4E: Ding, Dong! The Wish is Dead!

[Porthos]

Say goodbye to the Wish spell boys and girls:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?...1&postcount=25
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=211253

One word reaction? "Good."
Two word reaction? "About Time."
Slightly Longer reaction? "People who really want it can quickly stat it up to appear in their games."
Edited In Snarky Response: "It'll probably appear in the PHB II or the PHB III."

So let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. However, I for one am supremely pleased to see this development.

[Somebloke]

Truth be told, I never played a high enough level game to let the Wish spell affect my campaign. But I always felt it so clearly represented the most complete pinnacle of spell power- you could do anything, if you were prepared to pay the cost.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Wish down? GREAT. Now, we'll get an even MORE overpowered and cheesy spell, which will make shapechange look tame! Seriously, every time this kind of thing happens, something stronger takes the spot. The only case in which this didn't happen is with the PHBII's somethingshape's (like trollshape and dragonshape).

[rankrath]

aw, come on! out of all the over powered spells, they say wish is dead for sure? that, unlike timestop or miracle, its power was, per RAW, under DM control. And as a DM, few things are funnier than screwing someone using wish.

[Hranat]

Never really used wish as character... don't like losing xp.

... villains always tend to get what they want anyway.

[Porthos]

aw, come on! out of all the over powered spells, they say wish is dead for sure? that, unlike timestop or miracle, its power was, per RAW, under DM control. And as a DM, few things are funnier than screwing someone using wish.

I'm sure the Ring of Three Wishes will still be around for that possibility.

As for the others, well, if they're nuking the scared cow that is known as Wish, what makes you think Time Stop, Shapechange and all of the other broken spells won't hit the chopping block?

[Kurald Galain]

I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

[Green Bean]

I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

Well, to be honest, Wish is the sort of spell that I really think shouldn't be statted out. It's more of a plot device, like a ritual that destroys existence, or the nexus that anchors the Material Plane to the Great Wheel, etc. They aren't statted out; they work how the DM says they work.

[Jasdoif]

Has this appeared in an official spot anywhere?

[OneWinged4ngel]

I'm far more concerned about things like Fabricate than Time Stop...

[Roderick_BR]

Wish is one of the spells I'd push to epic level. Like True Resurrection too.
Use the Limited Wish and simple Resurrection in place of these ones.
These kind of powers shouldn't be available to players outside of epic.

[CatCameBack]

One of my most cherished meories playing D&D was when I was 14 yrs. old playing in a high powered campaign with a group of players who averaged around 24 yrs. old. We were in the middle of a battle that was going pretty badly for us. Then I said the following:

"I'm casting Wish from the scroll..."

I didn't yell it, I barely said it out loud, while three other conversations were going on. A second later, you could have heard a mouse farting on a pillow in China.

I think Roy actually stopped breathing.

A guy named Carl stared at me like I was about to arm a Nuclear bomb and said, "Word it very carefully."

The DM smiled at me like Hannibal and said "I'll give you a minute to write down exactly what you're going to Wish for".

Every player should have memories like that.

[Lord Tataraus]

I suspect Wish was removed precisely because it was under DM's control. As far as I've noticed, in the past few years WOTC has tried to remove or limit everything that was or would be subject to a player's or DM's interpretation, instead trying to make hard and fast rules for every single occurence.

I'm not at all convinced that's a good thing.

I agree with you especially because of this part hidden in the bottom of that first link:

-He told me one of his fellow designers/play-testers was happy and relieved to go back to being a DM in 4th, as I guess being a player can be quite taxing/involved.

That sends up a red flag. There is no way a player's role should be more taxing than the DM's. Maybe its just me, but this scares me.

As for wish being cut, my first reaction was: meh. My second was: ....meh? And my third was: I guess that kind of sucks, though I've never used it.

[Fax Celestis]

That sends up a red flag. There is no way a player's role should be more taxing than the DM's. Maybe its just me, but this scares me.

The game's mechanics aren't complete yet. Playtesting is the most taxing part of the process. I wouldn't worry.

[elliott20]

Wish was basically some kind of catch-all spell for when you just don't know what the hell you wanted to cast.

Personally? I never used it.

[Valairn]

Wish to me is pretty much iconic DnD, I'm sad to see it go.

[Prometheus]

**** That! A DM can keep Wish no matter what version he is playing. Personally I prefer the 2e rules where defaulting to spell replcation isn't an option.

[Mike_Lemmer]

Wish to me is pretty much iconic DnD, I'm sad to see it go.

I'm sure it'll pop up again somewhere, probably among special genies or minor artifacts. Making it a spell any high-level wizard could learn & cast at will never felt right.

