Funny "Wish" thread & Any legit Wishes??

[55904753zx]

As many players know, The "Wish" spell is pretty much like a "Monkey Paw." In the story, three wishes are granted to the owner of the monkey's paw, but the wishes come with an enormous price for interfering with fate.

And all i hear is nothing but sadness and/or funny death events with the "wish" spell making me think that this spell is a useless expensive high-ranked spell that is better to burn the scroll or just wish for a delicious normal-sized healthy sandwich and keep going with the adventure

But now i wonder what kind of wishes can be "legit" so nothing bad happens and the DM doesn't murder you and your whole party?

Also i would like to hear your funny wish events :smalltongue:

[Reboot]

But now i wonder what kind of wishes can be "legit" so nothing bad happens and the DM doesn't murder you and your whole party?

There's a list of "safe" effects. For 3.5 (PF is nearly identical):

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm
A wish can produce any one of the following effects.
Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.
Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.
Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from casting a spell or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead.
Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level.
Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.
Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.


You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)

For 5E, there's a caveat for most of the list, but still a bunch of non-twistable effects beyond that risk:

http://www.5esrd.com/spellcasting/all-spells/w/wish
The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don’t need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.

Alternatively, you can create one of the following effects of your choice:
You create one object of up to 25,000 gp in value that isn’t a magic item. The object can be no more than 300 feet in any dimension, and it appears in an unoccupied space you can see on the ground.
You allow up to twenty creatures that you can see to regain all hit points, and you end all effects on them described in the greater restoration spell.
You grant up to ten creatures that you can see resistance to a damage type you choose.
You grant up to ten creatures you can see immunity to a single spell or other magical effect for 8 hours. For instance, you could make yourself and all your companions immune to a lich’s life drain attack.
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.

You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong....

The stress of casting this spell to produce any effect other than duplicating another spell weakens you. After enduring that stress, each time you cast a spell until you finish a long rest, you take 1d10 necrotic damage per level of that spell. This damage can’t be reduced or prevented in any way. In addition, your Strength drops to 3, if it isn’t 3 or lower already, for 2d4 days. For each of those days that you spend resting and doing nothing more than light activity, your remaining recovery time decreases by 2 days. Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.

[Arbane]

My party got a wish from some sort of powerful marid-like creature in exchange for something valuable it wanted - after some argument, we got the captain of the ship we were on to wish for us to be able the sail the ship through the skies, under the crew's control).

We got a flying ship! ...And the emnity of some sky-god who doesn't like sailing-ships in his domain...

So the wish came out fine, but there were annoying consequences nonetheless.

[55904753zx]

There's a list of "safe" effects. For 3.5 (PF is nearly identical)
wwwd20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm
For 5E, there's a caveat for most of the list, but still a bunch of non-twistable effects beyond that risk:
www5esrd.com/spellcasting/all-spells/w/wish
The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don’t need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect


You just increased my wisdom to 20, Thanks! :D (PD. I deleted most of the quote because rules & reasons)

[AuraTwilight]

There's been a lot of wishes over my years of GMing, and most of them are pretty good because my players are genre-savvy.

I've recently allowed a homebrew class in my games, though, where the premise is the character gets 1 wish every level, and is meant to make creative wishes that will give them things to do/contribute to the party. I can't wait for the ensuing mess when someone uses it.

[DRD1812]

We somehow acquired a luck elemental, which was basically a magical duck full of wishes. We wound up using our wishing duck to nuke the BBEG in the last session of our last campaign. I felt a little bad for the GM afterwards. He'd spent all this time making a colossal, vaguely humanoid stirge swarm out of coat hangers and garbage bags, and he could only look mournful as it on the shelf, never to be used.

[erikun]

In general, the intended use of Wish is as a last-ditch resort when you're out of options. Sure, it can replicate any spell and do so with just one round of casting... but the tradeoff is something that will need to be eventually dealt with. Sure, the party who is facing TPK as an alternative might find the chanciness of Wish to be an attractive alternative, but that doesn't mean it should be something the party regularly relies on.

[nedz]

"I Wish we were all in Arn"

The room went quite after that one - Arn was a character in a previous campaign - and then half the players turned to look at me, whilst the other half face-palmed.

I decided that someone had named a village after Arn, well why not, and the party teleported there. Now there was snow on the Ground in Arn and, fresh from the tropics, the PCs really weren't dressed for the weather. Still no real harm done - just an unexpected side quest to get home.

"I Wish we were all back home and in one piece"
Fortunately the party did have another wish to sort that one out.

"I Wish I had a beer"
Said by character carrying a Luck Blade - which no one had bothered identifying.

Lots of boring wishes which worked, and the odd Wish War (High level combat), which I don't recall.

[Strigon]

"I Wish we were all in Arn"

The room went quite after that one - Arn was a character in a previous campaign - and then half the players turned to look at me, whilst the other half face-palmed.

I decided that someone had named a village after Arn, well why not, and the party teleported there. Now there was snow on the Ground in Arn and, fresh from the tropics, the PCs really weren't dressed for the weather. Still no real harm done - just an unexpected side quest to get home.

I'm curious how a character could have access to a wish, but also couldn't just teleport home (or similar).

[Harhoult]

My only encounters with Wish was through DM handing out things he probably shouldn't. Such as, coins that act as Wish when flipped into a well. Thematic, sure, but not something lvl 3 murderhobos should get.
Then again, they did come in handy for dealing with than lesser demon he sic'd on us, so yay?

[The Bandicoot]

I had a crazy game where the players had access to The Deck of Many Things. The bard decided to play a "Pick a card any card" trick with a random dwarf wrestler NPC. Two incredibly lucky picks and rolls later and this dwarf has 6 wishes and is none the wiser.

I ruled that the first two wishes would be "I wish you'd shut the CENSORED up." and "I wish I had an ale" After that he'd jokingly say "I wish I was the best wrestler in all the planes" and thus The Amazing T-Bone was born, a luchadore dwarf that cannot lose a grapple check.

Later on the party ran into his manager frantically calling out "I've lost T-bone!"
https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Los_Tiburon
Brownie points if you get the reference.

EDIT: and T-bone still has three wishes left.

[nedz]

I'm curious how a character could have access to a wish, but also couldn't just teleport home (or similar).

Oh - they got back after a few days. They were mid level and had a wish somehow. They basically had to find some one who could teleport them - who also knew where they wanted to go well enough to actually do it.

[Jay R]

My experience is that wishes intended to break the game break the PC instead. Wishes intended to serve the DM's plot serve the PC as well.

One of the safest approaches to a wish is to wish for the safe return of the king's daughter. Your reward comes from the king, and is not subject to the risks of wish magic.

[Reboot]

"I Wish we were all back home and in one piece"
Fortunately the party did have another wish to sort that one out.

...wouldn't that have been a TPK mess?

[55904753zx]

Nedz: "I Wish we were all back home and in one piece"
Fortunately the party did have another wish to sort that one out.


...wouldn't that have been a TPK mess?

Ya, everyone combined in a mutant-like homunculus and stuff D:

[Jay R]

Too many wishes are attempts to get many wishes instead of one. When adjudicating wishes, I like to have the wish-granting item glow purple. And it stops as soon as a second element is brought in to the wish.


"I Wish we were all back home and in one piece"

DM: The ring takes on a purple glow as you begin the wish, and the glow shimmers while you say, "I Wish we were all back home..." The glow stops suddenly as you finish with, "...and in one piece." You feel yourselves transported in a purplish cloud. As it dissipates, you find yourselves at home, in exactly the same condition you were in when you started.

This is the same way I'd treat a wish to meet the king and convince him to give us land, or a wish for +1 to STR and CON, or any other attempt to get more then one effect.

[nedz]

Too many wishes are attempts to get many wishes instead of one. When adjudicating wishes, I like to have the wish-granting item glow purple. And it stops as soon as a second element is brought in to the wish.



DM: The ring takes on a purple glow as you begin the wish, and the glow shimmers while you say, "I Wish we were all back home..." The glow stops suddenly as you finish with, "...and in one piece." You feel yourselves transported in a purplish cloud. As it dissipates, you find yourselves at home, in exactly the same condition you were in when you started.

This is the same way I'd treat a wish to meet the king and convince him to give us land, or a wish for +1 to STR and CON, or any other attempt to get more then one effect.

I have been known to take the word and as a delimiter between wishes, even in one case having an Efreeti say "Granted" half way through a particularly egregious attempt, but this was just an unfortunate turn of phrase.

[Jay R]

If the ring had multiple wishes, I'd say, "The ring takes on a purple glow as you begin the wish, and the glow shimmers while you say, "I Wish we were all back home..." As you finish with, "...and in one piece," it glows green. You all feel yourselves transported in a purplish cloud. As it dissipates, you find yourselves at home, momentarily caught up in a green cloud, as you all your wounds heal until you are back in your original condition, in one piece."

I don't like hurting people with their wishes, but I have no qualms at all about having them accidentally use more wishes than they intended, when they are asking for more than one effect.

[nedz]

I don't like hurting people with their wishes, but I have no qualms at all about having them accidentally use more wishes than they intended, when they are asking for more than one effect.

Which is exactly what happened in the example. 1st wish -oops; 2nd wish - fixed. No one died - they were only slightly too intimate.

[Jenerix525]

DM: The ring takes on a purple glow as you begin the wish, and the glow shimmers while you say, "I Wish we were all back home..." The glow stops suddenly as you finish with, "...and in one piece." You feel yourselves transported in a purplish cloud. As it dissipates, you find yourselves at home, in exactly the same condition you were in when you started.

This is the same way I'd treat a wish to meet the king and convince him to give us land, or a wish for +1 to STR and CON, or any other attempt to get more then one effect.


If the ring had multiple wishes, I'd say, "The ring takes on a purple glow as you begin the wish, and the glow shimmers while you say, "I Wish we were all back home..." As you finish with, "...and in one piece," it glows green. You all feel yourselves transported in a purplish cloud. As it dissipates, you find yourselves at home, momentarily caught up in a green cloud, as you all your wounds heal until you are back in your original condition, in one piece."

