Page 1 of 1
Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:00 pm
by Rigon
wand of pyrotechnics need a fire to be used. The spell says that pyrotechnics effects a fire of some sort (torch, lantern, etc). If there is no source of fire, can the wand still be used?
I ruled that it can't, but want to get your opinions.
R-
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:06 pm
by Arduin
Rigon wrote:wand of pyrotechnics need a fire to be used. The spell says that pyrotechnics effects a fire of some sort (torch, lantern, etc). If there is no source of fire, can the wand still be used?
I ruled that it can't, but want to get your opinions.
R-
Since wands are simply spell storage devices the spells cast by them are the same as the spells loaded into them.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:12 pm
by Rigon
That's what I was assuming, but there was some disagreement about fire being a spell component. I said the spell only effects fire, but fire was not a component.
R-
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 3:16 pm
by Arduin
Rigon wrote:That's what I was assuming, but there was some disagreement about fire being a spell component. I said the spell only effects fire, but fire was not a component.
R-
Fire being a component or not isn't relevant as the spell description says what the spell effects. Components are used at the time you charge a wand. The first sentence in the spell description says it all.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:25 pm
by alcyone
I don't think I can convincingly argue the case on anything but "it's worked before" but I know I would miss tucking my head between my legs every time I hear "Ecce Lux!"
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:54 pm
by Aramis
Aergraith wrote:I don't think I can convincingly argue the case on anything but "it's worked before" but I know I would miss tucking my head between my legs every time I hear "Ecce Lux!"
. And people say rpgs are not educational
There were actually a couple of areas of discussion
1) Do you need the material component on hand to use a wand? The rules on wands seem a bit ambiguously worded, but my view was that the footnote to the table on cost of creating magic items which says something like "the cost of material components is added to the cost of the item" means that the material components are provided at the input end, not the output end. Which is I believe how 3e does it. Plus it just makes sense because then someone not normally ready to cast that spell can just pick up a wand in the dungeon and use it.
2) Most spells specify the material component needed, but pyrotechnics does not specifically state a material component. However, it does say a fire source is consumed, implying that the fire source is the material component. But as discussion 1) showed us, for a wand, the material component has already been added at the input end (i.e. there were 50 extinguished fires made when the wand was created). It's magic. The other side argued that you needed a fire source in the room for it to work
The right honourable Rigon ruled against me, but I have appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court of Badassery in Arkansas
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:17 pm
by serleran
The wand produces an effect like that of the spell, and the spell says it works when a fire is present. You can rule this means the wand is useless without an open fire, or you can rule that it has a Bic effect and makes a small fire.
I would rule the latter because it is more "cool."
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:28 pm
by alcyone
Aramis wrote:
2) Most spells specify the material component needed, but pyrotechnics does not specifically state a material component. However, it does say a fire source is consumed, implying that the fire source is the material component.
In the 6th printing, the last line of the spell is:
Code: Select all
The material component for this spell is an open flame.
This I think makes this even more confusing, because now, the open flame is both the thing required for the spell to act upon AND the material component. So, is it the same flame?
But in any printing, the spell states that it transforms a fire. There is a fire, and the spell transforms it. I don't know of another good example off the top of my head, but like, say, transmute flesh and stone; even if you put it in a wand, it doesn't come with flesh. And it does have a material component of stone or blood, but that doesn't really satisfy the requirement of something for it to act upon.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:31 pm
by Arduin
Aramis wrote:Aergraith wrote:I don't think I can convincingly argue the case on anything but "it's worked before" but I know I would miss tucking my head between my legs every time I hear "Ecce Lux!"
. And people say rpgs are not educational
There were actually a couple of areas of discussion
1) Do you need the material component on hand to use a wand? The rules on wands seem a bit ambiguously worded,
M&T : "Further, items such as wands or staves have charges that can be replenished. For items that require spell replenishment, the item is assumed to
be able to absorb and store the spells. The caster must simply cast them into
it. However, these items can only absorb one spell per day."
The spell has already been cast. Casting it the first time requires the use of any components.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:33 pm
by Treebore
I think its pretty clear thanks to the spell description, the "component" is a fire, that is affected by the spell. IE it is required for a fire to be present when the spell is cast for it to work, IE have anything to create the effect with. The spell description does not indicate, in any way, that the spell itself creates the fire, only that it effects a fire.
Now, looking at the history of the spell, in 1E AD&D the spell itself actually produced the fireworks, but that language/wording is not in the C&C version.
So in C&C, for the spell to create the Blindness, it first has to have a fire source already present. Even from a wand, because a Wand just holds an already "cast" spell, so you can discharge the spell if you wish, but without a Fire of some sort already present within the area of effect, it won't produce an effect, since that "fire" is required for it to be able to create any effect when cast.
