Has anyone ever gone so far as to use wish to try and merge 2 different classes together as one, with the desire of having access to everything form both classes, simultaneously, and even taken them to 20?
If so, how did it turn out? Did you just wish for it? Did you try to articulate a way to handle the wish so that you manage negative out comes? did you provide any material, services and/or extend the length of time it took to cast the spell in order to reduce the possibility or impact of negative effects?
What is the likely hood a DM would even allow it since the complexity of such a thing seems so high?
In 3.5 there was a variant of the rules that allowed you to do this Gestalt Characters. That said, if I was running the game I would probably actively interperet the wish in the worst way possible. Off the top of my head, on a short/long rest random chance of a class change between the classes you wished for and have you maintain two char sheet to swap between. Oh no your paladin is a monk now and can't use your weps and armor effectively. Oh no your monk is a paladin and you have to find a wep and armor.
As stated above by Noksa, there was 3e's Gestalt rules.
They were an utter and complete nightmare. 3e was already grossly unbalanced between classes, especially the martial/caster divide, and gestalt just multiplied that.
Insofar as "would a DM allow it?" the overwhelming likelihood is no. Heh, what I've learned trawling these forums is that many/most DMs hate Wish, often unfairly, and go actively out of their way to punish players for using it even when the player is not trying to do something as complicated and powergamey as being two classes at once. If you want to try it, I would recommend speaking to your DM about it well ahead of time - as in multiple character levels before you can even access Wish - and float the idea, see what they think.
In some cases such a Wish could make thematic sense - a power-hungry wizard desiring the innate spellcasting and flexible font of innate magic of a sorcerer and Wishing for sorcery makes a lot of sense to me, though it's still one of those things that'd be fraught with peril. I'd perhaps see about settling for gaining specific features from other classes, instead of just being two entire classes outright. In the Wizard/Sorcerer case, perhaps your Wish is simply for the Font of Magic feature and accompanying Metamagic, rather than for an entire second spellcasting feature and spell list alongside a bunch of sorcerous class features.
Even that, most DMs are likely to say no to if my reading on the various Wish threads I've seen around here are any indication. Heh, folks here seem to want to make the default "duplicate a spell" functionality backfire on their players because what they want is to ban Wish but they don't have the stones to just come out and say "Wish is banned at my table, keep that in mind when playing a wizard or sorcerer."
Jorden Peterson once said that very few people actually have a creative mindset... It saddens me that this is true... I am someone who does have a creative mindset... On top of that, I view all humans as generally equal in general capacity, all be it, each person having uniquely different flows in personal attributes, skills, talents ect. I had always reasoned that everyone has the creative capacity to make solutions to problems as well as make changes to things as needed.
But that isn't the case is it?
If so many people hate the "Wish" spell, consider it game breaking and want to go so far as to intentionally create problems, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity. they cannot create alternative work arounds to change their games on a whim, that easily adjust to what something like wish could be used for. The idea of how to design new encounters, enemies, oppositional organizations and nations and characters inside the game. The lack of creativity prevents them from adapting, so they simply desire to ban an element of the game out of hatred, or intentionally create a wide range of problems just to harm the player who would dare to try and use it, out of sheer spite.
If so many people hate the "Wish" spell, consider it game breaking and want to go so far as to intentionally create problems, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity.
Talk about false equivalency...
DMs don't hate Wish because they lack creativity. They hate it because it can easily allow a single player to destroy an entire campaign--even if it's unintentional--and breaking all semblance of balance/tension to brute force your way through all challenges is not creative.
There is an expected range of balance when DMs prepare their campaigns. They plan on things not going according to plan, a certain spread of levels/abilities, and to be surprised by player decisions that may or may not alter the course of campaign. Allowing for creative problem solving/making is second nature to a DM, and responding accordingly to what happens is a pure form of creativity that drives the enjoyment of the entire group.
You know what is creative? Working with your group to craft a fun story using your individual tools/abilities to overcome challenges in interesting ways.
You know what is not creative? Using Wish to get all the abilities & trivializing the entire campaign.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
And yet, the DM has the option of making characters, creatures, nations, dungeons and adjustments to all of those things that can offset all the game breaking perspectives you worry about. But doesn't and instead would simply ban Wish or intentionally add a bunch of negative side effects
What would make it game breaking trivializing exactly? When the DM could easily buff most of the encounters in a similar style as if such a wish was meaningless, able to apply the same concepts of such a wish to a boss NPC at the end of a dungeon? Was the Boss fight originally planned to have a Fire Elemental Sorcerer, but now that fire elemental sorcerer also is a fighter as well? did the boss fight originally have only 2 henchmen, now it has 4 and a room with new traps? Simply adjustment that negates any potential trivialization risk. And yet, you can't do that? Despite being creative enough to work with a team?
Where is the "False Equivalency" again? Cause it seems accurate.
I mean part of the fun is finding ways the wish backfires and unintended consequences is built into the spell description. Also just because you can balance encounters for it doesn't address party imbalance (you would need to make comparable boons for each party member or risk them dropping below useful when you buff encounters)
I mean part of the fun is finding ways the wish backfires and unintended consequences is built into the spell description. Also just because you can balance encounters for it doesn't address party imbalance (you would need to make comparable boons for each party member or risk them dropping below useful when you buff encounters)
Doesn't everything work like that? You try to make your self better able to handle a challenge so your opposition reacts in the same way to oppose you, so your entire team has too find ways to be better prepared, so the opposition team ends up having to figure out new ways to counter your groups improvements?
Thus leading to the question, why is Wish game breaking? When the enemy could have access to the same kind of thing and make the same changes?
What got trivialized again?
And didn't previous versions of D&D place a clear focus on crafting abilities, having at one time have crafting skills you could spend points in, so your character could create their own gear, even allowing you the extremes of making repeating crossbows or even a bracer that auto switches a wizards wands, saving you an action and allowing you to cast a new wand inside your action round in a previous version of the game? Aren't the tools for that crafting ability still available, even without a set place to spend skill points into crafting abilities? So shouldn't the ability to craft equipment that exceeds the standard idem buying still exist?
It seems like a huge layer of creativity was possibly blocked off in a way, with 5e.
And yet, the DM has the option of making characters, creatures, nations, dungeons and adjustments to all of those things that can offset all the game breaking perspectives you worry about. But doesn't and instead would simply ban Wish or intentionally add a bunch of negative side effects
What would make it game breaking trivializing exactly? When the DM could easily buff most of the encounters in a similar style as if such a wish was meaningless, able to apply the same concepts of such a wish to a boss NPC at the end of a dungeon? Was the Boss fight originally planned to have a Fire Elemental Sorcerer, but now that fire elemental sorcerer also is a fighter as well? did the boss fight originally have only 2 henchmen, now it has 4 and a room with new traps? Simply adjustment that negates any potential trivialization risk. And yet, you can't do that? Despite being creative enough to work with a team?
Where is the "False Equivalency" again? Cause it seems accurate.
The entire game system is balanced around characters having a combined total of class levels up to 20. Using the optional multi-classing rules leaves the system still balanced overall, but with a greater degree of variability in expectations. The system is not designed to handle characters with two fully-leveled classes. "Adjustments" are not effective when you now have such a great disparity in potential power levels. How are you going to stop a full 20/20 Paladin/Sorcerer? How are you going to stop them in a way that isn't just as cheesy as the Gestalt character itself? What about a poorer combination like Monk/Warlock? How are you going to stop them from getting railroaded by all the new Gestalt enemies they have to square off against?
Can it be done? Sure, but you clearly have no idea how much time DMs actually devote to planning & balancing homebrew for their campaigns. What you describe would essentially require a DM to redesign the entire game system. That's a damn job.
You attribute a DM's desire to not take on an additional job as a lack of creativity. That is false equivalency.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It really does seem like nothing more then a matter of scaling and allowing yourself to use the available tools, rather then rigidly limiting yourself.
How hard is it to have a town that originally was just a farm town with a single Inn and a single shop, to suddenly have a caravan roll in with a Nobel interested in setting up a mine, while having a blacksmith wagon and mobile workshop to help make establishment easier, where your crew can gather resources for gear upgrades at a discount, due to providing the gather materials? Being able to make mechanical enhanced weapons that don't use magic used to be a thing.
I have not seen that happen in 5e, so it really seems like a layer of creativity was out right banned under the idea of balance. I am starting to wonder, just how much creativity is going to be destroyed in the name of balance? At what point is this so called balance going to turn into full on oppressive authoritarianism? It starts to look like the "Controller balance" Fallacy, where people complain about certain control types being more effective at certain games and shouldn't be allowed for use, because, "I don't wanna pay for an extra controller" or "My console doesn't support that controller the PC does, so PC users have an unfair advantage, because Microsoft wont make keyboard and mouse for the X-Box, so I want you to nerf the PC controls."
