Wotc approved free wishes?

[magicalmagicman]

Lets make a list of WotC approved free wishes. Here's one.

edit: CLARIFICATION
Everyone knows there are mountains and mountains of infinite wish loops. And everyone knows these are not intended by WotC. But some free wishes are intended by WotC. Specifically ones that WotC go out of their way to mention that PC characters can do this. Or magic items fully intended to be used, created, or bought by PCs. So please only list examples that WotC used, and NOT tricks concocted by players.

Ur-Priest
"He could even steal the pit fiend's wish ability, but because a pit fiend can only use wish once per year, the ur-priest would be similarly limited. He could not steal that power again from any creature for one year."

So using 1 free wish once a year is a WotC approved action.

Efreeti Bottle
Magic Item intended for players who have a small chance of gaining 3 free wishes.

Pazuzu
Pazuzu doesn't screw over Paladins making their first wish. So that qualifies.
Pazuzu makes sure evil results from his wishes for all other characters. Needing to out lawyer a Demon Prince is not "free".

[MaxiDuRaritry]

How many planar bindings and magic circles against whatever can a level 20 wizard cast, again?

Also, candles of invocation are cheap.

Zodars grant wishes 1/year.

Genies grant wishes 3/day.

And there's a flower out there that grants one wish to anyone who procures one...and those flowers are creatable via (psionic) minor creation...

[magicalmagicman]

How many planar bindings and magic circles against whatever can a level 20 wizard cast, again?

Also, candles of invocation are cheap.

Those aren't wotc approved use of free wishes. Those are things players concocted.


Zodars grant wishes 1/year.

Genies grant wishes 3/day.

Those are monsters using wishes meaning WotC approves DMs using free wishes for monsters. Not players. Unless you have an official example of a PC or a PrC for PCs that directly uses Zodars and Genies these examples mean nothing.


And there's a flower out there that grants one wish to anyone who procures one...and those flowers are creatable via (psionic) minor creation...

Please provide a source so I can verify this.

[ExLibrisMortis]

A dweomerkeeper using Supernatural Spell can cast wish for free, four times a day, every day. Entirely compatible with Ur-Priest, as well, so you can get five free wishes pretty easily (although an Ur-Priest doesn't get enough slots to cast four ninths a day until they hit 44 Wisdom, so you'll need to DMM:Persist owl's insight at CL 20-30, depending on your build--not that that's something you wouldn't like to do anyway, of course).

[magicalmagicman]

A dweomerkeeper using Supernatural Spell can cast wish for free, four times a day, every day. Entirely compatible with Ur-Priest, as well, so you can get five free wishes pretty easily (although an Ur-Priest doesn't get enough slots to cast four ninths a day until they hit 44 Wisdom, so you'll need to DMM:Persist owl's insight at CL 20-30, depending on your build--not that that's something you wouldn't like to do anyway, of course).

I'll clarify

Everyone knows there are mountains and mountains of infinite wish loops. And everyone knows these are not intended by WotC. But some free wishes are intended by WotC. Specifically ones that WotC go out of their way to mention that PC characters can do this. Like Ur-Priests' text. Or magic items fully intended to be used, created, or bought by PCs.

So mentioning Dweomerkeeper and its unintended, WotC unapproved, and most definitely an oversight of an ability to cheat the cost of Wish doesn't do anything for this topic, because WotC did not explicitly mention this trick with an official example.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Those aren't wotc approved use of free wishes. Those are things players concocted.The game gives any wizard extremely easy wish access through several ways, including planar binding, gate, shapechange, polymorph + Assume Supernatural Ability, the candle of invocation, and more. If the devs didn't want players getting their hands on wishes, those things wouldn't allow easy access.


Those are monsters using wishes meaning WotC approves DMs using free wishes for monsters. Not players. Unless you have an official example of a PC or a PrC for PCs that directly uses Zodars and Genies these examples mean nothing.There are so many ways to get your hands on those creatures it's ridiculous. Many of them are Core.


