NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 7971017" data-attributes="member: 18">The big issue here isn't that Wish can't do those things. Arguably it can. The issue you saying it can do those things without the usual penalty risk, because of what essentially a crude attempt to rules-lawyer the word "requirements". I mean, yes this is the fault of WotC that you can even try, but an earlier post in this thread neatly dissected what "requirements" actually are for a spell, and they're not "anything to do with the spell" as you seem to be interpreting it.Those happening in a campaign would make sense for the full-on usage of Wish. For the no-risk version though? They obviously don't. The world would have been destroyed the first time someone got access to Wish if they could do that stuff 1/day with no risk to them. Either that or there'd be a whole branch of the celestial bureaucracy, with both devils and angels in it, dedicated to hunting down and murdering every caster capable of casting Wish who got above level 16. Which would be a fun plot for book but maybe not so much for a game.To add, it's obviously not RAI, because they would have explained Wish quite differently if it was, and earlier-edition versions of Wish were worded in ways that didn't allow this peculiar rules-lawyering.I mean, look at the 3E version: <a href="https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/wish.htm" target="_blank">Wish :: d20srd.org</a>You can quite clearly see the 5E version's intent from that. It's an attempt to simplify, streamline, and make more elegant the 3E Wish's initial four options (and to make other usage both more dangerous and more significant, but that's out-of-scope for this discussion). But they didn't really nail it, so they ended up with a rules-lawyer-able wording.</blockquote>

Verification