Thats how I see it, anyways. Everyone is welcome to their own interpretation, of course.
But going by the direct source of the C&C pyrotechnics spell, 3E D&D, I am pretty sure I am interpreting it accurately...
" Pyrotechnics turns a fire into either a burst of blinding fireworks or a thick cloud of choking smoke, depending on the version you choose.
Fireworks
The fireworks are a flashing, fiery, momentary burst of glowing, colored aerial lights. This effect causes creatures within 120 feet of the fire source to become blinded for 1d4+1 rounds (Will negates). These creatures must have line of sight to the fire to be affected. Spell resistance can prevent blindness.
Smoke Cloud
A writhing stream of smoke billows out from the source, forming a choking cloud. The cloud spreads 20 feet in all directions and lasts for 1 round per caster level. All sight, even darkvision, is ineffective in or through the cloud. All within the cloud take -4 penalties to Strength and Dexterity (Fortitude negates). These effects last for 1d4+1 rounds after the cloud dissipates or after the creature leaves the area of the cloud. Spell resistance does not apply.
Material Component
The spell uses one fire source, which is immediately extinguished. A fire so large that it exceeds a 20-foot cube is only partly extinguished. Magical fires are not extinguished, although a fire-based creature used as a source takes 1 point of damage per caster level. "
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 8:37 pm
by Arduin
Treebore wrote:I think its pretty clear thanks to the spell description, the "component" is a fire, that is affected by the spell. IE it is required for a fire to be present when the spell is cast for it to work, IE have anything to create the effect with. The spell description does not indicate, in any way, that the spell itself creates the fire, only that it effects a fire.
After reading it a few times I don't see an alternative in the text to that. You gotta have a fire to cast it on.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:44 pm
by Aramis
Treebore wrote:I think its pretty clear thanks to the spell description, the "component" is a fire, that is affected by the spell. IE it is required for a fire to be present when the spell is cast for it to work, IE have anything to create the effect with. The spell description does not indicate, in any way, that the spell itself creates the fire, only that it effects a fire.
Everyone agrees the spell must act upon a fire. To use some poetic language, the spell absorbs the fire energy from a fire and converts it into flashy fireworks.
My point is that the spell has already absorbed and converted a fire
when the charge was loaded into the wand. The wand somehow holds that effect, like a boulder perched upon a hill has potential energy. The command word releases the consumed fire energy from the campfire used up in the past, when the wand was charged, rather than requiring one in the present.
It may seem a bit odd to think of a campfire's energy being stored in a wand, but this is a world of dragons and wishes and where "evil" is an actual property existing in the world that can be detected
.
Re: Does a
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2014 9:54 pm
by Treebore
Aramis wrote:Treebore wrote:I think its pretty clear thanks to the spell description, the "component" is a fire, that is affected by the spell. IE it is required for a fire to be present when the spell is cast for it to work, IE have anything to create the effect with. The spell description does not indicate, in any way, that the spell itself creates the fire, only that it effects a fire.
Everyone agrees the spell must act upon a fire. To use some poetic language, the spell absorbs the fire energy from a fire and converts it into flashy fireworks.
My point is that the spell has already absorbed and converted a fire
when the charge was loaded into the wand. The wand somehow holds that effect, like a boulder perched upon a hill has potential energy. The command word releases the consumed fire energy from the campfire used up in the past, when the wand was charged, rather than requiring one in the present.
It may seem a bit odd to think of a campfire's energy being stored in a wand, but this is a world of dragons and wishes and where "evil" is an actual property existing in the world that can be detected
.
No, I am not saying the Fire is a "component" in that a caster must have it in their possession, it is a component as in when the spell is cast, there must be a fire present for the spell to effect. As the other versions of the spell make clear, it is not necessary to have the component to cast the spell, or store it into a wand, it is a requirement in order to have any affect at the time its actually cast for effect.
Re: Does a
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:00 am
by Captain_K
Charm person works on persons.. pyrotechnics works on fires.. the wand allows you to not memorize the spell but it must work on fire.. purify water.. same story.
Re: Does a
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2014 1:38 am
by Arduin
Captain_K wrote:Charm person works on persons.. pyrotechnics works on fires.. the wand allows you to not memorize the spell but it must work on fire.. purify water.. same story.
Yep. I was thinking of similar analogies.
Re: Does a
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 1:44 pm
by TensersFloatingDisk
Although to be sure, you wouldn't want to cast Purify Water when there wasn't any water, nor Charm Person with nobody there, but you might want the fireworks without having to light a fire... but I agree, I think the spell is cast on a fire and the presence of a fire remains necessary and isn't bypassed by a fire being there when the wand is made... I don't think that's applicable anyway: a wizard doesn't have to turn some unfortunate person to stone to create a petrifying wand.