DM Help Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole... [Archive]

Eisfalken

2016-02-09, 04:02 AM

I was just reading various notes and thoughts regarding the dreaded use of planar binding at 11th level to basically shoehorn an efreeti into using wishes non-stop on behalf of the PCs.

Then, while re-reading planar binding, I ran into this clause of the spell description: "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

I know there are various methods of dealing with wish abuse, but I would like to ask other DMs: would it be totally off the mark to interpret demanding wishes without some form of compensation (to the tune of gp per XP that would normally be required of the wish) to the efreet as being "unreasonable"? Let's consider the fact that without compensation, this is de facto slavery; unless you engage in strings of mind control and memory wiping to keep them from realizing they've been duped, or start killing every efreet you summon before releasing them (which is risky in and of itself), they know they are being kidnapped and enslaved to cast wishes until you let them go.

That alone seems to fit the very definition of "unreasonable" to me, especially for a creature whose description specifically states that they despise any form of servitude, arguably even more when they are magically compelled to appear in the first place.

I'm not necessarily arguing that a PC can't use said mind-screwing or murder to cover up their abuse of the efreet. I'm just saying that doing wishes for free seems totally unreasonable to any efreet (and, arguably, to anything that doesn't benefit fairly well from said PCs' self-interest), and that the only way to even open relatively peaceful negotiations via planar binding will be some form of compensation (which, naturally, would vary from DM to DM and situation to situation), aside from the usual bowing and scraping an efreet might require to placate their ego.

In fact, if this logic holds, then once they sufficiently appease an efreet, I see no reason as a DM to deny that exchange to take place: it gives them ample motivation to go on adventures for even such lowly rewards as gold (since it can easily be converted into something more useful), as well as providing a very quick way to exchange wealth for custom items and things they need.

Just for the record, this is merely semantics for me; I'm not actually that worried. First time someone starts abusing efreet like this, Mechanus starts spawning quarut inevitables (FF) to take care of it, probably just by freeing the efreet before the PCs can kill or mind-screw it, and letting nature take its course. Or by geasing/killing the PCs with that ridiculous list of abilities quaruts have. There is something elegant about the idea of an in-game deterrent to wish abuse, built directly into the cosmology of the game.

TiaC

2016-02-09, 04:42 AM

The issue is that once you have access to a single wish without XP cost, you can wish for a ring of infinite wishes. Therefore, the player does not need to chain-bind efreet, they can just bind one and pay it to do what they ask.

In addition, the chain usually works like this. Gate an efreet, which forces it to obey for a minute or two. Wish for a Candle of Invocation, get two more wishes. Use the candle to gate another efreet...

Really, it's probably better to just say "Don't do that in this game, it won't be any fun." or "Ok, you win D&D, let's start a new campaign because you clearly weren't enjoying this one." Applying in-game solutions to out-of-game problems is never a good solution, because it doesn't address the real problem.

Florian

2016-02-09, 04:47 AM

Like a lot of purely theoretical tactics, most of the details and caveats are being glossed over to make such tactics work.
That starts with the first clause given in the spell line: "The creature must be known and stated". The second part is, that unlike your regular summons, we talk about specific creatures (practically NPC) here and there is actually no guarantee that they did not already spent their wishcraft on other purposes (at least for that day but compare with Marids 1/year). Lastly, the integrated roleplaying of haggling with the creature. Yes, that can be done with a opposed check but not completely hand-waved.

Now its interesting that Genie can only grant wishes to non-Genies, meaning it would not make any real sense for them to hold them back. Reading the "Binding Outsiders" section, there´s a funny thing here: All outsiders want to advance their causes and can fail their opposed check on purpose when the offer is right. It´s a good tactic to have an Efreet actually make a counter-offer for what he wants in exchange for being bound to service.

Eisfalken

2016-02-09, 05:18 AM

Really, it's probably better to just say "Don't do that in this game, it won't be any fun." or "Ok, you win D&D, let's start a new campaign because you clearly weren't enjoying this one." Applying in-game solutions to out-of-game problems is never a good solution, because it doesn't address the real problem.

So basically you're saying to just houserule the crap out of this and forget about dialogue with the players, because what it comes down to is precisely that: that this is a horrible loophole in the game that can't be ignored once anyone gets on the internet and sees it is RAW, requiring me to just arbitrarily rule against it.

Got it. Moving on.

Florian

2016-02-09, 05:41 AM

So basically you're saying to just houserule the crap out of this and forget about dialogue with the players, because what it comes down to is precisely that: that this is a horrible loophole in the game that can't be ignored once anyone gets on the internet and sees it is RAW, requiring me to just arbitrarily rule against it.

Got it. Moving on.

The main issue on this is pure meta-game information put to an In-Game use and explicitly targeting areas not covered by the actual RAW.

A character would need to know all relevant creatures and items to make all of it work. Make s simple test: When a player wishes for a specific item (in this case, the Candle of Invocation), ask the player where his character knows that item from and why he can directly name it for his wish, especially when he´s not on a level where he could reasonably craft it himself (i.e. CL17).

A lot of infinity loop exploits break down the moment you separate meta and In-Game levels.

Fizban

2016-02-09, 07:21 AM

I literally just used that clause in an argument with a guy in another thread last week. It's DM's discretion right there in the main spell text. Any demand of service with no payment can be deemed unreasonable, and outsiders live longer than you so they can wait as long as they want.

Follow it up by twisting the clause that automatically returns them to their home plane after fulfilling their end of the bargain and recieving payment: with no deal, they've already fulfilled the bargain and received payment, so as soon as you disturb the circle they vanish. This prevents the bind+mind control tactic and for plots where you need an uncontrolled outsider that's escaped, you simply state that said outsider, having gained the upper hand, is "holding out for a better deal" indefinitely. That's all less "RAW", but the DM doesn't need to hide behind that anyway and Florian has already pointed out even more holes in the so-called plan.

TiaC

2016-02-09, 07:27 AM

So basically you're saying to just houserule the crap out of this and forget about dialogue with the players, because what it comes down to is precisely that: that this is a horrible loophole in the game that can't be ignored once anyone gets on the internet and sees it is RAW, requiring me to just arbitrarily rule against it.

Got it. Moving on.

Well, if you insist on playing strictly by RAW, you get Pun-Pun. Now, maybe it's just me, but I don't find that an enjoyable game. So, yes, you should dialogue with the players, because if they find making infinite wishes more interesting than whatever campaign you are telling, one of you is doing something wrong. I'm not saying to houserule anything, I'm saying that coming to things in an adversarial mindset is less effective than talking about why your players are being disruptive.

It's a loophole in the rules in the manner of a cheat code. As everyone has likely experienced, the invincibility cheats are only fun for the first few minutes before they become tedious. So if that is what your players would prefer over your campaign, either they aren't interested in being players or your campaign isn't that interesting.

ace rooster

2016-02-09, 07:31 AM

So basically you're saying to just houserule the crap out of this and forget about dialogue with the players, because what it comes down to is precisely that: that this is a horrible loophole in the game that can't be ignored once anyone gets on the internet and sees it is RAW, requiring me to just arbitrarily rule against it.

Got it. Moving on.

It is only a loophole if DMs play lawful evil outsiders with good mental stats, high spellcraft checks, and three wishes per day as unaware of this whole binding thing. This looks wrong to me. Even if it is accurate, I would expect there to be something with an interest in that many wishes, and stealing them would probably irk it. It would not be the sort of thing you would want to irk.

This is a bit like stealing the +5 vorpal sword from the kings armoury at level 3. There are no rules to say that you can't, but it is probably a really bad idea, especially if you manage. I wouldn't say it was arbitrarily ruling against it for the armoury to be securely locked, so it would not be arbitrary that efreeti would be well secured against bindings.

Necroticplague

2016-02-09, 07:42 AM

Most version of chain-wishing using efreeti I've seen never involve Planar Binding. They involved using a Candle of Invocation to Gate an efreeti. Using it's Wish falls under the

"A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. The creature departs at the end of the spell. " clause, so you can force it to spend it's wishes. Your first two are for whatever, the third is for another Candle of invocation. Repeat.

Bronk

2016-02-09, 08:15 AM

I suppose, instead of flat out banning wish chains, you could give it in game fluff.

For example, you could turn it into an adventure in itself. They could start the wish chain, but a few wishes in, they would be stopped somehow. If it's using planar binding, make sure the summoned monsters get their will saves. Then, whether it's planar binding efreeti or gating in solars, once the first one goes back to it's home plane, it can sound the alarm and send a team to get them to stop.

Or, you could say that wish chains aren't possible because the gods prevent it. Or, that someone already used a wish chain in the past, and one of their wishes was to prevent anyone else from doing so in order to protect his power. Or maybe that's where some of the setting's gods came from in the first place, and no longer like uppity adventurers on their turf!

Florian

2016-02-09, 08:17 AM

Most version of chain-wishing using efreeti I've seen never involve Planar Binding. They involved using a Candle of Invocation to Gate an efreeti. Using it's Wish falls under the
clause, so you can force it to spend it's wishes. Your first two are for whatever, the third is for another Candle of invocation. Repeat.

And that´s where theory and practice are different. You are not assured that the specific Efreet you Gate in actually has any or the full SLAs of Whishes left. Remember: This is not a summons spell, Gate works with an actual creature (NPC) and does not have to strictly go conform with the stat block.
Don´t assume otherwise, as there is no indication that this stuff is completely player-controlled.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 08:38 AM

Another solution (described in the Tomes by Frank and K) is to use 3.0 wish's price restriction and alter the magic item rules, then simply allow people to wish for all the items they want because it no longer breaks the game.

Most version of chain-wishing using efreeti I've seen never involve Planar Binding. They involved using a Candle of Invocation to Gate an efreeti.

There are two versions. The original Chain Binding trick involves using planar binding to bind an Efreet, using one of its wishes for another Efreet, one for whatever you want, then one to pay it.

The Wish's trick (where you wish for a magic item of infinite power) uses gate to shut down the "they won't let you" objection.

The Candle based loop also works, but the original does use planar binding.

And that´s where theory and practice are different. You are not assured that the specific Efreet you Gate in actually has any or the full SLAs of Whishes left. Remember: This is not a summons spell, Gate works with an actual creature (NPC) and does not have to strictly go conform with the stat block.
Don´t assume otherwise, as there is no indication that this stuff is completely player-controlled.

This is a dumb argument. Candle for an Efreet with a wish is just a proxy for other techniques for getting an XP-free wish. For example, simulacrum or ice assassin of an Efreet. Or Dweomerkeeper's Supernatural Spell + wish. Or shapechange + Zodar. Or Archmage's SLA + wish + Supernatural Transformation. Or Planar Shepherd's Outsider Wildshaper + Efreet. Getting caught up on the process of getting the wish rather than the effect of the trick is just being small-minded.

Segev

2016-02-09, 09:02 AM

The trouble with the "unreasonable request" argument is that, for an efreet, it's not that big of a deal. They can grant 3 wishes PER DAY. It costs them nothing. Between being bound for 10 minutes while wishes are worked out and being bound for days or more doing some more strenuous task, it would be arguable that the wish-granting is preferable.

Florian

2016-02-09, 09:04 AM

Beheld

2016-02-09, 09:06 AM

It is literally unreasonable of you as a DM to declare that an Efferti using one of the 3 SLA Wishes that exist for the purpose of letting PCs wish, that specifically can only be granted to other people is "unreasonable."

People often talk about how easy it is to just offer the Efferti one of his own wishes that he can't otherwise use for himself. You can also just threaten to murder the guy, and then he will quickly decide that between the choice of "Use some SLAs that don't hurt me in any way and that I get back tomorrow" and "literally die" that it's unreasonable to pick the second one.

As for claims that Efferti don't have their wishes because they spent them: Planar Binding lasts at least 11 days, if you wait 1 day, they get their wishes back and are literally incapable of spending them.

TL;DR: If the reason you want to claim something is "unreasonable" is because the game breaks if it doesn't, but it's obviously super mega hyper reasonable for the monster in question, then you aren't actually following the rules, you are changing the rules to prevent the game from breaking.

@Cosi:

The actual Wish is not a thing, you knowing what to wish for is, though. That´s the separation between player and character knowledge here and also what makes the main difference.

Meta-Knowledge aside, you simply explain to me what and how a character knows about all the "technical details" of all that stuff and we´re talking fair game here. Start with any fluff reasons, and I simply can´t take you seriously on this. "My teacher told me so" or "It is common knowledge"... lol wut?

Simply put, you are not in control here until you reach the levels that you actually can do that stuff yourself. Do not try to make a RAW case when we´re talking about the holes in RAW.

I make a DC 24 spellcraft check, that means that when I see someone casting a spell, I instantly know everything about that spell. And that's just figuring out what spell he is casting from his hand movements and words, how much lower must the check be to just know what a spell does but not be able to guess exactly what someone is casting from hand gestures.

Or are you claiming that PCs aren't allowed to know that magic items exist? How did they buy all the items they already bought if they aren't allowed to know they exist? How is a level 11 Wizard supposed to not know what a Staff is? Or a stat boosting item?

Florian

2016-02-09, 09:10 AM

@Beheld:

Schatzi, the thing here is the potential Infinity Loop that has already been mentioned more than once.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 09:13 AM

Meta-Knowledge aside, you simply explain to me what and how a character knows about all the "technical details" of all that stuff and we´re talking fair game here. Start with any fluff reasons, and I simply can´t take you seriously on this. "My teacher told me so" or "It is common knowledge"... lol wut?

He has bonuses well over twenty in both Spellcraft and Knowledge (Arcana), an INT score probably double what people in the real world do, and studies magic for a living. Also, the wish in question is for a Ring of Infinite Wishes. I don't really understand why you'd be unable to wish for that if you didn't know how wish worked. I can want the most powerful possible computer without knowing how that computer would work.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 09:14 AM

@Beheld:

Schatzi, the thing here is the potential Infinity Loop that has already been mentioned more than once.

The infinite loop is that you wish for an item that casts Wish... you are done now.

Segev

2016-02-09, 09:27 AM

The infinite loop is that you wish for an item that casts Wish... you are done now.

Technically, you need the item to be able to cast wish at least one more time than you had to cast wish to get the item.

Necroticplague

2016-02-09, 09:34 AM

Psyren

2016-02-09, 09:44 AM

eggynack

2016-02-09, 09:45 AM

@Cosi:

The actual Wish is not a thing, you knowing what to wish for is, though. That´s the separation between player and character knowledge here and also what makes the main difference.

Meta-Knowledge aside, you simply explain to me what and how a character knows about all the "technical details" of all that stuff and we´re talking fair game here. Start with any fluff reasons, and I simply can´t take you seriously on this. "My teacher told me so" or "It is common knowledge"... lol wut?

Simply put, you are not in control here until you reach the levels that you actually can do that stuff yourself. Do not try to make a RAW case when we´re talking about the holes in RAW.
But it basically is common knowledge. If I were put in control of a wish, the first thing I'd seek is a way to get some more wishes, and if magic items are the primary way to do magic things, then that's what I'd wish for. Hell, I'd even wish for it in that fashion in this world. "Gimme a second lamp, strange genie." That is what I'd do even without any knowledge of this game. And, unless I'm missing something critical, I do not have the ability to wish for stuff, and so by your reasoning should not know that that's what I should wish for. And that's me, a dumb Earthling. We're dealing with a person with intelligence far beyond anything we're capable of, with specific extra knowledge where magic stuff is concerned, and with the ability to cast spells. This is the opposite of meta-knowledge, in that I'd expect the character to come up with this plan way faster than I would.

Anyways, to return to the main thing, I agree with Beheld. What demand could possibly be any more reasonable than this one? You're not costing the efreet anything in the long term, or even in the short term, and you're not putting them at risk. What's unreasonable about it? Just that it's a demand? That seems a thoroughly ridiculous interpretation to me.

Florian

2016-02-09, 10:15 AM

Well, some of the XP-free wish methods seem like the kind of things simple experimentation could show to work. If you know about Ice Assassin, and Efreeti seperately, it's not unreasonable to wonder "Hmmm.....does the copy of an efreeti retain it's magic ability." Then you can test it out pretty simply if you can cast the former, and can get a material component from the latter (planar binding, a reasonable agreement can probably be worked out pretty easily, given how little you want from it).

I´ve got no problem with that as that are all later game issues that turn up in the "endgame" phase and can be handled there and then.

But read up the OP post again, that especially mentions doing this kind of tricks at 11th level when Planar Binding starts to be an issue.

Calling and Binding an Efreet for those wishes? No biggie.
Knowing what exact item to wish for to start the infinity loop? Now that is something you do have to explain for me, though, as I do not know where your character gained that knowledge from.

Please notice that this has simply to do with player/character knowledge separation and nothing else.

@eggynack:

Answer me a very simply question first: How is your character aware that a very specific high level item exists at all?

Note that I do not disagree with you on general principle, you can wish for whatever you like, but please do answer the above given question on this one. I´m really curious about the answer.

Edit: Autocorrect, I hate you.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 10:26 AM

How is your character aware that a very specific high level item exists at all?

1. It doesn't matter, because you're getting more castings of planar binding directly from wishes.

2. It doesn't matter, because you're wishing for a Ring of Infinite Wishes.

3. It doesn't matter, because you're wishing for "an item that will let me continue to bind Efreet and receive wishes without any ill effects".

4. You have Knowledge (Arcana) and Spellcraft modifiers high enough to know Candles exist.

5. You wish to emulate a Divination which would provide the information necessary to know what to wish for to continue the loop.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 10:31 AM

Calling and Binding an Efreet for those wishes? No biggie.
Knowing what exact item to wish for to start the infinity loop? Now that is something you do have to explain for me, though, as I do not know where your character gained that knowledge from.

Staves exist. Wizards know that Staves exist, and know what Staves do. A level 11 Wizard auto succeeds to know what Wish does, and he knows what staves are, and he knows what stat boosting items are.

So he wishes for a Staff of Wish and a Stat boosting item. This is an infinite loop. It gives him infinite Wishes.(Technically, it gives him a finite amount of wishes depending on the size of the XP invested in each wish in the first staff of wishes, but since the invested XP can be "a googleplex per wish" that finite number is so large you will wish for 40 more staves of wish, and then use each of those staves to wish for 40 more staves, and at the end of it, you will still have the ability to turn any one of those 160 wishes into more wishes than you will ever need.)

eggynack

2016-02-09, 10:35 AM

@eggynack:

Answer me a very simply question first: How is your character aware that a very specific high level item exists at all?

Note that I do not disagree with you on general principle, you can wish for whatever you like, but please do answer the above given question on this one. I´m really curious about the answer.

Well, there's the basic, "It's an incredibly powerful magic item that, when found, would have massive impact on reality," answer. We talk about items of that sort in our reality, and we don't even have one. Would such an item be talked about more or less in a world where the stories are based on reality? Moreover, the wizard is, again, a wizard, and so knows a ton about this stuff, more about it than anyone in our world realistically knows about anything. If knowledge of this item exists, and said knowledge reasonably would exist even if it would be obscure, then said knowledge is likely available to the wizard. Probably with a knowledge roll of some kind, but one that the wizard would be likely to pass. Even without such fundamental knowledge, divinations would likely be able to guide the wizard's understanding of these things. I mean, you have access to a ton of spells just through the wishes you're using in this process, so you have access to knowledge you wouldn't even have ordinarily.

The second answer is that the wizard doesn't need to know about the specific high level item, or its existence. He need only know the general nature of the thing he wants. I mean, if you think about it, a wish for, "A magic item that grants three wishes," or even, "A magic item that grants three uses of whatever spell you're using right now," would still fit into the contours of a safe wish, even were you touching on custom item rules. And you're not touching on custom item rules, of course, so you'd likely wind up with a ring, but you don't necessarily have to. The existence of the ring is nice, but I don't think it's even strictly necessary. Hell, the wish loop doesn't even rely on said item's existence. Something cheaper like a candle of invocation would work as well.

Necroticplague

2016-02-09, 11:39 AM

I´ve got no problem with that as that are all later game issues that turn up in the "endgame" phase and can be handled there and then.

But read up the OP post again, that especially mentions doing this kind of tricks at 11th level when Planar Binding starts to be an issue.

Calling and Binding an Efreet for those wishes? No biggie.
Knowing what exact item to wish for to start the infinity loop? Now that is something you do have to explain for me, though, as I do not know where your character gained that knowledge from.

Please notice that this has simply to do with player/character knowledge separation and nothing else.

At level 11, you'd know candles of invocation exist the same way you'd know about any other magic item. The sword of your fighter lackey most likely costs more. It's pretty reasonably possible for you to outright present the effreeti with a candle and say you want an identical one made.

ShurikVch

2016-02-09, 01:06 PM

Someone who suggested to use efreeti as a cheap Wish source was either overly optimistic munchkin, or very insidious DM

Efreeti are Evil.
Evil!
Is it this hard to get?
Do such conceptions as Literal Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie) or Jackass Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) means nothing to you?

There are a reasons behind the old saying "Be careful what you wish for (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeCarefulWhatYouWishFor)..."
Even the "Never Say the "W" Word" is not an overreaction - Wish was rated (at 0th place) in Top 10 (http://nerdbastards.com/2010/02/04/top-10-lamestworst-dd-spells/) worst spells in D&D

Even the wishing for items which grant withes is not so much of a problem:
- Ring of Three Wishes? Staff of Wishes? Luck Blade (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicWeapons.htm#luckBlade)? Sorry, one charge only. Every single time!
- Ring of Infinite Wishes? Don't exist, wish failed...

Florian

2016-02-09, 01:10 PM

At level 11, you'd know candles of invocation exist the same way you'd know about any other magic item. The sword of your fighter lackey most likely costs more. It's pretty reasonably possible for you to outright present the effreeti with a candle and say you want an identical one made.

I´m one of those guys that have their PF Fighter outfitted with magical crafting feats and end the game with dual-wielding fully charged luck blades and having 3 to 4 Candles of Invocation as a backup, so don´t think of me as "Anti-Magic" here.

I just want to know, kind of hard facts, where you take that knowledge from and what check you would base it upon because me, I wouldn´t know that. So far, I have not found any hard proof in RAW on how to ultimately know any magic items w/o having met and identified it.

KillianHawkeye

2016-02-09, 01:20 PM

Okay, I gotta ask: Where is this "Ring of Infinite Wishes" people keep mentioning? I've never seen a ring with more than three wishes on it.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 01:35 PM

Efreeti are Evil.
Evil!
Is it this hard to get?
Do such conceptions as Literal Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie) or Jackass Genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JackassGenie) means nothing to you?

Evil doesn't mean stupid. He trolls you with a Wish, you kill him. Who comes out of that ahead?

- Staff of Wishes? Epic item! Not available!

A) Not an Epic Item, so...

Rules for Epic Items:
1) Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th.
2) Has a caster level above 20th.
3) Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs

So a CL Staff of Wish is 375 gp × 9 (the level of the highest-level spell) × 17 (the level of the caster) = 57,375 for the purposes of determining whether it is an Epic Item, even if you invest a googleplex of XP into each charge.

B) Let's say it is an Epic item... Who cares? What prevents you from Wishing up an Epic Item? Nothing... Oh well then, who cares.

Cruiser1

2016-02-09, 01:40 PM

Candle for an Efreet with a wish is just a proxy for other techniques for getting an XP-free wish. For example, simulacrum or ice assassin of an Efreet. Or Dweomerkeeper's Supernatural Spell + wish. Or shapechange + Zodar. Or Archmage's SLA + wish + Supernatural Transformation. Or Planar Shepherd's Outsider Wildshaper + Efreet. Getting caught up on the process of getting the wish rather than the effect of the trick is just being small-minded.
People often treat RAW as some holy inviolable thing. Certainly RAW is useful because some common gound is needed for meaningful rules discussion. However, RAW is frankly bogus in many respects, and for actual games needs to be updated with an appropriate set of houserules. For example, healing through drowning is technically RAW, but obviously not RAI.

The best way to prevent free wishes and wish loops is with a simple houserule: All (Sp) and (Su) abilities require XP costs. In spite of RAW saying they don't require XP, it seems RAI that they're supposed to. Consider the Archmage PrC, which says (Sp) abilities still cost XP (but unfortunately the authors didn't think to update the general text for such abilities). This means you can Shapechange into a Zodar and get free access to Wish, but can't wish for anything unless you have 5000 XP, which is nice in higher level games but not gamebreaking.

