PDA

View Full Version : Stating Wishes?



Belial_the_Leveler
2009-11-19, 03:49 AM
Wish-fulfillment can always be warped in intent, unless you wish for the safe results. The safe results are pretty limited; even creating or enhancing an existing magic item is limited; it doesn't say you can wish for "custom" magic items after all and magic items are limited to 200.000 gp. Beyond that, they are epic items instead. (the DM can split hairs, too)
So anyone that wants to get alot out of a wish may aim for the unlimited results. The question is, can anyone state a wish that cannot be perverted?


If you have such a wishing statement you can post it here. Then other ppl can attempt to pervert it. It would be a valuable DM and player tool to amass such wishes and their perversions in one place.

sonofzeal
2009-11-19, 03:53 AM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

Ravens_cry
2009-11-19, 03:57 AM
Nope. Triple triplicate notarized wishing in legalese dense enough to make a devil proud, can be subverted, by the DM simply deciding to subvert it.

The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.

Shademan
2009-11-19, 04:02 AM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

you get it. it is two feet in front of you. in the hands of the current owner...

sonofzeal
2009-11-19, 04:14 AM
you get it. it is two feet in front of you. in the hands of the current owner...
Hence why I specified "unowned". :smallamused:

vegetalss4
2009-11-19, 04:17 AM
Nope. Triple triplicate notarized wishing in legalese dense enough to make a devil proud, can be subverted, by the DM simply deciding to subvert it.

that quote only applies when you try to wish for something more than the safe options

Ravens_cry
2009-11-19, 04:34 AM
that quote only applies when you try to wish for something more than the safe options
In my view, the OP is describing wishing for more then the 'safe options', as you put it.

So anyone that wants to get alot out of a wish may aim for the unlimited results. The question is, can anyone state a wish that cannot be perverted?

Fayd
2009-11-19, 04:44 AM
I wish for this wish spell to succeed.

Doesn't net you anything, but...if it breaks, it'll be fun to see it break. And it's something I would do, just to see what happens.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 04:48 AM
I wish for this wish spell to succeed.

Doesn't net you anything, but...if it breaks, it'll be fun to see it break. And it's something I would do, just to see what happens.

Going from this "I wish for the outcome of any wishes I make to satisfy my intentions as of their formulation."

Then proceed from there.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 05:14 AM
Hence why I specified "unowned". :smallamused:

in the hands of its current guardian...


Going from this "I wish for the outcome of any wishes I make to satisfy my intentions as of their formulation."

Then proceed from there.

Hmm. Lets go with partial completion. There, now any thing you make will satisfy your intentions. Wishing for stuff isn't making it.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 05:23 AM
Hmm. Lets go with partial completion. There, now any thing you make will satisfy your intentions. Wishing for stuff isn't making it.

That isn't partial fulfillment, it's alteration.

dsmiles
2009-11-19, 05:42 AM
As a DM, I see a lot of problems with wishes.
As a soldier, we have a saying K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid).
I find that the simplest wishes are the hardest to twist.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 05:42 AM
That isn't partial fulfillment, it's alteration.

Fulfills part of the sentence. I could have sworn the spell allowed that. However I have a solution.
Partial: "I wish for the outcome of any wishes I make to satisfy my intentions as of their formulation." It works for only 1 wish. The wish you just made.
Another version: You are sent to a magic dead plane so you may never wish again. They will never be made.

Dixieboy
2009-11-19, 05:47 AM
As a DM, I see a lot of problems with wishes.
As a soldier, we have a saying K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple, stupid).
I find that the simplest wishes are the hardest to twist.

Even wishing for "1 gp" can be used against you with terrifying and, in some cases, hilarious results.

The most common, as far as i know, is "The coin appeared inside your *insert organ here*".

And it doesn't get much simpler than wishing for a single coin.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 05:49 AM
Fulfills part of the sentence. I could have sworn the spell allowed that. However I have a solution.
Partial: "I wish for the outcome of any wishes I make to satisfy my intentions as of their formulation." It works for only 1 wish. The wish you just made.
Another version: You are sent to a magic dead plane so you may never wish again. They will never be made.

The first one works sadly, the second would not (it doesn't address the wish at all in fact). That partial fulfillment clause really makes this absurd, I'm unsure I can come up with a way around it. We'll see, maybe I'll get an idea when I sober up.

Honestly though, I generally use wish for the safe stuff. It's to easy to pervert otherwise.

Zen Master
2009-11-19, 05:57 AM
that quote only applies when you try to wish for something more than the safe options

Nonsense. That's just what it says in the book. GM's are entitled to decide whatever they feel like. It's like the 'contract of society', if you're familiar with philosophy. The players put their trust in the GM, who is GM because the players want him to. Thusly, he retains absolute powers, until such a point as when the players no longer want it.

Also, I'm not entirely sure samfundskontrakten translates directly to contract of society, I'm not sure that's the proper term. So if that makes a mishmash of everything, I apologize.

sonofzeal
2009-11-19, 05:57 AM
I think the spirit of the question is, could someone formulate a wish that could not possibly be misinterpreted?

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 05:58 AM
The first one works sadly, the second would not (it doesn't address the wish at all in fact). That partial fulfillment clause really makes this absurd, I'm unsure I can come up with a way around it. We'll see, maybe I'll get an idea when I sober up.

Honestly though, I generally use wish for the safe stuff. It's to easy to pervert otherwise.

I was hard press to come up with a second one. Curse people at work, phone kept ringing. It seemed like a safe answer simply because it resembles the example in the PHB. Your wish was pretty hard to corrupt, I'll give you that.

However: if you can never wish, any wish you make will be fulfilled. You can't do it, so it can't happen wrong.

Ravens_cry
2009-11-19, 06:08 AM
I think the spirit of the question is, could someone formulate a wish that could not possibly be misinterpreted?
Not in human languages, where there is always room for ambiguities and assumptions that a particularly dickish DM can pounce on. A DM should, in my view, only mangle wishes that go outside the 'safe wish' limits, and should try to find a balanced compromise for the others if possible.
Being a person of the peninsular persuasion isn't the DM's job, running the world is.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-19, 06:14 AM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

You get it, and the Epic Wizard who just cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction on it.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 06:15 AM
However: if you can never wish, any wish you make will be fulfilled. You can't do it, so it can't happen wrong.

Being unable to do something doesn't mean that something would be completed in the required manner. It is not in fact relevant to the issue at all. Although you already managed to find a way to corrupt my wish anyways. So lets give this another shot (I'm pretty sure there's something obvious I'm missing in this wish but who cares it's amusing to do this while working on sobering up...)

"I wish that my next wish would be fulfilled as intended as of formulation." followed by my original wish.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 06:17 AM
You get it, and the Epic Wizard who just cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction on it.

I think my favorite part of this is that the wizard had to have been willing. Or he would have gotten a will save, and honestly, what wizard doesn't have a way around saves at 21+ , especially vs mind effecting (make him want to cast a spell)


"I wish that my next wish would be fulfilled as intended as of formulation." followed by my original wish.

Partial fulfillment (whee). You next wish works as I previously said, it works on that one wish.
Hmm. Best I can come up with at the moment.

Also I still maintain removing your ability to make wishes while simultaneously granting your wish of never having corrupted wishes from that point on should work.

sonofzeal
2009-11-19, 06:17 AM
Not in human languages, where there is always room for ambiguities and assumptions that a particularly dickish DM can pounce on. A DM should, in my view, only mangle wishes that go outside the 'safe wish' limits, and should try to find a balanced compromise for the others if possible.
Being a person of the peninsular persuasion isn't the DM's job, running the world is.
It's a fun little thought exercise though.

Splodgey
2009-11-19, 06:23 AM
I always thought that basically items up to around 200k and stat increase wishes suceeded, the rest you pervert as sadistically as possible such as :

the candle, instead of arriving in someone elses hands, arrives 2 feet infront of you.

On the elemental plane of fire, and melts.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-19, 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Temet Nosce View Post
Going from this "I wish for the outcome of any wishes I make to satisfy my intentions as of their formulation."

Then proceed from there.
Hmm. Lets go with partial completion. There, now any thing you make will satisfy your intentions. Wishing for stuff isn't making it.


I'd be happy with that! Now I'm crafting gold out of mud and iron golems out of straw.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 06:34 AM
I'd be happy with that! Now I'm crafting gold out of mud and iron golems out of straw.

I thought of that. Thats why I crossed off as of their formulation. That way you may do it. It will just take 800 times your lifespan.

Vizzerdrix
2009-11-19, 06:36 AM
Oh you clever bugger :smallamused:

Hmm... To be honest, I'd hold the wish granters closest loved one hostage myself. (and by that I mean our DMs cat.... In a sack.)

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 06:38 AM
If I screw a player I like it to be on many, many levels.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 06:49 AM
Partial fulfillment (whee). You next wish works as I previously said, it works on that one wish.
Hmm. Best I can come up with at the moment.

Doesn't work this time, since my wish must specifically work as intended. If the first wish works you pretty much can't mess with the second one (unless I missed something in my wording) :smallwink:


Also I still maintain removing your ability to make wishes while simultaneously granting your wish of never having corrupted wishes from that point on should work.

So, you're saying you'd grant the wish... then do something entirely unrelated? It just doesn't work, by that logic the DM can just say "you die." with any wish for no reason at all.

Simba
2009-11-19, 06:53 AM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

.. at a velocity of 3000 mph, moving in your direction :)

grautry
2009-11-19, 06:54 AM
Not in human languages, where there is always room for ambiguities and assumptions that a particularly dickish DM can pounce on. A DM should, in my view, only mangle wishes that go outside the 'safe wish' limits, and should try to find a balanced compromise for the others if possible.
Being a person of the peninsular persuasion isn't the DM's job, running the world is.

You can probably work around ambiguities by using Lojban(or, in the case of D&D world, Modron) as the language with which you state your wishes. Partial fulfillment however, cannot be so easily circumvented.

But really, the solution to not perverting the intent of the Wish is easy - play a wizard(or another Int based caster). Even if you - the player - can't find a way to clearly and unambiguously express your wish, your character can. By the time he can cast Wish he would be, after all, a 30ish Intelligence genius who makes the super-geniuses of our world look like idiotic children.

Requiring that it's the player who states the Wish perfectly is in that situation sort of like requiring for the skillmonkey player to know how to actually pick locks.

Noble Savant
2009-11-19, 07:02 AM
@Temet
The perversion is simple. You never specified "whose" intention at the time of formulation. In this case, I believe Demogorgon's intents shall be counted. Your second wish will utterly destroy you, or something creative and painful at the least.

@grautry
I really do hate this argument. "My character is smarter then me and thus could figure it out." This is a roleplaying game. You're playing the role of the 30int wizard, he does what you decide he does.

Either way, even 100 int wouldn't help you here. You could be as Book Smart as you want, (and that is what intelligence signifies, how well and how much you have learned, and your ability to use that knowledge), and it still won't help you come up with the perfect wish unless someone wrote, "101 Perfect Wishes: The Complete Guide".

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 07:04 AM
Doesn't work this time, since my wish must specifically work as intended. If the first wish works you pretty much can't mess with the second one (unless I missed something in my wording) :smallwink:

Erm. Maybe I didn't explain that properly. I got confused halfway through my first explanation, and tried again.

Your first wish knows what your next wish is. It grants the interpretation of the second wish as I originally stated. Then you make your second wish. It too only grants it to that wish.

However I can see where this is going..."I wish that my next wish would be fulfilled as intended as of formulation." then whatever you really wanted. Over and over. Just requires 2 wishes to guarantee what you want. Hmm.

Allowing your basis of "So, you're saying you'd grant the wish... then do something entirely unrelated?" (which isn't unreasonable, as I agree and only halfheartedly was arguing that) this wish seems to be incorruptible.


Hmm. As of formulation. I have been thinking on that for a while. Here is my current feeble excuse: To actually make the correct formula for a true wish you will need to state the entirety of existence as you wish. Every single molecule.

This goes off of Merriam-Webster site.
Formulation: : an act or the product of formulating
Formulate: 1 a : to reduce to or express in a formula b : to put into a systematized statement or expression



@grautry
I really do hate this argument. "My character is smarter then me and thus could figure it out." This is a roleplaying game. You're playing the role of the 30int wizard, he does what you decide he does.
While I normally agree (as far as logic puzzles in game, etc so forth) with "my character is smarter," in this case it is much worse. True your wizard can think it is perfect, but deities are infinitely smarter. They seem to like corrupting wishes, and will find a way to corrupt it. Well, except for the stated ones :P

Jan Mattys
2009-11-19, 07:05 AM
Nonsense. That's just what it says in the book. GM's are entitled to decide whatever they feel like. It's like the 'contract of society', if you're familiar with philosophy. The players put their trust in the GM, who is GM because the players want him to. Thusly, he retains absolute powers, until such a point as when the players no longer want it.

Also, I'm not entirely sure samfundskontrakten translates directly to contract of society, I'm not sure that's the proper term. So if that makes a mishmash of everything, I apologize.

I believe "social contract" is the right term.

MickJay
2009-11-19, 07:05 AM
...you get a candle made by Petunia Invocation, a chandler's apprentice, that got lost somewhere.

...you get a used and discarded Candle of Invocation.

...your wish fails to get you any Candles of Invocation, since they're all considered to be owned.

etc

As far as limits and partial fulfillments go, making a wish to make the next wish become fulfilled would, at best, double the power/safe limit of that next wish. You can't get unlimited wealth or power using one Wish, and it stands to reason that using two Wishes will just give you double the benefits of a single Wish.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:06 AM
@Temet
The perversion is simple. You never specified "whose" intention at the time of formulation. In this case, I believe Demogorgon's intents shall be counted. Your second wish will utterly destroy you, or something creative and painful at the least.

Hm, alright thanks for pointing that out. Can you corrupt it once that is dealt with?

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:11 AM
Erm. Maybe I didn't explain that properly. I got confused halfway through my first explanation, and tried again.

Your first wish knows what your next wish is. It grants the interpretation of the second wish as I originally stated. Then you make your second wish. It too only grants it to that wish.

However I can see where this is going..."I wish that my next wish would be fulfilled as intended as of formulation." then whatever you really wanted. Over and over. Just requires 2 wishes to guarantee what you want. Hmm.

Allowing your basis of "So, you're saying you'd grant the wish... then do something entirely unrelated?" (which isn't unreasonable, as I agree and only halfheartedly was arguing that) this wish seems to be incorruptible.

I remain confused as to how that would work , but given your statement afterward I remain content on this part.


Hmm. As of formulation. I have been thinking on that for a while. Here is my current feeble excuse: To actually make the correct formula for a true wish you will need to state the entirety of existence as you wish. Every single molecule.

This goes off of Merriam-Webster site.
Formulation: : an act or the product of formulating
Formulate: 1 a : to reduce to or express in a formula b : to put into a systematized statement or expression


Interesting, but wouldn't a slight change in wording to substitute say "conception" fix that?

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-19, 07:15 AM
You get a note after the first wish: 'Due to lack of resources, we regret that your wish will only be granted after your death. P.S. Time travel and scrying spells will be accounted for, so we recommend you don't try.'

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 07:15 AM
Interesting, but wouldn't a slight change in wording to substitute say "conception" fix that?

Much funnier. You would need to be pregnant, and the second the sperm hits the egg cast wish.
1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or bot


You get a note after the first wish: 'Due to lack of resources, we regret that your wish will only be granted after your death. P.S. Time travel and scrying spells will be accounted for, so we recommend you don't try.'

Time to become a lich.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:20 AM
Much funnier. You would need to be pregnant, and the second the sperm hits the egg cast wish.
1 a (1) : the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or bot

D'oh I walked into that one. Alright lets give this another shot at refinement. "I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept."

MickJay
2009-11-19, 07:33 AM
Ouch. This means your brain is going to be scanned by someone to establish what your intentions actually were. Assume that all your secrets, desires, all your knowledge and spells are now known to some unknown force (even worse if you're asking for the Wish from another being).

While your intentions are now clear, the limit on the power of the Wish still applies. The Wish is fulfilled according to what you asked for, but only to a certain extent.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 07:34 AM
D'oh I walked into that one. Alright lets give this another shot at refinement. "I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept."

Original concept of what? Love? Get used to a ton of faces of your mother.

Duke of URL
2009-11-19, 07:35 AM
"I wish that my next wish would be fulfilled as intended as of formulation." followed by my original wish.

"as of formulation" is unnecessary. I'd replace it with "exactly as I intend".

I agree, however, that permanently making you unable to ever wish for anything again fulfills the original wish. You would need to add a caveat to ensure that you actually get to make another wish. (Not wishing for wishes, just that you have the ability to use a wish that you otherwise provide.)

Simba
2009-11-19, 07:35 AM
"I wish I was intelligent enough to wish for what I really want!"

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 07:38 AM
"I wish I was intelligent enough to wish for what I really want!"

Partial fulfillment: You are now only half as intelligent as you need to be. By a weird coincidence it is your exact intelligence now. Required intelligence may differ from person to person. :P

Although I would probably give you +1 int as it is a direct stated use of wish.

Simba
2009-11-19, 07:41 AM
Partial fulfillment: You are now only half as intelligent as you need to be. By a weird coincidence it is your exact intelligence now. Required intelligence may differ from person to person. :P

Partial fullfillment does not mean exactly half but as close as possible.

MickJay
2009-11-19, 07:41 AM
"I wish I was intelligent enough to wish for what I really want!"

Partial fulfillment: you get a note, in your own, though somewhat shaky, handwriting, that looks like it was torn out from a journal: "I wish I have never made any Wishes".

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:45 AM
Ouch. This means your brain is going to be scanned by someone to establish what your intentions actually were. Assume that all your secrets, desires, all your knowledge and spells are now known to some unknown force (even worse if you're asking for the Wish from another being).

A decent shot there, it's certainly true that it would fulfill the conditions to have the being granting the wish (unless I'm casting it myself in which case it won't work at all (being once again unrelated to the wish)) examine my intentions. Two issues. First is that I'm unsure if having it become aware of everything else would be extraneous or not (I'll allow it since I'm unsure) and second... who cares? My next wish can be for it to be forgotten.


While your intentions are now clear, the limit on the power of the Wish still applies. The Wish is fulfilled according to what you asked for, but only to a certain extent.

Irrelevant, this is specifically about unlimited use wishes.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:47 AM
Original concept of what? Love? Get used to a ton of faces of your mother.

You're grasping at straws there mate. However, just for you assume I inserted "of the wish"

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 07:52 AM
You're grasping at straws there mate. However, just for you assume I inserted "of the wish"

I like straws, especially very long running ones.
Of which wish
Assuming "of my next wish"
Next from which?
Assuming "of my current wish"

Partial fulfillment: the spell must be completed with .1 seconds of the current wish.

Observe my thought process. Isn't it silly?

MickJay
2009-11-19, 07:54 AM
Irrelevant, this is specifically about unlimited use wishes.

Well, as a purely theoretical exercise it's fine ;)

Still, it's impossible to work out what your character's intentions are if you can't express them. And when you do express them, what you said can be misinterpreted anyway. In theory, if this wasn't a game, you could, perhaps make an unlimited Wish. In game terms, it simply doesn't work.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 07:56 AM
I like straws, especially very long running ones.
Of which wish
Assuming "of my next wish"
Next from which?
Assuming "of my current wish"

Partial fulfillment: the spell must be completed with .1 seconds of the current wish.

Observe my thought process. Isn't it silly?

That's not partial fulfillment, it's alteration once again I'm afraid (for it to be partial fulfillment it would have to fulfill part of the wish - instead of adding something (a time limit).)

And trust me, my thoughts are far worse. I should probably just go to sleep, it's dawn here.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-19, 08:13 AM
Time to become a lich.

As a bonus for making you wait so long for the item you wished for, we're also giving it the Undead-Bane enchantment.

EDIT: And you're better off not bothering with some bizarre scheme to become an Outsider, because we have that covered too.

SpikeFightwicky
2009-11-19, 08:28 AM
D'oh I walked into that one. Alright lets give this another shot at refinement. "I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept."

"con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion."

Your next wish is fulfilled as if you were at the age you originally started 'thinking' (your 'original concept'). No matter how precisely you word it, a child's (infant?) mind can't, so the results are guaranteed to end up... weird.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 09:15 AM
That's not partial fulfillment, it's alteration once again I'm afraid (for it to be partial fulfillment it would have to fulfill part of the wish - instead of adding something (a time limit).)

And trust me, my thoughts are far worse. I should probably just go to sleep, it's dawn here.

It is a partial fulfillment though, it will completely fulfill your wish for as long as you can. It however lacks the power to last longer than the .1 second. It just don't got the juice.

Tsk. Fine. It will be grant completely correctly, so long as it is within the normal parameters of wish.

You wished for anything instead of granting that it grants you a smaller subset.

Although I doubt you will agree with that as it is very similar to the above.

Dixieboy
2009-11-19, 09:27 AM
"con·cept (knspt)
n.
1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences.
2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion."

Your next wish is fulfilled as if you were at the age you originally started 'thinking' (your 'original concept'). No matter how precisely you word it, a child's (infant?) mind can't, so the results are guaranteed to end up... weird.

That interpretation would require him to have had that idea* since the second he started thinking.

You could stretch it to "The first time he had this idea", but that would hardly make a difference.

*The wish.

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 09:27 AM
That interpretation would require him to have had that idea since the second he started thinking.

You could stretch it to "The first time he had this idea", but that would hardly make a difference.

You kidding? I've corrupted the wish several times since then.

Lysander
2009-11-19, 09:29 AM
"I wish for a magic sword, a good one, and no funny business or I'll find out where you Wishes live and beat you senseless."

dsmiles
2009-11-19, 09:35 AM
You guys should really check out the "Your Wish Granted...With a Twist" thread over in SMBGs.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 09:36 AM
Tsk. Fine. It will be grant completely correctly, so long as it is within the normal parameters of wish.

You wished for anything instead of granting that it grants you a smaller subset.

Although I doubt you will agree with that as it is very similar to the above.

I have no idea what you just said (except for the first part, which has already been covered). Might just be because I'm exhausted though. Go ahead and restate it or something (although if you are noting it's similar to something we already covered it might be irrelevant).

Dixie already covered Spike's response (in addition what my slight alteration in response to your early post would invalidate Spike's idea anyways). Also, even if it did work well enough to get it back to the first time I had the idea you wouldn't be able to abuse it since the prior wish would prevent such corruption.

Anyways, this is probably my last check before sleep. It's well after dawn now, and I only got five hours sleep yesterday.

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-19, 09:37 AM
"I wish for a magic sword, a good one, and no funny business or I'll find out where you Wishes live and beat you senseless."

You get a magic sword. Upon casting detect alignment, you find out it is Neutral Good. Unfortunately, upon picking it up, you discover it was stolen from a deity, who promptly finds you and destroys you.

Dixieboy
2009-11-19, 09:39 AM
Or, "Upon hearing that you wished for a sword the wish granter deducted that you were, in fact, a martial class, and thus decided not to take your threat seriously"

Mercenary Pen
2009-11-19, 09:42 AM
Or, "Upon hearing that you wished for a sword the wish granter deducted that you were, in fact, a martial class, and thus decided not to take your threat seriously"

Unfortunately for the wish granter, he forgot about Elven weapon proficiency.

Fitz10019
2009-11-19, 10:54 AM
If wishing were done entirely mentally, with Rary's Telepathic Bond for instance, perhaps the results would always be exactly what the wisher intended... except for the pictures of nekked people added to everything. :smalltongue:

drengnikrafe
2009-11-19, 11:16 AM
We are specifically looking for a wish that cannot be twisted, right? How about... "My wish is that this wish will not cause any sort of affect on this, or any other universe in any way."
I'm actually excited to to hear how you guys can twist this one.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-19, 11:21 AM
Partial fulfillment? the Wish runs out of juice after not affecting your universe, because both affecting the universe (by occurring) and not affecting the universe (by not doing anything) causes a Mechanus-Alpha level paradox, thus sending every other universe in the multiverse into irreversible chaos and doom. What sort of alignment shift comes from inflicting mass universicide?:smallcool:


No, it doesn't make sense. But I did invent a new word in the process.:smallsmile:

Thalnawr
2009-11-19, 11:23 AM
Hire a lawyer who plays, tell them what you want to wish for, and have them write out the wish contract. Then RP it as your wizard having done that in the game...

BobVosh
2009-11-19, 11:23 AM
We are specifically looking for a wish that cannot be twisted, right? How about... "My wish is that this wish will not cause any sort of affect on this, or any other universe in any way."
I'm actually excited to to hear how you guys can twist this one.

Time stops. Forever. For cause and effect you need time.

Meh sleep time...

Lysander
2009-11-19, 11:29 AM
We are specifically looking for a wish that cannot be twisted, right? How about... "My wish is that this wish will not cause any sort of affect on this, or any other universe in any way."
I'm actually excited to to hear how you guys can twist this one.

Technically you just speaking out loud is an effect. You get erased from reality so you never make your wish, and thus it never exists and has no effect.


Ok, how about this one:

I wish for that boulder that I am pointing at right now with my right hand to transmute to pure 24 karat gold as part of an instantaneous transmutation process that does not harm anything or alter anything other than the boulder's material.

And you know, you can deliberately wish for bad things. So how about this:

I wish that every living thing that exists will die right now.

MickJay
2009-11-19, 12:04 PM
The rock transmutes to gold. Of course, there's the energy cost, plus the transmutation doesn't have to be 100% efficient. You end up with a piece of gold of value equal or less than 15000 gold.

Second: Wish is not powerful enough to do that. The number of targets you specified (all living beings) is too high. I'd say all living beings just have been affected by a save-or-die with save difficulty so low that they all pass it. Alternatively, the power of the Wish is exhausted by killing the wisher, OR it starts with killing the wisher, but after his death, the effect stops.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-19, 12:23 PM
That isn't partial fulfillment, it's alteration.

Partial Fulfillment is alteration.

For example:

Wish as made: "I wish for all of my wishes to be fullfilled completely and to my intent, rather than the intent of any other force or entity."

Wish as fulfilled: "I wish for my next wish to be fulfilled completely and to my intent, so long as that effect is no more powerful than a 9th and a 7th level spell combined."

Yes it's altered to provide a lesser effect. That's what a partial fulfillment is.

You wish for punch and pie, you get punch. Pie is altered out.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-19, 12:30 PM
Even wishing for "1 gp" can be used against you with terrifying and, in some cases, hilarious results.

The most common, as far as i know, is "The coin appeared inside your *insert organ here*".

And it doesn't get much simpler than wishing for a single coin.

See that there is cheating. The DM isn't even pretending to follow the rules.

It says wishing for golds is a safe option if below 15, 001 gps.

t_catt11
2009-11-19, 01:19 PM
If I may be so bold, let me point out that it is commonly accepted that wishing for more wishes, or wishing for the outcome of a future wish, is disallowed. This may not be RAW, but it is certainly RUCS (rules under common sense).



Second: Wish is not powerful enough to do that. The number of targets you specified (all living beings) is too high. I'd say all living beings just have been affected by a save-or-die with save difficulty so low that they all pass it. Alternatively, the power of the Wish is exhausted by killing the wisher, OR it starts with killing the wisher, but after his death, the effect stops.

This.

chiasaur11
2009-11-19, 01:37 PM
If I may be so bold, let me point out that it is commonly accepted that wishing for more wishes, or wishing for the outcome of a future wish, is disallowed. This may not be RAW, but it is certainly RUCS (rules under common sense).


By the present uses of "partially fulfilled" I'd say that sense left the building a long time ago.

It's been said already in this thread, but I think it bears repeating. With the partially fulfillment clause left in as is, and given the way a DM that doesn't allow even the "safe" wishes to be safe tends to play it, every wish can (and, given the whole no safe wishes thing, probably will) be an invitation to ruin your character in whatever random fashion strikes his or her fancy.

Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

Lysander
2009-11-19, 01:48 PM
Maybe this is the only possible wish:

"I wish, all right, do whatever you want."

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 03:01 PM
"I wish that my next wish that would have been fulfilled to my intentions as per my original concept of the wish without me having made this wish in the first place would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of the wish."

Partial Fulfillment.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-11-19, 03:12 PM
If I may be so bold, let me point out that it is commonly accepted that wishing for more wishes, or wishing for the outcome of a future wish, is disallowed.

[Citation Needed]

Xey42
2009-11-19, 03:38 PM
"I wish for X in the way in which i see this wish resolving itself, exactly as i intend for it to."

Its a self contained wish that puts the outcome of X in your hands instead of the DMs. The idea being that it cover any and all eventualities in the only way its impossible to misinterpret and alter, which is, when you completely control all outcomes.

(Ok, your X appears infront of you with its epic guardian about to beat you into a pulp. -Sorry, no, my wish clearly stated that this wish would work out exactly the way i wanted and i had no intention of any nastiness like this being involved. try again.)

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 03:46 PM
"I wish for X in the way in which i see this wish resolving itself, exactly as i intend for it to."

Its a self contained wish that puts the outcome of X in your hands instead of the DMs. The idea being that it cover any and all eventualities in the only way its impossible to misinterpret and alter, which is, when you completely control all outcomes.

(Ok, your X appears in front of you with its epic guardian about to beat you into a pulp. -Sorry, no, my wish clearly stated that this wish would work out exactly the way i wanted and i had no intention of any nastiness like this being involved. try again.)

Any loopholes in the actual wish still can allow for corruption, as you will certainly see it happen that way, and you obviously stated it as you intended, so as long as what you stated happens, any embellishments are perfectly in line with the wish.

Fiery Diamond
2009-11-19, 04:32 PM
Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

Okay, where is this quote from? I recognize it but I can't place it.

Alex112524
2009-11-19, 04:46 PM
Okay, where is this quote from? I recognize it but I can't place it.

How about a hint? Global Thermonuclear War and Tic Tac Toe.

MickJay
2009-11-19, 04:46 PM
Okay, where is this quote from? I recognize it but I can't place it.

War games, the AI's line.

The Glyphstone
2009-11-19, 05:00 PM
"I wish for X in the way in which i see this wish resolving itself, exactly as i intend for it to."

Its a self contained wish that puts the outcome of X in your hands instead of the DMs. The idea being that it cover any and all eventualities in the only way its impossible to misinterpret and alter, which is, when you completely control all outcomes.

(Ok, your X appears infront of you with its epic guardian about to beat you into a pulp. -Sorry, no, my wish clearly stated that this wish would work out exactly the way i wanted and i had no intention of any nastiness like this being involved. try again.)

Does X fall under the list of 'safe wishes'? If not, then the partial fulfillment clause gets to kick in again, and it doesn't even have to stretch anything, just [run wish.exe] at the point where you said "itself", without waiting for you to finish the sentence.


"I wish for X in the way in which i see this wish resolving itself"

And you can get absolutely anything, covered by an Epic-level illusion that makes it look like what you wanted, since that's what you 'see'.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-19, 05:02 PM
War games, the AI's line.


and War games 2 with that female one. They got help from the old male one.

Lord_Gareth
2009-11-19, 05:05 PM
Lemme give this a try here....

"I wish for a sentient servant, who will willingly aid me in my life, travels, and hardships, and that this servant would not willingly betray me by action or inaction, and will do its best to prevent indirect harm to myself as a consequence of its actions or inactions, and that this servant would have power comprable to, but less than, my own; this servant shall appear before me, created whole and complete, with the knowledge that its existence is due to this spell, without causing harm direct or indirect to myself or any other life form due to its creation and manifestation."

Zeful
2009-11-19, 05:07 PM
I think the spirit of the question is, could someone formulate a wish that could not possibly be misinterpreted?

No, partial or literal fulfillment is encouraged for wishes beyond what is specified.

You could provide a wish with dozens of pages of legalese, and the spell can ignore parts of it.

The wishes that are "safe" won't be misinterpreted, but that doesn't mean they can't be.

erikun
2009-11-19, 06:20 PM
Lemme give this a try here....

"I wish for a sentient servant, who will willingly aid me in my life, travels, and hardships, and that this servant would not willingly betray me by action or inaction, and will do its best to prevent indirect harm to myself as a consequence of its actions or inactions, and that this servant would have power comprable to, but less than, my own; this servant shall appear before me, created whole and complete, with the knowledge that its existence is due to this spell, without causing harm direct or indirect to myself or any other life form due to its creation and manifestation."
You get a berserking Clay Golem. Have fun.
("Willing" and "capable" are two different things.)

Belial_the_Leveler
2009-11-19, 06:22 PM
I wish for that boulder that I am pointing at right now with my right hand to transmute to pure 24 karat gold as part of an instantaneous transmutation process that does not harm anything or alter anything other than the boulder's material.

a) The transmutation is instantaneous; the effect lasts only for an instant then wears off. (literal fulfillment)
b) The 1-ton boulder transforms to 1/100 pounds of gold; you never stated the amount of gold it would transform to. (perversion of intent)
c) The transmutation transforms the boulder into gold then melts and boils it away instantly, making it still 100% gold but utterly worthless. (perversion of intent)
d) The boulder turns to gold... then back to boulder. Turning to gold was only part of the transmutation, see. (literal fulfillment+perversion of intent)
e) The boulder remains as is. It will turn into gold eventually. "Eventually" being a couple billion years. (perversion of intent; time was never specified)
f) The boulder turns into pure 24 karat gold. It is brown and utterly worthless. It turns out, somewhere in the multiverse, in some language, the word "gold" means "clay". (perversion; you never specified according to whose definition of gold the transformation would work)


"My wish is that this wish will not cause any sort of affect on this, or any other universe in any way."
1) Your wish alters the past. It "will" not cause any effect; it has already caused one. (altering the very recent past-such as a single roll in the previous round-is a safe function of Wish BTW)
2) You are Balefired; killed 1 round before you made the wish. Consequences and memories of your actions are also removed. You can't be raised or ressurected. Since you were obliterated before you made the wish that obliterated you, the wish has no effect on this or any other universe. Paradox effect is up to the DM (treat this as a Time Regression + Unname contingent effect combo. Actual cost is less than 25.000 gp to craft so Wish can safely do it)

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-19, 06:31 PM
You get a berserking Clay Golem. Have fun.
("Willing" and "capable" are two different things.)

Nah, a Permanent invisible servant, or a Beget Bogun spell is in line with the effects.

You could even receive one of the lesser figurines of wondrous power.

The effect CAN be fulfulled by the listed effects of a wish, without perversion, as long as he's not asking for something too powerful. Heck even if he asked for a Solar, that'd just be 2 wishes. Wishing for a piece of a solar, such as a lock of hair (within the stated value of a nonmagical item), and wishing for a simulacrum of said solar.

erikun
2009-11-19, 06:39 PM
True, but I thought the point of the thread was "Is there any wish that cannot be preverted." Stating that a wish can be fulfilled as-intended doesn't prove that it can't be perverted.

And yeah, I'd probably give him a permanent unseen servant with a wish like that - although it is unnecessarily wordy and specific. Trying that same wish too many times, though, will get you something nasty in response. :smallannoyed:

The Glyphstone
2009-11-19, 06:50 PM
You get a berserking Clay Golem. Have fun.
("Willing" and "capable" are two different things.)

Didn't he specify sentient? Golems are mindless - for that matter, so is an Unseen Servant. A Bogun or a Figurine of Wondrous Power would qualify though.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-19, 09:09 PM
Partial Fulfillment is alteration.

You make a fair point, I worded that wrong (my fault there). However if you can simply substitute another effect not included in the wording then this game is pointless, so please try to subvert it using the wording as is.


Partial Fulfillment.

See above. Please try to subvert the wish as is, instead of creating a new one.

Zeful
2009-11-19, 09:42 PM
It's a wish that on it's own does nothing. It can't be fulfilled without another wish to act on.

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 12:29 AM
You make a fair point, I worded that wrong (my fault there). However if you can simply substitute another effect not included in the wording then this game is pointless, so please try to subvert it using the wording as is.

We are trying to corrupt the wish as per D&D rules. One of its examples is to send someone to another plane which can't be found, and freeze them in time. They wished for immortality.

grautry
2009-11-20, 04:29 AM
@grautry
I really do hate this argument. "My character is smarter then me and thus could figure it out." This is a roleplaying game. You're playing the role of the 30int wizard, he does what you decide he does.

So what?

Do you have to roleplay every single minute detail of every single action that your character takes? Nope, you can generalize. For example, instead of saying:
"I open the door to my house, take out the key, put it in the keyhole, close the door, go down the stairs, use another key on my car, open the door, close it, start up the engine.... <directions here>.... and arrive at Walmart."
you can say:
"I'm going to Walmart."

Both are perfectly roleplayed in-character responses.

Similarly, you can say every single minute detail of any wish you make, iron-clad legalese included or you can simply state your general intentions for a wish and say that your character works out the ambiguities out(in Modron, preferably).


Either way, even 100 int wouldn't help you here. You could be as Book Smart as you want, (and that is what intelligence signifies, how well and how much you have learned, and your ability to use that knowledge), and it still won't help you come up with the perfect wish unless someone wrote, "101 Perfect Wishes: The Complete Guide".

By D&D definition Int is the ability to learn, sure, but it's also the ability to reason. Which, by definition, includes thinking in a logical manner, drawing conclusions and judgements and the "the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought". Elminating ambiguities from a statement most certainly falls under 'logical thought'.

But even if Intelligence is not the attribute which would help you with such a situation, all you need to do is change my statement to "Play a Wisdom-based caster", since those two stats are the only possible choices.

Alex112524
2009-11-20, 05:29 AM
See above. Please try to subvert the wish as is, instead of creating a new one.

I fulfilled your wish, just potentially not on the wish that you thought you were going to get it on, thus partial fulfillment, your wish as written does not have any effect. To reiterate, you get the effect you asked for, but at a different time than you wanted, the wish may not be corrupted, as it goes through as intended, but it is defeated, as it doesn't work when you wanted it to, in fact, only when it wont have any effect. Also you didn't specify that by your next wish that you didn't mean the next wish that would have been fulfilled as you intended without you having made this wish in the first place, so I assume that's what you meant :smallbiggrin:

Acanous
2009-11-20, 05:46 AM
"I wish Iya! Iya! Cthuhlu F'thagn!"

<-Once did this, specifically to end a campeign.

Fortuna
2009-11-20, 05:59 AM
Although it is moderately late and I am multitasking, I am forced to wonder whether recursive logic of the type used in Godel's Incompleteness Theorem would be useful in this situation. I shall ponder overnight and try to post a more fleshed out version in the morning.

Jan Mattys
2009-11-20, 06:04 AM
So what?

Do you have to roleplay every single minute detail of every single action that your character takes? Nope, you can generalize. For example, instead of saying:
"I open the door to my house, take out the key, put it in the keyhole, close the door, go down the stairs, use another key on my car, open the door, close it, start up the engine.... <directions here>.... and arrive at Walmart."
you can say:
"I'm going to Walmart."

Both are perfectly roleplayed in-character responses.

Similarly, you can say every single minute detail of any wish you make, iron-clad legalese included or you can simply state your general intentions for a wish and say that your character works out the ambiguities out(in Modron, preferably).



By D&D definition Int is the ability to learn, sure, but it's also the ability to reason. Which, by definition, includes thinking in a logical manner, drawing conclusions and judgements and the "the power of intelligent and dispassionate thought". Elminating ambiguities from a statement most certainly falls under 'logical thought'.

But even if Intelligence is not the attribute which would help you with such a situation, all you need to do is change my statement to "Play a Wisdom-based caster", since those two stats are the only possible choices.

LOL
Let's play your game.
You, the player, are roleplaying a INT 30 wizard.
Me, the DM, is roleplaying the Laws of Logic and Cosmos, and the hidden secret Laws of Magic that pervert Wishes.

You say that you have Int 12 but you should be able to state the Wish as an INT 30 wizard.
I say that I have Int 12 but I should be able to pervert your Wish as an INT of over nine thousand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerLevels?from=Main.OverNineThousand) Overdeity of Magic.

Suddenly, you are turned to ash, then reshaped into sentient fried chicken covered in honey, and assaulted by hungry ants. It takes 4 hours for you to be devoured, and your conscience resides in the very last molecule of the chicken, so you can enjoy the whole thing before fading to black. OH THE PAIN.

When you, out of character, ask "why? How could you pervert my Wish into THAT???", my reply out of character will be "I don't know, my puny INT 12 can't imagine how... but I figured my in-character INT of over nine thousand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerLevels?from=Main.OverNineThousand) could find a way.

Really, you better be careful with what you ask. You might get it.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 06:07 AM
I fulfilled your wish, just potentially not on the wish that you thought you were going to get it on, thus partial fulfillment, your wish as written does not have any effect. To reiterate, you get the effect you asked for, but at a different time than you wanted, the wish may not be corrupted, as it goes through as intended, but it is defeated, as it doesn't work when you wanted it to, in fact, only when it wont have any effect. Also you didn't specify that by your next wish that you didn't mean the next wish that would have been fulfilled as you intended without you having made this wish in the first place, so I assume that's what you meant :smallbiggrin:

To get that result you would have to change the wording however (specifically you'd have to add a clause to change the stated time). As worded it is indeed noted to occur at the next wish (which has a clear meaning). I do not need to specify that words mean what they mean (otherwise we get into an infinite loop of trying to define what each word means with more words which is... not only pointless and very very bizarre, but a complete non sequitur).

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 06:11 AM
To get that result you would have to change the wording however (specifically you'd have to add a clause to change the stated time). As worded it is indeed noted to occur at the next wish (which has a clear meaning). I do not need to specify that words mean what they mean (otherwise we get into an infinite loop of trying to define what each word means with more words which is... not only pointless and very very bizarre, but a complete non sequitur).

Your next is still that. Adding a clause to the wish is to describe the result, we can't describe a result while using exactly the same words. So long as you make your next wish within an allowed time frame (due to the limitations on the power of the spell) then you can get a completely uncorrupted wish. So as long as your next wish is made within <1/2 a second you are good to go.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 06:18 AM
Your next is still that. Adding a clause to the wish is to describe the result, we can't describe a result while using exactly the same words. So long as you make your next wish within an allowed time frame (due to the limitations on the power of the spell) then you can get a completely uncorrupted wish. So as long as your next wish is made within <1/2 a second you are good to go.

You'd have to insert more text for that, as at present my wish is worded all or nothing and unrelated to time (which is part of why I worded it that way, I tried to keep it as on/off as possible to deny partial fulfillment attempts). So you'd be filling another wish, not partially fulfilling mine. A good shot, but I think you tried it earlier Bob. Try a new one? I want to proceed with my wish optimization (which is how I view this).

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 06:33 AM
Could you restate it? I'm having trouble finding it.

However partial fulfillment still works with adding a timelimit. You want it to be whenever your next wish is. The spell grants it to your next wish within a timeframe. You keep saying we can't alter the wish at all, but that is literally what a partial fulfillment is. An alteration to the wish. I wish for all the gold in the world, I instead get the closest 10,000 GP teleported to me. I ask to win every race in the next year. I instead win 1 race within the current month.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 06:43 AM
Could you restate it? I'm having trouble finding it.

However partial fulfillment still works with adding a timelimit. You want it to be whenever your next wish is. The spell grants it to your next wish within a timeframe. You keep saying we can't alter the wish at all, but that is literally what a partial fulfillment is. An alteration to the wish. I wish for all the gold in the world, I instead get the closest 10,000 GP teleported to me. I ask to win every race in the next year. I instead win 1 race within the current month.

Right, but those have inbuilt quantities. They're things which fills part of what is asked by granting a portion of the quantity asked for. My wish does not refer to time at all, it's simply not part of the wish. You'd have to insert a qualifier for a specific amount of time and then after that grant part of the qualifier. At which point it's no longer the same wish, so it's not a fulfillment at all. Anyways, one moment while I repost it.

"I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of that wish."

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 06:44 AM
Right, but those have inbuilt quantities. They're things which fills part of what is asked by granting a portion of the quantity asked for. My wish does not refer to time at all, it's simply not part of the wish. You'd have to insert a qualifier for a specific amount of time and then after that grant part of the qualifier. At which point it's no longer the same wish, so it's not a fulfillment at all. Anyways, one moment while I repost it.

"I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of that wish."

How does it now refer to time?

Cuz its fun, definition time(more time references!)Next: following: immediately following in time or order;

My emphasis

Jan Mattys
2009-11-20, 06:46 AM
Right, but those have inbuilt quantities. They're things which fills part of what is asked by granting a portion of the quantity asked for. My wish does not refer to time at all, it's simply not part of the wish. You'd have to insert a qualifier for a specific amount of time and then after that grant part of the qualifier. At which point it's no longer the same wish, so it's not a fulfillment at all. Anyways, one moment while I repost it.

"I wish that my next wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of that wish."

I'd add "would ONLY fulfill".
Because you know, creative genies can get incrdibly mean in adding effects :smallbiggrin:

Also, you better find a way to differentiate wish and Wish. I think it's VERY important that it's clear you mean "the next Wish spell I cast". Because if you don't, you would end up getting something you want almost immediatly after stating your first wish. Which could be just a cookie, if you're hungry.

DMfromTheAbyss
2009-11-20, 06:52 AM
Can't be done with human language, ambiguity and rules as written.

However in general your best bet is to keep it simple and stick to the standard effects listed in the spell.. the ability to alter one save/roll of the previous round alone is enough to break a game.. though it gets real fun when another wish from another wizard then cancels out your wish...

I wish he had made the save and was still up.
I wish he hadn't..
I wish He did..
Wish he Didn't

Hey guys why am I suddenly standing next to my own corpse?
:voice of Deity of magic: Expedience

Killer Angel
2009-11-20, 07:01 AM
funny discussion, but remember one thing.
If the DM thinks that the wish is OK and balanced, he will approve the wish, even if is bad-phrased.
If the DM thinks that the player is trying to be a jerk or the wish is unbalanced, he will not fulfills it, even if good-phrased, and will pervert the player's idea.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 07:15 AM
How does it now refer to time?

Cuz its fun, definition time(more time references!)Next: following: immediately following in time or order;

My emphasis

Hm, so you wish to interpret next as "immediately following in time"? I'd still say that doesn't work however to get this to proceed to other points I will alter the wording slightly.

"I wish that my subsequent wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of that wish."

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 07:17 AM
I'd add "would ONLY fulfill".
Because you know, creative genies can get incrdibly mean in adding effects :smallbiggrin:

Also, you better find a way to differentiate wish and Wish. I think it's VERY important that it's clear you mean "the next Wish spell I cast". Because if you don't, you would end up getting something you want almost immediatly after stating your first wish. Which could be just a cookie, if you're hungry.

Already been discussed, if extra stuff can be tacked onto the wish without asking then the first wish will fail automatically.

And nah, I'll just be careful.

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 07:22 AM
Hm, so you wish to interpret next as "immediately following in time"? I'd still say that doesn't work however to get this to proceed to other points I will alter the wording slightly.

"I wish that my subsequent wish would fulfill my intentions as per my original concept of that wish."

Same problem. subsequent :Following in time or order; "subsequent developments"

*edit* Also my other suggestion still works. Your next wish won't be corrupted as long as it falls within the normal guidelines of wish. Like the PHB list.

Temet Nosce
2009-11-20, 07:42 AM
Same problem. subsequent :Following in time or order; "subsequent developments"

*edit* Also my other suggestion still works. Your next wish won't be corrupted as long as it falls within the normal guidelines of wish. Like the PHB list.

Bloody... I used dictionary.com, which has no mention of that nonsense. Very well I shall exert myself even though it still doesn't work (please at least try to pervert the actual wish while I locate a word that works)

And... crap, I actually hadn't thought that through as a definition rather than just mentioning something unrelated to the subject. If we use Wish as listed in the PHB as a meaning of the word wish then yes, that pretty much ends the entire sequence (since there's no way to alter out the word wish). However if we use Wish the word then it's even worse due to how many meaning it has... This was ill conceived on my part, I knew I overlooked something obvious.

