PDA

View Full Version : Whats a good Wish to make? (No backfire/Careful wording)



Sims
2011-01-15, 11:31 PM
Now Im sure we're all familiar with the wish spell right? Well, as a 21st level character, I have access to the spell, as well as 3 scrolls with the wish spell in them.

Now my question to the community is, what is a good "Wish" I can make that my DM won't back fire. More specifically, how exactly do I word it?

I won't to make it more powerful than what it can already do, which in itself will likely lead to chaos.

lvl 1 sharnian
2011-01-15, 11:35 PM
•Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
•Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
•Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
•Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
•Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
•Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
•Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.
•Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.
•Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from casting a spell or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead.
•Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level.
•Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.
•Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

I think I worded these correctly

Jallorn
2011-01-15, 11:37 PM
Now Im sure we're all familiar with the wish spell right? Well, as a 21st level character, I have access to the spell, as well as 3 scrolls with the wish spell in them.

Now my question to the community is, what is a good "Wish" I can make that my DM won't back fire. More specifically, how exactly do I word it?

I won't to make it more powerful than what it can already do, which in itself will likely lead to chaos.

Honestly, unless your DM is a jerk, he likely won't twist a wish unless it's designed to make you ridiculously powerful. In most cases, carefully worded wishes come across as a challenge.

Arbane
2011-01-16, 12:01 AM
Honestly, unless your DM is a jerk, he likely won't twist a wish unless it's designed to make you ridiculously powerful.

Hmph. Kids these days. I remember back in the OLD days, when getting hold of a Wish was an invitation to disaster! There was none of this "Fair Play" nonsense then - EVERY Wish was Monkey's-Paw-Style!

(Only half joking, here.)

Jothki
2011-01-16, 01:47 AM
If your DM is reasonable, you should probably be able to carry out any arcanish effect roughly in line with the power of a level 8 spell, or any divinish effect in line with the power of a level 6 spell, not just effects for spells that are actually written.

gbprime
2011-01-16, 08:02 AM
•Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
•Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
•Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
•Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
•Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
•Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
•Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.
•Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.
•Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from casting a spell or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead.
•Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level.
•Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.
•Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

I think I worded these correctly

Yes. Anything on that list should work automatically. So if you're fishing for things to do with 5 wishes, I'd go for a permanent +5 bonus to your primary casting stat.

akma
2011-01-16, 08:20 AM
Trade them for miracle castings, it`s the same without the DM needing to feel he needs to screw you.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-16, 09:57 AM
Trade them for miracle castings, it`s the same without the DM needing to feel he needs to screw you.

On the other hand, it's also a blank check for the DM to just say 'lol no', in his persona as the god you're petitioning for a miracle.

Tibbaerrohwen
2011-01-16, 11:19 AM
^ Agreed.

Wish and Miracle are both pretty dangerous areas to get into. If you have the ability to talk to your DM outside of the gaming environment, you may want to discuss with them what they think would be fair and unfair. To me, that seems like the most sure-fire way to make it so your DM doesn't come back at you and go "BLAM! Now you're dead."

Swordguy
2011-01-16, 12:51 PM
"I wish that any future Wishes I may make or have granted to me will be granted according to the intent behind their wording, and not twisted in any way according to the actual wording itself or by the desires of the force or entity granting the Wish."

There. You've "wasted" a wish on something that doesn't get you anything right away. Especially if Wishes are fairly rare in your campaign (as they should be), most DMs will let this one be granted pretty straight-up.

And you can see the obvious utility for future Wishes, right?

Moose Man
2011-01-16, 12:55 PM
i wish that you won't grant this wish. screw over the dm with that

Ytaker
2011-01-16, 01:11 PM
http://www.homeonthestrange.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=95&sid=583545a170989466a87faaab577b3c7f

”I wish to live on the locations of my choice, as the physically healthy, uninjured, and apparently normal version of my current body containing my current mental state (which shall retain its usual ability to change), a body which will heal from all injuries at a rate three sigmas faster than the average given the medical technology available to me on earth, and which will be protected from any diseases, injuries or illnesses causing disability, pain, or degraded functionality or any sense, organ, or bodily function for more than two days consecutively or fifteen days in any year;

at any time I may rejuvenate my body to a younger age, by saying a phrase matching this pattern five times without interruption, and with conscious intent: 'I wish to be age,’ followed by a number between one and ninety nine, followed by ‘years old,’ at which point the pattern ends - after saying a phrase matching that pattern, my body will revert to an age matching the number of years I stated and I will commence to age normally from that stage, with all of my memories intact;

at any time I may die, by saying five times without interruption, and with conscious intent, 'I wish to be dead’. If I cannot say this, thinking the above phrase "I wish to be dead" five times without interruption and with conscious intent will have the same effecy.

; the terms 'year' and 'day' in this wish shall be interpreted as the ISO standard definitions of the Earth year and day as of 2006.

In your fulfilment as the genie of these wishes, you shall not change now or in the future my location in space or time, or my base level of comfort as a human with the environment. You shall not in your fulfilment as the genie of these wishes alter my sense or reality of time to fulfil the terms of this wish.

Improved.

Free source wishing.

Toliudar
2011-01-16, 01:27 PM
Wishes that break the power level of the game are no-win situations. Maybe the DM recognizes for what they are, and finds some way to hose you (even if you think that your wording is fool-proof, it's being interpreted by the person who feels compelled to hose you, so the "you didn't say that you didn't want to be on fire" logic takes hold, and the result is unhappy. Maybe the DM doesn't recognize its potential, and you get your invulnerability/massive stat boost/infinite wishes, and balance goes a little more out the window. Congratulations!

The best uses of wishes I've seen are to deal with an extremely bad plot-related situation. If you're part-way to a TPK, or another player has inexplicably chosen to read the book summoning Cthulhu, the DM will likely have neither the time nor the inclination to second-guess your wish to polymorph the BBEG into a chew-toy for the druid's animal companion.

Good wishes should do at least one of the following, and ideally all three:

Advance the story
Make no major changes to the party's status quo
Make everyone in the game laugh

Hazzardevil
2011-01-16, 01:36 PM
I don't belive theres anythign wrong that breaks the rules with wishing for more scrolls of wish.
I think that might be shot down by teh creation of magical items rule however.

Knwoing my luck they didn't come up with that rule to stop people wishing for wishes with scrolls.

Or better yet maybe you can wish for an eternal wand of wishes.

Defiant
2011-01-16, 01:54 PM
This excerpt


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.)

means that any attempt to word a wish carefully is pointless.

RndmNumGen
2011-01-16, 01:54 PM
Even wishes that are perfectly worded are still subject to the "partial fulfillment" clause. Therefore, you should wish for one of the following:

1) One of the acceptable Wishes outlined in the spell description.
2) A wish that the DM would want to grant you(See Toliudar's post)

EDIT: Gah, ninja'ed! Ah well, my point still stands.

GideonRiddle
2011-01-16, 02:57 PM
My group has found that ending a Wish with the phrase "exactly as I intended." they always get what they ask for.

This may change depending on the GM though.

Toliudar
2011-01-16, 03:09 PM
This seems unhelpful to me. If "exactly as I intended" were a workable mechanic, then it should be possible to simply say "I wish for what I wish for, exactly as I intend" and it will come true, since the universe will somehow divine what you are wishing for, as if you were blowing out birthday candles, and make it come true.

afroakuma
2011-01-16, 06:12 PM
"I wish that any future Wishes I may make or have granted to me will be granted according to the intent behind their wording, and not twisted in any way according to the actual wording itself or by the desires of the force or entity granting the Wish."

Granted

...except that you will never again make a wish. The power of this spell will intervene in any future attempts and spoil them for you.


Horribly easy-to-exploit wish.

Granted

You are sealed, forever, in a single moment of frozen time, save for five seconds' latitude. You may elect to use this brief time to speak the words that will end your life; otherwise, you will be trapped for eternity one half-second out of phase with reality. Be anywhere that you want to be; you will still be unseen and unseeing, unsensed and unsensing, fallen into a chronological oubliette between the frayed edges of reality. Perhaps one day you shall "emerge" as a Vestige... but we doubt it...

Efreet Worldwide - Being Humongous Jerks since 1 GE

This topic tends to come up a lot, and as I always repeat, I have only once seen the "perfect" wish - using a fictional impossible-to-misinterpret language along with strict and heavy legalese including clauses and subclauses, plus the ability to examine and reject (forcing restructuring) in advance the outcome of the wish. And bear in mind - this can only prevent me as a DM from sadistically misreading it. No wording whatsoever can prevent the partial fulfillment clause from giving you an existential colonoscopy.

Zeful
2011-01-16, 06:44 PM
As Afro says there is no perfect wish. Even those "Do as I mean, not as I say" guard wishes (as Swordguy posted) are actually beyond the power of wish (you are asking a single spell to look into the future and determine what you want and then change your future casting of the same spell to give you what you want, this is clearly more powerful than anything on the list of "approved" effects).

Ytaker
2011-01-16, 07:17 PM
You are sealed, forever, in a single moment of frozen time, save for five seconds' latitude. You may elect to use this brief time to speak the words that will end your life; otherwise, you will be trapped for eternity one half-second out of phase with reality. Be anywhere that you want to be; you will still be unseen and unseeing, unsensed and unsensing, fallen into a chronological oubliette between the frayed edges of reality. Perhaps one day you shall "emerge" as a Vestige... but we doubt it...


Oops. I thought I edited in the clause which would cancel that.

"in a situation in which my life has a baseline minimum of comfort equal to that in which my quality of life is at this point in time"

I suppose you'd have to add in something like "within a normal flow of time and normal consiousness."

Edit. General clause to protect you.

In your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes, you shall not change now or in the future my location in space or time, or my base level of comfort with the environment. You shall not in your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes alter my sense or reality of time to fulfil the terms of this wish.

Keinnicht
2011-01-16, 07:48 PM
Wish


Nothing happens.

Keep in mind the DM doesn't have to do what you see when you use a wish. You could say that wish and I could say "During your long-winded wish phrasing, the magical energy spirals out of control and blows you into eight hundred billion tiny pieces."

And making that wish is like showing up to a Blind Hunters' Convention blowing on a duck whistle and flapping fake wings.

Callista
2011-01-16, 08:09 PM
Immortality via Wish wouldn't be overpowered, though. It would be a role-play effect more than anything else--most adventures take fewer than five years in-game, and almost all will span less than one age category for even the shortest-lived races. Personally, I'd allow it without twisting anything.

afroakuma
2011-01-16, 08:11 PM
In your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes, you shall not change now or in the future my location in space or time, or my base level of comfort with the environment. You shall not in your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes alter my sense or reality of time to fulfil the terms of this wish.

Granted

As I am not permitted to change now or in the future your location in space, and my granting this wish would facilitate the continual changing of your spatial position, the wish is self-contradictory and the casting fails. I cut off your head for wasting my time.

Efreet Worldwide - Desiring Any Excuse To Kill You Horribly since 1 GE

As I said, I've been round the bend with this one a few times. There's always a loophole, and when there isn't there's just a lacuna created by weakening of the spell's boundaries. In either case, if you're making unsafe wishes, you will die. Horribly, if I'm the efreeti in charge... :smallwink:


Immortality via Wish wouldn't be overpowered, though. It would be a role-play effect more than anything else--most adventures take fewer than five years in-game, and almost all will span less than one age category for even the shortest-lived races. Personally, I'd allow it without twisting anything.

Sure, but he's not asking for temporal immortality; he's asking for total immortality without aging consequences, in comfort, with what amounts to Greater Teleport as an at-will SLA. The "winning" wish asked for what amounted to "becoming the DM." And had to, since without that total control over the outcome, I killed him, stasis'd him, or drove him to irrevocable madness every single time.

Ahh, fond memories...

Ytaker
2011-01-16, 08:34 PM
Granted

As I am not permitted to change now or in the future your location in space, and my granting this wish would facilitate the continual changing of your spatial position, the wish is self-contradictory and the casting fails. I cut off your head for wasting my time.

Efreet Worldwide - Desiring Any Excuse To Kill You Horribly since 1 GE

As I said, I've been round the bend with this one a few times. There's always a loophole, and when there isn't there's just a lacuna created by weakening of the spell's boundaries. In either case, if you're making unsafe wishes, you will die. Horribly, if I'm the efreeti in charge... :smallwink:

Simply fixed. Your interpretation is based on inserting the word "facilitate" into the wish".

In your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes, you shall not purposely change by magical means now or in the future my location in space or time, or my base level of comfort with the environment. Through means outside the direct control of this wish my location in space and time and base level of comfort can still change. You shall not in your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes alter my sense or reality of time to fulfil the terms of this wish.

You just, go through this route several times with a friend. Then you can present it to the DM.


Nothing happens.

Keep in mind the DM doesn't have to do what you see when you use a wish. You could say that wish and I could say "During your long-winded wish phrasing, the magical energy spirals out of control and blows you into eight hundred billion tiny pieces."

And making that wish is like showing up to a Blind Hunters' Convention blowing on a duck whistle and flapping fake wings.

I'm assuming this DM enjoys puzzles and the concept of matching wits with a wishee. If not you could simply wish for "Immortality without any catches" and the DM would say yes. If they're the sort who enjoy screwing up wishes then having some basic protection against that helps- it's like showing up to a blind hunter's convention with metal armour. If they're not they'll probably just skim it and say "Ok, you're immortal."

Edit. Ah, yes, the concept of being able to live anywhere could be misconstrued as teleportation in the dnd world. The clause I inserted mostly negates the purpose of it, that the djinn not teleport you to the moon, so you can remove it. The original wish wasn't subject to the limited power clause, and so was written slightly off. It's an interesting concept. Using twisted phrasing to try to make the wish more expansive than it is so that the wish can go wrong.

SilverClawShift
2011-01-16, 09:00 PM
"I wish that hadn't happened."

Wish scrolls need to be put in fragile cases with "In case of emergency, break glass" painted on it. Wish can do just about anything. Save it until "anything" is your only option.

Jothki
2011-01-16, 09:35 PM
They seem like a decent way to get back your dead Cleric in the middle of a dungeon.

Lamech
2011-01-16, 09:35 PM
"I wish that any future Wishes I may make or have granted to me will be granted according to the intent behind their wording, and not twisted in any way according to the actual wording itself or by the desires of the force or entity granting the Wish."Partial fulfilment:
I wish that any future Wishes I may make or have granted to me will be granted according to the intent behind their wording, and not twisted in any way according to the actual wording itself or by the desires of the force or entity granting the Wish."
If you go off the already mentioned safelist the DM can screw you. There is nothing you can do about it.

So on the safe list is making magic items. Since they are scrolls you don't need to pay the XP cost. I recomend wishing for rings of three wishes.:smallsmile:
Also the transport travellers option is fairly powerful; they don't have to be willing, and it bypasses "local conditions". You can use it to at the same time, save the party, and SoD nuke all the bad guys.

Defiant
2011-01-16, 09:41 PM
Wishing for a ring of three wishes is beyond the powers of a wish. The powers of a wish are clearly outlined, and to wish for something that has 3 times those powers, is clearly subject to trouble.

Lamech
2011-01-16, 09:43 PM
Yes they are clearly outline. One of those clearly outlined powers is making any magic item.

Defiant
2011-01-16, 09:53 PM
Yes they are clearly outline. One of those clearly outlined powers is making any magic item.

A magic item that can make three wishes-worth of magic items, is above the worth of a wish, and beyond the powers of a wish.

Lamech
2011-01-16, 10:05 PM
•Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.So yes you can do it. And it won't be twisted since its from the list.
See? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)
Sure its one of those many things a GM won't allow, but there is nothing in the spell stopping it.
Oh yeah, wish for a geas on something. It takes a round IS a compulsion they MUST follow, and grants no save.

Toliudar
2011-01-16, 10:08 PM
Yes they are clearly outline. One of those clearly outlined powers is making any magic item.

Not any magic item, a magic item. It can't (for example) create a Tome to give a +5 to a stat, since that's clearly more power than a single wish can give. The same goes for a ring of three wishes.

turkishproverb
2011-01-16, 10:11 PM
So yes you can do it. And it won't be twisted since its from the list.
See? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)
Sure its one of those many things a GM won't allow, but there is nothing in the spell stopping it.
Oh yeah, wish for a geas on something. It takes a round IS a compulsion they MUST follow, and grants no save.

Actually, it's a little arguable. It doesn't say ANY magic item, just "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item." Technically there's no evidence you get to choose the powers added to an item or choose the new item RAW. You can literally wish for a magic item, with no detail given of what you'll get.

NichG
2011-01-17, 01:59 AM
Normally there is a scaling XP component of wish to make a magic item:
"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."

In the case of a wish granted by an existing item such as a scroll or ring, I would argue that the wish can only include things for which the requisite XP was provided in the creation of the scroll/ring/etc. I.e. if you make a scroll of wish supplying only the 5000xp base cost, it cannot make a magic item. Alternately, I would allow the user of such an item to provide the necessary XP with the prepaid wish acting as a conduit.

Of course with wish as a spell-like ability, things become problematic because the XP component of wish goes away, and your efreeti or solar friend can create open-endedly expensive magic items. It's probably best to consider the 25000gp limit for non-magical items to apply also to magical items for this reason, though it doesn't actually say that.

Kris Strife
2011-01-17, 02:34 AM
I wish I knew the most optimal wish for me, both short and long term, and the best way to phrase it so that there are no possible complications.

Worira
2011-01-17, 03:15 AM
You receive the wording of a wish granting you 10 GP in exchange for a single platinum piece.

It's up to you whether you make that wish.

Kaww
2011-01-17, 05:15 AM
If a player tried the ring of three wishes cheese I'd allow it. The ring wold be used up (0 charges remaining). It was not stated in the wish that it should have any charges. And if you do this you deserve it.

I would create scroll of Wish with xp cost payed if a player wishes it. No dirty tricks on my part. This is because I like my players thinking and I reward them for it, also they have just postponed the same effect.

Killer Angel
2011-01-17, 05:24 AM
Now my question to the community is, what is a good "Wish" I can make that my DM won't back fire. More specifically, how exactly do I word it?


The wording isn't important.
The only safe wish, is the one that your DM doesn't have an interest in twisting it.
Satisfy this basic condition, and you're OK, otherwise...

FelixG
2011-01-17, 05:50 AM
"I wish for a Scroll of Wish!"

I did this and my GM smacked me for being a smart...donkey. :smallbiggrin:

Seriously though, just wish for a few pieces of magical gear you want...There is no limit on the GP the items can be so just get some useful gear that isnt TOO overpowered. Oh and dont ask for artifacts.

Douglas
2011-01-17, 09:11 AM
Yes, you can Wish for magic items, but doing so has an additional XP cost. If you are casting from a scroll, that extra XP has to have been put in the scroll when it was made or the Wish will fail. If you're casting it yourself from your daily slots, you'll have to pay from your own XP. Either way, it's not a ticket to free equipment.

Now if you get it as an SLA like the Efreet, on the other hand...

Kris Strife
2011-01-17, 10:42 AM
You receive the wording of a wish granting you 10 GP in exchange for a single platinum piece.

