[3.5] Gate/Wish issues

[Minion #6]

How do I stop Gate from being broken? After looking around for a bit, I finally twigged to what the problem with the spell was. Gate in an Efreeti. Three
Wishes... At 20% of the cost of casting Wish once.:smallconfused:

Well, then again, maybe the problem is with Wish, on the other hand. I mean, if Gate didn't result in Wishes, then would that fix it? I guess what I'm asking here is basically some help on Efreeti abuse...

[Kylarra]

wish abuse is only a small portion of gate abuse. The fact that it calls a monster up to 2x your HD that you can control is ridiculous on its own, everything else is icing.

[Glimbur]

The simplest way to fix it is to remove the calling function altogether. There are the Planar Binding and Planar Ally lines if you want a long-term outsider helper, and Summon Monster N if you need a little extra muscle in one combat.

A slightly different approach is to cap the outsider you can call by CR, not HD... outsiders tend to have CR about their HD though so you should also make it 3/4 x CL for the CR of outsider you can call.

[AslanCross]

It's easy if you're the DM. "No Gate-chaining shenanigans or I don't DM for you anymore."

[The Glyphstone]

Or leave the calling function, but make it act like a Greater Planar Binding spell by removing the bit where they have to obey you for short-term tasks. Anything you call physically has to be bargained with, and the really big things you'd be calling with a Gate will be expensive to buy off.

[Gamer Girl]

It depends.

If your a 'follow the rules' type then you can do anything..the rules say they can summon an Efreeti and command wishes from it.


A simple fix would be to have all the Efreeti wishes tragic. This is great flavor, after all the 'classic' wishes from genies have all sorts of bad side effects.

For more flavor, it would not be so hard for Efreeti to block the Gate effect. Just think..what would a race with unlimited wishes do(sure they can't wish themselves, but it would be easy enough to get others to make wishes in return of a wish).

And even more so....there is no reason why the Efreeti could not have a Gate Patrol. They could detect a gate snatching up Efreeti and then go to the location and kill who ever is casting the gate spell. (Remember each Efreeti gets three wishes a day....so a force of 5 Efreeti and one human gets 15 wishes a day.)

For that matter...a dozen or so humans could be on hand in Efreeti vile to simply use a wish to 'undo a misfortune'..namely if an Efreeti is called away by a gate.

You could just drop the whole calling aspect of Gate.
Or you could require them to find a Truename of a creature before they could call it.

The ye old 2E gate offered no control...you could call creatures, but had no control over them.

[Glimbur]

Those are all plausible in-game reactions... but remember that we are playing a game. If a PC wizard calls an Efreet to get Wishes to do something good for the campaign (maybe to revert a TPK or fix something else which is fun for nobody) they should be warned (probably by a knowledge (planes) check) that there's a patrol of Efreet who will jump said PC wizard. Balance is important, but so is fun. It's not fun if your class abilities grow fangs and bite you, metaphorically speaking.

[turkishproverb]

How do I stop Gate from being broken? After looking around for a bit, I finally twigged to what the problem with the spell was. Gate in an Efreeti. Three
Wishes... At 20% of the cost of casting Wish once.:smallconfused:

Well, then again, maybe the problem is with Wish, on the other hand. I mean, if Gate didn't result in Wishes, then would that fix it? I guess what I'm asking here is basically some help on Efreeti abuse...

Efreeti are Lawful Evil. They can twist wishes and stay perfectly in character. It's not a problem.

[Minion #6]

Thing is, with smart players wishes are well worded and harder to twist. I love the idea of the Gate patrol/wish-slaves though. It fits efreeti character type brilliantly. Of course, as stated, fun is more important. But hey, there's an adventure hook right there! Free the Wish-slaves to lessen efreeti tyranny on the Plane of Fire, things like that. Hm... thanks all!

[AtomicKitKat]

Have a fixed duration limit on Gated creatures(and return them to their home when done), and have all Wishes reverse when the time limit expires.

[kestrel404]

Well, my first response to the idea of gate-chained wishes is that the efreet you're gate-chaining is always the same one. The first time you call them up, you get your three wishes - and as has been stated above, those are not free - there's pretty much always a down side to any wish you can think of.

If you gate up an efreet again the same day, it's the same efreet, and their 1/day ability to grant wishes has already been used.