Please provide a source so I can verify this.Tahtoalehti (Wishfern)
Tahtoalehti - the most treasured, yet hardest to raise, of all magical plants - also goes by the common name of wishfern. Tahtoalehti closely resembles ferns from the temperate rainforests of the northern coasts, save that it grows much larger and into a deeper, darker shade of green. This incredible fern marries the power of magic with the plant kingdom's ability to restore itself and draw energy from the sun.

A tahtaolehti plant only blooms once every 5d100 years, and always on the night of the winter solstice. For that one night, the wishfern wears a flower of unparalleled beauty, a fist-sized blossom of luminous white. The blossom contains incredible power, for if properly harvested without bruise or damage (requiring a DC 40 Profession [gardener] check) it grants one wish, as the spell cast by a 20th-level sorcerer. With the coming of the sun the blossom withers and disintegrates, living behind a single seed, whether or not it granted a wish.

Notoriously difficult to grow, in part because it requires almost total absence of contact, a tahtaolehti only blooms in an isolated forest setting at least 500 miles from any other wishfern. Planting or transplanting a viable seed without killing it requires a DC 40 Knowledge (nature) or Profession (gardener) check. Once planted, a wishfern is best left alone, as the merest touch from a living creature can kill it. Whenever a living creature touches a wishfern without first succeeding at a DC 40 Profession (gardener) check, the plant must attempt a DC 12 Fort save (with a +0 bonus) or die. As a result, most growers protect their tahtoalehti with spells and natural barriers rather than guards. Any attempt to coax a wishfern to produce its blossom early or to push it to produce multiple blossoms at once results in the immediate death of the plant.

A single healthy seed sells for 25,000 gp.Dragon #358.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'll clarify [...]
So...

On the one hand, a free wish, even if it did explicitly make it into a book, is arguably unintended by WotC, because one free wish, by its nature, has game-breaking consequences.

On the other hand, anything that WotC published is arguably intended by WotC, because they put it in a book. That includes many things that have game-breaking consequences.

There are many ways to determine what WotC "intends", and for most or all of them, you'll probably find contradictory results, because D&D wasn't written by one person and never had a unified, consistent balance point. I don't think there's any sense in asking for an explicit statement of intent. Even if you find one, the intent of one designer could be very different from that of another designer. I'm sure there are some people who worked on D&D who think that the Ur-Priest's capstone is unbalanced and a mistake.

[magicalmagicman]

So...

On the one hand, a free wish, even if it did explicitly make it into a book, is arguably unintended by WotC, because one free wish, by its nature, has game-breaking consequences.

On the other hand, anything that WotC published is arguably intended by WotC, because they put it in a book. That includes many things that have game-breaking consequences.

There are many ways to determine what WotC "intends", and for most or all of them, you'll probably find contradictory results, because D&D wasn't written by one person and never had a unified, consistent balance point. I don't think there's any sense in asking for an explicit statement of intent. Even if you find one, the intent of one designer could be very different from that of another designer. I'm sure there are some people who worked on D&D who think that the Ur-Priest's capstone is unbalanced and a mistake.

No, it's not books. It's examples.
If WotC has a wizard polymorphing into a Lion then that is fully intentional. WotC fully intends for wizards to polymorph into Lions.
If WotC has a wizard using Planar Binding to enslave a Whisper Demon and potentially kill it with friendly fire, then WotC fully intends wizards to use Whisper Demons as fodder.
You can't question these. These are iron clad.

Using Thought Bottle to restore level loss is fully intentional as the text directly states this is what the items is for.
Using Thought Bottle to cheat Item Crafting Costs, while legal, is fully unintentional because
a. it breaks the game
b. WotC doesn't ever have an example of thought bottle being used this way
c. the FAQ directly says this wasn't the intent.

A succubus paladin is fully intentional because WotC made one.

Are you seriously here saying that WotC intended Dweomerkeeper to grant you infinite free wishes? And the argument is a nonsequitor because you can't prove it. Unlike Ur-priest, where I can definitely prove without a doubt that WotC did intend players to get access to a free wish using the Ur-Priest capstone because WotC directly tells you that you can.

Therefore using Ur-priest to get a free wish is WotC approved. Dweomerkeeper is not. Unless you have an official WotC Dweomerkeeper using its Su ability to cheat the XP cost of some spell. Any spell, doesn't have to be Wish.

