FIRE... Handbook?

[Afgncaap5]

Would there happen to be a Fire handbook out there for 3.5? I was just asked to swing by a friend's game, and she plays with some newish players so I don't want to go crazy, but she also suggested that they need a wizard. So... while not wanting to outshine everyone but still wanting to be memorable here, are there any handy guides to Wizards? I have a homebrew pyromancer class but I don't want to spring that on my friend for approval.

If no guides... any suggestions for Fire wizardry for a 9th level character?

[Masakan]

Make sure she gets the searing spell feat if she doesn't want to get cockblocked by every enemy with fire resistance, aside from that she can do most anything she wants.

[rockdeworld]

^Kinda that. Searing Spell is required, as is (Greater) Spell Penetration, since most every spell that deals with fire also allows SR.

Although not exactly a wizard, a psionic class called Pyrokineticist may do what you want, and this handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=6073.0) with the wise words of Solo will help with that. It's an especially good class for being around new players, since it won't outshine them by much.

OTOH, if you really want to outshine them, there's this (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1765181) for doing everything you could want with fire and more.

[ExLibrisMortis]

This build (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/3962696) uses Silver Pyromancer to turn fire damage into holy damage, which can't be resisted. It also mentions a bunch of other fire-related options.

[Sayt]

Searing spell, as mentioned is very important.

Blast of Flame, from spell compendium is also a decent fire spell, being Conjuration (Creation), thus allowing it to fire into dead magic or anti-magic fields. it's also a 40 ft and SR: No, and cone at spell level 4.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Searing spell, as mentioned is very important.

Blast of Flame, from spell compendium is also a decent fire spell, being Conjuration (Creation), thus allowing it to fire into dead magic or anti-magic fields. it's also a 40 ft and SR: No, and cone at spell level 4.
Also Orb of Fire and Lesser Orb of Fire (SpC and Complete Arcane) have similar SR: No effects.

You might consider going sorcerer-- you're probably not going to need more than one or two fire spells/spell level, but you'll be casting them a lot.

[Bronk]

Well, as has already been mentioned, first get the Searing Spell metamagic feat.

Then, get the 'Energy Substitution: Fire' metamagic feat. Now, every spell with an energy descriptor can be cast as a fire spell for +0 spell levels.

[Sagetim]

spells, by level, that do fire damage that I can recall off hand:

1:
Burning hands, Lesser Fire Orb, Kelgore's Firebolt

2:
Scorching Ray, Flaming Sphere

3:
Fireball, Flame Arrow (though I think this became crap in 3.5)

4:
Orb of Fire, Wall of Fire

5:
Firebrand (the army killer)

Though, after 5th level spells it doesn't really matter since 5th is the highest you can cast as a 9th level wizard anyway.

Don't forget to buy a Staff of Fire, or an Eternal Wand of Fireballs or something. Having some extra per day fireballs that you can drop out at a moment's notice is always nice. There's also a renewable item in the magic item compendium that casts produce flame on you, if you want even more options for setting things on fire.

Isn't Firey Burst the name of the spell reserve feat that lets you drop micro fireballs at short range as long as you have a fire spell prepped? I'm pretty sure it is. Solid level 3 feat, that. A good reason to hold out on your firebrand until you really really badly need to cast it, and a good reason to keep a scorching ray up your sleeve and never expend it (so you can keep throwing out 2d6 firey bursts).

[Dondasch]

I like blasting, so some tips (I'll reiterate some of what has been said above).

Overcoming immunity and resistence is done best by Silver Pyromancer and Sanctified One of Kord (CC). The Searing Spell metamagic feat and Paragnostic Apostle (CC) also aren't too bad at it.

A list of fire blasts not subject to evasion:
Deadly Sunstroke (CM)
Detonate (PHBII)
Earth Reaver (SpC)
Palin's Pyre (DLCS)
Parboil (Sandstorm)
Scalding Touch (MoE)
Scorching Ray (PHB)

[Sagetim]

oh hey, wall of magma is a 5th level spell...

[Twurps]

You're in a party of/with newbies, you're going to play a T1 caster in a party without wizards. (My assumpion from: 'they need a wizard' I could be wrong here). Unless the rest of the party are a DMM cleric and/or CoDzilla, you're pretty certainly going to outshine the others, and the advice here (being good as it usually is) is only going to make that worse.

I realize you have opted for a less powerfull 'blaster' wizard. But there's a reason newbies often want to play these: They seem much more powerfull to the untrained eye.

I wouldn't put all my focus on 'FIRE', but instead make sure I was a decent party buffer as well. (Maybe put some 'War-weaver' levels in there?). As long as party members can keep up: blast away. But if you get to the point where you're outshining them, you have the buffs as a good backup.

[Dread_Head]

Taking the Improved Familiar feat for a Fire Elemental is rather thematic on a fire based caster even if it isn't a particularly strong option.

If you have feats to spare Bloodlines of Fire is excellent for boosting your CL for fire spells. Fiery Burst also boosts CL and allows all day blasting provided you save a spell.

Don't underestimate Pyrotechnics as a BFC / debuff spell if you can reliably pull it off (a fire elemental familiar helps with this).

Beyond this the other advice in this thread is all great, particularly the Searing Spell feat.

[Afgncaap5]

Taking the Improved Familiar feat for a Fire Elemental is rather thematic on a fire based caster even if it isn't a particularly strong option.

If you have feats to spare Bloodlines of Fire is excellent for boosting your CL for fire spells. Fiery Burst also boosts CL and allows all day blasting provided you save a spell.

Don't underestimate Pyrotechnics as a BFC / debuff spell if you can reliably pull it off (a fire elemental familiar helps with this).

Beyond this the other advice in this thread is all great, particularly the Searing Spell feat.

Ah, yes... very nice thoughts here. I'm a big fan of Pyrotechnics as a game-changer spell. I thought it'd kill the Fire Elemental on use, but looking again it'd only deal 9 hp to it. Thanks!

-EDIT-

Knee-jerk reaction, how much would you pay for a slingshot made out of a dragon's tongue? Once you've got that knee-jerk reaction, read on...

I was setting up the character's equipment (went with a Halfling Wizard), and I decided that I wanted one of the weapon to be a +1 Flaming slingshot. I didn't really think much of the material it was made of, and just priced this at 8300 gp. When I mentioned it to the GM, she asked if I'd accounted for the price of it being made of a dragon tongue, and I said that's what the 300 was for, to make it masterwork. She accepted that and we moved on. (Note that I still haven't actually *played* said character, so nothing's set in stone yet.)

However, looking again, I'm reminded that Dragonhide is "a thing" for magic item creation, though usually it's only used for Armor and Shields. Dragonhide Armor or Shields cost double the Masterwork component to make. Do you think I should bump this cost up to 8600 gp? It's not really "hide" per se, but it's the same kind of thing.

[ShurikVch]

but she also suggested that they need a wizard.And there I wanted to make a Fire-based martial character...

[ComaVision]

And there I wanted to make a Fire-based martial character...

I'm definitely missing the joke here. Dragonfire Inspiration Bardblade

[Orderic]

Or Desert Wind Swordsage.

Anyway, you should ask your DM if he would allow you to give all of your spells a certain theme, without changing the mechanics in any way. If he doesn't agree, just take Spell Thematics, although I do seem to recall, that the DMG said something about thematic magic.

This will result in every spell having a fiery appearance. Every. Single. One. Mage armor? You are now wearing an armor made from fire. Haste? Leave a trail of sparks with every movement.

[Afgncaap5]

Or Desert Wind Swordsage.

Anyway, you should ask your DM if he would allow you to give all of your spells a certain theme, without changing the mechanics in any way. If he doesn't agree, just take Spell Thematics, although I do seem to recall, that the DMG said something about thematic magic.

This will result in every spell having a fiery appearance. Every. Single. One. Mage armor? You are now wearing an armor made from fire. Haste? Leave a trail of sparks with every movement.

Actually, in the various gaming groups I've been in, the visual benefit of Spell Thematics is almost redundant. We assume that there are dozens or hundreds of ways of achieving the same "spell", so one person's Magic Missile may be sparrows of force energy and another's may be bolts of fire (that still only do force damage) and another's may be bursts of psychic energy suddenly impressing themselves on a foe. I'm glad there's a feat for it, but apart from the bonus against counterspelling I don't think there'd be much legitimate gain from it for me right now (especially with a mostly fire-themed spell list, Cone of Cold and Break Enchantment notwithstanding.)

[ShurikVch]

I'm definitely missing the joke here. Dragonfire Inspiration BardbladeThread named "FIRE... Handbook?", which allow various interpretations, but the OP cut it down to "just a Wizard"

I, personally, thought about the Firestorm Berserker with "persisted" Rage

Also, why the "Bardblade" rather than "Bardsader"? All of Warblade's CFs are blatantly Int-oriented, while Crusader actually need that Cha...

[ComaVision]

Thread named "FIRE... Handbook?", which allow various interpretations, but the OP cut it down to "just a Wizard"

I, personally, thought about the Firestorm Berserker with "persisted" Rage

Ah, all right. I thought you were insinuating that martial characters couldn't be fire-based.


Also, why the "Bardblade" rather than "Bardsader"? All of Warblade's CFs are blatantly Int-oriented, while Crusader actually need that Cha...

It was just the first thing that came to mind. I'm playing a Bardblade IRL (dipped Paladin 2 for saves and I wanted Iron Heart Surge).

[rockdeworld]

Knee-jerk reaction, how much would you pay for a slingshot made out of a dragon's tongue?
Nothing, unless it had sentimental value, because I dislike slingshots. But to answer the question about bumping up the price, I'd say "not unless your DM asks you to". Since they already accepted it, I'd suggest you just go with it. Dragonhide is specifically special material for armors and not magic/relevant to a slingshot.

[Vaz]

Spell Thematics (while normally a nigh useless feat, fits well and in a low power build is nice and, well, thematic) is awesome.

In regards to Searing Spell, unfortunately this is a bit of a 'broken' one in my mind. If your DM is sending Fire resistant/immune monsters at you, it is for a reason, and that is to teat you. An alternative option to Searing spell is Energy substitution, where your mastery over temperature can drain heat from your opponent.

Alternatively, Fell Drain, allowing you to debuff an opponent when your spells are otherwise unable to harm properly.

[Urpriest]

Nothing, unless it had sentimental value, because I dislike slingshots. But to answer the question about bumping up the price, I'd say "not unless your DM asks you to". Since they already accepted it, I'd suggest you just go with it. Dragonhide is specifically special material for armors and not magic/relevant to a slingshot.

I'll add that while Dragonhide does special stuff in armor, in other materials you can think of it as part of the magic item cost. Creating that slingshot involved 4000gp of nebulous magical raw materials, some of that could well have been the dragon's tongue itself.

[SkipSandwich]

Since Pyrokinetist was mentioned, I wonder what entry path people would recommend.


The one and only time I ever played a pyro I used soulknife, but if I got another chance, I would probably go with Paladin instead (Paladin of Freedom variant from UA), a few extra points of BAB + Immunity to Compulsion effects is pretty nice. It would also make the Cha boost from Nimbus matter a bit more in the way of further increasing your saving throws.

[Troacctid]

In regards to Searing Spell, unfortunately this is a bit of a 'broken' one in my mind. If your DM is sending Fire resistant/immune monsters at you, it is for a reason, and that is to teat you.

Or your DM just uses a variety of different monsters, because that's a thing DMs do.

[rockdeworld]

Or your DM just uses a variety of different monsters, because that's a thing DMs do.
+1 to both arguments. When I DM'd a game where one player's shtick was an at-will cone of fire effect, I tended to avoid fire resistant or immune monsters because I didn't want to invalidate his character. But for a boss encounter I threw a mix of monsters at them including a bunch of Lemures.

