Ways to bypass Wish backlash

[Greywander]

Wishes are a powerful thing. Any high level wizard (and a few other spellcasters) can have access to the Wish spell, but abusing this spell caries the risk never being able to cast it again. So, I was wondering what possible methods there might be to circumvent this limitation. I've got a few ideas of my own, some of which I don't think would work, and some that I think are theoretically possible but carry their own risks.

Simulacrum
A wizard with access to Wish will also have access to Simulacrum. A common way of circumventing Wish backlash that I hear people bring up is that of creating a simulacrum to cast the wish for you. It is then they who face the brunt of the backlash, while you come out unscathed. At least, that's the idea.

I don't think this would actually work for one very important reason: it's too easy. If it can be done, then it will be done, and any high level wizard has access to these two spells. Any NPC who can cast the Wish spell should therefore be treated as though they had access to Wish abuse via simulacrum. After all, you have to be very smart to get there in the first place, and there's no reason NPCs should act less intelligently than the PCs. If it's fair for the PCs, then it's fair for NPCs, and vice versa.

So we have to discount the possibility of simulacrum abuse, not because it's actually against the rules, but because of the implications of such an easy to abuse loophole. So what happens if we try this anyway? Usually, the counterargument is that the simulacrum is an extension of the caster, so any Wish backlash returns to the original caster.

Wishing for Infinite Wishes
Of course, why not just cut out the middleman and Wish that you weren't affected by Wish backlash? If successful, then you can safely cast Wish to create any effect you want without any risk.

We have to reject this possibility for the same reason as the one above. It's possible that one might still face Wish backlash for that first wish, but even then we're left with a 67% success rate, and that's just too tempting not to try. And that's assuming that the immunity to Wish backlash doesn't apply to that first wish, and there's no reason to think that it wouldn't. Basically, there's no reason not to do this. And of course your second Wish will be to be able to cast Wish at-will. And with those two wishes, you are basically a god. In fact, I know what wish #3 will be.

But wait, there's more. If we assume that there is a way to avoid Wish backlash, then one could simply utilize that method to wish away the risk of backlash on future Wish spells. So even if there is a risk of backlash, we can just find a way to make the wish without backlash. Likewise if casting the spell isn't enough to wish away the backlash, and a wish from a non-spell source is required.

The only conclusion we can reach is that the Wish spell itself somehow prevents the risk of backlash from being removed, even with a wish. Again, because if it can be done, then it will be done.

Wish by Proxy
Okay, so if you can't cast Wish without the risk of a backlash, then the obvious solution is to get someone else to do it for you. That said, you can't put a 9th level spell in a Ring of Spell Storing. You could make a scroll of Wish. Or give someone a Ring of Three Wishes (or other item that grants wishes).

And this would probably work. Of course, they might still face Wish backlash, but you won't, and there are a lot of people on the planet. You might even be able to use some sort of summoning spell to call up a creature to use the scroll or item.

There are still some drawbacks, however. A Scroll of Wish or a Ring of Three Wishes will cost a lot of money and take a long time to craft. Then you have to be able to trust the creature making the wish for you. Still, these could possibly be circumvented. You can craft quickly by employing a lot of wizards to help with the scroll scribing or ring crafting. You can use a charm or dominate effect on the person making the wish to ensure their loyalty.

This one is plausible. Everything in the rules says it should work. It requires a huge amount of effort to get done, carries its own risks, and at the end of the day you only get one wish (scroll) or three wishes (ring) for all that effort, rather than the no/low effort infinite wishes that the above two methods grant. Usually this simply won't be worth the effort unless you have a specific wish in mind that you want to make.

Genie in a Bottle
But why go to the effort of creating an item to grant wishes and giving it to someone else, when you could just go to another creature that already has the power to grant wishes?

Again, this should work, and in fact is exactly what I'd expect. I would be legitimately surprised if a DM offered their players wishes via a genie only for them to wish it would replicate a spell 8th level or lower. That's not what genie wishes are for.

Again, there are still risks. The chances of a Monkey's Paw scenario increases dramatically the more ridiculous your wish is, or the more of a dongus the genie is. In fact, the risks are so high that a wiser person might suggest not wishing at all, or else wishing for something relatively mundane. (I've also seen someone recommend you use your last wish to put the genie back in the bottle.) Also, not all genies can grant wishes, only the strongest of them can do so, and they may be difficult to find and/or convince.

Magic Items
But returning to the idea of using a scroll or a Ring of Three Wishes, these by themselves might be enough to prevent Wish backlash. The argument here is that casting the spell from an item isn't the same as casting the spell using a spell slot. This argument would be more convincing if the item said it granted wishes, rather than letting you cast the Wish spell. Still, it's a possibility, and this has the same limitations as the Wish by Proxy, except you don't need to get someone else to do it for you.

I suppose the argument comes down to: does a Ring of Three Wishes equate to genie wishes, or just three Wish spells? Is the ring meant to be used to replicate spells 8th level and lower, or to make more fantastic wishes? Answer that question, and you'll know the answer to this one as well.

Of course, crafting a Ring of Three Wishes first requires learning the recipe for the ring. Which might be difficult. Or we might be able to develop it on our own, but at an even greater cost. Why go to that effort when we can scribe a scroll, instead? If it works for the Ring of Three Wishes, the same logic might hold true for a Scroll of Wish. Or it might not.

Are there other potential methods I missed? Do you have arguments for or against the methods I presented here?

[Blood of Gaea]

Beaning your DM in the head with a brick and claiming their position by right of conquest.

[Greywander]

Beaning your DM in the head with a brick and claiming their position by right of conquest.
Why switch teams when you're winning?

Edit: In all seriousness, though, questions like this aren't always about munchkining. Poking at the rules trying to find exploits is an important part of fixing those exploits. As you'll note, I pretty much rejected using a simulacrum to wish for you, or wishing you didn't get wish backlash, both of which could be technically valid ways of bypassing wish backlash. If the PCs can do it, the NPCs can do it, too, and I'm not interested in running a game where such exploits are used by NPCs, therefore I can't in good faith allow the PCs to use them, either. Not only that, but I have logical explanations for why it won't work, which should pacify players raising objections (assuming suggesting NPCs could use the same exploits doesn't pacify them first).

This could also be used for a campaign where the players specifically need a wish for something. And yeah, the wizard could cast the spell, but maybe it isn't worth the risk of never being able to cast it again. Or maybe it is. It could make for an interesting choice for them, even.

In any case, I think this is a question that should be taken seriously, as it would be better to address it before the players at your table bring it up and try some shenanigans.

[Fat Rooster]

Proxy casters will not work because the backlash is not just against the caster, it is against the wish. It doesn't matter who wishes you immortal, the person who ends up imprisoned in a gem will be the immortal one (duplicating an 8th level spell so no other backlash expected). A wish to find a loophole will have a side effect of closing that loophole. Even if you manage to find a loophole it's use is likely to close it, so it will only work once. If you make the mistake of finding a repeatable loophole in the spell the inevitables of Mechanus will bring out their big guns. If a loophole exists, they know about it and more, but regard it as an extreme violation of natural law. You would mark yourself as the single target they would be permitted to use such tools against. At your first use of it you would find yourself in a courtroom with no magic, no equipment, no abilities, and level 1. There are no ways out, because the laws of Mechanus are infinite and perfect, and security is permitted to use wish spam and worse to prevent your escape.

Obviously setting dependent in specifics, but you cannot out system the DM when the system is DM fiat. A nice DM will warn you before smacking you down hard, but they are not required to, and it would be childish to expect the DM to give you a cookie for trying to break the game.

Edit: Understand the question better now, and that it is not practical munchkining but worldbuilding. Sorry for the tone, but I really hate when players try to do stuff like that.

As for solving it in world, this is actually what I have a problem with. It is players who don't accept a "don't do that" from the DM, and instead demand an in world explanation. They fail to realise that they are throwing workload at the DM that doesn't need to exist. "This exploit exists, don't use it" should be enough for players to not use an exploit, rather than DMs having to work to patch a buggy game.

[Greywander]

Proxy casters will not work because the backlash is not against the caster, it is against the wish. It doesn't matter who wishes you immortal, the person who ends up imprisoned in a gem will be the immortal one (duplicating an 8th level spell so no other backlash expected).
To be clear, I'm talking about the 33% chance you'll never be able to cast Wish again. Not Monkey's Paw effects (though I mention them when talking about genies).


As for solving it in world, this is actually what I have a problem with.
Some of us like to figure this stuff out, though. I enjoy having a lot of verisimilitude, both as a player and as a DM.

[Fat Rooster]

Actually, the inevitables of Mechanus are a great way to patch any exploit, because they are sentient. If they are enforcing it, natural law can respond to intent (player or character). Accidental cheese can operate differently from deliberate cheese, and as a side effect 'rule of cool' can be part of the universe mechanics. "DM says no" then needs no further explanation.

[JackPhoenix]

Simularcum exposes the original caster to backlash in AL. May not be relevant in every game, but AL's ruling is surprisingly reasonable for once in this matter. You've touched on that, but I figured I'd point out there's official backing for that.

[Porcupinata]

Assuming your DM doesn't nix it on principle, the easiest way is just to have two spell casters in the party who can both cast Wish, and a week or so of downtime.

Wally the Wizard: Hey Sally, I lost the ability to cast Wish. Can you wish for me to regain it?
Sally the Sorcerer: I wish that Wally the Wizard would regain his ability to cast Wish.
Wally: Thank you. Are you okay or did you just lose the ability?
Sally: Sorry, I lost the ability. We'll have to do this again tomorrow.

** The next day **

Wally: I wish that Sally the Sorcerer would regain the ability to cast Wish.
Sally: Thanks. Do you need me to return the favour?
Wally: Yes please.

** The next day **

Sally: I wish that Wally the Wizard would regain the ability to cast Wish.
Wally: Thanks. Are you okay this time?
Sally: Yes.
Wally: Excellent. We don't need to do this again, then.

** The next 2d4 days **
** Both recover from the strength loss **

Of course, a DM may choose to make it more complex than that - they may decide that this isn't something a Wish can do, or decide to twist the wording, or decide that the caster doesn't know they've lost the ability until they try to cast the spell again, or something like that. But barring such DM shennanigans this should work.

It's how it works in my campaigns. I don't find it overpowered (and don't consider it a "loophole" thats being "exploited") because it requires both high level casters to semi-incapacitate themselves for a week or so, so it's something that can realistically only be done during downtime or between adventures - and it effectively limits the Wish spell to one per adventure between the two casters rather than one each, if they don't want to risk both of them losing the ability.

[nickl_2000]

Can you use wish to wish for a filled ring of the wishes? Then repeat as needed.

*note: I don't endorse this, but for the sake of the discussion.

[Fat Rooster]

To be clear, I'm talking about the 33% chance you'll never be able to cast Wish again. Not Monkey's Paw effects (though I mention them when talking about genies).


Some of us like to figure this stuff out, though. I enjoy having a lot of verisimilitude, both as a player and as a DM.

Yeah, I know. I enjoy it mostly too. I hate being expected to do it on the fly though, and players that get whiny if you shut down their system abuse generally don't get less whiny if you offer an in universe explanation, so having one is not that helpful in my experience.

I'm more experienced dealing with wish abuse in 3.5, hence the side effect focus (and the tender nerves :P). Never actually really worked with it in 5th.

Simulacrum abuse seems more like a problem with Simulacrum than wish. Apart from anything else, if a simulacrum can cast wish it can make a simulacrum of you in a round, which can do the same thing. You can build 600 copies of you an hour without even worrying about backlash.

Wishing to avoid backlash is covered by 'avoid magical effect' and only lasts 8 hours. Good, but not game breaking. A permanent effect doing something similar is extremely powerful, and walks straight into getting turned into a genie bound to a bottle, complete with compulsion to grant wishes, one spell slot always reserved, and not granting any more casting than you already have (so no giving commoners wish granting ability).

The 'unable to cast wish again' thing seems like a far lesser control than the monkey paw side of things. Proxy wish stuff would fly just fine with me, and seems like a standard precaution for strategic wishes. For any sensible mage, you don't push that much power through yourself in 6 seconds if you don't have to. You find a safer way to do it, which may involve a quest to find a specific component or location. Each of these things may only work once.

The only really powerful standard effect that doesn't run into monkey paws is granting resistance, as it is permanent. It is not that big of a deal though, given how much trouble goes into getting even a single safe wish. It is a legitimate quest reward, and if you enforce a '1 at a time' rule it isn't even that powerful.

Consumable wishes for combat use are as much an issue with high powered consumables as with wish. The lack of specifics with regards to crafting help here, because you can simply limit the availability of them. Crafting a genie bottle might actually involve capturing 3 powerful genie, and creating a ring capable of holding the power of 3 wishes isn't something you can just do in a cave with a bunch of scraps. In my games scrolls don't actually hold any power (requiring a spell slot to use), so I don't have to worry too much about them, but a wish scroll could be scribed with the life-blood of a wish granting genie (one scroll, and the genie needs to be able to use it at the time of it's death).

[Fat Rooster]

Assuming your DM doesn't nix it on principle, the easiest way is just to have two spell casters in the party who can both cast Wish, and a week or so of downtime.

Wally the Wizard: Hey Sally, I lost the ability to cast Wish. Can you wish for me to regain it?
Sally the Sorcerer: I wish that Wally the Wizard would regain his ability to cast Wish.
Wally: Thank you. Are you okay or did you just lose the ability?
Sally: Sorry, I lost the ability. We'll have to do this again tomorrow.

** The next day **

Wally: I wish that Sally the Sorcerer would regain the ability to cast Wish.
Sally: Thanks. Do you need me to return the favour?
Wally: Yes please.

** The next day **

Sally: I wish that Wally the Wizard would regain the ability to cast Wish.
Wally: Thanks. Are you okay this time?
Sally: Yes.
Wally: Excellent. We don't need to do this again, then.

** The next 2d4 days **
** Both recover from the strength loss **

Of course, a DM may choose to make it more complex than that - they may decide that this isn't something a Wish can do, or decide to twist the wording, or decide that the caster doesn't know they've lost the ability until they try to cast the spell again, or something like that. But barring such DM shennanigans this should work.

It's how it works in my campaigns. I don't find it overpowered (and don't consider it a "loophole" thats being "exploited") because it requires both high level casters to semi-incapacitate themselves for a week or so, so it's something that can realistically only be done during downtime or between adventures - and it effectively limits the Wish spell to one per adventure between the two casters rather than one each, if they don't want to risk both of them losing the ability.

Runs into the OP question of "if it is this easy, why doesn't everybody do it?". The motivation for disallowing it isn't that it is overpowered (though everyone having resistance to everything is a little unbalancing), it is that it breaks the setting (assuming non wish abuse type settings). There are other tools for permitting limited safe wishes per adventure in the DM's toolkit (location based, item based, ally based), that don't break the setting.

Using effects that are not explicitly whitelisted (remove a status effect above that of greater restoration) are always dodgy. When the intent is to sidestep a game design bottleneck I would definitely nix it, and sleep soundly.

[nickl_2000]

Runs into the OP question of "if it is this easy, why doesn't everybody do it?". The motivation for disallowing it isn't that it is overpowered (though everyone having resistance to everything is a little unbalancing), it is that it breaks the setting (assuming non wish abuse type settings). There are other tools for permitting limited safe wishes per adventure in the DM's toolkit (location based, item based, ally based), that don't break the setting.

Using effects that are not explicitly whitelisted (remove a status effect above that of greater restoration) are always dodgy. When the intent is to sidestep a game design bottleneck I would definitely nix it, and sleep soundly.

At least with this one it requires that there be 2 level 17+ Wizards/Sorcerers in close proximity for a period of a week or so. Level 17+ anything can't be that common in the world.

[Analytica]

Wish by proxy to manage backlash is a major plot point in some Full Metal Alchemist iterations...

[Segev]

If I’d been writing the rules, here’s what I would have gone with. I’d say this was my house rule, but I haven’t actually modified the game I’m running with it.

Instead of a 1/3 chance of losing Wish, you can only grant “unsafe” wishes to any one person (including yourself) three times. After you cast it unsafely for yourself three times, you need to find someone else to make future unsafe wishes.

“Unsafe” here just means “not merely duplicating an 8th or lower level spell.”

I’d probably further codify it so that you can’t magically compel a wish out of somebody. If you try, the Wish fizzles.

[Temperjoke]

Question, are the various beings that can grant wishes, such as genies, subject to the same blacklash potential that PCs casting the spell risk?

[Eldariel]

If I’d been writing the rules, here’s what I would have gone with. I’d say this was my house rule, but I haven’t actually modified the game I’m running with it.

Instead of a 1/3 chance of losing Wish, you can only grant “unsafe” wishes to any one person (including yourself) three times. After you cast it unsafely for yourself three times, you need to find someone else to make future unsafe wishes.

“Unsafe” here just means “not merely duplicating an 8th or lower level spell.”

I’d probably further codify it so that you can’t magically compel a wish out of somebody. If you try, the Wish fizzles.

