Using wish to know more spells

[Nalistri]

HI everyone I am just wondering how you think you would run it if a player used a wish spell to have more spells known would you give them one new spell per wish?

[Damon_Tor]

If it's a wizard, it's easy: spell scrolls have an explicit value based on the level of spell they contain and copying those scrolls into your spellbook costs an explicit amount of gold. Wish allows you to create a certain amount of material wealth as one of its explicit functions. So with that in mind, I would do the math, figure out how many spells could be added to the spellbook for the amount of gold in question, and then go right ahead and add those spells.

For a sorcerer it's not as easy, but I'd probably use the same math as a starting point.

[Man_Over_Game]

Wish generally has some means of backfiring when you ask it for something beyond the normal methods.

I'd probably make it so that every 2 spells you gain from Wish (of your choice), you lose one spell permanently of the DM's choice that you can't gain back, likely with a spell level who's averaged between the spells you gained. If you only gain a single spell from Wish then you simply go up to Exhaustion 5, as your mind is overloaded with the space you just forced it to make without budging.

[JNAProductions]

HI everyone I am just wondering how you think you would run it if a player used a wish spell to have more spells known would you give them one new spell per wish?

What class are they?

Because if they're a Wizard, depending on how the Wish was worded, I'd probably give them inspiration on new spells, allowing them to spend a few weeks in a researching frenzy to learn 3d4 spell levels worth of new spells.

If they're a Sorcerer or Bard, I'd probably give them only one spell per cast.

This would, of course, be a "Greater effect" of Wish, so they'd incur the 33% chance of never casting it again.

That being said! I would NOT attempt to screw them over or anything. I'd be upfront about what it would do, and the chance of not casting Wish again.

[Chronos]

By the time a wizard hits 17th level, they probably already have ways to gain access to any spell they want in their spellbooks. Using Wish for it doesn't break anything.

For sorcerers (and others) with limited spells known, you're firmly into the territory of "this probably won't work like you intend, and has a significant risk of completely screwing you over".

[Vulsutyr]

By the time a wizard hits 17th level, they probably already have ways to gain access to any spell they want in their spellbooks. Using Wish for it doesn't break anything.

For sorcerers (and others) with limited spells known, you're firmly into the territory of "this probably won't work like you intend, and has a significant risk of completely screwing you over".

At least, it should be. Bards and Sorcs really want more spells at high levels. Don’t make it easy.

[Dr. Cliché]

I'd probably let them learn any one of the following:
One 6th, 7th, or 8th level spell
Two 3rd, 4th or 5th level spells
Three 1st or 2nd level spells
One Cantrip.
(The spell has to be from their class)

I might allow them to learn random spells from a different class (the can pick which level they want as above, but the spell choice(s) will be randomised).

Alternatively, I would allow them to know every spell on their class list until they next finish a Long Rest.


Given the inherent risks and drawbacks of Wish, I don't think any of these would be broken.

[Sigreid]

I think a better way of giving high level known spell casters some more known spells would be to make it an epic boon pick option.

[Rukelnikov]

Haven't had this happen in 5e yet, but in 3.x, we would regularly use wish to exchange known spells. I'd probably allow that in 5e without 33% chance, maybe alongside some detrimental circumstance, like losing all your slots for a week or something.

[VonKaiserstein]

For anyone trying to exceed their maximum allowed spells, either give them a chance of spell mishap while they're overcharged or have them forget another spell at random of same level. I would definitely bestow some magical stigmata to them, like sparking ears, uncomfortably hot fingers, translucent skin, or a ghostly afterimage that clearly shows they're under the influence of unhealthy amounts of magic.

If they used it repeatedly, allow them to tear reality itself asunder, and let the wound caused by their passage be the focus of the next campaign.

[Bjarkmundur]

.... Well ****

Hope no one reads the pact in my signature.

Maybe I just saved my own ass for randomly restricting it to 1st Level Spells.

I didn't know spells known was such a delicate balancing act, but like you said, there's a lot of things to consider.

