Continual Flame + Pyrotechnics does it work? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Continual Flame + Pyrotechnics does it work? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sankekur
05-31-06, 04:31 PM you see, when i play D&D i am almost always a wiz, because they can do so much differant things just in their own class.

now i have had this technique that my friends won't let me use... ever because they that it doesn't work. and that is the Continual flame + Pyrotechnics combination.

round one start

now this is what i do, either 1, cast coninual flame on a creature's noise if i'm feeling brave enough to get an attack of opertunity. (also it says there is no saving throw or spell resistance for it.) or if they are big enough where i can fit a sling bullet in their nose, i just give it to a fimilire and have them shove the bullet into the creature's nose. for an example, having a raven dive head long into a white dragon's nose, with the coninual flame bullet in it's beak.

round 2 start

if i touched their nose, then i run away really really fast and go from a safe distance. or if the familure stuck it in their nose some how, wait for them to get away from them

round 3 start

now that everyone is safe or whatever, cast pyrotechnics. and use the smoke cloud version. this (to quote from the book)

"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."

now, the cloud says that it only deals with vision, but i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the fact that it shoots out 20 feet of smoke, if it is going through your nose, your nose is connected to your lungs... this also means that it would cause your lungs to fully expand if not burst (unless you were a huge creature or something and there is more then 20 feet between your nose to your lungs, in which case they would have to hold their breath for that long or pass out or something...)

and so my point to this, wouldn't it kill a creature or at least knock them out as long as they needed to breath? my friends say it will not work because the continual flame isn't really a flame. and so i go back to the spell and show them the spell name (Flame) and that it says that it is heat less and cannot be squelched (in other words doesn't need air to help it burn and if you throw it in water it will still burn) and plus it is called continual flame not continual light. it even says in there it creates a flame.

so can anyone tell me if i'm right or if they are right?
Selebius
05-31-06, 04:54 PM Sorry, but you cannot cast Continual Flame on a creature and you cannot cast Pyrotechnics on a Continual Flame .

Continual Flame can only be cast on objects and Pyrotechnics can only be cast on Fires- Continual Flame is a simple [light] effect.

Sel
Sankekur
05-31-06, 05:02 PM once again like i said in my very long long post, it says it makes a "FLAME" not a light, because it isn't dancing lights you see, it doesn't say light fixture formed to apear in a special way, it calls it a flame, fire blah blah blah.

and if it was just a light or something it would be under the spell school illusion, but instead its under evocation.

and if you can't cast it on a creature no biggy, remeber how i said to use it on a sling bullet?

and to quote from the book...

"a flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. the effect looks like a regular flame, but creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. a continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or squenched."

starts right of saying a flame
CaoSlayer
05-31-06, 05:48 PM inst the same casting scorching ray/burning hands/fireball in something flamable and then use pyro.?
olivier
05-31-06, 06:31 PM Continual Flame
Evocation (Light)
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 0 ft.
Effect: Illusory flame
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that the character touches. The flame looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. The flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched.
Material Component: Worth 50 gp.

Whilst the spell title is "Continual Flame". There are two things in the spell that squashes your attempt. Firstly the effect specifically states: "Illusory flame". And then again in the description it states: "The flame looks like a regular flame". This means that it may look like a flame flickering away, but it doesn't act like one - no heat, no smoke, no burning.

So based on those two points, I could not agree that the Continual Flame spell be used as a substitute for a "fire" which is required for Pyrotechnics.

Also the material component stuffs you up - you need 50gp worth of component to cast this spell. Plus the fact it is a second level spell. Why not use another 2nd level spell with heaps better options - such as flaming sphere? Roll it around doing damage and then in the final round use Pyrotechnics - wham oh. All this whilst keeping a safe distance away from the fighting.

I like your style of thinking though - thanks to you I now have another spell combo to keep the DM on his toes!
Seeker95
05-31-06, 06:42 PM Continual flame is a light, not a fire: The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen.

Your trick won't work. If you don't want people to give you answers except the ones you have already chosen, perhaps you should not ask in the first place.
Witchblade
05-31-06, 07:09 PM No sane DM would let a player shove something up a creature's nose anyway, unless they were willing to provoke an attack of oppertunity and beat the target's AC with 20 or so. Even then the creature could use a move action to pull it out.

Besides you're trying to break the rules by doing things obviously not in the spirit of the rules. Even if the rules would allow it (RAW that is!) I wouldn't allow it.
Sankekur
05-31-06, 09:39 PM ok, then how about this, you hit them with alchemists fire in the face like mace, then pyrotechnics?

it still will be burning on their face AND most likely it will be on around their nose AND it still is kind of reaching my point...

so how about?
da chicken
05-31-06, 11:22 PM Yes, that works fine.

Your grenadier/pyrotechnics Wizard is sure to conquer the multiverse.
Tony Vargas
06-01-06, 02:09 PM now, the cloud says that it only deals with vision, but i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the fact that it shoots out 20 feet of smoke, if it is going through your nose, your nose is connected to your lungs... No. Spells do what they say they do, not what you wish they might do. A character who's on fire (for whatever reason) can be the target of either version of Pyrotechnics, but the effects of that spell on him are the same as anyone else in the area. Spreads, for instance, do not produce much pressure - they can go around obstacles or through openings, like doorways, but that's about it.

You can no more do what you describe than cast Summon Monster to get a whale to apear in someone's stomach. It's just silly.

Alchemist fire is a great way to get a fire where you want one prepatory to casting Pyrotechnics. Coordinate with another member of your party (to throw the flask) and you can put a Pyrotechnic effect prettymuch anywhere you want, within reason, in a single round.

(Also, there are no called shots in D&D. Hit someone with a flask of alchemist fire and the flames might just as easily be on thier toe as on thier nose.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sankekur 05-31-06, 04:31 PM	you see, when i play D&D i am almost always a wiz, because they can do so much differant things just in their own class. now i have had this technique that my friends won't let me use... ever because they that it doesn't work. and that is the Continual flame + Pyrotechnics combination. round one start now this is what i do, either 1, cast coninual flame on a creature's noise if i'm feeling brave enough to get an attack of opertunity. (also it says there is no saving throw or spell resistance for it.) or if they are big enough where i can fit a sling bullet in their nose, i just give it to a fimilire and have them shove the bullet into the creature's nose. for an example, having a raven dive head long into a white dragon's nose, with the coninual flame bullet in it's beak. round 2 start if i touched their nose, then i run away really really fast and go from a safe distance. or if the familure stuck it in their nose some how, wait for them to get away from them round 3 start now that everyone is safe or whatever, cast pyrotechnics. and use the smoke cloud version. this (to quote from the book) "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." now, the cloud says that it only deals with vision, but i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the fact that it shoots out 20 feet of smoke, if it is going through your nose, your nose is connected to your lungs... this also means that it would cause your lungs to fully expand if not burst (unless you were a huge creature or something and there is more then 20 feet between your nose to your lungs, in which case they would have to hold their breath for that long or pass out or something...) and so my point to this, wouldn't it kill a creature or at least knock them out as long as they needed to breath? my friends say it will not work because the continual flame isn't really a flame. and so i go back to the spell and show them the spell name (Flame) and that it says that it is heat less and cannot be squelched (in other words doesn't need air to help it burn and if you throw it in water it will still burn) and plus it is called continual flame not continual light. it even says in there it creates a flame. so can anyone tell me if i'm right or if they are right?
Selebius 05-31-06, 04:54 PM	Sorry, but you cannot cast Continual Flame on a creature and you cannot cast Pyrotechnics on a Continual Flame . Continual Flame can only be cast on objects and Pyrotechnics can only be cast on Fires- Continual Flame is a simple [light] effect. Sel
Sankekur 05-31-06, 05:02 PM	once again like i said in my very long long post, it says it makes a "FLAME" not a light, because it isn't dancing lights you see, it doesn't say light fixture formed to apear in a special way, it calls it a flame, fire blah blah blah. and if it was just a light or something it would be under the spell school illusion, but instead its under evocation. and if you can't cast it on a creature no biggy, remeber how i said to use it on a sling bullet? and to quote from the book... "a flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that you touch. the effect looks like a regular flame, but creates no heat and doesn't use oxygen. a continual flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or squenched." starts right of saying a flame
CaoSlayer 05-31-06, 05:48 PM	inst the same casting scorching ray/burning hands/fireball in something flamable and then use pyro.?
olivier 05-31-06, 06:31 PM	Continual Flame Evocation (Light) Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V, S, M Casting Time: 1 action Range: 0 ft. Effect: Illusory flame Duration: Permanent Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No A flame, equivalent in brightness to a torch, springs forth from an object that the character touches. The flame looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. The flame can be covered and hidden but not smothered or quenched. Material Component: Worth 50 gp. Whilst the spell title is "Continual Flame". There are two things in the spell that squashes your attempt. Firstly the effect specifically states: "Illusory flame". And then again in the description it states: "The flame looks like a regular flame". This means that it may look like a flame flickering away, but it doesn't act like one - no heat, no smoke, no burning. So based on those two points, I could not agree that the Continual Flame spell be used as a substitute for a "fire" which is required for Pyrotechnics. Also the material component stuffs you up - you need 50gp worth of component to cast this spell. Plus the fact it is a second level spell. Why not use another 2nd level spell with heaps better options - such as flaming sphere? Roll it around doing damage and then in the final round use Pyrotechnics - wham oh. All this whilst keeping a safe distance away from the fighting. I like your style of thinking though - thanks to you I now have another spell combo to keep the DM on his toes!
Seeker95 05-31-06, 06:42 PM	Continual flame is a light, not a fire: The effect looks like a regular flame, but it creates no heat and doesn’t use oxygen. Your trick won't work. If you don't want people to give you answers except the ones you have already chosen, perhaps you should not ask in the first place.
Witchblade 05-31-06, 07:09 PM	No sane DM would let a player shove something up a creature's nose anyway, unless they were willing to provoke an attack of oppertunity and beat the target's AC with 20 or so. Even then the creature could use a move action to pull it out. Besides you're trying to break the rules by doing things obviously not in the spirit of the rules. Even if the rules would allow it (RAW that is!) I wouldn't allow it.
Sankekur 05-31-06, 09:39 PM	ok, then how about this, you hit them with alchemists fire in the face like mace, then pyrotechnics? it still will be burning on their face AND most likely it will be on around their nose AND it still is kind of reaching my point... so how about?
da chicken 05-31-06, 11:22 PM	Yes, that works fine. Your grenadier/pyrotechnics Wizard is sure to conquer the multiverse.
Tony Vargas 06-01-06, 02:09 PM	now, the cloud says that it only deals with vision, but i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about the fact that it shoots out 20 feet of smoke, if it is going through your nose, your nose is connected to your lungs... No. Spells do what they say they do, not what you wish they might do. A character who's on fire (for whatever reason) can be the target of either version of Pyrotechnics, but the effects of that spell on him are the same as anyone else in the area. Spreads, for instance, do not produce much pressure - they can go around obstacles or through openings, like doorways, but that's about it. You can no more do what you describe than cast Summon Monster to get a whale to apear in someone's stomach. It's just silly. Alchemist fire is a great way to get a fire where you want one prepatory to casting Pyrotechnics. Coordinate with another member of your party (to throw the flask) and you can put a Pyrotechnic effect prettymuch anywhere you want, within reason, in a single round. (Also, there are no called shots in D&D. Hit someone with a flask of alchemist fire and the flames might just as easily be on thier toe as on thier nose.)