Perverting Intent: The Wish Spell


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

So do people vary the twisting depending on the player? For example a new comer using a ring of wish either accidentally or on purpose vs a rules lawyer casting wish via a 50 page document?


Maybe. But that depends on the GM. They might vary its effects based on who makes an identical wish, or they might not.

Generally speaking, though, I don't think people are going to be stupid enough to spend two Wish spells/abilities/items on the same thing, and expect different results.

That is the real life definition of Insanity, my friend.


Senko wrote:
So do people vary the twisting depending on the player? For example a new comer using a ring of wish either accidentally or on purpose vs a rules lawyer casting wish via a 50 page document?

There are GM's that play favorites so I am sure someone does it, but in my experience how players are treated is generally fair. The way they word the wish should be the factor in the case presented.


Senko wrote:
So do people vary the twisting depending on the player? For example a new comer using a ring of wish either accidentally or on purpose vs a rules lawyer casting wish via a 50 page document?

I tend to imagine that a rules-lawyer type trying to cover all the bases with a long, legalese wording tends to draw more ire than a newcomer who unwittingly/accidentally makes a quick wish (such as not realizing they've put on a ring of wishes or that some power has granted them a free one.) Typically the second will still be unexpected (and obviously this all depends on just what's said) but those tend to be more embarrassing, sudden, and only momentarily distracting or hindering.

I think most GMs consider themselves fair or at least not vindictive and they also like to be creative. When a player purposefully tries to shoehorn something in (obviously again, in the case of a wish doing something not listed in its power or multiples of one of those) they tend to get as upset as a player would be if railroaded or their character was just charmed or dominated constantly.


wraithstrike wrote:
Senko wrote:
So do people vary the twisting depending on the player? For example a new comer using a ring of wish either accidentally or on purpose vs a rules lawyer casting wish via a 50 page document?
There are GM's that play favorites so I am sure someone does it, but in my experience how players are treated is generally fair. The way they word the wish should be the factor in the case presented.

It's not a matter of fair.

One is a player who doesn't know any better. One is a player who DOES know better.

So, if a character gets a ring, doesn't know what Wish spells are and says, "I wish I were a prince!"

I'm likely to take pity on them. I'll pervert the wish, but it's not unsalvageable.

If a rules lawyer power gamer says, "I wish I were the crowned prince of the kingdom of (insert here) who is beloved by the people, but i and my allies all retain our bodies, abilities, memories,items, feats, and accomplishments, while nobody else realizes that I just became the prince so that the former royals don't have a grudge and that there are no assassin's after me, and the kingdom is just as prosperous as it is now with no changes to the population, guard, or other areas of important infrastructure other than that I'm the prince and I'm beloved."

Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

And in the above wish..

*POOF*

The party finds themselves at an elaborate state funeral, with the beloved prince of the domain in a casket.

Because they used the word 'were' which could be a 'past tense'...


The Wish spell is basically one of two things depending on how the player uses it. It is either a "mechanics" spell or a "narrative" spell. It is a narrative spell when the player uses the "greater effects" part of the spell. It is a mechanics spell when using anything other than "greater effects".

When used as a mechanics spell the player should expect the spell to work exactly how the expect it to work the same way other spells they use work. It's the spell as part of the "game" in RPG.

When used as a narrative spell it becomes a part of the story. It's the spell as part of the "role-playing" in RPG.

Does the narrative wish make a good story when its effects are exactly what the player expected? Maybe. It would if it was to overcome an obstacle the DM either explicitly says (or hints) can only be overcome by a Wish spell, enabling the story to move forward.

Using wish to get the party out of a seemly impossible situation with no complications related to the spell could be an good story, but using a deus ex machina isn't usually the mark of a good story.

Just letting players "get their wish" with no complications probably isn't a good story. No tale about wishes I can think of does this. Who wants to see a movie or read a book about characters that get everything the wanted and once they have it they are happy, The End?

Players using Wish to get something they couldn't otherwise get is only compelling if there are hitches to go along with it.

