D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Asisreo]

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.

Well, I didn't mean that RAW and RAI are connected and if something is RAW it must be RAI. I'm saying that the way that it is written is the way it's written. You can't say "Attacking is a free action" is RAW because that's not what is written. Likewise, you can say "The DM decides treasure" is RAW because that's what's written

RAI, on the other hand is separate but seen as more valuable. It shows how the designers balanced the game, which if ignored can unbalance the game. You can't really measure RAI without clear RAW. Even Crawford only represents only a portion of RAI, I doubt he knows exactly what the subdivision of creators intended when designing a rule. Heck, they might not have even thought of the questions and have no clue how they intend to deal with it.

If neither or them truly matters, how can you ensure consistency. How can you confidently say "All beastmaster's companions add proficiency bonuses to all saving throws, including death saves." Or "Dim light imposes disadvantage to passive Perception even if there's a chance they can be heard."

This is my overall problem with the system. While the surface of it is simplified, the closer inspections leave glaring holes that the DM is expected to patch themselves. But DM's aren't game designers. They can't tell if their adjustments are OP, undermine a player's features, or are just plain unfun.

People have to look up what the requirements for Wish means because there's no guidance in the books. And they'll have to rely on what we say about it, choosing one and hoping it doesn't break anything or frustrate the players. And if it does do those things, the blame is placed on them since they can't really reference the book with a clear interpretation.

 

[Oofta]

Personally I like Rules As Normally Translated. Yep, I like to RANT.

 

[Asisreo]

Personally I like Rules As Normally Translated. Yep, I like to RANT.

Apparently, I do too

 

[MarkB]

But the wording is weird because if it was only the spell's components, it should just say their components. Spells do what they say they do. Well, wish says that you bypass requirements in the spell. A willing creature for mage armor is a requirement (you can't cast the spell otherwise) that is in the spell.

Range is also one of those top requirements, so could you choose any point as long as it's within sight (if we aren't accounting for requirement nested in the spell description)?

The phrase is "you don't need to meet any of the requirements in that spell". Not anything else about who and what the spell affects. Just you.

If there is some requirement in the spell that would normally prevent you from casting it, or from being the recipient of it, you ignore that requirement. Any requirement that does not relate to you, as the caster, is still a requirement. Range, targets (other than yourself), duration, types of effect produced, all of that remains in play.

One part that I can see some ambiguity on is Concentration. It's definitely a requirement of the spell, and it definitely relates to you as the caster, but it's not something that is required in order to cast the spell. Can a spell cast via Wish be maintained without Concentration?

 

[Todd Roybark]

"you don't need to meet any of the requirements in that spell".

Mark, respectfully, it seems as if you are interpreting the above quoted portion as if it read as:

“you don’t need to meet any of the requirements in that spell, that apply to you”.

Which, is a large inferential add for a single instance of the word “you”.

The sentence: “you may take any seat”
is very different, from the sentence:
“You may take your seat”.

The phrasing is any requirements, not your requirements.

More importantly, to interpret the word “you”, as expansively as you advocated for, does not wind up with the results you stated.

Range: Self clearly applies to the “You” referenced in the Wish spell text.
Logically, following MarkB’s expansive definition of the word “you” in the Wish spell,
one can disregard a Range: Self requirement.

Which means one could cast the spell on someone else.

 

[Asisreo]

The phrase is "you don't need to meet any of the requirements in that spell". Not anything else about who and what the spell affects. Just you.

If there is some requirement in the spell that would normally prevent you from casting it, or from being the recipient of it, you ignore that requirement. Any requirement that does not relate to you, as the caster, is still a requirement. Range, targets (other than yourself), duration, types of effect produced, all of that remains in play.

One part that I can see some ambiguity on is Concentration. It's definitely a requirement of the spell, and it definitely relates to you as the caster, but it's not something that is required in order to cast the spell. Can a spell cast via Wish be maintained without Concentration?

Would that mean you must be outside to cast control weather or not.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

While I would agree that casting time and components would certainly fall under requirements, duration certainly should not.

A duration is not any kind of requirement by any stretch of the term. (Mind you, it can be if it is in reference to being required to work for a certain amount of time, but in a spell description it is clearly how long the effect lasts which is not a requirement).

Range could be interpreted as a requirement, but I'm not inclined to allow it since that would allow for egregiously broken uses, such as casting Feeblemind on anyone in the multiverse from the comfort of you couch. Which begs the question, if the lich BBEG can do this with such ease why doesn't he turn the PCs into babbling idiots before they ever grow strong enough to oppose him?

 

[Asisreo]

While I would agree that casting time and components would certainly fall under requirements, duration certainly should not.

A duration is not any kind of requirement by any stretch of the term. (Mind you, it can be if it is in reference to being required to work for a certain amount of time, but in a spell description it is clearly how long the effect lasts which is not a requirement).

Range could be interpreted as a requirement, but I'm not inclined to allow it since that would allow for egregiously broken uses, such as casting Feeblemind on anyone in the multiverse from the comfort of you couch. Which begs the question, if the lich BBEG can do this with such ease why doesn't he turn the PCs into babbling idiots before they ever grow strong enough to oppose him?

But it's the requirement nested into the duration. Not necessarily the duration itself.

Plus, alot of spells require you to see the target. Of course, not all spells, but certainly some.

 

[Fanaelialae]

But it's the requirement nested into the duration. Not necessarily the duration itself.

Plus, alot of spells require you to see the target. Of course, not all spells, but certainly some.

Feeblemind doesn't require you to see your target. Just that they're in range.

 

[MarkB]

Mark, respectfully, it seems as if you are interpreting the above quoted portion as if it read as:

“you don’t need to meet any of the requirements in that spell, that apply to you”.

Which, is a large inferential add for a single instance of the word “you”.

The sentence: “you may take any seat”
is very different, from the sentence:
“You may take your seat”.

The phrasing is any requirements, not your requirements.

More importantly, to interpret the word “you”, as expansively as you advocated for, does not wind up with the results you stated.

Range: Self clearly applies to the “You” referenced in the Wish spell text.
Logically, following MarkB’s expansive definition of the word “you” in the Wish spell,
one can disregard a Range: Self requirement.

Which means one could cast the spell on someone else.

Nope - that's not a requirement that you have to meet, it's a requirement that the person you're casting the spell upon has to meet. If that person is you, you already meet the requirement. If it isn't, then the wish exception doesn't come into play, because you're not the one who's trying to meet the requirement.