Things a Wish spell CANNOT do.

[Yael]

Per the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm), Wish can do the following:


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.

We fine now, but it also quotes 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 what a Wish CANNOT do?

[Snowbluff]

See the reason why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

[OldTrees1]

Wish cannot be logically impossible.

[Alleran]

A while back I started compiling a list of everything that a wish was listed as capable of (books, Dragon, Dungeon), but I never got around to finishing it or listing explicit exceptions to the rule (e.g. spell effects and the like that a wish is called out as not capable of undoing or similar). There are things out there that qualify, though.

[Uncle Pine]

There is nothing a wish cannot inherently do. The spell only lists the things a wish can safely do. Since the spell doesn't pose a hard limit on what a wish can do, we can safely assume that a wish can do pretty much everything. Just be (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor) careful (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlessedWithSuck) what (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoneHorriblyRight) you (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WantingIsBetterThanHaving) wish (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie) for (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie).

[Yael]

Can a wish grant a supernatural or spell-like ability?

EDIT: Or a Extraordinary? Just for the sake of completeness.

[Uncle Pine]

Can a wish grant a supernatural or spell-like ability?

EDIT: Or a Extraordinary? Just for the sake of completeness.

The spell's description doesn't say it can't, thus the answer is yes. While d&d usually operates under the rule that you can only do something if you're explicity told, such objection would be inappropriate because wish explicitly states that you can try to produce any effect greater than the "safe" effect if you're willingly to swallow the potential consequences.
That said, try to produce a sentence in which you wish for a supernatural, spell-like, extraordinary or natural ability and we shall try to bend, twist and crack it to the point you'll wish you'd never spelled it :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

That said, try to produce a sentence in which you wish for a supernatural, spell-like, extraordinary or natural ability and we shall try to bend, twist and crack it to the point you'll wish you'd never spelled it :smallbiggrin:

Rules Cyclopaedia gave as an example "gaining a basilisk gaze ability (while losing none of one's own abilities)" - carefully worded - but out of balance - the suggested solution was for the character to grow a second head - that of a basilisk.

[Nettlekid]

Arguably it cannot be used to reverse the effects of certain spells like Barghest's Feast, Necrotic Termination, or Imprisonment, but as pointed out on another thread about "killing someone forever" it could feasibly be used to reverse time and make it so that the target of one of those effects was never targeted by it, thus undoing it before it happens and so no actually "bringing them back" from something it says Wish cannot bring you back from.

[Krobar]

The only things it can't do are the things the DM decides it can't do.

Good luck.

[AnonymousPepper]

There are a few things that it explicitly cannot do - for example restoring spellcasting to a caster who failed their will save after disjoining an artifact - but for the most part Wish can do pretty much anything. That's not the concern. Your first Wish will achieve the desired effect unless it explicitly can't, period. But as said earlier...

It's just that doing anything with Wish besides its enumerated powers gives your DM a big, bright red Staples-esque "**** YOU!" button with a little Post-It note attached to it, reading, "Please push this button, for I am crunchy and taste good with the potato chip dip the rogue brought to the game. Sincerely, the party wizard."

From there you're entirely at the mercy of the DM and his imagination, and that is not a place you want to be.

At least with Miracle, instead of bad things happening, the gods can just take your XP and say "no."

[Gemini476]

Back in the day there used to be an option for the spell to just fizzle if the DM though it to be too unbalanced, strong, and/or too legalese to twist.

I wonder why they took that away.

[Belial_the_Leveler]

Because they realized it's impossible to make any statement too legalese to twist. In fact, the more you try to make it untwistable the bigger the twist you end up with because all the easy and simple twists are out of the way. :smallamused:

[Uncle Pine]

Rules Cyclopaedia gave as an example "gaining a basilisk gaze ability (while losing none of one's own abilities)" - carefully worded - but out of balance - the suggested solution was for the character to grow a second head - that of a basilisk.

Either that or you could "gain the basilisk gaze ability (while losing none of your own abilities)" through the use of a custom magic item. Such item could be a rod shaped in the form of a miniature basilisk that lets you spam Petrifying Gaze as a standard action targeting anyone in a range of 30 feet, Fortitude DC 13 negates.

EDIT:
In fact, the more you try to make it untwistable the bigger the twist you end up with because all the easy and simple twists are out of the way. :smallamused:
So true I can't not quote it.

[sideswipe]

wish cannot bring back an unnamed creature

[Kelb_Panthera]

If you're asking for what it absolutely cannot do; only the few things the rules explicitly say it cannot, e.g. restoring to life someone whose soul has been destroyed.

If you're asking what it cannot do -safely- then you're firmly in "ask your DM" territory, barring the given safelist .... usually.

A reasonable* DM will make a case-by-case judgement call and allow effects of a similar scale to the safelist as long as the wish is being granted by a friendly or at least non-antagonistic source.

*Reasonable being, of course, a subjective thing.

[Gemini476]

Because they realized it's impossible to make any statement too legalese to twist. In fact, the more you try to make it untwistable the bigger the twist you end up with because all the easy and simple twists are out of the way. :smallamused:

Maybe, but it's certainly possible to come up with a long and elaborately crafted wish that a certain DM finds impossible to twist. That's all it takes, after all - a particularly clever rules-lawyery player who manages to bamboozle a less clever DM.

That's the kind of scenario where making it fizzle makes sense. Or if the only options for twisting the wish would have undesirable effects anyway, like annoying your players by saying that the BBEG was only killed for a femtosecond or not finding any way to twist the Wish that won't completely wreck your campaign setting. (How are you supposed to twist a fool-proof wish that sends the planet into the Plane of Fire if you are running a "living" campaign setting, for instance?) The whim of one player should preferably not wreck the campaign for several parties.

