Getting wishes from an Efreeti

[Crake]

To be fair, genies can't actually grant other genies wishes by the book. The common point of all these wish schemes is that you can compel the creature to grant your wish for free or by giving them back what you stole (their freedom) or what they still have (their life); or you some how gain the 24 hour recharge per day uses of creature abilities when you shapeshift or gain their abilities for yourself when you take on the form for less than 24 hours. It just logically makes sense that if those sources don't specifically permit you to gain full per day usage, then you go from 0 uses to 0 uses because that's how the rules are supposed to work. You gain the ability, but not the per day resource.

These are easily shut down by them being "unreasonable" interpretations of the rules.

Abilities dont have charges that are charged up every 24 hours. The logic goes: has ability been used in the past 24 hours? If no, then ability is available. If yes, then ability is not available.

Its not like items that gain their charges at dawn or whatever.

[Darg]

Abilities dont have charges that are charged up every 24 hours. The logic goes: has ability been used in the past 24 hours? If no, then ability is available. If yes, then ability is not available.

Its not like items that gain their charges at dawn or whatever.

Semantics. Spells per day and per day abilities do regain uses per day, hence the name. While that logic makes sense, it ignores the fact that the creature never had access to the ability prior to acquisition and unlike racial or class acquisition of such resources, you don't have the abstraction of time/training to explain away how you receive the resource like when you reach a new level for example. It's all powered by the spell/power/ability immediately, and each instance of the spell works independently of each other by the rules. Thus if we go by the logic you present, each casting of shapechange would refill those daily resources. Doesnt quite fit, but hey, the rules don't mention how it works so it's ultimately up to the DM. In my experience if you allow exploitative behavior, it just sucks the fun out of the game for everyone else.

[Crake]

Thus if we go by the logic you present, each casting of shapechange would refill those daily resources.

No, actually, it wouldnt. If you track “uses expended in the last 24 hours”, then recasting shapechange does not actually reset that counter in any way, and thus would not give you any extra uses.

You’re conflating the rules for daily abilties with the spellcasting rules. THOSE abilities require rest and preparation to regain. Those same rules do not apply to other abilities with daily uses

[Darg]

No, actually, it wouldnt. If you track “uses expended in the last 24 hours”, then recasting shapechange does not actually reset that counter in any way, and thus would not give you any extra uses.

You’re conflating the rules for daily abilties with the spellcasting rules. THOSE abilities require rest and preparation to regain. Those same rules do not apply to other abilities with daily uses

That still requires ignoring the fact that what gives you those abilities in the first place is a spell. There's no rule that says once an ability given by a spell is used up, another casting doesn't give any more uses. As written every spell cast works just like any other. The spell gives you x abilities with y uses per day. There are plenty of forms with a, b, c, etc uses per day of the exact same ability. Is each form a different ability? Or is the cap for daily uses actually the amount proffered by the form that gives the most? It seems like an unnecessary amount of complexity that is easily solved by just saying you don't have any per day uses of the ability available because it hasn't been a day yet.

And no, I'm not conflating them, however they are similar. They both have a per day mechanic that does not care at what point the hour strikes midnight. That said, the closest thing the rules state on the subject is that SLAs function just like spells. Also, not all casters need to prepare spells.

[Crake]

That still requires ignoring the fact that what gives you those abilities in the first place is a spell. There's no rule that says once an ability given by a spell is used up, another casting doesn't give any more uses.

Your issue here is that you're tracking it wrong. You don't track "uses remaining", you track "uses expended".

If you cast a spell that gives you an ability X/day, and you expend Y number of uses before it expires, then when you recast the spell, you have still used Y uses that day, so the remaining uses is still X-Y.

This works equally for say, cleric turning. If you cast eagle's splendor to give yourself 2 additional turns per day, and then you expend those 2 turns, when you recast eagle's splendor, you've already expended those 2 extra turns. Same reason nightstick stacking doesn't work.

As written every spell cast works just like any other. The spell gives you x abilities with y uses per day. There are plenty of forms with a, b, c, etc uses per day of the exact same ability. Is each form a different ability? Or is the cap for daily uses actually the amount proffered by the form that gives the most? It seems like an unnecessary amount of complexity that is easily solved by just saying you don't have any per day uses of the ability available because it hasn't been a day yet.

It does get confusing when you start looking at SLAs, because yes, how do you distinguish between each form's SLAs. If you transform into a form that has an SLA at-will, and expend a bunch of uses, then transform into another form where that SLA is limited, are you completely out, because you already used the ability a bunch of times? Luckily, Shapechange does not grant SLAs, it only grants supernatural abilities, which are, for the most part, pretty unique per form.

And no, I'm not conflating them, however they are similar. They both have a per day mechanic that does not care at what point the hour strikes midnight. That said, the closest thing the rules state on the subject is that SLAs function just like spells. Also, not all casters need to prepare spells.

Right, except the difference is that spells have an active recharge mechanic (ie, you have to DO something to regain them), while all other abilities are simply a "have you used this ability in the past 24 hours" check, and not an active recharge.

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

It doesn't help that, with 3.5 being so out of date, it's a nightmare trying to look up anything rules related, as it all just defaults to 5e search results.

[Jay R]

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

The rule on how it's done is on page 6 of the DMG:

"Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

So your solution has backing from the written rules.

[Tohron]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned social skills: either Diplomacy to try to make them friendly, or Bluff to subtly convince them that you really don't want an outcome that's actually neutral or beneficial to you. It's certainly satisfying to get a Wish "corrupted" in a way that actually helps you further!

[AMFV]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned social skills: either Diplomacy to try to make them friendly, or Bluff to subtly convince them that you really don't want an outcome that's actually neutral or beneficial to you. It's certainly satisfying to get a Wish "corrupted" in a way that actually helps you further!

Diplomacy isn't mind control though, and it doesn't change the fundamental nature of a creature.

[atemu1234]

I like to draw on lore from older editions where 3.x remains silent, and because of that I have to emphatically support this. According to Secrets of the Lamp (a 2e sourcebook and the only sourcebook on genies in all editions), efreets get audited by the Grand Sultan's officials after granting wishes and get punished if it is determined that they didn't put enough effort into screwing over the mortal. They are governmentally mandated to be malicious genies.

Imagining Robin Williams' genie going on the lam after being freed from his lamp. That's the real reason he went off to see the world. He was avoiding a subpoena.

This again requires DM adjudication though. And we're back to where we started.

Strictly speaking, the entire game runs on DM mandate. There's no way to parse a wish without it having to go through a human element - and in this case, the DM has very little reason to read the wish charitably - after all, it's being given to an evil outsider.

I would say the "pay market value" bit is a good way to avoid the worst possible outcomes, but there's still the very real chance that the efreet says it doesn't want to play and takes its ball and goes home. Done diplomatically, at least, it's less likely to end in one out for your head/other thematically appropriate body parts.

[Crake]

Imagining Robin Williams' genie going on the lam after being freed from his lamp. That's the real reason he went off to see the world. He was avoiding a subpoena.

In fairness, he was a djinn not an efreeti, it was jafar that became an efreeti

[atemu1234]

In fairness, he was a djinn not an efreeti, it was jafar that became an efreeti

That's the secret! He was an efreet who got a blue spray-tan and assumed an identity!

[Darg]

I have been trying to find the exact citation that states how the cooldown on abilities works, I remember it being in a super unintuitive rules section, and my table actually houseruled it, because it was actually just too much bookkeeping to keep track of WHEN you cast an ability on each day, so we just set it to recharge at sunrise, because it was easier, and we had a gentleman's agreement to not abuse the game.

It doesn't help that, with 3.5 being so out of date, it's a nightmare trying to look up anything rules related, as it all just defaults to 5e search results.

I mean, it's not stated in the rules whatsoever. The FAQ has an answer on it that mentions the lack of rules for it, but the closest the rules ever get to stating how it works is "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." However, in this particular area that's as good as not saying anything at all.

So saying I'm wrong in a discussion that doesn't even have a rule is premature. You can do it like you do it, but my groups and I are against providing characters an overwhelming wealth of resources including access to 3-5 free wishes for the cost of a spell cast of the same level wish is. Why prepare or learn Wish when you can just use shapechange with basically 0 cost?

[Crake]

I mean, it's not stated in the rules whatsoever. The FAQ has an answer on it that mentions the lack of rules for it, but the closest the rules ever get to stating how it works is "In all other ways, a spell-like ability functions just like a spell." However, in this particular area that's as good as not saying anything at all.

I definitely recall reading it very explicitly out to my players at the table and us unanimously agreeing it was too much bookkeeping. Ill continue to try and find the source, so I guess watch this space for now?

Why prepare or learn Wish when you can just use shapechange with basically 0 cost?

Assuming you’re referring to zodar, because theyre limited to 1/year clearly, assuming a) they even exist in setting, and b) you even know about such an esoteric creature, and c) the DM doesnt deem them to be rare and unique creatures such that they arent a valid target to be shapechanged into.

[Darg]

Assuming you’re referring to zodar, because theyre limited to 1/year clearly, assuming a) they even exist in setting, and b) you even know about such an esoteric creature, and c) the DM doesnt deem them to be rare and unique creatures such that they arent a valid target to be shapechanged into.

Going beyond noble djinn and efreeti, there's the solar with a per day and two demons with a per week and per month respectively in core. If you assume limitations separate them and like abilities are the same, that's 3 from a genie, 1 from a solar, and 1 from a demon for a possible total of 5. Even if you think they are all the same ability, that's still 1 wish without restriction and up to 2 more with restriction for a total of 3.

I definitely recall reading it very explicitly out to my players at the table and us unanimously agreeing it was too much bookkeeping. Ill continue to try and find the source, so I guess watch this space for now?

I remember reading in a faerun book that by default SLAs are arcane by default because they draw on the power of the weave. Maybe there's something in a setting specific book?

[Crake]

Going beyond noble djinn and efreeti, there's the solar with a per day and two demons with a per week and per month respectively in core. If you assume limitations separate them and like abilities are the same, that's 3 from a genie, 1 from a solar, and 1 from a demon for a possible total of 5. Even if you think they are all the same ability, that's still 1 wish without restriction and up to 2 more with restriction for a total of 3.

Those are all slas which arent granted by shapechange

[Samael Morgenst]

It isn't enough to simply add at the end of any wish the clause:

"Grant my wish according to the spirit - not the letter - of the request." ?

[Crake]

It isn't enough to simply add at the end of any wish the clause:

"Grant my wish according to the spirit - not the letter - of the request." ?

Thats an extra request, so at best you could wish for that first, and for it to apply to your next wish, but also, its hardly at all foolproof, the genie could just interpret that as being their spirit, not yours, and just screw you even harder. Its a losing game, theres no foolproof wording, and ironically the more words you add, the more room for misinterpretation.

Also keep in mind this clause when it comes to greater wishes: “The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.” so the DM can quite literally just ignore any extraneous attempts to gap close by just calling it a partial fulfilment.

You cant win if the DM doesn’t want you to, this has been stated.

[Samael Morgenst]

the genie could just interpret that as being their spirit, not yours, and just screw you even harder.

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Also, the spirit of the request means the intention behind it, and precisely the intention of the one formulating the request.

But even if we assume "the spirit of the request as understood by the genie", the genie is intelligent enough to perfectly understand that spirit, and to pervert it would be precisely to go against it.


---

Anyhow, only the powerful requests can be thwarted, or the standard ones also?
For example, a request for a +1 inherent bonus or for a 20000 gp value gem can be distorted?

[Darg]

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Also, the spirit of the request means the intention behind it, and precisely the intention of the one formulating the request.

But even if we assume "the spirit of the request as understood by the genie", the genie is intelligent enough to perfectly understand that spirit, and to pervert it would be precisely to go against it.


---

Anyhow, only the powerful requests can be thwarted, or the standard ones also?
For example, a request for a +1 inherent bonus or for a 20000 gp value gem can be distorted?

Within the spell, anything not expressly stated can be perverted by the DM. The fact that the efreeti is a go between is also a point of perversion as you can't simply wish for a +5 flaming burst weapon as the enhancement bonus is an abstraction for characters.

Also, asking for the wish to go with the spirit of the request could mean that they give you the ghost template and that fancy new sword you asked for doesn't have the ghost touch property. They literally gave you the spirit and the request. It's not their fault you can't use the sword anymore.

[Jay R]

Fundamentally, there is no way to force the DM to give you something that he or she thinks will hurt the game.

So don't try. The safe way to make a wish is to accept the wishes that come to you, and not try to force wishes the DM doesn't want you to have.

In the game I'm currently running, each PC got a wish during the first session. Those wishes worked well, because my intent was to help first level PCs to survive in a dangerous world.

If a player tried to force an efreet to give a wish that I thought would hurt the game, that wish would not work.

[Crake]

To be fair, this is precisely going against the spirit of the request.

Correct, but the request for it to adhere to the spirit of the request must itself first be parsed literally, and is thus itself open to perversion. Youre putting the cart before the horse with how the request is processed and executed.

[Zanos]

Because there is no formal definition what an unreasonable demand is the DM is entirely within their rights to say anything. "All Efreeti consider being forced to grant wishes by lesser beings unreasonable". That's not a very fair ruling, sure. But it is a RAW ruling. So you can't actually say what would happen.

Edit: Also there's no guarantee that even paying would encourage it not to twist your wish. They're not good beings.

Even if your DM takes the interpretation that an efreeti granting a service that effectively costs it nothing other than a daily resource it doesn't use anyway in exchange for its freedom to be unreasonable, in the context that the game system has examples of planar bindings that have negotiated agreements including years and years of slavery and outright abuse by the spellcasters using planar binding, this is not really an obstacle. If you're a 9th level wizard and have a creature in a binding circle in front of you and can't figure out how to make it do what you want it to, you should try to get your conjuration degree refunded.

"Reasonable request" clause of planar binding is paper thin. Tome of Magic has a Balor that's been enslaved by a wizard for 500 years for effectively no payment. MMIV has a lich that uses whispers demons as shock troops and intentionally hits them with his own area of effect spells. ECS specifies that you must use Planar Binding charisma checks to compel an elemental to accept bondage in order to use the bind elemental feat to create the Eberron specific elemental items. There's basically no room to auto deny any request that a player could be expected to make from a creature unless he's Chaotic Evil and trying to summon up some demons to kill themselves for his own entertainment.

Also keep in mind this clause when it comes to greater wishes: “The wish may pervert your intent into a literal but undesirable fulfillment or only a partial fulfillment.” so the DM can quite literally just ignore any extraneous attempts to gap close by just calling it a partial fulfilment.

The wish will pervert the Efreeti's intent if the Efreeti tries to go beyond the normal safe limits of the spell. Not the person asking the Efreeti to use wish. The Efreeti can't use partial fulfillment to **** you over intentionally any more than a level 20 wizard could. He has no control over the wish if he goes beyond the safe limits, same as anyone else.

You cant win if the DM doesn’t want you to, this has been stated.

I agree, but if this is your stance you don't need to argue anything at all about how Efreeti wishes don't work. The system in which you're arguing features spells that put the victim under the complete control of the caster and make them their best friend; it's going to take some pretty bad faith, out of character, logic to deny a wizard his free wishes. Just tell your players it doesn't work because you actually want to have a functional game.

[Crake]

The wish will pervert the Efreeti's intent if the Efreeti tries to go beyond the normal safe limits of the spell. Not the person asking the Efreeti to use wish. The Efreeti can't use partial fulfillment to **** you over intentionally any more than a level 20 wizard could. He has no control over the wish if he goes beyond the safe limits, same as anyone else.

Correct, but it gives examples of perverted intents, which efreeti are fully able to do with any wish you present to them, as they are the ones doing the granting and have full control over the wish being cast. You might give the genie a fuly worded, longwinded statement that eventually says "I get 20,000 gold", but the genie only needs to wish for you to get 20,000 gold.

You aren't using the genie as a conduit to cast the wish spell yourself, and nothing says that the genie needs to cast the spell with your exact wording and intent, the only limtiation is that the genie cannot grant their own wish.

[Samael Morgenst]

I don't know if that would be considered RAW, RAI or homebrew, but personally I would say that requests that fall beyond the "standard" power of a Wish should be impossible to pervert. The more you ask, the more risk you take. But below a certain measure, the spell should just work.


Anyhow, unrelated...
an Efreeti isn't exceptionally powerful, for a being able to grant Wishes. He's a CR 8.

Mabye a credible threat of being subject to an Eternity of Torture + Imprisonment could work?

[rel]

So let me get it right:

to get a Wish from an Efreeti the safe way you use Planar Ally, pay and xp cost of 250 xp and gift the genie an object worth 1000 gp, or you take a shortcut with Planar Binding, pay nothing but risk to fail - and the genie will probably try to subvert the wish. I got it right?

Reliable methods of efreeti coersion I'm partial to are:
- Using planar binding to bring the efreeti to you and keep it in place while you hit it with your chosen flavour of mind control; Geas, suggestion, charm, etc.
- Or if you wait 2 level,s you can instead bring the efreeti in with planar binding as before, but just kill it and cast simulacrum on the body.

If you feel like negotiating with the outsider, instead of just moving straight to the mind control, there's mundane social skills, and also bribery. An efreeti can grant wishes to others, but needs help to get the benefits themselves.
'Give me these 3 wishes today and I'll get you these 3 wishes tomorrow' is probably the nicest offer an efreeti trapped in a wizards magic circle is likely to get.
Given a very real alternative is getting stabbed and used as simulacrum components, the smart efreeti is likely to take the deal and bend the knee.

[Zanos]

Correct, but it gives examples of perverted intents, which efreeti are fully able to do with any wish you present to them, as they are the ones doing the granting and have full control over the wish being cast. You might give the genie a fuly worded, longwinded statement that eventually says "I get 20,000 gold", but the genie only needs to wish for you to get 20,000 gold.

You aren't using the genie as a conduit to cast the wish spell yourself, and nothing says that the genie needs to cast the spell with your exact wording and intent, the only limtiation is that the genie cannot grant their own wish.

Nothing except for whatever mechanism you're using to control the efreet, sure. If the DM deems that planar binding isn't ever going to be a method for compelling behavior from outsiders, then he should make that houserule clear, because that's what the spell is for.

Reliable methods of efreeti coersion I'm partial to are:
- Using planar binding to bring the efreeti to you and keep it in place while you hit it with your chosen flavour of mind control; Geas, suggestion, charm, etc.
- Or if you wait 2 level,s you can instead bring the efreeti in with planar binding as before, but just kill it and cast simulacrum on the body.

If you feel like negotiating with the outsider, instead of just moving straight to the mind control, there's mundane social skills, and also bribery. An efreeti can grant wishes to others, but needs help to get the benefits themselves.
'Give me these 3 wishes today and I'll get you these 3 wishes tomorrow' is probably the nicest offer an efreeti trapped in a wizards magic circle is likely to get.
Given a very real alternative is getting stabbed and used as simulacrum components, the smart efreeti is likely to take the deal and bend the knee.

Really shouldn't be necessary because, as I've already mentioned, example usages by NPCs of planar binding include enslaving a balor for 500 years, using whisper demons as your frontline with friendly fire enabled, and enslaving elementals to create magic items. Apparently even outsiders much more powerful than Efreet and with better mental stats aren't able to weasel their way out of a planar binding telling them to be a slave for no reward. But yes, these are all good solutions for when your DM doesn't feel like actually reading. A combination of polymorph + spectral hand + dominate person also works as soon as you hit level 9, as long as you can convince your victim to accept the polymorph casting with suggestion or charm or some such.

[Darg]

"Reasonable request" clause of planar binding is paper thin. Tome of Magic has a Balor that's been enslaved by a wizard for 500 years for effectively no payment. MMIV has a lich that uses whispers demons as shock troops and intentionally hits them with his own area of effect spells. ECS specifies that you must use Planar Binding charisma checks to compel an elemental to accept bondage in order to use the bind elemental feat to create the Eberron specific elemental items. There's basically no room to auto deny any request that a player could be expected to make from a creature unless he's Chaotic Evil and trying to summon up some demons to kill themselves for his own entertainment.

It's only as paper thin as the DM wishes it to be regardless of what WotC/Paizo has written. These statements were written specifically for that purpose.

I agree, but if this is your stance you don't need to argue anything at all about how Efreeti wishes don't work. The system in which you're arguing features spells that put the victim under the complete control of the caster and make them their best friend; it's going to take some pretty bad faith, out of character, logic to deny a wizard his free wishes. Just tell your players it doesn't work because you actually want to have a functional game.

How is it bad faith? Bad faith is doing something specifically to try to break the game in the first place. The only reason you think it's bad faith is because you don't want your freedoms infringed. It's ok, you don't need to play with big bad restrictions.

[Crake]

Nothing except for whatever mechanism you're using to control the efreet, sure. If the DM deems that planar binding isn't ever going to be a method for compelling behavior from outsiders, then he should make that houserule clear, because that's what the spell is for.

Planar binding contracts are, by RAW, just as open to perversion.

[Zanos]

It's only as paper thin as the DM wishes it to be regardless of what WotC/Paizo has written. These statements were written specifically for that purpose.

As always a DM can do whatever they want, but loose interpretations of these rules to restrict bargains that are unfair to outsiders go against many of the example usages of these spells. People argue that "unreasonable commands" is not defined, but it is defined; via usage. You don't get to ignore examples because the rules were unclear, they actually become far more important in such situations.

How is it bad faith? Bad faith is doing something specifically to try to break the game in the first place.

The logic would be bad faith, since you're telling a player that something that is clearly possible within the rules isn't possible within the rules.

The only reason you think it's bad faith is because you don't want your freedoms infringed. It's ok, you don't need to play with big bad restrictions.

Huh? I literally said in my first post that it's necessary to restrict this if you want the game to function at all. I can disagree with poor argumentation without disagreeing with the conclusion. I encourage DMs to restrict players from breaking their game; just be honest about it.

[Darg]

As always a DM can do whatever they want, but loose interpretations of these rules to restrict bargains that are unfair to outsiders go against many of the example usages of these spells. People argue that "unreasonable commands" is not defined, but it is defined; via usage. You don't get to ignore examples because the rules were unclear, they actually become far more important in such situations.


The logic would be bad faith, since you're telling a player that something that is clearly possible within the rules isn't possible within the rules.

Huh? I literally said in my first post that it's necessary to restrict this if you want the game to function at all. I can disagree with poor argumentation without disagreeing with the conclusion. I encourage DMs to restrict players from breaking their game; just be honest about it.

The problem here is that the examples are not part of the rules. Let's break down the examples you presented. First up is the ToM balor. Forced to serve for 500 years thanks to a carefully negotiated binding spell. Negotiation implies that they accepted the terms and weren't simply compelled into such a long term contract. Up next is the example in the MMIV. It says nothing about the demon being compelled or if it was a negotiated contract so it literally is not evidence to support your stance or anyone else's. Finally the Bind Elemental feat. It uses a setting specific item with binding properties. This is an extraneous factor outside of the core rules fully within its right to modify the rules it relies upon. None of these examples are good enough to prove your argument and in fact imply the exact opposite. You can do what you want with the called creature if you negotiate for it or use a setting specific mechanical means to change what is unreasonable in one specific way.

So no, I wholly disagree that it's clearly stated that unreasonable is not actually unreasonable.