The latter is something I've run already in 3e. The way I rationalized it is that Wish is the kind of magic that rewrites reality by your will; in other words, it's completely impossible to attempt unless the real you actually wills to do so. Thus any kind of compulsion effect, any kind of control effect like summoning, etc. makes it impossible for the target to use any kind of Wish power or effect they have. I further extrapolate this to only creatures with souls being able to rewrite reality in this manner. This means any kinds of constructs, replicae, etc. are unable to use Wish (including Simulacrum or Ice Assassin). 3e had Mind Rape as a bypass for this limitation (since it actually rewrites target mind so the target is actually what the spell makes of them), but 5e has no such options, making it more or less airtight.

The exact way I've worded it is that the Wish being granted must be fully created by the free will of the user with the soul standing behind every word. Thus any kind of manipulation to any part of the Wish wording automatically makes it fail.

[Gignere]

First off 17+ wizards are rare. Extremely rare outside of PCs they maybe a handful or less at most. Given these are rare basically godly beings I have no issue with them using simulacrum to avoid wish backlashes. In my mind they are like Sauron or Saruman and are basically final bosses for the story to be taken down.

So what’s the problem with each of them having every buff under the sun and with dozens of simulacrums running around?

They actually used this as part of the story in Never Winter Nights where Halaster had his simulacrum captured and later saved by his other simulacrum.

I think it’s just DM style to me wish just makes the world richer and maybe makes wizard the most powerful class but I’m ok with that as DM.

[Rerem115]

At least with this one it requires that there be 2 level 17+ Wizards/Sorcerers in close proximity for a period of a week or so. Level 17+ anything can't be that common in the world.

Yeah, and as Sir PTerry said, the plural of Wizard is war. This would be unlikely in-universe because it requires two incredibly powerful beings to essentially trust each other body and soul.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They actually used this as part of the story in Never Winter Nights where Halaster had his simulacrum captured and later saved by his other simulacrum.


First, (that version of) Halaster is 3e's epic level, not something you can replicate in 5e. Second, those weren't simulacrums, those were clones. And Halaster was notoriously unstable and insane (hence Dungeons of the Mad Mage). He bent and broke the normal rules of magic well beyond their normal bounds. Using him as an example of anything reasonable is...questionable.

----------------

For me, any attempt to bypass the limits of wish immediately fail. It's hardcoded into the universe. Sims, summons, and non-free creatures can't use it for the unsafe uses at all. Normal items (ring of wishes, luckblade) can't use any but the specifically listed "unsafe" uses, and the item incurs the failure chance. Oh, and those items, being legendary, can't be made (the schema for them are non-existent).

The wish spell is actually an attempt by the early aelven wizards to replicate a few artifacts in a way that didn't have such extreme costs. They partially succeeded (with the Anyspell effect) and partially failed, because it draws on the soul (just as the artifacts they were trying to copy do). Essentially, wish is actually lesser wish, while the two different sets of artifacts cast the real thing.

Those artifacts are:
The Teeth of Resolve--a set of blunt, ivory daggers shaped like the teeth of a very large creature. They cannot be used to harm any living being (literally, they slide right through people and objects without interacting other than being able to be held by their handles), except in one specific way. Someone who knows what the object is and what it does, and fully, 100%, without reservation accepts the cost (and no, no amount of brainwashing or modified memories or anything can change this), can stab themselves and make a wish. In exchange for the total consumption of their life and their soul, the wish happens, as long as the soul was strong enough. The bigger the soul, the larger the possible effects. One of these was used to tear a hole between the Mortal and the Beyond; that same Tooth was used to turn a wisher into a patch for that hole.

The Forge of Creation: This artifact looks like an oversized quill pen. Housed in the Great Library, it becomes active at the dawn of each new Age[1], when enough anima has accumulated throughout the world and needs to be put to use. It (or its keepers) call out for candidates. Strong beings with deep wishes are drawn to the Library, where they are tested. The final candidate takes up the pen and writes a new law into the universe itself, a statement of fact that the Great Mechanism must accommodate. So far, 4 Wishes have been made, each bringing a new type of magic into being. The first enabled wizardry; the second spirit-talking (druidism). The third forged a connection between man and the divine, allowing clerical magic. The fourth, 6 years ago, opened the doors to what some are calling Artifice.

What is the cost for this? The law is written in the ink of the soul. Not just the life, but the very history and identity of the writer is consumed as fuel, along with the excess anima built up since the last activation. The writer ceases to ever have existed--he becomes a mythic figure. Everyone remembers different fragments, if at all; his deeds are ascribed to others. Only the most confident in their desire can pay this price--many have tried but failed, merely consuming themselves in the process.

[1] or does the use of the Forge cause the dawn of a new Age? That's a matter of debate.

[Blood of Gaea]

In any case, I think this is a question that should be taken seriously, as it would be better to address it before the players at your table bring it up and try some shenanigans.
I have to disagree if I had all of my solutions to shenanigans set out ahead of time I'd have to send my players home with homework packets.

Wish is a very, very easy spell to stop shenanigans with when using its second feature. And the best solution of all is to create an understanding with your players to not try to blatantly do things that would break the game, or at least bring the idea to you before the session to bounce the idea off you first.

Honestly, I worry more about the first feature of Wish, which gives you a huge amount of things you can do, like get free Similacrums, instantly make a Glyph of Warding, or a Hallow: Vulnerability.

The secondary potent effect is well and easily tempered with a good chance of permanent loss and monkey's paw. Just don't let them get around that penalty and you won't have a problem.

Wish is not the kind of ability I allow funny stuff with, it's is most definitely powerful enough as it is.

[Strifer]

As a DM I will put Inevetables against anyone who tries to break stability of the miltiverse. There is always a bigger fish (read interdimensional being more powerful than the party or NPC). So the wishing for a wish or using a simalacrum might not be a problem for the world. But the moment it is, it will be stopped and it will be fixed.

