Fixing infinite wish loopholes

[ayvango]

Infinite wishes ruins the company. Master could talk players not to use this loopholes. But that leaves world description inconsistent. There are plenty of villains with 20+ Int score. Idea to wish ring of three wishes should eventually come to their mind. And they abide no conventions for fair play. Because they are villains.

So, pretending that loopholes do not exists is no good. You need to explicitly home rule them out. Good thing is that if if player will find new loophole master could reward him with single usage and bane all consequent uses of this loophole.

As far as I know there are following loopholes:

1. The Wish spell itself. You could wish for magic items.
Could be obviously solved with putting limit to maximum price of magic item. If caster would like to wish for higher price item, he should cast two or more wishes in immediate succession. This mechanics is suggested for ability bonus wishes, but it could be easily extended to any requests too powerful for single wish. Player: "I'd like to do smth awesome". Master: "It would cost you 5 wishes".

2. Staff of infinite Wishes. Literally infinite, not because you can wish for another staff of wishes.
The item existence is based on assumption that mere hints for a master how to craft and price custom magic items could be used as strict rules. That is not the case, and some existing items described in source books violets that rules. You should add extra common sense coefficient to DMG formulas. Not only wishes, but infinite healing is also not welcomed in d&d balance.

3. Shapechange to a creature with Wish as SU ability.
Solution: all creatures that have wish as SU in profile should actually considered as they have wish as spell-like ability.

4. Calling Efreeti with Gate
Reward clever player with cheaper wishes. The good thing is that the Gate spell is calling, not summoning, so could not be mimicked by a shadowcraft mage. Caster get discount on wish but raises ire of called creature, could get revenge and lowers reputation among creature's kind.
Although the calling version of Gate spell is still unbalanced: you could force creature of 40 lvl to serve you and its capabilities is just too high. So it would be wise to replace 2xHD bonus for single creature with 2xduration for single creature.

5. Planar Binding on Efreeti Too low cost wish.
There are number of creatures that could use wish as spell-like ability. They could not be forced to grant wish when trapped in planar binding spell. If it could cast wish it would cast to provide interdimensional travel for self. The creature may treasure its wish ability enough to prefer to perform simple task for caller, but if caller specifically demand wish spell, the creature would use it to own good.

In contrast Efreeti description specifically said that wishes could not be used for his own good. That makes him helpless. It's clear why such decision was made. To avoid hordes of unbelievably strong genies invading all planes. But that still insufficient. Lawful creatures could easily establish agreement and combine forces. If I get Efreeti as a playable character I could easily ruin the game.

So Efreeti restriction should be replaced with more complex code of conduct. DC 35 knowledge nature reveals its content. Also 3 wishes / day is not necessary available every day. Planar handbook introduces planar touchstones. So you can home rule that there is a touchstone that provides efreeti with higher-order ability with 2 usages, every use grants up to 3 wishes. If an efreeti breaks his code of conduct he could not use described touchstone to replenish his wishes.

6. Dweomerkeeper's supernatural spell. Natural disaster for game balance. Allows to ignore SR, XP and Mat components for a spell. 4/day free wishes.
Solution: Keep Mat and SR, but XP component is needed to be payed with full cost. Compensate this nerf increasing daily usage from 4/day to 6/day.

What else?

[LibraryOgre]

Someone else being a jerk:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4051

[Necroticplague]

1. The Wish spell itself. You could wish for magic items.
Could be obviously solved with putting limit to maximum price of magic item. If caster would like to wish for higher price item, he should cast two or more wishes in immediate succession. This mechanics is suggested for ability bonus wishes, but it could be easily extended to any requests too powerful for single wish. Player: "I'd like to do smth awesome". Master: "It would cost you 5 wishes".
The most abusable items I know of (candles of invocation and thought bottle) are incredibly cheap, so this doesn't do much to stop, well, anything. All it really stops is increasing your +numbers items (thanks to exponential costs).


2. Staff of infinite Wishes. Literally infinite, not because you can wish for another staff of wishes.
The item existence is based on assumption that mere hints for a master how to craft and price custom magic items could be used as strict rules. That is not the case, and some existing items described in source books violets that rules. You should add extra common sense coefficient to DMG formulas. Not only wishes, but infinite healing is also not welcomed in d&d balance.


I just wanted to comment on the bolded part of this: why is infinite healing a bad thing? It actually makes encounters easier to plan for, since I don't have to worry about the possibility of them coming into an encounter half-dead. I've seen absolutely no methods of healing that are fast enough to outpace damage and infinite, so it's not like anythings getting dragged out. Combined with how trivially easy it is to get (Tomb Tainted + Dread Necro, Feral, Silithar Healing Blood, Troll-blooded), I'm not sure it really alters balance for the worse in any way. Especially as i find those who benefit the most tend to either be on the lower side of the power curve, so it's actually improving balance.

[Cosi]

First, plugging the Tome wish rules, which I find fix most of the problems. You can find them here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wish_Rules_%283.5e_Variant_Rule%29). Using the the 3.0 wish rules also fixes the most egregious abuse (arbitrary magic items).

Second, a quick review of what wish does, and potential problems with each of those things.

1. Duplicate a variety of spells. This is useful, but it's not 5,000 XP worth of useful. The 9th level slot could instead be a shapechange or a time stop or something, which would be as good or better than whatever the best 8th level spell is in any given situation. It does have the problem all spell emulation options do where emulating things with non-slot costs is very powerful (i.e. trap the soul). Overall, this is fine (or at least, no worse than similar effects).
2. Undo curses, afflictions, or misfortune. It is difficult for me to imagine a situation in which removing any of the various debuffs wish hits would be broken. Frankly, as many of them remove your ability to play your character and happen when 9th level spells are but a distant dream, wish is probably too high level to remove them.
3. Create 25k GP of non-magic wealth. Not any more broken than wall of iron or whatever, and it shows up at level 17. Fine.
4. Create a magic item (uncapped). For the actual wish spell, this is fine. You spend a larger pile of XP and get a better item in constant time. In the form of an SLA or Su ability, this is broken beyond belief. Fortunately, simple solutions exist (require people to always pay the extra XP or cap available items).
5. +1 stat bonus (max +5). It's a minor buff, which helps characters who care about several stats (like Paladins) more than characters who care about only one (like Wizards). Fine, even actively good.
6. Transport travelers. Much is made about the "without regard to local conditions" clause, but in 99% of cases this is simply the best version of teleport. As it comes two levels after the improved version of teleport (greater teleport) and four levels after teleport, that seems totally fine.

Overall, there's only one serious balance problem with wish (XP-free wish for magic items), and it is easily fixed. Honestly, you could probably drop the XP cost in general without any real problems.


This mechanics is suggested for ability bonus wishes, but it could be easily extended to any requests too powerful for single wish. Player: "I'd like to do smth awesome". Master: "It would cost you 5 wishes".

I don't really see the point of having the cap be based on the number of wishes you can put in a pile. The cap can just be whatever it is, and that can be for one wish. Unless you are also fixing planar binding it will always be possible to get enough wishes in one place to get whatever item you want.


2. Staff of infinite Wishes. Literally infinite, not because you can wish for another staff of wishes.

This is fixed by a cost cap. The Staff of Wishes, Ring of Infinite Wishes, and other items which grant more than one wish all cost more than any reasonable limit would be.


3. Shapechange to a creature with Wish as SU ability.

As I've said above, I don't think XP-free wish is broken unless you allow uncapped items. Also, this is (IMHO) a shapechange problem rather than a wish problem.


Reward clever player with cheaper wishes. The good thing is that the Gate spell is calling, not summoning, so could not be mimicked by a shadowcraft mage. Caster get discount on wish but raises ire of called creature, could get revenge and lowers reputation among creature's kind.

Having enemies isn't really a cost for an adventurer. He's expected to kill things and take their stuff. If some of those things are Fire Elemental Assassins set by the Sultan of the Efreet rather than Mind Flayer cultists, that's actually good because you know what's coming. It's better to either say "yes" or "no" to Efreet wishes, and balance the game around that assumption. Particularly because you can give Efreet wishes (they only grant them to non-genies, and they are genies).


5. Planar Binding on Efreeti Too low cost wish.

Honestly, if all people are using planar binding for is to get some stat boosts and downtime casting, I'd call that a win. You could be pulling out CR 18 demons with 6th level spells. Also, I personally consider this a planar binding problem, not a wish problem.


6. Dweomerkeeper's supernatural spell. Natural disaster for game balance. Allows to ignore SR, XP and Mat components for a spell. 4/day free wishes.

Again, I think you can set up wish to not be broken if it doesn't cost XP. Also, the Dweomerkeeper's ability to use limited wish or permanency more effectively is part of the class's charm.

[ayvango]

Infinite gold is direct consequence of infinite wish. And that is a problem. Items could greatly shift balance.

[johnbragg]

Have your DM sack up and say "No."

ALT: Have your GM gonad up and say "No."

[Cosi]

Infinite gold is direct consequence of infinite wish. And that is a problem. Items could greatly shift balance.

Not really. You also get infinite gold with wall of iron. Or flesh to salt. Or fabricate. Or just being immortal and making Profession (Professor) checks for a thousand years. There are a lot of ways to get infinite (arbitrarily large) amounts of gold. wish is one of them, but it happens at 17th level. If people if your game are gunning for infinite wealth, they will get it before they ever touch wish.

Even if you have infinite wealth, it's only a problem if there's something problematic you can do with infinite wealth. Consider the real world. There is no amount of money that will get me an antimatter bomb. Because it doesn't exist. Similarly, in D&D the problem isn't infinite wealth per se. It's that you can use your infinite wealth to buy magic items that are infinitely good and win the game. If you couldn't buy those items (or simply couldn't buy them for gold), infinite wealth would cease to be a balance issue.

[ayvango]

The Staff of Wishes, Ring of Infinite Wishes, and other items which grant more than one wish all cost more than any reasonable limit would be.




Even if you have infinite wealth, it's only a problem if there's something problematic you can do with infinite wealth. Consider the real world. There is no amount of money that will get me an antimatter bomb. Because it doesn't exist. Similarly, in D&D the problem isn't infinite wealth per se. It's that you can use your infinite wealth to buy magic items that are infinitely good and win the game. If you couldn't buy those items (or simply couldn't buy them for gold), infinite wealth would cease to be a balance issue.

And what prevents me from buying staff of at-will wishes? At-will miracles, and other 9th level spells at-will? They all could be combined in the single staff, by the way. And who would play wizards and clerics if all their spells is available as items and cost nothing?

[Alex12]

I always just rule that there's some reason infinite/NI free wishes is impossible on the basis that society as the PCs know it still exists, and if any of those methods worked, they wouldn't.

[Cosi]

And what prevents me from buying staff of at-will wishes? At-will miracles, and other 9th level spells at-will? They all could be combined in the single staff, by the way. And who would play wizards and clerics if all their spells is available as items and cost nothing?

By RAW, nothing. The proposed fix looks like this:

1. wish can't make anything worth more than 15k GP (possible: wish can be used to circumvent crafting times but not XP costs for more expensive items).
2. People don't accept anything you can make with wish in exchange for items worth more than 15k GP.

So you have two economies. In the gold economy, you have a big pile of gold and/or gems and you can exchange it for mundane goods (like castles or armies) of any price or magic items up to 15k GP. In the wish economy, you have a big pile of souls (or other magic currencies, like Dominions' magic gems) and you can exchange them for magic items worth more than 15k GP. So you can't buy a Staff of Wish with your infinite gold because the guy who made it has infinite gold, and wants souls (which both of you have a finite supply of) instead.

[Bronk]

1. The Wish spell itself. You could wish for magic items.
Could be obviously solved with putting limit to maximum price of magic item. If caster would like to wish for higher price item, he should cast two or more wishes in immediate succession. This mechanics is suggested for ability bonus wishes, but it could be easily extended to any requests too powerful for single wish. Player: "I'd like to do smth awesome". Master: "It would cost you 5 wishes".


For regular wishes, there is a limit already: You have to pay for the item using XP, and you can't use so much XP that it would drop you a level. In this case, you would have to pay 5000XP, then pay double the XP to create the item normally on top of that, and not drop a level. That's not much XP to work with.



2. Staff of infinite Wishes. Literally infinite, not because you can wish for another staff of wishes.
The item existence is based on assumption that mere hints for a master how to craft and price custom magic items could be used as strict rules. That is not the case, and some existing items described in source books violets that rules. You should add extra common sense coefficient to DMG formulas. Not only wishes, but infinite healing is also not welcomed in d&d balance.


I've seen this a lot, and a staff of infinite wishes isn't too much of a problem, mostly because the creation of a new magic item requires DM approval in the first place, but also because staffs are only are only created with 50 charges, and a wish would probably take quite a few of those charges to activate. The highest number of charges to activate a spell on a staff in the SRD is for 'animate plants', and that's only a level 7 spell.

If they managed to make a staff that could cast wishes, the staff itself would also not be able to supply more than the 5000XP needed for the most basic casting of the spell, and all other XP that might be needed for a more expensive wish would be drained from the player.

Also, if they want to use a wish on healing, that's up to them. Either they're wasting a perfectly good wish, or they're in the high epic levels anyway.



3. Shapechange to a creature with Wish as SU ability.
Solution: all creatures that have wish as SU in profile should actually considered as they have wish as spell-like ability.


Yeah, that would be annoying, but I agree that that's more of a problem with the 'shapechange' spell. I've seen a lot of debates about this, but I've never seen anyone come up with a RAW way to prevent it, just hand waving arguments about how maybe if they change into something with a daily wish (or longer), turn into something else, then back into that creature, then that's the same creature that's already used it's wish, not a different one with a fresh wish.

Also, SLA wishes are equally as free as supernatural wishes, so that wouldn't do much to resolve the issue.



4. Calling Efreeti with Gate
Reward clever player with cheaper wishes. The good thing is that the Gate spell is calling, not summoning, so could not be mimicked by a shadowcraft mage. Caster get discount on wish but raises ire of called creature, could get revenge and lowers reputation among creature's kind.
Although the calling version of Gate spell is still unbalanced: you could force creature of 40 lvl to serve you and its capabilities is just too high. So it would be wise to replace 2xHD bonus for single creature with 2xduration for single creature.

