Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

801 to 850 of 1,171 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

shallowsoul wrote:
I don't allow character clones in my games unless you have a very very good reason and if that one dies then don't even think about trying it again. Depending on the situation, death can be final such as the body having to be left behind and not recoverable.

... so what you're saying is that you apply house rules when dealing with raise dead?


There are revivals that aren't directly powered by gods - paladins, druids, witches, concept clerics etc.

Silver Crusade

Tacticslion wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I don't allow character clones in my games unless you have a very very good reason and if that one dies then don't even think about trying it again. Depending on the situation, death can be final such as the body having to be left behind and not recoverable.
... so what you're saying is that you apply house rules when dealing with raise dead?

Actually it's not even close to what I'm saying because houserules don't come into play. If youddon't have a body then Raise Dead won't work.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That's not death being final, that's needing a different spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
shallowsoul wrote:
I don't allow character clones in my games unless you have a very very good reason and if that one dies then don't even think about trying it again. Depending on the situation, death can be final such as the body having to be left behind and not recoverable.
... so what you're saying is that you apply house rules when dealing with raise dead?
Actually it's not even close to what I'm saying because houserules don't come into play. If youddon't have a body then Raise Dead won't work.

Banning character "clones" and (if as you are implying) restricting resurrection/greater resurrection is though.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's not death being final, that's needing a different spell.

Resurrection still requires a portion of the body so if the body is lost then the death still remains final.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

True Res. does not need the body.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
True Res. does not need the body.

Okay so they need to wait a good many levels before they actually find someone who can cast it and then have to pay 25,000 gp on top of that to bring back a character who would be about 5 or 6 levels behind and then the person would need to drop that second PC they were playing for those levels leading up to being able to get a True Resurrection.

To make a long story short, it wouldn't make sense to do that so the character is essentially dead and gone.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

That sounds accurate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note that as long as any part of the body at all is recovered - anything as small as a single cell - a 4th level spell can bring the creature back.

Silver Crusade

Ilja wrote:
Note that as long as any part of the body at all is recovered - anything as small as a single cell - a 4th level spell can bring the creature back.

That would be up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a portion. If you came to me talking about 'cells' I would laugh and tell you no way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shallowsoul wrote:
Ilja wrote:
Note that as long as any part of the body at all is recovered - anything as small as a single cell - a 4th level spell can bring the creature back.
That would be up to the DM to decide what constitutes as a portion. If you came to me talking about 'cells' I would laugh and tell you no way.

Well its always up the GM. He could decide that this spell doesn't exist, but a cell is definitely a portion.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/portion

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

It IS hard to touch a single cell when casting reincarnation, so you probably want more than just that. A strand of hair would suffice, provided you knew whose hair it was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing says you can't touch other things than the cell at the same time. It would be quite impossible to JUST touch a cell, or any single thing for that matter, since you're always touching a lot of stuff. But a cell might be hard to detect, if nothing else. Anything large enough to see would be valid though.


Other methods include:
6th level spell planar binding to call the less-than-10-HD genies, who, through wishes, can raise people from the dead. Or, you know, Glabrezu. That would only put the dead character one level behind.

Heck, they could even gain it at their level by finding a scroll, which, considering it costs a mere 1,650 gold, would be available 75% of the time in any large town, each week. Unless, of course, you're not going by RAW. I mean, at a mere three thousand gold, a greater planar binding would be available within any small city at a 75% chance each week, which opens the field even further. Which, all-in-all, is a much more cost-effective method of handling things, and leads back to the dealing-with-an-outsider suggestion mentioned above.

Or perhaps using a lesser planar binding to summon any number of creatures who have limitless invisibility and/or teleport abilities.

Or perhaps finding a scroll of true resurrection somewhere, which could come up on the random item generation tables (found, as they are, in the Game Mastery Guide).

Also, since you're extremely interested in accuracy, you said you don't allow character clones in your games, but clones are part of RAW, so, you know, that would be house ruling.

And if you mean you don't allow players to create nearly-identical-copies of (or even identical copies of) a character who died, well, in that case you're invoking a justified use of rule 0, which means, of course, you're using house rules. Perfectly fine, and completely justifiable, but house rules nonetheless.

Also, if you have the ability to raise someone from the dead that is very dear to you, but you choose not to try... that sounds unpleasant from a story point of view. I mean they were your boon companions. If they can't be raised, well that's different, but not bothering isn't really a nice story thing.


