So my player's got a Ring of Three Wishes...

[Thrasher92]

I typically roll on loot tables or use a loot generator to generate the treasure hordes. My players are all level 16 and they defeated an ancient white dragon. It was a big boss and I rolled high for their loot and one of their items was a Ring of Three Wishes.

I know that wishes can be dangerous for the game... but I did it anyway.

They immediately blew all three wishes by using the part of the wish spell "You can grant up to 10 creatures you can see resistance to a damage type you choose."

They chose Slashing, Bludgeoning, and Piercing damage.

So now all my players have resistance to the most common damage types in the game.

-sigh- Now to challenge them more I'm going to have to use spell casters and other damage types.

[the_brazenburn]

This is fantastic!

Sorry, I get a bit excited about opportunities to use Monkey's Paw.

The point here is that you've suddenly got an ass-load of opportunities for plot hooks, disadvantages, and cool RP.

How about having their skin feel like armor, making them slower and unable to sleep?

Or perhaps send assassins after them from the premise that some mage wants to use their skin to make Warforged?

Maybe their newly metallic skin is highly flammable or conducts electricity easily?

The possibilities are endless!

[DaveOfTheDead]

I mean, at least it's only resistance and not immunity. You could always give the enemies magic weapons and twist the words of the wish "You didn't specify from magic and/or non-magic weapons." Besides, at level 16 I'd hope the bad guys would have some kind of magic weapon.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I typically roll on loot tables or use a loot generator to generate the treasure hordes. My players are all level 16 and they defeated an ancient white dragon. It was a big boss and I rolled high for their loot and one of their items was a Ring of Three Wishes.

I know that wishes can be dangerous for the game... but I did it anyway.

They immediately blew all three wishes by using the part of the wish spell "You can grant up to 10 creatures you can see resistance to a damage type you choose."

They chose Slashing, Bludgeoning, and Piercing damage.

So now all my players have resistance to the most common damage types in the game.

-sigh- Now to challenge them more I'm going to have to use spell casters and other damage types.
really as wishes go, it is pretty minor. I wouldn't even worry about it.

[B0nes]

Why does everyone seem to love ruining wishes? They didn't even try to abuse them.

[Rerem115]

So what your'e saying is that your level 16 party all simultaneously took a level in Barbarian. I wouldn't worry about it; as far as wishes go, it's pretty innocuous. It's one of the suggested wishes for a reason, and it manages to convey the power of a wish without being broken. Again, they're level 16, your campaign is probably ending soon, let them have this moment.

[Unoriginal]

Legendary heroes having supernatural toughness is certainly not a problem. At lvl 16 the PCs are already among the most powerful humanoids, or near, and there is no reason to try to remove something they legitimately gained.

You knew what risked to happen when you rolled for the loot, there is no reason to punish the PCs for that.

[damascoplay]

I'm sure magic weapons can surpass damage resistances. Besides, at the current level they are it's kinda fitting for them to be that tough to beat.
Once the enemies realise their normal attacks aren't doing as much damage as they wished after a long battle, what would they do? Selling informations for others would be a great thing to do. Maybe start changing their tatics or retreat to fight another day.

Kinda happy to realise your players just chose something really normal like resistance to X. If it was my players, they would wish for some bs gamebreaking shenanigans...

[Laserlight]

Legendary heroes having supernatural toughness is certainly not a problem. At lvl 16 the PCs are already among the most powerful humanoids, or near, and there is no reason to try to remove something they legitimately gained.

You knew what risked to happen when you rolled for the loot, there is no reason to punish the PCs for that.

Concur. Don't give them a gift and then screw them for using it.

[Galadhrim]

This is fantastic!

Sorry, I get a bit excited about opportunities to use Monkey's Paw.

The point here is that you've suddenly got an ass-load of opportunities for plot hooks, disadvantages, and cool RP.

How about having their skin feel like armor, making them slower and unable to sleep?

Or perhaps send assassins after them from the premise that some mage wants to use their skin to make Warforged?

Maybe their newly metallic skin is highly flammable or conducts electricity easily?

