Wish.... - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Byakugan01 Jun 23, 2015 4:26:43	In AL....what happens if you use a Wish spell to wish you had never claimed a specific magic item?
#2 Kithas48 Jun 23, 2015 14:20:48	Considering you can use Wish to cast Remove Curse, Dispel Magic, and Greater Restoration one of those should be able to break your bond to a magical item. That said, you can choose to end your attunement to a magic item at any time, except cursed Items, see Remove Curse. In short, Yes, but you probably have an easier way of doing what you are trying to do.
#3 OoftaMeg Jun 23, 2015 14:28:43	Byakugan01 wrote:
#4 Byakugan01 Jun 23, 2015 21:04:12	If you think never being able to claim a magic item because you picked up a cursed flashlight is inconsequential, then that is your right, but other people disagree and it takes away their fun because they feel like they are being punished each and every game session. "The meta game rules of AL however, can never be affected by a character spell. The only reason it's an issue is because of the rules of AL." Is this printed in the rules somewhere? I am inclined to think that if a character had never received an item in the first place then it couldn't have been added to their character log... As far as the source of the Wish goes....let's just say that the designers of PoTA are sloppy, and their adventure introduces 5th level characters with a 'friendly' NPC that can potentially cast the spell. Technically, until they eratta simulacrum and/or the Wish spell, the NPC can cast infinite wishes, just like any other PC with access to those spells.
#5 OoftaMeg Jun 24, 2015 8:01:59	Sorry if my attempt at humor offended you. If you have a cursed item, you need to have remove curse cast. Remove curse is a 3rd level wizard spell, so a wish to replicate it's effects. Or find a spellcaster of the appropriate level.
#6 FarBeyondC Jun 24, 2015 9:20:37	Byakugan01 wrote:
#7 Sorsohka Jun 24, 2015 9:31:54	Byakugan01 wrote:
#8 Noctaem Jun 24, 2015 9:52:46	It seems to me that you're trying to find an in-character solution to an out of character problem. Why not share the problem you're having with the people running the AL at your location instead. Be honest about it to the people who can most easily make changes.
#9 Coredump00 Jun 24, 2015 14:00:59	Byakugan01 wrote:
#10 Byakugan01 Jun 24, 2015 22:54:47	Could you be more specific, coredump?
(Reply to #10) Coredump00	Byakugan01 wrote:
#12 Noctaem Jun 25, 2015 6:57:31	As in that no character could have the wish spell available at the levels currently being played in AL.
#13 Undrhil Jun 25, 2015 18:25:07	He said there is apparently a NPC in PotA that could potentially have it. I would imagine that would be DM fiat and you would need to talk to your DM about the NPC having the spell in the first place. However, what would be the point in wishing away a magic item? Now, if you used Wish to try to move that item over to another character, that would be another matter entirely.
(Reply to #13) OoftaMeg	Undrhil wrote:
#15 shintashi Jun 26, 2015 10:31:03	FarBeyondC wrote:
#16 FarBeyondC Jun 26, 2015 19:44:11	shintashi wrote:
(Reply to #16) OoftaMeg	FarBeyondC wrote:
#18 Imaculata Jun 27, 2015 4:55:35	I'd allow it, but then maybe another character gets a hand of the item, and it disrupts the chain of events that lead up to this future. In other worlds, the future changes noticeably. Or, it works, but the cursed item still wants to return to the player. So he keeps seeing the item pop up in various locations, haunting him.
#19 Hibiki54 Jun 28, 2015 10:24:07	If you gain the ability to cast a Wish spell in AL and waste it on something like that, you are a horrible player and should just end your life. Just sayin'. Perfectly good waste of a wish spell.
#20 Greenstone.Walker Jun 28, 2015 19:21:02	In a multi-player, multi-GM environment like AL, time magic just doesn't work. There is no way to go back in time and change things. In this case, there is no way to change the fact that the player had that item for a length of time and, presumably, it served them well during that time. Therefore, it stays marked on their log. I would rule at my public games that wish cannot do what the player wants. Choose something else.
(Reply to #14) TheBreen	OoftaMeg wrote:
#22 Kalani Jun 29, 2015 19:38:44	There is no provision so it is left to DM discretion. as a rule, I recommend DMs to be upfront and say to the group something to the effect of: "Ok we now get to magic item distribution. Tonight we have two magic items, a +1 blah blah blah and a holy avenger. There is also a potion of healing if anyone wants it. I find that taking a hands off approach and letting the party discuss it themselves tends to resolve any potential problems. In my experience, most parties will simply discuss the entire loot as a single pile with some players expressing interest in one or both items. With the party clearly knowing who is interested in what - it usually doesn't matter which item is ultimately given first. Had this happen at my table at the end of HotDQ in which the party found 4 items in their last session and 2 items the session previous.
#23 Greenstone.Walker Jun 30, 2015 4:29:23	TheBreen wrote:
#24 Coredump00 Jun 30, 2015 6:11:26	I don't know of any rules covering the 'order' of distribution. So it would seem to fall under the DM's purview. Luckily the liklihood of a situation like the one you describe seems pretty remote, and social pressure should normally resolve the situation.
(Reply to #4) Pauper	Byakugan01 wrote:
#26 Kalani Jun 30, 2015 8:15:28	Spells do not allow players to overcome the limitations of the rules (they are themselves constrained by them). As such, the rules on magic item acquisition or removal could not be bypassed by any spell. In addition, while the DM is granted latitude in interpreting the rules, they are not empowered to ignore/alter any rules that AL operates under. As such, a DM could not consent to anything that would alter the magic item rules. Casting a wish to remove the item would only result in the item being removed from the characters possession. It would remain on their logsheet. While not explicitly covered in the rules - the existing rules regarding DME prohibit this attempt to game the system. Your only option legally, is to trade your item for a potion with a cert. This leaves you with keogothm's ointments and the few potions from LMoP (with the ointment being the easiest to acquire as far more of those certs exist).
#27 Byakugan01 Jul 04, 2015 20:37:40	Wish clearly can circumvent -some- rules. For example, if you failed a save and were destroyed by a magic effect that irrevokeably kills your character, then by the rules you cannot come back to life. However a wish could be used to rewind time and prevent the spell from killing you in the first place. You didnt circumvent the rule, you simply negated the need to APPLy the rule in the first place. If at the end of an adventure, a pc picks up a magic item and everyone else there says OK then a rule is applied. But if a character does NOT pick the item up, then they would not have to follow that particular set of rules steps. Awesome.
#28 Byakugan01 Jul 04, 2015 22:40:10	Ok, how about this one? What if a table encounters a specific magic item. The wizard really wants it, so he wishes for the item to become his property. What happens?
#29 imaginaryfriend Jul 04, 2015 23:06:16	DM willing, It becomes their property untill.the end of the session. At which point the AL magic item distribution meta-rules kick in and the item will have to be distributed as usual.
#30 Byakugan01 Jul 05, 2015 0:31:58	So, are you saying DMs have the authority to take a magic item away from one player who already owns it and give it to another player? I am under the impression that disallowing or removing questionable items at -the beginning- of a session as being within DM perview. But I have never heard of a DM being able to remove an item from a character and give it to another. Not even for extreme examples like when a 1 session old level 2 character claimed the Black Dragon Mask in HotDQ, over the level 7 characters that had spent 35 sessions getting there. Thats just an example from my own personal experience.
#31 Mirtek Jul 05, 2015 5:34:18	Byakugan01 wrote:
#32 imaginaryfriend Jul 05, 2015 5:35:43	Byakugan01 wrote:
#33 Kalani Jul 05, 2015 6:54:15	As I said above, the DM cannot allow any action which violates the rules AL operates under. As stated in the DMing and DM Empowerment article DMs are empowered to make rulings on situations the rules do not cover DMs are not empowered to alter/ignore rules which are explicitly covered and in which there is no grey area. Or to put it another way: The PHB/ALPG/FAQ has many implicit rules. DMs are free to interpret any implicit rule and make a ruling on said. The Rules also have many explicit rules. DMs are expected to follow those rules without alteration. The rules also have situations the rules do not cover. The DM can make a ruling in such situations (ideally based on similar rules). Magic item Distribution is explicitly covered. Neither the players, nor DM can agree to any spell, rule, or game effect which alters these rules. Wish cannot overcome this rule or bypass it in any way as the DM has no authority to allow any action to circumvent it. At best - your character owns the item (in game) but that does not mean they gain the item at end of session, can take an item from another player This is simply a situation beyond the limits of wish. Besides, characters have no knowledge or understanding of the meta-laws (rules) their world operates under. How exactly can a wizard make a wish that involves concepts beyond them such as "player" and "dungeon master".
#34 Kalani Jul 05, 2015 7:28:00	Ultimately, this is a pointless discussion - as there are no plans to extend the campaign to tier 4 at this time and for the next year at least. The only way this might be an issue is if one of the upcoming hardcover adventures goes to 20th level (which I find unlikely). Season 3 is introducing the first tier 3 expedition (3-4) and even then - it is almost impossible to gain enough Xp and downtime (in Expeditions) to reach 11th level without playing one of the hardcover adventures or using DM Rewards. Season 4 will continue this trend, offering more tier 3 adventures the same way season 2 offers more tier 2 adventures than season 1. With that being said however, don't expect an explosion of tier 3 adventures as they still have to include tier 1 and tier 2 adventures as well. I suspect we will not see any tier 4 adventures until season 5 at the earliest. Even then, I doubt such adventures will be released prior to the campaign staff writing AL specific rulings for wish and similar disruptive spells.
(Reply to #34) Ainulindalion	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #34) Coredump00	I agree with the gist of your post. This is a problem that just does not exist at this point, as I have also stated at other times. That said..... Kalani wrote:
#37 Kalani Jul 05, 2015 9:09:06	Coredump00 wrote:
#38 UmbraCarmen Jul 05, 2015 11:17:15	The only issue with wish should be is the character going to break the game. This is a really low levelled spell equivalent so as long the character hasn't worded the Wish in such a way as to completely mess himself or herself up a resonable and fair DM should allow it. Of course that said this has been worded somewhat confusingly... then again an NPC actually casts the Wish and hence speaks the words? A "kind" DM (for an inexperienced player) might have the NPC drop a hint to say do you really want to wish that or should I just ask the powers to break the link. I don't fully understand the league or it's rules but the DM might be able to get advice on this. If there are legal league providers of the Wish spell given it's potential problems there may be some advice out there? If not then arguably the DM has leeway to act as above?
#39 Kalani Jul 05, 2015 12:07:29	While no ruling exists for Wish as of yet - my assumption is that it will be limited to duplicating spell effects and bringing permanently dead characters back to life (such as a traitorous cloak). Other uses for wish are simply to volitile to adjudicate, while yet other uses violate the AL rules regarding the addition of treasure not specifically listed in an adventure being prohibited. Then you get examples such as the one in this thread whereby someone tries to use wish to circumvent the rules or meta-rules.
(Reply to #37) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#41 Kalani Jul 05, 2015 14:57:47	I only have to state the fact that the books themselves are designed for characters of "levels 1-8, 7-15 and 1-15". This is a fact. I can also state that characters of different tiers should not be more than 1-2 levels less/more than the APL, and that the ruling allowing characters of mixed tiers is intended to allow characters that were already in the party to continue adventuring together. It it is highly unlikely that a L16 character would be adventuring with a party of L14s (simply because that would require the character to have played both RoT and PotA to do so). Even then, it is considerably more unlikely that said character would hit L17 before the end of the end of the adventure. It is theoretically possible for this to happen - but is the very definition of an edge case. I did state that there is nothing explicitly preventing this - only that there are no adventures designed for tier 4 characters. Theoretically an 18th level character could play the hardcovers with a party whose APL is 16, although I don't see how they would gain the XP to do so (as there is no downtime catchup for tier 4). This of course assumes you can find a group with an APL of 15+ who haven't finished the hardcover(s). Either way, the spirit of the rules is for the game to end just prior to the start of tier 4. This may change in the future - but even then, I expect a ruling on wish before it becomes a problem.
#42 Byakugan01 Jul 06, 2015 3:50:43	5th level characters can encounter a 'friendly' Lich in the published adventure. It falls within standard DM purview to be able to exchange spells on a monsters spell list. So it seems possible for an NPC to legally cast a Wish spell on behalf of a PC. It probably isn't a good idea, but it does seem possible. I started with a question about magic items, but we can go with something more simple. What happens if an NPC casts a Wish to grant a PC permanent resistance to a damage type? It isn't a magic item, doesn't have a duration, or a gold piece value, requires no cert, and as far as i can tell requires no log entry per AL guidelines.
#43 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 7:30:25	The thing is - what possible reason or incentive would the Lich have of casting Wish on a bunch of upstart adventurers? Its expensive, taxing on his magical reserves and has a small chance of being permanently wiped from his memory. Let's not also forget the fact that said Lich is cantankerous and wants to be left alone, but will tolerate the party and converse with them for a few minutes if they're respectful . I've read his description. He is hardly what I call friendly (aka helpful). He's neutral/indifferent at best and downright lethal at worst, depending upon what the party does. Let's flip the perspective. How willing would your 20th level wizard be of casting Wish for a random 5th level NPC you just met? How willing would you be to cast a wish so powerful that it risks being wiped from your mind permanently? i wish people (players and DMs alike) would stop treating NPCs as walking vending machines and start treating them as people. You might be able to get him to cast a minor spell on the players behalf (4th level max) - but even that would require a good persuasion check accompanied by actual role playing to convince him. The. Party. Is. Simply. Beneath. His. Notice. He couldn't care less what happens to them.
(Reply to #43) Ainulindalion	Kalani wrote:
#45 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 8:05:26	I consider him indifferent to the party (but cantankerous and easily angered) - but hostile to the cultists. Still puts him in favor of the party, but not to the point he would waste his precious spells on them. He would provide them information necessary to clearing out the cultists however, as that way he doesn't have to put any effort in himself. I too could see him casting knock. At most I could also see him casting endure elements or a similar spell. Wish? Yeah no. Any spellcasters with 9th level spell access has better things to do with their time than cast wish for some upstart adventurers who think too highly of themselves. In fact, the audacity of such request would probably make him immediately hostile and have him demand they leave his presence and never return. If they don't - he would respond similar to if the party attacked him.