It's up to you whether you make that wish.

Sorry, that was supposed to be optimal, not optional. :smalltongue:

afroakuma
2011-01-17, 11:19 AM
Simply fixed. Your interpretation is based on inserting the word "facilitate" into the wish".

Yes, because that's the one I decided to go with.

Can you not see exactly what we're doing here? This is the way people try to get a good wish - but in the game, you've already been killed or severely discommodated twice now. "Oh, is that what you'd do? Well, I'll patch that hole" is useless.

So let me summarize: unless you go and copy/paste the "perfect" wish from last time, you won't beat me, because that wish contains within it, already, the ability to see the interpretation in advance and force a new one. I have little interest in pursuing this down to the very last loophole with you, though, as I have already done so resulting in the aforementioned wish. But just to make my point clear:


In your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes, you shall not purposely change by magical means now or in the future my location in space or time, or my base level of comfort with the environment. Through means outside the direct control of this wish my location in space and time and base level of comfort can still change. You shall not in your fulfilment or for any other reason as the genie of these wishes alter my sense or reality of time to fulfil the terms of this wish.

Granted

A magic button is created in place of a paving stone in the middle of the world's most populous city's busiest thoroughfare. It has the following properties: "If this is the first time the button has been pressed, push him out of phase and freeze him in a time-lock. If today is a day in which he is eligible for pain, put him through unbearable suffering for the whole of said day; otherwise, move him forward in time to a day in which he would be eligible to receive pain."

Efreet Worldwide - Promulgators of Needless But Probably Deserved Suffering since 1 GE

Now, I am already quite aware of several patches to this, and have several more amusing puncture points via which to have you killed, but as noted, I have done this all before, and grew quite disgusted with the person on the other end, who ended up going so far as to suggest that DM approval is not necessary for non-Core sources to be legitimate and accessible, and that his "ideal wish" could never be partially fulfilled, only either granted or not granted.


I'm assuming this DM enjoys puzzles and the concept of matching wits with a wishee.

If you make it into something that needs to be a battle of wits, it can and should end with your demise.


If not you could simply wish for "Immortality without any catches" and the DM would say yes.

Granted

You are a fisherman, out on a boat in an eternal and featureless sea. You'll never die, and have a bucket full of bait, and there are plenty of fish down there, but... :smallbiggrin:


If they're the sort who enjoy screwing up wishes then having some basic protection against that helps- it's like showing up to a blind hunter's convention with metal armour. If they're not they'll probably just skim it and say "Ok, you're immortal."

But again, as I say, it depends on what "immortal" entails. As a DM, if you wished for technical immortality (barring any outside interference, I will not die) I'd probably give it to you. If you wished for functional immortality (I cannot die) I would drag you over all the barbed spines in Hell.

thubby
2011-01-17, 11:24 AM
rule one of wishes, your first wish is always "that all wishes made by me, including this one, go as i intend"

Toliudar
2011-01-17, 11:30 AM
rule one of wishes, your first wish is always "that all wishes made by me, including this one, go as i intend"

And, as noted, if you can't clearly articulate what you intend in the wording of the wish, what hope does the DM/universe have of being able to parse that?

Defiant
2011-01-17, 12:15 PM
Okay, how about this one:

I wish to spend an eternity in hell and torment, so that I may live forever.

:smallbiggrin:

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 12:59 PM
Yes, because that's the one I decided to go with.

Can you not see exactly what we're doing here? This is the way people try to get a good wish - but in the game, you've already been killed or severely discommodated twice now. "Oh, is that what you'd do? Well, I'll patch that hole" is useless.

Well, I wouldn't present it directly to the DM. I'd try and fix it with a friend, or another DM. As I have here. You have opened my eyes to several ways to interpret the wish so that I can better design it.

Before, I was just presenting the idea of what sort of thing you should make, and suggesting that if you make a wish you should show it to a friend first. It actually looks quite fun.


So let me summarize: unless you go and copy/paste the "perfect" wish from last time, you won't beat me, because that wish contains within it, already, the ability to see the interpretation in advance and force a new one. I have little interest in pursuing this down to the very last loophole with you, though, as I have already done so resulting in the aforementioned wish. But just to make my point clear:

When you get to the point where you have to actively change the wish, by inserting words (not changing the interpretation- inserting words) then I know it's a pretty good wish. I mean, I wouldn't try wishing with you. You are clearly not in the mood for this sort of game and so, that avenue of fun isn't open.

I am interested in pursuing it down to the last loophole. Because that's fun. I love loopholes and games and twists.

Granted


A magic button is created in place of a paving stone in the middle of the world's most populous city's busiest thoroughfare. It has the following properties: "If this is the first time the button has been pressed, push him out of phase and freeze him in a time-lock. If today is a day in which he is eligible for pain, put him through unbearable suffering for the whole of said day; otherwise, move him forward in time to a day in which he would be eligible to receive pain."


And at this point, the only way you can spoil the wish is by doing something completely unrelated to the terms of the wish.

I've designed the perfect wish earlier, which avoids that. I inserted a term in my private wish that this wish must not involve the creation of any magical items, summon any creatures, or involve any teleportation or time magic.

So, with my DM, I can try it. He likes puzzles, and he doesn't want to spoil my fun, so he'll either DM veto the wish (likely, and I like being able to design things so powerful they have to be veto'd), have some sort of reasonable consequence of the wish, or grant it. And it will be a good session.


Now, I am already quite aware of several patches to this, and have several more amusing puncture points via which to have you killed, but as noted, I have done this all before, and grew quite disgusted with the person on the other end, who ended up going so far as to suggest that DM approval is not necessary for non-Core sources to be legitimate and accessible, and that his "ideal wish" could never be partially fulfilled, only either granted or not granted.

Aw, you're really angry at me because you think I'm the same as one of your players you hate. I prefer to use core, and only use non core to supplement the power of especially weak characters. I'd be happy with a partial fulfilment too.

I'm not doing this because I hate DMs. I'm doing this because the concept of a battle of wits is fun.


If you make it into something that needs to be a battle of wits, it can and should end with your demise.


Which is why I wouldn't like to be one of your players. I love battles of wits. Some are won by the DM, some by the players. It's great fun.

Granted


You are a fisherman, out on a boat in an eternal and featureless sea. You'll never die, and have a bucket full of bait, and there are plenty of fish down there, but... :smallbiggrin:

Yes, in that case I was assuming a DM who doesn't want to hurt you. You want to hurt me, your potential player, and so that's why I'd design the protective clauses. With a DM who just didn't care much, I'd ask for whatever wish and they'd probably grant it to move the game along.


But again, as I say, it depends on what "immortal" entails. As a DM, if you wished for technical immortality (barring any outside interference, I will not die) I'd probably give it to you. If you wished for functional immortality (I cannot die) I would drag you over all the barbed spines in Hell.

Good to know.

Toliudar
2011-01-17, 01:28 PM
Ytaker, I think you're missing the point - or my point, at least. The point is not that by bouncing back and forth with friends, a fun and foolproof wish can be found. It's that Wish is by its very nature subject to what a particular DM is feeling at that moment.

For every action to close off loopholes and squeeze more benefit out of a wish than a 9th level spell should be providing, there is a corresponding reaction, in the form of the increased likelihood of a DM gutting, twisting or simply negating a wish. The reaction of finding a way to screw the player over is the result of the player initiating what you're describing as a battle of wits, not a built-in desire to "hurt you."

Make sense?

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 01:40 PM
Ytaker, I think you're missing the point - or my point, at least. The point is not that by bouncing back and forth with friends, a fun and foolproof wish can be found. It's that Wish is by its very nature subject to what a particular DM is feeling at that moment.

Yes, which is why you should use it on a DM who feels like trying to find a loophole.


For every action to close off loopholes and squeeze more benefit out of a wish than a 9th level spell should be providing, there is a corresponding reaction, in the form of the increased likelihood of a DM gutting, twisting or simply negating a wish. The reaction of finding a way to screw the player over is the result of the player initiating what you're describing as a battle of wits, not a built-in desire to "hurt you."

Yes, which is fun. Trying to make a wish which has some reasonably weird effect, seeing it be twisted, have it be so good or bad. My dislike was of the concept that any wish must lead to your death.


Make sense?


If you make it into something that needs to be a battle of wits, it can and should end with your demise.

My problem is that the guy believes it should be about killing me always. That makes him great to bounce wishes off, but is not something I'd want to play under. Your point makes sense, I'm just saying I enoy having a DM try to gut, screw, or negate a wish.

Edit. I'd prefer getting an effect far less than a level 9 spell with a particularly good wish than an effect greater with a crap wish. This is about the fun of roleplaying a smart character, not about messing up the campaign.

Siegel
2011-01-17, 01:44 PM
I find torturing characters as funny as the next guy, but you shouldn't punish the Player (if the wish was something the character would come up with himself. No need to safe the player of the stupid Barbarian that phrased a lawtext) but the character. Just "killing" the character (as in putting him in a status that makes him unplayable) doesn't really help the campaign.

This might be a newschool way in handling the topic but still. Your players got a quest award, the get a freaking WISH. No point in turning it into a deadly weapon that just kills the campaign and makes everyone roll new characters.

afroakuma
2011-01-17, 01:45 PM
My problem is that the guy believes it should be about killing me always.

You may have noticed: I am representing an efreeti, an evil creature, in this game. I could just as easily assume the role of something benevolent or even neutral, but I happen to enjoy the "Twist This Wish" forum game.


That makes him great to bounce wishes off, but is not something I'd want to play under. Your point makes sense, I'm just saying I enoy having a DM try to gut, screw, or negate a wish.


