So far i have been dming for little over two years now and absolutly loving it. but last session my party used a wish spell and afterwards they said they felt wronged.
My party is preparing to engage a ancient blue dragon, and the draconic bloodline sorceres decided to use the last remaning wish on a ring of many wishes ( the ring only had 1 charge left when she found it). She wished to steal the dragons lightning immunity and give it to her and the rest of the party. This was in first instance for me an awesome wish for her, because her powers come from this particular dragon, and the dragon was already pissed off because of this woman using his power as her own... and now she wanted to gain even more of it. Now i decided the dragon would indeed loose its immunity, and it would be divided over the party of 5, meaning each of them would get passive lightning resistance.
This however seemed to be a problem, as they said they wished for the immunity on each of them, and not just resistance. I tried to explain it like a heist, if you steal 5 million you dont get 5 million each you have to share and divide the gains. But after the session i am now doubting myself if i handeld it correctly, should i have given them the immunity or maybe an extra boost like advantage on saving throws against the dragon?
Based on reading https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spells#Wish I would have let them have what they wished for, but only for an 8 hour duration, or I would have given them what you gave them permanently. And I would have definitely rolled d100 to see if the sorcerer lost the ability to ever cast Wish again. So make their resistance to lightning permanent.
I would also make the dragon’s loss of immunity temporary. Maybe 24 hours of no immunity, 24 hours of resistance, and then back to normal. But I assume they killed the dragon in less than 24 hours so it wouldn’t matter.
1. The wording of the Wish is VERY important, especially when the Wish does not replicate a lower level spell.
2. You did not grant the wish asked. Your math is wrong as well, immunity is like having the old Resistance of Infinity, and Infinity divided by any number is still Infinity.
3. A more correct "screw job" would have been for the immunity to be granted to the party, but since the dragon lost its immunity, and thus some of its essence, the prodigy sorcerer also loses some of their power as well until the dragon regains its immunity. If the word "forever" or "permanently" was not used during the wish, then you can decide on any length of time the "swap" occurs. If they are going to fight the dragon, they will get this advantage, but the next day they find themselves back to normal, as is the dragon, who is now a mortal enemy of the party.
1. The wording of the Wish is VERY important, especially when the Wish does not replicate a lower level spell.
2. You did not grant the wish asked. Your math is wrong as well, immunity is like having the old Resistance of Infinity, and Infinity divided by any number is still Infinity.
3. A more correct "screw job" would have been for the immunity to be granted to the party, but since the dragon lost its immunity, and thus some of its essence, the prodigy sorcerer also loses some of their power as well until the dragon regains its immunity. If the word "forever" or "permanently" was not used during the wish, then you can decide on any length of time the "swap" occurs. If they are going to fight the dragon, they will get this advantage, but the next day they find themselves back to normal, as is the dragon, who is now a mortal enemy of the party.
” You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish. For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game. Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner.”
that is from the spell description of Wish...what the OP did was 100% reasonable given the request was greater than the non spell “examples” and the fact that a GM has great latitude to rule in how a wish is granted, including just having it fail.
Except you missed the part where the entire group is dissatisfied with the result.
Not having it last for more than a day or so is "partly achieved", substituting resistance for immunity is not "partly achieved", the two are no the same thing, not even a graduation of the same thing. Resistance means you will "always" take damage (1/2 damage on any save or non-save that results in damage, minimum of 1 point) Immunity means you will never take damage of that type.
The DM has great latitude, but RULE 0 for the DM is to make sure everyone (themselves included) is having fun.
That would actually be two wishes. One to remove the dragons immunity and the second to grant it to the PC"s. It even says in the spell description you can grant immunity for 8 hours
I have not handed out a wish spell in years. But the spell itself was more powerful in earlier editions. I used to make my players write the wish out with the understanding that I would analyze it to extract meanings. Made them nervous
Except you missed the part where the entire group is dissatisfied with the result.
Not having it last for more than a day or so is "partly achieved", substituting resistance for immunity is not "partly achieved", the two are no the same thing, not even a graduation of the same thing. Resistance means you will "always" take damage (1/2 damage on any save or non-save that results in damage, minimum of 1 point) Immunity means you will never take damage of that type.
The DM has great latitude, but RULE 0 for the DM is to make sure everyone (themselves included) is having fun.
Absolutely not. It's not the DM's job to avoid upsetting players. The wish spell, and the concept it is based on, has a history of backfiring against poorly worded requests. Not getting what you want should be the standard more than the exception.
As for this idea that the DM should make sure "everyone is having fun"? No, sorry, that's a really self-destructive way of thinking. It's not the DM's responsibility to make sure their players are having fun. It's the DM's responsibility to run a scenario. Enjoying yourself is on you. That means sometimes making the best of a bad situation. DMs aren't trained monkeys who only dance for the players' amusement. The fellow posting this did a fair, non-malicious reading of the wish. If the players didn't like that, that's on them. Sometimes children are going to have temper tantrums: that doesn't mean they're right to be upset.
She wished to steal the dragons lightning immunity and give it to her and the rest of the party. This was in first instance for me an awesome wish for her, because her powers come from this particular dragon, and the dragon was already pissed off because of this woman using his power as her own... and now she wanted to gain even more of it. Now i decided the dragon would indeed loose its immunity, and it would be divided over the party of 5, meaning each of them would get passive lightning resistance.
This however seemed to be a problem, as they said they wished for the immunity on each of them, and not just resistance. I tried to explain it like a heist, if you steal 5 million you dont get 5 million each you have to share and divide the gains. But after the session i am now doubting myself if i handeld it correctly, should i have given them the immunity or maybe an extra boost like advantage on saving throws against the dragon?
You have summarized but not replicated the exact wording of the wish. Exact wording is critical.
Based on your summary, I would agree with the "divided immunity." She took a thing from the dragon and gave it to herself and her friends. The dragon loses, they gain. But there is only one dragon and there are 5 of them. I would rule that the dragon's "immunity" is 100% resistance to the damage type, divided by five gives 20% resistance. You cannot have more than this because more than 20% times 5 adds up to more than 100% immunity, and the dragon only had 100% -- i.e., one being's worth of full immunity.
Also, the second the dragon dies, their immunity ends, because it is now not alive to take its immunity from.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would have made them immune to the lightning damage from that particular dragon, then changed the color of that dragon (as a dragon can't not be immune to it's own breath) to something else. Or make them all smurfs with a deep blue color that glows and sparks so they are permanently lit, can't hide, and have issues with making items combust in town and are shunned. You can also peruse the monster manual to monsters immune to lightning with low CRs, then they need to find a way to change back. Wishes have to be worded very specifically or a DM can make sure they have exactly what they asked for but in a way that isn't anywhere near what they intend.
You all have lightning immunity now! Unfortunately you are Chaotic Evil Bodaks! Whatcha wanna do?
RAW, you absolutely followed the letter and spirit of Wish. You as DM have full latitude to have the Wish take effect partially, and that's what you did - and I think the "one immunity divided by five players = five resistances" makes total sense.
It sounds like the players were unhappy with it. That's kind of a shame, because I think your solution is a clever way of both reinforcing "you don't always get exactly what you wish for, so be careful" without outright screwing the players over. Maybe they really did expect that they always get pretty much what they want?
I don't think it would have been wrong to just give them the immunity they were wishing for. It was after all off of a ring of wishes (limited use) and not an especially powerful request as long as it wasn't permanent (using the last wish of a ring of wishes to give themselves a big advantage in one bossfight seems quite reasonable to me - and heck, lightning damage immunity isn't even a brokenly powerful benefit against the dragon, dragon is plenty dangerous even without breath weapon...) So maybe I would have. Not sure...
(I, personally, am absolutely *not* a fan of the sort of thing that people constantly suggest which is using the Wish to totally screw the players. "You wish for lightning immunity? You die! When you're dead you're immune to all damage because you're already dead!" ...that's nonsense, that's horrible. Don't do that to your players, or anything remotely like it.)
Additionally: Lightning immunity is a mechanical term, not an in-game term. The characters don't refer to the dragon who can't be hurt by its breath as immune to it (maybe for poison). We wouldn't either in real life. We'd say impervious or -proof or a specific term like non-conducting (or superconducting) or non-flammable. The characters clearly were using the wording from the dragon's character sheet and not any natural way of describing the phenomenon of it being impervious to lightning damage. 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.
RAW, you absolutely followed the letter and spirit of Wish. You as DM have full latitude to have the Wish take effect partially, and that's what you did - and I think the "one immunity divided by five players = five resistances" makes total sense.
It sounds like the players were unhappy with it. That's kind of a shame, because I think your solution is a clever way of both reinforcing "you don't always get exactly what you wish for, so be careful" without outright screwing the players over. Maybe they really did expect that they always get pretty much what they want?
I don't think it would have been wrong to just give them the immunity they were wishing for. It was after all off of a ring of wishes (limited use) and not an especially powerful request as long as it wasn't permanent (using the last wish of a ring of wishes to give themselves a big advantage in one bossfight seems quite reasonable to me - and heck, lightning damage immunity isn't even a brokenly powerful benefit against the dragon, dragon is plenty dangerous even without breath weapon...) So maybe I would have. Not sure...
(I, personally, am absolutely *not* a fan of the sort of thing that people constantly suggest which is using the Wish to totally screw the players. "You wish for lightning immunity? You die! When you're dead you're immune to all damage because you're already dead!" ...that's nonsense, that's horrible. Don't do that to your players, or anything remotely like it.)
I agree with you 100% but the way I am reading it makes me think the players would have been upset with that too. I took it that they were upset they didn't all get permanent lightning damage immunity.
I probably wouldn't have done it that way. My immediate thought is 2 options. I would give them some weird crackling ball that is the dragons lightning immunity. I'm sure it's very pretty. Wish fulfilled, the party now has the dragons immunity. In a ball.
The second would be sure, but it can only occupy one of you at a time, and it changes at random. Each round, roll a d10. Assign 2 numbers to each PC. That's who is immune that round.
There may very well be other options, but they're the 2 that pop into my mind immediately, because the players should be able to see how the spell can be interpreted in this manner. But I agree with someone earlier who said that the wish should be written down so the EXACT language can be analysed.
I probably wouldn't have done it that way. My immediate thought is 2 options. I would give them some weird crackling ball that is the dragons lightning immunity. I'm sure it's very pretty. Wish fulfilled, the party now has the dragons immunity. In a ball.
I absolutely love this!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Frankly, players who wished to "steal a dragon's lightning immunity for ourselves" and who end up successfully stealing the dragon's fundamental immunity to its element and gaining resistance to that element are players who did very well with Wish.
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.
If you hate the spell that much, just ban it at your table. Don't prevaricate, don't pretend, don't be a dickwagon who secretly cannot wait for the spell to come along and **** over your campaign - just ban it. Be an adult human being and say at the start "hey guys, I'm not allowing Wish in my game. I just don't like that spell, I think it's bad for telling good stories. So be aware of that if you're planning on playing a wizard or sorcerer - Wish is officially off your spell lists." There. Problem solved. No Wish, no players "sabotaging" your game, no encouraging players to break character and game for two hours to draw up legal contracts, none of it.
Anyways. Ankhoril. You did fine, that was an excellent and positive granting of Wish. Your party were being weenies over it. Stealing the immunity of what is probably one of the major Big Bad threats in their campaign and gaining resistance to its most dangerous form of attack in the doing is pretty frickin' baller; if I were playing the dragon sorceress in that instance I would've been thrilled with the outcome of the Wish. Stick to your guns, you did good.
Especially considering what every other DM on DDB apparently would've done to your party. Show them this thread sometime. Let them see how good they got it, especially if the resistance thievery was permanent.
Well, Yureil, you have a point... the goal of Wish shouldn't be to hose the players.
However, I think the reason you are seeing the reaction from some DMs about how to "screw" the party with the Wish made in the OP, is hinted at in your very post. As you say:
Your party were being weenies over it. Stealing the immunity of what is probably one of the major Big Bad threats in their campaign and gaining resistance to its most dangerous form of attack in the doing is pretty frickin' baller; if I were playing the dragon sorceress in that instance I would've been thrilled with the outcome of the Wish.
So, what some of us are reacting to is exactly this -- it was a good creative use of Wish, the DM's ruling is excellent -- the dragon loses immunity, which means the party can now attack him with those powers, and they gain some resistance to his best attacks. It's a game-changer that would probably turn the battle from a nail-biter or even a TPK into a solid and not too dangerous win.
But the players got uppity about it, not to mention greedy, and wanted not just an "I win" button for the battle (which they deserve for creative use of wish), but an overpowered perma-immunity, which a single spell, even Wish, absolutely should not grant. And it is when players over-reach like this in a Wish that DMs look for the tiniest loophole to screw them with.
If the story had been as is except the party didn't argue, and the DM was just doubting that he should have done it like this afterward, most of us would've said yeah, you did right, it's cool. But when the DM says hey I did this and now the players are throwing a tantrum because they wanted more, then our collective reaction is, well, here's how you could have totally screwed the (your words) weenies, since they are being spoiled brats about it.
Personally I view Wish as powerful and treacherous. Wish has the potential to alter reality. Attempts to alter reality frivolously will almost always end in disaster. And, attempts to be greedy with the Wish, will end badly as well, if I can justify it. Great example from my 8th grade D&D days: Wishing for one person back to life, we allowed. Wishing multiple people back to life in a single Wish -- no, now you're getting greedy. It'll backfire somehow.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think a good rule of thumb for Wish Spells is they cannot use conjunctions in the wording of the spell. At least the 7 basic conjunctions. And possibly limit it to one verb and or one noun
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. At least for my group, I KNOW it would be. If they made a wish and it worked out exactly like they wanted, I honestly think it would be disappointing to them. And I think that culture comes from genies. They're forced to grant wishes, when really they don't want to. And so they screw you if they get half a chance.
Not every group is the same.
If I were DMing Yurei, for example, I probably wouldn't screw with it, unless i felt that it was worded really really atrociously. Because Yurei would probably get upset about it. Know your players I guess is the moral to this story. And I feel like the OP didn't know his players. I'm not on board with "make your players happy", but you probably shouldn't make judgement call decisions that specifically make them angry either.
Hello all,
So far i have been dming for little over two years now and absolutly loving it. but last session my party used a wish spell and afterwards they said they felt wronged.
My party is preparing to engage a ancient blue dragon, and the draconic bloodline sorceres decided to use the last remaning wish on a ring of many wishes ( the ring only had 1 charge left when she found it). She wished to steal the dragons lightning immunity and give it to her and the rest of the party. This was in first instance for me an awesome wish for her, because her powers come from this particular dragon, and the dragon was already pissed off because of this woman using his power as her own... and now she wanted to gain even more of it. Now i decided the dragon would indeed loose its immunity, and it would be divided over the party of 5, meaning each of them would get passive lightning resistance.
This however seemed to be a problem, as they said they wished for the immunity on each of them, and not just resistance. I tried to explain it like a heist, if you steal 5 million you dont get 5 million each you have to share and divide the gains.
But after the session i am now doubting myself if i handeld it correctly, should i have given them the immunity or maybe an extra boost like advantage on saving throws against the dragon?
Based on reading https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/phb/spells#Wish I would have let them have what they wished for, but only for an 8 hour duration, or I would have given them what you gave them permanently. And I would have definitely rolled d100 to see if the sorcerer lost the ability to ever cast Wish again. So make their resistance to lightning permanent.
Professional computer geek
I would also make the dragon’s loss of immunity temporary. Maybe 24 hours of no immunity, 24 hours of resistance, and then back to normal. But I assume they killed the dragon in less than 24 hours so it wouldn’t matter.
Professional computer geek
1. The wording of the Wish is VERY important, especially when the Wish does not replicate a lower level spell.
2. You did not grant the wish asked. Your math is wrong as well, immunity is like having the old Resistance of Infinity, and Infinity divided by any number is still Infinity.
3. A more correct "screw job" would have been for the immunity to be granted to the party, but since the dragon lost its immunity, and thus some of its essence, the prodigy sorcerer also loses some of their power as well until the dragon regains its immunity. If the word "forever" or "permanently" was not used during the wish, then you can decide on any length of time the "swap" occurs. If they are going to fight the dragon, they will get this advantage, but the next day they find themselves back to normal, as is the dragon, who is now a mortal enemy of the party.
Wish, if not a spell replication, is down to you. I think what you did is entirely reasonable.
” You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the GM as precisely as possible. The GM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance; the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish. For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game. Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner.”
that is from the spell description of Wish...what the OP did was 100% reasonable given the request was greater than the non spell “examples” and the fact that a GM has great latitude to rule in how a wish is granted, including just having it fail.
Except you missed the part where the entire group is dissatisfied with the result.
Not having it last for more than a day or so is "partly achieved", substituting resistance for immunity is not "partly achieved", the two are no the same thing, not even a graduation of the same thing. Resistance means you will "always" take damage (1/2 damage on any save or non-save that results in damage, minimum of 1 point) Immunity means you will never take damage of that type.
The DM has great latitude, but RULE 0 for the DM is to make sure everyone (themselves included) is having fun.
That would actually be two wishes. One to remove the dragons immunity and the second to grant it to the PC"s. It even says in the spell description you can grant immunity for 8 hours
I have not handed out a wish spell in years. But the spell itself was more powerful in earlier editions. I used to make my players write the wish out with the understanding that I would analyze it to extract meanings. Made them nervous
Absolutely not. It's not the DM's job to avoid upsetting players. The wish spell, and the concept it is based on, has a history of backfiring against poorly worded requests. Not getting what you want should be the standard more than the exception.
As for this idea that the DM should make sure "everyone is having fun"? No, sorry, that's a really self-destructive way of thinking. It's not the DM's responsibility to make sure their players are having fun. It's the DM's responsibility to run a scenario. Enjoying yourself is on you. That means sometimes making the best of a bad situation. DMs aren't trained monkeys who only dance for the players' amusement. The fellow posting this did a fair, non-malicious reading of the wish. If the players didn't like that, that's on them. Sometimes children are going to have temper tantrums: that doesn't mean they're right to be upset.
You have summarized but not replicated the exact wording of the wish. Exact wording is critical.
Based on your summary, I would agree with the "divided immunity." She took a thing from the dragon and gave it to herself and her friends. The dragon loses, they gain. But there is only one dragon and there are 5 of them. I would rule that the dragon's "immunity" is 100% resistance to the damage type, divided by five gives 20% resistance. You cannot have more than this because more than 20% times 5 adds up to more than 100% immunity, and the dragon only had 100% -- i.e., one being's worth of full immunity.
Also, the second the dragon dies, their immunity ends, because it is now not alive to take its immunity from.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I would have made them immune to the lightning damage from that particular dragon, then changed the color of that dragon (as a dragon can't not be immune to it's own breath) to something else. Or make them all smurfs with a deep blue color that glows and sparks so they are permanently lit, can't hide, and have issues with making items combust in town and are shunned. You can also peruse the monster manual to monsters immune to lightning with low CRs, then they need to find a way to change back. Wishes have to be worded very specifically or a DM can make sure they have exactly what they asked for but in a way that isn't anywhere near what they intend.
You all have lightning immunity now! Unfortunately you are Chaotic Evil Bodaks! Whatcha wanna do?
I think you handled it entirely reasonably.
RAW, you absolutely followed the letter and spirit of Wish. You as DM have full latitude to have the Wish take effect partially, and that's what you did - and I think the "one immunity divided by five players = five resistances" makes total sense.
It sounds like the players were unhappy with it. That's kind of a shame, because I think your solution is a clever way of both reinforcing "you don't always get exactly what you wish for, so be careful" without outright screwing the players over. Maybe they really did expect that they always get pretty much what they want?
I don't think it would have been wrong to just give them the immunity they were wishing for. It was after all off of a ring of wishes (limited use) and not an especially powerful request as long as it wasn't permanent (using the last wish of a ring of wishes to give themselves a big advantage in one bossfight seems quite reasonable to me - and heck, lightning damage immunity isn't even a brokenly powerful benefit against the dragon, dragon is plenty dangerous even without breath weapon...) So maybe I would have. Not sure...
(I, personally, am absolutely *not* a fan of the sort of thing that people constantly suggest which is using the Wish to totally screw the players. "You wish for lightning immunity? You die! When you're dead you're immune to all damage because you're already dead!" ...that's nonsense, that's horrible. Don't do that to your players, or anything remotely like it.)
Additionally: Lightning immunity is a mechanical term, not an in-game term. The characters don't refer to the dragon who can't be hurt by its breath as immune to it (maybe for poison). We wouldn't either in real life. We'd say impervious or -proof or a specific term like non-conducting (or superconducting) or non-flammable. The characters clearly were using the wording from the dragon's character sheet and not any natural way of describing the phenomenon of it being impervious to lightning damage. 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.
I agree with you 100% but the way I am reading it makes me think the players would have been upset with that too. I took it that they were upset they didn't all get permanent lightning damage immunity.
Check out my latest homebrew: Mystic Knight (Fighter) v1.31
I probably wouldn't have done it that way. My immediate thought is 2 options. I would give them some weird crackling ball that is the dragons lightning immunity. I'm sure it's very pretty. Wish fulfilled, the party now has the dragons immunity. In a ball.
The second would be sure, but it can only occupy one of you at a time, and it changes at random. Each round, roll a d10. Assign 2 numbers to each PC. That's who is immune that round.
There may very well be other options, but they're the 2 that pop into my mind immediately, because the players should be able to see how the spell can be interpreted in this manner. But I agree with someone earlier who said that the wish should be written down so the EXACT language can be analysed.
I absolutely love this!
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Frankly, players who wished to "steal a dragon's lightning immunity for ourselves" and who end up successfully stealing the dragon's fundamental immunity to its element and gaining resistance to that element are players who did very well with Wish.
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.
If you hate the spell that much, just ban it at your table. Don't prevaricate, don't pretend, don't be a dickwagon who secretly cannot wait for the spell to come along and **** over your campaign - just ban it. Be an adult human being and say at the start "hey guys, I'm not allowing Wish in my game. I just don't like that spell, I think it's bad for telling good stories. So be aware of that if you're planning on playing a wizard or sorcerer - Wish is officially off your spell lists." There. Problem solved. No Wish, no players "sabotaging" your game, no encouraging players to break character and game for two hours to draw up legal contracts, none of it.
Anyways. Ankhoril. You did fine, that was an excellent and positive granting of Wish. Your party were being weenies over it. Stealing the immunity of what is probably one of the major Big Bad threats in their campaign and gaining resistance to its most dangerous form of attack in the doing is pretty frickin' baller; if I were playing the dragon sorceress in that instance I would've been thrilled with the outcome of the Wish. Stick to your guns, you did good.
Especially considering what every other DM on DDB apparently would've done to your party. Show them this thread sometime. Let them see how good they got it, especially if the resistance thievery was permanent.
Please do not contact or message me.
Well, Yureil, you have a point... the goal of Wish shouldn't be to hose the players.
However, I think the reason you are seeing the reaction from some DMs about how to "screw" the party with the Wish made in the OP, is hinted at in your very post. As you say:
So, what some of us are reacting to is exactly this -- it was a good creative use of Wish, the DM's ruling is excellent -- the dragon loses immunity, which means the party can now attack him with those powers, and they gain some resistance to his best attacks. It's a game-changer that would probably turn the battle from a nail-biter or even a TPK into a solid and not too dangerous win.
But the players got uppity about it, not to mention greedy, and wanted not just an "I win" button for the battle (which they deserve for creative use of wish), but an overpowered perma-immunity, which a single spell, even Wish, absolutely should not grant. And it is when players over-reach like this in a Wish that DMs look for the tiniest loophole to screw them with.
If the story had been as is except the party didn't argue, and the DM was just doubting that he should have done it like this afterward, most of us would've said yeah, you did right, it's cool. But when the DM says hey I did this and now the players are throwing a tantrum because they wanted more, then our collective reaction is, well, here's how you could have totally screwed the (your words) weenies, since they are being spoiled brats about it.
Personally I view Wish as powerful and treacherous. Wish has the potential to alter reality. Attempts to alter reality frivolously will almost always end in disaster. And, attempts to be greedy with the Wish, will end badly as well, if I can justify it. Great example from my 8th grade D&D days: Wishing for one person back to life, we allowed. Wishing multiple people back to life in a single Wish -- no, now you're getting greedy. It'll backfire somehow.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I think a good rule of thumb for Wish Spells is they cannot use conjunctions in the wording of the spell. At least the 7 basic conjunctions. And possibly limit it to one verb and or one noun
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. At least for my group, I KNOW it would be. If they made a wish and it worked out exactly like they wanted, I honestly think it would be disappointing to them. And I think that culture comes from genies. They're forced to grant wishes, when really they don't want to. And so they screw you if they get half a chance.
Not every group is the same.
If I were DMing Yurei, for example, I probably wouldn't screw with it, unless i felt that it was worded really really atrociously. Because Yurei would probably get upset about it. Know your players I guess is the moral to this story. And I feel like the OP didn't know his players. I'm not on board with "make your players happy", but you probably shouldn't make judgement call decisions that specifically make them angry either.