Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kratch 09-19-07, 11:13 AM	I see it a lot on the boards here that wizards can do this among many other things, but it's gotten me wondering, has any DM actually had a player try to call up hordes of effreet for infinite wish's? and what did/would you do? (allow it helplessly, houserule against it, do you have a different rules interpretation that prevents it, etc) Edit: For clarification, I'm reffering to the use of gate to call an effreet and compel it to grant a free wish, at no cost to the player (short duration use of gate has no xp cost, and as compelling the effreet means no payment needs be made (though retribution is a likely possibility, but if they can cast gate, they are likely more powerful then a few effreets))
Wight_Chocolate 09-19-07, 11:21 AM	Efreet are prideful, stubborn and very short-tempered. Just because they can grant wishes doesn't mean they will.
trapspringer 09-19-07, 11:28 AM	If you choose to exact a longer or more involved form of service from a called creature, you must offer some fair trade in return for that service. The service exacted must be reasonable with respect to the promised favor or reward; see the lesser planar ally spell for appropriate rewards. (Some creatures may want their payment in “livestock” rather than in coin, which could involve complications.) Immediately upon completion of the service, the being is transported to your vicinity, and you must then and there turn over the promised reward. After this is done, the creature is instantly freed to return to its own plane. A task taking up to 1 minute per caster level requires a payment of 100 gp per HD of the creature called. For a task taking up to 1 hour per caster level, the creature requires a payment of 500 gp per HD. A long-term task, one requiring up to one day per caster level, requires a payment of 1,000 gp per HD. A nonhazardous task requires only half the indicated payment, while an especially hazardous task might require a greater gift. So yea.... Figure that investing life-energy is "hazardous" and the task is fairly involved. It won't be "free."
goawayugh 09-19-07, 11:34 AM	Isn't the Pun-Pun theory based around this? Or includes this in some way? (I'm not intimately familiar with exactly how Pun-Pun works, I just have a rough idea).
Grumman 09-19-07, 11:54 AM	So yea.... Figure that investing life-energy is "hazardous" and the task is fairly involved. It won't be "free." Spell-like abilities ignore the XP cost, so it isn't going to cost the Efreeti much at all.
Drag0nUL 09-19-07, 12:14 PM	Isn't the Pun-Pun theory based around this? Or includes this in some way? (I'm not intimately familiar with exactly how Pun-Pun works, I just have a rough idea). Not really, pun-pun works on a different trick. Namely the Sarrukh's (a monster form Serpent Kingdoms FR book) Manipulate Form Ability, which allows a Sarrukh to modify another creature's stats.
goawayugh 09-19-07, 12:18 PM	Not really, pun-pun works on a different trick. Namely the Sarrukh's (a monster form Serpent Kingdoms FR book) Manipulate Form Ability, which allows a Sarrukh to modify another creature's stats. That part I knew. But, I thought there was something about gateing in efreet's and using their wish's to get some items that help towards divine ascention. Not exactly sure how it works though...
PhaedrusXY 09-19-07, 12:20 PM	That part I knew. But, I thought there was something about gateing in efreet's and using their wish's to get some items that help towards divine ascention. Not exactly sure how it works though...No. He calls on the Demon Lord Pazuzu for a Wish (or a Candle of Invocation, which he might use to call an Efreet), who is stated as granting things like this under the right conditions. If you want to know more, read the thread, as that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
goawayugh 09-19-07, 12:37 PM	No. He calls on the Demon Lord Pazuzu for a Wish (or a Candle of Invocation, which he might use to call an Efreet), who is stated as granting things like this under the right conditions. If you want to know more, read the thread, as that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject. That's what I was thinking of. I keep wanting to read the whole thread instead of just bits and pieces, but it is so big.
Starcloud 09-19-07, 01:37 PM	Heh. Efreet aren't just elemental spirits that grant wishes... they have a society. They have a system of nobility. They have rulers. If some mortal is abusing the system, the Efreet are going to abuse the mortal right back. That wizard is going to have to start doing things for the Efreet, or maybe one day he's going to just... disappear, never to be heard from again.
Kratch 09-19-07, 01:56 PM	Heh. Efreet aren't just elemental spirits that grant wishes... they have a society. They have a system of nobility. They have rulers. If some mortal is abusing the system, the Efreet are going to abuse the mortal right back. That wizard is going to have to start doing things for the Efreet, or maybe one day he's going to just... disappear, never to be heard from again. This is one of the balancing factors I've considered using should it come up. It talks a little about the social structure in the DMG, and mentions six great pashas that manage over afairs and effreet interests in the material plane. I use these pashas as a sort of ... call center managment. When a mortal from the material plane calls upon the aid of an effret, the call gets directed through the pashas and a record of the call is made. If an abuse becomes evedent, steps are taken to rectify the matter. In addition, if no recompense is offered for the wish (such as using gate's ability to compel them as is it was summon monster), I may also find it appropriate to corupt the wish, since effreet hate servitude. Fortunatly, I have not had a problem of this type, My players tend to show more restraint then is evedent of the power of casters on these boards. I was just currious if others had the problem or had solutions in mind.
Senevri 09-19-07, 03:16 PM	It should be considered, that unless the players are the first beings to gain that level of power in your campaign, someone's probably tried to do it before. In my game, the players can find out about the Great Efreeti Wars if they look into it...Basically, the Efreeti have a way of knowing if they've been used for wishes (make a slave wish to find out if he's used a wish during the last period X, for an example) without compensation, and if they have, they will retaliate...
Stormbrand 09-19-07, 03:32 PM	I see it a lot on the boards here that wizards can do this among many other things, but it's gotten me wondering, has any DM actually had a player try to call up hordes of effreet for infinite wish's? and what did/would you do? (allow it helplessly, houserule against it, do you have a different rules interpretation that prevents it, etc) To my knowledge, any creature conjured through a Calling spell does not use any magic with an XP cost - Wish has an XP cost, even if it does not need paying when cast by the efreet, it has an XP cost. That is my answer. So the Efreet could easily say suggest the pesky mortal go forth and multiply. Alternatively, the Efreet could simply demand the price of service, and you can enforce the XP cost of Planar Ally or Planar Binding (which I am sure there are). One thing good to remember is that extra-planar entities often have their own interests, and different ideas of appropriate rewards. Inevitables would not care about rewards if simply summoned to hunt down a transgressor, since you really did them a favour. Efreeti may feel that granting wishes is a huge service, and will demand compensation accordingly.
Senevri 09-19-07, 03:36 PM	Alternatively, the Efreet could simply demand the price of service, and you can enforce the XP cost of Planar Ally or Planar Binding (which I am sure there are). Yes. It's Gate that's the problem, as it will make the Efreeti your sock puppet for a number of rounds equal to your CL.
vegetalss4 09-19-07, 03:46 PM	i would allow it. for the same price as i would allow them buy a wish from an migthy wizard (provided that they could find said wizard and that he had nothing better to do(hint: wizards Always have some thing better to do:P ))
Vaelan 09-19-07, 05:17 PM	but if they can cast gate, they are likely more powerful then a few effreets Advancement: 11-15 HD (Large); 16-30 HD (Huge) One guess as to where that line came from!
RealSorceror 09-19-07, 05:17 PM	Personally, if a player tried this, I'd give him the first two or three wishes normally, and after that I'd purposefully find ways to misinterpret his wishes based on how he phrases them and what hes asking for. Thats exactly what the Efreetis would do if someone tried to abuse their power.
Otto the Bugbear 09-19-07, 06:26 PM	I see it a lot on the boards here that wizards can do this among many other things, but it's gotten me wondering, has any DM actually had a player try to call up hordes of effreet for infinite wish's? No, I have not. and what did/would you do? (allow it helplessly, houserule against it, do you have a different rules interpretation that prevents it, etc) I'd talk to the player. I'd say something like "I know this is something that's written into the rules, but I'd really like to keep this campaign going. I'd appreciate it if you didn't end the campaign in this fashion. It's easier for me to continue running the campaign without using this loophole. If you insist, then just show me how much you'd like, and how far you take it, then after that we can end the campaign and begin a new one." What I would NOT do is engage in DM-Asshattery. This is where the DM does something like trying to twist the wishes around to screw the character (at least for those wishes that fall within the defined limits of the wish spell). Edit: For clarification, I'm reffering to the use of gate to call an effreet and compel it to grant a free wish, at no cost to the player (short duration use of gate has no xp cost, and as compelling the effreet means no payment needs be made (though retribution is a likely possibility, but if they can cast gate, they are likely more powerful then a few effreets)) The XP cost is for the calling creature function, regardless if it's an immediate task or not. This means that gate is a little expensive, though 1000 XP for 3 wishes isn't a terrible price to pay. But then there is always chain binding for the 15th level cahracter. The creature stews for a year, no save, or it grants those three wishes. Or the caster can extend it for another year. Or planar binding for the 11th level character. This requires a Charisma check, but if you're going for this sort of abusive trick, you're also going to be pumping the Charisma way up anyway. As a bonus, in this one the creature is sent back home once the task is completed. ... For real abuse, use one of the wishes to duplicate any spell of 8th level or lower. Like binding, to get a second efreeti. Then use one of it's wishes to duplicate any spell of 8th level or lower and get a third efreeti. And so on and so forth.
Starcloud 09-19-07, 09:19 PM	I'd consider warning the player that something "bad" might happen to his character if he keeps on insisting on summoning efreet to grant wishes in an "infinite wish chain", whether it is legal "by the rules" or not. And then if he kept insisting, *pop*. His character vanishes into an alternate timeline, disappearing from my campaign the next time he draws on the efreet for a selfish wish of any kind. Then I'll tell him he can make another character, a non-spellcaster of one level lower than his now missing character.
Kratch 09-19-07, 09:35 PM	No, I have not. Never claimed you did. I'd talk to the player. I'd say something like "I know this is something that's written into the rules, but I'd really like to keep this campaign going. I'd appreciate it if you didn't end the campaign in this fashion. It's easier for me to continue running the campaign without using this loophole. If you insist, then just show me how much you'd like, and how far you take it, then after that we can end the campaign and begin a new one." So you don't believe your work in developing a campaign world, the adventures and NPC interactions are worth challanging a players choice to attempt an abuse that is not actually supported in the rules? What I would NOT do is engage in DM-Asshattery. This is where the DM does something like trying to twist the wishes around to screw the character (at least for those wishes that fall within the defined limits of the wish spell). Corrupting a wish (even those mentioned in the spell description) may not be the nicest thing to do, but asshatery? Any player that attempts to abuse the system is deserving of a little "hard knocks". That aside, why the apparent hostility right out of the gate? For real abuse, use one of the wishes to duplicate any spell of 8th level or lower. Like binding, to get a second efreeti. Then use one of it's wishes to duplicate any spell of 8th level or lower and get a third efreeti. And so on and so forth. Problem with this is that the second effreet plannar bound would be bound to the first effreet. He could then force a wish out of it to free them both and seek vengance on you.
Otto the Bugbear 09-20-07, 07:07 AM	Never claimed you did. I didn't say you claimed I did. You just asked the question; I just answered. So you don't believe your work in developing a campaign world, the adventures and NPC interactions are worth challanging a players choice to attempt an abuse that is not actually supported in the rules? Talking to the player about that choice is challenging it. And, it is supported in the rules. Unless you have a theory as to why it's not. I'd love to hear it and be proven wrong on this one. Corrupting a wish (even those mentioned in the spell description) may not be the nicest thing to do, but asshatery? Any player that attempts to abuse the system is deserving of a little "hard knocks". Yeah, asshattery. It's always best to just talk to them like friends instead of resorting to twisting the wording around to screw the character. And I'm all for giving the player "hard knocks"; but in a manner I would any other friend. Such as ribbing them or poking fun at the attempt to disrupt the game. I wouldn't just, out of the blue, be a dick and screw over their character. Player: Ok, so the efreeti grants me three wishes. I wish to be stronger. Asshat DM: Ok, you smell like a skunk. Next wish. Completely ignores the well defined wish bullet item for increasing ability scores, and is therefore asshattery. That aside, why the apparent hostility right out of the gate? No hostility right out of the gate. The hostility is only reserved for the asshattery. Out of the gate I was just answering your questions. Problem with this is that the second effreet plannar bound would be bound to the first effreet. He could then force a wish out of it to free them both and seek vengance on you. They can only grant their wishes to non-genies. Since both bound efreeti are a genies, I don't think they count. In addition, it says 'grant up to 3 wishes', which I interpret as granting them to the other being, not casting the wishes for the other being's benefit. And then, of course, there's nothing in the Efreeti's monster entry about twisting the wishes against the user. Oh, one more I forgot too. If you're at the level to abuse gate for this trick, shapechange does it as well, an without the middleman (efreeti) getting in the way. Just find a form that grants a wish as a supernatural ability (there are a couple out there, I do believe).
Muspelheim 09-20-07, 07:33 AM	I agree entirely with Otto. Anything campaign-breaking (as access to unlimited wishes would tend to be, unless perhaps you specifically build around it) needs to be dealt with out-of-game, not in-game.
Gemstone 09-20-07, 07:50 AM	Okay, I'm off the oppinion that you are supposed to not twist wishes. My personal stance if that you wish for something, I set a wisdom check DC that allows your character to try to formulate such a wish. If you succed, you manage to form it correctly and you get something. If you fail (with less than 10 points) the spell fizzles.If you fail with more than 10, something happens (such as a unfriendly summoning, you get a funny hat etc.). About unlimited wishes... sooner or later (three callings) the efreeti will try to get back to you... they will send minions first, then the epics will come...
Senevri 09-20-07, 09:01 AM	There are ways around this, but: "I want you to do three things for me: First, [wish1]. then, give me a Candle of Invocation, and finally, I wish you return to where you were called from and forget everything that happened between the moment I first cast Gate and the time you return." One should probably add a clause to make the Efreeti explain away any inconsistencies, and to generally not look too hard into the possibility of having been used. In the long term, this particular efreeti was either summoned from front of others, or at least, was in the process of using mindwashed slaves for generating more wealth, and is going to be quite surprised as ther "Wish" abilities don't work for the day no more...
vegetalss4 09-20-07, 11:49 AM	Player: Ok, so the efreeti grants me three wishes. I wish to be stronger. Asshat DM: Ok, you smell like a skunk. Next wish. . you are right that is asshat. but what i think they are talking about is this. Player: Ok, so the efreeti grants me three wishes. I wish to be stronger. DM: the efreeti uses a wish to duplicate bulls strength. much better when using a being that whants to twist your words. as it does make you stronger
Otto the Bugbear 09-20-07, 12:08 PM	Even that's borderline, considering there are finite effects to what wish will grant, and a +1 inherent bonus to one ability score is right on that list. From the SRD: 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.) -=-= See, when I read that bolded part, it makes me think that the listed effects is not dangerous, and the wish won't pervert the intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment.
Grumman 09-20-07, 12:56 PM	See, when I read that bolded part, it makes me think that the listed effects is not dangerous, and the wish won't pervert the intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment. Normally I'd agree with you, but we aren't talking about the wizard casting Wish. We're talking about an evil outsider casting Wish on the wiizard's behalf, against its will. In those circumstances, it would be out of character for the efreeti to be more helpful than it had to.
Clawhound 09-20-07, 12:59 PM	Fortunately, my players can be easily dissuaded from these courses of action. "I suspect that calling up an evil being and forcing it to make a wishes for you is likely to turn out rather badly."
someonelse812 09-20-07, 01:10 PM	I don't remember if this is an actual rule or a house rule, but in my game if you want a wish from a genie you have to capture them. the genie must have no other choice but to grant your wish. In this situation I (as DM) would just have the Efreeti in question refuse the wish saying “make me”.
Kratch 09-20-07, 03:10 PM	Normally I'd agree with you, but we aren't talking about the wizard casting Wish. We're talking about an evil outsider casting Wish on the wiizard's behalf, against its will. In those circumstances, it would be out of character for the efreeti to be more helpful than it had to. Exactly. Wish is a personal spell. It allows the "caster" to twist reality to "his" will. That will can grant a benefit to "another creature". At no point does it say the other creature gets to choose the benefit, only that the caster can grant specified benefits to them. Therefor, the efreet can twist the wording of the wizards desire, cast wish, and twist reality to it's will to grant an effect of his desire, uncorrupted from what it wants (which is not necessarily the same as what the wizard wants) to the wizard who called it. And as mentioned, twisting the wish is not the same as screwing the player. (it can be, but is not inherently the same) As for talking to the players, I let my players know ahead of time, before the game even starts, that i don't appreciate attempts to break the system, but I also find most breaks can be patched within the rules. I'll usually give a not so subtle hint that what theyare attempting displeases me, and if they don't take the not so subtle hint, I don't let them get away with it. Otto, as to the effreet forcing a wish from an effreet, you are right, I knew they couldn't benefit from there own wish's, didn't realize it was all genie. Still, it doesn't have to actually confine/trap any effreet it calls on your behalf. ------------------------ I'm still curious if anyone has had a player try this?
Drag0nUL 09-20-07, 05:16 PM	To be honest it is very hard to find an excuse why infinite wish loop doesn't work that looks really logical(and doesn't look like an excuse_. This is the version of the infinite wish loop that I know: 1.Use planar binding to get an efreet 2. Ask for a wish while offering adequate compensation to the efreet(you can try to force the efreet into the first wish, but that's unadvisable). Wish that the efreet creates the items/effects he desires as payment for the next 2 wishes. 2. Second wish: ask for the planar binding of a second efreet. 3. Third wish: ask for compensation the second efreet for his three wishes. 4. Second efreet first wish: your first actual wish to use 5. Go back to step 2 I really see no reason why this wouldn't work. The efreet are LE beings, that strive for power. They have nothing to gain if they don't grant you wishes. If they do however they get paid. Any efreet that refuses t enter this game would fall behind those who do on the power scale. I think that the only way you can deal with stuff like this is out of game. Most players that want to continue playing will never attempt something gamebreaking.
Sixam 09-20-07, 05:36 PM	Oh, it's easy. Efreet are ruled by 9 great pashas, and above them is the Grand Sultan of All the Efreeti, who rules the City of Brass in the Elemental Plane of Fire. A vague entity who is powerful enough to rule over a race that can use Wish as a spell-like ability. Abducting his people en masse in a ploy for infinite power sounds like something other wizards have no doubt tried and he is no doubt ready for. Plus, it reeks of hubris. After all, he has a standing army of Efreeti of his own readied.
Otto the Bugbear 09-20-07, 06:29 PM	Normally I'd agree with you, but we aren't talking about the wizard casting Wish. We're talking about an evil outsider casting Wish on the wiizard's behalf, against its will. In those circumstances, it would be out of character for the efreeti to be more helpful than it had to. It doesn't say the efreeti casts wish on the caster's behalf. It says it grants wish to the caster (which must be a non-genie). Perhaps the wording isn't quite specific enough. I see "grants to" and I don't interpret it as "casts for". Exactly. Wish is a personal spell. Sorry, its range is not 'Personal'. In fact, it can't be if it's used to do the very first thing on the list: duplicate a spell... blahblah. It allows the "caster" to twist reality to "his" will. That will can grant a benefit to "another creature". At no point does it say the other creature gets to choose the benefit, only that the caster can grant specified benefits to them. Except it says it is granted to the non-genie. Therefor, the efreet can twist the wording of the wizards desire, cast wish, and twist reality to it's will to grant an effect of his desire, uncorrupted from what it wants (which is not necessarily the same as what the wizard wants) to the wizard who called it. And as mentioned, twisting the wish is not the same as screwing the player. (it can be, but is not inherently the same) I see a list of things the wish can accomplish. After that list, I see text talking about the wish being twisted if it attempts to go beyond those expected and established norms. I guess it's just a matter of reading it one way or the other. I'm good with calling '3/day, grant a wish to a non-genie' as falling within the spell's parameters. Then, if the wish is outside those parameters, twist it, just as the spell describes. I'm good with agreeing to disagree as well, so we can just call it at that. Because, honestly, it's only one of the abuses available. As for talking to the players, I let my players know ahead of time, before the game even starts, that i don't appreciate attempts to break the system, but I also find most breaks can be patched within the rules. I'll usually give a not so subtle hint that what theyare attempting displeases me, and if they don't take the not so subtle hint, I don't let them get away with it. Sure, players and the DM should be cooperating to play the game, not trying to exploit the stupid loop-holes, like this one, that exist. Honestly, I wouldn't let them get away with it either. I'd just say "Yo! Jimbob! That's not why the rest of us are playing the game. This will wreck the campaign, so let's avoid it, hmmm?" What I wouldn't do -- and I'm not saying you would :) -- is be an asshat over it. Otto, as to the effreet forcing a wish from an effreet, you are right, I knew they couldn't benefit from there own wish's, didn't realize it was all genie. Still, it doesn't have to actually confine/trap any effreet it calls on your behalf. It duplicates a different spell of 8th level or lower. The duplicated spell is the one that actually does the trapping. ------------------------ I'm still curious if anyone has had a player try this? Me too. So far there's just a bunch of 'no' answers, plus a lot of "I'd do this if they tried it".
Necrosis 09-20-07, 07:29 PM	so you have an infinte effretti wishing loop-fine in theory, Till the 1st effreeti gives you the name of secodn effreeti, or binds a second a effreeti. Got any imprsioned anceint elder evil type of effretti lockied up in a personal demi plane somewhere? Get the foolish mortol to release that on the behalf of the effreeti nation and see how many times your PC's try to abuse wish's :).
Kratch 09-20-07, 08:43 PM	It doesn't say the efreeti casts wish on the caster's behalf. It says it grants wish to the caster (which must be a non-genie). Last I checked, you couldn't grant anyone the ability to cast a spell, only the benifits of that spell. So the fact it grants 3 wish's proves nothing, because, one way or another, it is granting it the benifit of the spell. The question becomes, is the benifit of the spell the ability to do anything on that list, or is it just the ability to benifit from that list. IE, does benifiting from the effect of wish mean it grants you the ability to give a creature a +1 inherant bonus, or does just mean it grants you the +1 inherant bonus. I tend to percieve it as the later. Perhaps the wording isn't quite specific enough. I see "grants to" and I don't interpret it as "casts for". then you interpret is as "allows them to cast"? Sorry, its range is not 'Personal'. In fact, it can't be if it's used to do the very first thing on the list: duplicate a spell... blahblah. Gah. I've been corected on that before too. I keep thinking it is for some reason. Still, the fact that it allows you to "grant a creature a +1 inherant bonus" and not, gain a +1 inherant bonus tells me it's the caster chooseing the effect. After all, if it was the recipient who got to choose what they could do with it, then there would be no need to grant the benifit to another creature. Except it says it is granted to the non-genie. meaning it can't grant genies inherant bonus's, cure them of what ails them, creat items for the or the like. I see a list of things the wish can accomplish. After that list, I see text talking about the wish being twisted if it attempts to go beyond those expected and established norms. I see a list of things wish can accomplish for the caster (including effects that others can benifit from, such as items, bonus's, rerolls, resurections, cures, etc). At no point do I see any text granting another the ability to do these things, just the opportunity to benifit from them. I guess it's just a matter of reading it one way or the other. Correct. and thus, it isn't supported by the rules (if it was, there would not be multiple interpretations.) I'm good with calling '3/day, grant a wish to a non-genie' as falling within the spell's parameters. Then, if the wish is outside those parameters, twist it, just as the spell describes. I'm good with agreeing to disagree as well, so we can just call it at that. Your welcome to that interpretation, I've never claimed it was wrong, just that it is not supported by the rules. (note, I'm not claiming my way is in any way better supported, ether interpretation is a houserule in the end). Because, honestly, it's only one of the abuses available. Many of which, IMHO, fall into the same "using one interpretation to allow abuse, while another equally valid interpretation prevents it" scenario that this wish abuse falls into. (with the exception of most druid abuses) Honestly, I wouldn't let them get away with it either. I'd just say "Yo! Jimbob! That's not why the rest of us are playing the game. This will wreck the campaign, so let's avoid it, hmmm?" What I wouldn't do -- and I'm not saying you would :) -- is be an asshat over it. Twisting wish's to give them less then what they asked for, when they are clearly trying to abuse the system is not, IMHO, asshatery (I will agree, giving them negative effects, particularly permanent ones, likely is.) It duplicates a different spell of 8th level or lower. The duplicated spell is the one that actually does the trapping. really depends what spell he's duplicating to call the new effreet, and also depends on how well he performs on his own opposed charisma check (since it's the effreet doing the binding, it's his checks that are used to hold the new one trapped. Me too. So far there's just a bunch of 'no' answers, plus a lot of "I'd do this if they tried it". Exactly.
Otto the Bugbear 09-21-07, 12:47 PM	Last I checked, you couldn't grant anyone the ability to cast a spell, only the benifits of that spell. Uh... precedent... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imbueWithSpellAbility.htm and 1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only) from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm#efreeti There are others too. So the fact it grants 3 wish's proves nothing, because, one way or another, it is granting it the benifit of the spell. The question becomes, is the benifit of the spell the ability to do anything on that list, or is it just the ability to benifit from that list. IE, does benifiting from the effect of wish mean it grants you the ability to give a creature a +1 inherant bonus, or does just mean it grants you the +1 inherant bonus. I tend to percieve it as the later. I guess I just read the words "grant up to three wishes" as different than "cast wish three times for the benefit of a non-genie". then you interpret is as "allows them to cast"? I interpret it as "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)". That's different than, "1/day-grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to nongenies only)". Gah. I've been corected on that before too. I keep thinking it is for some reason. Still, the fact that it allows you to "grant a creature a +1 inherant bonus" and not, gain a +1 inherant bonus tells me it's the caster chooseing the effect. After all, if it was the recipient who got to choose what they could do with it, then there would be no need to grant the benifit to another creature. Except that conveniently ignores that the ability still isn't "grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." meaning it can't grant genies inherant bonus's, cure them of what ails them, creat items for the or the like. That's only true if you change it to "grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." Which is not what the text says. I see a list of things wish can accomplish for the caster (including effects that others can benifit from, such as items, bonus's, rerolls, resurections, cures, etc). At no point do I see any text granting another the ability to do these things, just the opportunity to benifit from them. Irregardless. It's the efreeti ability that grants the wish to the character. That's sort of what "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)" means. Correct. and thus, it isn't supported by the rules (if it was, there would not be multiple interpretations.) Your interpretation: "1/day-grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." Notice how that's not the actual text, right? My interpretation: "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)" means it grants up to three wishes, not specifically the benefits of those three wishes. In addition, if we go by your interpretation and it was the efreeti casting the wishes for the caster, and the caster asked for something beyond the wishes capabilities, and attempts to fulfill that caster's request, it would be the efreeti that suffers the consequenses as the creature doing the casting. Here's the quote from the SRD, "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.)" If the caster attempting to abuse this trick isn't the one doing the casting of the wish, as your claim, and the spell specifically calls out you [the caster], not someone else that's getting / forcing the caster to cast the wish suffers the perversion of the intent. In addition to that, if it were actually the efreeti casting the wish, and just couldn't affect another genie with it, there's really nothing stopping them. At all. Efreeti; Challenge Rating: 8. Efreeti becomes gaseous and invisible. Efreeti wishes Red Cleric dead (DC 20). Efreeti wishes Blue Wizard dead (DC 20). Efreeti wishes Yellow Rogue dead (DC 20). This is the logical extrapolation of "Efreeti casts it himself, just affects the non-genie with the outcome of the wish." He can do that 3/day, every day. CR 8. Your welcome to that interpretation, I've never claimed it was wrong, just that it is not supported by the rules. (note, I'm not claiming my way is in any way better supported, ether interpretation is a houserule in the end). Except mine is supported by the rules more than yours. Yours adds to the existing text. Many of which, IMHO, fall into the same "using one interpretation to allow abuse, while another equally valid interpretation prevents it" scenario that this wish abuse falls into. (with the exception of most druid abuses) "I shapechange into a Zodar. I use wish." "I cast fabricate." "I cast wall of iron." Not so much with the false interpretation. Twisting wish's to give them less then what they asked for, when they are clearly trying to abuse the system is not, IMHO, asshatery (I will agree, giving them negative effects, particularly permanent ones, likely is.) Twisting wish's at all when they're trying to gain one of the listed items in the spell is asshatery. This is especially true if they actually cast the wish themselves (5000XP). really depends what spell he's duplicating to call the new effreet, and also depends on how well he performs on his own opposed charisma check (since it's the effreet doing the binding, it's his checks that are used to hold the new one trapped. Binding, no save, efreeti don't have SR. "You get three wishes per day to grant to non-genies. You can sit there for a year, or grant those three wishes to me. Your choice." Planar binding is the one that requires the Cha check.
Starcloud 09-21-07, 02:11 PM	Let's ignore the rules for a moment and go back to the mythology. The mortal makes a wish for something, and the Djinn grants the wish, often by performing the tasks needed to fulfill the wish. The Djinn is therefore the agent through which the wish is fulfilled, and the Djinn can put its own 'spin' on the wish. Good-aligned or benevolent genii aren't likely to twist wishes unless the mortal has been mistreating the genie or being greedy or asking for something that the wish simply cannot grant. Evil-aligned or malevolent genii are likely to twist even those wishes that are within the known limits of the spell, unless compelled to do otherwise. Now, understanding that a Wish spell is always fulfilled through some other agency, such as that of a deity, genie, or demon prince, there are some serious questions wizards should be asking themselves, like... "Do I *really* want to cast a Wish spell?" And what if the wish spell was on a scroll? What otherworldly agency did the scroll's writer have in mind when scribing the scroll?
