Using Wish to increase effective caster level

[irdeggman]

A 3.5 wish spell is severely limited in what it can produce, unlike previous editions where the results were up to the DM (and player) they are specifically spelled out in 3.5. Anything else is covered in the one sentence.

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)

So anything else (like a +1 CL is extremely dangerous and is up to a DM’s perversion of the requested effect.

Wish is the mightiest spell a wizard or sorcerer can cast. By simply speaking aloud, you can alter reality to better suit you.
Even wish, however, has its limits.
A wish can produce any one of the following effects.

• Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 8th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.

• Duplicate any other spell of 6th level or lower, provided the spell is not of a school prohibited to you.

• Duplicate any wizard or sorcerer spell of 7th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.

• Duplicate any other spell of 5th level or lower even if it’s of a prohibited school.

• Undo the harmful effects of many other spells, such as geas/quest or insanity.

• Create a nonmagical item of up to 25,000 gp in value.

• Create a magic item, or add to the powers of an existing magic item.

• Grant a creature a +1 inherent bonus to an ability score. Two to five wish spells cast in immediate succession can grant a creature a +2 to +5 inherent bonus to an ability score (two wishes for a +2 inherent bonus, three for a +3 inherent bonus, and so on). Inherent bonuses are instantaneous, so they cannot be dispelled. Note: An inherent bonus may not exceed +5 for a single ability score, and inherent bonuses to a particular ability score do not stack, so only the best one applies.

• Remove injuries and afflictions. A single wish can aid one creature per caster level, and all subjects are cured of the same kind of affliction. For example, you could heal all the damage you and your companions have taken, or remove all poison effects from everyone in the party, but not do both with the same wish. A wish can never restore the experience point loss from casting a spell or the level or Constitution loss from being raised from the dead.

• Revive the dead. A wish can bring a dead creature back to life by duplicating a resurrection spell. A wish can revive a dead creature whose body has been destroyed, but the task takes two wishes, one to recreate the body and another to infuse the body with life again. A wish cannot prevent a character who was brought back to life from losing an experience level.

• Transport travelers. A wish can lift one creature per caster level from anywhere on any plane and place those creatures anywhere else on any plane regardless of local conditions. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

• Undo misfortune. A wish can undo a single recent event. The wish forces a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s successful critical hit (either the attack roll or the critical roll), a friend’s failed save, and so on. The reroll, however, may be as bad as or worse than the original roll. An unwilling target gets a Will save to negate the effect, and spell resistance (if any) applies.

You may try to use a wish to produce greater effects than these, but doing so is dangerous. (The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.)

Duplicated spells allow saves and spell resistance as normal (but save DCs are for 9th-level spells).
Material Component: When a wish duplicates a spell with a material component that costs more than 10,000 gp, you must provide that component.

XP Cost: The minimum XP cost for casting wish is 5,000 XP. When a wish duplicates a spell that has an XP cost, you must pay 5,000 XP or that cost, whichever is more. When a wish creates or improves a magic item, you must pay twice the normal XP cost for crafting or improving the item, plus an additional 5,000 XP.

With regards to the Practiced Spellcaster feat – remember that it can’t raise your CL above your hit dice.

Having said all of that – granting a feat is pretty safe usage, IMO, even if it isn’t on the specific list and is less than an inherent bonus to an ability score.

 

[Li Shenron]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of allowing Wish to grant any permanent effects (the ability score bonuses are acceptable because of the limit to the number of them possible, but even then I don't think it's a good mechanic). First of all, I don't consider xp loss to be permanent, any more than spending money is permanent, because its something the character will be earning continuously while adventuring. Second of all, it ruins the challenge rating system.

I don't like the idea of spending Xp for feats or other permanent abilities either, but I also want Wish to be a useful spell and fun for the game.

As long as I (the DM) reserve myself the right to choose what to grant, and how many times, it can be very well made to work with no problems. +1 to caster level is not gamebreaking at all (it's not +1 to spellcasting level) even if goes beyond the normal maximum.

I definitely didn't imply that I'd allow Wish to grant _anything_ permanent...

 

[Shadowdweller]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of allowing Wish to grant any permanent effects (the ability score bonuses are acceptable because of the limit to the number of them possible, but even then I don't think it's a good mechanic). First of all, I don't consider xp loss to be permanent, any more than spending money is permanent, because its something the character will be earning continuously while adventuring. Second of all, it ruins the challenge rating system.

I don't like the idea of spending Xp for feats or other permanent abilities either, but I also want Wish to be a useful spell and fun for the game.

Interesting. Does this mean you dislike/disallow crafting as well? Since (seems to me at least) crafting basically operates on the same principle.

 

[wuyanei]

Shadowdweller: The two have one very important difference -- any thing crafted or made can be lost, stolen, suppressed or destroyed.

This is one reason why I would allow an effective +1 caster level, but only through magical items, tattoos, daggers of death knell (what a wonderful idea, Shadowdweller!), or other such methods that have a built-in method of removal. As Li Shenron has said, +1 caster level by itself will not ruin any game. However, if there is no (relatively) light-handed way to remove the ability, granting such a potentially broken ability becomes a bad decision for a DM, IMHO.

This has nothing to do with the usefulness of wish. It has everything to do with giving the players something that is potentially broken (only potentially, mind you) and that cannot be 'blood-lessly' removed.

Finally, even though I would not allow it in my own game, perhaps you could house rule that the +1 CL bonus granted by wish is an innate bonus, just like the +1 innate bonuse granted to ability scores. Place a +5 CL limit to the bonus, and rule that, as with innate bonus to ability scores, innate bonuses form different sources do not stack, so you need 1 ~ 5 wishes one after the other to grant higher bonuses.

This would probably close down the most serious loopholes. But still, I have a hard time imagining any spellcaster not[/i] saving five scrolls of wish, then giving herself a +5 innate bonus to CL as soon as possible.

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting. Does this mean you dislike/disallow crafting as well? Since (seems to me at least) crafting basically operates on the same principle.

I used to think that the xp cost for crafting was not a good idea either, and often I thought... why should a wizard be required to kill orcs (gain xp) in order to craft his items? But that was long time ago, and I became used to how magic item crafting works - however that's not a problem also because making magic items requires time & money as well, it requires to know the proper spells, etc... generally it didn't make item crafting a very frequent thing IMC, at least for permanent items.

That said, I dislike the principle, but it worked out quite well because it wasn't used excessively, and because players usually IMXP always prefer to get to the next level soon.

But I'd definitely not incorporate rules such as "buy feats for an xp cost", because as soon as ALL PCs in the same party can do that (therefore remaining about the same level), the CR system surely gets more difficult to adjudicate. Plus, it shifts the game a bit in the direction of an ability-based system rather than a class-based system (which I prefer).

 

[Rassilon]

I have a hard time imagining any spellcaster not[/i] saving five scrolls of wish, then giving herself a +5 innate bonus to CL as soon as possible.

True, but this is what every caster does now, except with Int, Wis, or Cha.

Also, it seems to be the consensus of the thread that it shouldn't even be considered, but if it is considered it should only allow effective caster levels up to HD.

So, if, hypothetically, a Ftr5 / Wiz 4 got their hand on 4 wishes, they could only raise their effective caster level to 20. The actual caster level stays at 16. They don't get any 9th level spells, or any more spells per day, but all the spells they do cast are treated as if cast by a Wiz 20. This seems fairly ballanced to me (apart from an L20 Char. having 4 wishes to just spend, but still!). It doesn't seem any more problematic to than +4 inherent to Con or Int.

Edit: of course Wiz 16 has 8th level spells, changed to 9th . . .

Rassilon.

 

[wuyanei]

True, but this is what every caster does now, except with Int, Wis, or Cha.

Well, yes. But +5 to ability score only gives you +2 ability modifier on that ability (or +3 if you have a odd ability score). +5 CL gives you +5 to caster level checks, not to mention +5d6 damage to direct damage spells, +5 rounds (or minutes, or hours) to spell duration, +10HD to creatures summoned with gate, etc. etc., so I believe +1 CL is quite a bit better than +1 to one ability score.

Also, it seems to be the consensus of the thread that it shouldn't even be considered, but if it is considered it should only allow effective caster levels up to HD.

