D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Maxperson]

Like, the slot is expended and the action wasted, to no effect? Or like the DM says "you are unable to cast the spell, you'll have to do something else?"

That's unclear. I suppose the DM would have to make that call. By RAW, though, targeting is required in order to cast the spell.

 

[Lanefan]

Or another one: could a 5e Wish be made to allow you to unerringly hit [named-target-x] on your next five melee attacks; and if so under what conditions?

If [named-target-x] is invisible but present?
If [named-target-x] has by some means an AC you could not otherwise normally hit?
If [named-target-x] is somewhere else entirely?

 

[Asisreo]

What would you say happens then if the wizard suspects that an invisible creature is in a space and tries to cast firebolt at it, but the creature is not there?

The spell misses because the wizard had a target. They were targeting the invisible creature. It just happened that they weren't within range. If the wizard did not have a target, the spell would be unable to cast because you're required to target a creature.

 

[Lanefan]

That's unclear. I suppose the DM would have to make that call. By RAW, though, targeting is required in order to cast the spell.

You could get into a M:tG-like semantics argument here, I suppose, and ask whether targeting is required to cast the spell (as in, start) or resolve it (as in finish).

 

[Maxperson]

The spell misses because the wizard had a target.

No, you never had a target if nothing was there. You cannot target nothing.

 

[jaelis]

That's unclear. I suppose the DM would have to make that call. By RAW, though, targeting is required in order to cast the spell.

I understand your point. But there's no practical difference between the first option and ruling that you cast the spell and automatically miss. So that distinction seems a bit moot.

There's a big difference between that and the second option, since it turns firebolt in to an effective invisible creature detector, which is probably not a good way to play.

Since RAW doesn't address this critical aspect, I'm not sure it makes much sense to argue about what RAW says on this particular point.

 

[Oofta]

No, you never had a target if nothing was there. You cannot target nothing.

But can I magic missile the darkness?

 

[Asisreo]

No, you never had a target if nothing was there. You cannot target nothing.

From my understanding, they intended on hitting the invisible creature. Otherwise, if they're just trying to cast firebolt at a point and hope it intersects with an invisible creature, it doesn't work because that's not how firebolt works.

 

[Maxperson]

There's a big difference between that and the second option, since it turns firebolt in to an effective invisible creature detector, which is probably not a good way to play.

If a player wants to waste his turn, every turn, trying to locate an invisible creature that is moving, he can go for it. There are much better things to do than hope you get lucky.

 

[Maxperson]

But can I magic missile the darkness?

I addressed that upthread.