I don't like hurting people with their wishes, but I have no qualms at all about having them accidentally use more wishes than they intended, when they are asking for more than one effect.

So, would your players get what they want with X single-wish rings instead of a single X-wish ring?
Or would you have a second ring immediately pick up after the first?

Edit: At least tell me you say something to the effect of "Are you sure you phrase it with those exact words?"

[Jay R]

So, would your players get what they want with X single-wish rings instead of a single X-wish ring?
Or would you have a second ring immediately pick up after the first?

A wish-bearing item only works if the wish-bearing items are worn or held in a usable way. I once had a PC who was holding a lucksword, but didn't know it. He said, that he wished his armor was magical - and suddenly, it was. After some discussion, he said, "I just wish I understood what just happened." I said, "You suddenly realize that your sword had three wishes. The first one made your armor magical, and the second one made you understand that the wishes were there."


Edit: At least tell me you say something to the effect of "Are you sure you phrase it with those exact words?"

Not after they start phrasing it, but I try to make some comment about it in general when they first know they have wishes. But "are you sure?" is how a DM tries to control what players do with their characters.

[Madbox]

Let's not forget games with bad grammar. For instance, "I wish I was the most powerful wizard in the world."

Okay, the past now changes so that you used to be that powerful. But you are not powerful currently. Shoulda used "were," not "was".

[Strigon]

Not after they start phrasing it, but I try to make some comment about it in general when they first know they have wishes. But "are you sure?" is how a DM tries to control what players do with their characters.

Or it's a way to say "you're playing a supernaturally intelligent and wise being that toys with the fabric of reality daily. You can come up with something less ridiculous than that."

[Jay R]

Or it's a way to say "you're playing a supernaturally intelligent and wise being that toys with the fabric of reality daily. You can come up with something less ridiculous than that."

With wishes? Not at all. I assume that you are working with a extremely powerful but mindless force of magic, and your input to that force must be as correct as those used in programming a computer or driving a car.

But really, "are you sure"" is a do-over. I don't give them when the die gives a random roll of 1; why should I give them when players do something just as bad that is completely within their own control?

[Please note: I don't try to twist wishes away from their plain meaning. But I do give them the most exact meaning of the actual words used. Sometimes this means that wishes are wasted, but I can't remember using one to actually hurt the PCs]

[Reboot]

With wishes? Not at all. I assume that you are working with a extremely powerful but mindless force of magic, and your input to that force must be as correct as those used in programming a computer or driving a car.

Depends - is the party wizard casting a Wish spell, or is some sort of genie they've found casting it? (And, in the latter case, are they benevolent or malicious)

[Jay R]

Depends - is the party wizard casting a Wish spell, or is some sort of genie they've found casting it? (And, in the latter case, are they benevolent or malicious)

In either case, I assume that they are directing powerful yet mindless magical forces with words. The words better be right.

[RickAllison]

In either case, I assume that they are directing powerful yet mindless magical forces with words. The words better be right.

If it is a wizard casting Wish or using a mindless item, then sure. The wish can be very literal because those words form a direct link to the incomprehensible magics. By contrast, a wish-granting entity shouldn't act the same way. They are lawyers, intermediaries between the user and the magics who know the loopholes to more accurately manipulate the magic.

"I wish to be the most powerful wizard in the world"

An unintelligent ring is going to be literal, it is going to make you the most powerful wizard in the world by the route with the least change. Now "power" has many definitions and can be in so many ways, but the spell needs to make you more powerful than them (and it should shy away from being subjective). Oooo, boost his Strength to 21, his physical power will be greater than all other wizards (or maybe 23, if a wizard used the appropriate Tomr).

A malevolent genie can twist the imprecision of what world by putting the user in a Demiplane. They are the most powerful wizard in that world.

A benevolent genie can go the other way, correcting the wish to be more in-line with the user's desires. This is where she might say "What kind of power do you wish? Magical, social?" Of course, the wish will still try and accomplish the wish with a minimum of change, so the wizard would be more likely to gain an extra spell slot of some low level that does technically make him the most raw powerful wizard in the world. Maybe a fourth 2nd-level slot?

[IShouldntBehere]

"I wish for [Manufactured Term] to be achieved, as defined by this document"

The document then defines the term in the terms of highly-structured descriptions of states to be achieved. The states are arranged in a hierarchical fashion with the states being given the most preferential treatment are those guaranteeing your perception of the results will be unaltered, that you wont' be surprised by the result, that where clauses my conflict with each other you're given explicit rights to clarify the resolution, mandatory disclosure of all possible consequences above a certain defined danger threshold, and a mandate for the wisher-granter to act in "Good Faith, as the wisher would if creating all effects by their own will".

Once the clauses describing how the wish should be granted, along with the non-harm, disclosure and good faith measures are done, make sure to clarify that this collection of states is a single concept and event and only counts as a single wish all-inclusive.

Only then start to describe the effects you want. Be as specific as you can but your earlier efforts should guard you at least somewhat from "Monkey Paw" events.

The point of all this is to make sure that the clauses to make the wish safe are part and parcel of the wish itself, such that if you at any point see the result of your wish and go "Oh. This sucks I had not foreseen this. Woe is me" the wish has by definition not been granted.