[Reinboom]

I love limited wish... wish itself is too crappy though. I'm sort of glad it's gone.
I don't want limited wish to disappear though.

[Indon]

Hmm.

It seems to me that Wish was a narratively potent spell, capable of easily modeling mythological creatures who could grant any wish, and who would often be sticklers for the wording.

Unless they replace Wish with, well, a different way to Wish, that does not, to me, bode well for the system's capability of telling stories.

Because if I really want Wish, I don't need to write it up. I can play a system that has it instead.

[Fax Celestis]

Hmm.

It seems to me that Wish was a narratively potent spell, capable of easily modeling mythological creatures who could grant any wish, and who would often be sticklers for the wording.

Unless they replace Wish with, well, a different way to Wish, that does not, to me, bode well for the system's capability of telling stories.

Because if I really want Wish, I don't need to write it up. I can play a system that has it instead.

Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."

[Dalboz of Gurth]

Or, y'know, you could use it as a plot device. If you really need an ambiguously worded wish for your plot, you can just make it up on the fly. But really, what this is saying to me is the intention, "Full casters are no longer the be-all-end-all they once were."

Full casters were never the be all end all in 1st or 2nd edition, not as long as you had a decent DM.

For WoTC to literally screw with the spell tables rather than try to fix their butchering of the game by adding those Player's Option descendants called "feats" is the problem here.

[DivineBriliance]

I bet there will still be a resurrect for Arcane users. cause thats all i used wish for to resurrect my party, because when i played the only epic campaign i ever played everyone was idiots.

Anyway there is still homebrews that can fix anything, so don't worry gripeing peoples. if you hate wish, its gone. but if you still like it just nicely ask your dm to give you wish or wish like spell.

[Fax Celestis]

Full casters were never the be all end all in 1st or 2nd edition, not as long as you had a decent DM.

For WoTC to literally screw with the spell tables rather than try to fix their butchering of the game by adding those Player's Option descendants called "feats" is the problem here.

I don't understand how feats even fit into the problem here. Spells are what break the 3.x game, not feats (well, in all but extraordinarily rare instances, anyway). Wish, despite being an "iconic" spell, is one that has allowed thousands of spellcasters to do whatever the hell they felt like, whenever they felt like it, often wreaking havoc on the plans the DM had for the game, and in occasion making it utterly irretrievable.

And full-casters certainly were the be-all-end-all in earlier editions. You just had to know how to play them. I personally remember--fondly, even--using haste as an offensive spell in 2e: due to its aging side-effect, it would force a system shock roll, which would more often than not kill its target.

Besides, "The game is balanced if you have a good DM" is not an acceptable response. "The game is balanced even if you have a bad DM" is, however, and that's what WotC is shooting for with 4e.

[Skyserpent]

I'm now wondering if the divine equivalent is gone and how this might affect Tarrasque battles.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

I don't understand how feats even fit into the problem here. Spells are what break the 3.x game, not feats (well, in all but extraordinarily rare instances, anyway).

You mean how WoTC messed with the spheres during the transition and allowed certain spell casting associated rules from PO books to be gained by players through the new feat system?

Because that's the only thing I see here with 3e.

Wish, despite being an "iconic" spell, is one that has allowed thousands of spellcasters to do whatever the hell they felt like, whenever they felt like it, often wreaking havoc on the plans the DM had for the game, and in occasion making it utterly irretrievable.

Seriously, dude, I've never seen a player abuse Wish in any game run by a competent DM.

As far as that anecdotal comments you are claiming about Wish -I've only ever heard that bullplop coming from the RPGA, a guild of players who never bothered to read the rules to begin with (I've smacked down members of the RPGA before in rule lawyering contests). They should never be taken as an authority over the AD&D rule system and their involvement in "approving 3e" when it came out was an absolute joke echoed by the update from 3e to 3.5. The fact WoTC is going into 4th edition so quickly since the production of 3e/3.5 to fix some of the screw ups only shows how poorly the system was designed in the first place.

And full-casters certainly were the be-all-end-all in earlier editions. You just had to know how to play them. I personally remember--fondly, even--using haste as an offensive spell in 2e: due to its aging side-effect, it would force a system shock roll, which would more often than not kill its target.

LOL seriously dude. I've taken a level 8 munchkin wizard out with 20 kobolds before. Casters never were the end all to games in 1st and 2nd edition. When you have a game setting that involves: monsters with magic resistance, or wild magic zones, or assassins with intellect associated poison, any spell caster is quickly taught how to beg for mercy.

wait let me get this straight... you used Haste as an offensive weapon in order to have a chance of killing an opponent with a system shock roll, instead of say - lightning bolt which not only could fry said opponent, but bounce off the walls and obliterate a few more opponents along with him?

