Pages

Thursday, July 4, 2013

Pyrotechnics

I don't think I've written about the Pyrotechnics spell before. It seems innocuous enough: 2nd level spell, requires some form of fire as a source, which is extinguished by the spell, creates either a fireworks-like display OR an area of thick smoke. But what's it good for?

Before you answer, consider this: Phantasmal Forces is also a 2nd level spell. It can also create a fireworks display or an area of (illusory) thick smoke -- and a whole lot more. It does not require a fire source. It can potentially last longer. My reasoning is that Pyrotechnics has to be more than a mere pretty display, distraction, or obscuring cloud to be worth the effort of making a separate spell just for fireworks.

My theory is that there's a chance that a fireworks display could set fire to flammable material. Not a huge chance, maybe not over a large area if your fire source is a candle. Maybe have the caster make an attack roll against AC 9 for dry, highly flammable materials, AC 5 for large chunks of wood, AC 3 for stuff that can burn, but is hard to light. If the caster scores a hit, roll for "damage"; on 5+, a significant flame starts burning, otherwise it just smolders a little. Adjust this roll up or down based on conditions.

Also, there's a chance that a bright flash can blind onlookers. Have anyone with Con 3 to 12 roll a d6; they are blinded on a 5+.

A smoke cloud, similarly, should have a choking effect in addition to obscuring vision. The caster can roll 1d6, or 2d6 for large fire sources; everyone in the affected area whose Con is 3 to 12 rolls 1d6, and those whose score matches one of the caster's dice cough while in the cloud and are at half Move.

Oh, and let's not neglect the fact that there's no rule that says the caster must be holding the fire source, so it's a great way to extinguish the enemy's light source. In fact, it seems to be the only low-level spell that can extinguish a fire.

10 comments:

  1. The fireworks display should allow instant surprise, allow for a party to escape an encounter, maybe cause a rout.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are pretty good ideas.

      I guess the main thing to keep in mind is that it should have more uses than the flat spell description implies. But then, that's true of a lot of spells, if not *all* spells.

      Delete
  2. Isn't pryotechnics more limited, because it's a wizard spell and not an illusionist spell?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure what you mean here. Why are wizard spells more limited than illusionist spells?

      Delete
    2. Because the wizard has flashy, direct damage spells. In the realm of causing chaos or confusion, he is second to the illusionist. Those abilities are in the illusionists wheelhouse. It's why phantasmal force is more powerful and also why the wizard needs a fire source and is limited to a small selection of effects.

      Delete
    3. But Phantasmal Force is a 2nd level M-U spell, same as Pyrotechnics. I'm not even considering later class suggestions (or 1e classes) at all.

      Delete
    4. Uh, well, I'm not sure where you're seeing that.

      In B/X there is no pyrotechnics (resolving the issue)
      and in 1e Pyrotechnics is a wizard spell and phantasmal force is a 1st level illusionist spell (imp. phantasmal force is 2nd level)

      If it's different in another edition, that's because those editions were poorly designed? I guess? Which means that it's not relevant.

      The takeaway is, if they are both available to wizards, and the game doesn't force random spell learning, then there is no reason for the second spell.

      Delete
    5. I'm seeing this in the only version of the game that matters, of course: the original rules. Phantasmal Forces is a 2nd level spell in Men & Magic (OD&D Vol. I.) Pyrotechnics was added in Greyhawk (Supplement I.) There are no illusionists, only M-Us.

      Occasionally, I make comparisons to AD&D. In 1e, Phantasmal Forces is a 3rd level Magic-User spell, which seems like a deliberate attempt to weaken M-Us.

      Delete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete