| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you mess with it? Why not work with your player to best integrate his wish into the narrative?
Honestly to me that seems like a perfectly reasonable wish, considering that it barely achieves more than a blood money + permanency anyway.
|
The way to mess with this is that he is wishing in character for things that a character does not know about. "Level" is not a thing in the world, If he said no matter my arcane prowess that would be one thing but his character does not know what his level is in the same way that when speaking in character you do not say
"I have 48 hit points left, I just cannot hurt this vampire because my +2 Longsword cannot beat his DR 10 without silver."
Normally I would advise against messing with Wish because it makes player never want to use it. If the player asks for thing too powerful; godhood, invisibility, at will high-level spells, or extra levels/Base attack bonus I tell them out of character no or twist it a bit.
If you want to get literal he asked for a spell like ability to cast permanency at will. But he failed to specify what spell it can be cast on. You could limit it to only being able to be used with one spell. You have a couple of ways to really screw this up. First would be to limit the spell to a spell that is not on his spell list. Another would be to choose a spell that is not all that useful. Maybe something that can only be cast on himself, like read magic. Or maybe magic mouth.
Have it work with metamagic versions so that the spell level is not limited. The idea of a permanent 9th level magic mouth is pretty funny.
While I love Mysterious Stranger's idea of permanent magic mouth, I would feel a bit cheated as a player to get some really cool loot only to have it be turned useless or unhelpful.
Maybe you could work together with the player come up with something neat enough to keep the player happy but not so powerful that it takes away others fun/creates undue hardships for the GM.
I like the idea of offering three free permanency spells, but I would discuss it with the player first to make him feel like you aren't trying to punish him :)
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the wish as worded: AND, AND, AND, AND.
In my games the word 'and' ends the wish. I got that idea from the really OLD D&D cartoon (80's), the character Eric had a wish, the wording went something like this:
Eric: "I wish my friends were safe and at home."
*Friends safely appear*
Eric: "I said safe at home!"
Wish Granter: "No you said "Safe AND at home" that would have been two wishes"
Eric: ---
Wish Granter: I'll see you later.
I was about to post the same thing that Phoenix already said
"I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at
will, and without any cost, and without any unintended consequences,
and without the chance of failure, And have no limit to the number of
times I can cast it, and have no limit on how often i can cast it.and
without level requirement."
The placement of "unintended consequences" is that it is applicable to the use of the spell permanency, not to the wish itself. I would start with:
He transforms into a Solar...
and end with
said Solar is imprisoned in some far off plane (Hell, the Abyss, Im sure something be figured out) that would require, at minimum, a level 20 group to rescue.
Off he pops. :)
Alternately, his limit on the number of times he can cast it makes no statement regarding time. Once every thousand years is still unlimited.
His permanency spells obviously only lasts until the permanency'd spell would otherwise have some unintended consequence.
So, assuming he's going into situations he expects and understands with a perfect mental model, the spell should persist. Otherwise, his spells should flicker out.
You could also make the permanency duration:concentration, so he has to focus to manifest his intent at all times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep there are 8 wishes in there...
1 I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency"
2 at will,
3 and without any cost,
4 and without any unintended consequences,
5 and without the chance of failure,
6 And have no limit to the number of
times I can cast it,
7 and have no limit on how often i can cast it.
8 and without level requirement.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As many posters above said, he's using both ouf of character terms, and too many ands.
However, there's a fun way to grant his wish, letter-of-the-law without it being too powerful:
How about he's able to cast permanency at will, but any casting ends the last one? He's able to make any spell efect permanent, but only one at a time. Sounds reasonable for a wish, and the power level will scale with their ability to cast more powerful spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all don't mess with the player's wish, unless the wish comes from a Glabrezu (or similar source).
Secondly the no cost isn't needed because SLAs don't have material components.
Thirdly i suggest telling the player that you aren't comfortable with an at will permanency but you are prepared to give him permananency SLA once per day.
Efreeti - i was about to mention the same thing, using his words : 'the spell "permanency"' can be called out as a singular known spell specifically. he can recast it. but a new casting takes it's power out of the older one.resulting in it's dispelling.
leo1925 - yes messing with wish's is bad form, but so is asking something way over the border's of a wish spell(yes there are limits)
and once a day to get a free permanency is over the spell normal limit of one spell copied. not infinite. i liked the 3.5 spell as it was given. it had clear limits and it stated that anything too high can result ether in a failed spell or a word looped one.
(that cup of tea you asked for? is tea shaped like a cup good luck holding on to it)
When I look at the list for permanency, there's nothing much that's hugely overpowered. Here's the list.
Arcane sight
Aura sight
Comprehend languages
Darkvision
Detect magic
Read magic
See invisibility
Tongues
Enlarge person
Magic fang
Magic fang, greater
Reduce person
Resistance
Telepathic bond*
I wouldn't have a problem having all of those spells permanently on. Enlarge person is the big one, and that comes with it's own penalties.
Also, one greater dispel needs to check against all spells up. If they have them permanently, the likely didn't memorize a backup version.
The original poster asked for ways to mess with the wish. My suggestion to limit it to a single spell was based on that. If he wants to give him something then maybe instead of an arbitrary spell it only works on the first spell he uses on.
Natan Linggod 327 is right that all actions have unintended consequences. The dancing lights spell could cause someone a thousand years into the future to investigate it and subsequently slip and fall in a pit. Each change no matter how small cascades until the very universe has been changed. This is basically the butterfly effect from the chaos theory. Since it is impossible to have an action that has no unintended consequences obviously the wish does not work.
Another way would to be that now he has to list all the consequences of each use of the permanency. If he misses a single target or consequence the permanency does not work. Instead of not working you could have it automatically end as if dispelled. The second way would allow him some use but would be more annoying than anything. For example he would have to list every conversation or written message comprehend language allowed him to understand. The second he hears a conversation he missed or read a book he did not list the permanency ends. Offensive spells would have to have every target listed, defensive spells would have to have every attacker it protects against, etc..
I think the first way would probably be more correct but the second one would probably be more fun. Having his permanent darkvision turned off because he saw a kitten in an alley way during a fight is just too funny.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rule that as simply beyond the wish's power, and it would go *pfft* and be wasted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drew from the deck of many things, player drew the card with a wish. He cashed in his wish request tonight with the following wish, how can I mess with it?
I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at
will, and without any cost, and without any unintended consequences,
and without the chance of failure, And have no limit to the number of
times I can cast it, and have no limit on how often i can cast it.and
without level requirement.
hmm so..
I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at
will
you can't really spell capital letters in speech can you now? so what he actually said was..
at
Will
Does your party include someone named William? *wink wink*
I wish for a 1 per week sla of create demiplane, greater.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Drew from the deck of many things, player drew the card with a wish. He cashed in his wish request tonight with the following wish, how can I mess with it?
I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at
will, and without any cost, and without any unintended consequences,
and without the chance of failure, And have no limit to the number of
times I can cast it, and have no limit on how often i can cast it.and
without level requirement.hmm so..
I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at
willyou can't really spell capital letters in speech can you now? so what he actually said was..
Does your party include someone named William? *wink wink*at
Will
THIS!
Edit: If you threw in a lot of NPCs named will, it could actually turn into a decent diplomacy boost. And maybe a running joke. :P
Each permanency he casts could strip the effect from some more-powerful planar being (so in essence the wish's permanency spell doesn't generate new magic but steals it from something else).
That might be a fun way to screw with him.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The simplest solution, I think, is the following:
The effect is exactly as he requests: Permenancy as a at-will spell-like ability, without cost or extra effect.
However, each using of this ability cancels out the previous one. In other words, he can cast permanancy at will, but only benefit from one effect at a time.
I think this is about the fairest solution possible, avoiding the extremes of either overpowering him with an at-will 5th level spell, or completely denaturing his reward (making it either unusable or trolling him some other way to compensate).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why don't you try to be creative?
You know what that means?
DON'T MESS WITH THE F@+@ING WISH
Why is it every GM feels like they need to dick around every time Wish comes into play? You brought the Deck of Many Things into the game, man up and accept the potential consequences of that decision instead of pulling the same tired, boring power tripping b*++!!*+ every GM since the dawn of time has thought was funny for some unfathomable reason.
He asked for a spell at-will. A spell with a very limited set of potential applications. Let him have what he wants for christ's sake.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Aren't there to have fun and only min-max" are you serious right now?
Let me explain this situation to you and see if it sounds fun from the player's perspective:
-You introduced the Deck of Many Things (a neat artifact with a reputation for ruining gaming groups because of the especially bad effects).
-The player manages to avoid getting permanently destroyed so hard a deity can't even bring him back, losing everything he owns permanently, having to fight the Grim reaper, having an ally turn against him, or some other such thing and pulls the card that gives him a Wish.
-He makes a Wish, and you decide to screw with it for your own amusement.
Imagine, if you will, that you're playing the lottery. There's a 1% chance of you actually winning, a 20% chance of getting a lesser prize, a 20% chance of you getting nothing, and a 59% chance of something horrible and life ruining happening to you.
You manage to win, and then some guy comes along and says "Sorry, you didn't actually win, this was just another way to lose".
I'm just tired of seeing this thread. It seems like EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. anyone's player makes a Wish they come here and ask "How do I f+@$ him over? It'll be fun!".
Why not just say "No Wishes" instead of passive-aggressively deciding every time they use it it will be to their detriment?
How do you feel about that? Is that fun? Are you happy you played?
Or do you just think that playing the lottery was pointless in the first place?
Why introduce the item if you're not going to let it do what it does? What is the purpose of using it if you're just gong to dick the player over whether they get a good card OR a bad card? Why not just cut out the middle man and screw them over from the start?
I'm tired of seeing this thread. It pops up seemingly every time any player ever makes a Wish. Just ban Wishes instead of passive-aggressively deciding every time it's used it's to the detriment of the one who Wishes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just say "No Wishes" instead of passive-aggressively deciding every time they use it it will be to their detriment?
How do you feel about that? Is that fun? Are you happy you played?
Or do you just think that playing the lottery was pointless in the first place?
Why introduce the item if you're not going to let it do what it does? What is the purpose of using it if you're just gong to dick the player over whether they get a good card OR a bad card? Why not just cut out the middle man and screw them over from the start?
I'm tired of seeing this thread. It pops up seemingly every time any player ever makes a Wish. Just ban Wishes instead of passive-aggressively deciding every time it's used it's to the detriment of the one who Wishes.
Well, Paizo themselves warn of it in the text for the Wish spell.
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, at the GM's discretion.)
Since the requested Wish
I wish to have a spell-like ability to cast the spell "permanency" at will, and without any cost, and without any unintended consequences, and without the chance of failure, And have no limit to the number of times I can cast it, and have no limit on how often i can cast it. and without level requirement.
is well above what Wish spells at as "things you can do with a wish," it is heavily into "doing so is dangerous" realm. If you're foolish enough to wish for such a thing, you should expect to have it not work out, or at the very least, have unintended consequences that turn into a plot hook.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the comments as to why i'd want to mess with the wish, well that's part of the fun of being a DM with people you have a fun time playing alongside.
You consider jerking your friends around and wasting their time by ruining their fun, fun? Good luck staying the GM for long if you pull too many stunts like that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rynjin,
If the Wish was reasonable, then yes, it should happen without being messed with. This kind of wish is not reasonable. The parameters of what should be replicated without problem are in the Wish spell's description. This is clearly beyond that and thus, should be messed with.
Of course, different people will have different ideas of what is reasonable and what the response should be.
The GM could give the player an arcana or spellcraft check to realize that that kind wish will not work as intended.
Alternately, the GM could discuss it with the player as to the expectations of what a reasonable Wish is before the Wish is made and if the player decided to make an unreasonable wish (knowing that there could be consequences) that is on the player.
Finally, messing with an unreasonable or complicated Wish is a classic in D&D gaming. It has been happening by GMs to Players for decades. The player should be expecting this.
Rynjin,
If the Wish was reasonable, then yes, it should happen without being messed with. This kind of wish is not reasonable. The parameters of what should be replicated without problem are in the Wish spell's description. This is clearly beyond that and thus, should be messed with.
The Wish is quite reasonable (It's a spell that has almost no uses that actually increase character power, and is mostly useful for RP purposes like permanent Demiplanes) and regardless that doesn't mean it "should" be messed with.
Finally, messing with an unreasonable or complicated Wish is a classic in D&D gaming. It has been happening by GMs to Players for decades. The player should be expecting this.
Most people expect their GM to be a reasonable human being and not a troll. It may be a "classic" but so is "Rocks fall everyone dies". I don't see anyone advocating the latter trope be used.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Next time if you don't want people to "jump to conclusions" don't say "How do I mess with this" and more "How do I come up with an alternate version of this" and give all the info at once instead of trickling it out a little at a time.
I think Calth made a good point here - the player already risked a lot when drawing a card and deserves a reward. If the wished reward is too big, the question is 'What does the player want to achieve?'. I'd guess he wants a flexible tool because he doesn't really know yet what exactly to do with permanency.
Three free permancies (as kyrt-ryder said) is already a good compromise. Alternatively give him one permanency per day - it's also a challenge to spend this one wisely. It should be ok to provide it without gold cost, failure and level requirement. Let's see what the player comes up with...
In the worst case, even permanent spells can be dispelled. But as a GM, I wouldn't overdo that...