[TO] Creating Artifacts with Wish?

[Graypairofsocks]

Suppose you have some method of using Wish without having to pay the XP cost.
In that case could you use Wish to create a minor artifact or a major artifact?

[noob]

They are not magical items nor mundane items so it falls in the category greater power use.
So each time a player use that it will kill him and destroy everything he loved and send the plane in which he is into hell unless it was his objective.
And each time a npc use that it will work without any problem.

[Traitoreous]

Your DM will never allow that.

[Pippin]

Why would you need to create your own artifact? Just steal the one you want instead :smallsmile:

[Graypairofsocks]

Why would you need to create your own artifact? Just steal the one you want instead :smallsmile:

So you can have more than 1. :smallwink:

[TiaC]

Suppose you have some method of using Wish without having to pay the XP cost.
In that case could you use Wish to create a minor artifact or a major artifact?

Avoiding the XP cost allows you to create any magic item by the clause "When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP". Since creating magic items is under the list of controlled effects, this is perfectly safe. Since your method allows you to avoid the question of "the normal XP cost" entirely, it doesn't matter that there isn't an answer to that question.

It is possible to argue that artifacts are not magic items. However, the description of minor artifacts says "they are magic items that no longer can be created, at least by common mortal means". XP-less Wish is not at all common for mortals, so this seems fine. Likewise, in the description of major artifacts, it says "these are the most potent of magic items". So, I think it's clear that artifacts are magic items.

Therefore, by RAW, I'd say yes. However, this is just one in a long list of reasons that XP-less wishes are stupid and should not be allowed.

[Cosi]

Suppose you have some method of using Wish without having to pay the XP cost.
In that case could you use Wish to create a minor artifact or a major artifact?

Probably? You can certainly create something like a Ring of Infinite Wishes or a Belt of Magnificence +1,000,000 or some other item that has essentially arbitrary power.

The previous poster makes a pretty good argument as to why Artifacts are magic items (and hence eligible for wish). There are other arguments you could make (for example, artifacts don't have a listed cost, so you can't wish for one because you get a undefined casting cost), but most of they aren't very good.

Ultimately though, for most artifacts it doesn't really matter. Even if you can't create the Eye of Vecna, you could just create a magic item with equal or better properties.

[BWR]

Being somewhat old school in this regard I would probably allow it because:
a) Wish does not always do what you want
b) artifacts have drawbacks

You couldn't just create them at will, but with appropriate backstory and work you could produce something that would not work quite how you envisioned. Artifacts are special. They are not normal magic items that can be mass produced. They are unique. They do things that no other items can. They aren't just made according to some well-specified formula. A Wish could possibly do it but with results and consequences beyond what the creator intended.
At least ideally. 3.x really screwed things up in this regard.

[Graypairofsocks]

Being somewhat old school in this regard I would probably allow it because:
a) Wish does not always do what you want
b) artifacts have drawbacks

You couldn't just create them at will, but with appropriate backstory and work you could produce something that would not work quite how you envisioned. Artifacts are special. They are not normal magic items that can be mass produced. They are unique. They do things that no other items can. They aren't just made according to some well-specified formula. A Wish could possibly do it but with results and consequences beyond what the creator intended.
At least ideally. 3.x really screwed things up in this regard.

The thing is trying to create an Artifact using Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) (without an XP cost) might be in the list of effects the spell can always do.

In D&D 3.5 most Artifacts don't have any direct drawbacks.

3.5 screwed up a lot of things.

[gooddragon1]

Avoiding the XP cost allows you to create any magic item by the clause "When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP". Since creating magic items is under the list of controlled effects, this is perfectly safe. Since your method allows you to avoid the question of "the normal XP cost" entirely, it doesn't matter that there isn't an answer to that question.

It is possible to argue that artifacts are not magic items. However, the description of minor artifacts says "they are magic items that no longer can be created, at least by common mortal means". XP-less Wish is not at all common for mortals, so this seems fine. Likewise, in the description of major artifacts, it says "these are the most potent of magic items". So, I think it's clear that artifacts are magic items.

Therefore, by RAW, I'd say yes. However, this is just one in a long list of reasons that XP-less wishes are stupid and should not be allowed.

You know, my gut reaction was no.

Upon careful evaluation of the circumstances, it seems to come down to what "common mortal means" means to whatever is implementing the rules.

There is however a benefit to creating artifacts: they can contain epic spells. Note that an efreeti has cl 12 and wish is a 9th lvl spell.

[Cosi]

3.5 screwed up a lot of things.

This is very true, though probably not in the way you think. 3.0 wish had an explict 15k limit on creating magic items, which meant that the vast majority of the abuse you can do with XP free wish was not possible.

[Âmesang]

This reminds me of wanting to take a idea from the Epic Level Handbook, having a cleric of St. Cuthbert working towards the goal of crafting a replica of his deity's mace (the Fool's Mace, a reference to it not being the real mace and to his deity's personality).


Ultimately though, for most artifacts it doesn't really matter. Even if you can't create the Eye of Vecna, you could just create a magic item with equal or better properties.
Or just take Vecna's other eye… and his other hand… and his head. :smalltongue:

[Graypairofsocks]

This reminds me of wanting to take a idea from the Epic Level Handbook, having a cleric of St. Cuthbert working towards the goal of crafting a replica of his deity's mace (the Fool's Mace, a reference to it not being the real mace and to his deity's personality).
Which idea from the book are you talking about?


