like a Molotov cocktail, that's a different story since it's designed to explode/shatter on impact. The PHB has something like that in fact, Alchemist's Fire.
Hmm, alchemist's fire (flask) is tricky for me too. It's obviously an attack roll, but no damage is applied immediately. Do we double the damage at the beginning of the target's turn when it is first applied? And if we accept that this is the case, what part of the rules tells us we should stop after the first time damage is applied? If I apply my own standard from the booming blade discussion, a critical hit would not double any of the damage dice for this particular attack because no damage is applied at the time of the attack.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yeah, for alchemist's fire I'd rule that the effect of the attack is "target is one fire", though it's not a very well phrased item description; it should really read something more like "a creature that was hit will take 1d4 fire damage at the start of each of its turns", i.e- make it more obviously past-tense and a result following the attack.
That said, if we were re-writing it I'd have it deal damage immediately on the hit (which would be critical hit worthy) then repeat the damage at end of the turn, as that'd be a lot more consistent with similar effects and remove the possibility of another creature putting out the flames before any damage occurs at all. In its current form it's a pretty underwhelming item all around. But that's me getting off-topic.
Characters: Bullette, Chortle, Dracarys Noir, Edward Merryspell, Habard Ashery, Legion, Peregrine
My Homebrew: Feats | Items | Monsters | Spells | Subclasses | Races
Guides: Creating Sub-Races Using Trait Options
WIP (feedback needed): Blood Mage, Chromatic Sorcerers, Summoner, Trickster Domain, Unlucky, Way of the Daoist (Drunken Master), Weapon Smith
Please don't reply to my posts unless you've read what they actually say.
You're absolutely right, I didn't realize that alchemist's fire didn't do damage on impact. You'd think it would.
My ruling would be that the first time you apply damage, it's double because of the critical hit, while also acknowledging that it's a weird item that doesn't fit neatly into the normal attack process.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Since the alchemist's fire is a ranged weapon attack adding the Dexterity modifier to the damage roll, i believe a critical hit would double the damage roll (at least the first) as it would still be the attack's damage even though it was delayed, where Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade the spell's effect is not part of the attack's damage but a secondary effect coming after it.
The wording from both "On a hit, the target suffers the weapon attack’s normal effects and then..." would seem to agree with that assessment.
"Not all those who wander are lost"