Results 241 to 270 of 328
-
2016-02-19, 01:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Except that everything you just said once again Explicitly and directly contradicts everything Psyren has said.
Psyren claims that the all consuming need means that it is impossible literally impossible, no possibility at all, absolutely unpossible, incredibly not able to happen, for the caster of the Ice Assassin to make an Ice Assassin obey a command.
That his explicit and only argument. Is he wron? Of course he is, the entire universe would literally explode if Psyren was ever correct about anything because he is deliberately making up nonsense and lies in every single post as his only possible means of arguing.
But that is still his actual argument.
That... Can't possibly be the plan, because it doesn't work. The point is to have an Ice Assassin of something with SLA wish, so that it can wish for a Staff of Wishes, or a +9999999 Belt of Magnificence, or both. You will never have enough XP for that, but every Ice Assassin of an Efferti or Noble Djinni does (because they need zero XP).Last edited by Beheld; 2016-02-19 at 02:02 PM.
-
2016-02-19, 01:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
-
2016-02-19, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-19, 02:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
I was saying the bit about him being right that it would be immune to controlling affects. Also you might want to forego the hostile language, if he doesn't want to listen, he doesn't want to listen. It's not helping. He's right a lot of the time, and he has a different interpretation of this rule than you do. That's ok.
-
2016-02-19, 02:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Last edited by Psyren; 2016-02-19 at 02:54 PM.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-19, 02:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
-
2016-02-19, 03:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Under your interpretation, yes. The typical interpretation in my experience is not yours, however: the overriding absolute obedience to your will keeps it from ever being able to act on that, unless you suddenly develop a desire to let it kill you. At which point it happily complies.
I was going to post a joking response to this, because I am not a Trump supporter, either, but it occurred to me that I would be possibly baiting others who actually agreed with the candidate I was going to mention. Since I had this second-thought, I think it's probably wise not to bring up active political candidates at all and insinuate they are or are not reasonable. Too many people will disagree, and this isn't the thread for that particular flame war.
-
2016-02-19, 03:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
The idea is that we just side-step what Psyren is saying by setting up a situation where the only way the ice assassin can kill its target is with your help and the only way for it to get your help is by giving you an XP free wish.
So you trap the Efreet ice assassin in a room (you can do this because it is CR 8 and you are level 17), and tell it that it only gets out if it gives you an XP free wish for <cool magic item>. Alternatively (or additionally), you cast imprisonment or trap the soul on the original and inform the ice assassin that you will let the original out once it gives you <cool magic item>.
Now, it is possible for Psyren to make his interpretation sufficiently insane for that not to work. Perhaps the "all consuming need" consumes the ice assassin's abstract ability to be contained and allows if to hunt down the original regardless of how you imprison the ice assassin.
-
2016-02-19, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Indeed, since Psyren has already decided that all consuming need bypasses Dominate Monster and the Stun condition, it is only natural that "all consuming need" also allows them to Greater Teleport at will, even in Dimensional Locks while subject to Dimensional Anchor. And of course, clearly it gives the Freedom at Will as an SLA.
Because it's totally balanced for players to have access to XP free wish, but impossible for that to actually happen!
-
2016-02-19, 04:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
I'm just curious what goal everyone is looking for in arguing this topic. I get the whole "some guy on the internet is wrong!" thing, but what they do in their games has literally no effect on what you do in yours.
I love debating as much as the next guy, and maybe I'm reading into the tone of the text too much.Dascarletm, Spinner of Rudiplorked Tales, and Purveyor of PunsThanks to Artman77 for the avatar!
Extended Signature
-
2016-02-19, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
I want the games I play to be good. I want their rules to be consistent with the game world, well thought out, and not to imbalance the game. And I want them to do those things without mental gymnastics. I think an important part of that is getting people to admit that the rules are broken when the rules are broken. Because if people don't complain about bad rules, we never get good rules.
-
2016-02-19, 05:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
This plus, attempts to distort language create worse results than just making appropriate changes. People's refusal to admit when rules are broken and immediate jump to terrible distortions of words to try to make them balanced such as "The Ice Assassin That Is Absolutely Under Your Command Doesn't Obey Any Commands" or "It is Unreasonable to Ask Anything At All, So Casting Planar Binding Never Works" gets in the way of making good rules, and frankly, creates much much worse rules than almost literally anything else.
The game can't get better without admitting there are flaws, but it can get worse when you choose to give Ice Assassin's immunity to Dominate Monster solely because you are worried about SLA Ice Assassin Efferti granting wishes and for no other reason, because there is no possible way to come to that conclusion honestly.
Planar Binding is broken, but the solution is to define tasks so that you can't spend a spell slot yesterday to make a fight today easier, not to declare that you can't Lesser Planar Bind an Imp to run messages for you, because the mere act of casting Planar Binding makes all possible requests unreasonable.
-
2016-02-19, 05:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
I don't know if you noticed this, but 3.5 is kind of a done deal So if you're hoping for some kind of epiphany on WotC's part regarding Frostburn upon reading posts in this or any other thread, I have unfortunate news for you: they have their solution, which is to make things more explicitly rules-light, i.e. 5e.
Also, I agree with you that the rule is bad - or at least that there are valid interpretations of the text that have bad results, and that there are valid interpretations of the text that have less bad results, the net result of which is still bad since there isn't even consensus on which to use.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-19, 06:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Your "interpretation" (by which I mean, blatantly ridiculous nonsense lies about what the spell says) produces worse results than his.
He's not the one claiming that Ice Assassins are immune to Dominate (and stun, and Confusion, and nausea, and death) because they have a desire that renders them immune to the effect of and spell even the literal Ice Assassin spell that created them.Last edited by Beheld; 2016-02-19 at 06:11 PM.
-
2016-02-19, 06:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2015
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
WotC is not the only entity capable of producing games I want to play. Given that I am most interested in games that improve on 3e, rather than throw it all away because balancing it is hard, I am well served by discussing balancing 3e.
Also, I agree with you that the rule is bad - or at least that there are valid interpretations of the text that have bad results, and that there are valid interpretations of the text that have less bad results, the net result of which is still bad since there isn't even consensus on which to use.
-
2016-02-19, 07:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
In that case I'll go back to my very first post in this thread - Pathfinder already solved this problem by removing the item creation function from the safe list, hamstringing wish loops like these. Even if you dislike PF as a whole, borrowing their tweaks to individual spells is an easy lift. And then if you feel the need to dampen it further, we can apply efreet nature and the other drawbacks to early wishing that the designers saw fit to point out to GMs etc.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-19, 07:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Yes, Pathfinder definitely invented that, and it isn't like they were explicitly told by people perhaps nearly identical to Cosi and I who had been using houserules on wish item creation for years.
Pathfinder accidentally stumbled into one competent change and made many bad ones. "adopting Pathfinder individual tweaks to the Wish spell" is basically slightly worse than continuing to play D&D like we have been since 2000.
But part of the reason Pathfinder has failed so spectacularly to improve on existing D&D is precisely because of the culture of their forums and developers that says "things aren't broken, because you can always twist words into saying things they don't say in a way that breaks several other parts of the game instead of admitting there is a problem that needs to be fixed."
So in this case, that you would recommend Pathfinder is precisely the point. Pathfinder is worse than D&D precisely because outside of accidental stumbling into partial corrections most of their material is just straight up worse or no change precisely because of the people like you who condemn recognizing flaws in the rules and fixing them.Last edited by Beheld; 2016-02-19 at 07:37 PM.
-
2016-02-19, 08:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Gender
-
2016-02-23, 10:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2014
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Last edited by Graypairofsocks; 2016-02-23 at 10:56 AM.
Bane of disrudisplorkians, and loremaster.
-
2016-02-23, 10:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-23, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
-
2016-02-23, 11:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Strangely, if you dropped "coerced" from your phrasing, planar binding works just fine. Planar binding doesn't coerce. At most, it inconviences and restrains. Coercion is what the PC chooses to do when he doesn't respect the creature he just bound. Otherwise, there are plenty of outsiders that would be happy to grant his desire, provided it was compatible with their nature. Glabrezzu skyrocket to the top of the list, because corrupting mortals through their desires is their thing. That's your wish granter, not the effreti.
-
2016-02-23, 12:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
-
2016-02-23, 01:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2011
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
You think too highly of your context:
Originally Posted by Segev
Don't get me wrong, it would work fine for imps and quasits and such who are used to "requests" being accompanied with threats to their continued existence--heck, they probably expect it--but it won't work so well on others.
Furthermore, you forget that your context also changes the nature of the request. It goes from "make a tasty meal" to "make a tasty meal and negotiate with a terrorist." You throw extra baggage onto the request depending on how you go about asking. And who. Asking the Glabrezu is "make a tasty meal that can put this mortal in my debt and allow me to corrupt him," whereas asking the Efreeti is "lower myself to something far beneath my station--to the level of a cockroach or a slime mold or a gnome--and make a tasty meal and, in doing so, encourage others to bind my fellow genies in the future." One of these requests is reasonable, the other is not.
There is nothing in planar binding that forbids civility on the part of the caster. There is nothing in planar binding that forces the caster to hold the called creature until it has agreed to the demand. But the very fact that a theoretical caster would assume such, and treat all bindings in the same agressive style without regard to the type of creature he was binding, speaks to the caster's unreasonableness.
-
2016-02-23, 01:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Nope, sorry, the full context of this relates back to Psyren's claim that no amount of "and I'll do this for you, too" would ever make it a "reasonable" request, because the Efreeti hate servitude. And it's automatically servitude because you used planar binding to call them, and the threat is all you have with planar binding, because the offering side of it doesn't change things. It's always unreasonable, all the time, because you used planar binding.
That is what I was saying is a bad reading.
I don't really care to argue for the strawman you want to beat up; I agree, it's a terrible argument.
Planar binding is a mean thing to do.
-
2016-02-23, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Actually, there would be one that would definitely work - "I'll let you screw with my wish however you please." It's risky, but you might actually get what you want that way, with a downside that proves manageable if you outsmart the Efreeti. Needless to say, CharOp isn't fond of that option, because they view Efreet solely as wish dispensers.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-23, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
No, there's no way you're coming out ahead on that. That's not just "CharOp isn't fond of it because Efreet are wish dispensers," but rather "CharOp - and any sane being - isn't fond of it because it's beating a gangster up, dragging him into your home, handing him a shotgun, and telling him he can shoot anybody he wants with it with no consequences as long as he also promises to shoot it in a direction you indicate."
-
2016-02-23, 02:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
-
2016-02-23, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2016-02-23, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2010
Re: Quick question regarding the infamous "efreeti wish" loophole...
It's also still super dumb, because the DM actually has to kill your character or just not grant your wish every time. It's the same dumb thing that dumb people have been saying about D&D since Gygax first said it.
"This is totally balanced, because sometimes I kill their character, and sometimes I make them way overpowered!"
But what that really means of course, is that in some campaigns one person is really upset, and in other campaigns, everyone except that person is upset, that doesn't mean you have a good game, it means that you are a ****ty DM with ****ty games who makes people miserable.