Why the trend to twist wishes?

[Endarire]

As long as I can recall, tabletop RPGs have had a tendency to twist wishes into something literal, but undesirable. (Sometimes, just undesirable while ignoring the wish's wording.)

Sometimes, there are 'safe' wishes. D&D 3.5 has a list of safe wishes, probably due to all the twisted wishes in 2E and before.

I can understand if the wish granter is malevolent. (That's usually what such beings do.) From an out of character standpoint, where's the fun in twisting wishes? Do you really want to encourage players and PCs to make out 40 page 'ironclad' wish contracts?

[Shadowknight12]

It's a matter of control and dominance. The wish is the most powerful form of control there is. By wishing something, a player exerts control over the campaign, the plot, the setting, its own character, an NPC, or anything it can think of. And because wishes must be granted, the DM allegedly has to abide by this control.

This rubs many GMs the wrong way, and resent having control taken from them. The only way they can reassert control over the game, or whatever part of it the player intends to alter with their wish, is to twist the wish to "punish" the player for trying to exert control beyond their boundaries.

It's an ugly thing, dominance struggles and control disputes, but it all boils down to power. The power of a granted wish is practically unrivalled, and that power corrupts deeply. Once that power is on the table, it turns friends into enemies and men into beasts.

[Saph]

Mostly, it's tradition. But there's a reason for it too: a completely unrestricted wish gives total power. Total power is fun in stories but doesn't work well in a game. There has to be a restriction.

One easy restriction is the limit. You don't get an unrestricted wish, you get a limited wish: this is the D&D 3.5 wish spell with the list of "safe" effects. This is the most reliable way, but the problem is that it ends up not really feeling like a "wish" at all - instead of just saying what you want you have to go through the list of acceptable choices.

So it's not surprising that a lot of people like the idea of getting rid of the whole limit and saying that a wish really can do anything. So how are you going to restrict it? Well, you say that while the wisher has no limit on the total power of the wish, they don't have complete control on how that power gets used. Essentially, you get unlimited power with the tradeoff of crappy accuracy. And this is a really good source of story hooks. If you know that a wish might backfire somehow, then deciding whether to use a wish becomes an interesting choice - "Do I dare take the risk of using a wish, or should I wait and hope to get out of this alive some other way?"

Like most aspects of a RPG, wishes tend to work best if the player and DM trust each other. If the player is the munchkin type and just wants UNLIMITED POWAH, then he's going to get resentful when his wish doesn't automatically win him the game. And if the DM goes out of his way to screw with the characters, then a wish becomes completely pointless - it's just an excuse for the DM to kill you. But if the player isn't expecting an auto-win and if the DM is making an effort to make sure the end result is fun for all the players, then twisted wishes can be pretty entertaining.

[Killer Angel]

Do you really want to encourage players and PCs to make out 40 page 'ironclad' wish contracts?

I hope (for the PCs) not. Long contracts are a paradise for nasty loopholes.

On a related note, I remember a funny story... once, my players (due to a series of unfortunate events and bad / poor decisions) found themselves "forced" to deliver a shipment to the baatezu army. Entrenched in a Plain dedicated to the blood war.
The cornugon in charge of the ordnance service told them that he had no objection to sign their pass... leaving to them the task to write the text of the pass itself.
Their expression of absolute terror was totally worth it. :smallbiggrin:

[Asheram]

Ever heard the old story "The Monkey's Paw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monkey's_Paw)"? There are plenty of such stories out there.
And it's easy to see that if someone were forced to give an unknown person a wish, you want to twist it.

[Amphetryon]

Indeed, Wishes are twisted mostly because it's a standard of the wish-granting trope that you must phrase the Wish with extraordinary care, lest you wind up with more (or less) than you bargained for.

[QuidEst]

'Cuz it's how you make wishes interesting. What happens if you don't twist wishes? Well, the PCs get exactly what they want, anything at all, with no risk. Not terribly interesting. Even if a wish doesn't get twisted, the possibility of it makes the players think more. So I guess my stance is "Where's the fun in not twisting wishes?" (Of course, I agree that there a plenty of cases where a 'safe' wish is what you want- a chaotic good deity rewarding you isn't going to hang you out to try for some sloppy wording.)

[navar100]

It's a matter of control and dominance. The wish is the most powerful form of control there is. By wishing something, a player exerts control over the campaign, the plot, the setting, its own character, an NPC, or anything it can think of. And because wishes must be granted, the DM allegedly has to abide by this control.

This rubs many GMs the wrong way, and resent having control taken from them. The only way they can reassert control over the game, or whatever part of it the player intends to alter with their wish, is to twist the wish to "punish" the player for trying to exert control beyond their boundaries.

It's an ugly thing, dominance struggles and control disputes, but it all boils down to power. The power of a granted wish is practically unrivalled, and that power corrupts deeply. Once that power is on the table, it turns friends into enemies and men into beasts.

This, or as I like to say, the DM hates his players.

Obligatory: There does exist players who will try to use a Wish to "win D&D", wanting unlimited power over everything within the parameters of what they want power over. Such an attempt is obvious, rightfully and easily dismissed by the DM.

Everytime else, the DM hates his players and relishes his power to do what he wants with satisfactory gloating glee that he can say it's the player's own fault.

[Emmerask]

twisting wishes is a form of balancing, if you don´t twist them what exactly is stopping the players from wishing 1 trillion gp, or to wish for 20 additional levels or a kingdom etc... twisting the wishes outside the safe ones balances the spell.

If you don´t balance wish that way what would actually stop the bbeg to wish that your pcs where never born (once he realizes you are a threat to him) ?
So the balance is not exactly a one way street, the pcs should be damn happy about the safe wish ceiling :smallbiggrin:
(Yes bbegs are able to use wishes too :o)

[kaomera]

It's quite traditional - ''Be careful what you wish for'' and all that... If anything the trend is to make wishes safer and more reliable.

[hamlet]

twisting wishes is a form of balancing, if you don´t twist them what exactly is stopping the players from wishing 1 trillion gp, or to wish for 20 additional levels or a kingdom etc... twisting the wishes outside the safe ones balances the spell.

If you don´t balance wish that way what would actually stop the bbeg to wish that your pcs where never born (once he realizes you are a threat to him) ?
So the balance is not exactly a one way street, the pcs should be damn happy about the safe wish ceiling :smallbiggrin:
(Yes bbegs are able to use wishes too :o)

It's not so much balancing as it is, at least in my experience, a matter of in game logic. If you can't coherently word your wish to arrive at the point you desire, perhaps you're not thinking things through.

And it also depends on who is granting the wish. Evil beings (of any stripe) will tend to twist the intent of the wish. Good aligned wish granters will probably go right along with the intent and might even offer advice on how to word the wish. Wishes without an apparant granter (from a ring or from a PC cast spell, for instance) will tend to be interpreted literally, because that's the source of all the logic of the wish. If it isn't explicated well, it's going to be interpreted according to the word of the wish rather than the intent.

[Asheram]

It's not so much balancing as it is, at least in my experience, a matter of in game logic. If you can't coherently word your wish to arrive at the point you desire, perhaps you're not thinking things through.

And it also depends on who is granting the wish. Evil beings (of any stripe) will tend to twist the intent of the wish. Good aligned wish granters will probably go right along with the intent and might even offer advice on how to word the wish. Wishes without an apparant granter (from a ring or from a PC cast spell, for instance) will tend to be interpreted literally, because that's the source of all the logic of the wish. If it isn't explicated well, it's going to be interpreted according to the word of the wish rather than the intent.

It's actually quite interesting... Where Does the wish come from? Let's say that your wishing is taken care of by an omniscient being or power, which is the easiest way to take care of your wish?

Say that you wish to be given 1.000.000gp. It might be the simplest that in the next few weeks, you'll be the errand boy of a king who needs to transport money. It isn't yours, but for a few days it'll be in your possession.

[Emmerask]

And it also depends on who is granting the wish. Evil beings (of any stripe) will tend to twist the intent of the wish. Good aligned wish granters will probably go right along with the intent and might even offer advice on how to word the wish. Wishes without an apparant granter (from a ring or from a PC cast spell, for instance) will tend to be interpreted literally, because that's the source of all the logic of the wish. If it isn't explicated well, it's going to be interpreted according to the word of the wish rather than the intent.

While this would be a very sensible mechanic (if you have reasonable players) by raw wish does not make any such distinctions in d&d, any spell outside of the safe ones are "dangerous" no matter who asks for them or who grants them.
Dark eye actually has the mechanic build in for wishes efrits if they grant you a wish always try to screw you and some other beings (forgot the name) try to give you what you wish for, though wishes there must be within the power of the being so its balanced in another way.

As for d&d I think it was never actually clarified where the wish is actually getting its power from, maybe the weave? but then there would be an actual hard cap on what you can wish for, maybe Ao himself?

[GRM13]

It's actually quite interesting... Where Does the wish come from? Let's say that your wishing is taken care of by an omniscient being or power, which is the easiest way to take care of your wish?

Say that you wish to be given 1.000.000gp. It might be the simplest that in the next few weeks, you'll be the errand boy of a king who needs to transport money. It isn't yours, but for a few days it'll be in your possession.

Well that is not being given 1mil GP, but earning it. I'd be more worried of all those GP pieces dropping on my head all at once.

[Jay R]

As long as I can recall, tabletop RPGs have had a tendency to twist wishes into something literal, but undesirable. (Sometimes, just undesirable while ignoring the wish's wording.)

You have to realize that D&D was originally a simulation. Wishes get twisted in D&D because there are many fantasy stories in which wishes get twisted. From The Monkey's Paw to any number of fables, stories with wishes include the dangers of misinterpretation.

For one thing, a story in which your hero gets everything he desires on page one doesn't have any story to tell for page two.

In any event, I don't try to twist simple wishes. Only when people are getting tricky do I get tricky back. (The best way to get a wish treated fairly is to not be greedy. Don't wish for yourself; wish for the village, or a teammate.)

But there is one trick I've used that takes careful concentration. When the PC doesn't know he's carrying an item with wishes, but says the words "I wish...", then the wish happens.

I had one character who had has a serious mishap, including losing something very important. At one point later on, he said, "I wish I had my X back." I told him that it appeared in front of him. He asked me if that was really within the rules, and I told him yes. He tried to get me to explain how it happened, and I refused. Finally, he said, "I just wish I knew how that happened."

I replied, "You sword speaks, saying, I am a sword that once had three wishes on it. One recovered your item, and the second answered your question. What is your third and last wish?"


Do you really want to encourage players and PCs to make out 40 page 'ironclad' wish contracts?

Absolutely. Those are much easier to twist than straightforward ones.

One tool I have used to prevent too much greed is to have the ring or spell glow a purplish aura until the first clear wish is completed, and then stop. I'm not twisting the wish, but I am preventing it from being used as two or more wishes.

PC: I wish to have a Dancing Sword and + 3 armor, as well as a Luckstone, all delivered to me on a flying carpet carrying a chest of gold.
DM: The ring glowed purple until you mentioned the sword, and then stopped. A sword appears at your feet.

Or possibly: The ring glows purple when you mention the Dancing Sword, red when you mention the armor, and green when you mentioned the stone. All three appear at your feet, and the Ring of Three Wishes no longer radiates magic.

[JonRG]

It's so this doesn't happen.


http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/915921481_CxKAV-L.jpg

[Zarrgon]

Well, first off, the idea of twisting a wish goes all the way back to the first stories ever created by man. In any culture, in any story where the character gets a wish....things just don't turn out well.

The wish is a basic example of ''you can't get something for nothing'' or even ''if it sounds too good to be true, it is". The story is meant to teach people that they can't just 'sit around and wish for the best', but that you must earn what you want.

In an RPG, if a wish was perfect...it would be pointless. If a character could wish for 'infinite hit points' or a sword +100 or 100 levels, the game quickly becomes pointless.

In my game, wishes are seen as a temptation for mortals. The mortal will never get what they want, but they might 'mix up the multiverse' a bit. And it's a way to get around the Multiuniversal Rules.

[hamlet]

While this would be a very sensible mechanic (if you have reasonable players) by raw wish does not make any such distinctions in d&d, any spell outside of the safe ones are "dangerous" no matter who asks for them or who grants them.
Dark eye actually has the mechanic build in for wishes efrits if they grant you a wish always try to screw you and some other beings (forgot the name) try to give you what you wish for, though wishes there must be within the power of the being so its balanced in another way.

As for d&d I think it was never actually clarified where the wish is actually getting its power from, maybe the weave? but then there would be an actual hard cap on what you can wish for, maybe Ao himself?

Well, first off, why aren't you playing with reasonable people?

And second, the idea of "safe wishes" and anything outside of that being "dangerous" is largely an invention of 3.x. Largely. In previous editions, Wish is . . . a nettlesome thing. Essentially, as it is written, it is capable of doing, virtually, anything. However, it is explicitely dangerous because wishes tend to be, for the most part, interpreted according to the word of the wish rather than the intent.

Which is reasonable. If you are able twist the heavens and reorder reality according to your whim (and the expenditure of 5 years of your life and a 9th level spell slot), then it stands to reason that the change hinges on your ability to explain what you want changed and how and if you can't, then you clearly haven't thought it through completely.

If you can't say what you mean, how can you mean what you say?

[Jeraa]

Well, 1st edition D&D Wish said the following:


Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the wish spell is likely to be carried through.

So whaterever you wised for, you got. If you were hungry and said "I wish for you to make me a ham sandwich.", well, you were now a ham sandwich as that is exactly what you wished for.

Wish was in the Baldurs Gate 2: Shadows of Amn PC game. I remember wishing for a "Horde to overwhelm my enemies". You got a horde all right. A horde of rabbits.

So twisting wishes, and using their exact terminology against the players has been present in D&D since 1st edition, at least.

[Crow]

It's just a throwback to the days when magic had consequences.

[Chells]

One thing about wishes is the source. Djinns twist wishes on purpose to give themselves a break. It cuts down on the wish-work and servitude if the wishers keep killing themselves with poorly worded wishes.

Also a simple trick with wishes is do not allow the word "and" or its synonyms. A wish can be for a single thing. You can clarify the heck out of that thing but it must be contained by a single noun (or possibly adjective). As soon as the wish becomes collective it fails.

[navar100]

I wish for a trillion gp. I wish there was no Tiamat, I wish for 20 more levels, I wish . . .

That's what I'm talking about. That's stupid wishing to win D&D. Such obvious shenanigans are to be slapped away. However, that's no excuse to make blanket wish twisting.

Where's the fun? How about the PCs just saved the world from the Lich/Demon/Far Realm/Great Wyrm Red Dragon/Tharizdun and are granted a Wish as a reward? It's not an atrocity for PCs to get what they want.

"The Monkey's Paw" is irrelevant. I'm playing D&D, not that story. It's not inherently greedy to use Wish to improve one's own lot. Wishing to be Emperor, a god, yes, that falls into the stupid wishing to win D&D. Wishing for a magic weapon? The ability to fly? See in darkness? A nice plot of land and homestead? It's supposed to be that good.

[Jay R]

Where's the fun? How about the PCs just saved the world from the Lich/Demon/Far Realm/Great Wyrm Red Dragon/Tharizdun and are granted a Wish as a reward? It's not an atrocity for PCs to get what they want.

Okay, suppose the Wish is a thank you for performing a worthy deed. That doesn't make it any less dangerous. It's still an extremely powerful force that you might not be able to control.

Consider two people who have never driven and both have brand new cars. One of them stole the car, and the other was given a car by the grateful parents of a child she saved. That has absolutely no bearing on how dangerous it is for them to drive cars they never learned to drive.

Similarly, the Wish given by a grateful populace is no less dangerous from the Wish you found in a dungeon.


"The Monkey's Paw" is irrelevant. I'm playing D&D, not that story.

Fantasy literature is not irrelevant. D&D was started to simulate fantasy literature. For many of us, that is still its primary purpose. More importantly, the fact that twisting wishes occurs in many different fantasy stories is absolutely relevant to the original topic in this thread, which was "Why the trend to twist wishes?". The actual answer to that actual question is that wishes are twisted in fantasy literature. (See? A literal interpretation of the words, rather than what you want them to mean.)

If you don't want to play a game that simulates a particular fantasy trope, that's fine, but your personal preference doesn't make the actual answer irrelevant.


It's not inherently greedy to use Wish to improve one's own lot. Wishing to be Emperor, a god, yes, that falls into the stupid wishing to win D&D. Wishing for a magic weapon? The ability to fly? See in darkness? A nice plot of land and homestead? It's supposed to be that good.

Yup - and such wishes, worded correctly, will work in my campaigns. But the magic makes your actual words come true, not your intent. I heard of somebody who had seen an extremely powerful arrow say, "I wish I had a buttload of those arrows". Now assume a magical force that is incapable of guessing intent. All it does is make your actual words real. How would it interpret the term "buttload"? Guess where all the arrows wound up.


It's just a throwback to the days when magic had consequences.

Quoted for the win.

If magic has consequences, wishes will always be "twisted" (a bizarre term for interpreting them strictly, by the way) - sometimes fatally. If magic has no consequences, then they will never be. Most campaigns are somewhere in between, and there's no point complaining about the fact that different people play games differently.

[navar100]

In other words, a Wish is the DM's excuse to screw over the player.

As I said, a DM who hates his players.

[GRM13]

Usually I'm all for "DM are taking stuff away from player and ruining their fun" route, but seriously, Wish twisting is a very well known trope and it compensates with the whole power=risk, either you learn how to manipulate it to your advantage and use any chance at them efficiently and without meta (no saying want my character to be 20) or don't even try to play with it. You don't give someone who is ill prepared a button that can destroy the world when pressed. In the same way you don't go wishing stuff if you can't grasp the risks.

Case in point Deck of many thing, don't go pulling cards and then complain that your a newt.



In other words, a Wish is the DM's excuse to screw over the player.

As I said, a DM who hates his players.

Also it takes two to tango, the DM can give you the option of making the wish but the player can just as easily refuse it, the moment you took the offer you accepted the risk. It's really hard for me to believe your "DM excuse to screw players" logic when

A) The DM is asking the player for permition to "screw" the player.
B) The player must agree to being "screwed" by accepting the wish.

Again if he wanted to screw you he can just as easily do it in many other ways to hamper you without your consent (rust monsters, mindflayers, Beholders, robbing you blind at night, deck of many things). You can't blame the DM for burning the player alive if the player willing jumped into the lava pit for the hope of shinies.

[The Glyphstone]

Usually I'm all for "DM are taking stuff away from player and ruining their fun" route, but seriously, Wish twisting is a very well known trope and it compensates with the whole power=risk, either you learn how to manipulate it to your advantage and use any chance at them efficiently and without meta (no saying want my character to be 20) or don't even try to play with it. You don't give someone who is ill prepared a button that can destroy the world when pressed. In the same way you don't go wishing stuff if you can't grasp the risks.

Case in point Deck of many thing, don't go pulling cards and then complain that your a newt.




Also it takes two to tango, the DM can give you the option of making the wish but the player can just as easily refuse it, the moment you took the offer you accepted the risk. It's really hard for me to believe your "DM excuse to screw players" logic when

A) The DM is asking the player for permition to "screw" the player.
B) The player must agree to being "screwed" by accepting the wish.

Again if he wanted to screw you he can just as easily do it in many other ways to hamper you without your consent (rust monsters, mindflayers, Beholders, robbing you blind at night, deck of many things). You can't blame the DM for burning the player alive if the player willing jumped into the lava pit for the hope of shinies.

The issue is not when people wish for excessive things like 1 million gold pieces or being level 20 instantly - those deserve to get screwed. It's when the player wishes for something like their +2 sword to be a +2 flaming sword, and the DM says "Okay, your sword is now a +2 flaming sword, because you and all your equipment has been set on fire for 10000000d6 damage per round". As you said, a DM doesn't need the player's consent to be a jerk and screw them over, so treating all wishes as a blank-check screw-over is just being an extra level of jerk.

The bolded section is why players invent 20-page contracts before they wish for a +1 sword, because they expect the DM will arbitrarily cheat them somehow if they don't have it. A wish should, by definition, be a contract between Player and DM - "you don't overstep reasonability, and I won't make your life miserable because of it".

[Jay R]

In other words, a Wish is the DM's excuse to screw over the player.

Why stop with a Wish? An encounter, a swing of a sword, a conversation - any action at all can be the DM's excuse to screw over the player. They can also sometimes be the DM's excuse to exalt the player, and most often something in between. As a DM, I play the entire game, not just part of it.

[Shadowknight12]

Again if he wanted to screw you he can just as easily do it in many other ways to hamper you without your consent (rust monsters, mindflayers, Beholders, robbing you blind at night, deck of many things). You can't blame the DM for burning the player alive if the player willing jumped into the lava pit for the hope of shinies.

I can, if the DM tells me the lava pit is actually an illusion and everything's gonna be okay.

Which is the root of the wish-twisting: betrayed expectations. The player expects that their wishes will come true, that they will obtain what they desire. Wish-twisting says "Nope! And here's punishment for trying to improve your lot in life."

You could argue that characters ought to be aware of wish-twisting (being so prevalent), but that's like saying that a victim being aware that walking alone at night is dangerous makes mugging them suddenly not a crime anymore (meaning: even with genre-savviness, that's still betraying the expectations of the player).

[GRM13]

I can, if the DM tells me the lava pit is actually an illusion and everything's gonna be okay.

Which is the root of the wish-twisting: betrayed expectations. The player expects that their wishes will come true, that they will obtain what they desire. Wish-twisting says "Nope! And here's punishment for trying to improve your lot in life."

You could argue that characters ought to be aware of wish-twisting (being so prevalent), but that's like saying that a victim being aware that walking alone at night is dangerous makes mugging them suddenly not a crime anymore (meaning: even with genre-savviness, that's still betraying the expectations of the player).

Well when the DM told you that it was an illusion was it by him as a DM or an NPC (and if it was the DM telling you was it cause of a result of a skill roll) If it was directly the DM and you die than you have a problem with a jerk DM. if it was an NPC that's all depends on the NPC's motives, the DM can lie based on the situation at hand to keep you from knowledge, and wishes don't tend to go freely, if it's from the spell the person probably read about the dangers, if it's an item or a demon one should be worry, only excuse really if it's by a good outsider which in that cased it's an unconditioned wish and the exception not the norm. Wishes aren't "get out of jail free cards" their raw reality warping powers and one should no full well that those don't tend to cooperate. Also with the comparison (which I think it's kind of exaggerating emotional provoking point really) Wether the person knows that muggings happen or not doesn't stop the mugging from actually happening, it just allows one to be more prepared. Same thing with dreams, wether you are aware or not is not a factor on wether the wish twisting happens or not, but hwo well you adapt/are prepared/deal with it.

[Shadowknight12]

Well when the DM told you that it was an illusion was it by him as a DM or an NPC (and if it was the DM telling you was it cause of a result of a skill roll) If it was directly the DM and you die than you have a problem with a jerk DM. if it was an NPC that's all depends on the NPC's motives, the DM can lie based on the situation at hand to keep you from knowledge, and wishes don't tend to go freely, if it's from the spell the person probably read about the dangers, if it's an item or a demon one should be worry, only excuse really if it's by a good outsider which in that cased it's an unconditioned wish and the exception not the norm. Wishes aren't "get out of jail free cards" their raw reality warping powers and one should no full well that those don't tend to cooperate. Also with the comparison (which I think it's kind of exaggerating emotional provoking point really) Wether the person knows that muggings happen or not doesn't stop the mugging from actually happening, it just allows one to be more prepared. Same thing with dreams, wether you are aware or not is not a factor on wether the wish twisting happens or not, but hwo well you adapt/are prepared/deal with it.

Paragraphs. They are your friends. :smallsmile:

Having said that, I meant the DM, as in a skill check or roll, because the DM is in charge of granting the wish, and he's the one that's twisting it. And yes, exactly, that's my point. A DM who outright lies to you and tricks you into getting your hopes up only to dash them for their amusement is a jerk DM. Wish-twisting, when done against the player's expectations, is exactly that.

As for the mugging, you missed my point so much I actually have no idea what you're saying; I simply can't understand it. I'll reiterate: telling a player "you should have known your wishes would be twisted, therefore I am not betraying your expectations" as an excuse is the same as telling a mugging victim "you should have known you'd be mugged when you walked down that dark alley alone, therefore we are not going to consider that a crime."

"They had it coming" is not a good justification for doing bad things to people.

[Jay R]

TA wish should, by definition, be a contract between Player and DM - "you don't overstep reasonability, and I won't make your life miserable because of it".

That's an interesting idea. But does it have any support other than your personal preference?

Please cite the classical fantasy tales that have worked this way. If you don't have any sources to cite, then feel free to play that way, but recognize that those of us who play D&D to simulate classical fantasy will reach another conclusion.

Oh, and by the way, the social contract in a given game is what the players in that game think it is, not what you tell us it is.

[GRM13]

Paragraphs. They are your friends. :smallsmile:

Having said that, I meant the DM, as in a skill check or roll, because the DM is in charge of granting the wish, and he's the one that's twisting it. And yes, exactly, that's my point. A DM who outright lies to you and tricks you into getting your hopes up only to dash them for their amusement is a jerk DM. Wish-twisting, when done against the player's expectations, is exactly that.

As for the mugging, you missed my point so much I actually have no idea what you're saying; I simply can't understand it. I'll reiterate: telling a player "you should have known your wishes would be twisted, therefore I am not betraying your expectations" as an excuse is the same as telling a mugging victim "you should have known you'd be mugged when you walked down that dark alley alone, therefore we are not going to consider that a crime."

"They had it coming" is not a good justification for doing bad things to people.

Then what about traps? What about that nice sword sitting in a pedestal, or that amazing relic held by a statue. Unless the DM actively tells you that the wish is safe from harm (which they shouldn't' unless telling the truth) you take them with a grain a salt, if something sounds too good it might not be. But do you blame the DM for you falling for the trap, no, same principle with wishes.

There is a difference between him betraying you and not providing information that your character doesn't know. Also still don't get the point of the mugging. How is you falling for a trap set by the GM (you know like all the other ones adventurers tend to avoid to trigger) the same as someone justifying a mugging. That's why I called it a very emotional point as it feels less connected to the question and more design to excite guilt or frame the person who disagrees as a jerk.

Twisting wishes just seems like one of those factor in RPG that differ from group (like preferring low magic over high, and prohibiting monstrous races as PC or not), Each person has their preference and if you prefer using Wishes as rewards or assistance in giving players power than go for it. But just because a DM prefers making wishes more deadly doesn't mean he is a Prick who hates players. Can we agree on this?

[Jay R]

A DM who outright lies to you and tricks you into getting your hopes up only to dash them for their amusement is a jerk DM.

Of course. But in 37 years of playing, I've never met such a DM. I have met many DMs accused of this by their players, but haven't actually seen a DM outright lying to the players.


Wish-twisting, when done against the player's expectations, is exactly that.

Interpreting the words of a wish literally is part of the rules. If it is done against the players expectations, then that player needs to go back and read the rules. He's not ready to play the game yet.

I agree that when a new player gets her first wish, the DM should explain the risks, just like with a new sword, a new spell, a new horse, or anything else.

In any event, your contention does not apply to anybody in this thread, since everybody here clearly knows about the rules and customs of interpreting wishes strictly. So it cannot be against the expectations of anybody in this thread, unless they have decided the rules of D&D don't apply to them.

Your mugging example is inapplicable from the start. The mugger is breaking the law. The DM is obeying the rules of the game. A mugging victim is asking for the law to apply as written. A player who gets upset at a wish being interpreted according to the rules is asking for the rules to not apply as written, so he doesn't have to run the risks other players run.

I repeat, if you and your group want to play that way, instead of by the rules, feel free. That's none of our business. But please don't tell us that we are frustrating our players' expectation when we and our players choose to play by the rules.

[NichG]

An anecdote about twisted wishes as challenges:


I was in a very high-powered campaign once with a lot of homebrew powers. Our normal issues were things like 'fight the fundamental concept of Nothingness' or 'deal with this infectious thing that represents unending suffering and sin that is creeping into reality'. For one thing that we wanted to do, we learned that there was an object in the treasury at the end of a traditional dungeon. So we ended up going on a sort of parody of a dungeon crawl (parody, since it was mostly a matter of pride for us to do it right, as nothing there could actually harm us). We went through, avoiding most traps, triggering a few, etc.

The only trap that actually threatened us and got us sweating was a room in which there was a bound Efreet, the servant of the dungeon's maker, and the only way to get to the treasury. He explicitly said 'I am bound to twist any wish I grant, I can grant one wish, I am the only way to the treasury, and here are the restrictions on my behavior in answering questions and granting wishes'. So the trick was to do something that could only be twisted in ways that the Efreet was bound not to do. We decided that our best bet was to wish to free the Efreet and then get him to just send us there of his own volition, since that way if it twisted it'd twist on him and that'd violate one of his limitations.


Anecdote aside, in my campaigns there is a very specific way that the Wish spell works. Basically, it searches nearby alternate possible realities for one that satisfies the wish, and then enacts a change to swap elements of the current reality for those of the alternate one. As such, it tends to find the closest alternate realities first. Instantiating a single spell is an almost microscopic change compared to other things, since all it has to do is twist its own spell energy into a different shape, so if it can grant a wish with an existing spell then that solution is top priority. E.g., its easier for it to enact a Teleport Object spell to steal someone else's magic item than it is for it to construct a new one from whole cloth.

This sort of explains the 'safe' list of effects. Those are effects which are very localized and can be accomplished more or less with existing magic, and so there's always a nearby reality that has those results available. Other Wishes, you don't know how far afield you're going to need to go to find the result.

Now, on top of that, Wish has finite power behind it. The answer that Wish uses to accomplish big things is that it leverages time and chaos. Imagine Wish as a spell that sends a message back in time to itself saying either 'keep searching' or 'okay, stop', along with a spell that sends some small random signal back a hundred billion years. The universe doesn't resolve to a self-consistent timeline until the Wish is satisfied - until that point, there's a building paradoxical loop.

Impossible Wishes are dangerous things - a closely guarded secret of the mages who invented the spell is that they actually put in a clause to make the Wish fail if it went to far afield, lest large sections of reality be rewritten. If someone removed that clause and asked for an Impossible Wish, its unclear what the consequences would be. If there were no way to resolve it at all, time might just stop for that world and everything that is temporally synchronized with it, at least until the Inevitables and paradox beings and so on show up to fix it (so you get a sort of Brigadoon effect). This would be imperceptible to the caster, but would act as a big Time Hop for the world.

Miracles on the other hand are never genied, but are almost never granted according to the exact wording used. Miracles call for the intervention of a deity, and are basically a note sent to said deity saying 'this is really important, and we'd like this to try to resolve the situation', at which point the deity acts in a way that is consistent with their power set and scale to try to help the caster. So someone might ask for a +300 weapon with Miracle, and would get a +5 weapon, as that might be all the deity has the power to create spontaneously, or what they have on hand that they can spare. Someone might ask for such and such enemy to be killed, in which case he'd get a Destruction spell, or maybe have Righteous Might, Divine Power, etc cast on him. If its the 'big' miracle (5k xp spent on it), the deity might send an avatar or a bunch of solars or something.

[Shadowknight12]

Then what about traps? What about that nice sword sitting in a pedestal, or that amazing relic held by a statue. Unless the DM actively tells you that the wish is safe from harm (which they shouldn't' unless telling the truth) you take them with a grain a salt, if something sounds too good it might not be. But do you blame the DM for you falling for the trap, no, same principle with wishes.

I do blame the DM for putting a trap and not giving me a chance to detect it or avoid it. Because let's face it, you cannot avoid the consequences of a twisted wish. A twisted wish gives you no save, has SR: Nope! and ignores all protections and forms of preemptive detection. So a trap that does exactly that will very much earn my scorn.


There is a difference between him betraying you and not providing information that your character doesn't know. Also still don't get the point of the mugging. How is you falling for a trap set by the GM (you know like all the other ones adventurers tend to avoid to trigger) the same as someone justifying a mugging. That's why I called it a very emotional point as it feels less connected to the question and more design to excite guilt or frame the person who disagrees as a jerk.

The point of the mugging comparison is to counteract any arguments that begin with a "your character should have known his wish would be twisted." It's not meant to be related to any other argument. If nobody says that character should be aware of their wishes being twisted, the mugging comparison has no place.


Twisting wishes just seems like one of those factor in RPG that differ from group (like preferring low magic over high, and prohibiting monstrous races as PC or not), Each person has their preference and if you prefer using Wishes as rewards or assistance in giving players power than go for it. But just because a DM prefers making wishes more deadly doesn't mean he is a Prick who hates players. Can we agree on this?

I can partially agree, because sometimes, you get DMs who are player-hating jerks, and they do very much love to do everything they can to torment their players, wish-twisting being merely one thing they do. And sometimes you have DMs who are nothing but nice and lovable until you try to step outside the little box they have placed you in. You see, they have decided how much power you are allowed to have, and what changes you are allowed to make, and what you can and can't do. So long as you follow their (often unstated) expectations, everything is roses. But step away from those boundaries (by getting your hands on a wish) and they will try to teach you a lesson.

I would definitely agree on this being playstyle differences, but I would personally be very wary of the type of person who enjoys wish-twisting (unless that's what the players want, of course).


Of course. But in 37 years of playing, I've never met such a DM. I have met many DMs accused of this by their players, but haven't actually seen a DM outright lying to the players.

That sounds awfully biased. Very, very biased.


Interpreting the words of a wish literally is part of the rules. If it is done against the players expectations, then that player needs to go back and read the rules. He's not ready to play the game yet.

I'm awfully sorry, but this is an actual lie. An ironic one, considering your previous statement, but I'm afraid I have to quote some rules on you.

Source (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm).


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.)

Emphasis mine. As you can see, literal, partial or undesirable wish fulfilment is actually not an obligation. It's mentioned as a possibility in the rules, but the rules do not compel for this to happen in the slightest. If you had said "it's in the rules that it might happen" you'd have been right. But as it stands, "it's part of the rules" implies that such a literal interpretation is a part of how the spell resolves, thereby implying obligation, which is patently false.


In any event, your contention does not apply to anybody in this thread, since everybody here clearly knows about the rules and customs of interpreting wishes strictly. So it cannot be against the expectations of anybody in this thread, unless they have decided the rules of D&D don't apply to them.

Of course it is against the expectations of anybody who might read this. As I have just proven above, you are patently prevaricating by stating (repeatedly) that wish-twisting is expected, mandatory, customary, normal or any other such implications. It may be so in your games, but you keep assuming this is true of everyone else, which is, as we all know, a fabrication.


Your mugging example is inapplicable from the start. The mugger is breaking the law. The DM is obeying the rules of the game. A mugging victim is asking for the law to apply as written. A player who gets upset at a wish being interpreted according to the rules is asking for the rules to not apply as written, so he doesn't have to run the risks other players run.

Again, sorry, but I have to call falsehood on that. The DM is not following the rules of the game because the rules do not compel him to twist wishes. They allow him, which is completely different (and it's also quite useless, because Rule Zero already allows a DM to do whatever they want).

The mugging example is not related to simple wish-twisting, I used to counter an argument based on player knowledge. Telling a player that they should have known a wish would backfire is like telling someone they should have known they would be mugged by walking down a dark alley. In both cases, the authority is assuming the victim has the knowledge that such event would inevitably occur if they took the actions they took, and therefore is judging that the outcome is not a crime or wrong in any way, because the victim brought it upon themselves.

[IncoherentEssay]

It's easier for Wish to construct items on the spot than to poach them off others, since Teleport Object happens to be a Touch spell, making items not in the casters/granters vicinity ineligible targets (and the transport travelers power affects creatures, not objects). Sort of important, since otherwise a Wish-Tug-of-War would occur for every damn McGuffin ever :smalltongue:.
Of course, (in my games at least) it still needs the Xp to make it, so it will request that a willing donor is designated. No Xp -> no item.

Personally, i don't see the point in twisting wishes any more than the rules say to. Is it is in the safe zone, it works. No questions asked. If it is only slightly out-of-bounds, partial fulfillment occurs as appropriate. Wildly out-of-bounds results in outright shutdown for next to no effect (whatever partial fulfillment happened did not occur locally. As an example, Wishing for the worlds most valuable gem would most likely drag it upwards from deep under the earth, most likely tunneling into a dungeon, or do the reverse and create a tunnel down at the right spot).
Wish never adds anything extra, no matter how unreasonable the Wish was. The Wish did not work since whatever asked was outside it's power, so it lacks the capacity to add anything to screw the wisher over (the famous everything-on-fire idiocy).
A Wish that is granted by an Efreet or equilavent still must abide by the 'reliable wishes' list. There's a gear on Mechaus for that :smalltongue:. They have some leeway on out-of-bounds wishes in that they get to determine the partial fulfillment but again cannot add anything unnecessary to it.

TL;DR - (at least in 3.5) Wish has a safe wishes list. If that does not apply, players should be informed in advance.

Edit: oh right, the original point of the thread: i think some people just enjoy trying to outwit one another, pitting player skill vs player/GM skill instead of using the game mechanics. Describing searches instead of rolling, substituting their own social skills for those of the character, MacGyvering through all sorts of situations, etc. The If-you-can-convince-the-DM-it-works model of conflict resolution. Wordy wishes and every-wish-out-to-kill-you are an extension of that.
I don't agree with it, but i can see some of the appeal.

[The Glyphstone]

That's an interesting idea. But does it have any support other than your personal preference?

Please cite the classical fantasy tales that have worked this way. If you don't have any sources to cite, then feel free to play that way, but recognize that those of us who play D&D to simulate classical fantasy will reach another conclusion.

Oh, and by the way, the social contract in a given game is what the players in that game think it is, not what you tell us it is.

Can you cite a classical fantasy tale where an unskilled, untrained commoner with a dagger has a 5% chance of stabbing a dragon in the face (and commensurately, a tale where the greatest warrior in existence has a 5% chance to miss the broad side of a mountain), or where a thief can be unharmed by a fireball exploding in the same 10ft room he is standing in? D&D may attempt to simulate classic fantasy, but it is a game, and certain concessions must be made during the translation. Wish is one such place, it is literally stepping outside the game to attempt to gain something, and thus should be a direct DM-to-player interface rather than the player trying to weasel-word his way into what he wants.



TL;DR - (at least in 3.5) Wish has a safe wishes list. If that does not apply, players should be informed in advance.

Exactly.

[navar100]

Why stop with a Wish? An encounter, a swing of a sword, a conversation - any action at all can be the DM's excuse to screw over the player. They can also sometimes be the DM's excuse to exalt the player, and most often something in between. As a DM, I play the entire game, not just part of it.

Indeed. They're called Killer DMs.

[nedz]

There have always been routine uses of wishes: stat bumps and teleports being the most common. I'm really thinking about the use of open wishes here.

In wishes were perfect they would be no fun. Part of the drama is not knowing quite how they are going to turn out. Having to phase the wish adds tension and makes them a challange with a huge potential reward, at some risk.

Each group has its houserules on quite how much licence the DM has. For some groups Wish is simply a general purpose spell, for others the DM is expected to twist them mercilessly and other groups will fall somewhere between. There is no right or wrong answer here, different things work for different people.

In the days of 1E the usual houserule we had was the principle of least action. i.e. which interpretation requires the least amount of effort for the wish. The exception was the obviously badly phrased wish.

There was also the concept of the God-Wish this always gave you exactly what you wanted. These were divine intervention, and were very rare.

With 2E it depended where you were since the nearest power was forced to grant the wish. So use a wish in your local friendly temple and you get a very favourable interpretation, but use one in an enemy temple you were in the middle of ransacking and it would probably turn out badly.

This could lead to some very difficult DM calls. The hardest I had was a wish granted by a pig in a wild zone by a wild mage (don't ask). It didn't help that this one was phrased based upon some very false assumptions, and that there were two divine interventions in progress. I had a headache after that one:smalltongue:

With 3E we have the idea that a wish has a tarrif, i.e. it should be worth a certain amount (e.g. 25,000 gp).


Also a simple trick with wishes is do not allow the word "and" or its synonyms. A wish can be for a single thing. You can clarify the heck out of that thing but it must be contained by a single noun (or possibly adjective). As soon as the wish becomes collective it fails.

Traditionaly I've interpreted 'And' as a delimeter, ie full stop. This can be hilarious since the wish will probably be half phrased. The principle here is that the use of 'And' signifies the use of two wishes, which would be fine if you had them.

This example is easy to illustrate the above points with.


I wish for a trillion gp
Yes but they are all tiny:

Least Energy: you have 1 gp worth of gold
Local power: variable amount of cash
3E: you have 25,000 gp worth of gold


If you wanted to screw the player you might give them one trillion gp, dropped from a great height. This would then attract lots of attention from anyone within a hundred miles. Not my style, YMMV.

The main problem with this wish is that it is quite boring, as well as being rediculous.


In other words, a Wish is the DM's excuse to screw over the player. As I said, a DM who hates his players.

Have you ever had to adjudicate a wish as a DM ?
Or have you only ever played with killer DMs ?

[Jay R]

Can you cite a classical fantasy tale where an unskilled, untrained commoner with a dagger has a 5% chance of stabbing a dragon in the face ....

The untrained Eustace hit a sea serpent the first time he ever swung a sword.
The shepherd David killed the giant Goliath with a single slingstone.


... (and commensurately, a tale where the greatest warrior in existence has a 5% chance to miss the broad side of a mountain),...

Lancelot and Gawaine fought for half a day without injury.
Gilgamesh and Enkidu fought without injury.
(Remember that a "miss" doesn't mean the weapon didn't touch the opponent; it means it did no damage.)


D&D may attempt to simulate classic fantasy, but it is a game, and certain concessions must be made during the translation. Wish is one such place,...

So on what basis do you get to decide that in our games, we "must" make the concessions you prefer and not the concessions we prefer? For that matter, how did you get the authority to tell us that we must make a concession at all in this matter, since the rules very clearly state that such interpretations of wishes are in fact acceptable in D&D?


Wish is one such place, it is literally stepping outside the game to attempt to gain something, and thus should be a direct DM-to-player interface rather than the player trying to weasel-word his way into what he wants.

It is *not* stepping outside the game. It just isn't. It is literally using the exact rules as they are in fact written and intended to be used. I require players to tell me the exact words the character uses when wishing. He cannot say, "My character wishes for a magic carpet." the words have to be stated within the game (I wish for...). Here are some citations from the rules.

OD&D: As with any wishes, the wishes granted by the ring must be of limited power in order to maintain balance in the game... Again, a wish for a powerful item could be fulfilled without benefit to the one wishing ("I wish for a Mirror of Life Trapping!", and the referee then places the character inside one which is all his own!)

AD&D 1E: If players are greedy and grasping, be sure to "crock" them. Interpret their wording exactly, twist the wording, or simply rule the request is beyond the power of the magic.

AD&D 2E: Greedy desires usually end in disaster for the player... As wishing another creature dead would be grossly unfair, your DM might well advance the spellcaster to a future period in which the creature is no longer alive, thus effectively putting the wishing character out of the game.

D&D 3E: The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment...

This is not outside the game; it is directly a part of the exact written rules of the game.

I repeat, if you and your table wish to eliminate this part of the actual, written the game,you can certainly do so, and I hope you have fun with it. But it's absurd to tell anybody else that they "must" make concession in violation of the rules. And saying following the rules as written is "literally stepping outside the game" is a simple falsehood.

[Emmerask]

I repeat, if you and your table wish to eliminate this part of the actual, written the game,you can certainly do so, and I hope you have fun with it. But it's absurd to tell anybody else that they "must" make concession in violation of the rules. And saying following the rules as written is "literally stepping outside the game" is a simple falsehood.

Though it should be relative common knowledge (at least to adventurers) if wishes can be perverted in the game world.
So in a world where it is known that wishes are fulfilled as intended then it would be quite moronic by any character in that world to wish for anything but unlimited power/level 100/ kill the bbeg/ save the world...

[Knaight]

The untrained Eustace hit a sea serpent the first time he ever swung a sword.
The shepherd David killed the giant Goliath with a single slingstone.


This would be the shepherd David who lived in a culture where slings are easily acquired, had a job where he had lots of free time to practice which provided the material (a sheep walks past a bush, and you get some wool for a sling), and who later became king. He wasn't untrained, he wasn't unskilled, and he didn't remain a commoner for very long. It's a terrible example.

[Eldan]

And the sling was one of the preferred war weapons at the time.

Anyway.


I prefer the suggestion given earlier. Wishes without drawbacks are boring and usually do little to advance the story.

[The Glyphstone]

It is *not* stepping outside the game. It just isn't. It is literally using the exact rules as they are in fact written and intended to be used. I require players to tell me the exact words the character uses when wishing. He cannot say, "My character wishes for a magic carpet." the words have to be stated within the game (I wish for...). Here are some citations from the rules.

D&D 3E: The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment...

This is not outside the game; it is directly a part of the exact written rules of the game.

I repeat, if you and your table wish to eliminate this part of the actual, written the game,you can certainly do so, and I hope you have fun with it. But it's absurd to tell anybody else that they "must" make concession in violation of the rules. And saying following the rules as written is "literally stepping outside the game" is a simple falsehood.

You're taking quotes out of context to try and claim the rules support you, when they explicitly do not. Here's the full quote of Wish, instead of selectively quoting.


Wish is the mightiest spell a wizard or sorcerer can cast. By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you.

Even wish, however, has its limits.

A wish can produce any one of the following effects.

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.

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.)


Bolded is the part you appear to have forgotten. By the actual rules, as long as you ask for one of the items on the 'safe list', you get what you asked for. And unless you're in the OOTSverse, your character can't ask for 'a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score', only the player can. For the player to want, out-of-game, a +1 inherent Strength by saying in-character "I wish to be stronger" and for the DM to say 'Okay, a Bull's Strength spell at CL3 is cast on you. Also, you're on fire." has no basis in 'classical fantasy', only in the DM being a jerkface. Unless you consider Greek Mythology to be classical fantasy, in which case you are absolutely right, anything given by the gods was because they were jerks.

[GolemsVoice]

Yup, I'd handle it that way. They wish for something on the safe list, they get it (though I'd at least require that the player states what he wants ingame). They wish for something outside of that and are reasonable about it, they get it if they're not too stupid. They try to wish for something wildly impossible, nope, they either get nothing, or I'll twist the wish.

Oh, and by the way: why should I let "classical fantasy" (whatever that is) dictate how I play?

[Shadowknight12]

Oh, and by the way: why should I let "classical fantasy" (whatever that is) dictate how I play?

My point exactly. I viscerally loathe classical fantasy. Cannot stomach it. I like my own quirky, weird version of fantasy.

[navar100]

The fun in getting what you want from a Wish is getting what you want.

I have granted wishes as a DM. The most outlandish wish was a player wishing for an army to help fight the BBEG. He got his wish. It wasn't his own, personal army for him to command as he pleases. Instead, a plot point was developed. The BBEG's minions had been successful in preventing such a united front against him as part of the campaign. Thanks to the wish, a resistance army was finally managed to be put together. The player's character was not the General, but he and the party were recognized for their past deeds and became a "special ops" team.

If I followed some of the advice I got here, a swarm of army ants would have engulfed the PC, roll a saving throw.

[Solaris]

And it also depends on who is granting the wish. Evil beings (of any stripe) will tend to twist the intent of the wish. Good aligned wish granters will probably go right along with the intent and might even offer advice on how to word the wish. Wishes without an apparant granter (from a ring or from a PC cast spell, for instance) will tend to be interpreted literally, because that's the source of all the logic of the wish. If it isn't explicated well, it's going to be interpreted according to the word of the wish rather than the intent.

This is pretty much word-for-word on how I run wishes in my games. It was kinda funny, actually, 'cause a good-aligned djinn gave the party some wishes as a reward for services rendered. We ended the session immediately after that to give the players time to think. One of them came back with this big ol' contract. I just skimmed it over and said "Granted". The look on his face as he realized how much time he'd wasted - and that the other players weren't getting screwed despite not having tried to make ironbound contractual wishes - was totally worth it (and the djinn told him so, too).

Seriously, I was doing a Robin Williams impression with that djinn. You'd've thought they woulda caught on.

One of the wishes, I recall, was immortality and invincibility. The djinn pranked him by momentarily removing him from the time-stream, then actually went and made him immortal and invincible. Turns out there's a whole lot of bad things that can still happen to such a character - and those around him. (I mean, really, how often do you see a character die? I liked it, though, 'cause it was totally in-character.)

I can't say I've ever had a player dim enough to get a wish from an evil source or from the spell itself, though. That'd require more work for me, on account of being a naturally CG type myself.


I do blame the DM for putting a trap and not giving me a chance to detect it or avoid it. Because let's face it, you cannot avoid the consequences of a twisted wish. A twisted wish gives you no save, has SR: Nope! and ignores all protections and forms of preemptive detection. So a trap that does exactly that will very much earn my scorn.
You mean to tell me you'd make a wish and not expect the smallest possibility of it being twisted? 'Cause that's what you're saying, that it's the DM's fault you've ignored pretty much every myth ever about wishes. You're complaining about ignoring the very wording of the spell, for it states that wishing for something outside the parameters of the "safe wishes" is dangerous. Not "may be", not "can be", but "is".
Unless it's about cases where the DM sets you on fire for a milliond6 damage for wishing for a flaming sword... yeah.

[Shadowknight12]

You mean to tell me you'd make a wish and not expect the smallest possibility of it being twisted? 'Cause that's what you're saying, that it's the DM's fault you've ignored pretty much every myth ever about wishes. You're complaining about ignoring the very wording of the spell, for it states that wishing for something outside the parameters of the "safe wishes" is dangerous. Not "may be", not "can be", but "is".
Unless it's about cases where the DM sets you on fire for a milliond6 damage for wishing for a flaming sword... yeah.

See, everyone who complained about my mugging comparison, this is exactly why I used it. You are using the "the victim had it coming, so it's not a crime" rationale to justify wish-twisting, which I compared to a police officer saying "well, you went off to walk on your own through a dark alley, you should've known you'd get mugged, haven't you seen any movies?"

Also, the wish spell does not specify why it is dangerous to make wishes outside the safe zone, as it says the wish MAY be twisted or granted literally. It may be that the danger in making such wishes is left to the DM. Maybe getting that flaming sword makes someone else jealous, or getting your personal army makes you overconfident and leads to your doom, and so on.

[Straybow]

Even in magic you don't get something from nothing. The world is perverse. We want our bread to be soft and our crackers to be crunchy. They're both made of the same ingredients, in slightly different ratios and in somewhat different shape. Small deviations can make a big change.

When the bread gets stale, it becomes hard. When the crackers get stale, they become soft. Humidity doesn't prevent bread from getting stale. Lack of humidity doesn't prevent a cracker from getting stale. Perversity is in the mix.

[Slipperychicken]

After an experience where my character burned ~900 of his own xp to power three failed Limited Wishes (trying to transport gear to him from a party members' corpse), I've just learned that it's an easy justification for GM screw-over, and have totally given up on wishes. I spent about 30-40 minutes of my life writing ironclad wordings, and he said the fates were displeased with my character's attempts to game the system, and rejected the wish out of hand. I didn't get so much as a knowledge check to know the fates existed, nonetheless their preferences.


I mean, it's just easy for the GM to justify (much like kidnapping families or threatening hometowns), as it has clear literary precedence, and he can deny responsiblity, claiming the PC "brought it on himself".

[Eldan]

I mean, it's just easy for the GM to justify (much like kidnapping families or threatening hometowns), as it has clear literary precedence, and he can deny responsiblity, claiming the PC "brought it on himself".

What's bad about kidnapping families or threatening hometowns? THat is how you get people emotionally invested in a story.

[Shadowknight12]

What's bad about kidnapping families or threatening hometowns? THat is how you get people emotionally invested in a story.

If the player is cool with that, there's nothing wrong with it. If you spring that on a player without testing the waters first or finding out if they're into that sort of thing, and it turns out they aren't, you are very much crossing a boundary that they didn't want you to cross.

I, for one, get quite, quite angry if you touch my things without asking first, and I define "everything that's on my character sheet, including my background and any NPCs therein" as "my things."

[Kaun]

I don't even generally find the need to twist the wish as it grants what you ask for not what you want.

The problem often is that when the wording of the wish leaves it open too interpretation and if it doesn't go the players way it is viewed as the GM "screwing" with them.

Long and the short of it is; Wishes are a double edged blade.

[Knaight]

If the player is cool with that, there's nothing wrong with it. If you spring that on a player without testing the waters first or finding out if they're into that sort of thing, and it turns out they aren't, you are very much crossing a boundary that they didn't want you to cross.

However, this applies to everything. "Don't do [stuff] that your player's aren't comfortable with you doing" is pretty much GM rule number one.

[Shadowknight12]

However, this applies to everything. "Don't do [stuff] that your player's aren't comfortable with you doing" is pretty much GM rule number one.

And yet for some reason, we have to keep saying that over and over.

[Knaight]

And yet for some reason, we have to keep saying that over and over.

Hardly. It's more that different people are assuming that different things go in the comfortable and uncomfortable piles by default, and people get into heated arguments over it. In this particular thread, the big division is whether or not players are assumed to be comfortable with wish twisting. To be frank, it looks like the no-twisting group is assuming that wish twisting is inherently hostile and that players aren't up for it, and thus the twisting group is somehow bad, when the twisting group presumably has players that are fine with wish twisting (as if they didn't, they wouldn't be part of the twisting group for said players).

[navar100]

No Wish in the campaign exists without the DM's permission. If the DM is so afraid of players abusing a Wish to gain unfair undeserved ultimate power of the multiverse fear my wrath you are nothing but an insect DM for I am a player with a Wish, then just don't have a Wish appear in the campaign in the first place.

Otherwise, if you intend to twist the Wish to screw over the player's character, then yes, you are a DM who hates his players. I already allowed for the obligatory DM defense when the player is really trying to make the stupid I Win D&D Wish to gain unfair undeserved ultimate power. I give the DM free reign for that. That's a player who hates his DM. :smallsmile:

[Amphetryon]

The fun in getting what you want from a Wish is getting what you want.

I have granted wishes as a DM. The most outlandish wish was a player wishing for an army to help fight the BBEG. He got his wish. It wasn't his own, personal army for him to command as he pleases. Instead, a plot point was developed. The BBEG's minions had been successful in preventing such a united front against him as part of the campaign. Thanks to the wish, a resistance army was finally managed to be put together. The player's character was not the General, but he and the party were recognized for their past deeds and became a "special ops" team.

If I followed some of the advice I got here, a swarm of army ants would have engulfed the PC, roll a saving throw.
I have had players who would vociferously argue that the above "granting" of a Wish was instead "twisting" it.

That's the other part in play in this discussion; some folks will consider any circumstance related to the Wish that wasn't exactly as they envisioned it when they spoke the Wish aloud to the DM to be perverting their intent.

[Objection]

I have had players who would vociferously argue that the above "granting" of a Wish was instead "twisting" it.

This is a good point. At what point is it "twisting" the wish?

[navar100]

This is a good point. At what point is it "twisting" the wish?

To the point that it hurts the character, to be more The Suck for having the wish granted than if the wish was never offered in the first place.

[Knaight]

To the point that it hurts the character, to be more The Suck for having the wish granted than if the wish was never offered in the first place.

This is a viable definition, yes, but it depends on a certain kind of player. If a players goal is to - for lack of a better term - amass success for their character, then this would be twisting a wish. If a players goal is to enjoy a fun narrative, and they're perfectly fine with bad things happening to their character then this definition falls through, as a twisted wish can provide narrative direction and be a lot of fun from that angle, where it generally sucks from the first. D&D is likely going to draw in more of the first group than the second, but the second is a common enough play style for the most successful indie RPGs to build on it (Burning Wheel, FATE, etc.).

[GRM13]

Hardly. It's more that different people are assuming that different things go in the comfortable and uncomfortable piles by default, and people get into heated arguments over it. In this particular thread, the big division is whether or not players are assumed to be comfortable with wish twisting. To be frank, it looks like the no-twisting group is assuming that wish twisting is inherently hostile and that players aren't up for it, and thus the twisting group is somehow bad, when the twisting group presumably has players that are fine with wish twisting (as if they didn't, they wouldn't be part of the twisting group for said players).

This is really the whole seed of the arguing right now, different play styles which other take a dislike towards and think it's a DM problem when more often than not the players also agree with this kind of thinking as well. how many people that are for twisting actually do so frequently (going to DM for the first time so I haven't done it to any one but have seen it been done to our group, many laughs and facepalms were had).

[NichG]

No Wish in the campaign exists without the DM's permission. If the DM is so afraid of players abusing a Wish to gain unfair undeserved ultimate power of the multiverse fear my wrath you are nothing but an insect DM for I am a player with a Wish, then just don't have a Wish appear in the campaign in the first place.

Otherwise, if you intend to twist the Wish to screw over the player's character, then yes, you are a DM who hates his players. I already allowed for the obligatory DM defense when the player is really trying to make the stupid I Win D&D Wish to gain unfair undeserved ultimate power. I give the DM free reign for that. That's a player who hates his DM. :smallsmile:

Many of the things a DM would have to do in 3.5 to avoid wishes existing in their campaign would draw far more ire than the topic of wish twisting has done. "No, you can't play a Wizard" or "Wish as a spell doesn't exist in my campaign" or "No, you can't gate in a Solar and have it cast wish for you" or "No, you can't have/buy/make that magic item" are all the sorts of things that get a DM accused of being 'overbearing' or a 'control-freak'. Not everything that appears in a campaign is introduced by the DM - in most cases, the lion share of things that appear in a campaign are actually brought in by players in their character designs.

It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Often DMing is - you've got four to eight (or more) people whose fun you're trying to balance against eachother (and this includes the DM's fun), when some of them are only interested in X, others only interested in Y, etc.

[navar100]

Many of the things a DM would have to do in 3.5 to avoid wishes existing in their campaign would draw far more ire than the topic of wish twisting has done. "No, you can't play a Wizard" or "Wish as a spell doesn't exist in my campaign" or "No, you can't gate in a Solar and have it cast wish for you" or "No, you can't have/buy/make that magic item" are all the sorts of things that get a DM accused of being 'overbearing' or a 'control-freak'. Not everything that appears in a campaign is introduced by the DM - in most cases, the lion share of things that appear in a campaign are actually brought in by players in their character designs.

It's a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. Often DMing is - you've got four to eight (or more) people whose fun you're trying to balance against eachother (and this includes the DM's fun), when some of them are only interested in X, others only interested in Y, etc.

You could ban Wish, yes. Wouldn't be the first time DM banned something players like. I'm of the opinion the players who would complain tend to be the ones who want Win D&D wishes.

When the campaign reaches the point where a PC could have the Wish spell, the party is already of such power that Win D&D wishes wouldn't be the norm. Win D&D wishes occur when a wish is granted at some level below 17 by some means - magic item, djinn, adventure reward. The players wants more power than his character level. At high level play, Wishes are tactics - undo a really bad round for the PCs, cure powerful afflictions, kill the tarrasque, cast Anyspell, resurrect the cleric, planar teleport, i.e. by the book safe casting. Player characters are already of such high power Win D&D wishes have no appeal. To go beyond the safe casting would be a Hail Mary desperate action. There might be a twist, depending on context, but because it's desperation as opposed to lust for power, it's more a bend than a twist if it's not a straight granted wish and intended to be a better alternative than not having the wish granted after all. It's still a tactic as opposed to the DM purposely screwing over the PC.

[oxybe]

the problem with D&D wishes is that they don't make sense.

Genies and the like are capable of granting wishes not because they grant wishes as a spell, but it's more akin to a compulsion: you free one, it's grateful and will use it's phenomenal, semi-cosmic power to grant your desires.

i'll do it's best but it's not giving you camel out of thin air, it's grabbing a nearby camel and tossing it to you. the genie is working with a different mindset and probably doesn't understand what you're asking for... it's not out of spite or malice, you're simply asking for a camel and he's giving you a camel. a more understanding genie might give you exactly what you want and a more spiteful one might pervert your wish.

same with a cleric's miracle: if it's a boon grated by his deity, the limits on it should be based on what the deity can do. if it's an "all-powerful" deity, why wouldn't it grant any wish other then "i wish i had the power of [deity]"? if this cleric is high enough in power and on your rolodex why wouldn't you grant his wish as is (well, beyond your deity being a loki-esque trickster)?

other creatures, like Oberon of the Fae could easily grant wishes but most likely succumb to the trickster mindset of his kin: a fae wish will most likely be twisted, not out of spite but in a way that the fae think is hilarious.

on the flip side, the local magistrate or king can grant you wishes if they feel so inclined, but just like every other source they need to be willing and the request needs to be within their power.

example: a wish for gold. we'll say a large amount but nothing ludicrous like a googolplex worth of GP.

-the King would give you what he could from his treasury. no strings attached.
-a genie would look for the easiest source of that money and take it.
-a fae would probably find a way to imply that the PC took the money from the king since this would lead to shenanigans: either the PC is on the run or he'll be fretting on how to fence these assets.
-a god of thievery would simply drop a plan in your lap on how you can steal the king's money, a god of the harvest might give you the amount's worth in land/crops if you tend or sell it, while a god of the hunt could give you nice pelts to sell later.

different sources would go about granting the same wish in different ways. some wishes might be easier for some sources to grant then others.

but Wish, as a spell?

i could live without it.

[Solaris]

See, everyone who complained about my mugging comparison, this is exactly why I used it. You are using the "the victim had it coming, so it's not a crime" rationale to justify wish-twisting, which I compared to a police officer saying "well, you went off to walk on your own through a dark alley, you should've known you'd get mugged, haven't you seen any movies?"

Also, the wish spell does not specify why it is dangerous to make wishes outside the safe zone, as it says the wish MAY be twisted or granted literally. It may be that the danger in making such wishes is left to the DM. Maybe getting that flaming sword makes someone else jealous, or getting your personal army makes you overconfident and leads to your doom, and so on.

Bad analogy. The mugging is another agency taking action against you, and not because of anything you've done. To follow your logic, the mugger should not be punished if the police catch him.
The twisting is the game world/DM reacting to the player's wish. Note that I'm not defending the idiotically twisted wishes. I'm defending the Monkey Paw wishes. I'm defending the idea that altering reality without careful consideration has consequences. I'm defending the notion that we're playing with adults who can accept that maybe, just maybe, things aren't going to go 100% swimmingly no matter what they do - and doubly so if the Wish is one which breaks the campaign.
But like I said earlier, I've never had a wish twisted before because my players are genre savvy enough that they phrase them very carefully (except in the case of that CG djinn who was rewarding them and thus wasn't at all interested in screwing his little mortal buddies over - the immortal character neglected to specify he wanted his biological processes to continue, nor that he wanted to retain full control of his body... but the djinn knew what he was after and granted it 'correctly') and/or keep them within the realm of 'safe' wishes.

With the highlighted text... How is twisting the wish not under the DM's purview of 'dangerous'? Dangerous is not at all defined. It could be that it makes someone jealous - or it could be that the metal itself ignites (as in the steel is combusting, not that it has the flaming property, destroying the weapon) - or it could simply gain the flaming property exactly as requested.

Again, you're complaining about what the wording of the spell allows and then trying to use really lousy logic to justify your complaints. It was left very vague and explicitly up to the DM's discretion because Wish is such a very open-ended spell. It's like complaining about a DM using a published campaign setting and then telling you that your character can't be a warforged on Krynn.

[Straybow]

This is a good point. At what point is it "twisting" the wish?

Twisting would be when it works against your intent, like the son who was "brought back" as a zombie instead of raised from death to life, since the mother didn't specify in the classic example.

[NichG]

This is a bit of a side-track, but the caution in phrasing wishes reminds me a bit of adjucating for a power that one player in my current campaign has. He can ask questions and have them answered, but only if less than 4 people in the entire cosmology know the answer.

This leads to very interesting phrasings. Its not 'what does this power do', but 'what would character X use this power for?'. Things like that. Of course, worst-case scenario is that he gets 'too many people know' or 'that question is nonsensical'.

Incidentally, the gods love this power because if no one knows the answer, it picks the most likely respondant and he gets to know.

[Crasical]

Is magic sapient? I was curious and popped open Wish on the SRD, and noticed this:

"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.)"

So... is magic itself a self-aware thing that will willingly pervert the intent of your spell, or is it like flaws in programming, a sorcerer casting Wish doesn't 'code' it quite right and so the wish doesn't work properly?

[Shadowknight12]

Bad analogy. The mugging is another agency taking action against you, and not because of anything you've done. To follow your logic, the mugger should not be punished if the police catch him.
The twisting is the game world/DM reacting to the player's wish. Note that I'm not defending the idiotically twisted wishes. I'm defending the Monkey Paw wishes. I'm defending the idea that altering reality without careful consideration has consequences. I'm defending the notion that we're playing with adults who can accept that maybe, just maybe, things aren't going to go 100% swimmingly no matter what they do - and doubly so if the Wish is one which breaks the campaign.
But like I said earlier, I've never had a wish twisted before because my players are genre savvy enough that they phrase them very carefully (except in the case of that CG djinn who was rewarding them and thus wasn't at all interested in screwing his little mortal buddies over - the immortal character neglected to specify he wanted his biological processes to continue, nor that he wanted to retain full control of his body... but the djinn knew what he was after and granted it 'correctly') and/or keep them within the realm of 'safe' wishes.

And you have every right to play like that. To my knowledge, nobody's telling you or anyone else that it's wrong to play like that. The people who have spoken against wish-twisting are explaining why they themselves don't like it and why they'd never do it or wouldn't play with DMs who did that (or would have a lousy time if they did).

If you and your players like the intellectual challenge of properly phrasing a wish, all the more power to you guys. That doesn't mean that I personally would enjoy it or that I think it should be abolished, because if you guys have fun, who am I to say anything about it?

As for the mugging, the victim had plenty of agency there too, by walking to the place the mugger was, unarmed and looking like an easy target. Which can be compared by the player making a wish. The mugger would be the DM twisting that wish to harm the player and the authority that blames the victim would be the DM again telling the player that they had it coming for making a wish in the first place.


With the highlighted text... How is twisting the wish not under the DM's purview of 'dangerous'? Dangerous is not at all defined. It could be that it makes someone jealous - or it could be that the metal itself ignites (as in the steel is combusting, not that it has the flaming property, destroying the weapon) - or it could simply gain the flaming property exactly as requested.

I never said that wish-twisting was NEVER under the purview of the DM's potential dangerous side effects to wishing outside the safe zone. That'd be directly against the rules. I'm saying that it's not an obligation for the DM to do so. That danger is left unspecified, it can be a wish-twisting, or it can be anything else the DM can imagine, including giving a player exactly what they want and letting them grow overconfident, lazy or any other character flaw.


Again, you're complaining about what the wording of the spell allows and then trying to use really lousy logic to justify your complaints. It was left very vague and explicitly up to the DM's discretion because Wish is such a very open-ended spell. It's like complaining about a DM using a published campaign setting and then telling you that your character can't be a warforged on Krynn.

Yes, and I have no problems with the vagueness. I like vagueness, because it gives me options as a DM or player, and options are always good. I have problems with people telling me that wish-twisting is mandatory or the norm, simply because it's mentioned in the rules as a mere possibility.


Is magic sapient? I was curious and popped open Wish on the SRD, and noticed this:

"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.)"

So... is magic itself a self-aware thing that will willingly pervert the intent of your spell, or is it like flaws in programming, a sorcerer casting Wish doesn't 'code' it quite right and so the wish doesn't work properly?

It's implied (but not outright stated) that there's a sentient, intelligent creature interpreting the wish, which is why it can twist it if you wish outside the safe zone. However, in cases where this is not the case, then either wish is impossible to cast outside the safe zone (because magic lacks the sentience to interpret anything beyond the pre-programmed parametres inside the safe zone) or the player gets exactly what they want because wish is only a tool to rewrite reality exactly as they envision it, like a casting of Prestidigitation, that lets the caster flavour food to their exact taste.

[Gravitron5000]

The DM is not following the rules of the game because the rules do not compel him to twist wishes. They allow him, which is completely different

Warning: Reductio ad absurdum
The Wizard is not following the rules of the game because the rules do not compel him to cast spells. They allow him, which is completely different.

[navar100]

Warning: Reductio ad absurdum
The Wizard is not following the rules of the game because the rules do not compel him to cast spells. They allow him, which is completely different.

Actually, they do. A player playing a wizard had failed his Will save against the PHB and is Dominated.

[Straybow]

It's implied (but not outright stated) that there's a sentient, intelligent creature interpreting the wish, which is why it can twist it if you wish outside the safe zone. However, in cases where this is not the case, then either wish is impossible to cast outside the safe zone (because magic lacks the sentience to interpret anything beyond the pre-programmed parametres inside the safe zone) or the player gets exactly what they want because wish is only a tool to rewrite reality exactly as they envision it, like a casting of Prestidigitation, that lets the caster flavour food to their exact taste. Not so. The "safe wish" is the limit of the spell as a tool that can "rewrite reality exactly as they envision it."

Most spells simply can't do things that aren't specified. Period. Even within what they can do, they can't always do it. A fireball can't do more dice than you can control, which is your caster level. It doesn't matter that somebody with more expertise can do 10 dice, you can only do 5 if you are CL 5. It's a safeguard woven into the essence of the spell. The spell can't go beyond. That's where a wish is different.

Outside the given parameters the spell no longer behaves in a "safe" way because there is no way to craft the magic to include safeguards for effects not specified in the crafting. That wishes can, in effect, draw on the specified powers of any spell, from any branch of magic, within the level limits given... that is astounding. To do things that aren't defined in the sphere of magical practice means there aren't even limits or safeguards that the magic can follow by looking over another spell's shoulder, so to speak.

The wisher should tremble at unleashing that kind of power. It should invite misinterpretation, even without a capricious entity acting on the wish.

[Shadowknight12]

Warning: Reductio ad absurdum
The Wizard is not following the rules of the game because the rules do not compel him to cast spells. They allow him, which is completely different.

Strawman Fallacy.

What you say is exactly correct if someone were to say "A wizard is forced by the rules to cast a spell every round of combat" which is the equivalent of saying "A DM is forced to twist a wish every time a player makes one."


Not so. The "safe wish" is the limit of the spell as a tool that can "rewrite reality exactly as they envision it."

Most spells simply can't do things that aren't specified. Period. Even within what they can do, they can't always do it. A fireball can't do more dice than you can control, which is your caster level. It doesn't matter that somebody with more expertise can do 10 dice, you can only do 5 if you are CL 5. It's a safeguard woven into the essence of the spell. The spell can't go beyond. That's where a wish is different.

Outside the given parameters the spell no longer behaves in a "safe" way because there is no way to craft the magic to include safeguards for effects not specified in the crafting. That wishes can, in effect, draw on the specified powers of any spell, from any branch of magic, within the level limits given... that is astounding. To do things that aren't defined in the sphere of magical practice means there aren't even limits or safeguards that the magic can follow by looking over another spell's shoulder, so to speak.

The wisher should tremble at unleashing that kind of power. It should invite misinterpretation, even without a capricious entity acting on the wish.

And it is very nice that it works like that in your campaign, but that's not what the rules say. The rules do not specify if there is an entity interpreting the wish or not, it doesn't specify what are the dangers of wishing outside the safe zone and it doesn't force you to twist the wish, it merely offers it as a possibility (probably paying lipservice to the old trope).

The point is, none of us is right and none of us is wrong. The rules have been worded in such a way as to allow multiple interpretations, and that's a good thing. That's the hallmark of a good rule, being able to adapt it to different campaigns. Take me, a wish-twisting hater. If the rules were unequivocal regarding wish-twisting (and forced the DM to do so), then I would have to houserule it in the games I'd run and I'd have conflicts with other DMs when I tried to convince them to accept my houserule. And if the rules did not mention the possibility of wish-twisting at all and made it clear wishes are to be granted without foul play, the same thing would happen to wish-twisters. The fact that the rule allows for both playstyles is good game design.

[Emmerask]

And it is very nice that it works like that in your campaign, but that's not what the rules say. The rules do not specify if there is an entity interpreting the wish or not, it doesn't specify what are the dangers of wishing outside the safe zone and it doesn't force you to twist the wish, it merely offers it as a possibility (probably paying lipservice to the old trope).

The point is, none of us is right and none of us is wrong. The rules have been worded in such a way as to allow multiple interpretations, and that's a good thing. That's the hallmark of a good rule, being able to adapt it to different campaigns. Take me, a wish-twisting hater. If the rules were unequivocal regarding wish-twisting (and forced the DM to do so), then I would have to houserule it in the games I'd run and I'd have conflicts with other DMs when I tried to convince them to accept my houserule. And if the rules did not mention the possibility of wish-twisting at all and made it clear wishes are to be granted without foul play, the same thing would happen to wish-twisters. The fact that the rule allows for both playstyles is good game design.

And that is all good and fine, the only thing I question is why

a) the players don´t abuse the hell out of it (I want 100 bonus levels/ the bbeg dead etc)

it should be relative common knowledge for adventurers if wishes are twisted in the world or not, which means the character would do nothing less if he is serious about saving the world.

b) why did the bbeg not abuse the hell out of it? I want all my schemes fulfilled right now!

So either you impose another houserule, which is wishes have a power ceiling or there would be no reason to not wish for these things as a character, in fact it would be in 99 out of 100 cases metagaming (I don´t want the campaign to be over/ want the other players to have fun too) to not wish for them.

[navar100]

And that is all good and fine, the only thing I question is why

a) the players don´t abuse the hell out of it (I want 100 bonus levels/ the bbeg dead etc)

it should be relative common knowledge for adventurers if wishes are twisted in the world or not, which means the character would do nothing less if he is serious about saving the world.

b) why did the bbeg not abuse the hell out of it? I want all my schemes fulfilled right now!

So either you impose another houserule, which is wishes have a power ceiling or there would be no reason to not wish for these things as a character, in fact it would be in 99 out of 100 cases metagaming (I don´t want the campaign to be over/ want the other players to have fun too) to not wish for them.

Because obvious stupid I Win D&D wishes are obvious. That's where the "may" comes in. I wish to be King! Zap, you're a dog named "King". No problem. I wish to be able to fly. Zap, winged boots appear before you, not Zap, you're a fly.

[hamishspence]

Deities have been known to bend wishes slightly to encourage the mortal to get a better hold of their life.

In Tymora's Luck, there's a character whose backstory included wishing to be able to fly from a "priestess" (actually Tymora incognito) after doing the church a great service and being made an offer- and she sprouted wings- which was not what she had in mind.

[Shadowknight12]

And that is all good and fine, the only thing I question is why

a) the players don´t abuse the hell out of it (I want 100 bonus levels/ the bbeg dead etc)

it should be relative common knowledge for adventurers if wishes are twisted in the world or not, which means the character would do nothing less if he is serious about saving the world.

They would have to get their hands on a wish first. The ways to do so before 17th level involve Candles of Invocations and specific spells, which can be difficult to acquire, if the DM so wills it (and again, this is not a houserule, the DMG contemplates some items or spells being "hard to acquire").

Also, in the end, it's a matter of player/DM trust. The DM has this whole plot planned meant to entertain you, the player. Do you really want to be a jerk and ruin it? Wouldn't you rather take the advantage of this wish you've got to give yourself something nice and then go along with the reason you and the DM are sitting at the table for?


b) why did the bbeg not abuse the hell out of it? I want all my schemes fulfilled right now!

So either you impose another houserule, which is wishes have a power ceiling or there would be no reason to not wish for these things as a character, in fact it would be in 99 out of 100 cases metagaming (I don´t want the campaign to be over/ want the other players to have fun too) to not wish for them.

Nope, no houserules needed. As I said before, people don't get wishes automatically, they have to take steps to get them, and the rules contemplate the scarcity or impossibility to acquire of the items/spells needed to obtain those wishes. It's perfectly possible that the BBEG's driving motivation for the campaign is to get his hands on a wish, and the players must stop them.

Or just make the wish-granters be the gods or some other intelligent identity who just doesn't like the BBEG, and so refuses to grant them wishes altogether (probably for a good reason, since usually the gods, even the evil ones, are not going to approve of what your average BBEG wants to do). This is also not a houserule, since it's all left vague enough for a DM to choose who grants wishes and why/how.

[Knaight]

Because obvious stupid I Win D&D wishes are obvious. That's where the "may" comes in. I wish to be King! Zap, you're a dog named "King". No problem. I wish to be able to fly. Zap, winged boots appear before you, not Zap, you're a fly.

This is campaign dependent. "I wish to be King!" seems entirely valid in some campaigns, even if you do only get to be king of some mud duchy* stuck between empires that actually matter. In others, flight is overpowered and unreasonable (though that really doesn't apply to D&D wishes in particular). Also: "I wish to be able to fly" is not "I wish I had an item that allowed me to fly", and treating it like it is is wish twisting. It may be benign wish twisting, depending on the relative utility of winged boots to, say, growing wings, but it is wish twisting.

*Term shamelessly borrowed from REIGN.

[dsmiles]

Just my first read-through, but...

The bolded section is why players invent 20-page contracts before they wish for a +1 sword, because they expect the DM will arbitrarily cheat them somehow if they don't have it. A wish should, by definition, be a contract between Player and DM - "you don't overstep reasonability, and I won't make your life miserable because of it".This is exactly where I twist wishes. You write me a 20-page contract, I find the loophole. (I'm an engineer, it's what I do.) You give me a simple wish (e.g.: said +2 flaming sword) and you get a simple answer, usually "Okay."

[Straybow]

And it is very nice that it works like that in your campaign, but that's not what the rules say. The rules do not specify if there is an entity interpreting the wish or not, it doesn't specify what are the dangers of wishing outside the safe zone and it doesn't force you to twist the wish, it merely offers it as a possibility (probably paying lipservice to the old trope).

The point is, none of us is right and none of us is wrong. The rules have been worded in such a way as to allow multiple interpretations, and that's a good thing. That's the hallmark of a good rule, being able to adapt it to different campaigns. Take me, a wish-twisting hater. If the rules were unequivocal regarding wish-twisting... Perhaps you think that nobody is right or wrong to house rule the danger away, since the RAW is unequivocal: "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous" (emphasis added) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). Not "may be dangerous if the DM is unfun," is dangerous. Not "tricky" nor "complicated" nor "failure prone."

I don't know any definition of the word "dangerous" that somehow means "not dangerous." For the fulfillment to be incomplete is unfortunate, and to fail entirely may be wasteful, and a chance of these might be "risky," but not "dangerous."

It should be unnecessary to point out that this is stated in the description of a ninth level spell, and that means it is dangerous to a person who would be capable of wielding the highest level of mortal power in the game. Not "you might take a bit of damage that could kill you if you have only a few HP" danger, nor "easy save to avoid minor effect" danger.

I suspect that your anti-wish-twisting position leads you to render wishing safe, which then is your house rule. If you can find a way to make it dangerous without twisting the intent within the letter of the wish, you are probably treading a very fine line indeed. We'd like to read the account, if you could convey it.

Now, if you could write rules for how to make wishes dangerous but not "twisty" then quit your day job and start writing game material professionally. :smallsmile:

[Straybow]

So either you impose another houserule, which is wishes have a power ceiling or there would be no reason to not wish for these things as a character, in fact it would be in 99 out of 100 cases metagaming (I don´t want the campaign to be over/ want the other players to have fun too) to not wish for them. No need for a house rule, wishes already have a "power ceiling." There is a list of "safe" wishes within that power ceiling. For example, "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item." Choose an item from the magic item list to be created. No need for a cleverly worded contract to prevent the wish from being twisted, unless that is a house rule.

Anything beyond the list of safe wishes is inherently dangerous, per the spell description. It does not explicitly say the danger is proportional to the power required to affect the wish, but it might be prudent to make that a corollary.

[NichG]

Just my first read-through, but...
This is exactly where I twist wishes. You write me a 20-page contract, I find the loophole. (I'm an engineer, it's what I do.) You give me a simple wish (e.g.: said +2 flaming sword) and you get a simple answer, usually "Okay."

Agreed. As a DM I'd be nice and advise the players not to do such a thing, but if they went ahead and did it I'd read the first sentence of the contract, and not even look at the rest (partial fulfillment clause). Thats not because I want to torment them, its because I don't want to read a 20 page contract.

