Talk:Fire Mage (3.5e Class)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Comment[edit]

WOW... Dino 08:51, 8 April 2009 (MDT)

I actually know the story behind this one. Someone mentioned they had a new player to their DnD group, and the guy wanted to play a blaster-type character. But the person had some concerns about the character being unable to keep up with the rest of the group, who were fairly experienced. So Frank took some time and whipped up the Fire Mage for them, as something easy to play and which can run itself. --Genowhirl 09:34, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
Hey, different guy here, name's Hettar. Love the class! Only thing I was thinking was since all the abilities seem to be at will type stuff, one could call it a pyromancer and list them as supernatural abilities. Seems to fit the theme a bit better. Just an idea! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.242.71 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is well balanced (perhaps a little bit on the weak side) and synergies its abilities in a nice way. --Aarnott 10:34, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because there are no serious grammar/spelling infractions to report. --Aarnott 10:34, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it doesn't implement the extra preload stuff. It might be the preload that needs to be fixed and not the class, however. --Aarnott 10:34, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating negated; see also Talk:DnD Base Classes#Some Rating Nonsense Needs to Stop. --Green Dragon 12:05, 22 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it fits the role of a blaster mage quite well without having to worry about actual spell slots and such. Unique to fill a niche, yet generic enough to diversify. --Aarnott 10:34, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Rating negated; see also Talk:DnD Base Classes#Some Rating Nonsense Needs to Stop. --Green Dragon 12:05, 22 April 2009 (MDT)
Why was this part of the rating negated? Surgo 13:01, 22 April 2009 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because not over or under powered, a great class to use in game for the average player --67.181.101.32 23:24, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because I would just clarify a few points for this class, very good job though --67.181.101.32 23:24, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this was easy to convert iver into an actual character and met all v.3.5 standards --67.181.101.32 23:24, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because very good ideas but not quite what I would call a 5, still very good class --67.181.101.32 23:24, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Level Cap[edit]

Could you add more levels plz. Cause other than that this class is awesome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.55.253.247 (talkcontribs) 20:42, 10 December 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts!

See here as to reasoning behind the reduced number of class levels. -- Jota 23:07, 10 December 2009 (MST)
Classes need to be 20 levels so they, not only follow D&D rules, but also go into epic level. Who cares if the character is not the same — characters change; it's called gaining levels. --Green Dragon 23:11, 10 December 2009 (MST)
No, they don't need to be 20 levels. None of the groups I've played with have ever considered dealing with Epic's rules weirdness worth the payoff, and none of the games reached that high. The class is a good class for a new player to help them learn the mechanics and let them kick butt without requiring a lot of system mastery, so it does what it was designed to do. For other things, like the Knight, there's PrCs either written or possible to let them continue. --Genowhirl 23:36, 10 December 2009 (MST)
I thought their was a rule where you need a Base class to have 20 levels and a Prestige Class to have 10 levels in order to qualify for epic levels? But that rule only mentions entry into epic levels, not a necessity of amount of levels required for a class. Take paragon classes for example? --Jay Freedman 23:42, 10 December 2009 (MST)
Glad to hear certain groups you have played with do not reach epic level; that's irrelevant though. In D&D classes have 20 levels. That's what we are talking about. Prestige classes are, of course, different in both rules, epic, epic entry, and non. --Green Dragon 23:43, 10 December 2009 (MST)
May I point out the amazing simplicity and virtue of just ignoring that rule since it doesn't actually do anything for the game these days? Just like XP rules. It's marvelous how much things smooth out if the party levels up when the DM says they do. --Genowhirl 23:45, 10 December 2009 (MST)
Nope. D&D Wiki needs a structure and that is based of D&D. --Green Dragon 23:46, 10 December 2009 (MST)
Actually, second thought, I am in error there. It's a good houserule, but the D&D wiki is for normal D&D unless said otherwise. But this is, by Frank's own admission when he wrote this, an otherwise. I don't see what's to gain by making an issue over an intro class being an anomaly when it gets to last five levels of D&D. It fulfills its design goals, it holds its own in a game, it's fun to play. But, then, I've always preferred reason over logic. Logic does get thrown into a snarl when it hits an anomaly. --Genowhirl 23:58, 10 December 2009 (MST)
I was wondering who has the balls to edit one of Frank's classes? I most certainly would never edit one of his classes. Would you? --Jay Freedman 00:00, 11 December 2009 (MST)
Oh, I'm not saying this class is going to get deleted or anything. All I am saying is that this class does not meet D&D Wiki's goals for a class. I.e. "This page is incomplete and/or lacking flavor." implying for D&D Wiki and which area — completeness. --Green Dragon 00:04, 11 December 2009 (MST)
I don't see anything that says a base class must have 20 levels. I won't argue that 20 levels is typical, but after glancing through the PHB I saw nothing that would suggest a player must be able to play up to, and beyond, level 20, without having to multiclass. I see no reason to mark this class as incomplete. It's complete in my eyes. --Badger 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
For a higher level cap, see Fire Mage II (3.5e Class)

Edit war[edit]

There's got to be some compromise here. If this page uses some sort of house rules, then link to them and remove the wikify tag. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense to revert a user for their good-faith effort at bringing this class up to minimum standards for this wiki. I don't know who this "Frank and K" is (are?), but I've seen that name around here enough to know that they are venerated users and their work is just short of divine. However, this is a wiki. If Frank and K creates something on this website, it is no longer their property. It's unfortunate, but that's part of the agreement you make every time you sumbit anything to (almost) any wiki.

