rushlight
Roll for Initiative!
"The question was "can you?". The answer is "no"."
YOUR answer was "no". There are other interpretations available.
"...anyone wants to compare the Wish spell with a small +1 BAB increase, simply look at the Epic Prowess feat, an Epic feat mind you, and you'll know that a +1 BAB increase is far outside the power of Wish."
That is obviously false to anyone who has actually read the entire description of the Wish spell. No one yet has managed to comment on the fact that the spell spcifically allows for effects greater than those named, although with danger. You could quite legally Wish to be God, Wish to be the sole person left alive on the entire planet, or Wish to have the entire universe destroyed by a purple rodent. Of course, all of those Wishes would result in failure, usually with dire results to the caster, because they outright unbalance or destroy the game.
With a sympathetic GM who understands that not every player can make decisions based on books that haven't been written yet might allow a Wish for a +1 BAB to keep player enjoyment high. Especially since not a single person here can show how +1 BAB is unbalancing in the least.
So far, I've put forth rules and evidence that would support Wish doing this, and more proof that +1 BAB makes little relevance to an Epic level game. All the detractors have put forth is, "NO! You can't do that because it isn't specifically spelled out in the rules and you can't do something that isn't spelled out specifically!", or "That would require make(ing) my job too difficult, thus taking away any fun I have...", or just insults for not knowing that Epic levels would work this way and you should have obviously planned ahead.
Of course, the second quote is from someone here, in this thread. The others apparently called Ms Cleo and got the info on the ELH long before it's release and thus didn't need to do any adjusting.
Let's be fair, some of you don't think a player should be allowed to do something like this. That's fine, not everyone agrees. But the insults and derision is a bit thick from the "no" camp. One might draw conclusions on that, but that would be conjecture. So instead of insulting the original questioner, just state that you wouldn't allow a player to do this, and perhaps why. But please don't say "Wish can't do that" unless you can show that your copy of the Wish spell stops with the specific effects of Wish. Perhaps you might postulate that you wouldn't ALLOW Wish to do this, which is perfectly legal. But some of us WOULD allow Wish to do this which is also perfectly legal.
YOUR answer was "no". There are other interpretations available.
"...anyone wants to compare the Wish spell with a small +1 BAB increase, simply look at the Epic Prowess feat, an Epic feat mind you, and you'll know that a +1 BAB increase is far outside the power of Wish."
That is obviously false to anyone who has actually read the entire description of the Wish spell. No one yet has managed to comment on the fact that the spell spcifically allows for effects greater than those named, although with danger. You could quite legally Wish to be God, Wish to be the sole person left alive on the entire planet, or Wish to have the entire universe destroyed by a purple rodent. Of course, all of those Wishes would result in failure, usually with dire results to the caster, because they outright unbalance or destroy the game.
With a sympathetic GM who understands that not every player can make decisions based on books that haven't been written yet might allow a Wish for a +1 BAB to keep player enjoyment high. Especially since not a single person here can show how +1 BAB is unbalancing in the least.
So far, I've put forth rules and evidence that would support Wish doing this, and more proof that +1 BAB makes little relevance to an Epic level game. All the detractors have put forth is, "NO! You can't do that because it isn't specifically spelled out in the rules and you can't do something that isn't spelled out specifically!", or "That would require make(ing) my job too difficult, thus taking away any fun I have...", or just insults for not knowing that Epic levels would work this way and you should have obviously planned ahead.
Of course, the second quote is from someone here, in this thread. The others apparently called Ms Cleo and got the info on the ELH long before it's release and thus didn't need to do any adjusting.
Let's be fair, some of you don't think a player should be allowed to do something like this. That's fine, not everyone agrees. But the insults and derision is a bit thick from the "no" camp. One might draw conclusions on that, but that would be conjecture. So instead of insulting the original questioner, just state that you wouldn't allow a player to do this, and perhaps why. But please don't say "Wish can't do that" unless you can show that your copy of the Wish spell stops with the specific effects of Wish. Perhaps you might postulate that you wouldn't ALLOW Wish to do this, which is perfectly legal. But some of us WOULD allow Wish to do this which is also perfectly legal.
Last edited: