Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 7940528" data-attributes="member: 1465">For a day? Sure.Permanently? No.Contrary to what might be more traditional, I would not care about the exact wording of the spell, because IMHO it can degenerate into a player-gamemaster wrestling contest about who is smarter than the other in exploiting the language. Instead, I would agree with the player on the intent of their wish. When the PHB tells the player to "state your wish to the DM as precisely as possible" it doesn't have to mean that your wording must be precise, to me it's more important that your intent is precise. The wording itself is more up to the PC than the player.The 5e version of the spell already guarantees that Wish can duplicate spells of 8th level and lower. Everything else carries a cost and a risk which are included in the PHB description (in my opinion this is already unfair, there are certainly other effects beyond duplicating spells which should be allowed without a risk of losing Wish forever).Generally speaking I don't believe the the intent of the spell is to provide permanent character augmentations, but rather to give a creative player the chance to "save the day". As a matter of fact, I might even allow a much more dramatic effect than a single 9th level slot. If a character wishes for "unlimited spells slots for the current/next encounter" I might actually go for it (would make it a bit like the famous Varsuuvius scene in Order of the Stick). Then I will of course have to think about the (certain) cost and the (additional possible) risk involved (I would probably decide a probability and ask the player if they want to risk before casting), but why not? Permanent augmentations, I would really not allow.</blockquote>

Verification