[hamishspence]

Either that or you could "gain the basilisk gaze ability (while losing none of your own abilities)" through the use of a custom magic item. Such item could be a rod shaped in the form of a miniature basilisk that lets you spam Petrifying Gaze as a standard action targeting anyone in a range of 30 feet, Fortitude DC 13 negates.

That's an example of "not twisting a wish that really deserves to be twisted". Though the bit at the end about friendly fire is a bit of a twist.

[Uncle Pine]

That's an example of "not twisting a wish that really deserves to be twisted". Though the bit at the end about friendly fire is a bit of a twist.

I consider a 5% or higher chance of being petrified every time you activate the item a sufficient twist, although clever players could take Steadfast Determination and call it a day. Still, if the players have access to wish they'll unlikely meet enemies who'll fail a DC 13 save and exploit the fact that a character just wasted a standard action.

[Gemini476]

I consider a 5% or higher chance of being petrified every time you activate the item a sufficient twist, although clever players could take Steadfast Determination and call it a day. Still, if the players have access to wish they'll unlikely meet enemies who'll fail a DC 13 save and exploit the fact that a character just wasted a standard action.

Getting immunity to gaze attacks is easy enough that that seems somewhat overpowered.

Although an AoE DC 13 (Fort negates) standard action save-or-die is... I dunno, kind of weakish? At CR 17 the average SRD monster has +19,6 to fortitude, so most of the time that rod would just be outright worse than, I dunno, most spells.

Nice job twisting the spell so that they spend even more XP for a somewhat useless item, though!

[Pan151]

Maybe, but it's certainly possible to come up with a long and elaborately crafted wish that a certain DM finds impossible to twist. That's all it takes, after all - a particularly clever rules-lawyery player who manages to bamboozle a less clever DM.

Keep in mind that the casting time of Wish is 1 standard action (ie a mere 6 seconds). If your wish is too elaborate the DM is perfectly within his right to make it fizzle because you ran out of time to declare your wish - and that's assuming he is a boring person and doesn't elect to just fulfill the first half of your sentence instead.

[Uncle Pine]

Keep in mind that the casting time of Wish is 1 standard action (ie a mere 6 seconds). If your wish is too elaborate the DM is perfectly within his right to make it fizzle because you run out of time - you're making a wish, not a written contract.

Talking is a free action and wish doesn't have a number word limit like, for example, message. Moreover, you could just spend 100 in-game years thinking about the most jackass genie-proof wish before casting wish. Only to see his wish hideously backfire in his face in half a second. Unless Narrative Causality says otherwise, of course.

[Inevitability]

Isn't there a rule about Epic spells surpassing 9th-level spells?

[Pan151]

Talking is a free action and wish doesn't have a number word limit like, for example, message. Moreover, you could just spend 100 in-game years thinking about the most jackass genie-proof wish before casting wish. Only to see his wish hideously backfire in his face in half a second. Unless Narrative Causality says otherwise, of course.

Something being a free action means that it does not interfere with any other actions. It does not mean that you can do an infinite amount of within a finite amount of time - with certain variations, of course. You can certainly take a lot of time to think about your actions, but if it's ok to recite a couple paragraphs within six seconds because "hey, it's a free action" then it is also ok for the DM to respond with "the enemy wizard instantaneously created a black hole out of bat guano and ended the world because hey, that's a free action"...

[Uncle Pine]

"the enemy wizard instantaneously created a black hole out of bat guano and ended the world because hey, that's a free action"...

Citation needed.

[Gemini476]

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak)

Of course, the game doesn't run on the action economy when outside combat.

(And, of course, your Int 38 Wizard is probably smarter than you and can think up some short, snappy and fool-proof Wish.)

[Uncle Pine]

In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#speak)

Of course, the game doesn't run on the action economy when outside combat.

(And, of course, your Int 38 Wizard is probably smarter than you and can think up some short, snappy and fool-proof Wish.)

Speaking more than a few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action.
Now, you can obviously take more than a single free action during a single round. It's free! Don't you remember Dragon Ball? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingIsAFreeAction)
Moreover, any limit on the number of free action is rule 0 territory, not something that should be argued about when OP asked the RAW limits of a spell:

Free actions don’t take any time at all, though there may be limits to the number of free actions you can perform in a turn.

You can perform one or more free actions during your turn. However, the DM can put resonable limits on what you can really do for free.

Anyway, what you can or can't do in a free action is irrelevant: the casting time of wish is 1 standard action. You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#castingTime) It's not an action.

[Gemini476]

I'm more arguing against speaking infinitely being a free action than saying that long-winded Wishes can't be a thing (because that's kind of dumb in a completely different way).

Although the SRD is actually missing a huge chunk in that section, which is pretty weird.


Speak
In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn. Some DMs may rule that a character can only speak on his turn, or that a character can’t speak while flat-footed (and thus can’t warn allies of a surprise threat until he has a chance to act). Speaking more than few sentences is generally beyond the limit of a free action; to communicate more information than that, your DM may require that you take a move action or even a full-round action.

Basically, there's not even a hard rule that speaking is always a free action. The action taking by speaking is entirely up to the DM's mercy.

It's alright to assume for TO purposes that speaking is always a free action, but the whole meme of "talking is a free action" really needs to die.

Especially since the topic of discussion here is non-safe Wishes and that is by its very nature so heavily Rule 0 that it's honestly pretty nuts.

[Inevitability]

If speaking a few sentences is a free action, just use the most ridiculous long sentence you can come up with.

