How many Thing of Infinite Things are there?

[Nettlekid]

I think that "infinite" is one of the most dangerous words in D&D, and probably the universe. To abuse infinity is to truly dominate chaos. With that in mind, I would love to get a short list of all either spells, abilities, or most likely items that can provide an infinite or otherwise unlimited amount of something.

Obvious examples include the Decanter of Endless Water, the Bottle of Endless Sand, the Eversmoking Bottle, and the Bottle of Air I would also count. I'd like to think that the Book of All Knowledge could be used as a "Annoyed Boccob's Book of Infinite Torn Pages." Notable non-examples are the Spool of Endless Rope, Bag of Endless Caltrops, Everfull Mug, and Murylnd's Spoon, all of which suggest that they are unlimited, but are certainly not. Gloves of Endless Javelins is arguable, because it does never run out, but the javelins disappear and so you can't like, pile them up or whatever you want to do with your infinite things.

What other examples of easily wielded infinity are there?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Heir of Syberis can get True Creation at CL 15 as a SLA 2/day.
So, everyday you can create up to 30 cubic feet of whatever you want for free. Like gold. Or platinum. Or pure diamond.
I'm too lazy to do the math but i'm pretty sure that's a lot of cash. :smalltongue:

[Nettlekid]

That's not really what I meant though. After all, there are quite a few objects that allow you to create nonmagical matter. But it's the difference between a caster casting "Create Water" and a Decanter of Endless Water. It's the quantity, not quality, that I'm concerned with here.

[eggynack]

A commoner with chicken infested is a bit of a thing of infinite things.

[fryplink]

An Everfull Basin is one such item, since it'll have water until you tip it over.

[Jsaur]

What's unfortunate is that the Book of Infinite Spells doesn't have an infinite amount of spells. I know that would be overpowered, but maybe they should've called it the Book of Random Spells or something.

[Spuddles]

The abuse of the words 'infinite' and 'random' annoy the hell out of me.

A decanter of endless water isn't infinite water. It only becomes infinite water when time approaches infinity. In which case everything is infinite.

A decanter of endless water isn't even an arbitrarily large amount of water- it has a very fixed amount of water in can produce in any given time period.

In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.

[eggynack]

The abuse of the words 'infinite' and 'random' annoy the hell out of me.

A decanter of endless water isn't infinite water. It only becomes infinite water when time approaches infinity. In which case everything is infinite.

A decanter of endless water isn't even an arbitrarily large amount of water- it has a very fixed amount of water in can produce in any given time period.

In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.
Well, if you're defining time at least partially by how it passes in the real world, you might be correct. However, I think that there are a few things that can be considered infinite. For example, the 1d2 crusader actually deals infinite damage in a manner that is not connected to time. Similarly, chicken infested can provide a nigh infinite amount of chickens, particularly if you can get away with using a spell component pouch as your chicken source. It might take real time to keep saying, "I attempt to pull out a spell component," but within the game you can gain any amount of chickens that you desire within six seconds. I don't know if these things fit your definition of infinity, but they fit mine close enough for me to call them infinite.

[Nettlekid]

An Everfull Basin is one such item, since it'll have water until you tip it over.

Ooh, where's that from? It sounds inferior to the Decanter, but still, might be neat.


The abuse of the words 'infinite' and 'random' annoy the hell out of me.

A decanter of endless water isn't infinite water. It only becomes infinite water when time approaches infinity. In which case everything is infinite.

A decanter of endless water isn't even an arbitrarily large amount of water- it has a very fixed amount of water in can produce in any given time period.

In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.

Well, yes and no. If you look at the word infinite, it is simply non-finite, without end. There is no end to the amount of water that comes out of a Decanter of Endless Water, which means it does exactly what it says on the tin...er, bottle. But point taken, and the above mentioned 1d2 Crusader truly does create an infinite amount of damage in the span of a single attack. Certain readings of the combination of things like Sublime Chord and Knight of the Weave in conjunction might suggest that your CL=CL+2, so your CL is infinite, and anything based on CL (damage, duration) is also infinite. If I recall correctly, there's some weird build that uses Shield Other and Share Pain or something in order to pass along an infinite amount of damage without actually taking it, and then using Masochism to make infinite skill checks. Or something. If you push a metal rod through a pair of Gate Rings and weld it to itself in a straight line so that it falls through straight, it never fully passes through the ring and will fall forever, thus the length of the rod is infinite.

In any case, true, things like the Decanter of Endless Water isn't technically infinite, because it will not instantaneously create an infinite amount of water. But it is endless, and that's enough for our purposes.

[Invader]

Gauntlet of infinite blades and ever burning torch.

[Vedhin]

If you push a metal rod through a pair of Gate Rings and weld it to itself in a straight line so that it falls through straight, it never fully passes through the ring and will fall forever, thus the length of the rod is infinite.

DO NOT DO THIS! Bad things happen to physics when someone does this. Also, you can create warp drives. Or something.
See this thread (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872670/Broken_Super_Symmetry_in_an_Advanced_Theoretic_Gen eral_Relativistic_Interpretation_of?post_id=338468 814#338468814) for more physics-based madness.

[almightycoma]

what purpose is there in doing that to a metal rod? other than for the lols

[Rubik]

A psychoactive skin has indefinite use. You want to heal every single round, forever? Sure. You want to stay in one alternate form forever? Sure. You want to live forever by frequently updating your body to a young adult form? Yes!

[Jack_Simth]

Ooh, where's that from? It sounds inferior to the Decanter, but still, might be neat.
Stronghold Builder's Guide, 3.0, which also includes the Everful Larder (produces simple, nutritious fare every time you open it), and a few other bits of wondrous architecture which are at-will (although most do not produce objects).



what purpose is there in doing that to a metal rod? other than for the lols
It's one of the infinite mechanical energy methods, for one. Weight of the rod makes it fall forever under gravity. It never fully passes through the gates, so it doesn't count against the weight limit. It falls forever... so you press some rubber tires to it, to make the weight of the rod spin the tires. You then attach gears and/or belts to the tires, which you then connect to anything requiring mechanical energy.

[Nettlekid]

Okay, I thought this was really quite obvious, but it looks like several people (well, one) are misunderstanding me. I don't want just a whatever that has infinite uses per day, or a large variety of uses. So many items do that. I want a small list of items that literally create an unlimited amount of *stuff*. Be it water, sand, smoke, air, etc. I once made up a cursed Pot of Many Pots to irritate a pushy Cleric because it multiplied into identical multiplying pots in his bag. Things like that. The Chicken-Infested Cleric and Everfull Basin are both good examples of what I'm looking for. Skin of Proteus is not at all.

[eggynack]

How about the everproducing rice mortar from Oriental Adventures page 140? Once per day, it can make enough rice based products of various kinds to feed 100 people. That's kinda neat.

