D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Coroc]

The logical consequence of this is that "I cast sequester targeting the Abyss" is a legit use of wish. You can put an entire plane of existence into suspended animation permanently for the cost of one 9th-level spell slot.

RAW is not a suicide pact.

Beware the abyss might sequester back at you

 

[Coroc]

And not to let tier 4 BBEGs have it too, right? Because if the BBEG can wish the up-and-coming threat away, it makes sense for them to do so.

....

Oh thank you, you just gave me a superfunny and marvelous idea to baffle my party .

 

[FarBeyondC]

Casting time is a requirement for casting a given spell. If you don't take the required time to cast a spell, the spell does not happen and you do not spend the spell slot you would have had you successfully completed the spell.

Components (whether material, somatic, or verbal) are a requirement for casting a given spell. If you do not have all the components listed as required for a given spell, the spell does not happen.

Concentration is not a requirement for casting a given spell. If you cannot concentrate on a given spell, the spell still happens (it just ends immediately after).

Targeting is not a requirement for casting a given spell. If you cast a spell that has no valid targets (due to range, invalid target, etc) the spell still happens (it just has no effect).

Attack rolls are a requirement of duplicating those spells which have them, and are not a requirement to cast said spells themselves (except possibly in the cases of Booming Blade and Green-Flame Blade).

 

[MarkB]

But that's logic you're putting into it, not the ones the designers put in. How do you quantify "The logical interpretation." And why can you say that so confidently?

Wish is supposed to be OP. The best way for wish to not break the game is not letting a player have it.

Ok, I am wholly convinced the intent is to bypass all requirements in a spell. I want you to try to convince me without attacks on my character ("That's a ridiculous ruling") or your opinions ("Unrestrained wish is broken")

What would you say to me that basically forces me to admit the intent and/or the RAW is your interpretations and all other interpretations are not RAI and/or RAI

Okay, I'll give it a shot. It all makes sense if you use the literal, common English definition of the word "requirements".

If a spell quite simply cannot occur without a certain thing, that thing is a requirement for the spell.

If the spell can happen without a certain thing, but not in the form or effect that you'd prefer, that thing is not a requirement - it's a limitation.

 

[the Jester]

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.

Or, more likely, as was one of the stated goals of 5th Edition, they simply used natural language and counted on the DM to make rulings and apply common sense in adjudicating.

Here's the thing- the "everything is a requirement" approach that leads to being able to cast sequester on the Abyss doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make sense because it places wish so far above any other 9th level spell that it's ridiculous. It doesn't make sense because it allows for nonsense, such as casting water breathing on a target that is neither a creature nor something that breathes. Or for casting sequester on the Abyss. It doesn't match up with the precedent that wish is just another 9th level spell- and I find the argument that the spell is in the game not to be used by pcs to be pretty flimflam; if that was the case, why would it be in the Players Handbook?

If there was an explicit in-game definition of what "requirements" are for casting a spell, I imagine we'd have seen it quoted by now. But there isn't.

In my judgment, in the context of wish, the bottom line is this- you have already cast the spell (wish), and if you use it to ape another spell, then you don't have to cast another spell, because wish is doing the work. I would consider requirements to include things necessary to cast the spell, which are almost entirely components; but sometimes, in certain cases, might include things like having to cast it in a certain location, at a given time of day or year, under the right alignment of stars, with good intentions, etc.

Does the spell say, "To cast this, you must ______"? If so, that's probably a requirement.

Range, duration, targets, attack rolls- I think it's a real stretch to try to interpret any of these as requirements for a spell. I certainly wouldn't include them.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not sure why there's all that much controversy. Sometimes you just have to use common sense and logic to figure out a reasonable ruling.

If a spell like Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting could kill the vast majority of living creatures every non-magical plant in existence because it's target is no longer limited to a 30 ft cube that's probably just a touch overpowered even for a wish.

 

[Asisreo]

I'm not sure why there's all that much controversy. Sometimes you just have to use common sense and logic to figure out a reasonable ruling.

If a spell like Abi-Dalzim’s Horrid Wilting could kill the vast majority of living creatures every non-magical plant in existence because it's target is no longer limited to a 30 ft cube that's probably just a touch overpowered even for a wish.

Well, I don't want anyone to think I'd actually rule any requirements as any in my campaigns. But if someone else did and I was the player, how would I object? But that's not much of an issue itself.

I just think it's pretty fun. Like a puzzle with no answer to reference or like a research project (but you're researching approximately two books). Sure, the DM can rule whatever is the logical answer but I'm interested if we can dig up an interpretation straight from the books.

Plus, going on the internet to look for an official ruling with "no, because I wouldn't run it that way" is disappointing because it doesn't really answer the question, it's just an opinion.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I don't want anyone to think I'd actually rule any requirements as any in my campaigns. But if someone else did and I was the player, how would I object? But that's not much of an issue itself.

I just think it's pretty fun. Like a puzzle with no answer to reference or like a research project (but you're researching approximately two books). Sure, the DM can rule whatever is the logical answer but I'm interested if we can dig up an interpretation straight from the books.

Plus, going on the internet to look for an official ruling with "no, because I wouldn't run it that way" is disappointing because it doesn't really answer the question, it's just an opinion.

As much as I'm all for "the DM is always right" there are limits to what DMs I would want to have.

At a certain point you have to apply some practical limits or you end up with Pun-Pun. Or a high level wizard that can destroy all life in the multiverse.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I wish they'd spelled out explicitly what they meant by requirements.

 

[Maxperson]

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 say it would waive the time limit requirement. Wish is very explicit. 1) It allows you to duplicate a spell of 8th level or lower. 2) When you do so, it waived ANY requirement IN that spell, including components. The time limit restriction is a requirement in the spell, so it is waived. It is a wish after all.