And people say GMs can't cheat. *rolls eyes*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.
GMs don't cheat.
It's obvious.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...
This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*
Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?
*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.
And people say GMs can't cheat. *rolls eyes*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.GMs don't cheat.
It's obvious.
GMs certainly cheat, it's just called a different label: Fudging. Plenty of GMs have fudged before, and it's usually a side effect of a GM wanting to railroad an adventure to a specific outcome.
The reason it's not called "cheating" is because people treat the GM as omnipresent and can dictate the entire game world you play in, so they can essentially rewrite the entire rules, up to and including the GM simply rolling a dice and substituting whatever number they want instead of what the number actually is, just because the GM can do that.
But to suggest that fudging isn't cheating, or that GMs don't do that, is beyond absurd.
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.
Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...
This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*
Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?
*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.
Honestly, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a lot of the things Wizards can do, Martials can already do but better at the appropriate levels. Deal damage? Martials outpace them in spades. Debuff enemies? Trip, Intimidate, etc. are more reliable than spells are, and are far more likely to succeed. Plus, spells can't provide Flanking or Flat-footed as reliably, either, whereas martials can do this with relative ease in most combats. Out of Combat benefits? Again, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a Martial can have the same amount of Out of Combat utilities as Wizards, if not more if they are Rogues or Investigators.
As for how Rogues or Barbarians do this, it's largely in the way of feats and other mundane combinations. For example, a Rogue can take feats like Dread Striker or Gang Up to expand the amount of available targets they can utilize Sneak Attack on beyond their norm. Bonus points for feats like Opportune Backstab to get a reaction that works when an ally attacks with you while benefitting from the previously mentioned feats. As for Barbarians, a Barbarian that is Giant Instinct, for example, can take a reach weapon (or utilize the Giant's Lunge feat for D12 weapon damage dice) and the Giant's/Titan's Stature feats, combined with Whirlwind Attack, to affect all enemies within 30 feet with a very powerful attack. And those are just a couple examples for each class being able to use their primary class features beyond their usual means.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since the thread is off the rails anyway at the moment...
This is touching on the old Quadratic Wizards/Linear Fighters thing though. Casters are already changing reality in a way non-casters simply can't. In this case, a player is trying to change reality even more then the rules strictly allow for.*
Can you come up with a similar example of how a Rogue or Barbarian would want to expand the use of one of their class features, and what you would consider to be reasonable in this regard?
*Personally I would say that applying a metamagic effect to the casting would be reasonable for a Wish spell, so if a spell doesn't have enough Area of Effect, allowing it to be cast as a Widened spell would be ok IMHO.
Honestly, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a lot of the things Wizards can do, Martials can already do but better at the appropriate levels. Deal damage? Martials outpace them in spades. Debuff enemies? Trip, Intimidate, etc. are more reliable than spells are, and are far more likely to succeed. Plus, spells can't provide Flanking or Flat-footed as reliably, either, whereas martials can do this with relative ease in most combats. Out of Combat benefits? Again, short of spells like Teleport or Maze, a Martial can have the same amount of Out of Combat utilities as Wizards, if not more if they are Rogues or Investigators.
As for how Rogues or Barbarians do this, it's largely in the way of feats and other mundane combinations. For example, a Rogue can take feats like Dread Striker or Gang Up to expand the amount of available targets they can utilize Sneak Attack on beyond their norm. Bonus points for feats like Opportune Backstab to get a reaction that works when an ally attacks with you while benefitting from the previously mentioned feats. As for Barbarians, a Barbarian that is Giant Instinct, for example, can take a reach weapon (or utilize the Giant's Lunge feat for D12 weapon damage dice) and the Giant's/Titan's Stature feats, combined with Whirlwind Attack, to affect all enemies within 30 feet with a very powerful attack. And those are just a couple examples for each class being able to use their primary class features beyond their usual means.
That's not what I mean. If a character can take a feat to do a thing, then that is by definition within their 'usual means'. The question was about the Wish spell, and how much leeway a caster has/should have at trying to bend the rules there.
So what would be an example of a non-caster trying to get past their 'usual means' in a matter mirroring the caster wanting to change damage type on a spell (outside of his means) instead of just casting a spell with the right damage type (inside of his means)?
That's not what I mean. If a character can take a feat to do a thing, then that is by definition within their 'usual means'. The question was about the Wish spell, and how much leeway a caster has/should have at trying to bend the rules there.
So what would be an example of a non-caster trying to get past their 'usual means' in a matter mirroring the caster wanting to change damage type on a spell (outside of his means) instead of just casting a spell with the right damage type (inside of his means)?
It appears we disagree on what constitutes "usual means," then, which is why I probably view an appropriate answer differently from you.
To me, "usual means" is when something (namely a class feature or ability) has an effect and you stick strictly to that effect, and nothing more. In the case of Rage and Sneak Attack, you only get what the abilities say you get, and you work within the restrictions set by said abilities, with no other outside influences or effects. For Rage, you benefit from the increased damage, penalty to AC, and temporary HP while it's active. For Sneak Attack, you benefit from the increased damage so long as the target is flat-footed to you (not necessarily in general) and you use the appropriate types of weapons to strike the target.
To me, Feats or Specializations aren't "usual means." They are investments that a character makes to benefit from certain things or outright do certain things that they otherwise could not if they did not select those feats. For Rogues, they can't just treat Frightened enemies as Flat-footed for the purposes of the Sneak Attack feature without the Dread Striker feat. For certain Barbarians, feats like Giant's Stature or Dragon's Rage Breath give you effects outside of the "usual means" spelled out from the Rage class feature, in this case, a size increase, or a Breath Weapon ability, respectively.
Conversely, in regards to a caster using Teleport, if an Elven Wizard learns the Magical Rider Ancestry Feat, they are now able to utilize Teleport outside of its "usual means" spelled out within the spell's description, such as by including more creatures than usual, or increasing the accuracy of your Teleportation's destination.
I suppose that these aren't as open-ended or subject to interpretation as that which is discussed in the Wish spell, but most mundane options don't behave that way, by design. Most of the time, if they are, they are usually glaring anomalies that need more specifics behind them, not unlike pre-errata Battle Medicine.
I suppose that these aren't as open-ended or subject to interpretation as that which is discussed in the Wish spell, but most mundane options don't behave that way, by design. Most of the time, if they are, they are usually glaring anomalies that need more specifics behind them, not unlike pre-errata Battle Medicine.
But that's the thing, isn't it. Feats and class features have very strict definitions about what they do and what they do not allow a character to do.
Wish doesn't.
So as it stands, casters with access to Wish can break reality in a way martials can't. That is, try to bend the rules, because they are not strictly defined for that spell. So the more Wish gets allowed to bend the rules, the further casters with Wish deviate from the norm all other characters have to adhere to. Which then should inform any GMs decision about just how much leeway they are willing to give a player in bending the rules.
Agree!
Outside of the option to fully replicate a lower spell (what's basically automatic). Wish-like spells basically gives a lesser GM power to a spellcaster. The caster is able to do changes in-game reality in limited way negotiating this with the GM.
Off course, the GM always is final arbiter and this spell put some extra weight over GM duty once the spell basically ask the GM to analise put some balance limits in the player wish. So I don't judge GMs that don't want to do this and simply refuses anything beyond the normal cast an existent spell strictly. Yet this spell can create many interesting and unexpected events to the game. This remembers me other systems that allows similar things "sharing some GM power" like happens in other systems like M&M.