[Rubik]

Okay, I thought this was really quite obvious, but it looks like several people (well, one) are misunderstanding me. I don't want just a whatever that has infinite uses per day, or a large variety of uses. So many items do that. I want a small list of items that literally create an unlimited amount of *stuff*. Be it water, sand, smoke, air, etc. I once made up a cursed Pot of Many Pots to irritate a pushy Cleric because it multiplied into identical multiplying pots in his bag. Things like that. The Chicken-Infested Cleric and Everfull Basin are both good examples of what I'm looking for. Skin of Proteus is not at all.It does produce infinite healing. And you could probably produce infinite other things, if you take the right form. For instance, monstrous spider could let you produce infinite webbing. Take the form once, produce webbing, change to a spider again, produce mor webbing, and so on.

A ring of three wishes can wish for more rings of three wishes -- three per ring.

[Jack_Simth]

Stronghold Builder's Guide, 3.0, which also includes the Everful Larder (produces simple, nutritious fare every time you open it), and a few other bits of wondrous architecture which are at-will (although most do not produce objects).



It's one of the infinite mechanical energy methods, for one. Weight of the rod makes it fall forever under gravity. It never fully passes through the gates, so it doesn't count against the weight limit. It falls forever... so you press some rubber tires to it, to make the weight of the rod spin the tires. You then attach gears and/or belts to the tires, which you then connect to anything requiring mechanical energy.

Oh, hey: And if you combine the Everful Basin with the infinite mechanical energy method of a couple of Welded Rod Ring gates, you can produce water (via splashing) faster than a Decanter!

[Rubik]

Resetting traps / spell clocks / spell turrets could produce infinite things, depending on what spells you make them from.

[Nettlekid]

How about the everproducing rice mortar from Oriental Adventures page 140? Once per day, it can make enough rice based products of various kinds to feed 100 people. That's kinda neat.

That goes in the category along with Bag of Endless Caltrops and Everfull Mug, in that although it does provide quite a lot of stuff, it's not by any means unlimited. If it was enchanted such that if you tipped it upside down, and rice just kept pouring out of it forever, that would be what I'm looking for. But rice for 100 is quite a lot. How much rice is that?


Oh, hey: And if you combine the Everful Basin with the infinite mechanical energy method of a couple of Welded Rod Ring gates, you can produce water (via splashing) faster than a Decanter!

I'm very curious about this Everful Basin, having looked at it in the SBG. What would happen if you tipped it on its side, so you're pouring out the water but there's always some in it? Or what if you drilled a hole in the bottom to the same effect? Or maybe put it on some spinning thing, so the water sloshed out much like you've mentioned? I like this thing, in any case.


*two snips*
You still aren't really getting what I'm saying. Or at least, you're not suggesting things which fit into the same category as the others that people are suggesting. Yes, you could use those things to create a lot of stuff. No, that's not their purpose, nor are they a Thing of Infinite Things. Hiring 4800 1st level Clerics and having them cast Create Water once a round all day is not at all in the same spirit as having a Decanter of Endless Water or an Everful Basin. Having a resetting spell trap of Hail of Stone isn't a Thingy of Infinite Pebbles. It's just the spirit of it.

[Rubik]

You still aren't really getting what I'm saying. Or at least, you're not suggesting things which fit into the same category as the others that people are suggesting. Yes, you could use those things to create a lot of stuff. No, that's not their purpose, nor are they a Thing of Infinite Things. Hiring 4800 1st level Clerics and having them cast Create Water once a round all day is not at all in the same spirit as having a Decanter of Endless Water or an Everful Basin. Having a resetting spell trap of Hail of Stone isn't a Thingy of Infinite Pebbles. It's just the spirit of it.So getting infinite stuff isn't getting infinite stuff? Sorry, but your logic is in another castle.

[xkaliburr]

The strangest infinite thing actually comes from pathfinder, and it is the bag of everlasting dung. This is the most ridiculous item I have seen in a game.

[eggynack]

That goes in the category along with Bag of Endless Caltrops and Everfull Mug, in that although it does provide quite a lot of stuff, it's not by any means unlimited. If it was enchanted such that if you tipped it upside down, and rice just kept pouring out of it forever, that would be what I'm looking for. But rice for 100 is quite a lot. How much rice is that?

Fair enough. It fits into one of these weird infinite subcategories of infinity, but probably one of the lower tier ones. We need an arbitrary infinite tier list. Anyways, I have no idea how much rice it is. It looks like it can produce any food or drink, though all of the example foodstuff appears to be rice based. If you broadly define a "person" to include rational non-humanoids, the amount that can be produced is a bit on the ambiguous side. It looks like most definitions are human based, but that might largely be due to the limited breadth of rational species where we are. It's not too hard to justify making enough food for one hundred giants.

[xkaliburr]

So getting infinite stuff isn't getting infinite stuff? Sorry, but your logic is in another castle.

This thread is not about getting infinite things, it is about items that have infinite items. For instance, my above posted bag of everlasting dung. We do not need to know how you get everlasting dung, just that there is a bag creating infinite amounts of animal feces.

[Rubik]

This thread is not about getting infinite things, it is about items that have infinite items. For instance, my above posted bag of everlasting dung. We do not need to know how you get everlasting dung, just that there is a bag creating infinite amounts of animal feces.And a repeating trap of True Creation can create an everlasting amount of whatever you set it to.

[Nettlekid]

So getting infinite stuff isn't getting infinite stuff? Sorry, but your logic is in another castle.

I don't have to explain the difference to you, do I? Do you really need to be walked through this? Because it's not difficult. There are many ways acquire an unlimited amount of whatever. An auto-resetting trap of Polymorph Any Object activating on each grain of sand in a desert would give you as many *object* as there are grains of sand in a desert. But it isn't an "Item of Infinite Items." I guess the easiest working definition of an "Item of Infinite Items" would be something you could, say, tip on its side and pour out a continuous, non-discrete supply of the item it supplied. So, in the PaO trap example above, it could create a block of whatever every six seconds, and you could roll those blocks out on a conveyor belt and have an effectively limitless number of blocks, but it's just packets of blocks. It doesn't have the feeling of endlessness. While a Decanter of Endless Water will just keep flowing and flowing, never stopping, not even to auto-reset as the trap would.

Look at the difference between a Resetting Trap of Create Water, and a Decanter of Endless Water. There are differences. Suggest things that fit the criteria of a DoEW, and not which ONLY fit the criteria of a RToCW.

[Starbuck_II]

A ring of three wishes can wish for more rings of three wishes -- three per ring.

Yes and No.
It can't create one (as it doesn't have the extra EXP built into it).
If you wish for one (but not by creating), the DM is told he should twist the wish.
So you can but sounds dangerous.