Call him up the next day? Well, it just so happens that the first thing he did that morning was go out and grant wishes to somebody.

So the PCs research another efreet to summon? Well, the first efreet (we'll call him Al) has been scrying on the annoying mortals who keep bothering him, and as soon as the PCs get the name of another efreet (we'll call him Bob) he contacts Bob, gets Bob to use their wishes and Al casts a contingency spell on Bob to cause massive area-effect fire damage if he's summoned via gate - it's like the efreet equivilant of a whoopee cushion joke, only to the tune of 15d6 fire damage.

[Asheram]

Efreeti: Hey, kid. I promise I won't twist your wishes if you wish *previous callers name* permanently dead.

[Jayabalard]

Or leave the calling function, but make it act like a Greater Planar Binding spell by removing the bit where they have to obey you for short-term tasks. Anything you call physically has to be bargained with, and the really big things you'd be calling with a Gate will be expensive to buy off.Personally, I lean this way; I don't think that anything that would cost you more than the gate spell should qualify as a free short term task.

[NichG]

You can try to dodge these things subtly, like saying that most efreeti try to use their Wishes within the first couple of minutes of their day, to prevent just this kind of thing.

Ultimately, though, trying subtle dodges like that is just asking whatever player is actually trying to pull this to keep trying, because it feels like you're setting up a puzzle for them rather than that you're addressing a fundamental issue of something that can break the game.

I think its better to just be upfront and say 'Gate-cheese is prohibited in this campaign; you can use it for travel or summoning, all things you summon are uncontrolled, and if you start abusing even that you'll find they stop coming through the gate in the first place', the same way one would address things like infinite attack loops and other such obvious problems.

[Gnaeus]

My DM's ruling is that summoned/bound/gated monsters will not use SLAs on your behalf if those abilities duplicate spells with exp costs, and to get them to use SLAs with gold costs you have to pay extra in components or bribe them with goods equal to the gp cost. That seems to solve the problem pretty well.

[Aracor]

Since efreets are lawful evil anyway, you can borrow a rule a friend of mine used for wishes in an old 2e campaign:

Require that the wish be asked for in verse.

[Baveboi]

Efreeti: Hey, kid. I promise I won't twist your wishes if you wish *previous callers name* permanently dead.

Got the right idea.
Efreets are, to begin with, CE. They will be very, very happy to help you fulfill anything you Oh So Desire, Master, and will not in any way try to put a dagger in your back and twist it for the lulz. Figuratively speaking.

Other outsiders that grant wishes? They are so powerful they could explode your head with a thought. HEY! I had a nice idea, let's Call them and pester them, like, anyone tried that before right? They are not even a bit tired of it, right?! They don't posses humongous powers at their disposal they could use to make your skull a funny shape, right?!

[Asheram]

Got the right idea.
Efreets are, to begin with, CE. They will be very, very happy to help you fulfill anything you Oh So Desire, Master, and will not in any way try to put a dagger in your back and twist it for the lulz. Figuratively speaking.

Other outsiders that grant wishes? They are so powerful they could explode your head with a thought. HEY! I had a nice idea, let's Call them and pester them, like, anyone tried that before right? They are not even a bit tired of it, right?! They don't posses humongous powers at their disposal they could use to make your skull a funny shape, right?!

That's why the first wish always should be "Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I mean"

And the third wish should be "return to whence you came and replace your memories of these last 10 minutes with something mundane that you ought to have been doing"

[olentu]

That's why the first wish always should be "Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I mean"

And the thrird wish should be "return to whence you came and eternally forget you noticed and interacted with me"

Rather then using the first wish for that just make that part of the service you get from the gate spell which they are required to provide.

[Drynwyn]

Those are all plausible in-game reactions... but remember that we are playing a game. If a PC wizard calls an Efreet to get Wishes to do something good for the campaign (maybe to revert a TPK or fix something else which is fun for nobody) they should be warned (probably by a knowledge (planes) check) that there's a patrol of Efreet who will jump said PC wizard. Balance is important, but so is fun. It's not fun if your class abilities grow fangs and bite you, metaphorically speaking.

Except for chaos mages, and depending on their path, it might be literal.

[Zeful]

How do I stop Gate from being broken? After looking around for a bit, I finally twigged to what the problem with the spell was. Gate in an Efreeti. Three
Wishes... At 20% of the cost of casting Wish once.:smallconfused:

Well, then again, maybe the problem is with Wish, on the other hand. I mean, if Gate didn't result in Wishes, then would that fix it? I guess what I'm asking here is basically some help on Efreeti abuse...

