Thoughts on Wish

[CryptbornAkryea]

Had a thought about Wish/Miracle.
Could one Wish/Miracle another class' special ability?
Example: Shredder, the monk, wishes for the rogue's full sneak attack progression.
Or
Shredder, the monk, wishes for the fighter's BAB.

[BWR]

You can certainly wish for them. I don't know of any DM that would let you gain anything by that wish, at least not without some serious drawbacks, like the monk actually turning into a rogue, or into a fighter.
Gaining such powerful abilities is beyond the listed scope of both Wish and Miracle apart from that bit about "trying for more powerful effects is iffy at best". If the DM is fine with it, fine, but I wouldn't allow it.

[CryptbornAkryea]

Thanks for your insight.
I understand that it would be a blatant and horrendous abuse of Wish/Miracle. I just needed to hear from more learned and experienced people :)

[MrNobody]

This is what i call an "extreme wish", one of those that, when you wish for it, you are actually yelling at you DM: "please, i want to be hurt, hurt me!!"

Personally, as a DM, i may allow this, but i would require my player to spell the exact term of the "in game" wish and use it against him!
For example, you don't wish for "full BAB", you wish for "being able to hit as hard as a powerful warrior!"
In a case like this my reaction as a DM would be: "WHICH warrior? Logan, the mightiest of heroes or Bob the powerful, a 3rd level fighter so called for taking down an hobgoblin with bare hands?"
And it will end with a 15 level monk with a +3 BAB...

I use this system for every wish my players wish for, but in this case i will be even more merciles!

[CryptbornAkryea]

You just made me so very happy with that! Poor 'Shredder'!

[TuggyNE]

Had a thought about Wish/Miracle.
Could one Wish/Miracle another class' special ability?
Example: Shredder, the monk, wishes for the rogue's full sneak attack progression.
Or
Shredder, the monk, wishes for the fighter's BAB.

You can certainly try this, but there's low odds it will work out at all favorably, and a decent chance your story will be used to teach aspiring archmagi why careful attention to the safe parameters of the spell is so very essential.

Wish can do anything. However, if it's not on the list, things start going south proportionally to the amount of greater power needed.

[ryu]

This is what i call an "extreme wish", one of those that, when you wish for it, you are actually yelling at you DM: "please, i want to be hurt, hurt me!!"

Personally, as a DM, i may allow this, but i would require my player to spell the exact term of the "in game" wish and use it against him!
For example, you don't wish for "full BAB", you wish for "being able to hit as hard as a powerful warrior!"
In a case like this my reaction as a DM would be: "WHICH warrior? Logan, the mightiest of heroes or Bob the powerful, a 3rd level fighter so called for taking down an hobgoblin with bare hands?"
And it will end with a 15 level monk with a +3 BAB...

I use this system for every wish my players wish for, but in this case i will be even more merciles!

You do realize it's entirely RAW that characters in game are aware of mechanical aspects right? We have spells and powers devoted to gaining or switching feats, explicit mention in spell text of spell levels that make functional differences, and direct mention of gods calling out enchantments by their number pluses. Why on earth would any natural person use such vague language when the systems are quite blatantly common knowledge?

[Kurald Galain]

Had a thought about Wish/Miracle.
Could one Wish/Miracle another class' special ability?
Example: Shredder, the monk, wishes for the rogue's full sneak attack progression.

I think it'd be fair to use a Wish to replace one of your feats by another, or replace a few of your class levels by another. So for example, it could turn a monk 15 into a monk 12/rogue 3, or a monk with some whatever feat into a monk with Weapon Focus.

[Mnemnosyne]

This is what i call an "extreme wish", one of those that, when you wish for it, you are actually yelling at you DM: "please, i want to be hurt, hurt me!!"

Personally, as a DM, i may allow this, but i would require my player to spell the exact term of the "in game" wish and use it against him!
For example, you don't wish for "full BAB", you wish for "being able to hit as hard as a powerful warrior!"
In a case like this my reaction as a DM would be: "WHICH warrior? Logan, the mightiest of heroes or Bob the powerful, a 3rd level fighter so called for taking down an hobgoblin with bare hands?"
And it will end with a 15 level monk with a +3 BAB...

I use this system for every wish my players wish for, but in this case i will be even more merciles!
I tend to find this a silly type of limitation. These stats are part of the laws of physics in their world. BAB can be defined as precisely in a D&D world as saying how many newtons of force you wish to be able to exert with a punch in the real world, because they can actually measure your BAB through experimental determination in-character. This is especially true at certain breakpoints by seeing how many attacks a character can launch within a single round. Indeed, the physics are much simpler in the D&D world because everything breaks down into discrete units that tend to come in numbers small enough to easily count, or at least calculate with a simple paper and pencil. There is, for example, no bipedal medium-sized humanoid that can lift 201 pounds off the ground without also being able to lift 230, because if you can lift 201 pounds off the ground, you have a minimum of 11 strength, and therefore can lift up to 230.

The same also applies to magical item stats, which are also often used in this sort of example. Do you honestly believe that the characters in the world cannot measure the enhancement bonus of a weapon and determine precisely whether it's +1 or +5? Of course they can. Elsewise, how could commerce ever take place if you have no way of knowing whether the sword you're purchasing is worth 2,000 or 50,000 gp? They may not call it +1 or +5, but they have a system of measurement with named units of some sort that they use to calculate that, and they can refer to them with exact precision in-character.

[Eskil]

Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) can most defintitely give it's caster full BAB... Duration: 1 round/level (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm).

And it is equally capable of granting a full Sneak Attack progression... for 1 round (duplicating Hunter's Eye).

[MrNobody]

You do realize it's entirely RAW that characters in game are aware of mechanical aspects right? We have spells and powers devoted to gaining or switching feats, explicit mention in spell text of spell levels that make functional differences, and direct mention of gods calling out enchantments by their number pluses. Why on earth would any natural person use such vague language when the systems are quite blatantly common knowledge?

Sorry but i cannot agree with you. Characters know they have powers and ability, not BAB, saves, feats...
Players do know that, but roleplaying requires you to act like you character would.
You are right, there are spells that make you swich feats and mention this in their text, but the wizard does not have in his book what you see in your manual. You read "change feat", the mage reads "bargain a fraction of your soul for a new source of power".
When a Cleric casts resurrection he does not say "please, Pelor, supreme light bringer, restore this character back to full HP giving him life, but be sure to take a level away beacuse the spell i read says so!".
And i could go on infinitely...

This is why, in a critical moment such as asking for a wish, i require my player to give voice to their character and speak the exact word of the wish. I'm open to listen which mechanics they want to influence, but the result is based on their formulation.
If the player saw a magic sword and wishes for an equal one, if he spells the wish wrong he could get exactly that sword, making the owner really upset...

And about being vague: because he is a good roleplayer that plays a low INT character and tries not to think much about what he says.

[TuggyNE]

Sorry but i cannot agree with you. Characters know they have powers and ability, not BAB, saves, feats...
Players do know that, but roleplaying requires you to act like you character would.
You are right, there are spells that make you swich feats and mention this in their text, but the wizard does not have in his book what you see in your manual. You read "change feat", the mage reads "bargain a fraction of your soul for a new source of power".
When a Cleric casts resurrection he does not say "please, Pelor, supreme light bringer, restore this character back to full HP giving him life, but be sure to take a level away beacuse the spell i read says so!".
And i could go on infinitely...

Thing is, unless they have a way to tell which of those vague statements means what, they would get confused in character. What, exactly, does "new source of power" refer to? Taking levels in Warlock? A new set of spells known or available to learn? Psionics? Binding? Incarnum? Maneuvers? You can cast an SLA a few times a day? Your Int score is permanently boosted with an unusual bonus type?

All of that is, in-character, distinguishable in some fashion, and has radically different ramifications for the caster's decisions, and while the characters may or may not use our own terms*, they would use something fairly intercompatible because it's absolutely essential for them to do so. So unless you define the in-character terms beforehand, it's unreasonable, fluff-wise, to force the players to use vague generalities like that. Specificity is important.

If you want a system that works well with cryptic chants and mysterious half-understood messages, D&D magic is not a good match, because it's pretty thoroughly scholarly, and indeed rather scientific.

*All signs point to "yes", given stuff like Tordek talking about his +3 something something moderate fortification armor.

[MrNobody]

So unless you define the in-character terms beforehand, it's unreasonable, fluff-wise, to force the players to use vague generalities like that. Specificity is important.


The fact is i'm not forcing anyone... maybe i've only been lucky but i've played with a total of 20/25 people so far (in different groups) and what i'm saying here was never discussed because everyone thought this as a natural thing. Sometimes my players were the one to remember me this "rule" or even to "censure" himself because the way of spelling the wish was not suit to "their character way of speaking/reasoning".

I understand and respect your (and others similar) objection, but it simply does not fit the way i like to play, with a lot of scientific reasoning that to me, does not fit the usual heroic-pseudomedieval-fantasy setting.
When i responded to the topic i opened with "personally" because i was giving an opinion based on my play style. If i'd have wanted to reason by RAW i'd opened my period with "by RAW".:smallsmile:

[Urpriest]

It's already been hinted at, but in general for Wishes like this I think the best option is to find a spell that already accomplishes the goal and which can be accessed via Wish. In the case of full BAB, Divine Power for the duration of the fight is probably appropriate, maybe Tenser's Transformation instead if you want to be cruel, unless the wish was explicitly long-duration. For sneak attack, I'd probably PaO the character into a monster that has Ex sneak attack, picking something close enough to give Permanent duration.

As for the metagaming question...all Wish says is "By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you." It doesn't say "you must state exactly what you desire." Like most spells, Wish has a verbal component, and the caster makes some decisions when it is cast as to what effect it has. Those decisions can be rule-based, because the caster doesn't need to know the details, just the end effect, which the player interprets as rules. But any sort of "exact words" issue shouldn't arise with Wish, it's not how the spell works.

In the case of Miracle, you do have to state what you want to happen, but since it's interpreted by your deity the situation is basically the same. You're doing work your deity wants you to do by virtue of still being a Cleric, so your deity is going to pick a mechanically effective way to make the spell take effect, and it's your and your DM's job to determine what's appropriate there. Your DM isn't going to screw you over and give you a lesser effect because you've presumably already talked to your DM about what you're trying to do.

[CryptbornAkryea]

I'm digging all your input here. Many thanks, guys

[eggynack]

Honestly, for the metagaming issue, I would think that you could just assume a translation factor. Like, you say, "I wish for sneak attack of a rogue my level," and my character says, "I wish to have the same amount of sneak attack as Creepyguy the Hidden." It's kinda like reverse metagaming. I don't know how to phrase these things in keeping with the game world, but my character likely does. I can use these gaming terms as shorthand, because shorthand necessarily stands for something longer. However, in all of these cases, I would figure a decent chance of a rogue popping out of the shadows and sneak attacking you in the face. Just because.

[Zweisteine]

If a Wizard 20 in a campaign I was running tried to give themself the fighter's BAB, I would probably do something like this:

As you finish the spell, you feel a piercing pain in your head, almost as if your mind was being warped into an entirely new shape. The pain grows white, and you are unable to use your other senses. As the pain overwhelms you, you fall unconscious.
[Then the other players do stuff. Any attempts to wake him up too soon result in the wizard falling unconscious again, or maybe in less powerful effects when he wakes up. Detect magic and the like reveal an overwhelming aura of transmutation, enchantment, and conjuration in his body.]
24 hours after you cast the spell, you wake up. Something feels different, but you can't place what.

[The next time he tries to prepare spells, he gets this]:
You reach into the flow of arcane energy to pull out the spells you want, but you find that many of them slip beyond your reach. You are only able to prepare half as many spells as you normally could, and your best spells are beyond you. [exit fulffy description] You may only prepare the spells of a 10th-level wizard.
[The next time he enters combat, or as soon as he tries to see if he got what he wished for by hitting a tree or something]:
You feel years of training as you pick up the sword. Instinctually, you know how to swing it, how to block, how to fight as only a master can. [exit fluffy description] You have a +15 base attack bonus now. Also, you have 10 levels of fighter. Pick your feats. And only simple feats.


So the wish would turn a Wizard 20 into a Wizard 10/Fighter 10. He would be limited to more basic options for the fighter levels, as he didn't wish for anything more specific. This would probably transfer to something like SRD fighter feats, and some others (like leap attack), but not the more complex feats, such as martial study most tactical feats.
A wish for specialized training will overwrite some of the training you already have.


And, of course, only a miracle or wish can undo it. Hopefully, you have a cleric handy.

[Incanur]

Had a thought about Wish/Miracle.
Could one Wish/Miracle another class' special ability?
Example: Shredder, the monk, wishes for the rogue's full sneak attack progression.
Or
Shredder, the monk, wishes for the fighter's BAB.

As DM, I'd probably allow either one of these - but that's because monks need the help. It depends on the circumstances. A carefully worded wish can do almost anything. In FR (https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/wn/20040310a), for example, a single wish spell wiped out two armies and created a permanent terrain feature.

[Afgncaap5]

I think that kind of request is valid if the person making the wish/requesting the miracle has a set time-frame involved. "I wish for the skills of the world's most deadly assassin when I fight my arch enemy today" might give you full sneak attack, handy bonuses to hide checks (possibly ritzier things like assassin spells or deadly strikes) for a full encounter. It'd certainly be in line with the intended power of things like that, and the limiting factor of "today" or "for this fight" might keep it from whatever the DM decides the threshold is for being too powerful. (Especially since one of the examples of a "more powerful" miracle spell includes "turning the tide in a battle" by having fallen warriors rise again to keep up the fight.)

[Story]

Why not just disallow "higher power" wishes entirely? It's a silly rule to begin with.

[Afgncaap5]

I like the theme of it for a lot of my campaigns, but I could see a DM disallowing it. Especially if both player and DM want the focus of spells to come from the character's personal power. I wouldn't like that for a cleric or druid I played, but I'm sure a lot of other players might.

[Incanur]

Why not just disallow "higher power" wishes entirely? It's a silly rule to begin with.

From a gamist point of view, sure. But it's a convenient basis for fulfilling the needs of the plot and for navigating situations that fall outside of the rules or where the rules give limited options. As DM I actually concluded one campaign by having the BBEG use miracle to resolve a frustrating epic-level combat that didn't seem to be going anywhere. Because of one PC's sacrifice, the BBEG's gambit backfired and provided a climactic final scene.

[CryptbornAkryea]

As a temporary affair, I can see 'Shredder' getting a rogue's sneak attack... I do believe I approve :)

[Deathra13]

Why not just disallow "higher power" wishes entirely? It's a silly rule to begin with.

Because backfiring wishes are a staple of the fantasy genre. But allowing the dm to backfire simple wishes would mean no one ever wished for anything. Aside from that its a good way to measure your players intelligence and insanity. Granted it can also get tiresome arguing wish granting with a player who refuses to drop it, but oh well.

In response to the OP, I think it would depend largely on the optimization level of the rest of the group. If you're playing a straight monk and everyone else is playing high op T1s (no I dont know what kind of madness afflicted you to do this) I Might let the bab one slide. Assuming equal op level from everyone, I have to agree with everyone else that this is the kind of wish where the fates screw you with literal or even partial interpretation. Using in character language as well. Frankly I'd go with partial, in the instance of "I wish to hit as hard as X" For going so far outside the realm of possible, I'd have it interpreted as "I wish to hit hard" your characters arm flies out of its own accord smacking the nearest party member, for full lethal damage.

[Story]

Or you could go partial fulfillment by having the wish replicate Extended Divine Power or something.