Alright, Ytaker, you seem to be misreading me, and seem further to have some loftier view of the "battle of wits" involved here than I perceive. I happen to think that the making of a wish is an interesting roleplay opportunity, but I have already participated in enough thought experiments on how to form "the optimal wish" to know exactly what it is and what DMs will do to players who make it. Our perspectives appear different on the whys and hows of this "battle of wits," but let it rest as that I am not having fun because I am helping you do your job. Every time I rebut, and you respond with Same Plus One, is more work for me and less fun. Hence I say - that's as far as I'm taking it.

Were there other ways to break that wish? Probably, but I chose one for maximum malice, cause I happen to like that in thought experiments. Scientists should be optimally crunchy. In a game, would I actually do that to my players? No, I would not, but I expect the courtesy to go both ways. If someone makes a knowingly unreasonable wish, I expect them to wait with bated breath for what will come of it, rather than think they are going to get away with it or pat themselves on the back for "beating the DM."

Please do not confuse my disgust for the iterative tedium of this particular thought experiment for my actual DMing style, nor for my personality as a whole.

Ytaker
2011-01-17, 02:20 PM
You may have noticed: I am representing an efreeti, an evil creature, in this game. I could just as easily assume the role of something benevolent or even neutral, but I happen to enjoy the "Twist This Wish" forum game.

Ah. I assumed you were saying it should be the general strategy for DMs.


Our perspectives appear different on the whys and hows of this "battle of wits," but let it rest as that I am not having fun because I am helping you do your job. Every time I rebut, and you respond with Same Plus One, is more work for me and less fun. Hence I say - that's as far as I'm taking it.

Well, it's not a wish I actually want to do, because it's useless for an adventurer, so I wasn't trying to make it fun. Any wish I make has some specific focus on the campaign. Like making the main, male, villain the lesbian lover of one of the characters.


No, I would not, but I expect the courtesy to go both ways. If someone makes a knowingly unreasonable wish, I expect them to wait with bated breath for what will come of it, rather than think they are going to get away with it or pat themselves on the back for "beating the DM."

The purpose of the wish clauses was to negate random consequences, not make an unreasonable wish. This is assuming a DM that likes to twist wishes. As stated in the description, if you make an unreasonable wish the DM can only partially fulfil it anyway.

For that reason I'd be quite happy to beat the DM if I could craft a wish they couldn't twist. It's fun both beating the DM and losing to the DM. It's a game.


Please do not confuse my disgust for the iterative tedium of this particular thought experiment for my actual DMing style, nor for my personality as a whole.

Ok.

grimbold
2011-01-17, 02:38 PM
Honestly, unless your DM is a jerk, he likely won't twist a wish unless it's designed to make you ridiculously powerful. In most cases, carefully worded wishes come across as a challenge.

i agree judge your DMspersonality at your own discretion
also on the night of the wish buy the pizza

The Glyphstone
2011-01-17, 02:43 PM
A related tangent, but is something like 'I wish I would live forever' in the sense of 'will never age physically' really deserving of twisting or being out of bounds for a Wish? It's not one of the 'auto-safe' effects, but at least one person has pointed out that 99.99% of campaigns take place within, at most, a character's age category, if not only a few years.

Basically, are Wishes that seem incredibly powerful but are in actuality cosmetic effects to the actual game environment itself something that should be punished?

woodenbandman
2011-01-17, 02:50 PM
Easiest way for immortality:

"I wish I was an Elan/Quori spirit"

yaaaaay. Elans get a bonus since they live in pretty much complete physical comfort for all of their eternities because of their psi-like abilities. Can't be hungry, don't need sleep, And I think they can cure disease on themselves.

afroakuma
2011-01-17, 02:53 PM
A related tangent, but is something like 'I wish I would live forever' in the sense of 'will never age physically' really deserving of twisting or being out of bounds for a Wish? It's not one of the 'auto-safe' effects, but at least one person has pointed out that 99.99% of campaigns take place within, at most, a character's age category, if not only a few years.

Basically, are Wishes that seem incredibly powerful but are in actuality cosmetic effects to the actual game environment itself something that should be punished?

Provided they are only cosmetic, then I would say no. The key lies in understanding how thin the line can be at times. As I've said already, timeless+ageless immortality is something I think perfectly in line with wishes. Heck, I might even throw in defense against supernatural aging effects.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-17, 02:54 PM
Easiest way for immortality:

"I wish I was an Elan/Quori spirit"

yaaaaay. Elans get a bonus since they live in pretty much complete physical comfort for all of their eternities because of their psi-like abilities. Can't be hungry, don't need sleep, And I think they can cure disease on themselves.

And if they, say, like being a halfling, but still want their character to be the classical immortal sage living on a mountain and dispensing cryptic wisdom, or the ageless king ruling over his lands for eternity? The point of the question was not 'how do I get immortality without being twisted', it was 'if a player asks for immortality, something that won't affect gameplay in any way except under the rarest of circumstances, do they still deserve to get whacked?'

Keinnicht
2011-01-17, 05:11 PM
A related tangent, but is something like 'I wish I would live forever' in the sense of 'will never age physically' really deserving of twisting or being out of bounds for a Wish? It's not one of the 'auto-safe' effects, but at least one person has pointed out that 99.99% of campaigns take place within, at most, a character's age category, if not only a few years.

Basically, are Wishes that seem incredibly powerful but are in actuality cosmetic effects to the actual game environment itself something that should be punished?

I would only bother to twist the giant wish for physical aging on the grounds that it's so obnoxiously long it just deserves to be twisted.

That said, unless you continue gaining mental state bonuses from aging over an extremely long period, there's not a huge advantage to never physically aging. By "over an extremely long period" I mean "past the highest age category for your race, meaning if you lived a billion years you'd have like +2 million to all your mental stats." Fortunately, I don't think that happens in the rules.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-17, 05:21 PM
Wishes: The Only Way To Win is Not to Play

Seriously. Don't try to RAW this one, it's not going to work.

Check with your DM OOC and say "listen, I know you can screw me over with any Wish I make. Can I run a few Wishes by you to see which ones you find acceptible?"

If your DM cackles evily, don't bother. Just sigh and say "fine, I won't use Wish. Can I pick a different 9th Level Spell?"

Otherwise, you should be able to find a mutually agreeable Wish and get on with the campaign :smallsmile:

Zeful
2011-01-17, 06:55 PM
rule one of wishes, your first wish is always "that all wishes made by me, including this one, go as i intend"

Except that wish is beyond the power of the wish spell, and can be screwed with by the DM.

Worira
2011-01-17, 07:01 PM
I wish for two delicious hamburgers. You can have the other one, Mr. Efreet.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-17, 07:03 PM
I wish for two delicious hamburgers. You can have the other one, Mr. Efreet.

Judging by this thread...

Wish granted. Two hamburgers appear. They are both on fire....Efreets are immune to fire, you are not.

Worira
2011-01-17, 07:06 PM
Well then I'm throwing them both out.

EDIT: Actually, this is probably a cool Efreet culinary trend he's being nice enough to share with me. I put on a ring of fire resistance and chow down.

Rogue Nine
2011-01-17, 07:32 PM
I wish for Paradox-free Time Travel. :smallbiggrin:

No, my favorite idea for a wish is to always have, either on my person or in a suitable banking establishment, the exact amount of money for any purchase I am wanting or needing to make.

As an addendum for a tricky wish-granter, I would add the words "crime and guilt free".

And finally, to paraphrase the wish a friend of mine came up with as a child (a nerdy, nerdy child):

A magical pouch that allows me to think or say anything and have it appear inside. The pouch would realize my intent and produce the right thing everytime- it would not allow me as its owner to be harmed by anything I wished for. Also, if the pouch were to leave my posession, it would cease to function until such time as it was back with me...

Of course his version, when written down, is more like 2 whole pages of clauses and subclauses to cancel out any ill-effect that could ever occur.

Lamech
2011-01-17, 08:38 PM
I wish for Paradox-free Time Travel. :smallbiggrin:
Done! I won't even be a jack-ass about this. Here are two scrolls of teleportation. Also assume the speed of light is constant. Figure it out.



A magical pouch that allows me to think or say anything and have it appear inside. The pouch would realize my intent and produce the right thing everytime- it would not allow me as its owner to be harmed by anything I wished for. Also, if the pouch were to leave my posession, it would cease to function until such time as it was back with me...Partial fulfillment: You can somehow get inside this pouch. Also it can harm you since its something you wished for. I think this would be called a bag of devouring. :smallbiggrin:

Rogue Nine
2011-01-17, 09:00 PM
Done! I won't even be a jack-ass about this. Here are two scrolls of teleportation. Also assume the speed of light is constant. Figure it out.


Partial fulfillment: You can somehow get inside this pouch. Also it can harm you since its something you wished for. I think this would be called a bag of devouring. :smallbiggrin:

Perfect! I literally laughed out loud.

afroakuma
2011-01-17, 09:20 PM
Well then I'm throwing them both out.

EDIT: Actually, this is probably a cool Efreet culinary trend he's being nice enough to share with me. I put on a ring of fire resistance and chow down.

Totally that one. Heck, at Bin Dhanald's, every Quarter Pounder Burnger Meal comes with a free ring of fire resistance. Also tendriculos fries and mimic shake (tastes like gluey awful DM hatefulness!)

Jay R
2011-01-19, 12:53 PM
The most important point is this: if you wish to unbalance the game, the DM must prevent your wish from working.

As I always adjudicated wishes, and as my current DM does, a wish is good for exactly one effect. If you ask for long life and good health, you've asked for two things, and only the first one is covered by the wish, for the same reason that if you say "I wish for a sword, and I wish for a shield," only the sword appears.