[Jeff the Green]

Or just write the wish down and say "I wish the wish written on the piece of parchment I am holding were granted exactly as if I'd spoken it aloud within the time limit for speaking a wish."

[hewhosaysfish]

After reading a great many forum threads about adjudicating Wishes, I've reached the conclusion that Wishes can do absolutely anything... as long as it's part of a twist that contrary to what the Wisher wants.

For example, if you wish to have 50,000gp appear in your personal vault then that's beyond the power of a Wish. Wish can only create up to 25,000gp worth of mundane goods so the GM should try to twist the Wish. (Perhaps instead of creating the gold ex nihilo it gets teleported in from the hoard of a scary red dragon. Or if the GM is merciful then perhaps the Wisher gets only 25,000 in his vault - the old "partial fulfillment" clause.)

But if the Wisher is careless enough to just Wish to have 50,000gp (but doesn't specify a location) then one of the most popular twists is to have all the gold appear above the Wisher's head and squash him flat. Because apparently Wish hates you and the restrictions described in the PHB are not the limits of its capacity but the limits of its patience for you.

[atemu1234]

I love to twist the wording of wishes.

You want immunity to gaze attacks? I liquify your eyes. You want to be immune to fire? I turn you into a half-red dragon and to test it drop you on the sun.

[kellbyb]

Why are people obsessed with twisting wishes? It's a spell that can only be cast by a caster at the absolute peak of their career AND requires a heavy resource cost. Just let them have a little fun.
.

You want to be immune to fire? I turn you into a half-red dragon and to test it drop you on the sun.

Or just replicate the 5th-level spell that gives immunity to the specified energy form...

[Jeff the Green]

Why are people obsessed with twisting wishes? It's a spell that can only be cast by a caster at the absolute peak of their career AND requires a heavy resource cost. Just let them have a little fun.

It's not a matter of balance; it's hubris. Ironically punishing those who seek to exalt themselves is a well-worn but still entirely functional trope.

[kellbyb]

It's not a matter of balance; it's hubris. Ironically punishing those who seek to exalt themselves is a well-worn but still entirely functional tripe.

I know, I know. It just seems that punitively punishing the arrogance of those who seek to use a 9th level spell and 5k xp to give themselves a benefit normally conferred by a 5th level spell seems a bit much.

[ben-zayb]

Heh, this is easy because specific trumps general. Those pair of chests from the puny secret chest (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/secretChest.htm) spell?

Wish can't let you have more than a pair of those, can't bypass Mind Blank, can't hide anyone/thing from Metafaculty, can't recover spellcasting abilities after failing a save after suvvessfully using Disjunction on an artifact, etc

[Jeff the Green]

I know, I know. It just seems that punitively punishing the arrogance of those who seek to use a 9th level spell and 5k xp to give themselves a benefit normally conferred by a 5th level spell seems a bit much.

That falls under the related trope, punishing someone for using their power frivolously. :smallbiggrin:

[kellbyb]

That falls under the related trope, punishing someone for using their power frivolously. :smallbiggrin:

Shouldn't 5k wasted xp be enough punishment already?

[Psyren]

Nothing. Really, nothing. Even spells that say "Wish can't do X" or "X defeats Wish" can be defeated by "I wish {spell} didn't have that clause in this world."

Yes, those wishes are absolutely unsafe. But "unsafe" != "impossible."

[Calimehter]

Shouldn't 5k wasted xp be enough punishment already?

The player attempting it didn't seem to think it was too much punishment . . .

[kellbyb]

The player attempting it didn't seem to think it was too much punishment . . .

If they really thought about it and decided the cost worth it, I would say that is no longer a frivolous use of power.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I know, I know. It just seems that punitively punishing the arrogance of those who seek to use a 9th level spell and 5k xp to give themselves a benefit normally conferred by a 5th level spell seems a bit much.

Generally, things go -okay- as long as you stick to the safelist or similar level effects.

The problems start cropping up, fast, when people try to exceed the spell's listed effects in scope or bypass the 5k xp cost.

At least with good DM's. Bad, inexperienced, or even merely antagonistic but otherwise decent DM's sometimes have trouble resisting the temptation to play "monkey's paw" with -any- wish.

Ultimately, I suspect, it's just a matter of how people don't make a lot of fuss when things go well while they complain, often loudly, when things go sideways. Consequently, we hear -a lot- more about twisted wishes than faithfully granted ones.

[TheCrowing1432]

Wish can do anything.

The things it cant do, it can imitate.


Like bringing back an unnamed creature. Guess what? Theres a ritual for that. Just use Wish to gather the materials to perform the ritual and do it.

[Thiyr]

Because they realized it's impossible to make any statement too legalese to twist. In fact, the more you try to make it untwistable the bigger the twist you end up with because all the easy and simple twists are out of the way. :smallamused:

Who needs legalese to make an untwistable wish? -We have Wish for that-.

"I wish that any wish which I personally make in the past, present or future, including the one currently in progress, are fulfilled in a manner that follows the intent I had for its casting and without intervention or twisting of the spell for the purpose of penalizing a request beyond the safe limits defined by the spell ". Totally a worthwhile use, and its self-referential nature ensures its own safe casting barring the universe simply saying no. Which it really should.



(Also, I seem to remember a prior thread which could be summed up as such. "You suddenly catch fire. You wished to extinguish the fire burning down the orphanage, but you didn't specify that YOU wouldn't catch fire." "You suddenly catch fire. You wished for a large sum of material wealth, but you -never wished to not be on fire!-)

(Also, I've always held that it's dumb for a caster to cast wish and have it be twisted. You're not bartering a favor from a powerful being, you're not being rewarded by an external source. You're using personal energy and personally shaping it to give you something you want. If it's beyond your limits it should fail. If it isn't, it should go off. Leave wish twisting to efreeti and rings of three wishes, not spell slots. Barring setting specific variations, of course.)

