# Pyromancer Mage: Balanced?



## TerraDave (Feb 23, 2011)

The essential pyromancer (from Dragon 391) can ignore fire resistance. 

This seems pretty potent. Thoughts?


----------



## Mengu (Feb 23, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> The essential pyromancer (from Dragon 391) can ignore fire resistance.
> 
> This seems pretty potent. Thoughts?




No more potent than my non-magical club I broke off a tree ignoring all elemental resistances...

It's just a tool for the arsenal, and it doesn't ignore immunity, insubstantial, etc. It's nice to have because when most your attacks are fire, you don't want to be handicapped against all the fire resisting creatures.

Fun tidbit, you ignore all your allies' fire resistance too.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 23, 2011)

It makes the sorcerer's ability to ignore some resistances seem a little less potent (especially since they don't get two selections of every level like the Pyromancer does), but it isn't exactly game-breaking.


----------



## twilsemail (Feb 23, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> This seems pretty potent. Thoughts?




I mostly see it as a method of allowing a specialist to specialize.  Fire resist is the most popular in the game.  Cutting a break for fire wizards seems like a decent idea.

Combining this feature with Burn Everything(D388 p. 36) seems a bit OTT.

Dudes are just really good at mancing some pyro.


----------



## Iron Sky (Feb 23, 2011)

I'm playing on in ENWorld's Living World right now. Depending on your power selection, it turns your controller into an AoE striker while still retaining a decent amount of Wizardly control (especially with a Flaming Weapon so all powers have the Fire keyword).

Combine it with a tiefling and you have something that looks like this.

In L4W we just fought a volcanic dragon and burning a fire creature to death makes the character feel powerful.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 23, 2011)

twilsemail said:


> I mostly see it as a method of allowing a specialist to specialize.  *Fire resist is the most popular in the game*.  Cutting a break for fire wizards seems like a decent idea.
> 
> Combining this feature with Burn Everything(D388 p. 36) seems a bit OTT.
> 
> Dudes are just really good at mancing some pyro.




I get 547 monsters with fire resist, and 754 with necrotic resistance 

As a DM for Iron Sky's L4W PC, I've not felt it overpowered, as it lets you play an archetype without being ineffective against over 500 different foes vs. about 170 if you focused on lightning. 

Even with Burn Everything, you've devoted a feat and one of your class features to it, just to be able to do your regular damage to fire resistant/immune foes.


----------



## Aegeri (Feb 23, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> The essential pyromancer (from Dragon 391) can ignore fire resistance.
> 
> This seems pretty potent. Thoughts?




Doesn't stop a volcanic dragon poisoning the party every time you hit it with a fire attack, so it isn't really that great given how new monsters often respond to damage types. All it does is mean the pyromancer pays his feat tax with a class feature. Given that Wizards were wanting to de-emphasize resistance since MM3 I'm not surprised to see newer classes just automatically deal with it anyway.


----------



## radja (Feb 24, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Even with Burn Everything, you've devoted a feat and one of your class features to it, just to be able to do your regular damage to fire resistant/immune foes.



looks like it doesnt affect immunity, just resistance. this basically means it's a very restricted damage bonus... nothing more.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 24, 2011)

Speaking as someone playing a githyanki pryromancer at the moment...

All it's really done is made my character actually effective against the couple of fire-resistant critters I've bumped up against. I'm a pyromancer. All of my attacks (though by choice) are fire damage. If I don't have this feature, I can't contribute very much at all against fire-resistant creatures. And if the creatures happen to be a theme in the campaign....I'm back into 3e Rouge vs. Undead levels of unhelpful.

Me and the 40 Legion Devils I killed single-handedly in the last session speak to the fact that this works well, since otherwise, the party's only controller would be sitting around doing jack squat while the army mowed down our melee troops. 

Izzussan is geared toward damage, too. I'm in no danger of outdoing the party strikers (an Avenger and a Warlock) any time soon, though I'm better with crowds. 

Fire immunity still works, though it's rarer to find that on monsters than resist (and I'll probably pick up Burn Everything sooner or later). 4e cuts down on immunities in general. 

