Wishes question

[Empath Negative]

The "twist the words" thing is a holdover from earlier editions, also known as D&"-the-players-over-as-hard-as-you-can"&D. I'm resolutely opposed to using Wish spells that way. It's an extremely costly spell from the highest spell level, it should have positive effects, period.

Metagame request? Yeah, sure. The metagame is half the game, and in a spell as open-ended as Wish, metagaming is just part and parcel of the player-DM negotiations that must take place with nonstandard wishes. That's just how it works. You CAN do it differently, but IF you do, please don't "rub your hands in glee" if the player doesn't get his lawyer to approve his wish wording first. That's just demeaning, plays up a DM/player adversity that shouldn't be there, and leaves everybody except the gleeful DM having less fun than they could have.

If by earlier editions you mean... 3.5?

srd wish: "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.)"

 

[Empirate]

"Half the fun is to twist the words" and "gleefully rubbing one's hands" read very much different to me than "may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment".

There's a difference between trying to be as annoying as possible in one's interpretation of a player's wording, and being reasonable about it but not granting an obviously too-strong benefit without limiting factors.

 

[kitcik]

"There's a difference between trying to be as annoying as possible in one's interpretation of a player's wording, and being reasonable about it but not granting an obviously too-strong benefit without limiting factors.

Dangit! Someone should have told me that in high school.

 

[Greenfield]

I used to see wishes written out like a multi-page contract.

One clause I had to void was when a player would add, "... with no negative effects of any kind".

While such a precaution is understandable, considering the obscene lengths DMs used to go to when perverting Wishes, the fact remains that "negative" is a matter of opinion, and the time frame is open ended. You Wish for a magic item and years from now someone tries to kill you for it: Is that a "negative effect"? The Wish resulting in character death sure sounds negative to me.

In 1st Ed, with the groups I played with, a Wish wasn't the ultimate reward, it was the ultimate punishment. Some DMs just added bad effects because they could. Others listened to what you said, then paraphrased it to themselves and worked from there. That way, no matter how careful or precise you were, they were free to abuse your character as they saw fit.

Example, one PC cast Fly, then Wished that the spell be "indispellably permanent." The DM turned him into a bird. When challenged, he said, "Well he Wished he could fly, so...". And no matter how we pointed out that the Wish had never even mentioned the word "fly", the DM concluded that that was what he was Wishing for, so tweet-tweet.

My general rule is that "Hogs get slaughtered". You get too greedy, you're taking a risk.

The thing was that in earlier editions there really weren't any guidelines for what a Wish could or couldn't do. They introduced the guidelines in 3.0, and when they did a lot of the abuse went away.

And you know what? I'm just as happy with Wish as a license to abuse being gone.

Now, back to the original topic: By the book, you can Wish for absolutely anything. No real limits. So yes, in theory a Wish could get a character Fast Heal or Regeneration.

In practice, you'd better be really careful about how you word it, lest you run into an old school DM like myself who remembers how to really twist and pervert Wishes.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

Personally, I would grant a small regeneration or fast healing (probably 1, defeated by acid and fire if regeneration) for a short period of time (possibly as long as 1 day per caster level).

It is still a very powerful benefit, while it lasts. But will not totally wreck up your campaign, because it will go away.

 

[Greenfield]

Alternately, give it to him, along with an appropriate ECL adjustment, *AND THE EXP TO PAY FOR THAT ADJUSTMENT*.

Why bump him (effective character) levels? To raise his CR. Things that used to be a challenge for him will be less so, forever more. He Wished for something over and above the normal bounds for a Wish, and it gave him a serious personal advantage.

I'd include the EXP because it isn't fair to freeze him in place while he "pays off" the Wish. I mean, he already paid for the spell, either in gold or as a treasure pick.

The end result however will be that he will get lower EXP in future encounters, since they're less challenging for him now. It may look like a penalty, and maybe it is, but ultimately it's just addressing the situation as it exists. Your character of level X is now effectively a character of level X+2 (or whatever ECL adjustment the DM sees as appropriate).