First: Remove the calling function entirely from Gate.
Second: Remove the free gate effect from Candles of invocation (price remains the same).
Third: Remove the charisma check from the entire planar ally line
Fourth: Pick one: 1.)Additional XP costs from spells (like Wish, Permanancy, etc.) still require XP no matter how it's cast. Contracting a service from a creature with such a spell as an SLA/PLA (Effreet) requires a minimum payment of 5gp per each point XP spent in this fashion, other dispositions beyond friendly may alter the price per point of XP up as necessary (not down) 2.)Wish can only create a single magic item costing 25,000gp or add the same cost of enchantment to a single item per casting, anything beyond this triggers the "DM may now screw with you" switch of wishing for something beyond the limits of the spell. 3.)Remove Effreet entirely from your setting.

Problem solved.

[turkishproverb]

That's why the first wish always should be "Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I mean"

And the third wish should be "return to whence you came and replace your memories of these last 10 minutes with something mundane that you ought to have been doing"

Fables, the Third wish has to be to return the Genie to the lamp, or else it will go on a rampage.

Besides that, good luck convincing him you didn't change what you "meant" after the fact. A wish like that isn't going to help as much as you think against legalese.

Rather then using the first wish for that just make that part of the service you get from the gate spell which they are required to provide.

Then you're entering into "contractual" rather than "immediate" as you are dealing with the ramifications of the act rather than the act itself, and he has a right to ask for something in return.

Further, the way Gate works, there's nothing at all stopping something else from coming through the portal aside from that which you summoned.

[olentu]

Fables, the Third wish has to be to return the Genie to the lamp, or else it will go on a rampage.

Besides that, good luck convincing him you didn't change what you "meant" after the fact. A wish like that isn't going to help as much as you think against legalese.


Then you're entering into "contractual" rather than "immediate" as you are dealing with the ramifications of the act rather than the act itself, and he has a right to ask for something in return.

Further, the way Gate works, there's nothing at all stopping something else from coming through the portal aside from that which you summoned.

Er giving wishes while using the measure of interpretation as "Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I mean" is not likely to take more than one round per caster level and "any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task". Thus wishes with intent rather then exact wording is an immediate task.

So not a contractual obligation because it can be completed in one round per caster level. In fact since part of "what I mean" from the aforementioned limitation on the wishes and the service desired is that the service must be completed in less than or equal to one round per caster level taking longer than that is violating the service and thus if the efreit tries to take longer than the duration of an an immediate service he has violated the rules of the spell by not actually preforming the service desired.

[bloodtide]

If I was an Efreet and my kind was gated away all day, every day for years....I'd think they would do something to stop it.


Remember we are talking about a race of people with a ton of wishes, everyday! Just think 100 Efreet would have 300 wishes a day, 2100 a week and so forth. Then just take a time frame...50 years, 100 years...how many wishes could they make.....(having others make them, of course).


Maybe:

Supernatural Ability: Gateless, an Efreeti is immune to the calling effect of the spell gate

Or

Supernatural Ability: Gate Rage, an Efreeti that is called by a gate spell arrives enraged and uncontrollable.

Or

Supernatural Ability: Wishfulness, nothing can compel or force an Efreeti to grant their wishes. The wishes can only be granted if the Efreeti is willing to do so.

Or

Supernatural Ability: Gate vulnerability, an Efreeti that travels through a gate spell has all of their spell-like abilities neutralized(all spell like abilities with daily uses are used up). The abilities remain neutralize until the efreeti returns home and 1d6 days have passed.

[olentu]

If I was an Efreet and my kind was gated away all day, every day for years....I'd think they would do something to stop it.


Remember we are talking about a race of people with a ton of wishes, everyday! Just think 100 Efreet would have 300 wishes a day, 2100 a week and so forth. Then just take a time frame...50 years, 100 years...how many wishes could they make.....(having others make them, of course).

Personally I would think they would have already taken over most of the multiverse already if they were being sensible about things but you know how it is with monsters and being sensible.

[nooblade]

It's a per-day ability, so why not just say that the genie has already given out his three wishes today? Say maybe the Efreet have "wish slaves" who purposefully use up wishes. It's like a symbiotic relationship.

