Wizard is far and away the worst core class in D&D

[Hackulator]

Everything about the Wizard's design is terrible.

At low levels their are basically declawed kittens and you have to bend over backwards to not kill them. God forbid the goblin should be smart enough to focus fire the one guy with no armor and you'll be hearing your wizard player whine for the next 6 months.

At high levels they completely destroy all game balance as the number of spells in the game makes balancing for them almost impossible.

At EVERY level they are incredibly annoying to play with. Went to town? The Wizard needs to take extra time to go look for scrolls to add to his spellbook. Rested and have new kinds of encounters coming? The Wizard needs to take 3 years to come up with his new spell list, game is over by the time he's done. In Combat? The wizard has 4 contingencies he has to check, 7 summons to control, plus his own turn, his turn takes up more time than the the entire rest of the party.

That's not even getting into wizard players, the kind of people who are ok with doing all that just so they can eventually be more powerful than everyone else.

D&D would be a FAR better game if the wizard class was removed.

[The_Jette]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/842/755/493.jpg

[JeenLeen]

Everything about the Wizard's design is terrible.

At low levels their are basically declawed kittens and you have to bend over backwards to not kill them. God forbid the goblin should be smart enough to focus fire the one guy with no armor and you'll be hearing your wizard player whine for the next 6 months.

I agree it is annoying at early levels. My first D&D character was a wizard, and I hated playing it since (mainly since I was playing a blaster and not crowd control) I seemed pretty useless and wound up firing my crossbow more often than not. Cleric looked awesome compared to wizard (better saves, armor, and 'same' spellcasting ability (to my new-to-the-game mind)).


At high levels they completely destroy all game balance as the number of spells in the game makes balancing for them almost impossible.

At EVERY level they are incredibly annoying to play with. Went to town? The Wizard needs to take extra time to go look for scrolls to add to his spellbook. Rested and have new kinds of encounters coming? The Wizard needs to take 3 years to come up with his new spell list, game is over by the time he's done. In Combat? The wizard has 4 contingencies he has to check, 7 summons to control, plus his own turn, his turn takes up more time than the the entire rest of the party.

That's not even getting into wizard players, the kind of people who are ok with doing all that just so they can eventually be more powerful than everyone else.

As you imply, most of this is an issue with the wizard player, not the class itself. Game balance is an issue if the player makes a character not suitable for the world the GM is making; that can, and likely should, be solved through the GM and player discussing the limits of D&D's ability to model what it is supposed to model and how the wizard character can stay in play without breaking everything. Is it bad that such is needed? Yes. But if the player and DM can handle it maturely, it's a solvable issue.

The 'annoying' aspects are player aspects. I think a good DM would have a prepared list of what scrolls are available to buy (or just say all level X are available) and the wizard can buy or not buy. Taking extra downtime only takes a sentence or two in-game, if the DM doesn't require RPing it all and the player is cool not annoying the other players with doing a solo shopping trip. For spell list, the player should prepare that outside of game time, and the player should have all the summons they can do written out beforehand. I think a fine houserule would be 'beyond small changes that take less than a minute or two, you must have pre-prepared spell lists--just choose what spells prepared you want to do each day' and 'if you do not have the stats written out, you do not know enough about the monster to summon it'.
Or just ban summons. If the party is big enough, don't let minions be a thing.

I found, in a high-level game (and I had a level 21 wizard), my turn took about as long as everyone else's. I admit the others were cleric, druid, druid, and we were all buffed-to-the-gills casters and each turn took about 5 minutes to do the dice rolls and the math--but my turn wasn't worse than theirs. Even a buffed uber-charger fighter (or cleric/druid-zilla) likely takes about as long to add up the modifiers of the buffs that are still active.


D&D would be a FAR better game if the wizard class was removed.
Note I am not explicitly disagreeing with you, but it's more an issue of optimized Tier 1 classes vs. others. Wizard is probably the worst offender of all tier 1.

I like your point about how easy wizards die at early levels.

[Zanos]

I do not agree.

[Fouredged Sword]

I do a really fun game where I run a party of 4 level 1 wizards though a standard dungeon of Cr1, Cr1, Cr2, Cr2, Cr2 fighting encounters with zero rest interspersed with a few traps, locked or stuck doors, a little social interaction with a chance for advantage, and a mystery to solve. I have run the same dungeon in both pathfinder and 3.5 (adjusting the encounter numbers to maintain CR's) and the results are pretty much the same.

A level 1 wizard, played as a wizard and acting at least tactically, is pretty hard to kill outside things that normally kill a level 1 character in one hit. An optimized wizard, even at level 1, is almost impossible to kill with CR 1 encounters (though the same can be said for most level 1 characters when optimized for level 1 play). They barrel though the dungeon without much trouble and basically swat aside most encounters in a spell or two. While a single wizard in a party of 4 may find himself simply shooting a crossbow in 3/4 encounters that is because he solves the 4th encounter in a single action, thus meeting his quota for the 4 CR even encounters day. In a 4 wizard party you basically have a wizard solve each encounter in a spell or two followed by a group smashing of the survivors with quarterstaffs or crossbows. The single wizard is simply forced to wait while the remaining three party members solve their assigned encounters in a messy and inefficient manner.

I love the wizard class. The only problem I have with 3.5 is that the rest of the classes are not wizards. (Except warblades. Warblades ARE wizards.)

[Hackulator]

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/842/755/493.jpg

Trolling would be if I claimed Wizard was the least powerful class. Wizard is the WORST class from a design perspective, it causes the most problems and reduces the fun of other players due to its bad design.

[Florian]

Basically, the assessment of the Wizard class is right: It´s a Commoner with 4 bonus feats and some added magic. The class by itself is pretty lackluster and the chassis is even worse than the Fighter.

Thing is, the class itself is dependent on an external power source, in this case spells, and everything that has to do with it has more to do with said spells than the actual class using them.

By itself, it´s the polar opposite of the Fighter, not directly in terms of power, but in problems: where the Fighter is hard to build and easy to drive, the Wizard is easy to build and hard to drive.

And yes, the problem are the players drawn to this class.

[JeenLeen]

Wizard is the WORST class from a design perspective, it causes the most problems and reduces the fun of other players due to its bad design.

I think I see your point better now. I can see calling wizard the worst designed class, in the sense that its poor design impacts other classes/players. A monk or ranger can be called a poorly designed class, but that generally only hinders those players (except insofar as a suboptimal character makes the team overall weaker.) Fighter can be called poorly designed since it's not best at being a fighter. But those classes do not 'break' the game, like a tier 1 can.

I don't think wizard is much worse than cleric or druid at high levels, insofar as they can overpower other characters or be annoying to 'drive'.

However, I think just removing the class creates an archeyptal void. You could probably refluff cloistered cleric or sorcerer to fill the gap of 'booky spellcaster', though, and thus drop the wizard class if you wanted to.

Do you think arcane magic is part of the problem, too (in that arcane can do some things the divine spell list lacks)?
---
As a small counter-point about prepping spells: I would think a cleric or druid would take longer, since they can pick any spell, verses just spells in their spellbook. I think at one point (around level 15 or so) I chose wizard over cleric because I wanted a limit on my spells to pick each morning, to preclude some time-consuming optimizing.

[Cosi]

I think this post is pretty close to exactly backwards. The Wizard has a lot of very good traits for a class, and I think many of them are worth emulating. It's not without flaws, but the idea that it's worse than the Monk or the Fighter strikes me as absurd.

Consider a 3rd level Wizard choosing what to do with his 2nd level spell slots. He knows ray of stupidity, web, and command undead. What should he prepare? web is a workhorse spell that will perform under most circumstances, but is not game winning against anything in particular. ray of stupidity is close to dead against most enemies, but against animals or other low INT targets it's an instant win. command undead is even more polarized. Against anything but mindless undead it's trash, but against mindless undead it's an absurd bomb. Having this decision -- a choice between low risk/low reward and high risk/high reward options -- makes playing a Wizard both entertaining and challenging, and it encourages good roleplaying by rewarding the most intellectual class for gathering information about future opposition.

Consider knock. knock is a much-maligned, frequently described as "obsoleting" Rogues. This is wrong. knock versus Open Lock is a great paradigm for how spells and skills should work. knock is more effective than Open Lock. It works faster, easier, and more consistently. But it also has a much higher cost. Preparing knock means you don't get a glitterdust or a web. Learning Open Lock means you don't get Search or Appraise.

Consider teleport. teleport (and other spells like it e.g. plane shift) is an incredibly important spell for the game because it promotes player agency. With teleport the players can say "no, we want to do this other thing" when the DM tries to railroad them. It's hard to understate how good that is. teleport means that for the players to confront an encounter, the DM has to give them a reason to want to. He can't just put down a Vampire Assassin and say "fight it". He has to figure out some reason the players want to fight that Vampire Assassin and not a orchard full of awakened tree Druids. Maybe it has a McGuffin they want. Maybe it killed someone important to them. Maybe one of the players is an anti-undead crusader. But there has to be something, and that's a good thing.

Consider spell preparation. Having the filter of "prepared spells" on top of "known spells" makes it possible to keep adding abilities to a character, while still putting off option paralysis. The Wizard is still a little complex for this to work perfectly, but it's a very good design concept.

Are there flaws? Sure, but the class is overall one of the better ones, particularly in core.


At low levels their are basically declawed kittens and you have to bend over backwards to not kill them. God forbid the goblin should be smart enough to focus fire the one guy with no armor and you'll be hearing your wizard player whine for the next 6 months.

Everyone is too weak at 1st level. Yeah, a Wizard goes down to a swing from an Orc, but a Fighter goes down in two. D&D characters should start at somewhere between what is now 3rd level and what is now 5th level. Then you solve all the problems that currently exist from cramming everything between "fly" and "novice adventurer" into the same hit die.


At high levels they completely destroy all game balance as the number of spells in the game makes balancing for them almost impossible.

The number of spells Wizards have is not the problem. There are perhaps two dozen specific spells that are the problem, but those spells (or their equivalents) are just as problematic in the hands of the Sorcerer, the Beguiler, or even the Bard. Once you make the changes you have to make for the game to not collapse, Wizards are not appreciably too powerful at high levels.


Went to town? The Wizard needs to take extra time to go look for scrolls to add to his spellbook.

Oh no, the Wizard has the ability to interact with a part of the world that isn't the dungeon, and can do something during downtime! How can the game survive?

The fact that the Wizard has a reason to care about settlements is great it means that every Wizard has a reason to interact with the setting and develop connections to NPCs. The fact that the Wizard goes to the local magic mart gives the DM a chance to introduce new characters, and use those characters to provide plot hooks. Maybe the guy selling you scrolls is in financial trouble because there are a bunch of Disenchanters (the magic item eating spider from the MM2 -- yes, really) on the route his supplies usually come on.


Rested and have new kinds of encounters coming? The Wizard needs to take 3 years to come up with his new spell list, game is over by the time he's done.

I agree that Wizards are probably too complex, but I think at least part of your problem comes from having players who don't prepare well to play Wizards. You should have a default loadout you're happy with, and it should vary primarily because you have information that specific spells will be necessary/effective.


In Combat? The wizard has 4 contingencies he has to check, 7 summons to control, plus his own turn, his turn takes up more time than the the entire rest of the party.

I think any environment where something like that happens is probably one where the other players are similarly optimized, and are therefore okay with having people take very complicated turns. That said, I do think the game makes high level/high optimization play harder than it needs to be.

Also, consider that this is not a unique problem to Wizards. There's already a player at the table who has to juggle multiple monsters and lots of triggered events -- the DM.


That's not even getting into wizard players, the kind of people who are ok with doing all that just so they can eventually be more powerful than everyone else.

Speaking as a Wizard player, you've misunderstood my psychology, and it's kind of offensive. I don't want to be more powerful than other people, I just want to be powerful. I would rather play in a Wizard/Incantatrix, Cleric/Dweomerkeeper, Beguiler/Rainbow Servant, and Artificer party where I'm of merely average power than a Wizard, Barbarian, Fighter, and Ranger where I'm dominating everyone else. The reason I play D&D is that I enjoy fantasy stories, and the fantasy stories I enjoy are ones like Lord of Light or The Chronicles of Amber where fantastically powerful characters do amazing things. Playing a Wizard (or a Cleric, or a Druid, or another class from a list that looks a lot like "casters") is necessary to facilitate that. That doesn't mean I want to stomp all over the game of someone who wants to play a story inspired by Lord of the Rings, or Game of Thrones, or Conan, and acting like I do shows a profound lack of understanding about what I want and, I assume, what people like me want.

[Zanos]

Trolling would be if I claimed Wizard was the least powerful class. Wizard is the WORST class from a design perspective, it causes the most problems and reduces the fun of other players due to its bad design.
Druid and Cleric have all the same "problems", exasperated by automatic knowledge of every spell on their lists from 20+ books.

These are problems with players.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Zanos
Druid and Cleric have all the same "problems", exasperated by automatic knowledge of every spell on their lists from 20+ books.

I think you mean “exacerbated.”

:smallsmile:

[AvatarVecna]

I think I'm going to disagree on the wizard being the worst, but not because I disagree with your point that they're poorly designed. I think, level for level, the Druid is the most ridiculous class in Core; things get more even with the classes as more splats get added giving the others lots of spell power, but the Druid throws the theoretical balance points out the window. Druid and Cleric both get access to their entire list every day, but a cleric or wizard without spells is little more than a commoner or expert as far as combat goes. A druid without spells is still breaking the action economy at level 1 and gaining an admittedly-limited but still absolutely amazing Shapechange effect at level 5. It's telling that there's a slew of PrCs that are just "Wizard, but better in every way" and "Cleric, but better in every way", but there's very few Druid PrCs that are significantly better than Druid 20 - and most of the ones that are, usually are because they're getting used in cheesy ways.

I'm not saying it's a balance point that worked, necessarily, but I don't think it's exactly up for debate that the intended balance point for spells was that when the caster had no more uses of their limited-use resources, they were a mediocre combatant at best. A druid without spells still has an Animal Companion and Wild Shape, which can carry them quite a ways without spells, and quite a ways further with long-duration buffs.

[Kaleph]

I think you mean “exacerbated.”

:smallsmile:

Exasperate: (Archaic) to increase the intensity or violence of (disease, pain, feelings, etc.).

[KillianHawkeye]

Speaking as a Wizard player, you've misunderstood my psychology, and it's kind of offensive.

I feel like this comment needs to be repeated.

The OP doesn't have a problem with the Wizard class, he has a problem with spells and the way certain people use them to dominate the game. Not everyone who likes Wizards plays this way, and it's insulting the way the OP has generalized his experience with problem players to everyone who might pick the Wizard or another Tier 1 spellcasting class.

[The_Jette]

I feel like this comment needs to be repeated.

The OP doesn't have a problem with the Wizard class, he has a problem with spells and the way certain people use them to dominate the game. Not everyone who likes Wizards plays this way, and it's insulting the way the OP has generalized his experience with problem players to everyone who might pick the Wizard or another Tier 1 spellcasting class.

He was obviously making a post insulting Wizards and the people who play them as a direct counter to all of the recent anti-Fighter/Martial character posts lately. Like the "Why would anyone ever play a Fighter" thread that is currently on-going.

[Cosi]

He was obviously making a post insulting Wizards and the people who play them as a direct counter to all of the recent anti-Fighter/Martial character posts lately. Like the "Why would anyone ever play a Fighter" thread that is currently on-going.

When people say "why would you play a Fighter" the subtext is "other options do what a Fighter does with less effort at a higher degree of effectiveness". That's radically different from this threads subtext of "why are people who play Wizards bad people".

[AvatarVecna]

When people say "why would you play a Fighter" the subtext is "other options do what a Fighter does with less effort at a higher degree of effectiveness". That's radically different from this threads subtext of "why are people who play Wizards such filthy optimizers".

FTFY. :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

As a small counter-point about prepping spells: I would think a cleric or druid would take longer, since they can pick any spell, verses just spells in their spellbook. I think at one point (around level 15 or so) I chose wizard over cleric because I wanted a limit on my spells to pick each morning, to preclude some time-consuming optimizing.
I haven't thought about this particular angle that much, but I'm inclined to think, without checking, that this in particular is a bigger problem for wizards than for either other class, then clerics, then druids. Especially at high levels. Checking online, druid has about 40-50 8th level spells. Which is a lot. However, they also happen to have very few good 8th level spells (just a thoroughly awful list, and I've found next to nothing to contradict that claim), and, more importantly for my point, said spells are kinda samey. It's a list with like 20 variations on big combat spell, and then a couple of things that are kinda interesting. I would argue that a wizard with just every core spell in their book has way more spell variety than a druid with full book access, and that probably remains true when you cut it down to like 5-10 choices.

That's a particularly crazy case, but my general point is that wizard spells do everything, and they do everything the best. Cleric and druid spells decidedly don't, though you can approximate. I think we can get to this being mostly true, that wizards have higher prep complexity in some sense, without that much trouble. In particular, wizards have the best casting, by a significant margin. This is true even with the spell book. Thus, a well designed wizard will have a wider variety of powerful options, spells that do things that are more different. Druids and clerics inevitably have more spells to choose from, but I think that wizards might have more complexity built into the decision making.


Snip
One place where I do think druids are significantly more problematic, in line with the OP's claims, is in terms of turn by turn complexity. Wizards choose between various spells that were prepared beforehand. Often very complex spells, but we're still just looking at one play complexity element. Clerics are more or less the same, dropping some spell complexity and adding some direct melee combat and domain stuff, as well as spontaneous curing.

Druids have a lot more stuff. In addition to casting, you also have to manage spontaneous conversion into SNA, wild shape, and then either you're spending extra time controlling the companion or the DM is, which is a bit of a time sink either way. Maybe the biggest issue with that is that both SNA and wild shape push you down some deeply complex paths. Summoning is one of the most complicated and time consuming spell types in the game. You have to decide which creature to summon, where to put the creature, sometimes what that creature does, and because it's spontaneous you have to make those decisions as regards the entire list up to your max spell level. I've often pointed out that SNA IV is individually arguably more complex than a whole fighter. And they multiply your turns, of course.

Wild shape is form changing, of course, and anyone who knows the system well knows that form changing is one of the most ridiculously complex things in the game. The rules are complicated and often ambiguous, there's a ton of incredibly different creatures scattered across a ridiculous number of books to deal with, and the stuff you can do with it is similarly super dense. It's like summoning, minus the action addition, plus an unconstrained list. Because, if there's one positive thing I can say about the SNA deal, at least they didn't add a ton of new options to that one. Also, both things feature a lot of book keeping, and, on the inverse side, a decent amount of book checking. Even a really efficient system is going to involve taking a look at the creature in question by some means, and that's unlikely an instantaneous process.

Of course, wizards can summon and form change as well, and clerics can do the former and I think a bit of the latter. In fact, a wizard's version of both those abilities is significantly more complicated in some respects. But the difference is that wizards can summon and form change, if they want to. They can write those spells down, and prep a couple copies of each, and then cast them later, or they can do none of that. A druid classic can't not do those things. In fact, they probably do those things almost always. And that right there is time consuming as hell.

