How do you handle Wish?

[sithlordnergal]

I don't ban Wish because it has built in guards against abuse.
I would allow anything that fits the written description of the spell, so long as the "wish" is in game.
Real life wishes do not get granted. No game mechanics can be altered. The re-roll option is a recognized "in game" phenomenon.
I would not allow extra attack, added levels, extra spell slots or free snacks.

Aren't spell slots and extra attacks an in-game phenomenon, recognized in game and referenced as an in game phenomenon?

[NichG]

...Ok, I can see why that would turn you off of the wording for Wish. Most wishes I deal with are a few sentences long at most. I've never had a player bring a 20 page contract for Wish. DM should have absolutely read that after the game.

DM should have granted the first sentence and thrown out the rest without reading it. Partial fulfillment is a thing.

IMO, rules lawyering of the actual game rules is a bad enough table dynamic without adding in-character Wish-lawyering to it.

[Darth Credence]

I'm fairly certain that the two of them loved the entire idea of the 'wish as contract' and having the DM look for holes to poke in it. For them, that was a huge plus as part of the game. And if it had just been them, fine, whatever makes you happy. But there were three other players at the table who had no desire to sit there for it.

[JLandan]

Aren't spell slots and extra attacks an in-game phenomenon, recognized in game and referenced as an in game phenomenon?

Not additional spell slots beyond those granted by caster levels. Nor are additional extra attacks beyond those granted by class levels. Those would be meta-game, not in-game. The spell description is explicit about what it can do. None of it involves meta-game knowledge or core rules changes. Suppose the wish was to roll a d30 instead of a d20? Should that be allowed? Or automatic success for all saving throws? Or to instantly advance ten levels? What if the wish was for ownership of the DM's car?

Wish alters reality in-game, not meta-game.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between meta-game and in-game. A good question to ask is who the wish is for, the PC or the player? You may say spell slots and extra attacks are in-game and allow such, perhaps with some crazy rationalization. I would not.

[sithlordnergal]

Not additional spell slots beyond those granted by caster levels. Nor are additional extra attacks beyond those granted by class levels. Those would be meta-game, not in-game. The spell description is explicit about what it can do. None of it involves meta-game knowledge or core rules changes. Suppose the wish was to roll a d30 instead of a d20? Should that be allowed? Or automatic success for all saving throws? Or to instantly advance ten levels? What if the wish was for ownership of the DM's car?

Wish alters reality in-game, not meta-game.

It can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between meta-game and in-game. A good question to ask is who the wish is for, the PC or the player? You may say spell slots and extra attacks are in-game and allow such, perhaps with some crazy rationalization. I would not.

But isn't there a literal in-game Boon from the DMG that grants an additional 9th level spell slot? Wouldn't that satisfy your condition for it being in-game and not meta-game since you consider rerolling a d20 to be an in-gams thing and not a meta-game thing?

I mean, its not exactly the slippery slope you're making it out to be. Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

[Darth Credence]

Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days.

You can roll a d30 by rolling a d6 and a d10 at the same time.
die result of the d6 1,2: d10 roll is as it shows.
die result of the d6 3,4: add 10 to d10 roll result
die result of the d6 5,6: add 20 to d10 roll result.

[Darth Credence]

You can roll a d30 by rolling a d6 and a d10 at the same time.
die result of the d6 1,2: d10 roll is as it shows.
die result of the d6 3,4: add 10 to d10 roll result
die result of the d6 5,6: add 20 to d10 roll result.

Well, sure, but then you don't have a d30. I also have a d24 (looks like a cube with a squat pyramid on each face), a d14, a d7 (which is just a d14 with the numbers doubled up), a d16, and a big ol' d100 that is horrible. The d30 I at least remember using once upon a time. I use the d24, but that's because it represents the world's deities.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well, sure, but then you don't have a d30. I also have a d24 (looks like a cube with a squat pyramid on each face), a d14, a d7 (which is just a d14 with the numbers doubled up), a d16, and a big ol' d100 that is horrible. The d30 I at least remember using once upon a time. I use the d24, but that's because it represents the world's deities.

A d24 is a d12 and a d6. Roll together. d6Odd is d12 face value, d6Even is d12face value +12.
I had a d100 a long time ago, big old ball, but found that normal percentile dice are far easier to use.

[Darth Credence]

A d24 is a d12 and a d6. Roll together. d6Odd is d12 face value, d6Even is d12face value +12.
I had a d100 a long time ago, big old ball, but found that normal percentile dice are far easier to use.

I think you're missing the point. More dice are better than fewer dice. I need them all - all the funky ones. I don't use them, because like you said, normal percentile dice are easier to use than a ball that rolls forever until it goes off the table.

[KorvinStarmast]

More dice are better than fewer dice . I need them all - all the funky ones.

I completely understand where you are coming from. I went through a similar phase years ago. My posts were mostly directed toward the "general reading audience" since I have found that many players don't use dice in the way that we all used to when there was a more limited supply and tables had different numbers that didn't match up with die faces.
I had a chance to buy a d30 a few years ago at the FLGS but declined. Had that cropped up back in the 90's I'd have bought it without thinking twice about it.

[lall]

Had a DM that used a d24 for attack rolls, with 20-24 as crits.

[JLandan]

But isn't there a literal in-game Boon from the DMG that grants an additional 9th level spell slot? Wouldn't that satisfy your condition for it being in-game and not meta-game since you consider rerolling a d20 to be an in-gams thing and not a meta-game thing?

I mean, its not exactly the slippery slope you're making it out to be. Though if a player were to ask to roll a d30 instead of a d20...I might allow it for a single roll provided they have a physical d30 on them. XD If only because that would be a very interesting dice to see.

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

[sithlordnergal]

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

I guess I am fully missing your point because I don't see how wishing for an extra spell slot or a bonus extra attack is a wish "in real life" and not "in the game"? Like...them asking for a mechanical bonus to their character isn't a real life wish...and it falls within the general things Wish does. Permanent resistance to a damage type is a mechanical thing, but its listed as a thing wish can do within the spell itself.

I have one. I don't remember what it was for, but I used it back in the AD&D days.

I would absolutely grant you that Wish because when the heck are you gonna see someone roll an actual d30. Might even let you use it for an entire encounter.

[Witty Username]

The only big thing is, if a PC makes a special request rather than spell duplication, that a spell can replicate then the wish has the effect of the spell as if they had.

[Schwann145]

This has always been a false argument.

D&D is a game, decision-making is always down to the player in the end.
~snip~

I don't disagree. This is more in concern of the overly-adversarial "legalese" style of Wish fulfillment that some DMs prefer. If a DM requires a player to be a real-life lawyer to get their Wish just so, it's only fair (IMO) to point out that the character may very well be better at it than the player (and, equally so, better at it than the DM).
But the DM has wildly imbalanced power in the back-and-fourth of Wish fulfillment, despite also not knowing how to properly word a thing.

It's less about getting someone else to play your character, and more about reasonable expectations of what players (and DMs) can actually bring to a table/conversation.

[Vahnavoi]

I'm afraid you missed the point.

Suppose that instead of wording a wish, I'm asking you to lift a rock in a live-action roleplay. You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things. The rock will only move by real people moving it. Hence, the character's supposed skills only exist as modifiers to what you, the player, have to do. For example, if your character is fantastically strong, I can make the rock out of styrofoam. You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.

With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all. The rock already is styrofoam. What the player brings to the table is the exact model of what their character brings to the table.

[Schwann145]

I'm afraid you missed the point.

Suppose that instead of wording a wish, I'm asking you to lift a rock in a live-action roleplay. You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things. The rock will only move by real people moving it. Hence, the character's supposed skills only exist as modifiers to what you, the player, have to do. For example, if your character is fantastically strong, I can make the rock out of styrofoam. You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.

With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all. The rock already is styrofoam. What the player brings to the table is the exact model of what their character brings to the table.

I would have to hard-disagree with the notion that a D&D character is meant to be an extension of the player. You could have a game where this is the case, but that is by no means the default assumption for the game.

[RSP]

I never said slippery slope, I just said I would not allow it. Boons are a variant rule that I have never used. If a player wished for a boon, I would allow it, but which boon would have to be consistent with the PC's deity.

A one time use of a d30 is a crappy wish and a waste of a 9th level slot and a further waste of a spell that the PC may lose forever (33%).

I guess you just miss my point entirely that a wish in the game should not be a wish in real life. But if you're willing to give your car to a player that wishes for it, that is your issue.

I still don’t see how an extra 9th level slot isn’t in-game. Do you operate that casters are unaware of the level of spells, or of how their energy to cast spells (spell slots) are cut out to only work in certain power levels?

If you use Spell Points, it would be different, but you’d still have in-game characters aware of spell levels and, I’m assuming, that they can only cast one level 6, one level 7, one level 8 and one level 9 spell.

I just don’t see how it isn’t an in-game thing to realize you can only cast a 9th level spell once a day, or wishing that you could instead cast that highest level of spell power twice instead of once.

[Vahnavoi]

I would have to hard-disagree with the notion that a D&D character is meant to be an extension of the player. You could have a game where this is the case, but that is by no means the default assumption for the game.

Characters as seen in play are always extensions of the people playing them in every human-run game in existence. The only practical alternatives are to make the characters extensions of a computer program or some other machinery.

Or what alternative did you have in mind? A game book can posit anything it likes, it won't make a character into anything more than stage directions written on paper, aimed at some human.

[KorvinStarmast]

Characters as seen in play are always extensions of the people playing them in every human-run game in existence. The only practical alternatives are to make the characters extensions of a computer program or some other machinery.

Or what alternative did you have in mind? A game book can posit anything it likes, it won't make a character into anything more than stage directions written on paper, aimed at some human.

What amazes me is that people need to be reminded of this. +1 (It would probably be off topic to delve into the myth of player - character separation...)

[Schwann145]

You can say "my character would be able to lift this", but the fact of the matter is that your character does not exist as an independent entity capable of doing things.
The rock will only move by real people moving it.
You still have to lift it. If you still can't, then neither can your character.

I'm a bit confused.
So if, during a LARP, the challenge was to lift a 1000lb park-decoration boulder (for whatever in-game contrived reason), and I definitely can't do that (but my character, with their fantasy strength and magic items could), that means that my character can't? I cannot (should not?) be able to suggest that, while I cannot do the real-life action of lifting the boulder, my character could and therefore we should move forward under the assumption that they did?
Further building on this, players with physical limitations cannot (should not?) play characters who don't have such limitations? If I'm wheelchair bound, I shouldn't expect my character to be able to run?

That's how the above reads to me. Am I misinterpreting?

With Wish, the character's skills are already factored in for the player to make any wish at all.

In what way? Stat requirements for spellcasting are not a part of 5e.

[rel]

The existing rules for wish are good enough to cover this situation in most games. If the campaign was heavily focused on the tactical combat minigame then I might have reservations about messing with the game balance. And if I was running a campaign where muggles actually get to participate in non-combat encounters wish wouldn't be on the spell list along with most of the other spells.

But for a 'standard' campaign, I'd stick to the spells wording.
I'd remind the player that they're trying an open wish, and as per the spells wording, it might not work how they wanted, might come with unforeseen consequences and might permanently burn out their ability to cast wish.
Also, no matter what, the stress will leave them vulnerable for 2D4 days, and any enemy with access to divination (hardly unusual at level 17+) might try to attack them while they're vulnerable.

If the player is happy gambling, they can state their wish, and we break out the really big percentile dice and have them roll 4 times:
1st percentile roll - how close they get to the effect they wanted
2nd percentile roll - how bad the side effects are
3rd percentile roll - will they ever cast wish again
4th percentile roll - did any enemies notice what they've done and decide to capitalise

Roll really well and you get your permanent extra spell slot with no consequences. But roll poorly and you may well end up crippled and humiliated with powerful enemies at your door and one of your most powerful spells permanently burned away...

The question is: Do I feel lucky?