[Kaleph]

WoTC explicitly mentions that noble djinn (and arguably efreet, too, but it's less clear) grant wishes to anyone who captures them.

Note: the methods to capture the djinn are not listed, but planar binding, iron flask and the sha'ir's "craft genie prison" ability are three good examples.

[JoranShadeslayr]

There's the ring of 3 wishes. It's expensive at over 97k, but it's a magic item that can be bought.

[Psyren]

Tahtoalehti (Wishfern)
Tahtoalehti - the most treasured, yet hardest to raise, of all magical plants - also goes by the common name of wishfern.

You can't create that with PMC on two counts:


Effect: Unattended, nonpsionic, nonmagical object of nonliving plant matter, up to 1 cu. ft./level

The flower is magical, and even if it weren't, it has to be alive (you can't "properly harvest" a lump of nonliving plant matter.)


There's the ring of 3 wishes. It's expensive at over 97k, but it's a magic item that can be bought.

I think he's trying to find explicit examples of WotC printing either (a) NPCs that use wishes to do certain things, and/or (b) NPCs or class features that state they can be used to obtain or duplicate wishes. Is that correct, OP?

[Piggy Knowles]

It's kind of old hat by now, but I think Pazazu has to count as intended. From Fiendish Codex I, p76-77:



Spell-Like Abilities (CL 20th):
At will—astral projection, desecrate, detect good, detect law, greater dispel magic, greater teleport, insect plague,
telekinesis (DC 26), unhallow, unholy blight (DC 25), wind walk
3/day—plane shift (DC 26), symbol of persuasion (DC 27)
1/day—wish

Temptation (Su): If a creature utters the name “Pazuzu” three times in succession, an unholy link between the speaker and Pazuzu is immediately established. For one minute, Pazuzu can use detect good, detect law, detect thoughts (DC 22), and tongues to examine the speaker, despite any distance (physical or planar) that might separate them. He always uses Sense Motive to try to determine whether the one who calls him is trying to entrap him.

If he wishes and is able, Pazuzu can use plane shift and greater teleport to travel to the speaker’s location with
precise accuracy, as long as he does so before the minute is up. Once he arrives, Pazuzu asks the speaker why he called
upon the Prince of the Lower Aerial Kingdoms. Pazuzu almost always agrees to provide aid, but if he does, the caller’s alignment shifts one step closer to chaotic. If the caller’s alignment is already chaotic, it instead shifts one step closer to evil. These shifts in alignment are considered voluntary. Pazuzu never provides aid to chaotic evil creatures and often punishes them for calling upon his aid rather than using the tools he has likely already granted the creature in question.

Pazuzu particularly enjoys corrupting paladins and takes pains to ensure that the first time he helps a paladin, no evil comes as a result of his assistance, hoping to encourage the paladin to call on him again. Aid granted by Pazuzu is typically granted in the manner easiest for the demon prince to manifest, often in the form of his wish spell-like ability.


(Emphasis mine.)

Gets wish as an SLA 1/day, explicitly listens any time someone says the name Pazazu three times in a row, establishes a link and travels to them and provides aid in the easiest way possible, often in the form of a wish. Not available to CE creatures but otherwise pretty open.

[magicalmagicman]

There's the ring of 3 wishes. It's expensive at over 97k, but it's a magic item that can be bought.

Those wishes are limited by the XP you put into the item. Hence not free. Free wishes let you create magic items that cost 9999999999 billion gp.


I think he's trying to find explicit examples of WotC printing either (a) NPCs that use wishes to do certain things, and/or (b) NPCs or class features that state they can be used to obtain or duplicate wishes. Is that correct, OP?

Not really. "NPC" includes monsters. I want "PCs" only.

So basically, if you mention free wishes, everyone freaks out and calls it TO. But if you have official examples of WotC using free wishes, then at least that method is fully intended by WotC so I can use it without anyone freaking out and it's not TO. It's normal optimization. So when Ur-Priest directly says a PC with 10 levels of Ur-Priest can steal a Pit Fiend wish SLA, then WotC is saying that they know that this class feature can be used to get free wishes, and they don't mind because they explicitly tell you that you can do this.

Sacrifice rules is in a book not intended to be used by PCs so it doesn't qualify. For example.

Magic items that aren't exclusive to NPCs but fully accessible to PCs like Efreeti Bottle also count.


It's kind of old hat by now, but I think Pazazu has to count as intended. From Fiendish Codex I, p76-77:



(Emphasis mine.)

Gets wish as an SLA 1/day, explicitly listens any time someone says the name Pazazu three times in a row, establishes a link and travels to them and provides aid in the easiest way possible, often in the form of a wish. Not available to CE creatures but otherwise pretty open.

That's hilarious. WotC explicitly saying Pazuzu grants free wishes multiple times and virtually never refuses. It's a little iffy though. If you're not a paladin making his first wish, he will most likely screw you over like an Efreeti will.

I'll say a Paladin's first wish qualifies, and say the other PCs making wishes half qualifies. Needing to out lawyer an evil entity is not "free".


WoTC explicitly mentions that noble djinn (and arguably efreet, too, but it's less clear) grant wishes to anyone who captures them.

Note: the methods to capture the djinn are not listed, but planar binding, iron flask and the sha'ir's "craft genie prison" ability are three good examples.

I'll have to think on this. I don't think this is any different than a DM arranging an encounter with an Efreeti so PCs don't really control whether they can capture one or not. Pazuzu at least says he almost always answers the call.

[Kaleph]

I'll have to think on this. I don't think this is any different than a DM arranging an encounter with an Efreeti so PCs don't really control whether they can capture one or not. Pazuzu at least says he almost always answers the call.

You can planar-bind a djinn.

[magicalmagicman]

You can planar-bind a djinn.

But not a Noble Djinni. You can planar bind a djinni, an advanced djinni, but nothing says you can nab a Noble Djinni. And it's unclear whether you have a 1% chance of grabbing one with Planar Binding. Probably not because creatures like Remmanon directly says you have a chance of binding him with planar binding.

I'm looking for air tight iron clad no room for other interpretation free wishes approved by WotC. This one is almost as iffy as planar binding efreetis which is not what I'm looking for. Nor is making simulacra of Noble Djinnis.

[JNAProductions]

But not a Noble Djinni. You can planar bind a djinni, an advanced djinni, but nothing says you can nab a Noble Djinni. And it's unclear whether you have a 1% chance of grabbing one with Planar Binding. Probably not because creatures like Remmanon directly says you have a chance of binding him with planar binding.

I'm looking for air tight iron clad no room for other interpretation free wishes approved by WotC. This one is almost as iffy as planar binding efreetis which is not what I'm looking for. Nor is making simulacra of Noble Djinnis.

Are you playing at WotC Headquarters or something?

Even if there's an ironclad rule that lets you easily get free wishes, a DM who doesn't want you to have that much power can veto it anyway. Whereas if the DM is more on board with ultimate power, just go Dweomerkeeper.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

But not a Noble Djinni. You can planar bind a djinni, an advanced djinni, but nothing says you can nab a Noble Djinni. And it's unclear whether you have a 1% chance of grabbing one with Planar Binding. Probably not because creatures like Remmanon directly says you have a chance of binding him with planar binding.

I'm looking for air tight iron clad no room for other interpretation free wishes approved by WotC. This one is almost as iffy as planar binding efreetis which is not what I'm looking for. Nor is making simulacra of Noble Djinnis.
The only "1%" I see is that 1% of all djinn are noble djinn. Nothing in the monster description or the various planar binding descriptions says anything about restrictions on summoning or calling them. If you choose to cast planar binding to call a noble djinn, you call a noble djinn.

[Psyren]

Not really. "NPC" includes monsters. I want "PCs" only.

Point - I was going with the sample Ur-Priest who is a NPC without thinking that a PC can use this ability too, my bad.


So basically, if you mention free wishes, everyone freaks out and calls it TO. But if you have official examples of WotC using free wishes, then at least that method is fully intended by WotC so I can use it without anyone freaking out and it's not TO. It's normal optimization.

