Did Frank & K create The Wish and The Word?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Against our entry of The Wish and The Word, they managed to form the following contest arguments:

Argument: The characters are obviously over-the-top powerful and insain (presumably "insane").

Answer: Actually, the contest said nothing baout making "reasonable" characters, quite the opposite! The criteria were:

Create 2 20th level build characters who create the "perfect" optimized duo. Together, this duo could adventure without anyone else and could face a plethora of challenges.
....
A poll will be created and you will be invited to vote for the characters you think:
1) Are the most versitile, effective duo
2) Are great builds and are very well optimized
3) Would be fun to play in a game
4) Would be fit to handle almost any encounter thrown at them.


At no time does the word "reasonable" enter into it. The goal was to design characters capable of handling any encounter thrown at them, not to design characters that could handle reasonable challenges of their level.

Argument: There are no custom items allowed.

Answer: That's puzzling, but completely false. In fact, the contest guidelines say:

No custom items unless you create them.


Argument: Fine, but you didn't create that item! An Efreet did!

Answer: While we could sit here and argue whether an effect generated by a creature generated by an effect generated by your own Use Magic Device skill and your own equipment right out of the book for quite a while - how about we cut the crap and point out that The Word has both Gate and Steal Spell-like Ability, and can jolly well just make the Ring for The Wish in three rounds whenever he wants.

Argument: You guys are losing and gaining levels, the contest says that you can only get 20!

Answer: Right. The contest actually says that you can only have enough XP to get to 20th level, and if you spend any XP it comes out of that total. While The Word does a lot of money laundering, at no time does he gain more than twenty levels worth of XP. The Thought Bottle lets you regain XP you've spent, so despite the impressive accounting tricks, he never ever gained more than 190,000 XP.

Argument: But even with the XP regained from the Thought Bottle, it still takes 500 XP to start the process, so you can't be 20th level!

Answer: Exactly. That's why The Word is 19th level.

And here are the Rules arguments:

Argument: You can't make a Ring of Infinite Wishes.

Answer: Yes you can, the XP cost of the item includes 50 expenditures of the spell, so it costs 262,960 XP to make a Ring of Infinite Wishes.

Argument: Wish has a maximum cost of item that it can make!

Answer: Not in 3.5 it doesn't. That's a 3rd edition rule, and it's a 3.5 contest. In 3.5 you can Wish for any item of any price, but the XP cost of the spell of any item over 15,000 gp is 5000 XP plus double the cost of the item. That means that the XP component of a Wish for a Ring of Infinite Wishes (CL 20) is 530,920 XP. That's pretty big, but you don't have to pay any of that if you use Wish as a Spell-like Ability.

Argument: Wish says that it can't produce a 9th level effect!

Answer: No it doesn't. It says it can duplicate an effect of up to 8th level. That's not the same thing. Wish allows you to perform any one action off a list. One of the things on that list is to gain a +1 inherent bonus to a stat, one is to replicate a spell of 8th level, one is to make any magic item, and one is to do anything more powerful than that, subject to DM approval. The one we are interested in is the magic item creation one, for which there are no prereqs. I would point out that Wish is always generating a 9th level effect - it's always a Wish. And Wish is, of course, a 9th level spell. So any effect it has is by definition a 9th level effect.

Argument: Well, Wish says that the DM can refuse any Wish.

Answer: Not exactly. It says that the DM is encouraged to opt to not grant a Wish that exceeds the guidelines, but creating a magic item is well within the guidelines of the 3.5 write-up.

Argument: Caster Levels from the Sublime Chord only add up the Sublime Chord and one other Arcane Class.

Answer: Right. We made an error about that in he first draft, but we fixed it.

Argument: But you are still adding the Sublime Chord and the Mage of the Arcane Order together. Mage of the Arcane Order is not a spellcasting class!

Answer: It sure isn't, but it counts as levels of Sublime Chord for the purposes of calculating Spellcaster Level, so we are good to go.

Argument: But the Ur Priest, unlike the Apostle of Peace, says "level in spellcasting class", not caster level. You can't add up the caster levels and have it spill over onto the Ur Priest.

Answer: Actually, yes we can. "Level of a spellcasting class" means "caster level". That's why the definition of "caster level" says that it is "equal to your level in a spellcasting class". If a calculation of caster level references the "level of a spellcasting class", that references items that modify caster level as well, because it's the same thing.

Argument: The Ritual of Vitality doesn't work like that, it screws you somehow. I just don't remember how.

Answer: Sigh. Here's how it works: You pay XP to perform the ritual. If you would spend so much XP that you would lose levels, you lose levels. Then you swap out your race and modify your ECL accordingly. Normally, this means that your ECL is now by definition very much higher than your XP total, so it's going to be a very, VERY long time before you get a new level. However, the Thought Bottle allows you to regain XP that has been lost or spent, so you can do the whole ritual and end up within 500 XP of where you started.

Argument: But the thought bottle uses up 500 XP, how come you haven't lost more levels?

Answer: The Thought Bottle uses 500 XP once, no matter how many times you use it. If you lose one XP from 20th level, you're 19th level. But until you lose over nineteen thousand XP, you're still 19th level. Since 500 is less than 19,000, we are good to go.

Argument: You lose feats when you lose levels.

Answer: You sure do, but the Emancipated Spawn's class feature "recall feats" gives you all the feats you had right before you died.

----

Basically, the arguments against range from "I'm incensed that you made a more powerful character than I did" all the way down to "I couldn't be bothered to actually read the book, so I'll just assume you cheated".


Then, when it came time to actually come up with a reason to disqualify the entry, the official line was that it somehow "violated the spirit of the contest."

-Username17
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

FrankTrollman wrote: Then, when it came time to actually come up with a reason to disqualify the entry, the official line was that it somehow "violated the spirit of the contest."

-Username17
The Book of Vile FranKness
BearsAreBrown
Master
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:38 am

Post by BearsAreBrown »

In what way did it violate the spirit? I'm not expecting a good reason but I assume its better than, "he beat us." Did other people post inane standard Rogue 20 builds?
User avatar
Archmage Joda
Knight
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 6:30 pm

Post by Archmage Joda »

If my recollection is even close to correct, you're not that far off really. I remember something about a dread pirate build.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

BearsAreBrown wrote:In what way did it violate the spirit? I'm not expecting a good reason but I assume its better than, "he beat us." Did other people post inane standard Rogue 20 builds?
It means "won in a manner we would have agreed to ban if we had thought about it and you knew it". I don't remember what else was posted (two clerics? a wizard and a rogue? wasn't Leadership involved?), but all of it was "playable" to the point of inanity.
User avatar
Maxus
Overlord
Posts: 7645
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Maxus »

I remember a dwarf fighter and cleric. Brothers, of course.
He jumps like a damned dragoon, and charges into battle fighting rather insane monsters with little more than his bare hands and rather nasty spell effects conjured up solely through knowledge and the local plantlife. He unerringly knows where his goal lies, he breathes underwater and is untroubled by space travel, seems to have no limits to his actual endurance and favors killing his enemies by driving both boots square into their skull. His agility is unmatched, and his strength legendary, able to fling about a turtle shell big enough to contain a man with enough force to barrel down a near endless path of unfortunates.

--The horror of Mario

Zak S, Zak Smith, Dndwithpornstars, Zak Sabbath. He is a terrible person and a hack at writing and art. His cultural contributions are less than Justin Bieber's, and he's a shitmuffin. Go go gadget Googlebomb!
ubernoob
Duke
Posts: 2444
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 12:30 am

Post by ubernoob »

Maxus wrote:I remember a dwarf fighter and cleric. Brothers, of course.
Hammer and Shield of Moradin right?
BearsAreBrown
Master
Posts: 233
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 2:38 am

Post by BearsAreBrown »

Not that it deserves disqualification (as if that means anything to begin with!) but it does seem to break the spirit and the 'gentlemen's rule' to 'be reasonable' if that's what others are posting.
Seerow
Duke
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:46 pm

Post by Seerow »

BearsAreBrown wrote:Not that it deserves disqualification (as if that means anything to begin with!) but it does seem to break the spirit and the 'gentlemen's rule' to 'be reasonable' if that's what others are posting.
To be fair I think Frank and K were one of the first posts, and they assumed anyone who was being serious about it was just taking their time to try to top what they posted.
Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

BearsAreBrown wrote:Not that it deserves disqualification (as if that means anything to begin with!) but it does seem to break the spirit and the 'gentlemen's rule' to 'be reasonable' if that's what others are posting.
It was a 20th level contest. As such, "make the most powerful characters that would be fun to play" (presupposing "the average MC would allow them") is not a valid interpretation. Because no "average MC" plays at 20th level.
radthemad4
Duke
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:20 pm

Post by radthemad4 »

I'd like to read about a ridiculously high level (with rules RAW) game full of broken builds, both by players and gamemasters. You'd probably need some sort of software to do all the math for you though.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Unfortunately, Meg's rambling justifications were mod deleted by Zherog and I no longer have the original emails. It was a very bad decision on Zherog's part, and history is poorer because of it. Basically, the WizO's wanted us to:
  • Accept defeat graciously.
  • Continue sending broken stuff in that the WizOs could foreward to R&D.
Now, that offer doesn't make any sense, and we didn't take it. The concept was that the WizOs wanted to preserve the fiction that the best optimizers were on the Min/Max boards, and justify their own existence by having us do work that they could take credit for to the people upstairs, and still claim to the plebs that there wasn't really anything broken in the game. All at the same time. This seemed like a perfect compromise to them because they would look good to corporate, the board would look good, and the game would look good.

The only problem of course is that it would require K and I to work for free while being publicly insulted by the people we were working for. Oh, also the public stance would be that absolutely all of the work we did was going to be ignored and no guaranty at all that this wasn't going to be the case.

WizO Autumn sent me a bizarre rant where she alternately pleaded, threatened, demanded, and flattered me to attempt to get me to accept the deal. That rant is gone from the internets. My reply still exists:
Frank Trollman wrote:Heh. You read that, eh? Good. I really think it should be out in the open that I don't like the WotC board, I don't like the current crop of game designers, and I don't like you.

But that's not important. I like D&D. I want D&D to be better, and you're seriously in the way here. You have the opportunity to lead by example, to show the way things are going to be done. And you did. You threw the outsiders out and that's how everyone on the outside sees it.

You keep talking about "next time", or some future plans. There isn't going to BE a next time. We gave you a chance, and you threw it back in our face. We aren't going to spend an afternoon or two going through books looking for things that need fixing the next time you snap your fingers.

It doesn't make any difference if you believe that at some point in the future you're going to give equal time to some actual min/maxxing and destructive testing. Because the people on the outside believe that you won't. It's your court, it's your rules, and we all think you're going to take your ball and go home if we try to play with you. So guess what? We aren't going to try to play with you any more.

-Username17
And the next "contest" was something stupid like "who can make the best gingerbread man," and after that the whole contest idea just fucking died.

-Username17
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Frank Trollman wrote:Heh. You read that, eh? Good. I really think it should be out in the open that I don't like the WotC board, I don't like the current crop of game designers, and I don't like you.

But that's not important. I like D&D. I want D&D to be better, and you're seriously in the way here. You have the opportunity to lead by example, to show the way things are going to be done. And you did. You threw the outsiders out and that's how everyone on the outside sees it.

You keep talking about "next time", or some future plans. There isn't going to BE a next time. We gave you a chance, and you threw it back in our face. We aren't going to spend an afternoon or two going through books looking for things that need fixing the next time you snap your fingers.

It doesn't make any difference if you believe that at some point in the future you're going to give equal time to some actual min/maxxing and destructive testing. Because the people on the outside believe that you won't. It's your court, it's your rules, and we all think you're going to take your ball and go home if we try to play with you. So guess what? We aren't going to try to play with you any more, chummer.

>>Frank
Image

This is the most the most 90's thing I've read all year.
Miryafa
Apprentice
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:15 pm

Post by Miryafa »

TheFlatline wrote:One of the things I came away with from this was not just that aspect X or Y was broken in 3.x, but moreso that there is a threshold that every RPG will reach where past that point you have enough options that completely broken builds and power loops and shit become inevitable.
That's funny, because I now believe that every time someone tries to put magic in a game (either spells in D&D, fire magic in Dark Souls, or whatever), that they have no idea what they're doing and they're going to break the game somehow. Example C: Skinsend from Pathfinder, which I love.

The only way around it seems to be to test the complete map of game mechanic interactions (so that, for example from my own experience, a player can't raise their agility so high that nothing can hit them and they become a PVP god).

In any case, thanks for answering the question. If anyone is interested, it's on a list here (please avoid thread necromancy if you look at it)
Last edited by Miryafa on Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Neeeek
Knight-Baron
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 10:45 am

Post by Neeeek »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Argument: But the Ur Priest, unlike the Apostle of Peace, says "level in spellcasting class", not caster level. You can't add up the caster levels and have it spill over onto the Ur Priest.

Answer: Actually, yes we can. "Level of a spellcasting class" means "caster level". That's why the definition of "caster level" says that it is "equal to your level in a spellcasting class". If a calculation of caster level references the "level of a spellcasting class", that references items that modify caster level as well, because it's the same thing.
This is the point I have a problem with your argument. "Caster level" and "level in a spellcasting class" aren't actually the same thing in 3.5 DnD. "Caster level" is a number used to determine the level of the caster your spells are considered to be cast at (like fireball being 1d6 per caster level or whatever) while "level in a spellcasting class" refers to actual levels in actual class that the character possesses.
Archmage Joda wrote:If my recollection is even close to correct, you're not that far off really. I remember something about a dread pirate build.
Na. That was the love contest against me. I'm fairly sure the dread pirate hadn't even been published yet when the Wish and Word curb stomped everyone.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Neeeek wrote:This is the point I have a problem with your argument. "Caster level" and "level in a spellcasting class" aren't actually the same thing in 3.5 DnD. "Caster level" is a number used to determine the level of the caster your spells are considered to be cast at (like fireball being 1d6 per caster level or whatever) while "level in a spellcasting class" refers to actual levels in actual class that the character possesses.
So you're saying that you believe that Loremaster doesn't actually make your fireballs bigger?

-Username17
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

I also think that "caster level" is not the same thing as "level in a spellcasting class". An obvious example is the Good Domain: it definitely makes your caster level go up by one when casting [Good] spells, but it definitely does not give you a free level of cleric when casting [Good] spells.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Grek wrote:I also think that "caster level" is not the same thing as "level in a spellcasting class". An obvious example is the Good Domain: it definitely makes your caster level go up by one when casting [Good] spells, but it definitely does not give you a free level of cleric when casting [Good] spells.
The question is not "are there things that could be affected by your level in a spellcasting class that are not affected by a change in your caster level?" because the answer to that is obviously yes. For example: Will Saves. The question, however, is "does a calculation that determines your caster level count modifiers to your caster level when it references your level in a spellcasting class?"

And of course, the answer to that is also obviously yes. Caster level is your level in a spellcasting class. There are things your level in a spellcasting class can also be, but that is what caster level is. It has never been anything else.

-Username17
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

In the specific example of the Ur Priest, it's clear to me that the order of operations is

Ur Priest Levels + 0.5 (Spellcasting Class A Levels + Spellcasting Class B Levels + Spellcasting Class C Levels...) + Bonus to Caster Level

Not

( Ur Priest Levels + Bonus to Caster Level ) + 0.5 (Spellcasting Class A Levels + Bonus to Caster Level + Spellcasting Class B Levels + Bonus to Caster Level + Spellcasting Class C Levels + Bonus to Caster Level...)

Because the Ur Priest specifically talks about your levels in spellcasting classes, not your caster level for those spellcasting levels.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Grek wrote:Because the Ur Priest specifically talks about your levels in spellcasting classes, not your caster level for those spellcasting levels.
Those are the same fucking thing. Loremaster also talks about your level in a spellcasting class. The actual, literal, in-book definition of "caster level" is "level in a spellcasting class." That's all there is. That's all there ever has been. There is no point at which prestige classes can talk about level in a spellcasting class and not mean caster level in a calculation of caster level because there's nothing else for it to mean.

-Username17
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

The section on caster level says that caster level is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell for most spellcasters. Then it goes off to give a bunch of exceptions about casting at lower caster levels and what to do when you get a bonus to your caster level. It absolutely does not define caster level as being a word for "levels in a spellcasting class".

Loremaster specifically tells you to "add the level of loremaster to the level of some other spellcasting class the character has, then determine spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly." and the section on classes tells you that spellcasting prestige classes add to caster level. It works like that because the book says so.

Ur Priest does not work like that. It has you give up all your casting from divine magic classes and replace it with Ur Priest casting at some exchange rate.
Last edited by Grek on Sun Dec 29, 2013 11:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
User avatar
NineInchNall
Duke
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by NineInchNall »

Language doesn't work that way. Suppose I say, "When you buy a compact disc at the store, you should check whether it is the same color as your other discs." The second instance of "disc" does not require "compact" in order to refer to compact discs. The second clause actually inherits the contextual restriction to "compact discs" from the first.

This is related to why I can say, "The second clause inherits from the first," and have you know that the "first" is referring to a clause and not a sheep.

In the case of the Ur-Priest, the text says, "To determine the caster level of an ur-priest, add the character's ur-priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes." Just as before, the contextual restriction to "caster level" is set by the first instance of "level" and subsequent references to "level" inherit that.

Seriously, it's that simple. It's so simple you probably haven't ever realized that that's how people talk all the time.
Current pet peeves:
Misuse of "per se". It means "[in] itself", not "precisely". Learn English.
Malformed singular possessives. It's almost always supposed to be 's.
echoVanguard
Knight-Baron
Posts: 738
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:35 pm

Post by echoVanguard »

FrankTrollman wrote:
Grek wrote:Because the Ur Priest specifically talks about your levels in spellcasting classes, not your caster level for those spellcasting levels.
Those are the same fucking thing. Loremaster also talks about your level in a spellcasting class. The actual, literal, in-book definition of "caster level" is "level in a spellcasting class." That's all there is. That's all there ever has been. There is no point at which prestige classes can talk about level in a spellcasting class and not mean caster level in a calculation of caster level because there's nothing else for it to mean.

-Username17
This is not at all correct. There are many interactions in 3.5 which alter your caster level without altering your number of levels in a spellcasting class (the practiced spellcaster feat, the Wild Magic class trait, and so on). By default, your caster level is equal to your number of levels in a spellcasting class, but the reverse is not true at all.
d20srd.org wrote: A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).
Ur-Priest specifically states that your CL for Ur-Priest spells is equal to your levels in Ur-Priest + (SUM(Levels in all other spellcasting classes)/2). It makes no reference whatsoever to your caster level, which is an independent character property derived from (but not interchangeable with) your number of levels in a spellcasting class. Nineinchnail's assertion that subsequent instances of "level" inherit from the "caster level" at the beginning of the sentence is also not correct in this instance, due to the fact that you would not say "your caster levels in Ur-Priest" - you would say "your Ur-Priest caster level" or "your caster level for Ur-Priest". The inclusion of the plural and derivative clause of "in" marks it pretty definitively as your actual number of levels taken in the Ur-Priest class.

Example: a Rogue3/Wizard4 with the Practiced Spellcaster feat has four levels in Wizard, which is a spellcasting class, but his wizard spells have a Caster Level of 7. As a result, he is only capable of casting second-level spells (because his "spellcaster level" for Wizard is only 4), but his spells have a Caster Level of 7 for determining their range, duration, and damage dealt (as well as other variable factors dependent on caster level).

echo

edit - formatting
Last edited by echoVanguard on Mon Dec 30, 2013 1:01 am, edited 3 times in total.
DSMatticus
King
Posts: 5271
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 5:32 am

Post by DSMatticus »

Here's the multiple choice question of the day: you are a fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 4/ur-priest 10 with the practiced spellcaster (wizard) feat. When you cast etherealness as a ur-priest, how many minutes does it last?

A) 22
B) 20
C) 18
D) 15

Edit: So, I forgot that ur-priest halves the second part of that equation because that is a class I only ever see in esoteric char-op challenges. Unfortunately, fixing my math completely destroys the distinction between A and B, so let's just invent a new class called the derp-priest, and the derp-priest is identical to the ur-priest except he gets to strike out the "one-half of" from the sentence describing how to calculate his caster level.
Last edited by DSMatticus on Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

12 if cast as a wizard spell, 19 if cast as an Derp Priest spell. 14 for Ur Priest if it were one of those instead of a Derp Priest.
Last edited by Grek on Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
Post Reply