[KillianHawkeye]

He was obviously making a post insulting Wizards and the people who play them as a direct counter to all of the recent anti-Fighter/Martial character posts lately. Like the "Why would anyone ever play a Fighter" thread that is currently on-going.

That is not at all obvious to me. The original post doesn't even mention Fighters or link to any threads about such a discussion. Even if it's true, it doesn't change the offensive and misguided comment made by OP at the end of his post.

I like to play a Wizard because I sometimes want a character with complicated choices and because I enjoy trying to plan ahead and guess what's coming. I don't do it because I need to be the best or the most powerful or want to solve everything on my own.

[Hackulator]

Druids and clerics aren't as bad for a few reasons.

They have a great tendency to be played as support classes because of their healing and buffs. This means that even in a lot of scenarios when the reality is that the power is coming from the cleric or druid, the other characters still feel powerful because they are the recipients of that support. It is totally true that a cleric or druid can be nearly as problematic (NEARLY) as a Wizard, but they have many more builds that are still powerful but less problematic, so overall their design isn't as bad.

They also don't have the issue with being in cloth with 0 HP at the start of a campaign.

They also aren't spending 10+ minutes of game time scroll hunting in every town, or complaining that we need to go to town so they can check for new scrolls.

As for a thematic gap, the wizard thematic could be almost entirely filled by sorcerers.

[Gildedragon]

I haven't thought about this particular angle that much, but I'm inclined to think, without checking, that this in particular is a bigger problem for wizards than for either other class, then clerics, then druids. Especially at high levels. Checking online, druid has about 40-50 8th level spells. Which is a lot. However, they also happen to have very few good 8th level spells (just a thoroughly awful list, and I've found next to nothing to contradict that claim), and, more importantly for my point, said spells are kinda samey. It's a list with like 20 variations on big combat spell, and then a couple of things that are kinda interesting. I would argue that a wizard with just every core spell in their book has way more spell variety than a druid with full book access, and that probably remains true when you cut it down to like 5-10 choices.

This is a big problem with DnD spells
A lot of stuff could just be one spell that a) does more as you level up; b) does it bigger/stronger if you use a bigger spell slot; and c) is easy to modify

This is true of virtually all damage spells: start off as a [force] or [untyped] spell. Add metamagic to change the energy type (and increase the damage die); Heighten the spell to make it pack more of a punch.

Drop all the duplicate versions (mass, lesser, greater, I-IX, X's Y)

But wizard primacy might come that even after all that's done: there's a ton of other effects they can produce.

[eggynack]

They have a great tendency to be played as support classes because of their healing and buffs. This means that even in a lot of scenarios when the reality is that the power is coming from the cleric or druid, the other characters still feel powerful because they are the recipients of that support. It is totally true that a cleric or druid can be nearly as problematic (NEARLY) as a Wizard, but they have many more builds that are still powerful but less problematic, so overall their design isn't as bad.
What? No, druids are super selfish. Nearly none of their good buffs apply to other party members, and healing, already mediocre in the abstract, is even worse when you're doing it usually worse than a cleric. Their tendency towards BFC is arguably support oriented, but, y'know, wizards have good BFC spells too. Same goes for debuffs. Wizards are way more support than druids. The big druid things are changing their own form, having a monster to kill things with, summoning more monsters to kill things with, buffing those monsters, buffing themselves, directly running over to an enemy and killing them (in a pinch), and, if they're feeling really charitable, locking down the entire battlefield.

Wizards, by contrast, lock down the battlefield, debuff stuff, and, here's the critical thing, buff others as their main modes of combat operation. Polymorphing yourself is fine, but polymorphing the party fighter is often even better. Haste, one of their big buff spells, hits everyone, and they barely even make use of it themselves. Even their larger scale enemy stopping efforts sometimes tend towards friendliness more than those of a druid. Wall of thorns covers the entire battlefield with thorns that just lock everything down entirely. Wall of stone has a tendency towards just making things stick to their sides. Slow doesn't stop friendly attacks at all.

I could go on, maybe bringing some cleric stuff into it (a lot of the best cleric buffs are self targeted), but really, my main point is that I have literally no idea what you're talking about. The only way that wizards are more combat-selfish than druids is that druids happen to have a couple of healing spells scattered around their list. Maybe your druids like to prepare a lot of overleveled cure moderate wounds, but mine prepare cure minor and occasionally summon a unicorn and that's basically it for in-combat healing until you hit heal super late.

Edit: To substantiate my buff claim a bit, my mental list of good ally targeted buff spells starts with mass snake's swiftness, and then it abruptly ends with another mass snake's swiftness. Maybe you happen to have another person in the party that can make efficient use of greater magic fang or luminous armor (it's a great spell when your best plan is usually going unarmored, but less so when you can, y'know, wear armor efficiently, and most casters can just cast their own, so the list of viable targets is existent but somewhat limited), but it's not super likely.

[Hackulator]

Also lets not forget that the Wizard mechanic is just dumb compared to the others. A cleric's god grants them limited power per day, makes sense. A sorcerer only has so much magical energy they can expend before they need to rest, makes sense. A Wizard....somehow can't remember how to cast the spells he studies EVERY DAMN MORNING. That makes no frickin sense.

[Melcar]

Everything about the Wizard's design is terrible.

At low levels their are basically declawed kittens and you have to bend over backwards to not kill them. God forbid the goblin should be smart enough to focus fire the one guy with no armor and you'll be hearing your wizard player whine for the next 6 months.

At high levels they completely destroy all game balance as the number of spells in the game makes balancing for them almost impossible.

At EVERY level they are incredibly annoying to play with. Went to town? The Wizard needs to take extra time to go look for scrolls to add to his spellbook. Rested and have new kinds of encounters coming? The Wizard needs to take 3 years to come up with his new spell list, game is over by the time he's done. In Combat? The wizard has 4 contingencies he has to check, 7 summons to control, plus his own turn, his turn takes up more time than the the entire rest of the party.

That's not even getting into wizard players, the kind of people who are ok with doing all that just so they can eventually be more powerful than everyone else.

D&D would be a FAR better game if the wizard class was removed.

No!... and no! What you are complaining about is player determined, not class determined!

[johnbragg]

No!... and no! What you are complaining about is player determined, not class determined!

Low hp and lousy combat abilities are not player determined.

The incredible variety of wizard options and the power of arcane spells is not player determined.

The fact that experienced players know enough to pull back and "play nice" if they're playing with non-Tier 1s doesn't change the fact that the class, as written, goes from "problematically weak" to "problematically strong" with very few levels in between.

[Nupo]

We play a gritty, lethal campaign, and always start at first level. Also, the opportunity to rest and regain spells is frequently limited. Only about one in three wizards survive long enough to make it to second level. The awesome power they gain at high levels is kind of a reward for being able to survive that long. Not many do.

[Jay R]

Also lets not forget that the Wizard mechanic is just dumb compared to the others. A cleric's god grants them limited power per day, makes sense. A sorcerer only has so much magical energy they can expend before they need to rest, makes sense. A Wizard....somehow can't remember how to cast the spells he studies EVERY DAMN MORNING. That makes no frickin sense.

It makes perfect sense when you don't try to over-simplify it. [And yes, the written rules make that far too easy to do.]

They need to take time in the morning picking and reading their spells. This is a magical process mislabeled as "memorizing" by non-wizards. Those spells are now "loaded" and ready. When they are used, they are no longer loaded and ready.

It makes exactly as much sense as the fact that a fired musket can't fire again. The fighter didn't forget how to shoot it; he has prepwork that must be done first.

[Hackulator]

It makes perfect sense when you don't try to over-simplify it. [And yes, the written rules make that far too easy to do.]

They need to take time in the morning picking and reading their spells. This is a magical process mislabeled as "memorizing" by non-wizards. Those spells are now "loaded" and ready. When they are used, they are no longer loaded and ready.

It makes exactly as much sense as the fact that a fired musket can't fire again. The fighter didn't forget how to shoot it; he has prepwork that must be done first.

Except it's clearly called "memorizing" in every book and every description, ever. You making up a less stupid idea that isn't what they are doing does not make what they are doing less stupid.

[AnimeTheCat]

By itself, it´s the polar opposite of the Fighter, not directly in terms of power, but in problems: where the Fighter is hard to build and easy to drive, the Wizard is easy to build and hard to drive.

Personally, I would argue that wizards aren't necessarily easy to build or easy to drive, but they are incredibly rewarding both ways.


Consider knock. knock is a much-maligned, frequently described as "obsoleting" Rogues. This is wrong. knock versus Open Lock is a great paradigm for how spells and skills should work. knock is more effective than Open Lock. It works faster, easier, and more consistently. But it also has a much higher cost. Preparing knock means you don't get a glitterdust or a web. Learning Open Lock means you don't get Search or Appraise.

I would agree that the spell Knock doesn't make the rogue obsolete, the Wand of Knock makes him obsolete, unless the Rogue can consistently use it via UMD which is an additional skill tax (but one I think pretty much every rogue makes). I see what you're saying, but can you see where I'm coming from too?


Also lets not forget that the Wizard mechanic is just dumb compared to the others. A cleric's god grants them limited power per day, makes sense. A sorcerer only has so much magical energy they can expend before they need to rest, makes sense. A Wizard....somehow can't remember how to cast the spells he studies EVERY DAMN MORNING. That makes no frickin sense.

If you read a book over and over again, you may memorize some quotes (Spell Mastery Feat), but overall you'll just know where to turn in the book to find what you're looking for. Now imagine all of those words are complex algorithms that cause insane reactions in the real world. Preparing spells for a wizard is less about memorizing them and more about bookmarking them to make sure you don't get the formula wrong and have a spell blow you to kingdom come.


Spells
A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).
To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.
Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score.
Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells. She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night’s sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard decides which spells to prepare.


Spellbooks
A wizard must study her spellbook each day to prepare her spells. She cannot prepare any spell not recorded in her spellbook, except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory.


Preparing Wizard Spells

A wizard’s level limits the number of spells she can prepare and cast. Her high Intelligence score might allow her to prepare a few extra spells. She can prepare the same spell more than once, but each preparation counts as one spell toward her daily limit. To prepare a spell the wizard must have an Intelligence score of at least 10 + the spell’s level.

Rest

To prepare her daily spells, a wizard must first sleep for 8 hours. The wizard does not have to slumber for every minute of the time, but she must refrain from movement, combat, spellcasting, skill use, conversation, or any other fairly demanding physical or mental task during the rest period. If her rest is interrupted, each interruption adds 1 hour to the total amount of time she has to rest in order to clear her mind, and she must have at least 1 hour of uninterrupted rest immediately prior to preparing her spells. If the character does not need to sleep for some reason, she still must have 8 hours of restful calm before preparing any spells.

Recent Casting Limit/Rest Interruptions

If a wizard has cast spells recently, the drain on her resources reduces her capacity to prepare new spells. When she prepares spells for the coming day, all the spells she has cast within the last 8 hours count against her daily limit.

Preparation Environment

To prepare any spell, a wizard must have enough peace, quiet, and comfort to allow for proper concentration. The wizard’s surroundings need not be luxurious, but they must be free from overt distractions. Exposure to inclement weather prevents the necessary concentration, as does any injury or failed saving throw the character might experience while studying. Wizards also must have access to their spellbooks to study from and sufficient light to read them by. There is one major exception: A wizard can prepare a read magic spell even without a spellbook.

Spell Preparation Time

After resting, a wizard must study her spellbook to prepare any spells that day. If she wants to prepare all her spells, the process takes 1 hour. Preparing some smaller portion of her daily capacity takes a proportionally smaller amount of time, but always at least 15 minutes, the minimum time required to achieve the proper mental state.

Spell Selection and Preparation

Until she prepares spells from her spellbook, the only spells a wizard has available to cast are the ones that she already had prepared from the previous day and has not yet used. During the study period, she chooses which spells to prepare. If a wizard already has spells prepared (from the previous day) that she has not cast, she can abandon some or all of them to make room for new spells.

When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during that day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting. During these extra sessions of preparation, the wizard can fill these unused spell slots. She cannot, however, abandon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one-quarter of her spells.

Spell Slots

The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level.

Prepared Spell Retention

Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it. Certain other events, such as the effects of magic items or special attacks from monsters, can wipe a prepared spell from a character’s mind.

Death and Prepared Spell Retention

If a spellcaster dies, all prepared spells stored in his or her mind are wiped away. Potent magic (such as raise dead, resurrection, or true resurrection) can recover the lost energy when it recovers the character.


It doesn't say memorize at all... it says prepare.

[Hackulator]

Consider knock. knock is a much-maligned, frequently described as "obsoleting" Rogues. This is wrong. knock versus Open Lock is a great paradigm for how spells and skills should work. knock is more effective than Open Lock. It works faster, easier, and more consistently. But it also has a much higher cost. Preparing knock means you don't get a glitterdust or a web. Learning Open Lock means you don't get Search or Appraise.

I want to take a moment to break down the this statement right here, which is a great example of the sort of attitude wizard players have. Knock does a better job at opening locked doors than rogues open locks, one of the primary functions of their class in the design of D&D. However, somehow the wizard player convinces himself that that is balanced because memorizing knock means he couldn't memorize one of the other TREMENDOUSLY powerful spells he can have. The fact that everything you do is better so doing ANYTHING has higher opportunity cost is not balance.

Now there is a short window when the wizard isn't so weak that he should be dying every fight, he has spells like knock that are powerful but he is still very limited in total spells he can cast. This is a VERY short window where the wizard is not a problem.

[lord_khaine]

Except it's clearly called "memorizing" in every book and every description, ever. You making up a less stupid idea that isn't what they are doing does not make what they are doing less stupid.

If you had access to some of the original lore, then you would know that what Wizards actually do in the memorisation process is to cast about 95% of the given spell, holding on to the last few keywords to trigger the effect. Its one of the reasons for why they are called prepared casters.

[Psyren]

Except it's clearly called "memorizing" in every book and every description, ever. You making up a less stupid idea that isn't what they are doing does not make what they are doing less stupid.

Every book? Does that include the Player's Handbook?



Before setting out on a dangerous journey with her companions, Mialee sits in her study and opens her spellbook. First she pages through it, selecting the spells that she thinks will be most useful on her adventure. When she has chosen the spells she wants (which could mean choosing the same spell more than once), she meditates on the pages that describe each one. The arcane symbols, which she has penned by hand, would be nonsense to anyone else, but they unlock power from her mind. As she concentrates, she all but finishes casting each spell that she prepares. Each spell now lacks only its final trigger. When she closes the book, her mind is full of spells, each of which she can complete at will in a brief time.

The "precasting" explanation is not only canon, it's core.

As for the thread topic itself - I don't disagree, but I think all these complaints about wizard design and fighter design are overblown. The point of game design is to have fun, and these classes are both fun to play. Fighter needs a little more help outside of core (even in PF) but it has gotten that. What we should be doing is spreading knowledge of the options that make these classes better, not demonizing people for their choices. And yes, let them know Warblade and Beguiler exist too, but if they want to play Fighter or Wizard, we should support our friends. (We are playing with friends, right?)

[AvatarVecna]

I want to take a moment to break down the this statement right here, which is a great example of the sort of attitude wizard players have. Knock does a better job at opening locked doors than rogues open locks, one of the primary functions of their class in the design of D&D. However, somehow the wizard player convinces himself that that is balanced because memorizing knock means he couldn't memorize one of the other TREMENDOUSLY powerful spells he can have. The fact that everything you do is better so doing ANYTHING has higher opportunity cost is not balance.

Just checking, wasn't one of the big arguments in favor of classes like the Fighter the fact that they don't have limited resources? The same goes for the Rogue in this example. The rogue has invested a part of themselves in being good at lockpicking all day every day, and the wizard has learned a spell that can make one lock just not matter in the slightest. Sure, if the party only deals with one lock throughout the day, the Wizard will be superior to the Rogue, because the Rogue might have +20 to that roll, but the Wizard has +Yes. But when the DM does the unthinkable and has multiple locked doors in the dungeon, the wizard can try to have enough spells prepared to unlock all of those locks, but dealing with multiple locks is going to be a lot easier for the rogue than for the wizard, at least until the wizard reaches a point where they can teleport the whole party past all the locked doors.

That's not to say wizards are weak - as another person pointed out, it's not the prepared Knock that makes the Rogue pointless, it's the Wand Of Knock - just that I think you need to rethink you're argument if you're saying "1/day +Yes is objectively better than infinite/day +20".

[Beheld]

I want to take a moment to break down the this statement right here, which is a great example of the sort of attitude wizard players have. Knock does a better job at opening locked doors than rogues open locks, one of the primary functions of their class in the design of D&D. However, somehow the wizard player convinces himself that that is balanced because memorizing knock means he couldn't memorize one of the other TREMENDOUSLY powerful spells he can have. The fact that everything you do is better so doing ANYTHING has higher opportunity cost is not balance.

Now there is a short window when the wizard isn't so weak that he should be dying every fight, he has spells like knock that are powerful but he is still very limited in total spells he can cast. This is a VERY short window where the wizard is not a problem.

I don't think 1/8th to 1/10th of my throwaway skills is "the primary function of their class." I think instantly murdering people in 3 seconds is a primary function of the class.

Also, it's not better at opening locked doors. It's better at unlocking a single door.

I don't know why someone would want to spend 60gp to open every door, and I don't know why anyone would want to invest a level 2 slot into opening one door, when they could have someone who invests 1/10th of their skills, 1/100th of their class, and then opens all doors forever, also quietly.

[Mordaedil]

Well, I mean, the alternative is to take out vancian magic.

And boy howdy, if you think things were bad before...

[eggynack]

It doesn't say memorize at all... it says prepare.
To expand on this, "it" in this context doesn't refer to that quoted passage, or even to the wizard section. It refers to the entire PHB. I checked, and, as far as I can tell, the word memorize occurs exactly twice, first with, "You don’t have to memorize this book," and then with, "memorize Elven song." Other variants on memory occur more often, eighteen times from what I can see, and exactly never in this way. The closest is, "...except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory." Most other uses refer some specific spell or magical effect, such as modify memory. So, no, it's not called "memorizing" ever, at least in this source. I'm not going to say memorize is literally never used to refer to spell preparation, but I wouldn't be surprised. I did check the DMG and MM, as well as the rules compendium for the hell of it, and no memory variant is used in this fashion in any of those sources, for whatever that's worth. I think I have to stop doing this now, lest I go insane checking every book that's either sufficiently game central or that plausibly has some talk of spell preparation.

[AvatarVecna]

Well, I mean, the alternative is to take out vancian magic.

And boy howdy, if you think things were bad before...

Oh come on, don't be so hyperbolic. 4e took out Vancian casting and gave everybody limited-use-per-day abilities so that everybody could be a super-awesome caster, and look how great 4e turned out!

[Hackulator]

Every book? Does that include the Player's Handbook?



The "precasting" explanation is not only canon, it's core.

As for the thread topic itself - I don't disagree, but I think all these complaints about wizard design and fighter design are overblown. The point of game design is to have fun, and these classes are both fun to play. Fighter needs a little more help outside of core (even in PF) but it has gotten that. What we should be doing is spreading knowledge of the options that make these classes better, not demonizing people for their choices. And yes, let them know Warblade and Beguiler exist too, but if they want to play Fighter or Wizard, we should support our friends. (We are playing with friends, right?)

Oh yeah I totally agree with you here, but that seems to be lost on a lot of people on the boards. I was just making a comment on design, which I mostly stand by. Mechanics design is honestly not THAT important when it comes to having fun. I recently played in a game where someone used something from a book that is either a typo or just a horrible mistake, because they ended up having like, 11 ECL worth of stats more than they should have. I still had fun even though I was mostly useless in all combat situations.

[Jay R]

Except it's clearly called "memorizing" in every book and every description, ever...

That is simply a false statement.
PHB, p.57: "She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard chooses which spells to prepare (see Preparing Wizard Spells, page 177)."
PHB, p. 178: "The act of preparing a spell is actually the first step in casting it. A spell is designed in such a way that it has an interruption point near its end. This allows a wizard to cast most of the spell ahead of time and finish when it's needed, even if she is under considerable pressure. Her spellbook serves as a guide to the mental exercises she must perform to create the spell's effect."
PHB, p. 178: "Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it.


You making up a less stupid idea that isn't what they are doing does not make what they are doing less stupid.

I didn't make it up. This is another false statement.

Reading the actual rulebook and finding out what the non-stupid process actually is, does reveal that it is not stupid.

Many people try to reduce it to the stupid, over-simplistic process of "memorizing". Even in those editions in which it was called "memorizing", it was clear that the process of preparing a spell was magical. Therefore anybody who could think knew it had to include more that the non-magical version of memorizing that you and I do, just as casting a spell is not the same sort of casting that fishermen do.

But this forum is about 3e and 3.5e. Reading the 3.5e books shows that it was pretty consistently not called "memorizing", but "preparing".

[Kaleph]

To expand on this, "it" in this context doesn't refer to that quoted passage, or even to the wizard section. It refers to the entire PHB. I checked, and, as far as I can tell, the word memorize occurs exactly twice, first with, "You don’t have to memorize this book," and then with, "memorize Elven song." Other variants on memory occur more often, eighteen times from what I can see, and exactly never in this way. The closest is, "...except for read magic, which all wizards can prepare from memory." Most other uses refer some specific spell or magical effect, such as modify memory. So, no, it's not called "memorizing" ever, at least in this source. I'm not going to say memorize is literally never used to refer to spell preparation, but I wouldn't be surprised. I did check the DMG and MM, as well as the rules compendium for the hell of it, and no memory variant is used in this fashion in any of those sources, for whatever that's worth. I think I have to stop doing this now, lest I go insane checking every book that's either sufficiently game central or that plausibly has some talk of spell preparation.

This is also what I expect: in 3rd edition they removed every reference to memorization, which was instead used in the previous versions, exactly because it was a ridiculous explanation of how the vancian system worked.

[Psyren]

Oh come on, don't be so hyperbolic. 4e took out Vancian casting and gave everybody limited-use-per-day abilities so that everybody could be a super-awesome caster, and look how great 4e turned out!

Checking if my browser's blue is working


Oh yeah I totally agree with you here, but that seems to be lost on a lot of people on the boards. I was just making a comment on design, which I mostly stand by. Mechanics design is honestly not THAT important when it comes to having fun. I recently played in a game where someone used something from a book that is either a typo or just a horrible mistake, because they ended up having like, 11 ECL worth of stats more than they should have. I still had fun even though I was mostly useless in all combat situations.

I agree, but this example has nothing to do with mechanics design. That player just straight up cheated, seemingly with GM sanction.


That is simply a false statement.
PHB, p.57: "She must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting a good night's sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the wizard chooses which spells to prepare (see Preparing Wizard Spells, page 177)."
PHB, p. 178: "The act of preparing a spell is actually the first step in casting it. A spell is designed in such a way that it has an interruption point near its end. This allows a wizard to cast most of the spell ahead of time and finish when it's needed, even if she is under considerable pressure. Her spellbook serves as a guide to the mental exercises she must perform to create the spell's effect."
PHB, p. 178: "Once a wizard prepares a spell, it remains in her mind as a nearly cast spell until she uses the prescribed components to complete and trigger it or until she abandons it.



I didn't make it up. This is another false statement.

Reading the actual rulebook and finding out what the non-stupid process actually is, does reveal that it is not stupid.

Many people try to reduce it to the stupid, over-simplistic process of "memorizing". Even in those editions in which it was called "memorizing", it was clear that the process of preparing a spell was magical. Therefore anybody who could think knew it had to include more that the non-magical version of memorizing that you and I do, just as casting a spell is not the same sort of casting that fishermen do.

But this forum is about 3e and 3.5e. Reading the 3.5e books shows that it was pretty consistently not called "memorizing", but "preparing".

See also my quote from the PHB where they describe in detail what Mialee is doing when she prepares spells.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Well, I mean, the alternative is to take out vancian magic.

And boy howdy, if you think things were bad before...

Hello, do you have time to talk about the word of-

PSIONICS?

It's actually all in the SRD, if you don't have access to the dead tree version. Might I suggest starting with the 'Spell to Power' version of the Erudite, if you want something that tastes like Wizard, but is more easily consumed, and has less calories?

Psionics: It makes everything better, even other Psionics.

ESPECIALLY other Psionics.

[Hackulator]

Ok, here I'm gonna do something you rarely see.

I admit, I was wrong about the "memorization" thing. I guess me and my friends just tend to say memorize because we've been playing since first edition.

There, I admitted I was wrong on the internet.

The rest of it I stand by however.






I agree, but this example has nothing to do with mechanics design. That player just straight up cheated, seemingly with GM sanction.


No, the anthropomorphic whale just has like 11 ECL worth of stats with a 0 level adjustment cause Savage Species is a bad book.

[Zanos]

Doesn't anthropomorphic whale have racial HD?

[Psyren]

Ok, here I'm gonna do something you rarely see.

I admit, I was wrong about the "memorization" thing. I guess me and my friends just tend to say memorize because we've been playing since first edition.

There, I admitted I was wrong on the internet.

The rest of it I stand by however.

Don't feel bad, I had originally (erroneously) thought Vancian made no sense for this reason too, until I came across that passage.



No, the anthropomorphic whale just has like 11 ECL worth of stats with a 0 level adjustment cause Savage Species is a bad book.

Ah. That's still on the GM though - 3.0 material, including SS, needs to be "adjusted" if it is brought into 3.5 games. And 3.0 was notoriously broken.

[eggynack]

The rest of it I stand by however.

Even that part about the wizard somehow tending towards less selfish in combat than the druid, a class whose classical standard operating procedure is being a bear riding a bear shooting bears?

[AvatarVecna]

Checking if my browser's blue is working

it is, I just don't always use it when being sarcastic. Sometimes I prefer letting the tone speak for itself. Responses are fun when people take it seriously, though. :smallsmile:


Ah. That's still on the GM though - 3.0 material, including SS, needs to be "adjusted" if it is brought into 3.5 games. And 3.0 was notoriously broken.

Mhm. It's worth keeping in mind that 3.5, as broken as it is, was the improvement made to the 3.0 broken crap (well, some of it).

[Hackulator]

Ah. That's still on the GM though - 3.0 material, including SS, needs to be "adjusted" if it is brought into 3.5 games. And 3.0 was notoriously broken.

Eh, it's an insane game, so he just said we could take anything. We're playing carnies for an interdimensional carnival run by a Leshay. Each of the 13 wagons is its own demiplane with all sorts of insane entertainments and adventures inside. We travel from world to world getting into trouble. Given all that he gave us pretty free reign, someone just happened to find something with a messed up ECL. I'm playing a Half-Celestial Draconic Kobold.

[Tainted_Scholar]

@Hackulator, did a Wizard Player run over your parents or something? Jeez.



As a small counter-point about prepping spells: I would think a cleric or druid would take longer, since they can pick any spell, verses just spells in their spellbook. I think at one point (around level 15 or so) I chose wizard over cleric because I wanted a limit on my spells to pick each morning, to preclude some time-consuming optimizing.

As someone who has played alot of spell casters, I can safely say I much prefer preparing out of a book than having access to all of the class' spells. In addition to being a bit overwhelmed by having access to all the spells, I also think that choosing your known spells helps customize your character.



Back to the topic at hand, yes Wizards are horribly designed, most things in 3.5 are. However they are far from being the worst designed class in the game.

[EldritchWeaver]

As someone who has played alot of spell casters, I can safely say I much prefer preparing out of a book than having access to all of the class' spells. In addition to being a bit overwhelmed by having access to all the spells, I also think that choosing your known spells helps customize your character.

I created an excel sheet with entries for each spell and each possible use (rather categories like buff or attack), so I could look at the sorted lists, which spell would help me most given a situation.

[Cosi]

Also lets not forget that the Wizard mechanic is just dumb compared to the others. A cleric's god grants them limited power per day, makes sense. A sorcerer only has so much magical energy they can expend before they need to rest, makes sense. A Wizard....somehow can't remember how to cast the spells he studies EVERY DAMN MORNING. That makes no frickin sense.

A Cleric can keep gaining levels until he is more powerful than the god he nominally worships. That seems pretty dumb.


I would agree that the spell Knock doesn't make the rogue obsolete, the Wand of Knock makes him obsolete, unless the Rogue can consistently use it via UMD which is an additional skill tax (but one I think pretty much every rogue makes). I see what you're saying, but can you see where I'm coming from too?

It depends. The Wand of knock is certainly better than knock for these purposes, but it's far from perfect. If you encounter lots of locks, it's going to cost you money the Rogue wont. If you don't encounter enough locks, it's a sunk cost. Also, most Rogues will take UMD, so the point is kind of moot.

But yeah, wands do change things somewhat.


I want to take a moment to break down the this statement right here, which is a great example of the sort of attitude wizard players have. Knock does a better job at opening locked doors than rogues open locks, one of the primary functions of their class in the design of D&D.

There are, IIRC, two Rogue class features that interact with Open Lock -- having Open Lock as a class skill, and being able to pick it for Skill Mastery. If that counts as a "primary function", I think you have defined that term too loosely.

Of course, you also miss that knock isn't simply better than Open Lock. If you rely on knock, you can be defeated by the deadly threat of ... two locks in a row.


However, somehow the wizard player convinces himself that that is balanced because memorizing knock means he couldn't memorize one of the other TREMENDOUSLY powerful spells he can have. The fact that everything you do is better so doing ANYTHING has higher opportunity cost is not balance.

It if the ratio of (Marginal Benefit of knock)/(Marginal Cost of knock) is equal to the ratio (Marginal Benefit of Open Lock)/(Marginal Cost of Open Lock), that seems like a good approximation of balance.


Now there is a short window when the wizard isn't so weak that he should be dying every fight, he has spells like knock that are powerful but he is still very limited in total spells he can cast. This is a VERY short window where the wizard is not a problem.

No, there's a very small window where other classes aren't the problem. The knock/Open Lock paradigm is balanced. The problem is that skills stop delivering, not that spells keep doing so.


Mhm. It's worth keeping in mind that 3.5, as broken as it is, was the improvement made to the 3.0 broken crap (well, some of it).

Eh. 3.5 made Druids better, broke shapechange and wish, and made changes to haste that were, while well-intended, probably bad overall. I'm sure it fixed some stuff, but it was a decidedly mixed bag.

[Twurps]

When people say "why would you play a Fighter" the subtext is "other options do what a Fighter does with less effort at a higher degree of effectiveness". That's radically different from this threads subtext of "why are people who play Wizards bad people".

Are you sure?

It's always time to bash fighters my fellow dungeoncrasher.

.... It's a great class for kids, lazy people, and those that don't have the time to invest into something that requires more system mastery.
Just 1 example, not even the best one, but the thread is 17 pages long by now and I'm not gonna start over reading it. My point: there's a good deal of judgement going on in the fighter thread, like there is in a lot of threads that don't idolize wizards.

[KillianHawkeye]

Ok, here I'm gonna do something you rarely see.

I admit, I was wrong about the "memorization" thing. I guess me and my friends just tend to say memorize because we've been playing since first edition.

There, I admitted I was wrong on the internet.

The rest of it I stand by however.

Really? You're going to stand by your ridiculous assertion that people only play Wizards so they can "be more powerful than everyone else"? You're telling me you're comfortable sticking to this particular gun?

Oh, and how about your nonsensical "scroll shopping wastes 10 minutes" argument, as if Clerics aren't stopping at the local temple and Fighters aren't also hitting the weapons shop in every town they visit?! The whole premise of this game is to explore dungeons, kill monsters, get treasure, then go back to town so you can sell your loot and buy new stuff in order to go back out and repeat the entire process, and you're complaining that Wizards have to spend an extra 10 minutes shopping when THAT ISN'T EVEN TRUE??? :smallmad:

[Hackulator]

Really? You're going to stand by your ridiculous assertion that people only play Wizards so they can "be more powerful than everyone else"? You're telling me you're comfortable sticking to this particular gun?

Oh, and how about your nonsensical "scroll shopping wastes 10 minutes" argument, as if Clerics aren't stopping at the local temple and Fighters aren't also hitting the weapons shop in every town they visit?! The whole premise of this game is to explore dungeons, kill monsters, get treasure, then go back to town so you can sell your loot and buy new stuff in order to go back out and repeat the entire process, and you're complaining that Wizards have to spend an extra 10 minutes shopping when THAT ISN'T EVEN TRUE??? :smallmad:

Yeah, pretty much.

You seem upset.

[KillianHawkeye]

Yeah, pretty much.

You seem upset.

Yeah, pretty much. :smallsigh:

[logic_error]

I do not agree.

I agree with this guy.

[eggynack]

Yeah, pretty much.

You seem upset.
So, what you're saying is, you played with like two people who played wizards and were jerks about it, so you've decided that all people who have a tendency towards wizards are jerks in the same way, and that the wizard itself is particularly poorly designed, without any real supporting evidence.

[Jormengand]

So, what you're saying is, you played with like two people who played wizards and were jerks about it, so you've decided that all people who have a tendency towards wizards are jerks in the same way, and that the wizard itself is particularly poorly designed, without any real supporting evidence.

To be fair, "The people I know in category X are bad, therefore all people in category X are bad, therefore category X is itself bad as a category" isn't exactly uncommon.

[Elkad]

As for a thematic gap, the wizard thematic could be almost entirely filled by sorcerers.

No. Not even a little bit. I play Wizards because I want options. A Sorc doesn't get options, he gets to cast the same few spells over and over and over and over. He might as well be waving his stick like a fighter.

I don't even like spontaneous casting (including Psionics). If Wizards went away, I'd just play Druids. If they went away, I'd play Clerics. Or Ranger or Paladin or something else with prepared casting.
Vancian magic is a big part of my love of D&D. You have to guess what to memorize, and figure out how to fix the problem when you guess wrong.

You can choose to play a whole new character every day, just by changing your spell selection.


As to being slow in combat? No. You are a prepared caster. PREPARE! Know your spells. Be planning your next move while it isn't your turn (though everyone should be doing that). Have character sheets for all your summons. Have stacks of little colored poker chips to hand out to the other party members when you buff them. Blue=Haste, White=Invis, etc. It reminds the party members that they have the buffs, so rolls aren't getting retroactively adjusted because people forgot to add the buffs in.

If I'm playing God-Wizard at low to mid levels, often I don't even do anything after the 2nd round. I adjust my position so the badguys can't charge me, my Imp/Lyrakien takes a shot with it's bow (yay for Outsider proficiencies), and then I'm done. I can't remember the last time I had 3+ summons out at once. Maybe never.

[Psyren]

So, what you're saying is, you played with like two people who played wizards and were jerks about it, so you've decided that all people who have a tendency towards wizards are jerks in the same way, and that the wizard itself is particularly poorly designed, without any real supporting evidence.

That's hardly fair, he has a point. The wizard is poorly designed. No one class should be capable of so much with so little sacrifice (a night's sleep at lower levels, and a bigger book at higher levels.)

Few players actually use it that way because gentleman's agreements exist, but I've seen time and again around here proposals to divide the wizard up into composite specialty classes (similar to the Beguiler) or keep it general but more limited in how it can specialize.

[The Viscount]

. And yes, let them know Warblade and Beguiler exist too, but if they want to play Fighter or Wizard, we should support our friends. (We are playing with friends, right?)
Somebody said the word "worst" in the title, we're all enemies now. Anytime a class is labeled best or worst, or anybody labels wizard, fighter, or monk as anything then war is declared until the thread closes.


Hello, do you have time to talk about the word of-

PSIONICS?

It's actually all in the SRD, if you don't have access to the dead tree version. Might I suggest starting with the 'Spell to Power' version of the Erudite, if you want something that tastes like Wizard, but is more easily consumed, and has less calories?

Psionics: It makes everything better, even other Psionics.

ESPECIALLY other Psionics.
Which problems of Wizard is Spell to Power Erudite solving, exactly?

Doesn't anthropomorphic whale have racial HD?

Anthropormorphic whale does indeed have 3 racial HD, so a starting ECL of 3. Yeah they have a net +20 to stats, Large size, and +9 NA, but 3 HD is enough to make people think twice. There's a reason Ur-Priest made his monstrous handbook, and opened it with an excerpt of someone expressing ignorance of how monstrous rules work. Not everyone understands the rules well.

[eggynack]

That's hardly fair, he has a point. The wizard is poorly designed. No one class should be capable of so much with so little sacrifice (a night's sleep at lower levels, and a bigger book at higher levels.)
Not saying it's a perfect class, or even necessarily a good one. Just that many of these arguments seem bad, and the OP is apparently unwilling or unable to defend them beyond just repeatedly claiming their correctness.

[lylsyly]

We play a gritty, lethal campaign, and always start at first level. Also, the opportunity to rest and regain spells is frequently limited. Only about one in three wizards survive long enough to make it to second level. The awesome power they gain at high levels is kind of a reward for being able to survive that long. Not many do.

But do you reward the poor little tier 4/5 characters that helped them survive? The mechanics sure don't.

[Cosi]

Not saying it's a perfect class, or even necessarily a good one. Just that many of these arguments seem bad, and the OP is apparently unwilling or unable to defend them beyond just repeatedly claiming their correctness.

I will go ahead and say that I am in fact saying that the Wizard is a good class. It's not perfect, but it is above average, and a lot better than most classes in the game (generally in two or three different ways).

[eggynack]

I will go ahead and say that I am in fact saying that the Wizard is a good class. It's not perfect, but it is above average, and a lot better than most classes in the game (generally in two or three different ways).
Sure. I think it's pretty sweet and such. I just don't necessarily disagree with people that say it's below average. It's a class with its fair share of issues.

[ryu]

Sure. I think it's pretty sweet and such. I just don't necessarily disagree with people that say it's below average. It's a class with its fair share of issues.

