Why SLA Wish Can't Make Free Magic Items

[Lysander]

Time for the most rules lawyery reasoning imaginable. SLA do not have an xp cost:


A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost.

"An" can be defined as "one", so the rule above is equivalent to saying it does not have "one xp cost."

Wish has the following rule:


XP Cost

The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. 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.


So technically that isn't an xp cost. That's three seperate xp costs added together (or one cost x 2 plus another cost). SLA rules merely state it does not have AN xp cost, not that it does not have ANY xp cost.

Now of course your player will argue that the sum of the three separate costs is still "an xp cost." Which it is. But it never says at which point the "an xp cost" avoidance kicks in. Nothing says it has to happen after you add up all the separate costs. That's up to the DM to decide, and if they want to have it merely negate the "plus an additional 5,000 XP", well that's still an xp cost the SLA does not have.

Think of it as a get out of jail free card. You commit murder, go to jail, use your card. Then the government charges you for conspiracy to commit murder, illegal gun possession, and spilling blood on public property and throws you back in. It's still a get out of jail card and technically did what it's advertised to do, even though you're back in the cell.

"Now wait," you say. You're just using the most tortured logic possible to twist the rules to screw my character over. Exactly. Welcome to Wish.

[Stegyre]

Think of it as a get out of jail free card. You commit murder, go to jail, use your card. Then the government charges you for conspiracy to commit murder, illegal gun possession, and spilling blood on public property and throws you back in. It's still a get out of jail card and technically did what it's advertised to do, even though you're back in the cell.
We lawyers call that "double jeopardy," and yes, actually, your get-out-of-jail-free card does stop the government from then charging you with all of these related crimes (with certain very limited and casuistical exceptions). So, bad analogy. :smallwink:

"Now wait," you say. You're just using the most tortured logic possible to twist the rules to screw my character over. Exactly. Welcome to Wish.
In the vein of two wrongs do not make a right, bad reasoning on one side of an argument is not a good response to bad reasoning on the other side. There are many effective GM responses to SLA Wish abuse. This is not one of them. (The simplest, imho, is simply to houserule out the whole "SLAs do not have an XP cost." Sure, that's no longer "RAW," but the way RAW is applied by some players gives an added meaning to fantasy rpg.)

[Kesnit]

We lawyers call that "double jeopardy," and yes, actually, your get-out-of-jail-free card does stop the government from then charging you with all of these related crimes (with certain very limited and casuistical exceptions). So, bad analogy. :smallwink:

Not necessarily. The card says "you can commit murder and not go to jail." In the analogy, you didn't go to jail for murder. You went to jail for conspiracy (which in some jurisdictions does merge with the completed crime and some it is a separate crime), illegal gun possession, and spilling blood on public property. Those are all separate crimes, so the criminal would not fall into double jeopardy.


In the vein of two wrongs do not make a right, bad reasoning on one side of an argument is not a good response to bad reasoning on the other side. There are many effective GM responses to SLA Wish abuse. This is not one of them. (The simplest, imho, is simply to houserule out the whole "SLAs do not have an XP cost." Sure, that's no longer "RAW," but the way RAW is applied by some players gives an added meaning to fantasy rpg.)

The OP's idea is just another houserule. A bit more complex than the one you mentioned, but a houserule none the less. In fact, the OP's rule could make it more likely players would use SLA Wish as a game breaker because the XP cost would be lower than RAW.

[maestro78]

Curious. If a DM wanted to strike this one down, couldn't a they just interpret it through the usual "specific trumps general" rule?

As in: The general rule for SLAs are that they don't have an XP cost, however the specific rule for Wish overrides that.

[Tiki Snakes]

Um, this is possibly the most painful thread I've read in a while.
Have a Cookie. OF SHAME.
http://www.shelikescute.com/shop/images/pin_cookie_sad.jpg

If you don't want SLA Wish to have no XP cost, just give it an XP cost.

[hamishspence]

Double jeopardy prevents a person being tried twice for "the same crime"- but they can still be indicted on related offenses that aren't the same offense.

Edit: Ninjaed.

And then there is "civil liability" as opposed to criminal offense- a person can be judged civilly liable for killing somebody, even after being acquitted of murdering that same person.

[Kylarra]

Not necessarily. The card says "you can commit murder and not go to jail." In the analogy, you didn't go to jail for murder. You went to jail for conspiracy (which in some jurisdictions does merge with the completed crime and some it is a separate crime), illegal gun possession, and spilling blood on public property. Those are all separate crimes, so the criminal would not fall into double jeopardy. Actually our hypothetical card doesn't say anything about murder, it's simply a "get out of jail free" card.

