How Come There Is No "Wish" Spell?

Ooooooh....dealbreaker. Not helping things here.

While it's a "traditional" part of D&D, it's ridiculous how common it is.

Aragorn: Alas, Frodo is dead.
Gandalf: No problem. (casts Raise Dead)
Frodo: Alright, where were we?
Gandalf: Getting the ring to Mordor.
Frodo: Right. Let's get going, shall we?

I guess all the resurrectionists put a gun to your head to make you run your D&D just like theirs, eh?

Not to mention the fallacy that LotR and D&D are in anywhere near the same subgenre of fantasy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Li Shenron said:
Eventually, I'm only (a little) sad because this is once more a "it's hard to balance, so we just remove it from the game" design choice.

But is this choice really so bad? There seem to be some rules in the game that can easily wreck a game. They won't do it for everyone, and they might be ignorable. But wouldn't it be better to just use the DM's "Rule Zero" for adjucating such effects?

A dungeon master that wants the PCs to have access to Wish can give it to them. Since he is giving it out, there is a reasonable chance that he knows if he players choose something that both can agree on.

The same with Save or Die - used "randomly", it can break them game (it doesn't have to, but i can). Used as a crucial plot element (DM Rule Zero), it will be used exactly in the spot where it is needed and can advance the game positively.

The only thing I wish is that the DMG or the Dragon will contain information or suggestion on how "game-breaking" that were removed from the standard game can be added back again in exceptional circumstances.
 


Drammattex said:
While it's a "traditional" part of D&D, it's ridiculous how common it is.

Aragorn: Alas, Frodo is dead.
Gandalf: No problem. (casts Raise Dead)
Frodo: Alright, where were we?
Gandalf: Getting the ring to Mordor.
Frodo: Right. Let's get going, shall we?

If I recall, it was more like this:
Aragorn: Alas, Gandalf is dead.
Gandalf: No, I'm not.
Frodo: Alright, where were we?
Gandalf: Getting the ring to Mordor.
Frodo: Right. Let's get going, shall we?

In all seriousness, though, from time to time, characters die. And if that character's player really wants to keep playing that character, that's what raise dead is for. Hopefully, the player will be more cautious in the future so as to maintain verisimilitude. If characters keep on dying and the players and DM don't like it, maybe they should have a talk about what they can do to fix it.
 
Last edited:


Nifft said:
If there were no such thing as "role-playing", you'd be right.

Cheers, -- N


DM: Whatta ya mad at me for? The Ifrit is the one who screwed over your wish and turned you into a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup.
Player: And it was his idea to heat the soup over a hotplate and eat it?
DM: That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
 

Anthtriel said:
If there is one thing you can easily houserule in, it's the wish spell. It's defined by having no rules.
This. Calling the removal of wish a deal-breaker is rather silly, considering its very nature. It's probably the easiest spell to add back into the game, because its only defining quality is that it's literally "I wish X."
 

I'd actually like to see "Wish," such as it is, returned as a Geas of sorts on magical beings.

So a genie might be bound to grant you 3 wishes (within the realm of whatever spell-like abilities it possesses) but be free to, umm, interpret your request.

That's "Wish" the way it should be. Not some "do anything, but not really" power, but a geas placed on a magical creature that has to fulfill it, to the letter of your request. Wish becomes, essentially, a plot device.

That works for me.
 

Scarbonac said:
DM: Whatta ya mad at me for? The Ifrit is the one who screwed over your wish and turned you into a can of Campbell's Chicken Noodle soup.
Player: And it was his idea to heat the soup over a hotplate and eat it?
DM: That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
Wow. You make bad wishes.

"But a delicious lunch!", -- N
 


Remove ads

Top