While I get where you're coming from - a table/GM can "freak out" about anything they consider too powerful. A 10-level Ur-Priest can be too much for some tables from the spellcasting alone, never mind the ability to steal SLAs up to and including Wish. But you can at least expect your table to tell you such concerns up front since it is an official example.



That's hilarious. WotC explicitly saying Pazuzu grants free wishes multiple times and virtually never refuses. It's a little iffy though. If you're not a paladin making his first wish, he will most likely screw you over like an Efreeti will.

I'll say a Paladin's first wish qualifies, and say the other PCs making wishes half qualifies. Needing to out lawyer an evil entity is not "free".

Well honestly, if reprisal from the creature makes it not free, then the Ur Priest might not be free either. I can think of few Pit Fiends who would be happy that you stole their wish before they could use it. But the wish itself wouldn't cost you anything to use so i suppose that's what counts.

[magicalmagicman]

Well honestly, if reprisal from the creature makes it not free, then the Ur Priest might not be free either. I can think of few Pit Fiends who would be happy that you stole their wish before they could use it. But the wish itself wouldn't cost you anything to use so i suppose that's what counts.


The creature with the spell-like ability does not lose the ability when the urpriest steals it.

"Steal" is the wrong word. "Copy" is the right word. Why they used the word steal instead of copy is beyond me.

[Troacctid]

Thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu gets it at level 10, with the requirement that you must first create an illusion (using a spell of 3rd level or higher) of the desired effect, so e.g. if you want to make a magic item, you have to start by using a heightened Nystul's magic aura to mimic it.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Spellthief allows you to grab the SLAs of monsters and other characters. So that's another way to get freebie wishes.

So, coordinate with the noble djinn either you or your party member pulled in to get six wishes at a time. A cheap and easy way to get everyone's stats up to all +5 inherent bonuses. If nothing else, you can take two of the genie's (plus the three you "steal" from it) for your own, then offer the last up for you to make on its behalf.

Of course, you'd have to effectively be 27th level by then, so...

[redking]

Thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu gets it at level 10, with the requirement that you must first create an illusion (using a spell of 3rd level or higher) of the desired effect, so e.g. if you want to make a magic item, you have to start by using a heightened Nystul's magic aura to mimic it.

The Thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu from Dragon Magazine #333 has a remarkable ability. People have often commented on its capstone ability, Alter Reality before, and it's good, but the 5th level ability Staff Mastery, is even better.


Staff Mastery (Ex): Upon reaching 5th level, you have mastered the use of magic staffs in emulation of your demonic master's skill with these potent magic items. You can now wield any magic staff, as if it were a +1 greatclub, at no risk of causing the staff itself damage. In addition, the staff is treated as an evil weapon for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. You are considered to be proficient with the staff for this purpose.

You can use any magic staff as if its spells were on your spell list. Additionally, you may opt to activate a staff using your own lifeforce rather than expending charges. For each charge that the staff activation would normally consume, you instead take 1 point of Constitution damage. If you don't have a Constitution score, or are for some reason immune to ability score damage, you cannot power a staff with this ability and must use the staffs charges to manifest its spells.

Take a level of binder to bind Naberius to get Faster Ability Healing to heal your constitution damage, and you have unlimited ability to expend charges from staffs.

Where the real power is shown is when the staff contains a spell that normally requires XP expenditure. Staff of True Creation? Staff of Simulacrum? Staff of Wish? Staff of Miracle? Staff of whatever you want now that you are a virtual god?

You can enter at 7th level at the earliest, and must be chaotic evil (perhaps your your DM will allow you a different alignment adaption). Whether the DM will throw the players handbook at you for deploying this PrC is another matter altogether.

[NigelWalmsley]

Everyone knows there are mountains and mountains of infinite wish loops. And everyone knows these are not intended by WotC. But some free wishes are intended by WotC. Specifically ones that WotC go out of their way to mention that PC characters can do this. Like Ur-Priests' text. Or magic items fully intended to be used, created, or bought by PCs.

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. WotC put stuff in the game. Some stuff is easier to access, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that there's "stuff that was intended" and "stuff that wasn't intended" in any kind of principled way, barring things that have been errata'd. What's the distinction between "they intended this, but it was intended to be a pain and maybe give your DM a chance to punch you in the nuts" and "they did not intend this" in your model? Moreover, what's the point of cataloging this (beyond, I suppose, the natural desire to catalog things)?