[Spuddles]

Well, if you're defining time at least partially by how it passes in the real world, you might be correct. However, I think that there are a few things that can be considered infinite. For example, the 1d2 crusader actually deals infinite damage in a manner that is not connected to time. Similarly, chicken infested can provide a nigh infinite amount of chickens, particularly if you can get away with using a spell component pouch as your chicken source. It might take real time to keep saying, "I attempt to pull out a spell component," but within the game you can gain any amount of chickens that you desire within six seconds. I don't know if these things fit your definition of infinity, but they fit mine close enough for me to call them infinite.

Nested sanctum spell arcane fusion or chain gating titans do similar things. But, that just gets you all the counting numbers.

Which is infinite, depending on the notation you use. Otherwise, it's practically infinitely large. The 1d2 crusader does some arbitrarily large amount of damage in a finite set of time, which gives you N0. It doesn't contain the set of all damage.

[Nettlekid]

Nested sanctum spell arcane fusion or chain gating titans do similar things. But, that just gets you all the counting numbers.

Which is infinite, depending on the notation you use. Otherwise, it's practically infinitely large. The 1d2 crusader does some arbitrarily large amount of damage in a finite set of time, which gives you N0. It doesn't contain the set of all damage.

I'm not sure I agree with you there, on the d2 Crusader bit. Pun-Pun's stats are arbitrarily large without being infinite, as they are discrete values. The d2 Crusader's damage NEVER STOPS. In the course of less than 6 seconds, you get an unlimited amount of damage. The damage per time value is infinite.

[Dimers]

Lessee, troll gut rope doesn't work ...

Really, all I can come up with is the anti-Thing-of-Infinite-Things, the bag of devouring. That bow enchantment that doubles arrows is related, but doesn't fit within the tighter definition.

I used to love these back when I did AD&D. I gave my party a Rope Loop of Infinite Mint Oatmeal and a Ring of Infinite Peach Brandy. Mind you, that was the same group where we researched and copied into our spellbooks a stinking cloud upgrade called Hornung's Magnificent Fart ...

EDIT: There oughta be a Car of Infinite Clowns. Possibly zombie clowns for D&D purposes. Staggering out, moaning "Yuuuks ... yuks ..."

[Rubik]

How about a splitting raptor arrow?

[Nettlekid]

How about a splitting raptor arrow?

I've wondered about that. I don't think a Splitting Raptor Arrow works because Splitting does state that the arrow splits into two non-splitting versions of the same arrow. But I think a Raptor Arrow shot out of a Splitting Bow might work just fine.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Heir of Syberis can get True Creation at CL 15 as a SLA 2/day.
So, everyday you can create up to 30 cubic feet of whatever you want for free. Like gold. Or platinum. Or pure diamond.
I'm too lazy to do the math but i'm pretty sure that's a lot of cash. :smalltongue:

Doesn't work - it was errata'd.

There's the ...decanter? of Endless Sand from Sandstorm as well.

[Fenryr]

Quiver of Plenty from Dragon Magazine gives you any number of normal, silver and cold iron arrows. They dissapear one round later if they leave your hand, tho.

[Chronos]

I still don't see the distinction between a self-resetting trap of Create Water and a Decanter of Endless Water. Put the trap at the top of a big tank, with a hole in the bottom sized such that it lets water out at the same rate that it's (on average) created. You now have a tank with water continually pouring out of one end, just like the Decanter.

On the ring gate idea, I don't see how the rod being welded prevents you from hitting the weight limit. It seems to me that it'll fall for a while, then hit the limit and stop. Better would be a Permanencied Reverse Gravity, and a vertical flywheel half in the field and half out.

[Nettlekid]

I still don't see the distinction between a self-resetting trap of Create Water and a Decanter of Endless Water. Put the trap at the top of a big tank, with a hole in the bottom sized such that it lets water out at the same rate that it's (on average) created. You now have a tank with water continually pouring out of one end, just like the Decanter.

On the ring gate idea, I don't see how the rod being welded prevents you from hitting the weight limit. It seems to me that it'll fall for a while, then hit the limit and stop. Better would be a Permanencied Reverse Gravity, and a vertical flywheel half in the field and half out.

The difference is that one comes out in discrete bursts, making some amount of water every six seconds, while the other is continuous. One has the feel of endless, the other has the feel of assembly line. But if you don't get the difference, then just...well, assume that other people do, because they do, and let them take care of the discussion.

The Ring Gate would let it fall forever because objects partially extended through the gate and then pulled back don't count toward the weight limit. Thus, only something which has passed through the ring in its entirety counts toward the limit. The welded metal rod never passes through in its entirety. The gate doesn't have a means to distinguish what the "end" of the rod is (we might decide that the welded part marks the beginning and end), it just knows that there's matter passing through it, and not to count that mass until there is no longer matter passing through it. If you allowed the bar to fall two rod length, and then pushed it back that same length, unwelded the bar, and pulled it out of the gate, the gate would not count those passes to its daily limit. So the limit doesn't get maxed out by the falling rod.

[DuncanMacleod]

Similarly, chicken infested can provide a nigh infinite amount of chickens
I'm sorry, what on earth does "nigh infinite" mean. It's either infinite or it's not (there are some infinities that are bigger than other infinities if you really want to get into maths, but they are all infinite). There is no such thing as nearly infinite, as that would be finite, and as such infinitely less than infinite. The same is true of "quite unique".

[Jack_Simth]

I'm sorry, what on earth does "nigh infinite" mean. It's either infinite or it's not (there are some infinities that are bigger than other infinities if you really want to get into maths, but they are all infinite). There is no such thing as nearly infinite, as that would be finite, and as such infinitely less than infinite. The same is true of "quite unique".
In this case, it appears to be used to mean an unbounded number - that is, chickens without limit, although at any given moment, it will have only produced some finite number of chickens. Consider the function f(x)=x/2. For any given value of x, f(x) is finite. However, there is no limit on what the result of the function f(x) could potentially be.

And likewise, if you're precise enough, you can put meaningful qualifiers on 'unique' - at least for common parlance. If there is only one other tree like this one, and that tree is scheduled for demolition next month, then this tree is 'almost unique'. If you wish to count the specific arrangement of molecules, then *everything* is unique, and unique becomes a meaningless term. It is a relatively straightforward matter to make a 'uniqueness metric' that measures how unique a given thing is based on how much detail you need to go into to distinguish the thing from other things (in such a paradigm, that water bottle is barely unique at all, an egg is only a tiny amount unique, the Mona Lisa is extremely unique, and so on).

So I strongly disagree with your apparent binary view on the term 'unique'.

[DuncanMacleod]

Unique is entirely binary. Sorry. The tree isn't "almost unique", it's soon to be unique. Unique, by definition, means there is only one, hence the "uni". I agree that it's possible to state that everything is unique and as such it may be a meaningless term, but still nothing can be almost unique. As for infinite, no number of finite quantities can ever make an infinity, even if they are added infinitely often.