This means you can wish to create any magic item you want, but only if you have 5000 + the appropriate crafting cost in XP to spare. Similarly, you can bind an Efreeti, but it can't cast Wish for you unless it has at least 5000 XP to spare. That's a good fluff reason for why armies of Efreeti haven't taken over the multiverse yet (by granting wishes to human slaves) with infinite wishes for +100000000 weapons and bracers of AC +100000000, because such items don't exist since nobody has the XP to craft or wish for them.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-09, 01:42 PM

There is an in game solution to all of this. It's the concept of "Yes, AND..."

The BBEGs of the PCs pull the same stuff, and they have plot armor when they are offscreen. Warn your PCs about that.

When PCs wish for infinite wishes, Vecna cultists wish for infinite wishes. Fiends of corruption cue in on all the easy access to wishes on that plane and start infiltrating. Next thing you know, your super buffed PCs are either holed up doing their wishenanigans or have buffed up and are off to solve the last quest.

And this quest, or the next one, has scaled up in difficulty to match their new powers. And now they are being tailed by something, actually a group of somethings, that they just can't quite get to understand. And those next wish rings or candles are actually possessed by fiends, or used right in front of their faces by the fiends. But it doesn't have to go this way either. Don't punish the PCs for playing around in a fantasy that grants wishes. If you must punish the PCs for some reason, Punish them for being boring, making the game that you want to play boring. No PC has the right to cakewalk everything. If that were the case, there are perfectly fine videogames to enter cheat codes into for that experience.

Always remember, though, It's ok to let the PCs think they beat you and the game. It makes them feel nice. When you come back at them in equal and opposite measure, it feels like the game has kicked into high gear.

The other option is just house ruling that a wish can only create the abilities of a single wish spell. It runs out of energy to create any circumstance wherein it grants additional wishes entirely though it's own power. It can bind an efreet for you, and you can gamble that way. Or it can steal someone else's wish ring with multiple charges left. But it cannot, by itself, grant you more than a single wish by creating an item of more than 1 wish.

I never subvert wishes that are within the clear boundaries of the wish spell, except the infinite wish loop. Getting a bigger wish than those options opens up the game to all the petty wish hijinx. I also let the PCs know that going in, both OOC and IC if possible. "That's a really tall order, it might not come out the way that you hope..."

This allows you, the DM, the ability to stay within the wish boundaries. It allows you as the DM to set up angry NPCs. It allows you, as the efreet, to mock the PCs for their dumb wishes when not subverting them. "Yeah, I'll make you 1/7th stronger, puny weakling with tiny dreams."

The other option is to treat this central derail into the bigger plot point. Have an efreet confront them, "you don't honestly think that you're the first person to have thought of this, do you? There are armies of wishers on every planet with life doing this, and they have much bigger plans that you."

Now go make a weird race with access to infinite wishes and a desire to eat humanoids. And now, the PCs have a level appropriate challenge. And they'll need those wishes. To make allies who can wish for more wishes just to compete with the new major opponents...

Beheld

2016-02-09, 01:46 PM

The best way to prevent free wishes and wish loops is with a simple houserule: All (Sp) and (Su) abilities require XP costs. In spite of RAW saying they don't require XP, it seems RAI that they're supposed to.

a) There is no reason to believe that was intended to be the rule, it clearly wasn't intended for Titans to either be unable to cast Gate, or have to create a backstory where they killed things for the XP, then get to Gate, and then have the DM do accounting.

b) That's not the best houserule, it's not even close to the best houserule. The best houserule is "You can't wish for items without it costing XP, if you are using SLA wish, you can't create the items." There is no reason to think that a houserule that makes Efferti incapable of doing the one thing their ability was actually written to do (reward players with wishes) impossible. Just declare they can't wish for powerful items and let them move on with a pile of 25,000gp in gold, (or an item worth less than that) or a +1 to a stat, or a dead friend coming back to life (without level loss).

Beheld

2016-02-09, 01:50 PM

There is an in game solution to all of this. It's the concept of "Yes, AND..."

The BBEGs of the PCs pull the same stuff, and they have plot armor when they are offscreen. Warn your PCs about that.

This is always and forever a terrible option.

The other option is just house ruling that a wish can only create the abilities of a single wish spell. It runs out of energy to create any circumstance wherein it grants additional wishes entirely though it's own power. It can bind an efreet for you, and you can gamble that way. Or it can steal someone else's wish ring with multiple charges left. But it cannot, by itself, grant you more than a single wish by creating an item of more than 1 wish.

I never subvert wishes that are within the clear boundaries of the wish spell, except the infinite wish loop. Getting a bigger wish than those options opens up the game to all the petty wish hijinx.

A +99999999999 Belt of Magnificence is a single Wish that doesn't trigger the "greater than these" hijinks, I can then just Planar Bind a second efferti if I want a second item, though I'm not sure why I would want to.

Also the greater than these hijinks are also a terrible thing that always make games worse.

Florian

2016-02-09, 01:51 PM

Okay, I gotta ask: Where is this "Ring of Infinite Wishes" people keep mentioning? I've never seen a ring with more than three wishes on it.

It doesn´t exit.

Simply put, the tactic here is to use the last wish on it to wish for a new and fresh one, making it "infinite".

Florian

2016-02-09, 01:58 PM

Beheld

2016-02-09, 02:04 PM

@Beheld:

Sorry, man, I thought you are the guy that is knowable about most things outsider-related.
There´re enough daemons/demons/devils with the ability to grant wishes and the will to twist them their ways to make that count.
Still you act like the gal/guy who physically voices the wish is the same one that is in control of the wish.

Uh... So what? If they don't give you exactly what you want they literally die the next round. Or worse, because you might just Imprison them instead.

It doesn't matter if Glabrezu's try to distort your wish, first off, you use Efferti, because they are the ones that have the best wishes (3 per day, can only be used by others), second off, if the Efferti tries to betray you, you literally kill him for it and try again.

Unless you are claiming that Efferti, while inside your Magic Circle with Dimension Anchor cast on it are somehow capable of "perverting" your very clear wish to kill you or escape? Because that is laughable.

ShurikVch

2016-02-09, 02:16 PM

Evil doesn't mean stupid. He trolls you with a Wish, you kill him. Who comes out of that ahead?1) CR 8 creature? At what level?
2) Plane Shift at will. Good luck to find him...
3) You are a <...> now. Are you sure to still be able to kill the Efreeti?

A) Not an Epic Item, so...

Rules for Epic Items:
1) Mimics a spell of an effective level higher than 9th.
2) Has a caster level above 20th.
3) Has a market price above 200,000 gp, not including material costs for armor or weapons, material component- or experience point-based costs

So a CL Staff of Wish is 375 gp × 9 (the level of the highest-level spell) × 17 (the level of the caster) = 57,375 for the purposes of determining whether it is an Epic Item, even if you invest a googleplex of XP into each charge.

B) Let's say it is an Epic item... Who cares? What prevents you from Wishing up an Epic Item? Nothing... Oh well then, who cares.OK.
Moved it to the same line as Ring of Three Wishes

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-09, 02:16 PM

This is always and forever a terrible option.

A +99999999999 Belt of Magnificence is a single Wish that doesn't trigger the "greater than these" hijinks, I can then just Planar Bind a second efferti if I want a second item, though I'm not sure why I would want to.

Also the greater than these hijinks are also a terrible thing that always make games worse.

It's right there in the spell description. "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.)"

A +999999999999 Belt of magnificence isn't a magic item that is any book, it has be customized. And, in character, you don't get to specify a numerical mechanical amount. That is metagaming. You're getting a partial fulfillment.

If you wish for "a belt of magnificence that 2000000 amount times stronger than standard", you are totally subverting the RAW printed "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item" because that is easily read as you creating a belt of magnificence 1, and then adding the power of other belts of magnificence 1999999 times. I hope your calendar days are planned out for all of that wishing, cuz duke asmodeus just set your wife on fire while you weren't paying attention.

Wishes in D&D depend on good faith. Depleting that good faith with the DM has consequences, especially if the DM has stipulated the boundaries both in and out of character. Casting a wish and expecting to get that +999999999 item because the book said so is a ridiculous thing, because the DM is the authoritarian god of the campaign. He can flatly deny you anything that you want. And then the options are to either submit, or walk away. Just as the mantra here is no gaming is better than bad gaming, I submit that allowing the player to expects and demands to have access to a +9999999999 item to get what they want doesn't actually want to play the game with other people, but rather inflict his game on other people and that is conducive to bad gaming.

Even so, the DM can allow it. And then HAVE to scale the opponents equivalently, because the DM is entitled to fun too.

Florian

2016-02-09, 02:29 PM

TheYell

2016-02-09, 02:49 PM

"Or, you could say that wish chains aren't possible because the gods prevent it."

That should only be valid if a god shows up to prevent it. If you've never tried it I highly recommend it.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 02:56 PM

1) CR 8 creature? At what level?
2) Plane Shift at will. Good luck to find him...
3) You are a <...> now. Are you sure to still be able to kill the Efreeti?

Uh... How about the level you are capable of casting Planar Binding. How about his Planeshift can't reach me anyway, because it's Touch, and he can't effect me from inside the Magic Circle Against Evil that you do as part of the process of casting Planar Binding. Yes, I can still kill him while he sits in my Magical Circle Against Evil, totally helpless.

So, like mentioned before, I actually am curious why you think that your wish is granted in a way that fits you without any drawback. To that, I did not get any meaningful answer so far.

Step 1: Magic Circle.
Step 2: Dimensional Anchor.
Step 3: Planar Binding.
Step 4: Bargain with the Efferti until he agrees to the Deal.

Bargain: Option 1) You can wait here for CL days while I present the deal to you over and over again, until on the final day I kill you if you refuse. Option 2) You can agree to the deal I am offering.

Deal: I will tell you what 1-3 Items I want, I will explain what those items are, in numerical terms if necessary, until you are clear on what 1-3 items I want. If you have any question about what items I want, you should ask questions to clarify, because that is in your best interest. Then I will wish for the three items, and you will use your wish powers to grant me those items, and I will then cast Identify 1-3 times (or have your DFA buddy do it for free, whatever), and if the items are not the items that I wanted, that I explained to you ahead of time, then you failed to honor your end of the deal, and I will kill you right away, while you continue to sit helpless in that circle. If on the other hand, I get the items I want, then I will not kill you, and I will send you on your merry way/ give you 1-2 wishes for whatever you want.

Once he agrees to the deal, he is bound by it, so he actually can't not give you the items you want, because that's not part of the deal which he is magically compelled to abide by, but if he does give you the wrong items, you also just kill him.

Then I will rely on the principle that Efferti are not idiots who kill themselves to spite me.

But hey, if they are, then there are a literal infinity more Efferti where that came from, and I can cast Planar Binding several more times today.

You can also do things like Planar Bind a Barghest and explain how you are going to feed his Corpse to the Barghest if you want. But since death sucks ****, and giving you wishes costs literally nothing, the Efferti really doesn't need much convincing.

It's right there in the spell description. "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.)"

"Greater than these" Which is why you choose one of "these" instead. Creating a magical item or adding to the powers of an existing one is one of the "these" which by definition means it can't be "greater than these."

A +999999999999 Belt of magnificence isn't a magic item that is any book, it has be customized. And, in character, you don't get to specify a numerical mechanical amount. That is metagaming. You're getting a partial fulfillment.

In game you know that a Belt of Magnificence +6 (Which is specifically called a Belt of Magnificence +6 in the rules) makes you 15% better at all tasks. Asking for one that is 50 billion times stronger than that is not metagaming. It is a magic item that is in the the Epic Handbook, it lists the price for any magic item that grants an Epic Bonus, including Belt of Magnificence +50 trillion, or any other number.

If you wish for "a belt of magnificence that 2000000 amount times stronger than standard", you are totally subverting the RAW printed "Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item" because that is easily read as you creating a belt of magnificence 1, and then adding the power of other belts of magnificence 1999999 times. I hope your calendar days are planned out for all of that wishing, cuz duke asmodeus just set your wife on fire while you weren't paying attention.

This is literally nonsensical on every level. By wishing for an item, you are not subverting the Raw ability to wish for an item. If you were in an Epic game, and had a bunch of XP, and wanted to Wish for a Belt of Magnificence +50 Quintillion, you could just do that, and it would be explicitly exactly what the Create Magic Item function of wish was designed for, to bypass the tremendously long crafting time of items at the cost of XP. The only way this is bypassing anything is that you aren't spending the XP cost, and whether that happens because you dominate someone, or because you use SLA Wish, not spending the XP cost doesn't magically turn a wish that is using one of the effects into a different wish.

Wishes in D&D depend on good faith. Depleting that good faith with the DM has consequences, especially if the DM has stipulated the boundaries both in and out of character. Casting a wish and expecting to get that +999999999 item because the book said so is a ridiculous thing, because the DM is the authoritarian god of the campaign. He can flatly deny you anything that you want. And then the options are to either submit, or walk away. Just as the mantra here is no gaming is better than bad gaming, I submit that allowing the player to expects and demands to have access to a +9999999999 item to get what they want doesn't actually want to play the game with other people, but rather inflict his game on other people and that is conducive to bad gaming.

Even so, the DM can allow it. And then HAVE to scale the opponents equivalently, because the DM is entitled to fun too.

Dude, no one is saying you should actually do this in an actual game. They are merely stating, "the rules allow this, therefore you should either not do it, or houserule the rules."

Telok

2016-02-09, 05:32 PM

Concerning the "efreeti are not dumb" bit, this is why the efreeti in my games all have a level of wizard and the improved familiar feat.

The main bone of contention here is about what RAW allows. However the bit in the Wish spell about "effects greater than the previous list" is a value judgement, and the RAW doesn't make that judgement for you. So some people value a Belt of Battle with ten million charges a day and the ability to grant the wearer xp-less SLA Wish is greater than a +3 sword while others think it's the same thing as the sword. Different value judgements.

Cosi

2016-02-09, 05:36 PM

The main bone of contention here is about what RAW allows. However the bit in the Wish spell about "effects greater than the previous list" is a value judgement, and the RAW doesn't make that judgement for you. So some people value a Belt of Battle with ten million charges a day and the ability to grant the wearer xp-less SLA Wish is greater than a +3 sword while others think it's the same thing as the sword. Different value judgements.

WTF? How is "X really good magic item" not "a magic item"? Is a Ferrari not a car because it's a really good car?

How hard is it to just say "it's broken, it's not allowed"? Why is it so damn important to screw over players by having the gods mess with them, or jacking up their enemies, or making arguments about double secret RAW?

eggynack

2016-02-09, 05:44 PM

@Beheld:

I do not claim anything, but I also do not count on anything being a 100% sure unless odds really run in your favor.

The point being here, whishes granted by Efreeti or Glabrezu are wishes granted by evil outsiders with their own will and goals. You do not simply dominate them in any way and get your desires covered, that´s not how it works.

So, like mentioned before, I actually am curious why you think that your wish is granted in a way that fits you without any drawback. To that, I did not get any meaningful answer so far.
Well, two things separately. First, on the efreeti side, you get them to agree to let you wish for three things, in the fashion that you word them. Planar binding specifies that the creature does what it agrees to, and that this is required for it to leave. You do simply dominate them to get your desires covered, and that is how it works, because the spell says that it compels them to take the actions you dictate. It doesn't matter how smart or evil the efreeti is, cause the spell doesn't make an exception for super evil and smart outsiders. Second, on the wish side, this falls under the safe wishes, so once the wish is in place a drawback would be impossible. So, you wish for the ring from the efreeti, and then neither the efreeti nor the wish can subvert your goals.

dascarletm

2016-02-09, 05:48 PM

Or worse, because you might just Imprison them instead. expelled

Fixed that. :smalltongue:

Convincing the summoned anything is an opposed charisma check with a +0 or +6 based on the offer. It doesn't really matter how much you threaten it, and if you roll a 1, it goes away.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 06:07 PM

Convincing the summoned anything is an opposed charisma check with a +0 or +6 based on the offer. It doesn't really matter how much you threaten it, and if you roll a 1, it goes away.

Threatening to kill things isn't really that important, except to show that it would be unreasonable for the Efferti to refuse, and therefore reasonable to accept your deal, bypassing the claim that it is "unreasonable" for the Efferti to choose cast three of my Daily SLAs, instead of death.

So ****ing what, you are a Wizard who Planar Bound an Efferti, you roll a 1 one out of 20 times, you beat his Charisma check because you are a level 11 Wizard with a trapped CR 9 creature, you can just do Charisma damage to it with your spells if you really want.

If he breaks out, either you kill him, or he runs away and you Planar Bind another one or the same one and who cares.

thethird

2016-02-09, 07:20 PM

There are always ways to lower charisma, to ensure that the charisma check to convince the wish granter succeeds, for example this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?135096-Planar-Binding-and-You-(Bonus-Stories-Included)) old thread details several that may apply. I personally enjoy the use of lesser geas.

Crake

2016-02-09, 07:47 PM

Evil doesn't mean stupid. He trolls you with a Wish, you kill him. Who comes out of that ahead?

You're assuming you SURVIVE his wish troll, or notice it while he's still there.

Beheld

2016-02-09, 08:05 PM

You're assuming you SURVIVE his wish troll, or notice it while he's still there.

Yes, I'm assuming that his wish troll where I wish for an item, doesn't instantly murder me no save.

I'm also assuming that when I cast Identify on an item, that it identifies the item, and then if it's the item I want, I can just not murder him, because that was the item I want.

Crake

2016-02-10, 05:47 AM

Yes, I'm assuming that his wish troll where I wish for an item, doesn't instantly murder me no save.

I'm also assuming that when I cast Identify on an item, that it identifies the item, and then if it's the item I want, I can just not murder him, because that was the item I want.

What about wish trolls where the item IS one that you want, but it comes with baggage you aren't aware of until later down the track? Or an item with an irresistible Nystuls Magic Aura, or anything else in between. I'm sure efreeti have had plenty of time to learn the tricks of the trade when it comes to perverting wishes in subtle ways that may not be noticed for hours, days, perhaps even months.

Necroticplague

2016-02-10, 06:14 AM

What about wish trolls where the item IS one that you want, but it comes with baggage you aren't aware of until later down the track?
Identify tells you about that kind of stuff.

Or an item with an irresistible Nystuls Magic Aura, or anything else in between.
Wish can only do one thing at a time. it can't simulate a spell and make a magic item at the same time. So if he tried this, it would be patently evident by the fact I'm one item short. Trying it anyway would be trigger the " greater effects than this" clause, and likely get him screwed over more than me. Especially considering that it's a spell that doesn't exist (an irresistable version of a spell that normally allows a save).

Yahzi

2016-02-10, 06:20 AM

All (Sp) and (Su) abilities require XP costs.
Exactly this. The Efreet can only cast wish if you give him the XP. Which, you know, is cool for people who can't cast Wish on their own.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 06:22 AM

What about wish trolls where the item IS one that you want, but it comes with baggage you aren't aware of until later down the track?

Like what? What baggage comes with a created item? How does creating an item or adding abilities to one come with baggage?

Or an item with an irresistible Nystuls Magic Aura, or anything else in between.

Oh, well in that case I cast my own made up homebrew spell "Summon Efferti who has to give me exactly what I want no matter what."

I'm sure efreeti have had plenty of time to learn the tricks of the trade when it comes to perverting wishes in subtle ways that may not be noticed for hours, days, perhaps even months.

Why? No really, why does he spend any non zero amount of time learning how to make enemies of people who are stronger than him and can Call him on a whim for any reason when he can just as easily not do that? There is literally no reason for him to be trying to make enemies of people who can kill him even if he could, which, as discussed previously, he literally can't, because he is compelled to follow the bargain.

Seriously, if your solution to a problem with the rules is "It's not a problem because I can just make creatures in the game do something that makes no sense and still doesn't even stop the actual problem, just adds one more pointless easily navigable layer to the hoops the PCs have to jump through to break the game." Maybe there actually is a problem with the rule and just ****ing admitting that would save us all a lot of time and trouble.

Exactly this. The Efreet can only cast wish if you give him the XP. Which, you know, is cool for people who can't cast Wish on their own.

If only you could read the rest of the thread you could tell us why you need to make such a broad sweeping nonsense change to correct such a minor problem.

ShurikVch

2016-02-10, 06:26 AM

if the Efferti tries to betray you, you literally kill him for it and try again.Except Efferti are, like any non-native Outsiders, immortal: you kill him - he come back at his home plane 5 minutes later. Enjoy your new immortal ill-wisher. :smallwink:

Identify tells you about that kind of stuff.Cursed Items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm):
Delusion
The user believes the item is what it appears to be, yet it actually has no magical power other than to deceive. The user is mentally fooled into thinking the item is functioning and cannot be convinced otherwise without the help of a remove curse spell.
...
A simple detect magic spell yields a misleading aura and strength, often indicating that the item is a noncursed item of similar sort. An identify spell only has a 1% chance per caster level to reveal a cursed item’s true properties, including the cursed aspect. Analyze dweomer reveals the true nature of a cursed item.

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 06:30 AM

Why? No really, why does he spend any non zero amount of time learning how to make enemies of people who are stronger than him and can Call him on a whim for any reason when he can just as easily not do that? There is literally no reason for him to be trying to make enemies of people who can kill him even if he could, which, as discussed previously, he literally can't, because he is compelled to follow the bargain.

Seriously, if your solution to a problem with the rules is "It's not a problem because I can just make creatures in the game do something that makes no sense and still doesn't even stop the actual problem, just adds one more pointless easily navigable layer to the hoops the PCs have to jump through to break the game." Maybe there actually is a problem with the rule and just ****ing admitting that would save us all a lot of time and trouble.

The next day the wizard disappears and is never heard from again. Why? The Efreet had a servant use its wishes to wish the wizard into an antimagic field, or a dead magic plane, and brutally murder him.

Efreet are intelligent evil creatures with servants and/or friends that do not like being used. They may not be able to directly use their wishes but that doesn't stop them from finding someone who can and is willing to make them for the Efreet.

thethird

2016-02-10, 06:32 AM

Except Efferti are, like any non-native Outsiders, immortal: you kill him - he come back at his home plane 5 minutes later. Enjoy your new immortal ill-wisher. :smallwink:
Cursed Items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm):

Calling (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm)
A calling spell transports a creature from another plane to the plane you are on. The spell grants the creature the one-time ability to return to its plane of origin, although the spell may limit the circumstances under which this is possible. Creatures who are called actually die when they are killed; they do not disappear and reform, as do those brought by a summoning spell (see below). The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 06:39 AM

Except Efferti are, like any non-native Outsiders, immortal: you kill him - he come back at his home plane 5 minutes later. Enjoy your new immortal ill-wisher. :smallwink:
Cursed Items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/cursedItems.htm):

1) See the actual rules for calling spells.

2) Analyze Dweomer the spell of the same level that the Wizard already has access to if he is casting Planar Binding always figures it out no matter what and can identify all three items and has no material component cost, so if you do it 500 times because for some inexplicable reason the first 499 Efferti had a death wish it saves money? Oh wow, good job tricking that 30 Int Wizard who's cast Analyze Dweomer and killed you, again, for no reason, because there is literally nothing to gain from trying to screw the Wizard.

The next day the wizard disappears and is never heard from again. Why? The Efreet had a servant use its wishes to wish the wizard into an antimagic field, or a dead magic plane, and brutally murder him.

Efreet are intelligent evil creatures with servants and/or friends that do not like being used. They may not be able to directly use their wishes but that doesn't stop them from finding someone who can and is willing to make them for the Efreet.

How do they have any friends or servants when explicit offers to deal with them result in them trying to break the deal and then kill you? How do they get the servant to wish for you to be transported when the servant makes a wish they instantly pervert the wish to kill him instead because they hate being sane so much that even when offered explicit trades of free wishes they refuse and try to kill you instead?

And hope you aren't some kind of Wizard or something, that can just kill them when they try to betray you.

ShurikVch

2016-02-10, 06:56 AM

Uh... How about the level you are capable of casting Planar Binding.It's highly unusual. Most instances of Wish-looping suggested by wet behind the ears low-levels, who are physically incapable to cast Circle vs X; hell, original Pun-Pun was 5th level!

...
1) See the actual rules for calling spells.It have nothing to do with Calling rules, and everything to do with Outsider.
You may call any sort of creature (or even object), not just an Outsider; Outsider, if killed not on native plane, reforms back

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 06:57 AM

How do they have any friends or servants when explicit offers to deal with them result in them trying to break the deal and then kill you? How do they get the servant to wish for you to be transported when the servant makes a wish they instantly pervert the wish to kill him instead because they hate being sane so much that even when offered explicit trades of free wishes they refuse and try to kill you instead?

And hope you aren't some kind of Wizard or something, that can just kill them when they try to betray you.

The Efreet was chilling at home, hanging with its buddies in the City of Brass (or whatever that town on the Plane of Fire is called), when all of a sudden, BOOM! called to the Material Plane. What would you do in the situation? Be neighborly? The Efreet helps you today sure, because it knows tomorrow, you're dead.

thethird

2016-02-10, 06:58 AM

It have nothing to do with Calling rules, and everything to do with Outsider.
You may call any sort of creature (or even object), not just an Outsider; Outsider, if killed not on native plane, reforms back

No.

Outsider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm) Type
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

Features
An outsider has the following features.

8-sided Hit Dice.
Base attack bonus equal to total Hit Dice (as fighter).
Good Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves.
Skill points equal to (8 + Int modifier, minimum 1) per Hit Die, with quadruple skill points for the first Hit Die.
Traits
An outsider possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry).

Darkvision out to 60 feet.
Unlike most other living creatures, an outsider does not have a dual nature—its soul and body form one unit. When an outsider is slain, no soul is set loose. Spells that restore souls to their bodies, such as raise dead, reincarnate, and resurrection, don’t work on an outsider. It takes a different magical effect, such as limited wish, wish, miracle, or true resurrection to restore it to life. An outsider with the native subtype can be raised, reincarnated, or resurrected just as other living creatures can be.
Proficient with all simple and martial weapons and any weapons mentioned in its entry.
Proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types. Outsiders not indicated as wearing armor are not proficient with armor. Outsiders are proficient with shields if they are proficient with any form of armor.
Outsiders breathe, but do not need to eat or sleep (although they can do so if they wish). Native outsiders breathe, eat, and sleep.

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 07:05 AM

No.

Outsider (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm) Type
An outsider is at least partially composed of the essence (but not necessarily the material) of some plane other than the Material Plane. Some creatures start out as some other type and become outsiders when they attain a higher (or lower) state of spiritual existence.

-snip-

I believe it was either detailed in a splat, or is something specific to perhaps demons/devils. But there is something that says that at least some outsiders are pretty much incapable of being killed, as they always reform on their home plane at some point in the future.

sleepyphoenixx

2016-02-10, 07:48 AM

ace rooster

2016-02-10, 07:52 AM

I believe it was either detailed in a splat, or is something specific to perhaps demons/devils. But there is something that says that at least some outsiders are pretty much incapable of being killed, as they always reform on their home plane at some point in the future.

Word of giant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)* on this. I don't think anyone is winning this argument.

* Not really 'word of giant' in the inarguable sense, but conveys the point better than I can.

If they do reform they will be pissed. If they don't reform they will have friends who are even more pissed. Planar binding is stealing power, and stealing power is always dangerous. The more powerful or useful the creature the more dangerous it is.

How would people rule the wish

"I wish for this efreeti to be protected from planar binding"?

Florian

2016-02-10, 07:57 AM

The Fluff to Crunch ratio really is a mess here.

It´s Calling, so you get the actual creature, an NPC then, not a perfect copy of one.
That also means that it has to understand what you want from it and has the knowledge to act upon that. This whole discussion hinges on "transparency" and having "clear and perfect knowledge" about all elements involved.

I point to the ongoing discussion with Behest here: You are not your character. The "technical side" does not automatically carry over to in-game knowledge and an NPC does not automatically understand what you mean when you´re using "technical terms".

So far, I haven´t read any really convincing arguments that any side, character or outsider, knows the exact items (in the sense of the technical term) we´re talking about.
The same would hold true for sudden teleports to location XY or plane shifts to YZ. That is player knowledge intruding into the game.

Note that I don´t advocate "Keeping characters small" or "Barring players from options" here, I just have the very distinct feeling that most exploits are based on the purely "technical side" of player knowledge and don´t carry over all too well to the in-game side of things.

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 08:02 AM

Word of giant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0399.html)* on this. I don't think anyone is winning this argument.

* Not really 'word of giant' in the inarguable sense, but conveys the point better than I can.

If they do reform they will be pissed. If they don't reform they will have friends who are even more pissed. Planar binding is stealing power, and stealing power is always dangerous. The more powerful or useful the creature the more dangerous it is.

How would people rule the wish

"I wish for this efreeti to be protected from planar binding"?

Nah, just a contingent Dimensional Anchor in some form. Triggered on being called, you would be unable to be transported by planar binding.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 08:31 AM

The "technical side" does not automatically carry over to in-game knowledge and an NPC does not automatically understand what you mean when you´re using "technical terms".

So far, I haven´t read any really convincing arguments that any side, character or outsider, knows the exact items (in the sense of the technical term) we´re talking about.

You certainly can argue that it is impossible to wish for items because you character can't possibly know what an item is, and likewise it is impossible to craft items, and likewise impossible to buy items... I don't know why you would think that when the DMG has rules for buying items and crafting items, and the PHB has rules for wishing for items.

Maybe they just assumed that no one would seriously be so purposefully dumb as to demand a rules citation for knowing that items exist. Maybe, just maybe, arguing that people can't buy or craft items because what even are items is not the best way to address Wishes for Items. Just maybe.

It's highly unusual. Most instances of Wish-looping suggested by wet behind the ears low-levels, who are physically incapable to cast Circle vs X; hell, original Pun-Pun was 5th level!

If you are using Gate (Or Candle of Invocation, which casts Gate) then you don't need anything, because you just super mega mind control them for the duration of the Gate, and make them Wish properly and give you what you want.

I believe it was either detailed in a splat, or is something specific to perhaps demons/devils. But there is something that says that at least some outsiders are pretty much incapable of being killed, as they always reform on their home plane at some point in the future.

So just to be clear, you admit that you were completely in the wrong and Efferti doesn't come back to life, he stays dead?

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 08:33 AM

So just to be clear, you admit that you were completely in the wrong and Efferti doesn't come back to life, he stays dead?

I cannot admit to such a statement as I was not the one that posted that originally. Try again.

thethird

2016-02-10, 08:35 AM

I believe it was either detailed in a splat, or is something specific to perhaps demons/devils. But there is something that says that at least some outsiders are pretty much incapable of being killed, as they always reform on their home plane at some point in the future.

It actually is detailed in the summoning section.

Summoning
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

But as I pointed out that's not the case because a calling spell is being used, then that was refutted by saying it was an inherent thing of outsiders. I flatly said no to that.

zergling.exe

2016-02-10, 08:37 AM

It actually is detailed in the summoning section.

Summoning
A summoning spell instantly brings a creature or object to a place you designate. When the spell ends or is dispelled, a summoned creature is instantly sent back to where it came from, but a summoned object is not sent back unless the spell description specifically indicates this. A summoned creature also goes away if it is killed or if its hit points drop to 0 or lower. It is not really dead. It takes 24 hours for the creature to reform, during which time it can’t be summoned again.

But as I pointed out that's not the case because a calling spell is being used, then that was refutted by saying it was an inherent thing of outsiders. I flatly said no to that.

I believe the person that said it was specific to demons was right. I think it was that they reform either some time within days to possibly centuries later in the Abyss.

Florian

2016-02-10, 08:50 AM

@Behest:

You do like to use your hyperboles, don´t you?
I asked a very simple question and that is where you character (not the player) gets all the necessary knowledge from to make all of it work. It´s a simple assumption that when you have the according crafting feats and be the right class, once you hit the necessary CL you know what you do, i.e. divine CL17 for a Candle of Invocation.
The answer you fail to provide so far is how the heck everyone else knows what that items is, what it´s name is and how it works. It´s that simple, just state where the knowledge comes from and all is well.

@zergling.exe:

Mostly it´s blank territory where we know nothing about. We do know some details about specific outsider races (Demons for example), but mostly, it´s a blank slate.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 09:06 AM

The answer you fail to provide so far is how the heck everyone else knows what that items is, what it´s name is and how it works. It´s that simple, just state where the knowledge comes from and all is well.

I already answered that. Just state how you know what an item is in order to buy it, just state where the knowledge comes from and all is well.

Once you accept that you can buy items without a rules citation for how you know a specific item exists, you can move on to wishing them too.

You certainly can argue that it is impossible to wish for items because you character can't possibly know what an item is, and likewise it is impossible to craft items, and likewise impossible to buy items... I don't know why you would think that when the DMG has rules for buying items and crafting items, and the PHB has rules for wishing for items.

Maybe they just assumed that no one would seriously be so purposefully dumb as to demand a rules citation for knowing that items exist. Maybe, just maybe, arguing that people can't buy or craft items because what even are items is not the best way to address Wishes for Items. Just maybe.

Florian

2016-02-10, 09:58 AM

I already answered that. Just state how you know what an item is in order to buy it, just state where the knowledge comes from and all is well.

Once you accept that you can buy items without a rules citation for how you know a specific item exists, you can move on to wishing them too.

I think we really have to go back to some basics here so we can discuss this further and go into the details, as I find the whole topic to be very interesting.

First, there is a certain disparity here that we need to clear up first, and that is between "Available Items" and "Creating characters beyond 1st level and using WBL".

When you use the rules to create a community, you randomly roll for what items of which kind are available to buy for the current month. That is what is available and known, changing every month.
It´s a common house rule to scratch that and simply focus on the spending limit, but that is just that: a house rule, far away from being RAW.
Second option here is to create NPC based on community creation and see what kinds of items they could craft/sell, commonly assuming that they have the necessary crafting feats, knowledge of spells and a willingness to do just that. Again, house rule territory, no RAW involved.

Generally speaking, we have a problem here. Using RAW, we can´t actually generate the environment we need to make it work. Sad but true.

Bizarre as it is, creating a higher-level character from scratch using pure WBL gives us way more options then the rules governing in-game items would allow for. A Candle of Invocation pretty much is the prime example here, being reasonably cheap but needing a CL 17 Cleric to craft it.

Cosi

2016-02-10, 10:01 AM

When you use the rules to create a community, you randomly roll for what items of which kind are available to buy for the current month. That is what is available and known, changing every month.

I am almost 100% sure this is a PF rules change. The rules in the 3.5 DMG don't say anything about rolling for item availability, they say you can just buy stuff up to the cap. Text citation please.

Florian

2016-02-10, 11:25 AM

I am almost 100% sure this is a PF rules change. The rules in the 3.5 DMG don't say anything about rolling for item availability, they say you can just buy stuff up to the cap. Text citation please.

Sorry, no citation right now as I´m on my mobile and that is a chore. If needed, I can do that when I come home.

The rules on the DMG/SRD are quite clear on this topic, though: If you don´t find the answer in the rules, refer either to "our" reality or the specific campaign setting you use and go from there.

Using those rules only lets us generate NPC up to a certain level and that´s it. If we use the aforementioned guidelines, "someone needs to create it so we can buy it", then there is a very specific cap on what is available before we have to find it or create it ourselves.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 11:38 AM

When you use the rules to create a community, you randomly roll for what items of which kind are available to buy for the current month. That is what is available and known, changing every month.

It doesn't say that anywhere in my DMG. In fact it says pretty much exactly the opposite of that:

Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical.

So maybe you can tell us what page this hypothetical rule is on in the DMG.

Or perhaps you can tell us the hypothetical rule that allows PCs to know an item exists and therefore look for it in the city?

Absent that, I'm going to have to stick with "The characters know what items can be created/wished/bought because knowing what items can be created/wished/bought is just something that is assumed everyone relevant knows."

Florian

2016-02-10, 11:46 AM

It doesn't say that anywhere in my DMG

Then find me the spot in the DMG that creates a regular CL17 cleric with crafting feats and we can talk on, without using gm fiat.

thethird

2016-02-10, 11:52 AM

I believe the person that said it was specific to demons was right. I think it was that they reform either some time within days to possibly centuries later in the Abyss.

@Behest:Mostly it´s blank territory where we know nothing about. We do know some details about specific outsider races (Demons for example), but mostly, it´s a blank slate.

I went and checked the fiendish codex, pg 9, a demon does reform into a new demon. It mentions reincarnate though, so I am willing to concede that memory is preserved. It doesn't mention how long it takes. So that's most likely a plot coupon.

Of course the fact that demons have that specific ruling bears no consequence to the general ruling of they are dead. So it's most decidedly not a blank slate.

Then find me the spot in the DMG that creates a regular CL17 cleric with crafting feats and we can talk on, without using gm fiat.

Pg 106, 114.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 12:18 PM

Then find me the spot in the DMG that creates a regular CL17 cleric with crafting feats and we can talk on, without using gm fiat.

Uh what? You are going to have to take a whole heaping of steps back and explain that reasoning that led you to challenge me to point to some specific thing that I never claimed anything about, and seems completely unrelated to any of my claims.

Items exist in cities, and you can totally just buy anything under the GP limits, even though zero rules tell you that you know any items exist at all, do you disagree that you were completely wrong about your previous claim of rolling up items in cities?

Can we get back to the point where you present any difference at all between items in cities being bought by people without a text citation of how they know to look for items and items being wished into existence?

Florian

2016-02-10, 12:38 PM

Uh what? You are going to have to take a whole heaping of steps back and explain that reasoning that led you to challenge me to point to some specific thing that I never claimed anything about, and seems completely unrelated to any of my claims.

Items exist in cities, and you can totally just buy anything under the GP limits, even though zero rules tell you that you know any items exist at all, do you disagree that you were completely wrong about your previous claim of rolling up items in cities?

Can we get back to the point where you present any difference at all between items in cities being bought by people without a text citation of how they know to look for items and items being wished into existence?

I have stated my base reasoning. Someone crafted it and put it up on the market, it is for sale. Very easy chain of effects to follow.

There´s a rather huge gap here between "what is possible because we have the rules for it" and "what is reasonable because we have rules for it and don´t need gm fiat".

So when we use the rules for creating campaign worlds, what we end up is lvl 12th casters at most before applying gm fiat and introducing "named" NPC. So where does that stuff come from? Who crafts and sells it? This issue is best exemplified when using the Eberron core setting, as no NPC there is stated to be higher then level 12. So where does that magic junk come from? Again, basic DMG thingie here: Base it on "our" reality if you don´t have answers. No creators, no items, no ready knowledge about them. Simple.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 12:49 PM

I have stated my base reasoning. Someone crafted it and put it up on the market, it is for sale. Very easy chain of effects to follow.

That is not an answer to the question on distinct levels:
1) All the items exist, we know they exist because the DMG says they exist, so we don't need to find out how they exist, even if only level 12 casters exist, maybe every single item in the game was wished up by Efferti. The issue is "How do PCs know the items exist in order to look for and buy a specific one?" The DMG explains over and over that the PCs get to come to their decision about what items to look for, and then they find them. How, in your twisted imagination in which you need a rules cite to know an item exists, do they do that?

2) How did the person who crafted the item know the item existed to be crafted? Do you have a page citation for your completely baseless claim that being able to craft an item immediately grants you knowledge of it's existence as a thing you could craft by psychic insertion?

There´s a rather huge gap here between "what is possible because we have the rules for it" and "what is reasonable because we have rules for it and don´t need gm fiat".

And wishing for items that you know exist is something that we don't need gm fiat for.

And knowing that items exist is so basic, that if your DM declares you can't know about them, you can't buy them.

Rijan_Sai

2016-02-10, 01:30 PM

Worst case scenario: Knowledge: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/knowledge.htm)
If you really need and in-game, mechanical basis for knowing items exist, Knowledge: Arcana (DC 10 or less) for general knowlegde of the existance on Magic Items;
Knowledge: Religion (DC 15, or more likely 20+) for the specifics of the Candle of Invocation;
Knowledge: The Planes (DC 20) for information about the Efreeti.

True, none of those (aside from info about monsters) are RAW, per se, but does seem a fairly reasonable use of the skill.

Also, Wizard...(all Knowledge skills as class skills, generally accepted to put ranks in (at least) the the ones that give information about creatures...)

thethird

2016-02-10, 01:32 PM

I have stated my base reasoning. Someone crafted it and put it up on the market, it is for sale. Very easy chain of effects to follow.

There´s a rather huge gap here between "what is possible because we have the rules for it" and "what is reasonable because we have rules for it and don´t need gm fiat".

So when we use the rules for creating campaign worlds, what we end up is lvl 12th casters at most before applying gm fiat and introducing "named" NPC. So where does that stuff come from? Who crafts and sells it? This issue is best exemplified when using the Eberron core setting, as no NPC there is stated to be higher then level 12. So where does that magic junk come from? Again, basic DMG thingie here: Base it on "our" reality if you don´t have answers. No creators, no items, no ready knowledge about them. Simple.

Are you reading only what is convenient to you?

Pg 114.

There, NPC Clerics, see how there are 17th level Clerics stated as NPCs.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-10, 02:06 PM

Perhaps there is no end point to this conversation.

Apparently Beheld is simply arguing RAW, not what should happen in real games.

And the RAW are dumb on multiple levels. It's very buggy code. The game crashes when you push on it. Especially against a dummy DM.

And wish is terrible RAW. No gp limit on magic items? WHY DID YOU DO THAT, WOTC? Open permission for the DM to interpret a wish in such a way to hurt the players? No limitation, even bad buggy limitation on wishing for more wishes? WOTC DGAF.

This entire conversation has no discernable endpoint because... schroedinger's circumstances.

Florian

2016-02-10, 02:11 PM

Are you reading only what is convenient to you?

I repeat it a third time: I´m not talking against high-level stuff as that is part of the high-level game and therefore part of D&D.
.
I argue against mixing player and character knowledge and basing all decisions on pure player knowledge as that simply doesn´t work and breaks any versimilitude, that´s all.

You, the player, can have way more knowledge about the in-game reality than the character you play actually has. If you don´t separate those things, a lot of stuff simply becomes meaningless.
In the same way, the rules themselves provide way more options than may actually be part of the in-game reality.

So yes, there is a glaring disparity here. RAW provides options but that options must be available in the in-game reality, else any notion of a simulation is pretty meaningless and you can simply screw any attempt at making a setting internally consistent.

Taking Eberron as an example, the highest level core NPC being lvl12, again, do tell me where CL 13+ items do come from when not simply falling out of the sky.
Simple answer: They don´t. We´re either talking about blindly sticking to RAW here or we talk about pure gm fiat.

Now if we go by pure gm fiat, then screw RAW and anything goes in any way possible.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 02:21 PM

Maybe they come from somewhere extradimensional? I have no idea. The game says the items are there, so they're there. If you're going to blindly follow RAW to determine demographic breakdowns, might as well blindly follow RAW to determine item breakdowns. And, again, this plan doesn't rely at all on out of character knowledge. You are fully in your rights to wish for a custom item. And, besides that, your character is necessarily both hyper-intelligent, and specifically specialized in this area. Can we say with 100% certainty that the character knows about this item? No. Can we say that with sufficient certainty that it's ridiculous to assert that metagaming is necessarily occurring? Absolutely. Can we use something as simple as a knowledge roll to determine this knowledge without causing any problems? Definitely. And, again, if the wizard doesn't know about the item, it doesn't matter, cause they don't need to. Hell, you could even know about the far less expensive and thus better known candle of invocation of the ring is causing such problems. Knowledge discrepancy isn't a problem here on any level.

thethird

2016-02-10, 02:22 PM

I repeat it a third time: I´m not talking against high-level stuff as that is part of the high-level game and therefore part of D&D.
.
I argue against mixing player and character knowledge and basing all decisions on pure player knowledge as that simply doesn´t work and breaks any versimilitude, that´s all.

You, the player, can have way more knowledge about the in-game reality than the character you play actually has. If you don´t separate those things, a lot of stuff simply becomes meaningless.
In the same way, the rules themselves provide way more options than may actually be part of the in-game reality.

So yes, there is a glaring disparity here. RAW provides options but that options must be available in the in-game reality, else any notion of a simulation is pretty meaningless and you can simply screw any attempt at making a setting internally consistent.

Taking Eberron as an example, the highest level core NPC being lvl12, again, do tell me where CL 13+ items do come from when not simply falling out of the sky.
Simple answer: They don´t. We´re either talking about blindly sticking to RAW here or we talk about pure gm fiat.

Now if we go by pure gm fiat, then screw RAW and anything goes in any way possible.

Then find me the spot in the DMG that creates a regular CL17 cleric with crafting feats and we can talk on, without using gm fiat.

I'm clearly not understanding your arguments.

Let me paraphrase.

1) You challenge to find where 17th level cleric NPCs are stated on the DMG
2) I provide a page number
3) ...?
4) You claim that high level is irrelevant, and then use Eberron as an example of only going up to 12th level

Now, allow me to introduce you to Thondred, player's guide to Eberron pg 17, an epic artificer (who by definition is an NPC with more than 12 levels and crafting feats in Eberron).

Cosi

2016-02-10, 02:39 PM

Apparently Beheld is simply arguing RAW, not what should happen in real games.

Yep. As far as I can tell, the conflict here isn't really about wish or Efreet, it's about willingness to accept that RAW is broken. One camp wants RAW to work, so they rely on bad DM ("the gods kill you if you try") or bizarre interpretations of RAW ("epic magic items aren't items") or whatever Florian is doing. The other camp thinks people should just admit that RAW is broken, fix it in a way that works for their games, and move on.

And wish is terrible RAW.

I disagree with that. XP free wish for magic items is terrible, and using the greater effects clause to play Genie versus Lawyer with your GM is terrible, but the rest of it is just a middle of the pack 9th level spell.

No gp limit on magic items? WHY DID YOU DO THAT, WOTC?

Originally, they didn't. 3e wish has a 15k restriction on magic items. They removed that in the switch to 3.5 for one (or more) of the following reasons:

1. Forgot how SLAs worked.
2. No playtesting.
3. A designer thought it was cool.

Florian

2016-02-10, 03:38 PM

Yep. As far as I can tell, the conflict here isn't really about wish or Efreet, it's about willingness to accept that RAW is broken. One camp wants RAW to work, so they rely on bad DM ("the gods kill you if you try") or bizarre interpretations of RAW ("epic magic items aren't items") or whatever Florian is doing. The other camp thinks people should just admit that RAW is broken, fix it in a way that works for their games, and move on.

You simply overlook the middle ground here, where I base my argument on.
All the stuff we talk about (Gate, Wish, Efreeti, Candle of Invocation) do not pose a problem until you begin to combine them to create an ever-growing infinity loop, a thing that is also ok by itself.
But your character must know all that stuff and how they interact to make the infinity loop work in the first base.
So the character must know what an Efreet is and that it grants wished (Knowledge Planes)
He must know that a Candle of Invocation exists and that it gates in outsiders. (Spellcraft check to identify that item once you see it)
He must further know that gated Efreeti will grant further wishes.
And so on.

My argument is simply based on where that exact knowledge came from and how your character came into its possession.

@thethird:

No, I challenged where "regular" 17th level casters come from without being "handcrafted" by the GM.
Stuff must come from somewhere or else "its magic" will simply run rampant. Eggs come from chicken and Candles of Invocation come from 17th Cl divine casters and that´s it. No chickens, no eggs, no crafting divine casters of that level, no candles. Simple as that.
I think that eggynack nailed it that stuff has to come from somewhere and that this somewhere might be extraplanar, but that is just giving RAW an explanation.

yellowrocket

2016-02-10, 03:38 PM

Cosi

2016-02-10, 03:43 PM

My solution, the ring of infinite wish is really a ring of plane shift for an efritti. And in the surprise round they kill the user. Technically infinite wishes, if you survive and can control them. In game solution well within the limits of both the wish and the dms discretion to pervert over the top wishes.

This is not in fact at thing within the discretion of the DM. A Ring of Infinite Wishes (specifically, a use-actived item of wish in the form of a ring) is a magic item, and wishing for one is a safe wish. So no, you cannot smite players who try to do that. Particularly if they get a XP free wish from literally any source other than an Efreet trapped with planar binding.

thethird

2016-02-10, 04:02 PM

@thethird:

No, I challenged where "regular" 17th level casters come from without being "handcrafted" by the GM.
Stuff must come from somewhere or else "its magic" will simply run rampant. Eggs come from chicken and Candles of Invocation come from 17th Cl divine casters and that´s it. No chickens, no eggs, no crafting divine casters of that level, no candles. Simple as that.
I think that eggynack nailed it that stuff has to come from somewhere and that this somewhere might be extraplanar, but that is just giving RAW an explanation.

Let me clarify. What you are trying to say is: Unless the DM explicitly makes CL 17 NPCs there are zero-none, in effect, unless the DM says so, there are zero-none items that require CL 17 to exist?

Is that what you are trying to ultimately say?

As I see that's DM fiat. Which please understand that I'm fine with. The DMG says those clerics exists, the DMG says those items exist. As a DM you can certainly say that's not the case. And that's one way of solving the problem at hand. But it's a fix not a baseline feature.

