Good Spell List


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 306 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
I'm genuinely kind of confused what you're getting at here?

Maybe the order between posts made it unclear, so I'll rephrase it.

I'm making the distinction between:
- My sentence: "I blast the dragons with an iceberg swarm."
- YuriP sentence: "I want to cast a meteor storm that gives only cold damage againts these red dragon swarm"

In the first case, I say what I want to do and because we are in a situation that is not codified in the game (there's no such spell) I let the GM choose the mechanical resolution to my actions. It's fine.

In the second case, YuriP comes with a houserule (a cold-based Meteor Swarm spell), and tries to push it on the GM for the resolution of a non-codified situation. That's abusive.

As a GM, I really don't like when a player is pushing houserules on me. And I feel a lot of players don't even realize when they do it.

It's the GM's job to handle the rules, not the player's one. If someone has to come with a houserule, it's definitely the GM.

Ah, I see the issue. It's not a matter of the rules; it's how we are both perceiving dynamics at table. I personally don't see a problem with someone saying YuriP's sentence if they're casting Wish. That's just how some players at my table talk, and the understanding at the table is they are still making a suggestion that I as the GM can say no to, or more likely suggest an adjustment for, since I trust my player to not try to break my game, and they trust that what I am trying to think up for them will make things challenging, but also rewarding and fun.

I still think your stance is a bit extreme, but from reading your posts I can see why you have it.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Players making suggestions about alternative ways to approach a problem and trying to interact with the world around them isn't just not a problem, it feels like a cornerstone of a good roleplaying environment, at least to me.

The notion of "forcing a houserule" frames the whole thing in this weirdly inimical way and seems to suggest a fairly hostile gaming environment to play in.


Different tables have different tables, but I've had players arguing for 45 minutes that their interpretation is the only valid one and making the game a nightmare for everyone.

I don't play with them anymore, but its happened on more than one occasion. One of the perks of pf2e is that most things are pretty clear cut so as to disallow those annoying players from using ''things that aren't clearly labelled'' as a way to ignore set rules or simply have it their way.

Most of the time I've noticed these kinds of players don't play pf2e or dislike it as being ''too rigid'' which... you know... win win ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

Different tables have different tables, but I've had players arguing for 45 minutes that their interpretation is the only valid one and making the game a nightmare for everyone.

I don't play with them anymore, but its happened on more than one occasion. One of the perks of pf2e is that most things are pretty clear cut so as to disallow those annoying players from using ''things that aren't clearly labelled'' as a way to ignore set rules or simply have it their way.

Most of the time I've noticed these kinds of players don't play pf2e or dislike it as being ''too rigid'' which... you know... win win ?

The only time our group did anything like this was in PF1 with Automatic Bonus Progression and the Magus abilities, and it was honestly lame when we finally came to a conclusion. We've never come across that in PF2 yet, so as far as I'm concerned, this is a better rules set for avoiding that sort of thing.

But really, I presume that the people playing the game are adults. A simple "Can I use Thievery to un-stuck the door instead?" shouldn't be met with daggers and frustration from the GM straight out of the gate like Superbidi and you are suggesting is the norm. Otherwise, people won't ask questions or feel like participating, and it could be that they are asking because they want to participate, but reasonably can't due to not having the opportune skill to do so.

If you feel that the player's question or request is unreasonable, an equally simple "No, the skill is ineffective for this specific task." should suffice in deterring them from "cheesing" their skills, if you feel that is what is happening. And if that's not enough, then proceed to daggers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

As a player, when my GM decides to go a bit outside the rails regarding the rules I usually ask him why or remind them if there is a RAW way to do that. He understands it is not because I'm meddling or trying to undermine him, but that I'm either just curious to know why or that I'm trying to help. If he is going against the rules knowing 100% they are doing it, I have complete faith in him knowing what he is doing. In the same vein, if I ask him if I can do something that is not contemplated in the rules, he understands that it is not because I'm trying to break the game, but because I think it will be fun or it will add to the narrative. He can always say yes or no, but i believe he trust me to not try to break the game on purpose when I open my mouth.

I will never get why people get so confrontative about these things, a GM is just another player trying to have fun with the game, not the fun police or an enemy of the state. I guess things are different in organized play and I guess it is for the better to stick to strick RAW there, but the distrust I see sometimes brought up online between GMs and players in home games is something I will never understand.

About Wish specifically, I would allow more powerful effects for narrative purposes in exchange for something. Maybe an artifact, maybe an offering, maybe lifespan, maybe you get cursed. Let's not forget that the spell itself states "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect". It is definitely inside the spell scope.

SuperBidi wrote:

The most common example is with skill checks. Like:

GM: The door is stuck, you can try to force it open with an Athletics check.
Player: Can I use Thievery instead?

God I dislike that. Because the only thing I hear is: I want to use my bigger bonus, please please please please!!!!!

First, there is nothing wrong with a player trying to use their higher bonus if it remotely makes sense. People try to solve problems in a way they use their strengths all the time.

Second, not all players are good at talking or expresing themselves. It is as easy as the GM asking "And why that is? Do you have an idea?" to make that situation a better roleplay scenario. Why do you expect the worse from an interaction like that?


I guess we've been hurt before and we're not ready to trust again ?

For wish effects specifically however, while I do agree that they can be used for powerful narrative effects with added costs and curses or whatnot, this should not be a ''once a day'' thing because then that just means that your PC's are just learning remove curse (or restoration, or another wish to restore the destroyed magic item) to deal with the aftereffects of their daily spell slot doing more than its supposed to.

This is why I am very wary of allowing these to do anything outside of established materials, because they DO have that ''solve any problem for a great cost'' potential ON TOP of being a good flex spell to cast everyday for added versatility. They're already great! They don't need to be made even better by allowing you to cast a meteor swarm with slashing damage instead of bludgeoning and cold damage instead of fire damage (I assume most GM's would say no to it doing good and cold iron damage, but that would be well within the scope of effects described by other posters as allowed).

If my player wanted a specialised meteor swarm, I would simply suggest that we make it a 9th level eclipse burst, samish range, samish zone, samish damage. If the player would balk its probably because they want to do the grouping of meteors on a huge enemy, at which point I would just say to actually freaking cast meteor swarm, but then they would say ''well I wanted to exploit the cold weakness'' to which I would answer ''well sucks to be you, pick one'' because at this point its legitimately trying to have your cake and eat it too.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

I guess we've been hurt before and we're not ready to trust again ?

For wish effects specifically however, while I do agree that they can be used for powerful narrative effects with added costs and curses or whatnot, this should not be a ''once a day'' thing because then that just means that your PC's are just learning remove curse (or restoration, or another wish to restore the destroyed magic item) to deal with the aftereffects of their daily spell slot doing more than its supposed to.

This is why I am very wary of allowing these to do anything outside of established materials, because they DO have that ''solve any problem for a great cost'' potential ON TOP of being a good flex spell to cast everyday for added versatility. They're already great! They don't need to be made even better by allowing you to cast a meteor swarm with slashing damage instead of bludgeoning and cold damage instead of fire damage (I assume most GM's would say no to it doing good and cold iron damage, but that would be well within the scope of effects described by other posters as allowed).

If my player wanted a specialised meteor swarm, I would simply suggest that we make it a 9th level eclipse burst, samish range, samish zone, samish damage. If the player would balk its probably because they want to do the grouping of meteors on a huge enemy, at which point I would just say to actually freaking cast meteor swarm, but then they would say ''well I wanted to exploit the cold weakness'' to which I would answer ''well sucks to be you, pick one'' because at this point its legitimately trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Sounds like something a macguffin is meant to accomplish if we need stakes like that, in which case that's a whole different power scope compared to what the assumed power level of this effect is.

Otherwise, if we are at the point where it's commonplace, we're 19th level minimum: We are the pinnacles of our power, to suggest that we can't do anything with that power because then it has no payoff or consequence is both false and absurd. Plenty of effects or issues stem from Wish et. al. Having to choose between using it or saving it for another situation is still a matter of consequence, especially if we're expected to use Wish to counteract several specific effects that demand it in particular.

And really, a GM expecting the worst out of their players and their mentalities all the time does not sound like a fun or equitable table experience.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AlastarOG wrote:
One of the perks of pf2e is that most things are pretty clear cut so as to disallow those annoying players from using ''things that aren't clearly labelled'' as a way to ignore set rules or simply have it their way.

Interesting. Usually criticims (and compliments) I see of PF2 are the exact opposite of this.


AlastarOG wrote:
For wish effects specifically however, while I do agree that they can be used for powerful narrative effects with added costs and curses or whatnot, this should not be a ''once a day'' thing because then that just means that your PC's are just learning remove curse (or restoration, or another wish to restore the destroyed magic item) to deal with the aftereffects of their daily spell slot doing more than its supposed to

Two of those things are expressly allowed though. Using Wish to cast Remove Curse or Restoration is perfectly allowed. The last one not so much, but even that isn't an insurmountable hurdle since Remake is a thing, though I'll grant it's got the Uncommon trait, and requiring two to three 10th-level slots means it's not a once a day thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
For wish effects specifically however, while I do agree that they can be used for powerful narrative effects with added costs and curses or whatnot, this should not be a ''once a day'' thing because then that just means that your PC's are just learning remove curse (or restoration, or another wish to restore the destroyed magic item) to deal with the aftereffects of their daily spell slot doing more than its supposed to
Two of those things are expressly allowed though. Using Wish to cast Remove Curse or Restoration is perfectly allowed. The last one not so much, but even that isn't an insurmountable hurdle since Remake is a thing, though I'll grant it's got the Uncommon trait, and requiring two to three 10th-level slots means it's not a once a day thing.

I meant using restoration or remove curse to remove the tradeoff of casting a powerful wish, as described above by Roquepo quote:

About Wish specifically, I would allow more powerful effects for narrative purposes in exchange for something. Maybe an artifact, maybe an offering, maybe lifespan, maybe you get cursed. Let's not forget that the spell itself states "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect". It is definitely inside the spell scope.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
One of the perks of pf2e is that most things are pretty clear cut so as to disallow those annoying players from using ''things that aren't clearly labelled'' as a way to ignore set rules or simply have it their way.
Interesting. Usually criticims (and compliments) I see of PF2 are the exact opposite of this.

Most things in pf2e are well defined, with some gray zones that are hotly debated.

Are the criticism you see made with other systems in mind ? Because if we compare to most other systems out there (World of darkness, D&D3.0/3.5/4/5, Numeria, Fate, pf1) pf2e is much better defined and balanced, with most things having a clear answer in the rules.

Most of the hotly debated topics are actually debated BECAUSE most things are so well defined, and so less well defined things stand out more.


AlastarOG wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
For wish effects specifically however, while I do agree that they can be used for powerful narrative effects with added costs and curses or whatnot, this should not be a ''once a day'' thing because then that just means that your PC's are just learning remove curse (or restoration, or another wish to restore the destroyed magic item) to deal with the aftereffects of their daily spell slot doing more than its supposed to
Two of those things are expressly allowed though. Using Wish to cast Remove Curse or Restoration is perfectly allowed. The last one not so much, but even that isn't an insurmountable hurdle since Remake is a thing, though I'll grant it's got the Uncommon trait, and requiring two to three 10th-level slots means it's not a once a day thing.

I meant using restoration or remove curse to remove the tradeoff of casting a powerful wish, as described above by Roquepo quote:

About Wish specifically, I would allow more powerful effects for narrative purposes in exchange for something. Maybe an artifact, maybe an offering, maybe lifespan, maybe you get cursed. Let's not forget that the spell itself states "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so might be dangerous or the spell might have only a partial effect". It is definitely inside the spell scope.

Those are counteract effects, which means the spell needs to be at least 9th level to have a reasonable chance of success, assuming the counteract level is 10th. This cost comes in the form of a high level spell slot that isn't a guarantee, or a high value consumable scroll.

Of course, this could just simply not be counteractable by any means except by waiting, for example, or require another 10th level slot because the counteract level is 11th now.


Squiggit wrote:
Players making suggestions about alternative ways to approach a problem and trying to interact with the world around them isn't just not a problem, it feels like a cornerstone of a good roleplaying environment, at least to me.

You appear to be aggressively agreeing with SuperBidi here. Engaging and interacting with the world and telling a story is much more desirable than solely interacting with the mechanics of the game.


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, this could just simply not be counteractable by any means except by waiting, for example, or require another 10th level slot because the counteract level is 11th now.

Personally I would deal with this situation exactly like this. There is no reason for an effect that is there just for narrative purposes to be subject of normal rules. If a player gets cursed as a byproduct of a Wish spell used to, let say, destroy a mcguffin artifact, I don't see why that curse has to work like any other normal curse in the game. If it is purely for roleplay, who cares about how tight the rules are?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RexAliquid wrote:
Engaging and interacting with the world and telling a story is much more desirable than solely interacting with the mechanics of the game.

Sure, but the problem is that you have GMs who think a player asking a genuine question like "Is Thievery a valid use for overcoming this task by using it for X/in X manner?" is simply trying to do badwrongfun by said GM via "cheesing the skill system", and since the GM has been scarred by that "oppressive" behavior in the past, the GM then shuts them out immediately, and then said player will either lash out in frustration (a bad thing to have happen at a table due to both wasting theirs and other players' time and energy accomplishing nothing but anger towards the game), submit to the idea that they can't contribute to the table without a GM's explicit "You may" (in which case you might as well be a GMPC at that point), or simply leave the table because they realize that particular gaming environment isn't for them (the only valid option there is, but counterintuitive if you wanted to play a game). Yes, no gaming is better than bad gaming, but that's just a defeatist stance, because it decides to acknowledge that there is no "good game" to take place, either.

