Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...

[Segev]

You planar bind an efreet at level 11, the first level you are able to. You do what Segev suggested and the name that it gives you to contact it is instead a pit fiend. Now when you go to do it again at the designated time, you instead get a pit fiend dropped in your face. It immediately pits its SR 32 against your magic circle (or maybe you didn't even have one, as you expected a somewhat cooperative efreet) and easily breaks it and then you get hit by its fear aura, that you are probably running around a 50% chance of resisting at best.

What do you do in this situation?

A little research to ensure that the name is of what I think it is, first off.

And then I trap the heck out of everything with multiple layered contingencies, just to be sure, before performing the conjuration, the first time.

Though, um, if I'm binding it by its true name, I think the rules change and it doesn't get to resist. I could be wrong, though. True Name rules are not well defined in D&D.

[Beheld]

You planar bind an efreet at level 11, the first level you are able to. You do what Segev suggested and the name that it gives you to contact it is instead a pit fiend. Now when you go to do it again at the designated time, you instead get a pit fiend dropped in your face. It immediately pits its SR 32 against your magic circle (or maybe you didn't even have one, as you expected a somewhat cooperative efreet) and easily breaks it and then you get hit by its fear aura, that you are probably running around a 50% chance of resisting at best.

What do you do in this situation?

I read the spell Planar Binding, and it's 12HD limit, and realize that nothing happens.

[Psyren]

They are a distinct subset. If you ask for one, you get one. Just like even though both dogs and cats are animals, you won't get a dog when requesting a cat.

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

If it's not "broken", why are you making these super terrible arguments that people can't do it? You just think that for no reason people should not get XP free wish, even though the game would not be worse if they did?

"Would not be worse" is not an assertion I agree with. Candles and Planar Binding come online much, much earlier than Dweomerkeeper and Planar Shepherd. I don't see the benefit in granting something this powerful even earlier than it's already possible to get it.

The same way it does if someone casts dominate monster on it. Unless you suggest that ice assassins are also immune to that spell?

What happens there is a DM call - no other creatures (that I know of) have "all-consuming needs" in their rules text.

Citation please.

Wait - you want me to cite that your custom +10,000 belt doesn't exist? Isn't that like saying, "Jupiter's core is made of cheese, go prove me wrong?" You're the one making the positive claim here, you support it.

[squiggit]

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

But they're both subsets of the order carnivora.

[Psyren]

But they're both subsets of the order carnivora.

D&D doesn't go by taxonomic hierarchy though, it goes by creature entries. The "kind of creature" is a djinn, or you can go a level up in your MM and say "send me a genie" but that actually worsens your odds even more.

[zergling.exe]

A little research to ensure that the name is of what I think it is, first off.

And then I trap the heck out of everything with multiple layered contingencies, just to be sure, before performing the conjuration, the first time.

Though, um, if I'm binding it by its true name, I think the rules change and it doesn't get to resist. I could be wrong, though. True Name rules are not well defined in D&D.

It is not a "true name" but a "proper name". And the only difference it makes is that you are calling a specific creature instead of a random one.

I read the spell Planar Binding, and it's 12HD limit, and realize that nothing happens.

Dude, planar binding has a HD limit. It's 12. Pit Fiends have 18 HD.

Indeed, I somehow blanked on that after specifically checking the planar binding line.

Regardless you still would not get your wish in that instance.

[Beheld]

Regardless you still would not get your wish in that instance.

I still don't have even the faintest clue why Planar Binding the same efferti twice is necessary for a wish in the first place, since Noble Djinn/Efferti can all just be help there for 11 (or 17 if you pop a Prayer Bead first and have some CL boosters) days and then if they don't give you what you want you just murder them. (Maybe not the Djinn, those guys are pretty swell.)

[Cosi]

Your analogy doesn't work because cats are not a subset of dogs, but noble djinn are a subset of djinn.

Which are a subset of genies. Which are a subset of outsiders. Which are a subset of creatures you can call with planar binding. Which are a subset of creatures. Of course, the only distinction in that line which matters is the one that prevents you from accessing XP free wish at low level.

But no, Psyren is totally not arguing that getting XP free wish at low level would be in any way bad. He just thinks it belongs at 17th level.

"Would not be worse" is not an assertion I agree with. Candles and Planar Binding come online much, much earlier than Dweomerkeeper and Planar Shepherd. I don't see the benefit in granting something this powerful even earlier than it's already possible to get it.