As a player, I always try to keep wishes under 10 words. Though my favorite two Wishes, either when dealing with an entity or when dealing with mere cosmically powerful arcane energy, is 'I wish for you to get what you want most' or 'Give me whatever you'd like to'. The first is lovely against things that are forced to twist wishes, and both of them almost always reveal something about the setting, creature in question, etc. They also tend to shock the DM.

[dsmiles]

So... is magic itself a self-aware thing that will willingly pervert the intent of your spell, or is it like flaws in programming, a sorcerer casting Wish doesn't 'code' it quite right and so the wish doesn't work properly?ERROR 404: WISH NOT FOUND

I like that analogy.


Choose an item from the magic item list to be created. No need for a cleverly worded contract to prevent the wish from being twisted, unless that is a house rule.DING! Simplicity but specificity is the key.

EDIT:

As a player, I always try to keep wishes under 10 words. Though my favorite two Wishes, either when dealing with an entity or when dealing with mere cosmically powerful arcane energy, is 'I wish for you to get what you want most' Not good with evil outsiders who only want your soul.
or 'Give me whatever you'd like to'. The first is lovely against things that are forced to twist wishes, and both of them almost always reveal something about the setting, creature in question, etc. They also tend to shock the DM.I don't really think anything is forced to twist wishes. Evil outsiders and jaded gods are likely to do so, but nothing forces them to.

[hamishspence]

No need for a house rule, wishes already have a "power ceiling." There is a list of "safe" wishes within that power ceiling. For example, "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item." Choose an item from the magic item list to be created. No need for a cleverly worded contract to prevent the wish from being twisted, unless that is a house rule.

problem is there's no maximum price listed for magic items via wish, the way there is for mundane items.

[Asheram]

So... is magic itself a self-aware thing that will willingly pervert the intent of your spell, or is it like flaws in programming, a sorcerer casting Wish doesn't 'code' it quite right and so the wish doesn't work properly?

That's about my train of thought when it comes to this.

If normal spells are computer code, a wish would kind of be the equivalent of an internet browser.

[nedz]

If normal spells are computer code, a wish would kind of be the equivalent of an internet browser.

Possibly infected with Malware :smallbiggrin:

[GolemsVoice]

Perhaps you think that nobody is right or wrong to house rule the danger away, since the RAW is unequivocal: "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous" (emphasis added). Not "may be dangerous if the DM is unfun," is dangerous. Not "tricky" nor "complicated" nor "failure prone."

But just because something is dangerous, doesn't mean it has to end badly. Because after all, disarming a trap via skill check is dangerous too, but that does not mean that there can't be a result where the danger does not manifest. It can, and the DM has every right to do so, should he want to, but he does not have to.
Because if they really wanted to have a negative effect, always, they'd have worded it differently, I'd say.

And I agree with the people that said: reasonable actions on both sides of the DM screen are the best way to go.
I would never expect my players to spend five hours crafting a wish (doubly so if their wish is within the "safe zone", if you want to use the wish to cast raise dead, you say "I want the Wish to duplicate [whatever resurrection spell you're thinking of]"), but for this courtesy, I expect them to not wish for things that are entirely unreasonable. Do ut des.

[NichG]

Not good with evil outsiders who only want your soul.I don't really think anything is forced to twist wishes. Evil outsiders and jaded gods are likely to do so, but nothing forces them to.

Well, when dealing with evil outsiders who want your soul, the second you think you can win is when you've lost. Also, I have to imagine they'd want other things far more than just one person's soul when given the opportunity to ask for truly anything.

As far as compelled twisting, I guess I'm thinking of things like Djinni and Efreeti who actually have stipulations that they cannot use their Wishes for themselves, but must grant them on a mortal's request.

[Shadowknight12]

Perhaps you think that nobody is right or wrong to house rule the danger away, since the RAW is unequivocal: "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous" (emphasis added) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). Not "may be dangerous if the DM is unfun," is dangerous. Not "tricky" nor "complicated" nor "failure prone."

I don't know any definition of the word "dangerous" that somehow means "not dangerous." For the fulfillment to be incomplete is unfortunate, and to fail entirely may be wasteful, and a chance of these might be "risky," but not "dangerous."

Yes, and I cited several examples where the character gets exactly what they want and it's still dangerous. They can become overconfident, lazy, get distracted with their new toy, they may lack the burning need to fight now that their reason to fight has been granted, so on and so forth. And if you WANT something bad to happen to them, you can do so while still giving them exactly what they want. They want to bring back a loved one who has been soul-bound or died of old age or some other impossible thing? No problem, their loved one is back, but another loved one is now permanently dead (and impossible to resurrect). They want the power to fly? No problem, they get flight, and somewhere out there, an angel, winged elf, pixie or some other creature of purity and goodness loses their wings.

The wording of Wish leaves things vague on purpose, so that the DM can play the wish the way they see fit.


It should be unnecessary to point out that this is stated in the description of a ninth level spell, and that means it is dangerous to a person who would be capable of wielding the highest level of mortal power in the game. Not "you might take a bit of damage that could kill you if you have only a few HP" danger, nor "easy save to avoid minor effect" danger.

Yes, a ninth-level spell. Like Shapechange. And Time Stop. And Gate. All of which are so terribly dangerous to use and not the bread and butter of god wizards. Right.


I suspect that your anti-wish-twisting position leads you to render wishing safe, which then is your house rule. If you can find a way to make it dangerous without twisting the intent within the letter of the wish, you are probably treading a very fine line indeed. We'd like to read the account, if you could convey it.

Safe wishing is not a houserule, I don't know how many more times I'm going to have to repeat myself. Do I need to quote the actual rules again and highlight the word "MAY" as I did in a previous page of this very thread? Wish-twisting is a possibility that is just as valid as not wish-twisting at all.


Now, if you could write rules for how to make wishes dangerous but not "twisty" then quit your day job and start writing game material professionally. :smallsmile:

I just did. Too bad I really like my day job. :smallamused:

[NichG]

It really seems like the god wizard is the Godwin's Law of D&D discussions... I don't think bringing in TO concepts really helps the discussion, or we'd have to seriously consider how everyone has infinite wishes by Lv1 but their power is paltry compared to the glory of being a Sarrukh (on Tuesdays)...

As far as spells being dangerous:

Gate is dangerous: the being you call is bound to serve you while called, but will likely remember being yanked from whatever it was doing and bound into servitude. If this is a Solar, you might just get a dream from your deity saying 'Hey, I put that guy there for a reason and you pulled him away, please don't second-guess my divine plan'. If this is a Pit Fiend, its unlikely to be anything that nice.

Shapechange could be dangerous fluff-wise, in that you could easily get disoriented, mentally screwed up, etc from constantly taking on alien forms. Its not supported mechanically though, so eh. Mechanically, its dangerous in that you lose all your current supernatural abilities (which arguably includes spellcasting) while in another form, so you could easily screw up and make yourself vulnerable to something you'd been relying on immunity to, or whatever.

Time Stop is dangerous in that you don't know exactly when it ends, so you'd better be careful how you spend your time.

Lets look at a few others. Energy Drain is dangerous because you might choose to prepare it rather than another 9th level spell. Wail of the Banshee could easily kill allies if you cast it too close to the party, and can rebound on you if you use it on someone with a particular feat (Ineluctable Echo).
Disjunction... thats poster-boy for 'are you sure you want to do that?', with its 'lose all spellcasting forever if you destroy an artifact' clause, its tendency to destroy loot, and the fact that it puts the next 2 hours of gameplay at risk as the DM and players have to go roll saves for items.

[Shadowknight12]

Wow, you are REALLY reaching at straws there. I'd say something, but frankly I'm sure anyone who reads that can realise how much of a stretch everything you said is on their own.

Of course a DM can make any spell dangerous. Grease is a first level spell, and it's quite possibly the most dangerous magic out there. Banana peels have nothing on that bastard.

[Feralgeist]

as a DM, when there are non-safe list wishes made, i like to make it twisted in proportion to the wish.

examples

PC: "i wish for my own private army" the player gets an army of sellswords, who are loyal as long as he keeps paying

PC: "i wish for a bag that generates gold" he gets said bag, but it makes gold more quickly than it is possible to retrieve it, the bag quickly becomes too heavy to move and is lusted after by various 3rd parties.

PC: "i wish to be invincible" He is granted the wish, but is only immune to hp damage, leaving him open to save or suck spells, nets and being chucked into a deep hole. and/or fighters throughout the land seek him out to duel and trap/capture, for the accolades of defeating the unkillable

as a player, i like to make my wishes profitable, but seemingly useless at first.

examples

Find a cold region, and "I wish for 400 cubic feet of quarterstaves" (they're free anyway, just saves buying/finding them)

subsequently retire adventuring and live a comfortable life as a merchant selling firewood.

for a fighting class;
"I wish to be able to cast fabricate twice."
find a forest near an ocean, make a fleet of ships and firewood, quit adventuring to become a pirate who sells firewood on the side

"i wish for a plant bane axe"
cut down some trees, sell some firewood.


come to think of it, i can't come up with any non-firewood related wishes. it must be the winter coming on...

[Straybow]

problem is there's no maximum price listed for magic items via wish, the way there is for mundane items.

Correct, monetary value is not the limitation. The requirement says to apply the XP creation/improvement cost, doubled, plus 5000 XP. If you are willing to pay the XP, you can have the item.


And if you WANT something bad to happen to them, you can do so while still giving them exactly what they want. They want to bring back a loved one who has been soul-bound or died of old age or some other impossible thing? No problem, their loved one is back, but another loved one is now permanently dead (and impossible to resurrect). They want the power to fly? No problem, they get flight, and somewhere out there, an angel, winged elf, pixie or some other creature of purity and goodness loses their wings. No wonder you are an anti-wish-twister, if that's what you expect.


Yes, a ninth-level spell. Like Shapechange. And Time Stop. And Gate. All of which are so terribly dangerous to use and not the bread and butter of god wizards. Right. Again, it should not be necessary to point out that none of those spell descriptions [of Shapechange and Time Stop don't] warn that merely using the spell is dangerous. Wish does. Think before you use dangerous sarcasm!


Safe wishing is not a houserule, I don't know how many more times I'm going to have to repeat myself. Do I need to quote the actual rules again and highlight the word "MAY" as I did in a previous page of this very thread? Wish-twisting is a possibility that is just as valid as not wish-twisting at all. Yes, the wisher may (deciding conditional variable) exceed the safe parameters, in which case the DM may (dependent outcome) twist the interpretation of the wish, or (secondary dependent outcome; secondary because it is usually not "dangerous," which is the requirement) just have the wish only partially fulfilled. If your intent is to make it not dangerous, as would be judged by a high level wizard, then it is house-ruled so.

But, no, your "solution" is still twisting. You haven't posited a viable rule for making a wish dangerous without "twisting" the interpretation.


As far as spells being dangerous: Gate Sorry, my bad. Gate does say that using the spell to bring in a creature that can't be controlled is dangerous. Wishing for something beyond the safe list should be approximately that dangerous. Though technically it isn't the gate spell itself that is the danger, whereas it is the power of the wish that creates the danger in exceeding the safe list.

[Straybow]

Find a cold region, and "I wish for 400 cubic feet of quarterstaves" (they're free anyway, just saves buying/finding them)

subsequently retire adventuring and live a comfortable life as a merchant selling firewood.

come to think of it, i can't come up with any non-firewood related wishes. it must be the winter coming on... You're doing it wrong, man. You aren't going to retire on 3 cords of wood. Say you need 1 gp/day for retirement. Firewood is 1 cp for 20 lbs, and a quarterstaff is 4 lbs. 1 gp = 100 cp = 2000 lb firewood = 500 quarterstaffs. Per day.

A 4 lb quarterstaff is, by weight, about 1¼" diameter and 6' long (that would be a short staff, by the English tradition). That's about 10x10 quarterstaff ends in a square foot for 100 quarterstaffs in 6 cubic feet. You need 30 cubic feet per day, which is 11,000 cubic feet per year.

Looks like you were off by a factor of 1000, you'd need at least 400k ft³ for a bit under four decades of retirement.

But now you must keep the wood dry and pest-free that long. Depending on climate you can keep some of it covered with tarps for a few years. That means the limit of free quarterstaffs to provide retirement is the size of woodshed the wish can create.

[Jeraa]

problem is there's no maximum price listed for magic items via wish, the way there is for mundane items.

Correct, monetary value is not the limitation. The requirement says to apply the XP creation/improvement cost, doubled, plus 5000 XP. If you are willing to pay the XP, you can have the item.

And spell-like abilities have no components - including no XP components. There is nothing stopping you from wishing for a +1000 sword, or a +10 billion sword for that matter, from an Efreeti. Or any other magical item, including artifacts.

[Solaris]

As for the mugging, the victim had plenty of agency there too, by walking to the place the mugger was, unarmed and looking like an easy target. Which can be compared by the player making a wish. The mugger would be the DM twisting that wish to harm the player and the authority that blames the victim would be the DM again telling the player that they had it coming for making a wish in the first place.

There's agency and then there's agency. The mugging victim took no actions which directly led to his being mugged. In the absence of the mugger, he wouldn't have been mugged. Therefore, he was not responsible for being mugged.
However, the wizard casting Wish took an action which led to his Wish. That's roughly the equivalent of going around looking for shady-looking characters and kicking them in the shins.


I never said that wish-twisting was NEVER under the purview of the DM's potential dangerous side effects to wishing outside the safe zone. That'd be directly against the rules. I'm saying that it's not an obligation for the DM to do so. That danger is left unspecified, it can be a wish-twisting, or it can be anything else the DM can imagine, including giving a player exactly what they want and letting them grow overconfident, lazy or any other character flaw.
Is. That's what it says. It says it is dangerous. Not 'may be', not 'can be', but 'is'. I'm having a hard time believing the intent was for it to be letting the player grow overconfident or lazy because he got what he wanted when the wish could've been Monkey Paw'ed.

Actually... Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing how you'd define twisting the wish (and if you did, I apologize for missing it). To go back to the flaming sword example (though, if memory serves it's a safe wish - we'll pretend it's not), where do you draw the line? At the wielder and sword alike catching fire for Xd6 damage, at the sword catching fire and being effectively destroyed, or at someone getting jealous of it? My problem with the jealousy is that it's not a direct effect of the wish itself, but rather the fact that the character has a flaming sword (and thus could've resulted if he got the flaming sword from somewhere else). I'd much prefer if someone were mad because clear up until the Wish was cast, they had a flaming sword.

[Straybow]

And spell-like abilities have no components - including no XP components. There is nothing stopping you from wishing for a +1000 sword, or a +10 billion sword for that matter, from an Efreeti. Or any other magical item, including artifacts. Minimum XP cost of 1/25 of GP value. And I'm also fairly sure that items can't be created with an enhancement above +5, and further powers equivalent to another +5. Wishing for something outside the normal item creation rules would be, again, outside the safe powers, which is, again, dangerous.

Oooo, I know, you should wish for a fully charged ring of three wishes. It's only 3,918 XP + 3x5000 XP. I bet nobody ever thought of that. :smallwink:

[Shadowknight12]

No wonder you are an anti-wish-twister, if that's what you expect.

I have no idea what you mean by this. It's not what I expect. It's a possibility I thought up from my imagination. It's showing you how a wish can be dangerous without it being twisted in the slightest.


Again, it should not be necessary to point out that none of those spell descriptions [of Shapechange and Time Stop don't] warn that merely using the spell is dangerous. Wish does. Think before you use dangerous sarcasm!

You are moving the goalposts. Your justification for wish-twisting was that the character was handling 9th level spells, with the implication that handling such magic should be momentous or dangerous in and of itself, and I cited those spells precisely to show you that nope, just because Wish is a 9th level spell, it doesn't mean that it's the norm for all spells of its kind (except Gate, I guess, but even then, what's the use of Calling for a creature you can't control? What ability could it possibly have that it couldn't be duplicated by, I dunno, a Solar's Wish?).


Yes, the wisher may (deciding conditional variable) exceed the safe parameters, in which case the DM may (dependent outcome) twist the interpretation of the wish, or (secondary dependent outcome; secondary because it is usually not "dangerous," which is the requirement) just have the wish only partially fulfilled. If your intent is to make it not dangerous, as would be judged by a high level wizard, then it is house-ruled so.

What? No, that's ridiculous. Partial/Null fulfilment falls within wish-twisting. You know, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so now the burden of proof falls upon you. Show me, using logic, how "X is dangerous" is incompatible with "Unchanged X, X Introduces Element Y". Has it occurred to you that the rules never state where the danger comes from?

You, by tying the danger exclusively to wish-twisting, are houseruling Wish.


But, no, your "solution" is still twisting. You haven't posited a viable rule for making a wish dangerous without "twisting" the interpretation.

I have. Several times. If you aren't going to read what people write, you shouldn't expect people to carry on a discussion with you for long.


There's agency and then there's agency. The mugging victim took no actions which directly led to his being mugged. In the absence of the mugger, he wouldn't have been mugged. Therefore, he was not responsible for being mugged.
However, the wizard casting Wish took an action which led to his Wish. That's roughly the equivalent of going around looking for shady-looking characters and kicking them in the shins.

And the wizard never took any actions which directly led to whatever consequence befell him. He wanted to get effect X, but got effect Y. The mugging victim wanted to get to his home, but got mugged instead. They both took actions and put themselves in harm's way out of their own will, presumably knowing full well what they were getting into, they merely judged the reward to be worth the risk. That is, assuming this is a world where wish-twisting is common knowledge.


Is. That's what it says. It says it is dangerous. Not 'may be', not 'can be', but 'is'. I'm having a hard time believing the intent was for it to be letting the player grow overconfident or lazy because he got what he wanted when the wish could've been Monkey Paw'ed.

Wow, I am getting really tired of repeating myself. Yes, the rules say that it IS dangerous. It doesn't say what kind of danger it brings. Growing lazy or overconfident IS a danger, whether you like it or not. The fact that the danger is not defined, and that wish-twisting is given as a possibility (that I, as the DM, may use or not), is strict RAW. Anything else is what you do in your game, which is not wrong, so please stop saying that the way I or anyone else interprets it is house-ruling or wrong.


Actually... Come to think of it, I don't recall hearing how you'd define twisting the wish (and if you did, I apologize for missing it). To go back to the flaming sword example (though, if memory serves it's a safe wish - we'll pretend it's not), where do you draw the line? At the wielder and sword alike catching fire for Xd6 damage, at the sword catching fire and being effectively destroyed, or at someone getting jealous of it? My problem with the jealousy is that it's not a direct effect of the wish itself, but rather the fact that the character has a flaming sword (and thus could've resulted if he got the flaming sword from somewhere else). I'd much prefer if someone were mad because clear up until the Wish was cast, they had a flaming sword.

I define wish-twisting as not giving the character exactly what they want (with no negative consequences or drawbacks). That's why whenever a player gets their hands on a wish or the like, I pause the game to ask them all sorts of questions in order to ensure I'm getting their wish right. The way I interpret Wish, there isn't an entity interpreting the wish, it's just the character reaching out to change reality itself so that it matches what they imagine. Logically, that means they get exactly what they imagine.

The "danger" part comes later as I see fit. If the player asks for a flaming sword, maybe someone tries to steal it (leading to an extra encounter), or maybe it causes an important NPC to have a jealous fit, I talk to them about how it'd be nice if they roleplayed some laziness or overconfidence or the like, and that's it. I vary the danger according to the character, the campaign and what they're wishing for. Sometimes showing them a crestfallen, wingless angel moping around (the danger, in this case, is "danger of ruining someone else's life for your own selfishness") is terrible enough.

[GolemsVoice]

I guess nobody's arguing twisting wishes, as per the Wish spell, when they are within the safe limits as specified within the spell, yes? I think that's the major misunderstanding going on here.

[Shadowknight12]

I guess nobody's arguing twisting wishes, as per the Wish spell, when they are within the safe limits as specified within the spell, yes? I think that's the major misunderstanding going on here.

Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. The safe zone of the Wish spell is safe. I have yet to see a poster arguing that using Wish to emulate a Raise Dead spell should be twisted. That's patently against the rules of the spell.