I mean, it's not to say that such things don't happen at tables (again, the closest we got was Automatic Bonus Progression with the Magus' Arcane Pool abilities in PF1, nothing in PF2 has come close), but if you're genuinely trying to have said player at your table, it should take more than a simple honest question for you to shut down and send away players, especially if you aren't sure they are asking the question sincerely or for malicious purposes. Otherwise, you're just as hurtful and unhelpful as the same person you're afraid of threatening your table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
roquepo wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Of course, this could just simply not be counteractable by any means except by waiting, for example, or require another 10th level slot because the counteract level is 11th now.
Personally I would deal with this situation exactly like this. There is no reason for an effect that is there just for narrative purposes to be subject of normal rules. If a player gets cursed as a byproduct of a Wish spell used to, let say, destroy a mcguffin artifact, I don't see why that curse has to work like any other normal curse in the game. If it is purely for roleplay, who cares about how tight the rules are?

The problem is that Wish is designed to function as both a narrative tool (many effects requiring the spell by name to negate or counteract it), as well as a mechanical option (replicating desired but unavailable spell effects), and both the GM and player need to come together to decide both what sort of effect it's meant to function as (again, either a narrative tool or a mechanical option), and to determine what the effect actually is. In short, if the player and GM can't come to terms with these effects, then Wish will always be a contended spell. Either the GM will be ran over by the player, or the player will be ran over by the GM (and decide never to cast it again, or that Wish is a useless spell made useless by the GM). In regards to consequences, anything that has unseen or long-term consequences should best be hidden until it's appropriate to reveal, but they also shouldn't be surprise "gotcha" moments, either. "Oh yeah, your Wish spell destroyed the evil macguffin, but it ends up killing your character in the process within the next 24 hours! Hahahaha! And fat chance another Wish spell will fix that!"

If I were GM, I would ask that if a player was thinking on using the Wish spell (or whatever is the equivalent to the other traditions), to look up comparable spell effects depending on what their desires are. If, for some reason, the spell doesn't quite cover what their desire is (such as not having a spell that appropriates it, or by wanting a separate desired effect of an existing spell), then we get to the "debate" portion of the effect, which is where the spell is discussed more as a narrative tool more than it is a mechanical option, in which case, that largely depends on how they word their wish.

Let me give you a real play example that I almost pulled off (but decided against because it seemed a poor use of that spell slot): We were infiltrating an off-limits area, and I came across a sealed room with no apparent means to open it. Since we were under patrol watch (they didn't arrive yet, but were on the way), and thereby pressured, I almost considered using the Wish spell to give me what I needed to go in and gather information. The wish I was wanting to use? "I wish I could move through walls undetected." The closest spell effect to this is the Ethereal Jaunt spell, which is a 7th level Divine and Occult list spell, which only lasts for 1 minute (and requires concentration to do so). As such, it's well within the limits stated for Wish. So, my 10th level spell slot would have let me move through walls for 1 minute while requiring concentration to do so. To put it bluntly, this is a pretty bad use of the spell, and I'm glad I decided against it, simply because I found another way through with a lower level spell (Dimension Door by peeping through the keyhole). Since the plan was to infiltrate rooms to search, being able to move through walls for only 1 minute simply wasn't feasible. The worst part is that technically speaking, as a character, I probably wouldn't know that, and would have still gone through with it knowing that later down the road I made a horrible mistake.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to expand on Wish a bit further in another direction, and that is its use in actual play:

With how little I've had the opportunity to use it (acquired it 3 weeks ago), the Wish spell as a slot (whether it be prepared or known) is probably the worst form of consumable you can have, because it's the definitive "have your cake or eat it, never both," in the highest of stakes possible, which is where that phrasing has the most impact.

For context: If you treat the spell as if you're supposed to use it (or lose it), then it loses value by being in use (because it's a blanket catch-all spell) and gets burned too easily on things that probably didn't need it if you had better spells known/prepared, in which case when you come across a point where you did need it, and nothing else in your spell list would do, you're screwed by a poor use of the most flexible spell in the game, and there's very little you can do about it. (Wizards might be able to get away with it via Drain Bonded Item, but I don't think anything besides the 20th level feat interacts with 10th level spells in any way anymore, thanks to the errata.)444

Conversely, if you treat it as if you're not supposed to use it (and lose it anyway when you rest and re-prepare), then it's just a dead spell slot not doing anything of value for the party besides a placebo effect of "Don't worry, we still have our Wish spell, everything is fine," and given that 10th level spells are supposed to be the pinnacle of power, Wish being an iconic use of that for Arcane spellcasters, it just feels...awful to have in an actual play environment, because it's the epitome of decision paralysis. Is this the right time to use the spell? What if another better time comes later, and I don't have it with me to use then? Is there another, cheaper spell I can use so I don't have to waste it on something as stupid as walking through walls to avoid enemy detection?

Even when used correctly, such as a proper narrative tool, or being able to utilize an especially effective spell in combat, it's not a very worthwhile payoff. For a narrative tool, it's not often good, since Wish is called for usually when something very bad has happened, such as somebody being paralyzed by a Lich, or being horribly cursed, or some other crazy shenanigans. For a spell effect, as a prepared spellcaster especially, it feels like you didn't actually prepare your spells right, so you had to burn your biggest of spells to bail you out, instead of it boiling down to solid player tactics and preparation. And the thing is, if you're Schrodinger's Wizard, where you always do (or don't) have the right spells for each encounter or obstacle, the Wish spell is actually useless for them, because they don't need that blanket effect to protect themselves. There's always the narrative effect that their spells can't always replicate precisely, but a Schrodinger's Wizard can usually achieve their desired narrative effect with better spell preparation regardless of whether their spells directly or indirectly solve those narrative problems, which once again makes Wish a useless spell.

Combine that with antagonistic GMs who look for a way to screw the player over out of their precious 10th level spell slot, as well as there actually being powerful 10th level spell slots that Wish simply cannot replicate under any means (without said antagonistic GM getting involved, anyway), you're left with the following conclusion:

Wish is the absolute worst 10th level Arcane spell slot in the game, and you shouldn't have it unless you constantly need the crutch, or you like to change the narrative a lot (and often for the worse, because again, antagonistic GMs). Odds are, though, if you have acquired access to 10th level spells, it's because either the GM took pity on you (in which case you're probably never going to be in stakes where Wish becomes relevant), or you're so good that you don't need it as a crutch in the first place. Otherwise, odds are the campaign has ended in TPK because either you didn't prepare the proper spells, or because your GM made the game too hard that not even spells like Wish would save you anyway. Gotta love the gotcha scenarios, eh?

It's not an entirely surprising conclusion when put under that lens, though; it's the same reasoning behind why feats like Infinite Possibilities are horrible, because they're basically "Lesser Wish, but worse," and given that Wish is already a feelsbadman spell, taking feats to double down on that feelsbadman playstyle is just setting yourself up for failure.

Heck, even a spell like Time Stop, which I thought would be useless, actually had more use (and casts!) in actual play compared to Wish, and there was far more narrative reason for me to do so compared to a feelsbadman Wish spell. (It was technically a scroll from before I could cast 10th level spells, but I did already learn the spell from it, and the example otherwise still holds up, since I would have much rather had the Time Stop scroll than the Wish scroll.)


@darksol

That's.... Actually a very valid point. Thanks for the input.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think my words sounded more aggressive and confrontational than how I actually play it as a GM. I won't scream at a player because they ask for an alternate skill. It may become a problem if it happens too often. But most players understand quickly that asking for an alternate skill (outside Lores I may not know about) doesn't work with me and that interacting with the challenge is the best way to find alternate ways of bypassing it.

Also, I know a few players who are always up to grab some advantage one way or another, and I've witnessed a few players cheating (and they were good at it). As a GM, dealing with such players is exhausting.

In fact, the most important thing with "pushing for a houserule" is that there's an underlying question to it. When you ask "Can I make a Cold-based Meteor Swarm?" you actually ask 2 questions. The literal question and the underlying question which is: "Is the GM open to such shenanigans? Will I be able to do that again?"
Having a player testing your limits, your tolerance to shenanigans, is exhausting. You can choose to cast a level 9 Cone of Cold, you can choose to interact with the challenge and find a fun use of Wish, so why do you bring up a houserule and test how you can force it on the GM? Why do you put your GM in this position where they have to make a subtle judgment in the middle of a fight where they have so many things to handle already?

That's why I say it's an abusive use of Wish. Because for your GM, it's really hard to handle. And that's the case for every attempt at pushing a houserule. Some, like the skill example, are so common that most GMs have an answer to it. But the Wish one is so rare that chances are high your GM won't be prepared and may rule badly because of that.
If you want to make Cold-based Meteor Swarms with Wish, ask your GM outside the game, not during the game. They'll love you for that.


Just to make sure, I would only allow more powerful effects with Wish in situations that are neither combat or skill challenges. Things like presenting a dilemma to your players like "there is a Gate spell open but something is interfeering with it and there are people that still need to evacuate the city" type of situations. If one of them deems Wish as a viable solution to this kind of problem (the kind of problem they can deal with it in tons of ways or not deal with it at all). If they are infiltrating an stronghold or are mid combat I would stick to its regular uses and I would let them know beforehand.

About ice Meteor Swarm I would just say "Yes, but ice tends to be better than fire so you summon less meteors/deal less damage" and move on.


I understand what you saying but again you are worring too much about it.

As Darksol said. Wish spell a so versatile spell that almost all casters tends to not use it except when are completely necessary always trying an alternative before due the unknown risk of they may need this spell latter in a most important situation.

Despite that no one is saying "the GM have to accept the player wishes always". If a player cames from no where with a strange and totally absurd wish that need to make me think too much about it in middle of an encounter I will just respond "sorry but I don't have time to consider your wish now. Please consider to do other thing" and the game continues. But if the wish is simples and well explained so I can consider it rapidly I probably will allow it.

That's why my example was change a damage of Metor Storm. Imagine this situation:

GM: When you reach the roof of the Citadel Altaerein you see a swarm of red dragons coming in your direction.
Wizard: OK, what's they distance?
GM: You cannot determine exactly but they are a few miles from you but coming fast.
Wizard: How many they are?
GM: It's hard to count now but they are equivalent to a gargantuan size swarm creature. So there are about 3 groups of them.
Wizard: OK, as red dragons they probably are weak against cold or worse strong against fire. I may cast Cone of Cold to try diminish their numbers but the spell isn't large enough and will require they come to close. Hum... The ideal wold be a Meteor Storm but as fire dragons their resistance may prove a problem... I have an idea I can try to use a Wish spell in order to change my meteor to frigid cold comets!
GM: Wait do you want to use a Wish to cast a modified Meteor Storm with cold damage?
Wizard Player: Yes. Can I do?
GM: Hum... Maybe but may no easier to cast other spell? If you are worrying about the range so you can try Weird or Horrid Wilting or Eclipse Burst instead.
Wizard Player: Maybe but's may not enough. Horrid Wilting can hit all of then but may not strong enough, Eclipse Burst will be a little stronger but's not so much and will not hit all of them and Weird will require they comes even closer. I want to save these spells in case of failure to a second attack. So I have this idea of my change my meteors to comets this will give me what I need and don't sounds something abusive
Good GM: OK, sounds reasonable. Do it!
Bad GM: No! I won't allow you to change a spell on the fly! Just chose one already existent spell and use it or give up the idea of use wish.

Obs.: I'm using Good and Bad GM as a fun way to show the possibilities. Please try to understand this as a fun joke to separate the both option. You aren't a bad GM just to not allow something that you don't want to happen in the game or that you are afraid that can be too problematic.

As GM I don't think that such proposal of change a spell damage type using wish would be neither a abusive or will unbalance the spell or the game or is something that I need more than 2s seconds to come to such conclusion. If the player is trying to change a spell in a more complex way like change the area or add/change an condition I probably will veto this too specially in middle of an encounter but if the proposal is easily to understand and sounds reasonable I will allow it! My player will like that he/she can do what want and have fun and the game balance and development won't suffer just because someone change an energy type of a spell.

These thing aren't too frequently to turn into a problem even between powerplayers and let's be honest we know when a player is abusive or when he/she is only trying to achieve a solution being creative.

Also when we talk about "pushing for a houserule". In same way that allows a different effect using wish to a more orthodox GM can be considered a "forced houserule" we can say the same when he is restricting the spell effects and characteristics he/she's houseruling in order to avoid problems too.

In the end the good old common sense is the better way to handle this.


I'm not saying the way described above is bad in any way, its probably how I'd do things.

In retrospect though, I would be worried about setting a precedent and would tell my players that if they want to do that with other things it will still be a case by case scenario. My main worry would be players seeing this, then running with it to have piercing/lightning meteors or even worse force/good meteors and assuming it would be allowed since it has been in the past.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
YuriP wrote:
I understand what you saying but again you are worring too much about it.

Sorry for my guts reaction, but my answer to your post is "OMG!!!!"

What you are describing is something I don't want around my table: A player who bargains with the GM for more power.

First, it's unfair to the other players. Not everyone wants to steal 5 minutes of the game for more power.
Second, your example player is severely stepping on the GM's toes. The GM told them to use Horrid Wilting but "Horrid Wilting can hit all of then but may not strong enough". Players are not supposed to interact with the GM on an equal level on the question of balance. This is the GM's problem, not theirs.
Third, even if I won't literally read your "bad" and "good" GMs, it's still what happens in your head: If a GM maintains their boundaries and forbids you to step on their toes they are the issue according to you. It won't help solving the situation.

Sorry to tell you that, but your whole post describes a problematic player behavior to me. If I have such a player at my table, I'll take a few minutes out of game to explain them the limits of the game.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

What was the nature of the cheating that you observed, SuperBidi?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
I'd like to expand on Wish a bit further

We can at least set the low bar of usefulness for 'wishes' at using them for removing effects that require 'wishes'. I don't really know how often is it needed in high-level play. That and another 9th level spell slot. Is it enough for 10th level slot? Probably not and this still doesn't remove decision paralysis, but maybe would help to not being disappointed too much.

SuperBidi wrote:
the most important thing with "pushing for a houserule"

I don't understand why you are still calling this situation 'houseruling' when it very obviously by intent, nature of these spells and the text of them is definitely not. Asking for a change of energy type (and do not overgeneralize it to good, force and others, it's the slippery slope fallacy) in existing spell is probably the smallest change possible. I won't buy the argument that the difference between energy types is that game-breaking. And it's still 10th level slot and 9th level effect at maximum. If wish is not allowed to do even that, then yes, it's a rather bad investment. Physical damage types also are quite interchangeable.

Yes, GMs still could restrict that, but no, that's not a good move.

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Can someone explain why cold damage is so much more powerful than fire damage? What would you consider to be an effect that is in line with a 9th-level arcane or 7th-level non-arcane spell, but is not exactly duplicating a spell that already exists?


Ravingdork wrote:
What was the nature of the cheating that you observed, SuperBidi?

Well, quite a few actually. The most extreme case was d6s with 2 sixes (good Fireballs!).

A classical one is the character that gains 5ft. of move. There are multiple ways to achieve that:
- Sliding start up position. You take your mini and start your movement, in the middle of it you begin a conversation about anything and then reposition your mini at its "start up position" because you have "lost your count"... but it's actually 1 square closer to your objective and now you have the speed to reach the place you want to go to.
- Wrong count. Can be achieved easily because of diagonals count.

Double dice throw. One strategy I've seen used by a couple of cheaters is this one:
Player starts a conversation with the GM about what they want to achieve.
Roll the die while speaking.
If the result is good, the player quickly finishes what they were saying and use the result for their check.
If the result is bad, the player continues speaking for quite some time to disguise the dice roll as some kind of habit/twitch. And then roll it again when they have to make the die roll.

The last minute buff. More common in previous edition, but it still works in PF2. Roughly: you buff yourself when you are not supposed to by stating it just below the level the GM ears can catch. And you act surprised if the GM catches you, stating that you said you did it.

All these cases are ones I'm sure about (because of their repetition by the same player(s) that allowed me to really nail them).

I'm extremely sensitive to cheating, both as a player and a GM. Also, I've quickly realized that there are "cheaters" and some of them are very good friends, I don't want to sound judgmental by stating that. It's just that people have different personalities, some are more prone to cheating others will never ever cheat.


Errenor wrote:
I don't understand why you are still calling this situation 'houseruling' when it very obviously by intent, nature of these spells and the text of them is definitely not. Asking for a change of energy type (and do not overgeneralize it to good, force and others, it's the slippery slope fallacy) in existing spell is probably the smallest change possible. I won't buy the argument that the difference between energy types is that game-breaking. And it's still 10th level slot and 9th level effect at maximum. If wish is not allowed to do even that, then yes, it's a rather bad investment. Physical damage types also are quite interchangeable.

Because it's the literal definition of what you are describing.

You create a houserule, in this case: Switching from Fire to Cold damage doesn't affect the level of a spell. And then you try to push it on your GM ("I won't buy the argument that the difference between energy types is that game-breaking" should be none of your concern unless you are the GM). And once it's pushed, I'm pretty sure you'll continue to use it without even asking your GM: Congratulations you have managed to houserule a game as a player.

Your position is not a legitimate one. You are not supposed to houserule games as a player.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I feel sorry for some of the tables you guys play at. My group is the opposite of some presented here, and often reminds me when I forget a modifier or something else that is to the party's disadvantage. I do the same for them too, of course.

Maybe these bad players are a Society thing? I don't know as I only play home games. I hope some of you can find better players for your games, because not playing is better than playing with bad players in my opinion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

I'm not saying the way described above is bad in any way, its probably how I'd do things.

In retrospect though, I would be worried about setting a precedent and would tell my players that if they want to do that with other things it will still be a case by case scenario. My main worry would be players seeing this, then running with it to have piercing/lightning meteors or even worse force/good meteors and assuming it would be allowed since it has been in the past.

It's just about this I'm saying that you worry too much about what your players can do. IMO you are creating an expectation that your players are possible exploiters just waiting to you open your guard to destroy your game but no they aren't! Usually they are also trying to do things in ways that they think will be fun and efficient. And as GM is one of your roles arbiter if want they want to do is possible and reasonable and will not break the game. If someone try to change a meteor form to do a piercing damage I only will respond "OK how do you do this? Will you turn it in some big lance falling from the sky? Even if you do such thing this will probably interfere in the fire damage or AoE due the change in shape. Please try to do other thing" or just allow and diminish the fire damage by half as consequence to have changed the meteor shape (probably the first one, I'm not so bad to allow my players to do things that they won't like without warning). In the end I just arbiter this rapidly to not disturb the game progress using the common sense and go on.

SuperBidi wrote:

Sorry for my guts reaction, but my answer to your post is "OMG!!!!"

What you are describing is something I don't want around my table: A player who bargains with the GM for more power.

Honestly I don't even see this as a power bargain. As I said before it's just a player trying to do an efficient solution to a problem. Talk with the GM what he/she can or cannot do in a situation is an expected job to GMs. I don't even imagine this being a real problem unless this become too frequently that every encounter, every situation the same player tries to test the games limit. But as I said before this simply don't happen usually the player is only trying to archive a best solution to it's problem in mostly times.

SuperBidi wrote:
First, it's unfair to the other players. Not everyone wants to steal 5 minutes of the game for more power.

Sorry but a TRPG is a collaboration game not a game where each player compete for the attention of the GM. And don't know your tables but in mine I player that uses it's turn time to try to solve a problem or an encounter more than "I attack" or "I cast a spell" and try to do something different even if this different thing pushes the edge of predicted game rules no one complains instead they like it. They like when someone solves a situation in an easier and unexpected way that allow then not use their time and resources for the contrary many times they join their forces to turns these things possible!

I already see players who trapped their opponents inside a hut and burned it to the ground preventing they to act and making them to suffocated there, just because they saw the opportunity and knew it would avoid an encounter, risk their characters' lives and be a fun way to resolve the situation (even if it's a bit sadistic lol)

So if a player "steal" 5 minutes of the game never really give's me complains from other players and if I notice that this become too frequently is where I begin to call he/she's attention just saying "OK I know what you want to do but let's us give more light to other players? They deserve their time to act too" every time I see that some player is receiving too much protagonism.

SuperBidi wrote:
The GM told them to use Horrid Wilting but "Horrid Wilting can hit all of then but may not strong enough". Players are not supposed to interact with the GM on an equal level on the question of balance. This is the GM's problem, not theirs.

No they can! It's clearly demonstrated in Secrets of Magic lore, especially for spellcasters. The characters know how strong they are in the game, they even know that spell has levels that represent their powers! And the GM still is player too, there's nothing wrong to players and GM's discuss how the game goes, what rules to use and understand why the things are as they are.

SuperBidi wrote:
Sorry to tell you that, but your whole post describes a problematic player behavior to me. If I have such a player at my table, I'll take a few minutes out of game to explain them the limits of the game.

May I'm too "chaotic good" as GM but IMO is you that are gaming too limited to game rules and limitations play like "you can strictly do only what's covered by game rules and each one role if you trying to do some different you will be forbidden" but a TRPG is a game where all players can participate and interact freely the rules are more "you can do whatever you want except things those that rules don't allow you to do" otherwise the role of the GM does not become much different from a game book. You are just checking that your players are following the delimited lines nothing more.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What was the nature of the cheating that you observed, SuperBidi?

Well, quite a few actually. The most extreme case was d6s with 2 sixes (good Fireballs!).

A classical one is the character that gains 5ft. of move. There are multiple ways to achieve that:
- Sliding start up position. You take your mini and start your movement, in the middle of it you begin a conversation about anything and then reposition your mini at its "start up position" because you have "lost your count"... but it's actually 1 square closer to your objective and now you have the speed to reach the place you want to go to.
- Wrong count. Can be achieved easily because of diagonals count.

Double dice throw. One strategy I've seen used by a couple of cheaters is this one:
Player starts a conversation with the GM about what they want to achieve.
Roll the die while speaking.
If the result is good, the player quickly finishes what they were saying and use the result for their check.
If the result is bad, the player continues speaking for quite some time to disguise the dice roll as some kind of habit/twitch. And then roll it again when they have to make the die roll.

The last minute buff. More common in previous edition, but it still works in PF2. Roughly: you buff yourself when you are not supposed to by stating it just below the level the GM ears can catch. And you act surprised if the GM catches you, stating that you said you did it.

All these cases are ones I'm sure about (because of their repetition by the same player(s) that allowed me to really nail them).

I'm extremely sensitive to cheating, both as a player and a GM. Also, I've quickly realized that there are "cheaters" and some of them are very good friends, I don't want to sound judgmental by stating that. It's just that people have different personalities, some are more prone to cheating others will never ever cheat.

Wow. I'm sorry you've had to endure such charlatans.

Only cheating I ever observed was (1) a player rolling two dice close to his cupped hands and discreetly snatching up the lower roll as they pulled their hands away to reveal the result to the table, and (2) a player that would read the GM notes pinned to the inside of my GM screen through the reflection of my glasses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For cheating players on my hand it's been players who rage when they don't get what they want and players who literally grind the game to a halt and spark a bad faith 2 hour long debate that leaves everyone drained just because they want their own interpretation to be the one that works (I've had one argue that he could do whatever he wants while dominated, including refusing orders, as long as he aligned with the dominator. I've had a GM decide to have a monster attack us 2 rounds back to back while we couldn't do anything and resulting in a semi TPK (3/5 player deaths) because he thought it was a "cinematic cutscene" . I've had a player literally make the GM cry because he verbally berated her until she allowed him a reroll. I've had a player flip the table cause his dice rolls were poor and he got mad, which ground the game to a halt).

For elemental switches:

You can disagree with the design philosophy that the ability to apply situational elemental damage is strong, or you can agree.

It is, however, very much ingrained in the system.

You'll notice that, vs other editions where elemental switching was accessible and possible (elemental bloodlines, elemental admixture, metamagic, rods, etc) this edition has almost no way of switching a spells element. Only the elemental bloodline and some very niche ancestry still do and even then it's only for specific spells, deliberately not allowing a broad ruleset on this.

You'll also notice that in design space class paths that have versatile elemental damage are often times MUCH reduced vs others to the point of being considered bad (spellshot to name one).

Weaknesses being much more abundant has caused the designers to weight the ability to switch elements on the fly much heavier than it used to be (and it used to be good!) And assign it in a much more limited manner.

That is because it is powerful, and having the right damage type for the right situation can dramatically shift a fight.

Afterall, in the exemple above by YuriP, the only reason the player wanted a cold meteor shower was to exploit the weakness of the creatures.

And while yes being able to switch to good/force/cold iron damage is a slippery slope argument vs pure elemental, that is why I say it is a precedent. Because if a player feels like arguing in bad faith to get more power (a rules lawyer in the purest sense, whereas most typical interpretation of rules lawyering should more rigtly be called rules judge or rules enthusiast, a lawyer being after all a professional paid to interpret and argue the law in favor of a third party's veiwpoint, their client) then you have just given them ammunition to their argument.

There's ultimately no difference between slashing damage and cold iron slashing damage power scope wise (moonlight ray establishes that by being on par with same level spells) as per your initial argument. Searing light provides another exemple of good damage being on scale, so does sun beam. An argument can be construed around that based on a single allowance.

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

In YuriP's example of meteor swarm, it would be getting changed to comets, which are mostly made of dirty ice. Cold damage is appropriate. Acid, electricity, etc. don't fit the flavor of the spell, so I probably wouldn't allow them, and the bludgeoning damage would also stay the way it is. I also don't think that a spell's damage type targeting the weakness of a creature inherently raises its power level. If the only thing they cared about was targeting the weaknesses, they could cast ice storm or something to get a similar effect. It's a weird line to draw.

I'm just baffled by the idea of players cheating, throwing tantrums, or otherwise grinding games to a halt. I know it happens, obviously, but I don't view my players asking for clarification or rulings on things to be thinly veiled attempts to break the game or force me to bend to their will. If I had a player who was doing that, they wouldn't be a player at my table anymore!


Well I mean now its a cold comet.... but it could be ''Giant Cold Iron swords wreathed in holy flames descending from the heavens of my patron deity Iomedae'' (for a devout wizard of Iomedae for exemple) and it would be thematical... and cool...

As a general rule, and SuperBidi correct me if I'm wrong in your case, but I think its not something we generally expect our players to do....

But on these boards... lots of people come here to see where the debate is at on such things, and on a big thread like this one there might be a lot of what is said that is viewed as an argument to be made by a GM or to a GM. I know I often come here to find out the state of things and what the general consensus is.

So on a case by case, I usually go with the rule of cool. S~#* I might even allow the cold iron holy flame giant sword fall if its narrative an thematical enough!

But if I put my generalist GM hat on.... it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be accepted convention, it shouldn't be RAW, and it should be a cool little anecdote between you and your players.

Liberty's Edge

What you're describing is a very far cry from "meteor swarm, but comets" and is also very clearly not an arcane spell. I'll ask this again, since nobody answered before: what is an effect that's in line with a 9th-level arcane spell or 7th-level non-arcane spell but isn't itself an exact duplicate of an already existing spell?


Losonti wrote:
What you're describing is a very far cry from "meteor swarm, but comets" and is also very clearly not an arcane spell. I'll ask this again, since nobody answered before: what is an effect that's in line with a 9th-level arcane spell or 7th-level non-arcane spell but isn't itself an exact duplicate of an already existing spell?

"I want this person to be brought back to life" which would be raise dead, but without the cost?

"I want this person to be in love with me" which is maybe rule as a variation of a high level charm spell but with the curse trait and a permanent duration on failed save ?

"I want this person erased from existence" which would be something like a no LOS no LOE disintegrate effect ?

Things like that is what I think this line means.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

"erased from existence" with no LOE is fine but "meteor swarm, but cold" is a bridge too far??

lol,

lmao

EDIT: Sorry, I realize I'm being flip there, but I earnestly do not see why an energy type change to a spell is considered beyond what a Wish spell should be able to do.

I don't intend this as an attack, but I think some of the commenters are taking some bad encounters with bad players and turning that into a generalized suspicion of player input. I don't think that's a good habit of thought to maintain as a general gaming principle. The wish spell is designed to be both mechanically and narratively very flexible, ultimately GM adjudication is unavoidable in such circumstances but I encourage everyone to also be flexible with such a broad spell.


CrusaderWolf wrote:

"erased from existence" with no LOE is fine but "meteor swarm, but cold" is a bridge too far??

lol,

lmao

Well yeah, if it's an on level threat it's not gonna be erased even on a lucky crit fail, you can only do it once and now you have a pissed off level 18+ creature that knows you want it dead. You didn't angle for battle exploitation or damage, just narrative effect.

The power is essentially story driven because only person this is useful against is someone you could essentially scry and Fry easily.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SuperBidi wrote:

I think my words sounded more aggressive and confrontational than how I actually play it as a GM. I won't scream at a player because they ask for an alternate skill. It may become a problem if it happens too often. But most players understand quickly that asking for an alternate skill (outside Lores I may not know about) doesn't work with me and that interacting with the challenge is the best way to find alternate ways of bypassing it.

Also, I know a few players who are always up to grab some advantage one way or another, and I've witnessed a few players cheating (and they were good at it). As a GM, dealing with such players is exhausting.

In fact, the most important thing with "pushing for a houserule" is that there's an underlying question to it. When you ask "Can I make a Cold-based Meteor Swarm?" you actually ask 2 questions. The literal question and the underlying question which is: "Is the GM open to such shenanigans? Will I be able to do that again?"
Having a player testing your limits, your tolerance to shenanigans, is exhausting. You can choose to cast a level 9 Cone of Cold, you can choose to interact with the challenge and find a fun use of Wish, so why do you bring up a houserule and test how you can force it on the GM? Why do you put your GM in this position where they have to make a subtle judgment in the middle of a fight where they have so many things to handle already?

That's why I say it's an abusive use of Wish. Because for your GM, it's really hard to handle. And that's the case for every attempt at pushing a houserule. Some, like the skill example, are so common that most GMs have an answer to it. But the Wish one is so rare that chances are high your GM won't be prepared and may rule badly because of that.
If you want to make Cold-based Meteor Swarms with Wish, ask your GM outside the game, not during the game. They'll love you for that.

That is fair, but I still think it's a poor outlook on a fellow player if them asking a question about a given obstacle involving how to tackle it invokes some sort of name inscription on the GM's "poop list" in the future.

I also don't think players ask questions about tasks as a double meaning behind them as you imply, that's more of a construct of the Wish spell (which sets a precedent for future castings of the spell) than it is about learning more information about a task presented in the book/AP. If I ask if Thievery is a valid skill for a given challenge, and a GM says "Yes," "Yes, but...", or "No (because)", that's the answer for only that challenge in particular. The answers could change between challenges based on circumstances if challenges have distinct differences in them that make themselves known. Details, they are important.

As for the Wish thing, the player has to "test" the GM because the spell expressly says it requires GM adjudication for certain aspects of it's overall effect. Determining what non-existing spell effects are in line with 9th level Arcane/7th level Non-Arcane, as well as any potential misfortunes or reduced effects (such as forcing it to be Cone of Cold) from trying to extract that kind of power from Wish, is all GM FIAT, and is also very open-ended, by design. But really, a "Cold-based Meteor Swarm" isn't that unreasonable to rule as a permission provided from the Wish spell, since you can easily invoke the "partial effect" or "misfortunes" clause, such as by making it land unpredictably, reducing the number of "meteors," or reducing overall damage. It's really not complicated: I've stumped my GM with Disintegrate being used on unexpected things more than I have with Wish or even Time Stop.

You could also, as a GM, simply "ban" the Wish spell if you feel it is prone to abuse or wasting time configuring what desired effect they want, in the same vein a GM could "ban" spells like Create Food/Water in survivalist campaigns to make searching for food and water relevant to the game. But that would have to be discussed before the game starts, so players know what to expect.


AlastarOG wrote:

I'm not saying the way described above is bad in any way, its probably how I'd do things.

In retrospect though, I would be worried about setting a precedent and would tell my players that if they want to do that with other things it will still be a case by case scenario. My main worry would be players seeing this, then running with it to have piercing/lightning meteors or even worse force/good meteors and assuming it would be allowed since it has been in the past.

To be fair, arguing that the spell produces comets instead of meteors is far more reasonable than producing giant force stalactites to rain down on your enemies, or some Deus Ex Machina meteor (which would fall more in line with Miracle/Alter Reality than Wish). It's very easy to shut that down compared to comets, since the four primary elements are usually listed together (acid, cold, electricity, fire), and there is a real comparison to draw from them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, #1 is very clearly just duplicating a divine spell, except even stronger since you're stripping out the costly material components. #2 sounds a lot like a 10th-level Dominate, and #3 is so beyond the power scale of the spell it's imitating that it pretty clearly falls into the catch-all saying "Your GM might allow greater effects." All of them are significantly more powerful effects than "cold damage instead of fire."

Also, this is a side note, but Scrying very specifically says you don't get enough information to be able to Teleport right on top of someone. Allowing scry and fry tactics is way more of a houserule than modifying Meteor Swarm with Wish.


Still it's not hard for a 19th level caster to drop in and Fry a level 11 Mook.

And yes all three of these effects described are ad hoc on the fly GM calls. I would not do them twice, I might regret them later, and they are INCREDIBLY subjective. This is why you should stick to the 9th/7th verbatim guideline because ANYTHING outside of that will IMMEDIATELY be a point of contention.

It's a can of worms that I hate opening up every g&#*+#n time, including this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
Losonti wrote:
What you're describing is a very far cry from "meteor swarm, but comets" and is also very clearly not an arcane spell. I'll ask this again, since nobody answered before: what is an effect that's in line with a 9th-level arcane spell or 7th-level non-arcane spell but isn't itself an exact duplicate of an already existing spell?

"I want this person to be brought back to life" which would be raise dead, but without the cost?

"I want this person to be in love with me" which is maybe rule as a variation of a high level charm spell but with the curse trait and a permanent duration on failed save ?

"I want this person erased from existence" which would be something like a no LOS no LOE disintegrate effect ?

Things like that is what I think this line means.

Raise Dead is very niche even for the levels it's acquired, so unless it's for an important nobility or high class figure that isn't very high in power, it's not worth it as a spell replication effect. Heck, based on RAW, you'd still have to provide the diamond component value for the chosen spell replication, since, while you utilize the action cost and components of Wish, you still duplicate the spell, which does not erase the Cost listed in the spell you duplicate. So, yeah, replicating an expensive niche spell sounds pretty weaksauce for use of a Wish spell. It also wouldn't work if you were too far away, didn't possess the material components, or its other restrictions weren't adhered to (being dead for too long, Pharasma telling you to screw off, or simply not wanting to return), meaning unless you are aware of the ramifications of what you're wanting to do (which is metagaming, I might add), it's such a trap and "Gotcha!" situation.