[Oslecamo]

(The simplest, imho, is simply to houserule out the whole "SLAs do not have an XP cost." Sure, that's no longer "RAW," but the way RAW is applied by some players gives an added meaning to fantasy rpg.)

Bah, no need to change RAW!

You see, an SLA has no exp cost. That's the same that saying that the cost is assumed to be 0.

Thus, wish SLA can create any magic item that costs 0 exp! Presto!:smallcool:

[Zincorium]

I'm not seeing your logic at all, actually.

If you have three XP costs, you do have AN xp cost. You also have two more, each of which is an xp cost.

As each is an xp cost, SLAs don't have any of them no matter how many parts you divide them up into.


On a side note, I've never seen wish as an SLA in an actual game. People seem unwilling to trust genies, for some reason...

[Lysander]

Um, this is possibly the most painful thread I've read in a while.
Have a Cookie. OF SHAME.
http://www.shelikescute.com/shop/images/pin_cookie_sad.jpg

If you don't want SLA Wish to have no XP cost, just give it an XP cost.

Oh, this isn't a serious attempt to use RAW. I mean, it's much better and simpler just to houserule it. But it's fun to figure out a way to negate that exploit within RAW.

[deuxhero]

The issue with non-free SLAs is the SLAs balanced around it that are (quite honestly) crap without the rule. Loremaster and Healer are perfectly fine with their free Id/Legend lore/ID mass and true res (the 2nd explicitly points out it is free)

[taltamir]

If you don't want SLA Wish to have no XP cost, just give it an XP cost.

The OP seems to want to have an exercise in rule lawyery, obviously you can just house rule it away. This is a question of theoretical RAW that shouldn't be in games, like pun pun.


Curious. If a DM wanted to strike this one down, couldn't a they just interpret it through the usual "specific trumps general" rule?

As in: The general rule for SLAs are that they don't have an XP cost, however the specific rule for Wish overrides that.

Awesome catch, I think this is the best way to do this by the RAW.

[Lysander]

I'm not seeing your logic at all, actually.

If you have three XP costs, you do have AN xp cost. You also have two more, each of which is an xp cost.

As each is an xp cost, SLAs don't have any of them no matter how many parts you divide them up into.


On a side note, I've never seen wish as an SLA in an actual game. People seem unwilling to trust genies, for some reason...

Think of it this way. Let's say I have a big burlap bag of aardvarks I'm planning on cooking up later for dinner. I purchased 26 aardvarks at the store. One aardvark chews its way out of the bag on the way home and escapes. When I get home I look in and only count 25. "Hey, I'm missing an aardvark" is what I'd say. My missing an aardvark does not mean I no longer have the other 25 that I slaughter and eat later. It only means I'm missing one aardvark.

This says less about RAI than it does about how context-based and easy to manipulate language is.

[Optimystik]

Curious. If a DM wanted to strike this one down, couldn't a they just interpret it through the usual "specific trumps general" rule?

As in: The general rule for SLAs are that they don't have an XP cost, however the specific rule for Wish overrides that.

But the specific rule for Wish applies to its use as the spell, not as an SLA. So we can't be sure it applies here.

If you interpret the SLA rule as - anything in the "XP cost" section at the bottom of the spell description is waived - that would apply to Wish just as well as it would anything else.

[Tiki Snakes]

Think of it this way. Let's say I have a big burlap bag of aardvarks I'm planning on cooking up later for dinner. I purchased 26 aardvarks at the store. One aardvark chews its way out of the bag on the way home and escapes. When I get home I look in and only count 25. "Hey, I'm missing an aardvark" is what I'd say. My missing an aardvark does not mean I no longer have the other 25 that I slaughter and eat later. It only means I'm missing one aardvark.

This says less about RAI than it does about how context-based and easy to manipulate language is.

On your way home, you nip into a bar for a quick drink because ardvarks are heavy. There is a sign, it says, "No Ardvarks"
So you ask the Bouncer, and he says, "No, you may not bring an Ardvark into the Bar.

Ah, you reply, but I am not, because An Ardvark escaped the bag, therefor I am not bringing An Ardvark into the Bar.

He hits you for being dumb, and throws your 25 Ardvarks into the street after you.

Your Lawyering does not work.

[Lysander]

On your way home, you nip into a bar for a quick drink because ardvarks are heavy. There is a sign, it says, "No Ardvarks"
So you ask the Bouncer, and he says, "No, you may not bring an Ardvark into the Bar.

Ah, you reply, but I am not, because An Ardvark escaped the bag, therefor I am not bringing An Ardvark into the Bar.

He hits you for being dumb, and throws your 25 Ardvarks into the street after you.

