Talk:Wish Negotiation (3.5e Variant Rule)

Beyond Outlandish

A wizard casts Wish. The genie appears with a nefarious laugh, and says "State your wish, mortal." The wizard (foolishly) says "I wish to be very strong!" (Thus skipping phase 1, by making a wish without asking for terms.) After a moment of consideration, an amused expression flickers across the genie's face. "Very well!" says the genie, "I grant you the spelltouched feat Stench of the Dead! Your body odor is now very strong indeed!"

This example is beyond outlandish, and you can and should expect players to correctly argue that "I" and "a specific attribute of I" are two entirely different things. At which point your game is going to break down for the remainder of the night in a bad way. Surgo 15:02, 13 November 2008 (MST)

If it bothers you that much, maybe the "Comical" outcome should be optional at the DM's discretion? Or omitted altogether? As I said, this variant needs more playtesting. The "Comical" outcome isn't supposed to happen very often anyway, only when the player is really asking for it with a badly worded wish. This effect should be easily reversible with another wish (reversing a wish gone wrong is specified as a "known safe effect" in the article). If the wish came from a powerful but malevolent being (like some kind of demon?) instead of a spell effect (with the genie), then I don't think outlandish effects like this are altogether unreasonable. Even if we omit the comical outcome as a possibility, I don't think this would be so bad as one of the enumerated effects from the "choose your poison" outcome (remember these are supposed to be corrupted interpretations from overpowered or ambiguous requests). A player might even choose it over the other options because it has certain advantages. Additionally, the terms specified in Phase 1 may allow the player an out if he doesn't like the effect. Of course, none of this would prevent a player from specifying a known safe effect, and ensuring the "wish granted" outcome. What do you think? Cymaster 15:58, 13 November 2008 (MST)

Come to think of it, I don't think your argument that "I" and "a specific attribute of I" are two entirely different things is valid. The wisher probably intended for an increase to his (Str) stat, which is still a "specific attribute of I", so how was the genie to know which attribute to strengthen? Of course, the DM has to know his players. Some groups may think the occasional monkey's paw wish is fun, but others may want nothing to do with it. Cymaster 16:22, 13 November 2008 (MST)

If you want to get really deep into the argument, the player could note that it doesn't actually matter because "I want to be very strong" is a language-dependent phrase, where the implications of putting 'I' and 'strong' together like that really only exist in English, (presumably) not in Abyssal, so the whole twisted wish doesn't make any sense to begin with. I don't think it (or any of the article) really matters, though, because players can and will make their first wish be something along the lines of 'that everything I ever wish for is perfectly clear, the meaning such that it can never be twisted' or just give the third wish to the Efreet that they're getting it from (Efreet can't cast wishes for themselves, so that's an offer that's beyond tempting). Surgo 17:52, 13 November 2008 (MST)

This whole thing really feels like it's penalizing the player for not being as smart as his player, really. A wizard is a very intelligent being, a player is not going to be able to attain the level of upmost knowledge a Wizard can garner from his adventuring and various other ploys. So, while a Wizard may know to phrase a wish "I wish my intellect was increases by 2% of it's original capacity for an unlimited amount of time, with an immediate effect.", a player may just say "Hey, I'd like an int increase please". Penalizing a player for not being like the character is never a good thing. Do not give a barbarian some weights and tell him to lift 100lb of weights before he can get Power Attack. --TK-Squared 17:05, 13 November 2008 (MST)

By this whole thing, you mean the "comical" outcome, right? Not the whole variant :) Penalizing the player for not being as smart as his character, you mean? I agree with that point. I might even take it further, for instance, if a player playing an intelligent character is about to make a stupid mistake, I might roll an Int check. If he passes, I'd warn him that he might not want to do that. That way, even a relatively inexperienced player could play a more difficult class, like a wizard. This has a flip side too though, is it really a bad thing to reward a player for playing intelligently? I don't think it is. Remember though, that the last two outcomes are only for wishes without known safe effects. Asking directly for any of the effects described in the Wish spell description should automatically pass. Cymaster 17:36, 13 November 2008 (MST)

After careful consideration, I've decided this was a bad example after all. I had simply adapted a misinterpretation corruption to work with 3.5 rules, but it doesn't really fit well. I've removed that subsection. If anyone can come up with better examples, or more constructive ideas, I'd like to hear them. Cymaster 13:36, 24 November 2008 (MST)

You could give the wizard the magical equivalent of steroids. He would gain strength, perhaps massive amounts (+6 or so) but there would be a commensurate cost in terms of his health and sanity. It would be up to the wizard to accept that choice, knowing full well the consequences. 67.85.16.35 13:57, 30 April 2009 (MDT)