I was thinking of Efficient Spell, but rechecking D&DWiki it appears to have a rider prohibiting it's use with a Quickened Spell in the same round.
Note the source of Efficient Spell. It's not even a published product.
I remember one that allows you to maintain concentration on a spell as a move action, but not one that allows you to actually cast a spell as a move action.
That one is Mobile Caster IIRC, but casting as a move action is unheard of by me.
I was thinking of Efficient Spell, but rechecking D&DWiki it appears to have a rider prohibiting it's use with a Quickened Spell in the same round.Note the source of Efficient Spell. It's not even a published product.
D&D wiki has a good number of made up or wrong things in it. I have written them to correct a few. They once had a feat to sheathe your weapon as a quick action, among other things.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Candles of invocation only cost 8,400 gold and grants you infinite wishes, and are completely core. A mid-4th level PC can afford a candle of invocation and ascend to Godhood with enough time and wishes.
Just a note, here. Of course not. Candle of Invocation in no way grants infinite wishes. That's absurd. Every attempt to justify "infinite wishes" requires a player and a DM who are in cahoots, trying to break the game with odd interpretations of the rules.
Here's how Candle of Invocation works.
PLAYER: I light the Candle of Invocation. I use it to gate to an elemental genie of my alignment. Since I'm Laful Evil, that would be an Efreeti.
GAME MASTER: Okay. Pay 10,000 gp.
PLAYER: What?
GAME MASTER: If you want to open a portal to another dimension, fine. Calling a specific creature or type of creature requires an additional cost of 10,000 gp. Obviously, the mage who made the candle didn't pay that, so you have to.
PLAYER: (grumble) Okay.
GAME MASTER:An Efreeti appears. We'll assume that your caster level is 17, for the purposes of the spell. He is clearly attempting to deal patiently with you. "What dost thou desire, puniest of mortals?
PLAYER: Well, I desire another Candle of Invocation.
GAME MASTER;I rejoice to hear it, o greedy maggot. It gives me great satisfaction to tell you that such an item requires a dwoemer I cannot cast, nor duplicate with my wish.
PLAYER: Well, then, I demand you obtain for me at least 38,000 gold pieces, enough to buy another two candles, and pay for the gate effects.
GAME MASTER: Such a task is onerous, I fear. My payment for such service is the severed head of the mortal who had the temerity to cast this candle in the first place.
PLAYER: Ack! I can't kill a 17th-Level Cleric! This should be an easy task for an Efreeti. I need that cleric alive, to be making more candles!
GAME MASTER: Seriously? You're going to be yanking 17th-Level high priests and arch-wizards around, and pissing off Efreet at the same time?
PLAYER: The rules say I can.
GAME MASTER: The rules certainly don't say that you can do it consequence-free. How many 5th-Level adventurers do you think this town has?
PLAYER: I dunno. About fifty?
GAME MASTER: And do you think they're all using tubfulls of candles of invocation every day?
PLAYER: Well, not the ones I've met...
GAME MASTER: Well, what does that tell you? 'Cause if you insist that 5th-Level characters like yourself can get 17-HD extraplanar lackeys to do their bidding, more or less at will, and that there's no consequences to that tactic, then what do you imagine will be the results?
As a theoretical, optimization trick, like buying ladders and selling 10-foot poles, the candle of invocation was kind of clever, the first time it was posted.
But, like Pun-Pun, it doesn't fly in a real game. That failure i's not an abuse of Rule 0. That's a common-sense reading of the game, and good GMing.
Here's how Candle of Invocation works.
Incorrect. That's not how it works. Specifically...
GAME MASTER: Such a task is onerous, I fear. My payment for such service is the severed head of the mortal who had the temerity to cast this candle in the first place.
PLAYER: Ack! I can't kill a 17th-Level Cleric! This should be an easy task for an Efreeti. I need that cleric alive, to be making more candles!
