Gotta Get 'em All - cost to copy every spell into your book [Archive]

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 02:00 PM

Estimated total number of 3.5 spells at each level, with costs to copy at 10 GP / page, 1 page per level (also 1 page for 0 level). Does not include costs of purchasing spells. Estimated number from a website purporting to list them all with duplicates from different books (e.g., Complete Arcane & Spell Compendium) removed manually by yours truly. That's why it says *estimated* # per level.

A Blessed Book lets you copy 1000 pages of spells for 12,500 GP, so that would be the way to go - 12.5 GP per page rather than 100.

{table=head]Level | Number | Cost | Total Cost | Total Days/Pages | Blessed Book
0 | 28 | 12.5 | 350 | 28 | First
1 | 199 | 12.5 | 2,487.5 | 199 | First
2 | 291 | 25 | 7,275 | 582 | First
3 | 275 | 37.5 | 10,312.5 | 825 | Second
4 | 247 | 50 | 12,350 | 988 | Third
5 | 230 | 62.5 | 14,375 | 1,150 | Fourth
6 | 166 | 75 | 12,450 | 996 | Fifth
7 | 125 | 87.5 | 10,937.5 | 875 | Sixth
8 | 98 | 100 | 9,800 | 784 | Seventh
9 | 97 | 112.5 | 10,912.5 | 873 | Eighth
Totals | 1,756 | - | 91,250 | 7,300 | -[/table]

This affects the Tier I Wizard versus Tier II Sorcerer comparison - even using Blessed Books and obtaining your spells for free somehow, having access to *every* spell is a significant portion of PC wealth - for lower levels, it is simply impossible.

A sorcerer, therefore, should have access to a lot more toys than his wizard friend - more wands, more scrolls, more rings of free action, and so on.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 02:03 PM

And obviously my table-making skills need work.

Karnith

2013-12-04, 02:15 PM

If you'd like that in normal table form:
{table=head]Level | Number | Cost | Total Cost | Total Days/Pages | Blessed Book
0 | 28 | 12.5 | 350 | 28 | First
1 | 199 | 12.5 | 2,487.5 | 199 | First
2 | 291 | 25 | 7,275 | 582 | First
3 | 275 | 37.5 | 10,312.5 | 825 | Second
4 | 247 | 50 | 12,350 | 988 | Third
5 | 230 | 62.5 | 14,375 | 1,150 | Fourth
6 | 166 | 75 | 12,450 | 996 | Fifth
7 | 125 | 87.5 | 10,937.5 | 875 | Sixth
8 | 98 | 100 | 9,800 | 784 | Seventh
9 | 97 | 112.5 | 10,912.5 | 873 | Eighth
Totals | 1,756 | - | 91,250 | 7,300 | -[/table]

I also feel compelled to point out that having access to literally every Wizard/Sorcerer spell is not generally an assumption anyone makes about Wizards, nor is it generally recommended as a worthwhile use of gold and time. You certainly don't need anywhere near as many as all of them to effectively play a versatile wizard.

EDIT: Stupid table formatting.

Big Fau

2013-12-04, 02:15 PM

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 02:27 PM

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 02:30 PM

A consistent 2 spells/level is enough to get most spells you need to be a God Wizard. If more is needed Colligate Wizard doubles that amount. Also Cantrips don't count against a Wizard's costs, or at least not the PHB ones.

However, not every Wizard is going to want every spell of 1st-9th. And a total cost of ~91,000gp, while costly, is less than a +5 Tome.

Edit: Looking at the tables shows something interesting; It reveals the focus of WotC's efforts. Most of the spells are lumped into the 1st-5th levels, which implies that WotC only gave extensive test playing to 1st-9th level characters.

What I'm getting at here is, for example, Person Man's Tiers rankings. People will tell you that a wizard can fill every role in the party better than any non-Tier-1 class. And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles. In 3.5, magic can do anything; but no one wizard can know all the magic.

And yeah, it seems as though they are working on levels 5 - 10 as their "sweet spot". I wonder if an examination of their published dungeons would support that.

GreenSerpent

2013-12-04, 02:31 PM

Be a Geometer. Each spell takes up only one page.

Incanur

2013-12-04, 02:34 PM

Eh, lots of these spells are dubious to nearly worthless. It's an interesting exercise, but only the most devoted sage would bother to learn every single spell available.

Big Fau

2013-12-04, 02:37 PM

What I'm getting at here is, for example, Person Man's Tiers rankings. People will tell you that a wizard can fill every role in the party better than any non-Tier-1 class. And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles. In 3.5, magic can do anything; but no one wizard can know all the magic.

And yeah, it seems as though they are working on levels 5 - 10 as their "sweet spot". I wonder if an examination of their published dungeons would support that.

The four major roles are Tank, Trapfinder, Controller, Face. It only takes three-five spells per role, significantly less than every spell in the Sor/Wiz list. With Colligate Wizard and Elven Generalist you can do this with your automatic spells, leaving you free to scribe whatever you want to do.

A more realistic restriction is Spells/Day and the action economy. A lone Wizard is capable of filling these roles, but efficacy at doing so is a cause for concern.

Nightraiderx

2013-12-04, 03:07 PM

Probably could make it cheaper if the wizard dips into geometer...

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 03:14 PM

The four major roles are Tank, Trapfinder, Controller, Face. It only takes three-five spells per role, significantly less than every spell in the Sor/Wiz list. With Colligate Wizard and Elven Generalist you can do this with your automatic spells, leaving you free to scribe whatever you want to do.

A more realistic restriction is Spells/Day and the action economy. A lone Wizard is capable of filling these roles, but efficacy at doing so is a cause for concern.

First, the minute you have to start taking things like Collegiate Wizard and Elven Generalist, you are restricting the range of possible Wizard builds.

Second, Person Man has (IIRC) 17 roles, and the Wizard needs both Divination and self-protection spells in addition to those.

I'll concede the obvious, though, that no one is going to bother with all 1,756. But they do need more than 12 (3 per role for 4 roles).

I'm gonna guess somewhere closer to 50 than to 12.

Starmage21

2013-12-04, 03:21 PM

I always assume that during character creation, spells above and beyond the basic 2 or 4(for collegiate wizards) must come from a purchased scroll.

Some scrolls will have XP costs, and therefor heftier than normal price tags.

As stated before, unless you're an organization hog, you can fit all spells in the PHB and Spell Compendium books into 3 boccob's blessed books with room to spare.

Seer_of_Heart

2013-12-04, 07:17 PM

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-04, 07:55 PM

Isn't tippy going to say anything about how you can just use shapechange to wish up as many blessed books as you want or something like playing a psion with every spell and power in the game implanted into his brain? So the cost of this would a cl 16 scroll of shapechange (3600 gold).

Why would I say something when someone already has? :smallwink:

so the test of the Mind Rape spell worker...good...need more test subjects

Seer_of_Heart

2013-12-04, 08:30 PM

Why would I say something when someone already has? :smallwink:

so the test of the Mind Rape spell worker...good...need more test subjects

This seemed like a thread that you would post in. :smallwink:

OP here is a trick you may want to know about considering this is about comparison between sorcerers and wizards and this trick lets a wizard "instantly" reprepare spells.

I first heard about it from tippy I believe however, the spell which is the main component is also useful in a couple other tricks.
Spell engine has a pretty long casting time (10 Minutes) But it has an effect that lets you switch out prepared spells for others. The good news is its an 8th level spell which means its wishable :smallbiggrin:.

Now cast a swift timestop giving you several rounds, such as by using a greater rod of quicken. You really should have shapechange up on you already but assuming you don't you cast it time stop round 1 and change into a zodar. You then use a zodar wish to replicate spell engine to reprepare every spell. You now have the rest of the timestop duration to set up whatever you want.

Don't forget the important step! If you have a dm who isn't tippy duck to dodge the dmg flying at you. :smalltongue:

Note:More post and personality analysis is required on Emperor Tippy

Chronos

2013-12-04, 08:40 PM

Quoth Shining Wrath:

What I'm getting at here is, for example, Person Man's Tiers rankings. People will tell you that a wizard can fill every role in the party better than any non-Tier-1 class. And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles. In 3.5, magic can do anything; but no one wizard can know all the magic.
Actually, what you've shown is that one wizard can know all the magic. Yes, 91k is a lot of gold, but it's quite easily affordable by a wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells. A fighter of that level will probably have that much money invested into his primary weapon; why wouldn't a spellcaster invest that much into her equivalent? If you're an obsessive collector and decide that every spell ever is what you want, you can get that. And if you can get that, then you can certainly get every worthwhile spell.

Psyren

2013-12-04, 08:47 PM

And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles.

You have yet to support this point. Even if you did show that a wizard can't learn every spell imaginable (you haven't, you've merely shown that it's expensive), that's not the same as showing that they can't learn the spells they need to fill every role.

Big Fau

2013-12-04, 09:23 PM

First, the minute you have to start taking things like Collegiate Wizard and Elven Generalist, you are restricting the range of possible Wizard builds.

Second, Person Man has (IIRC) 17 roles, and the Wizard needs both Divination and self-protection spells in addition to those.

I'll concede the obvious, though, that no one is going to bother with all 1,756. But they do need more than 12 (3 per role for 4 roles).

I'm gonna guess somewhere closer to 50 than to 12.

With regards to the restricted build: A feat and a racial substitution level are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. The Wizard is focusing on spells to mimic the relevant roles, which both Elven Generalist and Collegiate Wizard improved upon. Divinations are still on the table, as are buffs.

Secondly, the "build" gets 50 spells at 10th level. At 20th level the "build" has 100. That's well above the estimated 50, and easily enough for IP proofing the build. All at the cost of racial choice and a single feat slot, no GP beyond the requisite additional spellbooks/BBBs.

Third, the 4 roles I listed were easily replicated. Tanking can be done by Summons/Calling spells, Polymorph effects, and Dominate Person/Monster. Trapfinding can be done by several Divination spells, Summons/Calling spells, and Dominate again. BFC is a Wizard's forte, and face-buffing is fairly easy with a few other spells (Charm being one; several spells provide bonuses on social skills). Dedicating 12 learned spells to filling those roles would enable the Wizard to do the job, and every additional spell beyond those 12 would improve his efficacy at it (although, again, it may not be the most optimal way to go about that).

Finally, while Person_Man's tier list has 17 roles (not my number, don't quote me on that), the 4 I listed are the most commonly needed roles for a party in an average campaign.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-04, 09:34 PM

With regards to the restricted build: A feat and a racial substitution level are utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand. The Wizard is focusing on spells to mimic the relevant roles, which both Elven Generalist and Collegiate Wizard improved upon. Divinations are still on the table, as are buffs.

Secondly, the "build" gets 50 spells at 10th level. At 20th level the "build" has 100. That's well above the estimated 50, and easily enough for IP proofing the build. All at the cost of racial choice and a single feat slot, no GP beyond the requisite additional spellbooks/BBBs.

Third, the 4 roles I listed were easily replicated. Tanking can be done by Summons/Calling spells, Polymorph effects, and Dominate Person/Monster. Trapfinding can be done by several Divination spells, Summons/Calling spells, and Dominate again. BFC is a Wizard's forte, and face-buffing is fairly easy with a few other spells (Charm being one; several spells provide bonuses on social skills). Dedicating 12 learned spells to filling those roles would enable the Wizard to do the job, and every additional spell beyond those 12 would improve his efficacy at it (although, again, it may not be the most optimal way to go about that).

Finally, while Person_Man's tier list has 17 roles (not my number, don't quote me on that), the 4 I listed are the most commonly needed roles for a party in an average campaign.

And a level 10 sorcerer knows 24 spells, so maybe the Tier1 Tier 2 difference is not very great

AMFV

2013-12-04, 09:45 PM

And a level 10 sorcerer knows 24 spells, so maybe the Tier1 Tier 2 difference is not very great

Still knowing every spell at 20th level is about 1/7th of your WBL, so that's certainly not insurmountable. And that's not including the two free ones per level, which I notice are absent from your table.

Furthermore as many have said you don't need to know every spell, and as I've shown even that's fairly cheap at 20th level. So no problem.

Psyren

2013-12-04, 10:22 PM

And a level 10 sorcerer knows 24 spells, so maybe the Tier1 Tier 2 difference is not very great

It's not very great. You're not saying anything new here.

T1 can literally be summed up as "T2 that can change their list every morning."

Pathagaron

2013-12-04, 10:39 PM

Did you include the cost of the BBBs?

Also, it seems like the most costly part of learning every spell isn't the gp, but the time it would take you to copy all of them. Unless you can convince the source of these spells (not to mention your DM) to join you in a very fast pocket dimension, you are looking for 20 years of downtime between adventures.

Tvtyrant

2013-12-04, 11:23 PM

I prefer to divide my books by school and write them out by level, so the lowest level spells are in the front and the highest in the back. Then I can color code them and decorate them appropriately; yellow for conjuration, red for evocation, blue for divination, black for necromancy, grey for illusion, white for abjuration, brown for transmutation, purple for universal.

Knowing every spell is sort of pointless at one level, but it does ease the transition from low level combat spells to low level utility spells.

JaronK

2013-12-05, 12:00 AM

Pickford

2013-12-05, 12:52 PM

Seer_of_Heart:

Isn't tippy going to say anything about how you can just use shapechange to wish up as many blessed books as you want or something like playing a psion with every spell and power in the game implanted into his brain? So the cost of this would a cl 16 scroll of shapechange (3600 gold).

Zodar (which is presumably what you're referring to) only gets 1 wish/year. If you've used that ability, you can't reactivate said ability until 1 year later. (No matter how many times you transform your shape into one).

Shapechange also requires you to be familiar with the form. Nobody is actually familiar with a zodar in character, we're only familiar with it as players, so logically it cannot be assumed under any circumstances.

Chronos:

Actually, what you've shown is that one wizard can know all the magic. Yes, 91k is a lot of gold, but it's quite easily affordable by a wizard capable of casting 9th-level spells. A fighter of that level will probably have that much money invested into his primary weapon; why wouldn't a spellcaster invest that much into her equivalent? If you're an obsessive collector and decide that every spell ever is what you want, you can get that. And if you can get that, then you can certainly get every worthwhile spell.

Maybe, the time factor is still...problematic for most wizards. Each spell requires 1 day of study to understand, and 1 more day to copy into the Wizard's spellbook. Assuming the 1,756 spell count is correct that's a total of 3512 days reading and copying spells. This doesn't include the time for sleeping, eating, working to support ones self, adventuring etc.

Now, the starting age of the human Wizard is 15 + 2d6 years (a range of 17-27). 3512 days is 9.62 years. So at a minimum (which is technically impossible because he'd only be 1st level and incapable of copying some spells until he leveled up) he'd have to use up 27-37 years of his life just acquiring spells.

The terrific irony here is that as the human's maximum age range is 72-110, he's wasting anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of his life acquiring spells, and that's forgetting that there would be tons of time spent sleeping/researching to even learn these spells exist/traveling to acquire them, etc...which could easily take decades. And they can be gone, in an instant from a single failed save. (item gets damaged, spells are destroyed; book is stolen; etc.)

So, any wizard who had all the spells would almost certainly be 50+ if not significantly older. Not as huge a deal for the longer lived races...but not really practical for humans.

The human experience seems to parallel with other races fairly well, though I pity the incredibly rare Half-orc wizard who tries to do this.

Dwarf starting age range: 47-82 (maximum age range: 252-450, minimum percentage of lifespan coloring spellbooks: 20%-36%)
Elf starting age range: 120-170 (maximum age range: 354-750, minimum percentage of lifespan engrossed in tomes: 24%-50%)
Gnome starting age range: 49-94 (maximum age range: 203-500, minimum percentage of lifespan spent scribbling: 20%-51%)
Half-elf starting age range: 23-38 (maximum age range: 128-185, minimum percentage of lifespan developing a persecution complex: 25%-37%)
Half-orc starting age range: 16-26 (maximum age range: 62-80, minimum percentage of lifespan to master penmanship: 45%-58%)
Halfling starting age range: 24-44 (maximum age range: 105-200, minimum percentage of lifespan acquiring carpal tunnel: 27%-51%)

But here's the thing: If characters start at 1st level, the wizard can't actually learn all the spells within most game time-frames. There's simply not enough time to do so. And if they try to begin before the BB is available, it's going to cost a boatload more money to boot (not to mention the time costs of later transferring spells into a BB).