Or just take Vecna's other eye… and his other hand… and his head. :smalltongue:

Or his other Ear.

[AvatarVecna]

Or just take Vecna's other eye… and his other hand… and his head. :smalltongue:

"You crazy kids, get back here with my body parts!"

[daremetoidareyo]

let me rephrase OP: Can you wish for a duplicate weapon of legacy?

[Âmesang]

Which idea from the book are you talking about?
"Still, some artifacts (minor or major) can be reproduced using the epic magic item creation rules. For instance, the Mace of Cuthbert is essentially a +5 holy lawful mace of disruption (effectively a +11 weapon) with a special power (searing light at 20th level at will). According to the epic magic item creation rules, this item would have a market price of approximately 2,500,000 gp. A character who wished to wield a replica of the Mace of Cuthbert could have such an item created. It wouldn't be the actual Mace, but it would be essentially identical in function."

— Epic Level Handbook, p.150

I like that idea; makes me imagine a cleric questing to craft the Fool's Mace as a means of bringing himself closer to his deity, and considering the cost and resources required to craft it it makes for a simple, long-term goal that doesn't necessarily have to be completed in a campaign, but gives him a reason to adventure.

It also gives him a reason to be diplomatic since, as far as I can tell, a cleric of St. Cuthbert can't apply the holy aspect himself; if he's not lucky enough to obtain a holy mace, he'll have to contact a cleric of a deity with the Good domain and request his aid.

[Ashtagon]

let me rephrase OP: Can you wish for a duplicate weapon of legacy?

I don't think so. There isn't anything that enables wish to make cursed items.

[Red Fel]

I don't think so. There isn't anything that enables wish to make cursed items.

Zing!

Seriously, though, a WoL is a unique case. While a WoL must start out as a magic item, its value as a magic item cannot exceed a certain amount. If it were still considered a magic item, it would be self-invalidating, as its magical enhancements would quickly exceed that amount. Therefore, while it must necessarily start as a magic item, it cannot be considered to remain so once it is a WoL.

That said, virtually everything a WoL does can be duplicated by magic items or intelligent items. So, in theory, a Wish could duplicate that, although the value would rapidly approach the Epic Weapon threshold.

[unseenmage]

You can already technically by RAW create Artifacts using Shapesand from Sandstorm. It's super cheesey and is one of the reasons the item gets banned from almost every table but there you go.

[TiaC]

You can already technically by RAW create Artifacts using Shapesand from Sandstorm. It's super cheesey and is one of the reasons the item gets banned from almost every table but there you go.


Shapesand is a special kind of wasteland soil that is psychoreactive; it can be sculpted into any form according to your will. The new object is made of sand, but serves as a normal item of the same sort. A shapesand hammer functions just like an ordinary hammer, and a shapesand waterskin is just as watertight as an ordinary skin.

If I shape it into the the form of the mace of St. Cuthbert, it "serves as a normal item of the same sort". The "sort" is maces. So, no, it doesn't make magic items.

[noob]

So now I shape the shapesand as a sphere of annihilation.
It works as the normal base item: a dimensional rift.

[Beheld]

Yeah, repeated claims that Shapesand can do anything are usually pretty silly, but this even sillier than that, since it's explicitly prevented by the rules (normal of it's type), not just implicitly (Ie, sand in the form of Delvers Acid is not Delvers Acid, it's sand in the form of Delvers Acid).

[noob]

A "normal item of the same sort"
A dimensional rift is a normal item of the kind of the sphere of annihilation.

[Beheld]

A "normal item of the same sort"
A dimensional rift is a normal item of the kind of the sphere of annihilation.

I was referring specifically to UnseenMage's claim.

Yours is still wrong, because I would just as easily say "some air" is the normal form of a Sphere of Annihilation and have 100% of the same RAW backing, because the "normal item of the same sort" of a sphere of annihilation is undefined.

Not to mention if you read the entire description, instead of just one sentence out of context: "sculpted into any form according to your will. The new object is made of sand"

You have a sand sphere, because you sculpted sand into the form of a sphere of annihilation, and then it acts as a normal item of the same sort, and the same sort is a sphere, not a dimensional rift.

[Graypairofsocks]

A "normal item of the same sort"
A dimensional rift is a normal item of the kind of the sphere of annihilation.

We don't know if there is a normal item which the Sphere of Annihilation is based on.
A dimensional rift is more of a environmental thing.

Voidstone (Dungeon Master's Guide page 157) might be what Spheres of Annihilation are made of.

[Âmesang]

At the very least it's one way to make a sand storm cause DEEP HURTING… DEEP HURTING…

[Graypairofsocks]

At the very least it's one way to make a sand storm cause DEEP HURTING… DEEP HURTING…

Huh?
I don't get it.

[Vizzerdrix]

Great. Talking about my favorite subject and I cant access my books. :,(

[Graypairofsocks]

You can already technically by RAW create Artifacts using Shapesand from Sandstorm. It's super cheesey and is one of the reasons the item gets banned from almost every table but there you go.

What are the other reasons?

[unseenmage]

What are the other reasons?

A general lack of specificity.

What happens when you make, then use, a Shapesand arrow or cut Shapesand rope?

Which weighs more a dose of Shapesand fored into a single feather or a real feather?

Can Shapesand become alchemical items as they're explicitly not Magic Items?

Again, Shapesand is an alchemical item so can it be Animate Object-ed or Shrink Item-ed?
(That Shrink Item one I never did figure out the math for because, you guessed it, item got banned from the game I was planning to use it for.