So it would be overpowered to get it at a low level? Perhaps even broken?

Also, Planar Shepard wish happens at 14th, while Dweomerkeeper wish happens at 17th.

What happens there is a DM call - no other creatures (that I know of) have "all-consuming needs" in their rules text.

So the DM can rule that the broken trick doesn't work, which means the broken trick isn't a problem. Also, why is Dweomerkeeper XP free wish at 17th okay, but not Wizard XP free wish via ice assassin not okay at the same level?

Wait - you want me to cite that your custom +10,000 belt doesn't exist? Isn't that like saying, "Jupiter's core is made of cheese, go prove me wrong?" You're the one making the positive claim here, you support it.

I want you to cite that custom items don't exist.

[Beheld]

Pretty sure Epic Handbook has explicit rules for Larger and Larger bonuses up to any number you can imagine, since it has a formula.

[Psyren]

Which are a subset of genies. Which are a subset of outsiders. Which are a subset of creatures you can call with planar binding. Which are a subset of creatures. Of course, the only distinction in that line which matters is the one that prevents you from accessing XP free wish at low level.

But no, Psyren is totally not arguing that getting XP free wish at low level would be in any way bad. He just thinks it belongs at 17th level.
...
So it would be overpowered to get it at a low level? Perhaps even broken?

Also, Planar Shepard wish happens at 14th, while Dweomerkeeper wish happens at 17th.

Your goal with reiterating the 'broken' question is to proclaim "Oberoni!" and ride off into the sunset But Oberoni specifically refers to using Rule Zero - i.e. overriding RAW, not just interpreting it (which is the DM's job.) Efreet hatred of servitude is RAW, unreasonable requests in PB are RAW etc., and it is up to the DM to determine what those things mean.

So the DM can rule that the broken trick doesn't work, which means the broken trick isn't a problem. Also, why is Dweomerkeeper XP free wish at 17th okay, but not Wizard XP free wish via ice assassin not okay at the same level?

Well for one thing, Ice Assassin can be obtained in item form (e.g. a scroll) and thus easier to obtain early than Dweomerkeeper levels. Thus it's more likely to be disruptive.

I want you to cite that custom items don't exist.

Like every other "custom" element in the game (custom race, researched spell, homebrew class etc.) they exist when the DM creates/approves them. This is an exception-based system - the rules tell you what is there, and anything that isn't stated isn't.

[Cosi]

Your goal with reiterating the 'broken' question is to proclaim "Oberoni!" and ride off into the sunset But Oberoni specifically refers to using Rule Zero - i.e. overriding RAW, not just interpreting it (which is the DM's job.) Efreet hatred of servitude is RAW, unreasonable requests in PB are RAW etc., and it is up to the DM to determine what those things mean.

You might want to quote the sections where I mention the Oberoni Fallacy if you're going to make that argument. But no, it is in fact 100% Oberoni to declare that if the DM just unilaterally says "ice assassins are immune to mind effecting, despite the spell not saying or implying that in any way at all" and "planar binding's unreasonable requests are creature specific, despite spell not saying or implying that in any way at all" and "that supernatural ability is now spell-like, despite SLAs existing in 3.0" it's not a problem. Because those things are all super clearly overriding the RAW, despite you flailing around to claim otherwise.

Like every other "custom" element in the game (custom race, researched spell, homebrew class etc.) they exist when the DM creates/approves them. This is an exception-based system - the rules tell you what is there, and anything that isn't stated isn't.

Please, tell me more about how there are explicit rules for the pricing and effects of custom races, classes, or spells.

Wait, there aren't. Because those things are in no way equivalent.

[Eisfalken]

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

[Fizban]

That's an argument that makes planar binding literally never work. Planar binding cannot make them agree to "unreasonable demands." If the very casting of planar binding - which "[yanks] someone out of their home" so you can "[demand] they do whatever you say under pain of" some threat (death, imprisonment, pain, etc.) makes the request itself unreasonable, then planar binding literally never works to get you the service it spends a lot of text discussing the negotiation of. . .In fact, the incentive to agree to it has increased: you've proven that you're willing and able to put this person under your power and imprison them in a location of your choosing;

If your theory is that casting Planar Binding at all triggers the unreasonable request wording because it is impossible to make a reasonable request by planar binding someone then your position is wrong, and nothing you have to say about this subject is worth anything.

Reasonable would be offering to pay the standard book price for your wish, with an apology for interrupting their day.

Well read good sirs.

Proving that you can kidnap someone and potentially kill them is not incentive, threatening someone is not reasonable.

"Reasonable" doesn't mean "palatable/acceptable to the person being asked." In contexts such as this, "reasonable" has to be referring to the same kind of reason as the "reasonable man standard" in law. No, I'm not saying we should bring legalism into this (though we inherently do, to a degree, when arguing the RAW); I am saying that that is the definition and context being used. To interpret it any other way is to say that any being which doesn't think being kidnapped and forced to negotiate for its freedom is "reasonable" will ever agree to anything. This is not a slippery slope fallacy; this is the net result of the argument you're making.

Good luck finding things specifically noted to think being kidnapped and coerced is "reasonable." Even CE things which would do it to others tend not to be very consistent in finding it acceptable to do to them.

Notice how you are assuming coercion because it's the only way you can conceive of anyone using this spell, which is rather unfortunate. There's already an impartial definition for reasonable, a non-subjective one that most people use every day: paying the standard value for something as written in the PHB or DMG. Caling up an efreet and asking for a wish or three in exchange for a fat pile of money is reasonable. Trying to negotiate the price down may work, but then you lose any pretext of the DM not being able to mess with you. Wishing for a magic item is obviously worth a minimum value equal to the magic item. Calling up any outsider and offering the same paying rate they'd get for responding to a Planar Ally spell might be considered reasonable, as long as you're not demanding something that's clearly more valuable, like a wish.

Allow me to provide a real world example: I call up a pizza place. The guy on the phone at the other end is forced to interrupt what he was doing to pick up the phone, as will the delivery guy when he drives out to make the drop. I can now either order a pizza and pay the delivery guy like a normal person, or I can order a pizza and point a gun at the delivery guy like a psycopath. The latter option may get me a free pizza, but no person would ever consider it a reasonable demand, and weather or not it works I'll be arrested immediately. The cops outnumber me, outgun me, and have the backing of everyone who is not me. The pizza guys may or may not like their jobs and consider it reasonable to pizza me, but it is considered objectively reasonable for me to order and pay for one, and objectively unreasonable to steal it by threat of force.

Is it reasonable for a captured efreet to give up the wishes in order to survive? Subjectively sure, he lives and then tells the efreet cops to take you out, assuming someone else didn't tell them already. When you start making it subjective and assuming that the interpretation falls in the player's favor, once you demand that the efreet make a subjective decision to give up the wishes and it must work because the rules don't prevent it, we can further assume that every single member of their entire species has been prepared for this moment since the dawn of time and the moment you demand that first wish their own wish-powered safety network goes off and you're dead while negotiating and reciting contract lines before you even receive your first boon. Because their entire species subjectively thinks that deal is bogus, and has the power to easily prevent it from happening.

It is hilarious how people keep claiming they're invincible due to infinite wishes, which they can only obtain by extorting the creatures who are born with infinite wishes. You lose.

So efreets exist in order to dispense wishes? Sure, why not. Calling an efreet to use a wish for something is a shortcut, not a free exploit. You pay for what you're getting or you incur the wrath of a species capable of granting the very wishes you just relied on, which means you lose before you've even begun.

Edit- oh, and Eisfalken: you are not a dummy, you are in fact one of quiet many who let reason rule their rules. Most likely every participant in the argument has DM'd at some point and you can take any interpretation you choose to support your own, and be on your merry way. The lesson is that even when you're right an unreasonable player can refuse to accept it, so you can't rely on changing their mind. This is what people mean when they say "the DM is boss," not railroading or stepping on people, just having the guts to stick your guns and run the game in a way that works rather than based on some dodgy interpretation that clearly breaks it.

[Graypairofsocks]

I just had a thought. The Efreet advancement rules in Savage Species imply that you can't get a wish out of a 5HD Efreet (such as one made by simulacrum). But they also imply that you can just play as an Efreet. So the whole issue of "would a random Efreet do this for you" is moot, because you can be that random Efreet and have your cohort ask you to do it for yourself.

Playing as an Efreeti would be interesting.
However the progression given in Savage species gains 10 HD over the course of 19 levels, which may make it not worth playing.

[Florian]

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

Oh, I think it´s a good think your brought up this topic that started the whole discussion.
It showcases two things nicely:
- The RAW on stuff like that is not as clear as people want to have them. The more elements are included, the more complications turn up, leading to vastly different understanding and handling of the RAW. I think all positions brought up so far are valid interpretations on the individual elements interacting, but there still is no single clear-cut answer on who´s interpretation is the right one.
- These different interpretations carry over to other aspects of the game, especially about power levels and Tiers. It´s easy to see why handling of that stuff alters the perceived power levels of a class.

[Beheld]

Oh, I think it´s a good think your brought up this topic that started the whole discussion.
It showcases two things nicely:
- The RAW on stuff like that is not as clear as people want to have them. The more elements are included, the more complications turn up, leading to vastly different understanding and handling of the RAW. I think all positions brought up so far are valid interpretations on the individual elements interacting, but there still is no single clear-cut answer on who´s interpretation is the right one.

Alternatively, it shows that the RAW is very clear, and some people are completely unreasonable. Like they expect Planar Binding to function at all in any way, but we know that it is unreasonable to ever expect a spell to do the explicit thing it is designed to do.

[Florian]

Alternatively, it shows that the RAW is very clear, and some people are completely unreasonable. Like they expect Planar Binding to function at all in any way, but we know that it is unreasonable to ever expect a spell to do the explicit thing it is designed to do.

I partly agree.
With spells that have a purely mechanical resolution mechanic, nothing to discuss there, not lots of things that can go wrong.
Any spell that includes a "gm fiat" step, like defining what "reasonable" could and should mean in the context of the called creature, simply breaks any purely mechanical solutions. The possible spectrum here goes from "anything" to "nothing" or weird things in-between.
For the sake of simplifying discussions about stuff like that, it can be agreed upon to either gloss over or drop any "gm fiat" part and see where that would lead, but that then doesn´t have anything to do with the actual spell/item/option discussion and simply shows where the "ceiling" of it could be, nothing more, being purely theoretical TO then.

[zergling.exe]

I still don't have even the faintest clue why Planar Binding the same efferti twice is necessary for a wish in the first place, since Noble Djinn/Efferti can all just be help there for 11 (or 17 if you pop a Prayer Bead first and have some CL boosters) days and then if they don't give you what you want you just murder them. (Maybe not the Djinn, those guys are pretty swell.)

You are trying to appease them by being friendly as stated by Segev here:

You can try being super-polite (but not weak-seeming) about it: "I am sorry for disturbing you without notice, I have a business proposition to negotiate with you. Is now a good time? If not, let me know a better one in the next day or so and I'll call upon you again then."

Or you could just assume that they expect this sort of thing, and try to build a rapport with this one so you can arrange better summoning times in the future.

Otherwise the entire point of my question is lost, as you are not going about it the way that was assumed to get to that point.

[Segev]

Sweet fancy Moses. I went away after I saw some biting responses to my OP, thinking, "I guess I was a dummy to question this. No worry. In a couple of days, nobody on GITP would even bother about this subject. It's literally years-old and argued to death."

I was so very wrong, and I am truly, sincerely sorry I even brought this subject up. Hindsight being what it is, I should have just looked on other forums harder to see the discord this subject causes in every community it appears. I didn't mean to cause any of this. I just wanted another DM to tell me how to handle this problem in a concise way that didn't rely on dubious player "good intentions" to settle (i.e. hoping your players will be reasonable, which is definitely not something that always happens).

Clearly I should have just kept my concerns to myself, ruled that wish can't be used as an SLA (replaced with heightened +2 limited wish SLA), and gone my merry way.

I feel like a damn jerk about this now...

To answer this directly, I will repeat what I said a few pages ago (and which actually didn't seem all that controversial):

I would implement the following rulings (and leave as an exercise for the reader whether they're "house rules" or not...at least one certainly is):

1) Wish's 25,000 gp limit on items created applies to magic items as well as mundane.
2) The Candle of Invocation either a) is priced according to the guidelines for an item which can cast an XP-burning spell (since gate costs XP when used to conjure an entity), b) loses its gate power, or c) comes in two varieties, a lesser and greater version, which follow (b) and (a) respectively.

And, when dealing with efreet, I would have my players actually have to bargain for the wishes. Yes, they can get them, but the efreet are not thrilled to be there, will have to be dealt with carefully to avoid being screwed by the literal genie literally being, literally, a genie who takes things literally to screw you over with the literal meaning of your words, and will also need to be aware that these creatures are vindictive, so there could be future consequences, too. Planning for this and treating it as an adventure is fine; expecting that they just cast planar binding and get three problem-free wishes will lead to disaster.

[daremetoidareyo]

To answer this directly, I will repeat what I said a few pages ago (and which actually didn't seem all that controversial):

I would implement the following rulings (and leave as an exercise for the reader whether they're "house rules" or not...at least one certainly is):

1) Wish's 25,000 gp limit on items created applies to magic items as well as mundane.
2) The Candle of Invocation either a) is priced according to the guidelines for an item which can cast an XP-burning spell (since gate costs XP when used to conjure an entity), b) loses its gate power, or c) comes in two varieties, a lesser and greater version, which follow (b) and (a) respectively.

And, when dealing with efreet, I would have my players actually have to bargain for the wishes. Yes, they can get them, but the efreet are not thrilled to be there, will have to be dealt with carefully to avoid being screwed by the literal genie literally being, literally, a genie who takes things literally to screw you over with the literal meaning of your words, and will also need to be aware that these creatures are vindictive, so there could be future consequences, too. Planning for this and treating it as an adventure is fine; expecting that they just cast planar binding and get three problem-free wishes will lead to disaster.

I support Segev. Perfect compromise between the too poles on the thread. But I would allow 50k for a magic item, that way they can get something really cool if they are blowing a wish on an item.

[Beheld]

I support Segev. Perfect compromise between the too poles on the thread. But I would allow 50k for a magic item, that way they can get something really cool if they are blowing a wish on an item.

There is no compromise between two sides in making up a houserule. Half the people in the thread say it's RAW and you should houserule it, and the other half say "What Even Is RAW? My One Hand Clapping Tells Me You Can't Wish for Items Because You Don't Know They Exist." (Or alternatively, it is unreasonable to use a spell for the purpose of the spell).

[Segev]

Which is why I am not arguing whether my suggestion is a house rule or not; the OP asked for advice for use in his game. House rules are therefore acceptable. If it happens to be a valid interpretation of RAW instead of a house rule, there's still no problem. The argument over which it is has many partisans (and I can certainly pick up a partisan and enter the flame war), but does not change the utility of the suggestion to the OP.

[Beheld]

Which is why I am not arguing whether my suggestion is a house rule or not; the OP asked for advice for use in his game. House rules are therefore acceptable. If it happens to be a valid interpretation of RAW instead of a house rule, there's still no problem. The argument over which it is has many partisans (and I can certainly pick up a partisan and enter the flame war), but does not change the utility of the suggestion to the OP.

Except for that being 100% wrong, you would be right.

I was just reading various notes and thoughts regarding the dreaded use of planar binding at 11th level to basically shoehorn an efreeti into using wishes non-stop on behalf of the PCs.

Then, while re-reading planar binding, I ran into this clause of the spell description: "Impossible demands or unreasonable commands are never agreed to."

I know there are various methods of dealing with wish abuse, but I would like to ask other DMs: would it be totally off the mark to interpret demanding wishes without some form of compensation (to the tune of gp per XP that would normally be required of the wish) to the efreet as being "unreasonable"?

...

Just for the record, this is merely semantics for me; I'm not actually that worried. First time someone starts abusing efreet like this, Mechanus starts spawning quarut inevitables (FF) to take care of it, probably just by freeing the efreet before the PCs can kill or mind-screw it, and letting nature take its course. Or by geasing/killing the PCs with that ridiculous list of abilities quaruts have. There is something elegant about the idea of an in-game deterrent to wish abuse, built directly into the cosmology of the game.

[Segev]

Except for that being 100% wrong, you would be right.

Yes, yes, you win the argument on the internet, and my post is entirely unhelpful to the OP. 9_9

[charcoalninja]

I still don't have even the faintest clue why Planar Binding the same efferti twice is necessary for a wish in the first place, since Noble Djinn/Efferti can all just be help there for 11 (or 17 if you pop a Prayer Bead first and have some CL boosters) days and then if they don't give you what you want you just murder them. (Maybe not the Djinn, those guys are pretty swell.)

If you murder them the Efreeti heiarchy utterly annihilate you in a ridiculously comical way for the affront. They are LE immortals who can grant anyone that asks them quite nearly anything in the world. Any setting that has Efreet has their social baggage and so all Efreet are part of that crazy LE society and so if someone in their immortal wish granting club vanishes and gets murderized they will investigate and retaliate. Aggressively compelling the Efreet to do ANYTHING they don't want is essentially suicide unless you're crazy high level. That is their purpose in the game. You can get your wishes if you want, but you damn well better be polite about it and generous with compensation and grovelling or they're going to ****ing erase you.