From the OED:

adjective

being the only one of its kind; unlike anything else:

[eggynack]

In this case, it appears to be used to mean an unbounded number - that is, chickens without limit, although at any given moment, it will have only produced some finite number of chickens. Consider the function f(x)=x/2. For any given value of x, f(x) is finite. However, there is no limit on what the result of the function f(x) could potentially be.

Yeah, that's about what I meant. There's no number that you can't reach on an instantaneous basis, but there's no such number as infinity. The amount of chickens you can acquire isn't quite infinite, but it's close enough for our purposes, because it's completely unbounded.

[DuncanMacleod]

I have no problem with the statement that you can create an unbounded number of chickens, lmao. But again, "isn't quite infinite" is meaningless... it's either infinite or infinitely far from infinite.

[eggynack]

As for infinite, no number of finite quantities can ever make an infinity, even if they are added infinitely often.

Exactly. Hence, it's not infinite. It's nigh-infinite. The amount of chickens you get approaches infinity, but it will never reach it, because that's how infinity works. It's not all that confusing, really.

[DuncanMacleod]

Lol, no, it's not near infinity, it doesn't approach infinity, it's infinitely far from infinity. Whatever number you're at, you could still double it an infinite number of times and it is still a finite number. Ad infinitum.

[eggynack]

Lol, no, it's not near infinity, it's doesn't approach infinity, it's infinitely far from infinity.
I think you're missing the point a little. the fact of the matter is, the amount of chickens you have access to is essentially infinite for any purpose you can name. If you say, "give me a billion chickens, for I desire them," I can give them to you in six seconds. Indeed, I can do that forever. In other words, the amount of chickens I have access to can never be reduced to zero. My supply of chickens is completely and totally unlimited. For every number that exists, there is an equal amount of chickens that I can give you. It might not necessarily be infinite, because you probably have to actually name a number at the end of the day, but it's close enough.

Edit: To put it a different way, name a number of chickens I don't have. Just as you can always name a number one higher, and can thus never reach infinity, so too can you always name a number of chickens one higher, and can thus never reach my chicken supply. They're roughly equivalent, if not necessarily completely equivalent.

[DuncanMacleod]

As I said, I have no problem with the statement that you have an unbounded number of chickens, which is exactly what you are saying. Anyway, going to leave it there before we counter post an unbounded number of times.

[Nettlekid]

*several snips*

Having recently taken some college (and high school, if memory serves) level math and/or physics course, where distinctions between different degrees of infinity come up regularly, I beg to differ.

The limit of x2-x as x goes to infinity is infinity. The limit of x2+x as x goes to infinity is also infinity. The limit of (x2-x)/(x2+x) as x goes to infinity is 1. This is not because they are equal, as (x2-x)-(x2+x) gives -2x, not 0. There are varying levels of infinity. Some infinities are bigger than others. When x=infinity, x3-x2=infinity, and that is akin to saying infinity-infinity=infinity. But x2-x2 is also infinity-infinity, and that equals 0. And x-x2 is ALSO infinity-infinity, and that equals -infinity. Now, you may argue that all of these limits suggest that we're using infinity in place of "arbitrarily large." Name a single instance in which that is not true of the word infinity. Anything that we call infinity we can only ever use to mean arbitrarily large, since we can't reach the end to verify that it doesn't have one.

BUT I DON'T CARE ABOUT THAT.

Because the point of this thread is not to start an existentialist debate on the nature of infinity. The point of this thread is to make a short and very finite list of the magical objects in D&D which made potentially spurious claims about having an infinite, endless, limitless, or otherwise unbound by quantity supply of a material.

Because people feel compelled to argue the point, I will narrow down the criteria such that the object in question must be an item (not a spell or other ability as I had originally put up for discussion), with a listed price in a book under the format Price: _____ gp (thus disqualifying any level of custom magic item, including spell traps), and through the use of its power alone with no second step required, creates the aforementioned dubiously unlimited supply of material (which disqualifies objects like Skin of Proteus, because it is only by using it and then using a subdivision of its power can you create the material; simply activating the Skin of Proteus on its own does begin to produce the material.)

I thank everyone who has already contributed productively to the discussion with comments of Everful Basins, Splitting Raptor Arrows, and the suggestion of the Everproducing Rice Mortar, and heartily welcome any other obscure suggestions which are similar in nature to those, hopefully without the need to diverge into discussion regarding precise dictionary definitions of any of D&D's occasionally limited lexicon. Thank. You.

[Zanos]

Yes and No.
It can't create one (as it doesn't have the extra EXP built into it).
If you wish for one (but not by creating), the DM is told he should twist the wish.
So you can but sounds dangerous.
Creating a magic item is on the list of pre-approved wishes under the wish spell, and RAW gives no price limit on the magic items you can wish for.

[DuncanMacleod]

Sigh. Please see my earlier post in which I stated that some infinities are bigger than others. No, that doesn't mean we are using infinity as another word for arbitrarily large. This is DnD, most of us are nerds with science degrees. That still doesn't mean a finite number is an infinity. Peace out, bye.

[eggynack]

Sigh. Please see my earlier post in which I stated that some infinities are bigger than others. This is DnD, most of us are nerds with science degrees. That still doesn't mean a finite number is an infinity. Peace out, bye.
Well, if you want to get technical, some infinities are bigger than others, but I'm pretty sure that all of those Nettlekid posted infinities are of equal size. Differently sized infinities would be something like the comparison between the set of all integers, and the set of all irrational numbers. It's just a neat thing of some kind.

[Rubik]

Gloves of endless +1 javelins, from the MIC.

If you add sizing and morphing to the raptor arrows and splitting to the bow thereof, you can use the combo to make infinite of any weapons you like. Granted, that takes extra steps...so never mind.

[Nettlekid]

Gloves of endless +1 javelins, from the MIC.

Mentioned in the OP already.

[Rubik]

Black sand, from Libris Mortis, I believe.

Any living creature killed by black sand makes more black sand.

Though I suppose that doesn't count, either.

[DuncanMacleod]

Well, if you want to get technical, some infinities are bigger than others, but I'm pretty sure that all of those Nettlekid posted infinities are of equal size. Differently sized infinities would be something like the comparison between the set of all integers, and the set of all irrational numbers. It's just a neat thing of some kind.

Yes, at glance, all of those Nettlekid posted are. Yes yes, set of all positive integers, set of all integers, set of all real numbers, yada yada yada... the point is, YOU CAN'T CREATE AN INFINTE NUMBER OF CHICKENS IN DND BY RAW!!!! Lmfoa, I have enjoyed this.

[Nettlekid]

Black sand, from Libris Mortis, I believe.

Any living creature killed by black sand makes more black sand.

Though I suppose that doesn't count, either.

Not really, since that's just propagation, and with a pretty slow turnaround time. You might as well say that all zombies are Zombies of Infinite Zombies with that same reasoning.