[Psyren]

"I wish that any wish which I personally make in the past, present or future, including the one currently in progress, are fulfilled in a manner that follows the intent I had for its casting and without intervention or twisting of the spell for the purpose of penalizing a request beyond the safe limits defined by the spell ". Totally a worthwhile use, and its self-referential nature ensures its own safe casting barring the universe simply saying no. Which it really should.

Partial fulfillment: "I wish that any wish which I personally make in the past, present or future, including the one currently in progress, are fulfilled in a manner that follows the intent I had for its casting and without intervention or twisting the spell for the purpose of penalizing a request beyond the safe limits defined by the spell."


(Also, I've always held that it's dumb for a caster to cast wish and have it be twisted. You're not bartering a favor from a powerful being, you're not being rewarded by an external source. You're using personal energy and personally shaping it to give you something you want. If it's beyond your limits it should fail. If it isn't, it should go off. Leave wish twisting to efreeti and rings of three wishes, not spell slots. Barring setting specific variations, of course.)

The spell itself says you can get "undesirable fulfillment," so concepts like "personal energy" are irrelevant. You're trying to shape reality itself; there can easily be detrimental consequences to that.

It's within your power to give yourself a hernia trying to lift something too heavy for you; the fact that you can't lift it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing will happen that you didn't intend.

[Phelix-Mu]

(Also, I've always held that it's dumb for a caster to cast wish and have it be twisted. You're not bartering a favor from a powerful being, you're not being rewarded by an external source. You're using personal energy and personally shaping it to give you something you want. If it's beyond your limits it should fail. If it isn't, it should go off. Leave wish twisting to efreeti and rings of three wishes, not spell slots. Barring setting specific variations, of course.)

My rationale is that the listed safe uses are what your "personal energy" can accomplish with the aid of the casting of the spell. But, if you exceed those or look for other uses, the spell seeks to fulfill the wish using some shortcut, essentially manipulating probability or causality in some way to make the desire of the caster manifest.

Unfortunately, effects of that scope may also have some baggage. Thus, the wish isn't so much "twisted" as trying to make more happen after having run out of oomph; it looks for the path of least resistance, and it may well be a path that the caster hadn't anticipated.

A big part of this, though, is that casters with stats above 25 or so (pretty much assured by the time they are casting wish/miracle) should well-know the dangers of this and spells of similar ilk, and know to either leave well enough alone or be very thorough. On the other hand, you can't give a cart blanche "any effect made real" ability without causing the game to explode, so they put in a caveat to make people think twice before coming up with ambitious requests.

[ben-zayb]

Nothing. Really, nothing. Even spells that say "Wish can't do X" or "X defeats Wish" can be defeated by "I wish {spell} didn't have that clause in this world."

Yes, those wishes are absolutely unsafe. But "unsafe" != "impossible."

Exactly, thanks for proving me right. A Wish can't, but 2 Wishes can.

[Psyren]

Exactly, thanks for proving me right. A Wish can't, but 2 Wishes can.

Nah, you can combine those two requests into one with enough creativity. "I wish for {X} in such a way that it supersedes any {anti-X clauses in similar spells} in coming to pass," where {X} is the specific spell (e.g. mind blank) that you're trying to defeat. You're already outside of the safe zone, so you may as well go all out and ask for exactly what you want.

[Phelix-Mu]

• 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.

It's also worth noting that this can encompass a huge number of effects that couldn't be achieved safely outside the one round time limit. Since much of the bad stuff that happens in the game somehow involves dice, this is quite powerful, and potentially much cheaper than the effect would be if more time had elapsed.

In addition, it notes "misfortune," but the mechanical effect seems to work either way, and is rather vague about just what it applies to, beyond "any roll within the last round" and the listed examples. Always nice when they couple something really strong to something open-ended.

Hmm. It also occurs to me that there is no range on this effect. That strikes me as something that could be theoretically exploited, if only for TO purposes.

[NichG]

Who needs legalese to make an untwistable wish? -We have Wish for that-.

"I wish that any wish which I personally make in the past, present or future, including the one currently in progress, are fulfilled in a manner that follows the intent I had for its casting and without intervention or twisting of the spell for the purpose of penalizing a request beyond the safe limits defined by the spell ". Totally a worthwhile use, and its self-referential nature ensures its own safe casting barring the universe simply saying no. Which it really should.

I can just imagine a squad of inevitables showing up: "You are under arrest for attempting to violate Godel's Incompleteness Theorem." Once you bring in self-referential stuff, its trivial to force wish-paradoxes.

Anyhow, as far as 'wishes outside the safe zone' go, I sort of imagine that the scholars and mages who devised the spell in ages past spent centuries trying different wordings and utterances, only to discover that certain wishes were fundamentally unstable - you could use the exact same wording and get two completely different results. The stable list is the stuff in the book. Everything else, no matter how well-crafted you think the phrasing of the wise is, has some randomness in its fulfillment. You could get what you asked for, but you're just as likely to explode in a cloud of rainbow-colored marzipan.

Going deeper into that, the idea is that Wish is the ultimate conversion engine. It leverages the underlying chaos of the universe to convert the spell energy of a 9th level spell and a bit of soul into any other kind of magic. If you ask it for something that fits within the envelope of the losses incurred by the conversion, then its just your power being spent. If you ask it for more, then it basically has to try to search the universe for a way in which it can use butterfly-effect types of nudges in order to produce the effect you request indirectly. Essentially it tries to figure out a way to MacGyver the effect you want out of billions of billions of permutations of lower-level spell effects emplaced all over the universe.