Wishing for something to save yourself from dead all the time might also make the raven queen mad :P. So if a player wants to do something like this let them do it. But wish has been 'nerfed' because of the damage it caused to the world, so infinite wish means infinite problems.

On a more personal note: Why do you want to break wish? Maybe talk to your dm about it and figure out what you want for your character.

[Anymage]

I'm inclined to go the other way, and say that Wish burnout can be removed with an epic boon. This does a few things right off the bat; it allows players to know that they aren't forever screwed if their big wish has an unlucky roll (although the opportunity cost of not taking a different epic boon is high enough to prevent them from wishing frivolously), and knowing the scope of wish recovery effects means that I'm okay declaring that effects that fall short (like the simulacrum trick) don't work.

This outlook does leave magic items (which as mentioned take a ton of time and money to make, and the alternative is going on an adventure to find one), bargains with powerful supernatural creatures (again, adventures to find them and/or fulfill your half of the bargain), and maybe powerful locations/materials/items that can be used up in lieu of personal burnout. So basically go on an adventure in order to get your non-burnout wish. Or adventure enough that you get a recovery epic boon. Either way you reduce the risk of paranoid wizards being able to chain wishes while never leaving their tower, while giving adventuring wizards more incentive to go out adventuring.

[Gignere]

First, (that version of) Halaster is 3e's epic level, not something you can replicate in 5e. Second, those weren't simulacrums, those were clones. And Halaster was notoriously unstable and insane (hence Dungeons of the Mad Mage). He bent and broke the normal rules of magic well beyond their normal bounds. Using him as an example of anything reasonable is...questionable.

----------------


I knew they were clones in 3e but the closest equivalent in 5e is simulacrum as the clone spell works differently in 5e then it did in 3e. If they wanted to update that story to 5e it will be simulacrums and yes he is bat**** crazy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I knew they were clones in 3e but the closest equivalent in 5e is simulacrum as the clone spell works differently in 5e then it did in 3e. If they wanted to update that story to 5e it will be simulacrums and yes he is bat**** crazy.

Except they're explicitly just as powerful as he is (since not even he is quite sure which one of them is real, if any) and heal/regenerate their spells properly. Neither of which is true about the simulacrum spell.

He's got some crazy custom mojo going there, none of which is relevant to PCs or anything outside DM fiat. So using him as an example of what the simulacrum spell can do doesn't fly with me, personally.

[Gignere]

Except they're explicitly just as powerful as he is (since not even he is quite sure which one of them is real, if any) and heal/regenerate their spells properly. Neither of which is true about the simulacrum spell.

He's got some crazy custom mojo going there, none of which is relevant to PCs or anything outside DM fiat. So using him as an example of what the simulacrum spell can do doesn't fly with me, personally.

Well OP is talking about world building and the consequences of having wish and simulacrum and the logical conclusions within his world building. So using Halaster as an example is very relevant.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Wish is a 9th level spell; the problem is many people seem to think it's about a 15th level spell. It should have around the utility of Meteor Swarm, True Polymorph, and all those other 9th level spells (except Weird, which is garbage), but some people treat it like a magic "break the universe" button. It's a 9th level spell, and should have effects appropriately balanced with other 9th level spells. If someone wants infinite spell slots or to be able to cast spells from every class or to become a literal God, well, the spell itself pretty explicitly states "this are the things you can do, and beware further than this" and they deserve what they get.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well OP is talking about world building and the consequences of having wish and simulacrum and the logical conclusions within his world building. So using Halaster as an example is very relevant.

Except that whatever Halaster is using...isn't simulacrum. Or wish. Or even 5e for that matter. He dates from AD&D times, is at least 1100 years old, and has been statted as high as level 30 (3e's version had him as Wizard 25/Archmage 5, while 2e had him as Wizard 29). He's pretty explicitly beyond the norm, even in the FR which is known for having super-high-powered NPCs.

And the NWN games, while very enjoyable, weren't exactly paragons of world-building. They, like basically all other games and setting materials, run on pure authorial fiat.

[Fuzzy Logic]

3e had Mind Rape as a bypass for this limitation (since it actually rewrites target mind so the target is actually what the spell makes of them), but 5e has no such options, making it more or less airtight.


Did 3e really have a spell called Mind Rape?

[NNescio]

Did 3e really have a spell called Mind Rape?

Yes. Mindrape (spelled as one word), Book of Vile Darkness (because where else?), page 99.

[RickAllison]

Yes. Mindrape (spelled as one word), Book of Vile Darkness (because where else?), page 99.

“The caster enters the mind of a creature, learning everything that creature knows. The caster can erase or add memories as she sees fit and alter emotions, opinions, and even alignment. When the caster is done, she can leave the creature insane (as described in the insanity spell) or seemingly unaffected, without any memory of the intrusion.
Severe changes to personality and changes to alignment can be corrected by a break enchantment spell (although an atonement spell might be needed as well, depending on circumstances). Alterations to memories and subtler thoughts can be restored only through use of a miracle or wish.”

Wow. Just wow. It’s like the ultimate unholy fusion of gaslighting and grooming in one action. One action and you can fundamentally change a person. That’s freaking dark!

[Porcupinata]

Runs into the OP question of "if it is this easy, why doesn't everybody do it?". The motivation for disallowing it isn't that it is overpowered (though everyone having resistance to everything is a little unbalancing), it is that it breaks the setting (assuming non wish abuse type settings). There are other tools for permitting limited safe wishes per adventure in the DM's toolkit (location based, item based, ally based), that don't break the setting.

Using effects that are not explicitly whitelisted (remove a status effect above that of greater restoration) are always dodgy. When the intent is to sidestep a game design bottleneck I would definitely nix it, and sleep soundly.