On the one hand, a free wish, even if it did explicitly make it into a book, is arguably unintended by WotC, because one free wish, by its nature, has game-breaking consequences.

Only because of the magic item loophole (which WotC arguably intended, as it was opened by the change to 3.5). If you're just using Wish to get a +1 Inherent bonus or make some free gold, it's not particularly broken. Most of what Wish does is done by delegating to other spells. If using Wish to cast Polymorph Any Object is broken, that seems like an argument that there's a problem with Polymorph Any Object, or with whatever has Wish.

[DwarvenWarCorgi]

Be a Cleric with Envy Domain. PrC through Divine Agent, get Wish 1/Day as an SLA.....profit.

[magicalmagicman]

Thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu gets it at level 10, with the requirement that you must first create an illusion (using a spell of 3rd level or higher) of the desired effect, so e.g. if you want to make a magic item, you have to start by using a heightened Nystul's magic aura to mimic it.

Dragon is not WotC. It's 2nd party isn't it? Paizo?


Be a Cleric with Envy Domain. PrC through Divine Agent, get Wish 1/Day as an SLA.....profit.

Again, I am not looking for ways to cheat wish's xp cost in this thread. I am looking for instances of WotC cheating wish's xp cost. Not you the player. But WotC the developer.

However I will say Divine Agent has piqued my interest quite a bit and I might be making a few threads where we can discuss Divine Agent.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. WotC put stuff in the game. Some stuff is easier to access, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that there's "stuff that was intended" and "stuff that wasn't intended" in any kind of principled way, barring things that have been errata'd. What's the distinction between "they intended this, but it was intended to be a pain and maybe give your DM a chance to punch you in the nuts" and "they did not intend this" in your model? Moreover, what's the point of cataloging this (beyond, I suppose, the natural desire to catalog things)?

I think, fundamentally, this boils down to a larger question of 'did 3e turn out as the designers intended?'

On some level, there's every indication that they expected people to pore over the game with a fine toothed comb and find every exploit possible. Monte Cook's 'system mastery' reference is a real thing they were expecting, regardless of whether he was thinking 'toughness feat is meant for low-level one-offs' or that higher levels would be scry-and-die wizards astral projecting from demiplanes and using planar binding wish loops. That said, there seems to be an idea I have seen expressed (anecdotally, I have no idea how prevalent the idea is) that maybe the whole thing kind of got away from them and turned into something that they weren't expected. Certainly the sample characters in the DMG, at high levels, look nothing like the OP play mentioned in threads such as these. Also that later base classes (beguiler, dread necromancer, etc.) seemed to be a form of reigning in the base power level of the game (although for every warmage or beguiler, there was an archivist or Spell to Power Erudite article, so who's to say?). I don't know how to find it again, but I believe there was a point in an Ask Me Anything where a developer was shown Pun-Pun, and their response indicated that they didn't know about it. From that I have to assume that some things emergent from the rules they wrote were not strictly because they were aiming specifically for them (although if their goal was simply to create a playground, and let the buyers build what they could hack out of it, is that really unintended?).

Within that arguable idea that not everything was intended, it is hard to classify exactly what exploits were intended or unintended. In general, a Wish seems to be something that was expected to have a cost. You could find it in treasure, or craft one using the item crafting rules, or you could buy one on the open market (and if the DM nixes infinite wish loops, there are always infinite GP loops). For the purpose of the OP, I'd say anything that has a real cost (time, gp, xp, risk, or promises to keep) probably were intended. If you figure out how to get a wish with no cost, I'm guessing that's an exploit they didn't realize was in there. There's no specific statement of intent that I can point to that indicates that this is a designer goal, but merely an impression I get from the statements they have made. So super subjective and YMMV-ish, but that's where it stands to my eyes.

[Ruethgar]

You can enter at 7th level at the earliest, and must be chaotic evil (perhaps your your DM will allow you a different alignment adaption).