Ok, I must bow out with this wish. It won't work, unless I can completely cut the word from it which isn't doable. Thanks for your help working that out Bob, and I'll try to come up with something else later (albeit given the way this works it may be impossible unless I resort to an artificial language with only one possible meaning).

Edit: Assuming the words "I wish" must be in any wish this challenge is no longer beatable.

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 07:50 AM
Bloody... I used dictionary.com, which has no mention of that nonsense. Very well I shall exert myself even though it still doesn't work (please at least try to pervert the actual wish while I locate a word that works)

And... crap, I actually hadn't thought that through as a definition rather than just mentioning something unrelated to the subject. If we use Wish as listed in the PHB as a meaning of the word wish then yes, that pretty much ends the entire sequence (since there's no way to alter out the word wish). However if we use Wish the word then it's even worse due to how many meaning it has... This was ill conceived on my part, I knew I overlooked something obvious.

Ok, I must bow out with this wish. It won't work, unless I can completely cut the word from it which isn't doable. Thanks for your help working that out Bob, and I'll try to come up with something else later (albeit given the way this works it may be impossible unless I resort to an artificial language with only one possible meaning).

Edit: Assuming the words "I wish" must be in any wish this challenge is no longer beatable.

Victory is mine! AHAH! Lol, just kidding. Been fun, and unlike most wish threads it actually took a little time to corrupt.

One Step Two
2009-11-20, 08:42 AM
The spell wish does indeed have a verbal Component, but do you need to "proclaim to the universe" said wish, in the manner of "I wish for", or is it just a matter of convincing the DM to allow your request after your character utters "Wish" as his spell?

If we assume that as a spellcaster the verbal component of wish is simply that one word, your intent of casting the wish is laid bare from your heart of hearts for the gods of magic, or laws of the universe to interperet as best they can. If making a wish within the confines of the given critera, for example wishing for 25000gp worth of Onyx to create an especially large Undead, and needing to do so expediently, then the wish is granted without question.

However, if this wish exceeds the critera, you are now pushing the very limits of the spell and this can cause "a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment", because you are using a spell. I emphasise this because while it is a powerful effect it is still a spell created by mortals, it is not a Divine Ability, it is an artifice of the arcane, and is limited in what it can do.

Wish as a spell irked me because people see it as a thought exercise to beat something that has purposed limits. I like miracle because your god can say "No" if he feels it necessary. If wishes were something rare and elusive, say from a Genie, or making pacts with devils, where they had little limitation in what they do, then yes this exercise makes sense. However those beings can still exact a cost for this service.

But I've veered off where I was going, so back on track:

I had a very simple way of dealing with wishes when I made them with my GM, I showed him good faith, and in time when I was the GM, it was returned.

Making a perfect wish requires something more than being hyper-attentive to semantics and legal qualifiers, it requires you to make a wish you know can benefit not only you, but your story.

I recieved a ring of three wishes once, with one charge left as a reward for my Paladins deeds, and I simply wished for the blessing of Tyr to always be on my sword, and guide my hand to justice. As a result, my GM made my favourite +3 bastard sword into a Legacy weapon, it was more than I ever expected but a great gesture, that by making a wish that suited my character, and not the greed of a player, that I can get something cool, and something to fuel the plot.

Sorry if this came off rantish, but I just wanted to add my little story to this thread.

dsmiles
2009-11-20, 09:12 AM
Let's use a little common sense here, k?

Question 1: Is the player trying to break the campaign with his/her wish?
Choice 1: Yes. Subvert the wish.
Choice 2: No. See Question 2.

Question 2: Is the player trying to break his/her character with said wish?
Choice 1: Yes. Subvert the wish, or partially fulfill it.
Choice 2: No. See Question 3.

Question 3: Is the player trying to out-power the other characters with the wish?
Choice 1: Yes. Partially fulfill the wish, or subvert it.
Choice 2: No. See Question 4.

Question 4: Is the player being selfish with his/her wish?
Choice 1: Yes. Partially fulfill the wish.
Choice 2: No. See Question 5.

Question 5: Is the player being generous and/or furthering the campaign?
Choice 1: Yes. Fulfill the wish as intended.
Choice 2: No. You must not have read the rest of the questions first. See Question 1.

I mean, in all fairness, these are good criteria, IMO, for wish fulfillment. They're fair to the player, fair to the party, and fair to the campaign story. That's really what we were getting at here wasn't it?

Alex Star
2009-11-20, 09:33 AM
... I'm not terribly good with stat blocks, but why not stat out a creature capable of granting your wish and incapable of perverting it and wish that creature into existence exactly as it's stat block is written. I'll get to a few caveats of this wording in a moment.

I'd simply make sure the creature has the following properties.
(I'm not sure whether the abilities would be supernatural or whatnot so you guys can put that part together)


Time-Lost: A Time-Lost creature is not bound to the normal limits of time and is capable of existing at all places and times simultaneously, without disrupting the fabric of the universe, or multi-verse.

Perfect Harmony: This creatures alignment is tailored to that of whatever being knows of it's existence, This creatures alignment can-not be corrupted by any means.

Subjective Existence: This creature exists so long as one being on any plane at any time is aware of its existence.

Limited Awareness: Only one being or collective of beings(described as any group of beings sharing one mind) at a time on any plane is capable of being aware of this creatures existence. And that being remains aware of this creatures existence until this creature is dismissed by the following verbal command. "I wish I was no long aware of your existence"

Perfect Awareness: This creature is automatically aware of any being that is currently aware of it's existence.

Loyal subject: This creature is always bound to the will of whatever being knows of it's existence.

Perfect Wish: At-will this creature can grant Perfect Wishes that are not bound by the limitations of the "wish" spell. Perfect Wishes are always granted in their entirety and to the declared intent of the being making the wish. As this creature possesses the "Time-Lost" property it immediately knows if at any point in the future or past the wish will be corrupted and will automatically account for such a corruption so that it does not occur, performing if need be an unlimited number of Perfect Wishes that will without fail inevitably stave off corruption.


I'm sure I could throw on a few more abilities but I think this covers most of the bases, feel free to add more if you'd like.

The next step is obvious, in the "behavioral" section of the stat block simply write in exactly how you want the creature to behave. It automatically contacts whatever being is aware of it's existence. At this point it informs the being of it's ability to grant wishes, and of it's method of dismissal. It also informs the being that he/she is the only one aware of it's existence and any other special powers that it possesses.


Now your initial wish is simple.

"I wish to be aware of the existence of this creature" And hand the stat block to the DM.

The big caveat is making sure the "Collective of Beings" is in there Otherwise this wish is easily corrupted by your DM saying either only you or only your character are aware of the creatures existence, however since you and your character share one mind this little problem is eliminated.

Once the creature exists and you are the only one aware of it you have access to whatever you want. No one can stop you since no one other than you is aware that the creature exists.

Now I'm sure that the way I've written this can be corrupted, however, I'm also certain that this is the path to making a wish that truly can not be corrupted.

MickJay
2009-11-20, 09:40 AM
The DM hands you back the sheet and says "One Wish doesn't have sufficient power to create a Perfect Wish fulfilling machine. Your Wish is only partially fulfilled, the missing bits are the ability to cast Perfect Wishes, loyalty and alignment clauses" :smalltongue:

@Jan Mattys: very good summary of what should happen if someone tries to use their character's Int to get what they want :smallbiggrin:

Alex Star
2009-11-20, 09:44 AM
The DM hands you back the sheet and says "One Wish doesn't have sufficient power to create a Perfect Wish fulfilling machine. Your Wish is only partially fulfilled, the missing bits are the ability to cast Perfect Wishes, loyalty and alignment clauses" :smalltongue:

@Jan Mattys: very good summary of what should happen if someone tries to use their character's Int to get what they want :smallbiggrin:

Okay so outside of Rule 0 you have no other way to corrupt the wish?

And you do realize that you created a creature still bound to my knowledge of it's existence that's capable of knowing all events that will ever happen throughout history the present and the future, that's bound to my specifically defined behavioral patterns...? While Rule 0 corrupting the wish still managed to break the entire game :)

I suppose the idea of the exercise is to make a wish that can not be corrupted outside of Rule 0. I mean we all accept the inherent power of Rule 0 and that it is the defining law of D&D... The DM says no the answer is no. The DM says yes the answer is yes.

Alex Star
2009-11-20, 09:53 AM
I mean, in all fairness, these are good criteria, IMO, for wish fulfillment. They're fair to the player, fair to the party, and fair to the campaign story. That's really what we were getting at here wasn't it?


Like much of the conjecture that takes place on this board it's in theory only. The idea isn't to actually make a wish but to see if you can make a game breaking wish that can only be corrupted by DM Fiat.

BobVosh
2009-11-20, 10:00 AM
Okay so outside of Rule 0 you have no other way to corrupt the wish?

And you do realize that you created a creature still bound to my knowledge of it's existence that's capable of knowing all events that will ever happen throughout history the present and the future, that's bound to my specifically defined behavioral patterns...? While Rule 0 corrupting the wish still managed to break the entire game :)

I suppose the idea of the exercise is to make a wish that can not be corrupted outside of Rule 0. I mean we all accept the inherent power of Rule 0 and that it is the defining law of D&D... The DM says no the answer is no. The DM says yes the answer is yes.

How is that rule 0? That is RAW, corrupt the wish. You got parts of the creature, hence partial fulfillment. Moreover he didn't make it speak, or capable of coherent though, it has no body so can't be targeted with target spells, and other similar issues.

Moreover you are aware of its existence. However it doesn't really exist you simply believe it does. You basically wished to be insane. You would have to wish it into existence, then wish to be aware.

Saph
2009-11-20, 10:43 AM
... I'm not terribly good with stat blocks, but why not stat out a creature capable of granting your wish and incapable of perverting it and wish that creature into existence exactly as it's stat block is written. I'll get to a few caveats of this wording in a moment.

I'd simply make sure the creature has the following properties.
(I'm not sure whether the abilities would be supernatural or whatnot so you guys can put that part together)


Time-Lost: A Time-Lost creature is not bound to the normal limits of time and is capable of existing at all places and times simultaneously, without disrupting the fabric of the universe, or multi-verse.

Perfect Harmony: This creatures alignment is tailored to that of whatever being knows of it's existence, This creatures alignment can-not be corrupted by any means.

Subjective Existence: This creature exists so long as one being on any plane at any time is aware of its existence.

Limited Awareness: Only one being or collective of beings(described as any group of beings sharing one mind) at a time on any plane is capable of being aware of this creatures existence. And that being remains aware of this creatures existence until this creature is dismissed by the following verbal command. "I wish I was no long aware of your existence"

Perfect Awareness: This creature is automatically aware of any being that is currently aware of it's existence.

Loyal subject: This creature is always bound to the will of whatever being knows of it's existence.

Perfect Wish: At-will this creature can grant Perfect Wishes that are not bound by the limitations of the "wish" spell. Perfect Wishes are always granted in their entirety and to the declared intent of the being making the wish. As this creature possesses the "Time-Lost" property it immediately knows if at any point in the future or past the wish will be corrupted and will automatically account for such a corruption so that it does not occur, performing if need be an unlimited number of Perfect Wishes that will without fail inevitably stave off corruption.


I'm sure I could throw on a few more abilities but I think this covers most of the bases, feel free to add more if you'd like.

The next step is obvious, in the "behavioral" section of the stat block simply write in exactly how you want the creature to behave. It automatically contacts whatever being is aware of it's existence. At this point it informs the being of it's ability to grant wishes, and of it's method of dismissal. It also informs the being that he/she is the only one aware of it's existence and any other special powers that it possesses.


Now your initial wish is simple.

"I wish to be aware of the existence of this creature" And hand the stat block to the DM.

The big caveat is making sure the "Collective of Beings" is in there Otherwise this wish is easily corrupted by your DM saying either only you or only your character are aware of the creatures existence, however since you and your character share one mind this little problem is eliminated.

Once the creature exists and you are the only one aware of it you have access to whatever you want. No one can stop you since no one other than you is aware that the creature exists.

Now I'm sure that the way I've written this can be corrupted, however, I'm also certain that this is the path to making a wish that truly can not be corrupted.

Your wish takes effect.

For a moment there is utter silence.

Then with a small, faint, 'pop', a slip of paper appears in the air in front of you and floats gently down to earth. Printed on the paper in exactly formed letters are the following words:

Too Long, Didn't Read
-cosmos

dsmiles
2009-11-20, 10:49 AM
Your post amuses me. I shall kill you last and swiftly when I conquer the known universe.

grautry
2009-11-20, 11:17 AM
LOL
Let's play your game.
You, the player, are roleplaying a INT 30 wizard.
Me, the DM, is roleplaying the Laws of Logic and Cosmos, and the hidden secret Laws of Magic that pervert Wishes.

You say that you have Int 12 but you should be able to state the Wish as an INT 30 wizard.
I say that I have Int 12 but I should be able to pervert your Wish as an INT of over nine thousand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerLevels?from=Main.OverNineThousand) Overdeity of Magic.

Suddenly, you are turned to ash, then reshaped into sentient fried chicken covered in honey, and assaulted by hungry ants. It takes 4 hours for you to be devoured, and your conscience resides in the very last molecule of the chicken, so you can enjoy the whole thing before fading to black. OH THE PAIN.

When you, out of character, ask "why? How could you pervert my Wish into THAT???", my reply out of character will be "I don't know, my puny INT 12 can't imagine how... but I figured my in-character INT of over nine thousand (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PowerLevels?from=Main.OverNineThousand) could find a way.

Really, you better be careful with what you ask. You might get it.

Yeah, good luck keeping your players if you pull crap like that.

The difference between my example and yours is that I'm using perfectly legitimate tools that my character possesses(a spell and his mental capacity). You'd just be punishing players for... using the abilities of your characters? That will certainly go swell with the players.

Like I said in the example before, do bards sing with the voice of Pavarotti at your sessions? Do rogues lock pick masterful locks? Do wizards intact spells and sling bat guano? No? Why is that?

Well, it's because there's a separation between what your character is capable of and what you're capable of. It's a healthy, good thing. It means that the dorkiest nerd in the world can portray a charismatic politician while the dumbest brick can for a moment, pretend to be Einstein.

This separation can be applied to Wish-making as well, especially if your character has the mental capacity to come up with non-twistable spells. And that's certainly possible - if we assume that Modron has no ambiguities whatsoever(certainly a valid interpretation from the very epitome of Law in the universe, especially since there's at least one unambiguous(or close to) language in our world) then it's impossible to twist the wish because its stated in such terms as to be clear, explicit and unambiguous.

There's already a clause for limiting Wishes - the partial fulfilment clause. Going with 'rocks fall everybody dies' is, and will always remain, a stupid choice.

Zigg
2009-11-20, 11:55 AM
you get the candle two feet in front of you...
but a passerby grabs it

MickJay
2009-11-20, 01:37 PM
Okay so outside of Rule 0 you have no other way to corrupt the wish?

As it was already noted, it's not rule 0, it's part of what the description of the Wish. DM can do just about anything with any Wish, RAW. He might even decide that the summoned creature will have a single attribute you asked for, and it will still count as "limited fulfillment".

@grautry: it would be a nasty move, but in a less drastic form it would be perfectly reasonable. The DM is supposed to be "roleplaying" the whole universe and all the NPCs in it. Compared to that, even an Int 500 wizard would be dumb as a brick. That said, if the Wish is reasonable, DM should grant it without any problems, if it's not, it's the player's fault for trying to abuse the game. High ability scores are already reflected in players' skills, spell slots, DCs and whatnot. Extending effect of high Int (or Wis) to Wish would take all the fun out of using it anyway.

Zeful
2009-11-20, 02:02 PM
Okay so outside of Rule 0 you have no other way to corrupt the wish?


Read the spell (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) Or more specifically this line:
You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)

That line in parenthesis are exemplary, and aren't the only things that can happen (otherwise they would not be in parenthesis, they would be dashed in to the main body of the text, as per English Grammar rules).