Having a creature be angry at a PC is more of a plot hook than anything else, and that's a good thing for a DM! Your games will almost write themselves! If things get slow, as someone else already mentioned, send in some assassins to liven things up!



5. Planar Binding on Efreeti Too low cost wish.
There are number of creatures that could use wish as spell-like ability. They could not be forced to grant wish when trapped in planar binding spell. If it could cast wish it would cast to provide interdimensional travel for self. The creature may treasure its wish ability enough to prefer to perform simple task for caller, but if caller specifically demand wish spell, the creature would use it to own good.

In contrast Efreeti description specifically said that wishes could not be used for his own good. That makes him helpless. It's clear why such decision was made. To avoid hordes of unbelievably strong genies invading all planes. But that still insufficient. Lawful creatures could easily establish agreement and combine forces. If I get Efreeti as a playable character I could easily ruin the game.

So Efreeti restriction should be replaced with more complex code of conduct. DC 35 knowledge nature reveals its content. Also 3 wishes / day is not necessary available every day. Planar handbook introduces planar touchstones. So you can home rule that there is a touchstone that provides efreeti with higher-order ability with 2 usages, every use grants up to 3 wishes. If an efreeti breaks his code of conduct he could not use described touchstone to replenish his wishes.

I don't know, I think they basically made 'planar binding' into a whole mini-game just so that players could call up efreeti. Casting the spell is basically half a session in itself.



6. Dweomerkeeper's supernatural spell. Natural disaster for game balance. Allows to ignore SR, XP and Mat components for a spell. 4/day free wishes.
Solution: Keep Mat and SR, but XP component is needed to be payed with full cost. Compensate this nerf increasing daily usage from 4/day to 6/day.

It's not in the requirements section for Dweomerkeeper, but in the description it states that dweomerkeepers are followers of Mystra, goddess of magic on Faerun. If a PC dweomerkeeper breaks the game, economy, world, etc. using supernatural wishes, that could easily fall under 'grossly violating the code of conduct of his god' and all of their spellcasting ability could be revoked, becoming an 'ex-cleric'. I think that would straighten things out better than nerfing the class.

Edit: On the other hand, there's this one novel, "Elminster, The Making of a Mage", that showed that Mystra had Elminster personally teleport around and hide magic items for adventurers to find. Where did all of that come from? Creating those items would be a perfect job for high level dweomerkeepers when they weren't busy.

[Kraken]

Don't forget to ban the energy transformation field spell (Spell Comp.). All sorts of infinite loops are possible with it.

[Cosi]

Don't forget to ban the energy transformation field spell (Spell Comp.). All sorts of infinite loops are possible with it.

Eh. It casts spells. The broken loops are that it does stupid things with Truenaming (but that is because Truenaming is stupid) and that you can get out spells you can't cast. Just declare that you have to tune it to a spell you can cast and don't let people play Truenamers.

[Keltest]

Have your DM sack up and say "No."

ALT: Have your GM gonad up and say "No."

Pretty much this. When they wish for another item of wishes, give them an empty one. Alternatively, transport their character to the item's location, such as the plane of fire or a dragon's lair.

[Cosi]

Pretty much this. When they wish for another item of wishes, give them an empty one. Alternatively, transport their character to the item's location, such as the plane of fire or a dragon's lair.

No.

This is on no level an acceptable solution. If the rules are broken, you fix the rules. You do not punish the players for playing the game according to the rules.

[Cruiser1]

Don't forget to ban the energy transformation field spell (Spell Comp.). All sorts of infinite loops are possible with it.

Eh. It casts spells. The broken loops are that it does stupid things with Truenaming (but that is because Truenaming is stupid) and that you can get out spells you can't cast. Just declare that you have to tune it to a spell you can cast and don't let people play Truenamers.
Energy Transformation Field indeed allows overpowered loops such as infinite spells, infinite Time Stops, and offensively negating casters even more effectively than an anti-magic field: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?230105-Energy-Transformation-Field-Infinite-spells

[Cosi]

Energy Transformation Field indeed allows overpowered loops such as infinite spells, infinite Time Stops, and offensively negating casters even more effectively than an anti-magic field: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?230105-Energy-Transformation-Field-Infinite-spells

At a glance, none of those problems exist if you only allow people to attune the field to spells they can personally cast.

EDIT: Negation.

[TheTeaMustFlow]

I'd use the same solution as my anti-Pun Pun one: Just before you complete the process, your soul is ripped from your body by Kurtulmak, who did it first (What, did you think a freaking Kobold became a god the honest way?), and, as part of the metaphysical deal made to prevent this ever happening again, gets the souls of anyone who ever tries, which he then eats.

[Keltest]

No.

This is on no level an acceptable solution. If the rules are broken, you fix the rules. You do not punish the players for playing the game according to the rules.

Wish comes with a flat out disclaimer on it that its a dangerous spell to use. There is practically a big glowing neon sign over the page on the spell book that says "Results may vary." More than any other spell, Wish is known for not giving people what they want. So yes, that is an appropriate solution in like with the spirit of the spell.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I just houseruled that wish cannot produce a magic item or enhance a magic item beyond a value of 75,000gp when used as a SLA or SU.

For calling loops. That's just a matter of the DM having the good sense to realize that -he- controls NPC responses to player actions and shutting down that particular avenue of stupidity. Making deals with powerful outsiders is dangerous.

Gate bears special mention; if you carefully examine the text of the spell, the general rules for calling spells that it doesn't contradict, and how they interact, then you come to the conclusion that the spell doesn't actually function at all, as written. You're implicitly houseruling by allowing its calling function to work at all, so just declare that any granting of wishes is to be considered a "more involved task," requiring deal making and payment, and move on.

Since it was brought up, you can limit the production of gold through wall of salt/iron and the like by simply declaring the local market to be flooded after a few castings. This requires so little understanding of economics that it really should go without saying. Even the PHB makes mention of the prices of trade goods and the rights to trade in those goods being limited by governments and trading consortiums, and therefore the DM. The half-price for loot and full price for trade goods "rules" are just guidelines and always have been.

[ayvango]

I always just rule that there's some reason infinite/NI free wishes is impossible on the basis that society as the PCs know it still exists, and if any of those methods worked, they wouldn't.
That is basically why I would like to introduce house rules. To make the world consistent.



So you have two economies. In the gold economy, you have a big pile of gold and/or gems and you can exchange it for mundane goods (like castles or armies) of any price or magic items up to 15k GP. In the wish economy, you have a big pile of souls (or other magic currencies, like Dominions' magic gems) and you can exchange them for magic items worth more than 15k GP. So you can't buy a Staff of Wish with your infinite gold because the guy who made it has infinite gold, and wants souls (which both of you have a finite supply of) instead.
That is exactly what I name broken economy. Of course you could replace broken economy with your own version. But game designers took a great effort in developing existing economy, making it balanced, semi-interesting and limitedly capable of describing in-game societies. If you want to replace that simple economy with more complicated you should at least take as much effort. Too much effort. So just does not break that already works. Fixing the Wish spell is simpler than recreating economy from dust.


For regular wishes, there is a limit already: You have to pay for the item using XP, and you can't use so much XP that it would drop you a level. In this case, you would have to pay 5000XP, then pay double the XP to create the item normally on top of that, and not drop a level. That's not much XP to work with.

Not in case when you force another creature to spend XP. So you should limit how much XP may be spend in single wish.



I've seen this a lot, and a staff of infinite wishes isn't too much of a problem, mostly because the creation of a new magic item requires DM approval in the first place, but also because staffs are only are only created with 50 charges


You also could spend more XP and gold to make magic item that could work at-will. Literally infinite charges. If I would be a DM I would allow to build such item for magic missiles. But not for wishes. And you are right, that is not rules for players, just hint for master and he could veto any game breaking magic item. Or adjust item cost. So that is not a great issue, I put this case in the list to anticipate obvious suggestions.



Also, SLA wishes are equally as free as supernatural wishes, so that wouldn't do much to resolve the issue.

Not in the Shapechange case. Shapechange grants SU of a target creature and does not grant spells and spell-like abilities.



If things get slow, as someone else already mentioned, send in some assassins to liven things up!

Not so fast. Mindblank and mask and hooded mantle and no single feature exposed gives +20 circumstance for disguise check. And you could raise disguise skill significantly with casts.



I don't know, I think they basically made 'planar binding' into a whole mini-game just so that players could call up efreeti. Casting the spell is basically half a session in itself.

It's another variant of home rule. Basically planar binding does not require you to perform any quest. Just took 10 minutes to draw diagram, then 10 minutes to cast and you got it. I thought about it, but give efreeti a way to escape is much easier than developing complicated binding rules. And you may use both. Say, you should discover its truename to prevent it from casting wish on himself.



It's not in the requirements section for Dweomerkeeper, but in the description it states that dweomerkeepers are followers of Mystra, goddess of magic on Faerun. If a PC dweomerkeeper breaks the game, economy, world, etc. using supernatural wishes, that could easily fall under 'grossly violating the code of conduct of his god' and all of their spellcasting ability could be revoked, becoming an 'ex-cleric'. I think that would straighten things out better than nerfing the class.

divine intervention is the worst method to solve game rule inconsistency. Fixing the rules is much better than punishing for actions that player believe acceptable. Master should inform him beforehand that his trick would not work.


Don't forget to ban the energy transformation field spell (Spell Comp.). All sorts of infinite loops are possible with it.
What a wonderful spell. It allows you to cast high-level spells when you get 7th level and makes great utility of warlock or innate spell feat (innate spell for cure minor wounds could solve both refiling transformation field and replenishing party HP between encounters). Not perfectly fits for infinite wish shenanigans because could not produce spells with valuable Mat and XP components. But surely should be fixed in number of ways.

Should not store spell that you could not cast. Should have capacity of maximum stored spell energy (like 2x spell level), its XP and Mat costs should adjusted to dependent on spell level. Not sure, but you should add another variable to cost formula: how efficient is spell transformation. E.g. it gains 1 level less energy than spell cast. Spell vanishes normally, but accumulator get one point less than was spend. 1 lvl spell would vanish without any effect. Cheapest versions of spell vanishes 8lvl of spell (So only 9th level effect could fuel the transformation.

[Darth Ultron]

Well add in the little gems from 1E of ''Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher'' and '' Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the Wish spell is likely to be carried through.''

And 2E gives us this gem :

''Since it can theoretically have any effect, no spell is more difficult for the DM to adjudicate than wish. The DM can save himself a lot of headaches if he decides the limits
of wish before his campaign begins. The DM is not obligated to discuss the ramifications
of wishes with his players before a campaign begins. In fairness, however, he should be
willing to give his players a general idea of his approach. ''

And

"The DM retains the right to disallow any wish he
believes is too potent. He can also bestow an interpretation of the
wish that follows the literal instructions of the wizard, and not the wizard's intended meaning (greed and gross manipulation of the rules should not be rewarded). "

[ayvango]

I just wanted to comment on the bolded part of this: why is infinite healing a bad thing? It actually makes encounters easier to plan for, since I don't have to worry about the possibility of them coming into an encounter half-dead.
You are right, healing is very useful and not as broken as infinite wish. And you could achieve it with some feats or class features. But most features just still works up to half hit points. And precisely because that healing should cost more. From player perspective infinite cure minor wounds is as good as infinite cure critical wounds. So if you allow a player to build infinite cure minor wounds item you should multiply its cost by a factor. Maybe that factor should be named stackability and included in price formula.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You are right, healing is very useful and not as broken as infinite wish. And you could achieve it with some feats or class features. But most features just still works up to half hit points. And precisely because that healing should cost more. From player perspective infinite cure minor wounds is as good as infinite cure critical wounds. So if you allow a player to build infinite cure minor wounds item you should multiply its cost by a factor. Maybe that factor should be named stackability and included in price formula.

No. Infinite healing's rate of application matters a whole hell of a lot. Infinite cure minor wounds isn't anywhere near fast enoungh to use in a fight. Even native fast-healing 1 makes precious little difference in a fight.

All infinite healing does is ensure that warriors go into battle at full health. It does nothing for daily use abilities, it does nothing for spent spell slots, and it does nothing to help bring down enemies other than ensure you last long enough to deliver a few more hits.

Hell, infinite healing's already a thing anyway. It's called natural healing. Without time pressure, there's nothing at all to keep a party from simply taking a week off between fights so that they go into each one at both full health and with full capabilities. Infinite healing helps to -prevent- the fifteen minute adventuring day. Why would you want to eliminate it?

Seriously, what's broken about it? How is it "unbalanced?"

[Cosi]

Wish comes with a flat out disclaimer on it that its a dangerous spell to use. There is practically a big glowing neon sign over the page on the spell book that says "Results may vary." More than any other spell, Wish is known for not giving people what they want. So yes, that is an appropriate solution in like with the spirit of the spell.

wish has that disclaimer about "greater effects". Not the enumerates effects like "emulate spells" or "create magic items". Since the broken effect is an effect you are explicitly allowed to have as much of as you want, there is no RAW support for screwing people over.

Of course, even if there was, it would still be bad DMing, so it's sort of a moot point.


That is exactly what I name broken economy. Of course you could replace broken economy with your own version. But game designers took a great effort in developing existing economy, making it balanced, semi-interesting and limitedly capable of describing in-game societies.

I think that's laughable. Nowhere in the rules is the effect of fabricate or create food and water considered, let alone things like wish. The economy for D&D is incredibly sketchy, and massively unstable.


Well add in the little gems from 1E of ''Greedy desires will usually end in disaster for the wisher'' and '' Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the Wish spell is likely to be carried through.''

No.

First, getting real character power for being a better lawyer than your DM is stupid.

Second, if you have determined that something is broken having it sometimes be broken and sometimes result in character death makes the problem worse rather than better.


"Since it can theoretically have any effect, no spell is more difficult for the DM to adjudicate than wish. The DM can save himself a lot of headaches if he decides the limits
of wish before his campaign begins. The DM is not obligated to discuss the ramifications
of wishes with his players before a campaign begins. In fairness, however, he should be
willing to give his players a general idea of his approach. ''

And

"The DM retains the right to disallow any wish he
believes is too potent. He can also bestow an interpretation of the
wish that follows the literal instructions of the wizard, and not the wizard's intended meaning (greed and gross manipulation of the rules should not be rewarded). "

Yes, your belief that the game is better when the DM screws over players rather than communicating with them is as predictable as it is wrong. It is also totally out of place when discussing the question of how to change the rules to balance the game.

[Necroticplague]

Wish comes with a flat out disclaimer on it that its a dangerous spell to use. There is practically a big glowing neon sign over the page on the spell book that says "Results may vary." More than any other spell, Wish is known for not giving people what they want. So yes, that is an appropriate solution in like with the spirit of the spell.

Except it doesn't. It says it's dangerous if you try and produce effects greater than those on the list. Trying to do something on the list is safe.

[Darth Ultron]

First, getting real character power for being a better lawyer than your DM is stupid.

Second, if you have determined that something is broken having it sometimes be broken and sometimes result in character death makes the problem worse rather than better.

Yes, your belief that the game is better when the DM screws over players rather than communicating with them is as predictable as it is wrong. It is also totally out of place when discussing the question of how to change the rules to balance the game.

When using the ''rules'' it is always about who is a better lawyer. After all the ''lawyers'' are why loopholes exist.

I would note that The DM is not obligated to discuss the ramifications
of wishes with his players before a campaign begins. In fairness, however, he should be
willing to give his players a general idea of his approach was a rule in 2E.

So you only want to ''change the rules'' to make more ''infinite lawyer shenanigans''...ok fine. Though I'd point out using the 1/2E rules are a solution.

[Cosi]

When using the ''rules'' it is always about who is a better lawyer.

No, it's about knowing the rules. The suggestion that "Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the Wish spell is likely to be carried through." is asking the player to make a binding contract in order to break wish. That's stupid. You could just fix wish.


I would note that The DM is not obligated to discuss the ramifications
of wishes with his players before a campaign begins. In fairness, however, he should be
willing to give his players a general idea of his approach was a rule in 2E.

Yes, because not know how your abilities work is wonderful game design.


Though I'd point out using the 1/2E rules are a solution.

Not really. They just mean that sometimes, instead of the campaign exploding because of wish, your character explodes because of wish.

[Jormengand]

Eh. It casts spells. The broken loops are that it does stupid things with Truenaming (but that is because Truenaming is stupid) and that you can get out spells you can't cast. Just declare that you have to tune it to a spell you can cast and don't let people play Truenamers.

More because garblers are stupid. Also ETF becomes ridiculous if you stick a few immovable rods in there.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, it's about knowing the rules. The suggestion that "Regardless of what is wished for, the exact terminology of the Wish spell is likely to be carried through." is asking the player to make a binding contract in order to break wish. That's stupid. You could just fix wish.



Yes, because not know how your abilities work is wonderful game design.



Not really. They just mean that sometimes, instead of the campaign exploding because of wish, your character explodes because of wish.

While I generally agree with the sentiment, it's worth noting that the safe-list doesn't necessarily apply when you're going through an intermediary ala calling spells. The efreet is getting exactly what -he- wants when he grants a wish from the safe-list. Whether that matches what the player wants or what he said or something else that's similar is a DM call.

Using your own power to cast wish from the safe-list should always work, though. Otherwise the DM's just being a douche.

[Cosi]

While I generally agree with the sentiment, it's worth noting that the safe-list doesn't necessarily apply when you're going through an intermediary ala calling spells.

Sure, but gate gives you (basically) full control, and in any case there are enough wish uses on an Efreet to give him a wish, give you a wish and continue the loop with a Candle or planar binding.

[Keltest]

Sure, but gate gives you (basically) full control, and in any case there are enough wish uses on an Efreet to give him a wish, give you a wish and continue the loop with a Candle or planar binding.

I think the point was, as soon as you involve another in-game being with the wish, you are subject to the whims of that being. They are not obligated to give you what you want, only what you ask for. And many of them do not like being grabbed from whatever they were doing to grant you wishes. If you aren't expecting your wishes to be twisted or misinterpreted, youre doing it wrong.

[ayvango]

Seriously, what's broken about it? How is it "unbalanced?"
Fighter does not expend any abilities during encounter. As well as any class from the Tome of Nine Cheats. So, for them infinite healing is like infinite spell slots for wizards. They regenerate to full power after each encounter. Add item that could infinitely heal exhaust condition and you need no rest.

So again, healing to full between encounters is not totally broken, but is unbalanced with other level-1 effects.

[ayvango]

I think the point was, as soon as you involve another in-game being with the wish, you are subject to the whims of that being. They are not obligated to give you what you want, only what you ask for. And many of them do not like being grabbed from whatever they were doing to grant you wishes. If you aren't expecting your wishes to be twisted or misinterpreted, youre doing it wrong.
Gate is not a planar binding. It gives the caster full control. So no twisted or misinterpreted orders.

[Cosi]

Fighter does not expend any abilities during encounter. As well as any class from the Tome of Nine Cheats. So, for them infinite healing is like infinite spell slots for wizards. They regenerate to full power after each encounter. Add item that could infinitely heal exhaust condition and you need no rest.

So again, healing to full between encounters is not totally broken, but is unbalanced with other level-1 effects.

So? You could just go home and rest, which restores not only hitpoints but also spell slots. Unlimited healing is good if you face time constraints, but that is not something that happens in most (or even many) campaigns.

[Keltest]

Fighter does not expend any abilities during encounter. As well as any class from the Tome of Nine Cheats. So, for them infinite healing is like infinite spell slots for wizards. They regenerate to full power after each encounter. Add item that could infinitely heal exhaust condition and you need no rest.

So again, healing to full between encounters is not totally broken, but is unbalanced with other level-1 effects.


Well yes, that sort of the point of the fighter. They don't have unique resources that they have to selectively expend, they have a couple things that they do consistently.

[ayvango]

Well yes, that sort of the point of the fighter. They don't have unique resources that they have to selectively expend, they have a couple things that they do consistently.
They do have such a resource. It called HP.

[ace rooster]

Su abilities ignore fixed xp costs. There, fixed. Supernatural wish would need to pay for items, and infinite loops disappear. Items already have an implicit xp limit on spells they cast, and calling spells interact with the setting, so the DM is free to screw with them as he likes. The expectation is that he will not, but the expectation is also on the player to play 'nice'. At best there are only finitely many creatures of the type, so the infinite loop is broken that way.

Knowing how your abilities work is important, but assuming extrapolations into extremes is not a given. Supernatural wish casters can be regarded as the extreme case of power per HD, so even if we assume planar binding works with no bumps for the overwhelming majority of outsiders, we cannot assume there are no complications here. A DM would be being harsh for punishing a party for binding one nondescript demon, but wish abuse is a whole different ball game, where the players are playing for keeps. Precautions against gate would not be unreasonable or difficult, while they would be excessive for a marilith.

[Keltest]

They do have such a resource. It called HP.

The key word was selectively. And as was mentioned, recovering HP is trivial without external pressure.

[Graypairofsocks]

It's not in the requirements section for Dweomerkeeper, but in the description it states that dweomerkeepers are followers of Mystra, goddess of magic on Faerun. If a PC dweomerkeeper breaks the game, economy, world, etc. using supernatural wishes, that could easily fall under 'grossly violating the code of conduct of his god' and all of their spellcasting ability could be revoked, becoming an 'ex-cleric'. I think that would straighten things out better than nerfing the class.

Edit: On the other hand, there's this one novel, "Elminster, The Making of a Mage", that showed that Mystra had Elminster personally teleport around and hide magic items for adventurers to find. Where did all of that come from? Creating those items would be a perfect job for high level dweomerkeepers when they weren't busy.

The more recent version of Dweomerkeeper (the one in the Complete Divine Web Enchancement) doesn't say anything about Mystra.

[Necroticplague]

Fighter does not expend any abilities during encounter. As well as any class from the Tome of Nine Cheats. So, for them infinite healing is like infinite spell slots for wizards.

So again, healing to full between encounters is not totally broken, but is unbalanced with other level-1 effects.

No, it's not. A wizard also has HP. HP is not a rescource. A wizard that's out of spells is still capable of contributing (pull out wands, f***ers are cheap enough to have a few). A fighter that's out of HP is dead. Having a full-heal between encounters just means you can plan your encounters better, since you know exactly at what level of deadness the players come into the encounter at. And it means there's less taking pauses to rest, thus meaning you can keep the pace up. I'm literally not seeing any downside to infinite healing out of combat. Unless you find just a gradual grinding away of rescources to be interesting, but I find that to be dull and anticlimatic.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fighter does not expend any abilities during encounter. As well as any class from the Tome of Nine Cheats. So, for them infinite healing is like infinite spell slots for wizards. They regenerate to full power after each encounter. Add item that could infinitely heal exhaust condition and you need no rest.

So again, healing to full between encounters is not totally broken, but is unbalanced with other level-1 effects.

So? These characters don't adventure alone and a cleric can replenish everyone's health between battles anyway. Trying to disallow cheap, easy healing just forces somebody to play the walking band-aid.

The harder you try to stop it the more heavy handed you have to be about it too. How are you going to stop a 6th level cleric from taking craft wand and just making wands of CLW? Limit the treasure the party finds? You just hosed the non-casters way worse than the casters. Don't give the team any down-time? So you engender distrust by letting him take a feat you had no intention of ever letting him use. Ban crafting? So now they -have- to use wishes to get anything you don't deign to give them and artificer is implicitly banned. Do you see how far you have to go?

You're also forgetting that some warrior classes -do- have daily use limits. Barbarian, paladin, ranger, crusader (he gets a smite too ya know), CW samurai, monk, duskblade, hexblade, soulborn, soulknife, as well as -anyone- who picks up one of a whole host of feats. Nevermind any of a myriad of items with daily use limits. HP are only one of the limiting factors in how far a party can adventure in a day and it's not even the most important one. Demanding it be limited is just fear of PC power manifesting itself in one of the more petty ways that it can.


Gate is not a planar binding. It gives the caster full control. So no twisted or misinterpreted orders.

By strict RAW it doesn't work at all and any "longer -or- more involved" task makes it behave like planar binding/ally. "Longer" is clear but "more involved" is a DM call. There's an argument to be made that declaring the activation of a standard action SLA or SU cannot be reasonably interpretted as "more involved" but that's an argument, not a solid, indisputable point of RAW.

Also, it's not total control. It's working for you and you give orders for 1 round/ level. How the creature executes the orders given is up to both how specific the orders are and the creature's interpretation of those orders. It's not a dominate effect.

[ayvango]

The key word was selectively. And as was mentioned, recovering HP is trivial without external pressure.
Regaining spell slots is also trivial. But I would not appreciate any item that replenish spell slots between encounters.


No, it's not. A wizard also has HP. HP is not a rescource. A wizard that's out of spells is still capable of contributing (pull out wands, f***ers are cheap enough to have a few). A fighter that's out of HP is dead. Having a full-heal between encounters just means you can plan your encounters better, since you know exactly at what level of deadness the players come into the encounter at. And it means there's less taking pauses to rest, thus meaning you can keep the pace up. I'm literally not seeing any downside to infinite healing out of combat. Unless you find just a gradual grinding away of rescources to be interesting, but I find that to be dull and anticlimatic.
Wizards have MP (magic points that in d&d universe is called spell slots). MP and HP are both resources. Fighters invest all resources in HP and mages split between MP and HP. They both survive on that resources. Mage without MP is like Fighter with just half of available hit points (and I would allow low cost healing item that stops at half of HP). That limit is set in Dragon Shaman's aura and in the Touch of Healing reserve feat. I forget where else I saw half hit points limit, but that is quite frequent theme in d&d balance.
Wizard could continue to fight with wands (exchange gold for survival) and fighter could use healing potions the same way.

[ayvango]

So? These characters don't adventure alone and a cleric can replenish everyone's health between battles anyway.
This is exactly what I want - to make cleric useful. All roles should be useful and balanced



Trying to disallow cheap, easy healing just forces somebody to play the walking band-aid.

Cheap is ok. Free is banned. Just spend some gold and doesn't spend spells on trivial matters.



The harder you try to stop it the more heavy handed you have to be about it too. How are you going to stop a 6th level cleric from taking craft wand and just making wands of CLW?

If the cleric want to craft item with charges, I would allow. If the cleric tries to create infinite wand, I would say that there is no such item in this universe. But he could pay 4 times the price and get wand that could cast CLW that works only when target is below half HP. And of course I would sell charged wand of CLW any time the party found appropriate vendor. Charged CLW is not a big deal. Just like any other charged spell.

[Keltest]

This is exactly what I want - to make cleric useful. All roles should be useful and balanced You don't think clerics are useful outside of their healing?

Duuuude...



Cheap is ok. Free is banned. Just spend some gold and doesn't spend spells on trivial matters. Trivial matters like keeping your team alive? Methinks you might want to reassess your priorities.



If the cleric want to craft item with charges, I would allow. If the cleric tries to create infinite wand, I would say that there is no such item in this universe. But he could pay 4 times the price and get wand that could cast CLW that works only when target is below half HP. And of course I would sell charged wand of CLW any time the party found appropriate vendor. Charged CLW is not a big deal. Just like any other charged spell.

So you have no problems with them just waiting to heal, or making an item to heal as long as it eventually needs to be replaced, but its suddenly a problem when it doesn't need to be replaced? That seems pretty arbitrary.

[Necroticplague]

Wizards have MP (magic points that in d&d universe is called spell slots). MP and HP are both resources. Fighters invest all resources in HP and mages split between MP and HP. They both survive on that resources. Mage without MP is like Fighter with just half of available hit points (and I would allow low cost healing item that stops at half of HP). That limit is set in Dragon Shaman's aura and in the Touch of Healing reserve feat. I forget where else I saw half hit points limit, but that is quite frequent theme in d&d balance.
Wizard could continue to fight with wands (exchange gold for survival) and fighter could use healing potions the same way.

HP is not a rescource. A resource is something that you sacrifice in order to do something. You spend a slot to cast a spell. You don't expend HP to do anything.

I also don't understand your balance argument. Free full-heals benefits classes that have a lot of HP more than they do classes with fewer. Since classes with the most HP tend to be the weakest, this buffs weaker classes more than stronger classes. This sounds like the definition of increasing balance.

[The Glyphstone]

HP is not a rescource. A resource is something that you sacrifice in order to do something. You spend a slot to cast a spell. You don't expend HP to do anything.