[Curmudgeon]

It's a per-day ability, so why not just say that the genie has already given out his three wishes today?
This is the only option that makes good sense. Wish daily is an extremely powerful ability. Efreet are wise to the value, so why would you expect them to squander that, or risk having it usurped by some random spellcaster using Gate? I can't see any other possibility as likely as them striking a daily bargain, in advance, and using up their Wish quota in the first minute of their personal day.

[olentu]

It's a per-day ability, so why not just say that the genie has already given out his three wishes today? Say maybe the Efreet have "wish slaves" who purposefully use up wishes. It's like a symbiotic relationship.

Again the multiverse.

[Asheram]

I suppose... the easiest way for a genie to get out of the wish business would probably be (like most of you have already said) to find some poor brain-damaged fellow or talk to an animal.
Since they're Lawful evil I doubt they'd stomach people or taking the risk that they could be used, but an animal would be fairly safe.

Efreeti: And what do you want?
Cat: Play! Play!
Efreeti: Very well. *takes out a ball of yarn*
Efreeti: What do you wish now?
Cat: Cuddle!
Efreeti: Very well! *pats the cat a bit*
Efreeti: What do you wish now?
Cat: Nap...
Efreeti: Very well. *conjures a soft pillow*

And this, gentlemen, is why every genie should keep a pet.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Again the multiverse.

Not necessarily; LE doesn't mean "wants multiversal domination." If you'll permit me a small tangent:

I've run several of my campaigns in a world built from the ground up to assume genre-savvy/metagame-ish NPCs and monsters (logical not-quite-Tippyverse-esque use of spells, BBEGs well-versed in the Evil Overlord List, etc.) and had to come up with a reason why creatures with practically infinite wishes didn't take over everything. My solution was to assume three things about the efreet culture: (A) efreet are very selfish and competitive, not caring about what the Evil Efreet Empire can do but rather wanting to exercise iron-fisted authority personally, (B) efreet see non-efreet as useless, pathetic, and beneath their notice, while another efreeti's life is sacred, and (C) they knew that if they made any moves to expand the Plane of Fire to the Prime or add Prime nations to their personal empires they'd be absolutely screwed as soon as the other exemplar races caught wind of it (because, at the very least, Solars > You). This leads to a society where every efreeti wants to out-do every other efreeti but actual violence is unthinkable, efreet possess hordes of slaves but care nothing for conquering land or peoples because of the possibility of loss of efreet life, and so forth.

How, then, would members of a society of extremely cultured, dangerously polite, un-warlike tyrants who would only backstab each other in a figurative sense prove their superiority over one another? Why, by showing oneself to be more creative, more ingenious, more lavish, and more cruel to their slaves than anyone else, of course--they value the display of power over anything else, and revel in the "shock value" of their displays to the lesser races. Every efreeti had a personal attendant to use their wishes, and their wishes would be spent creating seventeen-story three-dimensional mosaics of brass and rubies using the blood of slaves to hold it together, throwing banquets for their 1500 closest arch-rivals dear friends at which only the finest elven wine ("Now with real elves!") and dwarven bacon (available in bearded- and non-bearded varieties) is served, composing tear-jerking operas that take a solid 3 weeks non-stop to perform and kill most of the performers from exhaustion before the end of it, and so on.

Thus, if Joe Power-Hungry Wizard calls up an efreeti to get wishes, he will explain ever-so-regretfully that all of his wishes are positively booked up for the next three years at least (three and a half if Emir al'Saqr is impressed with his latest perfume made with authentic baby panda tears), but that if Joe can find him a few exotic slaves he's never seen before or perhaps find a new recipe that would go well with garlic-roasted aasimar thumbs, well, he might be able to pencil Joe in for one wish in...say, two weeks? Thus, from a metagame perspective, there are logical (albeit somewhat disturbing) reasons that efreet don't rule everything, calling up efreet can still get you XP-free wishes if you're willing to run a few errands and wait a while in case it's plot-necessary as Glimbur suggested (though it'll probably be huge errands and a long time, since the idea of making a fair bargain with a lesser being is ridiculous), and anyone who is anyone knows that frivolously calling up efreet and demanding wishes will just get you a one-way ticket to a road crew in the City of Brass.