Rule 0 is written into the spell. Making a wish beyond the stated effects (which are horrendously powerful as it is) gives the DM a blank check. The spell could simply outright fail to do exactly what you asked, regardless of your desires, or not fulfill the entire wish. Creating an uncorruptable wish beyond the effects of the Wish spell is impossible no matter what you do, how you say it, or even how thorough you are in covering all the bases. The spell will either remove parts, provide literal fulfillment, add new conditions, or anything else the DM thinks is appropriate to the situation.


The difference between my example and yours is that I'm using perfectly legitimate tools that my character possesses(a spell and his mental capacity). You'd just be punishing players for... using the abilities of your characters? That will certainly go swell with the players.

It'd be more like punishing the player for being stupid. An Int 30 Wizard would know that anything beyond X simply has a chance of not giving him what he wants, and a great chance of screwing him over in the process. If he proceeds anyway, he's weighing the risk of horrible disaster against something that may not work as intended, but will be close enough.

t_catt11
2009-11-20, 02:23 PM
Careful, Zeful, and other similar voices of reason. There is a vocal contingent that will not accept the application of rule zero, simply becuase they want to be able to break the game without consequence.

In my day, we called them munchkins, and we beat them around the head and shoulders (metaphorically, of course) until they matured into roleplayers. It appears that such measures are no longer tolerated in polite society.

Somewhere
2009-11-20, 02:26 PM
Use wish to replicate magic missle on the gazebo?

Choco
2009-11-20, 02:39 PM
Considering that the description of Wish flat out says that the DM can just have it not work, there is no way to get a wish that always succeeds.

I personally allow anything on the "safe" list to always work, and have the universe catastrophically fail when they wish for something cheesy like a candle of invocation (big unexplained explosion centered on or near the caster, roll saves...).

Also, any wish the player can't read to me in a way I can understand in 6 seconds or less, with a single breath, automatically fails. I know this one may be a bit harsh, but it's the only way I have succeeded in stopping legalese wishes.

Though one time I was particularly annoyed with a munchkin already, and when he wished for a candle of invocation I gave it to him, but it had the side effect of using up 3x the normal XP. That got the point across.

Somewhere
2009-11-20, 02:44 PM
Literally, the SRD description of Wish says "A wish can produce any one of the following effects. ", followed by the bulleted list of allowed effects. Are people reading that 'can produce' to mean 'just because wish can produce so and so effect, it will not necessarily do so'? As otherwise the SRD entry doesn't say that the DM can flat out deny the allowed stuff.

ChrisFortyTwo
2009-11-20, 03:14 PM
I think that we can move forward in a slightly different way to reflect the thought experiment intention of the OP.

The party finds itself in front of a Glabrezu, who offers you whatever Wish you state.

Word a wish in a way that Glabrezu cannot corrupt it.

Alternately, you are the DM, how would you corrupt a given wish as Glabrezu.

Now, for instance, you have a limited intelligence (I don't have my MM on me, so I'm not sure what it is). So, if the player says "I use my INT to make it uncorruptable", you can say, ok, INT checks on both sides, winner decides the intent. We can assume the Glabrezu will attempt the wish even if it would normally be partially fulfilled. Partial fulfillment will be reasonable to what Glabrezu intends.

Zeful
2009-11-20, 03:18 PM
Careful, Zeful, and other similar voices of reason. There is a vocal contingent that will not accept the application of rule zero, simply becuase they want to be able to break the game without consequence.

That's their problem, not mine.

grautry
2009-11-20, 03:26 PM
@grautry: it would be a nasty move, but in a less drastic form it would be perfectly reasonable. The DM is supposed to be "roleplaying" the whole universe and all the NPCs in it. Compared to that, even an Int 500 wizard would be dumb as a brick. That said, if the Wish is reasonable, DM should grant it without any problems, if it's not, it's the player's fault for trying to abuse the game. High ability scores are already reflected in players' skills, spell slots, DCs and whatnot. Extending effect of high Int (or Wis) to Wish would take all the fun out of using it anyway.

Sure, twisting wishes is perfectly reasonable - it is RAW after all.

However, the way I see it, you twist Wishes when you asked for something that is beyond the power of Wish to grant(it is, after all, a spell of limited power) and word the Wish in such a way as to leave loopholes that can be exploited.

However, when you combine a perfectly unambiguous language with vast intelligence, then there's nothing to twist anymore. To quote, "The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment". If your intent is stated with enough clarity then there are no loopholes to exploit, no double meanings, no innuendo, no metaphors etc. In short, if there's nothing that can be twisted in the Wish, then the Wish is twist-immune(remember, it's twist not alter).

And then, if the player is asking for something that is beyond the power of the Wish, partial fulfillment clause steps in.

Easy, simple, elegant and no arbitrary 'rocks fall everyone dies'.


It'd be more like punishing the player for being stupid. An Int 30 Wizard would know that anything beyond X simply has a chance of not giving him what he wants, and a great chance of screwing him over in the process. If he proceeds anyway, he's weighing the risk of horrible disaster against something that may not work as intended, but will be close enough.

Here's the problem with the "horrible disaster" thing.

It can't really be that horrible, because if Wish has enough power to create disasters horrid enough that a 17th level Wizard(plus party, I assume) can't deal with them then why didn't it have enough power to grant the Wish in the first place?

drengnikrafe
2009-11-20, 03:28 PM
My opinion of the D&D world is that the DM controls everything that is not the PCs, and is not directly controlled by the PCs. This includes a wish (and what happens to it) after it has been wished. I also have a firm belief that RAW is flawed. RAW is a big pile of guidelines that have a tendancy to be correct, or something close to it. Wish is exactly what the DM wants it to be, and nothing more. Yes, if you are/have a horrible DM, even the fairest of wishes can be denied based on Rule 0.
Yes, this is terrible.
Yes, this has a lot of potential to be unfair in several cases. Or all cases, depending on how the DM is.
Yes, that is the right of the DM.

I'll say it once more, the DM has the right to do whatever he wants. If he's really bad, it'll show based upon the number of PCs he has wanting to play (namely, 0 in bad cases). If you are playing 100% by RAW, never deviating from what is written in any cases, odds are you're doing it wrong. I will offer that the statement "Wish is what the DM wants it to be, and that is totally fair" is a major extrapolation of "100% RAW is not a perfect way to play", but the point remains: If you can word a wish in such a way that makes you ultimately powerful and cannot be circumvented by any means... who's actually having fun?

Choco
2009-11-20, 03:29 PM
Literally, the SRD description of Wish says "A wish can produce any one of the following effects. ", followed by the bulleted list of allowed effects. Are people reading that 'can produce' to mean 'just because wish can produce so and so effect, it will not necessarily do so'? As otherwise the SRD entry doesn't say that the DM can flat out deny the allowed stuff.

My bad, I was actually remembering something I read in the Epic Level Handbook (yes I know, bad me...).

It says, in the "Handling Wish" section:
"A wish essentially allows the user to change reality. Often, unintended consequences follow, especially if the wish asks too much. A wish that concentrates on local and personal effects is least likely to go astray. A wish that asks to change the belief system of an entire country is most likely to be misconstrued or simply fail."

Emphasis mine.

So yeah, I usually go by that. If I don't feel like playing the lawyer game, for instance when there are better things to do, like actually play the game, than for me to think for half an hour how to pervert the wish I just make it fail.

Somewhere
2009-11-20, 03:57 PM
Hmm, as far as rule 0 goes, the DM has the right to do something like...

Wizard: I Wish to duplicate <insert buff like Featherfall/Fly/Mage Armor/whatever> on myself
DM: Congratulations, Wish duplicated Power Word Stun/Disintegrate/Flesh to Stone/Hold Creature/whatever... on you

Or...
Wizard: I Wish to undo the Insanity on him
DM: Congratulations, he just got Disintegrated/whatever

?

drengnikrafe
2009-11-20, 04:02 PM
Hmm, as far as rule 0 goes, the DM has the right to do something like...

Wizard: I Wish to duplicate <insert buff like Featherfall/Fly/Mage Armor/whatever> on myself
DM: Congratulations, Wish duplicated Power Word Stun/Disintegrate/Flesh to Stone/Hold Creature/whatever... on you

Or...
Wizard: I Wish to undo the Insanity on him
DM: Congratulations, he just got Disintegrated/whatever

?

Exactly. That's in game. Out of game, any DM who regularly does this is unlikely to have PCs. These actions do have reprocussions. However, it doesn't stop the DM from doing it.

Killer Angel
2009-11-20, 05:07 PM
Hmm, as far as rule 0 goes, the DM has the right to do something like...

Wizard: I Wish to undo the Insanity on him
DM: Congratulations, he just got Disintegrated/whatever


This is a jerk.
The same jerk as a player using Gate for a SLA wish and asking for a ring of three wishes, and pretending it because by raw there's no limit on the value of magical objects.

Rule 0, in this case, means: "i don't care if the phrase is legally perfect or not. if is balanced, I concede the wish, if is unbalanced, i don't".
See this post for major details:


Let's use a little common sense here, k?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-20, 05:30 PM
Hmm, as far as rule 0 goes, the DM has the right to do something like...

Wizard: I Wish to duplicate <insert buff like Featherfall/Fly/Mage Armor/whatever> on myself
DM: Congratulations, Wish duplicated Power Word Stun/Disintegrate/Flesh to Stone/Hold Creature/whatever... on you

Or...
Wizard: I Wish to undo the Insanity on him
DM: Congratulations, he just got Disintegrated/whatever

?Seriously, people do that? Wish has a specific safe list. The spell is already a waste of XP doing that, if you introduce jerkiness to the safe list, I haven't had a single Wizard that would be willing to take that risk.

Zeful
2009-11-20, 05:54 PM
Here's the problem with the "horrible disaster" thing.

It can't really be that horrible, because if Wish has enough power to create disasters horrid enough that a 17th level Wizard(plus party, I assume) can't deal with them then why didn't it have enough power to grant the Wish in the first place?

Who said it was a issue of power?

erikun
2009-11-20, 06:01 PM
Quote by Alex Star:
(Spoilered so that it isn't posted again on the same page.)


... I'm not terribly good with stat blocks, but why not stat out a creature capable of granting your wish and incapable of perverting it and wish that creature into existence exactly as it's stat block is written. I'll get to a few caveats of this wording in a moment.

I'd simply make sure the creature has the following properties.
(I'm not sure whether the abilities would be supernatural or whatnot so you guys can put that part together)


Time-Lost: A Time-Lost creature is not bound to the normal limits of time and is capable of existing at all places and times simultaneously, without disrupting the fabric of the universe, or multi-verse.

Perfect Harmony: This creatures alignment is tailored to that of whatever being knows of it's existence, This creatures alignment can-not be corrupted by any means.

Subjective Existence: This creature exists so long as one being on any plane at any time is aware of its existence.

Limited Awareness: Only one being or collective of beings(described as any group of beings sharing one mind) at a time on any plane is capable of being aware of this creatures existence. And that being remains aware of this creatures existence until this creature is dismissed by the following verbal command. "I wish I was no long aware of your existence"

Perfect Awareness: This creature is automatically aware of any being that is currently aware of it's existence.

Loyal subject: This creature is always bound to the will of whatever being knows of it's existence.

Perfect Wish: At-will this creature can grant Perfect Wishes that are not bound by the limitations of the "wish" spell. Perfect Wishes are always granted in their entirety and to the declared intent of the being making the wish. As this creature possesses the "Time-Lost" property it immediately knows if at any point in the future or past the wish will be corrupted and will automatically account for such a corruption so that it does not occur, performing if need be an unlimited number of Perfect Wishes that will without fail inevitably stave off corruption.


I'm sure I could throw on a few more abilities but I think this covers most of the bases, feel free to add more if you'd like.

The next step is obvious, in the "behavioral" section of the stat block simply write in exactly how you want the creature to behave. It automatically contacts whatever being is aware of it's existence. At this point it informs the being of it's ability to grant wishes, and of it's method of dismissal. It also informs the being that he/she is the only one aware of it's existence and any other special powers that it possesses.


Now your initial wish is simple.

"I wish to be aware of the existence of this creature" And hand the stat block to the DM.

The big caveat is making sure the "Collective of Beings" is in there Otherwise this wish is easily corrupted by your DM saying either only you or only your character are aware of the creatures existence, however since you and your character share one mind this little problem is eliminated.

Once the creature exists and you are the only one aware of it you have access to whatever you want. No one can stop you since no one other than you is aware that the creature exists.

Now I'm sure that the way I've written this can be corrupted, however, I'm also certain that this is the path to making a wish that truly can not be corrupted.

Hmm. I can see a number of ways this can be corrupted, or at least sidestepped.

Does Not Exist - Such a creature simply does not exist, and asking to become aware of "this creature" ultimately does nothing.

Lack of Character Knowledge - The creature does exist, but the character is (understandably) unaware of its existance. Simply asking to become aware of a similar creature with similar properities fails, as it does not make the character aware of the actual perfect-wish creature.

Already in Use - Someone else is already aware of the creature. As stated in the "Perfect Wish" ability, this creature is capable of going beyond and overriding the standard Wish, and thus can cancel your affect.

Extraplanar - "Only one being or collective of beings at a time on any plane is capable of being aware of this creatures existence." This could be interpreted as "only one being on any one plane" and thus, other beings on other planes may be aware of the creature's existance. As such, they are free to make Wishes in conflict with yours.

Hyperintelligent - The creature possesses hyperintelligence, and will not grant Wishes which it deems are not sufficiently benificial to the character.

Wisdom Lacking - The creature has a stunning low wisdom, and thus will take actions which it believes to be beneficial to the character, but is not. (think supercomputer killing humanity for the benefit of the environment)

Language Barrier - The creature does not speak the character's language, or any meaningful language, and thus cannot interpret the character's words into any meaningful Wish.

Outerworldly - The creature is so foreign that simply knowing of its existance causes insanity, amnesia, or exploding head syndrome.

Additional Abilities - The creature may have additional abilities not listed here, such as taking over the character's mind, forcing the character into a marriage, or causing the character to transcent and merge with the perfect-wish creature.

MickJay
2009-11-20, 06:55 PM
Hmm, as far as rule 0 goes, the DM has the right to do something like...

Wizard: I Wish to duplicate <insert buff like Featherfall/Fly/Mage Armor/whatever> on myself
DM: Congratulations, Wish duplicated Power Word Stun/Disintegrate/Flesh to Stone/Hold Creature/whatever... on you

Or...
Wizard: I Wish to undo the Insanity on him
DM: Congratulations, he just got Disintegrated/whatever

?

It's like making a Paladin fall for drinking a beer and chatting with an evil NPC whose alignment is unknown to the Paladin. Sure, DM can do it, because DM can do anything, but after a session or two there won't be anyone left to play with him.

Schylerwalker
2009-11-20, 07:20 PM
My most satisfying use of a wish ever was with my half-orc barbarian with max ranks in Profession (cook).

"I wish for the best, freshest ingredients for ten BLT's to appear in front of me every dawn."

Being as it wasn't too insane or far-fetched, and it wasn't powerful at all, the DM was all "Sure whatever."

I was the happiest half-orc ever.

-----------

Silliness aside, Wishing is a risky business. As people have stated, unless your DM is a total ****, Wish doesn't have any cons unless you wish for something beyond what the spell description provides. So, if you wish for that Insanity to be removed, it should be removed. Should be. (Read: ****)

For example, I wish for a billion gold pieces could bury you and the rest of the party in gold coins. I wish to become the most powerful sorcerer in the world could teleport you to a world with no other sorcerers, giving you very minor sorcerous powers. I wish that nothing could ever harm me ever again. You are devoured, body and soul, by Cthulhu. Congratulations.

And so on.

taltamir
2009-11-20, 10:25 PM
Hence why I specified "unowned". :smallamused:

the wish was not powerful enough to create it unowned, and has instead done a "partial fulfilment" by bringing an owned one...

I hate the wish spell... the DMG speicifically tells DMs to pervert even the most innocent of wishes. They give examples of how to pervert wishes and those are utterly terrible. Unless a DM says "wish will either give you the result you asked, or a lesser result" than I am not gonna use it. Wish is like a deck of many things, suicide...