[Knaight]

Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. The safe zone of the Wish spell is safe. I have yet to see a poster arguing that using Wish to emulate a Raise Dead spell should be twisted. That's patently against the rules of the spell.

I have a finger dedicated to people who pull stuff like that in games, it's just unreasonable.

[dsmiles]

Minimum XP cost of 1/25 of GP value. And I'm also fairly sure that items can't be created with an enhancement above +5, and further powers equivalent to another +5. Wishing for something outside the normal item creation rules would be, again, outside the safe powers, which is, again, dangerous.

Oooo, I know, you should wish for a fully charged ring of three wishes. It's only 3,918 XP + 3x5000 XP. I bet nobody ever thought of that. :smallwink:
Not arguing this point, but adding to it. This is what the SRD says about wishing for a magic item:

XP Cost
The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

[Necroticplague]

I like to twist wishes because it makes the game more interesting. For example, a player of mine once got a wish and said "I wish to find a women, who may be be eternal companion in matrimony, who is at least as righteous as I am." Instead of giving him the obvious (a suitable women pops into existence), or a baleful twist (he's suddenly evil, his exalted feats turn to vile feats and his paladin levels become paladin of slaughter levels so that any women he married would be more righteous then him), I had a clever, interesting twist (a small "romance angel" (looks like fine sized angel, but has a tail with a heart at the end and bat wings) is created to help him achieve his goal by giving him relationship advice). This allows him to feel one step closer to his goal, while actually creating room for more interesting RP. Or a similar note, one of my players once tried the "I wish you got what you wanted" thing. Instead of ending poorly, the genie simply smiled, thanked him and disappeared. Later, he returns as a plot hook, because he wanted to be able to use its wish for itself, so now he could, which made him some powerful enemies he needed some protection from.

[nedz]

Of course not. That'd be ridiculous. The safe zone of the Wish spell is safe. I have yet to see a poster arguing that using Wish to emulate a Raise Dead spell should be twisted. That's patently against the rules of the spell.

Well, most probably not.

Unless you do do something like:

Phrase it stupidly
Try to get something else as well
Attempt Raise Dead, Mass
Use it in a situation where Raise Dead isn't going to work (maybe the're still alive, would require Ressurection, are not a valid target, etc.)


But even then most of these should probably just fail.

[Sheogoroth]

I was in a campaign in which the DM gave us the deck of many things once.
Luckily we got squire on one of our first draws and had him draw cards until he lost his soul, we also got the wish card.
This was one of my first campaigns and I had just seen a beholder.
Being as I was rolling a pre-OP level wizard, I decided that I wanted a resized beholder tentacle eye to spontaneously grow inside of my wizard's stomach, such that he could extend it up through his throat to fire lasers out of his mouth with no asphyxiation or self-injury risk.
Shoop-Da-Woop as a 6th level wizard.
I was able to convince my DM that such a thing would not kill him by using the graft template that already existed for beholder tentacles.

I think from the point of the DM, if you take a good hard look at unintended consequences, there are certain inter-story arc points in a campaign in which non-twisted wishes really allow for a lot of creativity and character customization.

[Shadowknight12]

Well, most probably not.

Unless you do do something like:

Phrase it stupidly
Try to get something else as well
Attempt Raise Dead, Mass
Use it in a situation where Raise Dead isn't going to work (maybe the're still alive, would require Ressurection, are not a valid target, etc.)


But even then most of these should probably just fail.

One of the parameters within Wish's safe list is the ability to emulate any spell of 6th level or lower (assuming it's not from a forbidden school). Raise Dead falls within those limits, so you literally are not wishing anything, you are replacing your casting of Wish for a casting of Raise Dead. There is no phrasing, because you are not wishing for anything, you cannot attempt to get anything else, you are emulating Raise Dead, not Mass Raise Dead, and if you use Raise Dead where it wouldn't work, the spell just fizzles, as if you had cast Raise Dead.

You are not wishing for the spell to raise someone from the dead. You are wishing for a single casting of a specific spell, in this case, Raise Dead.

[Claymore007]

here is how I have chosen to 'corrupt' the Wish spell...
"The closest being able to grant your request does so."


and an example of how much fail this induces...

Rogue using Ring of Three Wishes, last wish
Him - "I wish I owned this estate." (massive farmland and mansion)
me(DM) - "O...k... [pause], the landowner rides up on a horse announcing loudly he is so sick of his wife's nagging and is moving back to the city. As he leaves, he tosses the deed and master key to the estate to the ground before you and he tells yells, "Whoever wants it can have it."

[And plothook, his wife is a ghost haunting the Estate and he now has to spend money to keep the farmers there, deal with a demon-worshiping slave rebellion, corrupt tax collectors, crooked guards and eventually orcs or goblins are going to raid and burn the place anyway.]

[dsmiles]

You are not wishing for the spell to raise someone from the dead. You are wishing for a single casting of a specific spell, in this case, Raise Dead.That is correct. Once you use Wish to emulate a spell on the "safe list," it is, for all intents and purposes, no longer Wish.

[The Glyphstone]

Minus the 'burns down anyways' bit, which just seems like DM jerkery of the 'n matter what you are doomed to fail' flavor, the rest of it is actually pretty good. He wished for a mansion, and you got a fantastic site-based adventure generator; as long as you actually let him make progress for dealing with each of those problems that crop up (putting the ghost to rest, loyal servants once the demon-worshippers are dealt with, etc.).

[SilverClawShift]

I'm sure this has been covered ad nauseum, but I read through the pages and didn't notice anything specific.

The reason wishes traditionally get twisted is because they're not a spell, but a favor granted by an angry entity. That's what it boils down to. Your wish isn't casting timestop, it's asking an entrapped being of insane amounts of power to release a tiny portion of it's power to cater to your base whim.
If what you wish for is basic and reasonable, even by the hate-filled spirit's stand point, he'll just grant it with a shrug. If you ask fomr something insane, but in a way that the malicious entityt of destructive force can twist to his own miserable purposes, he'll do so.

It's really more a matter of talking to your 'genie' before making the wish in the first place. If you wish for a veritable deity to grant your miserable island peace, why wouldn't he pave the entire thing into glass and tell you "There, now it's peaceful"? He's filled with hate and has no reason not to.

Now, if you talk to your genie about what it's goals are, and offer to grant it your third wish for it's freedom as long as it helps you win the love of a noble princess.... why would it fight that? Why wouldn't it shrug and laugh at your game, and wait till the third wish to grant and/or screw you over?

The REAL problem is that 3.0 tried to make wishes a standard magical practice. They turned it into base arcane art, which is simply not artful. A wish isn't a spell. A fireball is a spell. A plane shifting teleportation is a spell. Heck, even an acid storm capable of dissolving a continent is just a spell.

But a wish?

A wish is a favor from something that either won't, or can't refuse. And you'd better phrase it politely.

[2xMachina]

Cause jerkass fantasy tales started it, and people wants to use it, cause it's 'cool', and common, and a good laugh to foil people.

[Necroticplague]

I'm sure this has been covered ad nauseum, but I read through the pages and didn't notice anything specific.

The reason wishes traditionally get twisted is because they're not a spell, but a favor granted by an angry entity. That's what it boils down to. Your wish isn't casting timestop, it's asking an entrapped being of insane amounts of power to release a tiny portion of it's power to cater to your base whim.
If what you wish for is basic and reasonable, even by the hate-filled spirit's stand point, he'll just grant it with a shrug. If you ask fomr something insane, but in a way that the malicious entityt of destructive force can twist to his own miserable purposes, he'll do so.

It's really more a matter of talking to your 'genie' before making the wish in the first place. If you wish for a veritable deity to grant your miserable island peace, why wouldn't he pave the entire thing into glass and tell you "There, now it's peaceful"? He's filled with hate and has no reason not to.

Now, if you talk to your genie about what it's goals are, and offer to grant it your third wish for it's freedom as long as it helps you win the love of a noble princess.... why would it fight that? Why wouldn't it shrug and laugh at your game, and wait till the third wish to grant and/or screw you over?

The REAL problem is that 3.0 tried to make wishes a standard magical practice. They turned it into base arcane art, which is simply not artful. A wish isn't a spell. A fireball is a spell. A plane shifting teleportation is a spell. Heck, even an acid storm capable of dissolving a continent is just a spell.

But a wish?

A wish is a favor from something that either won't, or can't refuse. And you'd better phrase it politely.

What about when wishes come from non-living or intrinsic sources? A ring of three wishes is an inanimate object, it doesn't even have an idea of what your intent is, and it can't be malevolent (unless it's an intelligent item). When you cast a wish for yourself, you definitely have your own best interest in mind.

[Thiyr]

It's really more a matter of talking to your 'genie' before making the wish in the first place. If you wish for a veritable deity to grant your miserable island peace, why wouldn't he pave the entire thing into glass and tell you "There, now it's peaceful"? He's filled with hate and has no reason not to.

I am reminded of a different thread on the twisting of wishes, which I cannot find. "I wish for a set of +5 full plate" "Okay, you are wearing +5 full plate. You are also on fire, because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish for a glass of water" "Okay, you get a glass of water. You are also lit on fire because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish that the orphanage is no longer haunted by a ghost in such a way that does not set me on fire" "Okay, the orphanage is exorcised of its ghost, and also is on fire."

It made me giggle at the time.

[GolemsVoice]

But a wish?

A wish is a favor from something that either won't, or can't refuse. And you'd better phrase it politely.

That's a very specific interpretation of wish, and not true at all for "Wish", as in the spell.

[Solaris]

And the wizard never took any actions which directly led to whatever consequence befell him. He wanted to get effect X, but got effect Y. The mugging victim wanted to get to his home, but got mugged instead. They both took actions and put themselves in harm's way out of their own will, presumably knowing full well what they were getting into, they merely judged the reward to be worth the risk. That is, assuming this is a world where wish-twisting is common knowledge.
One of these is blaming the victim, the other is blaming the guy who didn't make sure the detonator was set to thirty seconds instead of three.
I can think of nothing else to convince you, so we'll have to leave it at 'agree to disagree'.


Wow, I am getting really tired of repeating myself.
Then don't.


Yes, the rules say that it IS dangerous. It doesn't say what kind of danger it brings. Growing lazy or overconfident IS a danger, whether you like it or not. The fact that the danger is not defined, and that wish-twisting is given as a possibility (that I, as the DM, may use or not), is strict RAW. Anything else is what you do in your game, which is not wrong, so please stop saying that the way I or anyone else interprets it is house-ruling or wrong.
The lazy and overconfidence is, of course, a danger. It's just not one caused by the Wish itself. It would've happened regardless of how the character got the power. That's why I dislike calling it a consequence of the Wish. It's kinda like (to pull an OotS reference) when the oracle tried claiming Belkar as being responsible for the death of Miko's horse.
Who used the phrase house-ruling? Frankly, if someone claims something as a house-ruling, I don't argue it with them because that means they acknowledge they're running it differently than the text. This, however, appears to be a difference of definitions. I consider unintended consequences to be twisting it. You (and correct me if I'm wrong), don't - except when they're to the obnoxious degree.


I define wish-twisting as not giving the character exactly what they want (with no negative consequences or drawbacks). That's why whenever a player gets their hands on a wish or the like, I pause the game to ask them all sorts of questions in order to ensure I'm getting their wish right. The way I interpret Wish, there isn't an entity interpreting the wish, it's just the character reaching out to change reality itself so that it matches what they imagine. Logically, that means they get exactly what they imagine.

The "danger" part comes later as I see fit. If the player asks for a flaming sword, maybe someone tries to steal it (leading to an extra encounter), or maybe it causes an important NPC to have a jealous fit, I talk to them about how it'd be nice if they roleplayed some laziness or overconfidence or the like, and that's it. I vary the danger according to the character, the campaign and what they're wishing for. Sometimes showing them a crestfallen, wingless angel moping around (the danger, in this case, is "danger of ruining someone else's life for your own selfishness") is terrible enough.
I don't disagree with most of this, and most of those consequences (except the laziness and overconfidence) I consider twisting the Wish. I just disagree with changes internal to the character being the result of a Wish spell rather than, say, character development. Someone trying to steal it (unless it's the sword's original owner) or someone getting jealous also strikes me as being more character development than an actual consequence of the Wish.


I am reminded of a different thread on the twisting of wishes, which I cannot find. "I wish for a set of +5 full plate" "Okay, you are wearing +5 full plate. You are also on fire, because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish for a glass of water" "Okay, you get a glass of water. You are also lit on fire because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish that the orphanage is no longer haunted by a ghost in such a way that does not set me on fire" "Okay, the orphanage is exorcised of its ghost, and also is on fire."

It made me giggle at the time.

Well, to be fair, that's not a consequence of the Wish. That's a consequence of adventurers being near something.

[Straybow]

Me: "No wonder you are an anti-wish-twister, if that's what you expect."

I have no idea what you mean by this. It's not what I expect. It's a possibility I thought up from my imagination. It's showing you how a wish can be dangerous without it being twisted in the slightest. Let's review a shorter snip of the paragraph I quoted:


They want to bring back a loved one who has been soul-bound or died of old age or some other impossible thing? No problem, their loved one is back, but another loved one is now permanently dead (and impossible to resurrect). A wish to restore someone soul-bound would be fulfilled by irrevocably killing a random loved one, and, to you, that isn't twisted??? I could rest my case, but I like debate.


You are moving the goalposts. Your justification for wish-twisting was that the character was handling 9th level spells, with the implication that handling such magic should be momentous or dangerous in and of itself... Incorrect, please cite me more carefully. I'll try to make this clear enough, I never said casting 9th level spells was inherently dangerous. To help you follow the logic, I'll put it in a list:

I quoted the RAW that says exceeding the safe limits of wish is dangerous
I pointed out that "is" makes it an inherent condition
I pointed out that "dangerous" needed to be judged by what someone with the power to cast 9th level spells should consider dangerous. Not "ouch I got bit by a horsefly."

I "justify" wish-twisting, because it is stated in RAW. I challenged you to write rules for making non-safe wishes dangerous without twisting, which you claim to do on a regular basis. The examply you gave is way twisted, bro.

What? No, that's ridiculous. Partial/Null fulfilment falls within wish-twisting. You know, I'm getting tired of repeating myself, so now the burden of proof falls upon you. Show me, using logic, how "X is dangerous" is incompatible with "Unchanged X, X Introduces Element Y". Has it occurred to you that the rules never state where the danger comes from?

You, by tying the danger exclusively to wish-twisting, are houseruling Wish. Yes, the rules do state where the danger comes from: the wording of the wish.
The gap between what the wisher intends and what the wisher speaks is usually plain to the DM. The RAW suggests that looking for a "twisted" interpretation of the wording is appropriate.
There is a little word in the RAW, "or," which distinguishes the phrase about twisting the wish from the phrase about partially fulfilling. It doesn't say "which could be merely partial fulfillment," it says [may be twisted] "or" [partially fulfilled].
The only way partial fulfillment can be dangerous is if the wisher's intent is not fulfilled, which means this falls under the "twisted" aspect and is no longer a simple case of "partial fulfillment."
Partial fulfillment is the result when the wording is unambiguous enough to prevent misinterpretation, yet the DM decides the wish cannot be entirely fulfilled.
Clear wording is the means to disarm the danger of the wish that exceeds the safe list of powers.



I define wish-twisting as not giving the character exactly what they want (with no negative consequences or drawbacks). Which would best be described as "partial fulfillment," and it is nerfing the danger. QED. So you still haven't described a rule for how to make the non-safe wish dangerous, without twisting the wish, which is your claim. Hint: if nobody responding thinks your definition fits, it probably doesn't.


The way I interpret Wish, there isn't an entity interpreting the wish, it's just the character reaching out to change reality itself so that it matches what they imagine. Logically, that means they get exactly what they imagine. But that isn't RAW, yet you keep whining when somebody points out that you've houseruled the danger away. I respond to that whining, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[nedz]

That is correct. Once you use Wish to emulate a spell on the "safe list," it is, for all intents and purposes, no longer Wish.

Yes, but it still has to be phrased.

Get that wrong, and you have left the safe zone simply by wishing for something else. Now if you are competant then this isn't going to happen, but I have heard people mis-speak.

[Asheram]

I am reminded of a different thread on the twisting of wishes, which I cannot find. "I wish for a set of +5 full plate" "Okay, you are wearing +5 full plate. You are also on fire, because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish for a glass of water" "Okay, you get a glass of water. You are also lit on fire because you didn't specify that you didn't want to be set on fire."

"I wish that the orphanage is no longer haunted by a ghost in such a way that does not set me on fire" "Okay, the orphanage is exorcised of its ghost, and also is on fire."

It made me giggle at the time.

Well... All that excess energy from a 9 level slot and xp burn has to go somewhere, doesn't it? :smallbiggrin:

[Necroticplague]

Yes, but it still has to be phrased.

Get that wrong, and you have left the safe zone simply by wishing for something else. Now if you are competant then this isn't going to happen, but I have heard people mis-speak.

The problem is that some of the things on that safe list involve metagame concepts that you can't word IC because they don't exist IC. How do you say "I want a +1 inheritance bonus to INT." in character? I like to think of it that things on the safe list are simply a way to channel the same energy, and don't actually require wording, any more than a normal spell does. You only need need to form a verbal contract if you're going outside the safe zone.

[Shadowknight12]

One of these is blaming the victim, the other is blaming the guy who didn't make sure the detonator was set to thirty seconds instead of three.
I can think of nothing else to convince you, so we'll have to leave it at 'agree to disagree'.

I think that's a good idea.


Then don't.

That's an even better one.


The lazy and overconfidence is, of course, a danger. It's just not one caused by the Wish itself. It would've happened regardless of how the character got the power. That's why I dislike calling it a consequence of the Wish. It's kinda like (to pull an OotS reference) when the oracle tried claiming Belkar as being responsible for the death of Miko's horse.

Potayto potahto, I guess. To me, it's not just about getting what you want, it's about the exuberant feel of reshaping reality, much like V felt when he was under the soul splice. To me, that feeling of brief but utter omnipotence changes a person in ways other things cannot. It's very different to say "I got this flaming sword because I did a quest for a duke" than it is to say "I got this flaming sword because I got my hands on a wish and reshaped reality like clay to create this object out of nothing at all."


Who used the phrase house-ruling? Frankly, if someone claims something as a house-ruling, I don't argue it with them because that means they acknowledge they're running it differently than the text. This, however, appears to be a difference of definitions. I consider unintended consequences to be twisting it. You (and correct me if I'm wrong), don't - except when they're to the obnoxious degree.

Straybow did. He's been consistently calling my (legitimate) interpretations of the rules as house-ruling because he doesn't like them. Apparently RAW is never vague in the slightest or open to different but still valid interpretations.


I don't disagree with most of this, and most of those consequences (except the laziness and overconfidence) I consider twisting the Wish. I just disagree with changes internal to the character being the result of a Wish spell rather than, say, character development. Someone trying to steal it (unless it's the sword's original owner) or someone getting jealous also strikes me as being more character development than an actual consequence of the Wish.

Then we have different ways of seeing what is wish-twisting and what isn't. To me, it's not wish-twisting if I get exactly what I want with no negative consequences. If someone tries to steal the sword or I see I have the wings of an angel, it's entirely up to me how I react to that. I got, after all, exactly what I wanted. I can defeat the would be robber and ignore the angel and I can walk away with my prize utterly undaunted.

What I consider wish-twisting is when something unwanted happens and the character has no say in it. Sure, the angel losing their wings is unwanted, but who's to say they can't be regrown with Regenerate or a specific ritual? And yeah, sure, maybe the sword tempts many people into trying to steal it, but that just means more XP and treasure for the extra encounters. To me, the "dangers" of a wish shouldn't be a punishment for the character, but a consequence that can serve as the spring-board for character development, plot twists or just more entertainment for everyone involved.


Me: "No wonder you are an anti-wish-twister, if that's what you expect."
Let's review a shorter snip of the paragraph I quoted:

A wish to restore someone soul-bound would be fulfilled by irrevocably killing a random loved one, and, to you, that isn't twisted??? I could rest my case, but I like debate.

It's not wish-twisting. You got exactly what you wanted. Wish-twisting is when you don't get what you want, like asking for a flaming sword and getting your sword (and yourself) set on fire. That's not what the wisher wished for.