My prefered fix is: Players are you sure we all want to play the game in which free wishes are a commodity?

nedz

2016-02-10, 04:04 PM

Nah, just a contingent Dimensional Anchor in some form. Triggered on being called, you would be unable to be transported by planar binding.

this, or something very similar.

Efreeti are smart enough to have heard about this trick, they have been around a long time, they have taken precautions
Efreeti have the resources (wish) to construct such defences - albeit with a little help
Any Efreeti who didn't protect themselves would have been culled a long time ago
Therefore the trick fails - even if it should work

Cosi

2016-02-10, 04:09 PM

eggynack

2016-02-10, 04:22 PM

My argument is simply based on where that exact knowledge came from and how your character came into its possession.
Again, the knowledge comes from the fact that the character is a genius wizard with piles of divinations. Those things you listed, they're all things that a wizard is great at knowing about. And, realistically, all a wizard has to know for this to work is that efreeti grant wishes, which seems like an easy enough thing to know given that their whole deal is their interesting interactions with people. After that, you just bind one in, and wish for a magic item that gives three wishes, and the loop is closed. You do have to know about candles for the candle plan to work, but it's a cheap magic item and is thus relatively common as per the rules.

No, I challenged where "regular" 17th level casters come from without being "handcrafted" by the GM.
Stuff must come from somewhere or else "its magic" will simply run rampant. Eggs come from chicken and Candles of Invocation come from 17th Cl divine casters and that´s it. No chickens, no eggs, no crafting divine casters of that level, no candles. Simple as that.
I think that eggynack nailed it that stuff has to come from somewhere and that this somewhere might be extraplanar, but that is just giving RAW an explanation.
His way works too. As long as there exists a being that can produce such an item, there is a RAW explanation for the item's presence in various shops. The creatures in question need not be common for them to be present. Maybe the items are extraplanar in origin, or maybe they come from particular high level NPC's, or maybe the Gods themselves are crafting them, or maybe every candle of invocation in existence comes from some jerk wizard calling up an efreeti and wishing for one, and the initial knowledge comes from some epic ancient wizard. I don't know which, and I don't especially care which. The rules say that certain things are the case, so they're the case. It's not like the existence of these items strictly contradicts anything.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 04:22 PM

this, or something very similar.

Efreeti are smart enough to have heard about this trick, they have been around a long time, they have taken precautions
Efreeti have the resources (wish) to construct such defences - albeit with a little help
Any Efreeti who didn't protect themselves would have been culled a long time ago
Therefore the trick fails - even if it should work

There are infinitely many Efferti. There are infinite many Efferti not under the effects of Dimensional Anchor, there are infinitely many Efferti who just got their wish abilities 2 seconds ago.

Sorry, your "The entire infinite plane is under an infinite Dimensional Lock" blatant attempt to houserule this one specific problem instead of make a sensible rule fails.

He must know that a Candle of Invocation exists and that it gates in outsiders. (Spellcraft check to identify that item once you see it)

No. Zero percent of that is rules. Both identifying spells and items are identifying a particular item from your previous knowledge, not learning that a specific item exists for the first time.

You don't need to have seen a Candle of Invocation to know what one does. See again, the thing you continuously refuse to explain, how do PCs decide what items they want to buy from the millions available to them when they walk into a city if they don't know what items exist?

My argument is simply based on where that exact knowledge came from and how your character came into its possession.

You argument is based on willful refusal to accept that knowing about that a staff of wishes is a thing that can exist is something characters just do.

Also you (still) don't understand the actual wish loop, since the entire point is to get an item that casts wish, something you can do with the first Efferti, you don't need Gate/Planar Bind multiple efferti at all.

Florian

2016-02-10, 04:30 PM

Let me clarify. What you are trying to say is: Unless the DM explicitly makes CL 17 NPCs there are zero-none, in effect, unless the DM says so, there are zero-none items that require CL 17 to exist?

Is that what you are trying to ultimately say?

As I see that's DM fiat. Which please understand that I'm fine with. The DMG says those clerics exists, the DMG says those items exist. As a DM you can certainly say that's not the case. And that's one way of solving the problem at hand. But it's a fix not a baseline feature.

My prefered fix is: Players are you sure we all want to play the game in which free wishes are a commodity?

No, not DM fiat at all. Remember that the core rules state that "if not specified any other way, things work like in the real world we know". Gravity works, the sun is the sun, you might get a tan or sunburn, wind blows and the market is the market.
The stuff we talk about here is that an "Magic Mart" exists, is always stocked and always has the items available at CiB/UE prices and we can simply get them.
Actually, there is no part in the rules that states or even guarantees that this is the case and makes it true. It´s something we do assume as being there because of the sub-system rules to create higher-level characters from scratch.

Cosi

2016-02-10, 04:33 PM

No, not DM fiat at all. Remember that the core rules state that "if not specified any other way, things work like in the real world we know". Gravity works, the sun is the sun, you might get a tan or sunburn, wind blows and the market is the market.
The stuff we talk about here is that an "Magic Mart" exists, is always stocked and always has the items available at CiB/UE prices and we can simply get them.
Actually, there is no part in the rules that states or even guarantees that this is the case and makes it true. It´s something we do assume as being there because of the sub-system rules to create higher-level characters from scratch.

Where is the rules citation that explicitly indicates limits on item availability other than price? Page number or link to SRD page please.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 04:56 PM

The stuff we talk about here is that an "Magic Mart" exists, is always stocked and always has the items available at CiB/UE prices and we can simply get them.
Actually, there is no part in the rules that states or even guarantees that this is the case and makes it true. It´s something we do assume as being there because of the sub-system rules to create higher-level characters from scratch.

Except you know, the actual rules in the DMG that say exactly that.

Florian

2016-02-10, 05:16 PM

@Beheld:

The DMG explicitly mentions that stuff in the game world behaves like in the real world unless there is an explicit rule overruling that. Nothing else.

If you do happen to live in an area where everything possible is available at base price all the time, do me the favor and PM me the location and I´ll move there pronto.

nedz

2016-02-10, 05:28 PM

There are infinitely many Efferti. There are infinite many Efferti not under the effects of Dimensional Anchor, there are infinitely many Efferti who just got their wish abilities 2 seconds ago.

Sorry, your "The entire infinite plane is under an infinite Dimensional Lock" blatant attempt to houserule this one specific problem instead of make a sensible rule fails

This is not a house-rule.

Since Efreeti live a very long time the ones only 2 seconds old are very uncommon - so the probability of calling was of these is 0.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 05:38 PM

@Beheld:

The DMG explicitly mentions that stuff in the game world behaves like in the real world unless there is an explicit rule overruling that. Nothing else.

But there is a rule. Are you just ignoring where he keeps saying that there's a rule?

Beheld

2016-02-10, 05:45 PM

This is not a house-rule.

Since Efreeti live a very long time the ones only 2 seconds old are very uncommon - so the probability of calling was of these is 0.

The spell doesn't target one of all possible Efferti in existence, it goes out and finds a creature that can be called. If you call an Efferti, you don't play a game where you roll XdY to see which one of the infinity it targets, it just calls a valid target, since the planes are literally infinite and there are an infinite number of them, if you cast the spell it gets one of the ones that exists to be called. You might as well claim it calls a stone statute of an Efferti, or a pile of salt, or a corpse.

Florian

2016-02-10, 06:10 PM

@Beheld:

Check out two things: "The kind of creature to be bound must be known and stated" and how True Names work. You´re wrong in your assumption that it work similarly to summons and simply copies a perfect functional version of a creature to you.

But there is a rule. Are you just ignoring where he keeps saying that there's a rule?

You may repeat that as often as you want, but that doesn´t make it right. There is no rule that lets you buy things that are not available because no-one makes them. If there is no pizza shop in town, you can´t buy pizza and if there are no rules for automatically establishing item-creating high-level casters without needing gm fiat, they simply are not there. Yes, there are rules for NPC characters, no, there are no rules for automatically inserting them into a setting and making them item-selling crafters.

yellowrocket

2016-02-10, 06:13 PM

This is not in fact at thing within the discretion of the DM. A Ring of Infinite Wishes (specifically, a use-actived item of wish in the form of a ring) is a magic item, and wishing for one is a safe wish. So no, you cannot smite players who try to do that. Particularly if they get a XP free wish from literally any source other than an Efreet trapped with planar binding.

I was saying that partly tongue in cheek. But there is always the chance a wish can be granted in a manner that is not how the player asks. That's part of the text. So it has infinite wishes, but it also does blank, would be granting the player the item they asked for.

Such an item is sure to arouse the gods. Friend or foe your ring at some point will impact some part of their portfolio. This is assuming a world with active deities. Do any of you think a god would not seek such an items user and either try to sway them to their cause or eliminate such a threat to their portfolio.

nedz

2016-02-10, 06:22 PM

The spell doesn't target one of all possible Efferti in existence, it goes out and finds a creature that can be called. If you call an Efferti, you don't play a game where you roll XdY to see which one of the infinity it targets, it just calls a valid target, since the planes are literally infinite and there are an infinite number of them, if you cast the spell it gets one of the ones that exists to be called. You might as well claim it calls a stone statute of an Efferti, or a pile of salt, or a corpse.

In a multiverse where Wizards farm Efreeti for wishes it follows that they would protect themselves from that risk. The spell doesn't check if the target has protection.

The infinity argument is spurious because there are an infinite number of Wizards too.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 06:27 PM

You may repeat that as often as you want, but that doesn´t make it right. There is no rule that lets you buy things that are not available because no-one makes them. If there is no pizza shop in town, you can´t buy pizza and if there are no rules for automatically establishing item-creating high-level casters without needing gm fiat, they simply are not there. Yes, there are rules for NPC characters, no, there are no rules for automatically inserting them into a setting and making them item-selling crafters.
Didn't know that no one had cited the rule for that. The pages you want are the magic item compendium, pages 231 and 232. By those rules, you would find a candle of invocation in a city with 40k people or more, because of the item level limit. Granted, there is leave for the DM to not make any particular item available, but that's an explicitly discouraged thing, one that only usually occurs for story reasons, and the table gives the general case for things. Given that you're asserting a general state for things, rather than something specific to candles, your claims aren't especially factual.

Beheld

2016-02-10, 06:34 PM

You may repeat that as often as you want, but that doesn´t make it right. There is no rule that lets you buy things that are not available because no-one makes them. If there is no pizza shop in town, you can´t buy pizza and if there are no rules for automatically establishing item-creating high-level casters without needing gm fiat, they simply are not there. Yes, there are rules for NPC characters, no, there are no rules for automatically inserting them into a setting and making them item-selling crafters.

Except that there is. The rules in the DMG specifically say "In city this big, you can find all these items, any you want up to the GP limit."

That's what they really say. They say that regardless of if there is a level 17 Cleric or not, the item is still available in city of X size, no matter what. You are completely ignoring the actual rules to make up your own personal not rules nonsense about how items don't exist if you can't personally find a caster, but the rules say they do without referencing any such caster at all. And by the way, we know of at least one way to make an item without a level 17 Cleric, they can be wished into existence.

Frankly, they can also be found in crypts and sold to stores, because that's what adventuring parties do.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 06:37 PM

What's the page on the DMG thing? Dunno if you've provided one for that claim. The MIC thing probably works well enough, but DMG is better.

Psyren

2016-02-10, 07:18 PM

The MiC guideline also has this clause on the preceding page. MiC 231:

That's not to say you can't apply occasional constraints to how and when magic items can be purchased, only that the constraints should be reasonable and shouldn't prevent players from equipping their characters fairly. For instance, a character seeking a magic item should be in a community whose gold piece limit is equal or greater to the cost of the desired item. You might also choose to limit particular items for campaign story reasons - maybe the knowledge of how to create certain items is a closely guarded secret of a particular group, or even forgotten to all.

Using the bolded sentence, you can easily allow a bazaar of magical gear, but ban specific problematic items like Dust of Sneezing/Choking and Candles. Just come up with a campaign story reason (such as, say, an efreet in the distant past tricked another mortal into wishing for the Candles to be nearly impossible to find precisely to stymie shenanigans such as this) and you're justified.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 07:36 PM

The MiC guideline also has this clause on the preceding page. MiC 231:

Using the bolded sentence, you can easily allow a bazaar of magical gear, but ban specific problematic items like Dust of Sneezing/Choking and Candles. Just come up with a campaign story reason (such as, say, an efreet in the distant past tricked another mortal into wishing for the Candles to be nearly impossible to find precisely to stymie shenanigans such as this) and you're justified.
Yeah, I made note of that one. Valid grounds, but definitely not the grounds claimed. Generally speaking though, optimization does assume an impartial DM, and if the reason for banning the candle is because of these borked tricks, then that seems to be a tacit acceptance of the games borkedness on these grounds, and the lack of availability just joins up with the already existent family of DM sourced fixes.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-10, 09:17 PM

I was saying that partly tongue in cheek. But there is always the chance a wish can be granted in a manner that is not how the player asks. That's part of the text. So it has infinite wishes, but it also does blank, would be granting the player the item they asked for.

Such an item is sure to arouse the gods. Friend or foe your ring at some point will impact some part of their portfolio. This is assuming a world with active deities. Do any of you think a god would not seek such an items user and either try to sway them to their cause or eliminate such a threat to their portfolio.

That chance of your wish being twisted is only if you wish for things that are greater than the listed effects.

You could definitely wish for a +999999999999 Vorpal longsword if you had the Xp (or some way around the XP cost), but I am not sure if a ring of infinite wishes could exist.

Psyren

2016-02-10, 09:53 PM

Yeah, I made note of that one. Valid grounds, but definitely not the grounds claimed. Generally speaking though, optimization does assume an impartial DM, and if the reason for banning the candle is because of these borked tricks, then that seems to be a tacit acceptance of the games borkedness on these grounds, and the lack of availability just joins up with the already existent family of DM sourced fixes.

I'm all for assuming an impartial DM, but that sword cuts both ways. A truly impartial DM won't hinder you by banning the candle outright, but neither will he assist you by placing one in your neighborhood Magic-Mart with convenient self-service checkout. True impartiality means loot tables and allowing crafting feats. The former gives you a very small chance of getting a candle (even smaller if MiC's expanded tables are in play), and even when you land on the candle you have a 1 in 9 chance of it being LE. The latter means you have to wait until you can cast Gate to make it, rendering your acquisition of it moot.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 09:55 PM

I'm all for assuming an impartial DM, but that sword cuts both ways. A truly impartial DM won't hinder you by banning the candle outright, but neither will he assist you by placing one in your neighborhood Magic-Mart with convenient self-service checkout. True impartiality means loot tables and allowing crafting feats. The former gives you a very small chance of getting a candle (even smaller if MiC's expanded tables are in play), and even when you land on the candle you have a 1 in 9 chance of it being LE. The latter means you have to wait until you can cast Gate to make it, rendering your acquisition of it moot.
It looks a lot like a city of the size in question is just assumed to have it, in all aligned forms. I'm not sure where it's implied that you can only get some arbitrary subset of the items below the level and buy limits.

Psyren

2016-02-10, 10:37 PM

It looks a lot like a city of the size in question is just assumed to have it, in all aligned forms. I'm not sure where it's implied that you can only get some arbitrary subset of the items below the level and buy limits.

But even if you assume that all you need is a metropolis and the item is there, you're still depending on this impartial DM to generate such a metropolis for you and put you inside it. Or instead you're playing in a published setting, which may have cities of this size, but also has all kinds of non-core things like magical guilds and various churches and Red Wizards and Harpers etc controlling the magic item trade, to say nothing of the efreeti themselves getting organized and having things like the City of Brass - and where even if you succeed at obtaining one and trying to start your wish-loops it just attracts all the wrong sort of attention/portfolio senses/etc. So to me, this still requires an actively helpful DM, not merely a passive/hands-off one.

yellowrocket

2016-02-10, 10:43 PM

Such an item is sure to arouse the gods. Friend or foe your ring at some point will impact some part of their portfolio. This is assuming a world with active deities. Do any of you think a god would not seek such an items user and either try to sway them to their cause or eliminate such a threat to their portfolio.

But even if you assume that all you need is a metropolis and the item is there, you're still depending on this impartial DM to generate such a metropolis for you and put you inside it. Or instead you're playing in a published setting, which may have cities of this size, but also has all kinds of non-core things like magical guilds and various churches and Red Wizards and Harpers etc controlling the magic item trade, to say nothing of the efreeti themselves getting organized and having things like the City of Brass - and where even if you succeed at obtaining one and trying to start your wish-loops it just attracts all the wrong sort of attention/portfolio senses/etc. So to me, this still requires an actively helpful DM, not merely a passive/hands-off one.

Why are you and I the only ones discussing the ramifications of having an item that powerful?

If players really want to play that game, fine. I just don't think st players realize the attention they're going to get from all corners.

Cosi

2016-02-10, 11:06 PM

Why are you and I the only ones discussing the ramifications of having an item that powerful?

If players really want to play that game, fine. I just don't think st players realize the attention they're going to get from all corners.

The reason no one else is suggesting "have OP NPCs smack the PCs around" is because it is a stupid and terrible solution. Also, while it is in fact impossible for the DM to lose an arms race with the PCs, that does not mean that threatening one causes them to deescalate their power. If you don't want PCs to abuse wish, don't pretend it's allowed then go "rocks fall, everyone dies" when they try it. Just ban it and be done.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 11:14 PM

But even if you assume that all you need is a metropolis and the item is there, you're still depending on this impartial DM to generate such a metropolis for you and put you inside it. Or instead you're playing in a published setting, which may have cities of this size, but also has all kinds of non-core things like magical guilds and various churches and Red Wizards and Harpers etc controlling the magic item trade, to say nothing of the efreeti themselves getting organized and having things like the City of Brass - and where even if you succeed at obtaining one and trying to start your wish-loops it just attracts all the wrong sort of attention/portfolio senses/etc. So to me, this still requires an actively helpful DM, not merely a passive/hands-off one.
Sure, it's dependent on a certain city size existing in the world. However, beyond that point, the rules do dictate general non-interference, at least in item obtaining. As long as we're still treating this the same as any other item of its general form, I don't see why that aspect would be a struggle. As for the efreeti, well, if we're on the candle plan, it seems notable that gate lacks the revenge clause of binding. Not sure why the efreeti would care though. Not like you asked for anything all that crazy, and it's not like you have to call more than one of them. I guess there could be some story ramifications, but that seems a bit outside the scope of the trick, in that it's just a generic claim that can be made against any plan of sufficient power level.

Psyren

2016-02-10, 11:28 PM

Sure, it's dependent on a certain city size existing in the world. However, beyond that point, the rules do dictate general non-interference, at least in item obtaining. As long as we're still treating this the same as any other item of its general form, I don't see why that aspect would be a struggle. As for the efreeti, well, if we're on the candle plan, it seems notable that gate lacks the revenge clause of binding. Not sure why the efreeti would care though. Not like you asked for anything all that crazy, and it's not like you have to call more than one of them. I guess there could be some story ramifications, but that seems a bit outside the scope of the trick, in that it's just a generic claim that can be made against any plan of sufficient power level.

That's why I find the reasoning disingenuous - "the rules dictate non-interference" when it comes to shopping, but the DM still has to helpfully build you a city to shop in, and make it reachable to boot.

Also, Gate doesn't need a revenge clause - the Efreet themselves take care of that. MM 115: "Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile and mislead."

Cosi

2016-02-10, 11:32 PM

Also, Gate doesn't need a revenge clause - the Efreet themselves take care of that. MM 115: "Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile and mislead."

I, for one, would live in fear of the devastating revenge of a CR 8 creature when I had wish at-will and +1,000,000,000 to all my stats.

eggynack

2016-02-10, 11:36 PM

That's why I find the reasoning disingenuous - "the rules dictate non-interference" when it comes to shopping, but the DM still has to helpfully build you a city to shop in, and make it reachable to boot.
Well, yeah. That's what the DM does. I don't think it's particularly disingenuous, in any case, to say, "If the DM put this in, then the plan works up to this point. If they didn't, then it doesn't, and you need a different plan." They need to put something in the world, and it may or may not fit into the candle plan. Otherwise, well, the starting point of the thread seems to be planar binding, so that.

Also, Gate doesn't need a revenge clause - the Efreet themselves take care of that. MM 115: "Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature, and ability to beguile and mislead."
Fair, though I dunno that it's a massive threat. It's not a crazy powerful creature, and you can always compensate it. Also, you are wish looping, so you'll probably be able to deflect the efreeti difficulty.

Psyren

2016-02-10, 11:43 PM

I, for one, would live in fear of the devastating revenge of a CR 8 creature when I had wish at-will and +1,000,000,000 to all my stats.

Putting aside that inherent bonuses only stack up to +5, what makes you think only a single efreeti would be coming after you, and by itself to boot? As an intelligent creature, he'll know if he's outmatched and plan accordingly. More likely he'll go find your rival and offer some wishes in exchange for revenge on the upstart mortal that made demands.

Well, yeah. That's what the DM does. I don't think it's particularly disingenuous, in any case, to say, "If the DM put this in, then the plan works up to this point. If they didn't, then it doesn't, and you need a different plan." They need to put something in the world, and it may or may not fit into the candle plan. Otherwise, well, the starting point of the thread seems to be planar binding, so that.

Starting from Planar Binding already solves this, due to "unreasonable commands." That's why we went to gate/candle in the first place.

Fair, though I dunno that it's a massive threat. It's not a crazy powerful creature, and you can always compensate it. Also, you are wish looping, so you'll probably be able to deflect the efreeti difficulty.

As above, the efreet itself isn't the problem, and he'd be smart enough not to come at you head-on if you've just used his wishes to power yourself up.

Compensating it isn't the problem - they are cruel and hate servitude. Even if you offer payment, any form of calling or binding, as well as forbidding it from misleading you or screwing your wish in some way, is just going to breed resentment.

Cosi

2016-02-10, 11:49 PM

Putting aside that inherent bonuses only stack up to +5,

You know what number Belts of Magnificence go up to? Infinity. Well, technically an arbitrarily large finite number, but who's counting?

what makes you think only a single efreeti would be coming after you, and by itself to boot? As an intelligent creature, he'll know if he's outmatched and plan accordingly. More likely he'll go find your rival and offer some wishes in exchange for revenge on the upstart mortal that made demands.

So his plan to punish someone arbitrarily more powerful than he is, who explicitly let him live despite having the opportunity to kill him, is to make someone else even more powerful than that? Bear in mind, this new individual knows that the Efreet might give someone else even more power, so it seems somewhat unlikely he'd be disposed to allow the Efreet to live.

Starting from Planar Binding already solves this, due to "unreasonable commands." That's why we went to gate/candle in the first place.

How is "give me a Candle of Invocation, which I will use to gate in a Noble Djinn (who you hate, and also grant wishes), and I will make two wishes of your choice" an "unreasonable command"?

eggynack

2016-02-10, 11:59 PM

Starting from Planar Binding already solves this, due to "unreasonable commands." That's why we went to gate/candle in the first place.
I disagree with the notion that taking from a creature what it can't even use on itself, and which it seems to give naturally, is at all unreasonable. I think it's unreasonable to consider it unreasonable. There's very little you could plausibly ask of a creature that would be less unreasonable.

As above, the efreet itself isn't the problem, and he'd be smart enough not to come at you head-on if you've just used his wishes to power yourself up.
Do efreeti really have some weird organization established? That's weird.

Compensating it isn't the problem - they are cruel and hate servitude. Even if you offer payment, any form of calling or binding, as well as forbidding it from misleading you or screwing your wish in some way, is just going to breed resentment.
I guess. Doesn't seem like such a big deal, servitude-wise. It's like a few rounds.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-10, 11:59 PM

People, stopping the Efreet trick doesn't matter. There are other (arguably better) ways to get a wish that doesn't cost XP. Your Mirror Mephit familiar could use it's simulacrum SLA to make an Efreet simulacrum without needing any actual Efreet. You could use shapechange, potentially out of a scroll, to turn into a Zodar and get a supernatural wish. People talk about the planar binding trick because it is simple and core.

You can pull this off at 5th level (rather than 7th) if you use Summon Mirror Mephit and Suggestion.

Note that there is a racial progression for efreeti in "Savage Species" and they get wish at their 9th Racial HD.
That is 4 levels after the HD of a Simulacrum of an average efreeti (10 HD of the base creature is halved and becomes 5 HD).
So you may have to find a work around for it.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 12:00 AM

Starting from Planar Binding already solves this, due to "unreasonable commands." That's why we went to gate/candle in the first place.

Except for that whole thing where it is completely unreasonable for him to refuse to grant you a Wish, because his actual choices are literal death (and being devoured by a Barghest) or Imprisonment, or, in the alternative, the super terrible "unreasonable" granting of a wish, and then getting two for himself.

Something so unreasonable that apparently he goes and does it three times as soon as he can to the nearest stranger as part of an incredibly dumb plan to thwart you.

Damn, now I know why the Wish and Word use Steal SLA, because people are so unfathomably filled with spite that they will make literally the dumbest possible thing as an excuse to explain why CR 8 monsters that exist for the express purpose of granting wishes never grant wishes.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 12:01 AM

How is "give me a Candle of Invocation, which I will use to gate in a Noble Djinn (who you hate, and also grant wishes), and I will make two wishes of your choice" an "unreasonable command"?

It's unreasonable because you're an uppity mortal who has the temerity to even speak to them, never mind the fact that you forcibly yanked them away from whatever they were doing too. Their second wish is going to be to undo yours, if you're lucky. Also, you appear to be wishing for custom magic items, which is another justification for "unreasonable."

And you're right, they absolutely hate djinn, so why would they want to participate in any scheme involving one?

Do efreeti really have some weird organization established? That's weird.

Hey, don't look at me, I didn't write the Monster Manual.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 12:05 AM

squiggit

2016-02-11, 12:10 AM

I feel like the best solution in an actual game is to just talk to your players ahead of time and have everyone agree not to be a ****, because that's ultimately the only real way to keep things balanced and fair.

Many of the 'solutions' in this thread (like declaring that gate doesn't do anything at all because every request is unreasonable, or that every efreet you gate has already used all their wishes or that random NPCs should show up and blow up the players) are just the sort of things that create animosity and eventually culminate in someone posting about you in a "horrible DM" thread.

It encourages cycles where players exploit something and a DM hamfistedly smashes it down which just encourages players to find something else to exploit as a counter-offensive and so on and so forth and while some people enjoy those sorts of arms races I don't think that's always necessarily the goal and if it isn't, approaching the problem like this is just awful and dumb and doesn't satisfy anyone.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 12:10 AM

Oh, so binding an Efreet and asking it to do anything at all is unreasonable. Sure.

And again, it doesn't matter, because you could just buy a scroll of shapechange and turn into a Zodar for your XP free wish.

Asking it to go against its fundamental nature to screw over and mislead mortals would be, indeed.

Zodar are 3.0, so they require "minor adjustments" by your DM to be used in 3.5. One such minor adjustment would be replacing a single letter ("u") in their wish ability (with"p"), thereby making it inaccessible via Shapechange.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 12:17 AM

Asking it to go against its fundamental nature to screw over and mislead mortals would be, indeed.

Zodar are 3.0, so they require "minor adjustments" by your DM to be used in 3.5. One such minor adjustment would be replacing a single letter ("u") in their wish ability (with"p"), thereby making it inaccessible via Shapechange.

It's like you are in a one person competition to prove you can be the most unreasonable person in the world. Congratulations, you are winning.

I bet Casting Planar Binding on a Glabrezu at all is per se unreasonable becaouse are unreasonably preventing it from murdering people that very second, and it's nature is to murder people every second of every day.

eggynack

2016-02-11, 12:18 AM

It's unreasonable because you're an uppity mortal who has the temerity to even speak to them, never mind the fact that you forcibly yanked them away from whatever they were doing too. Their second wish is going to be to undo yours, if you're lucky. Also, you appear to be wishing for custom magic items, which is another justification for "unreasonable."
It doesn't seem like the modifier is creature-centric, but rather request-centric. Either the request is reasonable or it isn't. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter who you are. And here, your claim isn't that you're making a request that isn't reasonable, but that you're making a claim that the efreet doesn't want to fulfill. As for the custom magic items, first, it's not a strictly necessary thing if you know the item that does the job, and there exists an item that does the job, and I don't see why it's any skin off the efreet's nose that my item is custom. It's a really minimal amount of effort, all in all.

Hey, don't look at me, I didn't write the Monster Manual.

Well, they apparently kinda hang out in the same place, but I don't see much implication that they team up for that sorta thing. Sure, the efreet might be peeved that you made it serve you, but I don't see why other efreeti would be peeved on its behalf.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 12:19 AM

Asking it to go against its fundamental nature to screw over and mislead mortals would be, indeed.

Yes, because offering to let it screw over people it hates for the "price" of letting it use wish twice is absolutely something it is going to reject because it hates mortals. That's totally not an ex post facto justification for pretending XP free wish is balanced.

Zodar are 3.0, so they require "minor adjustments" by your DM to be used in 3.5. One such minor adjustment would be replacing a single letter ("u") in their wish ability (with"p"), thereby making it inaccessible via Shapechange.

Oberoni Fallacy. The DM is changing the rules such that they are not broken, implying that they were broken to begin with. Also, it is 100% clear that the "change minor things" text was supposed to apply to errors where mechanical stuff changed between editions (i.e. size rules changing), not allow DMs to unilaterally rewrite stat blocks. Are we meant to believe that all monsters from 3.0 books are horribly under-CRed because the DM could change them to be CR 1/8? Finally, there is a 3.0 -> 3.5 update for Fiend Folio. Guess what it doesn't change?

And don't forget Mirror Mephits, simulacrum, ice assassin, Planar Shepard Outsider Wild Shape, Supernatural Spell, Archmage SLA + Supernatural Transformation, and dominate monster. All of which give you XP free wish.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-11, 01:27 AM

Beheld

2016-02-11, 01:49 AM

Bonus Bonus Dumb Bonus question:

I create a fake rivalry with some *******, and then he Planar Binds an Efferti, how many free wishes does the Efferti give me because he just hates that guy so much?

TiaC

2016-02-11, 02:26 AM

So, I gate an efreeti and get a Ring of Infinite Wishes. Since it now hates me and desires vengeance, I order it not to resist and then I wish for some spell that will knock it unconscious, then for a Modify Memory, then for a few scrolls of Unname and proceed to remove it entirely from existence.

yellowrocket

2016-02-11, 08:53 AM

The reason no one else is suggesting "have OP NPCs smack the PCs around" is because it is a stupid and terrible solution. Also, while it is in fact impossible for the DM to lose an arms race with the PCs, that does not mean that threatening one causes them to deescalate their power. If you don't want PCs to abuse wish, don't pretend it's allowed then go "rocks fall, everyone dies" when they try it. Just ban it and be done.

I'm nor suggesting that you dump the book on them, but they have changed the fundamental operation of the game. If you remove the XP cost for wish the material plane is going to change and you have accessed power way beyond what a mortal should have. So you change the challenges they face. Let's face it, any cr 11-15 isn't going to challenge someone with a ring of unlimited wishes. And that power would eventually come to the attention of beings with the power to challenge you. You can give them any power their heart desires, but where is it out of line to respond with an appropriate level challenge to their increase in power.?

Segev

2016-02-11, 09:20 AM

I know that I, personally, tend to extend - and I admit that this may be a "house rule" - the 25,000 gp limit to magic items as well as mundane ones, which eliminates a lot of the "safe" wishes for stupid infinity-plus-two items.

I'm also inclined to re-price Candles of Invocation to have the XP cost for the gate spell they can cast properly incorporated into their market price, or to strip that function from them.

It doesn't close every loophole, but these seem reasonable (to me), seem to address the worst of the broken bits involved in these infinite-resource loops, and don't require a lot of re-thinking chain-reaction consequences based on said changes.

(Obviously, this doesn't even touch the shapechange-into-a-Zodar problem.)

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-11, 09:27 AM

I'm nor suggesting that you dump the book on them, but they have changed the fundamental operation of the game. If you remove the XP cost for wish the material plane is going to change and you have accessed power way beyond what a mortal should have. So you change the challenges they face. Let's face it, any cr 11-15 isn't going to challenge someone with a ring of unlimited wishes. And that power would eventually come to the attention of beings with the power to challenge you. You can give them any power their heart desires, but where is it out of line to respond with an appropriate level challenge to their increase in power.?

No, but I'm right!

Psyren

2016-02-11, 09:47 AM

It doesn't seem like the modifier is creature-centric, but rather request-centric. Either the request is reasonable or it isn't. If it isn't, then it doesn't matter who you are.

That's exactly right. And "give me a wish for something that doesn't exist which can't be used to screw with me after having bound you into subservience" seems to be the request here.

Well, they apparently kinda hang out in the same place, but I don't see much implication that they team up for that sorta thing. Sure, the efreet might be peeved that you made it serve you, but I don't see why other efreeti would be peeved on its behalf.

The 6 pasha, who are themselves cruel beings who delight in misleading mortals (because, efreet) "oversee all their dealings," so whether the individual efreeti you've bound is able or even willing to retaliate may not be relevant. (This also addresses latter posts that suggest murdering the efreeti after getting what you want.)

Yes, because offering to let it screw over people it hates for the "price" of letting it use wish twice is absolutely something it is going to reject because it hates mortals. That's totally not an ex post facto justification for pretending XP free wish is balanced.

I actually agree with you - I don't think it's balanced at all, which is why I'm pointing out the textual safeguards the designers put in place to prevent that very thing. If they had wanted to write "efreet delight in granting straightforward and beneficial wishes to any mortal with the ability to bind them" they could have easily done so. They didn't.

Oberoni Fallacy. The DM is changing the rules such that they are not broken, implying that they were broken to begin with. Also, it is 100% clear that the "change minor things" text was supposed to apply to errors where mechanical stuff changed between editions (i.e. size rules changing), not allow DMs to unilaterally rewrite stat blocks. Are we meant to believe that all monsters from 3.0 books are horribly under-CRed because the DM could change them to be CR 1/8? Finally, there is a 3.0 -> 3.5 update for Fiend Folio. Guess what it doesn't change?

The trouble with invoking the fallacy here is that the DM is mandated to make adjustments to 3.0 material, per the 3.5 DMG. Also, the Fiend Folio update starts with this sentence: "The purpose of this booklet is not to provide a comprehensive list of everything that has changed with the 3.5 revision. The changes are too large in number and varied in scope to be able to provide an all-inclusive inventory." So it is an inclusive update, not an exclusive one.

And don't forget Mirror Mephits, simulacrum, ice assassin, Planar Shepard Outsider Wild Shape, Supernatural Spell, Archmage SLA + Supernatural Transformation, and dominate monster. All of which give you XP free wish.

Every single one of these has been addressed in past discussions. Simulacrum has the "appropriate special abilities" clause. Ice Assassin has the "all-consuming" clause. Planar Shepherd is setting-specific, and the setting in question has more restrictive variant cosmology rules to boot. Supernatural Transformation specifies "innate", which PrCs are not since it's impossible for anyone to be born with them. Dominate Monster is even more likely to open you up to revenge. Et cetera.

Fizban

2016-02-11, 10:08 AM

It's like you are in a one person competition to prove you can be the most unreasonable person in the world. Congratulations, you are winning.
Popped in to check on the last page of the thread on a whim: I'd just like to point out that Psyren is not alone. He simply has the patience to continue while I dropped the thread on page 1.

All I'm seeing here is a pile of false dichotomies and the continued assumption that somehow yanking someone out of their home and demanding they do what you say under pain of death is somehow reasonable, which Eggy has excused on the grounds that an Efreet can't use their innate wish ability on themselves and they should be happy for the privilege? I can't remember the exact term, but there's a legal definition that states no one is allowed to mess with your body without your permission. Doesn't matter if you can spare the blood that will save that guy's life, it is 100% against the law to try and take it from you (at least around here). There's also these things called property rights? Where it doesn't matter if I have no idea how to use this thing I bought, because it's mine, and your putting a gun to my head and demanding I sell it to you because I can't use it is also rather against the law. Yanking someone out of their home and holding them prisoner would be kidnapping and false imprisonment. And so on.

There's a continuum of shades of reasonable-ness, and every single one of them stops dead once you start threatening life or demanding something for free. Just because you "offer" to "let" the efreet use some of the wishes they already own does not make it reasonable. Reasonable would be offering to pay the standard book price for your wish, with an apology for interrupting their day. You can argue all you want about weather or not the rules prohibit this or that, but you can't escape the fact that you're the ones being unreasonable.

I'd also point out that any sort of loop or mass extortion is going to rather quickly garner the attention of the majority of the population, who happen to live in a city with a ruler an everything. They tend to be Lawful, they don't like being messed with, and you (all applicable) have the gall to claim they'll refuse to work together to kill you? The City of Brass has 200,000 efreet who have been alive much longer than your supposedly genius spellcaster. Oh you've discovered this loophole through experimentation? Before the creatures who have it as a natural ability discovered it and set their own plans to counter it? Hey, here's a reasonable offer: how about every single efreet in the city of dis offers one of their slaves two wishes that last up to a day, in exchange for their third wish being "kill the uppity wizard?" Rather, a distributed series of forced transports and attacks designed to strip any and all possible protections, executed near simultaneously with redundancies and in such high volume it's flat impossible to resist unless you're literally immune to wish. And they know as soon as or even before it happens because several of the efreet in leadership positions have slaves who have wished to be informed as soon as some uppity wizard calls up two efreet in a span of less than a year. Or millenium. Except all of that is DM construct which is somehow invalid when your player construct of having figured out some unbeatable loophole isn't. But it's Psyren who's being unreasonable :smallsigh:

Psyren

2016-02-11, 10:14 AM

It's a very familiar dance for me Fizban, so no worries, but I definitely appreciate the support :smallcool:

Cosi

2016-02-11, 10:52 AM

@"But X group will be super pissed off": Can someone explain why I am supposed to care about the reprisals of people with finite power when I have infinite (arbitrarily large) power?

I know that I, personally, tend to extend - and I admit that this may be a "house rule" - the 25,000 gp limit to magic items as well as mundane ones, which eliminates a lot of the "safe" wishes for stupid infinity-plus-two items.

That fixes the problem. If wish can only produce items up to a certain power ceiling, it is simply another wealth trick. And while that is broken, other things (wall of iron, flesh to salt, ladders, and having a job) are broken in the exact same way, so that's a problem which already needed fixing. wish is even the least broken instance of that, because as a 9th level spell it becomes available after every other trick.

It does leave Chain Binding to be dealt with, but that planar binding is broken even if you just use all your spell slots, so wish makes a quantitative rather than qualitative difference there.

(Obviously, this doesn't even touch the shapechange-into-a-Zodar problem.)

It stops the wish abuse bit, which is the relevant part for this thread. There are other problems with Zodar shapechange (for example, turning into a Zodar gives you immunity to non-bludgeoning damage, which you keep when turning into a Ocean Giant gives you immunity to bludgeoning damage), but those are shapechange problems, not wish problems.

That's exactly right. And "give me a wish for something that doesn't exist which can't be used to screw with me after having bound you into subservience" seems to be the request here.

You mean a Candle of Invocation which both exists and can't be used to screw with him? Because that is the plan that is apparently super unreasonable.

I actually agree with you - I don't think it's balanced at all, which is why I'm pointing out the textual safeguards the designers put in place to prevent that very thing. If they had wanted to write "efreet delight in granting straightforward and beneficial wishes to any mortal with the ability to bind them" they could have easily done so. They didn't.

That's a load of bull. If the designers didn't want this wish abuse to happen, they would have left the text from 3.0 wish that 100% prevents this type of abuse, not included a line that maybe sort of implies that Efreet don't grant wishes at all if you look at it funny.

The trouble with invoking the fallacy here is that the DM is mandated to make adjustments to 3.0 material, per the 3.5 DMG.

First of all, to even apply that text you have to assume that "minor adjustments" means "change something that works in the rules of either edition" rather than "change something that doesn't work in 3.5", a claim for which you have presented zero evidence.

Secondly, that's still Oberoni. Even if the DM is mandated to make "changes", that doesn't imply that he's mandated to make this specific change (if he was, it would have been included in the 3.0 -> 3.5 update). As such, the game is broken barring this specific DM action. So, Oberoni.

Third, claiming that 3.0 content plus minor adjustments is balanced is an obviously bad plan. Again, are all 3.0 monsters broken because it's a "minor adjustment" to change their CR to 1/8? Here's a fun game for people watching at home: find the best ratio of "game breaking power" to "characters changed" in 3.0 content. Think all 9th level 3.0 spells are clearly supposed to be 0th level? That's exactly as legitimate as Psyren's claim. Obviously, hide life is really a cantrip!

Simulacrum has the "appropriate special abilities" clause.

Actually, this one is correct. Not because the DM gets to unilaterally declare that a 5HD Efreet doesn't have wish (as Psyren was implying)*, but because there's an Efreet advancement table in Savage Species which gives them wish at their 9th HD. This trick still works for creatures with wish but no explicit advancement table, such as the Pit Fiend or the Zodar, but it does not, as I have implied, work for the Efreet.

I was mistaken, and I apologize for misleading people.

*: This would be Oberoni again.

Ice Assassin has the "all-consuming" clause.

It also has an "under your absolute command" clause. But you know, clearly absolute control is obviously supposed to imply "unless you try to make it do something Psyren thinks is broken".

Planar Shepherd is setting-specific, and the setting in question has more restrictive variant cosmology rules to boot.

Which still include Efreet. Perhaps you didn't bother to read that bit? Here's the text (emphasis added, note that Pit Fiends also have wish at no XP cost):

Fernia Inhabitants: Azer, balor (demon), pit fiend (devil), fire elemental (all), efreeti (genie), hell hound, magmin, fire mephit, magma mephit, steam mephit, rast, salamander (all)

Eberron claims that "if it exists in D&D, it has a place in Eberron, but this is proof positive you can get Efreet from Planar Shepherd.

Or maybe maybe you never read the text of Planar Shepherd? I've quote the relevant portion here:

When you attain 9th level, you become able to use wild shape to change into an elemental or outsider native to your chosen plane. ... In addition to the normal effects of wild shape, you gain all the elemental or outsider's extraordinary, supernatural, and spell-like abilities

That seems fairly unambiguous. Obviously, you can claim that's not allowed in the default setting, but that seems like a weak claim. After all, if you're banning it because it's broken, that's just you admitting it's broken.

Supernatural Transformation specifies "innate", which PrCs are not since it's impossible for anyone to be born with them.

That is one definition of innate. Others include "natural" (which I would submit that, as classes rather than items, PrCs are), "inherent", or "intrinsic". Can you point to a page where D&D defines "innate" as meaning "inborn" rather than one of the above definitions?

Dominate Monster is even more likely to open you up to revenge. Et cetera.

Because you are obviously going to leave it alive after dominating it (or for that matter, ever allow dominate monster to expire).

Also, you forgot Supernatural Spell, available to Dweomerkeepers everywhere.

Segev

2016-02-11, 11:18 AM

All I'm seeing here is a pile of false dichotomies and the continued assumption that somehow yanking someone out of their home and demanding they do what you say under pain of death is somehow reasonable

That's an argument that makes planar binding literally never work. Planar binding cannot make them agree to "unreasonable demands." If the very casting of planar binding - which "[yanks] someone out of their home" so you can "[demand] they do whatever you say under pain of" some threat (death, imprisonment, pain, etc.) makes the request itself unreasonable, then planar binding literally never works to get you the service it spends a lot of text discussing the negotiation of.

A request can be reasonable even if the means used to make it are not. "Please prepare a delicious lunch for me to eat," is a reasonable request (especially on the scale of services planar binding is usually used to secure). You can just ask somebody you meet to do this, or you could kidnap them and drag them, blindfolded, to your secret underground kitchen and then make that request. The reasonableness of the request itself is unchanged.

In fact, the incentive to agree to it has increased: you've proven that you're willing and able to put this person under your power and imprison them in a location of your choosing; the fact that you're clearly not letting them go until they make for you that tasty meal is going to make the reasonableness of the request compared to the unreasonableness of the alternative strongly encourage them to just comply so they can go the heck home.

Quertus

2016-02-11, 11:29 AM

I also love the question of what knowledge about items should the characters have. Although I approach it a bit differently.

Back before MIC came out, you ask a DM for an item that gave you an extra full round action, and you were in custom item territory. You'd get responses varying from, "not at my table" to "that would be an epic item, if it even exists". Now, with the printing of the belt of battle, we have that item - which gives a bonus to initiative to boot - for less than the cost of boots of speed. How do characters who "grew up" pre-MIC know about these "new" items?

IMO, unless your character grew up under a rock, he's already been exposed to all these items. Children play childhood games of, "if I had a candle of invocation, I would use it to..." instead of, "if I had superman's powers, I would..."

but I am not sure if a ring of infinite wishes could exist.

It does. I've made one. Well, 3, really. Moving on.

Starting from Planar Binding already solves this, due to "unreasonable commands." That's why we went to gate/candle in the first place.

I have a deal here on the table: Grant me the wish I have detailed here, under the stipulations I have detailed here, or the barghest eats you. Using planar binding, I command you to choose that the barghest eats you.

I'm pretty sure that would be unreasonable, so the Efreet would agree to the deal.

I know that I, personally, tend to extend - and I admit that this may be a "house rule" - the 25,000 gp limit to magic items as well as mundane ones, which eliminates a lot of the "safe" wishes for stupid infinity-plus-two items.

I'm also inclined to re-price Candles of Invocation to have the XP cost for the gate spell they can cast properly incorporated into their market price, or to strip that function from them.

It doesn't close every loophole, but these seem reasonable (to me), seem to address the worst of the broken bits involved in these infinite-resource loops, and don't require a lot of re-thinking chain-reaction consequences based on said changes.

This is, IMO, the best answer to the problem.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 11:45 AM

Psyren

2016-02-11, 12:15 PM

That's an argument that makes planar binding literally never work. Planar binding cannot make them agree to "unreasonable demands." If the very casting of planar binding - which "[yanks] someone out of their home" so you can "[demand] they do whatever you say under pain of" some threat (death, imprisonment, pain, etc.) makes the request itself unreasonable, then planar binding literally never works to get you the service it spends a lot of text discussing the negotiation of.

Actually, I'd say it's unique to efreet, which explicitly have a "hatred of servitude." So yes, any form of binding/gating would be especially unpalatable. Going to one without a spell giving you the upper hand and prostrating yourself might work, but of course us optimization folk hate that because it gives us no leverage in the negotiations.

@Cosi:

You mean a Candle of Invocation which both exists and can't be used to screw with him? Because that is the plan that is apparently super unreasonable.

I was actually referring to your "Cosi's Belt of +10,000 to everything" as a non-existent item.

That's a load of bull. If the designers didn't want this wish abuse to happen, they would have left the text from 3.0 wish that 100% prevents this type of abuse, not included a line that maybe sort of implies that Efreet don't grant wishes at all if you look at it funny.

Of course they do grant wishes - the PC just has to not be lazy and go find one, and offer market price or something equally valuable, instead of forcing them into servitude (which they explicitly hate.)

First of all, to even apply that text you have to assume that "minor adjustments" means "change something that works in the rules of either edition" rather than "change something that doesn't work in 3.5", a claim for which you have presented zero evidence.

Secondly, that's still Oberoni. Even if the DM is mandated to make "changes", that doesn't imply that he's mandated to make this specific change (if he was, it would have been included in the 3.0 -> 3.5 update). As such, the game is broken barring this specific DM action. So, Oberoni.

Third, claiming that 3.0 content plus minor adjustments is balanced is an obviously bad plan. Again, are all 3.0 monsters broken because it's a "minor adjustment" to change their CR to 1/8? Here's a fun game for people watching at home: find the best ratio of "game breaking power" to "characters changed" in 3.0 content. Think all 9th level 3.0 spells are clearly supposed to be 0th level? That's exactly as legitimate as Psyren's claim. Obviously, hide life is really a cantrip!

I'm comfortable calling a substitution of one letter in a whole statblock "minor." At no point did I call it balanced however, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.

It also has an "under your absolute command" clause. But you know, clearly absolute control is obviously supposed to imply "unless you try to make it do something Psyren thinks is broken".

It's an Unstoppable-Force-Immovable-Object problem, that's all. It's purpose is killing the original, not lollygagging to create belts.

Which still include Efreet. Perhaps you didn't bother to read that bit? Here's the text (emphasis added, note that Pit Fiends also have wish at no XP cost):

Eberron claims that "if it exists in D&D, it has a place in Eberron, but this is proof positive you can get Efreet from Planar Shepherd.

Or maybe maybe you never read the text of Planar Shepherd? I've quote the relevant portion here:

That seems fairly unambiguous. Obviously, you can claim that's not allowed in the default setting, but that seems like a weak claim. After all, if you're banning it because it's broken, that's just you admitting it's broken.