That being said as a GM, if I were putting in some literal wish-granter and player said "I don't trust this thing, I want to word my wish carefully" I'd probably just ask for an INT check to save us both the time and energy of RPing out 10 hours of legalese.

[Jay R]

"I wish to be the most powerful wizard in the world"

Some wishes are impossible. A wish cannot grant more than a single ninth level spell, so if there is already a wizard in the world who can cast more than one ninth level spell (even if she can only cast one per day), then this is beyond the power of a wish.


"I wish for [Manufactured Term] to be achieved, as defined by this document"

If the document has more than one independent clause, then the ring and the first clause glow purple, while an item or effect appears according to that clause alone.

Only.
One.
Effect.

Having said that, if the intent is both clear and the most reasonable interpretation of the words, and there is no intent to hurt the game, I tend to give people what they intended. I certainly don't need extra clauses to state that the item should be usable by the wisher, uncursed, and fully charged.

But only the first thing they intended.

Again, reason should prevail, and there are always judgement calls. For instance, the first of these is one wish. The second is two wishes.
1. I wish for a Keen Thundering Guisarme +4.
2. I wish for a Guisarme +4. And it should be Keen and Thundering.

To be fair, I've never been tempted by really stupid player phrasing, as some DMs have. A friend of mine once had a player shoot an arrow of slaying. It was so effective, that the player said, "Man, I wish I had a b*ttload of these arrows."

Be honest - where would you have the arrows appear?

[IShouldntBehere]

Some wishes are impossible. A wish cannot grant more than a single ninth level spell, so if there is already a wizard in the world who can cast more than one ninth level spell (even if she can only cast one per day), then this is beyond the power of a wish.



If the document has more than one independent clause, then the ring and the first clause glow purple, while an item or effect appears according to that clause alone.

Only.
One.
Effect.

Having said that, if the intent is both clear and the most reasonable interpretation of the words, and there is no intent to hurt the game, I tend to give people what they intended. I certainly don't need extra clauses to state that the item should be usable by the wisher, uncursed, and fully charged.

But only the first thing they intended.

For the sake of this post not being 80 pages long, I'm going to cut out all the specifics and safety language but the general form is something along these lines:


"I wish for Wachumba-Rabumba"

Wachumba-Rabumba is when ~
-A
-B
-C
-D

Wachumba-Rabumba is only Wachumba-Rabumba when A,B,C,D conditions are met. Any state not (A && B && C && D) is not Wachumba-Rabumba."


Wachumba-Rabumba is just one thing, even if the definition of Wachumba-Rabumba includes 4 elements. A cake does not cease to be a cake simply because it is made up for flour, eggs, sugar and butter. Nor is the cake four separate concepts, the cake single thing composed of 4 others.

Similarly just because Wachumba-Rabumba consists of you being 40 feet tall, the richest man in the world, being able to transform into a gorilla at will and having your own TV show does not make it cease to be Wachumba-Rabumba. Wachumba-Rabumba is a single thing composed of 4 others.

For the "One thing" definition to hold in way such that it could "Give me a cake" and not "Give me Wachumba-Rabumba" and remain internally consistent it would have to define "One Thing" as some single quantum change in the state of universe, far below anything conceivable by mortals or describable by mortal language it really couldn't be anything usefully thought of as a "Wish".


This is fine if your wish-granting engine is wholly arbitrary rather than internally consistent, listening to your wish and then basically just doing whatever it wants that may or may not be related to the wish at all. However if you're going for "You get what you ask for no more no less" that doesn't work.

[DavidSh]

To be fair, I've never been tempted by really stupid player phrasing, as some DMs have. A friend of mine once had a player shoot an arrow of slaying. It was so effective, that the player said, "Man, I wish I had a b*ttload of these arrows."

Be honest - where would you have the arrows appear?

Though, "butt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_butt)" is a technical term in archery.

[nedz]

In either case, I assume that they are directing powerful yet mindless magical forces with words. The words better be right.

That's the OD&D and 1E version.

In 2E Wishes were granted by the local power (whatever that means is up to the DM) so, for example, in your own local friendly temple etc.: you get might what you wanted rather than what you said, within the usual limits, but in the middle of an enemy temple you are despoiling: the wish gets twisted.

In 3E - it's just a spell, with more clearly defined parameters.

[Jay R]

For the sake of this post not being 80 pages long, I'm going to cut out all the specifics and safety language but the general form is something along these lines:

"I wish for Wachumba-Rabumba"
...
Wachumba-Rabumba is only Wachumba-Rabumba when A,B,C,D conditions are met. Any state not (A && B && C && D) is not Wachumba-Rabumba."

Then becoming Wachumba-Rarumba may not be possible through a single wish. A wish can replace any one spell, but it does not have more power than a ninth level spell.

If becoming Hakuna Heigh-ho Fragilistic Bibbidy Chim Cheree requires being 40 feet tall, with 18 tentacles, 23 mouths, with swimming ability and wings for flying, that's one effect because one spell can do it (polymorph). But if it also requires owning a magical bedknob, then it's two effects, even if you try to re-define the language.