Therefore, whatever clauses you add later were not said under the wish.

The safest thing to do is to stay within the confines of what has already been defined to be safe within the rules.

The most vicious wish-fulfillment I ever saw was when somebody wished to have more power than the gods. The DM replied, "Granted. Starting next week, you're the DM."

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 01:17 PM
I wish for judicial and arcane review of this and all future wishes.

Asheram
2011-01-19, 01:35 PM
Wish for good fortune. It lets the DM be creative and hopefully giving you something good out of pity.

Psyren
2011-01-19, 01:46 PM
Wish for good fortune. It lets the DM be creative and hopefully giving you something good out of pity.

A passing NPC smiles at you. Didn't that brighten your day? That'll be 5000 XP please

Zeful
2011-01-19, 03:14 PM
I wish for judicial and arcane review of this and all future wishes.

Granted, every judge and arcane caster in the world is given a copy of this and all future wishes. Congrats every evil power in the world knows your name and that you can cast wish, good luck.

This like the "Do as I mean, not as I say" wishes are one of types few wishes that DMs should outright deny (as in literally: "Nothing happens, lose 5000xp"). Firstly because they are hilariously beyond any of the "safe" effects of wish to the point of ridiculousness (wishing for an artifact is more in line with wish than this and it's the example used in perverting wishes), and Secondly because short of doing the above there is no safe way of limiting the effect of such an overpowered wish, making the PCs many, many enemies.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 03:31 PM
Granted, every judge and arcane caster in the world is given a copy of this and all future wishes. Congrats every evil power in the world knows your name and that you can cast wish, good luck.

This like the "Do as I mean, not as I say" wishes are one of types few wishes that DMs should outright deny (as in literally: "Nothing happens, lose 5000xp"). Firstly because they are hilariously beyond any of the "safe" effects of wish to the point of ridiculousness (wishing for an artifact is more in line with wish than this and it's the example used in perverting wishes), and Secondly because short of doing the above there is no safe way of limiting the effect of such an overpowered wish, making the PCs many, many enemies.

Negative, as per my judicial and arcane review your attempt to corrupt my wish means that from henceforth my earlier wish also meant that you shall be irretrievably strapped to a rock and have ravens eat your innards.

Judicial and arcane review means a specific thing. Judicial review in particular has a very specific meaning. The fact that I POSSES JUDICIAL REVIEW means that I get to decide what the outcome of the wish is.

Edit: I missed the second portion of your post, because I was sort of incensed by the corrupt-a-wish game.

1. I would never in an actual game use the "I wish that my wish means exactly what I want it to mean" wish. For a couple of reasons: first, I'm never in the game to become a god. That's the DMs job. I'm there to develop my character and make the game fun for others. Second, I don't like causing fights over ridiculous crap that could otherwise be avoided. For this reason I would only ever use wish for one of the items that the spell actually lists.

2. I might play a magic-user occasionally, but once I start getting about 5th level spells usually the campaign ends and we reroll and play another campaign. I don't like ridiculously powerful spells and things start getting extremely unbalanced after that. Usually I play a fighter anyway. Fighters don't cast wish.

Zeful
2011-01-19, 03:42 PM
Negative, as per my judicial and arcane review your attempt to corrupt my wish means that from henceforth my earlier wish also meant that you shall be irretrievably strapped to a rock and have ravens eat your innards.

Judicial and arcane review means a specific thing. Judicial review in particular has a very specific meaning. The fact that I POSSES JUDICIAL REVIEW means that I get to decide what the outcome of the wish is.

And? Wish doesn't have that kind of power, at all. Undue misfortune is the most similar effect and it can only affect chance that happened a short time ago. No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are. So any wish to change the effects of other wishes should either fail outright or be perverted. Judicial review may mean a specific thing, but with literal fulfillment every judge in the world simply gets a sheet of paper with your wish on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 03:47 PM
Judicial and arcane review means a specific thing. Judicial review in particular has a very specific meaning. The fact that I POSSES JUDICIAL REVIEW means that I get to decide what the outcome of the wish is.No, it means you get to say it's invalid. It doesn't to actually give you the power to enforce that. Everyone will believe you and agree with you that it's a totally bogus interpretation of the wish, but that doesn't change anything.

Toliudar
2011-01-19, 04:07 PM
The most vicious wish-fulfillment I ever saw was when somebody wished to have more power than the gods. The DM replied, "Granted. Starting next week, you're the DM."

I love this so, so much.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 04:19 PM
And? Wish doesn't have that kind of power, at all. Undue misfortune is the most similar effect and it can only affect chance that happened a short time ago. No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are. So any wish to change the effects of other wishes should either fail outright or be perverted. Judicial review may mean a specific thing, but with literal fulfillment every judge in the world simply gets a sheet of paper with your wish on it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Let's talk about your first sentence. Wish doesn't have the power to decide what its own outcome is. That was what I understood from you, if this is incorrect feel free to correct me. What I'd argue here is that there are an entire list of outcomes that can be decided by casters already. To say that wish doesn't have a further power to decide its own outcome undermines the entire premise of the spell.

Second sentence: "No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are."

First, you're not getting that from anywhere in the spell description so you're either getting it from somewhere else, or you're making it up. Second, if I know my buddy is about to cast a wish spell and I cast mine before him I could wish "I wish that the only outcome of his wish spell is for him to be tickled uncontrollably from now until the end of time."

"Judicial review may mean a specific thing, but with literal fulfillment every judge in the world simply gets a sheet of paper with your wish on it. Nothing more, nothing less."

Okay, let me try to play devil's advocate for a moment longer:

Words have meaning. If words didn't have meaning it would make complete sense for my hundred gold piece wish to result in a pair of pants entirely filled with fish. Why is this? Remember we're operating under the premise that words have no meaning. When I say "I" want "judicial review" I mean something. Giving a copy of my wish to every judge and magic user is the logical equivalent of getting pantaloons filled with fish. It is clearly not what was meant and is really a contrived means of squirming around game mechanics.

The words "I" "wish for" and "judicial review" are all specific words that have specific meanings and when joined together express a specific statement. Instead of giving me what I obviously mean, the DM conspires to give the player something completely useless or maybe even dangerous. There ought to be some reward for a cleverly worded wish. Instead DMs take it as license to screw their players. Don't get me wrong, I think there is a small license for it, but not if someone gives you something that bares very little resemblance if any to the original wish. If I were any of the crazy players that I've had to deal with over the last few years. I'd say look "you obviously have no intention of playing the game in good faith, corrupting wishes ridiculously is cliche, and you're basically meta gaming in order to save your campaign setting. My character suicides/wanders off never to be seen nor heard from again, and now I'm going to roll the single most annoying character in history." It's for this reason I don't bother with high level campaigns and I don't deal with wishing items or decks of many things.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 04:20 PM
No, it means you get to say it's invalid. It doesn't to actually give you the power to enforce that. Everyone will believe you and agree with you that it's a totally bogus interpretation of the wish, but that doesn't change anything.

Which is what arcane review means.

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 04:31 PM
Which is what arcane review means.So? If the person grants the wish according to my interpretation, all you can do is say "that's not fair" with no further recourse.


The words "I" "wish for" and "judicial review" are all specific words that have specific meanings and when joined together express a specific statement. Yes, they mean that you desire to have a doctrine where the judiciary branch can invalidate the actions of the legislative or executive branches. Granted: you know believe that should be the case.

Another interpretation: that just means that the judiciary branch will review all wishes made by you, not that you get to do the reviewing, or that the judiciary branch has the ability to enforce anything.

Even if you go with "I want to be given the power to hold a judicial and arcane review for this and all further wishes" ... which isn't the words that you used ... even if you were the one reviewing, and were thereby granted some sort of enforcement power (which far exceeds the ability of the wish spell), there's no reason that it would it allow you to do anything but invalidate a wish, as in cancel it.

Note, you also don't specify that only your wishes were the only ones to be so reviewed. Another valid interpretation would be: Granted: you are instantly teleported to the plane of law, specifically the wish judiciary branch, where you will serve an eternity reviewing wishes with no time off, an endles docket, and no powers of enforcement whatsoever. Thank you, we've been looking for another sucker to volunteer for that.

Keinnicht
2011-01-19, 04:35 PM
Totally that one. Heck, at Bin Dhanald's, every Quarter Pounder Burnger Meal comes with a free ring of fire resistance. Also tendriculos fries and mimic shake (tastes like gluey awful DM hatefulness!)

Thanks to you, I'm putting a fast food restaurant with food like that in the next extraplanar city my players visit.

I think one of the Gate Towns in Outland would be most fitting.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 04:39 PM
So? If the person grants the wish according to my interpretation, all you can do is say "that's not fair" with no further recourse.

Do words mean things?

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 04:46 PM
Do words mean things?no, words means "units of language that native speakers can identify" ... which is more of an idea than a thing.

If you mean "do words, in and of themselves, free of context, have a meaning" well, the answer is no ... they only have meaning when interpreted by someone or something. But really, the answer above should be sufficient example for that.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 04:47 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 04:49 PM
{{scrubbed}}Those are the words you used; that is a 100% correct interpretation of those words. The fact that I interpreted them the way I did is actually the answer to your implied question, if you'll stop to think about it briefly.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 04:52 PM
Those are the words you used; that is a 100% correct interpretation of those words. The fact that I interpreted them the way I did is actually the answer to your implied question, if you'll stop to think about it briefly.

No, it is not the answer to my implied question in any way shape or form. The question I implied is almost identical to the question I intended. {{scrubbed}}
Finally, you have yet to answer my question.