The planar binding method is however VERY much open to DM interpretation and allowance, without any house rules needed, so it's an unsure bet.

EDIT: To clarify, not only might you have to succeed on an opposed Cha check where the outsider gets a +6 bonus and a natural 1 releases the creature; there's also a large risk that a called glabrezu will have already used it's wish (no doubt the glabrezu will have a wish-slave in it's home) and for an efreet there's a large risk of either that or that you'll be hunted down by it's friends and family who no doubt also have a bunch of wish-slaves.


Ooh! I'd like to hear how! :)

EDIT: I mean, planar binding, from my reading, is pretty straight forward, if dangerous.

  • Magic circle plus appropriate diagrams.
  • Summon the critter (which is an outsider of X HD or less).
  • Make opposed charisma checks.
  • If successful, profit!

This puts potential risk, requires dealing with greater entities, and keeps the realm beyond death somewhat mysterious. It actually fits very neatly into the ideas as suggested earlier (requiring bargaining with extra-planar entities and such), gives a potential chance of failure and problems attendant with it (due to the nature of planar binding), and generally would give a cost (unless you're trying to tick off the creatures).

And it's far, far less game breaking than the extremely useful, but cheesy, infinite wish machine that comes when using simulacra with planar binding.


Tacticslion wrote:
Ooh! I'd like to hear how! :)

See above. For example, if you call an Eggbert the Efreet, it's likely it's allies (note that they are not solitary creatures first and foremost) will instantly force their closest wishslave to wish for information about where Eggbert is, then force them to wish for a company of Efreeti or suitable reliable slaves to teleport/planeshift to Eggbert.

If it's a glabrezu, it might be as simple as "sorry, I've used my spell for the month."

EDIT: Also note that if the summoner is a wizard/witch, the risk of failing the Cha-check or of the creature breaking free is HIGH. Wizards usually dump Cha, meaning they might have to do a d20-2 vs d20+8 (for a marid with a +6 bonus from DM adjudication according to spell description), and that the creature can escape with a d20+2 roll vs DC18 every day. For a sorcerer this isn't a big issue though.


(Heh, we're kind of ninja'ing each other.)

Ah, I see what you mean... but, of course, anything is open to interpretation. And, if I'm not mistaken (though I could be) I was under the impression that calling spells acquired a 'typical' member of their species unless specific caveats were made, and, unless there's some obscure rule I'm unaware of, 'typical' means 'as found in the bestiary', which means they've got their abilities ready to go.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm actually totally with you in that a GM can choose to have any of those things occur. But RAW, none of them do.

And there's nothing stopping you, with planar binding, there is no duration.

Meaning... well, you can bargain with the spirit (especially an ifreet) in that, "Hey, raise my buddy, please, and the next four days wishes that you can grant, I will use to make you wealthier." That would be a very excellent deal for any creature. And Glabrezu can simply be "Hey, I'll see you in two months from now for my wish."

What I mean is, there are all sorts of work-arounds that can be done, barring very, very specific GM fiat (at which point the GM really should, by all rights, simply say, "No, you can't do that."), which is entirely House Rules.


Tacticslion wrote:
And, if I'm not mistaken (though I could be) I was under the impression that calling spells acquired a 'typical' member of their species unless specific caveats were made, and, unless there's some obscure rule I'm unaware of, 'typical' means 'as found in the bestiary', which means they've got their abilities ready to go.

Nowhere does it state that just because they are typical as found in the bestiary, they haven't used their ability for that time. It just states what abilities they as a creature have, not how recently they've used them.

Quote:
Now don't get me wrong: I'm actually totally with you in that a GM can choose to have any of those things occur. But RAW, none of them do.

Of course they work. And the Efreet getting assistance hasn't even anything with that to do.

Quote:
And there's nothing stopping you, with planar binding, there is no duration.

What do you mean? The creature gets a check every day, and any time you try to convince it to do anything there's a 5% chance for it to escape.

Quote:
Meaning... well, you can bargain with the spirit (especially an ifreet) in that, "Hey, raise my buddy, please, and the next four days wishes that you can grant, I will use to make you wealthier." That would be a very excellent deal for any creature. And Glabrezu can simply be "Hey, I'll see you in two months from now for my wish."