Scarab Sages

Isn't that every modern fairy tale? Snow white/Rapunzel/Ralph lived happily ever after.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Senko wrote:
So do people vary the twisting depending on the player? For example a new comer using a ring of wish either accidentally or on purpose vs a rules lawyer casting wish via a 50 page document?
There are GM's that play favorites so I am sure someone does it, but in my experience how players are treated is generally fair. The way they word the wish should be the factor in the case presented.

It's not a matter of fair.

One is a player who doesn't know any better. One is a player who DOES know better.

So, if a character gets a ring, doesn't know what Wish spells are and says, "I wish I were a prince!"

I'm likely to take pity on them. I'll pervert the wish, but it's not unsalvageable.

If a rules lawyer power gamer says, "I wish I were the crowned prince of the kingdom of (insert here) who is beloved by the people, but i and my allies all retain our bodies, abilities, memories,items, feats, and accomplishments, while nobody else realizes that I just became the prince so that the former royals don't have a grudge and that there are no assassin's after me, and the kingdom is just as prosperous as it is now with no changes to the population, guard, or other areas of important infrastructure other than that I'm the prince and I'm beloved."

Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P

Just because he is a rules lawyer that doesn't mean he knows better so it is unfair.

In both cases the player thinks ____ works, but it doesn't.

Also the question didn't say rules lawyer power gamer. You added "power gamer".


wraithstrike wrote:


Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P
Just because he is a rules lawyer that doesn't mean he knows better so it is unfair.

Uh, no. A rules LAWYER knows the rules, meaning he KNOWS that wishing for anything beyond those base things is dangerous. The guy who DOESN'T know... Well... Doesn't know.

Quote:
In both cases the player thinks ____ works, but it doesn't.

No. In the Rules Lawyer case he specifically knows that it doesn't work that way because the book outright says it doesn't work that way.

Scarab Sages

He who lives by the power gaming dies by the power gaming.

Personally the more conditions someone tries to put on a wish the more I want to screw them over. For a good caster it says you don't trust them, for an evil one it's a challenge and for a neutral one that's not one wish. "I wish to be a princess" actually has more chance to go off well than "I wish to be a princess who ..." as good casters will try to help you, neutral casters will take the most direct literal way to grant it and evil casters will probably settle for making you a princess in an arranged marriage or 5 years old. When you start adding large amounts of conditions they start looking for loopholes to teach you a lesson like the you used past tense so your dead or your the beloved prince of a tribe of Goblins wish granting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gosh. Is there anyone else here who doesn't get such a kick out of perverting wish as to do so at every turn?

Me, I kinda think that when the spell says

Wish wrote:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)

that "may" means "might" and not "will."


You do understand that we are talking about extremes here. In an actual game we wouldn't be having to deal with a cheesemeister asking for so much that such extremes are called for. Such a player would be booted from my table if he failed to realize that his style did not match my table.

Wishing for game breaking stuff has no excuse, so rather deserves being crocked seriously. Wishing for game enhancing stuff should be rewarded, perhaps in surprising and interesting ways.

Demanding exactly what you ask for is dull in either case.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

No, I'm pretty clear that at least some posters really are saying that they screw with any wish that isn't one of the specifically listed options. Nice to hear that you're not, though!


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Gosh. Is there anyone else here who doesn't get such a kick out of perverting wish as to do so at every turn?

Me, I kinda think that when the spell says

Wish wrote:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)
that "may" means "might" and not "will."

Not exactly.

I wouldn't allow Wish, or Miracle, to function outside of the listed parameters, flat out, at my table, because of this same exact situation that is likely to come up.

If somebody did try to use Wish or Miracle for something outside of the listed parameters, they would waste their action and nothing would happen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

Gosh. Is there anyone else here who doesn't get such a kick out of perverting wish as to do so at every turn?

Me, I kinda think that when the spell says

Wish wrote:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment, at the GM's discretion.)
that "may" means "might" and not "will."

Not exactly.

I wouldn't allow Wish, or Miracle, to function outside of the listed parameters, flat out, at my table, because of this same exact situation that is likely to come up.

If somebody did try to use Wish or Miracle for something outside of the listed parameters, they would waste their action and nothing would happen.