Sunic_Flames 09-21-07, 04:07 PM	So what happens if you make the genie Helpful or even Fanatic? Wouldn't it willingly go along with the infinite loop?
Grumman 09-21-07, 04:09 PM	Now, understanding that a Wish spell is always fulfilled through some other agency, such as that of a deity, genie, or demon prince, there are some serious questions wizards should be asking themselves, like... "Do I *really* want to cast a Wish spell?" And what if the wish spell was on a scroll? What otherworldly agency did the scroll's writer have in mind when scribing the scroll? This is not correct. When a wizard casts Wish, he himself is causing the changes. Miracle explicitly states that it involves calling upon a third party (the cleric's deity), Wish does not.
Uratoh 09-21-07, 06:23 PM	When dealing with Efreeti...I don't see any reason they WOULDEN'T mis-grant the wish if it was at all possible... And honestly if he wants infinite wishes, just get Scribe Scroll, 17th lv and a Memory Jar.
robertliguori 09-21-07, 07:03 PM	I don't remember if this is an actual rule or a house rule, but in my game if you want a wish from a genie you have to capture them. the genie must have no other choice but to grant your wish. In this situation I (as DM) would just have the Efreeti in question refuse the wish saying “make me”. "Fair enough. Efreeti, if you will look to the immediate left of your summoning circle, you will see the Excruciator. It's part magical terrain feature, part construct, with pointy bits, spiky bits, barbed chains, and so on. It can do magical cold, too. It even heals you, and can prevent you from dying indefinitely! The effreti already within it could tell you a great deal about how much it hurts, but I'm afraid his vocal cords snapped a while back, what with the constant screaming and all." "Now, you can grant my wish, or you can take his place." Takes a little prep, yes, but wishes are worth it. Also, make sure that you wish for your wishes to be granted without perversion. As mentioned, you can make things a little bit more difficult by either having the efreeti be intractable, or by having an efreeti society backing him up, but either way is a surmountable challenge. I'd deal with this out-of-character with the player with the bright idea as mentioned above, unless I was willing to make the effects of the efreeti-binder the focus of the camaign.
woodwalker 09-21-07, 07:08 PM	No. He calls on the Demon Lord Pazuzu for a Wish (or a Candle of Invocation, which he might use to call an Efreet), who is stated as granting things like this under the right conditions. If you want to know more, read the thread, as that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject. I think that i saw in someone's sig that one must chant "Pazuzu" three times for it to work.
Kratch 09-21-07, 07:17 PM	Uh... precedent... http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/imbueWithSpellAbility.htm Thats close, but not entirely the same as what i was discribing. Imbue with spell ability grants the ability to cast the spells chosen, It nether allows the recipient to cast imbue with spell ability (the spell cast) or choose the benifits (AKA choose what spells he'll be able to cast). and 1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only) from http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/genie.htm#efreeti Are you trying to define what a spell can do by the text in a creature stat block? I guess I just read the words "grant up to three wishes" as different than "cast wish three times for the benefit of a non-genie". They are different. One uses5 words, the other 10 words and defines the first. A difinition is not meant to read exactly the same as what it's defining. otherwise, you wouldn't be able to define anything. I interpret it as "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)". That's different than, "1/day-grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to nongenies only)". Your not interpreting it, your repeating verbatum. Thats not helpful in clarifying anything. you claim my definition is not the same as the phrase i am defining. You are correct, it is a definition. Thats not to say it is wrong. Thats like trying to claim my definition of a match being "a wooden or paper stick, tipped with a chemical coating that ignites and burns with the application of friction" is wrong in comparison to your definition of a match being a match. Although my definition is in fact a match, a match is not always the same as my definition. and while your definition is always correct, it is in no way helpful in defining what a match can accomplish. You use this often in the quotes to follow, your trying to convince me that a match is a match, because it's a match, so can accomplish what matchs do. but at no point have you ever defined what a match really is. Is it the little piece of thing you use to create fire, or perhaps a round of competition. Perhaps its some other definition. Your defining granting three wish's as granting three wish's. Well, hello, no kidding! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? How do you grant wish's? What is involved? what are the limitations? You haven't offered me an interpretation, your simply trying to beat me over the head with an ambiguous phrase that is creating the confusion in the first place. you grant wish's by granting wish's. how? by granting wish's. whats involved in granting wish's? the granting of wish's. this can go on forever without using different words then whats already there. You seem to have decided that my doing this makes me wrong (despite the fact you asked for it when you asked for an alternative interpretation). But last i checked, if someone asks for a wish, and gets what they ask for (note, thats not the same as getting what they intended), then their wish has been granted. This can be done within my definition, therefor i am not wrong. Except that conveniently ignores that the ability still isn't "grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." Again your trying to define what the spell can do by the text in a creature stat block. Thats not how it works. There are 3 questions to be asked: 1: how does wish work? (IE, does it allow the caster to twist reality to his will, altering reality to grant himself or others a benifit, or does it grant another the ability to alter reality to their will. note, the former has some support within the spell description, the later, not so much.) 2: how does an effreet grant it's wish's? (does it even use the wish spell, or some other method (wish allows a single altering of reality per use, the effreet gets 3 per use, as it is an ability only usable once per day that grants 3 wish's)? If it uses the wish spell, then this question can be better answered once question one has been answered.) 3: Can an effreet twist a wish? (that entirely depends on the answers to questions one and two) your trying to answer question 2 without first answering question one, assuming the answer to question two will shape how question one is answered, but once again, thats not how SLA's work. An SLA is restricted to the limitations of the spell it is replicating, unless clearly defined otherwise (and note, the wording used is nether clear, nor granting an exception to how it accomplish's it, just the number of benifits it can produce.) That's only true if you change it to "grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." Which is not what the text says. I'm not changing anything, I'm defining. Theres a difference. Irregardless. It's the efreeti ability that grants the wish to the character. That's sort of what "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)" means. The spell defines how the SLA works, not the other way around. An effreet can grant 3 wish's without granting the recipient the ability to reshape reality. Your interpretation: "1/day-grant the benefit of up to three wishes (to non-genies only)." Notice how that's not the actual text, right? My interpretation: "1/day—grant up to three wishes (to nongenies only)" means it grants up to three wishes, not specifically the benefits of those three wishes. and again, yours is not an interpretation, it is simply regurgitating whats already there, reiterating the text that is causing confusion to begin with. defining a match as a match, while not wrong, remains useless for defining how and what it can do. if it's not granting the benifits of a wish, what is it granting? Is my definition failing to grant wishes? (note, the text in the stat block reffers to granting wishes, not a wish spell. At no point does it even say it uses the wish spell to accomplish this, as there is no spell called "wishes" and the closest equivelent does not grant 3 effects per use) In addition, if we go by your interpretation and it was the efreeti casting the wishes for the caster, and the caster asked for something beyond the wishes capabilities, and attempts to fulfill that caster's request, it would be the efreeti that suffers the consequenses as the creature doing the casting. Here's the quote from the SRD, "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.)" If the caster attempting to abuse this trick isn't the one doing the casting of the wish, as your claim, and the spell specifically calls out you [the caster], not someone else that's getting / forcing the caster to cast the wish suffers the perversion of the intent. reread what you quoted. At no point does it claim the caster will suffer ill effects from trying to go beyond a wish's capability, It says the wish will be perverted. If the wish going beyond the limit is intended to effect someone else, that someone else may recieve something similar to what they asked for (AKA what the wish caster tried to accomplish), but perverted as per the wish description. Looking at the example used, using wish to make yourself immortal may trap you on a timeless plane, wishing to make someone else immortal won't result in trapping you on a timeless plane (as that isn't even similar to what was wished for), it will result in perverting how it accomplish's making them immortal (perhaps trapping them on a timeless plane, perhaps making them a lich. It's unpredictable). In addition to that, if it were actually the efreeti casting the wish, and just couldn't affect another genie with it, there's really nothing stopping them. At all. Efreeti; Challenge Rating: 8. Efreeti becomes gaseous and invisible. Efreeti wishes Red Cleric dead (DC 20). Efreeti wishes Blue Wizard dead (DC 20). Efreeti wishes Yellow Rogue dead (DC 20). But then it wouldn't be granting anything (unless you consider granting death to those who didn't ask for it to be granting their wish). Irregaurdless, even if this was possible, it leaves the option for abuse in the hands of the DM, where it belongs, rather then a player. This is the logical extrapolation of "Efreeti casts it himself, just affects the non-genie with the outcome of the wish." He can do that 3/day, every day. Incorrect, he can do it once per day (it's a once per day ability). that is assuming you believe granting unrequested death is within the "grant a wish" description. Except mine is supported by the rules more than yours. Yours adds to the existing text. No actually, it isn't. your using an ambiguos line of text in a creature stat block to define what a spell can do, I am using text within the spell description to define what the spell can do. Which of us is using the rules correctly? "I shapechange into a Zodar. I use wish." "I cast fabricate." "I cast wall of iron." Not so much with the false interpretation. You are aware that "many of which" does not mean the same as "all". Twisting wish's at all when they're trying to gain one of the listed items in the spell is asshatery. This is especially true if they actually cast the wish themselves (5000XP). Again, you missed a key phrase, being "when they are clearly trying to abuse the system". And at no point have i suggested that a wish should, or even could, be twisted if it is the player themselves casting it and spending the xp(and i don't appreciate the implication implied) Binding, no save, efreeti don't have SR. "You get three wishes per day to grant to non-genies. You can sit there for a year, or grant those three wishes to me. Your choice." Binding requires the effreet to be there to bind. You would still need to call it somehow. It also does grant a save if it's the effreet casting the binding, modified by the effect it chooses to use. effreet are described as hating servitude, not imprisonment. They are immortal beings who have been known to be trapped inside objects for centuries. a year in a mortals basement, granting time to study him and plot revenge is but a fraction of time, submitting however is servitude, and that is unacceptable. Planar binding is the one that requires the Cha check. Which is one of the spells we were discussing... Or planar binding for the 11th level character. This requires a Charisma check, but if you're going for this sort of abusive trick, you're also going to be pumping the Charisma way up anyway. As a bonus, in this one the creature is sent back home once the task is completed. Since binding doesn't call a creature, and i did mention calling, thats clearly not the spell i was reffering to.
Thubby 09-21-07, 08:12 PM	i have an easy way around this. only "noble" efreet are known to grant wishes. they are about 1% of the population. congratulations, you have a 1% chance of getting a wish from an already 9th level spell.
NoldorForce 09-21-07, 09:35 PM	i have an easy way around this. only "noble" efreet are known to grant wishes. they are about 1% of the population. congratulations, you have a 1% chance of getting a wish from an already 9th level spell.You're thinking of noble djinn. Whereas every single efreeti has this ability. In any case, it's sort of difficult for the efreeti to twist the Wishes if you Gate it in and give the order to "follow all of my orders without misinterpretation, twisting of words, or otherwise meanings unintended by me" as an immediate task. Sure, the efreeti can later tell its brethren about you, but in the meantime it's not getting a chance to exploit loopholes. And you of course can (and should) order it to determine whether your intended Wishes are beyond its basic capabilities, as a failsafe.
Thubby 09-21-07, 09:55 PM	You're thinking of noble djinn. Whereas every single efreeti has this ability. In any case, it's sort of difficult for the efreeti to twist the Wishes if you Gate it in and give the order to "follow all of my orders without misinterpretation, twisting of words, or otherwise meanings unintended by me" as an immediate task. Sure, the efreeti can later tell its brethren about you, but in the meantime it's not getting a chance to exploit loopholes. And you of course can (and should) order it to determine whether your intended Wishes are beyond its basic capabilities, as a failsafe. that order of yours isn't fool proof. seeing as how an efreeti cant read minds, how does it know the wishers intentions, or the intended meaning of phrases? not to mention i'm sure someone could find away to twist that order. (for the record im being a heck of a lot more nasty than i would normaly, but we're talking game implosion here) also, telling all his friends about it would get the wisher destroyed. how hard do you think it is for one of these things to make a deal with something or someone to make wishes on their behalf?
Kratch 09-21-07, 10:43 PM	In any case, it's sort of difficult for the efreeti to twist the Wishes if you Gate it in and give the order to "follow all of my orders without misinterpretation, twisting of words, or otherwise meanings unintended by me" as an immediate task. Sure, the efreeti can later tell its brethren about you, but in the meantime it's not getting a chance to exploit loopholes. And you of course can (and should) order it to determine whether your intended Wishes are beyond its basic capabilities, as a failsafe. Ah, but that clause now leaves it open to questioning you, for clarification purposes, first on exactly to what extent that command means, then for each indiviual wish that follows, untill the rather short duration of gates immidiate task use ends (about 2 minutes, give or take) and it gets to go home without ever granting a wish. --------------------- Just to clarify, I am not arguing that the interpretation that allows this wish abuse is a wrong interpretation, I am arguing that it is not the only interpretation that fits within RAW. Therefor, if there is an interpretation, within the limits of the rules, that allows you to prevent this abuse (through negative reinforcement), then the abuse can not be stated as within RAW unless the DM allows it to be, after all, which is correct, the interpretation of the RAW that allows the abuse, or the interpretation of RAW that doesn't?. -------------------- I'm still wondering if anyone has had this happen. I'm suspecting not, which has gotten me thinking. But i'll give it some more time.
someonelse812 09-21-07, 10:51 PM	Let me put a new spin on this. What if you had a character using Savage Species to play an Efreeti PC? (I had a character who played one once, but it was at low levels and they died so this never came up) Even though it says in the Monster Manual that they can only grant wishes to non genies, how would you deal with a Lv20 PC who is granting a wish to each of his 3 adventuring pals every day? Sure its epic levels, but not THAT epic. How could you allow a high level Efreet PC without cheating the player and without breaking the game?
Uratoh 09-21-07, 10:53 PM	How could you allow a high level Efreet PC without cheating the player and without breaking the game? You don't? What this realistically means is all PCs sans the efreet has +3 inherent bonus to all ability scores, and tons of odd spell-like abilities etc...making the Efreet ironically the odd man out on the power curve.
Thubby 09-21-07, 10:59 PM	You don't? What this realistically means is all PCs sans the efreet has +3 inherent bonus to all ability scores, and tons of odd spell-like abilities etc...making the Efreet ironically the odd man out on the power curve. unless someone wishes that he would get more powerful (cant have our wish battery dying now can we?). wishes don't have to benefit the wisher. as to allowing an efreet, just make up some story why he can't grant wishes. he is an exile, stripped of that power. he ****** of the djini god (who grants the power *wink wink*). maybe its 3 wishes per person like in stories.
