D&D 5E Wish and the requirement removal

[Asisreo]

So you believe that "I cast sequester targeting the Abyss" is a legit use of wish? You'd be okay with putting an entire plane of existence into suspended animation permanently for the cost of one 9th-level spell slot?

RAW is not a suicide pact.

Of course not, I'm actually trying to find the line between RAI and RAW. I mean, saying that it's only the spell components is just another interpretation of RAI. They aren't really specific about what they intend for a number of spells and features. That's not to say I wouldn't normally rule it as the majority do, but a player may have the expectation to cast wish without any spell requirements and I don't want to shut him down purely by flexing my DM muscle.

Actually...why shouldn't a tier 4 wizard be able to Sequester the Abyss? That's actually really cool. A legendary feat that will be told for generations, while some cultist in the far future wants to free his beloved demon lord and exact revenge on the wizard that kept his master in stasis. Freeing the demon lord, who hunts down the foolish wizard that dared keep him.

Plus, they'd have quite a few Maruts come after the wizard after that, leading to some high-level consequences.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Wish can do a lot. I'd allow Playing with spell duration or changing elemental types (fireball to acidball) on a case for case basis. These are pretty limited changes. Using an 9th level spell to cast a 1st level spell(mage armour) on an unwilling dog, I'd allow because, 'why not?'

That said, the spell specifically states that wishes that don't include spell replication is more costly and can lead to the caster being unable to cast the spell again. Straying from the confines of a spells description too much might lead you down that path.

Lastly, in previous editions, Wish had a very costly component (I think it was 3000gp of diamond dust and an xp cost), so that cost superseded any other material costs. Now that Wish is, essentially, 'free to cast', I'd be a lot less likely to allow huge changes to spells

 

[jasper]

You are burning a 9th level spell to duplicate another spell with the added bonus of you don't have to pay any component cost. So no warping game language to warp other spells. Assume Doctor who has cross the streams and a duplicate of you appears. Looks just like you except he is the class you need to cast the spell. You fist bump, mirror you casts the spell for you. Fist bumps and fades away. After stealing your credit card.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

"Sorry, can't do that. That's not a valid target."
"Okay, then, I wish to cast magic missile on the darkness!"

 

[jaelis]

Actually...why shouldn't a tier 4 wizard be able to Sequester the Abyss? That's actually really cool. A legendary feat that will be told for generations, while some cultist in the far future wants to free his beloved demon lord and exact revenge on the wizard that kept his master in stasis. Freeing the demon lord, who hunts down the foolish wizard that dared keep him.

You could do this (I guess), but it is not reasonable to think that it would not fall under the "duplicating another spell" use of wish...

 

[Todd Roybark]

If you are replicating a spell, than it has all of the requirements of that spell.

Except in the case of Wish.

This is a quote from the spell:
The basic use of this spell is to duplicate any other spell of 8th level or lower. You don't need to meet any requirements in that spell, including costly components. The spell simply takes effect.

The definition of the word any, especially in a rules content is clear: the word any literally means any; it is signaling that the broadest interpretation is permissible and expected.

One does not use the word any, frivolously.

The phrasing of this quote: “including costly components”
Supports this.

The word including is rather inclusive. The D&D design team could have written the clause to say “limited to costly components” ......The D&D design chose not to.

The point of the sentence, is to point out to those with grappled sphincters, that forgoing costly components is just one example of a lifted restriction, from an infinite set of lifted restrictions, defined in the word any. 🖊

So, absolutely, positively, could someone cast Wish and bring back someone dead, whom had been dead for any amount of time.

You duplicate the effect of the spell without any of the restrictions of the spell.

Politely, seriously, no ill will intended, this seems to me to be a matter of simple reading comprehension.

More importantly, any player that uses a Wish spell to raise thousand year dead things, to be alive again; just used a 9th level spell for what is in essence a 5th level effect.

As a DM, I would consider that as “getting off easy”, compared to other uses of the Wish spell.

As a player, I would feel the “mightiest spell a mortal can cast”, a 9th level spell slot expenditure, gave me a huge amount of narrative control.
Which is a great feeling for a player.

I know many, whom are DMs, fear ceding narrative control, but that is what some spells are intended to do.

 

[Asisreo]

You could do this (I guess), but it is not reasonable to think that it would not fall under the "duplicating another spell" use of wish...

I guess a good way to frame the problem: Imagine you have an AI that can read. When it reads a rule, it must follow the rule as written (perhaps it was originally an AI for lawyers). It has the flaw of sometimes reading a rule wrong, though, so the inventor allowed a person to logically lead it to the right conclusion. The problem is that the only input it accepts are claims validated by wording within the rules.

How would you go about convincing this AI that wish does not negate all requirements of a spell both implicit anf explicit?

I know people aren't AI but I feel this rule allows for a way to isolate the RAW of the spell.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The wording could be clearer but the intent seems to be that it removes the need for all components, not that the spell being replicated can do things it wasn't intended to. Otherwise you could get into all sorts of shenanigans, such as the aforementioned sequestering of an entire plane (or even the entire multiverse), or resurrecting someone who isn't dead.

Why bother with anything at tier 4 if the mage can simply wish all the BBEGs into stasis? Also, why doesn't the tier 4 BBEG lich wish all of the PCs into stasis as soon as they become a nuisance? It takes wish from very good to completely broken.

Not in my campaign.

 

[Dausuul]

The definition of the word any, especially in a rules content is clear: the word any literally means any; it is signaling that the broadest interpretation is permissible and expected.

It is not the meaning of "any" that is in dispute. It is the meaning of "requirements."

 

[Oofta]

I would rule that the requirements that you can ignore are components and class of the caster and has nothing to do with what can be targeted by the spell.

Ruling that you can ignore target requirements makes it just silly IMHO.