Staff of Infinite Wishes (aka Staff of Wishful Thinking)


Advice

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Ravingdork wrote:
LazarX wrote:
No, it's just a reminder that most of the things and characters that RD comes up with have never actually been tested in play.
This is true. Easily 80% of the things I talk about have never been playtested.

That is where you and me differ. Everything that I post on my own has been tested at least 5 times.

I would have the Spell Component set the effect it can do.

So a Permanency with you paying 10,000 GP as the Components cost it can Permanency the effects up to 10,000 GP.

Restoration if you pay the 1000 GP you can get any of its effects. If it is 100 GP you can't have it remove Permanent Negative Levels.


Ravingdork wrote:


If I were to fix, I would simply seperate the material component costs. When using a staff, you must provide the components. Period.

That's the band-aid against the abuse.. it doesn't fix the use side, which is a fault of the pricing.

Rather than the opened ended scaling that they have given (which simply doesn't work right), make staff templates and list costs of those... THEN add that costly material components and the like need to be supplied.

As it stands this is how you make a customized staff:

Pick one spell that you want. Take 2 other spells of equal or higher level and include them in at 10charges/use. Then optionally add detect magic.

You would NEVER want to have a 2nd 'real' spell on a staff, as it almost doubles the cost! Better to have a 2nd staff and another 10 charges.

The only savings is drawing staves in combat. And that's just not worth the cost you are talking about here. Gloves of storing and the like will prove cheaper for many.

-James


Ravingdork wrote:

Trying to work out an old idea. Please tell me if I have this right.

A staff with wish (2 charges) and limited wish (1 charge) only costs 832,600gp on the market (766,300gp to craft), meaning a 20th-level character could afford it.

An arcane sorcerer with such a staff, could cast said spells by substituting 3 levels of spell slots per charge (six 1st-level spells for wish, one 3rd-level spell for limited wish, one 6th-level spell for wish, etc.).

Breakdown
Highest Level Spell: Wish, 9 x 17 x 400 / 2 + 25,000 x 50 = 655,600gp
Secondary Spell: Limited Wish, 7 x 17 x 300 + 1,500 x 50 = 110,700gp

655,600 + 110,700 = 766,300gp to craft

Does everything check out? Does this really allow a player to effectively have infinite wishes that don't require the material component cost?

I imagine many GMs might not allow this, even at such high levels, but a player could still potentially make a staff of FREE unlimited limited wishes at a substantially lower cost at lower levels.

Why not have have wish take 9 charges so it's 9 x 17 x 400/9 +25k X 50 so its 31,732gp+110700 unless I did something wrong as I think I did.


The idea is to get multiple wishes to enable a +5 inherent score in all your attributes each week. Because you have to cast the wishes in close succession... you need the higher cost/less charges used option.


Tacticslion wrote:
The idea is to get multiple wishes to enable a +5 inherent score in all your attributes each week. Because you have to cast the wishes in close succession... you need the higher cost/less charges used option.

right although does it have to be one right after the other because the limited wish would take a mere turn to cast.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
If I were to fix, I would simply seperate the material component costs. When using a staff, you must provide the components. Period.

It answers part of the problem. But not as elegantly as the GM coming out and saying this after examinging obviously broken items such as this.

Player: Can I make my Staff of Infinite Wishing now?

Me: Do you have a formula for such a staff

Player: No.

Me: Then you shall have to research such a formula, that's assuming such a formula can be made.

Player then goes and spends a few thousand in research, after getting several No results in a row gets the idea that such a staff is not going to be made by him or anyone else he can find. That there is no formula for such a staff and no one can come up with one.

Ultimately the responsibility for keeping magic balanced is on GM's And sometimes you have to tell your players.... NO.


So, what if you make multiple staffs of wishing at higher charge rates to be cheaper but you cast from more of them to reach the goal?

Does it all even out, or do you end up with a cheaper option with, say, five staves?


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So, what if you make multiple staffs of wishing at higher charge rates to be cheaper but you cast from more of them to reach the goal?

Does it all even out, or do you end up with a cheaper option with, say, five staves?

It would cost 712,160 so you would save 54,140gp


The hidden cost on that, though, would be the time. Because you'd have to wait forty-five days instead of ten to regain all your wishes.

Liberty's Edge

I could see a Staff of Infinite Wishes (or the secret ingredient needed to make one work) being the MacGuffin at the center of a high-level campaign. Of course, if and when the PCs finally got their hands on it, that would be more or less the end of said campaign.

Contributor

I've never liked the "cast in immediate succession" rule since it presses characters' noses to the fourth wall of game mechanics too much. I just handwave that requirement away and say that every wish can be used for an inherent bonus, max +5, and if someone with a +3 bonus from previous wishes reads a tome of +5, he only reads out two wishes worth of content, leaving a +3 tome (the chapters he skipped of stuff he already knew).

Then again, I've also had diamonds and other gemstones used as spell components make change, so if you have a 53,838 GP diamond and use it to cast a Wish, part of it cracks or melts for 25,000 GP worth, still leaving you with a valuable stone--and saving the sanity of dwarven gemcutters who want to be cutting the gems of legend, not just whacking stones into convenient "wish coupon" denominations.


My response to a character purposing this.

"You see and old man step out from behind a pile of stone on the ground. He raises up his hand as if to say something only to have lighting explode from his fingers. You take 60 points of damage."

But yes it does seem possible as supported by the prior posts/threads.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Shogun of Harlem wrote:

My response to a character purposing this.

"You see and old man step out from behind a pile of stone on the ground. He raises up his hand as if to say something only to have lighting explode from his fingers. You take 60 points of damage."

But yes it does seem possible as supported by the prior posts/threads.

Possible is not the right word. Parsible in that you can parse such a staff through the staff item creation formula.

But it's the GM's call on whether it's possible as there is absolutely no requirement that he MUST allow anything that can be put through the equation.


Kevin Andrew Murphy wrote:

I've never liked the "cast in immediate succession" rule since it presses characters' noses to the fourth wall of game mechanics too much. I just handwave that requirement away and say that every wish can be used for an inherent bonus, max +5, and if someone with a +3 bonus from previous wishes reads a tome of +5, he only reads out two wishes worth of content, leaving a +3 tome (the chapters he skipped of stuff he already knew).

Then again, I've also had diamonds and other gemstones used as spell components make change, so if you have a 53,838 GP diamond and use it to cast a Wish, part of it cracks or melts for 25,000 GP worth, still leaving you with a valuable stone--and saving the sanity of dwarven gemcutters who want to be cutting the gems of legend, not just whacking stones into convenient "wish coupon" denominations.

I do similar things. It's funny, though, I never thought about the "make change" option (mostly I just allow them to cast it if they've got the funds, rather than requiring gems).

And yeah, I suppose to be on-topic, it seems legit.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For me, a GM saying "no" to the creation of a simple spell staff (as opposed to one with other abilities like a staff of power) would be like having a GM say "no" to a scroll of restoration, a potion of cure light wounds, or a wand of fireball.

As far as I'm concerned the rules explicitly allow for, and expect it. If I were GM though, I would be on the lookout for cheesy cost saving measures like those described by James Maissen.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So, what if you make multiple staffs of wishing at higher charge rates to be cheaper but you cast from more of them to reach the goal?

Does it all even out, or do you end up with a cheaper option with, say, five staves?

Making multiple wish staves would cost substantially more gold, as the material component cost is not reduced by making the spell eat up more charges.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
As far as I'm concerned the rules explicitly allow for, and expect it.

And that's where I disagree with you totally. The rules ALLOW for a ring, or a sword, or a bow, with true strike constantly on. The supplementary text however points this out as an example of something that GM's not only can house rule but SHOULD house rule against.

Rules can't "expect" anything, they're just text on paper. It's the people that design and those who execute that have expectations they make and they meet.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
As far as I'm concerned the rules explicitly allow for, and expect it.

And that's where I disagree with you totally. The rules ALLOW for a ring, or a sword, or a bow, with true strike constantly on. The supplementary text however points this out as an example of something that GM's not only can house rule but SHOULD house rule against.

Rules can't "expect" anything, they're just text on paper. It's the people that design and those who execute that have expectations they make and they meet.

I'm specifically referring to spell trigger/spell completion items and potions, which have set formulas. Unless he is deliberately cheesing the system somehow*, a player should expect to be able to make these types of items in a standard game without much interference from the GM. That's all I mean to say.

* A staff that grants infinite free wishes, or artificially trying to reduce the costs, qualifies here.


RD, based on reading this thread it appears to me that a majority of your peers would consider this staff you are describing as very much "deliberately cheesing the system somehow."

That's certainly MY opinion anyway.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No doubt about that, AD. :D


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

RD, based on reading this thread it appears to me that a majority of your peers would consider this staff you are describing as very much "deliberately cheesing the system somehow."

That's certainly MY opinion anyway.

The problem really lies with the staff creation rules, which unlike the table of suggested costs for potential new items.. is a flat rule for creation. And it's a bad rule.

As it stands, staves will either cost far too much or they will be 'cheesing' the system. It really needs a better system.

RD is just throwing out an extreme example. It's part of the core rules, however. Just look at the core rule book and you see them using these 'loopholes' directly (Staff of Life anyone?).

Mind you I think it's more likely an oversight in Paizo's change to recharging staves... but still they need some work and love to bring them into line as they are crossing both sides willy-nily here.

-James


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Staff of life eh? A fine example!


James, as has been discussed at length and in depth, the magic item creation, buying and selling rules are an absolute incomprehensible mess.

And as has been made abundantly clear, Paizo has no plans to do anything about them.


What in the world makes storage of such an item in a Glove of Storage secure or safe? Items in extradimensional space are not immune from theft. They are merely immune from easy and/or nonmagical theft. A Wish or Limited Wish (or custom-built lower level spell) ought to be sufficient to retrieve items from an extradimensional space, and the owner of the item creating said space wouldn't even get a save, as the items within could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered "attended".

No one would waste such spells on common items, of course, but even enchanted items considerably less puissant than a Staff of Wishes would not necessarily be "safe" in a Glove of Storage.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zog of Deadwood wrote:

What in the world makes storage of such an item in a Glove of Storage secure or safe? Items in extradimensional space are not immune from theft. They are merely immune from easy and/or nonmagical theft. A Wish or Limited Wish (or custom-built lower level spell) ought to be sufficient to retrieve items from an extradimensional space, and the owner of the item creating said space wouldn't even get a save, as the items within could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered "attended".

No one would waste such spells on common items, of course, but even enchanted items considerably less puissant than a Staff of Wishes would not necessarily be "safe" in a Glove of Storage.

Then there's always the "slug'em in the back of the head and strip anything that glows under detect magic" method.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zog of Deadwood wrote:

What in the world makes storage of such an item in a Glove of Storage secure or safe? Items in extradimensional space are not immune from theft. They are merely immune from easy and/or nonmagical theft. A Wish or Limited Wish (or custom-built lower level spell) ought to be sufficient to retrieve items from an extradimensional space, and the owner of the item creating said space wouldn't even get a save, as the items within could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered "attended".

No one would waste such spells on common items, of course, but even enchanted items considerably less puissant than a Staff of Wishes would not necessarily be "safe" in a Glove of Storage.

It's not an extradimensional space. If it were, you might have been able to argue that it was unattended. It's actually just shrunk down really small. It is literally still in its wielder's hand.

To get it away, even with a wish, would allow for a saving throw at the very least.


Umm Material Component costs are reduced...

Creating Staves wrote:


The creator must have prepared the spells to be stored (or must know the spells, in the case of a sorcerer or bard) and must provide any focus the spells require as well as material component costs sufficient to activate the spell 50 times (divide this amount by the number of charges one use of the spell expends). Material components are consumed when he begins working, but focuses are not. (A focus used in creating a staff can be reused.) The act of working on the staff triggers the prepared spells, making them unavailable for casting during each day of the staff 's creation. (That is, those spell slots are expended from the caster's currently prepared spells, just as if they had been cast.)

Emphasis Mine.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Umm Material Component costs are reduced...

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle!

On the plus side, my numbers in the OP are still looking correct. :P


PEMDAS maybe...


Ravingdork wrote:

It's not an extradimensional space. If it were, you might have been able to argue that it was unattended. It's actually just shrunk down really small. It is literally still in its wielder's hand.

To get it away, even with a wish, would allow for a saving throw at the very least.

You know, you're right. I didn't bother to look up that item first, so I forgot that detail about it.

Nonetheless, as any gamer knows (especially one as inventive as you), there is no such thing as perfect security. A 2nd level Arcane Archer who can cast 6th level spells with an arrow of Antimagic Field and a brawny companion ready to grab the staff away from the now nerfed and magicless caster with a nonmagical stick in his hand would have an excellent shot at it.

Somewhat contrived? Absolutely. But the point is, for an item like that, people and non-people WOULD contrive schemes to get it away.

And assuming that they all failed, sure, your character has got a nifty way to break WBL even more than he or she already has, as Wish-gained inherent bonuses count against WBL, but what GM would ever let you play such cheesed-out characters?

I'll reiterate what I said in my first post. It is a gedankenexperiment, an interesting one even, but has no relation to the game as it is actually played.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

A GM not willing to let someone be a little power-cheesed at the TWENTIETH level end game, is probably not a GM I want to play under. The game has already likely lost any real sense of balance by that point, so having such an item will make very little difference I think. Any GM who has to maintain absolute control all the way to the final die roll is a bit of a control freak if you ask me.

If your players actually make it that far, they freaking DESERVE IT.


I think your definition of "a little" and mine might differ "a little".

But as we say a lot on these forums, YMMV.

Grand Lodge

Zog of Deadwood wrote:

I think your definition of "a little" and mine might differ "a little".

That's what she said.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

At 20th-level, everything is so far gone that it doesn't matter which terms you use, so you might as well just have fun. That's the point I was trying to make.

101 to 134 of 134 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Staff of Infinite Wishes (aka Staff of Wishful Thinking) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.