I suppose that these aren't as open-ended or subject to interpretation as that which is discussed in the Wish spell, but most mundane options don't behave that way, by design. Most of the time, if they are, they are usually glaring anomalies that need more specifics behind them, not unlike pre-errata Battle Medicine.But that's the thing, isn't it. Feats and class features have very strict definitions about what they do and what they do not allow a character to do.
Wish doesn't.
So as it stands, casters with access to Wish can break reality in a way martials can't. That is, try to bend the rules, because they are not strictly defined for that spell. So the more Wish gets allowed to bend the rules, the further casters with Wish deviate from the norm all other characters have to adhere to. Which then should inform any GMs decision about just how much leeway they are willing to give a player in bending the rules.
Can doesn't mean will, though. A GM can always invoke the partial effect clause and nerfbat the Wish spell if it's too egregious or goes beyond the scope of what it's expected to accomplish. A malicious GM would probably invoke the danger clause instead, as a middle finger to the player who dares to use a printed max level spell, and pull a "Rocks Fall, Everybody Dies."
Of course, a proactive GM can just ban Wish entirely, or implement a rarity tag onto it, or make it a special Ritual instead, or do anything with it to make it less problematic than what they think it already is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's the literal definition of what you are describing.
You create a houserule, in this case:No, it's not and I don't:
You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
Nothing in the rules state that you are the one defining the effect. The GM is in charge of the world. When you make a Request to an NPC, you don't also explain the GM what would happen, you let them handle the NPC on their own. Why in that case do you need to state the wish and at the same time make the ruling on how it will be handled by the GM.
Also, please answer the Losonti's question. It's interesting what you would say.
Well, the spell is not in line with a level 9 spell anyway. If it was in line with any other level 9 spell you would cast this one instead. It's because you want an effect stronger than any other level 9 spell in that case that you start creating your own spells.
And the fact that the spell is equivalent or worse than other level 9 spells in other situations is irrelevant to Wish as you will never cast it in other situations. So all the drawbacks of your spell are automatically cancelled. As such, it's not really a Cold-based Meteor Swarm, it's a Meteor Swarm that triggers any weakness and no resistance. Quite a higher level of efficiency.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about a regular Meteor Swarm against enemies weak to fire and/or bludgeoning damage then?
All your arguments apply just the same in that case. Would you rule such an effect is out of bounds in that circumstance? As you said, it's clearly beyond the power curve for a normal 9th level spell.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What about a regular Meteor Swarm against enemies weak to fire and/or bludgeoning damage then?
It's in line with a level 9 spell as it is a level 9 spell.
The ability to choose which weakness you want to exploit is what makes the "Cold"-based Meteor Swarm abusive to me.
And anyway, the question is not much if I would accept it or not (as that's only around my table) but the fact that players are not supposed to design spells, which is different. Allowing it is a curse to the GM as it makes every cast of Wish a power bargain with the player.
Can I make a Cold-Based Meteor Swarm? A Major Magic Weapon (+3 Striking)? A Reflex-based Finger of Death? A single target Synesthesia with better effects as it's heightened to level 9?
See how it can slip slowly into long disruptive discussions in the middle of fights? It's a can of worms that you open.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, since clearly the answer is "nothing," the third clause of the spell essentially does not exist at your tables. Which is fine! I assume your players know about this in advance. It would certainly suck to find out in the moment that the spell doesn't function the way it's written.
Edit: I went and looked at how much extra damage you'd actually be doing with this comet swarm, and it looks like red dragon cold weakness maxes out at 20, for a spell that can do, on average, 181 damage to a single large target (132 of that as bludgeoning).
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm getting a little confused in this argument.
Surely we all agree that
1) A wish can cast a meteor swarm. Its a level 9 spell
2) A spell where you get to choose the energy type when you cast it is more powerful than the identical spell with a fixed energy type. Note, I'm NOT saying how much more powerful, just that it is more powerful. So, a meteor swarm of varying energy types is more powerful than a meteor swarm. Maybe a lot more powerful, maybe slightly more powerful, but it is absolutely unequivocably inarguably more powerful.
So, if we agree with both of the above then what is the argument? At this point it is clearly a GM call whether it is SUFFICIENTLY more powerful to not be allowed. Who else can possibly make that judgement? Does anybody actually disagree with this?
As a (silly) couple of counterexamples, lets say that you wanted to use a wish to cast a Meteor Swarm that, in the event that the meteor swarm rolled absolute maximum damage, did one entire extra hit point of damage to one specific target for <in character reasons>. Again, clearly and inarguably this is more powerful than a Meteor Swarm. But it is such a tiny, tiny power up that most GMs would allow it. Or you want to cast a Meteor Swarm that does double damage. Clearly significantly more powerful and would be disallowed by most GMs. But in both cases its the GMs call. Who else can possibly decide?
So, clearly GM call whether cold Meteor Swarm is within bounds for a wish.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's the literal definition of what you are describing.
You create a houserule, in this case:No, it's not and I don't:
You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.Nothing in the rules state that you are the one defining the effect. The GM is in charge of the world. When you make a Request to an NPC, you don't also explain the GM what would happen, you let them handle the NPC on their own. Why in that case do you need to state the wish and at the same time make the ruling on how it will be handled by the GM.
Also, please answer the Losonti's question. It's interesting what you would say.Well, the spell is not in line with a level 9 spell anyway. If it was in line with any other level 9 spell you would cast this one instead. It's because you want an effect stronger than any other level 9 spell in that case that you start creating your own spells.
And the fact that the spell is equivalent or worse than other level 9 spells in other situations is irrelevant to Wish as you will never cast it in other situations. So all the drawbacks of your spell are automatically cancelled. As such, it's not really a Cold-based Meteor Swarm, it's a Meteor Swarm that triggers any weakness and no resistance. Quite a higher level of efficiency.
Nobody is saying the GM can't define the effect, but stating that a player can't clearly express the intent they wanted with their Wish spell is equally absurd. And no, expressing intent is not the same thing as making a ruling.
So wait, you're really suggesting that, because of the circumstances, an identical spell of a different damage type is inherently more powerful than another spell, and therefore is an effect greater than that which you want to cast? This is like saying Electric Arc is more powerful than Scatter Scree because it deals an elemental damage type instead of a physical one, but both are spells that exist that are cantrips, and are placed at the same power level, which is a cantrip. Yeah, no, I'm not buying those shenanigans.
So if I used Wish to cast a 9th level Chain Lightning against enemies weak to Electricity, I couldn't do it because it's inherently more powerful by triggering a weakness that another 9th level spell couldn't, so I'd have to either use a different effect, or lower the spell level to accommodate that increase in circumstantial power? If I could cast a 10th level spell against enemies with Resistance, I might actually accept that compromise. But it's still a very stupid and arbitrary limitation on the Wish spell that's not listed in the spell description, because it doesn't fit either the partial effect or dangerous effect clause.
This is such a ridiculous argument that it wouldn't hold any water at any typical table. "If the effect you wanted existed as a 9th level spell, you'd have just learned/memorized the spell and cast it instead of using Wish." Thanks for demonstrating you only play with Schrodinger's Spellcasters. It sounds more like you don't run the Wish spell at your table (since they don't learn/memorize it, they don't need to after all) than it does that you've had bad experiences with the Wish spell with that mentality in mind. Even if your argument is instead "If the effect you wanted existed as a 9th level spell, you'd have just selected it and I wouldn't whine about your choice," this is just you waiting for Paizo to make it okay for that choice to exist, and you deciding that, if Paizo never publishes the spell, then it's not okay as an effect choice ever. Man, I bet if a Paizo developer had a dollar for every time a player said that, they'd probably buy out Paizo for themselves. It's also not really that defensible, because Paizo has certainly done wrong with published content, which is why errata exists. So no, saying Paizo didn't make it exist, so it doesn't exist, isn't a valid defense with a spell as encompassing as Wish.
This is even more absurd. "The circumstances you expressed are so corner-case that it would never come up in any other scenario in the game ever." Wish is specifically meant to duplicate spell effects and other effects whose power level is in line with those listed spell effects, and is designed with the flexibility of spell selection to circumvent drawbacks that come from having an incorrect type of spell prepared (such as by dealing the incorrect damage type, even with existing spells such as Horrid Wilting versus Meteor Swarm). Suggesting you can't use a spell for a primary reason it was created is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. And really, complaining about it being of a higher level of efficiency when you are burning a higher level spell slot for it is like whining that a 3rd level Magic Missile does more damage than a 1st level version of Magic Missile, when it's the same spell, but takes a higher level spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm getting a little confused in this argument.
Surely we all agree that
1) A wish can cast a meteor swarm. Its a level 9 spell
2) A spell where you get to choose the energy type when you cast it is more powerful than the identical spell with a fixed energy type. Note, I'm NOT saying how much more powerful, just that it is more powerful. So, a meteor swarm of varying energy types is more powerful than a meteor swarm. Maybe a lot more powerful, maybe slightly more powerful, but it is absolutely unequivocably inarguably more powerful.So, if we agree with both of the above then what is the argument? At this point it is clearly a GM call whether it is SUFFICIENTLY more powerful to not be allowed. Who else can possibly make that judgement? Does anybody actually disagree with this?
As a (silly) couple of counterexamples, lets say that you wanted to use a wish to cast a Meteor Swarm that, in the event that the meteor swarm rolled absolute maximum damage, did one entire extra hit point of damage to one specific target for <in character reasons>. Again, clearly and inarguably this is more powerful than a Meteor Swarm. But it is such a tiny, tiny power up that most GMs would allow it. Or you want to cast a Meteor Swarm that does double damage. Clearly significantly more powerful and would be disallowed by most GMs. But in both cases its the GMs call. Who else can possibly decide?
So, clearly GM call whether cold Meteor Swarm is within bounds for a wish.
The argument is that there are plenty of in-game examples where spells of identical level that deal different types of damage that suggesting a change to a specific damage type (within the same realm of damage types) is unreasonable. Scatter Scree and Electric Arc, for example, target two creatures (or rather, Scree targets 2 areas, which usually only house 1 creature), and deals the same amount of damage, but have different damage types (electricity versus bludgeoning). Both have their minor differences (Scree more effective against swarms and battlefield control, Arc able to target in the air), but otherwise, from a pure damage standpoint, are identical. Look at Heal and Harm: Two spells that are direct opposites of each other. If only one effect existed, could I not use an inverse of it when I cast it via Miracle? Same could be done with several other Negative/Positive damage effects, or specialty Alignment-based effects. A GM can certainly rule no to any of those, that's not what's being contended. But their reasoning for doing so, which is where the contention really is, isn't really justified outside of personalized arbitration.
As for the whole "adding damage" thing, that's a strawman. Changing damage type doesn't inherently add damage, nor does it make it more powerful except by circumstances, such as exploiting weaknesses or avoiding resistances. This is like saying Holy is more powerful than Unholy because it's more likely to trigger against enemies, because there are more Evil enemies than Good enemies (if any). No, because there are far more Evil enemies than Good enemies, Holy appears to be more valuable. I can guarantee you that if that property was inverted, Unholy would be more valuable by proxy. Funny how that circumstance changes the subjective value and power of those property runes!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, since clearly the answer is "nothing," the third clause of the spell essentially does not exist at your tables.
At my table, I forbid mechanical wishes, but I vastly encourage story and challenge driven ones.
So if you want to cast your make-up spell that targets the proper save with the proper damage type, it'll be a clear no. If you want to cast a spell you have the first 2 clauses available.Now, if you wish the crystals from the ice cavern to explode in myriads of needles that will pierce through the red dragons, yeah, definitely, go for it. I'll come up with a mechanical resolution that will be largely on par with a cold-based Meteor Swarm. And instead of wasting 2 minutes of table time in power bargain with a player I'll spend them describing how the rain of sparkling drops of ice get tainted red by the blood of the poor dragons. A bazillion times more cool factor. And no way for the players to abuse my rulings so I don't care if it's not precisely in line with a level 9 spell.
State a wish and make your greatest desire come true.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, but I really, strongly disagree with your philosophy of GMing, SuperBidi. The vast majority of behaviors that you deride as indicative of a "problem player" are normal and natural parts of the game, and if they become problems, that tells me a lot more about the GM then it does about the players.
For the instance with Wish, yes, you are right to say that being able to cast a version of Meteor Swarm of any damage type you want is stronger than just being able to cast Meteor Swarm. However, that doesn't mean that the effect you are producing is stronger than Meteor Swarm, it is exactly equally as strong, just more useful in a specific scenario. It would be less useful if you happened to be fighting White Dragons instead of Red.
The effect is not more powerful. The ability to chose which effect you cast is what is more powerful. And, yeah. That's expected. Wish is a level 10 spell, while Meteor Swarm is a level 9. Wish SHOULD be more powerful. Being able to cast any lower level spell and adjust them on the fly (as long as your adjustments don't mess too much with the power of the effect itself), is what makes it more powerful than any individual level 9 or lower effect.
Now, what you decide is an effect that is in line with a level 9 arcane effect is going to be different, GM to GM. If a player fights with you after you have made a decision, then that might be a problem behavior at a table (unless the GM's decision is clearly egregious, but even then the discussion should be made after the game, not during). Changing fire damage to cold damage is fine, but changing it to necrotic or good turn the spell into the purview of a Divine spell instead of an Arcane one, and damage types like force or mental are actually better than the elementals, so I'd have to consider that.
Either way though, you have mentioned a few times that you feel that this sort of thing is the equivalent of power bargaining with the GM. I say yes, but why is that a bad thing? When I am GMing, I expect my players to do this, at a bare minimum and if I was playing at a table that didn't allow it...well I'd strongly consider not playing at that table, since to me that is a core an extremely important part of playing a TTRPG of any kind.
"Can I fire Disintegrate at the pillar holding the roof up, and collapse it on the Manticore?"
"Instead of picking the lock, which might take time we don't have since the guards are right on our tail, can the Barbarian smash it with his Warhammer?"
"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning?"
All of these are reasonable requests. If your instinct reaction is to be mad at a player for thinking outside the box, or fear that they are trying to cheat the system, I'd reconsider the way that you interpret the role of the GM. I have never considered the job of the GM to be to tell players what they can and can't do, but to help players determine a fair and reasonable way to help players do what they want to do.
"You can totally cast Disintegrate at the pillar, but whether the roof falls depends on how much damage you roll. Not enough and don't do anything. Do enough and you will not only do a decent amount of damage, but you'll pin the Manticore under the rubble, forcing it to use at least one action to do an escape check".
"Yeah, smash that lock. Just be aware that if you fail, you'll jam the door shut and it'll be much harder to get open."
"Sure, the sword's pommel can do that. But it isn't designed or optimized for it, so treat it like a shoddy mace, and your runes effect your attack since they're designed to work with the sword's blade."
All of that is successful and productive power bargaining with the GM. Now, maybe some GM's consider these bargains too permissive. Others might be more generous still. And some GMs might even ask players to keep to only the explicitly written effects of things because they aren't comfortable coming up with rulings on the fly, especially if they are newer to the game. All of these are fair. But to say "You aren't allowed to ask for a different effect than what I have specifically given you, and stop asking because doing so is going to be treated with hostility by me", is a clear sign of a problem GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, but I really, strongly disagree with your philosophy of GMing, SuperBidi.
It's because you haven't understood my point. All you describe is fine for me. For example, taking your examples:
"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning?"
The player asks for an action in game, and the GM gives the mechanical resolution to it:
"Sure, the sword's pommel can do that. But it isn't designed or optimized for it, so treat it like a shoddy mace, and your runes effect your attack since they're designed to work with the sword's blade."
So no power bargain as the GM is the only one to bring the mechanical resolution to the action.
Now, if in the same situation, the player question had been:
"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning and deal the same damage than usual?"
That would be very different as the player would ask both for an in game action and a mechanical resolution. And that is what I call a power bargain as now the mechanical resolution of the action becomes a discussion between the player and the GM and not the sole GM's responsability.
When the player asks:
"Can I cast a Cold-based Meteor Swarm?"
If the GM answers yes and reduces the number of damage dice to resolve the action I'm pretty sure the player would be mad because their question is carrying both an in game impact and a mechanical one. It's a power bargain.
But I feel my point is too subtle sometimes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nan I get it. I think it's been overlooked as "bad gm smack fingers" by a lot of the posters here though.
My original point on this was that cold meteor wlsearm was not RAW, which was what YuriP was saying. I think we can all agree that is it is in fact not, and that wish effects are very much a "gm decides" thing.
The rest is semantics and GMing style. There's bad players and good players, but players telling you they want a specific resolution to their spell is a problem because it's subtle power grabs right in the middle of combat, and that's bad form, I've lived through a lot of that too.
I think we can all agree that a reasonable approach is:
1: Pick any verbatim spell within the parameters
Or
2: State your wish and let GM decide.
Is a very reasonable approach, which is what me and superbidi have been saying.
The rest is semantical and ultimately pointless debate over the line "in line with these effects" which is a purposefully vague line made to allow a lot of GM agenda so YMMV.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry, but I really, strongly disagree with your philosophy of GMing, SuperBidi.It's because you haven't understood my point. All you describe is fine for me. For example, taking your examples:
"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning?"
The player asks for an action in game, and the GM gives the mechanical resolution to it:
"Sure, the sword's pommel can do that. But it isn't designed or optimized for it, so treat it like a shoddy mace, and your runes effect your attack since they're designed to work with the sword's blade."
So no power bargain as the GM is the only one to bring the mechanical resolution to the action.
Now, if in the same situation, the player question had been:
"The Skeleton is clearly resisting my longsword's slashing and piercing damage, can I try and strike it with my pommel instead to do bludgeoning and deal the same damage than usual?"
That would be very different as the player would ask both for an in game action and a mechanical resolution. And that is what I call a power bargain as now the mechanical resolution of the action becomes a discussion between the player and the GM and not the sole GM's responsability.
When the player asks:
"Can I cast a Cold-based Meteor Swarm?"
If the GM answers yes and reduces the number of damage dice to resolve the action I'm pretty sure the player would be mad because their question is carrying both an in game impact and a mechanical one. It's a power bargain.
But I feel my point is too subtle sometimes...
We knew what your point was. The problem is that we aren't simply players at your table left to accept what your ruling is, but other fellow GMs who simply disagree with the reasoning behind your rulings.
In the examples, these are all still power bargaining questions, because the player is asking these questions to see if switching their damage type on-the-fly with no rules behind it would be more sensible than what they are doing now. Since the player knows their sword is ineffective, they want to know if using their sword pommel (which isn't permissible by RAW except by improvised weapon rules at-best) would be more effective, because they want to deal with the situation better than what they already are, instead of, you know, actually having a bludgeoning back-up weapon to use.
A player asking if using their weapon improvised should be equally as effective as if it's used conventionally is just the same power bargain request as the first, but with an added expectation behind it from the player. A GM can certainly use rules to shatter those expectations, and really, the answer you gave to the first question is equally applicable to the second question with the expectation behind it.
"I don't want players power bargaining at my table" isn't much of a defense for denying an effect makes sense as the rules already account for this to begin with, and it also doesn't make sense for your claims when, in the next breath, you let a player state a wish like "I wish these Red Dragons face an immediate, frigid death," and then decide that's fair grounds for "Ice Shards Explode, They Die." (Or extremely wounded, or whatever the outcome is that results in red dragons bleeding out severely in your RP exposition.)
But when a player says "I wish an icy comet shower from the sky comes down on these Red Dragons," and a GM says "Your wish can't come to pass," compared to the previous Wish (which is far more open-ended and left to GM shenanigans), I'm not sure I see much of a difference in either Wish.
One is by ice shards in a nearby cave that don't honestly sound that effective, the other is by arcane magic manipulatively drawing comets in space to the dragons, which sounds far more effective and epic, given that well, it's a Wish spell. Both are essentially made-up shenanigans that could be expressed plausibly in the scenario, either by a nearby ice cavern, or by a nearby comet shower. In both cases, assuming the effects are somehow powerful enough, they should indeed result in the Red Dragons facing "an immediate, frigid death," one is just more specific (and cooler) about how it comes to pass. And honestly, if I'm being historically accurate, since dragons are just giant magical dinosaurs/lizards with wings, it would be more fitting that they die by random giant comet(s) from the sky than random ice shards from the ground in a cave somewhere nearby.
At best, you might conclude that the spell is forced to resort to the ice shards in the frozen cave and state the "partial effect" clause as your defense, as you deem the ability to summon ice comets from the sky too powerful (but molten meteors from the sky are totally fine I guess, because a spell for it exists?), but it's best for the GM to use existing rules to their advantage than it is for them to just decide something works because they want a specific outcome and to railroad their adventure(r)s, which is an equally feelsbadman moment for the players.
Heck, you can even say the damage from the spell, which doesn't kill them, is the result of the "partial effect" clause as well, because having a mere 9th level spell take out an entire horde of dragons is a bit overkill as well, unless they're maybe like, level 12 dragons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
stuff
So I read your whole post and what I took from it was:
" As a players if I voice a wish to have cold meteor showers that is then denied, I am inclined to leave your table"
To which my answer would be:
"Look we just went through 19 levels of campaign together to get here, what in our history together made you think you could dictate how I rule things?
Also, I don't like diva players, doors over there, have fun finding a table that meets your exacting standards"
Despite the request being reasonable, throwing a hissy fit over it being denied is simply bad form, and I'd encourage you to reconsider that kind of attitude.
Darksol in your wish statement, if your gm described a dark, ominous and icy comet that smashed down and caused a heap of cold and negative damage on all the dragons and on top of that blinded them on a critical failure, would you be satisfied?
It's obviously eclipse burst instead of meteor shower, but since your wish was open ended you're either.
A: satisfied, you voiced a wish and it had a potent effect on the battlefield, it's not what YOU would have went with, but it was still meaningful.
B: entirely disagree and get annoyed that the Gm didn't go for the exact effect you wanted.
I think what superbidi and me are saying is that GM's get some leeway on wishes such as this based on their own common sense, as in scenario A.
Scenario B is the power grab scenario we are wary of, and is oftentimes emblematic of problematic behavior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We knew what your point was.
This was specifically for Vali.
The problem is that we aren't simply players at your table left to accept what your ruling is, but other fellow GMs who simply disagree with the reasoning behind your rulings.
And I've never considered it otherwise.
In the examples, these are all still power bargaining questions, because the player is asking these questions to see if switching their damage type on-the-fly with no rules behind it would be more sensible than what they are doing now. Since the player knows their sword is ineffective, they want to know if using their sword pommel (which isn't permissible by RAW except by improvised weapon rules at-best) would be more effective, because they want to deal with the situation better than what they already are, instead of, you know, actually having a bludgeoning back-up weapon to use.
In my example, the GM just stated what will happen and then the player chooses if they want to go with the action. So no bargain, fixed price it is.
Also, it seems you haven't understood what I was meaning by the ice cavern: I was considering that the whole action was taking place in an ice cavern, making the Wish more contextual.
GM shenanigans
I quote that because I fail to see what it means. What are GM shenanigans to you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darksol in your wish statement, if your gm described a dark, ominous and icy comet that smashed down and caused a heap of cold and negative damage on all the dragons and on top of that blinded them on a critical failure, would you be satisfied?
It's obviously eclipse burst instead of meteor shower, but since your wish was open ended you're either.
A: satisfied, you voiced a wish and it had a potent effect on the battlefield, it's not what YOU would have went with, but it was still meaningful.
B: entirely disagree and get annoyed that the Gm didn't go for the exact effect you wanted.
I think what superbidi and me are saying is that GM's get some leeway on wishes such as this based on their own common sense, as in scenario A.
Scenario B is the power grab scenario we are wary of, and is oftentimes emblematic of problematic behavior.
Honestly? Not very. And here's why:
An existing spell was reflavored to create something that it simply doesn't do, which is a dark comet coming from the sky. I could understand and accept it if the Negative damage was changed to Bludgeoning to compensate for the Wish request (it wouldn't do any more or less damage to the dragons, so no power grab here), and the "partial effect" clause was invoked, but none of that happened, so it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth from both a flavor perspective and a mechanical perspective. There's nothing "comet-y" about it outside of just saying "yeah, it's there, but it doesn't affect anything, it's just a heightened Eclipse Burst instead."
Furthermore, it's nowhere near as area-efficient as a higher level spell that is far more in-line with the effect I Wished for, which means there's still a bunch of Red Dragons on the way to fight us after casting it. At best, this can still be retconned with the "partial effect" clause (even if only to not trivialize an obvious encounter meant for us), but again, it's not used in this case, so still bad taste in mouth here.
What's even more interesting is that the spell would not be trivialized or even considered to be "dangerous" or a "partial effect" if the targets were White Dragons instead being affected by Meteor Swarm, for example. I'm genuinely curious why that instance would be 100% non-negotiable and unequivocally applied wholly by the rules, but the inversed instance in discussion would not.
We knew what your point was.This was specifically for Vali.
The problem is that we aren't simply players at your table left to accept what your ruling is, but other fellow GMs who simply disagree with the reasoning behind your rulings.And I've never considered it otherwise.
In the examples, these are all still power bargaining questions, because the player is asking these questions to see if switching their damage type on-the-fly with no rules behind it would be more sensible than what they are doing now. Since the player knows their sword is ineffective, they want to know if using their sword pommel (which isn't permissible by RAW except by improvised weapon rules at-best) would be more effective, because they want to deal with the situation better than what they already are, instead of, you know, actually having a bludgeoning back-up weapon to use.In my example, the GM just stated what will happen and then the player chooses if they want to go with the action. So no bargain, fixed price it is.
Also, it seems you haven't understood what I was meaning by the ice cavern: I was considering that the whole action was taking place in an ice cavern, making the Wish more contextual.
GM shenanigansI quote that because I fail to see what it means. What are GM shenanigans to you?
But in both cases, the GM is still stating what happens, and the player will either attempt to bargain and get shut out (because they feel their attempt at solving the problem is being diminutized, but the GM doesn't care or told them what the rule actually is), complain but accept the ruling (which means they disagree but understand the decision and won't go through with it), or actually go through with the activity (because they want to or find it acceptable). A player stating an expectation behind their question doesn't instantly mean they want to bargain compared to another player simply asking a question about unclear rules, it's just a bad assumption to have about your players, and honestly, if it's problematic enough, either talk it out or boot them from the table; it's not complicated. I've had instances asked with expectations that didn't turn into bargaining (improvised weapons and special materials). I've had instances asked without expectations turn into bargaining (stealth rules and upcasting). It's ultimately a matter of how you approach the rule and what knowledge and references you can make to support that rule, and honestly, I'm far more respective of a GM's rules if they have the resources (or intent) to back themselves up than I am of a GM who decides something "just because."
I end up providing solutions for the table to use on unclear rules or corner case situations both to save time and to add extra perspective to the situation and to further rulings (even if because I do so reflexively). If the GM likes it, they might agree and use it. If the GM doesn't like it, they'll disagree and do something else. I'm generally fine with either one, since a lot of the time the GM doesn't really do anything absurd, and also because I don't have a stake in the race in question.
To clarify, GM Shenanigans are basically "gotcha" moments, or moments where the GM purposefully circumvents the printed rules to get their way, either by railroading the adventure (because they want it to unravel a certain way), or not having encounters trivialized by something unforeseen (such as by somebody critically Turning an Undead Boss in a previous edition game, something that both parties are still salty about to this day). This would also ultimately include the "dangerous" or "partial effect" clauses of Wish if used incorrectly, since the former can come into a "gotcha" moment, and the latter can be a result of railroading or anti-trivialization.
The damage difference between level 9 eclipse burst and level 9 meteor swarm is the following:
Eclipse burst:
Spread: 20-140 with an average of 80
Meteor swarm:
Spread 20 to 130 with an average of 82.
Eclipse burst has a 60 ft burst and meteor swarm has 4 40 ft burst areas, but the downside is that some of that doesn't have the dual damage area (if you're targeting more than 4 huge creatures).
Eclipse burst has the critical failure rider of blind, one of the better ones, meteor swarm doesn't.
Meteor swarm has the niche "all meteors on same creature" possibility, but it's very hard to apply if your goal is to nuke a swarm.
Both spells are incredibly comparable, with some edge cases here and there, all in all I would see both of these being identical in effect.
One of those requires no GM calls gouserules or adaptation, the other does.
Given that, I do not understand your issue with just using an already printed spell rather than invent something on the fly to answer to this particular wish scenario.
The damage difference between level 9 eclipse burst and level 9 meteor swarm is the following:
Eclipse burst:
Spread: 20-140 with an average of 80Meteor swarm:
Spread 20 to 130 with an average of 82.Eclipse burst has a 60 ft burst and meteor swarm has 4 40 ft burst areas, but the downside is that some of that doesn't have the dual damage area (if you're targeting more than 4 huge creatures).
Eclipse burst has the critical failure rider of blind, one of the better ones, meteor swarm doesn't.
Meteor swarm has the niche "all meteors on same creature" possibility, but it's very hard to apply if your goal is to nuke a swarm.
Both spells are incredibly comparable, with some edge cases here and there, all in all I would see both of these being identical in effect.
One of those requires no GM calls gouserules or adaptation, the other does.
Given that, I do not understand your issue with just using an already printed spell rather than invent something on the fly to answer to this particular wish scenario.
Okay sure, the damage is comparable, but the area is not. If the dragons are stretched along approximately 150 from lead to end, the area of Meteor Swarm would be able to encompass all of them with the damage type I want the most (Cold), whereas Eclipse Burst does not. Remember, in the original example, it was expressly stated that a spell like Eclipse Burst isn't enough area to cover to affect all the dragons, which is why they wanted a spell like Meteor Swarm instead.
I could only see Meteor Swarm being comparable in area to Eclipse Burst if you stacked all the 10x10 squares adjacent to each other, but as you state, other than maybe focus-firing a single Large (or bigger) creature, it's not going to be all that superior in damage or effect.
As for why I don't just use an existing spell, the "on-the-fly" answer is really simple and easy to implement without breaking the game, and provides the most satisfactory result to the player(s).
The answer to my post
Your post is full of non conventional player positioning, ones that can become problematic if they are frequent.
But in both cases, the GM is still stating what happens, and the player will either attempt to bargain
Well, it's no more bargaining, it's challenging a GM decision. It happens, but it's not at all normal. And if it's frequent it's an issue on the player side (that may come from a GM-player incompatibility, sometimes it's better to leave a table if you don't like the GMing).
I'm far more respective of a GM's rules if they have the resources (or intent) to back themselves up than I am of a GM who decides something "just because."
Ouch, that's a bit violent (I assume you meant respectful and not respective). Sure, we all judge our GMs and there are some GMing ways we dislike. But the GM doesn't have to give you reasons on their GMing the same way you don't have to give them reasons on your playing.
I end up providing solutions for the table to use on unclear rules or corner case situations both to save time and to add extra perspective to the situation and to further rulings (even if because I do so reflexively). If the GM likes it, they might agree and use it. If the GM doesn't like it, they'll disagree and do something else. I'm generally fine with either one, since a lot of the time the GM doesn't really do anything absurd, and also because I don't have a stake in the race in question.
What you describe is a player positioning themselves as GM assistant, it's not a normal player positioning at all. There's nothing bad in helping a GM, but you need the GM consent as otherwise you are stepping on their toes.
GM Shenanigans
Well, these are not shenanigans at all. You may dislike how a GM railroads the game or if the GM gives plot armor to their boss, but it's their responsability to handle the game and you shouldn't have to intervene. If you feel you want to intervene often, once again I encourage you to consider leaving the table. If you dislike a GM way of handling the game there's not much you can do but leaving.
I'm far more respective of a GM's rules if they have the resources (or intent) to back themselves up than I am of a GM who decides something "just because."Ouch, that's a bit violent.
No, don't kid yourself. Violence is violent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The answer to my postYour post is full of non conventional player positioning, ones that can become problematic if they are frequent.
But in both cases, the GM is still stating what happens, and the player will either attempt to bargainWell, it's no more bargaining, it's challenging a GM decision. It happens, but it's not at all normal. And if it's frequent it's an issue on the player side (that may come from a GM-player incompatibility, sometimes it's better to leave a table if you don't like the GMing).
I'm far more respective of a GM's rules if they have the resources (or intent) to back themselves up than I am of a GM who decides something "just because."Ouch, that's a bit violent (I assume you meant respectful and not respective). Sure, we all judge our GMs and there are some GMing ways we dislike. But the GM doesn't have to give you reasons on their GMing the same way you don't have to give them reasons on your playing.
I end up providing solutions for the table to use on unclear rules or corner case situations both to save time and to add extra perspective to the situation and to further rulings (even if because I do so reflexively). If the GM likes it, they might agree and use it. If the GM doesn't like it, they'll disagree and do something else. I'm generally fine with either one, since a lot of the time the GM doesn't really do anything absurd, and also because I don't have a stake in the race in question.What you describe is a player positioning themselves as GM assistant, it's not a normal player positioning at all. There's nothing bad in helping a GM, but you need the GM consent as otherwise you are stepping on their toes.
GM ShenanigansWell, these are not shenanigans at all. You may dislike how a GM railroads the game or if the GM gives plot armor to their boss,...
Can be doesn't mean they are or that they will be. Playing with two groups who rotate GMs regularly, I know my bounds fairly well. So that's, like, your opinion, man.
How is asking a question about what you can do, one of which having an expectation behind it, challenging GM decisions, much less an act of violence? If asking what a GM decision is, is the same as challenging it, then a player is far more likely to simply research and know what they can and can't do instead of improvising along the way, which probably leads to way more memorable moments than just "I grab my back-up weapon and smack him in the face." It might even stump a GM who isn't knowledgeable. I've certainly done that before, many-a-time. We've turned it into a game at one of our tables, actually.
While yes, respectful is the term I should have used, I don't change my stance on the matter: A GM who knows the rules and can tell a player what they are by heart is one I'd rather be a player for, even if simply because they're knowledgeable of the rules and can tell a newer player what they are, accurately, all without having to stop the game to do so. Or even better, without me having to intervene and "step on their toes," in case they try to shirk the player or give them false information, so if they go to another table, it turns out they were playing the game incorrectly.
This is what a GM says when they believe that it's okay for GMs to do things like railroading adventures, or bias plot-armor NPCs from things that the rules say work differently, or even the classic "Gotcha" scenarios of PF1's Paladin codes. I don't consider that compelling or even fair GMing, but by your standards, it technically is, simply because the GM is the one who came to that decision, not the player. Even though a GM's justification for not liking that kind of player behavior stems from way more than just "I didn't come to that conclusion of my own volitions," which is actually the sole reason you've expressed distaste for "power bargaining" in the first place: Because you didn't come to that conclusion by your own choosing.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"You state a wish, making your greatest desire come true. A wish spell can produce any one of the following effects.
- Duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower.
- Duplicate any non-arcane spell of 7th level or lower.
- Produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects.
- Reverse certain effects that refer to the wish spell.
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."
I'm pretty sure that by the wording of the Wish spell you do not need GM permission to produce an effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level arcane spell, you only need permission to exceed it. Now you can attempt to argue that a cold damage version of the meteor swarm spell exceeds it in power, but it seems very dubious to me. I can't see a reasonable argument as to why Cold damage is generally more powerful than Fire damage, can anyone explain this?
Do you believe that the Wish spell is checking how powerful the suggested effect is in the context of the current situation? Would you allow a Wizard to Wish for a Cold Meteor Swarm if they were attempting to use it on a group of White Dragons because it would be weaker than a 9th level spell in that context?
How does an effect that is identical to Meteor Swarm but produces Cold damage instead of Fire damage not have a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been covered before, rotating elements on the fly to adapt to a situation is a power cost.
Spells that do that (shadow blast for exemple) have a power cost and are noticeably weaker than their counterparts.
As well, since weaknesses are much more abundant, you'll notice a distinct lack of element switching metamagic in this edition, and for good reason I believe.
Therefore, a meteor swarm with rotating elements is in fact not in line with the effects of a 9th level spell.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This has been covered before, rotating elements on the fly to adapt to a situation is a power cost.
Spells that do that (shadow blast for exemple) have a power cost and are noticeably weaker than their counterparts.
As well, since weaknesses are much more abundant, you'll notice a distinct lack of element switching metamagic in this edition, and for good reason I believe.
Therefore, a meteor swarm with rotating elements is in fact not in line with the effects of a 9th level spell.
This honestly feels a little disingenuous - it's not a meteor swarm with rotating elements that you're comparing here. It's a 10th level spell - Wish - giving you the flexibility you're discussing here - there is a power cost here, and it's that you're spending a 10th level spell slot. If you were asking to have permanent access to a 9th level spell that is Meteor Swarm, but you get to pick the element when you cast it, that'd be out of bounds for a 9th level spell.
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.
You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.
Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.
The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'
Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.
Playing with two groups who rotate GMs regularly, I know my bounds fairly well.
I haven't judged you, just the situations you were presenting. I hope I haven't unwittingly crossed a line.
And in a similar way, I don't judge the GM situations you are describing. Mostly because I don't think a GM handling a situation badly means a player has the right to overstep.From your words, it seems that you want some control over the GM handling of your Wish because you don't trust the GM ability to handle it properly. For me, it underlines a trust issue.