That's a consequence of wishing that I may introduce to the campaign, if the players are into that sort of thing. I could just as well send them on a dangerous quest to craft the loved one a new body (especially fitting if the loved one was a short-lived race and the wisher is an immortal or long-lived race, so that they can now have comparable lifespans) and then the wish imbues the person's soul into the new body. The danger in this case comes from the quest they have to undertake in order to procure the necessary elements for the wish to take effect.

At the end of the day, the wisher still gets exactly what they wanted and have to confront a danger as a consequence.


Incorrect, please cite me more carefully. I'll try to make this clear enough, I never said casting 9th level spells was inherently dangerous. To help you follow the logic, I'll put it in a list:

I quoted the RAW that says exceeding the safe limits of wish is dangerous
I pointed out that "is" makes it an inherent condition
I pointed out that "dangerous" needed to be judged by what someone with the power to cast 9th level spells should consider dangerous. Not "ouch I got bit by a horsefly."

I "justify" wish-twisting, because it is stated in RAW. I challenged you to write rules for making non-safe wishes dangerous without twisting, which you claim to do on a regular basis. The examply you gave is way twisted, bro.
Yes, the rules do state where the danger comes from: the wording of the wish.
The gap between what the wisher intends and what the wisher speaks is usually plain to the DM. The RAW suggests that looking for a "twisted" interpretation of the wording is appropriate.
There is a little word in the RAW, "or," which distinguishes the phrase about twisting the wish from the phrase about partially fulfilling. It doesn't say "which could be merely partial fulfillment," it says [may be twisted] "or" [partially fulfilled].
The only way partial fulfillment can be dangerous is if the wisher's intent is not fulfilled, which means this falls under the "twisted" aspect and is no longer a simple case of "partial fulfillment."
Partial fulfillment is the result when the wording is unambiguous enough to prevent misinterpretation, yet the DM decides the wish cannot be entirely fulfilled.
Clear wording is the means to disarm the danger of the wish that exceeds the safe list of powers.


The bolded parts need evidence. I have read (and quoted in this very thread) the exact part of RAW you are referring to, and I cannot find where it is explicitly said that the danger of the wish comes from its wording and where it is suggested that twisting a wish is in any way appropriate (and not, as a strict reading would yield, merely a possibility).

As for the rest, you seem to conveniently forget that the entire bit about partial fulfilment, twisting and so on, comes after the word "may" which means that all of that is entirely optional.


Which would best be described as "partial fulfillment," and it is nerfing the danger. QED. So you still haven't described a rule for how to make the non-safe wish dangerous, without twisting the wish, which is your claim. Hint: if nobody responding thinks your definition fits, it probably doesn't.

I have. Repeatedly. The problem is that you are not reading my actual posts, so as Solaris suggested above, I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want examples on how wish can be dangerous without being twisted, please refer to my many examples in my previous posts.


But that isn't RAW, yet you keep whining when somebody points out that you've houseruled the danger away. I respond to that whining, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

It is RAW. It is the literal reading of RAW. The problem is that you don't like it, so instead of admitting it and saying "well, that's not how I interpret the rule, but hey, to each their own," you go out of your way to point your finger at other people and go "That's not RAW! That's houseruling!" even after being consistently proven wrong by the very RAW you claim to be following.

I don't wish to pursue this discussion any further.

[dsmiles]

The problem is that some of the things on that safe list involve metagame concepts that you can't word IC because they don't exist IC. How do you say "I want a +1 inheritance bonus to INT." in character? I like to think of it that things on the safe list are simply a way to channel the same energy, and don't actually require wording, any more than a normal spell does. You only need need to form a verbal contract if you're going outside the safe zone.Well said. That's pretty much what I meant. Safe Zone is safe. Period.

EDIT: So here's exactly what the SRD says (linked):

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.) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm)

Someone explain to me how RAW doesn't explicitly state that the wish itself "twists" (by some people's definitions) wishes outside the safe zone. :smallconfused:

[GolemsVoice]

Get that wrong, and you have left the safe zone simply by wishing for something else. Now if you are competant then this isn't going to happen, but I have heard people mis-speak.

I'd agree with the others here, I'd just require an out-of-game description (e.g. "I want a flaming burst shortsword") and a short in-game description ("I want a shortsword that is enchanted with the power of fire" or soemthing like that).
Because if you require them to phrase it right, you're doing the exact thing the safe zone was meant to guard against, namely making the wish unsafe again. Of course, a BIT of effort should be required.

EDIT:

Someone explain to me how RAW doesn't explicitly state that the wish itself "twists" (by some people's definitions) wishes outside the safe zone.

If my players ventured outside the safe zone, I'd warn them, but if they want to continue, I'd say twisting the wish (if it's stupid or out of proportion) is, while not neccessary RAW, fair game.

[Shadowknight12]

Someone explain to me how RAW doesn't explicitly state that the wish itself "twists" (by some people's definitions) wishes outside the safe zone. :smallconfused:

It's right there in what you quoted. It's stated that wishing outside the safe zone IS dangerous, but doesn't specify how, and then tells you that it MAY twist/pervert/partially fulfil/etc as a possibility of how this danger might take place.

[dsmiles]

It's right there in what you quoted. It's stated that wishing outside the safe zone IS dangerous, but doesn't specify how, and then tells you that it MAY twist/pervert/partially fulfil/etc as a possibility of how this danger might take place.
That makes twisting wishes in such a manner not a form of house-ruling, since it's specifically allowed by RAW.

[Shadowknight12]

That makes twisting wishes in such a manner not a form of house-ruling, since it's specifically allowed by RAW.

I never said that it wasn't allowed, I said that insisting that "every wish made outside the safe zone must be twisted" is a house-rule.

[dsmiles]

I never said that it wasn't allowed, I said that insisting that "every wish made outside the safe zone must be twisted" is a house-rule.
Ah. So THAT'S where the argument was. I couldn't track anyone's points with all that quoting going on.

[Shadowknight12]

Ah. So THAT'S where the argument was. I couldn't track anyone's points with all that quoting going on.

Exactly. People seem to think that RAW makes wish-twisting mandatory, while I'm arguing that it merely makes such a thing optional.

[navar100]

Well said. That's pretty much what I meant. Safe Zone is safe. Period.

EDIT: So here's exactly what the SRD says (linked):


Someone explain to me how RAW doesn't explicitly state that the wish itself "twists" (by some people's definitions) wishes outside the safe zone. :smallconfused:

"may"

not "always",
not "definitely",
not "all the time",
not "if you do do this you give the DM permission to screw over your character"

"may"

[NichG]

Shadowknight, I think the problem here is relative definitions of twist. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition if the following happened it would not be wish-twisting:

Wizard: I wish for a +10 weapon with such and such enchantments
Wish: The life-energy and xp of every living being on the planet with the exception of the Wizard, his friends and relatives, and the rest of the party are consumed to power the enchantment, creating exactly the specified +10 weapon and leaving the party in a post-apocalyptic landscape.

In this example, the Wish caster gets exactly what they wanted, and suffers no direct negative consequences, despite the fact that third parties were harmed by the casting (the equivalent of your 'wingless angel' example).

Most people I think would call that some pretty jerkish twisting. On the other hand (again, correct me if I'm wrong), by your definition the following is
twisting:

Wizard: I wish for a +10 weapon with such and such enchantments.
Wish: You get a lesser weapon with as many of the enchantments you request that can be build for 25000gp or less.

[Shadowknight12]

Shadowknight, I think the problem here is relative definitions of twist. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but by your definition if the following happened it would not be wish-twisting:

Wizard: I wish for a +10 weapon with such and such enchantments
Wish: The life-energy and xp of every living being on the planet with the exception of the Wizard, his friends and relatives, and the rest of the party are consumed to power the enchantment, creating exactly the specified +10 weapon and leaving the party in a post-apocalyptic landscape.

In this example, the Wish caster gets exactly what they wanted, and suffers no direct negative consequences, despite the fact that third parties were harmed by the casting (the equivalent of your 'wingless angel' example).

Most people I think would call that some pretty jerkish twisting. On the other hand (again, correct me if I'm wrong), by your definition the following is
twisting:

Wizard: I wish for a +10 weapon with such and such enchantments.
Wish: You get a lesser weapon with as many of the enchantments you request that can be build for 25000gp or less.

That is entirely correct. Twisting a wish means that you do not get what you wished for, or that you get what you wished for but some calamity befalls you that impedes you from fully enjoying what you wished for.

Now, granted, I never said that giving a character what they wished for should be accompanied by something horrible and soul-crushing. That's a very World of Darkness school of thought. I'm just as likely to make the "danger" of the wish entirely up to the player to decide.

[IncoherentEssay]

Regarding mispoken wishes, it's worth noting that Wish isn't language depentdant. As long as you're personally casting the Wish (manually or from an item) you can speak whatever language you want. Therefore it is not unreasonable to assume that Wishes can read intent, considering telepathy and mind reading are fairly low-level effects (Read Thoughts and Mindlink for example).
Also, there's nothing about wording the wish in the spell, the closest thing is "By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you.", therefore anything from "My will be done." to bad puns to non-sequiturs about fish will do by RAW.

[Din Riddek]

Fact: The rules state that there is a potential for perversion when one wishes outside the defined boundaries. The spell is pretty clear in saying that wishing for "bigger" things is dangerous, you can't argue that it doesn't say that. A quick look at a definition of "dangerous" and "danger" reveal that (spoilers) danger is in no way inherently favorable.

I get what you are saying though. A DM really shouldn't auto-ruin any wish outside the stated boundaries. I plan on using a D% roll to determine the degree of success or failure of the wish in my next campaign (dice are statistically more fair than 'I, the dm, didn't like that wish so it doesn't work').

However, the wording is clear that big wishes are playing with fire. I in no way believe that means "I'll get a +10 sword and roleplay that I'm cocky and reckless now."

Other people have brought this up, but the reason there's a safe zone and a danger zone is because if there are no ramifications to going out of the safe zone, the danger zone also becomes a safe zone, which in tern makes the wish stupidly powerful.

If you have the dm who turns every wish into "you get what you want but now you are on fire", then I'm sorry, that sucks. If you are complaining about the DM twisting you "I want the Sword of Kas (+6 unholy keen vorpal longsword) into something terrible then you are ignoring the RAW of the spell and a DMs obligation to keep a game running effectively.

[Straybow]

What I consider wish-twisting is when something unwanted happens and the character has no say in it.


[Straybow: A wish to restore someone soul-bound would be fulfilled by irrevocably killing a random loved one, and, to you, that isn't twisted??? I could rest my case, but I like debate.]

It's not wish-twisting. You got exactly what you wanted. Wish-twisting is when you don't get what you want, like asking for a flaming sword and getting your sword (and yourself) set on fire. That's not what the wisher wished for. Unless the wisher said, "I want my soul-bound friend restored, and choose one of my other friends to take his place" then the wisher is not getting what he wanted, and it is twisted.

Now, on further examination I see that soul bind (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/soulBind.htm) specifically says it can't be restored with a wish. So if you are saying that because a wish can't technically restore the soul-bound you would have to restore the soul-bound and then substitute a party not even mentioned in the wish to take his place. I humbly apologize for not calling you on that before. :smallwink:

But let us substitute some other condition that is irrevocable and does not exclude wish as a restorative power. We have the same effect: you as DM have interpreted the wish to go beyond what the wisher said, take a party not named in the wish, and swap that party for the one to be restored.

This you don't consider twisted or perverted, even though wish is supposed to safely undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm).

I don't see anybody here agreeing with you. Hello, out there, did I miss anybody? Anybody? :smallconfused:


I have [described a rule for how to make the non-safe wish dangerous, without twisting the wish]. Repeatedly. The problem is that you are not reading my actual posts, so as Solaris suggested above, I'm not going to repeat myself. If you want examples on how wish can be dangerous without being twisted, please refer to my many examples in my previous posts.

I most certainly have read them, and specifically cited exactly where I disagree with your illogical rationalization of what it means to pervert or twist the wish.


It is RAW. It is the literal reading of RAW. Only if you redefine the words or ignore the grammar and logical structure of the RAW. That's no different adding "and 10,000d6 of damage" to every wish because the RAW doesn't say you can't.


I don't wish to pursue this discussion any further. I shall use a wish spell to force you to post here.

[Dr.Epic]

The point is nothing in life is just free and you can't just get what you want like that just like all those ancient stories about people finding ways to have their wishes come true.

[GolemsVoice]

The point is, some things in life cost exactly as much as casting a wish spell and nothing more. Some MIGHT cost more.

[Straybow]

Point is, in earlier versions casting a Wish aged you 3 years, while a Limited Wish aged you 1 year. Now it costs nothing but a comparatively small amount of XP. :smallconfused: That's progress? Tsk, tsk.

[Razanir]

Here is how I WOULD handle wishes if it ever came up. (In dichotomous key form)

1) Is it simply worded? Yes, go to 2. No, go to 5
2) Is it on the safe list? Yes, granted. No, go to 3
3) Is it at least reasonable? Yes, twist it slightly. No, go to 4
4) Is it far too extreme? Yes, "your spell fizzles out." No, *evil laugh* :smallbiggrin:
5) Is it in sentences or a contract? Sentences, go to 6. Contract, find and exploit loopholes
6) Are there any conjunctions I could stop granting at? Yes, stop there. No, twist it

[Flame9006]

My philosophy on wishes is that if you wish for something too big something bad is going to happen
Examples: I wish for a trillion gold pieces. You now have a trillion gold pieces but also everyone not in the party just got a few trillion Platinum pieces your gold is worth next to nothing.
I wish I had a plus 5 broadsword, Ok Here you go because it's reasonable
I wish i had a kingdom Ok but there's a small rebellion brewing go sort it out.
Basically the more unreasonable the wish is the more it's going to get twisted. You wish something reasonable you get it, something slightly unreasonable you get it but there's a downside, something game breaking and it's essentially worthless.

That's my two bits.

[hamishspence]

That is entirely correct. Twisting a wish means that you do not get what you wished for, or that you get what you wished for but some calamity befalls you that impedes you from fully enjoying what you wished for.

Everyone on the planet except "those you value" being gone seems like a big calamity that would impede enjoyment.

Transporting items from somebody else's property- thus meaning that the original owner will be coming after you, very angry, seems like an example of "literal fulfilment" without calamity- yet it still means that in the future, you'll have to deal with the original owner.

Using the transportation ability of Wish to transport you to the location of the item- its in the Dimensionally locked treasure room of the Big Bad- only magic of Wish-level power can teleport you in or out- seems like another example of "you actually get what you want- but you have other issues to deal with"

[Solaris]

Examples: I wish for a trillion gold pieces. You now have a trillion gold pieces but also everyone not in the party just got a few trillion Platinum pieces your gold is worth next to nothing.

That's... bad.
Here's better: Let them. Good luck finding something to spend it on, being that the GP value of the nearest town is only a tiny fraction of your hoard. A trillion gold coins also weighs something like twenty million pounds. Arguably, granting that wish crushes the wisher with his loot unless the Wish is kind enough to transport him to the top of the pile.

Even then... I ran a d20 Star Wars game where it was pretty much standard practice for one of the PCs to max out Gamble, then go see how much money they could make. For all intents and purposes, their funds were infinite. That just meant I could bring out the cooler stuff against them without them having to join the New Republic or the Empire - and that when they eventually did join the New Republic, they weren't inconsequential grunt troops but warlords in their own right. Wizards break WBL enough by themselves, why go out of your way to punish someone else who does it?



Everyone on the planet except "those you value" being gone seems like a big calamity that would impede enjoyment.

You'd think so... and you'd be wrong. I value all life. Sucker.

[Flame9006]

Yes but the point comes across if you get a ridiculous amount of money from a wish you aren't going to be able to use it as you would normally would be able to.

[Philistine]

I never said that it wasn't allowed, I said that insisting that "every wish made outside the safe zone must be twisted" is a house-rule.

Except that No.

Wishing for anything not on the Safe List is dangerous. That's entirely unambiguous. Then in the next sentence, two dangers are presented: getting what you asked for instead of what you wanted, or getting less than what you asked for. By RAW, then, you should expect one or the other of those any time you try to Wish for something not on the Safe List.

For comparison, note that Miracle lacks any such verbiage. That spell isn't intended to shaft players who get too uppity; Wish clearly is.

[Rogue Shadows]

It's an ugly thing, dominance struggles and control disputes, but it all boils down to power. The power of a granted wish is practically unrivalled, and that power corrupts deeply. Once that power is on the table, it turns friends into enemies and men into beasts.

...you have something against DMs. You really do. Every thread I've seen you in that in any way could have anything to do with the possibiltiy of a DM interacting with players has had you immediately jump to the conclusion, or at least seem to jump to the conclusion, that DMs are out to get players. This is particularly bizarre because I seem to recall you mentioning that you DM more often than not and confirming that you do not think that D&D is about Player VS DM. But so far, I've seen:

1) DMs that are willing to have NPCs steal items from players (but especially a wizard's spell book) are vindictive and bad;
2) DMs (Storytellers, whatever) that don't stat out Caine beyond the official stats ("Rules for Fighting Caine: You lose") but nevertheless include him in their chronicles are vicious and want to exert unstoppable control over the game world and are bad;
3) DMs who want to limit what sourcebooks are allowed in their campaign are controlling and domineering and are therefore bad;

And now,
5) DMs that twist wishes are involved in a power struggle with their players due to feeling impotent next to the power of wish and are therefore bad.

I'm just stating what I've observed. God forbid that the DM may hear "I wish for the the Book of Exalted Deeds" and just get a flash of inspiration for an excellent adventure, and so twists the wish slightly so that the players are teleported to the current owner of the Book of Exalted Deeds so that he can dispense a quest to them to prove their worthiness, the players can get a quest (and therefore more XP and loot and roleplaying opportunities), and basically a good time is had by all as long as the Book's owner actually gives them the Book after their quest is completed.

It's possible that you may have later in this thread qualified that you don't think this is a bad wish-twist, but I'm not going to bother trying to find out because your first post did not contain that: you immedaitely jumped to the conclusion that the DM is trying to overpower the player, and not in any way could possibly actually be trying to increase fun for everybody and not actually have a power struggle even remotely in their minds.

Oh, and:

4) I once had a 1st-level party meet an elder red wyrm and therefore am a bad DM even though the elder red wyrm was chaotic neutral and intended to serve as their benevolent NPC patron and give them quests. Specifically, I'm a bad DM because I enjoyed the look of fear on their faces when I had the elder red wyrm reveal himself.

1/10, Shadowknight. You get the 1 because you are, at least, consistant. Maybe 2/10, the extra 1 because I'm convinced that you're, like, the evil alternate universe version of me. Heck, even our names make it sound like that. Rogue Shadows verses Shadowknight, and I think it's pretty cool to have an evil alternate version of me.

[navar100]

...you have something against DMs. You really do. Every thread I've seen you in that in any way could have anything to do with the possibiltiy of a DM interacting with players has had you immediately jump to the conclusion, or at least seem to jump to the conclusion, that DMs are out to get players. This is particularly bizarre because I seem to recall you mentioning that you DM more often than not. But so far, I've seen:

1) DMs that are willing to have NPCs steal items from players (but especially a wizard's spell book) are vindictive and bad;
2) DMs (Storytellers, whatever) that don't stat out Caine beyond the official stats ("Rules for Fighting Caine: You lose") but nevertheless include him in their chronicles are vicious and want to exert unstoppable control over the game world and are bad;
3) DMs who want to limit what sourcebooks are allowed in their campaign are controlling and domineering and are therefore bad;

And now,
4) DMs that twist wishes are involved in a power struggle with their players due to feeling impotent next to the power of wish and are therefore bad.

I'm just stating what I've observed. God forbid that the DM may hear "I wish for the the Book of Exalted Deeds" and just get a flash of inspiration for an excellent adventure, and so twists the wish slightly so that the players are teleported to the current owner of the Book of Exalted Deeds so that he can dispense a quest to them to prove their worthiness, the players can get a quest (and therefore more XP and loot and roleplaying opportunities), and basically a good time is had by all as long as the Book's owner actually gives them the Book after their quest is completed.

