Wishing for Feats or Skills

[Mehangel]

Normally, when I GM/DM a game, I am very strict when it comes to wishes and have the following restrictions:

o Wishes have to spoken in-character (This solves probably 40% of wish abuse).
o Wishes cannot include out-of-character knowledge (This solves probably an additional 10% of wish abuse)

So if a player wants a feat or skill bonuses with a wish, it will be possible, but I will determine how it is accomplished. It will probably come by means of a slot item.

By making it a slot item, it means that multiple castings wont stack and what feat or skill bonuses they will benefit from.

[Kantolin]

Ofc you couldn't increase your skill ranks beyond level +3 this way so it would limit the skill point abuse.

...you know. Huh.

Okay, I agree with you, and that's how I've always run it. But now that I think about it, at level 17 I think it would be mechanically okay for 'Spend 5000xp, get a boost on rank cap so you are forevermore level+4'. At that level, this amounts to 'Get a +1 on skill checks if you spend skill points thereon', since you can get into all nonepic prestige classes and qualify for all nonepic feats trivially before that, and if you're allowing epic then either epic spellcasting will throw balance for a loop or you're using house rules anyway and thus can snipe any real problems that I'm not forseeing. It'd be a lot easier at that level to make a ring that gives a reasonable +5 luck/untyped/racial bonus to whatever skill anyway.

(...at least I /hope/ you qualify for all nonepic things by level 17 :P )

Huh. I may have to adjust my general restrictions on that subject.

(Now if you allow that to stack endlessly then we open up another can of worms, as while I'm okay with a level 17 character having 21 ranks in something, I dunno about a level 17 character having 50 ranks in something.)

[ShaneMRoth]

Ofc you couldn't increase your skill ranks beyond level +3 this way so it would limit the skill point abuse.

I found this line to be thought-provoking.

I would never allow a player character to have more than (character level plus three) ranks in any skill.

I would allow a Wish that caused a skill to be rendered a "class" skill for that individual character, though.

A Wish for added feats and extra skill points strikes me as a lot like inventing a Prestige Class.

It is a Wish to customize that PC in a manner that causes that character to no longer technically qualify as a base character class anymore.

It seems to me that this might be a mechanically valid IC method of introducing a new Prestige Class into a campaign.

Not necessarily the only method, mind you, but one powerful and mechanically consistent method.

[Pex]

I'm going to go against the trend here and just say blanket no to pretty much all of these. They open up avenues for abuse that I wouldn't want open.

If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?

Hmm. Not the first time I've said this. Time to change my signature.

[Taelas]

If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?

Hmm. Not the first time I've said this. Time to change my signature.

It isn't so much a ruling for my own personal table (where it wouldn't matter much, if at all--the group I play generally do not optimize much), but it would be open to abuse, so I advise against it.

It also isn't really a matter of trust. If it were, the rules might as well be thrown out the window entirely.

[ShaneMRoth]

If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?

Hmm. Not the first time I've said this. Time to change my signature.

Trust is a two way street. If the players can't trust their DM to adjudicate the rules and not ruin the game, why are they playing?

[Pex]

Trust is a two way street. If the players can't trust their DM to adjudicate the rules and not ruin the game, why are they playing?

Exactly, but it still doesn't explain why a DM would twist the wish or deny it altogether because of fear of "abuse".

[Taelas]

Exactly, but it still doesn't explain why a DM would twist the wish or deny it altogether because of fear of "abuse".

What explanation is it you require that isn't already covered by "fear of abuse"? Is that somehow not a valid reason to ban something?

This is not even banning something that is in the game: wishing for feats or skill points aren't covered by the spell, so no matter what, the DM needs to judge whether or not it is allowed. If they decide it isn't, of course they would "deny it altogether".

I really don't understand what you are getting at.

[Pex]

What explanation is it you require that isn't already covered by "fear of abuse"? Is that somehow not a valid reason to ban something?

This is not even banning something that is in the game: wishing for feats or skill points aren't covered by the spell, so no matter what, the DM needs to judge whether or not it is allowed. If they decide it isn't, of course they would "deny it altogether".

I really don't understand what you are getting at.

Just because something is new or not covered doesn't mean it will be abusive. To fear something abusive is to fear your players will try to "Win D&D" with it. Because it's new and not covered, that shouldn't mean it oughtn't be tried at all. You think it's abusive, but you don't know. You don't know, but you think your players will exploit it for Ultimate POWER! or else you wouldn't fear it being abusive so you declare your players guilty of abuse and deny the option before they even did anything. You are not trusting your players.

How is the player getting the Wish? Is he casting the spell himself? That's something to consider. Even ability score increases have restrictions so having restrictions on the number of feats is reasonable, but automatically making that number 0 is not. If it's a one time thing granted as a Quest reward, then what's the problem? What's so abusive you fear your players exploiting the game to ruin? The Wish only exists because you as DM made it available. Why are you then forbidding your players from using it? The Wish is for something the player chooses to want, not you as DM choosing for him.

[NichG]

I'm happy when my players take game balance issues into careful consideration when they make choices, but it isn't their job the same way that it's the DM's job. Most players will be willing to do sort of common-sense self-policing like not turning every campaign into Tippyverse just because they can, but if it gets to the point where they have to second guess every choice they make because they need to calculate the overall game balance (including things based on information that they don't even have access to, like other players' character sheets or future character build plans) then its very tiring.

So as a DM, its my job to present the players with situations where I'm okay with them taking full advantage of whatever they can within the situation. Since I'm not perfect, there's always the chance I mess up and something slips past which has to be nerfed, but the better of a job I do with presenting a set of options that can't be abused to the detriment of the game, the less the players have to second guess themselves, and they can really go all out and just take whatever makes sense to them, use whatever combo is possible, etc.

So even if I trust my players, its important to keep things that will be broken or abusable off the table, so that I don't have to say 'hey, sorry, I know you were really excited about this one combo, but actually if you do that its going to make combat completely irrelevant in the long run, so could you hold it back a bit?' or things like that.

[Taelas]

Just because something is new or not covered doesn't mean it will be abusive.

No, it doesn't. But the more complexity you introduce to the game, the greater the chance something will be.

To fear something abusive is to fear your players will try to "Win D&D" with it. Because it's new and not covered, that shouldn't mean it oughtn't be tried at all. You think it's abusive, but you don't know. You don't know, but you think your players will exploit it for Ultimate POWER! or else you wouldn't fear it being abusive so you declare your players guilty of abuse and deny the option before they even did anything. You are not trusting your players.

I am under no obligation to introduce something I am not comfortable with. Period.

It has nothing to do with "trusting my players." For one thing, I am not speaking specifically of my table, but in general. We play within the framework of the rules, and removing limits that were there previously can easily have unforeseen consequences.

How is the player getting the Wish? Is he casting the spell himself? That's something to consider. Even ability score increases have restrictions so having restrictions on the number of feats is reasonable, but automatically making that number 0 is not. If it's a one time thing granted as a Quest reward, then what's the problem? What's so abusive you fear your players exploiting the game to ruin? The Wish only exists because you as DM made it available. Why are you then forbidding your players from using it? The Wish is for something the player chooses to want, not you as DM choosing for him.

I am not forbidding them from making a wish. The wish has explicit things you can do, and I do not alter that in any way. However, I am not under an obligation to introduce new mechanics because a player wants me to. I could just make the wish fail--that is permitted by the spell itself. (It is trivially easy to come up with a way to partially fulfill the wish in a way that does not grant the players anything whatsoever.) I would just tell my players that that is not something they can use the wish for, though.

As for what the problem would be: it really isn't that big a deal in the vast majority of situations; even the best feats aren't that powerful. But I can still see potential for abuse, especially in character creation with high level characters, and as I see no good reason to allow it in the first place, I'd rather simply forbid it.

[Knaight]

I'm happy when my players take game balance issues into careful consideration when they make choices, but it isn't their job the same way that it's the DM's job. Most players will be willing to do sort of common-sense self-policing like not turning every campaign into Tippyverse just because they can, but if it gets to the point where they have to second guess every choice they make because they need to calculate the overall game balance (including things based on information that they don't even have access to, like other players' character sheets or future character build plans) then its very tiring.

Nobody is asking for this. What's being asked for is that players don't deliberately go out of their way to deliberately exploit a loophole. It's more the DM's job to prevent inadvertent balance problems (largely due to the system failing to in the first place, but I digress) and select a power level, but not exploiting the rules is an entirely reasonable expectation.

[Threadnaught]

I know that wishes are judgment calls by DMs if they aren't one of the categories listed in the books, so I am asking experienced DMs what you would do if somebody wished for extra Feats, skills, or skill points.

Interestingly, this has never come up before, well the value of some Feats has been calculated by some interested players on boards such as these ones.

Apparently they're 10000gp +5000-10000gp per prerequisite Feat when creating Magic Items that grant Feats. So as a non-magcal permanent ability, it's within the limits of a Wish.

1. If a PC wished for an extra Feat, would you grant it?

Sure.

2. If a PC wished for an extra Feat without the pre-requisites, would you grant it?

No. Not even if it's just the one prereq.

3. How about two Feats? Three? Five?

One Feat per Wish!

4. If somebody asked for an extra skill, would you grant it? With how many ranks?

As in, an extra Class Skill? Sure, as many Ranks as they put Skill Points into it up to their HD +3.

5. If a PC wished for a cross-class skill, would you grant it? With how many ranks?

I just said that.

6. If a PC asked for ten extra skill points, would you grant it? Twenty? Fifty?

If they asked for more Skill Points, they're get ten additional Skill Points due to their assumed level for using Wish being level 17. One Skill Point for every odd level, with a bonus Skill Point for 1st level.
I probably wouldn't let it stack with itself if applied directly to Skills.

7. If a PC just asked for extra skill points, how many would you grant?

Ten Skill Points.

There's no immediate need for this information. I'm fairly new to 3.5, and I'm playing with the rules.

Thanks!

Do you know the plot of the movie No Man?
Try following that philosophy as a DM and you should be fine.

[NichG]

Nobody is asking for this. What's being asked for is that players don't deliberately go out of their way to deliberately exploit a loophole. It's more the DM's job to prevent inadvertent balance problems (largely due to the system failing to in the first place, but I digress) and select a power level, but not exploiting the rules is an entirely reasonable expectation.

This is with regards to Pex's point of 'If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?'. If you look on these forums, there's a ton of variation in what would be considered legitimate combos and what would be an 'exploit'. There isn't a well-defined line between the two that will be obvious to everyone. You can leave it entirely in the players' hands, but then they have to really self-balance and question every thing they do from an OOC perspective, and that becomes a big damper on the mood.

On the other hand, if you try your best to not put anything in front of them that would be problematic if used to its full extent, you can tell your players 'its okay, you can go all out' and they don't have to worry 'is this going to be considered an exploit?'.

Wish is actually a great example of this, because people look at the 5000xp cost and 9th level slot and consider it a balance factor. But at higher levels, Wishes can actually become very common, and each step along the road to that point seems reasonable until you look back and realize that something that was supposed to be rare and cost 5000xp can now be done for free 4 times a day. There are also implications whenever you have entities who can cast Wish without the XP cost in the setting. Maybe the PCs make an alliance with the City of Brass after helping them out, and now they can legitimately go to their Noble Efreeti buddies and ask for wishes, forcing some justification for why that shouldn't work. All of those kinds of balance factors are things the DM should consider, and it has nothing to do with not trusting your players.

[noob]

Efreets are lawful evil not stupid slaves so they will probably grant you a dozen of wishes as a gift one time when you saved their city then say that if you want more wishes you must help them to invade a plane and things of this kind.
You will never get thousand of wishes only because you saved their city since they would rather use them for convincing other people to help them or ask their slaves to wish for things they want and since their city is saved and that they gave you appropriate pay(12 wishes) the agreement have been done.
the problem is rather when players invade the city of brass and become dictators and mindrape all the efreets.