This so called "Balance" has lead to the destruction of quest rewards and intentionally limiting how much gold a player is allowed to have, effectively destroying incentives, flex-abilities and creativity, favoring full on oppressive limitations that seem to do more to test peoples patients and tolerance for a choke hold of control. How many games have to "BALANCE" them selves out of existence and destroy the fun of playing?
With the way things are "BALANCING" I cant take a level 1 wizard around a Tavern, grab a bag of sugar and use Ray of Frost on a cup of milk, to invent and sell Ice Cream, so I can afford better gear to get ready for the next fight.
I think the OP is generally oversimplifying the issue and otherwise missing the point, not to mention making snap judgements and sweeping assumptions about the entire game based on the opinions/experiences of a select few individuals.
All the "fixes" the OP is suggesting are very much the expectation of a DM, and very much within normal game play. The Wish spell has nothing to do with the OP's suggested "balances/fixes", though. Wish can literally do anything and everything, so simply "re-scaling encounters" or whatever is not an actual solution to, in this case, making yourself 2 20 level classes at the same time. As Sigred mentioned - what about everyone else in the group? That doesn't seem very fair, or very much like a team player. I can tell you that, if I were a player, and this were allowed by the DM, I would seriously considering continuing with the group if we didn't just go ahead and start a new campaign.
And I really don't understand where the OP goes from not allowing a character to be 2 20 level classes equating to not allowing a character to discover/invent/sell ice cream to make money. (I believe that is part of Sigred's "false equivalency) Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other and aren't comparable.
This honestly just seems like a way for the OP to complain about 5e "killing creativity" or whatever. This, to me, seems a bit of a strawman tactic. I mean, the question was if DMs would allow such a thing. A few DMs on this particular site have answered with "no". I don't understand where the whole of 5e comes into it. If nothing else, you've come to the (incorrect) conclusion that these particular DMs don't play in a style you enjoy?
As a relatively new DM, my questions would be: why does your character want to do this? How does it make sense for the story and your character? What reason does your character have for wishing for something like this? What will this accomplish for your character? Because, and I'm just speaking for myself, it really just seems like a power grab made by a power gamer who wants to be the best/strongest just to be the best/strongest.
A possible solution for you - find a DM that would allow such a thing without serious consequences. Talk to that DM on how to word it so you can avoid negative outcomes. (This would not be me, however, mostly because I'm far too lazy to deal with all the mechanics and logistics that would be involved in something like that ;) )
This so called "Balance" has lead to the destruction of quest rewards and intentionally limiting how much gold a player is allowed to have, effectively destroying incentives, flex-abilities and creativity, favoring full on oppressive limitations that seem to do more to test peoples patients and tolerance for a choke hold of control. How many games have to "BALANCE" them selves out of existence and destroy the fun of playing?
With the way things are "BALANCING" I cant take a level 1 wizard around a Tavern, grab a bag of sugar and use Ray of Frost on a cup of milk, to invent and sell Ice Cream, so I can afford better gear to get ready for the next fight.
This section is only relevant to Adventurers league in my experience. And in that situation it is specifically to allow drop in drop out gameplay
Edit: if I was being a stickler for details I'd force you to use shape water to make ice cream ;-)
Part of it is the age-old issue of players wanting Wish to be an awesome ability they can fuel their wildest desires with vs. DMs wanting Wish to basically die in a cave.
The issue of "what about the other players?!" has been raised a few times here, and it's a valid one. The counterpoint: if Wish is never allowed to do anything which, say, the group's Fighter couldn't match, then what is the purpose of the spell's existence? Wish is supposed to be the culmination of a spellcaster's power - if their strongest Ultimate Spell is constantly backfiring on them and being made to be weaker and less effective than their Lower Arcana abilities, why even allow the spell?
Yeah, gaining all twenty levels in another class in one go is generally going to be too much, but the inverse idea of "all Wishes backfire all the time, casting this spell is NEVER a good idea and it will NEVER help you" is kinda just as dickish. The whole sentiment of "it's more fun for the players if their spells explode in their face all the time!" is just bad DMs convincing themselves they're right. yeah, some Wishes exploding, or taking effect in unexpected and interestingly off-kilter ways, is cool - but making the spell kill characters or otherwise render them unplayable every time it's cast is a negatory. Not only is it an ******* move, it's just lazy.
Hell, in the very first reply in this thread, Noksa came up with an interesting notion - the character gets two classes, but can only be one of them at any given time and they may not be able to control which one. They'd have to cart around the stuff needed for two different class builds to work, they'd have to make their second class work with whatever stats they built for their first class, and if they needed one or the other they'd have to hope they got lucky. That could make for some very interesting gameplay and a really cool story - much better than "You Wish for more power than a mortal being should have. The power comes to you, but you can't contain it and you explode. Everyone else takes 10d10 damage from your exploding corpse. Roll a new character."
The other option is for the character using multiclass rules and switch between classes but having the future potential be outside the scope of the game and part of the lore with maybe a little extra that is in scope that other players have but limiting the ingame total to the same as other players.
A possible solution for you - find a DM that could allow such a element without severe results. Talk to that DM on how to word it so you can avoid negative outcomes. (This could not be me with working codes, however, in most cases because I'm some distance too lazy to address all of the mechanics and logistics that would be concerned in something like that ;) )
What would make it game breaking trivializing exactly? When the DM could easily buff most of the encounters in a similar style as if such a wish was meaningless, able to apply the same concepts of such a wish to a boss NPC at the end of a dungeon?
Then what's the point of a Wish? If the DM is going to allow you to Wish for, say, 1,000 hit points for each party member, but then give the monsters attacks in exchange that do 1,000 damage per hit, how is that any better than the DM just saying, "I don't allow Wish"? Aren't those two things, in fact, exactly equivalent? At least the DM who says "I ban it" is being honest. The one who says, "you can wish for whatever you want, no problem," and then adjusts the campaign so it plays as if the wish were never made, is also banning it, just not telling you.
There are many reasons to be cautious of the Wish spell, and by the way, many reasons to make the players potentially pay for extreme or over-the-top wishes. It is traditional in the game D&D, since back to the late 70s, that the Wish spell is treacherous and must be used with caution. You are potentially trifling with the very fabric of reality using a Wish, by undoing history, altering the future, maybe even causing whole nations to rise or fall with a single sentence. Such reality-altering power is normally reserved for beings such as gods, and the gods tend to jealously guard that power. You are messing with the forces of the multiverse (potentially) when you cast a wish. As a result, you have to be very, very careful with the wording or the multiverse will make you pay for it. Because of this, old school DMs used to minutely scrutinize the exact wording of a wish for any way it could go wrong, and if it possibly could go wrong, it did. If it could be literally fulfilled in a way you'd hate, the DM did it. This was not to be mean to the players... it was (a) to challenge them to come up with the right wording, (b) enforce the rules of the universe, and (c) make them cautious about using Wishes only when they absolutely needed to, instead of as a thing they can just do every so often for the f---- of it. Again, by tradition, players who were using Wishes to do noble or reasonable things (e.g., resurrecting a recently killed friend) would be allowed to do so without too much trouble, and players who were effing around with the universe and not taking the Wish seriously (like wishing for 100,000 coconuts), would be hosed by the DM.
In my campaign, I don't allow Wish as a spell players can take, but I will probably have an object in the world that may grant a wish or three (or perhaps a being like a demi-god who would do so). But I don't like the idea of a character knowing it as a spell and being able to cast it repeatedly over time.
If so many people hate the "Wish" spell, consider it game breaking and want to go so far as to intentionally create problems, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity. they cannot create alternative work arounds to change their games on a whim, that easily adjust to what something like wish could be used for. The idea of how to design new encounters, enemies, oppositional organizations and nations and characters inside the game. The lack of creativity prevents them from adapting, so they simply desire to ban an element of the game out of hatred, or intentionally create a wide range of problems just to harm the player who would dare to try and use it, out of sheer spite.
How sad...
If so many players love the "Wish" spell, consider it vital to their fun and want to go so far as to intentionally create overpowered situations that equate to an "I WIN" button, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity. they cannot create alternative work arounds to accomplish their goals on a whim, that easily adjust to the consequences a Wish should cause. The idea of how to face new encounters, enemies, oppositional organizations and nations and characters inside the game. The lack of creativity prevents them from adapting, so they simply desire to get the benefits without any of the drawbacks, or intentionally create a god-level PC to harm the DM who would dare to try and create a fun and challenging game, out of sheer spite.
How sad...
Wish can absolutely be a great thing in a game, but it requires good faith between the player and the DM. It's not meant to be a free pass to short-circuit the narrative. You throw a curveball at the DM, and you get a curveball back. Both sides handling the unexpected results are where the fun comes from.
I wouldn't allow my players to use Wish to make a mechanical change like that (or like BioWizard's 1,000 hit points example). The characters are the ones who are supposed to be making wishes, and they don't know what hit points or levels or challenge rating are. If they asked to have a combination of the class features from, say, a wizard and a monk, I would tell them that their character doesn't understand what class features are, and ask the player to phrase it in a way where their character, if they're a wizard, explains what it is about a monk that they wish they could be or do. Then I'd find a way to integrate that or something close to it. Depending on how powerful the thing they want is I may also add a monkey's paw-style drawback or consequence. If they want a lot of the what the other class has it would probably lead to an after-session discussion about multiclassing.