"D&D stuff belongs in Eberron" does not imply the reverse though. I'm not saying Planar Shepherd -> Efreet doesn't work (it does), I'm saying that you would need DM approval to use it in a non-Eberron campaign, or even in an Eberron campaign where you aren't a member of their order.

That is one definition of innate. Others include "natural" (which I would submit that, as classes rather than items, PrCs are), "inherent", or "intrinsic". Can you point to a page where D&D defines "innate" as meaning "inborn" rather than one of the above definitions?

That's exactly my point - D&D doesn't define it, therefore you need a favorable ruling from your DM instead. Optimization discussions generally don't assume there is a friendly DM you can beg for favors.

Because you are obviously going to leave it alive after dominating it (or for that matter, ever allow dominate monster to expire).

I'm sure their monitoring Pasha will just love mortals pulling that kind of five-finger discount :smallbiggrin:

Also, you forgot Supernatural Spell, available to Dweomerkeepers everywhere.

Technically you forgot it, as I was just responding to what you had listed :smalltongue:

This is indeed correct - by the time you have Su Wish from that though, you're so high level (17-18 minimum) that it's hardly as abusive as the candle or PB, which are the subjects of the thread. So, "Dweomerkeeper exists, therefore we might as well allow candle-wishing" rings hollow to me.

I have a deal here on the table: Grant me the wish I have detailed here, under the stipulations I have detailed here, or the barghest eats you. Using planar binding, I command you to choose that the barghest eats you.

I'm pretty sure that would be unreasonable, so the Efreet would agree to the deal.

Why would rejecting A force it to choose B instead? It could (and almost certainly would) find the entire dichotomy unreasonable.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 12:29 PM

I was actually referring to your "Cosi's Belt of +10,000 to everything" as a non-existent item.

You seem confused. Also to have not read the things people said. At no point are you asking something with the option to disobey you for custom (not "non-existent", stop being disingenuous) items. You are asking an Efreet for one wish (used to get a Candle to summon a Noble Djinn) in exchange for two wishes.

I'm comfortable calling a substitution of one letter in a whole statblock "minor." At no point did I call it balanced however, so I'm not sure where that's coming from.

If you're going to endorse something as a solution to a balance problem, it should probably not create worse balance problems. Super good job responding to the other points.

It's an Unstoppable-Force-Immovable-Object problem, that's all. It's purpose is killing the original, not lollygagging to create belts.

WTF is at all ambiguous about "absolute control"?

"D&D stuff belongs in Eberron" does not imply the reverse though. I'm not saying Planar Shepherd -> Efreet doesn't work (it does), I'm saying that you would need DM approval to use it in a non-Eberron campaign, or even in an Eberron campaign where you aren't a member of their order.

At what point did I claim that? You need to stop strawmanning people.

That's exactly my point - D&D doesn't define it, therefore you need a favorable ruling from your DM instead. Optimization discussions generally don't assume there is a friendly DM you can beg for favors.

Optimization also doesn't assume the DM redefines words so your tricks don't work.

Technically you forgot it, as I was just responding to what you had listed :smalltongue:

And don't forget Mirror Mephits, simulacrum, ice assassin, Planar Shepard Outsider Wild Shape, Supernatural Spell, Archmage SLA + Supernatural Transformation, and dominate monster. All of which give you XP free wish.

Stop lying.

This is indeed correct - by the time you have Su Wish from that though, you're so high level (17-18 minimum) that it's hardly as abusive as the candle or PB, which are the subjects of the thread. So, "Dweomerkeeper exists, therefore we might as well allow candle-wishing" rings hollow to me.

That's stupid. The power you are supposed to have at 17th is "9th level spells", not "infinite power"

Also, exactly zero people are saying we should allow Candle abuse. What's the strawman count in this post? Three? Four?

eggynack

2016-02-11, 12:39 PM

Actually, I'd say it's unique to efreet, which explicitly have a "hatred of servitude." So yes, any form of binding/gating would be especially unpalatable. Going to one without a spell giving you the upper hand and prostrating yourself might work, but of course us optimization folk hate that because it gives us no leverage in the negotiations.

I agree that it'd be unpalatable. I just don't think it'd be unreasonable. Those aren't the same thing.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 12:48 PM

I agree that it'd be unpalatable. I just don't think it'd be unreasonable. Those aren't the same thing.

Wanting to work with someone who did this - especially an inferior being - even if they get something in return? I'd have to say it is, but a DM could go either way, certainly.

You seem confused. Also to have not read the things people said. At no point are you asking something with the option to disobey you for custom (not "non-existent", stop being disingenuous) items. You are asking an Efreet for one wish (used to get a Candle to summon a Noble Djinn) in exchange for two wishes.

I already addressed the Noble Djinn thing; Efreet hate Djinn with a passion, so I don't see how helping you meet one is "reasonable" - particularly when they know it means you'll get to make unmolested wishes and do an end-run around their own sadistic streak.

If you're going to endorse something as a solution to a balance problem, it should probably not create worse balance problems. Super good job responding to the other points.

Wait, now I'm confused - how does stopping Zodar-Shapechange make balance worse? :smallconfused:

WTF is at all ambiguous about "absolute control"?

Nothing, but neither is "all-consuming" ambiguous. They have one job, and no room for anything else. Hopefully your instructions involve killing their clone rather than making belts, otherwise the DM has to step in and decide which desire wins.

At what point did I claim that? You need to stop strawmanning people.

The way you presented Planar Shepherd sounded like it was a general strategy, rather than a specific PrC in a specific setting with a specific cosmology and specific roleplay requirements. If that was not your intent then I apologize.

Optimization also doesn't assume the DM redefines words so your tricks don't work.

It's not actually "redefining" - D&D doesn't define the term at all. Therefore the DM has to.

Stop lying.
...
That's stupid. The power you are supposed to have at 17th is "9th level spells", not "infinite power."
...
Also, exactly zero people are saying we should allow Candle abuse. What's the strawman count in this post? Three? Four?

The thread opened with a discussion on the "unreasonable" clause in Planar Binding. Gate/Candle were proposed as an alternate, which broadened the discussion to efreet nature as a whole. At no point was Dweomerkeeper considered a non-functional substitute, but it's also less problematic because PB and candles are available much earlier than simply getting Wish yourself. Heck, once you can cast Wish, you can use Thought Bottle tricks to cover the XP cost if you wish.

As for whether you truly can wish for custom items that don't exist... well, all I'll say is that it's debatable.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 12:56 PM

I already addressed the Noble Djinn thing; Efreet hate Djinn with a passion, so I don't see how helping you meet one is "reasonable" - particularly when they know it means you'll get to make unmolested wishes and do an end-run around their own sadistic streak.

The thread opened with a discussion on the "unreasonable" clause in Planar Binding.

Let's read the text of that clause:

Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to.

Not "commands the creature considers unreasonable", just "unreasonable commands". Two wishes for one wish is not in any sense "unreasonable". Efreet nature doesn't enter into it.

Wait, now I'm confused - how does stopping Zodar-Shapechange make balance worse? :smallconfused:

Endorsing functional alteration of 3.0 material (rather than updating function) makes things worse.

Nothing, but neither is "all-consuming" ambiguous. They have one job, and no room for anything else. Hopefully your instructions involve killing their clone rather than making belts, otherwise the DM has to step in and decide which desire wins.

Yes. All the actions it decides to take will be in that direction. Unfortunately, it doesn't decide what actions it takes.

It's not actually "redefining" - D&D doesn't define the term at all. Therefore the DM has to.

So why are we assuming the DM defines it so it isn't broken? It's Oberoni again, isn't it. It's always Oberoni. That, or a strawman.

As for whether you truly can wish for custom items that don't exist... well, all I'll say is that it's debatable.

Yes, clearly "custom magic items" might not be "magic items".

Psyren

2016-02-11, 01:18 PM

Let's read the text of that clause:

Not "commands the creature considers unreasonable", just "unreasonable commands". Two wishes for one wish is not in any sense "unreasonable". Efreet nature doesn't enter into it.

Who decides what commands are reasonable, if not the creature being commanded? The only other possible answer is the DM, which is exactly the same thing.

Endorsing functional alteration of 3.0 material (rather than updating function) makes things worse.

I don't see how; if they had wanted Su Wish to be widespread, wouldn't other monsters have it? The fact that they didn't make any more in all the monster books since FF suggests they didn't consider it to be a good idea after all. They could have also errata'ed Shapechange to grant SLAs, but they didn't do that either.

Yes. All the actions it decides to take will be in that direction. Unfortunately, it doesn't decide what actions it takes.

It doesn't have to decide anything - the clause is "all-consuming need," not "all-consuming choice" or "all-consuming desire."

So why are we assuming the DM defines it so it isn't broken? It's Oberoni again, isn't it. It's always Oberoni. That, or a strawman.

The only one obsessed with what's "broken" and what's not seems to be you. I haven't said anything about that. What I'm pointing out is that the nature of efreet and the clauses in the various spells are data points to consider.

Yes, clearly "custom magic items" might not be "magic items".

It's more that custom magic items assume once again a benevolent/helpful DM, rather than an impartial/passive one.

Quertus

2016-02-11, 01:21 PM

As for whether you truly can wish for custom items that don't exist... well, all I'll say is that it's debatable.

Well, 1) you can wish for anything; 2) you can safely wish for magic items (note the lack of clause about customization, existence, or value(!)); 3) having made the ring of infinite wishes, I cannot condone any allegations of its nonexistence.

eggynack

2016-02-11, 01:28 PM

Who decides what commands are reasonable, if not the creature being commanded? The only other possible answer is the DM, which is exactly the same thing.
It's not really the same thing, exactly. See, my thinking is that you'd essentially want a "reasonable man" test. So, the question is whether a reasonable man, placed into this situation, would consider this a reasonable demand. There is, of course, no perfect reasonable man, but in the absence of one the DM serves well enough. So, the question, to my mind, isn't whether the DM thinks that the efreet would consider the demand unreasonable, but whether the DM, if placed in the efreet's shoes, would consider the demand unreasonable.

I don't see how; if they had wanted Su Wish to be widespread, wouldn't other monsters have it? The fact that they didn't make any more in all the monster books since FF suggests they didn't consider it to be a good idea after all. They could have also errata'ed Shapechange to grant SLAs, but they didn't do that either.

If they had wanted Su wish to be less widespread than it is, then they would equally eliminate currently existent instances. The only thing we can assume, to the extent we can assume anything, is that the creators wanted exactly as much Su wish as exists.

It doesn't have to decide anything - the clause is "all-consuming need," not "all-consuming choice" or "all-consuming desire."
You can fail to act on an all consuming need. Say you're in an impenetrable box, and say also that you are starving. I would say first that you have an all consuming need to eat, but also that you won't eat, because you can't. You could also consider yourself as being dragged along in chains, if you think that fits the situation better. Similarly, no matter how much the ice assassin needs to kill you, it has no ability to act on that need, and in fact only has the ability to act on your desires. In this sense, need doesn't perfectly dictate what you do, because the existence of outside forces can trump a need, no matter how all-consuming.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 01:32 PM

I'm putting this first because it's an important thing I have said multiple times and everyone always ignores:

When coming up with houserules to address wish things, there are two things that I want to still be able to happen:
1) Efferti should still be able to grant wishes to PCs that aren't game breaking, because that is literally their purpose as a monster. If you declare that SLA wish costs XP, they can't do that, and that's dumb.
2) Wish should be able to create magic items worth any possible amount of gold, because that's a great part of wish.

I'm going to elaborate on 2) Think about it, a Belt of Magnificence +6 costs 200,000gp. That means it takes 200 days to craft. No one is ever going to make that thing, ever. On the other hand, if you are in a world in which epic is declared to not exist, you can beat up a bunch of things and get the XP to wish it with a wish that still costs XP and then actually get it in a reasonable time while accomplishing other objectives.

If you are in a game where Epic does exist, then XP costing wishes are even more important. A +8 to stat item costs 640,000gp, that's a year and three quarters just to make that item. And it only gets worse from there.

Basically, SLAs should be able to do some things without XP, and they shouldn't be allowed to create items, but the actual spell wish used with XP cost should still allow the creation of items with really high gold values.

All I'm seeing here is a pile of false dichotomies and the continued assumption that somehow yanking someone out of their home and demanding they do what you say under pain of death is somehow reasonable, which Eggy has excused on the grounds that an Efreet can't use their innate wish ability on themselves and they should be happy for the privilege? I can't remember the exact term, but there's a legal definition that states no one is allowed to mess with your body without your permission. Doesn't matter if you can spare the blood that will save that guy's life, it is 100% against the law to try and take it from you (at least around here). There's also these things called property rights? Where it doesn't matter if I have no idea how to use this thing I bought, because it's mine, and your putting a gun to my head and demanding I sell it to you because I can't use it is also rather against the law. Yanking someone out of their home and holding them prisoner would be kidnapping and false imprisonment. And so on.

If your theory is that casting Planar Binding at all triggers the unreasonable request wording because it is impossible to make a reasonable request by planar binding someone then your position is wrong, and nothing you have to say about this subject is worth anything.

Florian

2016-02-11, 01:32 PM

I, for one, would live in fear of the devastating revenge of a CR 8 creature when I had wish at-will and +1,000,000,000 to all my stats.

If "rules neutrality" really is going to be strictly enforced, something necessary to pull off all of the exploits discussed here, then those same rules and implied total knowledge and total access hold true for all sides involved here.

It would be no big deal for said hacked of Efreet to mind-rape some of his slaves to grant his wished to and you them for his own that way. Entirely possible, works each day, brings results. Say hello to an infinite stream of ice assassins and simulacra of great old ones coming your way, day after day, without giving you any XP. Just to name an example.

Segev

2016-02-11, 01:36 PM

Psyren, I believe your whole argument is hinging, at this point, on a flawed reading of "unreasonable."

"Reasonable" doesn't mean "palatable/acceptable to the person being asked." In contexts such as this, "reasonable" has to be referring to the same kind of reason as the "reasonable man standard" in law. No, I'm not saying we should bring legalism into this (though we inherently do, to a degree, when arguing the RAW); I am saying that that is the definition and context being used. To interpret it any other way is to say that any being which doesn't think being kidnapped and forced to negotiate for its freedom is "reasonable" will ever agree to anything. This is not a slippery slope fallacy; this is the net result of the argument you're making.

Good luck finding things specifically noted to think being kidnapped and coerced is "reasonable." Even CE things which would do it to others tend not to be very consistent in finding it acceptable to do to them.

"Reasonable," in this context, refers to things which are not so beyond the pale as to be practically impossible, or so outlandish that it isn't "reasonable" to expect the creature to even be ABLE to do it.

"Make me a god more powerful than the Lady of Pain and able to enter Sigil without harm" is impossible.

"Go overthrow Asmodeus" is not technically impossible, but is so ridiculous as to be "unreasonable."

THAT is what it's getting at.

"Use this ability that takes you almost no effort" is not unreasonable, even if the efreet in question seethes at the indignity.

zergling.exe

2016-02-11, 01:36 PM

If "rules neutrality" really is going to be strictly enforced, something necessary to pull off all of the exploits discussed here, then those same rules and implied total knowledge and total access hold true for all sides involved here.

It would be no big deal for said hacked of Efreet to mind-rape some of his slaves to grant his wished to and you them for his own that way. Entirely possible, works each day, brings results. Say hello to an infinite stream of ice assassins and simulacra of great old ones coming your way, day after day, without giving you any XP. Just to name an example.

Or being wished into a kill trap on a dead magic plane.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 01:57 PM

It's not really the same thing, exactly. See, my thinking is that you'd essentially want a "reasonable man" test. So, the question is whether a reasonable man, placed into this situation, would consider this a reasonable demand. There is, of course, no perfect reasonable man, but in the absence of one the DM serves well enough. So, the question, to my mind, isn't whether the DM thinks that the efreet would consider the demand unreasonable, but whether the DM, if placed in the efreet's shoes, would consider the demand unreasonable.

But which man? What is reasonable to a human is not necessarily so for an efreet, or an angel. And the DM's job is indeed to put himself in these creatures' shoes and consider how they would behave, not to stay out of it/above it all. DMG 103: "It’s your job to portray everyone in the world who isn’t a player character."

If they had wanted Su wish to be less widespread than it is, then they would equally eliminate currently existent instances. The only thing we can assume, to the extent we can assume anything, is that the creators wanted exactly as much Su wish as exists.

Except it's not "currently existent" though, because it comes from a prior edition. So leaving alone something that doesn't actually exist in 3.5 isn't saying much about 3.5 design goals. Never adding it again after dozens of new monsters is the more telling statement.

You can fail to act on an all consuming need. Say you're in an impenetrable box, and say also that you are starving. I would say first that you have an all consuming need to eat, but also that you won't eat, because you can't. You could also consider yourself as being dragged along in chains, if you think that fits the situation better. Similarly, no matter how much the ice assassin needs to kill you, it has no ability to act on that need, and in fact only has the ability to act on your desires. In this sense, need doesn't perfectly dictate what you do, because the existence of outside forces can trump a need, no matter how all-consuming.

This is true - but that doesn't mean you'll be able to do anything else with your actions but struggle against your impenetrable box/chains either.

Good luck finding things specifically noted to think being kidnapped and coerced is "reasonable." Even CE things which would do it to others tend not to be very consistent in finding it acceptable to do to them.

My issue is that Efreet specifically have lines about hating servitude, desiring revenge, and living to mislead mortals. Not every creature has that, but they do, so to me it's perfectly fine to say that no-strings wishes are something they would consider anathema.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-11, 02:01 PM

2) Wish should be able to create magic items worth any possible amount of gold, because that's a great part of wish.

I think this might be one of the fundamental disagreements going on here. I haven't done any polling, but anyone who has DMed for particularly argumentative and selfish players is likely to have the feeling that opening up access to everything in the world with no mechanical limitations is a bad decision.

"I wish for a robe of the magi crossed with the powers of the lady of pain and can emulate all of the divine powers of a major god."

OOC: "Wish can't do that, and I'm giving you a heads up, if you persist, I'll give it to you, but there will be consequences attached...and the campaign will be very very very different from here on out... Talk to your fellow players while I go stat some things up."

"...buuut it says ANY MAGIC ITEM! I priced this all out..."

My counter argument is this: A cap on the GP for magic items one can receive from a wish isn't hurting the players whatsoever. And you don't have to risk the entire campaign or its balance.

Perhaps our opinions differ because your group of players understand social give and take better than mine.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 02:22 PM

Who decides what commands are reasonable, if not the creature being commanded? The only other possible answer is the DM, which is exactly the same thing.

The word reasonable has a definition. I thought we were using out of game definitions for in game terms. Or are you okay with Archmage's SLAs being altered by Supernatural Transformation?

Also, Noble Djinn.

I don't see how; if they had wanted Su Wish to be widespread, wouldn't other monsters have it?

Again, if they wanted wish abuse to not happen, they would have kept the "no magic items over 15k" clause from 3.0 wish.

They could have also errata'ed Shapechange to grant SLAs, but they didn't do that either.

The 3.0 -> 3.5 change saw shapechange begin to grant supernatural abilities in a world with Zodars. If they didn't intend for shapechange to grant Zodar wish, they would not have added that clause.

It doesn't have to decide anything - the clause is "all-consuming need," not "all-consuming choice" or "all-consuming desire."

Yes. It consumes all the ice assassin's other needs. Like food or shelter. It does not render it immune to mental control, or the spell would say it does that.

It's more that custom magic items assume once again a benevolent/helpful DM, rather than an impartial/passive one.

The only think that requires a benevolent DM is getting the listed prices. Since you aren't paying the price at all, you don't care what it is.

2) Wish should be able to create magic items worth any possible amount of gold, because that's a great part of wish.

I'm going to elaborate on 2) Think about it, a Belt of Magnificence +6 costs 200,000gp. That means it takes 200 days to craft. No one is ever going to make that thing, ever. On the other hand, if you are in a world in which epic is declared to not exist, you can beat up a bunch of things and get the XP to wish it with a wish that still costs XP and then actually get it in a reasonable time while accomplishing other objectives.

Why is that better than just fixing the crafting rules so that level appropriate items take constant (rather than quadratically increasing) time to create? If the solution is "use wish", that bones (to an admittedly lesser degree) anyone between the point where item crafting time begins to increase and the point where wish starts getting used.

Segev

2016-02-11, 02:26 PM

My issue is that Efreet specifically have lines about hating servitude, desiring revenge, and living to mislead mortals. Not every creature has that, but they do, so to me it's perfectly fine to say that no-strings wishes are something they would consider anathema.

Those lines are there to aid in role playing the efreet, and to suggest the danger inherent to binding them. Not to make binding them impossible. If that were the desire, it would be in the RAW: "Because of this, they always refuse any task as 'unreasonable' when anybody attempts to bind them with planar binding or similar spells."

Psyren

2016-02-11, 02:29 PM

I'll follow up with your post Cosi.

Those lines are there to aid in role playing the efreet, and to suggest the danger inherent to binding them. Not to make binding them impossible. If that were the desire, it would be in the RAW: "Because of this, they always refuse any task as 'unreasonable' when anybody attempts to bind them with planar binding or similar spells."

I never said it was impossible. You can definitely bind them and even ask them for wishes. What is unreasonable is expecting no twisting or reprisals when they hate the way you've gone about it as much as they do.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 02:30 PM

I think this might be one of the fundamental disagreements going on here. I haven't done any polling, but anyone who has DMed for particularly argumentative and selfish players is likely to have the feeling that opening up access to everything in the world with no mechanical limitations is a bad decision.

I have no idea what your are saying here. I'm not saying it should be able to wish for items that don't exist. I'm not saying that it should be able to wish for items with no cost. I'm saying that if someone has 21k XP they want to spend on a Belt of Magnificence they can.

If an item that grants all the abilities of the lady of pain doesn't exist, then they can't wish for it, and if they don't have the XP they can't wish for the Belt.

My counter argument is this: A cap on the GP for magic items one can receive from a wish isn't hurting the players whatsoever. And you don't have to risk the entire campaign or its balance.

A cap does nothing to the players in a universe with Sigil, or the City of Brass, or even Greyhawk, where you can buy any item just by showing up, but the point is that as a setting concern, it's a lot easier to explain that someone spent 21k wishing up an item because they are max level and never going to level again anyway than that they spent 200 days crafting it.

Why is that better than just fixing the crafting rules so that level appropriate items take constant (rather than quadratically increasing) time to create? If the solution is "use wish", that bones (to an admittedly lesser degree) anyone between the point where item crafting time begins to increase and the point where wish starts getting used.

Because it's less work? Unless you have a crafting system already written up, I'll stick with the plan to not write something up myself.

Florian

2016-02-11, 02:31 PM

@Beheld:

Fundamentaly speaking, you´re absolutely right. This is a high-magic game and high-magic options are a part of it that all participants have to learn to deal with.

Wish is a thing, you can automatically learn it as one of your two free wizard spells once you hit 17th level and use it at your leisure. The rules are there, no big deal.

That is not the contested point here, though. Neither is removing or altering wish on a whim.

The RAW here is clear, too, but the RAW doesn´t stand on its own but needs a setting to work with and it´s not a given thing that all things specified by RAW automatically find their way into that setting and are equally available. If they are, though, they should work by RAW.

That is where most logic chains break down here until your character reaches the point to do it himself.
The divide here runs along the lines of "Screw the setting, we´re using RAW anyways" and "If the setting doesn´t give us the options, then RAW can´t be had"

Segev

2016-02-11, 02:38 PM

I never said it was impossible. You can definitely bind them and even ask them for wishes. What is unreasonable is expecting no twisting or reprisals when they hate the way you've gone about it as much as they do.

You can force "no twisting," though it will take effort and require appeasing them. You cannot force "no reprisals," because even if you could get them to agree to it, the binding holding them to that ends in CL days. So at best, you could get them to agree to it and know they won't retaliate for a number of days equal to your CL.

This is part of why bribery is part of the negotiations.

You can also attempt to make it out less as "service" and more as a "business arrangement" which had an unfortunate means of getting in touch. That gets around their "hatred of servitude" bit, if you can make it "not servitude" in their minds.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 02:44 PM

Because it's less work? Unless you have a crafting system already written up, I'll stick with the plan to not write something up myself.

Reasonable enough. Theoretically, scaling GP/day by level squared should even things out (except for the bump for Epic items), but there likely to be more issues with that.

You can also attempt to make it out less as "service" and more as a "business arrangement" which had an unfortunate means of getting in touch. That gets around their "hatred of servitude" bit, if you can make it "not servitude" in their minds.