However, even this has finite limits, and when you reach the end of the round in which you're casting it, you're stuck with whatever it has come up with so far. This might mean a partial fulfillment (it got partway through the solution of the full wish), a 'literal' twisting (its the closest thing it could find), a fulfillment with unintended consequences (you asked for 50kgp; there was 50kgp in a nearby bank; Teleport Object is an 8th level spell) or it might just be something way out there and crazy, because the solution it was assembling was very unstable and one of the search variations was off the side of the stable manifold. The stuff Wish can't do is the stuff which is just too improbable to be achieved with that amount of energy. 'I want us to replace all the gods as rulers of this cosmos' would require an extraordinarily unlikely fluctuation, so instead the spell steals Ao's "Universe's Best Overdeity" commemorative mug, because thats as close as it can get.

Which'd mean that arguably someone could figure out how to increase the safety zone of Wish by figuring out how to pump more power into it or give it more time to resolve. E.g. wishes like 'I wish that some time in the next 50 years I will become immortal' might work consistently better than 'I wish to be immortal', because it gives the Wish more time to leverage the magic it has been given. It also means that something like a deity's Alter Reality will be a fundamentally more stable wish because it comes from a bigger power base, whereas a creature that is using Wish-as-an-SLA to avoid the XP cost will tend to produce more unstable, low-grade wishes because the Wish doesn't get the XP to play with. A Wishing Artifact that builds up a charge over a millennium would make for extremely stable wishes, where you could go much further out into the danger zone before things started to be twisted.

Not RAW by any means, of course.

[Phelix-Mu]

Not RAW by any means, of course.

Yet extremely cogent and well-thought out. This gels with my own views in several key areas, and is more clearly stated. Kudos.

Not sure about the speculation about longer-term wishes or SLAs being more/less stable, but the basic idea is very plausible given the entirely skimpy fluff given in the book. A good fluffing, through and through.:smallsmile:

[DM Nate]

See the reason why kids love Cinnamon Toast Crunch.

SOMEBODY likes reading Guilded Age. :smalltongue:

[Uncle Pine]

[snip]

A wonderful example of describing the fluff behind the crunch of an effect that is basically "ask to your DM". True: it isn't RAW, but neither are the consequences of wish twisting. Your explanation is pretty much entirely consistent with itself and offers the DM a way to twist abusive wishes in a flavourful way without resorting to the boring "ban-hammer" or excessively weird readings of the wish. I like it. Good job!

[ben-zayb]

Nah, you can combine those two requests into one with enough creativity. "I wish for {X} in such a way that it supersedes any {anti-X clauses in similar spells} in coming to pass," where {X} is the specific spell (e.g. mind blank) that you're trying to defeat. You're already outside of the safe zone, so you may as well go all out and ask for exactly what you want.1. I think you got the X / anti X designation reversed or something.

2. You're still using the same Wish to penetrate or shield from "X", so X will still specifically stop it by RAW. Furthermore, those powers/spells were printed at the same time or after the printing of Wish, fully aware of and knowing the greater capabilities of such a spell, so it's sensible to think that these X also takes that into consideration and blocks it not only by RAW but by RAI as well. A classic case of specific trumping general with " Nuh uh. No, not wven then."

[Psyren]

You're still using the same Wish to penetrate or shield from "X", so X will still specifically stop it by RAW.

If the wish you use is more specific than the spell doing the blocking then it will trump. This is easy to do, it just takes skill with language. To reiterate, you are absolutely outisde the safe zone with such a wish and chances are you will get beaten down by a partial fulfillment, but if the wish does go off like you want it too then it will win.

Alternatively, you can make the distinction between two wishes and one irrelevant. Say, to use your earlier post, that I did actually need to make two wishes to beat it- you can wish for two more wishes and two standard actions on your turn to use them in. Again, unsafe, but if it works then from the perspective of an outside observer you've just made three wishes in < 6 seconds and defeated whatever was stymieing you.

[ben-zayb]

You are still assuming that such specificity wasn't taken into consideration when such spells were written, and that's where we disagree. There's no imaginary "safe zone" here, just the fact that someone used 1 Wish to make an effect that is prohibited from being done by any Wish effect, regardless of wording. I'm just going by what's RAW, although RAI seems to be in the same direction.

As for you're second point, it doesn't matter because the fact is that you still made more than one wish. One could have infinite Wish and actions for all we care, but that's something else.

[Psyren]

1) There is a safe zone - i.e. the listed effects. ("You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.") I'm not sure why you think it's "imaginary" when it's part of the spell.

2) Whether they "took it into consideration" or not is irrelevant, specific trumps general. A spell can, within its own text, overcome general impediments. Flame Strike for instance is [Fire] and so should be subject to fire resistance, but the spell itself states that it is capable of bypassing such protections, at least in part.

[Thiyr]

The spell itself says you can get "undesirable fulfillment," so concepts like "personal energy" are irrelevant. You're trying to shape reality itself; there can easily be detrimental consequences to that.

It's within your power to give yourself a hernia trying to lift something too heavy for you; the fact that you can't lift it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing will happen that you didn't intend.

Oh, I'm not against doing something an injuring yourself for it, consequences are fine. Losing 5k exp doing nothing is plenty detrimental. Hell, I'm even okay with self-damage. But the spell itself shouldn't be actively -malicious- towards the caster. An efreeti -chooses- how to twist your wish, because they're jerks and that's their entire schtick. Rings of three wishes, assuming they aren't crafted by a friendly individual, probably came from similar sources. Their entire point is ******* the user around. But if you cast from a spell slot or personally crafted item, and something gets twisted like the following


A guy wished to escape from prison. Moments later he was magically, forcefully dragged through the prison bars, reducing the man into shredded pieces of raw meat.

