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

[Florian]

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

[daremetoidareyo]

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

Quit feeding the troll, Florian. That's what this thread has boiled down to. Either we all bow down and worship the idol of admitting RAW sucks and then silence ourselves entirely, or we posit solutions and be rebuked for having the temerity to not do the former. It's literally a choice between 1.) do nothing or 2.) do something and be attacked by logic pirates whose demands consist entirely of kissing boot. At this point, the only thing left propelling the thread is butthurt feelings and ego jousting.

[Beheld]

I like people who use the word "lie" about what other people say.

I freely admit you might be deluded instead. It's right there, "lie or delude themselves."

we posit solutions and be rebuked for having the temerity to not do the former. It's literally a choice between 1.) do nothing or 2.) do something and be attacked by logic pirates whose demands consist entirely of kissing boot. At this point, the only thing left propelling the thread is butthurt feelings and ego jousting.

If you admit your solutions are houserules and that no one in this thread was asking for houserule solutions because we can all come up with our own, then no one is going to rebuke you for anything.

[charcoalninja]

Well in the monster entry you hve Efreet as being:
A) Lawful Evil - this means they like organization, believe order and rules are best for society. Additionally: B their entries list a baked in Aristocracy via Noble "X". This speaks to an ordered society with a well defined ruling class.

B) Evil - The Efreet will seek to use rules to their advantage and so will depend on their institutions to support them and further their aims while their society itself will be ruled by the most powerful and successful because evil. Thus the ruling class works to maintain a rigid societal order that benefits its members to varying degrees so long as the weaker serve the means of the stronger. Thus Efreet exist in an environment where their fellows act against their exploitation by outside forces if it serves the societal order and thereby the power of the ruling class. Since having every powerful magic user under the sun stealing wishes that could be better leveraged to better the entire society and also telemurdering its members works pretty powerfully against their social order, there will be efforts by the powerful to insulate its members from this. Since they're evil they'll do so very aggresively.

C) They have wish innately 3/day. Since everyone in efreet society would grow up with the power to literally ERASE an entire metropolis from existence, they would have controls and considerations on the use of this power. This is why they're intelligent.

D) They hate servitude: the entry says as a whole they detest being servants while at the same time making them the lowest CR creature with WISH in the game. Thus their enslavement is something almost everyone in the multiverse wants to do. While they will want to take every measure they can to prevent it.

End result? They barter wishes for personal advancement while having layers of contingencies in place to protect their incredible power from being abused by anyone other than themselves.

So Efreeti wish abuse is self correcting and will dominate your campaign for the forseeable forever. Other wish shenanigens are all fair game though and make things interesting.

Edit: I hope that makes sense. I seem to lose track of my paragraphs when i post from my phone...

[Florian]

Forget about that. There´re some guys around that will tell you that the actual Wish spell is in the CRB and mentions none of it, therefore cannot be altered. You know, the same people that don´t understand the difference between a discussion and a debate ...

[TiaC]

Forget about that. There´re some guys around that will tell you that the actual Wish spell is in the CRB and mentions none of it, therefore cannot be altered. You know, the same people that don´t understand the difference between a discussion and a debate ...

Literally no one is saying this. People are saying that Wish is broken by RAW and should be houseruled instead of pretending it's perfectly fine and screwing with your players when they try to use it.

All of the "but a bunch of NPCs will come and kill you" answers also involve the DM setting their campaign notes on fire, since whatever the game was about is now completely unimportant. It's much easier to houserule things and ask your players not to be jerks about it. If they still want to do this, then either they are someone you shouldn't play with, or they are really not having fun in your game. Both of these problems should be handled OOC.

[Graypairofsocks]

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

The "all-consuming need to slay the original" is just something that twists its personality:

The ice assassin possesses all the skills, abilities, and memories possessed by the original, but its personality is warped and twisted by an all-consuming need to slay the original.

"All-consuming need" is a figure of speech emphasizing how much someone desires to do something (in this case kill the original).
It doesn't really need to do so as there isn't anything in the spell that implies it would die if it didn't kill the original.
Nothing in the spell is forcing it to kill the original*. It was created with an obsessive desire to kill the original and thus would attempt to do so naturally.
The creature's personality indicates what actions it will take normally. However the absolute command its maker has over it would override its normal behavior.

Assuming that a creatures personality overrides the control would make that aspect of the spell pointless, and thus we can determine that it isn't the way it works.

If it were dominated by someone else and ordered not to kill the original then that aspect of its personality would be relevant.
In that case it would get another saving throw for the dominate spell.

*If you mindraped a commoner and made it so they wanted to kill someone that would be forcing them.

[Psyren]

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

Other than, you know, everything in the Monster Manual

Always LE, hating servitude, delighting in cruelty, the CoB monitoring their dealings with mortals, it's all there.

The "all-consuming need to slay the original" is just something that twists its personality:

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

[Beheld]

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

"Psyren's posts are distorted by his all consuming need to make up flimsy pathetic RAW justifications for why Ice Assassin is not under the control of the person who it explicitly is under the control of."

So I suppose you are immune to Mind Affecting effects as well? After all, it can't be that the part of the sentence right before the word need qualifies the word need, that would be absurd.

Heck, I bet Ice Assassins are immune to stun to. If they are stunned, they can't kill their double. And their personality is distorted to make them not under the control of the person they are under the control of, so their personality is probably distorted to make them immune to stun.

And Daze, and Paralysis, and the Flesh to Stone spell, and Death. How do I sign up to distort my personality like that?

[Graypairofsocks]

The rules text says nothing about "just." Yes, the all-consuming need has the effect of twisting its personality, but the key word there is still "need."

Technically nothing in the spell actually says it has "all-consuming need to slay the original", its personality is just twisted by one.

A less technical view:
All-consuming means "taking up all of ones time and effort" or "Obsessively".
A literal interpretation of "All-consuming need" means something like "Something you need to do all the time". Basically something you need to do a lot.
If you have absolute command over a creature you can force it not to do things it needs to.

You don't need magic to force someone to not fulfill their needs.
In real life you could force yourself not to eat even though you need to.
You could force someone else not to eat even though they need to.

Suppose you are walking a narrow ledge at a massive height.
If you fall you will die.
You have an all-consuming need to maintain balance.
However you can voluntarily choose to jump off the ledge.
Someone could also force you to jump of the ledge.


The other interpretation of it is as figure of speech meaning "obsessively desiring".

[Psyren]

Technically nothing in the spell actually says it has "all-consuming need to slay the original", its personality is just twisted by one.

Its personality is twisted by that need, therefore it has that need. You can't be twisted by a need you don't have.

[Segev]

Its personality is twisted by that need, therefore it has that need. You can't be twisted by a need you don't have.

"The man had the capacity to be a kind father, good husband, and responsible breadwinner, but was twisted by his all-consuming need to drink."

Can the man be compelled not to drink?

[Psyren]

"The man had the capacity to be a kind father, good husband, and responsible breadwinner, but was twisted by his all-consuming need to drink."

Can the man be compelled not to drink?

If he can, then his need isn't actually "all-consuming." That's okay though since your passage isn't rules text.

[Segev]

If he can, then his need isn't actually "all-consuming." That's okay though since your passage isn't rules text.

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

[Beheld]

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

Not just that, Ray of Stunning stuns you and while stunned you can't be killing your double. Finger of Death kills you, and while dead you can't be killing your double.

Psyren's official position is that Ice Assassins are immune to stunning and death. Also Ice Assassin's make liberal usage of Celerity, since they are immune to Daze as well.

[Psyren]

So, under the effects of domination, you cannot be forced to refrain from an "all-consuming" need. Even though domination says you merely get a saving throw against fatal orders, your reading of "all-consuming" is such that they cannot be compelled not to do it.

You certainly can compel them. What happens at that point is up to the GM, as it becomes an unstoppable force/immovable object problem.

I fully acknowledge that this is just my interpretation of the rules text in Ice Assassin and other GMs may vary - just like GMs will vary on "unreasonable commands," "against its nature," or any other nebulous aspect of the RAW. The designers built in vague clauses like this on purpose to make controlling magic less than absolute.

[Beheld]

You certainly can compel them. What happens at that point is up to the GM, as it becomes an unstoppable force/immovable object problem.

I fully acknowledge that this is just my interpretation of the rules text in Ice Assassin and other GMs may vary - just like GMs will vary on "unreasonable commands," "against its nature," or any other nebulous aspect of the RAW. The designers built in vague clauses like this on purpose to make controlling magic less than absolute.

It is honestly amazing to watch you double down on your completely nonsense interpretation that you never would have even made up if Ice Assassin's didn't grant access to Wish.

[LTwerewolf]

I don't see how it's nonsense really. Just because something is dominated it still has the all consuming need, but a need isn't always met with the capability to follow through. If you're dominated you're not in control of your own actions and clearly aren't capable of performing your all consuming need. This argument also negates Beheld's fallacy that he calls an argument about stunning and death. I guess what I'm saying is everyone's wrong! Hurray!

[Segev]

Well, I'll just conclude then by saying that I think your interpretation is too stringent, because it makes these compelling magics actively useless. It's the same kind of rulings that make playing any sort of mind-whammy mage totally unfun, because literally everything you do is at best worthless and, more likely, counter-productive.

(You wouldn't believe the number of times I've given up on a concept that used social skills to persuade people when it became clear the GM of the game read those as "mind control" and actively had NPCs be offended that I used them at all, automatically negating any benefit I might have gotten because they're immediately the level of hostile that puts them just shy of violence (if not violent). And don't even think about using actual mind-bending powers that are anything less than absolute "mind-slave" time, because anything that they wouldn't have done without your using it is "against their nature" or some-such, so they automatically refuse and, if a clause such as this exists, get another save-equivalent because you tried to push it too far.)

[Segev]

I guess what I'm saying is everyone's wrong! Hurray!

Nonsense! Everyone's wrong except me.

[LTwerewolf]

I can see there being more of an argument with the charm line (as opposed to the dominate), but that's pretty flimsy in my opinion as working. Basically: total control beats all consuming needs, anything less than total control doesn't. Charm and suggestion wouldn't be enough imo.

[Beheld]

I don't see how it's nonsense really. Just because something is dominated it still has the all consuming need, but a need isn't always met with the capability to follow through. If you're dominated you're not in control of your own actions and clearly aren't capable of performing your all consuming need. This argument also negates Beheld's fallacy that he calls an argument about stunning and death. I guess what I'm saying is everyone's wrong! Hurray!

Except that is literally the opposite of what Psyren is saying. Pysren is specifically saying that the all consuming need means you don't have to follow dominated orders.

That also literally has to be his position, because if it wasn't, if he admitted for even one second that an Ice Assassin with Dominate Monster cast on it has to obey the caster of Dominate Monster, he would then have absolutely no distinction to point to between the Magically Compelled to Obey Orders Dominated Ice Assassin and the Magically Compelled to Obey Orders Ice Assassin That Didn't Have a Spell Cast on It, Because Ice Assassin The Spell Specifically Says That the Ice Assassin Is Magically Compelled to Obey Your Commands.

[Cosi]

While Psyren's interpretation is deeply stupid, I don't see how it solves the problem. After all, the person doing this has 9th level spells. They could just drop imprisonment on the original, offering to release it for killing only under the condition that the ice assassin lets them wish for whatever crazy powerful magic item the caster is looking for.

[Psyren]

While Psyren's interpretation is deeply stupid,

Flaming
Any poster that openly attacks, insults, belittles, or abuses another poster will have their offending post modified and an Infraction issued to them. Please do not attack, insult, or belittle other posters, individually or collectively. You can be critical of another poster's viewpoint in a debate, even going as far as to explain why you believe them to be mistaken and backing your points up with rules quotes as appropriate, but the moment your criticism extends to the person who posted that viewpoint, it has crossed the line.

Specific things you cannot do on this message board that might be allowed elsewhere:
...
Posts that while directed at another's post content are inherently insulting to the poster, such as, "Your comment is moronic/insane/nonsensical."

Just leaving that there.

I don't see how it solves the problem. After all, the person doing this has 9th level spells. They could just drop imprisonment on the original, offering to release it for killing only under the condition that the ice assassin lets them wish for whatever crazy powerful magic item the caster is looking for.

I'd say whatever you negotiate (or try to negotiate) doesn't actually matter - the minute you remove the constraint, off they go.

[LTwerewolf]

I see an argument for Psyren's argument not based on the all consuming need, but based on the fact that the spell says "The ice assassin is under your absolute command." It's not directly spelled out, but it does imply that controlling affects don't work on it. It would have been nice if they had clarified it, but it's a legitimate argument about it. That being said, the owner could command it not to kill the original if they so chose. I did say that everyone was wrong in there opinion, not just you.

Edit:I also live in a world where opinions can be wrong, so feel free to ignore everything I said.

[Cosi]

Just leaving that there.

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

I'd say whatever you negotiate (or try to negotiate) doesn't actually matter - the minute you remove the constraint, off they go.

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

[Psyren]

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

It is, luckily I'm not doing that.

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

And my interpretation is that it simply struggles until you let it go, incapable of anything else but going after (or trying futilely to go after) its prey. Anything else falls short of "all-consuming need" for me.

[Segev]

What do you think you're proving here? The ice assassin can't kill its target unless you let it, and you won't let it until it grants you a wish.

The issue is that usually, the ice assassin is of yourself. At least in the traditional form of this cheese. Since you can cast wish, yourself, and you just don't want to have to pay the costs.

[Beheld]

I assume trolling is also against forum rules? Pot and kettle and all that.

I know that telling other people that their posts violate the forum rules is. I couldn't possibly know how that is related to the current conversation.

[Psyren]

The issue is that usually, the ice assassin is of yourself. At least in the traditional form of this cheese. Since you can cast wish, yourself, and you just don't want to have to pay the costs.

Making it of yourself is even worse - now it has an all-consuming need to slay you!