Your Lawyering does not work.

Well, in that case I'd just bring in one aardvark since the sign clearly only bans multiple aardvarks. The next guy to try bringing in an aardvark would be in some major trouble though.

[Tiki Snakes]

Well, in that case I'd just bring in one aardvark since the sign clearly only bans multiple aardvarks. The next guy to try bringing in an aardvark would be in some major trouble though.

You aquire more bruises, but no boozes. So sorry.
"Is that an Ardvark? No Ardvarks." *thwump!*

[Stegyre]

Double jeopardy prevents a person being tried twice for "the same crime"- but they can still be indicted on related offenses that aren't the same offense.
(Lawyerly side discussion) No, they cannot. All offenses relating to the same conduct must be tried at the same time. The State gets one chance to put you away. They cannot try you first on premeditated murder; you gain an acquittal; and they retry you on manslaughter or gun possession (for a felon), for example. The courts have invented a narrow (and imo extremely suspect) exception for state versus federal crimes, which is how the Rodney King police officers were re-tried.


And then there is "civil liability" as opposed to criminal offense- a person can be judged civilly liable for killing somebody, even after being acquitted of murdering that same person.Very true, for multiple reasons (differing parties, different standards of proof). But that's beyond the scope of the analogy.

/lawyerly side discussion.

Multiple other preceding posts emphasize the real point: there are far better solutions to this problem. To make my own, heinously mixed-metaphor analogy, Don't go all Herb-Goldberg-contraption when Alexander-cutting-the-knot is the way to go.

[Lysander]

You aquire more bruises, but no boozes. So sorry.
"Is that an Ardvark? No Ardvarks." *thwump!*

"I've had enough of this impetuous bouncer! Attack him, my aardvark slaves!"

25 aardvarks pounce on the bouncer and start devouring him.

Then the bartender runs out. "Ben! Why are you fighting with all those aardvarks?"

"This guy was trying to get aardvarks in the bar. I saw the sign you put up. No aardvarks allowed." says the flailing bouncer.

"What? No! I put up the "No Aardvarks" sign to warn people that we'd run OUT of aardvarks. People keep asking the chef to cook up aardvark burgers and we didn't want to disappoint them!" says the bartender.

"Woops, my mistake. You and your aardvarks can come in" says the bloodied bouncer who stands up as the aardvarks withdraw.

"Nah, it's getting late," I say. "I really ought to go home and start eating these aardvarks."

[Stegyre]

"I've had enough of this impetuous bouncer! Attack him, my aardvark slaves!"
* * *
Thankfully, the distracting lawyer conversation is completely obscured by all of the aardvarks. :smallbiggrin:

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

So technically that isn't an xp cost. That's three seperate xp costs added together (or one cost x 2 plus another cost). SLA rules merely state it does not have AN xp cost, not that it does not have ANY xp cost.

Counterpoint. And, in fact, I think this seals the argument.


A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost.

Both Focus and XP Cost are, quite simply, aspects of the spell. Hell, there's even a special header for both Focus and for XP Cost.

You wouldn't argue that Legend Lore, which requires " Four strips of ivory (worth 50 gp each) formed into a rectangle" still requires that because it's four separate foci: it's all there listed under Focus (singular).

Likewise, the XP cost for Wish is listed under XP Cost (also singular). Shenanigans aside, that's the XP cost that all the rules refer to. There's no other mention of individual XP costs. At the worst, you can claim that your player has to pay the extra 5,000 XP listed...but the rest is clearly listed as twice the original XP cost, which, given the spell-like nature, is nonexistant. Therefore the new number, whatever it would be, is also nonexistant.

[Optimystik]

That was my point - "no XP cost" simply means "disregard anything written under the "XP cost" heading for that spell.

[Foeofthelance]

I thought the XP cost was for the magic item, not the spell.

So Johnny Wizard tries to forge a magic sword, with a cost of 1000xp. It takes him two weeks and he has a shiny new sword.

Willy Wizard decides he's not all that good with a hammer, and is going to wish for the sword. He pays 7000xp, 5000 for the wish spell, and double the XP cost of the magic sword since he's not using anything or bothering to spend the time.

Willy and Johnny then decide to take their shiny new sword for a test ride by attacking David Demon. David decides he needs a new sword to deal with this intolerable mortals, and burns his Wish SLA to get one just like theirs. He pays just 2000xp, since the sword costs 1000 to forge, and he also isn't bothering with the time or materials so he also pays double. Of course, he's a monster and what he really should have done is wished for Asmodeous to pop up and smite the mortals, since that would have been much more entertaining to watch...

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

That was my point - "no XP cost" simply means "disregard anything written under the "XP cost" heading for that spell.