I would allow the net effect (of CL +1), but not the meta-game mechanism. It can be done, but not that way. Items, permanent 'spells', swapping previous non-caster class levels, rewards for a daily human sacrifice etc. are all possible alternate methods to achieve the effect of +1 CL. The same thing goes to raising CL up to HD.

I believe that if a 'character' wants something that makes even a modicum of sense in-game, the DM should let him have a fair chance of getting it. However, the characters have no concept of meta-game terms such as 'innate bonus', 'BAB', 'character class', 'base save bonus', 'spell-like ability', 'supernatural ability', etc. The characters work in-game towards aquiring what they want. HOW they actually GET what they want, and how to translate what they get into the meta-game terms of 'gp', 'XP', 'feats', 'bonuses' 'penalties', 'skill ranks' or 'ability scores', is the province of the DM. To a character, an unobtrusive tattoo that grants +1 CL should really be just as good as an 'innate' +1 CL bonus. Therefore, if the 'player', using meta-game knowledge, keeps demanding for a 'more-valuable' innate bonus instead of a 'less valuable' tattoo-item, I probably would not put too much weight to his words.

The 'item' does not have to be a real item. For example, as with Samson and his hair, the power that grants the wish could make a semi-random stipulation that the character must obey. For Samson the grant is 'Gain +10 enhancement bonus to Str unless you cuts your hair.' For the player, the 'item' could be some similar requirement, that I might later use as a plot hook or simply use to take away the bonus if it gets too much out of hand.

This applies to both '+1 CL' and 'raise CL to HD'. I suppose I am just one of the 'old-style' DMs, in that I still tend to see granted wishes (and granted miracles -- as opposed to wishes or miracles that characters cast themselves) as something of a reality-twisting plot device. If a granted 'powerful wish' does not somehow advance, or at least add to, the plot, I don't think that it is a very-well granted wish.

So, if, hypothetically, a Ftr5 / Wiz 4 got their hand on 4 wishes, they could only raise their effective caster level to 20. The actual caster level stays at 16. They don't get any 8th level spells, or any more spells per day, but all the spells they do cast are treated as if cast by a Wiz 20. This seems fairly ballanced to me (apart from an L20 Char. having 4 wishes to just spend, but still!). It doesn't seem any more problematic to than +4 inherent to Con or Int.

Err... do you mean "Ftr 4 / Sor 16" ? 16th level wizards already have 8th level spell-slots...

If I were the DM, I would allow you to add 4 effective caster levels with a single wish -- but in a way that can be reversed if neccessary. Four wish spells just to duplicate Practiced Spellcaster is a bit too much, IMHO. OTOH, if you were a "Ftr 16 / Sor 4" character that, for some reason, wanted to raise your effective caster level to CL 20 -- THEN I would require you to use four wish spells cast in quick succession.

All of the above is just how I would rule it. There really isn't a single 'correct' method, as others who argue differently have shown. Whatever works best for you and your group, just go ahead and do it. Take what ever is useful from what I've said, and feel free to ignore the rest.

The only real rule is Rule -1: 'Just have fun!'

Happy gaming!
Yanei Wu

 

[Rassilon]

I would allow the net effect (of CL +1), but not the meta-game mechanism. . . I believe that if a 'character' wants something that makes even a modicum of sense in-game, the DM should let him have a fair chance of getting it. However, the characters have no concept of meta-game terms such as 'innate bonus', 'BAB' . . . Therefore, if the 'player', using meta-game knowledge, keeps demanding for a 'more-valuable' innate bonus instead of a 'less valuable' tattoo-item, I probably would not put too much weight to his words . . . The only real rule is Rule -1: 'Just have fun!'

I have changed the 8th to 9th (which I meant in the first place). Cheers for the catch.

The only thing I really disagree with in your post is purely flavour. I agree that the character doesn't talk in 'BAB' terms, but we do.

Also: assuming some kind of intelligible, perceptually based (empirical) reality, in which meaning is 'meaning' in as much as [description refers to the object in that description corresponds to the object] then characters will be able to refer to caster level. If the difference in damage die and range for a Fireball can be quantifiable, which it can, it is qualifiable. I just don't know exactly how the 'characters' would refer to their own abilities, but it doesn't matter, because we use our own terms to refer to their abilities.