As a player, if I ever get to the level I can cast Wish, I'll certainly have a conversation with the GM on how they want to handle it and from there decide if I prepare it or not. The lack of guidelines around Wish means that you have to expect a lot of table variation.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.
Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.
The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'
Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.
Pointed question here, do you honestly think that a cold damage version of Meteor Swarm is generally out of line with the power level of a 9th level arcane spell? Would you say that Meteor Swarm warranted a nerf if the spell currently did cold damage instead of fire damage? If not, then can you explain how it doesn't fall under the third option of the Wish spell?
Your description of a player looking for a solution "in all the spells accessible by Wish" is only allowing for two out of four explicitly allowed effects listed in the Wish spell. One of the clearly listed options of what you can produce with the Wish spell, without GM permission, is any effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level Arcane spell. If you think that an effect that is identical in damage to an existing 9th level spell, but with sidegraded damage type, doesn't fall under that description, then what does? This clause specifically allows the effect to be outside of existing spells as long as it is not out of line power wise. What use would this be if you decided that any effect that is different than an existing spell must have inherently more power simply due to adding to the flexibility of the Wish spell, and should therefore should default to the later GM fiat clause?
If you think that Wish is too powerful go ahead and nerf it, but I don't understand the argument that disallows swapping a common damage type to another by RAW, it seems exactly what the third option in the Spell is for tbh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that by the wording of the Wish spell you do not need GM permission to produce an effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level arcane spell, you only need permission to exceed it.
An effect, singular. A cold-based Meteor Swarm is a bunch of effects and as such you can't do it with Wish.
You can wish for icy meteors to rain on the dragons but that's all. The GM is the only one responsible for the other effects (side effects) generated by your Wish. They can decide that the meteors don't do a single point of damage and as illogical as it seems this is still RAW.You can't bypass the GM on the third clause of a Wish.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm getting from this conversation is that some people actually believe that if cone of cold weren't an explicitly printed spell, using wish to try and cast a cold damage burning hands to hit a weakness would make them some sort of horrid monster.
If already printed options are all you're going to allow out of some inane fear that a player might actually accomplish something useful, just be honest about it. "I'm scared of options that aren't explicitly in the book being even slightly too good."
Options in the book have been tried tested and balanced through numerous applications of run throughs. A colossal amount of work has went into balancing them.
Designing spells on the fly is a fan of worms a lot of GM's, me included, don't want to open.
If you want to play a mage that can design spells on the flyz may I suggest Mage: The awakening? It's a great system that helps you set will to power in a typical mage way.
But for pf2e every houserule (because that is what that is) has to be weighed carefully and can expose you to Gm regret after.
That being said, you do what you want at your table, I just know if there's an option already printed that does exactly what the player wants, why not use it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An effect, singular. A cold-based Meteor Swarm is a bunch of effects and as such you can't do it with Wish.
A cold-based Meteor Swarm is exactly as many effects as a fire-based Meteor Swarm.
What is the point of the third option of the Wish spell if you aren't able to produce any effect whose power level is in line with a 9th level or lower Arcane Spell, or a 7th level or lower non-arcane Spell? Sure, your GM has to agree that it is in line with those spells (same as anything else subjective in the game), but if they do then they should allow it by RAW.
This clause is separate and different to the "The GM might allow you to try using wish to produce greater effects than these" clause. It's effectively saying "the GM will allow you to produce any effect whose power level is in line with the above effects", in exactly the same way as it is saying "the GM will allow you to duplicate any arcane spell of 9th level or lower."
If you want to play a mage that can design spells on the flyz may I suggest Mage: The awakening? It's a great system that helps you set will to power in a typical mage way.
But for pf2e every houserule (because that is what that is) has to be weighed carefully and can expose you to Gm regret after.
What does the third clause of the Wish spell allow you to do in your opinion? You are the one houseruling here (and that's fine!), not those running the spell how it is written.
RAW the Wish spell allows you to produce any effect that has a power level that is in line with a 9th level Arcane Spell.
That is a nonsensical approach to this line because effects of 9th level and under is not a defined term.
As per your opinion, this would mean when casting wish players can decide to do almost anything they desire, which is just nightmarish to run as a GM.
Petrify a group of people? Sure, flesh to stone is level 6 so why not make it an aoe? Create any magical item ? Well creation is lower level and so is magic weapon, so that line makes those effects, and thus heightening them, well, why not ballpark some +3 major striking weapons for everyone, while we're at it?
Teleporting directly in the BBEG's bedroom? Well teleport is a spell and dimension door is precise, merging them together is an effect in line with other spells but heightened!
Why have rules while we're at it! Let's just put aside pf2e and start on playing Fate instead, because hey, there's a line in a spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But this is clearly different - Wish allows you to create an effect that has a "power level in line with an arcane spell of 9th level or lower". The question here is "does Meteor Swarm, but dealing cold not fire damage, have a power level in line with 9th level arcane spells" - if you answer yes, you have to be saying that the cold damage is the source of the increase in power level; the flexibility is being paid for by the 10th level spell slot.You are forgetting that the flexibility already lies in being able to cast any arcane spell other then another 10th level spell, and on top of that any spell up to 7th level of spell lists you don't even have access to otherwise.
Now bending and twisting those spells on top of getting access to them in the first place may be more flexibility then the 10th level slot pays for.
The original question is: 'If in all the spells accessible by Wish, a player does find many that are a solution for the problem at hand, but not the ideal/optimal solution, is allowing the player to further bend and twist a spell to 'optimise' it covered by the Wish spell's power or not.'
Ultimately, every GM has to answer that for themselves, but I will say again, if only casters get to play that game, you are back at creating a caster/martial imbalance that PF2 tries so hard to avoid.
If that's all the flexibility that lies in Wish, then it wouldn't have the "Produce any effect in line with a 9th level Arcane or 7th level non-Arcane spell" clause. But it does, meaning that there is more flexibility involved besides what you're claiming. Is it GM FIAT, and therefore subject to table variation? Sure. But that doesn't mean the clause doesn't exist, or isn't a valid thing to ask a GM unless the GM expressly stated before hand that they will deny any such clause to come to pass. It can be argued that the GM's decision is "no effect can be in line with a 9th level Arcane or 7th level non-Arcane spell without them being actual spells," but since that is essentially nixing that clause entirely, it's practically houseruling at that point, since it means the clause doesn't exist or does nothing, either of which are paradoxical without a houserule present.
The question isn't worded correctly if the intent is to ask if they can bend the rules for an ideal/optimal solution when they are already provided a solution by the GM. By that point, several posters would have already said the GM has made their decision, nothing can change or argue otherwise, which makes it rhetorical by their definition. It's a bit of a heavy-handed question with that in mind. But really, that result can boil down more to a GM being less knowledgeable/experienced (though the less experienced might let something more egregious fly without recompense) or being purposefully antagonistic because they don't want a 10th level spell trivializing an encounter, than it is because of a preconceived notion of understanding how the spell works, and having experience of what limitations would or would not be acceptable to have.
Complaining that Casters can play that game and Martials can't is like Casters complaining why they can't ever earn Master or Legendary proficiency in weaponry or armor: It's called niche protection. Martials are far better damage dealers and skill monkeys than Casters can ever be. That's why Casters get spells to alter reality in exchange. And really, the ability to alter reality with spells is the sole draw a Spellcaster ever has in this edition. You take that away from them? There's no purpose to play them anymore from an optimized standpoint. At best they function as MCD options than they do primary class options, and that's just a feelsbadman mentality to have. In essence, they become an NPC class, because seriously, the amount of power NPC spellcasters have in this edition is beyond OP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Playing with two groups who rotate GMs regularly, I know my bounds fairly well.I haven't judged you, just the situations you were presenting. I hope I haven't unwittingly crossed a line.
And in a similar way, I don't judge the GM situations you are describing. Mostly because I don't think a GM handling a situation badly means a player has the right to overstep.From your words, it seems that you want some control over the GM handling of your Wish because you don't trust the GM ability to handle it properly. For me, it underlines a trust issue.
As a player, if I ever get to the level I can cast Wish, I'll certainly have a conversation with the GM on how they want to handle it and from there decide if I prepare it or not. The lack of guidelines around Wish means that you have to expect a lot of table variation.
I disagree. If a GM is handling a situation badly, players have the right to voice their concerns and frustrations to the GM instead of bottling them up and either exploding them in a negative fashion (which just creates an unpleasant experience for all involved), or nesting/encouraging mental health issues to occur otherwise (there's plenty of mental health issues in the world as-is, don't need to make more or worse ones), in an attempt to either understand or compromise with the GM about the kind of game they want to play. And just as well, a player has the right to leave that table if they find they can't reach an agreement with the GM, or no longer find it enjoyable to play. Your statement implies that players can't do this, no matter what, which isn't really fair, especially for situations far more egregious than "GM doesn't let me have my way all the time."
The reason why I want control is quite simple: It's my spell slot, is it not? A feature given to me be able to cast spells as I so desire, as described in the rules of spellcasting, and for each spell, is the definition of them being my spell slots. Not being able to cast my spells in the way I want when the rules permit me to means it both ceases to be my spell slot (because it no longer produces an effect that I wanted from it), and by consequence ceases to be something that I wanted to have happen because [reasons]. This is like me casting Fireball, but the GM saying I can't target a specific point with it because it's too powerful of an effect for that given spell level if I do, even if by the rules, it both makes sense and is permissible to do so. It's different if it's because the GM says I don't have line of sight or effect to that location because of creatures/obstructions in the way, for example, because the rules actually support that. But there's no rules excuse being provided outside of an opinion, one of which I disagree with fundamentally, and plenty of existing rules components, that they have used in their defense, actually work against them. "No printed spell functions that way, so it's not a feasible Wish?" Look at Burning Hands versus Chilling Spray, and tell me that there is no such identical compromise available in the game. Look at Heal versus Harm. Look at any Alignment-based effect and tell me that comparable opposite effects cannot exist in any fashion at a given level whatsoever because Paizo didn't invent it (yet).
At best, you can ask him what are some example effects that would be in-line with 9th level Arcane/7th level non-Arcane spells? Or you can just take your own advice and just assume the GM won't allow effects that are in-line with a 9th level Arcane/7th level non-Arcane spell, since it seems that's the obvious route to take. You don't, why not assume the GM doesn't too? I also suspect this is the route PFS would take with these spell effects, which practically neuters the spell even more than what it already is (even if by design).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that by the wording of the Wish spell you do not need GM permission to produce an effect that is in line with the power of a 9th level arcane spell, you only need permission to exceed it.An effect, singular. A cold-based Meteor Swarm is a bunch of effects and as such you can't do it with Wish.
You can wish for icy meteors to rain on the dragons but that's all. The GM is the only one responsible for the other effects (side effects) generated by your Wish. They can decide that the meteors don't do a single point of damage and as illogical as it seems this is still RAW.You can't bypass the GM on the third clause of a Wish.
How is two effects (Meteor Swarm and Cold-based) "a bunch?" They're a duo or couple, at most. Nitpicks aside, this actually identifies a point of contention that stems our disagreements: Apparently, asking for a change to an effect counts as a separate effect entirely, and therefore isn't valid to work with Wish, which you claim produces only a singular effect ever. Which would then mean asking for an effect like "I wish this person back alive as a mortal" just results in reviving an undead creature back to being...well...undead. Because you asked for two effects here (resurrection and mortalfication), not one. And since you asked for the person to be back alive, they're simply back alive as they were before. Which is evil undead creature. Woohoo! This sounds like some textbook Antagonistic "Gotcha" GMing 101 going on here!
In my opinion, though, that would mean even Meteor Swarm, summoning 4 meteors down from the sky, has 4 separate areas which creates 4 separate distinct effects, which means a Meteor Swarm, by RAW, can't be Wished for since it's creating multiple effects, and not just one. You get only 1 giant elemental rock from the sky, not 4, that's 4 separate effects. This concept of "only one effect can be created, multiples don't count" discounts the idea that a given effect can't be changed or mutated in any fashion. Using the previous revive example, that means a creature made undead can't be revived as a living being in one breathe, even though the revivication serves as the means of mortalfication (because the undead creature isn't alive when resurrected either).
Now, even using the "produce an effect in-line with a level 9 Arcane/7th level non-Arcane spell," 4 giant elemental rocks coming from the sky to rain down on your foes, as a 9th level spell, is somehow not equivalent to 4 giant elemental rocks coming from the sky to rain down on your foes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Options in the book have been tried tested and balanced through numerous applications of run throughs. A colossal amount of work has went into balancing them.
Designing spells on the fly is a fan of worms a lot of GM's, me included, don't want to open.
If you want to play a mage that can design spells on the flyz may I suggest Mage: The awakening? It's a great system that helps you set will to power in a typical mage way.
But for pf2e every houserule (because that is what that is) has to be weighed carefully and can expose you to Gm regret after.
That being said, you do what you want at your table, I just know if there's an option already printed that does exactly what the player wants, why not use it?
There's also a case of overthinking it, strawmanning, or simply glossing over things because reasons. Take a look at the Witch and Alchemist and tell me again that those classes are well balanced and tried through, because I can guarantee you that they are just bad, because they are built upon the worst options in the game (which are familiars and alchemical items, respectively). Some people can defend Alchemical Items, and I can see some that have use, but honestly, they are so easily forgotten that they could just not be in the game and I wouldn't care. Familiars are even worse than that. And it was decided that designing classes around these things was a good idea for power budgeting. To this day, Alchemist keeps getting buffed and buffed to make it more appealing, since from Day 1, Paizo dropped the ball on both classes.
It really isn't, depending on the spell. I technically designed Scorching Ray prior to it being printed, and other than some fine-tuning (and completely neutering the 1 action version of it), it functions relatively identical to my initial designs. It just takes a matter of understanding the power balance behind certain options at a given spell level. And given that 10th level is supposed to be the pinnacle of power, it would make sense that there isn't much restriction behind those things besides GM FIAT. Funny how Wish essentially has that kind of restriction.
Suggesting players who want to invent things for the game they play should just play different systems that are better equipped for it is like telling third party producers to make their own game. Incidentally, PF2 is a far easier system to acclimate to and adjust as appropriate, which includes things like making stuff up, compared to previous editions. The only one simpler than it right now is 5E, and that's simply because of its lack of character options/diversification, and its baked-in bounded accuracy rules.
PF2 is quite rigid in its rules scope, the odds of inventing houserules for things that don't work and end up creating problems later is slim to none. The most common thing I see for this are with things like Grapple (which tripped our group up quite a bit for the longest time) or Leaping/Jumping to strike an enemy that's in the air, but not having Flight to get up to them. Very rarely would something like Wish come up for that kind of comparison.
You are appropriating what somebody wants instead of understanding what it was that the person actually wants and finding something as close to that request as possible. These are not the same things. This means you know what the player wants more than the player does, which is patently absurd. You might as well be making their own character and their decisions for them, too.