It's possible that you may have later in this thread qualified that you don't think this is a bad wish-twist, but I'm not going to bother trying to find out because your first post did not contain that: you immedaitely jumped to the conclusion that the DM is trying to overpower the player, and not in any way could possibly actually be trying to increase fun for everybody and not actually have a power struggle even remotely in their minds.

And your point is . . . ?

Really, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes, what is so horribly catastrophic of giving a player exactly of honest true complete intent what they wished?

[Rogue Shadows]

And your point is . . . ?

Really, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes, what is so horribly catastrophic of giving a player exactly of honest true complete intent what they wished?

There's nothing horrible about it (depending upon the particular wish, anyway - there's quite a few horribly catastrophic things about granting a wish for the spell-like ability to cast wish once per day, for example, but in that case I'd as a DM say "I'm not going to allow that, stop powergaming, and choose some other wish" rather than twisting it). Shadowknight, however, assumed that if a wish was twisted, then it must be because of a power struggle between the DM and the wisher.

...man, Shadowknight and me even joined this forum within a month of each other. Seriously. He's the evil alternate version of me. Or I'm the evil alternate version of him. Something.

I can't grow a goatee. I can get the beard and the moustache fine but I can't get them to connect. My beard does end up with these two awesome stripes of red hair, though. Man, I wish I didn't work at a resteraunt, then I'd rock that awesome beard.

...[/tangent]

[Din Riddek]

And your point is . . . ?

Really, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes, what is so horribly catastrophic of giving a player exactly of honest true complete intent what they wished?

Because that is not what the spell does. The point of the spell is an attempt to obtain something otherwise unavailable to the character, with added risk.

A DM is completely in his/her right by twisting a wish outside the safe boundaries. It is in the description of the spell, its the RAW.

What you are suggesting is that the wish spell have no limits unless the wisher is trying something that will immediately ruin the game on impact. The problem with that is that then the wish spell immediately becomes the best spell in the game, and becomes a cure-all for any situation.

Imagine: The PCs roll up to an army, and the Caster says, "I wish they were all unarmed. Disaster averted. Next, a great wurm black dragon is approaching fast. The caster calmly says, "I wish he was lawful good!". Suddenly the black dragon wants to be friends. Oh, but then the the evil wizard is coming, and he's ready to put the party in its place. The PC spellcaster wins the initiative, and says "I wish the evil wizard's spellbook was destroyed yesterday."

What a fun game that would be for everyone.

[navar100]

Because that is not what the spell does. The point of the spell is an attempt to obtain something otherwise unavailable to the character, with added risk.

A DM is completely in his/her right by twisting a wish outside the safe boundaries. It is in the description of the spell, its the RAW.

What you are suggesting is that the wish spell have no limits unless the wisher is trying something that will immediately ruin the game on impact. The problem with that is that then the wish spell immediately becomes the best spell in the game, and becomes a cure-all for any situation.

Imagine: The PCs roll up to an army, and the Caster says, "I wish they were all unarmed. Disaster averted. Next, a great wurm black dragon is approaching fast. The caster calmly says, "I wish he was lawful good!". Suddenly the black dragon wants to be friends. Oh, but then the the evil wizard is coming, and he's ready to put the party in its place. The PC spellcaster wins the initiative, and says "I wish the evil wizard's spellbook was destroyed yesterday."

What a fun game that would be for everyone.

If the spell never works, why bother casting it? Why bother having it exist at all?

"I wish the army was all unarmed." As a spell, they are entitled to a saving throw. Then, the spell can only work against one creature per caster level as shown giving the example of trying to heal allies. Even though the wisher is not getting everything he wanted, at least it is a fair arbitration of how a spell works.

"I wish the great wurm black dragon was lawful good". 1) Spell resistance roll. 2) Saving throw roll. 3) How is this majorly different than if the spellcaster had cast Charm Monster? Different effect and duration, true but it is a higher level spell, yet relatively the same immediate result.

When a player has his character learn the Wish spell, fine, metagame with the player to set some boundaries. Until then, when PCs get one Wish as a reward or an item in treasure at some level below 17 the earliest a PC wizard can know the Wish spell, why is it an atrocity for them to get what they want, again, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes.

Any player accepting a Wish from a Devil or Demon plays at his own risk. No conflict from me there.

[Din Riddek]

The spell does work, within certain reasonable boundaries. That is what the spell says. In fact it works every time when you aren't asking for extravagent things. It does tons of things perfect every time, as per the rules. Do you not understand that once the line is crossed the player in question is playing with fire?

[Rogue Shadows]

"I wish the army was all unarmed." As a spell, they are entitled to a saving throw. Then, the spell can only work against one creature per caster level as shown giving the example of trying to heal allies. Even though the wisher is not getting everything he wanted, at least it is a fair arbitration of how a spell works.

Except that this can be more-or-less modeled as a single wish spell duplicating the teleport object spell...multiple times, which wish cannot safely do even twice, let alone a dozen or however many times.

"is dangerous." Is. We should not be having this discussion.


"I wish the great wurm black dragon was lawful good". 1) Spell resistance roll. 2) Saving throw roll. 3) How is this majorly different than if the spellcaster had cast Charm Monster? Different effect and duration, true but it is a higher level spell, yet relatively the same immediate result.

It is different:
1) Charm Monster does not change alignment
2) In point of fact changing alignment can be duplicated by another spell, atonement, a 5th level Cleric spell. It is within the range of wish's safe limited...but atonement specifically states that you cannot force alignment change, the creature atonement is cast upon must willingly change alignment upon the completion of the spell.

So this is pretty much a fairly straightforward wish:

"I wish you were Lawful Good!"

~Dupliate go go go!~

"No, I rather like being Neutral Evil."

(though of course there is a further problem that a LG black dragon is by no means necessarily going to stop doing whatever it was doing).


When a player has his character learn the Wish spell, fine, metagame with the player to set some boundaries. Until then, when PCs get one Wish as a reward or an item in treasure at some level below 17 the earliest a PC wizard can know the Wish spell, why is it an atrocity for them to get what they want, again, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes.

Because unwise wishes leave the wisher wanting; and further, the spell specifically states that exceeding the limits of wish is dangerous. Is. Not "is potentially," not "is often." Is. Dangerous.

You want a danger-free wish? Get a Cleric to cast miracle. Deal with the fact that even the Wizard can't do everything without some cost.

Fortuitously, I no longer have to deal with this in my games. Partially because I eliminated 8th and 9th level spells entirely, but then again I also powered up limited wish to be able to achieve anything...at a cost.

Magic should always have a cost, and therefore the most powerful magic should have the greatest cost.

Limited Wish
Universal
Level: Sor 7, Wiz 7
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 full-round action
Range: See text
Target, Effect, or Area: See text
Duration: See text
Saving Throw: None; see text
Spell Resistance: Yes
A limited wish lets you create nearly any type of effect – for a cost. Unwise wishes have a tendency to leave the wisher wanting.
A limited wish can do any of the following things with no need for a check and no Wisdom loss on the part of the caster:
• Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
• Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
• Duplicate any sorcerer/wizard spell of 5th level or lower, even if it’s of a prohibited school.
• Duplicate any other spell of 4th level or lower, even if it’s of a prohibited school.
• Undo the harmful effects of many spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
• Grant a +1 inherent bonus to any one ability score (note that inherent bonuses, like most other bonuses, do not stack – you cannot use limited wish in this way to increase any ability score more than 1 point).
A limited wish can be used to achieve effects more powerful than those listed above, such as granting a +2 or higher inherent bonus to an ability score, but doing so requires a d% roll. The result of the check determines the effectiveness of limited wish, if any:

01-10: The limited wish fails utterly. The wish is completely perverted and turned on the caster in some way.
11-25: The limited wish fails – the wish is simply not granted.
26-75: The limited wish grants you your wish, but perverts the wording or the intent of the wish in some way to make the result of dubious fulfillment.
76-95: The limited wish follows the precise wording of your wish, but the wish’s intent could still somehow be perverted
96-100: The limited wish follows both the letter and the intent of your wish.

How to pervert a limited wish is left up to DM discretion. For example, a caster could use limited wish to wish for a powerful artifact, such as a sphere of annihilation. Doing so might teleport the caster to the artifact’s current owner, who will likely be very powerful and quite unwilling to give it up. The DM is encouraged to be devious in this regard.
Regardless of the d% result, the caster of such a limited wish loses 2 points of Wisdom permanently, as the reshaping of reality extracts a toll from the caster. Not even another limited wish can prevent this ability score loss. In addition, even a limited wish cannot grant the following effects:
• Grant the caster access to additional limited wishes. This includes duplicating the spell limited wish, creating wands of limited wish, and so on.
• Prevent level or Constitution loss from being brought back from the dead.
• Outright kill a target with no save.
• Turn back or move forward in time any further than 13 seconds (about 2 rounds)
A duplicated spell allows saving throws and spell resistance as normal (but the save DC is for a 7th-level spell). When a limited wish spell duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 1,000 gp, you must provide that component.

[dsmiles]

When a player has his character learn the Wish spell, fine, metagame with the player to set some boundaries.
You mean like the boundaries already hard-coded into the text of the wish spell?

Until then, when PCs get one Wish as a reward or an item in treasure at some level below 17 the earliest a PC wizard can know the Wish spell, why is it an atrocity for them to get what they want, again, barring stupid obvious is obvious wanting to win D&D wishes.Because the aforementioned boundaries (that are, again, hard-coded into the text of the wish spell) set limits on the things that are safe to wish for. Go outside of those boundaries and:

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.) Right there, hard-coded into the text of the spell, is the reason players don't "just get what they asked for," when they go outside the limits of the safe zone.

[navar100]

The spell description also says "may", meaning it doesn't have to be a devastating outcome. If a character wants to be able to fly, there are ways to do it without requiring an angel to lose his wings. (A bell broke? :smallsmile:)
If a character wants an estate, there are ways to do it instead of saddling him with disgruntled servants, high taxes, and an undead wife haunting the place.

[Din Riddek]

Aren't there ways of doing both of those things without using a wish?

[dsmiles]

The spell description also says "may", meaning it doesn't have to be a devastating outcome. If a character wants to be able to fly, there are ways to do it without requiring an angel to lose his wings. (A bell broke? :smallsmile:)
If a character wants an estate, there are ways to do it instead of saddling him with disgruntled servants, high taxes, and an undead wife haunting the place.Saying nothing of 'twisting' wishes. It specifically states that going out of the safe zone is dangerous. Is. Not 'may be,' is. It is left to the DM to adjudicate that danger, but it is dangerous. There's no two ways about it.

[Rogue Shadows]

If a character wants an estate, there are ways to do it instead of saddling him with disgruntled servants, high taxes, and an undead wife haunting the place.

Yeah, it's called buying the thing (mansion) for the listed 100,000 gp found in the DMG (page 101). You want to wish for something that is a) arguably multiple items, b) arguably not even an item, and c) four times the listed limit on a single nonmagical item for wish regardless?

You rolls your dice, you takes your chances. Or as BGII phrased it, "unwise wishes will leave the wisher wanting."

As for flying, that's just a permanent fly spell...there shouldn't be a reason to corrupt that, it's a 5th level Universal spell. It would probably take two wishes, though, and really, you're better off just casting permanency and fly individually.

Yes, fly is not listed as a spell that can be made permanent, but that seems trivial...

[Straybow]

Excellent points, RS. I don't think permanent flight would need two wishes, since both fly and permanency are well below the 7th level limit of spells that can be duplicated from a prohibited school. Or at most, have fly cast, or have a scroll with the fly spell and wish it to be applied, and made permanent.


Saying nothing of 'twisting' wishes. It specifically states that going out of the safe zone is dangerous. Is. Not 'may be,' is. It is left to the DM to adjudicate that danger, but it is dangerous. There's no two ways about it. And the RAW has acknowledged that some wishes not within the safe zone description can be limited in power (i.e., reasonable) and specifically worded that fulfillment without perverting the intent or wording or shortchanging is possible. Like permanent flight only needs a wish because fly can't normally be made permanent.

The more you try to do outside the given powers, the more trouble you court. At some point the best possible result is partial fulfillment because there's no way the DM will give what you want.

IMO you have to earn that "safe" partial fulfillment with wording that points to a scalable fulfillment. Sitting down with the DM playing 20 questions to get a nice result might be reasonable for a wish being granted by a benevolent being who could behave that way. Otherwise one can hardly argue that it is "roleplaying."

[NichG]

The closest equivalent to Permanent Fly in the books would be to do a slotless, always-on item of Fly. That's got a gp value of 60000gp, so thats one Wish+4800xp surcharge, or two Wishes should cover it completely.

(Edit: Forgot Wish charged double xp for magic items)

Another way would be to use Wish to change your race, giving you a new template - you'd have to pay the LA off though, so it'd likely be more expensive than the item route.

Now, that said, a more interesting thing to do with Wish is to make the consequences open but unyielding. Instead of 'I'm going to ask for this, lets see how I get screwed', you could do:

Player: This is what I'm going for (Permanent Flight with one Wish)
DM: You will get that, but with the following consequence (You gain an LA 1 template that you must buy off either with xp or with disadvantages added to the template to turn it into LA 0). No matter how you phrase the wish, this is the deal.
Player: "Okay, I'll take it" or "No, I won't take it"

Maybe this calls for creating a 7th level spell "Analyze Wish" that vets a Wish for how it'd play out, maybe with a 100xp material component so it doesn't just get spammed indefinitely?

[Rogue Shadows]

Excellent points, RS. I don't think permanent flight would need two wishes, since both fly and permanency are well below the 7th level limit of spells that can be duplicated from a prohibited school. Or at most, have fly cast, or have a scroll with the fly spell and wish it to be applied, and made permanent.

I was going by a sort-of precedent set by wish's ability to raise the dead even if you don't have a body: you wish for the body, and then make a second wish to raise it.


Maybe this calls for creating a 7th level spell "Analyze Wish" that vets a Wish for how it'd play out, maybe with a 100xp material component so it doesn't just get spammed indefinitely?

Meh...that really just seems like it'd be making the player pay 100 gp for something that they should just be able to ask the DM about.

As a DM, if a player asked "could I wish to have a permanent fly spell," I'd never say "well, make the wish and find out!"

Though a note on wording - to an extent, I consider that irrelavent. A wish isn't just about wording something correctly, it's about twisting and reshaping reality to fit your own view as to how reality should be. A corrupted, twisted, or otherwise dubiously fulfilled wish isn't a result of poor wording, it's a result of reality biting back.

[hamishspence]

A wish isn't just about wording something correctly, it's about twisting and reshaping reality to fit your own view as to how reality should be. A corrupted, twisted, or otherwise dubiously fulfilled wish isn't a result of poor wording, it's a result of reality biting back.

that sounds about right- given that the Psionic counterpart of Wish is called Reality Revision, and the deity-level version Alter Reality.

[nedz]

To be fair the "... is dangerous" phrasing is a bit like Rope Trick's statement that "It is Hazardous ... to take an extradimensional space into an existing one."; but then there are examples in the PH, if not the SRD, of how such wishes might be twisted.

I guess that some people might argue that this is fluff text, since its not in the SRD; but even the SRD is unambiguous about this.

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.)
So by RAW you get either a twisted or partial wish.

[Straybow]

I was going by a sort-of precedent set by wish's ability to raise the dead even if you don't have a body: you wish for the body, and then make a second wish to raise it. Well, not having a body to raise is a bit more significant... and wish can only duplicate up to 6th level cleric spells, so there isn't much wiggle room when duplicating a 5th level cleric spell.

Plus the permanent flight is dispellable after the pattern given in permanency. You probably would be better off wishing for a slotless magic item.


Though a note on wording - to an extent, I consider that irrelavent. A wish isn't just about wording something correctly, it's about twisting and reshaping reality to fit your own view as to how reality should be. A corrupted, twisted, or otherwise dubiously fulfilled wish isn't a result of poor wording, it's a result of reality biting back. Yes, but wording is how one expresses the intent. The spell doesn't read your mind and say, "good doggie, here's your bone." You have to describe the effect, and a well worded (not find-the-loophole-legalese) wish should express it simply and clearly enough that reality doesn't need to bite back.

If it is something so complex that simple and clear isn't in reach, you take your chances on how reality resists your wish. So being very close to the specified safe list is probably still safe, like a permanent fly spell.

[Rogue Shadows]

Yes, but wording is how one expresses the intent. The spell doesn't read your mind and say, "good doggie, here's your bone." You have to describe the effect, and a well worded (not find-the-loophole-legalese) wish should express it simply and clearly enough that reality doesn't need to bite back.

Pretty much, this is how I feel.

Though one of these days one of my players is going to wish for something absurd...and in responce I'm going to pull out my copy of Mage: The Ascension and have a Paradox demon show up.

No, I will not adjust its stats to accomodate the different rules systems. What part of "paradox" is unclear?

[FallenEco]

*sighs*
There is a reason why some groups don't include the 'Wish' spells (and powers) in our games.

Sooner or later, it goes badly for all involved.

[GolemsVoice]

Yes, but wording is how one expresses the intent. The spell doesn't read your mind and say, "good doggie, here's your bone." You have to describe the effect, and a well worded (not find-the-loophole-legalese) wish should express it simply and clearly enough that reality doesn't need to bite back.

But on the other hand, wish isn't dependend on being able to actually speak any language, is it (real question, I'm not sure on that)? You just have to somehow CAST it. It still could be a mental "wish" you have to make just like you would actually say it out loud, but I don't know.

And though I'm really in the camp of people saying "Safe zone safe, outside unsafe", I'd say that you don't get your wish twisted or only partially fullfilled just by virtue of being outside the zone. I would just require either really clever wording or a wish that I support.
And regarding the "Is", well, it still could mean that there, well, IS danger. As I said before, using "Use Magic Device" is dangerous too, because the item might blow up into your face. But that doesn't mean the danger always actually manifests.

Of course, as soon as you're outside the safe zone, your wish is up to the DM's discretion. But that doesn't mean that soemthing bad HAS to happen.

[nedz]

*sighs*
There is a reason why some groups don't include the 'Wish' spells (and powers) in our games.

Sooner or later, it goes badly for all involved.

And thats possibly exactly the same reason why some groups do include 'Wish' spells in our games.

But sure, if you don't like it, then don't use it.

[nedz]

But on the other hand, wish isn't dependend on being able to actually speak any language, is it (real question, I'm not sure on that)? You just have to somehow CAST it. It still could be a mental "wish" you have to make just like you would actually say it out loud, but I don't know.

WISH ... By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you.
I think that you do have to speak the wish, otherwise it would just be Munchkins Anyspell :smallbiggrin:

[Asheram]

I think that you do have to speak the wish, otherwise it would just be Munchkins Anyspell :smallbiggrin:

I think you'd better speak it out loud.
I have no idea about your measure of concentration, but the way My mind works after thinking "I wish"... well, you might end up with something completely random.

[NichG]

Meh...that really just seems like it'd be making the player pay 100 gp for something that they should just be able to ask the DM about.

As a DM, if a player asked "could I wish to have a permanent fly spell," I'd never say "well, make the wish and find out!"


XP, not GP. My point was, it turns Wish into a decision about concrete parameters rather than a crapshoot that, for many players given this thread, seems to be frustrating. More to the point, players and DM are rarely on the same page as to what an appropriate consequence for actions are, so this would help bridge that gap. Note that this spell would basically be for people able to cast Wish, rather than people e.g. bargaining with an Efreet.

In any event, you don't even need the unique spell really. You could do it with Augury, Contact Other Plane, Commune, etc. Its just that the unique spell helps discourage abusing the generality of those other spells.

[dsmiles]

So by RAW you get either a twisted or partial wish.Not necessarily. That clause includes the word 'may.' There are other ways to make wishes dangerous, and exactly how that wish is made dangerous is up to the DM.

[Wardog]

ERROR 404: WISH NOT FOUND

I like that analogy.




Well, at least it's not:

"Your reality has tried to perform an illegal action and will be shut down. Any unsaved time lines will be lost."





So this is pretty much a fairly straightforward wish:

"I wish you were Lawful Good!"

~Dupliate go go go!~

"No, I rather like being Neutral Evil."

(though of course there is a further problem that a LG black dragon is by no means necessarily going to stop doing whatever it was doing).


Indeed, a LG being may well be vehemently opposed to the idea of forcably changing someone's alignment. Especially if they are the victim.