You can take your first level at ECL 2 at the earliest as I see it, though the race alone would get a book to the head from your GM. Bloodlines are not allowed to increase ECL, so a -3 levels there. A Rapscallion who has undergone Laborious Training can get in another two levels early. All Awakened Animals get in early, the best(without extreme cheese) being the advanced monkey for 5 more ranks free.

Also, being ritually associated with [Chaos] and [Evil] makes you count as both, even if your alignment is Lawful Good, so, while expensive, you don’t need GM approval to be a different alignment.

[NigelWalmsley]

I think, fundamentally, this boils down to a larger question of 'did 3e turn out as the designers intended?'

I would say that's probably actually the wrong question to ask. We're not the designers. It doesn't matter to us if the game is working as intended. What matters to us is "does the game do what we want it to do". If the designers intended for Wish to give anyone who can beat up an Efreet as much power as they can describe in terms of a magic item, it wouldn't make that outcome not stupid.

I think there are basically two ways you can approach rules analysis. The first is to ask about RAW. You can say "do the rules on the page, modulo errata/later rules/FAQ" allow you to do X. In this case, it's pretty unambiguously true that the rules do allow you to do crazy nonsense with Wish. There's no RAW objection to the "Planar Binding => Efreet => Wish => more Planar Binding" lines. You don't need to gather extra evidence, because we're not arguing a court case, where the weight of evidence matters. It's a mathematical system, and it either does or does not have a property.

The second is to ask "how should this work". That's a murkier question, but also a more useful one. There are a lot of things in the rules that don't work the way we'd want. Some of them are obvious (drown healing), but some of them are more ambiguous (RAW Wish is broken, but it's not clear what the right replacement is). There are a lot of cases where there's a meaningful debate to be had about how to make the game work, but I don't think designer intent is particularly useful here. Regardless of what they intended, the designers clearly did write rules that misbehave. Parsing out their intent is probably not particularly useful.

[magicalmagicman]

I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. WotC put stuff in the game. Some stuff is easier to access, but I don't think you can reasonably argue that there's "stuff that was intended" and "stuff that wasn't intended" in any kind of principled way, barring things that have been errata'd. What's the distinction between "they intended this, but it was intended to be a pain and maybe give your DM a chance to punch you in the nuts" and "they did not intend this" in your model? Moreover, what's the point of cataloging this (beyond, I suppose, the natural desire to catalog things)?

My intention is to show the free wishes to my DM when he freaks out and yells TO (we are good friends and shoving outrageous stuff in each other's faces is a good laugh for all even though in the end he will not allow it in his game) so i just wanted a list of free wishes or xp cheats that WotC explicitly used intentionally just to see how many instances of it there are in all of 3.5.

As for intentions, the writers explicitly said they did not intend for psicrystals to double the number of feats for psionic characters. So if they got something this basic wrong then probably almost everything that's stronger than a straight 20 fighter in the game is unintended. Like using Eschew Materials to ignore Simulacrum's creature material component. Or Fabricate's material components to make it better than True Creation. Not that it matters.

[Willie the Duck]

I would say that's probably actually the wrong question to ask. We're not the designers. It doesn't matter to us if the game is working as intended. What matters to us is "does the game do what we want it to do". If the designers intended for Wish to give anyone who can beat up an Efreet as much power as they can describe in terms of a magic item, it wouldn't make that outcome not stupid.

I think there are basically two ways you can approach rules analysis. The first is to ask about RAW. You can say "do the rules on the page, modulo errata/later rules/FAQ" allow you to do X. In this case, it's pretty unambiguously true that the rules do allow you to do crazy nonsense with Wish. There's no RAW objection to the "Planar Binding => Efreet => Wish => more Planar Binding" lines. You don't need to gather extra evidence, because we're not arguing a court case, where the weight of evidence matters. It's a mathematical system, and it either does or does not have a property.

The second is to ask "how should this work". That's a murkier question, but also a more useful one. There are a lot of things in the rules that don't work the way we'd want. Some of them are obvious (drown healing), but some of them are more ambiguous (RAW Wish is broken, but it's not clear what the right replacement is). There are a lot of cases where there's a meaningful debate to be had about how to make the game work, but I don't think designer intent is particularly useful here. Regardless of what they intended, the designers clearly did write rules that misbehave. Parsing out their intent is probably not particularly useful.

