D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[jaelis]

I guess a good way to frame the problem: Imagine you have an AI that can read. When it reads a rule, it must follow the rule as written (perhaps it was originally an AI for lawyers). It has the flaw of sometimes reading a rule wrong, though, so the inventor allowed a person to logically lead it to the right conclusion. The problem is that the only input it accepts are claims validated by wording within the rules.

How would you go about convincing this AI that wish does not negate all requirements of a spell both implicit anf explicit?

I know people aren't AI but I feel this rule allows for a way to isolate the RAW of the spell.

Seeing as how we don't have such an AI, and people aren't AIs, what is the point of the exercise? If you want to say that RAW is ambiguous, then I think we all agree. If you want to say "this is how I want to play it," then go for it, it is your table. If you want to say "what do you think the designers meant by this?" then we have given you our opinions, feel free to ask directly on twitter if you want.

 

[Asisreo]

Seeing as how we don't have such an AI, and people aren't AIs, what is the point of the exercise? If you want to say that RAW is ambiguous, then I think we all agree. If you want to say "this is how I want to play it," then go for it, it is your table. If you want to say "what do you think the designers meant by this?" then we have given you our opinions, feel free to ask directly on twitter if you want.

The whole thing is if you do this, and you say it's not a houserule, are you wrong? When you discuss this with someone, are you correct in your stance. Both RAW and RAI are binary. They either are RAW or not. They either are RAI or not.

In discussions, sometimes you want to know what's right and what's wrong. You don't want to erroneously lead people astray when you give an answer.

 

[Todd Roybark]

It is not the meaning of "any" that is in dispute. It is the meaning of "requirements."

Well, to cleave as closely to the text, the clause: including costly components
is a guide. Costly components appear in this area of the spell write up:
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (fire and holy water)
Duration: 8 hours

So, I think it reasonable to limit the definitions of requirement to be limited to the above block :
Casting time, Range, Components, and Duration.

Anything in the body text of a spell write up is the effect of the spell, or description of the spell.
Though, 5e does not label this portion of the spell write explicitly as such, 1e spell write ups labeled the body text as “description”, 4e labeled the area as “effect”.
(2e, 3e, and 5e have no labels for the body text).

This is the easiest way to rule it, and the most parsimonious interpretation.

 

[Oofta]

Well, to cleave as closely to the text, the clause: including costly components
is a guide. Costly components appear in this area of the spell write up:
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (fire and holy water)
Duration: 8 hours

So, I think it reasonable to limit the definitions of requirement to be limited to the above block :
Casting time, Range, Components, and Duration.

Anything in the body text of a spell write up is the effect of the spell, or description of the spell.
Though, 5e does not label this portion of the spell write explicitly as such, 1e spell write ups labeled the body text as “description”, 4e labeled the area as “effect”.
(2e, 3e, and 5e have no labels for the body text).

This is the easiest way to rule it, and the most parsimonious interpretation.

I agree and I now have a new word of the day "parsimonious".

 

[Umbran]

Both RAW and RAI are binary. They either are RAW or not. They either are RAI or not.

Note that classification may be binary, but that doesn't mean the meaning of the text is single-valued. If RAW is vague, then any interpretation that is consistent with the language is technically still RAW. That means there are, effectively, several sets of RAW, all of which are technically correct. I f, for example, there are places where an Oxford Comma was not used, you get text with more than one technically valid meaning. Or, as in this case, a term is never defined, we can end up with many different things that are, effectively still "as written".

As for RAI... there were several people involved in writing the rules. Whose intentions do we use? And, what about the possibility that, in some instances, the writers did not have a single, unified, intention? And goodness are we in deep if there are sections where the intention was, "Oh, geeze, I owed them this section last week, I need to get it done!"

 

[Todd Roybark]

unfortunately, that would also allow changes to Range, so one could change the target for Spells with the Range: Self.

Casting Spirit Guardian on someone else, via a Wish spell is fine, in my opinion.

Saying the whole party gets the effect of Spirit Guardians, no way.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Never care about RAW. If you are the DM, care about your own RAI and be prepared to discuss it calmly with your players if they ask you about it.

 

[jaelis]

The whole thing is if you do this, and you say it's not a houserule, are you wrong? When you discuss this with someone, are you correct in your stance. Both RAW and RAI are binary. They either are RAW or not. They either are RAI or not.

In discussions, sometimes you want to know what's right and what's wrong. You don't want to erroneously lead people astray when you give an answer.

The RAW are ambiguous, because the rules never define what "requirements" are. So there is no clear-cut answer to "what is RAW?"

To determine RAI, you'll have to ask Crawford, not us. We can only give you our guess to what Crawford would say.

 

[Asisreo]

Well, to cleave as closely to the text, the clause: including costly components
is a guide. Costly components appear in this area of the spell write up:
Casting Time: 1 minute
Range: 30 feet
Components: V, S, M (fire and holy water)
Duration: 8 hours

So, I think it reasonable to limit the definitions of requirement to be limited to the above block :
Casting time, Range, Components, and Duration.

Anything in the body text of a spell write up is the effect of the spell, or description of the spell.
Though, 5e does not label this portion of the spell write explicitly as such, 1e spell write ups labeled the body text as “description”, 4e labeled the area as “effect”.
(2e, 3e, and 5e have no labels for the body text).

This is the easiest way to rule it, and the most parsimonious interpretation.

Does that mean it can bypass concentration?

 

[Todd Roybark]

Both RAW and RAI are binary.

I am afraid, I must disagree with this sentiment. ‘Poorly’ written RAW, might differ wildly from the designer’s RAI.

Internal cohesion of the rules is a factor. RAW might differ than RAI, and still work fine.

Yes, I do think you can bypass Concentration requirements.