D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Asisreo]

Did you not see my post above where the only things called out as requirements for a spell are the components? Like, the only thing. Range, target, duration, those only matter after the spell is cast -- they do not prevent the spell from being cast, but may cause it to fail or operate differently from the caster's desires.

But the phrase was "including material components." Not "only material components." Not only does it not exclude the others, it's basically guaranteeing that there are more than just material components. If you heard someone was making as salad "including tomatoes," you wouldn't think you're only getting a bowl of tomatoes, excluding all other salad components. Likewise, why should I think something saying that I "ignore any requirement for a spell, including costly components." Would exclude all other requirements?

By the logic you're presenting, you'd still need to take the regular casting time of, say, Tsunami, because it makes no explicit mention of the casting time. You'd also still need somatic and regular material components since those aren't considered "costly."

 

[Ovinomancer]

But the phrase was "including material components." Not "only material components." Not only does it not exclude the others, it's basically guaranteeing that there are more than just material components. If you heard someone was making as salad "including tomatoes," you wouldn't think you're only getting a bowl of tomatoes, excluding all other salad components. Likewise, why should I think something saying that I "ignore any requirement for a spell, including costly components." Would exclude all other requirements?

By the logic you're presenting, you'd still need to take the regular casting time of, say, Tsunami, because it makes no explicit mention of the casting time. You'd also still need somatic and regular material components since those aren't considered "costly."

No, the phrase was 'including costly material components,' which makes sense because they are called out differently from non-costly material components which can be assumed with a component pouch or replaced with a focus. You must have the costly component listed independently of those. It's a clarification on costly components, not, as you suggest, an inclusion of material components (which would be an odd thing to call out).

If tomatoes were a rare addition to a salad, then, yes, it would be interesting to note that I am receiving a salad "including tomatoes". And that's the proper analogy here, because the callout isn't to material components, but the special case of costly material components.

No, you wouldn't, because casting time is not a requirement of casting a spell, it's the action type you have to take to use the cast a spell action to cast it. Wish trumps this explicitly by saying that you cast wish and THEN it replicates the new spell, but you do not need to meet the requirements of the spell. Spellcasting calls those requirements out as VSM components. You do not cast Wish and then cast a new spell. You've cast Wish, that's the only cast a spell action necessary. Wish then replicates the spell desired, sans requirements.

Here's how it works: I cast Wish using my action. The effect of Wish is varied, and I select replicate a lower level spell and choose Tsunami. Wish concludes by causing the effect of Tsunami. Since I didn't cast Tsunami, I don't have to worry about it's casting time. Since I didn't cast Tsunami, I don't have to worry about it's casting requirements (which, as the Spellcasting rules note are VSM components). All that's left is the effect of Tsunami, which means I must choose my area of effect within the range and duration of the spell and apply it's consequences. It's pretty straightforward. The error I think you're making is that Wish casts the new spell, but it doesn't -- it replicates it's effects.

 

[the Jester]

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

This is an oversimplification.

What about a case where, for instance, two rules passages give contradictory interpretations of how something works?

Or a case where two of the designers had differing intentions in how a given rule should work?

 

[Ovinomancer]

This is an oversimplification.

What about a case where, for instance, two rules passages give contradictory interpretations of how something works?

Or a case where two of the designers had differing intentions in how a given rule should work?

Or a place left open for rulings, like Stealth? Two different tables can work Stealth in different ways and still be inside of RAW and RAI.

 

[Asisreo]

No, the phrase was 'including costly material components,' which makes sense because they are called out differently from non-costly material components which can be assumed with a component pouch or replaced with a focus. You must have the costly component listed independently of those. It's a clarification on costly components, not, as you suggest, an inclusion of material components (which would be an odd thing to call out).

If tomatoes were a rare addition to a salad, then, yes, it would be interesting to note that I am receiving a salad "including tomatoes". And that's the proper analogy here, because the callout isn't to material components, but the special case of costly material components.

No, you wouldn't, because casting time is not a requirement of casting a spell, it's the action type you have to take to use the cast a spell action to cast it. Wish trumps this explicitly by saying that you cast wish and THEN it replicates the new spell, but you do not need to meet the requirements of the spell. Spellcasting calls those requirements out as VSM components. You do not cast Wish and then cast a new spell. You've cast Wish, that's the only cast a spell action necessary. Wish then replicates the spell desired, sans requirements.

Here's how it works: I cast Wish using my action. The effect of Wish is varied, and I select replicate a lower level spell and choose Tsunami. Wish concludes by causing the effect of Tsunami. Since I didn't cast Tsunami, I don't have to worry about it's casting time. Since I didn't cast Tsunami, I don't have to worry about it's casting requirements (which, as the Spellcasting rules note are VSM components). All that's left is the effect of Tsunami, which means I must choose my area of effect within the range and duration of the spell and apply it's consequences. It's pretty straightforward. The error I think you're making is that Wish casts the new spell, but it doesn't -- it replicates it's effects.

But then, wouldn't that mean the range is "self." Tsunami says "at a point you choose within range" but since Wish is the spell being cast, not Tsunami, wouldn't that mean that the only eligible point is "self." Also, in terms of Resurrection, the effect isn't the first paragraph. I don't know what you'd call it if it isn't a requirement, but it the spell's effects are listed below. I guess conditional? Either way, Wish's next relevant sentence is that the spell "simply takes effect."