[Rubik]

Not really, since that's just propagation, and with a pretty slow turnaround time. You might as well say that all zombies are Zombies of Infinite Zombies with that same reasoning.Except zombies don't create zombies.

I assume that a holy arrow + Evil commoner = self-replicating wight plague (meaning holy arrow = potentially unbounded number of wights) doesn't count, too.

[Nettlekid]

Except zombies don't create zombies.

I assume that a holy arrow + Evil commoner = self-replicating wight plague (meaning holy arrow = potentially unbounded number of wights) doesn't count, too.

Huh, right you are. Weird, how that's like the one undead that doesn't, even though that's what they're famous for in lore. Fine, Wights then.

And you assume correctly. Since you've been doing a good job knowing what I'm NOT looking for, there's no need to post them.

[eggynack]

Yes, at glance, all of those Nettlekid posted are. Yes yes, set of all positive integers, set of all integers, set of all real numbers, yada yada yada... the point is, YOU CAN'T CREATE AN INFINTE NUMBER OF CHICKENS IN DND BY RAW!!!! Lmfoa, I have enjoyed this.
Actually, the set all positive integers and the set of all integers are equally infinite. It's only when you get to irrational numbers that the infinities become larger. There's a whole explanation of it hereabouts (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/2292.html) if you're interested.

[Mithril Leaf]

I'm not sure I agree with you there, on the d2 Crusader bit. Pun-Pun's stats are arbitrarily large without being infinite, as they are discrete values. The d2 Crusader's damage NEVER STOPS. In the course of less than 6 seconds, you get an unlimited amount of damage. The damage per time value is infinite.

Not true, you simply aren't up to date on the Up To Date List of Pun-Pun's Abilities (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2705.0). Incidentally, that thread has a very relevant discussion of the nature of infinite things in D&D.
Items seem fairly well covered, although some items can be made to produce infinite things if you cheese them, such as the lyre of building.

[Dimers]

Yes, at glance, all of those Nettlekid posted are. Yes yes, set of all positive integers, set of all integers, set of all real numbers, yada yada yada... the point is, YOU CAN'T CREATE AN INFINTE NUMBER OF CHICKENS IN DND BY RAW!!!! Lmfoa, I have enjoyed this.

Dude. You can't create an infinite ... number. Period. :smallsigh:

Sorry, OP, nothing new to report.

[Chronos]

Quoth Nettlekid:

The difference is that one comes out in discrete bursts, making some amount of water every six seconds, while the other is continuous.
No, both are continuous. The trapped tank's flow rate will vary ever-so-slightly with a six-second period, but we can make the variation as small as we'd like, and the water is always flowing.

[Spuddles]

but there's no such number as infinity

Sets, not numbers. It won't be a number use to express the value.

AFAIK, there's no way in D&D to obtain a set bigger than an arbitrarily large integer. So most methods get you n+1 of something, where n approaches infinity.

I suppose a d2 Crusader could have damage: all of it, save for the actual method requiring you to roll it out. Likewise, Chain Gating things with Gate runs into issues of space to Gate things into.

Perhaps nested Arcane Fusions can legitimately have orbs of fire: all of them. You'd have N0 Orbs of Fire. But there's no mechanical way (that I know of) to get N1, or larger, of anything.

[Xelbiuj]

The abuse of the words 'infinite' and 'random' annoy the hell out of me.

A decanter of endless water isn't infinite water. It only becomes infinite water when time approaches infinity. In which case everything is infinite.

A decanter of endless water isn't even an arbitrarily large amount of water- it has a very fixed amount of water in can produce in any given time period.

In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Familiar at all with set theory?

Just because you can't count to . . . hell I'll pick an arbitrarily low number for 44 quadrillion doesn't mean that the integers isn't an infinite set. A "flow limit" has no bearing on whether something is infinite or not.

[Nettlekid]

No, both are continuous. The trapped tank's flow rate will vary ever-so-slightly with a six-second period, but we can make the variation as small as we'd like, and the water is always flowing.

I don't want Spell Traps, period. There is a difference, it's in the general feeling and spirit of it. I want cataloged items, from a book, nothing that's been custom made, named something along the lines of "Everblanking Blank" or "Eternally Full Blank" or "Blank of Endless Blank" or "Perpetual Blanking Blank". Is that really too difficult to understand? Are you having that much trouble? Because it's not difficult. You can do it, I promise.

[eggynack]

I don't want Spell Traps, period. There is a difference, it's in the general feeling and spirit of it. I want cataloged items, from a book, nothing that's been custom made, named something along the lines of "Everblanking Blank" or "Eternally Full Blank" or "Blank of Endless Blank" or "Perpetual Blanking Blank". Is that really too difficult to understand? Are you having that much trouble? Because it's not difficult. You can do it, I promise.
Y'know, there could always be a thing that you don't want, and other people do want. There's some kinda "death of the thread creator" factor involved. What I'm saying, in essence, is that things would probably go a lot faster for everyone's purposes if we just accepted that different people have different definitions of a thing that creates infinite things. We can say that a bunch of elans casting create water repeatedly is "infinite", and set it aside, and say that skin of the proteus is "infinite", and set it aside, and say that the everful basin is "infinite", and set that aside too. Things would probably go a lot faster if we didn't have to have these weird meta-arguments about what fits into your particular definition of things.

[eggynack]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Familiar at all with set theory?

Just because you can't count to . . . hell I'll pick an arbitrarily low number for 44 quadrillion doesn't mean that the integers isn't an infinite set. A "flow limit" has no bearing on whether something is infinite or not.
I disagree on this one. a decanter of endless water and integers are different, because at some point someone's going to ask you for so much water that the multiverse will collapse into nothingness by the time it gets created. There might be an actual limit on the total quantity of water that can be produced as a result, while there is no limit on the amount of integers or chickens that can theoretically be produced.

[Nettlekid]

Y'know, there could always be a thing that you don't want, and other people do want. There's some kinda "death of the thread creator" factor involved. What I'm saying, in essence, is that things would probably go a lot faster for everyone's purposes if we just accepted that different people have different definitions of a thing that creates infinite things. We can say that a bunch of elans casting create water repeatedly is "infinite", and set it aside, and say that skin of the proteus is "infinite", and set it aside, and say that the everful basin is "infinite", and set that aside too. Things would probably go a lot faster if we didn't have to have these weird meta-arguments about what fits into your particular definition of things.

The fact of the matter is that I'm getting really fed up with having to argue my purpose on so many threads these days. I started this thread because I'm looking for items that fit my definition of what I want a Thing of Infinite Things to be. Some people come and offer suggestions which match my definition, and we discuss those. Some people come and offer suggestions which do not, and I say that they aren't what I'm looking for. And then those people argue that they are indeed what I am looking for. And then the thread is derailed with arguments about semantics and dictionary definitions. If they want to make their own list of what they consider sufficiently fulfilling this criteria, then they can go ahead. But I made the thread for my purposes, and I'm not going to take kindly to discussions which run counter to those purposes, or telling me those purposes are wrong.

