D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Asisreo]

The rules require you to have a valid target to cast the spell. It's an explicit requirement for a spell to work. I personally don't agree with RAW, so I do it differently in my game, but thems the rules.

So you can't be like, "Hmm. I wonder if there's something in that empty space over there and cast the spell." You aren't targeting anything. You can be like, "I heard something invisible moving in that direction, I'm going to target it in that space" and miss due to it not being in the space you think the creature is in. You targeted a valid target, but got the space wrong.

I do believe you have to claim a target first, though. Like, you have to say "I cast the spell at a creature in this space and if it's invalid, you cast the spell and it appears to miss and have no effect.

 

[Maxperson]

I do believe you have to claim a target first, though. Like, you have to say "I cast the spell at a creature in this space and if it's invalid, you cast the spell and it appears to miss and have no effect.

RAW says that having a target is required to cast the spell. The target comes before casting. If you don't have a target, you cannot cast. I don't think that's RAI, but it is RAW.

Xanathar's changed that somewhat to allow for some invalid targets to be targeted, but those new rules do not allow for there to be no target. Just a wrong target, so if you have a spell that targets the living and you don't know that your target is undead, it still goes off and fizzles.

 

[Lanefan]

The rules require you to have a valid target to cast the spell. It's an explicit requirement for a spell to work. I personally don't agree with RAW, so I do it differently in my game, but thems the rules.

So you can't be like, "Hmm. I wonder if there's something in that empty space over there and cast the spell." You aren't targeting anything. You can be like, "I heard something invisible moving in that direction, I'm going to target it in that space" and miss due to it not being in the space you think the creature is in. You targeted a valid target, but got the space wrong.

So all you need to do is say you heard something there, even if you really didn't, and cast away?

Yeah, there's no point in trying to defend a rule this dumb. Better just to say "bad rule" and move on.

 

[Maxperson]

So all you need to do is say you heard something there, even if you really didn't, and cast away?

No. There's nothing there to target. You have to have a real target. You can't just fictionalize one in order to try and fool the spell. If there's one you know is there and get it wrong, so be it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, there's no point in trying to defend a rule this dumb. Better just to say "bad rule" and move on.

And I did. That was one of the first things I tossed.

 

[jaelis]

And I did. That was one of the first things I tossed.

OK so to be clear: your reading of the RAW is that you simply can't cast a spell if there isn't a valid target. So then you could use attempting to cast as a free invisible creature finder, as I suggested earlier? But I understand that you don't think that is intended or a good way to play.

 

[Maxperson]

OK so to be clear: your reading of the RAW is that you simply can't cast a spell if there isn't a valid target. So then you could use attempting to cast as a free invisible creature finder, as I suggested earlier? But I understand that you don't think that is intended or a good way to play.

It's an exceptionally stupid way to play. You get one action. Using it to pick a random spot in the hopes something is invisible there is just dumb. An invisible creature isn't going to just sit in one spot for several rounds while you close in, so even if you happen to be right and one is present, you aren't likely to find it that way.

 

[Lanefan]

It's an exceptionally stupid way to play. You get one action. Using it to pick a random spot in the hopes something is invisible there is just dumb. An invisible creature isn't going to just sit in one spot for several rounds while you close in, so even if you happen to be right and one is present, you aren't likely to find it that way.

Max, where you're unclear is whether the spell can be cast at all - as in, the motions gone through and the slot lost - without a valid target.

If it cannot, then declaring you're casting it and having the DM say no you can't is a good - if cheesy - way of fishing for invisibles in a room.

This is where using M:tG words might come in handy: be clear whether you're talking about casting (as in, declaring the spell and chalking off the slot and, if necessary, components) or resolving (as in finishing the spell and sending it on its way). I think what you're trying to say is that the spell can't resolve, but you keep phrasing it as that you can't cast; and they mean very different things.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The 5e Player's Handbook; Chapter 9: Combat; heading: Making an Attack; subheading: Unseen Attackers and Targets:

When you attack a target that you can't see, you have disadvantage on the attack roll. This is true whether you're guessing the target's location or you're targeting a creature you can hear but not see. If the target isn't in the location you targeted, you automatically miss, but the DM typically just says that the attack missed, not whether you guessed the target's location correctly.

This implies that you are permitted to make an attack roll even when you are blindly guessing the location of your target, spells that use attack rolls being included in that.

Furthermore, remember that a target that is invisible isn't automatically hidden. They're considered Heavily Obscured unless they take the Hide action. So while you can't see them, you'll still be able to discern their location for the purposes of targeting. Only if they successfully take the Hide action do they become undetectable.