(Reply to #37) Pauper	Kalani wrote:
#47 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 8:41:50	I asked on the LC group whether players could start a hardcover from the beginning with a high level tier 2-3 party, given the fact that there are no strict tiers involved. The official stance is that you cannot. It would require too many changes to the story to preserve the stories integrity, and such changes are not allowed. It was further clarified that while no "strict" tiers are involved - each section of the hardcover does have an "intended level/tier" (which is true) and that the party APL should be as close to that level as possible. As per the ALPG and the DMing and DM Empowerment article - DMs are not only allowed to (but are actively encouraged) to make minor changes to an encounter (adding/removing creatures of the same type) in order to maintain the intended difficulty. It would require extensive changes to an adventure (more than DMs are empowered to do) in order to maintain the intended encounter difficulty, if the combined APL of the party is more than a few levels from intended. This is especially true if the parties APL is in a different tier from the dungeon level. While individual characters may vary, the Combined APL (of the entire party) should remain as close to the dungeon level as possible.
(Reply to #41) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #43) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #49) Ainulindalion	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #47) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #47) Pauper	Kalani wrote:
#53 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 9:32:24	RCs are allowed to make official statements (only LCs are unable to do so). On the FB groups - if an RC or admin appends their comment with #AL_RC, #AL_Admin or #AL_Official - it is an official answer. The response was from an RC. While it is possible that it may be overturned by an admin - unless that occurs it is an official response. I would screencap it but I am responding from my phone as I am AFK till tomorrow. Also - I should point out that the LC group is the place where LCs communicate directly with the RCs and Admins and with each other. It is also one of the places where the entire campaign staff debates a situation (the other place is in the bazaar - our internal forum, but responses can be slow on the forum) in order to create a ruling considering the fact that LCs do not have access to the RC or admin groups (for obvious reaons). It is not some random group of D&D fans and I would thank you kindly to show a little more respect to the campaign staff. Furthermore - I do not use the terms "official stance" unless an admin or RC answers something in an official capacity. If it's just discussion or if it's just LCs, I tend to use terms such as "general consensus of the campaign staff".
(Reply to #49) Pauper	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #42) Pauper	Byakugan01 wrote:
#56 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 10:05:02	As far as the magic items are concerned - we can't even give those out either (as they are not clearly defined). It's unfortunate - but the standing rule is that we ignore that benefit in AL. The only items we can give are those specifically spelled out in the adventure. For reference a I point to the ruling for RoT regarding the dragon hoard (see the FAQ wiki). We can roll for mundane treasure (GP and the like), but cannot add any magic items even if they are rolled. As such - the Lich won't even give out magic items (not even a potion or scroll) in AL. With that being said, a few healing potions 2-3) wouldn't disrupt the game in any way - and if the DM handed out those, I don't think anyone would take issue as they can be purchased from the PHB and are "technically" mundane items.
(Reply to #56) Ainulindalion	Kalani wrote:
#58 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 10:18:44	If they are specifically mentioned that is different. I don't have my book on me at this moment and don't recall exactly what it said. My post was mostly generic and was in response to the previous comment about an amulet or something. I reiterate - if it's specifically mentioned as an option (such as potion of X or scroll of Y) it can be handed out. If it is listed as "minor magical item" (or similar) however, we are expected to ignore it.
(Reply to #58) Ainulindalion	Kalani wrote:
#60 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 10:41:08	For reference: If condition X occurs, the lich gives Item A to certain party members, if present. He might also present the party with rewards among potions of G or H or scrolls of I or S.
(Reply to #60) Ainulindalion	Kalani wrote:
#62 FelwredNew Jul 06, 2015 10:57:05	To take this a step further, under the wording of the Wish spell - a player could wish for a magic item if the wish were worded very carefully (obviously the DM should try to circumvent this wherever possible). If the player wished for something fairly minor (a scroll, a potion) - I'd be tempted to allow it even in AL. Is there an AL ruling about how wishes can be used? It sounds like the magic item transfer/loss rules are set in stone (excepting getting more) but how about a more broad determination on Wish? Fred
#63 Kalani Jul 06, 2015 11:07:11	There are no rules regarding wish specifically as the campaign staff does not concern themselves with edge cases. Wish should not appear in the game until tier 4. Regarding wish - a specific ruling is not required as it is already covered under existing rulings. DMs are not empowered to add/subtract/modify rewards. As such - wish can only be used to duplicate spell effects, or to cure a character of a condition that only a wish can remove (eg vampirism, a roll of 22 on the arcane edict punishment table, etc). You cannot grant rewards not specifically listed in an adventure. Period. Wish cannot circumvent this rule regardless of whether the reward is tangible (eg treasure/items) or intangible (permanent spell effects, boons, titles, etc).
(Reply to #62) Pauper	FelwredNew wrote:
#65 Byakugan01 Jul 06, 2015 13:17:22	This very much reminds me of Might and Magic, The Mandate of Heaven. Anybody remember that game? the cute easter egg with the teleporter that goes to the most dangerous part of the game world, with the characters being surrounded by Tiamats and Quisonarts. But all you have to do is turn off turn based combat, and run your butt to the second teleporter that goes to the...cubicles of plenty. There the party gets a bunch of spell upgrades, tons of cash, and a bunch of 'free' item upgrades that they werent supposed to get for 10-15 more levels. Well, once you know about it, it's pretty hard not to want to go there every time you play the game to get all the awesome free stuff. The designers put it there, so they made it possible. Just like they decided to insert a friendly Lich into a 5th level adventure. Use whatever adjective you want...he is pliable enough that he will give up several magic items, simply in exchange for flattery or a promise to do what they were already there to do in the first place. I personally call that 'very helpful'.
#66 imaginaryfriend Jul 06, 2015 14:39:28	I can't wait till I get a player with a log sheet entry "Lich leveraged DM vending machine" (well granted they may not write that, but that would be how I would read it).
