D&D 5E Wish: additional 9th level slot

[Umbran]

I disagree. Even if the concepts of spell slots or levels are not explicitly "in-game" concepts, I would argue that spellcasters are aware of the differences between kinds of spells and their relative power level.

With respect, you don't get to disagree with the facts of how my games generally run. Might as well disagree with someone saying wood comes from trees.

You may, if you wish, argue that it should be otherwise. You can argue with me as if I hadn't already considered the basic positions one might take of this... decades ago, already. I don't think it'd be productive.

 

[Umbran]

Regarding the twisting of wishes, my view on it is that there is nothing wrong with it provided the possibility is clearly telegraphed (as opposed to a "gotcha").

Well, if you read the spell (in 5e, you see this):

"You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the DM as precisely as possible. The DM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance, the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish. For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game. Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner. "

Seems like the spell description clearly telegraphs the possibility.

 

[Charlaquin]

In most of my games, "slots" and "spell levels" are not in-game concepts, so there'd be no way to wish for one.

Otherwise, this runs rather close to a "wish for more wishes" which is classically a bad idea.

That is also the case in my games, but if a character wished to like “be able to cast my most powerful spells more times each day” I feel like that would be a reasonable in-character phrasing. Though that also leaves more room for creative interpretation by the wish granter.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

It's not very "colorful", but maybe a fairly mechanistic approach could look something like:

The wizard gains the extra slot. The first time they use it, it works as expected. But....

Every use after the first causes the "wish stress" drawbacks on the caster (ie, the necro damage for casting spells, the STR drain, and the 33% chance to lose wish).

If the wizard tries to cast wish using this slot*, the spell automatically fails and the caster suffers the wish-stress penalties anyway.

If the caster ever loses the ability to cast wish (for any reason), the extra slot starts to destabilize. With every subsequent use of the extra slot, the wizard suffers the usual "wish stress" necro damage and STR drain drawbacks, and has a 33% chance of losing that extra slot permanently.

* Or a more complex alternative: "If the caster uses the extra slot to cast a wish that doesn't duplicate a lower-level spell, the wish-stress penalties are doubled*: the wizard drops to STR 3 for 4d4 days; takes 2d10 necro damage per spell level when casting spell until a long rest; and has a 67% chance to lose ability to cast wish."

This way, the wizard gets one free use of the slot, but it's risky to over-use it; and in the end, they only get to use it a handful of times, anyway.

My rationale is that this particular wish is effectively granting many 9th level spells. As such, each use of that extra slot boils down to a wish that lies beyond the bounds of a normal "8th level spell or lower" sort of no-stress wish. So it seems reasonable to me to attach the "wish stress" to it.

 

[Hawk Diesel]

With respect, you don't get to disagree with the facts of how my games generally run. Might as well disagree with someone saying wood comes from trees.

You may, if you wish, argue that it should be otherwise. You can argue with me as if I hadn't already considered the basic positions one might take of this... decades ago, already. I don't think it'd be productive.

Sorry, perhaps you didn't see the edit I made prior to you posting your response. I wasn't trying to disagree with how you play your games. Every table is different and no one is wrong in how they play. Rather I am disagreeing with idea that something like the mechanical concepts of spell slots or spell level couldn't be represented in-game in a way that maintains internal consistency within the lore and workings of the game world. This would allow such a wish to be made as described in the OP. Whether it might be granted is obviously another story.

Not trying to change your mind or say you are wrong. That was not the intent of my post. Just that I simply see things differently.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Well, if you read the spell (in 5e, you see this):

"You might be able to achieve something beyond the scope of the above examples. State your wish to the DM as precisely as possible. The DM has great latitude in ruling what occurs in such an instance, the greater the wish, the greater the likelihood that something goes wrong. This spell might simply fail, the effect you desire might only be partly achieved, or you might suffer some unforeseen consequence as a result of how you worded the wish. For example, wishing that a villain were dead might propel you forward in time to a period when that villain is no longer alive, effectively removing you from the game. Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner. "

Seems like the spell description clearly telegraphs the possibility.

Sure, but the player may not have read the spell in its entirety or may not have read it recently. It's fine if everyone is familiar with how the table handles this, to just assume that they're aware.

If you have new players or just players who aren't familiar with how the spell is handled, I personally consider it good table manners to verify that the player is aware of the consequences. I've never had a player get upset about the consequences of a wish if I gave them fair warning it could go wrong, but I've seen plenty of players get angry when they used a wish and the DM twisted it without warning. IMO, the former is an informed choice to which the player has consented, whereas the latter feels like a heavy handed "gotcha".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What would be your ruling if a Wizard wished to have an additional 9th level slot?

Lots of wildly over-punishing answers in the thread.

My ruling would be to give the player a choice. They either get 2 total 9th level slots and lose wish, or they get 1 single-use 9th level slot, and cannot prepare Wish again until 1 week after they’ve used that single-use slot.

if 1 week doesn’t matter often in your game, instead make it 1 month, or even 1 year. Just not so long that they will basically never get to use wish again.

Or, even, they get wish back right after the slot is used, and they just can’t even use wish to do that again.

 

[Ace]

The wizard gets the slot, but can only use it to upcast comprehend languages.

As I understand it normal wishes in 5E aren't supposed to be twisted . That's for demon and djinn wishes. Its also one of the rare old school tropes that could made play worse. It brought out everyone's inner lawyer and created a lot of arguments.

This was a trope enough that it spanwed a story in Dragon name I cannot remember about a group of D&D players finding a real wish and becoming their PC's. Cool story but of course a short story so no insight like "what about the families"

Most DM's of course didn't give wishes anyway.

Also if you are willing to give a player a wish in the first place, I'd hope you feel confident enough to let them use it however they want.

Trust your players.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

As I understand it normal wishes in 5E aren't supposed to be twisted .
...
Trust your players.

It was a joke.

 

[Todd Roybark]

So what level of Extra Spell Slot would this august body allow be granted with Wish, without perverting the result?