Lesser result makes a lot of sense too... "I wish for a +10 sword of awesomeness", you instead get a +2 sword.
"I wish to be immortal" becomes "your max age increased by 5 years"
"I wish to be the smartest person in the world" becomes "you gain 1 inherant point to int, as per wish's description".

Choco
2009-11-21, 12:38 AM
"I wish to be the smartest person in the world" becomes "you gain 1 inherant point to int, as per wish's description".

Just for laughs I would have it lower the intelligence of everyone else in the world to be beneath yours. Just to see what happens.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-21, 01:04 AM
The clause about additional effects being dangerous implies that the stated effects are not.

The player's already forking out 5000 xp. No need to stuff him up the tailpipe too.

Now, I tend to be less charitable with free wishes (wishes gained without XP cost, whether by scroll or Called/created minion). And I tend to be more charitable with wishes that support the Rule of Cool, especially in dire circumstances.

However, when a wish is given, if a player is vague, I try to accommodate.

For example, if a player wishes that his friends (who were caught without weapons, due to a diplomatic function) could hit the incorporeal creatures ahead of them, I'd replicate Make Manifest (mass) or somesuch. If I CAN replicate an effect with a spell, I will, and I'll use my personal savvy to fulfill the intent of the wish, where possible.

Zahz
2009-11-21, 01:35 AM
It seems that wishing for something, like an object or effect (especially for yourself), is like asking the DM to destroy you. 'Tis better to go with something that affects something or someone else. Preferably someone or something far, far away from you. For example: I wish that [Good guy identified under no uncertain terms here] was transported to the farthest reaches of the Far nightmare realms of eternal suffering for all eternities forever. Or something like that.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-21, 01:41 AM
See, all of that except the 'no save' is listed in the possible effects of Wish. I wouldn't twist the wish, though. I'd have the NPC manage to find his way back, imbued with the Cthulhian madness, and leading an army of the Aberrations. You basically increased his power, but granted yourself a delay before facing him.

Wish should be a plot point, not a 'screw you'.

taltamir
2009-11-21, 01:44 AM
See, all of that except the 'no save' is listed in the possible effects of Wish. I wouldn't twist the wish, though. I'd have the NPC manage to find his way back, imbued with the Cthulhian madness, and leading an army of the Aberrations. You basically increased his power, but granted yourself a delay before facing him.

Wish should be a plot point, not a 'screw you'.

I agree entirely. WOTC really dropped the ball with the way they presented the spell...

Gpope
2009-11-21, 01:52 AM
If the goal is simply to craft a wish that cannot be twisted against its intended purpose, without necessarily accomplishing any other goal, what about resorting to logical paradoxes? "I wish that the effect of this wish had its intent perverted."

MickJay
2009-11-21, 07:14 AM
Your intent was to see what happens if you try to create a paradox. You are left with a vague feeling that something, indeed, has happened, but you have no idea what that was. :smalltongue:

Zahz
2009-11-21, 10:44 AM
See, all of that except the 'no save' is listed in the possible effects of Wish. I wouldn't twist the wish, though. I'd have the NPC manage to find his way back, imbued with the Cthulhian madness, and leading an army of the Aberrations. You basically increased his power, but granted yourself a delay before facing him.

Wish should be a plot point, not a 'screw you'.



You're right about the plot point bit, but I did wish him gone forever. I was making a wish based on my DM's system: 1. There is no such thing as partial fulfillment or failure. The universe always tries to grant the wish completely. 2. the universe is dumb and only barely speaks mortal-ese so that higher concepts (ones that are balance breaking) are perverted. 3. It's no fun to break the game. Break the plot instead! (Down with paladins!)


I assumed he would get a will save. I didn't say anything about it because it would be metagame to do so.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-21, 11:16 AM
You're right about the plot point bit, but I did wish him gone forever. I was making a wish based on my DM's system: 1. There is no such thing as partial fulfillment or failure. The universe always tries to grant the wish completely. 2. the universe is dumb and only barely speaks mortal-ese so that higher concepts (ones that are balance breaking) are perverted. 3. It's no fun to break the game. Break the plot instead! (Down with paladins!)


I assumed he would get a will save. I didn't say anything about it because it would be metagame to do so....huh. For some reason I read 'no save' in that.

taltamir
2009-11-21, 02:21 PM
Your intent was to see what happens if you try to create a paradox. You are left with a vague feeling that something, indeed, has happened, but you have no idea what that was. :smalltongue:

you make a wish that would have created a paradox... you hear a "pop" and a piece of paper appears in your hand reading:
Wish is invalid as it prevents itself from being cast.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-21, 02:26 PM
you make a wish that would have created a paradox... you hear a "pop" and a piece of paper appears in your hand reading:
Wish is invalid as it prevents itself from being cast.Still not a successful, RAW, twisting of the Wish.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-21, 02:43 PM
If the goal is simply to craft a wish that cannot be twisted against its intended purpose, without necessarily accomplishing any other goal, what about resorting to logical paradoxes? "I wish that the effect of this wish had its intent perverted."

But you didn't actually wish for anything...

MickJay
2009-11-21, 03:57 PM
Actually, it wouldn't necessarily be a paradox: the intent of the Wish is, necessarily, the caster's intent; therefore, the Wish, as it is cast, perverts (changes) the intent that was behind casting it in the first place. You have just cast a Wish that did nothing except for changing the reasons for which you have cast the Wish so that now you wish you have not wasted the Wish on attempting to do something you no longer want. :smalltongue:

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-21, 09:39 PM
If the goal is simply to craft a wish that cannot be twisted against its intended purpose, without necessarily accomplishing any other goal, what about resorting to logical paradoxes? "I wish that the effect of this wish had its intent perverted."

...And nothing happens.

Really, there are no visible signs for intent, so whether it is or isn't, the result is the same, and the multiverse keeps on keepin on.

Eon
2009-11-21, 10:01 PM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

In the head of your buddy two feet in front of you

taltamir
2009-11-21, 11:58 PM
In the head of your buddy two feet in front of you

sweet! I get to keep all his loot AND I got myself a sweet candle of invocation!

The Glyphstone
2009-11-22, 01:26 PM
And one of the Wishes I get from my First Candle can be for a Resurrection anyways, so he won't mind, too much.

taltamir
2009-11-22, 06:58 PM
And one of the Wishes I get from my First Candle can be for a Resurrection anyways, so he won't mind, too much.

if you resurrect him, he will want his equipment back... Sell his stuff and let him roll a new character (with new WBL... it can be the twin brother of the current character too :P)

rockdeworld
2009-11-23, 05:37 PM
Wish-fulfillment can always be warped in intent, unless you wish for the safe results. The safe results are pretty limited; even creating or enhancing an existing magic item is limited; it doesn't say you can wish for "custom" magic items after all and magic items are limited to 200.000 gp. Beyond that, they are epic items instead. (the DM can split hairs, too)
So anyone that wants to get alot out of a wish may aim for the unlimited results. The question is, can anyone state a wish that cannot be perverted?

If you have such a wishing statement you can post it here. Then other ppl can attempt to pervert it. It would be a valuable DM and player tool to amass such wishes and their perversions in one place.
I read the first page.

In documentation for a job, you have to state things in objective and measurable sentences, such as:
"The subject appeared bored by laying down on the couch, sighing, and closing his eyes."
or
"The pot of water boiled on the stove for five minutes." (if "boiled" was well-defined for pots of water)

That said, DnD is a game, and like any game the rules can be broken, ignored, or re-written. If your DM is a jerk, you can't make him DM better, but you can leave.
Example:
Player: "I wish for a candle of invocation of my alignment."
GM: "You receive one floating in a lethal poison encased in a cube of force."
Player: "That's not cool. If you're serious I quit."


And one of the Wishes I get from my First Candle can be for a Resurrection anyways, so he won't mind, too much.
What? I thought Candles could only be used for Gate.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-23, 05:53 PM
I read the first page.

In documentation for a job, you have to state things in objective and measurable sentences, such as:
"The subject appeared bored by laying down on the couch, sighing, and closing his eyes."
or
"The pot of water boiled on the stove for five minutes." (if "boiled" was well-defined for pots of water)

That said, DnD is a game, and like any game the rules can be broken, ignored, or re-written. If your DM is a jerk, you can't make him DM better, but you can leave.
Example:
Player: "I wish for a candle of invocation of my alignment."
GM: "You receive one floating in a lethal poison encased in a cube of force."
Player: "That's not cool. If you're serious I quit."


What? I thought Candles could only be used for Gate.

But Gate can call forth Wishing creatures. That must follow you command and without twisting.

rockdeworld
2009-11-23, 06:05 PM
It only calls a creature of your same alignment, and the only non-evil creatures I can find that grant wishes are a Solar and an Epic Force Dragon (and Gate prolly wouldn't work on the latter). So you'd be candling for Solars (provided you're Good), each of whom will grant a wish and then leave? Seems like a 1-1 trade.

Flickerdart
2009-11-23, 06:09 PM
Tweet-wish: 140 character limit imposed on your wishes does much to get rid of triple-footnoted legalese player tricks.

Rainbownaga
2009-11-23, 06:37 PM
Tweet-wish: 140 character limit imposed on your wishes does much to get rid of triple-footnoted legalese player tricks.

Good idea, though i would make it twenty five words or less to save the hassle of counting.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 06:38 PM
It's kind of hard to subvert a wish that's spoken in Modron; it's a mathematical language with no ambiguities.

Of course, that's when one applies the 'cut-off' tactic, which is to brashly interrupt the wisher halfway through a statement with 'done' and fufilling the wish as currently stated.

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-23, 06:53 PM
Concerning the cut-off problem, it is possible in some languages to put the words in any order you want. It can be impossible to tell what you intend until you speak the last word, if it is for example the main verb of a sentence. Guessing the verb can be a bit of a stretch, and if it takes the literal meaning of the words spoken so far, it can't really do anything, since it's just a bunch of ideas with no action.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-11-23, 06:58 PM
It only calls a creature of your same alignment, and the only non-evil creatures I can find that grant wishes are a Solar and an Epic Force Dragon (and Gate prolly wouldn't work on the latter). So you'd be candling for Solars (provided you're Good), each of whom will grant a wish and then leave? Seems like a 1-1 trade.Who in their right mind is good?

Rainbownaga
2009-11-23, 07:12 PM
On a related note, if you summon a creature and get them to use their wish for you, you have to deal with two steps of language barrier, assuming you don't force them to read out your perfectly constructed legalese.

Also, if you're getting a creature to use wish, who suffers the side-effects of the badly worded wish? Is it the creature itself, or the person controlling them. Either way may have consequences.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 07:21 PM
On a related note, if you summon a creature and get them to use their wish for you, you have to deal with two steps of language barrier, assuming you don't force them to read out your perfectly constructed legalese.

Also, if you're getting a creature to use wish, who suffers the side-effects of the badly worded wish? Is it the creature itself, or the person controlling them. Either way may have consequences.

Tongues + Comprehend Languages. They understand the literal meaning of what you say, and can say it in turn. Then you just have to word things in a literal fashion.

Claudius Maximus
2009-11-23, 07:25 PM
Why deal with a language barrier? The universe knows all languages, yes? And a language is just sounds and symbols that represent ideas. I don't see what's stopping you from making up a perfect language just for wishes. As its creator, you know what every word means and the things they represent. Just you and the universe. So I imagine it's pretty hard to subvert.

And why deal with language at all? What happens when you cast Silent Wish? If you can control it with thought alone, you're dealing with nothing but your own intentions. I imagine language is no longer an obstacle once it comes to this.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-23, 07:26 PM
Why deal with a language barrier? The universe knows all languages, yes? And a language is just sounds and symbols that represent ideas. I don't see what's stopping you from making up a perfect language just for wishes. As its creator, you know what every word means and the things they represent. Just you and the universe. So I imagine it's pretty hard to subvert.

And why deal with language at all? What happens when you cast Silent Wish? if you can control it with thought alone, you're dealing with nothing but your own intentions. I imagine language is no longer an obstacle once it comes to this.

Truespeak?
Truenamers are never misunderstood by the universe. It is their one class feature. Granted, you have the skill Truespeak (by the feat or the class).



It appears two feet in front of you...then promptly returns to were it was a few seconds later.

It is unowned...how can it return to a non-owner?

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 07:27 PM
I wonder what the DC on a Truespoken Wish is..

Beelzebub1111
2009-11-23, 07:27 PM
"I wish for an unowned and unused [insert my alignment here] Candle of Invocation, two feet in front of me."

It appears two feet in front of you...three-hundred feet under the ground

or if you prefer,

It appears two feet in front of you...then promptly returns to were it was a few seconds later.

Dairun Cates
2009-11-23, 07:30 PM
"I Wish for this Wish Spell to Kill Me."

Not completely unsubvertable, but for the suicidal wizard on the go, but the the worse you can hope for is partial fulfillment (philsophical death), and there's not a lot you can do to twist this any worse (save sending him to hell, which he was probably already headed to for tearing the fabric of the universe for something a local ogre would've done for free).

tyckspoon
2009-11-23, 07:45 PM
Tweet-wish: 140 character limit imposed on your wishes does much to get rid of triple-footnoted legalese player tricks.

Not being a jerk about wishes also does much to get rid of legal-document wishes. I know, I know, the whole thread is about screwing with wishes, but if you find your players are attempting to generate iron-clad formulated wishes (and especially if they really are doing so in-game instead of as a play activity) you should probably take a look at what you as a DM did to drive them to doing so.

Rainbownaga
2009-11-23, 07:54 PM
Leaving the wish to decide HOW to kill you is probably a very stupid idea, even for the suicidal wizard. Coup-de-graceing yourself with disintegrate and having a contingent disintegrate ready is probably much safer.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-23, 08:06 PM
Leaving the wish to decide HOW to kill you is probably a very stupid idea, even for the suicidal wizard. Coup-de-graceing yourself with disintegrate and having a contingent disintegrate ready is probably much safer.

A. You can't Coup De Grace with a ray or Ranged touch.
B. Even then Crossbows are the only ranged weapon allowed.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 08:09 PM
When did this become a discussion of wizard suicide methods? :smallconfused:

Rainbownaga
2009-11-23, 08:19 PM
A. You can't Coup De Grace with a ray or Ranged touch.
B. Even then Crossbows are the only ranged weapon allowed.

Fair enough, but if you're going to go with the "kill me", i would at least include a note about "painless" and something about "finishing within the next 6 seconds". Also including stuff about not hurting other people in the process would be a good idea.

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 08:30 PM
Query: Is the OP asking for a method to achieve perfect wishes, or a specific case of a non-subvertable wish? The first can be attained, but the second cannot within the confines of the board's degree of language usage.

rockdeworld
2009-11-23, 09:14 PM
Who in their right mind is good?
It's not about being good - those are the only monsters I could find that grant wishes. I assume most PCs are not Evil.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-23, 09:41 PM
Who in their right mind is good?

What adventurer is in their right mind? They loot corpses, fight dragons and demons on a weekly basis, and they only do this to get better gear so they can do it again the next week.

taltamir
2009-11-23, 10:55 PM
Not being a jerk about wishes also does much to get rid of legal-document wishes. I know, I know, the whole thread is about screwing with wishes, but if you find your players are attempting to generate iron-clad formulated wishes (and especially if they really are doing so in-game instead of as a play activity) you should probably take a look at what you as a DM did to drive them to doing so.

+1


When did this become a discussion of wizard suicide methods? :smallconfused:

The moment the word "wish" was mentioned

Signmaker
2009-11-23, 11:49 PM
The moment the word "wish" was mentioned

Hey, no need to throw in the towel just yet. Wishes can technically be made unable to be distorted and unable to be partially fulfilled.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:16 AM
Hey, no need to throw in the towel just yet. Wishes can technically be made unable to be distorted and unable to be partially fulfilled.

at which point they fail / **** you over by DM fiat unless he breaks from the suggested WOTC guidelines of destroying anyone who dare's to use a wish.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 12:27 AM
at which point they fail / **** you over by DM fiat unless he breaks from the suggested WOTC guidelines of destroying anyone who dare's to use a wish.

What? You can't beat DM fiat, so that's pointless to debate. As for the wish interpretation, it's most certainly circumventable.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:33 AM
What? You can't beat DM fiat, so that's pointless to debate. As for the wish interpretation, it's most certainly circumventable.

well, ok there are plenty of ways to do that... $, dating them (if the right gender), blackmail, etc...

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 12:34 AM
What? You can't beat DM fiat, so that's pointless to debate. As for the wish interpretation, it's most certainly circumventable.

DM fiat doesn't enter into the RAW description of wish unless a greater effect is asked for. If you Wish to be stronger, or that you could see the ethereal stalkers attacking and retreating to the ethereal plane? Then you get a +1 inherent to strength, or a True Seeing or See Invisibility.

To argue that those are subverted has as much RAW basis as when your player casts Fireball only to have the DM inflict triple the damage he deals to others back to him.

Yeah, it can be fiated. But when staying within listed effects, it cannot be fiated any more than any other spell, RAW.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 12:35 AM
That isn't what I mean. What I meant was that including the DM in these discussions is a pointless exercise, because of Rule Zero. Therefore, for the purpose of the exercise, you use what's presented in the books, no more, no less. The DM shouldn't factor in to your solution set.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 12:42 AM
DM fiat doesn't enter into the RAW description of wish unless a greater effect is asked for. If you Wish to be stronger, or that you could see the ethereal stalkers attacking and retreating to the ethereal plane? Then you get a +1 inherent to strength, or a True Seeing or See Invisibility.

To argue that those are subverted has as much RAW basis as when your player casts Fireball only to have the DM inflict triple the damage he deals to others back to him.

Yeah, it can be fiated. But when staying within listed effects, it cannot be fiated any more than any other spell, RAW.

While your fireball analogy is fairly accurate, that is EXACTLY what the RAW says the DM should do. the examples given are horrible, and all show that the DM should mercilessly destroy anyone who uses a wish even if they make a sensible wish and there is a sensible partial fulfilment.

Zeful
2009-11-24, 12:54 AM
While your fireball analogy is fairly accurate, that is EXACTLY what the RAW says the DM should do. the examples given are horrible, and all show that the DM should mercilessly destroy anyone who uses a wish even if they make a sensible wish and there is a sensible partial fulfilment.


You are clearly referring to some other Wish spell. 3.5's Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) has clearly stated "safe" effects. The only time one of those is getting perverted is if the DM came from 2e or earlier where magic like that could kill you for casting it. Or if the being you're asking the wish of does not like you.

Anything beyond those "safe" effects can be perverted by the DM, that is RAW.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:19 AM
from PHB:

For example, wishing for a staff of the magi might get you instantly transported to the presence of the staff’s current owner. Wishing to be immortal
could get you imprisioned in a hidden extradimensional space (as by an imprisonment spell), where you could “live” indefinitely.

Two fairly reasonable wishes, both example results were basically "suicide by wish".

Sensible approach:
You wish to be immortal. You are now an elf. you will live until killed. you have the lifespan of an elf, etc etc... (changing you into an elf is certainly within the power of the wish spell as stated in the description of the reincarnate spell explicitly states wish to be able to change the creature type you are).

You wish for a staff the magi. The spell fails. You get a pale immitation, etc.

Various other WOTC articles and published materials have examples of wish perversions and they are all horrendous... so bad that I would leave at the spot if any DM did that to me.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:33 AM
from PHB:


Two fairly reasonable wishes, both example results were basically "suicide by wish".

Sensible approach:
You wish to be immortal. You are now an elf. you will live until killed. you have the lifespan of an elf, etc etc... (changing you into an elf is certainly within the power of the wish spell as stated in the description of the reincarnate spell explicitly states wish to be able to change the creature type you are).

You wish for a staff the magi. The spell fails. You get a pale immitation, etc.

Various other WOTC articles and published materials have examples of wish perversions and they are all horrendous... so bad that I would leave at the spot if any DM did that to me.

Immortal is plausible, outside of core. Replicate a Polymorph any Object to change you into an Elan. Elves, RAW, are not immortal. Elans are. In core, it's more problematic.

Staff of the Magi is technically within the bounds of wish, as it doesn't state the value limit of a created magical item, but the 25,000 gp limit on nonmagical is the RAI interpretation, and would put it into the "twist" category.

Still, teleporting a wizard to you isn't automatically "death by wish". It's an opportunity for roleplay interaction with a highly suspicious mage.

Zeful
2009-11-24, 01:42 AM
from PHB:


Two fairly reasonable wishes, both example results were basically "suicide by wish".No, they're not. The Staff of the Magi is an Artifact. And Immortality has so many connotations ranging from "Living forever" to "complete invincability". Trapping you in stasis forever qualifies all known definitions of Immortality.


Sensible approach:
You wish to be immortal. You are now an elf. you will live until killed. you have the lifespan of an elf, etc etc... (changing you into an elf is certainly within the power of the wish spell as stated in the description of the reincarnate spell explicitly states wish to be able to change the creature type you are).Reincarnate requires that you be dead, and explicitly states that wish may return you to your previous body. This does not mean that Wish is capable of simply changing you into another race or making you immortal.


You wish for a staff the magi. The spell fails. You get a pale immitation, etc.Or you get teleported to the current owner (note this is not necessarily a suicide token, depending on who owns the staff at the time, you might make an ally this way). What happens when you wish for something beyond what it's capable of is entirely up to the DM and the situation. He's only encouraged to show that even wish, a nebulous 9th level spell that is already stupidly broken, has limits.


Various other WOTC articles and published materials have examples of wish perversions and they are all horrendous... so bad that I would leave at the spot if any DM did that to me.You seem to believe in some kind of backwards form of player entitlement. If you do something clearly dangerous, you should be putting yourself into actual danger. This is why my thoughts on DMing run counter to pretty much everyone else's. I have no problems perverting a wish to represent the inherent danger of the world, no more than I have throwing Mage's disjunction or rust monsters at the party. So I'd have no problem with you simply getting up and leaving because you didn't get what you want.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:46 AM
role playing is not player entitlement.

"i wish for exactly +1 to intelligence because I metagamed and read the PHB and know that is a "safe wish""
vs:
"my int 5 fighter wishes for: duh, I Wanna be strongest in the universe"
or even vs:
"My wizard wishes to live forever"

I am well aware of elves not being immortal, that was partial fulfilment.
I would point out there are a ton of ways to be immortal... for example, you can be a lich or a baelnorn or an elan or any sentient undead (necropolitan), etc.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 01:50 AM
role playing is not player entitlement.

"i wish for exactly +1 to intelligence because I metagamed and read the PHB and know that is a "safe wish""
vs:
"my int 5 fighter wishes for: duh, I Wanna be strongest in the universe"
or even vs:
"My wizard wishes to live forever"

I am well aware of elves not being immortal, that was partial fulfilment.
I would point out there are a ton of ways to be immortal... for example, you can be a lich or a baelnorn or an elan or any sentient undead (necropolitan), etc.

Incorrect. It can be reasonably assumed that when a character knows a spell, they know what it can do. For a fighter to wish for strength, a +1 will suffice. For him to wish for great strength? A polymorph any object. Both can be fulfilled, within the confines of a wish, and I'd personally work with players to fulfill their intent when they're aiming for a safe clause.

A wizard wanting to be immortal? As I don't know any safe effects that will permanently change you to an immortal race other than PaO, the wizard better be willing to accept the Intelligence drop drawback.

sofawall
2009-11-24, 01:51 AM
Hey Taltamir. How about, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that if we wish trickily enough, with no loopholes, it gets granted. Ok?

taltamir
2009-11-24, 01:54 AM
Incorrect. It can be reasonably assumed that when a character knows a spell, they know what it can do. For a fighter to wish for strength, a +1 will suffice. For him to wish for great strength? A polymorph any object. Both can be fulfilled, within the confines of a wish, and I'd personally work with players to fulfill their intent when they're aiming for a safe clause.

A wizard wanting to be immortal? As I don't know any safe effects that will permanently change you to an immortal race other than PaO, the wizard better be willing to accept the Intelligence drop drawback.

Well... that gets tricky... do they know what a "plus 1" is? Do they realize that they have exactly 6 stats called strength, dex, con, wis, int, and cha?

Considering how spells work they SHOULD realize most of this... but on the other hand, this is considered total metagaming and is frowned upon.


Hey Taltamir. How about, for the purposes of this thread, we assume that if we wish trickily enough, with no loopholes, it gets granted. Ok?

I am not sure what you mean by that...

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:02 AM
I am not sure what you mean by that...

Do you agree to the idea that there may exist wishes which cannot be subverted?

Perhaps it'll be easier if you list the ways sans-DM that a wish can be subverted by category. We'll take it from there.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:02 AM
Well... that gets tricky... do they know what a "plus 1" is? Do they realize that they have exactly 6 stats called strength, dex, con, wis, int, and cha?

Considering how spells work they SHOULD realize most of this... but on the other hand, this is considered total metagaming and is frowned upon.


Because they don't need to know what a 'plus 1' is. A wizard who knows wish will know that they can permanently make someone stronger, more agile, hardier, more intelligent, wiser, or more charismatic. They will also know that the effect can be magnified via multiple wishes in quick succession.

Your argument has as much water as stating that a wizard can learn Dispel Magic, and not know it can target individual people, and is more effective from more experienced wizards, because they don't know what a "maximum bonus of plus 10" is. So now, since they don't want to meta and actually read the abilities that they have, all wizards may now only use Expeditious Retreat to actually retreat.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 02:08 AM
Do you agree to the idea that there may exist wishes which cannot be subverted?

Perhaps it'll be easier if you list the ways sans-DM that a wish can be subverted by category. We'll take it from there.

Only a wish stated by the DM to be unsubvertable is unsubvertable...

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:10 AM
Only a wish stated by the DM to be unsubvertable is unsubvertable...

Not by RAW. The subvertable portions of a Wish, as stated, are the greater effects only.

Subverting the safe list has as much RAW support as subverting a fireball cast to do 10d6 fire damage in a 20 foot radius burst, with a reflex save for half.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:12 AM
Only a wish stated by the DM to be unsubvertable is unsubvertable...

Incorrect, sort of.

Please list the categories by why wishes can be subverted, rather than making an accusation like that. Basically, why it would mess up. The Wish spell has specific outlines for ways it would mess up, and I'd like to have the grounds rigidly set for my next demonstration.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 02:13 AM
Not by RAW. The subvertable portions of a Wish, as stated, are the greater effects only.

Subverting the safe list has as much RAW support as subverting a fireball cast to do 10d6 fire damage in a 20 foot radius burst, with a reflex save for half.

rule0, the DM rulings are absolute.
If the DM does not allow "unsubvertable wishes" then there are no unsubvertable wishes no matter what the RAW says, your only option is to not play with him.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:15 AM
rule0, the DM rulings are absolute.
If the DM does not allow "unsubvertable wishes" then there are no unsubvertable wishes no matter what the RAW says, your only option is to not play with him.

And once again you're not providing a common ground to debate the point on. You're attempting to end this discussion with "Rule 0, players lose". While applicable in a real game, it doesn't provide much for a thought exercise, now does it?

After all, any discussion could then be ended by saying "Rule 0, the DM does what he wants". But then we'd never make progress.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:16 AM
rule0, the DM rulings are absolute.
If the DM does not allow "unsubvertable wishes" then there are no unsubvertable wishes no matter what the RAW says, your only option is to not play with him.

Arguing Rule 0 is like wrestling with a pig. You both end up feeling dirty, but the pig likes it.

Let's PLEASE stick to the rules as written for the spell, or I'll start arguing that all Wishes are unsubvertable, because my DM stated I could make rules concerning Wish as I saw fit.

RAW is the common ground that we all have, in an environment without wish. Resorting to Rule 0 is playing for a stalemate. It's only done by the person in a losing position.

Doc Roc
2009-11-24, 02:20 AM
Actually, in this case, Rule Zero as applied by Taltamir is:
You get no wish I don't say you get.

So we can go ahead and ignore it, because it's a finite resolved case.

I accept it exists, but we don't care to discuss it, because it's not how the game works in actual practice. Most GMs are not malevolent engines intent on wasting your ninth level spells and thousands of gold and XP because you missed a declension.


I second the move that we completely bloody ignore it.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 02:23 AM
Actually, in this case, Rule Zero as applied by Taltamir is:
You get no wish I don't say you get.


Um, NO!
I am just saying that "If I craft it in enough legalize IRL my DM can't subvert it" isn't gonna work because he is the DM.

And an aside to that, I would love to argue the raw with you. Or even your own situational DM conditions.

By the raw, certainly there are wishes that are unsubvertable.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:25 AM
Okay, then, let's argue RAW.

What would you say are applicable terms for Wish subversion? Perhaps something along the lines of misinterpretation? Are there any others I'm not addressing?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:40 AM
Okay, then, let's argue RAW.

What would you say are applicable terms for Wish subversion? Perhaps something along the lines of misinterpretation? Are there any others I'm not addressing?

RAW?

Wishing for an effect not listed in the allowed terms of the list.

A more lenient ruling (that I ascribe to)?

Wishing for an effect not able to be duplicated by the allowed terms on the list.

The latter allows for a DM to assist less savvy players by filling in the blanks with what he knows can be done by RAW.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:45 AM
RAW?

Wishing for an effect not listed in the allowed terms of the list.

A more lenient ruling (that I ascribe to)?

Wishing for an effect not able to be duplicated by the allowed terms on the list.

The latter allows for a DM to assist less savvy players by filling in the blanks with what he knows can be done by RAW.

Okay, so anything that isn't on the safe list may be 'dangerous'.

Is it safe to assume that the danger arises from A. Partial Fulfillment or B. Misinterpretation of a wish (Bad data transfer, so to speak)? Are there any within the spell context that I'm missing?

Basically, I'm trying to lay the grounds for issues that need to be addressed to craft a 'dangerous' wish that doesn't backfire in some form. Once these issues are addressed, they can be systematically resolved.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:48 AM
Okay, so anything that isn't on the safe list may be 'dangerous'.

Is it safe to assume that the danger arises from A. Partial Fulfillment or B. Misinterpretation of a wish (Bad data transfer, so to speak)? Are there any within the spell context that I'm missing?

Most of the dangerousness, I see in a wish arises from intent twisting. Wishing for a half million gold may teleport you into the magically protected vault of a large kingdom. It can only get you 25,000 safely, so the only way it can do what you like is to replicate a spell to bring you to pre-existing gold.

Partial Fulfillment can arise as well. I tend to prefer to not KILL players. I'll put them in sticky situations, but I won't kill them outright from a bad wish.

Unfortunately, any non-safe application is wholly subject to alteration, mitigation, or the like. Barring that, it can simply eat your xp and do nothing. The terms of the spell throw you to rule 0 if you go beyond safe terms.

That's what's hard to bypass. No matter how good it is, the option to just BSoD the Wish for dangerous terms is there.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:51 AM
Most of the dangerousness, I see in a wish arises from intent twisting. Wishing for a half million gold may teleport you into the magically protected vault of a large kingdom. It can only get you 25,000 safely, so the only way it can do what you like is to replicate a spell to bring you to pre-existing gold.

Partial Fulfillment can arise as well. I tend to prefer to not KILL players. I'll put them in sticky situations, but I won't kill them outright from a bad wish.

So then we've got:

Bad Data Transfer
Partial Fulfillment (The existence of a 'cutoff' point in which a wish can be resolved, but not fully)
Unintended Side Effects/Consequences
Fizzle (The wish flops, gives up, never happens, whatever)

Luckily, I've got a plan to address the first two. The fourth is a dead-end, and the third I'll have to hope that someone else can handle. Any more?

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:52 AM
So then we've got:

Bad Data Transfer
Partial Fulfillment (The existence of a 'cutoff' point in which a wish can be resolved, but not fully)
Unintended Side Effects/Consequences

Luckily, I've got a plan to address the first two. Any more?

BSOD. Outright Wish Failure.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 02:52 AM
Damn you're fast. Couldn't get my edit in in time. =P

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:54 AM
Damn you're fast. Couldn't get my edit in in time. =P

Sadly, that is what she said.