Wachumba-Rabumba is just one thing, even if the definition of Wachumba-Rabumba includes 4 elements. A cake does not cease to be a cake simply because it is made up for flour, eggs, sugar and butter. Nor is the cake four separate concepts, the cake single thing composed of 4 others.

Similarly just because Wachumba-Rabumba consists of you being 40 feet tall, the richest man in the world, being able to transform into a gorilla at will and having your own TV show does not make it cease to be Wachumba-Rabumba. Wachumba-Rabumba is a single thing composed of 4 others.

You are using "composed of" in two very different senses.

A cake is one thing. Like everything in the universe above the level of a quark, it is composed of smaller elements, but it is one thing, as anybody would define a thing. Being larger, having more money, having a new ability, and having at TV show are four different unrelated attributes (not things), and becoming so requires four effects. Putting a nonsense word in front of it doesn't change the limits of a wish spell.


For the "One thing" definition to hold in way such that it could "Give me a cake" and not "Give me Wachumba-Rabumba" and remain internally consistent it would have to define "One Thing" as some single quantum change in the state of universe, far below anything conceivable by mortals or describable by mortal language it really couldn't be anything usefully thought of as a "Wish".

And yet a cake really is one thing, as anybody in the world defines a thing. And being forty foot tall is a physical condition. Being the richest man in the world requires owning many things (and nobody else owning as many). Being able to turn into a gorilla is an ability, and having a television show requires the work of many people. None of these is a "thing" in the strict sense in which a cake is a thing.

The fact that English has some generic words like "thing" does not give you the ability to get four separate wishes out of a wish.


This is fine if your wish-granting engine is wholly arbitrary rather than internally consistent, listening to your wish and then basically just doing whatever it wants that may or may not be related to the wish at all. However if you're going for "You get what you ask for no more no less" that doesn't work.

Quite the opposite, really. I am being internally consistent. You are trying to make it look I'm not by treating Wachumba-Rabumba very differently from a cake, as is proven by the fact that if you wanted to wish for a cake, you would not need to try to redefine the English language to pretend that it's one thing.

But even if I bought into your language change, then being Wachumba-Rabumba would merely be beyond the power of a single wish, since it is beyond the power of a single spell*.

*Yes, I'm using the D&D definition of a spell. If the Wish were in Fantasy Hero, I would be talking about the Active Points in the power, and in other games I would use other definitions of the limitation. Buit the original post referred to a DM, and the first reply gave the specific limits from 3.5e. I think I'm safe assuming the D&D rules here.

[IShouldntBehere]

Then becoming Wachumba-Rarumba may not be possible through a single wish. A wish can replace any one spell, but it does not have more power than a ninth level spell.

...
The fact that English has some generic words like "thing" does not give you the ability to get four separate wishes out of a wish.



Quite the opposite, really. I am being internally consistent. You are trying to make it look I'm not by treating Wachumba-Rabumba very differently from a cake, as is proven by the fact that if you wanted to wish for a cake, you would not need to try to redefine the English language to pretend that it's one thing.

But even if I bought into your language change, then being Wachumba-Rabumba would merely be beyond the power of a single wish, since it is beyond the power of a single spell*.

*Yes, I'm using the D&D definition of a spell. If the Wish were in Fantasy Hero, I would be talking about the Active Points in the power, and in other games I would use other definitions of the limitation. Buit the original post referred to a DM, and the first reply gave the specific limits from 3.5e. I think I'm safe assuming the D&D rules here.

If the wish stipulated "You may ask for a wish, using only terms defined in the English dictionary" this would be true, but it doesn't. Even if it did concepts & things can still composed from multiple others in the way I'm putting forward. For example "I wish for everyone in the Kingdom of Slacnia to be killed" is a single wish, yet is functionally the same as:

Please kill:
-Person A
-Person B
-Person C
-Person D
-Person E
...~

So to is the wish "I wish for Santa to give everyone in Slacnia, their ideal X-mas Gift". This is a single thing but is functionally equivalent to

"Please Give Person A Gift 1"
"Please Give Person B Gift 2"
"Please Give Person C Gift 3"
...~


That's just the way concepts work, they can be composed of objects, actions and relationships between those things etc..., etc.... Even if I'm only allowed to use plain English I can make the wish as follows without the "nonsense" word:

"I wish that a single set of state-changes takes places within the universe, where the set of state changes is..
{stuff}

."

A "set of state changes" is a single discrete thing and it matters not what that set of changes contains. Terms like "Wachumba-Rabumba", "Cake", "Run", "Kill everyone" are simple ease-of-reference short hand for various sets of states and changes on them. In fact it doesn't even have to be specific to English and its quirks, you could even do so with any form of communication that allows for abstraction.

[Jay R]

If the wish stipulated "You may ask for a wish, using only terms defined in the English dictionary" this would be true, but it doesn't. Even if it did concepts & things can still composed from multiple others in the way I'm putting forward. For example "I wish for everyone in the Kingdom of Slacnia to be killed" is a single wish, yet is functionally the same as:

<snip>

A "set of state changes" is a single discrete thing and it matters not what that set of changes contains. Terms like "Wachumba-Rabumba", "Cake", "Run", "Kill everyone" are simple ease-of-reference short hand for various sets of states and changes on them. In fact it doesn't even have to be specific to English and its quirks, you could even do so with any form of communication that allows for abstraction.