A knave who, due to being jealous of his other friends' exploits with the local ladies, [wished to be] more charismatic than his friends. The following morning, he found himself in a company of a dead man, a drooling catatonic mess of a man, and a babbling idiot.

(stolen from another thread I randomly googled up), that's a whole other deal. You're the one channeling and shaping the energy, the spell lacks intelligence of its own. So unless the universe itself is sentient enough to screw the caster over, why would things like that ever happen to someone who cast the spell? At that point, give them the equivalent of a magical hernia for trying to lift too much, rather than having them get arrested because they what they lifted suddenly became heroin attached to a police trip-wire because hey, shouldn'tve tried lifting that much!

Related:


My rationale is that the listed safe uses are what your "personal energy" can accomplish with the aid of the casting of the spell. But, if you exceed those or look for other uses, the spell seeks to fulfill the wish using some shortcut, essentially manipulating probability or causality in some way to make the desire of the caster manifest.

Unfortunately, effects of that scope may also have some baggage. Thus, the wish isn't so much "twisted" as trying to make more happen after having run out of oomph; it looks for the path of least resistance, and it may well be a path that the caster hadn't anticipated.

A big part of this, though, is that casters with stats above 25 or so (pretty much assured by the time they are casting wish/miracle) should well-know the dangers of this and spells of similar ilk, and know to either leave well enough alone or be very thorough. On the other hand, you can't give a cart blanche "any effect made real" ability without causing the game to explode, so they put in a caveat to make people think twice before coming up with ambitious requests.

I..can kinda see path of least resistance, but unexpected =/= negative usually. Reaching high at that point should have some chance of being EXTRA effective, or at least just doing what was asked in an odd but non-harmful way. It's why I say there -needs- to be some kind of intelligence if every twist is inherently negative (which let's face it, it pretty much will be 99% of the time.) Hence, wish too far (or even within safe realms) from the wrong source and get twisted worse than the game of Twister that Dorthy and Toto were playing, or do it yourself, reach too far, and burn yourself out. Lose XP, take mental stat damage, take vile damage, lose your spellcasting for a month. Things that aren't related to your wish, but are related to your overestimation of how much power you really have. And thinking about it? That could potentially be worse than twisting. No amount of clever wording can save you, no skill after the fact can make things work out in your favor anyway, you just screwed up, didn't get what you want, and burned yourself.

[ben-zayb]

1) There is a safe zone - i.e. the listed effects. ("You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.") I'm not sure why you think it's "imaginary" when it's part of the spell.

2) Whether they "took it into consideration" or not is irrelevant, specific trumps general. A spell can, within its own text, overcome general impediments. Flame Strike for instance is [Fire] and so should be subject to fire resistance, but the spell itself states that it is capable of bypassing such protections, at least in part.
1. Unfortunately, "than these" doesn't automagically make you safe for reasons I already pointed out.

2. It isn't, actually. Because the only relevant question was "Is Wish used to attempt beating or circumventing or w.e., the effect X? "
If yes, then it won't work because X specifically trumps ANY and ALL variations of Wish used in ANY and ALL context. Phrase it into any permutation of any known language using any words, and it still won't work because it's still a Wish.

[Psyren]

1. Unfortunately, "than these" doesn't automagically make you safe for reasons I already pointed out.

2. It isn't, actually. Because the only relevant question was "Is Wish used to attempt beating or circumventing or w.e., the effect X? "
If yes, then it won't work because X specifically trumps ANY and ALL variations of Wish used in ANY and ALL context. Phrase it into any permutation of any known language using any words, and it still won't work because it's still a Wish.

1) Nothing makes you safe from a jerk DM out to get you, I agree.

2) Except wishes that say they can't be trumped. See how that works? Easy.

[ben-zayb]

1) Nothing makes you safe from a jerk DM out to get you, I agree.

2) Except wishes that say they can't be trumped. See how that works? Easy.
1. As well as spells that Specifically trump Wish in any way, shape, or form.

2. To be specific, is it still a Wish? Ah, too bad, then.

I mean, I don't mind the houserule you use, but this is a RAW subforum.

[Psyren]

1. As well as spells that Specifically trump Wish in any way, shape, or form.

2. To be specific, is it still a Wish? Ah, too bad, then.

I mean, I don't mind the houserule you use, but this is a RAW subforum.

I am using RAW: Rules Compendium page 5, "Order of Rules Application" to be precise. You can houserule all you like of course, but this is a RAW subforum.

[Fitz10019]

An efreeti -chooses- how to twist your wish, because they're jerks and that's their entire schtick.

Has everyone seen this comic (https://plus.google.com/101835000681552189605/posts/gpvFohLfo32?pid=5631467827653127378&oid=101835000681552189605) on the topic?

[ben-zayb]

I am using RAW: Rules Compendium page 5, "Order of Rules Application" to be precise. You can houserule all you like of course, but this is a RAW subforum.Not really, unless your final application are spells that specifically address that they foil Wish, which can be phrased however you want. And, sure, I'll consider your houserule in a normal game.

[RoboEmperor]

QUESTION!
Can WISH make NONMAGICAL ITEMS or create items from nothing?
i.e. you want a blooded quartz full plate. Can WISH either let you create a blooded quartz full plate out of nothing, turn a full plate into blooded quartz full plate, make some blooded quartz ingots, or turn some iron ingots into blooded quartz?

[tyckspoon]

QUESTION!
Can WISH make NONMAGICAL ITEMS or create items from nothing?
i.e. you want a blooded quartz full plate. Can WISH either let you create a blooded quartz full plate out of nothing, turn a full plate into blooded quartz full plate, make some blooded quartz ingots, or turn some iron ingots into blooded quartz?