The possibilities are endless!

Maybe sending assassins from the mage that wants their skin. As for the others....please don't. The game is supposed to be fun, not an experiment to see how much frustration you can cause before your players ask quit.

[ad_hoc]

They are level 16. They are supposed to be breaking the game. They are supposed to be facing threats to the multi-verse.

Creatures that deal ordinary damage should be the least of their worries anyway.

[jojo]

So now all my players have resistance to the most common damage types in the game.

-sigh- Now to challenge them more I'm going to have to use spell casters and other damage types.

At level 16 they should already be dealing extensively with stuff like that anyway. Looking through the MM its difficult to find a CR 10+ creature that relies entirely on "mundane" damage types at all.

Iron Golems and Storm Giants pop out but they're definitely in the minority in 5th Edition.

[Greywander]

So I'm going to be a contrarian and say that you should actually try to put them in situations where their new-found resistance actually tilts things in their favor. Have them take on a horde of bandits that they defeat handily. Have a wizard throw an iron golem at them thinking it will crush them, only for it to pose little challenge. Make them feel like they made a good choice.

Also, throw more monsters at them that don't do weapon damage. As others have said, you probably should have been doing this already.

[ad_hoc]

So I'm going to be a contrarian and say that you should actually try to put them in situations where their new-found resistance actually tilts things in their favor.

I think it is best to just have everything as is without regard to party make up or abilities.

Allow the characters to actually use their abilities. If the campaign is molded around their abilities, then the abilities are meaningless because they will always have the right ones for the task.

[CantigThimble]

You gave your characters 3 wishes and they DIDN'T try to break the game? Your players are fantastic, do NOT punish them or monkey's paw this. Give them a hearty thanks in the form of situations where their new resistances matter. When they're fighting enemies that deal BPS damage you'll need to up the number of enemies by a bit to balance this out, but that's not really a problem. This way, encounters remain challenging and they just get to feel awesomely powerful. Win-Win.

[ad_hoc]

When they're fighting enemies that deal BPS damage you'll need to up the number of enemies by a bit to balance this out, but that's not really a problem.

This negates their bonus.

[Greywander]

Does using a Ring of Three Wishes this way cause the same stress as casting Wish does when you use it for anything other than duplicating another spell 8th level or lower? Should they have had a 1 in 3 chance to never be able to cast Wish again, every time they used the ring this way? Also, it seems the DMG doesn't say anything about this but I feel like when you first find the ring it should have 1d3 wishes left, i.e. some of the wishes might have already been used by someone else.


I think it is best to just have everything as is without regard to party make up or abilities.

Allow the characters to actually use their abilities. If the campaign is molded around their abilities, then the abilities are meaningless because they will always have the right ones for the task.
I'm just saying that, contrary to what some other people were saying, let them feel awesome from time to time. Don't mold the campaign so that they always have exactly the one ability that they needed for each specific plot point, but neither should you mold the campaign to negate every choice they make. What's that? You wished for fire resistance? The next campaign arc will take place at the North Pole. You are immune to non-magical weapon damage? Guess what, every enemy now carries a magical weapon. You want to cast Fireball on the goblins? Counterspell.

All I was saying was that you don't need to punish the players for getting a shiny new toy. Let them play with their toy from time to time, but otherwise it's business as usual. There's nothing wrong with occasionally putting the players in a situation where their earlier choices finally pay off and they get to feel awesome. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with occasionally putting the players in a situation where tactics they had previously relied on will no longer work, and they'll be forced to innovate or improvise in order to succeed. Neither one is bad, but both should be used sparingly.

[DarkKnightJin]

I am firmly in the camp that you shouldn't be frustrated with your players. They actually took an option that still helps their power, but doesn't require you to rewrite the world.

I heatd of someone that got a single Wish after freeing a bunch of kidnapped folks, one of which happened to be a Genie in disguise, who was genuinely grateful.

They Wish'd that nobody got kidnapped, meaning the DM had to call it early and re-write 2 or 3 sessions worth of playtime.

Be GRATEFUL they 'only' picked the resistance.
Pretty sure you just get to throw more **** at them now.

Honestly, I might do the same if I ever get my hands on a Wish..

[ad_hoc]

Don't mold the campaign so that they always have exactly the one ability that they needed for each specific plot point, but neither should you mold the campaign to negate every choice they make.

You should do neither.

Either approach negates their choices and their items.

If a DM molds the campaign to the characters that negates the character's abilities and items. It doesn't matter whether it is molded for or against their characters.

[Unoriginal]

The world had no reason to suddenly change in rwaction to the wish. If enemies of the PCs figure out the PCs are now tougher, though, they'll react in an appropriate manner.

[Greywander]

You should do neither.
Yes, that is what I said. Glad to know you agree with me.


The world had no reason to suddenly change in rwaction to the wish. If enemies of the PCs figure out the PCs are now tougher, though, they'll react in an appropriate manner.
From a verisimilitude standpoint, no, the entire world should not change as a result of meta-mechanical choices the players make. But, the world should change based on how the PCs interact with it, and suddenly being resistant to weapons might cause some people (particularly a recurring villain) to take notice and respond accordingly.

From an entertainment standpoint, yes, the DM should provide opportunities to make the players' choices meaningful. If one player focuses on getting a bunch of languages, for example, drop a book in front of them written in an obscure language that they happen to speak. It doesn't have to be a big change that makes the whole campaign easy-mode (or hard-mode), but the DM should be fully capable of working something small into the story without needing to completely rewrite it.

As another example, let's say you have a player gain resistance or immunity to damage type X. In a place where you weren't originally going to have a trap, you could add a field that causes damage type X to creatures that enter it, allowing said player to feel really good about getting that resistance/immunity because they can just walk through it and, say, activate a switch or retrieve a key. Maybe the switch disables the field, allowing the rest of the party to pass through unharmed. It's a small change, but it makes them feel good, and it turns what would have been an otherwise boring hallway into something interesting.

[Unoriginal]

From a verisimilitude standpoint, no, the entire world should not change as a result of meta-mechanical choices the players make. But, the world should change based on how the PCs interact with it, and suddenly being resistant to weapons might cause some people (particularly a recurring villain) to take notice and respond accordingly.

Yes, I've just said that.

[jojo]

As another example, let's say you have a player gain resistance or immunity to damage type X. In a place where you weren't originally going to have a trap, you could add a field that causes damage type X to creatures that enter it, allowing said player to feel really good about getting that resistance/immunity because they can just walk through it and, say, activate a switch or retrieve a key. Maybe the switch disables the field, allowing the rest of the party to pass through unharmed. It's a small change, but it makes them feel good, and it turns what would have been an otherwise boring hallway into something interesting.

Thereby robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Taking this example, you've just rewarded one player at the expense of another. Traps, for instance are where the Rogue shines. If the Rogue chose damage resistance it presumably won't get used to overcome the trap, since that's what the Rogue does. If someone other than the Rogue chose damage resistance then by using it to overcome the trap in question takes away from the Rogue's opportunity to show off.

For a detailed example of what I mean I suggest taking a look at the following article:

The Five Room Dungeon (http://www.runagame.net/2015/05/the-five-room-dungeon.html)

Punishing your players for making a reasonable choice is probably a bad idea, which does not mean you should actively reward them.
Reiterating what I said earlier, by 16th level your PCs should be facing a diverse array of threats which have alternatives to mundane B/P/S damage available to them as a matter of course. In most games it wouldn't be unreasonable for the primary Tank/Sponge character to already have had resistance to B/P/S damage for quite a while courtesy of the Heavy Armor Master feat.

For your PCs, gaining this resistance should be a nice little garnish on the cake, not the icing.

[Thrasher92]

So, my players know me rather well. They knew that if they chose something simple from the list then I probably wouldn't mess with them. Also, the guy who plays the wizard is very smart in real life and I think he figured out that if they make all the wishes at once, with the same kind of effect, that there would be a much smaller chance of me saying no or messing with them, because even if I did then they would only have to face one "consequence" for all three wishes.