Anyone can do it, but only those level 17+ casters who have other level 17+ casters that they trust and who are willing and able to spend a week with them to do it get to do it in practise. Which basically means party members who have adventured together for years and who are old friends are likely to be willing to help each other but complete strangers won't.

As for it "breaking the setting", I've run multiple campaigns that went up to 20th level with casters who can cast Wish, and it's never broken my settings yet. Even with the ability to get back a Wish, it still takes a week or more of downtime to recover so you don't see players breaking out the Wish spell every session. Most of the time they'll just use it to replicate a lower level spell and I'll very rarely see it used for anything else.


Wish is a 9th level spell; the problem is many people seem to think it's about a 15th level spell. It should have around the utility of Meteor Swarm, True Polymorph, and all those other 9th level spells (except Weird, which is garbage), but some people treat it like a magic "break the universe" button. It's a 9th level spell, and should have effects appropriately balanced with other 9th level spells. If someone wants infinite spell slots or to be able to cast spells from every class or to become a literal God, well, the spell itself pretty explicitly states "this are the things you can do, and beware further than this" and they deserve what they get.

Exactly.

While I'm generous with wish interpretation (I never twist them, and do my best to follow the intent rather than the exact wording; I warn the player in advance, before they've expended the spell slot or other resource, about whether a wish will work or not; and I let characters help each other recover from Wish backlash) I do also limit the spell to effects that are on par with other 9th level spells. A lot of the things that people would call "game breaking" or "abusive" if they could be done too often are things that I'd just flat-out state that the spell isn't powerful enough achieve.

[Illven]

So for all those stating that the wielder of the wish must truly wish for the wish, and no amount of memory magic can force them to.

At what point is memory magic preventing someone from being able to wish for something? At what level of subtle interaction can a caster still get someone else to truly wish for something.

Or does getting hit by modify memory once prevent you from casting wish?

I dunno, it's one of those, magic created true love doesn't count, that makes me wanna study the edge cases.

[Eldariel]

So for all those stating that the wielder of the wish must truly wish for the wish, and no amount of memory magic can force them to.

At what point is memory magic preventing someone from being able to wish for something? At what level of subtle interaction can a caster still get someone else to truly wish for something.

Or does getting hit by modify memory once prevent you from casting wish?

I dunno, it's one of those, magic created true love doesn't count, that makes me wanna study the edge cases.

In my case, as long as memory modification doesn't influence the nodes active when deciding to cast that precise Wish (that is, the information manipulated isn't involved in either the decision to cast Wish nor the exact Wish being made), it won't affect it. Of course, deep enough memory modification might just make someone unable to cast Wish entirely. Which is actually interesting in that it might alert them to the presence of the manipulation effect.

[Fat Rooster]

Anyone can do it, but only those level 17+ casters who have other level 17+ casters that they trust and who are willing and able to spend a week with them to do it get to do it in practise. Which basically means party members who have adventured together for years and who are old friends are likely to be willing to help each other but complete strangers won't.

As for it "breaking the setting", I've run multiple campaigns that went up to 20th level with casters who can cast Wish, and it's never broken my settings yet. Even with the ability to get back a Wish, it still takes a week or more of downtime to recover so you don't see players breaking out the Wish spell every session. Most of the time they'll just use it to replicate a lower level spell and I'll very rarely see it used for anything else.

A week is nothing to an NPC, and they can still function during the S3 crippletime (and what mage that is cheating wish backlash is not also cheating the S3 time). The level of trust required is actually not that high, because the prize is so powerful and there is no upside to cheating, even if you just use it as an anyspell. Adventuring is dangerous and irregular, so even if the wealth available is comparable it simply doesn't have the same effect over the period of years as casting wish on a daily basis, even just as an anyspell.

It's good that your players are smart enough to not abuse it, but this thread is asking for a believable reason why NPCs don't, and distrust doesn't cut it. If all that is required for NPCs to do thorough research on wish is for them to pair off, they will pair off with any partner remotely trustworthy. If this loophole exists, the first mage to lose wish will find it, and seek out a partner. NPC mages don't get to level 17 by saying "that looks too dangerous to research", or even by working solely alone. Wizards especially already thrive on cooperation.

The only way they would not pair up is if every wish capable caster was literally trying to kill all the others, and there was not even one they would consider attempting to team up with to get a massive jump on the rest.


Exactly.

While I'm generous with wish interpretation (I never twist them, and do my best to follow the intent rather than the exact wording; I warn the player in advance, before they've expended the spell slot or other resource, about whether a wish will work or not; and I let characters help each other recover from Wish backlash) I do also limit the spell to effects that are on par with other 9th level spells. A lot of the things that people would call "game breaking" or "abusive" if they could be done too often are things that I'd just flat-out state that the spell isn't powerful enough achieve.

Except that some spells that are materials or time limited are game breaking when spammed, so even just replicating them for free is problematic. The obvious one is Simulacra casting Simulacrum by wish, but even if we disallow that you can expect the stronghold of every wish caster to be guarded by dozens/hundreds of awakened beasts, covered in symbols, hallowed, and there to be clones all over the place of both the caster and all significant minions. Everything of value will be sequestered, including the caster's magic jar (who's body is strength 3 again? Just borrow somebody else's). They can do all this as a sorcerer that knows none of these spells, starts broke, doesn't leave their tower, and leaves no traces anywhere (except maybe to kidnap a magic jar victim, and their extremely profitable coffin business). Only True polymorph is remotely close in scope to the limited form of wish, but unlimited CR9 (dispellable) creatures is not the same ballpark as unlimited clones.

The limiting factor for an NPC is that it is extremely easy for them to overdo it and not replicate an existing effect, and hence lose wish completely. Get rid of that and things get cranky.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A week is nothing to an NPC, and they can still function during the S3 crippletime (and what mage that is cheating wish backlash is not also cheating the S3 time). The level of trust required is actually not that high, because the prize is so powerful and there is no upside to cheating, even if you just use it as an anyspell. Adventuring is dangerous and irregular, so even if the wealth available is comparable it simply doesn't have the same effect over the period of years as casting wish on a daily basis, even just as an anyspell.

It's good that your players are smart enough to not abuse it, but this thread is asking for a believable reason why NPCs don't, and distrust doesn't cut it. If all that is required for NPCs to do thorough research on wish is for them to pair off, they will pair off with any partner remotely trustworthy. If this loophole exists, the first mage to lose wish will find it, and seek out a partner. NPC mages don't get to level 17 by saying "that looks too dangerous to research", or even by working solely alone. Wizards especially already thrive on cooperation.

The only way they would not pair up is if every wish capable caster was literally trying to kill all the others, and there was not even one they would consider attempting to team up with to get a massive jump on the rest.


Except that some spells that are materials or time limited are game breaking when spammed, so even just replicating them for free is problematic. The obvious one is Simulacra casting Simulacrum by wish, but even if we disallow that you can expect the stronghold of every wish caster to be guarded by dozens/hundreds of awakened beasts, covered in symbols, hallowed, and there to be clones all over the place of both the caster and all significant minions. Everything of value will be sequestered, including the caster's magic jar (who's body is strength 3 again? Just borrow somebody else's). They can do all this as a sorcerer that knows none of these spells, starts broke, doesn't leave their tower, and leaves no traces anywhere (except maybe to kidnap a magic jar victim, and their extremely profitable coffin business). Only True polymorph is remotely close in scope to the limited form of wish, but unlimited CR9 (dispellable) creatures is not the same ballpark as unlimited clones.

The limiting factor for an NPC is that it is extremely easy for them to overdo it and not replicate an existing effect, and hence lose wish completely. Get rid of that and things get cranky.

One limiting factor for NPCs is that they don't get free choice of spells. Unlike PCs (who for game purposes have to have free choice), NPCs don't have some "master spellbook" that they can choose from. They get whatever makes sense for that particular purpose, based on their personality.

As an example, there's a grand total of 1 wizard capable of casting 9th level spells in the main part[1] of my setting. He's an ancient elf who is much more concerned about being a pervy horndog than anything else. And since both wish and simulacrum are "lost arts" that the modern spell casters haven't replicated (until some PC re-discovers it), mister Pervy Elf doesn't have either of those. In fact, it's likely that he doesn't even know any PHB 9th level spells. He hasn't been research driven for quite a while now and focused on illusions and enchantments.

[1] there are others elsewhere, but they're very rare. Only one particular nation in the world has more than one, and that's a library city where the "schools" are in direct and open competition 24/7.

[Segev]

I mostly just wouldn't let "and now I've dominated you into making a wish" work, under my proposed paradigm. If you can trick them into it - and making them think they remember things they don't is tricking them - that works. I'd also probably have some sort of narrative-level "true self shines through" potential for people who are memory-whammied badly enough. They just instinctively know something's wrong, and that can lead to complications when it comes to asking them to make wishes on your behalf.

Honestly, I'd expect most wizards and sorcerers would just offer a deal: 1 wish of the "hired wish-maker's" choice for 1 wish of the wish-granter's choice. And then the wizard or sorcerer (but especially wizards, who think they're very clever) uses other spells to grant the hireling's personal wishes wherever possible, because it probably doesn't take a 9th level spell and leaves the hireling able to make more "unsafe" wishes on behalf of the wizard.

A lot of what non-casters might wish for from a caster are things that are, if not trivial, at least fairly easy for a caster to pull off without wasting a wish's unsafe use.

"I wish for Alice/Bob to fall in love with me!" *wizard brews a potion of charm and tells them to use it as an ice-breaker*
"I wish for restored youth and vigor!" *wizard casts true polymorph and maintains it for an hour*
"I wish for wealth!" *wizard just pays him; he's probably obcenely wealthy by the standards of the peasant he's dealing with*

[Nagog]

Here's my 2 cents on the topic of Wish Backlash: Backlash is more likely the more the Wish alters reality. If you change the color of your hair with Wish, you're pretty safe. If you remove a nation from the face of the earth, odds are you'll be removed too from the backlash. With that in mind, how powerful a change would it be for Wish to not have backlash? Very powerful indeed. So if you were to wish for no backlash, wish for infinite wishes, or wish to become a God, odds are you won't survive the wishing, and in the case of wishing for no backlash, the spell will likely fail.

[Rukelnikov]

It seems in many of these "plausible solutions" that have been suggested, the "unsafe" part of Wish is being handwaved:

*"I wish for immunity to Wish's backlash!" - Granted you are now unable to cast Wish, thus rendering you immune to its backlash.
*"I wish for this other mage to regain his ability to cast Wish" - Granted, now you lost your ability to cast Wish.

Evertything outside listed safe effects is subject to monkey's paw, and for the more outlandish wishes ("No more Kuo-Toas!"), being warped to a permanent illusory reality (probably in the Dreamscape if i'm the DM) can always do the trick.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It seems in many of these "plausible solutions" that have been suggested, the "unsafe" part of Wish is being handwaved:

*"I wish for immunity to Wish's backlash!" - Granted you are now unable to cast Wish, thus rendering you immune to its backlash.
*"I wish for this other mage to regain his ability to cast Wish" - Granted, now you lost your ability to cast Wish.

Evertything outside listed safe effects is subject to monkey's paw, and for the more outlandish wishes ("No more Kuo-Toas!"), being warped to a permanent illusory reality (probably in the Dreamscape if i'm the DM) can always do the trick.

This can be summed up as "The universe will always take the shortest/least-change path to fulfilling your wish. Which is usually not the path you intended." After all, if you wish for some global effect...it's easier to wrap you up in a separate bubble universe than to actually change everyone else and deal with the ripples that result.

[NNescio]

Here's my 2 cents on the topic of Wish Backlash: Backlash is more likely the more the Wish alters reality. If you change the color of your hair with Wish, you're pretty safe. If you remove a nation from the face of the earth, odds are you'll be removed too from the backlash. With that in mind, how powerful a change would it be for Wish to not have backlash? Very powerful indeed. So if you were to wish for no backlash, wish for infinite wishes, or wish to become a God, odds are you won't survive the wishing, and in the case of wishing for no backlash, the spell will likely fail.

That's the "Wish getting twisted" part of Wish, which occurs if the casters goes beyond the stated 'safe' uses of the Wish spell (including in the Wish spell description itself, plus monster statblock entries and other effects that state they require "Wish to remove/reverse [this effect]" or "bring back those who died to [this effect]"). The greater the power of the Wish, the greater the chances of it getting twisted (even if the caster words it in airtight legalese).

The (1/3 chance of eating a) backlash portion occurs if Wish is used for any purpose other than duplicating a spell (up to 8th level), even if it's one of the stated 'safe' uses, or something trivial like dyeing hair.

[JackPhoenix]

I knew they were clones in 3e but the closest equivalent in 5e is simulacrum as the clone spell works differently in 5e then it did in 3e. If they wanted to update that story to 5e it will be simulacrums and yes he is bat**** crazy.

If "they" want to update that story to 5e, "they"'ll just laugh and point out he's an NPC, and NPCs are allowed to have abilities not available to players.

[Eldariel]

If "they" want to update that story to 5e, "they"'ll just laugh and point out he's an NPC, and NPCs are allowed to have abilities not available to players.

There's no reason players should be restricted to printed stuff too TBH. Wizards in particular should 100 % be able to research their own spells.

[Porcupinata]

A week is nothing to an NPC, and they can still function during the S3 crippletime (and what mage that is cheating wish backlash is not also cheating the S3 time).

Doesn't work. Sally can give Wally the ability to cast Wish again with only a 33% chance of losing the ability to cast it herself - so unless the odds are really against them after one or two volleys they'll both be fine. She can't remove his S3 without being guaranteed to get S3 herself, so all they'd be doing is bouncing it back and forth between them indefinitely. Wishing someone else's S3 away just gives yourself S3.


The level of trust required is actually not that high, because the prize is so powerful and there is no upside to cheating, even if you just use it as an anyspell. Adventuring is dangerous and irregular, so even if the wealth available is comparable it simply doesn't have the same effect over the period of years as casting wish on a daily basis, even just as an anyspell.

Using it as an anyspell isn't what we're talking about here. That has no backlash so anyone who can cast Wish can already do that every day if they want.

And it's not about trust. It's about having someone who likes you enough to be willing to take a week out of their no doubt busy schedule to spend it barely above bedridden for you; and possibly spend multiple days using their most powerful magic on your behalf. Most level 17+ casters won't even know another level 17+ caster; let alone being on friendly enough terms with another to do that for them.

Sure, some will. But they'll be a distinct minority - and they're more likely to be the more sociable ones that the PCs might meet at court rather than the paranoid/insane ones that the PC are likely to be trying to prevent taking over the world.


It's good that your players are smart enough to not abuse it, but this thread is asking for a believable reason why NPCs don't, and distrust doesn't cut it. If all that is required for NPCs to do thorough research on wish is for them to pair off, they will pair off with any partner remotely trustworthy. If this loophole exists, the first mage to lose wish will find it, and seek out a partner. NPC mages don't get to level 17 by saying "that looks too dangerous to research", or even by working solely alone. Wizards especially already thrive on cooperation.

Again, that depends on how many there are. "Pairing off" makes it sound like there are dozens of them, whereas there are likely to be only a couple per country at the most. And even if you find someone willing to spend a week at S3 and a few days using their highest level magic for you, how often will they do that favour?


The only way they would not pair up is if every wish capable caster was literally trying to kill all the others, and there was not even one they would consider attempting to team up with to get a massive jump on the rest.

I disagree. You'll see the occasional contact for a one-off recovery (with a promise to return the favour in future if needed), and maybe the occasional pact where two spellcasters have projects to work on and they agree to repeatedly help each other recover for a month or so. But it's too much of an imposition to keep doing it unless the casters are very good friends. Most of them will have far better things to do with their time.


Except that some spells that are materials or time limited are game breaking when spammed, so even just replicating them for free is problematic. The obvious one is Simulacra casting Simulacrum by wish, but even if we disallow that you can expect the stronghold of every wish caster to be guarded by dozens/hundreds of awakened beasts, covered in symbols, hallowed, and there to be clones all over the place of both the caster and all significant minions. Everything of value will be sequestered, including the caster's magic jar (who's body is strength 3 again? Just borrow somebody else's). They can do all this as a sorcerer that knows none of these spells, starts broke, doesn't leave their tower, and leaves no traces anywhere (except maybe to kidnap a magic jar victim, and their extremely profitable coffin business). Only True polymorph is remotely close in scope to the limited form of wish, but unlimited CR9 (dispellable) creatures is not the same ballpark as unlimited clones.

The limiting factor for an NPC is that it is extremely easy for them to overdo it and not replicate an existing effect, and hence lose wish completely. Get rid of that and things get cranky.

None of this is anything to do with the topic at hand (or indeed anything to do with my post to which you were responding), which is about overcoming or avoiding wish backlash for non-spell-replicating effects. That people with wish can replicate another spell every day is nothing to do with that.

[Rukelnikov]

There's no reason players should be restricted to printed stuff too TBH. Wizards in particular should 100 % be able to research their own spells.

They aren't?

[darknite]

I've seen it done with 3 Wish-enabled casters. The first would do the Wish and the other 2 were on hand to assist with Wishing another to reroll their Wish backlash if necessary.