Ramza00

2013-12-05, 01:01 PM

Blessed Book (an item you can craft) and the True Believer feat means it is quite easy to learn all the wizard spells in the game. Besides gaining xp you just need a closet and some materials to copy all the spells down.

Uncanny Forethought allows you to cast all your spells spontaneously at the loss of two feats, 2 caster level, and a full round action. You can take practiced spellcaster and suddenly the full round action and the feat tax is the only loss.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-05, 01:16 PM

Zodar (which is presumably what you're referring to) only gets 1 wish/year. If you've used that ability, you can't reactivate said ability until 1 year later. (No matter how many times you transform your shape into one).

Shapechange also requires you to be familiar with the form. Nobody is actually familiar with a zodar in character, we're only familiar with it as players, so logically it cannot be assumed under any circumstances.
Most of this is wrong. Shapechange doesn't have a memory. Technically you could shift into the form of a different Zodar every round and be just fine.

Being familiar is also just a skill check away.

But even if you ignore both of those points, Ice Assassin of a Solar or a Revered Elder Phaeerin. The first gives you one free wish per day, the second gives you 6 free Wish's per day.

Chronos:

Maybe, the time factor is still...problematic for most wizards. Each spell requires 1 day of study to understand, and 1 more day to copy into the Wizard's spellbook. Assuming the 1,756 spell count is correct that's a total of 3512 days reading and copying spells. This doesn't include the time for sleeping, eating, working to support ones self, adventuring etc.

Now, the starting age of the human Wizard is 15 + 2d6 years (a range of 17-27). 3512 days is 9.62 years. So at a minimum (which is technically impossible because he'd only be 1st level and incapable of copying some spells until he leveled up) he'd have to use up 27-37 years of his life just acquiring spells.

The terrific irony here is that as the human's maximum age range is 72-110, he's wasting anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of his life acquiring spells, and that's forgetting that there would be tons of time spent sleeping/researching to even learn these spells exist/traveling to acquire them, etc...which could easily take decades. And they can be gone, in an instant from a single failed save. (item gets damaged, spells are destroyed; book is stolen; etc.)

So, any wizard who had all the spells would almost certainly be 50+ if not significantly older. Not as huge a deal for the longer lived races...but not really practical for humans.

The human experience seems to parallel with other races fairly well, though I pity the incredibly rare Half-orc wizard who tries to do this.

Dwarf starting age range: 47-82 (maximum age range: 252-450, minimum percentage of lifespan coloring spellbooks: 20%-36%)
Elf starting age range: 120-170 (maximum age range: 354-750, minimum percentage of lifespan engrossed in tomes: 24%-50%)
Gnome starting age range: 49-94 (maximum age range: 203-500, minimum percentage of lifespan spent scribbling: 20%-51%)
Half-elf starting age range: 23-38 (maximum age range: 128-185, minimum percentage of lifespan developing a persecution complex: 25%-37%)
Half-orc starting age range: 16-26 (maximum age range: 62-80, minimum percentage of lifespan to master penmanship: 45%-58%)
Halfling starting age range: 24-44 (maximum age range: 105-200, minimum percentage of lifespan acquiring carpal tunnel: 27%-51%)

But here's the thing: If characters start at 1st level, the wizard can't actually learn all the spells within most game time-frames. There's simply not enough time to do so. And if they try to begin before the BB is available, it's going to cost a boatload more money to boot (not to mention the time costs of later transferring spells into a BB).

1) Any wizard of real power has figured out how to beat old age long before it would kill him. Hell, three 9th level spells lets you do pretty much total immortality when combined and uses nothing but purely native resources.
2) A fast time demiplane drops that 10 years of copying into six seconds of prime material time.
3) Wish up a Blessed Book filled with the spells that you want and then master the spellbook (Complete Arcane page 140). It takes, absolute worst case (its a book of one thousand zero and first level spells) 2.7 years to learn a thousand spells (best case, 110 9th level spells, it takes 117 days).

Talderas

2013-12-05, 01:34 PM

Pickford

2013-12-05, 01:42 PM

Most of this is wrong. Shapechange doesn't have a memory. Technically you could shift into the form of a different Zodar every round and be just fine.

This is completely wrong. Shapechange in no way supports being 'different' beings, it makes 'you the caster' into a different form. That's 1 being, cooldowns are most definitely still in effect, whether you are in a particular form or not. YOU, may not use the same ability within that time frame. Your form is irrelevant.

Being familiar is also just a skill check away.

No, familiarity is much more than awareness of a thing. It requires having experience with said creature. If your character has never met a Zodar, you're straight up incapable of assuming the form of one. I know, it's a mostly overlooked rule, but familiarity is there.

But even if you ignore both of those points, Ice Assassin of a Solar or a Revered Elder Phaeerin. The first gives you one free wish per day, the second gives you 6 free Wish's per day.

Both your points were incorrect and founded on faulty premises. Creating an Ice Assassin costs as much as a Wish, so it's really not free at all for the first one. There's also the problem of actually getting an ice statue with a part of one of those creatures as is required to be cast on for the spell not to fizzle.

If you're really wed to this method, you might as well just use the Simulacrum, since anything that can cast wish would be creatable with it. It's also significantly cheaper.

1) Any wizard of real power has figured out how to beat old age long before it would kill him. Hell, three 9th level spells lets you do pretty much total immortality when combined and uses nothing but purely native resources.
2) A fast time demiplane drops that 10 years of copying into six seconds of prime material time.
3) Wish up a Blessed Book filled with the spells that you want and then master the spellbook (Complete Arcane page 140). It takes, absolute worst case (its a book of one thousand zero and first level spells) 2.7 years to learn a thousand spells (best case, 110 9th level spells, it takes 117 days).

1) Way to begin by assuming your conclusion. Try proving it first.

2) That isn't how timeflow works. IF you went to a fast time plane you'd still experience the time as real. So you would still age. Sure, the rest of the PMP may have done nothing in particular, but that really won't help you. Doing this only increases the total amount of time required because the character would need to be traipsing back and forth to collect spells, borrow them into his pointless demiplane. In other words: This doesn't do any good.

3) So...spend 15,000xp to get a 10,000gp book? Yeah, that's worth it. This is such a complex wish that it immediately runs afoul of the Wish caveats. Guaranteed failure. In any event, having the book != understanding the spell and by the time this is even feasible you'd already HAVE 9th level spells. So only actually achievable within the last 15% of levels, or .5% of game time.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-05, 02:12 PM

This is completely wrong. Shapechange in no way supports being 'different' beings, it makes 'you the caster' into a different form. That's 1 being, cooldowns are most definitely still in effect, whether you are in a particular form or not. YOU, may not use the same ability within that time frame. Your form is irrelevant.
The rules don't support that. At all. In point of fact the rules are the exact opposite as that would be assuming the form of a unique creature (the same zodar you took the form of last time you Shapechanged into one).

No, familiarity is much more than awareness of a thing. It requires having experience with said creature. If your character has never met a Zodar, you're straight up incapable of assuming the form of one. I know, it's a mostly overlooked rule, but familiarity is there.
And in the rules familiarity is a simple Knowledge Check away.

Although if you want to be really anal about it there is also using Gate to gate one in, ordering it to lower its immunity to mind affecting magic, and then using Mind Rape to view its entire existence. Or do you want to claim now that that wouldn't make you familiar with a Zodar?

Both your points were incorrect and founded on faulty premises. Creating an Ice Assassin costs as much as a Wish, so it's really not free at all for the first one. There's also the problem of actually getting an ice statue with a part of one of those creatures as is required to be cast on for the spell not to fizzle.
The dreaded scroll. Which you can get for cheap (and/or free).

If you're really wed to this method, you might as well just use the Simulacrum, since anything that can cast wish would be creatable with it. It's also significantly cheaper.
Cost is a total irrelevance. An Ice Assassin Solar also gives you a pet Cleric 20, while Simulacrum doesn't work with a Phaeeren as its ability is based on HD.

1) Way to begin by assuming your conclusion. Try proving it first.
What's to prove? Hide Life + Kissed by the Ages + Ice Assassin of yourself. Order the Ice Assassin you to cast Kissed by the Ages on you. You now have the Endless (Ex) quality and are immune to death via old age. Hide Life makes you immune to death via damage.

2) That isn't how timeflow works. IF you went to a fast time plane you'd still experience the time as real. So you would still age. Sure, the rest of the PMP may have done nothing in particular, but that really won't help you. Doing this only increases the total amount of time required because the character would need to be traipsing back and forth to collect spells, borrow them into his pointless demiplane. In other words: This doesn't do any good.
No one cares about the time that passes for the wizard, they care about time as it passes for everyone else. Hell, True Mind Switch with your trusty Shadesteel Golem, hit your body with Temporal Stasis, and then you are golden. There is also just making your fast time Demiplane have the Enhanced Magic (Persistent) planar trait as well and casting Shapechange every day while remaining in the form of a creature that doesn't age (such as a Golem or undead). Then there is being a necropolitan or a Lich. Then there is being an Elf, for whom a decade or two is nothing at all.

3) So...spend 15,000xp to get a 10,000gp book? Yeah, that's worth it. This is such a complex wish that it immediately runs afoul of the Wish caveats. Guaranteed failure. In any event, having the book != understanding the spell and by the time this is even feasible you'd already HAVE 9th level spells. So only actually achievable within the last 15% of levels, or .5% of game time.
...what are you talking about?

1) The Wish is XP free (hell, you can use Distilled Pain/Joy and scribe a scroll of Wish with the excess XP if you want).
2) It's a fully legit wish that is RAW totally immune to DM dickery as it is using Wish to simply create a magic item.
3) You can cast XP free wish without breaking WBL at ECL 4.
4) I said in my post to master the spell book (which takes anywhere from a little under 3 years to a little under 4 months) and provided the page reference for the rules for that.

Pickford

2013-12-05, 02:52 PM

The rules don't support that. At all. In point of fact the rules are the exact opposite as that would be assuming the form of a unique creature (the same zodar you took the form of last time you Shapechanged into one).

You aren't stealing someone elses powers with shapechange, you're just gaining said power via your form. You never actually change from being you. So your cooldowns are persistent regardless of how you look.

What Shapechange prohibits is your changing shape into a 'particular' human. i.e. You can't become Bob from Accounting. The cooldown isn't associated with being Bob, it's associated with being an Accountant.

And in the rules familiarity is a simple Knowledge Check away.

Knowledge skills only allow one to identify a thing, it doesn't say anywhere in the PHB a word about familiarity. Are you referring to some other skill, or are you reading in more than is actually said in the entry?

Although if you want to be really anal about it there is also using Gate to gate one in, ordering it to lower its immunity to mind affecting magic, and then using Mind Rape to view its entire existence. Or do you want to claim now that that wouldn't make you familiar with a Zodar?

A Zodar, as a construct, is immune to mind-affecting, so no Mind Rape.
Furthermor, the Zodar is immune to all attacks. Spells that have a negative impact (even if they don't actually harm the subject) are considered attacks. Therefore, the Zodar is immune to gate.

The dreaded scroll. Which you can get for cheap (and/or free).

Is a dreaded scroll a thing or do you just mean 'a scroll'? Because you still have to pay the costs and the scroll doesn't actually change that you have to cast the spell ON an iceblock statue made to look like the thing with a part of the thing in it. That never goes away as it is a circumstance that must exist, similar to the way that sure a scroll could let you cast a healing spell...but if you have no target for the spell, it fails by default, the scroll can't also provide the target.

Cost is a total irrelevance. An Ice Assassin Solar also gives you a pet Cleric 20, while Simulacrum doesn't work with a Phaeeren as its ability is based on HD.

No, cost is entirely relevant. It provides a cap on what is and isn't possible or feasible.

What's to prove? Hide Life + Kissed by the Ages + Ice Assassin of yourself. Order the Ice Assassin you to cast Kissed by the Ages on you. You now have the Endless (Ex) quality and are immune to death via old age. Hide Life makes you immune to death via damage.

Ice Assassin you has your abilities...but not your spells. So none of that works.

Kissed by the Ages is...Dragon Magazine? Please let's keep this to real sources. That just doesn't cut it.

No one cares about the time that passes for the wizard, they care about time as it passes for everyone else. Hell, True Mind Switch with your trusty Shadesteel Golem, hit your body with Temporal Stasis, and then you are golden. There is also just making your fast time Demiplane have the Enhanced Magic (Persistent) planar trait as well and casting Shapechange every day while remaining in the form of a creature that doesn't age (such as a Golem or undead). Then there is being a necropolitan or a Lich. Then there is being an Elf, for whom a decade or two is nothing at all.

No, it matters quite a bit in that if you did this mid-adventure, you're basically out of the game. So in actual player terms, this is useless.

...what are you talking about?

1) The Wish is XP free (hell, you can use Distilled Pain/Joy and scribe a scroll of Wish with the excess XP if you want).
2) It's a fully legit wish that is RAW totally immune to DM dickery as it is using Wish to simply create a magic item.
3) You can cast XP free wish without breaking WBL at ECL 4.
4) I said in my post to master the spell book (which takes anywhere from a little under 3 years to a little under 4 months) and provided the page reference for the rules for that.

1) Wish XP isn't free, it's quite costly.
2) No, all wishes are prone to DM shenanigans, it's built into the spell, and wishing for a book filled with spells is most definitely asking for it.
3) WBL is a guide for the DM, you as a player get no say in it. If the DM thinks the means to acquire the Wish constitute more WBL than is warranted, you're outta luck. This is entirely dependent on DM well-wishing you, which makes it no better than just asking your DM to get a super cool artifact of awesomeness. You know...cause it would be totes awesome!
4) Assuming we're talking about a character who magically finds a completely full BB it would take 1 day to learn each spell. But seeing as this requires the DM to be complicit, we can rest assured this is not a real scenario. The real scenario is the character tracking down all ~1700 spells which takes ~3400 days or 9+ years of character life.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-05, 03:46 PM

You aren't stealing someone elses powers with shapechange, you're just gaining said power via your form. You never actually change from being you. So your cooldowns are persistent regardless of how you look.

What Shapechange prohibits is your changing shape into a 'particular' human. i.e. You can't become Bob from Accounting. The cooldown isn't associated with being Bob, it's associated with being an Accountant.
This would all be houserules. If you want to make this claim then cite where the rules say any of this (hint, they don't).

Knowledge skills only allow one to identify a thing, it doesn't say anywhere in the PHB a word about familiarity. Are you referring to some other skill, or are you reading in more than is actually said in the entry?
Familiarity is undefined and thus technically totally irrelevant as everything is familiar with everything else. More reasonably its the knowledge check to know what a creature is and what its abilities are.

A Zodar, as a construct, is immune to mind-affecting, so no Mind Rape.
Furthermor, the Zodar is immune to all attacks. Spells that have a negative impact (even if they don't actually harm the subject) are considered attacks. Therefore, the Zodar is immune to gate.
1) Where are you getting the idea that Gate is an attack?
2) Anything can lower any immunity that it has, as stated under the rules for voluntarily giving up a saving throw.

Is a dreaded scroll a thing or do you just mean 'a scroll'? Because you still have to pay the costs and the scroll doesn't actually change that you have to cast the spell ON an iceblock statue made to look like the thing with a part of the thing in it. That never goes away as it is a circumstance that must exist, similar to the way that sure a scroll could let you cast a healing spell...but if you have no target for the spell, it fails by default, the scroll can't also provide the target.
1) You only have to pay the costs for the scroll if you are lazy. You scribe a scroll of wish with enough XP to Wish up the scroll of Ice Assassin that you want, paying the XP cost for the Wish scroll with Distilled Pain or Joy. This is assuming that you don't just get an XP free Wish and Wish up the scroll using any of several methods.
2) The statue is listed under material components. If you negate the need for the material component (such as with a scroll) then per the rules as written you need no statue and the Ice Assassin just appears where ever you touch (or for fun you make it an Ocular Spell so you can shoot Ice Assassin's out of your eyes, although you have to have one level of magic mantle Ardent to make that work as you have to drop the casting time down to less than a round).

No, cost is entirely relevant. It provides a cap on what is and isn't possible or feasible.
Except that using nothing more than an initial 3,850 GP you can do anything that you want for no additional cost (ever).

Ice Assassin you has your abilities...but not your spells. So none of that works.
...

Kissed by the Ages is...Dragon Magazine? Please let's keep this to real sources. That just doesn't cut it.
...
Dragon magazine is an official source. The only more official sources are the DMG, PHB, and MM 1 with the Rules Compendium possibly being more official.

No, it matters quite a bit in that if you did this mid-adventure, you're basically out of the game. So in actual player terms, this is useless.
I've played characters that (to all appearances) stepped out of the adventure for 12 seconds and personally lived upwards of ten thousand years.

1) Wish XP isn't free, it's quite costly.
Only if you don't bother to mitigate the costs. The only time that you should be paying the full 5,000 XP for Wish is if you need to cast a Quickened Wish to replicate Spell Engine during combat and you have to do it now.

2) No, all wishes are prone to DM shenanigans, it's built into the spell, and wishing for a book filled with spells is most definitely asking for it.
Go read the spell.

3) WBL is a guide for the DM, you as a player get no say in it. If the DM thinks the means to acquire the Wish constitute more WBL than is warranted, you're outta luck. This is entirely dependent on DM well-wishing you, which makes it no better than just asking your DM to get a super cool artifact of awesomeness. You know...cause it would be totes awesome!
This is a great houserule and all, but RAW its not true.

4) Assuming we're talking about a character who magically finds a completely full BB it would take 1 day to learn each spell. But seeing as this requires the DM to be complicit, we can rest assured this is not a real scenario. The real scenario is the character tracking down all ~1700 spells which takes ~3400 days or 9+ years of character life.
Except that it doesn't.

Seriously Pickford, stop thinking that your houserules are the same as the actual rules published by Wizards of the Coast.

JaronK

2013-12-05, 04:15 PM

Did Pickford just claim that spells aren't abilities?

Pickford, look in the Monster Manual under "Special Attacks". Note that Special Attacks are a subset of Special Abilities. Now, what does it say there about whether Spells count as Special Attacks (and thus Special Abilities)?

JaronK

Big Fau

2013-12-05, 04:16 PM

*Everything*

The unstoppable force meets the immovable object...

Protip to everyone reading this thread: Just ignore Pickford. He is legendary for his obstinate nature and fondness for moving the goalposts. He has trouble grasping practical optimization, I highly doubt he's going to comprehend Tippy-level TO.

Edit: And his point about Shapechanging into the same thing is moot, as you can just Shapechange into other things with Wish as an SLA. Such as a Solar or an Efreeti (and have the Wizard's Raven familiar ask for the Wishes, from the Shapechanged master, off of a list the master wrote).

Zanos

2013-12-05, 04:24 PM

The unstoppable force meets the immovable object...

Protip to everyone reading this thread: Just ignore Pickford. He is legendary for his obstinate nature and fondness for moving the goalposts. He has trouble grasping practical optimization, I highly doubt he's going to comprehend Tippy-level TO.

Edit: And his point about Shapechanging into the same thing is moot, as you can just Shapechange into other things with Wish as an SLA. Such as a Solar or an Efreeti (and have the Wizard's Raven familiar ask for the Wishes, from the Shapechanged master, off of a list the master wrote).
Popcorn anybody?

Karnith

2013-12-05, 04:35 PM

Edit: And his point about Shapechanging into the same thing is moot, as you can just Shapechange into other things with Wish as an SLA. Such as a Solar or an Efreeti (and have the Wizard's Raven familiar ask for the Wishes, from the Shapechanged master, off of a list the master wrote).
Well, Shapechange doesn't grant SLAs, so that doesn't really work. Hence why the trick is to use Zodar, which gets it as a Supernatural ability.

Or did I miss some way to get SLAs out of Shapechange?

Heliomance

2013-12-05, 04:36 PM

Tippy, why do you bother to debate with Pickford? You know perfectly well you're not going to get anywhere.

Big Fau

2013-12-05, 05:23 PM

Well, Shapechange doesn't grant SLAs, so that doesn't really work. Hence why the trick is to use Zodar, which gets it as a Supernatural ability.

Or did I miss some way to get SLAs out of Shapechange?

Well that shows what I know about TO. Forgot Shapechange doesn't give SLAs, although I think getting a Psychic Reformation for Supernatural Transformation while Shapechange is active may be a workaround.

Karnith

2013-12-05, 05:28 PM

Well that shows what I know about TO. Forgot Shapechange doesn't give SLAs, although I think getting a Psychic Reformation for Supernatural Transformation while Shapechange is active may be a workaround.
I don't think that would work, both because I don't think that abilities granted through Shapechange are innate (though to the best of my knowledge "innate" is never defined as a game term, so who knows?), and because Shapechange doesn't give you the SLAs to apply the feat to. It's not that you get the SLAs and can't use them; Shapechange simply doesn't grant you the SLAs of the assumed form.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-05, 05:33 PM

Well that shows what I know about TO. Forgot Shapechange doesn't give SLAs, although I think getting a Psychic Reformation for Supernatural Transformation while Shapechange is active may be a workaround.

Nope. It's not that you are unable to use the SLA's when shapechanged, it's that you never gain them at all and thus Supernatural Transformation has nothing to transform.

What you can do, however, is create an Ice Assassin of a Solar (or anything else that has an SLA that you want), Psychic Reformation it to get Supernatural Transformation applied to Wish (or whatever SLA it is that you want), take one level of Ardent with Magic Mantle (technically necessary but unnecessary with how most people play transparency), take Assume Supernatural Ability (or metamorphic transfer), and True Mind Switch with your Ice Assassin. Now you have your SLA as an SU.

Big Fau

2013-12-05, 06:04 PM

Nope. It's not that you are unable to use the SLA's when shapechanged, it's that you never gain them at all and thus Supernatural Transformation has nothing to transform.

What you can do, however, is create an Ice Assassin of a Solar (or anything else that has an SLA that you want), Psychic Reformation it to get Supernatural Transformation applied to Wish (or whatever SLA it is that you want), take one level of Ardent with Magic Mantle (technically necessary but unnecessary with how most people play transparency), take Assume Supernatural Ability (or metamorphic transfer), and True Mind Switch with your Ice Assassin. Now you have your SLA as an SU.

That is true.

It really shows how much TO work I do, doesn't it?

Pickford

2013-12-07, 05:47 AM

This would all be houserules. If you want to make this claim then cite where the rules say any of this (hint, they don't).

You are incorrect. The only evidence required is that the spell Shapechange does not remove the basic requirements to wait. If there were text saying "abilities usable once every 'x' rounds are reset upon changing shape" then perhaps you'd have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't, so you don't.

Familiarity is undefined and thus technically totally irrelevant as everything is familiar with everything else. More reasonably its the knowledge check to know what a creature is and what its abilities are.

If it's undefined we'd use the common English meaning: experience with/of
You may choose to interpret however you wish when DMing, such is your right, however there's no evidence to suggest anything less than the Character actually having encountered the beastie will do.

1) Where are you getting the idea that Gate is an attack?
2) Anything can lower any immunity that it has, as stated under the rules for voluntarily giving up a saving throw.

From the PHB, obviously. "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks." So no, you can't gate the Zodar, and you most certainly can't Mind Rape a construct. Constructs are immune, that's not a saving throw issue.

It actually says a special resistance. Which, since we're all going by the absolute letter and apparently pretending that metaphors and euphemisms don't actually count, doesn't count.

1) You only have to pay the costs for the scroll if you are lazy. You scribe a scroll of wish with enough XP to Wish up the scroll of Ice Assassin that you want, paying the XP cost for the Wish scroll with Distilled Pain or Joy. This is assuming that you don't just get an XP free Wish and Wish up the scroll using any of several methods.
2) The statue is listed under material components. If you negate the need for the material component (such as with a scroll) then per the rules as written you need no statue and the Ice Assassin just appears where ever you touch (or for fun you make it an Ocular Spell so you can shoot Ice Assassin's out of your eyes, although you have to have one level of magic mantle Ardent to make that work as you have to drop the casting time down to less than a round).

Casting Ice Assassin without a statue results in nothing at all. That's pretty useless. Also you can't make the spell Ocular for obvious reasons (The spell is an 8 hour casting time, it doesn't matter if it's on a scroll or not, which makes it ineligible).

Dragon magazine is an official source. The only more official sources are the DMG, PHB, and MM 1 with the Rules Compendium possibly being more official.

Yes, wotc published it, I didn't say that they didn't, what I did suggest was that it's not a valid source of material when discussing the game rules.

This is a great houserule and all, but RAW its not true.

DM control of the game isn't a house rule son, you might want to remember that your house campaign isn't the same as the base setting or rules.

JaronK: Spells aren't SP or SU or EX. They aren't special abilities.

Tippy: Again, you can't true mind switch with your ice assassin, it's a construct, they are immune to mind affecting things. And even if you could, the Ice Assassin cannot become more powerful, so if, for the sake of argument, it were possible you'd be trapped in a body prevented from ever becoming more powerful.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-07, 11:07 AM

You are incorrect. The only evidence required is that the spell Shapechange does not remove the basic requirements to wait. If there were text saying "abilities usable once every 'x' rounds are reset upon changing shape" then perhaps you'd have a leg to stand on. But it doesn't, so you don't.
And again you ignore the "can't assume a unique form" restriction and make up whole cloth the idea that some timer for abilities follows after an ability has been removed.

Fine houserules but just that, houserules.

If it's undefined we'd use the common English meaning: experience with/of
You may choose to interpret however you wish when DMing, such is your right, however there's no evidence to suggest anything less than the Character actually having encountered the beastie will do.
If all you require for familiarity is having encountered the creature once then a single Wish will do it (I Wish that I was standing next to a Zodar). Or a Gate. Or just going Plane Shift + Greater Teleport to get to the Great Zoo in the Planes where creatures are kept for your viewing pleasure.

From the PHB, obviously. "All spells that opponents resist with saving throws, that deal damage, or otherwise harm or hamper subjects are attacks." So no, you can't gate the Zodar,
It's interesting to note that you left off the next line: " Summon monster
I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone. "
Gate doesn't harm or hamper the subject directly and thus isn't an attack.

and you most certainly can't Mind Rape a construct. Constructs are immune, that's not a saving throw issue.
...
"Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s
resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality."

It actually says a special resistance. Which, since we're all going by the absolute letter and apparently pretending that metaphors and euphemisms don't actually count, doesn't count.
...

Casting Ice Assassin without a statue results in nothing at all. That's pretty useless.
Except it doesn't as casting the spell over said statue is listed under the Material Components part of the spell and if the need for material components is negated, that thus goes away.

Also you can't make the spell Ocular for obvious reasons (The spell is an 8 hour casting time, it doesn't matter if it's on a scroll or not, which makes it ineligible).
Yes, you can make it an occular spell but it is complicated and requires two levels of Ardent along with some other stuff to manage it.

Yes, wotc published it, I didn't say that they didn't, what I did suggest was that it's not a valid source of material when discussing the game rules.
...and your opinion on what is and is not a valid source for the rules of 3.5 is totally irrelevant.

DM control of the game isn't a house rule son, you might want to remember that your house campaign isn't the same as the base setting or rules.
If the DM uses that control to change the published, official, rules then it is (by very definition) a houserule.

Tippy: Again, you can't true mind switch with your ice assassin, it's a construct, they are immune to mind affecting things. And even if you could, the Ice Assassin cannot become more powerful, so if, for the sake of argument, it were possible you'd be trapped in a body prevented from ever becoming more powerful.

1) Point to where in the rules it is stated that all Ice Assassins have the "Construct" type. Hint: The answer is that said rules never make any such statement.
2) Stipulating for the sake of argument that the Ice Assassin was a Construct, any creature can lower any immunity that it has and be effected by a spell.
3) Please point to where "Unable to gain more power" is specified as an Ex ability that Ice Assassins have, or even where it is indicated to be a physical restriction. Because without that such a weakness doesn't follow the body, it follows the mind/soul/essence of the creature.

JaronK

2013-12-07, 02:30 PM

JaronK: Spells aren't SP or SU or EX. They aren't special abilities.

MM1 says you're wrong. They're listed as an example of such. It's in the definition of Special Attacks, actually. And Special Attacks are by definition Special Abilities (also found in the MM1).

JaronK

Pickford

2013-12-07, 03:24 PM

And again you ignore the "can't assume a unique form" restriction and make up whole cloth the idea that some timer for abilities follows after an ability has been removed.

Fine houserules but just that, houserules.

The form isn't unique, the ability is. You're conflating two distinct things. Incorrectly. Please stop calling rational thought house rules, you demean the term.

If all you require for familiarity is having encountered the creature once then a single Wish will do it (I Wish that I was standing next to a Zodar). Or a Gate. Or just going Plane Shift + Greater Teleport to get to the Great Zoo in the Planes where creatures are kept for your viewing pleasure.

Sure that might be fair, you might not survive doing things like that, and it would require you to have the spare XP to cast Wish...and you'd need to know what you don't already know (i.e. that the Zodar has the ability to let you cast Wish 1/year). But if you were just some obsessive compulsive gotta catch em all Shapechanger, probably no harm there.

Gate doesn't work, the Zodar is immune to all attacks, spells that harm/hamper the subject are attacks in game terms, so you can't Gate a Zodar.

It's interesting to note that you left off the next line: " Summon monster
I and similar spells are not attacks because the spells themselves don’t harm anyone. "
Gate doesn't harm or hamper the subject directly and thus isn't an attack.

Gate isn't a summon spell, and it most definitely does harm the subject (kidnapping and attempted compulsion is harm).

...
"Even a character with a special resistance to magic (for example, an elf’s
resistance to sleep effects) can suppress this quality."

So you're saying kidnapping someone doesn't constitute harm, and in the same breath complaining that I'm too much of a stickler on immunity vs resistance? Ahem.

Except it doesn't as casting the spell over said statue is listed under the Material Components part of the spell and if the need for material components is negated, that thus goes away.

Yes, but it's a non-optional component. If you don't have a statue to cast the spell on per the spell, there's no animated statue. It's not a conjuration or evocation spell, so nothing will actually happen absent a statue. I'm inclined to think the unique nature of this spell precludes even having a scroll of it.

...and your opinion on what is and is not a valid source for the rules of 3.5 is totally irrelevant.

It's as relevant as yours thinking it is.

If the DM uses that control to change the published, official, rules then it is (by very definition) a houserule.

I didn't say anything about changing rules, I said the DM is the final arbiter, as stated in the DMG. If you can't accept that, you're way behind the curve.

1) Point to where in the rules it is stated that all Ice Assassins have the "Construct" type. Hint: The answer is that said rules never make any such statement.
2) Stipulating for the sake of argument that the Ice Assassin was a Construct, any creature can lower any immunity that it has and be effected by a spell.
3) Please point to where "Unable to gain more power" is specified as an Ex ability that Ice Assassins have, or even where it is indicated to be a physical restriction. Because without that such a weakness doesn't follow the body, it follows the mind/soul/essence of the creature.

1) Yes, it only implies it (i.e. it's like simulacrum, and it can only be repaired)...the same way it's implied that special resistances are the same as immunities (you know, elves vs sleep and all that). So...you can logically accept that both are saying what we both know they ought to be saying...or not. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.

2) If and only if we're both willing to stipulate that the understood meaning of things is applicable. If that is the case however, we'll need to review basically all these shenanigans for a simple reality check.

3) "An ice assassin has no ability to become more powerful; it cannot increase its level or abilities."
Lacking a sp/su/ex tag this can only be a natural ability, tied to the body of the ice assassin.

Mind Switch, True: "you permanently exchange bodies"

JaronK: MM1 on page 315 lists under 'Special Abilities' three things: Sp, Su, Ex...that is all.

Where are you seeing that Spells are Special Abilities when they are expressly not included in the list of such?

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-07, 03:44 PM

The form isn't unique, the ability is. You're conflating two distinct things. Incorrectly. Please stop calling rational thought house rules, you demean the term.
Please stop calling your "rational thought" and houserules the rules of the game.

The ability comes with the form. If the forms ability has previously been used then said form is a unique creature and not an average member of its species. Turning into such a creature is explicitly precluded by Shapechange. You can turn into a Human, a Zodar, or a Great Wyrm Red Dragon but you can't turn into Bob from Accounting (even if you can turn into a human who physically appears to be Bob from Accounting your physical ability scores would still all drop to 10 even if Bob from Accounting has 18 Con), a Zodar that has used its yearly Wish, or a Red Dragon that used its breath weapon one round ago. Those would all be unique, specific, creatures and thus not allowed.

Sure that might be fair, you might not survive doing things like that, and it would require you to have the spare XP to cast Wish...and you'd need to know what you don't already know (i.e. that the Zodar has the ability to let you cast Wish 1/year). But if you were just some obsessive compulsive gotta catch em all Shapechanger, probably no harm there.
...so you refuse to admit that someone making a Knowledge (Arcana) check with +50 or more on the check implies greater familiarity with a Zodar than some dude who just saw one once in a zoo?

Gate doesn't work, the Zodar is immune to all attacks, spells that harm/hamper the subject are attacks in game terms, so you can't Gate a Zodar.
Gate does no direct harm to the called creature and is thus not an attack. Even if indirectly it can be used as an attack.

Gate isn't a summon spell, and it most definitely does harm the subject (kidnapping and attempted compulsion is harm).
Calling spells aren't harmful under the D&D rules.

So you're saying kidnapping someone doesn't constitute harm, and in the same breath complaining that I'm too much of a stickler on immunity vs resistance? Ahem.
"Immunity to magic sleep effects"
from the list of Elf racial traits. Immunity is a special resistance.

Yes, but it's a non-optional component. If you don't have a statue to cast the spell on per the spell, there's no animated statue. It's not a conjuration or evocation spell, so nothing will actually happen absent a statue. I'm inclined to think the unique nature of this spell precludes even having a scroll of it.
And this would all be houserules. It's listed as a material component. Anything that negates the need for a material component totally wipes out everything under the "Material Component" sub header of a spell.

It's as relevant as yours thinking it is.
No, I have no opinion. Wizards of the Coast, the people who produced the game and have the legal right to decide what is and is not a valid source for D&D 3.5, are the ones who stated what is and is not a valid source; and on the list of valid sources they list Dragon Magazine.

I didn't say anything about changing rules, I said the DM is the final arbiter, as stated in the DMG. If you can't accept that, you're way behind the curve.
Nothing mentioned requires DM adjudication or input. Changing the Wealth By Level numbers does require DM input and is a change from the published rules, and thus a houserule.

1) Yes, it only implies it (i.e. it's like simulacrum, and it can only be repaired)...the same way it's implied that special resistances are the same as immunities (you know, elves vs sleep and all that). So...you can logically accept that both are saying what we both know they ought to be saying...or not. But you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is all totally wrong. Immunities are the same as special resistances because the rules say that they are. Ice Assassins (unless made of a creature with the Construct type) are not Constructs because the rules don't say that they are. This is simple reading comprehension.

2) If and only if we're both willing to stipulate that the understood meaning of things is applicable. If that is the case however, we'll need to review basically all these shenanigans for a simple reality check.
Um no. All you have to do is accept that the published, official, rules are applicable.

3) "An ice assassin has no ability to become more powerful; it cannot increase its level or abilities."
Lacking a sp/su/ex tag this can only be a natural ability, tied to the body of the ice assassin.

Mind Switch, True: "you permanently exchange bodies"
Again these would be houserules. Incidentally that is also a very stupid houserule because it opens up the possibility of making copies that can increase in power or (if you rule that the absolute command stays with the body as well) let you enslave anyone that you want.

JaronK

2013-12-07, 04:09 PM

JaronK: MM1 on page 315 lists under 'Special Abilities' three things: Sp, Su, Ex...that is all.

Look in the section on Special Attacks. Not the glossary, the full section on it. What examples do they give?

Now look in every single monster entry in the Monster Manual that has spellcasting. Where is "Spells" located in that entry?

What, then must Spells be?

JaronK

eggynack

2013-12-07, 04:17 PM

3) WBL is a guide for the DM, you as a player get no say in it. If the DM thinks the means to acquire the Wish constitute more WBL than is warranted, you're outta luck. This is entirely dependent on DM well-wishing you, which makes it no better than just asking your DM to get a super cool artifact of awesomeness. You know...cause it would be totes awesome!
I just have to ask. Assuming that the DM never puts a single thing of value into any encounter, or gives the PC any cash for his quests, even though it's very explicit that killing monsters gives particular rewards, how hard do you think it would be for a wizard to get so much money that wealth by level is left behind in the dust? Seriously, breaking wealth by level, or whatever crap-sack equivalent your theoretical DM is using, is trivial by these levels.

Just on the most basic level, have you ever taken the time to read wall of salt (Sand, 127)? I once found that a seventh level character casting it would gain approximately 25,250 GP of salt, and salt is as good as currency per the rules. You can do the math yourself if you like, and depending on the figure you use for salt density, your result may vary, but it's not going to differ by enough to matter. That's a trick that the wizard can pull off several times a day at seventh level. Now, imagine the tricks that a 20th level wizard could pull off, if they were really trying. The wealth that the DM chooses to give you has little to no bearing on the wealth that a 20th level wizard actually has.

JaronK

2013-12-07, 04:50 PM

eggynack

2013-12-07, 05:01 PM

In all fairness, we don't know which kind of salt Wall of Salt creates, just as we don't know which kind of stone Wall of Stone creates. And while Stone Metamorphosis can get you any stone you want, there's no such thing for salt.

Only eating salt is valuable. Wall of Salt might make some mix of lots of kinds of salts, enough that you can't separate it out.

JaronK
That would make for a reasonable houserule, but per the rules, all that is required for the 5 GP selling price is a pound of salt, without caveats or exceptions. Anyway, the main point stands regardless of this discussion. For a wizard in the know, gaining more funds than you know what to do with is trivial by innumerable separate means. If the wizard really wants to play fair, he can only get enough stuff to hit the WBL that should have been accorded to him, but he's under no strict obligation to do so.

Edit: Also, is there any type of salt in the books that isn't that one? If there's only the one salt, then it might be impossible for the wall of salt to produce different kinds of salt, cause there's just the one option.

JaronK

2013-12-07, 05:17 PM

That would make for a reasonable houserule, but per the rules, all that is required for the 5 GP selling price is a pound of salt, without caveats or exceptions. Anyway, the main point stands regardless of this discussion. For a wizard in the know, gaining more funds than you know what to do with is trivial by innumerable separate means. If the wizard really wants to play fair, he can only get enough stuff to hit the WBL that should have been accorded to him, but he's under no strict obligation to do so.

Well, I'd debate that it's more an interpretation than a house rule, but certainly a completely broke Wizard could easily get stupid amounts of money. If nothing else, Wall of Stone + Stone Metamorphosis definitely gets you plenty of very powerful stone types to sell. Throw in Fabricate for extra fun.

Heaven knows there's ways. Even just casting spells for people should earn you plenty.

Edit: Also, is there any type of salt in the books that isn't that one? If there's only the one salt, then it might be impossible for the wall of salt to produce different kinds of salt, cause there's just the one option.

D&D always defaults to common language in the absence of any specific rules, so "Salt" should still mean what it does in English.

JaronK

eggynack

2013-12-07, 05:32 PM

If nothing else, Wall of Stone + Stone Metamorphosis definitely gets you plenty of very powerful stone types to sell. Throw in Fabricate for extra fun.
I don't think this works. Stone metamorphosis explicitly doesn't create things of value. There's some interpretation that implies that you can create a valuable type of stone, which arbitrarily lacks value due to the spell, and the extra stone you create isn't created by metamorphosis, and is thus valuable, but that interpretation is crazy buns.

D&D always defaults to common language in the absence of any specific rules, so "Salt" should still mean what it does in English.
Sure, but it's not like this is contradicting the English definition of salt. Besides that, you're not producing a term here. You're producing an item. Particular items do have separate D&D definitions, and in this case, the only item definition of salt is as a trade good. There could theoretically be some other item definition for salt, but I suspect that those would present a more expensive salt, rather than a less expensive one. Ultimately, I would say that without any particular specific exception provided, salt would be produced in its default state. Also, we are at wall of iron levels by this point. That's pretty unambiguous free money, I think.

Legendxp

2013-12-07, 05:55 PM

Popcorn anybody?

Lol, when he said this, I was already eating popcorn.:smallbiggrin:

Cirrylius

2013-12-08, 12:08 AM

Maybe, the time factor is still...problematic for most wizards.

So, any wizard who had all the spells would almost certainly be 50+ if not significantly older. Not as huge a deal for the longer lived races...but not really practical for humans.

At least it dovetails nicely into the immortality thread over there ----->

Pickford

2013-12-08, 09:57 AM

Please stop calling your "rational thought" and houserules the rules of the game.

The ability comes with the form. If the forms ability has previously been used then said form is a unique creature and not an average member of its species. Turning into such a creature is explicitly precluded by Shapechange. You can turn into a Human, a Zodar, or a Great Wyrm Red Dragon but you can't turn into Bob from Accounting (even if you can turn into a human who physically appears to be Bob from Accounting your physical ability scores would still all drop to 10 even if Bob from Accounting has 18 Con), a Zodar that has used its yearly Wish, or a Red Dragon that used its breath weapon one round ago. Those would all be unique, specific, creatures and thus not allowed.

They are the rules of the game.

If said form is a unique creature it's impossible to assume it, ergo you can never become anything. Good point, that's real thinking there.

Or, more likely, you can become the shape of a Red Dragon, and if you do and use the Breath Weapon (Su) ability, then you cannot use said ability again with that same form. Now, you could become some other form to use it, but not the same one.

I think we're in agreement what Unique means, yet you ignored that definition in attempting to claim that one can become two distinct Zodar's. No, you may only become "Generic" Zodar, if you use the cooldown from "Generic" Zodar, it is used and nothing in Shapechange allows you to refresh it.

...so you refuse to admit that someone making a Knowledge (Arcana) check with +50 or more on the check implies greater familiarity with a Zodar than some dude who just saw one once in a zoo?

No, it implies greater study and understanding. Now, if you've actually seen one in action, that's completely different than conceptually knowing from a book what one is.

It might have helped if they had cleared that bit up, but it's definitely a house-rule to claim that knowledge checks = familiar, because nothing under the knowledge rules says that, and nothing under shapechange says that is so. Unless of course you have text explicitly saying that is the case, you're just making things up as you go along.

Please don't get me wrong Tippy, I like the addition, but an addition it is.

Gate does no direct harm to the called creature and is thus not an attack. Even if indirectly it can be used as an attack.

Kidnapping and Compulsory service are harm. It is enslavement, therefore it is an attack. It's directly harmful to whatever you are attempting to force through the Gate.

Calling spells aren't harmful under the D&D rules.

No, Summoning spells are given an exemption, calling spells are not. Both are types of Conjuration spells. By this train of logic, Creation spells aren't harmful either because the spell itself doesn't damage people, just its result. Plus it's 'like' a summoning spell because it's also conjuration.

"Immunity to magic sleep effects"
from the list of Elf racial traits. Immunity is a special resistance.

I know, but the text under saving throws says "special resistance" not "immunity". My point was really that you're expecting the same latitude in understanding of the language where we look at it and say 'Oh well, they meant this.', yet you won't do me the same courtesy.

And this would all be houserules. It's listed as a material component. Anything that negates the need for a material component totally wipes out everything under the "Material Component" sub header of a spell.

Not a houserule, basic comprehension of how the spell operates. Read what it does again. It animates an existing ice statue. If you don't have an existing ice statue it animates nothing. So, although you might be able to cast the spell without its material component, it does literally nothing without that component in existence before you. This isn't Fireball where there's an effect absent the existence of the component. It absolutely requires the ice statue to have meaning.

No, I have no opinion. Wizards of the Coast, the people who produced the game and have the legal right to decide what is and is not a valid source for D&D 3.5, are the ones who stated what is and is not a valid source; and on the list of valid sources they list Dragon Magazine.

Yeah I just don't believe that you don't have an opinion. We can opt to not discuss it further, you think Dragon Magazine is a valid option for things, I don't.

Nothing mentioned requires DM adjudication or input. Changing the Wealth By Level numbers does require DM input and is a change from the published rules, and thus a houserule.

Not true, the DM adjudicates every aspect of the game:

you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game...Often a situation will arise that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. In such a situation, you need to provide guidance as to how it should be resolved.

This is all totally wrong. Immunities are the same as special resistances because the rules say that they are. Ice Assassins (unless made of a creature with the Construct type) are not Constructs because the rules don't say that they are. This is simple reading comprehension.

Nothing actually says they are the same. You're saying the text implicitly indicates that, which I agree that it does. But Ice Assassins are also implicitly constructs.

Um no. All you have to do is accept that the published, official, rules are applicable.

Not everything is covered by the rules, as mentioned by the WoTC, much like your claim that immunity is special resistance, despite there being no text that actually says such a thing.

Again these would be houserules. Incidentally that is also a very stupid houserule because it opens up the possibility of making copies that can increase in power or (if you rule that the absolute command stays with the body as well) let you enslave anyone that you want.

1) No it isn't houserules. This is simply understanding two parts of the game as they would work in conjunction. Just because you dislike the outcome doesn't actually make it so. It's like complaining about the Sarrukh, just because it's totally messed up as written doesn't mean it's not written.

2) It wouldn't really be the Ice Assassin gaining power at that point, it'd be whatever was in the psionic character's body. However the Psionic Character, while trapped in it's new body, would be incapable of gaining power. This could be problematic for it, if the old body dies and it loses a level, making it incapable of switching forms again (from loss of the knowledge of said power, for example) and the inability to gain a level to regain said power.

JaronK: Yeah I see spells under special attacks, but where does it say special attacks automatically are special abilities? It certainly isn't under the Special Abilities heading.

Eggynack: If it really was a (deliberately or otherwise) Stingy DM, then it would probably be impossible. Name a method, and I bet you can think of a way to stymie those plans.

For example, most of the plans (I see the salt bit) revolve around trading people things for other things...what if you never meet any people or merchants to sell things to?

If your DM is really providing no rewards, then it's quite probable you never meet ye olde salt traders consortium. You saavy?

Taveena

2013-12-08, 10:25 AM

I went through all the spells that an Archivist can learn that I wanted, from the list of all the spells, up to level 6. Even that wasn't enough to fill a single blessed book.

You don't need all the spells. You just need all the good ones.

JaronK

Now, the real question.

How much would it cost for an Archivist 1/Wizard 1/Mystic Theurge 10/Legacy Champion 8 to fill their books with every single spell available to them? :D

Aliek

2013-12-08, 12:38 PM

Albeit the cost is pretty high, there are way too many bad spells for one to consider. I'd be inclined to say one Blessed Book is often enough already.

And just for kicks, a two-level dip in Geometer would get you every spell in two blessed books, so that's pretty fun. And you can actually prepare spells from a Geometer's spellbook if you aren't one!(Just pump that spellcraft)

Did I hear Geometer cohort? :smallamused:

eggynack

2013-12-08, 01:00 PM

Eggynack: If it really was a (deliberately or otherwise) Stingy DM, then it would probably be impossible. Name a method, and I bet you can think of a way to stymie those plans.

For example, most of the plans (I see the salt bit) revolve around trading people things for other things...what if you never meet any people or merchants to sell things to?

If your DM is really providing no rewards, then it's quite probable you never meet ye olde salt traders consortium. You saavy?
Not a problem. As I noted, salt isn't a traditional item. It's a trade good. That means that you can exchange it at full price pretty much anywhere, and you can probably even trade the piles of salt straight across for magic items. Good times. The specific method doesn't even matter all that much, because a 20th level wizard has so many substitutes for money making schemes. Maybe you make a demiplane out of your rare material of choice with a hole in the middle, and set some sort of construct army towards tunneling through it. Maybe you replace wall of salt with wall of steel. It's irrelevant. Just about every money making scheme in the game is open to a wizard and then some.

Pickford

2013-12-08, 02:46 PM

Not a problem. As I noted, salt isn't a traditional item. It's a trade good. That means that you can exchange it at full price pretty much anywhere, and you can probably even trade the piles of salt straight across for magic items. Good times. The specific method doesn't even matter all that much, because a 20th level wizard has so many substitutes for money making schemes. Maybe you make a demiplane out of your rare material of choice with a hole in the middle, and set some sort of construct army towards tunneling through it. Maybe you replace wall of salt with wall of steel. It's irrelevant. Just about every money making scheme in the game is open to a wizard and then some.

I don't think you got it...

If the DM wishes to prevent you from selling anything, they can, simply by preventing you from meeting anyone who wishes to purchase said good.

georgie_leech

2013-12-08, 02:49 PM

I don't think you got it...

If the DM wishes to prevent you from selling anything, they can, simply by preventing you from meeting anyone who wishes to purchase said good.

That equates to never meeting anyone ever. Salt is needed by everyone (meat preservation is important), so even if it means selling to individual commoners in small amounts, it can be converted into cash.

eggynack

2013-12-08, 02:50 PM

I don't think you got it...

If the DM wishes to prevent you from selling anything, they can, simply by preventing you from meeting anyone who wishes to purchase said good.
Except it's not just a good. Salt is frigging legal tender. If the DM doesn't let you pawn off your salt, then he's breaking the rules of the game. Seriously, "The DM might not let you do that," is an argument against literally every game element ever produced to the point where it's also not an argument against any game element ever produced. If we're not talking about the basic rules of the game, then what are we even talking about?

JaronK

2013-12-08, 04:04 PM

JaronK: Yeah I see spells under special attacks, but where does it say special attacks automatically are special abilities? It certainly isn't under the Special Abilities heading.

Many books, including MM and Fiend Folio, define Special Abilities as being Special Attacks + Special Qualities. All Special Abilities are one of the two, and the two are subsets. In fact, if you look at MM and Fiend Folio, you can see that the phrase "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" is used interchangeably with "Special Abilities." Special Attacks and Special Qualities are simply the two subcategories of Special Abilities.

Now, the real question.

How much would it cost for an Archivist 1/Wizard 1/Mystic Theurge 10/Legacy Champion 8 to fill their books with every single spell available to them? :D

Well, my spell database contains 4,290 spells in total. In theory, all are available to an Archivist, via various tricks.

This, however, includes third party settings like Call of Cthulhu D20 and Diablo II D20. Taking those out gets us to around 4,250 spells, roughly.

There are 2430 Wizard spells in that database. Of those, 67 are level 0 spells, and thus free at the start.

JaronK

Evandar

2013-12-08, 08:22 PM

Pickford

2013-12-09, 11:49 AM

Except it's not just a good. Salt is frigging legal tender. If the DM doesn't let you pawn off your salt, then he's breaking the rules of the game. Seriously, "The DM might not let you do that," is an argument against literally every game element every produced to the point where it's also not an argument against any game element every produced. If we're not talking about the basic rules of the game, then what are we even talking about?

We're probably talking about this:

Guilds, nobles, and royalty regulate trade. ... Guilds set prices for the goods or services that they control, and determine who may or may not offer those goods and services.

Also contains the bit about merchants often using trade goods (which includes salt) in lieu of actual money.

However, the key point is that if there is a salt guild, for example, they could easily (and rules legally) restrict who may offer salt in trade. Anyone else doing so, would be doing it illegally. (i.e. Hey you! You're not a member of the Salt Consortium! Get 'em boys!)

Most characters aren't members of trading guilds, merchants themselves, or noble or royal, so it's rather unlikely they would have a license for this sort of thing.

The other issue you've neglected with wall of salt is the specific location requirements (adjoining rock surfaces) and that it's hardened. You'd have to find a convenient location and even then mine the salt into a useable/tradeable form. So all it amounts to is a theoretically guaranteed salt mine. Whoop dee doo.

JaronK: That is suspiciously lacking in specifics. I asked where in the MM1 it says that a Special Attack is always a Special Ability.

georgie_leech: Yes, that's entirely possible. It is the DM who's steering after all.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 12:06 PM

We're probably talking about this:

Also contains the bit about merchants often using trade goods (which includes salt) in lieu of actual money.

However, the key point is that if there is a salt guild, for example, they could easily (and rules legally) restrict who may offer salt in trade. Anyone else doing so, would be doing it illegally. (i.e. Hey you! You're not a member of the Salt Consortium! Get 'em boys!)

Most characters aren't members of trading guilds, merchants themselves, or noble or royal, so it's rather unlikely they would have a license for this sort of thing.
It looks like trade goods are a way of conducting guild operated merchant trade, rather than a thing that's guild controlled. Also, the text explicitly states that salt can be easily exchanged, almost as if it were cash itself. That means that it's impossible for salt to be a strictly controlled thing, or else it wouldn't be able to be a cash substitute.

The other issue you've neglected with wall of salt is the specific location requirements (adjoining rock surfaces) and that it's hardened. You'd have to find a convenient location and even then mine the salt into a useable/tradeable form. So all it amounts to is a theoretically guaranteed salt mine. Whoop dee doo.
This isn't really the biggest issue in the world. I don't even think you have to mine the salt in a particular form. It just says salt. Walls of iron could be more convenient for this, given that iron is what it is in its natural state. You could also use the single wish that you concede is gained through a zodar to wish farm for infinite money. This just doesn't seem like a problem.

georgie_leech

2013-12-09, 12:07 PM

We're probably talking about this:

Also contains the bit about merchants often using trade goods (which includes salt) in lieu of actual money.

However, the key point is that if there is a salt guild, for example, they could easily (and rules legally) restrict who may offer salt in trade. Anyone else doing so, would be doing it illegally. (i.e. Hey you! You're not a member of the Salt Consortium! Get 'em boys!)

Most characters aren't members of trading guilds, merchants themselves, or noble or royal, so it's rather unlikely they would have a license for this sort of thing.

The other issue you've neglected with wall of salt is the specific location requirements (adjoining rock surfaces) and that it's hardened. You'd have to find a convenient location and even then mine the salt into a useable/tradeable form. So all it amounts to is a theoretically guaranteed salt mine. Whoop dee doo.

georgie_leech: Yes, that's entirely possible. It is the DM who's steering after all.

So aside from the location thing (seriously, stone corridors, adjacent buildings, caves, and actual dungeons are not hard to find), the argument boils down to "The DM can say no if he wants." So why aren't you arguing that the DM could say the Wizard can't cast Wall of Salt? Or that the Wizard isn't in constant danger from hidden assassins? Or that there is a constant threat of purple balloons falling from the sky? Or that the race of Mole People from the planet Nibiru have risen up demanding everyone's shoelaces? Rule 0 is a non-argument because it allows for anything at all to happen. It is impossible to be theoretically consistent with Rule 0, because doing so requires you address every possibility and consequence of the rule, which, given that it covers an infinite number of possibilities (maybe there's a second race of Mole People after Lime Jello instead) is impossible.

Bringing up Rule 0 isn't a winning argument. It's an admission that you can't find a problem with what's proposed using the given rules, and you don't like the result. It's fine for you to not like the result, and for you to disallow it in your games if you choose to do something about it. You can't, however, claim that your Rule 0 is the same as everyone else's Rule 0.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 12:50 PM

JaronK: That is suspiciously lacking in specifics. I asked where in the MM1 it says that a Special Attack is always a Special Ability.

The rule is actually found in many places, as the terms are synonymous. IIRC, you'll want to look at page 6 or so of the MM and also of page 4 or so of Fiend Folio. You'll find the same paragraph on the topic in both books. In MM it's labeled "Special Abilities" and goes on to talk about Special Attacks and Special Qualities, and in Fiend Folio it's labeled "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" and then says the exact same thing. I don't have the books on me which is why I'm just giving you the references and letting you find them.

See also here http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040601a as an example of where you can see them used interchangeably, such as in this line "A druid that takes elemental form retains her own creature type, but gains all the elemental's extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities (both special attacks and special qualities)," Note how getting all "extraordinary, supernatural, and spell like abilities" is just a description of Special Abilities, and it then specifies you get both the Special Attacks and Special Qualities (read it in context to get the full sense of it).

But again, MM is the primary source for this, and it's more clear about that.

JaronK

Shining Wrath

2013-12-09, 01:05 PM

Well, I'd debate that it's more an interpretation than a house rule, but certainly a completely broke Wizard could easily get stupid amounts of money. If nothing else, Wall of Stone + Stone Metamorphosis definitely gets you plenty of very powerful stone types to sell. Throw in Fabricate for extra fun.

Heaven knows there's ways. Even just casting spells for people should earn you plenty.

D&D always defaults to common language in the absence of any specific rules, so "Salt" should still mean what it does in English.

JaronK

Yes, but ...
to a chemist a salt is what you get if you combine an acid and a base. The most famous one is the result of combining hydrochloric acid (HCl) and baking soda (NaCHO3) ==> NaCl + H2O + CO2

eggynack

2013-12-09, 01:12 PM

Yes, but ...
to a chemist a salt is what you get if you combine an acid and a base. The most famous one is the result of combining hydrochloric acid (HCl) and baking soda (NaCHO3) ==> NaCl + H2O + CO2
And apparently, you can sell that for 5 GP a pound. If wall of salt defaults to English, then the trade goods entry can do so as well.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-09, 02:38 PM

And apparently, you can sell that for 5 GP a pound. If wall of salt defaults to English, then the trade goods entry can do so as well.

Just pulling JaronK's leg about the ambiguity of English.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 02:42 PM

Just pulling JaronK's leg about the ambiguity of English.
I thought he was arguing in favor of the pedantic chemistry definition of salt.

Pickford

2013-12-09, 02:52 PM

It looks like trade goods are a way of conducting guild operated merchant trade, rather than a thing that's guild controlled. Also, the text explicitly states that salt can be easily exchanged, almost as if it were cash itself. That means that it's impossible for salt to be a strictly controlled thing, or else it wouldn't be able to be a cash substitute.

This isn't really the biggest issue in the world. I don't even think you have to mine the salt in a particular form. It just says salt. Walls of iron could be more convenient for this, given that iron is what it is in its natural state. You could also use the single wish that you concede is gained through a zodar to wish farm for infinite money. This just doesn't seem like a problem.

The two parts of the text aren't mutually exclusive Eggynack. A thing can be exchanged, and yet also tightly controlled as to who may traffic in it.

It's not really farming wish when you get one per year. (Approximate value, 68gp/year)

Furthermore, we're working off the base assumption that wall of salt is even available to said Wizard. There's no guarantee they've ever heard of the spell nor that it can be found in any library they have access to. (For the researching characters do between levels).

JaronK: You say many places, yet I can not seem to find even one. Please give me a page number so I can confirm your claims. That's really all I'm asking for.

The page you cited from WoTC actually contains this section on Baleful Polymorph:

If the Will save fails, the subject loses all its extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities. It loses its ability to cast spells (if it had the ability), and gains the alignment, special abilities, and Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores of its new form in place of its own. It still retains its class and level (or HD), as well as all benefits deriving from class and level (such as base attack bonus, base save bonuses, and hit points). It retains any class features (other than spellcasting) that aren't extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities.

Note how spellcasting is actually differentiated from Ex, Su, Sp. So we could use this to verify that it is not a special ability, although it is a special attack. Ergo, not all special attacks are special abilities.

georgie_leech: The argument that a wizard can do x thing is essentially founded upon the idea that circumstances will align favorable to the wizard, it's the equivalent of saying oh rule 0 will always be in my favor. Equally invalid then.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 02:58 PM

The two parts of the text aren't mutually exclusive Eggynack. A thing can be exchanged, and yet also tightly controlled as to who may traffic in it.
They are mutually exclusive if these trade goods are to be exchanged about as freely as cash.

It's not really farming wish when you get one per year. (Approximate value, 68gp/year)
You misunderstand. You use one wish, and then that wish produces more wishes by various means. You can do it with as simple a method as wishing for a ring of three wishes. Approximate value: all of the money. Also, I'm not entirely sure where you got your cash/year value. Even if you're working purely off of core items, you can get a pretty hefty chunk of change.

Furthermore, we're working off the base assumption that wall of salt is even available to said Wizard. There's no guarantee they've ever heard of the spell nor that it can be found in any library they have access to. (For the researching characters do between levels).
It's a fair assumption to make, as access to the things in the books is a core assumption of this sort of argument, but it's not a necessary one. As I've noted, wall of iron is a core spell that also produces GP, and I'm rather certain that there are others. I just tend towards wall of salt because it's low level, it shows up on the druid list (which makes it good for other arguments I have), and I've already run the numbers on it.

Augmental

2013-12-09, 03:02 PM

Furthermore, we're working off the base assumption that wall of salt is even available to said Wizard. There's no guarantee they've ever heard of the spell nor that it can be found in any library they have access to. (For the researching characters do between levels).

And you're working off the base assumption that there's a salt guild with a tightly-enforced monopoly on the salt trade. Which one do you think is more likely?

georgie_leech: The argument that a wizard can do x thing is essentially founded upon the idea that circumstances will align favorable to the wizard, it's the equivalent of saying oh rule 0 will always be in my favor. Equally invalid then.

Whereas your argument is founded upon the idea that circumstances will align unfavorably to the wizard.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 03:07 PM

Missed that thing about circumstances aligning favorably to the wizard. Of course circumstances will align favorably to the wizard. He has piles of divinations, transportation to just about anywhere in existence, and a host of powers that rip the entire game asunder. If any of these money making spells exist within the multiverse, then the wizard is likely capable of obtaining one. Things align favorably to the wizard because he is uniquely capable of aligning things favorably.

Edit: Also, if we're not assuming that things exist, then what the hell are we even doing? I could say, "Barbarians make horrible damage dealers," and then when you list stuff that allows them to deal tons of damage, I can just say they don't exist for no reason. If there's no reason for something not to exist, then it pretty much has to be assumed to exist, and the reason can't be that the thing disproves your argument.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 03:12 PM

JaronK: You say many places, yet I can not seem to find even one. Please give me a page number so I can confirm your claims. That's really all I'm asking for.

I already did, in the post you're responding to. MM1 page 6(ish) and Fiend Folio around page 4 or so. I don't have the books on me so I can't give exact page numbers, but the paragraphs you're looking for are called "Special Abilities" in one and "Special Attacks and Special Qualities" in the other. Look at them side by side.

JaronK

Shining Wrath

2013-12-09, 03:59 PM

I thought he was arguing in favor of the pedantic chemistry definition of salt.

Both comments are by me, so I think I can definitively state that I was pulling his leg using pedantry.

Edit: I'm going to have to get someone to make me a unique avatar so that I'm not mistaken for the numerous other samurai around here.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 04:02 PM

eggynack

2013-12-09, 04:05 PM

Shining Wrath

2013-12-09, 04:09 PM

Coidzor

2013-12-09, 04:45 PM

What I'm getting at here is, for example, Person Man's Tiers rankings. People will tell you that a wizard can fill every role in the party better than any non-Tier-1 class. And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles. In 3.5, magic can do anything; but no one wizard can know all the magic.

And yeah, it seems as though they are working on levels 5 - 10 as their "sweet spot". I wonder if an examination of their published dungeons would support that.

They can, but they don't want to do so. It's less about knowing all the magic and more about resources such as spells per day and action economy.

I'm also a bit curious in that regard as well. I suspect it just might.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 04:50 PM

I was the one who mentioned that there could be other, less tasty salts mixed in when you cast wall of salt.

It's the only way I see to avoid the whole "Casting Wall of Salt gets you stupid amounts of money" issue without completely house ruling everything.

JaronK

Also you have to remember that not everybody is a Salt Merchant, even by the assumed rules (D&D is assumed to be earth normal in most respects) very few people would buy a ton of salt. If you showed up offering to sell me, or most salespeople that quantity it would be rejected almost immediately. They'd wind up losing in that they need to store it, transport it, and find a market that can both afford it and take that quantity. It's like trying to sell the Hope Diamond, there are simply no buyers that can afford it, you could sell the salt piecemeal, but then you have to haul it around and store it (no problem for a caster), but selling it piecemeal prevents the ton of gold right off the bat problem.

Markets simply cannot accept an infinite quantity of goods, and while most times in D&D are not a good time to bring up economics, this kind of shenanigan is probably exactly the right time to do so.

What I'm getting at here is, for example, Person Man's Tiers rankings. People will tell you that a wizard can fill every role in the party better than any non-Tier-1 class. And my point is, you can't have all the spells you need to fill all those roles. In 3.5, magic can do anything; but no one wizard can know all the magic.