NoldorForce 09-21-07, 11:47 PM	Ah, but that clause now leaves it open to questioning you, for clarification purposes, first on exactly to what extent that command means, then for each indiviual wish that follows, untill the rather short duration of gates immidiate task use ends (about 2 minutes, give or take) and it gets to go home without ever granting a wish."And what does that mean?" *Holds up scythe* "You know perfectly well what it means. Now stop questioning me when my intent is clear and do what I order. Otherwise I'll tell you to submit to your own execution." Really, if the player is going crazy over this, talk about it outside the game. Just getting a couple inherent bonuses here and there isn't bad. Getting the full line (+5 to everything) is something I might question the player about if the game isn't going to epic levels. And of course infinite loops are right out. But the proper way to resolve them isn't to be an ass about it and constantly try to misinterpret things to the character's detriment. Though if both you and the player(s) are fine with it, you could screw things up in some manner and make it into a story arc. With the proper setup, Thubby's idea seems like a decent hook.
Thubby 09-21-07, 11:54 PM	"And what does that mean?" *Holds up scythe* "You know perfectly well what it means. Now stop questioning me when my intent is clear and do what I order. Otherwise I'll tell you to submit to your own execution." Really, if the player is going crazy over this, talk about it outside the game. Just getting a couple inherent bonuses here and there isn't bad. Getting the full line (+5 to everything) is something I might question the player about if the game isn't going to epic levels. And of course infinite loops are right out. But the proper way to resolve them isn't to be an ass about it and constantly try to misinterpret things to the character's detriment. Though if both you and the player(s) are fine with it, you could screw things up in some manner and make it into a story arc. With the proper setup, Thubby's idea seems like a decent hook. i agree OOC is the best way to go when players try to break the game, but it helps realism to have reasons why no one did it already. and your last order there gives him license to basically end you.
Kratch 09-22-07, 12:30 AM	"And what does that mean?" *Holds up scythe* "You know perfectly well what it means. Now stop questioning me when my intent is clear and do what I order. Otherwise I'll tell you to submit to your own execution." "I'm afraid I am not capable of reading your mind, sire, that is not within my powers. I am merely attempting to fulfill your commands to the best of my ability, I am not as intellegent as you. If you would like to void the previous command, say the word and it shall be done." As for submitting to his own execution, I suspect that goes beyond the limitations of what can be commanded. After all, submitting to be executed isn't really a service. Gate also speaks about a longer or more involved service, this makes me wonder what it means by more involved? Tasks that take longer then 1 round/CL is accounted for under the "longer" clause, so what then, does "more involved" mean? Does submitting to ones execution constitute "more involved"? Does granting wish's? To what degree can you command the creatures? Really, if the player is going crazy over this, talk about it outside the game. Just getting a couple inherent bonuses here and there isn't bad. Getting the full line (+5 to everything) is something I might question the player about if the game isn't going to epic levels. And of course infinite loops are right out. But the proper way to resolve them isn't to be an ass about it and constantly try to misinterpret things to the character's detriment. Whats bothering me about the bolded line is, I'm not talking about being an ass, i'm talking about an interpretation that does not leave the ability to abuse the system in the hands of the players. It does not rely on player restraint to maintain order, because, although my own players may be able to show restraint, and as there have yet to be any replies saying this has happened, i suspect most players are capable of showing such restraint, based on some of the opinions on the boards there are some who do not know the meaning of the word. Additionally, a casters ability to break the system is often touted as a strength of the class over others, why am i wrong for not accepting this as truth, for demonstrating that there is an alternative that does not allow for the abuse?
Vaelan 09-22-07, 02:37 AM	"But the proper way to resolve them isn't to be an ass about it and constantly try to misinterpret things to the character's detriment. You know what else could be considered being an ass? Trying to kill the party because they're screwing with your plans. Do you stop your BBEGs from doing that? If not, you shouldn't be condemning any in-character (for the djinn in question) course of action, which this clearly was.
Amon_WinterfallIV 09-22-07, 06:52 AM	Oh--I've got this one. The Efreeti loses XP everytime it casts wish. And when the XP runs out, the Wish simply fizzles. That should take care of it, I think. Seriously; infinite wishes is Broken--so it gets fixed. Otherwise: Efreeti all get +5 to all stats from using Wish in Pairs Efreeti all become massively overpowered Amon's Game world Breaks World Breaking ->Anger ->Hate -> Dark Side of the Force.
Shuuya 09-22-07, 07:23 AM	In my games if you call upon an Efreet for wishes, he's going to twist it. They're evil beings and they're not just going to roll over to Adventurer X and give them wishes. It's not so much asshattery because the PCs are trying to get free wishes by going to an evil being. Whereas with wishes the adventurer's invest XP in by casting the spell themselves it works as they intend, unless it goes beyond wish's capabilities. This usually also applies to Good or Neutral beings who grant a wish to players, though neutral beings may twist it if they're Chaotic Neutral. The only way I allow players to get Efreeti wishes without being twisted is if they're very very very precise and do enough wish legalese. Twisting wishes is in the flavour of the Efreet, and they are evil so it is entirely acceptable for them to screw the players over if they're not precise or careful enough. Meddling with evil beings shouldn't be easy at all.
Otto the Bugbear 09-22-07, 09:44 AM	Thats close, but not entirely the same as what i was discribing. Imbue with spell ability grants the ability to cast the spells chosen, It nether allows the recipient to cast imbue with spell ability (the spell cast) or choose the benifits (AKA choose what spells he'll be able to cast). You said, "Last I checked, you couldn't grant anyone the ability to cast a spell, only the benifits of that spell." I proved that you could grant the ability to cast a spell. You rebutted with 'that's not what I was describing'. Mr. wizard, that's exactly what you were saying. The rest is just your garbage of needing interpretation of something that doesn't need it. Are you trying to define what a spell can do by the text in a creature stat block? I'm trying to define what the creature's ability can do by the text in the creature's stat block. They are different. One uses5 words, the other 10 words and defines the first. A difinition is not meant to read exactly the same as what it's defining. otherwise, you wouldn't be able to define anything. No. The 10 word one isn't defining the first. It's changing the first. The first one is quite clear in that it grants 3 wishes to the non-genie. Now, perhaps you do need a deeper interpretation of 'grants to'. grant –verb (used with object) 1. to bestow or confer, esp. by a formal act: to grant a charter. 2. to give or accord: to grant permission. 3. to agree or accede to: to grant a request. 4. to admit or concede; accept for the sake of argument: I grant that point. 5. to transfer or convey, esp. by deed or writing: to grant property. –noun 6. something granted, as a privilege or right, a sum of money, or a tract of land: Several major foundations made large grants to fund the research project. 7. the act of granting. 8. Law. a transfer of property. 9. a geographical unit in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, originally a grant of land to a person or group of people. Now, #6 is particularly interesting. "... a sum of money, or tract of land, or wish..." Your not interpreting it, your repeating verbatum. Thats not helpful in clarifying anything. That's because it doesn't really need clarification. I'm repeating it in the hopes that 'grants to the non-genie' is noted as being different than 'doesn't grant to, but casts for and upon the non-genie' you claim my definition is not the same as the phrase i am defining. You are correct, it is a definition. Thats not to say it is wrong. It's not the same phrase and it's not a definition. It's an alteration. You use this often in the quotes to follow, your trying to convince me that a match is a match, because it's a match, so can accomplish what matchs do. but at no point have you ever defined what a match really is. Is it the little piece of thing you use to create fire, or perhaps a round of competition. Perhaps its some other definition. 'Grants to the non-genie' means just that, grants to. It doesn't mean 'not grant to, but rather cast for and upon the non-genie'. Your defining granting three wish's as granting three wish's. Well, hello, no kidding! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? How do you grant wish's? What is involved? what are the limitations? You haven't offered me an interpretation, your simply trying to beat me over the head with an ambiguous phrase that is creating the confusion in the first place. What does that mean? Uh, it means the genie grants 3 wishes to the non-genie. How do you grant wish's? You bestow or confer, give, transfer or convey. What is involved? The transfer of up to three wishes to a non-genie. What are the limitations? 1/day, up to three wishes, to non-genie only It's not ambiguous, at all. It's only ambiguous if you try really hard to make it so. you grant wish's by granting wish's. how? You grant them. That's it. Or are you looking for a definition of what it means to grant something. by granting wish's. whats involved in granting wish's? the granting of wish's. this can go on forever without using different words then whats already there. You seem to have decided that my doing this makes me wrong (despite the fact you asked for it when you asked for an alternative interpretation). But last i checked, if someone asks for a wish, and gets what they ask for (note, thats not the same as getting what they intended), then their wish has been granted. This can be done within my definition, therefor i am not wrong. I'm not wrong. I basically ignored the rest of that quote since your argument seems to have boiled down to "I'm not wrong". Always a sure fire way to win an argument, eh? Again your trying to define what the spell can do by the text in a creature stat block. Thats not how it works. I'm defining what the creature can do by the text in the stat block. The spell, once granted to the non-genie, has its own limitations as listed in the spell. There are 3 questions to be asked: 1: how does wish work? (IE, does it allow the caster to twist reality to his will, altering reality to grant himself or others a benifit, or does it grant another the ability to alter reality to their will. note, the former has some support within the spell description, the later, not so much.) Answered with the link to Wish. That's how wish works. 2: how does an effreet grant it's wish's? (does it even use the wish spell, or some other method (wish allows a single altering of reality per use, the effreet gets 3 per use, as it is an ability only usable once per day that grants 3 wish's)? If it uses the wish spell, then this question can be better answered once question one has been answered.) It grants it to the non-genie. You seem to really be hung up on this 'grants to' bit. It's not really that hard. It grant the wish to the non-genie. That's about as simple as it gets. It doesn't need another paragraph to tell you what 'grants to' means; it means it grants the wishes to the non-genie. 3: Can an effreet twist a wish? (that entirely depends on the answers to questions one and two) I'd say certainly it could, if only it actually had the ability to cast wish. But no, we see that it does not. It has the ability to grant up to 3 wishes to a non-genie. Ability A: 1/day, use up to three wishes to affect a non-genie. Ability B: 1/day, grant up to three wishes to a non-genie. Cut and dry there. your trying to answer question 2 without first answering question one, assuming the answer to question two will shape how question one is answered, but once again, thats not how SLA's work. Bollocks. (That means bull:censored: in case you need an interpretation of that as well.) I answered #1 with that link to what wish is capable of. An SLA is restricted to the limitations of the spell it is replicating, unless clearly defined otherwise (and note, the wording used is nether clear, nor granting an exception to how it accomplish's it, just the number of benifits it can produce.) In this case, it is clearly defined otherwise. It grants the wish to a non-genie. Honestly, all along it's only looked like you cannot fathom 'grants to'. What's that all about? It's not in need of interpretation. It grants up to three wishes to a non-genie. I'm not changing anything, I'm defining. Theres a difference. You are not defining 'grants to'. You're attempting to ignore what 'grants to' means in favor of making it 'doesn't grant to, but rather casts for!' That's not defining, that's changing it. The spell defines how the SLA works, not the other way around. An effreet can grant 3 wish's without granting the recipient the ability to reshape reality. "Unless clearly defined otherwise" was your words. In this case, the SLA is clearly defined otherwise when it mentions that it 'grants to' the non-genie. and again, yours is not an interpretation, it is simply regurgitating whats already there, reiterating the text that is causing confusion to begin with. defining a match as a match, while not wrong, remains useless for defining how and what it can do. Of course it's repeating what's already there. The text doesn't cause confusion. 'Grants to' means that it grants the wishes to the non-genie. I'm just not sure how anyone can read 'grants to a non-genie' and think that the interpretation of that is 'doesn't grant to, but rather casts in order to affect the non-genie.' (Oh, and your match match thing is, basically, retarded. Grants to is quite clear.) if it's not granting the benifits of a wish, what is it granting? It's granting the wish itself. Then the grantee uses the wish. That's where, if the grantee asks for something outside the realm the possibilities that wish can cover, then watch out. Is my definition failing to grant wishes? (note, the text in the stat block reffers to granting wishes, not a wish spell. At no point does it even say it uses the wish spell to accomplish this, as there is no spell called "wishes" and the closest equivelent does not grant 3 effects per use) Yes, it's failing to grant wishes. Your definition is the efreeti casting wish to affect a non-genie; to grant the effect, and only the effect, of the wish to the non-genie. Not the wish itself. reread what you quoted. At no point does it claim the caster will suffer ill effects from trying to go beyond a wish's capability, It says the wish will be perverted. If the wish going beyond the limit is intended to effect someone else, that someone else may recieve something similar to what they asked for (AKA what the wish caster tried to accomplish), but perverted as per the wish description. W. T. F. You just said that the efreeti casts the wish to affect a non-genie, and if that casting goes beyond the limits of the wish, then the non-genie that was the target gets the perverted, twisted version of the wish. Awe. Some. So, every caster that uses wish to affect another individual is reprisal free from the wish being twisted. Or did you mean to say that the caster of the wish is the one that better watch out for the intent being perverted... Looking at the example used, using wish to make yourself immortal may trap you on a timeless plane, wishing to make someone else immortal won't result in trapping you on a timeless plane (as that isn't even similar to what was wished for), it will result in perverting how it accomplish's making them immortal (perhaps trapping them on a timeless plane, perhaps making them a lich. It's unpredictable). Well, I guess you did just say that the caster is reprisal free when casting wish to affect a different individual. But then it wouldn't be granting anything (unless you consider granting death to those who didn't ask for it to be granting their wish). Irregaurdless, even if this was possible, it leaves the option for abuse in the hands of the DM, where it belongs, rather then a player. Uh, it's using wish to cast other spells. This is quite clear in the wish (linked) description. Then it mimics that spell entirely, and this is not open to being perverted. Except by asshattery. Incorrect, he can do it once per day (it's a once per day ability). that is assuming you believe granting unrequested death is within the "grant a wish" description. I believe that if the efreeti is using it's SLA wish to cast a different spell, then that doesn't really fall under the part where it gets perverted. No actually, it isn't. your using an ambiguos line of text in a creature stat block to define what a spell can do, I am using text within the spell description to define what the spell can do. Which of us is using the rules correctly? I am not. I am using a clear line of text in a monster stat block. I'm using the spell description to define what that spell can do. Not you. Considering your still trying to make the line 'grants up to three wishes (to a non-genie only)' into something it's not. Namely 'casts up to three wishes (affecting a non-genie only)'. -=-= You are aware that "many of which" does not mean the same as "all". Ok, Mr. Wizard, how many. Which ones. Again, you missed a key phrase, being "when they are clearly trying to abuse the system". And at no point have i suggested that a wish should, or even could, be twisted if it is the player themselves casting it and spending the xp(and i don't appreciate the implication implied) Even then you don't do it. If they're trying to abuse the system, you take the conversation out of game. Binding requires the effreet to be there to bind. You would still need to call it somehow. It also does grant a save if it's the effreet casting the binding, modified by the effect it chooses to use. Yes, and it's called for that purpose. If the CL is twice the creature's HD, no save. That means that the caster need only boost his CL from 15 to 23. Six assistants, as described in the binding spell, means he needs only 2 more CL. I'll leave it up to your imagination as to which of the many methods can be used for that. effreet are described as hating servitude, not imprisonment. They are immortal beings who have been known to be trapped inside objects for centuries. a year in a mortals basement, granting time to study him and plot revenge is but a fraction of time, submitting however is servitude, and that is unacceptable. You're right on that one. I guess it's back to planar binding then. Since binding doesn't call a creature, and i did mention calling, thats clearly not the spell i was reffering to. Yep. That'll only work on creature's that have already been called or are otherwise already there. Just to clarify, I am not arguing that the interpretation that allows this wish abuse is a wrong interpretation, I am arguing that it is not the only interpretation that fits within RAW. Therefor, if there is an interpretation, within the limits of the rules, that allows you to prevent this abuse (through negative reinforcement), then the abuse can not be stated as within RAW unless the DM allows it to be, after all, which is correct, the interpretation of the RAW that allows the abuse, or the interpretation of RAW that doesn't?. Except your entire argument hinges on changing the text of the stat block entry. It therefore fails. Really, if the player is going crazy over this, talk about it outside the game. Just getting a couple inherent bonuses here and there isn't bad. Getting the full line (+5 to everything) is something I might question the player about if the game isn't going to epic levels. And of course infinite loops are right out. But the proper way to resolve them isn't to be an ass about it and constantly try to misinterpret things to the character's detriment. :cookie: for you. Whats bothering me about the bolded line is, I'm not talking about being an ass, i'm talking about an interpretation that does not leave the ability to abuse the system in the hands of the players. It does not rely on player restraint to maintain order, because, although my own players may be able to show restraint, and as there have yet to be any replies saying this has happened, i suspect most players are capable of showing such restraint, based on some of the opinions on the boards there are some who do not know the meaning of the word. Additionally, a casters ability to break the system is often touted as a strength of the class over others, why am i wrong for not accepting this as truth, for demonstrating that there is an alternative that does not allow for the abuse? Because the alternative involves changing the wording of the ability. And that's all good. And that's all oberoni fallacy. In my games if you call upon an Efreet for wishes, he's going to twist it. They're evil beings and they're not just going to roll over to Adventurer X and give them wishes. It's not so much asshattery because the PCs are trying to get free wishes by going to an evil being. The best part is, beginning at level 11 it's not even in the efreeti's hands. Planar Binding forces it to do so (grant up to three wishes to the caster) with a mere Charisma check. The efreeti doesn't even get a chance to escape, and can be forced to do those things for 11 days, or more with an increased caster level. The only way I allow players to get Efreeti wishes without being twisted is if they're very very very precise and do enough wish legalese. Twisting wishes is in the flavour of the Efreet, and they are evil so it is entirely acceptable for them to screw the players over if they're not precise or careful enough. Meddling with evil beings shouldn't be easy at all. First, very very very very precise is asshattery. This is akin to assigning a penalty because the shy Player is attempting to have his suave and charming Character be suave and charming. Second, that bit about twisting wishes cannot be found in the MM, so I'd really like to know where that came in at, please. -=-=-=-= So, to sum up all this mish-mash, I see several things going on here. 1. The efreeti grants the wishes to the non-genie. In game terms, this means the character is granted the wishes, not that the genie is casting the wish upon the character. The character then makes a wish, and if it's within the described bounds of the wish spell, it happens. If it's beyond the described bounds of the wish spell, then it can be perverted to give the request, if not the intent. I'd like to think this meant that the DM and Player would talk it over and the DM would describe how that would end up. If they come to a mutual agreement, then proceed. After all, it might be quite an adventure to attempt to rescue a PC from a planar stronghold where time doesn't flow. Just out of the blue screwing the character shouldn't be tolerated. 2. The efreeti does not grant the wishes to the non-genie, but rather the efreeti casts the wish and affects the non-genie with the outcome. This has problems. 2a. The efreeti casts the wish and affects a non-genie with the outcome. This is a CR 8 creature that, 1/day, is casting three wishes and owning anything it fights. It does this by using the described bounds of wish, such as casting lower level spells. The disturbing part of this method is that it's a 1/day SLA, and with a standard action (as SLAs are) it gets three wishes (remember, in this proposed method, it's the efreeti casting the wish, not the character). Talk about a nova effect! The only limitation is that it cannot use the effects on itself. :rolleyes: 2b. The efreeti is subject to the perversion of the wishes if they go outsider the described bounds of the wish. So, what this means is that, for instance, an efreeti willingly goes to grant those wishes to some PC; it's not a capture event, let's say they're allied. The wish is outside the described bounds of the wish, and suddenly the efreeti sees the effect perverted. I seem to see some insinuation that the target of the wish would suffer the perversion instead of the caster, but nobody has outright said as much so far. This then means that whenever a PC casts wish to affect something other than himself, he is free from the effects of the perversion. Yay. So, in the case where wish is being used to affect another individual -- whether from the efreeti, or a PC spellcaster -- either the caster is the one suffering from the perversion, or he is not.
robertliguori 09-22-07, 10:48 AM	In my games if you call upon an Efreet for wishes, he's going to twist it. They're evil beings and they're not just going to roll over to Adventurer X and give them wishes. It's not so much asshattery because the PCs are trying to get free wishes by going to an evil being. Whereas with wishes the adventurer's invest XP in by casting the spell themselves it works as they intend, unless it goes beyond wish's capabilities. This usually also applies to Good or Neutral beings who grant a wish to players, though neutral beings may twist it if they're Chaotic Neutral. The only way I allow players to get Efreeti wishes without being twisted is if they're very very very precise and do enough wish legalese. Twisting wishes is in the flavour of the Efreet, and they are evil so it is entirely acceptable for them to screw the players over if they're not precise or careful enough. Meddling with evil beings shouldn't be easy at all. "I wish you would grant this wish without twisting it: {insert text of wish here}." You want legalese, go to lawyers. You want things to work, go to programmers. You say that meddling with evil beings shouldn't be easy or safe. Sadly for you, the rules as written do not support this theory. Once you've Called an efreeti, you can meddle all you like. As mentioned above, you can threaten him with death, or fates worse than death, and if he isn't compliant, you can simply summon up another efreeti within earshot and show off your new Necrotic Cyst spell line on the stubborn one. The forces of the netherworlds are, ultimately, nothing special in D&D. They follow certain rules; if you work within the rules, you can safely exploit them. This does tend to break the game, however. Blame whoever thought that giving a Planar Bind-able creature the ability to grant wishes on demand a good idea.
Thubby 09-22-07, 10:59 AM	"I wish you would grant this wish without twisting it: {insert text of wish here}." ya, you might get some wishes, but when all these efreet get back they can find someone to unwish your wishes or just kill you. its not that hard. no one is wish proof.
robertliguori 09-22-07, 11:14 AM	ya, you might get some wishes, but when all these efreet get back they can find someone to unwish your wishes or just kill you. its not that hard. no one is wish proof. Fairly trivial to avoid. In addition to the myriad ways to prevent the efreeti from being able to track you down, you can simply just kill him as soon as the wish is granted. If word gets out that you're doing this, you'll really have to step up the horiffic-torture of the efreeti to get them to grant your wishes in exchange for merciful dissolution from their agonized existence, but this is a simple engineering problem. You can simply Call a glabrezu and outsource it. The problem is inherent in the rules; djinni shouldn't have Wish as a spell-like ability. Make them 25-HD, CR 20+ outsiders for whom capturing is a task worthy of a Wish reward, or strip the ability from them.
heffroncm 09-22-07, 11:29 AM	I, in fact, have had to deal with this situation in-game, in two different flavors. First, a Wizard Gated in an Efreet to do his bidding. I used what I knew of Efreet society, had the Efreet ask for compensation, then calmly explain what happened to the last Wizard who tried to bilk free Wishes out of the Efreeti Nation in graphic detail. The Wizard decided to put up adequate compensation. Second, in our Eberron game, a Druid became a Planar Shepherd without me adequately reading the class. This basically let him turn into an Efreeti, and use all the SLA's of the Efreeti. Boom, endless free Wish supply. For this, I had no good in-character cure. So, I asked the player to roll up a new character, or rebuild his druid as something else. He refused. I left the choice with him: create a new character willingly, force me to kill his character in-game, or end the campaign. In that situation, there aren't any other real options.
ObliterateHerald 09-22-07, 11:34 AM	This is a simple one, The Effreet says no. Why? becuase it doesn't partically like you. Now if a player were to spend time bounding to a certian Effreet. Then yes he can grant wishes for you. Realize though he can only grant you three. Now he may not even do that unless you make an alliance with him and let him benefit from you in some way.
Nephlite 09-22-07, 11:39 AM	ya, you might get some wishes, but when all these efreet get back they can find someone to unwish your wishes or just kill you. its not that hard. no one is wish proof. You do realize unwishing is outside the safety limits of Wish: The Efferti could kill himself at same time, travel to time after you are dead (100 years if human), etc. Remember: going beyond the list is a safety hazard for the wisher.
Thubby 09-22-07, 12:34 PM	You do realize unwishing is outside the safety limits of Wish: The Efferti could kill himself at same time, travel to time after you are dead (100 years if human), etc. Remember: going beyond the list is a safety hazard for the wisher. i was being deliberately vague. my point was magic is easy enough to undo (directly or not). with a very good motivation, and the nearly unlimited resource that is wish, killing someone you don't like would be a simple matter.
Senevri 09-22-07, 01:03 PM	I, in fact, have had to deal with this situation in-game, in two different flavors. First, a Wizard Gated in an Efreet to do his bidding. I used what I knew of Efreet society, had the Efreet ask for compensation, then calmly explain what happened to the last Wizard who tried to bilk free Wishes out of the Efreeti Nation in graphic detail. The Wizard decided to put up adequate compensation. Hm. Just be aware that actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help. Admittedly, Efreeti probably do not appreciate being used this way, and while you can manipulate them to make it harder for them to find out they've been used, the scenario you suggest is entirely possible. However, the spellcaster can indeed do it, if he so chooses, and the Efreeti has no option but to obey. Second, in our Eberron game, a Druid became a Planar Shepherd without me adequately reading the class. This basically let him turn into an Efreeti, and use all the SLA's of the Efreeti. Boom, endless free Wish supply. For this, I had no good in-character cure. So, I asked the player to roll up a new character, or rebuild his druid as something else. He refused. I left the choice with him: create a new character willingly, force me to kill his character in-game, or end the campaign. In that situation, there aren't any other real options. *shrug*. I have a Planar Shepherd(fire) in my game. He uses the efreeti trick. Infinite wishes you need someone else to use aren't that great at level 17+. But, generally, that's a rather strong trick.
heffroncm 09-22-07, 01:48 PM	Admittedly, Efreeti probably do not appreciate being used this way, and while you can manipulate them to make it harder for them to find out they've been used, the scenario you suggest is entirely possible. However, the spellcaster can indeed do it, if he so chooses, and the Efreeti has no option but to obey. The Efreeti never disobeyed. He simply took the time to make his commander aware of exactly what might happen because of such an action. My problem is that Wish, as a Spell-Like Ability, can by the rules in the books give you ANY magic item with a GP cost. 3/day supply of +20 weaponry, 3/day supply of Ring of Three Wishes, 3/day supply of... anything. The only limit on the kind of Magic Item a Wish can conjure up is the XP cost of crafting the item, and when you don't have to pay that cost because it's an SLA, then it's broken. I'm happy your player doesn't abuse it the way they could, though.
Kratch 09-22-07, 04:07 PM	Yes, it's failing to grant wishes. Your definition is the efreeti casting wish to affect a non-genie; to grant the effect, and only the effect, of the wish to the non-genie. Not the wish itself. Only took half your post to finally define what and how the "grants 3 wishes" is accomplished, but you did eventually get there. so heres a :cookie: So your defining grants 3 wishes as the act of granting the ability to cast 3 wish spells. As there is no precedent for that, I can't agree. There is no SLA "grants to" and no monster ability that does so ether, therefor, if that is what was intended, it would have included a description of how the "grant to" ability functions. For example, whats the duration on this "grants to" SLA? do the 3 wish's remain for the grantee untill they are used, or only for 24 hours (AKA untill the effreet gets his grants to ability refreshed)? What is it granting, is it granting the ability to use wish SLA, or to actually cast the wish spell, and thus costing XP? You claim it is clear, but it really isn't, even with the blinders on so as only to accept that definition of "grants 3 wishes". As this is a made up ability, with no rules support (other then trying to believe grant 3 wishes can only mean 1 thing, which is not the case) to support your case, It can't be accepted as RAW. "Grants 3 wishes", you've defined grants, I'll define wish... Wish noun 8. an act or instance of wishing. 9. a request or command: 10. an expression of a wish, often one of a kindly or courteous nature: 11. something wished or desired "to bestow or confer up to 3 requests or commands." Funny, that can be accomplished through my description of how the ability works. Now, you can try to argue that, because wishes is italicized, that means the wish spell, but as it italicizes the SLA they can use, that would imply they use the wish spell to do the granting, not use the granting to give the wish spell. so in the end, Your claiming i'm changing the text, and I'm claiming your making up rules and abilities.
Shuuya 09-22-07, 05:44 PM	Y The best part is, beginning at level 11 it's not even in the efreeti's hands. Planar Binding forces it to do so (grant up to three wishes to the caster) with a mere Charisma check. The efreeti doesn't even get a chance to escape, and can be forced to do those things for 11 days, or more with an increased caster level. First, very very very very precise is asshattery. This is akin to assigning a penalty because the shy Player is attempting to have his suave and charming Character be suave and charming. Second, that bit about twisting wishes cannot be found in the MM, so I'd really like to know where that came in at, please. Alright. If players were going to use this and were incurring some form of loss to gain these wishes, I'd allow them to remain within the constraints of the wish if using planar binding etc. But if players find a cost free way to do it then it's a big no no. Secondly, the precise legalese I employ is from outside the rulebooks. RAW creates pun-pun and other nightmarish abusable unbalancing outcomes. Twisting wishes comes from popular culture and the whole "be careful what you wish for" mantra. My campaigns tend to be heroic so dealing with evil beings like this is evil and ends in trouble. If it was an evil campaign I'd be more happy to allow an efreet to grant them wishes in return for a decent sized cost. It comes from my interpretation of the D&D Cosmology and the world, if you just said "Yeah Efreet grant their wishes happily and easily exactly how you like" then you're not looking at clearly evil forces, just a big wish ATM bank for a wizard. That's how I roll, I can see wish legalese to be asshatty and stupid, sure, but it's how efreet behave to me. I look at the "evil" representation of genies in films, popular culture, stories and see the evil ones twisting wishes and the good genies doing things well. It's how I see evil genies and it's how my players see them, it works at the table and teaches them that dealing with evil beings is not really a good idea. If other DMs want to let efreet behave like wimps like that then sure, but I see the planes as extremely dangerous and their denizens aren't open to abuse. I'm fairly certain I've justified myself, and I can see why you guys might do it your way. I'm not being an asshat DM, Efreet are asshat evil beings. EDIT: Your point about the penalty for shy players is redundant. You can say the same thing about less intelligent players being penalised for not thinking up tactics to beat monsters. D&D is a social and mental game, if you want to play it you have to think and talk, that's how it is.
Kratch 09-22-07, 05:56 PM	Alright. If players were going to use this and were incurring some form of loss to gain these wishes, I'd allow them to remain within the constraints of the wish if using planar binding etc. But if players find a cost free way to do it then it's a big no no. Secondly, the precise legalese I employ is from outside the rulebooks. RAW creates pun-pun and other nightmarish abusable unbalancing outcomes. Twisting wishes comes from popular culture and the whole "be careful what you wish for" mantra. My campaigns tend to be heroic so dealing with evil beings like this is evil and ends in trouble. If it was an evil campaign I'd be more happy to allow an efreet to grant them wishes in return for a decent sized cost. It comes from my interpretation of the D&D Cosmology and the world, if you just said "Yeah Efreet grant their wishes happily and easily exactly how you like" then you're not looking at clearly evil forces, just a big wish ATM bank for a wizard. That's how I roll, I can see wish legalese to be asshatty and stupid, sure, but it's how efreet behave to me. I look at the "evil" representation of genies in films, popular culture, stories and see the evil ones twisting wishes and the good genies doing things well. It's how I see evil genies and it's how my players see them, it works at the table and teaches them that dealing with evil beings is not really a good idea. If other DMs want to let efreet behave like wimps like that then sure, but I see the planes as extremely dangerous and their denizens aren't open to abuse. I'm fairly certain I've justified myself, and I can see why you guys might do it your way. I'm not being an asshat DM, Efreet are asshat evil beings. He finally explained how he believes the effreets ability to work. He believes it grants the recipient the ability to cast wish themselves, in which case, the recipient would be the wish caster and it would be their will and intent that creates the wish. unfortunatly for otto, there is no "grant to" SLA, and if the ability was intended to function as anything other then casting the wish as an SLA, to which the benifits must go to a non-genie, it would have had it's own stat writeup of how it works, such as durration (untill used or untill effreet regains the grant to SLA), range (touch, close, other), exactly what it grants (Spell or SLA or other?), etc. As it stands, he has created a new ability and holds it as RAW (and then speaks offensivly and condesendingly to any who do now read his mind and automatically realize that he's using this make believe ability)
Shuuya 09-22-07, 06:02 PM	Oh right, thanks for the heads up. Isn't it just the Efreet casting the wish FOR the players? I.e. Wizard: I WISH I HAD THE STRENGTH OF A BULL! :D Efreet: I wish the wizard had Bull's Strength. Least that's how I see it working... I can't understand how it gives the wizard the ability to use wish. That's like saying a Dragon's Breath gives the wizard the ability to burn himself. The Efreet is like the middle man. Like the wizard is a guy going on holiday, the efreet is the travel agent and the wish is the actual holiday. The travel agent is the guy who does the work for the holiday-goer so he can get his holiday and all details go through the travel agent for him to interpret and do what the holiday-goer says. The Efreet is the being who does the work for the wizard so he can get his wish and all details go through the efreet for him to interpret and do what the wizard says. EDIT: I'm not trying to say travel agents often twist what you want and give you a lame holiday cause they're evil. It's just a basic "middle man" situation
Kratch 09-22-07, 06:12 PM	Oh right, thanks for the heads up. Isn't it just the Efreet casting the wish FOR the players? I.e. Wizard: I WISH I HAD THE STRENGTH OF A BULL! :D Efreet: I wish the wizard had Bull's Strength. Least that's how I see it working... I can't understand how it gives the wizard the ability to use wish. That's like saying a Dragon's Breath gives the wizard the ability to burn himself. Thats how I see it as well. But apparently, if you go all legaleze on the wording (apparently thats only asshatery if it's done to keep the system under control, not to abuse it), "grant up to 3 wishes" implys granting the casting of 3 wishes, an ability not currently supported in the rules (there is no description of any "grants to" ability or spell, no explanations or limitations. It is a make-believe ability), but is still somehow RAW. apparently, granting the benifit of 3 wish's is something entirely different and cannot result in the wishes being granted.
Shuuya 09-22-07, 06:15 PM	Thats how I see it as well. But apparently, if you go all legaleze on the wording (apparently thats only asshatery if it's done to keep the system under control, not to abuse it), "grant up to 3 wishes" implys granting the casting of 3 wishes, an ability not currently supported in the rules (there is no description of any "grants to" ability or spell, no explanations or limitations. It is a make-believe ability), but is still somehow RAW. apparently, granting the benifit of 3 wish's is something entirely different and cannot result in the wishes being granted. Quite. Well, we'd better not use legalese ever and let PCs do what they wish. It looks like this chap has well and truely trounced us. Djinn and Efreet now confer the ability to cast wish 3 times per day to the person they want to. We'd better leave, this guy is just too smart for us.
NoldorForce 09-22-07, 11:08 PM	The point was that it was asshattery to employ twisting when the rules didn't permit it, as with using the "basic" effects of Wish or with Gate in general. (And when the rules do permit twisting, a credible death threat on a called creature should be sufficient to discourage it.) But more importantly, it's bad form to apply an in-character solution to an out-of-character problem. Which is what this is. A better solution is to discuss it with the player employing this method, stressing that while the game can be bent into a Gordian knot it generally shouldn't be.
Kratch 09-22-07, 11:34 PM	The point was that it was asshattery to employ twisting when the rules didn't permit it, as with using the "basic" effects of Wish or with Gate in general. (And when the rules do permit twisting, a credible death threat on a called creature should be sufficient to discourage it.) I agree, In the cases where the rules don't permit twisting, it's bad form to twist the wishes. However, It is still being debated how an effreet is granting wishes. If the effreet is granting, as a SLA, the ability to cast wish (as what, I am still unsure, Otto hasn't clarified how the "grants to" SLA he's created functions yet), then the recipient would be casting the wish (and likely spending the XP, since it's the "grants to" ability thats a SLA of the effreet) and thus the wish can't, by the rules, be twisted. However, If it is the effreet that is casting the wish, and the recipient is only granted the final benifit, then it can be twisted, as it's the efreets will thats made reality, not the recipient. as for the death threat, gate (and most other similar spells) allows for a single service. once the wishes have been granted, the service is done, and death threats mean nothing because it will be gone. But more importantly, it's bad form to apply an in-character solution to an out-of-character problem. Which is what this is. A better solution is to discuss it with the player employing this method, stressing that while the game can be bent into a Gordian knot it generally shouldn't be. last i checked, characters cast spells and demanded wish's "in-character", thus it is an in character problem as much as the player being an ass is out-of-character. The out of character solution is to request the player not to do such things. It is the first course of action and I have even agreed with it's use. However, calling me an asshat because I'm not willing to accept the abuse exsists to be done in the firstplace, I don't much appreciate that. Should I not question the ability for a player to abuse the system because the solution to the abuse, should they insist on performing it, is to mess with the player? If a player says "I can abuse the system", Isn't it a better to be able to say, "technically, no, you can't. and I'd rather you didn't try, you won't like the results" rather then, "please don't break my game, I really don't want to have to end it for everyone"? why am I wrong for wanting the former answer rather then the later?
Vaelan 09-22-07, 11:45 PM	The point was that it was asshattery to employ twisting when the rules didn't permit it... Prove that the rules don't permit it. Keep in mind that the way you choose to interpret an ambiguous phrase (which happens to be contrary to all literary background) does not consitute proof. It would constitute you being trying to force your opinion (which happens to be contrary to all literary background) upon others. But more importantly, it's bad form to apply an in-character solution to an out-of-character problem. You are assuming that this is actually a problem. I don't see it as any such thing since it can be dealt with by valid and reasonable responses.
Kratch 09-23-07, 12:44 AM	1. The efreeti grants the wishes to the non-genie. In game terms, this means the character is granted the wishes, not that the genie is casting the wish upon the character. The character then makes a wish, and if it's within the described bounds of the wish spell, it happens. If it's beyond the described bounds of the wish spell, then it can be perverted to give the request, if not the intent. I'd like to think this meant that the DM and Player would talk it over and the DM would describe how that would end up. If they come to a mutual agreement, then proceed. After all, it might be quite an adventure to attempt to rescue a PC from a planar stronghold where time doesn't flow. Just out of the blue screwing the character shouldn't be tolerated. since when were enforcing clearly writen rules (trying to wish beyond what wish says it can do) out of the blue? This interpretation has problems as well. you felt the need to define the problems you see with mine, and despite the fact this entire thread is based around the problems with your interpretation, you act like it's foolproof. The problem is, this interpretation leaves it open to abuse by a player, and players should not have that kind of power. additionally, it doesn't define how it's accomplished, what are the limitations, durration, range? 2. The efreeti does not grant the wishes to the non-genie, but rather the efreeti casts the wish and affects the non-genie with the outcome. This has problems. 2a. The efreeti casts the wish and affects a non-genie with the outcome. This is a CR 8 creature that, 1/day, is casting three wishes and owning anything it fights. It does this by using the described bounds of wish, such as casting lower level spells. The disturbing part of this method is that it's a 1/day SLA, and with a standard action (as SLAs are) it gets three wishes (remember, in this proposed method, it's the efreeti casting the wish, not the character). Talk about a nova effect! The only limitation is that it cannot use the effects on itself. :rolleyes: doing this can be seen as granting the effreet a benifit of the wish, as it is his desire being granted by the outcome, not the recipients, which is not allowed. 2b. The efreeti is subject to the perversion of the wishes if they go outsider the described bounds of the wish. So, what this means is that, for instance, an efreeti willingly goes to grant those wishes to some PC; it's not a capture event, let's say they're allied. The wish is outside the described bounds of the wish, and suddenly the efreeti sees the effect perverted. I seem to see some insinuation that the target of the wish would suffer the perversion instead of the caster, but nobody has outright said as much so far. This then means that whenever a PC casts wish to affect something other than himself, he is free from the effects of the perversion. Yay. Who ever said the perversion was a bad effect for he who is effected by it. If the intent is to honestly aid someone, a perversion could be debilitating. If the intent is to screw someone, it could be perverted to be benificial to that someone. So, in the case where wish is being used to affect another individual -- whether from the efreeti, or a PC spellcaster -- either the caster is the one suffering from the perversion, or he is not. The casters intent is perverted, that is not to say the caster will be inflicted with something. wishing an ally to be imortal may result in them being transported to a timeless plane. wishing an enemy to be immortal, with the hopes/intent to trap them on a timeless plane may result in turning them into a lich, vampire or similar, thus making them more powerful, live forever and be rather difficult to kill permanantly. both are perversions of the casters intent.
Andorxor 09-23-07, 03:12 AM	If the effreti grant the wisher the spell,like a god grants spells to clerics,shouldn't the wisher pay the xp cost,like clerics pay the cost for miracle?
Senevri 09-23-07, 03:32 AM	There is no XP cost.
Kratch 09-23-07, 03:48 AM	There is no XP cost. there is no XP cost for SLA, but what Otto is proposing is that the effreets SLA is the "grant to" ability that then allows the recipient the ability to cast the wish. Whether these are also SLA's or if they are the actual spells has yet to be claified, since it is a made-up ability created to support the abuse, and thus, no actual rules clarifications exsist.
Otto the Bugbear 09-23-07, 09:49 AM	Only took half your post to finally define what and how the "grants 3 wishes" is accomplished, but you did eventually get there. so heres a :cookie: Wow. Condescending. From you. Amazing, considering it took you that long to get it that 'grants to' means 'grants to'. So your defining grants 3 wishes as the act of granting the ability to cast 3 wish spells. As there is no precedent for that, I can't agree. There is no SLA "grants to" and no monster ability that does so ether, therefor, if that is what was intended, it would have included a description of how the "grant to" ability functions. For example, whats the duration on this "grants to" SLA? do the 3 wish's remain for the grantee untill they are used, or only for 24 hours (AKA untill the effreet gets his grants to ability refreshed)? What is it granting, is it granting the ability to use wish SLA, or to actually cast the wish spell, and thus costing XP? You claim it is clear, but it really isn't, even with the blinders on so as only to accept that definition of "grants 3 wishes". As this is a made up ability, with no rules support (other then trying to believe grant 3 wishes can only mean 1 thing, which is not the case) to support your case, It can't be accepted as RAW. "Grants 3 wishes", you've defined grants, I'll define wish... "to bestow or confer up to 3 requests or commands." Funny, that can be accomplished through my description of how the ability works. Now, you can try to argue that, because wishes is italicized, that means the wish spell, but as it italicizes the SLA they can use, that would imply they use the wish spell to do the granting, not use the granting to give the wish spell. so in the end, Your claiming i'm changing the text, and I'm claiming your making up rules and abilities. So, what are we down to right now then... A. The efreeti grants the three wishes to the non-genie to use in accordance with the description found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). If it goes outside the described limits, then the non-genie gets it twisted as per the description of the spell. B. The efreeti casts the wishes upon the non-genie in accordance with those same described limits. Is that about the extent of the two sides of this argument? Alright. If players were going to use this and were incurring some form of loss to gain these wishes, I'd allow them to remain within the constraints of the wish if using planar binding etc. But if players find a cost free way to do it then it's a big no no. Sure. And you talk to the player about it, instead of resorting to giving their PC a screwing. This is an out of game player interaction problem and a problem about what each of you wants from the game. Secondly, the precise legalese I employ is from outside the rulebooks. RAW creates pun-pun and other nightmarish abusable unbalancing outcomes. Twisting wishes comes from popular culture and the whole "be careful what you wish for" mantra. My campaigns tend to be heroic so dealing with evil beings like this is evil and ends in trouble. If it was an evil campaign I'd be more happy to allow an efreet to grant them wishes in return for a decent sized cost. It comes from my interpretation of the D&D Cosmology and the world, if you just said "Yeah Efreet grant their wishes happily and easily exactly how you like" then you're not looking at clearly evil forces, just a big wish ATM bank for a wizard. That's how I roll, I can see wish legalese to be asshatty and stupid, sure, but it's how efreet behave to me. I look at the "evil" representation of genies in films, popular culture, stories and see the evil ones twisting wishes and the good genies doing things well. It's how I see evil genies and it's how my players see them, it works at the table and teaches them that dealing with evil beings is not really a good idea. If other DMs want to let efreet behave like wimps like that then sure, but I see the planes as extremely dangerous and their denizens aren't open to abuse. I'm fairly certain I've justified myself, and I can see why you guys might do it your way. I'm not being an asshat DM, Efreet are asshat evil beings. Hey, if you roll by making that stuff up, that's great. More power to ya. Just don't claim that it's in the efreeti text, 'cause it isn't. EDIT: Your point about the penalty for shy players is redundant. You can say the same thing about less intelligent players being penalised for not thinking up tactics to beat monsters. D&D is a social and mental game, if you want to play it you have to think and talk, that's how it is. Or the non-legalese-fluent players having their character's screwed over because, obviously, it all falls upon how the player words it. That **** needs to be stomped out without mercy. John is a shy person, and doesn't like the spotlight shining on him. He plays in a fantasy game that isn't his real life. He plays someone with a +17 modifier to bluff, diplomacy, and gather information. Unfortunately for John, his DM judges his capabilities -- the words he, the player, uses -- when his character interacts with the game world; never mind the mechanics. Poor John. Joe is the proverbial average Joe. He's not particularly strong or robust. He has a desk job and tends to do very little intense manual labor. He plays a fantasy game that isn't his real life. He plays someone with a 23 Strength, capable of amazing feats of strength. Unfortunately for Joe, his DM judges his capabilities -- the strength he, the player, has -- when his character interacts with the game world; never mind the mechanics. Poor Joe. Sue is the proverbial 98 pound weakling. She's pretty small of stature and fairly weak. The most intense manual labor Sue gets involved in is... who are we kidding, she gets the guys to do it for her. She plays a fantasy game that isn't her real life. She plays someone with a 23 Strength, capable of amazing feats of strength. Fortunately for Sue, she has big hoo-has which influences her DM and her DM does not judge her capabilities -- the strength she, the player, has -- when her character interacts with the game world; following the mechanics per se. Lucky Sue. Do you see the parallel here? You're punishing those that can't do legalese by your definitions regardless of the capabilities of the characters. All for what? To spite them? To outdo the horror stories of other DMs doing that to the characters in their campaign? Oh right, thanks for the heads up. Isn't it just the Efreet casting the wish FOR the players? I.e. Wizard: I WISH I HAD THE STRENGTH OF A BULL! :D Efreet: I wish the wizard had Bull's Strength. Asshattery. If you're the DM in that scenario, how did it even get that far? 1. You gave the characters the wish (through the efreeti) in the first place. Now you can crush them with your mighty power! Mwahaha! :rolleyes: You always had the power to do that. Why show them the shiny bauble just to rip it away from them? You're god with a magnifying glass and the PCs are just ants, and you're there to burn their legs off, right? 2. The players are attempting one of the many abuses in the game, and you don't stop and take it out of game, but rather you ... burn them, burn them hard. In addition, doesn't that just scream right in the face of the vaunted role-playing? It's almost like a catch-22. The players are asked to role-play, yet the wishes will never be granted without them resorting to legalese which would require that they use out of character terms just to not get a screwing. Things like 'inherent bonus' or 'treasure X worth less than 25000 gold pieces'. Thats how I see it as well. But apparently, if you go all legaleze on the wording (apparently thats only asshatery if it's done to keep the system under control, not to abuse it), "grant up to 3 wishes" implys granting the casting of 3 wishes, an ability not currently supported in the rules (there is no description of any "grants to" ability or spell, no explanations or limitations. It is a make-believe ability), but is still somehow RAW. apparently, granting the benifit of 3 wish's is something entirely different and cannot result in the wishes being granted. It's asshattery either way. I guess you're trying to say that since I see it working one way, that I don't see that as asshattery. You'd be wrong. Trying to abuse wish tricks is asshattery and shouldn't be tolerated. It should be handled out of game, person to person, rather than DM v. Character. Trying to abuse poor wording is also asshattery. The point was that it was asshattery to employ twisting when the rules didn't permit it, as with using the "basic" effects of Wish or with Gate in general. (And when the rules do permit twisting, a credible death threat on a called creature should be sufficient to discourage it.) But more importantly, it's bad form to apply an in-character solution to an out-of-character problem. Which is what this is. A better solution is to discuss it with the player employing this method, stressing that while the game can be bent into a Gordian knot it generally shouldn't be. Exactly. I agree, In the cases where the rules don't permit twisting, it's bad form to twist the wishes. However, It is still being debated how an effreet is granting wishes. If the effreet is granting, as a SLA, the ability to cast wish (as what, I am still unsure, Otto hasn't clarified how the "grants to" SLA he's created functions yet), then the recipient would be casting the wish (and likely spending the XP, since it's the "grants to" ability thats a SLA of the effreet) and thus the wish can't, by the rules, be twisted. However, If it is the effreet that is casting the wish, and the recipient is only granted the final benifit, then it can be twisted, as it's the efreets will thats made reality, not the recipient. Non-sequitur. (That means one doesn't follow the other, in case you need help with that definition as well.) Twisting the rules or not is asshattery regardless if the 'grants to' part works the way you say (which also isn't defined that way as I can tell) or the way I say. as for the death threat, gate (and most other similar spells) allows for a single service. once the wishes have been granted, the service is done, and death threats mean nothing because it will be gone. I thought it was threat of death or perform the service? In the case of the planar binding spells. Though, with gate, what you say is true. [qutoe]last i checked, characters cast spells and demanded wish's "in-character", thus it is an in character problem as much as the player being an ass is out-of-character. The out of character solution is to request the player not to do such things. It is the first course of action and I have even agreed with it's use.[/quote] Glad we agree that it's an out of character solution that's needed then. However, calling me an asshat because I'm not willing to accept the abuse exsists to be done in the firstplace, I don't much appreciate that. I certainly didn't call you an asshat because of that. The asshattery party is only for when the twisting occurs to the character as a retribution when there was no call for it in game, such as the wish is within the bounds of the wish spell. Should I not question the ability for a player to abuse the system because the solution to the abuse, should they insist on performing it, is to mess with the player? If a player says "I can abuse the system", Isn't it a better to be able to say, "technically, no, you can't. and I'd rather you didn't try, you won't like the results" rather then, "please don't break my game, I really don't want to have to end it for everyone"? why am I wrong for wanting the former answer rather then the later? (In my experience...) No. One way is not better than the other. In fact, with a player such as that it's better to just tell them player to player that they shouldn't try to do that. With that type of player, the "technically, no, you can't" will likely lead to them attempting a different abuse because you've only quashed that one trick they were attempting to use. By talking to them out of game, you explain that you're not willing to see those abuses in game (and there are some you can't really stop, like, at all, without arbitrary houserules), then the player will understand that it's not just that abuse, but all abuses that won't be tolerated. Or you can combine the two. Tell them that the abuse they're about to try doesn't technically work and that you won't tolerate future attempts to abuse other tricks. Prove that the rules don't permit it. Keep in mind that the way you choose to interpret an ambiguous phrase (which happens to be contrary to all literary background) does not consitute proof. It would constitute you being trying to force your opinion (which happens to be contrary to all literary background) upon others. Are you saying that it's okay to twist a wish that falls within the described limits of the wish spell? since when were enforcing clearly writen rules (trying to wish beyond what wish says it can do) out of the blue? It's not those that are beyond that are out of the blue. It's twisting those wishes that are NOT beyond what wish says that it becomes out of the blue. This interpretation has problems as well. you felt the need to define the problems you see with mine, and despite the fact this entire thread is based around the problems with your interpretation, you act like it's foolproof. The problem is, this interpretation leaves it open to abuse by a player, and players should not have that kind of power. additionally, it doesn't define how it's accomplished, what are the limitations, durration, range? Problems with my interpretation... Problems with your changing of the ability... take your pick. How are you going to stop abuses by a player that's willing to try these kind of abuses. doing this can be seen as granting the effreet a benifit of the wish, as it is his desire being granted by the outcome, not the recipients, which is not allowed. Why isn't it allowed? To turn your words back on you, where is that described? And you're making no sense now. The efreeti casts the wish to affect the non-genie. The efreeti desires the the wish to be twisted, but that's not allowed, as you said. The non-genie then gets the wish without it being twisted. (As long as the wish is within the bounds of the wish; link provided above.) In addition, all it takes is for some non-genie in cahoots with the efreeti and suddenly it's clear sailing for a race that has three wishes per day to suddenly go hog-wild. I like this for a CR 10 encounter: 1 Efreeti, 1 level 8 caster. They're allies. The caster is granted the 3 wishes, and the efreeti fulfills them by word and intent (they're allies after all). That's to say, 3 wishes as a standard action. After all, it's 1/day to grant three wishes, not 3/day grant one wish. Who ever said the perversion was a bad effect for he who is effected by it. If the intent is to honestly aid someone, a perversion could be debilitating. If the intent is to screw someone, it could be perverted to be benificial to that someone. Ok. That seemed to be the intent, but I agree with what you seem to be saying there. The perversion isn't a bad effect to the person being affected. This leaves the perversion as a bad effect to the person doing the casting. The casters intent is perverted, that is not to say the caster will be inflicted with something. wishing an ally to be imortal may result in them being transported to a timeless plane. wishing an enemy to be immortal, with the hopes/intent to trap them on a timeless plane may result in turning them into a lich, vampire or similar, thus making them more powerful, live forever and be rather difficult to kill permanantly. both are perversions of the casters intent. Great. Perversions of the caster's intent. Gotcha. :smirk: So, the efreeti's intent, not the non-genie's intent (going by your method of the efreeti is casting it) is perverted. Or is this the part where you (or someone else) comes back with another excuse for 'screw the non-genie' because it's not really supposed to pervert then intent of the efreeti, but it's supposed to punish the non-genie.
Infernostrider 09-23-07, 11:55 AM	Efreet are prideful, stubborn and very short-tempered. Just because they can grant wishes doesn't mean they will. next to that, wishes are usually granted out of gratitude, sincere, honorable gratitude. i can imagine that efreetti and other wishgranting creatures (likes djinns, standard ****, not a frikken great wyrm dragon) would rather die or kill you then forceably give a wish, or if they DO grant you the wish, they'll make it backfire even when you wish within the bounds set by the PHB
Kratch 09-23-07, 04:06 PM	Wow. Condescending. From you. Amazing, considering it took you that long to get it that 'grants to' means 'grants to'. Sorry, The tone of your post really Ticked me off, so i returned it in kind. Childish, perhaps. But i notice this post is far more civil. It did take you 3 posts to finally explain that you weren't interpretating within the rules that already existed, but rather, were creating new mechanics, and since you could never get past "grants to" (when it was the "wishes" part that was causing the confusion, I saw it as grant up to 3 desires (accomplished through it's own casting of the wish spell) which i explained, you meant grant up to 3 castings of the wish spell, but it took you 3 posts to actually say that) So, what are we down to right now then... A. The efreeti grants the three wishes to the non-genie to use in accordance with the description found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm). If it goes outside the described limits, then the non-genie gets it twisted as per the description of the spell. B. The efreeti casts the wishes to grant 3 requests/desires (AKA wishes) upon the non-genie in accordance with those same described limits. Is that about the extent of the two sides of this argument? I added the bolded portion, now it looks about right. 1. You gave the characters the wish (through the efreeti) in the first place. Not true, as it stands by your interpretation, a player can force the wish from an effreet without needing your permission 2. The players are attempting one of the many abuses in the game, and you don't stop and take it out of game, but rather you ... burn them, burn them hard. Not quite, you inform them that the abuse is not really safe, there are consequences, such as (by the interpretation i'm using) the wishes getting twisted. If they continue anyways, then it is not asshatery, they have been warned. The way I see it, I don't have to do the twisting, I just have to demonstrate that i CAN, and that should be enough. I don't have to resort to asshatery (as you call it), I just need to demonstrate that it is an option i can use if they wish to attempt the abuse. this is why it's bothering me so much that my interpretation is being accused of being asshatery, I'm not advocating using it without warning, without ever letting the player know (i've never even suggested as much), I'm saying it is within the rules (by my interpretation) and thus, the abuse, as currently seen, is not a good idea, because it has consequences, loopholes, dangers, whatever you want to call it. It's asshattery either way. I guess you're trying to say that since I see it working one way, that I don't see that as asshattery. You'd be wrong. Trying to abuse wish tricks is asshattery and shouldn't be tolerated. It should be handled out of game, person to person, rather than DM v. Character. Trying to abuse poor wording is also asshattery. Showing how it can be done is not asshatery. Using it without warning, particularly to an extreme degree, I will agree is asshatery, but thats not what i've been advocating. Twisting the rules or not is asshattery regardless if the 'grants to' part works the way you say (which also isn't defined that way as I can tell) or the way I say. My interpretation uses the way current mechanics work, and extrapolates how to accomplish the "grants 3 wishes" ability. It grants 3 requests/desires (AKA wishes) (to no genies) through the use of it's SLA to cast the wish spell. The spell duplicated as a SLA in the stat block is always italicized, and it is WISH that is italicized, thus, it is wish (not "grants to") that is used as a SLA. The grants to non genies part is a limitation, unfortunately, it is ambiguous in how it functions (in my interpretation). Your interpretation creates a new mechanic that grants the ability to pass casting ability onto others, This makes the text "grants up to 3 wishes to non genies" pretty clear, but leaves the details completely unknown (since they are a new mechanic). Both interpretation leaves questions due to the poor wording and lack of description of the text, however, I have to ask, which interpretation is more in tune with the rules in general, the one that conforms (somewhat forcibly, I'll admit) the questionable line of text to currently existing rules, or the one that creates a new mechanic to justify the interpretation? I thought it was threat of death or perform the service? In the case of the planar binding spells. That really depends. If it's death or service, and he performs the service (regaurdless of if its bad service or not), has he not followed the command? I certainly didn't call you an asshat because of that. The asshattery party is only for when the twisting occurs to the character as a retribution when there was no call for it in game, such as the wish is within the bounds of the wish spell. Your not the only one throwing the term around. And it has been implied that even considering this tactic as valid is asshatery. As I've said above, I don't need to use this to deter abuse, I just need to demonstrate I can do it by (my interpretation) of RAW. Or you can combine the two. Tell them that the abuse they're about to try doesn't technically work and that you won't tolerate future attempts to abuse other tricks. This is my proffered method. The more abuses I can quash, the less pleading with my players to behave i need to do. How are you going to stop abuses by a player that's willing to try these kind of abuses. As best I can. Talking to the player is always a first step, If i can support myself with RAW deterants, all the better. If I can demonstrate reasonable role playing deterants, I'll mention those when talking to the player as well. I have never disagreed with your mentioning of speaking with players, I have just claimed the more abuses you can quash beforehand, the less pleading to behave needs to be done. Why isn't it allowed? To turn your words back on you, where is that described? The efreeti casts the wish to affect the non-genie. The efreeti desires the the wish to be twisted, but that's not allowed, as you said. The non-genie then gets the wish without it being twisted. (As long as the wish is within the bounds of the wish; link provided above.) In addition, all it takes is for some non-genie in cahoots with the efreeti and suddenly it's clear sailing for a race that has three wishes per day to suddenly go hog-wild. I like this for a CR 10 encounter: 1 Efreeti, 1 level 8 caster. They're allies. The caster is granted the 3 wishes, and the efreeti fulfills them by word and intent (they're allies after all). That's to say, 3 wishes as a standard action. After all, it's 1/day to grant three wishes, not 3/day grant one wish. Not entirely sure what your describing here, but as you said There are problems with my interpretation, there are problems with yours. (also, If the effreet is using wish to grant it's own desires (the death of an opponent), doesn't that violate the "to non genies only" clause.) Ok. That seemed to be the intent, but I agree with what you seem to be saying there. The perversion isn't a bad effect to the person being affected. This leaves the perversion as a bad effect to the person doing the casting. It can technically be bad for both. And just because it's bad for the caster, does not mean it effects the caster directly (which is where this strand originated) Great. Perversions of the caster's intent. Gotcha. :smirk: So, the efreeti's intent, not the non-genie's intent (going by your method of the efreeti is casting it) is perverted. If the effect goes beyond the limits of what wish can do. so technically, If an effreet tried to accomplish something beyond what a wish can normally do, it could be perverted to the benifit of the recipient he was trying to twist. However, at no point does the effreet need to attempt to go beyond a wish's capabilities, you wish for immortality, I'm sure there is an 8th (or lower level) spell (such as plane shift or maybe even flesh to stone (immortalized in stone)) or item that can accomplish the task. Or is this the part where you (or someone else) comes back with another excuse for 'screw the non-genie' because it's not really supposed to pervert then intent of the efreeti, but it's supposed to punish the non-genie. If the effreet tries to go beyond a wishes listed capabilities, it will pervert the effreets intent.
Otto the Bugbear 09-23-07, 04:55 PM	Sorry, The tone of your post really Ticked me off, so i returned it in kind. Childish, perhaps. But i notice this post is far more civil. It did take you 3 posts to finally explain that you weren't interpretating within the rules that already existed, but rather, were creating new mechanics, and since you could never get past "grants to" (when it was the "wishes" part that was causing the confusion, I saw it as grant up to 3 desires (accomplished through it's own casting of the wish spell) which i explained, you meant grant up to 3 castings of the wish spell, but it took you 3 posts to actually say that) Except it wasn't creating new mechanics. The mechanics were already there on how to grant spells to another character. Not true, as it stands by your interpretation, a player can force the wish from an effreet without needing your permission. Ill-defined context. If inside the game it actually gets to that point, then that's already a failure point. Before that 11th level character even gets the chance to say "I wish I were as strong as a bull", the DM should have halted the game and discussed it with the players. That's what I meant by 'you gave the character'. The DM has to explicitly not stop the game and talk Person to Person about not taking that abusive course of action. By not stopping the game for that talk, he's implicitly granted permission to continue. Then, he punishes the character when it was he (the DM) that allowed it to get to that stage. Not quite, you inform them that the abuse is not really safe, there are consequences, such as (by the interpretation i'm using) the wishes getting twisted. If they continue anyways, then it is not asshatery, they have been warned. Right. That's what I was talking about in #1, where the DM has allowed it to get that far. Thus, he has given permission. The way I see it, I don't have to do the twisting, I just have to demonstrate that i CAN, and that should be enough. I don't have to resort to asshatery (as you call it), I just need to demonstrate that it is an option i can use if they wish to attempt the abuse. this is why it's bothering me so much that my interpretation is being accused of being asshatery, I'm not advocating using it without warning, without ever letting the player know (i've never even suggested as much) Then it's not asshattery. Every time you mention that you'd talk the the player out of game, it falls outside the realm of asshattery. Every time someone says that they wouldn't talk to the player, and just twist the wish around, that remains asshattery. Showing how it can be done is not asshatery. Using it without warning, particularly to an extreme degree, I will agree is asshatery, but thats not what i've been advocating. I see that's not what you've been advocating. However, there are people that DO advocate that -- not talking to the player -- and I'll call that asshattery. Clear and fair enough? That really depends. If it's death or service, and he performs the service (regaurdless of if its bad service or not), has he not followed the command? That could be argued by the character metting out the death. Then he can claim that it was not carried out if the efreeti warped it. That sort of legalese-wrangling can go both ways. (And a character that can accomplish that is likely able to mop the floor with the efreeti, making the threat all the more potent.) Your not the only one throwing the term around. And it has been implied that even considering this tactic as valid is asshatery. As I've said above, I don't need to use this to deter abuse, I just need to demonstrate I can do it by (my interpretation) of RAW. Considering it as valid is not what I was talking about. (I know I'm repeating myself now, but just so it's clear). I was talking about it being asshattery by doing it without first talking out of character since this is really an out of character problem. The player is the one wanting to do this abuse, and will likely just try others, so that's where it needs to start. If a DM gives fair warning after an actual discussion, not a one sided lecture, and the player persists, then I wouldn't call it asshattery. The most important (IMO) step was taken; talking person to person about the issue. This is my proffered method. As best I can. Talking to the player is always a first step, If i can support myself with RAW deterants, all the better. If I can demonstrate reasonable role playing deterants, I'll mention those when talking to the player as well. I have never disagreed with your mentioning of speaking with players, I have just claimed the more abuses you can quash beforehand, the less pleading to behave needs to be done. And that's good. And that's not what I was talking about. I only meant going forth with the twisting but without speaking DM to player, or friend to friend. (also, If the effreet is using wish to grant it's own desires (the death of an opponent), doesn't that violate the "to non genies only" clause.) It's the non-genie's desire, the efreet is just along for the ride. And even if the argument can be made that the efreeti, as a willing participant, has that desire, then that means the efreeti twisting the wish when called upon to do so is fulfilling its own desires [to twist the wish] as well. Therefore, it cannot twist the wish [its desire]. And I don't think that's what you were after with that comment. If the effect goes beyond the limits of what wish can do. Of course. Implied by not stated. [qutoe]If the effreet tries to go beyond a wishes listed capabilities, it will pervert the effreets intent.[/QUOTE] Even if that intent was to twist the wish of the non-genie. Not entirely sure what your describing here, but as you said There are problems with my interpretation, there are problems with yours. I moved the quote out of context a little bit, because... I guess that's what it really boils down to. I'm certain that you're not going to convince me, and I'd bet money that I'm not going to convince you. It looks like we've given our side of the story enough that perhaps the thread should be allowed to resume its normal course. Each reader can make up their own mind, or we can go back and forth for another 50 posts.
Nephlite 09-23-07, 10:23 PM	next to that, wishes are usually granted out of gratitude, sincere, honorable gratitude. i can imagine that efreetti and other wishgranting creatures (likes djinns, standard ****, not a frikken great wyrm dragon) would rather die or kill you then forceably give a wish, or if they DO grant you the wish, they'll make it backfire even when you wish within the bounds set by the PHB Noble Djinns specifically say they grant a wish if captured with no mention of perversion like Efreeti.
Lamune the Brave 09-23-07, 11:34 PM	I was just currious if others had the problem or had solutions in mind. When playing a sweeping, epic-length campaign we will sometimes take breaks from the main storyline to tell other tales, from perspectives outside of the main character's viewpoints. Lesser characters influenced by the changes to the world, or even just small amusing subplots. We've even on rare occasion mixed in random two or three session "evil" campaigns where parts of the storyline are advanced with the player's manipulating the minions that are plotting their own doom. I smell a diversion! We flip to the other side of the gate, and everyone rolls up partially-advanced 'freets (using the Savage Species rules) and is assigned a task to investigate the reports of random abduction and forced servitude of your people! :evillaugh
Otto the Bugbear 09-24-07, 07:09 AM	Noble Djinns specifically say they grant a wish if captured with no mention of perversion like Efreeti. Everyone help me out here. I keep reading the Efreeti entry and I don't see any mention of perversion. Am I just missing it or is this something that's being added thanks to folklore or due to the LE alignment? (Thus, not actually in the efreeti entry, as has been claimed over and over.)
Nephlite 09-24-07, 09:11 AM	Everyone help me out here. I keep reading the Efreeti entry and I don't see any mention of perversion. Am I just missing it or is this something that's being added thanks to folklore or due to the LE alignment? (Thus, not actually in the efreeti entry, as has been claimed over and over.) Page 115 MM. Efreeti's Flavor text: Infamous hatred of servitude, like revenge, etc. Plus, the evil alignment. So we get inferences that he might try to rwist the meaning. Nothing solid. Noble Djinn however say they just do the wishing if trapped and good aligned. So we assume they are not twisters. But in the end thi is flavor text not game mechanics.
1CentSage 09-24-07, 09:18 AM	Everyone help me out here. I keep reading the Efreeti entry and I don't see any mention of perversion. Am I just missing it or is this something that's being added thanks to folklore or due to the LE alignment? (Thus, not actually in the efreeti entry, as has been claimed over and over.) I guess this attitude is based mainly on the "Efreet are infamous for their hatred of servitude, desire for revenge, cruel nature and ability to beguile and mislead" part of the Efreet entry in the MM (beginning of second paragraph) and the fact that their alignment is LE. While this traits of the Efreet might seem to be an easy "legal" way out for a DM faced with attempts of wish abuse, I would say that this "infinite wish trick" should be seen as what it really is: A simple oversight on the part of the designers leading to a loophole. Therefore it it should be dealt with accordingly by removing the loophole (in agreement with all participants of the game) in whatever way one prefers and not by starting some rules lawyering contest. Because, if it is legitimate or not is only an important question if the participants in the game have agreed that they would like to play the game in both cases. Otherwise, RAW does not really matter and the problem will be resolved by definition (which might correspond to houseruling in the case it contradicts RAW, but who cares or even checks if you have agreed that all other options are not acceptable for the game you want to play ?)
Sunic_Flames 09-24-07, 10:30 AM	My guess is LE = renowned for adhering to the letter of rules but not the spirit. Kinda like lawyers. :P
Otto the Bugbear 09-24-07, 12:09 PM	Yeah, that's what I figured. I just kept seeing claims that it was in the flavor text of the efreeti that they liked to twist wishes around, when I didn't see it. So I was hoping that it actually wasn't there (proving that my eyesight hasn't gotten that bad), or it was covered someplace I was unaware of. The inference is fine, but that's not the same as it actually being there in the text.
Treantmonklvl20 09-25-07, 04:46 PM	Of course there are lots of other things you can gate that are capable of granting wishes besides an Efreeti, so it becomes a more general question of "Can a creature you call grant you wishes?" By the RAW, absolutely. It's dumb - but there is nothing in the rules that makes this impossible. Restrictions for SLA's that would require XP to use if they were spells is a Conjuration(summoning) restriction that does not apply to Conjuration (Calling). Personally, I would think that any player who tries to take advantage of such blatant munchkinism is a weasel, and would get one of these :uh-huh: immediately. But yeah, if he persisted in his weasily ways - I would misinterpret his wishes to the most extreme way possible - "Raze your intellegence master? Your wish is my command." (I stole that one from a Dragon Magazine from about 15-20 years ago talking about Efreeti granting wishes) Even throw in blatant hearing miscomprehension, "Piles of mold coins just for you." Or - if you want to end the problem permanently - have the Efreeti wish the biggest gold nugget ever - 50 feet directly over the caster's head.
DaidojiTaidoru 09-25-07, 05:32 PM	The infinite wish combo is in fact going to be the basis for my next campaign. The wish based economy in full. Of course I admittedly stole the basics to make it work from Frank and K. The wish cap makes things a lot easier to adjudicate. But seriously if your players are messing with that loophole in a game not meant for that level of abuse it's probably best to speak to them out of game.
Otto the Bugbear 09-25-07, 07:55 PM	"Piles of mold coins just for you." A man walks into a bar looking disappointed and carrying a black bag over one shoulder. He sits down at the bar. The bartender walks up. "What`s in the bag?", asks the bartender. The man puts the bag on the bar, reaches in and pulls out a baby grand piano, a small bench and a 12 inch tall man wearing a top hat and a tux with tails. The 12 inch tall man sits down at the piano and begins playing Beethoven. "That`s amazing!" says the bartender, his eyes wide with disbelief. "Where did he come from?". The man reaches into the bag and pulls out a genie lamp. "Rub the lamp" he says, pushing the lamp toward the bartender. The bartender grabs the lamp and begins rubbing it vigorously with his bar rag. Out pops an old, wrinkled genie. "I grant you one wish" he says to the bartender. "I want a million bucks!" says the bartender. "Done" says the genie. The genie disappears back into the lamp. Moments pass. Suddenly a duck appears on the bar with a poof. Then another....and another. They appear on the bar stools...on the tables...on the Budweiser sign on the wall. POOF...POOF...POOF. Thousands...tens of thousands of ducks begin to fill the bar! "Christ!" shouts the bartender. "I didn't say ducks!" he yells, "I said bucks!". The man at the bar looks at the bartender, "You think I asked for a 12 inch pianist?" :rimshot: author unknown
Thubby 09-25-07, 08:53 PM	Otto the Bugbear, you win teh internets.
Kratch 09-25-07, 11:13 PM	Of course there are lots of other things you can gate that are capable of granting wishes besides an Efreeti, so it becomes a more general question of "Can a creature you call grant you wishes?" The question actually is "how does a creature grant you wish's?" does it grant you the ability to cast wish (and if so, what are the limits/restrictions of this and what kind of wish is it granting (a spell or a SLA?)? or does it grant your desire (AKA wish) by casting it's wish SLA? By the RAW, absolutely. It's dumb - but there is nothing in the rules that makes this impossible. Once the above questions are answered, then whether it is doable by raw is less importent then what limitations and options are available by raw that limit the abuse (or the usefulness of the abuse)? For example, If it grants the ability to cast wish, does it grant a spell or a SLA (note: In this case, the ability to grant is a SLA, not necessarily what is granted, thats not yet determined. If it's a spell, then xp cost is a factor)? If it grants the desire (AKA wish) by casting wish as a SLA, can it twist the wish (if desired) since it is the caster and getting what it wants (and if it wants something that is a twisted perversion of the original request, it should get what it wants)?