A candle of invocation has a price of 8,400 gold. The candle can be used to call a pasha who can grant three wishes. Each wish can be sold for 21,000 gold. Is it possible for a character to buy candles and repeat this process until he can buy his own kingdom?
Asked
Active
Viewed 742 times
1
-
Possible duplicate of Can a DM disallow the Candle of Invocation exploit using RAW? – Adeptus Mar 16 '18 at 05:41
-
I don't think this is a duplicate of that question, for two important reasons: You can't wish for another Candle in PF, making the core of the "chain-gate efreets" not work, and this question is asking from the point of view of the player; asking if it's possible, not how to ban it. – DuckTapeAl Mar 16 '18 at 05:47
1 Answers
6
No, for several reasons.
The first reason is that you can't control a Pasha with a Candle of Invocation. The Candle has a caster level of 17, and a Pasha has 18 hit dice. This means that the Pasha isn't automatically controlled when you summon it with a gate spell, and would need to be negotiated with for services.
The second reason is that selling wishes like that isn't as trivial as you make it sound. Finding a buyer for powerful magic like that isn't something that can be done automatically, and being able to pull that trick more than a few times in a row would require some significant DM agreement to hand you unlimited money.
Next is that it isn't necessarily a given that a DM will ignore the 10,000 gp cost of using the summoning side of the Candle's gate ability. It would be kind of weird if you could shave off 6,000 gp off the cost of a gate just by making a Candle of Invocation first, so you might also be on the hook for that material cost as well.
Finally, Pashas have plane shift as an at-will ability, and probably wouldn't take kindly to being repeatedly summoned and forced to grant wishes. Remember that a calling spell like gate is calling an actual creature from somewhere else in the multiverse, and that creature will remember what you've been calling it for.
DuckTapeAl
- 48,648
- 14
- 168
- 258
-
Your heading is misleading: you say No, and it reads as a rejection of the title question, but in reality you are only rejecting the particular approach suggested in the question, when other approaches are entirely plausible. – KRyan Mar 16 '18 at 13:20