That doesn't show the power of Haste, not by any stretch of the imagination, that shows the ingenuity and luck of a player who got accidently caught with his pants down by not having enough appropriate combat spells memorized.

I'm not debasing you, I think that was an ingenious use of the spell Haste in a combat situation. But that does not make the spell overpowered. That just makes you lucky.

Besides, "The game is balanced if you have a good DM" is not an acceptable response. "The game is balanced even if you have a bad DM" is, however, and that's what WotC is shooting for with 4e.

The entire purpose is to cultivate a need for good DMs. This pathetic attempt to try and make a game system for BAD DMs is only ruining the game for experienced players and DMs alike who like to play with the rules.

By trying to force everybody into a cookie cutter molds. This is the exact opposite of what AD&D was supposed to be.

By creating these cookie cutter molds, and forcing all classes into them, you will ultimately make each class useless and less unique. You make each campaign setting the exact same campaign setting. You make each spell the exact same spell. You remove the process of ingenuity by players, by making the game a straight line of hack and slash from Point A to Point B rather than by allowing players to visit point M's R's and Z's.

Computer games do that. No chance for Role Playing when you've got a computer program determining what you can and can't do. No reason to learn how to read rules and become a good DM if you've got a computer game telling you what you can and can't do.

You talk about balance?

This is what I see happening:

Removing Ingenuity by Players because a only a handful of village idiots out there can't learn how to be good DMs does not constitute balance. It constitutes a homogenized bland rule system that allows for absolutely 0 creativity of free thought.

[Fax Celestis]

You mean how WoTC messed with the spheres during the transition and allowed certain spell casting associated rules from PO books to be gained by players through the new feat system?

Because that's the only thing I see here with 3e.

So you're talking about metamagic and the removal of spell spheres, then. I can accept that: both of those are very powerful alterations, ones that should have--at least--been more regulated than they were.

Seriously, dude, I've never seen a player abuse Wish in any game run by a competent DM.

And therein lies the problem. Like it or not, most DMs are not capable enough to be able to handle players who really want to break the game. Anything that can be done to lessen or remove that potentiality is a good thing.

As far as that anecdotal comments you are claiming about Wish -I've only ever heard that bullplop coming from the RPGA, a guild of players who never bothered to read the rules to begin with (I've smacked down members of the RPGA before in rule lawyering contests). They should never be taken as an authority over the AD&D rule system and their involvement in "approving 3e" when it came out was an absolute joke echoed by the update from 3e to 3.5. The fact WoTC is going into 4th edition so quickly since the production of 3e/3.5 to fix some of the screw ups only shows how poorly the system was designed in the first place.

The system certainly functions better than 2e core does, if only because you never have to look up anything on a table. Look-up tables are the bane of existence and should be burnt.

LOL seriously dude. I've taken a level 8 munchkin wizard out with 20 kobolds before. Casters never were the end all to games in 1st and 2nd edition. When you have a game setting that involves: monsters with magic resistance, or wild magic zones, or assassins with intellect associated poison, any spell caster is quickly taught how to beg for mercy.

And any and all of those things are used by a competent DM. See my statement earlier about DMs and competency.

wait let me get this straight... you used Haste as an offensive weapon in order to have a chance of killing an opponent with a system shock roll, instead of say - lightning bolt which not only could fry said opponent, but bounce off the walls and obliterate a few more opponents along with him?

That doesn't show the power of Haste, not by any stretch of the imagination, that shows the ingenuity and luck of a player who got accidently caught with his pants down by not having enough appropriate combat spells memorized.

I'm not debasing you, I think that was an ingenious use of the spell Haste in a combat situation. But that does not make the spell overpowered. That just makes you lucky.

Except that it was frequently more effective than using combat spells. My anecdote is not the argument here, however: the way the game works is.

The entire purpose is to cultivate a need for good DMs. This pathetic attempt to try and make a game system for BAD DMs is only ruining the game for experienced players and DMs alike who like to play with the rules.

By trying to force everybody into a cookie cutter molds. This is the exact opposite of what AD&D was supposed to be.

By creating these cookie cutter molds, and forcing all classes into them, you will ultimately make each class useless and less unique. You make each campaign setting the exact same campaign setting. You make each spell the exact same spell. You remove the process of ingenuity by players, by making the game a straight line of hack and slash from Point A to Point B rather than by allowing players to visit point M's R's and Z's.

Computer games do that. No chance for Role Playing when you've got a computer program determining what you can and can't do. No reason to learn how to read rules and become a good DM if you've got a computer game telling you what you can and can't do.