The problem is that certain spells cover more than one niche easily. Summoning spells can fill almost an of the niches and that's only one per spell level. Polymorph can fill multiple niches. If you have those two, you're filling every role fairly easily and then you still have room for utility spells and spells to make you better at your chosen role.

2 Spells per level is more than enough to be completely able to make most other classes irrelevant, particularly when higher level spells become available.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 04:54 PM

Also you have to remember that not everybody is a Salt Merchant, even by the assumed rules (D&D is assumed to be earth normal in most respects) very few people would buy a ton of salt. If you showed up offering to sell me, or most salespeople that quantity it would be rejected almost immediately. They'd wind up losing in that they need to store it, transport it, and find a market that can both afford it and take that quantity. It's like trying to sell the Hope Diamond, there are simply no buyers that can afford it, you could sell the salt piecemeal, but then you have to haul it around and store it (no problem for a caster), but selling it piecemeal prevents the ton of gold right off the bat problem.

Markets simply cannot accept an infinite quantity of goods, and while most times in D&D are not a good time to bring up economics, this kind of shenanigan is probably exactly the right time to do so.
It's not really that big of a problem. Salt is a currency, just like GP, so the salesperson would be able to offload it pretty efficiently. It's not a matter of having a buyer. It's a matter of having things worth buying. You could also find some salt buyers, but it's not strictly necessary.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 04:57 PM

It's not really that big of a problem. Salt is a currency, just like GP, so the salesperson would be able to offload it pretty efficiently. It's not a matter of having a buyer. It's a matter of having things worth buying. You could also find some salt buyers, but it's not strictly necessary.

Salt is not a currency. It's a trade good. That's like arguing that wheat is a currency. Trade goods have fundamental issues with offloading. Like storage, they can go bad (salt particularly weathers and doesn't like getting wet). Also not everybody is going to accept salt as a currency, not just because they can't store it but because they can't sell it. A magic item shop isn't going to have connections into the food market where they can market and sell the salt at a profit for them. Ergo they won't take it, and won't deal with it, why would they? It's not as profitable as their sale of magic items.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 05:03 PM

Salt is not a currency. It's a trade good. That's like arguing that wheat is a currency. Trade goods have fundamental issues with offloading. Like storage, they can go bad (salt particularly weathers and doesn't like getting wet). Also not everybody is going to accept salt as a currency, not just because they can't store it but because they can't sell it. A magic item shop isn't going to have connections into the food market where they can market and sell the salt at a profit for them. Ergo they won't take it, and won't deal with it, why would they? It's not as profitable as their sale of magic items.
It certainly acts a lot like currency. It can be easily exchanged, almost as if it were cash itself, and you can trade using them directly without an intermediary currency. If salt acts like a currency, then the magic item shop doesn't need to have connections to the food market. They can just trade the salt straight across again. They also don't need to sell it at a profit, because you don't exactly sell GP for a profit either.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 05:07 PM

It certainly acts a lot like currency. It can be easily exchanged, almost as if it were cash itself, and you can trade using them directly without an intermediary currency. If salt acts like a currency, then the magic item shop doesn't need to have connections to the food market. They can just trade the salt straight across again. They also don't need to sell it at a profit, because you don't exactly sell GP for a profit either.

That is not the case, Gold doesn't weather and doesn't go bad. Also if we're getting nitpicky many merchants would refuse to trade in that due to the fact that it makes theft more likely. There is no reason why salt would act exactly like a currency and vendors aren't required to accept all forms of currency. In fact that's not even ruled anyplace and it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to apply real-world type restrictions on this. We are dealing with an area that is never touched on.

Availability of goods is completely an area of the DM and since availability of goods dictates the saleability of salt, there is no reason to assume that it is 100% favorable in any PO environment over a TO environment.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 05:12 PM

That is not the case, Gold doesn't weather and doesn't go bad. Also if we're getting nitpicky many merchants would refuse to trade in that due to the fact that it makes theft more likely. There is no reason why salt would act exactly like a currency and vendors aren't required to accept all forms of currency. In fact that's not even ruled anyplace and it's perfectly reasonable for a DM to apply real-world type restrictions on this. We are dealing with an area that is never touched on.

Availability of goods is completely an area of the DM and since availability of goods dictates the saleability of salt, there is no reason to assume that it is 100% favorable in any PO environment over a TO environment.
Logic doesn't really change what the text says, and the text says the things I'm saying. Anyways, magic inevitably triumphs over logic, because if there's a single place where you can sell mass quantities of salt in the multiverse, then that place can be both known and accessible. Here, as always, a wizard has substitutes for any given plan.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-09, 05:36 PM

Logic doesn't really change what the text says, and the text says the things I'm saying. Anyways, magic inevitably triumphs over logic, because if there's a single place where you can sell mass quantities of salt in the multiverse, then that place can be both known and accessible. Here, as always, a wizard has substitutes for any given plan.

And now I imagine the planet of Xyzzzzzroawk, where the noble cat-people fight their endless battles against the evil Slug Men.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 06:21 PM

Logic doesn't really change what the text says, and the text says the things I'm saying. Anyways, magic inevitably triumphs over logic, because if there's a single place where you can sell mass quantities of salt in the multiverse, then that place can be both known and accessible. Here, as always, a wizard has substitutes for any given plan.

Negative Ghostrider, the text does not say anything on the availability of items or the ability to sell items. In fact it strongly suggests that's the purview of the DM. Since that's already set to Rule Zero as the default, any arguments regarding it are moot.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 06:21 PM

I'm really enjoying this new interpretation where shop-keeps pay full price for various kinds of salt. "Oh Pelor, why? Why did I pay so much for this terrible tasting salt?" And then he sells it, again for full price. Rules are weird.

You'd obviously have to assume that the salt which is a trade good is not the same as the salt that's created by the wall. It's much like how a Dwarvencraft Longsword fetches a better price than a Longsword that happened to be crafted by a dwarf. Same words, different usage. Much like how "Special Attack" means "any Special Ability that's used to attack" in one area and "Bull Rush, Trip, Overrun, Turn Undead, and Disarm" in another.

It's... the best I can come up with to avoid destroying the economy.

JaronK

ryu

2013-12-09, 06:23 PM

You'd obviously have to assume that the salt which is a trade good is not the same as the salt that's created by the wall. It's much like how a Dwarvencraft Longsword fetches a better price than a Longsword that happened to be crafted by a dwarf. Same words, different usage. Much like how "Special Attack" means "any Special Ability that's used to attack" in one area and "Bull Rush, Trip, Overrun, Turn Undead, and Disarm" in another.

It's... the best I can come up with to avoid destroying the economy.

JaronK

Destroy it or Tippify it?

eggynack

2013-12-09, 06:30 PM

Negative Ghostrider, the text does not say anything on the availability of items or the ability to sell items. In fact it strongly suggests that's the purview of the DM. Since that's already set to Rule Zero as the default, any arguments regarding it are moot.
So, you're saying that salt, a trade good, which is used by merchants as a facsimile of currency, has nowhere in the entire multiverse where it can be sold. That seems more ridiculous than the idea that you can produce the infinite wealth in the first place.

It's... the best I can come up with to avoid destroying the economy.

Heh. As if you can stop a high level wizard from destroying the economy. This is a footnote in the "Wal-Wam" edition of the massive series that is sneaky wizard tricks.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 06:32 PM

So, you're saying that salt, a trade good, which is used by merchants as a facsimile of currency, has nowhere in the entire multiverse where it can be sold. That seems more ridiculous than the idea that you can produce the infinite wealth in the first place.

I think he's saying there's nowhere to unload it quickly.

Heh. As if you can stop a high level wizard from destroying the economy. This is a footnote in the "Wal-Wam" edition of the massive series that is sneaky wizard tricks.

Well, that's why I like more solid tricks. Like Planar Binding Efreetis for fun and profit.

JaronK

eggynack

2013-12-09, 06:37 PM

I think he's saying there's nowhere to unload it quickly.
Seems pretty similarly unlikely, especially with that Cat-person V. Slug-monster world hanging around.

Well, that's why I like more solid tricks. Like Planar Binding Efreetis for fun and profit.
Sure. As I've mentioned, I tend towards wall of salt cause it's one of the better druid money options, and as a result of that, I have the numbers for it. If you're rocking a 20th level wizards, options open up a little bit.

ryu

2013-12-09, 06:44 PM

Seems pretty similarly unlikely, especially with that Cat-person V. Slug-monster world hanging around.

Sure. As I've mentioned, I tend towards wall of salt cause it's one of the better druid money options, and as a result of that, I have the numbers for it. If you're rocking a 20th level wizards, options open up a little bit.

Eggy I'm not sure about this, but I think you just handily won understatement of the century award. I mean were those last two words meant to be blue?

JaronK

2013-12-09, 06:46 PM

It only opens a little bit compared to level 19 Wizards, you see.

JaronK

Coidzor

2013-12-09, 06:47 PM

So, you're saying that salt, a trade good, which is used by merchants as a facsimile of currency, has nowhere in the entire multiverse where it can be sold. That seems more ridiculous than the idea that you can produce the infinite wealth in the first place.

Heh. As if you can stop a high level wizard from destroying the economy. This is a footnote in the "Wal-Wam" edition of the massive series that is sneaky wizard tricks.

"Wal-Wam?" :smallconfused:

eggynack

2013-12-09, 06:47 PM

Eggy I'm not sure about this, but I think you just handily won understatement of the century award. I mean were those last two words meant to be blue?
Understatement isn't really sarcasm. It's just understatement, which is its own rhetorical form. Yes though, I am aware that wizards have more than a couple of cash producing tricks over a 7th level druid. It's more like five or six, right?

eggynack

2013-12-09, 06:48 PM

"Wal-Wam?" :smallconfused:
It's like an encyclopedia, and is thus sorted in alphabetical order. This book in particular covers all wizard trickery that stretches from Wal to Wam in alphabetical terms, and it thus contains wall of salt.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-12-09, 06:52 PM

Coidzor

2013-12-09, 06:53 PM

It's like an encyclopedia, and is thus sorted in alphabetical order. This book in particular covers all wizard trickery that stretches from Wal to Wam in alphabetical terms, and it thus contains wall of salt.

Ahh. Neato. I thought it was a metaphorical book and/or "Wal-Wam" was some sort of Walmart/Wigwam amalgamation. :smallconfused:

eggynack

2013-12-09, 06:55 PM

Ahh. Neato. I thought it was a metaphorical book and/or "Wal-Wam" was some sort of Walmart/Wigwam amalgamation. :smallconfused:
Yeah, could have been way clearer on that one. Probably should have made it explicitly an encyclopedia.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 07:14 PM

@ pickford:

68gp a year for a once a year wish is one of the most asinine failures of logic or mathematics I've seen in a good while. The spell can conjure 500 pounds of gold without any chance of DM screw. That's 25,000gp per year minimum. You could also sell it and the use of shapechange to an interested party for an additional 8060gp. How the heck did you twist your mind to get such a tiny figure?

@ amfv:

Salt is a mineral. Storage consists of not getting it dirty and that's pretty much it. Wet's not a problem as long as the water is clean. Vermin won't infest it. About the only thing gold has over it is that people like shinies.

A fifth of a pound of salt in a clean bag is worth 1gp and is really only very marginally more difficult to handle. As long as you don't drop it in the mud with the mouth of the bag open you're good.

In some cultures salt is actually valued higher than gold as a trade currency for the simple fact that gold heats up in a hot environment much faster and to a greater degree than salt does or because gold has virtually no practical use in an environment where survival is difficult and carrying it is more trouble than it's worth.

I'm a geology major, salt evaporates and weathers away. Haven't you ever gotten salt wet? It definitely goes away, within a historical timeframe not a geologic time frame. Evaporate minerals tend to be extremely susceptible to weathering. For example calcite, weathers away very quickly. In fact there are virtually no minerals that will remain as they are indefinitely, certain rocks can last for long periods of time, and but even they wind up decaying.

Salt certainly is a trade currency, but the DM doesn't have to houserule to make it not accepted everywhere. I would just assume that we should probably use the WBL guidelines for this, since those would supersede any kind of ridiculous cheating anyways, to attain higher wealth.

Furthermore, as I've shown in the first freaking page, a wizard could certainly purchase every spell and still have gold to spare, particularly at 20th level.

eggynack

2013-12-09, 07:18 PM

Furthermore, as I've shown in the first freaking page, a wizard could certainly purchase every spell and still have gold to spare, particularly at 20th level.
That was assuming normal wealth by level. Pickford mentioned that you can change wealth by level, and I said that that's irrelevant, because wizards transcend GP limitations in a number of ways. Wall of salt was just one example money making trick that got away from us.

AMFV

2013-12-09, 07:27 PM

That was assuming normal wealth by level. Pickford mentioned that you can change wealth by level, and I said that that's irrelevant, because wizards transcend GP limitations in a number of ways. Wall of salt was just one example money making trick that got away from us.

See that's what I get for jumping into the middle of the argument having missed a page. I do think that the salt method is problematic, but there are lots of other ways to break WBL. I just frown on those sort of tricks.

To be honest even with a reduced wealth by level, a wizard could still get all the spells he needs. An easy-bake wizard can totally be a God wizard without ever buying a single spell.

JaronK

2013-12-09, 07:38 PM

I played with a DM who tried to reign us in by limiting wealth by level because my Archivist was too powerful.

We ran at less than half WBL, but I was still knocking out Great Wyrms at level 12 without breaking a sweat. The melees suffered of course.

JaronK

Chronos

2013-12-09, 10:04 PM

The crazy thing with all of this discussion of Wall of Salt is that people in this thread aren't even trying to use it to break WBL. The only reason people are even bringing it up at all is that there are people in this thread arguing that a high-level wizard might somehow end up being below their WBL by a factor of 8.

Pickford

2013-12-10, 10:06 AM

Eggynack: Of course they may be exchanged...it's still a question of by whom. The PHB specifies that merchants may do this.

Wishing for more wishes (i.e. a ring of three wishes) is something that is particularly likely to pervert your intent per the warning in the spell.

Access to spells is derived from research, per the books, player awareness that wall of salt exists does not automatically confer such breadth of knowledge on the character. You and I may be aware that these spells exist, but the characters wouldn't. I note you mention that it's on the Druid spell list. True, but it would also be totally out of character for a Druid to pursue wealth in such a manner. (Odd I know, but you still must justify these things in character, base mechanical access doesn't abet an inability to rationalize these actions).

We've also yet to discuss the consequences of even attempting such a thing, and if we can assume a character might try this, what will the fall out be?
A short list:
1) Assassination attempts by competitors.
2) If successful: Collapse of the value of salt as a trade good. (Market saturation point is?)
3) Embargos by trade guilds
4) Kidnapping attempts by (evil?) groups to exploit the character for their own gain.

Any other ideas on repercussions?

Augmental: The exact same paragraph that ok's salt as a trade good says guilds regulate trade. You can't have one without the other if you plan on adhering to the RAW.
My argument is that the circumstances won't always align favorably to the wizard, which is simply to say: The argument founded on them always working out is inherently flawed. (So not quite as extreme as you might have perceived)

Eggynack: What Divinations? And what good would those do? And you yourself were saying this is a 7th level Wizard, they don't have teleportation at all. You're thinking of a 20th level wizard, not the 7th level one. For that matter, we haven't really addressed how the Wizard plans to transport these trade goods anywhere. Teleport (Assuming they could cast it doesn't allow transport beyond the caster's load. So we're looking at a basic 9th level wizard who is completely naked (no items weighing them down) being capable of transporting around 100lbs of salt (500gp worth) somewhere (probably, there's always the chance of a mishap with regular teleport), every two days (without something (int bonus or specialization) to grant extra castings, the average 9th level wizard has 1 5th level spell slot and so requires 2 days to go somewhere and come back).

Also your barbarian parallel isn't quite there. I'm not saying the spells don't exist, I'm saying they may not be on hand and so cannot be learned when desired. You're asserting they always will be, which is simply inaccurate.

Kelb_Panthera: I took the 25,000gp wish and divided that by 365 (days till your next Shapechange into a Zodar for Wish). That's your profit per day. It's not nothing, but it also isn't particularly great. I'm not sure what you were thinking.