Basically, it's not overpowered, it's there to help the pryomancer do his job without borking him depending on DM monster selection.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Feb 24, 2011)

radja said:


> looks like it doesnt affect immunity, just resistance. this basically means it's a very restricted damage bonus... nothing more.



At the end of Burn Everything it says something like 'if they have immunity, treat it like resist fire 25' which then means, as a pyromancer, you get to ignore it.

Not sure if it actually works that way, but that is one interpretation of it.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 24, 2011)

I would think that's how it works, but there appear to be only 24 monsters who are Fire Immune from my search of the compendium of which only 1 is non-Epic, so I'd imagine it's not a big concern. 

Actually, it's interesting because the Volcanic Dragons _aren't_ immune to fire, or even resistant to fire.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 24, 2011)

The ability to circumvent fire resistance isn't like some brand new thing that is powerful and mighty.

There's a feat in the first PHB that circumvents fire resistance.  It's about the only non-damage thing fire powers can do, feat wise. 

And it's not like fire resistance is some holy power absolutely needed to keep fire powers in check, those dastardly things.

It isn't the ability to do powerful things, it's the ability to avoid having your abilities arbitrarily nerfed by a random monster.  Sorcerers have been doing it forever, and it's not considered their most important feature.

Hardly worth discussing, really.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 24, 2011)

Oh, and if you think _Burn Everything_ is interesting, look at _Surging Flame_:



> When you hit a target that has fire resistance with a fire power, any fire power deals 5 extra fire damage against that target until the end of your next turn.




This his hilarious as a pyromancer. With a little trivial set-up (hit an enemy with a fire power),it turns any fire resistance into Vulnerable 5 fire. In combo with Burn Everything, even immune creatures take extra damage. 

"Doot dee doo, I am a fire elemental, I bathe in lava."
"G'day, mate, I'm a fire mage."
"LOL, I can bathe in your fiery doom."
"Well let me wash you. Pew pew pew!"
"OW! THIS HURTS MORE THAN ANYTHING. YOU ARE BURNING MY LACK OF FLAMMABILITY. I AM MADE OF FIRE AND NOW I AM MORE ON FIRE THAN BEFORE. THIS MAKES NO SENSE."

Sympathy of Flame is not awful in combination with any weapon property that deals ongoing fire damage (flameburst, infectious flame, flaming), though getting that sweet incendiary dagger superior implement is a hefty feat fine for a mage (they don't have proficiency with daggers as an implement). Stoking the Fire isn't great, but it stacks, so it's overkill. 

That's all before you leave heroic.

BOOM BOOM BOOM


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 24, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> The essential pyromancer (from Dragon 391) can ignore fire resistance.
> 
> This seems pretty potent. Thoughts?




Not particularly. This isn't 3E, with resistance and immunity being handed out like candy. These days, monsters only get resists if it's clear that they really ought to (or if they're demons, which are basically a giant middle finger to spellcasters). Most opponents won't have fire resist to begin with; the pyromancer ability just means you don't get screwed over when you meet something that does.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh, and if you think _Burn Everything_ is interesting, look at _Surging Flame_:
> 
> This his hilarious as a pyromancer. With a little trivial set-up (hit an enemy with a fire power),it turns any fire resistance into Vulnerable 5 fire. In combo with Burn Everything, even immune creatures take extra damage.
> 
> ...




Admittedly, this is rather silly, but it makes a certain amount of sense that a pyromancer should be _more_ powerful against fire-themed foes rather than less. It's like necromancers fighting undead--you'd think a necromancer would be able to pwn most undead opponents, rather than struggling to affect them at all.

Besides, at that point you've dumped two feats into dealing with fire resistant/immune foes, when you already have the ability to ignore fire resist. Hardly worth it if you ask me.


----------



## Klaus (Feb 24, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Oh, and if you think _Burn Everything_ is interesting, look at _Surging Flame_:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"I burn you... with yourself!"
"OH, THE ELEMENTANITY!"


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 24, 2011)

Ok, ok.

Though this thread begs the question as to why even have resistance to damage in the game.