Toliudar
2011-01-19, 04:54 PM
Now you're being obtuse. Do words have meaning?

Words have meanings. Language is full of nuance and ambiguity. Wishing for judicial review doesn't mean that you're the judge. Arcane review has no set meaning in English.

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 04:55 PM
No, it is not the answer to my implied question in any way shape or form. The question I implied is almost identical to the question I intended. Furthermore, your inability to understand an idiom frustrates me greatly. :smallfurious: What idiom?


Finally, you have yet to answer my question.If the above is not an answer, then I don't understand your question.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 05:04 PM
Words have meanings. Language is full of nuance and ambiguity. Wishing for judicial review doesn't mean that you're the judge. Arcane review has no set meaning in English.

Judicial review is the power that the judge has. If the judge didn't have judicial review he'd just be another guy on the street.

You might have a point about "arcane review" however there ought to be some reasonable facsimile in game terms that has an equivalent meaning so arcane review serves in place of that word.


What idiom?

If the above is not an answer, then I don't understand your question.

The question "Do words mean things?" has an understood meaning in English-speaking countries. I've seen English professors and debate coaches ask the question. Thus instead of literally meaning that words has an equivalent meaning to things, it has a different meaning.

My revised question was: Do words have meaning?

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 05:26 PM
Judicial review is the power that the judge has. No, it's not. It's the doctrine that a judge should have the specific power to annul actions taken by the legistative and execute branches. It's not the power itself, nor is it "the power that the judge has" ... it's about "a power that we think the judge should have"


The question "Do words mean things?" has an understood meaning in English-speaking countries. I've seen English professors and debate coaches ask the question. Well, being from an English speaking country... I've never heard that particular phrase before; certainly none of my English professors used it. Any idea as to it's origin?


My revised question was: Do words have meaning?If you mean "do words, in and of themselves, free of context, have a meaning" well, the answer is no ... they only have meaning when interpreted by someone or something. But really, the answer above should be sufficient example for that.

Which is above... and has been since about the same time you accused me of being obtuse (I edited a 2nd time because there was a typo).

If that's not what you mean ... well, like I said, I'm not understanding your question.

Shademan
2011-01-19, 05:29 PM
a good wish to make....
I wish I had the power to start musicals. and always being able to instinctively make a song when I need one.

Zeful
2011-01-19, 05:53 PM
Let's talk about your first sentence. Wish doesn't have the power to decide what its own outcome is. That was what I understood from you, if this is incorrect feel free to correct me. What I'd argue here is that there are an entire list of outcomes that can be decided by casters already. To say that wish doesn't have a further power to decide its own outcome undermines the entire premise of the spell.Given that there's no evidence of magicial sapience, yeah, the spell can't decide it's own outcome, which is why you have to provide that outcome through the verbal components of the spell. That wishing for things clearly beyond the spell's power can have disastrous effects based on the logic of another being (the DM) is merely a break between gameplay and reality.


Second sentence: "No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are."

First, you're not getting that from anywhere in the spell description so you're either getting it from somewhere else, or you're making it up. Second, if I know my buddy is about to cast a wish spell and I cast mine before him I could wish "I wish that the only outcome of his wish spell is for him to be tickled uncontrollably from now until the end of time."
"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.)"

"Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies."

From the spell description itself. Is changing an undefined number of non-chance events in the future a greater effect than changing the outcome of a single chance event that occurred within the past 6 seconds? Is changing any non-chance event in the future a greater effect than changing a single chance event that occurred in within the past 6 seconds?

Yes it is, and as such falls under the first quoted clause. Ergo "No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are." Or more accurately, "No wish is capable of safely or predictably alter the effect of any future wish, not matter how close in time the two wishes are"

And that's not even getting into the general rule of: "Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect."


"Judicial review may mean a specific thing, but with literal fulfillment every judge in the world simply gets a sheet of paper with your wish on it. Nothing more, nothing less."

Okay, let me try to play devil's advocate for a moment longer:

Words have meaning. If words didn't have meaning it would make complete sense for my hundred gold piece wish to result in a pair of pants entirely filled with fish. Why is this? Remember we're operating under the premise that words have no meaning. When I say "I" want "judicial review" I mean something. Giving a copy of my wish to every judge and magic user is the logical equivalent of getting pantaloons filled with fish. It is clearly not what was meant and is really a contrived means of squirming around game mechanics.Too bad your exact words were and I quote:

"I wish for judicial and arcane review of this and all future wishes." The phrase "judicial review" is not used itself so the meaning of "Judicial review" which you added later is entirely irrelevant. This is what Literal fulfillment is, exactly what you asked for, nothing more and nothing less. Yes the idiomatic meaning and intent are obvious, but taken literally, idiomatic meaning and intent don't matter. Only the word's connotations matter. And my response neatly fits the literal meaning of the wish you posted.


I'd say[: "L]ook "you obviously have no intention of playing the game in good faith, corrupting wishes ridiculously is cliche, and you're basically meta gaming in order to save your campaign setting. My character suicides/wanders off never to be seen nor heard from again, and now I'm going to roll the single most annoying character in history." It's for this reason I don't bother with high level campaigns and I don't deal with wishing items or decks of many things.
To which my reply is to point you to the spell description itself and ask you to find the section where this wish is free from corruption and how my corruption doesn't fit either literal or partial fulfillment. And then I'd point out your own hypocrisy in wanting to create "the most annoying character in history".

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 06:14 PM
No, it's not. It's the doctrine that a judge should have the specific power to annul actions taken by the legistative and execute branches. It's not the power itself, nor is it "the power that the judge has" ... it's about "a power that we think the judge should have"

I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Endlessly splitting hairs isn't going to win you an argument. It is common referred to the power of judicial review and no amount of confusing the terms changes the fact that there is a power called judicial review.


Well, being from an English speaking country... I've never heard that particular phrase before; certainly none of my English professors used it. Any idea as to it's origin?


I don't see how this particular line of questioning is relevant. If you haven't heard it used, you haven't heard it used. However, I revised my question, and I'd like to turn our attention to that if you don't mind.


If you mean "do words, in and of themselves, free of context, have a meaning" well, the answer is no ... they only have meaning when interpreted by someone or something. But really, the answer above should be sufficient example for that.

Okay, so your argument is that words don't mean anything free of context, however to grant my wish the way you have proposed to grant my wish is to acknowledge that you are interpreting words free of context. So you're intentionally granting a meaningless wish to avoid granting a wish that is actually meant. You've acknowledged that my wish doesn't mean what you granted it as which proves if nothing else that you're not DMing the game in good faith.

Defiant
2011-01-19, 06:16 PM
So how come no-one was able to defeat my wish?


Okay, how about this one:

I wish to spend an eternity in hell and torment, so that I may live forever.

Toliudar
2011-01-19, 06:26 PM
I wish to spend an eternity in hell and torment, so that I may live forever.

Granted

Welcome to Windsor. Enjoy your stay.

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 06:27 PM
I think you're making a distinction without a difference.I'm pointing out that the words you used, don't mean what you want them to mean. Since the discussion is about carefully wording wishes to avoid backfires, literal interpretations of your wish are quite valid as counter examples.


It is common referred to the power of judicial review and no amount of confusing the terms changes the fact that there is a power called judicial review.There's something wrong with this statement...

If you look up Judicial review, you'll find references to it as a doctrine. In the context of "no backfire/careful wishes" the least desired interpretation of the words used is the one that is the important one. so even assuming there's a power of judical review, I don't see how it's relevant.


I don't see how this particular line of questioning is relevant. If you haven't heard it used, you haven't heard it used. However, I revised my question, and I'd like to turn our attention to that if you don't mind.I take it to mean that you have no idea?

It's idle curiousity; I'm guessing it's age related (most of the google hits I can find are in the last few years).


Okay, so your argument is that words don't mean anything free of context; however to grant my wish the way you have proposed to grant my wish is to acknowledge that you are interpreting words free of context. Not at all, they're in the context of me reading the words, trying to puzzle out what they mean.


So you're intentionally granting a meaningless wish to avoid granting a wish that is actually meant. I'm giving you interpretations that are what you said, rather than what you meant.


as which proves if nothing else that you're not DMing the game in good faith.I'm not DMing a game, and ad hominim attacks won't really make your arguments look any better; if anything, they tend to have the opposite effect.


You've acknowledged that my wish doesn't mean what you granted itNo, everything that I said as a possible granting of your wish is 100% valid based on the words that you used.

Ytaker
2011-01-19, 06:30 PM
I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Endlessly splitting hairs isn't going to win you an argument. It is common referred to the power of judicial review and no amount of confusing the terms changes the fact that there is a power called judicial review.

The greater an effect you ask for, the less likely your words are going to be interpreted by common meaning.


Okay, so your argument is that words don't mean anything free of context, however to grant my wish the way you have proposed to grant my wish is to acknowledge that you are interpreting words free of context. So you're intentionally granting a meaningless wish to avoid granting a wish that is actually meant. You've acknowledged that my wish doesn't mean what you granted it as which proves if nothing else that you're not DMing the game in good faith.

Twisting a wish is DMing in good faith, and acceptable in the lore. That's why we try to craft perfect wishes- because the wishes often ignore what we actually meant, and grant meaningless wishes.

Defiant
2011-01-19, 06:47 PM
Granted

Welcome to Windsor. Enjoy your stay.

Ugh!!!

I take it back.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 06:52 PM
Given that there's no evidence of magicial sapience, yeah, the spell can't decide it's own outcome, which is why you have to provide that outcome through the verbal components of the spell. That wishing for things clearly beyond the spell's power can have disastrous effects based on the logic of another being (the DM) is merely a break between gameplay and reality.


For starters I wasn't saying that the spell decides it's own outcome, I was suggesting that I would decide the spell's outcome. Philosophically speaking, even from an in-game perspective something is deciding the outcome of the spell, it's not a hard transfer.


From the spell description itself. Is changing an undefined number of non-chance events in the future a greater effect than changing the outcome of a single chance event that occurred within the past 6 seconds? Is changing any non-chance event in the future a greater effect than changing a single chance event that occurred in within the past 6 seconds?

Yes it is, and as such falls under the first quoted clause. Ergo "No wish is capable of altering the effect of any future wish no matter how close the two wishes are." Or more accurately, "No wish is capable of safely or predictably alter the effect of any future wish, not matter how close in time the two wishes are"

And that's not even getting into the general rule of: "Except in special cases, a spell does not affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, the spell description explains that effect."

I would say changing a single recent event is far more powerful than an indefinite number of non-chance events in the future. Specifically, wish allows the caster to raise the dead which changes an undefined number of events in the future. For this reason your entire premise falls. It is precisely the reverse. Raising the dead can change the future for hundreds of years to come, but wish can only effect the last six seconds or so of the past.


Too bad your exact words were and I quote:

"I wish for judicial and arcane review of this and all future wishes." The phrase "judicial review" is not used itself so the meaning of "Judicial review" which you added later is entirely irrelevant. This is what Literal fulfillment is, exactly what you asked for, nothing more and nothing less. Yes the idiomatic meaning and intent are obvious, but taken literally, idiomatic meaning and intent don't matter. Only the word's connotations matter. And my response neatly fits the literal meaning of the wish you posted.


If I asked for "diet and regular coke" you would likely know what I meant. For a similar reason you ought to know what I mean by "Judicial and arcane review" even if you weren't necessarily sure what arcane review was you'd likely know what judicial review was. Furthermore, in a world where magic exists it is likely there would be a term for determining the outcome of a spell. Arcane review would serve in place of an in-game term for that sort of phenomena for which a term would exist.

Let me see if I understand you right. In order to make a good wish, I need to make one that is entirely free of idioms? There is a way to accomplish the intent of my wish in your campaign, it's just the wording of the wish specifically?


To which my reply is to point you to the spell description itself and ask you to find the section where this wish is free from corruption and how my corruption doesn't fit either literal or partial fulfillment. And then I'd point out your own hypocrisy in wanting to create "the most annoying character in history".

Well, if you want to be fully literal to be complete judicial review you would have to include your copy of the wish to Gods of Law, as such your wish outcome is not completely literal. Furthermore, the fulfillment of the wish itself is not partial by any stretch, it is entirely incomplete.

Jayabalard
2011-01-19, 07:06 PM
If I asked for "diet and regular coke" you would likely know what I meant.No, that doesn't really make any sense. It's kind of like asking for a tall short person.


Let me see if I understand you right. In order to make a good wish, No, if you want to make one free of backfire



There is a way to accomplish the intent of my wish in your campaign, it's just the wording of the wish specifically?No, it's more powerful than the allowed abilities you'd get for wish (assuming we're actually playing in an edition that has such guidelines), so at best you'd get a partial fulfillment, and at worst a corrupted one. And any wish granted by "ye powers of darkness" will probably be twisted in some way.

Worira
2011-01-19, 07:06 PM
If I asked for "diet and regular coke" you would likely know what I meant.

Sure, I would. And if you were asking for it as part of a wish that wildly exceeds the power of the Wish spell, I hope you like coal byproducts with your legislative assembly.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 07:24 PM
I'm pointing out that the words you used, don't mean what you want them to mean. Since the discussion is about carefully wording wishes to avoid backfires, literal interpretations of your wish are quite valid as counter examples.

Of course my words mean what I want them to mean. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that you know the meaning of my words better than me. As though you know what I mean moreso than I do.


There's something wrong with this statement...

If you look up Judicial review, you'll find references to it as a doctrine. In the context of "no backfire/careful wishes" the least desired interpretation of the words used is the one that is the important one. so even assuming there's a power of judical review, I don't see how it's relevant.

And this is what the distinction without a difference is. You're arguing that there is an inherent difference between a hypothetical power of judicial review and the doctrine of judicial review and I'm saying they're the same thing. Judges have a power to interpret laws and pass judgment on how laws are applied in various situations this is essentially judicial review at its core. It is both a doctrine and a power.


I take it to mean that you have no idea?

It's idle curiousity; I'm guessing it's age related (most of the google hits I can find are in the last few years).

Yeah, I did a google search too and the hits I got weren't leaning all that heavily in my favor. I'm honestly not sure where it comes from. It may be regional, I'm from the southern Great Plains.


Not at all, they're in the context of me reading the words, trying to puzzle out what they mean.

So it's not that it's not in context, it's just important that the context is contrived in such a way to abuse players as much as possible. Got it.


I'm giving you interpretations that are what you said, rather than what you meant.

And I'm giving you interpretations that are what you said, rather than what you meant.


I'm not DMing a game, and ad hominim attacks won't really make your arguments look any better; if anything, they tend to have the opposite effect.

In our hypothetical wishing scenario you were a DM granting a wish. Furthermore, there are actually situations where an ad hominem attack is valid. For example, if a politician has bad character, it is acceptable to attack his character in order to prove to his would-be voters that he is not representative of them. Similarly, in the case of a DnD game, if the DM is going to use the game as an extension of his own personal ego, that would be a reason to want a different DM. Therefore criticizing the DM on those grounds should be acceptable.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 07:30 PM
No, it's more powerful than the allowed abilities you'd get for wish (assuming we're actually playing in an edition that has such guidelines), so at best you'd get a partial fulfillment, and at worst a corrupted one. And any wish granted by "ye powers of darkness" will probably be twisted in some way.

The description of wish doesn't say that you can't get more powerful effects than what the spell prescribes, only that getting more powerful effects is dangerous. It doesn't mean that there is always a useless or dangerous outcome.

Templarkommando
2011-01-19, 07:32 PM
Sure, I would. And if you were asking for it as part of a wish that wildly exceeds the power of the Wish spell, I hope you like coal byproducts with your legislative assembly.

I didn't mean the phrase as a wish, I meant it as an illustration for how sentence structure works.

_Zoot_
2011-01-19, 08:44 PM
Might I point out that triple posting is frowned upon.

Anyway, the Wish that I though of as a no backfire wish is as follows:

"I wish that you would grant this wish"


And for all the wishes that create an item, for example, a scroll or ring of wish, there is always the old idea of the power that granted the wish having taken someone else's item, and that (most likely very powerful person) coming looking for it.

Lamech
2011-01-19, 09:34 PM
Of course my words mean what I want them to mean. It is utterly ridiculous to suppose that you know the meaning of my words better than me. As though you know what I mean moreso than I do.
The whole thing about wish is that if you go off the list its dangerous and you may get a literal but undesirable result. Or simply a partial fulfillment. You are attempting to wish for something that is clearly off the list. Needless to say its a danger that it gets twisted.


The description of wish doesn't say that you can't get more powerful effects than what the spell prescribes, only that getting more powerful effects is dangerous. It doesn't mean that there is always a useless or dangerous outcome. That is correct that. They are not all dangerous. You should probably talk with the GM on what is acceptable. One DM might be fine with giving you the location of a liches heavily warded phylactry. Another might tell you were his (discarded long ago) phylactry of faithfulness is located.
However its usually a safe assumption that when you try to be the one that decides how wishes go it doesn't work out.

NichG
2011-01-19, 11:45 PM
In our hypothetical wishing scenario you were a DM granting a wish. Furthermore, there are actually situations where an ad hominem attack is valid. For example, if a politician has bad character, it is acceptable to attack his character in order to prove to his would-be voters that he is not representative of them. Similarly, in the case of a DnD game, if the DM is going to use the game as an extension of his own personal ego, that would be a reason to want a different DM. Therefore criticizing the DM on those grounds should be acceptable.

This logic in the context of this conversation bothers me. Let me return with a 'valid' ad hominem attack on the same lines:

If you as a player are attempting to use legalese, careful wording, and arguments about valid interpretation to make a spell do things that will disrupt the campaign (namely, to get exactly what you want regardless of its scope and remove from the DM the capability to safeguard relative power levels in the campaign) then you are not playing the game in good faith, and it would be acceptable for the DM to say 'you are not welcome at my table'.

The reason Wish is listed as doing exactly a particular set of things, and everything else is dangerous/partial fulfillment/pants filled with fish is that those things it is listed to do have controlled impacts on the power of the user of Wish to influence the campaign (and that control need not be in the face of a railroading DM, it can simply be compared to the guy playing some other character who does not have access to Wish but has access to some other 9th level spell/power/maneuver/...).

However, we like the idea that Wish has some flexibility in what it does - it can emulate a huge number of spells, after all, so it should be able to do other things in line with that level of power. The partial fulfillment clause allows the DM to allow the player using Wish some leeway. Attempting to exceed that leeway means that you have a chance that the DM will say 'no': by not granting the wish, by corrupting it, etc. Trying to trick or force the DM to say 'yes' regardless of the wish is acting in bad faith. It may seem clever (and is just a kind of masochistic forum game to see what sorts of twists people come up with in this context since we're not talking about a real game), but there's really no winning at it at a real table - you either disrupt the campaign and no one gets to play, get a slap on the wrist by having bad things happen to your character, or get ejected from the table.

Templarkommando
2011-01-20, 03:49 AM
This logic in the context of this conversation bothers me. Let me return with a 'valid' ad hominem attack on the same lines:

If you as a player are attempting to use legalese, careful wording, and arguments about valid interpretation to make a spell do things that will disrupt the campaign (namely, to get exactly what you want regardless of its scope and remove from the DM the capability to safeguard relative power levels in the campaign) then you are not playing the game in good faith, and it would be acceptable for the DM to say 'you are not welcome at my table'.

But what is legalese, careful wording and argumentation a response to? It's a response to a DM who constantly abuses the wishes that players make. In effect it's a response to the knowledge that every DM that you ever encounter takes the wish spell as an excuse to take 5000 XP from the player without giving anything back. Which is part of what's stupid about the wish spell in its entirety - and why I have no intention of ever using the spell for anything other than its listed powers.

You talk about safeguarding the power levels in the campaign, but apparently through my wish I've just informed every magic user and judge in the entire world of the fact that I can cast wish. So no doubt armies of armed brigands and wizards will be descending upon me before very much longer. In other words the DM is using an imbalance of power to eliminate a spell that was a mistake to allow in the first place.

I'll agree that a case where a player basically tries to do this is a case where a player is also not playing in good faith, and he likely deserves to be ejected from the table. However, it's not unexpected. DMs have been abusing wishes for ages, and it's really become a contest for how foolish you can make your players look. For that reason, a player has a reasonable expectation that any non-list power that he tries to get from his wish is going to be pre-empted. The reason the player acts in bad faith in this case is because he was basically already certain that his DM had no intention of reciprocating a good faith wish and had every intention of sticking his finger in the player's eye for the low cost of 5000 XP. The long and short of this is outside of the list powers the wish spell is more than useless.

I am more likely to get something useful from casting magic missile than I am if I try to get wish to do something that's not on the list, which is a shame because there's a pretty clear understanding that it's capable of doing non-list tasks. An innocent wish for a ham sandwich is likely to steal a prize heirloom sandwich from some mighty wizard, or as the wish didn't express how big the sandwich was to be a room filled with a giant sandwich that suffocates the wisher.

Killer Angel
2011-01-20, 05:26 AM
But what is legalese, careful wording and argumentation a response to? It's a response to a DM who constantly abuses the wishes that players make.

No DM is used to twist in an evil way, the wishes a wizard PC casts by himself, to resolve a bad situation for the group. :smallannoyed:
Instead, they usually twist the wishes that greedy players try to extort from binded creatures, to gain multiple advantages, without spending xps. And curiously, these wishes are asked from evil beings, like the Efreeti, hence the need of perfect legalese to avoid backfires. :smallamused:

Jsuelieta
2011-01-20, 07:25 AM
And for all the wishes that create an item, for example, a scroll or ring of wish, there is always the old idea of the power that granted the wish having taken someone else's item, and that (most likely very powerful person) coming looking for it.

I did this to someone once. Their wish was "I wish for a useful item", now, I could have been nice (but sneaky) and given a set of +10 lockpicks to the guy with no rogue for miles, but instead I decided to give a magic amulet that gave an extra spell slot for every spell level the wearer had. The thing of it is it happened to be the phylactery of an incredibly powerful lich with more protective magic to keep it from being broken except by a Mount Doom-type quest than the lich even remembered (yeah, borrowed some of that from a familiar source, now guess the lich's name). Made for a great plot hook at the time.

My personal wish would be "I wish to be immune to the weapons of my enemies."

_Zoot_
2011-01-20, 07:35 AM
I did this to someone once. Their wish was "I wish for a useful item", now, I could have been nice (but sneaky) and given a set of +10 lockpicks to the guy with no rogue for miles, but instead I decided to give a magic amulet that gave an extra spell slot for every spell level the wearer had. The thing of it is it happened to be the phylactery of an incredibly powerful lich with more protective magic to keep it from being broken except by a Mount Doom-type quest than the lich even remembered (yeah, borrowed some of that from a familiar source, now guess the lich's name). Made for a great plot hook at the time.

My personal wish would be "I wish to be immune to the weapons of my enemies."

What if your enemies took a weapon off one of your friends and stabbed you if that? Of course, that would require them to know about the wording of the Wish...

Jsuelieta
2011-01-20, 07:50 AM
What if your enemies took a weapon off one of your friends and stabbed you if that? Of course, that would require them to know about the wording of the Wish...
This also assumes that I don't have to fight off my own party after I'm done making a wish like that, but I figure the odds are good if I'm making a wish like that they're already my enemies and I just don't know it yet.

NichG
2011-01-20, 07:54 AM
But what is legalese, careful wording and argumentation a response to? It's a response to a DM who constantly abuses the wishes that players make. In effect it's a response to the knowledge that every DM that you ever encounter takes the wish spell as an excuse to take 5000 XP from the player without giving anything back. Which is part of what's stupid about the wish spell in its entirety - and why I have no intention of ever using the spell for anything other than its listed powers.


It's a matter of table trust, like many other things that go outside the rules as written. At a table where the players trust the DM and vice versa, Wish is a versatile yet costly tool, where if a wish gets twisted it will usually be plot-generating rather than just a random screwover. Once that has been abused by either party, it will collapse to the stuff on the list. And a game without table trust is generally not worth playing - its just going to be an exercise in frustration all around.

In a thread like this of course, the amusement is the screwovers and the ridiculously over-reaching wishes, and so there's no pretense of such forms of table trust.



You talk about safeguarding the power levels in the campaign, but apparently through my wish I've just informed every magic user and judge in the entire world of the fact that I can cast wish. So no doubt armies of armed brigands and wizards will be descending upon me before very much longer. In other words the DM is using an imbalance of power to eliminate a spell that was a mistake to allow in the first place.


This fails to safeguard the levels of power in the sense that the campaign is now about how your character specifically gets hunted down, rather than about the actions of the entire party. It may be bad attention, but just like wishes for godly power all the attention is now on you rather than spread across all the players at the table.


My personal wish would be "I wish to be immune to the weapons of my enemies."

Serious response: You gain the ability to cast greater ironguard or starmantle as a spell like ability once within the next 24 hours, after which the ability is gone. (Edit: Or you get the option as a player that, if you are willing to pay the price, the wish consumes a level and gives you a template that grants Regeneration against damage done by weapons and perhaps some minor stat mods to pad out the 1 LA.)

Twisted response: You are teleported to a nice tropical island away from the weapons of your enemies.

Mean but plot generating response: A new magical disease that effects only objects is created and spread throughout the cities of the world in which you have enemies. The disease seems to target enchanted iron, rusting it away from the inside and causing it to become as soft as butter. The party must now find some way to reverse this calamity before it leaves major population centers vulnerable to monster attack. Furthermore, the party's equipment is immune, a fact that becomes noticed.

Extreme perverting of the wish screw-you response: You become a vestige. Make a new character.

Extreme perverting of the wish campaing off the rails response: You and the party become vestiges. Campaign moves to the Far Realms and continues.

Jayabalard
2011-01-20, 05:06 PM
In our hypothetical wishing scenario you were a DM granting a wish. Not at all.

The topic is wishes that with no backfire. If someone proposes a wish that does not meet that criteria (like the one you did) , then other people in the thread should show the problems in the wish. In your hypothetical wishing scenario, I was a poster on this thread pointing out the flaws in your wish by example.

Trying to paint people who point out flaws as "You (the responder) are a bad DM, not DMing in good faith with your players" is simply trying to distract away from how bad your example was, and is completely irrelevant.


Furthermore, there are actually situations where an ad hominem attack is valid. Not in the slightest (especially on these forums). Attacking someone's argument is valid; attacking the person making the argument is not.

Sure, sidetracking a discussion by demonizing your opponent may a useful political maneuver, but it has no place here.


The description of wish doesn't say that you can't get more powerful effects than what the spell prescribes, only that getting more powerful effects is dangerous. It doesn't mean that there is always a useless or dangerous outcome.It's implied; and those guidelines are only in 3.5 and later. Earlier editions of D&D were pretty much of the attitude "let the buyer beware" with twists happening more often than not ... same goes for many other FRPGs, and almost all fiction that deals with characters making wishes.


But what is legalese, careful wording and argumentation a response to?In his given example, nothing. It's simply the player being disruptive; it's a similar situation to someone making an annoying character simply for the purpose of being disruptive.

In most fiction, it's in response to the fact that the Entities that grant wishes tend to be capricious at best and malicious more often than not... and that they generally twist wishes, with the more malicious entities doing it in rather terrible ways.


The reason the player acts in bad faith in this case is because he was basically already certain that his DM had no intention of reciprocating a good faith wish and had every intention of sticking his finger in the player's eye for the low cost of 5000 XP. What the GM does or does not do is immaterial... it does not justify the Player's acting in bad faith.

Now, my wife is a teacher (pre-k to 8th grade); she has to deal with this sort of behavior, where the kids often try to justify their own misbehavior by pointing out that "Billy was doing X" ... it's an extremely juvenile sort of response.

Jay R
2011-01-20, 06:33 PM
My personal wish would be "I wish to be immune to the weapons of my enemies."

Granted.

You are now ethereal, and cannot touch or pick up anything. Dispel Magic will, of course, undo the effects of this Wish, any time you like.

Kris Strife
2011-01-20, 10:29 PM
Now, my wife is a teacher (pre-k to 8th grade); she has to deal with this sort of behavior, where the kids often try to justify their own misbehavior by pointing out that "Billy was doing X" ... it's an extremely juvenile sort of response.

In this instance, it'd be more a case of "But you were doing X, so I did X too."

NichG
2011-01-20, 11:51 PM
In this instance, it'd be more a case of "But you were doing X, so I did X too."

Or perhaps 'People with the same job as you often do X, so I'm going to assume you'll do X and do it too first'?