Yah, I'm not sure how an agreement that is Pareto efficient is considered servitude. I mean, I guess you could claim that all trade with Efreet is servitude, but that's something Psyren has explicitly said he doesn't believe.

zergling.exe

2016-02-11, 02:54 PM

Segev

2016-02-11, 03:01 PM

I don't see how you could get the servitude of "Drop whatever you are doing right now to come do (blank) for me." out of the picture very easily. The creature is not indebited* to you in any way that would make it subject to coming at your beck and call at any hour of the day.

*You could potentially get one that is, but that is a long shot and another matter entirely.
You can try being super-polite (but not weak-seeming) about it: "I am sorry for disturbing you without notice, I have a business proposition to negotiate with you. Is now a good time? If not, let me know a better one in the next day or so and I'll call upon you again then."

Or you could just assume that they expect this sort of thing, and try to build a rapport with this one so you can arrange better summoning times in the future.

Florian

2016-02-11, 03:04 PM

I have no idea what your are saying here. I'm not saying it should be able to wish for items that don't exist. I'm not saying that it should be able to wish for items with no cost. I'm saying that if someone has 21k XP they want to spend on a Belt of Magnificence they can.

If an item that grants all the abilities of the lady of pain doesn't exist, then they can't wish for it, and if they don't have the XP they can't wish for the Belt.

Egg and Chicken, really.
You draw a line in the sand here by saying that an items that does not exist can´t be wished for.
So far, so good. In a sense a bit arbitrary because RAW provides crafting rules, thereby at least trying to formulate the exact specifics of the item you wish for, even if unreasonable to craft it.
The arbitrary thing here really is that you use "clear and perfect knowledge". If you have that, you know that this item can´t exist, therefore you don´t wish for it. If not, you wish for it and that wish fails or provides lesser results as what you intended.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 03:06 PM

The RAW here is clear, too, but the RAW doesn´t stand on its own but needs a setting to work with and it´s not a given thing that all things specified by RAW automatically find their way into that setting and are equally available. If they are, though, they should work by RAW.

That is where most logic chains break down here until your character reaches the point to do it himself.
The divide here runs along the lines of "Screw the setting, we´re using RAW anyways" and "If the setting doesn´t give us the options, then RAW can´t be had"

Would you kindly find a single worth talking about instead of constantly blathering on this nonsense topic if I changed my statement to:

"Infinite Free Wishes are only 100% RAW available for any level 5 character in Greyhawk, FR, Ebberron, Planescape, and 99.9% of homebrew settings, but sure you can theoretically be playing in a setting where no city above small town exists, and there are no other planes that have Efferti (such as the plane of Fire) or Djinn (Plane of Air) on them, or perhaps in a homebrew setting where no one is allowed to know that magic items exist."

The arbitrary thing here really is that you use "clear and perfect knowledge". If you have that, you know that this item can´t exist, therefore you don´t wish for it. If not, you wish for it and that wish fails or provides lesser results as what you intended.

Yes, you have to know an item could possibly exist before you can wish for someone to create it. . . That is literally the most obvious thing that I think could ever be said.

zergling.exe

2016-02-11, 03:06 PM

You can try being super-polite (but not weak-seeming) about it: "I am sorry for disturbing you without notice, I have a business proposition to negotiate with you. Is now a good time? If not, let me know a better one in the next day or so and I'll call upon you again then."

Or you could just assume that they expect this sort of thing, and try to build a rapport with this one so you can arrange better summoning times in the future.

A problem with that plan would be that the creature would have to tell you its proper name for you to summon it again, which can cause other problems for it in the future. And what even is the proper name for any given creature?

It could also choose to tell you the name of a balor or pit fiend if it's feeling especially cruel.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 03:10 PM

It could also choose to tell you the name of a balor or pit fiend if it's feeling especially cruel.

And you could choose to kill it to death by murdering it until it dies. Which you are vastly more likely to do if it betrays you.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 03:11 PM

You can force "no twisting," though it will take effort and require appeasing them. You cannot force "no reprisals," because even if you could get them to agree to it, the binding holding them to that ends in CL days. So at best, you could get them to agree to it and know they won't retaliate for a number of days equal to your CL.

This is part of why bribery is part of the negotiations.

You can also attempt to make it out less as "service" and more as a "business arrangement" which had an unfortunate means of getting in touch. That gets around their "hatred of servitude" bit, if you can make it "not servitude" in their minds.

That's the crux of the issue for me - the "unfortunate means of getting in touch" overshadows every other aspect of the negotiations that follow, at least from my point of view. On top of which, being spiteful and misleading is their bread and butter, so you're adding something else they dislike (a straightforward exchange between equals with no negative consequences for the mortal) to an already loathsome situation.

Rather than try to "drawback-proof" the exchange, I would tell the player to nut up and just accept the fact that they have to look over their shoulder for awhile. If that's too fearsome a prospect, dealing with efreet is probably not something that character has any business doing. Or the PC in question might just be arrogant and think in-character that they can handle it; who knows, they may even be right.

@Cosi:

The word reasonable has a definition. I thought we were using out of game definitions for in game terms. Or are you okay with Archmage's SLAs being altered by Supernatural Transformation?

Also, Noble Djinn.

Noble Djinn were addressed (Efreet hate them so any plan that involves both is likely unreasonable too), and reasonable's definition is subjective - it depends on the creature being reasoned with.

Again, if they wanted wish abuse to not happen, they would have kept the "no magic items over 15k" clause from 3.0 wish.

I agree that this would be better (my very first post in the thread was a recommendation for PF Wish, after all) - but at the same time, I don't think "you can get XP-free wish at level 18" is the same degree of abuse as "you can get it at level 1" or even "you can get it at level 12." Perfect shouldn't be the enemy of good.

The 3.0 -> 3.5 change saw shapechange begin to grant supernatural abilities in a world with Zodars. If they didn't intend for shapechange to grant Zodar wish, they would not have added that clause.

What world with Zodars? They're 3.0. I can just as easily say they would have expected the update clause they included in the DMG to address any issues Zodars had.

Yes. It consumes all the ice assassin's other needs. Like food or shelter. It does not render it immune to mental control, or the spell would say it does that.

Having mental control does not guarantee it will behave as you wish - just as eggy said, other forces can keep it from carrying out your instructions.

The only think that requires a benevolent DM is getting the listed prices. Since you aren't paying the price at all, you don't care what it is.

There is no price for a custom item, so the DM has to calculate one for you (along with approving the item itself.)

Segev

2016-02-11, 03:19 PM

That's the crux of the issue for me - the "unfortunate means of getting in touch" overshadows every other aspect of the negotiations that follow, at least from my point of view. On top of which, being spiteful and misleading is their bread and butter, so you're adding something else they dislike (a straightforward exchange between equals with no negative consequences for the mortal) to an already loathsome situation.

Rather than try to "drawback-proof" the exchange, I would tell the player to nut up and just accept the fact that they have to look over their shoulder for awhile. If that's too fearsome a prospect, dealing with efreet is probably not something that character has any business doing. Or the PC in question might just be arrogant and think in-character that they can handle it; who knows, they may even be right.

Or just kill any that cross you. They're CR 8, and while they CAN enact dangerous plans, you just need to claim a sample of them to make sure you can summon two of their buddies (or maybe 4 djinn) and set them to a task of "punish this guy."

Cosi

2016-02-11, 03:20 PM

Noble Djinn were addressed (Efreet hate them so any plan that involves both is likely unreasonable too), and reasonable's definition is subjective - it depends on the creature being reasoned with.

Sorry, I mean "use planar binding to call a Noble Djinn instead". I thought that was clear.

What world with Zodars? They're 3.0. I can just as easily say they would have expected the update clause they included in the DMG to address any issues Zodars had.

So the DM is supposed to change the game so it isn't broken. Therefore, the game isn't broken.

That is almost word for word the Oberoni fallacy.

Having mental control does not guarantee it will behave as you wish - just as eggy said, other forces can keep it from carrying out your instructions.

Like the inability to complete them. Which very obviously does not apply, because you are telling it to use an ability it has to do something that ability can do.

There is no price for a custom item, so the DM has to calculate one for you (along with approving the item itself.)

Whatever? It literally doesn't matter at all. You don't pay the cost. It could be 5 GP. It could be 5 million GP. It could be infinity GP. You don't pay that cost. Which is the entire point of the exercise.

zergling.exe

2016-02-11, 03:51 PM

And you could choose to kill it to death by murdering it until it dies. Which you are vastly more likely to do if it betrays you.

You planar bind an efreet at level 11, the first level you are able to. You do what Segev suggested and the name that it gives you to contact it is instead a pit fiend. Now when you go to do it again at the designated time, you instead get a pit fiend dropped in your face. It immediately pits its SR 32 against your magic circle (or maybe you didn't even have one, as you expected a somewhat cooperative efreet) and easily breaks it and then you get hit by its fear aura, that you are probably running around a 50% chance of resisting at best.

What do you do in this situation?

Psyren

2016-02-11, 04:01 PM

Or just kill any that cross you. They're CR 8, and while they CAN enact dangerous plans, you just need to claim a sample of them to make sure you can summon two of their buddies (or maybe 4 djinn) and set them to a task of "punish this guy."

Certainly, you could stomp them easily. Maybe not so easily whoever they partner with - just about any creature can benefit from a wish after all, which is what started all this - and their leadership sounds like it could be problematic too, but so long as you're prepared to handle a reprisal (or your character at least thinks he is) then trapping one is at least a justifiable, if dangerous, course of action.

Sorry, I mean "use planar binding to call a Noble Djinn instead". I thought that was clear.

Ah, understood. The issue here is that if you don't know a creature's proper name, you have to specify a kind, and Noble Djinn are part of the Djinn population (MM 115), thus you have only a 1% chance of binding one. All the rest will be the non-wish-granting kind.

So the DM is supposed to change the game so it isn't broken. Therefore, the game isn't broken.

That is almost word for word the Oberoni fallacy.

Again, the only person talking about what is and isn't broken is you. I'm pointing out that updates of 3.0 material are required, and the nature of those updates is up to DM discretion.

Like the inability to complete them. Which very obviously does not apply, because you are telling it to use an ability it has to do something that ability can do.

And how will it suspend its all-consuming need long enough to do anything else but fulfill it?

Whatever? It literally doesn't matter at all. You don't pay the cost. It could be 5 GP. It could be 5 million GP. It could be infinity GP. You don't pay that cost. Which is the entire point of the exercise.

There is no cost because such an item doesn't exist, until and unless the DM creates it.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 04:28 PM

You planar bind an efreet at level 11, the first level you are able to. You do what Segev suggested and the name that it gives you to contact it is instead a pit fiend. Now when you go to do it again at the designated time, you instead get a pit fiend dropped in your face. It immediately pits its SR 32 against your magic circle (or maybe you didn't even have one, as you expected a somewhat cooperative efreet) and easily breaks it and then you get hit by its fear aura, that you are probably running around a 50% chance of resisting at best.

Dude, planar binding has a HD limit. It's 12. Pit Fiends have 18 HD.

Ah, understood. The issue here is that if you don't know a creature's proper name, you have to specify a kind, and Noble Djinn are part of the Djinn population (MM 115), thus you have only a 1% chance of binding one. All the rest will be the non-wish-granting kind.

They are a distinct subset. If you ask for one, you get one. Just like even though both dogs and cats are animals, you won't get a dog when requesting a cat.

Again, the only person talking about what is and isn't broken is you. I'm pointing out that updates of 3.0 material are required, and the nature of those updates is up to DM discretion.

If it's not "broken", why are you making these super terrible arguments that people can't do it? You just think that for no reason people should not get XP free wish, even though the game would not be worse if they did?

And how will it suspend its all-consuming need long enough to do anything else but fulfill it?

The same way it does if someone casts dominate monster on it. Unless you suggest that ice assassins are also immune to that spell?

There is no cost because such an item doesn't exist, until and unless the DM creates it.

Citation please.

Segev

2016-02-11, 04:32 PM

Beheld

2016-02-11, 04:37 PM

Psyren

2016-02-11, 04:50 PM

They are a distinct subset. If you ask for one, you get one. Just like even though both dogs and cats are animals, you won't get a dog when requesting a cat.

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

If it's not "broken", why are you making these super terrible arguments that people can't do it? You just think that for no reason people should not get XP free wish, even though the game would not be worse if they did?

"Would not be worse" is not an assertion I agree with. Candles and Planar Binding come online much, much earlier than Dweomerkeeper and Planar Shepherd. I don't see the benefit in granting something this powerful even earlier than it's already possible to get it.

The same way it does if someone casts dominate monster on it. Unless you suggest that ice assassins are also immune to that spell?

What happens there is a DM call - no other creatures (that I know of) have "all-consuming needs" in their rules text.

Citation please.

Wait - you want me to cite that your custom +10,000 belt doesn't exist? Isn't that like saying, "Jupiter's core is made of cheese, go prove me wrong?" You're the one making the positive claim here, you support it.

squiggit

2016-02-11, 04:52 PM

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

But they're both subsets of the order carnivora.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 04:57 PM

But they're both subsets of the order carnivora.

D&D doesn't go by taxonomic hierarchy though, it goes by creature entries. The "kind of creature" is a djinn, or you can go a level up in your MM and say "send me a genie" but that actually worsens your odds even more.

zergling.exe

2016-02-11, 05:04 PM

A little research to ensure that the name is of what I think it is, first off.

And then I trap the heck out of everything with multiple layered contingencies, just to be sure, before performing the conjuration, the first time.

Though, um, if I'm binding it by its true name, I think the rules change and it doesn't get to resist. I could be wrong, though. True Name rules are not well defined in D&D.

It is not a "true name" but a "proper name". And the only difference it makes is that you are calling a specific creature instead of a random one.

I read the spell Planar Binding, and it's 12HD limit, and realize that nothing happens.

Dude, planar binding has a HD limit. It's 12. Pit Fiends have 18 HD.

Indeed, I somehow blanked on that after specifically checking the planar binding line. :smallredface:

Regardless you still would not get your wish in that instance.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 05:17 PM

Regardless you still would not get your wish in that instance.

I still don't have even the faintest clue why Planar Binding the same efferti twice is necessary for a wish in the first place, since Noble Djinn/Efferti can all just be help there for 11 (or 17 if you pop a Prayer Bead first and have some CL boosters) days and then if they don't give you what you want you just murder them. (Maybe not the Djinn, those guys are pretty swell.)

Cosi

2016-02-11, 05:25 PM

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

Which are a subset of genies. Which are a subset of outsiders. Which are a subset of creatures you can call with planar binding. Which are a subset of creatures. Of course, the only distinction in that line which matters is the one that prevents you from accessing XP free wish at low level.

But no, Psyren is totally not arguing that getting XP free wish at low level would be in any way bad. He just thinks it belongs at 17th level.

"Would not be worse" is not an assertion I agree with. Candles and Planar Binding come online much, much earlier than Dweomerkeeper and Planar Shepherd. I don't see the benefit in granting something this powerful even earlier than it's already possible to get it.

So it would be overpowered to get it at a low level? Perhaps even broken?

Also, Planar Shepard wish happens at 14th, while Dweomerkeeper wish happens at 17th.

What happens there is a DM call - no other creatures (that I know of) have "all-consuming needs" in their rules text.

So the DM can rule that the broken trick doesn't work, which means the broken trick isn't a problem. Also, why is Dweomerkeeper XP free wish at 17th okay, but not Wizard XP free wish via ice assassin not okay at the same level?

Wait - you want me to cite that your custom +10,000 belt doesn't exist? Isn't that like saying, "Jupiter's core is made of cheese, go prove me wrong?" You're the one making the positive claim here, you support it.

I want you to cite that custom items don't exist.

Beheld

2016-02-11, 06:06 PM

Pretty sure Epic Handbook has explicit rules for Larger and Larger bonuses up to any number you can imagine, since it has a formula.

Psyren

2016-02-11, 07:25 PM

Which are a subset of genies. Which are a subset of outsiders. Which are a subset of creatures you can call with planar binding. Which are a subset of creatures. Of course, the only distinction in that line which matters is the one that prevents you from accessing XP free wish at low level.

But no, Psyren is totally not arguing that getting XP free wish at low level would be in any way bad. He just thinks it belongs at 17th level.
...
So it would be overpowered to get it at a low level? Perhaps even broken?

Also, Planar Shepard wish happens at 14th, while Dweomerkeeper wish happens at 17th.

Your goal with reiterating the 'broken' question is to proclaim "Oberoni!" and ride off into the sunset :smalltongue: But Oberoni specifically refers to using Rule Zero - i.e. overriding RAW, not just interpreting it (which is the DM's job.) Efreet hatred of servitude is RAW, unreasonable requests in PB are RAW etc., and it is up to the DM to determine what those things mean.

So the DM can rule that the broken trick doesn't work, which means the broken trick isn't a problem. Also, why is Dweomerkeeper XP free wish at 17th okay, but not Wizard XP free wish via ice assassin not okay at the same level?

Well for one thing, Ice Assassin can be obtained in item form (e.g. a scroll) and thus easier to obtain early than Dweomerkeeper levels. Thus it's more likely to be disruptive.

I want you to cite that custom items don't exist.

Like every other "custom" element in the game (custom race, researched spell, homebrew class etc.) they exist when the DM creates/approves them. This is an exception-based system - the rules tell you what is there, and anything that isn't stated isn't.

Cosi

2016-02-11, 07:32 PM

Your goal with reiterating the 'broken' question is to proclaim "Oberoni!" and ride off into the sunset :smalltongue: But Oberoni specifically refers to using Rule Zero - i.e. overriding RAW, not just interpreting it (which is the DM's job.) Efreet hatred of servitude is RAW, unreasonable requests in PB are RAW etc., and it is up to the DM to determine what those things mean.

You might want to quote the sections where I mention the Oberoni Fallacy if you're going to make that argument. But no, it is in fact 100% Oberoni to declare that if the DM just unilaterally says "ice assassins are immune to mind effecting, despite the spell not saying or implying that in any way at all" and "planar binding's unreasonable requests are creature specific, despite spell not saying or implying that in any way at all" and "that supernatural ability is now spell-like, despite SLAs existing in 3.0" it's not a problem. Because those things are all super clearly overriding the RAW, despite you flailing around to claim otherwise.

Like every other "custom" element in the game (custom race, researched spell, homebrew class etc.) they exist when the DM creates/approves them. This is an exception-based system - the rules tell you what is there, and anything that isn't stated isn't.

Please, tell me more about how there are explicit rules for the pricing and effects of custom races, classes, or spells.

Wait, there aren't. Because those things are in no way equivalent.

Eisfalken

2016-02-11, 08:49 PM

Fizban

2016-02-11, 10:15 PM

That's an argument that makes planar binding literally never work. Planar binding cannot make them agree to "unreasonable demands." If the very casting of planar binding - which "[yanks] someone out of their home" so you can "[demand] they do whatever you say under pain of" some threat (death, imprisonment, pain, etc.) makes the request itself unreasonable, then planar binding literally never works to get you the service it spends a lot of text discussing the negotiation of. . .In fact, the incentive to agree to it has increased: you've proven that you're willing and able to put this person under your power and imprison them in a location of your choosing;

If your theory is that casting Planar Binding at all triggers the unreasonable request wording because it is impossible to make a reasonable request by planar binding someone then your position is wrong, and nothing you have to say about this subject is worth anything.

Reasonable would be offering to pay the standard book price for your wish, with an apology for interrupting their day. Well read good sirs.

Proving that you can kidnap someone and potentially kill them is not incentive, threatening someone is not reasonable.

"Reasonable" doesn't mean "palatable/acceptable to the person being asked." In contexts such as this, "reasonable" has to be referring to the same kind of reason as the "reasonable man standard" in law. No, I'm not saying we should bring legalism into this (though we inherently do, to a degree, when arguing the RAW); I am saying that that is the definition and context being used. To interpret it any other way is to say that any being which doesn't think being kidnapped and forced to negotiate for its freedom is "reasonable" will ever agree to anything. This is not a slippery slope fallacy; this is the net result of the argument you're making.

Good luck finding things specifically noted to think being kidnapped and coerced is "reasonable." Even CE things which would do it to others tend not to be very consistent in finding it acceptable to do to them.
Notice how you are assuming coercion because it's the only way you can conceive of anyone using this spell, which is rather unfortunate. There's already an impartial definition for reasonable, a non-subjective one that most people use every day: paying the standard value for something as written in the PHB or DMG. Caling up an efreet and asking for a wish or three in exchange for a fat pile of money is reasonable. Trying to negotiate the price down may work, but then you lose any pretext of the DM not being able to mess with you. Wishing for a magic item is obviously worth a minimum value equal to the magic item. Calling up any outsider and offering the same paying rate they'd get for responding to a Planar Ally spell might be considered reasonable, as long as you're not demanding something that's clearly more valuable, like a wish.

Allow me to provide a real world example: I call up a pizza place. The guy on the phone at the other end is forced to interrupt what he was doing to pick up the phone, as will the delivery guy when he drives out to make the drop. I can now either order a pizza and pay the delivery guy like a normal person, or I can order a pizza and point a gun at the delivery guy like a psycopath. The latter option may get me a free pizza, but no person would ever consider it a reasonable demand, and weather or not it works I'll be arrested immediately. The cops outnumber me, outgun me, and have the backing of everyone who is not me. The pizza guys may or may not like their jobs and consider it reasonable to pizza me, but it is considered objectively reasonable for me to order and pay for one, and objectively unreasonable to steal it by threat of force.

Is it reasonable for a captured efreet to give up the wishes in order to survive? Subjectively sure, he lives and then tells the efreet cops to take you out, assuming someone else didn't tell them already. When you start making it subjective and assuming that the interpretation falls in the player's favor, once you demand that the efreet make a subjective decision to give up the wishes and it must work because the rules don't prevent it, we can further assume that every single member of their entire species has been prepared for this moment since the dawn of time and the moment you demand that first wish their own wish-powered safety network goes off and you're dead while negotiating and reciting contract lines before you even receive your first boon. Because their entire species subjectively thinks that deal is bogus, and has the power to easily prevent it from happening.

It is hilarious how people keep claiming they're invincible due to infinite wishes, which they can only obtain by extorting the creatures who are born with infinite wishes. You lose.

So efreets exist in order to dispense wishes? Sure, why not. Calling an efreet to use a wish for something is a shortcut, not a free exploit. You pay for what you're getting or you incur the wrath of a species capable of granting the very wishes you just relied on, which means you lose before you've even begun.

Edit- oh, and Eisfalken: you are not a dummy, you are in fact one of quiet many who let reason rule their rules. Most likely every participant in the argument has DM'd at some point and you can take any interpretation you choose to support your own, and be on your merry way. The lesson is that even when you're right an unreasonable player can refuse to accept it, so you can't rely on changing their mind. This is what people mean when they say "the DM is boss," not railroading or stepping on people, just having the guts to stick your guns and run the game in a way that works rather than based on some dodgy interpretation that clearly breaks it.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-12, 03:14 AM

I just had a thought. The Efreet advancement rules in Savage Species imply that you can't get a wish out of a 5HD Efreet (such as one made by simulacrum). But they also imply that you can just play as an Efreet. So the whole issue of "would a random Efreet do this for you" is moot, because you can be that random Efreet and have your cohort ask you to do it for yourself.

Playing as an Efreeti would be interesting.
However the progression given in Savage species gains 10 HD over the course of 19 levels, which may make it not worth playing.

Florian

2016-02-12, 04:43 AM

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

Oh, I think it´s a good think your brought up this topic that started the whole discussion.
It showcases two things nicely:
- The RAW on stuff like that is not as clear as people want to have them. The more elements are included, the more complications turn up, leading to vastly different understanding and handling of the RAW. I think all positions brought up so far are valid interpretations on the individual elements interacting, but there still is no single clear-cut answer on who´s interpretation is the right one.
- These different interpretations carry over to other aspects of the game, especially about power levels and Tiers. It´s easy to see why handling of that stuff alters the perceived power levels of a class.

Beheld

2016-02-12, 05:16 AM

Oh, I think it´s a good think your brought up this topic that started the whole discussion.
It showcases two things nicely:
- The RAW on stuff like that is not as clear as people want to have them. The more elements are included, the more complications turn up, leading to vastly different understanding and handling of the RAW. I think all positions brought up so far are valid interpretations on the individual elements interacting, but there still is no single clear-cut answer on who´s interpretation is the right one.

Alternatively, it shows that the RAW is very clear, and some people are completely unreasonable. Like they expect Planar Binding to function at all in any way, but we know that it is unreasonable to ever expect a spell to do the explicit thing it is designed to do.

Florian

2016-02-12, 08:10 AM

Alternatively, it shows that the RAW is very clear, and some people are completely unreasonable. Like they expect Planar Binding to function at all in any way, but we know that it is unreasonable to ever expect a spell to do the explicit thing it is designed to do.

I partly agree.
With spells that have a purely mechanical resolution mechanic, nothing to discuss there, not lots of things that can go wrong.
Any spell that includes a "gm fiat" step, like defining what "reasonable" could and should mean in the context of the called creature, simply breaks any purely mechanical solutions. The possible spectrum here goes from "anything" to "nothing" or weird things in-between.
For the sake of simplifying discussions about stuff like that, it can be agreed upon to either gloss over or drop any "gm fiat" part and see where that would lead, but that then doesn´t have anything to do with the actual spell/item/option discussion and simply shows where the "ceiling" of it could be, nothing more, being purely theoretical TO then.

zergling.exe

2016-02-12, 09:32 AM

Segev

2016-02-12, 12:39 PM

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

To answer this directly, I will repeat what I said a few pages ago (and which actually didn't seem all that controversial):

I would implement the following rulings (and leave as an exercise for the reader whether they're "house rules" or not...at least one certainly is):

1) Wish's 25,000 gp limit on items created applies to magic items as well as mundane.
2) The Candle of Invocation either a) is priced according to the guidelines for an item which can cast an XP-burning spell (since gate costs XP when used to conjure an entity), b) loses its gate power, or c) comes in two varieties, a lesser and greater version, which follow (b) and (a) respectively.

And, when dealing with efreet, I would have my players actually have to bargain for the wishes. Yes, they can get them, but the efreet are not thrilled to be there, will have to be dealt with carefully to avoid being screwed by the literal genie literally being, literally, a genie who takes things literally to screw you over with the literal meaning of your words, and will also need to be aware that these creatures are vindictive, so there could be future consequences, too. Planning for this and treating it as an adventure is fine; expecting that they just cast planar binding and get three problem-free wishes will lead to disaster.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-12, 02:27 PM

To answer this directly, I will repeat what I said a few pages ago (and which actually didn't seem all that controversial):

I would implement the following rulings (and leave as an exercise for the reader whether they're "house rules" or not...at least one certainly is):

1) Wish's 25,000 gp limit on items created applies to magic items as well as mundane.
2) The Candle of Invocation either a) is priced according to the guidelines for an item which can cast an XP-burning spell (since gate costs XP when used to conjure an entity), b) loses its gate power, or c) comes in two varieties, a lesser and greater version, which follow (b) and (a) respectively.

And, when dealing with efreet, I would have my players actually have to bargain for the wishes. Yes, they can get them, but the efreet are not thrilled to be there, will have to be dealt with carefully to avoid being screwed by the literal genie literally being, literally, a genie who takes things literally to screw you over with the literal meaning of your words, and will also need to be aware that these creatures are vindictive, so there could be future consequences, too. Planning for this and treating it as an adventure is fine; expecting that they just cast planar binding and get three problem-free wishes will lead to disaster.

I support Segev. Perfect compromise between the too poles on the thread. But I would allow 50k for a magic item, that way they can get something really cool if they are blowing a wish on an item.

Beheld

2016-02-12, 03:31 PM

I support Segev. Perfect compromise between the too poles on the thread. But I would allow 50k for a magic item, that way they can get something really cool if they are blowing a wish on an item.

There is no compromise between two sides in making up a houserule. Half the people in the thread say it's RAW and you should houserule it, and the other half say "What Even Is RAW? My One Hand Clapping Tells Me You Can't Wish for Items Because You Don't Know They Exist." (Or alternatively, it is unreasonable to use a spell for the purpose of the spell).

Segev

2016-02-12, 03:33 PM

Beheld

2016-02-12, 04:02 PM

Which is why I am not arguing whether my suggestion is a house rule or not; the OP asked for advice for use in his game. House rules are therefore acceptable. If it happens to be a valid interpretation of RAW instead of a house rule, there's still no problem. The argument over which it is has many partisans (and I can certainly pick up a partisan and enter the flame war), but does not change the utility of the suggestion to the OP.

Except for that being 100% wrong, you would be right.

I was just reading various notes and thoughts regarding the dreaded use of planar binding at 11th level to basically shoehorn an efreeti into using wishes non-stop on behalf of the PCs.

Then, while re-reading planar binding, I ran into this clause of the spell description: "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

I know there are various methods of dealing with wish abuse, but I would like to ask other DMs: would it be totally off the mark to interpret demanding wishes without some form of compensation (to the tune of gp per XP that would normally be required of the wish) to the efreet as being "unreasonable"?

...

Just for the record, this is merely semantics for me; I'm not actually that worried. First time someone starts abusing efreet like this, Mechanus starts spawning quarut inevitables (FF) to take care of it, probably just by freeing the efreet before the PCs can kill or mind-screw it, and letting nature take its course. Or by geasing/killing the PCs with that ridiculous list of abilities quaruts have. There is something elegant about the idea of an in-game deterrent to wish abuse, built directly into the cosmology of the game.

Segev

2016-02-12, 04:06 PM

Except for that being 100% wrong, you would be right.

Yes, yes, you win the argument on the internet, and my post is entirely unhelpful to the OP. 9_9

charcoalninja

2016-02-13, 12:12 PM

I still don't have even the faintest clue why Planar Binding the same efferti twice is necessary for a wish in the first place, since Noble Djinn/Efferti can all just be help there for 11 (or 17 if you pop a Prayer Bead first and have some CL boosters) days and then if they don't give you what you want you just murder them. (Maybe not the Djinn, those guys are pretty swell.)

If you murder them the Efreeti heiarchy utterly annihilate you in a ridiculously comical way for the affront. They are LE immortals who can grant anyone that asks them quite nearly anything in the world. Any setting that has Efreet has their social baggage and so all Efreet are part of that crazy LE society and so if someone in their immortal wish granting club vanishes and gets murderized they will investigate and retaliate. Aggressively compelling the Efreet to do ANYTHING they don't want is essentially suicide unless you're crazy high level. That is their purpose in the game. You can get your wishes if you want, but you damn well better be polite about it and generous with compensation and grovelling or they're going to ****ing erase you.

Edit: example:
The Caliph of the city of Brass tells the citizenry of the affront and declairs a day of vengeance. All Efreet in the city must use one wish the following day to exact retribution on the mortal stupid enough to skip appropriate channels and murder one of THEM. Now your ****stain of an idiot PC has to deal with the ramifications of thousands of offensive wish spells directed at ending them.

Have fun with that.

I play sandbox games. You piss of a key player in interplanar balance you had better be ready to deal with the ****storm.

Anlashok

2016-02-13, 01:04 PM

I don't really see anything in the text to support the efreeti society acting that way.

Florian

2016-02-13, 01:16 PM

I don't really see anything in the text to support the efreeti society acting that way.

"Canon" is the main issue here.
3rd ed. does provide pretty much ox manure on that, but alludes to older editions. Older editions go to great details or leave out that whole issue. So at times, you have a whole source-book to go on by, at other times, a short sentence.

So, mostly, Efreeti society and all about that is unknown and any issue is handled by "dm fiat".

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-13, 01:59 PM

There is no compromise between two sides in making up a houserule. Half the people in the thread say it's RAW and you should houserule it, and the other half say "What Even Is RAW? My One Hand Clapping Tells Me You Can't Wish for Items Because You Don't Know They Exist." (Or alternatively, it is unreasonable to use a spell for the purpose of the spell).

I don't know. I saw the suggestion that knowledge skills can cover knowledge of weirder items. That seemed like a fine compromise. There was a discussion about whether or not you can get any custom item you want, including a belt of +9999999 to a stat, and folks were uncomfortable about putting that latitude into a player's hand. GP limit fixes that.

Regardless, you could treat one pole as "approaching zero" and the other pole as "approaching infinity" and the compromise point would land somewhere in between. Some say yes to all magic items but not epic magic items, putting the limit at 200k gp. That feels super powerful to me, especially considering the exponential wish gradient needed to increase abilitiy scores. Segev says 25K, the concrete limit on mundane items. I, defending the rights of players to get reasonable wish requests with no worries, suggest twice that limit. They can sell that item for half if they want, even make a few skill checks on that sale to get 27,500 gp, more than the mundane item limit. With a GP limit, the problem of custom items is moot. The power is capped. Balance is there. Unless there is a PC specifically trying to get pun pun at the table or trying to chain wish at 7th level. Which, you yourself has claimed is allowable by RAW but not what should happen at a table.

Florian

2016-02-13, 02:11 PM

Beheld

2016-02-13, 02:37 PM

I don't know. I saw the suggestion that knowledge skills can cover knowledge of weirder items. That seemed like a fine compromise. There was a discussion about whether or not you can get any custom item you want, including a belt of +9999999 to a stat, and folks were uncomfortable about putting that latitude into a player's hand. GP limit fixes that.

I saw you saying that my mother was a whore, and that my father smelt of elderberries.

If we are going to have delusions about what other people are saying, let's at least have them be fun.

There are two kinds of people in this thread:

1) People who don't think it is appropriate for PCs to have +99999999 to a stat items at no cost from wish, but know that it is RAW, and therefore suggest houseruling it.

2) People who don't think it is appropriate for PCs to have +99999999 to a stat items at no cost from wish, but want so badly for it not be RAW that they either lie or delude themselves with nonsense rules interpretations.

On of those second group even claims that it's totally balanced for PCs to do that, just so long as they never do it, because he will personally murder their families if they do it. Actually, lots of people said things like that. Really it basically comes down to group change the rules, versus group just be the biggest most horrible jerkface to your PCs you possibly can by murdering them for doing it, instead of you know, just asking the players not to do it in the first place.

But now we've entered some kind of weird twilight zone where Planar Binding has a cost, and it can't be used ever, because the act of casting it means that no creature will ever agree to any service.

Because guys, it's really important that we continue to make extremely poor arguments for why the RAW is perfect instead of just admitting that the rules actually work in a specific way.

Florian

2016-02-13, 03:22 PM

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

daremetoidareyo

2016-02-13, 04:03 PM

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

Quit feeding the troll, Florian. That's what this thread has boiled down to. Either we all bow down and worship the idol of admitting RAW sucks and then silence ourselves entirely, or we posit solutions and be rebuked for having the temerity to not do the former. It's literally a choice between 1.) do nothing or 2.) do something and be attacked by logic pirates whose demands consist entirely of kissing boot. At this point, the only thing left propelling the thread is butthurt feelings and ego jousting.

Beheld

2016-02-13, 04:06 PM

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

I freely admit you might be deluded instead. It's right there, "lie or delude themselves."

we posit solutions and be rebuked for having the temerity to not do the former. It's literally a choice between 1.) do nothing or 2.) do something and be attacked by logic pirates whose demands consist entirely of kissing boot. At this point, the only thing left propelling the thread is butthurt feelings and ego jousting.

If you admit your solutions are houserules and that no one in this thread was asking for houserule solutions because we can all come up with our own, then no one is going to rebuke you for anything.

charcoalninja

2016-02-13, 05:28 PM

Well in the monster entry you hve Efreet as being:
A) Lawful Evil - this means they like organization, believe order and rules are best for society. Additionally: B their entries list a baked in Aristocracy via Noble "X". This speaks to an ordered society with a well defined ruling class.

B) Evil - The Efreet will seek to use rules to their advantage and so will depend on their institutions to support them and further their aims while their society itself will be ruled by the most powerful and successful because evil. Thus the ruling class works to maintain a rigid societal order that benefits its members to varying degrees so long as the weaker serve the means of the stronger. Thus Efreet exist in an environment where their fellows act against their exploitation by outside forces if it serves the societal order and thereby the power of the ruling class. Since having every powerful magic user under the sun stealing wishes that could be better leveraged to better the entire society and also telemurdering its members works pretty powerfully against their social order, there will be efforts by the powerful to insulate its members from this. Since they're evil they'll do so very aggresively.

C) They have wish innately 3/day. Since everyone in efreet society would grow up with the power to literally ERASE an entire metropolis from existence, they would have controls and considerations on the use of this power. This is why they're intelligent.

D) They hate servitude: the entry says as a whole they detest being servants while at the same time making them the lowest CR creature with WISH in the game. Thus their enslavement is something almost everyone in the multiverse wants to do. While they will want to take every measure they can to prevent it.

End result? They barter wishes for personal advancement while having layers of contingencies in place to protect their incredible power from being abused by anyone other than themselves.

So Efreeti wish abuse is self correcting and will dominate your campaign for the forseeable forever. Other wish shenanigens are all fair game though and make things interesting.

Edit: I hope that makes sense. I seem to lose track of my paragraphs when i post from my phone...

Florian

2016-02-13, 06:07 PM

TiaC

2016-02-13, 06:16 PM

Forget about that. There´re some guys around that will tell you that the actual Wish spell is in the CRB and mentions none of it, therefore cannot be altered. You know, the same people that don´t understand the difference between a discussion and a debate ...

Literally no one is saying this. People are saying that Wish is broken by RAW and should be houseruled instead of pretending it's perfectly fine and screwing with your players when they try to use it.

All of the "but a bunch of NPCs will come and kill you" answers also involve the DM setting their campaign notes on fire, since whatever the game was about is now completely unimportant. It's much easier to houserule things and ask your players not to be jerks about it. If they still want to do this, then either they are someone you shouldn't play with, or they are really not having fun in your game. Both of these problems should be handled OOC.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-18, 07:13 AM

What happens there is a DM call - no other creatures (that I know of) have "all-consuming needs" in their rules text.

The "all-consuming need to slay the original" is just something that twists its personality:

The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original.
"All-consuming need" is a figure of speech emphasizing how much someone desires to do something (in this case kill the original).
It doesn't really need to do so as there isn't anything in the spell that implies it would die if it didn't kill the original.
Nothing in the spell is forcing it to kill the original*. It was created with an obsessive desire to kill the original and thus would attempt to do so naturally.
The creature's personality indicates what actions it will take normally. However the absolute command its maker has over it would override its normal behavior.

Assuming that a creatures personality overrides the control would make that aspect of the spell pointless, and thus we can determine that it isn't the way it works.

If it were dominated by someone else and ordered not to kill the original then that aspect of its personality would be relevant.
In that case it would get another saving throw for the dominate spell.

*If you mindraped a commoner and made it so they wanted to kill someone that would be forcing them.

Psyren

2016-02-18, 10:19 AM

I don't really see anything in the text to support the efreeti society acting that way.

Other than, you know, everything in the Monster Manual :smalltongue:

Always LE, hating servitude, delighting in cruelty, the CoB monitoring their dealings with mortals, it's all there.

The "all-consuming need to slay the original" is just something that twists its personality:

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

Beheld

2016-02-18, 10:37 AM

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

"Psyren's posts are distorted by his all consuming need to make up flimsy pathetic RAW justifications for why Ice Assassin is not under the control of the person who it explicitly is under the control of."

So I suppose you are immune to Mind Affecting effects as well? After all, it can't be that the part of the sentence right before the word need qualifies the word need, that would be absurd.

Heck, I bet Ice Assassins are immune to stun to. If they are stunned, they can't kill their double. And their personality is distorted to make them not under the control of the person they are under the control of, so their personality is probably distorted to make them immune to stun.

And Daze, and Paralysis, and the Flesh to Stone spell, and Death. How do I sign up to distort my personality like that?

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-18, 08:58 PM

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

Technically nothing in the spell actually says it has "all-consuming need to slay the original", its personality is just twisted by one.

A less technical view:
All-consuming means "taking up all of ones time and effort" or "Obsessively".
A literal interpretation of "All-consuming need" means something like "Something you need to do all the time". Basically something you need to do a lot.
If you have absolute command over a creature you can force it not to do things it needs to.

You don't need magic to force someone to not fulfill their needs.
In real life you could force yourself not to eat even though you need to.
You could force someone else not to eat even though they need to.

Suppose you are walking a narrow ledge at a massive height.
If you fall you will die.
You have an all-consuming need to maintain balance.
However you can voluntarily choose to jump off the ledge.
Someone could also force you to jump of the ledge.

The other interpretation of it is as figure of speech meaning "obsessively desiring".

Psyren

2016-02-19, 09:38 AM

Technically nothing in the spell actually says it has "all-consuming need to slay the original", its personality is just twisted by one.

Its personality is twisted by that need, therefore it has that need. You can't be twisted by a need you don't have.

Segev

2016-02-19, 10:34 AM

Its personality is twisted by that need, therefore it has that need. You can't be twisted by a need you don't have.

"The man had the capacity to be a kind father, good husband, and responsible breadwinner, but was twisted by his all-consuming need to drink."

Can the man be compelled not to drink?

Psyren

2016-02-19, 10:37 AM

"The man had the capacity to be a kind father, good husband, and responsible breadwinner, but was twisted by his all-consuming need to drink."

Can the man be compelled not to drink?

If he can, then his need isn't actually "all-consuming." That's okay though since your passage isn't rules text.

Segev

2016-02-19, 10:40 AM

If he can, then his need isn't actually "all-consuming." That's okay though since your passage isn't rules text.

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

Beheld

2016-02-19, 10:51 AM

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

Not just that, Ray of Stunning stuns you and while stunned you can't be killing your double. Finger of Death kills you, and while dead you can't be killing your double.

Psyren's official position is that Ice Assassins are immune to stunning and death. Also Ice Assassin's make liberal usage of Celerity, since they are immune to Daze as well.

Psyren

2016-02-19, 11:28 AM

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

You certainly can compel them. What happens at that point is up to the GM, as it becomes an unstoppable force/immovable object problem.

I fully acknowledge that this is just my interpretation of the rules text in Ice Assassin and other GMs may vary - just like GMs will vary on "unreasonable commands," "against its nature," or any other nebulous aspect of the RAW. The designers built in vague clauses like this on purpose to make controlling magic less than absolute.

Beheld

2016-02-19, 12:34 PM

You certainly can compel them. What happens at that point is up to the GM, as it becomes an unstoppable force/immovable object problem.

I fully acknowledge that this is just my interpretation of the rules text in Ice Assassin and other GMs may vary - just like GMs will vary on "unreasonable commands," "against its nature," or any other nebulous aspect of the RAW. The designers built in vague clauses like this on purpose to make controlling magic less than absolute.

It is honestly amazing to watch you double down on your completely nonsense interpretation that you never would have even made up if Ice Assassin's didn't grant access to Wish.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-19, 12:50 PM

Segev

2016-02-19, 12:52 PM

Well, I'll just conclude then by saying that I think your interpretation is too stringent, because it makes these compelling magics actively useless. It's the same kind of rulings that make playing any sort of mind-whammy mage totally unfun, because literally everything you do is at best worthless and, more likely, counter-productive.

(You wouldn't believe the number of times I've given up on a concept that used social skills to persuade people when it became clear the GM of the game read those as "mind control" and actively had NPCs be offended that I used them at all, automatically negating any benefit I might have gotten because they're immediately the level of hostile that puts them just shy of violence (if not violent). And don't even think about using actual mind-bending powers that are anything less than absolute "mind-slave" time, because anything that they wouldn't have done without your using it is "against their nature" or some-such, so they automatically refuse and, if a clause such as this exists, get another save-equivalent because you tried to push it too far.)

Segev

2016-02-19, 12:53 PM

I guess what I'm saying is everyone's wrong! Hurray!

Nonsense! Everyone's wrong except me. :smallcool:

LTwerewolf

2016-02-19, 12:56 PM

I can see there being more of an argument with the charm line (as opposed to the dominate), but that's pretty flimsy in my opinion as working. Basically: total control beats all consuming needs, anything less than total control doesn't. Charm and suggestion wouldn't be enough imo.

Beheld

2016-02-19, 01:08 PM

I don't see how it's nonsense really. Just because something is dominated it still has the all consuming need, but a need isn't always met with the capability to follow through. If you're dominated you're not in control of your own actions and clearly aren't capable of performing your all consuming need. This argument also negates Beheld's fallacy that he calls an argument about stunning and death. I guess what I'm saying is everyone's wrong! Hurray!

Except that is literally the opposite of what Psyren is saying. Pysren is specifically saying that the all consuming need means you don't have to follow dominated orders.

That also literally has to be his position, because if it wasn't, if he admitted for even one second that an Ice Assassin with Dominate Monster cast on it has to obey the caster of Dominate Monster, he would then have absolutely no distinction to point to between the Magically Compelled to Obey Orders Dominated Ice Assassin and the Magically Compelled to Obey Orders Ice Assassin That Didn't Have a Spell Cast on It, Because Ice Assassin The Spell Specifically Says That the Ice Assassin Is Magically Compelled to Obey Your Commands.

Cosi

2016-02-19, 01:10 PM

While Psyren's interpretation is deeply stupid, I don't see how it solves the problem. After all, the person doing this has 9th level spells. They could just drop imprisonment on the original, offering to release it for killing only under the condition that the ice assassin lets them wish for whatever crazy powerful magic item the caster is looking for.

Psyren

2016-02-19, 01:13 PM

While Psyren's interpretation is deeply stupid,

Flaming
Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will have their offending post modified and an Infraction issued to them. Please do not attack, insult, or belittle other posters, individually or collectively. You can be critical of another poster's viewpoint in a debate, even going as far as to explain why you believe them to be mistaken and backing your points up with rules quotes as appropriate, but the moment your criticism extends to the person who posted that viewpoint, it has crossed the line.

Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:
...
Posts that while directed at another's post content are inherently insulting to the poster, such as, "Your comment is moronic/insane/nonsensical."

Just leaving that there.

I don't see how it solves the problem. After all, the person doing this has 9th level spells. They could just drop imprisonment on the original, offering to release it for killing only under the condition that the ice assassin lets them wish for whatever crazy powerful magic item the caster is looking for.

I'd say whatever you negotiate (or try to negotiate) doesn't actually matter - the minute you remove the constraint, off they go.

LTwerewolf

2016-02-19, 01:15 PM

Cosi

2016-02-19, 01:33 PM

Just leaving that there.

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

I'd say whatever you negotiate (or try to negotiate) doesn't actually matter - the minute you remove the constraint, off they go.

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

Psyren

2016-02-19, 01:42 PM

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

It is, luckily I'm not doing that.

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

And my interpretation is that it simply struggles until you let it go, incapable of anything else but going after (or trying futilely to go after) its prey. Anything else falls short of "all-consuming need" for me.

Segev

2016-02-19, 01:44 PM

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

The issue is that usually, the ice assassin is of yourself. At least in the traditional form of this cheese. Since you can cast wish, yourself, and you just don't want to have to pay the costs.

Beheld

2016-02-19, 01:47 PM

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

I know that telling other people that their posts violate the forum rules is. I couldn't possibly know how that is related to the current conversation.

Psyren

2016-02-19, 01:51 PM

The issue is that usually, the ice assassin is of yourself. At least in the traditional form of this cheese. Since you can cast wish, yourself, and you just don't want to have to pay the costs.

Making it of yourself is even worse - now it has an all-consuming need to slay you!

Beheld

2016-02-19, 01:51 PM

I see an argument for Psyren's argument not based on the all consuming need, but based on the fact that the spell says "The ice assassin is under your absolute command." It's not directly spelled out, but it does imply that controlling affects don't work on it. It would have been nice if they had clarified it, but it's a legitimate argument about it. That being said, the owner could command it not to kill the original if they so chose. I did say that everyone was wrong in there opinion, not just you.

Edit:I also live in a world where opinions can be wrong, so feel free to ignore everything I said.

Except that everything you just said once again Explicitly and directly contradicts everything Psyren has said.

Psyren claims that the all consuming need means that it is impossible literally impossible, no possibility at all, absolutely unpossible, incredibly not able to happen, for the caster of the Ice Assassin to make an Ice Assassin obey a command.

That his explicit and only argument. Is he wron? Of course he is, the entire universe would literally explode if Psyren was ever correct about anything because he is deliberately making up nonsense and lies in every single post as his only possible means of arguing.

But that is still his actual argument.

The issue is that usually, the ice assassin is of yourself. At least in the traditional form of this cheese. Since you can cast wish, yourself, and you just don't want to have to pay the costs.

That... Can't possibly be the plan, because it doesn't work. The point is to have an Ice Assassin of something with SLA wish, so that it can wish for a Staff of Wishes, or a +9999999 Belt of Magnificence, or both. You will never have enough XP for that, but every Ice Assassin of an Efferti or Noble Djinni does (because they need zero XP).