Talk:Pyrotechnic (3.5e Class)

Fire Resistance 640?!

Not that I'm one to complain, but wouldn't it make sense to just give them immunity once it reaches 80+? You need to maximize a fireball to have a chance at that. It's just not in the dice to roll ten 8s when you cast a spell(max damage with fireball without metamagic). That being said, I do so enjoy this class. Oh, and does chemical reaction instantly kill your target? I wasn't sure, but thought maybe because it says it's not a death effect.--YX33A 23:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

NO, it does maximum damage to your target though.

And why not? Fire resistance 640 cant resist some epic spells on the plane of fire. Itmakes it more interesting. To burn you it requires emmense effort, but it is possible.----Parakee 14:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Took me a while to find the feat again, but in Sandstorm, there is a metamagic feat which allows you to ignore fire resistance on fire spells, for only +1 level of the spell. Plus, if your main argument for such a high level of resistance is that epic level spells can get past it, you might want to make the class last into epic levels first. Otherwise that sounds to me like saying that DR 1000/magic is a worthy investment.

Oh, and at level 9 you get more resistance to fire, and at level ten as well, despite the fact that the description of the fire resistance says you get it at third level and every two levels afterwords.--YX33A 16:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats half the point. It can be overcome. Your not an fire elemental.--Parakee^Talk 04:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a little strange to give anything over 60 as a resistance. If you are really concerned about epic spells in particular, just grant fire immunity and note the fact that at epic levels a spellcaster that actually is silly enough to want to kill opponents through fire damage will clearly have a way (either a class feature or bound within the spell) to get around fire immunity and fire resistance. --Aarnott 14:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ill grant immunity at level 9.--Parakee^Talk 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Winter Cleaning

What does this mean? What should I do to fix it? ----Parakee 15:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This basically means that, while the article is complete, it requires a bit of fixing up. I would be more than happy to do that for you, if you would like, but it would probably involve rewording abilities and cleaning up SPAG errors. - MisterSinister 04:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That sounds great.--Parakee^Talk 12:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've gone over your class and made some changes to (hopefully!) remove the Winter Cleaning template off it. However, there are some concerns that I haven't addressed, as they fall outside the scope of 'cleanup'. I've made a nice list of them for you here:

• First off, for the love of all that's unholy, holy and anything else, label your ability descriptions with the level at while the pyrotechnic gets that. It makes wading through it really annoying otherwise.
• Your AC blows goats for pocket change. In all seriousness, even wizards have access to mage armour, which, even at early levels, can last quite a while. Your class, at least at early levels, has no way to protect themselves, which I don't consider good. Even though you give Explosive Defence, this is far too little, far too late.
• Many of your abilities aren't properly labelled as (Ex), (Su) or (Sp). While I could probably guess, since this involves changing how the class works, I don't really want to, and thus, I leave it for you to fix.
• Detonate for thrown objects REALLY hurts you, because the blast easily outranges the distance it can be thrown. Even with your fire resistance, the piercing component of your damage would still hurt you - and quite a bit at higher levels. Is this intentional, and if so, why?
• For Burn Bright, no duration is given for the blindness effect. While I assume you meant that it's permanent, I'd like to be sure.
• Shape Flame is... odd. You give an ability that could be very useful (silent image), and then remove everything useful about it (by making it always look like fire). Given how few non-combat abilities your class has early-on, I don't see the point of this restriction.
• Focused Explosion is also really odd, because no matter the size of the exploding object, the cone is always 30ft. Again, is this intentional, and if so, why?
• Combustion straight-up makes no sense. Please explain what exactly it's meant to do.
• Fireworks, Fireball and Sparkler are odd. Are they meant to be spell-like abilities? What's their caster level? Are they meant to be something else? Please define them properly.
• For Pop, is the deafness in addition to the explosion damage, or instead of it? Additionally, this also bones you pretty hard, since you nearly always get caught in your own deafness blast - is this intentional, and if so, why?
• Burn is both unclear and rather weak. What kind of damage does it deal? Does it round up or down for its calculation? Is it spell-like, supernatural or extraordinary?
• Master of Detonation is unclear in its first instance. What did you mean by the 10th level ability? The 15th level ability is straight-up ridiculous. Planets count as objects, as a hint of why it's silly.
• Distracting Aura has no duration, and no use time. Please fix both. It's also rather weak.
• Chemical Reaction is unclear. Does he have to hit them and then spend a standard to make them explode? How much of a time delay can there be if that's the case? Can this be done many times? Please clear this up.
• Chain Reaction is a bit weak. Given that the explosion damage doesn't ignore hardness, it being triggered is highly unlikely, especially at the level you're talking about.
• Nuke is unclear, to the point where I actually don't get what it does at all.

Additionally, I would like to point out a few things. This class has no problem-solving ability at all. It just explodes things, lots. This is not good class design methodology - you're a one-trick-pony, and not even a very good one. While rogue-level classes don't have access to the crazy hijinks of wizard-level stuff, this is still no excuse to write essentially a big pile of combat stats and call it a day. And don't even tell me that your skills make up for it - that's a joke, to the point where it's actually ha-ha funny.