[/tangent]


I suppose... the easiest way for a genie to get out of the wish business would probably be (like most of you have already said) to find some poor brain-damaged fellow or talk to an animal.
Since they're Lawful evil I doubt they'd stomach people or taking the risk that they could be used, but an animal would be fairly safe.

Efreeti: And what do you want?
Cat: Play! Play!
Efreeti: Very well. *takes out a ball of yarn*
Efreeti: What do you wish now?
Cat: Cuddle!
Efreeti: Very well! *pats the cat a bit*
Efreeti: What do you wish now?
Cat: Nap...
Efreeti: Very well. *conjures a soft pillow*

And this, gentlemen, is why every genie should keep a pet.

Absolutely brilliant. The next time I run the setting from the tangent above, all of my wish-capable noble djinn will spend their wishes by wandering around the Prime performing random acts of kindness to children and cuddly animals.

I'm picturing the Genie from Aladdin driving a flying ice cream truck through Sharn or Waterdeep: "Hugs-and-kisses-flavored ice cream in a sugar cone with rainbows and pink on top? Certainly, little lady; will that be one scoop or two?"

[turkishproverb]

Er giving wishes while using the measure of interpretation as "Don't give me what I ask for, give me what I mean" is not likely to take more than one round per caster level and "any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task". Thus wishes with intent rather then exact wording is an immediate task.

So not a contractual obligation because it can be completed in one round per caster level. In fact since part of "what I mean" from the aforementioned limitation on the wishes and the service desired is that the service must be completed in less than or equal to one round per caster level taking longer than that is violating the service and thus if the efreit tries to take longer than the duration of an an immediate service he has violated the rules of the spell by not actually preforming the service desired.

Well,

Yea, contractual obligation. Reading the rules right now, and a lot depends upon interpretation. I know Somepeople think everything has to go their way or the DM is "cheating" when things like gate-cheese show up, but the RAW is quite arguable in this event. Mind you, it could easily be said that that's more a problem with RAW, but then there you are.

After all:


Range: See text
Target, Effect, or Area: See text
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: See text


Text doesn't give many specifics, so it falls to the DM to decide what "duration" is and how it effects agreements like this. Gate certainly doesn't cover it explicitily in your favor.

Heck, the Efreet could easily play the same game I am with even less argument. After all, if it's only supposed to be a quick task, logically the results of the wishes should end when he leaves. He performed the service, at least, according to the Efreeti...


Also, off the top of my head:

1.What you mean? I can give you what you consider when you're small minded, but it's a strange request.

2. What you mean? Ok, you have bad grammar, you're obviously asking to be given what you are according to a sample of what various versions of you would wish for.

3. What you mean? Ok, this is what the average person who said your words might have actually wanted out of a sample.

4. What you mean? Ok, the weighted average of all the ways I might grant this wish, none of them good.

5. What you mean? Ok, what your words, as they were originally defined, would cause, as opposed to what modern usage would allow.

6. What you mean? Ok, you'll get the total value of your wish. In gold pieces.

7. What you mean? OK, as you mean to manipulate someone into doing your bidding, your granted wish will drag you into the service of someone ignoring what you actually requested.


8. What you mean? OK, Instead of what you ask for, you get an overall inferior version of yourself.

9. WHat you mean? Ok, I'll give you a wish befitting your low status, rather than what you ask.

10. What you mean? Ok, I"ll grant you a wish befitting your skill, rather than what you ask.

11. What you mean? Ok, a wish to suit or match your ill temper it is.

12. What you mean? A wish to feel ashamed of then. Well, I can do that.

13. What you mean? A wish within your own capabilities then. Very well.

14. What you mean? Get you the wish by whatever methods you would find necessary? I can do that...(I swear, wiping out life on the planet totally seemed necessary at the time!)

15. What you mean? Give you the wish by the method you expect? I can do that. It's a SLA after all.

16. What you mean? Give you what a person as earnest as you would wish for? I can do that, (MInd you, a man who tries to exploit inaccurate cheese isn't by my, a Efreeti's definition, very earnest, so finding a wish someone similar would make that is utterly stupid isn't hard).

17. What you mean? Fine, I'll give you what you weighed on average with the numbers from the last few years.

Yea. Either using it as a gate condition, or as a spell and I can screw you up.

[bloodtide]

Personally I would think they would have already taken over most of the multiverse already if they were being sensible about things but you know how it is with monsters and being sensible.