If the player were absolutely insistent that they want some kind of mutant, rule-breaking super character that has a a full set of wizard stats and abilities for their level combined with a full set of monk stats and abilities for their level, I would offer them this: They can make the wish, but there's a 50/50 shot that it will either fail completely or it will succeed with disastrous consequences. Flip a coin. On heads, it fails. On tails, it succeeds after a fashion - the character is spirited away to a different plane of existence in a different place and time where a society of advanced wizard-monks has created their own utopia. The character is removed from the campaign; start a new character sheet.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Has anyone ever gone so far as to use wish to try and merge 2 different classes together as one, with the desire of having access to everything form both classes, simultaneously, and even taken them to 20?
If so, how did it turn out? Did you just wish for it? Did you try to articulate a way to handle the wish so that you manage negative out comes? did you provide any material, services and/or extend the length of time it took to cast the spell in order to reduce the possibility or impact of negative effects?
What is the likely hood a DM would even allow it since the complexity of such a thing seems so high?
Make MeowMancer Your Patron TODAY! and become a BEAUTIFUL meow!
In 3.5 there was a variant of the rules that allowed you to do this Gestalt Characters. That said, if I was running the game I would probably actively interperet the wish in the worst way possible. Off the top of my head, on a short/long rest random chance of a class change between the classes you wished for and have you maintain two char sheet to swap between. Oh no your paladin is a monk now and can't use your weps and armor effectively. Oh no your monk is a paladin and you have to find a wep and armor.
As stated above by Noksa, there was 3e's Gestalt rules.
They were an utter and complete nightmare. 3e was already grossly unbalanced between classes, especially the martial/caster divide, and gestalt just multiplied that.
No way in bloody hell would I let a wish do that.
Have not done it.
Insofar as "would a DM allow it?" the overwhelming likelihood is no. Heh, what I've learned trawling these forums is that many/most DMs hate Wish, often unfairly, and go actively out of their way to punish players for using it even when the player is not trying to do something as complicated and powergamey as being two classes at once. If you want to try it, I would recommend speaking to your DM about it well ahead of time - as in multiple character levels before you can even access Wish - and float the idea, see what they think.
In some cases such a Wish could make thematic sense - a power-hungry wizard desiring the innate spellcasting and flexible font of innate magic of a sorcerer and Wishing for sorcery makes a lot of sense to me, though it's still one of those things that'd be fraught with peril. I'd perhaps see about settling for gaining specific features from other classes, instead of just being two entire classes outright. In the Wizard/Sorcerer case, perhaps your Wish is simply for the Font of Magic feature and accompanying Metamagic, rather than for an entire second spellcasting feature and spell list alongside a bunch of sorcerous class features.
Even that, most DMs are likely to say no to if my reading on the various Wish threads I've seen around here are any indication. Heh, folks here seem to want to make the default "duplicate a spell" functionality backfire on their players because what they want is to ban Wish but they don't have the stones to just come out and say "Wish is banned at my table, keep that in mind when playing a wizard or sorcerer."
Please do not contact or message me.
Heh, interesting.
Jorden Peterson once said that very few people actually have a creative mindset... It saddens me that this is true... I am someone who does have a creative mindset... On top of that, I view all humans as generally equal in general capacity, all be it, each person having uniquely different flows in personal attributes, skills, talents ect. I had always reasoned that everyone has the creative capacity to make solutions to problems as well as make changes to things as needed.
But that isn't the case is it?
If so many people hate the "Wish" spell, consider it game breaking and want to go so far as to intentionally create problems, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity. they cannot create alternative work arounds to change their games on a whim, that easily adjust to what something like wish could be used for. The idea of how to design new encounters, enemies, oppositional organizations and nations and characters inside the game. The lack of creativity prevents them from adapting, so they simply desire to ban an element of the game out of hatred, or intentionally create a wide range of problems just to harm the player who would dare to try and use it, out of sheer spite.
How sad...
Make MeowMancer Your Patron TODAY! and become a BEAUTIFUL meow!
Talk about false equivalency...
DMs don't hate Wish because they lack creativity. They hate it because it can easily allow a single player to destroy an entire campaign--even if it's unintentional--and breaking all semblance of balance/tension to brute force your way through all challenges is not creative.
There is an expected range of balance when DMs prepare their campaigns. They plan on things not going according to plan, a certain spread of levels/abilities, and to be surprised by player decisions that may or may not alter the course of campaign. Allowing for creative problem solving/making is second nature to a DM, and responding accordingly to what happens is a pure form of creativity that drives the enjoyment of the entire group.
You know what is creative? Working with your group to craft a fun story using your individual tools/abilities to overcome challenges in interesting ways.
You know what is not creative? Using Wish to get all the abilities & trivializing the entire campaign.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
And yet, the DM has the option of making characters, creatures, nations, dungeons and adjustments to all of those things that can offset all the game breaking perspectives you worry about. But doesn't and instead would simply ban Wish or intentionally add a bunch of negative side effects
What would make it game breaking trivializing exactly? When the DM could easily buff most of the encounters in a similar style as if such a wish was meaningless, able to apply the same concepts of such a wish to a boss NPC at the end of a dungeon? Was the Boss fight originally planned to have a Fire Elemental Sorcerer, but now that fire elemental sorcerer also is a fighter as well? did the boss fight originally have only 2 henchmen, now it has 4 and a room with new traps? Simply adjustment that negates any potential trivialization risk. And yet, you can't do that? Despite being creative enough to work with a team?
Where is the "False Equivalency" again? Cause it seems accurate.
Make MeowMancer Your Patron TODAY! and become a BEAUTIFUL meow!
I mean part of the fun is finding ways the wish backfires and unintended consequences is built into the spell description. Also just because you can balance encounters for it doesn't address party imbalance (you would need to make comparable boons for each party member or risk them dropping below useful when you buff encounters)
Doesn't everything work like that? You try to make your self better able to handle a challenge so your opposition reacts in the same way to oppose you, so your entire team has too find ways to be better prepared, so the opposition team ends up having to figure out new ways to counter your groups improvements?
Thus leading to the question, why is Wish game breaking? When the enemy could have access to the same kind of thing and make the same changes?
What got trivialized again?
And didn't previous versions of D&D place a clear focus on crafting abilities, having at one time have crafting skills you could spend points in, so your character could create their own gear, even allowing you the extremes of making repeating crossbows or even a bracer that auto switches a wizards wands, saving you an action and allowing you to cast a new wand inside your action round in a previous version of the game? Aren't the tools for that crafting ability still available, even without a set place to spend skill points into crafting abilities? So shouldn't the ability to craft equipment that exceeds the standard idem buying still exist?
It seems like a huge layer of creativity was possibly blocked off in a way, with 5e.
Make MeowMancer Your Patron TODAY! and become a BEAUTIFUL meow!
The entire game system is balanced around characters having a combined total of class levels up to 20. Using the optional multi-classing rules leaves the system still balanced overall, but with a greater degree of variability in expectations. The system is not designed to handle characters with two fully-leveled classes. "Adjustments" are not effective when you now have such a great disparity in potential power levels. How are you going to stop a full 20/20 Paladin/Sorcerer? How are you going to stop them in a way that isn't just as cheesy as the Gestalt character itself? What about a poorer combination like Monk/Warlock? How are you going to stop them from getting railroaded by all the new Gestalt enemies they have to square off against?
Can it be done? Sure, but you clearly have no idea how much time DMs actually devote to planning & balancing homebrew for their campaigns. What you describe would essentially require a DM to redesign the entire game system. That's a damn job.
You attribute a DM's desire to not take on an additional job as a lack of creativity. That is false equivalency.
You don't know what fear is until you've witnessed a drunk bird divebombing you while carrying a screaming Kobold throwing fire anywhere and everywhere.
It really does seem like nothing more then a matter of scaling and allowing yourself to use the available tools, rather then rigidly limiting yourself.
How hard is it to have a town that originally was just a farm town with a single Inn and a single shop, to suddenly have a caravan roll in with a Nobel interested in setting up a mine, while having a blacksmith wagon and mobile workshop to help make establishment easier, where your crew can gather resources for gear upgrades at a discount, due to providing the gather materials? Being able to make mechanical enhanced weapons that don't use magic used to be a thing.
I have not seen that happen in 5e, so it really seems like a layer of creativity was out right banned under the idea of balance. I am starting to wonder, just how much creativity is going to be destroyed in the name of balance? At what point is this so called balance going to turn into full on oppressive authoritarianism? It starts to look like the "Controller balance" Fallacy, where people complain about certain control types being more effective at certain games and shouldn't be allowed for use, because, "I don't wanna pay for an extra controller" or "My console doesn't support that controller the PC does, so PC users have an unfair advantage, because Microsoft wont make keyboard and mouse for the X-Box, so I want you to nerf the PC controls."
This so called "Balance" has lead to the destruction of quest rewards and intentionally limiting how much gold a player is allowed to have, effectively destroying incentives, flex-abilities and creativity, favoring full on oppressive limitations that seem to do more to test peoples patients and tolerance for a choke hold of control. How many games have to "BALANCE" them selves out of existence and destroy the fun of playing?
With the way things are "BALANCING" I cant take a level 1 wizard around a Tavern, grab a bag of sugar and use Ray of Frost on a cup of milk, to invent and sell Ice Cream, so I can afford better gear to get ready for the next fight.
Make MeowMancer Your Patron TODAY! and become a BEAUTIFUL meow!
I think the OP is generally oversimplifying the issue and otherwise missing the point, not to mention making snap judgements and sweeping assumptions about the entire game based on the opinions/experiences of a select few individuals.
All the "fixes" the OP is suggesting are very much the expectation of a DM, and very much within normal game play. The Wish spell has nothing to do with the OP's suggested "balances/fixes", though. Wish can literally do anything and everything, so simply "re-scaling encounters" or whatever is not an actual solution to, in this case, making yourself 2 20 level classes at the same time. As Sigred mentioned - what about everyone else in the group? That doesn't seem very fair, or very much like a team player. I can tell you that, if I were a player, and this were allowed by the DM, I would seriously considering continuing with the group if we didn't just go ahead and start a new campaign.
And I really don't understand where the OP goes from not allowing a character to be 2 20 level classes equating to not allowing a character to discover/invent/sell ice cream to make money. (I believe that is part of Sigred's "false equivalency) Those two have absolutely nothing to do with each other and aren't comparable.
This honestly just seems like a way for the OP to complain about 5e "killing creativity" or whatever. This, to me, seems a bit of a strawman tactic. I mean, the question was if DMs would allow such a thing. A few DMs on this particular site have answered with "no". I don't understand where the whole of 5e comes into it. If nothing else, you've come to the (incorrect) conclusion that these particular DMs don't play in a style you enjoy?
As a relatively new DM, my questions would be: why does your character want to do this? How does it make sense for the story and your character? What reason does your character have for wishing for something like this? What will this accomplish for your character? Because, and I'm just speaking for myself, it really just seems like a power grab made by a power gamer who wants to be the best/strongest just to be the best/strongest.
A possible solution for you - find a DM that would allow such a thing without serious consequences. Talk to that DM on how to word it so you can avoid negative outcomes. (This would not be me, however, mostly because I'm far too lazy to deal with all the mechanics and logistics that would be involved in something like that ;) )
I can see this getting so insanely complicated so fast, even if you DM did allow it at the beginning.
This section is only relevant to Adventurers league in my experience. And in that situation it is specifically to allow drop in drop out gameplay
Edit: if I was being a stickler for details I'd force you to use shape water to make ice cream ;-)
Part of it is the age-old issue of players wanting Wish to be an awesome ability they can fuel their wildest desires with vs. DMs wanting Wish to basically die in a cave.
The issue of "what about the other players?!" has been raised a few times here, and it's a valid one. The counterpoint: if Wish is never allowed to do anything which, say, the group's Fighter couldn't match, then what is the purpose of the spell's existence? Wish is supposed to be the culmination of a spellcaster's power - if their strongest Ultimate Spell is constantly backfiring on them and being made to be weaker and less effective than their Lower Arcana abilities, why even allow the spell?
Yeah, gaining all twenty levels in another class in one go is generally going to be too much, but the inverse idea of "all Wishes backfire all the time, casting this spell is NEVER a good idea and it will NEVER help you" is kinda just as dickish. The whole sentiment of "it's more fun for the players if their spells explode in their face all the time!" is just bad DMs convincing themselves they're right. yeah, some Wishes exploding, or taking effect in unexpected and interestingly off-kilter ways, is cool - but making the spell kill characters or otherwise render them unplayable every time it's cast is a negatory. Not only is it an ******* move, it's just lazy.
Hell, in the very first reply in this thread, Noksa came up with an interesting notion - the character gets two classes, but can only be one of them at any given time and they may not be able to control which one. They'd have to cart around the stuff needed for two different class builds to work, they'd have to make their second class work with whatever stats they built for their first class, and if they needed one or the other they'd have to hope they got lucky. That could make for some very interesting gameplay and a really cool story - much better than "You Wish for more power than a mortal being should have. The power comes to you, but you can't contain it and you explode. Everyone else takes 10d10 damage from your exploding corpse. Roll a new character."
Please do not contact or message me.
The other option is for the character using multiclass rules and switch between classes but having the future potential be outside the scope of the game and part of the lore with maybe a little extra that is in scope that other players have but limiting the ingame total to the same as other players.
A possible solution for you - find a DM that could allow such a element without severe results. Talk to that DM on how to word it so you can avoid negative outcomes. (This could not be me with working codes, however, in most cases because I'm some distance too lazy to address all of the mechanics and logistics that would be concerned in something like that ;) )
Then what's the point of a Wish? If the DM is going to allow you to Wish for, say, 1,000 hit points for each party member, but then give the monsters attacks in exchange that do 1,000 damage per hit, how is that any better than the DM just saying, "I don't allow Wish"? Aren't those two things, in fact, exactly equivalent? At least the DM who says "I ban it" is being honest. The one who says, "you can wish for whatever you want, no problem," and then adjusts the campaign so it plays as if the wish were never made, is also banning it, just not telling you.
There are many reasons to be cautious of the Wish spell, and by the way, many reasons to make the players potentially pay for extreme or over-the-top wishes. It is traditional in the game D&D, since back to the late 70s, that the Wish spell is treacherous and must be used with caution. You are potentially trifling with the very fabric of reality using a Wish, by undoing history, altering the future, maybe even causing whole nations to rise or fall with a single sentence. Such reality-altering power is normally reserved for beings such as gods, and the gods tend to jealously guard that power. You are messing with the forces of the multiverse (potentially) when you cast a wish. As a result, you have to be very, very careful with the wording or the multiverse will make you pay for it. Because of this, old school DMs used to minutely scrutinize the exact wording of a wish for any way it could go wrong, and if it possibly could go wrong, it did. If it could be literally fulfilled in a way you'd hate, the DM did it. This was not to be mean to the players... it was (a) to challenge them to come up with the right wording, (b) enforce the rules of the universe, and (c) make them cautious about using Wishes only when they absolutely needed to, instead of as a thing they can just do every so often for the f---- of it. Again, by tradition, players who were using Wishes to do noble or reasonable things (e.g., resurrecting a recently killed friend) would be allowed to do so without too much trouble, and players who were effing around with the universe and not taking the Wish seriously (like wishing for 100,000 coconuts), would be hosed by the DM.
In my campaign, I don't allow Wish as a spell players can take, but I will probably have an object in the world that may grant a wish or three (or perhaps a being like a demi-god who would do so). But I don't like the idea of a character knowing it as a spell and being able to cast it repeatedly over time.
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.
If so many players love the "Wish" spell, consider it vital to their fun and want to go so far as to intentionally create overpowered situations that equate to an "I WIN" button, then this is a clear sign of how Jorden Peterson's claim is true... most people lack creativity. they cannot create alternative work arounds to accomplish their goals on a whim, that easily adjust to the consequences a Wish should cause. The idea of how to face new encounters, enemies, oppositional organizations and nations and characters inside the game. The lack of creativity prevents them from adapting, so they simply desire to get the benefits without any of the drawbacks, or intentionally create a god-level PC to harm the DM who would dare to try and create a fun and challenging game, out of sheer spite.
How sad...
Wish can absolutely be a great thing in a game, but it requires good faith between the player and the DM. It's not meant to be a free pass to short-circuit the narrative. You throw a curveball at the DM, and you get a curveball back. Both sides handling the unexpected results are where the fun comes from.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I wouldn't allow my players to use Wish to make a mechanical change like that (or like BioWizard's 1,000 hit points example). The characters are the ones who are supposed to be making wishes, and they don't know what hit points or levels or challenge rating are. If they asked to have a combination of the class features from, say, a wizard and a monk, I would tell them that their character doesn't understand what class features are, and ask the player to phrase it in a way where their character, if they're a wizard, explains what it is about a monk that they wish they could be or do. Then I'd find a way to integrate that or something close to it. Depending on how powerful the thing they want is I may also add a monkey's paw-style drawback or consequence. If they want a lot of the what the other class has it would probably lead to an after-session discussion about multiclassing.
If the player were absolutely insistent that they want some kind of mutant, rule-breaking super character that has a a full set of wizard stats and abilities for their level combined with a full set of monk stats and abilities for their level, I would offer them this: They can make the wish, but there's a 50/50 shot that it will either fail completely or it will succeed with disastrous consequences. Flip a coin. On heads, it fails. On tails, it succeeds after a fashion - the character is spirited away to a different plane of existence in a different place and time where a society of advanced wizard-monks has created their own utopia. The character is removed from the campaign; start a new character sheet.