I also don't understand your balance argument. Free full-heals benefits classes that have a lot of HP more than they do classes with fewer. Since classes with the most HP tend to be the weakest, this buffs weaker classes more than stronger classes. This sounds like the definition of increasing balance.

Strictly speaking, you 'spend' your HP to survive hits from monster attacks. The more monster hits you can survive, the more attacks you can dish out in return. So it is a resource, just not one you can spend at your discretion.

[AnachroNinja]

Arguing that bound and called beings can pervert wishes is not an argument at all. If that is the case, then you can expect the player involved to begin dominating the called creatures every time. Congratulations, you've added the cost of a spell slot or a scroll to the cost of infinite wealth.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is exactly what I want - to make cleric useful. All roles should be useful and balanced

A) Classes and roles are not the same thing. B) The cleric is immensely more useful if he's not wasting all his spell slots being a band-aid. C) That desire is impossible to meet. A healer is useless if the party's damage dealing capability is such that most enemies drop before anyone gets hurt. Likewise if they're exceedingly difficult to hit because of high AC and miss-chance. If your role can be replaced with a wand, it's simply not a valuable role.


Cheap is ok. Free is banned. Just spend some gold and doesn't spend spells on trivial matters.

There's no practical difference. A wand of lesser vigor comes to 550hp for chump-change. Unless you're intentionlly limiting treasure to the point that you're hurting the melee characters that's basically infinite healing.


If the cleric want to craft item with charges, I would allow. If the cleric tries to create infinite wand, I would say that there is no such item in this universe. But he could pay 4 times the price and get wand that could cast CLW that works only when target is below half HP. And of course I would sell charged wand of CLW any time the party found appropriate vendor. Charged CLW is not a big deal. Just like any other charged spell.

Lesser vigor. Seriously, it's enough to full-heal a level 50 fighter from death's door. At level 5 its 750gp cost is less than 10% of WBL for -one- character and at level 6 its 375gp cost to create is less than 3%. Split 4 ways and you're at less than 1% to make sure everybody goes into every fight at near full health for the next level unless every fight puts them all right at death's door. At level 8 it's barely over 1% for -each- character's WBL and provides enough healing that everyone goes into battle at full health for the next -several- levels.

By mid-level there's no practical difference between infinite healing and low-cost healing because the price has dipped so very low.

[ayvango]

You don't think clerics are useful outside of their healing?
He could of course fill other roles. But no one could heal as effectively as cleric. Also he is a good buffer.



Trivial matters like keeping your team alive? Methinks you might want to reassess your priorities.

That could be easily done with expendable items, so it is trivial. The true blossom of cleric is miracle.



So you have no problems with them just waiting to heal, or making an item to heal as long as it eventually needs to be replaced, but its suddenly a problem when it doesn't need to be replaced? That seems pretty arbitrary.
It may be arbitrary indeed. I just afraid of ubiquitous players that abuse every opportunity they obtain.

There is a global balance between encounters, gold, exp. You choose what to get from encounters, either less gold and more exp or reversed. You can choose to spend gold to by items or to spend XP creating them. And you could spend gold (or XP) to temporary improve encounter performance (and get more gold and XP). Or you can invest gold (and XP) to your inventory (or class level) to make your more powerful in regular basis. So thin balance between one-time boosters and permanent enhancements should be maintained.

Preventing party from infinite healing is clearly considered unbalanced from the game designer's point of view. It is clear when you read source books. So I just trying to keep that balance.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Arguing that bound and called beings can pervert wishes is not an argument at all. If that is the case, then you can expect the player involved to begin dominating the called creatures every time. Congratulations, you've added the cost of a spell slot or a scroll to the cost of infinite wealth.

Dominate Monster is a 9th level spell and an enchantment (compulsion) effect that allows a save. It's not something you can rely on until you can cast gate anway and if it fails the called creature knows parley is over and starts to attack.

A glabrezu calls for backup. Most celestials have a constant magic circle effect of their own to protect their minds. The only thing still vulnerable, that I can think of ATM, is an efreet and he can immediately open up with fire based attacks from his SLA's if it fails and can, arguably, save again when you demand a wish for free.

3825gp for a 30% chance of getting your wish hardly sounds free to me.

[ayvango]

By mid-level there's no practical difference between infinite healing and low-cost healing because the price has dipped so very low.
Gold reward grows little slower than quadric based on level. And hp growls little faster than linear (improving total hit dices and constitution modifier). So if you lost some HP in mid-level encounter you get paid better but you should restore more hitpoints. HP economy remains actual up to higher levels, where you could be break it entirely with class features granting perpetual healing.

[Coidzor]

But game designers took a great effort in developing existing economy, making it balanced, semi-interesting and limitedly capable of describing in-game societies.

I'm not so sure about that. My recollection is that generally it's agreed that a robust economy would need to come from elsewhere or be home brewed

[Kelb_Panthera]

Gold reward grows little slower than quadric based on level. And hp growls little faster then linear (improving total hit dices and constitution modifier). So if you lost some HP in mid-level encounter you get paid better but you should restore more hitpoints. HP economy remains actual up to higher levels, where you could be break it entirely with class features granting perpetual healing.

Wands of lesser vigor fix the value of a HP at about 7sp. At level 8 a -barbarian- has about 80hp. That's less than 60gp to heal from having been dropped. Compare this to the 850 or so gp that a typical encounter yields at his level. That's 7% of the gold earned on an ecounter where he got utterly trashed and under-paid for the encounter. More likely he only loses about 20hp and burns 15gp worth of magic, wasting about a gp worth of healing; less than 2% of the gold from the encounter.

If you're wasting money on any of the much less efficient methods of healing it gets a lot worse but that's simply a matter of a lack of system mastery.

And you still haven't addressed the existence of natural healing. That's both infinite and free.

[ayvango]

Wand of lesser vigour is cheap enough on first level either. So nothing changes on mid levels.

[Graypairofsocks]

By strict RAW it doesn't work at all and any "longer -or- more involved" task makes it behave like planar binding/ally. "Longer" is clear but "more involved" is a DM call. There's an argument to be made that declaring the activation of a standard action SLA or SU cannot be reasonably interpretted as "more involved" but that's an argument, not a solid, indisputable point of RAW.

Also, it's not total control. It's working for you and you give orders for 1 round/ level. How the creature executes the orders given is up to both how specific the orders are and the creature's interpretation of those orders. It's not a dominate effect.
How does it not work by strict RAW?
What did I miss in the spell text?

The only place Lesser Planar Binding is mentioned in Gate is when it says to see Lesser Planar Binding for the appropriate rewards for a creature.

[AnachroNinja]

I'd argue kelb that it would be a simple matter to set your immediate act service to "fail your next save to a spell cast by me, with the guarantee that it will not be harmful and will only serve as a guarantee of good faith in the task I would have otherwise asked for"

It fits all criteria for actions possible under gate and planar Ally, with only planar binding being vague with the impossible or unreasonable clause that people like to argue over.

I have no idea why he thinks it doesn't function by raw, my admitably casual look just now showed me no issues so dunno

Edit: unless he's the sort to argue that the "vague" definition of more involved means nothing works anyway.

[Kelb_Panthera]

How does it not work by strict RAW?
What did I miss in the spell text?

It's not in the spell description itself but in the interaction between the spell's duration and it's own text.

Specifically, when gate is used as a calling spell its duration is instantaneous. It then goes on to say that when the spell ends the creature called departs for its home plane. The spell ends a moment after it's cast. The called creature spends an instant on the material and then departs. It has no time to do anything at all.

A creature for whom you have a more involved task -would- be free to leave when the task is finished but because no exception is made to the phrasing of the previous paragraph it's not around long enough to even discuss the task, much less the payment or actually do anything.

It works as intended for calling uncontrolled creatures but that means you can't call anything of 34HD or less or it leaves immediately. Calling a 34HD creature that you can't control seems like rather a bad idea.

The intention was obvious; you can either get the creature to fight for you or complete some simple task as though the spell were summon monster X or to serve you in some capacity as though it was supreme planar ally/binding but because somebody at WotC blows at proofreading and editing the spell does nothing but burn off 1000xp and put an uncontrolled NPC of some significant power into play. Good job, WotC.


The only place Lesser Planar Binding is mentioned in Gate is when it says to see Lesser Planar Binding for the appropriate rewards for a creature.

It references planar ally there, actually. In both planar ally and planar binding you make a deal. The biggest difference is that with binding you get to offer a raw deal and don't have to expect the creature to laugh in your face and leave. A long term or involved task is explicitly referencing planar ally because of the similarities in what's supposed to be happening.

[ace rooster]

I'd argue kelb that it would be a simple matter to set your immediate act service to "fail your next save to a spell cast by me, with the guarantee that it will not be harmful and will only serve as a guarantee of good faith in the task I would have otherwise asked for"

It fits all criteria for actions possible under gate and planar Ally, with only planar binding being vague with the impossible or unreasonable clause that people like to argue over.

I have no idea why he thinks it doesn't function by raw, my admitably casual look just now showed me no issues so dunno

Edit: unless he's the sort to argue that the "vague" definition of more involved means nothing works anyway.

I don't think it would be much of a stretch to class "let me dominate you" as "more involved". While the effect can be established in 1 round per caster level, the dominated creature has nothing more than your word that the effect will be removed then. In that sense it qualifies for lasting longer than 1 round per level. You would be as well arguing that you can get it to sign a legally binding contract to serve you for eternity, because they could sign that in a couple of rounds too.


There is potentially another reason for SU wish creatures not to use it to make items. It might be illegal (planar law). Lawful or not, outsiders could still be scared of the epic inevitables specifically built to destroy them and all they hold dear (because overkill is under-rated). You either survive a battle or you don't, so that would be a one off thing. Violating planar law means an eternity of looking over your shoulder, so would count as more involved.

Another DM break is to gate in massively high HD versions of creatures. It can be fun to play along for a bit as a zodar that the wizard has absolutely no control of whatsoever. :smallamused:
"You want a candle of invocation?" Creates candle of disjunction. CL 50
"I'm in a good mood, so have a few artifacts as well."
User of the candle counts as the caster. The 50HD zodar is friends with Olideramna, and the artifacts exist purely to troll casters. It will get his attention, but mostly because he finds it hilarious.

[Graypairofsocks]

It's not in the spell description itself but in the interaction between the spell's duration and it's own text.

Specifically, when gate is used as a calling spell its duration is instantaneous. It then goes on to say that when the spell ends the creature called departs for its home plane. The spell ends a moment after it's cast. The called creature spends an instant on the material and then departs. It has no time to do anything at all.

A creature for whom you have a more involved task -would- be free to leave when the task is finished but because no exception is made to the phrasing of the previous paragraph it's not around long enough to even discuss the task, much less the payment or actually do anything.

It works as intended for calling uncontrolled creatures but that means you can't call anything of 34HD or less or it leaves immediately. Calling a 34HD creature that you can't control seems like rather a bad idea.

The intention was obvious; you can either get the creature to fight for you or complete some simple task as though the spell were summon monster X or to serve you in some capacity as though it was supreme planar ally/binding but because somebody at WotC blows at proofreading and editing the spell does nothing but burn off 1000xp and put an uncontrolled NPC of some significant power into play. Good job, WotC.

It doesn't actually specify the duration for the calling function of the Gate spell.
It says that it opens a gate long enough for the creature to pass through, but nothing suggests that the spell ends after that.


It references planar ally there, actually. In both planar ally and planar binding you make a deal. The biggest difference is that with binding you get to offer a raw deal and don't have to expect the creature to laugh in your face and leave. A long term or involved task is explicitly referencing planar ally because of the similarities in what's supposed to be happening.

Yes, it references the other spell, but only in regards to payment.
Although actually looking at the cost detailed in Lesser Planar Binding, it still is rather cheap.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd argue kelb that it would be a simple matter to set your immediate act service to "fail your next save to a spell cast by me, with the guarantee that it will not be harmful and will only serve as a guarantee of good faith in the task I would have otherwise asked for"

It fits all criteria for actions possible under gate and planar Ally, with only planar binding being vague with the impossible or unreasonable clause that people like to argue over.

Yeah, then you cast your spell, it foregoes the save, it's completed its task, and it disappears.


It doesn't actually specify the duration for the calling function of the Gate spell.
It says that it opens a gate long enough for the creature to pass through, but nothing suggests that the spell ends after that.

The duration is instantaneous or concentration up to CL rounds. Since the duration of the planar travel effect is explicitly the concentration option and the calling effect never mentions concentration it must revert to instantaneous. Further, all spells of the calling subschool are instantaneous unless otherwise noted. Since gate does not note otherwise, it's duration is instantaneous when used as a calling spell.




Yes, it references the other spell, but only in regards to payment.
Although actually looking at the cost detailed in Lesser Planar Binding, it still is rather cheap.

Yes, payment for the aggreement you make. This is explicit. And seriously, it's planar ally, not planar binding that's referrenced.

[AnachroNinja]

In response to the other guy, if your going to start arguing for more involved to mean anything you want whether it's less when CL rounds or not, please don't even talk to me about it. That's a tired horse and I'm not going to argue about grammar and whether you can DM Fiat your way out of the problem because obviously you can without having to read rules in your favor, that's what DMs do. Also, Gate and the various binding and Ally spells have a specific clause that if you do not hold up your end of the bargain to the letter, you will be in breach and owe a debt to the creature or its Liege, so yes the creature can be reasonably sure your dealing in good faith. There's not much reason for it not to go along with your bargain. It's very possible it's Liege would actually require it to because the possibility of losing one of INFINITE efreet or demons is negligible compared to possibly gaining the service of a high level mortal caster if you screw up, even by accident.

In regards to kelb, you know full well it's a trivial difference to require it to remain for the rest of the CL duration after failing it's save. Lawyering loop holes in my initial explanation doesn't fix the problem, it just makes your players better lawyers.

[Kelb_Panthera]

In regards to kelb, you know full well it's a trivial difference to require it to remain for the rest of the CL duration after failing it's save. Lawyering loop holes in my initial explanation doesn't fix the problem, it just makes your players better lawyers.