[NichG]

Efreets are lawful evil not stupid slaves so they will probably grant you a dozen of wishes as a gift one time when you saved their city then say that if you want more wishes you must help them to invade a plane and things of this kind.
You will never get thousand of wishes only because you saved their city since they would rather use them for convincing other people to help them or ask their slaves to wish for things they want and since their city is saved and that they gave you appropriate pay(12 wishes) the agreement have been done.
the problem is rather when players invade the city of brass and become dictators and mindrape all the efreets.

This is the danger - if you're a DM in this situation, its tempting to reach for a plausible IC story for why the players can't do the broken thing, but that IC story isn't the real reason you're blocking it. So e.g. if you tell the players 'the efreeti, despite being your allies, will only give you 12 wishes' and then they say 'well thats fine, we'll just mindrape some of them into wish-engines', then you're stuck with 'um... how can I make that not work?' when you should be saying 'okay, it appears that that's a thing you can do, here's what happens'.

You're blocking it because readily available free wishes pose a game-mechanical problem, yet the game mechanics are telling you that because of the situation then that's something that could potentially happen. So if you can think ahead and consider that possibility before it comes about and make rulings you won't regret if it comes about, then you don't have to stretch as much or force things a certain way to avoid problems down the line.

[noob]

I remember a game master who said that all wishes no matter who granted them were realized by super powerful being who HATED intensely all the creatures wanting wishes and so that if an efreet was your best friend you would still be killed by the wish since he said(the GM) that no matter what you wish you get killed except if you are a npc very far from the players(so far he had never any interaction with them at any level of indirection)

[Pex]

This is with regards to Pex's point of 'If you can't trust your players not to ruin the game when given power, why are you playing with them?'. If you look on these forums, there's a ton of variation in what would be considered legitimate combos and what would be an 'exploit'. There isn't a well-defined line between the two that will be obvious to everyone. You can leave it entirely in the players' hands, but then they have to really self-balance and question every thing they do from an OOC perspective, and that becomes a big damper on the mood.

On the other hand, if you try your best to not put anything in front of them that would be problematic if used to its full extent, you can tell your players 'its okay, you can go all out' and they don't have to worry 'is this going to be considered an exploit?'.

Wish is actually a great example of this, because people look at the 5000xp cost and 9th level slot and consider it a balance factor. But at higher levels, Wishes can actually become very common, and each step along the road to that point seems reasonable until you look back and realize that something that was supposed to be rare and cost 5000xp can now be done for free 4 times a day. There are also implications whenever you have entities who can cast Wish without the XP cost in the setting. Maybe the PCs make an alliance with the City of Brass after helping them out, and now they can legitimately go to their Noble Efreeti buddies and ask for wishes, forcing some justification for why that shouldn't work. All of those kinds of balance factors are things the DM should consider, and it has nothing to do with not trusting your players.

Which is all fine and dandy to have a limitation on wishing for feats and skills, such as a specific total number you can get, a one feat or skill option per wish source, the needing to already have the prerequisites for a feat, etc., but not outright forbidding it just because a player thought outside the box. Players do have a responsibility to be reasonable. If a player is being a smart-alec and trying to use Wish to Win D&D then of course smack him down or diplomatically just say No, knock it off. That's not the case here. The player is not trying to be abusive. He just thought of something cool. Trust him.

[Zancloufer]

Wish is actually a great example of this, because people look at the 5000xp cost and 9th level slot and consider it a balance factor. But at higher levels, Wishes can actually become very common, and each step along the road to that point seems reasonable until you look back and realize that something that was supposed to be rare and cost 5000xp can now be done for free 4 times a day. There are also implications whenever you have entities who can cast Wish without the XP cost in the setting. Maybe the PCs make an alliance with the City of Brass after helping them out, and now they can legitimately go to their Noble Efreeti buddies and ask for wishes, forcing some justification for why that shouldn't work. All of those kinds of balance factors are things the DM should consider, and it has nothing to do with not trusting your players.

I would think there would be a limit to how many "Free" Wishes that you could get out of a Efreeti/Genie. They can grant max 3/day, and you'd have to do something pretty insane to essentially get all of there wishes to yourself. If the players really try to abuse that angle you could always have some in-universe limit based of common sense. Maybe the Efreeti you summoned already used some of his wishes. Also I don't think there is a 100% IC safe way to word a wish for a bonus feat or skill points. If they try to abuse it the Efreeti can be a jerk. "I want to be better a swimming" could end up with the character getting a pair of water-wings.

Also 5k EXP is NOT paltry before Epic levels (and by the time you get to epic levels Epic Level Spell-casting is a thing). You need to use a 9th level spell slot AND almost all the EXP from a level +4 CR encounter to have ONE. Yes if your 20th level Wizard/Cleric somehow has all their 9ths after a Very difficult encounter you could give out a wish to everyone in the 4 person party, if you don't mind not advancing in level anymore. To be honest if I had a choice between 20th level characters pouring all their EXP into wishs for skills/feats they qualify for vs having to deal with Epic levels the choice is quite clear.

[NichG]

I would think there would be a limit to how many "Free" Wishes that you could get out of a Efreeti/Genie. They can grant max 3/day, and you'd have to do something pretty insane to essentially get all of there wishes to yourself. If the players really try to abuse that angle you could always have some in-universe limit based of common sense. Maybe the Efreeti you summoned already used some of his wishes. Also I don't think there is a 100% IC safe way to word a wish for a bonus feat or skill points. If they try to abuse it the Efreeti can be a jerk. "I want to be better a swimming" could end up with the character getting a pair of water-wings.

The solution was given up-thread, which is to Mindrape an Efreeti into being a permanent, dedicated, and loyal servant. You can get as many as you can find. Shapechange into a Zodar is another traditional way to get lots of Wishes, and there you're granting them to yourself. You can also just buy lots of Luckblades.

Anyhow, the point is, if you're blocking something for what really amounts to metagame reasons, then being forced to have the world work a certain way only for sake of blocking the abuse is damaging to the integrity of the game. And its trying to hit a moving target, because you aren't addressing the actual problem, so players who aren't getting the message of why you're blocking it will just move on to the next approach. It feels like a challenge rather than a ban.

It's definitely better to just tell the players OOC to knock it off, but that does involve that moment of crimping their fun. So it's better still if you can arrange things so that it never comes up, or alternately so that even if it does come up it isn't going to wreck the game if the players go all out with it.

[Optimator]

To be honest if I had a choice between 20th level characters pouring all their EXP into wishs for skills/feats they qualify for vs having to deal with Epic levels the choice is quite clear.

Haha good point

[Taelas]

Which is all fine and dandy to have a limitation on wishing for feats and skills, such as a specific total number you can get, a one feat or skill option per wish source, the needing to already have the prerequisites for a feat, etc., but not outright forbidding it just because a player thought outside the box. Players do have a responsibility to be reasonable. If a player is being a smart-alec and trying to use Wish to Win D&D then of course smack him down or diplomatically just say No, knock it off. That's not the case here. The player is not trying to be abusive. He just thought of something cool. Trust him.

It is entirely possible I would allow a limited number of feats (similar to how inherent bonuses are limited to +5) from wishes, but that is not what we were discussing. That is an entirely different scenario.

I might still lean towards saying no, simply because I don't see the reason to say yes, and I am not sure allowing a blanket feat is a good idea. But I'd be more than willing to discuss it with my group.

You seem very hostile towards my opinion, and I don't understand why. I am not denying a player the possibility of doing something simply "because [he] thought outside the box". I am denying it because I see potential problems and I don't see a reason to risk that.

Also I don't think there is a 100% IC safe way to word a wish for a bonus feat or skill points. If they try to abuse it the Efreeti can be a jerk. "I want to be better a swimming" could end up with the character getting a pair of water-wings.

Keep in mind that even if the Efreet is amenable and casts the wish exactly how you want it, the spell can still end up failing. I'm not saying the Efreet can't pervert the wish; they absolutely can, but getting them on your good side is not a guarantee of getting what you want, either.