While people say that this Wish effect could be a Dominate effect, the problem is that this falls more under the lines of consensual mind control (that is, the person does want to be in love with them and feel like that's what they should do, even if in reality they don't have to make that choice) than it does forced mind control (that is, the person doesn't want to be in love with them, but is magically bound to follow the person's requests for love) that Dominate is usually used for. If the character you're using the effect on has high morals and is obviously against things like adultery, cheating, or just simply has no sort of feelings (or has strong negative feelings) for the caster whatsoever, the effect won't last very long (since the target will get free saves with each request and eventually just save out and no longer be affected). This is why Charm would be more effective, because it better fulfills the intended desires, and is more likely to invoke the proper result. Of course, another GM can say that forcing others to fall in love with you falls into the "produce greater effects" clause, since again, no existing spell does this effect (at least not specifically), in which case the love you're having them give you makes them love"sick," and they get an infectious disease and die way earlier than expected.

This last one definitely falls into the "produce greater effects" clause, in which case you probably caused a lot of time damage with this. It's kind of an inverse Grandfather paradox, in that your character, and every other character would be vastly changed, and in completely different circumstances, since the motivations and reasons behind certain events simply ceased to exist by demanding a big bad ceasing existence. Don't get me wrong, this would be great as an underlying theme or purpose behind a campaign, where some dufus used a Wish spell and completely ruined a chain of events from happening, and you're secretly tasked with cleaning them up, but when done as the result of trying to end an adventure cleanly and swiftly, it's just dumb and creates a lot of unneeded headache, in which case the GM will most likely pull in the "partial effect" clause and result in simply using a Disintegrate or some similar effect.

As an aside, even if we boiled the previous request down to a simple "I want this person dead," this just replicates the Power Word: Kill spell (9th level), which still requires a target to be within 30 feet of you (maybe 60 feet if you're a Metamagic Master Wizard with Reach Spell, but still a poor waste of a level 20 feat), and must still be of an appropriate level. And as you point out later, with a simple "Scry and Fry" tactic used against a simple mook (just to flex your power, for example), using Wish to accomplish this would indeed go well beyond the capacity of Power Word: Kill, since the range is 30 feet, and you need line of sight and effect to the target, which you wouldn't have while Scrying them.

Not gonna lie, all these specific requests and examples, and all of the restrictions you still need to adhere to with these chosen spells, really only reinforces the point that Wish is the worst 10th level Arcane spell in the game.


Yeah agree, Its versatile but I never bother. Give me level 10 big blasty spell or time stop instead.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Losonti wrote:
What you're describing is a very far cry from "meteor swarm, but comets" and is also very clearly not an arcane spell. I'll ask this again, since nobody answered before: what is an effect that's in line with a 9th-level arcane spell or 7th-level non-arcane spell but isn't itself an exact duplicate of an already existing spell?

The cheeky answer is a 9th-level arcane or 7th-level non-arcane spell that has not yet been printed, but will be.

Liberty's Edge

If you've got the upcoming Time Mage archetype, that isn't the craziest idea. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
What was the nature of the cheating that you observed, SuperBidi?

Well, quite a few actually. The most extreme case was d6s with 2 sixes (good Fireballs!).

A classical one is the character that gains 5ft. of move. There are multiple ways to achieve that:
- Sliding start up position. You take your mini and start your movement, in the middle of it you begin a conversation about anything and then reposition your mini at its "start up position" because you have "lost your count"... but it's actually 1 square closer to your objective and now you have the speed to reach the place you want to go to.
- Wrong count. Can be achieved easily because of diagonals count.

Double dice throw. One strategy I've seen used by a couple of cheaters is this one:
Player starts a conversation with the GM about what they want to achieve.
Roll the die while speaking.
If the result is good, the player quickly finishes what they were saying and use the result for their check.
If the result is bad, the player continues speaking for quite some time to disguise the dice roll as some kind of habit/twitch. And then roll it again when they have to make the die roll.

The last minute buff. More common in previous edition, but it still works in PF2. Roughly: you buff yourself when you are not supposed to by stating it just below the level the GM ears can catch. And you act surprised if the GM catches you, stating that you said you did it.

All these cases are ones I'm sure about (because of their repetition by the same player(s) that allowed me to really nail them).

I'm extremely sensitive to cheating, both as a player and a GM. Also, I've quickly realized that there are "cheaters" and some of them are very good friends, I don't want to sound judgmental by stating that. It's just that people have different personalities, some are more prone to cheating others will never ever cheat.

Wow. I'm sorry you've had to endure such charlatans.

Only cheating I ever observed...

The only cheating I've ever known about was someone who came to table with a fixed die that had a 20 in the 1 spot in addition to its normal 20. We found out and then let him keep using it because his luck was so hideously bad that he would constantly roll 2s.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what Wish is asking when it says "Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", being a 9th level Arcane or 7th level non-Arcane Spell, is if it were a printed Spell would it be too strong? I don't think anyone would call Comet Storm, the cold version of Meteor Swarm, too strong if Paizo printed it as it is quite clearly on par with Meteor Swarm. I don't see a good argument for Cold damage being meaningfully overall stronger than Fire damage. It would be different if it was a damage type that Arcane casters usually don't get access to.

Getting to pick and choose the damage type at the time of casting isn't part of this duplicated Spell's power budget (this made up spell is ALWAYS cold after all), it's part of Wish's power budget as a 10th level Spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perpdepog wrote:
The only cheating I've ever known about was someone who came to table with a fixed die that had a 20 in the 1 spot in addition to its normal 20. We found out and then let him keep using it because his luck was so hideously bad that he would constantly roll 2s.

While I have to confess I did it once as part of a table. We the players were getting constantly getting hit by the GM in a game of D&D despite have pretty good defences. So we, as in the whole table, subsituted his d20 for another d20 which had been recoloured so 13 of the 20 numbers where below 11. A major bias.

It didn't make any difference he still hit us 95% of the time when it should have been around 70% if the dice was fair. So we fessed up after 2 more sessions. In the end we concluded he wasn't actually looking at his dice most of the time.


Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Gortle wrote:
Perpdepog wrote:
The only cheating I've ever known about was someone who came to table with a fixed die that had a 20 in the 1 spot in addition to its normal 20. We found out and then let him keep using it because his luck was so hideously bad that he would constantly roll 2s.

While I have to confess I did it once as part of a table. We the players were getting constantly getting hit by the GM in a game of D&D despite have pretty good defences. So we, as in the whole table, subsituted his d20 for another d20 which had been recoloured so 13 of the 20 numbers where below 11. A major bias.

It didn't make any difference he still hit us 95% of the time when it should have been around 70% if the dice was fair. So we fessed up after 2 more sessions. In the end we concluded he wasn't actually looking at his dice most of the time.

And people say GMs can't cheat. *rolls eyes*

201 to 250 of 306 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Good Spell List All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.