How does it benefit the game to respond to such a wish with "your diamond goes away, nothing happens" instead of "there's a house rule I hadn't mentioned, wish can only do the specifically listed options, so do something else"? Why have a gotcha at all?

Err, this is assuming the diamond goes away. If it doesn't, I suppose wasting your action isn't very much of a gotcha.


No, the Diamond wouldn't go away. The player would just sit there, look stupid, and wonder why the wish didn't work, followed by a successful Knowledge check explaining that the spell used in such a manner doesn't trigger the spell's incantations.

I might be a cheapskate, but I'd rather keep the adventure intact instead of endorsing elements that were made with the obvious intent of creating "gotcha" scenarios.

To that point, I'd change Wish/Miracle to instead be "Warp Reality" and "Divine Intercession" to reflect the lack of open-endedness, as well as reduce the lack of that sort of stuff happening.


Senko wrote:
Isn't that every modern fairy tale? Snow white/Rapunzel/Ralph lived happily ever after.

Maybe if you start the movie 5 minutes before the end credits roll. Earlier there is conflict.

That said, when it comes to Wish the stories I think of are ones like Aladdin, Wishmaster, Bruce Almighty, and the Monkey's Paw.

Grand Lodge

This thread has just reaffirmed my decision to stick to casting miracle. Far too many GMs ready to use an expensive 9th level spell as a "haha gotcha" moment.


isn't there a trait that prevents bady wording a wish spell so it cant be used to screw you over


HWalsh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P
Just because he is a rules lawyer that doesn't mean he knows better so it is unfair.

I didn't type that and I don't appreciate you attributing quotes to me that I didn't make. If you accidentally put someone else's quote under my name that I'd different.

Once this is resolved we can continue with the conversation.

Edit: I see you made a mistake with where you placed the quote tags.


HWalsh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P
Just because he is a rules lawyer that doesn't mean he knows better so it is unfair.

Uh, no. A rules LAWYER knows the rules, meaning he KNOWS that wishing for anything beyond those base things is dangerous. The guy who DOESN'T know... Well... Doesn't know.

Quote:
In both cases the player thinks ____ works, but it doesn't.
No. In the Rules Lawyer case he specifically knows that it doesn't work that way because the book outright says it doesn't work that way.

Not all rules lawyers know the rules. They are people who argue that the rules should be followed. Level of knowledge is not a prerequisite for being one.

Sometimes they only speak up when the rules are in their favor. These are typically the ones that people don't like.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:

No, the Diamond wouldn't go away. The player would just sit there, look stupid, and wonder why the wish didn't work, followed by a successful Knowledge check explaining that the spell used in such a manner doesn't trigger the spell's incantations.

I might be a cheapskate, but I'd rather keep the adventure intact instead of endorsing elements that were made with the obvious intent of creating "gotcha" scenarios.

To that point, I'd change Wish/Miracle to instead be "Warp Reality" and "Divine Intercession" to reflect the lack of open-endedness, as well as reduce the lack of that sort of stuff happening.

Fair enough.

...I wish the Paizo servers wouldn't keep crashing! :-P

Scarab Sages

Same if it's an innocent or reasonable wish I'd only pervert it if they wished on an evil source there's basically 6 categories I use...

1) Wish within stated limits works automatically.

2) Reasonable wish beyond stated limits on a good (not alignment as such but a friendly and helpful being e.g. the genie from Disney's Aladdin) entity will be interpreted to try and grant it with minimal harm to others.

3) Reasonable wish beyond stated limits on a neutral (Such as a ring of 3 wishes) will be granted in as literal fashion as possible. Which isn't necessarily going to screw things over for you as long as it's clear and simple I.e. I wish I were a princess will see you become a princess no changing of ages, arranged marriages or winding up dead inserted just a straight you are now part of x royal family. Possibly adopted but still a princess.

4) Reasonable wish beyond stated limits on an evil (Such as a wizard seeking to get revenge on your grandfather) will be twisted to grant it in a way you won't want.