Should you restrict spell level?
How many spells should you grant?
Should you restrict from which spell list it is?
Should you exclude specific spells that might break things?
Should there be a drawback?
Should you make it a "once a day" spell?
Should you just roll with it and see what happens?

Yeeesh, what a headache.

[Man_Over_Game]

.... Well ****

Hope no one reads the pact in my signature.

Maybe I just saved my own ass for randomly restricting it to 1st Level Spells.

I didn't know spells known was such a delicate balancing act, but like you said, there's a lot of things to consider.

Should you restrict spell level?
How many spells should you grant?
Should you restrict from which spell list it is?
Should you exclude specific spells that might break things?
Should there be a drawback?
Should you make it a "once a day" spell?
Should you just roll with it and see what happens?

Yeeesh, what a headache.

Wish naturally has a 1/3 chance of burnout, so even if you were to abuse it, you'd still only be able to do so 3 times.

At that level, there's very little that adding a spell to your list is going to break that you can't already break some other way.

There should always be a drawback. It's severity should just scale with what you're getting in return. I'd recommend having two options:


What happens when someone wishes for a single spell.
What happens when someone wishes for more than one spell, scaling with the number of spells they gain.


In my own example, I have it as:

Go up to Exhaustion 5
Permanently lose 1 spell that you know for every 2 that you gain. You can never know how to cast that spell again without a casting of Wish. When determining what spells you lose, the DM and you alternate with you going first if you gained an even number of spells and the DM going first if you gained an odd number of spells. The DM should aim to remove spells that you use frequently when given the choice.

[Rukelnikov]

Wish naturally has a 1/3 chance of burnout, so even if you were to abuse it, you'd still only be able to do so 3 times.

At that level, there's very little that adding a spell to your list is going to break that you can't already break some other way.

There should always be a drawback. It's severity should just scale with what you're getting in return. I'd recommend having two options:


What happens when someone wishes for a single spell.
What happens when someone wishes for more than one spell, scaling with the number of spells they gain.


In my own example, I have it as:

Go up to Exhaustion 5
Permanently lose 1 spell that you know for every 2 that you gain. You can never know how to cast that spell again without a casting of Wish.


This got me curious, when you are in a "wish outside list of safe options" situation, do you tell the player beforehand what the drawback will be?

[Bjarkmundur]

Wish naturally has a 1/3 chance of burnout, so even if you were to abuse it, you'd still only be able to do so 3 times.

At that level, there's very little that adding a spell to your list is going to break that you can't already break some other way.

There should always be a drawback. It's severity should just scale with what you're getting in return. I'd recommend having two options:


What happens when someone wishes for a single spell.
What happens when someone wishes for more than one spell, scaling with the number of spells they gain.


In my own example, I have it as:

Go up to Exhaustion 5
Permanently lose 1 spell that you know for every 2 that you gain. You can never know how to cast that spell again without a casting of Wish.


That seems perfectly reasonable.
Do you ever get tired of having a perfectly clean solution to every problem?

[Man_Over_Game]

This got me curious, when you are in a "wish outside list of safe options" situation, do you tell the player beforehand what the drawback will be?
That...is actually an incredibly difficult question for me to answer!

On one hand, Wishing for something beyond its normal use should have some DIRE consequences, and things would be a lot less interesting or DIRE if the player always knew what the consequences of their actions were.
On the other hand, taking something away that's important to a player, that the player doesn't know about, can make-or-break someone's entire concept. If Fireball was some kind of signature spell of theirs, they'd have a big problem if they lost that on a whim.
On the OTHER other hand, that's one of the risks of using Wish. You don't play with fire and expect to not get burned, and Wish can set the whole world on fire if you wanted it.

My suggestion is to always keep it hidden, but always have a backup plan in case it backfires in your face. That is, always have a solution for the problem it caused that should cost the Player more than the Wish was worse. Now that the Player lost his signature spell due to Wish, and now suffers from Wish burnout, he has to go on a quest to find a Wizard who'd be willing to risk Wish Burnout himself in order to get his spell back.




That seems perfectly reasonable.
Do you ever get tired of having a perfectly clean solution to every problem?

