Pyrotechnics and Eschew Materials

I hope this is a simple question.

Can a Sorcerer or a Wizard with Eschew Materials cast Pyrotechnics without a source of fire as a source of fire is part of the material cost?

No. You need a fire source as the target of the spell.

I would say that it's not a component so much as a requirement. More relevantly, I would tell a player who was insisting on casting Pyrotechnics without a fire source, "Okay. Nothing happens, because the spell says it 'turns a fire into [...]' and there's no fire. Spell slot used, turn over. Next in initiative?"

Like stone shape without stone, nothing happens.

Sadly while you can ignore the need for a fire source to cast the spell, since it is the material component, the target is also a source of fire meaning you need one to cast the spell on.

One of those weird times when i think that the material componet aspect should have been left off.

However it would allow you to cast the spell while pinned if you can also cast it stilled.

Conveniently, a spellcaster with a spell component pouch always has fire on him. Fire is not a costly component and it could most certainly fit in a spell component pouch.

I am so very, very sorry for necro'ing this post. Having a heated debate over the above exact issue and I'm looking for an official ruling on this? I'm in the school of thought like you all above that Eschew Materials does NOT remove the need of the target. The other person believes that Eschew Materials removes the need for the material and as such also removes the target needed for spells such as Pyrotechnics and Fire Seed. I'm quite aware that this is a 9 year old post, just looking to see if we can get this stamped. I felt it was unnecessary to create a new post.

What rules do you possibly need?

Under the spell's entry for COMPONENTS there is "one fire source". Eschew Materials negates this, as the "one fire source" is not listed in the spell's COMPONENT requirements as needing to be of a certain value exceeding Eschew's Materials' maximum. Pretty sure we all agree on this part, right?

Okay, now, under the spell's TARGET requirements, there is also listed "one fire source"... do you have a source of fire to target? Yes or no?

If yes, you can cast the spell.

If no, you cannot cast the spell.

Why, or why not? Because you either do, or don't, meet the spell's TARGET requirements... literally nobody cares if Eschew Materials negates the COMPONENT requirements. They are two completely separate lists of requirements that both must be met.

Does Eschew Materials change the target of the spell?

Does Eschew Materials contain any specific rule language negating TARGET requirements?

No. Eschew Materials does nothing for the spell's TARGET requirements.

Therefore, you must still have "one source of fire" to TARGET in order to cast the spell...

Yeah, the person arguing says that Eschew Materials DOES replace the need for the target specifically for spells like pyrotechnics and fire seeds. Claims it's written RAW in the feat that (in the case of pyrotechnics) the flame isn't needed for the component, so why would one still be needed to target. Thus claiming that with the component not needed, neither is the target. This person says that I'M the one adding extra limitations to the rules that aren't there. I argue that he's removing pre-existing limitations that shouldn't be being removed, because the feat doesn't specify that it allows such. He claims that I'm the one doing my own unique interpretation and that his is RAW.

I agree with you Voodist, it's crystal clear to me and you that it doesn't allow such shenanigan, but the guy says unless he sees it in an errata or FAQ or ruled by someone official, that he'll continue to *know* his way is right. I know it's completely irrelevant at this point since PF1e is done and unlikely to get a ruling (and rightfully so after 1e being done for almost 2 years), but all of my groups and those I interact with haven't yet switched to 2e.

Components V, S, M (one fire source)

...Target one fire source, up to a 20-ft. cube

Pyrotechnics turns a fire into a burst of blinding fireworks or a thick cloud of choking smoke, depending on your choice. The spell uses one fire source, which is immediately extinguished.

Yeah, pyrotechnics needs a fire source both as the material component and, separately, as the target. The description tells you why it needs one. It's a transmutation spell so it operates by turning one thing into another, not by creating something from scratch.

The spell still needs a valid target, regardless of whether its material component is 1 fire source, 0 fire sources, or even 20 fire sources. It still needs to have a target. In this case, I think it's implied the spell typically uses the material component (which is destroyed/extinguished as per normal for material components, with the caveat that the spell states that magical fire sources are not). However, if he really wants to press the point, then like avr says, it's now 2 different fire sources. One as the target (which gets extinguished unless magical) and one as the material component (which gets destroyed during casting and which can be eschewed, Unless you get really fed up as the GM and just declare 'fire sources' to have an intrinsic 1 gp value in your game now... even if no one ever wants to buy one...)

Otherwise, the presence or absence of a component does not remove the need for a target; If you don't have hands or arms, then you can't cast Shadow claws because it requires a Somatic component. Even if you make it a Stilled spell and remove the need for having hands, it still does nothing because you have no hands for it to put claws on... and that's even with the target being You, which is a valid target.

If you have no mouth or tongue or other way to talk, just because you made your speak with dead spell into a Silent Spell... that doesn't let you now ask questions without speaking in some way. Just because casting it doesn't require speaking doesn't mean the spell doesn't still require speaking.

A creature with pyrotechnics as a spell-like ability, such as a red dragon, still needs to use it on a fire source to create the effect of the spell even though spell-like abilities don't have components.

... but the guy says unless he sees it in an errata or FAQ or ruled by someone official, that he'll continue to *know* his way is right. ...

It doesn't need to be errata'd or FAQ'd because it's very clear how it works.

Target or Targets

Some spells have a target or targets. You cast these spells on creatures or objects, as defined by the spell itself. You must be able to see or touch the target, and you must specifically choose that target. You do not have to select your target until you finish casting the spell.

He cannot see something that isn't there, nor can he touch something that isn't there.

Obviously this spells doesn't normally require touch, but seeing the fire source... it's less harmful to the caster. If he happened to have an invisible fire source or there was some kind of invisible flame in the area... he'd need see invisibility to target it... or he'd have to actually touch it (such as if he was holding a lit but invisible torch).

Either way... there has to be a target.

Thus claiming that with the component not needed, neither is the target.

My reaction would be "English, motherf&%%er. Do you speak it?" Seriously, this isn't even primarily a rule issue, it's about a person denying the meaning English words have. The person is de facto claiming that "target" and "component" have the same meaning. How do you even argue against that? This is elementary school level knowledge that's missing (presuming a native speaker). One would only take a quick look at a dictionary to grasp that the two words mean different things, and thus aren't interchangable. Alternatively, one could look at the spell description rules (CRB pg. 209-218), and quickly find out that those rules clearly seperate between "Components" and "Aiming a Spell" (which is where the rules on the game term "target" are found).

I agree with...pretty much everyone. Fire is both the component and the target. Eschew Materials deals with one but not the other. However, there is a slight difference: Targets are only checked at the end, so you can cast a spell without a legal target only to have it fizzle.

IOW, if you have Eschew Materials, you can cast Pyrotechnics without a fire sourse but I won't do anything except waste the spell slot (without Eschew Materials you could not cast it at all). So I suppose Adjurer's fellow player is technically correct ("the best kind of correct"), but not in a way that is in any way useful.

_
glass.

I applaud the patience of any GM who spends any time discussing or researching this, I would not be able to muster more than "no, it doesn't work you ninny, quit trying to cheese your way around being labeled a cheater."