Anyone want to help adjudicate a Wish spell?

[Kelleris]

I agree with Lord Pendragon completely, with the caveat that from the Haligonians' comments I think he's got a good group, or at least a good situation. Perhaps we've actually reached an internet consensus? Or am I being too hopeful?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I agree with Lord Pendragon completely, with the caveat that from the Haligonians' comments I think he's got a good group, or at least a good situation. Perhaps we've actually reached an internet consensus? Or am I being too hopeful?

My god, I think you're right!

Now we just need a moderator to lock the thread to preserve it!

 

[Three_Haligonians]

Perhaps we've actually reached an internet consensus? Or am I being too hopeful?

Well that's just downright impressive.

Truth be told, since I found out I was mistaken about the secondary effects of Iron Golem poison, no wish was needed since the characters in question didn't die (3d4 Con damage wasn't enought to kill them).

But, for what it's worth, had the situation required the wish I would have granted it with the condition that the characters in question were able to "resist" the poison because instead of buying some of their current gear, the spell altered history so that they bought a periapt of proof against poison. Or perhaps I would change the last feat they took to Resist Poison, or even Poison Immunity: Iron Golem poison.

I feel that the above solution wouldn't screw the players over so badly that they would never cast Wish again and at the same time, provide enough of a quirk to ensure they didn't come away "scott free" so to speak.

with the caveat that from the Haligonians' comments I think he's got a good group

Aww, your too kind.

My apologies to the Three Haligonians. I admit I got emotionally involved and I let it color my comments.

Hey, no worries.

Thank-you everyone for your thoughts and insights, they've been most helpful.

J from Three Haligonians

 

[sjmiller]

Remove the effects of the poison that killed the three PCs. It seems straightforward enough.


It's a simple, unselfish wish.


Don't screw your players on Wishes just because you can or they'll dread ever having to use what is supposed to be a useful spell.

And voice of sanity is heard from the darkness. I agree with you on this. I have never understood the need of some DMs to twist a Wish spell into something harmful to the players. Why would someone take the spell if they know the DM is just going to mess with it? Like you said, it is a simple, unselfish wish.

Besides, it's just a game, right? It's meant to be fun.

 

[rushlight]

I have never understood the need of some DMs to twist a Wish spell into something harmful to the players. Why would someone take the spell if they know the DM is just going to mess with it? Like you said, it is a simple, unselfish wish.

There are two good reasons for the "twist" to the Wish spell:

1) It's thematically accurate. Tales of people who have had wishes granted (albeit, by reluctant powerful beings) usually end up with the wisher getting the shaft in some way. Sort of a "be careful what you ask for, because you may get it" idea. Since D&D is based primarly on these mytical tales and fictional stories, those themes carried over.

2) It keeps Wish from being an "I want it all" spell. If there were no danger to a Wish, why wouldn't every caster of 17th level or above be the Grand Imperial Ruler of the Universe? Without the balance feature, what would stop you from wishing for all the tea in China, or all the gold in the world to be yours? Wishing that everyone was your faithful friend, or that you were a god?

Also, in the older editions, it was a challenge to craft a perfectly worded Wish. I can remember working on my Wish for hours before casting it - usually while I should have been paying attention in class! Considering every possible angle, every eventuality. Granted, that's not everyone's idea of fun - but for those who enjoy a good mental challenge, it's right up there.

In the end, J has only his group to guide him. If he feels that they aren't using the Wish to "game the system" as it were, then he should feel perfecly content to grant their Wish. If he feels that they *are* trying to get something for nothing, then he should arrange a suitable punishment for their arrogance! Or, if he feels it would make an interesting segue to another story, or spice up an ongoing plot line, he should use the open-endedness of the Wish to power whatever devious plots he has in mind for his unsuspecting players!

Good luck J, and let us know how it comes out!

 

[anon]

I think DMs often look at wishes as an excuse to show how they can twist the english language, even when laywered up, to mean something different from what is obviously intended. I personally find this neither clever nor interesting (usually).

My own opinion on this particular wish is that it is relatively selfless, in the sense of not asking for lots of gold, super duper powers, etc. but it is also more than a normal single wish should be able to do. There are real issues with letting Wish act as Three True Res's (cutting in on Cleric's domain, undo button/save game) as mentioned in many posts above.

Keeping in mind that I think perverting the wisher's intent is almost always lame. I would suggest either:

As the spell is being cast randomly choose one of the three PCs, bring them back, let the sorceress know that she feels part of her wish fulfilled (hears a gasp of breath from PC1, whatever) and at the same time part of her being (experience) is gone. Then tell her that as the words of her spell are trying to fulfill her wish that they need more of her (experience) in order to do so. At this point the caster will have to choose to lose 15,000 exp to get back all three, or to stop at some third-way point.

Alternately, I like the idea of bringing them back to the point just before they had to make their second save, and let them reroll the saves. They then have to replay everything afterwards, if there was anything. Since they all made their first saves seemingly they will have a good chance at making it a second (third) time.

I also liked a suggestion above to retroactively change one or more items purchased and/or feats taken so that the characters would have had a better save vs poison. This in part depends if their rolls were close enough to what they needed so that a +4 Con item (adding +2 to their save) would have made the difference if they had had it when making their second save. This option allows for some creativity and has an additional cost to balance the stretching of the Wish.

 

[apesamongus]

Only if you define it that way. I wouldn't, for instance, I'd say one episode of poison gas = one event.

But "event" isn't used in a generic English language sense. The wish spell defines exactly what it means by "event" and that's "1 roll within the last round". By the wording of the wish spell, you couldn't wish "I wish I didn't drop and break that plate", because that didn't involve a roll. Or, if the DM did roll faling damage for the plate, the most he could do - by the wording of the wish spell - would be to roll that damage again to see if it still broke. "I wish I hadn't said that" isn't a valid standard wish, likewise. The problem is a conflict between the normal meaning of the word "event" and how it is specifically used in the wish spell.