Anyone want to help adjudicate a Wish spell?

[Three_Haligonians]

er... Please note that although we share an account, I am not the OP and, I assumed I was allowed to read this now that we know we were using the 3.0 rules by accident, right J? Heh heh ....

The point is moot now, so yeah it's fine.

I think you're looking at this wish as a free save game and nothing more.

This is not about "saving" the game. Resources have been used up: the wizrad and sorcereress have cast spells, potions had been drunk and incidently, since the Half-Iron Golem had a ring of weaponbreaking, two members of the party had their main weapons destroyed. A "saving the game" wish would have been something along the lines of "I wish this fight never happened" and even -that- I think, would be doable by the wish spell (with some severe consequences I would imagine).

In truth, this wish was about the recouperation that happens after every fight. Would you consider it cheating if the party went to a Cleric and payed the price for three True Resurrection spells? I wouldn't think so, so why is it cheating when the sorceress uses her own resources to cast one spell to get the same effect?

If your really worried about "saving the game" then its the Thought Bottle (from the Complete Arcane) you should be looking at.

J from Three Haligonians

 

[ARandomGod]

Why would I as a DM give a player any credit when said player is not only asking me to break the rules, but expects me to break the rules?

Well, I don't know for every instance why you would, but as this is more general, and I don't know the specifics of the game... I'd say you as a DM would 'give credit' as you say because three characters died, and you as a DM might want that to have not happened... the fact that it happened might have dampened the "fun" of the game.

At which point it might behoove the GM to allow the return of the characters. It's all only a story and virtual resources anyhow.

In any case, there's a lot of room for maneuvering on the part of the DM here.

Definitely there is.

 

[Talmun]

The original poster already stated that he and his group have established that the Wish as worded in this case is outside the bounds of Wish as written. Given that, the party should expect some type of logical, reasonable consequence for pushing the spell beyond it's intended and express use. To let this slide, even once, without something happening to let the characters know that this isn't such a good idea only encourages misuse and abuse later. This isn't screwing the players; it's the DM doing his job. The fact that the DM in this case wants to let the Wish do effectively three times what it would normally do is the exact opposite of screwing the players.

Now, I'm not advocating something apocalyptic here; maybe nothing more than a cut-scene or flavor-text that informs the players that the universe, or one of it's more powerful inhabitants, is "on to" them, and will be watching. Maybe just dirty looks from the DM. One reason I suggest a Marut specifically, and some type of in game consequence in general is because I dislike rules-mechanic or meta-game repercussions for story-interior actions. (To be honest, I dislike XP loss in all its forms, but that's another thread) Another reason is that, IMO, part of a DM's job is to find story and role-play opportunities wherever he can, and this seems like a great one.

By the way, any group of players who, after fighting the Marut (or quest, or whatever) takes the attitude "Hey, we can keep doing that and get the XP to come to us!" has other problems that are beyond the scope of this thread, or at least this post.

@darthkilmor:
I chose a Marut because...well...I forgot about the Quarut, what book is it in?

 

[Three_Haligonians]

I can say that if I were you're DM, at best I just wouldn't allow it - and at worse I'd hit you with the XP penalty for creating 3 True Res scrolls PLUS the wish XP, since that is effectively what you're doing. Or activate three Raise Deads on your fallen comrades - and let them take the level loss. But then, I believe in maintaining balance to the game, so I wouldn't let you get everything for nothing anyway.

I would think my DM was losing his touch if I got the wish "for nothing", that's not what I was expecting at all. Anyway, as other people have already pointed out, I didn't ask for the pcs to be brought back from the dead. And it isn't just semantics: the DM could have decided that they did resist the poison, but were still dead from some other cause, for whatever reason. I did cast the spell in the same round that the pcs died. I was asking to undo 3 misfortunes, not 1, and that is the only way my wish differed from what the wish spell entails.

For the record, I was only WISHING for it, I wasn't trying to worm out of paying consequences for my actions.

R from Three Haligonians

 

[Bauglir]

Well, trust issues aside a DM will like to keep his world consistent. If a certain type of Wish works one time, but not the next, why is this?

Some people like to work with the idea that Wishes are granted by an intelligence, such as a Djinn, or a deity; as such the results may depend on the personality of the granter, and may not be consistent.

The other approach would be to keep the Wish itself consistent; if it works once, it'll work again. In this case the DM must be careful as anything they allow or disallow will set a precedent for future events which may be undesirable, even with the best of intentions on the players' part.

IMO there are 2 precedents to be wary of with Wishes:

1. The "anything goes" precedent: Allowing too-powerful wishes without consequence can lead to the party being too powerful, which in turn can lead to complacency and eventually boredom.

2. The "nothing goes" precedent: ANY Wish can be twisted to work against the caster. Sometimes Wishes should bite back but if this is overplayed then Wish becomes too much of a liability to be useful at all. Remember that Wish is a 9th level spell, and has a large XP cost. If a Wish has a backlash, it should be roughly equivalent to what is asked for, remembering that the caster has already paid a price just to cast the spell.

I don't think a Wish should ever actually cause net hurt the caster - if the caster Wishes for something ridiculously beyond the scope of the spell, and they get nothing for it, they're still out a 9th level spell and 5000xp.

My own approach with Wishes takes note of the fact that the Wish spell can emulate other spells. Any wish made by a player would be accomplished as best possible through the use of existing magical effects. In this case I think I would have it trigger 3 Raise Dead Spells; however this would be beyond the normal scope of a wish (as it would only allow *one* raise dead spell) hence I think I would have the caster also lose a level through the casting (just like the 3 people raised)

My 2p.

 

[Three_Haligonians]

By the way, any group of players who, after fighting the Marut (or quest, or whatever) takes the attitude "Hey, we can keep doing that and get the XP to come to us!" has other problems that are beyond the scope of this thread, or at least this post.

Hear hear!

R from Three Haligonians

 

[brehobit]

Some thoughts

In 1st and 2nd edition I'd let this wish slide. Maybe drain a point of CON, but probably not.

In 3rd edition I rule wishes as two different spells. The safe, well-defined and fairly limited. And the not-safe and very powerful. Those wishes may be being granted by a divine being with its own goals. As long the the caster knows the difference....

I'd make a serious change to the PCs. Things I'd consider:

Change them to a +1 ECL race immune to poison. Drop them a level in the process (so their ECL is the same).

They come back, but are slated to die in 60 days time. I can see some kind divine accountant (LN of course) explaining their situation to them (like reading a warranttee). They need to figure out how to get around/out of the "life extention" deal. Or maybe they just die in 60 days.

As above, but the deal is they can never again be raised from the dead. Actually I like that one a lot.

Take a level (per raise dead).

Give the 3 PCs a new save. If they fail they are still dead.

Let them _be_ dead, but come back as something other than a living creature. There is a PrC in the BoED for this which might make sense for good PCs.

Let some divine creature get involved. Some type of quest, favor, etc. could be given. Depends on where your plot is at the moment.


What shouldn't happen is that this be cost-free. Now with the DM error on the poison, I'd consider having the failed save just do what is was supposed (rather than instant death) with the wish. So the CON drain....

Tell us what you end up doing....

 

[Sejs]

I think you're looking at this wish as a free save game and nothing more.

5,000 xp is hardly "free", Infiniti.

@darthkilmor:
I chose a Marut because...well...I forgot about the Quarut, what book is it in?

Fiend Folio, p102.

 

[Talmun]

Fiend Folio, p102.

Ahh yes, that would be why. One of the few I don't have; I'll take a look at it.

 

[rushlight]

5,000 xp is hardly "free".

Well, at 17th level - where you're casting 9th level spells - it's only 4 encounters at CR 17. Contrast that to gaining 75,000 - at 17th level, you'd need 9 encounters to get the resources for 3 True Res spells. It may not be "free" - but it's a hell of a deal.

I still think three Raise Deads would be more than within the bounds of a Wish. Solves the problem neatly, with a minimum of fuss. Everyone's alive, and you've not used up much more than a 9th level spell should. (Since a "mass" version of a spell is generally 3-4 levels above the original, it's perfectly logical to place a mythical "Mass Raise Dead" as a 9th level spell.)