D&D 5E Wish - the Free Magic Item Factory

[Morrus]

Never try to rationalise D&D economics. They don't work. The game provides rules for adventurers, but those rules absolutely do not attempt to address long term economic factors. You may as well start worrying about how treasure rewards destabilise entire regions, or how the predator/prey ecology of monsters doesn't work.

The NPCs don't do that. If a PC wishes to make that his game, he isn't really playing D&D.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Never try to rationalise D&D economics. They don't work. The game provides rules for adventurers, but those rules absolutely do not attempt to address long term economic factors. You may as well start worrying about how treasure rewards destabilise entire regions, or how the predator/prey ecology of monsters doesn't work.

The NPCs don't do that. If a PC wishes to make that his game, he isn't really playing D&D.

This has been the single greatest failure of D&D in it's lifespan. At least some attention has to be paid to these factors or the believability of entire setting starts to crumble. I, for one, find that unacceptable.

 

[Morrus]

This has been the single greatest failure of D&D in it's lifespan. At least some attention has to be paid to these factors or the believability of entire setting starts to crumble. I, for one, find that unacceptable.

Each to their own; I don't. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the rules are designed to make adventures fun, not to simulate an economy. I literally couldn't care any less than I do about the D&D economy!

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think it should require an elaborate material component, such as a fallen star - something that can be quested for maybe once in a lifetime.

 

[Rune]

Some more perspectives on this topic.

 

[MarkB]

Ageing penalties are problematic when there are races with wildly differing lifespans in the game - ten years means a lot less to an elf than to a human.

Wishes are basically alterations of reality, and casting one should have some form of unpredictable impact - whether it's weakening the walls of reality and allowing denizens of another plane to intrude, or attracting the attention of powerful beings, or subtly altering the nature of the caster or subject, or causing the laws of physics to become mere guidelines for a little while.

The consequence should be obscure, not necessarily immediately felt, yet related to the nature of the wish, and DMs should be encouraged to put together something unique for each occasion.

 

[Stalker0]

You could say this about any poorly written rule. While true, it doesn't mean it couldn't be written better to reduce the burden on the DM and make it a better game for everyone.

I agree. Rule 0 gives us protection against the myriad of combinations and special circumstances that will arise...but if we find a blatant rule abuse baked right in the system, especially during the beta, no reason not to fix it

 

[GX.Sigma]

All they need to do is remove the things that grant a permanent benefit (like the money and the items) from the "safe" list, and shift it to the "the DM will punish you if you abuse it" list.

 

[steeldragons]

Just take Wish out. No wishes. Ya can't be trusted to wish responsibly, so no wishes. The simulated world can't handle it. Costs aren't consistent for any caster. Any wizard is gonna just automatically "pick" wish in their spellbooks. So take it out.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Let djinni or efreeti grant "wishes"...which amount to supplying you with food, drink, shelter, riches up to X gp value, teleporting you where you want to go (or foes you want to defeat to other locations), etc...

Gods (and maybe devil princes) can alter reality (i.e. whatever the DM wants to happen).

But no Player access to "Wish."

I think that fixes things nicely.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Each to their own; I don't. I'm perfectly happy to accept that the rules are designed to make adventures fun, not to simulate an economy. I literally couldn't care any less than I do about the D&D economy!

Sure. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to play that way. But, if they take the time to at least consider the impact of things on the world and economy, we both get a richer game. That is, so long as it doesn't require more work for players.

Just take Wish out. No wishes. Ya can't be trusted to wish responsibly, so no wishes. The simulated world can't handle it. Costs aren't consistent for any caster. Any wizard is gonna just automatically "pick" wish in their spellbooks. So take it out.

This is why we can't have nice things.

Let djinni or efreeti grant "wishes"...which amount to supplying you with food, drink, shelter, riches up to X gp value, teleporting you where you want to go (or foes you want to defeat to other locations), etc...

Gods (and maybe devil princes) can alter reality (i.e. whatever the DM wants to happen).

But no Player access to "Wish."

I think that fixes things nicely.

Wish may be a sacred cow, but I think you're right. Wizards simply casting wish can go away, and the game would be better for it. Wish granting entities and artifacts then become all the more precious.