So instead of fruitless edit wars, let's actually try and be productive here. JazzMan 15:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering when someone would get around to asking. Well, okay, go check the 3.5 Homebrew sourcebooks for Tome of Necromancy, Tome of Fiends, Dungeonomicon, and Races of War. They were written by two guys--Frank and Keith--as spot fixes for some of the knottier parts of D&D rules. The F&K classes around here are (mostly) copied from those, so it does not make sense for them to be out in the Base and Prestige class lists in a different form from the original. Check 'im out if you want to. In any case, this class was written up as an introduction to blasting mages to be handed to beginner players. If you notice, it's very self-contained and even though it's strong, it's hard to swing the power significantly one way or another. It works pretty well right as it is, despite (or perhaps because of?) the unorthodox mechanics it uses. Unorthodox mechanics are, however, unorthodox and people often have a knee-jerk reaction to them. I've been keeping an eye on it to make sure no one just jumps in and changes things around because they can't see how the class can be right. If they have any issues with it, I will be glad to discuss it with them here on the talk pages and we can come to a consensus before they jump the gun.
If the classes from wiki sourcebooks could be put in a section unto themselves, that might smooth out some of the problems and require less attention all around to this. Speaking of which, the Homebrew Sourcebook page really needs to get cleaned up; it seems to be serving a sort of junk drawer for oddities on the site right now. --Genowhirl 17:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I see now that there is a tiiiiny little category way down at the bottom that says "Tome". I haven't read through the Tome material, but it seems like it should be treated separately than the rest of the content. Maybe even give it a different identifier, like we do with campaign settings. If this were labeled "Fire Mage (3.5e Tome Class)", then it would be clear that this is supposed to use different rules. In addition, a Tome Breadcrumb or NavBox should be used so that you can easily tell what rules are meant to be different.
Unfortunately, moving pages has been broken for over a month now, and I don't even know if there's a timeline for when it will get fixed. Cleanup is really hard to do if you can't move things around; it's currently messing up some of the things I want to do. In the mean time, if IPs keep changing this page I'll protect it from anonymous edits. JazzMan 18:21, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The protect would be very welcome, good sir. As would that category, if the Wiki ever gets straightened out. --Genowhirl 21:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rating[edit]

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is over powered --173.206.96.124 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is well thought up and makes sense --173.206.96.124 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because this class is over powered, its not because it doesnt have a spell limit, it can't do enough damage to require a spell limit. it is over powered because the spells it has are too powerfull for it's levels. I edited this class a while back spaceing out the spells and giving the class 20 levels and it makes a world of difference, also the saves are too high and not evened out in the slightest. --173.206.96.124 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because you can do alot with a spicy character --173.206.96.124 20:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

5/5 is perfect. If it's overpowered, I don't think you want it to have a perfect power rating. Also, formatting has to do with, uh, formatting, not power rating. JazzMan 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Issue[edit]

just to point out to whoever made this page, the picture used is not a free picture, it is owned and not for reproduction, and it is actually the picture of a time mage, she is the main character of a story. --this guy! 05:02, 5 july 2010(EST)

Is this in fact a copyrighted image? Can you tell us more specifically where the image comes from? We'll remove it if need be. --Badger 21:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Illustration is by the artist Stephan A. McGowan, and he explicitly states "Free to use as your personal desktop. Not to be re-used, redistuributed, cut up and made into things like avis and banners, site layouts, themes, products or any other rape of my work without my expressed, written permission. Watermark will not be removed.", so it should be removed or someone should ask for permission.
http://budgie.deviantart.com/art/The-Defiant-Yhihre-54966084

Recent Edits[edit]

Allright, I know you mean well, but this class was intentionally designed as a newbie-friendly class for people who want to play a blaster, to break them in on area-of-effect, damage types, and other relevant mechanics. Spells-per-day is counter-intuitive to that and adds a lot of bookkeeping that a new player doesn't need. Sure, the Fire Mage is strong, but I can't think of any ways to actually swing its power significantly higher or lower and I know a lot of the usual tricks to look for. It's rather hard to mess a fire mage character up, seeing as how their class features are pretty self-contained, and the at-will abilities means the character can last all day, and the abilities to penetrate fire resistance and immunity means they aren't even stonewalled, so they can contribute even when they're fighting a fire giant or something.. The d6's of damage -looks- high, but remember that 10d6 is about 35 damage on average--and level 10 things tend to have HP well over a hundred. If you want to discuss these, please, let's do it. I enjoy talking things out and seeing another viewpoint. But at least know why the class was written like it is. --Genowhirl 01:24, 9 September 2010 (MDT)


I added a cap for some abilities (10d6), as well as, max use per day to some. I left the core Fire Bolt ability unchanged. I see that ability has having no limit. But some abilities, such as, raining 20d6 damage to all things you see and inflicting 20d10 damage to all things within 10' of you seems a bit.....cheesy.