This is incorrect. If you're using the caster level 17 interpretation, he controls the gated creature. Not "he gets to bargain with the gated creature" -- that's what happens if the caster level is less than the creature's HD, and efreeti are 10 HD creatures. The efreet is forced to use its three wishes for the user of the candle.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
This is incorrect. If you're using the caster level 17 interpretation, he controls the gated creature. Not "he gets to bargain with the gated creature" -- that's what happens if the caster level is less than the creature's HD, and efreeti are 10 HD creatures. The efreet is forced to use its three wishes for the user of the candle.
That's not the way i read the spell.
The control is what allows the Lawful Evil owner of the candle to ask the Efreeti in the first place, instead of getting fried.
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service
from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for
that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect
to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for
appropriate rewards.
That sentence relates the effects if the called creature is bound.
Until such time as the owner of the candle gates in a particular Efreeti of greater than 17 hit dice, the Efreeti must agree to the tasks (and he doesn't necessarily have three wishes, by the way; he has 1-3 wishes, and he might have already cast them that day), subject to the spell, but he may insist on his fair trade.
That sentence relates the effects if the called creature is bound.
It also relates to the effects if the bound creature is required to use a long or involved service. "I wish for a lot of money, three times" (paraphrased, of course) is not a long or involved service.
I'm fairly sure that the djinn you summon via gate will not be able to grant wishes.
If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. Some creatures may want their payment in "livestock" rather than in coin, which could involve complications. Immediately upon completion of the service, the being is transported to your vicinity, and you must then and there turn over the promised reward. After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane.
Considering the 'service' is a wish spell a fair trade in return for that service would be roughly equal to the material component cost of the wish spell.
Of course it gets more complicated than that because djinn like slaves and would likely demand 20,000gp worth of slaves which the summoner must somehow acquire.
Would likely be less expensive to just cast wish from a scroll...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It also relates to the effects if the bound creature is required to use a long or involved service. "I wish for a lot of money, three times" (paraphrased, of course) is not a long or involved service.
Of course it is. That's not something a wish spell can do. The Efreeti is going to have to go out and steal a bunch of money.
That sentence relates the effects if the called creature is bound.It also relates to the effects if the bound creature is required to use a long or involved service. "I wish for a lot of money, three times" (paraphrased, of course) is not a long or involved service.
A wish is one of the most powerful effects in the game, if that isn't the definition of an involved service what is?
Using a standard action spell-like ability is not an involved service. Involved services are things like "I want you to take this message to Sultan Suffariyah, ensure that he receives the message, wait for him to read and respond to the message, take that response to Grand Vizier Jafar, take note of the time of day, go to Sultana Aria, and tell her the phrase Jafar will tell you".
Of course it is. That's not something a wish spell can do. The Efreeti is going to have to go out and steal a bunch of money.
It also relates to the effects if the bound creature is required to use a long or involved service. "I wish for a lot of money, three times" (paraphrased, of course) is not a long or involved service.
<rolls eyes>
We were talking 3.5 here.
Not to mention you're arguing for no reason whatsoever. I notice you specifically omitted the part of the original post that said "The problem isn't rules, it's players".
We were talking 3.5 here.
Not to mention you're arguing for no reason whatsoever. I notice you specifically omitted the part of the original post that said "The problem isn't rules, it's players".
No the problem is munchkins on the boards making ridiculous claims. Players are rarely an issue.
1 game of D&D coming up, hold the cheese please.
No the problem is munchkins on the boards making ridiculous claims. Players are rarely an issue.
You think those munchkins aren't players?
The problem with "overpowered combos" is and always has been players who do their best to exploit them. If you have good players, they'll play even an overpowered class and you'd never know it was overpowered because they don't try to exploit it and "win" the game.
No the problem is munchkins on the boards making ridiculous claims. Players are rarely an issue.You think those munchkins aren't players?