What I'm getting at is that, for me, there is absolutely no problem going to the DM and saying I want a build with Caster Level X, Fort Save Y, and BAB Z. The 'story' of how the mechanics are gained / implemented is almost purely descriptive in my opinion / preferred play style ('cause it's sometime hard to separate them ). So I think a character would be able to tell the difference between an inherent bonus and a discrete dispel-able tattoo, and be able to extend a preference.

It's interesting that your concern is verisimilitude, and you would be tempted to not allow it on that basis, where as I don't have any V. problem, but consider you very generous to be allowing a (stacking?) Practised Spellcaster Feat with every Wish


Rassilon.

 

[wuyanei]

I have changed the 8th to 9th (which I meant in the first place). Cheers for the catch.

The only thing I really disagree with in your post is purely flavour. I agree that the character doesn't talk in 'BAB' terms, but we do.... <snip> ...

Also: assuming some kind of intelligible, perceptually based (empirical) reality, in which meaning is 'meaning' in as much as [description refers to the object in that description corresponds to the object] then characters will be able to refer to caster level. If the difference in damage die and range for a Fireball can be quantifiable, which it can, it is qualifiable. I just don't know exactly how the 'characters' would refer to their own abilities, but it doesn't matter, because we use our own terms to refer to their abilities.

Sure. In the real world, we know that Tiger Woods is a high-level golf player. He can hit a golf-ball much farther, and far more accurately, than any 1st level amature mook. Now, how many percentile points 'better' is Tiger Woods than the average person? How many 'Golf Levels' does Tiger Woods have?

As for quantization, well, I would make sure to add enough random rolls so that the results within each 'bracket' is blurred. For example, in a fireball throwing contest, instead of simply 400 ft + 40 ft / lv, I might use 400 ft + (4d8 + 22) ft / lv for the contest only. Thus an upstart might best an archimage -- but only once in a while.

What I'm getting at is that, for me, there is absolutely no problem going to the DM and saying I want a build with Caster Level X, Fort Save Y, and BAB Z. The 'story' of how the mechanics are gained / implemented is almost purely descriptive in my opinion / preferred play style ('cause it's sometime hard to separate them ). So I think a character would be able to tell the difference between an inherent bonus and a discrete dispel-able tattoo, and be able to extend a preference.

Of course. I always welcome -- encourage, goad, cajol -- my players to tell me what they want. But as DM I must also consider the balance vis vis other players, future encounters and possible broken combos, so I might not be able to give you exactly what you want, the way you want it. And really, I don't think there are enough 'inherent bonuses' in a 'normal' D&D world (at least, not IMC) for anyone to have any real experience in it. The character merely knows that he gained a 'mark' that increased his power. Maybe he will know. Maybe not.

Still, a dispellable tattoo would indeed be a bit weak. I would have the tattoo be disjointable, but dispel magic would likely only suppress it -- and only if specifically targeted on the tattoo.

It's interesting that your concern is verisimilitude, and you would be tempted to not allow it on that basis, where as I don't have any V. problem, but consider you very generous to be allowing a (stacking?) Practised Spellcaster Feat with every Wish

Not ONLY verisimilitude. The ability of the DM to control the game is also a major concern. As for stackable Practiced Spellcaster... the feat itself would not be broken if it was stackable. I would still restrict the character to a method so that the benefit could be reversed if needed.

Four wish spells cast in quick succession is a far cry from 'stackable' -- similar to the inherent bonuses -- if you get +4 Eff CL, then make another wish even one day later... you are still at +4 Eff CL. If I wanted to be cruel, I could say that this use of the wish drains ~ 1000 extra XP, and so the caster must cast the wish himself (cannot be cast from items)... make him lose 24000 XP within 4 rounds.... But I don't see the need -- such a character would likely only be able to cast a few low-level self-buffs: self-buffs that most 20th level characters have on their person 24 hr / day (from items) anyways.

I wouldn't allow it for every feat -- a wish for a feat is NOT a general rule -- but for Practiced Spellcaster, which is very a self-limiting feat, I don't see much potential trouble.