Edit: example:
The Caliph of the city of Brass tells the citizenry of the affront and declairs a day of vengeance. All Efreet in the city must use one wish the following day to exact retribution on the mortal stupid enough to skip appropriate channels and murder one of THEM. Now your ****stain of an idiot PC has to deal with the ramifications of thousands of offensive wish spells directed at ending them.

Have fun with that.

I play sandbox games. You piss of a key player in interplanar balance you had better be ready to deal with the ****storm.

[Anlashok]

I don't really see anything in the text to support the efreeti society acting that way.

[Florian]

I don't really see anything in the text to support the efreeti society acting that way.

"Canon" is the main issue here.
3rd ed. does provide pretty much ox manure on that, but alludes to older editions. Older editions go to great details or leave out that whole issue. So at times, you have a whole source-book to go on by, at other times, a short sentence.

So, mostly, Efreeti society and all about that is unknown and any issue is handled by "dm fiat".

[daremetoidareyo]

There is no compromise between two sides in making up a houserule. Half the people in the thread say it's RAW and you should houserule it, and the other half say "What Even Is RAW? My One Hand Clapping Tells Me You Can't Wish for Items Because You Don't Know They Exist." (Or alternatively, it is unreasonable to use a spell for the purpose of the spell).

I don't know. I saw the suggestion that knowledge skills can cover knowledge of weirder items. That seemed like a fine compromise. There was a discussion about whether or not you can get any custom item you want, including a belt of +9999999 to a stat, and folks were uncomfortable about putting that latitude into a player's hand. GP limit fixes that.

Regardless, you could treat one pole as "approaching zero" and the other pole as "approaching infinity" and the compromise point would land somewhere in between. Some say yes to all magic items but not epic magic items, putting the limit at 200k gp. That feels super powerful to me, especially considering the exponential wish gradient needed to increase abilitiy scores. Segev says 25K, the concrete limit on mundane items. I, defending the rights of players to get reasonable wish requests with no worries, suggest twice that limit. They can sell that item for half if they want, even make a few skill checks on that sale to get 27,500 gp, more than the mundane item limit. With a GP limit, the problem of custom items is moot. The power is capped. Balance is there. Unless there is a PC specifically trying to get pun pun at the table or trying to chain wish at 7th level. Which, you yourself has claimed is allowable by RAW but not what should happen at a table.

[Florian]

There is no compromise between two sides in making up a houserule. Half the people in the thread say it's RAW and you should houserule it, and the other half say "What Even Is RAW? My One Hand Clapping Tells Me You Can't Wish for Items Because You Don't Know They Exist." (Or alternatively, it is unreasonable to use a spell for the purpose of the spell).

Actually, there would be a compromise.
That would be not to look at the source but at the end result and go from there, based on what that would provide.
An Efreet therefore would not have a "cost" of (HD), but (HD + Wish + Wish + Wish). If those are met, all is good and well.

[Beheld]

I don't know. I saw the suggestion that knowledge skills can cover knowledge of weirder items. That seemed like a fine compromise. There was a discussion about whether or not you can get any custom item you want, including a belt of +9999999 to a stat, and folks were uncomfortable about putting that latitude into a player's hand. GP limit fixes that.

I saw you saying that my mother was a whore, and that my father smelt of elderberries.

If we are going to have delusions about what other people are saying, let's at least have them be fun.

There are two kinds of people in this thread:

1) People who don't think it is appropriate for PCs to have +99999999 to a stat items at no cost from wish, but know that it is RAW, and therefore suggest houseruling it.

2) People who don't think it is appropriate for PCs to have +99999999 to a stat items at no cost from wish, but want so badly for it not be RAW that they either lie or delude themselves with nonsense rules interpretations.

On of those second group even claims that it's totally balanced for PCs to do that, just so long as they never do it, because he will personally murder their families if they do it. Actually, lots of people said things like that. Really it basically comes down to group change the rules, versus group just be the biggest most horrible jerkface to your PCs you possibly can by murdering them for doing it, instead of you know, just asking the players not to do it in the first place.

But now we've entered some kind of weird twilight zone where Planar Binding has a cost, and it can't be used ever, because the act of casting it means that no creature will ever agree to any service.

Because guys, it's really important that we continue to make extremely poor arguments for why the RAW is perfect instead of just admitting that the rules actually work in a specific way.