5) Any wish affecting massive numbers of beings will grant said beings a chance to save as appropriate e.g. "I wish all dragons were extinct" or "I wish all the sick people in the kingdom were cured of the wailing death" will grant the subjects a saving throw. In the former case at least one dragon is going to make its saving throw so the wish fails but no diamond is used up you just feel the spell gather up its energy and fizzle. In the later case it's assumed everyone voluntarily fails their save to be cured so it works. Of course if you wished on an evil being they may be cured by being dead however that's why you research what is granting the wish.

6) Anyone who tries to write up a long list of clauses, conditions and disclaimers is going to find the being granting the wish is going to try and twist it if they have a mind or if they don't (such as a ring of 3 wishes) grant it in as simple and literal a manner as possible.

So to avoid bring screwed over in my game you just have to find a helpful or neutral being and make a clear, simple wish. In the first case said being will even actively work to help prevent any nasty repercussions.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The backside to the story I related earlier was kind of cool, and ties into Miracle.

Miracles, Atonements, and Wishes:
A character went to seek Atonement, and was told to give up something of value. So they sacrificed the spear that they loved (it was a trophy from a major fight earlier in the campaign, was magical, and was about 3x the value of what an Atonement for what they were doing would cost.

GM decided 'on the fly' to say that such a level of contrition deserved a little bit 'extra' and turned the Atonement into a Miracle (later noted it was a side-reward for NOT boiler-plating the Wish made earlier) that changed the character's personality and views on life slightly, as well as changing the color of their scales from green to copper.

It was a really cool moment, and it was then followed by an epic battle because the character had unintentionally undone generations of careful breeding and planning...


wraithstrike wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


Oh that guy? That guy is screwed. :P
Just because he is a rules lawyer that doesn't mean he knows better so it is unfair.

Uh, no. A rules LAWYER knows the rules, meaning he KNOWS that wishing for anything beyond those base things is dangerous. The guy who DOESN'T know... Well... Doesn't know.

Quote:
In both cases the player thinks ____ works, but it doesn't.
No. In the Rules Lawyer case he specifically knows that it doesn't work that way because the book outright says it doesn't work that way.

Not all rules lawyers know the rules. They are people who argue that the rules should be followed. Level of knowledge is not a prerequisite for being one.

Sometimes they only speak up when the rules are in their favor. These are typically the ones that people don't like.

No.

A rules lawyer knows the rules and argues for them. Also anyone casting Wish should have read the spell. The spell outright says it is dangerous unless being used for specific things.

Period. Full stop. End of story.

It's not a "gotcha" the freaking spell TELLS YOU it is dangerous.


Lady-J wrote:
isn't there a trait that prevents bady wording a wish spell so it cant be used to screw you over

There is such a trait, and it's called Thoughtful Wish-Maker.

In fact, if you succeed on a Sense Motive check, your character knows how to word the wish in such a way that there's no way for them to be screwed over.


The wish must be granted by an outsider for that to work, however. So no simply casting it as a full spellcaster, or using a magic item will work with that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The wish must be granted by an outsider for that to work, however. So no simply casting it as a full spellcaster, or using a magic item will work with that.

thats why you play an aasimar or a teifling :) make the check and prevent yourself from wording your wish poorly


Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The wish must be granted by an outsider for that to work, however. So no simply casting it as a full spellcaster, or using a magic item will work with that.
thats why you play an aasimar or a teifling :) make the check and prevent yourself from wording your wish poorly

Doesn't work that way. The outsiders that grant wishes don't use the spell. That would be casting the spell, not granting the wish.


HWalsh wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The wish must be granted by an outsider for that to work, however. So no simply casting it as a full spellcaster, or using a magic item will work with that.
thats why you play an aasimar or a teifling :) make the check and prevent yourself from wording your wish poorly
Doesn't work that way. The outsiders that grant wishes don't use the spell. That would be casting the spell, not granting the wish.

casting spells, using spell like abilities or supernatural abilities would all be "granting" a wish as they are all just casting the spell


Lady-J wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Lady-J wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
The wish must be granted by an outsider for that to work, however. So no simply casting it as a full spellcaster, or using a magic item will work with that.
thats why you play an aasimar or a teifling :) make the check and prevent yourself from wording your wish poorly
Doesn't work that way. The outsiders that grant wishes don't use the spell. That would be casting the spell, not granting the wish.
casting spells, using spell like abilities or supernatural abilities would all be "granting" a wish as they are all just casting the spell

Not true. Nice try though. There is no loophole here to find.