----------



## twilsemail (Feb 24, 2011)

Not particularly...

Unless you're intrinisicly tied to the element of fire (like a Pyromancer or a Dragon Sorcerer) it's still tough to burn a fire giant or a red dragon.  Seems both mechanically and thematically viable to me.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 24, 2011)

PCs are not the only source of damage out there. A fire-resistant monster can make good use of that resistance when fighting in fiery terrain.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 24, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> Ok, ok.
> 
> Though this thread begs the question as to why even have resistance to damage in the game.




Resistance is not 'How to balance classes'.  

Resistance is 'a tool DMs use to build encounters depending on the party he is facing.'

You want an encounter to be a bit harder, make some monsters resistance to certain members.  You want it to be easier, make some monsters vulnerable.

If you want to really muck it up, make some monsters vulnerable, some resistant, others immune, and make it a puzzle to see who has to do what to whom.


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 24, 2011)

You could have a “fire walk” trait or something like that, if the goal is to have the monster in a fire environment…

But lets take a typical party…

If your wizard is a pyromancer, he is now able to ignore pretty much any resistance. I guess there are some special cases…but almost blanket immunity. And just about every response on this thread has said that is a good thing. 

The martial characters also don’t really have to worry about it. non elemental DR is pretty much gone from 4E. Again, they may have a few minor effects that depend on an element, but it won’t be a big deal. 

Your cleric or paladin might do radiant damage, but almost nothing has resistance to that. 

Yes, you could come up with some random counter examples, but why? Why should you have a case where a pretty typical party just happens to ignore resistance, but some other characters happen not to? Wouldn’t it be simpler to take out of the game?


----------



## TerraDave (Feb 24, 2011)

Double post!


----------



## fuzzlewump (Feb 24, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> You could have a “fire walk” trait or something like that, if the goal is to have the monster in a fire environment…
> 
> But lets take a typical party…
> 
> ...



Yeah, it would be simpler. If I recall correctly Mearls was toying with the idea of taking out resistances and instead adding reactive abilities that monsters do upon being hit by something they would be resistant against.

But I think the balance in pyromancer vs. other wizards, or the resistance ignoring party vs. others is that sometimes you go against varied types of _vulnerabilities._ Having the fire mage will not do anything against the monster vuln. to psychic, ice, thunder, lightning, radiant, or what have you. A typical wizard might have that toolbox.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 24, 2011)

Not only did he only think about it, MM3 and monster vault make use of mearl´s ideas.


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 24, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> You could have a “fire walk” trait or something like that, if the goal is to have the monster in a fire environment…




Fire damage from other monsters (perhaps using area attacks). Fire damage from NPCs. PCs using non-specialized abilities (a regular wizard with a couple of fire spells). PCs using tactics that go beyond the scope of the written rules (start a brushfire). The D&D rules are not a closed system, and you cannot predict all possible sources of fire damage.

Basically, what we have here are two concerns:

Some creatures ought, by any sensible logic, to be resistant or immune to certain damage types (fire giants to fire; undead to poison; et cetera).
If a character is specialized in dealing a single damage type, that character will be utterly screwed when facing monsters that resist that damage type.
So, we address the first concern with the resistance and immunity mechanics. And we address the second concern by introducing feats and class features that allow PCs to bypass resistance (and sometimes immunity). These abilities are limited to those who are willing to pay a feat slot or choose a specialized class, so they are seldom seen among generalists, who still have to wrestle with the resistance question.

I find it hard to imagine a cleaner and more intuitive system that can adequately address both concerns. The game world does not consist purely of battles between monsters and single-element specialist PCs.


----------



## DragoonLance (Feb 24, 2011)

Yes, in the Monster Vault there is (IIRC) nothing with resistance but plenty of "you hit me with this and I react this way."  From the Flesh Golem being empowered with lightning attacks and fleeing from fire (FIRE BAD!!!) to the fire elemental being slowed by cold attacks.

The whole killing fire with more fire always makes me think of Dark Schneider who when facing Efreet the Fire Elemental knows that he should use cold magic, but he doesn't know any cold spells.  So instead he just uses the "Ultimate" fire spell to defeat it. 