First, let's deal with the red herring. A set of state changes is not one discrete thing; it is several discrete things, just as a dollar bill is one discrete thing and 100 pennies are 100 discrete items, even though they have the same total value."Discrete" means "individually separate and distinct". But that's a trivial issue of word usage. You meant that a set of state changes is a single collective thing, just as a set of 100 pennies might be considered a single collection of things.

Now, on to the real issues:

If that's how you adjudicate wishes in your game, great. It's not how they will work in any game I run. But by every set of rules I've seen:

A wish won't kill more than one person - and he'll have a save chance. [Some versions of the rules suggest that the wish will merely move your character to the far future, when that character is already dead.]
And a wish will not produce more than one present (unless some spell can produce them all).

A set of state changes is more than one state change, even with the word "set" put in there. In can be one thing in the sense of a collective noun, but that doesn't change the limitations in the rules.

Original D&D: "As with any wishes, the wishes granted ... must be of limited power in order to maintain balance in the game. This requires utmost discretion on the part of the referee."
AD&D 1e & 2e: "Greedy wishes will usually end in disaster for the wisher." "This discretionary power is necessary to maintain game balance."
AD&D 3.5e: " A wish can produce any one of the following effects."
<long list, including duplicating another spell, or creating one item of up to $25,000 in value. Full list available in the 2nd post in this thread, courtesy of Reboot.>
" You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)" [Emphasis added]

You will not convince me to give the ninth-level spell "wish" abilities beyond what a ninth-level spell can do, or abilities that the rules specifically disallow.

But I'm not suggesting rules for the games you run. I'm merely telling you the way the rules work in my games, based on my reading of the rules.

[IShouldntBehere]

First, let's deal with the red herring. A set of state changes is not one discrete thing; it is several discrete things, just as a dollar bill is one discrete thing and 100 pennies are 100 discrete items, even though they have the same total value."Discrete" means "individually separate and distinct". But that's a trivial issue of word usage. You meant that a set of state changes is a single collective thing, just as a set of 100 pennies might be considered a single collection of things.

I meant what I said, and said what I meant. A Set of X is a discrete thing, individually separate and distinct from things not that set. A Set of X is no more a collective than dollar bill is a collective cellulose molecules, ink droplets and reflective foil. If a wish cannot grant me Set of X on the basis of it being a collective of other items, it cannot grant me a dollar bill because it is a collective of other items, nor could it grant me a single molecule because it too is a collective atoms, which in turn a collective of various things subatomic.

For our wish engine to consistently grant a dollar which is a collective of various items grouped into a distinct unit but not any other arbitrary collective grouped into a distinct unit it must provide something other clearly defined limitation. These limitations would have to be a bit more rigid than what is usually included in the wording of wish, even the "partial fulfillment" clause is rather weak to definitions that make the wish indivisible if we're operating the magic as a logic engine where it plays out wishes literally.



If that's how you adjudicate wishes in your game, great. It's not how they will work in any game I run. But by every set of rules I've seen:
-
But I'm not suggesting rules for the games you run. I'm merely telling you the way the rules work in my games, based on my reading of the rules.

I'd probably rule similarly if I was even allowing something as doofy as wish (I probably wouldn't), that really doesn't say much beyond the fact I'm willing to make the wish engine arbitrary and/or inconsistent, because I don't find internal consistency or rationality to be particularly valuable in the context of a wish engine. However the thrust of the of the conversation at the time I entered was rather about wish wordings and "getting what you asked for" at the time I entered, that's what I chose to initially comment on.

[Jay R]

A Set of X is no more a collective than dollar bill is a collective cellulose molecules, ink droplets and reflective foil.

If you believe that a set of unlike attributes (your example was 40 feet of height, being richer than anyone else, being able to turn into a gorilla, and having a TV show) is no more a collective than a dollar bill, then we will never agree on this topic.

We've each defended our position sufficiently, and each person reading has reached his or her own conclusion. I think we're done.

Thank you for explaining your position so fully.

[ClintACK]

"I wish for [Manufactured Term] to be achieved, as defined by this document"

...

The point of all this is to make sure that the clauses to make the wish safe are part and parcel of the wish itself, such that if you at any point see the result of your wish and go "Oh. This sucks I had not foreseen this. Woe is me" the wish has by definition not been granted.

Several thoughts.

Start with:
You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish.

I read this as: The Wish spell has a certain amount of power. Whatever artificial-intelligence-construct or supernatural-being is parsing the language of the Wish doesn't *try* to twist the wording if it can grant you what you ask -- but if you're asking too much the wish-granting-entity (hereafter, WGE) will strain to find some way to technically grant your wish. If it can't grant your Wish-as-Intended, nor find a way to grant your Wish-as-Spoken, the wish will simply fail.

So possibilities:
1) You've asked for too much. The Wish simply fails. And I don't see anything in the rules saying you get a refund of the expended wish just because it wasn't granted. The magic simply expended itself seeking a solution that it never found.