The three outsiders/monsters who can grant wishes are:

1. Glabrezu, Demon
2. Nixie, Bog
3. Phistopholus, Devil

The Djinn don't even grant wishes, as in the magic.

The reason your plan we wouldn't work is because if your going to an Aasimar Wizard, for example, the outsider in question doesn't control the Wish. They have no say in what happens.

The wish granting ones actually do.


HWalsh wrote:

The three outsiders/monsters who can grant wishes are:

1. Glabrezu, Demon
2. Nixie, Bog
3. Phistopholus, Devil

I don't know how you generated your list, but plenty of genies can grant wishes:

Bestiary entry for Genies wrote:

Genie, Djinni [...] A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma 17, and can grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only) who captures them.

Genie, Efreeti [...] Spell-Like Abilities (CL 11th) [...] 1/day—grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only)

Genie, Marid [...] Spell-Like Abilities (CL 12th) [...] 1/year—grant 1 wish (to nongenies only)

Genie, Shaitan [...] Some shaitans are noble. Often called pashas, they have 18 Hit Dice and gain the spell-like ability earthquake, usable once per day, as well as the ability to grant up to three wishes per day (nongenies only).

Unless you think Paizo is using "grant wish" to mean something other than "grant wish."

There may be other wish-granters too, I haven't checked elsewhere.


Also contract devils have a standard contract that grants three wishes, with the classic warning

Evil Wishes wrote:
While the mortal chooses the intention of the wishes, the contract devil decides upon the specifics, allowing for its own diabolical interpretation of the results should the mortal imprecisely phrase a wish.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The three outsiders/monsters who can grant wishes are:

1. Glabrezu, Demon
2. Nixie, Bog
3. Phistopholus, Devil

I don't know how you generated your list, but plenty of genies can grant wishes:

Bestiary entry for Genies wrote:

Genie, Djinni [...] A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma 17, and can grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only) who captures them.

Genie, Efreeti [...] Spell-Like Abilities (CL 11th) [...] 1/day—grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only)

Genie, Marid [...] Spell-Like Abilities (CL 12th) [...] 1/year—grant 1 wish (to nongenies only)

Genie, Shaitan [...] Some shaitans are noble. Often called pashas, they have 18 Hit Dice and gain the spell-like ability earthquake, usable once per day, as well as the ability to grant up to three wishes per day (nongenies only).

Unless you think Paizo is using "grant wish" to mean something other than "grant wish."

There may be other wish-granters too, I haven't checked elsewhere.

I was specifically pointing out ones that reference the wish spell. IE ones relevant to the discussion.

Or more specifically the Wish spell and the Grant Wish ability are different things.


True! The wish-granters have a spell-like ability. Which makes it not a spell. It does, however, act exactly like the wish spell except for not needing the material component, so I don't see the relevance.

There is no special "Grant Wish" ability. It would be in the universal monster rules, and it isn't; or it would be explained in the individual monster entries, and it isn't. That's because it's obviously just invoking the wish spell. "Grant 1 wish (to nongenies only)" is short for "cast wish to fufill the wish of a nongenie."


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

True! The wish-granters have a spell-like ability. Which makes it not a spell. It does, however, act exactly like the wish spell except for not needing the material component, so I don't see the relevance.

There is no special "Grant Wish" ability. It would be in the universal monster rules, and it isn't; or it would be explained in the individual monster entries, and it isn't. That's because it's obviously just invoking the wish spell. "Grant 1 wish (to nongenies only)" is short for "cast wish to fufill the wish of a nongenie."

No. Because I pointed out the Glabrezu. That doesn't "Grant Wish" as you quoted in each of your entries. It can Cast Wish.

Grant Wish *is* a different ability.


HWalsh wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:

True! The wish-granters have a spell-like ability. Which makes it not a spell. It does, however, act exactly like the wish spell except for not needing the material component, so I don't see the relevance.