(Reply to #53) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#68 Byakugan01 Jul 08, 2015 0:27:37	I am fairly unsatisfied with a response of 'Wish counts as a reward'. Especially given the fact that PCs will eventually have access to the spell on a regular basis...'Sorry your wish can't do the thing it explicitly says it can because its a reward...' I don't buy it. I mean look, I might have had an NPC give some free biscuits to my party in Red Larch as a reward. Even worse, I let that count as a satisfying meal. I mean there was a baker there, and she had a plot hook for the party, and they had just saved some children. I guess I just got caught up in the moment when I gave them the illegal biscuits. Does the fact that my PCs got illegal rewards mean my table is no longer AL legal? In what way should I tell the characters to mark that on their log sheets? I am being a bit sarcastic, sorry. I simply don't consider an NPC helping the characters in a way that is consistent with their abilities to be a reward. I have a player that has had a set of Platemail since level 1 because our LC DMed an expedition and passed it out as treasure. I am inclined to respect other local DMs rulings even if I don't like them very much. I am pretty sure I am the only table out of 4(currently) that doesn't use the 'flanking' rules. The only reason I don't use them is because it encourages the characters to make poor decisions, and I am brutal enough on them in combat anyways. I guess I just feel like there is a big gap between the intent of the rules, and the delivery/development of them. I think it is a patently horrible idea to put a friendly Lich in an organized play adventure for 5th level characters...One behind the scenes pulling strings, fine. One standing in a room that is scripted NOT to hang around or help the PCs, fine. One that monologues how inept the party is as it leaves, fine. But NOT one that is friendly enough to give away magic items, that the party gets to stop and talk to, and roll persuasion checks on etc...It is both a violation of the historical notion that liches are among the most dangerous and evil creatures in the world, and a recipie for shenanigans. Not to mention the fact that in this case they used a specific named NPC that is part of the game world's lore. Not only did they script him like a stupid robot, but they changed him into a different creature.
(Reply to #68) Coredump00	Byakugan01 wrote:
#70 imaginaryfriend Jul 08, 2015 7:39:42	And assuming Coredump00 wrote:
#71 Skerrit Jul 08, 2015 8:39:58	I'll say it right now. A permenant effect from a spell would be a reward. Unless specifically called out (i.e. the NPC will cast wish so each character gains an artifact), would be a reward. If it was something that only lasted for an adventure and you couldn't take it out of the adventure (i,e, the NPC knows you are going to fight a red dragon and casts resist fire on you), that's fine. Unfortunately the printed book adventures (especially the parts after that run for Encounters) are not always written with DnDAL in mind and the admins hav no say into what goes in them nor do we get to see them ahead of time because we are volunteers not employees. This means that some times things like this will happen. Greg Marks DnDAL Associate Resource Manager
(Reply to #70) Coredump00	imaginaryfriend wrote:
(Reply to #71) Coredump00	Skerrit wrote:
(Reply to #73) Pauper	Coredump00 wrote:
#75 Kalani Jul 08, 2015 9:29:30	Pauper wrote:
#76 Byakugan01 Jul 08, 2015 22:31:58	You can hardly try to fault people for trying to best utilize their options within the framework of the rules....We don't cry foul when a cleric casts bless on a fighter and it makes him hit more often. That is simply the players using their abilities to 'survive' and keep playing longer. The easiest solution is to just ban Wish from appearing in published adventures altogether, or limit it to only duplicating other spell effects. This does little to stop the really broken things though unless they also eratta Simulacrum. But judging by the amazing speed of the last set of rules adjustments, that will probably only take another year or two for someone to have a meeting about. AL rulings that create double standards are quite annoying....If a player casts wish, then it is simply a spell, but if a NPC casts Wish then it is a reward? When a wizard uses polymorph he can only turn people into badgers or whatnot, but when a NPC casts the same spell they can change people into T-rexes instead...because rules. Summon elemental can only get gargoyles for a PC, but an NPC can get salamanders, xorn, etc...
#77 Kalani Jul 09, 2015 7:48:50	No. That is not what was said at all. If anyone (PC or NPC) casts wish, and wishes for a permanent effect (treasure, item, permanent resistance, etc) - that is a reward. DMs cannot add rewards to an adventure, nor can they allow a player to try and gain "extras". Case in point: A rogue pickpockets a noble. Any treasure they get from them must be removed from a nearby area (opponent, loot drop, etc). DMs cannot give bonuses. Period. A player wishes for an item worth 25K or less. Assuming it was a mundane item, the DM must remove the value of that item from nearby areas in the same adventure. The player must also "buy out" the other players share of that treasure as well - otherwise they are effectively robbing the party. Shifting treasure is somewhat easier to do in Expeditions than Encounters. With the drop-in/out nature of encounters - you can only really shift treasure from areas the party can realistically access in the current or next session. If they missed some treasure though - that could be used. Its just easier to ban that use of the spell than to give DMs such a headache, esp. since it puts excessive work on the DM. Wishing for a magic item however, would be strictly prohibited.
(Reply to #76) Pauper	Byakugan01 wrote:
#79 Skerrit Jul 09, 2015 9:06:34	Byakugan01 wrote:
(Reply to #74) Coredump00	Pauper wrote:
(Reply to #76) Coredump00	Byakugan01 wrote:
(Reply to #75) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #80) Pauper	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #83) Coredump00	Pauper wrote:
#85 Kalani Jul 10, 2015 13:01:01	If I declare something is official - that's because I know for a fact it came from an official source. When I do this, I am simply relaying/paraphrasing an official statement. I make every effort to provide quotes and/or screencaps of such information when possible (although when I answer from my phone, I am unable to do this due to the limitations of the technology). Sure, the information is coming to you second hand, and like all second-hand information you should fact-check it.... But simply dismissing it as unofficial because it is second-hand is bad form. If you question the authenticity or veracity of the information, it is your responsibilility to fact check it. The admins, and RCs are overworked as it is. Expecting them to give you a first-hand account is selfish, and unrealistic. The only other thing I can think - is that you question my honesty, and believe that I am claiming my own opinion as "official statements". If this is the case, I am slightly offended in your lack of trust (as I have not given any reason to doubt my integrity). With that being said, it is your perrogative - and also your responsibility to verify the accuracy and honesty of my statements. Dismissing it without fact checking is the height of arrogance and entitlement, especially when I quote sources and provide screencaps/links. Honestly, I don't even know why this is an issue in this thread I never once said that this was an "official ruling". I stated my opinion and indicated it as such. I also stated that a pre-existing official ruling covers wish under its blanket rule (although not explicitly). And yet, I get people argue with the authenticity of an official article which could be easily fact checked... Its not like I haven't shared the link dozens of times in the past and/or quoted large sections of the article on a semi-regular basis (as questions like this come up more often than I would like).
#86 imaginaryfriend Jul 10, 2015 13:05:57	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #85) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#88 Kalani Jul 10, 2015 13:42:56	Coredump00 wrote:
(Reply to #84) Pauper	Coredump00 wrote:
#90 Kalani Jul 10, 2015 14:37:10	Pauper wrote:
#91 CahPahkah Jul 10, 2015 14:36:34	The trolls are getting fat in here... I wonder what it would be like if there was some pithy admonition against providing nourishment for regenerating chaotic evil monsters with the giant subtype that can only be killed by acid or fire?
(Reply to #88) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
(Reply to #89) Coredump00	Pauper wrote:
(Reply to #90) Coredump00	Kalani wrote:
#95 Byakugan01 Jul 11, 2015 21:54:04	I appreciate all the hard work the volunteers put in. But i do feel like the answer to this particular question would be more accurately summed up as 'that hasn't been considered yet, so lets pick this other rule and make it apply to the situation.' Which is both entirely reasonable and an unsatisfactory answer at the same time. People just started talking about wanting Fai Chen to be able to do exactly what I originally asked about in this thread...except with more dancing.
(Reply to #93) Pauper	Coredump00 wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Byakugan01

Jun 23, 2015 4:26:43

In AL....what happens if you use a Wish spell to wish you had never claimed a specific magic item?

Kithas48

Jun 23, 2015 14:20:48

Considering you can use Wish to cast Remove Curse, Dispel Magic, and Greater Restoration one of those should be able to break your bond to a magical item. That said, you can choose to end your attunement to a magic item at any time, except cursed Items, see Remove Curse.

In short, Yes, but you probably have an easier way of doing what you are trying to do.

OoftaMeg

Jun 23, 2015 14:28:43

Byakugan01 wrote:

Byakugan01

Jun 23, 2015 21:04:12

If you think never being able to claim a magic item because you picked up a cursed flashlight is inconsequential, then that is your right, but other people disagree and it takes away their fun because they feel like they are being punished each and every game session.

"The meta game rules of AL however, can never be affected by a character spell. The only reason it's an issue is because of the rules of AL."

Is this printed in the rules somewhere? I am inclined to think that if a character had never received an item in the first place then it couldn't have been added to their character log...

As far as the source of the Wish goes....let's just say that the designers of PoTA are sloppy, and their adventure introduces 5th level characters with a 'friendly' NPC that can potentially cast the spell. Technically, until they eratta simulacrum and/or the Wish spell, the NPC can cast infinite wishes, just like any other PC with access to those spells.

OoftaMeg

Jun 24, 2015 8:01:59

Sorry if my attempt at humor offended you.

If you have a cursed item, you need to have remove curse cast. Remove curse is a 3rd level wizard spell, so a wish to replicate it's effects. Or find a spellcaster of the appropriate level.

FarBeyondC

Jun 24, 2015 9:20:37

Byakugan01 wrote:

Sorsohka

Jun 24, 2015 9:31:54

Byakugan01 wrote:

Noctaem

Jun 24, 2015 9:52:46

It seems to me that you're trying to find an in-character solution to an out of character problem. Why not share the problem you're having with the people running the AL at your location instead. Be honest about it to the people who can most easily make changes.

Coredump00

Jun 24, 2015 14:00:59

Byakugan01 wrote:

#10

Byakugan01

Jun 24, 2015 22:54:47

Could you be more specific, coredump?

(Reply to #10)

Coredump00

Byakugan01 wrote:

#12

Noctaem

Jun 25, 2015 6:57:31

As in that no character could have the wish spell available at the levels currently being played in AL.

#13

Undrhil

Jun 25, 2015 18:25:07

He said there is apparently a NPC in PotA that could potentially have it. I would imagine that would be DM fiat and you would need to talk to your DM about the NPC having the spell in the first place.

However, what would be the point in wishing away a magic item? Now, if you used Wish to try to move that item over to another character, that would be another matter entirely.

(Reply to #13)

OoftaMeg

Undrhil wrote:

#15

shintashi

Jun 26, 2015 10:31:03

FarBeyondC wrote:

#16

FarBeyondC

Jun 26, 2015 19:44:11

shintashi wrote:

(Reply to #16)

OoftaMeg

FarBeyondC wrote:

#18

Imaculata

Jun 27, 2015 4:55:35

I'd allow it, but then maybe another character gets a hand of the item, and it disrupts the chain of events that lead up to this future. In other worlds, the future changes noticeably.

Or, it works, but the cursed item still wants to return to the player. So he keeps seeing the item pop up in various locations, haunting him.

#19

Hibiki54

Jun 28, 2015 10:24:07

If you gain the ability to cast a Wish spell in AL and waste it on something like that, you are a horrible player and should just end your life. Just sayin'.

Perfectly good waste of a wish spell.

#20

Greenstone.Walker

Jun 28, 2015 19:21:02

In a multi-player, multi-GM environment like AL, time magic just doesn't work. There is no way to go back in time and change things.

In this case, there is no way to change the fact that the player had that item for a length of time and, presumably, it served them well during that time. Therefore, it stays marked on their log.

I would rule at my public games that wish cannot do what the player wants. Choose something else.

(Reply to #14)

TheBreen

OoftaMeg wrote:

#22

Kalani

Jun 29, 2015 19:38:44

There is no provision so it is left to DM discretion. as a rule, I recommend DMs to be upfront and say to the group something to the effect of:

"Ok we now get to magic item distribution. Tonight we have two magic items, a +1 blah blah blah and a holy avenger. There is also a potion of healing if anyone wants it.

I find that taking a hands off approach and letting the party discuss it themselves tends to resolve any potential problems.

In my experience, most parties will simply discuss the entire loot as a single pile with some players expressing interest in one or both items. With the party clearly knowing who is interested in what - it usually doesn't matter which item is ultimately given first.

Had this happen at my table at the end of HotDQ in which the party found 4 items in their last session and 2 items the session previous.

#23

Greenstone.Walker

Jun 30, 2015 4:29:23

TheBreen wrote:

#24

Coredump00

Jun 30, 2015 6:11:26

I don't know of any rules covering the 'order' of distribution. So it would seem to fall under the DM's purview. Luckily the liklihood of a situation like the one you describe seems pretty remote, and social pressure should normally resolve the situation.

(Reply to #4)

Pauper

Byakugan01 wrote:

#26

Kalani

Jun 30, 2015 8:15:28

Spells do not allow players to overcome the limitations of the rules (they are themselves constrained by them). As such, the rules on magic item acquisition or removal could not be bypassed by any spell.

In addition, while the DM is granted latitude in interpreting the rules, they are not empowered to ignore/alter any rules that AL operates under. As such, a DM could not consent to anything that would alter the magic item rules.

Casting a wish to remove the item would only result in the item being removed from the characters possession. It would remain on their logsheet.

While not explicitly covered in the rules - the existing rules regarding DME prohibit this attempt to game the system. Your only option legally, is to trade your item for a potion with a cert. This leaves you with keogothm's ointments and the few potions from LMoP (with the ointment being the easiest to acquire as far more of those certs exist).

#27

Byakugan01

Jul 04, 2015 20:37:40

Wish clearly can circumvent -some- rules. For example, if you failed a save and were destroyed by a magic effect that irrevokeably kills your character, then by the rules you cannot come back to life. However a wish could be used to rewind time and prevent the spell from killing you in the first place. You didnt circumvent the rule, you simply negated the need to APPLy the rule in the first place.

If at the end of an adventure, a pc picks up a magic item and everyone else there says OK then a rule is applied. But if a character does NOT pick the item up, then they would not have to follow that particular set of rules steps.

Awesome.

#28

Byakugan01

Jul 04, 2015 22:40:10

Ok, how about this one?

What if a table encounters a specific magic item. The wizard really wants it, so he wishes for the item to become his property. What happens?

#29

imaginaryfriend

Jul 04, 2015 23:06:16

DM willing, It becomes their property untill.the end of the session. At which point the AL magic item distribution meta-rules kick in and the item will have to be distributed as usual.

#30

Byakugan01

Jul 05, 2015 0:31:58

So, are you saying DMs have the authority to take a magic item away from one player who already owns it and give it to another player?

I am under the impression that disallowing or removing questionable items at -the beginning- of a session as being within DM perview. But I have never heard of a DM being able to remove an item from a character and give it to another. Not even for extreme examples like when a 1 session old level 2 character claimed the Black Dragon Mask in HotDQ, over the level 7 characters that had spent 35 sessions getting there. Thats just an example from my own personal experience.

#31

Mirtek

Jul 05, 2015 5:34:18

Byakugan01 wrote:

#32

imaginaryfriend

Jul 05, 2015 5:35:43

Byakugan01 wrote:

#33

Kalani

Jul 05, 2015 6:54:15

As I said above, the DM cannot allow any action which violates the rules AL operates under. As stated in the DMing and DM Empowerment article

DMs are empowered to make rulings on situations the rules do not cover
DMs are not empowered to alter/ignore rules which are explicitly covered and in which there is no grey area.

Or to put it another way:

The PHB/ALPG/FAQ has many implicit rules. DMs are free to interpret any implicit rule and make a ruling on said.
The Rules also have many explicit rules. DMs are expected to follow those rules without alteration.
The rules also have situations the rules do not cover. The DM can make a ruling in such situations (ideally based on similar rules).

Magic item Distribution is explicitly covered.

Neither the players, nor DM can agree to any spell, rule, or game effect which alters these rules.
Wish cannot overcome this rule or bypass it in any way as the DM has no authority to allow any action to circumvent it. At best - your character owns the item (in game) but that does not mean they gain the item at end of session, can take an item from another player

This is simply a situation beyond the limits of wish. Besides, characters have no knowledge or understanding of the meta-laws (rules) their world operates under.

How exactly can a wizard make a wish that involves concepts beyond them such as "player" and "dungeon master".

#34

Kalani

Jul 05, 2015 7:28:00

Ultimately, this is a pointless discussion - as there are no plans to extend the campaign to tier 4 at this time and for the next year at least. The only way this might be an issue is if one of the upcoming hardcover adventures goes to 20th level (which I find unlikely).

Season 3 is introducing the first tier 3 expedition (3-4) and even then - it is almost impossible to gain enough Xp and downtime (in Expeditions) to reach 11th level without playing one of the hardcover adventures or using DM Rewards.

Season 4 will continue this trend, offering more tier 3 adventures the same way season 2 offers more tier 2 adventures than season 1. With that being said however, don't expect an explosion of tier 3 adventures as they still have to include tier 1 and tier 2 adventures as well.

I suspect we will not see any tier 4 adventures until season 5 at the earliest. Even then, I doubt such adventures will be released prior to the campaign staff writing AL specific rulings for wish and similar disruptive spells.

(Reply to #34)

Ainulindalion

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #34)

Coredump00

I agree with the gist of your post. This is a problem that just does not exist at this point, as I have also stated at other times. That said.....

Kalani wrote:

#37

Kalani

Jul 05, 2015 9:09:06

Coredump00 wrote:

#38

UmbraCarmen

Jul 05, 2015 11:17:15

The only issue with wish should be is the character going to break the game. This is a really low levelled spell equivalent so as long the character hasn't worded the Wish in such a way as to completely mess himself or herself up a resonable and fair DM should allow it. Of course that said this has been worded somewhat confusingly... then again an NPC actually casts the Wish and hence speaks the words? A "kind" DM (for an inexperienced player) might have the NPC drop a hint to say do you really want to wish that or should I just ask the powers to break the link.

I don't fully understand the league or it's rules but the DM might be able to get advice on this. If there are legal league providers of the Wish spell given it's potential problems there may be some advice out there? If not then arguably the DM has leeway to act as above?

#39

Kalani

Jul 05, 2015 12:07:29

While no ruling exists for Wish as of yet - my assumption is that it will be limited to duplicating spell effects and bringing permanently dead characters back to life (such as a traitorous cloak).

Other uses for wish are simply to volitile to adjudicate, while yet other uses violate the AL rules regarding the addition of treasure not specifically listed in an adventure being prohibited. Then you get examples such as the one in this thread whereby someone tries to use wish to circumvent the rules or meta-rules.

(Reply to #37)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

#41

Kalani

Jul 05, 2015 14:57:47

I only have to state the fact that the books themselves are designed for characters of "levels 1-8, 7-15 and 1-15". This is a fact.

I can also state that characters of different tiers should not be more than 1-2 levels less/more than the APL, and that the ruling allowing characters of mixed tiers is intended to allow characters that were already in the party to continue adventuring together.

It it is highly unlikely that a L16 character would be adventuring with a party of L14s (simply because that would require the character to have played both RoT and PotA to do so).

Even then, it is considerably more unlikely that said character would hit L17 before the end of the end of the adventure. It is theoretically possible for this to happen - but is the very definition of an edge case.

I did state that there is nothing explicitly preventing this - only that there are no adventures designed for tier 4 characters.

Theoretically an 18th level character could play the hardcovers with a party whose APL is 16, although I don't see how they would gain the XP to do so (as there is no downtime catchup for tier 4). This of course assumes you can find a group with an APL of 15+ who haven't finished the hardcover(s).

Either way, the spirit of the rules is for the game to end just prior to the start of tier 4. This may change in the future - but even then, I expect a ruling on wish before it becomes a problem.

#42

Byakugan01

Jul 06, 2015 3:50:43

5th level characters can encounter a 'friendly' Lich in the published adventure. It falls within standard DM purview to be able to exchange spells on a monsters spell list. So it seems possible for an NPC to legally cast a Wish spell on behalf of a PC.

It probably isn't a good idea, but it does seem possible.

I started with a question about magic items, but we can go with something more simple. What happens if an NPC casts a Wish to grant a PC permanent resistance to a damage type?

It isn't a magic item, doesn't have a duration, or a gold piece value, requires no cert, and as far as i can tell requires no log entry per AL guidelines.

#43

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 7:30:25

The thing is - what possible reason or incentive would the Lich have of casting Wish on a bunch of upstart adventurers?

Its expensive, taxing on his magical reserves and has a small chance of being permanently wiped from his memory.

Let's not also forget the fact that said Lich is cantankerous and wants to be left alone, but will tolerate the party and converse with them for a few minutes if they're respectful

. I've read his description. He is hardly what I call friendly (aka helpful). He's neutral/indifferent at best and downright lethal at worst, depending upon what the party does.

Let's flip the perspective. How willing would your 20th level wizard be of casting Wish for a random 5th level NPC you just met? How willing would you be to cast a wish so powerful that it risks being wiped from your mind permanently?

i wish people (players and DMs alike) would stop treating NPCs as walking vending machines and start treating them as people.

You might be able to get him to cast a minor spell on the players behalf (4th level max) - but even that would require a good persuasion check accompanied by actual role playing to convince him.

The. Party. Is. Simply. Beneath. His. Notice. He couldn't care less what happens to them.

(Reply to #43)

Ainulindalion

Kalani wrote:

#45

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 8:05:26

I consider him indifferent to the party (but cantankerous and easily angered) - but hostile to the cultists. Still puts him in favor of the party, but not to the point he would waste his precious spells on them.

He would provide them information necessary to clearing out the cultists however, as that way he doesn't have to put any effort in himself.

I too could see him casting knock. At most I could also see him casting endure elements or a similar spell.

Wish? Yeah no. Any spellcasters with 9th level spell access has better things to do with their time than cast wish for some upstart adventurers who think too highly of themselves.