Funny how people are always ready to argue to hell and back with as mechanistic a reading as can be had to open one of these loops but want to dismiss any argument that closes them, even when it uses just as mechanistic a reading. The same mechanistic reading that says the called creature does whatever you say for rounds per caster level, regardless of what that may be, also necessitates that the spell is completely non-functional in that regard. It's either both or its neither. You either accept that the calling effect working properly at all is houseruling and you accept any other houserulings that a DM might apply so you can have the spell or you take the mechanistic reading and you can't control anything with it.

"More involved" is not defined anywhere so it very much -can- mean anything the DM says it does and it'll still be RAW.

This so-called loophole in the rules never did work by RAW. It just gained enough momentum and had enough people wanting to believe it that it now persists in-spite of it being BS. Planar binding always had the DM gets out of jail free card in the sentence "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to." What's reasonable to the called creature is, of course, up to the DM.

At an actual table, it's not really an issue in any case. You try to exploit one of these loops, the DM says something to the effect of, "No. That doesn't work. Now stop being a dink and lets get back to the game," and that's the end of it.

You don't have to be a better lawyer than the other guy when you're the judge. :smallcool:

[ace rooster]

In response to the other guy, if your going to start arguing for more involved to mean anything you want whether it's less when CL rounds or not, please don't even talk to me about it. That's a tired horse and I'm not going to argue about grammar and whether you can DM Fiat your way out of the problem because obviously you can without having to read rules in your favor, that's what DMs do. Also, Gate and the various binding and Ally spells have a specific clause that if you do not hold up your end of the bargain to the letter, you will be in breach and owe a debt to the creature or its Liege, so yes the creature can be reasonably sure your dealing in good faith. There's not much reason for it not to go along with your bargain. It's very possible it's Liege would actually require it to because the possibility of losing one of INFINITE efreet or demons is negligible compared to possibly gaining the service of a high level mortal caster if you screw up, even by accident.

In regards to kelb, you know full well it's a trivial difference to require it to remain for the rest of the CL duration after failing it's save. Lawyering loop holes in my initial explanation doesn't fix the problem, it just makes your players better lawyers.

If you are making a bargain you are not in the "immediate task" use, so the outsider can tell you where to put it. Even if you stretch the immediate task to "agree to x", the spell only enforces agreement. The protections of the spell would not apply to x.

Obviously the DM can fiat his way out, but the point is that he doesn't have to. Calling spells interact with the setting, so you can no more assume no repercutions than if you dominated a lord into giving over their estate. The court wizard interceding would not be DM fiat, it would be the the obvious consequence of the PC's actions. Do you think that you can steal wishes and nobody will notice?

Why do you assume there are infinite efreet? We can assume that there are infinite demons, but that doesn't mean there are infinite of the powerful ones. Even if we do assume infinite of each, why then regect infinite lieges with finite domains? Even if there is one all powerful being in command of all outsiders of a certain type, why would his middle managers be happy about their staff being kidnapped. Why would he care about mortal casters when he can wish items into existance that cast more powerfully than any mortal caster, or just use the same gate tricks to bind mortal casters the way you suggest? You make a lot of shaky assumptions about setting when you say "There's not much reason for it not to go along with your bargain".

[AnachroNinja]

Okay, let's get into the mechanics then kelb. Your entire argument as to its non functioning is invalidated by the words "see text" at the end of duration. The spell specifically states that "This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures." That is the instantaneous part.

It further states: "You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level." So controlling the creatures is explicitly part of the spell, which occurs after you have called them, which is after the gate has already closed, because it states the gate closes as soon as they pass through.

We then get:"A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service" So the control is an ongoing status applied to the creature that allows you to command, explicitly continuing after the gate has closed. This makes it abundantly clear the spell has not ended yet, and fits perfectly within the "see text" section of the duration.

It is noted that the text specifies that you may command ONE specific service of either type. Each type provides it's own defining text for what occurs at the completion of said service. Immediate services use the somewhat vague wording of "when the spell ends" that you are attempting to exploit for your argument. However as covered, the control aspect of the spell does NOT end when the instantaneous Gate aspect of the spell is finished. It does not explicitly state in this section that the control continues until the action is completed, or if it only continues until the command is given. In that worst case, the creature has still been commanded to fulfill your instructions while under control and so must follow through on it. Very simple. "I command you to use your three wishes for the following purposes: Teleport yourself back to my position immediately after this spell ends. Create a candle of invocation for me. Whatever else you want. Remain in my presence until the end of CL rounds." Problem solved.

Even less open to interpretation is going for a more involved task. It carries the explicit clause that after the task is finished, the creature is teleported to your presence for its reward, then freed. So again, explicitly the spell, in some form, continues until after the commands are complete, again in concordance with "see text". The rewards are based on planar Ally. Let's take a look.

"A task taking up to 1 minute per caster level requires a payment of 100 gp per HD of the creature called." I will pay that in a heartbeat for the task of granting me wishes. And since the teleport is no longer necessary, I gained a wish for less then a thousand gold. Also of note..."A nonhazardous task requires only half the indicated payment, while an especially hazardous task might require a greater gift." Yep looks like we have a half price sale.

In summation, the spell works fine.

Edit: there are infinite efreet because the plane of fire is of infinite size with an infinite number of naturally occurring beings native to it existing there. And unless they are ruled by non efreet, their Liege can't use their wishes for himself. He can however use them with the aid of the aforementioned mortal casters.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Okay, let's get into the mechanics then kelb. Your entire argument as to its non functioning is invalidated by the words "see text" at the end of duration. The spell specifically states that "This use of the spell creates a gate that remains open just long enough to transport the called creatures." That is the instantaneous part.

It further states: "You can call and control several creatures as long as their HD total does not exceed your caster level." So controlling the creatures is explicitly part of the spell, which occurs after you have called them, which is after the gate has already closed, because it states the gate closes as soon as they pass through.

We then get:"A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service" So the control is an ongoing status applied to the creature that allows you to command, explicitly continuing after the gate has closed. This makes it abundantly clear the spell has not ended yet, and fits perfectly within the "see text" section of the duration.

It is noted that the text specifies that you may command ONE specific service of either type. Each type provides it's own defining text for what occurs at the completion of said service. Immediate services use the somewhat vague wording of "when the spell ends" that you are attempting to exploit for your argument. However as covered, the control aspect of the spell does NOT end when the instantaneous Gate aspect of the spell is finished. It does not explicitly state in this section that the control continues until the action is completed, or if it only continues until the command is given. In that worst case, the creature has still been commanded to fulfill your instructions while under control and so must follow through on it. Very simple. "I command you to use your three wishes for the following purposes: Teleport yourself back to my position immediately after this spell ends. Create a candle of invocation for me. Whatever else you want. Remain in my presence until the end of CL rounds." Problem solved.

I'm not even going to break this down. Your entire argument here is that the spell doesn't end when it ends. When a spell's duration lapses, it's ended. The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous and gate is no exception. There's nothing in your wall of text there to contradict this and nothing in gate's description that contradicts this. There might be an argument to make that you can decide whether you're going to pose an immediate task or make a deal upon completing the spell's casting but there's simply no way to parse the immediate task option where the creature remains for more than an instant without some portion of the rules contradicting themselves.


Even less open to interpretation is going for a more involved task. It carries the explicit clause that after the task is finished, the creature is teleported to your presence for its reward, then freed. So again, explicitly the spell, in some form, continues until after the commands are complete, again in concordance with "see text". The rewards are based on planar Ally. Let's take a look.

That's self contradictory. The spell can't be both instantaneous and last until the task is finished. Since the creature isn't explicitly dispatched upon the spell's completion he can stick around or not at his own discretion. There's nothing forcing him to take any deal and if he doesn't want to hear it he can just leave via the one-time use ability that calling spells impart on their subject. He's only compelled by the spell to uphold his end of any deal made.

Gate is guaranteed to do precisely nothing as a calling spell by strictest RAW. All it can get you is an opportunity to deal.

[AnachroNinja]

Gates duration is not "instantaneous". It is "Instantaneous or concentration (up to 1 round/level); see text". And since your explanation leaves no possible way for Gate to teleport a creature bound for a longer service back to you to receive is reward, you are explicitly wrong.

Edit: To further clarify. The general rule of "The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled." Is trumped by the specific duration and spell text of Gate. In addition, Gate is of the type "Calling or Creation", further making clear it's effect covers more then a standard calling spell.

Edit2: And as a side note, since the spell description also includes "Casting a gate spell has two effects. First, it creates an interdimensional connection between your plane of existence and a plane you specify, allowing travel between those two planes in either direction.

Second, you may then call a particular individual or kind of being through the gate."

Which are sequential effects, that means the spell is explicitly NOT an entirely instantaneous spell. It makes it clear that the initial effect of opening a Gate is either instantaneous or limited to CL/rounds depending on whether you are calling a creature or holding open a portal. The second effect has the duration "see text" which is specified in the description for calling and controlling creatures. You're still wrong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Gates duration is not "instantaneous". It is "Instantaneous or concentration (up to 1 round/level); see text". And since your explanation leaves no possible way for Gate to teleport a creature bound for a longer service back to you to receive is reward, you are explicitly wrong.

Edit: To further clarify. The general rule of "The duration of a calling spell is instantaneous, which means that the called creature can’t be dispelled." Is trumped by the specific duration and spell text of Gate. In addition, Gate is of the type "Calling or Creation", further making clear it's effect covers more then a standard calling spell.

Edit2: And as a side note, since the spell description also includes "Casting a gate spell has two effects. First, it creates an interdimensional connection between your plane of existence and a plane you specify, allowing travel between those two planes in either direction.

Second, you may then call a particular individual or kind of being through the gate."

Which are sequential effects, that means the spell is explicitly NOT an entirely instantaneous spell. It makes it clear that the initial effect of opening a Gate is either instantaneous or limited to CL/rounds depending on whether you are calling a creature or holding open a portal. The second effect has the duration "see text" which is specified in the description for calling and controlling creatures. You're still wrong.

Ya know what? No. I'm not having this discussion again. Going any further requires going into rules of grammar and punctuation and is going to take about 4 pages if it's just you and me.

I'll leave it at this: there are no less than -four- correct ways to parse the duartion line of the text because WotC over simplified things until important nuance was lost and this is a tangent to the original topic anyway. The only thing that really matters at all is the phrase "or more involved." This undefined phrase, alone, is a blank check for a DM to shut this nonsense down without breaking RAW.

[AnachroNinja]

More involved actually benefits the player. It has the teleport back clause, which requires a continuous spell effect, planar Ally does not have any clause allowing refusal of services, and it's cheap as heck to pay the cost for 1 min/CL

[Cosi]

I'll leave it at this: there are no less than -four- correct ways to parse the duartion line of the text because WotC over simplified things until important nuance was lost and this is a tangent to the original topic anyway. The only thing that really matters at all is the phrase "or more involved." This undefined phrase, alone, is a blank check for a DM to shut this nonsense down without breaking RAW. have the same long debate I am unwilling to get involved in

Fixed that for you.

[Kelb_Panthera]

More involved actually benefits the player. It has the teleport back clause, which requires a continuous spell effect, planar Ally does not have any clause allowing refusal of services, and it's cheap as heck to pay the cost for 1 min/CL

More involved must be interpretted. More involved for the called creature? the caster? the DM? the player?

The spell explicitly says that the reward must be a fair trade for the service rendered and planar ally explicitly says the payment is at the creature's discretion: "The creature called requires a payment." 1800 or so gold isn't a fair trade for a wish. 25,000 is and you're still running into the problem of the creature interpretting the wish requested. The safe-list is not guaranteed safe when someone else is casting the spell on your behalf.

Ultimately, there is -no- rock-solid RAW support for the idea that you get whatever the hell you want for free from a wish-capable creature just because it would only take it a single standard action. There's just too much room and too much -demand- for interpretation within the text of the relevant spells. It's not a simple "if; then" scenario, no matter how bad some people would like to believe it is or should be. You cast fireball, a 40ft diameter bloom of fire appears at the designated point. You cast gate, something that can engender pages and pages of debate happens and exactly what that thing is just isn't crystal clear for that very reason.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fixed that for you.

A good DM doesn't have this debate. He makes a decision, he makes a ruling, and the game moves on, with or without the player that tries to pull this stunt at their mutual discretion.

[Cosi]

A good DM doesn't have this debate. He makes a decision, he makes a ruling, and the game moves on, with or without the player that tries to pull this stunt at their mutual discretion.

That is several kinds of wrong. First, immediate rulings tend to be stupid. For example, the immediate ruling to stop ice assassin Efreet from granting XP-free wish might grant a bunch of immunities to ice assassins. Instead, play should proceed without the loop and after the session and time should be taken later to make an effective ruling. Second, unilateral DM rulings are bad. The DM and players should try their best to come to mutually agreeable ruling. The DM doesn't have any more stake in the game than the players, and as such there's no reason for him to have more influence over the rules of the game. Finally, while people who are likely to try this specific trick in real games are not likely people you want to game with, kicking people out of the game for finding holes in the rules prevents the game from ever getting better.

[Keltest]

That is several kinds of wrong. First, immediate rulings tend to be stupid. For example, the immediate ruling to stop ice assassin Efreet from granting XP-free wish might grant a bunch of immunities to ice assassins. Instead, play should proceed without the loop and after the session and time should be taken later to make an effective ruling. Second, unilateral DM rulings are bad. The DM and players should try their best to come to mutually agreeable ruling. The DM doesn't have any more stake in the game than the players, and as such there's no reason for him to have more influence over the rules of the game. Finally, while people who are likely to try this specific trick in real games are not likely people you want to game with, kicking people out of the game for finding holes in the rules prevents the game from ever getting better.

It is literally the DM's job to make a ruling. If you object to the DM doing their job, you should probably find a different game to play.

[Cosi]

It is literally the DM's job to make a ruling. If you object to the DM doing their job, you should probably find a different game to play.

It's the DM's job to enforce the rules. The group as a whole decides what the rules are. If you joined a group to play D&D, would it seem at all reasonable to you for the DM to declare he was going to run Apocalypse World instead?

[Keltest]

It's the DM's job to enforce the rules. The group as a whole decides what the rules are. If you joined a group to play D&D, would it seem at all reasonable to you for the DM to declare he was going to run Apocalypse World instead?

Not remotely an analogous situation. Its in the DM guide that the DM gets to make rulings on cases where the RAW is unclear or contradictory.

[AnachroNinja]

At no point in lesser planar Ally does it say the payment must be a fair trade for the service. The pricing is entirely time based. The creature has no discretion in refusing as long as you meet the price.

[Keltest]

At no point in lesser planar Ally does it say the payment must be a fair trade for the service. The pricing is entirely time based. The creature has no discretion in refusing as long as you meet the price.

The description also indicates that the pricing can vary based on the capabilities of the creature, the danger and complexity of the task, and how much the creature itself actually wants to do such a thing, and the creature itself is setting (or at least negotiating) the price. You are rather unlikely to get an obviously uneven deal from a Gate spell.

[martixy]

I am of the firm opinion that the rules are not isolated from the greater whole of the game, and thus issues with the rules don't always have to be fixed by more rules.

And so it is entirely conceivable for emergent dysfunctions like these to be fixed by such things as logic, common sense, internal consistency and other such silliness.

[Cosi]

You can't fix wish with "common sense" or "RAW interpretation". The spell asks how much power you want and lets you say "all of it". There is no ambiguity whatsoever that wish is broken. The only thing you can do with "common sense" is break other things so that people have a harder time getting wish and breaking the game. You can declare that ice assassins cannot be commanded. You can make planar binding or gate not do anything. But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes other stuff not work. It's like if a guy was squatting in your house and rather than having him evicted you smashed all your furniture and appliances, then set your house on fire. You haven't solved the problem, you've just created a bunch of new ones.

[Keltest]

You can't fix wish with "common sense" or "RAW interpretation". The spell asks how much power you want and lets you say "all of it". There is no ambiguity whatsoever that wish is broken. The only thing you can do with "common sense" is break other things so that people have a harder time getting wish and breaking the game. You can declare that ice assassins cannot be commanded. You can make planar binding or gate not do anything. But that doesn't fix the problem, it just makes other stuff not work. It's like if a guy was squatting in your house and rather than having him evicted you smashed all your furniture and appliances, then set your house on fire. You haven't solved the problem, you've just created a bunch of new ones.

The DM is in fact allowed to say "No, you cant wish for more wishes" and have that be the end of it. That is also a common sense fix. I have no idea why you are so opposed to this idea.

[Cosi]

The DM is in fact allowed to say "No, you cant wish for more wishes" and have that be the end of it. That is also a common sense fix.

That's not a "common sense" fix. That's "changing the rules". The rules allow you to wish for magic items that break the game. If you cannot do that, the rules have been changed. It may be a "common sense" change to the rules, but it is a change to the rules none the less.

You'll notice that the poster immediately prior suggested that you can fix this with "common sense" and not "more rules".


I have no idea why you are so opposed to this idea.

If the DM is not going to follow the rules, why should I?

Somewhat more seriously, I'm not opposed to changing the way wish works. In fact, I would not play a game with RAW wish because it is so utterly broken. I'm opposed to two things:

1. The idea that the appropriate response to something being broken is to ban it rather than to fix it. If you don't try to improve things that are flawed, nothing ever improves. "Breaking the game" isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, because it means you can make a better game.
2. Unilateral modification of the rules. It's bad on a lot of levels. It enforces the idea that this is "the DM's game" rather than "the group's game". It makes it impossible to know what the rules are, and hence impossible to meaningfully interact with the world. It's also used to cover up for the first point.

I want to play a good game. One that's functional and reasonably well balanced. And to get there, it is necessary that the rules be taken seriously by everyone involved.

[Keltest]

That's not a "common sense" fix. That's "changing the rules". The rules allow you to wish for magic items that break the game. If you cannot do that, the rules have been changed. It may be a "common sense" change to the rules, but it is a change to the rules none the less.

You'll notice that the poster immediately prior suggested that you can fix this with "common sense" and not "more rules". The two are not mutually exclusive.




If the DM is not going to follow the rules, why should I?

Somewhat more seriously, I'm not opposed to changing the way wish works. In fact, I would not play a game with RAW wish because it is so utterly broken. I'm opposed to two things:

1. The idea that the appropriate response to something being broken is to ban it rather than to fix it. If you don't try to improve things that are flawed, nothing ever improves. "Breaking the game" isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing, because it means you can make a better game.
2. Unilateral modification of the rules. It's bad on a lot of levels. It enforces the idea that this is "the DM's game" rather than "the group's game". It makes it impossible to know what the rules are, and hence impossible to meaningfully interact with the world. It's also used to cover up for the first point.

I want to play a good game. One that's functional and reasonably well balanced. And to get there, it is necessary that the rules be taken seriously by everyone involved.

If you are trying to make infinite wishes, you are already not taking the rules seriously, but trying to exploit poorly thought out spell descriptions on the part of the game developers for your own profit. The DM has every right to shut you down at that point, and if you were to have this attitude at my table, you would no longer be welcome there. It is a massive breach of the social contract implicit when everyone sits down at the gaming table, and no DM that I have ever met would be tolerant of this level of pedantry and obstructionism.

Frankly, your entire argument smacks of a lack of understanding of the social dynamic between the DM and the players. I will say again: it is the DM's job to do this. If you don't like the call that particular DM made, go somewhere else. If you are getting hung up about a ban on using wish to get additional wishes, I suspect you will not enjoy terribly many gaming tables.

[Cosi]

If you are trying to make infinite wishes, you are already not taking the rules seriously, but trying to exploit poorly thought out spell descriptions on the part of the game developers for your own profit. The DM has every right to shut you down at that point, and if you were to have this attitude at my table, you would no longer be welcome there.

This is exactly my point. The idea that it is "wrong" to identify problems in the rules is incredibly toxic to the prospect of good rules. Kicking someone out of the game because of a flaw in the game is the best way to ensure the game never improves.

Also, it's not a "poorly thought out spell description". 3.0 wish has a GP cap and zero balance problems. If you're going by "designer intent", you should allow people to wish for whatever magic items they want because not only do the rules say you can, they were explicitly changed to say that.


It is a massive breach of the social contract implicit when everyone sits down at the gaming table, and no DM that I have ever met would be tolerant of this level of pedantry and obstructionism.

The "social contract" of the game is that you will follow the rules of the game. The rules of the game are such that SLA wish is broken. If the group wants to play without broken SLA wish, they need to fix it. Just like if you want people to not play elves you need to say that instead of kicking anyone who shows up with an elf out of your group.


If you are getting hung up about a ban on using wish to get additional wishes, I suspect you will not enjoy terribly many gaming tables.

Did you just not read the part of my post where I explicitly said that wish should be fixed? My problem is 0% not getting to break the game and 100% your methodology being bad for the game.

[martixy]

I have not followed the entire argument, but from the last few posts I am strongly inclined to agree with Keltest.

For example one of the "common sense" fixes I had in mind was "Let's just all agree not to break the game in silly ways."

No single person, or even an entire party can fix 3.5's rules. So that balanced game you're chasing doesn't exist. (Not to imply banning things is better, it's a non-fix.)
What you can do, is agree not to abuse the emergent properties that result from the interaction of so many complex systems.
And make no mistake, the designers were fully aware how the things they introduced in the many splatbooks could break the game. Yet they did so anyway. Why? Cuz they relied on something other than the rules to prevent the game from exploding.

Those rules, they're there to serve the experience, not the other way around.

P.S. Keltest, you say the contract is implicit, but I do not believe so. In an ideal world maybe, but I find that making it explicit is highly beneficial.
Like sitting down in session 0 and explicitly talking about it in no uncertain terms.

For example, I'd sit down Cosi and explain that the social contract entails not following the rules, but the spirit of the game.

[Keltest]

This is exactly my point. The idea that it is "wrong" to identify problems in the rules is incredibly toxic to the prospect of good rules. Kicking someone out of the game because of a flaw in the game is the best way to ensure the game never improves.

Also, it's not a "poorly thought out spell description". 3.0 wish has a GP cap and zero balance problems. If you're going by "designer intent", you should allow people to wish for whatever magic items they want because not only do the rules say you can, they were explicitly changed to say that. Not even going to address this because it so completely misses the point. I am not kicking someone out of the game for trying to abuse wish, I am kicking them out if they tell me, at my table, that as the DM I am not allowed to make this call. It is completely out of line.


The "social contract" of the game is that you will follow the rules of the game. The rules of the game are such that SLA wish is broken. If the group wants to play without broken SLA wish, they need to fix it. Just like if you want people to not play elves you need to say that instead of kicking anyone who shows up with an elf out of your group. What do you think saying "No, you cannot use wish to wish for more wishes or items that grant wishes." is saying? It seems pretty unambiguous to me.


Did you just not read the part of my post where I explicitly said that wish should be fixed? My problem is 0% not getting to break the game and 100% your methodology being bad for the game.

Yes, and I also read the part where you called me out when I proposed a fix. My methodology is not only incredibly common, it is flat out called for by the books themselves. That is what you have a DM for. Is there something about this that is not being understood?

[Deophaun]

By the rules, I think trying to get multiple wishes from a single wish qualifies as trying to get wish to emulate two or more ninth level spells (namely: the x-number of wishes). So, you're in danger territory.

Otherwise, I just say "no." Or "should we end the campaign here?" Because at that point, wishing for infinite wishes is like wishing for infinite power, and that's wishing to win D&D.

[Cosi]

For example one of the "common sense" fixes I had in mind was "Let's just all agree not to break the game in silly ways."

That sounds good. But it doesn't mean anything. Consider the following characters, all of which are legal by 3.5 RAW and all of which are Wizards:

1. Wizard 20. Casts evocations spells exclusively, usually with metamagic.
2. Wizard 5/Mindbender 1/Mage of the Arcane Order 9/Archmage 5. Casts BFC, buffs, or Save or Dies.
3. Wizard 5/Incantatrix 3/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7/Shadowcraft Mage 5. Layers himself with buffs, has a legion of called creatures, and is nearly unkillable.
4. Wizard 20. Cast planar binding to summon an Efreet and used wish to get infinite power.

Most people (including myself) will agree number 4 is breaking the game. Many people (including myself, unless you are intentionally playing a high-op game) will say number 3 is breaking the game. Some people (not including myself) will say number 2 is breaking the game. Almost none will say number 1 is breaking the game. None of the Wizards can play the same game, and it's possible to have balanced parties with 1, 2, or 3 (maybe 4, but I doubt it). If those four show up to a game, who has "broken the game in silly ways"?


No single person, or even an entire party can fix 3.5's rules. So that balanced game you're chasing doesn't exist. (Not to imply banning things is better, it's a non-fix.)

Ban spells that grant minions. Ban shape-shifting. Fix the half a dozen other spells (i.e. wish) that are broken and not in those catagories. Given mundanes artifact swords. Done.


What you can do, is agree not to abuse the emergent properties that result from the interaction of so many complex systems.

But people have different expectations of what "not abusing the rules" looks like. What is the balanced version of wish? Is it the one in PF, where it doesn't produce magic items at all? Is it the one in Frank and K's Tomes (or 3.0) that produces magic items up to 15k GP? Is it the one Beheld suggested in the last wish thread which just circumvents crafting times? Is it just a plot device? Those are all possible answers, and they are all totally different.

Claiming that "don't break the game" is going to put your whole group on the same page with regards to wish is laughable.


And make no mistake, the designers were fully aware how the things they introduced in the many splatbooks could break the game. Yet they did so anyway. Why? Cuz they relied on something other than the rules to prevent the game from exploding.

Splatbooks don't break the game. There are some sweet spells in splatbooks (i.e. elemental body) but there are also equally sweet spells in core (i.e. glitterdust).


Like sitting down in session 0 and explicitly talking about it in no uncertain terms.

How is this not exactly what I'm calling for? My position is that the group needs to talk about things like party composition (i.e. are evil PCs okay?), setting choice (i.e. can I play a Planar Shepherd?), balance point (i.e. should I play a Planar Shepherd?), and resolve rules issues (i.e. how does wish work?) so that those issues don't come up during play and lead to hurt feelings when different people expect different things.


Not even going to address this because it so completely misses the point. I am not kicking someone out of the game for trying to abuse wish, I am kicking them out if they tell me, at my table, that as the DM I am not allowed to make this call. It is completely out of line.

Okay, where is the line? At what point are the players justified in saying "hey man, not cool" when the DM makes unilateral declarations about the game? If that line isn't at "not following the rules", where could it possibly be?


What do you think saying "No, you cannot use wish to wish for more wishes or items that grant wishes." is saying? It seems pretty unambiguous to me.

I think it's saying that when I capture my Efreet, I have to settle for a Belt of Magnificence +1,000,000 that merely grants every spell other than wish as a use-activated ability. See how your spur of the moment fix didn't resolve the balance problem? Maybe you should have asked the players to help you fix the game, or waited to wargame potential solutions before deciding.


Yes, and I also read the part where you called me out when I proposed a fix.

I called you out because (as demonstrated above) your methodology for fixing wish was bad. It didn't fix it, and by saying "now it's balanced" you are legitimizing any abuses you didn't fix.

[Keltest]

Okay, where is the line? At what point are the players justified in saying "hey man, not cool" when the DM makes unilateral declarations about the game? If that line isn't at "not following the rules", where could it possibly be? There is a rather substantial difference between a player politely objecting to the DM's call and telling them to their face that they aren't allowed to make it.




I think it's saying that when I capture my Efreet, I have to settle for a Belt of Magnificence +1,000,000 that merely grants every spell other than wish as a use-activated ability. See how your spur of the moment fix didn't resolve the balance problem? Maybe you should have asked the players to help you fix the game, or waited to wargame potential solutions before deciding.

At which point the Efreet laughs in your face and tells you to stop wasting his time and wish for something real already.

And if you continue down that path, you will be told, out of character, to stop messing around already. And if you ignore that warning, you will no longer be invited to the table, because you've violated the social contract.


I called you out because (as demonstrated above) your methodology for fixing wish was bad. It didn't fix it, and by saying "now it's balanced" you are legitimizing any abuses you didn't fix.

Im not here to balance the game. Wish will never be balanced. 3.5 will never be balanced. I am here to stop problems as they arise. Wishing for that belt of infinite whatever is not a problem because it is not a scenario that can occur. Wish already has some fairly well defined limits. It does not take an incredible act of willpower to not try and push them to their breaking point.