I mean I literally wouldn't bother playing this game if it didn't have classes with this level of complexity. If I wanted to play a game with a pure blaster, a healer, a melee master, and a thief final fantasy has me covered and I don't even have to schedule with friends or bother with actually getting out all the damned fiddly materials.

[logic_error]

Wizards the best class in D&D. Bite me.

[Tainted_Scholar]

That's hardly fair, he has a point. The wizard is poorly designed. No one class should be capable of so much with so little sacrifice (a night's sleep at lower levels, and a bigger book at higher levels.)

Of course the Wizard is poorly designed, but that's not what he's complaining about. He's complaining about how Wizard players are terrible, and how Wizards bring combat to a halt (Which any class with multiple options can do), and how the Wizard wastes time shopping.

His arguments are bad and insulting.

[ryu]

Wizards the best class in D&D. Bite me.

A more confrontational version of my position, but only for the last two words.

[Nupo]

But do you reward the poor little tier 4/5 characters that helped them survive? The mechanics sure don't.They help the wizard survive at lower levels, and at higher levels the wizard returns the favor.

[unseenmage]

I agree with this guy.

This is agreeable to me.

-----------------------------

And here I am sitting here having evolved past Wizards into Artificers just using all of the spells.

AND due to my own ineptitude I maintain an even flimsier grasp at survivability at lower levels whilst aiming to be god tier once I start making more resources than I consume.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Which problems of Wizard is Spell to Power Erudite solving, exactly?

It isn't named 'Wizard', which is sometimes the only beef people have against a class.

It also cranks down the OPness a bit, since it's harder to stack metapsionics onto powers, than it is to stack metamagic onto magic.

Generally, Psionics trades grand, overwhelming power, for staying power, a welcome change from 'I used all my good spells, let's pack it in for the night, and finish this dungeon tomorrow, guys.'

"But the Lich is summoning the DEAD GOD RIGHT NOW, YOU THUNDERING MORON!"

[ryu]

It isn't named 'Wizard', which is sometimes the only beef people have against a class.

It also cranks down the OPness a bit, since it's harder to stack metapsionics onto powers, than it is to stack metamagic onto magic.

Generally, Psionics trades grand, overwhelming power, for staying power, a welcome change from 'I used all my good spells, let's pack it in for the night, and finish this dungeon tomorrow, guys.'

"But the Lich is summoning the DEAD GOD RIGHT NOW, YOU THUNDERING MORON!"

"Yeah and I have have a private demiplane with a flower garden and a spell to make it didn't happen. What of it?"

[Mordaedil]

Oh come on, don't be so hyperbolic. 4e took out Vancian casting and gave everybody limited-use-per-day abilities so that everybody could be a super-awesome caster, and look how great 4e turned out!

Well, I meant without replacing it with something sensible. Just simply remove the need for castings per day, spell memorization, spells known and spell points. Just straight up what is in your spellbook at any time can be uased without limits.

And there are plenty of nice variants to vancian casting, I realize, I was just being tongue-in-cheek about it.

[Florian]

Wizards the best class in D&D. Bite me.

Don´t confuse "Wizard - The Class" with "Wizard - The Spell List".

The basic class framework simply is (excrement), proven over and over again by people generally taking the first chance to switch to a PrC to actually have class features besides the spells (Master Specialist, Veil, Trix, Archmage) or go gish (Abjurant Chamion) to have anything meaningful to contribute when not wanting to "waste" a spell slot.

With hindsight, the whole complex of spells and their casting could have fit into three feats that open up access to 1-4, 5-6 and 7-9 casting and be done with it.

[Menzath]

So the main points he makes boil down to

1) higher level spells break the game (wizard especially?)

2) spell selection from a limited number of spells known is time consuming

3) complex classes... Make me angry?

4) using down time to shop... Makes me angry?

5) low level play feels unbalanced.

So where to start. Let's go with my fav, #4. Play a game with a UMD rogue. I had a 3 page list of items I checked for in every town.(3 rows, front and back 😁)

#5 actually is the most balanced for high tier casters (except druids)

#1 boils down to your players and what they want to do.

#2 yeah... There are so many worse things that can be done.

And #3 sounds like a personal problem bro.

Now, does that make wizard, or even any high tier class well designed? Not so much, I prefer playing tier 2-4 myself, but to be honest there are more classes at the bottom of the spectrum that deserve a closer look rather then starting from the top.

[Psyren]

Not saying it's a perfect class, or even necessarily a good one. Just that many of these arguments seem bad, and the OP is apparently unwilling or unable to defend them beyond just repeatedly claiming their correctness.


Somebody said the word "worst" in the title, we're all enemies now. Anytime a class is labeled best or worst, or anybody labels wizard, fighter, or monk as anything then war is declared until the thread closes.

Honestly, I don't even mind that he's riling people up. So many people are happy to leap into the loving arms of hyperbole when talking about how useless Fighters are or how unplayable 3.5 is, seeing the shoe on the other foot for Wizards is actually a bit refreshing. "It's just hyperbole to get clicks" is an awful defense no matter which side of Martial/Caster Disparity you fall on, yet this is one of the only times I've seen it used in the other direction.

[Zanos]

Honestly, I don't even mind that he's riling people up. So many people are happy to leap into the loving arms of hyperbole when talking about how useless Fighters are or how unplayable 3.5 is, seeing the shoe on the other foot for Wizards is actually a bit refreshing. "It's just hyperbole to get clicks" is an awful defense no matter which side of Martial/Caster Disparity you fall on, yet this is one of the only times I've seen it used in the other direction.
Bad arguments are bad arguments regardless of direction, and I say that as one of people who semi-frequently defends against accusations of Fighters being useless.

[eggynack]

Honestly, I don't even mind that he's riling people up. So many people are happy to leap into the loving arms of hyperbole when talking about how useless Fighters are or how unplayable 3.5 is, seeing the shoe on the other foot for Wizards is actually a bit refreshing. "It's just hyperbole to get clicks" is an awful defense no matter which side of Martial/Caster Disparity you fall on, yet this is one of the only times I've seen it used in the other direction.
Really? I've think I've seen a bunch of, "Wizard players are jerks who just like to lord it over people," and I don't think it was just repeatedly coming from Hackulator. Anyway, I'm fine with wacky anti-class rants. I just prefer it when they have more juice behind them. When they don't just respond to extensive rebuttals of their points with, "No, you."

[Psyren]

Bad arguments are bad arguments regardless of direction, and I say that as one of people who semi-frequently defends accusations of Fighters being useless.

I agree but, as mentioned, don't particularly care in this case. I'm not the one making the argument after all, just enjoying the fallout.


Really? I've think I've seen a bunch of, "Wizard players are jerks who just like to lord it over people," and I don't think it was just repeatedly coming from Hackulator. Anyway, I'm fine with wacky anti-class rants. I just prefer it when they have more juice behind them. When they don't just respond to extensive rebuttals of their points with, "No, you."

I've literally seen posts from people claiming that we have a moral imperative not to play Fighters. A couple of those threads are even on the front page. So I have little sympathy remaining in me.

[eggynack]

I've literally seen posts from people claiming that we have a moral imperative not to play Fighters. A couple of those threads are even on the front page. So I have little sympathy remaining in me.
Didn't say fighters don't get extensive rants. Just that wizards sometimes do.

[AvatarVecna]

I agree but, as mentioned, don't particularly care in this case. I'm not the one making the argument after all, just enjoying the fallout.



I've literally seen posts from people claiming that we have a moral imperative not to play Fighters. A couple of those threads are even on the front page. So I have little sympathy remaining in me.

The forum has recently gained a couple people who are getting into 3.X optimization, threads about Fighters and Wizards and Monks are kinda expected. What's more, while I won't deny that Fighter threads tend to eventually get into "letting a newb play Fighter is setting them up for disappointment and frustrated standards of game balance, and you shouldn't do it", Fighter threads rarely start with "you're a bad person for letting new players play fighter", they start out on the position of "Fighter sucks" and other people come in and say "Fighter doesn't suck" (or, even more pointless of an argument, "Fighter sucks but it doesn't matter that it sucks", which is some serious goalpost moving on a discussion about whether Fighters suck or not), and both sides get gradually more upset until the first side has not only failed to have been convinced that Fighter doesn't suck, but is now thoroughly convinced that letting new players play a Fighter instead of "a class that actually works" is setting their expectations going into future games to a place where future games almost inevitably won't meet.

(Note: for a lot of the same reasons, I wouldn't recommend that a new player be a full caster starting out, because instead of setting the bar unreasonably low ("It's normal and expected for half the party to be more or less useless during encounters they don't spend lots of resources to be good at"), its sets the bar unreasonably high ("every level-appropriate problem has a level-appropriate solution, and you should expect to always have personal access to one or two of them given a bit of time and effort"). A Rogue or Barbarian or Paladin is a much better Core starting point, I think.)

That's not how this thread started though. This thread started with "the wizard class, on the whole, is the worst designed class" (I don't think anybody can deny that it's poorly designed, although whether it's the worst or just among the worst is up for debate, but hyperbole is acceptable in threads like these), and immediately tacks on "and that's not even getting started on the kind of people who play wizards, who are willing to suffer through the early garbage so that they can lord their late-game power over everybody". It's worth looking at the difference in who these threads started: the Fighter thread, made by somebody who's still exploring optimization, asks others what they see in the Fighter class that's worth playing; it's clear reading through the thread that the OP just doesn't get why somebody would want to, doesn't see what overcomes (what looks to them to be) serious mechanical issues with the Fighter class, and wants to know if they're just missing something gamechanging. The Wizard thread, meanwhile, from someone who's about as new on the forum as the other OP, starts with "Wizard sucks, and the players that play Wizard suck harder".

[Zanos]

The forum has recently gained a couple people who are getting into 3.X optimization, threads about Fighters and Wizards and Monks are kinda expected.
As tiresome as I find such threads these days I think they are a sign new people are still regularly joining the community, which is good news for a 14 year old game. Doesn't seem to be going anywhere.


A Rogue or Barbarian or Paladin is a much better Core starting point, I think.)
Barbarian works as long as combat can solve most of your problems. D&D generally assumes that so it's fine. Paladin is sketchy because of the very restrictive RP requirements and D&Ds finicky system of cosmic morality. Rogue is actually kind of hard to play in 3.5, with low defensive abilities, melee being required for prime damage output, and a d6 for hit die, you're very liable to die quite quickly, since it's also your job to solo scout and disarm traps.


That's not how this thread started though. This thread started with "the wizard class, on the whole, is the worst designed class" (I don't think anybody can deny that it's poorly designed, although whether it's the worst or just among the worst is up for debate, but hyperbole is acceptable in threads like these), and immediately tacks on "and that's not even getting started on the kind of people who play wizards, who are willing to suffer through the early garbage so that they can lord their late-game power over everybody".
I'd argue that the wizard design, which is really just spell, familiar, and bonus feat progression with a weak chassis over 20 levels, is fine. Wizard's being able to get every spell isn't really a problem because they're still limited in versatility and power by their preparation system. I.E. can't cast dispel magic three times if you prepped it twice, there's ways around that but they aren't part of the wizard class. You need to argue instead that spells themselves are poorly designed. I think most people will agree that Sorcerer is designed worse in the context of 3.5 base classes than wizard, since it gets literally no features other than basic scaling.

And to be fair to the wizard list pretty much every major spell list contains similar power. You could argue that the druid list is a little bit weaker, but clerics still have access to most of the same game-breakers, and know them for free. Plus all their other stuff. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comics/AGC247.GIF)

[logic_error]

Don´t confuse "Wizard - The Class" with "Wizard - The Spell List".


It's one and the same as far as any discussion about Wizards is concerned. Separating the Wizard from its Spell selection is like talking about Rogues without the Sneak attacks. It's the core of the class. You do not get access to the ability to learn and dispense all these spells otherwise. Even fantastic classes like the Artificer and Spell Domain Clerics need more than the base frame to cast spells (I am assuming that the spellbook is a part of the base frame). Do people branch out into PrCs? Sure! But not because the base wizard is bad, but rather because there exist PrCs which make Wizards even more powerful. I for one would find playing a Wizard 20 completely satisfying experience due to the spell list.

[Gildedragon]

From a design perspective the wizard is quite like the fighter in that it is more or less a blank chasis + feats
Poor design: the monk, where it gets a ton of things that don't really work with each other; the truenamer where the mechanics weren't playtested (I hope); most monster classes (leaving the PCs under CRed and HDed), the soulknife (getting a free weapon IS a class, dontcha see!)
And even within spellcasters, the sorcerer is lazier design. They don't even get feats.

[Goaty14]

So the main points he makes boil down to

4) using down time to shop... Makes me angry?



And what's the fighter going to do in that period?
Out of his 2-4 skill points, I doubt one of them will be a profession skill to make noteworthy gold, otherwise he just has to deal with 1 sp a day while the wizard is trying to find summoning spells.

[Jormengand]

And what's the fighter going to do in that period?
Out of his 2-4 skill points, I doubt one of them will be a profession skill to make noteworthy gold, otherwise he just has to deal with 1 sp a day while the wizard is trying to find summoning spells.

Presumably, the fighter finds something to climb, jump on, intimidate, or hit with a sword. Or goes shopping too.

It's not the wizard's fault the fighter has no meaningful options for what to do outside of an arena grudge match.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Honestly, I don't even mind that he's riling people up. So many people are happy to leap into the loving arms of hyperbole when talking about how useless Fighters are or how unplayable 3.5 is, seeing the shoe on the other foot for Wizards is actually a bit refreshing. "It's just hyperbole to get clicks" is an awful defense no matter which side of Martial/Caster Disparity you fall on, yet this is one of the only times I've seen it used in the other direction.

Except his argument isn't that Wizards are poorly designed, it's that Wizard players are terrible and a bunch of other stuff that don't matter.

[Zanos]

And what's the fighter going to do in that period?
Out of his 2-4 skill points, I doubt one of them will be a profession skill to make noteworthy gold, otherwise he just has to deal with 1 sp a day while the wizard is trying to find summoning spells.
Also buy stuff? Wait for his + 1 VERY SPECIFIC SET OF ENCHANTMENTS weapon to be crafted because they're not just on every shelf? Or like, enjoy some time off? Visit family? I would think that after day after day of lethal combat you wouldn't really mind that someone wanted to spend a month doing some reading while you enjoyed being one of the richest and most famous people in town. Leveling up IIRC is also supposed to take downtime or something.

Seriously, a DM saying "a month passes while you all take care of your business in town" doesn't actually take more than 10 seconds. Might need to make some rolls I guess, but it's not an OOC time cost.

[Maximum Carnage]

Wow, no room for civil discourse after that OP.

A step in the right direction is not to hamstring the wizard, but remove powerful world-breaking spells. Like Wish.. take it out, don't speak of it, throw it away, and light it on fire.

[Zanos]

A step in the right direction is not to hamstring the wizard, but remove powerful world-breaking spells. Like Wish.. take it out, don't speak of it, throw it away, and light it on fire.
Wish is only broken on the condition that you're casting it without an XP cost, which Wizards cannot do without very specific builds that aren't part of the core wizard class.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Wish is only broken on the condition that you're casting it without an XP cost, which Wizards cannot do without very specific builds that aren't part of the core wizard class.

They can just use planar binding to get free wishes in core.

[Zanos]

They can just use planar binding to get free wishes in core.
I'm more than aware; but that's a problem with planar binding and SLAs, and has nothing to do with a wizard preparing and casting wish.

Getting it via a bound monsters SLA would also pretty easily falls under getting it without an XP cost anyway.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I'm more than aware; but that's a problem with planar binding and SLAs, and has nothing to do with a wizard preparing and casting wish.

Yes, but it's also a problem with Wish to a degree because the spell's so powerful.

[eggynack]

I'm more than aware; but that's a problem with planar binding and SLAs, and has nothing to do with a wizard preparing and casting wish.

Sure, but you decidedly don't require specific builds or anything besides natively accessible wizard stuff. And you can also pull this off with shapechange

[Zanos]

Yes, but it's also a problem with Wish to a degree because the spell's so powerful.
That's why all those Sorcerers take wish as one of their 9ths, I assume?

Seriously, wish is fine if you're actually paying the costs for it, because they're super prohibitive. I mean, I can go through the uses:


Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
You can cast these normally. Useful in a major emergency maybe, but another 9th could probably solve your problem without costing 5k xp. Not fantastic but not useless.


Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.
Let's you get an effect you would have some trouble with otherwise. Pretty good, but there's not a ton of off-list 6th level spells that are worth blowing 5k xp on. Same rating.


Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Similar to the above.


Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.
Same thing.


Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.
Sometimes necessary, but there's usually less expensive effects that can undo this stuff.


Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.
Not sure this is ever really useful. Crafting provides a "going rate" for XP to gp as 1->12.5. Maybe some niche uses for this?


Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.
Probably the worst function, since it costs 5k xp + 2* the normal XP cost of the item. The base 5k xp kills this as an interesting function because 5k XP is worth 62,500gp by itself.


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.
Better on scrolls. Creates problems because you can't spend enough XP to lose a level and getting the full bonus would cost 25k xp.


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.
This is actually a good use if there's some nasty condition on the whole party or you're getting stomped HP wise.


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.
Technically a duplicate of spell replication.


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.
Another good use, since it can presumably get through dimensional locks and stuff.


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.
There's 2nd and 3rd level spells that give rerolls as immediate actions.

Wish's biggest strength is that it's super versatile, but it's a pretty steep cost to pay for not preparing the right stuff to begin with and getting yourself into a situation where burning 5k xp is a better option than retreating and dealing with it tomorrow.


Sure, but you decidedly don't require specific builds or anything besides natively accessible wizard stuff. And you can also pull this off with shapechange
Fair, but I still maintain that's a problem with those spells and some monsters rather than wish. You don't remove wish because shapechange and planar binding grant you access to it for free, you fix those spells.

[Maximum Carnage]

Wish is only broken on the condition that you're casting it without an XP cost, which Wizards cannot do without very specific builds that aren't part of the core wizard class.

I think you meant Wish is (snip) broken (snip).

5000 xp for a +1 ability increase is something I'll take all day everyday. Especially when, after casting it, the wizard waits one day, prepares it again, and uses the teleport function to take the party to a plane where high CR monsters are prevalent, and POOF you have your xp back, after a small battle. Oh, and if anything goes wrong along the way... You guessed it, casting Wish to revive dead or undo misfortune..

You shan't be convincing me this spell isn't broken, so save your breath.

[Zanos]

I think you meant Wish is (snip) broken (snip).

5000 xp for a +1 ability increase is something I'll take all day everyday. Especially when, after casting it, the wizard waits one day, prepares it again, and uses the teleport function to take the party to a plane where high CR monsters are prevalent, and POOF you have your xp back, after a small battle. Oh, and if anything goes wrong along the way... You guessed it, casting Wish to revive dead or undo misfortune..
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Tome_of_Clear_Thought

Also, using wish to increase your ability scores only stacks if you do it back to back and only stacks up to +5. You have to spend 25k xp in one sitting to get the full bonus. And also have 5 9th level spell slots.

[Tainted_Scholar]

You can cast wish and use the Magic Item part to get a Ring of Three Wishes. Yes, it costs alot of XP, but then you get unlimited Wishes as a result, since you can use the Ring of Three Wishes to wish for more Rings of Three Wishes.

[Zanos]

You can cast wish and use the Magic Item part to get a Ring of Three Wishes. Yes, it costs alot of XP, but then you get unlimited Wishes as a result, since you can use the Ring of Three Wishes to wish for more Rings of Three Wishes.
It would cost 36836, and therefore require you be about to hit level 37, because you can't spend XP on a spell if it would reduce your level.

EDIT: I guess you could stockpile XP after level 17 to do this, requiring the entirety of your XP from levels 18 and 19 to be stockpiled. You could also, however, just buy a ring of three wishes for 97,950gp if you interpret that the ring works in such a way that it contains functionally unlimited XP.

[Maximum Carnage]

You can cast wish and use the Magic Item part to get a Ring of Three Wishes. Yes, it costs alot of XP, but then you get unlimited Wishes as a result, since you can use the Ring of Three Wishes to wish for more Rings of Three Wishes.

@Zanos

Need I say more?

[AvatarVecna]

Come on guys, I can see where Zanos is coming from. Wish, for the most part, just lets (in this example, a wizard) have one 9th lvl slot that is "any spell he cares to cast of a lower level", more or less. This ability is only really broken if a non-insignificant portion of lower levels spells are powerful, overpowered, and/or outright broken, in which case Wish would just be a grab bag of "pick any 'get out of actually trying in this encounter' card and advance directly to Go and collect your level-appropriate XP reward to immediately make up for the Wish spell you just cast".

That would be silly. It's not like XP is a river or something, losing it matters you guys!

[Beheld]

You actually can't use a ring of three wishes you wished for to make more wishes, since items are presumed to have the exact minimum do needed to cast the spell unless specifically made with more.

If you make it with more, then it costs more, and you still can't do it at all.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You actually can't use a ring of three wishes you wished for to make more wishes, since items are presumed to have the exact minimum do needed to cast the spell unless specifically made with more.

If you make it with more, then it costs more, and you still can't do it at all.

Don't the rules state that items that replicate spells with an XP cost, have that cost provided by the item creator?

Also, you can just use a SLA/SU Wish for a Ring of 3 Wishes with enough XP for more Rings of 3 Wishes.

[logic_error]

All of you must have terrible, unimaginative DM's. An obviously hidden clause in the wish spell is how to interpret it. If I were the DM I would ask you to play in character, especially for this spell. So you can't ask for a ring of wishes because you would not know that such an item existed. Maybe it's a unique item in this universe. Also, its not that hard to pervert for excellent campaign reasons unreasonable demands.

[Tainted_Scholar]

All of you must have terrible, unimaginative DM's. An obviously hidden clause in the wish spell is how to interpret it. If I were the DM I would ask you to play in character, especially for this spell. So you can't ask for a ring of wishes because you would not know that such an item existed. Maybe it's a unique item in this universe. Also, its not that hard to pervert for excellent campaign reasons unreasonable demands.

RAW, Rings of Three Wishes are common items. The DM could change that, or he could just remove them period. But as it is right now, it still works.

[ryu]

All of you must have terrible, unimaginative DM's. An obviously hidden clause in the wish spell is how to interpret it. If I were the DM I would ask you to play in character, especially for this spell. So you can't ask for a ring of wishes because you would not know that such an item existed. Maybe it's a unique item in this universe. Also, its not that hard to pervert for excellent campaign reasons unreasonable demands.

Except you don't need bollocks unmentioned clauses to shut down standard castings of wish and WBL as rule is a much more straightforward way of preventing any and all ways of breaking WBL.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Except you don't need bollocks unmentioned clauses to shut down standard castings of wish and WBL as rule is a much more straightforward way of preventing any and all ways of breaking WBL.

Technically WBL is a guideline I believe.

[ryu]

Technically WBL is a guideline I believe.

If you're to houserule AT ALL make it a rule. It's much simpler and much more effective at solving problem than any one simple rule you'll ever make. Characters who break WBL die immediately and cannot be rezzed in any way. Why? Pun-pun already exists and said so. He also prevents people from pun-puning.

[Tainted_Scholar]

If you're to houserule AT ALL make it a rule. It's much simpler and much more effective at solving problem than any one simple rule you'll ever make. Characters who break WBL die immediately and cannot be rezzed in any way. Why? Pun-pun already exists and said so. He also prevents people from pun-puning.

Instead of killing people just make it so any attempts to break WBL\ just fail, like any additional money you get disappears automatically.

[Psyren]

Fighter threads rarely start with "you're a bad person for letting new players play fighter", they start out on the position of "Fighter sucks" and other people come in and say "Fighter doesn't suck" (or, even more pointless of an argument, "Fighter sucks but it doesn't matter that it sucks", which is some serious goalpost moving on a discussion about whether Fighters suck or not)

No - I don't consider "you're right but the question itself is wrong" to be "serious goalpost moving." It doesn't matter, and letting loud people who think it does matter drive the discourse and go unchallenged does the community as a whole a disservice.



, and both sides get gradually more upset until the first side has not only failed to have been convinced that Fighter doesn't suck, but is now thoroughly convinced that letting new players play a Fighter instead of "a class that actually works" is setting their expectations going into future games to a place where future games almost inevitably won't meet.

I firmly believe that the folks who hardline consider Fighter to be a waste of space at a table always thought that, and that there was no convincing them anyway. All these mild-mannered requests to "understand" why people play Fighters are nothing but a smokescreen.

For the record, I have no issue with wizard players as a group, and my issues with the wizard class don't stop me from playing one or recommending them.

[Tainted_Scholar]

I firmly believe that the folks who hardline consider Fighter to be a waste of space at a table always thought that, and that there was no convincing them anyway. All these mild-mannered requests to "understand" why people play Fighters are nothing but a smokescreen.

...:smallmad:...

Or maybe we really don't understand why people like to play fighters.

Also you sound like a conspiracy theorist jerk, "People who don't understand Fighters actually hate them! Anyone who claims otherwise is lying!"

[Zanos]

collect your level-appropriate XP reward to immediately make up for the Wish spell you just cast".
On what planet? A CR 17 threat to a Level 17 party gives 1250 XP. CR 20 to Level 20 gives 1500 xp. You have to get around ~4 CR above party level to start breaking even from casting wish, and that's still an opportunity cost.

And yeah, you can just cast 8th level spells normally. Wish is for when you didn't prep a good spell, for some reason. Or gate...


That would be silly. It's not like XP is a river or something, losing it matters you guys!
It does, actually. Xp is a river in a sense that if you're behind you get more, but you have to stay behind to take advantage of that. And after getting 9ths the campaign might end too soon for you to catch up. The point of XP is a river was to point out that you can take advantage of some XP based stuff without being too behind, but you will still be behind. Personally if we're taking advantage of that, I'd rather craft another 125,000gp in magic items then cast wish to "solve" an encounter.

[johnbragg]

Or maybe we really don't understand why people like to play fighters.

Ok, if it's that, I can try, anyway. Because their fun is HULK SMASH.

Their fun is imagining a sword-swinging hero solving plot problems with his sword. (Or other choice of weapon.) This playstyle requires problems that can be solved or at least mitigated by stabbing someone or something in the face successfully.

(Mechanically, in 3X, what I'd advise there is to have them play Barbarians. If they don't want to play a Barbarian from a barbarian culture, that's fine, we'll just call Rage "Battle Focus.")

[ryu]

Instead of killing people just make it so any attempts to break WBL\ just fail, like any additional money you get disappears automatically.

Nope. Make it abundantly clear on a regular basis. Zero tolerance policy.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Ok, if it's that, I can try, anyway. Because their fun is HULK SMASH.

Their fun is imagining a sword-swinging hero solving plot problems with his sword. (Or other choice of weapon.) This playstyle requires problems that can be solved or at least mitigated by stabbing someone or something in the face successfully.

(Mechanically, in 3X, what I'd advise there is to have them play Barbarians. If they don't want to play a Barbarian from a barbarian culture, that's fine, we'll just call Rage "Battle Focus.")

I would just play a different melee class for that. I understand that people like to play them, and even understand some of the reasons (Challenge was one reason I understand), but ultimately I can't find any reason to play as one. And since I can't find any value in playing one, I have a hard time understanding why other people might play one.

[johnbragg]

I would just play a different melee class for that.

1. They don't know that.
2. They don't like the fluff of the other classes. They don't want their guy to be a total moron (so Barbarian is out), or a tree hugging hippy (no Ranger) or "weeaboo fightin' magic". And their group doesn't do much refluffing for player stuff, so "be a Barbarian mechanically while playing whatever you had in mind for Fighter" doesn't get mentioned.


I understand that people like to play them, and even understand some of the reasons (Challenge was one reason I understand), but ultimately I can't find any reason to play as one. And since I can't find any value in playing one, I have a hard time understanding why other people might play one.

Well, yeah. Anyone who wants to play a Tier 1 or Tier 5 class ruins the game. :sabine:

[Psyren]

...:smallmad:...

Or maybe we really don't understand why people like to play fighters.

Also you sound like a conspiracy theorist jerk, "People who don't understand Fighters actually hate them! Anyone who claims otherwise is lying!"

I never said you considered Fighter to be a waste of space at a table. But if the shoe fits.

[Elkad]

And what's the fighter going to do in that period?
Out of his 2-4 skill points, I doubt one of them will be a profession skill to make noteworthy gold, otherwise he just has to deal with 1 sp a day while the wizard is trying to find summoning spells.

Gee, the fighter might be.. Getting his current gear up-enchanted. Shopping for a hippogriff. Trying to find the guy who sells obscure weapon crystals to add to his swap collection. Harassing barmaids.

Meanwhile the Wizard heads down to the guild house, or ScrollsRUs, hands a list of desired scrolls to the DM, with their costs and the transcription cost included, and says "are there any of these that aren't available?" DM skims the list and makes a couple "nope" checkmarks. Done.

Finding a hippogriff trainer will consume far more time for the DM to adjudicate.

[logic_error]

Except you don't need bollocks unmentioned clauses to shut down standard castings of wish and WBL as rule is a much more straightforward way of preventing any and all ways of breaking WBL.

It's more fun to do it via perverting the wish as it's a trope and it fits in thematically with the spell. The universe has no way of knowing what you *mean*.

[Tainted_Scholar]

1. They don't know that.
2. They don't like the fluff of the other classes. They don't want their guy to be a total moron (so Barbarian is out), or a tree hugging hippy (no Ranger) or "weeaboo fightin' magic". And their group doesn't do much refluffing for player stuff, so "be a Barbarian mechanically while playing whatever you had in mind for Fighter" doesn't get mentioned.



Well, yeah. Anyone who wants to play a Tier 1 or Tier 5 class ruins the game. :sabine:

Look we're getting off topic, there's another thread for if you want to continue this discussion.

[johnbragg]

Look we're getting off topic, there's another thread for if you want to continue this discussion.

Yeah, I got distracted and thought this was the FIGHTERS ARE TERRIBAD thread.

[ryu]

It's more fun to do it via perverting the wish as it's a trope and it fits in thematically with the spell. The universe has no way of knowing what you *mean*.

It's also not the spell so long as the wish itself stays within a clearly defined set of limitations. Your way is an ironclad way of annoying players by messing with one of their tools. Mine explains why the first critter with any sort of wealth manipulation trick didn't immediately rule the world.

[logic_error]

It's also not the spell so long as the wish itself stays within a clearly defined set of limitations. Your way is an ironclad way of annoying players by messing with one of their tools. Mine explains why the first critter with any sort of wealth manipulation trick didn't immediately rule the world.

Quite on the contrary. This only comes into action if the players expressly attempt to be unreasonable. Such as requesting chain wishes.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Quite on the contrary. This only comes into action if the players expressly attempt to be unreasonable. Such as requesting chain wishes.

You can start a Wish chain using the safe effects of Wish.

[Nifft]

You can start a Wish chain using the safe effects of Wish.

... and you'll get what you asked for: a Ring of Three Wishes.

Zero wishes remaining, but hey.

You got it.

[Zanos]

... and you'll get what you asked for: a Ring of Three Wishes.

Zero wishes remaining, but hey.

You got it.
Creating a magic item is a valid safe effect of wish, and the intent cannot be warped if you use the safe options. Wishing for a ring of three wishes cannot have its intent warped by the spell.

My other objections to this loop remain unaddressed, however.

[Tainted_Scholar]

... and you'll get what you asked for: a Ring of Three Wishes.

Zero wishes remaining, but hey.

You got it.

Except that's not what I wished for. Not to mention there are no rules to support that idea.

[Nifft]

Except that's not what I wished for. Not to mention there are no rules to support that idea.

Show me the rule that says you get to pick how many charges are remaining.

[The_Jette]

Except that's not what I wished for. Not to mention there are no rules to support that idea.


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.)
That's straight from the SRD.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Show me the rule that says you get to pick how many charges are remaining.

Simple, I wish for a fully charged Ring of Three Wishes. Wishing for Magic Items is a Safe effect so I get what I wished for.



That's straight from the SRD.

Except I'm not using an unsafe Wish.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Show me the rule that says you get to pick how many charges are remaining.

You're wishing for a magic item, that includes charges.



That's straight from the SRD.

Wishing foe a magic item is a safe effect of Wish.

[The_Jette]

Simple, I wish for a fully charged Ring of Three Wishes. Wishing for Magic Items is a Safe effect so I get what I wished for.

Except that what you're actually wishing for is more wishes, which the DM is perfectly justified in ruling as a greater effect. So, it's entirely plausible that it'll blow up in your face in an actual game.

[logic_error]

Also. SRD says interestingly, that


Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value

I would interpret this to mean that you can get gold of value 25000. So magical objects worth more than that should go into "dangerous" territory.

https://media.giphy.com/media/rVbAzUUSUC6dO/giphy.gif

[ColorBlindNinja]

Except that what you're actually wishing for is more wishes, which the DM is perfectly justified in ruling as a greater effect. So, it's entirely plausible that it'll blow up in your face in an actual game.

That wouldn't be RAW. Wishing for a magic item is a safe effect of Wish, DMs can rule otherwise, but that's irrelevant.

Edit:


Also. SRD says interestingly, that



I would interpret this to mean that you can get gold of value 25000. So magical objects worth more than that should go into "dangerous" territory.



No that's only nonmagical items, magic ones have no cap.

If I recall, this was not the case in 3rd edition, but it it in 3.5.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Except that what you're actually wishing for is more wishes, which the DM is perfectly justified in ruling as a greater effect. So, it's entirely plausible that it'll blow up in your face in an actual game.

No he isn't justified, I'm wishing for a Magic Item. If the DM claims, "Well that's a greater effect of Wish cause you're getting more Wishes" I'd point out that I'm using a safe effect of Wish.

[logic_error]

What the heck is a "safe" effect? Where is this written?

[The_Jette]

That wouldn't be RAW. Wishing for a magic item is a safe effect of Wish, DMs can rule otherwise, but that's irrelevant.

It isn't irrelevant, as the intent of the Wish has obvious RAW connotations. You're specifically discouraged in the Wish spell from trying to get greater benefits from it than what is listed. An item of specific value is one thing, but this specific item goes directly into the realm of greater effect, because it grants extra wishes. Thus, any DM can, and should, warp the wish so that you are getting what you wished for but not exactly, or it just fails.

[Zanos]

What the heck is a "safe" effect? Where is this written?
Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) defines a set of things it can definitely do and then says this:

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

You can't pervert the listed effects of wish any more than a fireball.

And yeah, this is way more about reading that magic items of wish contain effectively unlimited XP. With that interpretation, which I'm fairly sure is wrong, you could just buy a scroll of wish for 25k and then go to town anyway.

[logic_error]

It should never fail due to the rule of drama.

[logic_error]

Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) defines a set of things it can definitely do and then says this:

Great. This leaves perfectly clear leeway for the DM as to what constitutes a greater effect. I don't see any problem.

[Zanos]

Great. This leaves perfectly clear leeway for the DM as to what constitutes a greater effect. I don't see any problem.
Creating a magic item by spending XP is very clearly on the list of things that are not greater effects.

[ColorBlindNinja]

It isn't irrelevant, as the intent of the Wish has obvious RAW connotations. You're specifically discouraged in the Wish spell from trying to get greater benefits from it than what is listed. An item of specific value is one thing, but this specific item goes directly into the realm of greater effect, because it grants extra wishes. Thus, any DM can, and should, warp the wish so that you are getting what you wished for but not exactly, or it just fails.

No it still a safe effect, because it's a magic item, what that item actually does is moot.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What the heck is a "safe" effect? Where is this written?
Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) states that your request can only be twisted if it's not one of the listed effects.

It isn't irrelevant, as the intent of the Wish has obvious RAW connotations. You're specifically discouraged in the Wish spell from trying to get greater benefits from it than what is listed. An item of specific value is one thing, but this specific item goes directly into the realm of greater effect, because it grants extra wishes. Thus, any DM can, and should, warp the wish so that you are getting what you wished for but not exactly, or it just fails.

No he shouldn't, because Wish for a Ring of Three Wishes is well within the realms of the spells, to claim otherwise is ignoring the rules. It's one thing for the DM to not allow something, it's another for the DM to twist the rules and claim he following them.

[Hackulator]

Wish (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm) defines a set of things it can definitely do and then says this:


You can't pervert the listed effects of wish any more than a fireball.

You can't pervert them, but that doesn't mean a badly worded wish comes out the way you wanted. Just like if you use delayed blast fireball and time stop and you give the wrong number of rounds for the delay your fireball will not work the way you wanted, if you word your wish in a way that could be filled exactly as you worded it but not what you wanted, you might not get what you wanted.

[Psyren]

Pathfinder Wish moved magic item creation to the "unsafe" category - a quick way to make Wish more reasonable imo is to do that.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You can't pervert them, but that doesn't mean a badly worded wish comes out the way you wanted. Just like if you use delayed blast fireball and time stop and you give the wrong number of rounds for the delay your fireball will not work the way you wanted, if you word your wish in a way that could be filled exactly as you worded it but not what you wanted, you might not get what you wanted.

That would be perverting the Wish; which you can't do for safe effects.

[logic_error]

Creating a magic item by spending XP is very clearly on the list of things that are not greater effects.

Sure. You can create magic items. And that DOES come true. Just not the way you wanted when it also produces a greater effect. You wish for a ring of three wishes? Your friend is turned into one.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sure. You can create magic items. And that DOES come true. Just not the way you wanted when it also produces a greater effect. You wish for a ring of three wishes? Your friend is turned into one.

A Ring of Three Wishes is a magic item, and is thus a safe effect of Wish.

No greater effect is included, because all Wish is doing is creating a magic item.

Edit: That the magic item in question replicates a 9th level spell is moot.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Sure. You can create magic items. And that DOES come true. Just not the way you wanted when it also produces a greater effect. You wish for a ring of three wishes? Your friend is turned into one.

Except wishing for a Ring of Three Wishes isn't a greater effect.

[Nifft]

Simple, I wish for a fully charged Ring of Three Wishes. Wishing for Magic Items is a Safe effect so I get what I wished for. What you get is an uncharged Ring of Three Wishes, since that's the only kind that's cheaper than 25k gp.

You can improve the magic item (per the rules) -- specifically, each Wish spent to improve the ring will increase its charges by one.


Except I'm not using an unsafe Wish.

You thought you weren't, but actually you were.

And that's the most unsafe kind.

[logic_error]

Except wishing for a Ring of Three Wishes isn't a greater effect.

*shrug* Try explaining that to your fellow player that just turned into one.

[The_Jette]

A Ring of Three Wishes is a magic item, and is thus a safe effect of Wish.

No greater effect is included, because all Wish is doing is creating a magic item.


Except wishing for a Ring of Three Wishes isn't a greater effect.

You guys keep repeating yourself. There's nothing saying that every magic item is automatically safe from being messed with just because it's a magic item. And, there's nothing defining "greater effect" either. So, if the DM decides that wishing for more wishes via magic items is a greater effect, then that's what it is.

[ColorBlindNinja]

What you get is an uncharged Ring of Three Wishes, since that's the only kind that's cheaper than 25k gp.

Wrong, a Ring of Three Wishes with a single Wish remaining is less than that.

It also doesn't' matter, because there's no cap on how expensive the magic item you can wish for.


You can improve the magic item (per the rules) -- specifically, each Wish spent to improve the ring will increase its charges by one.

This is correct.


You thought you weren't, but actually you were.

And that's the most unsafe kind.

This is wrong, it's still a safe effect.


Edit:

You guys keep repeating yourself. There's nothing saying that every magic item is automatically safe from being messed with just because it's a magic item. And, there's nothing defining "greater effect" either. So, if the DM decides that wishing for more wishes via magic items is a greater effect, then that's what it is.

If I keep repeating myself it's because you won't listen. Magic items are a safe effect: period. That's what the rules say.

[logic_error]

I can't wait to play with you guys :D.

[Zanos]

And, there's nothing defining "greater effect" either.
Things that aren't on wish's allowed list, which creating magic items is.

And again spending 37,000xp to create a ring of three wishes isn't OP, because that's normally enough to full 5 wishes with some left over. What's OP is reading magic items of wish such that they contain effectively unlimited XP, which is untrue.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I can't wait to play with you guys :D.

It's not like I'd ever do this in an actual game; in my upcoming campaign, I'm playing a Lawful-Neutral Incarnate.

[logic_error]

I think this is an excellent example of why people think wizards are broken. They are explicitly thinking of a table that has an unimaginative by the books DM.

[The_Jette]

Things that aren't on wish's allowed list, which creating magic items is.

Except that it doesn't just say "anything not on this list is subject to change." It says you can attempt a greater effect.

Side question: how much xp would it take to create a Ring of Three Wishes, since the XP costs are doubled. I know you pay the cost of the wish (5000xp) plus the cost of creating the item. So, would that be 30,000+ xp for a Ring of 3 Wishes? (5,000*3*2 for 3 wishes)

[logic_error]

Things that aren't on wish's allowed list, which creating magic items is.

And again spending 37,000xp to create a ring of three wishes isn't OP, because that's normally enough to full 5 wishes with some left over. What's OP is reading magic items of wish such that they contain effectively unlimited XP, which is untrue.

It's not the ring really that is the issue. You could wish for a creature with Wish SLA to grant you the wishes. Once again, a level 5 effect. The issue really is what constitutes a dangerous choice. This is where the DM draws a line.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Except that it doesn't just say "anything not on this list is subject to change." It says you can attempt a greater effect.

It also has a fixed list of safe effects, which wishing for a magic item is.


Side question: how much xp would it take to create a Ring of Three Wishes, since the XP costs are doubled. I know you pay the cost of the wish (5000xp) plus the cost of creating the item. So, would that be 30,000+ xp for a Ring of 3 Wishes? (5,000*3*2 for 3 wishes)

That's why you use Wish via an SLA/SU; paying the XP cost is for suckers.

[Nifft]

Wrong, a Ring of Three Wishes with a single Wish remaining is less than that. Look, your DM might let you BS your way through the rules, but this is basic math:

Fully charged Ro3W => 97,950 gp

97,950 / 3 = 32,650

Each wish => 32,650 gp

It shouldn't need to be said, but just for completeness: 32,650 gp is greater than 25,000 gp,

Please feel free to fact-check these statements.

[The_Jette]

It also has a fixed list of safe effects, which wishing for a magic item is.


http://www.quickmeme.com/img/71/71bf4186f2fd86fe7990f814bb956dd6d77d68ee46e6de9d98 1f02268d87422f.jpg

[Nifft]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/71/71bf4186f2fd86fe7990f814bb956dd6d77d68ee46e6de9d98 1f02268d87422f.jpg

Creating a magic item can be safe.

Creating a magic item worth more than 25k GP is not safe -- it violates the rule directly above.

Let there be harmony under the heavens.

[Tainted_Scholar]

What you get is an uncharged Ring of Three Wishes, since that's the only kind that's cheaper than 25k gp.

You can improve the magic item (per the rules) -- specifically, each Wish spent to improve the ring will increase its charges by one.



You thought you weren't, but actually you were.

And that's the most unsafe kind.


*shrug* Try explaining that to your fellow player that just turned into one.

Let me know when you find a rule to back up your argument.


You guys keep repeating yourself. There's nothing saying that every magic item is automatically safe from being messed with just because it's a magic item. And, there's nothing defining "greater effect" either. So, if the DM decides that wishing for more wishes via magic items is a greater effect, then that's what it is.

Actually, the spell does say that the magic item is safe, because the wishes that can be perverted are those that aren't listed, and wish for a Ring of Three wishes is under the listed effects.

[johnbragg]

I think this is an excellent example of why people think wizards are broken. They are explicitly thinking of a table that has an unimaginative by the books DM.

At least some of them are serious. And you don't want to see the opponents that those DMs will throw at them. (Part of their metagame is that any cheesy RAW-legal exploit available to the players is also available to their NPC opponents.) This develops into multiverse-spanning campaign environments where, because of wealth loops and other shenanigans, wishes are the effective unit of currency.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Creating a magic item can be safe.

Creating a magic item worth more than 25k GP is not safe -- it violates the rule directly above.

Let there be harmony under the heavens.

Nope, the 25K GP limit only applies to non magic items.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Look, your DM might let you BS your way through the rules, but this is basic math:

Fully charged Ro3W => 97,950 gp

97,950 / 3 = 32,650

Each wish => 32,650 gp

It shouldn't need to be said, but just for completeness: 32,650 gp is greater than 25,000 gp,

Please feel free to fact-check these statements.

I screwed up the math, there's no need to be nasty about it.


http://www.quickmeme.com/img/71/71bf4186f2fd86fe7990f814bb956dd6d77d68ee46e6de9d98 1f02268d87422f.jpg

RAW says otherwise.


Creating a magic item can be safe.

Creating a magic item worth more than 25k GP is not safe -- it violates the rule directly above.

Let there be harmony under the heavens.

It is safe, there's no cap on magic items.

[logic_error]

At least some of them are serious. And you don't want to see the opponents that those DMs will throw at them. (Part of their metagame is that any cheesy RAW-legal exploit available to the players is also available to their NPC opponents.) This develops into multiverse-spanning campaign environments where, because of wealth loops and other shenanigans, wishes are the effective unit of currency.

Yeah, Nothing is more dangerous than an opponent with access to Wizard spells and tactics. But honestly, I do not prefer to run a game where you are kept in check by Mutually Assured Destruction rule. I generally would allow a pretty optimised wizard build as long as obvious exploits are not being used.

My favourite one is people trying to abuse wishes :).

[logic_error]

So, let me ask you, defenders of the three wishes, what does "safe" mean? I don't see that word written anywhere in the description.

[Nifft]

Actually, there's nothing to say that the listed effects are "safe" -- even that is twisting the wording of the rules.

The rules only say that that wishing for greater effects "can be dangerous".

Getting an uncharged Ring of 3 Wishes is perfectly ~safe~. You're not being thrust into ~extra danger~.

Sorry, you're not able to back up your assertions -- my interpretation is harmonious with all the rules, including the item price restriction, and therefore yours is clearly a misinterpretation.

[Hackulator]

You can't use SLA wish for free magic items.

Under wish, it doesn't just have xp costs, is has more complicated rules, including "When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP." Either you can't do it all, or you have to spend the xp regardless of that fact that it is a SLA. The specific rules for wish override the general rules for SLA.

[ColorBlindNinja]

So, let me ask you, defenders of the three wishes, what does "safe" mean? I don't see that word written anywhere in the description.

The word safe doesn't appear, but this is what the spells says:




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.


"A Wish can produce any one of the following effects" is pretty clear.

Edit:

You can't use SLA wish for free magic items.

Under wish, it doesn't just have xp costs, is has more complicated rules, including "When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP." Either you can't do it all, or you have to spend the xp regardless of that fact that it is a SLA. The specific rules for wish override the general rules for SLA.

You would be wrong, you can use an SLA Wish for free magic items. SLAs don't have XP costs, regardless of what Wish says.

[Nifft]

You can't use SLA wish for free magic items.

Under wish, it doesn't just have xp costs, is has more complicated rules, including "When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP." Either you can't do it all, or you have to spend the xp regardless of that fact that it is a SLA. The specific rules for wish override the general rules for SLA.

This is also a sensible interpretation.

[logic_error]

The word safe doesn't appear, but this is what the spells says:





"A Wish can produce any one of the following effects" is pretty clear.

Edit:


You would be wrong, you can use an SLA Wish for free magic items. SLAs don't have XP costs, regardless of what Wish says.

So far so good. So the spell DOES NOT DESCRIBE that ANY effect is NOT dangerous. RAW you see? I don't see any W SAFE.

[Tainted_Scholar]

How have so many people not read the damn spell.

The rules outright say that the only wishes that can be perverted are the ones that don't fall under the examples.

So instead of claiming otherwise and making crap up, you can try to actually read the spell and understand what means before arguing about it.

[Nifft]

I screwed up the math, there's no need to be nasty about it.

I understand why you'd want to project that feeling, but you're wrong.

The fact that you're wrong about basic math -- and also wrong about the topic of the discussion -- is not "being nasty".

It's just the calm, harmonious truth.


So far so good. So the spell DOES NOT DESCRIBE that ANY effect is NOT dangerous. RAW you see? I don't see any W SAFE.

In fact, if we're trying to rules-lawyer, there's an explicit clause:


The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.


If someone wants to argue that the "can wish for a magic item" clause is separate from the 25k gp limit, then we can argue that the "may pervert your intent" clause is separate from the greater effect sentence.

In other words: you take off that limit, and I'll take off this one.

[logic_error]

How have so many people not read the damn spell.

The rules outright say that the only wishes that can be perverted are the ones that don't fall under the examples.

So instead of claiming otherwise and making crap up, you can try to actually read the spell and understand what means before arguing about it.

Very good. Now show me exactly where it says that Only the non-example wished can't be perverted. Looks like it's you haven't considered all the bases here.

[Tainted_Scholar]

In fact, if we're trying to rules-lawyer, there's an explicit clause:


If someone wants to argue that the "can wish for a magic item" clause is separate from the 25k gp limit, then we can argue that the "may pervert your intent" clause is separate from the greater effect sentence.

In other words: you take off that limit, and I'll take off this one.

Except it's part of the same passage.

[AvatarVecna]

Wish is the mightiest spell a wizard or sorcerer can cast. By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you.

Even wish, however, has its limits.

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.)

Duplicated spells allow saves and spell resistance as normal (but save DCs are for 9th-level spells).

Material Component
When a wish duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 10,000 gp, you must provide that component.

XP Cost
The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

The line "you may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous" is referring directly to the effects listed above: any wish that goes beyond those effects is fair game to screw with across the board, but those within those effects should generally be safe uses of Wish. Of these uses, one is "wishing for a nonmagical item of 25000 gp or less" and "wishing for a magical item". The magic item function of Wish does not have a price limit, but rather has an exorbitant XP cost for Wishing the item into existence rather than crafting it yourself, in exchange for creating it on the spot (and thus, much quicker). There is no cap on how expensive this magic item can be, but you can easily run yourself out of XP wishing for something too powerful.

EDIT: Honestly, Wishing for a Ring of Wishes is expensive and largely pointless, because the amount of XP they contain directly affects the cost of the item, which directly affects the XP cost of creating the item, which directly affects the XP cost of Wishing for the item. Ultimately, you'll spend a giant pile of XP and a 9th lvl slot when you could've spent a small pile of XP and 3 9th lvl slots to get the same effect, unless you were wishing for a super-powerful version of the ring, I guess.

[Nifft]

How have so many people not read the damn spell. You tell us.


The rules outright say that the only wishes that can be perverted are the ones that don't fall under the examples. Nope, they do not say that.

That's a separate sentence -- just like "25k gp limit" is a separate line from "can wish for a magic item".

Since you claim that all sentences are independent -- and that's the entire crux of your argument, that a magic item wish can ignore the GP limitation on the line above it -- then this sentence applies to every wish, without restriction:

The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.

And let's be honest, that's exactly what rules-lawyers have earned.


So instead of claiming otherwise and making crap up, you can try to actually read the spell and understand what means before arguing about it. You sound upset.

It's not personal, you're just incorrect about this aspect of a magical elf game.

Take a deep breath and maybe walk around outside for a bit. You'll feel better.

[Beheld]

The wish spell tells me that the 25kgp limit doesn't apply to magical items:

"Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value."

[AvatarVecna]

You tell us.

Nope, they do not say that.

That's a separate sentence -- just like "25k gp limit" is a separate line from "can wish for a magic item".

Since you claim that all sentences are independent -- and that's the entire crux of your argument, that a magic item wish can ignore the GP limitation on the line above it -- then this sentence applies to every wish, without restriction:

The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.

And let's be honest, that's exactly what rules-lawyers have earned.

You sound upset.

It's not personal, you're just incorrect about this aspect of a magical elf game.

Take a deep breath and maybe walk around outside for a bit. You'll feel better.

I see you're attempting to fight rules lawyering with more rules lawyering. Have you considered that all this would accomplish in-game is wasting everybody's time, especially considering the effect they're going for is a terrible waste of resources anyway?

[Tainted_Scholar]

You tell us.

Nope, they do not say that.

That's a separate sentence -- just like "25k gp limit" is a separate line from "can wish for a magic item".

Since you claim that all sentences are independent -- and that's the entire crux of your argument, that a magic item wish can ignore the GP limitation on the line above it -- then this sentence applies to every wish, without restriction:

The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.

And let's be honest, that's exactly what rules-lawyers have earned.

You sound upset.

It's not personal, you're just incorrect about this aspect of a magical elf game.

Take a deep breath and maybe walk around outside for a bit. You'll feel better.

Sigh, remember when there use to be more people on this forum who actually knew who the rules work?

Alright, let me explain it to you very calmly and slowly so that you'll understand.

The part about GP limits on items is separate from the part about magic items because they are two different examples. They are separated on a bullet list as separate thoughts. None of the other examples have anything to do with each other so it's stupid to claim that those ones are connected.

In contrast, however, this part of the spell;

'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.)"

Is a single thought.

The two sentences are not referring to separate things as they are part of the same thought. Both sentences are used to describe the greater effects of wish. If this weren't the case they would be separate paragraphs or it would be indicated that they're separated. Additionally, due to the second sentence being in parentheses this shows that it pertains the same thought rather than a different thought.

[Nifft]

I see you're attempting to fight rules lawyering with more rules lawyering. Have you considered that all this would accomplish in-game is wasting everybody's time, especially considering the effect they're going for is a terrible waste of resources anyway?

I see you're attempting to fight rules-lawyering with hypocrisy: it's a valid argument when you do it, it's a waste of time when someone else does it.

Why would you voluntarily be the first to employ a tactic that you know is going to lead to terrible threads which are a waste of resources?

Did you think nobody else would sink to that level? Unfortunately, you're not the only one with an ability to use unsavory tactics.

I prefer to NOT use such tactics, but hey: it's better than letting someone on the internet remain wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not in-game, and you're using that term wrong (just FYI).

In-game, nobody could rules-lawyer, because the rules are a meta-game construct.

Did you have an actual argument, or would you like to concede?

[Tainted_Scholar]

Did you have an actual argument, or would you like to concede?

Do you have an actual argument besides insulting people and ignoring the rules?

[Nifft]

Sigh, remember when there use to be more people on this forum who actually knew who the rules work?

Nifft
Join Date 2006-02-05

Tainted_Scholar
Join Date 2016-11-21


You're newer, thus you're currently insulting yourself.

But even if your ad-hominem attacks were hitting the mark, they'd be getting kinda tired.

You really need to stop making personal attacks, and start focusing on the arguments instead of whinging about how people who disagree with you must be ignorant or stupid.

[Tainted_Scholar]

Nifft
Join Date 2006-02-05

Tainted_Scholar
Join Date 2016-11-21


You're newer, thus you're currently insulting yourself.

But even if your ad-hominem attacks were hitting the mark, they'd be getting kinda tired.

You really need to stop making personal attacks, and start focusing on the arguments instead of whinging about how people who disagree with you must be ignorant or stupid.

As opposed to all the times you attacked and insulted people on this thread?

Additionally I find it amusing that you're saying I need to focus on my argument when you only responded to a same part of my post, and that part had nothing to do with my argument.

[Beheld]

This parody account is really interesting.

[Nifft]

Do you have an actual argument besides insulting people and ignoring the rules?

The fact that you're wrong is not an insult.

The stuff that you've been saying has been rather insulting, as mentioned previously several times, so I understand why you'd want to project those ugly feelings onto others, but you really need to learn that disagreement is not disrespect.


My argument stands:

- The only way to sever the "magic item" creation clause from the GP limit clause and the XP payment clause -- which specifically mentions magic item creation -- is by taking a very strict & literal reading of the spell. That reading also removes the guarantee of safety from all wishes -- you're told that wising for greater effects is dangerous, you're not told that any effect is safe. Therefore, no effects are safe, and this sentence applies to all wishes: "(The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)"

From an RAI standpoint, I'm on solid ground. There's no way that wish loops could be considered a deliberate design feature for D&D.

From an RAW standpoint, I've got a good argument, but there might be a flaw -- perhaps someone clever will find it, and then we'll all learn something.

[Beheld]

My argument stands:

- The only way to sever the "magic item" creation clause from the GP limit clause

is to read the actual clause in question that you refuse to quote.

[Nifft]

is to read the actual clause in question that you refuse to quote.

This one?



When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.


Happy to quote it for you.

[logic_error]

As far as I see it, the issue is not the illegality of creating the Ring. That is *definitely* legal. The issue is what constitutes *safe*. A word that is a product of, shall we say, *wish*ful thinking when trying to rearrange reality *literally*?

[AvatarVecna]

I see you're attempting to fight rules-lawyering with hypocrisy: it's a valid argument when you do it, it's a waste of time when someone else does it.

Why would you voluntarily be the first to employ a tactic that you know is going to lead to terrible threads which are a waste of resources?

Did you think nobody else would sink to that level? Unfortunately, you're not the only one with an ability to use unsavory tactics.

I prefer to NOT use such tactics, but hey: it's better than letting someone on the internet remain wrong.

In case you haven't noticed, we are not in-game, and you're using that term wrong (just FYI).

In-game, nobody could rules-lawyer, because the rules are a meta-game construct.

Did you have an actual argument, or would you like to concede?

I guess you misunderstood what I meant? I can see why you might assume somebody presenting an opposed opinion is doing so in a derogatory fashion, so I'll try and restate it: a strict RAW reading of the ability indicates that the GP limit is a part of the Wish function that summons nonmagical items; meanwhile, the magic item Wish function has no technical GP limit, but has an effective one due to the XP cost of the ability. However, that's the strict RAW reading, which basically only matters for matters such as debating things on the forum, because there's no DM to adjudicate things and everybody's definition of a reasonable ruling on things is likely to vary wildly from table to table, making a strict RAW reading necessary to discuss anything without it devolving into a debate of how one table would rule it vs how another table would rule it.

Rulings and interpretations (such as your ruling that the "such wishes can be subverted" part applies to both bulleted effects and effects that bypass those bullet points, rather than just those that bypass the bullets) is not relevant in a forum discussion, because how your ruling only matters at your table, and determining how the rule works as written is important to all tables for determining how to pass their own rulings on it. "Well, I read it differently, so nyeh" is not a valid interpretation of RAW, it's a kneejerk reaction from somebody who doesn't like the result and is looking for an excuse to disallow it...which I find weird, because at least in the scenario proposed, the ruling doesn't actually prevent abuse as you're intending it to, it's just cutting off one road to doing the same thing (and the worse road, at that). Consider this comparison, one using your interpretation, and one playing by RAW:


"I wish for a Ring Of Three Wishes!"

"Sorry, that's beyond the 25000 gp limit. If you go beyond that limit, I'm allowed to screw with your Wish.

"I thought that line was for nonmagical items?"

"I rule it differently. Still using your Wish that way."

"...I guess I'll just prepare Wish in three separate slots? That has me spending 15000 XP for three 5000 XP wishes. Huh, that actually turned out to be a better deal than wishing for the Ring."


"I wish for a Ring Of Three Wishes!"

"Alrighty, you've got three wishes in your ring, none of which will cost you XP to cast and all of which will grant Wishes that would normally cost up to 5630 XP. That spellcasting will cost you 36836 XP."

"Wait, that's more XP than if I just cast the wishes myself."

"Yup. Guess spell slots are worth quite a bit, huh? Well, you've got your Ring."

[Beheld]

This one?



Happy to quote it for you.

This parody is really on point, I call him out for not quoting the GP limit clause, and he doesn't quote the GP limit clause. Good stuff 9/10.

[Tainted_Scholar]

- The only way to sever the "magic item" creation clause from the GP limit clause and the XP payment clause -- which specifically mentions magic item creation -- is by taking a very strict & literal reading of the spell. That reading also removes the guarantee of safety from all wishes -- you're told that wising for greater effects is dangerous, you're not told that any effect is safe. Therefore, no effects are safe, and this sentence applies to all wishes: "(The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)"

Did you not read my post earlier?

The reason why the passage about magic items and the passage about non magic items are separate is because they separate examples. They are mentioned apart from each other on a bullet list, and there is no reason to assume that they have any connection with each other. The specifics of one example have no effect on the other examples. None of the other examples relate to each other in any way.

However the part about greater wishes is indeed related to the part about perverting Wish. They both follow right after one another, and unlike with the Magic Items and GP limits, these passage are not separated from one another with a bullet list. What's more is the second sentence is contained within parentheses, which are only used when the contents are related to the main thought.

[Jormengand]

I mean technically there's nothing saying that fly or fireball can't have their effects completely changed by the DM on a whim, but there's an expectation that they'll do what it says in the description rather than the DM saying "Well, your friend was turned into a glowing bead that explodes at a target you designate because there's nothing saying that fireball was safe!" No, there's nothing saying that the listed types of wish are safe. There's nothing saying they aren't, either. As with every other spell, we assume that wish does what it says in the description unless otherwise specified.

[Elkad]

The Wish on a Ring has 5000xp embedded in it. (Could be more at creator's option of course).

Thus, it can create a magic item with an XP cost to craft of up to 2500xp (because it costs double via Wish).

You can't wish for more rings of 3 wishes, because the XP cost is too high.
You can't even wish for a a ring of ONE wish. That's 5308xp, still too much.

[Zanos]

-words-
To nitpick those ring wishes only have 5k XP each, because the rest of the XP is used to pay for the cost of crafting a magic item with 3 uses of a 9th level spell.

[logic_error]

I mean technically there's nothing saying that fly or fireball can't have their effects completely changed by the DM on a whim, but there's an expectation that they'll do what it says in the description rather than the DM saying "Well, your friend was turned into a glowing bead that explodes at a target you designate because there's nothing saying that fireball was safe!" No, there's nothing saying that the listed types of wish are safe. There's nothing saying they aren't, either. As with every other spell, we assume that wish does what it says in the description unless otherwise specified.

This is correct. In some form, the effects of Wist must occur. But, as I have mentioned, the means through which they take effect are not under the control of the agent.

[Zanos]

Wish is under the control of the caster as much as a fireball is. That only changes if you try to create an effect that isn't on that list.

[lylsyly]

Wizards (and Clerics and Druids, Sorcerer, Favored souls), actually, all the pure casters are played so much because there are plenty of people that will not play unless they can be the most powerful person they can be.

It would shock all them to learn that in the gme I have been running on Friday nights for the last 4 months the only spellcasters are Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. Even more shocking (maybe), is that I only use the SRD.


Hey, Nifft, mind if I add this to my sig?


Take a deep breath and maybe walk around outside for a bit. You'll feel better.

edited for fat fingers, sorry

[Tainted_Scholar]

Wizards (and Clerics and Druids, Sorcerer, Favored souls, actually, all the pure casters are played so much because there are plenty of people that will not play unless they can be the most powerful person they can be.

It would shock all them to learn that in the gme I have been running on Friday nights for the last 3 months the only spellcasters are Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. Even more shocking (maybe), is that I only use the SRD.

Please do not tell me why I enjoy playing the classes that I do. I do not play high tiered characters because I want to be the strongest person. I play high tier classes because I like the options that they afford.

And no, it does not shock me in the slightest that some games don't use high tiers or only use the SRD. Quite frankly, I'm kind of insulted that you think I'm so narrow minded that I can't possibly comprehend the idea that some people don't play the same way I do.

[lylsyly]

quite frankly, i am trying to find where i mentioned you at all (not that it takes away from the validity of what i said).

[Nifft]

I guess you misunderstood what I meant? I can see why you might assume somebody presenting an opposed opinion is doing so in a derogatory fashion, so I'll try and restate it: a strict RAW reading of the ability indicates that the GP limit is a part of the Wish function that summons nonmagical items; meanwhile, the magic item Wish function has no technical GP limit, but has an effective one due to the XP cost of the ability. However, that's the strict RAW reading, which basically only matters for matters such as debating things on the forum, because there's no DM to adjudicate things and everybody's definition of a reasonable ruling on things is likely to vary wildly from table to table, making a strict RAW reading necessary to discuss anything without it devolving into a debate of how one table would rule it vs how another table would rule it.

Rulings and interpretations (such as your ruling that the "such wishes can be subverted" part applies to both bulleted effects and effects that bypass those bullet points, rather than just those that bypass the bullets) is not relevant in a forum discussion, because how your ruling only matters at your table, and determining how the rule works as written is important to all tables for determining how to pass their own rulings on it. "Well, I read it differently, so nyeh" is not a valid interpretation of RAW, it's a kneejerk reaction from somebody who doesn't like the result and is looking for an excuse to disallow it...which I find weird, because at least in the scenario proposed, the ruling doesn't actually prevent abuse as you're intending it to, it's just cutting off one road to doing the same thing (and the worse road, at that). Consider this comparison, one using your interpretation, and one playing by RAW:
Ah, my bad. I'm sorry -- I had thought you were arguing in favor of the rules-lawyer-y opposition argument ("no limits on magic items!"), and while doing that you were trying to chide me for rules-lawyering. That would have been a poor-faith argument, and I responded to that in error.

I feel your interpretation is also within the spirit of the rules, and I'd be happy to play in a game which used your reasoning.

It's my opinion that ignoring both of our interpretations would not be within the rules.


Hey, Nifft, mind if I add this to my sig?

You have my blessing.

[ColorBlindNinja]

quite frankly, i am trying to find where i mentioned you at all (not that it takes away from the validity of what i said).

Your statement wasn't valid at all.

I like playing tier 1 spellcasters mostly because of their options and complexity.

I play non-spellcasters, as well as an assortment of weaker classes.

So, stop making blanket assertions about people who like playing Wizards.

[Tainted_Scholar]

quite frankly, i am trying to find where i mentioned you at all (not that it takes away from the validity of what i said).

I'm a Wizard player, therefore you're post was directed at me.

[lylsyly]

Your statement wasn't valid at all.

I like playing tier 1 spellcasters mostly because of their options and complexity.

you mean all those options that make them tier 1?



I play non-spellcasters, as well as an assortment of weaker classes.

good, more people should try it!


So, stop making blanket assertions about people who like playing Wizards.

so, stop stating my opinion. hmmm. nope, ain't gonna happen. if you play other than tier 1, then you obviously aren't within the group i was speaking of, so ...

remember, it is only a game.

oh well, it ain't my job to piss folks off, or give them sensitivity training, so ...

threads done for me, bye y'all.

[Zanos]

I see we've descended into "there's only one right way to play D&D and it's the way my group plays", which is always fun.

[Tainted_Scholar]

good, more people should try it!

You should try playing a tier 1.


so, stop stating my opinion. hmmm. nope, ain't gonna happen. if you play other than tier 1, then you obviously aren't within the group i was speaking of, so ...

Your opinion was rather insulting. I play primarily tier 1s, and your post was far from accurate. Not to mention that the number of people who do fit your opinion is actually pretty small.

[ColorBlindNinja]

you mean all those options that make them tier 1?

Yes.

I like lower tier classes just fine, but even the tier 3s don't compare in the sheer number of options that the tier 1s have.


good, more people should try it!

OK. Should more people try playing tier 1 classes?


so, stop stating my opinion. hmmm. nope, ain't gonna happen. if you play other than tier 1, then you obviously aren't within the group i was speaking of, so ...

Don't be surprised if people get annoyed with you then.


remember, it is only a game.

oh well, it ain't my job to piss folks off, or give them sensitivity training, so ...

threads done for me, bye y'all.

Just because it's a game, doesn't give you a license to be rude.


I see we've descended into "there's only one right way to play D&D and it's the way my group plays", which is always fun.

Yep, I'm thinking it's time to abandon ship.

[Bohandas]

Basically, the assessment of the Wizard class is right: It´s a Commoner with 4 bonus feats and some added magic. The class by itself is pretty lackluster and the chassis is even worse than the Fighter.

Anothet problem is with how magic in D&D works. Things would be a lot less ridiculous if preparing spells were faster or if there were some way of casting spells while over the limit for prepared spells (possibly a time penalty, a skills chack, and/or having to read directly out of the spellbook)

[Tainted_Scholar]

Anothet problem is with how magic in D&D works. Things would be a lot less ridiculous if preparing spells were faster or if there were some way of casting spells while over the limit for prepared spells (possibly a time penalty, a skills chack, and/or having to read directly out of the spellbook)

NO! YOU FOOL! The Wizard is already a god, you don't need to make him more powerful!!!

[Nifft]

Anothet problem is with how magic in D&D works. Things would be a lot less ridiculous if preparing spells were faster or if there were some way of casting spells while over the limit for prepared spells (possibly a time penalty, a skills chack, and/or having to read directly out of the spellbook)

Back in 1e, it cost 15 minutes per spell level to prepare your spells. That means a level 20 Wizard might need more than an hour a day to fill her slots.

If you wanted to fill ALL of your slots at level 20, that works out to 34.75 hours of preparation & memorization.

That's several days of downtime per 15-minute adventuring day.

[logic_error]

I am genuinely astonished that so many people think that the wizard is powerful because he can chain wishes or abuse text in the game books. This really betrays how much ignorance still exists on the forums even after so many discussions.

[Beheld]

I am genuinely astonished that so many people think that the wizard is powerful because he can chain wishes or abuse text in the game books. This really betrays how much ignorance still exists on the forums even after so many discussions.

I really don't like the way this forum pretends that no one has ever played d&d in the history of d&d.

[eggynack]

I am genuinely astonished that so many people think that the wizard is powerful because he can chain wishes or abuse text in the game books. This really betrays how much ignorance still exists on the forums even after so many discussions.
Has anyone presented that perspective, or, if one person has, then enough people to plausibly be called so many? It's a perspective I've seen, linked as much to an, "Evaluation primarily takes place at level 20," mindset as to something related to TO, but it doesn't seem like it was much of a thing here. This all started with the rather innocuous, "There are some really powerful spells out there. Wish is one of them." Which, sure, it's a thing worthy of debate on a few levels, but the post certainly didn't present the idea that crazy wish loops were core to wizard power, or even necessarily important to it. And then a bunch of people started mangling the rules in order to make wish looping not work (because it does work, if and only if you can access XP free wishes in some manner), and now we're here.

[logic_error]

Has anyone presented that perspective, or, if one person has, then enough people to plausibly be called so many? It's a perspective I've seen, linked as much to an, "Evaluation primarily takes place at level 20," mindset as to something related to TO, but it doesn't seem like it was much of a thing here. This all started with the rather innocuous, "There are some really powerful spells out there. Wish is one of them." Which, sure, it's a thing worthy of debate on a few levels, but the post certainly didn't present the idea that crazy wish loops were core to wizard power, or even necessarily important to it. And then a bunch of people started mangling the rules in order to make wish looping not work (because it does work, if and only if you can access XP free wishes in some manner), and now we're here.

I am not just referring to people in this specific thread. But all over the forum. There is always "wizards are gods" because they can chain wishes/ screw with the cosmic order. Neither of which is actually really game breaking if it's played as intended and not as literally taken. Also, I am one hundred positive about being able to chain wishes. Yes, it works. Except, that it's a ninth level spell and trying to create effects equal to a ninth level spell brings with it all the consequences expected to come out of it. That is the objection.

What is funnier, is that the real screw up in the game is the Druid. And gets zero attentions somehow due to the flashy nature of the Wizard spells.

Regardless, the OP has been adequately addressed by pointing out that all characters *ought* to consume time when they are levelling up. Just because the game mechanics gives you instant "you never saw this weapon but you are now proficient bonus" does not *have* to mean that it is instant.

[eggynack]

Also, I am one hundred positive about being able to chain wishes. Yes, it works. Except, that it's a ninth level spell and trying to create effects equal to a ninth level spell brings with it all the consequences expected to come out of it. That is the objection.
If you're 100% certain about this, then you are 100% certain about something that is 100% wrong. Let's move away from the question of safe wishes for a second. Erase all text after the list of effects, wholly ignoring the part about how doing certain things is dangerous, and you just have a standard list of things you can do, just like with any other spell. From there, let's ask whether creating a magic item of high price is a thing you can do without consequences. Well, the text says you can create a magic item, and applies no price limit to it, so you can create an item with no price limit. It doesn't matter that you're also doing something that exceeds a different category. You're doing something allowed by a spell. If a spell said, "You can get +2 to strength, or you can get +2 to strength and +2 to constitution," then doing the latter would be a legal maneuver by the rules, even though it's redundant. And, moreover, because we eliminated the text at the end, there is literally nothing in the text that defines consequences that occur. The words say you can produce one of the following effects, and you are doing so.

So, we've established that, without that text at the end, you can do this without consequence. So, the question is whether we can, in a logical sense, remove the text from the end of the spell. The statement in question goes, "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous." So, is this wish producing a greater effect than "these". The answer to this question is an unambiguous no. After all, you are producing an effect that is demonstrably a subset of "these", and the subset of a set cannot be greater than the set, in the sense that it exceeds every element of that set, rather than in the broader sense that it exceeds the union of every element in the set. There is no reasonable sense in which {5,6,7} can be considered less than{7}, in other words.

Consider, moreover, that far from comporting with RAI, your argument produces some strange absurdities that would seem to conflict with RAI. Your argument, after all, is that exceeding any individual element of the list produces unsafe wishes. However, this would mean that one of the list items is, as written, unsafe. The item in question being, "A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell." This item, on the face of it, exceeds, "Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you." This means that the list of normal effects you can produce includes an effect that you can never normally produce. Another example of this comes from those duplicate a spell items. After all, if you use it for, say, a 6th level cleric spell of your school, then you are also exceeding, "Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school." To use your strange definition of "greater effects than these," we would implicitly have to take several explicit and unambiguous uses of wish off of the list. This fundamental contradiction arguably doesn't conflict with RAW, but I'd say it definitely conflicts with RAI.


What is funnier, is that the real screw up in the game is the Druid. And gets zero attentions somehow due to the flashy nature of the Wizard spells.
We were literally talking before about how crazy the druid is. It's frequently discussed how the druid is the more problematic class. The OP was arguing against us and such. I have a whole handbook about how ridiculous it is.

[Mordaedil]

Wizard asks for a ring of three wishes from his ring of three wishes. The magic of the ring determines it only has enough experience to cast from itself and thus selects the safest option available to it; it teleports a being wearing a ring of three wishes to your side.

You get an angry wizard because there's only so much xp it can consume.

Curious, spell-like abilities do not consume xp? Does that work for archmages? So if an archmage makes wish a spell-like ability, does he forfeit the need to expend xp and he can create an unlimitedly powerful magic item using wish?

Are we sure that's how it would play out?

[Beheld]

Wizard asks for a ring of three wishes from his ring of three wishes. The magic of the ring determines it only has enough experience to cast from itself and thus selects the safest option available to it; it teleports a being wearing a ring of three wishes to your side.

You get an angry wizard because there's only so much xp it can consume.

Curious, spell-like abilities do not consume xp? Does that work for archmages? So if an archmage makes wish a spell-like ability, does he forfeit the need to expend xp and he can create an unlimitedly powerful magic item using wish?

Are we sure that's how it would play out?

You could always read the rules and check, alas don't have do or material components. Archmage alas specifically state that unlike regular slas they do.

[logic_error]

If you're 100% certain about this, then you are 100% certain about something that is 100% wrong.

uh oh.




Let's move away from the question of safe wishes for a second.

Let's not. Why should it be ignored? Just because you want to make an argument? Sorry. request denied.




Erase all text after the list of effects, wholly ignoring the part about how doing certain things is dangerous, and you just have a standard list of things you can do, just like with any other spell. From there, let's ask whether creating a magic item of high price is a thing you can do without consequences. Well, the text says you can create a magic item, and applies no price limit to it, so you can create an item with no price limit. It doesn't matter that you're also doing something that exceeds a different category. You're doing something allowed by a spell. If a spell said, "You can get +2 to strength, or you can get +2 to strength and +2 to constitution," then doing the latter would be a legal maneuver by the rules, even though it's redundant. And, moreover, because we eliminated the text at the end, there is literally nothing in the text that defines consequences that occur. The words say you can produce one of the following effects, and you are doing so.



Congrats you discovered set theory problems 101 and found out why the wish text can not be taken literally.




So, we've established that without that text at the end, you can do this without consequence. So, the question is whether we can, in a logical sense, remove the text from the end of the spell. The statement in question goes, "You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous." So, is this wish to produce a greater effect than "these". The answer to this question is an unambiguous no. After all, you are producing an effect that is demonstrably a subset of "these", and the subset of a set cannot be greater than the set, in the sense that it exceeds every element of that set, rather than in the broader sense that it exceeds the union of every element in the set. There is no reasonable sense in which {5,6,7} can be considered less than{7}, in other words.



Consider this: you are now applying logic to .... magic. Also, magic at its most powerful. Fallacy? I think so.



Consider, moreover, that far from comporting with RAI, your argument produces some strange absurdities that would seem to conflict with RAI. Your argument, after all, is that exceeding any individual element of the list produces unsafe wishes.


Nuh huh. I said that the DM determines when the wishes are unreasonable. I never gave a rule. This is you beating up a strawman. Stop putting words in my mouth.



However, this would mean that one of the list items is, as written, unsafe. The item in question being, "A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell." This item, on the face of it, exceeds, "Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you." This means that the list of normal effects you can produce includes an effect that you can never normally produce. Another example of this comes from those duplicate a spell items. After all, if you use it for, say, a 6th level cleric spell of your school, then you are also exceeding, "Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school." To use your strange definition of "greater effects than these," we would implicitly have to take several explicit and unambiguous uses of wish off of the list. This fundamental contradiction arguably doesn't conflict with RAW, but I'd say it definitely conflicts with RAI.


Strawman as pointed above.



We were literally talking before about how crazy the druid is. It's frequently discussed how the druid is the more problematic class. The OP was arguing against us and such. I have a whole handbook about how ridiculous it is.

Granted. I missed that discussion.

[Beheld]

Let's not. Why should it be ignored? Just because you want to make an argument? Sorry. request denied.

Don't do this.

1) Read the entire post before you reply.

2) When someone says "Let's separate these issues out into their two separate issues and address them separately." a reasonable response is not "No! I want to talk about them conjoined!"

[logic_error]

Don't do this.

1) Read the entire post before you reply.

2) When someone says "Let's separate these issues out into their two separate issues and address them separately." a reasonable response is not "No! I want to talk about them conjoined!"

I am sorry?! Are you telling me how I should basically ignore the point I am trying to argue? No.

[eggynack]

Let's not. Why should it be ignored? Just because you want to make an argument? Sorry. request denied.
It should be ignored because that is the fundamental form of the argument. If this thing is the case, then that thing is the case. This thing is the case. Therefore, that thing is the case. It was not a request. Just some of the most basic logic out there. You can't deny logic. Or, you can, but you'll be wrong.




Congrats you discovered set theory problems 101 and found out why the wish text can not be taken literally.
It can absolutely be taken literally. You just can't define "greater" in a way that literally no one defines it. If you don't arbitrarily decide that {5,6,7} is less than {7}, then no contradiction is produced. At least not in this area. There might well be some wholly unrelated ambiguity pertaining to wish.



Consider this: you are now applying logic to .... magic. Also, magic at its most powerful. Fallacy? I think so.
It's magic that has rules. Rules, by their nature, follow logic. Not logic in the, "I'm using my brain instead of my heart," sense, but basic, wholly objective, mathematical logic. Like, if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C. If you're not using basic mathematical logic in your application of rules (at least, not at most), then you're objectively applying the rules improperly. You could equally say that fireball deals cold damage 50% of the time, because who said the thing about it dealing fire damage should always have to be followed?



Nuh huh. I said that the DM determines when the wishes are unreasonable. I never gave a rule. This is you beating up a strawman. Stop putting words in my mouth.
If that one line isn't defining what is unsafe, then literally nothing is. If you are arriving at a consequence by something that isn't the rules, then you aren't following the rules in arriving at a consequence. If you're not following the rules, then you're using house rules, and I honestly don't care at all about what arbitrary house rules you follow.



Strawman as pointed above.
Only in the sense that I assumed your rules argument was following the rules. Or otherwise that you were making a rules argument at all, rather than just saying stuff you wished was the case regarding the game, and thus make the case in your own game because you like it better that way.

[logic_error]

It should be ignored because that is the fundamental form of the argument.



Who died and made you the arbiter of fundamental forms of arguments? Especially, if you actually bothered to read what I have written in the thread, I have specifically argued solely against the safe text part. So any argument you have to make must include that section. Your patronising only reduces your credit in my eyes.




It can absolutely be taken literally.


What the hell? How can it be taken literally? Why should it be? This is a game with DM in charge as an arbiter for THIS VERY reason. That you don't have to take the rules literally.



You just can't define "greater" in a way that literally no one defines it.

Who is this mysterious no one?




If you don't arbitrarily decide that {5,6,7} is less than {7},

lol. You can not compare sets like that with more than/less than. Just FYI. There is no intrinsic measure on sets that allows you to. Should have chosen a more unambiguous example.



then no contradiction is produced. At least not in this area. There might well be some wholly unrelated ambiguity.

Actually, the wording of the so-called safe text has a clear source of ambiguity in the magic items department. Which is why there is a discussion in the first place.







It's magic that has rules. Rules, by their nature, follow the logic.

Your ability to create quotes that are meaningless is astonishing. Since when Rules have logic? Here's a catch 22 for you. Rule 1. You can't kill anyone. Rule 2. Punishment for murder is death. perfectly reasonable and illogical rules.



Not logic in the, "I'm using my brain instead of my heart," sense, but basic, wholly objective, mathematical logic. Like, if A implies B, and B implies C, then A implies C. If you're not using basic mathematical logic in your application of rules (at least, not at most), then you're objectively applying the rules improperly. You could equally say that fireball deals cold damage 50% of the time, because who said the thing about it dealing fire damage should always have to be followed?

The rhetoric that is irrelevant.



If that one line isn't defining what is unsafe, then literally nothing is. If you are arriving at a consequence by something that isn't the rules, then you aren't following the rules in arriving at a consequence. If you're not following the rules, then you're using house rules, and I honestly don't care at all about what arbitrary house rules you follow.



As I said, that this is a game with DM who determines and arbitrates when rules are being broken/misrepresented. You seem to have lost track of the actual argument.



Only in the sense that I assumed your rules argument was following the rules. Or otherwise that you were making a rules argument at all, rather than just saying stuff you wished was the case regarding the game, and thus make the case in your own game because you like it better that way.

It has nothing to do with *my* games. It has to do with playing a game and enjoying it. When an ability/spell breaks the gameplay it is the JOB of the DM to see to it that this is mitigated. Of course if you enjoy the contrary a bully for you.

[Beheld]

I am sorry?! Are you telling me how I should basically ignore the point I am trying to argue? No.

I am telling you that is someone separates out:

X and Y are two separate issues, let's address them separately.

And you agree with that person on X, but disagree on Y, you don't say "I REFUSE TO HAVE THEM TALKED ABOUT SEPARATELY!" you just say "I agree about X, now let's move on to Y."

[logic_error]

I am telling you that is someone separates out:

X and Y are two separate issues, let's address them separately.

And you agree with that person on X, but disagree on Y, you don't say "I REFUSE TO HAVE THEM TALKED ABOUT SEPARATELY!" you just say "I agree about X, now let's move on to Y."

Guess who is doing what. I have already *several* times pointed out that the X in question is legal.

[eggynack]

Who died and made you the arbiter of fundamental forms of arguments? Especially, if you actually bothered to read what I have written in the thread, I have specifically argued solely against the safe text part. So any argument you have to make must include that section. Your patronising only reduces your credit in my eyes.
What I posted is a classical logical argument, and while I have no power over what other people do, as long as my arguments are logically cohesive, I am the ultimate arbiter of the fundamental form of my argument. You are currently trying to tell me that I am not allowed in some sense to make an argument of this form. I ask you in return, who died and made you the arbiter of what sorts of arguments I can make? Sure, I could have just assumed that that text was the only possible source of consequences, but I chose to make my argument more rigorous than that, starting with, "If A then B," before moving on to, "A." I think I've seen others arguing against the former statement as well.



What the hell? How can it be taken literally? Why should it be? This is a game with DM in charge as an arbiter for THIS VERY reason. That you don't have to take the rules literally.
What do you mean how can it be taken literally? Any standard definition of "greater" works fine. That includes, "Contains an element that is greater than any element of the other set," or, "Is a superset of the other set," or, hell, even something like, "Contains more elements," (though this last could be a problem if the quantity of possible wishes are infinite). None of these produce contradictions. It should be taken literally because that is the neutral state when evaluating the rules.



Who is this mysterious no one?
Can you identify anything that uses the term greater that way, in any context, aside from something that explicitly defines the term as meaning that beforehand?



lol. You can not compare sets like that with more than/less than. Just FYI. There is no intrinsic measure on sets that allows you to. Should have chosen a more unambiguous example.
Yes, you can. You just need some definition of the terms. There are a few ways to define greater than in a set context. None of them would have this result I'm indicating.


Actually, the wording of the so-called safe text has a clear source of ambiguity in the magic items department. Which is why there is a discussion in the first place.
I've given my argument for why it doesn't have a source of ambiguity, so I obviously disagree.




Your ability to create quotes that are meaningless is astonishing. Since when Rules have logic? Here's a catch 22 for you. Rule 1. You can't kill anyone. Rule 2. Punishment for murder is death. perfectly reasonable and illogical rules.
Those rules do, in fact, produce a contradiction. We applied basic logic, as one should always do, and it resulted in said contradiction. Then, and only then, do you declare an ambiguity. I am telling you that no such contradiction exists.



The rhetoric that is irrelevant.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.



As I said, that this is a game with DM who determines and arbitrates when rules are being broken/misrepresented. You seem to have lost track of the actual argument.
In a RAW context, the DM does in fact make those determinations when the rules are contradictory and/or ambiguous. The rules here are neither.



It has nothing to do with *my* games. It has to do with playing a game and enjoying it. When an ability/spell breaks the gameplay it is the JOB of the DM to see to it that this is mitigated. Of course if you enjoy the contrary a bully for you.
The DM does indeed have broad authority to generate house rules. If that's all you're talking about, again, I honestly don't care. If you are saying that this is in any sense not a house rule, I am saying you are mistaken.

[logic_error]

'I am the final arbiter of fundamental form of my own arguments.'

Okay genius. With head this up your hinie why should I bother wasting my time arguing with you?

[eggynack]

'I am the final arbiter of fundamental form of my own arguments.'

Okay genius. With head this up your hinie why should I bother wasting my time arguing with you?
Why wouldn't I be the arbiter of how I construct my arguments? You get to be the arbiter of your arguments. It's not like I'm running around being like, "This paragraph was unnecessary, you could have generally shortened your logical line by taking this route over here, and you should have broadly used an argument by contradiction rather than an argument from definition." As long as all the logic holds together fine, I don't see what business it is of yours. It's not like the information I had in that paragraph was repeated elsewhere, so I was about as concise as one could realistically ask of an argument, meaning that my sentences were continually adding new information.

[logic_error]

Why wouldn't I be the arbiter of how I construct my arguments? You get to be the arbiter of your arguments. It's not like I'm running around being like, "This paragraph was unnecessary, you could have generally shortened your logical line by taking this route over here, and you should have broadly used an argument by contradiction rather than an argument from definition." As long as all the logic holds together fine, I don't see what business it is of yours. It's not like the information I had in that paragraph was repeated elsewhere, so I was about as concise as one could realistically ask for an argument, meaning that my sentences were continually adding new information.

Dude you literally went from:


It should be ignored because that is the fundamental form of the argument.

to


, I am the ultimate arbiter of the fundamental form of my argument.

have some intellectual integrity.

[eggynack]

Dude you literally went from:

to

have some intellectual integrity.
Different senses of the term. When I say, "That is the fundamental form of the argument," I mean that "A, A->B, B" is a basic and, in a sense, inviolable form of argumentation. You can't just skip the "A" part and still have a rigorous logical argument, unless you happen to have broad and universal agreement that "A" is the case. And I didn't necessarily. When I say, "I choose the fundamental form of my argument," I mean that I alone have the authority to say that I'm going to be using that fundamental argument form, and to choose in which order the premises appear. I could have also said, "This line can be ignored for these reasons. If this line can be ignored, you can do this without consequence. Thus, you can do this without consequence," and been fine.

Or, in other words, there is a countable infinity of different "arguments" in first order logic. These arguments are, in a sense, fundamental. But I pick which one of those infinite arguments to use, and I choose the order of premises and conclusion (because we can assume order is irrelevant with regards to difference of argument). There is a real sense in which the argument I'm making already exists within logic as a whole, and I am simply plucking the argument out of that logic space.

[Yklikt]

GODS? It's a joke.
They are insects!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e5/76/ec/e576ec133aa454d2af360aa3782df2d9.jpg

What about an insect god

[Beheld]

GODS? It's a joke.
They are insects!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/e5/76/ec/e576ec133aa454d2af360aa3782df2d9.jpg

This thing where everyone pretends to be Lord Drako must be confusing the hell out of the mods. It sure is to me.

[Yklikt]

Why confuse? Act like LordDrako is ban.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Didn't we establish that the Dread Sorceress Queen reigns supreme?

I could post half-dressed sorceresses, but instead, you get Nino:


https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/fireemblem/images/6/6b/Nino.png/revision/latest?cb=20151016154954

[Menzath]

Wow, how did this devolve from an "I hate game breaking tier 1's" to, a salt slinging debate on wish to, I'm da real lordDrako's lel.

[logic_error]

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder689/18650689.jpg

This meme made me laugh more than it ought to. I imagined it in Frank's voice.

[Hackulator]

Wow, how did this devolve from an "I hate game breaking tier 1's" to, a salt slinging debate on wish to, I'm da real lordDrako's lel.

Please note, I don't hate Wizards, they are just designed terribly and tend to attract people who like that terrible design. I'm played with Wizards who cared more about RP and everyone's fun then just being the most l33t 0wnz0rs (did I spell that right?) and it was fine because they didn't (accidentally or on purpose) abuse bad design to make the game worse for everyone.

This place just makes things even worse by telling everyone wizard's are the best so new players think they need to be wizards. There are very few things other than outright malicious intent that can bog down a game worse than a wizard run by a new player.

[logic_error]

I'm played with Wizards who cared more about RP

Turns out D&D is an RPG and not a war game. Guess what, a good game has this as the primary requirement.

[Tainted_Scholar]

There are very few things other than outright malicious intent that can bog down a game worse than a wizard run by a new player.

Yeah, like a Fighter run by a new player.:smallwink:



Also, Nice to see that Lord Drakko is back. Why was he asking to be banned earlier so he could return to his normal life, if all he does upon being banned is create a new account?

[Gildedragon]

they are just designed terribly

compared to what though?
9-casters:
Clerics are pretty similar to wizards, except with better BAB and HD. They get Turning which is a really poorly designed ability (and probably ought have been a spell).
Sorcerers are Wizards but worse.
Druids: possibly the better caster chassis as the extra abilities are actually handy.
There's also the Sha'ir, Archivist, and WuJen but they get too little support
And there's the Artificer which feels like it should have been limited to NPCs and Cohorts because of the sheer power of it

Or against half casters like the Bard, Ranger and Paladin? which are meant to not be the primary spellcasters?

Or against fixed list casters, which are more akin to either specialist wizards or sorcerers, and are fairly short on the versatility department?

or against Psi classes?

[Tainted_Scholar]

True! Sorcerer is better than Wizard in every way.

It's really pathetic when you edit someone's post. You can't actually get anyone to agree with you so you're forced to falsify quotes.

[ColorBlindNinja]

True! Sorcerer is better than Wizard in every way.

Sorcerers are even more poorly designed; they get a familiar and that's it for class features.

Not to mention their slower spell progression (seriously, why?).

[Hackulator]

compared to what though?
9-casters:
Clerics are pretty similar to wizards, except with better BAB and HD. They get Turning which is a really poorly designed ability (and probably ought have been a spell).
Sorcerers are Wizards but worse.
Druids: possibly the better caster chassis as the extra abilities are actually handy.
There's also the Sha'ir, Archivist, and WuJen but they get too little support
And there's the Artificer which feels like it should have been limited to NPCs and Cohorts because of the sheer power of it

Or against half casters like the Bard, Ranger and Paladin? which are meant to not be the primary spellcasters?

Or against fixed list casters, which are more akin to either specialist wizards or sorcerers, and are fairly short on the versatility department?

or against Psi classes?

Sorcerers are far better designed than wizards. Sorcerers can't magic bullet everything. Sorcerers have a set spell list so they don't have to slow down the game redoing it. Sorcerer's core ability score is one that, if you want to use, encourages roleplaying, while wizard's core ability score goes with knowledges, which are basically "Metagaming: the skill."

Druids and clerics I am pretty sure I addressed somewhere in this thread already.

Archivists and Artificers....yeah they are pretty terrible too.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Archivists and Artificers....yeah they are pretty terrible too.

Psionic Artificer, especially so.

Don't forget the Erudite!

[logic_error]

Sorcerers are far better designed than wizards. Sorcerers can't magic bullet everything. Sorcerers have a set spell list so they don't have to slow down the game redoing it. Sorcerer's core ability score is one that, if you want to use, encourages roleplaying, while wizard's core ability score goes with knowledges, which are basically "Metagaming: the skill."

Druids and clerics I am pretty sure I addressed somewhere in this thread already.

Archivists and Artificers....yeah they are pretty terrible too.

I dunno man.

Wizards fit into the idea of an adventure, as opposed to an encounter very, very well.

In an adventure, you have a goal delivered to you by the story, then prepare to face the challenge by *learning* new spells and buying items and change their temporary feats aka spells to suit the needs of the plot. Your problem seems to be that they are facetious. My problem is that this is not facetiousness but rather meaningful preparation for the challenge to come. How many other characters can claim to actually build themselves outside of levelling? Too few, I say. I really wish that the fighters could be more like this. That they could freely exchange fighter feats ( subset they are all trained in) between levels by visiting a training school and "practising". Instead, the retraining rules make this process quite time-consuming for mundanes. This might have made fighters more interesting.

[eggynack]

Druids and clerics I am pretty sure I addressed somewhere in this thread already.
You did so rather poorly though, in a way that was never especially substantiated. In particular, you inexplicably claimed that the druid is more of a team player than the wizard.

[ColorBlindNinja]

You did so rather poorly though, in a way that was never especially substantiated. In particular, you inexplicably claimed that the druid is more of a team player than the wizard.

???

I thought Batman Wizards were party friendly.