Similarly, you say this thread would go "faster" if people just tossed in whatever. I disagree. There might be more posts, but since I have a goal in mind, posts which don't add to that goal do not progress the thread at all. I would prefer to stomp out potential for side conversations which do not in my eyes further the thread, instead of indulging them and getting off topic, as we have, because too many people wanted to argue semantics. My suggestion is to start a new thread on a similar topic ("Can anything in D&D be truly infinite?" for example) and continue there. Take the initiative yourselves.

[Spuddles]

That word doesn't mean what you think it means.
Familiar at all with set theory?

Just because you can't count to . . . hell I'll pick an arbitrarily low number for 44 quadrillion doesn't mean that the integers isn't an infinite set. A "flow limit" has no bearing on whether something is infinite or not.

If we're talking about the set "integers", sure. But we are not. There's a functional difference between a mechanic that contains all of something in a finite amount (d2 crusader, arcane fusion exploit) vs. a mechanic that approaches infinity when evaluated to infinity.

[Spuddles]

The fact of the matter is that I'm getting really fed up with having to argue my purpose on so many threads these days. I started this thread because I'm looking for items that fit my definition of what I want a Thing of Infinite Things to be. Some people come and offer suggestions which match my definition, and we discuss those. Some people come and offer suggestions which do not, and I say that they aren't what I'm looking for. And then those people argue that they are indeed what I am looking for. And then the thread is derailed with arguments about semantics and dictionary definitions. If they want to make their own list of what they consider sufficiently fulfilling this criteria, then they can go ahead. But I made the thread for my purposes, and I'm not going to take kindly to discussions which run counter to those purposes, or telling me those purposes are wrong.

Similarly, you say this thread would go "faster" if people just tossed in whatever. I disagree. There might be more posts, but since I have a goal in mind, posts which don't add to that goal do not progress the thread at all. I would prefer to stomp out potential for side conversations which do not in my eyes further the thread, instead of indulging them and getting off topic, as we have, because too many people wanted to argue semantics. My suggestion is to start a new thread on a similar topic ("Can anything in D&D be truly infinite?" for example) and continue there. Take the initiative yourselves.

Calm down, bro. We're just having a friendly discussion here. Next time, be a little more clear in the OP, yeah?

[eggynack]

The fact of the matter is that I'm getting really fed up with having to argue my purpose on so many threads these days. I started this thread because I'm looking for items that fit my definition of what I want a Thing of Infinite Things to be. Some people come and offer suggestions which match my definition, and we discuss those. Some people come and offer suggestions which do not, and I say that they aren't what I'm looking for. And then those people argue that they are indeed what I am looking for. And then the thread is derailed with arguments about semantics and dictionary definitions. If they want to make their own list of what they consider sufficiently fulfilling this criteria, then they can go ahead. But I made the thread for my purposes, and I'm not going to take kindly to discussions which run counter to those purposes, or telling me those purposes are wrong.

Similarly, you say this thread would go "faster" if people just tossed in whatever. I disagree. There might be more posts, but since I have a goal in mind, posts which don't add to that goal do not progress the thread at all. I would prefer to stomp out potential for side conversations which do not in my eyes further the thread, instead of indulging them and getting off topic, as we have, because too many people wanted to argue semantics. My suggestion is to start a new thread on a similar topic ("Can anything in D&D be truly infinite?" for example) and continue there. Take the initiative yourselves.
But I'm saying that you'll probably achieve your goal anyway, and will probably get bonus definitions for free. If I just post everything that I consider infinite, and some amount of it fits your definition, everyone comes away happy. It can be worth justifying that something is infinite, just for the general joy that comes from a point well proved, but you're not going to get everyone to conform to the inner workings of your mind.

It's not like I'm going to not post some item if it has the words "everX whatevers" out of some weird sense that it's off topic. I find that it's often better to be inclusive rather than exclusive, at least until people start really going off topic. I figure that as long as people are still talking about things that are infinite, this thread is running pretty smoothly. Like, I haven't yet said that monks are items of infinite suck (until now), and then some other guy says that they're really items of infinite rock, and then this becomes a thread about what tier monks are in. Also, in your attempts to mitigate the flow of conversations that you consider "off topic", you're actually exacerbating the issue. If skin of the proteus is off topic, then a meta-discussion about how it doesn't fit your feelings on the thread is recursively off topic. It's a bad thing.

[Qwertystop]

If you say, "give me a billion chickens, for I desire them," I can give them to you in six seconds. Indeed, I can do that forever. In other words, the amount of chickens I have access to can never be reduced to zero. My supply of chickens is completely and totally unlimited. For every number that exists, there is an equal amount of chickens that I can give you.

This is the best excerpt. Can I sig it?

[eggynack]

This is the best excerpt. Can I sig it?
You may indeed. I'm beginning to suspect that I should just talk about chicken infested all the time, if people keep sigging stuff that I say relating to it. :smallbiggrin:

[Nettlekid]

Calm down, bro. We're just having a friendly discussion here. Next time, be a little more clear in the OP, yeah?

No, next time (and this time), don't argue with me with regard to what I want. I try to be diplomatic, and instead of eliminating entire categories of potential answers in the original post, I open it up and eliminate suggestions on a case by case basis. I was forced to then define what I wanted with rigid terms because people wouldn't shut up about spell traps, despite me saying that they weren't what I was looking for (which really should have been the end of it), and in that rigid definition I locked myself out of potential answers that I could have used, such as my curiosity about ripping pages out of a Book of All Knowledge which was what sparked me into making this thread. Under my new definition, that won't fit, which means it no longer has a place in the discussion, despite it being an initial question of mine. Because people refuse to acknowledge their input as unwanted, it stifles the creative process.

On a wider scale, this is the same issue I have with TO and how irritated I am with what people somewhat appropriately, somewhat ironically call "practical optimization." Nearly every time I ask a question with regard to "How to accomplish X in an interesting way?" I end up bombarded with "Make a Spell Trap to-" "Create an Ice Assassin of a Blah and Fusion then Astral Seed and-" "Use Genesis to make a fast time plane and-" and none of those are actually useful to me. When people refuse to accept that I want something that I might find more entertaining or fun, despite being technically a less than perfectly efficient way of doing it, then the process breaks down. If every question is met with the same answers, then it's one step away from "Why not just not play D&D, and then you don't have to worry about it?"

So no, do not tell me to calm down. Do not tell me to clarify myself. I will become angry if people anger me, and I am clear unless someone decides to disagree with my opinion when it is my opinion that is the question, at which point there's not much I can do.