There is no special "Grant Wish" ability. It would be in the universal monster rules, and it isn't; or it would be explained in the individual monster entries, and it isn't. That's because it's obviously just invoking the wish spell. "Grant 1 wish (to nongenies only)" is short for "cast wish to fufill the wish of a nongenie."

No. Because I pointed out the Glabrezu. That doesn't "Grant Wish" as you quoted in each of your entries. It can Cast Wish.

The fact that they didn't always use the shorthand doesn't mean that the shorthand doesn't mean the same thing. Paizo is not required to word things the same way each time.

HWalsh wrote:
Grant Wish *is* a different ability.

Then tell us what the ability is. What are its parameters? What exactly can it do? And where is it written up in the rules?


HWalsh wrote:


If a rules lawyer power gamer says, "I wish I were the crowned prince of the kingdom of (insert here) who is beloved by the people, but i and my allies all retain our bodies, abilities, memories,items, feats, and accomplishments, while nobody else realizes that I just became the prince so that the former royals don't have a grudge and that there are no assassin's after me, and the kingdom is just as prosperous as it is now with no changes to the population, guard, or other areas of important infrastructure other than that I'm the prince and I'm beloved."

Nothing there says anything about what is about to happen to the kingdom, though. Perhaps a massive army has started marching toward it, or perhaps there's someone in a high station of government that is a turncoat, or a Doppelganger, or a disguised Devil, or something else sufficiently sleeper-agent-y that was already in place (and therefore not a change to the important infrastructure).

It's essentially impossible to make an iron-clad wish.

I think Miracle would be less likely to be perverted as maliciously as Wish would (depending on the deity granting the Miracle). That doesn't mean it won't get twisted in some way, of course.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

....Nothing in Miracle even mentions it being twisted yet now we're discussing that as a possibility too? I'm glad I play with an established group and don't have to deal with that kind of BS.

If you're twisting miracles instead of just having the god refuse as mentioned in the spell then you're honestly just being a dick.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:

....Nothing in Miracle even mentions it being twisted yet now we're discussing that as a possibility too? I'm glad I play with an established group and don't have to deal with that kind of BS.

If you're twisting miracles instead of just having the god refuse as mentioned in the spell then you're honestly just being a dick.

think of it as another god interfering with the spell instead of the god your asking being the one who is messing around with the miracle

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Can you reference anywhere its written that can happen?

Miracle isn't a divine version of wish. There's no clause about it backfiring on you, just your god not granting it. If you're making Miracles get twisted and have the exact same issues as wish then you're houseruling.


Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Can you reference anywhere its written that can happen?

I remember an old article (I think it was part of Chris Perkin's "GM Experience" stuff) where the PCs called on the aid of a sea god. A giant shark wound up coming out of the water and eating half the warehouse they were fighting in.

I think that was more of a "desperate prayer for aid" than literal miracle spell though, and it would have been 4e anyway. Still, I think it's a good example of how "don't ask for a god's aid lightly" can be used to good effect in a game.

As for Pathfinder's miracle spell, I think it's interesting that one of the examples includes an effect rather than a method: "protecting a city from an earthquake, volcanic eruption, flood, or other major natural disaster." You could imagine different deities granting that request in different ways.

Still, I think I agree with your larger point that the miracle spell ought to be less "monkey's paw" than the arcane equivalent.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Ooh, I wouldn't twist miracle. It's going to be granted in a way that fits with your deity's portfolio, or otherwise just get a clear answer of "no." Asking for something far outside you're deity's purview/ethos might be grounds for needing atonement, though, as well as being denied. I'd give the player an out of character warning before doing that; a high level divine caster has their finger on the pulse of their faith, so to speak. "Yeah, Gorum isn't exactly up for your miracle to make peace between these two warring nations. Are you sure you really want to ask for that?"


So my thoughts on wish, every GM I have had in 16 years its a gotcha even if follow the guidelines. Even if the one granting the wish is a PC or ally of the PC's, assume wishing for lunch brings about the broodwich. And said twisted wishes easily go above and beyond the rules for the spell but still do exactly what the granter wants. So if the BBEG wishes for true immortality assume he has it. If your efreeti PC (3.5 Savage species) decides to grant the party fighter a wish assume the GM will still screw the wording even if the wish is for a new horse to replace the one that the dragon ate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Talonhawke wrote:
... assume wishing for lunch brings about the broodwich.

"I wish for some shade to relax in!"

"Good job, you just summoned a Dread Gazebo."


On the bright side at lease we have this

You are well acquainted with the many ways words can be twisted.

Benefit(s) You gain a +2 trait bonus on Sense Motive checks. Furthermore, if you succeed at a DC 25 Sense Motive check prior to making any wish granted by an outsider, you become aware of your wish’s potential pitfalls. If you succeed at this check by 5 or more, you figure out how to word your wish in such a way that your words are not twisted.


HWalsh wrote:

Not at all... Let is look at the universe...

I don't think you are. So, first, let us look at the "Young and Beautiful" entry shall we?

There is an item in Pathfinder (in the Golarion Setting) called the Sun Orchid Elixir.

In the lore this thing is super rare:

Linky!

How rare? Well, you can only get this from one place in all the world. Nobody but the people there know how to make it. They only allow a limited number to be made, and people pay a minimum of 50,000 GP for it.

So, if a wish spell, for example, could duplicate the effects of it... Well, that would be a lot easier to get than the elixir itself. There would be no reason to pay 50,000 GP for it, because a Wish costs:

Caster Level x Spell Level x 10 GP = So 18 x 9 x 10 = 1,620 GP
Then you need a 25,000 GP Material Component.

So by the rules this isn't readily available, but we are talking about people who can put their hands on 50,000 minimum so, to them, it is available.

So a minimum of 26,620 GP. These are rich nobles, kings and queens, who buy this stuff. They aren't going to spend a minimum of 50,000 GP for something if there is a much cheaper way to get it.

So, it goes to say, that using a Wish to Duplicate the effects of this elixir are, at best, not possible. Otherwise, again, this wouldn't be a great discovery, at all.

You don't think this has game mechanics? Oh it does. If a campaign is generational? It absolutely does. You're a human, the game is going to take place over say, 150 years? You're not seeing it through to the end without it. The Elf will. Other game mechanics, bonuses to ability scores accumulate as you age, if you restore your body, you keep the benefits but lose the disadvantages. That has a mechanical impact.

Now, in most cases, the GM will allow you to make a new character at the level of the other characters, maybe even a descendant of the original character, but such games do happen.

Young and beautiful? Yeah, that is a Charisma gain. So, you could use something like this to go from Charisma 7, for a wizard who is ugly from scars (Backstory is a thing) to suddenly Charisma 10, 14, or even 18...

Any wish that goes beyond the scope of any spell.

By your logic wishing for inherent bonuses probably should be off the table since the corresponding item cost more than casting a wish spell. 26,620 vs 27500 so why are we buying tomes since their are cheaper wishing methods. Heck its a 4,400 GP savings to wish your stat to +5 over buying the tome.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Talonhawke wrote:
By your logic wishing for inherent bonuses probably should be off the table since the corresponding item cost more than casting a wish spell. 26,620 vs 27500 so why are we buying tomes since their are cheaper wishing methods. Heck its a 4,400 GP savings to wish your stat to +5 over buying the tome.

Someone with the means would generally pay for spellcasting services over buying the tome, in order to get inherent bonuses. The tomes exist because 9th level casters are rare, and the tomes are cheaper than buying scrolls of wish or [/I]miracle[/I].


Having started my D&D career with BECMI/RC (making me middle school rather than old school), when Wish cost nothing but was entirely dependent on GM permission, and having GMed a number of modules from that time, I run Wish and Miracle with a fairly simple guideline: if it helps advance the plot, it's fine. If it tries to solve the plot, it will have unintended effects. The more you try to push the world around, the more resistance and the more stuff gets 'moved around' to accommodate your wish.

Hard limits on what things you can do with Wish/Miracle are kind of against the point of the spells, imo, and what might be a reasonable result in one situation might be inappropriate in another. If my players try something I consider possibly inappropriate I will say something like "Well, you can try to do that, if you want." and they usually take a hint and moderate their request.

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Perverting Intent: The Wish Spell All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.