Exactly.

Otherwise it opens a door for all sorts of strange rules abuse.

"Female characters get no class features! All pronouns in the PHB read along the lines of 'he may...,' which clearly means that female characters can't take those actions!"

"Favored Enemy skill bonuses apply only when used 'against creatures of this type!' Therefore Rangers must be unable to effectively track a single Orc!"

...Yeah. Let's not go there. Ever.

[Lysander]

Counterpoint. And, in fact, I think this seals the argument.

Both Focus and XP Cost are, quite simply, aspects of the spell. Hell, there's even a special header for both Focus and for XP Cost.

You wouldn't argue that Legend Lore, which requires " Four strips of ivory (worth 50 gp each) formed into a rectangle" still requires that because it's four separate foci: it's all there listed under Focus (singular).

Likewise, the XP cost for Wish is listed under XP Cost (also singular). Shenanigans aside, that's the XP cost that all the rules refer to. There's no other mention of individual XP costs. At the worst, you can claim that your player has to pay the extra 5,000 XP listed...but the rest is clearly listed as twice the original XP cost, which, given the spell-like nature, is nonexistant. Therefore the new number, whatever it would be, is also nonexistant.

Well, the focus is technically the rectangle not the individual strips so that really doesn't apply there. I suppose if a spell required multiple focuses the same argument could work.

Ah, but SLA rules doesn't say they avoid paying all xp costs, just an xp cost. Of course RAI "an xp cost" means "all xp costs." But RAW it can be interpreted in a few different ways. It's a tortuous interpretation, and trickery, but still grammatically correct. Lots of phrases can be abused this way.

Here's another trick to stop SLA Wish magic item creation. The rule in wish is:



Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.

Where does it say you can actually PICK which item is created?

[tyckspoon]

Where does it say you can actually PICK which item is created?

The second clause makes that one trivial to bypass. Grab a Feather Token or a Panic Button or some other trivially cheap magic trinket, and wish for whatever you wanted to be added to it as new powers.

[Milskidasith]

Not necessarily. The card says "you can commit murder and not go to jail." In the analogy, you didn't go to jail for murder. You went to jail for conspiracy (which in some jurisdictions does merge with the completed crime and some it is a separate crime), illegal gun possession, and spilling blood on public property. Those are all separate crimes, so the criminal would not fall into double jeopardy.

Double jeopardy includes lesser crimes that are included with a greater crime; much like you can't be charged with possession of stolen property if you are found not guilty for stealing property, but had a stolen phone planted on you and were obviously guilty, you can't be charged with anything mentioned there (except conspiracy to commit murder, if it was a specific exception) because possession of a gun, assault with a gun, and spilling blood are all lesser included crimes that come with first degree murder.

[Lysander]

The second clause makes that one trivial to bypass. Grab a Feather Token or a Panic Button or some other trivially cheap magic trinket, and wish for whatever you wanted to be added to it as new powers.

Where does it say you can pick which new power is added?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Where does it say you can actually PICK which item is created?



Why stop there? Why allow the wizard to pick the spell duplicated, or the effects removed? Why allow him to choose what creature returns to life? Why allow the Wizard to have any control at all? In fact, let's just make a better spell, hmmm?


Summon Wish Argument
Universal
Level: Sor/Wiz 9
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Past the 4th wall
Target, Effect, or Area: All players and DMs
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial.
Spell Resistance: No

The DM chooses terrible things to happen. They happen to you. All players spend the next 4 hours arguing semantics about the RAI vs. RAW, and go home pissed. The campaign must succeed on a Fortitude save (DC infinity) or be effectively ruined.

Better, no?



Basically, I'm wondering why you're going to these lengths to defend an obviously game-ruining argument with tenuous logic. Can you give me some insight?

[taltamir]

Exactly.

Otherwise it opens a door for all sorts of strange rules abuse.

"Female characters get no class features! All pronouns in the PHB read along the lines of 'he may...,' which clearly means that female characters can't take those actions!"

"Favored Enemy skill bonuses apply only when used 'against creatures of this type!' Therefore Rangers must be unable to effectively track a single Orc!"

...Yeah. Let's not go there. Ever.

I thought the books universally referred to all characters as as she.

[Lysander]

Basically, I'm wondering why you're going to these lengths to defend an obviously game-ruining argument with tenuous logic. Can you give me some insight?

Oh, I'd never apply this in an actual game. This is just a thought experiment to show that rules exploits can work either way. The only time I'd bring up this tortuous logic is if a player tries to chain gate in solars.

[ericgrau]

There is a much easier way to handle obviously game breaking exploits as a DM. Just say no, rules or not. Save the rules debates for things that are less obviously wrong.