OTOH, I've read bad DM stories where enemies never failed their saves, or had infinite SR against spells that don't allow SR, or were otherwise out to get a character.

I think it depends on your DM, and hopefully you know him/her well enough to judge if that type of situation will arise.


...Never thought I'd hear Searing Spell described as broken.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Even if the DM doesn't make a special effort one way or the other, fire is the most commonly resisted energy type. Searing Spell is well worth having, and highly thematic to boot.

[Vaz]

Or your DM just uses a variety of different monsters, because that's a thing DMs do.

Then what's the point in taking Searing Spell?

Either; your DM attempts to block your "dominance" by using monsters immune to Fire, in which case Searing Spell comes into its own and you still dominate anything regarless, or they don't, in which case Searing Spell is a waste.

[Troacctid]

Then what's the point in taking Searing Spell?

Either; your DM attempts to block your "dominance" by using monsters immune to Fire, in which case Searing Spell comes into its own and you still dominate anything regarless, or they don't, in which case Searing Spell is a waste.

Or your DM uses a wide variety of encounters, and some of them happen to be resistant or immune to fire, because fire resistance and fire immunity are exceedingly common abilities.

DMs aren't going to pull all the demons, dragons, and elementals out of their campaigns just to coddle the one player who likes fireballs. If you don't have a contingency in place for literally the most common type of energy resistance in the game, that's not your DM nerfing you, it's you being unprepared.

[Chronos]

Another good spell is Blistering Radiance. It only does 2d6/round, but it lasts for a while doing that every round, and it's got a huge area of effect, making it great for army-killing. It's also Fort half, not Ref half, and Mettle is a lot less common than Evasion.

[Vaz]

You're not understanding.

Monster a has no resistance. It is dead. It is no challenge.

Monster B has resistance/immunity to fire. In the past, fire wouldnt hamper it. Now, with Searing Spell, monster is no challenge because it is dead.

DM putting challenging monsters which are dead due to High OP fire spells bypassing SR, Resistances and with high DC's... Aren't challenging. And really should not award XP. It is like expecting to get big muscles because you are lifting 5kg dumbells, or joining mensa because you can recite the 5 times table.

A good DM will attempt to challenge his players appropriately, but if you aren't being challenged, you are directing the tempo of the game to the stage where you are actuvely sidelining the party while you are acting the bigshow, showing that you are such a good optimizer bypassing the limitations of fire resistance on a fire caster.

If a DM is throwing a fire resistance end level boss at you, then they want that fire resistance to matter. If they are capable of defeating your Searing Spell through whatever means so that they stay relevant, the point remains, what is the point in taking Searing Spell.

A DM won't force a 20th level wizard to fight off a dozen commoner 1s with pitchforks, because it is no challenge, and is only good for wasting resources.

That is why Searing Spell is broken, in low OP games.

Take something instead which lets you contribute to a party; Fell Drain or Craft, which benefits a party. In my experience of such parties, very few parties need a tier 1 caster like a wizard of psion. Play a more limited one; like a Favoured Soul, or Ardent.

[Dondasch]

You're not understanding.

Monster a has no resistance. It is dead. It is no challenge.

Monster B has resistance/immunity to fire. In the past, fire wouldnt hamper it. Now, with Searing Spell, monster is no challenge because it is dead.


While I admire your faith in blasting, it is sadly misplaced. Blasting simply isn't that effective. A reasonably optimized Fighter can outdamage blasting. In case you're wondering what "reasonably optimized" is, it's this: usable to-hit and Strength, makes full attacks (Pounce not required), Power Attacks with a two-hander (doesn't even need to be for full).
Blasting's sole advantage over the Fighter is that it is better against groups of weak enemies. If a single monster was no challenge with blasting, it would still have been no challenge if you swapped the Wizard for a Fighter.