2) You've asked for too much. The WGE can't grant you what you wanted, but it can grant you what you actually asked for.

Example: "Here is a bunny rabbit. It's name is [Manufactured Term]. You're welcome."

"Wait, that's not what was described in this lengthy legal document!"

"I think you will find that it is."

(Looks.) "Son of a..."

The text of the legal document has been changed to read: "[Manufactured Term] is the name of an adorable, tame miniature lop bunny rabbit. It may also refer to [Wisher]'s possession and ownership of said bunny rabbit." The rest of the pages are blank.

Obviously, changing the text of a document is *well* within the power of a 9th level spell. And your spoken Wish -- for [Manufactured Term] to be achieved, as defined in this document -- has clearly been granted.

You wished for the document and reality to match -- and changing reality was beyond the power of the WGE. So it did the best it could. No malice involved.

3) Worst of all -- there may be a way to grant you all the things you ask for in the legal document, a way that you hadn't thought of. (In fact, once you've gone beyond a certain level of complexity, it's virtually certain that there are many things you hadn't thought of.)

Example: "Wachumba-Rabumba consists of being 40 feet tall, the richest man in the world, being able to transform into a gorilla at will and having your own TV show..."

The WGE ponders briefly. Then it grabs your head and feet and pulls you like taffy until you're 40' tall. The shock kills you. Your Estate files a civil suit against the WGE and is granted an inconceivable punitive award -- making you technically the richest man in the world, before the case was set aside on appeal. The WGE notes that you are no longer capable of willing yourself to turn into a gorilla -- thus logically (Wisher wants to be a gorilla)AND(NOT(Wisher turns into a gorilla)) can never be true -- which is logically equivalent to (IF Wisher wants to be a gorilla THEN Wisher turns into a gorilla). Thus Clause 3 is fulfilled. Finally, the case of your wish and the way it was granted is so bizarre that the Syfy Network makes a short miniseries about it. Tada. The WGE hopes you're happy. It wasn't easy to arrange such a bizarre wish. What were you thinking?

[IShouldntBehere]

Several thoughts.

Start with:

I read this as: The Wish spell has a certain amount of power. Whatever artificial-intelligence-construct or supernatural-being is parsing the language of the Wish doesn't *try* to twist the wording if it can grant you what you ask -- but if you're asking too much the wish-granting-entity (hereafter, WGE) will strain to find some way to technically grant your wish. If it can't grant your Wish-as-Intended, nor find a way to grant your Wish-as-Spoken, the wish will simply fail.


That's fair. I'm really only speaking as to what "Wish-as-Spoken" means and the ability to close loopholes. Like I said I don't really have a problem with wish in particular being arbitrary or inconsistent, that's separate issue from the phrasing & loophole ones.




The WGE ponders briefly. Then it grabs your head and feet and pulls you like taffy until you're 40' tall. The shock kills you. Your Estate files a civil suit against the WGE and is granted an inconceivable punitive award -- making you technically the richest man in the world, before the case was set aside on appeal. The WGE notes that you are no longer capable of willing yourself to turn into a gorilla -- thus logically (Wisher wants to be a gorilla)AND(NOT(Wisher turns into a gorilla)) can never be true -- which is logically equivalent to (IF Wisher wants to be a gorilla THEN Wisher turns into a gorilla). Thus Clause 3 is fulfilled. Finally, the case of your wish and the way it was granted is so bizarre that the Syfy Network makes a short miniseries about it. Tada. The WGE hopes you're happy. It wasn't easy to arrange such a bizarre wish. What were you thinking?

Except as I outlined in my post that was just a shorthand example of creating sets that make the individual components of the wish inseparable, I was for the sake of "Not making the post 80 pages long" intentionally leaving out the safety wording that would be baked into any such wish. Hence the placeholder for the missing text "~" So yeah those are glaringly obvious loopholes but that's not really fair since as I said explicitly in that post, it was not focused on loophole closing but rather on set construction. In order to make the wish "safe" you'd need to start with several more members in set including stipulations about good faith, non-surprise and unaltered perception.

[Frozen_Feet]

In my games, wishes rarely are do-anything cosmic power. Instead, they're a petition you make to some entity and the entity tries to fullfill it to best of their ability and understanding. The important thing to remember of such wishes is that you'll never get more than the entity is willing and able to give. Smartassery is a good way to lose the wish or get it twisted.

When I do cosmically powerful wishes, I typically add hidden extra rules based on few simple observations:

1) player characters aren't the first entities capable of wishing.
2) player characters aren't the first smartasses to be capable of wishing.
3) any entity capable of wishing has both means and incentive to make sure it isn't exploites for its ability.

From these, following hidden rules stem:

1) any wish which would lead to more wishes in four or less steps fails at the step where more wishes would be gained. For example: if you wish for more wishes, the wish fails (one step). If you wish for a Ring of Three Wishes, you get a ring with no charges left (two steps). If you wish to gate in a creature which can gate in another creature capable of wishing, the last creature arrives with all its wishes already expended (three steps).
2) any wish which would result in enslavement of a wish-granting entity will alert any and all allies of said entity.
3) any even remotely obvious wish or chain of wishes leading to functional omnipotence has already been thought of and made. The resultant omnipotent entities are on the lookout for any wannabes and will screw over any such wishes. For example: Pun-Pun already exists and will retroactively remove from existence any others attempting to become Pun-Pun.
4) Logical contradictions are not allowed.

Why? Because some creature already wished for things to be this way! And they wished that no other wish could override theirs! There are lot of contingent wishes and wish-legalese invented by ancient cabals of Efreeti and the like to protect themselves from harm and screw over uppity mortals.

[Lord Torath]

So, how about the wish "I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently do in light?"

Would that be twisted, granted fully, or granted partially?

Considering, of course, the fact that this ability is available to any 1st level wizard with 1000 gp and a particular roll (10-11) on the 2E Find Familiar table...

[Jay R]

So, how about the wish "I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently do in light?"

Would that be twisted, granted fully, or granted partially?

Considering, of course, the fact that this ability is available to any 1st level wizard with 1000 gp and a particular roll (10-11) on the 2E Find Familiar table...

It's a single effect, reasonable, well within the power level of a wish, and not likely to hurt the game. I'd grant it fully.

[Reboot]

So, how about the wish "I wish to be able to see as clearly in the dark as I currently do in light?"

Would that be twisted, granted fully, or granted partially?

This exact question came up in a previous thread, with some varied answers: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483446-Wishes-How-Cruel-Are-You&p=20620943&viewfull=1#post20620943

[MrStabby]

I had a somewhat whimsical Tiefling bard in one campaign who wished that 2=3.

It wasn't thought out to break the game, it was just roleplaying someone that "chaotic".

Even trying to work out what it entailed was bad enough without the Russel style problems that followed; seven or eight minutes later the wish was unmade.

[Reboot]

I had a somewhat whimsical Tiefling bard in one campaign who wished that 2=3.

It wasn't thought out to break the game, it was just roleplaying someone that "chaotic".

Even trying to work out what it entailed was bad enough without the Russel style problems that followed; seven or eight minutes later the wish was unmade.

Yeah, that...that's impossible to make happen. The only way that could be made to work "untwisted" is if, out of character, a roll of 2 was subsequently always treated as a roll of 3. In-world... yeah. Easily "beyond the power of a wish".

Who or what was granting the wish? I would have been tempted to have it alter the character's perception so that he always saw/said/thought 3 when he meant 2 subsequently. A bit like the running "five" gag from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, that...that's impossible to make happen. The only way that could be made to work "untwisted" is if, out of character, a roll of 2 was subsequently always treated as a roll of 3. In-world... yeah. Easily "beyond the power of a wish".

Who or what was granting the wish? I would have been tempted to have it alter the character's perception so that he always saw/said/thought 3 when he meant 2 subsequently. A bit like the running "five" gag from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Actually treating that change of rolls would have potentially been a good way to manage it - a mechanical change but also couple it with the perception change mentioned. We tried to dig it a bit too deep and refer to the world rather than just the character.

[ClintACK]

...In order to make the wish "safe" you'd need to start with several more members in set including stipulations about good faith, non-surprise and unaltered perception.

This is where I wave my hands at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and argue that it's literally impossible to create a perfect wish. The more tightly you write the terms, the more work it takes to find the cracks, but there will always be cracks.

But in general, the real limit is that the wish-granting-entity has clearly limited power. The great power of the Wish spell is its flexibility -- but the Wish spell isn't the Fairy Tale Monkey's Paw Arabian Nights Spell-of-Unlimited-Power.

[Jay R]

Though, "butt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archery_butt)" is a technical term in archery.

Yes, it is, but "b*ttload" is not. It means either a liquid measure of 126 U.S. gallons, or the obvious vulgar meaning.


This is where I wave my hands at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and argue that it's literally impossible to create a perfect wish.

Actually, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem shows us exactly how to form the perfect wish, since it is based on recursion - the system referring to the system.

"I wish for an increase in my power that will not interfere with the adventures we will have in the future."

Or if you use meta-language directly:
"I wish my PC gets something really useful that does not mess up the DM's plans."

The crucial thing with a wish is that it will not successfully accomplish something that will mess up the DM. So take that into account. To re-write the legal maxim:

"Any player knows the rules. A good player knows the exceptions. A great player knows the DM."

[nedz]

This is where I wave my hands at Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and argue that it's literally impossible to create a perfect wish. The more tightly you write the terms, the more work it takes to find the cracks, but there will always be cracks.

Actually I think you mean Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem.

Also, in my experience, the simplest wishes are the most reliable. I wish I had a Cheese Sandwich is unlikely to go wrong whereas a four page piece of legalise is unlikely to bear fruit: I actually had someone try that once - see Efreeti example above.

[khadgar567]

Actually I think you mean Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem.

Also, in my experience, the simplest wishes are the most reliable. I wish I had a Cheese Sandwich is unlikely to go wrong whereas a four page piece of legalise is unlikely to bear fruit: I actually had someone try that once - see Efreeti example above.
simple is good complex is bad