So Wish wasn't abolished, after all...

[arscott]

I rather have it that a being who 'grants' a "wish" has to do it with his own phenomenal powers, and not some awkward special magical outside-thingy which strangely enough only works for mortals, and which the "Wish-Givers" never seem to use for themselves. After all, Genies in the most famous fiction of Wish-Granting fairy-tales, that of Aladdin and his magical lamp, were rather all-powerful spirits who could and would do anything.

One thing you have to remember is that in 4e, monsters are loosing a lot of their minor spells and abilities. So if you were to conjure up that all powerful genie from Aladdin's Lamp, he'd say "I'd love to provide you a feast and build you a castle, but the designers felt that my creation powers were just wasting stat-block space and removed them".

It's entirely reasonable to say that "can grant a wish" is shorthand for "can perform a task for you with his own fantastical powers" and be done with it. after all, the whole thing is a flavor text ability.

 

[DandD]

On the other hand, you should remember that D&D-Djinnies aren't like the Fairy-tale-Genie from Aladdin. As already mentioned, one's only a dumb monster to be slain in battle if desired, the other's a plot device that can talk. It wouldn't be bad if D&D didn't pretend that its monsters are like the original mythologic/fairy-tale beings.
A monster, that has one all-powerful ability, but than isn't that all-powerful.
As long as D&D states that the monsters that are classified as gods are only powerful outsiders with some hundred hitpoints and some kind of strange abilities, that's fine, they can be killed. They can only do limited things, they can only grant limited wishes to what these beings can do themselves, and be done with it.

 

[Relique du Madde]

<snip>
But if WotC does it, it's brilliant?

Thats because we already know WoTC has gone insane and we are placating them so that they don't toss the entire sacred cow into the blender. This way, we are guaranteed to have only a hoof remain.

 

[Andor]

I was treated as "nuts.

But if WotC does it, it's brilliant?

Welcome to the internet.

 

[KrazyHades]

Wish is broken, and WoTC has already said they've gotten rid of it. That a Pit Fiend has such an ability, which may not even be statted out (aka: it might just be designed for making plot hooks and explaining how some evil person got their power).

 

[ruleslawyer]

It's entirely reasonable to say that "can grant a wish" is shorthand for "can perform a task for you with his own fantastical powers" and be done with it. after all, the whole thing is a flavor text ability.

If in fact this is how it works, I'd be *ecstatic.* I agree with DandD that wish was just a bad idea from the get-go, and a misreading of what a genie or fairy "wish" actually is. (Not to mention the fact that including a literary plot device, and that too usually a cautionary tale's plot device, as a character ability was just dumb IMO.)

I'd really have liked to see an elaboration of this ability for the pit fiend, like "the fiend will do x not to exceed y in power, etc." in order to have some confidence that wish per se will be exiting D&D. But whatever.

 

[Daniel D. Fox]

Wish as a ritual for Immortals, YES. Wish or Limited Wish as a castable by mortals, NO WAY!

Yet another wonderful change to the game.

 

[Ahglock]

You say that like it is a bad thing. If you, the DM, want to let a PC summon up a pit fiend and ask for a wish you can easily go along with it or deny it. Looks good to me!

Didn't mean it as a bad thing, I was just boggled that with that large and glaring of a limiter anyone would complain about wish still being in the game as some exploit for players.