You talk about balance?

This is what I see happening:

Removing Ingenuity by Players because a only a handful of village idiots out there can't learn how to be good DMs does not constitute balance. It constitutes a homogenized bland rule system that allows for absolutely 0 creativity of free thought.

I don't see how a simplified ruleset makes roleplaying impossible. I would perosnally think that simlified rules would make it more possible, since you would be able to spend less time trying to figure out your sheet and more time figuring out your personality.

[Dalboz of Gurth]

And therein lies the problem. Like it or not, most DMs are not capable enough to be able to handle players who really want to break the game. Anything that can be done to lessen or remove that potentiality is a good thing.

You just admitted there's nothing wrong with the game, and the only thing wrong is with the people who play the game.

Do you think that maybe the real solution would be to produce a well written supplement, or to re-write the first 3 chapters of the DMG to properly train and instruct dungeon masters how to be good rather than by screwing the game up beyond all recognition to make up for the few who don't know how to play?

The system certainly functions better than 2e core does, if only because you never have to look up anything on a table. Look-up tables are the bane of existence and should be burnt.

LOL Dude, as a DM I memorized almost all the tables, and I tell ya, after character creation, I've never seen a player have to look anything up.

If you're a decent DM you should either know how to handle your adventure with the tables or you should design an adventure without tables.

By trying to regulate 3e into this White Wolf Anti-Table Story Teller bullplop, AD&D has gone through 3 editions (3e, 3.5 and 4e) in less than 8 years. That is outrageous.

Obviously this new method sucks far worse than you think or they wouldn't be trying to FIX IT all the time.

And any and all of those things are used by a competent DM. See my statement earlier about DMs and competency.

See my statement earlier about why you're supposed to instruct DMs rather than SCREW the game up to fix a problem that's centered on the USER and NOT the System.

Except that it was frequently more effective than using combat spells. My anecdote is not the argument here, however: the way the game works is.

PFFT LOL Haste as an offensive weapon is never and can never be more effective than using same level combat spells. You must not have been using your combat spells correctly.

I don't see how a simplified ruleset makes roleplaying impossible. I would perosnally think that simlified rules would make it more possible, since you would be able to spend less time trying to figure out your sheet and more time figuring out your personality.

Oh please, it's destroying the foundation of encounters that affect role playing. If you hate tables and rules so much then either play original D&D which had almost 0 rules, or play something from WoD.

The total abandonment of ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for the current system just because a few kids can't learn how to DM makes me utterly sick.

[Lord Iames Osari]

Fax - I don't think it's worth it to argue with this guy. I doubt anything anyone says is going to change his mind, and I don't want this to end up being a repeat of TLN and Molonel. You're far too big a part of this community.

[Fax Celestis]

You just admitted there's nothing wrong with the game, and the only thing wrong is with the people who play the game.

Do you think that maybe the real solution would be to produce a well written supplement, or to re-write the first 3 chapters of the DMG to properly train and instruct dungeon masters how to be good rather than by screwing the game up beyond all recognition to make up for the few who don't know how to play?

They did that. They called it the DMG 2.

LOL Dude, as a DM I memorized almost all the tables, and I tell ya, after character creation, I've never seen a player have to look anything up.

If you're a decent DM you should either know how to handle your adventure with the tables or you should design an adventure without tables.

By trying to regulate 3e into this White Wolf Anti-Table Story Teller bullplop, AD&D has gone through 3 editions (3e, 3.5 and 4e) in less than 8 years. That is outrageous.

Obviously this new method sucks far worse than you think or they wouldn't be trying to FIX IT all the time.

Not all of us are capable of memorizing tables like you are, you know. And what's with this anti-White Wolf propaganda?

See my statement earlier about why you're supposed to instruct DMs rather than SCREW the game up to fix a problem that's centered on the USER and NOT the System.

The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum, and honestly, WotC can't fix the players. They can fix the game.

Oh please, it's destroying the foundation of encounters that affect role playing. If you hate tables and rules so much then either play original D&D which had almost 0 rules, or play something from WoD.

The total abandonment of ADVANCED Dungeons and Dragons for the current system just because a few kids can't learn how to DM makes me utterly sick.

Then perhaps you're not looking at the right material. Magic of Incarnum is "advanced", as is the new psionics system (something that 2e was never able to get right). Or perhaps Tome of Magic? Tome of Battle? These are all well thought out supplements that do not alter the balance of play significantly and are suable by both beginners and advanced users.

And I do play WoD games, actually, and I used to prefer them to D&D. I don't anymore, because I like complexity in my games when I play them, but not when I run them.

But mechanical complexity? That does not make a good system. All it makes is a complex one.