Any RAW rules for balancing Savage Species Wish?

[gogogome]

First off, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying the Savage Species Wish. There is a lot of content unavailable to players made available with this major ritual. Inherited templates especially. It gives birth to truly unconventional characters and I'm enjoying DMing every single one of them.

But we're currently relying completely on the gentleman's agreement and it's bothering me. The problem is, if you use Wish, you don't lose anything. The other rituals, you either lose levels according to LA or stop leveling up until you pay the requisite xp. But Wish, it just happens. So you can just wish yourself into a Pit Fiend, gain all of his stuff, and just never gain xp again because your LA is "-" That's how I rule it. If you have LA:- you get 0 xp forever.

So is there anything that would let me prevent a player from using Wish to become an epic creature? This thread is basically a hail mary. I don't use house rules so it's not an option.

[daremetoidareyo]

Gentleman's agreement needs a DM veto clause with a no-negative emotion retaliation rider.

[JNAProductions]

For the Pit Fiend specifically, it should come with Epic-level threats. Devils don't like devils that are outside the hierarchy, which this character would be. They should get a messenger saying "Congratulations on joining the Nine Hells! Now come home, or we kill you and torture your soul forever."

Now, that is an In Character solution, which is probably a bad idea. I'd agree with the poster above-you're allowed, as DM, to just say "That is beyond the power of what you can manage." Alternatively, you can add penalties, make it a quest to do the Wish spell as a proper ritual to make it work, etc. etc.

Above all, though, TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS. Don't just foist this on them, have a chat with them about how to make it work, or whether it needs to just be vetoed entirely.

[DeTess]

First off, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying the Savage Species Wish. There is a lot of content unavailable to players made available with this major ritual. Inherited templates especially. It gives birth to truly unconventional characters and I'm enjoying DMing every single one of them.

But we're currently relying completely on the gentleman's agreement and it's bothering me. The problem is, if you use Wish, you don't lose anything. The other rituals, you either lose levels according to LA or stop leveling up until you pay the requisite xp. But Wish, it just happens. So you can just wish yourself into a Pit Fiend, gain all of his stuff, and just never gain xp again because your LA is "-" That's how I rule it. If you have LA:- you get 0 xp forever.

So is there anything that would let me prevent a player from using Wish to become an epic creature? This thread is basically a hail mary. I don't use house rules so it's not an option.

How is the bolded part not a house-rule?

Anyway, the book states explicitly that this use of the wish spell falls under the ' wishing for greater effects' clause. This mean you, as a DM, can bring in any sort of consequence or fiat that you feel like applying.

[Necroticplague]

How is the bolded part not a house-rule?

Because there's no way to calculate how much XP they gain. After all, since they no longer have an ECL, how would you calculate how much XP they get, considering XP gains are ECL vs. EL based? Frankly, she's being charitable by just assuming the character can't gain XP, instead of that the whole party can't gain XP (since there is no longer a calculable party level to determine challenge).

It's not a house rule the same way that saying adding a headband of intellect to a skeleton doesn't do anything useful isn't.

[gogogome]

For the Pit Fiend specifically, it should come with Epic-level threats. Devils don't like devils that are outside the hierarchy, which this character would be. They should get a messenger saying "Congratulations on joining the Nine Hells! Now come home, or we kill you and torture your soul forever."

Now, that is an In Character solution, which is probably a bad idea. I'd agree with the poster above-you're allowed, as DM, to just say "That is beyond the power of what you can manage." Alternatively, you can add penalties, make it a quest to do the Wish spell as a proper ritual to make it work, etc. etc.

Above all, though, TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS. Don't just foist this on them, have a chat with them about how to make it work, or whether it needs to just be vetoed entirely.

That's what we're doing right now. I just feel... uncomfortable that the players have this nuclear option, which is why this thread is a hail mary more than anything.