I don't spend a lot of time telling people what kinds of questions are right to ask, nor what rules analysis approaches are allowed. The OP has asked a question, and I'm willing to entertain it.

[Dalmosh]

Does Savage Species count?

All Monster Manual Genies are directly presented as playable monster classes, with all that entails.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Does Savage Species count?

All Monster Manual Genies are directly presented as playable monster classes, with all that entails.You can give them to someone else, but not to yourself.

Unless you have alter self or something based on it, of course. Then you can make your own wishes just fine.

[magicalmagicman]

Does Savage Species count?

All Monster Manual Genies are directly presented as playable monster classes, with all that entails.

I'll give that a half.

You're right that efreeti has an official savage progression and obtains 1/day Wish at 18th level.

On the other hand

Wish: The ability to grant wishes (as the wish spell) is worth a +3 level adjustment. DMs should strongly consider forbidding monsters with this ability as characters. Alternatively, a DM may choose to strip such a monster of that power (and the corresponding +3 level adjustment) before allowing it in the game as a PC.

Is that WotC giving the thumbs up or not? They explicitly say it's a +3 LA, but on the other hand they highly recommend you forbidding it.

[Endarire]

A Genie character who can only grant wishes to others can still have a loyal minion (familiar, animal companion, cohort, follower, mind slave, etc.) ask for the wish on the master's/genie's behalf. ("Set me free! Get me this item! Etc!")

[MaxiDuRaritry]

A Genie character who can only grant wishes to others can still have a loyal minion (familiar, animal companion, cohort, follower, mind slave, etc.) ask for the wish on the master's/genie's behalf. ("Set me free! Get me this item! Etc!")Technically, the rule is, "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)."

Note that spells like polymorph don't take away Sp or Su abilities, so the genie would keep the ability. However, it's no longer a genie, as it polymorphed into a tiefling, or whatever, so...

[the_tick_rules]

Using Thought Bottle to cheat Item Crafting Costs, while legal, is fully unintentional because
a. it breaks the game
b. WotC doesn't ever have an example of thought bottle being used this way
c. the FAQ directly says this wasn't the intent.



That is the first thing I thought to use it for when I saw it, is there a link to the FAQ on this?

[magicalmagicman]

That is the first thing I thought to use it for when I saw it, is there a link to the FAQ on this?

Can a thought bottle (CAr, 150) be used to restore XP lost from casting a spell or creating a magic item?
No. The item description indicates that its intended function is to restore lost levels. It doesn’t erase XP costs from other sources.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Can a thought bottle (CAr, 150) be used to restore XP lost from casting a spell or creating a magic item?
No. The item description indicates that its intended function is to restore lost levels. It doesn’t erase XP costs from other sources.The simple way to circumvent this is to store your XP total in the bottle, do all the crafting you want (or psychic reformation, or spellcasting, or whatever), then give yourself a quick negative level. Then tap the bottle to restore your XP total back to what it was before you started crafting or whatever.

Simple and easy.

[the_tick_rules]

Can a thought bottle (CAr, 150) be used to restore XP lost from casting a spell or creating a magic item?
No. The item description indicates that its intended function is to restore lost levels. It doesn’t erase XP costs from other sources.

Yeah but did this FAQ say it's not allowed? Most of the OP combos weren't probably intended but allowed.

[magicalmagicman]

Yeah but did this FAQ say it's not allowed? Most of the OP combos weren't probably intended but allowed.

It directly says No and that you can't do that. Doesn't give a legal reason so it is solely intent, not RAW.

Most free wishes weren't probably intended which is part of the reason for this thread. I want to see which free wishes were intended. But it seems like this is it. 1st party is Ur-Priest, Efreeti Bottle, and Pazuzu. 2nd Party is Thrall of Fraz-Urb'luu, Master of the Secret Sound, and that flower that grants wishes.

[Him]

There are gp values for characters per level, and you CAN calculate the cost of a wish.

Unless we are talking DM approved plot device, and even they won't really affect game play, as a DM I would need anything over the GP limit.