Or they can simply say no and be certain that they'll get your pompous ass kicked soon because they've got allies that can cast wish - which you can't, unless the creature agrees with you, which is in no way guaranteed.

Quote:
What I mean is, there are all sorts of work-arounds that can be done, barring very, very specific GM fiat (at which point the GM really should, by all rights, simply say, "No, you can't do that."), which is entirely House Rules.

So you're saying "The DM can prevent this within the rules, but he should house rule instead, and we don't count house rules so the player should be able to do this unless houseruling!"?

No, just no.

Also remember that wishing stuff from outsiders is risky business. You have to word the wish very carefully or bad stuff might happen. And if you're still at decently low level, you'll have little protection against the tricks outsiders with allies can pull.

Remember that outsiders live for a looong time. Those powerful enough to cast wish know that there's people trying to abuse them for wishes. They've of course developed countermeasures that can prevent all but the most skilled of summoners from doing that.

Liberty's Edge

I think we can all agree it the best case scenario is you have a GM who can integrate the raising of the dead character as part of an epic quest that everyone thinks is awesome.

But that is still material component: Macguffin.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I now want to have "Somatic Component: Wicked Guitar Solo".


Ilja: you and I are talking past each other now.

What I'm saying is that if a GM is going to jump through so many hoops that it's unfeasable that an outsider will be able to grant you their abilities, than they might as well say, "No" before hand so you don't waste your and their time trying to game something that isn't fun.

For example, a GM could say, "Oh, but this particular efreeti has guaranteed all his wishes for the next fifty years to X for Y reason.", but by that point it's not a good idea. It would be far better for the GM to simply say, "Hey, no, that's not going to work." before the player commits and expends his resources to something the GM is going to just prevent them from doing for arbitrary reasons. That's what I meant.

And yes, I admitted and noted the potential drawbacks/failure chance: that's story stuff and it's gold.

Reference allies with wish: that's entirely arbitrary, and not presumed part of the rules. Similarly, a creature who's used up their spell-likes is not presumed part of the rules.

As I said, I'm with you. A GM can and should, pull all sorts of interesting things for a better story. But if they're just going to say, "No, not now, not forever, 'cause reasons." it's being kind of a jerk, and far better to tell the player up-front "No." than make them jump through hoops you know won't work in the first place.

All of your objections are story elements. Which is great! But, since I was speaking to shallowsoul initially, I was talking RAW, and there's nothing about specific story elements in RAW. And reference no duration, the only thing you need to do is succeed on the check. Once you succeed, the request made has no duration. An outsider who's going to receive twelve wishes-for-wealth has no reason not to grant a mortal three wishes: one for a magic 'thingy' (let's call it a stone) in which they can communicate across the planes (lasts for exactly five days), one for a new body for their dead friend, and one to bring their dead friend back to life. The magic thingy (we're calling it a stone) is the methodology by which the character wishes for wealth for the outsider. And we're done.

For story objections: if you give a creature a good deal, there's no particular reason for them to 'seek revenge', unless they're just petty or vindictive (and even then, if they're at all smart, they might wish to offer you more 'bargains' so that you can give them more stuff). You're hardly abusing anything, and if you wish you can always simply 'agree' to let the outsider go with no strings attached.

But let's look at the nature of the spell. Knowledge (planes) allows you to find True Names (which, RAW, generally intrigue genies enough to listen), and if you offer them 'power' of some sort, it grants a +2 to CHA checks. There's more here. The point is, you're not doing anything outside of RAW and a GM that's punishing you for it without fair warning ahead of time is GM that's being a jerk. There are plenty of 'work arounds' for story-related issues as well.

And presuming specific tactics to go against a sixth level spell is making use of rule 0 in order to punish players who are seeking to raise their friend from the dead. Which... is kind of the whole point of this thread: ways to raise your friend from the dead.


Ilja wrote:
Tacticslion wrote:
Ooh! I'd like to hear how! :)

See above. For example, if you call an Eggbert the Efreet, it's likely it's allies (note that they are not solitary creatures first and foremost) will instantly force their closest wishslave to wish for information about where Eggbert is, then force them to wish for a company of Efreeti or suitable reliable slaves to teleport/planeshift to Eggbert.

If it's a glabrezu, it might be as simple as "sorry, I've used my spell for the month."

EDIT: Also note that if the summoner is a wizard/witch, the risk of failing the Cha-check or of the creature breaking free is HIGH. Wizards usually dump Cha, meaning they might have to do a d20-2 vs d20+8 (for a marid with a +6 bonus from DM adjudication according to spell description), and that the creature can escape with a d20+2 roll vs DC18 every day. For a sorcerer this isn't a big issue though.

It gets very easy once you get moment of prescience. +15 on the check helps a lot.


Tacticslion wrote:
For example, a GM could say, "Oh, but this particular efreeti has guaranteed all his wishes for the next fifty years to X for Y reason.", but by that point it's not a good idea. It would be far better for the GM to simply say, "Hey, no, that's not going to work." before the player commits and expends his resources to something the GM is going to just prevent them from doing for arbitrary reasons. That's what I meant.

But that's not the "hoops" in question. It would make no sense for the efreet to guarantee away all it's wishes, and there's no rules support for doing so preventing planar binding it. The "hoop" is simply that it's friends will likely help it - just like if you go to a goblin village and cast charm person on the first goblin you see, you can't assume that will give you an audience with the goblin king - all the other goblins WILL try to kill you before; it's just common sense.

For powerful creatures that can cast Wish 3 times per day, can planeshift at will, and where the average person is as smart as an elf and wiser than a dwarf, and that has lived hundreds of years, someone calling a citizen to the material plane for imprisonment is similar to the party charming that goblin - except the goblin's pals are a fair bit more resourceful.

For a glabrezu, which can wish once per month only, there's a large risk it has already used it's wish to gain additional power, and it would not be any kind of "hoop" for the DM to simply roll a d30 or 3d10 to see how many days ago the wishing last occured, and then the player has to wait until then, giving the glabrezu time to escape.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I'm saying it's heavily depending on the DM; not that they can fudge against you, but rather that the DM actually fudges the creatures to be more stupid than they are to allow you to do it without interferance.

EDIT: If the players are allowed to use the full power of the RAW, then the creatures they deal with should also be able to do that.

EDIT2: And to find a true name you must know the creature even exists. Thus you must FIRST planar bind an efreet to know it exists, then you must find the name of that efreet, spending a month in constant study (far out of the time frame to keep it caught), giving it plenty of time for revenge, and then succeed on a not that difficult but probably not guaranteed success skill check.

And moment of prescience is an 8th level spell, as is mind blank which is also the very least requirement to not get killed by the outsiders - and by 15th level, managing to do this isn't a big deal. The discussion was about getting it via a scroll before you could even Planar Bind (that is, level <11).

EDIT3: Note that for Efreeti, with their intelligence and power, it can be assumed they have a truly wish-based economy, and to that, unions. It'd be very easy for them to set up effective unions where the efreeti pay with a few wishes per year to get protection from any involuntary callings, where calling an efreeti would more or less immediately result in a dozen or more efreeti teleporting in with their bound wish-slaves, unleashing a bunch of bad spells on you.

On the other hand, this would probably be common knowledge as wizards smart enough to research beforehand would know it. I'd probably allow a middling difficulty knowledge check for the wizard to know this, a DC around 20-25 or so if they don't research it at all.


Tangent on validity debate with Ilja:
Ilja wrote:
But that's not the "hoops" in question. It would make no sense for the efreet to guarantee away all it's wishes, and there's no rules support for doing so preventing planar binding it. The "hoop" is simply that it's friends will likely help it - just like if you go to a goblin village and cast charm person on the first goblin you see, you can't assume that will give you an audience with the goblin king - all the other goblins WILL try to kill you before; it's just common sense.

This is exactly what I meant by talking past each other.

First, I'd say you're off about goblins all automatically trying to kill you (though within your purview to make that decision), but this isn't the place for discussing that.

Second, you're presupposing a set-up that there's nothing in RAW to support.

Third, it would make total sense for an efreeti to make exactly the kind of bargain I mentioned in advance. That prevents those pesky mages from summoning them, and, if they've made the bargains properly, they would get the 'wisher' to wish things that they desire. An efreet has no need to ever grant a wish that doesn't benefit it, and, based on their power and intelligence, should easily be able to come up with schemes so that they enter into a binding contract that 'ties up' all their future wishes... but in that case, there's never any reason for the PCs to ever gain the benefit of that ability, which means there's no purpose in letting the monster have that ability. Also, it means that efreet will always be far, far more wealthy than they should be for their CR. So... no, the game doesn't presume this.