:redface:

Thanks, man. Einstein once said "that everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler." Something in that stuck, and now I'm just a simple dude who likes simple answers to complicated stuff.

[LudicSavant]

Einstein once said "that everything should be as simple as it can be, but not simpler."

I'm not sure about that attribution, but it's a good quote anyways.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/

[Man_Over_Game]

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/

What's funny is that I used the same thing to double check that I wasn't talking out my a** in case I was wrong in quoting him.

However: "Einstein may have crafted this aphorism, but there is no direct evidence in his writings. He did express a similar idea in a lecture but not concisely. Roger Sessions was a key figure in the propagation of the saying. In fact, he may have crafted it when he attempted to paraphrase an idea imparted by Einstein."

Roger Sessions, 1950: "I also remember a remark of Albert Einstein, which certainly applies to music. He said, in effect, that everything should be as simple as it can be but not simpler!"

So I guess I'm quoting Roger Sessions, in quoting Albert Einstein.

[Rukelnikov]

That...is actually an incredibly difficult question for me to answer!

On one hand, Wishing for something beyond its normal use should have some DIRE consequences, and things would be a lot less interesting or DIRE if the player always knew what the consequences of their actions were.
On the other hand, taking something away that's important to a player, that the player doesn't know about, can make-or-break someone's entire concept. If Fireball was some kind of signature spell of theirs, they'd have a big problem if they lost that on a whim.
On the OTHER other hand, that's one of the risks of using Wish. You don't play with fire and expect to not get burned, and Wish can set the whole world on fire if you wanted it.

My suggestion is to always keep it hidden, but always have a backup plan in case it backfires in your face. That is, always have a solution for the problem it caused that should cost the Player more than the Wish was worse. Now that the Player lost his signature spell due to Wish, and now suffers from Wish burnout, he has to go on a quest to find a Wizard who'd be willing to risk Wish Burnout himself in order to get his spell back.

Thx, got me curious cause you seem the kinda DM that doesn't mess much with the PC's without player consent (at least that's what I gathered from your posts). And to me that's pretty contrary to the very idea of Wish. After all, its dnd, nothing is final ever (kinda like Dragon Ball).

[Man_Over_Game]

Thx, got me curious cause you seem the kinda DM that doesn't mess much with the PC's without player consent (at least that's what I gathered from your posts). And to me that's pretty contrary to the very idea of Wish. After all, its dnd, nothing is final ever (kinda like Dragon Ball).

I guess the rule should be to always have the player's consent to screw them over. Make sure it's their fault that they didn't prepare for the Mind Devourer, not yours.

In those instances that the player didn't have all the information but still deserved the consequence (like losing their favorite spell to Wish), come up with a backup plan.

The only times a player should be screwed over is if they understand the consequences, in which case you should do so.

Repeatedly.

In Bold.

And Italicized.

[Rukelnikov]

I guess the rule should be to always have the player's consent to screw them over. Make sure it's their fault that they didn't prepare for the Mind Devourer, not yours.

In those instances that the player didn't have all the information but still deserved the consequence (like losing their favorite spell to Wish), come up with a backup plan.

The only times a player should be screwed over is if they understand the consequences, in which case you should do so.

Repeatedly.

In Bold.

And Italicized.

IMO, as long as it isn't unfair, roll on. Were the players lacking the information because I refused to give it to them despite all their attempts to gather it? Then I'm being a douche, were they lacking information because they decided to charge face on? Then fault's on them.

I had a player put a portable hole inside a bag of holding while in the Far Realm... Basically all the players stats were put in a bag, and each took turns picking out the bag, as their bodies (and stats) were reshuffled.

I didn't warn him that would happen, I only said "are you sure you wanna do that?" he went on with it.

[OvisCaedo]

I'm a bit surprised by how many people seem to be suggesting that wish is just supposed to always backfire or drawback you in some way beyond the risk of exhaustion and never casting it again. I have always been under the impression that the "something might go wrong!" clause was just for giving DMs an avenue of dealing with wishes of absurd or campaign-ruining scope, not for it to ALWAYS corrupt your wish in some way.

and at that level I just don't see "learns another spell" being anywhere near broken enough to merit any drawback beyond the built-in risk of never wishing again. There's some powerful things that could come from it, certainly, but it's a significant risk to go for.

[Rukelnikov]

I'm a bit surprised by how many people seem to be suggesting that wish is just supposed to always backfire or drawback you in some way beyond the risk of exhaustion and never casting it again. I have always been under the impression that the "something might go wrong!" clause was just for giving DMs an avenue of dealing with wishes of absurd or campaign-ruining scope, not for it to ALWAYS corrupt your wish in some way.

and at that level I just don't see "learns another spell" being anywhere near broken enough to merit any drawback beyond the built-in risk of never wishing again. There's some powerful things that could come from it, certainly, but it's a significant risk to go for.

I find the risk of "may never be able to cast wish again" to be such a high gamble, that the spell effectively never saw use by the PCs, and ended up with I charm Charles and give him the Ring of three wishes so that he etc etc.

Putting drawbacks instead of burn for most outside safe but IMO acceptable uses makes it a bit better for the players.

[Man_Over_Game]

I didn't warn him that would happen, I only said "are you sure you wanna do that?" he went on with it.

At most tables I've played, a DM asking "Are you sure?" is warning enough.

When the God of your universe is double checking on your opinion, you know you're about to blow something, somewhere, to complete sh**.

[Rukelnikov]

At most tables I've played, a DM asking "Are you sure?" is warning enough.

It generally is.

[Man_Over_Game]

It generally is.

I guess what I mean is, what you did was perfect. The player knew that something was going to blow up, he had ample "warning" (even if it wasn't 100% spelled out for him), and something completely explosive happened to him as expected.

In my opinion, if the players pushed to find some way of reversing it, I'd make it a possibility, but I could definitely see someone saying "You made your bed, sleep in it" as a good, harsh lesson to their actions.

[Rukelnikov]

I guess what I mean is, what you did was perfect. The player knew that something was going to blow up, he had ample "warning" (even if it wasn't 100% spelled out for him), and something completely explosive happened to him as expected.

In my opinion, if the players pushed to find some way of reversing it, I'd make it a possibility, but I could definitely see someone saying "You made your bed, sleep in it" as a good, harsh lesson to their actions.

One kinda tried, it was a wizard, who lost 10 points of int in the exchange (he ended up with Con 36 though). I allowed him to consume the brains of creatures from the FR which made him smarter but mad (he traded Wis for Int).

After that event all the players but one, kinda threw care out the window. They realized they were not leaving the FR as they entered after that, and started trying to do more FRish stuff, like the Wizard I described above.

They ended up "leaving"*, but far different than what they were when they entered.


*My FR can't really be "left". There is no time, so there's no concept of I WAS there, either you are, or you are not. While their characters have returned to the wheel, they still are in the FR.

[Man_Over_Game]

One kinda tried, it was a wizard, who lost 10 points of int in the exchange (he ended up with Con 36 though). I allowed him to consume the brains of creatures from the FR which made him smarter but mad (he traded Wis for Int).

After that event all the players but one, kinda threw care out the window. They realized they were not leaving the FR as they entered after that, and started trying to do more FRish stuff, like the Wizard I described above.

They ended up "leaving"*, but far different than what they were when they entered.


*My FR can't really be "left". There is no time, so there's no concept of I WAS there, either you are, or you are not. While their characters have returned to the wheel, they still are in the FR.

So the only solution is to...have the players jump back to the existence that they were before they entered the Far Realm?

That, or...I guess, pull a Dr. Strange and use some bottled Time for shenanigans?

Lol, now that I realize it, the first line is what happens after the second one. I have stated I was a simple man, and I present my lack of originality as proof, your Honor.

[Rukelnikov]

So the only solution is to...have the players jump back to the existence that they were before they entered the Far Realm?

That, or...I guess, pull a Dr. Strange and use some bottled Time for shenanigans?

That's what I'm gonna go for if we ever play those characters again.

4-campaigns-long story short:

One of the PCs became the demigod of destiny, by doing so he inadvertently started an artifact that layed dormant in what now is his demiplane which started pushing CR 20 and above creatures outside of the wheel (since those defy their destinies a lot) and had Phanes taking care of those that manages to sidestep the pull.

Yada yada yada. Leshay's destroyed timeline (which I turned into another setting of mine) was a plot point during the last 2 campaigns.

The idea will be to do something similar and skip timeline destroying the current one, so that they never were (its a very lenghty explanation how and why "timelines" interact with my FR)

[3Power]

Generally you can't wish spells onto your spellist, but following the precedent that you could wish scrolls into existence for your wizard, you could wish knowstones into existence for your sorcerer.

Knowstones, from dragon magazine 333, are magical items that grant sorcerers or other spontaneous casters additional spells known.
The price for them in XP if you cast wish would be (2/25)(1000 * spelllevel^2 + MaterialComponentCost) + 5000

So there is precedent for the XP cost of wishing a new spell known to be as follows:

1 | 5080
2 | 5320
3 | 5720
4 | 6280
5 | 7000
6 | 7880
7 | 8920
8 | 10120
9 | 11480

Alternatively, a Wish or multiple wishes could create a 25,000 gp nonmagical item that could be used to buy knowstones, which cost 1000 * spelllevel^2 + MaterialComponentCost.

1 | 1000 (5000 XP)
2 | 4000 (5000 XP)
3 | 9000 (5000 XP)
4 | 16000 (5000 XP)
5 | 25000 (5000 XP)
6 | 36000 (10000 XP)
7 | 49000 (10000 XP)
8 | 64000 (15000 XP)
9 | 81000 (20000 XP)


So that means earlier on the chart you're better off wishing money into existence if you're able to buy knowstones, whereas later on you're better off wishing them into existence.

[JNAProductions]

Wrong edition, 3Power.

[3Power]

Wrong edition, 3Power.

Yeeeeeeeeeep. That's what I get for clicking on the thread in the root menu.

Right, don't mind me.

[JNAProductions]

Yeeeeeeeeeep. That's what I get for clicking on the thread in the root menu.

Right, don't mind me.

S'all good. I've been guilty of the same myself.

[Mitsu]

No problem for me. I mean if Sorcerer wants to know more spells by using Wish then I don't see a problem.

Howe exactly will knowing more spells make him stronger than he already is if he knows Wish.

I mean Wish is strongest spell a mortal can know. Only most powerful casters know it. You are one of them know.

So Sorcerer casts a reality-warping-space-bending-time-changing spell to know one more spell?

It's really not a big thing for what Wish can do.

Believe me, at the point of 17 level you already won't care much about your players becoming stronger. They are already demi-gods in 5E pretty much.

[FabulousFizban]

heh, i wish to possess an epic level wizard’s spellbook.

[Forum Explorer]

Really I just ban wish outright. It's one of the 'legacy spells' that I feel should have been dropped like so many other spells have been through the years. But for some reason it instead became a spell that is considered a core part of the genre.

[ProsecutorGodot]

heh, i wish to possess an epic level wizard’s spellbook.

You're teleported to the Wizards chambers, now holding his spellbook and he's not happy about it. This kind of wish is so open to the "backfire" aspect of Wish that it's near identical to one of the examples given in the spell.

Similarly, wishing for a legendary magic item or artifact might instantly transport you to the presence of the item's current owner.
So don't wish for this. Even wishing "to receive a copy of an epic level wizards spellbook" isn't a surefire thing because epic level wizard's often keep their own transcribed copies in the event that their primary spellbook is damaged.

As specific as I can see this being "safe" is "I wish that an Epic level wizards spellbook was duplicated and the additional copy was gifted to me immediately"

And then even that isn't very good, it could take that wish literally and you would receive your duplicate of the spellbook in a few weeks/months time once the Wizard has finished duplicating his spellbook to the letter and transporting it to you.

Or, in short, be very careful how you make a wish like this.