They could have easily saved the wishes for some be grand scheme and tried to rewrite events and such but the wizard KNOWS I love messing with spells like that. So, in a way he might have made the better choice and convinced the group as such.

I'm not punishing them for this choice, it is completely fair and within the rules. But, with the campaign it will make things much more interesting.

None of my players watch Critical Role and I have taken a lot of inspiration from Matt Mercer and have had them have to fight dragons and chase down some legendary items to bear against them.

Our campaign has been going on for a little over a year now and we play once a week.

The choice of being resistant to B,S, and P damage is more annoying than it is game breaking. There are going to be a couple times that it will really make things less of a challenge, mostly because I'm going to let it be all B,S, and P not just nonmagical. It will basically be like a barbarian's rage. I've already ruled it that way and I don't want to go back and change it.

These resistances can make challenges, even a red dragon, less of a challenge than it normally would be. Yes, the dragon will still have a fire breath and his bite will do fire damage as well but the claws, tail, and wing attacks will be only half damage.

Not just the dragons though, looking through what I have prepared I think that on average, most of my enemies do B,S, and P damage with just a little extra of the other types.

I dislike having to run spellcasters while running a bunch of other things, it takes a lot more preparation my side to run them but I may add in a few more to just give them a challenge.

I don't see this a "punishing" them for making these wishes. I'm just trying to make the fights more interesting and have them actually be challenged.

[ad_hoc]

Yes, that is what I said. Glad to know you agree with me.

Not it isn't. We don't agree at all.




From an entertainment standpoint, yes, the DM should provide opportunities to make the players' choices meaningful.


This is disagreeing with me.

Changing the game based on what the characters have/their abilities is bad.

If the DM changes the world based on the player's choices then their choices are not meaningful. This is because no matter what choices they make, the DM changes things to accommodate them, thereby negating their choice.


I dislike having to run spellcasters while running a bunch of other things, it takes a lot more preparation my side to run them but I may add in a few more to just give them a challenge.



This is high level play. If you want to run mundane monsters then I suggest ending the campaign and starting again from a low level.

At this point the party should be facing challenges to the multi-verse. Travelling from plane to plane, challenging demi-gods and super arch fiends.

That sort of thing.

[Greywander]

Yes, I've just said that.
Okay, so one third of my post was reiterating and expanding on what you said, with the other two thirds offering counterexamples showing how you might do something different. I don't understand your point? :smallconfused:


Thereby robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Taking this example, you've just rewarded one player at the expense of another. Traps, for instance are where the Rogue shines. If the Rogue chose damage resistance it presumably won't get used to overcome the trap, since that's what the Rogue does. If someone other than the Rogue chose damage resistance then by using it to overcome the trap in question takes away from the Rogue's opportunity to show off.
This would be true if you removed an existing trap to implement this other one, but that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. What I was saying was to take an otherwise featureless room or corridor and add this trap to it. So really it's more like paying Paul with monopoly money.


For a detailed example of what I mean I suggest taking a look at the following article:

The Five Room Dungeon (http://www.runagame.net/2015/05/the-five-room-dungeon.html)
This was a really good read. My takeaway from this is that such a room should be cut from the dungeon entirely for being unnecessary, although I don't think it would hurt to do it one time. If you could work something like this in and make it feel natural, I certainly don't think it will hurt anything and will make your players feel good about their choices, especially if it hasn't come up organically during play yet. Doing it over and over would become a problem eventually.


Not it isn't. We don't agree at all.

Don't..., but neither...

You should do neither.
I dunno, it kinda looks like I said, "Don't do these two things," and you responded, "Don't do these two things." Which was really confusing because the way you phrased your post made it sound like you were both arguing with me and agreeing with me, so I wasn't really sure how to respond.


Either approach negates their choices and their items.
This is a valid point that I did somewhat gloss over.


This is disagreeing with me.

Changing the game based on what the characters have/their abilities is bad.

If the DM changes the world based on the player's choices then their choices are not meaningful. This is because no matter what choices they make, the DM changes things to accommodate them, thereby negating their choice.
Au contraire, mon ami. I think what's happening is that we're both conflating two similar ideas that look similar in their execution but produce profoundly different effects on the game. Let's look at that quote again.

From an entertainment standpoint, yes, the DM should provide opportunities to make the players' choices meaningful.
Providing opportunities to make the players' choices meaningful somehow makes their choices not meaningful? Are you telling me that you don't tailor your campaigns to your players at all? So if the party forgets to bring a rogue and they can't break down the first locked door they encounter, is the campaign just over? Do you not give them a chance to bluff their way past the bandits if a player has the appropriate skills? Do you send them to a volcano dungeon to dive 500 feet into lava to retrieve a lost artifact when they don't have fire resistance/immunity?

I don't know, maybe you have your entire campaign written out before your players even roll up characters, but I feel like most DMs would make up at least the details as they go, "based on what the characters have/their abilities", but of course also based on what makes sense for that world. Much like with Zelda or Metroid, when a player gains a new ability it allows them to do things they couldn't do before and go places they couldn't go before, which allows you to give them quests that you couldn't give them before. Like diving 500 feet into lava.

A bad DM will render player choices meaningless by either punishing them or rewarding them, regardless of the choice made. A good DM will see each choice as an opportunity to introduce new challenges and opportunities to the players. The first case sounds a lot like a railroading DM that pushes the players along the rails regardless of whatever choices they make. The latter sounds like a DM that builds their campaign organically based on the choices of the players, thus giving those choices meaning.

As far as I can tell, we can both agree that, say, when the players have fire resistance that making enemies always deal fire damage or never deal fire damage are both bad. What I'm adding to this is that you could send them to a volcano for a quest, something that might have been too challenging without the resistance. Don't make every dungeon a volcano (I think your players would get bored if you did), but do it at least once. Does that make sense to you?

[Talamare]

Wow... Resistance to Physical?

That's... kinda of a waste

I would have done Resistance to Fire, Cold, and Lightning

Edit - Maybe Radiant instead of Cold

[Citan]

I typically roll on loot tables or use a loot generator to generate the treasure hordes. My players are all level 16 and they defeated an ancient white dragon. It was a big boss and I rolled high for their loot and one of their items was a Ring of Three Wishes.

I know that wishes can be dangerous for the game... but I did it anyway.

They immediately blew all three wishes by using the part of the wish spell "You can grant up to 10 creatures you can see resistance to a damage type you choose."

They chose Slashing, Bludgeoning, and Piercing damage.

So now all my players have resistance to the most common damage types in the game.

-sigh- Now to challenge them more I'm going to have to use spell casters and other damage types.
Hi.
Sooo. What's the problem there?
I mean, seriously, you gave them a tool with which they could utterly ruin your campaign in so many ways...
And they instead chose to buff themselves in a way that just makes them much more resilient against hoards but won't really change much in the face of the biggest / most dangerous creatures they will face from now on...

You should actually thank them for not even trying to be creative, because that usually is a pain to deal as a DM even when they don't try to bother you but just sincerely want to use it in a good way to advance the plot.
The boost they chose is instead the best you could hope for:
- Not only are they still pretty much vulnerable against all magic, including fire/force/psychic/etc so most CR 14+ creatures will still have full-effect tools to use against them...
- But the fact they are now resistant to mundane damage means you can actively confront them with hordes of minions that they can cut through without fearing much nor needing spells's buff/AOE for a very satisfying sensation of really being a half-god.:smallbiggrin:

[Thrasher92]

Hi.
Sooo. What's the problem there?
I mean, seriously, you gave them a tool with which they could utterly ruin your campaign in so many ways...
And they instead chose to buff themselves in a way that just makes them much more resilient against hoards but won't really change much in the face of the biggest / most dangerous creatures they will face from now on...

You should actually thank them for not even trying to be creative, because that usually is a pain to deal as a DM even when they don't try to bother you but just sincerely want to use it in a good way to advance the plot.
The boost they chose is instead the best you could hope for:
- Not only are they still pretty much vulnerable against all magic, including fire/force/psychic/etc so most CR 14+ creatures will still have full-effect tools to use against them...
- But the fact they are now resistant to mundane damage means you can actively confront them with hordes of minions that they can cut through without fearing much nor needing spells's buff/AOE for a very satisfying sensation of really being a half-god.:smallbiggrin:

There is no problem, really, I just thought it was interesting and thought I would share it.

But, most creatures in the Monster Manual do B/S/P damage. Those are the most common damage types.

I was just doing the math and realized it made them much more tough than I thought it would.

[Tanarii]

Interesting. I always assumed that use of Wish as temporary.

Did you remember to apply casting stress: Damage for casting spells before next long rest, Str 3 for 2d4 days, and a 33% chance to lose the ability to ever cast Wish again? For each casting.

[DarkKnightJin]

Interesting. I always assumed that use of Wish as temporary.

Did you remember to apply casting stress: Damage for casting spells before next long rest, Str 3 for 2d4 days, and a 33% chance to lose the ability to ever cast Wish again? For each casting.

I thought that too, but I checked the wording. The resistance to that type of damage is permanent.

As for the drawbacks from Wish as if cast by the character itself.. Not sure if that applies if done through a magic item like the Ring here.

[Lombra]

"Your player's" what? :confused:

Grammar aside, I believe it's a cool boon at those levels that doesn't break the game, many high level threats use damage types different from B/P/S, plus, this way you can recklessly throw in high CR monsters without worrying too much about it, it's a good opportunity to craft epic battles that would otherwise trample the party. I'd join the players in their revelry rather than worrying about it.

I don't see the need to "monkey paw" such a legitimate and frankly innocuous wish, it's just damage, there are two other pillars where they still get challenged regularly.

[furby076]

They are level 16, and they used the suggestions and didnt abuse. Dont screw them over. What happens if instead of a ring of 3 wishes, they found a holy avenger, would you put a curse on it? Same thing.

I do like the idea of some powerful guild hunting them for their skin. It would open a story line where they are on the defensive. For most of their careers, they are the hunters, trying to do something. Now they are at the top of their game, and other (evil) adventurers want to pillage the players!

[furby076]

Does using a Ring of Three Wishes this way cause the same stress as casting Wish does when you use it for anything other than duplicating another spell 8th level or lower? Should they have had a 1 in 3 chance to never be able to cast Wish again, every time they used the ring this way? Also, it seems the DMG doesn't say anything about this but I feel like when you first find the ring it should have 1d3 wishes left, i.e. some of the wishes might have already been used by someone else.
No, ring of 3 wishes does not cause the same issues as spell casters, as it doesn't say it does. No reason to assume so. Remember, when making a magic item, you pay the cost at the time of item creation. So, presumably, the wizard who made the ring had to deal with the potential drawback, though i imagine it was probably a divine being that made the ring..and thats just arbitrary. In older editions you had to cast the spell into the item (i.e., cast wishes 3 times into the ring), but in this edition its just find the appropriate items (whatever the DM decidez).

As for 1 in 3, you are thinking luck blade which states it has 14d-1 wishes. The ring does not state that, it just says 3 wishes. Given that, you could make it the ring has 2 or 1 wish.

[Talamare]

Would be fun to make it a little Dragon Ball Z style

After making a Wish with the Ring, it gets sent somewhere far away and it needs to be found again.


Note this isn't with the intention of attempting to 'screw' the players
Just to add a little bit more fun to it.

[Tanarii]

Insofar as "monkey's paw" goes, it's not appropriate for the things listed in the spell. Per the spell description, it potentially applies, at DM discretion, to "something beyond the scope of the above examples."


I thought that too, but I checked the wording. The resistance to that type of damage is permanent.Yeah, certainly appears that way doesn't it? Especially given the very next line item is "for 8 hours".

But it certainly sets off my knee jerk "overpowered!" DM instincts & alarms.


As for the drawbacks from Wish as if cast by the character itself.. Not sure if that applies if done through a magic item like the Ring here.
Casting a spell from an item is still you casting a spell. It should definitely apply to anything that's not duplicating a spell of 8th level or lower.

Of course, this may be irrelevant if the party just does it on its down time, given it is a permanent effect.

[CantigThimble]

This negates their bonus.

No more than fighting higher CR creatures when you level up negates the bonus of leveling up. You face challenges so you can gain XP/loot so you can face greater challenges and get more XP/loot. Rinse and repeat, every RPG in a nutshell. They've chosen to increase their power, so what other response can their be than to give them greater challenges and rewards?

[ad_hoc]

No more than fighting higher CR creatures when you level up negates the bonus of leveling up. You face challenges so you can gain XP/loot so you can face greater challenges and get more XP/loot. Rinse and repeat, every RPG in a nutshell. They've chosen to increase their power, so what other response can their be than to give them greater challenges and rewards?

This is 3.x design. I really dislike treadmill RPG design.

In 5e magic items are supposed to be actual bonuses.

If the challenge is the same regardless of party composition/items then they might just TPK. Make some new characters and keep playing.

If the players find ways of overcoming the challenges then they get rewards and the sense of actual accomplishment. If the DM sets up the game to ensure accomplishment then there is no satisfaction.

[CantigThimble]

This is 3.x design. I really dislike treadmill RPG design.

In 5e magic items are supposed to be actual bonuses.

If the challenge is the same regardless of party composition/items then they might just TPK. Make some new characters and keep playing.

If the players find ways of overcoming the challenges then they get rewards and the sense of actual accomplishment. If the DM sets up the game to ensure accomplishment then there is no satisfaction.

So, you would ignore the new resistances completely and accept that they're going to steamroll a decent chunk of encounters with no threat?

If not that, then what?

[ad_hoc]

So, you would ignore the new resistances completely and accept that they're going to steamroll a decent chunk of encounters with no threat?

If not that, then what?

Sure. They're supposed to steamroll most encounters. Where once they had to cower every time a big creature came into view, now they can smash them without much effort.

They're level 16. If they don't have adventures available to them for that scope it's better to just start over. The adventures are the adventures, don't change them just because the party got some magic items. That nullifies the items.

Level 17 is the tier when they are capable of taking on threats to the multi-verse. The entire scope of play has changed at this point. If the table prefers to have the typical dungeon crawl style game they should create new characters and play that.

[CantigThimble]

Sure. They're supposed to steamroll most encounters. Where once they had to cower every time a big creature came into view, now they can smash them without much effort.

They're level 16. If they don't have adventures available to them for that scope it's better to just start over. The adventures are the adventures, don't change them just because the party got some magic items. That nullifies the items.

Level 17 is the tier when they are capable of taking on threats to the multi-verse. The entire scope of play has changed at this point. If the table prefers to have the typical dungeon crawl style game they should create new characters and play that.

So, you think that combat should be
Pretty much irrelevant for high level characters? I mean, sure, most things that exist arent a threat to them, but they're adventurers. Its their job to find whatever there is that is still a threat and face it. All this does is change what counts as a threat to them.

Starting over is an option, but it isn't the only one.

I understand wanting to make sure magic items are a bonus, but that's not an end in itself. It's a means of keeping the game fun, but I think increasing the challenge would accomplish that goal better here.

[ad_hoc]

So, you think that combat should be
Pretty much irrelevant for high level characters?

Not in the slightest.

I think fighting an Ogre should be irrelevant to a 16th level party. That doesn't mean that all combat should be. A Demi-God or Greater Daemon would still present a threat I'm sure.

I will start a new thread to explain how to get off the treadmill.

[furby076]

Would be fun to make it a little Dragon Ball Z style

After making a Wish with the Ring, it gets sent somewhere far away and it needs to be found again.


Note this isn't with the intention of attempting to 'screw' the players
Just to add a little bit more fun to it.
Thats fun. Even better, the god that made it is a god of trickery or greed. The ring disappears after 3rd wish, but players think there is another wish. If they pursue and find it, the ring laughs at them and tells them everyone knows ring of wishes only have 3. :)