The only difference, then, between your suggestion and mine is a matter of degree.

Ilja wrote:

For powerful creatures that can cast Wish 3 times per day, can planeshift at will, and where the average person is as smart as an elf and wiser than a dwarf, and that has lived hundreds of years, someone calling a citizen to the material plane for imprisonment is similar to the party charming that goblin - except the goblin's pals are a fair bit more resourceful.

For a glabrezu, which can wish once per month only, there's a large risk it has already used it's wish to gain additional power, and it would not be any kind of "hoop" for the DM to simply roll a d30 or 3d10 to see how many days ago the wishing last occured, and then the player has to wait until then, giving the glabrezu time to escape.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do, I'm saying it's heavily depending on the DM; not that they can fudge against you, but rather that the DM actually fudges the creatures to be more stupid than they are to allow you to do it without interferance.

Genies can't grant wishes to other genies. Glabrezu can only use their once per month to grant the wishes of mortal humanoids. The rules suggestions you cite here are entirely valid, but they're house rules, which is the point: RAW, there's nothing like that at all.

Ilja wrote:
EDIT: If the players are allowed to use the full power of the RAW, then the creatures they deal with should also be able to do that.

... which is a fine choice to make as GM, but that's not really the presumption that the game makes. That's why creatures so often have useless-for-them (but useful to PCs) treasure (at least if the random tables are used). Ashiel made some excellent guides for how to use undefined treasure to make monsters scarier and more powerful... which is within a GM's purview RAW, but is not RAW because the monsters in question generally have specified equipment and giving them better stuff increases their CR.

The point is: it's a valid decision to make, but if you're making that decision, it's no longer RAW.

Ilja wrote:
EDIT2: And to find a true name you must know the creature even exists. Thus you must FIRST planar bind an efreet to know it exists, then you must find the name of that efreet, spending a month in constant study (far out of the time frame to keep it caught), giving it plenty of time for revenge, and then succeed on a not that difficult but probably not guaranteed success skill check.

... no, that's not how that works at all.

That's what libraries and research are for.

Ilja wrote:
EDIT3: Note that for Efreeti, with their intelligence and power, it can be assumed they have a truly wish-based economy, and to that, unions. It'd be very easy for them to set up effective unions where the efreeti pay with a few wishes per year to get protection from any involuntary callings, where calling an efreeti would more or less immediately result in a dozen or more efreeti teleporting in with their bound wish-slaves, unleashing a bunch of bad spells on you.

If you suppose that, you're going against a great many settings, including Golarion's.

Wish-based economies don't work, RAW, the way they used to. In 3.0 they had a 15k limit. In 3.5, they didn't have a limit (though the implied limit was a conversion of 1 XP = 5 gold, which had no direct impact on spell-likes of genies... so that meant there were literally no RAW limits on it - which was the basis of an entire AP). In PF, wishes don't expressly allow you to make substances and cost 25k gold anyway, which means that it'd likely be just a transformation of cash than production of it. But again, the spell-likes don't have that cost. If you take the advice (but not rules) from the GMG, pg 116, a wish-based economy might become feasible (if a GM feels like it)... but it inevitably becomes tricky. But again, that's a GM decision, and you're going beyond RAW into 'suggestion' territory.

If, on the other hand, you accept suggestions as part of RAW, than rule 0 (and any house rules that come from it) are equally valid interpretations of RAW, because rule 0 is written in the rules.

Ilja wrote:
On the other hand, this would probably be common knowledge as wizards smart enough to research beforehand would know it. I'd probably allow a middling difficulty knowledge check for the wizard to know this, a DC around 20-25 or so if they don't research it at all.

Which would be a perfectly justified house rule, which is my point.

EDIT: Kind of an aside, but I wish to point out: I'm in no way against a GM taking steps to ensure that wish-abuse doesn't happen, and that a game is fun for all. But my point is that a GM that does this is engaging in house-rules... and house rules are perfectly fine.

But all that's an aside and not really part of this thread. I'd be delighted to continue discussing it, if someone wishes (hah! I pun!) to make a new thread discussing it. My point is and remains that there are plenty - plenty! - of other ways to avoid the "once the body's gone, too bad" angle in RAW. I just listed a few.

And in case it wasn't obvious, the invisible/teleporting outsider would teleport to where your buddy was, pick up a piece (presuming there is any left at all, which, given Ilja's note that a cell is, in fact, a piece), and teleport back (because the piece could be less than 50 pounds).

There are even more ways, but, as I said, that's kind of beyond this conversation. The post was, "Once someone dies and their body is 'lost', they can't come back at this level." and my response was, "Well, actually, there are several RAW ways in which they can." Ergo, the earlier point is incorrect.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Ilja wrote:


But that's not the "hoops" in question. It would make no sense for the efreet to guarantee away all it's wishes, and there's no rules support for doing so preventing planar binding it. The "hoop" is simply that it's friends will likely help it - just like if you go to a goblin village and cast charm person on the first goblin you see, you can't assume that will give you an audience with the goblin king - all the other goblins WILL try to kill you before; it's just common sense.

For powerful creatures that can cast Wish 3 times per day, can planeshift at will, and where the average person is as smart as an elf and wiser than a dwarf, and that has lived hundreds of years, someone calling a citizen to the material plane for imprisonment is similar to the party charming that goblin - except the goblin's pals are a fair bit more resourceful.

It is a discussion for another thread and was done to death, but: "1/day—grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only)," mean that the efreeti can't cast wishes to help their friends unless they get a non genie to express them. If you read the article about genie wishes in "The final wish" (AP 24) you will see that genies are extremely reluctant on casting wishes as they warp realty beyond what is intended.


Golarion-specific material is not part of core and can't be assumed. For a creature that can grant wishes 3/day to only non-genies, it's obvious to get a couple of slaves that you force to wish what you want (that's what's referred to as "wish-slaves").

If we let the PC's use the RAW however they wish, so should the monsters be allowed to play by the same rules and build their societies how it makes sense in regards to what they actually DO.

A creature that can do awesome stuff as soon as someone asks it to, will naturally use that to get slaves that it can force to wish things of it. Remember also that efreeti are not Aladdin genies, they're Wishmaster genies.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ilja wrote:

Golarion-specific material is not part of core and can't be assumed. For a creature that can grant wishes 3/day to only non-genies, it's obvious to get a couple of slaves that you force to wish what you want (that's what's referred to as "wish-slaves").

If we let the PC's use the RAW however they wish, so should the monsters be allowed to play by the same rules and build their societies how it makes sense in regards to what they actually DO.

A creature that can do awesome stuff as soon as someone asks it to, will naturally use that to get slaves that it can force to wish things of it. Remember also that efreeti are not Aladdin genies, they're Wishmaster genies.

The issue with this interpretation is that it means the efreeti should is going to have hundreds of thousands of gold in magic gear. He would no longer fit as a CR8 encounter.


Wish in itself does not produce gold though, neither can it produce magic items. It has a masterwork falchion and about 3k other gear.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The whole wish slave crap needs to be taken to another thread in order to fester and draw out another 800 post thread that achieves nothing in the end.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

wish discussion:

"I wish for my efreeti master to know the location of the nearest unattended +4 ring of protection not owned by an efreeti."
"I wish to teleport the +4 ring of protection located in position previously located to the table before my efreeti master."

Those wishes have produced gold? no.
Items? no.
Located an item? Yes, this power is within the boundaries of a level 8 wizard spell or a level 7 clerical spell.
Teleported an unattended item. Very similar to "Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies."

Wishes uses by genies is limited for a reason. If you want to modify that, remember that it has consequences on hos your world work.

Exactly as changing the cost of being raised from dead change how your world work. Or changing how mis teleporting work. Or the requirements about the fork needed to cast plane shift.

Both of the 5th level spells that Sean use as an example of powerful, game changing spells, without costly components have been made easier with the changing editions.

Teleport had a chance to teleport you below the intended destination point in the first and second edition, with very good chances to kill you. There were optional rules published in Dragon and other supplements about creating specific destination points to avoid that, but you weren't routinely using them to zip around the planet, especially to almost unknown destinations.

Plane shift, till Pathfinder, had "Forked rods keyed to certain panes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM." That text wasn't in the SRD so probably it is not Open source material, but removing it change the power of the spell.

To me those two examples seem good examples about the consequences of changing a spell requirement or effects.
Changing them has broken the game mechanisms? no.
Changing them has changed how the players use them and how easily the players travel? yes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Wishes uses by genies is limited for a reason. If you want to modify that, remember that it has consequences on hos your world work.

Exactly as changing the cost of being raised from dead change how your world work. Or changing how mis teleporting work. Or the requirements about the fork needed to cast plane shift.

Both of the 5th level spells that Sean use as an example of powerful, game changing spells, without costly components have been made easier with the changing editions.

Teleport had a chance to teleport you below the intended destination point in the first and second edition, with very good chances to kill you. There were optional rules published in Dragon and other supplements about creating specific destination points to avoid that, but you weren't routinely using them to zip around the planet, especially to almost unknown destinations.

Plane shift, till Pathfinder, had "Forked rods keyed to certain panes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM." That text wasn't in the SRD so probably it is not Open source material, but removing it change the power of the spell.

To me those two examples seem good examples about the consequences of changing a spell requirement or effects....

Alternately, a genie can use wish to emulate Fabricate and create mithral fullplate armor for free each day. If he does this three times a day, he is going to make millions of gold pieces a year.


Ilja wrote:
Wish in itself does not produce gold though, neither can it produce magic items. It has a masterwork falchion and about 3k other gear.

Yes it does. Wish allows you to emulate fabricate without the material cost(so long as you create something worth 10k gold or less). He could use this to create 10k gold worth of adamantine ore. Thats 15 thousand gold a day or 5.475 million gold a year.


Ugh. Message boards being down is annoying. Let's see if it works this time.
... okay, maybe time number four (and a few hours later).

Last post read before writing this, since, you know, people managed to post stuff but I couldn't. Sigh.

Wish stuff is still tangential to this thread.:
To a point, but, Ilja, if you do this, you will greatly change the CR of the creature in question. That, then, forces a deviation from RAW... at least if you presume a wish-granting creature uses their abilities intelligently, even going by RAW Wish. Permanency of all beneficial spells on themselves and their items? Yes, please. Using wish to imitate fabricate to abuse the crafting system and thus gain infinite wealth? Absolutely, if you go by your suggestion. But this will change their CR (which contravenes what their CR is, by RAW).

This is what the GM is 'fudging'. By making them more intelligent than they are RAW, he's fudging a very specific and difficult thing that harms players, hampers their options, and punishes them for taking advantage of things that are built into RAW.

Let me stress: there is nothing wrong with developing a campaign setting based around this idea, if you inform the players in advance. But it's a difficult, terrible thing to simply spring onto them, and by doing so you've handily eliminated a great deal of player options in the game by default. But again, this is a topic for another thread.

Personally, I just think the GM should give everyone My Little Pony stickers and ice cream. Oh, and also chocolate cake. All of it made expressly so that those who are lactose intolerant and/or diabetic can enjoy. Ooh, and perhaps some sugar-free cherry pie! That stuffs genuinely amazing.

EDIT: and my post is still relevant! Yay!
EDIT 2: For more wish shenanigans (or just continuing the conversation), go here. Kthnxbai.

Now, how about that raise dead?

Silver Crusade

johnlocke90 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Wishes uses by genies is limited for a reason. If you want to modify that, remember that it has consequences on hos your world work.

Exactly as changing the cost of being raised from dead change how your world work. Or changing how mis teleporting work. Or the requirements about the fork needed to cast plane shift.

Both of the 5th level spells that Sean use as an example of powerful, game changing spells, without costly components have been made easier with the changing editions.

Teleport had a chance to teleport you below the intended destination point in the first and second edition, with very good chances to kill you. There were optional rules published in Dragon and other supplements about creating specific destination points to avoid that, but you weren't routinely using them to zip around the planet, especially to almost unknown destinations.

Plane shift, till Pathfinder, had "Forked rods keyed to certain panes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM." That text wasn't in the SRD so probably it is not Open source material, but removing it change the power of the spell.

To me those two examples seem good examples about the consequences of changing a spell requirement or effects....

Alternately, a genie can use wish to emulate Fabricate and create mithral fullplate armor for free each day. If he does this three times a day, he is going to make millions of gold pieces a year.

That's only if a DM decides that the genie has Craft (Armor) as his one craft skill and he would need to make that Craft check.

Liberty's Edge

And now the thread is completely derailed...


ciretose wrote:


And now the thread is completely derailed...

Hasn't that already happened... a couple of times?


That's why I made the other thread.

So, how about that raise dead, eh?


shallowsoul wrote:
johnlocke90 wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

** spoiler omitted **

Wishes uses by genies is limited for a reason. If you want to modify that, remember that it has consequences on hos your world work.

Exactly as changing the cost of being raised from dead change how your world work. Or changing how mis teleporting work. Or the requirements about the fork needed to cast plane shift.

Both of the 5th level spells that Sean use as an example of powerful, game changing spells, without costly components have been made easier with the changing editions.

Teleport had a chance to teleport you below the intended destination point in the first and second edition, with very good chances to kill you. There were optional rules published in Dragon and other supplements about creating specific destination points to avoid that, but you weren't routinely using them to zip around the planet, especially to almost unknown destinations.

Plane shift, till Pathfinder, had "Forked rods keyed to certain panes or dimensions may be difficult to come by, as decided by the DM." That text wasn't in the SRD so probably it is not Open source material, but removing it change the power of the spell.

To me those two examples seem good examples about the consequences of changing a spell requirement or effects....

Alternately, a genie can use wish to emulate Fabricate and create mithral fullplate armor for free each day. If he does this three times a day, he is going to make millions of gold pieces a year.
That's only if a DM decides that the genie has Craft (Armor) as his one craft skill and he would need to make that Craft check.

Fair enough. I guess he can settle for making 10k gold worth of mithral ore. No craft check required.

Liberty's Edge

R_Chance wrote:
ciretose wrote:


And now the thread is completely derailed...
Hasn't that already happened... a couple of times?

It was at least about Raise Dead throughout until recently.


Sigh. Fabricate REQUIRES raw materials, it doesn't CREATE them.


Oh, sheesh, dudes.

Other Thread. USE IT. This discussion isn't part of the Raise Dead thing.

I'm sorry I ever mentioned alternate ways to raise dead.

For the love of the living...

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My favorite way to raise the dead is to put their bodies in a high place.


Alitan wrote:
Sigh. Fabricate REQUIRES raw materials, it doesn't CREATE them.

Correct, but Wish removes the material components if they cost 10k or less(and the raw materials are the material component).

Sovereign Court

Just so I'm clear...

Sean popped in and said the reason it's 5k not 10k nor other is due to the WBL chart... with the implication that it consumes an appropriate amount of wealth the character can have, with the intimiation that he always ensures all characters have the WBL at each subsequent level, thus replacing the expenditure?

Did I hear that correctly as the answer?
I just need to understand since I was vested in this thread.
Thanks,
Pax


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Pax Veritas wrote:

Just so I'm clear...

Sean popped in and said the reason it's 5k not 10k nor other is due to the WBL chart... with the implication that it consumes an appropriate amount of wealth the character can have, with the intimiation that he always ensures all characters have the WBL at each subsequent level, thus replacing the expenditure?

Did I hear that correctly as the answer?
I just need to understand since I was vested in this thread.
Thanks,
Pax

I believe Sean's point was that the financial price isn't a sacrifice at all, since a level X party that has paid to have a party member or two raised is expected to have the same amount of treasure when they reach that level as a party that hasn't had any PCs die. That is, a 7th-level character that has paid for a raise dead (for himself or another party member) is expected to have 33,000 gp at level 8 just like a PC that hasn't paid for raise dead, not 28,000 gp.

His point, as I understand it, is that there is no game-mechanical reason that raise dead costs 5,000 gp. It's an arbitrary number, and whether it was 500 gp or 50,000 gp, the WBL chart means it all evens out by the next level so a party that has raised dead comrades has no less wealth than a party that hasn't.


Monster Customization:

a monster has a set amount of treasure for it's CR, and there is nothing wrong with the monster having usable gear from that treasure. whether cheap consumables, or actual magical equipment.

For Example. if an Ifriti had 3K worth of treasure, an Ifriti can equip itself with 3K worth of usable gear without changing it's CR

you can also swap a monster's skill points rank for rank and a monster's feats, feat for feat, as long as it isn't a racial freebie. without raising the CR. or rearrange a monster's 3 point buy, or if it has class levels, or rearrange whatever buy points it receives from being unique. without changing CR. a monster can also take an odd numbered level in a non-key class without changing it's CR beyond the previous even numbered leveled class

Wish Abuse:

we need a new thread for wish abuse

801 to 850 of 1,171 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Raise Dead and the Diamond Thing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.