Yes. In fact, the specific words of the oft-mentioned 'get 25,000 gp' safe Wish are 'create a nonmagical item worth up to 25,000 gp.' (so you can't actually Wish for 25,000 gold coins, because that's multiple items, but you can Wish for a gem or an art object or similar that could be sold for that value.) If the armor you desire is worth that much or less, Wish can create it for you ex nihilo. If it's worth more, maybe you just get sufficient raw materials to create the item, and then you'll need a Fabricate spell or something to turn them into the armor. The most RAW-direct way to handle the other options would be to duplicate Polymorph Any Object, although that might not work if blooded quartz is considered to have 'great intrinsic value'. (And since copper is specifically called out as having great intrinsic value, this is a pretty low bar.)

[RoboEmperor]

Yes. In fact, the specific words of the oft-mentioned 'get 25,000 gp' safe Wish are 'create a nonmagical item worth up to 25,000 gp.' (so you can't actually Wish for 25,000 gold coins, because that's multiple items, but you can Wish for a gem or an art object or similar that could be sold for that value.) If the armor you desire is worth that much or less, Wish can create it for you ex nihilo. If it's worth more, maybe you just get sufficient raw materials to create the item, and then you'll need a Fabricate spell or something to turn them into the armor. The most RAW-direct way to handle the other options would be to duplicate Polymorph Any Object, although that might not work if blooded quartz is considered to have 'great intrinsic value'. (And since copper is specifically called out as having great intrinsic value, this is a pretty low bar.)

Alright! Thanks! If the DM is a b*tch and won't have blooded quartz available in stores, I'll just spend 5000xp for one. A blooded quartz full plate is just 10,000gp more than a full plate.

[Melcar]

QUESTION!
Can WISH make NONMAGICAL ITEMS or create items from nothing?
i.e. you want a blooded quartz full plate. Can WISH either let you create a blooded quartz full plate out of nothing, turn a full plate into blooded quartz full plate, make some blooded quartz ingots, or turn some iron ingots into blooded quartz?

YEs... as long as it does not cost more that 25000.

[RoboEmperor]

YEs... as long as it does not cost more that 25000.

Wait a sec... HOW ABOUT TEMPLATES?
Githcraft Feycraft Blooded Quartz Fullplate for -30% ASF! It's non magical!

edit: Fey can't be applied to heavy armor, so I'm not gonna be greedy. Can wish
1. create githcraft items
2. change a normal full plate into a githcraft blooded quartz full plate
3. change a +5 fullplate into a +5 githcraft blooded quartz full plate

[The Glyphstone]

What is it about Wish that draws players insisting they can be the one person to write an utterly foolproof Wish that cannot be perverted, the way bright lights at night draw moths and bugs?:smallconfused:

[RoboEmperor]

What is it about Wish that draws players insisting they can be the one person to write an utterly foolproof Wish that cannot be perverted, the way bright lights at night draw moths and bugs?:smallconfused:

A wish cannot backfire if you use it within it's description. I also remember an official source saying that, if you're not going to be creative with the wish spell, then treat it like a normal spell. I'm asking if a double templated non-magical item is allowed :D

[Emperor Tippy]

1) There is a safe zone - i.e. the listed effects. ("You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.") I'm not sure why you think it's "imaginary" when it's part of the spell.

Arguably there is no effect that is greater than the listed effects. Wish can, safely, make any magic item that you desire (with some quibbling over actual Artifacts). That is, just for example, equal to the power of any spell in the entire game thanks to Scrolls being magic items. It is also, just for example, equal to the power of any creature in the game thanks to the existence of Ice Assassin.

[...]

A Wish cannot replicate ninth-level spells without the use of a middleman.

[Emperor Tippy]

A Wish cannot replicate ninth-level spells without the use of a middleman.

That is debatable. Wish can produce scrolls of 9th level spells all day long, that is clear cut, unambiguously, legal.

So is directly replicating a 9th level spell actually any more powerful? It is an effect that is greater than one of the listed safe abilities but weaker than another. Ergo its viability is somewhat hazy.

[...]

That is debatable. Wish can produce scrolls of 9th level spells all day long, that is clear cut, unambiguously, legal.

So is directly replicating a 9th level spell actually any more powerful? It is an effect that is greater than one of the listed safe abilities but weaker than another. Ergo its viability is somewhat hazy.

Producing scrolls of ninth level spells requires an extra step as opposed to simply casting the spell. Thus, a middleman. I do, agree, however, that you can replicate scrolls at a much lower risk.

[PsyBomb]

What is it about Wish that draws players insisting they can be the one person to write an utterly foolproof Wish that cannot be perverted, the way bright lights at night draw moths and bugs?:smallconfused:

This is why we need a Like button on this forum.

And Tippy... continues to be Tippy. Trust him to make a Wish spell MORE powerful.

[NichG]

I am using RAW: Rules Compendium page 5, "Order of Rules Application" to be precise. You can houserule all you like of course, but this is a RAW subforum.

I think the ambiguity here is that the specificity order of preference is with regards to blocks of rules text. However, the phrasing of a particular wish is not actually a new block of rules text, it's a parameter applied to an existing spell with fixed rules text. So no matter how specific the phrasing of the wish, if there is a block of rules text elsewhere that says 'not even a Wish can undo this' or whatever, then that is more specific than the wording of the actual rules-text of Wish itself.

To reiterate, the only relevant rules text in Wish is 'You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.', along with the list of ways in which it is dangerous.

That said, this doesn't stop someone from wishing to instantaneously learn a new spell which does itself have novel rules text, and then using that new spell. It just means that you always need that intervening step, so that the vector of action is not the Wish itself.

[Psyren]

To reiterate, the only relevant rules text in Wish is 'You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous.', along with the list of ways in which it is dangerous.

"A wish that ignores anti-wish rules" is most definitely a greater effect.

But yeah, to your latter point, even if you conclude that two wishes are needed, fine - use two wishes then and get what you want.

[NichG]

"A wish that ignores anti-wish rules" is most definitely a greater effect.

It's greater, yes, but its also less specific. The phrase 'You may try to use a Wish to produce greater effects' doesn't specify particular effects (nor, if I'm being pedantic, does it even specify that Wish actually does these things; the phrase 'you may try' says nothing at all about what the spell does, but only says something about what the caster does. "You may try to build a bread castle with a fireball", etc). On the other hand, rules text that says 'even a Wish cannot restore...' directly specifies what Wish cannot do.

Another way to think of it is, D&D 3.5ed is an exception-based design, so that material introduced later on can always override and errata previous material in specific cases. E.g. you can be immune to fire, but someone can still publish a feat that bypasses fire immunity, and someone else could publish a feat that bypasses the bypass to fire immunity, and so on. This is the sense in which specific trumps general, because specificity is used to identify which is the exception and which is the rule.

In the case of Wish, if some other ability specifies its own interaction with Wish, but Wish does not specify its interaction with that other ability, then that ability must be considered to be more specific than Wish, because it not only specifies its own mechanics but in addition it specifies a modification to the mechanics of Wish. So Wish contains one piece of information regarding their interaction, and the other ability contains two.

[Melcar]

Arguably there is no effect that is greater than the listed effects. Wish can, safely, make any magic item that you desire (with some quibbling over actual Artifacts). That is, just for example, equal to the power of any spell in the entire game thanks to Scrolls being magic items. It is also, just for example, equal to the power of any creature in the game thanks to the existence of Ice Assassin.

Are you one of those people that belives that wish can make epic magic items also, or only "normal" magic items?

[atemu1234]

A knave who, due to being jealous of his other friends' exploits with the local ladies, [wished to be] more charismatic than his friends. The following morning, he found himself in a company of a dead man, a drooling catatonic mess of a man, and a babbling idiot.

So, basically just your average adventuring party then?

[Psyren]

It's greater, yes, but its also less specific.

I still don't see how. The general rule would be "This spell trumps wish" while the more specific wording would be "this particular wish defeats X spell that normally stops other wishes."

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[NichG]

I still don't see how. The general rule would be "This spell trumps wish" while the more specific wording would be "this particular wish defeats X spell that normally stops other wishes."

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think the key point we're disagreeing on is whether the player's phrasing of the Wish is actually rules text or not.

[Emperor Tippy]

Are you one of those people that belives that wish can make epic magic items also, or only "normal" magic items?

There is no "beleif" involved at all. Clear cut, unambigious, rules as written are that Wish can make any magic item. Epic or non epic is an irrelevant distinction to Wish (excepting the possible XP cost). The only even slightly rules hazy part is Wishing up artifacts.

[Melcar]

There is no "beleif" involved at all. Clear cut, unambigious, rules as written are that Wish can make any magic item. Epic or non epic is an irrelevant distinction to Wish (excepting the possible XP cost). The only even slightly rules hazy part is Wishing up artifacts.

Indeed... I totally agree, but know that some dont. I was curious of your oppinion. Thanks.

[atemu1234]

Or just write the wish down and say "I wish the wish written on the piece of parchment I am holding were granted exactly as if I'd spoken it aloud within the time limit for speaking a wish."

Talking is a free action anyway. No matter what they wrote, they can still be screwed over. I guarantee it.

[Allanimal]

Has everyone seen this comic (https://plus.google.com/101835000681552189605/posts/gpvFohLfo32?pid=5631467827653127378&oid=101835000681552189605) on the topic?

Thanks Fitz. I had to read all the comics. Almost as bad as a tvtropes link...

[Yahzi]

Thanks Fitz. I had to read all the comics. Almost as bad as a tvtropes link...
Me too. Some of them were really clever!

[ben-zayb]

I think the ambiguity here is that the specificity order of preference is with regards to blocks of rules text. However, the phrasing of a particular wish is not actually a new block of rules text, it's a parameter applied to an existing spell with fixed rules text. So no matter how specific the phrasing of the wish, if there is a block of rules text elsewhere that says 'not even a Wish can undo this' or whatever, then that is more specific than the wording of the actual rules-text of Wish itself.Exactly. I couldn't have phrased it better.

In addition to the aforementioned spells/power, the psionic PrC (Illithid) Slayer also have abilities, Cerebral Blind and Cerebral Immunity, that can't be foiled by Wish based on RAW.

[Vogonjeltz]

So what a Wish CANNOT do?

Do you mean like...what are the delineated things which are impossible via wish?

Ok wish can't:
Free someone from imprisonment.
Affect the mind of or gain information about someone with mind blank active.
Recover level loss or Constitution loss. (Bringing Back the Dead, both Psionic and Magical)
Recover spellcasting abilities lost from destroying an artifact with mordenkainen's disjunction and subsequently failing the Will save.
Have more than one set of secret chests.
Summon a secret chest if the miniature is lost or destroyed.
Recover a level lost from backlash damage. (epic spells)
Restore a Sphere of Annihilation negated by a Rod of Cancellation (or vice versa).
Return a soul trapped by soul bind.

Iffy:
50% of the time it can't restore someone who has been fed on by a Barghest.

There are certainly other things (find a splatbook to flip through)