Eggynack: No, I said the DM is within their rights to determine if the means used to make a wish are exceeding WBL, I didn't ever say the wizard would or should have less than WBL at any given point or that the DM would impose an arbitrary restriction like that.

AMFV

2013-12-10, 10:18 AM

Eggynack: No, I said the DM is within their rights to determine if the means used to make a wish are exceeding WBL, I didn't ever say the wizard would or should have less than WBL at any given point or that the DM would impose an arbitrary restriction like that.

Well then the wizard can have every single spell in their spell book with only 1/7th of their wealth-by-level dedicated at 20th level, that's without collegiate wizard or elven generalist, just purchasing them.

Which of course is absolutely unnecessary, since not all the spells are good.

JaronK

2013-12-10, 02:17 PM

Eggynack: Of course they may be exchanged...it's still a question of by whom. The PHB specifies that merchants may do this.

Man, if only you had a Teleport spell to bring you to the largest metropolis that deals in salt trading. Hey, do we know any class that has a spell like that?

Wishing for more wishes (i.e. a ring of three wishes) is something that is particularly likely to pervert your intent per the warning in the spell.

Wish for a Candle of Invocation instead. Gate in an Efreeti. Get three wishes. The candle is so cheap that it works without fail. Don't forget to make your third wish for another candle.

Access to spells is derived from research, per the books, player awareness that wall of salt exists does not automatically confer such breadth of knowledge on the character. You and I may be aware that these spells exist, but the characters wouldn't.

Spellcraft governs your knowledge of spells. Wizards are total experts in this. So... they know better than we do all about these spells.

I note you mention that it's on the Druid spell list. True, but it would also be totally out of character for a Druid to pursue wealth in such a manner. (Odd I know, but you still must justify these things in character, base mechanical access doesn't abet an inability to rationalize these actions).

Out of character for YOUR Druid, perhaps. But most Druids that PCs play are heroes who are fighting some evil challenge or otherwise doing life threatening stuff for some important cause (usually stopping the BBEG). Why would those Druids be against getting money to do so? It will keep them alive and help them achieve their goals.

We've also yet to discuss the consequences of even attempting such a thing, and if we can assume a character might try this, what will the fall out be?
A short list:
1) Assassination attempts by competitors.

They're salt merchants. We're a Wizard. Not worried.

2) If successful: Collapse of the value of salt as a trade good. (Market saturation point is?)

Frankly this should have happened long ago.

3) Embargos by trade guilds

You've just made a black market source that's probably far cheaper (sell it for 1/10th normal price). Embargoes will do nothing. Basic economics.

4) Kidnapping attempts by (evil?) groups to exploit the character for their own gain.

These kidnappers clearly don't have their own Wizard to do it already, so they're far weaker than you. I recommend killing them, raising them with Animate Dread Warrior, and getting them to tell you everything, then starting your own evil empire. But that's just me.

Any other ideas on repercussions?

The only real one is that the commodity's price would drop. But this just means you get wealth some other way (such as Efreeti wishes, or using Genies to get endless Saffron, or similar).

Not that any of this matters, because I seriously fit every spell I ever wanted for an Archivist into a single Blessed Book. There's not THAT many good spells, it's just that the good ones are so freaking awesome.

JaronK

Angelalex242

2013-12-10, 02:40 PM

Zanos

2013-12-10, 02:51 PM

Ya know, in my games, Wizards never had a problem learning their entire spell list. The GMs I've had always thought that the point of being a Wiz over a Sorc was that the Wizard could cast every spell on his list, and the Sorc can't. So most of the time and cost got negated by a wizard's guild who had all this stuff available for a nominal fee. (All the wizards benefit from all of them knowing every spell. It increases the value of wizards in the world.) Time and cost all got a healthy helping of handwavium, even without using Tippy's tricks to make it RAW.

So by that point, the Wizard was more or less getting his spell list the way a cleric gets his spell list, only the wizard had to carry his around in a spell book. (and the wizard never needed more then one of those, and he didn't have to track its encumberance either.
While all wizards do benefit from liberal spell access, it's almost expected in many settings that high-level wizards be paranoid, secretive, suspicious, and, in many cases, borderline psychotic. Wizards aren't typically a generous lot either, and people who already have access to powerful spells don't benefit from handing them out. Making friends with your local guild might buy you a bit of goodwill, I suppose.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 03:58 PM

Eggynack: Of course they may be exchanged...it's still a question of by whom. The PHB specifies that merchants may do this.
As JaronK notes, there really must be someone on the planet with the ability to purchase salt in good quantity. It's not really a problem.

Wishing for more wishes (i.e. a ring of three wishes) is something that is particularly likely to pervert your intent per the warning in the spell.
Nope. You can wish up a magic item of any price with no danger. As wishing for a ring of three wishes is within the given possibilities of wish, that clause never comes into play. Alternatively, as JaronK notes, a candle of invocation is also an option.

Access to spells is derived from research, per the books, player awareness that wall of salt exists does not automatically confer such breadth of knowledge on the character. You and I may be aware that these spells exist, but the characters wouldn't. I note you mention that it's on the Druid spell list. True, but it would also be totally out of character for a Druid to pursue wealth in such a manner. (Odd I know, but you still must justify these things in character, base mechanical access doesn't abet an inability to rationalize these actions).
You're a wizard in the first case, which means that at level 20, the wizard likely has broader spell knowledge than the player does. Wall of iron is always a second option, as it's less obscure by an oddly metagamed standard. You don't need to know about every one of these spells for cash to be yours. You just need one of them. As for a druid, why wouldn't he want money? Druids can be ascetic, but they're not often so, let alone usually. You want money to buy that thing you want. Simple. Druids can be greedy too, and as JaronK notes, it's not even really greed if you're buying items to make your fight against Ludwig the Grand easier.

1) Assassination attempts by competitors.
Oh no, not the salt guild. I'm quivering in my astrally projected boots. Seriously, if this is anything like a problem, a disguise could solve the problem trivially.

2) If successful: Collapse of the value of salt as a trade good. (Market saturation point is?)
Apparently there isn't one. Salt just costs this much. Frightful to consider from an economic standard, but them's the rules. Also, even in a game whose rules are theoretically determined by logic to a greater extent, the market saturation point of the multiverse might as well be infinity.

3) Embargos by trade guilds
How does that even work? Salt can be easily exchanged, and how are they to even know what you look like?

4) Kidnapping attempts by (evil?) groups to exploit the character for their own gain.
Oh no. The third ice assassin of my wizard, astrally projecting from his personal demiplane, has wet himself in fear. Seriously, it's frigging salt.

Eggynack: What Divinations? And what good would those do? And you yourself were saying this is a 7th level Wizard, they don't have teleportation at all. You're thinking of a 20th level wizard, not the 7th level one. For that matter, we haven't really addressed how the Wizard plans to transport these trade goods anywhere. Teleport (Assuming they could cast it doesn't allow transport beyond the caster's load. So we're looking at a basic 9th level wizard who is completely naked (no items weighing them down) being capable of transporting around 100lbs of salt (500gp worth) somewhere (probably, there's always the chance of a mishap with regular teleport), every two days (without something (int bonus or specialization) to grant extra castings, the average 9th level wizard has 1 5th level spell slot and so requires 2 days to go somewhere and come back).
I was talking about a 20th level wizard. I mentioned a 7th level druid, because I was explaining why I use wall of salt as my go to example instead of something else. May I assume that this argument is nonexistent at this point?

Eggynack: No, I said the DM is within their rights to determine if the means used to make a wish are exceeding WBL, I didn't ever say the wizard would or should have less than WBL at any given point or that the DM would impose an arbitrary restriction like that.
Wealth by level is a rules object, so as long as the DM is allowing the wizard to hit the rules mandated WBL, things're fine. However, do note that, short of rule zero, there is no reason to deny these wishes, as they fall within the safe bounds of the spell. Thus, infinite cash.

Emperor Tippy

2013-12-10, 04:06 PM

Nope. You can wish up a magic item of any price with no danger. As wishing for a ring of three wishes is within the given possibilities of wish, that clause never comes into play. Alternatively, as JaronK notes, a candle of invocation is also an option.

Yes but a Ring of Three Wish's (or scroll of Wish) can't be used to Wish for more Ring's of Three Wishes as the Ring doesn't have enough XP built into it.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 04:09 PM

Yes but a Ring of Three Wish's (or scroll of Wish) can't be used to Wish for more Ring's of Three Wishes as the Ring doesn't have enough XP built into it.
Really? Ah well. The other thing then.

unseenmage

2013-12-10, 04:12 PM

Just wanted to drop by and remind folk that crashing economies and reducing the value of trade goods only works in our world because matter cannot be created OR destroyed.

Both are possible in D&D-verse. Emphasis on "both". I tried once to elicit help in determining which happens faster in D&D-verse, creation or destruction. The idea was met with criticism and some derision.

Sorry I don't have more specific numbers just remember that with infinite planes and the ability to utterly destroy matter it's a fairly simple matter for the ruling governments to rebalance those same economies.

This did make me wonder though, is there a way to "move the goalposts" so to speak? Could some of the spells be erased from existence making learning them all even more trivial?

I seem to remember a some god or another erasing level 10 spells but I do not know the specifics.

Zanos

2013-12-10, 04:19 PM

I seem to remember a some god or another erasing level 10 spells but I do not know the specifics.
After mystra was reincarnated from mystrl when Karsus broke magic with a 12 level spell, she destroyed the knowledge of all 10th level or higher spells. This is why 10th+ level spell slots exist, but they can only be filled via metamagic.

FR, though.

jindra34

2013-12-10, 04:25 PM

Yes but a Ring of Three Wish's (or scroll of Wish) can't be used to Wish for more Ring's of Three Wishes as the Ring doesn't have enough XP built into it.

A default ring of three wishes doesn't. If you were wishing one up, you could put more into it to get it to the point where you could. The numbers go up quickly though... so better be using a component free spell-like ability.

Chronos

2013-12-10, 04:35 PM

Quoth unseenmage:

Both are possible in D&D-verse. Emphasis on "both". I tried once to elicit help in determining which happens faster in D&D-verse, creation or destruction. The idea was met with criticism and some derision.
I wish I had seen that thread-- It's my hypothesis that mortal magic is skewed more towards creation, and that Spheres of Annihilation spontaneously come into existence to keep reality as a whole in balance. There are exactly as many Spheres of Annihilation as are needed to balance out the Decanters of Endless Water and Walls of Stone and so on.

unseenmage

2013-12-10, 04:46 PM

I wish I had seen that thread-- It's my hypothesis that mortal magic is skewed more towards creation, and that Spheres of Annihilation spontaneously come into existence to keep reality as a whole in balance. There are exactly as many Spheres of Annihilation as are needed to balance out the Decanters of Endless Water and Walls of Stone and so on.

Here it is. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16332812) I'm more than interested in continuing the discussion so long as it's not a thread necro.

There's also a spell that makes a pseudo Sphere of Annihilation too. Which the theoretical wizard in this thread would be striving to learn. Don't you just love when thread derails dovetail together.

Shining Wrath

2013-12-10, 05:01 PM

Ya know, in my games, Wizards never had a problem learning their entire spell list. The GMs I've had always thought that the point of being a Wiz over a Sorc was that the Wizard could cast every spell on his list, and the Sorc can't. So most of the time and cost got negated by a wizard's guild who had all this stuff available for a nominal fee. (All the wizards benefit from all of them knowing every spell. It increases the value of wizards in the world.) Time and cost all got a healthy helping of handwavium, even without using Tippy's tricks to make it RAW.

So by that point, the Wizard was more or less getting his spell list the way a cleric gets his spell list, only the wizard had to carry his around in a spell book. (and the wizard never needed more then one of those, and he didn't have to track its encumberance either.

That's poor economics, I feel, because the only Wizard who knows a good spell (e.g., Teleportation Circle) can sell a casting of that spell for as much as the customer can pay, but if there are TWO wizards in town who can cast it, competition kicks in.

Seems pretty similarly unlikely, especially with that Cat-person V. Slug-monster world hanging around.

Yes, but the cat people are adept at getting you to give you the salt they need for free. Make your DC 99 will save against this!
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2012/294/f/a/anime_cat_girl_by_nexxd-d5igi9v.png

ryu

2013-12-10, 05:13 PM

Ice assassin. Even mentally compelled it cannot disobey its master. The master is not there to charm into submission. Also mind blank all day. Even then. Especially then. In redundant layers, because the wizard can do so without wasting significant resources.

Angelalex242

2013-12-10, 07:44 PM

As teleportation circle is a 9th level spell, a wizard who wanted it badly enough would wish a scroll of it into existence, then copy it into his spellbook.

There's no real economic gain to trying to restrict spell access at levels that high. You'd pretty much have to kill the other guy outright, and if the wizards in question are good aligned, or even most neutrals won't go there

Hence, a wizard guild might as well establish prices to keep beings of phenomenal cosmic power from zapping eachother with scry and dies.

ryu

2013-12-10, 08:02 PM

In the middle of cities of course, preferably it would involve transforming into enormous spellcasting monsters and letting the godzilla music play.

TuggyNE

2013-12-10, 08:52 PM

Eggynack: Of course they may be exchanged...it's still a question of by whom. The PHB specifies that merchants may do this.

And, of course, our Wizard cannot possibly be considered a merchant. We know this because Wizards are wizards and Merchants are merchants, and ne'er the twain shall meet. What's this? Wizards can take Appraise cross-class, and it's an Int-based skill? Nonsense!

Wishing for more wishes (i.e. a ring of three wishes) is something that is particularly likely to pervert your intent per the warning in the spell.

The ring is a magic item. Creating magic items, of any value, is on the safe list. Wishes on the safe list are never perverted. Therefore, wishing to create a ring of three wishes will never be perverted.

Now if, instead, one was so foolish as to wish for, verbatim, "more wishes", then yes, that would likely be perverted. But that would just be stupid, when there's a supported way to do it right.

Kelb_Panthera: I took the 25,000gp wish and divided that by 365 (days till your next Shapechange into a Zodar for Wish). That's your profit per day. It's not nothing, but it also isn't particularly great. I'm not sure what you were thinking.

Since you listed it as average income per year, all of us were not a little confused. Daily income and yearly income are two quite different quantities, by a factor of a bit over two and a half orders of magnitude.

It's not really farming wish when you get one per year. (Approximate value, 68gp/year)

Of course I don't think shapechange actually imposes that yearly limit, though it undoubtedly should, but when there's an obvious typo or math error like that it's going to get some attention.

eggynack

2013-12-10, 09:01 PM

Of course I don't think shapechange actually imposes that yearly limit, though it undoubtedly should, but when there's an obvious typo or math error like that it's going to get some attention.
Oddly enough, I can't see any connection between the 68 GP figure and anything in reality. Wish has its non-magical cap set at 25 K, which would be a reasonable if inaccurate figure, and I don't think the most expensive item costs 68 anything. The most expensive items in most categories in core cap at about 200 K, which should be enough to get all of the spells ever.

Edit: Ah, just read the other thing. Yeah, measuring it on a daily basis makes no sense, and the 25 K cap doesn't really cover the full use of wish's money generating power at all. You can easily fill a good amount of wealth by level with a single wish.

Kraken

2013-12-10, 09:03 PM

I, for one, wish to have an adventure based around this mysterious salt mafia that murders its competitors. :smallbiggrin:

unseenmage

2013-12-10, 09:11 PM

I, for one, wish to have an adventure based around this mysterious salt mafia that murders its competitors. :smallbiggrin:

See now there's an example of a wish that's not on the safe list.

TuggyNE

2013-12-10, 09:53 PM

I, for one, wish to have an adventure based around this mysterious salt mafia that murders its competitors. :smallbiggrin:

Bam, you are now a pound of salt. Enjoy.

georgie_leech

2013-12-10, 10:05 PM

Bam, you are now a pound of salt. Enjoy.