Because there's no way to calculate how much XP they gain. After all, since they no longer have an ECL, how would you calculate how much XP they get, considering XP gains are ECL vs. EL based? Frankly, she's being charitable by just assuming the character can't gain XP, instead of that the whole party can't gain XP (since there is no longer a calculable party level to determine challenge).

It's not a house rule the same way that saying adding a headband of intellect to a skeleton doesn't do anything useful isn't.

Yeah that is a good point. I thought I'd treat the PC like a NPC or hireling, but your logic is sound too. I'll rule it that way, not that any PC is actually using wish to turn into a LA:- monster. I brought in this ruling when one of my players wanted to become a half golem.


How is the bolded part not a house-rule?

Anyway, the book states explicitly that this use of the wish spell falls under the ' wishing for greater effects' clause. This mean you, as a DM, can bring in any sort of consequence or fiat that you feel like applying.

Except that Savage Species spelled out exactly what those consequences are: Spellcraft check to see if you gain a feature. You wouldn't make a player have his Wish fail when trying to kill the Tarrasque because it's a greater effect right?

[Crake]

First off, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying the Savage Species Wish. There is a lot of content unavailable to players made available with this major ritual. Inherited templates especially. It gives birth to truly unconventional characters and I'm enjoying DMing every single one of them.

But we're currently relying completely on the gentleman's agreement and it's bothering me. The problem is, if you use Wish, you don't lose anything. The other rituals, you either lose levels according to LA or stop leveling up until you pay the requisite xp. But Wish, it just happens. So you can just wish yourself into a Pit Fiend, gain all of his stuff, and just never gain xp again because your LA is "-" That's how I rule it. If you have LA:- you get 0 xp forever.

So is there anything that would let me prevent a player from using Wish to become an epic creature? This thread is basically a hail mary. I don't use house rules so it's not an option.

The very use of wish to change species REQUIRES you houserule. The listed "rules" are actually just a suggestion, the book states


While this is the quickest method of transformation and potentially the least expensive, it has substantial risks.
The DM may, for instance, require the spellcaster to make a Spellcraft check.

But basically, if you're using the wish spell to transform, you as the DM need to come up with your own ruling on how to balance it according to your game. It should not be a quick and easy, risk free thing, if your players can make that spellcraft check without issue 100%, then you need to make it something else, you need to houserule it, because there's no set in stone rule for how it should work.

If you don't want to house rule, then don't use wish as a means of transforming.

[RoboEmperor]

I have a question. Can Wish replicate rituals? I mean if Rituals are just spells with long casting times then having Wish replicate the Ritual that takes away class levels should fix everything right? Perhaps look up RAW in that area.

[Yogibear41]

So you can just wish yourself into a Pit Fiend, gain all of his stuff, and just never gain xp again because your LA is "-" That's how I rule it. If you have LA:- you get 0 xp forever.



One of the main points of an RPG is growth imo, whats the point in playing if you never grow. Seems like a pretty terrible penalty to me.

[EldritchWeaver]

Because there's no way to calculate how much XP they gain. After all, since they no longer have an ECL, how would you calculate how much XP they get, considering XP gains are ECL vs. EL based? Frankly, she's being charitable by just assuming the character can't gain XP, instead of that the whole party can't gain XP (since there is no longer a calculable party level to determine challenge).

It's not a house rule the same way that saying adding a headband of intellect to a skeleton doesn't do anything useful isn't.

According to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21205186&postcount=338), a Pit Fiend's LA would be 2.

[gogogome]

The very use of wish to change species REQUIRES you houserule. The listed "rules" are actually just a suggestion, the book states



But basically, if you're using the wish spell to transform, you as the DM need to come up with your own ruling on how to balance it according to your game. It should not be a quick and easy, risk free thing, if your players can make that spellcraft check without issue 100%, then you need to make it something else, you need to houserule it, because there's no set in stone rule for how it should work.

If you don't want to house rule, then don't use wish as a means of transforming.

I like Wish because it doesn't require a ritualist. I don't allow every ritualist in every book available on call and this is a major barrier. The Wording does suggest I do need to house rule, so I guess I'll just heed RoboEmperor's advice and say you can only use Wish to replicate the Ritual of Vitality as a Greater Effect. The players can avoid the Ritualist Cost but not the XP cost which will be either 5,000xp or the normal xp cost of the Ritual of Vitality, whichever is more.


One of the main points of an RPG is growth imo, whats the point in playing if you never grow. Seems like a pretty terrible penalty to me.

That's why no one goes a LA:- race. You're not supposed to play a LA:- race.


According to this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21205186&postcount=338), a Pit Fiend's LA would be 2.

Savage Species says any creature with Wish has a LA+3 minimum, and everyone knows it only takes 1 free wish to complete break a game, like a magic ring that has every single magic ring item effect in the entire existence of d&d 3.5 and 3.0 on it, so I highly disagree with that opinion.

[ericgrau]

As Crake said there is specific "RAW" that says such as wish falls under "wishing for greater effects" which causes 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.)


Here's a helpful thread here where you may ask about any form you want to attempt to turn into with savage species wish: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556151-Corrupt-a-Wish-II
And yeah the spellcraft thing was just an example way to handle it without making the DM think very hard. It doesn't work very well and it's not the greatest suggestion, but it might work ok if the players haven't optimized spellcraft.

By "RAW" this is firmly in DM ad hoc territory. So if you don't want homebrew do you want... completely made up suggestions on how to rule it instead?

[gogogome]

By "RAW" this is firmly in DM ad hoc territory. So if you don't want homebrew do you want... completely made up suggestions on how to rule it instead?

If homebrew is mandatory I generally disallow the thing that requires it. I want my players to experience d&d, not a homebrew game, which is what I usually feel when I used to be a player playing in custom settings with a boatload of poorly designed homebrew.

So like if a DM removes LA from a race and players do some crazy things with it, I feel like it's a BS homebrew game rather than d&d.

Also I played with a DM who just made up rulings on the spot to the point he doesn't even try to look if a rule exists or not. And the way he ruled it was very different from how d&d ruled it.

Just, no homebrew or house rules. Once you start it never stops and it no longer becomes d&d.

Oh well, like I said I didn't expect anything from this thread and it was just more of a hail mary.

[RoboEmperor]

I like Wish because it doesn't require a ritualist. I don't allow every ritualist in every book available on call and this is a major barrier..

It's important to note that players can be ritualists too.


A ritualist (a spellcaster versed in the conducting of one or more rituals) is necessary for the performance of any ritual. Player character spellcasters can learn how to conduct
the rituals described below. A ritualist cannot conduct a ritual on herself.
A spellcaster may learn a single ritual each time she gains a new spell level. For instance, a wizard can learn a ritual at 1st level (when she gains 1st-level spells), 3rd level (when she gains 2nd-level spells), 5th level (when she gains 3rdlevel spells), and so on. A spellcaster cannot learn a ritual that requires a specific spell (wish or polymorph other) unless she can cast that spell.

So just have two players cooperate and change each other's races.

[ericgrau]

If homebrew is mandatory I generally disallow the thing that requires it. I want my players to experience d&d, not a homebrew game, which is what I usually feel when I used to be a player playing in custom settings with a boatload of poorly designed homebrew.

So like if a DM removes LA from a race and players do some crazy things with it, I feel like it's a BS homebrew game rather than d&d.

Also I played with a DM who just made up rulings on the spot to the point he doesn't even try to look if a rule exists or not. And the way he ruled it was very different from how d&d ruled it.

Just, no homebrew or house rules. Once you start it never stops and it no longer becomes d&d.

Oh well, like I said I didn't expect anything from this thread and it was just more of a hail mary.

Yeah in this case I think you're pretty screwed here.