Furthermore, I question the thematic basis of this class. Right now, all I see is 'guy who blows up stuff good'. This is an outcome, not a thematic basis. Are they connected to the Elemental Plane of Fire and serve the elementals? Maybe they're connected to demons or devils and their propensity for fire? Or perhaps they take a more philosophical view, seeing fire as a beautiful and unpredictable thing, and a metaphor for life that they seek to emulate? I believe that, if you think on this, you would find writing non-combat and problem-solving abilities much easier.

Otherwise, it's nice and clean. Until these issues are addressed, however, Winter Cleaning stays. Not my call - just wiki policy. - MisterSinister 20:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

My response:

• Done.
• I'll change it to shielded in life charisma plus 1/4 of your level gained at level 1.
• Done
• Made it long range, auto hit
• Not permanent. Maybe 3 rounds?
• Fixed. Normal silent image.
• The idea of focused explosion is that it does damage to a very limited area, ie. letting you focus on one or two enemies.
• Done.
• All caster level for spell like ability will be your pyrotechnic level.
• Pop is instead of explosion damage.
• Burn deals fire damage
• Specified. Re-did 15th level
• That's because its a passive effect. Not weak at all.
• One action
• You mean you're never deal damage to destroy a tiny object? It should.
• I specified.

I meant for this to be an alchemist type guy. I don't know what abilities to add though.--Parakee^Talk 23:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll address the mechanical changes at a later point, but I will go over what abilities you can add for non-combat. First of all, if your theme is an alchemist, it would make logical sense for him to, you know, be able to make alchemical items. However, at present, he can't, which is kinda weird.

Secondly, alchemists did more than just make huge explosions. They sought cures for illnesses, stuff that granted them powers, etc. Basically, in DnD terms, they could make potions, which you could probably give to this guy at certain levels.

Lastly, you may wanna think about what kind of contribution he would make to a party outside of combat. - MisterSinister 23:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. I didn't want this to be an alchemist, I wanted it to be an alchemist type guy. I don't know how to describe it. Its an archetypal I have in my head.--Parakee^Talk 00:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reverting indentation)If you don't have the ability to describe the idea, then how on earth could I, or, in fact, anyone playing this class, possibly have that capability? It's important that you bring your concept across in your work in a way that people can understand, and at present, all I'm seeing is 'I blow stuff up good'. Which, as I said, is an outcome, not a concept. - MisterSinister 01:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

MisterSinister have a good point, you need to reinforce your concept, it need to be more than a guy that make stuff blow up. You also need to clear up the wording of some ability (I am looking at you Chemical Reaction) and if you want to make it a blaster, make it at least good at it job. So far it like a blast wizard with generic set of abilities, dealing less damage and can't get truly awesome abilities. Here an idea: Add pseudo metamagic ability, maybe maximize and empower an ability they have 3/day? --Leziad 21:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

So, Parakee, is this page up for adoption, perhaps? I'm completely willing to help edit it and stuff, cause I think I know what you were planning to build with this. - Xanos Knyghtshade 23:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty messed up class. I like your idea leziad. But I don't think that enough as it obviously wasn't well thought out. I should probably just delete it anyway. I made it in an hour when I wanted to make a class. It doesn't really have much behind it. Putting it uo for adoption might be a good idea.--75.40.72.247 12:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

And after confirming that ip is Parakee's, I think that counts as an approval of "up for adoption" status. As Xanos asked first, he's got first dibs. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 14:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I logged out and forgot that I had. Xanos should be good.--Parakee^Talk 14:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I expected this to be changed by now. Is Xanos still active?--Parakee^Talk 02:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Old article is old. Wat do? -- Eiji-kun (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Int Save?

Of the pyrotechnics I know, charisma and emotion is more at play that direct knowledge. Why is Intelligence the ability they need for their saves? --Havvy 18:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably right.--Parakee^Talk 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Really? Most of the pyrotechnics I know are very serious people, who are more like engineers than artists (though somewhere in-between). If you're hiring, you really, really don't want your pyrotechnic to also be a pyromaniac. -- Aelaris

Most pyrotechnics you know also don't live in a world with pixies and giants. And if they do, you should probably have an intervention. --Aarnott 14:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning

Changed a bunch of stuff, but i haven't gotten around to changing the table yet since I have a lot more changes to do and reorder of abilities (I added like 2 or 3 thing that come online at lvl 5 which needs to change). Basically I went through the previous list of things that needed to be changed and am working on making this a playable class, that can use explosions usefully in and out of combat. Also I plan to rewrite the flavor, but that is last on the list. FiRaven 17:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Edited more still very much a work in progress, any critiques and such are welcome. FiRaven 01:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Should be done, feel free to do clarity/grammar edits and/or critique FiRaven (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edited a bit since I noticed some obvious errors that I didn't notice before. Feel free to done any grammar edits for things I missed. FiRaven (talk) 03:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)