EDIT:
*snip*
I do understand and appreciate that, but what happens is that when people start talking about what I personally would prefer to be taken to a different thread, then the entire thread becomes about that. It's not my intent to start a new meta-discussion about definitions, but because people refuse to accept that I don't want what they suggest, it becomes that way. If they said "Skin of Proteus" and I said "No, not what I'm looking for" and they said "Hm, okay, what about this instead", that would be good. What happens is "Skin of Proteus." "No, not what I'm looking for." "Yes it is, you said this, and this is that." "No, it's not, it's different." "It's the same, you're being dumb." "It's not what I want" ETC ETC ETC. And that is bad, I agree.

[Qwertystop]

No, next time (and this time), don't argue with me with regard to what I want. I try to be diplomatic, and instead of eliminating entire categories of potential answers in the original post, I open it up and eliminate suggestions on a case by case basis. I was forced to then define what I wanted with rigid terms because people wouldn't shut up about spell traps, despite me saying that they weren't what I was looking for (which really should have been the end of it), and in that rigid definition I locked myself out of potential answers that I could have used, such as my curiosity about ripping pages out of a Book of All Knowledge which was what sparked me into making this thread. Under my new definition, that won't fit, which means it no longer has a place in the discussion, despite it being an initial question of mine. Because people refuse to acknowledge their input as unwanted, it stifles the creative process.

On a wider scale, this is the same issue I have with TO and how irritated I am with what people somewhat appropriately, somewhat ironically call "practical optimization." Nearly every time I ask a question with regard to "How to accomplish X in an interesting way?" I end up bombarded with "Make a Spell Trap to-" "Create an Ice Assassin of a Blah and Fusion then Astral Seed and-" "Use Genesis to make a fast time plane and-" and none of those are actually useful to me. When people refuse to accept that I want something that I might find more entertaining or fun, despite being technically a less than perfectly efficient way of doing it, then the process breaks down. If every question is met with the same answers, then it's one step away from "Why not just not play D&D, and then you don't have to worry about it?"

So no, do not tell me to calm down. Do not tell me to clarify myself. I will become angry if people anger me, and I am clear unless someone refuses to understand me, at which point there's not much I can do.

Something you seem to be failing to understand:

Just because you made the thread doesn't mean that you're in charge of it or that you're the only one who gets things out of it. The former only applies to homebrew projects and similar things, and the latter is never true by default.

You ask for something, and it provokes discussion. You can skim the discussion for the stuff you want, or you can rage and ignore it all, or you can rage and skim at the same time. You can't do anything to stop people from talking about things that are mostly on-topic but don't quite fit within your exact criteria, and implicitly insulting a person's intelligence won't help you do anything.

[Nettlekid]

Something you seem to be failing to understand:

Just because you made the thread doesn't mean that you're in charge of it or that you're the only one who gets things out of it. The former only applies to homebrew projects and similar things, and the latter is never true by default.

You ask for something, and it provokes discussion. You can skim the discussion for the stuff you want, or you can rage and ignore it all, or you can rage and skim at the same time. You can't do anything to stop people from talking about things that are mostly on-topic but don't quite fit within your exact criteria, and implicitly insulting a person's intelligence won't help you do anything.

I know I can't do anything to stop it, but I do request as much. Yes, it's true that the thread is there for anyone and everyone. But what is also true is that I made the thread for a purpose, and if the purpose isn't being fulfilled, then there's not much point in me having made it. If side conversations like these are anathema to the purpose of it, then I think it makes sense that they should not be occurring. They can occur somewhere else where they are helpful to that purpose, fine, but why keep them where they are not?

[eggynack]

I know I can't do anything to stop it, but I do request as much. Yes, it's true that the thread is there for anyone and everyone. But what is also true is that I made the thread for a purpose, and if the purpose isn't being fulfilled, then there's not much point in me having made it. If side conversations like these are anathema to the purpose of it, then I think it makes sense that they should not be occurring. They can occur somewhere else where they are helpful to that purpose, fine, but why keep them where they are not?
Is the goal of your thread really not being fulfilled? I can't really think of too many more things that fit this precise definition, but I've gotta guess that if someone finds something fitting your parameters, they'll post it. There might be some stuff you don't care about in the middle, but it's really not that big of a deal.

[Nettlekid]

Is the goal of your thread really not being fulfilled? I can't really think of too many more things that fit this precise definition, but I've gotta guess that if someone finds something fitting your parameters, they'll post it. There might be some stuff you don't care about in the middle, but it's really not that big of a deal.

Fortunately there have been some people who have been helpful, though I do point out that they were right in the beginning, before less helpful people derailed it with semantics. I also can't think of many more items of the sort, which is why I made the thread, since I'm sure there are people who are well-acquainted with obscure sourcebooks I don't know. What I don't want is for people to be so deterred by too much unrelated banter and discussion that they decide not to post. That's happened to me on a number of occasions.

[Spuddles]

That's happened to me on a number of occasions.

Not sure you've noticed, but it happens in virtually every thread on the whole internet.

Don't take this so personally, brah.

I apologize for the offtopic discussion, and if I think of anything that fits what you're looking for (angrily clarified on page 2, I think), I'll let you know.

Anyone mention Troll Gut Rope yet? MIC.

[Nettlekid]

Not sure you've noticed, but it happens in virtually every thread on the whole internet.

Don't take this so personally, brah.

No, you misunderstood. I said that I didn't want people to be intimidated by number of off-topic posts and not post their own comments, which has happened to me frequently in the past, in that I've seen a thread that has long since diverged from its original intent and so I have not contributed to that original intent, even though perhaps the original poster would have preferred that I had.

EDIT: YES people have mentioned Troll Gut Rope, and NO it doesn't fit in any of the working definitions we have for a Thing of Infinite Things. If you could grow it, cut off a piece, and that piece immediately regrew and you could cut that new piece off, then it would fit well enough. But it all rots too soon, and it only grows once a day.

[Rubik]

Add throwing and splitting to a necklace of natural weapons (unarmed strike) from Savage Species. Now every time you perform a ranged body-slam, you can act out a scene from Multiplicity.

[rockdeworld]

In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.
There is. In a thread with the Mortiverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257268&page=6), I suggested a method (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14054638&postcount=159) involving D2 Crusaders specifically to deal > aleph 0 damage.

Back on topic: Ring of Infinite Wishes (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Wish_and_the_Word_%283.5e_Optimized_Character_ Build%29#Short_Description), which can also apply to any other spell :smalltongue:

[Spuddles]

There is. In a thread with the Mortiverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257268&page=6), I suggested a method (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14054638&postcount=159) involving D2 Crusaders specifically to deal > aleph 0 damage.

Beautiful.

[TuggyNE]

Y'know, there could always be a thing that you don't want, and other people do want. There's some kinda "death of the thread creator" factor involved. What I'm saying, in essence, is that things would probably go a lot faster for everyone's purposes if we just accepted that different people have different definitions of a thing that creates infinite things.