DS: "I don't know any cold spells..."
E: "What's wrong boy, are you that helpless?"
DS: "Let the fires of Gehenna turn you to ash!"
E: "IMPOSSIBLE!!!! How can you summon a fire as strong as the sun?"
DS:  "And you kept on calling me boy.  Guess what, I'm older than you!"


----------



## Dausuul (Feb 24, 2011)

DragoonLance said:


> Yes, in the Monster Vault there is (IIRC) nothing with resistance but plenty of "you hit me with this and I react this way."  From the Flesh Golem being empowered with lightning attacks and fleeing from fire (FIRE BAD!!!) to the fire elemental being slowed by cold attacks.




You recall incorrectly. The Monster Vault has a pretty typical array of monsters with resistance, from giants to dragons to undead. (I think the fire elemental is an oversight. As for the flesh golem, golems being affected in odd ways by specific spells/attack types is a longstanding tradition in D&D.)


----------



## Damon_Tor (Feb 24, 2011)

Ignore Fire Resist is nothing new: it's present in a variety of PPs and EDs.  Fire-Maker characters have always been quite potent: I had a Reventant(Tiefling) Con-Inefernalock|Battlemind McWizard that tossed Burning Mark of Hell and Consuming the Weak on top of all the normal shenanigans.  Was pretty brutal.  Could be done with a Cha-Infernalock|Paladin too, but I liked Con for Blood Pact of Cania.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2011)

> Yes, you could come up with some random counter examples, but why? Why should you have a case where a pretty typical party just happens to ignore resistance, but some other characters happen not to? Wouldn’t it be simpler to take out of the game?




Things other than characters deal types of damage.

There are multiple types of damage to be resisted/not resisted.

"Typical parties" are frequently not actually relevant to a particular table, and you want to design monsters to cover a breadth of play experience. I'd debate that a "typical party" includes a pryomancer, forex. It's a magazine released build for Essentials. Plenty of tables will be skipping it.

Because if the priest busts out a fire spell or the warrior hits with a fire weapon, you want to be able to resist it, but if all of a character's attacks are fire powers, then you don't want to bilk that character. Since character types are not frequently monolithic about their damage type (plenty of prayers involve things other than radiant damage).


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 26, 2011)

I imagine attacking a fire elemental with fire is like punching a human.  It hurts, and you can kill them if you try hard.


----------



## Xris Robin (Feb 26, 2011)

DragoonLance said:


> The whole killing fire with more fire always makes me think of Dark Schneider who when facing Efreet the Fire Elemental knows that he should use cold magic, but he doesn't know any cold spells.  So instead he just uses the "Ultimate" fire spell to defeat it.
> 
> DS: "I don't know any cold spells..."
> E: "What's wrong boy, are you that helpless?"
> ...



This is actually the exact same thing I was thinking of.

Personally, while I don't think it's overpowered, I do think it makes the Dragon Sorcerer look a little less good.


----------



## DracoSuave (Feb 26, 2011)

Christopher Robin said:


> This is actually the exact same thing I was thinking of.
> 
> Personally, while I don't think it's overpowered, I do think it makes the Dragon Sorcerer look a little less good.




Dragon Sorcerers bring a lot more to a damage fight tho than your Pyromancer does.  Wizard powers are crap for damage compared to what a Sorcerer does with his.

I'd feel sorry for the sorcerer, except the wizard is still playing catch up and the head-start is OH SO LONG.


----------



## renau1g (Feb 26, 2011)

Yeah, I feel sorry for the sorcerers because their PP's are garbage, not because of this.


----------



## Aegeri (Feb 26, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> I think the fire elemental is an oversight.




It's not actually and is working as intended. As a general rule, a creature either has resistance or it will punish attacks directly. For example the Volcanic Dragon lacks fire resistance but really punishes anyone who hits it with a fire attack in a direct manner. In my experience, the more "direct" systems like the Volcanic Dragon just outright work better.

I am slowly moving to the point where I am removing most of the resistances/immunities (except for some) from creatures in my games entirely.


----------