The dead end is really what gets you. When you wish, and you phrase it so that it can't be partially fulfilled, can't have unintended side effects, can't have intent twisting...

You may have a situation where you're demanding something the wish cannot do. So it does nothing. Much like trying to get a fireball to instead increase the growth of plants in the area instead of damaging.

Try as you might, you'll just end up with charred plants.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 03:00 AM
how would you word a wish to go up to the cutoff and then stop without harming you?

"I wish for as close a result to parameter X as this spell can produce without my intent being subverted to fulfill the exact wording of parameter X, where X is <insert wish here>"

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 03:05 AM
Damn straight.

Now, to begin.

Bad Data Transfer

The obvious solution is to have a medium in which you cannot corrupt data. Most conventional languages (namely, all the ones IRL, and most of the DnD languages) cannot achieve this, for obvious reasons. However, jumping out of core, we can actually find a pre-existant language that transfer data perfectly. That, as Doc Roc will enjoy noting, is Modron, which conveys data in a precise and mathematically sound matter. In a self-casted wish, we're done here. You speak what you have to speak, the universe knows what you mean, stuff happens. For a summon-assisted wish (efreeti as an example), the efreeti needs to be able to word the wish too. For that we combine Tongues and Comprehend Languages, the second conveying literal interpretation (in case of Modron, the ONLY interpretation), the first allowing him to speak for the wish. Efreeti says what you want him to say, wish does stuff.

Any flaws in this portion of the discussion? I feel as if each portion should be tackled individually, or else we get in to giant quote-rivers which go nowhere.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 03:06 AM
how would you word a wish to go up to the cutoff and then stop without harming you?

"I wish for as close a result to parameter X as this spell can produce without my intent being subverted to fulfill the exact wording of parameter X, where X is <insert wish here>"

My wish is thus, and is not complete until I state the word "drawback" again: I wish to X. In the event that this effect is not fully complete, I want the general goal of Y followed, with priorities in intent going to A, then B, then C. This should be carried out as much as possible, without overstepping the boundaries of what can be done. In all events, exclude any effect that would severely hamper my or my party's ability to communicate and fight effectively, unless the only way to accomplish my goal involves such a drawback.

That's probably as good as I can do.

taltamir
2009-11-24, 03:08 AM
so far we are good... what about:
Unintended Side Effects/Consequences
Fizzle (The wish flops, gives up, never happens, whatever)

I am worried that wishing for no unintended side effects/consequences increases the chances of a fizzle significantly...

taltamir
2009-11-24, 03:11 AM
My wish is thus, and is not complete until I state the word "drawback" again: I wish to X. In the event that this effect is not fully complete, I want the general goal of Y followed, with priorities in intent going to A, then B, then C. This should be carried out as much as possible, without overstepping the boundaries of what can be done. In all events, exclude any effect that would severely hamper my or my party's ability to communicate and fight effectively, unless the only way to accomplish my goal involves such a drawback.

That's probably as good as I can do.

can a wish even have the AND parameter? because you could just keep on stringing things you desire with the words AND...

Heck:
"My wish is thus, and is not complete until I state the word "<word you intend to never say again>", that the effects of this wish will be executed as soon as I speak them AND <now everything you say is a wish, until you terminate the spell>"

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 03:11 AM
Damn straight.

Now, to begin.

Bad Data Transfer

The obvious solution is to have a medium in which you cannot corrupt data. Most conventional languages (namely, all the ones IRL, and most of the DnD languages) cannot achieve this, for obvious reasons. However, jumping out of core, we can actually find a pre-existant language that transfer data perfectly. That, as Doc Roc will enjoy noting, is Modron, which conveys data in a precise and mathematically sound matter. In a self-casted wish, we're done here. You speak what you have to speak, the universe knows what you mean, stuff happens. For a summon-assisted wish (efreeti as an example), the efreeti needs to be able to word the wish too. For that we combine Tongues and Comprehend Languages, the second conveying literal interpretation (in case of Modron, the ONLY interpretation), the first allowing him to speak for the wish. Efreeti says what you want him to say, wish does stuff.

Any flaws in this portion of the discussion? I feel as if each portion should be tackled individually, or else we get in to giant quote-rivers which go nowhere.

No flaws in your logic, just in the analogy. "Bad data transfer" isn't a precisely correct term. Yes, you avoid the "literal but undesirable", but not the partial fullfilment or the incomplete fulfillment.

Further, it relies on concepts to be available in Modron that may not exist. Not all concepts need be reasonably expressed.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 03:13 AM
can a wish even have the AND parameter? because you could just keep on stringing things you desire with the words AND...

Heck:
"My wish is thus, and is not complete until I state the word "<word you intend to never say again>", that the effects of this wish will be executed as soon as I speak them AND <now everything you say is a wish, until you terminate the spell>"

Nope. Because it cannot grant the "that the effects of this wish will be executed as soon as I speak them" clause until the wish resolves. It can't resolve until the wish is fully cast.

You can't get a fireball before you finish casting the spell.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 03:17 AM
Part Two: Partial Fulfillment

Every wish can be considered to require two things: wants (what you intend to receive) and parameters (which guide the wants to intended interpretation). Basically, the parameters are initial variable definitions with the wants being the actual equation crunching. In order to avoid partial fulfillment,

A. The parameters must be defined before the wants. Otherwise, one runs in to the interjecting genie case: The Genie says "Done" halfway through your wish and the wish is irreversibly messed up.

B. The wants must be indivisible, for the above interjecting genie case. In order for the wants to be indivisible, they have to be conveyed simultaneously (if they are conveyed in 1,2,3 order, interjecting genie can stop at 1 or 2). This can be possible by setting up the wants as an encoded parameter, and decoding the wants as an evaluation function which tackles the entire code at once (doable, as you're talking in Modron).

I...think that should clean up that portion. I'm actually quite doubtful, now that I've written it up. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of data sets could explain this better (or disprove my claim, I don't mind either way).

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 03:24 AM
Part Two: Partial Fulfillment

Every wish can be considered to require two things: wants (what you intend to receive) and parameters (which guide the wants to intended interpretation). Basically, the parameters are initial variable definitions with the wants being the actual equation crunching. In order to avoid partial fulfillment,

A. The parameters must be defined before the wants. Otherwise, one runs in to the interjecting genie case: The Genie says "Done" halfway through your wish and the wish is irreversibly messed up.

B. The wants must be indivisible, for the above interjecting genie case. In order for the wants to be indivisible, they have to be conveyed simultaneously (if they are conveyed in 1,2,3 order, interjecting genie can stop at 1 or 2). This can be possible by setting up the wants as an encoded parameter, and decoding the wants as an evaluation function which tackles the entire code at once (doable, as you're talking in Modron).

I...think that should clean up that portion. I'm actually quite doubtful, now that I've written it up. Perhaps someone with a better knowledge of data sets could explain this better (or disprove my claim, I don't mind either way).

Partial fulfillment is still possible. Even if the entire block is unseperatable, this is outright perversion. It's not unreasonable to state that the actual words you say and the words you are granted are different. It's not even as far a stretch into defining the Modron language as something that grants perfect precision and clarity of mathematics over all things and has a built in coding feature.

For example: Wishing for an artifact.

Wish looks at what you want:
Deck of Many Things.

Wish looks at what it can do:
25,000 gp worth of item.

Wish evaluates all the things a deck of many things can do, picks a valid spell or item that accomplishes as much as is possible, and calls it a day.

Remember: Stating the intent is only as accurate as you are in stating your intent. If the closest it can do is teleporting you to the location of the item, regardless of surrounding conditions, that might be what you get.

Signmaker
2009-11-24, 03:27 AM
Partial fulfillment is still possible. Even if the entire block is unseperatable, this is outright perversion. It's not unreasonable to state that the actual words you say and the words you are granted are different. It's not even as far a stretch into defining the Modron language as something that grants perfect precision and clarity of mathematics over all things and has a built in coding feature.

For example: Wishing for an artifact.

Wish looks at what you want:
Deck of Many Things.

Wish looks at what it can do:
25,000 gp worth of item.

Wish evaluates all the things a deck of many things can do, picks a valid spell or item that accomplishes as much as is possible, and calls it a day.

Remember: Stating the intent is only as accurate as you are in stating your intent. If the closest it can do is teleporting you to the location of the item, regardless of surrounding conditions, that might be what you get.

Yeeep. Like I said, I wasn't really confident on that theory.

Starbuck_II
2009-11-24, 09:56 AM
Partial fulfillment is still possible. Even if the entire block is unseperatable, this is outright perversion. It's not unreasonable to state that the actual words you say and the words you are granted are different. It's not even as far a stretch into defining the Modron language as something that grants perfect precision and clarity of mathematics over all things and has a built in coding feature.

For example: Wishing for an artifact.

Wish looks at what you want:
Deck of Many Things.

Wish looks at what it can do:
25,000 gp worth of item.

Wish evaluates all the things a deck of many things can do, picks a valid spell or item that accomplishes as much as is possible, and calls it a day.

Remember: Stating the intent is only as accurate as you are in stating your intent. If the closest it can do is teleporting you to the location of the item, regardless of surrounding conditions, that might be what you get.

Are you of the belief that Decks of Many Things are mundane? The Gold piece limit is for mundane things.

Wish uses EXP to craft objects when you wish for magic item. It creates the magic item then and there instantly.

Killer Angel
2009-11-24, 10:07 AM
Okay, so anything that isn't on the safe list may be 'dangerous'.


No.
Anything that isn't on the safe list IS dangerous (by raw).
Anything that is on the safe list may eventually be dangerous (imo). If you cast the Wish by yourself, well, you obtain what you'd wish for, there's no way it will go bad. But if you ask a wish to an Efreeti, he would try to subvert it even if you wished something from the "safe list", because you know, he's evil.

dsmiles
2009-11-24, 10:19 AM
*kick, kick*

Yep, this horse is still dead.

PhoenixRivers
2009-11-24, 02:53 PM
Are you of the belief that Decks of Many Things are mundane? The Gold piece limit is for mundane things.

Wish uses EXP to craft objects when you wish for magic item. It creates the magic item then and there instantly.

Not supported by RAW. No indicator is made that the crafting rules are used for xp usage.

Are you of the belief that a Deck of Many Things is a simple magic item?

It's an artifact. There is no safe use for getting an artifact.

I would see this reasonably as either granting you a much weaker similar effect...

Or granting the knowledge of its location. Either way, it's not safe. It'd be perfectly reasonable also to teleport you near the item, owner included.

dsmiles
2009-11-24, 03:01 PM
Aaaahhhhh!!!!Horse Necromancy!!!!!!!

Starbuck_II
2009-11-24, 03:25 PM
Not supported by RAW. No indicator is made that the crafting rules are used for xp usage.

Are you of the belief that a Deck of Many Things is a simple magic item?

It's an artifact. There is no safe use for getting an artifact.

I would see this reasonably as either granting you a much weaker similar effect...

Or granting the knowledge of its location. Either way, it's not safe. It'd be perfectly reasonable also to teleport you near the item, owner included.

What?
So this line:


When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

Means what? Magic item creation... hmm, that probably refers to creating a magic item. I mean, I'm not a logistic professor, but the language is pretty unambigious.

Killer Angel
2009-11-24, 03:53 PM
What?
So this line:

Means what? Magic item creation... hmm, that probably refers to creating a magic item. I mean, I'm not a logistic professor, but the language is pretty unambigious.

The text of the wish spell says:

“You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.). For example, wishing for a Staff of the magi might get you transported to the presence of the staff‘s current owner.”

The example is very specific, and the staff is a minor artifact; so, artifacts fall decisely in the category of "greater effects".

Kallisti
2009-11-24, 04:06 PM
There is no way to make a wish the DM cannot pervert in some way. For example, one of my players once wrote around two pages of legalese for his wish. There was no way I was going to out-tricky language him. I'm good. He's better. So he reads off his wish and I say "You hear the rumbling whine of magic building up, and with a brilliant flash of light a small scrap of paper drifts slowly to your feet. On it are writ these mystic words: Tl;dr. Love, Cosmos. You get a +1 inherent bonus to...*rolls d6*Wisdom."

Because I'm the DM.

And he's a player.

(He was being grossly unreasonable. He was trying to wish that he could cast 'prepared' spells at will, without expending the preparation, etc.)

Eisirt
2009-11-25, 06:25 AM
The problem with wishes being abused is that most of the time players want to get the most bang for their buck and overstate what they really want.
Usually this ends up being game-breaking thus ending the fun in the game for the game-master who has to bend over backwards to keep things mildly interesting or the other players that are being out-cheesed by the "wisher".

Another problem is the arms race of immature players and immature game-masters in trying to screwing each other over as much as possible.

In my opinion the best wishes that are least prone to misfiring are those that advance the story or campaign without breaking the overall plot.


Nice situation comes to mind:

Player: I wish to be all-knowing.

GM: Glad you mentioned this, I have been waiting a long time to do this.

*gives the GM's screen to the player, hands him the GM's Guide and Monster Manuals and takes a sheet from his bag*

Former GM: I always wanted to play.

Jan Mattys
2009-11-25, 07:02 AM
Nice situation comes to mind:

Player: I wish to be all-knowing.

GM: Glad you mentioned this, I have been waiting a long time to do this.

*gives the GM's screen to the player, hands him the GM's Guide and Monster Manuals and takes a sheet from his bag*

Former GM: I always wanted to play.

That would rock :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2009-11-25, 08:47 AM
The problem with wishes being abused is that most of the time players want to get the most bang for their buck and overstate what they really want.
Usually this ends up being game-breaking thus ending the fun in the game for the game-master who has to bend over backwards to keep things mildly interesting or the other players that are being out-cheesed by the "wisher".

Another problem is the arms race of immature players and immature game-masters in trying to screwing each other over as much as possible.

In my opinion the best wishes that are least prone to misfiring are those that advance the story or campaign without breaking the overall plot.


You should read my solution.



Nice situation comes to mind:

Player: I wish to be all-knowing.

GM: Glad you mentioned this, I have been waiting a long time to do this.

*gives the GM's screen to the player, hands him the GM's Guide and Monster Manuals and takes a sheet from his bag*

Former GM: I always wanted to play.

I wish I would have thought of this years ago...:smallwink:

Zeful
2009-11-25, 12:56 PM
Nice situation comes to mind:

Player: I wish to be all-knowing.

GM: Glad you mentioned this, I have been waiting a long time to do this.

*gives the GM's screen to the player, hands him the GM's Guide and Monster Manuals and takes a sheet from his bag*

Former GM: I always wanted to play.

Best Wish twisting ever.

Jayabalard
2009-11-25, 02:40 PM
Any flaws in this portion of the discussion? I feel as if each portion should be tackled individually, or else we get in to giant quote-rivers which go nowhere.Flaw: Your dm does not speak Modron, so you have to spell out everything in (whatever language you as players speak) and anythign that you do not specify explicitly in real life is not part of the wish in Modron. So, while the message traverses across the medium correctly, you still have the potential (probably certainty) a bad data transfer due to message incompleteness.

Flaw: As a non-perfect being, it's possible for your character to introduce an error by not properly translating to modron, resulting in a bad data transfer.

Flaw: As a non-perfect being, it's possible for whoever is interpreting your wish to introduce an error by not perfectly understanding modron.

Flaw: Assuming that modron is a language containing a finite number of symbols, I don't see any reason to assume that a wish specifying things with enough precision to be safe can be said in less time than it takes you to die of old age. I'm not even totally convinced that it can be done in finite time.

Personally, the fact that it allows flawless transfer of information suggests to me that it is impossible to translate from any language to modron without introducing some sort of error during the translation portion.

taltamir
2009-11-25, 03:58 PM
thats what the spells tongues and comprehend language are for. they allow no errors.

Signmaker
2009-11-25, 04:08 PM
Provided, of course, that there exists a language in which such a task is possible. Modron would appear to be the best choice, but as PR stated, may not necessarily work as intended.

So then you go and make your own, usable language. You're likely to have the Int of a Wizard to do it, and you can sculpt it to behave as you intend it to. It can even lack auditory or visual symbology to prevent corruption by motor skills. Of course, that feels like cheating for this discussion. =P