[Heliomance]

Why stop there? Why allow the wizard to pick the spell duplicated, or the effects removed? Why allow him to choose what creature returns to life? Why allow the Wizard to have any control at all? In fact, let's just make a better spell, hmmm?



Better, no?



Basically, I'm wondering why you're going to these lengths to defend an obviously game-ruining argument with tenuous logic. Can you give me some insight?

Because it's an amusing argument. Lysander never meant it to be taken seriously, he thought of something that amused him and decided to share it. Dude, it's just a forum. You should really just relax. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MST3KMantra)

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Oh, I'd never apply this in an actual game. This is just a thought experiment to show that rules exploits can work either way. The only time I'd bring up this tortuous logic is if a player tries to chain gate in solars.

Ericgrau has it right. Rule 0 was included to make this sort of thing unnecessary. All it does is create irritation both at the table and, quite frankly, here in the forum. Why argue what isn't even a rules exploit (you're arguing based on the English language's shortcomings, and the game designer's attempts to not make every spell and ability a four page legal document) when you can make everyone happier by just bringing in rule 0?

[Optimystik]

Ericgrau has it right. Rule 0 was included to make this sort of thing unnecessary. All it does is create irritation both at the table and, quite frankly, here in the forum. Why argue what isn't even a rules exploit (you're arguing based on the English language's shortcomings, and the game designer's attempts to not make every spell and ability a four page legal document) when you can make everyone happier by just bringing in rule 0?

But then what would we nerdrage about? :smallconfused:

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But then what would we nerdrage about? :smallconfused:

Eh. I'd personally much rather nerdrage vanish.

Anyway, I'm out. This little discussion is grating on my nerves to much. :smallfrown:

[Grumman]

Oh, I'd never apply this in an actual game. This is just a thought experiment to show that rules exploits can work either way. The only time I'd bring up this tortuous logic is if a player tries to chain gate in solars.
As Zincorium has already said, your attempt to at "tortuous logic" doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

If I say I don't have an apple, I do not mean that I do not possess the specific apple currently being held by that guy over there, I mean I do not possess any apples.

[Flickerdart]

Ericgrau has it right. Rule 0 was included to make this sort of thing unnecessary. All it does is create irritation both at the table and, quite frankly, here in the forum. Why argue what isn't even a rules exploit (you're arguing based on the English language's shortcomings, and the game designer's attempts to not make every spell and ability a four page legal document) when you can make everyone happier by just bringing in rule 0?
Frankly, Wish is one of those spells (along with Genesis) that could have used the legal document treatment.

[Optimystik]

The plural/not plural point is moot anyway, as WotC has used both.

Singular: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) "nor does it have an XP cost."
Plural: (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20040420a) "A spell-like ability has no XP components."

[Tyndmyr]

Frankly, Wish is one of those spells (along with Genesis) that could have used the legal document treatment.

One player I know of designed such a document for wish. It was nearly ten pages in length.

I believe a hole was found after less than fifteen minutes of discussion. The whole problem of it is that it was designed to be so open ended...it's hard to embrace that without leaving holes.

[hamishspence]

Frankly, Wish is one of those spells (along with Genesis) that could have used the legal document treatment.

"The party of the first part (who will henceforth be known as "the caster")"

kind of treatment? :smallbiggrin:

[Lysander]

One player I know of designed such a document for wish. It was nearly ten pages in length.

I believe a hole was found after less than fifteen minutes of discussion. The whole problem of it is that it was designed to be so open ended...it's hard to embrace that without leaving holes.

Probably rather than legalese what would work best is deliberate vagueness. "Only a wish the DM views as a reasonable request for a level 9 spell with a high xp cost will be fully successful."

[Optimystik]

Probably rather than legalese what would work best is deliberate vagueness. "Only a wish the DM views as a reasonable request for a level 9 spell with a high xp cost will be fully successful."

That goes without saying. How many wishes have you fully resolved that your DM considered unreasonable?

[Jayabalard]

Why argue what isn't even a rules exploit (you're arguing based on the English language's shortcomings, and the game designer's attempts to not make every spell and ability a four page legal document) when you can make everyone happier by just bringing in rule 0?I see at as a good example of why any sort of "according to the RAW" argument over using wish SLA's to create items is rather absurd. It's something that quite clearly needs to be adjudicated by the GM, and you're going to need both reasonable players and a reasonable GM to make it work.


Frankly, Wish is one of those spells (along with Genesis) that could have used the legal document treatment.Nah, it's better off with a "these are only some loose guidelines, check with your dm to see how it actually works in that particular game" clause.