And thus did the Great Salt Rebellion etch its way into the annals of history.

alanek2002

2013-12-11, 11:44 AM

Wow, this De-railed quickly. And Emperor Tippy V. Pickford may be the unstoppable force Vs. the indestructible wall, but sadly for pickford he built his wall on a large patch on black Ice.

georgie_leech

2013-12-11, 11:50 AM

These threads frequently do, yeah, but it's still mostly on topic actually. So far it seems to be "So it turns out that you can write every spell into a your spell books for about 1/7th of your WBL." "But the DM could deny you access to the funds needed if he doesn't want you to!" "That's kind of a bad argument, but even if it was a good one, Wizards have all these ways to generate spontaneous cash."

How would the discussion continue if it was on-topic anyway? Figuring out how much it takes for an Archivist to get every spell?

...Actually now I'm kind of curious...

eggynack

2013-12-11, 12:30 PM

Pickford

2013-12-12, 12:38 AM

Well then the wizard can have every single spell in their spell book with only 1/7th of their wealth-by-level dedicated at 20th level, that's without collegiate wizard or elven generalist, just purchasing them.

Which of course is absolutely unnecessary, since not all the spells are good.

No of course they aren't all necessary. Of course....unless you need the one that is specific to the situation you're encountering and will die/fail without it.

JaronK:

Man, if only you had a Teleport spell

Which has a weight limit, and also as previously addressed, a times per day limit that makes this concept impractical.

Wish for a Candle of Invocation instead. Gate in an Efreeti. Get three wishes.

All at the low-low price of 1 immortal enemy who can plane shift you in your sleep (automatically willing, oops!) to the plane of fire...where you die. How very wise of you.

Spellcraft governs your knowledge of spells. Wizards are total experts in this. So... they know better than we do all about these spells.

Incorrect. Spellcraft governs identification of spells being cast. That is not the same as knowledge of spells.

Why would those Druids be against getting money to do so?

Good question, probably because greed for money is particularly urban concept, and all Druids look down on city dwellers. Per the WotC description of the Druid in the PHB.

They're salt merchants. We're a Wizard. Not worried.

Actually no, I made the assumption (you even quoted it, which makes your failure to understand it particularly odd) that if this occurred, and was thus the norm, what would happen. In that event, your competition are wizards.

You've just made a black market source that's probably far cheaper (sell it for 1/10th normal price). Embargoes will do nothing. Basic economics.

Embargoes actually work quite well in real life, something economics consistently fails to model accurately. So please, let's not go looking at economics as an example of truth in anything. More probably, any who flout the embargo are killed, after all in a fantasy world where the social mores are different, murder is an accepted business practice. It would be easy to determine who is doing trade with the rogue wizard/salt merchant and snuff them out, ruining any future dealings.

Most likely, the wizard in question would be killed on sight for a bounty (i.e. hidden crossbowmen crit/kill the wizard as soon as he/she says something like "Hey wanna buy my illegal salt, it's only 1/10th the price!" *thunk thunk*)

These kidnappers clearly don't have their own Wizard to do it already, so they're far weaker than you. I recommend killing them, raising them with Animate Dread Warrior, and getting them to tell you everything, then starting your own evil empire. But that's just me.

Kidnappers in this setting would obviously outthink the wizard and use minor divinations to know when he's asleep, taking him easily (along with all his magical items). Presto, kidnapping 101.

Eggynack:

As JaronK notes, there really must be someone on the planet with the ability to purchase salt in good quantity. It's not really a problem.

But there's no guarantees our wizard is anywhere near teleporting range of said person, nor that some other wizard-merchant hasn't already flooded the market such that no merchant actually wishes to purchase any more salt. "Oh you brought more salt? We're all full up, do you have any (insert random other item here)?"

Nope. You can wish up a magic item of any price with no danger. As wishing for a ring of three wishes is within the given possibilities of wish, that clause never comes into play.

Actually no, the spell is most explicit that such a wish is quite in danger of epic levels of failure. Nothing you've said here is correct.

You're a wizard in the first case, which means that at level 20, the wizard likely has broader spell knowledge than the player does.

Again, entirely incorrect. There's no game mechanic for helping the character out when the player does something irrevocably stupid. Wizards are only as smart as the person playing them.

Seriously, if this is anything like a problem, a disguise could solve the problem trivially.

A pity disguise is a cross-class skill, anything magical would obviously be seen through as most merchants would employ magic to ensure they were dealing only with other licensed guild operatives. (The penalty for doing otherwise being death, obviously)

Seriously, it's frigging salt.

You claimed just earlier that the value never declines no matter how much salt floods the markets. Assuming that were even true, there would be literally unlimited wealth from well established merchants to hire assassins more than capable of killing any wizard.

Thus, infinite cash.

No, that assumes infinite time which, because the wizard is forced to operate in the PMP, doesn't exist. More likely than not a 20th level wizard has better things to do than faff about trying to make a bunch of salt they still haven't figured out how to mine and distribute.

TuggyNE:

Creating magic items, of any value, is on the safe list.

No, "create a magic item" is on the list of safe topics, it's value is not. The spell even goes so far as to give the example of wishing for a powerful magic item likely failing, badly.

oops on the year, but now it's all cleared up.

Kraken:

I, for one, wish to have an adventure based around this mysterious salt mafia that murders its competitors.

This maps pretty similarly to the story of Baldur's Gate

eggynack

2013-12-12, 12:59 AM

Eggynack:
But there's no guarantees our wizard is anywhere near teleporting range of said person, nor that some other wizard-merchant hasn't already flooded the market such that no merchant actually wishes to purchase any more salt. "Oh you brought more salt? We're all full up, do you have any (insert random other item here)?"
What does that even mean? We're at level 20, so we're talking greater teleport, and maybe plane shift if this plane lacks salt merchants. As for market flooding, that's not an actual rule, so it's irrelevant. Market forces have no influence on the price of D&D salt.

Actually no, the spell is most explicit that such a wish is quite in danger of epic levels of failure. Nothing you've said here is correct.
A wish is in danger of being dangerous if the wish doesn't fall into one of the pre-approved categories. As "Create a magic item" is one of the wish options, you are perfectly safe when using it.

Again, entirely incorrect. There's no game mechanic for helping the character out when the player does something irrevocably stupid. Wizards are only as smart as the person playing them.
Look, either the wizard is as smart as his knowledge (arcana) dictates, which means that he'll know about just about every spell in the game, or he'll be as smart as me, which means that he'll know about just about every spell in the game. It's your choice, I guess.

A pity disguise is a cross-class skill, anything magical would obviously be seen through as most merchants would employ magic to ensure they were dealing only with other licensed guild operatives. (The penalty for doing otherwise being death, obviously)

You claimed just earlier that the value never declines no matter how much salt floods the markets. Assuming that were even true, there would be literally unlimited wealth from well established merchants to hire assassins more than capable of killing any wizard.

You have some pretty insane views on what merchantry looks like. I'ma just default to the recursive wish plan, because that operates without any sort of intervention or craziness.

No, that assumes infinite time which, because the wizard is forced to operate in the PMP, doesn't exist. More likely than not a 20th level wizard has better things to do than faff about trying to make a bunch of salt they still haven't figured out how to mine and distribute.
First, who said I'm forced to operate on the prime material? Second, I'm here defining "infinite cash," as the amount of money I need for this, and also other things. It doesn't necessarily conform to actual definitions of infinity, but I was using hyperbole for rhetorical purposes anyway. Suffice to say that all of the money I need for all the spells is mine.

No, "create a magic item" is on the list of safe topics, it's value is not.
If create a magic item is on the list of safe topics, that's it. It includes all values of magic item, unless it puts a strict limitation on the value. It says that I can wish up a magic item, and I wish for an expensive one, and that's all there is to it. Besides that, I can always just wish farm by wishing up a candle of invocation, and cycling through those for all the wishes I need. The methodology was posted earlier in this thread, if I'm not mistaken.

The spell even goes so far as to give the example of wishing for a powerful magic item likely failing, badly.
That's an artifact, rather than a magic item. Thus, it is not an example. I assure you that I'll be sticking to normal magic items.

Edit: Why would wishing for stuff from an efreeti make me an eternal enemy? Gate explicitly states that as the punishment for failing to keep a promise, but this is a short term deal, and I'm not really doing anything to harm the guy.

Double edit: Also, efreeti seem kinda unthreatening. How does he even know what demi-plane I'm astrally projecting from?

AMFV

2013-12-12, 02:41 AM

No of course they aren't all necessary. Of course....unless you need the one that is specific to the situation you're encountering and will die/fail without it.

And as we've pointed out, you can totally have all of them, without even spending all of your wealth by level, so we're fine, even if you don't need all of them you can have all of them anyhow.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-12-12, 02:50 AM

No of course they aren't all necessary. Of course....unless you need the one that is specific to the situation you're encountering and will die/fail without it.

I defy you to put forward a single situation that can be solved only with a single specific obscure spell. A monarch or colleague demanding a demonstration of the spell doesn't count. It has to be a natural situation in which that single spell and only that single spell can solve the problem at hand.

eggynack

2013-12-12, 02:59 AM

And as we've pointed out, you can totally have all of them, without even spending all of your wealth by level, so we're fine, even if you don't need all of them you can have all of them anyhow.
That's not to mention the fact that there are plenty of spells that you're never going to be lost without. For some examples, let us seek out some low rated spells from the necromancy spells of treantmonk's guide, for that is a good place to begin. How often are you going to really need chill touch or reaving aura? When shall you be screwed without the aid of death armor, ray of sickness, life bolt, or spawn screen? Shall you ever be screwed without the aid of prickling torment, spider poison, mind poison, junglerazer, or healing touch?

In situations where your book lacks bestow curse, contagion, touch of years, or seed of undeath, will your heart be tormented by the loss? Would doom wait at your door without such spells as miasma of entropy, blight, or death throes? What of ghoul gauntlet, asks I? Could greater seed of undeath, retributive enervation, or sword of darkness be your guides out of Hades on a cold winter night? How's about heart of stone, greater bestow curse, or skeletal guard? What say you of any 9th level necromancy spell that is not astral projection (which the guide rates oddly poorly despite its borkedness)? This isn't even all the bad necromancy spells in that guide, let alone all the bad necromancy spells in the game, let alone all the bad spells in general. If there's a spell whose presence in your book could represent the thin dividing line between life and death, go right ahead and argue for its presence, but most of these spells lack those kinds of stakes.

Pickford

2013-12-12, 11:47 PM

Eggynack:

What does that even mean? We're at level 20, so we're talking greater teleport, and maybe plane shift if this plane lacks salt merchants. As for market flooding, that's not an actual rule, so it's irrelevant. Market forces have no influence on the price of D&D salt.

We actually hadn't agreed at that level, I was working off a 7th level Wizard myself. There's no meaningful WBL to break once you hit 20, that mini-game, such as it is, is already over.

Markets change based on supply and demand, in the absence of a rule countermanding that, the game world functions as the real world does.

A wish is in danger of being dangerous if the wish doesn't fall into one of the pre-approved categories.

Incorrect, the wish is dangerous if it attempts to exceed the categories in some fashion. Wishing for an extremely powerful magic item is exactly such a violation. This is always dangerous.

Look, either the wizard is as smart as his knowledge (arcana) dictates, which means that he'll know about just about every spell in the game, or he'll be as smart as me, which means that he'll know about just about every spell in the game. It's your choice, I guess.

Knowledge skills don't dictate intelligence, The Intelligence ability does. Having a high stat in no way protects a character from the player behaving foolishly or making the wrong decision.

For example, if you as a player don't understand what the word infinite actually means, then nothing is the game rules protects you from that failure.

AMFV: The question isn't 'if', but rather 'at what cost?'. As shown earlier, the cost in time is meaningfully prohibitive for most species that also wish to adventure.

Kelb_Panthera: Define obscure. (Not in the PHB?...Not often picked from the PHB?) I would hasten to mention your strawman is substantially different than my claim. I said the Wizard is great being able to do all these things, except if they don't have the right spell for the job. I didn't say it was impossible to achieve the goal at all. Just that if the Wizard lacks the correct spell, they may be incapable of achieving said goal.

Obvious example is obvious: The Wizard can't make a chest seem trapped unless they have Leomund's Trap. Well that was all too easy.

ryu

2013-12-12, 11:52 PM

Eggynack:

Incorrect, the wish is dangerous if it attempts to exceed the categories in some fashion. Wishing for an extremely powerful magic item is exactly such a violation. This is always dangerous.

That clause is specific to artifacts. It has nothing at all to do with the actual power or usefulness of the item generated. Nice try.

eggynack

2013-12-12, 11:59 PM

Eggynack:
We actually hadn't agreed at that level, I was working off a 7th level Wizard myself. There's no meaningful WBL to break once you hit 20, that mini-game, such as it is, is already over.
I'm pretty sure we had. Anyway, you don't need nearly as much in the way of salt purchasers at that level. You need to sell maybe half of one wall. Shouldn't be too difficult at that level.

Markets change based on supply and demand, in the absence of a rule countermanding that, the game world functions as the real world does.
Of course there's a rule. There's a price, next to salt, and that's what the price is. It's static and unyielding, and there's no mechanism that can cause its change.

Incorrect, the wish is dangerous if it attempts to exceed the categories in some fashion. Wishing for an extremely powerful magic item is exactly such a violation. This is always dangerous.
How does wishing for a magic item exceed the category of magic items? Power doesn't dictate how much something is a magic item.

Knowledge skills don't dictate intelligence, The Intelligence ability does. Having a high stat in no way protects a character from the player behaving foolishly or making the wrong decision.
Knowledge of arcana depends on knowledge (arcana). If you want me to make the decisions for this character, independent of his intelligence, it is done. Just stop acting like I'm metagaming when it turns out that I'm smarter than you think he should be.

For example, if you as a player don't understand what the word infinite actually means, then nothing is the game rules protects you from that failure.
There's no need to be a pedant about this stuff. We need a certain amount of money, and we can get that much. We can probably get enough to buy all of the items in the game within a reasonable time span, given enough wish looping. It doesn't really matter whether we touch actual infinity.

Obvious example is obvious: The Wizard can't make a chest seem trapped unless they have Leomund's Trap. Well that was all too easy.
First off, why do you need this chest to seem trapped? What's the ultimate goal you're trying to accomplish? Is there really no other solution to whatever the problem is? Second, there's really no other way to make a chest seem trapped? You can't make a permanent image of a trap, or actually trap the chest somehow? I don't know what you're trying to accomplish here exactly, but I don't think you succeeded.

Kelb_Panthera

2013-12-13, 12:03 AM

By obscure I mean not commonly discussed. Your claim was that
No of course they aren't all necessary. Of course....unless you need the one that is specific to the situation you're encountering and will die/fail without it. The second sentence is in direct contradiction to the first. If your claim was as you say rather than that all spells are necessary then you didn't represent it very well. Realistically, you can get through very nearly all situations with judicious application of something from the summon monster line or the polymorph line.

As for your attempt to meet my challenge, fail. You can also make a chest seem to be trapped by actually trapping it. Glyph of warding, fire trap, explosive runes, etc get the same results.

TuggyNE

2013-12-13, 02:48 AM

Obvious example is obvious: The Wizard can't make a chest seem trapped unless they have Leomund's Trap. Well that was all too easy.

Hmm. Permanent spell, level 2, 50 gp; cause a would-be intruder to waste time disarming a trap, can easily be wiped out with dispels. Several ways to accomplish this general function: one is to use alarm (which detects as a magical trap and can be disarmed, but will actually do something useful if not; level 1 and no cost to cast), fire trap (level 3, half the price of phantom trap), or various other trap spells.

None of these are drop-in replacements, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how you'd get a Mission Failure just because you had to actually trap an object instead of pretending to trap it. And if, for whatever reason, you absolutely must have a drop-in replacement, limited wish fixes it, at some expense*. And hmm, I wonder if there's a summonable or callable critter that can do the job too. Probably so.

*Yes, this is a known tactic occasionally recommended for wizardly flexibility in handbooks and the like. It is not merely a rhetorical possibility.

1That said, I think this exercise could use a bit more definition. Let's try this:

If a situation exists in which, due to the natural course of events, a Wizard with a particular spell in their book would be highly likely to avoid or prevent death (of themselves or a party member) that would otherwise be largely unavoidable, then that spell can be considered essential to Wizardly success, and counted toward the minimum number of spells known.
And, of course, if the minimum number of spells known is "too large" a proportion of WBL, we can consider that a hindrance on Wizards' effectiveness.