Rating[edit]

Power - <<<3>>>/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<it's not magic based although this would make a great class, as far as fire mages go there are enough fire-based spells and abilities that should be use instead of these. it just seems to be a amalgam of other classes' abilities with the wrd "fire" in front of them.>>> --65.78.120.236 11:16, 16 November 2010 (MST)

Wording - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<it's clear and lacks spelling errors>>> --65.78.120.236 11:16, 16 November 2010 (MST)

Formatting - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<it's very easy to read and understand>>> --65.78.120.236 11:16, 16 November 2010 (MST)

Flavor - <<<2>>>/5 I give this class a <<<2>>> out of 5 because <<<you get these abilities separatly with better classes that each work better than this one.>>> --65.78.120.236 11:16, 16 November 2010 (MST)


Rating[edit]

Power - 6/5 I give this class a 6 out of 5 because there is no limit to the number of time the caster can do an of the abilities it has. it also has a d8 hit die, which is unheard of in arcane caster classes. as much as i wanted to see a pure fire based mage, this one is to overpowered and will throw game mechanics out of wack. --Nutcase65 10:09, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

This is, as you might surmise, a combat-blaster mage. This class's WHOLE SHTICK is they burn things. Unfortunately, burning things to death takes a while in D&D. The reason all its powers are at-will is because, well, they're going to be at it multiple turns per monster. At-will is not overpowered here, it's necessary. If a class could throw down Color Spray-at will with no HD cap, that's overpowered. Same with Black Tentacles. But evocation and direct HP damage in general actually sucks a combat option compared to things like Entangle, Color Spray, Glitterdust, Solid Fog, and Sickening Cloud. So, yes, you think a class that can use the least combat-effective kinds of spells at-will is overpowered? Hate to see what you think of a level 3 Druid casting Entangled or a Wizard using Sleep on someone. And this throws out mechanics out of whack HOW? It's really a rather self-contained, easy-to-play class. There's not much you can do to mess this class up or swing it higher. Rain of Fire isn't even that bad since at level 15, if a DM's throwing army's worth of junk at players, that's a plot device. --Genowhirl 11:00, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

Wording - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --Nutcase65 10:09, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --Nutcase65 10:09, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --Nutcase65 10:09, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

Ok, you can't give something 6/5 (and if you were going for "it's overpowered" then you were looking for -1/5), and you need to complete the rest of the categories. If you just want to discuss the power of the class then don't bother with the rating template. JazzMan 10:30, 15 October 2011 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because its moves are just stupidly over powered and it ignores basic DnD rules involving fire resist and immunity. --173.245.55.109 13:26, 15 April 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I do not have much problems with understanding how it works. --173.245.55.109 13:26, 15 April 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because formatting was fine but did not seem to follow normal DnD standards --173.245.55.109 13:26, 15 April 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it is just a fire spec sorcerer who someone tried to make it broken beyond belief. If it is compared to other classes then no one would play another dps caster cause nothing can stop this one. --173.245.55.109 13:26, 15 April 2012 (MDT)

Rating[edit]

Power - <<<6>>>/5 I give this class a <<<6>>> out of 5 because <<<It gives too many skill points per level, reduce to 2+Int, Reduce Hit Dice to d6, and perhaps award only one good save. As it stands, it is overpowered, perhaps broken with the casting mechanic, but is a flavorful enough idea to warrant revising >>> --173.245.50.121 09:13, 3 June 2012 (MDT)

Wording - <<<3>>>/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording on the spell casting is terrible, and easily correctable. The following may actually be a power issue, but let's assume it is simply a typo: many abilities have seemingly in-congruent type-tags. For example, "Fire Resistance" for a WIZARD type is likely not an EX ability; it is a function of their magical aptitude. There is no biological reason for them to retain it. If that is the intent, a modified fire-subtype would be a better feature. Other tags bear similar inconsistencies >>> --173.245.50.121 09:13, 3 June 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<4>>>/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<While needing some additional flushing out, formatting is good overall. >>> --173.245.50.121 09:13, 3 June 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<5>>>/5 I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<it is an excellent idea. While the archetype is rather common, no analogue for the Pyrokinceticist has really come so close to a fun magic-focused duplication. >>> --173.245.50.121 09:13, 3 June 2012 (MDT)


Rating[edit]

Power - 4/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --72.174.8.241 11:38, 4 May 2013 (MDT)

Wording - 2/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --72.174.8.241 11:38, 4 May 2013 (MDT)

Formatting - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --72.174.8.241 11:38, 4 May 2013 (MDT)

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --72.174.8.241 11:38, 4 May 2013 (MDT)

Fireball[edit]

Why not make fireball the same as the spell with caster level equal to the image's?

Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors