I WISH I knew how to use wish better


Rules Questions


Ok pun title aside, I was hoping to ask about an odd line in limited wish. I've been looking for a way to reduce the saves of an undead creature. They're immune to my usual options, and looking for new ideas I came across this line in limited wish:

"Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a -7 penalty on its next saving throw"

This seems a fairly interesting use of a 'limited' wish. One automatic hit, or a -7 to saves without a specific type. I have to wonder, if you had several people using 'limited' wish, could you wish for this -7 saves to be of a specific type, or is this supposed to be specified? Like could you wish for a -7 'age' penalty, a -7 curse, a -7 bad luck penalty, etc? It seems logical to think it's the same spell so it's the same source = no stacking, but can the wish circumvent that with some wordplay?

My other thought here is if a 'limited' wish can do this, what would a 'wish' spell do? If I wished to reduce an opponent's saves as much as possible, would it emulate limited wish for a -7, or would it be a higher bonus for a higher spell? If a limited wish = one automatic hit, would a wish = one critical, or maybe auto hits for a full round attack? Wish can clearly go a step above 'limited wish' as the spells it can emulate are of a higher level, so shouldn't these numbers increase? Yet there's no mention of it in the spell. I've tried looking for an answer in the faq, on google, and even bing, but I'm not finding anything. I refuse to believe I'm the first to ponder this, yet I can't find anything on this. If it's on here and I missed I'll be the first to apologize, but this is bugging me at the moment and clarification would be nice. Thank you for your time!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The reason it isn't on here is because those spells have been left completely in GM territory outside the suggested ways to use them.
I'd say Wish should have a vast difference in power to limited wish when it comes to save penalty and automatic hits because not only is it two levels higher it is also 16 times as expensive (minimum)


The main thing I use wishes for at high levels is as a guaranteed escape route when I really, really need to get out of Dodge while flipping the bird to dimensional locks and similar defenses. Alternately, to add on inherent bonuses.

Miracle is a much better option, because it's only limited to the alignment of whoever you're requesting it from and otherwise should always succeed. A wish, on the other hand, invites GM scrutiny.

I would probably allow a wish to invoke a -9 untyped penalty on a target's next save or an automatic critical hit, provided that the granter had chosen to be reasonable towards the grantee.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alleran wrote:

The main thing I use wishes for at high levels is as a guaranteed escape route when I really, really need to get out of Dodge while flipping the bird to dimensional locks and similar defenses. Alternately, to add on inherent bonuses.

Miracle is a much better option, because it's only limited to the alignment of whoever you're requesting it from and otherwise should always succeed. A wish, on the other hand, invites GM scrutiny.

I would probably allow a wish to invoke a -9 untyped penalty on a target's next save or an automatic critical hit, provided that the granter had chosen to be reasonable towards the grantee.

Miracle is subject to GM purview. The difference between miracle and wish is that miracle is simply denied if something requested is either too powerful or not what the god wants. The wish could either be denied or twisted depending on the wording and how powerful a thing you ask for.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.

It's generally understood that if you are trying to generate an effect that a spell should be able to do but currently doesn't exist as a spell, then wish can do it (so long as the GM permits it of course). Think of it like making up your own spell on the fly. Last year I was playing a 3.5 DnD Epic campaign where every one of us were full casters and ending up using Wish fairly often:

1) An Abyssal Kraken was pulling our ship into the River Styx so I used a Wish to put a Freedom of Movement on the ship..

2) We were storming a dread keep and were looking for intimidation factor so I used a wish to create 1000's of quasi-real shadow soldiers surrounding the keep. They all only had 1 hp 10 AC and couldn't attack but the occupants of the keep didn't know that.

3) We stopped an active volcano, turning it dormant for another 100 years. The inhabitants in the area were extremely grateful and joined our cause.

4) Used it to create an Anti-Anti-Magic Field before stepping into a dead-magic area so that we could cast spells and use our magic items inside the bubble.

5) Created a center-focused Gravity effect pulling most of the 100's of creatures in the room (was treated as 10 Colossal swarms of medium sized creatures) to it's center where the rest of the party nova-bombed them.

...to name a few.
Wish is fun if you are creative and understand what balance means in this game. Don't try to create some game ending effect with it, it's just not going to work. Use it to create an effect you think they should have made a spell to do. I like to try to replicate lower level spells but with some twist to it to make it on par with a level 9 spell


That Crazy Alchemist wrote:

It's generally understood that if you are trying to generate an effect that a spell should be able to do but currently doesn't exist as a spell, then wish can do it (so long as the GM permits it of course). Think of it like making up your own spell on the fly. Last year I was playing a 3.5 DnD Epic campaign where every one of us were full casters and ending up using Wish fairly often:

1) An Abyssal Kraken was pulling our ship into the River Styx so I used a Wish to put a Freedom of Movement on the ship..

2) We were storming a dread keep and were looking for intimidation factor so I used a wish to create 1000's of quasi-real shadow soldiers surrounding the keep. They all only had 1 hp 10 AC and couldn't attack but the occupants of the keep didn't know that.

3) We stopped an active volcano, turning it dormant for another 100 years. The inhabitants in the area were extremely grateful and joined our cause.

4) Used it to create an Anti-Anti-Magic Field before stepping into a dead-magic area so that we could cast spells and use our magic items inside the bubble.

5) Created a center-focused Gravity effect pulling most of the 100's of creatures in the room (was treated as 10 Colossal swarms of medium sized creatures) to it's center where the rest of the party nova-bombed them.

...to name a few.
Wish is fun if you are creative and understand what balance means in this game. Don't try to create some game ending effect with it, it's just not going to work. Use it to create an effect you think they should have made a spell to do. I like to try to replicate lower level spells but with some twist to it to make it on par with a level 9 spell

I am going to have my players read this. THIS is how wishes are supposed to be used!


Lifat wrote:
Miracle is subject to GM purview. The difference between miracle and wish is that miracle is simply denied if something requested is either too powerful or not what the god wants.

As this is the rules forum, the limitation on Miracle's greater request:

"In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused."

There is no limit on power, only on the application of that power. A NG goddess of healing won't let you hit everybody in a hundred-mile radius with a damage effect, a TN/LN/NG/whatever god of magic won't let you blanket a country in antimagic. Things like that. As long as the request agrees with the deity/alignment it is requested of, however, it will succeed.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Penalties don't really have types, since all penalties from different sources stack. Only bonuses are typed (and not always).


Alleran wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Miracle is subject to GM purview. The difference between miracle and wish is that miracle is simply denied if something requested is either too powerful or not what the god wants.

As this is the rules forum, the limitation on Miracle's greater request:

"In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused."

There is no limit on power, only on the application of that power. A NG goddess of healing won't let you hit everybody in a hundred-mile radius with a damage effect, a TN/LN/NG/whatever god of magic won't let you blanket a country in antimagic. Things like that. As long as the request agrees with the deity/alignment it is requested of, however, it will succeed.

Keyword here is request! A miracle that the god cannot refuse is a demand and not a request meaning that it is still absolutely within GM purview (even when you aren't using rule 0).


Alleran wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Miracle is subject to GM purview. The difference between miracle and wish is that miracle is simply denied if something requested is either too powerful or not what the god wants.

As this is the rules forum, the limitation on Miracle's greater request:

"In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused."

There is no limit on power, only on the application of that power. A NG goddess of healing won't let you hit everybody in a hundred-mile radius with a damage effect, a TN/LN/NG/whatever god of magic won't let you blanket a country in antimagic. Things like that. As long as the request agrees with the deity/alignment it is requested of, however, it will succeed.

You selectively quoted the spell text:

PRD wrote:

A miracle can do any of the following things.

Duplicate any cleric spell of 8th level or lower.
Duplicate any other spell of 7th level or lower.
Undo the harmful effects of certain spells, such as feeblemind or insanity.
Have any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.

Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request. Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 25,000 gp in powdered diamond because of the powerful divine energies involved. Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following:

Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.
Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error.
Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.

In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused.

The GM decides what ultimately is within the power level of those normal effects and the GM decides what falls within the scope of "a very powerful request". Then even if your request falls within those lines if it violates your deities alignment it is still refused.


Lifat wrote:
Keyword here is request! A miracle that the god cannot refuse is a demand and not a request meaning that it is still absolutely within GM purview (even when you aren't using rule 0).

They are perfectly capable of refusing, and the text of the spell even describes outright when a miracle will be refused, as I have cited and you have quoted.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
The GM decides what ultimately is within the power level of those normal effects and the GM decides what falls within the scope of "a very powerful request". Then even if your request falls within those lines if it violates your deities alignment it is still refused.

Correct. However, please note that I have never been speaking of the difference between a normal request (no 25,000gp component) and a greater request (a 25,000gp component), only the limitations of a greater request (as I said, the limitation on Miracle's greater request). Which, as noted, are the nature/alignment of the deity/concept.


Alleran wrote:
Lifat wrote:
Keyword here is request! A miracle that the god cannot refuse is a demand and not a request meaning that it is still absolutely within GM purview (even when you aren't using rule 0).

They are perfectly capable of refusing, and the text of the spell even describes outright when a miracle will be refused, as I have cited and you have quoted.

OldSkoolRPG wrote:
The GM decides what ultimately is within the power level of those normal effects and the GM decides what falls within the scope of "a very powerful request". Then even if your request falls within those lines if it violates your deities alignment it is still refused.
Correct. However, please note that I have never been speaking of the difference between a normal request (no 25,000gp component) and a greater request (a 25,000gp component), only the limitations of a greater request (as I said, the limitation on Miracle's greater request). Which, as noted, are the nature/alignment of the deity/concept.

Yes, and you stated that this was not subject to GM purview. That is incorrect. The GM decides what falls within the scope of a very powerful request. It give examples that COULD, not absolutely DO, fall in that category but ultimately it is up to the GM what qualifies just as with a Wish.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Yes, and you stated that this was not subject to GM purview. That is incorrect. The GM decides what falls within the scope of a very powerful request.

It is not incorrect. A miracle's greater request is subject to GM purview in exactly one way, which I already noted in my original response (ergo it is a clear demarcation of where the response does and does not apply), given as the following:

"...because it's [a greater request] only limited to the alignment of whoever you're requesting it from..."

Bracketed text obviously added after the fact by me. If you're arguing that there's a limitation on the power of a lesser request (by stating that there are both lesser and greater effects, where the former is weaker than the latter), then absolutely, but that argument is irrelevant to a greater request, which is what I have discussed and what was contested by Lifat.


Alleran wrote:
OldSkoolRPG wrote:
Yes, and you stated that this was not subject to GM purview. That is incorrect. The GM decides what falls within the scope of a very powerful request.

It is not incorrect. A miracle's greater request is subject to GM purview in exactly one way, which I already noted in my original response (ergo it is a clear demarcation of where the response does and does not apply), given as the following:

"...because it's [a greater request] only limited to the alignment of whoever you're requesting it from..."

Bracketed text obviously added after the fact by me. If you're arguing that there's a limitation on the power of a lesser request, then absolutely, but that argument is irrelevant to a greater request, which is what I have discussed and what was contested by Lifat.

You are dismissing the fact that the examples given of greater requests are only POSSIBLE examples implying that the GM may or may not approve them in context. Even those examples display limitations on the power:

Raising your fallen allies, not everyone that has ever died in that location.
Moving you and your allies to another location or plane not an entire army.
Protecting a city from a natural disaster not an entire country.

A priest of Sarenrae may cast Miracle and request that everyone who is suffering from any illness and disease in the entire nation of Varisia be healed. That is certainly an act in accord with Sarenrae's alignment and portfolio. However, it is subject to GM approval whether that request is too powerful or not.


OldSkoolRPG wrote:
You are dismissing the fact that the examples given of greater requests are only POSSIBLE examples implying that the GM may or may not approve them in context.

Not at all.

"A NG goddess of healing won't let you hit everybody in a hundred-mile radius with a damage effect, a TN/LN/NG/whatever god of magic won't let you blanket a country in antimagic. Things like that. As long as the request agrees with the deity/alignment it is requested of, however, it will succeed."

From another of the posts I've made in this topic. I have absolutely acknowledged that as the rules clearly state, the GM can approve or deny a greater request within the limitations laid out in the spell.

In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius disintegrate" is probably not going to succeed, per the limitations noted in the spell. She's not a goddess of death and destruction, so the miracle is denied on account of it being against her nature.

In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius heal on good-aligned people" is going to succeed. (Note: since you're asking for a heal, then it will follow the rules of heal in how it is applied to valid targets within the spell radius.)

In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius atonement on every evil creature" is going to succeed. (Note: it will succeed per the effects of the atonement spell, which a creature can freely refuse. This could easily work out to be a waste of resources if you don't get at least enough accepted atonements to exceed the 25,000gp component cost.)

See the difference between the first one and the second two?

Quote:
However, it is subject to GM approval whether that request is too powerful or not.

It is not subject to GM approval except insofar as "powerful" determines whether the individual casting the spell has to fork out 25,000gp or not to pay for their mass healing. If the GM decides that it's a lesser request (I would not, but the GM is well within their rights to determine it as needed for their own table), it will not cost anything to accomplish except the lost spell slot. If the GM decides that it's a greater request, it will cost 25,000gp along with the lost spell slot to accomplish. That it will succeed is not in question.


Alleran wrote:
In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius disintegrate" is probably not going to succeed, per the limitations noted in the spell. She's not a goddess of death and destruction, so the miracle is denied on account of it being against her nature.

Yep that is true.

Alleran wrote:
In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius heal on good-aligned people" is going to succeed. (Note: since you're asking for a heal, then it will follow the rules of heal in how it is applied to valid targets within the spell radius.)

Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were GM would not work.

Alleran wrote:
In context, asking Sarenrae for "a hundred-mile radius atonement on every evil creature" is going to succeed. (Note: it will succeed per the effects of the atonement spell, which a creature can freely refuse. This could easily work out to be a waste of resources if you don't get at least enough accepted atonements to exceed the 25,000gp component cost.)

Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were the GM would not work.

I would allow those last two to work for maybe a single city, possibly, but not a 100 mile radius. Your examples are far beyond the power of the examples provided in the text itself.


Miracle wrote:
Alternatively, a cleric can make a very powerful request.

This line states that the cleric can have a very powerful request. It does not quantify how powerful but it does state that it is a request. That means it can be denied.

Miracle wrote:
Casting such a miracle costs the cleric 25,000 gp in powdered diamond because of the powerful divine energies involved

Here the spell lists the price of a powerful request.

Miracle wrote:

Examples of especially powerful miracles of this sort could include the following:

Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting.
Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error.
Protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster.

Here it lists a couple of examples of what the spell can do but does not limit it to that.

Miracle wrote:
In any event, a request that is out of line with the deity's (or alignment's) nature is refused.

Here it simply states that a request that does not fall within a deity's alignment and nature is automatically refused. There is no limitation on what can be refused simply an example of what is definitely refused.

The rest of the spell is irrelevant to the discussion.
You cannot show any limitation set on what the GM can refuse. The only thing this spell limits is what a GM can allow (ie. a GM cannot allow a miracle to do something against the gods nature/alignment).

EDIT: Maybe this post was a little to final in its tone considering that I'm wrong from time to time, so by all means, show me the text that limits what can be refused.


Quote:
Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were GM would not work.
Quote:
Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were GM would not work.

Please don't use table variation. Mine will be different to yours, after all, and I'm not asking that you know what mine are.

Quote:
Your examples are far beyond the power of the examples provided in the text itself.

They are not. The text does not provide limitations on the examples. You should not conflate the two terms as you have.

To demonstrate:

"Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting."

"Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error."

These are two of the three greater request examples.

For example, swinging a battle of twenty thousand men in your favour by raising fallen allies might be accomplished by, say, raising five thousand of them. However, swinging a battle of ten million men in your favour by raising fallen allies is just as easily accomplished by, say, raising two hundred and fifty thousand of them.

Within the example given in the miracle, these are the same thing ("swinging the tide of battle..."). There is no limitation on a miracle's power in this respect.

Another example. Moving yourself and all your allies from one plane through planar barriers with no chance of error works fine when it's you, your fighter friend, your wizard friend and your rogue friend. They're all your allies, after all. Presumably. It also works fine when you're taking yourself, your fighter friend, your wizard friend, your rogue friend and your allied army of two hundred men through planar barriers with no chance of error.

Again, they are the same thing ("moving you and your allies...").

The examples of greater requests are not quantificative in their scope, only their application as per the limitation of whether the god you're getting the miracle from will agree to provide it in the first place, and this is not an aspect of power but of nature/alignment.


Alleran wrote:
Quote:
Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were GM would not work.
Quote:
Nope, subject to GM approval and if I were GM would not work.

Please don't use table variation. Mine will be different to yours, after all, and I'm not asking that you know what mine are.

Quote:
Your examples are far beyond the power of the examples provided in the text itself.

They are not. The text does not provide limitations on the examples. You should not conflate the two terms as you have.

To demonstrate:

"Swinging the tide of a battle in your favor by raising fallen allies to continue fighting."

"Moving you and your allies, with all your and their gear, from one plane to a specific locale through planar barriers with no chance of error."

These are two of the three greater request examples.

For example, swinging a battle of twenty thousand men in your favour by raising fallen allies might be accomplished by, say, raising five thousand of them. However, swinging a battle of ten million men in your favour by raising fallen allies is just as easily accomplished by, say, raising two hundred and fifty thousand of them.

Within the example given in the miracle, these are the same thing ("swinging the tide of battle..."). There is no limitation on a miracle's power in this respect.

Another example. Moving yourself and all your allies from one plane through planar barriers with no chance of error works fine when it's you, your fighter friend, your wizard friend and your rogue friend. They're all your allies, after all. Presumably. It also works fine when you're taking yourself, your fighter friend, your wizard friend, your rogue friend and your allied army of two hundred men through planar barriers with no chance of error.

Again, they are the same thing ("moving you and your allies...").

The examples of greater requests are not quantificative in their scope, only their application as per the limitation of whether the god you're getting the miracle from will agree to provide it in...

You are absolutely right. Nowhere in the text does it limit what can be allowed (outside going against the gods alignment/nature), but where in the spell does it states what cannot be refused? Because for you to be right in saying that the GM cannot limit it outside the alignment/nature you have to show that the denials are limited.


In theory, a Miracle would be granted if it's something the deity would support and is within the deity's power (a truly uber-powerful Miracle could be beyond what even a deity can do).

In practice, the GM has to constrain the power level for game balance purposes.

It would be realistic that a Miracle request to a LG deity of Glory or some other war-related domain, "I ask that my Paladin friend be granted a permanent +50 bonus to AC against evil creatures so that he shall be more effective in fighting evil" would be granted...but it's way too powerful, so the GM has to deny it.

I will say that with either Wish or Miracle, if the GM will deny, twist, or limit the request due to balance reasons, the player should at least be able to ask before using it whether it will be denied or changed as such. One can't be expected to read a GM's mind as to what will be deemed too powerful.

However, that may not be the case with a deity denying a Miracle because it's something the deity would not support. Players should know their divine casters' deities well enough to figure that part out.

Because of the "deity's will" limitations on Miracle, I'd say that slightly more powerful effects should probably be permitted by Miracle than by Wish...but only slightly.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

People do need to remember that Wish and Miracle are merely 9th level spells and should be treated as such. To use the 100-mile Heal example, this would be ridiculous, and no sane GM would allow it since there is already a 9th level spell called Mass Heal that Heals everyone in a 30ft. To go so wildly deviated from an existing but clearly similar spell and skyrocket it's power is lunacy. Wish and Miracle are powerful yes, but they aren't THAT powerful. Please see my small list above for examples of things these spells should be used for.


Here is a simple question on Wish...

It can raise a stat by 1.

Do you consider granting a feat similar in power to raising a stat and thus doable? or is it beyond the power of a wish


Yes, I would say it could permanently grant one feat.

Dark Archive

Ughbash wrote:

Here is a simple question on Wish...

It can raise a stat by 1.

Do you consider granting a feat similar in power to raising a stat and thus doable? or is it beyond the power of a wish

I would say yes, but were I GM'ing I would't allow it to stack, only one permanent feat at a time, another casting would change it to a different feat. That's just me though.


Oh my, I seem to have opened a bigger can of worms here than expected.

I think the one thing that can be agreed on by all is that wish/miracle spells are some of the most subjective to a DM's ruling. It was not my intention to argue over every possible wish/miracle that could or could not be granted, as I feel these spells are open ended on purpose. They are the batman's utility belt of spells, capable of being exactly what you need RIGHT NOW. I don't mean to take away from that, and I apologize for making a mess here.

To avoid too much of a mess, I'd like to focus on the one aspect the original post mentioned: that 'limited wish' spells out specific numbers/instances for attacks and saves: 1 auto hit, or a -7 to saves.

On it's own, this can lead to a lot of problems. As penalties seems to stack, a single level 13 wizard could make scrolls of limited wish to take down....anything. Get a nice wealthy backer, make 200+ limited wish scrolls, pass them to the villagers, and proceed to summon any being you want in pathfinder. In theory, you could reduce the mightiest demon lord to having saving throws of 1, and cast any spell you want, including 'save or die' spells. While not likely to be sure, it IS more likely a decent group of adventurer's would be able to use UMD to reduce those saves fast.

And if wish is stronger? What would the reduced saves look like then? And as for the auto hit.... one poster suggested a wish be an auto critical. Vorpal swords, anyone? Wizard uses 'wish' so the fighter gets one auto critical, he slices off head. Rinse and repeat the entire adventure/world, whatever ends first.

What throws me off is that this line most over look does NOT make sense.

"Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a -7 penalty on its next saving throw."

I don't know how to highlight, but note the first part: it produces an effect in line with the above effects. Those effect above level 6 spells or lower. What level 6 spell can reduce a creatures saves by 7, or give an automatic hit? True strike is nice but it's not auto hit, and the best I can find to reduce saves is a -4 spell at level 8 (prediction of failure). Using limited wish for this is letting you use a lower level spell for a greater effect, and can hit undead where most spells to reduce saves do not.

So yea, the way I see it these two affects are greater than the 'above effects' it's supposed to be in line with, which makes this sentence all kinds of a mess.

And if wish is supposed to be a greater effect... well, I'm not sure how to rule that without making the spell an 'auto win' instead of auto hit. The GM's old stand by of 'because I said so' works, but I was hoping for something more substantial to give my players.

If there's no rulings for this, there's no rulings and i'll make 'because I said so' work. My apologies for any troubles I may have started.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First: You didn't start any trouble. The discussion remained civil, if veering slightly of course but that wasn't your fault.

Second: I do agree with you that -7 to saves is strong, but remember that it is only for a single saving throw and remember that this spell costs 1500 gp to cast every time. True strike is not an auto hit but with +20 and you don't hit (outside a natural 1) then you are in deep trouble anyway... And remember this spell is 6 levels higher AND costs 1500 gp. I don't think those two effects are unreasonable.

Thirdly: Some creatures are entirely immune to vorpal or the loss of a head simply doesn't affect them, but I'd say that an autocrit is not unreasonable for a 9th lvl spell that cost 25000 gp to cast. I get that it creates a stronger effect if said autocrit is done with a vorpal weapon, but still. If you don't like that suggested function then change it to be full-round autohits or maybe full-round +20 to hit or something else that you are more comfortable with.

Fourthly: The penalty from limited wish / wish do seem to be typeless, but remember that penalties from the same source does not stack. That means casting two limited wishes to reduce saves doesn't reduce the save beyond -7.

Fifthly: If you are uncomfortable with the spells then talk to your players about it and explain why you are uncomfortable with them and simply state that those spells cannot be used in your games. Or tell them that they cannot be used to do anything beyond the expressly stated stuff.


bookwormbabe29 wrote:


Ok pun title aside, I was hoping to ask about an odd line in limited wish. I've been looking for a way to reduce the saves of an undead creature. They're immune to my usual options, and looking for new ideas I came across this line in limited wish:

"Produce any other effect whose power level is in line with the above effects, such as a single creature automatically hitting on its next attack or taking a -7 penalty on its next saving throw"

This seems a fairly interesting use of a 'limited' wish. One automatic hit, or a -7 to saves without a specific type. I have to wonder, if you had several people using 'limited' wish, could you wish for this -7 saves to be of a specific type, or is this supposed to be specified? Like could you wish for a -7 'age' penalty, a -7 curse, a -7 bad luck penalty, etc? It seems logical to think it's the same spell so it's the same source = no stacking, but can the wish circumvent that with some wordplay?

My other thought here is if a 'limited' wish can do this, what would a 'wish' spell do? If I wished to reduce an opponent's saves as much as possible, would it emulate limited wish for a -7, or would it be a higher bonus for a higher spell? If a limited wish = one automatic hit, would a wish = one critical, or maybe auto hits for a full round attack? Wish can clearly go a step above 'limited wish' as the spells it can emulate are of a higher level, so shouldn't these numbers increase? Yet there's no mention of it in the spell. I've tried looking for an answer in the faq, on google, and even bing, but I'm not finding anything. I refuse to believe I'm the first to ponder this, yet I can't find anything on this. If it's on here and I missed I'll be the first to apologize, but this is bugging me at the moment and clarification would be nice. Thank you for your time!

Technically if you were trying to reduce saves, I would probably go for reducing the relevant ability score(which there are spells you could reduce it with quite a bit), applying a save panty OR .... An effect which greatly increased your spell dc's for the time period.

Of course, my preference for something like wish is as the earlier poster said ...
Things that are generally otherwise not covered by rules but are thematically cool.


bookwormbabe29 wrote:
True strike is nice but it's not auto hit, and the best I can find to reduce saves is a -4 spell at level 8 (prediction of failure). Using limited wish for this is letting you use a lower level spell for a greater effect, and can hit undead where most spells to reduce saves do not.

True Strike is Level 1 and nearly an auto-hit, and prediction of failure isn't to one saving throw but is permanent if the target fails its save (permanently shaken and sickened) and 1 round/level even if it makes its save.

Those effects for a Level 7 spell are actually the developers being sure if they're off to err on the side of caution.


I have to agree with Oly.
The penalty from limited wish is high when compared to other spells around the same level, but because it only affects one save it is actually slightly underpowered compared to the other spells. At least in my humble opinion.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / I WISH I knew how to use wish better All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.