What's interesting is the blurb on spellcasting. This actually gives a much more satisfying answer: "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

So if a spell requires concentration and concentration itself is not an effect, shouldn't it bypass concentration? Likewise, Range is a requirement.

A brute force method would be to focus on the word "require" in the spellcasting section (in context). "Certain spells require more time to cast." So, casting time is a requirement.

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words." "If a spell requires a somatic component." "Some spells require particular objects." So there's the components accounted for.

"Some spells require you to maintain concentration." Concentration.

"A typical spell requires you to pick one or more targets to be affected by a spell's magic." Targeting

Note: take a look at the wording on AOE's, it doesn't call out a requirement, just the location where the AOE can take effect.

"Many spells require the caster to make an attack roll."

So with this list, the amount of things Wish can bypass are 5.

1. Casting Time
2. Components
3. Concentration
4. Targeting
5. Attack rolls

 

[the Jester]

But then, wouldn't that mean the range is "self." Tsunami says "at a point you choose within range" but since Wish is the spell being cast, not Tsunami, wouldn't that mean that the only eligible point is "self." Also, in terms of Resurrection, the effect isn't the first paragraph. I don't know what you'd call it if it isn't a requirement, but it the spell's effects are listed below. I guess conditional? Either way, Wish's next relevant sentence is that the spell "simply takes effect."

What's interesting is the blurb on spellcasting. This actually gives a much more satisfying answer: "Each spell description in chapter 11 begins with a block of information, including the spell's name, level, school of magic, casting time, range, components, and duration. The rest of a spell entry describes the spell's effect."

So if a spell requires concentration and concentration itself is not an effect, shouldn't it bypass concentration? Likewise, Range is a requirement.

I don't think so. You are asserting that all these things are requirements, but I see nothing to suggest that they actually are.

A brute force method would be to focus on the word "require" in the spellcasting section (in context).

I don't buy this- this suggests that every sentence was edited with an eye to ensuring that the word "require" was always used in ways that bore in mind the reading of the wish spell. I simply don't buy it. And your list of examples only strengthens my conviction that it wasn't.

If you really want a reasonably authoritative answer, you should tweet at Jeremy Crawford.

 

[Asisreo]

I don't think so. You are asserting that all these things are requirements, but I see nothing to suggest that they actually are.



I don't buy this- this suggests that every sentence was edited with an eye to ensuring that the word "require" was always used in ways that bore in mind the reading of the wish spell. I simply don't buy it. And your list of examples only strengthens my conviction that it wasn't.

If you really want a reasonably authoritative answer, you should tweet at Jeremy Crawford.

Is there a reason you don't buy it? It might have been, and most likely, that they made the spellcasting rules first and then wrote the wish spell. They probably at least somewhat thought about what a spell's "requirements" are, seeing as they had to type the spell out. It's even possible that some of the things that don't have the word "require" used to until the found a balance issue with wish. Or they may have added the word "require" somewhere where they thought it would synergize nicely with Wish.

 

[Coroc]

So wish says that you don't need to meet the requirements in that spell, it simply takes effect. Now, it mentions that this includes costly components but it doesn't say that it's only costly components.

Would that mean, say, I wanted to cast resurrection. Would that remove the requirement that they are dead for no longer than a century, etc. Those seem like explicit requirements. Would that affect the size requirement of objects in nondetection? Does a creature have to be willing to have mage armor applied to it? Are the ranges of the spells bypassed? We know the casting time and material components are. Is concentration a requirement?

I know it might seem like I'm asking alot and it might be making the spell more powerful than it is but I want to know, just in case.

I would not generalize it, but since it is a game were everything could possibly happen if it is in the scope of the DM so I would rule:

1. You want to res someone who is resurrectable via raise death or 7th level resurrection: No problem at all, no material component needed and no check if you loose wish.

2. Dead for > 100 years but < 200 years You want to duplicate true resurrection: Material component needed, chance for wish being barred applies

3. So, you want to bring back a dead creature which is dead for more than a centuries, so even 9th level true resurrection will not work anymore: This requires some form of divine or fiendish help because you are fiddling with the basic laws of the multiverse. You will have to communicate and negotiate terms with the entity in question and a mundane item of wealth as a price is never sufficient.
It will either require a powerful magic item to be traded in as a price or some dangerous quest to be fulfilled.
Chances for failure in the future applies, also there might be chances you anger someone, either the entity you approach with the request or some entity which is in opposition to the entity granting the wish.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Assuming the verbiage of physical requirements used in the component paragraph, in the spellcasting section is intended to be identical to the requirement verbiage of the Wish spell, Ovinomancer has correctly identified RAI/RAW.

I enjoy the design space of emulated spell effects of the Wish spell, being customizable.
Wish becomes the ultimate form of metamagic.

 

[Asisreo]

Assuming the verbiage of physical requirements used in the component paragraph, in the spellcasting section is intended to be identical to the requirement verbiage of the Wish spell, Ovinomancer has correctly identified RAI/RAW.

I enjoy the design space of emulated spell effects of the Wish spell, being customizable.
Wish becomes the ultimate form of metamagic.

So when something has a requirement, it is a requirement but if something requires something else, that something else it requires isn't a requirement?