The problem with "overpowered combos" is and always has been players who do their best to exploit them. If you have good players, they'll play even an overpowered class and you'd never know it was overpowered because they don't try to exploit it and "win" the game.
It's only a problem if you buy into silly logic like "Wish is a standard action so it's not 'involved'".
Basically if you have a player who wants to try and tweak some loophole and you let them it's your fault. There is nothing in the gate spell as it's written that suggest they should allow you to use any power the summoned creature has willy nilly. Who decides what is an 'involved task'? The GM. So you can complain all you want about players but it's all on you.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Using a standard action spell-like ability is not an involved service. Involved services are things like "I want you to take this message ...".
And here, my friend, is the point.
The Game Master gets to decide whether an Efreeti casting one of the most powerful spells in creation for the benefit of a 5th-Level snot-nosed mortal is onerous or not, and she gets to decide this in the persona of, and based upon the judgement of, the Efreeti.
If this service does require a payment, there is no rules abuse. If it does not, then there is no reason that every 6th-Level NPC isn't ordering candles of invocation and gating in super-powerful outsider lackeys. The item is only broken if the GM decides to throw out her judgement and allow it.
The claim that candles of invocation are "broken", depends on the Game Master being in cahoots with the player, trying to break the game system. The first person who came up with that was sort of clever.
But I cut my teeth in RPGs on Champions. There's all sorts of scams and sleaze you can pull there. The game rules even give you a couple of examples:
- The character who goes whole-hog with the rules for headquarters and minions, taking the entire Earth's population as fanatically loyal servants;
- "Planet Master", the character with enough shrinking power to keep planetoids in his pockets, which he throws at people;
- The "deadman scam", where your character's secret identity is dead, with attributes at -10. He'll still have a Speed of 1. Then give him instant change and buy back all of his attributes "only in hero form".
That doesn't mean Champions is broken. It means that there's a distinction between theoretical, optimization scams, and characters designed for good play.
Using a standard action spell-like ability is not an involved service. Involved services are things like "I want you to take this message ...".And here, my friend, is the point.
The Game Master gets to decide whether an Efreeti casting one of the most powerful spells in creation for the benefit of a 5th-Level snot-nosed mortal is onerous or not, and she gets to decide this in the persona of, and based upon the judgement of, the Efreeti.
Yes, he gets to decide that. However, how onerous a task is is not relevant to the gate spell. Only how many HD the called creature has and how long or involved the task is.
And, again, why are you being condescending and arguing with me when you're saying the same thing I am?
It's only a problem if you buy into silly logic like "Wish is a standard action so it's not 'involved'".
Silly logic like the definition of the word?
in⋅volved
  /ɪnˈvɒlvd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-volvd] Show IPA
Use involved in a Sentence
See web results for involved
See images of involved
–adjective
1. very intricate or complex: an involved reply.
(the other definitions aren't relevant)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
<rolls eyes>
We were talking 3.5 here.
Not in this forum, no.
Not to mention you're arguing for no reason whatsoever. I notice you specifically omitted the part of the original post that said "The problem isn't rules, it's players".
I am posting to try to stamp out the claim, assumed as some sort of proven fact, that candles of invocation are somehow an example of "broken rules" in the core rulebook. It's a fatuous claim, and I do my best to put the lie to it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And, again, why are you being condescending and arguing with me when you're saying the same thing I am?
I'm sorry. I thought you were claiming that the candle of invocation allowed an infinite number of wishes. I was demonstrating how it doesn't. If you were indeed arguing that the candle is a perfectly good item as is, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, and we are indeed in agreement.
I'm sorry. I thought you were claiming that the candle of invocation allowed an infinite number of wishes. I was demonstrating how it doesn't. If you were indeed arguing that the candle is a perfectly good item as is, then I apologize for misunderstanding you, and we are indeed in agreement.
And, again, why are you being condescending and arguing with me when you're saying the same thing I am?
You're arguing that it isn't the rules that are the problem, it's the people who actively try to exploit the rules that are the problem. Rules as written, candles of invocation do indeed work (in 3.5; they narrowed wish down a bit in Pathfinder). Rules as actually used at any sane DM's table? A player that tries to exploit that gets tossed out on his ear.
Coincidentally, that's what I've been saying since the post you originally responded to and specifically excised the section where I said exactly what I said above.
Anyone can use candles of invocation. Don't even have to match the alignment of the candle, for the record.
|
Genies should just grant 'wishes' that consist of permanant creation spells and permanant illusion effects. Things 'wished' for that are not material goods or 'pretty things' can be dealt with by the genie doing what the genie did in the Arabian Knights, saying 'as you wish' and disappearing for X amount of time while he aquires what is wished for, rather than acting like Robin Williams genie from Aladdin and snapping his fingers to do anything.
The only 'problem' with Efreeti and Wishes is that D&D has a spell called 'Wish' which has no real connection to the wish-granting genies of folklore (which didn't have XP limits or gp values or any of that junk, and were as likely to 'grant wishes' that involved ephemeral things like changes in social status or gaining the love of a pretty girl). By turning genie wishes into Wish spells it, IMO, cheaps out on the actual mystique of genie wishes. There should be a bustling commerce going on in the elemental realms, as genies barter and haggle amongst themselves to provide wishes to mortal conjurers who have bargained with them. The genie you summoned might not be able to grant the boon you seek, but darn skippy he can find someone in the City of Brass who can, he just has to find a way to fulfill that boon without putting himself so far in hock to another genie to make it not worth whatever you are offering...
In The Final Wish (Legacy of Fire) Wulfgang talks about Wishcraft:
"As creatures infused with the magic of creation and living elemental might, genies possess a greater understanding of reality than most beings, seeing the tapestry of creation stretching through the planes and touching every creature living therein. Only a relatively limited number of powerful being possess the ability to fundamentally affect this vast lattice, and hold it as a great honor and responsibility to avoid damaging the delicate network that facilitates the existence of all things."
Sounds pretty involved to me. Wulfgang talks about it in quite a bit of depth, it's an excellent reference about wishes and djinnies. I suggest you read it.
Obviously, you can run your game however you want. I have a little different impression of what the word 'involved' implies than you do, altering reality is definitely what I would consider "involved" by the dictionary definition.
Should the character actually force the djinn to grant him wishes against his will they will twist the wish in the worst possible way. This is the nature of djinn.
You're arguing that it isn't the rules that are the problem, it's the people who actively try to exploit the rules that are the problem. Rules as written, candles of invocation do indeed work
I'm suggesting that you are reading the words of the gate spell in the most generous possible and that there is an equally valid way to read the spell that actually makes sense.
You're arguing that it isn't the rules that are the problem, it's the people who actively try to exploit the rules that are the problem. Rules as written, candles of invocation do indeed workI'm suggesting that you are reading the words of the gate spell in the most generous possible and that there is an equally valid way to read the spell that actually makes sense.
Uh, no. I'm reading it literally. You're reading it in an intentionally non-literal fashion. It makes perfect sense the way I read it and actually makes less sense the way you read it because it adds an additional, invisible clause.
If it were me, I'd just use the 3E guidance regarding the corruption of wishes when obviously used to unbalance the game: someone wishes for another candle of invocation, they get teleported into an evil wizard's study while the wizard in question is creating the candle. If our level five munchkin can take down a level 17 Wizard, he deserves that second candle...
No need to borrow a rule, it is simply effectively roleplaying an NPC. If forced to grant a wish a djinn would twist it in every possible way to screw the PC because it's in his nature.
"I wish to be stronger" -> djinni polymorphs the character into a Bull
"I wish for 30,000gp" -> the djinni teleports the character to his new treasure hoard but neglects to mention that it belonged to an ancient red dragon until moments before.