I agree with this, with the further note that it'd be useful to separate it out into "stuff that's been mentioned that's exactly what I want" and "other kinda-related stuff", perhaps in the first post. (I have an inordinate fondness for updating the first post with summaries or lists or tabulations of replies in some fashion.)

[Chronos]

There is. In a thread with the Mortiverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257268&page=6), I suggested a method (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14054638&postcount=159) involving D2 Crusaders specifically to deal > aleph 0 damage.


Impressive, yes, but that trick still only does aleph0 damage. Every crusader you gate in can be assigned to an integer, and every point of damage dealt by each of those crusaders can be assigned to an integer, in such a way that no two points of damage are assigned to the same integer.

For instance, assign "1" to the first point of damage dealt by the first crusader. Assign "2" to the second point of damage dealt by the first crusader, then "3" to the first point dealt by the second crusader. "4", "5", and "6" are assigned to the first crusader's third point, the second crusader's second point, and the third crusader's first point, and so on.

[rockdeworld]

Impressive, yes, but that trick still only does aleph0 damage. Every crusader you gate in can be assigned to an integer, and every point of damage dealt by each of those crusaders can be assigned to an integer, in such a way that no two points of damage are assigned to the same integer.

For instance, assign "1" to the first point of damage dealt by the first crusader. Assign "2" to the second point of damage dealt by the first crusader, then "3" to the first point dealt by the second crusader. "4", "5", and "6" are assigned to the first crusader's third point, the second crusader's second point, and the third crusader's first point, and so on.
Not so, because given a set X with a number of elements equal to the current round number, the number of d2 crusaders in play is approximately equal to the size of the powerset of X, P(X). Because I'm lazy, I'll give a proof by example and you can test it for yourself:
Let
R = round #
N = # non-d2 crusaders at start of round
W = # non-d2 crusaders at start of round who will wish for another non-d2 crusader
X = # non-d2 crusaders at start of round who will wish for a d2 crusader
D = # d2 crusaders at start of round

Then

R 1 2 3 4 5
N 1 2 4 8 16
W 1 2 4 8 16
X 0 1 2 4 8
D 0 0 1 3 7
You can see that D = 2^(R-2) - 1, which is approximately equal to 2^R.

Now given that a powerset has a higher cardinality than its set, there can be no such bijective function as the one you describe. If that doesn't make sense, consider: how can you invert the function you describe?

Edit: and I admit my algorithm from the link is confusing - even I had to work it out twice to see how it was supposed to go. I wrote it as well as I could at the time, and if I did it again, I could write it clearer. Let me try now:

Assumptions:
1. There are infinite d2 crusaders, efreeti, and people who are neither.
2. I have a scroll of gate or another way to gate in an efreeti.

Round 1:
1. Gate in an efreeti.
2. Wish for any other person.
3. Wish for a Ring of Infinite Gates.
4. Hand the ring to the other person.
5. Wish for a Ring of Infinite Gates for myself.

Round 2:
1. Gate in an efreeti.
2. Wish for any other person.
3. Wish for a Ring of Infinite Gates.
4. Hand the ring to the other person.
5. Wish for a d2 crusader.

Round n:
A. Each non-d2 crusader who appeared within the last round performs the actions of round 1.
B. Each other non-d2 crusader performs the actions of round 2.
C. Each d2 crusader attacks the Mortiverse for infinite damage.

Edit: And now I realize I could have cut out A and just made each non-d2 crusader perform the actions of round 2, because this way I also end up with 2^R extra Rings that no one needs. Oh well.

Edit 2: I also just realized this trick can be done with commoners instead of d2 crusaders, because the amount of damage each individual deals doesn't matter. Oh well, d2 crusaders are still cool.

Side note: If the d2 crusaders can't hit the Mortiverse's AC, they still hit it 1/20 times when they roll a 20. In that case, the damage done to the Mortiverse per round is approximately infinity*(2^R)/20, and Sum((2^R)/20) is equal to Sum(2^R), so the final equation from the link remains unchanged.

[The honest illusionist]

Fortunately there have been some people who have been helpful, though I do point out that they were right in the beginning, before less helpful people derailed it with semantics. I also can't think of many more items of the sort, which is why I made the thread, since I'm sure there are people who are well-acquainted with obscure sourcebooks I don't know. What I don't want is for people to be so deterred by too much unrelated banter and discussion that they decide not to post. That's happened to me on a number of occasions.
Time out: are you for real? I was looking at this thread to read about odd magic items, out of curiosity, and I can't help but hear everything you write as if it was written by The Comic Book Guy. I get that you're looking for something specific, but the level of ungrateful resentment you seem to be projecting against interesting people who either just aren't catering to your granular interest or disagree with your definition of your parameters... That attitude and tone leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Maybe I'm just sensitive to this sort of thing because I've done it too.

Time in: I saw someone mention an infinite damage loop with the crusader, and I thought it would be a shame to leave out the ultimate annihilator: the Sphere of Annihilation, d&d's portable black hole. Since any matter that comes in contact with the sphere is instantly eradicated, instead of being endlessly additive, the SoA is an infinite negative. It meets the pour test in an interesting way: Pour a decanter of endless water on it, put it at the bottom of an infinite pit of chickens, etc; the SoA should consume it all.

[cauthon1041]

Heir of Syberis can get True Creation at CL 15 as a SLA 2/day.
So, everyday you can create up to 30 cubic feet of whatever you want for free. Like gold. Or platinum. Or pure diamond.
I'm too lazy to do the math but i'm pretty sure that's a lot of cash. :smalltongue:

Well, I thought I'd point out that when using True Creation, you have to spend 5X the worth in gp of the item you're creating, so a big diamond or something really wouldn't be a good investment since you're losing 5X gp every time.

[Jack_Simth]

Well, I thought I'd point out that when using True Creation, you have to spend 5X the worth in gp of the item you're creating, so a big diamond or something really wouldn't be a good investment since you're losing 5X gp every time.
Ah, but it's a Spell-like Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) when it comes from that particular PrC. As it doesn't list any exceptions in the specific ability write up, the default for spell-like abilities dominates... which includes the line:
A spell-like ability has no verbal, somatic, or material component, nor does it require a focus or have an XP cost. (Emphasis added)

So while what you're saying is true for casting True Creation as a spell, an Heir of Siberys-2 who took the Mark of Making does not pay that XP cost.

[ShurikVch]

Shadocaster. Unlimited uses of fundamentals(Liquid Night). Undead clone of yourself. Plane with accelerated timeflow. Flood of inky blackness...


In fact, I don't think there's anything that approaches infinity in D&D, just things of arbitrarily large value. I'm not sure there's anything that breaks aleph 0.
Matter on Inner Planes