Questions about fire and fire spells

[Carlos]

Greetings,

I've seen here in the forum some people mentioning Fireball as the weakest/least interesting missile spell. Besides style preference, it seems pretty clear that the main reason to choose Fireball as a missile spell is to set things on fire (B. 433-434).

Assuming a standard Magery 3 wizard with Fireball and some other fire spells, I'd like to know:

• What is the level of "flammability class" (B. 433) of an animal with fur (like a wolf, a bear or a giant rat) or feather (like a giant hawk)?
  
• Presuming the animal didn't take any active action to put out the fire, once the fur/feather is gone, is the animal still on fire? Or the fire is over, unless the initial damage was 30 points of damage or more?
  
• Once a enemy is on fire and taking 1d-1 damage per second, Fast Fire (Magic, p. 73) seems to increase this damage. But about the energy cost and damage, the spell just says "2 for a double-rate fire, 3 for a triple-rate fire, and so on". So if a wizard is willing to spend 10 energy points or more, he can make the fire burn for 10d-10 of damage (or more) for second? Is there any limit?

I think that's all for now. As I plus, I may also ask: Do you have any fire spell combo that makes your fire mage more deadly?

Thanks in advance.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Carlos

• What is the level of "flammability class" (B. 433) of an animal with fur (like a wolf, a bear or a giant rat) or feather (like a giant hawk)?

I'd call that Resistant if it burns all the way off. It's hard to crisp fur away completely.

Originally Posted by Carlos

• Presuming the animal didn't take any active action to put out the fire, once the fur/feather is gone, is the animal still on fire? Or the fire is over, unless the initial damage was 30 points of damage or more?

I'd think you'd still need to hit the Highly Resistant threshold myself for it to continue "baking" the target.

Originally Posted by Carlos

• Once a enemy is on fire and taking 1d-1 damage per second, Fast Fire (Magic, p. 73) seems to increase this damage. But about the energy cost and damage, the spell just says "2 for a double-rate fire, 3 for a triple-rate fire, and so on". So if a wizard is willing to spend 10 energy points or more, he can make the fire burn for 10d-10 of damage (or more) for second? Is there any limit?

That seems to follow - the GM would have to set the limit I think. Maybe up to dice equal to the caster's Magery.

Originally Posted by Carlos

I think that's all for now. As I plus, I may also ask: Do you have any fire spell combo that makes your fire mage more deadly?

I personally like treating magical fire as "hotter than normal" and give all magical fire a free level of Incendiary in the basic spell system. To do that with the basic system you'd need Adjustable Spell and then use that to add the Incendiary modifier to Fireball. It costs 2 extra FP and is -2 to the skill roll, but lets you treat your subject as if his flammability class were one step higher. Adding higher levels is possible - but expensive. Treating the flammability class as two higher would cost 14 extra FP and be at -14 to skill, three steps would be 26 extra FP and be at -26, and four steps (the highest) would 68 FP and -68! Of course, you probably don't need higher three levels at which point you can set stone on fire for a measly three points.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I personally like treating magical fire as "hotter than normal" and give all magical fire a free level of Incendiary in the basic spell system. To do that with the basic system you'd need Adjustable Spell and then use that to add the Incendiary modifier to Fireball. It costs 2 extra FP and is -2 to the skill roll, but lets you treat your subject as if his flammability class were one step higher. Adding higher levels is possible - but expensive. Treating the flammability class as two higher would cost 14 extra FP and be at -14 to skill, three steps would be 26 extra FP and be at -26, and four steps (the highest) would 68 FP and -68! Of course, you probably don't need higher three levels at which point you can set stone on fire for a measly three points.

Where can I find the rules about adding higher levels? The advantage itself (both in Basic Set and Powers) is listed as a non-leveled advantage.

About the Adjustable Spell option from Thaumatology, I think it's kind of "outdated". IMHO, Imbuements are by far a better way to improve damage-dealing and defensive spells through modifiers. And imbuements are so cool that Kromm even stated ("Ten for ten" - Pyramid Magazine #3/70, p. 15) his wish that they had at least a basic presence in Basic Set Characters. My only point is that Multi-shot needs special attention to prevent wizards to become god-like blasting things and breaking your game (it happened with me once!!!). Otherwise, imbuements are great to boost mages/wizards "combatility" (although it also improve non-magic users as well). Personaly I don't see why a GM would allow Adjustable Spells and forbid magical imbuements.

However, I must to admit that your given example is really good. It's not insanely expensive (like most effects would be, as far as I can see) and the effect is really potent.

In any case, the Fast Fire spells seems to make the Fireball (and any other fire spells) a more serious threat. A 3d-3 damage (or even more) per second, plus -3 to all DX rolls seems really anoying.

So after all, Fireball isn't that bad...

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Where can I find the rules about adding higher levels? The advantage itself (both in Basic Set and Powers) is listed as a non-leveled advantage.

GURPS Power-Ups 4: Enhancements, p. 19.

Originally Posted by Carlos

About the Adjustable Spell option from Thaumatology, I think it's kind of "outdated". IMHO, Imbuements are by far a better way to improve damage-dealing and defensive spells through modifiers. And imbuements are so cool that Kromm even stated ("Ten for ten" - Pyramid Magazine #3/70, p. 15) his wish that they had at least a basic presence in Basic Set Characters. My only point is that Multi-shot needs special attention to prevent wizards to become god-like blasting things and breaking your game (it happened with me once!!!). Otherwise, imbuements are great to boost mages/wizards "combatility" (although it also improve non-magic users as well). Personaly I don't see why a GM would allow Adjustable Spells and forbid magical imbuements.

I don't like the +5% equal 1 FP and -1 to skill either. When I run and use those rules I change them thusly: "Each +10% adds a -1 to your skill and every full +20% (round up) adds +1 to FP cost." Imbuements are good. I use them often, rarely with spells. If I were going to create a artillery mage like this though, I'd buy Imbue Fireball! And go from there.

Originally Posted by Carlos

In any case, the Fast Fire spells seems to make the Fireball (and any other fire spells) a more serious threat. A 3d-3 damage (or even more) per second, plus -3 to all DX rolls seems really anoying.

Yup. Fighting while on fire is next to impossible. Or so I've been told. I only set myself on fire that one time and I had a pool handy to deal with it. Although, the accelerant did cause the inflatable to explode rather loudly.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

I don't like the +5% equal 1 FP and -1 to skill either. When I run and use those rules I change them thusly: "Each +10% adds a -1 to your skill and every full +20% (round up) adds +1 to FP cost." Imbuements are good. I use them often, rarely with spells. If I were going to create a artillery mage like this though, I'd buy Imbue Fireball! And go from there.

That makes Adjustable Spell far more viable. Not as good as imbuements, but much more appealing than RAW. If only this rule was written like that... Perhaps a Pyramid Magazine could fix that.

Using your rules, make a Fireball with Area of Effect 4 cost 5 extra energy points and a -10 to cast Fireball, which could be bought off as a technique (True Fireball). Or even a Chain Lightning. Very appealing.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Carlos

That makes Adjustable Spell far more viable. Not as good as imbuements, but much more appealing than RAW. If only this rule was written like that... Perhaps a Pyramid Magazine could fix that.

Using your rules, make a Fireball with Area of Effect 4 cost 5 extra energy points and a -10 to cast Fireball, which could be bought off as a technique (True Fireball). Or even a Chain Lightning. Very appealing.

It makes them far more used than they otherwise are. I know, I've used both and there is a marked difference in their use.

[Carlos]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

It makes them far more used than they otherwise are. I know, I've used both and there is a marked difference in their use.

Is there any chance to have it published in a Pyramid Magazine with some few examples of ready-to-use modified spells? You know, eletronic games are an awesome material for inspiration.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Carlos

Is there any chance to have it published in a Pyramid Magazine with some few examples of ready-to-use modified spells? You know, eletronic games are an awesome material for inspiration.

Possibly, but as a purely optional rule. The RAW already exists and you can't really bend that but some much unless you use a "optional rule clause."

[Blind Mapmaker]

Originally Posted by Ghostdancer

Possibly, but as a purely optional rule. The RAW already exists and you can't really bend that but some much unless you use a "optional rule clause."

Well that depends on how you define the bending. Antoni Ten Monrós Essential Magic spells are already built on that principle (cf. Pyramid 3.25 p. 20). Granted they are secret, need Magery 4 and are learned spells instead of modifications on the fly, but given these conditions none of the powers that be seemed to have had a problem with that. Oh, and let's not forget that he also waived the skill penalty.

As capstone spells that are the secret pinnacle of a college they are quite viable and much cheaper than a technique based on Adjustable Spell. I regard the latter more as something you do when you need flexibility now and don't mind burning through your 10-point powerstone.

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Blind Mapmaker

Well that depends on how you define the bending. Antoni Ten Monrós Essential Magic spells are already built on that principle (cf. Pyramid 3.25 p. 20). Granted they are secret, need Magery 4 and are learned spells instead of modifications on the fly, but given these conditions none of the powers that be seemed to have had a problem with that. Oh, and let's not forget that he also waived the skill penalty.

As capstone spells that are the secret pinnacle of a college they are quite viable and much cheaper than a technique based on Adjustable Spell. I regard the latter more as something you do when you need flexibility now and don't mind burning through your 10-point powerstone.

Yeah, Toni and I collaborated on that a bit (most of our work is seen by the other at the early phase) and this was something I complained about. A lot. I was very glad it made it in like it did - in fact it helped set the tone of a (as of yet unpublished) article.