You do have the power checks. Efreeti are not the only ones that can cast wish as a spell like ability.

And the mulitverse is full of folks that can cast wish and even more powerful spells such as epic spells and other abilities.

And on top of that, you have Deities who can easily cast wish and other such powerful spells.

In fact, the multiverse could very well be a bad Star Trek episode...everyday. Someone recreates reality the way they like it, and then someone changes it back and changes it again and again.

[AtomicKitKat]

Have some deity(The Grand Efreeti Emir?) in charge of the City of Brass. He can thusly prevent any and all gates from opening within his demesnes if he so chooses. Or if he's powerful enough, make it only small enough to let the atmosphere(of hot, nearly molten metal) of the CoB pass through the gate. Hello barbecued Wizard!:smallbiggrin:

[olentu]

Well,

Yea, contractual obligation. Reading the rules right now, and a lot depends upon interpretation. I know Somepeople think everything has to go their way or the DM is "cheating" when things like gate-cheese show up, but the RAW is quite arguable in this event. Mind you, it could easily be said that that's more a problem with RAW, but then there you are.

After all:



Text doesn't give many specifics, so it falls to the DM to decide what "duration" is and how it effects agreements like this. Gate certainly doesn't cover it explicitily in your favor.

Heck, the Efreet could easily play the same game I am with even less argument. After all, if it's only supposed to be a quick task, logically the results of the wishes should end when he leaves. He performed the service, at least, according to the Efreeti...


Also, off the top of my head:

1.What you mean? I can give you what you consider when you're small minded, but it's a strange request.

2. What you mean? Ok, you have bad grammar, you're obviously asking to be given what you are according to a sample of what various versions of you would wish for.

3. What you mean? Ok, this is what the average person who said your words might have actually wanted out of a sample.

4. What you mean? Ok, the weighted average of all the ways I might grant this wish, none of them good.

5. What you mean? Ok, what your words, as they were originally defined, would cause, as opposed to what modern usage would allow.

6. What you mean? Ok, you'll get the total value of your wish. In gold pieces.

7. What you mean? OK, as you mean to manipulate someone into doing your bidding, your granted wish will drag you into the service of someone ignoring what you actually requested.


8. What you mean? OK, Instead of what you ask for, you get an overall inferior version of yourself.

9. WHat you mean? Ok, I'll give you a wish befitting your low status, rather than what you ask.

10. What you mean? Ok, I"ll grant you a wish befitting your skill, rather than what you ask.

11. What you mean? Ok, a wish to suit or match your ill temper it is.

12. What you mean? A wish to feel ashamed of then. Well, I can do that.

13. What you mean? A wish within your own capabilities then. Very well.

14. What you mean? Get you the wish by whatever methods you would find necessary? I can do that...(I swear, wiping out life on the planet totally seemed necessary at the time!)

15. What you mean? Give you the wish by the method you expect? I can do that. It's a SLA after all.

16. What you mean? Give you what a person as earnest as you would wish for? I can do that, (MInd you, a man who tries to exploit inaccurate cheese isn't by my, a Efreeti's definition, very earnest, so finding a wish someone similar would make that is utterly stupid isn't hard).

17. What you mean? Fine, I'll give you what you weighed on average with the numbers from the last few years.

Yea. Either using it as a gate condition, or as a spell and I can screw you up.

Obviously it is again not fulfilling the service unless the person asking for the service actually means waste my time.

Now I could propose adding something like "to the best of your ability and understanding" but you will probably argue that the gated creature actually believes that what the person means when they ask for a wish for say a exceptionally valuable magic item that they want to be transported into the sun. So I am not going to do that, it would be meaningless since regardless of what I say it will just end up with basically the argument that all gated creatures actually believe that the caster actually wants to be killed as the serice no matter what service is asked for and I doubt I can convince you otherwise.



And again the multiverse unless all efreti are carbon copies of which none of the I recall limitless hordes want sufficiently more power.

[turkishproverb]

Obviously it is again not fulfilling the service unless the person asking for the service actually means waste my time.

Now I could propose adding something like "to the best of your ability and understanding" but you will probably argue that the gated creature actually believes that what the person means when they ask for a wish for say a exceptionally valuable magic item that they want to be transported into the sun. So I am not going to do that, it would be meaningless since regardless of what I say it will just end up with basically the argument that all gated creatures actually believe that the caster actually wants to be killed no matter what service is asked for and I doubt I can convince you otherwise.

Not my fault you didn't take into account the English (or common) language. Adding the second part would only go along with the "Mean" statement, still allowing it to be twisted and distorted in pretty much exactly the same way.


And again the multiverse unless all efreti are carbon copies of which none of the I recall limitless hordes want more power.

Buh? :roach:

[olentu]

Not my fault you didn't take into account the English (or common) language. Adding the second part would only go along with the "Mean" statement, still allowing it to be twisted and distorted in pretty much exactly the same way.



Buh? :roach:


Ah it looks like I was spot on. Well now that I have confirmation that discussion with you about any and all of the D&D rules seems that it can only reach the conclusion that all rulings are incorrect I shall agree that everyone is wrong and leave it at that.

[AtomicKitKat]

Ah it looks like I was spot on. Well now that I have confirmation that discussion with you about any and all of the D&D rules seems that it can only reach the conclusion that all rulings are incorrect I shall agree that everyone is wrong and leave it at that.

Actually, I think he was absolutely confused by what you wanted to convey in the quoted sentence. As are most of us.


And again the multiverse unless all efreti are carbon copies of which none of the I recall limitless hordes want sufficiently more power.

Spelling and grammar confusion.:smallconfused:

[olentu]

Actually, I think he was absolutely confused by what you wanted to convey in the quoted sentence. As are most of us.



Spelling and grammar confusion.:smallconfused:

He has it would seem taken the position of the extreme skeptic i.e. when applied to the D&D rules or in fact anything there is nothing that can be discussed since any discussion requires assumptions that can not be proven to be absolutely true. For the reason that all things have some doubt discussion is meaningless if no agreement can be reached on the truth of any matter.

The example that clutched it however is when I correctly predicted that no matter what service is asked for he would say, more or less, that due to the inherent uncertainty of things no definite meaning can ever be determined. Extending this philosophy means that the no definite meaning can ever be determined from the rules as a whole and as such discussion of the rules is meaningless.


I was unclear on the last part though since I changed the person to which I was responding and forgot to mention that. However this has no bearing on the previous point.

[tyckspoon]

How do I stop Gate from being broken? After looking around for a bit, I finally twigged to what the problem with the spell was. Gate in an Efreeti. Three
Wishes... At 20% of the cost of casting Wish once.:smallconfused:

Well, then again, maybe the problem is with Wish, on the other hand. I mean, if Gate didn't result in Wishes, then would that fix it? I guess what I'm asking here is basically some help on Efreeti abuse...

It always amuses me to see people obsessing about the Wish thing, because it's completely missing the actual power of Gate (and also because once you fix the make-any-value-magic-item loophole, free Wishes aren't that big a deal. And you can do the Efreet thing with Planar Binding anyway, no need to invest the 1k exp for Gate.) The big thing about Gate is that there is basically no problem that can't be solved by pointing a CR 20+ Outsider/Elemental/Outer-Plane-Dwelling-Whatever at it, so the decision-making process boils down to: Is this worth spending a 9th level spell on? If yes -> Gate a Solar or Titan or whatever -> Problem over, get loot and xp. The XP spent on the way is annoying, but generally not a really big problem, because A: You already have Ultimate Power, as you are capable of casting Gate, and B: Anything worth solving with a Gate is going to give you more than 1000XP, so you'll still advance, just slower.

It's a relatively simple fix, at least- just remove the 'you automatically control the called creature for short term tasks' bit. I would substitute it with: As part of the spell, the creature called is automatically informed of its summoners identity, alignment, and general reason for calling the creature. As such, while the creature is compelled to answer the call, what it does once it is through the Gate is its own will.. so if you want a Solar to help you take down the Ancient Wyrm Red Dragon that is leading a doomsday cult, it probably will, but you'd better be careful if you're looking at something more trivial or selfish (or calling something that is less altruistic in nature.)

[turkishproverb]

Ah it looks like I was spot on. Well now that I have confirmation that discussion with you about any and all of the D&D rules seems that it can only reach the conclusion that all rulings are incorrect I shall agree that everyone is wrong and leave it at that.

Why would you agree that everyone is wrong? I'm pretty sure at least one guy agreed with you here.

Efreet: has
Alignment: Always lawful evil

They're going to try to twist ANY agreement you bind them to if they don't like it, wish or not.

Also, I really fail to see how anything I said in the post you just quoted was a D&D rules argument at all. Adding a corollary to the end of a sentence does not change the words in the first part of the sentence, and as such they would still be twist-able, merely taking into account the later words as having an effect on the alternate meaning: IE he must now do exactly what you told him in the first part (as he chooses to define it based on a lot of established definitions) of what the character says, and do it in each wish "to the best of your(his) ability and understanding" So it becomes a matter of his defining of what the "mean" would be. IF the "mean" is average value, he can still drop what he sees as the GP (or CP for that matter) value of the wish on the character, as long as he does so to "to the best of your(his) ability and understanding" of what that value would be.

It's all about how you work words, taking the dozens of definitions some words have and choosing the one he wants to see.


The fact words can be perverted does not change what was written.


Mind you, even if we were arguing about the rules as written there, it would still be a bit of an over-reaction on your part to say that it would be pointless to argue any rule with me as I am always going to disagree.


Actually, I think he was absolutely confused by what you wanted to convey in the quoted sentence. As are most of us.



Spelling and grammar confusion.:smallconfused:

Yea, that too.


He has it would seem taken the position of the extreme skeptic i.e. when applied to the D&D rules or in fact anything there is nothing that can be discussed since any discussion requires assumptions that can not be proven to be absolutely true. For the reason that all things have some doubt discussion is meaningless if no agreement can be reached on the truth of any matter.

The example that clutched it however is when I correctly predicted that no matter what service is asked for he would say, more or less, that due to the inherent uncertainty of things no definite meaning can ever be determined. Extending this philosophy means that the no definite meaning can ever be determined from the rules as a whole and as such discussion of the rules is meaningless.


I was unclear on the last part though since I changed the person to which I was responding and forgot to mention that. However this has no bearing on the previous point.

You're still missing the point. If you give an order to a lawful evil creature, or require a task of it, wording is important, and it can twist your words. Heck, when it comes to Genies, that's basically their classical schtick. Would I do that to every single statement in real life? Probably not. But when you give something a command, if it's inclined to twist words you have to be very careful about it. I was merely pointing out that one could do so easily.

[olentu]

Why would you agree that everyone is wrong? I'm pretty sure at least one guy agreed with you here.

Efreet: has

They're going to try to twist ANY agreement you bind them to if they don't like it, wish or not.

Also, I really fail to see how anything I said in the post you just quoted was a D&D rules argument at all. Adding a corollary to the end of a sentence does not change the words in the first part of the sentence, and as such they would still be twist-able, merely taking into account the later words as having an effect on the alternate meaning: IE he must now do exactly what you told him in the first part (as he chooses to define it based on a lot of established definitions) of what the character says, and do it in each wish "to the best of your(his) ability and understanding" So it becomes a matter of his defining of what the "mean" would be. IF the "mean" is average value, he can still drop what he sees as the GP (or CP for that matter) value of the wish on the character, as long as he does so to "to the best of your(his) ability and understanding" of what that value would be.

It's all about how you work words, taking the dozens of definitions some words have and choosing the one he wants to see.


The fact words can be perverted does not change what was written.


Mind you, even if we were arguing about the rules as written there, it would still be a bit of an over-reaction on your part to say that it would be pointless to argue any rule with me as I am always going to disagree.



Yea, that too.

Your argument is that any words no matter how simple and direct can be deliberately misunderstood since the language is so imprecise. And thus nothing definite can ever be determined from a string of words. Then the DM can always mess up the players requested service. E.g. you might argue that while one can command the creature that one has controlled to preform a service the spell does not say that the creature has to follow the command as opposed to killing the caster since the type of control is not specified and thus since uncertain could mean that one can control the creatures only for the purpose of changing the default action of the creature from dancing in place to killing the caster by commanding it to preform a service.


However applying this philosophy the the D&D rules means that nothing definite can ever be determined from the strings of words that make up the D&D rules. Thus any discussion of the rules with you is meaningless because by your own proposition no definitive conclusion can ever be reached.

And the thing is I can not disagree with a position which argues that existence is to uncertain for definitive truth to be determined. It is a perfectly reasonable position for one to take and so there is nothing more that I can do but agree that for a certain measure of truth it seems that no position about how the D&D rules work can be proven without a doubt to be true and leave it at that.