The possibilities are endless.
No need to borrow a rule, it is simply effectively roleplaying an NPC. If forced to grant a wish a djinn would twist it in every possible way to screw the PC because it's in his nature."I wish to be stronger" -> djinni polymorphs the character into a Bull
"I wish for 30,000gp" -> the djinni teleports the character to his new treasure hoard but neglects to mention that it belonged to an ancient red dragon until moments before.The possibilities are endless.
Now this I agree with. Rules as written, you're allowed to force the efreet to grant a wish, "I wish I had 30,000 gold", and the efreet is free to twist that however he desires. It's not the same as the player casting his own wish, which has rules about what can be granted without twisting; when you're asking someone else to grant your wish, they get to spin it.
Which is what I've been saying all along. It's not the rules, it's the players. Note: The DM is also a player.
Would likely be less expensive to just cast wish from a scroll...
Which you too can own for the low low price of 3825gp
Chris, if you're ever in or near Houston, and you might want to play a quick game with houstonderek, Jess Door, Silvehair, Andostre (an incredibly amusing fellow) and I... well, sir, it would be an honor to buy your beer. Indeed, I'd go so far as to include one of the best dinners known to non-herbivores, time permitting.
Well Kirth, if I ever get chance to go to America, I'll bear that in mind.
Brevity fail! ;) I had orginally meant Chris Mortika... but, Mr. Parker, I'd still spot you a pint, mate -- if you're here or I'm back in Europe ("O frabjous day!")
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Chris, if you're ever in or near Houston, and you might want to play a quick game with houstonderek, Jess Door, Silvehair, Andostre (an incredibly amusing fellow) and I... well, sir, it would be an honor to buy your beer. Indeed, I'd go so far as to include one of the best dinners known to non-herbivores, time permitting.
I'll take you up on most of that! (No beer for me, thanks.) It sounds like a terrific set of players.
I'll take you up on most of that! (No beer for me, thanks.) It sounds like a terrific set of players.
After tonight's session, there's no doubt that they're top-notch. In 27+ years of playing, I've never seen so many characters so close to death, and still maintain that level of moxy.
I've removed a couple posts. No need to insult one another.
|
I'll take you up on most of that! (No beer for me, thanks.) It sounds like a terrific set of players.After tonight's session, there's no doubt that they're top-notch. In 27+ years of playing, I've never seen so many characters so close to death, and still maintain that level of moxy.
We soooo should've died there, wow.
We soooo should've died there, wow.
I still can't believe that ANYONE lived through that holocaust, much less all of you!
P.S. The last group bull rushed the torturer into the iron maiden and then slammed the door on him, and I think I remember someone overturning the vat of boiling oil onto one of the zombies. I was sort of initially hoping for some similar shenanigans last night, but it turned out to be WAY more exciting the way it turned out.
I, too, am surprised we survived. I was thinking that Luela would use the scroll on Derek's PC, not mine. But the choice turned out okay.
|
I still can't believe that ANYONE lived through that holocaust, much less all of you!
Well, to be honest, there was some nice DM fiat going on to keep me alive. I should have been dead, really.
As far as scouting ahead, I just really can't trust the blond being behind me, and, as to her using the scroll on Rim instead of I, I AM just a "stableboy" in her eyes, and he's probably perceived as more of an equal, being a divine caster and all.
/threadjack
On topic:
It depends on what you want, but a properly optimised wizard build will blow a sorcerer out of the water at high levels.
Well, to be honest, there was some nice DM fiat going on to keep me alive. I should have been dead, really.
Disagree to an extent:
DM fiat always annoyed me as messy, because no one is ever happy with it -- if the DM doesn't do it and kills off too many parties, then people whine; if he does use it, then they feel like they didn't earn their victories; and if he does it only occasionally, everyone thinks he's unfair. Putting the fiat in the players' hands, but strictly limiting its use, is the best solution I've been able to find.