[Cosi]

There is a rather substantial difference between a player politely objecting to the DM's call and telling them to their face that they aren't allowed to make it.

Maybe answer the question?


At which point the Efreet laughs in your face and tells you to stop wasting his time and wish for something real already.

Belts of Magnificence are real (Minatures Handbook). Bonuses over +6 are real (DMG guidelines, explicit items in the ELH). Items with multiple functions are real (IIRC MIC). Use-activated items are real (various examples in DMG, generic version in DMG guidelines). The item I am requesting does not exist, but no item exists until it is created.


And if you continue down that path, you will be told, out of character, to stop messing around already. And if you ignore that warning, you will no longer be invited to the table, because you've violated the social contract.

Why? I though the violation of the contract was using wish to get an item that could cast wish. I didn't do that.


Wish will never be balanced.

Yes it will. Well, yes it was. 3.0 wish does nothing broken. Well, perhaps its spell emulation functions are broken when uses with spells that carry hefty non-slot costs, but its interaction with magic items is not broken.


3.5 will never be balanced.

3.5 is already balanced. It's just balanced at the point where everyone has infinite power. If you want it to be non-trivially balanced, that's doable too. You just have to pick a balance point then ban things above or below that balance point. Like literally any other game.


Wishing for that belt of infinite whatever is not a problem because it is not a scenario that can occur. Wish already has some fairly well defined limits. It does not take an incredible act of willpower to not try and push them to their breaking point.

But you don't have to push them "to their breaking point" for imbalance to occur. You just have to have a different idea from the rest of the group as to what the balance point is. You're assuming that there are two kinds of people Filthy Optimizers (who will abuse wish to its fullest) and Real Gamers (who will use wish in a way that is totally consistent with the expectations of the rest of the group without ever being told those expectations). The reality is that there are lots off different people, and imbalance will arise organically when one guy ignores wish, one guy uses it to get +5 to one stat, one guy uses it to get +5 to all stats, and one guy uses it to get some powerful but not broken gear at no cost.

[martixy]

That sounds good. But it doesn't mean anything. [...] Claiming that "don't break the game" is going to put your whole group on the same page with regards to wish is laughable.
This is where the common sense part comes in.



Consider the following characters, all of which are legal by 3.5 RAW and all of which are Wizards:

1. Wizard 20. Casts evocations spells exclusively, usually with metamagic.
2. Wizard 5/Mindbender 1/Mage of the Arcane Order 9/Archmage 5. Casts BFC, buffs, or Save or Dies.
3. Wizard 5/Incantatrix 3/Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil 7/Shadowcraft Mage 5. Layers himself with buffs, has a legion of called creatures, and is nearly unkillable.
4. Wizard 20. Cast planar binding to summon an Efreet and used wish to get infinite power.

Most people (including myself) will agree number 4 is breaking the game. Many people (including myself, unless you are intentionally playing a high-op game) will say number 3 is breaking the game. Some people (not including myself) will say number 2 is breaking the game. Almost none will say number 1 is breaking the game. None of the Wizards can play the same game, and it's possible to have balanced parties with 1, 2, or 3 (maybe 4, but I doubt it). If those four show up to a game, who has "broken the game in silly ways"?

Yes, 4 is breaking the game. 3, minus the literal legions is fine.
See... our perceptions align pretty well. So, given a non-malicious, rational player with the system mastery to pull off the latter builds, I believe it's reasonable to expect a simple "don't break the game" would be sufficient.
If all 4 of them show up at the same time, it's different type of game, which, ideally, has already been established by the group.


Ban spells that grant minions. Ban shape-shifting. Fix the half a dozen other spells (i.e. wish) that are broken and not in those catagories. Given mundanes artifact swords. Done.
But shapeshifting is fun. So is having an army to commandeer around. Banning is a non-fix.
Give mundanes fun options, not powerful artifacts. Power is overrated in the face of fun to use characters.

I think we approach this issue from two different points.
You seem to assume malicious intent, or at least an almost exclusive focus on power, while I'm counting on the exact opposite.

[Cosi]

This is where the common sense part comes in.

But that isn't shared. Many (even most) people will describe their solution to the particular problem that is wish as being "common sense", those solutions are often quite radically different. Even beyond that, people will do different things with wish. For example: stat boosting. Once you have access to wish, you could boost some or all of your stats by up to +5. Doing it isn't what I'd describe as meaningfully broken, but it is better than not doing it. How does "common sense" ensure everyone's on the same page?


But shapeshifting is fun. So is having an army to commandeer around. Banning is a non-fix.

Yes, you could fix those things. You could rewrite shape-changing so that you didn't get to dumpster-dive for monster abilities it is broken for a PC to have. You could re-write planar binding to work like Shadowrun summoning or something. But the game is basically balanced if you just remove those things. The proposed solution isn't a perfect solution, or even the best solution, but it is a balanced version of 3e and the claim made was that you can't balance 3e.

As far as the army thing does, having an actual army (of Warriors or Skeletons or Animated Objects) is fine. The issue is recruiting arbitrary numbers of PC level or higher monsters with planar binding or dominate person.


Give mundanes fun options, not powerful artifacts. Power is overrated in the face of fun to use characters.

Again, quick solution rather than perfect solution. If you were writing a new game, you would obviously want to start with the Warblade rather than the Fighter. But if you are just trying to get 3e to work, giving people who under-perform catch-up items is easy.

Artifact swords are also quite likely to also be fun options. You shouldn't give people +10 swords, you should give them things like Weapons of Legacy (but less lame). Maybe the magic sword lets you call up the spirits of its former wielders to advise or fight. Maybe the dagger is sharp enough to cut time itself and lets you use celerity or time stop (and attack people during time stop). Maybe the boe


You seem to assume malicious intent, or at least an almost exclusive focus on power, while I'm counting on the exact opposite.

Well I'm making two different arguments.

In terms of an actual game, it's not that people will expect to get to play The Wish. It's that they'll have expectations about power levels and character optimization that are different. The question of whether (and when) you use wish to get +5 to all stats doesn't have a right answer. But when confronted with it, people will have different answers. So the expectations with regard to that need to be out in the open. And so on for all sorts of power discrepancies. Using terms like "common sense" or "high/mid/low optimization" doesn't convey anything, so you should have explicit discussions.

But when you propose a solution like "wish can't make items that grant wish" it is (in my opinion) correct to push for as much power as possible. Because that's game design, and if you are going to take the time to modify the game, you should do so in an effective way. A good solution to a game-breaking problem is one that can't be broken. And unless you try to break things, you'll never know if they can be broken.

[ayvango]

If you are trying to make infinite wishes, you are already not taking the rules seriously, but trying to exploit poorly thought out spell descriptions on the part of the game developers for your own profit. The DM has every right to shut you down at that point, and if you were to have this attitude at my table, you would no longer be welcome there. It is a massive breach of the social contract implicit when everyone sits down at the gaming table, and no DM that I have ever met would be tolerant of this level of pedantry and obstructionism.

DM should not only ban but also explain things. Rules are better in defining the world than precedents. DM job is to describe world and logic behind its evolution. If some rule breaks the world, just change the rule and does not ban players who uses it. Every possibility in rules should equally be used by PC and NPC. That is fair. And that is how world moves. If there is a impossibly powerful spell, than every NPC would try his best to get hands on it. And if you have no intention to master such campaign just overwrite rules so that loophole is not available now.




No single person, or even an entire party can fix 3.5's rules. So that balanced game you're chasing doesn't exist. (Not to imply banning things is better, it's a non-fix.)

You could not know everything, but that does not meant that you should give up learning everything. Every time you found leaky rule, you should discuss and fix it. And from that point of time the game your are playing becomes better and the world more consistent.


This is exactly my point. The idea that it is "wrong" to identify problems in the rules is incredibly toxic to the prospect of good rules. Kicking someone out of the game because of a flaw in the game is the best way to ensure the game never improves.

Exact my thoughts.

Consistent rules makes consistent world. I really like such worlds. When there is logic in plot development, characters are authentic they behave accordingly to their beliefs and goals. I'm a minority judging from popular films content, where flashy effects and popular cliché wins over common sense. I prefer clever overlords (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_Overlord_List) over cinematic villains.

[ayvango]

If you were writing a new game, you would obviously want to start with the Warblade rather than the Fighter.
I made simple house rules with ACF for the Fighter class to address this issue. I name it "Academic Fighter". Instead of taking fighter bonus feat you could take academic fighter feat. You select a feat from fighter feat list and if you meets all prerequisites for it you gain all benefits of it, but not technically the feat. So you could use its benefits, but could not use the feat as pre-request for another feat or prestige class. Although academic fighter feat may be used as prerequest for obtaining another academic fighter feat. The cheese is that after proper rest (as wizard) academic fighter could spend 1 hour practising to retrain all academic feats. So the fighter is granted with ability to replace any known feat with another eligible feat every day. That makes fighter class interesting option for big tough guy.

[Deophaun]

DM job is to describe world and logic behind its evolution.
Nope. DM's job is to make sure the game is fun. Everything else flows from that. If that means sidestepping the logic behind the world, then the DM should sidestep the logic of the world. If that means NPCs play by different rules than PCs, then that's what it means. If it means the DM saying "Dude, tone it down," without banning or house ruling, then that is what it means. And if that means kicking out a player that insists upon wishing for arbitrarily high powered magic items because "It's in the Epic Handbook guidelines!" after being repeatedly told "no," then that is what it means.

[ayvango]

Nope. DM's job is to make sure the game is fun.
And there is no fun in world full of holes. Why you should do anything when outcome is not computed from your actions? There is no rules and each time your effort is judged differently basing on master's whim. If you choices means nothing, where is fun?

[martixy]

You could not know everything, but that does not meant that you should give up learning everything. Every time you found leaky rule, you should discuss and fix it. And from that point of time the game your are playing becomes better and the world more consistent.

Oh, that's true. That's why I keep a great, big, ever-expanding list of house-rules myself. It's getting kind of scary actually.

@Cosi
And you can make an effort to ensure everyone is on the same page. You know... this being a social game.

Obvious fixes to shapeshifting, binding, etc - check.
Army - you can't expect the world to not respond in some meaningful way, so balance not by rules, but by internal consistency.

As for your two arguments:
1. Game design is not some black-magic, voodoo crap. You're not factoring 2048 RSA. Most diverging loops are fairly obvious. For those that are not, there's playtesting and not stubbornly clinging to mechanics proven broken, just because that's how you played till now. Also, not getting something for nothing. This really is what it boils down to. The system is full of contrivances to ensure that. One more isn't out of place.
For example, Wish is a reality altering ability. If one who possesses it without some significant cost is not a god, that's a logical inconsistency in the world. This organically leads to the idea of Sp/Su wishes not being devoid of cost.
As far as pushing for power: Why? Are you going to release some commercially viable product to the general public, that you need as foolproof as possible? I doubt it. Here's an example: I'm a software developer. I often write things for personal use, usually the quick way. I can easily see how I can break them. I simply don't. And there is absolutely no way to make things absolutely perfect and unbreakable. It's not a feature OUR reality fundamentally allows. In addition to being a purely practical unlikelihood.

2. Expectations: Part of establishing the social contract is equalizing those.

P.S. On the consistency vs fun, I'd say the latter follows the former. In any case, they're not mutually exclusive properties.

[Deophaun]

And there is no fun in world full of holes. Why you should do anything when outcome is not computed from your actions? There is no rules and each time your effort is judged differently basing on master's whim. If you choices means nothing, where is fun?
If there is no fun in a world full of holes, why did you need to follow it with a bunch on non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with holes or not?

As for the rest: There is an entire industry that makes billions of dollars peddling games that a) have logical holes and b) have different rules for PC and NPC. They wouldn't make money hand over fist if anything that you stated was remotely true. There are even some instances where you can follow the rules of the game and the "DM's" will kick you permanently from the game, because you were using those rules to make trillions of ISK worth of Dysprosium from nothing, for example. Yet, people still play.

Such is the profound lack of fun.

[Segev]

My personal house rules for it are:

1) Wish can only create magic items of up to 25,000 gp in value (just like mundane items).
2) Candle of Invocation comes in two varieties: the lesser version, which lacks the gate functionality, and the greater version, which has it, but factors the XP cost of the spell into the cost of the magic item.
3) When a wish is granted by an entity other than the wish-maker (e.g. by a planar bound efreet), it is subject to twisting per the nature, personality, and desires of the creature in question. i.e., it'll be played to be interesting (not necessarily to screw the PCs, but not to make the game boringly trivial, either).
4) When a wish is obtained via transforming oneself into something that can do it "for free," that ability is subject to the same limiting factors the original creature had. e.g., if a Wizard shapechanges into a Zodar, he can use a (Su) wish, but cannot do so again for a year. Even if he turns into a Zodar again tomorrow, he still has used his Zodar-granted wish power within the last year, and so cannot do it again for another 364 days.

[Beheld]

4) When a wish is obtained via transforming oneself into something that can do it "for free," that ability is subject to the same limiting factors the original creature had. e.g., if a Wizard shapechanges into a Zodar, he can use a (Su) wish, but cannot do so again for a year. Even if he turns into a Zodar again tomorrow, he still has used his Zodar-granted wish power within the last year, and so cannot do it again for another 364 days.

This is an example of inferior rules fixes that people do when they should do better ones. This rule might as well be called "the Zodar Rule" because it "works" for Zodars and nothing else. If someone transforms into an Efferti in a way that grants SLAs, you aren't going to "enforce" the only three wishes per day (possibly per party member, depending on how you do it). You are going to invent a new rule, because "only 3 times a day" is, for all intents and purposes "infinity times" if you have a Gold = Power system.

You can even see you doing the same thing earlier with "the efferti rule" where Planar Binding Efferti gets you ****ed for daring to get free wishes.

And likewise, when people turn around and Planar Bind a Noble Djinn, you have to invoke the "Noble Djinn Rule" that Noble Djinn are the same thing as Djinn, so you can't planar bind them.

And if someone looks through a MM and finds another monster that can do it, well then time to make up a rule for that monster and name it after that monster. Because we can never just admit that infinity gold in a gold vs power system is a problem, and infinite wishes equals infinite gold.

