Mixing
Is there any way to decrease the chance of never being able to cast Wish again?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
When used in ways beyond the standard outlined uses wish carries a risk of stress:
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.
Assume here that a DM would resolve this using a d100 roll.
Are there any features/abilities in the game that can work to reduce the chance of this happening (either by modifying the roll or by some other method) when using wish in this way?
dnd-5e spells wish
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
When used in ways beyond the standard outlined uses wish carries a risk of stress:
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.
Assume here that a DM would resolve this using a d100 roll.
Are there any features/abilities in the game that can work to reduce the chance of this happening (either by modifying the roll or by some other method) when using wish in this way?
dnd-5e spells wish
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
When used in ways beyond the standard outlined uses wish carries a risk of stress:
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.
Assume here that a DM would resolve this using a d100 roll.
Are there any features/abilities in the game that can work to reduce the chance of this happening (either by modifying the roll or by some other method) when using wish in this way?
dnd-5e spells wish
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
When used in ways beyond the standard outlined uses wish carries a risk of stress:
Finally, there is a 33 percent chance that you are unable to cast wish ever again if you suffer this stress.
Assume here that a DM would resolve this using a d100 roll.
Are there any features/abilities in the game that can work to reduce the chance of this happening (either by modifying the roll or by some other method) when using wish in this way?
dnd-5e spells wish
dnd-5e spells wish
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
edited 1 hour ago
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
asked 2 hours ago
Rubiksmoose
42k5206318
42k5206318
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago
add a comment |
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
Make a Simulacrum, have them cast Wish instead
The material costs for a Simulacrum are only an arbitrary quantity of snow and hair/fingernail clippings, along with 1,500gp of Ruby dust. Wish itself is capable of generating an object worth at least 25,000gp, meaning it can generate 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust (or a 25,000gp Ruby that can then be smashed into dust).
Meanwhile, Simulacra are required to obey their creators, both in actions and intent:
The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.
So you sequence things like this:
- Acquire 1,500gp worth of Ruby Dust legitimately
- Create your Simulacrum (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have your Simulacrum wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust (or wish for 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust, if that doesn't violate the "one object" rule on Wish)
- The next day, (perhaps with your Simulacrum's help?) assemble the next Simulacrum, and create the new one (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have this Simulacrum wish for whatever it is that you actually wanted to Wish for
- Repeat 4-5 until you run low on Ruby Dust, then return to step 2
Using this process, only your Simulacra will risk losing the ability to cast Wish, while you, the original caster in full control of these Simulacra, will never need to risk your own use of the spell.
Disclaimer: DMs reserve the right to make Simulacra used in this manner revolt and turn against their creators. This may happen even though the explicit rules written by WotC expressly forbids them from doing this. I claim no responsibility for any "Fighting my Evil Clone!" Campaigns that get sprung forth by this obvious abuse of game mechanics.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Wish itself can, if there are two casters in a party with access to wish
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.
Obviously this means that any items which cast wish for you (utilised on your behalf by another creature), or other creatures, like Genies, or a simulacra, could also do it.
Using this strategy the odds of various scenarios are:
- The odds of the first spellcaster not being able to cast wish again is 33%*33% = 10.89% (they have to fail both times in the scenario I'm laying out).
- The odds of the second character not being able to cast it again has odds 33%*33% = 10.89% (the first caster has to fail in order for the second to even have cast wish and risk the stress).
- The odds that at least one of the two casters suffer the stress is 1-(1-10.89%)^2 = 20.59%.
- The odds that both casters suffer the stress is 10.89%^2 = 1.19%.
So if you go into a situation assuming this strategy you can use math to reduce your chances.
Using more people you can reduce the odds of any individual spellcaster losing their ability to cast wish to an arbitrarily low level.
If you use the infinite staircase of simulacra the chance of the stress being suffered by the original spellcaster can be reduced to effectively zero given enough preparation (assuming that a stress suffered by a simulacra does not affect the original caster).
If your DM simulated the 33% chance using one or more d20s, the Luck feat can help overturn that outcome as well.
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
|
show 10 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
11
down vote
Make a Simulacrum, have them cast Wish instead
The material costs for a Simulacrum are only an arbitrary quantity of snow and hair/fingernail clippings, along with 1,500gp of Ruby dust. Wish itself is capable of generating an object worth at least 25,000gp, meaning it can generate 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust (or a 25,000gp Ruby that can then be smashed into dust).
Meanwhile, Simulacra are required to obey their creators, both in actions and intent:
The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.
So you sequence things like this:
- Acquire 1,500gp worth of Ruby Dust legitimately
- Create your Simulacrum (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have your Simulacrum wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust (or wish for 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust, if that doesn't violate the "one object" rule on Wish)
- The next day, (perhaps with your Simulacrum's help?) assemble the next Simulacrum, and create the new one (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have this Simulacrum wish for whatever it is that you actually wanted to Wish for
- Repeat 4-5 until you run low on Ruby Dust, then return to step 2
Using this process, only your Simulacra will risk losing the ability to cast Wish, while you, the original caster in full control of these Simulacra, will never need to risk your own use of the spell.
Disclaimer: DMs reserve the right to make Simulacra used in this manner revolt and turn against their creators. This may happen even though the explicit rules written by WotC expressly forbids them from doing this. I claim no responsibility for any "Fighting my Evil Clone!" Campaigns that get sprung forth by this obvious abuse of game mechanics.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
Make a Simulacrum, have them cast Wish instead
The material costs for a Simulacrum are only an arbitrary quantity of snow and hair/fingernail clippings, along with 1,500gp of Ruby dust. Wish itself is capable of generating an object worth at least 25,000gp, meaning it can generate 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust (or a 25,000gp Ruby that can then be smashed into dust).
Meanwhile, Simulacra are required to obey their creators, both in actions and intent:
The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.
So you sequence things like this:
- Acquire 1,500gp worth of Ruby Dust legitimately
- Create your Simulacrum (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have your Simulacrum wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust (or wish for 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust, if that doesn't violate the "one object" rule on Wish)
- The next day, (perhaps with your Simulacrum's help?) assemble the next Simulacrum, and create the new one (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have this Simulacrum wish for whatever it is that you actually wanted to Wish for
- Repeat 4-5 until you run low on Ruby Dust, then return to step 2
Using this process, only your Simulacra will risk losing the ability to cast Wish, while you, the original caster in full control of these Simulacra, will never need to risk your own use of the spell.
Disclaimer: DMs reserve the right to make Simulacra used in this manner revolt and turn against their creators. This may happen even though the explicit rules written by WotC expressly forbids them from doing this. I claim no responsibility for any "Fighting my Evil Clone!" Campaigns that get sprung forth by this obvious abuse of game mechanics.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
11
down vote
up vote
11
down vote
Make a Simulacrum, have them cast Wish instead
The material costs for a Simulacrum are only an arbitrary quantity of snow and hair/fingernail clippings, along with 1,500gp of Ruby dust. Wish itself is capable of generating an object worth at least 25,000gp, meaning it can generate 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust (or a 25,000gp Ruby that can then be smashed into dust).
Meanwhile, Simulacra are required to obey their creators, both in actions and intent:
The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.
So you sequence things like this:
- Acquire 1,500gp worth of Ruby Dust legitimately
- Create your Simulacrum (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have your Simulacrum wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust (or wish for 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust, if that doesn't violate the "one object" rule on Wish)
- The next day, (perhaps with your Simulacrum's help?) assemble the next Simulacrum, and create the new one (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have this Simulacrum wish for whatever it is that you actually wanted to Wish for
- Repeat 4-5 until you run low on Ruby Dust, then return to step 2
Using this process, only your Simulacra will risk losing the ability to cast Wish, while you, the original caster in full control of these Simulacra, will never need to risk your own use of the spell.
Disclaimer: DMs reserve the right to make Simulacra used in this manner revolt and turn against their creators. This may happen even though the explicit rules written by WotC expressly forbids them from doing this. I claim no responsibility for any "Fighting my Evil Clone!" Campaigns that get sprung forth by this obvious abuse of game mechanics.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
Make a Simulacrum, have them cast Wish instead
The material costs for a Simulacrum are only an arbitrary quantity of snow and hair/fingernail clippings, along with 1,500gp of Ruby dust. Wish itself is capable of generating an object worth at least 25,000gp, meaning it can generate 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust (or a 25,000gp Ruby that can then be smashed into dust).
Meanwhile, Simulacra are required to obey their creators, both in actions and intent:
The simulacrum is friendly to you and creatures you designate. It obeys your spoken commands, moving and acting in accordance with your wishes and acting on your turn in combat. The simulacrum lacks the ability to learn or become more powerful, so it never increases its level or other abilities, nor can it regain expended spell slots.
So you sequence things like this:
- Acquire 1,500gp worth of Ruby Dust legitimately
- Create your Simulacrum (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have your Simulacrum wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust (or wish for 25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust, if that doesn't violate the "one object" rule on Wish)
- The next day, (perhaps with your Simulacrum's help?) assemble the next Simulacrum, and create the new one (casting time: 12 hours)
- Have this Simulacrum wish for whatever it is that you actually wanted to Wish for
- Repeat 4-5 until you run low on Ruby Dust, then return to step 2
Using this process, only your Simulacra will risk losing the ability to cast Wish, while you, the original caster in full control of these Simulacra, will never need to risk your own use of the spell.
Disclaimer: DMs reserve the right to make Simulacra used in this manner revolt and turn against their creators. This may happen even though the explicit rules written by WotC expressly forbids them from doing this. I claim no responsibility for any "Fighting my Evil Clone!" Campaigns that get sprung forth by this obvious abuse of game mechanics.
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
answered 1 hour ago
Xirema
10.9k13273
10.9k13273
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
1
1
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
@Slagmoth Wouldn't the Simulacrum be missing its ninth level spell slot if you yourself used Wish to create it, since Simulacra cannot recover Spell Slots?
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
Shouldn’t “… wish for a 25,000gp ruby, smash the Ruby into dust” instead be “wish for 25,000gp of ruby dust”? After all, much of a gems’ value is in cut, colour, clarity, flawlessness, and other properties only intact gems have, so the dust of a valuable ruby is almost guaranteed to be of less worth than the intact gem, and for such wishes the DM is encouraged to exploit errors or loopholes in the wish. It seems unnecessary to have an intermediate smashing step that adds risk.
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema Yup, I was just reading this chain and you are correct and that makes perfect sense. However, you could use a Ring of Wishes in that fashion :).
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
@SevenSidedDie My only concern was that "25,000gp worth of Ruby Dust" might violate the "one object" part of how Wish is suggested to be used. I don't think any DM that would permit this kind of cheese in the first place would quibble on that detail though.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
2
2
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
@Slagmoth The economics of gems in D&D has been inferrred to work in arbitrarily bizarre ways due to the way spell components are worded. It’s not necessary to interpret the costing of gem spell components that way, but it’s popular because it’s funny, and because it opens up interesting rules exploits. (My preference is to believe the game when it says that it used natural language and things work as they do in the real world unless explicitly otherwise defined.) Anyway I only bring it up since the DM is encouraged to twist wishes. (“A bag of 25000gp ruby dust” seems fine to me.)
– SevenSidedDie♦
1 hour ago
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Wish itself can, if there are two casters in a party with access to wish
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.
Obviously this means that any items which cast wish for you (utilised on your behalf by another creature), or other creatures, like Genies, or a simulacra, could also do it.
Using this strategy the odds of various scenarios are:
- The odds of the first spellcaster not being able to cast wish again is 33%*33% = 10.89% (they have to fail both times in the scenario I'm laying out).
- The odds of the second character not being able to cast it again has odds 33%*33% = 10.89% (the first caster has to fail in order for the second to even have cast wish and risk the stress).
- The odds that at least one of the two casters suffer the stress is 1-(1-10.89%)^2 = 20.59%.
- The odds that both casters suffer the stress is 10.89%^2 = 1.19%.
So if you go into a situation assuming this strategy you can use math to reduce your chances.
Using more people you can reduce the odds of any individual spellcaster losing their ability to cast wish to an arbitrarily low level.
If you use the infinite staircase of simulacra the chance of the stress being suffered by the original spellcaster can be reduced to effectively zero given enough preparation (assuming that a stress suffered by a simulacra does not affect the original caster).
If your DM simulated the 33% chance using one or more d20s, the Luck feat can help overturn that outcome as well.
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
Wish itself can, if there are two casters in a party with access to wish
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.
Obviously this means that any items which cast wish for you (utilised on your behalf by another creature), or other creatures, like Genies, or a simulacra, could also do it.
Using this strategy the odds of various scenarios are:
- The odds of the first spellcaster not being able to cast wish again is 33%*33% = 10.89% (they have to fail both times in the scenario I'm laying out).
- The odds of the second character not being able to cast it again has odds 33%*33% = 10.89% (the first caster has to fail in order for the second to even have cast wish and risk the stress).
- The odds that at least one of the two casters suffer the stress is 1-(1-10.89%)^2 = 20.59%.
- The odds that both casters suffer the stress is 10.89%^2 = 1.19%.
So if you go into a situation assuming this strategy you can use math to reduce your chances.
Using more people you can reduce the odds of any individual spellcaster losing their ability to cast wish to an arbitrarily low level.
If you use the infinite staircase of simulacra the chance of the stress being suffered by the original spellcaster can be reduced to effectively zero given enough preparation (assuming that a stress suffered by a simulacra does not affect the original caster).
If your DM simulated the 33% chance using one or more d20s, the Luck feat can help overturn that outcome as well.
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
|
show 10 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Wish itself can, if there are two casters in a party with access to wish
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.
Obviously this means that any items which cast wish for you (utilised on your behalf by another creature), or other creatures, like Genies, or a simulacra, could also do it.
Using this strategy the odds of various scenarios are:
- The odds of the first spellcaster not being able to cast wish again is 33%*33% = 10.89% (they have to fail both times in the scenario I'm laying out).
- The odds of the second character not being able to cast it again has odds 33%*33% = 10.89% (the first caster has to fail in order for the second to even have cast wish and risk the stress).
- The odds that at least one of the two casters suffer the stress is 1-(1-10.89%)^2 = 20.59%.
- The odds that both casters suffer the stress is 10.89%^2 = 1.19%.
So if you go into a situation assuming this strategy you can use math to reduce your chances.
Using more people you can reduce the odds of any individual spellcaster losing their ability to cast wish to an arbitrarily low level.
If you use the infinite staircase of simulacra the chance of the stress being suffered by the original spellcaster can be reduced to effectively zero given enough preparation (assuming that a stress suffered by a simulacra does not affect the original caster).
If your DM simulated the 33% chance using one or more d20s, the Luck feat can help overturn that outcome as well.
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
Wish itself can, if there are two casters in a party with access to wish
You undo a single recent event by forcing a reroll of any roll made within the last round (including your last turn). Reality reshapes itself to accommodate the new result. For example, a wish spell could undo an opponent’s successful save, a foe’s critical hit, or a friend’s failed save. You can force the reroll to be made with advantage or disadvantage, and you can choose whether to use the reroll or the original roll.
Obviously this means that any items which cast wish for you (utilised on your behalf by another creature), or other creatures, like Genies, or a simulacra, could also do it.
Using this strategy the odds of various scenarios are:
- The odds of the first spellcaster not being able to cast wish again is 33%*33% = 10.89% (they have to fail both times in the scenario I'm laying out).
- The odds of the second character not being able to cast it again has odds 33%*33% = 10.89% (the first caster has to fail in order for the second to even have cast wish and risk the stress).
- The odds that at least one of the two casters suffer the stress is 1-(1-10.89%)^2 = 20.59%.
- The odds that both casters suffer the stress is 10.89%^2 = 1.19%.
So if you go into a situation assuming this strategy you can use math to reduce your chances.
Using more people you can reduce the odds of any individual spellcaster losing their ability to cast wish to an arbitrarily low level.
If you use the infinite staircase of simulacra the chance of the stress being suffered by the original spellcaster can be reduced to effectively zero given enough preparation (assuming that a stress suffered by a simulacra does not affect the original caster).
If your DM simulated the 33% chance using one or more d20s, the Luck feat can help overturn that outcome as well.
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
edited 10 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
answered 1 hour ago
illustro
4,76721243
4,76721243
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
|
show 10 more comments
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
1
1
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
Using Wish in this manner to undo a previous roll would itself incur its own stress test. It might be worth running the math on this to ensure that over time, the odds of two (or more) spellcasters chaining Wish to undo the bad rolls will eventually result in a lower incidence of lost usage of Wish.
– Xirema
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
As @Xirema states I am dubious that wish could work this way. All of the examples in the text point to things that the character does with d20 rolls. Percentile chances are not the same thing. Moreover, a DM is well within their rights to simply change the circumstances to ensure that you would be unaffected. Example: your second wish simply prevented you from casting the first wish, or changing the first wish to one that did not stress you.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
Also, items that cast wish state that you cast the spell based on the DMG rules... so if you are stressed to the point of not being able to cast wish, you can not do so with an item that says "you cast wish" like a ring of wishes or a luck blade.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@Xirema The reroll would have advantage, so the odds are as follows: 1-((1-(33/100)^2)*(66/100)) = 41.2% that at least one of them can't cast wish again. It would always be useful if the second wish caster didn't care much about suffering the stress (such as if he was casting from a luck blade). Otherwise it is a risk, but more often than not, they will both succeed (so it could be used anyway).
– David Coffron
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
@DavidCoffron If you suffer the stress and can no longer cast the wish spell you can't use a luck blade to cast wish to undo the first issue. If I am reading your last sentence correctly. The weilder casts the spells from items the item doesn't cast the spell... except in rare circumstances.
– Slagmoth
1 hour ago
|
show 10 more comments
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f135241%2fis-there-any-way-to-decrease-the-chance-of-never-being-able-to-cast-wish-again%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Related: Can you use Wish to allow yourself to cast Wish without risks?
– Rubiksmoose
38 mins ago