For me, it's because it seems to be an expected culture of the Wish spell. Players have come to expect that their wish is going to be tweaked in some way, and that's half the fun.
Considering that in the campaigns I've played and DMed to date nobody has gotten to the point where they can cast Wish, I really don't think any of my players or acquaintances would "expect" anything about it besides the spell descriptions.
I think that's a generalization from the sort of players who hang out on D&D forums rather than what "players overall" do...
This thread is a great example of why Wish is such a controversial spell. About two thirds of the DMs in here are actively searching for ways to be gigantic ******** with the spell. Yes, I get it - wording is important. Do you really want your players to break character for a few hours at the table while they draw up a five page pseudo legal contract to the most exacting specifications they can? Is that really behavior you want to encourage in your players?
(. . .)
Actually, yes. Except I don't want them to do it at the table. I want them to go home and think about it between sessions about how they want that wish to go down and any possible way it could be twisted against them. Because we all know from stories about genies that is how wishes work in fiction. If I gave my players an atom bomb, I'd be sure to calculate the blast radius if they choose to set it off, to see if they'd be within it. Because I just handed them an atom bomb. Am I being a dick by seeing if they decided to vaporise themselves? No, the smart thing would be not to use the damn nuclear weapon. Likewise, wish is a reality-altering weapon. Mortals were not meant to tamper with the fabric of existence. In D&D, it is fairly easy to obtain this power, so the challenge then is to obtain the wisdom to use it. Maybe, like a certain 1980's movie once taught us, maybe it's the wisdom to learn not to cast wish: in nuclear war and wish the only winning move is not to play. So, if you decide to tailor the fabric of existence to your needs, you better damn well measure twice and cut once.
I have two rules with wish, which I have stated up front to my party:
1) how the wish is handled on my end is based on the intent and alignment of the wish caster. If it’s a good aligned creature (like a Djinni) who is favorable to the party, there will be limited consequences (the spell would fail or reduce its effect before it did something truly detrimental). If the caster is evil (like an efreeti) or not favorable to the party, you bet that wish is going to have some unexpected and negative consequences . If the caster is a party member or an item, I roll a D100 to determine severity of consequences (I adjust the consequences themselves based on the power of the wish).
2) Wish takes one action to cast. Therefore a wish cast by a player (themselves or using an item) would be able to be completed in 6 seconds or less. That means at most 2-3 sentences, not 5 pages of legalese. I don’t enforce this when the wish is granted by an NPC, where the alignment and disposition towards the party dictates the consequences.
This thread is a great example of why Wish is such a controversial spell. About two thirds of the DMs in here are actively searching for ways to be gigantic ******** with the spell. Yes, I get it - wording is important. Do you really want your players to break character for a few hours at the table while they draw up a five page pseudo legal contract to the most exacting specifications they can? Is that really behavior you want to encourage in your players?
The character burned a very powerful piece of consumable magic that cannot ever be replenished or restored. This was a sorceress tied to this specific entity, using that magic in a thematically appropriate and narratively cool way. Why are you guys so intent on f#@!ing her?
That's bothered the shit out of me ever since I started playing this game, as both a player and a DM. So many DMs on this forum have the singular, driving goal of absolutely ensuring that every single time their players use Wish, they regret it. That the Wish NEVER works, and furthermore always backfires in a way which damages the party or foils their goals as spectacularly and aggressively as possible. That no possible use of Wish beyond duplicating lower spells could EVER work in the party's favor.
It's more of a reaction of how the Wish is worded, the intent of the Wish, and how the player/character is using it. The tone of the OP seemed like the person is being a jerk and therefore I would probably respond in kind. Also, if the wish was hastily used as he said with basically one sentence, there would be major issues with it. Now if they spent a bit of time crafting a few sentences worth of how they want the Wish done and were being open to the application then I would make sure it was executed well with minor side effects.
They should have ended up with like... the dragon's very quick ability to fight off disease because the universe has a sense of humour.
Heh, I would double troll my players with this, firstly by starting with this, then have them go off thinking they're about to have a real tough fight on their hands..****y to find that the dragon, having lost it's robust immune system, has now died from the common cold.
"Congratulations, you've won the battle!" *closes monster manual*
There's a difference between Wish coming with some unexpected baggage, and Wish exploding in one's face with the fury of a supernova blast.
I refuse to accept the idea that the well-understood, broadly expected encouragement towards open and effective communication amongst the players of the game, which includes the DM, somehow becomes completely invalid when Wish gets involved. A DM who decides, without letting his players know, that Wish is a trap and anyone who casts it is going to regret life and probably lose their character is a DM who is more than a little bit of an *******. A player who decides that Wish is a great way to break the game in their favor and have their Cool Moment at the expense of everybody else is a player who is more than a little bit of an *******.
If your group wants Wish to be effective-with-drawbacks, if they want Wish to simply do what it's supposed to, or if the table wants Wish to require a month IRL to prepare and for the DM to receive a thirty-page contract signed in triplicate for each casting - those are all things that should be hashed out before someone casts the bloody thing. Deliberately antagonizing your players by ******* up their Wish spells even when they're not trying to break your game with them is just as dickish as deliberately antagonizing them any other way. And the inverse is also true - players who take Wish as an excuse to run roughshod over the game are players who should have their Wish privileges revoked, and their attempts detonated in their face.
Seriously. Just...talk about it. It won't kill ya, I promise.
If you just give players what they want, then you are likely going to end up with a very boring game. Are you in favour of also informing players where the spike traps are? How about ambushes. By your logic, a DM that decides, without letting his players know, that the treasure chest is a mimic and anyone who tries opening it is going to regret life and may lose their character is also an *******? This is a game with literal traps and if your players step onto a set of tiles with letters on them, then maybe they deserve what's coming to them? Wish has a spell description that details how it can end your character if you get greedy. There are plenty of applications of the spell that don't trip the ironic blowback part of it and those, if creatively applied, could be enough to kill most things (seriously 25k gp over 300 ft? Maybe drop a massive block of slate on your opponents. No blowback!) But if your characters can't read a spell description well enough to know that the thing who explicitly tells you being greedy can be game ending can be game ending if they get greedy? It's not my job to protect them from that. It's like someone playing Ultima 7, casts armageddon and is surprised that the world ended. Yeah, it's kinda in the name.
This thread is a great example of why Wish is such a controversial spell. About two thirds of the DMs in here are actively searching for ways to be gigantic ******** with the spell. Yes, I get it - wording is important. Do you really want your players to break character for a few hours at the table while they draw up a five page pseudo legal contract to the most exacting specifications they can? Is that really behavior you want to encourage in your players?
(. . .)
Actually, yes. Except I don't want them to do it at the table. I want them to go home and think about it between sessions about how they want that wish to go down and any possible way it could be twisted against them. Because we all know from stories about genies that is how wishes work in fiction. If I gave my players an atom bomb, I'd be sure to calculate the blast radius if they choose to set it off, to see if they'd be within it. Because I just handed them an atom bomb. Am I being a dick by seeing if they decided to vaporise themselves? No, the smart thing would be not to use the damn nuclear weapon. Likewise, wish is a reality-altering weapon. Mortals were not meant to tamper with the fabric of existence. In D&D, it is fairly easy to obtain this power, so the challenge then is to obtain the wisdom to use it. Maybe, like a certain 1980's movie once taught us, maybe it's the wisdom to learn not to cast wish: in nuclear war and wish the only winning move is not to play. So, if you decide to tailor the fabric of existence to your needs, you better damn well measure twice and cut once.
I'm not disagreeing with you because it's always ideal when the players think long about their use of Wish and even more ideal if they consult it ahead with DM but the biggest obstacle is that it's a 1 action cast spell that can be used in the spur of the moment during fight.
I was actually thinking about a way to ensure a little more time to consider all the options and thus changing the spell so that the specifically given components (reproduce spells, heal, restoration, create object etc.) can be cast as normal but the "Alter Reality" component is a ritual that has a casting time much longer (so it can't be used in one round fight).
Oh well, time will tell whether I will need the change or not ;-)
As for the OP, I agree with Yurei that the OP has handled the situation well.
Let's for a moment consider the options already given in the spell description as examples:
1. You can give up to 10 creatures resistance to a particular damage type forever
2. You can grant up to 10 creatures immunity to a single spell or effect for the next 8 hours.
The group wanted to remove the Dragon's immunity and get it for themselves. Extrapolating from what was written above and considering the party is less than 10 people, I'd rate the final effect of removing immunity and giving perma resistance as a solid middle ground.
The other middle ground would be removing dragon's immunity and giving the group immunity to electric damage for the next 8 hours which I bet they would be even more upset about.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Considering that in the campaigns I've played and DMed to date nobody has gotten to the point where they can cast Wish, I really don't think any of my players or acquaintances would "expect" anything about it besides the spell descriptions.
I think that's a generalization from the sort of players who hang out on D&D forums rather than what "players overall" do...
Actually, yes. Except I don't want them to do it at the table. I want them to go home and think about it between sessions about how they want that wish to go down and any possible way it could be twisted against them. Because we all know from stories about genies that is how wishes work in fiction. If I gave my players an atom bomb, I'd be sure to calculate the blast radius if they choose to set it off, to see if they'd be within it. Because I just handed them an atom bomb. Am I being a dick by seeing if they decided to vaporise themselves? No, the smart thing would be not to use the damn nuclear weapon. Likewise, wish is a reality-altering weapon. Mortals were not meant to tamper with the fabric of existence. In D&D, it is fairly easy to obtain this power, so the challenge then is to obtain the wisdom to use it. Maybe, like a certain 1980's movie once taught us, maybe it's the wisdom to learn not to cast wish: in nuclear war and wish the only winning move is not to play. So, if you decide to tailor the fabric of existence to your needs, you better damn well measure twice and cut once.
I have two rules with wish, which I have stated up front to my party:
1) how the wish is handled on my end is based on the intent and alignment of the wish caster. If it’s a good aligned creature (like a Djinni) who is favorable to the party, there will be limited consequences (the spell would fail or reduce its effect before it did something truly detrimental). If the caster is evil (like an efreeti) or not favorable to the party, you bet that wish is going to have some unexpected and negative consequences . If the caster is a party member or an item, I roll a D100 to determine severity of consequences (I adjust the consequences themselves based on the power of the wish).
2) Wish takes one action to cast. Therefore a wish cast by a player (themselves or using an item) would be able to be completed in 6 seconds or less. That means at most 2-3 sentences, not 5 pages of legalese. I don’t enforce this when the wish is granted by an NPC, where the alignment and disposition towards the party dictates the consequences.
It's more of a reaction of how the Wish is worded, the intent of the Wish, and how the player/character is using it. The tone of the OP seemed like the person is being a jerk and therefore I would probably respond in kind. Also, if the wish was hastily used as he said with basically one sentence, there would be major issues with it. Now if they spent a bit of time crafting a few sentences worth of how they want the Wish done and were being open to the application then I would make sure it was executed well with minor side effects.
Heh, I would double troll my players with this, firstly by starting with this, then have them go off thinking they're about to have a real tough fight on their hands..****y to find that the dragon, having lost it's robust immune system, has now died from the common cold.
"Congratulations, you've won the battle!" *closes monster manual*
There's a difference between Wish coming with some unexpected baggage, and Wish exploding in one's face with the fury of a supernova blast.
I refuse to accept the idea that the well-understood, broadly expected encouragement towards open and effective communication amongst the players of the game, which includes the DM, somehow becomes completely invalid when Wish gets involved. A DM who decides, without letting his players know, that Wish is a trap and anyone who casts it is going to regret life and probably lose their character is a DM who is more than a little bit of an *******. A player who decides that Wish is a great way to break the game in their favor and have their Cool Moment at the expense of everybody else is a player who is more than a little bit of an *******.
If your group wants Wish to be effective-with-drawbacks, if they want Wish to simply do what it's supposed to, or if the table wants Wish to require a month IRL to prepare and for the DM to receive a thirty-page contract signed in triplicate for each casting - those are all things that should be hashed out before someone casts the bloody thing. Deliberately antagonizing your players by ******* up their Wish spells even when they're not trying to break your game with them is just as dickish as deliberately antagonizing them any other way. And the inverse is also true - players who take Wish as an excuse to run roughshod over the game are players who should have their Wish privileges revoked, and their attempts detonated in their face.
Seriously. Just...talk about it. It won't kill ya, I promise.
Please do not contact or message me.
If you just give players what they want, then you are likely going to end up with a very boring game. Are you in favour of also informing players where the spike traps are? How about ambushes. By your logic, a DM that decides, without letting his players know, that the treasure chest is a mimic and anyone who tries opening it is going to regret life and may lose their character is also an *******? This is a game with literal traps and if your players step onto a set of tiles with letters on them, then maybe they deserve what's coming to them? Wish has a spell description that details how it can end your character if you get greedy. There are plenty of applications of the spell that don't trip the ironic blowback part of it and those, if creatively applied, could be enough to kill most things (seriously 25k gp over 300 ft? Maybe drop a massive block of slate on your opponents. No blowback!) But if your characters can't read a spell description well enough to know that the thing who explicitly tells you being greedy can be game ending can be game ending if they get greedy? It's not my job to protect them from that. It's like someone playing Ultima 7, casts armageddon and is surprised that the world ended. Yeah, it's kinda in the name.
I'm not disagreeing with you because it's always ideal when the players think long about their use of Wish and even more ideal if they consult it ahead with DM but the biggest obstacle is that it's a 1 action cast spell that can be used in the spur of the moment during fight.
I was actually thinking about a way to ensure a little more time to consider all the options and thus changing the spell so that the specifically given components (reproduce spells, heal, restoration, create object etc.) can be cast as normal but the "Alter Reality" component is a ritual that has a casting time much longer (so it can't be used in one round fight).
Oh well, time will tell whether I will need the change or not ;-)
As for the OP, I agree with Yurei that the OP has handled the situation well.
Let's for a moment consider the options already given in the spell description as examples:
1. You can give up to 10 creatures resistance to a particular damage type forever
2. You can grant up to 10 creatures immunity to a single spell or effect for the next 8 hours.
The group wanted to remove the Dragon's immunity and get it for themselves. Extrapolating from what was written above and considering the party is less than 10 people, I'd rate the final effect of removing immunity and giving perma resistance as a solid middle ground.
The other middle ground would be removing dragon's immunity and giving the group immunity to electric damage for the next 8 hours which I bet they would be even more upset about.