I'm sorry you've had to put up with such sucky homebrew when it can be so wonderful. For one it does make lots of sense to make up rulings on the spot for minor things to keep the game moving. And then check the real rule after game for the future. But look up major things mid game. That's really important or you're going to lose a ton of game time to "RAW" quibbles. Homebrew can likewise do wonderful things for minor effects like a single spell or feat. Many of the spells we have with a name in front of them came from Gary Gygax's first players in fact. Homebrew is something that is very much a part of D&D that has been encouraged in rulebooks from the very beginning. Here it's good to err on the slightly low power side (if it looks like a level 4.4 spell, make it level 5) to prevent the abuse you mentioned. Some DMs do go all out on crazy homebrew and it gets way out of hand. That's what you put up with. That's why whenever I browse the homebrew section of the forums I flat out ignore the threads that do a complete rewrite of X class or some such. It's simply not possible to get it right without a development and playtesting team for an all new game. But at the same time there is plenty of splatbook power creep that is as bad or worse than minor homebrew at causing shifts in game balance.

A set of wish rules for creature transformations is however too much homebrew (and yeah, doesn't have concrete existing rules either) and I think you're stuck here. Well... short of pay the levels for the LA & RHD. And even then above mentioned power creep ruined it and makes LA a little too weak.

[gogogome]

Yeah in this case I think you're pretty screwed here.

I'm sorry you've had to put up with such sucky homebrew when it can be so wonderful. For one it does make lots of sense to make up rulings on the spot for minor things to keep the game moving. And then check the real rule after game for the future. But look up major things mid game. That's really important or you're going to lose a ton of game time to "RAW" quibbles. Homebrew can likewise do wonderful things for minor effects like a single spell or feat. Many of the spells we have with a name in front of them came from Gary Gygax's first players in fact. Homebrew is something that is very much a part of D&D that has been encouraged in rulebooks from the very beginning. Here it's good to err on the slightly low power side (if it looks like a level 4.4 spell, make it level 5) to prevent the abuse you mentioned. Some DMs do go all out on crazy homebrew and it gets way out of hand. That's what you put up with. That's why whenever I browse the homebrew section of the forums I flat out ignore the threads that do a complete rewrite of X class or some such. It's simply not possible to get it right without a development and playtesting team for an all new game. But at the same time there is plenty of splatbook power creep that is as bad or worse than minor homebrew at causing shifts in game balance.

A set of wish rules for creature transformations is however too much homebrew (and yeah, doesn't have concrete existing rules either) and I think you're stuck here. Well... short of pay the levels for the LA & RHD. And even then above mentioned power creep ruined it and makes LA a little too weak.

I think you raise some good points and I'll think about it. I think you're right about making rulings on the spot is better than digging through books during game time.

I think the savage species wish has enough RAW to be allowed with only the spellcraft challenge and not be homebrew so I'll just keep it the way I've been using it. Gentleman's agreement all the way.

I'm gonna go see if I can hunt down something that says wish can replicate rituals or something similar. Just to pass the time.

[EldritchWeaver]

Savage Species says any creature with Wish has a LA+3 minimum, and everyone knows it only takes 1 free wish to complete break a game, like a magic ring that has every single magic ring item effect in the entire existence of d&d 3.5 and 3.0 on it, so I highly disagree with that opinion.

Considering SS was written by people who hated the idea of letting players play monsters and deliberately made playing monsters suck, I wouldn't put that much stock into this rule. And if a single wish can break the game, then A) letting players buy a wish opens up this possibility, too and B) might require the greater effect option, which is DM ruling territory. Which means, that the greater effect option can only break the game, if the DM allows it.

[RoboEmperor]

Considering SS was written by people who hated the idea of letting players play monsters and deliberately made playing monsters suck, I wouldn't put that much stock into this rule. And if a single wish can break the game, then A) letting players buy a wish opens up this possibility, too and B) might require the greater effect option, which is DM ruling territory. Which means, that the greater effect option can only break the game, if the DM allows it.

Unless it's a free wish like Candle of Invocation buying a scroll of wish or ring of three wishes won't do jack.
Creating a Magic Item is not a greater effect. It is a normal safe effect. It just requires a metric **** ton of xp to create such a ring, which is ignored if it's free. Hence why it's game breaking.