In my games, where award EXP to each character based on their individual level, this will mean that he does in fact end up paying the EXP for that effective level bump, but it gets paid over time, slowly.

It's not an abuse of the Wish, per se, and it's not some arbitrary word game used to dump on the character, but it is a balancing factor, and it's already built into the game rules.

<puts on rain/mud slicker in anticipation of being dumped upon>

 

[kitcik]

I think you went too far on this one.

"I wish I was 5 levels higher."

I get the levels AND the XP, then "pay" for it over time? Seems like I just gained 5 levels instantly with no penalty. Where do you draw the line? No way am I granting XP with a wish. Lots of ways to solve the regen wish issue - IMHO granting XP is not one of them.

 

[anest1s]

I'd include the EXP because it isn't fair to freeze him in place while he "pays off" the Wish. I mean, he already paid for the spell, either in gold or as a treasure pick.

Freezing him in the same level for some time would actually hurt him less in the long run. Something like the LA buyoff variant rule.

I think you went too far on this one.

"I wish I was 5 levels higher."

I get the levels AND the XP, then "pay" for it over time? Seems like I just gained 5 levels instantly with no penalty. Where do you draw the line? No way am I granting XP with a wish. Lots of ways to solve the regen wish issue - IMHO granting XP is not one of them.

I think he meant that he would just give enough XP to match the LA

 

[orion90000]

Alternately, give it to him, along with an appropriate ECL adjustment, *AND THE EXP TO PAY FOR THAT ADJUSTMENT*.

Why bump him (effective character) levels? To raise his CR. Things that used to be a challenge for him will be less so, forever more. He Wished for something over and above the normal bounds for a Wish, and it gave him a serious personal advantage.

I'd include the EXP because it isn't fair to freeze him in place while he "pays off" the Wish. I mean, he already paid for the spell, either in gold or as a treasure pick.

The end result however will be that he will get lower EXP in future encounters, since they're less challenging for him now. It may look like a penalty, and maybe it is, but ultimately it's just addressing the situation as it exists. Your character of level X is now effectively a character of level X+2 (or whatever ECL adjustment the DM sees as appropriate).

In my games, where award EXP to each character based on their individual level, this will mean that he does in fact end up paying the EXP for that effective level bump, but it gets paid over time, slowly.

It's not an abuse of the Wish, per se, and it's not some arbitrary word game used to dump on the character, but it is a balancing factor, and it's already built into the game rules.

<puts on rain/mud slicker in anticipation of being dumped upon>

I think you got LA confused by something else. LA doesn't increase your Character Level, you don't get XP, feats, skills, class features or anything. It's a penalty. A lvl 1 Drow uses his spell-like abilities as a lvl 1 sorcerer not a lvl 3 sorcerer (LA +2).

I was reading somewhere about characters contracting lycanthropy and the effect on their characters and then having the curse removed and the corresponding effects. Basically the concept was that if the ECL goes up, then the character gains less XP and since the other PCs gain more relatively things balance out in the end. Likewise, if the ECL goes down, he gains more and eventually "catches up".

If I give a PC a LA it takes more XP to level up. It doesn't alter his Character level at all.

So I suppose the better question would be: a 10th level fighter with Fast Heal 5 is equivalent to what level fighter without? Same gear.

*edit: after rereading your post I think I may have misinterpreted you. Sorry

 

[kitcik]

I think you went too far on this one.

"I wish I was 5 levels higher."

I get the levels AND the XP, then "pay" for it over time? Seems like I just gained 5 levels instantly with no penalty. Where do you draw the line? No way am I granting XP with a wish. Lots of ways to solve the regen wish issue - IMHO granting XP is not one of them.

I think he meant that he would just give enough XP to match the LA

So if I Wish for fast healing 100 for myself, and pay the XP cost of the Wish, I actually wind up with much more XP than when I started and fast healing 100? Can't you see where this is going? Gaining XP tp slow down later advancement is not a sufficient "penalty" to prevent absurd Wishes (like, by analogy, "I Wish to gain 5 levels"). That is the point I am mkaing.