In fact, the audacity of such request would probably make him immediately hostile and have him demand they leave his presence and never return. If they don't - he would respond similar to if the party attacked him.

(Reply to #37)

Pauper

Kalani wrote:

#47

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 8:41:50

I asked on the LC group whether players could start a hardcover from the beginning with a high level tier 2-3 party, given the fact that there are no strict tiers involved.

The official stance is that you cannot. It would require too many changes to the story to preserve the stories integrity, and such changes are not allowed.

It was further clarified that while no "strict" tiers are involved - each section of the hardcover does have an "intended level/tier" (which is true) and that the party APL should be as close to that level as possible.

As per the ALPG and the DMing and DM Empowerment article - DMs are not only allowed to (but are actively encouraged) to make minor changes to an encounter (adding/removing creatures of the same type) in order to maintain the intended difficulty.

It would require extensive changes to an adventure (more than DMs are empowered to do) in order to maintain the intended encounter difficulty, if the combined APL of the party is more than a few levels from intended. This is especially true if the parties APL is in a different tier from the dungeon level.

While individual characters may vary, the Combined APL (of the entire party) should remain as close to the dungeon level as possible.

(Reply to #41)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #43)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #49)

Ainulindalion

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #47)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #47)

Pauper

Kalani wrote:

#53

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 9:32:24

RCs are allowed to make official statements (only LCs are unable to do so). On the FB groups - if an RC or admin appends their comment with #AL_RC, #AL_Admin or #AL_Official - it is an official answer.

The response was from an RC. While it is possible that it may be overturned by an admin - unless that occurs it is an official response. I would screencap it but I am responding from my phone as I am AFK till tomorrow.

Also - I should point out that the LC group is the place where LCs communicate directly with the RCs and Admins and with each other.

It is also one of the places where the entire campaign staff debates a situation (the other place is in the bazaar - our internal forum, but responses can be slow on the forum) in order to create a ruling considering the fact that LCs do not have access to the RC or admin groups (for obvious reaons).

It is not some random group of D&D fans and I would thank you kindly to show a little more respect to the campaign staff.

Furthermore - I do not use the terms "official stance" unless an admin or RC answers something in an official capacity. If it's just discussion or if it's just LCs, I tend to use terms such as "general consensus of the campaign staff".

(Reply to #49)

Pauper

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #42)

Pauper

Byakugan01 wrote:

#56

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 10:05:02

As far as the magic items are concerned - we can't even give those out either (as they are not clearly defined). It's unfortunate - but the standing rule is that we ignore that benefit in AL.

The only items we can give are those specifically spelled out in the adventure.

For reference a I point to the ruling for RoT regarding the dragon hoard (see the FAQ wiki). We can roll for mundane treasure (GP and the like), but cannot add any magic items even if they are rolled.

As such - the Lich won't even give out magic items (not even a potion or scroll) in AL. With that being said, a few healing potions 2-3) wouldn't disrupt the game in any way - and if the DM handed out those, I don't think anyone would take issue as they can be purchased from the PHB and are "technically" mundane items.

(Reply to #56)

Ainulindalion

Kalani wrote:

#58

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 10:18:44

If they are specifically mentioned that is different. I don't have my book on me at this moment and don't recall exactly what it said.

My post was mostly generic and was in response to the previous comment about an amulet or something.

I reiterate - if it's specifically mentioned as an option (such as potion of X or scroll of Y) it can be handed out.

If it is listed as "minor magical item" (or similar) however, we are expected to ignore it.

(Reply to #58)

Ainulindalion

Kalani wrote:

#60

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 10:41:08

For reference:

If condition X occurs, the lich gives Item A to certain party members, if present. He might also present the party with rewards among potions of G or H or scrolls of I or S.

(Reply to #60)

Ainulindalion

Kalani wrote:

#62

FelwredNew

Jul 06, 2015 10:57:05

To take this a step further, under the wording of the Wish spell - a player could wish for a magic item if the wish were worded very carefully (obviously the DM should try to circumvent this wherever possible). If the player wished for something fairly minor (a scroll, a potion) - I'd be tempted to allow it even in AL. Is there an AL ruling about how wishes can be used? It sounds like the magic item transfer/loss rules are set in stone (excepting getting more) but how about a more broad determination on Wish?

Fred

#63

Kalani

Jul 06, 2015 11:07:11

There are no rules regarding wish specifically as the campaign staff does not concern themselves with edge cases. Wish should not appear in the game until tier 4.

Regarding wish - a specific ruling is not required as it is already covered under existing rulings.

DMs are not empowered to add/subtract/modify rewards.

As such - wish can only be used to duplicate spell effects, or to cure a character of a condition that only a wish can remove (eg vampirism, a roll of 22 on the arcane edict punishment table, etc).

You cannot grant rewards not specifically listed in an adventure. Period. Wish cannot circumvent this rule regardless of whether the reward is tangible (eg treasure/items) or intangible (permanent spell effects, boons, titles, etc).

(Reply to #62)

Pauper

FelwredNew wrote:

#65

Byakugan01

Jul 06, 2015 13:17:22

This very much reminds me of Might and Magic, The Mandate of Heaven. Anybody remember that game?

the cute easter egg with the teleporter that goes to the most dangerous part of the game world, with the characters being surrounded by Tiamats and Quisonarts. But all you have to do is turn off turn based combat, and run your butt to the second teleporter that goes to the...cubicles of plenty. There the party gets a bunch of spell upgrades, tons of cash, and a bunch of 'free' item upgrades that they werent supposed to get for 10-15 more levels.

Well, once you know about it, it's pretty hard not to want to go there every time you play the game to get all the awesome free stuff. The designers put it there, so they made it possible. Just like they decided to insert a friendly Lich into a 5th level adventure. Use whatever adjective you want...he is pliable enough that he will give up several magic items, simply in exchange for flattery or a promise to do what they were already there to do in the first place. I personally call that 'very helpful'.

#66

imaginaryfriend

Jul 06, 2015 14:39:28

I can't wait till I get a player with a log sheet entry "Lich leveraged DM vending machine" (well granted they may not write that, but that would be how I would read it).

(Reply to #53)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

#68

Byakugan01

Jul 08, 2015 0:27:37

I am fairly unsatisfied with a response of 'Wish counts as a reward'. Especially given the fact that PCs will eventually have access to the spell on a regular basis...'Sorry your wish can't do the thing it explicitly says it can because its a reward...' I don't buy it.

I mean look, I might have had an NPC give some free biscuits to my party in Red Larch as a reward. Even worse, I let that count as a satisfying meal. I mean there was a baker there, and she had a plot hook for the party, and they had just saved some children. I guess I just got caught up in the moment when I gave them the illegal biscuits. Does the fact that my PCs got illegal rewards mean my table is no longer AL legal? In what way should I tell the characters to mark that on their log sheets? I am being a bit sarcastic, sorry. I simply don't consider an NPC helping the characters in a way that is consistent with their abilities to be a reward.

I have a player that has had a set of Platemail since level 1 because our LC DMed an expedition and passed it out as treasure. I am inclined to respect other local DMs rulings even if I don't like them very much. I am pretty sure I am the only table out of 4(currently) that doesn't use the 'flanking' rules. The only reason I don't use them is because it encourages the characters to make poor decisions, and I am brutal enough on them in combat anyways.

I guess I just feel like there is a big gap between the intent of the rules, and the delivery/development of them. I think it is a patently horrible idea to put a friendly Lich in an organized play adventure for 5th level characters...One behind the scenes pulling strings, fine. One standing in a room that is scripted NOT to hang around or help the PCs, fine. One that monologues how inept the party is as it leaves, fine. But NOT one that is friendly enough to give away magic items, that the party gets to stop and talk to, and roll persuasion checks on etc...It is both a violation of the historical notion that liches are among the most dangerous and evil creatures in the world, and a recipie for shenanigans. Not to mention the fact that in this case they used a specific named NPC that is part of the game world's lore. Not only did they script him like a stupid robot, but they changed him into a different creature.

(Reply to #68)

Coredump00

Byakugan01 wrote:

#70

imaginaryfriend

Jul 08, 2015 7:39:42

And assuming

Coredump00 wrote:

#71

Skerrit

Jul 08, 2015 8:39:58

I'll say it right now. A permenant effect from a spell would be a reward. Unless specifically called out (i.e. the NPC will cast wish so each character gains an artifact), would be a reward. If it was something that only lasted for an adventure and you couldn't take it out of the adventure (i,e, the NPC knows you are going to fight a red dragon and casts resist fire on you), that's fine. Unfortunately the printed book adventures (especially the parts after that run for Encounters) are not always written with DnDAL in mind and the admins hav no say into what goes in them nor do we get to see them ahead of time because we are volunteers not employees. This means that some times things like this will happen.

Greg Marks

DnDAL Associate Resource Manager

(Reply to #70)

Coredump00

imaginaryfriend wrote:

(Reply to #71)

Coredump00

Skerrit wrote:

(Reply to #73)

Pauper

Coredump00 wrote:

#75

Kalani

Jul 08, 2015 9:29:30

Pauper wrote:

#76

Byakugan01

Jul 08, 2015 22:31:58

You can hardly try to fault people for trying to best utilize their options within the framework of the rules....We don't cry foul when a cleric casts bless on a fighter and it makes him hit more often. That is simply the players using their abilities to 'survive' and keep playing longer.

The easiest solution is to just ban Wish from appearing in published adventures altogether, or limit it to only duplicating other spell effects. This does little to stop the really broken things though unless they also eratta Simulacrum. But judging by the amazing speed of the last set of rules adjustments, that will probably only take another year or two for someone to have a meeting about.

AL rulings that create double standards are quite annoying....If a player casts wish, then it is simply a spell, but if a NPC casts Wish then it is a reward? When a wizard uses polymorph he can only turn people into badgers or whatnot, but when a NPC casts the same spell they can change people into T-rexes instead...because rules. Summon elemental can only get gargoyles for a PC, but an NPC can get salamanders, xorn, etc...

#77

Kalani

Jul 09, 2015 7:48:50

No. That is not what was said at all. If anyone (PC or NPC) casts wish, and wishes for a permanent effect (treasure, item, permanent resistance, etc) - that is a reward.

DMs cannot add rewards to an adventure, nor can they allow a player to try and gain "extras".

Case in point: A rogue pickpockets a noble. Any treasure they get from them must be removed from a nearby area (opponent, loot drop, etc). DMs cannot give bonuses. Period.

A player wishes for an item worth 25K or less. Assuming it was a mundane item, the DM must remove the value of that item from nearby areas in the same adventure. The player must also "buy out" the other players share of that treasure as well - otherwise they are effectively robbing the party.

Shifting treasure is somewhat easier to do in Expeditions than Encounters. With the drop-in/out nature of encounters - you can only really shift treasure from areas the party can realistically access in the current or next session. If they missed some treasure though - that could be used.

Its just easier to ban that use of the spell than to give DMs such a headache, esp. since it puts excessive work on the DM. Wishing for a magic item however, would be strictly prohibited.

(Reply to #76)

Pauper

Byakugan01 wrote:

#79

Skerrit

Jul 09, 2015 9:06:34

Byakugan01 wrote:

(Reply to #74)

Coredump00

Pauper wrote:

(Reply to #76)

Coredump00

Byakugan01 wrote:

(Reply to #75)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #80)

Pauper

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #83)

Coredump00

Pauper wrote:

#85

Kalani

Jul 10, 2015 13:01:01

If I declare something is official - that's because I know for a fact it came from an official source. When I do this, I am simply relaying/paraphrasing an official statement. I make every effort to provide quotes and/or screencaps of such information when possible (although when I answer from my phone, I am unable to do this due to the limitations of the technology).

Sure, the information is coming to you second hand, and like all second-hand information you should fact-check it.... But simply dismissing it as unofficial because it is second-hand is bad form. If you question the authenticity or veracity of the information, it is your responsibilility to fact check it. The admins, and RCs are overworked as it is. Expecting them to give you a first-hand account is selfish, and unrealistic.

The only other thing I can think - is that you question my honesty, and believe that I am claiming my own opinion as "official statements". If this is the case, I am slightly offended in your lack of trust (as I have not given any reason to doubt my integrity). With that being said, it is your perrogative - and also your responsibility to verify the accuracy and honesty of my statements.

Dismissing it without fact checking is the height of arrogance and entitlement, especially when I quote sources and provide screencaps/links.

Honestly, I don't even know why this is an issue in this thread

I never once said that this was an "official ruling".
I stated my opinion and indicated it as such.
I also stated that a pre-existing official ruling covers wish under its blanket rule (although not explicitly).

And yet, I get people argue with the authenticity of an official article which could be easily fact checked... Its not like I haven't shared the link dozens of times in the past and/or quoted large sections of the article on a semi-regular basis (as questions like this come up more often than I would like).

#86

imaginaryfriend

Jul 10, 2015 13:05:57

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #85)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

#88

Kalani

Jul 10, 2015 13:42:56

Coredump00 wrote:

(Reply to #84)

Pauper

Coredump00 wrote:

#90

Kalani

Jul 10, 2015 14:37:10

Pauper wrote:

#91

CahPahkah

Jul 10, 2015 14:36:34

The trolls are getting fat in here...

I wonder what it would be like if there was some pithy admonition against providing nourishment for regenerating chaotic evil monsters with the giant subtype that can only be killed by acid or fire?

(Reply to #88)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

(Reply to #89)

Coredump00

Pauper wrote:

(Reply to #90)

Coredump00

Kalani wrote:

#95

Byakugan01

Jul 11, 2015 21:54:04

I appreciate all the hard work the volunteers put in.

But i do feel like the answer to this particular question would be more accurately summed up as 'that hasn't been considered yet, so lets pick this other rule and make it apply to the situation.' Which is both entirely reasonable and an unsatisfactory answer at the same time.

People just started talking about wanting Fai Chen to be able to do exactly what I originally asked about in this thread...except with more dancing.

(Reply to #93)

Pauper

Coredump00 wrote: