Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Assume that [creature] is not a god, demon lord, archdevil, or equivalent. Permissible?
Doug M.
By my thinking, none of them, because each one uses game mechanics knowledge as part of the wish. You're asking to affect a creature in a way a character would have absolutely no idea about, and subsequently asking for them in "rounds."
What you might say:
1) I want [creature] to become totally vulnerable to my mind affecting spells until it's killed.
2)I want [creature] to become completely vulnerable to magic attacks until it's killed.
3)I want to block [creature] from using any magic until it's killed.
4)I want to block all transdimensional movement in this area for the next (insert number) hours.
Of course, by looking at what you're requesting, I'm thinking you're using those as wishes in order to kill a foe, or at least make it easier to kill. At that point just wish for [creature]'s life to be snuffed out and be done with it.
Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Assume that [creature] is not a god, demon lord, archdevil, or equivalent. Permissible?
Doug M.
In my campaign I would allow any of them. They seem like underpowered uses of the wish to me - even though they will probably result in the victim having a very bad day.. or a very bad next round at least.
Well, I probably should have called this thread "Using Wish to debuff".-- Mendedwall, your versions are noticeably different from mine. "I want [creature] to become totally vulnerable to my mind affecting spells until it's killed" -- that's both narrower (because it's now only MY mind affecting spells) and much more powerful (because it's 'until it dies' instead of for just one round).
Doug M.
Yeah I get that, but I was trying to show you that you can't really use game mechanics when making a wish. That's like saying "I wish my strength attribute would be raised to 35" ... The universe would be like "what strength attribute?" You have to wish for things with in-character words. The powers of the Pathfinder cosmos don't understand what a "round" is the way you're using it. To use my example, if I wanted my strength to go up I might wish for the ability to lift 800 pounds over my head. That's part of what makes wishes tricky, the fact that you have to ask for what you want in in-character dialogue. It's also why wish has this caveat:
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.)
Edit: Also, why in the world would you use a wish spell do debuff? Like I said before. Wish the darn thing dead and move on. Wishing something dead is a pretty easy thing to wish, and also a pretty easy thing for the universe to grant.
Well, this is a spinoff from the "Taking Down Treerazer" thread. Treerazer is a nascent demon lord. He's CR 25 with umpty-hundred hit points, high SR, and just ridiculously high saving throws. Oh, and he's also immune to death magic. So, I think just wishing him dead is not going to fly.Treerazer is CR 25. A CR 25 creature is APL+5 for a group of fully-loaded, tricked-out 20th level PCs. So no single spell -- not even a Wish -- should be able to just take him down. By way of comparison, most other 9th level spells are either going to bounce off his SR 36, or fail because he makes his saves.
However, using a Wish as a temporary debuff, on a single attribute and for a limited period of time... yeah, I think that's reasonable. So I'm trying to get an idea of just how effective it should be.
Doug M.
That's all fine and dandy like cotton candy, but it still doesn't change the fact that you can't wish for something using metagame language. You just can't, unless your characters frequently go around discussing people's Will Saves, and Fortitude Saves, and Spell-Like Abilities...
"Oh man look at that barmaid. I bet she has really low Will Saves."
Also, as to the part I bolded. Wishing something like that dead, isn't wishing for a death spell. If it was I assume you'd just cast a death spell (since you obviously have somebody casting 9th level wizard/sorcerer spells). Wishing for it dead is wishing for the universe to exert it's cosmic power and take that creature's life. The universe might say no, but you can always ask.
Well, I probably should have called this thread "Using Wish to debuff".-- Mendedwall, your versions are noticeably different from mine. "I want [creature] to become totally vulnerable to my mind affecting spells until it's killed" -- that's both narrower (because it's now only MY mind affecting spells) and much more powerful (because it's 'until it dies' instead of for just one round).
Doug M.
Yeah I get that, but I was trying to show you that you can't really use game mechanics when making a wish. That's like saying "I wish my strength attribute would be raised to 35" ... The universe would be like "what strength attribute?" You have to wish for things with in-character words. The powers of the Pathfinder cosmos don't understand what a "round" is the way you're using it. To use my example, if I wanted my strength to go up I might wish for the ability to lift 800 pounds over my head. That's part of what makes wishes tricky, the fact that you have to ask for what you want in in-character dialogue. It's also why wish has this caveat:
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.)Edit: Also, why in the world would you use a wish spell do debuff? Like I said before. Wish the darn thing dead and move on. Wishing something dead is a pretty easy thing to wish, and also a pretty easy thing for the universe to grant.
I agree with you that this wish could be used for something more powerful, but at least this way you can be sure (or should be sure) that your GM will not "screw" the wish up. For me anyway, if the request is reasonable (or more than reasonable) - I let the wish work with no problems.
Which brings me to the reason I would not penalize the player for using game mechanics to word his wish - especially these wishes. If the GM knows what the player means, and the wish is not too powerful, why get caught up in semantics? Just my view of course. I never liked those silly long-winded wishes players use out of fear of being screwed over.
Also I have issue with wishing someone dead - unless what you have in mind is duplicating the power word kill spell. I feel that for a regular wish (meaning the 9th level spell and not a God or genie) the power level should not exceed the power of a 9th level spell.
Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?
1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Assume that [creature] is not a god, demon lord, archdevil, or equivalent. Permissible?
Doug M.
In the end the wish spell is no more than a 9th level spell. GM are however free to allow it to do more.
1. Yes, but with a save and SR
2. See 1
3. Nope.
4. Yes, but with SR applying. I would not apply a moving field to the creature. I would allow it to be fixed on a point in space that is centered on the creature.
I agree with you that this wish could be used for something more powerful, but at least this way you can be sure (or should be sure) that your GM will not "screw" the wish up. For me anyway, if the request is reasonable (or more than reasonable) - I let the wish work with no problems.Which brings me to the reason I would not penalize the player for using game mechanics to word his wish - especially these wishes. If the GM knows what the player means, and the wish is not too powerful, why get caught up in semantics? Just my view of course. I never liked those silly long-winded wishes players use out of fear of being screwed over.
Also I have issue with wishing someone dead - unless what you have in mind is duplicating the power word kill spell. I feel that for a regular wish (meaning the 9th level spell and not a God or genie) the power level should not exceed the power of a 9th level spell.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Because it's the character making the wish, not the player. The character has to be able to word what (s)he's wishing for in "in the game" terminology. I don't think a character couldn't wish for what the OP is asking. I do though, as I said in my original post, say that you need to be able to ask for those things in an "in game" way. Call me a stickler if you will, but if a character is making a wish, they darn well better be able to voice what it is they're wishing for. No character is going to wish to lower a [creature]'s Will Save, because they don't know what that is. In game what are they really wishing for? A way to be able to kill [creature] in a way that they think the universe will be apt to do.
The player is asking something, and they want to try and be sure the GM will allow it. I get that, that's how the game is played, but you have to always remember what a character knows and what a player knows are vastly different. For example the player knows that a
Treerazer is CR 25.
But there's no way Doug's character is going to cast a 9th level spell and then ask the universe to "lower the CR of my foe..."
Yeah it's semantics, but at that point thems some pretty important semantics.
I like those uses of Wish, and would allow them, with a save and SR applied.
In all honesty, what is to stop a PC from wishing the BBEG was dead? Game over?
You can't really misinterpret it. You can apply a save and SR, but those can be overcome.
"I wish X was destroyed." One failed save and the game is over unless you call in the direct influence of the gods? But what if there are gods who support your actions?
I've been struggling with this idea for some time, and I'd love to hear a workable way around.
-Moox
That's all fine and dandy like cotton candy, but it still doesn't change the fact that you can't wish for something using metagame language. You just can't, unless your characters frequently go around discussing people's Will Saves, and Fortitude Saves, and Spell-Like Abilities..."Oh man look at that barmaid. I bet she has really low Will Saves."
I see what you are saying, but I think its ok he explicitly states he wants an ability lowered by a specific number for one round. I don’t view it any different than wishing to raise your inherent bonus for ‘x’ ability score by 1, which is explicitly on the list of options for the Wish spell.
I am all for roleplay like anyone else, but then if you force the player to say “I wish to raise the power inside of me permanently so I can hit harder and lift more”, then you run into the GM’s that think it’s funny where they turn you into a Troll.
So I don’t feel it unreasonable for him to ask for a specific drop in number on Spell Resistance or Will save as you can already ask for specific numbered bonuses on the option list for the spell.
That's all fine and dandy like cotton candy, but it still doesn't change the fact that you can't wish for something using metagame language. You just can't, unless your characters frequently go around discussing people's Will Saves, and Fortitude Saves, and Spell-Like Abilities..."Oh man look at that barmaid. I bet she has really low Will Saves."
I see what you are saying, but I think its ok he explicitly states he wants an ability lowered by a specific number for one round. I don’t view it any different than wishing to raise your inherent bonus for ‘x’ ability score by 1, which is explicitly on the list of options for the Wish spell.
I am all for roleplay like anyone else, but then if you force the player to say “I wish to raise the power inside of me permanently so I can hit harder and lift more”, then you run into the GM’s that think it’s funny where they turn you into a Troll.
So I don’t feel it unreasonable for him to ask for a specific drop in number on Spell Resistance or Will save as you can already ask for specific numbered bonuses on the option list for the spell.
I honestly don't like that wish can do that. I've never liked it, specifically because it is really metagamey. If a player in my game wants to raise an ability score with a wish, I will literally make them ask the universe to make them more (strong, dexterous, wise, charismatic, intelligent) or improve their overall constitution. If they ask me to "give [character] a +1 inherent bonus to their [insert ability]." I'll have the spell fizzle. Yeah, I'll freely admit that's a dickish move, but I'm a semantics guy who really likes his metagame, and his game separate.
I can respect that as long as you actually give them what they want/intend. If they ask the universe they want to be stronger, and you raise their strength by 1 inherent bonus, then I’d be happy to play under you.
However, if your player gave their in character speech (wish) for raising their strength, but you gave them a larger strength in a different, undesirable way, then that just makes it unfun for myself and I wouldn’t want to play under that kind of DM.
I say this because I have run under DM’s who give that big grin when I wish for something that is perfectly within reason (i.e. on the list) and they twist it out of proportion.
I can respect that as long as you actually give them what they want/intend. If they ask the universe they want to be stronger, and you raise their strength by 1 inherent bonus, then I’d be happy to play under you.
However, if your player gave their in character speech (wish) for raising their strength, but you gave them a larger strength in a different, undesirable way, then that just makes it unfun for myself and I wouldn’t want to play under that kind of DM.
I say this because I have run under DM’s who give that big grin when I wish for something that is perfectly within reason (i.e. on the list) and they twist it out of proportion.
Oh yeah, I'm not completely sadistic. I give them the +1 inherent bonus; I just really prefer they ask the universe in the right way. :)
I honestly don't like that wish can do that. I've never liked it, specifically because it is really metagamey. If a player in my game wants to raise an ability score with a wish, I will literally make them ask the universe to make them more (strong, dexterous, wise, charismatic, intelligent) or improve their overall constitution. If they ask me to "give [character] a +1 inherent bonus to their [insert ability]." I'll have the spell fizzle. Yeah, I'll freely admit that's a dickish move, but I'm a semantics guy who really likes his metagame, and his game separate.
Dude, you are tough. :-) But if you are a semantics guy, then your are a semantics guy. I am sure your players are used to it.
I like to maintain the integrity/purity of the "roleplay" too, but too much just slow things down, and makes them less fun... for my group anyway.
I honestly don't like that wish can do that. I've never liked it, specifically because it is really metagamey. If a player in my game wants to raise an ability score with a wish, I will literally make them ask the universe to make them more (strong, dexterous, wise, charismatic, intelligent) or improve their overall constitution. If they ask me to "give [character] a +1 inherent bonus to their [insert ability]." I'll have the spell fizzle. Yeah, I'll freely admit that's a dickish move, but I'm a semantics guy who really likes his metagame, and his game separate.
That's all fine and dandy like cotton candy, but it still doesn't change the fact that you can't wish for something using metagame language. You just can't, unless your characters frequently go around discussing people's Will Saves, and Fortitude Saves, and Spell-Like Abilities..."Oh man look at that barmaid. I bet she has really low Will Saves."
I see what you are saying, but I think its ok he explicitly states he wants an ability lowered by a specific number for one round. I don’t view it any different than wishing to raise your inherent bonus for ‘x’ ability score by 1, which is explicitly on the list of options for the Wish spell.
I am all for roleplay like anyone else, but then if you force the player to say “I wish to raise the power inside of me permanently so I can hit harder and lift more”, then you run into the GM’s that think it’s funny where they turn you into a Troll.
So I don’t feel it unreasonable for him to ask for a specific drop in number on Spell Resistance or Will save as you can already ask for specific numbered bonuses on the option list for the spell.
They are seperate. I am sure that in the game world there is a specific way to ask for a +3 sword as opposed to a +1 sword. I have no desire to make up a name for the different power levels. I left them say +3 while the character might say sword of magnificence.
Another example is during an RP situation. A player will say ______, but since the character may have a diplomacy/cha/etc that is different from what the player has it might not come out the same way.The character is not the player. The player is just trying to inform the GM of what he wants. It would be frustrating to me if you wanted me to say something, but I was not allowed to say it.
How do you handle players telling another player the spell they just cast gave the party a +3 to hit? All they are doing is passing info to the player, and telling the GM they want a +3 sword or +2 from wish is just passing info from the player to the GM.
Metagaming is when you speak in character with out of character knowledge.
They are seperate. I am sure that in the game world there is a specific way to ask for a +3 sword as opposed to a +1 sword. I have no desire to make up a name for the different power levels. I left them say +3 while the character might say sword of magnificence.
Another example is during an RP situation. A player will say ______, but since the character may have a diplomacy/cha/etc that is different from what the player has it might not come out the same way.
The character is not the player. The player is just trying to inform the GM of what he wants. It would be frustrating to me if you wanted me to say something, but I was not allowed to say it.
How do you handle players telling another player the spell they just cast gave the party a +3 to hit? All they are doing is passing info to the player, and telling the GM they want a +3 sword or +2 from wish is just passing info from the player to the GM.
Metagaming is when you speak in character with out of character knowledge.
How do I handle players telling players they gave them a +3 to hit as the result of a spell? I don't. That is the game, and it has nothing to do with the characters in game. When I describe what happens in-character though I say something like: "You feel a wash of magical energy surround you." Then after the character makes an attack and successfully hits with the added bonus I'll say something like: "Where before your enemy seemed difficult to strike, you now feel the magical energy has increased your martial prowess, and your blows seem to land more easily and more frequently."
Same thing when I describe magical weapons in a treasure store. After the wizard casts his detect magic and makes his spellcraft check, I don't say, "It's a +2 longsword." I say something like, "This sleek sword has been, without a doubt, magically crafted, and it moves and glides in your hand with an ease and grace unlike any other sword you've held." Then I tell the player it's a +2 sword.
Like I've said before I don't have a problem with what the OP is asking. I'm sure there are ways to come up with those ideas with in-game knowledge and terminology. Being the semantic guy I am though, I would make the player come up with how to ask for what they want using that in game dialogue. The nature of a wish spell is that the character is using magic to alter reality. They are literally expending spell energy that can create an open ended connection to the power of the universe and ask it to do something. The character casting the spell has to be able to ask for what they want. The player knows what they want, but the character who just cast the spell, and used a rather expensive diamond to do it, has to be able to "know" what they are asking for. The character doesn't know what a Will Save is, nor do they know what Spell Resistance (as an entity) is. They certainly know that some creatures seem to be able to resist magic, and that some creatures seem to be able to not be affected by certain kinds of spells. They also don't count things in "rounds." They count things in increments of real time. A character who wanted to ask for something to happen for a round would ask for something to last for six seconds. You have to ask yourself though, why, oh why, would a character ever ask the powers of the universe for something to happen for only six seconds?
Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?
1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Assume that [creature] is not a god, demon lord, archdevil, or equivalent. Permissible?
Doug M.
In the end the wish spell is no more than a 9th level spell. GM are however free to allow it to do more.
1. Yes, but with a save and SR
2. See 1
3. Nope.
4. Yes, but with SR applying. I would not apply a moving field to the creature. I would allow it to be fixed on a point in space that is centered on the creature.I'd like to see this reasoned out a bit more.
Compare Wish to, say, Energy Drain. Energy Drain
-- is vulnerable to SR
-- requires a ranged touch attack
-- does not allow a save
-- reduces all 3 saves, attacks, CMB, CMD and skill checks by an average of -5
-- does a bit of damage (average 25 points)
-- lasts for 24 hours
-- has no material component or costI want to reduce one save by -20 for a single round instead of reducing 3 saves, attacks, and other stuff by -5 for 24 hours. I'd say that's a reasonable tradeoff.
I then want to lose the ranged touch attack. In return, I'll give up those 25 hp of damage.
Finally, I want to automatically overcome SR, just this once. For this I'm willing to sacrifice a 25,000 gp diamond.
This doesn't seem grossly unreasonable to me. You can argue it -- but saying "oh you have to allow SR /and/ a save" seems obviously out of whack to me. That's making Wish *weaker* than other 9th level spells.
Doug M.
Energy Drain is countered by the restoration line of spells which I have never seen a high level party leave home without. A -20 can also take a creature out of a fight if cast twice.
If the negative 20 is ability damage then the caster might not even be able to cast the spell to remove it. If it is a penalty then it is not so bad, but I would still want a touch(ranged) attack, or save. It is not conjuration so it would at least get SR anyway.
It is also blocked by death ward, a 4th level spell, which the restoration carrying high level opponent should have. I think the fact that the wish version is not placed on autoblock says a lot.
I would much rather get hit by two energy drains than this spell even one, and 2 castings of an X level spell are not normally trumped by one casting of an X+1 level spell.
That -20 to that ability score affects a lot of things also. Energy Drain spreading the damage out across the board makes it more manageable.
They are seperate. I am sure that in the game world there is a specific way to ask for a +3 sword as opposed to a +1 sword. I have no desire to make up a name for the different power levels. I left them say +3 while the character might say sword of magnificence.
Another example is during an RP situation. A player will say ______, but since the character may have a diplomacy/cha/etc that is different from what the player has it might not come out the same way.
The character is not the player. The player is just trying to inform the GM of what he wants. It would be frustrating to me if you wanted me to say something, but I was not allowed to say it.
How do you handle players telling another player the spell they just cast gave the party a +3 to hit? All they are doing is passing info to the player, and telling the GM they want a +3 sword or +2 from wish is just passing info from the player to the GM.
Metagaming is when you speak in character with out of character knowledge.How do I handle players telling players they gave them a +3 to hit as the result of a spell? I don't. That is the game, and it has nothing to do with the characters in game. When I describe what happens in-character though I say something like: "You feel a wash of magical energy surround you." Then after the character makes an attack and successfully hits with the added bonus I'll say something like: "Where before your enemy seemed difficult to strike, you now feel the magical energy has increased your martial prowess, and your blows seem to land more easily and more frequently."
Same thing when I describe magical weapons in a treasure store. After the wizard casts his detect magic and makes his spellcraft check, I don't say, "It's a +2 longsword." I say something like, "This sleek sword has been, without a doubt, magically crafted, and it moves and glides in your hand with an ease and grace unlike any other sword you've held." Then I tell the player it's a +2 sword.
Like I've said...
That is why I said the player ask in our language, but the character says it in game world language. The player is not the character. I would probably take time as a player in your game to come up with ways(a chart) to say them in game world terms if I was at your table though so I would not be fumbling for words that my character already knows.
+3 to my wisdom score might be supreme wisdom as an example.
Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?
1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Yes and no. The problem is that you're actually short-changing yourself.
1) I want [creature] to be unable to resist the next spell I cast.
(that handles saving throw and SR, but requires a save/SR)
2) I want [creature] to take no actions for a minute. (save/SR applies, creature can defend itself normally.)
The number 4 option could go on for more than 3 rounds. An hour isn't totally unreasonable. . . but again save/SR applies.
That is why I said the player ask in our language, but the character says it in game world language. The player is not the character. I would probably take time as a player in your game to come up with ways(a chart) to say them in game world terms if I was at your table though so I would not be fumbling for words that my character already knows.
+3 to my wisdom score might be supreme wisdom as an example.
I get you Wraith. I feel like were mincing words at this point. My only point at the beginning was that it's awfully difficult to come up with in-game language for "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round." You know what I mean. That statement is soooooo mechanics oriented it's very difficult to come up with some in-character way to ask for it.
From my understanding pathfinder made the wish spell way more restrictive than 3.5, and as such you cant really use the spell for any of the suggested things.
What the wish spell can do, is grant exactly what is on the list in the pathfinder core book, including copying effects of a spell up to a certain level. That means that if you can justify to your DM that "reduce SR by 20 for 3 rounds" could be a level 9 necromantic school wizard spell, then the wish would be able to do it. But as per the rules written wish is not able to grant any of the above uses, as the table explicitly tells us "Even wish, however, has its limits. A wish can produce any one of the following effects", indicating the stuff on the table is everything the spell is supposed to do.
That ofcourse allows you to use power word death or some other SoD spell, but you cant for example just wish a character or monster dead with no save.
This also means that with a nice GM miracle is actually the better spell, as there is no limit to what this can accomplish, although it will most likely offend your god if not used in dire need.
Where did ability scores come in? I never even mentioned those. Just -20 to a single save.Think of it as something like True Strike, except for a single Will-affecting spell.
Doug M.
Oops. I don't know where it came from either.
A negative 20 to a single save is pretty much as autofail. Yeah the opponent might roll a nat 20, but that penalty is too big. I would not even allow an epic level spell to drop a -20 on someone.Energy Drain makes saving harder, but it is still possible.
Imagine if the big bad guy did that and removed you from the game.
Wish for you to have -20 penalty to your save. Cast Dominate Monster(done by his lackey). Tell you to leave or something else that does not get you a second chance at a save. Repeat on round 2. Kill the two party members that are left. Take the others out one at a time.
"I wish X was destroyed."
Your character is immediately teleported to the day many years in the future where X has just died of natural causes.
What's everyone else doing?
But the thing is, wish doesnt try to screw your charecter over no matter what he wishes. It is not some form of malignant form bent on doing something bad, it is merely a spell with certain specific but different possible effects. You cant by RAW use it to gain exactly what you want, only the possible things from the list.
The idea about an evil universe or something bent on shaping the meaning of the PCs wish spells, come from the effret monster. They get the right to interpret your wish and can then fullfill it in anyway they want, in accordance to the wish. Remember that they are still bound by what the spell can or cant do.
The real power from wish, comes in the fact that it is possible to cast any level 9 equivalent spell, that the player or anyone else for that matter, could possibly research. So if your GM lets you copy a spell that automaticly kills a target with no save, then sure it can do it, but that is pretty much true for anything in this game, if the GM lets you then you can do it. But as this is the rules forum, we have to agree that by RAW wish cant make any of the OPs 4 wanted effects.
By my thinking, none of them, because each one uses game mechanics knowledge as part of the wish. You're asking to affect a creature in a way a character would have absolutely no idea about, and subsequently asking for them in "rounds."
I disagree with this concept. I used to think this way, but the more and more I look at it, the less I can accept it.
Character in the RPG world MUST be aware of at least some of the basic mechanics that govern their world.
For example, when a caster uses a spell like bestow curse where they choose which attribute to debuff they MUST understand that choice and what it will effect. Therefore, at least caster types MUST understand that every living thing in their universe is built on a foundation of 6 core attributes.
Understanding that, spells like Eagle's Splendor make more sense. Given that every spell at some point must have been researched and codified you would have to know what you are effecting to make such a spell. But also, duration comes into play.
With just a spellcasters this may not be too bad to RP away (he is more powerful wizard than I, so his spell lasts longer.) Great, that works. But what about potion brewers. They must use exact amounts of magical materials according to a formula to create a potion and are able to vary that amount (with incredibly accurate results) to create potions that last less and more amounts of time.
That alone doesn't necessarily equate to a metagame term such as "caster level" but I find it very hard to believe that no potion brewer in the history of any given RPG world would not have taken the research time to figure out that x value of magic material yields exactly the same amount of result as if that guy casts the spell, and y amount gives the exact same result of this other guy who is clearly more powerful and knows better spells.
Then the same potion brewer starts to brew a cure light wounds. Wow, I can make this potion stronger and stronger, but only to a point. Everything after that is wasted. Hmm... exactly 5 variants.
Potion brewer's buddy the scroll making cleric comes over and talks about the differences. They find a correlation. Why is it that when you cast a cure light wounds it is exactly like this variant number 3? You are about to cast Cure Moderate Wounds too? Interesting. When your buddy know knows Cure Serious Wounds, casts Cure Light it comes out exactly like variant number 5 here. They talk about Eagle's Splendor. All off the sudden the entire Character Level / Caster Level theory of the universe comes into play.
From this point HP come about Why would a CLW totally heal this guy, but not that much better fighter type? He needs a more powerful spell in order to heal all his wounds. But I knew him a year ago before he went off to White Plume Mountain. He could easily have been cured with a CLW then.
Then entire system falls into place like geometric proofs with the least bit of analysis. And I cannot accept that people who are just as smart as us, and have access to magic aide (and Boon!) would not indulge as much resource as we have into understanding the nature of their universe.
Not every person may understand everything about the universe, but most people will have a basic understanding. People will understand that a +1 sword gives them a 5% better chance to hit an opponent. People will understand the concept of spell levels. I just don't see anyway around it.
Well, this is a spinoff from the "Taking Down Treerazer" thread. Treerazer is a nascent demon lord. He's CR 25 with umpty-hundred hit points, high SR, and just ridiculously high saving throws. Oh, and he's also immune to death magic. So, I think just wishing him dead is not going to fly.Treerazer is CR 25. A CR 25 creature is APL+5 for a group of fully-loaded, tricked-out 20th level PCs. So no single spell -- not even a Wish -- should be able to just take him down. By way of comparison, most other 9th level spells are either going to bounce off his SR 36, or fail because he makes his saves.
However, using a Wish as a temporary debuff, on a single attribute and for a limited period of time... yeah, I think that's reasonable. So I'm trying to get an idea of just how effective it should be.
Doug M.
Ineffective. Wish is subject to spell resistance.
Use spells that don't allow Spell Resistance (such as [Force] spells).Use Axiomatic Holy Outsider Bane weapons. That's +6d6 extra damage against demons on top of basic damage. With iterative attacks, that's a lot of damage stacking up, very quickly.
AC 36 shouldn't be too much of a problem for your melee fighters at 20th level. A touch AC 20 likewise shouldn't be too great a problem for your casters to hit. with SR 31 though, roughly means 50% of spells will fizzle unless you use spells that don't allow for SR, like Force Orb (from 3.5's Complete Arcane). He's still dead in less than a minute.
Ineffective. Wish is subject to spell resistance.
Use spells that don't allow Spell Resistance (such as [Force] spells).
Use Axiomatic Holy Outsider Bane weapons. That's +6d6 extra damage against demons on top of basic damage. With iterative attacks, that's a lot of damage stacking up, very quickly.AC 36 shouldn't be too much of a problem for your melee fighters at 20th level. A touch AC 20 likewise shouldn't be too great a problem for your casters to hit. with SR 31 though, roughly means 50% of spells will fizzle unless you use spells that don't allow for SR, like Force Orb (from 3.5's Complete Arcane). He's still dead in less than a minute.
Force Spells don't ignore spell resistance due to being force spells. Magic Missile is a force spell but it is subject to SR. The Orb of Force Spell ignored SR because it was a conjuration spell, and they do ignore SR.
Treerazer's stat are higher than what you are using, but you are correct about his touch AC not being an issue.
Force Spells don't ignore spell resistance due to being force spells. Magic Missile is a force spell but it is subject to SR. The Orb of Force Spell ignored SR because it was a conjuration spell, and they do ignore SR.Treerazer's stat are higher than what you are using, but you are correct about his touch AC not being an issue.
Sorry, don't have his stats on hand, so was using the Balor I expect he's based off of.
And you're correct, Force spells all on their own don't mean they ignore SR, double checked it, and a lot of them do ignore SR, but not by any means all of them, or even most of them... Anyway, the real recommendation there is to use spells not subject to SR, and Orb of Force is just one spell that does so.
Just for the record, not all Conjuration spells ignore SR either...
Just for the record, not all Conjuration spells ignore SR either...
I forgot about the cure spells. I have no idea why they are conjuration though. They should be transmutation or necromancy.
I forgot about the cure spells. I have no idea why they are conjuration though. They should be transmutation or necromancy.
Just for the record, not all Conjuration spells ignore SR either...
Used to be Necromancy [Healing]. Preferred it that way, that which deals with life & death...
But there's also Trap the Soul, and Maze. Both allow SR...
I disagree with this concept. I used to think this way, but the more and more I look at it, the less I can accept it.
Character in the RPG world MUST be aware of at least some of the basic mechanics that govern their world.
Agreed. However, let me, for the sake of argument (which is what the interwebs is for after all) try and refute or at least defend my viewpoint in light of your well written response.
First of all I have zero defense for characters in, let’s just say Golarion to make it easy, having ideas about the mechanics that govern their world. Just the same as real humans in our world have knowledge of physics, mathematics, etc. Of course Golarianites(?) are dealing with things outside of our realms of knowledge. Things like magic, extradimensional travel, extradimensional beings. These are all things that we humans imagined and put into our imaginary created worlds. Which means that the “real-world” applicable knowledge of those entities is entirely subjective, at best. Humans made it up, hobbyists take it and run. Which means that a meaningful conversation about any of it is going to be based on one person’s opinion versus another. (Of course that’s what we’re doing, and it doesn’t make it any less valid.) So regardless of what you think or what I think, neither one of us can ever really be “right” in the absence of the game creators saying “you’re right and he’s wrong.” Which I highly doubt they’d condescend to worry about.For example, when a caster uses a spell like bestow curse where they choose which attribute to debuff they MUST understand that choice and what it will effect. Therefore, at least caster types MUST understand that every living thing in their universe is built on a foundation of 6 core attributes.
Understanding that, spells like Eagle's Splendor make more sense. Given that every spell at some point must have been researched and codified you would have to know what you are effecting to make such a spell. But also, duration comes into play.
Great examples. I don’t know if you read some of my other posts in this thread, but if you did you’d see that I actually address this very issue with as much “in-game” mentality and language as I possibly can. For example if a character wants to use a wish spell to gain an inherent bonus to an attribute. I will have the player give me in-game wish language. In it they have to say something like, “I wish to be: stronger, more dexterous, wiser, more intelligent, more charismatic, or have a greater constitution.” While that definitely speaks to the six attributes, it doesn’t, in my mind anyway, specifically invoke them as a stat on a piece of paper. I’ve always liked the six attributes because I feel they are a fair representation of the different aspects of human power. To understand that humans can excel in these six areas does not, inherently anyway, specifically mean they are a box on a sheet of paper with a number next to them.
So, to use your bestow curse example. In my game I would imagine the caster expending the energy and focusing on making their target :weaker, less agile, dumb (less-intelligent), foolish (less-wise), ugly (less charismatic), or frail (less-constitutional :P). In the case of the -4 to attacks, etc. I would imagine the caster expending the energy and focusing on a just a general hampering of everything the target attempts. In the case of the 50% chance to be inactive, I would have the caster expend the energy and focus on, just that, trying to make their target completely inactive, with the realization that that may not work entirely.So you see that even these examples can, and in my game should, be used without those metagame terms, at least on a character specific level.
With just a spellcasters this may not be too bad to RP away (he is more powerful wizard than I, so his spell lasts longer.) Great, that works. But what about potion brewers. They must use exact amounts of magical materials according to a formula to create a potion and are able to vary that amount (with incredibly accurate results) to create potions that last less and more amounts of time.
That alone doesn't necessarily equate to a metagame term such as "caster level" but I find it very hard to believe that no potion brewer in the history of any given RPG world would not have taken the research time to figure out that x value of magic material yields exactly the same amount of result as if that guy casts the spell, and y amount gives the exact same result of this other guy who is clearly more powerful and knows better spells.
Then the same potion brewer starts to brew a cure light wounds. Wow, I can make this potion stronger and stronger, but only to a point. Everything after that is wasted. Hmm... exactly 5 variants.
Potion brewer's buddy the scroll making cleric comes over and talks about the differences. They find a correlation. Why is it that when you cast a cure light wounds it is exactly like this variant number 3? You are about to cast Cure Moderate Wounds too? Interesting. When your buddy know knows Cure Serious Wounds, casts Cure Light it comes out exactly like variant number 5 here. They talk about Eagle's Splendor. All off the sudden the entire Character Level / Caster Level theory of the universe comes into play.
Another great example, but I think you, kind of, answered your own question, or possibly offered a defense for your own argument with the part I bolded. I look at this like levels of hierarchy in society. A cleric starts as a, say, novitiate, then moves up in rank in the church to priest, then to bishop, then cardinal, etc. Surely potion brewers, be they alchemists, or casters that specialize in that craft attain different levels of mastery over their craft, and as they learn more, learn how much of this, and how little of that to brew a potion that works exactly the way they want it to. The coincidence (meaning the coinciding of) of how one caster casts a spell that works the same way and a potion that works exactly that same way would equate to attaining the mastery over magic or crafting that comes from practice and learning. In fact they may even say the words “caster level” in regards to a magic user. They might say the archwizard’s caster level is so much higher than mine. I can’t wait to achieve that rank of power.” That, again though, does not mean that they think that’s some specific numerical idea that is attached to them as they wander the world.
In our world we have different levels of education, and people at different levels can handle varying degrees of tasks. A nurse can do some things, but a doctor can do more. A teacher with a bachelor’s degree is adept at teaching to a certain level, whereas a teacher with a master’s degree or doctorate can teach at higher levels of thinking. We don’t call them “caster levels” but it is very much the same idea.From this point HP come about Why would a CLW totally heal this guy, but not that much better fighter type? He needs a more powerful spell in order to heal all his wounds. But I knew him a year ago before he went off to White Plume Mountain. He could easily have been cured with a CLW then.
This one for me is very simple. Call them categories of wounds. I mean even we have categories of types of wounds. Think of 1st, 2nd and 3rd degree burns. Perhaps a cleric that is just starting their career realizes they can’t heal 3rd degree burns, or grievous wounds all at once. They have to expend multiple small doses of their healing magic in order to do so. Realizing they just don’t have the training or spiritual acuity to transfer large doses of healing power, yet. The realization that certain people require more healing than others, in my mind, just has to do with how big and strong they are (which fighter types would be bigger and stronger than others). Because of their overall girth, they have more that needs healing, literally more tissue that needs to be repaired. At no point do I think they’d call it “hit points.” In my game, they just think about it as degrees of wounds.
Then entire system falls into place like geometric proofs with the least bit of analysis. And I cannot accept that people who are just as smart as us, and have access to magic aide (and Boon!) would not indulge as much resource as we have into understanding the nature of their universe.
I’m sure that they would, but would they ever sit down and think that they have a numerical value attached to their core six attributes, and that that numerical value equates to another numerical bonus that increases their chances of being successful at life? I doubt it. Hopefully my above examples show why.
Not every person may understand everything about the universe, but most people will have a basic understanding. People will understand that a +1 sword gives them a 5% better chance to hit an opponent.
I doubt very much that a melee type would ever quantify the actual numerical percentage of how much more often they hit with a magically crafted weapon. In my mind they would just realize that this sword has definitely improved their overall chances of successfully wounding their opponents.
People will understand the concept of spell levels. I just don't see anyway around it.
Characters, as I’ve pointed out, would absolutely have an idea of the ability to control higher powers of magic, and understand that the unlearned, or the inexperienced don’t have the ability to control those more incredible spells. That doesn’t mean that they would say “Fireball? That’s a level 3 spell, you’re caster level is not high enough for that yet.” What they might say, in my game anyway, is: “I don’t believe you’ve attained the knowledge or skill yet to be able to understand all the nuances and minutia involved in casting that powerful spell.” Same concept, you’re not powerful enough yet for that, but they don’t talk about it in game mechanics lingo.
Hopefully my arguments here, at the very least, give you pause to think that my way of thinking is valid. Whether or not you agree with me is beside the point, as we are both just offering our opinions of the mentality in an imaginary world. I just hope you can see my point as being entirely feasible.
I absolutely agree that your character can tailor a wish that specifies mechanical things, as long as that wish is within the power level allowed for an "untwisted" wish.
Basically, the way I see it is that a caster who learns wish, learns all of the necessary intricacies of the spell to control it precisely to get the desired effect without backlash. The caster isn't saying, "I wish for that creature to suffer -7 to Strength for one minute." The caster has basically solved a "Wish equation" where specific words of a highly technical nature (possibly nonsensical words or words part of the language of magic) result in the exact effect that the caster wants.
I really see an "untwisted Wish" and a "twisted Wish" as two completely different situations. The "twisted Wish" is the character's attempt to specify an outcome for the Wish without solving the "Wish equation" (because the desired outcome is beyond the power of the spell and so no solution exists) -- so in the case of a "twisted Wish", the wording is critical. The player needs to give it, and the GM determines the very least alteration of reality necessary to result in the literal outcome the player has asked for, then does that.
It is assumed that there is some wording that the caster can figure out to get exactly the desired effect in the case of the "untwisted Wish", and so we don't need to know what words those are. We know the result.
I absolutely agree that your character can tailor a wish that specifies mechanical things, as long as that wish is within the power level allowed for an "untwisted" wish.
Basically, the way I see it is that a caster who learns wish, learns all of the necessary intricacies of the spell to control it precisely to get the desired effect without backlash. The caster isn't saying, "I wish for that creature to suffer -7 to Strength for one minute." The caster has basically solved a "Wish equation" where specific words of a highly technical nature (possibly nonsensical words or words part of the language of magic) result in the exact effect that the caster wants.
I really see an "untwisted Wish" and a "twisted Wish" as two completely different situations. The "twisted Wish" is the character's attempt to specify an outcome for the Wish without solving the "Wish equation" (because the desired outcome is beyond the power of the spell and so no solution exists) -- so in the case of a "twisted Wish", the wording is critical. The player needs to give it, and the GM determines the very least alteration of reality necessary to result in the literal outcome the player has asked for, then does that.
It is assumed that there is some wording that the caster can figure out to get exactly the desired effect in the case of the "untwisted Wish", and so we don't need to know what words those are. We know the result.
That makes complete sense, and I could absolutely be on board for that type of resolution. The arcane language is (for all intents and purposes) gibberish anyway, so specific arcane gibberish that the caster knows will hamper a creatures specific resistance makes total sense. I also agree with the difference between the equation of the "untwisted," or within spell level limits, wish, and the "I'm going to go out on a limb here and see if the powers of the universe come to my beck and call" kind of wish.
In fact they may even say the words “caster level” in regards to a magic user. They might say the archwizard’s caster level is so much higher than mine. I can’t wait to achieve that rank of power.
"Vegeta, what does arcane sight say about his caster level?"
"It's over 9000!""WHAT? OVER 9000???"
In fact they may even say the words “caster level” in regards to a magic user. They might say the archwizard’s caster level is so much higher than mine. I can’t wait to achieve that rank of power."Vegeta, what does arcane sight say about his caster level?"
"It's over 9000!"
"WHAT? OVER 9000???"
That's a great reference, especially because I love how they've broken down the various levels of power: faint, moderate, strong, overwhelming.
"The archwizard is an overwhelmingly powerful caster. You? You're just a faintly powerful caster. Go study some more."
Hopefully my arguments here, at the very least, give you pause to think that my way of thinking is valid. Whether or not you agree with me is beside the point, as we are both just offering our opinions of the mentality in an imaginary world. I just hope you can see my point as being entirely feasible.
I certainly don't think that approach is invalid. I really tried to make it work in my games for several years. Eventually it just became to untennable. I really wish the dev's had included something in complete magic about roleplaying magic. I know when they first mentioned the book that was one of the specific things I asked for.
Hopefully my arguments here, at the very least, give you pause to think that my way of thinking is valid. Whether or not you agree with me is beside the point, as we are both just offering our opinions of the mentality in an imaginary world. I just hope you can see my point as being entirely feasible.I certainly don't think that approach is invalid. I really tried to make it work in my games for several years. Eventually it just became to untennable. I really wish the dev's had included something in complete magic about roleplaying magic. I know when they first mentioned the book that was one of the specific things I asked for.
Honestly, I'm pretty sure I remember you (and others) making that request.
In fact they may even say the words “caster level” in regards to a magic user. They might say the archwizard’s caster level is so much higher than mine. I can’t wait to achieve that rank of power."Vegeta, what does arcane sight say about his caster level?"
"It's over 9000!"
"WHAT? OVER 9000???"
"Sir, I think we just crossed over into the Underworld. Laharl would like a word with us."
|
I honestly don't like that wish can do that. I've never liked it, specifically because it is really metagamey. If a player in my game wants to raise an ability score with a wish, I will literally make them ask the universe to make them more (strong, dexterous, wise, charismatic, intelligent) or improve their overall constitution. If they ask me to "give [character] a +1 inherent bonus to their [insert ability]." I'll have the spell fizzle. Yeah, I'll freely admit that's a dickish move, but I'm a semantics guy who really likes his metagame, and his game separate.Dude, you are tough. :-) But if you are a semantics guy, then your are a semantics guy. I am sure your players are used to it.
I like to maintain the integrity/purity of the "roleplay" too, but too much just slow things down, and makes them less fun... for my group anyway.
That's not tough. A tough DM is the one who has parameters on Wish that he won't tell you about, and if you fail to meet those parameters then he utterly distorts your wish to your amazement and dismay.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Because it's the character making the wish, not the player. The character has to be able to word what (s)he's wishing for in "in the game" terminology. I don't think a character couldn't wish for what the OP is asking. I do though, as I said in my original post, say that you need to be able to ask for those things in an "in game" way. Call me a stickler if you will, but if a character is making a wish, they darn well better be able to voice what it is they're wishing for. No character is going to wish to lower a [creature]'s Will Save, because they don't know what that is. In game what are they really wishing for? A way to be able to kill [creature] in a way that they think the universe will be apt to do.
Ok, so just "I wish I had increased Strength!" 5 times is sufficient for raising your stats by 5? Easy enough.
However, sometimes players can't think of a in character way to portray an game mechanic that WOULD be.
For example, one easily could wish, 'I wish John had a lower willpower!" which would be the character way of saying "I wish John had a lower will save." But, not all players are experienced enough to come up with in character ways to make some wishes.
Even though I've been playing for nearly 20 years, even today sometimes I just can't figure out how to put a game mechanic into character terms (can't think of any examples at this time, or I'd list a few).
So, in my games if a player makes a game term wish, I'd allow it, but I'd also try to help him reword it in character. If neither of us can come up with a way but I feel the wish isn't out of scope, then so be it. I'd probably still allow it.
Which of these would be acceptable uses of a Wish?
1) "I want [creature]'s Will save reduced by 20 for a single round."
2) "I want [creature]'s Spell Resistance reduced by 20 for a single round."
3) "I want to cancel all of [creature's] Spell-Like Abilities for a single round."
4) "I want to prevent all forms of teleportation, gates, summoning, or planar travel within a 120' radius centered on [creature] for 3 rounds."
Assume that [creature] is not a god, demon lord, archdevil, or equivalent. Permissible?
Doug M.
I actually agree with keeping it in character terms no metagame. I think it could fly somewhat ...
1. I would allow you allow to impose up to and no more than 15% of penalty to the will save2. similar to 1
3. wish is a 9th level spell - let it cancel 9 levels worth of spell-like abilities, per uses of the wish spell
4. this strongly resembles either dimensional anchor or ... antimagic shell. so why not create a strong antimagic shell around creature?