[Segev]

This is an example of inferior rules fixes that people do when they should do better ones. This rule might as well be called "the Zodar Rule" because it "works" for Zodars and nothing else. If someone transforms into an Efferti in a way that grants SLAs, you aren't going to "enforce" the only three wishes per day (possibly per party member, depending on how you do it). You are going to invent a new rule, because "only 3 times a day" is, for all intents and purposes "infinity times" if you have a Gold = Power system.

You can even see you doing the same thing earlier with "the efferti rule" where Planar Binding Efferti gets you ****ed for daring to get free wishes.

And likewise, when people turn around and Planar Bind a Noble Djinn, you have to invoke the "Noble Djinn Rule" that Noble Djinn are the same thing as Djinn, so you can't planar bind them.

Agreed. It isn't perfect. However, I think Zodars are a unique case because of the ease with which you gain their wish capability. Though I suppose a Psion can use metamorphic transfer to get the Efreet's wish SLA. So that's still broken.


And if someone looks through a MM and finds another monster that can do it, well then time to make up a rule for that monster and name it after that monster. Because we can never just admit that infinity gold in a gold vs power system is a problem, and infinite wishes equals infinite gold.This, however, is an unfair and unproductive straw man, since nobody has said that "infinite wishes" is not a problem, let alone that "infinite gold" is not a problem. This thread is discussing how to resolve that problem with minimal changes that impact things unrelated to it.

[ace rooster]

My personal house rules for it are:

1) Wish can only create magic items of up to 25,000 gp in value (just like mundane items).
2) Candle of Invocation comes in two varieties: the lesser version, which lacks the gate functionality, and the greater version, which has it, but factors the XP cost of the spell into the cost of the magic item.
3) When a wish is granted by an entity other than the wish-maker (e.g. by a planar bound efreet), it is subject to twisting per the nature, personality, and desires of the creature in question. i.e., it'll be played to be interesting (not necessarily to screw the PCs, but not to make the game boringly trivial, either).
4) When a wish is obtained via transforming oneself into something that can do it "for free," that ability is subject to the same limiting factors the original creature had. e.g., if a Wizard shapechanges into a Zodar, he can use a (Su) wish, but cannot do so again for a year. Even if he turns into a Zodar again tomorrow, he still has used his Zodar-granted wish power within the last year, and so cannot do it again for another 364 days.
1 is good, but even with 2 a candle of Invocation is still wishable.

For 3, what would the nature of a wizard you cast demand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/demand.htm) on be? :smalltongue: The answer is obviously that casting demand on a wizard who is powerful enough to cast wish is a horrible idea, which is why it amuses me when people assume DMs will let calling spells on wish outsiders pass freely. It's a good rule, but not needed IMHO.

Number 4 is more general problem with shapechange; or rather, the lack of any rules to deal with expended power. Even "at will" abilities are not necessarily low power, simply draining the reserves of the creature in question little enough to be not worth tracking in a minute scale combat system. This can mean low power use, or it can mean huge reserves of power. For a caster who should have to get that power from somewhere, this distinction is important, but no rules exist. The MM is not designed to be a shapechange reference, so it fails miserably at it. Without a reference designed with shapechange in mind it will always be dysfunctional.

Personally I would retire shapechange, and replace it with lots of more specific polymorph spells built on a case by case basis (possibly learned in groups a little like summon monster). Player gives me a creature, I assign it a spell level, and prune any Su that should be Sp. This would also permit some interesting specific effects, such as requiring many targets to be turned into a hydra, or spell slots being burned to power some Su abilities. You could also permit things like "choose from a lower list to increase duration". Maybe have an optional focus that permits burning gems instead.

[Segev]

1 is good, but even with 2 a candle of Invocation is still wishable.Why, so it is. Ah well. No loophole closure there. Gonna have to deal with it being a literal genie that can be a literal genie (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LiteralGenie) and must be treated as an actual encounter with the 3 wishes as a potential reward for successful completion. Note: this is not "screw with players to punish them," but rather "play it out to make it interesting." And, if the infinite loop is still overbearingly powerful, then either house rule it further or discuss it with the players OOC to come to a gentlemen's agreement.


For 3, what would the nature of a wizard you cast demand (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/demand.htm) on be? :smalltongue: The answer is obviously that casting demand on a wizard who is powerful enough to cast wish is a horrible idea, which is why it amuses me when people assume DMs will let calling spells on wish outsiders pass freely. It's a good rule, but not needed IMHO.I believe such a wizard's nature is probably "has mind blank (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/mindBlank.htm) up." :smalltongue:


Number 4 is more general problem with shapechange; or rather, the lack of any rules to deal with expended power. Even "at will" abilities are not necessarily low power, simply draining the reserves of the creature in question little enough to be not worth tracking in a minute scale combat system. This can mean low power use, or it can mean huge reserves of power. For a caster who should have to get that power from somewhere, this distinction is important, but no rules exist. The MM is not designed to be a shapechange reference, so it fails miserably at it. Without a reference designed with shapechange in mind it will always be dysfunctional.

Personally I would retire shapechange, and replace it with lots of more specific polymorph spells built on a case by case basis (possibly learned in groups a little like summon monster). Player gives me a creature, I assign it a spell level, and prune any Su that should be Sp. This would also permit some interesting specific effects, such as requiring many targets to be turned into a hydra, or spell slots being burned to power some Su abilities. You could also permit things like "choose from a lower list to increase duration". Maybe have an optional focus that permits burning gems instead.This one, I feel, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and would be better handled by spot-ruling specific forms' abilities to be unavailable, if you're going to go that route. But then, I am a big fan of shapechange, so I'm biased.

[ayvango]

1 is good, but even with 2 a candle of Invocation is still wishable.
Why you wishes for candle of invocation? D&D economics is dull. Just wish for 25k gold. And purchase the gate spell scroll for 9k.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why you wishes for candle of invocation? D&D economics is dull. Just wish for 25k gold. And purchase the gate spell scroll for 9k.

Because the candle requires no special skill to operate. Though I believe the standard method is to use the candle to summon an efreet or solar or some-such, then wish for a ring of three wishes from that creature, then uses two of those wishes as you see fit and the third to wish for a new candle of invocation. This results in a NI loop that gets you two wishes at a time while sustaining itself and, ultimately, just as many wishes as you can possibibly concoct.

What? Just because I think it's BS doesn't mean I don't understand it.

[ShaneMRoth]

The only way these Wish Loopholes work are if the DM is somehow convinced to refrain from doing her job. A DM has an affirmative duty to actively adjudicate every Wish that is cast in her game.

I strongly concur with Johnbragg and Keltest. Sometimes, the DM must adjudicate and sometimes that means saying NO.


My house policy on Wish spells goes something like this:


“The Wish spell allows characters to alter the fabric of reality in the game. This requires DM adjudication. Each Wish is unique and can only be adjudicated after the Wish is described. It’s not possible for the DM to guarantee that all Wishes, no matter how they are worded, will perform in a mechanically predictable manner. The DM will not knowingly unbalance the game when granting a Wish, and will take those steps necessary to restore game balance in the event that a granted Wish compromises the balance of the game. If you want your character to cast a mechanically predictable spell, try Magic Missile.

Wishes from Supernatural Abilities and Spell-Like Abilities. Under no circumstances shall any Wish have an unlimited Experience Point budget, as this would clearly compromise game balance and willing suspension of disbelief. The DM may, at his sole discretion, exempt a character who gains access to the Wish spell by way of an SU or SLA ability from the initial 5,000 experience point cost that attaches to Wishes so cast. This experience point exemption shall in no way be construed as a right or an entitlement to any player. This exemption may be revoked by the DM at any time, for any reason, and without explanation. All experience point costs that exceed the initial 5,000 experience point cost of a Wish shall be paid in full under the rules governing the Wish spell, as adjudicated by the DM. In the event that the character is unable to cover the balance of the experience point cost of a Wish so cast, then the Wish shall fail as if it had never been cast at all.

Regarding the Shapechange spell. Under no circumstances shall it be more mechanically efficient to cast the Wish spell by casting any other non-epic spell in the game, as this would clearly compromise game balance and willing suspension of disbelief. The DM may, at his sole discretion, disallow a character from using any non-epic spell in a manner that functions as a Wish spell. A character who gains access to a Supernatural Ability or Spell-Like Ability to cast the Wish Spell by virtue of the Shapechange spell, or any other non-epic spell, shall pay the entire experience point cost pursuant to the rules governing the Wish spell, as adjudicated by the DM.”

[ayvango]

So? These characters don't adventure alone and a cleric can replenish everyone's health between battles anyway. Trying to disallow cheap, easy healing just forces somebody to play the walking band-aid.
I accidentally run on example of how much WoTC values infinite healing. We have something trivial like:

This white gold ring continually allows a living wearer to heal 1 point of damage per level every hour rather than every day. (This ability cannot be aided by the Heal skill.) Nonlethal damage heals at a rate of 1 point of damage per level every 5 minutes. If the wearer loses a limb, an organ, or any other body part while wearing this ring, the ring regenerates it as the spell. In either case, only damage taken while wearing the ring is regenerated.
And it costs 90000 gp. Ninety thousands of gold pieces for 20 hp / hour. So every similar custom item whichever spell is used for creating should cost as much. Pricing for custom items in DMG is only guideline and existing items overrides it. So, WoTC says "No" to easy available infinite healing items. And I could perceive their point.

[Necroticplague]

I accidentally run on example of how much WoTC values infinite healing. We have something trivial like:

And it costs 90000 gp. Ninety thousands of gold pieces for 20 hp / hour. So every similar custom item whichever spell is used for creating should cost as much. Pricing for custom items in DMG is only guideline and existing items overrides it. So, WoTC says "No" to easy available infinite healing items. And I could perceive their point.

And on the other end, we have incredibly cheap options that show they don't think it's such a big deal, like:
-Feral:scaling fast healing, minimum 1. 360 HP/hour, LA1.
-Troll-blooded. Regeneration 1. 360 hp/hour (not including fire or acid), 1 feat.
-Dread Necromancer Carnal Touch. 1d8 healing for undead. 360-2880 (average 1620) hp/hour, 1 level.
Considering the Collar of Umbral Metamorphosis pegs getting a +1 template at 22K , and Otyugh Hole pegs getting a feat at 3K range, the problem here is that the Ring of Regeneration is way overpriced and near-useless, not that infinite out-of-combat healing is powerful.

[ayvango]

-Feral:scaling fast healing, minimum 1. 360 HP/hour, LA1.
-Troll-blooded. Regeneration 1. 360 hp/hour (not including fire or acid), 1 feat.
-Dread Necromancer Carnal Touch. 1d8 healing for undead. 360-2880 (average 1620) hp/hour, 1 level.
Otyugh Hole pegs getting a feat at 3K range
- LA is too high price for a magic item.
- Troll-blooded is broken like many other things from dragon magazine like initiate of the faerie mysteries. Consider Necropolitan Troll-blooded.
- There are other classes with single level dip that gives ability for infinite healing. But that is still a level. Crusader and Shadow Sun Ninja could heal (as expected from book of the nine cheats)
- Cleric could sacrifice 4 feats for the infinite healing with the innate spell. Too many feats
- I know about Otyugh Hole, but no feat is spare. 8 feats (including otyugh hole) is precious slots for a character build.

[zergling.exe]

- LA is too high price for a magic item.
- Troll-blooded is broken like many other things from dragon magazine like initiate of the faerie mysteries. Consider Necropolitan Troll-blooded.
- There are other classes with single level dip that gives ability for infinite healing. But that is still a level. Crusader and Shadow Sun Ninja could heal (as expected from book of the nine cheats)
- Cleric could sacrifice 4 feats for the infinite healing with the innate spell. Too many feats
- I know about Otyugh Hole, but no feat is spare. 8 feats (including otyugh hole) is precious slots for a character build.

Highlighted does not work. Losing your Con score immediately disables regeneration:

A creature must have a Constitution score to have the regeneration ability.

[Deox]

- LA is too high price for a magic item.
- Troll-blooded is broken like many other things from dragon magazine like initiate of the faerie mysteries. Consider Necropolitan Troll-blooded.
Troll-blooded is strong, but far from being broken. Fire is extremely common and by the virtue of being Necropolitan, you no longer have a CON score, thus no regeneration.


- There are other classes with single level dip that gives ability for infinite healing. But that is still a level. Crusader and Shadow Sun Ninja could heal (as expected from book of the nine cheats)
I take issue with what the book is called. The Tome of Battle is a fine and well balanced subsystem. If you want a book of cheats, look no further than the PHB.



- Cleric could sacrifice 4 feats for the infinite healing with the innate spell. Too many feats
This can easily be improved upon. Extend, Persist, DMM: Persist. I count 3 feats. Heck, it can be done better. Just wanted to point it out.



- I know about Otyugh Hole, but no feat is spare. 8 feats (including otyugh hole) is precious slots for a character build.
The O-Hole trick gives a free feat which does not count against your normal. There's always the DCFS, Psychic Reformation, purchasing items (which grant psudeo-feats), both regular and PrCs which grant bonus feats, flaws, and numerous other ways.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I accidentally run on example of how much WoTC values infinite healing. We have something trivial like:

And it costs 90000 gp. Ninety thousands of gold pieces for 20 hp / hour. So every similar custom item whichever spell is used for creating should cost as much. Pricing for custom items in DMG is only guideline and existing items overrides it. So, WoTC says "No" to easy available infinite healing items. And I could perceive their point.

A) The ring of regeneration is -grossly- overpriced. At bare minimum, it should also allow the same kind of effect it had in 2e, where you could come back from -any- amount of damage and reattach severed limbs. 90000gp is enough for 120 wands of lesser vigor; 66,000 hp. That's enough to bring bahamut back from the brink of death a few dozen times.

B) That's early 3e. WotC got a -lot- better about that sort of thing as the game's design progressed. See wands of lesser vigor, a one level dip in dragon disciple, or any of a number of other options.

C) Who was talking about custom items?

D) Thread necromancy.

[Gallowglass]

[QUOTE=Kelb_Panthera;20768246

D) Thread necromancy.[/QUOTE]

https://imgflip.com/s/meme/The-Most-Interesting-Man-In-The-World.jpg

"I don't always necro threads...

...but when I do... it is a LordDrako Vampire Avyango thread."